Any hints on the essentials ranger?

[Garthanos]

Aragorn was called a ranger, but the 4e ranger doesn't resemble him much at all.
.

I think a ranger where his second attack is his beast attacking would be quite
workable. This one doesnt have twf .. except your sword and your beast. Perhaps
you can enhance either attack by something like hunters quarry of course.

Arragorn makes a solid Half-elf/Warlord PPMC as a Ranger... it even fits his story
of going from the noble leader of men mostly abandoning that path then coming
back to it with his epic destiny.

 

[doctorhook]

Personally, I think the Essentials Ranger will have a simpler bonus-damage mechanism than Hunter's Quarry.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I present the Tale of the Two-Weapon Ranger.

1E: TWF is an obscure rule. Also, the drow are described as fighting with two weapons often.

Late 1E: A drow ranger becomes a popular novel character.

2E: Rangers are two-weapon users.

The moral of the story? Blame Drizzt.

 

[TerraDave]

Drow as presented in UA can actually use 2 weapons RAW. (Did that book allow drow rangers though?)

Two weapons plus the 1E rangers =level damage bonus: crazy tweaked out super power gamery.

And, as the charwomen notes, the rest is history.

 

[AngryMojo]

The moral of the story? Blame Drizzt.

Can we blame him for more than just this? I'd like to see him be the Canada of D&D.

 

[Riley]

The moral of the story? Blame Drizzt.

Can we blame him for more than just this? I'd like to see him be the Canada of D&D.

You mean you'd like him to be awesome, and full of win?

 

[JohnSnow]

I present the Tale of the Two-Weapon Ranger.

1E: TWF is an obscure rule. Also, the drow are described as fighting with two weapons often.

Late 1E: A drow ranger becomes a popular novel character.

2E: Rangers are two-weapon users.

The moral of the story? Blame Drizzt.

While I would love to, there's several other sources of blame, one due to Fritz Leiber, one due to Professor Tolkien, and the third is just "logic."

Leiber's Fafhrd was a dual wielder (as was the Grey Mouser). Fafhrd was also a northern barbarian skilled in the longbow, tracking, wilderness craft, and so on. Sound familiar? Although I grant he also had a pretty singing voice, and that didn't end up as a character point for Rangers.

On Weathertop, Aragorn fights off the Nazgul with "a flaming brand in either hand." Throughout the story, Aragorn, the original "fantasy Ranger" never only uses a shield when arrayed for war (Helm's Deep and similar). All the story's other "ranger" types - including Legolas, Faramir & his men, and Halbarad & the other Dunedain - carry bows or spears, and blades, but again, no shields.

All that makes no argument for anything but rangers as archers or spearmen who also carry swords, but not shields. But this also I put forth, arguing from logic as someone who has practiced swordplay. Single-handed fighting is DUMB. Either you use your free hand to grapple, or you pick up a secondary companion weapon, as did Fafhrd. Any shield bigger than a buckler doesn't generally go with a bow.

There's also the notion that using a quarterstaff is also pretty similar to fighting with two weapons. I don't think I need to point out that one of the legendary archetypal rangers is Robin Hood. And his men, in addition to their skill with bow and sword, are famous for using quarterstaves. So, there's still more rationale.

The point is that by the time Drizzt and his dual scimitars became popular, and they were looking ahead to 3e, there was a lot of precedent for rangers as skirmishers and two-weapon fighters. So they just went ahead and made it official.

I don't deny that Drizzt was probably the impetus, but the trend was already well underway when he hit big.

 

[AngryMojo]

You mean you'd like him to be awesome, and full of win?

I mean in a South Park scapegoat fashion.

Blame Do'Urden.
Blame Do'Urden.
With all his scimitar hulabaloo,
And "Heroic Drow" thing too.
Blame Do'Urden,
Blame Do'Urden!
He's not even a real PC, anyway.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

instead of two weapons

I'd rather at-wills for fighters, paladins, and barbarians, that would allow the same thing, say at level 21, but with a single weapon. Two attacks with a single weapon is better than with two weapons, unless you have a really sweet combination of main hand and off-hand magic weapon properties.

Doing multiple attacks per round at-will is where it's at. I'd personally rather play a ranger with a two-handed sword who does two attacks, even if the str-bonus is negated. It's too bad there isn't a paragon path for fighters that allowed the same target for Dual Strike, for example.

Str-based composite longbows are another thing that's missing from 4e, sadly. What ever happened to AV3? Is that still in the works? I guess they nixed it because of the sweeping magic item changes in Essentials.

 

[TerraDave]

While I would love to, there's several other sources of blame, one due to Fritz Leiber, one due to Professor Tolkien, and the third is just "logic."
.

It was Drizzt. According to several inside accounts (the charwoman wasn't speculating). At some point I can try to find a source...I mean, they may have rationalized it in some ways, but it was Drizzt.