Baen said:
Does that point actually mean anything? I never stated that he could be modeled by ANY class.
No, but you have argued that he should be modelled by a class named after something he is not.
I play GURPS. In GURPS, if I turn to a page that says Ranger of the North, or something like that, I find a package written for a character who is, in fact, a Ranger of the North. If I look in Fantasy Hero, by Hero Games, and I find a package deal for a Ranger, or a Kung Fu Master, or whatever, I see the concept supported by appropriate abilities.
Why is D&D, a class-based game, exempt from the basic logic that a class archetype should be named for what it is, and a character concept based on that archetype should most comfortably fit within that class? If I am forced to choose a class called Ranger in order to build one of the most famous
fighters in history, something has gone awry. It is easier to rationalize than if the class were, say, Wizard, but it's still just as wrong. It's a class straightjacket that serves no purpose; it improves neither the Fighter class nor the Ranger class. It exists purely to artifically create niche protection while at the same time protecting The Drow's herd of sacred cows.
What makes it especially painful is that Drizzt's original AD&D stats made him a special NPC with levels of fighter. Just as Conan the Barbarian is recognized as an archetypal barbarian, but is actually just as much thief and fighter in background and abilities, Drizzt is the uber-ranger achetype, yet his swordfighting skills and distinctive style come from his background as a Drow fencer.
So in other words, there are approximately
zero rangers in all of history, myth, fantasy fiction, and even D&D novels that are renowned primarily as expects in using two swords, whereas there are numerous examples of historical fighters, such as gladiators, many samurai, and medieval knights, that used two weapons.