Please kill off dual wielding ranger genre for 5th ed, please?

[Silverblade The Ench]

1) loving 4th ed, not a complaint about it per se!

2) I'm sick to death of the "rangers dual wield weapons" schtik!!!
I have no problem with Drizzt and his scimitars, loves many of the books, but it's HIS thing. It is not a "ranger" thing.

Rangers are wilderness men, scouts, trackers, hunters, what have you.
So why the heck would they dual wield, unless it's a thing a particular character enjoys, eh?

Wilderness scouts would use ranged weapons, spears, handaxes or cultural/personal fave weapons. When you are out hunting, do you go for a bear with 2 scimitars? Noooooooo!! you use a bow or "Boar" spear.


So, most rangers prime weapons would be bows, crossbows, slings, javelins and spears.

You use a handaxe as it's the every best utility tool there is. Why do folk think they are sitll used and were very common weapons too.
Machetes, daggers come into this category as well.

I'd much rather see rangers get damage or attack bonuses in wilderness settings, or hunting wepaons, or whatever, than this damnable association with dual wielding, jeesh!!
How about a lesser backstab, rangers sneak up on prey, they don't face-to-face, if they can kill from stealth/range.

Sorry for rant just seeing 4th ed rangers = dual wielders brought out the "gnarly dwarf" in me
I don't get the constant demand for rangers = dual wielders at all.

 

[Asmor]

Like it or not, dual wielding is a ranger thing now, at least as far as D&D is concerned.

 

[HeavyG]

Indeed, there is nothing about the ranger which makes them "wilderness men, scouts, trackers, hunters". They don't even have to take the Nature skill. The 4E ranger is more the fighter-with-two-weapons or the archer class. Don't get so stuck on the name.

Indeed, you can see they took a step back from the whole wilderness thing in 4E. There are very few "normal" animals in the MM, for example. I'm guessing we'll see a comeback of the whole concept when they publish the druid and barbarian. Indeed, the barbarian might make for a better "hunter" class than the ranger. We'll see next year, I guess.

 

[xechnao]

1) loving 4th ed, not a complaint about it per se!

2) I'm sick to death of the "rangers dual wield weapons" schtik!!!
I have no problem with Drizzt and his scimitars, loves many of the books, but it's HIS thing. It is not a "ranger" thing.

Rangers are wilderness men, scouts, trackers, hunters, what have you.
So why the heck would they dual wield, unless it's a thing a particular character enjoys, eh?

Wilderness scouts would use ranged weapons, spears, handaxes or cultural/personal fave weapons. When you are out hunting, do you go for a bear with 2 scimitars? Noooooooo!! you use a bow or "Boar" spear.


So, most rangers prime weapons would be bows, crossbows, slings, javelins and spears.

You use a handaxe as it's the every best utility tool there is. Why do folk think they are sitll used and were very common weapons too.
Machetes, daggers come into this category as well.

I'd much rather see rangers get damage or attack bonuses in wilderness settings, or hunting wepaons, or whatever, than this damnable association with dual wielding, jeesh!!
How about a lesser backstab, rangers sneak up on prey, they don't face-to-face, if they can kill from stealth/range.

Sorry for rant just seeing 4th ed rangers = dual wielders brought out the "gnarly dwarf" in me
I don't get the constant demand for rangers = dual wielders at all.

Rangers do not have shields. So it is most probable that they will use two weapons when they fight hand to hand. Perhaps they should not favor swords but favor axes, knives or machetes instead.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I resisted in in 2e and 3e but now... it has become the 'trope' for rangers, and the Aragorn of the original is now long vanished into the mists of time...

 

[Imperialus]

le-sigh. Looks up *rolodex*

Personally I like TWF rangers. To me they suggest a more primal connection to nature than sitting back and shooting things with a bow. I can almost picture a ranger fighting with his weapons almost like they are claws or an intrinsic part of their body. It makes them seem more like ambush predators to me, relying on a brief burst of intense energy to overcome their enemies. A heavily armoured fighter with a shield can have a lot more staying power (reflected in HP) but a Ranger will end a fight first.

One of my favorite PC's was a half orc Barbarian/Ranger who fought with a pair of bronze axes. His preferred method of fighting involved hiding in the brush and springing out to kill his opponents. His totem was a snow lepord and he tried to emulate its fighting style.


Archery focused rangers still have a place for sure, the English forester, Aragon, and Robin Hood, are all cool archtypes, there is just no reason they need to be the only one. Paladin's used to have this problem with their mounts. What's the point of having one if you're always running around dungeons. Bow's aren't the greatest weapon in a lot of dungeons either.

I mean if you think about it, for most of human history, 'rangers' haven't been running around forests with bows, they've been stabbing woolly mammoths with spears and clubs.

 

[blargney the second]

stabbing with clubs

Int was obviously their dump stat.
-blarg

 

[Aristotle]

I like the ranger as either artillery or melee skirmisher. A lightly armed, movement based, martial character is great and I prefer classes that give me very different directions (and the ability to mix and match to build custom characters).

I'd prefer to see the rogue go away. Most of the olf school "shady thief" flavor could fall on a character of any class, and the ranger covers most of the rest.

 

[Mercule]

Indeed, there is nothing about the ranger which makes them "wilderness men, scouts, trackers, hunters". They don't even have to take the Nature skill. The 4E ranger is more the fighter-with-two-weapons or the archer class. Don't get so stuck on the name.

Half-way agree. Rangers aren't the survivalist, anymore.

My solution is: change the frakkin' name. Skirmisher, scout, or dex-stabbity-man all work better than ranger.

Rangers do not have shields. So it is most probable that they will use two weapons when they fight hand to hand. Perhaps they should not favor swords but favor axes, knives or machetes instead.

I've heard the "what else is he going to do with the other hand?" argument many times, and it still doesn't resonate with me. Sure, I can see some rangers drawing a second weapon as they step out of the overgrowth, but it doesn't really make any more sense than some other styles.

In general, I'd think rangers would avoid TWF for much the same reason they'd avoid a shield. In the middle of the wilds, you often have need of an open hand for some reason -- pushing branches out of the way, climbing, breaking a fall, or just plain balance.

To really bring out the flavor of a ranger, I'd like to see powers that made use of the terrain. How about a bonus to all defenses when standing in "difficult terrain" because they're really good at using improved cover? Or movement powers that let them move w/o opportunity attacks? The dodge/mobility/spring attack/acrobatic charge path from 3.5 would rock for a ranger's combat style.

There's no reason to ban rangers from TWF, but I don't see any reason it'd be associated with the archetype to which the name was originally attributed. If it's truly migrated to another archetype, then please change the name.

Heck, other than literacy and stealth issues, the 3e barbarian almost made a better ranger than the ranger did. They just swapped homicidal mania for anger management issues. Actually, I could see rage being a fine ranger combat path.

Actually, I'm kinda liking some of my ideas. They're holding back the bard to get it right. I could have easily waited on the PHB2 to see the ranger as a Primal striker or defender. They should have renamed whatever is in the PHB1.

 

[xechnao]

I've heard the "what else is he going to do with the other hand?" argument many times, and it still doesn't resonate with me. Sure, I can see some rangers drawing a second weapon as they step out of the overgrowth, but it doesn't really make any more sense than some other styles.

In general, I'd think rangers would avoid TWF for much the same reason they'd avoid a shield. In the middle of the wilds, you often have need of an open hand for some reason -- pushing branches out of the way, climbing, breaking a fall, or just plain balance.

To really bring out the flavor of a ranger, I'd like to see powers that made use of the terrain. How about a bonus to all defenses when standing in "difficult terrain" because they're really good at using improved cover? Or movement powers that let them move w/o opportunity attacks? The dodge/mobility/spring attack/acrobatic charge path from 3.5 would rock for a ranger's combat style.

There's no reason to ban rangers from TWF, but I don't see any reason it'd be associated with the archetype to which the name was originally attributed. If it's truly migrated to another archetype, then please change the name.

Heck, other than literacy and stealth issues, the 3e barbarian almost made a better ranger than the ranger did. They just swapped homicidal mania for anger management issues. Actually, I could see rage being a fine ranger combat path.

Actually, I'm kinda liking some of my ideas. They're holding back the bard to get it right. I could have easily waited on the PHB2 to see the ranger as a Primal striker or defender. They should have renamed whatever is in the PHB1.

I see what you are talking about and I think I agree. So just give the ranger a defense boost bonus due to improvisation when light (not in heavy armor). Also give him something like "bluff". Be done with the rogue and barbarian. Just one class with different paths or builds will do.
Urban or rural, cunning one or brute (enter rage).

For Drizzt lovers go 1e like and enter Elf Warrior Class that they specialize in twf with magic longswords.