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

[Philodox00]

Well, when you read the word "Ranger" in 4E, you really should just read "Striker". They have to deal a lot of damage to one target, at the expense of "flavor" to better stream line and create balance.

Two Weapon fighting is popular, and thats what is important.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Hm, intereting points.

4th ed, currently, you cannot really do the "light/fast/int/dex fighter", so the ranger is that role, as it were.

So, maybe we need a "scout" class and a "swashbuckler" instead? Or maybe those two, plus a dual wielder who uses heavier blades, if "swashbuckler" seems too much of a certain genre, ie, rapiers only, rather than ANY two weapon, light armour style.

I do not like the "skirmish" ability, in either 4th or 3rd ed, because, if you are moving, you are not as accurate...it flies in the face of common sense, doesn't it?, lol.
But I don't see how else to encourage the idea of fast, light, avoiding close combat style of fighting, without making it a boring "I sit here and shoot you full of holes" fighter, either.
*scratches head, puzzled on that issue*

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not often up for wanton slughter of sacred cows, but I'll make an exception in this case.

Drizz't in all his two-weaponed Drowness was the single worst thing to ever happen to the Ranger class. It was an excellent class, before then.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I do not like the "skirmish" ability, in either 4th or 3rd ed, because, if you are moving, you are nto as accurate...it flies in the face of logic, lol. But I don't see how else to encourage the idea of fast, light, avoiding close combat type of fighting, that wouldn't be aboring "I sit here and shoot you full of holes" either.
8scratches head, puzzled on that one*

The run-and-slash fighting style was mechanically killed off by the attack of opportunity rules in 3e. 4e kept opportunity attacks. Problem remains.

Lanefan

 

[Ruslanchik]

Did the TWF Ranger really not appear in the books until after Drizz't. I thought Drizz't was an expression of the archetype not the source. Of course, I was kind of late to the DnD game so I'm fuzzy on the timeline.

When did the TWF Ranger appear in DnD? Is it not in 1e PHB or UA?

Personally, I think a bonus for using one-handed weapons with no shield or using two-handed swords makes the most sense flavor-wise, though dual weapons give the Ranger a gritty, I'll do anything to survive, feel.

 

[Rechan]

Rangers are commandos. The Green Beret "I'm trained to swoop in and kill all these dudes fast" character.

Really they could've broken the Ranger into two classes: Archer and Dervish, but just gave two options with the class. The name is just "Ranger" the same way that the Fighter is called the Fighter and not you know, something a little more appealing like "Warrior" or something.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

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.

I really like the disassociation from the woodlands bias. The reference in the 3.5 PHB to dwarven "cavers" caught my GF's fancy, but the character concept just doesn't work well without some work. In 4e I can just have a dwarf ranger take Armor Proficiency (Chainmail) as her first-level feat, taking advantage of the dwarven affinity for heavy armor without losing the ability to wield dual picks. The ability to substitute Dungeoneering for Nature is icing on the cake!

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Ironically enough, he learned the style as a fighter. Ranger is his second career.

 

[Andor]

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

Although oddly inspite of all the 'rangers dual wield' stuff in 3.x I don't think I ever saw a dual wielding ranger. Dual wielding was so crappy that nobody did it unless they were a rogue or scout or had some other kind of bonus damage to stack onto the second weapon. :\

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Ironically enough, he learned the style as a fighter. Ranger is his second career.

But, was Drizzt already wildly popular before the 2nd edition Players Handbook was being developed, or was it after?

I remember that rangers had dual wielding in 2nd edition (memory's fuzzy... lots of people in my table had Ambidexterity and dual wielded for the "1 1/2 attacks per round")


edit: publishing dates are not as important as the development process