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

[Steely Dan]

Maybe Drizzt could be statted out in 4th ed as NPC

Yeah, because in 4th Ed Realms, Drizzt is now working as rough trade on the streets of Calimport.

 

[mjukglass]

How about. You just rename the class. Its just a martial striker for crying out loud. Call it 'Aggressive fighter' class or something that makes you satisfied.

The 'ranger' just a label on a tactical unit. That label is yours to rename and shape to your hearts desire.

 

[Fifth Element]

How about. You just rename the class. Its just a martial striker for crying out loud. Call it 'Aggressive fighter' class or something that makes you satisfied.

The 'ranger' just a label on a tactical unit. That label is yours to rename and shape to your hearts desire.

Well yes, but I think an important point is this: do we really need an entire class (regardless of what it's called) in order to have TWF?

 

[The Eternal GM]

Well yes, but I think an important point is this: do we really need an entire class (regardless of what it's called) in order to have TWF?

No, we don't.

 

[rbingham2000]

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...

I'd peg Aragorn as more of a Warlord multiclassing in Ranger myself for this edition. Especially later on.