Ranger Build

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I could understand people's annoyance at two-weapon fighting being limited to the Ranger, but I really don't get it when people are annoyed that the Ranger has it as an option.

1) It doesn't fit. TWF is pretty poor for ambushes. Hunters are far more likely to use a spear or bow than a pair of hand axes.
2) It makes more sense for other classes. (A Defender who gives up his shield for two weapons will do better in melee combat than a ranger.)

So I have to ask... why is it there, other than some hiccup of history?

By this definition, the Rogue should have equal opportunity at two-weapon fighting. However, I believe that WotC wants to focus the Ranger as more "martial" than the Rogue, as in they are distinctly warriors geared to fight, while Rogues are more tricksy.

Rogues are martial too, and many aren't "tricksterish".

 

[FadedC]

1) It doesn't fit. TWF is pretty poor for ambushes. Hunters are far more likely to use a spear or bow than a pair of hand axes.
2) It makes more sense for other classes. (A Defender who gives up his shield for two weapons will do better in melee combat than a ranger.)

So I have to ask... why is it there, other than some hiccup of history?

Sometimes a hiccup of history is enough if it makes something iconic. Fighters already had the 2-handed weapon thing going if they want to deal damage. Two weapon fighting is a pretty classic image, and even though it mostly sucked in 3e that didn't stop people from doing it. If your going to make a class that specializes in it, the ranger is as good an idea as anything.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yes, a rogue or swashbuckler with TWF is needed... The only thing I don´t like is that ranger has to get nature or dungeoneering... he should have a third option: streetwise and suddenly: the ranger is our swashbuckling friend...

multiclass feat which will let you take the TWF option also ssems right to me!

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Or perhaps a Swashbuckler PP for Rogues and Rangers.

 

[Voss]

Sometimes a hiccup of history is enough if it makes something iconic. Fighters already had the 2-handed weapon thing going if they want to deal damage. Two weapon fighting is a pretty classic image, and even though it mostly sucked in 3e that didn't stop people from doing it. If your going to make a class that specializes in it, the ranger is as good an idea as anything.

Except anything includes 'not doing it at all', which would be the best option from where I sit.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sometimes a hiccup of history is enough if it makes something iconic. Fighters already had the 2-handed weapon thing going if they want to deal damage. Two weapon fighting is a pretty classic image, and even though it mostly sucked in 3e that didn't stop people from doing it. If your going to make a class that specializes in it, the ranger is as good an idea as anything.

The ranger isn't as good an idea as anything.

There are real-life fighting styles based on dual-wielding, like Florentine, that leans towards using two weapons offensively. (It's a swashbuckling style, of course.) There's also the image of a warrior so badass he has a sword in one hand and an axe in the other. (Probably not effective, but at least it looks cool.) I can think of no such examples for rangers.

There's virtually none in fiction, either, and it doesn't fit flavor or mechanics. It's just the continuation of an old mistake.

 

[Surgoshan]

Really, though, if the Drow as a race were ambidextrous, they really should have been ambisinister (two left hands rather than two right hands). The reason people, and animals in general, use one hand preferentially is because it makes them more dexterous (original Latin; right-handed. In English; skillful with one's hands). Animals that show no preference for one hand over the other learn tasks more slowly and are clumsier as a result.

In other words, Drizzt should have been a clumsy jackass and then maybe people wouldn't insist on a two-weapon build for the ranger.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Really, though, if the Drow as a race were ambidextrous

But they're not. Drizzt's father decided Drizzt would be a warrior, rather than a mage like his mother wanted him to be, when he realized Drizzt was ambidextrous. This trait is pretty common among drow though. (The real trait is using two blades of the same length. Human dual-wielders tend to use a short blade and a long blade in FR. In the Double Diamond saga, Artemis Entreri referred to this as "cheating".)

Drizzt may have been naturally ambidextrous. There weren't many warriors like this in real life, but there were a few. Of course, there's probably some 2e game source claiming that drow are "naturally" ambidextrous, causing canon confusion.

Not that this has anything to do with being a ranger. Drizzt was ambidextrous before he even took class levels!

 

[The Little Raven]

It comes from Aragorn fighting off the Nazgul on Weathertop with a pair of torches.

 

[Novem5er]

1) It doesn't fit. TWF is pretty poor for ambushes. Hunters are far more likely to use a spear or bow than a pair of hand axes.
2) It makes more sense for other classes. (A Defender who gives up his shield for two weapons will do better in melee combat than a ranger.)

So I have to ask... why is it there, other than some hiccup of history?

Rogues are martial too, and many aren't "tricksterish".

You say that 2WF for a Ranger doesn't fit because of hunters wouldn't do so. I agree. However, the role that the 4e Ranger holds is not "hunter", but is now "striker". It makes sense for a martial striker to dual-wield because the character has given up the defense of a shield and heavy armor for more mobility and the chance to stab and slice more often.

Like I said, there is a case that the Rogue should have 2WF as well, but I can understand why WotC gave it to the Ranger. Of course, they have continuance for what many fans want and expect of a Ranger. I claimed that the Ranger was MORE martial than a Rogue, only because, since 2e, the Ranger has been defined by his weapons. A ranger has never been a simple hunter, but rather a defender of the wilderness, bent on actively engaging enemies in combat.

Look at this way. The Ranger is not lugging a shield through the wilderness, however, a Ranger would likely carry multiple small weapons with him for varying uses or in case one was damaged or lost (no armories out in the woods are there?). SINCE the Ranger is not carrying a shield, what is he supposed to do with his off-hand when engaged in melee? I suspect your answer would be that the Ranger "would likely be wielding a spear" and thus wouldn't have an off-hand. That's fine, but I suspect it's a rather narrow gamer population that wants to wield a spear. I think the idea's pretty neat, but I wouldn't want to force all Ranger players to choose a bow or spear.

Now, I find the idea of two longswords or two scimitars to be incredibly silly. That's two, 3' long blades hanging off your hips as you go running through the underbrush. But if I'm wielding ONE longsword, and I'm not using a shield, I'm sure as hell going to pull out a dagger or a hand ax as I charge into that line of orcs.