Ranger Build

[Guild Goodknife]

For all we know you can probably feat-multiclass into ranger to get some two weapon figthing goodnes if your really want it.

 

[Crashy75]

I don't care who has it but I want my two weapon fighter. He's human btw.

I didn't start reading the books until about 5 years ago but I'm fairly certain the ranger had two-weapon fighting before Drizzt showed up. Either way, who cares. The more options supported, the better, regardless of source.

 

[Simm]

I don't care who has it but I want my two weapon fighter. He's human btw.

I didn't start reading the books until about 5 years ago but I'm fairly certain the ranger had two-weapon fighting before Drizzt showed up. Either way, who cares. The more options supported, the better, regardless of source.

IIRC the chain of events was that rangers were fighters with a bow speciaization and drow had the special ability to fight with 2 weapons. Drizt (or however you spell that) was a drow ranger with two weapons. When 2e came out the 2 weapon fighting ability was moved from a drow racial trait to a ranger class ability.
So yes, the TWF ranger build is directly the fault of our drow friend.

 

[Voss]

I am very disappointed to see the Ranger builds from the GAMA photo. I understand the archer build, but I fail to see why they insist on tying the Ranger to two weapon fighting. I didn't like it in 3.x either. It seemed at the time like they did it to stat out a certain Drow from their books.

Me too. If they had to force a fighting style on the ranger, couldn't it have been something more appropriate like a spear?

I would have been happier if the 'builds' didn't involve fighting styles at all. Though thinking about it, I would have been happier had they left 'Aragorn' out altogether and used a class that was actually interesting. Like a second controller...

 

[zoroaster100]

Hopefully the Martial Power book will add other builds to the ranger and to the rogue so you can have a two weapon fighting rogue and a spear or one-sword fighting ranger, etc. Also, I hope that multiclassing will allow effective combination of rogue and ranger in order to create a two-weapon rogue.

 

[Novem5er]

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.

In 4e, Rangers are strikers, either ranged or melee. The definition of a striker is that it deals high damage to single targets and sacrifices defense for added mobility. How does one get defense typically? With heavy armor and a shield. What would one way be to increase offensive opportunities (and thus deal more damage)? Strike with two weapons instead of one.

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.

In a perfect game, many classes would have the ability to acquire two-weapon fighting, and I hope 4e allows this. However, I have zero problem with Rangers getting an advantage to this... realism aside, it just makes for good gaming.

 

[Aezoc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 4e multiclassing as simple as using feat slots to pick up class features from other classes? If that's true, then it seems to be a much more fluid thing than in previous editions, and I don't really see the problem. Rangers have an option to go down a TWF path (which you can ignore if that doesn't fit your vision of the ranger). And if you want a fighter, rogue, or whatever that specializes in TWF, you can just pick up TWF abilities from the ranger.

I'm not even sure how they'll present multiclassing, since if it's feat-based, the idea of a fighter X/ranger Y doesn't even really make sense. But based on what we know so far, it seems to me that where the TWF skills are packaged is kind of irrelevant. Any character could pick them up and still call himself a fighter, rogue, paladin, or what-have-you. The only context in which TWF implies ranger is a purely meta-game one.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

One thing of interest though, if the TWF is a build. This may mean rangers work quite a bit differently and won't be so one-or-the-other.

Since a build doesn't disallow you to choose powers they simply give you bonuses. As such, could a ranger pick both archery and TWF powers? But gain a bonus in one of them?

Or, are ranger powers more specific in stating you need either TWF or Archery Build to select them.

 

[Imperialus]

I think TWF is just fine with Rangers and I can't stand Drizzt.

My logic for this is that fighting with two weapons is an inherently more aggressive, preadatory fighting style. It's almost reminds me of an ambush predator where the goal is to kill your prey as quickly as possible. I used to fight with a rapier with the HACA (Historical Armed Combat Association) and even given the influence on forms and technique that a rapier needs as soon as you had a main gauch or even a gauntlet in your hand that could be used as a weapon it became much more fluid and fast moving. Fights were usually over far sooner and it was almost impossible to fight defensively.

This suits a lot of ranger builds, particularly the more primitive ones. There is something to be said for a ranger who doesn't even hunt with a bow. Instead he hides in ambush and kills his dinner up close and personal. His swords are extensions of his arms, almost like man made claws and he uses them like that.

 

[Vermonter]

IIRC the chain of events was that rangers were fighters with a bow speciaization and drow had the special ability to fight with 2 weapons. Drizt (or however you spell that) was a drow ranger with two weapons. When 2e came out the 2 weapon fighting ability was moved from a drow racial trait to a ranger class ability.
So yes, the TWF ranger build is directly the fault of our drow friend.

Well, in OD&D anyone could use two weapons and the penalty for doing so was just based on dex. If you had a super high dex (17 or 18, back in the roll 3d6 days) you got either -2 or -1 in off hand weapon and no other penalty. Drow were ambidextrous so could use two weapons without penalty (first described in Fiend Folio - 1980).

Sometime later the use of two weapons somehow migrated from Drow to ranger. I'm not thrilled with it, but it seems to be well established enough now I can see why they kept it.