Ranger Build

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Not quite right.

Rangers were a class introduced in the 'Strategic Review' magazine to add to OD&D. They were like fighters but with more hit points (double at 1st level), added level to damage against 'giant class' monsters (orcs etc up to giants), gained cleric spells, wizard spells, use of clairvoyance and healing magic, a bunch of special followers at 11th level and so forth.

In 1e they were considered a kind of fighter, had more but smaller HD than the fighter, wizard and druid spells (toned down quite a bit), toned down special followers etc.

1e Unearthed Arcana added certain weapon specialisations for rangers.

As you say, Drow are introduced as two weapon fighters.

Drizzt appears as a two weapon fighting ranger.

In 2e more big changes, including the addition of 2 weapon fighting to rangers.

It bugged me in 2e, 3e and 3.5e but I have to say that after nearly a couple of decades I've decided to stop worrying about it.

Rangers have now spent more time with than without 2 weapon fighting so I'll just take it as the class design choice it is.

Cheers

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

WotC deliberately "nerfed" dual-wielding rogues in 4e, so I'm not sure how much the argument stacks up on the role of striker.

However, giving up a shield and heavy armor doesn't have anything to do with dual-wielding. You can always put your off-hand on the same weapon. (Wield your longsword in two hands.)

A ranger has never been a simple hunter, but rather a defender of the wilderness, bent on actively engaging enemies in combat.

I agree that rangers can be more than just hunters. (Mind you, I think some rangers can be "just hunters".) Aragorn was just that kind of "warrior" ranger, using a sword as a warrior. However, he wasn't a dual-wielder. (Except once, and how hard is it to make touch attacks with torches?)

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?

Put it on his longsword. Or spear.

Really, there were rangers in the mold of Aragorn in real life (except no healing leaves). Roger's Rangers are a good example. They used long guns, and each would also wield a long knife in combat. It was pretty damn rare to see one using two knives, even if they were of different lengths, which isn't surprising. Dual-wielding is rare. I don't think you need to be ambidextrous to fight with two short swords, but it's still a rare talent.

I don't this line of argument convincing. Plenty of warriors who used only one weapon at a time (with our without a shield) carried loads of weapons. Most still didn't dual-wield, and those that did weren't over-represented in the survivalist category.

I think the idea's pretty neat, but I wouldn't want to force all Ranger players to choose a bow or spear.

Neither would I. Real life rangers and fictional ones too used a variety of weapons. It's just that dual-wielding was rare, and was a personal choice, not one dictated by their role. It has no more connection with rangers than with any other fighting character.

 

[quindia]

Oh, wow. I really didn't intend for my comment to turn into this. I said I was DISAPPOINTED not joining the WotC crowd can't get anything right team. Looks like the argument falls along the lines of the gamist arguments in numerous other posts. Many of the people who are for the TWF Ranger are arguing along the lines of "because newer players expect it from D&D" (lame as others pointed out - they had no problem axing things I expect from D&D) or "somebody had to have it".

I simply see no reason why a class, a loner by nature (until of course he joins an adventuring party), evolves along a fighting style as every other Ranger. Why would a woodsman, defender of the frontier, or whatever be more likely or more able to fight with two weapons? Was there some sort of correspondence course?

Of course as a build, I don't HAVE to take the option, but then I'm stuck with the archer unless I want to purposely ignore special abilities. Obviously, the Ranger can use a spear/axe/pruning shears, but when the build is giving you "free" powers toward a single style, it is foolish to even bother.

Am I missing something? Can you choose NOT to use a build and just select feats? I suppose I can always make a Fighter and figure out how to get some of feats to make him more Rangery (track, etc. which shouldn't be to hard in 4e).

Please don't get me wrong. I am looking forward to 4e. I just hate some of the reasoning behind some of the rules we've seen.

 

[tombowings]

Based on the Ranger pregen, I wouldn't be surprised if you were able to make a speer/bow ranger without waisting any of your resources. There is at least one power on the pregen that allows for a melee attack without two weapon fighting. Granted, I doubt there would be enough powers to have a specialized spear ranger, but you can always take the fighter multiclassing feats and make it work.

Overall, I think we are just not seeing the entire picture.

 

[Shroomy]

Of course as a build, I don't HAVE to take the option, but then I'm stuck with the archer unless I want to purposely ignore special abilities. Obviously, the Ranger can use a spear/axe/pruning shears, but when the build is giving you "free" powers toward a single style, it is foolish to even bother.

Am I missing something? Can you choose NOT to use a build and just select feats? I suppose I can always make a Fighter and figure out how to get some of feats to make him more Rangery (track, etc. which shouldn't be to hard in 4e).

Please don't get me wrong. I am looking forward to 4e. I just hate some of the reasoning behind some of the rules we've seen.

Some class features are an either/or proposition, but you can select from the list of powers as you wish. The builds are suggestions and guidelines (some of which are reinforced mechanically).

 

[Plane Sailing]

There may even be suggestions in the PHB/DMG about how to 'mix and match' classes a little, i.e. how to enable a ranger to start with the fighter sword & board feature instead of the twf feature (or vice versa) - sure there will be ranger/fighter powers which are expected to key into or give particular bonuses to certain 'class features' that may or may not need to be taken into account... but I bet it is doable.

Cheers

 

[Nikosandros]

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

That's actually a daily power from the Heir of Gondor epic destiny called Kick Morgul-ass.

 

[D'karr]

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!

That is the explanation that you see in Homeland (1990). However that novel was published almost a decade after the Fiend Folio (1981), which was the "official" source of the Drow Canon. That had originally appeared in the adventure D1 Descent into the Depths of the Earth(1978).

So Drow as a race were ambidextrous long before rangers ever had the ability imparted to them. Since the Crystal Shard was such a runaway success, the most famous source of rangers for the D&D canon has been a drow ranger. So at some point someone decided that rangers needed to have two-weapon fighting.

D&D has become it's own source of inspiration.

 

[drjones]

By god we MUST prevent others from doing things we ourselves do not want to do! How dare WOTC cater to anyones taste but my own??

 

[Novem5er]

...snip...

[in regards to what to do with an off-hand during combat]

Put it on his longsword. Or spear.

I agree! Personally, I'd much rather use two hands with a longsword b/c (alas) my sword arm is not the strongest But you're referencing back to history and realistic fighting. However, I think the topic on hand is the D&D game. Not that I disparage your remarks at all, as you bring up excellent points.

My point is that this is a game, that defines people by their roles, not personal likes and dislikes. Your point about putting an off-hand on your primary weapon is great, and with 4e we finally have some rules to go with that (versatile weapons, +1 damage?). In past editions, though, if you told your DM you were going to use your mace two-handed, he'd shrug at you and say "it's still d8 damage".

With no benefit for using two hands on a one-handed weapon, the only reason NOT to duel-wield in most D&D situations was because of the outrageous penalties attached to doing so.

I will agree that it's silly that roughly half of all rangers are two-weapon specialists. However, it is EQUALLY silly that dwarves prefer axes to swords, 4 to 1. All elves are proficient with longswords? What's so "elvish" about longswords that every elf trains with one from a young age? And what's with clerics and "blunt" weapons? Was there some historical reason that our D&D clerics used strictly maces and morning stars for upwards of 25 years... and if there was a historical reason, was it so deeply ingrained into the identity of the European fighting holy-man that it HAD to be a rule in the game?

No. There are no good reasons for half this stuff from an outside, logical perspective. The reason half the stuff in D&D exists is to differentiate races, classes, and monsters from each other. Elves use longswords because they're both sleek and slender. Dwarves use axes because both are sturdy and forceful. Clerics use maces because Paladins use swords and we can't have two holy warriors using the same damn weapons

Thus, Rangers duel-wield because they don't use shields, they don't get bonuses for using longswords two-handed, and because that's what players have expected for almost 20 years now.