Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 4190034" data-attributes="member: 1165">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.)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?)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.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.</blockquote>

Verification