Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 36732" data-attributes="member: 694">It's really very simple.&nbsp; Rangers fight with two weapons because it's on their proficiency list, just like all fighters know how to use all martial weapons, and all monks know how to use kamas.&nbsp; It's called a class-based system.The Drizzt theory is fun to speculate on, but the truth of the matter is none of the 2e game designers could have cared enough to move the drow ability to the ranger solely on account of Salvatore's popularity.&nbsp; For all we know, they could have done it because rangers in the original Ultima game carried two swords.&nbsp; All I know is that since 2e, rangers and sword-pairs have gone hand in hand and there's nothing wrong with it.&nbsp; I'd sooner ask for an explaination for why 2e clerics in a setting based on polytheistic myth carried on the pseudo-Christian crusader tradition of blunt weapons.&nbsp; The answer in both cases, really, is that you can do whatever you want in the context of your fantasy game, and in the context of Oerth/Faerun, rangers are trained to fight with two weapons.As for this woodsman crap, let me think here: rangers get d10 hp and 4 sp.... rogues get d6 hp and 8 sp... the WoT woodsman is a class with d8 hp and 6 sp.... that looks an awful lot like an even-leveled ranger/rogue.&nbsp; I think if you want to play woodsmen, you shouldn't be playing single-classed rangers.&nbsp; Rangers are not just wilderness experts, they're warriors first.&nbsp; Rogues are the skill boys, remember?&nbsp; Now if you combine skill master + woodsy monster hunter = the result?&nbsp; A woodsman!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack Daniel, post: 36732, member: 694"] It's really very simple. Rangers fight with two weapons because it's on their proficiency list, just like all fighters know how to use all martial weapons, and all monks know how to use kamas. It's called a class-based system. The Drizzt theory is fun to speculate on, but the truth of the matter is none of the 2e game designers could have cared enough to move the drow ability to the ranger solely on account of Salvatore's popularity. For all we know, they could have done it because rangers in the original Ultima game carried two swords. All I know is that since 2e, rangers and sword-pairs have gone hand in hand and there's nothing wrong with it. I'd sooner ask for an explaination for why 2e clerics in a setting based on polytheistic myth carried on the pseudo-Christian crusader tradition of blunt weapons. The answer in both cases, really, is that you can do whatever you want in the context of your fantasy game, and in the context of Oerth/Faerun, rangers are trained to fight with two weapons. As for this woodsman crap, let me think here: rangers get d10 hp and 4 sp.... rogues get d6 hp and 8 sp... the WoT woodsman is a class with d8 hp and 6 sp.... that looks an awful lot like an even-leveled ranger/rogue. I think if you want to play woodsmen, you shouldn't be playing single-classed rangers. Rangers are not just wilderness experts, they're warriors first. Rogues are the skill boys, remember? Now if you combine skill master + woodsy monster hunter = the result? A woodsman! [/QUOTE]

Verification