D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[Victim]

While this may be true in the games you might have participated in, my experience was much different. Saying that something is partially true because you never actually got to use that ability doesn't make it true.

I have two Paladins from 1e and both of them are well into the teen levels one of them is almost level 20. He would be if circumstances were different, but people's lives diverge and groups melt away. It's easier to get a group together with the current system than it is to find players for a game that was mothballed in favor of the new and shiny.

The point being that although you may not want to accept it those classes have always had spell casting ability regardless of whether or not any particular player or group ever actually got to cast them, some of us have.

I wasn't talking about my experience. I was talking about the research WotC did before they made 3e, which indicated that most campaigns did not reach higher levels.

 

[ComradeGnull]

As has been stated earlier, in 1e Drow could dual wield, which is where that comes from.

Sorry, was directing my reply at the '2e had dual wield because of Drizzt'. Not sure how you were the one post-quoted there.

 

[Steely_Dan]

oblivious to the facts.

What facts?

 

[tlantl]

I wasn't talking about my experience. I was talking about the research WotC did before they made 3e, which indicated that most campaigns did not reach higher levels.

That probably explains why they made a game that went to thirty levels.

I guess it really doesn't matter to me though, I really don't have much use for the ranger or paladin or the 3e version of the assassin or the warlock or the warlord. These classes just add to the page count as far as I'm concerned.

But hey everyone has their preferences.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I just don't get the connection to duel weilding and wilderness combat/survival/exploration.

Because if you're going to spend all your time tramping around through a trackless wilderness, the last thing you want to carry around is a portable wooden door. It's heavy, unwieldy, and gets stuck in the underbrush too much.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Because if you're going to spend all your time tramping around through a trackless wilderness, the last thing you want to carry around is a portable wooden door. It's heavy, unwieldy, and gets stuck in the underbrush too much.

Of course, but there are other fighting styles aside from sword & board and dual-wielding, my brother's Ranger from back in the day loves his two-handed sword exclusively.

On a side note: I dig that the quarterstaff is a finesse weapon in 5th Ed.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course, but there are other fighting styles aside from sword & board and dual-wielding,

Oh, certainly - it's just that, if you aren't going to have a shield, and you don't want a two-handed weapon (and those also have issues getting stuck in the trees, etc., so I could understand why you wouldn't go that way), then you might as well toss something small in your off-hand. It's better than nothing!

On a side note: I dig that the quarterstaff is a finesse weapon in 5th Ed.

Me, too!

 

[Steely_Dan]

Oh, certainly - it's just that, if you aren't going to have a shield, and you don't want a two-handed weapon (and those also have issues getting stuck in the trees, etc., so I could understand why you wouldn't go that way), then you might as well toss something small in your off-hand. It's better than nothing!

Absolutely (The Hunter was a good example, in that Snow White flick?), but this brings up another point, fighting with a one-handed weapon in one hand and nothing in the other.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Absolutely (The Hunter was a god example, in that Snow White flick?), but this brings up another point, fighting with a one-handed weapon in one hand and nothing in the other.

I am 1000% behind D&D finally making the one-handed-weapon-plus-nothing-in-the-off-hand a viable combat style.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oh, certainly - it's just that, if you aren't going to have a shield, and you don't want a two-handed weapon (and those also have issues getting stuck in the trees, etc., so I could understand why you wouldn't go that way),

Arguably the most common hunting melee weapon of all time is the spear, which can be used effectively two handed and one handed - and even if used one handed is considerably longer than pretty much any other two handed weapon.

As such, I've never really bought the idea that rangers wouldn't want two handed weapons because they get 'stuck in the trees'.

For 'woodsman' rangers I can see axes as being a particularly common weapon because it is a practical tool as well as a weapon.

For 'huntsman' rangers I can see a spear as particularly common, because it really is the best way of dealing with nasty big animals.

For 'border defender' rangers I can see some variety of sword as particularly useful.

But I don't necessarily think that those are mutually exclusive roles!