Rogues and Two Weapon Fighting

[Spatula]

Somewhat related, from what I gather scanning the posts, it sounds like no one besides rangers can qualify for the ranger paragon paths? Is that correct? So you cannot get a rogue/ranger with the TWF feat that could take the Stormwarden PP?

You can qualify for "Class X only" stuff with the multiclass initiate feats. This is spelled out in the section for those feats I believe, at the end of the feat chapter. Of course, that may not be of use, since a lot of the "Class X only" stuff requires class abilities that the multiclass feats do not grant.

From what I recall, taking the Stormwarden paragon path requires the ranger TWFing class thingy, so only rangers qualify. A paragon path that just had "Ranger" for its prerequisites could be taken by a rogue (or anyone else) with the ranger initiate feat, though.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Er... You ARE aware that 4E rangers can choose to not even take nature as a trained skill? That they have no inherent woodsman abilities at all now, and are in fact just the striker flavour of the 3E fighter now?

I'm sure you are - this point has been made in several threads you've posted in.

That being the case, your sig strikes me as disingenuous.

As someone who has the book, no, you're wrong. The ranger is blatently described as the wilderness guy, and is done so several times. Even his abilities are billed as "Wilderness guy."

 

[Jack Colby]

Want to do non-Ranger two-weapon fighting? Ask your friendly DM if you can swap out something from your class to gain access to it. It's just a game, and alterations can be made for the sake of making people happy and having a good time. As long as there's not a Ranger in your group who feels slighted, who really cares what's in the book?

Also, keep in mind that anyone can hold two weapons, they just don't get any real benefit for doing so under normal conditions (other than being able to choose whichever one they want to attack with on their turn).

 

[Jack Colby]

As someone who has the book, no, you're wrong. The ranger is blatently described as the wilderness guy, and is done so several times. Even his abilities are billed as "Wilderness guy."

Honestly though, that is pure description and flavor. It's easy to make a Ranger a dungeoneering guy, not a wilderness guy. Nobody forces you to pick nature as a skill. First thing I noticed when making my ranger was that I could make him an effective dungeon explorer if I wanted, and ignore the wilderness stuff.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Honestly though, that is pure description and flavor. It's easy to make a Ranger a dungeoneering guy, not a wilderness guy. Nobody forces you to pick nature as a skill. First thing I noticed when making my ranger was that I could make him an effective dungeon explorer if I wanted, and ignore the wilderness stuff.

Well, I suppose if you just completely disregard everything in the book that isn't pure mechanics and give ranger the warrior skill set, then, yes, he's not a Wilderness Guy.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, you can fix anything.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, why buy it?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I suppose if you just completely disregard everything in the book that isn't pure mechanics and give ranger the warrior skill set, then, yes, he's not a Wilderness Guy.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, you can fix anything.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, why buy it?

Changing flavor is the kind of homebrew that is essentially harmless. Changing rules can wrack balance. Changing flavor won't.

Rules-wise, a Ranger has Nature as a class skill. That means he _can_ take it. But would you thing of a Fighter as a woodsman just because he _can_ take Nature? Does a Fighter automatically become a Loremaster if he can take History?

Everyone can pick up Nature as a skill with a feat. That doesn't make the Wizard a Druid.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

The only real thing that makes the Ranger at all, woodsman like, is the beginning fluff, and that he can pick Nature (though he can simply pick Dungeonering instead).

With the Paragon Paths you got:

-Battlefield Archer: Certainly not nature based. Arched Based

-Beast Stalker: This is the closest to being woodsman, in that you gain a bonus between either a magical beast or beast. Thats it. Archer based.

-Pathfinder: The fluff is your basically a scout. Two-Weapon Based

-Stormwarden: Your basically just a whirling dervish of two blades. Two-Weapon Based.

It is extremely easy to make the Ranger non-woodsman, simply don't describe him as such and your done. None of the powers are really that woodsman like.

As for Artemis, I'd say... Fighter/Rogue (with Rogue Paragon Path or Rogue Multiclass PP). I think this would work the best, since he can get Rogue/PP Utility Powers to sneak around, but uses his sword with fighter abilities.

His vampiric dagger, isn't really used that often as his main offencive weapon. So I think it makes sense to delegate it to when he needs to use a Rogue power or Sneak Attack.

 

[Lurker37]

Well, I suppose if you just completely disregard everything in the book that isn't pure mechanics and give ranger the warrior skill set, then, yes, he's not a Wilderness Guy.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, you can fix anything.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, why buy it?

Following the RAW is not homebrewing.

 

[DSRilk]

Well, I suppose if you just completely disregard everything in the book that isn't pure mechanics and give ranger the warrior skill set, then, yes, he's not a Wilderness Guy.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, you can fix anything.

By that note, if you homebrew hard enough, why buy it?

Just to beat a dead horse, under your assertion that changing fluff is like not playing D&D (q.v. your "why buy it" comment), then playing in Forgotten Realms or Eberron is not playing D&D. The fluff for races are often different, not to mention the deities and world descriptions and other such things.

Fluff is the one thing that's meant to be altered. It's only there to give people a jumping off point. The fluff must work within the mechanics (unless you DO house rule and change the mechanics to fit new fluff, which is not what would have to be done here), but the mechanics don't need to work within the fluff. In this example, the fluff is that rangers are generally forest guys, but while the mechanics support the assertion, the mechanics allow for different fluff to be totally relevant and possible, such as the ranger not being woodsy.