D&D 5E The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity

[Charlaquin]

sounds like two subclasses one for fighter one for rogue.

Nah, I’d definitely make it as a ranger class.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Nah, I’d definitely make it as a ranger class.

why it seems so easy to just get rid of it, its points in its favour are things that should be universal it eats an aspect of play worse than a bard and it lacks any archetype other than lone wander of the wilds which is not a class idea but a character idea, why not kill it and let something else grow?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Except that it placed arbitrary restrictions on the concept of a ranger in a pointless effort to mechanically differentiate it more from a fighter. Why, for example, would no ranger be able to use a two-handed weapon effectively? Likewise, why would a fighter not be able to pursue archery effectively?

Because if a fighter pursued archery, she'd be a ranger instead. That's just where the line between the classes exist.

If you want to do both, that's what multiclassing is for.

Classes can't do everything, or they shouldn't exist. Fighters also can't cast spells or use ki without multiclassing, but that's not an issue for anyone I know of. 4e just draws the lines very close together: the fighter is for strength-based combat styles, not all weapon styles.

 

[billd91]

Because if a fighter pursued archery, she'd be a ranger instead. That's just where the line between the classes exist.

If you want to do both, that's what multiclassing is for.

Classes can't do everything, or they shouldn't exist. Fighters also can't cast spells or use ki without multiclassing, but that's not an issue for anyone I know of. 4e just draws the lines very close together: the fighter is for strength-based combat styles, not all weapon styles.

I don't think anyone is saying that classes should be able to do everything - but I think that the difference in do-able things between classes perhaps shouldn't hinge on specific weapons. 4e went all-in on their particular formulation of class roles - a bold move. But it was one that made liking the game a more difficult prospect for some D&D fans, myself included. I really disliked that aspect of 4e.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think anyone is saying that classes should be able to do everything - but I think that the difference in do-able things between classes perhaps shouldn't hinge on specific weapons. 4e went all-in on their particular formulation of class roles - a bold move. But it was one that made liking the game a more difficult prospect for some D&D fans, myself included. I really disliked that aspect of 4e.

You might not have liked it - but it isn't a wrong way to design a game, or even really a weakness since it fits well with the rest of the system.

In other words "I don't like it" is not a design criticism. Or even "many people don't like it," unless you can prove "most people don't like it." And since 4e sold pretty well and has it's share of fans, I'd need proof to accept the last point.

 

[Voadam]

There are options.

You can do warrior, skilled guy, spellcaster and be done with classes. True20 and 3.5 Unearthed Arcana optional rules did and it works conceptually.

You could collapse from the current selection down by combining say the 4e ranger and rogue concepts and giving them all options from either class (although there are issues like rogue stuff only working with light weapons while rangers can use big ones).

You can have different classes of the same concept together and it works fine (4e base classes or essentials in the same party).

You can have lots of classes based off of more specific mechanics and concepts to varying degrees and it can work fine.

There was a huge AEG d20 book on mercenaries that had a dozen or so variant ranger and fighter classes. Iron Heroes was built around mechanically complex epic but non magical distinct martial classes.

 

[billd91]

You might not have liked it - but it isn't a wrong way to design a game, or even really a weakness since it fits well with the rest of the system.

In other words "I don't like it" is not a design criticism. Or even "many people don't like it," unless you can prove "most people don't like it." And since 4e sold pretty well and has it's share of fans, I'd need proof to accept the last point.

Sold pretty well and has its share of fans isn't a lot of proof either considering D&D lost its 800 lb gorilla status under 4e before 5e. That doesn't exactly say that it was the right way to design a game either.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Because if a fighter pursued archery, she'd be a ranger instead. That's just where the line between the classes exist.

If you want to do both, that's what multiclassing is for.

Classes can't do everything, or they shouldn't exist. Fighters also can't cast spells or use ki without multiclassing, but that's not an issue for anyone I know of. 4e just draws the lines very close together: the fighter is for strength-based combat styles, not all weapon styles.

but arcane archer is a fighter subclass and give them the outlander background and guess what we have a ranger.
it lacks a solid hook so cutting it from the line up would work.

 

[jmartkdr2]

but arcane archer is a fighter subclass and give them the outlander background and guess what we have a ranger.
it lacks a solid hook so cutting it from the line up would work.

In 5e it is. In 4e, it would be a ranger.

 

[Mind of tempest]

In 5e it is. In 4e, it would be a ranger.

4e could have merge ranger a rogue and nothing bad would have come of it or at least the backlash would be no worse than what was already there.