The origin of Rangers with Two-Weapon-Fighting

[Woas]

Umm, it really isn't "fantasy" based in the sense of Sword and Sorcery. But I always had the connection between dual-wielding rangers and Native Americans (at least from the tribes of the Northeastern America region) such as the romanticezed Mohican with his two tomahawks in hand, sprinting through the forest with his wolf companion. But thats just me I guess...

 

[Feldspar]

Umm, it really isn't "fantasy" based in the sense of Sword and Sorcery. But I always had the connection between dual-wielding rangers and Native Americans (at least from the tribes of the Northeastern America region) such as the romanticezed Mohican with his two tomahawks in hand, sprinting through the forest with his wolf companion. But thats just me I guess...

Heh, my first 2e (which I first played in the late 90's) Ranger was named Hawkeye and dual wielded a pair of hand axes

 

[S'mon]

More on target, I always figured Rangers were about two weapon fighting. Not necessarily paired scimitars, but Sword and dagger, or sword and light sword kinda stuff. Simply put, fighting with nothing but a single sword is stupid (bare minimum, use your offhand to punch or grapple), and rangers are not inclined to carry shields.

Yeah, I'm certainly not against TWF per se, and in my C&C Wilderlands campaign high-dexterity Dunael Rangers commonly fight with a sword & dagger combination. The C&C TWF Penalty is -3/-6, reduced by DEX bonus, I use that as-is for daggers, an additional -2* for other light off-hand weapon, no TWF if using heavy off-hand weapon, since that requires you to put your weight behind the blow.

*I have a house rule that '20' on an attack always crits and for x2 damage, so the additional -2 penalty is needed to prevent TWF being overpowered vs sword & board or 2-handed weapon.

 

[S'mon]

Restricting ranger's armor proficiency is awfully punishing. Again, IIRC, 1st-Edition didn't have armor proficiency (light, medium, heavy). You could have restricted them to leather armor, studded leather, elven chain, or chainmail, I guess. Aragorn (arguably, the archetypal ranger) puts on mail at Helm's Deep, despite not having worn it up until then. So when he needs to go to war, he's a fully capable with armor.

Yeah, I think with Rangers it's much better just to say they lose their stealth abilities in heavy armour, and maybe take a penalty to tracking, not that they take -4 to-hit or something. Of course you need to be careful that the Ranger doesn't then overpower the Fighter. C&C handles this pretty well - Rangers have a higher XP requirement, their BAB is 1 point below Fighter, no weapon spec and no multi-attack. In return they do 1e style +1 damage/level vs giant class.

 

[S'mon]

Umm, it really isn't "fantasy" based in the sense of Sword and Sorcery. But I always had the connection between dual-wielding rangers and Native Americans (at least from the tribes of the Northeastern America region) such as the romanticezed Mohican with his two tomahawks in hand, sprinting through the forest with his wolf companion. But thats just me I guess...

You may have a good point there. This indicates that the 2e Ranger concept was already tending towards the New Age Nature Guardian concept fully expressed in 3e; whereas the 1e Ranger was a frontiersman who tames the Wilderness and brings it into the Realm of (civilised) Man, the 3e Ranger is allied to the Druid in keeping the Realm of Man at bay, or assists Man in living in harmony with Nature.