The origin of Rangers with Two-Weapon-Fighting

[Pillsbury]

The Robin of Sherwood DVD is going to be released in the US later this month from Amazon.

Robin of Sherwood I

 

[Cam Banks]

Don't know about PBS, but otherwise yes.

My favourite Robin Hood of all time

-Hyp.

As a fellow New Zealander, I am sure we watched it at the same point.

Here in the US, I am told it was released as Robin Hood, not Robin of Sherwood, because (and I quote rather loosely) "Americans don't know what Sherwood is."

A great many D&D campaigns at the time miraculously ended up with Swords of Wayland and Nasir-clones, I am sure. And it skyrocketed Clannad into the public eye, moreso than Harry's Game.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Hypersmurf]

As a fellow New Zealander, I am sure we watched it at the same point.

It aired here on our weekly gaming night The people whose flat we played at didn't have a TV... so each week, we'd all show up, troop across the road to their friend's place, watch Robin of Sherwood, then troop back and play D&D

-Hyp.

 

[JohnSnow]

Here in the US, I am told it was released as Robin Hood, not Robin of Sherwood, because (and I quote rather loosely) "Americans don't know what Sherwood is."

A great many D&D campaigns at the time miraculously ended up with Swords of Wayland and Nasir-clones, I am sure.

Well and succinctly put. It was "Robin Hood" and released first, in the USA, on Showtime (the cable network) about a year or so after it was released in the UK. Similarly to the way the new Dr. Who series airs on the Sci-Fi Channel shortly after it airs in the UK. I believe it was picked up by PBS a couple years after it aired on Showtime.

My brother and I taped the entire series (both the Praed and Connery episodes), but our old VHS tapes are dying.

And I admit to a few Nasir-clones and Swords of Wayland in our game. And I've thought about having a famous swordsmith named Wayland in many other campaign settings.

 

[clarkvalentine]

... and had the theme song sing over and over "Robin Hood... The Hooded Man"?

Performed by Clannad.

http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Clannad/dp/B000002WPA

Edit: scooped by Cam.

 

[TerraDave]

Montecook on the matter:

ENrious: Monte, do you have any insight on how the ranger class became known for dual-wielding weapons?


Monte: You mean which came first, the ranger or Drizzt?


Morrus: I guess that sums it up


Monte: I looked into that. From what I understand, the two-weapon ranger came first, as a niche for the ranger. Bob Salvatore seized on that idea and ran with it. This would have been right around the time Zeb was finishing up 2nd Edition, and thus the rest is history.

From here:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_May_chat

 

[Cam Banks]

Monte: I looked into that. From what I understand, the two-weapon ranger came first, as a niche for the ranger. Bob Salvatore seized on that idea and ran with it. This would have been right around the time Zeb was finishing up 2nd Edition, and thus the rest is history.

As a niche for the ranger where? What nonsense.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Gadget]

As has been stated many times, Rangers were so uber in 1e that there was no reason to play a fighter (other than the ridiculous stat requirement to play a Ranger, the fighter was a consolation prize). 1e Rangers were always running around with +x plate armor and shields, and there was no reason not to. The two-weapon fighting & enhanced stealth skills were added to enforce the woodsman archetype and encourage the Ranger to were the "lighter" armors and not be a tank. It made perfect sense to me when 2e came out, even if the implementation was not perfect.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The two-weapon fighting & enhanced stealth skills were added to enforce the woodsman archetype and encourage the Ranger to were the "lighter" armors and not be a tank. It made perfect sense to me when 2e came out, even if the implementation was not perfect.

I don't buy all of that. What does TWF have to do with the woodsman achetype? Archery or spear or axe specialization would have been more appropriate to the archetype.

1E Rangers were pretty solid woodsmen, particularly if you enforced the weapon proficincy rules (which required sword, bow, axe, and spear IIRC). They could have simply restricted ranger armor without the TWF thing. The armor was a problem, true, but that was really the fault of 1E armor rules, which didn't have the Max Dex concept and other penalties. Stealth skills were definitely an improvement with the 2E ranger, I'll grant you, and stealth + light armor just makes sense (plus I appreciate the way 3E encourages that mechanically with Max Dex and Armor Check penalties, but you can still go the plate route if you want). But TWF? Nah. That says "rogue" or "swashbuckler" to me -- Captain Blood, not Robin Hood.

Edit: To find out if the Ranger or Drizzt came first, you need to find out if Bob Salvatore had access to the early drafts of the 2E PHB -- about 2 1/2 years before it was published given publishing and writing lead times for the novel. Otherwise, the timing certainly favors the Drizzt-before-Ranger theory.

 

[JohnSnow]

I don't buy all of that. What does TWF have to do with the woodsman achetype? Archery or spear or axe specialization would have been more appropriate to the archetype.

Specialization was supposed to be the fighter's "schtick." Rangers had to specialize in certain weapons in certain orders. But when that order is: sword, bow, axe or knife, quarterstaff...hell, what else do you need?

Let's see...using a quarterstaff is two-weapon fighting. So is using a sword and dagger, or a sword and axe. I admit there's an archery bias inherent in rangers, but I also think "sword & offhand weapon" is a more likely fighting style for rangers than "sword & shield." Robin Hood and Aragorn certainly tended to disdain shields.

And as I've said before, single weapon (not using your offhand) is just dumb. From my experience, single sword style involves a fair amount of punching or grappling with your offhand (TWF, in D&D terms).

1E Rangers were pretty solid woodsmen, particularly if you enforced the weapon proficiency rules (which required sword, bow, axe, and spear IIRC). They could have simply restricted ranger armor without the TWF thing. The armor was a problem, true, but that was really the fault of 1E armor rules, which didn't have the Max Dex concept and other penalties. Stealth skills were definitely an improvement with the 2E ranger, I'll grant you, and stealth + light armor just makes sense (plus I appreciate the way 3E encourages that mechanically with Max Dex and Armor Check penalties, but you can still go the plate route if you want). But TWF? Nah. That says "rogue" or "swashbuckler" to me -- Captain Blood, not Robin Hood.

Firstly, let me point out that Captain Blood and Robin Hood were portrayed by the same swashbuckling actor - Errol Flynn. So there's at least some precedent for thinking of Robin as a swashbuckler. And to say that Robin's not a rogue...well...

Secondly, the WP requirements are from 2e, not 1e, IIRC. 1st-Edition rangers were limited true, but only in terms of what weapons they could specialize in (Unearthed Arcana).

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.