The origin of Rangers with Two-Weapon-Fighting

[Gadget]

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

It was a cookie to encourage the light-armored archetype. Get this cool thing if play nice. <Shrug>Not the best option in hindsight, but oh well.

But TWF? Nah. That says "rogue" or "swashbuckler" to me -- Captain Blood, not Robin Hood.

But those archetypes were not well defined in D&D at the time (oh, there were niche articles in Dragon and the like). The thief was not quite the swashbuckling rogue of 3e yet, besides he had back stab. It was still very much about Conan & tLotR. Later with all the kits and splats of 2e, these things were more well defined . But the Ranger had almost all the cool-outcast-loner-brooding-rebel-type mojo going for him at the time (Even without Drizzt). And Drizzt popularity has something to do with it as well.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

Look at other "ranger" archetypes, too -- whether mountain men (say Davey Crockett, though the era of guns spoils things), explorers (Kit Carson?), fantasy rangers or woodsmen (Night's Watch -- though they post-date 2E -- perhaps Feist's Martin Longbow). I don't see much evidence of TWF -- more of 2H fighting.

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.

So you caught my Errol Flynn reference . The Unearthed Arcana change still predates 2E and sets a precedent which appears to have been changed for no obvious reason. Certainly the armor restiction could have been made by fiat, though -- it was for the thief, after all!

 

[Feldspar]

And a final thought, is there any chance that Drizzt uses two weapons *because* they were planning to give it to Rangers in the new edition?

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.

Woot! I win! This actually makes a lot of sense. I assume that the Ten Towns region, and Luskan who's mage tower is also described in the book, were created by Greenwood and not Salvatore. Salvatore must have had discussions with TSR people about the FR and 2nd Ed while preparing to write the book. That dual wielding Rangers informed the creation of Drizzt instead of the other way around shouldn't really be a surprise.

 

[Feldspar]

But those archetypes were not well defined in D&D at the time (oh, there were niche articles in Dragon and the like). The thief was not quite the swashbuckling rogue of 3e yet, besides he had back stab.

I'm not so sure about that. Gygax's own Gord the Rogue was much more of a swashbuckler type than a backstabbing from shadows type. So was the Gray Mouser. Those were probably two of the best known literary models for a DND thief at the time.

 

[Cam Banks]

That dual wielding Rangers informed the creation of Drizzt instead of the other way around shouldn't really be a surprise.

He was a drow! What surprises me is that people think the TWF came from anywhere else. Were he any race other than drow, I'd say Monte might be right.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Felon]

He was a drow! What surprises me is that people think the TWF came from anywhere else. Were he any race other than drow, I'd say Monte might be right.

What surprises me is that you speak with such an air of authority about something that you're speculating about yourself. I suspect Monte has a better inside track.

As to my own speculation, when Monte says rangers were given 2WF with the intent of providing them a "niche", it's probably not so much that 2WF is very "rangerly", but rather it has to do with the simple realization that once you sit down and analyze it, "ranger" is more of a general idea than an actual class with a unique party role. Other than being a character that can fight like a fighter and creep around like a rogue, what else really makes a ranger unique, special, and worthy of its own class, particularly in the offensive class features department? If a ranger isn't fighting giants or whatever his favored enemy is, is he just a crappy fighter? Or even more broken, is he a fighter-plus even when not fighting his favored foe? Perhaps at the time, 2WF was the best the designers could think up to give rangers their own combat angle.

 

[dvvega]

IIRC the 1st Edition Players Handbook had a line of text buried in the Ranger description that indicated they could fight with both hands equally (ambidextrous).

Perhaps this grew into the Drizzt/Ranger concept and thus was made gospel in the rules.

 

[eyebeams]

He was a drow! What surprises me is that people think the TWF came from anywhere else. Were he any race other than drow, I'd say Monte might be right.

Actually, if you read the 2e teasers in Dragon from that period, it's pretty obvious it's a 2e invention. One of the first goals given for the ranger redesign was to encourage light armor.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Woot! I win! This actually makes a lot of sense. I assume that the Ten Towns region, and Luskan who's mage tower is also described in the book, were created by Greenwood and not Salvatore. Salvatore must have had discussions with TSR people about the FR and 2nd Ed while preparing to write the book. That dual wielding Rangers informed the creation of Drizzt instead of the other way around shouldn't really be a surprise.

Sorry, not the case. Icewind Dale and the Ten Towns were a Salvatore invention made from whole cloth. Check your (1987) 1E Forgotten Realms Grey Box -- the map stops short of where Icewind Dale was later added, and there is no entry for Icewind Dale in the Cyclopedia of the Realms. IWD was added later, after the success of Salvatore's books -- which in my mind reinforces the theory that Drizzt (1988) informed the 2E Ranger concept (1989) and not the other way around.

IIRC the 1st Edition Players Handbook had a line of text buried in the Ranger description that indicated they could fight with both hands equally (ambidextrous).

Nope, sorry. There's no mention of the Ranger's weapons or fighting ability other than special ability against giants in the 1E PHB, and Unearthed Arcana merely expanded on the ranger's weapon proficiency restrictions to ensure he learned to use woodsman-like weapons first.

 

[Aaron L]

IIRC the 1st Edition Players Handbook had a line of text buried in the Ranger description that indicated they could fight with both hands equally (ambidextrous).

Perhaps this grew into the Drizzt/Ranger concept and thus was made gospel in the rules.

Sorry, no such line of text.