TWF and you

[muffin_of_chaos]

The possibility I'm presenting in this thread is that Rangers should no longer will be thought of as hunters or park rangers...they have the capability, with the optional skills they can choose, but primarily they are the damage-focused variant of the fighter class.

Fighter and Ranger are just labels for "Defender using martial abilities" and "Martial striker that engages enemies directly in melee or from ranged" respectively.

Whether or not this is true is moot (we haven't seen enough powers/etc. to know); the question is that if it is true, will complaints about the apparent lack of two-weapon fighting available be unfounded?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The possibility I'm presenting in this thread is that Rangers should no longer will be thought of as hunters or park rangers...they have the capability, with the optional skills they can choose, but primarily they are the damage-focused variant of the fighter class.

Then Ranger is a kinda dumb name for them, don't you think?

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Then Ranger is a kinda dumb name for them, don't you think?

Warlord is also a supremely bad name for a class. So is the incredibly vague Fighter.
They have to stick with tradition though, I suppose. Gotta try to alienate fans as little as possible...

 

[Aenghus]

In 4e rangers are skirmishers, fighters are heavy infantry. It seems straighforward to me. 4e has narrowed down the class focus a lot, probably because the new power mechanics required it - more freeform classes with a grab-bag of class powers would inevitably lead to balance problems of accidental gimping or overpowering.

I've played BECM, 1e, 2e and 3e, and class focus changes with each edition. Some people seem to obsess about the name of the class, and load it with certain expectations from a previous edition that may not apply.

4e appears to suggest two general options for power picks for each class.

Fighters are no longer the masters of all martial combat styles (putting aside the the question if they were ever that) - 4e makes them heavy infantry, best in heavy armour with either sword and board or a two handed weapon. 4e at last gives them abilities to actually defend the rest of the party, but they can still deal out plenty damage on the front line.

Rangers are martial powered skirmishers. They will be lighter armoured, mobile and choose either a focus on ranged or melee combat. We haven't seen the melee options yet, though they include two weapon combat options.

While Drizzt is a significant reason for the two weapon combat ranger, rationalisations can be worked out. Shields are heavy and awkward to carry for a skirmisher, while a light weapon like a handaxe is easier to carry and doubles as a useful tool. Rangers are strikers, and I envisage powers with increased damage based on two weapon use. Hopefully they can use spears as well.

It will be interesting to see if two light weapons will be a viable style for rangers. A bane of previous editions is that PCs were best off using the biggest weapon possible - I for one welcome well-chosen limitations such as those on sneak attack, which should allow rogues to use daggers without gimping themselves.

 

[Steely Dan]

I liked it better when you played a ranger because you got 2 hit dice

And those groovy druid and magic-user spells!

I agree that the ranger should not have any special penchant for TWF (any more than any other class), and it all started with the 2nd Ed ranger, which was influenced by that dusky, dual-wielding, angst-ridden, rough trade fellow.

 

[Mort_Q]

Why not just reverse it in your head?

PCs with a special penchant for TWF use class X, which just happens to have the label Ranger attached to it.

 

[Steely Dan]

Why not just reverse it in your head?

PCs with a special penchant for TWF use class X, which just happens to have the label Ranger attached to it.

Because then you are forced to take on some Green Beret boy baggage.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Because then you are forced to take on some Green Beret boy baggage.

Bitter, pregnant, ex-girfriends?

 

[hong]

Because then you are forced to take on some Green Beret boy baggage.

Kinky.

 

[Steely Dan]

Bitter, pregnant, ex-girfriends?

…And boyfriends.