TWF and you

[Steely Dan]

Kinky.

Yeah, well, you know how these gritty, special forces types are.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A lot of cool stuff

Actually, I think there's one thing here that stood out: rename the Rangers into Skirmishers. I know I'd be pretty happy with that, and it fits well enough.

 

[Mercule]

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 some of use don't give a rat's turd if TWF is handled by the rules*, but really like the survivalist archetype.

* Not that I have anything against it being handled, just that it is significantly further down the list of my priorities. Meanwhile, the hardy survivalist ranks above all other archetypes besides armored warrior, studious arcanist, and sneaky bastard, in my book.

 

[Mercule]

Actually, I think there's one thing here that stood out: rename the Rangers into Skirmishers. I know I'd be pretty happy with that, and it fits well enough.

Yup.

At least then, when someone put out a class that hit the ranger archetype on the head, the name would at least be available.

 

[mneme]

One of the problems with "ranger" is how far it's gone from being an actual ranger. Instead of the backwoods survivalist guy who knows the area like the back of his hand, he became some dancing fighter who used two weapons.

It's worth noting (for good or ill) that the D&D Ranger has very little to do with the term a "backwoods survival guy who knows the area like the back of his hand". Instead, it derives from two things:

1. The rangers (ie, Numinoreans) in Lord of the Rings.
2. Gygax's idea of rangers as humanity's defender against the demihuman threats.

Now, the last vestige of the "anti-threats" bit has apparently been excised in 4.0 with the removal of favored enemies (probably good riddance, given how frequently those turned into "I hate X, so I'll attack them when it makes no sense" or "I have 3 favored enemies. This monster isn't one of them either."), but I think a lot of the 4.0 approach comes from that -- rangers get a damage bonus (previously creature specific, now generic) -- therefore, they are Strikers -- therefore, it's also important to preserve their method of striking, ie "weapon style." I'm not really sure where the "two weapon fighter" idea of rangers came from -- maybe the idea that when you were hunting monsters, you didn't necessarily have a buddy to watch your back, so a shield wasn't so useful; instead, it's just knife and other knife (oh, right, that's a bounty hunter. Not disssimilar).

 

[Steely Dan]

Now, the last vestige of the "anti-threats" bit has apparently been excised in 4.0 with the removal of favored enemies (probably good riddance

Yeah, forced bigotry was annoying.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I often wondered if it was possible to do TWF with Great sword and a kick (maybe with bladed boots)... I realy thought it could be a fun fighting style... (Usually do do only one attack but using trip with an "off-hand"-kick to bring the enemy into position...

In 4e there are hopefully powers which let you use your feet or off-hand weapon to a great benefit, even if you can´t use both weapons at once...

 

[drjones]

Bitter, pregnant, ex-girfriends?

dude, I went to school with that guy too!

 

[Mort_Q]

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

I thought there was a choice there? Or is it a choice between two evils? I need to go look that up.

 

[Fifth Element]

Warlord is also a supremely bad name for a class. So is the incredibly vague Fighter.

Ditto cleric, druid, barbarian. Wizard and rogue are pretty good.

It's a matter of tradition. The ranger class is what the ranger class is in D&D, and nothing more. Same for the druid and cleric.