Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="muffin_of_chaos" data-source="post: 4216154" data-attributes="member: 65007">This is just a thread contemplating the supposed availability of two-weapon fighting. Given that Rangers are the only class we expect will have powers relating to fighting with a weapon in each hand (this might be an error, let me know), the question is why?While I think that there will be feats devoted to letting anyone be capable of two-weapon fighting, we can assume that only Rangers can, and are left feeling kind of like we're being pigeonholed into the furry-animal-loving-woodsman class if we want to dual wield effectively. I don't wanna be a lumberjack!But like the Warlord class, I expect that the name of the class "Ranger" is sort of a misnomer, determined by tradition if nothing elseWe've seen no indication that Rangers have anything to do with Nature other than their skill list (which might be accounted for by the fact that some Rangers will actually stick to the old Ranger stereotype, even if they don't need to).They are a Martial class, after all, neither Primal nor Divine.It would seem that Rangers as Strikers fill two Striker combat roles--ranged or melee. (Note that this is different from the Rogue, which is ranged* And melee*, the star indicating that they specialize in opportunism instead of straight combat.)If the Ranger decides they want to be a meleer, that's their whole purpose for being a Ranger, and they have the time and will to cultivate a potentially deadlier two-weapon fighting style. Meanwhile, Fighters don't, Warlords don't, Clerics don't, and Paladins don't, all of them focusing on training the powers associated with their Role (none of which would be benefited with an extra weapon).Rogues wouldn't bother focusing on learning how to fight with two weapons because they are more concerned with getting in that one carefully-placed backstab than actually dueling face-to-face.In other words, forget everything you preconceived about what the Ranger class is. They are now Strikers. Melee Rangers are not merely rangers who melee, but any and all persons who want to do straight, non-sneaky damage in a melee situation. Thus they have have the capability to fight with two weapons unlike every other class/Role.Thus, in 4E Drizzt was always a Ranger, he just wasn't a ranger until later. (Note the lack of capitalization.)  Ninjas will probably best be covered by a new class later, but until then they might best be designed as Rangers, perhaps with a couple Rogue multiclassing feats to get in the important backstab.That's my theory anyway, maybe it doesn't need to be said but thought I'd throw it out there.</blockquote>

Verification