Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zinger2099" data-source="post: 4223813" data-attributes="member: 66228">I'd just like to point this article out to anyone who has said that the Ranger shouldn't be the TWF guy it should be the Fighter.<a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b</a>Aparantly, acording to that, there is a (and I quote) "Highly Probably" chance that a Fighter can be an effective Two-Weapon-Fighter.I like that Rangers have TWF as one of their shticks, and for reasons other then the pop culture character. I never liked Drrizt (or however his name is spelt). But Rangers to me have always resounded as a TWF when it comes to melee. Why? They don't strike me as the ordinary Sword-and-board type. They strike me as someone who would drop the extra defense for that extra chance to strike a killing blow. Best defense is a good offense. That to me, is a Ranger, who specializes in dealing with wild boars and other natural threats in their forays into the wilderness. They don't fight your typical oponent that uses a weapon, they fight creatures that attack you with bites and claws, and that type of opponent isn't easily turned by a shield. I have no problem with Rangers having a TWF speck. In fact, I say take it all the way. No one should match a Ranger at TWF, not even the Fighter (but a Fighter should be able to TWF, if not as well).My two cents.</blockquote>