Who do rangers get TWF? What makes them special for it?

[Numenorean]

I always thought this was a bad move when it came to light in 2e. It has stayed with us today, IMO because the game designers can think of nothing better instead, and "hey its worked since '89 so lets keep it". It makes the ranger a cookie-cutter class in some ways. What is so distinctive about the ranger that he or she would take to a two weapon fighting style?

I always liked the concept of the 1e ranger. The basic combat boon of the ranger class back then was a nasty damage bonus vs. typical monsters the ranger would encounter in the wild they patrolled (giants, ogres, trolls, ettins, goblins, orcs, gnolls, kobolds, hobgoblins, norkers, etc).

I like Drizzt. I do. The first three novels were classic IMO. However TSR should not have re-designed an entire class around him. I always wished that 3E had corrected the cookie-cutter image of the ranger. They sort of did in 3.5e but only made a dent IMO.

Any thoughts, ideas, etc. For example how could you re-insert the 1e ranger class concept in the 3e game?

 

[iwatt]

Any thoughts, ideas, etc. For example how could you re-insert the 1e ranger class concept in the 3e game?

More combat styles.

 

[Galethorn]

One obvious answer would be to create a lot of new/extra feat paths (a Power Attack=>Cleave=>Great Cleave one, a Dodge=>Mobility=>Spring Attack one, etc.) so that you could have archery rangers, two-hander rangers, TWF rangers, mobility rangers, etc.

Another would be to ditch the feat chains and somehow change Favored Enemy to encompass broader categories.

That's all I can think of right now.

 

[Henry]

The retroactive reasoning that has been applied to the choice before include:

--TWF Emulates the attack of a predator - two weapons, two claws
--Since a ranger already specializes in mobility, TWF is useful over sword and board, or two-handed weapons
--Aragorn, one of the most famous rangers, had one or two instances of TWF in the books

the first one may be the strongest explanation, though none are very strong.

However, given that you can in 3.5 choose bow-fighting over TWF as a style, it lends to more flexibility in the class.

The original 1E ranger was typified by four traits:

1. One more hit die than other classes at any given level
2. Tracking ability
3. Giant-class humanoid damage bonuses
4. Magic user and druid spells at high level.

All of these except for the first one are exemplified in the 3.5 ranger.

 

[TerraDave]

Tweaking the Ranger, will it never end? (probably not)

Its my understanding that that Drow was the reason they made the decision they did in 2nd edition.

In terms of changes? Replace the paths with bonus feats (can still be a little narower then the fighters and have an armor restriction) and have some kind of "hunter damage" sort of like the bonus damage from sneak attack that works with certain creatures.

I did something like that with this PRC, which is meant to be a little closer to the 1st ed Ranger (scroll down a little to see the extra damage rule)

 

[Psion]

I always thought this was a bad move when it came to light in 2e. It has stayed with us today, IMO because the game designers can think of nothing better instead, and "hey its worked since '89 so lets keep it".

Basically. More like "players have already been making their rangers this way, and will expect to see it again."

We have found the enemy, and we are they.

 

[Hjorimir]

For some reason I want to say that rangers started dual-wielding around the time Unearthed Arcana (AD&D, 1st-edition) hit. I was under the impression that the granted rangers this boon as a balance tool because fighters were getting specialization and double specialization and there was the new paladin-cavalier (not to mention the sickening barbarian class).

Anyway, my rangers are very different and fit a concept I'm happier with IMC.

 

[Psion]

Icidentally, if you want your rangers to have more options that just TWF or archery (or for that matter, and an alternative to spellcasting as an option), check out FFG's Wildscape, which provides a slew of combat styles (some of them not so combat), which get extended if you forego your spellcasting.

And it's on sale at the FFG website until the 1st, IIRC.

 

[diaglo]

one of the prereq for ranger was high dex. not the only one. but

and anyone could twf back in 1edADnD.

so many people thought of the idea of twf with the high dex ranger.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The retroactive reasoning that has been applied to the choice before include:

--TWF Emulates the attack of a predator - two weapons, two claws
--Since a ranger already specializes in mobility, TWF is useful over sword and board, or two-handed weapons
--Aragorn, one of the most famous rangers, had one or two instances of TWF in the books

I've never heard of any, apart from the second you mention.

Sneaking through the woods is hard. It's even harder to do it when you're carrying a sizeable wooden door with you. Accordingly, few sneak-through-the-woods-types carry shields.

So, given that they're going to be in combat, what, then, will they do with their other hand?

They could either carry a two-handed weapon, use their one-handed weapon in two hands, or carry two weapons. The rules don't apply any penalties to the first two choices, so nothing more need be done. However, the last choice has sizeable penalties to it. In order to encourage such behaviour, remove the penalties for the sneak-through-the-woods-types.