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

[Henry]

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.

Actually the history of Two-weaponed rangers I firmly believe comes in with Drizzt Do'Urden. But not for the reason people think. Dark Elves received Ambidexterity with weapons as a racial ability in Unearthed Arcana, AND ranger was one of the classes they qualified for. I know one player who in 1987-1988 fielded a Dual-longsword wielding female dark elf Cleric/Ranger before either of us had ever heard of Drizzt the ranger.

Drizzt arrives on the scene, he becomes popular and the ability moves from being a dark elf ability to being a ranger's ability. A tradition is born.

 

[TerraDave]

Actually the history of Two-weaponed rangers I firmly believe comes in with Drizzt Do'Urden. But not for the reason people think. Dark Elves received Ambidexterity with weapons as a racial ability in Unearthed Arcana, AND ranger was one of the classes they qualified for. I know one player who in 1987-1988 fielded a Dual-longsword wielding female dark elf Cleric/Ranger before either of us had ever heard of Drizzt the ranger.

Drizzt arrives on the scene, he becomes popular and the ability moves from being a dark elf ability to being a ranger's ability. A tradition is born.

Yes, I think it was Monte Cook who confirmed this--the Drizzt part--in an interview (it was one of them insiders). Drizzt was spawned by UA...makes perfect sense in its way.

 

[diaglo]

Actually the history of Two-weaponed rangers I firmly believe comes in with Drizzt Do'Urden. But not for the reason people think. Dark Elves received Ambidexterity with weapons as a racial ability in Unearthed Arcana, AND ranger was one of the classes they qualified for. I know one player who in 1987-1988 fielded a Dual-longsword wielding female dark elf Cleric/Ranger before either of us had ever heard of Drizzt the ranger.

Drizzt arrives on the scene, he becomes popular and the ability moves from being a dark elf ability to being a ranger's ability. A tradition is born.

the dual weapon ranger could go back to The Strategic Review.... but i never actually saw one.

i did see shield bashing and sword wielding fighting men.

 

[Thanee]

Hey, 3.5 at least *somewhat* removed the TWF for the ranger by offering an alternative route.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Staffan]

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.

One thing to remember when making up new fighting styles for the ranger is that the existing ones have feats that are appropriately prerequisited for the levels where you gain them, as well as having significant non-level prereqs. Improved TWF require BAB +6 and Dex 17, as does Multishot IIRC. Looking at the Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave chain, for example, they all have a prereq of Str 13, and only Great Cleave has a BAB prereq (of a mere +4). Getting Great Cleave at level 11 isn't all that impressive, really. The same goes for the suggested mobility chain, and especially for the otherwise obvious mounted chain (mounted combat/ride-by attack/spirited charge - all available to a human fighter at level 1).

 

[radferth]

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.

Rangers are very easy to modify. Their fighting styles are all based on granting feats (with additional light armor restrictions on those feats). Just get your DM to approve an appropriate list of feats for a perspective fighting style, and you have your own ranger. I guess you could even go for a list of ranger bonus feats that you could pick from, rather than having a fighting style, but that would be more of a before-hand DM's project.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

We never used the 1e TWF rules, because hey, the off-hand was what shields were for!

But the waters were further muddied with 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook, which allowed anyone to wield two weapons by spending a weapon proficiency.

I really cannot stand the 3e Ranger. C&C's version has to be my favorite current interpretation, along with the ranger-like class from the Midnight setting.

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.

 

[Quasqueton]

How about just not using two weapons? I've seen wizards and sorcerers who didn't take a familiar. I've seen fighters who didn't wear heavy armor. I've seen rogues who didn't take the pick pockets skill.

Nothing in the rules say you *have* to follow the stereotypical ranger fighting style. And you shouldn't have to ask for replacement bonuses/features if you don't want the book-style ranger.

Quasqueton

 

[francisca]

We never used the 1e TWF rules, because hey, the off-hand was what shields were for!

My 1e DM flat out forbids TWF in our game. :\ I needed a new schtick anyway.

I however, allow it in the 1e game I run. The only guy using it is a halfling thief/fighter (16 STR 18 DEX) with a short sword and a dagger, both +1. Now that he has some magical protection, he's a little wrecking machine.

 

[francisca]

How about just not using two weapons? I've seen wizards and sorcerers who didn't take a familiar. I've seen fighters who didn't wear heavy armor. I've seen rogues who didn't take the pick pockets skill.

Nothing in the rules say you *have* to follow the stereotypical ranger fighting style. And you shouldn't have to ask for replacement bonuses/features if you don't want the book-style ranger.

Quasqueton

What he said. You don't *have* to min/max out the whazoo.