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

[Wild Gazebo]

Hmm...after skimming over the 3.5 ranger section I see your points. Sorry, I just remembered the charisma modifiers (thast don't exist anymore) coupled with the bonuses to attack and damage...its hard to draw other conclusions from that. But, yes. I think I will remind or suggest to my players that a ranger species enemy could very well be a result of a fighting style or experience. Thanks.

 

[Numenorean]

Hmm...after skimming over the 3.5 ranger section I see your points. Sorry, I just remembered the charisma modifiers (thast don't exist anymore) coupled with the bonuses to attack and damage...its hard to draw other conclusions from that. But, yes. I think I will remind or suggest to my players that a ranger species enemy could very well be a result of a fighting style or experience. Thanks.

Thats how we do it. Mostly its considered to come from experience and skill in dealing with the type of creature.

 

[orsal]

LOL because Orcs are LE and that NG ranger generally doesn't care for evil creatures whose pursuits include evil activity.

OK... but what if the ranger's favoured enemy is humans? Or elementals, which are often neutral? Or dragons, which will include the good and evil dragons alike? The mechanics are the same.

Sure maybe every once in a while you come across a non-evil orc, but thats very rare in the standard campaign. Hence, that ranger doesn't like orcs, and his reasons are well founded.

And it's OK to have a ranger (or a character of any other class) who is prejudiced against orcs, but that isn't the way the favoured enemy has to be.

It cracks me up with some of the moral relativism-shady grey stuff I see on here time to time on topics like this.

I fail to see any sort of moral relativism in my post.

 

[Bront]

Remember, the ranger gets combat style feats even when he doesn't have the reqs for them. So a style like Combat Expertise -> Mobility (or spring attack) -> Whirlwind is actualy reasonable if you're willing to allow alternate feat styles.

Personaly, I like the 3.5 ranger, and think that with the archery path and skill points, it's finaly close to a good outdoorsman warrior class. The TWF doesn't bother me much, though it doesn't realy need to be there, it gives the class an option.

 

[Numenorean]

OK... but what if the ranger's favoured enemy is humans? Or elementals, which are often neutral? Or dragons, which will include the good and evil dragons alike? The mechanics are the same.

Take my own ranger character for example. One of his favored enemies are humans, namely evil humans. My character has had a lot of experience tracking down and battling evil humans such as bandits, brigands, assassins, cult of the dragon members, zhentarim men-at-arms, etc. That being said my character does not run around hating on all humans, after all he is a human! But what it represents is his experiences and skills, and his biases too. (To avoid being a munchkin I actually told the DM my favored enemy was evil humans, such as the ones listed above that I've had experience fighting over the years)

A better example is giants. Another favored enemy of my character. Now I know from my adventures and travels that most giants, the more common ones are evil- hill, frost, fire, formorian, ettins, some clouds, etc. I don't particulary like Giants. However I've also worked with a goodly cloud giant in the past so I know not ALL giants are evil, but most are. I don't care for evil ones, however the goodly ones I am willing to befriend and work with. My character acknowledges that fact.

And it's OK to have a ranger (or a character of any other class) who is prejudiced against orcs, but that isn't the way the favoured enemy has to be.

Oh I agree. However some instances fall right in to it. Such as orcs.

I fail to see any sort of moral relativism in my post.

Well then call it niavete. For example orcs, most if not nearly all orcs are evil. No ranger in their right mind would around giving each orc "the benefit of the doubt" so he doesn't appear to be prejudiced. My character has orcs as a favored enemy (+2). I will quote his background on this: " xxxxx despises orcs. He will kill them on sight unless there is a compelling reason not to do so".

 

[Slife]

If by "one or two" you mean "zero" you would be right.

The most likely explanations boils down to Drizz'zt, whose showed up in novel form a little less than a year before 2e was published.

Didn't he use both a torch and sword simultaneously as weapons on weathertop?

 

[Storm Raven]

Didn't he use both a torch and sword simultaneously as weapons on weathertop?

Not in the books, and the books were specified. In the books, on Weathertop, Aragorn still carried the pieces of the broken sword, and no other weapon. He picked up brands from the fire, but the description of what took place on Weathertop can't by any stretch of the imagination be called "fighting", since he couldn't really even see the Ringwraiths.

 

[orsal]

Take my own ranger character for example. One of his favored enemies are humans, namely evil humans.

If your favoured enemy is humans, you get the favoured enemy bonus against all humans. (Assuming your DM hasn't house-ruled otherwise). It doesn't mean you need to be automatically predisposed to attack humans -- that's the point I'm making.

But what it represents is his experiences and skills, and his biases too.

I'd say it represents his experiences and skills, period. He might also have biases -- but so might any other character without a favoured enemy bonus. There is obviously some interplay if he has a particular motivation to fight a certain group as well as being good at that, but I don't see the motivation to fight as being inherently connected to the favoured enemy bonus.

Also, if your character, of whatever class, is more motivated by bias than most people in the campaign setting, I'd say it shouldn't be a high-WIS character.

Oh I agree. However some instances fall right in to it. Such as orcs.

I wouldn't say that just because the favoured enemy is orcs, the ranger has to be automatically disposed to attack them. There'd be nothing wrong with playing him that way if it weren't such a cliched thing to do.

Well then call it niavete. For example orcs, most if not nearly all orcs are evil. No ranger in their right mind would around giving each orc "the benefit of the doubt" so he doesn't appear to be prejudiced.

Replace "ranger" with any other character class, and the inference remains just as valid. It therefore has nothing to do with the favoured enemy bonus.

 

[Privateer]

A few have said that the two weapon fighting chain represents a quicker, more mobile style, but I don't see that by the rules as written. Although it's true that TWFers get another attack per round, they cannot afford to be mobile with it. They only get the full benefit during full attack actions, and can't use both weapons with the quintessential mobile assault -- the Spring Attack.

Funny enough, but a two handed weapon works fine in both these circumstances. Full normal attack damage, and possible to use in a Spring Attack. Barring rule zero-ing, they work just fine in the woods, too.

And I find it amusing that Animal is such a logical Favored Enemy to take, but only NPCs in pubished modules ever seem to have it.

 

[Numenorean]

Didn't he use both a torch and sword simultaneously as weapons on weathertop?

First off.


Book version (Tolkien) > film version (P. Jackson)


If you ask me what Strider used on Weathertop I'm going to quote the book Fellowship Of The Ring. Let me break out my nice red-leather bound version

page 208.

"Even as he swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand ... "

There ya go.

As far as I remember, that was the only moment that Aragorn fought TWF. Against the worgs he fought with his longsword, in Moria with his longsword, he fought sword and shield at Helm's Deep, and I would assume sword and shield at the Pellenor. I forgot if it mentions anything at the Battle of the Morannon?