PDA

View Full Version : How is ranger 2 weapon fighting thematically justified?


SonOfKronos
2011-10-13, 02:19 PM
I can't get over this, and I have never played a ranger with the two-weapon fighting combat focus as a result.

Archery combat style: they're like hunters, of course they'll be proficient with a bow!

Two-weapon-fighting style: they're just badass?

The problem is I cannot imagine a survivalist tracker type of person to have any reason to dual-wield. Can anyone help me justify this?
Flickerdart
2011-10-13, 02:21 PM
Aragorn...
Zaq
2011-10-13, 02:21 PM
Nope. The Ranger has always baffled me thematically as well. I understand "hunter-y nature-y fellow," and I understand wanting to keep that archetype in a less magical form than that of the Druid, but to me, the Ranger has never made sense as a way to actually fulfill that archetype. (The Scout is what the Ranger should have been in the first place, if you ask me.)
Fax Celestis
2011-10-13, 02:22 PM
Aragorn...

Yup. D&D has a lot of Tolkien baggage.
gkathellar
2011-10-13, 02:27 PM
Because 1E drow got ambidexterity, and Drizzt was really popular before everyone hated him, so when 2E drow lost ambidexterity rangers got it instead, so in 3E when anyone could get ambidexterity rangers got it for free.


Aragorn didn't dual wield.

Fixed that for you.
Krazzman
2011-10-13, 02:34 PM
Oh there are a few more:

Archery: Jeah Hunter.
2-Weapon: For the Gladiatory fighter type 1?
Swift Hitter: Aragorn. BFW + Bow = Awesome!
Two-Handed: BFW for those things that can't be stabbed to death.
Natural Attacks: For the more druidic Ranger. That wants to punch his enemy with his claws.
Sword and Board: For the Gladiatory fighter type 2?

The problem you got is more the thing that you see the ranger as hunter. Not as any other thing.

Hope this helps you.
Flickerdart
2011-10-13, 02:34 PM
Because 1E drow got ambidexterity, and Drizzt was really popular before everyone hated him, so when 2E drow lost ambidexterity rangers got it instead, so in 3E when anyone could get ambidexterity rangers got it for free.



Fixed that for you.
He didn't? I could have sworn he had a dagger or something to go with his big sword.
Diefje
2011-10-13, 02:38 PM
They use their tools of the trade. The larger mainhand weapon is the machete to cut through the jungle, his brute force tool. the smaller offhand is the hunting knife, his precision tool. Also, large twohanded weapons are heavy and more unwieldy in a wilderness setting (as in dense forest). Finally, animals get up close and personal when they fight, a small weapon is much easier to use when a panther is trying to eat your face.

Yes, they're all a bit "cliche". The D&D ranger goes to many more different place, can fight with many more different weapons, fights very different creatures (that keep their 5 ft distance)... But thematically, it makes a lot of sense to me. Of course the bow makes even more sense.
Bloodgruve
2011-10-13, 02:45 PM
As stated before, Drizzt... At least that would be my guess.

IIRC he dual wields scimitars.
Morty
2011-10-13, 02:47 PM
He didn't? I could have sworn he had a dagger or something to go with his big sword.

Not really, no.
So really, Drizzt is the only reason as far as I know as well. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. Plus it's frustratingly constraining.
zimmerwald1915
2011-10-13, 02:47 PM
He didn't? I could have sworn he had a dagger or something to go with his big sword.
Nope. The only time Aragorn dual-weilded anything was on the bank of the Bruinen. He dual-wielded torches with which to drive Nazgul stragglers into the floodwaters. Most of the time he two-handed.
Flickerdart
2011-10-13, 02:55 PM
Torches are pretty iconic in D&D as well. Another shameless Tolkien ripoff!
gkathellar
2011-10-13, 03:00 PM
He didn't? I could have sworn he had a dagger or something to go with his big sword.

He didn't. Legolas had two knives, but I think him using both at once was a movie-exclusive.

Drizzt and stupid 1E drow ambidexterity are literally the only reason that rangers dual-wield. It is the single most annoying legacy feature ever passed down.
Duncan_Ruadrik
2011-10-13, 03:31 PM
He didn't. Legolas had two knives, but I think him using both at once was a movie-exclusive.

Drizzt and stupid 1E drow ambidexterity are literally the only reason that rangers dual-wield. It is the single most annoying legacy feature ever passed down.

Legolas had a single white knife in the books, and couldn't have dual wielded anything as a result.

and yes, Drizzt caused rangers to get shoe-horned into the worst fighting style in 3.x

This is half the reason I dislike Drizzt so much.
Daftendirekt
2011-10-13, 04:34 PM
Can't deny, a scruffy dude wielding two swords IS pretty badass.
Haldir
2011-10-13, 04:47 PM
There are a great number of ranger combat style variants to be found in many different places. Twohanders, archery, dual wielding, unarmed/grapple, etc. None more justifiable than another, merely a representation of ranger combat specialization.
Safety Sword
2011-10-13, 04:55 PM
All that time standing around in forests... yep, another set of tracks. :smallsigh:

Plenty of time to practice.

Practice fighting with bears who have bear friends and summon bears. To make that practice bearable you have to multi-stab I guess :smallbiggrin:
Ravens_cry
2011-10-13, 05:07 PM
They should have given the bonus feat line to rogues, they are extremely thematic for two weapon fighting and actually do good at it, despite the lower BAB.
Safety Sword
2011-10-13, 05:24 PM
They should have given the bonus feat line to rogues, they are extremely thematic for two weapon fighting and actually do good at it, despite the lower BAB.

Such a simple idea to give rogues a combat style type package. Even the archery feats would suit the rogue too.

Sometimes the simple ideas are the good ones :smallwink: