D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[Whiteagle]

Because I don't want to dual-wield as a melee-fighting ranger. And I'm still waiting for a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

So you want to wield an awkward, impractically-sized weapon for the class that is ALL ABOUT practicality?

Because that's all I'm hearing, "Wah wah wah, I can't fight with a Great Sword even though I want to be a RANGER that fights like a Fighter or a Paladin!"

Are you mad that during this playtest WoTC has pigeonholed the Wizard into being a Enchanter, Illusionist, or Evoker?

Key word there would be playtest.

If you are mad about the Ranger than why not the Wizard or hell the Paladin gets ONE option we should really be mad about that...

Your argument isn't that the options mechanically suck or thematically suck. Your argument and complaint is that the Ranger has two options and that during this playtest WoTC hasn't given the ranger more options. Your complaint about this playtest ranger is the same complaint I heard about when 4e first came out "omg I don't have a bazillion options even if those options make no sense!". (Seriously a great sword ranger? What the hell?)

Indeed, as I said before Spears would be a great idea for a "Huntsman Path" and there's nothing saying that they're ONLY going to have these two Paths, but speciazation is kind of the point of having Classes in the FIRST PLACE!

So, a single pair of weapons. That's it. Out of ALL the weapons, only a single specific pair.

I can see this line of argument going nowhere.

Well yes, like I said they are practical and versatile tools in addition to weapons!
Plus they are presumably small enough to be easily stored considering they can be used as throwing weapons.

Like to see you do that with a Long Sword...