No, it's not just you.
Yeah.. Rangers having TWF is quite silly. They can benefit from it (Favored Enemy bonus multiplied by extra attacks), but it's just weird... not naturey at all.
As for Drizzt... I've read the Dark Elf Trilogy. I would attribute his TWF from Fighter levels (he got it during his warrior training while growing up, not from Mooshie the blind Ranger).
The reason the Ranger had to be given TWF was because in 2e you couldn't "get levels of X" as easily as you can in 3e, so they had to make the ranger have everything Drizzt would have, being the straight classed ranger that he had to be.
Humans could dual class, and no one had multiclass with ranger. There was only fighter/mage, thief/mage, fighter/thief, fighter/thief/mage, fighter/cleric (the non-human paladin), I *think* mage/cleric for some races, and for the gnomes: thief/cleric (hell yeah!).
.
So you can thank the "man" caving in to the cashable Drizzt fanboyism, and absurdly esoteric and restrictive AD&D multiclassing rules, for creating this particular sacred cow.
At least the 3.5 ranger fixed it a bit, giving you a choice between tw-weapon and archery. The 3.0 ranger had all this two-weapon stuff, but no archery support. At all.
Guys guys guys....Drizzt has nothing to do with the TWF of Rangers.
All the way back to 1st edition, when wearing Studded Leather or less, Rangers could TWF. Why did they? Because back then, They were the only class that could!
As for what the justification was for making it a class ability in the first place....I've no idea. It was years and years before Drizzt though.
I don't get it either. I petitioned for more fighting styles for the ranger, through the Alpha tests. When the Beta came out, somewhere, there was a post that said something to the effect of "We're not going to give them any more options at this time."
We've house ruled in any fighter feat you qualify for, in place of the archery/twf feats, and it's working out well so far.
Peace,
tfad
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Guys guys guys....Drizzt has nothing to do with the TWF of Rangers.
All the way back to 1st edition, when wearing Studded Leather or less, Rangers could TWF. Why did they? Because back then, They were the only class that could!
As for what the justification was for making it a class ability in the first place....I've no idea. It was years and years before Drizzt though.
I think you're confusing 1st and 2nd edition. 2nd edition rangers - post Drizzt, thought not by much - picked up TWF with no penalties in the lighter armors (see PH, 2nd edition, oage 28). Anyone could TWF in 1st edition (though only with a dagger or hand axe in the initial rules), warriors and rogues could in 2nd edition (with rangers being exempt from the penalties).
Near as I can tell, Drizzy came about in 1988, a year before the 2nd ed PH.
I've never understood why rangers have this option for 2-weapon fighting. What does that have to do with being a ranger? I can see archery, but wouldn't some extra skill with a spear or some kind of ambush attack be more "ranger-ish" than wielding two swords? Is this a 2e legacy thing? Why have it?
Ive often wondered this as well. Somewhere at sometime I read that elves called war as the "great hunt" so in my campaign fluff i simply say that the first effective warriors the elves had were their hunters. as the tactics and methods of warfare changed, the changes were incoperated into the ranger tradition, with an empire/kingdom primarily composed of forests their hunters also served as border sentries and passed those traditions to other lands. Perhaps Paizo will publish an official reason but for now just invent your own or see the message boards for alternate ranger combat builds.
Hmm.....I certainly could be mistaken Russ. Its been such a long time since I played 1st edition. Unfortunately, I no longer have my old 1st edition books with which to check.
What about Aragon the orginal Ranger he did TWF thats where i think it came from
What about Aragon the orginal Ranger he did TWF thats where i think it came from
Hmmm, I thought Aragorn only had a bow and a broken sword in the book. Hmmmm, I am getting old and don't remember. Heck, now I don't remember the bow (the movie put it in my head). I just remember him showing the broken sword to Frodo. What did he use to fight the Nazgul before he got his sword fixed?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
There were never any hard and fast rules for two-weapon fighting in first edition. Some came out in a Dragon magazine, I don't remember what issue, I don't personally have it.
Sure there were. DMG 1st edition, page 70. I used them all the time back in the day. Primary at -2, secondary at -4, reduce the penalties by 1 per point of Reaction/Attacking bonus (so no penalties at 19 Dex).
Sure there were. DMG 1st edition, page 70. I used them all the time back in the day. Primary at -2, secondary at -4, reduce the penalties by 1 per point of Reaction/Attacking bonus (so no penalties at 19 Dex).
Wait a minute. I thought 1st Edition just had the three original books; Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure and Underworld & Wilderness. I think the 4th book (Greyhawk) introduced the Ranger. I thought AD&D had the first PHB and DMG.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Wait a minute. I thought 1st Edition just had the three original books; Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure and Underworld & Wilderness. I think the 4th book (Greyhawk) introduced the Ranger. I thought AD&D had the first PHB and DMG.
1st ed and 2nd ed refer to AD&D, not original D&D. If you count OD&D as the first edition, 4th edition would actually be the 5th edition.
What about Aragon the orginal Ranger he did TWF thats where i think it came fromHmmm, I thought Aragorn only had a bow and a broken sword in the book. Hmmmm, I am getting old and don't remember. Heck, now I don't remember the bow (the movie put it in my head). I just remember him showing the broken sword to Frodo. What did he use to fight the Nazgul before he got his sword fixed?
A torch -- (light and flame) the whole purity cliche thing.
Beyond that the two weapon fighting thing is a hold over from advanced D&D. Just something that's always been there.
|
Wait a minute. I thought 1st Edition just had the three original books; Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure and Underworld & Wilderness. I think the 4th book (Greyhawk) introduced the Ranger. I thought AD&D had the first PHB and DMG.1st ed and 2nd ed refer to AD&D, not original D&D. If you count OD&D as the first edition, 4th edition would actually be the 5th edition.
Fantasy Rules appendix in Chainmail, OD&D, OD&D expansions (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldrich Wizardry - or "proto-AD&D"), AD&D, Moldvay Basic/Expert, Mentzer BECMI, AD&D 2nd edition, Rules Compendium (D&D), 3.0, 3.5, 4e.
So, depending on how you look at it, anywhere from eight to eleven and a half distinct takes on d&d in the chain, i guess :)
|
|
Honestly I think TWF for rangers fits rather well. And on TOP of that I'm actually going to explain my opinion, just cause I'm feeling froggy(its not long winded, don't worry).
I understand the bow as a ranged kinda perspective but to me the Two Weapon Fighting always had the possibility to remind one of an animal with talons or claws. A bear rises up and slashes out with its extended claws, trying to rip the skin from your bones with each powerful blow. Same can be said for the giant felines of the wilds, rushing their prey to cover the ground or pouncing from hidden brush to unleash the fury of the wild upon their victim.
To me, rangers work the same way in that regard. Their warriors no doubt, but they also come from the wilds. I see two weapon fighting as an extension of the wilds, covering the distance to its enemy and pulling forth their "claws" to land blow after blow upon them.
Fits the flavor if you ask me.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Fantasy Rules appendix in Chainmail, OD&D, OD&D expansions (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldrich Wizardry - or "proto-AD&D"), AD&D, Moldvay Basic/Expert, Mentzer BECMI, AD&D 2nd edition, Rules Compendium (D&D), 3.0, 3.5, 4e.
So, depending on how you look at it, anywhere from eight to eleven and a half distinct takes on d&d in the chain, i guess :)
Sure, but you tend to count editions in a line, not parallel branches. Chainmail ain't D&D, and basic etc. were parallel with AD&D. So if you count from the start, we're on the 5th full iteration, if you count from advanced (like WotC) we're on the 4th version of AD&D, and if you count from basic we're on the 7th full iteration (original, blue box/1st revision, magenta box/2nd revision, red box/3rd revision, black box/4th revision/cyclopedia, 3rd, 4th), as basic etc. merged back into AD&D with the advent of 3rd. There's also at least a trio of basic sets (I think there may now be a 4th that just came out) that have come out since 1999 that present simplified versions of the D&D rules, along with a European D&D board game.
As alluded to above, you forgot the most classic of the Basic D&D rules (the famous Holmes blue box set), and Cook did the original expert set rather than Moldvay.
There's also a good argument to be made that Unearthed Arcana and the Player's Option/DM's Option/High Level option books represented half-editions for 1st and 2nd edition respectively. Though neither saw good product support, quite distinct from 3.5E.
But it is late, and I ramble...and this is horribly off-topic at this point as far as rangers go.
As for Drizzt... I've read the Dark Elf Trilogy. I would attribute his TWF from Fighter levels (he got it during his warrior training while growing up, not from Mooshie the blind Ranger).
The reason the Ranger had to be given TWF was because in 2e you couldn't "get levels of X" as easily as you can in 3e, so they had to make the ranger have everything Drizzt would have, being the straight classed ranger that he had to be.
In 1st Ed AD&D, Unearthed Arcana provided rules for PC dark elves. One of the racial abilities of dark elf PCs was the ability to fight with two weapons without penalty (pg. 10). Drizzt was originally a 1st Ed dark elf ranger (The Crystal Shard was written before 2nd Ed was released). In 2nd Ed, dark elves could no longer TWF without penalty, but rangers could. 3e made TWF a feat and gave it (and Ambidexterity) to rangers for free. 3.5 consolidated Ambidexterity and TWF and rolled it into the Combat Style ability as one of two options.
|
|
well, I know this will popup soon or later, this hapend before on the forum of you know "mages of the isle", that figthing style is really a controversy, but hey just enjoyed, so it wass used in the real worl by some of the native-americans, of course with weapons more adapted to the enviromen, daggers & handaxes, do some research on the webs or you people in the U.S, you have reservations go there and learn about it, it wass a quick and deaddly guerrilla metod, when the tribes figth each other.
and please let it die(I'm also agree with more styles,speciale spear one<wich to function properly is better with twf> but LEAVE THE TWO WEAPON FIGTHING ALONE!!)jajajajaja
so it wass used in the real worl by some of the native-americans, of course with weapons more adapted to the enviromen, daggers & handaxes, do some research on the webs or you people in the U.S, you have reservations go there and learn about it, it wass a quick and deaddly guerrilla metod, when the tribes figth each other.
Yes; in the American Colonial Period, fighting with knife and tomahawk (aka dagger and hand axe) was referred to by the settlers as "Indian Style." Michael Mann's take on Last of the Mohicans has some great visuals. The style was quite prevalent in people who skirmished and fought along the frontier (i.e., rangers).
|
In 1st Ed AD&D, Unearthed Arcana provided rules for PC dark elves. One of the racial abilities of dark elf PCs was the ability to fight with two weapons without penalty (pg. 10). Drizzt was originally a 1st Ed dark elf ranger (The Crystal Shard was written before 2nd Ed was released). In 2nd Ed, dark elves could no longer TWF without penalty, but rangers could. 3e made TWF a feat and gave it (and Ambidexterity) to rangers for free. 3.5 consolidated Ambidexterity and TWF and rolled it into the Combat Style ability as one of two options.As for Drizzt... I've read the Dark Elf Trilogy. I would attribute his TWF from Fighter levels (he got it during his warrior training while growing up, not from Mooshie the blind Ranger).
The reason the Ranger had to be given TWF was because in 2e you couldn't "get levels of X" as easily as you can in 3e, so they had to make the ranger have everything Drizzt would have, being the straight classed ranger that he had to be.
I thought that D'rizzt was a fantasy creation of R.A.Salvatore and he openly admitted that he has never tried nor wanted to stat out drizzt because he doesn't want the character in the books to be limited by the rules of the game. So drizzt can at any time have powers that aren't covered by the class at all, and it's up to the people at WotC to make up the rules in the aftermath?
What about Aragon the orginal Ranger he did TWF thats where i think it came fromHmmm, I thought Aragorn only had a bow and a broken sword in the book. Hmmmm, I am getting old and don't remember. Heck, now I don't remember the bow (the movie put it in my head). I just remember him showing the broken sword to Frodo. What did he use to fight the Nazgul before he got his sword fixed?
Aragorn isn't carrying the broken shards of Narsil with him, it stays nice and warm in Rivendell. With the exception of Legolas, none of the members of the fellowship are carrying a bow. Only Gimli (and frodo) is wearing armor, and only Boromir is carrying a shield.
Aragorn carries Anduril (reforged Narsil) from Rivendell onward, that is the only (martial) weapon he carries.
So as far a Aragorm being the archetypical ranger, neither archery nor TWF fit the character... He does wear a shield and armor in Helm'd Deep however...
'findel
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Aragorn isn't carrying the broken shards of Narsil with him, it stays nice and warm in Rivendell. With the exception of Legolas, none of the members of the fellowship are carrying a bow. Only Gimli (and frodo) is wearing armor, and only Boromir is carrying a shield.Aragorn carries Anduril (reforged Narsil) from Rivendell onward, that is the only (martial) weapon he carries.
So as far a Aragorm being the archetypical ranger, neither archery nor TWF fit the character... He does wear a shield and armor in Helm'd Deep however...
Movie vs. book. In the book, Aragorn was carrying the shards. In all likelyhood he carried a bow in the books, it was just never called out.
Movie vs. book. In the book, Aragorn was carrying the shards. In all likelyhood he carried a bow in the books, it was just never called out.
mmhh, I'd have to double check that... I don't care much for the movie(s) personally. I only know the story from the books...
But my point was, nothing in the literature portrays Aragorn as a an archer (although no doubt he can loose an arrow decently) nor is he described fighting with two weapons (and yet again we can assume that he can). These fundamental traits of the (D&D) ranger have to come from another source than LotR.
'findel
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
mmhh, I'd have to double check that... I don't care much for the movie(s) personally. I only know the story from the books...
But my point was, nothing in the literature portrays Aragorn as a an archer (although no doubt he can loose an arrow decently) nor is he described fighting with two weapons (and yet again we can assume that he can). These fundamental traits of the (D&D) ranger have to come from another source than LotR.
'findel
Reference - page 214 on my edition. "He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt." This is the first meeting with Strider in Bree, well before the council. Narsil was in Imaldris until Aragorn II came of age, however.
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, two-weaponing fighting was not an "original trait" of the D&D ranger, so it was never in danger of being a Tolkein-ism (and fighting with two torches is a far cry from TWF, I think most of us agree). The skill with a bow follows for a wilderness-oriented character, that's almost without need of a source.
Reference - page 214 on my edition. "He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt."
Yes, of course... I stand corrected. Chapeau!
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, two-weaponing fighting was not an "original trait" of the D&D ranger, so it was never in danger of being a Tolkein-ism (and fighting with two torches is a far cry from TWF, I think most of us agree). The skill with a bow follows for a wilderness-oriented character, that's almost without need of a source.
I wasn't arguing that. 'Just wondering where and why it first appeared as a ranger trait. I personally like both options and find them fitting for what became to be the D&D ranger stereotype. I don't mind the shift from the Aragorn archetype to the 3.5 (and Pathfinder) ranger anymore, but I have to say the loss of strong archetypes is one of the factors that made me reclusive to switch from 2ed AD&D to 3.5 in the beginning (I converted after the 3.0 to 3.5 update).
'findel
I just read the Combat Style Feat for the ranger, and the two-weapon option says nothing about the two weapons having to be swords. I could easily see a ranger using two swords, but I could also see him using a sword and a dagger, two handaxes, two throwing axes, a sword and a throwing axe--there are several combinations available.
Still, I can see the point being made. While it does add a bit of flavor to the ranger mix, it would make a little more sense to give the ranger something with a more "nature" edge to it.
Personally, my ranger usually relies on his longsword. He does have a +1 adamantine bastard sword for when a non-magical sword isn't enough. He also has a regular dagger as a backup weapon and a silvered dagger for those pesky lycanthropes.
|
Wait a minute. I thought 1st Edition just had the three original books; Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure and Underworld & Wilderness. I think the 4th book (Greyhawk) introduced the Ranger. I thought AD&D had the first PHB and DMG.1st ed and 2nd ed refer to AD&D, not original D&D. If you count OD&D as the first edition, 4th edition would actually be the 5th edition.
actually 4e, is more of a hydrid between OD&D and 3e...so it's it's own monster...
|
|
I spent an hour composing a post, periodically previewing to see it, and this site still kicked me out and I lost all my work! This why at times the Internet makes me feel like it's all a waste of time. Back to topic...
So to simplify what I wanted to post:
Beasts typically do claw/claw. Rangers often fight beasts more than Fighters, Paladins, and other warriors do. Ranger TWF style is a conceptual counter to the beasts they fight. TWF vs claw/claw. It fits nicely that way - and we can neatly avoid the concerns about the history of D&D class designs!
I interpret that classes are supposed to be experts at doing things in non-adventuring careers, and are designed to reflect that non-adventuring expertise. A ranger is a hunter before being an adventurer... A fighter is a soldier before being an adventurer... A paladin is a holy warrior before being an adventurer. Etc. It is not the class that makes them adventurers, but the fact they are PCs who want to adventure and prepare themselves to go down that road.
TWF represents part of the ranger's expert role and typical activities (beast/monster hunting) before he considers a life of adventure. I offer all the above as one way to look at it.
YMMV of course :-)
Btw: a house rule I've explored added a third fighting style for rangers: Mounted Combat - for rangers native to the plains and steppe...
In 1st Ed AD&D, Unearthed Arcana provided rules for PC dark elves. One of the racial abilities of dark elf PCs was the ability to fight with two weapons without penalty (pg. 10). Drizzt was originally a 1st Ed dark elf ranger (The Crystal Shard was written before 2nd Ed was released). In 2nd Ed, dark elves could no longer TWF without penalty, but rangers could. 3e made TWF a feat and gave it (and Ambidexterity) to rangers for free. 3.5 consolidated Ambidexterity and TWF and rolled it into the Combat Style ability as one of two options.I thought that D'rizzt was a fantasy creation of R.A.Salvatore and he openly admitted that he has never tried nor wanted to stat out drizzt because he doesn't want the character in the books to be limited by the rules of the game. So drizzt can at any time have powers that aren't covered by the class at all, and it's up to the people at WotC to make up the rules in the aftermath?
Yes, but he was a creation specifically based on the game. There's a large difference between statting out a literary character and using the basic game mechanics of a race/class to inspire a literary character. R. A. Salvatore, when first selling the idea of The Crystal Shard to TSR, had Wulfgar as the main protagonist with Drizzt as his sidekick to make it stand out from the standard "barbarian" novel; Bruenor and Drizzt obviously became more important when the book was actually written, although Regis would still probably qualify as a sidekick. In any case, Drizzt ends up looking more like a ranger/thief if you try to base a character on his actions in that book.
Btw: a house rule I've explored added a third fighting style for rangers: Mounted Combat - for rangers native to the plains and steppe...
This is an option that I've considered, as well. IMO, it fits in with the ranger better than two-weapon fighting, both conceptually (cavalry scout/outrider) and mechanically (animal companion as mount). Mounted Combat, Ride By Attack, and Spirited Charge work pretty well as the granted feats.
I've got a lot of alternative ranger fighting styles as well for my homebrew, mounted combat chief among them, but also tricks with the animal companion as well.
I've never understood why rangers have this option for 2-weapon fighting. What does that have to do with being a ranger? I can see archery, but wouldn't some extra skill with a spear or some kind of ambush attack be more "ranger-ish" than wielding two swords? Is this a 2e legacy thing? Why have it?
Because it has good sinergy with favored enemy. Isn't that obvious?
|
Guys guys guys....Drizzt has nothing to do with the TWF of Rangers.
All the way back to 1st edition, when wearing Studded Leather or less, Rangers could TWF. Why did they? Because back then, They were the only class that could!
As for what the justification was for making it a class ability in the first place....I've no idea. It was years and years before Drizzt though.
I believe the initial 'feel' of the TWF Ranger back in 1st edition came from the image of Aragorn swinging his sword with one hand and a torch with the other, on Weathertop. I'm pretty sure I even read that somewhere, perhaps from Gygax himself...
Beasts typically do claw/claw. Rangers often fight beasts more than Fighters, Paladins, and other warriors do. Ranger TWF style is a conceptual counter to the beasts they fight. TWF vs claw/claw. It fits nicely that way - and we can neatly avoid the concerns about the history of D&D class designs!
I'll accept that. Native Americans fighting with two light weapons (offhand axe, etc) is another reinforcement of the idea.
My sentiments towards twohanded styles people are coming up with grated on my nerves as I pictured the Ranger using a greatsword for some reason.
But if you take these combat styles and put them in context with more appropriate weapons, it makes sense:
TWF: Daggers/Shortswords, handaxes/throwing axes. Kukri to emulate "claws".
Twohanded: Spear (hunter). Greataxe (lumberjack).
I can see where people are coming from in this sense.
|
|
Drizzt is indeed a 1e product. People scoff at him and Wulfgar defeating a white dragon... people forget white dragons were mid level encounters in 1e. I never associated 2 weapon fighting with Drizzt, but I did associate the continuation of 2 weapon fighting BECAUSE OF Drizzt.
Look at how he was built in 3e, he wasn't stat'd properly if you go by his novel progression, Fighter > Barbarian > Ranger > Fighter. To argue Drizzt has more then 4 levels of Ranger is ridiculous.. he isn't a spellcaster and doesn't have a NATURAL animal companion. If anything, he probably has more levels of Barbarian then Ranger.
4e doesn't really help any of this, taking out multiclassing and furthering rangers as 2 weapon fighters. The only GOOD thing out of it all is that 4e NPCs don't use PC classes anymore, so Drizzt doesn't have to conform with PC classes anymore.
One thing that has been overlooked is that Rangers are the least likely of the fighter types to have a shield.
Without a shield, why not carry an extra weapon? :D
That is the decision I made when my archer-focused 1e ranger fought in melee. I kitted him up with a long sword and short sword. It seemed the natural thing to do... but it did flow from the decision to be an archer and not carry around a shield.
Before 2e, I don't believe I ever encountered a ranger PC that wasn't focused on archery. It seemed the most natural direction to go, being out in the wilds and all.
One thing that has been overlooked is that Rangers are the least likely of the fighter types to have a shield.
Without a shield, why not carry an extra weapon? :D
That is the decision I made when my archer-focused 1e ranger fought in melee. I kitted him up with a long sword and short sword. It seemed the natural thing to do... but it did flow from the decision to be an archer and not carry around a shield.
Before 2e, I don't believe I ever encountered a ranger PC that wasn't focused on archery. It seemed the most natural direction to go, being out in the wilds and all.
1st Ed AD&D Unearthed Arcana also restricted the ranger's first four weapon choices (pg. 22): bow or light crossbow (required at 1st level), dagger or knife, spear or axe, and any sword. I was always partial to longbow, dagger, hand/throwing axe, and bastard sword to have a good mix of utility and damage options. A spiked buckler was always a possibility for a crossbow ranger, also.
Drizzt.
the one and only reason
so it wass used in the real worl by some of the native-americans, of course with weapons more adapted to the enviromen, daggers & handaxes, do some research on the webs or you people in the U.S, you have reservations go there and learn about it, it wass a quick and deaddly guerrilla metod, when the tribes figth each other.Yes; in the American Colonial Period, fighting with knife and tomahawk (aka dagger and hand axe) was referred to by the settlers as "Indian Style." Michael Mann's take on Last of the Mohicans has some great visuals. The style was quite prevalent in people who skirmished and fought along the frontier (i.e., rangers).
that sword the old guy used was interestign as well