PDA

View Full Version : Rangers Dual Wielding



Lvl45DM!
2009-11-20, 01:11 AM
Why? what on earth prompted that rule that allowed rangers to dual wield? Is it cos of Drizzt Do'Urden? Because by 1st E rules drow dual wielded instaed of wielding sword and bow better and Drizzt often states its cos of his drow upbringing, as well as the three or so rangers in Sojourn that dont dual wield. So yeah im lost as to why the coastal wizards added this rule in

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-20, 01:12 AM
Lord of the Rings, Drizz't... the list goes on.

tyckspoon
2009-11-20, 01:13 AM
Because at some point Gygax decided Rangers should dual-wield. And so they did.

jmbrown
2009-11-20, 01:15 AM
The tradition started in AD&D. Rangers are lightly armored skirmishers. To make up for their lack of AC, they let them have a larger damage output.

Grynning
2009-11-20, 01:26 AM
@ the OP: Kinda a few years late to be complaining about this, isn't it? I mean, do you think rangers should not dual-wield for some reason? And it's not like they have to, pretty much every iteration of the ranger has also had a bow based fighting style, and the ability to use pretty much any other weapon if they chose.

On older editions, just pondering:
I don't remember much about 1st ed, except that there were dual-wielding Thieves. Can't recall if it did anything mechanically. In 2nd ed. I'm pretty sure that rangers were the only ones who got anything out of dual-wielding. Any old-schoolers want to help fill us in on the history of the Florentine style in D&D?

Thurbane
2009-11-20, 01:31 AM
Just for the record, dual-wielding did exist before Drizzt. A lot of swashbuckling movies have heroes with a sword in one hand and main-gauche in the other.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001089.jpg

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-20, 02:13 AM
At thurbane: Yes but they werent rangers they trained seperately
Grynning: New to the game, sorry cant retroactively complain can i? And no i dont see a reason why they shouldnt, just wondering why they get the option for free in 3.5 and get it auto in 2E
In 1E and 2E anyone could dual wield at a penalty to hit, but the penalty got less the higher your dex. So you could have a dual knife wielding mage dual mace wielding cleric dual scimitar druid dual lute wielding bard... quad natural weapons wielding monk :smalltongue: etc. Everyone got the same penalty in 1E and everyone but rangers got it in 2E, even theives.
@jimbrown: rangers have the ability to wear any armour in 1E and 2E. See aragorn wearing plate in LOTR3, and have limited stealth abilities. Besides lower AC would be better helped by boosting their archery (which they did later but just not sure why dual wielding came first?:smallconfused:)
Tycksponn: you do not help :smalltongue:
Pharaohs Fist: Aragorn dual wielding in one scene in the books, and two scenes in the movies. Drizzt as i already explained was a drow and thus had the two weapon thing already. Any others you know of that might explain this precedent?

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 02:36 AM
I blame Tolkien and his LotR books.

1ed, I believe, rangers had duel wield and 2D8 HD for 1st level. Just because Aragorn being so BA in the books.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-11-20, 02:45 AM
I blame Tolkien and his LotR books.

1ed, I believe, rangers had duel wield and 2D8 HD for 1st level. Just because Aragorn being so BA in the books.

1e ranger got heavy armor, 2d8 hd at level 1, large weapon selection, druid spells AND mage spells. Crazy I know, but its true.

Nobody got a class-based dual wielding thing in 1e, but anybody could dual wield. You took a penalty on attack rolls (I think it was -4 main hand, -6 off hand). Once your dex was high enough, the penalties started going down, to the point where, if memory serves, an 18 dex character could dual wield with a -0/-1 penalty, if not a -0/-0 penalty.

I found the most effective fighting style with a 1e ranger was either sword and shield or longbow. You got a +1/level to hit and damage against "giant type" opponents, which were basically any of the monstrous humanoids you were likely to face -- orcs, ogres, giants, etc. Since the bow gave you two attacks per round, shooting twice at a favored enemy could really bring the pain.

Set
2009-11-20, 02:59 AM
I blame Tolkien and his LotR books.

Considering that the only 'ranger' in those books, Aragorn, fought *once* with a sword in one hand and a torch in the other, at Weathertop (in what, granted, was a very visually striking scene), and for the rest of the books fought with a single sword, I'm pretty sure that Tolkein doesn't deserve the onus for that decision.

If Lord of the Rings had been directly responsible for the 1st edition Ranger, it would have used a single sword, no archery at all, and had herbalism, survival, etc. skills, and no druidic or magic-user spellcasting or magical menagerie of pegasi, blink dogs, etc. showing up at 9th level. If Gygax was trying to make an 'Aragorn' class, he got it terribly wrong, which makes me think he had something else in mind entirely.

The Paladin could be seen as the 'Holger the Dane' class, and the Barbarian as the 'Conan the Cimmerian' class, but the D&D Ranger has nothing in common with the Numenorian King Aragorn than the use of the word 'ranger.'

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-20, 04:35 AM
Ranger is a mix between robin hood (good alingment surprise skills inflitration and forced skills in bow sword) and aragorn (tracking wilderness skills con prime req any armour.) the druid spells made up for herbalism but the mage spells? outta left field i never play them

tyckspoon
2009-11-20, 04:41 AM
Tycksponn: you do not help :smalltongue:


Doesn't make it less true. Not everything in D&D actually has a fantasy or historical precedent- sometimes, it really is as simple as one of the early authorities of D&D thought it was neat, so now that's how it works. Third Edition got it because it had become an iconic part of the 2nd Edition Ranger; 2nd Edition Ranger got it for no apparent reason. A lot of the weirder bits of D&D can be traced back to that kind of thing.

dsmiles
2009-11-20, 04:57 AM
The dual-wielding ranger only goes back as far as 2e. I checked. As for, "Why?" The only answer I have is, "Because TSR said so."

Kiero
2009-11-20, 07:05 AM
Just for the record, dual-wielding did exist before Drizzt. A lot of swashbuckling movies have heroes with a sword in one hand and main-gauche in the other.

Dual-wielding wilderness warriors predates the existence of movies, never mind swashbuckling movies, along with Tolkein and D&D by centuries.

Davy Crockett anyone?

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/crockett_d_sm.gif

Pioneers always carried a knife, and invariably carried a hachet/tomahawk as well, fighting in the Indian style with both weapons simultaneously. Not that I expect designers of RPGs, or people playing them to be conversant with history, mind. Even when it's the history and myth of their own nation...

Yuki Akuma
2009-11-20, 07:36 AM
Rangers in 2e got dual-wielding as a class ability because of Drizzt, mainly. Anyone could dual-wield before that, but Rangers got the special ability too because Drizzt did it.

Even though Drizzt duel-wielded scimitars because he had an obscene Dex, not because it was a class ability...

So basically, people in D&D can dual-wield because it's cool. Rangers can dual-wield well because of Drizzt.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-11-20, 08:53 AM
I belive in 1st and 2nd rangers not only got dual wielding but they where also supposed to be lawful?

I remember some one making the comparison to robin hood.

dsmiles
2009-11-20, 08:58 AM
No. Rangers have never had to be lawful, but they had to be non-evil at one point, I think. Also see: "True Neutral Druids" (better known as couch potatos).

Kiero
2009-11-20, 09:16 AM
As to dual-wielding in general, every warrior in history always used two weapons when they could.

Yes, I'm serious, because the shield is a weapon too. In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, the edge and flat side both can be dangerous.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-20, 09:20 AM
So basically, people in D&D can dual-wield because it's cool. Rangers can dual-wield well because of Drizzt.

Hello. Fixed this for you ^_^


jmbrown Said:
Re: Rangers Dual Wielding
The tradition started in AD&D. Rangers are lightly armored skirmishers. To make up for their lack of AC, they let them have a larger damage output. [/end]

Field testing has shown twf to have less of a damage output that 2handed combat due to the need to divide funds between two weapons, the lower to hit, the need to full attack and the loss of power attack.

However, the Rule of Cool dictates that it is awesome to climb a giant and pluck his eyes out using a set of light picks, so everyone should try a twf-er at least once.

truemane
2009-11-20, 09:20 AM
I can't find the reference, but Gygax has said on at least one occasion that the LoTR references in D&D are deliberate but somewhat after the fact. He said that he added a lot of LoTR names to D&D to make it more marketable but never intended it to be an adaptiation of LoTR.

I can't speak for 1E, because my memory of the details are hazy. The 2d8 hp at level 1 is for certain. I can't remember the spell allocation. Could they not dual-wield in 1E? I can't remember.

But in 2E they had to be any Good and there were penalties for being evil, just like a Paladin ("It's in the Ranger's heart to do Good, but not always by the rules."). They could dual-wield with no penatly (for everyone else it was indeed -4/-6, offset by your 'Reaction Adjustment' which was one of the two benefits of high Dex).

RagnaroksChosen
2009-11-20, 09:30 AM
I know 2nd ed black book they had to be Lawful and non evil.


edit: it could have been good.

Talya
2009-11-20, 09:44 AM
Considering that the only 'ranger' in those books, Aragorn, fought *once* with a sword in one hand and a torch in the other, at Weathertop


Yeah, the only ranger detailed in LotR did not dual weild, but used a two handed weapon. I don't think LotR has anything to do with dual weilding in D&D...in fact, I can't remember a single character in LotR who regularly fought with a melee weapon in each hand.

Whammydill
2009-11-20, 09:58 AM
Just for the record, dual-wielding did exist before Drizzt. A lot of swashbuckling movies have heroes with a sword in one hand and main-gauche in the other.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001089.jpg

What is that, Capo Ferro? Guy on the left looks like he is using Fabris' style

Edit: hmm, guess If i looked at the quote string for the picture I would answer my own question.

Krow
2009-11-20, 02:22 PM
Hello. Fixed this for you ^_^


jmbrown Said:
Re: Rangers Dual Wielding
The tradition started in AD&D. Rangers are lightly armored skirmishers. To make up for their lack of AC, they let them have a larger damage output. [/end]

Field testing has shown twf to have less of a damage output that 2handed combat due to the need to divide funds between two weapons, the lower to hit, the need to full attack and the loss of power attack.


In 3.x Dual wielding is less effective, but it was quite an ability back in the older editions where dual wielding with high strength was better than using a heavier two handed weapon (I started playin 2.x AFTER 3.5). :smallsmile:

But in all seriousness, they had to give Rangers something. They required some hefty stat requirements (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom) and a good alignment, so it better have a good payoff. As for a historical / fantasy as a basis for the ability, we've tackled that most popular literature would be out of the question. It may be something implemented for balancing issues: A Paladin gets Priest spells, good saves, turn undead and holy sword - all at the cost of 3 stat requirements (17 Charisma was a requirement; the only steep one); A Fighter gets a high number of proficiencies and may attain weapon spec / mastery - with only one relevant stat needed (Strength 8 or 9); Rangers need to get something aside from their druid spells and limited stealth since they do need 4 good stats to qualify.

Snails
2009-11-20, 06:51 PM
Drizzt is the reason. This was a 2e shift for the sake of Drizzt. But the some of the foundations lay in 1e.

1e Rangers were no better at dual-wielding (TWF) than anyone else, except for the fact that they were likely to have a good enough Dex to reduce the penalites.

The 1e Dual-Wielding started with a base -2 on the primary attack and -4 on the secondary attack, with the penalty reduced one per Dex bonus, where the positive bonuses were +1 for 16 Dex, +2 for 17 Dex, and +3 for 18 Dex.

So an 18 Dex character would have -0 on the primary and -1 on the secondary. Because combat in 1e is, in the language of 3e, always "full iterative attack", this boils down to a 50%-75% boost in offense for high Dex characters. This made for astounding damage if the character happened to have a Str bonus as well, because it was a straight mod, none of that 1x + 0.5x stuff we have in 3e.

Really though, if you were playing with 3d6 for stats (or even 4d6) the true craziness would be somewhat rare.

[2e was slightly different, but much the same in all essential details.]

Now Gygax decided to have a little "fun"...the Drow Elves. For the most part, this was probably a good thing, but it did highlight some interesting issues....

The Drow were all long-lived (disposable) spellcasters, so they could boost up with spells like Haste and Strength. All the Drow had naturally very high Dex, so they could exploit the powerful dual-wielding option to the hilt. And they all carried magical weapons. The net results was that the Drow were cheesed out in the most beautiful and egregious way possible, with offenses weighing in at 150%-300% what any somewhat normal PC of similar level could expect to accomplish.

Glorious, ain't it?

Now the idea of Drow as kewl and supremely dangerous dual-wielders became cemented into culture of D&D.

Drizzt as dual-wielding was logical because he is Drow. After all, did Drow ever not dual-wield? The big logical/creative leap was making a Drow a Ranger at all. From a strict Tolkienesque POV, a non-human Ranger is an oxymoron.

But the direct Tolkien connection is phoney.

To my recollection, it is not clear in the text of FotR that Aragorn wields a sword at all at Weathertop. (I will have to go and check.) It would be logical for him to use both a sword and a torch, but fire alone in the hands of a Numenorean could be sufficient to temporarily drive off the Nazgul.

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-20, 10:31 PM
in the book he had two flaming brands. of course in the book he didnt have any sword except anduril
right its been well explained thanks guys. its just a silly arbitrary ruling :D
but theres plenty more of those out there

Mojo_Rat
2009-11-21, 02:20 AM
iSome of this has been covered in previous posts but i thought i would rehash a bit.

1e rangers were an omage to Aragorn, there was no Dual wielding involved with them

Everone could Dual Wield in 1e However all Drow Dual Wielded in some way I cannot remember what their bonus was but they may have had none of the penalties it has been a long time.

The Drow Bit is probably origonally why Drizzt did the 2 scimitars. He is also probably why 2nd ed rangers got it as a class ability and even though it doesnt make alot of sense it seemed to stick.

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-21, 02:21 AM
Drizzt got it cos of the drow thing so why was there a need to change it to being a ranger thing :S it makes no sense at all

Mark Hall
2009-11-21, 02:40 AM
In 1st edition, Rangers did not dual wield by default. They instead added their level to damage against most humanoids and giants. Anyone could dual-wield, but they took a -2 on their main hand and a -4 on their off hand, modified for dexterity. The off-hand weapon had to be a hand axe or a dagger.

As of Unearthed Arcana (the original), drow could wield two weapons without penalty. These could be any one-handed weapon. I will note that this predated Drizzt by a significant amount.

As of 2nd edition, rangers changed significantly. While they could still wear any armor, many of their abilities were lost if they wore anything heavier than studded leather. This included an ability to wield two weapons without penalty. I will note that this did not get rid of the 2e requirement that the secondary weapon be smaller than the main weapon, or be a dagger. We often played it as doing so, however.

thubby
2009-11-21, 03:29 AM
they are a damage class, like the rogue, and share their low armor. it is more than a bit awkward to have the thin, light, and deft guy smacking you with a 6ft piece of iron.

Kiero
2009-11-21, 03:55 AM
they are a damage class, like the rogue, and share their low armor. it is more than a bit awkward to have the thin, light, and deft guy smacking you with a 6ft piece of iron.

My Ranger character isn't thin and light, he's athletic and deft. Got high Str and Dex (and Con).

nyjastul69
2009-11-21, 05:49 PM
Just as a point of note 1e only allowed use of dagger or hand axe in the off-hand. 2e opened that use to other weapons.

Matthew
2009-11-21, 05:56 PM
This question was put to David "Zeb" Cook, the lead designer on second edition where the the ranger class was first associated with fighting with two weapons; his answer was that:

Source (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26912&start=120)


I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image.

Bearing in mind that the only real secondary weapons available in the core second edition books were the dagger and short sword, there seems little reason to doubt this. So, there you have it, a stylistic choice that has remianed with us ever since.

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-21, 06:00 PM
yeah but they are con based more than dex based. I usually played rangers with bastard swords so i could use a shield if i was getting my ass kicked.

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-21, 06:03 PM
Ah thank you matthew thats very helpful

Hawriel
2009-11-21, 06:24 PM
Yeah, the only ranger detailed in LotR did not dual weild, but used a two handed weapon. I don't think LotR has anything to do with dual weilding in D&D...in fact, I can't remember a single character in LotR who regularly fought with a melee weapon in each hand.

Lagolas used a pair of long knives in the books.

Kiero has a point.

The ranger is an amalgomation of Robin Hood, and Aragorn. However Gygax being an American had another influence. The american frontiersmen. The self sufficient man who explored the american wilderness. They faught with muskets, knives, hachets and pistols in the style of the American Indians. Rangers where also light infantry specialising in skirmishing, raiding, ambushing, and other untraditional forms of warfare. All of this is the forte of the D&D ranger.

jmbrown
2009-11-21, 06:29 PM
Hello. Fixed this for you ^_^


jmbrown Said:
Re: Rangers Dual Wielding
The tradition started in AD&D. Rangers are lightly armored skirmishers. To make up for their lack of AC, they let them have a larger damage output. [/end]

Field testing has shown twf to have less of a damage output that 2handed combat due to the need to divide funds between two weapons, the lower to hit, the need to full attack and the loss of power attack.

However, the Rule of Cool dictates that it is awesome to climb a giant and pluck his eyes out using a set of light picks, so everyone should try a twf-er at least once.

Dual wielding in AD&D was more powerful because extra damage from high strength didn't come until you hit 16, you didn't double your damage by holding a weapon in two hands (but you did increase its die size), there was no power attack or other damage increasing ability, all attacks were resolved at the same time, and only fighters got multiple attacks which was their main class ability (and I blame 3E giving all characters multiple attacks to be the biggest gimp to the fighter as it basically took their strongest strategic advantage away).

Harperfan7
2009-11-21, 07:36 PM
I only read the first post, so this may have been said already.

Instead of TWF, give the ranger a class feature that is basically rapid shot, but with just one melee weapon (one handed, though).

Fhaolan
2009-11-21, 07:39 PM
Actually, Gygax had little to do with 2nd edition where dual-wielding rangers showed up, 'cause I think he left TSR before that came out, so blaming him for that is as useless as blaming Lord of the Rings for it.

I just pulled out my 1st edition AD&D DMG to look it up. As always, it takes longer than it should due to Gygax's 'stream of consciousness' writing style. :) It's on page 70 of my 1979 printing. I'll summarize it here:

In 1st ed, everyone can dual-wield, but the secondary weapon must be a handaxe or dagger. The penalty to hit is -2 with your primary weapon, -4 with your secondary weapon. It specifically states that your Reaction/Attacking Adjustment is applied when your Dex is below 6, and it lists what the penalties are for Dex's above 15. The trend implies that the R/AA gets applied when your dex is above 15, given how the penalties go, but it doesn't directly state that. Combining that info with the PHB, you get this table:

3 - primary -5, secondary -7
4 - primary -4, secondary -6
5 - primary -3, secondary -5
6-15 - primary -2, secondary -4
16 - primary -1, secondary -3
17 - primary +0, secondary -2
18 - primary +0, secondary -1

Due the fact that PHB doesn't have anything for stats of 19 and above, that's where the list ends. However, the Deities and Demigods Cyclopedia has an entry for the Gray Mouser from the Nehwon Mythos (Lankhmar), stating that he doesn't have any dual-weilding penalties because of his 'phenomenal dexterity' (which is 19). So,

19 - primary +0, secondary +0

However, this breaks the R/AA pattern because that same book has all the tables for stats of 19+, and the R/AA for 19 Dex is +3 (same as 18).

Matthew
2009-11-21, 07:47 PM
That looks correct to me Fhaolan, and see my post above for David Cook's commentary on why he introduced fighting with two weapons as a class ability for rangers in second edition.

I am pretty sure a lot of folks have fgot their movie glasses on when talking about LotR in this thread, I do not recall any reference to Legolas using two long knives, and Aragorn versus the Nazgul is two torches is a pretty minor scene that is a lot less dramatic and "fighty" in the book.

averagejoe
2009-11-21, 08:16 PM
Lagolas used a pair of long knives in the books.

Legolas used a pair of long knives in the movies. He used a single knife in the book.


I am pretty sure a lot of folks have fgot their movie glasses on when talking about LotR in this thread, I do not recall any reference to Legolas using two long knives, and Aragorn versus the Nazgul is two torches is a pretty minor scene that is a lot less dramatic and "fighty" in the book.

You are mostly correct on both counts (and only mostly, because I contest that the scene is plenty dramatic in the book. :smalltongue: It's just that the focus is on Frodo, not Aragorn's awesome pwnz0rs.) They weren't even on Weathertop during the fight, they were camped nearby after going up and having a look-see. I also got the impression that they weren't trying to fight and defeat (at least, how we normally think of "defeat" or how it happened in the movies) the nazgul as much as they were trying to drive them off. My (unsupported, but possibly true to the spirit of the thing) impression was that Aragorn wouldn't have been doing any fancy moves with his torches, he would have been thrusting them at the nazgul in an effort to drive them away, like Indy waving his torch at threatening snakes without actually trying to club them with it. That is, if I recall Raiders correctly, which I might not.

nyjastul69
2009-11-21, 08:51 PM
Dual wielding in AD&D was more powerful because extra damage from high strength didn't come until you hit 16, you didn't double your damage by holding a weapon in two hands (but you did increase its die size), there was no power attack or other damage increasing ability, all attacks were resolved at the same time, and only fighters got multiple attacks which was their main class ability (and I blame 3E giving all characters multiple attacks to be the biggest gimp to the fighter as it basically took their strongest strategic advantage away).

Most multiple attacks in 1e are not to be resolved on the attackers init, only the first. The 1e DMG defines this on pg 62: Initiative for creatures with multiple attack routines.

Mark Hall
2009-11-21, 11:55 PM
Dual wielding in AD&D was more powerful because extra damage from high strength didn't come until you hit 16, you didn't double your damage by holding a weapon in two hands (but you did increase its die size), there was no power attack or other damage increasing ability, all attacks were resolved at the same time, and only fighters got multiple attacks which was their main class ability (and I blame 3E giving all characters multiple attacks to be the biggest gimp to the fighter as it basically took their strongest strategic advantage away).

Well... sorta.

With some weapons (specifically: Bastard Swords and Katanas), you changed weapon stats when you switched to two hands. Two-handed weapons had a set of stats that applied whenever you used them. However, as of the Complete Fighter's Handbook, when you used a one-handed weapon in two hands (mostly M sized weapons you would expect), you add +1 to damage.

Two-weapon fighting, however, gave you a fair bit. While you didn't get to use the high-damage weapons (about the best that could be managed would be 1d8 and 1d6), you got to apply your full strength bonus on every attack. Thus, if you had two weapons and an 18/00 strength (hello, Gauntlets of Ogre Power), you got a +3 to hit and +6 to damage with both attacks.

When we started using the style specialization rules from Combat and Tactics, our DM sent us against a cuisinart... an elven fighter with paired, specialized, magical longswords, gauntlets of ogre power, and either elven chainmail or really good bracers of defense. As an elf, he could give us a -4 to our surprise (which was rolled on a d10; elf, in leather/elven chainmail or lighter armor messed with your surprise), do 1d8+8 damage with each attack, and could make 3 of those in a round.

As for the biggest gimp on fighters going into 3rd edition, giving others multiple attacks wasn't it. Taking away a fighter's ability to move and use all of those attacks, gimping saving throws by making them harder to make at high levels, and ramping up all of the monsters to include stat bonuses... that hit the fighters a lot harder than others getting the nominal benefit of full attacks.