Why is dual wielding a Ranger thing?

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Why is dual wielding a Ranger thing?

All urls found in this thread:
http://portal.tolkienianos.pt/files/The_LotR_I.pdf
https://pastebin.com/RZifh6nu
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi#Double_Side_Swords
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1R-xZy-Gb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2aCr5YfYKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_p8OnsLhUQBMC
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo
http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/lord/collection.html
http://www.schoolofthesword.com/Twos%20Company%20PartIII.pdf
http://www.schoolofthesword.com/Twos%20Company%20PartIV.pdf
likme
likme

@Boy_vs_Girl
Aragorn

Emberfire
Emberfire

@Boy_vs_Girl
Drizzt

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Boy_vs_Girl
Norris

cum2soon
cum2soon

/thread

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@Boy_vs_Girl
I misread that as
Why is dual wielding a Ranger a thing?
And it got me thinking: Can a ranger 1+ size categories smaller be considered a ranged weapon?

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

Because it's cool.

eGremlin
eGremlin

Drizzt.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@likme
Incorrect. He had a sword and a bow. A two-handed sword in the movies but I can't remember if it was different in the books or not.

idontknow
idontknow

@Ignoramus
Now im going to force my friends to play halflings so I can use them as weapons

Techpill
Techpill

@BlogWobbles
The idea that ranger dual-wielding is based on Aragorn comes from the first book where he used two weapons to fend off the nazguls. I think it was a torch and a sword.

Evilember
Evilember

Why not?

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Can we have a serious discussion of why Ranger is shit in every edition except 4e? Oh and AD&D.
Ignore martial/caster disparity in 3.5 and 5e.
Ranger is objectively shit compared to fighter in 3.5. I don't know why it is considered a tier 4 class.
All a ranger can do is track (hireling ranger can do this) and gather food / keep the party comfortable in the wilderness. Neither matter much in most games.
Ranger gets spells, sure. This may be their only saving grace.
Ranger gets an animal companion, greatly inferior to the druid's. Oh but you can spend a feat to make it druid-tier. While the druid is getting natural spell and learning call lightning.
The main issue with ranger is the fucking idea that favored enemy works as a main class feature. This was brought back in 5e for whatever dumb fuck reason. Favored enemy is a nice feature, but as a primary damage option? Fuck no. Unless the DM cooperates and sucks your dick. If a martial's job is damage, a ranger fails utterly. If an expert's job is to be an expert, ranger fails at doing anything not easily replicated by a spell, except tracking.
Ranger is only good in campaigns where the DM focuses alot on traveling, roleplaying things like hunting and camping, and where a lot of tracking is involved.
Oh but that's just so the wizard can save a spell slot from create food and water.
Fuck ranger. And I'm saying that having played one ranger character for seven years and another ranger character for four years with two different long-time groups. Ironically the only time I was good as a ranger was in 4e, and I hated everything else in it.

StonedTime
StonedTime

@Sharpcharm
It isn't though

Inmate
Inmate

@likme
...You mean Legolas?

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

@BlogWobbles
It was. We never get a close description of Anduril, but Boromir's unnamed sword is described as having a lesser lineage but identical design to it. And he's using a shield with the thing, so clearly Anduril is a one handed weapon.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@BlogWobbles
Didn't have a bow in the books.
@Techpill
No, actually in that scene he had JUST a torch, and he already had the broken Narsil with him as his only weapon.
He's described as carrying no other weapons except Narsil's remains, which remain unforged until after Rivendell, at which point Anduril is all he's carrying.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Boy_vs_Girl
Probably because knives/daggers are something any ranger/woodsman type always has and they're easier to dual wield than other weapons. Or something.

Methshot
Methshot

@Nude_Bikergirl
For the most part Tolken's world seems to hover around the 10th and 11th centuries in terms of technology outside some of the crazier impressive architectural stuff that the elves or Numenoreans accomplished; weapons and armor seem to stabilize around "chain mail is the best armor" and "swords are vaguely Viking-age weapons in shape".

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@Techpill
Two torches

http://portal.tolkienianos.pt/files/The_LotR_I.pdf (page 129)

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.

@Inmate
There's no indication in the books that Legolas uses two knives when he's not fighting with his bow.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@BinaryMan
It was Drizzt.
Seriously, just LOOK a prior editions of D&D; dual wielding was in no way more common or more emphasized until AFTER WotC's and TSR's favorite dark elf showed up, and then in 3e suddenly Rangers were dual-wielders.

It's questions like this that remind me of how young this board is; I'm not even thirty yet, but I can STILL remember when Rangers were not dual-wielders by assumed default.

askme
askme

@Inmate
No.
@Carnalpleasure
There's no indication in the books that Legolas uses two knives when he's not fighting with his bow.
In fact, it specifically says all he's carrying with him other then that is a "long, white knife". It's actually why he fared worse then Gimili in the Dead Orc Game at Helm's Deep, he ran out of arrows and was forced to rely on his knife.

SniperWish
SniperWish

@New_Cliche
It's questions like this that remind me of how young this board is
I think a lot of it is people just not believing such a widely criticized character could be so influential on fantasy gaming stuff.

cum2soon
cum2soon

@SniperWish
Why not?
The VAST majority of modern D&D players hopped onboard after or during 3e D&D, at which point dual-wielding Rangers became a thing due to the relative success of Drizzt novels back in the 90's. From there that vast majority went on to do other things including design video games with D&D inspiration in mind when designing their generic fantasy stuff. Hell, you could even argue that Rangers didn't even have animal companions before that dark elf, because they sure as shit didn't in 2e.

The fact that people need to ask this question of this board so often heavily suggests that it's already been more then enough time for people to forget the pop cultural origins of the thing, despite it's comparative recent happening.

Techpill
Techpill

@cum2soon
Hell, you could even argue that Rangers didn't even have animal companions before that dark elf, because they sure as shit didn't in 2e.

That predates Drizzt, the Complete Ranger's Handbook has a big section on animal companions, they're treated as followers instead of an innate part of the class like in later editions but the basic principle is the same. I don't see anything about dual wielding though.

StonedTime
StonedTime

@Carnalpleasure
Interesting. He's not a big focus of the books is he?

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Archery rangers got shit on in favor of melee idiots

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@Lord_Tryzalot
Archery rangers are better than melee rangers in 3.5, I'm pretty sure. Invest in one weapon instead of two, tack on a shitton of energy, and you can do alright. Certainly better than a dual-wielder. For 50,375 gp you can have a +1 shock frost flaming corrosive longbow. Oh, and composite for another 1,000 maxed up to whatever your Strength. Pathfinder has Deadly Aim, too, which basically lets you power attack with a bow.

Pretty sure archery rangers hold up well in 5e, too. Dex to damage so you only need to max Dex out, then take Sharpshooter feat ASAP and have fun dealing 1d8+13 with your bow. As opposed to 2d6+6 total with two shortswords.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Boy_vs_Girl
1e was just to allow people to play Aragorn or Gwydion from the Prydain pentilogy. The light armor led to the stereotypical cry of "Ranger down!", to which we all would grin. It was a simpler time, with simpler players. 2e let you be Legolas with bows. 3 grandfathered him in without much, just a fighter with special feats.

Rangers are good when you can't get good armor because of the setting. Set the favored enemy to the most common local enemy, hide from outrun and evade everything else. Use your skill to get a top horse, good for hit-and-run tactics. Not good for much else.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

@StonedTime
Legolas? Not particularly, no.

RavySnake
RavySnake

@Lord_Tryzalot
Archers are better in almost every edition simply because rangers are never particularly tough in melee

SniperGod
SniperGod

@Boy_vs_Girl
It actually isn't, since fighters and rogues are better dualwielders. The ranger's thing seems to be picking a random defining trait, then being subpar at it.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

dual wielding is a Ranger thing in western RPGs like D&D
meanwhile, RPGs like Final Fantasy usually make the Ninja do it, going so far as to restrict dual wielding ONLY to Ninja in some games

Just sort of funny how everyone seems to have their standard for why a certain class would dual wield.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@New_Cliche
I'm not even thirty yet, but I can STILL remember when Rangers were not dual-wielders by assumed default.
No you can't, rangers have had bonuses to dual-wielding since at least 1989.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@Boy_vs_Girl
I don't think anyone much disagrees. The only class that has been consistently more useless is the bard.

girlDog
girlDog

@cum2soon
they sure as shit didn't in 2e
what is the 10th-level class feature
Guenhwyvar isn't an animal companion anyway, he's a magic item.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@AwesomeTucker
bard
useless
nigga you been watching too many normie youtube series instead of actually playing games, bards have been consistently above average.

Methshot
Methshot

@VisualMaster
Pretty sure that's just a final fantasy thing, and not many final fantasy games even have a ranger class

Illusionz
Illusionz

@Boy_vs_Girl
I think rangers were only tier 4 with certain alternate class features back in 3.5. Vanilla they would probably only be a little above CW Samurai. I think the revised ranger in 5e is fine though (really only the beastmaster one was that bad. The other was just kind of boring)

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

@AwesomeTucker
You're not even remotely cognizant of how wrong you are. Bards are one of the finest classes in 5e.

RavySnake
RavySnake

@Gigastrength
I don't think there's been an edition where bards were bad. They took a little work to be good in 3.5, but that's true for like every class that isn't one of the big three casters

StonedTime
StonedTime

@AwesomeTucker
Dog, bards in 4e are the BOMB, some of the best healers in the game.

idontknow
idontknow

@RavySnake
In 2e they were basically the ultimate multiclass, but they required so many high stats and specific level counts done in a specific order that it would take months if not a year to achieve the rank of Bard, which amounted to being a Fighter 5-7/Thief 5-8/then Bard X (also Druid X), so by virtue of the sheer amount of investment in other classes and stat requirements, they were a good class.

Supergrass
Supergrass

@idontknow
That's 1e, in 2e they just required some good stat rolls.

StonedTime
StonedTime

@Gigastrength
They were really only shit in 3.xe

Booteefool
Booteefool

@RavySnake
They took a little work to be good in 3.5
Not really, they're (half) casters by that virtue they have pretty nice options out of the box

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@Boy_vs_Girl
Because Rangers are kinda Mary Sues. They're for the same kind of person who wants to be the lone wandering badass gunslinger in post-apaoclypse settings or "Jedi who also uses guns".

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@New_Cliche

Did the first Drizzt book come out before 3.0? Because I always felt like he had that one level in ranger because it was op as shit in 3.0 to do so. You got dual wielding and a bunch of other good stuff for one level. His stats in the forgotten realms book were like... Lv1 ranger lv1 barbarian lv16 fighter or something. So the question is, which came first the free feats for ranger or the crystal shard?

RavySnake
RavySnake

@Harmless_Venom

Holy shit I just checked drizzt predates 3.0 by a decade. Chicken came before egg, I guess.

Guess it was him after all then. I suppose the next question would be, did drow dual wield before that? Or did Salvatore just like dual wielding? He made it seem like dual wielding big weapons was a drow thing, but Artemis used a dagger and sword too so it was probably just his own preference.

But I think drizzt's two swords + ranger background aren't linked. That is, those weapons had little to do with being a ranger.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Booteefool
Core spells were pretty limited until they have access to 4th level ones. There were some pretty bullshit things out there though, namely dragonfire inspiration

Techpill
Techpill

@AwesomeTucker
At early levels yes but a decent bard bluffing an entire party often equals way more than a equal level fighter or cleric would be in multiple edition

Two weapon fighting = More Attacks per round is the biggest problem of Ranger.

It's not how sword fighting works and it's almost never balanced.

Having a slight benefit to attack and defence like in 4e was the only time it worked, but I guess odd design habits die hard.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

@Techpill
It's usually been terrible, actually. 4e was the one edition where it was good, and even then only for the classes that explicitly used it. Ranger is the undisputed king of DPS in 4th Edition thanks to the sheer amount of ''accurate'' attacks they can land and stack static damage modifiers to. Without even diving that deep, a Ranger with an Action Point can, very easily, attack a target six times, getting an extra swing if swings 1 or 3 crit.

Spamalot
Spamalot

@Techpill

Bro with 2e scans... Can you do me a solid and post a pic of the page with the fish-o-mancer Ranger kit? You know the one! It's got Council of Fishes or something and it's a power where you can call.on the local quorum of fish to totally give you sweet advice.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@Boy_vs_Girl
I prefer my rangers 2handing swords or wielding 1h or 2h axes, and a bow. Never was a fan of dual wielding rangers

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

@Illusionz
Even the revised ranger sucks ass. They can't be a secondary fighter or an expert well.

Illusionz
Illusionz

@LuckyDusty
the underdark subclass seems okay if only to take alongside fighter. raw it just makes attack actions taken on the first turn generate one extra attack, so that means you could action surge nova on the first turn for eight attacks if you have enough fighter levels.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

@Emberfire
I dunno about 1e AD&D, but I know that 2e is almost exactly as old as Drizzt's first appearance and that already had two-weapon fighting as a core defining feature.

TreeEater
TreeEater

@Lord_Tryzalot
In which system? beacuse in 3.PF archery is tons better

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

@AwesomeTucker
2e Bard kick serious ass, fastest xp table, limited wizard spells, okay fighting abilities, limited thief skills, the ability to vaguely identify magic items, and a buff with great utility at early levels.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

@Dreamworx
Except it is not.
Limited wizard spells to a dice roll what he gets, can wear chain mail but cannot cast in it and his Thief skills become unbearably shit in it - also, just does not get enough thief skill upgrades to be useful. He can use long swords okay, but gets the Thief THACO progression which is the second shittiest. Overall, his problem is the same as the Thief's: need godly stats to perform what he does apart from singing, which nets a free meal for the party at best. All in all, it is a bit far from "kicking serious ass" in 2e.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@TalkBomber
Pretty sure archery rangers hold up well in 5e, too.

The major problem there is that DEX-fighters make even better archers. Even when using dedicated archery spells rangers can barely keep up with what the fighter can do without limits.

Spamalot
Spamalot

@Boy_vs_Girl
Because Legolas.

Who actually fucking sucks at sword v sword, so his technique was to parry someone then stab them in the neck to avoid prolonged combat.

Methnerd
Methnerd

@Boy_vs_Girl

It should be an elf thing.

whereismyname
whereismyname

@LuckyDusty
@LuckyDusty
Yes but only the ranger got extra attacks in 4e for TWF. Which was quite a big deal as the game didn't give you extra attacks like another edditions. You got a plus one to defence and damage, it was basically a trade off for not using the shield or two handed weapon.

happy_sad
happy_sad

@Spamalot
Retard.

idontknow
idontknow

@Boy_vs_Girl
It's Outlandish.

Bidwell
Bidwell

@RavySnake
It's speficially mentioned in their first battle in the sewer that it's super weird that Drizzt fights with two swords. He has more reach than Artemis and a regular person would get their two swords tangled while fighting but Drizzt is so special awesome that he can fight with them.
Also when he is choosing his weapons in Drow camp his master questioned his decision to go with two scimitars, which implies Drizzt has a snowflake fighting style even in Drow culture.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Boy_vs_Girl
I want to pat the 'suzu on the head.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@askme
cheat to get early kills
fall behind when the REAL fighting starts

Elfs!

Evilember
Evilember

@Lord_Tryzalot
5e archery is fantastic.

Spamalot
Spamalot

@Bidwell
Also when he is choosing his weapons in Drow camp his master questioned his decision to go with two scimitars, which implies Drizzt has a snowflake fighting style even in Drow culture.
IIRC there are plenty of drow who use two swords in those books, although I don't remember any besides Drizzt using two scimitars specifically.

Of course, it HAS been a while since I read any of those, so I might be wrong.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@Spamalot
the typical drow fighter in the drizzt books used two longswords

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@CouchChiller
Not to mention that their dedicated spells can be poached by bards in order to do the same thing at earlier levels and more often

farquit
farquit

@Boy_vs_Girl
D&d

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@Boy_vs_Girl
Why is wanting to fuck Misuzu an everyone thing?

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@StonedTime
He's very much a side character, yeah

viagrandad
viagrandad

@Spamalot
That's pretty interesting, what page number does he mention it on?
Ah, wait, I don't think he mentioned that at all.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Boy_vs_Girl
Because class based systems suck, "fighters" are continuously cucked, and even beyond that ranger should not be a class

Ranger is just a warrior that doesn't arbitrarily have zero skills. Have a system that lets warriors train in nature/survival and not be retarded when it comes to bows (how is a WARRIOR bad at using a bow?) and you have a "ranger" option.

Methshot
Methshot

@Need_TLC
Fighters are pretty solid in 5e, though

FastChef
FastChef

@Methshot
It's a bummer that 5e's Ranger isn't as sharp as its Fighter, but it's at least nice that the designers acknowledge that and are willing to patch it.

Personally I feel like you could successfully have Ranger just be a Fighter archetype, sort of reminiscent of how it was in pre-3e editions. Make it a 1/3 caster like EK and similar to EK the way to balance it more towards magic would just be multiclassing or the right feat selections, which is already an intended bit of design for Fighters with their extra ASIs.

Of course then it'd be quite difficult to have a meaningful animal companion, though that's stepping a little outside of the "Fighter Subclass" design space unless you also introduce Followers in general (which would be pretty rad, I think).

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

@FastChef
Every martial should be a fighter archetype, every caster should be a wizard archetype

StonedTime
StonedTime

@Bidwell
Also when he is choosing his weapons in Drow camp his master questioned his decision to go with two scimitars, which implies Drizzt has a snowflake fighting style even in Drow culture.
Not really. Zaknafein (his father) dual wielded a sword and a whip, while Berg'inyon Baenre dual wielded longswords. Meanwhile other Weapon Masters used sword and shield, trident and net, or whatever. Most drow seem to favour a two-weapon style, honestly, and I'd be willing to bet scimitars aren't THAT uncommon.

Emberburn
Emberburn

@Sharpcharm
you forgot every sneaky-man should be a sneaky-man archetype

Firespawn
Firespawn

@Emberburn
fighter with more skills

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Firespawn
No. Sneaking-man is distinct from fighting-man because fighting-man fights his way through problems. Sneaking-man sneaks through them. Magic-user magics through them. Three classes.

cum2soon
cum2soon

@Crazy_Nice
this is dnd. Everyone fights through problems

hairygrape
hairygrape

@cum2soon
then we only need one class, fighting-man

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@hairygrape
But the mechanics too starkly differentiate fighting with pointy objects and fighting by mumbling words

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

@Need_TLC
and fighting with sneak
@cum2soon
you have forgot sneak and wizard

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@Need_TLC
not an issue. you just have everyone start with a basic proficiency in adventuring skills and let them spend XP freely on whatever skills they want to improve. using weapons or spells are just two skills among many. spells, like magic weapons, are a reward of adventuring not part of a character's innate progression.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

@Burnblaze
Fighting with sneak isn't very different. A simple circumstantial damage bonus at best. No attacking saves or managing slots or collecting bat shit.

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Crazy_Nice
@Need_TLC
You forgot Praying-man.

Emberfire
Emberfire

@Need_TLC
No. Just have one with 'fireball' as a weapon and have it be similar to a bow

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@Skullbone
Just flavor. Mechanically does all the same things as mumbly batshit guy.
@Emberfire
So play 4e? I did and it was nice, but it's dead now.

Booteefool
Booteefool

@Nude_Bikergirl
No. Not fight and sneak.
Just sneak.
@Skullbone
Pray man use divine magic. Therefore pray man is divine magic man. Therefore pray man is just magic man.

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Spamalot
legolas was bad at swordfighting because all he knew how to do was quickly and efficiently dispatch his foes with a skillful counter

cum2soon
cum2soon

@Booteefool
@Fuzzy_Logic
Pray man uses different spells, can roll religion (to beg the DM), needs Wis to help be the BS detector, and can use armor, though.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@cum2soon
can roll religion
sound good
needs Wis to help be the BS detector
I like
different spells
yes, magic spells
therefore is magic-user. What is problem?

Spamalot
Spamalot

@New_Cliche
Pray man is the between of the fighting man and the magic man, plus extra use. To be where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@New_Cliche
different types of magic could do entirely different things in entirely different ways

could be 1 class, could be 10 classes, equally valid

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@Booteefool
"just" sneak man hasn't existed since what, AD&D?

girlDog
girlDog

@lostmypassword
Hmm. No.
If use magic, is magic-man. 10 classes definitely many too many. 3 classes... just right. Why you want so many classes? Only have one character, no?
@Spamalot
Sound good, maybe if magic man pray for armor-wearing.
@Fried_Sushi
Sounds good. I like it.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@lostmypassword
but they don't, cause dnd

TreeEater
TreeEater

@New_Cliche
rangers had two weapon fighting as a class ability in 2E.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@ZeroReborn
False. No complete description of it's equipement are ever given in the book.

@Boy_vs_Girl
Because in real life dual wielding was only done by a few light infantry units. Rangers are the light infantry class.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

If you're going to reduce things this much so as to pave over every conceivable distinction, you may as well just have two character types:
- Someone who rolls to hurt
- Someone who makes someone roll to resist getting hurt

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@New_Cliche
So fighty guy and magic guy?
Makes sense, I like it

likme
likme

@Stupidasole
Nope, that's obviously too specific. Has to be Roll-At and DC-At.

5mileys
5mileys

@likme
semantics

Spamalot
Spamalot

@RavySnake

Drow NEVER use swords, Drizzzt was being an chuuni with his duel swords nonsense and aboveground shenanigans.

And him being a ranger then meant that other Chuuni players wanted to be a duel weilding ranger (because being a drow was rarely allowed) so that had to be an option for rangers, except parsed through 3.5 logic of "here's a sequence of feats that'll cripple them because duel weilding is hard and I hate it and so no one should have fun".

Bidwell
Bidwell

@5mileys
Yeah, no shit. It's all semantics to start with.

hairygrape
hairygrape

Just for the record, Rangers dual wield because the designer wanted to give them a signature fighting style and figured the class favored Dexterity, so ambidexterity/dual wielding. Drizzt is a coincidence.

happy_sad
happy_sad

@hairygrape
ranger does not have any dual-wielding abilities in OD&D, Basic, or AD&D
Drizzt premieres in 1988
AD&D 2e (1989) gives them the special ability of not having any dual-wielding penalties

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Spamalot
Drow never use swords
Um, yes they do. I can rattle off about a dozen examples in Homeland alone.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@Boy_vs_Girl
It's not.

Duel-wielding is done better by a fighter, because the fighter gets feats as his class feature, while the ranger only gets 3 of those feats for his 'combat style'.

In 3.5, at least.

Soft_member
Soft_member

@happy_sad
Drizzt wouldn't be such hot shit until the trilogy finished and people started to really latch onto the character. On its own when it first released, Crystal Shard was just another in a pile of Forgotten Realms novels.

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Boy_vs_Girl
You start your rant with "ignore martial/caster disparity" and then three sentences later you start complaining about the disparity between the martial ranger and the caster druid.
I would agree that Favored enemy shouldn't be balanced around, as in most campaigns it will be inactive more often than not.
As far as skills being replicated by spells...that's martial/caster disparity again.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@New_Cliche
@likme
Honestly, spells should also be roll to hurt. So there's really only one character type. Like in 4e.

Illusionz
Illusionz

@Boy_vs_Girl
https://pastebin.com/RZifh6nu
Real Life European Dual Sword Wielding

Not talking about that Musashi dude here, but I'm referring specifically about two swords. Yeah, it existed and people did it. Skeptical? Good, I like that. Here are the sources:

Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, available in italian and english:
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi#Double_Side_Swords
There are also used now adays, aswell in the schools, as in the lists, two Swords* or Rapiers, admitted, and approved both of Princes, and of the professors of this art, for honorable and knightly weapons, albeit they be not used in the wars. Wherefore I shall not vary from my purpose, if I reason also of these, as far as is agreeable to true art. To him that would handle these weapons, it is necessary that he can aswell manage the left hand as the right, which thing shall be (if not necessary) yet most profitable in every other kind of weapon. But in these principally he is to resolve himself, that he can do no good, without that kind of nimbleness and dexterity. For seeing they are two weapons, and yet of one self same kind, they ought equally and indifferently to be handled, the one performing that which the other does, and every of them being apt aswell to strike as defend. And therefore a man ought to accustom his body, arms and hands aswell to strike as defend. And he which is not much practiced and exercised therein, ought not to make profession of this Art: for he shall find himself to be utterly deceived.

*Those are called "sideswords" nowadays, but that level of pedantic classification wasn't used in the times people actually fought with them.

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

@Illusionz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1R-xZy-Gb4
Dual-wielding with swords was done historically - context is the key
More videos about two-sword fighting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2aCr5YfYKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE

Camillo Agrippa's combat treatise scan:
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_p8OnsLhUQBMC

Opera Nova, available in italian and english
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo

http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/lord/collection.html
Collection of scanned treatises and manuals about swordsmanship.

http://www.schoolofthesword.com/Twos%20Company%20PartIII.pdf
http://www.schoolofthesword.com/Twos%20Company%20PartIV.pdf
Practical aplications of sword+buckler and sword+sword according to Marozzo's treatise, by Phil Marshall and Oliver Barker.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@Nude_Bikergirl
TL;DR: It was done historically. It had the following disadvantages:

-You need at the very least three times more training than with a single sword, because you have to learn to use it with your right hand, then learn with your left, to finally learn to use both without one disturbing the movements of the other.

-Di Grassi warns that this style should be used only at tourneys and duels, never wars. That's because dual handling demands too much concentration for one to focus on the kind of cooperative coordination that makes the difference between a bunch of warriors and an army.

-Last but not least, it should be used against enemies with few to no armor. The reason is that a single sword used with both hands brings you the necessary power and precision to find weak points and target joints, be it a plate harness or a gambeson.

The adavantages were:

-Everything the right hand does, the left does as well, as both have equal reach. The "secondary" weapon is up for you to decide, and it may be the other one second later. The average swordsman already has some trouble fighting left-handed warriors, but he's going to have a hard time trying to guess which hand is feinting and which hand is actually attacking, for you can do both at the same time with either!

-Because dual wield is so hard to accomplish, users of this style are sure to enjoy fame at tourneys, impressing the public and competitors alike.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page