What's the connection with rangers and the focus on dual-wielding - where did that idea come from...

>hey guys, what's the connection between x and y?
>[character] has y!
>Yes, but [character] came way later than [system that already had x and y]
What are you even trying to say here?

This shit The ranger class is built around imitating popular characters from media.

And rangers had dual wielding before drizzt?

No, actually.

American frontiersmen. Sword and tomahawk style.

No. In fact, he runs around the whole damn series with a single legendary sword - Anduriel.

God no.
Legolas didn't dual-wield until the movie.

These are all good theories, but I and others think the primary inspiration for the ability of D&D Rangers to wield two weapons, which began in AD&D 2nd edition and predates Drizzt, began with Aragorn.

On Weathertop, in Tolkien's novel, Aragorn fights off Nazghul with his sword in one hand and a torch in the other. You can see this represented in screen in Fellowship of the Ring. It was a diversionary tactic to intimidate his opponents, because Ringwraiths fear fire.

From that innocuous moment, the dual weilding controversy entered D&D.

Historically, the use of two weapons isn't a terrible approach, especially against opponents of inferior skill. Miyamoto Musashi was fairly well known for employing the tactic. It's only practical for duelling, though. Against the threat of archers, most professional soldiers carried shields.

AGILITY
G
I
L
I
T
Y

>Against the threat of archers, most professional soldiers carried shields
>Not parry those pesky arrows with your off hand sword

Your soldiers aren't professional enought

Wuxia is a great genre, but unless OP is playing Exalted, a shield is a better offhand option for surviving the first volley. If you want to do your best impression of Daring Daniel Fortesque, by all means.

Rangers fit that TWF niche due to being perceived as lightly armored, independent, and mobile.

idfk

/thread

>Miyamoto Musashi was fairly well known for employing the tactic

Though the stories about him are more about his use of a single wooden sword made form whatever was at hand, and the school he founded puts much mroe emphasis on the single sword than on two swords.

But duel wielding is what the kids like, so it's "omg Musashi dualwield".

>It's only practical for duelling, though.

And suddenly we don't care about Musashi any more it seems.

> Against the threat of archers, most professional soldiers carried shields.

There are places and times where this was true. There were places and times where that wasn't true. Widen your horizons a bit and you won't spout nonsense as much.

Those don't even looks like rapiers.

Pretty cool stuff user.

It's Drizzt, but to be more specific:

Dual-wielding sucked real bad back in 2e, you had a penalty for doing so... unless you were a drow for some reason. Before Drizzt, no rangers dual-wielded melee weapons, and Drizzt's ability to do so did not come from his class, but his race. Of course everyone wanted to roleplay Drizzt, and he was the most iconic ranger in the setting, so that feature was taken from Drizzt's class and moved to his race in future editions (while dual-wielding as a whole became less painful in 3e)

>Dual-wielding sucked real bad back in 2e
The trick was to specialize in and dual-wield daggers.

>On Weathertop, in Tolkien's novel, Aragorn fights off Nazghul with his sword in one hand and a torch in the other.

Actually, in Tolkien's novel, we never directly see what Aragorn does at Weathertop. He builds a fire, and mentions how the Nazgul fear it, but the narrative focuses on Frodo getting stabbed, and he doesn't know where Aragorn is, and then resumes when he wakes up, the next morning.

Also, Aragorn carries no sword at that point, all he has is the hilt-shard of Narsil, which is a pretty crappy "weapon".

>There were places and times where that wasn't true
Feel free to share?

Not OP but I don't think shields were a big part of native American warfare- there were "medicine shields" that were ceremonial but couldn't stop a missile or weapon, and arrows were used heavily by the natives

I grant that a lot of what is believed about Miyamoto Musashi is pure fiction. As it existed, Niten Ichi-ryū does include staff and truncheon techniques, and advises pragmatism and adaptability over rigid form. But is principally focused on the use of long sword and short sword together to round out the fighting technique. To quote:

"Because I hold two swords, I call my fencing style two-sword swordsmanship. Holding a sword in my left hand [as well as my right] implies nothing special. It only helps me gain the skill to be able to hold a sword with a single hand [instead of gripping one sword with two hands as was customary]. If a man were galloping along a narrow path near a river or if he were in a battle crowded with samurai, he would hold his shield in his left hand, thus restricting the free use of that hand. He would then have no choice but to grip his sword only with his right hand. [Without training] he will feel that sword inordinately heavy. Only when a man has experience and is accustomed to wielding a sword with one hand [can he excel in battle.]"

Cultures who engaged in plains warfare predominantly used shields to guard against projectiles, from Roman to Zulu to Chippewa. It's not the only tactic, but it is an effective one.

I know you want to feel like your view is the most correct, but you'll have to choose between being informative and being condescending. I'm afraid you can't do both.

>The crystal Shard - 1988
>Advanced D&D 2E - 1989

Drizzt came earlier.

>he would hold his shield in his left hand
Wait a minute, this was a thing in his times? I know that they always used some kind of pavese and that in more ancient times they had shields, the concept of a shield is not unkown to them. But did they really have riders using shields in his times like this?

that while [character] came later than [system], the [version] of the [system] that contained connection betwen x and y came even later.
Are you THAT retarded not to comprehend this?

>>Yes, but [character] came way later than [system that already had x and y]
Which, as it turned out, wasn't true. You should have attacked this part, I just pointed at your flawed logic.

We are both mistaken, it seems. Here's the passage:

"At that moment Frodo threw himself forward on the ground, and he heard himself crying aloud: O Elbereth! Gilthoniel! At the same time he struck at the feet of his enemy. A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of poisoned ice pierce his left shoulder. 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.* With a last effort Frodo, dropping his sword, slipped the Ring from his finger and closed his right hand tight upon it."

Incorrect, friendo.

Drizzt actually predates the class.

Wicker and wooden shields were employed by samurai at varying points. A lot of emphasis is placed on the yari, katana and daikyu, but in truth, a large variety of weapons were employed. Google "ancient Japanese shields" and you should be able to find a few supporting articles and pictured artifacts.

I'm pretty sure in his book he DOES talk about dual wielding. Would find pretty bizzarre if no one before him got the idea, I get that a daisho isn't really that easy to use at the same time, but I would be pretty surprised if no one tried.

>To quote:
>train using your sword in a single hand so it won't be too heavy the day you can't wield it with both

12 tachi kata, 7 kodachi, 5 nito. Focus ain't on duel wielding, probably because it's specifically recommended for when you're outnumbered, and that shouldn't be a common thing.

>It's not the only tactic

But let's ignore that and push the shield as the proper way.

>I'm afraid you can't do both.

If you can't take being told you've fucked up it doesn't really matter, the information's for the audience.

Aragorn dual-wielding a sword and a torch atop Weathertop.

That's it.

You can go home now.

Drizzt first novel is from the dark age of 1990. The ranger as a class is from ODND itself.

If drow had a bonus for dual wielding I don't know when and how it came to be. Is it possible that they did it because muh bizantine/renassaince evil sneaky decadent aristocrats that in some cases did employ a rapier plus a parrying dagger, I guess.

Drizzt premiered in The Crystal Shard in 1988.

Rangers made their debut in The Strategic Review, Volume 1, Number 2, which was published in 1975.

annarchive.com/files/Strv102.pdf

(Specifically, page 4).

The Ranger further appeared in the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook (1978). It was not available in Basic D&D, but Best of Dragon Magazine Volumes 2–3 contained variant rules for Rangers.

ITT: user doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and just makes shit up. Again.

I don't see any mention of dual-wielding there.

I wasn't talking about dual-wielding, I was calling out the guy who said that Drizzt predates the class. He's wrong by thirteen years.

Cite your sources, argue the point substantively without resorting to ad hominem, and try to be less of a cunt when you disagree with someone.

>mfw we can't stop Drizzt

If it's not a ranger class that dual wields, than that all is irrelevant to this talk. We are specifically talking about rangers that dual wield.

However, the AD&D 2nd Edition handbook (1989) has pic related in it (pg. 40)

Given that this would be not more than a year after the publication of The Crystal Shard (1988), I find it difficult to believe that Drizzt would have already impacted the Ranger class enough to make them into dual-wielders.

I don't have any 1e stuff so I can't investigate further, however.

That guy wasn't. He stated, in plain English, that "Drizzt actually predates the class". Not "Drizzt actually predates the class' association with dual wielding". Just that he predates the class entirely.

More to the point, it was in response to someone else pointing out that Rangers have been around since before Drizzt (although that someone else got the fine details wrong; Rangers predate even AD&D 1e, nevermind 2e). Nevertheless, the context makes it clear that the user meant that Drizzt predates the class entirely.

I mean, either that or he's a moron who's unable to type and use English to correctly convey his meaning, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he simply made a dating mistake.

>never gave a fuck about rangers
>never gave a fuck about duel wielding
>playing vermintide with friends where we all just picked a character and stuck with it
>me playing the elf
>kinda wanna play a generic duel wielding and bow shootan elf ranger

Seriously rat blending with duel daggers is tons of fun.

Dual wielding rangers is from before 2001, user.

also not op but samurai. Their armour was designed to stop arrows rather than blades. It wasn't as effective as a shield but it worked

>Their armor was designed to stop arrows rather than blades
Citation needed.

So Aragorn is a master of the Double Flaming Faggot style?

>Tells an informative poster he's wrong
>Withholds why he is wrong in front of an audience

That is not how you form an argument.