Page 29 of 50 FirstFirst ... 4192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 870 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #841
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Why not both? It's really not hard to have the exact same weapons you see in the PHB but with the names the right way 'round.
    Now it's iconic and changing it would alienate players. On the plus side, there are dozens of games out there who got the names just right. You could try one of those and let D&D keep doing what D&D does.

  2. - Top - End - #842
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Craft (Cheese)'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Now it's iconic and changing it would alienate players. On the plus side, there are dozens of games out there who got the names just right. You could try one of those and let D&D keep doing what D&D does.
    Uhh, is this sarcasm? I'm honestly having a hard time telling whether you're serious or not.

  3. - Top - End - #843
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Whether the names are historically accurate is frankly irrelevant. It's more important that the players be able to know and envision what they're talking about. Everyone knows what a longsword is (or at least, thinks they do), but few have even heard of a "arming sword".

    At the end of the day, DnD is a game about magic and monsters, not medieval combat.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  4. - Top - End - #844
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    According to Wikipedia, a longsword is about 100-122 cm long and was used mostly between 1350 and 1550; whereas an arming sword is about 69-81 cm long and was used mostly between 1000 and 1500. So that's not the same thing at all; if anything an arming sword is closer to a shortsword.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

  5. - Top - End - #845
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    According to Wikipedia, a longsword is about 100-122 cm long and was used mostly between 1350 and 1550; whereas an arming sword is about 69-81 cm long and was used mostly between 1000 and 1500. So that's not the same thing at all; if anything an arming sword is closer to a shortsword.
    That longsword would be a hand-and-a-half weapon. Using it one-handed would be difficult due to the length and weight. That's closer to what D&D calls a bastard sword. That arming sword is a one-handed sword, closer to what D&D calls a longsword. What D&D calls a short sword would have more like a 40-cm blade, just a little too big and heavy to be a dagger.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  6. - Top - End - #846
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Because the archetypical ranger is Drizz't, not Aragorn. I'm sure it used to be Aragorn in the earliest version of D&D, but that changed.
    That's what I figure, yes. Either way, it's tacked on and unnecessary. Wasn't the reason Drizzt used two swords was because it's a popular style among drow swordsmen? He was already the top student of the drow school of combat before he became a ranger, IIRC. Rangers ought to be free to use two weapons, but they shouldn't be forced into this style.

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    But I don't like the magicky bits of the Ranger in D&D.
    Neither do I, personally. Minor magic tricks fit the archetype, perhaps, but they feel tacked on much like other ranger features. If they keep ranger spells in D&D Next, they should make them more useful and unique, instead of just a cut-up list of druid spells taped onto a warrior class.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  7. - Top - End - #847
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    That's what I figure, yes. Either way, it's tacked on and unnecessary. Wasn't the reason Drizzt used two swords was because it's a popular style among drow swordsmen? He was already the top student of the drow school of combat before he became a ranger, IIRC. Rangers ought to be free to use two weapons, but they shouldn't be forced into this style.
    Yeah, it wasn't a Ranger feature until 3e. Before that it was a Drow loophole or something, I think. Then thanks to Drizz't it moved from Drow loophole to Ranger canon.

    Neither do I, personally. Minor magic tricks fit the archetype, perhaps, but they feel tacked on much like other ranger features. If they keep ranger spells in D&D Next, they should make them more useful and unique, instead of just a cut-up list of druid spells taped onto a warrior class.
    Where did Ranger spells even come from as a concept? Woodsman and hunter doesn't imply magician at all.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  8. - Top - End - #848
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Neither do I, personally. Minor magic tricks fit the archetype, perhaps, but they feel tacked on much like other ranger features. If they keep ranger spells in D&D Next, they should make them more useful and unique, instead of just a cut-up list of druid spells taped onto a warrior class.
    I'd totally be down with them drawing from the Skirmisher's tricks for inspiration.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  9. - Top - End - #849
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    And more recently, for drawing Ranger-ish associations, we now have film-LotR Legolas using both the bow and dual long knives.

    I agree, personally, that they should give both to the ranger, no decision needed.

  10. - Top - End - #850
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    oxybe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Where did Ranger spells even come from as a concept? Woodsman and hunter doesn't imply magician at all.
    i'm pretty sure the ranger spells as a concept come from the more mystical stuff Aragorn could do but his were more due to him being who he was rather then a byproduct of him being a "ranger".

    really, it's the same reason i hate people pointing to gandalf as a wizard as his most powerful magic wasn't "wizardly" in nature.

  11. - Top - End - #851
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWarlock View Post
    And more recently, for drawing Ranger-ish associations, we now have film-LotR Legolas using both the bow and dual long knives.

    I agree, personally, that they should give both to the ranger, no decision needed.
    If they get both, they need to make archery and TWF better.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  12. - Top - End - #852
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWarlock View Post
    And more recently, for drawing Ranger-ish associations, we now have film-LotR Legolas using both the bow and dual long knives.

    I agree, personally, that they should give both to the ranger, no decision needed.
    I'd argue that in both the book and the film Legolas is a closer to a Fighter who uses a longbow.
    Also, giving them both would still shoehorn them into being either archers or two weapon fighters unless they want to waste their class features, so the problem would remain.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    i'm pretty sure the ranger spells as a concept come from the more mystical stuff Aragorn could do but his were more due to him being who he was rather then a byproduct of him being a "ranger".

    really, it's the same reason i hate people pointing to gandalf as a wizard as his most powerful magic wasn't "wizardly" in nature.
    Both of these comparisons are flawed because magic in LotR is nothing like modern, pulp fantasy magic we see in D&D. In fact, the line between magic and secret knowlesde or skill is blurry at best, and even things acknowledged to be magic are rarely as overt as things casters do in D&D or other such fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I'd totally be down with them drawing from the Skirmisher's tricks for inspiration.
    I'm fine with anything so long as it's unique, effective and fits whatever presentation they pick for the ranger.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  13. - Top - End - #853
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    oxybe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    Both of these comparisons are flawed because magic in LotR is nothing like modern, pulp fantasy magic we see in D&D. In fact, the line between magic and secret knowlesde or skill is blurry at best, and even things acknowledged to be magic are rarely as overt as things casters do in D&D or other such fiction.
    so you're... agreeing... with me? as i said, i'm just looking at where the influences for the original ranger would have come from and for various reasons Argorn (for better or worst) is the standout, IMO.

    i looked as far back as i could and in the AD&D PHB rangers had access to both druid and MU spells, it's not a new concept for rangers to have magic, though the AD&D ranger only had access to it at level 8+ whereas it comes earlier in 2nd & 3rd ed.

    the "where this came from" is probably, as i said, the archetypal ranger and the only reason i can see why it would be included: Aragorn, AKA Strider (which is referenced as the name for the ranger's 2nd level, by the way). it should also be noted that that only humans and half-elves could be rangers in AD&D... you basically had to be a son/daughter of man.

    i would like to think that this makes it rather clear that the prototypical ranger is Aragorn when all is taken into context.

    now, the game as a whole has evolved and fantasy too as a genre, but that's not here or there. if we're going to discuss why the ranger has magic, we need only to look at it's inspiration for the class. the ranger was, at it's conception, "if you want to play aragorn, play this". it was probably easier for the devs, or at least made more sense to them, to make an aragorn class then a seperate human race and give it the magic stuff.

    the mechanics in old D&D were also kept rather basic and the classes barebones. my AD&D PHB is 126 pages long: 16 pages of appendices (including psionics), 57 pages to handle magic & spells, 10 pages of additional rules and 43 pages to handle character creation, races, classes & basic equipment. to get a better idea of page space:the fighter class took up less then half a page and half of that was a progression table. the paladin and ranger about 3/4 of a page apiece.

    now again, the game as a whole has evolved as well as the environment it's being developed in. i would like to think that it's target audience has also slightly changed since then. lots of context has changed.

    but 5th ed's big thing seems to be legacy retention, so whether it makes sense for rangers to have magic should not really be in question: IMO they will and should and it's the same with the two-weapon fighting, as the earliest influences i saw in my books was in 2nd ed AD&D where if he was wearing light armor he could fight with dual weapons at no penalty, though it should be noted that the 2nd ed Ranger could wear and wield whatever he pleased.

    the concept of the D&D ranger is rather well established.

    what we should be discussing is "is the concept of the ranger as a class still viable, or is it better served as a subclass/theme/specialization/whatnot". that the archetype is still viable is not in question, but it's how do we handle it?

    if we're going to go with "guy who uses bows or TWF" the fighter as is currently handles it to some extent. the system they're using at the moment is rather basic IMO and as it stands i don't think they could do it much justice when it comes to making the ranger feel distinct.

    look at how they handled the monk: reading it, it feel like a sub-par fighter in combat and sub-par rogue out of combat. i'm afraid the ranger might end up like the monk (who's only real specialties are better movement and a surprising proficiency at longspear CQC), but you just need to add "sub-par nature cleric" to the mix.

    TL;DR : historically, as far back as AD&D, the ranger had magic. he was proficient in both the bow and TWF in 2nd ed. 5th ed wants legacy retention so if there is a Ranger class, that's what it'll probably look like. the question shouldn't be "what is a ranger" but "is the archetype still viable as a stand-alone class concept".

  14. - Top - End - #854
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    so you're... agreeing... with me? as i said, i'm just looking at where the influences for the original ranger would have come from and for various reasons Argorn (for better or worst) is the standout, IMO.
    I am agreeing with you, yes. LotR may be where fantasy originates, but D&D is far futher from it than many people think.
    Anyway, while I realize they're trying to stay close to old-school D&D themes, I think that there are cases where it's detrimental to the game. Ranger abilities being all over the place is one of those cases.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.

  15. - Top - End - #855
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    I am agreeing with you, yes. LotR may be where fantasy originates, but D&D is far futher from it than many people think.
    Anyway, while I realize they're trying to stay close to old-school D&D themes, I think that there are cases where it's detrimental to the game. Ranger abilities being all over the place is one of those cases.
    I'm fairly certain the LotR is based heavily off of nordic mythos, fantasy has been around for a long long time.

    When D&D originally came out, it was heavily based off of LotR mythos. Actually, it was heavily based off of Chainmail, which was based off of LotR. As time went on, D&D has seperated itself from it's roots, and started to become it's own thing with it's own lore, but understanding it's roots is essential to understanding the setting.

    The Ranger class is kind of interesting. When it was first made, a Ranger was just as much a job as a class. A Ranger has a purpose. They were good aligned protectors of the natural world, and hunters of evil, and their abilities reflected their almost supernatural connection to the land. In future editions they tried to downplay that aspect and make them more of a finesse based fighter, though they always kept some of their nature theme, until 4e where is was mostly gone.

    With the design philosophy of 5e, making the ranger a finesse fighter makes no sense, as you could just make your fighter dexterity oriented, which means a ranger will have to go back to more of their old role.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  16. - Top - End - #856
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    i mean, i've heard 5th ed was supposed to be going away from the "add a bunch of incidental bonuses here and there" of 3rd & 4th ed?
    I think maybe you might be misunderstanding. While I believe some of that talk was indeed about random pluses in general, I get the impression they were mainly talking about the more permanent random pluses that are all over 4e, probably one of the greatest offenders being the 4e rouge. Consider mine, which has one to-hit roll if I'm attacking an opponent, another if I'm attacking an opponent with combat advantage, another if I'm attacking a bloodied opponent, and yet another if I'm attacking a bloodied opponent with combat advantage. Then I not only have different damage rolls for each of those scenarios, I also have an additional one for if I haven't used sneak attack this round, and another if I critical. And thats all assuming all my powers use the same ability modifier and the same weapon, which they don't. 4e is the first RPG I've ever played where I've wanted to have a dice roller at the table, just so that I could pre-program all the possible attack and damage dice combinations that could conceivably come up in the normal course of play.

    Now I agree they don't quite move away from it with the maneuvers, but certainly I think the maneuvers are an improvement.

    Now it's iconic and changing it would alienate players.
    You know, I keep seeing this cheap shot leveled at D&D Next all the time, and it's really unfair. Yes they talk about what is "iconic" to d&d a lot, but it's quite clear that they're seriously not just throwing stuff in because "that's how it's always been." They very clearly want to understand what makes D&D what it is as opposed to any other generic fantasy RPG, and part of that is determining what elements are "iconic"

  17. - Top - End - #857
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Grac's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    When D&D originally came out, it was heavily based off of LotR mythos. Actually, it was heavily based off of Chainmail, which was based off of LotR. As time went on, D&D has seperated itself from it's roots, and started to become it's own thing with it's own lore, but understanding it's roots is essential to understanding the setting.
    I don't know anything about the origins of the Ranger class, but this is wrong. D&D was certainly influenced by LotR, but not 'based off of' it, let alone 'heavily based off of' it. Reading the famed Appendix N we see that The Hobbit and LotR are in the list 'of particular inspiration to me'. After the list, Gygax writes "The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. For this reason, and for the hours of reading enjoyment, I heartily recommend the works of these fine authors to you."

    LotR 'helped shape the game' but was not among 'the most immediate influences'. For D&D and Chainmail (rather than AD&D), this is backed up by his countless posts on many of the AD&D and related forums over the years.

    If they are interested in a kind of 'legacy' game, they need to go back to Appendix N, not just Tolkien.

  18. - Top - End - #858
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    Yeah, it wasn't a Ranger feature until 3e. Before that it was a Drow loophole or something, I think. Then thanks to Drizz't it moved from Drow loophole to Ranger canon.
    No, AD&D had it already.

  19. - Top - End - #859
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    No, AD&D had it already.
    In 2e, you mean? I don't see anything about two weapons for the 1e AD&D Ranger on a quick skim, but I'm also not very familiar with 1e.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  20. - Top - End - #860
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    In 2e, you mean? I don't see anything about two weapons for the 1e AD&D Ranger on a quick skim, but I'm also not very familiar with 1e.
    Yep, the 2e ranger could avoid the -2/-4 penalty for attacking with two weapons. Though a high Dex lowered the penalty (for instance, someone with 18 Dex attacked at -0/-2 and someone with 21 Dex had no penalty) and therefore lucky and/or high level fighters and rogues could benefit from that somewhat as well, there was no analog to the TWF feat and high Dex was rare so two-weapon fighting was a de facto ranger class feature.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  21. - Top - End - #861
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Yep, the 2e ranger could avoid the -2/-4 penalty for attacking with two weapons. Though a high Dex lowered the penalty (for instance, someone with 18 Dex attacked at -0/-2 and someone with 21 Dex had no penalty) and therefore lucky and/or high level fighters and rogues could benefit from that somewhat as well, there was no analog to the TWF feat and high Dex was rare so two-weapon fighting was a de facto ranger class feature.
    Ah, see, 2e is the one I've had least contact with.
    But that's a neat system. I think I'd rather have TWF penalties mitigated both by Dex and by feats, and then having bonuses for exceptionally high Dex or for further feats.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  22. - Top - End - #862
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    In 2e, you mean? I don't see anything about two weapons for the 1e AD&D Ranger on a quick skim, but I'm also not very familiar with 1e.
    And the Drizzt novels did start in 1st Ed.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  23. - Top - End - #863
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    And the Drizzt novels did start in 1st Ed.
    Right, so where did Drizz't fanboys come from? I remember the books from the 80's, but his popularity seems to have spiked much later. Was there a video game?

  24. - Top - End - #864
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Grundy View Post
    Right, so where did Drizz't fanboys come from? I remember the books from the 80's, but his popularity seems to have spiked much later. Was there a video game?
    The books are still coming out and Drizzt has been in both Baldur's Gate games and in a PS2 Forgotten Realms game. I think he is on Daggerdale as well.
    I'm a fan of the books myself.

  25. - Top - End - #865
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    In Baldur's Gate he appears for 1 minute in which he kills 30 gnolls with single attack kills each. Then he says two lines and leaves.
    In BG2, the whole gang shows up to help with the assault on a vampire lair, but that was over 12 years after the character was first introduced.
    Spriggan's Den - Thoughts on RPGs and some of my personal creations.
    Ancient Lands - PF/d20 Sword & Sorcery campaign setting

  26. - Top - End - #866
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    And the Drizzt novels did start in 1st Ed.
    In 1e, two-weapon fighting was a Drow thing, not a Ranger thing.

    -O

  27. - Top - End - #867
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    huttj509's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    In 1e, two-weapon fighting was a Drow thing, not a Ranger thing.

    -O
    Indeed.

    1e -> Drow -> TWF -> Drizzt -> Popularity -> TWF becomes iconic for rangers (because every ranger is Drizzt?) -> 2e ranger TWF.

    Though in the ADnD 1e MM in the Elf, Drow entry it doesn't mention the TWF, basically just says "they live underground and are evil. Eeeeeeeeeeevil. And good at magic." What supplement was it in?
    "Come out, Neville."

    R.I.P. Richard Matheson

  28. - Top - End - #868
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    obryn's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by huttj509 View Post
    Indeed.

    1e -> Drow -> TWF -> Drizzt -> Popularity -> TWF becomes iconic for rangers (because every ranger is Drizzt?) -> 2e ranger TWF.

    Though in the ADnD 1e MM in the Elf, Drow entry it doesn't mention the TWF, basically just says "they live underground and are evil. Eeeeeeeeeeevil. And good at magic." What supplement was it in?
    I want to say there was something in the Unearthed Arcana racial writeup, but the one that sticks in my mind most clearly was in FR ...4? Hall of Heroes. It gives Drizzt stats and talks about how uberawesome drow fighting is.

  29. - Top - End - #869
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    I want to say there was something in the Unearthed Arcana racial writeup, but the one that sticks in my mind most clearly was in FR ...4? Hall of Heroes. It gives Drizzt stats and talks about how uberawesome drow fighting is.
    It's in Unearthed Arcana, page ten. "Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand."
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  30. - Top - End - #870
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

    In early 3.0 there was also a design flaw factor. They over estimated the value of making an attack and underestimated the value of casting a spell. That was why Two-Weapon Fighting required the useless feet of Ambidexterity and Haste allowed a spellcaster to cast two spells a round. They purposely made two-weapon fighting a female dog thing to do probably because it was all the rage in 2E. However, to give solace to the two-weapon using fans they allowed rangers easier access to the shtick, partially from legacy factor but also I think because fighters get all those feats so they get too much already, having no consistency to the value of feats as well. Fighter players (and rogue players) therefore just dipped one level in ranger to get the two-weapon fighting they want so much to avoid the normal female dog process, leading to DMs complaining about the dipping and frontloading of classes, and the rest is history.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •