tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post5508539264118294129..comments2024-03-19T05:48:34.142-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Of Rangers (and Elves)James Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80034816142497857442009-05-12T21:12:00.000-04:002009-05-12T21:12:00.000-04:00A couple months ago I opened a discussion about th...A couple months ago I opened a discussion about the ranger description from the C&C Players handbook that you guys might find relevant.<br />http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=7494&mforum=trolllordgames<br /><br />Basically I felt that the Ranger as described in C&C (and in the quote from dragon mag cited above) was too mission oriented to be engaging in the standard dungeon crawls with a party of characters mostly out for gold and glory. Basically the character class was unplayable in most common sorts of campaigns and games. The article quoted above seems even worse with its "no three rangers will travel together for fear of leaving some part of the wilderness unprotected" How then are they going to enter dungeon after dungeon with a party of thieves and wizards looking for loot? You might find some of the responses to the posts I made on the troll lords forum interesting.DHBoggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170439175265397893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73624847763210194682009-05-12T13:07:00.000-04:002009-05-12T13:07:00.000-04:00Dammit, and here I'd finally gotten myself mostly ...Dammit, and here I'd finally gotten myself mostly jaded about Japanese culture, and now I had to learn that.<br />Damn you, Brooze.Rachel Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765944479141792643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-24831200805979928732009-05-11T18:49:00.000-04:002009-05-11T18:49:00.000-04:00I think that you are missing the historic example ...I think that you are missing the historic example of the Ranger character. So, you get inspired by Aragorn and accept the Ranger as a fantasy equivalent of the light infantryman who is trained to parachute into wilderness and operate behind the enemy lines,as do our own Airbourne Rangers. But you are forgetting about the truer Ranger, the Japanese Yamabushi. <br /><br />They were the wildreness pilgrim guides, much like Aragorn to hobbits. Medieval Japanese worshipped sacred mountains and people made cross country pilgrimages to these mountains. Yamabushi lived in the wilderness huts and guided and protected pilgrims on mountain trails, fightng off the bandits and the wilderness beasts. They fought with Katanas, shorter, blunter, heavier swords more suitable for stabbing and hammering, and with spears. They knew wilderness survival, could navigate by stars, administer first aid - set broken bones and stop the bleeding, and they were reputed to have magical properties. Pretty heady for the 8th-10th century AD when they practiced... They were the natural pool out of which the histoic "Ninja" guerillas emerged, actually fighting Shugendo monks in the period when Japanese monks from different schools waged war on each other, and here is the kicker - they were solitary, seemd hermits, but typically lived with witches, who maintained tea houses and made money by reading fortunes. I'd say more interesting than Aragorn stoically singing Elvish love songs by the campfire...Brooser Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08487438364129415650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-9573190906530939332009-05-11T18:01:00.000-04:002009-05-11T18:01:00.000-04:00"I thought the description in the FF supported two..."I thought the description in the FF supported two equal-sized larger weapons. Is it not in there? I'll have to check the book when I get home."<br /><br />As far as I can tell, the <I>Fiend Folio</I> entry is just a copy and paste of the appendix in D3. Pretty much all it says is "Attacks: 1 or 2", "Damage: By weapon", and "Drow are also both intelligent and highly coordinated, being able to use either or both hand/arms for attack and defence."<br /><br />I believe the wording is open to the interpretation that later prevailed when Drizzt made his début in <I>Savage Frontier</I> as a tenth level drow ranger who "fights with two scimitars". Gygax's own examples and a post at EnWorld in later life suggest that such a reading was never intended on his part.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52506601406561822892009-05-11T16:57:00.000-04:002009-05-11T16:57:00.000-04:00I thought the description in the FF supported two ...I thought the description in the FF supported two equal-sized larger weapons. Is it not in there? I'll have to check the book when I get home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-19968327555755738972009-05-11T15:35:00.000-04:002009-05-11T15:35:00.000-04:00"That is little different than 1E. UA says, &..."That is little different than 1E. UA says, "Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons withoout penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand." (p. 10). Presumably that refers back to DMG requirement that 2nd weapon is dagger or hand axe (p. 70), and drow G3 writeup that 2nd weapon is dagger."<br /><br />However you read that UA text, no interpretation of the AD&D/2e PHB allows for a Drizzt character. Given that David Cook has indicated that the ranger was not created in the image of Drizzt and the rules appear to support his contention, it seems to be purely wishful thinking to equate the 2e PHB with Drizzt, and probably speaks more to our own youthful prejudices than the design of the product.<br /><br />To be clear, there is little doubt in my mind that Gygax originally intended for drow to be bound by the same fighting with two weapon rules as everybody else, since in D1-3 they are almost universally armed with "short sword and long dagger", but by 1988 the understanding at TSR seems to have been that the <I>Unearthed Arcana</I> text was not bound by the normal rules concerning secondary weapons.<br /><br />That appears to have been a post Gygaxian (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding, but either way the 2e PHB does not fit the pattern you outlined above. The Drizzt character relies on a reading of <I>Unearthed Arcana</I>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-71865815889652487332009-05-11T14:15:00.000-04:002009-05-11T14:15:00.000-04:00I agree that Zeb’s answer doesn’t seem completely ...I agree that Zeb’s answer doesn’t seem completely conclusive. But I tend to agree with Matthew that you’re reaching a bit. If the intent was to allow Drizzt clones, they’d have actually made fighting with two full-size swords an option. They didn’t. That remained a 1st Ed Drow shtick. It's not the same as the dagger/hand axe DMG TWF; it's take from the monster entry in the Field Folio.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46875453348575477682009-05-11T13:17:00.000-04:002009-05-11T13:17:00.000-04:00"It is impossible to make a Drizzt character ..."It is impossible to make a Drizzt character using the AD&D/2e PHB because the ranger's second weapon has to be smaller than his first weapon. The size categories in the PHB basically limit you to 'short sword' (in some printings) or dagger."<br /><br />That is little different than 1E. UA says, "Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons withoout penalty, <I>provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand</I>." (p. 10). Presumably that refers back to DMG requirement that 2nd weapon is dagger or hand axe (p. 70), and drow G3 writeup that 2nd weapon is dagger.<br /><br />In summary: Salvatore bent the rules for Drizzt in both editions. In fact, this stands as even better evidence that the 2E rules <I>expanded</I> the permitted 2nd weapon to come closer to the Dr'zzt character.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10458384490092491292009-05-11T12:45:00.000-04:002009-05-11T12:45:00.000-04:00Matthew- Thank you bunches, even if that post wasn...Matthew- Thank you bunches, even if that post wasn't the most concrete answer.Rachel Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765944479141792643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-87033994541697941952009-05-11T11:34:00.000-04:002009-05-11T11:34:00.000-04:00"Zeb would have to come up with a more concre..."Zeb would have to come up with a more concrete history if he really wanted to knock this one down."<br /><br />It is impossible to make a Drizzt character using the AD&D/2e PHB because the ranger's second weapon has to be smaller than his first weapon. The size categories in the PHB basically limit you to "short sword" (in some printings) or dagger. Indeed, the PHB even tells us that drow are to be treated no differently than the standard elf in terms of abilities. The only way to build a truly effective Drizzt is via <I>Unearthed Arcana</I>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-1024291452515641952009-05-11T10:44:00.000-04:002009-05-11T10:44:00.000-04:00"David Cook answered that last year on Dragonsfoot..."David Cook answered that last year on Dragonsfoot, and surprisingly (though not in retrospect) it had nothing to do with Drizzt."<br /><br />I'm going to be skeptical of that vague non-answer ("I'm not sure where the ranger took shape...")<br /><br />The history is too clear: (1) 1E UA gives drow PCs 2-handed fighting; (2) Drizzt appears as a drow ranger, fighting 2-handed; (3) 2E takes out drow PCs but gives the 2-handed fighting to rangers, so as to make Drizzt still viable.<br /><br />Zeb would have to come up with a more cocrete history if he really wanted to knock this one down.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-46335457040128354142009-05-11T09:26:00.000-04:002009-05-11T09:26:00.000-04:00Some of the Sage’s comments really appear to be re...Some of the Sage’s comments really appear to be retrospective justification of the restrictions, rather than original background on which the restrictions were based. I agree with Kent, Andrea and Matthew that it’s obvious that Gygax’s elves are a hybrid of Tolkien and others. Which was, of course, immediately apparent to any Tolkien reader who ever perused the 1st ed race description, or even looked at the height comparison!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-5874865810378753302009-05-11T07:47:00.000-04:002009-05-11T07:47:00.000-04:00Elves, regardless of how they feel about humanoids...<I>Elves, regardless of how they feel about humanoids, do not make good rangers because their empathy for life and living things runs counter to many of the teachings that rangers must absorb and learn to use. Elves put a lot of emphasis in combat on style, and cannot rid themselves of their distaste for killing any creature, even evil ones and even when its necessary for ones own protection</I>And yet elves are permitted to be assassins..metamorphosissigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18163514061779555557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-51905137194419794212009-05-11T06:48:00.000-04:002009-05-11T06:48:00.000-04:00"For that matter, where did Rangers fighting with ..."For that matter, where did Rangers fighting with two weapons even originate?"<br /><br />David Cook answered that last year on <I>Dragonsfoot</I>, and surprisingly (though not in retrospect) it had nothing to do with Drizzt.<br /><br />http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26912&p=514487#p514487Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3658491053859108502009-05-11T05:33:00.000-04:002009-05-11T05:33:00.000-04:00Matthew: I personally prefer Conan and his fellow ...Matthew: <I>I personally prefer Conan and his fellow borderers in Beyond the Black River as a prototype for the ranger</I>.<br /><br />I'll buy that! My current campaign has NPC Rangers exclusively chosen from Frank Frazetta galleries.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165997449776226774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77530564367966510902009-05-11T03:24:00.000-04:002009-05-11T03:24:00.000-04:00Drizzt?
(Ugh)Drizzt?<br /><br />(Ugh)thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-20616388264748603762009-05-11T01:31:00.000-04:002009-05-11T01:31:00.000-04:00For that matter, where did Rangers fighting with t...For that matter, where did Rangers fighting with two weapons even originate?Rachel Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765944479141792643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52142967010243948112009-05-10T20:16:00.000-04:002009-05-10T20:16:00.000-04:00"I think the subtlety here is that while Tolk..."I think the subtlety here is that while Tolkien is the largest influence on The Ranger the influences on D&D Elves are actually much broader. Tolkien's Elves are not accurately captured by Gygax in the MM or earlier books and I believe he intended to describe a more whimsical faery race."<br /><br />No doubt, in which case perhaps we should be allowing "Grey Elves" to be rangers. :D<br /><br />Seriously, though, I agree with what you are saying about the AD&D/1e elf and why they were not initially permitted to be rangers; my feeling was more directed to D&D or AD&D/2e where there is more flexibility as to what constitutes an "elf" and predicated on the postulation that the class is based on (and therefore is a close representation of) Tolkien's rangers and should reflect their place in the world.<br /><br />I personally prefer Conan and his fellow borderers in <I>Beyond the Black River</I> as a prototype for the ranger, in which case we are talking a much more brutal sort of character class, and one which could easily be extended to the "other side", which is to say the Picts.<br /><br />I would hazard to say such a class would be more "swords & sorcery" and more "Gygaxian", without necessarily sacrificing the ability to use it in a "high fantasy" Tolkienesque campaign (and to be fair, the ranger class as written is more "Aragorn" than it is "Dúnedain").Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15969975024683311812009-05-10T17:56:00.000-04:002009-05-10T17:56:00.000-04:00The article is interesting, also for the way it re...The article is interesting, also for the way it refers to the DMG's secondary skills differentiating them from class skills. I think these secondary skills make a nice and useful list and I'm going to incorporate them in my C&C game.<br /><br />As for Tolkien's Elves, the explanation in the article for sure does not apply. In the Sillmarillion and Children of Hurin there is at least one<br />elf, Beleg Cuthalion "The Strongbow", who is the prototype of the ranger defender. He protects the borders of Doriath, slaying orcs with dedication and gusto. <br /><br />Clearly Gygax's elves are partially another beast. The Tolkien influence comes from the Hobbit, mainly, where the Wood Elves ARE described as whimsical to some extent. More important, probably, is "Three hearts and three lions".<br /><br />Judgement on Tolkien as a writer may vary - I can live with that. But I must admit that seeing Tolkien's elves described as "thinly characterized" surprised me quite a bit. There is literally a world of depth beneath Tollers' elves. I mean, the guy invented full fledged languages for them!<br />"Yeah, they are one dimensional add a bit of Faerie to liven them up".<br />But Tolkien's qualities as a "fantasy writer" and/or "novelist" would require a very big discussion on their own. I believe many remarks that are made on them contain quite complex implicit "genre" and "professionalism" expectations. That, I'm sure, would have greatly surprised Tolkien himself.Andrea Roccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15698978113775905706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50217651723384430392009-05-10T17:26:00.000-04:002009-05-10T17:26:00.000-04:00Cool article; it makes me miss when character clas...Cool article; it makes me miss when character classes where an archetype, and not something one just build a character off of, or used as a template, or as part of a role within the party. You didn't feel like you're one of a million of that class, but one of a few.<br /><br />I am so going to play a B/X game next (I'd rather 1e, but I know that would be too much to ask for from my players to learn just for a few sessions of play).Veilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629417071588107833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80129531694173448122009-05-10T16:51:00.000-04:002009-05-10T16:51:00.000-04:00K. Forest: No need. You asked a question and then ...K. Forest: No need. You asked a question and then you answered it, <I>The elves of LOTR and the Silmarillion are clearly not whimsical</I>.<br />Im not sure why someone would think that what Tolkien despised was important. He was a great fantasy writer but not a great writer.<br /><br />His thinly characterised human Elves might have been more interesting for a touch more Faerie.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165997449776226774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-68562801273405097382009-05-10T16:16:00.000-04:002009-05-10T16:16:00.000-04:00"Tolkien's Elves are not accurately captured by Gy..."Tolkien's Elves are not accurately captured by Gygax in the MM or earlier books and I believe he intended to describe a more whimsical faery race."<br /><br />Please expand on this. When you say you believe "he intended to describe a more whimsical faery race" I take it you're talking about Gygax? Tolkien grew to despise the 'whimsification' of the fey folk in English literature and folklore. The elves of LOTR and the Silmarillion are clearly not whimsical and, as far as I can tell, are intended to be an idealized reflection of humanity.<br /><br />As for the ranger class, I've always ran it as a specialized fighter with a wilderness/survival focus and completely dispensed with the mystical aspects.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17285645317925993821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14443325232720954102009-05-10T15:36:00.000-04:002009-05-10T15:36:00.000-04:00Matthew James Stanham made a fair observation in t...Matthew James Stanham made a fair observation in the comments to yesterday's post on The "Real" Ranger suggesting if Tolkien is the source for The Ranger then Elves clearly should be permitted as Rangers. <br /><br />I think the subtlety here is that while Tolkien is the largest influence on <I>The Ranger</I> the influences on D&D <I>Elves</I> are actually much broader. Tolkien's Elves are not accurately captured by Gygax in the MM or earlier books and I believe he intended to describe a more whimsical faery race.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165997449776226774noreply@blogger.com