Multi-Classed Rangers
James_J_...@cup.portal.com
option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf). Does anyone out there
have any idea why Mage/Ranger is not allowed? Was it ever "allowed"?
While we are on the subject, some of the other multi-classed options
listed on page 44 seem a bit inexplicable. Anyone have any comments?
Jim Kowalczyk
Brad Post
>I recently noticed that in the AD&D 2nd Ed. PH the only multi-classed
>option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf). Does anyone out there
>have any idea why Mage/Ranger is not allowed? Was it ever "allowed"?
>
>While we are on the subject, some of the other multi-classed options
>listed on page 44 seem a bit inexplicable. Anyone have any comments?
>
Personally I hate the idea of having a multiclassed Ranger. With the way
he was tamed down in the 2nd Ed. PH I guess they figure since he lost some
power, to allow him to be a cleric too. He can't be multiclassed with a Mage,
since he already becomes one at higher levels. That was my basic understanding.
Let's get real, I mean the Ranger Class is one of the best in all of AD&D, he
can kill almost anything, Giant Class or not, and making him able to be
multiclassed is crazy, I'd give up DMing. I mean a walking tank that cast
Druid, and MU spells, with 100+ hit points, and can cast a Heal Spell, it's
too sick. He might as well go solo.
Brad Post
James_J_...@cup.portal.com
>Personally I hate the idea of having a multiclassed Ranger. With the way
>he was tamed down in the 2nd Ed. PH I guess they figure since he lost some
>power, to allow him to be a cleric too. He can't be multiclassed with a Mage,
>since he already becomes one at higher levels. That was my basic
>understanding.
>Let's get real, I mean the Ranger Class is one of the best in all of AD&D, he
>can kill almost anything, Giant Class or not, and making him able to be
>multiclassed is crazy, I'd give up DMing. I mean a walking tank that cast
>Druid, and MU spells, with 100+ hit points, and can cast a Heal Spell, it's
>too sick. He might as well go solo.
>
>Brad Post
First of all, Rangers no longer get Magic-User spells at higher levels
(only Priest Spells). In the 1st Ed., multi-classed Rangers were subject
to level advancement restrictions, and so they never got those spells
anyway. The 2nd Ed. PHB hints at Race level limits, but I guess we will have
to wait for the 2nd Ed. DMG to find out what those limits are.
Secondly, in the 2nd Ed. multi-classed Mages can wear armor suitable
to their other class, but they cannot cast any spells while wearing armor.
This seems like a pretty major restriction. Therefore, a Mage/Ranger
would not be able to wear any armor if he wanted to cast any Wizard Spells.
Finally, the bonus for Rangers against Giant Class seems to have been
removed in the 2nd Edition.
Jim Kowalczyk
Charles K Hughes
--------------------
Brad Post
-------------------
In the second ed, the ranger is toned down quite a bit and at upper levels
will only get druid spells not mu spells. This alone raises my ire; why allow
a druid to be a cleric?!?!? I gag on this thought even for dual classed
humans; in fact I gag on any such combination. I do not like bard/thieves,
mage/illusionists, cleric/druids, fighter/rangers, ranger/druids,
ranger/clerics, or a whole slew of other sickening possibilities. I do like
the possibility of ranger/mage and feel that the authors must have made a few
mistakes in this regard...for instance, the rangers non-weapon proficiencies
allowed are warrior, wizard, and general...the ranger has no magical abilities
and yet he is given them as non weapon profs instead of the priest group.
I allow most reasonable class combinations regardless of what the book says.
With the new changes this increases the certain class combinations and reduces
others. Just as one final note...the bard can be multiclassed...but none of
the races can be a multiclassed bard...neat huh? (See PHB2nd, pg 45, col 1,
5th para.)
Ordania-DM
@cup.portal.com
Tom Mish - MACC
>I recently noticed that in the AD&D 2nd Ed. PH the only multi-classed
>option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf). Does anyone out there
>have any idea why Mage/Ranger is not allowed? Was it ever "allowed"?
Isn't 'MAGE' just a MU level? (i.e.,16th level)
signed,
Zorlof &
Lord Sam the Great
(The dynamic duo ride again? When's the last time you saw a dwarf and
a helf-elf along?)
_____________________ ____________________________ ___________________
\ / \ /
Tom \ / Bit: mish@wiscmacc \ / Univ. Of Wis.
Mish X Arpa: mi...@vms.macc.wisc.edu X Madison
Jr. / \ Phone: (608) 262-8525 / \ MACC
_____________________/ \____________________________/ \___________________
And Scott Samuelson too! (Med 2 UW-Madison)
(Madison, WI : home of mouthy liberals who
are really closet conservatives -- Paladin`s honor!)
James_J_...@cup.portal.com
>In article <16...@cup.portal.com>, James_J_...@cup.portal.com writes...
>
>>I recently noticed that in the AD&D 2nd Ed. PH the only multi-classed
>>option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf). Does anyone out there
>>have any idea why Mage/Ranger is not allowed? Was it ever "allowed"?
>
>Isn't 'MAGE' just a MU level? (i.e.,16th level)
That name was used for 16th level MU's in the 1st Edition rules.
Such level names appear to have been dropped from the 2nd Ed.
Now "Mage" and "Illusionist" are sub-classes of "Wizard". Mages
are what used to be called Magic-Users.
Jim
Lance Saleme
>option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf). Does anyone out there
>have any idea why Mage/Ranger is not allowed? Was it ever "allowed"?
>
>While we are on the subject, some of the other multi-classed options
>listed on page 44 seem a bit inexplicable. Anyone have any comments?
>
>Jim Kowalczyk
>
Scan back over your old (more than 2 years ago) Dragon magazines for the
article by Bennett Marks on the Half-Satyr and the Half-Driad as PC. The
Half-Satyr was used to provide a means to generate a Ranger/Mage and the
Half-Driad was used to get the Ranger/Druid.
The effort was made because I wanted to run a Ranger/Mage PC and there
wasn't anything in the rules to allow it. My character (Algernon) became
the model for the class and Bennett got it published.
If you want more details about the class limititations/advantages mail me.
Lance (Dragonrider) Saleme
[This posting is my idea alone...nobody elses! Well, not that I know of.]
a dead rat
>In article <16...@cup.portal.com>, James_J_...@cup.portal.com writes...
>>I recently noticed that in the AD&D 2nd Ed. PH the only multi-classed
>>option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf). Does anyone out there
>>have any idea why Mage/Ranger is not allowed? Was it ever "allowed"?
no, it was not actually ever "allowed". i also would not allow it as a DM,
since it seems to me that rangers have to spend all their time in the great
outdoors, while magic-users have to do their studying somewhere near civil-
ization, and probably indoors.
it never made sense to me that rangers could cast magic-user spells at high
levels. i don't let them do this.
--
"I've eaten lots of cow chow, I've tasted egg pie.
I went and took the sow vow (please don't ask me why).
I'm getting sick of cow chow, I'm growing bored with sex.
I'm indisposed to plow now." ---Tyrannosaurus Rex
Scott F. Brown
>
> First of all, Rangers no longer get Magic-User spells at higher levels
OK, all very well and good..
> Finally, the bonus for Rangers against Giant Class seems to have been
> removed in the 2nd Edition.
Ho ho hold it. What's this? I haven't bought the 2nd Ed. PH yet (the words
waste of money leap into mind) and have only casually perused a friends copy,
so I really am not aware of many changes. But how/why did TSR strike the
Rangers bonuses against giant kind? Is this true? The more I hear, the less
I like....
John M. Burian
bur...@barney.bgsu.edu
Steve Ardron
>>In article <16...@cup.portal.com>, James_J_...@cup.portal.com writes...
>>>I recently noticed that in the AD&D 2nd Ed. PH the only multi-classed
>>>option for Rangers is Cleric/Ranger (Half-Elf).
>since it seems to me that rangers have to spend all their time in the great
>outdoors, while magic-users have to do their studying somewhere near civil-
>ization, and probably indoors.
What about ranger/druids? I know alignement prevents this, but I allways
thought this was stupid. What could be more natural? The classes seem ideally
suited to each other. I never saw Rangers as particularly religious, so
I didn't like the Ranger/cleric (I guess they could be though), but
worshipping trees seems right up their alley.
Steve.
I don't believe in .sigs
Bob Boag
> waste of money leap into mind) and have only casually perused a friends copy,
> so I really am not aware of many changes. But how/why did TSR strike the
> Rangers bonuses against giant kind? Is this true? The more I hear, the less
> I like....
>
> John M. Burian
> bur...@barney.bgsu.edu
Actually, the 2nd Edition rules state:
In their roles as protectors of good, rangers tend to focus their
efforts against some particular creature, usually one that
marauds their homeland. Before advancing to 2nd level, every
ranger must select a species enemy. Typical enemies include
giants, orcs, lizard men, trolls, or ghouls; your DM has final
approval on the choice. Thereafter, whenever the ranger
encounters that emeny, he gains a +4 bonus to his attack rolls.
-- Bob Boag <BO...@MUVMS1.BITNET>
Senior Software Systems Analyst
Marshall University Computer Center
Huntington, WV, 25755-5320
John George
version of News, Steve, who doesn't believe in .sigs, says,
>What about ranger/druids? I know alignement prevents this, but I allways
>thought this was stupid. What could be more natural? The classes seem ideally
>suited to each other. I never saw Rangers as particularly religious, so
In one of the Greyhawk books, EGG has a Ranger-Druid. I believe it
is a half-elf. At the end of this book, EGG claims that this is
one of his own characters. Do you suppose he can't read his own
rules? :-)
--John C. George; geo...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Rob Miracle
>> Finally, the bonus for Rangers against Giant Class seems to have been
>> removed in the 2nd Edition.
>Ho ho hold it. What's this? I haven't bought the 2nd Ed. PH yet (the words
>waste of money leap into mind) and have only casually perused a friends copy,
>so I really am not aware of many changes. But how/why did TSR strike the
>Rangers bonuses against giant kind? Is this true? The more I hear, the less
>I like....
This is partially true. Before I get into the details, let me give you a bit
of background on what all went on.
First, ever player/ref I know who has read the players handbook 2 has said
"They messed up the <insert favorite class here> class. They took away so much
stuff."
Secondly (and the explanation for the first) TSR (in their infinite wisdom)
decided to scale the game down. This is (I think) good for the overall game.
Most everything was cut back in some form or fashion. They are wanting to
limit the "Gods and Gadgets" and "Munchkin" games. Again, I think this is
healthy for the overall game. It has gotten the feel of at least being a bit
more realistic.
Now about the Ranger. The Ranger does not do n points per level against "giant
class critters" any more, but instead, (s)he gets a +4 verses one sort of
creature, be it troll, hill giant, giant ant. This is a +4 to HIT only, not
damage. Again this is to scale the game down. I never understood why they got
that bonus anyway. There are many more hostile creatures to the land that
giant-kind. Plus this solves the problems caused by Storm Giants. I believe
the rule was there initially to make the Ranger have an enemy like the Paladin.
Giant kind was pulled from the air, so now the Ranger can hate whatever messes
up his land. Anyway, a 15th level Ranger doing +15 points of damage to a
Goblin was a bit excessive.
(Disclaimer. I play Rangers and I like them. But I accept the new rules for
what they are.)
Rob
Rob Miracle | Bitnet : RWMIRA01@ULKYVX CIS: 74216,3134
Programmer/Analyst-II | INTERNET : rwmira01%ulkyvx...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
University of Louisville | UUCP : ...psuvax1!ulkyvx.bitnet!rwmira01
sil...@p.cs.uiuc.edu
> Finally, the bonus for Rangers against Giant Class seems to have been
> removed in the 2nd Edition.
Not really, they changed it to allow the ranger's player and the GM to come up
with a class/group of monsters which would be treated as the old giant class
used to be. You could choose giants, dragons, goblinoids, demons, whatever you
wished. Seemed to make sense to me.
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
David E. Brooks Jr
> In an article whose number and author have been cut off by this #%$&^
> version of News, Steve, who doesn't believe in .sigs, says,
> >What about ranger/druids? I know alignement prevents this, but I allways
> >thought this was stupid. What could be more natural?
>
> is a half-elf. At the end of this book, EGG claims that this is
> one of his own characters. Do you suppose he can't read his own
> rules? :-)
>
> --John C. George; geo...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
Remember, in the Unearthed Arcana, Ranger/Druids are now permitted. I can't
remember if it was in the actual release version of the book, or in the
eratta published in Dragon a few months later. I certainly remember the
discussions that did go on in Dragon about the alignment conflict, I can
look up the references if there is enough interest.
In thinking about Druids, I always thought it would be feasable to allow them
to be Neutral-Good and Neutral-Evil. I know that seems to back away from the
'neutral' attitude of the Druid, but if you look at Druids being interested in
the balance of Nature it can be reasonable to assume that some would go about
it in a Good, Neutral or Evil fashion.
(I can see it now, "You will NOT pull those weeds or I'll fry your face off")
--
David E. Brooks Jr UUCP : ...!ddsw1!corpane!brooks
Corpane Industries Incorporated ...!ukma!corpane!brooks
10100 Bluegrass Parkway Phone: +1 502 491 4433 x122
Louisville, KY 40299 Quote: printf("%c",34)
Scott Butler
>In one of the Greyhawk books, EGG has a Ranger-Druid. I believe it
>is a half-elf. At the end of this book, EGG claims that this is
>one of his own characters. Do you suppose he can't read his own
>rules? :-)
I believe the proper cliche here is "Do as I say, not as I do."
--
----------------------------.-------------------------------------
Scott Butler | but...@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
|
- Some fun, huh Bambi? - | but...@utorphys.bitnet
David Gudeman
>In article <6...@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> geo...@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (John George) writes:
>>In one of the Greyhawk books, EGG has a Ranger-Druid. I believe it
>>is a half-elf. At the end of this book, EGG claims that this is
>>one of his own characters. Do you suppose he can't read his own
>>rules? :-)
>
>I believe the proper cliche here is "Do as I say, not as I do."
I should hate to give the impression that I'm defending Gygax, but to
be fair -- one of his rules is that the rules can be changed. Is
Gygax supposed to follow the rules rigidly when everyone else breaks
them at will?
Scott Butler
>I should hate to give the impression that I'm defending Gygax, but to
>be fair -- one of his rules is that the rules can be changed. Is
>Gygax supposed to follow the rules rigidly when everyone else breaks
>them at will?
Not wanting to start a flame war about EGG I still must mention that,
as many people are aware, having free rein to change the rules was
not an attitude that Gygax supported. Witness many of the pseudo-
editorials in the older issues of "Dragon" magazine, the overall gist
of which were, "Well, I suppose you COULD change the rules if you really
wanted, but then you wouldn't be playing REAL AD&D, would you?"
j...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
From memory, the basic changes of Rangers from AD&D/1 to AD&D/2:
d10 for hit points
xp chart changed (same as paladin)
Priest spells from Animal & Plant spheres only at high level
Can use 2 weapons w/o the usual -4/-2 penatly to hit
the old Giant-Class bonus now applicable to a specific monster-type of the
character's choice
Multiple atcks/round @ the same levels as other Warriors
Followers chart reconstructed.
Tracking improves 5% every 3 levels (I think 3 levels...)
I can't think of anything else that was mentioned in PH2, DMG2 might change
some other points, such as level limits, usw.
-JimC
--
James H. Cloos, Jr. "Entropy isn't what it used to be."
j...@Crnlvax5.BITNET --c/o Fortune @ batcomputer.UUCP
j...@Vax5.CIT.Cornell.EDU #include <std_disclaimers.h>
cornell!vax1!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!j...@rochester.UUCP
B-7 Upson Hall, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853 +1 607 272 4519