Dissing Drizzt...
Trevtrev75
I love it so far, and I'm on the second book.
So...my question is,
Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
Is it because he's a little overexposed?
Is it because he's a Drow with a conscience?
just wondering...
trev
CARRIER LOST
> Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
> Is it because he's a little overexposed?
> Is it because he's a Drow with a conscience?
he's a bloody sodding poor example of the rest of us, that's why.
little bugger should've been fed to the grimlocks at an early age,
and his stupid scimitars.
--
.-----.
|l~~~l| qe...@ivfv.pbz (PNEEVRE YBFG) <uggc://jjj.ivfv.pbz/~qebj/>
|l___l| -----------------------------------------------------------------
/+++++\ Jura rapelcgvba vf bhgynjrq, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
~~~~~~~
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen
If you started with Icewind Dale Trilogy (going with publishing order
instead of chronological), the True Horror That Is Drizzt hasn't still
hit you.
Drizzt, in my opinion, was so-and-so, tolerable in Icewind Dale books.
Drizzt, on the other hand, in the books that follow (publishing order)
is ... bad. And it isn't just Drizzt, but also the general setup of the
books. Usually people do not get this passionate about disliking someone
(Elminster and Seven Munch.. Sisters aside); in /normal/ sort of literacy
these gripes could be easily brushed aside with 'so fucking what?', but
this is /gaming/ literacy. The character was born out of game rules,
and he is officially listed as honest-to-god NPC in supplements, with
appropriate items and stats. THIS, I believe, is the main beef with
complaints regarding Drizzt and other figures who (or whose writers)
grab the rules, bend them over and proceed to do the thing which in Idaho
gives a five years to life-time sentence if anyone happens to see it and
reports to the police.
My list of gripes AND it contains SPOILERS, so unless you want to read
the books before my opinion spoils your enjoyment, please stop now:
* Drizzt lives in an environment (ruled by eeeeeevil drow women) where
his status is barely above a slave; he is mentally conditioned by evil
sisters and mum to 'behave properly'. However, none of this 'conditioning'
shows up after his surfacing from the Underdark, even if it was going on
for decades (the time it takes for elves to mature, after all). +1
to Twink Score for ignoring the background.
* Drizzt keeps displaying a number of unique abilities beyond 'a drow
with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2), ambidexterity (which is
described to a ridiculous degree to point out how SPECIAL he is -- see
the game with coins) (+2), 'Drizzt-I'm-your-father' Zaknafein (who is, of
course, brutally AND conveniently slain) (+1), cool loner-syndrome (+2),
acquisition of a magical cat statue (Guenhwyvar obeys Drizzt, but not the
person who commands the item)(+2). Total of +7 1/2 to Twink Score.
* Drizzt, the chick magnet. But he is *honorable* so he won't even try
to bed them. It has to be because he is *honorable*, not because he was
conditioned to serve women in his past. +1 to Twink Score for repeated
background mutilation.
* 'Exile' reads like a collection of random encounters with some roleplaying
between them. Wait, can't give Twink Score for this. At least something
mimics game sessions.
* By the third book of Drow Trilogy, R.A. Salvatore has developed a taste
for describing mass combat. Half of the book (or so) is dedicated for
describing *one*, *single* *battle* with Drizzt, Guen and his ranger master
against the hordes of gnolls and *eeeevil*. The book also features a map
for this battle. For fuck's sake, man, this is boring as hell. And it wasn't
enough that we had to suffer through this *one* battle, because 'Legacy'
and 'Cleric's Quintet' series (I owned three books, couldn't read past
book two) also carve the biggest chunk of for describing *one*, *huge*
battle, without any essential development of the situation or characters.
AAAARGH. While 'development' is not always the point in literacy, you WISH
that there would be some, because as it is, the characters are still
cutouts from cardboard. No Twink Score points, just +5 to Suckitude Score.
* Drizzt has a kewl enemy, Artemis Entreri. Who is almost as good as Drizzt
is. And who is (almost pointedly so) his exact reverse. Plenty of thrilling
battles! (Not). Angsting over 'but I can't kill!' while the reader is wishing
'fuck, kill both of them and get over with it'. +2 to Twink Score.
Total: 11 1/2 so far, with Twink Score Calculator. And +5 to Suckitude Score.
In short, I do not dislike Drizzt because he is a drow with conscience.
I do not dislike Drizzt because he is a drow. I dislike Drizzt because
he is way too loaded for my taste, the style of writing grates me worse
than a bed of sandpaper and I'd rather go and soak my head in sulphuric
acid. I still have the books. So I can open them, and point out WHY I do not
like Drizzt.
--
E-mail: dar...@co.jyu.fi
Current webpage: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~darkelf/
My miniatures webpage: http://www.iti.fi/darkelf/miniatures.html
Lord_Anthrax
On 19-Sep-2002, trevt...@aol.com (Trevtrev75) wrote:
> Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
It seems that way because the people who don't like him are very vocal in
their negative opinions(see the many threads in the Google archives about
how much Drizzt/Elminster/The Forgotten Realms sucks for a comprehensive
list of reasons ranging from cogent to crapola). In truth a lot(and I mean a
LOT)of people love Drizzt and Mr. Salvatore's writings about him, as well as
Elminster and the Forgotten Realms, but you don't hear a lot of rave
opinions, since the anonymity of the Net gives people the perfect way to
unleash their venom and they're usually the ones who will stick out above
and beyond all others. My advice is to ignore the stump orators who want to
tell you why you're a moron and they're right and enjoy the books or not as
you like.
--
Regards,
The Lord Anthrax
"Arguing with people on Usenet is like participating in the Special
Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard." -Anonymous
Quasit
> > Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
>
> writings about him,
I love the writings of mr Salvatore
Victor
Shawn Cady
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen wrote in message ...
>In article <20020919035140...@mb-dd.aol.com>,
>Trevtrev75 <trevt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I have just started the Icewind Dale Trilogy.
>>I love it so far, and I'm on the second book.
>>So...my question is,
>>Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
>>Is it because he's a little overexposed?
>>Is it because he's a Drow with a conscience?
>>just wondering...
>
>If you started with Icewind Dale Trilogy (going with publishing order
>instead of chronological), the True Horror That Is Drizzt hasn't still
>hit you.
>
<snip Drizzt-hate>
So you have a problem with Salvatore, not Drizzt. Seeing as how he's
fictional and all.
-- Shawn
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen
Dude, Drizzt's problem stems from Salvatore's writing style and the
'goodies' he has used for loading this character and which also then
appeared in the **gaming** books; I still find the word 'hate' a bit
strong in my case: I would go with 'annoyance', even if Drizzt is
Yet Another Mary Sue for FR. If he had stayed purely as a creation of
*fiction*, instead of hopping to resource books, I'm fairly certain
that people would not object as much as they do now.
Then again, a friend of mine told me about the Dragonstar campaign
she is running. The Drow swept to the Faerun, zapped Elminster, drove
Khelben away, killed the Seven Sisters and brainwashed Drizzt as a
mindless love slave ;) Well, there's an idea what to do... :)
I'd say, Jherek (from those Sahuagin-related book, forgotthenamedangabit)
is anti-Drizzt -- a character who is loaded with *no special equipment*
and who (at least amongst my friends who have read the book) is loathed
anyway. It's because that particular character goes with the 'woe is me'
and who is, nonetheless, continuously portrayed as 'the best sailor'
and who then proceeds to get boot to his head for his 'goodness'. In
other words, he's a whiny, but *skilled* and *unfunny* version of
Rincewind (from Diskworld).
*Hate* on the other hand, crops up when rabid-Drizzt/Salvatore fans
tout the books as the best thing since Edda. It is *really* difficult
to hate a fictional character, but when you have a bunch of living,
breathing examples of Earth's future generation asking if they
could play Drizzt in a MUSH (online RPG environment), willingness to
sign Misanthropic Bitch's opinion (at http://www.misanthropic-bitch.com)
is very tempting indeed. The very same thing happens when they ask (when
they get 'no' as answer) if they could play Aragorn. Or Legolas. Or
Kitiara. Grow up and get some imagination, gnats! *Aaaargh*
C'mon. I challenge you to open a D&D-based (or just fantasy) MUSH or MUX;
let's see how much you fancy these ideas after two weeks and 100 Drizzt
applications. I *received* an application for Drizzt in a *World of Darkness*
MUSH too, for crying out loud...
David Benson
(or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What possible
use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah! The
Ranger class is ruined.
D Benson
"Trevtrev75" <trevt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020919035140...@mb-dd.aol.com...
Varl
> I have just started the Icewind Dale Trilogy.
> I love it so far, and I'm on the second book.
> So...my question is,
> Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
It's vogue to do so. No real reason other than that. It's just vogue.
> Is it because he's a little overexposed?
> Is it because he's a Drow with a conscience?
You know, it's deliciously ironic how many people here hate Drizzt for
his abilities, condemning him for all his supposed twinks, at which
point in the next thread, they'll refer us to some webpage with an 86th
level, 8 classed character or some other absurdity and claim how legit
it is. Riiiiiight.
I read the series. I liked them, but then again, I don't typically go
into reading a series uber-analyzing and scrutinizing every little
nitpicky detail just so I can say I told you so. What a colossal waste
of time that would be. It's *fantasy* already. Escape a little. Sheesh.
I'm glad you're enjoying them, Trev.
scott
trevt...@aol.com (Trevtrev75) wrote:
> Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
My take is that "everyone" hates Drizzt because he is so
popular. Many things spawn hatred when it becomes very
popular and I am often one of those people. (I still don't
want to watch Titanic. :-) )
Drizzt gains a larger share of hatred (or at least the more
vocal and vehement kind) because he has spawned so many
wannabes and clones. Just consider another's post about so
many drow clones on MUDs, etc.
Anyway, that's my take. Enjoy the books. I enjoyed the
initial books, but didn't read many of the others. Obviously
MANY people have read and enjoyed R.A. Salvatore's books.
--
Dragar Steelepointe,
Master of the Blade
___________________________________________
Dragar's homepage & The World of Irial at:
www.geocities.com/dragar.geo/
El'eilarian
I have no idea why people hate him but I hate that the write up in the
forgotten realms got both the properties of his magic weapons wrong and what
Guenhwyvar stats would be I thought Guenhwyvar should have been a legendary
animal
Certic
David Benson <ddbe...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:hski9.465474$me6.56198@sccrnsc01...
> This may not be the case, but I dislike Drizzt because he single-handedly
> (or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
> must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What
possible
> use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
> come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah!
The
> Ranger class is ruined.
>
Hmmm... the "two weapon using Ranger" goes back to 2nd ed. PHB. Does the
Orthographically Challenged Elf go back this far?
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
"No-one ever suddenly became depraved"
- Juvenal, Satires
--
Jason Corley
> * Drizzt keeps displaying a number of unique abilities beyond 'a drow
> with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2), ambidexterity (which is
> described to a ridiculous degree to point out how SPECIAL he is -- see
> the game with coins) (+2), 'Drizzt-I'm-your-father' Zaknafein (who is, of
> course, brutally AND conveniently slain) (+1), cool loner-syndrome (+2),
> acquisition of a magical cat statue (Guenhwyvar obeys Drizzt, but not the
> person who commands the item)(+2). Total of +7 1/2 to Twink Score.
Note that unusual eye color is worth at least a point on online games.
Probably 2.
--
***************************************************************************
"Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books,
and there is some evidence that they can't read them either." ---Gore Vidal
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Trevtrev75
Thanks...I am enjoying them, and I do like R.A. Salvatore's books, well, the 1
1/2 books that I've read.
I really haven't seen the discrepancy between the character written up in the
FRCS and the book that I've been reading, in fact, the way he defeated one or
two of those bad guys in the first book of the trilogy, you'd think his
write-ups were UNDERpowered rather than overpowered.
I guess he's one of those characters, like Raistlin from Dragonlance, with
whomthat readers really identify wi
George
I think salavtore has some great ideas and describes some scenes well but
fumbles alot as he moves the plot along. ie when drizzt kills the balor in
'the cystal shard' in about 2 seconds after just getting done with a dragon,
its all too big too quick. I also think Drizzt's commentary between chapters
is often well written.
Trevtrev75
Thanks...I am enjoying them, and I do like R.A. Salvatore's books... well, the
1 1/2 books that I've read.
I really haven't seen the discrepancy between the character written up in the
FRCS and the book that I've been reading, in fact, the way he defeated one or
two of those bad guys in the first book of the trilogy, you'd think his
write-ups were UNDERpowered rather than overpowered.
I guess he's one of those characters, like Raistlin from Dragonlance, with whom
readers really identify when first entering into a world. Once the creator's
get wind of their character's popularity, they write a whole bunch of stories
that demystify their past and allow the fans to analyze and disagree with the
details. Those who don't really care, well, don't really care, but those who do
sometimes get upset I guess.
Anyway, long story short...I recommend the Crystal Shard to anyone who hasn't
read it yet.
David Sulger
Because he's Driz'zt. What other reason is there?
David Sulger
>
> * Drizzt keeps displaying a number of unique abilities beyond 'a drow
> with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2
Ok, I don't mind a bit (or even a lot) of Driz'zt bashing, but what
difference does eye color make?
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen
David Sulger <the_rea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>dar...@horus.co.jyu.fi (Heli Kaarina Kinnunen) wrote in message news:
>>
>> with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2
>
>Ok, I don't mind a bit (or even a lot) of Driz'zt bashing, but what
>difference does eye color make?
Jason Corley already noted it... but here we go.
This traces back to my note about online environment, and places of
online roleplaying (not just MUD-style hit-the-monster-grab-the-goodies-
get-XP).
Painfully often, odd-eye color goes hand in hand with the attitude
'LOOK AT ME! I'M VERY SPECIAL'. Especially if the creature race/species
in question (like, mundane humans) does NOT have the color by nature.
The player of 'Special' syndrome tends to write poses like
"<Drizzt-wannabe-name> combs his hair with a hand, showing his purple eyes
which shine brightly in the dark room, then he reaches to shake your hand.
"Charmed." he says, averting the purple orbs for a moment, then he looks
back at you with his soul-piercing purple eyes."
This continues... and continues.. and continues.. and continues; the
player keeps pointing out that s/he has SPECIAL eyes and in text-based
medium it is tedious to read. Similiar behavior happens with 'normal'
eye-colors (red-headed-green-eyed Irish characters, for example), but
it is *usually* people with purple, lavender, silver eyes who are
guilty of 'Look, look, I'm really special, pay attention to me' roleplay.
And it irritates the living shit out of people. Right to the point where
old-timers of online roleplay might refuse to regard or roleplay with the
character as soon as they see <insert odd eye color> eyes in character's
description. No, it is not fair, no, it is not always right, either, as
some people are able to have those purple eyes without constantly underlining
the fact, but when you've been tossed into boiling water for 99 times,
noticing that water bubbles will keep you out for that 100th time, if
you know what I mean.
Back to Drizzt. Although he did not start the trend of 'special eye colors',
he certainly became the icon of 'Everything That Is Special'. 'Being Special'
does not work in online RPG environment like it works in tabletop gaming;
in TT, you have (let's take the stereotype here) 1 GM leading the game,
and 3-5 players. In online realities, you have 5-25 'GMs' (us, the staff; I've
been in that position for couple of years, though not at the moment),
and easily 200+ players. The biggest place where I play at the moment has
251 active players at the moment. If all of them started posing, all of
the time, how 'Special' they are, things would go nowhere. It'd be an
endless parade of freaks, with no connection to /normal/ types of available
character races.
So, if you ever want to play in an online game (MUSH/MUX type),
consider an application which features a more 'mundane' appearance for the
given race as a good starting point. Furthermore, if you do *brave* choices
(such as daring to play an overweight character, or character who isn't
overly beautiful or ugly, but of average looks), you will improve your
chances of finding people who want to stick around and roleplay.
Does this help?
Talen
<ddbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
>This may not be the case, but I dislike Drizzt because he single-handedly
>(or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
>must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What possible
>use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
>come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah! The
>Ranger class is ruined.
The funniest part is that 3rd ed Drizzt has, like, 5 levels of Ranger
and the rest primarily of Barbarian and Fighter.
I think he has an XP penalty, too.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
*** Frith is now known as IMALesbianBunny
The Gurus love you
Talen
(Trevtrev75) wrote:
I dislike almost all of the FR _characters_, because so many of them
are rather pathetic fanwank by the authors in question. If you're
having fun reading the books, go for it - I still haven't had a chance
to.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"My sword, my soul, my hamster, all of these I pledge to
Aerie, my new witch... HEAR THAT, EVIL? MINSC HAS A NEW
WITCH!! WOE IS YOU!!"
- Minsc
The Gurus love you
David Benson
> The funniest part is that 3rd ed Drizzt has, like, 5 levels of Ranger
> and the rest primarily of Barbarian and Fighter.
Why not? Ranger has become a munchkin class. Just take one level to pick
up several free feats related to two-weapon fighting. The rest is pretty
useless. What happened to this class? Are there viable alternatives?
D Benson
Zimri
news:amd1db$2eg$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> David Benson <ddbe...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:hski9.465474$me6.56198@sccrnsc01...
> > This may not be the case, but I dislike Drizzt because he
single-handedly
> > (or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
> > must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What
> possible
> > use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I
can
> > come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah!
> The
> > Ranger class is ruined.
> >
> ------
> Hmmm... the "two weapon using Ranger" goes back to 2nd ed. PHB. Does the
> Orthographically Challenged Elf go back this far?
Yes, barely.
"The Crystal Shard" came out February 1988.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0880385359/qid=1032487124/sr=1
-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8919386-3940101?v=glance&s=books
The publication date of the 2E PHB, which officially retired the one-armed
ranger (p. 28), was 1999.
Enough time to insert a sentence about ambidextricity. Not enough time to
playtest the travesty. (Tim the "Tool Man" Taylor voice) And the
munchkins... rejoice.
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html
because everyone else is doing it
Talen
<ddbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> The funniest part is that 3rd ed Drizzt has, like, 5 levels of Ranger
>> and the rest primarily of Barbarian and Fighter.
>
>Why not? Ranger has become a munchkin class.
9.9
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"I don't have a problem with her. But I have a problem with
people whining about what a whiner she is."
- Bob Macfie, on Aerie
The Gurus love you
Anivair
Anivair
>(or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
>must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What possible
>use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
>come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah! The
>Ranger class is ruined.
I hate to have to bring this up again but the two weapon ranger was an
invention of second edition which was codified before drizzt was. In fact, the
entire series came out of a desire to put out books alongside the second
edition stuff.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Anivair
>
>This traces back to my note about online environment, and places of
>online roleplaying (not just MUD-style hit-the-monster-grab-the-goodies-
>get-XP).
>
>Painfully often, odd-eye color goes hand in hand with the attitude
>'LOOK AT ME! I'M VERY SPECIAL'. Especially if the creature race/species
>in question (like, mundane humans) does NOT have the color by nature.
>The player of 'Special' syndrome tends to write poses like
>
>"<Drizzt-wannabe-name> combs his hair with a hand, showing his purple eyes
>which shine brightly in the dark room, then he reaches to shake your hand.
>"Charmed." he says, averting the purple orbs for a moment, then he looks
>back at you with his soul-piercing purple eyes."
I can see where you're coming from, however I think what you're talking about
is a terribly example of a techniique that doesn't really suck that much. And
Salvatore overdid it a bit as he overdid the dancing scimitars of doooooom and
a bnunch of other stuff with Drizzt, but having odd eyes doesn't bother me in
and of itself. The eyes are, after all, the window to the soul (or the cockles
if you like). And eyes are a really useful feature to change, most esspecially
because they can signify somehting being different without it being stupid or
silly or ugly. Imagine a normal guy with a big red nose. Well, it's odde, but
who can take him seriously. Red eyes, on the other had, are odd but you can
get past them as a reader.
In short, too much of a good thing is a bad thing indeed, but done well the
eyes can be neat.
but not Drizzt's eyes. I agree there.
I mean, I like Drizzt. . . but not his eyes.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Anivair
>his abilities, condemning him for all his supposed twinks, at which
>point in the next thread, they'll refer us to some webpage with an 86th
>level, 8 classed character or some other absurdity and claim how legit
>it is. Riiiiiight.
I could not possibly agree more. Everyone calls Drizzt a twinkish character
and yet I have never in all my days played an actual PC of that level who
wouldn't mop the floor with his shaggy white hair in almost any situation.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Varl
> In short, too much of a good thing is a bad thing indeed, but done well the
> eyes can be neat.
>
> but not Drizzt's eyes. I agree there.
>
> I mean, I like Drizzt. . . but not his eyes.
What's your take on Raistlan then? ;)
|\/|
|/\|
- )
|\/|
|/\|
Sorcier
Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
--
"Yeah, I'm crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Uh, I mean a flying fox, er, no, a flying mouse...or, um, a bat...
That's it, I'm a bat, dammit! Just leave me alone!"
- Bruce Wayne
Sorcier
>
> This may not be the case, but I dislike Drizzt because he single-handedly
> (or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
> must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What possible
> use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
> come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah! The
> Ranger class is ruined.
Possible answer: It allows using two small weapons rather than one big
one.
Same reason "Thieves" used to use small weapons.
Of course the scimitar thing screws the theory, and there's no reason it
doesn't apply to quarterstaves which every fictional ranger EXCEPT
Drizzt*
is damned cool with.
(* And maybe Aragorn)
Sorcier
>
> It has been brought to my attention that "David Benson"
> <ddbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >This may not be the case, but I dislike Drizzt because he single-handedly
> >(or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
> >must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What possible
> >use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
> >come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah! The
> >Ranger class is ruined.
>
> The funniest part is that 3rd ed Drizzt has, like, 5 levels of Ranger
> and the rest primarily of Barbarian and Fighter.
Damn, I was recalling it as 1 level.
I level for three feats, d10 HP and 4 skill points?
Sign me up!
>
> I think he has an XP penalty, too.
Yes, although not explicitly mentioned in FRCS, one of the authors IIRC
said yeah,
Drizzt took the penalty.
"It was the most accurate way to represent the skills he has in the
books."
Vicious circle.
David Benson
> >Why not? Ranger has become a munchkin class.
>
> 9.9
>
D Benson
Sorcier
OTOH:
Each level of ranger is twice the skill points of most classes,
eventually gives more favored enemy bonuses, spell casting,
all with Fighter HP and BAB and better saves.
Damn fine class.
Munchkinned by that 1st level though. :(
David Benson
both released in 1988. My dislike for Drizzt and my disappointment with the
way the Ranger has developed since 1st edition has obviously clouded my
judgement. Still, the problems with the Ranger class remain. What is the
purpose of two-weapon fighting to a class such as Ranger? As someone else
noted, why not be able to apply the two-weapon fighting bonuses to weapons
such as the quarterstaff? Why is the bow, an weapon of obvious importance
to a woodland type warrior, not emphasized? Where are the alternatives?
D Benson
Looking for a better Ranger
"Anivair" <ani...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020919232041...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Ben Sisson
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
>> >Why not? Ranger has become a munchkin class.
>>
>> 9.9
>>
>I'm sorry, what do you mean by that?
He's calling you a troll.
--
Ben Sisson
"Yes, Captain. I am a lying, boneless, toady dweeb
but I am YOUR lying, boneless, toady dweeb!"
-The Dnyarri, Star Control 2
David Benson
Why would he call me a troll? Because I have an opinion that is contrary to
his? What an elitist jerk.
D Benson
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:0fclous25ck9f4mvi...@4ax.com...
Hunter
wrote:
>You may be right. The 2nd Ed Player's Handbook and The Crystal Shard were
>both released in 1988. My dislike for Drizzt and my disappointment with the
>way the Ranger has developed since 1st edition has obviously clouded my
>judgement. Still, the problems with the Ranger class remain. What is the
>purpose of two-weapon fighting to a class such as Ranger? As someone else
>noted, why not be able to apply the two-weapon fighting bonuses to weapons
>such as the quarterstaff? Why is the bow, an weapon of obvious importance
>to a woodland type warrior, not emphasized? Where are the alternatives?
The staff was a mistake and it was intended to be able to be used by the
ranger. Just not the other double weapons.
And as someone eles mentioned, the TWF feats don't give any bonuses.
They just minimize penalties to put them on par with other attacks. The
Ranger doesn't favor any style of fighting, he concentrates on
particular enemies instead.
Zimri
> You may be right. The 2nd Ed Player's Handbook and The Crystal Shard were
> both released in 1988.
No, TCS came out in February of 1988 and the 2e PHB in 1989. That means,
assuming Salvatore didn't tell Greenwood et al. what he was doing before Feb
1988, the authors of the 2e PHB had at least 10 months to insert a mere
sentence to the Ranger definition, and then forget to playtest it.
As posted elsewhere...
Zimri
news:3D8A9F...@cavtel.net...
> About the eye color thing:
>
> Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
> Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
Erk! Two of the cheesiest entertainers in the history of media. Why not
mention Marilyn Manson while you're at it?!
Talen
<ddbe...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>Why would he call me a troll? Because I have an opinion that is contrary to
>his? What an elitist jerk.
Well, that was a nice assumption leap. Strain your groin jumping that
one?
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.sex.animals.monica-lewinsky
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet
The Gurus love you
Zimri
news:3D8A9F5E...@premier1.net...
Raistlin was just one of an entire party of Mary Sues, on their way to
fighting dragons-plural, including I believe Tiamat Herself.
Dragonlance was *designed* as a Cosmic Epic (tm), so larger-than-life
characters are to be expected. If Drizzt had debuted in Ansalon we wouldn't
be having this discussion. Period.
But Faerun purports to be Greyhawk Jr., another mediaeval fantasy world
(albeit perhaps richer and less insular; more 1500 AD than 1200). Demigods
like Drizzt and Elminster running amuck in Faerun are akin to teenage toughs
taking over a playground designed for eight-year-olds.
But there is one cool thing about these pretty-eyed wonders, that I think
we're all forgetting. It's the sensation you feel when you look into their
eyes while they're SUCKING DICK!
Ben Sisson
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
>"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:0fclous25ck9f4mvi...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:18:50 GMT, "David Benson" <ddbe...@attbi.com>
>> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>>
>> >
>> >> >Why not? Ranger has become a munchkin class.
>> >>
>> >> 9.9
>> >>
>> >I'm sorry, what do you mean by that?
>>
>> He's calling you a troll.
>
>Why would he call me a troll? Because I have an opinion that is contrary to
>his? What an elitist jerk.
Calling the ranger class a munchkin the way you did seems designed to
elicit responses from its defenders. It's been debated to death, with
no resolution in sight. So to do so in the manner you did... to a
regular here (like Telon) it could look like trolling.
Ben Sisson
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:25:32 GMT, "David Benson" <ddbe...@attbi.com>
Funny how any melee who wants to do two weapon fighting takes ranger,
though, eh?
Must be a coincidence. Can't possibly be because TWF is inextricably
tied to the ranger class. Nopers...
Douglas Bailey
> About the eye color thing:
>
> Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
> Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
Well, Bowie at least has paid a price for the distinction (that eye is
discoloured from damage sustained from a punch: the pupil is partly
paralyzed and he apparently doesn't see well with it).
Getting back to fantasy: to me, the original "special eye colour"
character was Elric of Melniboné. And even then, (a) his eyes were the
pinkish-red you'd expect of an albino; and (b) there really wasn't
*that* much discussion of them in the text.
doug
--
---------------douglas bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Mornir
<zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote:
>Dragonlance was *designed* as a Cosmic Epic (tm), so larger-than-life
>characters are to be expected. If Drizzt had debuted in Ansalon we wouldn't
>be having this discussion. Period.
Translation: Raistlin is k00l, d00d, so of course he's
different! Geesh. I don't particularly think the characters are
well-written, but saying one's twinky when the other isn't is a bit
off. Raistlin killed a god. Compared to that, Drizzt's crap is low
key.
--
<Mornir - mor...@despammed.com - http://www.livejournal.com/~booklog/>
Douglas Bailey
> "Certic" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Hmmm... the "two weapon using Ranger" goes back to 2nd ed. PHB. Does
> > the Orthographically Challenged Elf go back this far?
>
>
> Yes, barely.
>
> "The Crystal Shard" came out February 1988.
>
> The publication date of the 2E PHB, which officially retired the one-armed
> ranger (p. 28), was 1999.
Um... that's 1989. (I assume this was a typo, not a failure of
research.)
Deric Bernier
David Sulger wrote:
> dar...@horus.co.jyu.fi (Heli Kaarina Kinnunen) wrote in message news:<amc37a$553$1...@horus.co.jyu.fi>...
> >
> > * Drizzt keeps displaying a number of unique abilities beyond 'a drow
> > with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2
>
> Ok, I don't mind a bit (or even a lot) of Driz'zt bashing, but what
> difference does eye color make?
Actually the unusual eye color goes a long way towards explaining his ability of enduring free will. If
you have ever read the Drow Handbook, it states clearly that purple eyes clearly denote interracial
breeding (usually with humans if I recall correctly.) Other than that, having odd eyes is just something
to make him seem a little cooler, even if only cosmetically. I love the character, I love the books,
mostly because it validates my belief that there is no such thing as an irredeemably evil race of peoples,
and there shouldn't be either, especially in a fantasy game.
D
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen
Zimri <zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote:
>"Varl" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
>news:3D8A9F5E...@premier1.net...
>> Anivair wrote:
>>
>> > In short, too much of a good thing is a bad thing indeed, but done well
>the
>> > eyes can be neat.
>> >
>> > but not Drizzt's eyes. I agree there.
>> >
>> > I mean, I like Drizzt. . . but not his eyes.
>>
>> What's your take on Raistlan then? ;)
>
>
>Raistlin was just one of an entire party of Mary Sues, on their way to
>fighting dragons-plural, including I believe Tiamat Herself.
>
>Dragonlance was *designed* as a Cosmic Epic (tm), so larger-than-life
>characters are to be expected. If Drizzt had debuted in Ansalon we wouldn't
>be having this discussion. Period.
I think that this litmus test shows what Mary Sue is about, even if it
isn't 'generic fantasy', but rather Tolkien-specific (and non-serious, too,
but we all need some humor in our lives, ne?).
http://www.subreality.com/marysue/gsblolfc.htm
>But Faerun purports to be Greyhawk Jr., another mediaeval fantasy world
>(albeit perhaps richer and less insular; more 1500 AD than 1200). Demigods
>like Drizzt and Elminster running amuck in Faerun are akin to teenage toughs
>taking over a playground designed for eight-year-olds.
The current writeup of Drizzt (in 3E) is tolerable -- statwise. Yes, I've
seen it. Yes, he will get his arse handed back to him if he goes hand-to-hand
with greater demons or such.
In 2nd edition the level of irritation was a lot higher.
The concept behind the stats still irks me. Especially when those
fanboys and -girls rush to MU*s and whip up a Drizzt-clone...
But, enough. I'm done with this thread, unless something drastic happens;
there are better things to do than bash some fictional character in the
'net.
>But there is one cool thing about these pretty-eyed wonders, that I think
>we're all forgetting. It's the sensation you feel when you look into their
>eyes while they're SUCKING DICK!
No comments. Just... no comments.
--
E-mail: dar...@co.jyu.fi
Current webpage: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~darkelf/
My miniatures webpage: http://www.iti.fi/darkelf/miniatures.html
Deric Bernier
Douglas Bailey wrote:
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>
> > About the eye color thing:
> >
> > Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
> > Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
>
> Well, Bowie at least has paid a price for the distinction (that eye is
> discoloured from damage sustained from a punch: the pupil is partly
> paralyzed and he apparently doesn't see well with it).
>
> Getting back to fantasy: to me, the original "special eye colour"
> character was Elric of Melniboné. And even then, (a) his eyes were the
> pinkish-red you'd expect of an albino; and (b) there really wasn't
> *that* much discussion of them in the text.
Conan's "steel blue" eyes. It's eye color, its not important to the
story, but it can be important when adding a bit of flaire to a
character. The color and shape of the eye is often used in storytelling
to offer a glimpse of personality.
D
Trevtrev75
>
>doesn't apply to quarterstaves which every fictional ranger EXCEPT
>Drizzt*
>is damned cool with.
>
>(* And maybe Aragorn)
I thought I saw somewhere that official errata states that rangers can use
quarterstaves with the two-weopon fighting feat?
trev
BlakGard
>I love it so far, and I'm on the second book.
>So...my question is,
>Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
>Is it because he's a little overexposed?
>Is it because he's a Drow with a conscience?
>just wondering...
I'll debark from the general concensus to say that I love the character Drizzt.
I loved the Icewind Dale Trilogy and the Dark Elf Trilogy. However, the
subsequent books did get progressively worse, in my opinion. None of them were
really horrible reads, but the latter releases were nowhere as good as the
first two trilogies.
I think the real problem most people have for the character is a result of him
being overexposed. As time went by, he generated more of a fanboy appeal to the
point where you could hardly play an RPG video game, play a MUD/Free-form RPG
on the 'Net, or read an RPG message board without someone using the name. The
backlash was inevitable.
Also, the items he used and the things he did were fine in the books, but after
the fanboys started raving about him, these items found their way into
published gaming material. Drizzt became hated like Monty Haul-ists. The very
idea of a Drow being played as a PC seemed "munchkin" to many. Many of these
Drow PCs, at least from my point of view, seemed too derivative of Drizzt. They
tended to act like "I'm a good Drow. Feel my angst about racism" or (as someone
else pointed out) "I'm a good Drow. Look at me. I'm special." Etc.
Despite my love for the character, I (as DM) was forced to make an unwritten
rule for our campaign that there would be no Drizzt characters. This was mostly
due to the rolled eyes we'd get from new players when they discovered they
could play a dark elf PC. Dark elves were no strangers to our campaign. We
started using them in the early-80s, shortly after reading their entry in the
Fiend Folio, as a primary race, but to this day, we never had a dark elf
character that was even remotely similar to Drizzt. In fact, our dark elves,
while decisively not evil, were not good either (at least generally), but when
it came time for new players to join us, things had to be clarified.
Back to Drizzt: I think you might find a correlation between Drizzt haters and
Forgotten Realms haters, but I don't think this is always the case. Due to the
power levels in Forgotten Realms, it does cater to the "munchkin" mindset more
than other worlds. You will still find people who like Forgotten Realms but
dislike Drizzt, mostly for the reasons above.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Jonas Lind
"Zimri" <zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TJzi9.9$4E3.2...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> "Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
> news:3D8A9F...@cavtel.net...
> > About the eye color thing:
> >
> > Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
> > Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
>
>
> Erk! Two of the cheesiest entertainers in the history of media. Why not
> mention Marilyn Manson while you're at it?!
Eeyy..it's been fine but fruitless to bash an innocent dark-elf up until
now, but leave DB out of it, he's a freakin' genius.
jonas
dana
Ok, I'll bite...
Up until 3rd ed, TWF was THE killer melee, even with the penalties.
That extra attack makes up for any shield bonus, when you add in
strength, magic, etc. If you needed to go head on with something BIG,
the extra attack means far more damage per round. That in itself,
even one less round to take some punishment, can make all the
difference. The Ranger was useless from the beginning. Useful guy to
have around when you actually do need tracking, or some extra spell
power, but when you need someone to go toe-to-toe, let the big boys
wade in.
3rd edition makes the ranger almost redundant. Tracking is no longer
the sole pervue of the ranger, albeit if you really need to track,
they're your guy, but otherwise, the fighter and the amount of feats
they get preclude them as being a useful member.
Hong Ooi
>
>3rd edition makes the ranger almost redundant. Tracking is no longer
>the sole pervue of the ranger, albeit if you really need to track,
>they're your guy, but otherwise, the fighter and the amount of feats
>they get preclude them as being a useful member.
Instead of Ambidex/TWF/ITWF, I give rangers bonus feats every 5 levels,
starting at 2nd. The bonus feats are usable only in light or no armour,
just like how it works currently. Seems a fair trade, and gets rid of the
situation where everyone takes one level of ranger just for TWF.
--
Hong Ooi | "I think it is time I started
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | getting some decent sleep."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- CMB
Sydney, Australia |
Hunter
wrote:
And anyone who wants a PC runs Windows. Doesn't mean that PC's are
inextricaly tied to Windows.
neoweasel
> both released in 1988. My dislike for Drizzt and my disappointment with the
> way the Ranger has developed since 1st edition has obviously clouded my
> judgement. Still, the problems with the Ranger class remain. What is the
> purpose of two-weapon fighting to a class such as Ranger? As someone else
> noted, why not be able to apply the two-weapon fighting bonuses to weapons
> such as the quarterstaff? Why is the bow, an weapon of obvious importance
> to a woodland type warrior, not emphasized? Where are the alternatives?
>
> D Benson
> Looking for a better Ranger
Have you ever used a bow in the woods? Bow (and all other missile
launchers) are best used on plains or the like. In the forest you get
crappy LOS, the bow can be caught in branches and the like, and you
get ranges (due to LOS issues) so short that your target is ramming
his sword into your guts before you fire the second arrow. You could
*maybe* use a shortbow, but longbows (as most D&D'ers I've use unless
they're replicating the Mongols use) are pretty much out for combat
use.
Gordon Emore
neoweasel wrote:
Explain that to Robin Hood.
Gordon
David Sulger
> In article <3ac4908.02091...@posting.google.com>,
> David Sulger <the_rea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >dar...@horus.co.jyu.fi (Heli Kaarina Kinnunen) wrote in message news:
> >>
> >> with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2
> >
> >Ok, I don't mind a bit (or even a lot) of Driz'zt bashing, but what
> >difference does eye color make?
>
>
> This traces back to my note about online environment, and places of
> online roleplaying (not just MUD-style hit-the-monster-grab-the-goodies-
> get-XP).
[snip]
Ah, yes, I think I've seen the type. I haven't gotten involved in
MUDs and such, the closest is the IRC D&D games I played in or ran.
I've seen people overdue it with the descriptions too, but it was
never much of a problem (maybe because description is so superfluous
in D&D). It would seem to me that this complaint tends to apply more
to free-form games, or at least that's the impression I get. I could
see, that the desriptions could get tiring after a while. But back to
the main point, at least where D&D is concerned, eye color is
irrelevant, at least from a munckin POV, since it doesn't offer any
real benefits.
rear admiral
>
> *Hate* on the other hand, crops up when rabid-Drizzt/Salvatore fans
> tout the books as the best thing since Edda.
Is that Saemund's Edda or the lesser Edda ? Cause that book where
Wulfgar was fighting the handmaiden was definitely better than the
"Sayings of Grimnir" but not quite the "Lay of Hárbarth".
Regards,
Uncle Screwtape
Knowledge is Power
Power corrupts
Study Hard
Be Evil
Nockermensch
> news:3D8A9F...@cavtel.net...
> > About the eye color thing:
> >
> > Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
> > Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
>
>
> Erk! Two of the cheesiest entertainers in the history of media. Why not
> mention Marilyn Manson while you're at it?!
Don't talk about what you don't understand. David Bowie is a genial
musician and an above average actor, with the unique power of
producing above average rock albuns (some absolutely fabulous), one
after other, decade after decade, without repeating himself. Everyone
interested in roleplaying should read about this guy. Marilyn Manson
would probably give his right arm for having a particle of DB's
creativity.
@ @ Nockermensch, being a fan for a change.
Monkeys....Are.. Cool
can use a quarterstaff with his tWF style. So it was taken as
semi-official errata....
Zimri
news:MPG.17f49aa1e...@netnews.attbi.com...
> Zimri <zim...@SBCspammlesforglobal.net> wrote:
> > "Certic" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > Hmmm... the "two weapon using Ranger" goes back to 2nd ed. PHB. Does
> > > the Orthographically Challenged Elf go back this far?
> >
> >
> > Yes, barely.
> >
> > "The Crystal Shard" came out February 1988.
> >
> > The publication date of the 2E PHB, which officially retired the
one-armed
> > ranger (p. 28), was 1999.
>
> Um... that's 1989. (I assume this was a typo, not a failure of
> research.)
Was typo. Am clumsy. Will apologise.
d'ohhhh....
Will
>
> Have you ever used a bow in the woods? Bow (and all other missile
> launchers) are best used on plains or the like. In the forest you get
> crappy LOS, the bow can be caught in branches and the like, and you
> get ranges (due to LOS issues) so short that your target is ramming
> his sword into your guts before you fire the second arrow. You could
> *maybe* use a shortbow, but longbows (as most D&D'ers I've use unless
> they're replicating the Mongols use) are pretty much out for combat
> use.
You have a point but the way I see rangers are as Huntsman. They find a nice
place to hide and wait when their game comes by then they shoot. Hell I
would probably give them a bonus to attack with any bow and if they are
hiding I would probably give them a sneak attack with it as well, but only
with a bow no other weapons.
Hunter
They do get a bonus to attack. It is called FE bonus. A huntsman would
have that for animal/beasts/magical beasts.
Stephenls
> Conan's "steel blue" eyes. It's eye color, its not important to the
> story, but it can be important when adding a bit of flaire to a
> character. The color and shape of the eye is often used in
> storytelling to offer a glimpse of personality.
This is the "superficial depth" thing that came up in the conversation
about feats. It can be argued that a good author should not need such
tricks to produce glimpses of personality.
Mind you, I wouldn't be the person making that argument.
--
Stephenls
Geek
I have the coolest Hell in gaming. -Geoffrey C. Grabowski
Stephenls
> I thought I saw somewhere that official errata states that rangers
> can use quarterstaves with the two-weopon fighting feat?
No. The FAQ emphasizes that they /can't/, actually.
But the guy who wrote the damn book says he doesn't see any problem with
it, so I think Skip, as he so often is, is off in his judgement.
Sorcier
>
> The staff was a mistake and it was intended to be able to be used by the
> ranger. Just not the other double weapons.
Yet, this has not been erratted.
:(
> And as someone eles mentioned, the TWF feats don't give any bonuses.
> They just minimize penalties to put them on par with other attacks. The
> Ranger doesn't favor any style of fighting, he concentrates on
> particular enemies instead.
Reaganomics.
A decrease in a penalty can be construed as a bonus.
Two weapon fighting is an extremely effective way of
dealing extra damage once you start "reducing penalties".
Now the armor restriction may discourage it...
But, IMO, a ranger who doesn't go two weapon with his bennies
is not utilizing his class bonuses to the fullest.
--
"Yeah, I'm crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Uh, I mean a flying fox, er, no, a flying mouse...or, um, a bat...
That's it, I'm a bat, dammit! Just leave me alone!"
- Bruce Wayne
Sorcier
>
> "Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
> news:3D8A9F...@cavtel.net...
> > About the eye color thing:
> >
> > Worked for Elizabeth Taylor and David Bowie.
> > Why NOT for Mary Sue's?
>
> Erk! Two of the cheesiest entertainers in the history of media. Why not
> mention Marilyn Manson while you're at it?!
Don't know anything about its eye color.
And either celeb mentioned, at their best, is incredible.
(At their worst, well, everyone has an off decade...)
Sorcier
>
> But there is one cool thing about these pretty-eyed wonders, that I think
> we're all forgetting. It's the sensation you feel when you look into their
> eyes while they're SUCKING DICK!
Done with mirrors?
Bill Silvey
"Gordon Emore" <gem...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3D8B4C82...@purdue.edu...
> Explain that to Robin Hood.
Hmm. Robin Hood was usually firing his bow *from* trees at exposed targets
he'd already established a 100% clear LOS to - not snap-shots at targets of
opportunity (at least it seems in what I've read and seen in various film
interpretations).
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
Keifer0999
>Hmmm... the "two weapon using Ranger" goes back to 2nd ed. PHB. Does the
>Orthographically Challenged Elf go back this far?
>
Drizzt and Wulfgar were made from the 1st edition Unearthed Arcana rules.
Wulfgar is clearly a Barbarian, and Drizzt clearly has the abilities of a 1st
editon ranger. Under UA rules rangers could specialize in weapons, hence his
greater skill in scimitar, had to have a bow, which he has not used since the
first book, and Drow could fight with 2 weapons.
They changed the Ranger in 2nd edition so kids could play Drizzt like Rangers.
Keifer0999
>Date: 9/19/02 11:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>I hate to have to bring this up again but the two weapon ranger was an
>invention of second edition which was codified before drizzt was. In fact,
>the
>entire series came out of a desire to put out books alongside the second
>edition stuff.
>
>
>--
>later,
> ~Anivair
You are incorrect. 2nd edition came out about a year after Drizzt. Drizzt was
clearly made under UA rules, just as Wlfgar is clearly a UA Barbarian. I can
cite you passages that were written that show Wulfgar's Barbarian surprise
bonuses, his leaping abilities, etc, as well as 1st edition Ranger abilities
Drizzt had.
Keifer0999
>This may not be the case, but I dislike Drizzt because he single-handedly
>(or dual-handedly if you like) destroyed the Ranger class. Why, oh why,
>must a wilderness scout/warrior develope two-weapon fighting? What possible
>use could fighting with two swords be in the woods? The only answer I can
>come up with is, "because Drizzt did it and he was sooooo kewl!" Blah! The
>Ranger class is ruined.
>
>D Benson
>
You are correct when you say he ruined the Ranger class because they did switch
the class so kids could play Drizzt like Rangers.
Ironically he was made and first written about under 1st edition Unearthed
Arcana Rules, and the Rangers then were the most powerful fighting class.
Most Drizzt apologists refute this info btw. Ah well.
Keifer0999
>Of course the scimitar thing screws the theory, and there's no reason it
>doesn't apply to quarterstaves which every fictional ranger EXCEPT
>Drizzt*
>is damned cool with.
>
>(* And maybe Aragorn)
>
>
Drow in the UA rules could use same sized weapons. Hence Drizzt was made under
UA rules and not 2nd edition ones.
Bill Silvey
"Keifer0999" <keife...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020921001559...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> You are incorrect. 2nd edition came out about a year after Drizzt. Drizzt
was
> clearly made under UA rules, just as Wlfgar is clearly a UA Barbarian. I
can
> cite you passages that were written that show Wulfgar's Barbarian surprise
> bonuses, his leaping abilities, etc, as well as 1st edition Ranger
abilities
> Drizzt had.
Gord the Rogue is an Acrobat-Thief, as well (thought it bore mentioning).
Keifer0999
>So...my question is,
>Why does it seem that everyone hates Drizzt?
You've gotten alot of good answers on this question.
I loved the DRizzt books at first. I thought he was a fun character, and the
books were fun reads. Then somewhere along the line...Salvatore decided he was
a real writer and started trying to make the character heavy with angst etc
etc.
You can see the tone of the character is different in the Dark Elf trilogy then
in the first 3 books. Drizzt is NOT the same character from that point on. The
DRizzt I see in the Icewind Dale series is an reckless risktaking adventurer
who loves life and lives it on the edge. The later Drizzt is a brooding, angst
driven morose fellow who fights because he has to...In other words he went from
being Spiderman to being Batman.
And Salvatore just doesn't have the writing ability to pull it off.
I recommend you read the great masters of sword and sorcery fiction and then
compare their work to Salvatores. Read the Elric of Melnibone series for a
true feel of what Salvatore is trying to pull off. Read Leiber's Fafhrd and the
Grey Mouser series, Howard's Conan series and even Tolkien. Look for Poul
Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and Broken Sword too. Jack Vance is
another writer who comes to mind.
Finally, no matter what anyone says, and I don't think this is why Drizzt is
hated, but they did change the rules of the Ranger so that kids could play
Drizzt type Rangers. An editorial in an old Dragon from about 5 years ago
confirms this, as well as an anaylsis of the character and his abilities, and
the publishing dates of the works in question. The early Drizzt clearly has
abilities the later Drizzt does not.
Enjoy the books, but realize there are better writers out there.
Keith
Sorcier
>
> Marilyn Manson
> would probably give his right arm for having a particle of DB's
> creativity.
Is that offer open to anyone?
I'd like to give Mary's right arm for a particle of DB-ness.
(Actually, Mary has a particle of DB-ness.
But sadly, it just makes it look derivative.)
Sorcier
>
> But, enough. I'm done with this thread, unless something drastic happens;
> there are better things to do than bash some fictional character in the
> 'net.
Are there?
Gawd I hope there are.
What are they?
(Waiii,
How did that parse:
A) IN THE NET, there are better things to do
or
B) There are better things to do than DIS IN THE NET.)
Heli Kaarina Kinnunen
>Heli Kaarina Kinnunen wrote:
>>
>> But, enough. I'm done with this thread, unless something drastic happens;
>> there are better things to do than bash some fictional character in the
>> 'net.
>
>Are there?
>Gawd I hope there are.
>What are they?
>
>(Waiii,
>How did that parse:
>A) IN THE NET, there are better things to do
Yup. I could, for example, be roleplaying my character in the MU*s. I could
be planning my own MU* project; I could help a friend of mine to set up
his own MU* -- all so far roleplaying related, and I'm sure that I could
continue this list without breaking sweat ;)
>or
>B) There are better things to do than DIS IN THE NET.)
Dude, if I *really* want to dis something, I'll do it at WORA or related web
boards :)
--
E-mail: dar...@co.jyu.fi
Current webpage: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~darkelf/
My miniatures webpage: http://www.iti.fi/darkelf/miniatures.html
Ben Sisson
IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>>From: "David Benson" ddbe...@attbi.com
Not Drizzt apologists, TWF ranger apologists who will do anything to
pretend TWF rangers had nothing to do wtih Drizzt.
--
Ben Sisson
"Yes, Captain. I am a lying, boneless, toady dweeb
but I am YOUR lying, boneless, toady dweeb!"
-The Dnyarri, Star Control 2
Hunter
>>From: "Certic" P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk
>
>>Hmmm... the "two weapon using Ranger" goes back to 2nd ed. PHB. Does the
>>Orthographically Challenged Elf go back this far?
>>
>
>Drizzt and Wulfgar were made from the 1st edition Unearthed Arcana rules.
>Wulfgar is clearly a Barbarian, and Drizzt clearly has the abilities of a 1st
>editon ranger. Under UA rules rangers could specialize in weapons, hence his
>greater skill in scimitar, had to have a bow, which he has not used since the
>first book, and Drow could fight with 2 weapons.
And Drow were also made into a player race in the UA.
Ben Sisson
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 07:32:08 GMT, Ben Sisson <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:36:35 GMT, cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter)
>>(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:25:32 GMT, "David Benson" <ddbe...@attbi.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>You may be right. The 2nd Ed Player's Handbook and The Crystal Shard were
>>>>both released in 1988. My dislike for Drizzt and my disappointment with the
>>>>way the Ranger has developed since 1st edition has obviously clouded my
>>>>judgement. Still, the problems with the Ranger class remain. What is the
>>>>purpose of two-weapon fighting to a class such as Ranger? As someone else
>>>>noted, why not be able to apply the two-weapon fighting bonuses to weapons
>>>>such as the quarterstaff? Why is the bow, an weapon of obvious importance
>>>>to a woodland type warrior, not emphasized? Where are the alternatives?
>>>
>>>The staff was a mistake and it was intended to be able to be used by the
>>>ranger. Just not the other double weapons.
>>>
>>>And as someone eles mentioned, the TWF feats don't give any bonuses.
>>>They just minimize penalties to put them on par with other attacks. The
>>>Ranger doesn't favor any style of fighting, he concentrates on
>>>particular enemies instead.
>>
>>Funny how any melee who wants to do two weapon fighting takes ranger,
>>though, eh?
>>Must be a coincidence. Can't possibly be because TWF is inextricably
>>tied to the ranger class. Nopers...
>
>And anyone who wants a PC runs Windows. Doesn't mean that PC's are
>inextricaly tied to Windows.
That's the whole problem. Anyone who wants to run a ranger uses TWF,
because that's what the class assumes. I wager 99% of rangers made
will make use of TWF regardless of ANYTHING else, backstory, whatever,
because the rules for no logical reason gave them TWF. So, unlike PC's
(the computer, not the player character) necessarily, rangers ARE tied
to TWF.
In reality, the ranger DOES favor a style of fighting - TWF. The idea
that they don't get bonuses, just removal of penalties is a red
herring; they are effectively the same thing.
The 'bonus feat' ranger mods that many people suggest are far superior
in both game balance and game logic.
Sorcier
Made I believe.
(Was he Salivator's PC?)
But written about?
In a published forum?
Can you back that up?
Sorcier
>
> In article <3D8BCB...@cavtel.net>, Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >Heli Kaarina Kinnunen wrote:
> >>
> >> But, enough. I'm done with this thread, unless something drastic happens;
> >> there are better things to do than bash some fictional character in the
> >> 'net.
> >
> >Are there?
> >Gawd I hope there are.
> >What are they?
> >
> >(Waiii,
> >How did that parse:
> >A) IN THE NET, there are better things to do
>
> Yup. I could, for example, be roleplaying my character in the MU*s. I could
> be planning my own MU* project; I could help a friend of mine to set up
> his own MU* -- all so far roleplaying related, and I'm sure that I could
> continue this list without breaking sweat ;)
OK, so you admit there is nothing better than bashing. ;)
(MU*, geez...)
>
> >or
> >B) There are better things to do than DIS IN THE NET.)
>
> Dude, if I *really* want to dis something, I'll do it at WORA or related web
> boards :)
Dodged the question again.
Cool, we win!
Samuel Lehtimäki
>Have you ever used a bow in the woods?
I have.
>Bow (and all other missile
>launchers) are best used on plains or the like. In the forest you get
>crappy LOS, the bow can be caught in branches and the like, and you
>get ranges (due to LOS issues) so short that your target is ramming
>his sword into your guts before you fire the second arrow. You could
>*maybe* use a shortbow, but longbows (as most D&D'ers I've use unless
>they're replicating the Mongols use) are pretty much out for combat
>use.
Not entirely true. It largely depends on the type of the forest.
For example, in the areas where pine is the predominant tree, LOS is
considerably larger than in forests that have a high density, such as -
let's say - rainforests. -_-
In these northern woods, longbow is a good choice for hunting, and
my bow hasn't got 'caught in the branches' so far. ...erm, not that I've
used it for hunting; of course I haven't - that'd be illegal. Nowadays
we're supposed to use guns instead. ^_^;;
Anyway, bow is definitely more useful weapon in a forest than a scimitar -
I doubt that I could catch anything with a sword. -_-;;
Hunter
wrote:
Not if they are smart. They use the style best for the moment.
>because that's what the class assumes.
No it doesn't. It assumes that they can fight equally well, no matter
what style they need to use.
> I wager 99% of rangers made
>will make use of TWF regardless of ANYTHING else,
That is because TWF is considered Kewl. The same as Windows is
considered more "functional".
>backstory, whatever,
>because the rules for no logical reason gave them TWF.
There is a logical reason. The ranger is supposed to be able to fight
in all styles equally. If the backstory says that the PC training was
unsual for a ranger, the player and DM need to talk.
> So, unlike PC's
>(the computer, not the player character) necessarily, rangers ARE tied
>to TWF.
Wrong. PC's are tied to Windows the same reason that TWF is tied to
rangers.
>In reality, the ranger DOES favor a style of fighting - TWF.
No he doesn't. That is a misconception. The same as it was a
misconception that you had to get Windows on your PC.
>The idea that they don't get bonuses, just removal of penalties is a red
>herring; they are effectively the same thing.
No they aren't. Because as the numbers show, TWF is no better than any
other fighting style. A bonus would make TWF better than other styles.
>The 'bonus feat' ranger mods that many people suggest are far superior
>in both game balance and game logic.
Not really, they take away the focus on enemy, and puts it on fighting
style.
Grant Anderson
news:xxSi9.6457$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Keifer0999" <keife...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020921001559...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> > You are incorrect. 2nd edition came out about a year after Drizzt.
Drizzt
> was
> > clearly made under UA rules, just as Wlfgar is clearly a UA Barbarian. I
> can
> > cite you passages that were written that show Wulfgar's Barbarian
surprise
> > bonuses, his leaping abilities, etc, as well as 1st edition Ranger
> abilities
> > Drizzt had.
>
> Gord the Rogue is an Acrobat-Thief, as well (thought it bore mentioning).
And if you think Drizzt is a munchkin, read the final Gord book, where he
takes on demon princes in single combat. :-)
I have the misfortune to be a completist, and I'm missing (I think) two
books from the Gord series, so if anyone knows a place where they can still
be obtained, please let me know!
Grant
Bill Silvey
"Grant Anderson" <gpsan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amig35$cc7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
I'm wading through them to do a review for my web-page; I know what you
mean. Try adall.com - used book sales galore.
Ben Sisson
In general, the focus is on TWF.
>>because that's what the class assumes.
>
>No it doesn't. It assumes that they can fight equally well, no matter
>what style they need to use.
Simply wrong. Insist on a fallcy if you like, the bonuses are given
for the direct purpose of making TWF the most favorable choice for
rangers. If you as a ranger don't use it, you aren't making use of
your class abilities, just like a cleric not casting spells or a
fighter not using his bonus feats.
The basic warrior with no feats is the comparison base, NOT a 0
penalty character. You're blowing smoke.
>
>> I wager 99% of rangers made
>>will make use of TWF regardless of ANYTHING else,
>
>That is because TWF is considered Kewl. The same as Windows is
>considered more "functional".
It is because that is what rangers are expected to do. Ranger and TWF
melee are interchangeable in most players' vocabulary. Maybe not
yours, maybe not a bunch of people on this newsgroup, but in general,
they are.
>
>>backstory, whatever,
>>because the rules for no logical reason gave them TWF.
>
>There is a logical reason. The ranger is supposed to be able to fight
>in all styles equally.
Baloney. More TWF apologist blather. It had nothing to do with
fighting all styles equally. He does *not* fight all styles equally.
He is better with TWF than anyone else. The fact that it has penalties
without the feats is irrelevant - that is the downside of *using two
weapons*, a distinct logical advantage otherwise (though not so much
in game mechanics terms due to the massiveness of the penalties).
>> So, unlike PC's
>>(the computer, not the player character) necessarily, rangers ARE tied
>>to TWF.
>
>Wrong. PC's are tied to Windows the same reason that TWF is tied to
>rangers.
No. Rangers and TWF are inextricably tied together. A ranger is MEANT
to be using it. That's why it gets the feats for free.
A rogue gets a whole pile of class skills to pick from. But they don't
have to, a rogue could go for a bunch of cross skills instead.
According to your logic, this means a rogue isn't expected to get his
class skills, it just happens to be the "cool" thing to do.
>
>>In reality, the ranger DOES favor a style of fighting - TWF.
>
>No he doesn't. That is a misconception.
Keep putting your fingers in your ears then. It's pretty much plain as
day to most people. When you are given a bonus to something and to
nothing else, its not hard to figure out what's going on. And yes,
despite your spinning, removal of a penalty is the same as a bonus in
real effect. The bar was just set in a different place, that's all.
Let's say there is a scholarship for underprivaleged urban black kids
to help them afford college. What you are arguing is that it doesn't
favor black kids because it just reduces their penalty (tuition) other
people don't have (pretending that there are no underprivaleged of
other skin tones for a moment). See how rediculous it is?
To REALLY have a ranger not favor a style, they should get to put the
feats wherever they want like many people have changed it. Now THAT is
'not favoring a style of fighting" no matter how you try to spin it.
>>The idea that they don't get bonuses, just removal of penalties is a red
>>herring; they are effectively the same thing.
>
>No they aren't. Because as the numbers show, TWF is no better than any
>other fighting style. A bonus would make TWF better than other styles.
Yes, they are. The numbers show only that the penalties for two weapon
fighting without the feats are extreme compared to the benefit given
by the abstracted D&D combat rules.
Removal of a penalty is the same as a benefit, period.
>>The 'bonus feat' ranger mods that many people suggest are far superior
>>in both game balance and game logic.
>
>Not really, they take away the focus on enemy, and puts it on fighting
>style.
They take away the focus on TWF style which the ranger in its current
form OBVIOUSLY shows to *most* people in the world, and allows a
ranger to instead focus on whatever fighting style they think is more
in tune with their character.
A ranger who is a scout type would never had need for special emphasis
on TWF over all other styles. Nor would the archer type ranger. Hell,
does any prototype ranger actually need special emphasis on TWF? Oh
yeah, the Drizzt ranger.
Hunter
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 15:43:34 GMT, cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter)
>(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:22:38 GMT, Ben Sisson <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:32:09 GMT, cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter)
>>>(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 07:32:08 GMT, Ben Sisson <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:36:35 GMT, cypher...@netscape.net (Hunter)
>>>>>(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:25:32 GMT, "David Benson" <ddbe...@attbi.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>>And as someone eles mentioned, the TWF feats don't give any bonuses.
>>>>>>They just minimize penalties to put them on par with other attacks. The
>>>>>>Ranger doesn't favor any style of fighting, he concentrates on
>>>>>>particular enemies instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>Funny how any melee who wants to do two weapon fighting takes ranger,
>>>>>though, eh?
>>>>>Must be a coincidence. Can't possibly be because TWF is inextricably
>>>>>tied to the ranger class. Nopers...
>>>>
>>>>And anyone who wants a PC runs Windows. Doesn't mean that PC's are
>>>>inextricaly tied to Windows.
>>>
>>>That's the whole problem. Anyone who wants to run a ranger uses TWF,
>>
>>Not if they are smart. They use the style best for the moment.
>
>In general, the focus is on TWF.
>
No it's not. It is on using the best weapon(s) for the purpose. Most
foolishly think that TWF gives them an edge. In previous editions this
was true, but not in 3e.
>>>because that's what the class assumes.
>>
>>No it doesn't. It assumes that they can fight equally well, no matter
>>what style they need to use.
>
>Simply wrong. Insist on a fallcy if you like, the bonuses are given
>for the direct purpose of making TWF the most favorable choice for
>rangers.
It isn't the most favorable choice. It is now a choice; wthout the
feats it isn't a viable option.
>f you as a ranger don't use it, you aren't making use of
>your class abilities, just like a cleric not casting spells or a
>fighter not using his bonus feats.
It would be more like a cleric that doesn't cast healing spells often.
Or a barbarian that only moves 30 so they can stay with the party.
>The basic warrior with no feats is the comparison base, NOT a 0
>penalty character. You're blowing smoke.
NO it's not. The comparison base is between options not between what
others can do.
>>
>>> I wager 99% of rangers made
>>>will make use of TWF regardless of ANYTHING else,
>>
>>That is because TWF is considered Kewl. The same as Windows is
>>considered more "functional".
>
>It is because that is what rangers are expected to do. Ranger and TWF
>melee are interchangeable in most players' vocabulary. Maybe not
>yours, maybe not a bunch of people on this newsgroup, but in general,
>they are.
And PC's and Windows are interchangeable in most people's vocabulary.
Doesn't mean that it is right.
>>
>>>backstory, whatever,
>>>because the rules for no logical reason gave them TWF.
>>
>>There is a logical reason. The ranger is supposed to be able to fight
>>in all styles equally.
>
>Baloney. More TWF apologist blather. It had nothing to do with
>fighting all styles equally. He does *not* fight all styles equally.
Yes he does.
>He is better with TWF than anyone else.
That doesn't mean he is equal in all styles. It doesn't matter that
others normally stink with that style.
>The fact that it has penalties without the feats is irrelevant
It is very relevant. The ranger is no better at TWF then he is at S&SF
ore THF or RF. It doesn't matter that he is better at TWF than anyone
else. He is a fighter class anyway.
>- that is the downside of *using two
>weapons*,
No it's not. The down side is that it is no better than any other
style when properly trained in it, and not a viable option when not
trained in it.
>a distinct logical advantage otherwise (though not so much
>in game mechanics terms due to the massiveness of the penalties).
>
And that means that there is no advantage to use TWF over other styles.
Any advantage of one style over another would be situational.
You still have hang-ups from the 2e version. That version is
irrelevant.
>>> So, unlike PC's
>>>(the computer, not the player character) necessarily, rangers ARE tied
>>>to TWF.
>>
>>Wrong. PC's are tied to Windows the same reason that TWF is tied to
>>rangers.
>
>No. Rangers and TWF are inextricably tied together.
You haven't proved that. Every argument that you make can be made about
Windows and PC's. Especially before M$ got caught.
>A ranger is MEANT
>to be using it. That's why it gets the feats for free.
He is meant to use it when it is useful, he isn't meant to use it all
the time. That isn't his focus. His focus is his enemies.
>A rogue gets a whole pile of class skills to pick from. But they don't
>have to, a rogue could go for a bunch of cross skills instead.
>According to your logic, this means a rogue isn't expected to get his
>class skills, it just happens to be the "cool" thing to do.
Wrong*. That doesn't even make sense. The skill points are still
being used. A ranger/druid/barbarian that takes a level in rogue might
use most of his skill points cross class. Doesn't mean he is wasting a
class feature.
I'm not saying that the Ranger will NEVER use TWF. I'm saying that he
won't ALWAYS use it.
>>
>>>In reality, the ranger DOES favor a style of fighting - TWF.
>>
>>No he doesn't. That is a misconception.
>
>Keep putting your fingers in your ears then.
You are the one with fingers in your ears. Mine are on my keyboard.
>It's pretty much plain as day to most people.
> When you are given a bonus to something and to
>nothing else, its not hard to figure out what's going on.
No bonus is given. Negating a penalty isn't the same as a bonus*.
> And yes, despite your spinning, removal of a penalty is the same as a bonus in
>real effect. The bar was just set in a different place, that's all.
Wrong. All the styles set the bar, not just one. That is like saying
that rogues get bonuses in fighting because mages are worse at it.
Pulling up an anchor isn't the same as raising a spinnaker.
>Let's say there is a scholarship for underprivaleged urban black kids
>to help them afford college. What you are arguing is that it doesn't
>favor black kids because it just reduces their penalty (tuition) other
>people don't have (pretending that there are no underprivaleged of
>other skin tones for a moment).
Which means that it is allowing talent to level the playing field for
the underprivaleged. Color is irrelevant, otherwise privaleged blacks
would also be elligible.
>See how rediculous it is?
Not ridiculous at all. That is how most Scholarships are used.
Colleges use scholarships to enitce students of certain types. They
are used to lower the "tuition" for these students.
>To REALLY have a ranger not favor a style, they should get to put the
>feats wherever they want like many people have changed it. Now THAT is
>'not favoring a style of fighting" no matter how you try to spin it.
>
Wrong, that means that the rangers would be favoring a style. Just that
which style would be player choice.
>>>The idea that they don't get bonuses, just removal of penalties is a red
>>>herring; they are effectively the same thing.
>>
>>No they aren't. Because as the numbers show, TWF is no better than any
>>other fighting style. A bonus would make TWF better than other styles.
>
>Yes, they are.
No it's not. It was in other editions, but that is irrelevant.
>The numbers show only that the penalties for two weapon
>fighting without the feats are extreme compared to the benefit given
>by the abstracted D&D combat rules.
And even with the feats he is no better than using THF or S&SF.
>Removal of a penalty is the same as a benefit, period.
>
It might be a benefit, but it isn't a bonus.
Raising the temperature from -40 to 0 degrees, doesn't mean that the air
is now warm.
>>>The 'bonus feat' ranger mods that many people suggest are far superior
>>>in both game balance and game logic.
>>
>>Not really, they take away the focus on enemy, and puts it on fighting
>>style.
>
>They take away the focus on TWF style which the ranger in its current
>form OBVIOUSLY shows to *most* people in the world,
Windows and PC's
> and allows a ranger to instead focus on whatever fighting style they think is more
>in tune with their character.
Ranger training doesn't focus on any style. And it shouldn't. The
changes are making the training focus on individual styles.
>A ranger who is a scout type would never had need for special emphasis
>on TWF over all other styles.
As is, TWF isn't emphasized over other styles.
> Nor would the archer type ranger.
This is going against the enemy as focus principle.
>Hell, does any prototype ranger actually need special emphasis on TWF?
No, and none does. Since TWF is no better than any other style.
>Oh yeah, the Drizzt ranger.
Which is a 2e legacy. I'm talking 3e, where they created a
comprehensive class with focus on enemies, not styles.
daci...@earthlink.net
> IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
> > they did switch the class so kids could play Drizzt like Rangers.
> >
> > Ironically he was made and first written about under 1st edition
> > Unearthed Arcana Rules, and the Rangers then were the most
> > powerful fighting class.
Interesting. According to Salvatore, Drizzt was never a PC (or even
NPC) before he was a novel character. It's in the author's introduction
to the big three-in-one volume of the Dark Elf Trilogy, IIRC (can't find
the book at the moment, but I clearly remember reading that in the
introduction.)
-- Nik ( Dacileva )
"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will
seriously cramp his style." - Traditional, House of the Jhereg
Keifer0999
>Date: 9/21/02 6:26 PM Eastern
>Interesting. According to Salvatore, Drizzt was never a PC
Yet he is a character in a DnD novel...he has been defined as a Ranger, a DnD
character class..and is a Drow...a DnD race. Just because he was never a PC
doesn't mean Salvatore didn't pick up the PHb and the UA book and go..hey
rangers are cool..and Drow are cool..andlook Gygax says they can fight with 2
weapons at once..this would make an awesome book character.
Keifer0999
>I have the misfortune to be a completist, and I'm missing (I think) two
>books from the Gord series, so if anyone knows a place where they can still
>be obtained, please let me know!
>
>Grant
>
>
>
I have a collection of Gord short stories..can't remember the title of the book
or where it is at the moment...City of Hawks maybe? Is that one you'd want?
You're more then welcome to it...I'll look around for it I just saw it like a
month ago.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
>You know, it's deliciously ironic how many people here hate Drizzt for
>his abilities, condemning him for all his supposed twinks, at which
>point in the next thread, they'll refer us to some webpage with an 86th
>level, 8 classed character or some other absurdity and claim how legit
>it is. Riiiiiight.
Riiiiiight. Because that's very common.
So common, in fact, that I can't think of a single incident. But I'm
sure someone will come along to list a dozen.
--
No, I don't care what Monte says.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
>>Of course the scimitar thing screws the theory, and there's no reason it
>>
>>doesn't apply to quarterstaves which every fictional ranger EXCEPT
>>Drizzt*
>>is damned cool with.
>>
>>(* And maybe Aragorn)
>
>I thought I saw somewhere that official errata states that rangers can use
>quarterstaves with the two-weopon fighting feat?
IIRC, it was more the Sage saying "I see no problems with it, go
ahead."
Some people get twitchy about the difference between errata,
interpretation, and officially-sanctioned house rules.
Glev Zarriontal
There are 3 books that I know about. If more were released, I have not
heard about them or I forgot about them.
"Greyhawk Adventures" Series
1) Book 1 of 3 "Sage of Old City" By Gary Gygax 1985 Gord
ISBN: 394-74275-38240 [Back outside cover] UK?
ISBN: 0-88038-257-0 [Inside Title page] USA?
2) Book 2 of 3 "Artifact of Evil" by Gary Gygax 1986 Gord
ISBN: 394-74479-58241 [Back outside cover] UK?
ISBN: 0-88038-279-1 [Inside Title page] USA?
3) Book 3 of 3 "Master Wolf" by Rose Estes 1987 Mika
ISBN: 0-88038-457-38242 [Back outside cover] UK?
ISBN: 0-88038-457-3 [Inside Title page] USA?
Justin Bacon
>* Drizzt lives in an environment (ruled by eeeeeevil drow women) where
>his status is barely above a slave; he is mentally conditioned by evil
>sisters and mum to 'behave properly'. However, none of this 'conditioning'
>shows up after his surfacing from the Underdark, even if it was going on
>for decades (the time it takes for elves to mature, after all). +1
>to Twink Score for ignoring the background.
False.
>* Drizzt keeps displaying a number of unique abilities beyond 'a drow
>with a conscience': unusual eye color (+1/2), ambidexterity (which is
>described to a ridiculous degree to point out how SPECIAL he is -- see
>the game with coins) (+2), 'Drizzt-I'm-your-father' Zaknafein (who is, of
>course, brutally AND conveniently slain) (+1), cool loner-syndrome (+2),
>acquisition of a magical cat statue (Guenhwyvar obeys Drizzt, but not the
>person who commands the item)(+2). Total of +7 1/2 to Twink Score.
These complaints border on the ludicrous.
>* Drizzt, the chick magnet. But he is *honorable* so he won't even try
>to bed them. It has to be because he is *honorable*, not because he was
>conditioned to serve women in his past. +1 to Twink Score for repeated
>background mutilation.
False.
>* By the third book of Drow Trilogy, R.A. Salvatore has developed a taste
>for describing mass combat. Half of the book (or so) is dedicated for
>describing *one*, *single* *battle* with Drizzt, Guen and his ranger master
>against the hordes of gnolls and *eeeevil*.
The one thing I really like about Salvatore's writing is his skill in
describing fight sequences. So this is all to the good.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
daci...@earthlink.net
> On 20 Sep 2002 08:17:37 GMT, trevt...@aol.com (Trevtrev75) wrote:
> > I thought I saw somewhere that official errata states that rangers
> > can use quarterstaves with the two-weopon fighting feat?
>
> IIRC, it was more the Sage saying "I see no problems with it, go
> ahead."
The only errata about the Ranger's TWF is the removal of the word
"-headed" on PH 45, so the sentence reads "He loses this speacial bonus
[of Ambi and TWF] when fighting in medium or heavy armor, or when using
a double weapon (such as a double sword [or quarterstaff])."
That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Sage had said something
like "Though I don't see any problem with permitting it."
In fact, IMC, I permit rangers to use it with any double weapon as well,
since the armor restriction limits their 'free' TWF enough as-is (and
there's the whole 'lack of overall benefit from TWF unless one is a
rogue or has multiple magical weapons'), especially given the cost of
magical double weapons, where both heads have magical bonuses.
Kris Crockett
"Glev Zarriontal" <glevzar...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:kfprousoklatibv1c...@4ax.com...
Gord's books (that I know of), all by Gary Gygax:
Saga of Old City Oct '85 0-88038-257-0
Artifact of Evil Feb '86 0-88038-279-1
Sea of Death Jun '87 0-441-75676-x
Night Arrant Sept '87 0-441-29863-x
City of Hawks Nov '87 0-441-10636-6
Come Endless Darkness March '88 0-441-11446-6
Dance of Demons Nov '88 0-425-11342-6