Curious class influences

[tomBitonti]

Re:

Rogue: [SNIP]

Fighter: [SNIP]

Ranger: Surprise! Drizzt was a big inspiration for the design direction, as was Legolas from the LotR movies.

Warlock: [SNIP]

Avenger: [SNIP]

Bard: [SNIP]

Invoker: As this class shaped up, it became increasingly clear that Gandalf was our best model, both from Tolkien's books and Jackson's film version.

I was struck a little by these class associations.

I thought that Aragorn/Strider was more of the archetype for a Ranger than Legolas (who is as much or more an archer and woodsman).

Not sure about the Gandalf and Invoker association, but I don't know the 4E Invoker very well to say if that makes sense to me.

I do think that Conan is a strong fighter, although, I'd say he is a mix of Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, Swashbucker, Warlord. But, Conan is so much a means of portraying an ideal that he is hard to use as an archetype.

 

[AllisterH]

I thought that Aragorn/Strider was more of the archetype for a Ranger than Legolas (who is as much or more an archer and woodsman).

This was true in 1e I believe since Rangers got the weird ability to use crystal balls.

However, by 2nd edition, I'd say Legolas had clearly taken over and 3e was definitely all Legolas.

 

[billd91]

1e was solidly based on Aragorn, though a lot of 1e rangers had come to look like archers when the weapon specialization rules appeared in Unearthed Arcana. 2e was as solidly built on Drizzt as 1e was based on Aragorn. That continued on through 3e's initial PH. It broadened out in 3.5 to formally incorporate archery for the first time (that I know of). It's really only at that point that the ranger begins to take on any Legolasian character, and that's really just because of the archery path.

 

[AllisterH]

1e was solidly based on Aragorn, though a lot of 1e rangers had come to look like archers when the weapon specialization rules appeared in Unearthed Arcana. 2e was as solidly built on Drizzt as 1e was based on Aragorn. That continued on through 3e's initial PH. It broadened out in 3.5 to formally incorporate archery for the first time (that I know of). It's really only at that point that the ranger begins to take on any Legolasian character, and that's really just because of the archery path.

You know, I could've sworn I've seen posts stating that the 2e ranger wasn't based on Drizzt but that Salvatore, being around Wisonsin at the time, had seen the 2e ranger in playtest and built Drizzt around it....

(Of course, in my old age, I could be talking out of my nether regionr)

 

[Voadam]

You know, I could've sworn I've seen posts stating that the 2e ranger wasn't based on Drizzt but that Salvatore, being around Wisonsin at the time, had seen the 2e ranger in playtest and built Drizzt around it....

(Of course, in my old age, I could be talking out of my nether regionr)

1e drow got a racial ability to use two weapon fighting.

 

[tomBitonti]

This was true in 1e I believe since Rangers got the weird ability to use crystal balls.

However, by 2nd edition, I'd say Legolas had clearly taken over and 3e was definitely all Legolas.

That does seem to be the trend. I guess this is just my age showing.

When I think of a Ranger, I tend to see more of Rambo in First Blood then Legolas.

Edit: Its the whole "eat things that would make a billy-goat puke" line, which doesn't attach to Legolas at all.