D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Minigiant]

Well something came before something, and I have a hard time believing the focus on two-weapon fighting in 2e Ranger design predated Drizzt if only because it's so bad. There had to be something driving that design.

That would require actually working more than 10 minutes on a ranger mechanic.

Not gonna happen.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The problem I have with that, though, is where did the TWF ranger come from if not from Drizzt? I don't remember any prior precedence in characters or source material. When 2e dropped, the ability seemed really out of left field (a lot about the 2e ranger did, in fact). I'm not saying that Zeb isn't being honest, I just have never been able to see where else this version of the ranger could have come from. It's just such a huge jump from the previous version of the ranger.

Well something came before something, and I have a hard time believing the focus on two-weapon fighting in 2e Ranger design predated Drizzt if only because it's so bad. There had to be something driving that design.

Zeb Cook himself said:

I'm not sure where the [2e] ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image.

So it looks to me like rangers got TWF for the same reason 5e Sorcerers got metamagic.

 

[Lanefan]

Zeb Cook himself said:

I'm not sure where the [2e] ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image.

So it looks to me like rangers got TWF for the same reason 5e Sorcerers got metamagic.

But where did that "style and image" come from? How and why did the concept of Ranger-as-wilderness-Fighter get butchered into Ranger-as-wilderness-Thief?

 

[Don Durito]

But where did that "style and image" come from? How and why did the concept of Ranger-as-wilderness-Fighter get butchered into Ranger-as-wilderness-Thief?

I can't help but think that someone somewhere in the process was thinking of Drizzt. Maybe not Zeb Cook himself, and maybe he just liked the idea, or after all this time forgot the initial spark, buit I have a hard time believe Drizzt was not the initial spark in some way.

 

[Asisreo]

I can't help but think that someone somewhere in the process was thinking of Drizzt. Maybe not Zeb Cook himself, and maybe he just liked the idea, or after all this time forgot the initial spark, buit I have a hard time believe Drizzt was not the initial spark in some way.

It's impossible someone on the design team didn't have Drizzt pop up in their mind once or twice but I think it could have flowed naturally too.

When I think of a generic Ranger, maybe this is just conditioned, I have an image of a lithe, graceful woodland-dweller that's skilled in hunting (i.e. being silent).

This leads me to believe in dexterity being their main physical stat rather than strength. When I think of dexterity-based fighting, I think of throwing knives, archery, dueling, and dual-wielding.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The problem I have with that, though, is where did the TWF ranger come from if not from Drizzt? I don't remember any prior precedence in characters or source material. When 2e dropped, the ability seemed really out of left field (a lot about the 2e ranger did, in fact). I'm not saying that Zeb isn't being honest, I just have never been able to see where else this version of the ranger could have come from. It's just such a huge jump from the previous version of the ranger.

As someone who was actively playing at the time, I remember it as being a solution to the "armored ranger" problem. Someone felt that rangers in plate mail was badwrongfun, and so decided to incentivize rangers to wear studded leather armor by giving them a benefit that only worked when they did. As two-weapon fighting was very popular in 1st ed - with those who could afford the high DEX requirement anyway - it would have been well-received, and give rangers a scout-like "bowie knife in my off-hand" feel.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I can't help but think that someone somewhere in the process was thinking of Drizzt. Maybe not Zeb Cook himself, and maybe he just liked the idea, or after all this time forgot the initial spark, buit I have a hard time believe Drizzt was not the initial spark in some way.

Well, part of the point is that the timelines don't really make sense for that. 2e was published in 1989, yes, but development started in 1987. You've got to get the book printed. Before that you've got to do layout. Before that, you've got to write and edit the content. Before that, you need to finalize the designs. Before that, you need the playtesting done. Before that, you need the initial designs. Like TWF on the 2e ranger had to be in 1987 early in development. Yeah sure, maybe it was a late change, but Zeb Cook himself says it wasn't a change to accommodate Drizzt and that any changes went through an approval process.

Meanwhile FR5 Savage Frontier and The Crystal Shard were published in 1988, but Salvatore has stated that Drizzt being a character at all was kind of a last minute change in the manuscript:

Tell me about Drizzt.

Salvatore: The character first appeared in 1988, The Crystal Shard.

Your first book.

Salvatore: First published. And it was funny. I had sent the manuscript to TSR. They liked the manuscript. One of the characters [had to be changed]. The editor called me at work and said, "I've got to go to a marketing meeting to sell the book, and we can't use [that character], and I really need to be able to tell marketing." I said, "Give me a little while. I'll call you back." She said, "Oh, no. You don't understand. I'm two minutes away from where I have to be five minutes ago." And off the top of my head I said a Dark Elf. And there was this long pause. "Yeah, a Dark Elf Ranger, that's cool. Nobody's done that." And there was a long pause, and she said, "There's a reason why no one's done that." I said, "No. It will be all right. It will be all right. It's just a sidekick character." And another pause. "What's his name?" And off the top of my head I said, "Drizzt Do'Urden?" Then a long pause. "Can you spell it?" I said, "Not a chance." It came to me off the top of my head.

Salvatore had a completed manuscript for Crystal Shard and it was in TSR's hands before Drizzt as a main character was even a thing. That means swapping Drizzt for the other character happened late. That's going to be much closer to the 1988 publishing date.

And nobody who worked on FR5 appears to have a credit in the 2e PHB that I can tell.

Like these timelines just do not line up for Drizzt to have been a driving force here. He was a known character, but he was far, far, far removed from being an iconic ranger at the time he would have had to be in order to influence the design.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem I have with that, though, is where did the TWF ranger come from if not from Drizzt? I don't remember any prior precedence in characters or source material. When 2e dropped, the ability seemed really out of left field (a lot about the 2e ranger did, in fact). I'm not saying that Zeb isn't being honest, I just have never been able to see where else this version of the ranger could have come from. It's just such a huge jump from the previous version of the ranger.

I don't remember where I saw it, but I recall seeing some rationale that since rangers were mostly forest pathfinders and scouts, they wouldn't favor two-handled weapons (hard to swing in a polearm or greatsword in a forest) or shields (again, clumsy in a narrow woodland) so they felt that a ranger would opt for a small off-hand weapon (knife, handaxe, etc) as an alternative. They also moved rangers to light armor (studded leather) to further that archetype as a scout, skirmisher, and archer rather than the heavier armor and weapons of a fighter.

Likewise, they moved the ranger's "move undetected in the woods" into thief like stealth abilities.

It's probably fair to view the 2e ranger less as Aragorn and more as Davy Crockett.

 

[Lanefan]

As someone who was actively playing at the time, I remember it as being a solution to the "armored ranger" problem. Someone felt that rangers in plate mail was badwrongfun, and so decided to incentivize rangers to wear studded leather armor by giving them a benefit that only worked when they did.

Who thought the armoured Ranger was a problem? I never did!

As two-weapon fighting was very popular in 1st ed - with those who could afford the high DEX requirement anyway - it would have been well-received, and give rangers a scout-like "bowie knife in my off-hand" feel.

Truth be told, despite running 1e for ages I rarely see characters lean into TWF other than Thieves who can't use shield; for everyone else, the added defense of a shield - preferably magical - is just too important to forego.

Disclaimer: as with 3e and forward, shields in our game give 2 AC points, bucklers give 1.

 

[Minigiant]

As someone who was actively playing at the time, I remember it as being a solution to the "armored ranger" problem. Someone felt that rangers in plate mail was badwrongfun, and so decided to incentivize rangers to wear studded leather armor by giving them a benefit that only worked when they did. As two-weapon fighting was very popular in 1st ed - with those who could afford the high DEX requirement anyway - it would have been well-received, and give rangers a scout-like "bowie knife in my off-hand" feel.

Yeah, it kinda felt like they needed a gimmick for rangers and they gave TWF and studded leather to rangers to make it theirs. If you look at early D&D, a lot of the warrior classes and kits were just different weapon/armor set ups plus a skill and/or a few spells.

It was the era before true game design and mostly "jamming spells and incentives together that creates an image".