Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Last week, I began to research a topic that I had not looked into before- while I had previously looked into the history of the Ranger class, I had never before thought about the issue of the evolution of the Ranger from OSR/AD&D into 2e. More specifically, the question of whether of not Drizzt birthed the 2e Ranger was extensively researched in this thread:
www.enworld.org
If you want the TLDR version of that long post, it is this: I can find no credible evidence that Drizzt influenced the design of the 2e Ranger for multiple reasons. To the extent that the issue can be resolved, I think it is ... to me, at least! You can't make everyone happy, and people will persist in their own beliefs. That's cool!
So later in the thread, I proposed the following:
There is the strong Drizzt theory. This is something akin to the "2e Ranger with TWF because of Drizzt." {snip} Nevertheless, for multiple reasons the "strong theory" doesn't work out.
The second theory, we will call it the weak Drizzt theory is more of a cosmic unconsciousness.
Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a ranger dual wielding. Suddenly someone'll say, like, dual wielding, or ranger, or Drizzt is a dual wielding ranger out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
This is the idea that maybe Zeb was wandering around one day, and someone was reading the Crystal Shard, and exclaimed, "Ooooo.... the Drizzt, who is a two-weapon wielding ranger .... is so dreamy!" And ol' Zeb didn't think of it at the time, but it lodged in his head, and later on ... he put it in 2e without thinking about it.
And when I wrote that, I realized what the real issue was- let's face it, if you are a fan of Drizzt, it does seem like too much of a coincidence (a conspiracy?) that around the same time as Drizzt comes out, we also get a revamped Ranger with a standard class feature of two-weapon fighting! I mean, even I can say it's weird! And this followup is a post about, well, why it actually isn't that weird. And more importantly, why insisting that Drizzt is the reason for the revamped Ranger actually does a great disservice to Zeb Cook, who is one of the great and unsung stars of D&D (and the entire TSR era, to be honest).
With that said, I realized that the main issue is a simple one- looking into the history of dual wielding and class design in D&D, and showing how Zeb Cook most likely came up with the idea all on his own. And, as further evidenced below, there is a key fact that IMO shows that the 2e Ranger makes complete sense from Zeb's perspective without any reference to Drizzt.
1. Prelude. The Strong Drizzt Theory Doesn't Work.
"Everybody pities the weak; jealousy you have to earn." -Richard Simmons, impishly.
Let's get this out of the way- for purposes of this essay, the strong Drizzt theory (that the 2e Ranger dual wields because of Drizzt, so people can play their own Drizzt) is being ignored. As far as I am concerned, the theory is bunkum for the following reasons. The timing doesn't work- Drizzt was a character designed for 1e, and his book was coming out while 2e was being designed; he was not some massive breakout character during the release of 2e. The two main principals (Salvatore and David "Zeb" Cook) both refute the idea that Drizzt influenced the Ranger design in 2e either explicitly or implicitly. Other sources (such as Monte Cook) that have discussed the issue have also refuted it. No source, not a single one that I can find, supports the idea that Drizzt was the reason for the design change- given that the idea of changing the rules of the game for a single character (at that time) would be a memorable event, it is shocking that not a single person would say that.
Finally, and most importantly, the theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny for a more important reason- it doesn't make sense. For this theory to hold, the powers that be at TSR must have been so prescient that they knew Drizzt was going to be the breakout character in the upcoming years, so that the demanded that the Ranger be re-designed to include two-weapon fighting ... and so brilliant that they did this without alerting the main designer (Zeb) to what they were doing and without leaving any kind of trail ... yet also so stupid that they took out the option of playing a Dark Elf at the same time. Again, it makes no sense for them to both change the rules of the game to let you play Drizzt by changing the Ranger class, while also removing the option of playing a Dark Elf from the core rules.
As far as I'm concerned, that's enough on that. YMMV.
2. The Pre-history of Dual Wielding.
"Somebody told me how frightening it was how much plastic was in the ocean, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared." -Me, regretfully.
A quick note- what we now call TWF (two-weapon fighting) was formally referred to, more often, as "dual wielding." Just some nomenclature. From here on, I will use TWF to refer to using two weapons at the same time because it's an easy abbreviation.
Let's start with the most basic principle ... Drizzt did not invent, popularize, or make TWF a "thing" in D&D. People have always clamored for it, and there have always been rules (core rules or optional rules) to allow it. So this is a brief tour of the rule for two-weapon fighting prior to 1985.
In OD&D, there were no official rules regarding TWF. However, there was (and continues to be!) a lively discussion about how to model TWF in OD&D. If you look at various OD&D boards, you will see innumerable rules for modeling TWF.
AD&D introduced the concept of TWF for the masses with a codified ruleset in the DMG. On page 70, under "Attacks With Two Weapons," it provides that any character class can use a second weapon of a dagger or handaxe, with a penalty on the "to hit" that will depend on the dexterity of the character- with the penalty decreasing as dexterity goes up.
Dragon Magazine also has had articles about using two weapons- the one that I remember was from 1982, called "Be a two-fisted fighter" (by Roger Moore, of course ... he preferred his articles shaken, not stirred). The rules contained an expansion of the DMG's rules about TWF, and allowed the expansion of weapons used in the off-hand ... including shortswords. Notably, the rules continue to use dexterity to determine the modifiers to hit when using two weapons.
Unearthed Arcana (Summer '85) introduced a few concepts- first, the "Drizzt rule." On page 10, it specifically allowed that "Dark elves ... may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand." In addition, it provided for weapon specialization. Now, I am not here to tell you that the weapon specialization rules in UA were unbelievably borked; you already knew that. Instead, I am going to emphasize that for those who simply didn't care about the borked-ness of those rules, it suddenly made TWF so much more appealing. Let me illustrate the following example, assuming certain constructions of the rules since there was no explanation of "attack routines" in 1e:
Fighter, first level, 18/00 strength (because it's Chad, and because the ability rules are also borked in UA). Starts with 4 (FOUR!) proficiencies. Double specialize in hand axe. Which is a melee and missile weapon. Which means:
A. In melee, at first level, Chad could get 3/2 attacks each round, with each weapon. That's six attacks every 2 rounds. +3/+3 for specialization, +3/+6 for strength.
B. Plus he can throw them.
So while the damage of a hand-axe (again S/M) is "only" d6, when you are at +6 to hit, +9 to damage, six attacks per two rounds at first level then players start taking notice. And just like the modern "feats" that let you sacrifice "to hit" for damage, many players were willing to take the tradeoff of minor "to hit" for additional damage and attacks each round ... before specialization.
Every table is different, but TWF was not uncommon prior to 2e.
3. 24 Views of Mt. Fuji: What we Forget About Strength in 1e.
"Well, let me give you a saying from Colonel Sanders. I am too drunk to taste this chicken." -Natalie Portman, improbably.
One helpful thing to remember when it comes to older versions of D&D, especially 1e, is how different the abilities were back then, especially strength. I want to emphasize this- dexterity has always been a good ability. Always. Since the very beginning. It gave you an advantage to surprise. It helped with your attack rolls using missile weapons (but NOT damage). It improved certain saving throws (like fireballs). And finally, it made your AC better. But you needed it to be higher in the old system- 15 for anything!
But ... if you had a high dexterity, you were likely shunted off into one of the classes that required a high dexterity (Illusionist, Monk) or a class that, um, also required a high dexterity and the party needed (Thief, Assassin). The one subset of (official) classes that didn't have high dexterities, usually, were the MARTIAL characters. Fighters. Paladins. Rangers. The meat of the party. Primarily because Strength was king.
An 18 strength for your martial character meant you got to roll percentiles, all the way up to a possible 18/00 (+3,+6). You had carrying capacity, the ability to open doors and break lots and bend bars and all that good stuff. And you wanted a high constitution, because, again, martial characters got special advantages ... including up to +4 hp/level.
What's more, while the dexterity bonus was nice, magic shields were commonplace- so the desire to dual-wield and get the AC bonus (and give up a possible +3 or +4 magic shield) wasn't as high.
This is a long way of saying that while there were people that created what we would now call "dex builds" they were not nearly as common back then as they are now.
4. Dave "Zeb" Cook, the Kensai, and the 2e Ranger.
"No refunds, consider your refund escaping this death trap with your lives!" -Standard disclaimer on all of my posts.
So without getting into a debate about some of the modern issues of Oriental Adventures, at the time it was an eye-opening book. Importantly, it was a truly ground-breaking supplement for 1e, and, unlike Unearthed Arcana, it was well-designed. It was playable.
And it was designed by Zeb Cook. This is important because, while Zeb had previously designed all sorts of games for TSR, from Star Frontiers to Crimebusters, and even designed some of the best rules for D&D (he's the "Expert" in the B/X set), this was the first hardcover AD&D book Zeb designed. And the reason I bring this us if fairly simple-
OA has, I do believe, the first dexterity-based melee class in an official AD&D publication. This is incredibly important, because, as I pointed out just above, dexterity had not yet morphed into its status as a "god" stat. That's right- the Kensai has Dexterity (and wisdom) as the prime requisites. The Kensai has a number of special abilities. But what is the one ability that really, really, REALLY sticks out?
At 7th level he can use two weapons simultaneously with no penalty. (OA 17). That's right- the Kensai, who already get a lot of attacks, and already will likely have a high dexterity (thus, a low penalty for using a weapon in the off-hand), gets the added benefit of using two weapon with no penalty, because ... wait for it ... the Kensai is a lightly-armored dexterity-based melee character.
This is important, because Zeb wrote OA. And Zeb wrote 2e. Now, if you read my prior post, you know that the Ranger had a bit of an identity crisis. As an Aragorn clone, in play it tended to be a "Fighter, in heavy armor, with some additional abilities" in 1e. But in UA, for the first time, it had a requirement of having a bow as a weapon. This seems to harken back to what Gygax said- that it was supposed to be more of a wilderness dude (think Robin Hood), and less of an Aragorn-clone. Unfortunately, they didn't really change the rest of the mechanics, so the bow requirement was matched with a class that still had no particular support for dexterity.
But that changed when Zeb revamped the Ranger. He explicitly made it a Dexterity-based class. While the class could wear heavier armor, it had a number of abilities that only worked in studded leather or lighter. Which had the effect of greatly incentivizing players who had Rangers to maximize their dexterity, because they could no longer count on wearing heavy armor.
So if you're Zeb, and you have a Dex-based class, which means it might take a hit to strength (which is how, in the old rules, you get those sweet, sweet damage bonuses), what do you reach for in your bag of tricks that you have used previously to try and make up for it?
That's right. The kensai's TWF. The Ranger "can fight two-handed with no penalty to his attack rolls[.]" (PHB 28) It's the Kensai ability all over again. By the same guy who designed both.
So there you have it. That's my belief- Zeb, who designed the prior dex-based martial character, just reached back into the same bag of tricks.
D&D 5E - The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity
Whoever fights monsters should see to it in the process he does not become a monster. And if you research into the Drizzt, the Drizzt will research back into you. - Herbert West, animatedly. Today, on a very special episode of Snarf Explores the Classics featuring a young John Travolta in a...
www.enworld.org
If you want the TLDR version of that long post, it is this: I can find no credible evidence that Drizzt influenced the design of the 2e Ranger for multiple reasons. To the extent that the issue can be resolved, I think it is ... to me, at least! You can't make everyone happy, and people will persist in their own beliefs. That's cool!
So later in the thread, I proposed the following:
There is the strong Drizzt theory. This is something akin to the "2e Ranger with TWF because of Drizzt." {snip} Nevertheless, for multiple reasons the "strong theory" doesn't work out.
The second theory, we will call it the weak Drizzt theory is more of a cosmic unconsciousness.
Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a ranger dual wielding. Suddenly someone'll say, like, dual wielding, or ranger, or Drizzt is a dual wielding ranger out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
This is the idea that maybe Zeb was wandering around one day, and someone was reading the Crystal Shard, and exclaimed, "Ooooo.... the Drizzt, who is a two-weapon wielding ranger .... is so dreamy!" And ol' Zeb didn't think of it at the time, but it lodged in his head, and later on ... he put it in 2e without thinking about it.
And when I wrote that, I realized what the real issue was- let's face it, if you are a fan of Drizzt, it does seem like too much of a coincidence (a conspiracy?) that around the same time as Drizzt comes out, we also get a revamped Ranger with a standard class feature of two-weapon fighting! I mean, even I can say it's weird! And this followup is a post about, well, why it actually isn't that weird. And more importantly, why insisting that Drizzt is the reason for the revamped Ranger actually does a great disservice to Zeb Cook, who is one of the great and unsung stars of D&D (and the entire TSR era, to be honest).
With that said, I realized that the main issue is a simple one- looking into the history of dual wielding and class design in D&D, and showing how Zeb Cook most likely came up with the idea all on his own. And, as further evidenced below, there is a key fact that IMO shows that the 2e Ranger makes complete sense from Zeb's perspective without any reference to Drizzt.
1. Prelude. The Strong Drizzt Theory Doesn't Work.
"Everybody pities the weak; jealousy you have to earn." -Richard Simmons, impishly.
Let's get this out of the way- for purposes of this essay, the strong Drizzt theory (that the 2e Ranger dual wields because of Drizzt, so people can play their own Drizzt) is being ignored. As far as I am concerned, the theory is bunkum for the following reasons. The timing doesn't work- Drizzt was a character designed for 1e, and his book was coming out while 2e was being designed; he was not some massive breakout character during the release of 2e. The two main principals (Salvatore and David "Zeb" Cook) both refute the idea that Drizzt influenced the Ranger design in 2e either explicitly or implicitly. Other sources (such as Monte Cook) that have discussed the issue have also refuted it. No source, not a single one that I can find, supports the idea that Drizzt was the reason for the design change- given that the idea of changing the rules of the game for a single character (at that time) would be a memorable event, it is shocking that not a single person would say that.
Finally, and most importantly, the theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny for a more important reason- it doesn't make sense. For this theory to hold, the powers that be at TSR must have been so prescient that they knew Drizzt was going to be the breakout character in the upcoming years, so that the demanded that the Ranger be re-designed to include two-weapon fighting ... and so brilliant that they did this without alerting the main designer (Zeb) to what they were doing and without leaving any kind of trail ... yet also so stupid that they took out the option of playing a Dark Elf at the same time. Again, it makes no sense for them to both change the rules of the game to let you play Drizzt by changing the Ranger class, while also removing the option of playing a Dark Elf from the core rules.
As far as I'm concerned, that's enough on that. YMMV.
2. The Pre-history of Dual Wielding.
"Somebody told me how frightening it was how much plastic was in the ocean, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared." -Me, regretfully.
A quick note- what we now call TWF (two-weapon fighting) was formally referred to, more often, as "dual wielding." Just some nomenclature. From here on, I will use TWF to refer to using two weapons at the same time because it's an easy abbreviation.
Let's start with the most basic principle ... Drizzt did not invent, popularize, or make TWF a "thing" in D&D. People have always clamored for it, and there have always been rules (core rules or optional rules) to allow it. So this is a brief tour of the rule for two-weapon fighting prior to 1985.
In OD&D, there were no official rules regarding TWF. However, there was (and continues to be!) a lively discussion about how to model TWF in OD&D. If you look at various OD&D boards, you will see innumerable rules for modeling TWF.
AD&D introduced the concept of TWF for the masses with a codified ruleset in the DMG. On page 70, under "Attacks With Two Weapons," it provides that any character class can use a second weapon of a dagger or handaxe, with a penalty on the "to hit" that will depend on the dexterity of the character- with the penalty decreasing as dexterity goes up.
Dragon Magazine also has had articles about using two weapons- the one that I remember was from 1982, called "Be a two-fisted fighter" (by Roger Moore, of course ... he preferred his articles shaken, not stirred). The rules contained an expansion of the DMG's rules about TWF, and allowed the expansion of weapons used in the off-hand ... including shortswords. Notably, the rules continue to use dexterity to determine the modifiers to hit when using two weapons.
Unearthed Arcana (Summer '85) introduced a few concepts- first, the "Drizzt rule." On page 10, it specifically allowed that "Dark elves ... may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand." In addition, it provided for weapon specialization. Now, I am not here to tell you that the weapon specialization rules in UA were unbelievably borked; you already knew that. Instead, I am going to emphasize that for those who simply didn't care about the borked-ness of those rules, it suddenly made TWF so much more appealing. Let me illustrate the following example, assuming certain constructions of the rules since there was no explanation of "attack routines" in 1e:
Fighter, first level, 18/00 strength (because it's Chad, and because the ability rules are also borked in UA). Starts with 4 (FOUR!) proficiencies. Double specialize in hand axe. Which is a melee and missile weapon. Which means:
A. In melee, at first level, Chad could get 3/2 attacks each round, with each weapon. That's six attacks every 2 rounds. +3/+3 for specialization, +3/+6 for strength.
B. Plus he can throw them.
So while the damage of a hand-axe (again S/M) is "only" d6, when you are at +6 to hit, +9 to damage, six attacks per two rounds at first level then players start taking notice. And just like the modern "feats" that let you sacrifice "to hit" for damage, many players were willing to take the tradeoff of minor "to hit" for additional damage and attacks each round ... before specialization.
Every table is different, but TWF was not uncommon prior to 2e.
3. 24 Views of Mt. Fuji: What we Forget About Strength in 1e.
"Well, let me give you a saying from Colonel Sanders. I am too drunk to taste this chicken." -Natalie Portman, improbably.
One helpful thing to remember when it comes to older versions of D&D, especially 1e, is how different the abilities were back then, especially strength. I want to emphasize this- dexterity has always been a good ability. Always. Since the very beginning. It gave you an advantage to surprise. It helped with your attack rolls using missile weapons (but NOT damage). It improved certain saving throws (like fireballs). And finally, it made your AC better. But you needed it to be higher in the old system- 15 for anything!
But ... if you had a high dexterity, you were likely shunted off into one of the classes that required a high dexterity (Illusionist, Monk) or a class that, um, also required a high dexterity and the party needed (Thief, Assassin). The one subset of (official) classes that didn't have high dexterities, usually, were the MARTIAL characters. Fighters. Paladins. Rangers. The meat of the party. Primarily because Strength was king.
An 18 strength for your martial character meant you got to roll percentiles, all the way up to a possible 18/00 (+3,+6). You had carrying capacity, the ability to open doors and break lots and bend bars and all that good stuff. And you wanted a high constitution, because, again, martial characters got special advantages ... including up to +4 hp/level.
What's more, while the dexterity bonus was nice, magic shields were commonplace- so the desire to dual-wield and get the AC bonus (and give up a possible +3 or +4 magic shield) wasn't as high.
This is a long way of saying that while there were people that created what we would now call "dex builds" they were not nearly as common back then as they are now.
4. Dave "Zeb" Cook, the Kensai, and the 2e Ranger.
"No refunds, consider your refund escaping this death trap with your lives!" -Standard disclaimer on all of my posts.
So without getting into a debate about some of the modern issues of Oriental Adventures, at the time it was an eye-opening book. Importantly, it was a truly ground-breaking supplement for 1e, and, unlike Unearthed Arcana, it was well-designed. It was playable.
And it was designed by Zeb Cook. This is important because, while Zeb had previously designed all sorts of games for TSR, from Star Frontiers to Crimebusters, and even designed some of the best rules for D&D (he's the "Expert" in the B/X set), this was the first hardcover AD&D book Zeb designed. And the reason I bring this us if fairly simple-
OA has, I do believe, the first dexterity-based melee class in an official AD&D publication. This is incredibly important, because, as I pointed out just above, dexterity had not yet morphed into its status as a "god" stat. That's right- the Kensai has Dexterity (and wisdom) as the prime requisites. The Kensai has a number of special abilities. But what is the one ability that really, really, REALLY sticks out?
At 7th level he can use two weapons simultaneously with no penalty. (OA 17). That's right- the Kensai, who already get a lot of attacks, and already will likely have a high dexterity (thus, a low penalty for using a weapon in the off-hand), gets the added benefit of using two weapon with no penalty, because ... wait for it ... the Kensai is a lightly-armored dexterity-based melee character.
This is important, because Zeb wrote OA. And Zeb wrote 2e. Now, if you read my prior post, you know that the Ranger had a bit of an identity crisis. As an Aragorn clone, in play it tended to be a "Fighter, in heavy armor, with some additional abilities" in 1e. But in UA, for the first time, it had a requirement of having a bow as a weapon. This seems to harken back to what Gygax said- that it was supposed to be more of a wilderness dude (think Robin Hood), and less of an Aragorn-clone. Unfortunately, they didn't really change the rest of the mechanics, so the bow requirement was matched with a class that still had no particular support for dexterity.
But that changed when Zeb revamped the Ranger. He explicitly made it a Dexterity-based class. While the class could wear heavier armor, it had a number of abilities that only worked in studded leather or lighter. Which had the effect of greatly incentivizing players who had Rangers to maximize their dexterity, because they could no longer count on wearing heavy armor.
So if you're Zeb, and you have a Dex-based class, which means it might take a hit to strength (which is how, in the old rules, you get those sweet, sweet damage bonuses), what do you reach for in your bag of tricks that you have used previously to try and make up for it?
That's right. The kensai's TWF. The Ranger "can fight two-handed with no penalty to his attack rolls[.]" (PHB 28) It's the Kensai ability all over again. By the same guy who designed both.
So there you have it. That's my belief- Zeb, who designed the prior dex-based martial character, just reached back into the same bag of tricks.
Last edited:
