D&D 2E Let's Read the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB+DMG!


log in or register to remove this ad

The dark elf trilogy came out after Drizzt was an established character. He was a ranger in his first novel series that started in 1e.

He was dual wielding because he was a 1e drow then though and 2e was not far off as it was late 1e.
Oh right, I must have read them in the wrong order or perhaps I just have the chronological order in my head. The dark elf trilogy was about his time in the underdark and escaping to the surface, right? I might have never even read the earlier books, it was so long ago.
 

I believe Drizzt's first book was The Crystal Shard in the Icewind Dale Trilogy.
Correct.
Oh right, I must have read them in the wrong order or perhaps I just have the chronological order in my head. The dark elf trilogy was about his time in the underdark and escaping to the surface, right? I might have never even read the earlier books, it was so long ago.

Yeah, the Dark Elf Trilogy was a later published origin solo prequel before the party story of Drizzt and the Dwarf and Barbarian and Thief come together.
 

I had a drow ranger player in my 1e campaign. Double specialized in short swords which worked out well for him as a ranger. Until he fell anyway and was no longer a ranger.

Unearthed Arcana meant a lot of grandfathered stuff for the campaign after mostly converting to 2e PH rules years later.
 

Drizzt stat block first appears in the Savage Frontier supplement, which was a 1e/UA product (p.57). He is a 10th level CG Ranger. And drow could be Rangers already from UA, so he is a perfectly legal character.
 

He's also in FR7, Hall of Heroes, where he gets some interesting special abilities:

2024-11-13_043740.jpeg
2024-11-13_043906.jpeg
2024-11-13_044005.jpeg
 


Yeah, I can see nerfing the damage bonus. But it's not just that, it's the studded leather or lighter armor requirement, which limits, to an extent, their ability to fight on the front line, even accounting for the DEX adjustment, at least compared to 1st Edition. Their stealth is also limited to "natural" environments, while the 1st Ed. ranger's surprise bonus worked anywhere.
Well, remember that the studded leather or lighter requirement is not all the time, it's only for using their TWF and stealth abilities. The former of which, TBF, makes no sense.

But I guess more to the point would be, why they felt they had to give the ranger a more distinct profile in the first place.
I would guess maybe just because in 1E there was no reason to be a Fighter instead of a Ranger if you qualified to be the latter. It was strictly better.
 

I would guess maybe just because in 1E there was no reason to be a Fighter instead of a Ranger if you qualified to be the latter. It was strictly better.
I don't know; Fighters weren't bound by alignment, they got multiple attacks earlier, they got more weapon proficiencies, they could attract companies of mercenaries (Rangers couldn't even have men-at-arms nor henchmen before 8th level), and they got revenue when settiling a barony.
 

Wasn't weapon specialisation reserved for single-class fighters?

In my experience with 2E, the 2WF was a pretty nice benefit--not as powerful as the bonus damage to giants but on all the time. But restricting it to light armor nerfs it pretty hard and forces rangers to have high Dex just to have an adequate (not great!) AC.

I'd be interested in a review of how the suprise rules changed from 1E to 2E and how move silently / hide in shadows interact with them. I played 2E a lot but I don't every remember rolling for surprise.
 

Remove ads

Top