A thing about d20 D&D I didn't like, and still don't know why it was done...

[Gentlegamer]

If the mechanics of the game dictate, as they did in the 1st Edition PHB (prior to Unearthed Arcana) that only humans could be rangers, or paladins, or druids, then you cannot play Legolas or anything like him. Yes, you could play an elven fighter that was good with a bow, but if you wanted him to have sharp eyes, or sneaky skills like a ranger, then you're out of luck.

Elves as a race already have improved senses and the ability to sneak easily (in addition to increased skill with bows). An Elven Fighter could perfectly well emulate Legolas in AD&D.

I'm thinking you may be of the view that thinks new base classes are necessary (rather than using the core classes and multiclassing, feat selection, etc.) in the current game to better emulate fantasy character types. Am I right?

It also strikes me from your characterizations of "divine DM intervention," etc. that you believe players should in some way "enforce" the rules against the DM to get what they want out of the game rather than have to engage in player-DM co-operation for non-standard (by AD&D temrs) character types. Am I right, or have I missed the mark?

 

[Campbell]

A hindrance doesn't limit you?

This particular hindrance only limits your effectiveness visa vis other multi-class combinations. It does not stop you from realizing your character concept.

 

[Treebore]

A hindrance doesn't limit you?

Depends on your definition of "limit". Is at an outright "cap" or stopping point? Or is it something that might slow you down some amount?

Hindrance may slow you down, or change your direction, but it definitely doesn't stop anyone from doing something they really want to. Hindrances only stop those who don't think the end result is worth overcoming the hindrance. Or hindrances.

So even though you responded with some humor, it can still be an important distinction when making a decision. Or figuring out what really bothered people in older editions.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm rather ambivalent on the idea of the level titles. On one hand, they were pretty cool, on the other hand, having the game designers dictate my campaign to me didn't sit very well. I was never much into the idea that D&D should be this or that, so, honestly, the titles thing got chucked out the window PDQ.

The problem is, almost everybody accept D&D to be a Eurocentric, Euro-flavored game, and those folks even want the monk class to disappear or be made more of the Western archetype. IOW, they don't want D&D to be [too] generic.

FYI, I'm not "almost everybody."

 

[molonel]

Elves as a race already have improved senses and the ability to sneak easily (in addition to increased skill with bows). An Elven Fighter could perfectly well emulate Legolas in AD&D.

No, he couldn't.

+1 to-hit with a bow, and no sneaking ability unless he's in a party full of elves or alone. And no tracking. Yeah, pardon me if I'm underwhelmed.

Compare that to an elven ranger in 3.5 with 6 skill points that he can distribute any way he likes, among Survival, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen or anything else he wants.

There's just no contest, man.

I'm thinking you may be of the view that thinks new base classes are necessary (rather than using the core classes and multiclassing, feat selection, etc.) in the current game to better emulate fantasy character types. Am I right?

I don't know quite what you mean by that. The elven ranger is a pretty basic fantasy character. I'm not getting too wild or crazy by asking that the game allow me to play one without bending heaven and earth to do so.

It also strikes me from your characterizations of "divine DM intervention," etc. that you believe players should in some way "enforce" the rules against the DM to get what they want out of the game rather than have to engage in player-DM co-operation for non-standard (by AD&D temrs) character types. Am I right, or have I missed the mark?

The fact that an elven ranger is considered "non-standard" demonstrates my point well enough.

I don't see D&D as a hostile relationship between players and the DM. But the inability of 1st Edition to model some of these things without the DM having to step down from heaven and change the rules is not a strength, no matter how you slice it. I've heard oh-so-much about the 3rd Edition half-dragon, half-werewolf, half-somethingorother character with 1 level in 10 different classes and prestige classes, but we're not talking about that.

We're talking about an elven. Ranger. With a bow. Who can sneak. And track.

We're not talking about some sort of player-inspired conspiracy against the DM. We're talking about the rules themselves.

 

[Aaron L]

The problem is, almost everybody accept D&D to be a Eurocentric, Euro-flavored game, and those folks even want the monk class to disappear or be made more of the Western archetype. IOW, they don't want D&D to be [too] generic.

FYI, I'm not "almost everybody."

Where have you come by this all-encompassing knowledge?

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I read this a lot. Why did any of you play D&D prior to d20, then? Why? I mean, I absolutely hate Rolemaster. Hate hate hate it. Got dragged through it a few times - enough to know I hate it. I don't play it. I won't play it. I didn't grind through it for umpteen years talking nonstop about how I hated it, though.

I didn't.

At least not a whole lot.

When it was just 2nd Edition, I played/ran D&D about 15% of the time.

A lot of Champions, White Wolf, CoC, Shadowrun, & a few others, but verty little D&D.

If it wasn't for Forgotten Realms (my favorite setting to run) I wouldn't have been buying any D&D stuff.

It wasn't until Skills & Powers came along that the amount of D&D game time really jumped up.

Then, we found out how broken S&P was.

THen we came to a gentlemen's agreement to use the Options of Skills & Powers, but not the Cheese-Monkey Unbalancing of the system.

3rd ed answered a lot of what we'd been spending hours & hours looking & trying to achieve.

Now, I spend about 90% of my time with D&D or D20 System games.

So a 70% or so Turn around.

I'd say that speaks for itself (In my case at least).

 

[Storm Raven]

A hindrance doesn't limit you?

Does it prevent you from making the character?

 

[Gentlegamer]

No, he couldn't.

+1 to-hit with a bow, and no sneaking ability unless he's in a party full of elves or alone. And no tracking. Yeah, pardon me if I'm underwhelmed.

Compare that to an elven ranger in 3.5 with 6 skill points that he can distribute any way he likes, among Survival, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen or anything else he wants.

There's just no contest, man.

Firstly, I disagree that Legolas is a Ranger by D&D terms. In LOTR, the tracking is done by Aragorn, who is explicitly a ranger.

Skill with bow: +1 to hit with a bow is a fine bonus to represent Legolas's skill in AD&D. No, there weren't cool tactical feats for him to use, but AD&D doesn't use tactical combat. If that +1 is insufficient, add Bow Specialization from UA (or even double specialization).

Sneaking: party full of elves or alone . . . seems fine to me. Human fighters can't do this . . .

I don't know quite what you mean by that. The elven ranger is a pretty basic fantasy character. I'm not getting too wild or crazy by asking that the game allow me to play one without bending heaven and earth to do so.

You were "asking" to emulate Legolas. I'm trying to show that you don't need to be an elven Ranger to do that in the first place.

I'll leave aside the truthfulness of whether the elven ranger is a "pretty basic fantasy" character. I'll just say almost all non-Tolkien inspired fantasy doesn't have such characters (usually only human protagonists).

The fact that an elven ranger is considered "non-standard" demonstrates my point well enough.

The ranger in the default AD&D setting was conceived of as a human profession, thus an elven ranger is "non-standard" by the PHB. It wouldn't "break the game" for such a character to be played, though.

I don't see D&D as a hostile relationship between players and the DM. But the inability of 1st Edition to model some of these things without the DM having to step down from heaven and change the rules is not a strength, no matter how you slice it.

Once again with the doomsday imagery! Your first statement is undermined by your second.

I think I've amply pointed out that emulating Legolas can be done well within the rules of AD&D with no fudging at all. If you're stuck on Legolas being a ranger, there's really nothing else I can say.

I've heard oh-so-much about the 3rd Edition half-dragon, half-werewolf, half-somethingorother character with 1 level in 10 different classes and prestige classes, but we're not talking about that.

We're talking about an elven. Ranger. With a bow. Who can sneak. And track.

I thought we were talking about Legolas (whom I don't consider a Ranger at all).

We're not talking about some sort of player-inspired conspiracy against the DM. We're talking about the rules themselves.

Based on your characterizations of player-DM interactions and the rules, I think you really ought to do some self-examination. You really do seem to view such matters as adversarial and not co-operative.

 

[molonel]

Firstly, I disagree that Legolas is a Ranger by D&D terms. In LOTR, the tracking is done by Aragorn, who is explicitly a ranger.

And people who don't happen to agree with you, and want to play Legolas as an elven ranger, have to find another game than 1st Edition AD&D or a DM who is willing to bend the rules or at least use the Unearthed Arcana book in order to do so.

Skill with bow: +1 to hit with a bow is a fine bonus to represent Legolas's skill in AD&D. No, there weren't cool tactical feats for him to use, but AD&D doesn't use tactical combat. If that +1 is insufficient, add Bow Specialization from UA (or even double specialization). Sneaking: party full of elves or alone . . . seems fine to me. Human fighters can't do this . . .

Okay. You're satisfied with a pale reflection of the character. I'm not.

You were "asking" to emulate Legolas. I'm trying to show that you don't need to be an elven Ranger to do that in the first place.

I find it amusing that you're talking about me being adverserial, but when we're talking about your game, you're the one trying to talk me out of playing what I would want to play, even though you admit it would have no effect whatsoever on game balance.

I'll leave aside the truthfulness of whether the elven ranger is a "pretty basic fantasy" character. I'll just say almost all non-Tolkien inspired fantasy doesn't have such characters (usually only human protagonists).

You really don't get any more basic of a fantasy character than an elven ranger, and the fact that you consider it so outside the pale says volumes to me.

The ranger in the default AD&D setting was conceived of as a human profession, thus an elven ranger is "non-standard" by the PHB. It wouldn't "break the game" for such a character to be played, though.

I'm aware of the limitations of 1st Edition AD&D in this regard. In fact, if you'll recall, I was the one who pointed them out.

Once again with the doomsday imagery! Your first statement is undermined by your second. I think I've amply pointed out that emulating Legolas can be done well within the rules of AD&D with no fudging at all. If you're stuck on Legolas being a ranger, there's really nothing else I can say. I thought we were talking about Legolas (whom I don't consider a Ranger at all).

"Stuck on Legolas being a ranger."

That is freaking hilarious.

I really couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of one of the problems with 1st Edition than you've demonstrated right here. Thank you.

Based on your characterizations of player-DM interactions and the rules, I think you really ought to do some self-examination. You really do seem to view such matters as adversarial and not co-operative.

And, based upon the accuracy of your insights, if you're planning on changing careers to become a mindreader, my advice is:

Don't quit your day-job.

Now, if you please, let's stick to talking about the game rather than your inadequacies as a psychic.