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

[Ranger REG]

Where have you come by this all-encompassing knowledge?

Consider yourself lucky if you haven't run into a thread or a post that statesd the poster's wish that non-Western styled monk should never be included in the PHB for the past six years.

 

[Aaron L]

Consider yourself lucky if you haven't run into a thread or a post that statesd the poster's wish that non-Western styled monk should never be included in the PHB for the past six years.

I still don't equate that to almost everybody wishing Monks weren't in D&D.

In fact, outside of a few people on ENWorld, I have never heard that sentiment before.

 

[Crothian]

In fact, outside of a few people on ENWorld, I have never heard that sentiment before.

While it is not almost everyone, it is more then a few. I found a thread with at least 84 people posting that opinion.

 

[Nikosandros]

"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.

But why should Legolas be a ranger? He never tracks, he doesn't cast any spells, he doesn't befriend animals and I'm not eve sure if he sneaks all that much...

 

[Storm Raven]

But why should Legolas be a ranger? He never tracks, he doesn't cast any spells, he doesn't befriend animals and I'm not eve sure if he sneaks all that much...

I don't think he would be either, and I certainly don't think he would fit the 1e ranger well at all, since that class was radically different from anything available now. Most 1e rangers that I remember, in play, were basically plate amored, shield bearing, longsword-wielding, tanks (since the 1e rules gave you every mechanical incentive to play the class that way). They (and the paladin) were basically a fighter-plus class and little more. They weren't sneaky. They had no particular affinty for bows. They didn't befriend animals, and so on.

Furthermore, Legolas is a really bad character to try to emulate. He is, at the time of the Fellowship, the Prince of the Wood Elves of Mirkwood, at least 5,000 years old, and pretty much good at everything (as were all Tolkienien elves). No 1e class would do a good job of emulating Legolas.

On the other hand, we have references to tracking, hunting elves in LotR and the Silmarilion, so the concept of an elven ranger is not so outlandish that it should be rejected by the core rules.

 

[Gentlegamer]

On the other hand, we have references to tracking, hunting elves in LotR and the Silmarilion, so the concept of an elven ranger is not so outlandish that it should be rejected by the core rules.

Secondary skills could handle that job nicely without elven rangers.

 

[molonel]

But why should Legolas be a ranger? He never tracks, he doesn't cast any spells, he doesn't befriend animals and I'm not eve sure if he sneaks all that much...

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/legolas.html

The Scout of Mirkwood

Legolas arrives in Imladris to report on Gollum's escape, and learns only at the Council of the significance of this event. He gives a full account of Gollum's imprisonment, his tricks and habits during captivity, the raid by orcs, and the Elves' attempts to track the escapee. While Legolas might be referring to his people collectively as "we", his account contains firsthand details that imply he himself was not only one of Gollum's trackers after the battle, which was an assault on his father's realm, but also one of Gollum's jailors.

Continuous references are made throughout the book to his brown and green clothing, his sharp eyes and ears, his keen senses. This guy is NOT a frontline fighter, I'm sorry.

I really can't believe you guys are trying to talk me out of playing an elven ranger as if it were the most outlandish thing on the face of the planet. It does, however, reflect more poorly on 1st Edition that instead of saying, "Okay, we can make this work!" instead you're trying to show me how ridiculous it is to think of Legolas as an elven ranger.

Furthermore, Legolas is a really bad character to try to emulate. He is, at the time of the Fellowship, the Prince of the Wood Elves of Mirkwood, at least 5,000 years old, and pretty much good at everything (as were all Tolkienien elves). No 1e class would do a good job of emulating Legolas.

I respectfully disagree. Though Tolkien certainly favored the elves, they died by orcish arrows just as quickly as any man.

On the other hand, we have references to tracking, hunting elves in LotR and the Silmarilion, so the concept of an elven ranger is not so outlandish that it should be rejected by the core rules.

I agree, here. Beleg Strongbow, I think? In the Silmarillion?

Secondary skills could handle that job nicely without elven rangers.

Secondary skills were barely defined in the 1st Edition DMG.

But God knows, we need to find a way around this! Because, you know, elven rangers are just SOOOOO unreasonable.

Woodland elves being able to track? Perish the thought!

 

[Storm Raven]

Secondary skills could handle that job nicely without elven rangers.

And, we come to the lamest defense I have yet seen of 1e.

Secondary skills had no content. None. It was a list. You were a "bowyer" or a "woodcutter" or whatever. Did it make you any better at anything? No, not really. Could you, with your secondary skill of "hunter" track? No. Were you good at hunting? Maybe. How good? No guidance for that.

Saying "your fighter could have a secondary skill as a hunter, that would do it" invites the question "how is this different from a normal fighter in any real way"? And the answer is "you have a tiny bit of extra text on your character sheet that says "secondary skill: hunter". Does it provide any benefit other than using a little extra ink? Nope.

Lame.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Secondary skills were up to DM adjudication for their benefits (the horror!) since they were intended as background skills. Just because they didn't grant some kind of mathematical typed bonus for application in some skill formula didn't mean they had no use. The problem I suppose is, once again, they required a level of player-DM co-operation that is anathema to you.

 

[molonel]

Secondary skills were up to DM adjudication for their benefits (the horror!) since they were intended as background skills. Just because they didn't grant some kind of mathematical typed bonus for application in some skill formula didn't mean they had no use.

No mathematical bonus? They didn't grant you ANY kind of bonus in any way, shape or form. They had no definition, no parameters and you ROLLED THEM RANDOMLY. An elven fighter had as much chance of being a pastry chef as he did a hunter.

The problem I suppose is, once again, they required a level of player-DM co-operation that is anathema to you.

In 3rd Edition D&D, I can play an elven ranger. He gets Track at 1st level. I know that when he has 5 ranks in Survival, he will automatically know where true north is, always. At 2nd level, he can gain a feat that will allow him to fire 1 more arrow per round or go the Two-Weapon Fighting route.

I also know that he can forage for food for himself, protect himself against extremes in the weather, and avoid natural snares such as quicksand.

He will have greater physical endurance for traveling long distances at 3rd level, and gain an animal companion at 4th level (probably a hawk or a wolf, just to be cool). At 8th level, he will become a faster tracker. And on and on.

All of that is not cheesy powergaming, either. It's tangible abilities I will gain. I don't have to negotiate with the DM. I don't have to burn game time making my case that an elf should be able to do that.