D&D General Dual-Wielding and The Ranger, Part 2: On the Unappreciated Genius of Zeb

I don't know about all the history of all this, but I do know that in my old 1E AD&D groups, we played characters who used two weapons, and we tended to base the styles on Renaissance fighting. I enjoyed my Elven Fighter/Magic-user who used a longsword and spiked buckler. Of course, we also used the Unearthed Arcana rules for this too.

As a side note to all this, since I did not read through everything in the other thread, when trying to figure this out, did you remember that the Drow in Unearthed Arcana did not have a penalty for fighting with two weapons? So some of that was present before 2nd Ed came out.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
As a side note to all this, since I did not read through everything in the other thread, when trying to figure this out, did you remember that the Drow in Unearthed Arcana did not have a penalty for fighting with two weapons? So some of that was present before 2nd Ed came out.
From the post:

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."
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
So I got distracted (TIME) when originally writing this, but was going to add that Zeb Cook might be one of the most tragically unappreciated people in TSR AND D&D history.

From the seminal modules (A1, I1, X1, etc.), to the rulebooks (the X in B/X and Oriental Adventures as well as ... you know, 2e), to the other games (Star Frontiers, Conan et al.) to the settings (Planescape).

He's the designer's designer.
 

squibbles

Adventurer
Hey, so first of all, great topic. I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate how much detail went into it.
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.

I am not a grognard who experienced all of this personally, so I have to say that that's super interesting. The pattern that character builds were at the mercy of party needs/expectations about every player's set of rolled stats--and that that constraint led to low Dex melee characters by virtue of rational tradeoffs is an novel paradigm to me. Since, of course, it has been completely turned on its head by 5e.

I'm often irritated at the persistence of D&Disms across other games and media, e.g. that there are strong-type swordsmen and fast-type swordsmen, though what an IRL swordsman needs is general athleticism (and not even that much compared to most sports, really). So it's nice to see the historical path of this particular D&Dism laid out in all its idiosyncrasy.
 


Technically, he didn't say he was gone. He said that the 1e bard doesn't work. Remember? The whole "be a fighter, then be a thief, and then be a bard?"

The real pull quote is "Thus, the bard as he currently exists will die. But is he gone? I don't know for sure. It seems like a good idea to heavily redesign the bard to fit within the rules and increase his playability."

TBH, the greatest sin in Zeb's entire oeuvre was in trying to make the Bard better, instead consigning that benighted class to a fiery death from whence it could not return. But no one bats 1.000.
I don't know... The 2e bard is really NOT a bad class. It does WORK. Yes, you are basically a sort of thief/wizard. As a wizard you're SLIGHTLY worse than a regular wizard (not that much XP-to-XP though, actually better at some points). As a thief, you're kind of lame, but you do get bard abilities, which are fairly interesting and useful. In an optimization sense, you wouldn't play this class perhaps. OTOH there are a couple other classes you probably wouldn't play either, and the 2e cleric is just stupid good, so balance-wise why complain about the bard? Yes, an elf fighter/wizard is just plain flat-out better, especially if you can get magical elf chain armor or bracers or whatever. So what? It is also better than a fighter and a wizard!

I guess you could complain that there is some other bard that would match the archetype better? But this one DOES seem to match well with a lot of stories.

It is a pretty decent cut at the bard overall. In our 2e play it was not amazingly popular, but it got trotted out a few times and it worked. Remember to drop a couple of bard items, it will make them happy.
 

Arial Black

Adventurer
Interesting, and plausible. There's one bit of data that your survey misses -- in Deities and Demigods/Legends and Lore, the Grey Mouser was given two-weapon fighting "due to his phenomenal dexterity" (and Dexterity 19.) This was prefigured in their appearance in a "Giants in the Earth" article in Dragon 27 (where he was given 18/00 Dexterity.) So if Cook is the father of dual-wielding, then Schick and Moldvay are the grandfathers.
In the same book, the Melnibonean Mythos detailed Elric's Companion, Moonglum. I remember feeling very pleased that he was dual-wielding scimitar and short sword, just like in the books.

It's been 40+years, so I can't remember the details of the TWF for Moonglum, but I remember being happy about it.

Does anyone have Moonglum's stats from that book?
 

Davies

Legend
In the same book, the Melnibonean Mythos detailed Elric's Companion, Moonglum. I remember feeling very pleased that he was dual-wielding scimitar and short sword, just like in the books.

It's been 40+years, so I can't remember the details of the TWF for Moonglum, but I remember being happy about it.

Does anyone have Moonglum's stats from that book?
Nothing's spelled out about him having any special talents, but he's given the same 19 Dexterity as the Mouser, so ...
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
In the same book, the Melnibonean Mythos detailed Elric's Companion, Moonglum. I remember feeling very pleased that he was dual-wielding scimitar and short sword, just like in the books.

It's been 40+years, so I can't remember the details of the TWF for Moonglum, but I remember being happy about it.

Does anyone have Moonglum's stats from that book?

Just to reiterate for those not familiar with the history and confused, this did not appear in either Legends and Lore or the vast majority of printings of Deities and Demigods; only the first printing of Deities and Demigods has the Melnibonean (Moorcock) Mythos.

Mooglum is "{a}mbidextrous {and} fights with a sword in either hand at no penalty, due to his high dexterity."

As @Davies correctly noted, the Dex score was 19.
 

Arial Black

Adventurer
Just to reiterate for those not familiar with the history and confused, this did not appear in either Legends and Lore or the vast majority of printings of Deities and Demigods; only the first printing of Deities and Demigods has the Melnibonean (Moorcock) Mythos.

Mooglum is "{a}mbidextrous {and} fights with a sword in either hand at no penalty, due to his high dexterity."

As @Davies correctly noted, the Dex score was 19.
Thanks. I think one reason I was pleased is that we could now work out what a Dex of 19 gave us in 1e that an 18 didn't.

Is that memory accurate?
 

Remove ads

Top