D&D General Iconic characters that have changed in later editions

DarkCrisis

Legend
Take for example Drizzt of Faerun. 2E he was a Ranger. A good quick way to gain duel wielding and sneakiness. Did he ever cast a Ranger Spell?

Via current D&D and current novels. He's probably more of a Fighter/Barbarian/Monk. 9/1/10. Any "Rangerness" is duplicated by simple background and skill choice. Also, seeing as how he never uses his Rage anymore one could also say he's just a 10/10 Fighter/Monk. AND if you wanted Classic Drizzt under 5E rules, he'd probably still just be a pure Fighter (Or Fighter/Barb) with Nature and Sneak skills etc.


Raistlin of Krynn. In Krynn you have to have a "spark" to be able to cast magic. AD&D only had Wizards. So Raistlin is a Wizard. He studies spell books etc. Now while he (and other Wizards) have "The Spark", I don't think that's enough to say "Sorcerer". A Krynn Sorcerer may just have better access/use of "The Spark".

Now of course comes in Fistandantilus. The spirt of a dead Wizard who empowers Raistlin for a time. So? Warlock? Wizard/Warlock? What Patron fits an undead wizard who plans to take over the body of his ward? Raistlin wasn't really granted magic by Fist, he was granted boosted power and knowledge. He still had to seek out spellbooks to learn new spells (or create his own new spells via research). Fist was more of an ever present mentor than a being granting spells to Raist. So eh, I could see some Warlock levels but Raist is still just a Wizard. He just has a spirit helping him figure things out. The Bob to his Dresden.

Who else? How's Elminster fair? Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Warlock?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Drizt is a ranger, and the fact that he doesn’t cast spells simply goes to show that spellcasting really isn’t a crucial part of the ranger archetype’s identity. There are a lot of characters that fit the Ranger archetype conceptually and few to none of them ever cast spells.
 

DarkCrisis

Legend
Drizt is a ranger, and the fact that he doesn’t cast spells simply goes to show that spellcasting really isn’t a crucial part of the ranger archetype’s identity. There are a lot of characters that fit the Ranger archetype conceptually and few to none of them ever cast spells.
Which is why AD&D Rangers didn’t get spells until late in their career.

Via newer rules a lot of those “classic rangers” are Fighters with nature skills.
 







Take for example Drizzt of Faerun. 2E he was a Ranger. A good quick way to gain duel wielding and sneakiness. Did he ever cast a Ranger Spell?

Via current D&D and current novels. He's probably more of a Fighter/Barbarian/Monk. 9/1/10. Any "Rangerness" is duplicated by simple background and skill choice. Also, seeing as how he never uses his Rage anymore one could also say he's just a 10/10 Fighter/Monk. AND if you wanted Classic Drizzt under 5E rules, he'd probably still just be a pure Fighter (Or Fighter/Barb) with Nature and Sneak skills etc.
I really like Drizzt as a fighter/kensi monk... I had not thought of it but it works
Raistlin of Krynn. In Krynn you have to have a "spark" to be able to cast magic. AD&D only had Wizards. So Raistlin is a Wizard. He studies spell books etc. Now while he (and other Wizards) have "The Spark", I don't think that's enough to say "Sorcerer". A Krynn Sorcerer may just have better access/use of "The Spark".
I go back and forth... I think I would keep him a wizard
Now of course comes in Fistandantilus. The spirt of a dead Wizard who empowers Raistlin for a time. So? Warlock? Wizard/Warlock? What Patron fits an undead wizard who plans to take over the body of his ward? Raistlin wasn't really granted magic by Fist, he was granted boosted power and knowledge. He still had to seek out spellbooks to learn new spells (or create his own new spells via research). Fist was more of an ever present mentor than a being granting spells to Raist. So eh, I could see some Warlock levels but Raist is still just a Wizard. He just has a spirit helping him figure things out. The Bob to his Dresden.
very much I LOVE that idea...
Who else? How's Elminster fair? Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Warlock?
TBH I always thought that elminster would be a great bard... and in 5e (pre1D&D) with magic secretes the college of lore would fit well... especially with home brew named spells
 



Voadam

Legend
Drizzt started off a 1e ranger as a basis for his novels. AD&D rangers don't get spells until moderately high levels.

In the later 1e sourcebook FR5 The Savage Frontier he is listed as a 10th level ranger which would give him 2 first level druid spells and 1 first level MU spell.

In the 2e Heroes Lorebook he is given stats as a 16th level Ranger with 3/3/3 spells including things like pass without trace and snare.

In the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting he is given stats of Fighter 10/Barbarian 1/Ranger 5 and has one spell prepared, detect animals and plants. Rangers got spells at 4th level in 3e.

In 4e Rangers were martial and had no spells and I am not aware of official 4e stats for him.

In 5e Rangers have spells at 2nd level and I am not aware of official stats for him.
 

Voadam

Legend
Interestingly, the whole reason rangers got dual wielding in 2e (IMHO) is that Drow got it as a racial feature in 1e.
I have read that Cook who wrote and developed the 2e PH said that it was unrelated, the idea was to give rangers something special for the class and two-weapon fighting felt right.

The fact that Drizzt as a 1e drow had two-weapon fighting as a 1e drow racial ability (for light weapons, normally shortswords, daggers, and light maces) and he became a popular ranger character developed at the tale end of 1e was supposedly parallel but not directly related.
 

the Jester

Legend
I have read that Cook who wrote and developed the 2e PH said that it was unrelated, the idea was to give rangers something special for the class and two-weapon fighting felt right.

The fact that Drizzt as a 1e drow had two-weapon fighting as a 1e drow racial ability (for light weapons, normally shortswords, daggers, and light maces) and he became a popular ranger character developed at the tale end of 1e was supposedly parallel but not directly related.
I mean... sure.

Or perhaps I should say, "suuuuuure".
 

Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
Take for example Drizzt of Faerun. 2E he was a Ranger. A good quick way to gain duel wielding and sneakiness.
The 2E ranger had duel wielding BECAUSE of Drizz't, not the other way around. Drizzt was introduced in the 1E era, and the explanation for a lot of the 2E ranger's abilities was "Drizzt did this."
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I can agree that the Ranger Class as presented in modern D&D has "lost the way" but that's what Im saying, via "modern game mechanics", they aren't Rangers. They aren't 5E Ranger. They are 5E Fighters with certian skills
I disagree that they’re fighters. Maybe the 5e ranger doesn’t do a good job of expressing these characters in game terms, but that doesn’t mean fighter does a good job of it either.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Drizt is a ranger, and the fact that he doesn’t cast spells simply goes to show that spellcasting really isn’t a crucial part of the ranger archetype’s identity. There are a lot of characters that fit the Ranger archetype conceptually and few to none of them ever cast spells.
No, they’re still rangers. The ranger class’ mechanics have just fallen out of step with the archetype the class is supposed to represent.
It's more that since 3e, D&D has got more magical in nature and less improvisational mundane item based.

So all the skill users except rogues became more magical.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It's more that since 3e, D&D has got more magical in nature and less improvisational mundane item based.

So all the skill users except rogues became more magical.
And rogues prove magic isn’t necessary to make a successful skilled character.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top