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

[Redwizard007]

And rogues prove magic isn’t necessary to make a successful skilled character.

IMHO, the only thing rogues prove, is that skill monkeys without magic are subpar at best. And that is coming from someone who still thinks martials are viable characters.

 

[Charlaquin]

IMHO, the only thing rogues prove, is that skill monkeys without magic are subpar at best. And that is coming from someone who still thinks martials are viable characters.

“5e rogues are subpar” is definitely a take I haven’t heard before.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I mean, you're putting the cart before the horse.

The problem here is that the rules approach to Rangers in 3E and 5E (and arguably 4E) has been progressively more at odds with:

A) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in D&D fiction. Not just Drizzt. I can't think of a single Ranger in D&D fiction who cast a spell. Bloody Aragorn doesn't cast spells.

B) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in material that inspires D&D.

The problem is designers who have no idea what to do with Rangers, or who have progressively idiotically made them more and more magical because they couldn't think of anything else to do with them, and they were happy for Fighters (for some ungodly reason) to be the be-all and end-all of martial combat (rather than say making them primarily the "tough melee guy", which is literally 98% of Fighters in D&D fiction and fantasy fiction).

At this point we've moved from 1E/2E's Ranger who was very much a skilled martial type who later acquired a tiny smattering of spells (most people didn't even play that long), to 3E's Ranger who starts as a skilled martial, then abruptly gains some magic, and it's just a bit weird/messy, to 5E/1D&D's Ranger who is magical almost from the get-go, or indeed from the get-go with 1D&D, and is more like a permanent Fighter/Druid multiclass.

Indeed your whole analysis is problematic in that sense, because you're confusing the rules and the fiction. The fact is, the fiction doesn't flow from the rules, generally speaking, and the problem with a lot of D&D's rules-design is that it's not great for fantasy fiction in general, not even D&D fiction specifically. There's just too much "game-ism" and frankly a serious lack of ideas in a lot of the design team. I can sympathize because the last time they did go wild with the ideas, it was 4E and it wasn't universally well-received.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

“5e rogues are subpar” is definitely a take I haven’t heard before.

Really?

I've expressed that sentiment and it wasn't particularly controversial. Someone did a long thread on Rogues a few years back and the fact that most of the subclasses were pretty bad and the original chassis isn't great was discussed at some length.

I mean, with 5E, just like 4E, nothing is THAT terrible. The worst classes are 7/10 classes (compared to the best which are 10/10). It's not like 3.XE/PF1 where classes range from 2/10 to 15/10 (the latter being once PrCs etc. get involved).

The big issue with Rogues is that, compared to a level 7+ full caster who is run by an intelligent player, there isn't a whole lot they can do. Especially as casters have powers that work essentially by fiat. You describe what happens within the bounds of the spell, and it happens, and unless an enemy is involved, there isn't even a roll! A Rogue has to roll for literally everything where there is any conceivable risk of failure, which is 95% of things worth doing. The Rogue player can't just say "X happens", but the full caster can, and does. Even cantrips are frequently more powerful than Rogue stuff. You don't even the the "can't roll less than 10" thing until level 11 as a Rogue, by which time full casters are on 6th-level spells.

You can say "Oh a Rogue can do it infinitely!", but they absolutely cannot. Adventuring days are only so long, and it's not usually that long, and further one bad roll can easily end a Rogue's entire plan (RAW/RAI though I think we're moving to a place where DMs are increasingly smarter than that), whereas a full caster often isn't even rolling. The number of opportunities to pull of something are usually quite limited, and again, after level 7 or so, a full caster has a lot of spells, plenty for stuff like this.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd probably just make Drizzt a fighter with appropriate skills in 5e, I think that's actually how he was statted up by one of the dndteam for a game they were running. He really doesn't need any ranger levels and since that would grant him higher levels of fighter, it means that he can keep being a whirling tornado of death.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I mean, you're putting the cart before the horse.

The problem here is that the rules approach to Rangers in 3E and 5E (and arguably 4E) has been progressively more at odds with:

A) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in D&D fiction. Not just Drizzt. I can't think of a single Ranger in D&D fiction who cast a spell. Bloody Aragorn doesn't cast spells.

B) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in material that inspires D&D.

The problem is designers who have no idea what to do with Rangers, or who have progressively idiotically made them more and more magical because they couldn't think of anything else to do with them, and they were happy for Fighters (for some ungodly reason) to be the be-all and end-all of martial combat (rather than say making them primarily the "tough melee guy", which is literally 98% of Fighters in D&D fiction and fantasy fiction).

At this point we've moved from 1E/2E's Ranger who was very much a skilled martial type who later acquired a tiny smattering of spells (most people didn't even play that long), to 3E's Ranger who starts as a skilled martial, then abruptly gains some magic, and it's just a bit weird/messy, to 5E/1D&D's Ranger who is magical almost from the get-go, or indeed from the get-go with 1D&D, and is more like a permanent Fighter/Druid multiclass.

Indeed your whole analysis is problematic in that sense, because you're confusing the rules and the fiction. The fact is, the fiction doesn't flow from the rules, generally speaking, and the problem with a lot of D&D's rules-design is that it's not great for fantasy fiction in general, not even D&D fiction specifically. There's just too much "game-ism" and frankly a serious lack of ideas in a lot of the design team. I can sympathize because the last time they did go wild with the ideas, it was 4E and it wasn't universally well-received.

Im not sure you are understanding me.

I can make 5E Drizz't a Fighter with nature and sneaking related skills/feats/backgrounds etc and it be a better interpretation of the character than just classing him as "A 5E Ranger".

I could call him a Forester (like the old 2E Kit for Fighters!)

 

[Voadam]

B) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in material that inspires D&D.

I wouldn't say all.

In The Book of the Three by Lloyd Alexander (the first in his Newbury Award winning fantasy series) Prince Gwydion is an outdoor competent warrior in the woods. He has a clash with the Horned King and does a thing that creates a blast of magic that seems a lot like a wizard's burning hands that drives off the Horned King. It is the only magic I remember him doing, but when I came on the 1e PH and saw that high level rangers got low level magic-user spells it immediately came to mind, and still sticks out to me 40 years later.

 

[Minigiant]

And rogues prove magic isn’t necessary to make a successful skilled character.

It more proves that the ONLY skills that the majority of the D&D fans allows to consistently work without using magic against actual challenges are the Rogue's 6/7:

1. Pick Pockets:
2. Open Locks.
3. Find/Remove Traps.
4. Move Silently/Hide in Shadows.
5. Detect Noise.
6. Climb Walls.

The Fighter/Barbarian's skills, Ranger's skills, Bard's Skills, Cleric/Druid/Paladin's skills, and Wizard's skills either don't have an agreed upon progression of challenges, don't progress, or use magic to progress.

That's why all the "skill" characters in D&D are nonmagical rogues or some sort of caster.

 

[Voadam]

That's why all the "skill" characters in D&D are nonmagical rogues or some sort of caster.

Well, some sort of caster covers a lot. Nonmagical means rogue and fighter mostly (4e being an exception) as 5e barbarians are spirit rage warriors, rangers are casters, and monks are supernatural mystic martial artists (mostly).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And rogues prove magic isn’t necessary to make a successful skilled character.

For certain definitions of "successful," depending on edition.

Really?

I've expressed that sentiment and it wasn't particularly controversial.

I suspect Charlaquin was being sarcastic.

I wouldn't say all.

In The Book of the Three by Lloyd Alexander (the first in his Newbury Award winning fantasy series) Prince Gwydion is an outdoor competent warrior in the woods. He has a clash with the Horned King and does a thing that creates a blast of magic that seems a lot like a wizard's burning hands that drives off the Horned King. It is the only magic I remember him doing, but when I came on the 1e PH and saw that high level rangers got low level magic-user spells it immediately came to mind, and still sticks out to me 40 years later.

While that is fair, "literally one time doing something magical" is a bit hard to square with even the early-edition "a few spells every day at high character level level" stuff. Doubly so since it occurs in the first book, which one would think should be early in the Prince's career, rather than late.

 

[Zardnaar]

“5e rogues are subpar” is definitely a take I haven’t heard before.

On tier lists they're near the bottom.

Skill monkey they are argueably worse than clerics and bards.

Clerics also beat them at damage.

 

[Voadam]

While that is fair, "literally one time doing something magical" is a bit hard to square with even the early-edition "a few spells every day at high character level level" stuff. Doubly so since it occurs in the first book, which one would think should be early in the Prince's career, rather than late.

Gwydion's an NPC competent warrior noble good guy and brief mentor for the protagonist in the first book. The protagonist for the five book series is Taran, who starts off as an assistant pig keeper.

 

[Dioltach]

I wouldn't say all.

In The Book of the Three by Lloyd Alexander (the first in his Newbury Award winning fantasy series) Prince Gwydion is an outdoor competent warrior in the woods. He has a clash with the Horned King and does a thing that creates a blast of magic that seems a lot like a wizard's burning hands that drives off the Horned King. It is the only magic I remember him doing, but when I came on the 1e PH and saw that high level rangers got low level magic-user spells it immediately came to mind, and still sticks out to me 40 years later.

When Taran first meets him, Gwydion starts weaving a mat of grass. Later, when they encounter a pair of Cauldron Born, he throws the mat at them and it turns into a sticky web. (Eilonwy tries to enchant an arrow to do the same later on, but miscasts the spell.)

Gwydion has always seemed like the archetype for the magic-using ranger to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suspect Charlaquin was being sarcastic.

Hyperbolic, perhaps. It’s not like I’ve never heard people who don’t think the 5e rogue is very good, but I feel like I see the opposite far more often.

 

[delericho]

The Simbul was introduced as a Wizard (actually Magic User) but was changed to Sorcerer when those were introduced in 3e. Though that wasn't a change to the character as such - it was felt that Sorcerer was always a better fit, and so this was a case of the mechanics catching up with the fiction.

 

[Yora]

In 3rd edition, Strom Silverhand is the somewhat needlessly complex Rogue 1, Fighter 4, Bard 8, Sorcerer 12, Harper Agent 3.

The sorcerer thing is because her sisters are all sorcerers or wizards, so she now has to be as well, and the Harper Agent prestige class is because it would be silly for the poster girl of the faction to not have the faction-specific prestige class.

But the Rogue 1/Fighter 4/Bard 8 comes from 1st edition, where all bards had to be triple class characters. You had to start as a fighter, later switch to thief, and then ultimately switch again to bard. 2nd edition streamlined that and just put the whole thing into a much more sensible single class progression. So it really should just have been 13 levels of bard. Those old fighter and thief levels are already incorporated in the 3rd edition bard class.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean... sure.

Or perhaps I should say, "suuuuuure".

So, two things. One completely unsurprising, and one that may be surprising.

On the unsurprising front, I wrote a lengthy two-piece series on Drizzt, Rangers, and two-weapon fighting. Part 1 and Part 2.

On the more surprising front, Drizzt and the Ranger ability to TWF in 2e are ... unrelated. It's just an example of the great cosmic unconsciousness. In retrospect, it seems like it has to be related, given that Drizzt was "blowing up" just when 2e was taking over. Thing is - the timing doesn't actually work. Drizzt wasn't a massive breakout character when 2e was being designed and released, and in order to believe the Drizzt/2e Ranger theory, you'd have to believe that TSR changed the design of the class (without the designers being aware) in order to accommodate a super popular character (who wasn't super popular ... yet, although soon would be!) so that people could play that character, while at the same time keeping Drow out of the core rules.

ETA- as to the OP's topic; anytime a character becomes iconic and therefore used in fiction, they will no longer be well-represented in the game. Weird, huh?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Hyperbolic, perhaps. It’s not like I’ve never heard people who don’t think the 5e rogue is very good, but I feel like I see the opposite far more often.

Rogues as overpowered?

I've literally only ever heard that take from people who cannot/will not do math.

And it's always like "Omg rouges r broken becuz they do 5d6 sneak attack and the game designer sez they do it every round! OVERPOWERED!!!", and it's like, as soon as you show them the actual math involved, they either either go "ur lying with math" (when obviously that isn't possible) or just go silent/leave the thread.

Rogues are towards the bottom end of things as classes go in 5E. Luckily, there's not far to fall thanks to several smart design elements. If Rogues got a few "fiat" abilities like spellcasters do, or got some key abilities earlier one (whereas 1D&D seems to making them all be later, and only spells earlier), that could be turned around.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Rogues as overpowered?

I've literally only ever heard that take from people who cannot/will not do math.

And it's always like "Omg rouges r broken becuz they do 5d6 sneak attack and the game designer sez they do it every round! OVERPOWERED!!!", and it's like, as soon as you show them the actual math involved, they either either go "ur lying with math" (when obviously that isn't possible) or just go silent/leave the thread.

Rogues are towards the bottom end of things as classes go in 5E. Luckily, there's not far to fall thanks to several smart design elements. If Rogues got a few "fiat" abilities like spellcasters do, or got some key abilities earlier one (whereas 1D&D seems to making them all be later, and only spells earlier), that could be turned around.

i don't think they're saying rogues are underpowered as such, but im reminded of a video that pointed out despite their large expertise boosts rogues are still constricted to using the dice fallible skill system unlike the fiat granting use of magic user's spells.

 

[ehren37]

No, they’re still rangers. The ranger class’ mechanics have just fallen out of step with the archetype the class is supposed to represent.

He's a character in literature written by someone who doesn't play the game or care about the rules, and none of the books reflect D&D's rules anyways with regard to spells, particularly healing magic and the ability to easily raise the dead.

First edition rangers lacked a class identity beyond "stuff Aragorn did", which is confusing a singular dude for an entire archetype. I'm surprised rangers don't automatically come with an army of ghosts.