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

[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.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.