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

[Ancalagon]

I think in 3e he had a level of barbarian...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think in 3e he had a level of barbarian...

he did

TBH all the book characters should be monster/npc stats.

 

[Voadam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean difference between "that isn't a 5e ranger" and "the 5e ranger has moved away from that" seems to be -

The difference is in whether the disconnect should be resolved by changing the character or changing the class.

 

[Minigiant]

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]

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.