D&D 5E Out of the Abyss - No Drizzt afterall?

[Sacrosanct]

I'll put it this way. Do you know what the only difference between Drizzt and Tasslhoff is? They at least had the sense to stop putting tasslehoff cameos into everything, and players stopped playing tasslehoff clones (probably from threat of violence by their fellow players). But I tend to have the same reaction when I hear someone say they want to play a Tass clone as I do when I hear they want to play a Drizzt clone.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you find it baffling, it's because that's not what people are doing, or are arguing against. It has nothing to do with genre. I said it earlier and it bears repeating apparently. People don't like the Drizzt clone because it's way overdone (way more than any other literary character), in combination of a min/maxed build, which also irks a lot of people. Drizzt has turned into the face of D&D FR, and is pushed everywhere. Just look at the most recent ad trailer for OotA. For someone who can be omitted in the actual adventure, he sure has a lot of screen time.

I really don't see this at all. Drizzt shows up almost nowhere. He's in his books and he's had a cameo in a couple of games a while back. He was mentioned in the 5e PHB(and maybe the 4th, I can't remember) but no where else in any non-FR book. In the FR game books, he's mention periodically, but not often. In fact, a bunch of stuff Drizzt actually did or was involved in have been described in FR game books without ever mentioning him. I guess sometimes his image gets used on ads and promotional material and when they make minis, there's almost always a Drizzt box set of some sort for the people who like him. But to say he' "everywhere" is kind of a stretch. I guess it might seem this way if you are really hung up on him and take offense every time he's mentioned or shown. Then you begin looking for every mention of him. Or, I suppose, if you have a player who is obsessed with him, it might seem that way.

Oh, and he showed up in the trailer for Rage of Demons. Which isn't a trailer for the D&D adventure. It's a trailer for the entire storyline. A storyline that contains TWO Drizzt novels(One at the beginning to set up the story and one at the end to wrap it up), one adventure, a video game, addons to 2 other video games, and a series of D&D Expeditions adventures.

It should be noted that the background behind the entire series comes from events that have been building in the Drizzt novels for a couple of years now. Gromph is a major character in a bunch of Drizzt books since the first ones. He's the one who summons the Demon Lords which cause all the problems in the adventure. He does so because he's kind of angry over events in the last 3 Drizzt novels...some of which were kind of caused by Drizzt.

So, when it all comes down to it, Drizzt is the reason for the entire adventure. Even if he doesn't show up in it directly.

 

[Green1]

I'll put it this way. Do you know what the only difference between Drizzt and Tasslhoff is? They at least had the sense to stop putting tasslehoff cameos into everything, and players stopped playing tasslehoff clones (probably from threat of violence by their fellow players). But I tend to have the same reaction when I hear someone say they want to play a Tass clone as I do when I hear they want to play a Drizzt clone.

Good point! I was rereading this thread and wanted to touch on this.

Tasslehoff and Kender in general tends to actually encourage obnoxious game mechanics. Not just clueless, uncreative fanbois but actual game trolls. Kender "borrow" items from other PCs. I guess it was meant to be "fun" in some sort of way or maybe made a cool character flaw for the DL novels but it is OVERTLY disruptive to a game. After the one trick wonder laugh, it gets old.

Drizzt is just a dual wield ranger or fighter template. In and of itself using older 1e/2e rules could be a bit OP, but being a bit OP does not lean you towards being obnoxious to fellow players necessarily. Are certain types gravitated towards that? Sure. But there is no "you must do this" or "all good drow dual melee do this" expectation like the Kender.

Now, could I be called being hypocritical for allowing Drow but really leary even towards outright banning Kender? No. Not unless I ban obnoxiously stealing from PCs. But then I take player freedom. But, for my sanity and the players, I and most DMs I know do not like it. The whole "borrowing" items off folk's character sheet and opposed rolls to keep attention on the Kender would be the soul reason someone would want to play one. There are plenty of other good, accepted halfing archetypes out there that do just a good of job as a Kender without being a pain.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'll put it this way. Do you know what the only difference between Drizzt and Tasslhoff is? They at least had the sense to stop putting tasslehoff cameos into everything, and players stopped playing tasslehoff clones (probably from threat of violence by their fellow players). But I tend to have the same reaction when I hear someone say they want to play a Tass clone as I do when I hear they want to play a Drizzt clone.

Honestly, this is kind of completely different. Drizzt is a fairly normal D&D character. He is a good guy who wants to go on adventures and save people. He's a good fighter but otherwise pretty much the same as every other D&D character. His race is the only thing that makes his really unique.

Tass is a kender who has virtually no fighting ability at all, no reason to even be on an adventure, and spends most of his time doing dumb things that his party has to get him out of while simultaneously stealing their stuff on a regular basis(which has cause a couple of near deadly problems). They've spent a lot of time trying to make him seem lovable despite all of these problems. He always does just the right thing at the right time to save the day(normally through Deus Ex Machina) so that people who love him can cheer for him, but he is NOT a good D&D character.

Although I'll roll my eyes at a Drizzt clone, I know they won't cause any problems with the campaign other than being unoriginal. A Tass clone will(and HAS) ruined an entire campaign so badly that we all stopped playing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

At the risk of slight derailment...

Problem players may gravitate toward kender, and kender may encourage behavior that can be a problem. But it's by no means a given. I ran a long-term campaign with a kender PC, and he was one of the most popular characters in the game. People still talk about how good a job that player did, how much fun it was--and this campaign ended in the late 90s.

Because the player recognized how disruptive kender behavior could be, and made a point of not crossing the line. The stuff he "borrowed" from other PCs? It was always flavorful stuff, stuff where there could be some good RP off of it. Never anything vital. Never anything mechanically significant. Never anything that the player or character would be truly pissed off about. Outside those bounds? He was "finding" stuff all the time. But problematic? I don't remember clearly enough to say there was never a problem, but if there was, it was once or twice over the course of a campaign that ran for over a year.

(Plus, he mapped in-character. It was hysterical.)

My point is, it may be a concept that only a narrow pool of players can play well. But it still comes down to the problem being the players, not the archetype.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

My point is, it may be a concept that only a narrow pool of players can play well. But it still comes down to the problem being the players, not the archetype.

I'm not convinced. The archetype pretty much says "Please ruin a campaign". Technically, a good player could ignore that advice and still run a fun character. But this involves the player having to correct the problem rather than there not being a problem to begin with.

No one will ever convince me "character who has ZERO fear at all to the point where they aren't afraid of being thrown in jail, being eaten by a dragon or their friends being angry at them and has a HUGE amount of curiosity and a complete inability to understand consequences or property ownership" is a good idea for a character.

Tass got away with it because the author kept moderating his behavior using kind of kludgey reasoning where Tass would say that he wasn't "afraid" of Raistlin because Kender don't have fear or a preservation instinct, but he...for some reason didn't want to make Raistlin angry. But the books were fairly clear that his behavior was odd and that Tasslehoff was likely fairly rare among Kender because was actually developing a sense of fear. Which is why he stayed alive so long.

He met a bunch of Kender who certainly didn't have the same ability to emulate fear that Tass seemed to have and there were stories of Kender who would just jump off cliffs to see what would happen.

Plus, no matter how many times property ownership was explained to Tass, he NEVER understood it. I understand playing a race with an interesting cultural background like "We don't have a concept of property ownership" but Kender seem to have a genetic trait that makes them incapable of grasping certain concepts AT ALL. Their brains just didn't function like anyone else's. They all have brain damage that can't be fixed. You can imagine a Dwarf that grows to understand why elves like trees and flowers. The idea that a Kender stops stealing, understands property rights and gets a sense of self preservation is absurd since it it built into them. It also makes them short humans. They are entirely defined by the things that cause problems with campaigns.

Which is why certain aspects of Kender can make for a fun character, that character only stays fun by selectively ignoring other traits of Kender. Otherwise the first time your Kender says "I'm just going to walk into that city of Drow and say hi and see what happens" then either he's dead or the entire party is when they try to help him.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm not convinced. The archetype pretty much says "Please ruin a campaign". Technically, a good player could ignore that advice and still run a fun character. But this involves the player having to correct the problem rather than there not being a problem to begin with.

I would be more than happy to explain why I disagree with this, if you care enough to start a new thread for it. (If you don't, no worries.) But I think it'd probably be a pretty hefty digression from this thread topic to take this any further.

 

[Azurewraith]

I only started playing in 3e and have played through all editions since not seen any driz clones lucky me i guess!.

How did these drow Pcs get around the fact there characters are crippled by bright light? i only ask as well i enjoy playing edgy drow pcs that may or may not betray the party who knows but only ever done it in 4e as they where crippled to heck in 98% of situations

 

[garnuk]

As far as I'm concerned, Drow are supposed to be scary. In order to be scary, they have to have mary-sue type attributes. Otherwise they just become deep gnomes. Who cares about running into deep gnomes?

 

[Mercule]

I have seen more attempts at homages/clones for both Wolverine and Ichigo from Bleach (especially, the former)

I have not, personally, seen these as much, but I don't do as much supers gaming. Wolverine and Gambit were specters when I did do supers, though. Of course, that was when his claws were still a bionic add-on, rather than bone, which is a whole different rant.