Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5800968" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. I always found this strange. And what balance role did the "no more than 3 rangers" rule play?In LotR the reason Aragorn can use the palantir is because of his heritage. As the heir of Isildur and Elendil, the palantir's are rightfully his. Conversely, although Denethor is also a dunedain, his use of the palantir is part of what leads to his fall.In D&D terms, the ability to use a palantir should therefore be part of a theme or bloodline feat, I think, rather than part of the ranger class - even an "Aragorn-style" ranger.The stealth skills were the bonus to surprise!At 10th level, he got 2d12 followers (which were faitfully loyal and did not count against the CHA allotment of henchmen), to be rolled up on a table in the DMG. Roughly speaking, the fewer the number of followers, the better each follower was. The best was a young copper dragon. It was also possible to get animals like bears, unicorns etc. And followers could also include henchmen types.One ranger in my old AD&D campaign had 4 followers: a dragon, a brown bear, a human fighter and a human druid.I remeber this being very strong in Against the Giants, in conjunction with a +4 two handed sword and two-handed sword specilisation - 3d6 +4 +2 +10 for level + STR (18/01-50, from memory) for 3d6+16, or about 6 HD worth of damage on a hit - at 2 attacks per round for specialisation.In the Fiend Folio and Unearthed Arcana, drow had the ability to fight with two weapons without penalty. So Drizzt's two weapon fighting was originally a drow thing, not a ranger thing. I think it was 2nd ed that conflated the two.EDIT: Alternatively, what [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] said.</blockquote>

Verification