Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I'm thinking: if you have a half-elf, NG, who has the right stats, would this be do-able? I mean ultimately the ranger is a subset of fighter; and yes this would be very munchkiny but I don't know that it would be entirely impermissible, by the book.

If it were btb, then it would have been included in the book. So, I'd have to say, "not btb".

I'll add that I might allow it in my game, munchkiny or not. The player would have to suggest it; I wouldn't.

TRP wrote:If it were btb, then it would have been included in the book. So, I'd have to say, "not btb".

I'll add that I might allow it in my game, munchkiny or not. The player would have to suggest it; I wouldn't.

Yeah; this is probably one of those things that you'd have seen go to Ask the whatever in Dragon...I'd say...allow at table, definitely non-BTB.

Hell, this thread can get moved come to think of it.

I'd allow it on a one shot basis, whats the harm. As a NPC its totally allowable IMO (rare of course).

Yeah, this is for a bounty-hunter NPC. Perfect blend - tracking, stealth, magic utility to back it up...throw in the various demi-human boni and you've got a real world-beater of an NPC here.

Lord I wonder what the XP value is gonna be...

On a similar note, I recall looking for magic-user/ranger a few weeks ago and couldn't find it explicitly presented as a legal combination. Having said that, I would likely allow it (and the mu/t/r) if the player had a good backstory and especially if the group were small (1-4 players).

ranger/magic-user is in the UA errata, but R/M/T or R/M/C isn't.

EOTB wrote:ranger/magic-user is in the UA errata, but R/M/T or R/M/C isn't.

Ah, that explains why I missed it. I never read or use that book.

I would not allow this combo as-is, or even a "normal" Ranger/Thief for one simple reason, it makes no sense when you consider the archetypes.

The Ranger is a rural/wild class, usually a guy who was born and spent most of his life around the woods and nature. A grizzled survivor/prepper type who doesn't quite fit in polite, urbane company and has little patience for effete city folk.

The Thief is the ultimate urban class in AD&D. Most thieves have lived their whole lives in large towns or cities and are like fishes out of water out in the boondocks.

A Ranger/Thief Is like mixing two opposites. Makes no more sense than a Barbarian/Magic-user.


That said however, I would allow a Ranger/Thief with some limitations if what the player wishes is to have a sneaking, athletic, backstabbing version of a normal Ranger. A guy who isn't a contradictory wood scout who ventures into the city to crack open safes and steal purses, but rather a wilderness warrior/infiltratror.

This would mean doing away with the Open Locks and Pick Pockets skills completely. Find and Remove Traps would work only for rural/nature ones like covered pits and rope snares, not modern mechanical pressure plates and that kind of thing. And of course, standard armor limitation and effects on all Thief skills would still apply.

With the strings attached mentioned above, Ranger/Magic-user being a legit BtB combo (and one that makes sense IMHO, since normal Rangers can use sorcery, it just means this one has chosen to concentrate on his magic studies more) I'd say a Ranger/Magic-user/Thief is permissible. And I don't feel it would be munchkiny, besides loosing some Thief abilities and reduced armor options, the poor bastard will be chugging along slowly and requires 5,900 to 6,000 XP just to get to effective 2nd level.

Chainsaw wrote:

EOTB wrote:ranger/magic-user is in the UA errata, but R/M/T or R/M/C isn't.

Ah, that explains why I missed it. I never read or use that book.

And it's not even in that book, really just in the errata published in Dragon 103 (which will appear in the new reprint, too, seemingly).

Thedungeondelver wrote:

this is for a bounty-hunter NPC. Perfect blend - tracking, stealth, magic utility to back it up...throw in the various demi-human boni and you've got a real world-beater of an NPC here.

BTB question aside, though I know you were attempting to find a fit here, i would write up a subclass:

HD: Thief
Attack Matrices: thief,
armor: limited to non to fairly bulky,
weapons: any weapon,
....a version of tracking but for urban areas (call it underworld or some such ability - maybe appropriate the thief percentage for reading obscure languages and maps for this ability and have it begin at 1st lvl.) or give him tracking as a ranger in the wilderness (for the more rustic bounty hunter) - but not both,
...and one or two applicable thief abilities at -2lvls like the assassin,
...and no spells.

EOTB wrote:ranger/magic-user is in the UA errata, but R/M/T or R/M/C isn't.

Damn, we've been playing that combo since the 80s (explicitly not allowing anything class related from UA). Cleric Ranger is listed, no MU ranger. I always thought that didn't sit right. We must have picked that up from UA and just never checked. Well, I'm sure TRP will get a chuckle out of this, being the thief acrobat he is.

sepulchre wrote:BTB question aside, though I know you were attempting to find a fit here, i would write up a subclass: Thief: HD, Attack Matrices: thief, armor: limited to non to fairly bulky, may use any weapon, a version of tracking but for urban areas (call it underworld or some such ability - maybe appropriate the thief percentage for reading obscure languages and maps for this ability and have it begin at 1st lvl.), or give him tracking as a ranger in the wilderness, and give him a few applicable thief abilities at -2lvls like the assassin, and no spells.

Sounds a bit like the Bandit from Dragon #63---may be worth checking out if that's the flavor you're looking for.

AxeMental wrote:Damn, we've been playing that combo since the 80s (explicitly not allowing anything class related from UA). Cleric Ranger is listed, no MU ranger. I always thought that didn't sit right. We must have picked that up from UA and just never checked. Well, I'm sure TRP will get a chuckle out of this, being the thief acrobat he is.

As you said once, Axe, "There's some great stuff in UA."

I'd allow it in an open game (or if I was using the UA, which, without the aweful dragon "errata" isn't really clear about what is fair game). I've generally been playing PH only for PC's for the last few years however.I actually prefer adding stuff like the bandit class instead.

The bandit is pretty well done, not over powered/munchkin like many dragon (including UA) classes are/were.

Since this is the BTB AD&D section, it's NOT BTB however. Neither MU or Thief, let alone both added to ranger.