A Druid Ranger?

[francisca]

No Gnome Illusionist combos?
No Half-orc Assassin combos?

That’s like the whole schtick for those races.

I probably would allow a Gnome Illusionist/Thief or other combo, but I can't think of anyone who has ever played a gnome in my games. Assassins are house-ruled out of my games...which reminds me, we're in the "by the book" forum.

So to the original question in the original post, yes, they are allowed by the rules.

[TRP]

... a druid/ranger is one of the major characters in Gygax's own novels.

That would be more compelling if novels were rulebooks.

[T. Foster]

... a druid/ranger is one of the major characters in Gygax's own novels.

That would be more compelling if novels were rulebooks.

Well, it's in the rulebook too (finally, as of this year! ). Citing the novel was just supporting evidence to show that this combo was something Gygax approved of, to head off the speculative argument that it must be something that Gygax only included in UA because he was "pressured" to, or that was slipped in by an editor without his knowledge, or any of those other nonsense justifications people come up with to try and explain away the stuff in UA that they don't like while still calling their preferred flavor of AD&D Gygaxian instead of the more proper Mikecarrian

[ScottyG]

Yeah, I'd allow it.
It's OK for multi-class characters to break weapon/armor rules, but not alignment rules?
Multi-class characters are there own classes, with their own rules.
A fighter is a class that can carry swords and wear armor, but not cast spells. A magic-user is a class that can cast spells, but not use swords and armor. A fighter/magic-user is a class that can cast spells and use swords and wear armor.
Similarly, a druid needs to be neutral, a ranger needs to be good. A druid/ranger needs to be neutral good.

[Falconer]

Argued the point before, Scotty?

[AxeMental]

As for the Gord novels and characters, you have to remember that it was always kosher for the DM to create unique NPCs (a 17th level elf wizard say) there was a good deal of flexibility there. The level and class limits were enforced on PCs however.

[ScottyG]

Argued the point before, Scotty?

Yeah, it comes up from time to time.

[ScottyG]

As for the Gord novels and characters, you have to remember that it was always kosher for the DM to create unique NPCs (a 17th level elf wizard say) there was a good deal of flexibility there. The level and class limits were enforced on PCs however.

By who? Curley Greenleaf, the druid/ranger character from the books, is based on Curley Greenleaf, Gary's druid/ranger PC.

[AxeMental]

As for the Gord novels and characters, you have to remember that it was always kosher for the DM to create unique NPCs (a 17th level elf wizard say) there was a good deal of flexibility there. The level and class limits were enforced on PCs however.

By who? Curley Greenleaf, the druid/ranger character from the books, is based on Curley Greenleaf, Gary's druid/ranger PC.

Scotty, do you know when Gary ran Curley Greenleaf (was it post UA). I never realized he was based on a PC.

[ScottyG]

It was pre-release of UA, but by how much, I don't know. Probably not much earlier. I know he was playing him before the druid/ranger article in Dragon 96.

[AxeMental]

It seems EGG was somewhat transitioning in the mid 80s away from some of the games hallmark fundamentals. Some things you can change all day and it makes no difference to the game (initiative particulars as long as its side A vs side B for instance). Other things are lynch pins. If your unsatisfied with pre-UA 1E, then you might be all for a loosening up of some of D&Ds fundamental principles (race restrictions, level restrictions, alignment restrictions, a loosening of static archetype skill sets, odd behavior modification -barbarian and Cavalier), etc.

I've often thought, UA was the predecessor to 3E. Perhaps not in the details, but in the removal of the "straight jacket". Suddenly its fine to change the game (rather then keeping 1E as is).

What I find telling is that Gygax returned to his roots of "cool" in style post TSR association. At least that's what I've heard from stories (playing 1E or 0E at gaming conventions, creating cool monsters and interesting character classes in DJ and LA that would fit into the 1E world if tinkered with, etc.). I still get a strong impression the behavior changes we see in EGG after he returned and found the company in dire straights has to do with a desire to "shake things up" product wise (and he'd have to choose things that were approvable to the TSR management staff). Given all that (as well as his behavior with the Trolls, which suggests a tendency to "go along to get along as a team" (in an entrepreneurial style) as well as to go off on tangents if left to his own devises (witnessed in his volumes of often useless detailed information), I'd probably defer to what Gygax thought (or you suspect he would think) in the early 80s (when he was still spritely) rather then something that likely was effected by stress, maybe artistic ego or what have you (and perhaps a shortage of time in proper playtesting, given the companies dire straights). There's also the possibility Gygax could read the writing on the wall in 84'-85' and tried to subtly push TSR in a direction that he thought would be detrimental long term (push TSR in a new direction and later sweep in and captures the core 1E players who wouldn't like late 1E and 2E). We saw the creators of Pathfinder do some tricky shenanigans to secure their post WOTC future. Once WOTC switched to 4E they jumped at the core 3E market not wanting to be forced to change. The difference is Gygax got sued and stopped in his tracks, while Paizo didn't.

[EOTB]

Given that Gygax was OK with player gold dragons in 0E, it seems that he went from a loose style (0E), to a strict style (AD&D), back to a looser style with UA. Not totally freeform like 0E, but one with so many choices that it was pretty hard for a player to not be able to get a character combo he wanted.

I think that's what he really thought was best for the game at that time. If he was totaling selling out for what he thought was popular, I don't know how to reconcile that with a lot of the specialized character classes he wanted to put in. I can't remember anyone wanting to play magic-users or clerics that specialized in divinations, and yet he was keen on the Savant and Mystic.

[AxeMental]

Its a bit strange starting with 1E and missing the whole 0E thing, and still not having played much 0E. I remember thinking before UA came out if it might include rules for playing monsters. I think that was a missed opportunity for UA ("how to play a lizard man shaman etc."). The guy that first DMed us back in 80' (my older brothers college buddy) mentioned 0D&D and playing monsters (which we all thought was very cool at the time. Forgot about that).