Belkar kinda reminds you of an Anti-Drizzt?

[Raenir Salazar]

They both:

Have at least one level of barbarian.
Primarily dual wield.
Don't cast magic. (Well Drizzt uses his SLA but nought else)
Bad ass feline for an animal companion.
Seem very adept at killing lots of d00ds.
Have trouble with spellcasters & Big Uglies.
Both generally enjoy fighting.

What I find interesting is that Belkar's character growth kinda mirrors that of Artemis Entreri who becomes something like a team player by the end of Neverwinter Book IV.

*Disclaimer*: This post is not to be seen as speculation as to construe the author hirthirto known as The Giant as having intentionally or otherwise with intent or thought deliberately wrote the comparisons or at any point had the observation written above in his mind, thoughts, or observations. This is purely a mental exercise and my own personal observation because put enough force into it you will fit a square peg through a round hole eventually.

Also sorry if someone brought this up before.

(Also edit, someone reading this could preface the title with "Is it just me?" I know the answer is probably yes, but I think its always interesting and worthwhile to contrast literature with other literature and in this case Belkar-Drizzt-(?)Artemis seems like a fair comparison to make.)

[veti]

They both:

Have at least one level of barbarian.
Primarily dual wield.
Don't cast magic. (Well Drizzt uses his SLA but nought else)
Bad ass feline for an animal companion.
Seem very adept at killing lots of d00ds.
Have trouble with spellcasters & Big Uglies.
Both generally enjoy fighting.

The points I've bolded are common to most fighter-types. What's left is "dual wielding" (common to rangers in 3e), "level in barbarian" (not unusual for a ranger), and "feline companion", which seems like a pretty weak parallel to me.

The question is - does the parallel help you to see something else in the character of Belkar? Does it give you any insight into his motivation or his character arc? If so, then by all means use it. But it doesn't do anything for me.

[Lvl45DM!]

Consider also that Belkar is CE when his race is usually CG and Drizzt is CG when his race is usually CE.
He is nothing like Artemis Entreri.

Ooo! Wise old mentors who got ganked! though thats a lot of people and Shojo doesn't really compare to Zak or Mooshie. Badass solo adventures with gratuitous violence? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html)(Hunters Blades Trilogy)

[Evazan]

Drizzt is a good dark elf yearning to throw off the reputation of his evil kin. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html)

Belkar is an evil halfling yearning to throw off the reputation of his jolly kin. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html)

[Lvl45DM!]

The points I've bolded are common to most fighter-types. What's left is "dual wielding" (common to rangers in 3e), "level in barbarian" (not unusual for a ranger), and "feline companion", which seems like a pretty weak parallel to me.

The question is - does the parallel help you to see something else in the character of Belkar? Does it give you any insight into his motivation or his character arc? If so, then by all means use it. But it doesn't do anything for me.

Highlighting no magic use is rather silly for RANGERS considering magic use is like the only feature of them thats lasted every edition change, and Drizzt has been there since 1st edition.

EDIT: Ok I have no idea if they cast spells in 4th ed so maybe not every edition

[Newwby]

The points I've bolded are common to most fighter-types. What's left is "dual wielding" (common to rangers in 3e), "level in barbarian" (not unusual for a ranger), and "feline companion", which seems like a pretty weak parallel to me.

The question is - does the parallel help you to see something else in the character of Belkar? Does it give you any insight into his motivation or his character arc? If so, then by all means use it. But it doesn't do anything for me.

This and the stuff about Belkar wanting to throw off the reputation off his 'jolly kin' really actually do strike me as the traits of an anti-Drizzt. It'd be interesting if such a parallel had been intentional but that strikes me as extremely unlikely.

I'm all for anything that gives Belkar more narrative width than a line. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0605.html)

Bonus link for comic 608 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0608.html) because I passed it looking for the comic I wanted to link (I jumped in at 610 so dang, luck!) and it's my favourite comic (purely for the exchange at the end) of all.

[veti]

This and the stuff about Belkar wanting to throw off the reputation off his 'jolly kin' really actually do strike me as the traits of an anti-Drizzt.

But the one glimpse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0165.html) we've had into Belkie's background suggests, he's not the first psychotic halfling in his family...

Like I said - if you find the parallel illuminating, then go ahead and use it, share what it tells you.

[Kish]

What's left is "dual wielding" (common to rangers in 3e),
...and which is actually a ranger class feature because of Drizzt...

(When Drizzt was first written, when 1ed was the current edition, dual-wielding was drow fighter weapon style, not a ranger weapon style. Drizzt's ranger teacher, Montolio, actually commented that he was surprised Drizzt could wield two long blades without getting himself tangled up in them.

Then dual-wielding got generalized from Drizzt to every ranger, including retroactively to Montolio.)

[DeliaP]

...and which is actually a ranger class feature because of Drizzt...

(When Drizzt was first written, when 1ed was the current edition, dual-wielding was drow fighter weapon style, not a ranger weapon style. Drizzt's ranger teacher, Montolio, actually commented that he was surprised Drizzt could wield two long blades without getting himself tangled up in them.

Then dual-wielding got generalized from Drizzt to every ranger, including retroactively to Montolio.)

Oh, good grief, is that where the dual-wielding schtick came from??

Sorry, I never read the Drizzt books, and was on a break from RPG's when it got introduced. I often wondered why 3ed rangers had the dual weapon wielding option. (Thanks for clearing that up for me!)

[Lvl45DM!]

...and which is actually a ranger class feature because of Drizzt...

(When Drizzt was first written, when 1ed was the current edition, dual-wielding was drow fighter weapon style, not a ranger weapon style. Drizzt's ranger teacher, Montolio, actually commented that he was surprised Drizzt could wield two long blades without getting himself tangled up in them.

Then dual-wielding got generalized from Drizzt to every ranger, including retroactively to Montolio.)

Not really on topic but damn I hate that part of rangers! Dual wielding should be for thieves!

[Rakoa]

Not really on topic but damn I hate that part of rangers! Dual wielding should be for thieves!

I'd agree with you on that. Rangers should stick to ranging. Thieves should get dual wielding type progression. That would be cool.