D&D 1E Why did you like the ad&d ranger?

[pming]

I am going to have to 100% disagree with that, because it ignores a lot of things the fighter could do, under the rules, that people tend to overlook that did not play extensively in 1e.

To start:
1. Fighters were the only class that could take advantage of percentile strength, which made fighters the best melee combatants, which made fighters the best combatants (since melee was better than missile in 1e). Just think- any class other than fighter was restricted to +1, +2, whereas fighters could go all the way to +3, +6, and they could even open magically locked doors.

2. Fighter were the only class that could take advantage of the hit point bonuses for having a Con of over 16. If you wanted more hit points, you needed to be a fighter- otherwise you were stuck, at best, with +2hp/level (fighter could get up to +4).

3. Of course, fighters were also the only class that got d10 hit points. So there was that, too.

4. Fighters were the only class that could use any weapon (okay, assassins as well). Every other class had massive weapon restrictions- not the fighter.

5. Fighter (and clerics) were the only class that had unrestricted armor and shields.

6. Fighters got multiple attacks per round; no other class did.

Finally, fighters had a huge selection of magic items because they had unrestricted armor and weapons- in addition to the things they had as fighters.

I can't emphasize this enough- fighters rocked in 1e. The ability to wear any magic armor and use any magic shield meant that the fighter would have a low ac, quickly- and low ac really, really mattered. The ability to use any magic weapon (subject to proficiencies, of course, which again ... the fighter was best at) meant that the fighter was dealing the most consistent damage.

The issue was just that the Paladin and the Ranger got everything the fighter did, plus more.

...You forgot:

7. "A Fighter can attack a number of creatures with less than one full HD (e.g., 1-1 or lower) a number of times per round equal to the fighters LEVEL".

That was HUGE when you got to even medium levels (like 5th to 7th). That ranger may get to shoot his bow two times per round and down two goblins, but the 7th level fighter could wade in and cut down 7 goblins every round!

When this comes up in play, it's a beautiful whirlwind of utter carnage and destruction! Have two or even three fighters in a group? Fugeddabouditt! ... "Lets attack! There's only, what, 60 or so goblins? We can take em!"

As for the ranger... the perfect 'wilderness warrior type'. The whole tracking thing was a godsend in any games where a ranger was in the group! The fact that they got spells was also nice; it allowed a lot of different 'styles' of Ranger...where one player might play up the spells as "chants and poems whispered over the target as natural reagents and unguents were applied", and another might call out to the Goddess of Nature in a loud incantation of reverence. Lots of different "ways" to play a Ranger.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think the 2d8 at first level can be underestimated. In an edition where an orc could kill most PCs with one hit at first level, having 2d8 hp at first level was a big deal. Then there was the bonus damage they got to a large number of frequently encountered monsters.

The last one, and this could just be my experience, but it seemed like 1e focused more on exploration than some of the more modern editions (including 5e). Getting lost was a big part of 1e, and had a big impact. Tracking and wilderness survival mattered in 1e, whereas it feels like an afterthought in 5e in regards to class abilities.

 

[werecorpse]

The fact that it had all the fighter stuff and then some. Specifically the bonus vs “giant class humanoids“ and the druid/magic user spells at high level. I wasn’t a fan of the d8 hit dice or stating at 2d8.

 

[Rabulias]

1. Fighters were the only class that could take advantage of percentile strength, which made fighters the best melee combatants, which made fighters the best combatants (since melee was better than missile in 1e). Just think- any class other than fighter was restricted to +1, +2, whereas fighters could go all the way to +3, +6, and they could even open magically locked doors.

While the Strength table in the AD&D 1e PHB is ambiguous, there are numerous instances of paladins and rangers in adventures and other official resources (like The Rogues Gallery) that have percentile strength.

2. Fighter were the only class that could take advantage of the hit point bonuses for having a Con of over 16. If you wanted more hit points, you needed to be a fighter- otherwise you were stuck, at best, with +2hp/level (fighter could get up to +4).

Here the PHB is quite clear, and it is specifically called out as including paladins and rangers.

3. Of course, fighters were also the only class that got d10 hit points. So there was that, too.

While rangers did get d8s, paladins also had d10s.

4. Fighters were the only class that could use any weapon (okay, assassins as well). Every other class had massive weapon restrictions- not the fighter.

Here again the PHB is clear, and paladins and rangers also have access to any weapon.

6. Fighters got multiple attacks per round; no other class did.

Lastly, paladins and rangers also got multiple attacks per round, just later than the fighter.

I agree that the fighter in AD&D 1e was pretty bare bones, and the paladin and ranger shine in comparison as they "got toys from their class." From 3e forward, fighters get lots of shiny toys of their own, so the paladin and ranger find it harder to compete.

It was easier to advance as a fighter in 1e, both in that you did not have any restrictions on your behavior and possessions, and that the fighter XP table was faster. It was also easier to get the 10% bonus XP for a fighter (needing just a 15 or higher Strength, while the ranger and paladin required additional attributes). Lastly, if you were rolling up a character, fighters would be easier to roll up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I agree this MAY be the intent of the rules, both Paladin and Ranger are specifically stated to be 'fighter sub-classes' in the PHB,!

Ummm... I think you missed the point of my post.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While the Strength table in the AD&D 1e PHB is ambiguous, there are numerous instances of paladins and rangers in adventures and other official resources (like The Rogues Gallery) that have percentile strength.
.

Seriously ... does anyone read?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

(If you are wondering about the frustration, it’s because I’ve written multiple posts explaining how the problem with the fighter subclasses in1e is that they got everything fighters got, and more ... here, like this-

The issue was just that the Paladin and the Ranger got everything the fighter did, plus more.

So having someone say, ak-shually, did you know that fighter subclasses got fighter stuff ... makes me wonder why I bother writing.)

 

[David Howery]

I don't think the 2d8 at first level can be underestimated.

Yep. When I was brand new to AD&D and reading through the PHB, that '2d8 at first level' stood out like a beacon. 1E is notorious for how hard it was to make it to higher levels, so anything that helped you survive was a godsend. I know my first AD&D PC was a ranger, and I think the next two were as well...

 

[Bacon Bits]

I was a power gamer when I started out, like a lot of my friends seemed to be when I first played the game.

I liked 1e rangers because they were a Cuisinart against giants and evil humanoids and didn't have the mountain of onerous restrictions that Paladin did. If you got a high dex and a high strength -- and the way we rolled you usually did -- two weapon fighting with a 1e ranger against one of the affected classes of monsters was disgusting. I only played 1e a little, but this is what I remember.

I liked 2e rangers because we had a ton of wilderness adventures at the time and they were amazing at that, two weapon fighting was even better, and IIRC the ability prerequisites were more favorable but I'm not sure about that without looking. More clear benefits to animal handling and tracking was nice, too. The armor restrictions hurt, but the thief skills were nice. In a bit of foreshadowing, I remember never having the right foe type selected no matter what you seemed to do.

 

[Lanefan]

I am going to have to 100% disagree with that, because it ignores a lot of things the fighter could do, under the rules, that people tend to overlook that did not play extensively in 1e.

To start:
1. Fighters were the only class that could take advantage of percentile strength, which made fighters the best melee combatants, which made fighters the best combatants (since melee was better than missile in 1e). Just think- any class other than fighter was restricted to +1, +2, whereas fighters could go all the way to +3, +6, and they could even open magically locked doors.

2. Fighter were the only class that could take advantage of the hit point bonuses for having a Con of over 16. If you wanted more hit points, you needed to be a fighter- otherwise you were stuck, at best, with +2hp/level (fighter could get up to +4).

3. Of course, fighters were also the only class that got d10 hit points. So there was that, too.

4. Fighters were the only class that could use any weapon (okay, assassins as well). Every other class had massive weapon restrictions- not the fighter.

5. Fighter (and clerics) were the only class that had unrestricted armor and shields.

6. Fighters got multiple attacks per round; no other class did.

Other than #3 here, I think you're across-the-board misreading small-f "fighter" to mean just the actual class, rather than the whole group of warrior classes including Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. And even with #3, Paladins also got d10 hit points if memory serves.

Rangers did have a few minor weapon restrictions at 1st-level e.g. no pole-arms but even one of those could be picked up on gaining a new proficiency later. They had no armour restrictions at all, but use of heavy armour curtailed some of their outdoor skills e.g. climbing.

And as Rangers and Paladins used the fighter combat matrix (if not, what else would they use?) they got multi-attacks at the same time as Fighters.