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

[Minigiant]

(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.)

Part of your frustration is what I tried to explain. But I think I know how to now.

When Gygax and Arneson designed the fighter,they didn't realize that they designed themselves into a corner since they were the first RPG designers.

What do I mean?

The Fighter was just PC using the basic rules to the optimal level. Every PC has STR, HP, accuracy, damage, armor, and attacks. The Fighter just had the best STR, HP, accuracy, damage, armor, and attacks.

By making that fighter the general class for warrior, they forced either
1) Every specialty warrior to be a Fighter Plus. If the fighter is the generic warrior, a ranger is a generic warrior + outdoorsmanship.
OR
2) Every specialty warrior has to lose a fighter class feature for the specialty. Later rangers lost heavy armor and feats to get outdoormanship.

AD&D 1e took route 1 and that's why rangers there were awesome.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

/facepalm

sigh. I give up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

By making that fighter the general class for warrior, they forced either
1) Every specialty warrior to be a Fighter Plus. If the fighter is the generic warrior, a ranger is a generic warrior + outdoorsmanship.
OR
2) Every specialty warrior has to lose a fighter class feature for the specialty. Later rangers lost heavy armor and feats to get outdoormanship.

AD&D 1e took route 1 and that's why rangers there were awesome.

As I wrote before, I don’t think that explains it.

The Druid, illusionist, and assassin don’t follow your requirements of what you think have to happen- yet all are subclasses and domt have that design flaw of the rangers and paladins (getting all the main class features, plus a slew of abilities, with few drawbacks).

Instead, I think the issue is that the other subclasses were designed around ideas, while the paladin and ranger were designed to let people play specific characters from literature - which always ends up with a grab bag of powers.

 

[TwoSix]

/facepalm

sigh. I give up.

The problem you're having is post 15 reads like you're comparing fighters to paladins and rangers, not comparing the "Fighter" classes (fighter, paladin, ranger) to every other class.

You don't actually make that distinction until the very last sentence, by which everyone has already tuned out.

I see why you made the argument (Rangers are fighters+, and fighters have all these good things, so of course rangers are good as fighters+), but it needed a better opening paragraph.

 

[Minigiant]

As I wrote before, I don’t think that explains it.

The Druid, illusionist, and assassin don’t follow your requirements of what you think have to happen- yet all are subclasses and domt have that design flaw of the rangers and paladins (getting all the main class features, plus a slew of abilities, with few drawbacks).

Instead, I think the issue is that the other subclasses were designed around ideas, while the paladin and ranger were designed to let people play specific characters from literature - which always ends up with a grab bag of powers.

The Druid, illusionist, and assassin don't follow because their parent classes had new exclusive class features.

The Cleric was a base character with heavy armor and divine spells. Its subclass can change the spell list. Change armor and spell list, boom Ihave druid, shaman. witch doctor, friar, acolyte. A spell list is a lot to tweak.

The fighter doesn't have additive class features* until 3rd edition. The fighter only has stuff everyone else has (HP, AC, attacks, attack rolls, damage rolls) but bigger. So all its subclasss were be fighter pluses. All gary and Dave gave over rangers and paladins was roleplay freedom and their multi attack an level early.

*The Fighter did have fighter number of attacks vs 0-1 HD foes. But so did ranger and paladin. So they didn't use the only fighter exclusive class feature to differentiate the classes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The problem you're having is post 15 reads like you're comparing fighters to paladins and rangers, not comparing the "Fighter" classes (fighter, paladin, ranger) to every other class.

You don't actually make that distinction until the very last sentence, by which everyone has already tuned out.

I see why you made the argument (Rangers are fighters+, and fighters have all these good things, so of course rangers are good as fighters+), but it needed a better opening paragraph.

Sure. Except for the following slight issues:

1. This entire thread was created because of my prior multiple threads on the history of classes and rangers.
From the OP: Looking at the rangers thru the ages thread it got me thinking....

2. This is a very short thread, and the fourth post in it is from me, and starts like this:
Why was the 1e Ranger so good?

I prefer the argument from simplicity. If you wanted a martial character, and you made the prerequisites, the Ranger was a better choice in almost all aspects than the Fighter.

Because it was a "subclass" you generally got everything the fighter got, AND MORE!

3. So the post that followed was actually just a response to someone else (minigiant) and a discussion about the fighter qua fighter, and even in that post (where I was talking about the fighter), I reiterated the basic point that the paladin and ranger got all the features.

So this means that a person had to a) not know that I posted extensively on this topic before (fair!), b) not have read this very short thread and seen the context (okay ...) and c) not bothered reading the post that they were refuting (um...).

Which is, unfortunately, par for the course. Normally, I get the idea of, "If people misinterpret you, you need to write better," but at a certain point, people need to read better, or at least pause before typing a rebuttal ...it is possible that on the internet, someone isn't wrong.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is, unfortunately, par for the course. Normally, I get the idea of, "If people misinterpret you, you need to write better," but at a certain point, people need to read better, or at least pause before typing a rebuttal ...it is possible that on the internet, someone isn't wrong.

Gonna have to disagree with you here. The post you quoted from minigiant specifically mentioned a fighter's unique features, and your response read as though you were mentioning a fighter's unique features.

I mean, I read it that way (I didn't reply because I never played 1e, so I had no reason to think you weren't right), and @Lanefan read it that way, and I think we're pretty good posters overall.

If you feel your post was airtight, that's your right, of course, but I personally feel you have some culpability for any misunderstanding that arose.

 

[SkidAce]

Ranger/MU....loved it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Gonna have to disagree with you here. The post you quoted from minigiant specifically mentioned a fighter's unique features, and your response read as though you were mentioning a fighter's unique features.

I mean, I read it that way (I didn't reply because I never played 1e, so I had no reason to think you weren't right), and @Lanefan read it that way, and I think we're pretty good posters overall.

If you feel your post was airtight, that's your right, of course, but I personally feel you have some culpability for any misunderstanding that arose.

.
Why don’t you read what minigiant wrote that I was responding to? You know, with my quote? Really.
Finally, if it isn’t sufficient that I actually wrote it IN THE POST PEOPLE RESPONDED TO, and they were too busy saying “actually” to read it, I can’t help that.

 

[TwoSix]

.
Why don’t you read what minigiant wrote that I was responding to? You know, with my quote? Really.
Finally, if it isn’t sufficient that I actually wrote it IN THE POST PEOPLE RESPONDED TO, and they were too busy saying “actually” to read it, I can’t help that.

Alright, then.