D&D 1E Ye Olde Ranger of Editions Past (1E-4E)

Just a small remark: the 3.0 Ranger did have a pet, starting at 4th level. If wasn't written then explicitly in the class progression chart, but it could be obtained by casting the Animal Friendship spell.

 

[Zardnaar]

EN World member Zaardnar posted this interesting look at previous edition rangers. The "they" in his post refers either to the Illuminati or to WotC -- "This thread is mostly a look at rangers of previous editions. This is because there seems to be a crisis of identity in regards to the Ranger class. To me this is because they have moved away from what a ranger was in the 1st place due to things like skills being opened up to anyone via backgrounds and other changes over the editions."

[h=4]Original post follows[/h]
[Edit - for some reason if you're looking at this on the news page, the first 31 replies aren't showing. I've no idea why! Sorry! If you're viewing it on the forum, ignore this note as you can see them just fine. - Morrus.]

1E
The 1E ranger is more or less a little bit (opor a lot) overpowered in regards to the other martial classes. It was one of the few classes that got some skills as 1E had no unified skill system as such. The 1E Ranger was more or less based on Aragon being honest. Anyway The 1E ranger got to use any weapon and any armour which was semi rare in 1E as only Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers had that ability and clerics also got heavy armor. Heavy armor in 1E and 2E had no maximum dex bonus with it so it was actually a major class feature. They also got 2d8 hit dice at level 1 and could aply their con modifier to each hit dice. From 1st level they got a +1 point of bonus damage per level vs Giants, ettins, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, Ogre Magi, Orcs and Trolls. This was in an edition where a Troll might have around 36 hit points, an Orc 1-8 hit points and a Hobgoblin 2-9 hit points. They also got a bonus to surprise opponents (50% probably advantage to stealth rolls in 5E terms), a tracking ability, spells at 8th level (Druidic spells) and magic user spels at 9th level. They also got the ability to use scrying devices at level 10 and attracted followers as well.

They needed high ability scores to qualify and had to be of good alignment and certain races (including Drow elves in UA). Alignment restrictions are a dirty word these days with same players but it does imply a certain flavour and in this case the Ranger as a good aligned defender of the woodlands. In Unearthed Arcana a Ranger also got to use weapon specialization like a fighter. Majpr features of the class IMHO were the favoured enemies, weapons and armor, tracking/skills.

2E
The 2E Ranger as heavily nerfed from 1E although most classes were actually nerfed from 1E with the exception of the Thief which got a relative buff. Rangers kept their weapons and armor use but got penalised on skills when not wearing light armors. They also were proficient in the tracking NWP.
The combat bonuses (favoured enemies) got nerfed to a single type of enemy and they got a +4 bonus to hit that enemy and a penalty on charisma checks vs that enemy. Still they retained a favoured enemy type bonus. They did pick up dual wielding here at no penalty as long as the off hand weapon was smaller. In practice this really meant longsword and short sword. No twin scimitars which was a 1E racial ability for Drow. The fighters hand book allowed dual longsword/scimiatar use though although it did kind of take the Rangers thing as RAW in the core book only the ranger could dual wield without a major penalty.

They got a semi supernaturall ability (charisma save in 5E terms) vs normal animals. The ranger is now pals with wild animals. At level 8 the ranger could cast spells but only from the plant and animal spheres in effect a spell list for rangers. They get 2d6 followers at level 10 mostly non combat related and they moght get something like a Bear, Wolf, Treant etc. No animal pet as such but with your ranger abilities and spells it was not to hard to get one if you wanted one. Our party ranger had a Elephant named Clive.
Major class abilities were animal bonus, weapons and armor, skills and favoured enemy (+4 to hit 1 type of creature). Once again a good alignment was required which indicated what the Ranger was IMHO.

3.0.

The 3.0 Ranger was a bit off an odd beast. Everyone knew the 2E ranger was kind of meh and in the lead up to 3.0 they hyped up the new Ranger. Martials were nerfed though form 2E with the changes to saving throws, xp progression and multiple attacks requiring the full attack action. Favoured enemy as a named mechanic also turned up in 3.0 and the Ranger could pick multiple enemies at level 1,5,10,15 and 20. They also got the TWF feats as bonus feats and 4 skill points per level. In effect they just updated the 2E ranger. Adding a skill system did kind of start to lose classes exclusive access to certain skills though such as track and thief skills. They got the ability to cast spells at level 4 though which was an option in 2E with the Players Option Skills and Powers book.

Still no beastie though as a pet. The class was also front loaded so a single level of Fighter/Ranger/Paladin did all sorts of things for you form a min/max point of view including charisma bonuses to saves, 4 bonus feats etc. The class still more or less blew chunks though. They also dumped the alignment restriction. Here is where the D&D ranger started losing the identity I suppose with erosion of exclusive class skills. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to your PoV I suppose.

3.5.
The 3.5 Ranger I actually liked and I thought it was one of the best classes in 3.5 from a design PoV. They were a dual wielder type thing or an archer at level 2 and from level 1 they had track, favoured enemy, and wild empathy. They lost the ability to use armor except light armor and got a relatively massive 6 skill points a level. 3.5 was the 1st edition where they specifically got a pet as well. Said pet ewas also reasonably balanced as well as they were treated as a Druid of half their level. The Druids pet was a monster and OP, the Rangers pet was about right. They also had good dexterity and wisdom saves. At the time the phrase wilder rogue.
They also had a metric boatload of class abilities one can go and look up if you care enough. Overall I liked the class a lot and it was the best ranger D&D had since 1E. IMHO I would go as far as the best ranger D&D has ever had as the 1E one was a bit OP the 3.5 one was about right just in the wrong edition due to things like CoDzilla.

The common thread from 1E to 3.5 though was tracking, some sort of combat bonus vs “favoured enemies”, spells, and tracking. Most of the rangers could wear any armor and they tended to have some sort of animal empathy ability. The watering down of the ranger class however had started a trend of lost class identity. This was to be shattered in 4E.

4E.
The 4E Ranger was an amazing class and a great striker. The main problem with the class however was it was more of a great striker than a Ranger. Most classes in 4E had very similar amounts of skills not that class skills mattered that much anymore. They also cast no spells and had very little in the way really relating to the wilderness. In 3E terms they were more of a Fighter/Rogue than a ranger. A great class, a great striker but not a very good Ranger as such IMHO of course. It had not a lot in common with the classical ranger but bonus points of being a basic class to play though. I found the 4E Rogue to be more interesting but I was not a fan of the striker role or 4E roles in general. I’m not opposed to Rangers being strikers at all just they could also be defenders as well or none of the above inn previous editions (play a pacifist hippie ranger if you want).

5E.
I think the Hunter ranger is mostly fine, the beastmaster Ranger is the one everyone seems to have a problem with. This is because they have been overcautious with animal companions since 3.5 due to nightmares IMHO of the Druid animal companions. How many games of 3.5 or Pathfinder have been ruined by the Rangers pet? No I do not regard a pet as an iconic Ranger feature as it was only in 1 edition of D&D (3.5). Rangers were good with animals in 1E/2E but it was not hard coded into the class.

Part of the loss of Ranger identity also has been the nerfing of favoured enemy which most editions of D&D have had the Ranger being fantastic vs certain types of creatures. I think some sub classes of rangers should get a damage bonuses (similar to rage?) or advantage to hit (similar to the avenger Paladin?) If you do not like the Ranger not having a bonus vs certain critters some of the time pick one like the hunter that does. This way you could have several ranger archtypes.

1. The Hunter Ranger. The neo striker I suppose it deals good damage if you build it right. General 5E type ranger (it’s a decent class right now IMHO).

2. The classic ranger. Great vs certain types of critters, spells, bonus to tracking and wildness situations. Best outdoor type ranger. Expertise or advantage on certain skill checks perhaps, best Ranger in certain situations.

3. The beast friend. Wild empathy checks and a pet that only requires a bonus action or no action to command. Said class would not have hunters quarry or other sources of bonus attacks/damage.

4. Maybe a spell less Hunter variant to appeal to the 4E fans. Best damage dealer overall sacrificing spells and some wilderness abilities to do so.

 

[delericho]

It's perhaps worth noting that TSR actually did a conversion of the old 1st Ed Ranger up to 2nd Ed rules in the "Complete Ranger's Handbook". Which was a bit odd, but also a bit cool.

Did Monte Cook not do an alternate 3e Ranger on his website at one point, or was that just the Bard?

 

[Minigiant]

Ye Ranger of D&D Editions Past
This thread is mostly a look at rangers of previous editions. This is because there seems to be a crisis of identity in regards to the Ranger class. To me this is because they have moved away from what a ranger was in the 1st place due to things like skills being opened up to anyone via backgrounds and other changes over the editions.

1E
The 1E ranger is more or less a little bit (opor a lot) overpowered in regards to the other martial classes. It was one of the few classes that got some skills as 1E had no unified skill system as such. The 1E Ranger was more or less based on Aragon being honest. Anyway The 1E ranger got to use any weapon and any armour which was semi rare in 1E as only Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers had that ability and clerics also got heavy armor. Heavy armor in 1E and 2E had no maximum dex bonus with it so it was actually a major class feature. They also got 2d8 hit dice at level 1 and could aply their con modifier to each hit dice. From 1st level they got a +1 point of bonus damage per level vs Giants, ettins, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, Ogre Magi, Orcs and Trolls. This was in an edition where a Troll might have around 36 hit points, an Orc 1-8 hit points and a Hobgoblin 2-9 hit points. They also got a bonus to surprise opponents (50% probably advantage to stealth rolls in 5E terms), a tracking ability, spells at 8th level (Druidic spells) and magic user spels at 9th level. They also got the ability to use scrying devices at level 10 and attracted followers as well.

They needed high ability scores to qualify and had to be of good alignment and certain races (including Drow elves in UA). Alignment restrictions are a dirty word these days with same players but it does imply a certain flavour and in this case the Ranger as a good aligned defender of the woodlands. In Unearthed Arcana a Ranger also got to use weapon specialization like a fighter. Majpr features of the class IMHO were the favoured enemies, weapons and armor, tracking/skills.

2E
The 2E Ranger as heavily nerfed from 1E although most classes were actually nerfed from 1E with the exception of the Thief which got a relative buff. Rangers kept their weapons and armor use but got penalised on skills when not wearing light armors. They also were proficient in the tracking NWP.
The combat bonuses (favoured enemies) got nerfed to a single type of enemy and they got a +4 bonus to hit that enemy and a penalty on charisma checks vs that enemy. Still they retained a favoured enemy type bonus. They did pick up dual wielding here at no penalty as long as the off hand weapon was smaller. In practice this really meant longsword and short sword. No twin scimitars which was a 1E racial ability for Drow. The fighters hand book allowed dual longsword/scimiatar use though although it did kind of take the Rangers thing as RAW in the core book only the ranger could dual wield without a major penalty.

They got a semi supernaturall ability (charisma save in 5E terms) vs normal animals. The ranger is now pals with wild animals. At level 8 the ranger could cast spells but only from the plant and animal spheres in effect a spell list for rangers. They get 2d6 followers at level 10 mostly non combat related and they moght get something like a Bear, Wolf, Treant etc. No animal pet as such but with your ranger abilities and spells it was not to hard to get one if you wanted one. Our party ranger had a Elephant named Clive.
Major class abilities were animal bonus, weapons and armor, skills and favoured enemy (+4 to hit 1 type of creature). Once again a good alignment was required which indicated what the Ranger was IMHO.

3.0.

The 3.0 Ranger was a bit off an odd beast. Everyone knew the 2E ranger was kind of meh and in the lead up to 3.0 they hyped up the new Ranger. Martials were nerfed though form 2E with the changes to saving throws, xp progression and multiple attacks requiring the full attack action. Favoured enemy as a named mechanic also turned up in 3.0 and the Ranger could pick multiple enemies at level 1,5,10,15 and 20. They also got the TWF feats as bonus feats and 4 skill points per level. In effect they just updated the 2E ranger. Adding a skill system did kind of start to lose classes exclusive access to certain skills though such as track and thief skills. They got the ability to cast spells at level 4 though which was an option in 2E with the Players Option Skills and Powers book.

Still no beastie though as a pet. The class was also front loaded so a single level of Fighter/Ranger/Paladin did all sorts of things for you form a min/max point of view including charisma bonuses to saves, 4 bonus feats etc. The class still more or less blew chunks though. They also dumped the alignment restriction. Here is where the D&D ranger started losing the identity I suppose with erosion of exclusive class skills. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to your PoV I suppose.

3.5.
The 3.5 Ranger I actually liked and I thought it was one of the best classes in 3.5 from a design PoV. They were a dual wielder type thing or an archer at level 2 and from level 1 they had track, favoured enemy, and wild empathy. They lost the ability to use armor except light armor and got a relatively massive 6 skill points a level. 3.5 was the 1st edition where they specifically got a pet as well. Said pet ewas also reasonably balanced as well as they were treated as a Druid of half their level. The Druids pet was a monster and OP, the Rangers pet was about right. They also had good dexterity and wisdom saves. At the time the phrase wilder rogue.
They also had a metric boatload of class abilities one can go and look up if you care enough. Overall I liked the class a lot and it was the best ranger D&D had since 1E. IMHO I would go as far as the best ranger D&D has ever had as the 1E one was a bit OP the 3.5 one was about right just in the wrong edition due to things like CoDzilla.

The common thread from 1E to 3.5 though was tracking, some sort of combat bonus vs “favoured enemies”, spells, and tracking. Most of the rangers could wear any armor and they tended to have some sort of animal empathy ability. The watering down of the ranger class however had started a trend of lost class identity. This was to be shattered in 4E.

4E.
The 4E Ranger was an amazing class and a great striker. The main problem with the class however was it was more of a great striker than a Ranger. Most classes in 4E had very similar amounts of skills not that class skills mattered that much anymore. They also cast no spells and had very little in the way really relating to the wilderness. In 3E terms they were more of a Fighter/Rogue than a ranger. A great class, a great striker but not a very good Ranger as such IMHO of course. It had not a lot in common with the classical ranger but bonus points of being a basic class to play though. I found the 4E Rogue to be more interesting but I was not a fan of the striker role or 4E roles in general. I’m not opposed to Rangers being strikers at all just they could also be defenders as well or none of the above inn previous editions (play a pacifist hippie ranger if you want).

5E.
I think the Hunter ranger is mostly fine, the beastmaster Ranger is the one everyone seems to have a problem with. This is because they have been overcautious with animal companions since 3.5 due to nightmares IMHO of the Druid animal companions. How many games of 3.5 or Pathfinder have been ruined by the Rangers pet? No I do not regard a pet as an iconic Ranger feature as it was only in 1 edition of D&D (3.5). Rangers were good with animals in 1E/2E but it was not hard coded into the class.

Agree with most of it.

Part of the loss of Ranger identity also has been the nerfing of favoured enemy which most editions of D&D have had the Ranger being fantastic vs certain types of creatures. I think some sub classes of rangers should get a damage bonuses (similar to rage?) or advantage to hit (similar to the avenger Paladin?) If you do not like the Ranger not having a bonus vs certain critters some of the time pick one like the hunter that does. This way you could have several ranger archtypes.

And you lost me.

In practice, the "bonuses vs types" thing never works. The types are either too rare or too common.

1. The Hunter Ranger. The neo striker I suppose it deals good damage if you build it right. General 5E type ranger (it’s a decent class right now IMHO).

2. The classic ranger. Great vs certain types of critters, spells, bonus to tracking and wildness situations. Best outdoor type ranger. Expertise or advantage on certain skill checks perhaps, best Ranger in certain situations.

3. The beast friend. Wild empathy checks and a pet that only requires a bonus action or no action to command. Said class would not have hunters quarry or other sources of bonus attacks/damage.

4. Maybe a spell less Hunter variant to appeal to the 4E fans. Best damage dealer overall sacrificing spells and some wilderness abilities to do so.

We already have that.

1. PHB Hunter Ranger
3. Ranger13/Fighter6/Rogue1. Take the first level as ranger, then rogue, then fighter for 6 levels, then all ranger. Boom. Old school Ranger.
5. PHB Beast Master Ranger with animal friendship, speak with animals, animal messenger, locate animals and plants, and conjure animals.
7. Ranger1/Rogue1/FighterX. Ranger, then rogue, than all fighter levels. No spells, All power, Expertise with 2 skills

.

 

[delericho]

In practice, the "bonuses vs types" thing never works. The types are either too rare or too common.

Oddly, it's worked just fine for me for years. Partly because I felt 3e managed to get the categories about right (in terms of range of creatures), and partly because I made sure to use a widely varied set of opponents for PCs - so the Ranger could be assured that his favoured enemy would appear but could also be assured that they would be the only thing the party would face.

And, yeah, if there were particular types of creatures that would appear/not appear with unusual frequency in the campaign, I made sure to be quick to tell the party that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Oddly, it's worked just fine for me for years. Partly because I felt 3e managed to get the categories about right (in terms of range of creatures), and partly because I made sure to use a widely varied set of opponents for PCs - so the Ranger could be assured that his favoured enemy would appear but could also be assured that they would be the only thing the party would face.

And, yeah, if there were particular types of creatures that would appear/not appear with unusual frequency in the campaign, I made sure to be quick to tell the party that.

This is definitely the way to go. It also makes sense in-game that someone who hates orcs would be among the most motivated persons to go on quests against orcs... so in a ret-con it is acceptable to me that a player is informed about what creatures will be more common and let her pick them as favored enemy.

But anyway the 5e Ranger bonuses vs "narrow" favored enemies are so minor and non-combat (language, knowledge, tracking) that really shouldn't be a big deal if you have picked a favored enemy that rarely shows up.

 

[Azurewraith]

It does appear the broadening of the skill system has been a big chunk of the ranger taken away. I am a strong proponent of spell less rangers using more"wilderness knowledge" to "simulate spells" such as using herbs for healing but instead of them being bam your good to go make them more of a heals 1dX+wis over 2-3rounds as the salve takes effect they could even grant temp HP by grinding up the dnd poppies etc.

I think the a pet should be part of the rangers identity as they have all this amazing knowledge of nature i find it strange that they wouldn't put it into practice taming a Dire wolf and training it as having an extra pair of eyes and a nose is handy. Prehaps as a subclass but i digress from the main topic a lil.

To me the ranger should track better than anyone allow them to track at full speed if alone. A wilderness knowledge skill similar to the bardic lore of 3.5. I would suggest a re-work of the favored enemy to pick either man or beast and you gain bonus damage and hit against those enemy's

 

[Minigiant]

Oddly, it's worked just fine for me for years. Partly because I felt 3e managed to get the categories about right (in terms of range of creatures), and partly because I made sure to use a widely varied set of opponents for PCs - so the Ranger could be assured that his favoured enemy would appear but could also be assured that they would be the only thing the party would face.

And, yeah, if there were particular types of creatures that would appear/not appear with unusual frequency in the campaign, I made sure to be quick to tell the party that.

It takes a skilled DM to manage 3e's FE. I get it that you wouldn't pick chaotic outsiders unless told you're sieging the Abyss.

But the DM has to pick the favored enemies. Then they are stuck using the choice often as many of the ranger's power and feats are tied into it. It is manageable but very easy to screw up.

This is definitely the way to go. It also makes sense in-game that someone who hates orcs would be among the most motivated persons to go on quests against orcs... so in a ret-con it is acceptable to me that a player is informed about what creatures will be more common and let her pick them as favored enemy.

But anyway the 5e Ranger bonuses vs "narrow" favored enemies are so minor and non-combat (language, knowledge, tracking) that really shouldn't be a big deal if you have picked a favored enemy that rarely shows up.

Personally I think the Favored Enemy in 5th edition should be a bit more broad and follow the Hunter model a bit. With the ranger picking a general tracking, bluffing, intimidation, or perception bonus each time which applies to all FEs.

 

[delericho]

It takes a skilled DM to manage 3e's FE. I get it that you wouldn't pick chaotic outsiders unless told you're sieging the Abyss.

Given the content of the MM, chaotic outsiders (or, better, evil ones) is a pretty solid choice for almost any high-level Ranger.

But the DM has to pick the favored enemies.

I disagree - I used a wide variety of opponents anyway, which meant that the Ranger could be sure of seeing their FE often enough to be worthwhile, but not all the time - whatever that choice happened to be. Which ties it nicely to 3e's "is this so good everyone would take it"/"is this so bad nobody would take it" test.

I'd only feel the need to inform the party if the campaign was going to have an unusual focus on/lack of one enemy type. (So "Giantslayer" would get a flag while "Shackled City" would not. Well, except that "Giantslayer" is kind of obvious... )

I suppose it's possible I'm an unusually skilled DM. Or, more likely, it's entirely possible I've just been lucky - it's not like I had even one Ranger in every campaign I ran, and even a decade of play isn't all that many campaigns.

 

[Minigiant]

Given the content of the MM, chaotic outsiders (or, better, evil ones) is a pretty solid choice for almost any high-level Ranger.

Yeah at higher level. But what about level 1? A ranger only got 5 favored enemy and they are 5 levels apart. How many imp will a ranger fight in their first 4 levels?

That was the problem. You can't just hand out a setting book or campaign guide and let the ranger player just make a ranger and ask for approval. If the DM says undead are rare and the player built a vampire hunter, the whole PC might be scrapped.

I disagree - I used a wide variety of opponents anyway, which meant that the Ranger could be sure of seeing their FE often enough to be worthwhile, but not all the time - whatever that choice happened to be. Which ties it nicely to 3e's "is this so good everyone would take it"/"is this so bad nobody would take it" test.

I'd only feel the need to inform the party if the campaign was going to have an unusual focus on/lack of one enemy type. (So "Giantslayer" would get a flag while "Shackled City" would not. Well, except that "Giantslayer" is kind of obvious... )

I suppose it's possible I'm an unusually skilled DM. Or, more likely, it's entirely possible I've just been lucky - it's not like I had even one Ranger in every campaign I ran, and even a decade of play isn't all that many campaigns.

From my experience, the experienced ranger will pick enemies which are common in most settings or the DM tells them, don't pick elves.

It would be easy to pick elves and not meet a single enemy elf for many levels.