I love 1e...but I have a question about the ranger.

[airwalkrr]

What I always found curious was that they get two hit dice at first level.

*sigh* I kinda miss 1E. You know what 3E needs? A 1E bard

How convenient. I have one right here.

 

[billd91]

What I always found curious was that they get two hit dice at first level.

It's because they were supposed to be tough bastards. It also allowed them to leverage one of their prime stats: Constitution. An extra hit die at first level meant an extra dose of the Con bonus. You could have had a 1st level ranger with as many as 24 hit points.

 

[Aaron L]

The ranger got magic user spells because he was the original survivor class and jack of all trades. It wasn't until 2nd edition that they treehuggerized (TM) him.

There's your answer. Rangers were survivalists, and they learned anything and everything they could to make them better at fighting "giant class" creatures. Arcane magic, Druidic magic... a little bit of everything.

This is also why they got 2 hit dice at 1st level; assuming that most classed individuals are 1st or 2nd level or thereabouts, then Rangers are the toughest guys around. Even with the lower hit die, with the extra die they ended up with more HP at lower levels.


The move from the 1E Ranger to the 2E Twin Bladed Light Armor Dervish Warrior was such a drastic change it still amazes me. The 1E Ranger was so much cooler and more flavorful. I can see an argument for the Ranger being a more lightly armored warrior for forest combat, but in 1E that wasn't what Rangers were about. They weren't Forest Rangers, they were like the Army Rangers, humanity's Special Forces against the hordes of orcs and goblinoids who were out there waiting to attack. They weren't concerned with the sanctity of nature, they were like Rambo, who knew tracking and ambushing techniques and respected nature, but because it was a dangerous thing to be tamed and used to their advantage, not to be revered and emulated. They weren't Druidic, they used Druidic magic as a tool, just like they used Arcane magic. It wasn't a case of the Ranger gaining magical powers from his reverence of the forest, it was the Ranger learning tricks and techniques to help him win in the types of environments he was usually in.

2E completely changed the concept of the Ranger, from a hardened Special Forces raider against the humanoid hordes who used every trick in the book to protect humanity from the Evil races, to a Druidic, nature worshiping mystic warrior who lived in the forest and who's lightly armored, twin bladed combat style was taken directly from Drizzt Do'Urden.

I was very upset when I saw that the 3E Ranger was nothing but a direct port of the 2E Ranger, completely ignoring the 1E concept. It was the biggest, and pretty much only, thing I was disappointed about with 3E. I've since accepted the 3E treatment, especially since 3.5 was such an improvement to the class, and acknowledge that it does indeed fit better as a generic "wilderness warrior", but a generic "wilderness warrior" wasn't what the 1E Ranger was supposed to be: the first line of the Ranger entry in the 1E PHB says: "Rangers are a sub-class of Fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." Also, they had to have a 13 Strength, a 13 Inteligence, a 14 Wisdom, and a 14 Constitution. They had to be tough, smart, strong, and have a lot of willpower. The 1E Ranger concept is much closer to the Scout class of 3E, but that;s not even a really good fit.


I've made a Prestige Class called the Ranger Lord, that most Rangers can enter at 8th level, that emulates much of the 1E Ranger's abilities, including Arcane spells, Medium armor use (and Heavy at higher levels) without loss of their Ranger combat abilities, a focus on increased damage rather than bonuses to hit their Favored Enemies (they stop gaining new FE's, but they start getting big damage bonuses against the one they already have) and the ability to use most Scrying magic items. Their Ranger spell progression keeps improving at an increased rate, and they gain Arcane spells starting at 2nd level, getting up to 3 1st and 3 2nd and 3 3rd level spells at the 10th class level. The only problem is, I am absolutely horrible at balancing classes, so I have no idea if it's overpowered or not. I'm still working on it and want to get it right, because I'm using it in my homebrew setting and making it available to players.

 

[Mercule]

It's because they were supposed to be tough bastards.

A point that seems to have been lost on everyone at WotC since at least Monte Cook's time.

D8 hit die, my butt. I said "Ranger", not "tree-hugging nature-pansy".

 

[diaglo]

Yep. The 1E Bard was the original 'prestige class.'

the paladin was the first prc. Supplement I Greyhawk(1975)

 

[billd91]

A point that seems to have been lost on everyone at WotC since at least Monte Cook's time.

D8 hit die, my butt. I said "Ranger", not "tree-hugging nature-pansy".

?!? They HAD a d8 hit die in 1st edition. They just had an extra one which made them really formidable against the low hit die giant class humanoids they would likely face in their first few levels.

 

[Mercule]

?!? They HAD a d8 hit die in 1st edition. They just had an extra one which made them really formidable against the low hit die giant class humanoids they would likely face in their first few levels.

They also had two of them at first level. For typical 1E levels, that was plenty to push the ranger above fighter. In all the years I played 1E, I never saw a ranger with fewer hps than a fighter of the same level.

Also, IIRC, the 2d8 at first level was a hold-over from earlier suppliments where both fighter and ranger had a d8, the ranger just got an extra HD.

 

[Ulrick]

What I always found curious was that they get two hit dice at first level.

*sigh* I kinda miss 1E. You know what 3E needs? A 1E bard

aka: The Singing Tank.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yup. Fighter got 9d10 to the rangers 11d8. That averages out to be identical. at 11th level, the fighter will have 6 more hit points than the ranger. Less if the ranger has a con bonus, as he'll get to apply it twice more than the fighter. At higher levels, however, the fighter will catch up, albeit slowly. So the d8 hit die merely made rangers tougher at first level to emulate the hard wilderness life he led.

 

[T. Foster]

Yup. Fighter got 9d10 to the rangers 11d8. That averages out to be identical. at 11th level, the fighter will have 6 more hit points than the ranger. Less if the ranger has a con bonus, as he'll get to apply it twice more than the fighter. At higher levels, however, the fighter will catch up, albeit slowly. So the d8 hit die merely made rangers tougher at first level to emulate the hard wilderness life he led.

Which is really very clever design when you think about it. The ranger starts out with more hp than the fighter (possibly a lot more if he has a significant Con bonus) but the fighter gradually catches up so that by "name" level they're effectively tied and at higher levels the fighter begins to pull ahead.

EDIT: and while I'm here, I'd like to mention that Aaron L above speaks much wisdom with regard to the 1E ranger class and what's different (and IMO better) about it from later editions' versions of the class. FWIW, if you want a 1E "wilderness warrior" class in the manner of later editions' ranger, check out Gygax's post-TSR hunter class (but be warned that if you don't like the stuff in UA for 1E, you probably won't like this class either).