D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[Undrave]

4e. Playing one felt competent at a cool niche (striker) with lots of fun mechanical elements. Not a supernatural nature paladin, but a cool competent low armor alternative fighter.

And you could easily pick up the Ritual Caster feat to add yourself some out of combat magical utility, or Alchemist to add to your tricks. I think it makes a lot of sense that a Ranger would fight with strength and steel, but just pick up random tricks for solving problems out of combat.

I prefer spell-less rangers, so I would cast my vote for the editions where the ranger lacked spells.

So 4e.

The best rangers I've seen were entirely about the person playing it, not the class itself.

Even the best game mechanics in the world don't result in good characters if the person playing it isn't a very good player. This is why white-room analysis to me is absolutely pointless. Because no player plays their character in a white room.

 

[Aaron L]

Full disclosure: the very first character I ever played was a 'heavy Ranger' - a plate-clad crazy-strong (beginner's luck on the dice!) tank who could, when he took his armour off, also track and do some other useful things. Thus, the heavy-Ranger character concept is one I will defend against anything; and also thus my utter disdain for the polar-opposite Drizz't-style Ranger.

In 3e I tried to replicate the heavy-Ranger idea, to rather dubious results even though the character managed to last a good long time.

There was never anything that said Rangers couldn't track or do "woodsy" stuff in heavy armor. My greatest character was a 1e Ranger named Malachi. I took him from 1st to 26th level, starting out at 25 years old and playing him until he was 98 years old over the course of a real decade. He founded a kingdom that became one of the most powerful in the world, reigned as king for decades, and became a legend. He wore between chainmail and plate mail his entire career. Heavily armored Rangers are my default assumption; restrictions to just "light" armor are bollocks.

 

[Istbor]

First time I played a Ranger was 3.5. It was a pretty fun romp. Got him up to lvl 19. Had some amazing weapons and armor for him. He was the bane of the DM. Until he got banished back to the Prime Material plane. Ah well, at least he didn't die.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So 4e.

Everyone had spells in 4e. They were just called powers instead of spells.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The best rangers I've seen were entirely about the person playing it, not the class itself.

Even the best game mechanics in the world don't result in good characters if the person playing it isn't a very good player. This is why white-room analysis to me is absolutely pointless. Because no player plays their character in a white room.

I see your point, and largely agree with it. But I think there can be some value in analysis because it gives a rough outline. But we just need to remember it's a rough outline and should be taken with a grain of salt. I do think too many people put too much value in white room analysis.

But the effectiveness of any class is impacted a lot by how each table plays the game, for sure. A table that does a lot of exploration would find rangers to be more impactful than those who do arena style combat instead, I would imagine.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I see your point, and largely agree with it. But I think there can be some value in analysis because it gives a rough outline. But we just need to remember it's a rough outline and should be taken with a grain of salt. I do think too many people put too much value in white room analysis.

But the effectiveness of any class is impacted a lot by how each table plays the game, for sure. A table that does a lot of exploration would find rangers to be more impactful than those who do arena style combat instead, I would imagine.

Absolutely. Which is why I also can't help but roll my eyes at all the definitive exclamations of "X sucks!" or "Y is the worst!". Because like everything, it all comes down to the player playing their character, and the DM running their game. And those two things will have much more impact on how a class ultimately works or doesn't work in a particular game than whether it does an average point or two of damage more or less than another one when you average all attack rolls, damage rolls, ACs, CRs and all the other stuff that get thrown up in the white room.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I really liked the ranger as presented in the Midnight campaign setting core book. I thought it really nailed the class feel and mechanics. In general, I really liked the alternate classes in that book.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Adventures in Middle-Earth’s Wanderer class is, by far, my favorite take on the Ranger class.

 

[Undrave]

I see your point, and largely agree with it. But I think there can be some value in analysis because it gives a rough outline. But we just need to remember it's a rough outline and should be taken with a grain of salt. I do think too many people put too much value in white room analysis.

I'm sure people don't put as much value on it as you think, it's just that it's a good format for discussions on the internet where we don't know how the others play the game. We gotta have something in common to talk about it.

But the effectiveness of any class is impacted a lot by how each table plays the game, for sure. A table that does a lot of exploration would find rangers to be more impactful than those who do arena style combat instead, I would imagine.

Yeah but the 5e Ranger impacts Exploration by... getting rid of it. "We're trying to reach X" "Okay, it'll take 5 days in the wilderness and you won't get lost because Jack's Ranger is there. And rolls a few die no one attacks you during the night. You're there!"

Absolutely. Which is why I also can't help but roll my eyes at all the definitive exclamations of "X sucks!" or "Y is the worst!". Because like everything, it all comes down to the player playing their character, and the DM running their game. And those two things will have much more impact on how a class ultimately works or doesn't work in a particular game than whether it does an average point or two of damage more or less than another one when you average all attack rolls, damage rolls, ACs, CRs and all the other stuff that get thrown up in the white room.

I think your conflating 'having fun with a class' and the idea that a class is good or not. You can totally have fun with anything in this game. I'm sure you can ask around and you'll find people willing to regal you with the tales of how much fun they had roleplaying a commoner, or a beggar, or how their 3.X monk was the totally the best character in their game...it doesn't make those classes good at mechanical stuff, AKA the stuff we can discuss and compare while being online and away from tables.

Don't forget we're on this forum for FUN and that, for a lot of people here, talking 'white room' stuff is FUN. Does it cover every possible situations that every possible character can be in? No! But it's enough to fuel discussion and keep people engaged with the hobby when not playing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah but the 5e Ranger impacts Exploration by... getting rid of it. "We're trying to reach X" "Okay, it'll take 5 days in the wilderness and you won't get lost because Jack's Ranger is there. And rolls a few die no one attacks you during the night. You're there!"

Disagree. I'm gonna quote myself from the other thread as to why I disagree. I think if that's how you're narrating it in the game, you're doing those abilities a disservice.

Indeed. I suppose instead of how Don described it, I'd describe it as thus:

"The jungle is oppressive at every corner. The heat feels like it's literally pressing down on you, but you hardly notice because your attention is focused on the deluge of stinging insects. Your only respite is getting lost in your own mind, shutting out some of your senses to maintain your sanity. Grar (the cleric) doesn't even notice that he's about to step into the quicksand, but Terigaria (the ranger) quickly grabs his shoulder and steers him to safety."

"Exiting the jungle at last, you come upon a village carved out of hill. The villagers look upon you with surprise. 'We are shocked to see you!' exclaims the elder. 'No one who is not of our village has survived the jungle. Most got lost and the jungle swallowed them up. Others couldn't hack their way through the jungle before exhaustion set in. How did you do it?'" "I have...certain skills" replied Terigaria.

That is, don't just narrate it as "OK, you pass the jungle, now you're at the village. Narrate it so that those abilities have a tangible feel to the story of the adventure, and highlight what would have happened if the ranger wasn't there. That is what makes those abilities feel useful.