D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[Undrave]

Heh... well, if the vitriol we see from people here on the boards (like for instance Gladius Legis and their concurrent ranger thread) is not actual anger but merely the appearance of anger in order to play the "angry person" character while just "having fun" discussing white-room D&D... then fair enough.

But in truth... I'm a weeeeeeeeeeeeee bit skeptical that the ranting we see here constantly is just for funsies. I suspect there are some actual unhappy campers here that are genuinely upset that they haven't been given a D&D that is as mechanically tight as Go or Chess.

Okay some people do take it too far, fair enough.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Ah yes the classic spell wherein one stabs a guy with a sword, doing literally nothing magical. Right.

 

[Monayuris]

I voted 1e AD&D.

It has the most interesting, flavorful, and effective implementation of the class.

Before Drizzt came along and ruined it for everyone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wanted to vote for 2e, but then I remembered really liking the 4e Essentials one.
A very well focused at will/ encounter based class with wilderness perks that were actually quite flavourful.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ah yes the classic spell wherein one stabs a guy with a sword, doing literally nothing magical. Right.

No, I was thinking more of shooting a dragon with an arrow and knocking it back 5-20ft and knocking it prone. With an arrow. That seems pretty magical to me. But your snark is noted.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, I was thinking more of shooting a dragon with an arrow and knocking it back 5-20ft and knocking it prone. With an arrow. That seems pretty magical to me. But your snark is noted.

Hardly. In DnD, that sort of thing is solidly in the realm of what warrior types can do. It's wild hyperbole to claim that's a "spell".

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hardly. In DnD, that sort of thing is solidly in the realm of what warrior types can do. It's wild hyperbole to claim that's a "spell".

It's literally called a "power". Good lord.

And no, that's not solidly in the realm of what warrior types can do in any edition outside of 4e. What B/X, 1e, 2e, 3e, or 5e fighter can shoot a dragon with an arrow and knock it backwards and prone?

Look, this isn't an indictment of 4e as a system. People enjoy what they enjoy. But not only is it not wild hyperbole, it's entirely reasonable, to look at the book and see something called "a power" which does a supernatural effect that rivals what every other edition calls a spell, and put them on the same playing field.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

Heh... well, if the vitriol we see from people here on the boards (like for instance Gladius Legis and their concurrent ranger thread) is not actual anger but merely the appearance of anger in order to play the "angry person" character while just "having fun" discussing white-room D&D... then fair enough.

But in truth... I'm a weeeeeeeeeeeeee bit skeptical that the ranting we see here constantly is just for funsies. I suspect there are some actual unhappy campers here that are genuinely upset that they haven't been given a D&D that is as mechanically tight as Go or Chess.

Ranger. First comes the Rrrrrr... then comes the Anger.

With the Outlander background, anyone can be a ranger now.

I kind of feel like 5e ranger should have some basic, reliable wilderness staples as part of their kit such as Nature and Survival proficiency as gimmes, as well as souped-up Outlander benefits. I'd rather have those than the weird Primeval Awareness, or the over-the-top, specialised, Natural Explorer, for example.

Even if they are passive benefits, it's nice to be able to say "I'll go and get us some food. You guys work on that camp camouflage I showed ya." It feels rangery. Even other Outlanders in the party should look to the ranger for advice, imo. The rangers are the specialists

It's jarring to have chosen maybe Stealth, Perception, and Athletics - all essential wilderness skills - then have the street-smart rogue have to tell the ranger not to touch that flower because it's poisonous.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's literally called a "power". Good lord.

And no, that's not solidly in the realm of what warrior types can do in any edition outside of 4e. What B/X, 1e, 2e, 3e, or 5e fighter can shoot a dragon with an arrow and knock it backwards and prone?

Look, this isn't an indictment of 4e as a system. People enjoy what they enjoy. But not only is it not wild hyperbole, it's entirely reasonable, to look at the book and see something called "a power" which does a supernatural effect that rivals what every other edition calls a spell, and put them on the same playing field.

lol look at the battlemaster fighter, my dude. I'm not gonna repurchase books from my least favorite edition of DnD to confirm, but I know from memory that forced movement and knocking prone, sometimes with size restrictions sometimes without, or with scaling size restrictions, was a thing in 3/.5e as well.

And regardless of this one very specific example, even if you weren't exaggerating the supposed singularity of said example, the vast majority of martial powers are literally just damage dealing attacks, with secondary damage riders based on martial principles like "cutting the target real deep in a vulnerable place" or forced movement based in equally martial principles like "hitting limbs or otherwise unbalancing the target with the strike, causing them to move against their will".

If you were to watch a tv show, cartoon, or movie, with those moves being used by characters described as the game describes them, and tried to call them "spells", literally anyone you talked to would laugh at you. Rightly. It's a completely, laughably, absurd position.

 

[GreenTengu]

I recall that in 3rd edition, just about anyone who wanted to dual-wield would dip into Ranger for a level just to pick up what would otherwise require a feat to get.