D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

Which Edition had the best Ranger?


Musing Mage

Pondering D&D stuff
1st Ed Ranger, bar none for me.

My 1st ed game has always had a Ranger, and even moreso than a cleric, the players view the Ranger as highly valued. Most of them hope to stat for a Ranger if their current characters die - one other is even bringing in a Ranger/Cleric on the next go. (1e Ranger/Clerics are potent AF - this is the 3rd player to run one) Their ability to reduce the chances of surprise alone is worth having the character along, the rest is frosting on the cupcake.

Later edition Rangers have their place, so I don't quite go along with the notion that because they aren't 1st Ed Rangers they are therefore useless... even the core PHB 5E Ranger is decent enough if a DM isn't removing or diminishing the wilderness exploration portion of the game (In every 5e game I've played, it seems that the DM has always handwaved wilderness travel to get right to the meat of their carefully planned story, so Rangers get hamstrung in that bargain) - but ultimately the 1st Ed Ranger did it best.

Mechanically they have unique skills, comparable combat prowess to the fighter, and a killer bonus against Humanoids and Giant Class creatures that scales with level. The core class is versatile enough that a player can customize the rest how they like - you're not pigeonholed into the lightly armoured archer, or dual-wielder (or both) that later editions seem to want all Rangers to be.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Lanefan

Victoria Rules
You honestly think that being able to knock a dragon backwards 20ft and knock them prone with an arrow is not a supernatural effect? And you're accusing me of being hyperbolic?
I think you and @doctorbadwolf are both right: dbw has it right in that there's no actual magic or magical casting involved in the knockback/prone bit and you have it right in that it's completely over-the-top for a warrior to be able to do this with an arrow.

Hard to see any middle ground there, though, that doesn't involve "play a different edition" in it somewhere.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I think you and @doctorbadwolf are both right: dbw has it right in that there's no actual magic or magical casting involved in the knockback/prone bit and you have it right in that it's completely over-the-top for a warrior to be able to do this with an arrow.

Hard to see any middle ground there, though, that doesn't involve "play a different edition" in it somewhere.
FWIW, I don't think he's wrong to say he doesn't see any actual magic being used for those powers. I mean, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. My chief disagreement is him calling others who do see similarities between spells and some 4e class powers as being hyperbolic or otherwise bad/wrong. I don't think it's unreasonable or unusual for someone to see something called a "power" that does something really crazy along the lines of what a spell would do, and view that as something similar as a spell. I doubt I'm alone with that assessment. So his attacks on others who do view them that way is what I was taking issue with.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Drizzt did not ruined the ranger. Its popularity did.
Two weapon weilding rangers were already a thing even in 1ed before Drizzt came along.

Not that I ever saw.

Why? Because dual-wielding required high dexterity, and as 1e Rangers needed to put 14s into Wisdom and Constitution and 13s into Strength and Intelligence it'd be a rare roll-up indeed that'd provide you a 5th good roll to put into dexterity.

Dual-wielding was much more the province of Thieves, Assassins, and dex-based light-armour Fighters e.g. pirates or swashbucklers.
 

aco175

Legend
Ranger Thunderdome...
1604009326540.png
VS
1604009367946.png
VS
1604009471381.png
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
FWIW, Driz'zt did not influence the 2e ranger and why the 2e ranger had dual weapon abilities. Per David "Zeb" Cook:
I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Not that I ever saw.

Why? Because dual-wielding required high dexterity, and as 1e Rangers needed to put 14s into Wisdom and Constitution and 13s into Strength and Intelligence it'd be a rare roll-up indeed that'd provide you a 5th good roll to put into dexterity.

Dual-wielding was much more the province of Thieves, Assassins, and dex-based light-armour Fighters e.g. pirates or swashbucklers.

Which is why I can't just chose the 1e ranger as the best ranger because it didn't make to much sense.

D&D keeps showing off forest rangers. However the 1e ranger is a plains ranger. The 13ranger is a man trained to fight horsemen, orcs, and giants on an open field. It's forest rangers who use bows and dual weild because there's no cav charges and giants to worry about. The mount and arctic ranger are even more bulked up becuse it's too cold to be flipping and junk. The (hot) desert ranger is naked with a shield going full dex.

Only 3.5 and 5e let rangers fight correctly.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Which is why I can't just chose the 1e ranger as the best ranger because it didn't make to much sense.
It does if you're trying to emulate Aragorn, who is to me the archetypal Ranger.
D&D keeps showing off forest rangers. However the 1e ranger is a plains ranger. The 13ranger is a man trained to fight horsemen, orcs, and giants on an open field. It's forest rangers who use bows and dual weild because there's no cav charges and giants to worry about.
I'll remind you of this next time you're jumped by Giants in a forest.

Cavalry Giants at that, riding war mammoths! :)
 

Remove ads

Top