D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[Helldritch]

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.

These started to appear with the UA rolling method.
Ranger were rolling: St: 7d6, Int: 6d6, Wis: 8d6, Dex: 5d6 Con: 9d6, Cha: 4d6 and Com: 3d6 (if you used that stat...)
With these, High dex rangers were relatively common. In addition, you could start at the mature state as a ranger and get +1 in both St and Con. Which again a human would automatically benefit as mature for human was 21 and the ranger started with 20 +1d4 of age.
Hope I have been of use.

 

[Sacrosanct]

These started to appear with the UA rolling method.
Ranger were rolling: St: 7d6, Int: 6d6, Wis: 8d6, Dex: 5d6 Con: 9d6, Cha: 4d6 and Com: 3d6 (if you used that stat...)
With these, High dex rangers were relatively common. In addition, you could start at the mature state as a ranger and get +1 in both St and Con. Which again a human would automatically benefit as mature for human was 21 and the ranger started with 20 +1d4 of age.
Hope I have been of use.

Any player who showed up with UA and wanted that method was given a choice to leave, or roll with a method from the DMG. I couldn't believe they put that method in UA. Most broken thing ever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Saying that someone is being hyperbolic isn’t an attack.

And it is silly to call them spells. Your original statement was that everyone had spells in 4e. An absurd statement.

Even if we focus on the more amazing abilities in martial powers, instead of focusing more sensibly on the bulk of powers which come nowhere near that, they aren’t spells. Calling them spells is exactly as absurd as calling a cat a mousetrap because they both kill mice.

 

[CleverNickName]

And it is silly to call them spells. Your original statement was that everyone had spells in 4e. An absurd statement.

Even if we focus on the more amazing abilities in martial powers, instead of focusing more sensibly on the bulk of powers which come nowhere near that, they aren’t spells. Calling them spells is exactly as absurd as calling a cat a mousetrap because they both kill mice.

I don't want to get involved in your argument, but I just had to interrupt because of an amazing coincidence.

Everyone, meet my cat Mousetrap!

 

[David Howery]

Two weapon weilding rangers were already a thing even in 1ed before Drizzt came along.

rangers, fighters, paladins, thieves... the group I was in abused the dual weapon wielding rules... a lot. I found that if you could get a Dex high enough to cancel the penalty in your main hand, the chances of whiffing in your off hand didn't matter so much... if you hit at all, it's bonus damage to your opponent. It was something we generally took advantage of when we got up a few levels and had some magic items (armor to negate the loss of shield, some plus weapons to balance out the penalties of dual-wielding, etc.)... at low level, you want the shield. The long sword/handaxe dual combo was a brutal one, particularly backed up by a PC with high strength...

 

[Lanefan]

These started to appear with the UA rolling method.
Ranger were rolling: St: 7d6, Int: 6d6, Wis: 8d6, Dex: 5d6 Con: 9d6, Cha: 4d6 and Com: 3d6 (if you used that stat...)

The sum total of our collective reactions to that rule when we first saw it was in order: 1) laugh. 2) ignore.

With these, High dex rangers were relatively common. In addition, you could start at the mature state as a ranger and get +1 in both St and Con. Which again a human would automatically benefit as mature for human was 21 and the ranger started with 20 +1d4 of age.

Huh - I learned something today.

We've had it that 'mature' made no changes to your rolled stats for so long I never realized mature once had a modifier.

And, reading the DMG, in true Gygax fashion it's confusing: does the +1 Wisdom gained at mature simply cancel out the -1 Widsom for young adult, or does going from young adult to mature boost your Wisdom by 2?

 

[Helldritch]

Any player who showed up with UA and wanted that method was given a choice to leave, or roll with a method from the DMG. I couldn't believe they put that method in UA. Most broken thing ever.

It was an official rule book. Not agreeing with the rules meant you were a heartless DM...
And guess what? With the new Tasha's book. You'll get the same answers. I had resisted a long time the rolling method but people wanted it. I was glad the 2ed came around so that the method was flushed out.

 

[Helldritch]

The sum total of our collective reactions to that rule when we first saw it was in order: 1) laugh. 2) ignore.

Huh - I learned something today.

We've had it that 'mature' made no changes to your rolled stats for so long I never realized mature once had a modifier.

And, reading the DMG, in true Gygax fashion it's confusing: does the +1 Wisdom gained at mature simply cancel out the -1 Widsom for young adult, or does going from young adult to mature boost your Wisdom by 2?

You applied them in order.
So essentially, all characters could have up to +1 ST and +1 Con at start.

 

[Lanefan]

It was an official rule book. Not agreeing with the rules meant you were a heartless DM...

We saw UA as simply a collection of stuff we'd either already decided to adopt, modify or ignore when it first came out in Dragon magazine over the previous several years.

Very little in UA was truly new.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It was an official rule book. Not agreeing with the rules meant you were a heartless DM...
And guess what? With the new Tasha's book. You'll get the same answers. I had resisted a long time the rolling method but people wanted it. I was glad the 2ed came around so that the method was flushed out.

Been DMing since the early 80s. Won't be the last time I'm called heartless. Those folks can feel free to find another DM