D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[cbwjm]

I don't see how the assumptions are North American as North America has a lot of nonforest wilderness. A lot of it.



Actually the whole class is defined as a forest ranger.

Armor: Defaulting to light and medium armor leans forest. Arctic rangers would wear heavy armor to protect from the cold and stealth would be less of an issue as there is a lot less of it in the snow. Desert rangers might not wear armor at all and have Unarmored Defense.

Weapons: Archery and TWF are tilted to forests. The lack of Great weapon focus that would lean to mountain and hill rangers is lost.

Spells: Sea, sand, and snow spells always come to ranger very later in an edition's life cycle.

Features: Although they work, sand, snow, and water are not mentioned directly in ranger class features.

DMG: Natural hazards and challenges in the arctic, desert, coast, and swamp are barely mentioned. This further tilts how rangers are seen.

This is why I'm currently the option voter for the last option. Every edition's ranger to me is way too narrow in scope.

Currently, I'm working of a class feature variant to replace fighting styles that changes how a ranger fights based on their favored enemies and terrain.



BGS'sroute is okay for a video game but still bad for an RPG

I gotta say, I really disagree with everything here as I don't see anything that you mentioned as defaulting it to forest over other regions.

While I'd like more fighting styles, the current ones don't default it to a forest build. I don't think that an Arctic ranger would be necessarily wandering in heavy armour to keep warm, that would be covered by cold weather clothing.

I don't think that sand, snow, and water need to be directly mentioned to make the ranger suitable for those locations. Want to camouflage yourself in an Arctic or desert environment? Those are natural materials so go at it.

Sea, sand, and snow specific spells might come to them later in an edition life cycle but that's true for all classes. As is, the spells they start with still work without issue in those regions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think it's important to understand that the ranger was created to emulate Aragorn. It's in the name. Then as the game started to mature, it was meant to also capture archetypes like daniel boone, grizzly adams, and robin hood.

Now, I think we can all agree that the modern ranger doesn't need to be limited to those temperate forest archetypes.

However, that doesn't mean they are automatically greatsword plate mail wearing classes. Regardless of terrain, rangers are scouts and frontierspeople. That requires mobility. Don't take my word for it. Look at historical archetypes from each region of the globe in all the terrain regions. How many were lightly armored and armed? Pretty much all of them.

Including modern rangers in the military today. Scout platoons have lighter vehicles and equipment because that mobility thing is important.

Should rangers have things that support their region and environment? Absolutely. But I just haven't seen enough real world examples of scouts and wilderness guides who were in heavy armor and arms. I cant even think of one.

And while yes, a two handed sword can be wielded quickly, that's not the point. The point is have you ever had to run with one over large distances of rough terrain? Try it.

 

[Minigiant]

However, that doesn't mean they are automatically greatsword plate mail wearing classes. Regardless of terrain, rangers are scouts and frontierspeople. That requires mobility. Don't take my word for it. Look at historical archetypes from each region of the globe in all the terrain regions. How many were lightly armored and armed? Pretty much all of them.

Including modern rangers in the military today. Scout platoons have lighter vehicles and equipment because that mobility thing is important.

D&D isn't the real world.
In D&D, your tundra will likely have roaming frost giants, manticores, yeti, and white dragons.
On issue D&D has is it often uses items and peoples created real world thinking in fantasy world. Arctic rangers would not be wearing steel full plate but their armor would not be light and thin either due to the threats they face and the magic they have access to.

Robin hood and Grizzly adams would be eaten alive in D&D if they roamed alone and many don't want to accept it.

Look at modern wargame. Monster hunters and armies kitted to fight giants, demons, and dragons are not outfitted with shortswords.

I gotta say, I really disagree with everything here as I don't see anything that you mentioned as defaulting it to forest over other regions.

While I'd like more fighting styles, the current ones don't default it to a forest build. I don't think that an Arctic ranger would be necessarily wandering in heavy armour to keep warm, that would be covered by cold weather clothing.

The fighting styles in 3e, 4e, and 5e default to those that world best for a single archetype.

My point is that archetypical fighting style for a ranger doesn't make sense for all climates. If it did, the only warriors in the world would be archers and dual wielders.

I don't think that sand, snow, and water need to be directly mentioned to make the ranger suitable for those locations. Want to camouflage yourself in an Arctic or desert environment? Those are natural materials so go at it.

Sea, sand, and snow specific spells might come to them later in an edition life cycle but that's true for all classes. As is, the spells they start with still work without issue in those regions.

My point is the default imagery of the ranger is forest ranger.
Unfortunately if you don't open up the possibilities openly and display the archetypes of nonforest rangers, many people's minds will lock down on the idea.

For example after 1e, the idea of a ranger with a sword and shield would be rare. However an open temperate grassland plain would be breeding ground for archers.

"But the shield is bulky"
And arrows hurt. No shield nor horse?

 

[Sacrosanct]

And in D&D, forests are full of treants, dragons, and other monsters just as bad, and yet rangers still wear lighter armor and weapons.

It doesn't matter who the opponent is. You're getting hung up in the combat. It's about mobility. A ranger is a scout. A tracker. Someone who lives off the land. It's their literal job. Someone in plate mail and a greatsword isn't going to be nearly as mobile as someone in hide armor and a sword and hand axe.

Let me put it like this. Bushcrafting is one of my hobbies. And I have plenty of experience hiking both in civilian life and the military. Every pound counts. Every once counts. There is a reason NO scout or wilderness explorer is heavily armored and armed. Anything and everything you carry needs to have a dual purpose of possible.

Modern scouts may encounter a battle tank but they still don't have M1A1s in scout platoons. So I'm sorry, I just don't buy that argument that a ranger would be in heavy armor and great weapons just because giants exist.

If you want a good example of a ranger, watch Platoon. Specifically how Elias looks at the gear charlie sheen is carrying, and tosses half of it.

 

[Lanefan]

It's always bemused how very North American the assumptions behind Rangers tend to be - not just in design, but in assumptions during internet discussion i.e. wilderness = forest.

Funny - as a North American who lives in a very well-forested part of the continent, I've always seen the wilderness = forest as being Euro-centric; as I know that vast swathes of North America either aren't forested at all or aren't forested any more.

 

[Lanefan]

Edit For example, the plains Native Americans didn't use heavy weapons. They were still very much focused on light weapons and mobility.

Could that be in part because they never (that we know of) really made or developed metal armour?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a little bit leery of the description of the 1e Ranger as a 'subclass' of Fighter. While that is technically correct as far as verbiage goes, it is a bit misleading. Rangers who lost their Ranger status became a fighter of the same level (similar to the 1e paladin, also a subclass of fighter), but In 1e terms, subclasses where just ways to organize things and share some tables. Iirc, the 1e Ranger shared about as much with the fighter as does its modern counterpart, with the exception of getting what we now call Heavy Armor proficiency. I can't remember off hand if the saves were different though.

Saves are by class group (F, C, T, MU), so Rangers would save as Fighters.

 

[Lanefan]

The broad concept of Favored Terrain having constant benefits anywhere is what I'm getting at. Resistance to Fire isn't what I'd do for Desert, either, since hot sun =! fire. Resistance to Cold is quite fitting for Arctic, though.

For desert, what about some sort of Heat Resistance - can tolerate higher ambient temperatures much better than an average person, can stand closer to (but not right in or on!) significant heat sources such as a fire or forge without ill effect, stuff like that?

 

[Lanefan]

And in D&D, forests are full of treants, dragons, and other monsters just as bad, and yet rangers still wear lighter armor and weapons.

It doesn't matter who the opponent is. You're getting hung up in the combat. It's about mobility. A ranger is a scout. A tracker. Someone who lives off the land. It's their literal job. Someone in plate mail and a greatsword isn't going to be nearly as mobile as someone in hide armor and a sword and hand axe.

Which means the treants and dragons and other monsters will be slightly better fed, is all.

Let me put it like this. Bushcrafting is one of my hobbies. And I have plenty of experience hiking both in civilian life and the military. Every pound counts. Every once counts. There is a reason NO scout or wilderness explorer is heavily armored and armed. Anything and everything you carry needs to have a dual purpose of possible.

Which is fine for real-world Earth where the worst thing you might meet is a cougar or a group of wolves, but not for most D&D settings where six Ogres could be waiting behind the next rock outcropping.

Also remember that, particularly in 1e, the Ranger was a Giant-hunter: the class was designed to do well against big heavy opponents.

As for carrying gear - isn't that what a packhorse is for?

 

[Don Durito]

For desert, what about some sort of Heat Resistance - can tolerate higher ambient temperatures much better than an average person, can stand closer to (but not right in or on!) significant heat sources such as a fire or forge without ill effect, stuff like that?

Not really worth anything. D&D has rules for fire damage. It doesn't have rules for exposure to heat.