D&D 2E Let's Read the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB+DMG!

[Voadam]

I think the single species bonus really crippled that ability in game making it super niche hunting specialization. I think making them awesome on attacks but light on defense with light armor would have been a superior warrior model, a true striker warrior. This carried over to 3e.

As it was I don’t think they should have kept their big xp bump compared to fighters because so much is niche, the things they get are not really strong, and the do not get weapon specialization or usually heavy armor AC.

 

[Voadam]

The animal affinity I liked. It was minor but it made them the potential beast master and Grizzly Adam’s class.

GURPS had animal empathy as their first listed optional advantage and it always seemed rangery to me.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think the single species bonus really crippled that ability in game making it super niche hunting specialization. I think making them awesome on attacks but light on defense with light armor would have been a superior warrior model, a true striker warrior. This carried over to 3e.

As it was I don’t think they should have kept their big xp bump compared to fighters because so much is niche, the things they get are not really strong, and the do not get weapon specialization or usually heavy armor AC.

Right. And in 3rd ed they went to broader monster types, rather than simply one species. Or at least in 3.5 they did; I can't remember whether 3.0 was the same and won't have a copy handy until this evening.

 

[PHATsakk43]

I give my rangers the option of bow specialization or two-weapon fighting, and so far, I’ve not had anyone turn down the bow.

2E bows can be extremely powerful in a high strength/high dexterity specialist. Especially the “shoot before initiative” on the first round of combat. Most single-class fighters don’t bother as it’s 3 slots to get, and it looks less useful than a melee weapon, except that one thing, firing before any other action on the first round of action.

Definitely makes the ranger more Robin Hood than Aragorn though. Which, is still an archetype.

 

[Voadam]

I had a woman join my college 2e Ravenloft campaign and play a ranger, I think I gave her a starting potion of animal control (reptile/amphibians) that she used in Touch of Death to charm snakes and then empathied one to be a pet and there was some suspicion in the party whether this was a Set corruption or not. Overall it was cool and fun and worked out even though I feel the class is not the best designed.

 

[David Howery]

I remember being unhappy with the nerfed rangers in 2E, one of the biggest disappointments for me in the whole edition. 1E rangers were my favorite class back then, partly because with 2d8 starting hp, they had a better than average chance of actually surviving 1st level. The giant class hp bonus damage was another high point for the 1E version, really useful at higher levels when going up against the giants (I remember running a ranger who started out at 10th level when we did the whole GDQ series... between magic, strength, and a two handed sword, he would do 3-18 +18 per hit on giants)...

 

[Iosue]

[background on "giant class"]

Many thanks for the historical context!

Zeb Cook denies it, although that's long been common speculation. He says they were trying to give the Ranger a more distinct identity, and switching it to more Dex-focused with the lighter armor, two-weapon fighting, and stealth abilities was part of that.

Eh, Snarf makes a good case that it wasn't mandated from on high in response to Drizzt's popularity, but my thinking was that there was a dearth of good D&D rangers. I mean, who did they have? Hank from the cartoon and Riverwind from Dragonlance? And then while they're developing 2nd Ed., they have a book coming out with a Ranger that dual-wields and has a beast companion. Could be a coincidence, but at least some cross-pollination seems more likely to me.

This was an interesting drop, because starting in 1E Unearthed Arcana Rangers were required to take a bow or light crossbow as one of their Weapon Proficiencies, so in 1E they did make archery part of the core concept. I would guess this got omitted because they made proficiencies optional in 2E and gave them their own chapter, so it didn't make sense to include that requirement either under the class entry or as a standalone side note in Chapter 5.

Remembering Hank from the cartoon, I wonder if that was the impetus for the bow requirement in UA.

The damage bonus, I think, was the enormous one. Especially with the G series modules having been some of the first ones mass published. 1E Rangers hit far harder than anyone else against a lot of the most common monsters in the game.

A 10th level Fighter with +3 longsword and 17 Strength deals an average of 10.5 damage to a Hill Giant per hit, killing one in an average of four hits. An equivalent Ranger deals 20.5 per hit, killing in half the time. And reliably one-shots nearly all the smaller stuff.

Yeah, I can see nerfing the damage bonus. But it's not just that, it's the studded leather or lighter armor requirement, which limits, to an extent, their ability to fight on the front line, even accounting for the DEX adjustment, at least compared to 1st Edition. Their stealth is also limited to "natural" environments, while the 1st Ed. ranger's surprise bonus worked anywhere.

But I guess more to the point would be, why they felt they had to give the ranger a more distinct profile in the first place.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Many thanks for the historical context!

Eh, Snarf makes a good case that it wasn't mandated from on high in response to Drizzt's popularity, but my thinking was that there was a dearth of good D&D rangers. I mean, who did they have? Hank from the cartoon and Riverwind from Dragonlance? And then while they're developing 2nd Ed., they have a book coming out with a Ranger that dual-wields and has a beast companion. Could be a coincidence, but at least some cross-pollination seems more likely to me.

Remembering Hank from the cartoon, I wonder if that was the impetus for the bow requirement in UA.

Yeah, I can see nerfing the damage bonus. But it's not just that, it's the studded leather or lighter armor requirement, which limits, to an extent, their ability to fight on the front line, even accounting for the DEX adjustment, at least compared to 1st Edition. Their stealth is also limited to "natural" environments, while the 1st Ed. ranger's surprise bonus worked anywhere.

But I guess more to the point would be, why they felt they had to give the ranger a more distinct profile in the first place.

I thought this same thing for a lot of years, basically, RAS’s Mary Sue wagging the dog on the gamerules, even way back then in 1988.

I finally got proven wrong on a Reddit post I made regarding it (when I was still on Reddit) as it wasn’t true. RAS based the dual wielding on the 1E UA rules which had come out just prior to Drizzt’s creation, and in that book, Drow are automatically granted dual wielding.

Basically, Drizzt was a technically legal 1E character under UA, and wasn’t a fully legal one for 2E until 1998 and the equal sized weapon dual-wielding was allowed in the Complete Fighters’ Handbook. Even then it took the elves book to restat Drow for 2E.

 

[cbwjm]

Eh, Snarf makes a good case that it wasn't mandated from on high in response to Drizzt's popularity, but my thinking was that there was a dearth of good D&D rangers. I mean, who did they have? Hank from the cartoon and Riverwind from Dragonlance? And then while they're developing 2nd Ed., they have a book coming out with a Ranger that dual-wields and has a beast companion. Could be a coincidence, but at least some cross-pollination seems more likely to me.

I sort of wonder about this, 2e was released in 1989, Drizzt doesn't become a ranger until book 3 of the dark elf trilogy which came out in the middle of 1991. I can understand that they may have had some potential notes regarding the overarching story of Drizzt, but unless it was a very, very late update to the ranger, I really don't think it would have made much impact. After all, Drizzt can fight with two-weapons because of his combat training as a dark elf, not because he was trained as a ranger.

 

[Voadam]

I sort of wonder about this, 2e was released in 1989, Drizzt doesn't become a ranger until book 3 of the dark elf trilogy which came out in the middle of 1991. I can understand that they may have had some potential notes regarding the overarching story of Drizzt, but unless it was a very, very late update to the ranger, I really don't think it would have made much impact. After all, Drizzt can fight with two-weapons because of his combat training as a dark elf, not because he was trained as a ranger.

The dark elf trilogy came out after Drizzt was an established character. He was a ranger in his first novel series that started in 1e.

He was dual wielding because he was a 1e drow then though and 2e was not far off as it was late 1e.