D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Minigiant]

They were literally part druid. If that doesn't say nature to you...

It was both. Nature may have been second seat, but it was present strongly or they would not have had druid spells.

They literally weren't druidic until later editions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The 0e and 1e ranger were more focused on tracking monsters and murder-killing them dead dead than preserving nature. The focus was "keeping orcs and giants from killing humans and halflings" not "protecting the wilderness." That's one reason why elves couldn't be rangers, they were too aloof and magicky.

Except as soon as Unearthed Arcana came out, they could be Rangers, because NO ONE understood why elves couldn't be rangers...

As for "one reason why elves couldn't be rangers, they were too aloof and magicky", that makes no sense since Rangers eventually got BOTH Magic-User and Druid spells...in 1E by the way, not "later". They were very much woodsy and good (a restriction), and one reason they stopped orcs, etc. was from ruining the forest and the natural order they respected.

That was the way everyone played them IME, yes killing giant-class foes, but also preserving nature because of their part-druid and good alignment. Nothing in the text supports either position IMO, I am just telling you how they were always portrayed IME.

Anyway, in pre-UA 1E, Gygax and others restricted most demi-humans, with the exception of Half-elves, to the core classes. The only subclass allowed to all but Halflings was the Assassin. Most non-humans couldn't be 4 out of 5 subclasses. Again, this was just to give humans something because they had no racial features and to help make them appealing against the other races.

Dwarf: Cleric (NPC only), Fighter, Thief, Assassin only subclass, 80% of subclasses not allowed.
Elf: Cleric (NPC only), Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Assassin only subclass, 80% of subclasses not allowed.
Gnome: Cleric (NPC only), Fighter, Thief, Assassin and Illusionist subclasses, 60% of subclasses not allowed.
Half-Elf: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Druid, Ranger, Assassin subclasses, 40% of subclasses not allowed.
Halfling: Fighter, Thief, Druid subclass (NPC only), so 100% of subclasses not allowed.
Half-Orc: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Assassin only subclass, 80% of subclasses not allowed.

In total, other than Assassins, you had Half-Elf Druids and Rangers, and Gnome Illusionists that were allowed as PCs. Even with Assassins, only 8 out of 30, roughly 1 in 4, race-subclass combinations were playable as PCs.

Nature loving came later as players and DM roleplayed them as such. Then they became more and more druidic and less LG serial killers.

Because that is how everyone I know saw them, from the beginning... not just in the end.

Fortunately, Gygax and others realized practically no one was using most of the above racial-class restrictions and got rid of several of them.

 

[Maxperson]

Did they also have M.User spells and using all magic items? (Were they about as much M.User as Druid).

I don't know if they were so much part druid as mostly "anything that would be needed to play Aragorn in the LotR".

And Aragorn was strongly nature due to gifts from the Valar, such as Yavanna Valar of nature. 1e Rangers were not identical to Aragorn, since he did not have any magic user abilities at all, but they were based on him and his protector of humans and nature woodsy guy schtick.

 

[Maxperson]

They literally weren't druidic until later editions.

Re-read your 1e PHB and DMG. They literally get druid spells. Their follower chart includes nature beasts, fey and nature magical creatures. They were very strongly about nature from 1e on.

 

[Cadence]

And Aragorn was strongly nature due to gifts from the Valar, such as Yavanna Valar of nature.

It feels like he was more strongly nature because his ancestor was the king in the north and not the citified south, and it would suck to be in all those woods without any skills for them, rather than a particular gift from Yavanna (as opposed to any of the others).

 

[Mordhau]

Rangers had druidic abilities, but it's important to remember that there were important reasons not to think of them as partly druids.

The big one is that Druids had to be True Neutral, while Rangers had to be good. I think we forget now how much alignment was a part of the worldbuilding, but that right there told you that your character was not really some kind of Fighter/Druid multi-class and that he had goals that were very different from those of Druids.

 

[Faolyn]

2e rangers wouldn't be original rangers would it.

...That's why I said my reading of 1e or 2e.

 

[Faolyn]

They literally weren't druidic until later editions.

They got druidic (and m-u) spells in 1st edition. Just starting at 8th level.

 

[Mordhau]

Pre-modern ways of thinking: The forest and other natural wild places are uncivilised and chaotic and dark and scary.
Early gaming: The forest is chaotic and evil because it's infested with chaos and evil.
Later gaming: Chaos and evil corrupts the forest and we can use the power of nature to fight back against it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

2e rangers wouldn't be original rangers would it.




The original ranger was based on Aragorn and the Dunedain but they weren't them. The 0e and 1e ranger were more focused on tracking monsters and murder-killing them dead dead than preserving nature. The focus was "keeping orcs and giants from killing humans and halflings" not "protecting the wilderness." That's one reason why elves couldn't be rangers, they were too aloof and magicky.

Nature loving came later as players and DM roleplayed them as such. Then they became more and more druidic and less LG serial killers.

I mean, I’m not going to go read through the full writeup of every edition, but I kinda doubt the case is nearly as strongly in the “LG serial killers” region as you suggest.