Finally laid my eyes on Monte Cook's version of the Ranger

[SableWyvern]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally laid my eyes on Monte Cook's version of the Ranger

Eh? AFAIK the fighter has always had a d10 hit die. This goes right back to the division into the four basic classes: magic-user (d4), thief (d6), cleric (d8) and fighter (d10). In any case, the ranger is a 1E invention, and I'm pretty sure it never existed before AD&D.

Basic D&D, Red Box set:

thief and magic user d4, cleric d6, fighter and dwarf d8

Can't be entirely sure on elf and halfling.

But yes, rangers didn't exist until fighters had 1d10, in 1st AD&D.

 

[Zhure]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally laid my eyes on Monte Cook's version of the Ranger

Eh? AFAIK the fighter has always had a d10 hit die. This goes right back to the division into the four basic classes: magic-user (d4), thief (d6), cleric (d8) and fighter (d10). In any case, the ranger is a 1E invention, and I'm pretty sure it never existed before AD&D.

Check out the little books, circa 1975. I don't remember which one had the ranger (I could only find Blackmoor, which was 1975, and it introduced the Assassin and the Monk). There was also Eldritch Wizardry and Greyhawk. I believe it was Greyhawk, but since I can't locate my copy, I can't confirm it.

Ah, the halcyon days of youth, before "Advanced" was added, when the simple Fighting Man was the purest combatant and Monks stunned on any hit five over what they needed and 25% of stuns were insta-kills and they could dodge even magic missiles.


::goofy grin of nostalgia::
Greg

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally laid my eyes on Monte Cook's version of the Ranger

Eh? AFAIK the fighter has always had a d10 hit die. This goes right back to the division into the four basic classes: magic-user (d4), thief (d6), cleric (d8) and fighter (d10). In any case, the ranger is a 1E invention, and I'm pretty sure it never existed before AD&D.

Ah, the follies of youth ...

The fighter had a d8 hit die in original D&D. The ranger is not an AD&D invention, although that was the earliest it was incorporated in the 'core' rulebooks. (Not that anyone used the phrase 'core rulebook' back then ...) It was introduced as a D&D character class in, IIRC, The Strategic Review, and later added to a D&D supplement (I can't remember which one) ...

For the record, Monte's ranger is clearly overpowered. And yes, the fighter will disappear in your games when this character class is introduced, provided your players are powergamers. (That's the point of balance, right? To control the powergamers?) Consider a character who starts with one level of ranger and switches to fighter, compared to a straight fighter. Loss? Two hit points. Gain? Sixteen skill points, about half a feat (average over the life of the character, he'll gain bonus feats a level ahead of the straight fighter), and the favored enemy ability. Who the heck wouldn't do this?

One of the primary issues with the PH ranger is the 'front-loading' of its abilities. This problem is worse with Monte's ranger. I designed a custom ranger for my homebrew campaign world (you can find it at The Ranger Project, along with a bunch of others); but my house rules even for my (prospective) Greyhawk campaign include a 'tweaked' ranger that gets its virtual feats at second level. (And includes some choices of virtual feats rather than just the Ambi/TWF pair.) There's really not much reason to go past 1st level with the PH ranger, and lots of reasons to take that one level.

(edited to fix code)