I love 1e...but I have a question about the ranger.

[Aaron L]

...while I'm here, I'd like to mention that Aaron L above speaks much wisdom with regard to the 1E ranger class and what's different (and IMO better) about it from later editions' versions of the class.

Thank you very much I'm gong to have to really try to get my Ranger Lord PrC checked out for balance and get it ready for use. Where should I go to have it checked out? The House Rules forum? I'll go check in there and see what people think of it. Maybe I'll even expand it into a full 20 level class if I can get the bugs worked out.

 

[hong]

A point that seems to have been lost on everyone at WotC since at least Monte Cook's time.

D8 hit die, my butt. I said "Ranger", not "tree-hugging nature-pansy".

Sigh.

 

[tx7321]

Rangers in 1E were indeed most likely based soley on Aragorn and the rangers of the Tolkein books. They were not just wilderness warriors, they were often loners, spies, scouts and the like. Lets also not forget they were good (like a paladin) and purposeful (to protect civilization and travellers from harm). Also, we see in Aragorn they were both intellectual (or wise) and networked with allies interested in their cause of protecting civilization and the wild places they loved. They were friendly to elves and other demi-humans (where most humans would treat them with distrust) and magic users (such as Gandalf) as well as druids (for obvious reasons). That they pick up spells of both classes is perhaps the coolest feature of the 1E ranger class, really driving home their character. Take a look at the requirements to be a ranger. Very tough.

Something else of interest regarding the Tolkien comparison: Faromere and his bunch of woodland fighters (I think they may have even called themselves rangers) were clearly lacking the skills of a true ranger (like Aragorn). If you forget the Duniden thing for a moment, and focus on their knowledge and personalities (distrusted by civilzation, outsiders, very few in number, found in 1s or 2s etc.) you can see a distinction. Perhaps the Faromere brand of ranger could be thought of as the hunter class.

 

[diaglo]

Yup. Fighter got 9d10 to the rangers 11d8. That averages out to be identical. at 11th level, the fighter will have 6 more hit points than the ranger. Less if the ranger has a con bonus, as he'll get to apply it twice more than the fighter. At higher levels, however, the fighter will catch up, albeit slowly. So the d8 hit die merely made rangers tougher at first level to emulate the hard wilderness life he led.

ranger had to have Con. it was a prereq

 

[Remathilis]

Without rocking the boat too much, I much prefer 2e's ranger.

normal (d10) hp like a fighter or paladin.
Some stealth ability (hide in shadows/move silently)
favored enemy choices rather than just *giant* class foes
good selection of NWPs (warrior, wizard, general)
twf if you were so inclined.
tracking
Animal Empathy
Woodland followers
Druidic spells

Seems much more in line with a hunter (track, stealth), skirmisher (twf, d10 hp), and naturalist (druid magic, animal empathy) than the "Aragorn lite" class. YMMV.

 

[Tetsubo]

What I always found curious was that they get two hit dice at first level.

*sigh* I kinda miss 1E. You know what 3E needs? A 1E bard

I have to agree. When you were a Bard in 1E people took notice...

 

[Tetsubo]

Let's not forget that AD&D rangers didn't get spell casting at all until level 8+ (Druidic at 8+, MU at 9+). Many campaigns ended before reaching that high level.

Although I remember playing Rangers from levels 1 to 10, I really don't remember casting magic user spells. (a 10th level ranger has a single 1st level MU spell).

I played a 1E Ranger from 1st to 26th level back in the day. It took six years but it was great fun. The +1 damage PER LEVEL against Giants and Humanoids really shone at 26th level...

 

[Shadeydm]

And Drizzt'd him...

Sad but true.

 

[Aaron L]

I played a 1E Ranger from 1st to 26th level back in the day. It took six years but it was great fun. The +1 damage PER LEVEL against Giants and Humanoids really shone at 26th level...

Wow, so did I!!! It took me 8 years, but 26th level, yup

 

[billd91]

Without rocking the boat too much, I much prefer 2e's ranger.

normal (d10) hp like a fighter or paladin.
Some stealth ability (hide in shadows/move silently)
favored enemy choices rather than just *giant* class foes
good selection of NWPs (warrior, wizard, general)
twf if you were so inclined.
tracking
Animal Empathy
Woodland followers
Druidic spells

Seems much more in line with a hunter (track, stealth), skirmisher (twf, d10 hp), and naturalist (druid magic, animal empathy) than the "Aragorn lite" class. YMMV.

One major problem I saw with the 2e Ranger was that he was a bit weak for the XP table he was put on. His powers are more limited and contingent on lucky rolls than the paladin's powers. So I thought the 2e ranger, a class with some potential even if it wasn't the same as the 1e ranger, was given a raw deal.