D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Chaosmancer]

I did a spear-based Ranger before. Of course, I can't say it was all that optimal but my party wasn't constantly thinking "Wha-? That's a d6 where it could've been a d8! And what do you think you're doing on the front lines missy!? Get back in the back ranks and make us a hunter's mark where you belong!"

Our campaign at the time wasn't a whole gritty meat grinder so a few suboptimal playstyles were fine. Again, wouldn't recommend it for a game where only the elite survive, but I'm absolutely certain most games aren't like that anyways.

I honestly feel spears are too weak, so I made a "battle spear" that was a d8/d10 weapon.

Mechanically identical to a longsword or battleaxe, but allows the image of some of the awesome spear fighters I've seen.

 

[Azzy]

Can someone explain the appeal of a sword and board Ranger?

In 1e, rangers didn't have any proscribed fighting styles so sword and board was just as common (if not more common) than other fighting styles (certainly more common than two-weapon fighting, the rules for which were tucked away in the DMG).

This is literally the first I've ever heard of the concept, considering that dual wielding had basically always been their shtick.

No... Not always. The two-weapon style became a thing with the 2e ranger. Various TSR peeps have claimed that giving TWF to rangers had nothing to do with Drizzt (who predated 2e by a year or two), but I have my doubts about that. Prior to Drizzt, I had never seen a ranger depicted using TWF (and it's not mentioned in the class' entry). The reason that Drizzt used TWF is because drow had the racial ability to fight with two weapons without penalty (which is why I, still to this day, usually depict drow as using TWF). Originally, rangers had no restrictions on weapons, armor, or shields (for some odd reason, UA added the requirement that rangers had use their first four weapon proficiencies to be proficient with either bows or crossbows, daggers or knives, spear or axe, and sword).

 

[CleverNickName]

This is why the ranger's "exploration" abilities are pretty poorly designed. While I agree that obtaining food and water isn't a challenge worth preserving in most campaigns, there are so many better ways to make exploration or travelling abilities good than making them skip encounters.

That reminded me of an old campaign I ran a few years ago, using the 3.5E rules. The players would use wind walk, overland flight, etc. to travel straight to and from their destinations every time, and then complain between gaming sessions about how dull and one-dimensional the world was. "Of course it's one-dimensional! A beeline is a one-dimensional shape!"

 

[Bacon Bits]

No... Not always. The two-weapon style became a thing with the 2e ranger. Various TSR peeps have claimed that giving TWF to rangers had nothing to do with Drizzt (who predated 2e by a year or two), but I have my doubts about that. Prior to Drizzt, I had never seen a ranger depicted using TWF (and it's not mentioned in the class' entry). The reason that Drizzt used TWF is because drow had the racial ability to fight with two weapons without penalty (which is why I, still to this day, usually depict drow as using TWF). Originally, rangers had no restrictions on weapons, armor, or shields (for some odd reason, UA added the requirement that rangers had use their first four weapon proficiencies to be proficient with either bows or crossbows, daggers or knives, spear or axe, and sword).

Yes, the lead developer of the 2e PHB (Zeb Cook) has said that Drizzt wasn't a factor in the 2e ranger design. He has said that he was aware that the character existed, but had never read the books at the time.

It's also worth pointing out that 2e began development in 1987 even though it wasn't published until 1989. Meanwhile, Drizzt's first appearance wasn't until 1988, and his second appearance wasn't until 1989. The books weren't blockbusters right out of the gate, either. There was absolutely no reason to think that Drizzt was unique, special, or important to the D&D brand until well after 2e had gone to print.

Drizzt's abilities entirely grew out of 1e Unearthed Arcana, page 10, next to last paragraph:

Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I did a spear-based Ranger before. Of course, I can't say it was all that optimal but my party wasn't constantly thinking "Wha-? That's a d6 where it could've been a d8! And what do you think you're doing on the front lines missy!? Get back in the back ranks and make us a hunter's mark where you belong!"

Our campaign at the time wasn't a whole gritty meat grinder so a few suboptimal playstyles were fine. Again, wouldn't recommend it for a game where only the elite survive, but I'm absolutely certain most games aren't like that anyways.

My favorite ranger PC fights with a spear and handaxe, both of which are magically returning nowadays.

The handax, Stormwind, can hit multiple enemies when thrown, a few times a day, while Lightning Rod can be used like the Lightning Arrow spell 1/day, and deals Lightning damage instead of piercing.

 

[Azzy]

Yes, the lead developer of the 2e PHB (Zeb Cook) has said that Drizzt wasn't a factor in the 2e ranger design. He has said that he was aware that the character existed, but had never read the books at the time.

It's also worth pointing out that 2e began development in 1987 even though it wasn't published until 1989. Meanwhile, Drizzt's first appearance wasn't until 1988, and his second appearance wasn't until 1989. The books weren't blockbusters right out of the gate, either. There was absolutely no reason to think that Drizzt was unique, special, or important to the D&D brand until well after 2e had gone to print.[/excerpt]

The problem I have with that, though, is where did the TWF ranger come from if not from Drizzt? I don't remember any prior precedence in characters or source material. When 2e dropped, the ability seemed really out of left field (a lot about the 2e ranger did, in fact). I'm not saying that Zeb isn't being honest, I just have never been able to see where else this version of the ranger could have come from. It's just such a huge jump from the previous version of the ranger.

 

[Lanefan]

Can someone explain the appeal of a sword and board Ranger? This is literally the first I've ever heard of the concept, considering that dual wielding had basically always been their shtick.

Dual-wielding has only been their schtick since 2e.

In 1e it was very hard to have an effective dual-wield Ranger as doing so requires five good stats: the class required that Str and Int be 13 or more, Wis and Con had to be 14 or more, plus you'd need Dex enough (at least 16, 18+ is better) to be able to dual-wield without massive to-hit penalties. The usual lack of Dex also somewhat hampered their archery ability.

So, if you wanted any sort of heavy Ranger (still one of my favourite class archetypes) you pretty much had to go sword-and-board.

The appeal of the heavy Ranger is that it can fight, it can defend itself (that's what the heavy armour is for!), and when not fighting it can do other useful things such as track and forage. The drawback is that it can't sneak or climb without first doffing the armour, but that's fine.

 

[cbwjm]

Maybe they gave them two-weapon fighting as a way to further differentiate them from the fighter. When they updated the ranger, they also removed the damage bonus vs. giants. Perhaps they thought this would be a way to give something back to the ranger to replace it.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, the lead developer of the 2e PHB (Zeb Cook) has said that Drizzt wasn't a factor in the 2e ranger design. He has said that he was aware that the character existed, but had never read the books at the time.

Well something came before something, and I have a hard time believing the focus on two-weapon fighting in 2e Ranger design predated Drizzt if only because it's so bad. There had to be something driving that design.

 

[Helldritch]

Well something came before something, and I have a hard time believing the focus on two-weapon fighting in 2e Ranger design predated Drizzt if only because it's so bad. There had to be something driving that design.

There was. The 1ed UA. It has been a combination of the rolling method, the racial abilities of drows in the UA and the Dritzz novels. Those speaking and reading English were relatively rare in my area and just retelling the stories of the novels were enough to spark interest in many players. Claiming it had no influence on the 2ed is at best .... I'd better left that comment in my mind.