Looking over the history of the Ranger class.. In the original Strategic Review article (and 1e), the Ranger was a fighter with some (relatively) minor druid spells, a few Magic User spells as well, tracking, and bonuses when fighting a "giant class" monster. Starting in 2e, the class shifted a purely wilderness character, lost the MU spells, gained a few Thief skills, and broadened the "giant class" fighting to "favored enemy". 3e continued this progression and added the archery or 2-weapon options, and 4e dropped just about all "spells" and made the Ranger a completely martial character, a sort of fighter/rogue hybrid.
In BECMI, there was no real "ranger" class; but "foresters" had the same fighter/MU abilities as elves, and "druidic knights" were paladins that used druid spells.
Going forward, should rangers go back to having some limited "magic" abilities, or should they remain strictly martial? If the latter, could not the class be replaced by fighters with the right skills/feats/theme?
If there is still a "ranger class", I'd personally like to see more of a return to the "original" concept. But then, I am a grognard.
Thoughts?
In BECMI, there was no real "ranger" class; but "foresters" had the same fighter/MU abilities as elves, and "druidic knights" were paladins that used druid spells.
Going forward, should rangers go back to having some limited "magic" abilities, or should they remain strictly martial? If the latter, could not the class be replaced by fighters with the right skills/feats/theme?
If there is still a "ranger class", I'd personally like to see more of a return to the "original" concept. But then, I am a grognard.
Thoughts?