Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mirrorrorrim" data-source="post: 9065611" data-attributes="member: 7040132">What? There was no design in the old-school ranger. Just looking at the 2E Ranger...<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">They had proficiency slots (like everyone did.)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">They had Favored Enemy, which meant they had a +4 to attack one monster... for the rest of their careers. Choose orcs? That was great at low levels (if the DM used them), if you chose dragons, that was worthless until higher levels. They also had a built-in enmity that was hard to hide and made it hard to be friendly to a friendly version of that creature (like a friendly dragon). Thumbs down then, thumbs down now.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">They had a scaling percentile for Hide in Shadows and Move Silently (translates to skills).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">They had Animal Empathy for domestic or non-hostile animals, which was a saving throw (translates to skills).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">At 8th level they got access to 1 &quot;Priest&quot; spell chosen from the Animal and Plant spheres. It scaled very slowly from there, up to 3rd level spells</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">At 10th level they got access to Strongholds and Followers. If you never reached the level to get spells, you never played with strongholds and followers. I know I never played in a game with Strongholds and Followers back in the day.</li>
</ol>Also, you could only be a Human, Elf, or Half-elf.I reeeally don't understand the fascination with ancient design that has long been left behind. It feels like people have a powerful nostalgia for their old games that contained some of their favorite stories, and they extrapolate that into assuming the rules were great because of it.The rules did the bare minimum of helping with an identity, but looking back, they weren't &quot;great&quot;.&nbsp; I loved my old-school ranger because of the stories I got to play with that character. The class rules brought almost nothing to the table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mirrorrorrim, post: 9065611, member: 7040132"] What? There was no design in the old-school ranger. Just looking at the 2E Ranger... [LIST=1] [*]They had proficiency slots (like everyone did.) [*]They had Favored Enemy, which meant they had a +4 to attack one monster... for the rest of their careers. Choose orcs? That was great at low levels (if the DM used them), if you chose dragons, that was worthless until higher levels. They also had a built-in enmity that was hard to hide and made it hard to be friendly to a friendly version of that creature (like a friendly dragon). [I]Thumbs down then, thumbs down now.[/I] [*]They had a scaling percentile for Hide in Shadows and Move Silently (translates to skills). [*]They had Animal Empathy for domestic or non-hostile animals, which was a saving throw (translates to skills). [*]At 8th level they got access to 1 "Priest" spell chosen from the Animal and Plant spheres. It scaled very slowly from there, up to 3rd level spells [*]At 10th level they got access to Strongholds and Followers. If you never reached the level to get spells, you never played with strongholds and followers. I know I never played in a game with Strongholds and Followers back in the day. [/LIST] Also, you could only be a Human, Elf, or Half-elf. I reeeally don't understand the fascination with ancient design that has long been left behind. It feels like people have a powerful nostalgia for their old games that contained some of their favorite stories, and they extrapolate that into assuming the rules were great because of it. The rules did the bare minimum of helping with an identity, but looking back, they weren't "great". I loved my old-school ranger because of the stories I got to play with that character. The class rules brought almost nothing to the table. [/QUOTE]

Verification