D&D General When and where did the idea of Ranger as "wilderness rogue" start?

[Sword of Spirit]

Ranger was orginally--and for quite a long time--squarely in the full warrior category. There was no hint of seeing them as in any sort of thief/rogue combat role. This was true least from 1e through 3.0e D&D.

In 3.5e rangers got their hp reduced from the warrior's d10s to d8s (but rogues and bards were still rocking d6s then) and got their number of skill points increased and armor proficiencies reduced. They did however keep the warrior level number and efficacy of atracks.

Is 3.5e where it started?

In 4e they were defined as Martial Strikers along with rogues. Is that where it started?

Did it start in a non-D&D source?

It's something I always wonder about. And even though it isn't accurate for 5e, where they have been back to their roots as full warriors since 2014, people still have the idea in their minds. WotC even made it official in the 2024 PHB by listing them as an alternate option for the rogue. There is no justification for that, and it is misleading, though perhaps irrelevant in context of 5e rogues. I can't help but see the likely reason it was listed there deriving mostly from the "ranger as wilderness rogue" concept.

So, someone please help set the record straight. When and where did this idea get started?

 

[Stormonu]

Actually, it started back in 2E, when the designers stopped looking at them as a John Wayne Army Ranger and more as a Aragorn figure (because that was the playerbase archtype). Also, as the Ranger's Tracking schtick slowly stopped being "their thing" with expanded skill rules, they started shifting toward the sneaky woodland sniper/rogue.

3E leaned into this even more. Can't speak for 4E, but in 5E they're such a mixed bag they flip-flop between what they want to be - woodsy outdoorman, druidic wannabe, animal friend, etc. The class has lost its way because no one has come up with an ideal that's really stuck to the class like Paladin as smiter and Barbarian as rager.

 

[billd91]

Actually, it started back in 2E, when the designers stopped looking at them as a John Wayne Army Ranger and more as a Aragorn figure (because that was the playerbase archtype). Also, as the Ranger's Tracking schtick slowly stopped being "their thing" with expanded skill rules, they started shifting toward the sneaky woodland sniper/rogue.

2e is where the rangers first got abilities titled Move Silently and Hide in Shadows, but I'd argue that was when the ranger took a step away from the Aragorn archetype since 1e was all about the Aragorn archetype (right down to the magic items involving clairvoyance and telepathy).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, it started back in 2E, when the designers stopped looking at them as a John Wayne Army Ranger and more as a Aragorn figure (because that was the playerbase archtype). Also, as the Ranger's Tracking schtick slowly stopped being "their thing" with expanded skill rules, they started shifting toward the sneaky woodland sniper/rogue.

3E leaned into this even more. Can't speak for 4E, but in 5E they're such a mixed bag they flip-flop between what they want to be - woodsy outdoorman, druidic wannabe, animal friend, etc. The class has lost its way because no one has come up with an ideal that's really stuck to the class like Paladin as smiter and Barbarian as rager.

Really?
I think the ranger as the bard is an all rounder. Good at many things but nowhere exceptional. As they always were.

 

[niklinna]

Heck, even the AD&D Players Handbook begins the Ranger with "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying."

 

[LordEntrails]

So many wrong assumptions. Rangers started with 2d8 HP. And the idea of them as nature stalkers started with Tolkien's Aragorn, at least for me with Holmes. Not some Army Ranger anagram.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

They surprised 3 in 6 from 1e…given how poor MS and HS was in 1e, this was not an insignificant nod in that direction.

I think they always were supposed to be sneaky and alert in the woods like Aragorn…

 

[Minigiant]

The Ranger always started as a warrior with woodland skills (some of which were magic due to game limitations).

It's the skill system that changed.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Rangers actually had d8 hit dice in 1e, although they did get 2d8 at 1st level.

 

[ezo]

There was no hint of seeing them as in any sort of thief/rogue combat role

There still isn't IMO.

Rangers have always been and still are the "wilderness warrior" and serve as point-man more so than a scout IMO. They were adept at scouting, even in 1E (surprising on 3 in 6 and only surprised on 1 in 6), and only higher level rogue were better at "hiding in shadows and moving quietly".

I never played 3E much and 4E not at all, so maybe there were shifts there.

But in 5E, they are still the wilderness warrior, point-man, and scout IMO.

Rangers actually had d8 hit dice in 1e, although they did get 2d8 at 1st level.

Yep, and were able to add their CON bonus to HP to BOTH hit dice (along with the Monk class), allowing them to start with more HP (max 24!) than even the 1E UA Barbarian!