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

[Horwath]

It does not. It is ok for quite some level ranges and for some classes it stays well enough.

For light armor to be better, you need dex 18 or even 20. Heavy armor should be better at the cost of hindering stealth.

Medium Armor is the most versatile. You can wear breast plate or half-plate and have fine AC.

(I think the new medium armor master sucks a bit though... they should have kept the stealth penalty removal.)

medium armor is still expensive in terms of DEX.

Maybe max dex should be 1 and all AC raised by one, then instead of raising max dex by 1 with Medium armor master, just add another +1 AC to medium armor.
total AC would still be 1 lower than heavy armor without the feat.

 

[steeldragons]

I can't speak to when the game officially began it, though based on other posters' quotes and notes it was earlier than I ever thought.

For me it was some time ago, as it always seemed to me that a Ranger was intended to meet the intersection of "Fighter & Thief (with a wilderness theme/bent)."

When looking at the classes and what they are primarily or "most" reliant on, while 1e -and to an extent 2e - tried to focus the Ranger in on "Fighter" a.k.a. someone who fights/is all about the combat, their general class abilities set (even before the skills rules changed/expanded) seemed to indicate otherwise. Aside from the increased damage to [poorly] so-called "giant class humanoids", a ranger was about using Skills. Skills that other classes didn't - in early editions - have access to.

The reliance on "Skills" has been the ballywick of the Thief/Rogue class(es) always. Tracking. Nature/flora/fauna lore. Animal Handling (though originally treated as some kind of mystical connection, "Empathy" for calming beasts). What we would now refer to as "Stealth" and "Perception." Movement (another hallmark typically attributed to Roguish classes) through difficult terrain. Even their damage bonuses were fluffed as a special "knowledge/training" against specific creatures/foes. Whether or not one wants to get into the whole "Forgotten lore/divination magics" thing, the Ranger class abilities are a suite of specialized skills...not "Combat" abilities, as a Fighter/warrior class would be built upon.

So, it is not a very long walk or require a lot of twisting, to view the Ranger as a "wilderness rogue" who is also quite good at "warrioring." As opposed to the Ranger as a "wilderness warrior" who is also quite good at "rogue-ing."

Another way to look at it, if one likes to catalogue their classes, if:
--Barbarian is to Fighter.
--Druid is to Cleric.
--Sorcerer (arguably) is to Wizard.
...then it seems quite natural/automatic for...
--Ranger is to Thief/Rogue.

So, yeah. Long story not-so-short, I have no problem (and haven't for decades) envisioning the Ranger as a sub-set/specialized type of "Rogue" class...leaning "warrior," sure. Better armor than thieves. Some better combat options than thieves. But ultimately, a class that relies on "skills" not "weapons/armor/combat."

 

[Staffan]

Because medium armor sucks in classic D&D and modern D&D.​

I think the D&D variant that manages to make medium armor the most interesting is Pathfinder 2e.

Basically, both Light and Medium armor give a maximum AC bonus of +5 between the armor's own bonus and the highest Dexterity bonus it allows. So you get;
No armor/Explorer's Clothing lets you have up to 5 points from Dex.
Light armor: Leather gives +1 armor and has +4 Max Dex, and requires a minimum Str of 10 to avoid penalties. Studded Leather or a Chain Shirt is +2/+3 with minimum Str of 12.
Medium armor: Hide or Scale is +3/+2 with minimum Str 14, and Chain Mail or Breastplate is +4/+1 with minimum Str 16.

So basically, medium armor lets you compensate for low Dex with moderate-to-high Strength. The effect is that you can give a class like the barbarian medium armor and they'll do fine with it

 

[Willie the Duck]

When looking at the classes and what they are primarily or "most" reliant on, while 1e -and to an extent 2e - tried to focus the Ranger in on "Fighter" a.k.a. someone who fights/is all about the combat, their general class abilities set (even before the skills rules changed/expanded) seemed to indicate otherwise. Aside from the increased damage to [poorly] so-called "giant class humanoids", a ranger was about using Skills. Skills that other classes didn't - in early editions - have access to.

The reliance on "Skills" has been the ballywick of the Thief/Rogue class(es) always. Tracking. Nature/flora/fauna lore. Animal Handling (though originally treated as some kind of mystical connection, "Empathy" for calming beasts). What we would now refer to as "Stealth" and "Perception." Movement (another hallmark typically attributed to Roguish classes) through difficult terrain. Even their damage bonuses were fluffed as a special "knowledge/training" against specific creatures/foes. Whether or not one wants to get into the whole "Forgotten lore/divination magics" thing, the Ranger class abilities are a suite of specialized skills...not "Combat" abilities, as a Fighter/warrior class would be built upon.

I think this is going to be a central area of contention/diverging views. Are 'skills*' inherently thief-like? They certainly were the first class to get anything of that sort. oD&D rangers probably were the second example of the idea -- does that make them thief-like, or good evidence that the trait isn't thief- (now rogue-) specific?
*for purposes of discussion, any non-magical resolution mechanics everyone doesn't get, so the reaction table and bend bars/lift gates mechanics don't count, but reading/writing does once the game system makes you have to spend a nwp slot for the privilege.

 

[steeldragons]

I think this is going to be a central area of contention/diverging views. Are 'skills*' inherently thief-like? They certainly were the first class to get anything of that sort. oD&D rangers probably were the second example of the idea -- does that make them thief-like, or good evidence that the trait isn't thief- (now rogue-) specific?
*for purposes of discussion, any non-magical resolution mechanics everyone doesn't get, so the reaction table and bend bars/lift gates mechanics don't count, but reading/writing does once the game system makes you have to spend a nwp slot for the privilege.

I don't know that any contention is necessary. Divergence, I suppose.

It's just a matter of how one prefers to categorize/view the bases of your classes. From my longstanding perspective...

• Warrior classes are best at Combat/"fighting." Your bonuses are about hitting, damage, taking/overcoming damage, using weapons and armor. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins...case can be made for Monks.
• Wizard classes are best at Magic. Your almost certainly have/use spells/supernatural powers, bonuses about knowing occult things, overcoming magical creatures and threats. Mages ("wizards"), Psychics, Witches... arguably Warlocks.(...arguably Druids.)
• Rogue classes are best at Skills. Your bonuses are about stealth, "exploration," overcoming/avoiding hazards. Thieves, I easily submit Rangers, Acrobats, Assassins.
• Mystic classes are best at Support. Your bonuses are divided among various areas, often about bolstering others, protecting/defending against and dealing with specific situations (which may or may not include: combat or magic or exploration, etc...). Clerics, Bards, Magus/Spellsword types, arguably Druids, (I would submit arguably Warlocks, as well). A case could be made

This is not to say this is ALL the class is about or other classes can't be "good" in other areas. A Paladin, arguably, might be considered a "Mystic/Support class" because of their divine/magic/healing abilities. But it is not the archetype's primary role, definitely secondary to their position as an evil-smiting "warrior." But what a particular class is primarily about, what they are most effective at, what they have the most abilities built around.

A Thief/Rogue is going to have/get more skills-related stuff than other classes. A non-magic Ranger (which is my take/preferred default for the class) would easily fall into that category before/moreso (again, to my own thinking/preference) than the Warrior types.

Just my take.

 

[Staffan]

I don't know that any contention is necessary. Divergence, I suppose.

It's just a matter of how one prefers to categorize/view the bases of your classes. From my longstanding perspective...

• Warrior classes are best at Combat/"fighting." Your bonuses are about hitting, damage, taking/overcoming damage, using weapons and armor. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins...case can be made for Monks.
• Wizard classes are best at Magic. Your almost certainly have/use spells/supernatural powers, bonuses about knowing occult things, overcoming magical creatures and threats. Mages ("wizards"), Psychics, Witches... arguably Warlocks.(...arguably Druids.)
• Rogue classes are best at Skills. Your bonuses are about stealth, "exploration," overcoming/avoiding hazards. Thieves, I easily submit Rangers, Acrobats, Assassins.
• Mystic classes are best at Support. Your bonuses are divided among various areas, often about bolstering others, protecting/defending against and dealing with specific situations (which may or may not include: combat or magic or exploration, etc...). Clerics, Bards, Magus/Spellsword types, arguably Druids, (I would submit arguably Warlocks, as well). A case could be made

I would object to Rogues necessarily being the best at "skills", because skills is such a broad concept. I would submit that they should be the best at Exploration: mobility, awareness, stealth. But skills can also deal with social interaction or knowledge, and I don't necessarily think Rogues should be the best at those. And ideally, Rogues should have class abilities beyond skills that deal with exploration.

That said, I don't think exploration is a big enough niche to form the basis of several classes – modern D&D, at least, is fairly combat-centric with occasional exploration challenges (at least in terms of table time), so these characters need some combat oomph as well. And for that, the skirmisher/striker role mixes well with their exploration abilities (in theory).

In idle moments, I have considered having a system where each character not only has a background and a class as in D&D, but also a Job. This would make it so your class is primarily about what you do in combat, while your job is what you do out of it. So the classic Rogue could perhaps have the Skirmisher or Lurker class, with the ThiefInfiltrator job. A Ranger could be a Skirmisher or Archer with the Outdoorsperson job.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Aside from the increased damage to [poorly] so-called "giant class humanoids", a ranger was about using Skills.

I expect that kobolds are still a bit salty at no longer being considered giants. Maybe the goblins too.

 

[ECMO3]

In 1e my Rangers always wore plate mail. Once 2e gave them Hide in Shadows and Move Silently they wore studded leather.

They were always wilderness but 2e implied they were stealthy as well.

Agreed on 1E. In 2E did all Rangers get HIS and MS or only one of the kits?

In any case HIS and MS were both usually awful in 1E/2E for most of the game If you actually had to pick up a die and roll these you were typically going to fail, so my Rangers were generally in Plate for 2E as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

Explicit probably 3.5. The wilderrogue.

I can see the argument for 2E though.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Agreed on 1E. In 2E did all Rangers get HIS and MS or only one of the kits?

Was part of the base class; as long as the ranger was wearing studded leather or lighter.