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

[Zardnaar]

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

And Dexterity reduced the penalty for twf.

Without the fighters Handbook or similar and consenting DM Dexterity was only way to reduce the penalty iirc.

 

[GreyLord]

Let me clarify what I meant by wilderness "rogue". I did not just mean having wilderness skills. Of course they have always had those.

What I primarily meant was being closer in class function/role to a fragile "striker" rogue than to a "sturdy warrior". Secondarily, I include having lots of non-magical skills versus primarily shining as a warrior.

It's not a wilderness rogue you are looking at, but the term skirmisher.

I think the lightly armored started with 2e with the entire stealth and two weapon fighting requirements. That put an idea that the Rangers would not be as heavily armored as a fighter, but they were still not skirmishers.

I think this became twofold in how they became more like the Rogue, first with changes to the Ranger, and second, with changes to the Rogue that changed the Rogue from being a Thief type to more a skirmisher themselves.

The idea of them being more of a skirmisher rather than a straight up warrior like the Paladin or Fighter I feel started more with 3.5's version of the Ranger. Here you see the Ranger get less Hitpoints overall then other Warriors (even in 1e, when the Ranger had a d8 HD, they started with 2HD at first level which made them extremely sturdy starting off, and stayed pretty solidly with the other fighters for quite a while in the HP department. 3.5 defanged how tough rangers were in part by reducing the HD to a d8 and ONLY having ONE D8 at first level, thus making them less of a sturdy warrior than others in the same class). Add to that the usage that they mainly used lighter armors and they could not stand up in a direct fight as long as the other Warrior classes.

4e was where we see the Ranger become a solid skirmisher though. This is because the Rogue became a skirmisher and LOST what it was that made them a thief before hand.

The thief has almost always been misunderstood, at least from 2e onwards, with a lot of it starting with AD&D. In OD&D EVERYONE could Move Quietly, Hide behind things, climb cliffs, try to listen for noises, and other things. ONLY a Thief could do these things in almost a mystical manner. They didn't just roll for Moving Quietly, they could actually MOVE completely silently. They could meld into the shadow itself and hide IN A SHADOW of something. They could climb SHEER walls, and other almost magical things. In addition, the original thought is that unless they were challenged or had a challenging situation...THEY SUCCEEDED AUTOMATICALLY!!!

This idea was not effectively portrayed in the AD&D books that came later (and it's possible a lot of people didn't get this idea originally when the classes came out, but that's how it was meant to be played originally). Thus, instead of realizing that these abilities were on TOP of what every other class can do (I mean, come on...do you really think that none of you can try to play hide and seek or move quietly because you are not a thief?) already, they thought only a thief could do certain things. So that Move Silently covered everything on moving quietly. This wasn't helped with the idea that there was an instruction (was it in 2e or one of the BECMI sets?) that anyone could attempt to move silently or hide in shadows at the 1st level Thiefs' abilities.

However, the true dilution started in 3e where most classes, even if it were a cross classe skill, could take classic abilities that were only for a thief. Furthermore, they were not really mystical anymore. It was relegated to the idea of what USED to be considered moving quietly (which would have been a Dex check to see if you succeeded or not, a Thief could, in theory make a Move Silent roll, and if they failed that, then make a Dex check to see if they were moving quietly and if the enemies would be able to hear that). The thief skills were no longer unique and no longer as POWERFUL in any way to what they used to be. They were now...unlike what they were originally intended to be...mundane abilities anyone could really do overall.

Thiefs still kept their trap finding abilities though.

In addition though the Thief lost a lot of their uniqueness, they were buffed up combat wise by changing their backstab abilities into a sneak attack which, in the proper circumstances, allowed them to do more damage.

This was deserted in 4e where certain classes (the Warlock was one at least) that could get ALL the same skills as a Rogue. The Rogue had NO specific roll unique to them in that aspect anymore. Instead they were made more of a combat type character and categorized as a Strikers. They were placed in the same category as the Ranger. Thus, the Ranger and Rogue now shared a similar type of martial role together.

I see that this has continued into 5e, and so, the Ranger I feel is seen more as a skirmisher now rather than an armored warrior in the likes of what you'd see a Fighter, Paladin, or War Cleric. This is due to the role of the Thief itself (with the right background, anyone now can do what used to be relegated to what people saw the thief as doing) not having any really unique roles into itself except being more of a martial character that engaged behind the scenes. They can be also seen as a skill monkey, and though they may be better at skills in general, they don't get those specific skills all to themselves anymore. In addition, they got another combat buff with a higher HD. So now, Rogues are effectively more martial than they were before, and more similar in a role of a skirmisher, like the Ranger has become, than a heavily armored warrior.

The thing is that the Rogue and Ranger both became more of a skirmisher type (and you may be able to toss Monks into that as well, though Monks have done better at keeping their uniqueness than the other two) rather than what they originally were.

Many people today don't see a Ranger as the Aragorn type clad in heavy mail going to battle at the front of the troops, or even a heavily armored King's Woodsman that patrols the Kings forest against illegal activities, that have heavy woodland skills and woodland abilities as well to help them be warriors. They see him more as a bowman or two weapon fighter that has some wilderness abilities and is more of a druidic skirmisher rather than a full fledged woodsman warrior in their own right...at least for some. (Edit: Though you could certainly still try to take that idea of a Ranger in 5e that you did with the old 1e games previously if you want to, there are those that do not see it this way now).

So, if one is seeing a similarity between the Ranger and the Rogue these days, I think this basically summarizes HOW that evolution took place (at least in my current realm of thought, which can be changed by other posts and other ideas).

 

[teitan]

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?

Someone probably addressed this but the 1e Ranger had a D8 hit die, starting with 2 at 1st level.

Now in 2e the sneaky skills from the Thief were added to the ranger along with 2 weapon fighting, essentially giving them massive damage output very early with 2 attacks per round. The 1e Ranger was also sneaky, they surprised opponents about 50% of the time (1-3 on a d6). That's a much higher success rate than a low-mid level thief.

As a skirmisher it is also very inherent in the 1e Ranger, with their combat ability against "giant class" humanoids (which was A LOT of 1e monsters) where they got a +1 to damage for EVERY level they have attained as a ranger.

I seem to be one of the few that prefers 1e rangers. I feel like they had more flavor then instead of trying to pigeon hole into a role. I generally feel that way about 1-2e and BX/BECMI in general anyway. I even prefer the old school Half-orc where they aren't so much a brawler/barbarian but more thuggish type.

 

[teitan]

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.

1e Ranger was literally "Aragorn Class" and not John Wayne army rangers. They are similar but the Ranger was literally Aragorn, even looking at the level titles where level 3 is Strider.

 

[MerricB]

AD&D is a bit weird, because it's Gary's clean-up of the original Ranger (fan-created) rules for OD&D, which were very definitively based on Aragorn.

So, Joe Fischer created the ranger (first presented in The Strategic Review #2). They're always Lawful (the Law-Neutral-Chaos axis was the only alignment in those days). In the original system, they got 2d6 hit points at first level, and topping out at 10d6 at 9th level, plus 2 hp every level thereafter - or d8s using the Greyhawk system (which has fighters at d8 hit dice per level, so they are actually a bit tougher than fighters as originally designed).

Oh, and they get a +33% bonus to earned XP... independent of attribute scores (which gave a fighter a 10% bonus at max).

They have the ability to track, but no other wilderness skills. (They gain cleric & magic-user spells at high levels, and some interesting other high-level abilities, like using any healing magic items, or clairvoyance, clairaudience, esp, telepathy, TK, teleportation magic items... don't know where that last few come from!)

Gary keeps their HD at d8, but the fighter is bumped to D10. Now the druid exists, their spells are bumped from cleric to druid, and the list of magic items they can use is reduced significantly (to the more Aragorn-like clairaudience - telepathy chunk, which much all relate to the Palantir).

And 2E does even more surgery. Druid and Clerics now share the same spell lists, so Rangers get "clerical" spells from certain spheres. The "seeing" magic item list disappears out of their class description. For the first time, we get animal handling as an ability, and suddenly the ranger has special abilities (two-weapon fighting, stealth) only useable in light armour - as opposed to the plate-clad ranger of OD&D/1E.

It's probably the class that has most looked for an identity. Because a lot of the early attempts are "like a fighter, but better!" Later on, it becomes more of a wilderness warrior - expanding on what fits with tracking - while dropping Aragorn elements.

1E: "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying."

2E: "The ranger is a hunter and woodsman who lives by not only his sword, but also his wits. Robin Hood, Orion, Jack the giant killer, and the huntresses of Diana are examples of rangers from history and legend."

3E: "The forests and hills are home to fierce and cunning creatures, such as bloodthirsty owlbears and malicious displacer
beasts. But more cunning and powerful than these monsters is the ranger, a skilled hunter and stalker. He knows the woods as if they were his home (as indeed they are), and he knows his prey in deadly detail"

4E: "Rangers are watchful warriors who roam past the horizon to safeguard a region, a principle, or a way of life. Masters of bow and blade, rangers excel at hit-and-run assaults and can quickly and silently eliminate foes. Rangers lay superb ambushes and excel at avoiding danger."

5E: "Far from bustling cities, amid the trees of trackless forests and across wide plains, Rangers keep their unending watch in the wilderness. Rangers learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble."

(Some of this duplicated from earlier posts).

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Ashrym]

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.

Heavy armor would be expensive in terms of STR. 15 STR costs more than 14 DEX. Light armor or no armor costs even more in terms of DEX for the AC.

That doesn't mean much for a character who already focuses on STR or DEX, but for those who don't medium armor is on the low side of stat investment.

Cleric seems like a good example here. They have medium armor training and a class feature that gives them a choice for heavy armor training. If they're going to wear ring mail anyway they might as well stick with medium armor and breastplate or half plate. Otherwise they're looking at investing in STR for movement rates and possibly weight carried.

With the cleric example, the breastplate would have the same AC as the ringmail with no investment in either ability score. If the cleric is going to invest in an ability score like STR they can also invest in an ability score like DEX.

A bard or ranger, OTOH, is likely to invest in DEX regardless for some AC and possibly weapon attacks. If a ranger or valor bard plans on 20 DEX they'll eventually outgrow the medium armor, but it's effectively better in the meantime for much of the game. It also affords focusing on CHA or WIS first as well.

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.

I would claim Reliable Talent makes rogues the most skill oriented class in a capped DC system because of the low roll protection, however. It's not about the big numbers; it's about how often the roll succeeds on the 15 and 20 DC checks.

Rogues can very good as social skills because of it. ;-)

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.

Thieves got the list of thieving skills. All rangers got HS and MS. All bards got CW, DN, PP. It was like they both had some rogue-like traits but were split among the two classes compared to thieves.

Those abilities for the ranger had low percent chance of success, but by 11th level and up they were solid skills.

Spell casting, OTOH, was terrible for rangers. No spells until 8th level that were then cast as a 1st level caster, priest spells limited to the animal and plant domains on a chart that stopped at 3rd level spells, and a maximum 9th caster level at 16th level ranger.

This was the spell list from which to select for rangers:

• 1st level: Animal Friendship, Invisibility to Animals, Locate Animals or Plants; Entange, Pass Without Trace, Shillelagh
• 2nd level: Charm Person or Mammal, Messenger, Snake Charm, Speak with Animals; Barkskin, Goodberry, Trip, Warp Wood
• 3rd level: Hold Animal, Summon Insects; Plant Growth, Snare, Spike Growth, Tree

It wasn't much of a list. And...

Although the ranger can use any weapon and wear any armor, several of his special abilities are usable only when he is wearing studded leather or lighter armor.

They were two-weapon fighters often in light armor who could track, had some animal empathy, terrible spell casting, eventually got sneaky, and had a hated enemy.

It wasn't my idea of a fun class in that edition.

 

[Horwath]

Heavy armor would be expensive in terms of STR. 15 STR costs more than 14 DEX. Light armor or no armor costs even more in terms of DEX for the AC.

heavy armor users are in 99% melee STR hitters, even clerics.
so that cost is not a cost but normal ability progression.

for Barbarians and STRangers, Dex 14 is a real cost as it is a tertiary ability at best.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

heavy armor users are in 99% melee STR hitters, even clerics.
so that cost is not a cost but normal ability progression.

for Barbarians and STRangers, Dex 14 is a real cost as it is a tertiary ability at best.

I house ruled that you can use either Dex or Con for Medium armor. I've liked the results.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heavy armor would be expensive in terms of STR. 15 STR costs more than 14 DEX. Light armor or no armor costs even more in terms of DEX for the AC.

That doesn't mean much for a character who already focuses on STR or DEX, but for those who don't medium armor is on the low side of stat investment.

Cleric seems like a good example here. They have medium armor training and a class feature that gives them a choice for heavy armor training. If they're going to wear ring mail anyway they might as well stick with medium armor and breastplate or half plate. Otherwise they're looking at investing in STR for movement rates and possibly weight carried.

With the cleric example, the breastplate would have the same AC as the ringmail with no investment in either ability score. If the cleric is going to invest in an ability score like STR they can also invest in an ability score like DEX.

A bard or ranger, OTOH, is likely to invest in DEX regardless for some AC and possibly weapon attacks. If a ranger or valor bard plans on 20 DEX they'll eventually outgrow the medium armor, but it's effectively better in the meantime for much of the game. It also affords focusing on CHA or WIS first as well.



I would claim Reliable Talent makes rogues the most skill oriented class in a capped DC system because of the low roll protection, however. It's not about the big numbers; it's about how often the roll succeeds on the 15 and 20 DC checks.

Rogues can very good as social skills because of it. ;-)



Thieves got the list of thieving skills. All rangers got HS and MS. All bards got CW, DN, PP. It was like they both had some rogue-like traits but were split among the two classes compared to thieves.

Those abilities for the ranger had low percent chance of success, but by 11th level and up they were solid skills.

Spell casting, OTOH, was terrible for rangers. No spells until 8th level that were then cast as a 1st level caster, priest spells limited to the animal and plant domains on a chart that stopped at 3rd level spells, and a maximum 9th caster level at 16th level ranger.

This was the spell list from which to select for rangers:

• 1st level: Animal Friendship, Invisibility to Animals, Locate Animals or Plants; Entange, Pass Without Trace, Shillelagh
• 2nd level: Charm Person or Mammal, Messenger, Snake Charm, Speak with Animals; Barkskin, Goodberry, Trip, Warp Wood
• 3rd level: Hold Animal, Summon Insects; Plant Growth, Snare, Spike Growth, Tree

It wasn't much of a list. And...



They were two-weapon fighters often in light armor who could track, had some animal empathy, terrible spell casting, eventually got sneaky, and had a hated enemy.

It wasn't my idea of a fun class in that edition.

We were new and figured out the 2E ranger was bad. Since we allowed dual wielding via Fighters Handbook........

Saw the occasional Paladin Rangers I'm not sure we ever saw one. Lots of fighters.

These days I would probably run a 1.5 AD&D. Or 2.5 with some 1E elements.

 

[Ashrym]

heavy armor users are in 99% melee STR hitters, even clerics.
so that cost is not a cost but normal ability progression.

for Barbarians and STRangers, Dex 14 is a real cost as it is a tertiary ability at best.

99% of statistics are made up. Like that one.

The majority of medium armor wearers are already focused on DEX already too for various reasons. Clerics, however, need WIS and CON more than STR.

If barbarians and rangers want to focus on STR without DEX they do have the option to take Heavily Armored for heavy armor training and 1 point is STR instead of 2 points of STR on an ASI. If the player wants to not invest in DEX that seems like a lower investment. The medium armor is still there for ppl who don't want a big investment into STR.

We were new and figured out the 2E ranger was bad. Since we allowed dual wielding via Fighters Handbook........

Saw the occasional Paladin Rangers I'm not sure we ever saw one. Lots of fighters.

These days I would probably run a 1.5 AD&D. Or 2.5 with some 1E elements.

I look at what classes can do now compared to then, see complaints, and think "get offa my lawn" lol. ;-)

I had a lot of fun playing 2e but it was with fighters, wizards, and bards.