Ranger was a druid centric wilderness warrior/sbut sneaky in the wilderness in 1st ed. Strider roaming the realms in tolkiem and jack vance books is where it stadted
D&D General When and where did the idea of Ranger as "wilderness rogue" start?
- Thread starter Sword of Spirit
- Start date
I don't know if I would call them "druid centric" in 1e. They didn't get druid spells until 8th level (and the number of druid spells were pretty limited). By the point they receive druid spells, they were close to name level (level 10 for levels) which was generally assumed to be the point when a character retires (even if many of us did not play that way). Plus, at 9th level, they received magic-user spells so they were not limited to just druid spells.
1e rangers learned more druid spells than wizard spells and of a higher level, however; but they weren't really much for spell casters regardless. They also displayed "stealth" through the 1e surprise mechanic.
While 1e rangers were capable of wearing any armor, shields, and weapons, they still had a slightly slower extra attack progression compared to fighters and paladins. Then Unearthed Arcana mixed things up a bit where paladins became a subclass of cavalier, and it was rangers and barbarians who were subclasses of fighter. Rangers were allowed weapon specialization but were restricted in weapon proficiencies taken, requiring a bow or crossbow (but not both) early.
They were definitely a fighter subclass, but slightly removed from fighters. I think 1e Unearthed Arcana requirements (they also had less weapon proficiencies than fighters and barbarians) were the first step in moving rangers towards ranged weapons and subsequently dexterity.
The 2e rangers just took it a step further by giving benefits to rangers wearing light armor such as no penalties to two-weapon fighting and their hide in shadows / move silent scores. I think their animal empathy also falls into the skills category (modern version is animal handling) and tracking / woodsman (modern version is survival) to promote the lightly armored skilled warrior. The ranger had the same non-weapon proficiency slot as others in the warrior group but also had those bonus abilities and was allowed access to the wizard proficiency list where the paladin was allowed access to the priest proficiency list and the fighter was denied either.
The option for weapon specialization was also removed from the ranger and restricted to fighter only in 2e.
3.0 carried this forward more with the introduction of skill points, class skills, and cross-class skills. Rangers had a d10 hit die but no longer had the option for heavier armor. It was light armor, medium armor, and shields. They were also incentivized to wear light armor and no shield for two-weapon fighting as if they had the ambidexterity feat and two-weapon fighting feat for free, and later the improved two-weapon fighting feat.
3.5 added more skill points to the ranger and dropped the hit die to d8 and solidified only being proficient in light armor and shields, while both versions of 3.x also leaned more into spell casting where spells were available as early as 4th level with the half caster level calculation. They also focused on either archery or twf in that light armor for more of a damage vs tankiness feel.
4e had rangers and rogues both categorized as martial strikers with the same hit points. Rogues were proficient in cloth and leather armors while rangers were proficient in cloth, leather, and hide. Rogues were proficient in thievery and stealth plus four more skills. Rangers were proficient in nature or dungeoneering plus four more skills. Bards, for contrast, were proficient in chainmail and light shields as well (more heavily armored than rangers).
This is from the 2014 5e ranger:
Deadliness and stealth are things associated with rogues as well. These are still similar but going back up to a d10 hit die and adding medium armor plus shields back is reversing the trend back in the direction of 3e and 2e away from 3.5 and 4e as far as armor and hit die go. They still look like the idea is a skirmisher style leaning back towards warrior again.
From the 5.24 ranger:
The ranger still seems to behave similar to a wilderness striker, sneaking around tracking their quarry then attacking.
tldr; I gave it some thought and I think the similarities as a wilderness rogue have been there in most editions but they've become more pronounced as the game evolved. Mostly from 2e on. The pendulum actually seems like it's swinging back the other way a bit in 5e.
While 1e rangers were capable of wearing any armor, shields, and weapons, they still had a slightly slower extra attack progression compared to fighters and paladins. Then Unearthed Arcana mixed things up a bit where paladins became a subclass of cavalier, and it was rangers and barbarians who were subclasses of fighter. Rangers were allowed weapon specialization but were restricted in weapon proficiencies taken, requiring a bow or crossbow (but not both) early.
They were definitely a fighter subclass, but slightly removed from fighters. I think 1e Unearthed Arcana requirements (they also had less weapon proficiencies than fighters and barbarians) were the first step in moving rangers towards ranged weapons and subsequently dexterity.
The 2e rangers just took it a step further by giving benefits to rangers wearing light armor such as no penalties to two-weapon fighting and their hide in shadows / move silent scores. I think their animal empathy also falls into the skills category (modern version is animal handling) and tracking / woodsman (modern version is survival) to promote the lightly armored skilled warrior. The ranger had the same non-weapon proficiency slot as others in the warrior group but also had those bonus abilities and was allowed access to the wizard proficiency list where the paladin was allowed access to the priest proficiency list and the fighter was denied either.
The option for weapon specialization was also removed from the ranger and restricted to fighter only in 2e.
3.0 carried this forward more with the introduction of skill points, class skills, and cross-class skills. Rangers had a d10 hit die but no longer had the option for heavier armor. It was light armor, medium armor, and shields. They were also incentivized to wear light armor and no shield for two-weapon fighting as if they had the ambidexterity feat and two-weapon fighting feat for free, and later the improved two-weapon fighting feat.
3.5 added more skill points to the ranger and dropped the hit die to d8 and solidified only being proficient in light armor and shields, while both versions of 3.x also leaned more into spell casting where spells were available as early as 4th level with the half caster level calculation. They also focused on either archery or twf in that light armor for more of a damage vs tankiness feel.
4e had rangers and rogues both categorized as martial strikers with the same hit points. Rogues were proficient in cloth and leather armors while rangers were proficient in cloth, leather, and hide. Rogues were proficient in thievery and stealth plus four more skills. Rangers were proficient in nature or dungeoneering plus four more skills. Bards, for contrast, were proficient in chainmail and light shields as well (more heavily armored than rangers).
This is from the 2014 5e ranger:
Deadliness and stealth are things associated with rogues as well. These are still similar but going back up to a d10 hit die and adding medium armor plus shields back is reversing the trend back in the direction of 3e and 2e away from 3.5 and 4e as far as armor and hit die go. They still look like the idea is a skirmisher style leaning back towards warrior again.
From the 5.24 ranger:
The ranger still seems to behave similar to a wilderness striker, sneaking around tracking their quarry then attacking.
tldr; I gave it some thought and I think the similarities as a wilderness rogue have been there in most editions but they've become more pronounced as the game evolved. Mostly from 2e on. The pendulum actually seems like it's swinging back the other way a bit in 5e.
Druids having magic user style spells was a thing in a lot of fantasy back then. Rangers were written up in 1st ed to almost be the knights of the druidic world
Clint_L
Legend
I mained a ranger all through 1e, and he typically wore heavy plate, like every other PC ranger I encountered in 1e. He also used a great sword and a long bow as weapons of choice. This was very much in the tradition of Aragorn, who was skilled in the wilderness but a warrior and general, first and foremost, and armoured up for the big battles.
In 1e, rangers are not rogue adjacent at all, really, but subsequent editions changed that. So I found it interesting when 5e swerved back in the warrior direction: "warriors" is the first word in the class description, and they went back up to the same hit die as fighters and paladins (1e has them at D8s, but you get 2d8 at level 1 so it's basically a wash). 2024 seems to want to go slightly more in the rogue-ish direction.
In 1e, rangers are not rogue adjacent at all, really, but subsequent editions changed that. So I found it interesting when 5e swerved back in the warrior direction: "warriors" is the first word in the class description, and they went back up to the same hit die as fighters and paladins (1e has them at D8s, but you get 2d8 at level 1 so it's basically a wash). 2024 seems to want to go slightly more in the rogue-ish direction.
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Not rogue adjacent except to the extent that 1E says they're "a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying" and gives them superior chances of surprising enemies compared to other classes, which was the primary stealth mechanic in AD&D.
I don't think subsequent editions changed the concept so much as they did more and different things mechanically to represent the original concept. Apart from the bits which were "Aragorn, the class", that they deliberately moved away from.
I was so mindblown when I read the encounter charts in OD&D decades later and realized that "giant class" from the 1E Ranger description was just derived from the wilderness encounter table labeled "Giant Types", which was a list of monsters which mostly had zero in-world connection or commonality. It was just "you get a bonus vs the monsters which happen to appear on this chart; it's not simulating anything in particular from myth or fiction".
They were fully in warrior class it got fuzzy because in the wilderness they habe a flat 50% chance to surprise which in 1e was huuuuuge. You could get multiple full round attacks if the dice were food to you. One ranger with a perfect surprise round could take out 3 or 4 orcs easily if they hit with every attack.
A lot of DMs had a probel with metal armored warrior type and slowly they became more rogish over time and the we fpugjt back to warrior and now it's the never ending fight over what it should be
I'm firmly in the original warrior category.
A lot of DMs had a probel with metal armored warrior type and slowly they became more rogish over time and the we fpugjt back to warrior and now it's the never ending fight over what it should be
I'm firmly in the original warrior category.
Not rogue adjacent except to the extent that 1E says they're "a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying" and gives them superior chances of surprising enemies compared to other classes, which was the primary stealth mechanic in AD&D.
I don't think subsequent editions changed the concept so much as they did more and different things mechanically to represent the original concept. Apart from the bits which were "Aragorn, the class", that they deliberately moved away from.
I was so mindblown when I read the encounter charts in OD&D decades later and realized that "giant class" from the 1E Ranger description was just derived from the wilderness encounter table labeled "Giant Types", which was a list of monsters which mostly had zero in-world connection or commonality. It was just "you get a bonus vs the monsters which happen to appear on this chart; it's not simulating anything in particular from myth or fiction".
Clint_L
Legend
I think the original concept was kind of unclear and often contradictory (i.e. if they're supposed to be scouts, why do they not have penalties for wearing the heaviest armour possible?), and how they were played in practice was as tanky warriors who had some bonus abilities.
Similar Threads
