Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9474844" data-attributes="member: 6750235">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.</blockquote>

Verification