D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[DND_Reborn]

I honestly don't see how anyone could possibly play this class as written.

FWIW over the decades we played 1E/2E hybrid, I've played and seen played over a dozen cavalier and paladins (as a subclass of cavalier). They are a very powerful class in many ways and people play them because the restrictions encourage role-playing in a fun and (yes, sometimes) disruptive manner. It is a trade-off: the power and prestige of having a cavalier/paladin in a group vs. accepting and sometimes dealing with the blow-back of those restrictions.

One of the greatest PCs I've ever seen played in any of my games was a (cavalier) Paladin. The player made him awesome and the other players were really happy to take on secondary PCs in the roles of his retainers (the lower-level cavaliers he acquired). In the end, he was the forefront of the party in many ways, but had a small army (effectively) in tow. One of the best campaigns as well. We ended up playing it for nearly three years IRL.

 

[S'mon]

My initial instinct was the 4e PHB Martial Ranger, a nice class which knows exactly what it wants to be, but on reflection the messy-but-glorious 1e Ranger just edges it out.

Those are both strongly themed designs, albeit 4e is Legolas and 1e is Aragorn. By 5e Aragorn seems to have become a Paladin.

I'm not keen on the various "Druidy Wilderninja" takes on the class, and I think 5e making Ranger & Paladin into spellcasters from 2nd level was a huge design mistake. 1e & 4e are the ones I enjoy, even though they're very different, and I'm interested and pleased to see that they're also the ones leading the poll.

 

[dave2008]

I suspect there are some actual unhappy campers here that are genuinely upset that they haven't been given a D&D that is as mechanically tight as Go or Chess.

Well the chess rulebook is 416 pages and has the worst fluff and nothing about magic/spells or weapons, armor, and equipment. Maybe if the next PHB is 600 pages we can get there!

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not keen on the various "Druidy Wilderninja" takes on the class, and I think 5e making Ranger & Paladin into spellcasters from 2nd level was a huge design mistake. 1e & 4e are the ones I enjoy, even though they're very different, and I'm interested and pleased to see that they're also the ones leading the poll.

I think that s because it feels forced. Only 0e/1e and 4e designed the ranger from a "what would a ranger look like" perspective and not a "how you I fix/recreate the earlier edition's ranger" angle. 2e, 3e,and 5e ranger are just fixes.

For example,you see how forest focused the ranger is seen in design. No design has gone back and injected the concept of arctic rangers like the ASOIAF's Night's Watch into the class.

 

[glass]

Everyone had spells in 4e. They were just called powers instead of spells.

Given the actual mechanics of 4e compared with the spell mechanics in other editions, it woud be more accurate to say no classes had spell than all of them did. ETA: But I see @doctorbadwolf has already addressed that with you.

Anyway, on topic: None of the Rangers in the editions I played have really grabbed me. The 1e Ranger sounds interesting, but since I started with 2e I have never seen one in play.

_
glass.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well the chess rulebook is 416 pages and has the worst fluff and nothing about magic/spells or weapons, armor, and equipment. Maybe if the next PHB is 600 pages we can get there!

This is why Steve Jackson Games used the Chess OGL to produce Knightmare Chess and put all that stuff into the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Given the actual mechanics of 4e compared with the spell mechanics in other editions, it woud be more accurate to say no classes had spell than all of them did. ETA: But I see @doctorbadwolf has already addressed that with you.

Well, then that argument that no classes have spells would be absurd. Especially since 4e literally describes a power in the exact same way a spell has been described in other editions, and literally uses the word "magic" under the definition of certain power sources. And the last sentence for arcane power sources is "Arcane powers are called spells." So yeah, to argue that no class in 4e has spells seems pretty ridiculous and a silly argument to make.

Even under martial powers, it says "Martial powers are not magic in the traditional
sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the
capabilities of ordinary mortals."

So it's not unreasonable or unusual for someone to see how some powers works and even if they aren't "magical in the traditional sense", treat them as if they are magical in some sense. Otherwise the book would have said "these aren't magical at all" instead of "not in the traditional sense."

and more to the point, someone who views some of those supernatural powers similar to magic, shouldn't be immediately called hyperbolic, inferences that they aren't smart enough to understand, and deserves to be laughed at in riducule.

 

[glass]

Well, then that argument that no classes have spells would be absurd. Especially since 4e literally describes a power in the exact same way a spell has been described in other editions, and literally uses the word "magic" under the definition of certain power sources. So yeah, to argue that no class in 4e has spells seems pretty ridiculous and a silly argument to make

It would be a ridiculous argument. Good job I did not make it, isn't it? I said it was closer to true than your assertion, which it is, thereby demonstrating ably now uttery ludicrous your assertion was.

Also, powers are not described "the exact same way a spell has been described in other editions" (not even the ones that actually are spells, although they are obviously closer than the martial powers). Facts are facts, even when they get in the way of your edition warring.

_
glass.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It would be a ridiculous argument. Good job I did not make it, isn't it? I said it was closer to true than your assertion, which it is, thereby demonstrating ably now uttery ludicrous your assertion was.

Your assertion is objectively false to argue that it's closer, since it literally is false. it's objective, not subjective, because the book literally says those things are called spells. My position is that some people can view powers similar to spells. The fact that that is a subjective point, and not objectively proven false, means that what you're arguing is clearly the more ridiculous. Especially true since my subjective argument is also backed up be looking at what the definition of what magic is, and the context of what powers can do in 4e and what spells can do in other editions. At least my argument has supporting pieces behind it (definitions of words), and your is objectively false right out of the gate.

Also, powers are not described "the exact same way a spell has been described in other editions" (not even the ones that actually are spells, although they are obviously closer than the martial powers). Facts are facts, even when they get in the way of your edition warring.

_
glass.

Being able to bend reality to do supernatural acts is in fact how spells have been defined in other editions. So you're wrong on that as well. I'm also not edition warring at all. I've said that if people view 4e powers as not magical at all, that's fine. I have no issues with how 4e fans play or view the game. As I've repeated, my issue is with DBW calling others who do view powers similar to spells as being badwrong, ridiculous, and worthy of mockery. I haven't said anything remotely disparaging about 4e, so no edition warring. I've only pointed to how 4e defines things itself, and say how some people view powers as similar to spells.

Ironically, you're basically arguing that 4e fans should be able to insult other people who don't view 4e in the same way as they do and anyone not agreeing to be insulted is edition warring. So great job with that.

 

[Don Durito]

I think that s because it feels forced. Only 0e/1e and 4e designed the ranger from a "what would a ranger look like" perspective and not a "how you I fix/recreate the earlier edition's ranger" angle. 2e, 3e,and 5e ranger are just fixes.

For example,you see how forest focused the ranger is seen in design. No design has gone back and injected the concept of arctic rangers like the ASOIAF's Night's Watch into the class.

It's always bemused how very North American the assumptions behind Rangers tend to be - not just in design, but in assumptions during internet discussion i.e. wilderness = forest.