D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[glass]

Using "objectively" and "literally" a lot does not make things you say actually objective or literal (or true). Power in 4e include martial powers, which are explicitly described as non-magical. Spells have always been decribed as magical. Ergo, Powers != spells. QED.

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.

You did not say similar to spells. You said everybody, even Slayer Fighters, literally had spells. That is ridiculous on its face. And @doctorbadwolf was responding to your saying that, not the other way around, so you do not get to blame them for the hole you've dug yourself.

And yes, I do consider edition warring wrongbadfun. Not going to apologise for that.

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. So great job with that.

I never insulted you personally, I pointed out that something you said was untrue. Because it was. Then you doubled down, so I called you on that too.

_
glass.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

Another reason I like (at least conceptually) Baldur's Gate 3's take on the Ranger.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Using "objectively" and "literally" a lot does not make things you say actually objective or literal (or true). Power in 4e include martial powers, which are explicitly described as non-magical. Spells have always been decribed as magical. Ergo, Powers != spells. QED.

When I use the term objectively and literally, that's in reference the passage in the book itself that describes powers and spells. Therefore, it is objectively wrong to say that it's closer to say no one had spells in 4e than to say everyone has them, because that's what objective and literal mean. Do you want the page # where it describes that too?

And again, it does not describe marital powers as non-magical. It says "non magical in the traditional sense." That means they are in some some sense, otherwise that sentence would never be written like that. Especially at the end of that sentence when it describes them as being superhuman and reality bending.

You did not say similar to spells. You said everybody, even Slayer Fighters, literally had spells. That is ridiculous on its face. And @doctorbadwolf was responding to your saying that, not the other way around, so you do not get to blame them for the hole you've dug yourself.

And yes, I do consider edition warring wrongbadfun. Not going to apologise for that.

The only ones edition warring are you and DBW. Don't you get that? I'm not disparaging 4e at all. it's him, and now backed by you, who are accusing others of being badwrong, ridiculous, worthy of mockery for viewing some 4e powers as spells. That's you making that judgment, not me. Not once have I ever said someone is baddwrong or worth mocking for choosing to not view 4e powers as magic.

I never insulted you personally, I pointed out that something you said was untrue. Because it was. Then you doubled down, so I called you on that too.

_
glass.

No, DBW insulted me personally, and you've been bending over backward to defend him by arguing the same thing, and by insulting anyone else who views some 4e powers as similar to spells based on how they are described and what they do. So you might want to look in the mirror there, glass.

 

[glass]

No, DBW insulted me personally, and you've been bending over backward to defend him by arguing the same thing, and by insulting anyone else who views some 4e powers as similar to spells based on how they are described and what they do. So you might want to look in the mirror there, glass.

I responded to you before I had even seen that DBW did likewise, so I was certainly not doing it to defend them. I you feel DBW has insulted you, take that up with them. I am not sure why you are trying to hold me responsible for their words just because we both disagree with your assertion. And again, you did not say "similar to spells", you said all classes had spells. Power Strike (the only attack power a Slayer has) adds an extra die of damage to weapon attacks. According to you, that is a spell. EDIT: In the interests of full disclosure, they do also get Fighter utility powers, but since DDi is gone I cannot look them up. Nonetheless, I do not recall any being particularly spell-like.

Now maybe you meant it as hyperbole and did not realise it was a common edition warrior talking point, which is why my response to you was a fairly light-hearted comparison. It was only after you doubled down that I started to push back a little harder (but still all about what you actually said, and not you personally).

EDIT2: The derail has gone on more than long enough. Can I suggest we drop it now?

_
glass.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I think for a lot of that, the natural explorer:Arctic would be how the designers assumed an Arctic ranger would be defined. While I do agree that the popular image of a ranger is a forest ranger, nothing in the current class really defines it as a forest warrior.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

DBW insulted me personally

No, I didn't.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, I didn't.

You got modded for making it personal.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I don't see how the assumptions are North American as North America has a lot of nonforest wilderness. A lot of it.

I think for a lot of that, the natural explorer:Arctic would be how the designers assumed an Arctic ranger would be defined. While I do agree that the popular image of a ranger is a forest ranger, nothing in the current class really defines it as a forest warrior.

Actually the whole class is defined as a forest ranger.

Armor: Defaulting to light and medium armor leans forest. Arctic rangers would wear heavy armor to protect from the cold and stealth would be less of an issue as there is a lot less of it in the snow. Desert rangers might not wear armor at all and have Unarmored Defense.

Weapons: Archery and TWF are tilted to forests. The lack of Great weapon focus that would lean to mountain and hill rangers is lost.

Spells: Sea, sand, and snow spells always come to ranger very later in an edition's life cycle.

Features: Although they work, sand, snow, and water are not mentioned directly in ranger class features.

DMG: Natural hazards and challenges in the arctic, desert, coast, and swamp are barely mentioned. This further tilts how rangers are seen.

This is why I'm currently the option voter for the last option. Every edition's ranger to me is way too narrow in scope.

Currently, I'm working of a class feature variant to replace fighting styles that changes how a ranger fights based on their favored enemies and terrain.

Another reason I like (at least conceptually) Baldur's Gate 3's take on the Ranger.

BGS'sroute is okay for a video game but still bad for an RPG

 

[Don Durito]

Even something as simple as the undervaluing of Athletics. It's interesting that of the skills that have been mentioned in this thread as essential for Ranger, Athletics has seen barely a mention. And it's difficult to make a 5e Ranger that is particularly good at athletics*. Yet for a ranger in the mountains, climbing should be mandatory. A ranger in any kind of grassland needs the ability to run long distances. I guess it sticks out for me that my longest campaigns playing Rangers have both been in Dark Sun (2E and 4E).

*The optimisation guides for Rangers seem to say not to both taking Athletics - which just seems bizarre to me - most of my games tend to feature mountains as the main source of wilderness, so a Ranger who cannot climb is just not going to be an effective scout - and being able to make difficult climbs to get a good vantage point over something like an enemy camp or stronghold is incredibly useful.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't see how the assumptions are North American as North America has a lot of nonforest wilderness. A lot of it.



Actually the whole class is defined as a forest ranger.

Yeah, I think it's more European influence/assumption than North American. And I do agree that it seems to be built with a forest assumption. Not disagreeing with that.

Armor: Defaulting to light and medium armor leans forest. Arctic rangers would wear heavy armor to protect from the cold and stealth would be less of an issue as there is a lot less of it in the snow. Desert rangers might not wear armor at all and have Unarmored Defense.

Weapons: Archery and TWF are tilted to forests. The lack of Great weapon focus that would lean to mountain and hill rangers is lost.

But I do disagree with this. Ranger is a light, fast moving warrior with hit and run tactics. Regardless of terrain, the ability to move quickly and stealthily is the rangers deal. Arctic means hide armor, not heavy armor. Ever touched metal in freezing weather? It would be avoided. It's a heat sink, even if you have padded underneath. And believe it or not, stealth is just as applicable in the snow as anywhere else. Just ask the 10th mountain division (who borrowed a lot from the Norwegian fighters in WWII). Also, I don't see how a mountain or hill ranger would use a great weapon over the traditional weapons. Light and being mobile are important, and huge weapons are heavy and slow.

I've done enough road marches and tactical maneuvering in the army, in all environments, to know that it's not just forest that would lend to lighter armor and weapons.

Edit For example, the plains Native Americans didn't use heavy weapons. They were still very much focused on light weapons and mobility.