D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[jmartkdr2]

Not technically D&D, but the only ranger I really enjoyed was 13th Age's take on the idea with mix-and-match elements.

 

[Shiroiken]

Despite a lot of the complications of 1E, I feel they did the best job with the Ranger overall. It was very useful in wilderness exploration, which was fairly uncommon but normally deadly. In combat it was almost as good as the fighter, and even got weapon specialization in Unearthed Arcana just like the fighter did. The late spellcasting allowed them to diversify a bit when facing harder challenges.

Outside of 1E... I think 5E did the best job, as even though it's the overall weakest class, the difference isn't nearly as noticeable as in prior editions. 2E and 3E had problems due to the method of non-weapon proficiency/skills used in the edition, which really hampered a lot of concepts. The 4E "ranger" was mechanically fine, but completely lacked any feel of the ranger class to date.

 

[billd91]

I voted 1e.

The 2e ranger was a crashing disappointment compared to 1e. It went from having some good, reliable abilities to weaker ones limited by unreliable die rolls.

The first crack 3e took at it was similarly feeble, but the 3.5 iteration was a significant improvement. PF1 takes it a step further and I might have chosen it if a specific choice.

The 4e version was probably one of my favorite parts of 4e, but wasn’t enough to save the overall edition for me.

In 5e, my players are having fun with their rangers. But I do think the beast master needs work.

What I have a hard time understanding is just how designers lurch around with the ranger from edition to edition. Maybe it‘s linked to ranger abilities being so focused around elements that can be so campaign dependent and how much the designers for the current iteration trust DMs to incorporate the things that make a particular ranger worthwhile.

 

[Lanefan]

1e all the way. The class has more or less been crap ever since.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Essentials Ranger options made the 4e PHB Ranger into a real Ranger, for me. With those Utility Powers and using a feat to gain Wilderness Knacks, and the Fey Beast Tamer Theme or the maligned but perfectly functional Beast Companion, I could finally make a Ranger that did everything I’d been wanting the Ranger to do since I first got disappointed by the D&D ranger in 2e and 3/.5.

 

[Sacrosanct]

2e. It cleaned up the oddities of 1e and kits added a ton of flavor.

 

[Voadam]

4e. Playing one felt competent at a cool niche (striker) with lots of fun mechanical elements. Not a supernatural nature paladin, but a cool competent low armor alternative fighter.

 

[Raith5]

I have played a ranger in 1e, 4e and 5e (Horizon Walker). I really liked (and miss) the mobility and defensive tricks of 4e, especially Disruptive Strike and Combined Fire. I am finding the 5e Horizon Walker pretty good as well.

 

[payn]

Technically, 3E I guess, but my fave is the Pathfinder Ranger. So I voted other.

I enjoyed the mix of combat and environment choices. I could go bow, two weapon, or even two handed. Pets were ok and a nice option if you wanted it. Front loading and ala carte multiclass are some of my favorite bits of 3E, and this class delivered in 3E/PF.

 

[Minigiant]

I Can't Choose Just One:

The 1e ranger showed you how a ranger was supposed to campaign
The 2e ranger showed you how a ranger was supposed to look
The 3e ranger showed you how a ranger was supposed to use skill
The 4e ranger showed you how a ranger was supposed to fight