D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[Sacrosanct]

lol look at the battlemaster fighter, my dude. I'm not gonna repurchase books from my least favorite edition of DnD to confirm, but I know from memory that forced movement and knocking prone, sometimes with size restrictions sometimes without, or with scaling size restrictions, was a thing in 3/.5e as well.

And regardless of this one very specific example, even if you weren't exaggerating the supposed singularity of said example, the vast majority of martial powers are literally just damage dealing attacks, with secondary damage riders based on martial principles like "cutting the target real deep in a vulnerable place" or forced movement based in equally martial principles like "hitting limbs or otherwise unbalancing the target with the strike, causing them to move against their will".

If you were to watch a tv show, cartoon, or movie, with those moves being used by characters described as the game describes them, and tried to call them "spells", literally anyone you talked to would laugh at you. Rightly. It's a completely, laughably, absurd position.

If someone were to tell me, "You have a power that you can use once per day where you can shoot an arrow and knock that dragon backwards 20ft and knock it prone." and I said "Oh, like a spell would." And they laugh at me? They're pretty clearly a jerk.

Again, it's literally called a "power", and it does supernatural effects. End stop.

 

[Voadam]

I recall that in 3rd edition, just about anyone who wanted to dual-wield would dip into Ranger for a level just to pick up what would otherwise require a feat to get.

3.0.

In 3.5 you had to hit second level ranger before you could get it.

Similar for monks and evasion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ranger. First comes the Rrrrrr... then comes the Anger.

With the Outlander background, anyone can be a ranger now.

I kind of feel like 5e ranger should have some basic, reliable wilderness staples as part of their kit such as Nature and Survival proficiency as gimmes, as well as souped-up Outlander benefits. I'd rather have those than the weird Primeval Awareness, or the over-the-top, specialised, Natural Explorer, for example.

Even if they are passive benefits, it's nice to be able to say "I'll go and get us some food. You guys work on that camp camouflage I showed ya." It feels rangery. Even other Outlanders in the party should look to the ranger for advice, imo. The rangers are the specialists

It's jarring to have chosen maybe Stealth, Perception, and Athletics - all essential wilderness skills - then have the street-smart rogue have to tell the ranger not to touch that flower because it's poisonous.

These are great points. I personally think that it's reasonable to add Survival and Nature to the ranger without losing anything, and to extend most of Natural Explorer to all terrain, keeping only the "you just can't get lost here" type stuff siloed, and then give each terrain a bonus that is useful regardless of terrain, maybe in the form o the ranger being able to extend buffs to their allies, like giving everyone the ability to ignore difficult terrain (requires concentration as you are focusing on helping your allies) for forest rangers, etc.

Or, as I said when the UA variant features came out, just add all of the replacement features proposed for the ranger as enhancements instead.

except favored foe. Instead of that, I'd give each favored enemy type a combat buff that is broadly useful, like advantage on stealth against larger foes, advantage on intimidation against groups when at least one of their allies has been dropped, advantage against fear effects and the ability to help an ally overcome their fear, etc.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If someone were to tell me, "You have a power that you can use once per day where you can shoot an arrow and knock that dragon backwards 20ft and knock it prone." and I said "Oh, like a spell would." And they laugh at me? They're pretty clearly a jerk.

Again, it's literally called a "power", and it does supernatural effects. End stop.

Wow. Okay, man, if you wanna insist on this complete nonsense I can't stop you. Free country and all that.

"Supernatural effects". Sure. I mean, no, but sure.

If I described that to you, and you said "like a spell" I'd look at you like you'd asked me if peanut butter was made of turnip leaves. And then either laugh or roll my eyes, depending on whether I thought you were joking. Because it's a completely silly connection to make.

 

[David Howery]

only played 1E and 2E, vote for 1E. Have some fond memories of playing rangers in those days, took one from 1st to 15th level. One of the big things in it's favor was that '2d8 hp at first level'... especially with the 'max hp at 1st level' house rule that so many of us used. While having 'only' a d8 for hp after that was a disadvantage at higher levels vs. other fighters, in 1E, just surviving past 1st level to get to those higher levels was always a challenge. Plus, the '+1 damage/level vs. humanoids' was always handy in 1E, when there were so fewer types of monsters around and humanoids were common.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wow. Okay, man, if you wanna insist on this complete nonsense I can't stop you. Free country and all that.

"Supernatural effects". Sure. I mean, no, but sure.

If I described that to you, and you said "like a spell" I'd look at you like you'd asked me if peanut butter was made of turnip leaves. And then either laugh or roll my eyes, depending on whether I thought you were joking. Because it's a completely silly connection to make.

You honestly think that being able to knock a dragon backwards 20ft and knock them prone with an arrow is not a supernatural effect? And you're accusing me of being hyperbolic?

And you think it's hyperbolic to consider these two things as similar:

1. Spell: something that results in a magical power (MW definition)

and

2. A "power" that grants an inhuman or supernatural effect

They literally are using the same word (power) in the same context. yeah, OK. I'm done here.

 

[Tonguez]

The best Ranger has always been a druid

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You honestly think that being able to knock a dragon backwards 20ft and knock them prone with an arrow is not a supernatural effect? And you're accusing me of being hyperbolic?

And you think it's hyperbolic to consider these two things as similar:

1. Spell: something that results in a magical power (MW definition)

and

2. A "power" that grants an inhuman or supernatural effect

They literally are using the same word (power) in the same context. yeah, OK. I'm done here.

If you can't get past the game-jargon name"power", this was never a real discussion to begin with. You were done before we began.

edit: I guess every fighter who can carry more than a real human could while running at a healthy jogging speed is also casting a spell?

The rogue whose tiny daggers can eviscerate the same dragon must surely be casting a spell every time they attack, yes?

No, of course not. And likewise no, shooting a dragon and knocking it off balance so that it falls back a short distance and falls prone is also very, very, clearly not a spell.

 

[Umbran]

If you can't get past the game-jargon name"power", this was never a real discussion to begin with. You were done before we began.

Mod Note:

Let's not make this personal, please and thank you.

 

[Helldritch]

I voted 1e AD&D.

It has the most interesting, flavorful, and effective implementation of the class.

Before Drizzt came along and ruined it for everyone.

Drizzt did not ruined the ranger. Its popularity did.
Two weapon weilding rangers were already a thing even in 1ed before Drizzt came along.
The only problem, is that the character became so popular that everyone wanted to emulate what he could do. Which is what lead to the total transformation of the ranger.

The ranger should still be a subclass of the fighter or at least have more "fighter" type powers. That the ranger lost wizard spell is not really a big for me. But the heavy armor loss is a big thing. Bonus damage vs enemy type should never have been dropped. And the ranger should have had about a max of 2 or 3 enemy type. The UA did a good job on that. Take the general pick on the ranger and ignore the conclave and only take the subclass as written in the PHB and whatever book you use. We removed concentration from Hunter's mark and the beast can now be commanded with a bonus action. All these made a quite acceptable ranger.