D&D General Which Edition Had the Best Ranger?

[Undrave]

And... I might have no chance to deny the book access to my hands. Our Fridaynight D&D is not AL stuff. BUT it is following AL rules to the letter (well, as we understand them) as the store owner wants us to do it that way. Yes it does give the store owner free publicity and to us it helps the hobby to constantly grow with new blood. So in a sense, it might not impact my table but it will impact it at our FN D&D. And you know how it is to play with two different rule sets... It is not cool, man not cool.

Ho and by the way. My players absolutely loved the Depths of Felk Mor.

What are you worried about in regard to Tasha's anyway? That SCAAAARY spell versatility is apparently out, and nothing in there is particularly broken from what we know. A lot of stuff got nerfed, like the Favored Foe option.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ho and by the way. My players absolutely loved the Depths of Felk Mor.

Yay! That makes my day. Having people enjoy it is really the ultimate goal and compliment. Hopefully they didn't find all the cheesy 80s pop culture references too overwhelming lol. The couple of groups I had ran it through found the "Gods of Rock" reference and the West Side Story references to be their favorites.

It's not every campaign where you take Lovecraft and encounter a bit of Tears For Fears, Rush, and Conan the Barbarian along the way

 

[Helldritch]

Yay! That makes my day. Having people enjoy it is really the ultimate goal and compliment. Hopefully they didn't find all the cheesy 80s pop culture references too overwhelming lol. The couple of groups I had ran it through found the "Gods of Rock" reference and the West Side Story references to be their favorites.

It's not every campaign where you take Lovecraft and encounter a bit of Tears For Fears, Rush, and Conan the Barbarian along the way

Some of these references I had to adapt to my group (we're French Canadian). But I loved them anyway.

 

[Helldritch]

What are you worried about in regard to Tasha's anyway? That SCAAAARY spell versatility is apparently out, and nothing in there is particularly broken from what we know. A lot of stuff got nerfed, like the Favored Foe option.

I did not want nerfs. If that horrible spell versatility is really out, it is a glorious day for D&D. Yet, all the fuzzy stuff about races will be there. (look the thread on custom origins). I want things that add to the game. Not stuff that removes or nerf. Again, that book looks a lot like an improvised thing made to calm accusations of racism and to cater to a very vocal portion by doing stuff which have not been playtested or not have been playtested enough.

 

[Lanefan]

2e's Voadkyn (from Monstrous Compendium 5 for Greyhawk and later the Monstrous Manual) not classic enough for you?

Wouldn't know - I never* got the 2e Monstrous Manual, nor that Greyhawk compendium.

* - truth be told I seem to remember once having a 2e monster binder, but as I haven't seen it in decades I'm not sure it was ever mine to begin with; I may have just borrowed it from someone.

 

[Bacon Bits]

They're been testing the subclasses for like... 2 years or something??? And a bunch of stuff is reprints from other books.

Yeah, essentially everything in that book has been seen before and surveyed on through UA. Everything has different power levels and not everything is appropriate for every table, but there's no reason to reject Tasha's like it was 1e UA.

 

[Bacon Bits]

We took Cavaliers (and how do you see them as any more disruptive than Paladins?)

Because they're even stupider. Have you read the class recently? It's quite unplayable.

They essentially can't use missile weapons. "Weapons that deal out damage at a distance (including pole arms, missile weapons, and the two-handed sword) call into question the cavalier’s personal bravery, and as such are avoided by all except the most powerful of cavaliers. The cavalier may use these questionable weapons at normal non-proficiency penalties, but their use may violate the character’s chivalric code." You can't even get proficient in a bow until like 18th level!

Their code of behavior is far, far more rigid. The code of behavior is not like the Paladin's "be just and good". It's "be a massive prick and a self-righteous, noble-born jerk."

Check out the code. I've bolded all the ones that frequently cause party conflict and which didn't exist in the original Paladin:

The code for a feudal campaign may be summed up as follows. The DM may adjust this code to fit his or her own campaign.

• Noble service cheerfully rendered
• Defense of any charge unto death
• Courage and enterprise in obedience to rule
• Respect for all peers and equals
• Honor to all above your station
• Obedience and respect from all beneath your station
• Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes knightly limitations on weapons and armor)
• Military prowess exercised in service to your lord
• Courtesy to all ladies (if the cavalier is male)
• War is the flowering of chivalry
• Battle is the test of manhood
• Combat is glory
• Personal glory above all in battle
• Death to all who oppose the cause
• Death before dishonor

In enforcing this code, the DM may reduce or eliminate experience that is gained by the cavalier if its gaining violates the spirit or letter of the code. A cavalier who retreats from battle, even to save fellow party members, would receive half experience for the beasts slain in his or her retreat. Similarly, a cavalier who dons leather armor to infiltrate a thieves guild to effect a rescue will gain no experience, since the rescue would be done in means not approved
of by the code. Note that even neutral and evil cavaliers are bound by this code, but in their cases the obedience is to non-good masters.

That first one, "obedience and respect from all beneath your station," is kind of a significant issue. Since the class all but requires you to be noble-born and highly favored, everyone else in the party is going to be beneath your station!

And their limitation in battle is even worse (again, with the problematic bits bolded):

As a result of the code and desire for battle, cavaliers cannot be controlled in battle situations. They will charge any enemy in sight, with the following order of preference:

1. Powerful monsters (dragons, demons, giants, etc.) serving enemy leaders, then the leaders themselves.
2. Opponent cavaliers of great renown, enemy flags and standards.
3. Opponent cavalry of noble or elite status
4. Other opponent cavalry
5. Opponent elite footmen
6. Opponent camp and headquarters
7. Opponent melee troops
8. Levies or peasants

The cavalier’s charge will be made at full speed, regardless of army cohesion, intervening friendly troops, or other such considerations.

That last line is particularly irritating because cavaliers like to use warhorses and lances. I honestly don't see how anyone could possibly play this class as written.

All excerpts are from the class description in 1e's Unearthed Arcana.

 

[cmad1977]

Because I’ve never seen more rangers in play in this edition, by FAR, than in any other edition I’ve run or played in I’d have to say...

5e.

 

[ccs]

Yeah, essentially everything in that book has been seen before and surveyed on through UA. Everything has different power levels and not everything is appropriate for every table, but there's no reason to reject Tasha's like it was 1e UA.

The only thing we ever rejected from UA 1e was the Thief-Acrobat. In fact, that's the only non-1e OA class I've never seen used.

 

[Lanefan]

Because they're even stupider. Have you read the class recently? It's quite unplayable.

They essentially can't use missile weapons. "Weapons that deal out damage at a distance (including pole arms, missile weapons, and the two-handed sword) call into question the cavalier’s personal bravery, and as such are avoided by all except the most powerful of cavaliers. The cavalier may use these questionable weapons at normal non-proficiency penalties, but their use may violate the character’s chivalric code." You can't even get proficient in a bow until like 18th level!

This part I'm fine with - it forces them into either mounted combat or sword-and-board melee.

Their code of behavior is far, far more rigid. The code of behavior is not like the Paladin's "be just and good". It's "be a massive prick and a self-righteous, noble-born jerk."

Check out the code. I've bolded all the ones that frequently cause party conflict and which didn't exist in the original Paladin:

The code for a feudal campaign may be summed up as follows. The DM may adjust this code to fit his or her own campaign.

• Noble service cheerfully rendered
• Defense of any charge unto death
• Courage and enterprise in obedience to rule
• Respect for all peers and equals
• Honor to all above your station
• Obedience and respect from all beneath your station
• Scorn for those who are lowly and ignoble (this includes knightly limitations on weapons and armor)
• Military prowess exercised in service to your lord
• Courtesy to all ladies (if the cavalier is male)
• War is the flowering of chivalry
• Battle is the test of manhood
• Combat is glory
• Personal glory above all in battle
• Death to all who oppose the cause
• Death before dishonor

In enforcing this code, the DM may reduce or eliminate experience that is gained by the cavalier if its gaining violates the spirit or letter of the code. A cavalier who retreats from battle, even to save fellow party members, would receive half experience for the beasts slain in his or her retreat. Similarly, a cavalier who dons leather armor to infiltrate a thieves guild to effect a rescue will gain no experience, since the rescue would be done in means not approved
of by the code. Note that even neutral and evil cavaliers are bound by this code, but in their cases the obedience is to non-good masters.

Keep in mind this was also incorporating the Paladin's code, as in UA Paladins were made a sub-class of Cavalier.

My guess is the writers naively expected the other party members to be treated as 'peers and equals' rather than 'beneath your station'. But, just like any other bit of 1e that try to overly restrict how one roleplays (e.g. hard-line alignment rules) it's best to just treat these as guidelines.

It also assumes Cavaliers will be hard-line Lawful Good, even though Cavaliers had a much broader scope of permitted alignments than did Paladins (I think only NE, CE and CN were banned). Those codes don't do any justice to the 'Black Knight' concept, which was an option for how to play a Cavalier.

That first one, "obedience and respect from all beneath your station," is kind of a significant issue. Since the class all but requires you to be noble-born and highly favored, everyone else in the party is going to be beneath your station!

And their limitation in battle is even worse (again, with the problematic bits bolded):

As a result of the code and desire for battle, cavaliers cannot be controlled in battle situations. They will charge any enemy in sight, with the following order of preference:

1. Powerful monsters (dragons, demons, giants, etc.) serving enemy leaders, then the leaders themselves.
2. Opponent cavaliers of great renown, enemy flags and standards.
3. Opponent cavalry of noble or elite status
4. Other opponent cavalry
5. Opponent elite footmen
6. Opponent camp and headquarters
7. Opponent melee troops
8. Levies or peasants

The cavalier’s charge will be made at full speed, regardless of army cohesion, intervening friendly troops, or other such considerations.

That last line is particularly irritating because cavaliers like to use warhorses and lances. I honestly don't see how anyone could possibly play this class as written.

I've done it, and seen it done.

It needs a party run by Captain Kirk rather than Captain Picard, to be sure, as diplomacy with these guys is often pretty much off the table. But if you put the Cavvy in the lead such that his-her charge won't trample anyone else in the party, chances are you'll be OK.

That said, one of the best literary examples of a Cavalier I've ever seen is Mandorallen from Eddings' Belgariad series. Play a Cavalier as if it's him and you can't really go wrong. The trick is to have someone in the party that the Cavalier looks up to as a leader and whose orders s/he will follow; this gets around the 'cannot be controlled' bit.