Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Musing Mage" data-source="post: 8116765" data-attributes="member: 7025552">1st Ed Ranger, bar none for me.My 1st ed game has always had a Ranger, and even moreso than a cleric, the players view the Ranger as highly valued. Most of them hope to stat for a Ranger if their current characters die - one other is even bringing in a Ranger/Cleric on the next go. (1e Ranger/Clerics are potent AF - this is the 3rd player to run one) Their ability to reduce the chances of surprise alone is worth having the character along, the rest is frosting on the cupcake.Later edition Rangers have their place, so I don't quite go along with the notion that because they aren't 1st Ed Rangers they are therefore useless... even the core PHB 5E Ranger is decent enough if a DM isn't removing or diminishing the wilderness exploration portion of the game (In every 5e game I've played, it seems that the DM has always handwaved wilderness travel to get right to the meat of their carefully planned story, so Rangers get hamstrung in that bargain) - but ultimately the 1st Ed Ranger did it best. Mechanically they have unique skills, comparable combat prowess to the fighter, and a killer bonus against Humanoids and Giant Class creatures that scales with level. The core class is versatile enough that a player can customize the rest how they like - you're not pigeonholed into the lightly armoured archer, or dual-wielder (or both) that later editions seem to want all Rangers to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Musing Mage, post: 8116765, member: 7025552"] 1st Ed Ranger, bar none for me. My 1st ed game has always had a Ranger, and even moreso than a cleric, the players view the Ranger as highly valued. Most of them hope to stat for a Ranger if their current characters die - one other is even bringing in a Ranger/Cleric on the next go. (1e Ranger/Clerics are potent AF - this is the 3rd player to run one) Their ability to reduce the chances of surprise alone is worth having the character along, the rest is frosting on the cupcake. Later edition Rangers have their place, so I don't quite go along with the notion that because they aren't 1st Ed Rangers they are therefore useless... even the core PHB 5E Ranger is decent enough if a DM isn't removing or diminishing the wilderness exploration portion of the game (In every 5e game I've played, it seems that the DM has always handwaved wilderness travel to get right to the meat of their carefully planned story, so Rangers get hamstrung in that bargain) - but ultimately the 1st Ed Ranger did it best. Mechanically they have unique skills, comparable combat prowess to the fighter, and a killer bonus against Humanoids and Giant Class creatures that scales with level. The core class is versatile enough that a player can customize the rest how they like - you're not pigeonholed into the lightly armoured archer, or dual-wielder (or both) that later editions seem to want all Rangers to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification