Which Ranger do you prefer, the original 1E ranger or the UA ranger?

[Valiant]

I have to go with the original myself. I appreciate Gygax's logic with the UA changes (esp. the thief like abilities given the surprise bonuses) but I don't get the impression the ranger moves around in the same way as a thief (incorporating woodland knowledge etc.).

 

[WSmith]

The ranger in the PHB. As I am no fan of UA to begin with, it should be no surprise that I don't care for the UA ranger.

 

[smootrk]

I used the PHB ranger with a few optional things from an old issue of Dragon Magazine, namely some stuff associated with the type of terrain the ranger hails from... but I have not looked at this stuff in oh so long!

 

[Corathon]

I have to go with the original myself. I appreciate Gygax's logic with the UA changes (esp. the thief like abilities given the surprise bonuses) but I don't get the impression the ranger moves around in the same way as a thief (incorporating woodland knowledge etc.).

What "thief like abilities" are you talking about?
Are you thinking of the 2E ranger?
I prefer the UA ranger.

 

[WayneLigon]

I can't say I was ever aware he offered a variant ranger class in UA. We so seldom used or allowed content from that book that I could have easily overlooked it. What were the salient changes?

 

[Turanil]

All I see with the UA ranger is that they are allowed weapon specialization, and that Tracking gets expanded rules. The ranger really changed with 2e, getting move silent and hide skills when in wilderness.

 

[T. Foster]

There are no thief abilities for rangers in UA. The most substantive change to the ranger class in UA was the stricture that they had to choose among a certain subset of weapons for their initial proficiencies and weren't allowed to go outside that group until they had one from each group (which wouldn't be until 7th level, or higher if the ranger was a weapon-specialist). I never had any problem with this rule, especially in the context of the other UA classes (cavaliers and barbarians (and, later, hunters) also had mandated proficiencies that they had to take before being able to choose other weapons). The only other changes to the ranger in UA were the addition of weapon specialization (which is a big change that drastically alters the shape of the game, but since it's actually a change to the fighter and not the ranger specifically I'm not counting it), the more detailed tracking rules (which are probably unnecessarily complex, but not offensively so), and the extended list of "giant class" creatures (including those from FF and MM2).

All the big flavor-altering changes to the ranger -- two-weapon fighting, thief skills, prohibition on heavy armor, "to hit" bonus against "favored enemy" of player's choice instead of damage bonus vs. giant class, (more? -- it's been ~17 years since I've looked at the 2E PH; did 2E rangers still get extraordinary followers at high level? m-u and druid spells? the ability to use crystal balls? were there still the prohibitions against more than 2 rangers working together, owning more treasure than they could carry, or hiring henchmen prior to 8th level?) -- all happened in 2E, not UA.

 

[Particle_Man]

I liked the UA "Expanded Victim List" of giant-class creatures the ranger could go postal on.

 

[TerraDave]

Ok, so did they not get weapon specialization (really don't remember)? Cause if they did, that plus bonus damage versus the giantish, the combination is just crazy.

I liked the weapon group thing.

(Also, on a total tangent, the Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival Guides had NWPs that could actually fit a ranger nicely, though the WS ones had some way too complicated rules with them).

 

[Plane Sailing]

I always liked the 'Strategic Review' version best of all!