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

[Prince of Happiness]

The OD&D ranger (from TSR#2) is basically the same as the 1E ranger, but a little bit better. He still gets 2d8 at 1st level and 1d8 per level thereafter up to 10th, which is significant because the fighter in those days got 1d8 per level up to 9th (so the ranger ends up with a full 2HD advantage over the fighter). He still gets the bonus to surprise and extra damage against Giant Class opponents. He can track. At high level he gets both cleric (there were no druids yet in those days) and m-u spells, extraordinary followers (both characters and monster-types), and the ability to use crystal balls and ESP-related magic items. Rangers don't get XP bonuses for high stats, but instead they get an automatic 25% XP bonus up until 8th or 9th level. They're required to be lawful and if they change alignment they lose all their special abilities. They can't own more treasure than they can carry, or hire followers at low levels, and no more than 2 rangers can work together.

Cool, thanks!

 

[diaglo]

Cool, thanks!

i don't use them much. so i didn't have more than that memorized.

 

[T. Foster]

Cool, thanks!

FWIW that came from memory, so some of the specifics may be a bit off. If anybody has this write-up handy and wants to correct anything in my post, feel free

EDIT: OK, looked it up myself -- OD&D rangers only get hit dice up to 9th level (10 HD total), so they only have a 1 HD advantage over fighters, not 2 HD like I said above. Also, at 8th level they gain the ability to use "magic items which heal or cure disease, including scrolls," which I forgot to mention, and, interestingly, in contrast to AD&D, the "only own what you can carry" and "no more than 2 rangers can work together" restrictions only seem to apply to OD&D rangers of 7th level or lower -- 9th+ level rangers are explicitly allowed to build strongholds, just like fighters.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.).

If you are referring to the first and original Unearthed Arcana that expands the 1e ranger class (including bow specialization), then I prefer the UA ranger.

 

[JRR_Talking]

fond memories of 'dylan the dog' my 1e half-elf CG ranger/cleric

 

[Particle_Man]

I remember the expansion in the dragon mag to the UA that gave us the Druid/Ranger, which was odd since Druids had to be True Neutral and Rangers had to be Good.

But this I assume was in honour of Curly Greenleaf, from the Gord the Rogue novels.

 

[Valiant]

Foster: "He can track. At high level he gets both cleric (there were no druids yet in those days) and m-u spells, extraordinary followers (both characters and monster-types), and the ability to use crystal balls and ESP-related magic items."

Whats the BTB use of magic items for AD&D rangers (did these 2 carry over, and do AD&D rangers get to use MU scrolls)? Also, do you think AD&D rangers automatically have read magic (since they would have to have it to copy their first spell (they do have spell books right?)

 

[T. Foster]

The AD&D PH says specifically that rangers can't use druid or magic-user scrolls. I'd extrapolate from that to say that rangers not only don't get read magic automatically, they don't get it at all (unless, perhaps, they take it as one of their 2 "free" spells?) and thus most rangers are permanently stuck with only the spells in their own books and not able to supplement them from scrolls and other mages' books like standard mages. This is backed up by the example of Otis, 10th level ranger NPC in Temple of Elemental Evil, who only knows 1 magic-user spell (affect normal fires) and isn't mentioned has having any other spells in his book.

 

[diaglo]

Fighting Man with at least all of these: Str 13, Int 13, Wis 14, Con 14

Um, ok. That's all?

and that ain't easy to roll.

3d6 in order Str, Int, Wis, Con, Dex, Cha

none of this 4d6 drop the lowest bullpuckey.

 

[Valiant]

Very interesting,

So Foster, a few more questions:

1) IYO do rangers even have spell books (of some sort) or do you think the rules intended them to just have them stored in memory, it seems the rules don't mention it one way or another (perhaps a Dragon article, or an NPC listing in one of the modules?)


If you think they must have a spell book, do you think its supposed to be written completely differently then an MUs (kind of like the illusionist who doesn't write in magic but shares many of the same spells)? I always got the impression they learn't their magic spells from MUs and Druids, not other Rangers (just picking this stuff up hanging out with them so much). If they do learn these spells from other rangers, this would be a training limit not put on any of the other classes (of high level, who train themselves).

2) Do you think taking Read Magic would allow a ranger to use MU scrolls in combat (which they otherwise can't use)? If they can't add found spells to their spell book, I wouldn't otherwise see any point in taking this spell.

3) Do AD&D rangers have to select the specific druid spell (so at level the ranger selects entangle and is stuck with that spell) or can they select from all the spells at that level like a regular druid does.

Thanks again Foster for your opinion/ best interpretation, and sorry to present so many rambling wacky questions at once (and doubly so if they've been asked before).

PS Does anyone know if the 2E ranger was based on some other source (or did they just completely make this stuff up in an attempt to make them more interesting etc.). Its pretty clear the AD&D ranger is straight out of LOTR/Strider, but I don't get that as the source for 2E rangers.

PS PS back at DF there was a thread involving the guy who created the ranger (can't remember his name) who describes its development at the time, if anyone has a link to that thread please post it here.