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

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I thought the UA tweaks added some nice additional flavor to the ranger without making what I'd call significant mechanical changes.

The 1E ranger is/was my favorite class, and that has carried forward despite the bizarre departure into two-weapon fighting that appeared in 2E.

 

[T. Foster]

No wonder - those guys were like super-characters! Extra hit die at 1st level (of the same type as normal fighters -- they got 1d8, rangers got 2d8), automatic +25% XP bonus, etc. The AD&D ranger class is a toned-down version of the SR ranger.

 

[Bregh]

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.

Per the UA, rangers get weapon specialisation, and they are truly awesome against Giant class foes.

Our OAD&D campaign has a ranger with a two-handed giant-slaying sword, and his damage output is absolutely unbelievable. It'd be that much more fearsome if he'd've taken his specialisation with the two-hander (he's actually a long sword specialist) not for the added two points of damage, but for the increased number of attacks--brutal (but fun to see in action)!

 

[Mercule]

I'm going to have to go with the APH (anyone else remember that abbreviation?) version. UA didn't really give them anything they needed and the weapon restrictions were lame.

 

[Valiant]

FOSTER: "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;"



My bad, :\ yep 2E was what I was thinking of. Funny thing is I don't own and never have owned the 2E PH (I must have been reading someone elses book and confused it with UA). Wow, didn't realize favored enemy was from 2E.

 

[diaglo]

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

quoted for tr00f.

although, i'm not one to use them often.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

What was the Strategic Review version like?

 

[diaglo]

What was the Strategic Review version like?

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

 

[Prince of Happiness]

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

Um, ok. That's all?

 

[T. Foster]

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.