D&D 1E Why did you like the ad&d ranger?

[dmhelp]

Looking at the rangers thru the ages thread it got me thinking....

The only edition that I liked the ranger was ad&d.

Even without unearthed arcana/weapon spec, rangers were cool. It was all about double hit dice at first level (esp w a high con) and getting a high damage bonus against a large group of very common enemies (~evil humanoids).

By giving RP choice to play non good rangers with narrowly focused favored enemies (the aberration hunter) that you never encounter and with benefits that don’t matter the class has been watered down into something undesirable in every other edition.

 

[collin]

I tend to agree the 1st ed ranger in D&D was more powerful than later edition incarnations. That was the trade off for needing more XPs to advance the character instead of being a regular fighter. Although I do think the ranger has become watered down in overall combat effectiveness compared to other classes (e.g., fighter, barbarian, paladin, rogue), I do think the depowering has been minimal. IMO, the ranger requires some minor house-rule tinkering and agreement with the playing group on those rules, but it is not so bad as I read many players complaining about.

 

[Oofta]

My first, and last, ranger was a 1E version. He was pretty awesome and felt unique in how he progressed, not only at first level but as they leveled up. Now? I may play one some day, but I'm not really sure what their niche is any more. A rogue scout is better at being a sneaky woodsman, an Oath of the Ancients paladin a better back-to-nature warrior, animal companions don't scream "ranger" to me and aren't worth much at mid-to-high level.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why was the 1e Ranger so good?

I prefer the argument from simplicity. If you wanted a martial character, and you made the prerequisites, the Ranger was a better choice in almost all aspects than the Fighter.

Because it was a "subclass" you generally got everything the fighter got, AND MORE! Sure, it had some restrictions (no more than two in a party, limitations on "stuff you can carry + your horse"), but the reason it was such a good character option was that, quite frankly (and similar to the Paladin), it was just better than the Fighter at most things. It was that weird way that 1e worked sometimes- if you were already really awesome (by rolling high stats), you were allowed to be even more awesome (by being a special class).

Which brings up a separate, but related question-
Why did the Fighter's subclasses (Paladin, Ranger) rock so hard, while the other subclasses feel so meh?

Look, I loved the Assassin, the Illusionist, and the Druid for various reasons ... but all of them (except, possibly, the Druid, which was just very different in a lot of ways but not better) were not notably better than the main class.

Possibly related point- maybe it's because the Assassin, the Illusionist, and the Druid are based on thematic archetypes, whereas the Paladin and the Ranger were created based on a specific literary example.

 

[John R Davis]

The fact you start with 2 hit dice, good attack matrix, and +1 damage at first level against decent range monsters. Multi class with cleric and you have a great starter half elf pc......not quite as cool as a half orc cleric/assassin but still great to play!

 

[Krachek]

It was a fighter subclass,
Mostly I saw him played without spell,
Its favored enemy including Giant were relatively common at those time,
Tracking and surprising was an exclusive feature,
he was not trap in a mono fighting style, bow, shield, two handed sword were ranger weapons.

 

[Umbran]

I liked it because the first D&D character I played was a ranger. Nothing to do with the class design.

 

[nevin]

Looking at the rangers thru the ages thread it got me thinking....

The only edition that I liked the ranger was ad&d.

Even without unearthed arcana/weapon spec, rangers were cool. It was all about double hit dice at first level (esp w a high con) and getting a high damage bonus against a large group of very common enemies (~evil humanoids).

By giving RP choice to play non good rangers with narrowly focused favored enemies (the aberration hunter) that you never encounter and with benefits that don’t matter the class has been watered down into something undesirable in every other edition.

It was the first jack of all trades character.

 

[steeldragons]

I liked it because you got to play Aragorn.

...and that half-elves could multiclass as ranger/clerics was super cool (and unique, in the day). Played a bunch of those.

 

[billd91]

First, I'd like to mention that there's a pretty big contrast between the 1e Ranger and the 2e Ranger. One's a good class (1e), the other is a muddled and weak redesign (2e) that needed a lot of reworking.

My first 1e character was a ranger so, yeah, it appealed to me. You got to play a character based around Aragorn who was the epitome of cool in a number of ways. But the cachet of being a warrior who acts as a guide, scout, and tracker was also really attractive to us kids living in rural environments and used to heading out on local trails or fields to "go on quest" with our imaginations.
Plus, he got some good abilities like the melee damage bonus against giant-class humanoids (which scaled well and encompassed a broad range of likely opponents so that it was hard to completely obsolete it), tracking, and better chances to surprise/avoid surprise that weren't qualified by being alone or sneaking about. He was, generally, a pretty good addition to a party in lots of situations without restricting it - a contrast with the paladin who tended to be 'fussy'.