AD&D 1E Ye Olde Ranger of Editions Past (1E-4E)

Just a small remark: the 3.0 Ranger did have a pet, starting at 4th level. If wasn't written then explicitly in the class progression chart, but it could be obtained by casting the Animal Friendship spell.

 

[delericho]

That was the problem. You can't just hand out a setting book or campaign guide and let the ranger player just make a ranger and ask for approval. If the DM says undead are rare and the player built a vampire hunter, the whole PC might be scrapped.

Sure. But that's the very scenario where I'd tell them first, "undead are rare".

It would be easy to pick elves and not meet a single enemy elf for many levels.

I don't think I've ever seen elves chosen; that might be a problem. Though, of course, elves also includes drow and they are reasonably common enemies.

 

[neobolts]

It's perhaps worth noting that TSR actually did a conversion of the old 1st Ed Ranger up to 2nd Ed rules in the "Complete Ranger's Handbook". Which was a bit odd, but also a bit cool.

Did Monte Cook not do an alternate 3e Ranger on his website at one point, or was that just the Bard?

Yes, he did. Called it "ranger revisited". Found a random site hosting a copy of the pdf:THE RANGER REVISITED: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...xL5Bx2VN1HOc4wrag&sig2=AsRRNUSWQu4vSXMtZNaE4w

 

[Minigiant]

Sure. But that's the very scenario where I'd tell them first, "undead are rare".

Which is theDM choosing the favored enemy.

I had a DM hand me a list of each enemy type and expectations of that types rarity, tier, and uniqueness before. I ended up copying him.

I don't think I've ever seen elves chosen; that might be a problem. Though, of course, elves also includes drow and they are reasonably common enemies.

In some settings. And what levels.
Core 4th edition didn't pop drow until 10th level.
What level is Rage of Demons?

Are you gonna they rangers when to pick FEs too?

That was the issue. Its all fine if your ranger happens to pick something you'll use the who campaign frequently.

"Aberrations?"
"No. I am not doing beholder until level 10."
"Animals?"
"Nah. They phase out about level 5. No dinosaurs in my setting and horses are easy to kill anyway"
"Gnolls"
"Stop at low levels"
"Orcs"
"Same"
"Shape changers. Werewolves and stuff."
"You use the base monster... Know what. Fine. The main badguy uses orc-wolves. Pick orc. 20% of the enemies are now orcs."

 

[delericho]

Which is theDM choosing the favored enemy.

It's really not. The SRD lists 32 possible Favoured Enemies for Rangers, and that's not an exhaustive list. Identifying one of those as being unusually rare isn't equivalent to the DM choosing.

 

[amerigoV]

In 3.5 you should always have Humanoid (Human) as one of Favorite enemies

1. Very common, and many times a major bad guy in low to mid-level games
2. Nice skill bonuses against them. You dominate in a most cities. They are almost assassins when you add in the bonus damage. Never play cards against that ranger (+2 Bluff/Sense Motive/Spot)
3. Humans is good eatin (did I say that out loud?). If arguing over treasure with human PCs, you can just say "ok, you can keep it. Now where did I leave those fava beans..."

 

[Klaus]

4E.
The 4E Ranger was an amazing class and a great striker. The main problem with the class however was it was more of a great striker than a Ranger. Most classes in 4E had very similar amounts of skills not that class skills mattered that much anymore. They also cast no spells and had very little in the way really relating to the wilderness. In 3E terms they were more of a Fighter/Rogue than a ranger. A great class, a great striker but not a very good Ranger as such IMHO of course. It had not a lot in common with the classical ranger but bonus points of being a basic class to play though. I found the 4E Rogue to be more interesting but I was not a fan of the striker role or 4E roles in general. I’m not opposed to Rangers being strikers at all just they could also be defenders as well or none of the above inn previous editions (play a pacifist hippie ranger if you want).

4E also had the Hunter Ranger, from the Essentials book. They were focused on bows or crossbows, and had "Aspects of the Wild" (basically totem spirits) that gave them benefits as long as they were active (these took the place of Favored Enemy/Hunter's Quarry). They also had Wilderness Knacks (which offered some utility, and took the place of Favored Terrain). As a Martial/Primal controller, the Hunter was focused on harrying enemies and hindering from afar.

 

[Minigiant]

It's really not. The SRD lists 32 possible Favoured Enemies for Rangers, and that's not an exhaustive list. Identifying one of those as being unusually rare isn't equivalent to the DM choosing.

Half the list is unusually rare
All 4 elemental outsiders
Good, chaotic, and lawful outsiders
Plants
Oozes
Gnomes
Halflings
Dwarves
Elves
Goblinoids
Most other humaniods


Then half of what's left tend to only appear at certain levels. They only appear at other levels if the DM makes stronger or weaker ones or buys obscure or niche books.
Orcs
Gnolls
Reptilians
Vermin
Animals
Aberrations
Constructs

Then half of what left tends to appear through the campaign but there are huge stretches when you don't see them
Dragon
Giants
Constructs
Elementals
Fey


A DM can easily cut out 75% of your options.

 

[delericho]

A DM can easily cut out 75% of your options.

Okay, yes. If the DM tightly constrains the useful options, that does indeed amount to choosing the Ranger's FE.

Fortunately, the DM has the option to not do that.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, yes. If the DM tightly constrains the useful options, that does indeed amount to choosing the Ranger's FE.

Fortunately, the DM has the option to not do that.

The DM doesn't have a choice.

That is the problem.

Either the DM is a servant to the ranger's choice and fills the campaign with 5-10% his favored enemies
Or
The ranger player was a servant to theDMs choices of what's in his campaign.
Or
The ranger player and DM cooperatively built the campaign.

 

[delericho]

The DM doesn't have a choice.

Nitpick: that's three choices.

That is the problem.

Either the DM is a servant to the ranger's choice and fills the campaign with 5-10% his favored enemies
Or
The ranger player was a servant to theDMs choices of what's in his campaign.
Or
The ranger player and DM cooperatively built the campaign.

Or the DM builds his campaign normally, includes a wide range of opponents, and that way the Ranger's choice is handled.

That's what I did for years and it works fine. You only need to worry about it if one of the types is going to be unusually common or uncommon.