D&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.

 

[the Jester]

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.

That's a pretty heavy assertion of "all campaigns use the same monsters" you're showing there.

Just to take one example, remember that an orc can be CR 30 if you add levels and templates and whatnot. IME, it's not rare at all to see them throughout a campaign. When I look through old 3e-era Dungeon adventures, there are tons of leveled orcs.

 

[Minigiant]

Nitpick: that's three choices.



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.

You missed my point.
You mentioned no one picking elf at your table. I had a human and elf hating half elf ranger before.Couldn't run him because it was an orc campaign and there were no Crow on the surface for plot reasons.

The campaign I DM, is based in a city with dozens of races that you rather fight the same creature twice a week. Leave the city, all orcs to the north, all elves east, humans west and no dwarves. Until you leave the plane and see none others humanoids.

Wrecks the game if you don't pick "easy FEs"

 

[Minigiant]

That's a pretty heavy assertion of "all campaigns use the same monsters" you're showing there.

Just to take one example, remember that an orc can be CR 30 if you add levels and templates and whatnot. IME, it's not rare at all to see them throughout a campaign. When I look through old 3e-era Dungeon adventures, there are tons of leveled orcs.

I addressed hat.

Orc is a bad pick unless your DM says orcs will be in the game all campaign. "DM, Which favored enemy isn't horrible?".

 

[delericho]

You mentioned no one picking elf at your table. I had a human and elf hating half elf ranger before.Couldn't run him because it was an orc campaign and there were no Crow on the surface for plot reasons.

I'll repeat: if one of the choices is unusually uncommon in the setting, the DM should inform the players.

The campaign I DM, is based in a city with dozens of races that you rather fight the same creature twice a week. Leave the city, all orcs to the north, all elves east, humans west and no dwarves. Until you leave the plane and see none others humanoids.

And I'll also repeat: the DM really should be building the campaign with a selection of encounters throughout. And that applies regardless of whether there's a Ranger there or not - fighting the same things time after time gets old real quick.

Unless building with that proper selection counts as some measure of unusual DM skill.

Wrecks the game if you don't pick "easy FEs"

Hyperbole. Even in the Ranger never gets to use his FE bonus he should still be able to contribute. Obviously it would be better if he could use it reasonably often, but to say it wrecks the campaign is absurd.

 

[Mephista]

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).

I honestly think that this is the first time I'm actually in full agreement with you on something, Zaard. The 4e Ranger was just a damage focused Fighter instead of a Defender with skirmisher overtones.

That's okay, though, since I don't necessarily agree with you on the other parts. I think that the Guild Wars 2 division of the Ranger describes what a Ranger should do best. Beastmastery, Nature Magic, Mobility, Traps (part of nature magic?), Marksmanship / Tempest / other weapon styles, and Wilderness Survival. While I do like the idea of a Demon or Dragon Slayer being a subclass (as well as a FF blue-mage style magic), I'm not sold that Favored Enemy is really necessary for the Ranger.

 

[Mephista]

4E also had the Hunter Ranger, from the Essentials book.

There was also the Essentials Scout, who were a Martial-Primal Striker. Don't know much about him.

 

[Minigiant]

I'll repeat: if one of the choices is unusually uncommon in the setting, the DM should inform the players.



And I'll also repeat: the DM really should be building the campaign with a selection of encounters throughout. And that applies regardless of whether there's a Ranger there or not - fighting the same things time after time gets old real quick.

Unless building with that proper selection counts as some measure of unusual DM skill.



Hyperbole. Even in the Ranger never gets to use his FE bonus he should still be able to contribute. Obviously it would be better if he could use it reasonably often, but to say it wrecks the campaign is absurd.

My point is Zardnaar is suggesting a Favored Enemy focused ranger. It the ranger doesn't meet his FEs enough, they would start holding the party back. And the player wouldn't be too happy.
You see the beast master complaining. Multiply that by 5.

 

[bedir than]

My point is Zardnaar is suggesting a Favored Enemy focused ranger. It the ranger doesn't meet his FEs enough, they would start holding the party back. And the player wouldn't be too happy.
You see the beast master complaining. Multiply that by 5.

This concept is so foreign to me. Was the thief holding the party back because there weren't locks to pick?

 

[Minigiant]

This concept is so foreign to me. Was the thief holding the party back because there weren't locks to pick?

The thief had plenly of skills to use.

But if you build the ranger as a slayer of 1-5 races, it will hold the party back.

Hence why the best way to play a 2nd-3rd edition ranger was too ignore it and rely on skills & weapons, & magic.

 

[Li Shenron]

But if you build the ranger as a slayer of 1-5 races, it will hold the party back.

I think you are not going to worry too much in 5e then, since the Ranger is not really a "slayer" of his favored enemies. All she gets is FE's language proficiency, advantage to tracking and to knowledge checks. A generous DM can at best let you use the latter to get some clue on combat strengths and weaknesses, but overall these benefits are not that relevant to the combat phase.