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.

 

[Irennan]

I actually wonder how many people wouldn't like the beast companion to be a base feature. If we took a survey, how would it turn out?

I don't see it as necessary. TBH, I don't even see why the ranger has to be tied with nature or be its guardian: isn't that the druid's role?

To me a ranger is a ''light fighter'' specialized in ambushes and hit-and-run tactics. They are also scouts and know how to move in, or have particular knowledge, of their terrains of choices, can easily follow tracks and chase, and can specialize into hunting a chosen set of creatures. In short, I see rangers more as specialized fighter-assassins, skilled in tracking/exploration/ambushes.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

The exclusivity of the ranger stuff in early editions was maintained in 3.x thanks to feat taxes. While any melee class could be a nature warrior in 3E, in practice only Rangers were the nature warriors.

Feat taxes sucked so I'm glad 5E got rid of them. I also like backgrounds but the Outlander background allows non-Rangers to get nature skills and suddenly any melee class can be a nature warrior.

Add in the fact that track doesn't require a feat anymore and the end result is the existential crisis of the ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

The key word there being 'could'. If you construct the example, of course it's going to show the problem. It doesn't mean it's inevitable though.

I randomly rolled monster types and them followed the Monster Manual flavor to make that example.

But the probably isn't low. It's fairly easy to have that happen.

If the DM just rolls for monsters, type frequency is all over the place.

If the DM follows the monsters by terrain and level, monsters types phase in and out at certain levels. The DM has to craft unique monsters of some types to put them at levels of play or make reason way swarms of weak monster or nerfed versions of the monster exists at certain levels.

If the Dm crafts a world actively based on their own designs, they are actively choosing the monster type frequency.

It's fine if the ranger pick common types like monstrosities, giants, undead, or beasts. But that list of common monsters that the DM doesn't have to mess with is low. Really it's only monstrosities, fiends, giants, undead, beasts, and the dominant humanoid of the setting.

 

[Mephista]

I don't see it as necessary. TBH, I don't even see why the ranger has to be tied with nature or be its guardian: isn't that the druid's role?

1) Animal companions does not equal nature guardian. Or are dog companions suddenly all about the wilderness? 2) I didn't ask about necessary, I asked about popular.

To me a ranger is a ''light fighter'' specialized in ambushes and hit-and-run tactics. They are also scouts and know how to move in, or have particular knowledge, of their terrains of choices, can easily follow tracks and chase, and can specialize into hunting a chosen set of creatures. In short, I see rangers more as specialized fighter-assassins, skilled in tracking/exploration/ambushes.

In short, to you a Ranger is nothing more than a Fighter subclass. That doesn't help make an actual Ranger class,however.

Its like the decision for the Bard. Being tied to half- or two-thrids-casting was poisonous for the long term health and viability of the class. And yet, people complained about the change over. Is this view detracting from what the Ranger could be? I'm beginning to think it is, by necessity, limiting what we could design a Ranger.

 

[TwoSix]

They need to be looking at video games for more modern interpretations of the ranger concept. WoW's Hunter class and GW2's Ranger class are some good examples of the ranger archetype. Medium armored, animal companions, magic revolving around nature spirits, ranged combat focused, high mobility, traps, and some limited stealth should be the core of the ranger.

 

[Irennan]

2) I didn't ask about necessary, I was curious if a major playtest survey on having animal companions as a core feature would be massively popular.

When you said ''If we took a survey, how would it turn out'', I thought you were asking for opinions, so I gave mine.

1) Animal companions does not equal nature guardian. Or are dog companions suddenly all about the wilderness?

Comparing the ranger's companion to a standard companion isn't really fitting. Anyone can have a companion, so I don't see how a standard pet can be a class feature. What could make it unique is, for example, a particular bond that exists between the ranger and its companion, which comes from the fact that the ranger is a wilderness-warrior/guardian (so, their being ''in-tune'' with it, gained them the loyalty of one of its creatures). That's the reason why I associated the two things.

[...] 3) Nature magic does have a strong historic tie to the class, so excising it entirely is not really viable [...]

In short, to you a Ranger is nothing more than a Fighter subclass. That doesn't help make an actual Ranger class, however.

Yes, that's basically what I meant. The thing is that IMO ''wilderness-warrior/guardian'' isn't a strong identity, because it identifies a background: someone who defends the civilization from the monsters that ''threaten its edges''. Hunting monsters, knowing and moving through terrains, ambushes, exploration, tracking, even training a companion: most of the flavor that is tied to the concept of ''wilderness-warrior'' can be done by a fighter, or a rogue, through skill/tool proficiency. IMO, it lends perfectly to a ''wilderness-warrior/scout/what you have'' subclass, that focuses on combat and the above mentioned skills, also through the ability to cast some utility spells.

Thematically speaking, the only thing that the ranger has over the others is the ability to cast spells based on nature (and they are indeed iconic to the class). But only leads me to see them as an hybrid between a druid and a rogue/fighter, a bit like the EK is a warrior-mage.

Its like the decision for the Bard. Being tied to half- or two-thrids-casting was poisonous for the long term health and viability of the class. And yet, people complained about the change over. Is this view detracting from what the Ranger could be?

It makes sense to give the bard full spellcasting, as the class concept is based on creating magic through music. It doesn't overlap with other concepts. The ranger has some heavy overlapping (IMO, ofc, as always), so they should be given some theme that is theirs and can be only theirs. But it would require some changes to the class background (again, IMO). In short, I don't really think that the concept of the ranger, as it is now, deserves a class on its own.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

While I didn't see the 4e Essentials Scout, that sounds a lot like what I'd want from a ranger. Take the current Hunter, and replace some of its generic combat and wilderness abilities with a supernatural ability to take on various aspects of nature that grant it bonuses while using that aspect.

A cleric is a holy spellcaster. A paladin is a holy warrior who casts some spells and has other supernatural abilities to aid it.

A druid is a naturey spellcaster. I'd like to see a ranger as a mystical nature warrior who casts some spells and has supernatural abilities to aid it.

 

[Minigiant]

I have a theory on the ranger based on Ranger and how it related to its setting and edition.

Basically

The Ranger's combat and magical power is directly related to the combat an magical power of the monster's Game System's "default setting."


1e, monsters are most HP beatsticks until high level where they start getting magic.
The 1e ranger is basically a high damage hp-sponge who gets magic and followeres at high levels.

2e, same as 1e but that get some skills.
The 2e ranger is the same as the 1e one but with some more skills.

3e, magic is overpowered and monster have it at low levels now.
The 3e ranger gets magic early, has weak damage bonuses, gets a companion to flank, and is best played with a half dozen magic wands in his bag.

4e, magic is nerfed on the monster side. Monsters are fat HP sponges with all kinds of attacks. As time goes one they get more magic.
The 4e ranger gets no magic as well and his a combat blender. As time goes on, the hunter, and scout version appear with magic.

5e, magic is back. The power is down but the monster get spells early. They also hit like a truck but can't take a hit.
The 5e ranger is a sneaky magical warrior who hits like a truck but goes down if caught.

The harder the monster hit, the harder the ranger hits.
The more magical the monster, the more magical the ranger.
The sneakier the monsters, the sneakier the ranger.

It even follows in video game RPGs.
The WOW hunter gets a pet and blasty arrows because the monsters in WOW come in swarms and have blasty magic but little utility magic.

 

[delericho]

3e, magic is overpowered and monster have it at low levels now.
The 3e ranger gets magic early, has weak damage bonuses, gets a companion to flank, and is best played with a half dozen magic wands in his bag.

Aye, this is one of the real quirks of 3e: I'm reasonably sure it was designed assuming the PCs wouldn't engage in large-scale item crafting (and certainly not purchase) - the Wizard might make one or two items, but not many. Most items would therefore be found, and done so largely based on the frequencies in the random tables supplied, which were in line with earlier editions.

But, of course, people immediately realised that easy item crafting very swiftly bypassed Vancian casting, and the game changed entirely.

 

[diaglo]

the ranger class first appeared in The Strategic Review for use with OD&D(1974) ruleset.