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

[nevin]

I am going to have to 100% disagree with that, because it ignores a lot of things the fighter could do, under the rules, that people tend to overlook that did not play extensively in 1e.

To start:
1. Fighters were the only class that could take advantage of percentile strength, which made fighters the best melee combatants, which made fighters the best combatants (since melee was better than missile in 1e). Just think- any class other than fighter was restricted to +1, +2, whereas fighters could go all the way to +3, +6, and they could even open magically locked doors.

2. Fighter were the only class that could take advantage of the hit point bonuses for having a Con of over 16. If you wanted more hit points, you needed to be a fighter- otherwise you were stuck, at best, with +2hp/level (fighter could get up to +4).

3. Of course, fighters were also the only class that got d10 hit points. So there was that, too.

4. Fighters were the only class that could use any weapon (okay, assassins as well). Every other class had massive weapon restrictions- not the fighter.

5. Fighter (and clerics) were the only class that had unrestricted armor and shields.

6. Fighters got multiple attacks per round; no other class did.

Finally, fighters had a huge selection of magic items because they had unrestricted armor and weapons- in addition to the things they had as fighters.

I can't emphasize this enough- fighters rocked in 1e. The ability to wear any magic armor and use any magic shield meant that the fighter would have a low ac, quickly- and low ac really, really mattered. The ability to use any magic weapon (subject to proficiencies, of course, which again ... the fighter was best at) meant that the fighter was dealing the most consistent damage.

The issue was just that the Paladin and the Ranger got everything the fighter did,

While I agree this MAY be the intent of the rules, both Paladin and Ranger are specifically stated to be 'fighter sub-classes' in the PHB, and all that the Strength rule says is that 'fighters' can get exceptional strength. I think if you take that literally, it extends to all three (sub)-classes.

Beyond that though, this is a trivial limitation in that few PCs will have an 18 to put in anything, plus , though that depends on exactly what method you use to roll up characters. I'd also argue that an 18 DEX or perhaps 18 CON will serve you quite well. Additionally AD&D 1e has ONLY Strength increasing magic items, no other ability score has this, so there's at least always the hope that you will drop a set of Gauntlets of Ogre Power (18/00) or some sort of Girdle (19+). In that case your Strength score is kinda moot from then on. Beyond that, a raw 18 by itself is +1/+2, and you have to roll above 50% to get a +2/+3, +3/+6 is vanishingly unlikely. Thus very few PCs will really be facing this sort of trade off.

Again, this doesn't comport with a strict reading of the PHB from what I can see. In fact this is made explicit on P12, where it explains that Paladins and Rangers ARE fighters (the Strength table lacks this notation, but this strengthens the case for them getting % Strength too).

True, but a starting Ranger with an 18 CON would get PLUS EIGHT hit points (2d8+8). Even on average fighters don't catch up to Rangers before 5th level, and higher CON can extend that to as much as 12th level. This is all assuming you don't use the common "max hit points at level 1" house rule, which pretty much gives Rangers the most hit points at all levels.

I don't know of any weapon or armor restriction on Rangers. 1e PHB certainly does not impose any.

Again, I see nothing to indicate that this is true. Depending on how you interpret restrictions of things to "the fighter class" or "fighters" you may or may not exclude them from certain MAGIC weapons. However most such items don't have restrictions at all, fighters are simply the class who can generally wield something like a longsword (thieves, clerics, druids, wizards, all cannot) but rangers and paladins sure can.

Again, not true. PHB P25 shows that all the fighter sub-classes get this benefit, though rangers version kicks in at slightly higher levels.

Exactly, they get EVERYTHING the fighter gets, and more. If you qualify for one of these classes there is absolutely no reason beyond personal preference not to go for it, and given how uncommon the prerequisites will be, you are probably silly to pass up the chance!

most people don't realize power creep in AD&D 1e was magic Items.
paladins and rangers had severe restrictions on what they could own. A ranger could only own what he could carry. and was required to donate everything else to a communal organizion. Nether class was even allowed to give the stuff away to other characters. No portable holes full of equipment for rangers and paladins.

Paladins: They will never retain wealth, keeping only sufficient
treasures to support themselves in a modest manner, pay
henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors, and to construct or
maintain a small castle. (Your DM will give details of this as
necessary.) Excess is given away, as is the tithe (see 3. below

They may never retain more than ten magic items; these may
never exceed:
armor, 1 (suit)
shield, 1
weapons*, 4
any other magic items, 4
'these include daggers, swords, etc.; and such items as magic
bows and magic arrows are considered as but 1 weapon


Rangers may own only those goods and treasure which they
can carry on their person and/or place upon their mount; all
excess must be donated to a worthy communal or institutional
cause (but never to another player character). (cf. Paladin
above.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

I started with 2e. I didn't much like that ranger. It tried to be a cool class but couldn't pull it off.

I didn't like the alignment restriction. As far as I'm concerned a ranger is about skill, not personality. An arrogant big game hunter who slaughters prize animals and only takes the head as trophies might not be good-aligned, and they're certainly not "close to nature" and so shouldn't get spells, but they're still a ranger. They have the hunting and tracking skills though! And what if that character also plays the "most dangerous game"? Well then they're an evil ranger.

My favorite ranger was the original 4e ranger, at least the archery version. Hunter's Quarry is better than Favored Enemy since it's up to the player to use, not the GM to "allow". The 5e ranger kept Hunter's Quarry, but made it a spell for some odd reason.

I felt the 2e ranger fell down compared to the fighter. The fighter got Weapon Specialization when it was cool (not just a few numbers like in 3e, but also extra attacks per round). The ranger got, um, the ability to kill orcs better.

 

[billd91]

I felt the 2e ranger fell down compared to the fighter. The fighter got Weapon Specialization when it was cool (not just a few numbers like in 3e, but also extra attacks per round). The ranger got, um, the ability to kill orcs better.

Yeah, that was part of the ranger's problem in 2e. He was particularly weak compared to the paladin because while the ranger's abilities tended to be based on a die roll (move silently, hide in shadows, modifying animal reactions), paladin abilities tended to just work (cure disease, +2 on saves, detect evil). And they were on the same XP track which was supposed to be some balancing factor for classes (and which was always dubious).

 

[Sithlord]

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

Mine was a human ranger with the name pathfinder. Okay. I was 10 years old. My fighter was named sword breaker. I was 9 for him. Ah those were the days.