Extra damage vs giants was devastating in G1 to G3, our Ranger had a giant slaying two handed sword on top of everything! He was one shotting giants. That was in AD&D 1e.
Nothing has the flavor of AD&D. The DMG remains one of the most interesting and enthralling RPG books ever. So jam-packed with ideas. The PHB is no slouch either. Just opening up my old copy takes me back 40 years and reminds me of so many good times.
Thanks, Page121! Nice video, great memories. I switched from Paladin to Ranger when I first played AD&D in 1979, and the latter became my favourite fighter class. Appreciate your work in AD&D.
I must admit that ranger was the first class that really caught my eye in AD&D, even though I started out playing as a cleric. We did not have a group of players, just a DM and me and the thought of a healing spell and some armour sealed that deal. I started playing before I read the Lord of the Rings or saw the Ralph Bakshi movie so I started with the idea of wanting to be Robin Hood, á la Errol Flynn.
A great class. The D&D Ranger originally appeared in the summer of 1975 in Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 2. That version appears from time-to-time in our campaigns.
The way I understand the Rangers weapon proficiency on page 22 UA is that if the character specializes then the Ranger must continue to choose from those 4 weapons when they gain added proficiency So if they were a bow specialist for example (3 slots) they have to choose one of the remaining weapon types at 4th, 7th, and 10th making them non proficient and suffering the penalty until then Imo this makes them very one dimensional in combat until later on and seems similar to the Cavalier’s WOC all the while giving the Fighter a still relevant role and not becoming obsolete
Rangers being able to cast arcane spells just never sat well with us. We allowed them only druidic spells, but borrowed dual wielding from 2e to make up for lack of MU spells.
Did you allow dual classing at your table? I feel like you can just get magic user spells that way anyway from being whatever class so it doesn't really feel that weird to me. But I agree, flavor wise it feels a little weird.
Normally I don't refer much to UA but it was helpful regarding the tracking speed. I personally like UA but only recently returning to my favorite version 1E and will be adding in UA as I renew my knowledge of it, not played since the 80s.
Thanks for the video! The prerequisites make it tough to qualify (RAW) but it's a quality class that makes for a good fourth group member. I very much enjoyed running some games with the barbarian, druid, and ranger combination with a three player group. Since the campaign was mainly outdoors, it worked out rather well. 😀
Thanks for posting, love the 1st edition Ranger, so much better than 2nd edition. I’m playing a 2e group right now and my son is a Ranger. So much good 1st edition stuff you can’t do or are changed in 2e. Wish they left it alone because the 1st edition Ranger is unique. Again thank you for posting.
I always loved how AD&D made these classes difficult to get due to the various attribute scores required, then further limited them based on race and alignment, so as to make it really special if you actually managed to qualify to play one. For me it's too easy now when everyone just automatically gets his first choice every time. Wanting to be a ranger (for instance) and ending up with a fighter or a cleric instead was never a big deal when we played. We just chucked the dice and hoped for the best.
The reward of getting to play Ranger is a reward for luck, persistence or cheating. I am glad it didn't ruin your experience of playing a Fighter. I still think it was a bummer for those of us who never got to play a Ranger or even a Druid.
Thank you for this one, sir! Love the ranger from 1E. 2E kinda changed it up in some ways I didn't really like a much, as someone below stated as well!
Great video - As a player I started with magic users, moved to a druid and then ended up playing rangers. Such a good character class for actual role playing which offers far broader possibilities than just playing Strider/Aragorn.
The Ranger and Paladin classes didn't get any WIS adjustment for Clerical spells. The MU spells have to be taught to the Ranger, they can't learn spells in the same way as a Magic-user. It's a little more 'remedial' by comparison to other Magic-users. The Ranger is limited by what they can carry, if they cardy a monetary note of 100,000gp, they can carry that. On tracking: The idea is that a 1st level Ranger may read the tracks with the same numbers as a 12th level, but the 12th level can read more into it (think of a wine taster). UA breaks everything, I'm in that camp.
I played a 2e AD&D Anti-Ranger over 10 years, from 1990 - 2000. All through high school & University. Great times. Chaotic Neutral aligned Half-Elf dual weilder. In a party called Damage Inc after the 1986 Metallica song of the same name. Our moto was Dying time is here...! We absolutely raped the sword coast. We robbed Banks, Keeps, Castles, Taverns you name it. Literally hundreds, no thousands of town guards met their fate at our hands. I had so much money I brought a matched pair of +5 swords of sharpness. Purposely made with Unicom-horn hilts...Think I paid 300,000 gp for them. (Not a typo) Eventually Elminster took note and realized our particular brand of adventuring could be put to better use. He showed us the way and after getting his daughter pregnant my character and the company moved onto a Lovecraft type dystopian world. The other members were a Human fighter/Magic User, an Elven assassin & Halfling Thief... Murder, torture & absolute unadulterated mayhem followed us everywhere... By today's standards we would be everything minorities fear, and they would be right to do so. Because yes we were always coming to kill you, your family & anyone or anything who took our interest. Ahhh good times.
We only ever had one player use a Ranger. I'm not sure why but it just never appealed to me. I was the guy who mostly played thieves so why I didn't ever play a Ranger does seem strange.
do you consider reviewing homebrewed systems? I'm currently developing a "treasure island" meets "Star Wars" style TTRPG and was hoping I could get some feedback?
I give em' 1d10 hit dice per level because they're no less athletic and combative than the other fighters. They get 1d10 up until at least 12th level. Although not a player character in my campaign, there are evil & neutral Ranger NPC's .
The 1st Edition Ranger is the most impressive of the Ranger iterations - every subsequent edition has been a complete nerf.
Agreed
Extra damage vs giants was devastating in G1 to G3, our Ranger had a giant slaying two handed sword on top of everything! He was one shotting giants. That was in AD&D 1e.
Nothing has the flavor of AD&D. The DMG remains one of the most interesting and enthralling RPG books ever. So jam-packed with ideas. The PHB is no slouch either. Just opening up my old copy takes me back 40 years and reminds me of so many good times.
Thanks, Page121!
Nice video, great memories. I switched from Paladin to Ranger when I first played AD&D in 1979, and the latter became my favourite fighter class. Appreciate your work in AD&D.
Went from altar boy to a walk on the wild side!
My favorite class, as well! :-D I mostly have played Rangers over the years... and am currently playing a 1e Ranger, in fact. ;-) Love them!
I must admit that ranger was the first class that really caught my eye in AD&D, even though I started out playing as a cleric. We did not have a group of players, just a DM and me and the thought of a healing spell and some armour sealed that deal. I started playing before I read the Lord of the Rings or saw the Ralph Bakshi movie so I started with the idea of wanting to be Robin Hood, á la Errol Flynn.
The Adventures of Robin Hood is one of the best films of all time!
Bakshi's Lord of the Rings is pretty great for some bits, John Hurt as Aragorn is fantastic casting.
A great class. The D&D Ranger originally appeared in the summer of 1975 in Strategic Review Vol. 1 No. 2. That version appears from time-to-time in our campaigns.
I have never played a ranger before. My cousin loved playing the class because it allowed him to feel like Robin Hood.
The way I understand the Rangers weapon proficiency on page 22 UA is that if the character specializes then the Ranger must continue to choose from those 4 weapons when they gain added proficiency
So if they were a bow specialist for example (3 slots) they have to choose one of the remaining weapon types at 4th, 7th, and 10th making them non proficient and suffering the penalty until then
Imo this makes them very one dimensional in combat until later on and seems similar to the Cavalier’s WOC all the while giving the Fighter a still relevant role and not becoming obsolete
Rangers being able to cast arcane spells just never sat well with us. We allowed them only druidic spells, but borrowed dual wielding from 2e to make up for lack of MU spells.
Did you allow dual classing at your table? I feel like you can just get magic user spells that way anyway from being whatever class so it doesn't really feel that weird to me. But I agree, flavor wise it feels a little weird.
Normally I don't refer much to UA but it was helpful regarding the tracking speed. I personally like UA but only recently returning to my favorite version 1E and will be adding in UA as I renew my knowledge of it, not played since the 80s.
Thanks for the video! The prerequisites make it tough to qualify (RAW) but it's a quality class that makes for a good fourth group member. I very much enjoyed running some games with the barbarian, druid, and ranger combination with a three player group. Since the campaign was mainly outdoors, it worked out rather well. 😀
Thanks for posting, love the 1st edition Ranger, so much better than 2nd edition. I’m playing a 2e group right now and my son is a Ranger. So much good 1st edition stuff you can’t do or are changed in 2e. Wish they left it alone because the 1st edition Ranger is unique. Again thank you for posting.
Absolutely 💯 right. 👍
Running AD&D 1e for two parties, and both parties have a ranger. They just work.
I always loved how AD&D made these classes difficult to get due to the various attribute scores required, then further limited them based on race and alignment, so as to make it really special if you actually managed to qualify to play one. For me it's too easy now when everyone just automatically gets his first choice every time. Wanting to be a ranger (for instance) and ending up with a fighter or a cleric instead was never a big deal when we played. We just chucked the dice and hoped for the best.
BINGO. If everyone gets a trophy, the value of ACTUALLY winning one is diminished. Undisputable!
The reward of getting to play Ranger is a reward for luck, persistence or cheating. I am glad it didn't ruin your experience of playing a Fighter. I still think it was a bummer for those of us who never got to play a Ranger or even a Druid.
Thank you for this one, sir! Love the ranger from 1E. 2E kinda changed it up in some ways I didn't really like a much, as someone below stated as well!
Great video - As a player I started with magic users, moved to a druid and then ended up playing rangers. Such a good character class for actual role playing which offers far broader possibilities than just playing Strider/Aragorn.
Classes have only ever been limited by the players, really. Some see just a bunch of numbers and abilities. Others see possibilities.
The Ranger and Paladin classes didn't get any WIS adjustment for Clerical spells.
The MU spells have to be taught to the Ranger, they can't learn spells in the same way as a Magic-user. It's a little more 'remedial' by comparison to other Magic-users.
The Ranger is limited by what they can carry, if they cardy a monetary note of 100,000gp, they can carry that.
On tracking: The idea is that a 1st level Ranger may read the tracks with the same numbers as a 12th level, but the 12th level can read more into it (think of a wine taster).
UA breaks everything, I'm in that camp.
Great video. Thanks for sharing it.
whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa whoa, whoa whoa whoa, hold on.
fighters with arcane magic?
rangers were the original fighter/mage hybrid (in one class)?
I played a 2e AD&D Anti-Ranger over 10 years, from 1990 - 2000. All through high school & University. Great times. Chaotic Neutral aligned Half-Elf dual weilder. In a party called Damage Inc after the 1986 Metallica song of the same name. Our moto was Dying time is here...! We absolutely raped the sword coast. We robbed Banks, Keeps, Castles, Taverns you name it. Literally hundreds, no thousands of town guards met their fate at our hands. I had so much money I brought a matched pair of +5 swords of sharpness. Purposely made with Unicom-horn hilts...Think I paid 300,000 gp for them. (Not a typo) Eventually Elminster took note and realized our particular brand of adventuring could be put to better use. He showed us the way and after getting his daughter pregnant my character and the company moved onto a Lovecraft type dystopian world. The other members were a Human fighter/Magic User, an Elven assassin & Halfling Thief... Murder, torture & absolute unadulterated mayhem followed us everywhere... By today's standards we would be everything minorities fear, and they would be right to do so. Because yes we were always coming to kill you, your family & anyone or anything who took our interest. Ahhh good times.
We only ever had one player use a Ranger.
I'm not sure why but it just never appealed to me. I was the guy who mostly played thieves so why I didn't ever play a Ranger does seem strange.
do you consider reviewing homebrewed systems? I'm currently developing a "treasure island" meets "Star Wars" style TTRPG and was hoping I could get some feedback?
I'd be glad to read it over and see what I could do.
if the link is "shameless" I can delete it
@@page121tabletoproleplaying4 not too sure the best way to get you my file let me know what you think
@@j.r.graham6117 Just pm me through any of the Facebook groups I post on. We'll work it out.
I give em' 1d10 hit dice per level because they're no less athletic and combative than the other fighters. They get 1d10 up until at least 12th level. Although not a player character in my campaign, there are evil & neutral Ranger NPC's .