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.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There seems to be a whole existential crisis over Rangers recently. All I'd like is the beastmaster archetype to have a few of the arbitrary restrictions reviewed over - so they aren't limited to small animals (what about having a horse!?), and they don't have to expend actions for the beast to respond.

 

[turkeygiant]

It's interesting, I never knew that animal companions were such a relatively small part of the ranger suite over the years, for me that is a iconic element of the ranger, though I started playing D&D in 3.5 and loved R. A. Salvatore's novels in highschool* so you can see why that would be the case. I guess the relative popularity of 3.5 and pathfinder have firmed up that opinion for a lot of other people too.

*(thankfully I have grown out of Salvatore...the first maybe six books still hold a special place in my heart...but he is just stuck on repeat now, the companions should have just stayed dead and Drizzt should have found new friends to go on fresh adventures with)

 

[Azurewraith]

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

They where total bad asses and now that i think about it they were pretty dam ranger. They where melee only and got to pick a weapon grouping showing a lot about how they did what they did based on what was in their OH they had a style for light blades which gave an accuracy boost and gave the sense of a patient and skilled hunter. Then there was the axe style which gave damage bonus which said more to a brutal hunter who straight up rushed the bear he had been stalking.

There main skill was cant remember the name it was an Off hand attack(OH attacks where rare in 4e) they also got some wilderness knacks which where funky lil ranger skills that gave them and the party bonuses to things climbing sneaking and even got the -10 removed for perception while sleeping.

Aspects of nature where a stance they could take up and where grate as they could be fluffed to taking on a nature spirit imbuing you with power or emulating the style of the animal you took on they did all sorts of things from bonuses to charging, hiding, mobility and damage bonuses for specific occurrences such as bloodied enemy's(1/2 hp or below) enemy surrounded or isolated etc.

Finally they had primal powers they could use daily things like calling in a mist for cover or entangling vines etc.

This is all off head dont think i forgot anything

 

[Lanefan]

It's interesting, I never knew that animal companions were such a relatively small part of the ranger suite over the years, for me that is a iconic element of the ranger, though I started playing D&D in 3.5 and loved R. A. Salvatore's novels in highschool* so you can see why that would be the case. I guess the relative popularity of 3.5 and pathfinder have firmed up that opinion for a lot of other people too.

Which is unfortunate, in that Salvatore took what was a good class (the 1e tanked-up giant-killin' Ranger) and butchered it into a poncy shadow of its former self. And it's never recovered.

I've never been a fan of animal companions for either Druids or Rangers (MU familiars are bad enough); I'd be quite happy if they went away completely.

The favoured enemy issue is a negative byproduct of later editions. In 1e Rangers were good against giant-class humanoids, end of story. Nice and simple. But once the chance to choose the favoured enemy came along the first problem to rear up is Ranger players not seeing their choice of enemy often enough in the game. Simple answer is to have only two or three choices - let's say choose from giant-class, undead, or reptiles-dragons - that are nigh-guaranteed to come up quite regularly in any campaign, and stop there. But make the effect relevant - if all 5e gives you is language capability that's not enough.

Lan-"my first ever character was a plate-clad sword-and-board tank of a Ranger; this has remained my preferred Ranger archetype ever since"-efan

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You forgot the essentials ranger/scout and ranger/hunter... both of them very nice incarnations of the ranger.
edit: ok... this was already mentioned.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't think there is any inherent obligation on a GM to build the campaign from a smorgasbord of critters. A Conan-esque game, for instance, should be feasible - in which most enemies are human with the odd lich, demon or giant serpent.

 

[delericho]

I don't think there is any inherent obligation on a GM to build the campaign from a smorgasbord of critters. A Conan-esque game, for instance, should be feasible - in which most enemies are human with the odd lich, demon or giant serpent.

That's fair enough, though I did note that if one monster type was unusually common the DM should inform the players.

Even in a Conan-esque game, though, the DM will still want a wide variety of encounters, albeit one using a more limited palette.

(Indeed, arguably a DM running such a game should be redefining the list of Favoured Enemies, and maybe types of bane weapons, to reflect this more limited set - he's running a somewhat non-standard game, so it would be wise to adjust the rules accordingly.)

 

[Minigiant]

That's fair enough, though I did note that if one monster type was unusually common the DM should inform the players.

Even in a Conan-esque game, though, the DM will still want a wide variety of encounters, albeit one using a more limited palette.

(Indeed, arguably a DM running such a game should be redefining the list of Favoured Enemies, and maybe types of bane weapons, to reflect this more limited set - he's running a somewhat non-standard game, so it would be wise to adjust the rules accordingly.)

The real issue is how the monsters are spread out.

An Campaign could look like.

Clean out a rat's nest in the sewer
Monsters: rats swarms, giant rats, wererats, carriorn crawler
Types: Beasts, Human, halfling, monstrosity
Level: 1

Travel to kobold cave random encounter
Monsters: wolves
Types: Beasts
Level: 1

Deal with the kobolds
Monsters: rats swarms, giant insects, kobolds, dragonborn boss
Types: Beasts, kobolds, dragonborn
Level: 1-2

Travel from kobold cave random encounter
Monsters: gnome druid, giant weasel
Types: Beasts, gnome
Level: 2

Stop the raiding orcs
Monsters: orcs
Types: Orc
Level: 2

Hunt down the orcs random encounters
Monsters: orcs, bugbears, horses, black dragon
Types: Orc, goblin, beasts, dragon
Level: 2

Orc cave
Monsters: orcs,
Types: Orc
Level: 2-3

FIRST REAL QUEST: The Hobgoblin Invasion, first wave
Monsters: orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, goblins, wolves, bears, ogre, succubus, cambion
Types: Orc, goblin, beast, fiend, giant
Level: 3-5

The Tomb of Fallen Magi
Monsters: hobgoblins, bugbears, goblins, ogres, minotaur, succubus, imps, cambion, ghouls, zombies, green hag, elemental,
Types: Goblin, beast, fiend, giant, fey, elemental, undea, monsrosity
Level: 5-6

The Cult of Orcus
Monsters: Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings mages, wolves, ghouls, zombies, skeletons, vampires spawn
Types: Humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, beast, undead
Level: 6-7

Gorman the Crimson's Mountain
Monsters: swarms, giant insects, harpies, kobolds, ettin, cloud giant, young red dragon
Types: Beasts, kobolds, giant, monstrosity, dragon,
Level: 7-8

A fairly simple progression of a campaign. Nothing too crazy. However the only frequent occurrence is beasts, which start as a high threat then become minor as monster and wolf fodder.

In 1e, the Ranger is fine. There's always a kobold, goblin, or orc to fight.

In 3e, horror. The Orcs don't appear until level 2 then disappear at level 5. The goblins, a better and frequent choice, don't appear until level 3 then 50% the encounter from 3-6 are goblins. Kobolds appear at level 1-2 but not again until level 7 as Gorman's servants. Animals are popular but not big threats.
Kobolds have a hug gap in the middle. Orc is delayed and stop early. Goblins is even more delayed. What do you tell the player? Do you skew the campaign to their choice? What if they have a turn undead user in the party?

In 4e, types don't matter.

In 5e, less of an issue. That first level will be rough though.

 

[delericho]

The real issue is how the monsters are spread out.

An Campaign could look like.

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.

 

[Mephista]

It's interesting, I never knew that animal companions were such a relatively small part of the ranger suite over the years,

Depends what you mean by small. Animal Empathy started with 2e and was carried into 3e. 4e didn't start out with animal empathy (tried to make it a Fighter damage dealer instead), but all the magic and beast mastery was added fairly quickly after the core came out. In fact, you could have 3 animal companions with the Ranger, if I recall correctly.

So, everything after 1e, plus a good chunk of Rangers in other mediums, had animal empathy/companions. So, if by small, you mean in one edition and with some of the inspirations like Strider and Robin Hood, then yes. If you mean in D&D games and copies (including TT copies like 13th Age & PF and games like WoW & GW2), then no, its quite common. The subset of Rangers without animals is actually quite small depending on the medium.

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?