Dungeons and Dragons Ranger Question.

[Cmwissy]

I usually play the stereotypical sneaky ranger class in RPG's (Scout, Ranger, Hunter, etc.) and I'm having a bit of trouble when it comes to DnD.

I'm going to [small]try[/small] to play an old first edition of Dungeons and Dragons with some friends (It's the version where the Ranger is only just introduced) and I've seen that it is hardly the Ranger I've come to know and love and is actually a sub-class of the Warrior.

So, to get to the point, who is the Sneaky fast ranged combatant similar to the modern ranger in Dungeons and Dragons first and second edition?

 

[NickCaligo42]

Umm, hard to say given that D&D 3.5 and 4th are a bit of a different beast. Even then, I wouldn't call the Ranger a "sneaky" class. It's kind of more like a half-druid half-fighter with free dual wielding. Can you be a little more specific?

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Thief. Classic D&D and AD&D are pretty straight forward as to what a class does and what the composition of your team should be. That being said, play the Ranger however you want. If you want to sneak, sneak. D&D shouldn't be limited by what's in the book, but rather what's in the book should be guidelines to your adventure. If you enjoy sneaky rangers, talk to your DM about tweeking the class.

 

[Cmwissy]

Umm, hard to say given that D&D 3.5 and 4th are a bit of a different beast. Even then, I wouldn't call the Ranger a "sneaky" class. It's kind of more like a half-druid half-fighter with free dual wielding. Can you be a little more specific?

It's my bad, I'm new to the whole DnD thing and I'm still understanding the classes.

If you could just point me towards the sneaky dexterous guy with the bow, I would be very appreciative.

 

[Abedeus]

Ranger is not really sneaky. Sure he can sneak, but more like in forests than in towns.

Go with a Rogue if you want sneaky and ranged. They also get ranged Sneak Damage.

Or be an unorthodox, Fighter in light armor with a lot of Dexterity and using his Fighter feats for extra specialties. You can't make a Weapon Master... but Fighter/Rogue is nice.

 

[NickCaligo42]

If you could just point me towards the sneaky dexterous guy with the bow, I would be very appreciative.

Well, rangers would in fact be the guy with the bow in the old editions, I'm pretty sure--more so than in the new ones. A fighter/rogue multiclass would be both sneaky and dextrous and would be rather good with a bow as well, but in older editions especially that was a bit of a stretch to do and had a lot of special rules.

 

[Cmwissy]

Ranger is not really sneaky. Sure he can sneak, but more like in forests than in towns.

Go with a Rogue if you want sneaky and ranged. They also get ranged Sneak Damage.

Or be an unorthodox, Warrior in light armor with a lot of Dexterity and using his Warrior feats for extra specialties. You can't make a Weapon Master... but Warrior/Rogue is nice.

[small]Big sentence incoming.[/small]


So, would it be possible for me to start OD&D as a Lightly armored, fast moving, bow-using Ranger?

 

[Abedeus]

If you could just point me towards the sneaky dexterous guy with the bow, I would be very appreciative.

Well, rangers would in fact be the guy with the bow in the old editions, I'm pretty sure--more so than in the new ones. A fighter/rogue multiclass would be both sneaky and dextrous and would be rather good with a bow as well, but in older editions especially that was a bit of a stretch to do and had a lot of special rules.

Yeah, the main disadvantage behind fighter/rogue would also be the fact that you must be a halfling or a human (or a half-elf) or you'll get multiclass penalty.

Just go with pure Rogue. You'll get the mastery perks faster, too.

Ranger is not really sneaky. Sure he can sneak, but more like in forests than in towns.

Go with a Rogue if you want sneaky and ranged. They also get ranged Sneak Damage.

Or be an unorthodox, Warrior in light armor with a lot of Dexterity and using his Warrior feats for extra specialties. You can't make a Weapon Master... but Warrior/Rogue is nice.

[small]Big sentence incoming.[/small]


So, would it be possible for me to start OD&D as a Lightly armored, fast moving, bow-using Ranger?

Sure, why not. Fast moving? I dunno, I think there was a feat that gave +5% speed or so while running in the forest. But the only thing Ranger has that Fighter or Rogue don't is a pet companion and Favorite Enemy.

 

[Maddenfreak]

oh, i'd have to say a halfling rogue combo would be sneaky enugh, though i play 3.5 and 4, not sure if that combo is available in versions 1 and 2

 

[gally912]

1st and 2nd editions are a whole different beast, as was stated. Your best bet is the Thief, tho really, you're better off trying to get a grasp on the ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RULESET than trying to niche yourself.

 

[spartan231490]

skills with a ranger would do it. You could also do a rogue, they both get hide and move silently as skills, In 3.5 anyway.

 

[neurohazzard]

Play a Thief and focus on bows... Play a robin hood like character (maybe not in personality, but in style and setting). Thief with a high dexterity (16-18), and high Hide in Shadows/Move SIlently %, low pick-pocket, pick-lock, disarm trap% etc.. Basically just a focused scout with a longbow and the ability to hide in the shadows and appear at a moment's notice.

edit: People are really not paying attention

He's not playing 3.5, or 4th. He's playing 1st edition.

No feats, etc.

 

[Slaanax]

See if they have the Unearthed Arcanum I think its called has some different classes in their that you might be looking for.

 

[Tossth Esalad]

If my memory serves me right, then the elf wouldn't be a half bad alternative.

Though you might end up with a ranged warrior mage type instead.