Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Mercule]

I don't see nothing wrong with a class having a good BAB and an average HD. You may think that it would be more appealing when it comes to the other classes that have medium HD, especially a druid, but I think both classes will be distinctive enough and balanced with the rest.

My main issue with this really is that I envision Rangers being slightly hardier than Fighters. Not necessarily enough to get a higher hit die, but a lower hit die is right out. Given my druthers, I'd give the Ranger the same hit die as a Fighter and find some way to encourage them to have a higher Con.

It has everything to do with D&D ranger class, especially when it was inherited during the 2nd edition. Only this time around, the 3.5e ranger give you option, you can decide to stick with the "classic" ranger or go with a more "archer" ranger archetype.

Besides, I doubt ranger fans would like to acquire TWF as a "normal feat" but rather as a "bonus feat."

Personal peeve, here.

D&D classes do not define archetypes. They serve as tools to build them. The class should _always_ flow from the archetype, not the other way around.

2E is not the "classic" Ranger, even in D&D terms. the SR or 1E Ranger are "classic". Neither have any special affinity for TWF. The 2E Ranger was some mutant child of the 1E Ranger. The most unfortunately thing about it is that it apparently wasn't born sterile.

Besides, I doubt Ranger fans want TWF as a class ability.

This "Combat Paths" sounds more like Talent Trees from d20 Modern. Personally, it is okay, depending how it is alloted by level. I hope that you are not restricted to choosing one combat path. I like a mixture of melee and ranged attack repertoire.

I don't own d20 Modern, so all I have there is a bit of hearsay.

The Talent Trees don't sound too bad. I don't know if it's a mechanic that's appropriate to the other trappings of D&D (there is a difference between Modern and D&D).

One of my objections to the "Combat Paths" is that it does sound like you're locked into one path. If not, I'll be a bit more receptive to the idea. I don't think the Paths should be limited to Combat, though. Nor do I think TWF should be an option -- maybe if the list of options was large, but it shouldn't figure prominently.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I mean personally, some fighting style are effective in wilderness situations, especially when one takes advantage of the terrain.

True, which is way the Ranger is often associated with the bow. TWF isn't especially related to wilderness. Mostly, I think what makes Rangers effective fighters in the wilderness is 1) they are smart enough to hide, find higher ground, and keep their distance; and 2) they've learned to withstand hardships that would claim others and that let's them take more damage than anyone has a right to endure.

Really, I think it comes down to whether you want a Ranger decended from the 1E or the 2E class. They are similar, but they seem to have different origins. Myself, I never allowed the 2E Ranger, I just carried over what I was doing in 1E: the 1E Ranger with the Thief's Move Silent and Hide in Shadows. I also banned the 3E Ranger on sight, but 1E doesn't work nearly as well with 3E as it did with 2E, so I couldn't just drop in the 1E Ranger. Even if I were to use the 3.5 Ranger, I'd ban the TWF combat path.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Jack, I've asked this on your "poll" threads, but still never seen an answer. Why is it that you feel the ranger can only be defined by what it was in the past?

I just assumed you were joking. I mean, how else could you justly define it?

 

[Desdichado]

I just assumed you were joking. I mean, how else could you justly define it?

There's all kinds of ways to define it. It's the core concept that matters, not the details of how you get there. Your concept of a ranger is essentially the same thing rangers were early on in D&D; to me I'm looking for holding to the primary archetype that it is supposed to represent. However, because there are all kinds of primary archetypes, that's more difficult with the ranger than, with, say the fighter. Is it Aragorn? Robin Hood? Driz'zt? Somthing else? Would you say that any of these wouldn't be rangers? Because the D&D class historically has very poorly modeled any of these characters, ironically, even Driz'zt.

No, why would I be joking? Frankly, I suspect you're joking by not understanding my question. It's really quite straightforward.

 

[Lela]

Is it Aragorn? Robin Hood? Driz'zt?

Just to be clear, in the book did Aragorn actually use two weapons before he recieved the sword of Isyldor (sp?). While I know he did in the movie (once using a torch), it's been so long since I've read the book.

If so, then, of those, only Robin Hood didn't use two weapons. As a bow master, he wouldn't mind the 3.5e combat paths. And I never saw him as someone who could take damage. More someone who avoided it.

 

[boschdevil]

Hit Dice

In AD&D 1e, They kept this 2d8 up to 11d8 HD regime while fighters and paladins moved to D10 HD. Rangers where hardier at 1st level, and could get more CON bonuses, but were down a peg or two.

Plane Sailing, I'd agreed with everything you said except the above for the following reason:

1) Basic average of hit points, by average the 1st edition ranger had the following average hit points per level when compared to the fighter (I did adjust to denote a negative when a ranger had more hit points than a fighter):

• AD&D hp avg (1d10 v. 2d8 starting dice)
  lvl ----- Ftr ----- Rgr ----- difference
  1 ------ 5.5 ----- 9.0 ----- -3.5
  2 ------11.0 ----13.5----- -2.5
  3 ------16.5 ----18.0----- -1.5
  4 ------22.0 ----22.5----- -0.5
  5 ------27.5 ----27.0----- 0.5
  6 ------33.0 ----31.5----- 1.5
  7 ------38.5 ----36.0----- 2.5
  8 ------44.0 ----40.5----- 3.5
  9 ------49.5 ----45.0----- 4.5
  10 -----(+3) ----49.5 ---- 3.0
  11 -----(+3) ----(+2) ---- (+1)

2) Next, let's compare apples to apples. I will use the 3rd edition rules for point buy (pg 20 of DMG) to compare abilities for a typical charactr of each class. Remember that a 1st edition ranger had minimum ability requirements of a 13 for strength, a 13 for intelligence, a 14 for wisdom, and a 14 for constitution to be able to qualify for the race. So, we shall start our Ranger character with a 13 Strength, 13 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom, 10 dexterity (average score - I'll keep this ability the same between ranger versus fighter character comparison), 14 constitution, and a 10 charisma (will do the same as what was done for dexterity). Ok, that is point buy of 26.

Now, remember in 1st edition that a fighter only had minimum requirements of 9 for strength and 7 for constitution. I'll keep my dexterity and charisma score the same as the ranger: a 10 each. Next, since I do not have requirements for intelligence and wisdom, I will leave my abilities at the base of 8 each. This leaves me a remaining 22 point for point buy. Thus, I will make my constitution an 18 and the strength a 14.

Thus, when compared with the ranger, apples to apples, the fighter will get 4 additional hit points per level since a 14 constitution did not give you any additional hit points and an 18 constitution gave you an additional 4 hit point per hit die. This is the reason why the minimum ability scores for a ranger is a big equalizer for a fighter. Thus, factoring this into the hit point chart, the chart becomes:

• AD&D hp avg with equivalent abilities (1d10 v. 2d8 starting dice)
  lvl ----- Ftr ----- Rgr ----- difference
  1 ----- 9.5 ----- 9.0 ----- 0.5
  2 -----19.0 ----13.5 ---- 5.5
  3 -----28.5 ----18.0 ----10.5
  4 -----38.0 ----22.5 ----15.5
  5 -----47.5 ----27.0 ----20.5
  6 -----57.0 ----31.5 ----25.5
  7 -----66.5 ----36.0 ----30.5
  8 -----76.0 ----40.5 ----35.5
  9 -----85.5 ----45.0 ----40.5
  10-----(+7) ----49.5 -----45.5
  11-----(+7) ----(+2) -----(+5)

So, the when compared to even abilities, the fighter average hit points leave the ranger for 1st edition, and at no time does the ranger have more hit points than the fighter. And I didn't even factor in the lower experience points to level factor for the fighter.

 

[nimisgod]

Analysis: The special followers of the ranger have been eroded over time, disappearing completely in third edition. .

The 3.0 E Ranger still has Animal friendship doesn't he?

 

[Lela]

The 3.0 E Ranger still has Animal friendship doesn't he?

And there's PrCs to enhance this if you prefer this route.

 

[LostSoul]

My favourite character (the one I bring to new campaigns) generally takes his first level as Ranger and then begins to add Psi Warrior levels.

Giving the Ranger d8 and 6 skill points isn't going to change this choice for me; it's going to make it more attractive, actually, because I love skill points. I'm going to miss the mix of Talons (treats your unarmed attacks as weapons) and TWF to make my character a sweet unarmed brawler, but that was never the focus of the character, just a way to deal with what he had.

But anyways. d8 hit points is a little to low to use as a front line fighter. Psi-Warriors are different, because they have abilities to boost their hit point totals.

I think we should stop looking at the Ranger as anything but a set of abilities. Sometimes taking a level of Ranger works for your background/experiences through the past level, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Ranger REG]

My main issue with this really is that I envision Rangers being slightly hardier than Fighters. Not necessarily enough to get a higher hit die, but a lower hit die is right out. Given my druthers, I'd give the Ranger the same hit die as a Fighter and find some way to encourage them to have a higher Con.

Only a powergamer would accept a ranger front-loading ability and the same HD as or better than a fighter, and that would be unbalancing.

As for being hardy, when you compare to the NPC commoner's hit die (similar to the arcane wizards and sorcerers), they're about as hardy as they come, but they're not tank who can wade into battle. THAT's the fighter's forte.

D&D classes do not define archetypes. They serve as tools to build them. The class should _always_ flow from the archetype, not the other way around.

Which is why they're making 3.5e more flexible than its current incarnation.

2E is not the "classic" Ranger, even in D&D terms. the SR or 1E Ranger are "classic". Neither have any special affinity for TWF. The 2E Ranger was some mutant child of the 1E Ranger. The most unfortunately thing about it is that it apparently wasn't born sterile.

Besides, I doubt Ranger fans want TWF as a class ability.

I'm a Ranger fan (not the baseball kind). ;-)

Personally, the two-weapon fighting fit their skirmishing melee style, as opposed to the en masse infantry or legionary style of sword and shield. But hey, nothing is stopping a ranger from picking that fighting technique.

I don't own d20 Modern, so all I have there is a bit of hearsay.

No, but you can visit the d20 Modern forums (here or on Wizards) and read the rules discussion. Don't worry if you don't have the rulebook. You can download the Modern System Reference Document at www.Wizards.com/d20

The Talent Trees don't sound too bad. I don't know if it's a mechanic that's appropriate to the other trappings of D&D (there is a difference between Modern and D&D).

Yes, d20 Modern is less epic than D&D, especially when firearms are involved.

Nevertheless, they both use the same core engine, d20. What could work in d20 Modern may also work in D&D. Heck, you could add the Occupation rules, and list the character's previous medieval occupation (based on his family background) before he became a fighter or a sorcerer.

One of my objections to the "Combat Paths" is that it does sound like you're locked into one path. If not, I'll be a bit more receptive to the idea. I don't think the Paths should be limited to Combat, though. Nor do I think TWF should be an option -- maybe if the list of options was large, but it shouldn't figure prominently.

I may object to that, too. So, I'm hoping that the so-called "Combat Paths" are a bit more flexible as the d20 Modern Talent Tree (see MSRD).

True, which is way the Ranger is often associated with the bow. TWF isn't especially related to wilderness. Mostly, I think what makes Rangers effective fighters in the wilderness is 1) they are smart enough to hide, find higher ground, and keep their distance; and 2) they've learned to withstand hardships that would claim others and that let's them take more damage than anyone has a right to endure.

To me, a ranger is not only a hunter, but survivalist. He is also a skirmish specialist, relying only himself or just a handful of allies, as opposed to the legion approach (it's pretty hard to move an army through the closed terrain of the forest or swampland).

Really, I think it comes down to whether you want a Ranger decended from the 1E or the 2E class. They are similar, but they seem to have different origins. Myself, I never allowed the 2E Ranger, I just carried over what I was doing in 1E: the 1E Ranger with the Thief's Move Silent and Hide in Shadows. I also banned the 3E Ranger on sight, but 1E doesn't work nearly as well with 3E as it did with 2E, so I couldn't just drop in the 1E Ranger. Even if I were to use the 3.5 Ranger, I'd ban the TWF combat path.

While, as a DM, you may decide what type of ranger is acceptable in your game, I hope you do are open to a player's suggestion that he wishes to be a skirmishing type, close-quarter combat ranger.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm all for ranger's getting d8 hit points. Sure, rangers are hardy - and I guess this will be reflected in their saves.