Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Umbran]

Actually, the ranger is a mundane character, not a divine one. At least in Middle-earth.

An argument can be made otherwise. The Rangers of Middle-earth are Dunedain - some of the last and purest remaining line of Numenoreans. Considering that the thing that makes Numenorians special is past residence over the seas in the West, and the thing that makes that special is that it makes you closer to Middle-earth's angelic powers, it could be said that Middle Earth rangers do have a religious aspect.

Mind you, that logic makes them more like Paladins than Rangers, but it isn't like Middle-earth rangers are entirely mundane people.

 

[Morgenstern]

I'm mostly looking at the ranger from a general flavor/generally playable standpoint. I think the new version has made soem reall strides towards being an interesting new class. With one caveat:
spall casting shouldn't be the defalt mechanical solution to "these guys have some versitilty". Long rant there, we'll just skip it this round .

As to Aragorn and the rest of the JRRT rangers, what I've seen so far look rather promising to me as a tool for representing those characters, as long as you remember two things about them:

Aragorn's got prestige classes. High King's got some butt-kicking entry requirements last time I checked .

All the rangers are of a race (of Men) so clearly blessed with the power of the ancient times that I wouldn't use the human racial package to describe them anyway. Something with a rather different aging progression than humans, quite likely a racial Con bonus (neatly takes care of that hit die size problem vs. human fighters), and if you're really into it, possibly some inate nature spells the way a gnome throws illusions. And a favored class of... wait for it, it's gonna surprise you... Ranger (ta da!)

So, set up the Dunedain properly, and levels of Ranger work fine for portraying them. The new skill point progression is way more significant in modeling the classic Middle Earth ranger than the hit dice.

Of course, if you apply such a race first, you don't need spell casting as a ranger at all... Oops, rant coming on again .

But even with those damn spells I see a class a lot more effective outside pure combat situations. I see a class with a role in the party other than "spare fighter". He may not be an RPGA jugernaught, but he looks a lot more promising for general play.

Seriously, if you're going to try and model something from fiction to d20, make the tools work for you That means even first level character has five major parts to use in trying to match up to your model: Ability scores, your starting feat, class, skill points and race.

So to make Aragorn, you've got to ask- have I got the right ability scores? Did I find the best feat? What is the class that comes closest? Did I use my skill points to accentuate his highlights? ...Have I got the right racial package?

I think even at first level you could make it clear to people what you were aspiring to , even if you aren't nearly there yet.

 

[Fenes 2]

Isn't anyone bothered by the possibility that, with 6 skill points, good BAB, martial weapon proficiencies, spells, combat styles and modified special abilities, the 3.5 ranger could end up making the rogue obsolete?

 

[Morgenstern]

Outside of sneak attack, the rogue was obsolete from the word go. There's virtually nothing they can do that a wizard can't do better with a spell. The rogue's functionality is pretty narrow to begin with, even if the Lots of skill points would lead you to believe otherwise. Still, the things a rogue does do well are still there, and having another party member that can sneak along with you is not going to detract from that usefulness all that much . Heck, he can sneak into place and help you with that surprise attack alpha strike.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I won't worry for the rogue, unless I see Tumble on the ranger's skill list, along with Escape Artist and a dozen other skills that the ranger doesn't get as a class skill.

Furthermore, the rogue will always have better offense - sneak attack is way better than favored enemy any day of the week.

 

[boschdevil]

Isn't anyone bothered by the possibility that, with 6 skill points, good BAB, martial weapon proficiencies, spells, combat styles and modified special abilities, the 3.5 ranger could end up making the rogue obsolete?

Wow, they gave the 3.5 ranger (a) access to the rogue's skill list so now the ranger can open locks and find traps, (b) sneak attack, (c) uncanny dodge, (d) evasion, and (e) special ability options listed on pg 48 of the PHB. Man, I guess the rogue is obsolete.

 

[Mercule]

Then he will less of a ranger and more of a fighter. You might as well get rid of this class and be left with the barbarian, fighter, and paladin.

That's something of a non-sequitor. The only front-loading a Ranger needs to be a Ranger are free Tracking and _maybe_ Favored Enemy.

Besides, it's been stated that front-loading is a bad idea. It this is so, it really doesn't matter what the HD is -- it's a bad idea. In fact, a lower HD is only likely to aggrevate the issue as it won't hold people to the class.

But with all of the ranger's survival and hunting abilities, to add the same if not better HD, would gain a significant advantage over the other classes. What is even worse, we go back to the 1st edition era where the fighter class becomes a ghost of itself; less attractive when you put said figther up on the pedestal with the paladin and ranger.

I don't really see this happenning. If leaving the Ranger's HD alone throws off the fighter's balance, then the Paladin needs to be stepped down, too.

I'm a ranger fan, but I'm not about to turn it into a munchkin class. I'm also not about to turn it into a fighter class with survival skill, basically losing its distinction and identity.

I've no interest in these, either. I want to see a balanced Ranger class that serves a fighter-type role that the Fighter class can't -- wilderness warrior, explorer, and skirmisher. The Ranger _should_ have much more in common with the Fighter than the Rogue or Druid.

Honestly, even keeping the d10 HD and ditching spellcasting (as an apparently extreme example), I see the Ranger class as having a significantly better differntial from the Fighter and a much better reason to exist than the current Paladin.

Yes, our concept of the ranger class differs, and I'm all for the differences, but I'm not about to selectively choose when concept is okay and which is not (eventually shutting out those who prefer a two-weapon skirmishing ranger).

I agree that multiple concepts should be viable.

I'm not selectively shutting out any concepts -- I'm simply in favor of separating the fighting style from the class mechanically because I don't see them related from an RP point of view.

Anyone who wants to can still play a TWF Ranger in my campaign. They just need to spend the feats. If your concept isn't TWF (or archery), then don't spend your feats there. In the latter case, you don't have these useless feats that are supposed to "balance" you against everyone else, but only weaken you because they have nothing to do with the concept of your character.

"Option, not restriction" have been Wizards' banner cry for 3.5e. I'm cool with d8 HD. I would have objected if it goes down further than that. And I also would object if the ranger becomes an uber class over the other combat-oriented classes (since you've been hinting at wanting a better-than-10 HD).

Okay, one last time. I've said this many times before. But it doesn't seem to sink in: I do not advocate a d12 HD for Ranger. That's a bit much. I see Rangers as being slightly, but not statistically significantly, tougher than Fighters if you strip away all armor, etc. from both. Barbarians are the ones that fail to notice when you stick them with a dagger, not Rangers.

The only way that I'd up Rangers to a d12 HD is if someone said, "Rangers can't use d10 for HD anymore, find something else." Basically, d12 makes less sense than d10, but more than d8 (which is absurb, IMHO).

Basically, I think that Rangers should roll the same HD as Fighters, but there should be some encouragement for the Ranger to have a higher Con, on average. If a swashbuckler gets d10 HD, then a Ranger certainly should -- or would you advocate reducing the Fighter's HD in a Renaissance campaign?

 

[Ranger REG]

I'd rather he be a skilled survivalist that uses his Wisdom. Personally, he should take advantage of the wild terrain to fight longer in battle (e.g. increase his cover and cover bonus by one category better), or use his Wisdom instead of his Constitution to add to his Fort Save Bonus.

 

[Mercule]

I'd rather he be a skilled survivalist that uses his Wisdom. Personally, he should take advantage of the wild terrain to fight longer in battle (e.g. increase his cover and cover bonus by one category better), or use his Wisdom instead of his Constitution to add to his Fort Save Bonus.

I can see what you're saying, and I do not disagree that a Ranger should be cunning. Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that all Ranger players will be expert tacticians. Since HP are supposed to be a vague amalgam of toughness, luck, and skill, that seems an excellent way to represent the Ranger's cunning use of terrain. Either that or a "favored terrain".

 

[Felon]

If leaving the Ranger's HD alone throws off the fighter's balance, then the Paladin needs to be stepped down, too.

Nope. The paladin does not acquire virtual feats that duplicate Fighter bonus feats. In fact, the paladin's only raw combat ability is his once-a-day smite.

I've no interest in these, either. I want to see a balanced Ranger class that serves a fighter-type role that the Fighter class can't -- wilderness warrior, explorer, and skirmisher. The Ranger _should_ have much more in common with the Fighter than the Rogue or Druid.

Warrior? He is a warrior. A d8 hit dice doesn't change that.

Explorer? What does that have to do with fighting?

Skirmisher? Not sure what you mean by that. If he's in light armor and has Tumble as a class skill (which a fighter, paladin, and barbarian don't) he can stick and move.

The bottom line is, for your position to have any real weight, you're going to have to justify how a ranger can have access to the same Hit Die as the fighter, 4 more skill points per level, and combat styles that imitate Fighter bonus feats, and not be a patently superior class to the fighter (and mind you I'm leaving spellcasting, favored enemy bonuses, free Track feat, and other wilderness-related abilities out of the equation).