Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[krunchyfrogg]

I hate to point out the obvious, but just in case nobody else has: if a ranger is receiving favored enemy bonuses, spellcasting, 6 skill pts/level, free Track feat + other wilderness-related abilities, and--on to top of all that--combat styles that emulate fighter feats, then I should certainly hope that he actually loses something in order to keep the 3.5 fighter from becoming as underadvantaged as a 3e ranger. A hit-die value drop, in conjunction with the light-armor restrictions, seems about right.

I agree. Think about if the Ranger got all these improvements, and kept a d10 HD. The spectrum would change from nobody wanting to play Rangers, to everyone wanting to play Rangers.

That isn't what WOTC wants, either.

 

[Steverooo]

I'm sorry, Josh, but I'm unclear on what you're angry/upset/irritated (or whatever) by, whether it's me, Rangers having spells, or what... In any case, I'll assume those questions weren't rhetorical...

And what exactly is that supposed to prove?

Well, if you want to believe that Rangers shouldn't have spells, this will go nowhere, and you can save time and skip to the next paragraph... For the rest of us 1Ers, it is obvious that Tolkien's Rangers were the basis for 1e's. Lela had previously posted that the Ranger Archetype was supposed to fit Robinhood, Aragorn, and Drizzt, but that only Drizzt had ever cast spells. I posted the above quote from The Fellowship of the Ring to show that Rangers had (as in 1e) certain abilities of Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, ESP, and Telepathy, as well as the ability to speak with birds and beasts.

Exactly what is that supposed to prove? That the 1e Ranger fit the Aragorn model upon which it was modeled. The ability to speak with birds and beasts certainly fits in with Speak with Animals. There is a basis for it, and not just with Drizzt.

Just because the Bree-folk thought them magical doesn't mean they were.

It certainly doesn't mean that they weren't!

In fact, after the main characters hang around with Aragorn long enough to make him a main character as well, we find out very clearly that he does not have "Strange powers of sight and hearing" nor does he "understand the languages of beasts and birds."

We must not be reading the same books... Aragorn has some pretty amazing powers of perception, even to the point of reading thoughts, it seems at times (this isn't really so amazing since Tolkien's Elves were often able to do this, as well).

I can post you a bunch of quotes, if you like, but frankly I don't think you'll be convinced, because I don't believe that you want to be... right? In that case, there's no use getting annoyed with those of us who believe Rangers should have spells (or in arguing with me about it).

In any case, here are a few choice quotes for you:

"Frodo found that Strider was now looking at him, as if he had heard or guessed all that had been said." FotR:186.

"'No more than you can afford,' answered Strider with a slow smile, as if he guessed Frodo's thoughts." FotR:194.

"'Ponies would not help us to escape horsemen,' he said at last, thoughtfully, as if he had guessed what Frodo had in mind." FotR:210.

And even if he did, they wouldn't be spells.

In Tolkien terms, or 3e terms, or what? Tolkien rarely (if ever) uses the word. In fact, when Sam asks the Elves of Lothlorien if their ropes are "magic", they don't know what that means, but tell him that it is, indeed, Elvish. If Rangers can see the Unseen, and speak with birds and beasts, then that is, indeed, a Preternatural (transcending the normal course of nature) or Supernatural (of an order of existance outside the natural world, attributed to divine power) ability... And Speaking to Animals is not only possible, in Middle-earth, but also a spell in 1, 2, and 3e.

"'Where did you learn such tales, if all the land is empty and forgetful?' asked Peregrin. 'The birds and beasts do not tell tales of that sort.'" FotR:236.

Tolkien doesn't say "Then Aragorn cast a spell", no... But what is he doing, here?

"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch. From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant." FotR:233.

And, seeing how Tolkien doesn't bother to tell us when someone is using magic, how do we know that Aragorn did not use Locate Animals or Plants to find the Athelas by scent, in the dark, near Weather-top?

"'These leaves,' he said, 'I have walked far to find; for this plant does not grow in the bare hills; but in the thickets away south of the Road I found it in the dark by the scent of the leaves." FotR:233.

I'm sorry, but that just seems one of the more pointless posts in this thread (which already has a few. This one included.)

Some people think Rangers deserve spells, others don't. There are two ways to fix it: Either make them optional, or create two different Rangerish classes. I fixed this in my own Alternate Ranger Version by allowing Rangers to trade away spells, if they wished.

Since the Ranger is an inferior Scout, Skirmisher, and Spy compared to the Rogue, however, and has fewer skill points to boot, I can't see taking them away, too. As always, YMMV.

[Edit: Format fix.]

 

[Steverooo]

I empathize with your frustration. I don't like magic being an integral part of the ranger's portfolio either

A mundane (spell-less) Ranger could certainly be made, but it would be a lot more work (which is why it will probably never be done)... Look at the Ranger's spell list, see what it lets him do, then create an ability (with rules that let them do the same things).

Alarm? Tripwires and alarms.
Snare? Trap set/disarm.
Pass Without Trace? Track-hiding.

Multi-classing as a druid would allow anyone who wanted the nature spells to have them.

Along with the Druid's alignment, weapon, and armor restrictions. This is not an acceptable solution, for many (if not most).

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Though sometimes I think he could make a deaf, dumb, and naked pure Bard a killing powerhouse.

How'd he get the rules for my Naked Bard Prestige Class?

 

[Umbran]

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

This can be balanced in the same way that a wizard and sorcerer are balanced Sorcerers and wizards cast the same type of spells. The Sorcerer gets more of them a day. How is he not superior to the wizard? By having restricted choice. Having access to a restricted list of things is not superior to having a wide list of possibilities.

If the fighter has a wide choice of bonus feats (and gets more of them), that makes it a more powerful class, overall, than a ranger who has a pair of paths to choose between that cannot be varied.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sorry, Josh, but I'm unclear on what you're angry/upset/irritated (or whatever) by, whether it's me, Rangers having spells, or what... In any case, I'll assume those questions weren't rhetorical...

None of the above, I just have a personal pet peeve of presenting evidence that doesn't actually prove your point, and then claiming that it does.

Well, if you want to believe that Rangers shouldn't have spells, this will go nowhere, and you can save time and skip to the next paragraph... For the rest of us 1Ers, it is obvious that Tolkien's Rangers were the basis for 1e's. Lela had previously posted that the Ranger Archetype was supposed to fit Robinhood, Aragorn, and Drizzt, but that only Drizzt had ever cast spells. I posted the above quote from The Fellowship of the Ring to show that Rangers had (as in 1e) certain abilities of Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, ESP, and Telepathy, as well as the ability to speak with birds and beasts.

Uhh, I'm a former 1er too. Tolkien's rangers do seem to be the basis for the ranger class, but that doesn't mean that the translation from Tolkien to D&D was a good one. Your quote most certainly does not show that rangers have Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, ESP or Telepahty or the ability to speak with birds and beasts. If you want to find quotes, find some where Aragorn (or even better yet, a ranger other than Aragorn, since Aragorn, as the heir of Elendil and one of the stars of the books, was unique) actually uses some of those abilities you list. Instead, what you give me is what the superstitious Bree-folk (who are shown to be just about as clueless as the Shirefolk in terms of the real world) believe about the rangers and a bunch of quotes that show that Aragorn was intelligent, observant, wise and had quite a bit of experience with human nature. Somehow I don't see how that does anything at all towards making him a spellcaster.

We must not be reading the same books... Aragorn has some pretty amazing powers of perception, even to the point of reading thoughts, it seems at times (this isn't really so amazing since Tolkien's Elves were often able to do this, as well).

As I said before ... high levels in spot, search, listen and animal empathy. Maybe in Sense Motive too, although maybe he just has a very high wisdom score. His powers aren't really that amazing... Frodo shows equally amazing powers of fortitude, but nobody suggests giving him buffing spells, for instance.

I can post you a bunch of quotes, if you like, but frankly I don't think you'll be convinced, because I don't believe that you want to be... right? In that case, there's no use getting annoyed with those of us who believe Rangers should have spells (or in arguing with me about it).

I'm not annoyed with you wanting to have a ranger class with spells, but don't decieve yourself into thinking that you've presented anything at all like convincing evidence that Aragorn ever cast anything like a spell, or did anything else overtly supernatural at all. Clearly, throughout the books, he did not.

In Tolkien terms, or 3e terms, or what? Tolkien rarely (if ever) uses the word. In fact, when Sam asks the Elves of Lothlorien if their ropes are "magic", they don't know what that means, but tell him that it is, indeed, Elvish. If Rangers can see the Unseen, and speak with birds and beasts, then that is, indeed, a Preternatural (transcending the normal course of nature) or Supernatural (of an order of existance outside the natural world, attributed to divine power) ability... And Speaking to Animals is not only possible, in Middle-earth, but also a spell in 1, 2, and 3e.

Aragorn never speaks to animals. And I'm talking strictly about Tolkien, not D&D. The D&D ranger is (and always has been) a very poor reflection of Aragorn, even though that's clearly what it tried to be. Rangers also don't see the unseen. They are neither preternatural nor supernatural in Tolkien, they merely have a lot of experience with living in the wilds. Aragorn, after all, is over 150 years old when we first see him, and has spent most of his life in what you or I would call extremely intensive training. If that could be captured in D&D terms, it would merely mean that he was high level, not that he was casting spells or utilizing supernatural abilities.

"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue. Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch. From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant." FotR:233.

Not casting a spell. Aragorn himself said repeatedly that it was the plant itself, and it's inherent virtue, that does the trick with helping Frodo until he can be taken to Rivendell and given true, probably supernatural, healing at the hand of Elrond himself.

And, seeing how Tolkien doesn't bother to tell us when someone is using magic, how do we know that Aragorn did not use Locate Animals or Plants to find the Athelas by scent, in the dark, near Weather-top?

What do you mean Tolkien doesn't bother telling us when someone is using magic? He clearly does so whenever Gandalf, Saruman or Galadriel is using "magic." He doesn't bother to tell us Aragorn is ever using magic -- to me that is much more indicative of the fact that he is not, not that Tolkien is just dodgy about it.

What I think I see is, that despite the fact that you are trying to paint me as someone who won't look at evidence right in front of my face that clearly points to the ranger using spells, that's quite clearly not going on.

I don't believe Aragorn is a good ranger archetype to begin with, so I don't care if the D&D class represents him well or not (your "motive" for my "unreasonableness.") However, I don't believe that the ranger class makes a good Aragorn. The "evidence" you've been able to come up with certainly does not prove that Aragorn used any spells, and it doesn't even suggest strongly that it does. Rather than accusing me of bias, you should have a look around. Those quotes don't suggest spell use to anyone except one who goes into looking for spell use. Even then, the best they can provide is vague hints that, IMO at least, can be better interpreted otherwise.

 

[Felon]

This can be balanced in the same way that a wizard and sorcerer are balanced Sorcerers and wizards cast the same type of spells. The Sorcerer gets more of them a day. How is he not superior to the wizard? By having restricted choice. Having access to a restricted list of things is not superior to having a wide list of possibilities.

This looks like a flawed analogy. The vast array of spells that a wizard will have access to lends him a tremendous amount of utility. This cannot be compared to a fighter selecting one feat at first level, and one additional feat every even level afterward. Even were a ranger to acquire his virtual feats at a slightly slower rate than the fighter, it would not equate to the stark contrast that will quickly develop betwen a wizard's spell repertoire and that of a sorceror's. Allso, note the wizard is not merely compensated by an "expanded catalog", but also by gaining a free Scribe Scroll feat at first level and another bonus feat every 5 levels.

If the fighter has a wide choice of bonus feats (and gets more of them), that makes it a more powerful class, overall, than a ranger who has a pair of paths to choose between that cannot be varied.

It's likely the ranger will have access to his virtual feats at the same level that any character could be able to meet the BAB prerequisites of the actual feats. Assuming that turns out to be the case, then if a player wished to pursue the route of two-weapon fighter or archer, how would the fighter continue to be the superior choice despite all of the other ranger class features? If the answer is that it wouldn't be, and that the Fighter would simply get the "leftover" players who simply chose not to pursue those paths, that does not seem acceptable. The Fighter should be the best choice for pure fighting ability (other characters get to have special class features, more skill points, better saves, etc).

 

[Plane Sailing]

A mundane (spell-less) Ranger could certainly be made, but it would be a lot more work (which is why it will probably never be done)...

I guess that the closest that WotC have done to this so far has been the Woodsman class, in Wheel of Time d20.

It's a nice little class, and could be used quite well for a spell-less ranger.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's likely the ranger will have access to his virtual feats at the same level that any character could be able to meet the BAB prerequisites of the actual feats. Assuming that turns out to be the case,

Have we not heard that the virtual weapon paths start at 2nd level for the 3.5e ranger (thus avoiding the "everything at 1st level" problem) - and since TWF is certain to be available to Fighters at 1st level...

If a 3.5e ranger (guess) picked up improved twf at 9th level, you can't say that is better than a fighter picking it up at 9th level since the fighter will have had an additional four combat feats even after picking up twf at 1st.

Thus for someone wanting to specialist in twf, I predict that being a fighter (and adding, say, expertise & improved disarm & weapon focus & weapon specialisation to improved twf) might be more appealing than being a ranger who at that level might have twf, imptwf and no other particular combat feats - but lots of other useful and interesting rangery things.

Cheers

 

[Felon]

Have we not heard that the virtual weapon paths start at 2nd level for the 3.5e ranger (thus avoiding the "everything at 1st level" problem) - and since TWF is certain to be available to Fighters at 1st level...

Point conceded.

If a 3.5e ranger (guess) picked up improved twf at 9th level, you can't say that is better than a fighter picking it up at 9th level since the fighter will have had an additional four combat feats even after picking up twf at 1st.

I recall reading that the ranger's "manyshot" combat path kicked in around 5th or 6th level, and I can only assume the 2-weapon path kicks at that point as well (Two-Weapon Defense maybe?). We'll have to see what else the ranger's getting along the way. We know it'll be a mix of favored enemy, spellcasting, and wilderness-related bonuses, all of which might make for a bigger, badder combatant than a fighter can offer. And in case it's a close finish, there's the triple-the-skill-points-per-level to tip the scales decisively. I'm still thinking the d8 hit die only makes good sense, from a game balance perspective.

Thus for someone wanting to specialist in twf, I predict that being a fighter (and adding, say, expertise & improved disarm & weapon focus & weapon specialisation to improved twf) might be more appealing than being a ranger who at that level might have twf, imptwf and no other particular combat feats - but lots of other useful and interesting rangery things.

Here's hoping!