Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Umbran]

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.

Hm. Lightly armored man with two weapons or with a bow. A man with no armor restriction with a greatsword, or with a bow, or two weapons, or with a spiked chain, or with any other weapon in the game, on foot or on horseback, or doing whatever else he thinks useful....

Seems a pretty stark contrast to me.

The rogue is freqently lauded as a highly desireable class because of it's wide array of available skills. But even with his higher skill points, rogue doesn't get enough to fully utilize the list.

Choice is power. With choice (even choice spread over time), one can adapt. The ranger will apparently be stuck with bow, or twf. That's all he'll do. A fighter has access to anything and everything available in combat style. By high level, he's got enough feats to be more than a one-tirck pony in combat, and he can choose his tricks to meet the circumstances he's found in the campaign. That, again, is a stark contrast.

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?

It appears that the ranger will still be restricted to light armor. No heavy armor, and a smaller hit die. Doesn't sound like a flat out superior choice to me.

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

For pure unadulterated fighting ability, the fighter still wins, even if the ranger has a d10 hit die. Why? Because the fighter, being what he is, can focus his stats, skills, and feats upon raw fighting capability. The ranger wears more hats - warrior, scout, and spellcaster - and thus needs to spread his focus about. Rather similar to multiclassing - the ranger necessarily gives up raw power in fighting to be able to do a few more things.

 

[Felon]

Choice is power. With choice (even choice spread over time), one can adapt. The ranger will apparently be stuck with bow, or twf. That's all he'll do. A fighter has access to anything and everything available in combat style.

I don't agree. It's not the same thing as having access to a variety of different magics. Divination, evocation, transmutation...they all offer pretty dramatically different capabilities.

Versatility in using weapons doesn't amount to that much. Being a master of the waraxe doesn't avail you much over being a master of the bastard sword.

It appears that the ranger will still be restricted to light armor. No heavy armor, and a smaller hit die. Doesn't sound like a flat out superior choice to me.

Well, you may have missed it during the series of posts with Mjolnir and Mercule, but the point I had been making was that the d8 Hit Die is what ensures the fighter stays the superior choice.

As for the light armor, I don't see that as a major factor unless armor receives a tweaking. Most of the fighters in the campaigns I play in pass on heavy armor. They think the various penalties outweigh the benefit to AC (definitely not if they have a Dex 14 or better). I tend to agree.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

Going along with the LotR theme that's come up, look to Legolos (in the movie at least) for an example of both styles of fighting working wonderfully together.

And just think, with Combat Paths you can now do both easily. Just use your regular feats for TWF and the chosen Path as Archery (or vice versa). Edit: Just realized this could take away from the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack thing. But I guess we can't all be Legolos.

C'mon, Legolas is a Fighter, not a Ranger.

 

[Umbran]

Versatility in using weapons doesn't amount to that much. Being a master of the waraxe doesn't avail you much over being a master of the bastard sword.

If it didn't matter, why didn't they just have 3 melee weapons - simple, martial, and exotic, and nothing else?

Plus, we aren't comparing waraxe to bastard sword. We're comparing a bow or TWF to every other choice (sword and shield, two-handed weapon, and various more offbeat alternatives)

Well, you may have missed it during the series of posts with Mjolnir and Mercule, but the point I had been making was that the d8 Hit Die is what ensures the fighter stays the superior choice.

The d8 does help ensure that, yes. On this we agree. I'd say the fighter would still have the edge without it, but that's a side issue.

As for the light armor, I don't see that as a major factor unless armor receives a tweaking. Most of the fighters in the campaigns I play in pass on heavy armor. They think the various penalties outweigh the benefit to AC (definitely not if they have a Dex 14 or better). I tend to agree.

You cannot blame the designers for a part of the balance the players simply choose to ignore

Let's put things on an even keel, and think of point-buy. One ranger, one fighter, same number of points.

If the fighter is willing, he can put high stats in Strength and Con, and the rest are basically gravy. The ranger needs high Strength and Con, for the same reason the fighter does. He also needs dex - for skills, making up for light armor, and possibly archery. He also needs wisdom - for spellcasting and a number of vital skills.

End result, if Fighter is willing to take full advantage of his class abilities, he will be better at fighting, hands down. The fighter can afford to have a couple of very high stats, and to heck with the rest. The ranger cannot, unless he wants to sacrifice class abilities.

In the broad sense, this still holds with a fair dice-character generation system, and players approaching character generation with effectiveness in mind.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Legolas could use Track almost, but not quite, as well as Aragorn, when they were tracking Pippin and Merry in Fangorn Forest. Check it out.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

Legolas could use Track almost, but not quite, as well as Aragorn, when they were tracking Pippin and Merry in Fangorn Forest. Check it out.

It has admittedly been a few years since I read LotR, but I don't remember Legolas being able to track at all.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I say it's a good move. The Ranger never should have been as tough as the fighter or barbarian in the first place.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I just read it, and he certainly does.

Aragorn asked Legolas what happened at this scene, and Legolas could tell, by the signs, what happened. Then Aragorn filled in the details that Legolas had missed.

I wish I had my books with me right now, but I just moved house, they're in a box, and I don't even have a phone line. (I'm at school right now. )

 

[krunchyfrogg]

Alright then. Legolas is either a lower level Ranger than Aragorn, or he's a multiclassed Ranger/Fighter.

I'd think that he's more of a Ranger/Fighter, since he is at least as good at fighting as Aragorn.

 

[Lela]

Alright then. Legolas is either a lower level Ranger than Aragorn, or he's a multiclassed Ranger/Fighter.

I'd think that he's more of a Ranger/Fighter, since he is at least as good at fighting as Aragorn.

And he has both feet chains.