Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[The_Gneech]

IME, the monk, ranger, and bard catch nigh equivalent heat. That's dropping the average down below 75%.

When you then collectively consider people's gripes about vancian magic, Item Creation feats, fighter dependance on magic items, clerics being too buff, sorcerers not having CHR based skills, allignment, etc, etc, then perhaps they're down below 50%.

Just can't satisfy some folks

This is actually an important point re: rangers and spellcasting. D&D rangers cast spells because this is D&D, and everybody and their friggin' brother cast spells, even the people who don't! Rogues can "fool" magic items into thinking they have magic ability (huh?), no fighter worth his salt goes into major battles unless he's all hopped up on buffing potions, and so forth. Even the barbarian is pretty much hosed without magic -- which I suspect is why they dropped the whole "barbarians can't use magic items" bit between editions.

D&D is not a good venue for doing either Aragorn or Robin Hood, because both of those characters lived in very different world from ForgottenRealmsHawk. For that matter, it's not a good venue for doing Conan or Lancelot, either. The only thing it's good for off the shelf, is doing D&D, right down to the Disneyland ecology.

I forget the exact line, but there's an interesting psychological point from the Dragon magazine submission guidelines. Paraphrased, it says, "Please don't send us alternate low-magic systems, because D&D is a game about magic. The last thing in the world we want, is to have less of it!"

In that kind of a milieu, rangers without spells have been effectively kneecapped, unless you give them something mighty nice to compensate.

-The Gneech

 

[Jack Daniel]

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

Oh yes he should have. Tell me, why do you think the barbarian gets the d12 hit die? And why the paladin gets d10? Then ask yourself how the ranger compares to these two classes and get back to me.

 

[Skaros]

Oh yes he should have. Tell me, why do you think the barbarian gets the d12 hit die? And why the paladin gets d10? Then ask yourself how the ranger compares to these two classes and get back to me.

It compares well, even with d8. The larger amount of skill points they'll get, and their fantastic skill list assures that they will compensate for less brute hardiness with more woodsman-oriented skill.

Sounds almost like, I dunno, a ranger's way of surviving the wilds to me...rather than just being tough enough to "take it".

Skaros

 

[Jack Daniel]

That's cute. I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow." Isn't the barbarian also smart enough to survive the wilds?

 

[Lela]

That's cute. I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow." Isn't the barbarian also smart enough to survive the wilds?

That's cute, a munchkin who loves combat. I mean, the idea that only those who can take a hit can survive in a hostle environment. Rogues and Fighers man. Two completely different groups and both do well in in a city environment. Just in different ways.

Why is it so hard to think of Rangers and Barbarians the same way?

 

[Felon]

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

Because common wisdom holds that grouping weapons into a few homogenous stat blocks would be flavorless and unappealing to many players (note, however, that some other systems like WarHammer FRPG do exactly that). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are not enough distinctions in D&D weaponry that choosing one for your warrior doesn't merit consideration. I'm saying that choosing between a longspear and a rapier isn't as dramatic as a sorcerer having to choose between dimension door and polymorph and stoneskin.

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)

With fighting styles it's largely an either/or situations. Either you fight with your two weapons, or you fight with the big 2-hander; the warior makes a choice and from round-to-round sticks with it. Characters may occasionally try switching weapons on the fly (like going from ranged to melee), but in most fights they will depend on one style. They certainly don't rifle their golfbag o'weapons as offten as a wizard sorts through his grimoire.

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

I always say "don't blame the players" for taking advantage of what the designers' let them get away with". Two different player perspectives heh.

 

[Felon]

That's cute. I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow."

How are they not toughened? A d8 is tough, just not the toughest.

A character who has the wherewithal to scout and avoid dangerous situations is a survivor in a different way than a character who charges every foe head on.

 

[Umbran]

With fighting styles it's largely an either/or situations. Either you fight with your two weapons, or you fight with the big 2-hander; the warior makes a choice and from round-to-round sticks with it. Characters may occasionally try switching weapons on the fly (like going from ranged to melee), but in most fights they will depend on one style. They certainly don't rifle their golfbag o'weapons as offten as a wizard sorts through his grimoire.

With 3.5e DR rules, the golfbag o'weapons may well become more common

But really, don't confuse how frequently a character makes a decision with the power inherent in that decision. A spellcaster typically changes what spell he uses each round because he has to. He only has so many of a particular spell prepared. Even if he finds one that works well, firing it off repeatedly is usually not an option.

Also, consider this: Wizards have one sort of power - a very large range of possible spells to cast. Sorcerers have a restricted spell list. They have fewer choices. As a balance of power, they are given more spells per day. A spellcaster with a sorcerer's spell choice and a wizard's spells per day would be severely underpowerd. Hence, bredth of choice is one power, ability to repeat is another.

You think the ability to choose the right weapon for the right scenario isn't powerful? Tell me that the next time you have a warrior come up against a critter immune to slashing weapons, and all you've got is a greataxe. Or a critter with high DR you can't bypass, and your weapons are shorswords. Being able to pick the right tool and style of the job is key for a warrior type.

I always say "don't blame the players" for taking advantage of what the designers' let them get away with". Two different player perspectives heh.

Yep, a simple case of the sword cutting both ways.

 

[Felon]

You think the ability to choose the right weapon for the right scenario isn't powerful? Tell me that the next time you have a warrior come up against a critter immune to slashing weapons, and all you've got is a greataxe.

Arrrrrgh!

Dang it, Umby, I specifically made a point of saying that I didn't think that!

 

[Fenes 2]

Does anyone even care about the fact that the difference between d8 and d10 hit dice is just 1 per level, and 2 for the first level? Or roughly 21 points at level 20 - easily compensated by a constitution raised by 2, or an endurance.

I don't know about your games, but in my game such differences don't matter much.