Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

SHHH! You'll confuse the powergamers!

 

[Felon]

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.

Yep, and that's not taking into account actually rolling the damn dice. A large hit die type is hardly a guarantee of high HP. Whether it's a d4 or d12, a 1 is a 1. I've run with clerics that had more HP than my fighter, just from sucking up a couple of rolls.

...now, 4 more skill points a level--that's a constant value!

 

[Umbran]

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

Sorry. I guess I read the word "dramatic" in a different sense than you intended.

 

[Mercule]

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.

Exactly. Which is why I'm a bit befuddled at why the d8 crowd is so adamant that the HD needs to be lowered for game balance.

I want the d10 for flavor because the idea that a Ranger isn't as hardy as a Fighter or, at the least, a Paladin is so absurd, IMHO, that I fail to see how one could come to that conclusion unaided by illegal substances. Of course, I don't understand the people who are comparing the Ranger to the Rogue, either. The Ranger is to the Rogue what the Paladin is to the Bard.

 

[Mercule]

SHHH! You'll confuse the powergamers!

Exactly. I mean all those poor people looking at the numbers and deciding that a d8 is the only way to keep people in line.

Really, people who've gamed with me would be more inclined to believe that the moon is made of green cheese than I'm a powergamer.

 

[Mercule]

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!"

Based on that statement, maybe D&D is the wrong game for me. The last thing I want is to play in the Forgotten Realms (not playing is better than playing in the Realms).

I FRPG because I want to create stories like the legends and novels. I _want_ to play Aragorn, Robin Hood, Lancelot, Jon Stark, Conan, Beowulf, etc. I don't want anything to do with Drizz'l, Elmustard, or any of the others.

 

[Lela]

IMHO, that I fail to see how one could come to that conclusion unaided by illegal substances.

While I think the d8 is fine, I would like to point out the power of snorting crushed Smarties. . .

 

[Mercule]

While I think the d8 is fine, I would like to point out the power of snorting crushed Smarties. . .

You know, you are the second person I've run into (in a manner of speaking) who espoused that idea. The other fellow liked to do it right before a gaming session.

Also, I'm not really accusing anyone of doping up. I was just trying to state how far outside of my thinking the d8 HD for Rangers is. It rather illustrates that we aren't talking about the same creature.

In truth, I know that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about the issue, and I reconciled myself to the idea of not using the published Ranger shortly after 2E came out, and again when 3E came out. I'll continue to do so after 3.5 comes out. Of course, I also think that it's worth making a bit of noise that the new Ranger is even further away from what my vision of it is than any previous "official" version.

 

[Lela]

In truth, I know that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about the issue, and I reconciled myself to the idea of not using the published Ranger shortly after 2E came out, and again when 3E came out. I'll continue to do so after 3.5 comes out. Of course, I also think that it's worth making a bit of noise that the new Ranger is even further away from what my vision of it is than any previous "official" version.

Yes, I see. I think of a Robyn Hood or Legolos when I think of a Ranger. Not guys who can take a hit but they can manage to avoid one. Through scouting and quick action, my version of the Ranger doesn't need to be able to take blows.

Could you help me with your version?

 

[Mercule]

Yes, I see. I think of a Robyn Hood or Legolos when I think of a Ranger. Not guys who can take a hit but they can manage to avoid one. Through scouting and quick action, my version of the Ranger doesn't need to be able to take blows.

Could you help me with your version?

I think more Aragorn, Davy Crocket, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Perrin Aybara (from WoT), Hawkeye etc. I actually think of Legolas as more of a Fighter than a Ranger (probably multiclass) -- he had some woodsy ability, but he was more an expert archer. There are enough versions of Robin Hood to go around, but I guess I usually see him as a Rogue with Wilderness Lore, not a Ranger.

These are all guys that can probably take a hit, naked, just as well as any knight or merc (Fighter) could, maybe even slightly better. Sure, a knight in armor can take a sword hit better, but that's got nothing to do with what's beneath the armor. Fighters use armor to soak damage or techniques (feats) to avoid it, while Rangers use hit-and-run tactics or ambush to make up for their lighter armor.

Basically, I think that, given equal equipment (barring heavy armor), a Ranger should be able to stand up to a Fighter as well as a Paladin could. When people talk about the Fighter being tougher than the Ranger, they always compare the tanks to Legolas. Try comparing Zorro (a Fighter) to Aragorn or Hawkeye. Now, who can withstand more damage and keep moving? Better yet, pull off Arthur's armor and see how he stands up to Aragorn.

That's the critical point. If you are comparing armored Fighters to unarmored Rangers, then it's apples and oranges. It's the same as comparing a two-handed sword to an unarmed strike (non-monk).

I actually like the idea of giving the Rogue Wilderness Lore. It might better fit the niche that the d8 Ranger is heading toward. Rather than add it as a standard class skill, the Cosmopolitan feat (ironic as that is) is an excellent feat to pick to make the psuedo-combatant Ranger out of the Rogue.