Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Steverooo]

D8 Rangers

Actually, I'd supprt going back to the D8 Ranger... if they did it the way I did in my Alt. version... I gave'm 2D8 at first level (just like they did in 1e), and then additional D8s every so many levels (whenever the average HPs dropped below those of the Fighter).

It seems odd, to me, lowering the Rangers' hit dice... The Ranger is too weak... The Class Calculater says it's the worst PHB class, and most 3Ers agree... So they give him "Wild Empathy", a choice between two combat paths (that many don't want), and then LOWER his hit dice???

One point most seem to miss is that the Ranger is ALREADY weaker than the fighter in combat! IF he takes Move Silently and Hide, and IF he uses them to attack by surprise, he is just as good with a bow. If he goes toe-to-toe with TWF, however, his BAB is lowered by -2/-2. Furthermore, his damage is lowered by the off-hand STR bonus rule! If he uses a one-handed weapon and shield, he is better off, and about even with a similarly-equipped Fighter.

 

[Winterthorn]

I've been reading through a good part of this thread, and what strikes me the most is how this class seems to proke so much debate about what a ranger is supposed to be. Some would like it to be an updated version of the 1E ranger, others wish it to evolve into its own, and a few like it as is (3E)...

There is an absence of unity... We all seem to accept what a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard should be. We all seem to have a good idea about what to expect from the musical Bard--even if the 3E execution was a little "flat" , and the Druid, Barbarian, Monk and Paladin seem to fit to most expectations as well...

Sorcerer? Well we're all still "scratching our heads" over this one just because it's relatively new and it has "thrown a few curves" in the game... Some like it, some don't, I'm rather neutral about it...

But the Ranger, do we really know what we want for this class? I think the Ranger inspires something in many ppl perhaps because the concept touches upon some primal yearning in our modern culture--does that make sense? Are we arguing about the definition of the Ranger because there's some instrinsic romantic ideal inspired by a "wilderness warrior" that no one can agree upon? Or is the debate more a consequence of the checkered history behind this class' mechanics since the early days of TSR? (I read Plane Sailing's history post--very enlightening I must say! )

Why are we fussing so much?

My response to the d8 HD for Rangers: I always felt that the Ranger should be instrinsically better at ranged sniping than the fighter--particularly with bows--while the fighter should be better than the Ranger in melee. A sniper in woodland cover doesn't really need a d10 for HD IMO. If the 3.5 Ranger keeps his good BAB, drops the virtual feats for a few real ones, has good wilderness skills, then I think things will start to come together... I could do without spells, especially those spells that alter the physical qualities of plants and animals--that should remain the exclusive privilege of Druids, Nature Clerics, Shamans, and the occasional arcane caster. Since this is D&D, I guess the spells will stay--I hope they are changed to make more sense--but that's just me.

I guess when I think of Ranger, I think of Robin Hood's men more than any other example: good with staves, bows, and light swordsmanship, with goodwill and wily outdoor skills and tricks...

I think I'd rather the 3.5 Ranger be rebuilt from the ground up rather than just tweaked--I think more ppl will be happy with a complete overhaul than half-measures and tweaks...

I'm not going to worry too much--if I don't like what WotC's done, I'll make corrections as I do for many things to suit my tastes as a DM. But I certainly empathize with the "feel" ppl are searching for, albeit tough for everyone to agree!

-W.

PS: Why there's no Intuit Weather skill in the game, beats me; this would be a good skill for Druids, Witches and Shamans (if you use these supplemental d20 classes), and of course Rangers!

 

[Piratecat]

Re: D8 Rangers

It seems odd, to me, lowering the Rangers' hit dice... The Ranger is too weak... The Class Calculater says it's the worst PHB class, and most 3Ers agree... So they give him "Wild Empathy", a choice between two combat paths (that many don't want), and then LOWER his hit dice???

Trust me on this one. The ranger gets a lot of cool things that haven't been revealed yet. If he got the higher hit die, he would probably be one of the "must-have" classes, especially at first level.

Having read it, I'm extremely pleased at how the ranger is now designed. When people see the whole package, I expect that they will be, as well.

 

[Fenes 2]

Or ban it from their games as overpowered...

 

[Jack Daniel]

Re: Re: D8 Rangers

Trust me on this one. The ranger gets a lot of cool things that haven't been revealed yet. If he got the higher hit die, he would probably be one of the "must-have" classes, especially at first level.

Having read it, I'm extremely pleased at how the ranger is now designed. When people see the whole package, I expect that they will be, as well.

Yet another reason that lowering their skill points back to four when I raise the hit die to d10 would be a balanced idea. From what I can see, they've only frontloaded the ranger worse -- even with a d8, he's replaced the rogue as the "must start in this class," regardless of how good he gets later on.

Six skill points is ridiculous -- it means that rangers will be the only class that doesn't actually have to make a tough descision when choosing where to spend them. (*looks back* ... aww, how cute, I got called a munchkin by Lela for claiming that d10/4 is a more balanced build than d8/6... to quote a dead and overused catchphrase from another board, "*WHAM!* dig, dig, dig...").

 

[Skaros]

Re: Re: Re: D8 Rangers

Yet another reason that lowering their skill points back to four when I raise the hit die to d10 would be a balanced idea. From what I can see, they've only frontloaded the ranger worse -- even with a d8, he's replaced the rogue as the "must start in this class," regardless of how good he gets later on.

Six skill points is ridiculous -- it means that rangers will be the only class that doesn't actually have to make a tough descision when choosing where to spend them. (*looks back* ... aww, how cute, I got called a munchkin by Lela for claiming that d10/4 is a more balanced build than d8/6... to quote a dead and overused catchphrase from another board, "*WHAM!* dig, dig, dig...").

That's great and all...I'm sure rule 0 will still exist in 3.5, but I still think that a stark contrast between barbarians and rangers isn't a bad thing, and d8 hit points can easily be interpreted to mean that the ranger is tough, but also smart and skilled enough to do a great job of survival without just soaking up harsh environmental effects with huge hit points.

Making rangers hardier (in ability to soak up damage they didn't avoid through skill use) and lowering their skill points per level is certainly a viable change if you want it the other way around though, from what I can see.

On another note, your belittling use of "cute" is fairly annoying, though I'm sure you know that.

Regards,

Skaros

 

[The_Gneech]

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.

Alas, I'm in the same boat. Such games do exist; some of them are very good indeed ... but you can't find players for them.

Or, if by some stroke of beneficent fortune you can find players for them, there are no supplements.

D&D is sorta the Windows of gaming ... everybody plays it, because that's what everybody plays. If FR is the experience you want, that's great news -- if not, you're kinda screwed.

What makes this relevant to the discussion of rangers, is that when you're talking about what the ranger should or shouldn't be, you've got to remember that context. WOTC isn't going to make a ranger class that doesn't fit into the pre-established rules of D&D -- and that means, they're not going to make a magic-less ranger.

-The Gneech, the only guy in his gaming group even slightly interested in Conan d20, siiiiigh

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

Great post! I agree 110%. I don't know where people came up with the idea of a ranger being a rapier wielding wuss. Drizzt, maybe? I bet if you took a poll over wether a ranger was a big tough guy or a skinny, sneaky, archer, the younger people on this board would go with the latter, while us old grognards would choose the former.

Robin hood was no ranger. Little John was. Arragorn was. Legolas wasn't. Check out the "13th Warrior" if you want to see rangers in action.

 

[Piratecat]

Re: Re: Re: D8 Rangers

Yet another reason that lowering their skill points back to four when I raise the hit die to d10 would be a balanced idea. From what I can see, they've only frontloaded the ranger worse.

Nope. Definitely less frontloaded.

Personally, I think skill points are a lot more interesting than a higher hit die if you're trying to make a ranger-y character. But hey, to each their own.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Re: Re: D8 Rangers

Having read it, I'm extremely pleased at how the ranger is now designed. When people see the whole package, I expect that they will be, as well.

I know you can't tell anyone about it, but, say, what if you just "happened" to have an email addressed to me opened up, and you accidentally typed up some info on the new ranger...

Well, accidents happen, ya know?