Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Mercule]

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.

Well, that's somewhat reassuring.

My hope, in that case, is that the 3.5 Ranger has some extraneous ability that I can drop to balance with raising the HD back to d10. I guess that if the Ranger gets DR like a Barbarian (which I doubt), I could even deal with with d8 -- but I don't see that happening.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Why would you say that? As an old grognard, I would most definitely describe a ranger as lean, weathered, stealthy before I described him as big and tough.

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.

I would say that Faramir's rangers are my quintessential rangers, and they're quite obviously based on Robin Hood and his merry men; they're woodsmen with bows.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: D8 Rangers

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.

Huh? I'd expect a Ranger to divvy up skill points between numerous skills: Climb, Hide, Intuit Direction, Jump, Knowledge (Nature), Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot, Swim, and Wilderness -- to name some of the skills that fit the concept. If you want a Ranger who can ride well or handle animals, that's extra.

If you subsume Intuit Direction and Knowledge (Nature) into Wilderness Lore (soon to be survival) that eliminates some of the problem, but it still leaves around nine skills you'd want a Ranger to have.

 

[Winterthorn]

... {snip}

I would say that Faramir's rangers are my quintessential rangers, and they're quite obviously based on Robin Hood and his merry men; they're woodsmen with bows.

I agree. I forgot about Faramir's men--excellent example actually!

I have seen some ppl wishing to play a ranger that wields a greatsword, or some other large/impressive weapon(s), but I never felt it "fit" the idea of a bush warrior/skirmisher/woodsman/guerrilla... Wielding big weapons while skulking in foliage doesn't seem like a wise thing to do either. Also, there's cost: it strikes me that rangers are themselves typically freemen, or of even poorer stock, and it seems that they'd capitalize on inexpensive weaponry like bows, staves and light weapons, and perhaps save their cash for other things relating to survival, and animals: a mount, or a hunting dog, or falconry (if climate, culture and $ allow), etc...

We can't "have our cakes and eat them too": if one wants to be a big bruising melee ranger--why not settle for some multiclassing? How about Barbarian/Ranger or Fighter/Ranger? I think to be amazing in melee, a class cannot have good skills and wilderness talents and spells as well. Something must be sacrificed, or compromised... Multiclass combo's seem like a really good, and fair, solution for those who like melee-strong Rangers... Being a Fighter 4/Ranger 6, for example, is pretty good compared to Ranger 10! No?

To me, archtypical rangers include: some of Robin Hood's men, Faramir's rangers, many of the elves of Lorien, Menion Leah (Sword of Shannara) IIRC, and perhaps Jon Snow (Clash of Kings, not sure about JS as an example). I see Legolas as an Archer/Ranger, Aragorn as a Fighter/Ranger, and Tarzan and Perrin (WoT) as Barbarian/Rangers...

It goes to show that interpretations and perceptions vary. Let's hope WotC satisfies most of our expectations!

-W.

 

[Umbran]

Robin hood was no ranger. Little John was.

Nah. Little John was a farmer - a commoner. At the point he meets Robin, he'd just run away from his home because he'd staved in the skull of one of the Sherrif's men. Prior to that, he had no particular history in the woods - not a ranger. Just my $0.02

 

[Ranger REG]

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).

What you described is an uber combat-oriented class. You might as well drop the fighter out of the ruleset (or worse yet, convert it into an NPC class).

It's better to make them prestige class rather than a core class, by building off of the fighter or barbarian class.

As a ranger fanboy, even this is too much. I'd rather a ranger be more of a survivalist and a guerilla warfare specialist (since you mentioned Navy SEAL) that takes advantage of the terrain (e.g., to provide cover or AC or circumstance bonus to attack due to his intimate knowledge of the lay of the land) to single out his enemy and take them down one by one.

Aragorn is an experienced ranger, even at such a high-level he has enough HP to handle himself in battle, but he also has skills to avoid attacks coming at him. IMHO, he is not the kind of fool to stand there and take hit like an orc front-line shock trooper.

As for Drizzt, get off of the 2e perception that he is fully a ranger. 3e rules made it possible for Drizzt to multiclass. When you translate his origin story from the Dark Elf Trilogy he was a well-accomplished dual-scimitar-wielding fighter in the underdark of Menzoberranzan WAY BEFORE he met up with a blind ranger and decided to take that path.

 

[Lela]

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.

I think of Zorro more as a Rogue/Fighter (and heavy on the Rogue). But the Arthur/Aragorn comparison does fit. Though I think Arthur could take a hit better, Aragorn would take him down in under two rounds.

Thanks, your view makes sense to me. I guess WotC just decided to go more with mine though. Can't win them all I guess (IMC Multishot is already banned).

(*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...").

*Double Checks your post*

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?

Where, exactly, did you say anything of the sort?

 

[Mercule]

What you described is an uber combat-oriented class. You might as well drop the fighter out of the ruleset (or worse yet, convert it into an NPC class).

Huh? I don't see how you get there from here. The worst I said was that a Ranger should be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally equipped Paladin. I fail to see how that qualifies as an uber-combatant. The Fighter would still be better head-on than the Ranger.

As a ranger fanboy, even this is too much. I'd rather a ranger be more of a survivalist and a guerilla warfare specialist (since you mentioned Navy SEAL) that takes advantage of the terrain (e.g., to provide cover or AC or circumstance bonus to attack due to his intimate knowledge of the lay of the land) to single out his enemy and take them down one by one.

Which is exactly what I'm advocating.

Aragorn is an experienced ranger, even at such a high-level he has enough HP to handle himself in battle, but he also has skills to avoid attacks coming at him. IMHO, he is not the kind of fool to stand there and take hit like an orc front-line shock trooper.

Agree on all points. I never said or meant to imply that a 1st level Ranger should be Aragorn or an experienced Seal.

As you say, though, Aragorn easily had enough HP to do battle. He was dangerous in normal melee. If you put him in his element, he was just scary.

As for Drizzt, get off of the 2e perception that he is fully a ranger. 3e rules made it possible for Drizzt to multiclass. When you translate his origin story from the Dark Elf Trilogy he was a well-accomplished dual-scimitar-wielding fighter in the underdark of Menzoberranzan WAY BEFORE he met up with a blind ranger and decided to take that path.

Where did I say anything about Drizz't? Honestly, the fanboys who make every Ranger a Drizz't clone annoy me more than the character himself does. I only read the first Drizz't novel and don't consider myself enough of an authority to really discuss him fully.

 

[Felon]

Why would you say that? As an old grognard, I would most definitely describe a ranger as lean, weathered, stealthy before I described him as big and tough.

Right, but notice that the person you quoted used the word "skinny". The implication is the same being made by many other people complaining about a d8 hit die. Namely, that a d10 = "big and tough" while d8 = "skinny and frail". They're perceiving it as a much sharper drop in HP than it actually, logistically speaking. Most of them will come around when or if they see the ranger perform well in their parties. Heck, I'm more concerned that they'll be the next class to jump on the munchwagon.

 

[Ranger REG]

Huh? I don't see how you get there from here. The worst I said was that a Ranger should be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally equipped Paladin. I fail to see how that qualifies as an uber-combatant. The Fighter would still be better head-on than the Ranger.

As well as he should. The paladin's power only work against evil, and unless the ranger is evil, most of his divine powers are useless. The paladin is going to have the same weapon proficiencies as the ranger (all simple and martial weapons). I'm unsure if the armor proficiency is the same, but at 1st level, you don't have enough money to get the most armor protection.

To be fair, let both be humans. For a ranger, he can start off as a TWF specialist or an Archer for free (if given at 1st level; otherwise stick to TWF of the current ranger class). Paladin does not have a bonus combat feat. That means he must spend his regular feat as well as the bonus feat for being human. The ranger is ahead of him by one.

Where did I say anything about Drizz't? Honestly, the fanboys who make every Ranger a Drizz't clone annoy me more than the character himself does. I only read the first Drizz't novel and don't consider myself enough of an authority to really discuss him fully.

I apologize for the presumption. Where D&D is concerned, Drizzt has become well-known iconics for rangers since it is derived from a D&D campaign setting. Unfortunately, the story of Drizzt do not translate/adapt well to that of the 2nd edition ruleset (demihuman races multiclass only at 1st level, not dual-class). 3e relaxes the restriction and bring both human and nonhuman under one multiclassing rule. Now the story character of Drizzt is easier to convert to a game character. [Some magic items that Salvatore used in an innovative fashion however did not.]

So despite that Drizzt is a fighter/barbarian/ranger, we still call him a drow elf ranger, which is what he is now.