Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Mercule]

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.

I'm not sure what the Ranger not being evil has to do with anything. Pretty much offset by not having the Paladin be in the woods.

Well, if you're counting proficiencies, then don't forget the heavy armor proficiency that a Paladin gets. The extra AC makes up for the TWF proficiency that the Ranger gets. Not likely to be fully equiped at 1st level? No big -- the Ranger's BAB is high enough to make frequent use of the TWF.

Of course, since I don't think Rangers have any business having TWF as a class ability, the argument is rather lost on me. Still, my point really is that if you hand the Ranger one longsword and leather armor, and do likewise with the Paladin, the two classes should be equally dangerous in neutral ground (say, an arena).

If you give the Paladin his plate and the Ranger his second weapon, they're probably still evenly matched, just different. Since I advocate taking away the TWF along with maintaining the d10 HD, my Ranger would still be a weaker combatant than the Paladin. Based on that, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that my concepts would make some sort of out-of-balance munch monster.

Truth be told, you'd probably have to add an ability or two to balance him out.

I apologize for the presumption.

No big.

 

[Steverooo]

And again I say...

3.5e Ranger "Weapon Paths" BEGIN at second level. Hence, it doesn't apply. We'll use the 3e Ranger.

Same weapons and equipment? The Ranger won't be using TWF, then (because the Paladin certainly won't be)!

Same armor, sword, and shield? Current Ranger is equal, 3.5e Ranger will be weaker... (unless PC knows something I don't).

If the 3e Ranger AND Paladin have a light weapon and sword, same armor, and bucklers? The 3e Ranger is STILL weaker! He drops 1 AC using two weapons (since he can't use the buckler). His BAB drops TWO (-2/-2, to lower than the Rogue, Sorcerer, or Wizard) when fighting two-fisted, and THREE if he doesn't drop the non-masterwork buckler! This puts the Paladin significantly ahead, at first level, with +1 AC and +3 BAB!

Nope, the Ranger doesn't need lower hit dice! Not in 3e. I'll wait to see the 3.5e Ranger, and hope for the best... but I bet none of his new abilities give him a bonus to combat, skirmish or otherwise!

 

[Ranger REG]

Of course, since I don't think Rangers have any business having TWF as a class ability, the argument is rather lost on me. Still, my point really is that if you hand the Ranger one longsword and leather armor, and do likewise with the Paladin, the two classes should be equally dangerous in neutral ground (say, an arena).

But you're putting the ranger out of his element, the wilderness. Besides, both are not gladiators.

This kind of test is totally unfair, and only benefit the "tank."

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: And again I say...

3.5e Ranger "Weapon Paths" BEGIN at second level. Hence, it doesn't apply. We'll use the 3e Ranger.

Is that confirmed?

 

[shilsen]

Re: Re: And again I say...

3.5e Ranger "Weapon Paths" BEGIN at second level.

Is that confirmed?

I believe so. AFAIK, the ranger gets benefits from its chosen weapon path at 2nd lvl and every 4th lvl after that (6th, 10th, etc.).

 

[Umbran]

"Balance" is not defined by looking at who can beat whom in a particular one on one fight. Two classes are balanced if, in the long term of game play, both are equally likely to be effective choices.

 

[Lela]

I should point out that two attacks at -2 are just as likely or more likely to hit if you need to roll anything other than a natural 18. This came up when discussing Monks and Flurry a while back. Check S&F for how the math should work and fill in the rest of the table.

 

[Umbran]

I should point out that two attacks at -2 are just as likely or more likely to hit if you need to roll anything other than a natural 18.

Yes, but the weapons are smaller, and have less likelihood of confirming a crit, and tend to do less when they do crit. Overall, twf does less damage, on average, than fighing with one big 2-handed weapon, until you start having extra dice of damage from sneak attack or magic weapons.

And, for the magic weapons, trying to match teh 2-hander starts driving the amount of wealth you use on weapons up, meaning you have less cash to spend on other items. So, it works out fairly well.

 

[Winterthorn]

Ranger (not Evil) vs Paladin at 120' feet apart: would a forested terrain, property of an LG church say, with 50% of the area hallowed ground, be of help in such a test? (Or something like that; just a thought.)

-W.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: Re: Re: And again I say...

I believe so. AFAIK, the ranger gets benefits from its chosen weapon path at 2nd lvl and every 4th lvl after that (6th, 10th, etc.).

Sorry. I forgot to add one more statement to my earlier post:

Please cite your source.