Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Desdichado]

The Revised ranger has ceased being relevant to me. I've got the SS Stalker, the FFG Hunter and Woodsman, the IK ranger, and if I want a spell-casting variant, I've got two Monte Cook version, both of which work fine for me. 3eR edited classes are just one more to add to the mix, for me -- I already don't care much about official anyway.

 

[Technik4]

BAB +1/level

I think it makes a strange sort of sense in differentiating between the "fighting" classes.

d12 barb
d10 fighter
d8 ranger

They all have equal attack capability, but their stamina/hardiness/health is on a slightly different curve. The other thing noone mentioned is that with a d10 HD and 6 skill/level, the ranger would be the most abusable "first" level to take. The hp of a fighter, almost the skills of a rogue, even rogues might be taking that offer.

With the HD as d8, it seems more unlikely.

Technik

 

[Ranger REG]

I am very sure that the Drizzt in the FRCS was designed as taking his TWF as a fighter feat.

Correct. He developed his "twin scimitar" fighting technique while in Menzoberranzan as a House fighter. So by the time he reached the surface and met the blind ranger, who taught him his craft, he's a pretty much accomplished fighter...

... and for a brief time, a barbarian.

IOW, the 3e rules makes it easier to translate the novel character (based on the Dark Elf Trilogy) into a game character, albeit not perfect but close to it.

 

[Ranger REG]

Re: BAB +1/level

The hp of a fighter, almost the skills of a rogue, even rogues might be taking that offer.

With the HD as d8, it seems more unlikely.

That depends. I'm sure with the decrease in hit die, an aspect of the ranger class will either receive a new ability or a boost in current features. Personally, they should be better tracker, hunter, and survivalist, with an affinity with animals.

IOW, model it after Strider.

 

[Mercule]

The Revised ranger has ceased being relevant to me.

Likewise. Just for a different reason.

I've said before that a d8 HD for Ranger instantly makes it invalid IMHO.

I will go on record now as stating that 3.5 has no Ranger class, so far as I'm aware. They've thrown some bastardized psuedo-fighter with all the appeal of Highlander 2 -- I deny both equally.

 

[Piratecat]

Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.

I have tremendous respect for opinion that are formed after everything is known, whether they agree with me or not. I'm less impressed when people make up their mind without knowing actual details.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Likewise. Just for a different reason.

I've said before that a d8 HD for Ranger instantly makes it invalid IMHO.

I will go on record now as stating that 3.5 has no Ranger class, so far as I'm aware. They've thrown some bastardized psuedo-fighter with all the appeal of Highlander 2 -- I deny both equally.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.

I have tremendous respect for opinion that are formed after everything is known, whether they agree with me or not. I'm less impressed when people make up their mind without knowing actual details.

I don't care if he gets time stop 12 times a day, 200 hd animal companions, 4 weapon fighting and 14 freaking domain abilities. A d8 ranger is not a ranger.

 

[Wormwood]

A d8 ranger is not a ranger.

It was for over a dozen years.

edit: math

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I can never understand this near insane devotion to what the Ranger "should" be. In the games I DM, we use the normal PHB Ranger...and no one has said ANYTHING about it being underpowered. There is always at least ONE Ranger in each of the games, and after talking with my players about the Revision, it looks like there will be more.
d8 Hit Dice? This is a problem? To me, it's a good thing. It seperates the Ranger from the Fighter more. I don't see the Ranger as someone that's as strong as a Fighter...it just doesn't fit my view of them. And that seems to be the problem. No one will EVER be able to get the Ranger "right" because everyone has a different opinion on what a Ranger should be. It seems like this is the only class that gets this kind of thing...and no, that's not because WotC designed it "bad" the first time, its because Ranger is such a broad concept its hard for people to really agree on what it should be.
One thing I notice is that we seem to forget that these message boards are truly the minority among D&D players. Most people get along with the Core books, play the game as is, and have more fun that we do complaining so much. While some of what's said does make since, this constant complaining from D&D players really annoys me. If you don't like it, then ignore it. Complaining has this habit of annoying people, and it rarely does any good.</rant>