Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Wormwood]

...this constant complaining from D&D players really annoys me. If you don't like it, then ignore it. </rant>

Technically, you could just ignore the complaining.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Technically, you could just ignore the complaining.

Shh!
Not the point...well, it is. Just, shh! I stopped going to the WotC boards to avoid the constant complaining, and I kind of like that here it isn't as common...just that its impossible to talk about the Ranger or Monk without it turning into a "Why this sucks" thread. THAT gets hard to ignore.

 

[John Crichton]

No problem, lunchbox.

Works for me Kermit-cobob.

I got the reference. Very funny!

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.

Good enough for me. I dig the feel they are going for from the limited amount of info I've seen so far.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It was for over a dozen years.

edit: math

Only because he got TWO at first level and continued to roll hit points for ELEVEN levels compared to the fighters 9. So on average, a ranger had MORE hit points than a fighter.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I for one, never said the ranger was under powered. Just that the phb version comes about as close to the archetype as Robin Hood does as an old crochety wizard.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I for one, never said the ranger was under powered. Just that the phb version comes about as close to the archetype as Robin Hood does as an old crochety wizard.

Point taken. Still, that's even more touchy ground than power. Question though...would Robin Hood have a d10 HD?

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Whoa ... felinus ex machina

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In the games I DM, we use the normal PHB Ranger...and no one has said ANYTHING about it being underpowered.

Not everyone who complains about the ranger is worried about it's power level. I don't care if it's weaker or stronger than the fighter.

I'm interested in a wilderness characters, not a Cuisinart wannabe! In other words, it's the flavor that matters.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

They did Drizzt wrong in the FRCS. He's wearing chain mail, so he can't use his TWF. Serves him right for not buying the feats with his bonus fighter feats

Isnt he wearing a suit of Mithril chainmail which would be light armor?

 

[Desdichado]

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've no doubt that the 3eR ranger is a great class, well done and all that, but at some point, to me at least, it ceases to be relevant. The 3e ranger was a good class as far as I was concerned, Monte Cook's two variants of it were good classes, the SS Stalker, the FFG Hunter and Outdoorsman, and the IK ranger, Ken Hood's Bushfighter...

What difference does one more make, anyway? I'm crawling with ranger classes that are interesting to play.