Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Umbran]

What difference does one more make, anyway?

I think the point is kinda that you cannot answer that question until you've taken a look at it. How can you tell it isn't relevant until you know what's in it? Maybe it blows others you have out of the water, maybe it won't. You'll never know if you don't give it a fair shot.

 

[mmu1]

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.

"You're dead to me! DEAD!"

Any silly irrational posts made about Rangers are completely invlaid, IMNSHO...

 

[Desdichado]

I think the point is kinda that you cannot answer that question until you've taken a look at it. How can you tell it isn't relevant until you know what's in it? Maybe it blows others you have out of the water, maybe it won't. You'll never know if you don't give it a fair shot.

It might have made more sense if you'd focused on my whole post instead of just that one line, of course.

Then again, although I think the core ranger is a fine class, I don't particularly like the concept of it: a spellcasting woodsman with two-weapon fighting. The ranger isn't a fantasy archetype, it's a D&Dism. I'm not particularly interested in any ranger that's a spellcaster, no matter how well other aspects of it are handled.

It's one thing to point out where someone is behaving irrationally by making alarmist remarks about what they don't fully understand yet, but it's quite another to assume that we don't have any judgement whatsoever. I can quite confidently say that I'm not looking for another spell-casting variant of the ranger, even if it is better than all of the others I've seen (something I very highly doubt) because that isn't my preference. I don't need to be told that I'm jumping to conclusions because of that, unless the ranger class is seriously different than what we've been lead to believe in 3eR.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

Fixing it is pretty easy. Like the monk, WotC gave out abilities that weren't always flavorful, but more importantly gave no choices in the matter.

WotC and ranger players will never agree on what traits a ranger should have, so WotC shouldn't try to assign them.

All they have to do is give out some kind of "slot" and say "here, fill it with what you want."

Since they don't want to step on the fighter's toes, I guess that means those slots won't be "combat feats". Maybe something to do with the wilderness... at least every ranger has that in common.

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.

You may be sure about the first sentence, but can you be sure about the second sentence? Most of the DMs I know use some kind of alt ranger, precisely because they're not satisfied with it.

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.

Listen to the Ed Stark interview - complaining did some good. Stark said that they changed the ranger precisely because of the complaints.

He said that people wanted someone skilled, a woodsman, Aragorn, which was not represented by the 3.0 ranger. I doubt the 3.5 ranger will be perfect, but it will be a lot better than the previous ranger, and since it was designed with some fan input, people won't complain as much about it.

Furthermore, posters don't always complain because they're jerks. They complain if they buy a book that isn't any good - this is why some of the "splatbooks" have a good reputation and some of the "splatbooks" have a bad reputation. They complain if a feat is ruining their campaign, or if a spell is broken and is interfering with the fun in their game.

Finally, if WotC responded more often to it's fans, I don't think they would get many complaints. There's little point of putting compliments on the boards if you don't think it will do any good. I was surprised by the announcement of 3.5e - they were listening to the complaints, but never once responded to them. I think they would have gotten more focused, less angry responses if they had announced 3.5e a lot earlier.

PS what does IOW mean?

 

[Piratecat]

IOW = In other words.

I personally like the d8 hit die. I'll trade 1 hp per level (which is what it works out to, on average) for the new abilities.

Joshua, I agree that for your campaign a new ranger is a lot less relevant. It matters a lot, though, for someone who:

(a) is a player,

(b) uses published products,

(c) likes to avoid house rules,

or (d) plays in something like Living Greyhawk where classes are standardized.

 

[theoremtank]

From what I do know of the 3. 5 ranger I like. The d8 doesn't bother me and arguably fits many ranger archetypes (mobility/finesse warrior). One thing I truly hope they did this time is get rid of the virtual feat restriction in medium and heavy armor.

When a ranger receives his combat "style" feats they should be usable in all the same ways as if he purchased those feats with a regular feat. If the ranger is only given light armor proficiency then he is already going to take minuses in fighting in medium or heavy armor. And if he really wants to fight in medium or heavy armor, then he can either multiclass or pick up an armor proficiency feat.

Anyway, unless the 3.5 ranger is drastically different than I think he will be, I'll house rule him as just described.

 

[Lela]

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.

Because?

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

Yes, and yes.

Also, it looks like he did take TWF and Ambi as a Fighter (like he did in-novel). With only 12 possible for his level (6 character, 6 Fighter), he has 13. Note that Track came free from the Ranger levels and it all adds up.

 

[Wormwood]

Finally, if WotC responded more often to it's fans, I don't think they would get many complaints. There's little point of putting compliments on the boards if you don't think it will do any good.

I would politely disagree with this.
Once folks figure out that they're being listened to, they tend to speak up.

3.5 tells the D&D community that their voices are being heard. I think that may be why so many people are complaining---they know their complaints have some weight instead of being empty rants.

Plus, what if you're one of those people whose concerns were not addressed in this revision? Chances are you are going to complain louder and more frequently, hoping to bolster your position and see it reflected in the next revision.

I think we're seeing a little of that now. God knows we'll see more of it in July.

 

[Knightfall]

Re: BAB +1/level

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

d12 barb
d10 fighter
d8 ranger

Have to agree with this. I never understood why a Ranger should have the same Hit Dice as a fighter. Fighters are tanks, rangers are not.

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

Question: Has it been confirmed somewhere which classes are having their skill points changed? I thought that was still only a rumor. (Although I definitely think rangers should have 6 skill points / level. 4 / level just isn't enough, IMO.)

Piratecat: Stop rules teasing us!!! Bad Kitty!

I think WotC should put out the revised Ranger class in the next Revision Spotlight, and put an end to the speculation.

 

[Oni]

Hurm...is the difference between a d10 and d8 even all that much?


Hurm...if they're making them more wilderness rogue types maybe they'll give them some type of sneak attack too, I'm sure that would cause a fun little uproar.