Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd like to see how the ranger stacks up against both the druid and rgoue before passign judgment on the d8 HD. I suspect it works out fine -- since the ranger is a more hit-and-run or ranged combatant than the fighter -- but his does make it tougher for him in a stand-up fight, since he'll have a lower AC.

I'd like to see his "combat styles" (virtual or otherwise) apply in both light and medium armor. Not only would that offset the HD change, it would give a good reason for people to use medium armor. Right now IME, players gravitate away from medium armor to either plate armor or chain shirts as soon as they can afford them. If ranger feats worked in medium, we might see more characters running around in chainmail and scale mail at higher levels.

 

[seasong]

PirateCat, you are SUCH a tease.

 

[Artimoff]

You're weird, mang.

If you're tangeling with highlevel evil clerics you get what you ask for.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

According to Andy Collins, DnD 3.5 went to the typesetters shortly after the announcement. So yes, WotC listened to gamers then, but they aren't listening to gamers now.

(In other words, they're fixing problems, but not always the way gamers wanted the problems to be fixed. And since every gamer has their own fix )

I wouldn't have written only complaints and rants if I had known that WotC was listening.

 

[MadBlue]

I'd like to see how the ranger stacks up against both the druid and rgoue before passign judgment on the d8 HD. I suspect it works out fine -- since the ranger is a more hit-and-run or ranged combatant than the fighter[/qb]

Well, Fighters are pretty versatile. A Fighter with Dodge-related Feats is a really good hit-and-run combatant and a Fighter with ranged weapon-related Feats and Weapon Specialization is the ultimate ranged combatant.

But I agree that we'll have to see the whole 1-20 package. It's pretty clear that a 1st level 3.5 Ranger isn't going to be quite the combatant he is in 3.0, though. He loses 2 hp and TWF and gains 8sp and Wild Empathy. Less combat effective, but more effective outside of combat - which seems like an even trade as far as abilities go, but it's going to change the way those who like to play Rangers now think about their tactics. After feeling that a Ranger's viability in melee at 1st level has been "nerfed", I wonder how many Ranger players will actually go with TWF over Archery at 2nd level.

MadBlue

 

[boschdevil]

Sigh. Have you even read this thread?
Quoting myself: "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."

Let's take this a little further, shall we?

If you look at a ranger and a fighter under the same conditons of (a) no constitution adjustment and (b) the hp points rolled at each level was the average, for the 1st edition rules, the following was the average hit points per level:

Level Ranger Fighter
1 ----- 9----- 5.5
2 ----- 13.5-- 11
3 ----- 18 --- 16.5
4 ----- 22.5-- 22
5 ----- 27 --- 27.5
6 ----- 31.5 - 33
7 ----- 36 --- 38.5
8 ----- 40.5 - 44
9 ----- 45 --- 49.5
10 ---- 49.5 - 52.5
11 ---- 51.5 - 55.5
12 ---- 53.5 - 58.5

With levels after 10th, the ranger got 2 hp per level and the fighter go 3 hp per level, so the fighter basically starts to leave the ranger in the dust.

The point is that the ranger only has more hit points when compared to the fighter for the first four levels. After that, the fighter leaves the ranger in the dust.

 

[Caliber]

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.

Lets see.

9d10 averages to 49.5 HP.
12d8 (2d8 at first and then 10d8 more) averages to 54.

Net gain of 4.5 HP on the Ranger side.

In the new 3.5 ...

20d10 (with the first maxed) averages to 114.5.
20d8 (with the first maxed) averages to 93.5.

Net gain of 21 HP on the Fighter side.

In 1E the difference was minimal, not even being enough to differentiate a single attack. In 3.5E the difference MIGHT be enough to allow the Fighter to absorb one extra attack (although at high levels, a 21 HP hit isn't that great)

PS: d6 HD types will be 21 HP short of the d8s, d4s 21 short of the d6s, etc ...

Edit: Grrr! boschdevil beat me to the punch and was more accurate besides!

 

[Michael Tree]

He loses 2 hp and TWF and gains 8sp and Wild Empathy.

In other words, he's less of a fighter and more of a ranger.
Besides, a Ranger is still nasty in melee at 1st level, he just isn't as nasty as a fighter or barbarian. TWF now only costs a single feat, so it would be very easy for a 1st level ranger to pick it up if he really wanted to. I suspect that we'll see many more rangers with the archery path than the TWF path though.

Do we know what Wild Empathy does yet? I suspect that they've ditched the Animal Empathy skill and replaced it with WE, and I'm hoping that it's like rebuking undead, but with animals and plants.

 

[Michael Tree]

The point is that the ranger only has more hit points when compared to the fighter for the first four levels. After that, the fighter leaves the ranger in the dust.

Don't forget that rangers advanced at a slower rate than fighters, so a fighter was usually a level or more higher than a ranger with the same number of XP.

 

[IronBlade4590]

What do all these combat styles for the ranger work, do they increase atack or the prob. to hit someone, attack more targets, jump over someone's head backflip thing or what? Sry for the newbinies I just really donr have the $ for any books that have stuff like that, all i can get are rule books.

Why would a ranger take TWF as a feat, dont they get itfor free at 1st level with ambidextarity? Wouldnt thaqt be a waste of a feat? SO couldnt a human ranger at 1st level have four feats, TWF, Ambi, ITWF, and Track? Or does a ranger have to buy the feats in order to get ITWF?

I'v ealso been reading a lot of poeple say that the ranger is ranged attack orinted 2. How is this? They dont get any extra bow abilits or anuthing

ALso, how did they change the Dodge feat, i read that but i'm curious as to how they changed it THXS 2 anyone wholl answer all this stuff