Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

The revised ranger will receive one of two combat styles - TWF, or archery. You get the combat styles at 2nd-level, and they get better at 6th-level, and maybe at some other level.

The revision is free - just go to www.wizards.com/d20

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?

Ambidexterity is being scrapped. A ranger gets their combat style for free at 2nd-level. If you want TWF, you should wait until 2nd-level.

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

It's a matter of flavor. The rules don't fit the ranger class yet.

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

In d20 Modern, Dodge gives +2 AC.

 

[Mortaneus]

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.

So you're comparing an 11th level ranger's HP to a 9th level fighter? Of course there's a net gain! The ranger is 2 levels higher!

Try 9d10+6 for the fighter to make it 11th level.

Then you get 55.5 HP for the fighter, and 54 for the ranger at 11th.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I'm not looking at the Ranger class in terms of balance. I care about balance, but it's secondary to flavor.

Despite what the math says, my experience was always that the 1E Ranger had more HP than Fighters -- probably because Rangers always had Con as their highest stat while Fighters had Strength. IMHO, Rangers should slightly tougher than Fighters. Not enough to warrant an larger HD or anything, but enough for me to be strongly against any reduction to the HD, regardless of the balancing factors.

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

...

(c) likes to avoid house rules

Well, not Joshua, but I did pipe up in agreement.

My statement was meant to imply that I've heard enough things about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike (everything with the exception of the bump in skills) that I'm reasonably confident that it's going to be unusable to me. I wash my hands of the matter and have resolved that I'm going to have to do up my own house variant.

I don't particularly want to house rule. I like the ease of being able to toss the book at players (old or new) and saying "These are the rules we're using."

Edit: fixed my really bad usage of tags.

 

[Caliber]

So you're comparing an 11th level ranger's HP to a 9th level fighter? Of course there's a net gain! The ranger is 2 levels higher!

Try 9d10+6 for the fighter to make it 11th level.

Then you get 55.5 HP for the fighter, and 54 for the ranger at 11th.

boschdevil got it right directly above me. Its been so long since I've played 1E or 2E I forgot you started getting a set amount of HP after you reached your HD max.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

Personally, I don't like the "virtual" combat feats be limited to lighter armor types (as is the current ranger class). I would rather a ranger start with an automatic proficiency with light armor, and then allow said ranger to acquire the other two armor proficiencies later, and if he does, his "virtual" feats should be allowed to use with heavier armor.

 

[Ranger REG]

My statement was meant to imply that I've heard enough things about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike (everything with the exception of the bump in skills) that I'm reasonably confident that it's going to be unusable to me. I wash my hands of the matter and have resolved that I'm going to have to do up my own house variant.

What else do you dislike about the 3.5e ranger, since the d8 hit die is apparently minor change (see my above post regarding the "plumber's crack" statement)?

 

[theoremtank]

It might have been mentioned already in this thread but here goes...

I believe 3.5 rangers get the improved reflex saves, so this should somewhat balance out the fewer hit points from the d8. 3.5 rangers will be a little better at avoiding certains spells such as fireball.

The move to a d8 hit die for rangers also emphasizes dexterity even more so as to up AC.

I don't see a problem with rangers in medium armor so I hope their 3.5 "fighting styles" don't get affected by the use of medium armor. I do however feel that rangers should only get proficiency in light armor. Therefore if they do want to wear medium or heavy armor, they will be forced either to multiclass or take the feats. By the way, I feel only the fighter should get proficiency in heavy armor. All other classes should get medium proficiency at most.

 

[Lela]

By the way, I feel only the fighter should get proficiency in heavy armor. All other classes should get medium proficiency at most.

What about Paladins?

 

[Agnostic Paladin]

Paladins should be prestige.

 

[Lela]

Paladins should be prestige.

Which, of course, is a whole new thread.

Edit: That reminds me, I should get around to putting my Paladin PrC up one of these days. . .