Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[boschdevil]

Paladins should be prestige.

Oh my god. We must have been separated at birth.

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Agnostic Paladin:

Paladins should be prestige.

Even the gang at WotC acknowledges this. The only reason why they're not, of course, is that it would piss a lot of people off. There was even talk during the original playtest of offering both, but they thought they'd avoid trying to create some new confusion...


A'koss.

 

[MadBlue]

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.

Well, actually, my point was that a 3.5 Ranger is not going to be as good in combat at 1st level as a 3.0 Ranger. I'm not talking about comparing the combat effectiveness to other classes.

As far as being "more of a Ranger", the Ranger is being redefined in 3.5 - or rather, the focus is being shifted. In previous editions, the Ranger was a total wilderness warrior and total wilderness scout rolled into one. In 3.0, the scout part was taken up largely by the Rogue, so a Ranger/Rogue was the consummate "Wilderness Scout". In 3.5 the Ranger is getting the wilderness scout role handed back to him but losing out a bit on the warrior end. It's hard to say which role is "more of a Ranger" though.

Also, I think the concept of "what a Ranger is" has been largely influenced by Rangers in other games. I mean, look at how many alt.Rangers don't use spells because people say "I don't picture the Ranger as a spell caster", when spell use has been part of the D&D Ranger since day one. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

I suspect that we'll see many more rangers with the archery path than the TWF path though.

This is the part that concerns me the most. I think the changes favor taking archery over TWF, and they really should be equally valuable choices. I welcome the choice of the Archery combat style, but I'd like it to remain a choice, and not become the obvious choice.

On a level battlefield though, TWF becomes more useful, especially against Favored Enemies, as the bonus is only applicable to ranged attacks within 30', and the enemies are going to be able to close that distance pretty quickly, at which point the TWF Ranger is going to be getting his bonus damage more often than the Archer Ranger who has to drop his bow and draw his sword.

Two Weapon Defense looks interesting, though, although I imagine it's not on the TWF combat style tree, or at least, it's not on it early enough to make the difference to low-level Rangers. If it works like Off-Hand Parry but doesn't require a full-attack option, it'll be a "must-have" Feat for 3rd level TWF Rangers IMHO.

MadBlue

 

[MadBlue]

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.

No, they don't get it (not according to Flood Season, anyway).

IMHO Uncanny Dodge would be more appropriate, since it would directly benefit a Ranger in melee and would balance out the d8, making TWF a more viable option (also it would bring back the 1e tradition of Rangers being difficult to surprise).

I'd take both though.

MadBlue

 

[Desdichado]

Also, I think the concept of "what a Ranger is" has been largely influenced by Rangers in other games. I mean, look at how many alt.Rangers don't use spells because people say "I don't picture the Ranger as a spell caster", when spell use has been part of the D&D Ranger since day one. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

I don't see what that has to do with any other games. Rather, it entrenches the ranger as a D&Dism that has increasingly less resonance with the fantasy literature that it supposedly emulates. I think that's where the complaints about ranger's casting spells comes from (I know it does on my end, anyway) that except for D&D there's no such archetype as a wilderness spellcasting warrior.

EDIT: Of course, whether or not D&D should emulate fantasy literature isn't necessarily a given, but that's what I've wanted it to do since the early 80s at least, when I first gave the game a serious whirl. My primary complaint with it over the years, and the reason I left the game entirely before 2nd edition launched and didn't come back until 3e was exactly that.

 

[boschdevil]

IMHO Uncanny Dodge would be more appropriate, since it would directly benefit a Ranger in melee and would balance out the d8, making TWF a more viable option (also it would bring back the 1e tradition of Rangers being difficult to surprise).

Oh, I would gladly give up a d10 for a d8 as long as I got Uncanny Dodge any day of the week. This is really my complaint of the current d10 ranger as the class stands now. The ranger really needs something like uncanny dodge to balance out his light armor fighting style. On this we can agree.

 

[theoremtank]

I feel giving the ranger the uncanny dodge feat would be too much. Believe me, I like that feat and think it goes well with the ranger. But I also think we have to keep multiclassing interesting. So if a ranger wants uncanny dodge then he needs to pick up rogue or barbarian levels. In fact I find my current 3.0 ranger/rogue multiclass character to be quite effective and a better choice then a straight single-classed ranger. Hopefully 3.5 will make it a tough choice between a single classed ranger and a multiclassed ranger/rogue.

Oh, I would gladly give up a d10 for a d8 as long as I got Uncanny Dodge any day of the week. This is really my complaint of the current d10 ranger as the class stands now. The ranger really needs something like uncanny dodge to balance out his light armor fighting style. On this we can agree.

 

[MadBlue]

I don't see what that has to do with any other games. Rather, it entrenches the ranger as a D&Dism that has increasingly less resonance with the fantasy literature that it supposedly emulates.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that there's room for a non-spellcasting wilderness scout/warrior/hunter. I'd really like to see a blurb in the DMG about swapping out Ranger spells for some other ability, as an example of how to alter PHB classes. It would be nice to see a standardized alt.Ranger for those who don't think the Ranger should be a spellcaster, or just want to add a non-spellcasting variant to their campaign.

I think that's where the complaints about ranger's casting spells comes from (I know it does on my end, anyway) that except for D&D there's no such archetype as a wilderness spellcasting warrior.

Well, there's a definite archetype of a hunter so in tune to nature that he can draw upon its power. It might not be a common archetype in fantasy literature, but it exists in myth. That, to me, is what separates the Ranger from the rest of the pack.

MadBlue

 

[krunchyfrogg]

I feel giving the ranger the uncanny dodge feat would be too much. Believe me, I like that feat and think it goes well with the ranger. But I also think we have to keep multiclassing interesting. So if a ranger wants uncanny dodge then he needs to pick up rogue or barbarian levels. In fact I find my current 3.0 ranger/rogue multiclass character to be quite effective and a better choice then a straight single-classed ranger. Hopefully 3.5 will make it a tough choice between a single classed ranger and a multiclassed ranger/rogue.

It's for this exact reason I have a character concept in mind of a Ranger with 2 levels of Barbarian. I like the added speed too, but the Rage isn't a big deal for the concept.

Anyway, I don't mind the d8 HD for the Ranger, but I don't like the argument that it's to make Fighters the better melee combatants. The Ranger has to wear light armor to use TWF, and that already makes the Plate Mail wearing fighter better in melee.

 

[Gator]

I personally like it. Too many times have I seen people who play Rangers want to be or act like the tank in the party. The d8 change allows for more creative rangering than "I'm gonna whack it with a sword". When the class was created I'm sure the concept was "Wilderness Rouges". And this stat change will force people to do it.