Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Ranger REG]

My solution is to get rid of front-loading and give the Ranger the same HD as a Fighter.

Then he will less of a ranger and more of a fighter. You might as well get rid of this class and be left with the barbarian, fighter, and paladin.

The tank aspect of Fighters come from the heavy armor. If you strip both a Fighter and a Ranger to skins, the Ranger is going to be every bit as tough as the Fighter, if not slightly moreso.

But with all of the ranger's survival and hunting abilities, to add the same if not better HD, would gain a significant advantage over the other classes. What is even worse, we go back to the 1st edition era where the fighter class becomes a ghost of itself; less attractive when you put said figther up on the pedestal with the paladin and ranger.

I'm a ranger fan, but I'm not about to turn it into a munchkin class. I'm also not about to turn it into a fighter class with survival skill, basically losing its distinction and identity. Yes, our concept of the ranger class differs, and I'm all for the differences, but I'm not about to selectively choose when concept is okay and which is not (eventually shutting out those who prefer a two-weapon skirmishing ranger).

"Option, not restriction" have been Wizards' banner cry for 3.5e. I'm cool with d8 HD. I would have objected if it goes down further than that. And I also would object if the ranger becomes an uber class over the other combat-oriented classes (since you've been hinting at wanting a better-than-10 HD).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

He is never portrayed as using two weapons, no.

I'm not a big TWF fan, but I must point out he once wielded two torches against some of the Black Riders.

TWF has nothing to do with skirmishing.

Exactly. It's difficult to use TWF from surprise, or when moving and striking, etc.

As has been demonstrated, time and again - there is no single archtype the Ranger is supposed to serve.

A good argument for getting rid of combat paths entirely. Andy Collins said (on his site) that the revision wasn't going to change the ranger class that much, however.

 

[Ranger REG]

Exactly. It's difficult to use TWF from surprise, or when moving and striking, etc.

But because he does not have the support of an army, such a skirmish unit must be able to fight by themselves against large number of opponents. But as I said, you choose to be a melee-wielding ranger or an archer ranger. It's up to you. So, let just wait and see what this Combat Path is all about first.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not a big TWF fan, but I must point out he once wielded two torches against some of the Black Riders.

Uhh, someone hasn't been reading the thread very carefully The post I was responding to said that although he remembered the sword/torch action in the movie he didn't remember Aragorn being a TWF in the books, but he thought that he was. As someone who's read the books almost once a year for more than fifteen years, I can confidently say that Aragorn never once wields two weapons at once in the books. So your reply above doesn't make much sense.

 

[Lela]

Actually, I would think that using TWF in a wilderness envioronment would be benifitial. Tree on your left, use your right hand. Tree on your right, use your left. You still have full range of motion to swing.

Also, if you're all alone against superiour numbers (goblins and orcs being typical) TWF is very useful. When one attack can bring someone down, having that one extra attack can make an incredible difference.

They're easier to finesse than large swords or axes, which is key in the forest. And becuase smaller weapons can be strapped down across the back without sticking out, they take up less room--in the way that matters for most of what a Ranger does: Hide, track, scout, etc.

What part of TWF isn't good for a Ranger?

So your reply above doesn't make much sense.

Actually, it helped more. It shows that Aragorn has the TWF skills even if he doesn't always use them. And he was swinging two torches as weapons. Not weapons themselves but still as weapons.

But I also need to admit that, of the three Rangers you mentioned, only Drizzt has ever used a spell. And that was only very recently (it also didn't fit with his character).

 

[boschdevil]

I think your reasoning is deeply flawed, because you are relying on giving the fighter an 18 CON and the ranger a 14 Con based on point buy schemes which didn't exist then. You are not comparing apples with apples.

I stand fully by my original assertion - Rangers were hardier at 1st level (2d8 vs 1d10) and could get more CON bonuses (11x rather than 9x) BUT where down a peg or two. i.e. no longer had the complete hp dominance which they had when they were first introduced.

All the rangers I knew in 1e focussed heavily on CON to maximise their bonuses, and where allowed chose that for their high score. It was a sound tactic which made the maximum advantage of their greater number of HD.

Cheers

Well, I do admit that I used the 3rd edition point buy because I couldn't think of another system off-hand that one could use for attribute point equivalency. I only meant it as a tool to try to have equitable ability comparison for 1st edition ranger and fighter.

However, let me use one other item that has been around since the beginning of D&D and far before it - probability and statistics.

Let start with some terms with their descriptions:

minimum ranger: Abilities are 13 for strength and intelligence, 14 for wisdom and constitution, 8 for dexterity and charisma.

buff fighter: Abilities are 15 for strength, 18 for constitution, and 8 for dexterity, charisma, intelligence, and wisdom.

buff ranger: Abilities are 15 for strength, 18 for constitution, 13 for intelligence, 14 for wisdom, and 8 for dexterity and charisma.

Now, for first edition there was two methods for rolling attributes: roll 3d6 and roll 4d6 keep the 3 highest.

The following are the probabilities of rolling at least the attributes noted for the term using the rolling methods employed:

Roll 3d6:
Minimum ranger -> 1 in 64.18
Buff fighter -> 1 in 66.16
Buff ranger -> 1 in 199.66

Roll 4d6, keep highest 3:
Minimum ranger -> 1 in 15.98
Buff fighter -> 1 in 3.39
Buff ranger -> 1 in 26.93

So the moral of the story is though a buff ranger would be tougher than a buff fighter, the fighter is still tougher than the ranger because the probability of getting the abilities for a buff ranger is far less than getting the abilities of a buff fighter. In fact, the probability of getting the abilities for a buff fighter is around the same to better than being able to get the abilities required for a minimum fighter. And I didn't even include the fact that the buff fighter qualified for experience points bonus, while the rangers here in question did not.

If you want a copy the work for how I got my results, I can put it in Word format and send it to you. Just let me know.

Take care.

 

[Umbran]

I can confidently say that Aragorn never once wields two weapons at once in the books.

Not that this is a real support for TWF D&D Rangers, but let's be clear:

From The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings, Book 1, "A Knife in the Dark":

"A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of poisoned ice pierce hisleft shoulder. Even as he swooned, he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand."

A good argument for getting rid of combat paths entirely

Only if you hold to the philosophy that Rangers are supposed to try it's best to be all things to all people. I think that's probably a bad idea. The game is allowed to have it's own archetypes.

 

[Chauzu]

I am pleased with the Ranger, so far.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Only if you hold to the philosophy that Rangers are supposed to try it's best to be all things to all people.

I think you misunderstand me, but I'm not so sure.

Suppose there are 100 ranger players in a room That means 100 different combat styles. WotC couldn't possibly fit 100 combat styles into the Player's Handbook.

I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, they should spend their (limited) character feats on fighting. They can take whatever combat style they desire, or try multiple paths (not a good idea, IMO, but at least they have that option) or none if they would rather take flavor/skill feats, or some combination of them.

One of the problems with the ranger is WotC is trying to satisfy a wide variety of desires with narrow options. I don't see a problem with letting a player take a class and moving it in the direction that fits their character concept.

Personally, everything I've heard about the 3.5 ranger fits my definition of a ranger, but I don't think it's going to fit everyone in my gaming group. That's why I'd rather they remove the fighting styles entirely.

What part of TWF isn't good for a Ranger?

Lots This is the very first time I've seen a flavor argument in favor of TWF, so you've given something to think about. I guess I just didn't like every ranger learning and using the same combat style. I'll probably stick with archery though

 

[Lela]

Lots This is the very first time I've seen a flavor argument in favor of TWF, so you've given something to think about. I guess I just didn't like every ranger learning and using the same combat style. I'll probably stick with archery though

To me it seemed like much of the argument was flavor already. To take your statement about surprise as an example:

Exactly. It's difficult to use TWF from surprise, or when moving and striking, etc.

From a game rules standpoint, I don't see how that could apply. With Armor Check penalty to Hide and Move Silently from a shield, the Ranger is actually better at attacking by surprise in melee. Ranged, the same foilage that helps you stay hidden provides a cover bonus to the goblin your shooting at.

To me, obvious feats for a Ranger are Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack. And now that Dodge is improving, it's even more valuable--in fact, I might adopt the M&M Dodge as a house rule, but that's beside the point.

With Spring Attack (and possible Boots of S&S) the Ranger is made perfectly for moving and striking. And those who try for an AoO when he's moving are in for a surprise with Mobility.

That said, I definitally see the apeal of the bow. You may recall my mentioning of my munchkin player with multishot. Bowman can be amazing and a great help to any party--I just don't like it when they take down an Ancient Red Wyrm in a single round.

Going along with the LotR theme that's come up, look to Legolos (in the movie at least) for an example of both styles of fighting working wonderfully together.

And just think, with Combat Paths you can now do both easily. Just use your regular feats for TWF and the chosen Path as Archery (or vice versa). Edit: Just realized this could take away from the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack thing. But I guess we can't all be Legolos.