Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Steverooo]

Spell-use

But I also need to admit that, of the three Rangers you mentioned, only Drizzt has ever used a spell.

"But in the wild lands beyond Bree there were mysterious wanderers. The Bree-folk called them Rangers, and knew nothing of their origin. They were taller and darker than the Men of Bree and were believed to have strange powers of sight and hearing, and to understand the languages of beasts and birds." FotR:178.

 

[Felon]

I hate to point out the obvious, but just in case nobody else has: if a ranger is receiving favored enemy bonuses, spellcasting, 6 skill pts/level, free Track feat + other wilderness-related abilities, and--on to top of all that--combat styles that emulate fighter feats, then I should certainly hope that he actually loses something in order to keep the 3.5 fighter from becoming as underadvantaged as a 3e ranger. A hit-die value drop, in conjunction with the light-armor restrictions, seems about right.

Someone mentioned the new Diehard feat. I believe it's just Remain Conscious renamed.

As for Favord Enemy bonuses getting a boost, I'm all for that. By way of comparison, +5 is a joke compared to the +10d6 a rogue is doing at the same level.

 

[Technik4]

Ranger vs Fighter .... or Ranger vs Paladin?

Personally I think the ranger needs to be balanced better with a foil like the paladin simply because a lot of their similar abilities cancel out.

Equal BAB
Ranger Animal Companion eq Paladin Warhorse
Ranger Spells eq Paladin Spells
Ranger Favored Enemy roughly eq Paladin Smite

This leaves us with Combat Paths for a ranger and Aura of Courage, Divine Grace, Divine Health, Detect Evil, and Lay on Hands for paladin.

However, the ranger does get more skill points now, along with a much sexier skill list. And a new wilderness ability.

But the paladin has heavy armor and a d10?

Technik

PS- Roleplaying restrictions and alignment restrictions shouldn't factor into the balance of a class. 1 level of ranger should roughly equate to 1 level of paladin, just as 6 levels of ranger should relate to 6 levels of monk.

 

[Felon]

Gains two-weapon fighting when in light armour. Why? Who knows? I’ve heard it said that the aim was to encourage rangers to become “lightly armoured” fighters.

Didn't it have something to do with how dual-wielding was originally introduced? The penalty for all attacks was an initial -4, reduced by the character's Dex bonus. Since rangers had a high minimum Dex prerequisite, they tended to be able to dual-wield better than other warrior-types.

Btw, thanks for the analysis! Very informative!

 

[Caliber]

You know what I want in a new Ranger? The ability for TWF to work with double weapons. So I can use a quaterstaff. Finally.

Actually, I'm looking forward to the new Ranger. The d8 HD makes it sound even better, since that means they must be getting some significant bonuses. (boni?)

 

[Umbran]

I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, they should spend their (limited) character feats on fighting.

I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, he should be a fighter, and not a ranger.

I don't see a problem with letting a player take a class and moving it in the direction that fits their character concept.

By that logic, fighters and rogues should have access to spellcasting without having to multiclass.

This is somethign inherent to a class system - you are somewhat restricted by the classes. Well defined classes can be fairly flexible, but there's still a limit if you want anything approaching "balance".

So, the designers must pick and choose. If they'd decided to give the flexibility you want with lots of bonus feats instead (making the ranger look a lot like a fighter), they'd have had to take something else away. And that would cheese other players off. No matter what they do, they cannot please everybody.

Quite honestly, it frequently seems that we, the players, won't allow them to please us. We're so blasted picky, expecting a game designed for a few milion players to conform to our personal specifications, that nobody can possibly satisfy us.

Btw, if you're going to quote two different people in the same post, it'd be better if you gave attribution, to avoid confusion.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Umbran:

By that logic, fighters and rogues should have access to spellcasting without having to multiclass.

Well, rangers already get spellcasting Besides, you knew exactly what I meant.

Quite honestly, it frequently seems that we, the players, won't allow them to please us. We're so blasted picky, expecting a game designed for a few milion players to conform to our personal specifications, that nobody can possibly satisfy us.

Out of 11 core classes, only 2 draw this much heat - the monk, and the ranger. That means WotC got more than 80% of the classes right. The cleric and rogue, in particular, are a lot better than their 2e counterparts.

 

[Umbran]

Out of 11 core classes, only 2 draw this much heat - the monk, and the ranger. That means WotC got more than 80% of the classes right.

IME, the monk, ranger, and bard catch nigh equivalent heat. That's dropping the average down below 75%.

When you then collectively consider people's gripes about vancian magic, Item Creation feats, fighter dependance on magic items, clerics being too buff, sorcerers not having CHR based skills, allignment, etc, etc, then perhaps they're down below 50%.

Just can't satisfy some folks

 

[Mjollnir]

If you consider that a ranger is a nature-toughened character a d8 does not reflect it, my guess.

 

[Wormwood]

If you consider that a ranger is a nature-toughened character a d8 does not reflect it, my guess.

Animals have d8. If it's good enough for a bear, it's good enough for a Ranger, I suppose.