Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Lela

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


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead

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.

Using TWF requires a full-round action, so it's difficult to use while surprising an opponent or moving and striking.

Umbran

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%.

There are lots of discussions about this as well, but they don't draw as much heat, at least, not that I've noticed.

 

[Lela]

Lela

Using TWF requires a full-round action, so it's difficult to use while surprising an opponent or moving and striking.

Yes, now I see what you mean. I guess it comes down to how you're planning to surprise them.

But it's better than a shield. And, for melee, the only other option is a large weapon-which doesn't fit my idea of the class, though it may fit someone elses.

 

[Felon]

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

The barbarian is D&D's nature-toughened character. The ranger is the nature-"smart" character.

 

[Umbran]

There are lots of discussions about this as well, but they don't draw as much heat, at least, not that I've noticed.

Part of my point is that the percieved amount of "heat" (relative or absolute) doesn't really indicate much. At one time or another, pretty much every single aspect of the game (from alignment and specific classes down to the economic system and the weights given to items in the game) has taken significant heat. From that, you'd think that the game stank like fetid entrails.

Instead, what it indicates is that we like to gripe. A small number of passionate people can generate large amounts of heat and criticism.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Spell-use

"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.

And what exactly is that supposed to prove? Just because the Bree-folk thought them magical doesn't mean they were. In fact, after the main characters hang around with Aragorn long enough to make him a main character as well, we find out very clearly that he does not have "Strange powers of sight and hearing" nor does he "understand the languages of beasts and birds." And even if he did, they wouldn't be spells.

I'm sorry, but that just seems one of the more pointless posts in this thread (which already has a few. This one included.)

 

[Mjollnir]

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

Animals do have d8 dice, characters have different dice according to their potentials: rangers are warriors and survivers of the wild. You imagine a hard character like Aragorn in Middle Earth weaker than another one like Legolas? I suppose you are thinking Arargorn should be more expereinced and hence with more levels, but you may also think of a campaign with no dice increase. A ranger is tougher than a cleric which concentrates part of her power in powerful spellcasting abilities, while a ranger has endured and hardened with an outdoors life.

 

[Mjollnir]

The barbarian is D&D's nature-toughened character. The ranger is the nature-"smart" character.

Should a paladin then has a d8 as well? Paladins are also smart and charismatic...

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: Spell-use

And what exactly is that supposed to prove? Just because the Bree-folk thought them magical doesn't mean they were. In fact, after the main characters hang around with Aragorn long enough to make him a main character as well, we find out very clearly that he does not have "Strange powers of sight and hearing" nor does he "understand the languages of beasts and birds." And even if he did, they wouldn't be spells. I'm sorry, but that just seems one of the more pointless posts in this thread (which already has a few. This one included.)

I empathize with your frustration. I don't like magic being an integral part of the ranger's portfolio either. Multi-classing as a druid would allow anyone who wanted the nature spells to have them.

However, the brutal truth is D&D is not going to give you a direct translation of Aragorn. Same goes for Lancelot as a paladin or Kane (a la Kung Fu) as a monk. As designers like Monte Cook and Ed Stark have often pointed out, D&D isn't a metasystem that adapts instantly to any setting; people just try to treat it that way (with mixed results). The ranger you're going to get is a revved-up version to fit into D&D's spellpunk world, where things foes like ring-wraiths and an army of orcs are small potatoes.

Considering how easily magic (both spells and magic items) can provide sustenance, shelter, & fast transportation, a magicless ranger would start out only moderately useful at low levels, and would decline from there.

 

[Felon]

Should a paladin then has a d8 as well? Paladins are also smart and charismatic...

Smart? They get the minimum skill points, just like dumb ol' fighters (don't ask me why barbarians get four lol).

Charismatic? Definitely, but they aren't much for using skills to manipulate and outmaneuver evil. They bring the righteous pain straight into evil's face.

Seems like reaching to me. If you want the hardiness ccombined with the stealth and skills, there's always the opton to mult-class as a barbarian/ranger.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Spell-use

I empathize with your frustration. I don't like magic being an integral part of the ranger's portfolio either. Multi-classing as a druid would allow anyone who wanted the nature spells to have them.

I agree with you, and I'm not frustrated because I have several alt.ranger classes (without spells) that I like very well. However, it seems you're trying to use that quote from LotR to prove that Aragorn did cast spells, when he patently and clearly did not.

As I've said before, I don't mind the ranger class all that much, really, it's just not a class I'd like to play when I could play some others that I think are more interesting.