Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Felon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Spell-use

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.

That quote wasn't mine, Joshua. Actually, I was kind of hoping that spellcasting would be one of the optional paths for the ranger, instead of layering spellcasting on top of his fighting styles.

 

[Mjollnir]

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.

Yeah! I do want it: in a single class!, old ranger version from 3rd ed. had it!
Anyway, no matter how new, how improved a version gets; someone will always find things to complain about (now it's me ). I'm sure rangers in 3.5 ed. will be much better than the one from 3rd ed., but I will miss and notice the d10 for a tough class like this one...

 

[Jack Daniel]

Joshua:
Sure, Aragorn never cast any magic spells, but then, the ranger is a divine character, not an arcane one. And besides, the rules are different in Middle Earth to begin with -- all arcane magic ("sorcery") is pretty much spell-based and evil, and all divine magic ("wizardry") is innate and good. Middle Earth rangers certainly don't cast spells of sorcery or have innate wizardry.

But if they do talk to animals and pick up on some elvish talents like seeing and hearing well, then that's certainly a paranormal tie to nature -- and the only way to express that in D&D is druid spells. Just take it with a grain of salt and remember that spells aren't always spells; a cleric doesn't cast a spell, he prays for a miracle. A bard doesn't cast a spell (unless his performance type is stage magic ), he sings a magical song. As a mechanic, yeah, they're all spells, because you have to define a "one-time, rule-breaking effect" in game terms.

But being as literal as you are is pedantic.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Jack Daniel

And besides, the rules are different in Middle Earth to begin with -- all arcane magic ("sorcery") is pretty much spell-based and evil, and all divine magic ("wizardry") is innate and good.

Gandalf and Saruman used the same type of magic.

Gandalf even used Saruman's voice technique ... on Saruman!

Welcome to the Dark Side, Gandalf

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Jack Daniel


Gandalf and Saruman used the same type of magic.

Gandalf even used Saruman's voice technique ... on Saruman!

Welcome to the Dark Side, Gandalf

well since both gandalf and saruman, where both angles I hope it was the same magic. the fact that one was snared by evil, doesn't stop the source.
ken

 

[EarthsShadow]

The solution to any problem is easy: If you don't like it, don't play it. Find something else that fits what you like. If you don't like the ranger, change it. Who says you have to play the version WotC, buyer of souls, says is the correct version?

 

[Lela]

Yeah Joshua, why don't you just change the Ranger to match what you like. That, or go and find some alt.Rangers to . . . uh, ooohhhhhhhhh.

Ooops.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spell-use

That quote wasn't mine, Joshua.

Oops, you're right!

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua:
Sure, Aragorn never cast any magic spells, but then, the ranger is a divine character, not an arcane one. And besides, the rules are different in Middle Earth to begin with -- all arcane magic ("sorcery") is pretty much spell-based and evil, and all divine magic ("wizardry") is innate and good. Middle Earth rangers certainly don't cast spells of sorcery or have innate wizardry.

Actually, the ranger is a mundane character, not a divine one. At least in Middle-earth.

But if they do talk to animals and pick up on some elvish talents like seeing and hearing well, then that's certainly a paranormal tie to nature -- and the only way to express that in D&D is druid spells. Just take it with a grain of salt and remember that spells aren't always spells; a cleric doesn't cast a spell, he prays for a miracle. A bard doesn't cast a spell (unless his performance type is stage magic ), he sings a magical song. As a mechanic, yeah, they're all spells, because you have to define a "one-time, rule-breaking effect" in game terms.

Actually those can quite well be modeled in D&D terms by having rangers with high listen, spot, search and animal empathy ranks. There's no reason to make them be spells. Especially when the ranger spell list doesn't really model those things you describe.

But being as literal as you are is pedantic.

It must be nice when your only choices are pedantic and wrong. I really don't see what it matters. I'm not sure anyone is claiming that Aragorn is the "model" of the 3e ranger anyway, so my comments about the quote about Aragorn is a tangent and hardly integral to any real discussion of the ranger character class.

 

[Desdichado]

The solution to any problem is easy: If you don't like it, don't play it. Find something else that fits what you like. If you don't like the ranger, change it. Who says you have to play the version WotC, buyer of souls, says is the correct version?

That's exactly what I do. Doesn't mean I can't point out the fact that I don't particularly care for the 3e ranger though. The fact that I can provide feedback on it is important to me. But, yeah, in practice, that's exactly what I do, so it ends up not being a really big deal to me. No matter what they do with the ranger, I probably still won't play it.