Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 856696" data-attributes="member: 694">Plane Sailing: That's a beautiful thing you've posted, because it shows exactly what I'm usually saying.-The ranger has always been a spellcaster.-The ranger has always been a hunter/slayer.-The ranger has always been fighter-like.-The ranger has never been rogue-like.If well over 25 years of the D&amp;D game where the ranger has ascribed to all four of the condiitions I've listed still hasn't convinced people of what a ranger is, than nothing will.Oh, and there's one more thing you left out of that breakdown: from the 0D&amp;D ranger up through the end of 2nd edition AD&amp;D, the ranger was required to be good in alignment.&nbsp; d20-D&amp;D changing this stipulation really was the final cutoff point for &quot;genericizing&quot; the ranger class, but course they never went all the way and turned him into a plain woodsman class -- which is exactly what chagrined the naysayers about the 3e ranger, folks who were so vocal that they got a complete paradigm shift for their 3r ranger.As for the hit die change, I look at it this way: the cleric has d8 and its warrior class, the paladin, has d10.&nbsp; The druid has d8, so its warrior class should also have d10.&nbsp; And the most telling of all is the fact that between the two classes hardened by both fighting and survival, the barbarian and the ranger, are right now only one hit die step apart -- but two steps is practically a joke, given that the d8 represents &quot;average&quot; hit points for an adventurer.&nbsp; Given that the original ranger was tougher than the fighter, and that from 1e to 3e he was just as tough, making him weaker in 3r is just too much of a change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack Daniel, post: 856696, member: 694"] Plane Sailing: That's a beautiful thing you've posted, because it shows exactly what I'm usually saying. -The ranger has always been a spellcaster. -The ranger has always been a hunter/slayer. -The ranger has always been fighter-like. -The ranger has never been rogue-like. If well over 25 years of the D&D game where the ranger has ascribed to all four of the condiitions I've listed [i]still[/i] hasn't convinced people of what a ranger is, than nothing will. Oh, and there's one more thing you left out of that breakdown: from the 0D&D ranger up through the end of 2nd edition AD&D, the ranger was required to be good in alignment. d20-D&D changing this stipulation really was the final cutoff point for "genericizing" the ranger class, but course they never went all the way and turned him into a plain woodsman class -- which is exactly what chagrined the naysayers about the 3e ranger, folks who were so vocal that they got a [b]complete paradigm shift[/b] for their 3r ranger. As for the hit die change, I look at it this way: the cleric has d8 and its warrior class, the paladin, has d10. The druid has d8, so its warrior class should also have d10. And the most telling of all is the fact that between the two classes hardened by both fighting and survival, the barbarian and the ranger, are right now only one hit die step apart -- but two steps is practically a joke, given that the d8 represents "average" hit points for an adventurer. Given that the original ranger was tougher than the fighter, and that from 1e to 3e he was just as tough, making him weaker in 3r is just too much of a change. [/QUOTE]

Verification