Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ranger REG" data-source="post: 859415" data-attributes="member: 533">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.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).&quot;Option, not restriction&quot; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ranger REG, post: 859415, member: 533"] 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. 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification