Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 863569" data-attributes="member: 5100">That's something of a non-sequitor.  The only front-loading a Ranger needs to be a Ranger are free Tracking and _maybe_ Favored Enemy.Besides, it's been stated that front-loading is a bad idea.  It this is so, it really doesn't matter what the HD is -- it's a bad idea.  In fact, a lower HD is only likely to aggrevate the issue as it won't hold people to the class.I don't really see this happenning.  If leaving the Ranger's HD alone throws off the fighter's balance, then the Paladin needs to be stepped down, too.I've no interest in these, either.  I want to see a balanced Ranger class that serves a fighter-type role that the Fighter class can't -- wilderness warrior, explorer, and skirmisher.  The Ranger _should_ have much more in common with the Fighter than the Rogue or Druid.Honestly, even keeping the d10 HD and ditching spellcasting (as an apparently extreme example), I see the Ranger class as having a significantly better differntial from the Fighter and a much better reason to exist than the current Paladin.I agree that multiple concepts should be viable.  I'm not selectively shutting out any concepts -- I'm simply in favor of separating the fighting style from the class mechanically because I don't see them related from an RP point of view.Anyone who wants to can still play a TWF Ranger in my campaign.  They just need to spend the feats.  If your concept isn't TWF (or archery), then don't spend your feats there.  In the latter case, you don't have these useless feats that are supposed to "balance" you against everyone else, but only weaken you because they have nothing to do with the concept of your character.Okay, one last time.  I've said this many times before.  But it doesn't seem to sink in:  I do not advocate a d12 HD for Ranger.  That's a bit much.  I see Rangers as being slightly, but not statistically significantly, tougher than Fighters if you strip away all armor, etc. from both.  Barbarians are the ones that fail to notice when you stick them with a dagger, not Rangers.The only way that I'd up Rangers to a d12 HD is if someone said, "Rangers can't use d10 for HD anymore, find something else."  Basically, d12 makes less sense than d10, but more than d8 (which is absurb, IMHO).Basically, I think that Rangers should roll the same HD as Fighters, but there should be some encouragement for the Ranger to have a higher Con, on average.  If a swashbuckler gets d10 HD, then a Ranger certainly should -- or would you advocate reducing the Fighter's HD in a Renaissance campaign?</blockquote>

Verification