To me it makes no sence, Look at it like this. A ranger is a warrior of nature, and a druid is a priest of nature. By that logic a cleric is a priest of a deity and a paladin is a warrior of a deity. So why would the druid and ranger have the same HD size?To me it make no sence.
Does any one have a problem with the HD size of a ranger?
- Thread starter spigadang
- Start date
BiggusGeekus
That's Latin for "cool"
Because druids and rangers aren't the same as clerics and paladins. They have different abilities.
Although, personally, I'm one of about a half-dozen people who thought rangers in 3.0 were just fine....
Although, personally, I'm one of about a half-dozen people who thought rangers in 3.0 were just fine....
ThoughtBubble
First Post
No, I don't have a problem with it, because, compared to the fighter and paladin, the 3.5 ranger gets a whole lot more special abilities. Thus, something has to compensate. And, as they moved the ranger to "lightly armored woods scout and combatant" the scout role got a little more precidence.
Play with it some, I think you'll find it's fine.
Play with it some, I think you'll find it's fine.
MerakSpielman
First Post
I'm in the "ranger should not be a class" camp. I think the "concept" that ranger is trying to get across could be built with a Druid/Fighter multiclass perfectly well.
edit: but I also think Cleric/Fighters fit the "holy warrior" role well enough to not need a paladin class...
edit: but I also think Cleric/Fighters fit the "holy warrior" role well enough to not need a paladin class...
Last edited:
Mercule
Adventurer
Yup. I've resigned myself to the fact that different people have different visions for what the ranger archetype is, though.
Personally, I like the idea of a ranger being a guerilla warrior. They should be slightly tougher than a fighter, but not enough to warrant a change in hit die, but definitely not lower than the fighter.
I figure that the only difference in war capability between the fighter and ranger is that the ranger is stealthy and has some related tricks up their sleeve and the fighter masters feats. Basically, the fighter masters his weapon(s) while the ranger masters his environment.
Of course, I'm a bit odd in my view of rangers. I see them as being more inclined to arcane than divine magics. I also think the archetype requires a certain relationship with "civilization". They exist on the fringes, not completely removed from it. If you want someone who is "wild", use the barbarian, not the ranger. And, anyone who thinks it's reasonable to have TWF as a class feature, even an optional one, of the ranger is not even talking about the same animal as I am.
Personally, I like the idea of a ranger being a guerilla warrior. They should be slightly tougher than a fighter, but not enough to warrant a change in hit die, but definitely not lower than the fighter.
I figure that the only difference in war capability between the fighter and ranger is that the ranger is stealthy and has some related tricks up their sleeve and the fighter masters feats. Basically, the fighter masters his weapon(s) while the ranger masters his environment.
Of course, I'm a bit odd in my view of rangers. I see them as being more inclined to arcane than divine magics. I also think the archetype requires a certain relationship with "civilization". They exist on the fringes, not completely removed from it. If you want someone who is "wild", use the barbarian, not the ranger. And, anyone who thinks it's reasonable to have TWF as a class feature, even an optional one, of the ranger is not even talking about the same animal as I am.
francisca
I got dice older than you.
Piratecat said:I don't see fighters as warriors. I think the class should be abolished and at best made into a prestige class for high-level commoners.
Good one...As for the Ranger, no, I think the d8 is fine. A Ranger is not a toe-to-toe combatant, no matter what the players in my 3.5E game think.
If you want an outdoorsy skullcracker, look no further than the Barbarian.Similar Threads
