*Deleted by user*
Re: 2d6 Hit Dice
Thinking about it, I think I would keep them 1d10 hit dice and then give them a class feature where they gain bonus Hit Dice for healing purposes. Say a number of d4's equal to their level. So a level 7 Ranger would have 7d10 HP, and could use 7d10 and 7d4 hit Dice for healing after a short rest. That's actually slightly better than 2d6/level for healing, but keeps the actual HPs down.
I don't see why they have to be d4s. I think that's unnecessarily cautious. Would it break the class for rangers to actually be really good at recovery, and have full d8s or d10s for their extra HD? (I'm inclined to think of the ranger as a touch more fragile than the fighter or paladin in a straight fight, so lean towards the d8 as their normal HD size.)Re: 2d6 Hit Dice
Thinking about it, I think I would keep them 1d10 hit dice and then give them a class feature where they gain bonus Hit Dice for healing purposes. Say a number of d4's equal to their level. So a level 7 Ranger would have 7d10 HP, and could use 7d10 and 7d4 hit Dice for healing after a short rest. That's actually slightly better than 2d6/level for healing, but keeps the actual HPs down.
Huh? Your proficiency bonus doesn't equal your class level (except at 2nd level if you didn't multiclass).If you're gonna put the ranger back at d10, I'd again go back to level bonuses (for level dipping issues). Something like "when you roll a hit die to regain hit points, add the prof bonus equal to your ranger level to the die roll."
Huh? Proficiency bonuses are independent of class level.
Clearly a work in progress. Meanwhile my party's ranger is a default PHB type and seems to be just fine. Does good damage, has decent hp, versatile skills wise... Plus a few spells. Maybe it's his synergy with the rest of the party, but he has no complaints.
Then don't call it a proficiency bonus. The whole point of the proficiency bonus mechanic is that you only have to remember one easy number that's the same for everything.Normally yes, that's why I said tie it to ranger level. It addresses those concerns that people will level dip if you tie it to ranger level.
It's also potent with the Durable feat.Has anyone else noticed that double HD = double healing from the Healer feat? Nice.
I don't see why they have to be d4s. I think that's unnecessarily cautious. Would it break the class for rangers to actually be really good at recovery, and have full d8s or d10s for their extra HD? (I'm inclined to think of the ranger as a touch more fragile than the fighter or paladin in a straight fight, so lean towards the d8 as their normal HD size.)
Ambuscade: Everyone is going to take a ranger dip. High level wizard/sorcerer + Ambuscade = unstoppable party.
No, the disagreement was with the statement that no edition other than 4e did the paladin have to be tied to a deity(s) and that it was a fancom only. And I'm saying that in 1e, they pretty much did. Not only in the class description itself, but with how clerical magic worked and how it was described--coming directly from divine granting. This was also reinforced by the many supplements that came out during that period. For example, a Dragon article in the mid 80s was all about flavors of paladins, and explicitly called them out as being servant to a higher divine power.
I didn't make the argument that in every edition they did have to be tied to a deity, which seems to be what you're arguing against.