# Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.



## A'koss (Apr 19, 2003)

I don't know if this has already been posted here but if not... have at it!  


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## Droogie (Apr 19, 2003)

If thats true, then I feel sorry for any TWF rangers. Does anyone want to go toe-to-toe with a d8 for HD, light armor, and no shield?


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 19, 2003)

Confirmed where?


----------



## Lela (Apr 19, 2003)

Droogie said:
			
		

> *If thats true, then I feel sorry for any TWF rangers. Does anyone want to go toe-to-toe with a d8 for HD, light armor, and no shield? *




Well, look at some of the feats in the FRC designed for Drizz't.  They can help out with that.  Also, I would bet those Rangers get free access to Two-Weapon Defense, which may or may not be from the FRC.

Diehard--depending on what it does--might be a must have for them.  Perhaps even Improved Feint as well.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 19, 2003)

Well, Ed Stark did like to call the 3.5e Ranger a "Wilderness Rogue". I guess we now know why... 


A'koss.


----------



## maddman75 (Apr 19, 2003)

Good thing almost everyone made up their own version already.  If they are giving up HD, they'd best get a LOT in return.  'Overpowered' was NOT one of the ranger's problems.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by John Crichton:_
> 
> Confirmed where?



Andy Collins's MB...


*Scarlet Knight:* "Paizo Publishing has a Web Enhancement for "Flood Season", an adventure from Dungeon 98, which is supposedly compatible with the revised edition.

There is a character listed on the last page named Zachary Aslaxin who is an Aristocrat 1/ Ranger 2/ Cleric 1. He has 4d8 hit dice.

Does this mean that rangers will have d8 hit dice in the revision? Or did Paizo Publishing make a mistake?"


*Andy Collins:* "Paizo has very up-to-date versions of the revised core rulebooks."



Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 19, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *
> Andy Collins's MB...*



My thanks.


----------



## Lela (Apr 19, 2003)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *Good thing almost everyone made up their own version already.  If they are giving up HD, they'd best get a LOT in return.  'Overpowered' was NOT one of the ranger's problems. *




Don't forget that Monte Cook's Ranger only had d8, though they did get _a lot_ there.

And one of my players managed to make an overpowered Ranger.  Though sometimes I think he could make a deaf, dumb, and naked pure Bard a killing powerhouse.


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 19, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't forget that Monte Cook's Ranger only had d8, though they did get a lot there.
> *




Actually, in his latest BoHM, he made the ranger d10 ....

I'm pretty sure you are referring to the one on his website, but I wanted to let you know what was his latest vision.


----------



## Angcuru (Apr 19, 2003)

I really like the d8 HD Monte Cook Ranger.  It lets the Ranger be more combat-effective, due to the bonus feats in place of virtual feats, and doesn't force TWF on the ranger.  The reduction in HD also forces the ranger to think more along the lines of a ...RANGER and less along the lines of a fighter or a barbarian.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Apr 19, 2003)

Think there's any chance they'll get 2 at 1st level? 

(I'm only half joking--if it weren't for multi-classing, I think it might be a nice flavor element.)


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 19, 2003)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *Think there's any chance they'll get 2 at 1st level?
> 
> (I'm only half joking--if it weren't for multi-classing, I think it might be a nice flavor element.) *



They do.  One and Track.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 19, 2003)

Mr. Stark confirmed in his interview that in order to get a ranger combat style, you need two levels of ranger.


----------



## Lela (Apr 19, 2003)

boschdevil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, in his latest BoHM, he made the ranger d10 ....
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are referring to the one on his website, but I wanted to let you know what was his latest vision. *




Yep, I was talking about the one on his website, which I found to be a little too powerful, even with the reduction in HD.  I will admit I haven't looked at it in nearly a year.

BoHM?


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 19, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *They do.  One and Track.   *




I think Thorvald Kviksverd was referring to 2d8 hit dice, which the 1e Ranger had.


I don't mind the change, if it's correct.  Heck, even Dodge is getting better (they're going with the version of Dodge in Mutants and Masterminds), so it's going to be harder to get hit.

Besides, going from d10 to d8 hurts, but not that badly.  I've seen a lot of Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Psi-Warriors do well in combat.  

Not as well as the Fighter, but isn't that really the point?


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 19, 2003)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> *I think Thorvald Kviksverd was referring to 2d8 hit dice, which the 1e Ranger had. *



Ah, I had no idea as I never played 1e.  Oop.  


			
				krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> *I don't mind the change, if it's correct.  Heck, even Dodge is getting better (they're going with the version of Dodge in Mutants and Masterminds), so it's going to be harder to get hit.
> 
> Besides, going from d10 to d8 hurts, but not that badly.  I've seen a lot of Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Psi-Warriors do well in combat.
> 
> Not as well as the Fighter, but isn't that really the point? *



Yeah, Dodge getting a boost is great and the d8 seems to fit well with the better skill points and the like.  Besides, Rangers were never tanks to begin with.


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 19, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *
> BoHM? *




Book of Hallowed Might.  It came out in print around March from Malhavoc Press.


----------



## kingpaul (Apr 19, 2003)

boschdevil said:
			
		

> *Book of Hallowed Might.  It came out in print around March from Malhavoc Press. *



I don't have the print version, only the PDF.  I liked the revised Ranger in there, thought it was a bit more balanced.  The revised Paladin was nice as well.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 19, 2003)

FWIW, the Ranger's Favored Enemy ability is supposed to get a boost as well. 

The 2nd level Ranger (L4 character) in the web enhancement has a Species Enemy: Humanoid, Reptilian *+2* for example. 

He also fights pretty damn well with two weapons (his weapon style). His BAB is +2 and he fights with a rapier (+3 to attack [+1 Str, +1(?) Weapon Focus]) and a kukuri (+2 to attack [+1 Str]).

TWF with one light weapon is now -1/-1?

Make of that what you will.


Cheers,

A'koss.


edit: Hmmm.... weird numbers.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 19, 2003)

I'm not sure I like a boost to favored enemy.

+5 to one species was bad enough - I'm hoping it isn't just being doubled.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead:_
> 
> +5 to one species was bad enough - I'm hoping it isn't just being doubled.



It could be worse - it could even be *+1/Level!* 

Nah... 



A'koss.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 19, 2003)

Strike the -1/-1 for 3.5e TW Fighting, it's -2/-2. I somehow missed the masterwork bonuses...  


Cheers,

A'koss.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 19, 2003)

A d8 hit die for rangers? Feh. Now he's on par with clerics and druids, with the exception of his BAB (hopefully still +1/level). Let's hope the ranger would excel as a hunter/tracker than a barbarian, movement-wise and combat-wise.


----------



## Lela (Apr 19, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *A d8 hit die for rangers? Feh. Now he's on par with clerics and druids, with the exception of his BAB (hopefully still +1/level). Let's hope the ranger would excel as a hunter/tracker than a barbarian, movement-wise and combat-wise. *




I think it would make sense to give the Ranger Fast Movement, if only  when they're in their natural habbitat (underground for Dwarves, forest for Elves, etc.).  But that might take away from the Barbarian, which I don't want to do.  The location thing could also be a difficult mechanic to run communtiy wide.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re*

This sounds a little too much like an EQ Ranger. Light armor, lower hp's, two-weapon fighting or archery.


----------



## Quinn (Apr 19, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure I like a boost to favored enemy.
> 
> +5 to one species was bad enough - I'm hoping it isn't just being doubled. *




+5 against a species is inconsequential considering the character would have to be a 20th level ranger.  Other characters are dealing out far more damage through feats, spells, or abilities like sneak attack.  I think the favored enemy ability needs to be enhanced to make the class worthwhile.


----------



## NeghVar (Apr 19, 2003)

Gotta say it...

If the 3.5E Ranger truly has D8 Hit Dice - well then the 3.5E Ranger got the SHAFT!!!

Someone had to do it...


----------



## Aaron L (Apr 19, 2003)

You noticed that to, heh?  If their combat styles are limited by armor, that's the first thing I'm house ruling.  I hate the idea of  rangers being hampered by chain mail.  Full plate, fine.  Chain mail, no.


----------



## Tsyr (Apr 19, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *And one of my players managed to make an overpowered Ranger.  Though sometimes I think he could make a deaf, dumb, and naked pure Bard a killing powerhouse.  *




I love players like that...


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 19, 2003)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *Good thing almost everyone made up their own version already.  If they are giving up HD, they'd best get a LOT in return.  'Overpowered' was NOT one of the ranger's problems. *



depends what you mean by over powered? If some one actually played a ranger for all his levels, but then again I've never seen that.

Ken


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 19, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure I like a boost to favored enemy.
> 
> +5 to one species was bad enough - I'm hoping it isn't just being doubled. *




Favored enemy still probably caps out at +5, but it would seem that you get +1/level. You probably pick a new enemy every 5 or so levels (for a total of 4 enemies, +5 to each at level 20)

That would really be great, since it encourages you to pick progressively stronger monsters as your enemies.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 19, 2003)

Droogie said:
			
		

> *If thats true, then I feel sorry for any TWF rangers. Does anyone want to go toe-to-toe with a d8 for HD, light armor, and no shield? *




Unless, of course, your offhand weapon is a spiked shield. 



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> *You noticed that to, heh?  If their combat styles are limited by armor, that's the first thing I'm house ruling.  I hate the idea of  rangers being hampered by chain mail.  Full plate, fine.  Chain mail, no. *




To each his own.  The current version can still wear a chain shirt for armor (something Drizzt wears, if anybody cares).  



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> *Ah, I had no idea as I never played 1e.  Oop.   *




No problem, lunchbox.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 19, 2003)

They did Drizzt wrong in the FRCS. He's wearing chain mail, so he can't use his TWF. Serves him right for not buying the feats with his bonus fighter feats


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 19, 2003)

I am very sure that the Drizzt in the FRCS was designed as taking his TWF as a fighter feat.


----------



## DonAdam (Apr 19, 2003)

I like the d8 hit die. I don't use it on my homebrew, but I'm fine with it.

It makes the character, on average, his level +1 hit points behind.  That's probably about 1-2 less hits in the average encounter before he goes down. It reinforces the hit and run aspect of a ranger.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 19, 2003)

I haven't counted Drizzt's feats, but I did take a look at Artemis. He took one level of ranger, and he also took the two feats.

It looks like he just poached the feats from one level of ranger


----------



## BOZ (Apr 19, 2003)

the ranger/fighter in my party is not going to like to hear this...

he's got over 90 hp's, and he's only 8th level!


----------



## Lela (Apr 19, 2003)

BOZ said:
			
		

> *the ranger/fighter in my party is not going to like to hear this...
> 
> he's got over 90 hp's, and he's only 8th level! *




Is he dealing out 226 damage a round (to one opponant)?  Mine was level 13, used a bow, and liked Manyshot.  Lord Ao had him smited on the spot.  In return, I've told him I'll make him a god after the world is destroyed.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Apr 19, 2003)

I like the d8 HD.  I never saw the Ranger as a toe-to-toe character the way the other "Warrior" classes were. More of special-ops hunter was my take. 

I think that the d8 HD will force PCs to think a little more, since they can't take the same damage the "damn the torpedos" classes can.

I am really looking forward to this revision.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 19, 2003)

The Revised ranger has ceased being relevant to me.  I've got the SS Stalker, the FFG Hunter and Woodsman, the IK ranger, and if I want a spell-casting variant, I've got two Monte Cook version, both of which work fine for me.  3eR edited classes are just one more to add to the mix, for me -- I already don't care much about official anyway.


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 19, 2003)

*BAB +1/level*

I think it makes a strange sort of sense in differentiating between the "fighting" classes.

d12 barb
d10 fighter
d8 ranger

They all have equal attack capability, but their stamina/hardiness/health is on a slightly different curve. The other thing noone mentioned is that with a d10 HD and 6 skill/level, the ranger would be the most abusable "first" level to take. The hp of a fighter, almost the skills of a rogue, even rogues might be taking that offer.

With the HD as d8, it seems more unlikely.

Technik


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 19, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> I am very sure that the Drizzt in the FRCS was designed as taking his TWF as a fighter feat. *



Correct. He developed his "twin scimitar" fighting technique while in Menzoberranzan as a House fighter. So by the time he reached the surface and met the blind ranger, who taught him his craft, he's a pretty much accomplished fighter...

... and for a brief time, a barbarian.

IOW, the 3e rules makes it easier to translate the novel character (based on the _Dark Elf Trilogy_) into a game character, albeit not perfect but close to it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: BAB +1/level*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *
> The hp of a fighter, almost the skills of a rogue, even rogues might be taking that offer.
> 
> With the HD as d8, it seems more unlikely.*



That depends. I'm sure with the decrease in hit die, an aspect of the ranger class will either receive a new ability or a boost in current features. Personally, they should be better tracker, hunter, and survivalist, with an affinity with animals.

IOW, model it after Strider.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 19, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *The Revised ranger has ceased being relevant to me.   *




Likewise.  Just for a different reason.

I've said before that a d8 HD for Ranger instantly makes it invalid IMHO.

I will go on record now as stating that 3.5 has no Ranger class, so far as I'm aware.  They've thrown some bastardized psuedo-fighter with all the appeal of Highlander 2 -- I deny both equally.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 19, 2003)

Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.

I have tremendous respect for opinion that are formed after everything is known, whether they agree with me or not.  I'm less impressed when people make up their mind without knowing actual details.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 19, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Likewise.  Just for a different reason.
> 
> ...





I couldn't agree more.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 19, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.
> 
> I have tremendous respect for opinion that are formed after everything is known, whether they agree with me or not.  I'm less impressed when people make up their mind without knowing actual details. *





I don't care if he gets time stop 12 times a day, 200 hd animal companions, 4 weapon fighting and 14 freaking domain abilities.  A d8 ranger is not a ranger.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 19, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> * A d8 ranger is not a ranger. *



It was for over a dozen years.

edit: math


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 20, 2003)

I can never understand this near insane devotion to what the Ranger "should" be. In the games I DM, we use the normal PHB Ranger...and no one has said ANYTHING about it being underpowered. There is always at least ONE Ranger in each of the games, and after talking with my players about the Revision, it looks like there will be more.
d8 Hit Dice? This is a problem? To me, it's a good thing. It seperates the Ranger from the Fighter more. I don't see the Ranger as someone that's as strong as a Fighter...it just doesn't fit my view of them. And that seems to be the problem. No one will EVER be able to get the Ranger "right" because everyone has a different opinion on what a Ranger should be. It seems like this is the only class that gets this kind of thing...and no, that's not because WotC designed it "bad" the first time, its because Ranger is such a broad concept its hard for people to really agree on what it should be. 
One thing I notice is that we seem to forget that these message boards are truly the minority among D&D players. Most people get along with the Core books, play the game as is, and have more fun that we do complaining so much. While some of what's said does make since, this constant complaining from D&D players really annoys me. If you don't like it, then ignore it. Complaining has this habit of annoying people, and it rarely does any good.</rant>


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 20, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *...this constant complaining from D&D players really annoys me. If you don't like it, then ignore it. </rant>*



Technically, _you_ could just ignore the complaining.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 20, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Technically, you could just ignore the complaining.
> *




Shh! 
Not the point...well, it is. Just, shh! I stopped going to the WotC boards to avoid the constant complaining, and I kind of like that here it isn't as common...just that its impossible to talk about the Ranger or Monk without it turning into a "Why this sucks" thread. THAT gets hard to ignore.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 20, 2003)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> *No problem, lunchbox.   *



Works for me Kermit-cobob.  

I got the reference.  Very funny!


			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.*



Good enough for me.  I dig the feel they are going for from the limited amount of info I've seen so far.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 20, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *It was for over a dozen years.
> 
> edit: math *





Only because he got TWO at first level and continued to roll hit points for ELEVEN levels compared to the fighters 9.  So on average, a ranger had MORE hit points than a fighter.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 20, 2003)

I for one, never said the ranger was under powered.  Just that the phb version comes about as close to the archetype as Robin Hood does as an old crochety wizard.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *I for one, never said the ranger was under powered.  Just that the phb version comes about as close to the archetype as Robin Hood does as an old crochety wizard. *




Point taken. Still, that's even more touchy ground than power. Question though...would Robin Hood have a d10 HD?


----------



## Irda Ranger (Apr 20, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.*




Whoa ... _felinus ex machina_


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 20, 2003)

> In the games I DM, we use the normal PHB Ranger...and no one has said ANYTHING about it being underpowered.




Not everyone who complains about the ranger is worried about it's power level. I don't care if it's weaker or stronger than the fighter.

I'm interested in a wilderness characters, not a Cuisinart wannabe! In other words, it's the flavor that matters.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Apr 20, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *They did Drizzt wrong in the FRCS. He's wearing chain mail, so he can't use his TWF. Serves him right for not buying the feats with his bonus fighter feats  *





Isnt he wearing a suit of Mithril chainmail which would be light armor?


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 20, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Heh. I'd play a 3.5 ranger in an instant; in my opinion, it's significantly more interesting than the 3e ranger, and I've actually seen it.
> 
> I have tremendous respect for opinion that are formed after everything is known, whether they agree with me or not.  I'm less impressed when people make up their mind without knowing actual details. *



I've no doubt that the 3eR ranger is a great class, well done and all that, but at some point, to me at least, it ceases to be relevant.  The 3e ranger was a good class as far as I was concerned, Monte Cook's two variants of it were good classes, the SS Stalker, the FFG Hunter and Outdoorsman, and the IK ranger, Ken Hood's Bushfighter...

What difference does one more make, anyway?  I'm crawling with ranger classes that are interesting to play.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 20, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *What difference does one more make, anyway?  *




I think the point is kinda that you cannot answer that question until you've taken a look at it.  How can you tell it isn't relevant until you know what's in it?  Maybe it blows others you have out of the water, maybe it won't.  You'll never know if you don't give it a fair shot.


----------



## mmu1 (Apr 20, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Likewise.  Just for a different reason.
> 
> ...




"You're dead to me! DEAD!"  

Any silly irrational posts made about Rangers are completely invlaid, IMNSHO...


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 20, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *I think the point is kinda that you cannot answer that question until you've taken a look at it.  How can you tell it isn't relevant until you know what's in it?  Maybe it blows others you have out of the water, maybe it won't.  You'll never know if you don't give it a fair shot. *



It might have made more sense if you'd focused on my whole post instead of just that one line, of course.

Then again, although I think the core ranger is a fine class, I don't particularly like the concept of it: a spellcasting woodsman with two-weapon fighting.   The ranger isn't a fantasy archetype, it's a D&Dism.  I'm not particularly interested in any ranger that's a spellcaster, no matter how well other aspects of it are handled.

It's one thing to point out where someone is behaving irrationally by making alarmist remarks about what they don't fully understand yet, but it's quite another to assume that we don't have any judgement whatsoever.  I can quite confidently say that I'm not looking for another spell-casting variant of the ranger, even if it is better than all of the others I've seen (something I very highly doubt) because that isn't my preference.  I don't need to be told that I'm jumping to conclusions because of that, unless the ranger class is seriously different than what we've been lead to believe in 3eR.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 20, 2003)

> It seems like this is the only class that gets this kind of thing...and no, that's not because WotC designed it "bad" the first time, its because Ranger is such a broad concept its hard for people to really agree on what it should be.



Fixing it is pretty easy. Like the monk, WotC gave out abilities that weren't always flavorful, but more importantly gave no choices in the matter.

WotC and ranger players will _never_ agree on what traits a ranger should have, so WotC shouldn't try to assign them.

All they have to do is give out some kind of "slot" and say "here, fill it with what you want."

Since they don't want to step on the fighter's toes, I guess that means those slots won't be "combat feats". Maybe something to do with the wilderness... at least every ranger has that in common. 



> One thing I notice is that we seem to forget that these message boards are truly the minority among D&D players. Most people get along with the Core books, play the game as is, and have more fun that we do complaining so much.




You may be sure about the first sentence, but can you be sure about the second sentence? Most of the DMs I know use some kind of alt ranger, precisely because they're not satisfied with it.



> While some of what's said does make since, this constant complaining from D&D players really annoys me. If you don't like it, then ignore it. Complaining has this habit of annoying people, and it rarely does any good.




Listen to the Ed Stark interview - complaining did some good. Stark said that they changed the ranger precisely because of the complaints.

He said that people wanted someone skilled, a woodsman, Aragorn, which was not represented by the 3.0 ranger. I doubt the 3.5 ranger will be perfect, but it will be a lot better than the previous ranger, and since it was designed with some fan input, people won't complain as much about it.

Furthermore, posters don't always complain because they're jerks. They complain if they buy a book that isn't any good - this is why some of the "splatbooks" have a good reputation and some of the "splatbooks" have a bad reputation. They complain if a feat is ruining their campaign, or if a spell is broken and is interfering with the _fun_ in their game.

Finally, if WotC responded more often to it's fans, I don't think they would get many complaints. There's little point of putting compliments on the boards if you don't think it will do any good. I was surprised by the announcement of 3.5e - they were listening to the complaints, but never once responded to them. I think they would have gotten more focused, less angry responses if they had announced 3.5e a lot earlier.

PS what does IOW mean?


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 20, 2003)

IOW = In other words.

I personally like the d8 hit die. I'll trade 1 hp per level (which is what it works out to, on average) for the new abilities.

Joshua, I agree that for your campaign a new ranger is a lot less relevant. It matters a lot, though, for someone who: 

(a) is a player, 

(b) uses published products, 

(c) likes to avoid house rules, 

or (d) plays in something like Living Greyhawk where classes are standardized.


----------



## theoremtank (Apr 20, 2003)

From what I do know of the 3. 5 ranger I like.  The d8 doesn't bother me and arguably fits many ranger archetypes (mobility/finesse warrior).  One thing I truly hope they did this time is get rid of the virtual feat restriction in medium and heavy armor. 

When a ranger receives his combat "style" feats they should be usable in all the same ways as if he purchased those feats with a regular feat.  If the ranger is only given light armor proficiency then he is already going to take minuses in fighting in medium or heavy armor.  And if he really wants to fight in medium or heavy armor, then he can either multiclass or pick up an armor proficiency feat.

Anyway, unless the 3.5 ranger is drastically different than I think he will be, I'll house rule him as just described.


----------



## Lela (Apr 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> I don't care if he gets time stop 12 times a day, 200 hd animal companions, 4 weapon fighting and 14 freaking domain abilities.  A d8 ranger is not a ranger. *




Because?



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> *
> Isnt he wearing a suit of Mithril chainmail which would be light armor? *




Yes, and yes.

Also, it looks like he did take TWF and Ambi as a Fighter (like he did in-novel).  With only 12 possible for his level (6 character, 6 Fighter), he has 13.  Note that Track came free from the Ranger levels and it all adds up.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 20, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Finally, if WotC responded more often to it's fans, I don't think they would get many complaints. There's little point of putting compliments on the boards if you don't think it will do any good. *



I would politely disagree with this.
Once folks figure out that they're being listened to, they tend to speak up.

3.5 tells the D&D community that their voices are being heard. I think that may be why so many people are complaining---they know their complaints have some weight instead of being empty rants.

Plus, what if you're one of those people whose concerns were not addressed in this revision? Chances are you are going to complain louder and more frequently, hoping to bolster your position and see it reflected in the next revision.

I think we're seeing a little of that now. God knows we'll see more of it in July.


----------



## Knightfall (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: BAB +1/level*



			
				Technik4 said:
			
		

> *I think it makes a strange sort of sense in differentiating between the "fighting" classes.
> 
> d12 barb
> d10 fighter
> ...




Have to agree with this.  I never understood why a Ranger should have the same Hit Dice as a fighter.  Fighters are tanks, rangers are not.



> *They all have equal attack capability, but their stamina/hardiness/health is on a slightly different curve. The other thing noone mentioned is that with a d10 HD and 6 skill/level, the ranger would be the most abusable "first" level to take. The hp of a fighter, almost the skills of a rogue, even rogues might be taking that offer.
> 
> With the HD as d8, it seems more unlikely.
> 
> Technik *




Question: Has  it been confirmed somewhere which classes are having their skill points changed?  I thought that was still only a rumor.  (Although I definitely think rangers should have 6 skill points / level.  4 / level just isn't enough, IMO.)

*Piratecat:* Stop _rules_ teasing us!!!  Bad Kitty!

I think WotC should put out the revised Ranger class in the next Revision Spotlight, and put an end to the speculation.


----------



## Oni (Apr 20, 2003)

Hurm...is the difference between a d10 and d8 even all that much? 


Hurm...if they're making them more wilderness rogue types maybe they'll give them some type of sneak attack too, I'm sure that would cause a fun little uproar.


----------



## Lela (Apr 20, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> *Hurm...if they're making them more wilderness rogue types maybe they'll give them some type of sneak attack too, I'm sure that would cause a fun little uproar. *




It, of course, would only work against a specific race an individual Ranger has a true hatred towards and would be a constant, rather than a static, bonus.

They'd nurf it a lot though.  Bring it down around +1 to +5 depending on level.  But, to help balance things, it would always be in effect (i.e. not just when dex is lost) and it would also apply to skill rolls when dealing directly with the race in question (Bluff, Survival, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, etc.).

Then, to avoid the uproar you mentioned, they'd have to rename it.  Call it a "Special Foe," "Favored Enemy," "Hated Race," or something like that.

It's doable, I think, if you like that kinda thing.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 20, 2003)

Oni said:
			
		

> *
> Hurm...is the difference between a d10 and d8 even all that much?*



To those who have publicly stated their rejection of the 3.5e ranger, it is as big a problem to them as a Grand Canyon to a plumber's crack.   

As for me, I wanna see the new ranger class first.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: BAB +1/level*



			
				Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Have to agree with this.  I never understood why a Ranger should have the same Hit Dice as a fighter.  Fighters are tanks, rangers are not.*



What makes the Fighter a Tank isn't just the HD, it's the HD, the heavy armor and the Feats.  

Also, being restricted to lighter armor, the Ranger is going to be _hit_ more often than the Fighter - or the Paladin for that matter.  That same d10 is going to go farther for the Fighter and the Paladin than it is for the Ranger, so even at d10 the Ranger isn't going to be a Tank. 



> *
> Question: Has  it been confirmed somewhere which classes are having their skill points changed?  I thought that was still only a rumor.  (Although I definitely think rangers should have 6 skill points / level.  4 / level just isn't enough, IMO.)*



Yes, it was. I believe it was on Mortality Radio. Bards and Rangers will get 6 skill points, all others will stay the same.



> *
> I think WotC should put out the revised Ranger class in the next Revision Spotlight, and put an end to the speculation. *



I agree. Along with the flavor text.

MadBlue


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I don't care if he gets time stop 12 times a day, 200 hd animal companions, 4 weapon fighting and 14 freaking domain abilities.  A d8 ranger is not a ranger. *



you are right after all it is not like the ranger originally had a d8 oh Wait he did. i think giving the ranger a d8 is a great thing now people will stop thinking of him as a fighter and actually look at him as a ranger.
ken


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 20, 2003)

Joseph Elric Smith said:
			
		

> *
> you are right after all it is not like the ranger originally had a d8 oh Wait he did. i think giving the ranger a d8 is a great thing now people will stop thinking of him as a fighter and actually look at him as a ranger.
> ken *






Sigh.  Have you even read this thread? 
 Quoting myself: "Only because he got TWO at first level and continued to roll hit points for ELEVEN levels compared to the fighters 9. So on average, a ranger had MORE hit points than a fighter."


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 20, 2003)

Well, yeah -- I'm not pretending to speak for the community as a whole, I can only speak for myself.  I'd agree that most players don't have _Path of the Sword_ and so don't have the two alt.rangers there, most players don't have _Sovereign Stone_ and so don't have the alt.ranger there, most players haven't even downloaded the free alt.rangers from Ken Hood or Monte Cook's website.

Then again, I'm not so sure that most players have a problem with the core ranger in the first place, though.

So, rather than try to speak for what I suppose most players do, I can only speak to what I do.  I like non-spellcasting rangers, and I've got five good alternates I can use at any time from books I own.  As a DM, that fits the concepts of most of the campaigns I've been interested in running, and as a player, I like the concept better too, and have DMs who have allowed it without problem.  So, the 3eR ranger doesn't have all that much interest to me except as that: a point of interest to see what they're doing with it these days.  I'm sure I'll run games with it, and if I play in any standard D&D campaigns over the next few years (which I might very well do) then I'd seriously consider playing one, as I've always like the idea of the ranger.  But I still don't find it all that interesting.  Partly because so many alternates exist already that are really good alternates.


----------



## Artimoff (Apr 20, 2003)

D8 is cool with me. It's the change to harm I don't like.


----------



## hong (Apr 20, 2003)

Artimoff said:
			
		

> *D8 is cool with me. It's the change to harm I don't like. *




You're weird, mang.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Apr 20, 2003)

I'd have to wait and see how the ranger stacks up to the rogue in 3.5 to judge the ranger. IMHO, however, a good BAB, 6 skill points, spells and bonus special abilities like fighting style and favored enemy sound rather overpowered compared to the rogue

As far as this thread goes, I do not think there is much of a difference between a d8 and a d10 - on average 1 hit point more per level. IMHO, such a difference is not relevant.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I have been reading this thread. since most of my games where not high level games I guess the fact the old school ranger could go to level 11 was something we never noticed, but as for 3rd edition I thick the ranger going to a d8 is a great idea, as it will hopefully stop people from thinking of him as a tank with two weapons and actually thing of him as a woodsman,. In our first edition days if some one wanted to play a tank they played a fighter and if they wanted to play a woodsman they played a ranger and if they wanted d to play a holy knight they played a paladin. different classes for different arch types. I think the change in hit dice will go a long way to making the ranger stand out in his own niche instead of just a fighter who gets less feats.


ken


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 20, 2003)

I'd like to see how the ranger stacks up against both the druid and rgoue before passign judgment on the d8 HD.  I suspect it works out fine -- since the ranger is a more hit-and-run or ranged combatant than the fighter -- but his does make it tougher for him in a stand-up fight, since he'll have a lower AC.

I'd like to see his "combat styles" (virtual or otherwise) apply in both light and medium armor.  Not only would that offset the HD change, it would give a good reason for people to use medium armor.  Right now IME, players gravitate away from medium armor to either plate armor or chain shirts as soon as they can afford them.  If ranger feats worked in medium, we might see more characters running around in chainmail and scale mail at higher levels.


----------



## seasong (Apr 20, 2003)

PirateCat, you are SUCH a tease.


----------



## Artimoff (Apr 20, 2003)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You're weird, mang. *




If you're tangeling with highlevel evil clerics you get what you ask for.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 20, 2003)

> I would politely disagree with this.
> Once folks figure out that they're being listened to, they tend to speak up.
> 
> 3.5 tells the D&D community that their voices are being heard. I think that may be why so many people are complaining---they know their complaints have some weight instead of being empty rants.



According to Andy Collins, DnD 3.5 went to the typesetters shortly after the announcement. So yes, WotC listened to gamers then, but they aren't listening to gamers now.

(In other words, they're fixing problems, but not always the way gamers wanted the problems to be fixed. And since every gamer has their own fix  )

I wouldn't have written only complaints and rants if I had known that WotC was listening.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 20, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *I'd like to see how the ranger stacks up against both the druid and rgoue before passign judgment on the d8 HD.  I suspect it works out fine -- since the ranger is a more hit-and-run or ranged combatant than the fighter[/qb]*



*

Well, Fighters are pretty versatile. A Fighter with Dodge-related Feats is a really good hit-and-run combatant and a Fighter with ranged weapon-related Feats and Weapon Specialization is the ultimate ranged combatant. 

But I agree that we'll have to see the whole 1-20 package. It's pretty clear that a 1st level 3.5 Ranger isn't going to be quite the combatant he is in 3.0, though. He loses 2 hp and TWF and gains 8sp and Wild Empathy. Less combat effective, but more effective outside of combat - which seems like an even trade as far as abilities go, but it's going to change the way those who like to play Rangers now think about their tactics. After feeling that a Ranger's viability in melee at 1st level has been "nerfed", I wonder how many Ranger players will actually go with TWF over Archery at 2nd level. 

MadBlue*


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let's take this a little further, shall we?

If you look at a ranger and a fighter under the same conditons of (a) no constitution adjustment and (b) the hp points rolled at each level was the average, for the 1st edition rules, the following was the average hit points per level:

Level     Ranger     Fighter
   1 ----- 9-----  5.5
   2 ----- 13.5-- 11
   3 ----- 18 --- 16.5
   4 ----- 22.5-- 22
   5 ----- 27 --- 27.5
   6 ----- 31.5 - 33
   7 ----- 36 --- 38.5
   8 ----- 40.5 - 44
   9 ----- 45 --- 49.5
  10 ---- 49.5 - 52.5
  11 ---- 51.5 - 55.5
  12 ---- 53.5 - 58.5

With levels after 10th, the ranger got 2 hp per level and the fighter go 3 hp per level, so the fighter basically starts to leave the ranger in the dust.

The point is that the ranger only has more hit points when compared to the fighter for the first four levels.  After that, the fighter leaves the ranger in the dust.


----------



## Caliber (Apr 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Only because he got TWO at first level and continued to roll hit points for ELEVEN levels compared to the fighters 9. So on average, a ranger had MORE hit points than a fighter.*




Lets see. 

9d10 averages to 49.5 HP. 
12d8 (2d8 at first and then 10d8 more) averages to 54. 

Net gain of 4.5 HP on the Ranger side. 

In the new 3.5 ...

20d10 (with the first maxed) averages to 114.5.
20d8 (with the first maxed) averages to 93.5.

Net gain of 21 HP on the Fighter side. 

In 1E the difference was minimal, not even being enough to differentiate a single attack. In 3.5E the difference MIGHT be enough to allow the Fighter to absorb one extra attack (although at high levels, a 21 HP hit isn't that great)

PS: d6 HD types will be 21 HP short of the d8s, d4s 21 short of the d6s, etc ...

Edit: Grrr! boschdevil beat me to the punch and was more accurate besides!


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 20, 2003)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> *He loses 2 hp and TWF and gains 8sp and Wild Empathy.*



In other words, he's less of a fighter and more of a ranger. 
Besides, a Ranger is still nasty in melee at 1st level, he just isn't as nasty as a fighter or barbarian.  TWF now only costs a single feat, so it would be very easy for a 1st level ranger to pick it up if he really wanted to.  I suspect that we'll see many more rangers with the archery path than the TWF path though.

Do we know what Wild Empathy does yet?  I suspect that they've ditched the Animal Empathy skill and replaced it with WE, and I'm _hoping_ that it's like rebuking undead, but with animals and plants.


----------



## Michael Tree (Apr 20, 2003)

boschdevil said:
			
		

> *The point is that the ranger only has more hit points when compared to the fighter for the first four levels.  After that, the fighter leaves the ranger in the dust.*



Don't forget that rangers advanced at a slower rate than fighters, so a fighter was usually a level or more higher than a ranger with the same number of XP.


----------



## IronBlade4590 (Apr 20, 2003)

What do all these combat styles for the ranger work, do they increase atack or the prob. to hit someone, attack more targets, jump over someone's head backflip thing or what? Sry for the newbinies I just really donr have the $ for any books that have stuff like that, all i can get are rule books. 

Why would a ranger take TWF as a feat, dont they get itfor free at 1st level with ambidextarity? Wouldnt thaqt be a waste of a feat? SO couldnt a human ranger at 1st level have four feats, TWF, Ambi, ITWF, and Track?    Or does a ranger have to buy the feats in order to get ITWF?

I'v ealso been reading a lot of poeple say that the ranger is ranged attack orinted 2. How is this? They dont get any extra bow abilits or anuthing

ALso, how did they change the Dodge feat, i read that but i'm curious as to how they changed it     THXS 2 anyone wholl answer all this stuff


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 20, 2003)

IronBlade4590 said:
			
		

> *What do all these combat styles for the ranger work, do they increase atack or the prob. to hit someone, attack more targets, jump over someone's head backflip thing or what? Sry for the newbinies I just really donr have the $ for any books that have stuff like that, all i can get are rule books.*



*

The revised ranger will receive one of two combat styles - TWF, or archery. You get the combat styles at 2nd-level, and they get better at 6th-level, and maybe at some other level.

The revision is free - just go to www.wizards.com/d20 




			Why would a ranger take TWF as a feat, dont they get itfor free at 1st level with ambidextarity? Wouldnt thaqt be a waste of a feat? SO couldnt a human ranger at 1st level have four feats, TWF, Ambi, ITWF, and Track?    Or does a ranger have to buy the feats in order to get ITWF?
		
Click to expand...



Ambidexterity is being scrapped. A ranger gets their combat style for free at 2nd-level. If you want TWF, you should wait until 2nd-level.




			I'v ealso been reading a lot of poeple say that the ranger is ranged attack orinted 2. How is this? They dont get any extra bow abilits or anuthing
		
Click to expand...



It's a matter of flavor. The rules don't fit the ranger class yet.




			ALso, how did they change the Dodge feat, i read that but i'm curious as to how they changed it     THXS 2 anyone wholl answer all this stuff
		
Click to expand...


*
In d20 Modern, Dodge gives +2 AC.


----------



## Mortaneus (Apr 20, 2003)

Caliber said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Lets see.
> 
> ...




So you're comparing an 11th level ranger's HP to a 9th level fighter?  Of course there's a net gain!  The ranger is 2 levels higher!

Try 9d10+6 for the fighter to make it 11th level.

Then you get 55.5 HP for the fighter, and 54 for the ranger at 11th.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 20, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *I personally like the d8 hit die. I'll trade 1 hp per level (which is what it works out to, on average) for the new abilities.
> *




I'm not looking at the Ranger class in terms of balance.  I care about balance, but it's secondary to flavor.

Despite what the math says, my experience was always that the 1E Ranger had more HP than Fighters -- probably because Rangers always had Con as their highest stat while Fighters had Strength.  IMHO, Rangers should slightly tougher than Fighters.  Not enough to warrant an larger HD or anything, but enough for me to be strongly against any reduction to the HD, regardless of the balancing factors.



> *
> Joshua, I agree that for your campaign a new ranger is a lot less relevant. It matters a lot, though, for someone who:
> 
> ...
> ...




Well, not Joshua, but I did pipe up in agreement.

My statement was meant to imply that I've heard enough things about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike (everything with the exception of the bump in skills) that I'm reasonably confident that it's going to be unusable to me.  I wash my hands of the matter and have resolved that I'm going to have to do up my own house variant.

I don't particularly want to house rule.  I like the ease of being able to toss the book at players (old or new) and saying "These are the rules we're using."

_Edit: fixed my really bad usage of tags._


----------



## Caliber (Apr 20, 2003)

Mortaneus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So you're comparing an 11th level ranger's HP to a 9th level fighter?  Of course there's a net gain!  The ranger is 2 levels higher!
> 
> ...




boschdevil got it right directly above me. Its been so long since I've played 1E or 2E I forgot you started getting a set amount of HP after you reached your HD max.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 20, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *
> I'd like to see his "combat styles" (virtual or otherwise) apply in both light and medium armor.  Not only would that offset the HD change, it would give a good reason for people to use medium armor.  Right now IME, players gravitate away from medium armor to either plate armor or chain shirts as soon as they can afford them.  If ranger feats worked in medium, we might see more characters running around in chainmail and scale mail at higher levels. *



Personally, I don't like the "virtual" combat feats be limited to lighter armor types (as is the current ranger class). I would rather a ranger start with an automatic proficiency with light armor, and then allow said ranger to acquire the other two armor proficiencies later, and if he does, his "virtual" feats should be allowed to use with heavier armor.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 20, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> My statement was meant to imply that I've heard enough things about the 3.5 Ranger that I dislike (everything with the exception of the bump in skills) that I'm reasonably confident that it's going to be unusable to me.  I wash my hands of the matter and have resolved that I'm going to have to do up my own house variant.*



What else do you dislike about the 3.5e ranger, since the d8 hit die is apparently minor change (see my above post regarding the "plumber's crack" statement)?


----------



## theoremtank (Apr 20, 2003)

It might have been mentioned already in this thread but here goes...

I believe 3.5 rangers get the improved reflex saves, so this should somewhat balance out the fewer hit points from the d8.  3.5 rangers will be a little better at avoiding certains spells such as fireball.

The move to a d8 hit die for rangers also emphasizes dexterity even more so as to up AC. 

I don't see a problem with rangers in medium armor so I hope their 3.5 "fighting styles" don't get affected by the use of medium armor.  I do however feel that rangers should only get proficiency in light armor.  Therefore if they do want to wear medium or heavy armor, they will be forced either to multiclass or take the feats.  By the way, I feel only the fighter should get proficiency in heavy armor.  All other classes should get medium proficiency at most.


----------



## Lela (Apr 21, 2003)

theoremtank said:
			
		

> * By the way, I feel only the fighter should get proficiency in heavy armor.  All other classes should get medium proficiency at most. *




What about Paladins?


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Apr 21, 2003)

Paladins should be prestige.


----------



## Lela (Apr 21, 2003)

Agnostic Paladin said:
			
		

> *Paladins should be prestige.  *




Which, of course, is a whole new thread. 

Edit: That reminds me, I should get around to putting my Paladin PrC up one of these days. . .


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 21, 2003)

Agnostic Paladin said:
			
		

> *Paladins should be prestige.  *




Oh my god.  We must have been separated at birth.


----------



## A'koss (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by  Agnostic Paladin:_
> 
> Paladins should be prestige.



Even the gang at WotC acknowledges this. The only reason why they're not, of course, is that it would piss a lot of people off. There was even talk during the original playtest of offering both, but they thought they'd avoid trying to create some new confusion...


A'koss.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 21, 2003)

Michael Tree said:
			
		

> *
> In other words, he's less of a fighter and more of a ranger.  Besides, a Ranger is still nasty in melee at 1st level, he just isn't as nasty as a fighter or barbarian. *




Well, actually, my point was that a 3.5 Ranger is not going to be as good in combat at 1st level as a _3.0_ Ranger. I'm not talking about comparing the combat effectiveness to other classes.

As far as being "more of a Ranger", the Ranger is being _redefined_ in 3.5 - or rather, the focus is being shifted. In previous editions, the Ranger was a total wilderness warrior _and_ total wilderness scout rolled into one. In 3.0, the scout part was taken up largely by the Rogue, so a Ranger/Rogue was the consummate "Wilderness Scout". In 3.5 the Ranger is getting the wilderness scout role handed back to him but losing out a bit on the warrior end. It's hard to say which role is "more of a Ranger" though. 

Also, I think the concept of "what a Ranger is" has been largely influenced by Rangers in other games. I mean, look at how many alt.Rangers don't use spells because people say "I don't picture the Ranger as a spell caster", when spell use has been part of the D&D Ranger since day one. That's not a criticism, just an observation.



> * I suspect that we'll see many more rangers with the archery path than the TWF path though.*




This is the part that concerns me the most. I think the changes favor taking archery over TWF, and they really _should_ be equally valuable choices. I welcome the choice of the Archery combat style, but I'd like it to remain a choice, and not become the obvious choice. 

On a level battlefield though, TWF becomes more useful, especially against Favored Enemies, as the bonus is only applicable to ranged attacks within 30', and the enemies are going to be able to close that distance pretty quickly, at which point the TWF Ranger is going to be getting his bonus damage more often than the Archer Ranger who has to drop his bow and draw his sword. 

Two Weapon Defense looks interesting, though, although I imagine it's not on the TWF combat style tree, or at least, it's not on it early enough to make the difference to low-level Rangers. If it works like Off-Hand Parry but _doesn't_ require a full-attack option, it'll be a "must-have" Feat for 3rd level TWF Rangers IMHO.

MadBlue


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 21, 2003)

theoremtank said:
			
		

> *It might have been mentioned already in this thread but here goes...
> 
> I believe 3.5 rangers get the improved reflex saves, so this should somewhat balance out the fewer hit points from the d8.  3.5 rangers will be a little better at avoiding certains spells such as fireball.*




No, they don't get it (not according to Flood Season, anyway).  

IMHO Uncanny Dodge would be more appropriate, since it would directly benefit a Ranger in melee and would balance out the d8, making TWF a more viable option (also it would bring back the 1e tradition of Rangers being difficult to surprise).

I'd take _both_ though. 

MadBlue


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 21, 2003)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> *Also, I think the concept of "what a Ranger is" has been largely influenced by Rangers in other games. I mean, look at how many alt.Rangers don't use spells because people say "I don't picture the Ranger as a spell caster", when spell use has been part of the D&D Ranger since day one. That's not a criticism, just an observation. *



I don't see what that has to do with any other games.  Rather, it entrenches the ranger as a D&Dism that has increasingly less resonance with the fantasy literature that it supposedly emulates.  I think that's where the complaints about ranger's casting spells comes from (I know it does on my end, anyway) that _except for D&D_ there's no such archetype as a wilderness spellcasting warrior.

EDIT:  Of course, whether or not D&D should emulate fantasy literature isn't necessarily a given, but that's what I've wanted it to do since the early 80s at least, when I first gave the game a _serious_ whirl.  My primary complaint with it over the years, and the reason I left the game entirely before 2nd edition launched and didn't come back until 3e was exactly that.


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 21, 2003)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> *
> IMHO Uncanny Dodge would be more appropriate, since it would directly benefit a Ranger in melee and would balance out the d8, making TWF a more viable option (also it would bring back the 1e tradition of Rangers being difficult to surprise). *




Oh, I would gladly give up a d10 for a d8 as long as I got Uncanny Dodge any day of the week.  This is really my complaint of the current d10 ranger as the class stands now.  The ranger really needs something like uncanny dodge to balance out his light armor fighting style.  On this we can agree.


----------



## theoremtank (Apr 21, 2003)

I feel giving the ranger the uncanny dodge feat would be too much.  Believe me, I like that feat and think it goes well with the ranger.  But I also think we have to keep multiclassing interesting.  So if a ranger wants uncanny dodge then he needs to pick up rogue or barbarian levels.  In fact I find my current 3.0 ranger/rogue multiclass character to be quite effective and a better choice then a straight single-classed ranger.  Hopefully 3.5 will make it a tough choice between a single classed ranger and  a multiclassed ranger/rogue.



			
				boschdevil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh, I would gladly give up a d10 for a d8 as long as I got Uncanny Dodge any day of the week.  This is really my complaint of the current d10 ranger as the class stands now.  The ranger really needs something like uncanny dodge to balance out his light armor fighting style.  On this we can agree. *


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 21, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> I don't see what that has to do with any other games.  Rather, it entrenches the ranger as a D&Dism that has increasingly less resonance with the fantasy literature that it supposedly emulates. *




Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that there's room for a non-spellcasting wilderness scout/warrior/hunter.  I'd really like to see a blurb in the DMG about swapping out Ranger spells for some other ability, as an example of how to alter PHB classes.  It would be nice to see a _standardized_ alt.Ranger for those who don't think the Ranger should be a spellcaster, or just want to add a non-spellcasting variant to their campaign. 



> *
> I think that's where the complaints about ranger's casting spells comes from (I know it does on my end, anyway) that except for D&D there's no such archetype as a wilderness spellcasting warrior.*




Well, there's a definite archetype of a _hunter_ so in tune to nature that he can draw upon its power. It might not be a common archetype in fantasy literature, but it exists in myth. That, to me, is what separates the Ranger from the rest of the pack. 

MadBlue


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 21, 2003)

theoremtank said:
			
		

> *I feel giving the ranger the uncanny dodge feat would be too much.  Believe me, I like that feat and think it goes well with the ranger.  But I also think we have to keep multiclassing interesting.  So if a ranger wants uncanny dodge then he needs to pick up rogue or barbarian levels.  In fact I find my current 3.0 ranger/rogue multiclass character to be quite effective and a better choice then a straight single-classed ranger.  Hopefully 3.5 will make it a tough choice between a single classed ranger and  a multiclassed ranger/rogue.
> 
> *




It's for this exact reason I have a character concept in mind of a Ranger with 2 levels of Barbarian.  I like the added speed too, but the Rage isn't a big deal for the concept.

Anyway, I don't mind the d8 HD for the Ranger, but I don't like the argument that it's to make Fighters the better melee combatants.  The Ranger has to wear light armor to use TWF, and that already makes the Plate Mail wearing fighter better in melee.


----------



## Gator (Apr 21, 2003)

I personally like it. Too many times have I seen people who play Rangers want to be or act like the tank in the party. The d8 change allows for more creative rangering than "I'm gonna whack it with a sword". When the class was created I'm sure the concept was "Wilderness Rouges". And this stat change will force people to do it.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 21, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> What else do you dislike about the 3.5e ranger, since the d8 hit die is apparently minor change (see my above post regarding the "plumber's crack" statement)? *




Well, without pulling up the list of rumored changes:

1)  The HD. (included for completeness)  This is especially bad considering the Ranger is still partially defined by a fighting style -- potentially how good he is at melee.

2)  TWF is _still_ a potential _class_ ability.  I don't mind the concept of a woodsman/skirmisher using TWF, but it has nothing to do with the class.  Rangers get feats every three levels like everyone else.  If a Ranger PC wants TWF, let them use their normal feats.

3)  The continued use of "virtual feats".  Either give 'em the feat or don't.  Conditional feats are just bad design, IMHO.

4)  "Combat Paths" are another bad mechanic.  I'm not at all keen about a choice made at 2nd level _directly_ impacting choices at later levels.  Prereqs are fine, but a swappable slot at 6th (or whatever) level shouldn't be arbitrarily limited based on a choice at 2nd level.  Sure, most people who pick Point Blank at 2nd are going to continue with archery choices as they gain levels, but they shouldn't be limited.  It violates the "options not restrictions" mantra unnecessarily.  Bonus feats would be a much better mechanic.

5)  The fact that the Ranger is still defined by his fighting style (the above was "paths are a bad mechanic" this is "paths are bad flavor").  In adding the "paths", the Ranger is still required to be a pseudo-weapon specialist.  That meets some of the archetypes tagged to Ranger, but what about the "ultimate scout" or "ultimate survivor" archetypes.  A bonus feat progression that included Alertness, Inproved Initiative, Great Fortitude, etc. would make those archetypes possible with the Ranger, but the 3.5 Ranger is no better at filling those than the Rogue.

6)  Spells are too important to the Ranger.  Yup, I'm in the "mundane" Ranger camp.  I didn't mind the 1E Ranger because the spells seemed more like "little tricks" that anyone bent on survival would potentially learn.  I didn't really see them as being core to the class, but 1E really didn't scale much to the levels at which Ranger received spells.  In 3E, the Ranger is pretty dependant on spells as a balancing factor, and they are critical to the functioning of the class.  They should only get about half the spells they do and shouldn't get them until later.  Better yet, a Ranger who wants Druid spells should use the really nice multiclass rules in 3E to pick up a few Druid tricks.  This point is really an issue with 3E, though and my only beef with 3.5 is that it maintains the spells.


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 21, 2003)

Gator said:
			
		

> *I personally like it. Too many times have I seen people who play Rangers want to be or act like the tank in the party.*




Well, even with d10 HD, you're not  going to be able to avoid - or dish out - damage like a well armored Fighter, nor are you going to be able to take a pounding and reduce damage like a Barbarian. Rangers _aren't_ Tanks in 3e.



> *
> The d8 change allows for more creative rangering than "I'm gonna whack it with a sword".*




Of course, if the DM is always throwing challenges that can only be overcome by whacking it with a sword, that's the kind of Ranger you get.  Define what you mean by "creative Rangering", and why you can't do it just as well with d10 HD.



> *
> When the class was created I'm sure the concept was "Wilderness Rouges".*




I'd wager you weren't even born when the class was first created, if that's what you think the concept was.



> *
> And this stat change will force people to do it. *




And this is exactly why the HD _shouldn't_ be changed. 

MadBlue


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 21, 2003)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'd wager you weren't even born when the class was first created, if that's what you think the concept was.
> MadBlue *



Well I am as the first time I saw the ranger was in SR. and I think the ranger was always designed around being a ranger, not being a tank, That is the problem with the ranger  being forced into a certain vision. I think the ranger should be a PrC but if it is to be a core class I think limiting it's hit dice to help lend it flavour. so that it encourages people to play a ranger as a ranger and not some fighter who uses two weapons. it a step in the right direction.
ken


----------



## Henry (Apr 21, 2003)

I'm still dying to know why the Barbarian class doesn't have these kinds of discussions. You don't hear too many people suggesting that barbarians should have tracking ability at first level, or that barbarians should have a disdain for magic, or shouldn't have rage at 1st level...

So far, the revised Ranger sounds good, but I'll reserve judgement. All mentioned to me sounds like improvement over the 3E Ranger, and that is all I'm going for.

One thought: The Revised DMG should have included an "alternate ranger" that contains no spellcasting, some sort of terrain advantage ability, and just a load of bonus feats. At the least, it would give people a choice... But then it probably would have played havoc with the RPGA if they had.


----------



## Henry (Apr 21, 2003)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *One thing I notice is that we seem to forget that these message boards are truly the minority among D&D players. Most people get along with the Core books, play the game as is, and have more fun that we do complaining so much.*




I have learned this to be the case (except for the the part that they have more fun - complaining and debate has its own fun attached, because you love the material enough to care ). For every 1 person you find who has a complaint about a class, a feat, or a rule, you find 100 people who either like it, or who are ambivalent. My own group has only two people who go into large-scale rules debates and revisions (me and one other person who is also a DM).




> _Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead_
> Finally, if WotC responded more often to it's fans, I don't think they would get many complaints. There's little point of putting compliments on the boards if you don't think it will do any good.




I have spent 7 years on Usenet, and 3 years on this community's forums - and I have to disagree with this statement. It's a corollary to the statement, "you can't please all the people all the time." It doesn't matter how the Ranger class is altered, you will have criticisms about its design. Imagine how many people (such as myself) would come out of the woodwork if WotC dropped ALL spellcasting from the Ranger! Or imagine if 2WF no longer became a staple in the class after having been a part of it for the past 15 years! I would wager serious money that you would have roughly as many people satisfied as you subsequently DISsatisfied. The class (like those of the Monk and the Bard, which were seriously rewritten for 3E) has a small vocal core of protesters who are upset at the treatment the WotC gave it.


----------



## Gator (Apr 21, 2003)

MadBlue said:
			
		

> *
> I'd wager you weren't even born when the class was first created, if that's what you think the concept was.
> *






You're right. I missed it by a little and was born in 77.  So, why don't you enlighten us as to what the concept was then?

And by "creative rangering" I mean: Set traps, ambush, hit and run, hell..even lead them into an area full of hostile animals ie: I had a ranger who led a small group of orcs and hobgoblins into a cave with mating owlbears.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 21, 2003)

Joseph Elric Smith said:
			
		

> *...I think the ranger was always designed around being a ranger, not being a tank... *



'

Which is why in 1e dexterity was not a prime attribute for the class while strength was, why it was allowed to wear heavy armors at no penalty, why they got sizable combat bonuses against big critters, and why they didn't have abilty to hide in shadows or move silently.  

There's not much at all in the 1e ranger design to say it wasn't as much of a tank as the fighter and paladin were.


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 21, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *'
> 
> Which is why in 1e dexterity was not a prime attribute for the class while strength was, why it was allowed to wear heavy armors at no penalty, why they got sizable combat bonuses against big critters, and why they didn't have abilty to hide in shadows or move silently.
> 
> There's not much at all in the 1e ranger design to say it wasn't as much of a tank as the fighter and paladin were. *



Dex wasn;t a prerequisite because the ranger had too many as it was, and back in the day rolling 3d6 it was easier to be a paladin then a ranger.
Of course they could hide or move silently or all sorts of other things. just liek a fighter was assumed to be able to ride a horse before non weapon proficiencies came out so was a ranger assumed to be competent. while a ranger may not of been able to detect traps like a thief, he could set snares and trap animals track and find natural food and water, when the ranger first came out, just like all the classes the character was assumed to know how to do what he needed to do, it has only been with subsequent edition, that rangers suddenly lost many of the abilities that where assumed into the class under first edition. remember in the DMg where it said if a character wanted to do some thing the Dm looked at the relevant stat and decided what the the character had to roll to succeed? all the character classes where more knowledgeable and competent in 1st edition. didn't; need a feat to create scrolls or potions every wizard could do it if he wanted too. Didn't need a skill to ride or fight from horse back most warriors where assumed to be able to do it. If you and your group looked at the ranger as a super tank fine but in my experiences, until 2nd edition and th e2 weapon fighter was born, the ranger was looked upon as a scout, tracker and explorer, where as the druid wanted to protect and understand nature, the ranger was seen as the mountain man who understood nature, so as he could protect humanity form th worst of it YMMV, but in my opinion it is not youth, but the fact the ranger is forced down a certain path, that is the problem. in first edition the ranger was wide open you could play him as an archer or as a fighter, or spend your time collection a bunch of animal followers, but in 2nd edition and following up in 3rd edition too much of th ranger freedom has been restricted, because of the force two weapon warrior. lowering the hit dice so he becomes a warrior second is a great start, I am waiting to see this combat path thing, I personal think a bonus feat program similar to the fighter but made up of a different feat set would be better but YMMV
Ken


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 21, 2003)

A'koss said:
			
		

> *
> Even the gang at WotC acknowledges this. The only reason why they're not, of course, is that it would piss a lot of people off. There was even talk during the original playtest of offering both, but they thought they'd avoid trying to create some new confusion...*



By this logic, you might as well make both Rangers and Paladins PrC, and let everyone start off as a fighter or barbarian.

Let someone else (a third-party publisher) create a Paladin prestige class.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 21, 2003)

Joseph Elric Smith said:
			
		

> *
> Dex wasn;t a prerequisite because the ranger had too many as it was*




It isn't like the only choice would be to add another prerequisite.  If they hadn't wanted him to be a tank, they'd have made a prerequisite in Dex, rather than in Str.  He had a tank's prerequisites, a tank's weapon and armor choices, a tank's hit points.  Ergo he was a tank.



> *and back in the day rolling 3d6 it was easier to be a paladin then a ranger.*




Like there was really a time when it was flad 3d6?  Go back and look at the 1e DMG character generation methods.  They were designed to generate characters with at least two scores of 15 or higher.  The 1e PHB claims that such was generally essential for character survival.   



> *Of course they could hide or move silently or all sorts of other things. just liek a fighter was assumed to be able to ride a horse before non weapon proficiencies came out so was a ranger assumed to be competent. *




I don't buy it.  If the plan were to assume lots of powers that aren't explicitly mentioned, then the Thief would follow the same pattern.  You'd assume he could do anything that someone who would steal stuff could do.  But, oddly, they went through a lot of effort to come up with very detailed scores for all his shenanagins.


----------



## CerebralAssassin (Apr 21, 2003)

I'm not really sure what tohink of the ranger's drop in HD from the d10 to a d8. As I'm currently the party tank (by default), I don't like it, but with some of the other potential improvements, I knew something had to go (still, wish it wasn't HP ).

I was hoping they might revise the spell list a bit, but as been said before, can't please everyone.

Anywhoo, there's my two coins

Nathan Hawks


----------



## Merlion (Apr 21, 2003)

From whats been said ALL spell lists will be getting work.


----------



## Doug Ervin (Apr 21, 2003)

Overall, I like what I've heard about the changes to the ranger class.  My only concern is the revised spell list.  In particular, the change from polymorph self to the new polymorph takes away the rangers only long distance travel spell.  Hopefully, they have put in something to compensate.  Otherwise, rangers will not be as usefull as body guards to druids.

Doug Ervin


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 21, 2003)

Doug Ervin said:
			
		

> *Overall, I like what I've heard about the changes to the ranger class.  My only concern is the revised spell list.  In particular, the change from polymorph self to the new polymorph takes away the rangers only long distance travel spell.  Hopefully, they have put in something to compensate.  Otherwise, rangers will not be as usefull as body guards to druids.*



I agree.  I would be nice to see the long-range travel still available to them.

And, welcome to the boards!


----------



## Lela (Apr 21, 2003)

Doug Ervin said:
			
		

> *Overall, I like what I've heard about the changes to the ranger class.  My only concern is the revised spell list.  In particular, the change from polymorph self to the new polymorph takes away the rangers only long distance travel spell.  Hopefully, they have put in something to compensate.  Otherwise, rangers will not be as usefull as body guards to druids.
> 
> Doug Ervin *




I never even noticed that they had that spell.

Really, even when I played a Paladin, I never used most of the spells avalible to me.  Admitidly, I was a Half-Orc but, even so, spells never entered my mind.

The funny thing is, over the past year, I've DMed a game with 3 very different Rangers.  And I've seen none of them use the spells they have all that often.  Now this group is by no means handicapped (I've mentioned the Ranger who dealt 226 damage at 12th) because of that lack.  Nor do they feel pounded upon--more often, that's me.

What I think I'm saying is that spell use isn't as integral to even the current incarnation of the Ranger as has been implied here.

But perhaps that's only IMC.  Have others noticed this or something different?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 24, 2003)

Gator said:
			
		

> *
> You're right. I missed it by a little and was born in 77.  So, why don't you enlighten us as to what the concept was then?
> 
> *




Hey, I'll bite!

Since I first did this research a while ago I've happily taken any opportunity to pimp it!

A quick run-down of the evolution of the Ranger, from it's very earliest beginnings. Or should that be (d)evolution 

It first appeared in the Strategic Review (SR), a short 'zine issued periodically and which was also where the Illusionist class was first introduced. This was for Original D&D, and appeared after Greyhawk/Blackmoor/Eldritch Wizardry.

*Hit Dice*
When introduced in SR the ranger started with 2d8 HD and went up to 11d8. Put into perspective, all fighters only had d8 HD too, and maxed out at 9d8. They were "tough and hardy wilderness warriors".

In AD&D 1e, They kept this 2d8 up to 11d8 HD regime while fighters and paladins moved to D10 HD. Rangers where hardier at 1st level, and could get more CON bonuses, but were down a peg or two.

In 2e, the ranger went to D10 HD along with the fighter and paladin, but started with 1d10 like the others.

In 3e the ranger continues in parity with the other fighting classes.

_Analysis: The ranger has gradually lost hardiness over his incarnations._

*Spell Use*
In SR Starting at 9th level the ranger started getting MU spells, and at 10th started getting Cleric spells. He had an unrestricted list for both, and by 20th level he could easily be casting 7th level Cleric and MU spells. (OK, this was *definitely* over the top!)

In 1e the ranger was limited to 1st-3rd level Druid spells and 1st-2nd MU spells (although he had the full lists to choose from). This was quite a step down from his earlier power, but still very useful.

In 2e the ranger had a small and restricted list of feeble cleric spheres, with very few general useful or utility spells.

In 3e the ranger gets spells sooner, and has a better list of spells (although it is markedly worse than any of the other lists, and doesn’t have any unique spells at all, unlike the Paladin for instance)

_ Analysis: The rangers spell casting ability has fluctuated with time, dipping to a nadir in 2e, but making a spirited recovery in 3e. His flexibility in spells available has dropped since the origins and 1e days considerably though._

*Favoured Enemy*
In SR, the ranger can add his level to his damage bonus in all attacks against “giant class” creatures, which was everything from goblins and orcs up to true giants.

In 1e the ranger has the same ability.

In 2e the damage bonus is lost, but the ranger gets +4 to hit his “hated enemy” and there is some kind of personality problem associated with that enemy – he gets –4 on reaction rolls from those enemies. As Cyberzombie puts it “Kind of pointless, since 100% of 2e rangers I knew would attack there species enemy on sight, unless the odds where *overwhelmingly* against them”

In 3e the ranger has a wider range of choices for a favoured enemy,  and he gets +1 damage (and on certain skill checks) per 5 levels. Additional favoured enemies can be started at each 5 levels, growing appropriately.

_Analysis: The favoured enemy has grown in scope and has a lot more variety possible than it used to, but it’s power has decreased markedly. The 2e rules didn’t scale but gave an excellent bonus to hit. In general I’d say this area is a win for the 3e ranger, but I greatly prefer the alt.ranger method of adding a point of favoured enemy every odd level, either stacking it or starting something new. Total bonuses are less, but it has more of a chance to grow organically with the campaign and gives a more even growth across levels._

*Woodsy-ness*
In SR the ranger had the unique ability to track, he surprised opponents 50% more often and was only 50% as likely to be surprised as other classes (in those days you were surprised on 1-2 on a 1d6. The ranger surprised others on 1-3 and was only surprised on a 1)

In 1e the ranger continued as before

(In Unearthed Arcana, 1.5e, tracking became level-dependent as opposed to in 1E, where every Ranger had the same chance to track given the same circumstances. Rangers were required to be proficient a limited group of weapons that fit the huntsman archetype before gaining proficiency with any others: (1) the bow or the crossbow of any type, required at 1st level; (2) dagger or knife; (3) a spear or an axe; and (4) a sword. They gained Weapon Specialization along with the Fighter, but were limited to specialization in one of the above weapons.)

In 2e I believe he lost the surprise benefits and they were replaced by a base 10%/15% move silently and hide in cover and growing slowly across levels. This chance was halved when not in “woodsy” situations – certainly in dungeons and towns. This could only be used in light armour. Tracking was available to all, but non-rangers had an arbitrary -6 penalty on all their checks, while rangers got bonuses as they went up levels. Player's Option made Tracking freely available to all with no penalties, though Rangers still got it for free. Rangers lost the weapon specialisation granted to them in Unearthed Arcana.

In 3e he gets the track feat for free (anyone can get it though) and class skill access to spot, listen, hide, move silently, as well as wilderness lore. WotC said that they tied the Track feat into Wilderness Lore expressly so that Rangers would take this skill.

_Analysis: 2e castrated the rangers ability to be sneaky and unsurprised. 3e has thankfully restored that ability, although at a price – with the limited number of skill points many rangers will have to miss other things out in order to get the benefit here. _

*Funky Followers*
In SR, At high level the ranger attracts a group of special followers; character classes and good creatures, including the possibility of a golden dragon. Up to about 24 max, I think.

In 1e high level rangers attract a group of special followers; character classes and good creatures, including the possibility of treants and a silver dragon. Same sort of number, but the power levels at the upper end are toned down a little.

In 2e high level rangers attract a group of special followers; character classes and good creatures. The power level of followers are toned down across the board.

In 3e this class ability has disappeared completely. There is now a “leadership” feat which is available to everyone to gain a cohort and followers, but they are very different from the wide range of followers that rangers alone used to get

_Analysis: The special followers of the ranger have been eroded over time, disappearing completely in third edition. Does this parallel the removal of the “build a fortress/temple/college and get a bunch of followers & men-at-arms turn up” that used to be par for the course for Fighters and Clerics? I wouldn’t like to say. It does remove one of the targets that high-level rangers could aspire to though._

*Other abilities*
In SR, high level rangers were allowed to use any magic items that were involved with healing, telepathy and clairvoyance. Only a limited number of rangers could associate together. 

In 1e, they could still use clairvoyance items, but lost the use of healing magic items. Still limited in the number that could associate together. 

In 2e they lost the ability to use clairvoyance items, but gained animal handling and a “calm wild animals” animal empathy ability. Gains two-weapon fighting when in light armour. Why? Who knows? I’ve heard it said that the aim was to encourage rangers to become “lightly armoured” fighters.

In 3e animal handling became an everyman skill and animal empathy became a skill shared with druids. These have to be bought out of the limited skill point supply rather than being available to all rangers.. The ranger gets special two weapon fighting when in light armour, for no character reason nor game-mechanic reason. It just is.

_Analysis: The ranger has lost abilities from his clear Tolkien roots, and they were replaced with more woodsy abilities, which in turn became skills in 3e. Unlike the rogue who has special affinity with certain skills (their search can be used to find traps and magical traps, for instance) the ranger doesn’t get any special benefit to handle animal. animal empathy is restricted class skill for them and druids only, which helps. Over time, the flavour has moved from Tolkiens wilderness warriors and protectors towards a more generic woodsman. The exception being the seemingly random introduction of two-weapon fighting to the class in 2e._

*Over time, the Ranger has become less hardy, lost out on funky followers and had less magical abilities; his ability to damage one wide class of opponents has decreased but the scope of his abilities has increased over time and there is arguably much more variety possible to the class than there was before. (with the exception of melee, which has been lock-stepped into two weapon fighting).*

I hope this breakdown of the evolution of the class is helpful to the discussion, especially the look back to the Strategic Review origins.

Cheers
Plane Sailing
with input from Cyberzombie and Paul Greystoke

p.s. I'm looking forward to seeing the 3.5e ranger with bated breath...


----------



## Jack Daniel (Apr 24, 2003)

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 _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&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 *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.  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.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 24, 2003)

Jack, I've asked this on your "poll" threads, but still never seen an answer.  Why is it that you feel the ranger can only be defined by what it was in the past?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 24, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> Well, without pulling up the list of rumored changes:
> 
> 1)  The HD. (included for completeness)  This is especially bad considering the Ranger is still partially defined by a fighting style -- potentially how good he is at melee.*



I don't see nothing wrong with a class having a good BAB and an average HD. You may think that it would be more appealing when it comes to the other classes that have medium HD, especially a druid, but I think both classes will be distinctive enough and balanced with the rest.




> *2)  TWF is _still_ a potential _class_ ability.  I don't mind the concept of a woodsman/skirmisher using TWF, but it has nothing to do with the class.  Rangers get feats every three levels like everyone else.  If a Ranger PC wants TWF, let them use their normal feats.*



It has everything to do with _D&D_ ranger class, especially when it was inherited during the 2nd edition. Only this time around, the 3.5e ranger give you option, you can decide to stick with the "classic" ranger or go with a more "archer" ranger archetype.

Besides, I doubt ranger fans would like to acquire TWF as a "normal feat" but rather as a "bonus feat."




> *3)  The continued use of "virtual feats".  Either give 'em the feat or don't.  Conditional feats are just bad design, IMHO.*



Of which I agree with you. See one of my earlier posts.




> *4)  "Combat Paths" are another bad mechanic.  I'm not at all keen about a choice made at 2nd level _directly_ impacting choices at later levels.  Prereqs are fine, but a swappable slot at 6th (or whatever) level shouldn't be arbitrarily limited based on a choice at 2nd level.  Sure, most people who pick Point Blank at 2nd are going to continue with archery choices as they gain levels, but they shouldn't be limited.  It violates the "options not restrictions" mantra unnecessarily.  Bonus feats would be a much better mechanic.*



This "Combat Paths" sounds more like Talent Trees from _d20 Modern._ Personally, it is okay, depending how it is alloted by level. I hope that you are not restricted to choosing one combat path. I like a mixture of melee and ranged attack repertoire.




> *5)  The fact that the Ranger is still defined by his fighting style (the above was "paths are a bad mechanic" this is "paths are bad flavor").  In adding the "paths", the Ranger is still required to be a pseudo-weapon specialist.  That meets some of the archetypes tagged to Ranger, but what about the "ultimate scout" or "ultimate survivor" archetypes.  A bonus feat progression that included Alertness, Inproved Initiative, Great Fortitude, etc. would make those archetypes possible with the Ranger, but the 3.5 Ranger is no better at filling those than the Rogue.*



I'm not sure what you're getting at. I mean personally, some fighting style are effective in wilderness situations, especially when one takes advantage of the terrain.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 24, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *Jack, I've asked this on your "poll" threads, but still never seen an answer.  Why is it that you feel the ranger can only be defined by what it was in the past? *




To be fair to Jack, this statement can be applied to paladins (warriors of a LG god? why only LG?) or druids (why the weapon restrictions?) or bards (why does a minstrel know more about magic items than a wizard?) or any other class in D&D. These artifacts have traveled through D&D since 74, and defines abilities and perceptions of said classes. Rangers have spellcasting because they've always had spellcasting, and someone who knows the game would look at a spell-less ranger and realize the drastic change. Same thing with plate-mailed clerics or LG paladins, you make too many changes and it stops looking like D&D and starts looking like EQ or AU. (Not that theirs anything wrong with that, but Monte said it himself, D&D is NOT generic, it assumes a particular setting where wizards wear no armor and clerics rule at healing. Changing that paragrim makes the game more unique, but less like D&D.)

On to the matter at hand, I was at first disappointed at the HD drop (it makes the revised ranger one step closer to Monte's alt ranger), but I don't think it will destroy a class built on ambush and scirmishing. It does make Con a more important stat however. At most, a ranger will need to learn to choose his fights well or if he MUST be a tank, take a few levels of fighter or barbarian to toughen up (and add some extra feats or class abilities.)


----------



## Mercule (Apr 25, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> I don't see nothing wrong with a class having a good BAB and an average HD. You may think that it would be more appealing when it comes to the other classes that have medium HD, especially a druid, but I think both classes will be distinctive enough and balanced with the rest.
> *




My main issue with this really is that I envision Rangers being slightly hardier than Fighters.  Not necessarily enough to get a higher hit die, but a lower hit die is right out.  Given my druthers, I'd give the Ranger the same hit die as a Fighter and find some way to encourage them to have a higher Con.



> *
> It has everything to do with D&D ranger class, especially when it was inherited during the 2nd edition. Only this time around, the 3.5e ranger give you option, you can decide to stick with the "classic" ranger or go with a more "archer" ranger archetype.
> 
> Besides, I doubt ranger fans would like to acquire TWF as a "normal feat" but rather as a "bonus feat."
> *




Personal peeve, here.

D&D classes do not define archetypes.  They serve as tools to build them.  The class should _always_ flow from the archetype, not the other way around.

2E is not the "classic" Ranger, even in D&D terms.  the SR or 1E Ranger are "classic".  Neither have any special affinity for TWF.  The 2E Ranger was some mutant child of the 1E Ranger.  The most unfortunately thing about it is that it apparently wasn't born sterile.

Besides, I doubt Ranger fans want TWF as a class ability.  



> *
> This "Combat Paths" sounds more like Talent Trees from d20 Modern. Personally, it is okay, depending how it is alloted by level. I hope that you are not restricted to choosing one combat path. I like a mixture of melee and ranged attack repertoire.
> *




I don't own d20 Modern, so all I have there is a bit of hearsay.

The Talent Trees don't sound too bad.  I don't know if it's a mechanic that's appropriate to the other trappings of D&D (there is a difference between Modern and D&D).

One of my objections to the "Combat Paths" is that it does sound like you're locked into one path.  If not, I'll be a bit more receptive to the idea.  I don't think the Paths should be limited to Combat, though.  Nor do I think TWF should be an option -- maybe if the list of options was large, but it shouldn't figure prominently.



> *
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. I mean personally, some fighting style are effective in wilderness situations, especially when one takes advantage of the terrain. *




True, which is way the Ranger is often associated with the bow.  TWF isn't especially related to wilderness.  Mostly, I think what makes Rangers effective fighters in the wilderness is 1) they are smart enough to hide, find higher ground, and keep their distance; and 2) they've learned to withstand hardships that would claim others and that let's them take more damage than anyone has a right to endure.

Really, I think it comes down to whether you want a Ranger decended from the 1E or the 2E class.  They are similar, but they seem to have different origins.  Myself, I never allowed the 2E Ranger, I just carried over what I was doing in 1E: the 1E Ranger with the Thief's Move Silent and Hide in Shadows.  I also banned the 3E Ranger on sight, but 1E doesn't work nearly as well with 3E as it did with 2E, so I couldn't just drop in the 1E Ranger.  Even if I were to use the 3.5 Ranger, I'd ban the TWF combat path.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Apr 25, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *Jack, I've asked this on your "poll" threads, but still never seen an answer.  Why is it that you feel the ranger can only be defined by what it was in the past? *









I just assumed you were joking.  I mean, how _else_ could you justly define it?


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 25, 2003)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's all kinds of ways to define it.  It's the core concept that matters, not the details of how you get there.  Your concept of a ranger is essentially the same thing rangers were early on in D&D; to me I'm looking for holding to the primary archetype that it is supposed to represent.  However, because there are all kinds of primary archetypes, that's more difficult with the ranger than, with, say the fighter.  Is it Aragorn?  Robin Hood?  Driz'zt?  Somthing else?  Would you say that any of these wouldn't be rangers?  Because the D&D class historically has very poorly modeled any of these characters, ironically, even Driz'zt.

No, why would I be joking?  Frankly, I suspect you're joking by not understanding my question.  It's really quite straightforward.


----------



## Lela (Apr 25, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> Is it Aragorn?  Robin Hood? Driz'zt?*




Just to be clear, in the book did Aragorn actually use two weapons before he recieved  the sword of Isyldor (sp?).  While I know he did in the movie (once using a torch), it's been so long since I've read the book.

If so, then, of those, only Robin Hood didn't use two weapons.  As a bow master, he wouldn't mind the 3.5e combat paths.  And I never saw him as someone who could take damage.  More someone who avoided it.


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 25, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hit Dice
> 
> ...




Plane Sailing, I'd agreed with everything you said except the above for the following reason:

1)  Basic average of hit points, by average the 1st edition ranger had the following average hit points per level when compared to the fighter (I did adjust to denote a negative when a ranger had more hit points than a fighter):


AD&D hp avg (1d10 v. 2d8 starting dice)
lvl ----- Ftr ----- Rgr ----- difference
1 ------ 5.5 ----- 9.0 ----- -3.5
2 ------11.0 ----13.5----- -2.5
3 ------16.5 ----18.0----- -1.5
4 ------22.0 ----22.5----- -0.5
5 ------27.5 ----27.0-----   0.5
6 ------33.0 ----31.5-----   1.5
7 ------38.5 ----36.0-----   2.5
8 ------44.0 ----40.5-----   3.5
9 ------49.5 ----45.0-----   4.5
10 -----(+3) ----49.5 ----   3.0
11 -----(+3) ----(+2) ----  (+1)
2)  Next, let's compare apples to apples.  I will use the 3rd edition rules for point buy (pg 20 of DMG) to compare abilities for a typical charactr of each class.  Remember that a 1st edition ranger had minimum ability requirements of a 13 for strength, a 13 for intelligence, a 14 for wisdom, and a 14 for constitution to be able to qualify for the race.  So, we shall start our Ranger character with a 13 Strength, 13 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom, 10 dexterity (average score - I'll keep this ability the same between ranger versus fighter character comparison), 14 constitution, and a 10 charisma (will do the same as what was done for dexterity).  Ok, that is  point buy of 26.  

Now, remember in 1st edition that a fighter only had minimum requirements of 9 for strength and 7 for constitution.  I'll keep my dexterity and charisma score the same as the ranger: a 10 each.  Next, since I do not have requirements for intelligence and wisdom, I will leave my abilities at the base of 8 each.  This leaves me a remaining 22 point for point buy.  Thus, I will make my constitution an 18 and the strength a 14.  

Thus, when compared with the ranger, apples to apples, the fighter will get 4 additional hit points per level since a 14 constitution did not give you any additional hit points and an 18 constitution gave you an additional 4 hit point per hit die.  This is the reason why the minimum ability scores for a ranger is a big equalizer for a fighter.  Thus, factoring this into the hit point chart, the chart becomes:


AD&D hp avg with equivalent abilities (1d10 v. 2d8 starting dice)
lvl ----- Ftr ----- Rgr ----- difference
1  ----- 9.5 ----- 9.0 ----- 0.5
2  -----19.0 ----13.5 ---- 5.5
3  -----28.5 ----18.0 ----10.5
4  -----38.0 ----22.5 ----15.5
5  -----47.5 ----27.0 ----20.5
6  -----57.0 ----31.5 ----25.5
7  -----66.5 ----36.0 ----30.5
8  -----76.0 ----40.5 ----35.5
9  -----85.5 ----45.0 ----40.5
10-----(+7) ----49.5 -----45.5
11-----(+7) ----(+2) -----(+5)
So, the when compared to even abilities, the fighter average hit points leave the ranger for 1st edition, and at no time does the ranger have more hit points than the fighter.  And I didn't even factor in the lower experience points to level factor for the fighter.


----------



## nimisgod (Apr 25, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> * Analysis: The special followers of the ranger have been eroded over time, disappearing completely in third edition. .
> *




The 3.0 E Ranger still has Animal friendship doesn't he?


----------



## Lela (Apr 25, 2003)

nimisgod said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The 3.0 E Ranger still has Animal friendship doesn't he? *




And there's PrCs to enhance this if you prefer this route.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 25, 2003)

My favourite character (the one I bring to new campaigns) generally takes his first level as Ranger and then begins to add Psi Warrior levels.

Giving the Ranger d8 and 6 skill points isn't going to change this choice for me; it's going to make it more attractive, actually, because I love skill points.  I'm going to miss the mix of Talons (treats your unarmed attacks as weapons) and TWF to make my character a sweet unarmed brawler, but that was never the focus of the character, just a way to deal with what he had.

But anyways.  d8 hit points is a little to low to use as a front line fighter.  Psi-Warriors are different, because they have abilities to boost their hit point totals.

I think we should stop looking at the Ranger as anything but a set of abilities.  Sometimes taking a level of Ranger works for your background/experiences through the past level, sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 25, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> My main issue with this really is that I envision Rangers being slightly hardier than Fighters.  Not necessarily enough to get a higher hit die, but a lower hit die is right out.  Given my druthers, I'd give the Ranger the same hit die as a Fighter and find some way to encourage them to have a higher Con.*



Only a powergamer would accept a ranger front-loading ability and the same HD as or better than a fighter, and that would be unbalancing.

As for being hardy, when you compare to the NPC commoner's hit die (similar to the arcane wizards and sorcerers), they're about as hardy as they come, but they're not tank who can wade into battle. THAT's the fighter's forte.




> *D&D classes do not define archetypes.  They serve as tools to build them.  The class should _always_ flow from the archetype, not the other way around.*



Which is why they're making 3.5e more flexible than its current incarnation.




> *2E is not the "classic" Ranger, even in D&D terms.  the SR or 1E Ranger are "classic".  Neither have any special affinity for TWF.  The 2E Ranger was some mutant child of the 1E Ranger.  The most unfortunately thing about it is that it apparently wasn't born sterile.
> 
> Besides, I doubt Ranger fans want TWF as a class ability.  *



I'm a Ranger fan (not the baseball kind).  ;-)

Personally, the two-weapon fighting fit their skirmishing melee style, as opposed to the en masse infantry or legionary style of sword and shield. But hey, nothing is stopping a ranger from picking that fighting technique.





> *I don't own d20 Modern, so all I have there is a bit of hearsay.*



No, but you can visit the _d20 Modern_ forums (here or on Wizards) and read the rules discussion. Don't worry if you don't have the rulebook. You can download the *Modern System Reference Document* at www.Wizards.com/d20




> *The Talent Trees don't sound too bad.  I don't know if it's a mechanic that's appropriate to the other trappings of D&D (there is a difference between Modern and D&D).*



Yes, _d20 Modern_ is less epic than _D&D,_ especially when firearms are involved.

Nevertheless, they both use the same core engine, _d20._ What could work in _d20 Modern_ may also work in _D&D._ Heck, you could add the Occupation rules, and list the character's previous medieval occupation (based on his family background) before he became a fighter or a sorcerer.




> *One of my objections to the "Combat Paths" is that it does sound like you're locked into one path.  If not, I'll be a bit more receptive to the idea.  I don't think the Paths should be limited to Combat, though.  Nor do I think TWF should be an option -- maybe if the list of options was large, but it shouldn't figure prominently.*



I may object to that, too. So, I'm hoping that the so-called "Combat Paths" are a bit more flexible as the _d20 Modern_ Talent Tree (see *MSRD*).




> *True, which is way the Ranger is often associated with the bow.  TWF isn't especially related to wilderness.  Mostly, I think what makes Rangers effective fighters in the wilderness is 1) they are smart enough to hide, find higher ground, and keep their distance; and 2) they've learned to withstand hardships that would claim others and that let's them take more damage than anyone has a right to endure.*



To me, a ranger is not only a hunter, but survivalist. He is also a skirmish specialist, relying only himself or just a handful of allies, as opposed to the legion approach (it's pretty hard to move an army through the closed terrain of the forest or swampland).




> *Really, I think it comes down to whether you want a Ranger decended from the 1E or the 2E class.  They are similar, but they seem to have different origins.  Myself, I never allowed the 2E Ranger, I just carried over what I was doing in 1E: the 1E Ranger with the Thief's Move Silent and Hide in Shadows.  I also banned the 3E Ranger on sight, but 1E doesn't work nearly as well with 3E as it did with 2E, so I couldn't just drop in the 1E Ranger.  Even if I were to use the 3.5 Ranger, I'd ban the TWF combat path. *



While, as a DM, you may decide what type of ranger is acceptable in your game, I hope you do are open to a player's suggestion that he wishes to be a skirmishing type, close-quarter combat ranger.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Apr 25, 2003)

I'm all for ranger's getting d8 hit points. Sure, rangers are hardy - and I guess this will be reflected in their saves.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 25, 2003)

boschdevil said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Plane Sailing, I'd agreed with everything you said except the above for the following reason:
> 
> ...




I think your reasoning is deeply flawed, because you are relying on giving the fighter an 18 CON and the ranger a 14 Con based on point buy schemes which didn't exist then.  You are not comparing apples with apples.

I stand fully by my original assertion - Rangers were hardier at 1st level (2d8 vs 1d10) and could get more CON bonuses (11x rather than 9x) BUT _where down a peg or two_. i.e. no longer had the complete hp dominance which they had when they were first introduced.

All the rangers I knew in 1e focussed heavily on CON to maximise their bonuses, and where allowed chose that for their high score. It was a sound tactic which made the maximum advantage of their greater number of HD.

Cheers


----------



## Gargoyle (Apr 25, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...
> Cheers
> ...




Cool analysis.   I hope you add to it in July with your first impressions of the new ranger.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 25, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *Just to be clear, in the book did Aragorn actually use two weapons before he recieved  the sword of Isyldor (sp?).  While I know he did in the movie (once using a torch), it's been so long since I've read the book.
> 
> If so, then, of those, only Robin Hood didn't use two weapons.  As a bow master, he wouldn't mind the 3.5e combat paths.  And I never saw him as someone who could take damage.  More someone who avoided it. *



It's the sword of Elendil, Isildur's father, and he had it all along, albeit broken until Frodo and Co. went to Rivendell.  He is never portrayed as using two weapons, no.


----------



## Dimwhit (Apr 25, 2003)

> Heck, even Dodge is getting better (they're going with the version of Dodge in Mutants and Masterminds), so it's going to be harder to get hit.




So how does the Dodge in Mutants and Masterminds work?


----------



## MadBlue (Apr 25, 2003)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> *I'm all for ranger's getting d8 hit points. Sure, rangers are hardy - and I guess this will be reflected in their saves. *




Well, they already get a good Fort save. The other two aren't increasing any. We haven't heard anything about any special abilities that will affect Ranger saving throws or anything else that would otherwise reduce their chances of losing HP - and we've heard about a _lot_ of things the 3.5 Ranger will be getting. If it gets more than what we've already heard about, I'd be surprised. 

MadBlue


----------



## Mercule (Apr 25, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> To me, a ranger is not only a hunter, but survivalist. He is also a skirmish specialist, relying only himself or just a handful of allies, as opposed to the legion approach (it's pretty hard to move an army through the closed terrain of the forest or swampland).
> *




Exactly.  I don't disagree with anything said here.  "Skirmisher" is a word I've often used to describe the Ranger.



> *
> While, as a DM, you may decide what type of ranger is acceptable in your game, I hope you do are open to a player's suggestion that he wishes to be a skirmishing type, close-quarter combat ranger. *




That's the sort of Ranger I prefer.  Which is why I like the 1E Ranger and dislike the 2E and later Rangers.

TWF has nothing to do with skirmishing.  TWF has nothing to do with scouting.  TWF has nothing to do with the wilderness.  TWF has nothing to do with hunting orcs (or whatever).  TWF has nothing to do with the archetype the Ranger is supposed to serve.  In short TWF has absolutely no business being associated with the Ranger.

As far as allowing a player to play what he wants, I don't disallow PC Rangers from taking the TWF feat.  Any PC can take it.  Rangers have to spend the feat just like Rogues, though.  That's one of the greatest things about the 3E system -- it's flexible enough that players can do some customizing.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 25, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Only a powergamer would accept a ranger front-loading ability and the same HD as or better than a fighter, and that would be unbalancing.
> *




Completely agree.  Not sure what front-loading ability you're talking about, though.

My solution is to get rid of front-loading and give the Ranger the same HD as a Fighter.



> *
> As for being hardy, when you compare to the NPC commoner's hit die (similar to the arcane wizards and sorcerers), they're about as hardy as they come, but they're not tank who can wade into battle. THAT's the fighter's forte.*




The tank aspect of Fighters come from the heavy armor.  If you strip both a Fighter and a Ranger to skins, the Ranger is going to be every bit as tough as the Fighter, if not slightly moreso.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 25, 2003)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Cool analysis.   I hope you add to it in July with your first impressions of the new ranger. *




Thanks, I sure plan to.

I have a gut feeling that some of the distinctiveness which was lost might come back his way.

Cheers


----------



## mooby (Apr 25, 2003)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So how does the Dodge in Mutants and Masterminds work? *




you can choose to _either_ dodge all enemies, and gain +1 AC against all attacks, _or_

you chan choose to dodge one enemy, and gain a +2 bonus to your AC against that one enemy.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 25, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *TWF has nothing to do with the archetype the Ranger is supposed to serve.  *




As has been demonstrated, time and again - there is no _single_ archtype the Ranger is supposed to serve.  That's a large part of the problem.  Everybody's got a different archtype in mind, each of which calls for different abilities.  You can't fit them all with a single class.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 25, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> My solution is to get rid of front-loading and give the Ranger the same HD as a Fighter.*



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.




> *The tank aspect of Fighters come from the heavy armor.  If you strip both a Fighter and a Ranger to skins, the Ranger is going to be every bit as tough as the Fighter, if not slightly moreso. *



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).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 25, 2003)

> He is never portrayed as using two weapons, no.




I'm not a big TWF fan, but I must point out he _once_ wielded two torches against some of the Black Riders.



> TWF has nothing to do with skirmishing.




Exactly. It's difficult to use TWF from surprise, or when moving and striking, etc.



> As has been demonstrated, time and again - there is no single archtype the Ranger is supposed to serve.




A good argument for getting rid of combat paths entirely. Andy Collins said (on his site) that the revision wasn't going to change the ranger class that much, however.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 25, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> Exactly. It's difficult to use TWF from surprise, or when moving and striking, etc.*



But because he does not have the support of an army, such a skirmish unit must be able to fight by themselves against large number of opponents. But as I said, you choose to be a melee-wielding ranger or an archer ranger. It's up to you. So, let just wait and see what this Combat Path is all about first.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 25, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *I'm not a big TWF fan, but I must point out he once wielded two torches against some of the Black Riders.
> *



Uhh, someone hasn't been reading the thread very carefully   The post I was responding to said that although he remembered the sword/torch action _in the movie_ he didn't remember Aragorn being a TWF in the books, but he thought that he was.  As someone who's read the books almost once a year for more than fifteen years, I can confidently say that Aragorn never once wields two weapons at once in the books.  So your reply above doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Lela (Apr 26, 2003)

Actually, I would think that using TWF in a wilderness envioronment would be benifitial.  Tree on your left, use your right hand.  Tree on your right, use your left.  You still have full range of motion to swing.

Also, if you're all alone against superiour numbers (goblins and orcs being typical) TWF is very useful.  When one attack can bring someone down, having that one extra attack can make an incredible difference.

They're easier to finesse than large swords or axes, which is key in the forest.  And becuase smaller weapons can be strapped down across the back without sticking out, they take up less room--in the way that matters for most of what a Ranger does: Hide, track, scout, etc.

What part of TWF isn't good for a Ranger?



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> So your reply above doesn't make much sense. *




Actually, it helped more.  It shows that Aragorn has the TWF skills even if he doesn't always use them.  And he was swinging two torches as weapons.  Not weapons themselves but still as weapons.

But I also need to admit that, of the three Rangers you mentioned, only Drizzt has ever used a spell.  And that was only very recently (it also didn't fit with his character).


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 26, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think your reasoning is deeply flawed, because you are relying on giving the fighter an 18 CON and the ranger a 14 Con based on point buy schemes which didn't exist then.  You are not comparing apples with apples.
> 
> ...




Well, I do admit that I used the 3rd edition point buy because I couldn't think of another system off-hand that one could use for attribute point equivalency.   I only meant it as a tool to try to have equitable ability comparison for 1st edition ranger and fighter.

However, let me use one other item that has been around since the beginning of D&D and far before it - probability and statistics.

Let start with some terms with their descriptions:

minimum ranger: Abilities are 13 for strength and intelligence, 14 for wisdom and constitution, 8 for dexterity and charisma.

buff fighter:  Abilities are 15 for strength, 18 for constitution, and 8 for dexterity, charisma, intelligence, and wisdom.

buff ranger:  Abilities are 15 for strength, 18 for constitution, 13 for intelligence, 14 for wisdom, and 8 for dexterity and charisma.

Now, for first edition there was two methods for rolling attributes: roll 3d6 and roll 4d6 keep the 3 highest.

The following are the probabilities of rolling at least the attributes noted for the term using the rolling methods employed:

Roll 3d6:
Minimum ranger -> 1 in 64.18
Buff fighter -> 1 in 66.16
Buff ranger -> 1 in 199.66

Roll 4d6, keep highest 3:
Minimum ranger -> 1 in 15.98
Buff fighter -> 1 in 3.39
Buff ranger -> 1 in 26.93

So the moral of the story is though a buff ranger would be tougher than a buff fighter, the fighter is still tougher than the ranger because the probability of getting the abilities for a buff ranger is far less than getting the abilities of a buff fighter.  In fact, the probability of getting the abilities for a buff fighter is around the same to better than being able to get the abilities required for a minimum fighter.  And I didn't even include the fact that the buff fighter qualified for experience points bonus, while the rangers here in question did not.

If you want a copy the work for how I got my results, I can put it in Word format and send it to you.  Just let me know.

Take care.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *I can confidently say that Aragorn never once wields two weapons at once in the books.  *




Not that this is a real support for TWF D&D Rangers, but let's be clear:

From _The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings_, Book 1, "A Knife in the Dark":

"A shrill cry rang out in the night; and he felt a pain like a dart of poisoned ice pierce hisleft shoulder.  Even as he swooned, he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand."




			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *A good argument for getting rid of combat paths entirely*




Only if you hold to the philosophy that Rangers are supposed to try it's best to be all things to all people.  I think that's probably a bad idea.  The game is allowed to have it's own archetypes.


----------



## Chauzu (Apr 26, 2003)

I am pleased with the Ranger, so far.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 26, 2003)

> Only if you hold to the philosophy that Rangers are supposed to try it's best to be all things to all people.




I think you misunderstand me, but I'm not so sure.

Suppose there are 100 ranger players in a room  That means 100 different combat styles. WotC couldn't possibly fit 100 combat styles into the Player's Handbook.

I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, they should spend their (limited) character feats on fighting. They can take whatever combat style they desire, or try multiple paths (not a good idea, IMO, but at least they have that option) or none if they would rather take flavor/skill feats, or some combination of them.

_One of the problems with the ranger is WotC is trying to satisfy a wide variety of desires with narrow options._ I don't see a problem with letting a player take a class and moving it in the direction that fits their character concept.

Personally, everything I've heard about the 3.5 ranger fits _my_ definition of a ranger, but I don't think it's going to fit everyone in my gaming group. That's why I'd rather they remove the fighting styles entirely.



> What part of TWF isn't good for a Ranger?




Lots  This is the _very first time_ I've seen a flavor argument in favor of TWF, so you've given something to think about. I guess I just didn't like _every_ ranger learning and using the _same_ combat style. I'll probably stick with archery though


----------



## Lela (Apr 26, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> Lots  This is the very first time I've seen a flavor argument in favor of TWF, so you've given something to think about. I guess I just didn't like every ranger learning and using the same combat style. I'll probably stick with archery though  *




To me it seemed like much of the argument was flavor already.  To take your statement about surprise as an example:



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> Exactly. It's difficult to use TWF from surprise, or when moving and striking, etc.*




From a game rules standpoint, I don't see how that could apply.  With Armor Check penalty to Hide and Move Silently from a shield, the Ranger is actually better at attacking by surprise in melee.  Ranged, the same foilage that helps you stay hidden provides a cover bonus to the goblin your shooting at.

To me, obvious feats for a Ranger are Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack.  And now that Dodge is improving, it's even more valuable--in fact, I might adopt the M&M Dodge as a house rule, but that's beside the point.

With Spring Attack (and possible Boots of S&S) the Ranger is made perfectly for moving and striking.  And those who try for an AoO when he's moving are in for a surprise with Mobility.

That said, I definitally see the apeal of the bow.  You may recall my mentioning of my munchkin player with multishot.  Bowman can be amazing and a great help to any party--I just don't like it when they take down an Ancient Red Wyrm in a single round.

Going along with the LotR theme that's come up, look to Legolos (in the movie at least) for an example of both styles of fighting working wonderfully together.

And just think, with Combat Paths you can now do both easily.  Just use your regular feats for TWF and the chosen Path as Archery (or vice versa).  Edit: Just realized this could take away from the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack thing.  But I guess we can't all be Legolos.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 26, 2003)

*Spell-use*



			
				Lela said:
			
		

> *But I also need to admit that, of the three Rangers you mentioned, only Drizzt has ever used a spell.*




"But in the wild lands beyond Bree there were mysterious wanderers.  The Bree-folk called them Rangers, and knew nothing of their origin.  They were taller and darker than the Men of Bree and were believed to have strange powers of sight and hearing, and to understand the languages of beasts and birds."  FotR:178.


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2003)

I hate to point out the obvious, but just in case nobody else has: if a ranger is receiving favored enemy bonuses, spellcasting, 6 skill pts/level,  free Track feat + other wilderness-related abilities, and--on to top of all that--combat styles that emulate fighter feats, then I should certainly hope that he actually loses something in order to keep the 3.5 fighter from becoming as underadvantaged as a 3e ranger. A hit-die value drop, in conjunction with the light-armor restrictions, seems about right.

Someone mentioned the new Diehard feat. I believe it's just Remain Conscious renamed.

As for Favord Enemy bonuses getting a boost, I'm all for that. By way of comparison, +5 is a joke compared to the +10d6 a rogue is doing at the same level.


----------



## Technik4 (Apr 26, 2003)

Ranger vs Fighter .... or Ranger vs Paladin?

Personally I think the ranger needs to be balanced better with a foil like the paladin simply because a lot of their similar abilities cancel out.

Equal BAB
Ranger Animal Companion eq Paladin Warhorse
Ranger Spells eq Paladin Spells
Ranger Favored Enemy roughly eq Paladin Smite

This leaves us with Combat Paths for a ranger and Aura of Courage, Divine Grace, Divine Health, Detect Evil, and Lay on Hands for paladin. 

However, the ranger does get more skill points now, along with a much sexier skill list. And a new wilderness ability.

But the paladin has heavy armor and a d10?

Technik

PS- Roleplaying restrictions and alignment restrictions shouldn't factor into the balance of a class. 1 level of ranger should roughly equate to 1 level of paladin, just as 6 levels of ranger should relate to 6 levels of monk.


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Gains two-weapon fighting when in light armour. Why? Who knows? I’ve heard it said that the aim was to encourage rangers to become “lightly armoured” fighters.*




Didn't it have something to do with how dual-wielding was originally introduced? The penalty for all attacks was an initial -4, reduced by the character's Dex bonus. Since rangers had a high minimum Dex prerequisite, they tended to be able to dual-wield better than other warrior-types.

Btw, thanks for the analysis! Very informative!


----------



## Caliber (Apr 26, 2003)

You know what I want in a new Ranger? The ability for TWF to work with double weapons. So I can use a quaterstaff. Finally.

Actually, I'm looking forward to the new Ranger. The d8 HD makes it sound even better, since that means they must be getting some significant bonuses. (boni?)


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, they should spend their (limited) character feats on fighting.*




I think, if a ranger wants to fight as well as a fighter, he should be a fighter, and not a ranger.  



> * I don't see a problem with letting a player take a class and moving it in the direction that fits their character concept.*




By that logic, fighters and rogues should have access to spellcasting without having to multiclass.

This is somethign inherent to a class system - you are somewhat restricted by the classes.  Well defined classes can be fairly flexible, but there's still a limit if you want anything approaching "balance".  

So, the designers must pick and choose.  If they'd decided to give the flexibility you want with lots of bonus feats instead (making the ranger look a lot like a fighter), they'd have had to take something else away.  And that would cheese other players off.  No matter what they do, they cannot please everybody.  

Quite honestly, it frequently seems that we, the players, won't _allow_ them to please us.  We're so blasted picky, expecting a game designed for a few milion players to conform to our personal specifications, that nobody can possibly satisfy us.  

Btw, if you're going to quote two different people in the same post, it'd be better if you gave attribution, to avoid confusion.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 26, 2003)

Umbran:


> By that logic, fighters and rogues should have access to spellcasting without having to multiclass.



Well, rangers already get spellcasting  Besides, you knew exactly what I meant.



> Quite honestly, it frequently seems that we, the players, won't allow them to please us. We're so blasted picky, expecting a game designed for a few milion players to conform to our personal specifications, that nobody can possibly satisfy us.



Out of 11 core classes, only 2 draw this much heat - the monk, and the ranger. That means WotC got more than 80% of the classes right. The cleric and rogue, in particular, are a lot better than their 2e counterparts.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Out of 11 core classes, only 2 draw this much heat - the monk, and the ranger. That means WotC got more than 80% of the classes right. *




IME, the monk, ranger, and bard catch nigh equivalent heat.  That's dropping the average down below 75%.

When you then collectively consider people's gripes about vancian magic, Item Creation feats, fighter dependance on magic items, clerics being too buff, sorcerers not having CHR based skills, allignment, etc, etc, then perhaps they're down below 50%.

Just can't satisfy some folks


----------



## Mjollnir (Apr 26, 2003)

If you consider that a ranger is a nature-toughened character a d8 does not reflect it, my guess.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 26, 2003)

Mjollnir said:
			
		

> *If you consider that a ranger is a nature-toughened character a d8 does not reflect it, my guess. *



Animals have d8. If it's good enough for a bear, it's good enough for a Ranger, I suppose.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 26, 2003)

Lela


> To me it seemed like much of the argument was flavor already. To take your statement about surprise as an example:
> 
> 
> quote:
> ...



Using TWF requires a full-round action, so it's difficult to use while surprising an opponent or moving and striking.

Umbran


> When you then collectively consider people's gripes about vancian magic, Item Creation feats, fighter dependance on magic items, clerics being too buff, sorcerers not having CHR based skills, allignment, etc, etc, then perhaps they're down below 50%.



There are lots of discussions about this as well, but they don't draw _as much_ heat, at least, not that I've noticed.


----------



## Lela (Apr 26, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Lela
> 
> Using TWF requires a full-round action, so it's difficult to use while surprising an opponent or moving and striking.
> 
> *




Yes, now I see what you mean.  I guess it comes down to how you're planning to surprise them.

But it's better than a shield.  And, for melee, the only other option is a large weapon-which doesn't fit my idea of the class, though it may fit someone elses.


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2003)

Mjollnir said:
			
		

> *If you consider that a ranger is a nature-toughened character a d8 does not reflect it, my guess. *




The barbarian is D&D's nature-toughened character. The ranger is the nature-"smart" character.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 26, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *There are lots of discussions about this as well, but they don't draw as much heat, at least, not that I've noticed. *




Part of my point is that the percieved amount of "heat" (relative or absolute) doesn't really indicate much.  At one time or another, pretty much every single aspect of the game (from alignment and specific classes down to the economic system and the weights given to items in the game) has taken significant heat.  From that, you'd think that the game stank like fetid entrails. 

Instead, what it indicates is that we like to gripe.   A small number of passionate people can generate large amounts of heat and criticism.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Spell-use*



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *"But in the wild lands beyond Bree there were mysterious wanderers.  The Bree-folk called them Rangers, and knew nothing of their origin.  They were taller and darker than the Men of Bree and were believed to have strange powers of sight and hearing, and to understand the languages of beasts and birds."  FotR:178. *



And what exactly is that supposed to prove?  Just because the Bree-folk thought them magical doesn't mean they were.  In fact, after the main characters hang around with Aragorn long enough to make him a main character as well, we find out very clearly that he does not have "Strange powers of sight and hearing" nor does he "understand the languages of beasts and birds."  And even if he did, they wouldn't be spells.

I'm sorry, but that just seems one of the more pointless posts in this thread (which already has a few.  This one included.)


----------



## Mjollnir (Apr 26, 2003)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> *Animals have d8. If it's good enough for a bear, it's good enough for a Ranger, I suppose. *




Animals do have d8 dice, characters have different dice according to their potentials: rangers are warriors and survivers of the wild. You imagine a hard character like Aragorn in Middle Earth weaker than another one like Legolas? I suppose you are thinking Arargorn should be more expereinced and hence with more levels, but you may also think of a campaign with no dice increase. A ranger is tougher than a cleric which concentrates part of her power in powerful spellcasting abilities, while a ranger has endured and hardened with an outdoors life.


----------



## Mjollnir (Apr 26, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The barbarian is D&D's nature-toughened character. The ranger is the nature-"smart" character. *




Should a paladin then has a d8 as well? Paladins are also smart and charismatic...


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Spell-use*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *And what exactly is that supposed to prove?  Just because the Bree-folk thought them magical doesn't mean they were.  In fact, after the main characters hang around with Aragorn long enough to make him a main character as well, we find out very clearly that he does not have "Strange powers of sight and hearing" nor does he "understand the languages of beasts and birds."  And even if he did, they wouldn't be spells. I'm sorry, but that just seems one of the more pointless posts in this thread (which already has a few.  This one included.) *




I empathize with your frustration. I don't like magic being an integral part of the ranger's portfolio either. Multi-classing as a druid would allow anyone who wanted the nature spells to have them.

However, the brutal truth is D&D is not going to give you a direct translation of Aragorn. Same goes for Lancelot as a paladin or Kane (a la _Kung Fu_) as a monk. As designers like Monte Cook and Ed Stark have often pointed out, D&D isn't a metasystem that adapts instantly to any setting; people just try to treat it that way (with mixed results). The ranger you're going to get is a revved-up version to fit into D&D's spellpunk world, where things foes like ring-wraiths and an army of orcs are small potatoes.

Considering how easily magic (both spells and magic items) can provide sustenance, shelter, & fast transportation, a magicless ranger would start out only moderately useful at low levels, and would decline from there.


----------



## Felon (Apr 26, 2003)

Mjollnir said:
			
		

> *Should a paladin then has a d8 as well? Paladins are also smart and charismatic... *




Smart? They get the minimum skill points, just like dumb ol' fighters (don't ask me why barbarians get four lol). 

Charismatic? Definitely, but they aren't much for using skills to manipulate and outmaneuver evil. They bring the righteous pain straight into evil's face.

Seems like reaching to me. If you want the hardiness ccombined with the stealth and skills, there's always the opton to mult-class as a barbarian/ranger.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Spell-use*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *I empathize with your frustration. I don't like magic being an integral part of the ranger's portfolio either. Multi-classing as a druid would allow anyone who wanted the nature spells to have them.*



I agree with you, and I'm not frustrated because I have several alt.ranger classes (without spells) that I like very well.  However, it seems you're trying to use that quote from LotR to prove that Aragorn did cast spells, when he patently and clearly did not.

As I've said before, I don't mind the ranger class all that much, really, it's just not a class I'd like to play when I could play some others that I think are more interesting.


----------



## Felon (Apr 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Spell-use*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *I agree with you, and I'm not frustrated because I have several alt.ranger classes (without spells) that I like very well.  However, it seems you're trying to use that quote from LotR to prove that Aragorn did cast spells, when he patently and clearly did not.*




That quote wasn't mine, Joshua. Actually, I was kind of hoping that spellcasting would be one of the optional paths for the ranger, instead of layering spellcasting on top of his fighting styles.


----------



## Mjollnir (Apr 27, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> Seems like reaching to me. If you want the hardiness ccombined with the stealth and skills, there's always the opton to mult-class as a barbarian/ranger. *




Yeah! I do want it: in a single class!, old ranger version from 3rd ed. had it!
Anyway, no matter how new, how improved a version gets; someone will always find things to complain about (now it's me ). I'm sure rangers in 3.5 ed. will be much better than the one from 3rd ed., but I will miss and notice the d10 for a tough class like this one...


----------



## Jack Daniel (Apr 27, 2003)

Joshua:
Sure, Aragorn never cast any magic spells, but then, the ranger is a divine character, not an arcane one.  And besides, the rules are different in Middle Earth to begin with -- all arcane magic ("sorcery") is pretty much spell-based and evil, and all divine magic ("wizardry") is innate and good.  Middle Earth rangers certainly don't cast spells of sorcery or have innate wizardry.

But if they do talk to animals and pick up on some elvish talents like seeing and hearing well, then that's certainly a paranormal tie to nature -- and the only way to express that in D&D is druid spells.  Just take it with a grain of salt and remember that spells aren't always spells; a cleric doesn't cast a spell, he prays for a miracle.  A bard doesn't cast a spell (unless his performance type is stage magic ), he sings a magical song.  As a mechanic, yeah, they're all spells, because you have to define a "one-time, rule-breaking effect" in game terms.

But being as literal as you are is pedantic.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 27, 2003)

Jack Daniel


> And besides, the rules are different in Middle Earth to begin with -- all arcane magic ("sorcery") is pretty much spell-based and evil, and all divine magic ("wizardry") is innate and good.




Gandalf and Saruman used the same type of magic.

Gandalf even used Saruman's voice technique ... on Saruman!

Welcome to the Dark Side, Gandalf


----------



## Joseph Elric Smith (Apr 27, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Jack Daniel
> 
> 
> Gandalf and Saruman used the same type of magic.
> ...



well since both gandalf and saruman, where both angles I hope it was the same magic. the fact that one was snared by evil, doesn't stop the source.
ken


----------



## EarthsShadow (Apr 27, 2003)

The solution to any problem is easy: If you don't like it, don't play it.  Find something else that fits what you like.  If you don't like the ranger, change it.  Who says you have to play the version WotC, buyer of souls, says is the correct version?


----------



## Lela (Apr 27, 2003)

Yeah Joshua, why don't you just change the Ranger to match what you like.  That, or go and find some alt.Rangers to . . . uh, ooohhhhhhhhh.

Ooops.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spell-use*



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> *That quote wasn't mine, Joshua. *









Oops, you're right!


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 27, 2003)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *Joshua:
> Sure, Aragorn never cast any magic spells, but then, the ranger is a divine character, not an arcane one.  And besides, the rules are different in Middle Earth to begin with -- all arcane magic ("sorcery") is pretty much spell-based and evil, and all divine magic ("wizardry") is innate and good.  Middle Earth rangers certainly don't cast spells of sorcery or have innate wizardry.*



Actually, the ranger is a mundane character, not a divine one.  At least in Middle-earth.
*



			But if they do talk to animals and pick up on some elvish talents like seeing and hearing well, then that's certainly a paranormal tie to nature -- and the only way to express that in D&D is druid spells.  Just take it with a grain of salt and remember that spells aren't always spells; a cleric doesn't cast a spell, he prays for a miracle.  A bard doesn't cast a spell (unless his performance type is stage magic ), he sings a magical song.  As a mechanic, yeah, they're all spells, because you have to define a "one-time, rule-breaking effect" in game terms.
		
Click to expand...


*Actually those can quite well be modeled in D&D terms by having rangers with high listen, spot, search and animal empathy ranks.  There's no reason to make them be spells.  Especially when the ranger spell list doesn't really model those things you describe.
*



			But being as literal as you are is pedantic.
		
Click to expand...


*It must be nice when your only choices are pedantic and wrong.   I really don't see what it matters.  I'm not sure anyone is claiming that Aragorn is the "model" of the 3e ranger anyway, so my comments about the quote about Aragorn is a tangent and hardly integral to any real discussion of the ranger character class.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 27, 2003)

EarthsShadow said:
			
		

> *The solution to any problem is easy: If you don't like it, don't play it.  Find something else that fits what you like.  If you don't like the ranger, change it.  Who says you have to play the version WotC, buyer of souls, says is the correct version? *



That's exactly what I do.  Doesn't mean I can't point out the fact that I don't particularly care for the 3e ranger though.  The fact that I can provide feedback on it is important to me.  But, yeah, in practice, that's exactly what I do, so it ends up not being a really big deal to me.  No matter what they do with the ranger, I probably still won't play it.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 28, 2003)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> Actually, the ranger is a mundane character, not a divine one.  At least in Middle-earth.*




An argument can be made otherwise.  The Rangers of Middle-earth are Dunedain - some of the last and purest remaining line of Numenoreans.  Considering that the thing that makes Numenorians special is past residence over the seas in the West, and the thing that makes that special is that it makes you closer to Middle-earth's angelic powers, it could be said that Middle Earth rangers do have a religious aspect.  

Mind you, that logic makes them more like Paladins than Rangers, but it isn't like Middle-earth rangers are entirely mundane people.


----------



## Morgenstern (Apr 28, 2003)

I'm mostly looking at the ranger from a general flavor/generally playable standpoint. I think the new version has made soem reall strides towards being an interesting new class. With one caveat:
 spall casting _shouldn't_ be the defalt mechanical solution to "these guys have some versitilty". Long rant there, we'll just skip it this round .

As to Aragorn and the rest of the JRRT rangers, what I've seen so far look rather promising to me as a tool for representing those characters, as long as you remember two things about them:

Aragorn's got prestige classes. *High King*'s got some butt-kicking entry requirements last time I checked .

All the rangers are of a race (of Men) so clearly blessed with the power of the ancient times that I wouldn't use the human racial package to describe them anyway. Something with a rather different aging progression than humans, quite likely a racial Con bonus (neatly takes care of that hit die size problem vs. human fighters), and if you're really into it, possibly some inate nature spells the way a gnome throws illusions. And a favored class of... wait for it, it's gonna surprise you... Ranger (ta da!)

So, set up the Dunedain properly, and levels of Ranger work fine for portraying them. The new skill point progression is way more significant in modeling the classic Middle Earth ranger than the hit dice.

Of course, if you apply such a race first, you don't need spell casting as a ranger at all... Oops, rant coming on again .

But even with those damn spells I see a class a lot more effective outside pure combat situations. I see a class with a role in the party other than "spare fighter". He may not be an RPGA jugernaught, but he looks a lot more promising for general play.

Seriously, if you're going to try and model something from fiction to d20, make the tools work _for_ you That means even first level character has five major parts to use in trying to match up to your model: Ability scores, your starting feat, class, skill points and _race_.

So to make Aragorn, you've got to ask- have I got the right ability scores? Did I find the best feat? What is the class that comes closest? Did I use my skill points to accentuate his highlights? ...Have I got the right racial package?

I think even at first level you could make it clear to people what you were aspiring to , even if you aren't nearly there yet.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Apr 28, 2003)

Isn't anyone bothered by the possibility that, with 6 skill points, good BAB, martial weapon proficiencies, spells, combat styles and modified special abilities, the 3.5 ranger could end up making the rogue obsolete?


----------



## Morgenstern (Apr 28, 2003)

Outside of sneak attack, the rogue was obsolete from the word go. There's virtually nothing they can do  that a wizard can't do better with a spell. The rogue's functionality is pretty narrow to begin with, even if the Lots of skill points would lead you to believe otherwise. Still, the things a rogue does do well are still there, and having another party member that can sneak along _with_ you is not going to detract from that usefulness all that much . Heck, he can sneak into place and help you with that surprise attack alpha strike.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 28, 2003)

I won't worry for the rogue, unless I see Tumble on the ranger's skill list, along with Escape Artist and a dozen other skills that the ranger doesn't get as a class skill.

Furthermore, the rogue will always have better offense - sneak attack is way better than favored enemy any day of the week.


----------



## boschdevil (Apr 28, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Isn't anyone bothered by the possibility that, with 6 skill points, good BAB, martial weapon proficiencies, spells, combat styles and modified special abilities, the 3.5 ranger could end up making the rogue obsolete? *




Wow, they gave the 3.5 ranger (a) access to the rogue's skill list so now the ranger can open locks and find traps, (b) sneak attack, (c) uncanny dodge, (d) evasion, and (e) special ability options listed on pg 48 of the PHB.  Man, I guess the rogue is obsolete.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 28, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> 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.
> *



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.


> *
> 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 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'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.
> *



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.


> *
> 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).
> *



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.


> *
> "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).
> *



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?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 29, 2003)

I'd rather he be a skilled survivalist that uses his Wisdom. Personally, he should take advantage of the wild terrain to fight longer in battle (e.g. increase his cover and cover bonus by one category better), or use his Wisdom instead of his Constitution to add to his Fort Save Bonus.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 29, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *I'd rather he be a skilled survivalist that uses his Wisdom. Personally, he should take advantage of the wild terrain to fight longer in battle (e.g. increase his cover and cover bonus by one category better), or use his Wisdom instead of his Constitution to add to his Fort Save Bonus. *




I can see what you're saying, and I do not disagree that a Ranger should be cunning.  Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that all Ranger players will be expert tacticians.  Since HP are supposed to be a vague amalgam of toughness, luck, and skill, that seems an excellent way to represent the Ranger's cunning use of terrain.  Either that or a "favored terrain".


----------



## Felon (Apr 29, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *If leaving the Ranger's HD alone throws off the fighter's balance, then the Paladin needs to be stepped down, too.*




Nope. The paladin does not acquire virtual feats that duplicate Fighter bonus feats. In fact, the paladin's only raw combat ability is his once-a-day smite. 



> *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.*




Warrior? He is a warrior. A d8 hit dice doesn't change that. 

Explorer? What does that have to do with fighting?

Skirmisher? Not sure what you mean by that. If he's in light armor and has Tumble as a class skill (which a fighter, paladin, and barbarian don't) he can stick and move. 

The bottom line is, for your position to have any real weight, you're going to have to justify how a ranger can have access to the same Hit Die as the fighter, 4 more skill points per level, and  combat styles that imitate Fighter bonus feats, and not be a patently superior class to the fighter (and mind you I'm leaving spellcasting, favored enemy bonuses, free Track feat, and other wilderness-related abilities out of the equation).


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 29, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *I hate to point out the obvious, but just in case nobody else has: if a ranger is receiving favored enemy bonuses, spellcasting, 6 skill pts/level,  free Track feat + other wilderness-related abilities, and--on to top of all that--combat styles that emulate fighter feats, then I should certainly hope that he actually loses something in order to keep the 3.5 fighter from becoming as underadvantaged as a 3e ranger. A hit-die value drop, in conjunction with the light-armor restrictions, seems about right.
> *




I agree.  Think about if the Ranger got all these improvements, _and_ kept a d10 HD.  The spectrum would change from nobody wanting to play Rangers, to everyone wanting to play Rangers.

That isn't what WOTC wants, either.


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 29, 2003)

I'm sorry, Josh, but I'm unclear on what you're angry/upset/irritated (or whatever) by, whether it's me, Rangers having spells, or what...  In any case, I'll assume those questions weren't rhetorical...



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *And what exactly is that supposed to prove?*




Well, if you want to believe that Rangers shouldn't have spells, this will go nowhere, and you can save time and skip to the next paragraph...  For the rest of us 1Ers, it is obvious that Tolkien's Rangers were the basis for 1e's.  Lela had previously posted that the Ranger Archetype was supposed to fit Robinhood, Aragorn, and Drizzt, but that only Drizzt had ever cast spells.  I posted the above quote from The Fellowship of the Ring to show that Rangers had (as in 1e) certain abilities of Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, ESP, and Telepathy, as well as the ability to speak with birds and beasts.

Exactly what is that supposed to prove?  That the 1e Ranger fit the Aragorn model upon which it was modeled.  The ability to speak with birds and beasts certainly fits in with _Speak with Animals_.  There is a basis for it, and not just with Drizzt.



> *Just because the Bree-folk thought them magical doesn't mean they were.*




It certainly doesn't mean that they weren't!

*



			In fact, after the main characters hang around with Aragorn long enough to make him a main character as well, we find out very clearly that he does not have "Strange powers of sight and hearing" nor does he "understand the languages of beasts and birds."
		
Click to expand...


*
We must not be reading the same books...  Aragorn has some pretty amazing powers of perception, even to the point of reading thoughts, it seems at times (this isn't really so amazing since Tolkien's Elves were often able to do this, as well).

I can post you a bunch of quotes, if you like, but frankly I don't think you'll be convinced, because I don't believe that you *want* to be... right?  In that case, there's no use getting annoyed with those of us who believe Rangers should have spells (or in arguing with me about it).

In any case, here are a few choice quotes for you:

"Frodo found that Strider was now looking at him, as if he had heard or guessed all that had been said."  FotR:186.

"'No more than you can afford,' answered Strider with a slow smile, as if he guessed Frodo's thoughts."  FotR:194.

"'Ponies would not help us to escape horsemen,' he said at last, thoughtfully, as if he had guessed what Frodo had in mind."  FotR:210.

*



			And even if he did, they wouldn't be spells.
		
Click to expand...


*
In Tolkien terms, or 3e terms, or what?  Tolkien rarely (if ever) uses the word.  In fact, when Sam asks the Elves of Lothlorien if their ropes are "magic", they don't know what that means, but tell him that it is, indeed, Elvish.  If Rangers can see the Unseen, and speak with birds and beasts, then that is, indeed, a Preternatural (transcending the normal course of nature) or Supernatural (of an order of existance outside the natural world, attributed to divine power) ability...  And Speaking to Animals is not only possible, in Middle-earth, but also a spell in 1, 2, and 3e.

"'Where did you learn such tales, if all the land is empty and forgetful?' asked Peregrin.  'The birds and beasts do not tell tales of that sort.'"  FotR:236.

Tolkien doesn't say "Then Aragorn cast a spell", no...  But what is he doing, here?

"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue.  Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch.  From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant."  FotR:233.

And, seeing how Tolkien _doesn't_ bother to tell us when someone is using magic, how do we know that Aragorn did _not_ use _Locate Animals or Plants_ to find the _Athelas_ by scent, in the dark, near Weather-top?

"'These leaves,' he said, 'I have walked far to find; for this plant does not grow in the bare hills; but in the thickets away south of the Road I found it in the dark by the scent of the leaves."  FotR:233.

*



			I'm sorry, but that just seems one of the more pointless posts in this thread (which already has a few.  This one included.)
		
Click to expand...


*
Some people think Rangers deserve spells, others don't.  There are two ways to fix it: Either make them optional, or create two different Rangerish classes.  I fixed this in my own Alternate Ranger Version by allowing Rangers to trade away spells, if they wished.

Since the Ranger is an inferior Scout, Skirmisher, and Spy compared to the Rogue, however, and has fewer skill points to boot, I can't see taking them away, too.  As always, YMMV.

[Edit: Format fix.]


----------



## Steverooo (Apr 29, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *I empathize with your frustration. I don't like magic being an integral part of the ranger's portfolio either*




A mundane (spell-less) Ranger could certainly be made, but it would be a lot more work (which is why it will probably never be done)...  Look at the Ranger's spell list, see what it lets him do, then create an ability (with rules that let them do the same things).

Alarm?  Tripwires and alarms.
Snare?  Trap set/disarm.
Pass Without Trace?  Track-hiding.



> *Multi-classing as a druid would allow anyone who wanted the nature spells to have them.*




Along with the Druid's alignment, weapon, and armor restrictions.  This is not an acceptable solution, for many (if not most).


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Apr 29, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> * Though sometimes I think he could make a deaf, dumb, and naked pure Bard a killing powerhouse.  *




How'd he get the rules for my Naked Bard Prestige Class?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 29, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *The bottom line is, for your position to have any real weight, you're going to have to justify how a ranger can have access to the same Hit Die as the fighter, 4 more skill points per level, and  combat styles that imitate Fighter bonus feats, and not be a patently superior class to the fighter *




This can be balanced in the same way that a wizard and sorcerer are balanced Sorcerers and wizards cast the same type of spells.  The Sorcerer gets more of them a day.  How is he not superior to the wizard?  By having restricted choice.  Having access to a restricted list of things is not superior to having a wide list of possibilities.  

If the fighter has a wide choice of bonus feats (and gets more of them), that makes it a more powerful class, overall, than a ranger who has a pair of paths to choose between that cannot be varied.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 29, 2003)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, Josh, but I'm unclear on what you're angry/upset/irritated (or whatever) by, whether it's me, Rangers having spells, or what...  In any case, I'll assume those questions weren't rhetorical...*



None of the above, I just have a personal pet peeve of presenting evidence that doesn't actually prove your point, and then claiming that it does.  
*



			Well, if you want to believe that Rangers shouldn't have spells, this will go nowhere, and you can save time and skip to the next paragraph...  For the rest of us 1Ers, it is obvious that Tolkien's Rangers were the basis for 1e's.  Lela had previously posted that the Ranger Archetype was supposed to fit Robinhood, Aragorn, and Drizzt, but that only Drizzt had ever cast spells.  I posted the above quote from The Fellowship of the Ring to show that Rangers had (as in 1e) certain abilities of Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, ESP, and Telepathy, as well as the ability to speak with birds and beasts.
		
Click to expand...


*Uhh, I'm a former 1er too.  Tolkien's rangers do seem to be the basis for the ranger class, but that doesn't mean that the translation from Tolkien to D&D was a good one.  Your quote most certainly _*does not*_ show that rangers have Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, ESP or Telepahty or the ability to speak with birds and beasts.  If you want to find quotes, find some where Aragorn (or even better yet, a ranger other than Aragorn, since Aragorn, as the heir of Elendil and one of the stars of the books, was unique) actually uses some of those abilities you list.  Instead, what you give me is what the superstitious Bree-folk (who are shown to be just about as clueless as the Shirefolk in terms of the real world) believe about the rangers and a bunch of quotes that show that Aragorn was intelligent, observant, wise and had quite a bit of experience with human nature.  Somehow I don't see how that does anything at all towards making him a spellcaster.
*



			We must not be reading the same books...  Aragorn has some pretty amazing powers of perception, even to the point of reading thoughts, it seems at times (this isn't really so amazing since Tolkien's Elves were often able to do this, as well).
		
Click to expand...


*As I said before ... high levels in spot, search, listen and animal empathy.  Maybe in Sense Motive too, although maybe he just has a very high wisdom score.  His powers aren't really _that_ amazing... Frodo shows equally amazing powers of fortitude, but nobody suggests giving him buffing spells, for instance.*



			I can post you a bunch of quotes, if you like, but frankly I don't think you'll be convinced, because I don't believe that you want to be... right?  In that case, there's no use getting annoyed with those of us who believe Rangers should have spells (or in arguing with me about it).
		
Click to expand...


*I'm not annoyed with you wanting to have a ranger class with spells, but don't decieve yourself into thinking that you've presented anything at all like convincing evidence that Aragorn ever cast anything like a spell, or did anything else overtly supernatural at all.  Clearly, throughout the books, he did not.
*



			In Tolkien terms, or 3e terms, or what?  Tolkien rarely (if ever) uses the word.  In fact, when Sam asks the Elves of Lothlorien if their ropes are "magic", they don't know what that means, but tell him that it is, indeed, Elvish.  If Rangers can see the Unseen, and speak with birds and beasts, then that is, indeed, a Preternatural (transcending the normal course of nature) or Supernatural (of an order of existance outside the natural world, attributed to divine power) ability...  And Speaking to Animals is not only possible, in Middle-earth, but also a spell in 1, 2, and 3e.
		
Click to expand...


*Aragorn never speaks to animals.  And I'm talking strictly about Tolkien, not D&D.  The D&D ranger is (and always has been) a very poor reflection of Aragorn, even though that's clearly what it tried to be.  Rangers also don't see the unseen.  They are neither preternatural nor supernatural in Tolkien, they merely have a lot of experience with living in the wilds.  Aragorn, after all, is over 150 years old when we first see him, and has spent most of his life in what you or I would call _extremely intensive_ training.  If that could be captured in D&D terms, it would merely mean that he was high level, not that he was casting spells or utilizing supernatural abilities.
*



			"He sat down on the ground, and taking the dagger-hilt laid it on his knees, and he sang over it a slow song in a strange tongue.  Then setting it aside, he turned to Frodo and in a soft tone spoke words the others could not catch.  From the pouch at his belt he drew out the long leaves of a plant."  FotR:233.
		
Click to expand...


*Not casting a spell.  Aragorn himself said repeatedly that it was the plant itself, and it's inherent virtue, that does the trick with helping Frodo until he can be taken to Rivendell and given true, probably supernatural, healing at the hand of Elrond himself.
*



			And, seeing how Tolkien doesn't bother to tell us when someone is using magic, how do we know that Aragorn did not use Locate Animals or Plants to find the Athelas by scent, in the dark, near Weather-top?
		
Click to expand...


*What do you mean Tolkien doesn't bother telling us when someone is using magic?  He clearly does so whenever Gandalf, Saruman or Galadriel is using "magic."  He doesn't bother to tell us Aragorn is ever using magic -- to me that is much more indicative of the fact that he is not, not that Tolkien is just dodgy about it.

What I think I see is, that despite the fact that you are trying to paint me as someone who won't look at evidence right in front of my face that clearly points to the ranger using spells, that's quite clearly not going on.

I don't believe Aragorn is a good ranger archetype to begin with, so I don't care if the D&D class represents him well or not (your "motive" for my "unreasonableness.")  However, I don't believe that the ranger class makes a good Aragorn.  The "evidence" you've been able to come up with certainly does not prove that Aragorn used any spells, and it doesn't even suggest strongly that it does.  Rather than accusing me of bias, you should have a look around.  Those quotes don't suggest spell use to anyone except one who goes into looking for spell use.  Even then, the best they can provide is vague hints that, IMO at least, can be better interpreted otherwise.


----------



## Felon (Apr 29, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *This can be balanced in the same way that a wizard and sorcerer are balanced Sorcerers and wizards cast the same type of spells.  The Sorcerer gets more of them a day.  How is he not superior to the wizard?  By having restricted choice.  Having access to a restricted list of things is not superior to having a wide list of possibilities.*




This looks like a flawed analogy. The vast array of spells that a wizard will have access to lends him a tremendous amount of utility. This cannot be compared to a fighter selecting one feat at first level, and one additional feat every even level afterward. Even were a ranger to acquire his virtual feats at a slightly slower rate than the fighter, it would not equate to the stark contrast that will quickly develop betwen a wizard's spell repertoire and that of a sorceror's. Allso, note the wizard is not merely compensated by an "expanded catalog", but also by gaining a free Scribe Scroll feat at first level and another bonus feat every 5 levels.



> *If the fighter has a wide choice of bonus feats (and gets more of them), that makes it a more powerful class, overall, than a ranger who has a pair of paths to choose between that cannot be varied. *




It's likely the ranger will have access to his virtual feats at the same level that any character could be able to meet the BAB prerequisites of the actual feats. Assuming that turns out to be the case, then if a player wished to pursue the route of two-weapon fighter or archer, how would the fighter continue to be the superior choice despite all of the other ranger class features? If the answer is that it wouldn't be, and that the Fighter would simply get the "leftover" players who simply chose not to pursue those paths, that does not seem acceptable. The Fighter should be the best choice for pure fighting ability (other characters get to have special class features, more skill points, better saves, etc).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 29, 2003)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A mundane (spell-less) Ranger could certainly be made, but it would be a lot more work (which is why it will probably never be done)...  *




I guess that the closest that WotC have done to this so far has been the Woodsman class, in Wheel of Time d20.

It's a nice little class, and could be used quite well for a spell-less ranger.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 29, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's likely the ranger will have access to his virtual feats at the same level that any character could be able to meet the BAB prerequisites of the actual feats. Assuming that turns out to be the case, *




Have we not heard that the virtual weapon paths start at 2nd level for the 3.5e ranger (thus avoiding the "everything at 1st level" problem) - and since TWF is certain to be available to Fighters at 1st level...

If a 3.5e ranger (guess) picked up improved twf at 9th level, you can't say that is better than a fighter picking it up at 9th level since the fighter will have had an additional four combat feats even after picking up twf at 1st.

Thus for someone wanting to specialist in twf, I predict that being a fighter (and adding, say, expertise & improved disarm & weapon focus & weapon specialisation to improved twf) might be more appealing than being a ranger who at that level might have twf, imptwf and no other particular combat feats  - but lots of other useful and interesting rangery things.

Cheers


----------



## Felon (Apr 29, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *Have we not heard that the virtual weapon paths start at 2nd level for the 3.5e ranger (thus avoiding the "everything at 1st level" problem) - and since TWF is certain to be available to Fighters at 1st level...*




Point conceded.



> *If a 3.5e ranger (guess) picked up improved twf at 9th level, you can't say that is better than a fighter picking it up at 9th level since the fighter will have had an additional four combat feats even after picking up twf at 1st.*




I recall reading that the ranger's "manyshot" combat path kicked in around 5th or 6th level, and I can only assume the 2-weapon path kicks at that point as well (Two-Weapon Defense maybe?). We'll have to see what else the ranger's getting along the way. We know it'll be a mix of favored enemy, spellcasting, and wilderness-related bonuses, all of which might make for a bigger, badder combatant than a fighter can offer. And in case it's a close finish, there's the triple-the-skill-points-per-level to tip the scales decisively. I'm still thinking the d8 hit die only makes good sense, from a game balance perspective.



> *Thus for someone wanting to specialist in twf, I predict that being a fighter (and adding, say, expertise & improved disarm & weapon focus & weapon specialisation to improved twf) might be more appealing than being a ranger who at that level might have twf, imptwf and no other particular combat feats  - but lots of other useful and interesting rangery things.*




Here's hoping!


----------



## Umbran (Apr 29, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Even were a ranger to acquire his virtual feats at a slightly slower rate than the fighter, it would not equate to the stark contrast that will quickly develop betwen a wizard's spell repertoire and that of a sorceror's. *




Hm.  Lightly armored man with two weapons or with a bow.  A man with no armor restriction with a greatsword, or with a bow, or two weapons, or with a spiked chain, or with any other weapon in the game, on foot or on horseback, or doing whatever else he thinks useful....

Seems a pretty stark contrast to me.

The rogue is freqently lauded as a highly desireable class because of it's wide array of available skills.  But even with his higher skill points, rogue doesn't get enough to fully utilize the list.  

Choice is power.  With choice (even choice spread over time), one can adapt.  The ranger will apparently be stuck with bow, or twf.  That's all he'll do.  A fighter has access to anything and everything available in combat style.  By high level, he's got enough feats to be more than a one-tirck pony in combat, and he can choose his tricks to meet the circumstances he's found in the campaign.  That, again, is a stark contrast.     



> *Assuming that turns out to be the case, then if a player wished to pursue the route of two-weapon fighter or archer, how would the fighter continue to be the superior choice despite all of the other ranger class features? *




It appears that the ranger will still be restricted to light armor.  No heavy armor, and a smaller hit die.  Doesn't sound like a flat out superior choice to me.



> *If the answer is that it wouldn't be, and that the Fighter would simply get the "leftover" players who simply chose not to pursue those paths, that does not seem acceptable. The Fighter should be the best choice for pure fighting ability *




For pure unadulterated fighting ability, the fighter still wins, even if the ranger has a d10 hit die.  Why?  Because the fighter, being what he is, can focus his stats, skills, and feats upon raw fighting capability.  The ranger wears more hats - warrior, scout, and spellcaster - and thus needs to spread his focus about.  Rather similar to multiclassing - the ranger necessarily gives up raw power in fighting to be able to do a few more things.


----------



## Felon (Apr 29, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *Choice is power.  With choice (even choice spread over time), one can adapt.  The ranger will apparently be stuck with bow, or twf.  That's all he'll do.  A fighter has access to anything and everything available in combat style.*




I don't agree. It's not the same thing as having access to a variety of different magics. Divination, evocation, transmutation...they all offer pretty dramatically different capabilities. 

Versatility in using weapons doesn't amount to that much. Being a master of the waraxe doesn't avail you much over being a master of the bastard sword. 




> *It appears that the ranger will still be restricted to light armor.  No heavy armor, and a smaller hit die.  Doesn't sound like a flat out superior choice to me.*




Well, you may have missed it during the series of posts with Mjolnir and Mercule, but the point I had been making was that the d8 Hit Die is what ensures the fighter stays the superior choice. 

As for the light armor, I don't see that as a major factor unless armor receives a tweaking. Most of the fighters in the campaigns I play in pass on heavy armor. They think the various penalties outweigh the benefit to AC (definitely not if they have a Dex 14 or better). I tend to agree.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 29, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *Going along with the LotR theme that's come up, look to Legolos (in the movie at least) for an example of both styles of fighting working wonderfully together.
> 
> And just think, with Combat Paths you can now do both easily.  Just use your regular feats for TWF and the chosen Path as Archery (or vice versa).  Edit: Just realized this could take away from the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack thing.  But I guess we can't all be Legolos.  *




C'mon, Legolas is a Fighter, not a Ranger.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 29, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Versatility in using weapons doesn't amount to that much. Being a master of the waraxe doesn't avail you much over being a master of the bastard sword. *




If it didn't matter, why didn't they just have 3 melee weapons - simple, martial, and exotic, and nothing else?

Plus, we aren't comparing waraxe to bastard sword.  We're comparing a bow or TWF to every other choice (sword and shield, two-handed weapon, and various more offbeat alternatives)



> *Well, you may have missed it during the series of posts with Mjolnir and Mercule, but the point I had been making was that the d8 Hit Die is what ensures the fighter stays the superior choice. *




The d8 does help ensure that, yes.  On this we agree.  I'd say the fighter would still have the edge without it, but that's a side issue.



> *As for the light armor, I don't see that as a major factor unless armor receives a tweaking. Most of the fighters in the campaigns I play in pass on heavy armor. They think the various penalties outweigh the benefit to AC (definitely not if they have a Dex 14 or better). I tend to agree. *




You cannot blame the designers for a part of the balance the players simply choose to ignore 

Let's put things on an even keel, and think of point-buy.  One ranger, one fighter, same number of points.

If the fighter is willing, he can put high stats in Strength and Con, and the rest are basically gravy.  The ranger needs high Strength and Con, for the same reason the fighter does.  He also needs dex - for skills, making up for light armor, and possibly archery.  He also needs wisdom  - for spellcasting and a number of vital skills.

End result, if Fighter is willing to take full advantage of his class abilities, he will be better at fighting, hands down.  The fighter can afford to have a couple of very high stats, and to heck with the rest.  The ranger cannot, unless he wants to sacrifice class abilities.

In the broad sense, this still holds with a fair dice-character generation system, and players approaching character generation with effectiveness in mind.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 29, 2003)

Legolas could use Track almost, but not quite, as well as Aragorn, when they were tracking Pippin and Merry in Fangorn Forest. Check it out.


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 29, 2003)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Legolas could use Track almost, but not quite, as well as Aragorn, when they were tracking Pippin and Merry in Fangorn Forest. Check it out. *




It has admittedly been a few years since I read LotR, but I don't remember Legolas being able to track at all.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Apr 29, 2003)

I say it's a good move.  The Ranger never should have been as tough as the fighter or barbarian in the first place.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 29, 2003)

I just read it, and he certainly does.

Aragorn asked Legolas what happened at this scene, and Legolas could tell, by the signs, what happened. Then Aragorn filled in the details that Legolas had missed.

I wish I had my books with me right now, but I just moved house, they're in a box, and I don't even have a phone line. (I'm at school right now.  )


----------



## krunchyfrogg (Apr 30, 2003)

Alright then.  Legolas is either a lower level Ranger than Aragorn, or he's a multiclassed Ranger/Fighter.

I'd think that he's more of a Ranger/Fighter, since he is _at least_ as good at fighting as Aragorn.


----------



## Lela (Apr 30, 2003)

krunchyfrogg said:
			
		

> *Alright then.  Legolas is either a lower level Ranger than Aragorn, or he's a multiclassed Ranger/Fighter.
> 
> I'd think that he's more of a Ranger/Fighter, since he is at least as good at fighting as Aragorn. *




And he has both feet chains.


----------



## The_Gneech (May 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *
> 
> IME, the monk, ranger, and bard catch nigh equivalent heat.  That's dropping the average down below 75%.
> 
> ...




This is actually an important point re: rangers and spellcasting. _D&D_ rangers cast spells because this is _D&D_, and *everybody and their friggin' brother* cast spells, even the people who don't! Rogues can "fool" magic items into thinking they have magic ability (huh?), no fighter worth his salt goes into major battles unless he's all hopped up on buffing potions, and so forth. Even the barbarian is pretty much hosed without magic -- which I suspect is why they dropped the whole "barbarians can't use magic items" bit between editions.

_D&D_ is not a good venue for doing either Aragorn or Robin Hood, because both of those characters lived in very different world from ForgottenRealmsHawk. For that matter, it's not a good venue for doing Conan or Lancelot, either. The only thing it's good for off the shelf, is doing _D&D_, right down to the Disneyland ecology.

I forget the exact line, but there's an interesting psychological point from the _Dragon_ magazine submission guidelines. Paraphrased, it says, "Please don't send us alternate low-magic systems, because _D&D_ is a game about magic. The last thing in the world we want, is to have *less* of it!"

In that kind of a milieu, rangers without spells have been effectively kneecapped, unless you give them something mighty nice to compensate.

   -The Gneech


----------



## Jack Daniel (May 1, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> *I say it's a good move.  The Ranger never should have been as tough as the fighter or barbarian in the first place. *




Oh yes he should have.  Tell me, why do you think the barbarian gets the d12 hit die?  And why the paladin gets d10?  Then ask yourself how the ranger compares to these two classes and get back to me.


----------



## Skaros (May 1, 2003)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Oh yes he should have.  Tell me, why do you think the barbarian gets the d12 hit die?  And why the paladin gets d10?  Then ask yourself how the ranger compares to these two classes and get back to me. *




It compares well, even with d8.  The larger amount of skill points they'll get, and their fantastic skill list assures that they will compensate for less brute hardiness with more woodsman-oriented skill.

Sounds almost like, I dunno, a ranger's way of surviving the wilds to me...rather than just being tough enough to "take it".

Skaros


----------



## Jack Daniel (May 1, 2003)

That's cute.  I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow."  Isn't the barbarian also smart enough to survive the wilds?


----------



## Lela (May 1, 2003)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *That's cute.  I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow."  Isn't the barbarian also smart enough to survive the wilds? *




That's cute, a munchkin who loves combat.  I mean, the idea that only those who can take a hit can survive in a hostle environment.  Rogues and Fighers man.  Two completely different groups and both do well in in a city environment.  Just in different ways.

Why is it so hard to think of Rangers and Barbarians the same way?


----------



## Felon (May 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If it didn't matter, why didn't they just have 3 melee weapons - simple, martial, and exotic, and nothing else?




Because common wisdom holds that grouping weapons into a few homogenous stat blocks would be flavorless and unappealing to many players (note, however, that some other systems like WarHammer FRPG do exactly that). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are not enough distinctions in D&D weaponry that choosing one for your warrior doesn't merit consideration. I'm saying that choosing between a longspear and a rapier isn't as dramatic as a sorcerer having to choose between _ dimension door_ and _polymorph_ and _stoneskin_.



> Plus, we aren't comparing waraxe to bastard sword.  We're comparing a bow or TWF to every other choice (sword and shield, two-handed weapon, and various more offbeat alternatives)




With fighting styles it's largely an either/or situations. Either you fight with your two weapons, or you fight with the big 2-hander; the warior makes a choice and from round-to-round sticks with it. Characters may occasionally try switching weapons on the fly (like going from ranged to melee), but in most fights they will depend on one style. They certainly don't rifle their golfbag o'weapons as offten as a wizard sorts through his grimoire. 



> You cannot blame the designers for a part of the balance the players simply choose to ignore




I always say "don't blame the players" for taking advantage of what the designers' let them get away with". Two different player perspectives heh.


----------



## Felon (May 1, 2003)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *That's cute.  I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow."*




How are they not toughened? A d8 is tough, just not the tough*est*.

A character who has the wherewithal to scout and avoid dangerous situations is a survivor in a different way than a character who charges every foe head on.


----------



## Umbran (May 1, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *With fighting styles it's largely an either/or situations. Either you fight with your two weapons, or you fight with the big 2-hander; the warior makes a choice and from round-to-round sticks with it. Characters may occasionally try switching weapons on the fly (like going from ranged to melee), but in most fights they will depend on one style. They certainly don't rifle their golfbag o'weapons as offten as a wizard sorts through his grimoire. *




With 3.5e DR rules, the golfbag o'weapons may well become more common 

But really, don't confuse how frequently a character makes a decision with the power inherent in that decision.  A spellcaster typically changes what spell he uses each round because he _has to_.  He only has so many of a particular spell prepared.  Even if he finds one that works well, firing it off repeatedly is usually not an option.

Also, consider this:  Wizards have one sort of power - a very large range of possible spells to cast.  Sorcerers have a restricted spell list.  They have fewer choices.  As a balance of power, they are given more spells per day.  A spellcaster with a sorcerer's spell choice and a wizard's spells per day would be severely underpowerd.  Hence, bredth of choice is one power, ability to repeat is another.

You think the ability to choose the right weapon for the right scenario isn't powerful?  Tell me that the next time you have a warrior come up against a critter immune to slashing weapons, and all you've got is a greataxe.  Or a critter with high DR you can't bypass, and your weapons are shorswords.  Being able to pick the right tool and style of the job is key for a warrior type. 



> *
> I always say "don't blame the players" for taking advantage of what the designers' let them get away with". Two different player perspectives heh. *




Yep, a simple case of the sword cutting both ways.


----------



## Felon (May 1, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> *You think the ability to choose the right weapon for the right scenario isn't powerful?  Tell me that the next time you have a warrior come up against a critter immune to slashing weapons, and all you've got is a greataxe.  *




Arrrrrgh! 

Dang it, Umby, I specifically made a point of saying that I *didn't* think that!


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 1, 2003)

Does anyone even care about the fact that the difference between d8 and d10 hit dice is just 1 per level, and 2 for the first level? Or roughly 21 points at level 20 - easily compensated by a constitution raised by 2, or an endurance.

I don't know about your games, but in my game such differences don't matter much.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 1, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Does anyone even care about the fact that the difference between d8 and d10 hit dice is just 1 per level, and 2 for the first level? Or roughly 21 points at level 20 - easily compensated by a constitution raised by 2, or an endurance. *




SHHH!  You'll confuse the powergamers!


----------



## Felon (May 2, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Does anyone even care about the fact that the difference between d8 and d10 hit dice is just 1 per level, and 2 for the first level? Or roughly 21 points at level 20 - easily compensated by a constitution raised by 2, or an endurance.*




Yep, and that's not taking into account actually rolling the damn dice.  A large hit die type is hardly a guarantee of high HP. Whether it's a d4 or d12, a 1 is a 1. I've run with clerics that had more HP than my fighter, just from sucking up a couple of rolls.

...now, 4 more skill points a level--that's a constant value!


----------



## Umbran (May 2, 2003)

Felon said:
			
		

> *Dang it, Umby, I specifically made a point of saying that I didn't think that!  *




Sorry.  I guess I read the word "dramatic" in a different sense than you intended.


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2003)

Fenes 2 said:
			
		

> *Does anyone even care about the fact that the difference between d8 and d10 hit dice is just 1 per level, and 2 for the first level? Or roughly 21 points at level 20 - easily compensated by a constitution raised by 2, or an endurance.*




Exactly.  Which is why I'm a bit befuddled at why the d8 crowd is so adamant that the HD needs to be lowered for game balance.

I want the d10 for flavor because the idea that a Ranger isn't as hardy as a Fighter or, at the least, a Paladin is so absurd, IMHO, that I fail to see how one could come to that conclusion unaided by illegal substances.  Of course, I don't understand the people who are comparing the Ranger to the Rogue, either.  The Ranger is to the Rogue what the Paladin is to the Bard.


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *SHHH!  You'll confuse the powergamers! *




Exactly.  I mean all those poor people looking at the numbers and deciding that a d8 is the only way to keep people in line.

Really, people who've gamed with me would be more inclined to believe that the moon is made of green cheese than I'm a powergamer.


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2003)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> *D&D is not a good venue for doing either Aragorn or Robin Hood, because both of those characters lived in very different world from ForgottenRealmsHawk. For that matter, it's not a good venue for doing Conan or Lancelot, either. The only thing it's good for off the shelf, is doing D&D, right down to the Disneyland ecology.
> 
> I forget the exact line, but there's an interesting psychological point from the Dragon magazine submission guidelines. Paraphrased, it says, "Please don't send us alternate low-magic systems, because D&D is a game about magic. The last thing in the world we want, is to have less of it!"*




Based on that statement, maybe D&D is the wrong game for me.  The last thing I want is to play in the Forgotten Realms (not playing is better than playing in the Realms).

I FRPG because I want to create stories like the legends and novels.  I _want_ to play Aragorn, Robin Hood, Lancelot, Jon Stark, Conan, Beowulf, etc.  I don't want anything to do with Drizz'l, Elmustard, or any of the others.


----------



## Lela (May 2, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> IMHO, that I fail to see how one could come to that conclusion unaided by illegal substances.*




While I think the d8 is fine, I would like to point out the power of snorting crushed Smarties. . .


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *While I think the d8 is fine, I would like to point out the power of snorting crushed Smarties. . . *




You know, you are the second person I've run into (in a manner of speaking) who espoused that idea.  The other fellow liked to do it right before a gaming session.

Also, I'm not really accusing anyone of doping up.  I was just trying to state how far outside of my thinking the d8 HD for Rangers is.  It rather illustrates that we aren't talking about the same creature.

In truth, I know that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about the issue, and I reconciled myself to the idea of not using the published Ranger shortly after 2E came out, and again when 3E came out.  I'll continue to do so after 3.5 comes out.  Of course, I also think that it's worth making a bit of noise that the new Ranger is even further away from what my vision of it is than any previous "official" version.


----------



## Lela (May 2, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> In truth, I know that I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about the issue, and I reconciled myself to the idea of not using the published Ranger shortly after 2E came out, and again when 3E came out.  I'll continue to do so after 3.5 comes out.  Of course, I also think that it's worth making a bit of noise that the new Ranger is even further away from what my vision of it is than any previous "official" version. *




Yes, I see.  I think of a Robyn Hood or Legolos when I think of a Ranger.  Not guys who can take a hit but they can manage to avoid one.  Through scouting and quick action, my version of the Ranger doesn't need to be able to take blows.

Could you help me with your version?


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, I see.  I think of a Robyn Hood or Legolos when I think of a Ranger.  Not guys who can take a hit but they can manage to avoid one.  Through scouting and quick action, my version of the Ranger doesn't need to be able to take blows.
> 
> Could you help me with your version? *




I think more Aragorn, Davy Crocket, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Perrin Aybara (from WoT), Hawkeye etc.  I actually think of Legolas as more of a Fighter than a Ranger (probably multiclass) -- he had some woodsy ability, but he was more an expert archer.  There are enough versions of Robin Hood to go around, but I guess I usually see him as a Rogue with Wilderness Lore, not a Ranger.

These are all guys that can probably take a hit, naked, just as well as any knight or merc (Fighter) could, maybe even slightly better.  Sure, a knight in armor can take a sword hit better, but that's got nothing to do with what's beneath the armor.  Fighters use armor to soak damage or techniques (feats) to avoid it, while Rangers use hit-and-run tactics or ambush to make up for their lighter armor.

Basically, I think that, given equal equipment (barring heavy armor), a Ranger should be able to stand up to a Fighter as well as a Paladin could.  When people talk about the Fighter being tougher than the Ranger, they always compare the tanks to Legolas.  Try comparing Zorro (a Fighter) to Aragorn or Hawkeye.  Now, who can withstand more damage and keep moving?  Better yet, pull off Arthur's armor and see how he stands up to Aragorn.

That's the critical point.  If you are comparing armored Fighters to unarmored Rangers, then it's apples and oranges.  It's the same as comparing a two-handed sword to an unarmed strike (non-monk).

I actually like the idea of giving the Rogue Wilderness Lore.  It might better fit the niche that the d8 Ranger is heading toward.  Rather than add it as a standard class skill, the Cosmopolitan feat (ironic as that is) is an excellent feat to pick to make the psuedo-combatant Ranger out of the Rogue.


----------



## Steverooo (May 2, 2003)

*D8 Rangers*

Actually, I'd supprt going back to the D8 Ranger... if they did it the way I did in my Alt. version...  I gave'm 2D8 at first level (just like they did in 1e), and then additional D8s every so many levels (whenever the average HPs dropped below those of the Fighter).

It seems odd, to me, lowering the Rangers' hit dice...  The Ranger is too weak...  The Class Calculater says it's the worst PHB class, and most 3Ers agree...  So they give him "Wild Empathy", a choice between two combat paths (that many don't want), and then LOWER his hit dice???   

One point most seem to miss is that the Ranger is ALREADY weaker than the fighter in combat!  IF he takes Move Silently and Hide, and IF he uses them to attack by surprise, he is just as good with a bow.  If he goes toe-to-toe with TWF, however, his BAB is lowered by -2/-2.  Furthermore, his damage is lowered by the off-hand STR bonus rule!  If he uses a one-handed weapon and shield, he is better off, and about even with a similarly-equipped Fighter.


----------



## Winterthorn (May 2, 2003)

I've been reading through a good part of this thread, and what strikes me the most is how this class seems to proke so much debate about what a ranger is supposed to be. Some would like it to be an updated version of the 1E ranger, others wish it to evolve into its own, and a few like it as is (3E)...

There is an absence of unity... We all seem to accept what a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard should be. We all seem to have a good idea about what to expect from the musical Bard--even if the 3E execution was a little "flat" , and the Druid, Barbarian, Monk and Paladin seem to fit to most expectations as well...

Sorcerer? Well we're all still "scratching our heads" over this one just because it's relatively new and it has "thrown a few curves" in the game... Some like it, some don't, I'm rather neutral about it...

But the Ranger, do we really know what we want for this class? I think the Ranger inspires something in many ppl perhaps because the concept touches upon some primal yearning in our modern culture--does that make sense? Are we arguing about the definition of the Ranger because there's some instrinsic romantic ideal inspired by a "wilderness warrior" that no one can agree upon? Or is the debate more a consequence of the checkered history behind this class' mechanics since the early days of TSR? (I read Plane Sailing's history post--very enlightening I must say!  )

Why are we fussing so much? 

My response to the d8 HD for Rangers: I always felt that the Ranger should be instrinsically better at ranged sniping than the fighter--particularly with bows--while the fighter should be better than the Ranger in melee. A sniper in woodland cover doesn't really need a d10 for HD IMO. If the 3.5 Ranger keeps his good BAB, drops the virtual feats for a few real ones, has good wilderness skills, then I think things will start to come together... I could do without spells, especially those spells that alter the physical qualities of plants and animals--that should remain the exclusive privilege of Druids, Nature Clerics, Shamans, and the occasional arcane caster. Since this is D&D, I guess the spells will stay--I hope they are changed to make more sense--but that's just me. 

I guess when I think of Ranger, I think of Robin Hood's men more than any other example: good with staves, bows, and light swordsmanship, with goodwill and wily outdoor skills and tricks...

I think I'd rather the 3.5 Ranger be rebuilt from the ground up rather than just tweaked--I think more ppl will be happy with a complete overhaul than half-measures and tweaks...

I'm not going to worry too much--if I don't like what WotC's done, I'll make corrections as I do for many things to suit my tastes as a DM. But I certainly empathize with the "feel" ppl are searching for, albeit tough for everyone to agree! 

-W.

PS: Why there's no Intuit Weather skill in the game, beats me; this would be a good skill for Druids, Witches and Shamans (if you use these supplemental d20 classes), and of course Rangers!


----------



## Piratecat (May 2, 2003)

*Re: D8 Rangers*



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *It seems odd, to me, lowering the Rangers' hit dice...  The Ranger is too weak...  The Class Calculater says it's the worst PHB class, and most 3Ers agree...  So they give him "Wild Empathy", a choice between two combat paths (that many don't want), and then LOWER his hit dice???
> *




Trust me on this one. The ranger gets a lot of cool things that haven't been revealed yet. If he got the higher hit die, he would probably be one of the "must-have" classes, especially at first level. 

Having read it, I'm extremely pleased at how the ranger is now designed. When people see the whole package, I expect that they will be, as well.


----------



## Fenes 2 (May 2, 2003)

Or ban it from their games as overpowered...


----------



## Jack Daniel (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: D8 Rangers*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Trust me on this one. The ranger gets a lot of cool things that haven't been revealed yet. If he got the higher hit die, he would probably be one of the "must-have" classes, especially at first level.
> 
> Having read it, I'm extremely pleased at how the ranger is now designed. When people see the whole package, I expect that they will be, as well. *




Yet another reason that lowering their skill points back to four when I raise the hit die to d10 would be a balanced idea.  From what I can see, they've only frontloaded the ranger worse -- even with a d8, he's replaced the rogue as the "must start in this class," regardless of how good he gets later on.

Six skill points is ridiculous -- it means that rangers will be the only class that doesn't actually have to make a tough descision when choosing where to spend them.  (*looks back* ... aww, how cute, I got called a munchkin by Lela for claiming that d10/4 is a more balanced build than d8/6... to quote a dead and overused catchphrase from another board, "*WHAM!* dig, dig, dig...").


----------



## Skaros (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: D8 Rangers*



			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yet another reason that lowering their skill points back to four when I raise the hit die to d10 would be a balanced idea.  From what I can see, they've only frontloaded the ranger worse -- even with a d8, he's replaced the rogue as the "must start in this class," regardless of how good he gets later on.
> 
> Six skill points is ridiculous -- it means that rangers will be the only class that doesn't actually have to make a tough descision when choosing where to spend them.  (*looks back* ... aww, how cute, I got called a munchkin by Lela for claiming that d10/4 is a more balanced build than d8/6... to quote a dead and overused catchphrase from another board, "*WHAM!* dig, dig, dig..."). *




That's great and all...I'm sure rule 0 will still exist in 3.5, but I still think that a stark contrast between barbarians and rangers isn't a bad thing, and d8 hit points can easily be interpreted to mean that the ranger is tough, but also smart and skilled enough to do a great job of survival without just soaking up harsh environmental effects with huge hit points.

Making rangers hardier (in ability to soak up damage they didn't avoid through skill use) and lowering their skill points per level is certainly a viable change if you want it the other way around though, from what I can see.

On another note, your belittling use of "cute" is fairly annoying, though I'm sure you know that.

Regards,

Skaros


----------



## The_Gneech (May 2, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *Based on that statement, maybe D&D is the wrong game for me.  The last thing I want is to play in the Forgotten Realms (not playing is better than playing in the Realms).
> 
> I FRPG because I want to create stories like the legends and novels.  I _want_ to play Aragorn, Robin Hood, Lancelot, Jon Stark, Conan, Beowulf, etc.  I don't want anything to do with Drizz'l, Elmustard, or any of the others. *




Alas, I'm in the same boat. Such games do exist; some of them are very good indeed ... but you can't find players for them.

Or, if by some stroke of beneficent fortune you *can* find players for them, there are no supplements.

_D&D_ is sorta the Windows of gaming ... everybody plays it, because that's what everybody plays. If FR is the experience you want, that's great news -- if not, you're kinda screwed.

What makes this relevant to the discussion of rangers, is that when you're talking about what the ranger should or shouldn't be, you've got to remember that context. WOTC isn't going to make a ranger class that doesn't fit into the pre-established rules of _D&D_ -- and that means, they're not going to make a magic-less ranger.

   -The Gneech, the only guy in his gaming group even slightly interested in _Conan d20_, siiiiigh


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 2, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think more Aragorn, Davy Crocket, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Perrin Aybara (from WoT), Hawkeye etc.  I actually think of Legolas as more of a Fighter than a Ranger (probably multiclass) -- he had some woodsy ability, but he was more an expert archer.  There are enough versions of Robin Hood to go around, but I guess I usually see him as a Rogue with Wilderness Lore, not a Ranger.
> 
> ...









Great post!  I agree 110%.  I don't know where people came up with the idea of a ranger being a rapier wielding wuss.  Drizzt, maybe?  I bet if you took a poll over wether a ranger was a big tough guy or a skinny, sneaky, archer, the younger people on this board would go with the latter, while us old grognards would choose the former.  

Robin hood was no ranger.  Little John was.  Arragorn was.  Legolas wasn't.  Check out the "13th Warrior" if you want to see rangers in action.


----------



## Piratecat (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: D8 Rangers*



			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yet another reason that lowering their skill points back to four when I raise the hit die to d10 would be a balanced idea.  From what I can see, they've only frontloaded the ranger worse.*




Nope. Definitely less frontloaded.

Personally, I think skill points are a lot more interesting than a higher hit die if you're trying to make a ranger-y character. But hey, to each their own.


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: D8 Rangers*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> Having read it, I'm extremely pleased at how the ranger is now designed. When people see the whole package, I expect that they will be, as well. *




I know you can't tell anyone about it, but, say, what if you just "happened" to have an email addressed to me opened up, and you _accidentally_ typed up some info on the new ranger...

Well, accidents happen, ya know?


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: D8 Rangers*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Trust me on this one. The ranger gets a lot of cool things that haven't been revealed yet. If he got the higher hit die, he would probably be one of the "must-have" classes, especially at first level.
> *




Well, that's somewhat reassuring.

My hope, in that case, is that the 3.5 Ranger has some extraneous ability that I can drop to balance with raising the HD back to d10.  I guess that if the Ranger gets DR like a Barbarian (which I doubt), I could even deal with with d8 -- but I don't see that happening.


----------



## mmadsen (May 2, 2003)

> I bet if you took a poll over wether a ranger was a big tough guy or a skinny, sneaky, archer, the younger people on this board would go with the latter, while us old grognards would choose the former.



Why would you say that?  As an old _grognard_, I would most definitely describe a ranger as lean, weathered, stealthy before I described him as big and tough.


> Robin hood was no ranger.  Little John was.  Arragorn was.  Legolas wasn't.  Check out the "13th Warrior" if you want to see rangers in action.



I would say that Faramir's rangers are my quintessential rangers, and they're quite obviously based on Robin Hood and his merry men; they're woodsmen with bows.


----------



## mmadsen (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: D8 Rangers*



> Six skill points is ridiculous -- it means that rangers will be the only class that doesn't actually have to make a tough descision when choosing where to spend them.



Huh?  I'd expect a Ranger to divvy up skill points between numerous skills: Climb, Hide, Intuit Direction, Jump, Knowledge (Nature), Listen, Move Silently, Search, Spot, Swim, and Wilderness -- to name _some_ of the skills that fit the concept.  If you want a Ranger who can ride well or handle animals, that's extra.

If you subsume Intuit Direction and Knowledge (Nature) into Wilderness Lore (soon to be survival) that eliminates _some_ of the problem, but it still leaves around nine skills you'd want a Ranger to have.


----------



## Winterthorn (May 2, 2003)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *... {snip}
> 
> I would say that Faramir's rangers are my quintessential rangers, and they're quite obviously based on Robin Hood and his merry men; they're woodsmen with bows. *




I agree. I forgot about Faramir's men--excellent example actually! 

I have seen some ppl wishing to play a ranger that wields a greatsword, or some other large/impressive weapon(s), but I never felt it "fit" the idea of a bush warrior/skirmisher/woodsman/guerrilla... Wielding big weapons while skulking in foliage doesn't seem like a wise thing to do either. Also, there's cost: it strikes me that rangers are themselves typically freemen, or of even poorer stock, and it seems that they'd capitalize on inexpensive weaponry like bows, staves and light weapons, and perhaps save their cash for other things relating to survival, and animals: a mount, or a hunting dog, or falconry (if climate, culture and $ allow), etc...

We can't "have our cakes and eat them too": if one wants to be a big bruising melee ranger--why not settle for some multiclassing? How about Barbarian/Ranger or Fighter/Ranger? I think to be amazing in melee, a class cannot have good skills and wilderness talents and spells as well. Something must be sacrificed, or compromised... Multiclass combo's seem like a really good, and fair, solution for those who like melee-strong Rangers... Being a Fighter 4/Ranger 6, for example, is pretty good compared to Ranger 10!  No?

To me, archtypical rangers include: some of Robin Hood's men, Faramir's rangers, many of the elves of Lorien, Menion Leah (Sword of Shannara) IIRC, and perhaps Jon Snow (Clash of Kings, not sure about JS as an example). I see Legolas as an Archer/Ranger, Aragorn as a Fighter/Ranger, and Tarzan and Perrin (WoT) as Barbarian/Rangers...

It goes to show that interpretations and perceptions vary. Let's hope WotC satisfies most of our expectations! 

-W.


----------



## Umbran (May 2, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Robin hood was no ranger.  Little John was.  *




Nah.  Little John was a farmer - a commoner.  At the point he meets Robin, he'd just run away from his home because he'd staved in the skull of one of the Sherrif's men.  Prior to that, he had no particular history in the woods - not a ranger.  Just my $0.02


----------



## Ranger REG (May 2, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> I think more Aragorn, Davy Crocket, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Perrin Aybara (from WoT), Hawkeye etc.  I actually think of Legolas as more of a Fighter than a Ranger (probably multiclass) -- he had some woodsy ability, but he was more an expert archer.  There are enough versions of Robin Hood to go around, but I guess I usually see him as a Rogue with Wilderness Lore, not a Ranger.
> 
> These are all guys that can probably take a hit, naked, just as well as any knight or merc (Fighter) could, maybe even slightly better.  Sure, a knight in armor can take a sword hit better, but that's got nothing to do with what's beneath the armor.  Fighters use armor to soak damage or techniques (feats) to avoid it, while Rangers use hit-and-run tactics or ambush to make up for their lighter armor.
> ...



What you described is an uber combat-oriented class. You might as well drop the fighter out of the ruleset (or worse yet, convert it into an NPC class).

It's better to make them prestige class rather than a core class, by building off of the fighter or barbarian class.

As a ranger fanboy, even this is too much. I'd rather a ranger be more of a survivalist and a guerilla warfare specialist (since you mentioned Navy SEAL) that takes advantage of the terrain (e.g., to provide cover or AC or circumstance bonus to attack due to his intimate knowledge of the lay of the land) to single out his enemy and take them down one by one.

Aragorn is an experienced ranger, even at such a high-level he has enough HP to handle himself in battle, but he also has skills to avoid attacks coming at him. IMHO, he is not the kind of fool to stand there and take hit like an orc front-line shock trooper.

As for Drizzt, get off of the 2e perception that he is fully a ranger. 3e rules made it possible for Drizzt to multiclass. When you translate his origin story from the _Dark Elf Trilogy_ he was a well-accomplished dual-scimitar-wielding fighter in the underdark of Menzoberranzan WAY BEFORE he met up with a blind ranger and decided to take that path.


----------



## Lela (May 3, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Try comparing Zorro (a Fighter) to Aragorn or Hawkeye.  Now, who can withstand more damage and keep moving?  Better yet, pull off Arthur's armor and see how he stands up to Aragorn.
> 
> *




I think of Zorro more as a Rogue/Fighter (and heavy on the Rogue).  But the Arthur/Aragorn comparison does fit.  Though I think Arthur could take a hit better, Aragorn would take him down in under two rounds.

Thanks, your view makes sense to me.  I guess WotC just decided to go more with mine though.  Can't win them all I guess (IMC Multishot is already banned).



			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *
> (*looks back* ... aww, how cute, I got called a munchkin by Lela for claiming that d10/4 is a more balanced build than d8/6... to quote a dead and overused catchphrase from another board, "*WHAM!* dig, dig, dig..."). *




*Double Checks your post*



			
				Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> *That's cute.  I mean, the idea that someone could live in the wilderness, let alone be a warrior living in the wilderness, and not be toughened by it because of "survival knowhow."  Isn't the barbarian also smart enough to survive the wilds? *




Where, exactly, did you say anything of the sort?


----------



## Mercule (May 3, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> What you described is an uber combat-oriented class. You might as well drop the fighter out of the ruleset (or worse yet, convert it into an NPC class).
> *




Huh?  I don't see how you get there from here.  The worst I said was that a Ranger should be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally equipped Paladin.  I fail to see how that qualifies as an uber-combatant.  The Fighter would still be better head-on than the Ranger.



> *
> As a ranger fanboy, even this is too much. I'd rather a ranger be more of a survivalist and a guerilla warfare specialist (since you mentioned Navy SEAL) that takes advantage of the terrain (e.g., to provide cover or AC or circumstance bonus to attack due to his intimate knowledge of the lay of the land) to single out his enemy and take them down one by one.
> *




Which is exactly what I'm advocating.



> *
> Aragorn is an experienced ranger, even at such a high-level he has enough HP to handle himself in battle, but he also has skills to avoid attacks coming at him. IMHO, he is not the kind of fool to stand there and take hit like an orc front-line shock trooper.
> *




Agree on all points.  I never said or meant to imply that a 1st level Ranger should be Aragorn or an experienced Seal.

As you say, though, Aragorn easily had enough HP to do battle.  He was dangerous in normal melee.  If you put him in his element, he was just scary.



> *
> As for Drizzt, get off of the 2e perception that he is fully a ranger. 3e rules made it possible for Drizzt to multiclass. When you translate his origin story from the Dark Elf Trilogy he was a well-accomplished dual-scimitar-wielding fighter in the underdark of Menzoberranzan WAY BEFORE he met up with a blind ranger and decided to take that path. *




Where did I say anything about Drizz't?  Honestly, the fanboys who make every Ranger a Drizz't clone annoy me more than the character himself does.  I only read the first Drizz't novel and don't consider myself enough of an authority to really discuss him fully.


----------



## Felon (May 3, 2003)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *Why would you say that?  As an old grognard, I would most definitely describe a ranger as lean, weathered, stealthy before I described him as big and tough.*




Right, but notice that the person you quoted used the word "skinny". The implication is the same being made by many other people complaining about a d8 hit die. Namely, that a d10 = "big and tough" while d8 = "skinny and frail". They're perceiving it as a much sharper drop in HP than it actually, logistically speaking. Most of them will come around when or if they see the ranger perform well in their parties. Heck, I'm more concerned that they'll be the next class to jump on the munchwagon.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 3, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> Huh?  I don't see how you get there from here.  The worst I said was that a Ranger should be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally equipped Paladin.  I fail to see how that qualifies as an uber-combatant.  The Fighter would still be better head-on than the Ranger.*



As well as he should. The paladin's power only work against evil, and unless the ranger is evil, most of his divine powers are useless. The paladin is going to have the same weapon proficiencies as the ranger (all simple and martial weapons). I'm unsure if the armor proficiency is the same, but at 1st level, you don't have enough money to get the most armor protection.

To be fair, let both be humans. For a ranger, he can start off as a TWF specialist or an Archer for free (if given at 1st level; otherwise stick to TWF of the current ranger class). Paladin does not have a bonus combat feat. That means he must spend his regular feat as well as the bonus feat for being human. The ranger is ahead of him by one.




> *Where did I say anything about Drizz't?  Honestly, the fanboys who make every Ranger a Drizz't clone annoy me more than the character himself does.  I only read the first Drizz't novel and don't consider myself enough of an authority to really discuss him fully. *



I apologize for the presumption. Where _D&D_ is concerned, Drizzt has become well-known iconics for rangers since it is derived from a _D&D_ campaign setting. Unfortunately, the story of Drizzt do not translate/adapt well to that of the 2nd edition ruleset (demihuman races multiclass only at 1st level, not dual-class). 3e relaxes the restriction and bring both human and nonhuman under one multiclassing rule. Now the story character of Drizzt is easier to convert to a game character. [Some magic items that Salvatore used in an innovative fashion however did not.]

So despite that Drizzt is a fighter/barbarian/ranger, we still call him a drow elf ranger, which is what he is now.


----------



## Mercule (May 3, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> As well as he should. The paladin's power only work against evil, and unless the ranger is evil, most of his divine powers are useless. The paladin is going to have the same weapon proficiencies as the ranger (all simple and martial weapons). I'm unsure if the armor proficiency is the same, but at 1st level, you don't have enough money to get the most armor protection.
> 
> To be fair, let both be humans. For a ranger, he can start off as a TWF specialist or an Archer for free (if given at 1st level; otherwise stick to TWF of the current ranger class). Paladin does not have a bonus combat feat. That means he must spend his regular feat as well as the bonus feat for being human. The ranger is ahead of him by one.
> *




I'm not sure what the Ranger not being evil has to do with anything.  Pretty much offset by not having the Paladin be in the woods.

Well, if you're counting proficiencies, then don't forget the heavy armor proficiency that a Paladin gets.  The extra AC makes up for the TWF proficiency that the Ranger gets.  Not likely to be fully equiped at 1st level?  No big -- the Ranger's BAB is high enough to make frequent use of the TWF.

Of course, since I don't think Rangers have any business having TWF as a class ability, the argument is rather lost on me.  Still, my point really is that if you hand the Ranger one longsword and leather armor, and do likewise with the Paladin, the two classes should be equally dangerous in neutral ground (say, an arena).

If you give the Paladin his plate and the Ranger his second weapon, they're probably still evenly matched, just different.  Since I advocate taking away the TWF along with maintaining the d10 HD, my Ranger would still be a weaker combatant than the Paladin.  Based on that, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that my concepts would make some sort of out-of-balance munch monster.

Truth be told, you'd probably have to add an ability or two to balance him out.



> *
> I apologize for the presumption. *




No big.


----------



## Steverooo (May 3, 2003)

*And again I say...*

3.5e Ranger "Weapon Paths" BEGIN at second level.  Hence, it doesn't apply.  We'll use the 3e Ranger.

Same weapons and equipment?  The Ranger won't be using TWF, then (because the Paladin certainly won't be)!

Same armor, sword, and shield?  Current Ranger is equal, 3.5e Ranger will be weaker... (unless PC knows something I don't).

If the 3e Ranger AND Paladin have a light weapon and sword, same armor, and bucklers?  The 3e Ranger is STILL weaker!  He drops 1 AC using two weapons (since he can't use the buckler).  His BAB drops TWO (-2/-2, to lower than the Rogue, Sorcerer, or Wizard) when fighting two-fisted, and THREE if he doesn't drop the non-masterwork buckler!  This puts the Paladin significantly ahead, at first level, with +1 AC and +3 BAB!

Nope, the Ranger doesn't need lower hit dice!  Not in 3e.  I'll wait to see the 3.5e Ranger, and hope for the best... but I bet none of his new abilities give him a bonus to combat, skirmish or otherwise!


----------



## Ranger REG (May 3, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> *
> Of course, since I don't think Rangers have any business having TWF as a class ability, the argument is rather lost on me.  Still, my point really is that if you hand the Ranger one longsword and leather armor, and do likewise with the Paladin, the two classes should be equally dangerous in neutral ground (say, an arena).*



But you're putting the ranger out of his element, the wilderness. Besides, both are not gladiators.

This kind of test is totally unfair, and only benefit the "tank."


----------



## Ranger REG (May 3, 2003)

*Re: And again I say...*



			
				Steverooo said:
			
		

> *
> 3.5e Ranger "Weapon Paths" BEGIN at second level.  Hence, it doesn't apply.  We'll use the 3e Ranger.*



Is that confirmed?


----------



## shilsen (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: And again I say...*



			
				Steveroo said:
			
		

> *
> 3.5e Ranger "Weapon Paths" BEGIN at second level. *






			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> Is that confirmed? *




I believe so. AFAIK, the ranger gets benefits from its chosen weapon path at 2nd lvl and every 4th lvl after that (6th, 10th, etc.).


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2003)

"Balance" is not defined by looking at who can beat whom in a particular one on one fight.  Two classes are balanced if, in the long term of game play, both are equally likely to be effective choices.


----------



## Lela (May 3, 2003)

I should point out that two attacks at -2 are just as likely or more likely to hit if you need to roll anything other than a natural 18.  This came up when discussing Monks and Flurry a while back.  Check S&F for how the math should work and fill in the rest of the table.


----------



## Umbran (May 3, 2003)

Lela said:
			
		

> *I should point out that two attacks at -2 are just as likely or more likely to hit if you need to roll anything other than a natural 18.  *




Yes, but the weapons are smaller, and have less likelihood of confirming a crit, and tend to do less when they do crit.  Overall, twf does less damage, on average, than fighing with one big 2-handed weapon, until you start having extra dice of damage from sneak attack or magic weapons.

And, for the magic weapons, trying to match teh 2-hander starts driving the amount of wealth you use on weapons up, meaning you have less cash to spend on other items.  So, it works out fairly well.


----------



## Winterthorn (May 3, 2003)

Ranger (not Evil) vs Paladin at 120' feet apart: would a forested terrain, property of an LG church say, with 50% of the area hallowed ground, be of help in such a test?  (Or something like that; just a thought.)

-W.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: And again I say...*



			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> *
> I believe so. AFAIK, the ranger gets benefits from its chosen weapon path at 2nd lvl and every 4th lvl after that (6th, 10th, etc.). *



Sorry. I forgot to add one more statement to my earlier post:

Please cite your source.


----------



## Surefoot (May 4, 2003)

A 1st level ranger would wield a greatsword and so would the paladin.

Thus, whoever hits first kills the other. Talk about balance!


----------

