Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr. Master 11-12-06, 06:26 PM	What changes should I make to play a ranger that uses d10 instead of d8 as HDs?Less skill points?No good Ref saving throw? Thank you.:)
Jaxgaret 11-12-06, 07:49 PM	What changes should I make to play a ranger that uses d10 instead of d8 as HDs?Less skill points?No good Ref saving throw? Thank you.:) It costs one feat: it's called Improved Toughness.
OneWinged4ngel 11-12-06, 07:58 PM	It costs one feat: it's called Improved Toughness. Yep. An HD upgrade is a very small buff.
bruiserdeck 11-12-06, 08:29 PM	or you can simply pay bow fighter. thats the power of fighters. you can make a fighter with a bunch of bow abilities and they can actually turn out better than a ranger in some ways... with all the weapons specialization feats and almost 2x as many feats on your list at any given time. ... course no pets and spell....
Mr. Master 11-13-06, 07:02 PM	I mean,what changes should I make to the class in order to have a balanced class.
Szatany 11-13-06, 07:20 PM	I mean,what changes should I make to the class in order to have a balanced class. Give it 4 sp/level and you are good to go.
Shadowfax7 11-13-06, 09:18 PM	Give it 4 sp/level and you are good to go.Szatany's idea is very good. In 3.0 the Ranger had 4 skill points/level and a d10 HD. So you would just be increasing the 3.5 Ranger's HD in exchange for decreasing his skill points/level. Balanced IMO.
megageek 11-13-06, 09:22 PM	Melee classes are pretty underpowered, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Cael 11-13-06, 09:30 PM	Considering that I give d10 HD and an Animal Companion of Ranger level -3, I think you are pretty sweet...
Hallavast 11-13-06, 10:29 PM	I mean,what changes should I make to the class in order to have a balanced class. The ranger is already balanced, dont worry about it.
megageek 11-13-06, 11:35 PM	Improved toughness does the same thing...
Jaxgaret 11-13-06, 11:50 PM	Give it 4 sp/level and you are good to go. 2 sp/level is worth much more than 1 hp per level. I've seen it posted somewhere that 5 skill points is roughly equivalent to one feat. Let's be conservative and say it's 10 skill points that is equal to one feat. Every 5 levels, your character will lose those 10 skill points, so every 5 levels you would be losing a feat, just to gain a total benefit of one feat. And that's being conservative. If you're so concerned about the hitpoints, why not just take the Improved Toughness feat? Or swap out a Ranger feat, like Endurance, for Improved Toughness.
Mr. Master 11-14-06, 05:36 AM	The idea of giving him 4sp/level is interesting. How does the Improve Toughness feat works in 3.5?
Shadowfax7 11-14-06, 10:51 AM	How does the Improve Toughness feat works in 3.5?It gives +1 hp/level.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-15-06, 05:13 PM	In my experience, the smaller hit die actually serves to increase ranger survivability. (I know, it seems like it should be the opposite) Players see the d8 and think that they might want to invest in a higher AC, higher con bonus, or just play smarter when entering melee combat than they would if the class had a d10. Just like many barbarians tend to die a lot, people see that d12 hit die and think they are invincible, even after being brought back down to earth.
SCMrks 11-17-06, 10:38 AM	In the Ranger Design Notes by Andy Collins it says, "In the end, I decided that the class had to move away from being a front-line fighter -- a role already competently filled by the fighter, paladin, and barbarian -- and toward being a skilled skirmisher -- a role currently occupied by only the rogue and monk. I started with the Hit Die. For most players, the d10 Hit Die sends a clear signal that "this class is about melee combat." While the ranger is a competent warrior, I think many players overestimate his abilities in front-line combat due to that Hit Die. In dropping it to d8, we aimed to change the default view of the ranger from front-line fighter to skirmisher (much like the monk). .......In part to make up for that loss, we gave the ranger a good Reflex save. This not only meant the ranger would be losing fewer hit points to most magical attacks than the fighter (thanks to more successful Reflex saves), but it also established the ranger's saves as different from any other class.................................. With a high Reflex save, many rangers would be interested in picking up a couple levels of rogue for evasion. To reduce the frequency of this "no-brainer" decision, the ranger picked up evasion as a 9th-level class feature." So if you wanted to return the ranger to a d10 hit die it would be reasonable to return the reflex save to poor and remove evasion since these things were given to the ranger to make up for the lower hit die. If you are using the rule that gives set hit points when characters level up then Improved Toughness makes up the difference between the d8 and d10. But I have found that the difference is more than 1 hit point per level when you roll the dice for hit points; although Improved Toughness reduces the difference. In the design notes it is explained that the ranger was redesigned as a skirmisher instead of a front line fighter because a class restricted to light armor and usually doesn't use a shield can not be a front line fighter. My gaming group disagrees with this because by this reasoning the Swashbuckler and Hexblade should have d8 hit dies and be skirmishers. If they can survive as fighters then rangers with a d10 could as well.
Roland the Crownbreaker 11-17-06, 04:43 PM	The swashbuckler gets a class based AC bonus that the ranger does not, making up a little of the ground lost. In addition, the swashbuckler counts dexterity as the single most important stat, while rangers do not always do so. (even though it remains near the top even then) Even then, the swashbuckler can NOT play on the same level as a heavy armor fighter. I can't comment on the hexblade, as I have never seen one played.
Mr. Master 11-20-06, 02:05 PM	In the Ranger Design Notes by Andy Collins it says, "In the end, I decided that the class had to move away from being a front-line fighter -- a role already competently filled by the fighter, paladin, and barbarian -- and toward being a skilled skirmisher -- a role currently occupied by only the rogue and monk. I started with the Hit Die. For most players, the d10 Hit Die sends a clear signal that "this class is about melee combat." While the ranger is a competent warrior, I think many players overestimate his abilities in front-line combat due to that Hit Die. In dropping it to d8, we aimed to change the default view of the ranger from front-line fighter to skirmisher (much like the monk). .......In part to make up for that loss, we gave the ranger a good Reflex save. This not only meant the ranger would be losing fewer hit points to most magical attacks than the fighter (thanks to more successful Reflex saves), but it also established the ranger's saves as different from any other class.................................. With a high Reflex save, many rangers would be interested in picking up a couple levels of rogue for evasion. To reduce the frequency of this "no-brainer" decision, the ranger picked up evasion as a 9th-level class feature." So if you wanted to return the ranger to a d10 hit die it would be reasonable to return the reflex save to poor and remove evasion since these things were given to the ranger to make up for the lower hit die. If you are using the rule that gives set hit points when characters level up then Improved Toughness makes up the difference between the d8 and d10. But I have found that the difference is more than 1 hit point per level when you roll the dice for hit points; although Improved Toughness reduces the difference. In the design notes it is explained that the ranger was redesigned as a skirmisher instead of a front line fighter because a class restricted to light armor and usually doesn't use a shield can not be a front line fighter. My gaming group disagrees with this because by this reasoning the Swashbuckler and Hexblade should have d8 hit dies and be skirmishers. If they can survive as fighters then rangers with a d10 could as well. So this means that the my "new 3.0 ranger" should be the 3.5 without his good saving throws and evasion? Uhm,it sounds interesting...Wouldn't it be too powerful if compared to the other classes?
starfire311 11-20-06, 02:15 PM	So this means that the my "new 3.0 ranger" should be the 3.5 without his good saving throws and evasion? Uhm,it sounds interesting...Wouldn't it be too powerful if compared to the other classes? nope seems more than fair to me... the good saving throw is worth a feat and the evasion is worth a feat, although they do get it quite late in the game, past the point where most people PrC out, so that really lowers the value of the evasion IMO... anyway, you are basically giving up the saves for +1 HP per level of ranger... not a trade I would liek to make... it is not nearly is good as Imp Toughness for example say you want to play a ranger 6 then PrC into something... you just lowered your reflex save by 3 in exchange for 7 HPs, is it really worth it?
Mr. Master 11-21-06, 01:44 PM	I don't care if it is worth doing it,I just want to play a d10 ranger a little better than it is in 3.0. The 3.5 ranger without his good ref ST and evasion wouldn't work in 3.0,because the 3.5 chosen enemy is too powerful for the 3.0. So,in the end,I think I'll play the 3.0 ranger with my onw house rules (more choices for the starting "light armour or no armour" feats,6 skill points each level,chosen enemy is applied also to other 5 skills and can be applied,if halved,to the AC or to the BAB).
Jaxgaret 11-21-06, 02:59 PM	If you are using the rule that gives set hit points when characters level up then Improved Toughness makes up the difference between the d8 and d10. But I have found that the difference is more than 1 hit point per level when you roll the dice for hit points; although Improved Toughness reduces the difference. Actually, the difference is precisely 1 hp per level either way.
Myst_the_Moonscout 11-22-06, 05:33 PM	Have there ever been notes on converting the 3.0 ranger to 3.5 in terms of hit points? The skill points are easy to raise, but hit points seem to be an issue. The immediate thought would be to slice hp by 2 per level, but that doesn't really work because all the numbers on the d8 are also on the d10, and if anyone happened to roll a 2, it would be like they rolled a 0. My thought was to drop hp by 2 at level 1, and then by 1 for each additional hd, making up for any hypothetical '1's. Has there been anything official on this? Option B is to leave hp and skill points as is and then switch to 3.5 mode at the next level.
SCMrks 11-22-06, 11:09 PM	Some may believe that the difference between having a d10 hit die and a d8 hit die is "precisely" 1 hit point per level if you roll dice for your hit points but in practice I have found that it is not. I have checked this by actually rolling the dice to find out. I rolled a d10 twenty times and I rolled a d8 twenty times and repeated this ten times. I did this with actual dice and then did it with the digital dice roller that WotC has on their website. The majority of the times the difference after twenty rolls was between 40 and 50 points which is more than 2 hit points per level. There were a few times when the results were lower than that and actually 2 times when the d8 rolls added up higher than the d10 rolls. And just before sending this post I did another check by rolling twenty of each die 3 times. The results were: 131 for the d10 vs 76 for the d8; 129 for the d10 vs 77 for the d8; and 93 for the d10 vs 83 for the d8. So I am still convinced that when rolling the dice for hit points the difference is not "precisely" 1 hit point per level.
Eela6 11-22-06, 11:33 PM	So I am still convinced that when rolling the dice for hit points the difference is not "precisely" 1 hit point per level. Sure. That's the whole point of dice - that they provide an inherently random number of hit points/damage/etc. *However*, the laws of mathematics state that you get one more hit point on average. Think of it as flipping a coin. You have a 50% chance of getting heads and a 50% chance of getting tails every time you flip the coin. So if you flip a coin 10 times, you should get 5 heads, 5 tails. This, of course, is not going to be true - you could get 10 heads, 8 heads, 2 heads - etc, and are actually fairly unlikely to get 5/5. However, over a long enough period of time (try 500 trials) - you will end up with a number quite close to 50%, due to the nature of the math. *One last note - a d10 Hit Die is actually superior in the math to a d8+Improved Toughness by one hit point, simply because you get full HP at first level. However, it really doesn't matter.
Jaxgaret 11-23-06, 12:04 AM	Sure. That's the whole point of dice - that they provide an inherently random number of hit points/damage/etc. *However*, the laws of mathematics state that you get one more hit point on average. Think of it as flipping a coin. You have a 50% chance of getting heads and a 50% chance of getting tails every time you flip the coin. So if you flip a coin 10 times, you should get 5 heads, 5 tails. This, of course, is not going to be true - you could get 10 heads, 8 heads, 2 heads - etc, and are actually fairly unlikely to get 5/5. However, over a long enough period of time (try 500 trials) - you will end up with a number quite close to 50%, due to the nature of the math. *One last note - a d10 Hit Die is actually superior in the math to a d8+Improved Toughness by one hit point, simply because you get full HP at first level. However, it really doesn't matter. QFT. Thank you for the slight correction at the end, Eela. Slipped my mind :) To SCMrks: An easy way to calculate probabilities on dice rolls is simply to break down the roll. Take a d4, for example. The only 4 rolls possible are 1, 2, 3, and 4. And each has the same probability of coming up, right? So if you roll 4 times, the average rolls will be 1, 2, 3, and 4. Add those up, and divide by 4, for the average roll: and you get 2.5. So the average roll for a d4 is 2.5. Do the same for a d6, and you get 3.5. A d8 is 4.5, and a d10 is 5.5. Thus, a d10 will on average roll one point higher than a d8.
Bryan_0697 11-23-06, 12:17 AM	NO ONE GET INTO PROBABILITY PLEASE. (Calculus probability) This thread will go on forever if you do.
Jaxgaret 11-23-06, 12:19 AM	NO ONE GET INTO PROBABILITY PLEASE. (Calculus probability) This thread will go on forever if you do. Calculus probability? This is very basic stuff, my man. Just trying to possibly enlighten someone. Sorry for the effort.
Bryan_0697 11-23-06, 12:36 AM	SOrry it is just the only thing in math I have ever disliked... strongly... closer to hate... maybe even revile... Sorry Edit: I didn't mean what you guys were doing with averages. It is just that somtimes semi-educated people like to bring in off-topic 'advanced' reasons for their personal correctness (even if the subject has nothing to do with what reason they have for being right). I was just trying to 'nip in the bud' whatever spastic journal entries were coming.
Myst_the_Moonscout 11-23-06, 09:08 AM	So, "precise" mechanics aside, would -1 per hd (-2 to start) be appropriate for converting hit points?
mkill 11-23-06, 10:18 AM	Some may believe that the difference between having a d10 hit die and a d8 hit die is "precisely" 1 hit point per level if you roll dice for your hit points but in practice I have found that it is not. I have checked this by actually rolling the dice to find out. I rolled a d10 twenty times and I rolled a d8 twenty times ... If you roll not 20 times, but a thousand times, then it will in fact show that 1d10 is 5.5 on average and 1d8 is 4.5 on average. I'm always amazed how ignorant some gamers are at the simple truth that 1dX averages out at X/2 + 0.5. This is so simple math elementary school kids can grasp it easily. Still, I once spent a full hour explaining it, and ended up having the player add 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 and divide by 6, to calculate average for the d6. Turns out that the result is 3.5. (Surprise!!) What most people don't seem to understand is, that math is not about calcuating... it's about finding the rules and structures behind everything so you avoid calculating (or make the computer do it). Back to topic: As for the d10 ranger, I wouldn't do it. As Andy Collins, the game designer notes, the ranger is not supposed to be on the front line. His tactic should not be soaking damage, but avoiding it. Everything you take from the ranger, be it the reflex save, be it evasion, be it skill points, just makes the ranger worse at what his specialty is supposed to be. And it makes him resemble the fighter more. Mr Master, if you are worried about your ranger's hit points, just give him a decent constitution and improved toughness.
starfire311 11-23-06, 12:49 PM	Some may believe that the difference between having a d10 hit die and a d8 hit die is "precisely" 1 hit point per level if you roll dice for your hit points but in practice I have found that it is not. I have checked this by actually rolling the dice to find out. I rolled a d10 twenty times and I rolled a d8 twenty times and repeated this ten times. I did this with actual dice and then did it with the digital dice roller that WotC has on their website. The majority of the times the difference after twenty rolls was between 40 and 50 points which is more than 2 hit points per level. There were a few times when the results were lower than that and actually 2 times when the d8 rolls added up higher than the d10 rolls. And just before sending this post I did another check by rolling twenty of each die 3 times. The results were: 131 for the d10 vs 76 for the d8; 129 for the d10 vs 77 for the d8; and 93 for the d10 vs 83 for the d8. So I am still convinced that when rolling the dice for hit points the difference is not "precisely" 1 hit point per level. what kind of drugs are you on? why do all your D8s roll below average and all your D10s roll above average. and yes the difference between a D10 and a D8 is precisly 1 on average. even if you look at your last trial of 60 rolls of each d10 was (131+129+93)/60 equals 5.8... the average roll on a D10 is 5.5 d8 was (76+77+83)/60 equals 3.9... the average roll on D8 is 4.5
9oaks_druid 11-23-06, 01:43 PM	"Have there ever been notes on converting the 3.0 ranger to 3.5 in terms of hit points?" I would handle this as follows: 1. Determine the total hp from "dice only" for the 3.0 ranger. 2. Then calculate the percentage of hp from dice only of the total possible. 3. Apply this percentage to the new total possible with the new dice type. 4. Add in all modifiers (con bonus, etc.) For example a 5th level 3.0 ranger with 35hp, sans bonuses, has 70% of the total possible hit points from the dice only. The 3.5 ranger would then have 70% of the possible 40hp from the dice only which is 28hp. Now add the bonuses from con and any feats back in.
Myst_the_Moonscout 11-23-06, 02:17 PM	Curiously, (or perhaps not) for my ranger that number is only 2 points off the -2 1st/-1 per level theory. I've never really gotten the whole 1d10 = front line fighter thing. I've never thought that made the ranger a main melee combatant. Since in 2e the ranger focus was on constitution I figured the higher die was reflective of how tough they were. For me, 1d10 meant "live when I fail my hide check."
starfire311 11-23-06, 02:23 PM	Curiously, (or perhaps not) for my ranger that number is only 2 points off the -2 1st/-1 per level theory. Actually it is only 1 HP off 35 HP for a 5th level ranger with D10 HP.... subtract 2 for 1st level and then 1 for the next for is -6 HP... final HP is 29 not 28. although 9oaks_druid probably hsa the better system... for example a 2nd level 3E ranger rolls max on his 2nd d10... this gives him 20 HP at level 2 if you convert to D8 by doing the -2 HP at 1st and/-1 each level thereafter... you will subtract 3 HP giving 17 on 2D8, which is quite a good roll.
Myst_the_Moonscout 11-23-06, 02:35 PM	No, no, the rolls for my ranger (level 10, 102hp, +4 con mod) only differ by two. In my case, 9oaks system actually gives me two less (1.96 actually) than the other, though math is hardly my strong point, I may be wrong.
Eela6 11-23-06, 02:51 PM	although 9oaks_druid probably hsa the better system... for example a 2nd level 3E ranger rolls max on his 2nd d10... this gives him 20 HP at level 2 if you convert to D8 by doing the -2 HP at 1st and/-1 each level thereafter... you will subtract 3 HP giving 17 on 2D8, which is quite a good roll. Which shows us that the system can, indeed, break down if you're trying to convert a character. The highest possibler roll on 2d8 happens to be 16 - so you have an impossible roll on that character!
Myst_the_Moonscout 11-23-06, 03:22 PM	I suppose option number three is to just re-roll hp from scratch and not worry about any kind of formula. Might save some potential headaches.
9oaks_druid 11-23-06, 04:05 PM	Actually I made the math even more involved than necessary. The formula is simply: (new hp)* = (old hp)* x (new dice type) / (old dice type) *dice only (take out bonuses from feats, con, etc. and add back in after) My example above: (new hp) = 35 * 8/10 = 28 In the case of fractions, round up if the player brings pizza on game day. (The ratio of 40/50 that I essentially used before is the same. The 8 and the 10 were both multiplied by the level, 5, which divides out.)