D&D 5E The Ranger: You got spellcasting in my peanut butter!

[drjones]

That looks like it could be done with skills from background and fighter abilities for the most part, no?

My thoughts exactly. Can even write 'Ranger' on the sheet if it floats your boat.

 

[Agamon]

Ninja probably works best as a monk or rogue.

Don't forget tiefling. They make great darned ninjas.

 

[Branduil]

I've always thought Rangers casting spells was a bit weird, but at least it looks like they're getting some unique, Ranger-y spells this time around.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Sorry but just saying "use survival" does not cover the depth of wilderness skills the Ranger has. You cannot pass without trace automagically, you cannot move through difficult terrain at normal speed, you can't travel through certain terrains at full speed stealthily or with NO chance of getting lost, foraging for double food or learning exact details from tracking. You also don't get the traditional favoured enemy bonuses and also the newer favoured terrain bonuses. No way to mystically detect non-natural creature types within a mile of you. No hide in plain sight, no bonus hide action no feral sense. All these things before I get to the archetypes!

Hunter (super duper killer of trad Ranger foes) or Beastmaster (companion)

So yes you can make a spell-less Ranger with Fighter, but he'll be a pretty sucky Ranger type compared to the actual Ranger class.

 

[variant]

Survival skill.

Fighter class.

Survival skill.

If you really want that auto-succeed on tracking, take the first level of Ranger.

Again, no. I think you should go read the ranger in the last playtest packet.

I'll assume you ran out of time before you could expound. I have some time though.

I shouldn't have to expound. Both you and GX.Sigma know that what the ranger gets in the playtest packet can not be emulated by the Survival and Stealth skills. Both your snide remarks are not worth the time to go into the packet and copy what I know you both can read by yourself.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Again, no. I think you should go read the ranger in the last playtest packet.

Much as I like arguing, I can't stand meta-arguing (arguing about the argument). If you tell me why you think my points are incorrect, I would be glad to continue this conversation.

 

[mach1.9pants]

See my previous post, saying you can do a full on Ranger by using Fighter and background/skills doesn't cut the mustard. Yes you will be superficially Ranger-y but severely lacking in the game mechanics of a Ranger.

 

[AverageCitizen]

That looks like it could be done with skills from background and fighter abilities for the most part, no?

No.

Lol.

If I knew what experience was or how it worked, I would give you some.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Sorry but just saying "use survival" does not cover the depth of wilderness skills the Ranger has. You cannot pass without trace automagically, you cannot move through difficult terrain at normal speed, you can't travel through certain terrains at full speed stealthily or with NO chance of getting lost, foraging for double food or learning exact details from tracking. You also don't get the traditional favoured enemy bonuses and also the newer favoured terrain bonuses. No way to mystically detect non-natural creature types within a mile of you. No hide in plain sight, no bonus hide action no feral sense. All these things before I get to the archetypes!

Hunter (super duper killer of trad Ranger foes) or Beastmaster (companion)

So yes you can make a spell-less Ranger with Fighter, but he'll be a pretty sucky Ranger type compared to the actual Ranger class.

Yup, he's right.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The non-spellcasting things rangers have always done in fantasy. Track, skirmishing abilities, the ability to move through wilderness unhindered, unseen, and without being tracked., etc.

I think the non magic ranger is the barbarian