Alternate Ranger (simple)

[Vicaring]

Honestly, the best spell-less Ranger is a Rogue. Seriously:

Scout sub-class; 3rd level Natural Explorer & Bonus Proficiencies Survival&Nature; 9th level Land's Stride; 13th level Hide in Plain Sight; 17th level Foe Slayer

Houndsman sub-class; 3rd level Beast Companion & Bonus Proficiency Animal Handling; 9th level Exceptional Training; 13th level Bestial Fury; 17th level Beastly Coordination (maybe swap 13&17) from the Class Design Variants UA article

And if you want a proper Archer, then make a champion fighter, grab Archery and Close Quarters Shooter (from the Underdark UA article) fighting styles, and go for Sharpshooter & Crossbow Expert feats.

The Ranger feels like it no longer brings anything to the table in this edition.

Think about it. The more you think about it, the more you'll see it. Hell's bells man, Sneak Attack in 5e and Beast Companion were made for each other.

Also, seeing as you're now fiddling with things, make the beast commands still take an action, but once you command it to attack it continues to f*&%ing attack its target because it's a smart puppy and doesn't need you micromanaging everything it does.

 

[Marandahir]

You see, that's the best fix I've found for Beast Companions of the standard Ranger. It should do what its instincts tell it to unless you use your action to tell it to do something else. So it'll continue to attack or it'll run away if its injured, etc. It's an unaligned, low-int DMPC that one of the PCs can take control of by using his or her action.

Most of the time, you wouldn't need the beast to be commanded to do something else, since it should be smart enough to take care of itself.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

It seams to get the job done......but rangers as squishies?
I played with the idea of getting rogue levels for the basic ranger in E3.0 for a short while and i must admit it could be made to work, but the squishy aspect just killed it for me.

I've always pictured them as the toughest guys around, except maybe the barbarians. In 1E they had 11 hit dice VS the 9 of all other classes. In 2E they were easily on par with the regular fighters. And then in E3.5 someone suddenly figured "ranges just aren't defined enough" so we'll turn them into glass cannons (and that transferred into 4E, which made me stay away from the class in nearly a decade)? How did that ever happen? Weren't those the assassins? How come the tough border man, survivalist turned into a sniper?

Even if we go the "Tarzan" way, and make the ranger into an animal handler..... does Tarzan look like a squishy? I can dig the armor restrictions (i think they are very much in role), but never the hit die. And what bothers me the most is the constitution aspect. Rangers were always the toughest guys, with constitution and wisdom being their primary attributes. 3.5 and 4 actually made constitution a dump stat for them

Nah, i'll have ambuscade or poultices all day long over the squishy damage dealers.

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks for the comments and shares, and for the discussion.

As concerns the two ranger fixes proposed in the UA articles: I find the first fix to bring the ranger a bit too close to the fighter, with the manoeuvers. I like that the fighter has exclusivity over that interesting mechanic and I feel that it doesn't distinguish the ranger enough to give him that as what then becomes its defining power. The second UA article brings the flavor of the ranger into the realm of the shaman as I noted above, and this is not a flavor I wish for the ranger to have.

As for the ranger replicating spells with herbs and poultices as suggested by @Psikerlord#, while the idea is interesting and flavorful, it is not what I would be looking for. For one thing, it brings the ranger closer to an herbalist/alchmist. I understand that the flavor of the ranger picking herbs in the wild is somewhat distinctive, but the result remains a potion-maker and it's not what I'm hoping. My own take does have a bit of that with (1) a healing power and (2) a neutralize poison power; but I wish to orient the ranger elsewhere.

The idea of making the ranger a rogue spineoff would also not be to my liking, although I understand the impulse. The sneak attack remains a distinguishing element of the rogue, and for the ranger to have that, it both works against distinguishing the ranger and the rogue.

One important point I did not mention initially in this thread, is that the animal companion would not be limited in its actions or attacks: the ranger can order it to act whenever he wants.

Without spells, the ranger looses Hunter's Mark. However, damage output would be mitigated by the animal companion being able to attack each round.

The companion would be slightly weaker than the one presently in the PHB, since it only gets the proficiency bonus from the ranger at level 6; and it increases in hit points by a value of 1d4 + CON-mod per ranger level after the third. My idea is that I don't want the companion to steal the show. With strong bonuses and hit points comparable to some PCs, the companion would become a very strong ally and I wish for the companion to be the wearker among the party members. That's why I downgraded the animal companion a bit.

So my take on the ranger provides him with the following defining powers:

1) animal companion that is active at all times
2) Hunter's abilities and fighting style that give the ranger some distinctive battle orientation
3) wilderness-oriented powers that are already defined in the PHB
4) some additional powers such as faster overland movement, minor healing, and increased damage vs. favored enemy, that to me hit on ranger artchetypical flavors

Hopefully, this would make the ranger distinctive in flavor from the other classes, and an interesting spell-less ranger to play.