D&D 5E Spell-less Ranger

[Dargrimm]

I'm sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere...

I'm trying to think of substitute class features for a Ranger without spell casting ability. I thought about taking Primeval Awareness and giving them an Ability Score Improvement at 9th, 13th and 17th levels. But that would give them 8 total Ability Score Improvements... one more than the Fighter. Not sure if that is balanced or not...

Anyway I want a purely martial Ranger and would love to hear your thoughts about it.

 

[PnPgamer]

Try to think of boosting other abilities of the ranger. Losing spells is a hefty price anyway. You might get more favored terrains, favored enemies... Maybe even double the choices granted by the third level ranger style.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I have made a Martial Archetype which is basically a spell-less Ranger. Here it is.

 

[MrZeddaPiras]

It depends on what you would like the ranger to be, as an archetype: D&D's ranger is basically Aragorn. If you'd like a Robin Hood kind of character, why not try a fighter with outlander or folk hero background and an appropriate choice of weapons and skills (bows, survival and so on..)?

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyway I want a purely martial Ranger and would love to hear your thoughts about it.

In 3e we used a spell-less Ranger variant which essentially got a bunch of non-magical ("extraordinary" in 3e terms) abilities that replicated the effects of some spells.

The key points of this variant were:

- make a list of Ranger spells that can easily be described as non-magical effects: Alarm, Animal Messenger, Animal Friendship, Locate Animals & Plants, Speak with Animals/Plants, Darkvision, Commune with Nature...
- have the Ranger gain one of those abilities every time she would gain a new level of spells (you can require a minimum level for the abilities corresponding to higher level spells)
- let the Ranger use each of those abilities at will
- restrict the effect of those ability to the Ranger only (if necessary)

You can quite probably find enough of them to allow some player's choice, or alternatively just design a fixed list. The important thing is that there are already Ranger spells which can be made feel totally non-magical with minimal fluff changes... "Locate" spells might change into the ability of detecting clues and marks of your target's presence or passage, "Speak" spells can be described as interpreting subtle signs and changes in behaviour, "Darkvision" could be simply the seasoned ability to adapt to darkness, "Alarm" could imply setting up minor warning tricks...

The other main thing to change is the use of "slots", which feel magical to 90% of the players. But for this, just notice how most of those spells already have long durations or are rarely used multiple times in a day, so making them "at will" does not overpower the Ranger, and compensate for the lack of versatility from now having a few fixed abilities instead of the whole spells list. (Note that this generally means you have to pick spells that aren't meant for combat but rather for exploration)

Sometimes the original spell may allow to impart the effect on your allies. In that case you have to decide if it's ok or not. Depending on the actual effect, it might be ok to think that the Ranger is capable of spreading the benefit with the party (e.g. if it's a spell that grants stealth-related benefits), but in some cases you'll just have to say no.

 

[Mephista]

Could someone flat out explain what a spell-less Ranger IS for me? I hate it when things are defined by what they are not. It feels like this is some kind of mythical beast that changes with every telling.

They're really good at tracking and wilderness hiding, so lets say they would get Expertise in those skills. They're really good with twin swords or bows... okay. Is that, what, just shooting things really well?

What else is there? It feels really weak as a concept to me so far.

 

[Klaus]

Spell-less ranger is easy:

Level 2 - Hunter's Mark at will.
Level 5 - +10 speed (as if at-will Longstrider)
Level 9 - Trackless (at-will Pass Without Trace)
Level 13 - Antitoxin Mastery (craft potent antitoxin once per short rest, works like Protection from Poison)
Level 17 - Quick Shot Stance (Swift Quiver once per short rest, but you need to provide enough ammunition)

Also, this ranger can use Primeval Awareness once per day (1 minute). This ranger can use Primeval Awareness twice per day at Level 13.

 

[steeldragons]

Could someone flat out explain what a spell-less Ranger IS for me? I hate it when things are defined by what they are not. It feels like this is some kind of mythical beast that changes with every telling.

They're really good at tracking and wilderness hiding, so lets say they would get Expertise in those skills. They're really good with twin swords or bows... okay. Is that, what, just shooting things really well?

What else is there? It feels really weak as a concept to me so far.

"Spell-less Ranger" = Ranger with no spells.

Well yes, you've basically got it. A wilderness expert [read as, "skill monkey"] and warrior guy that, simply, doesn't rely on magic. What weapons/fighting type, really has nothing to do with it (and gods, what would I give for the concept of two-weapon fighting to be divorced from rangers).

Favored/preferred terrain stuff. Preferred/favored enemy stuff. Ambush/skirmishing expert. Tracking (obviously, the iconic feature), Survival, Stealth (in wilderness settings for sure, but easily extrapolated to anywhere or any favored terrain), Detecting traps, Laying/setting traps as well, Animal Handling/Empathy/Training, Nature Lore, [non-magical] Healing/First Aid, Languages one would need/know from being out among the wild that "civilized" folks probably don't know, Perception/Search/Keen Senses...seems the Ranger has more than enough potential skills, even as compared to the actual "skill class" of Rogue, to warrant its own "archetype"/sub-class.

The Aragorn archetype, really, is a spell-less ranger until [in D&D terms] you would get into higher levels/moves into his role of "king" and things from the books like his "healing hands" [used on Eowyn and Faramir vs. the herb lore he uses on Frodo] and being able to use the palantir come into play [hence the original class' ability to use magic items that involved clairvoyance and/or ESP -normally restricted to mages only]. In many ways/D&D terms, Aragorn is a [spell-less] Ranger who becomes a [magical ability] Paladin in accepting his role/destiny of king by the end.

EDIT for an afterthought: Aragorn "the Ranger" had the appearance of "magic use" because he had knowledge the hobbits and "normal" ["civilized"] men didn't. He had elvin lore and training and Numenorean lore/blood/history. So his knowledge of undead (fighting off the wraiths with fire/light), being particularly effective battling orcs, "stop gap" healing via herb lore, "advanced" tracking ability, etc... had nothing to do with "magic use", as D&D defines the term.

 

[CapnZapp]

It depends on what you would like the ranger to be, as an archetype: D&D's ranger is basically Aragorn. If you'd like a Robin Hood kind of character, why not try a fighter with outlander or folk hero background and an appropriate choice of weapons and skills (bows, survival and so on..)?

I believe he's asking for a new ranger subclass specifically. Not character build suggestions in general. (Or being questioned why he wants this new subclass in the first place, for that matter)

 

[Nebulous]

It depends on what you would like the ranger to be, as an archetype: D&D's ranger is basically Aragorn. If you'd like a Robin Hood kind of character, why not try a fighter with outlander or folk hero background and an appropriate choice of weapons and skills (bows, survival and so on..)?

Default ranger seems more magicky than Aragon to me. Part of the problem with the class is that it is essentially a Fighter with some different perks. Well, not a "problem", per say.