Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
Don't forget tiefling. They make great darned ninjas.
Funny, but I figured gnomes as more likely to be the ones making their gear out of yarn.
Thaumaturge.
Don't forget tiefling. They make great darned ninjas.
That's what people are asking for here...
It's not exactly unreasonable!
Another approach would probably be to simply remove the spells and give a Ranger the class features of both Hunter AND Beastmaster (and, perhaps, an extra attack at 10). That'd probably work as a quick fix for the issue.
o
This is elegant, except then you have people complain that they don't want spells or a pet either, which is understandable, but the biggest reason I wouldn't do this is that it might boost a low level ranger too much, even encouraging people to dip a single level into ranger. At higher levels without the spells it might be ok. Even still, their spells are mostly for utility and flavor. Most do not add directly to their combat ability, which is why I think one or two feats might be enough to replace them. I hesitate to theorycraft further though without the PHB in hand.
But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.
They have a spell to enhance the damage to their range attacks, healing, and spells to control the battlefield. Their utility spells are also quite good such as a spell to that gives 10 feet movement speed bonus, a spell that gives +10 Stealth to everyone within 25 feet of them and a spell that gives darkvision. The spellcasting power they have is worth more than a couple of feats.
This is elegant, except then you have people complain that they don't want spells or a pet either, which is understandable, but the biggest reason I wouldn't do this is that it might boost a low level ranger too much, even encouraging people to dip a single level into ranger. At higher levels without the spells it might be ok. Even still, their spells are mostly for utility and flavor. Most do not add directly to their combat ability, which is why I think one or two feats might be enough to replace them. I hesitate to theorycraft further though without the PHB in hand.
But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.
They seem very leery to modify anything in the class charts. So subclasses only go in the designated subclass slots.But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.
Until the PHB is out and we see the ranger spell list, we really can't know what a suitable replacement for ranger spellcasting would be. The only spellcasters in Basic are dedicated casters--wizard and cleric--not half casters like the ranger and paladin, so we don't get to see what half caster spells look like.
However, spell power level is pretty standardized in 5E. Once we do get the PHB, we should be able to compare a couple of ranger spells, get a rough idea of how much they add to the class, and come up with features to replace them. I would not be surprised if either the PHB or the DMG has such a variant already.
The thing I find the most lolworthy about 5e's "mechanically enforced class skills" is the Ranger and Rogue don;t even have to be good at those skills and yet they can automagically be better at them in those narrow mechanically enforced ways...It is skill plus.
The Ranger (and to a greater extent the rogue) are classes that real on mechanically enforced skill rules.
Rangers don't just have high survival, stealth, and nature, it class class features that explain what it can do with survival , nature, and stealth skills.
The rogues just doesn't have high Stealth, Sleaight of hand, and deception, it has class features that
explain What it can do with stealth, sleight of hand, and deception.
The real issue is D&D is unusually afraid to have high level appropriate skill use without using spells.
If they aren't supernatural then why are they limited per day?
Why are there different levels of them?
Spells like Alarm, Animal Friendship, Cure Wounds, Detect Magic, Fog Cloud etc. are magical.