D&D 5E No Spell-less Ranger in the Near Future

[DEFCON 1]

A spell-less ranger is incredibly simple to make. (Even in AL)
Step 1: make a ranger.
Step 2: just never pick or cast any spell. Or if you want that 1e feel just start your 1st lv casting line once you've hit 9th lv.
Step 3: don't have any delusion that you need/deserve some additional perk to replace spellcasting.

Ah yes... the self-nerf! The very thing many posters here complain about doing in the name of characterization! Woe be to them that wish oh so desperately to play a character with a theme, but those rat bastards Wizards of the Coast refuse to let them do that by keeping in rules for "better" abilities that they are incapable of just not selecting. Poor, poor players!

"I want to play a Storm Sorcerer focused on thunder and lightning! But Fireball is the best spell there is at 3rd level so I can't NOT take it! If only WotC would publish an official "thematic" spell list for each type of sorcerer so that I am FORCED to not take Fireball! But they're jerks and won't do that!"

"I want to be a blade Warlock who is focused on my weapon! But Eldritch Blast is just too good of a cantrip! And the Agonizing Blast invocation just makes Eldritch Blast even better, so I HAVE to select them both! But now I'm a ranged PC and not a melee one and I can't take another invocation more to my theme! All because WotC put those items in the Player's Handbook and have not designed a new subclass that penalizes me from selecting them! If only they'd do that, then they'd no longer be the best option for my blade Warlock, and I wouldn't be forced to take them anymore! Man, those WotC guys are jerks!"

"How in the world can I select a FUN feat for my PC when WotC has created nothing but a "feat-fax" by adding these stupid 'Weapon Expertise' feats into the game? Now I have no choice but to use one of my 4E feat slots to take--

Oh wait. Hang on. Heh. Sorry... I was having flashbacks there.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

"How in the world can I select a FUN feat for my PC when WotC has created nothing but a "feat-fax" by adding these stupid 'Weapon Expertise' feats into the game? Now I have no choice but to use one of my 4E feat slots to take--

People generally don't think it's a polite thing to do for players to (especially if the method is counter-intuitive or strained) intentionally create characters that increase the gap in effectiveness between their character and the other players' characters such that they're significantly more effective than their peers.

So I don't know why it's not considered impolite for people to make choices to increase the gap in effectiveness with intentional self-nerfs such that YOU are below the rest of the party. In fact, in my opinion it should be even more impolite because not only are you making things harder on them but you're also passively-aggressively putting them in a position where their character is suddenly unduly outshining yours.

In the grand scheme of things, thieves' cant is small beer whether you decide to use it or not. It's like asking the DM to give you a 1 in 100 chance every turn to take a -1 penalty (or give a +1 bonus) to your first attack roll for the round. But I totally understand peoples' ire with this issue in the abstract.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So I don't know why it's not considered impolite for people to make choices to increase the gap in effectiveness with intentional self-nerfs such that YOU are below the rest of the party. In fact, in my opinion it should be even more impolite because not only are you making things harder on them but you're also passively-aggressively putting them in a position where their character is suddenly unduly outshining yours.

Because not every table is the same. And some tables aren't concerned with "winning" encounters where every point of effectiveness actually matters.

But if you are at a table where "winning" matters, and that every player has to max their PC out as much as possible to help the group "win"... that is an entirely acceptable way to play the game. *But* it is not beholden upon WotC to write the game so that all of them can do that AND play "thematic" characters at the same time. If they want to have a cold-based PC and want the best spells available (in their opinion) in the game to be cold-based... then the DM needs to either create his own constrained spell lists for each theme, or the player needs to re-fluff. But for those players to complain that WotC isn't doing that work for them is ridiculous and silly. And they are right to be good-naturedly mocked for expecting it to happen.

 

[Mistwell]

There are sufficient ranger spells that could be fairly described as non-spells that I don't understand why people don't just go that route? Just use Hunters Mark for all your first level slots and call it a ranger ability rather than a spell. Beast sense, Find traps, pass without trace, non detection, freedom of movement, locate creature, swift quiver, and more spells could all be described as non-magic ranger type abilities. Why not just go that route?

 

[Rofel Wodring]

Why not just go that route?

The same reason why no one was satisfied at, in pre-Heroes of Shadow 4E D&D, the suggestion that they could play a Necromancer by reflavoring the Beastmaster Ranger's companion as a loyal death knight. Surely you recall people bitterly complaining about martial characters having certain magical attacks they can only use once a long rest, right?

Willing suspension of disbelief is a very big deal. And while 80% of the time there's no functional difference between describing your Locate Creature as a spell and a nonmagical ability, the 20% of times in which it DOES in fact matter that an ability is a spell and not simply hardcore martial training (anti-magic field, enemy wizard with counterspell, you don't have your material component pouch on you, you have a gag in your mouth) can completely break peoples' WSoD.

 

[Rofel Wodring]

But if you are at a table where "winning" matters, and that every player has to max their PC out as much as possible to help the group "win"... that is an entirely acceptable way to play the game. *But* it is not beholden upon WotC to write the game so that all of them can do that AND play "thematic" characters at the same time.

This is dangerously close to saying that game balance doesn't matter either at the individual table level or stochastically throughout the hobby, so long as everyone's particular character concept is thematically represented in the game.

 

[Mistwell]

The same reason why no one was satisfied at, in pre-Heroes of Shadow 4E D&D, the suggestion that they could play a Necromancer by reflavoring the Beastmaster Ranger's companion as a loyal death knight. Surely you recall people bitterly complaining about martial characters having certain magical attacks they can only use once a long rest, right?

Willing suspension of disbelief is a very big deal. And while 80% of the time there's no functional difference between describing your Locate Creature as a spell and a nonmagical ability, the 20% of times in which it DOES in fact matter that an ability is a spell and not simply hardcore martial training (anti-magic field, enemy wizard with counterspell, you don't have your material component pouch on you, you have a gag in your mouth) can completely break peoples' WSoD.

The thing is, 20% is a massive exaggeration. It's such an exaggeration that it makes me suspect a biased agenda at work. Seriously, exactly how often do you encounter an anti-magic field? The counterspell spell from a foe versus any of those spells I named? Lack of material component pouch*? A gag in your mouth where any of those spells would still be applicable to begin with? Actually applying any of those instances to those particular spells results in an incredibly small number of instances of this coming up. So far from 20% that it's ridiculous.

As for the claim that the abilities being used only a limited number of times per day or per rest being unrealistic, we already have lots of non-magic abilities in this version of the game that do that so it's not a good objection for this issue, though it might be a good objection for the edition in general. But if you already buy into the edition, I am not seeing the problem with this specific issue.

*Almost none of those spells even have a material component, and even those that do mostly have a component you'd have even without such a pouch. Hunter's mark is verbal only. Beast sense is somatic only. Find traps is verbal and somatic. Freedom of movement requires a leather strap - which you'd have without a pouch. Pass Without Trash is ashes from a burned leaf, which you should be able to do without a pouch. Locate creature does require fur from a bloodhound, which is a bit tricky. Swift quiver requires...your quiver. So almost every spell I mentioned should not be a big deal without a material component.

 

[CapnZapp]

The thing is, 20% is a massive exaggeration. It's such an exaggeration that it makes me suspect a biased agenda at work. Seriously, exactly how often do you encounter an anti-magic field? The counterspell spell from a foe versus any of those spells I named? Lack of material component pouch*? A gag in your mouth where any of those spells would still be applicable to begin with? Actually applying any of those instances to those particular spells results in an incredibly small number of instances of this coming up. So far from 20% that it's ridiculous.

As for the claim that the abilities being used only a limited number of times per day or per rest being unrealistic, we already have lots of non-magic abilities in this version of the game that do that so it's not a good objection for this issue, though it might be a good objection for the edition in general. But if you already buy into the edition, I am not seeing the problem with this specific issue.

*Almost none of those spells even have a material component, and even those that do mostly have a component you'd have even without such a pouch. Hunter's mark is verbal only. Beast sense is somatic only. Find traps is verbal and somatic. Freedom of movement requires a leather strap - which you'd have without a pouch. Pass Without Trash is ashes from a burned leaf, which you should be able to do without a pouch. Locate creature does require fur from a bloodhound, which is a bit tricky. Swift quiver requires...your quiver. So almost every spell I mentioned should not be a big deal without a material component.

But you still haven't answered the obvious question, Mistwell:

If it's that easy, why can't WotC give these players what they want?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Eric V]

Step 3: don't have any delusion that you need/deserve some additional perk to replace spellcasting.

Why -not- have something to replace spellcasting?

 

[Pauln6]

In my experience, the gap is largely illusory i.e. it exists on paper if you just look at the numbers on paper. If you count only the damage that actually counts towards taking a monster to zero hp, while you will get peaks and troughs depending on the types of monsters (large high hp vs high numbers with lower hp) and the types of adventure (resource managed due to limited rest opportunities vs an all out one off fight) but this is by design so that no single class shines the brightest in every scenario.

Even lower attack rolls only become relevant occasionally by design.

If anything, it's utility spells that stand out the most. The only single class ranger I monitored came in a bit below average but he rocked outside of combat. The problem there was that so did anyone else who took a few levels of ranger.