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

[TwoSix]

I have a feel that the person who established the Adventurer's League would disagree with you.

Unlike Paizo and Pathfinder Society, I feel comfortable saying that AL is a small enough piece of the overall 5e pie that WotC feels no need to cater to it. You play the base game, or you find your own group that will let you reskin and play whatever extra material you want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

T I do hope WotC is able to "officially" provide a non-spellcasting framework. Seems like there are really far too many classes that are now bringing spells to the table

In what way is "all the classes"
'far too many?' ;P j/k

when some more purely martial characters could be done. (Are we all really wishing they bring back abilities like 4th ed? )

Sure. Wouldn't hurt at this late date, it'd all be optional as can be. The BM's CS dice/maneuver system would seem the obvious blueprint - it'd be a game-design challenge, like trying to reverse-engineer every other caster in the game from the EK, alone.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Gryjoy house words: We do not sow.

My House Words: We do not re-fluff.

I'm not sure you noticed this, but House Greyjoy is not meant to be taken as a positive (or even practical) role model.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Why not just go that route?

In my case. because I find the spellcasting system to be tedious. I still do this with the Revised Ranger because I really like the Revised Ranger, but I have found I actually like the Scout Fighter about as much. Combined with the UA Skill feats it really does feel like an exceptional Wilderness Warrior and I don't have to deal with spell slots or spell levels.

Scout Fighter really hit a nice niche of more complex and interesting than Champion with abilities that make it extra useful at wilderness stuff and has good incentive for not wearing heavy armor.

 

[Jester David]

But... they already did a spell less ranger, in one of the very first Unearthed Arcanas. So it's done! What more is needed?

 

[guachi]

In my case. because I find the spellcasting system to be tedious. I still do this with the Revised Ranger because I really like the Revised Ranger, but I have found I actually like the Scout Fighter about as much. Combined with the UA Skill feats it really does feel like an exceptional Wilderness Warrior and I don't have to deal with spell slots or spell levels.

Scout Fighter really hit a nice niche of more complex and interesting than Champion with abilities that make it extra useful at wilderness stuff and has good incentive for not wearing heavy armor.

I find that what I love most about the Scout Fighter is its biggest drawback. It's basically a compilation of abilities from other classes/subclasses. That makes it easy to grasp its abilities but also a little bland. On the other hand, with a few simple changes you have a great wilderness warrior that still feels very much like a fighter.

I have one that just started in my campaign and it's really fun.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I find that what I love most about the Scout Fighter is its biggest drawback. It's basically a compilation of abilities from other classes/subclasses. That makes it easy to grasp its abilities but also a little bland. On the other hand

I feel the Ranger itself has that has that same problem, or at least a similar one, based on all the "What is a Ranger?" threads I used to see.

 

[GX.Sigma]

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.

Even easier:

Step 1: Make a Fighter.
Step 2: That's it.

 

[schnee]

Because they don't care about you or how you play the game. They give you a base game and then expect you to make the game your own. I thought that's been pretty obvious from the beginning.

You're not wrong, but they care very much about you.

I watched the designers give a talk. They worked really hard to build a D&D that 'felt' right, was easy to learn, streamlined, didn't penalize casuals with overt system mastery or trap options, added call-outs to each edition, etcetera. Even the flexibility was giving the people what they want.

So, you're technically correct, but the way you said it was really funny, so I approve.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because they don't care about you or how you play the game.

You're not wrong, but they care very much about you.

Nod. You want a spell-less ranger? They don't care. You want a re-tread of 2e without all the crazy supplement bloat? They care.
;P

I watched the designers give a talk. They worked really hard to build a D&D that 'felt' right, was easy to learn, streamlined, added call-outs to each edition, etcetera.

"Familiar."
Achieving the perception of all that in a long-time/returning D&Der boils down to giving him something familiar.
Which 5e has.

And, a ranger who casts spells will be familiar to anyone who played D&D for more than a year between 1975 and 2008. And will only seem un-familiar to a very hypothetical fan who only played D&D in 2009.