Anybody ever thought of Rangers w/o spells?

[johnsemlak]

It's occured to me that Ranger's using spells seems to be a legacy of 1st edition. It also seems to me that with all the multiclass/PrC possibilities in 3rd edition, There's no need for rangers to have spells.

I'm personally against any class save those that fall clearly within the arcane/divine class categories using spells. Most versions of the Assassin (core class) use spells. If Assassins can use them, why can't rogues?

I do think giving such classes limited spell ability can make them more intereting, but I think this can be better achieved with PrC's or multiclassing.

 

[Creamsteak]

Well, I'd like to see someone put together an interesting Ranger that gains no spells, but instead is an incredible fighter in his specific Genre, but that's houserules material, and It's been done before.

I've thought on the concept before, and found that it's not too hard to percieve. I think it would look something more like Monte-Cook's alternate ranger (the free one). That Ranger, without spells, and with the possiblity of Weapon specialization at a raised level, or maybe an additional Favored Enemy (increased progression, ending in +6 against favored enemy, or better), would be appropriate.

 

[hong]

It's occured to me that Ranger's using spells seems to be a legacy of 1st edition. It also seems to me that with all the multiclass/PrC possibilities in 3rd edition, There's no need for rangers to have spells.

Yadda yadda definitional issue blah blah niche yadda yadda two-weapon fighting yadda yadda front-loaded yadda yadda Driz'zt yadda yadda got the shaft yadda yadda dead horse yadda yadda everyone and their dog yadda yadda.

At least one of these alt.rangers does not have spellcasting.

 

[Ravellion]

House rules, still tinkering with the special abilities:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/tholestia/ranger.html

 

[johnsemlak]

Re: Re: Anybody ever thought of Rangers w/o spells?

Yadda yadda definitional issue blah blah niche yadda yadda two-weapon fighting yadda yadda front-loaded yadda yadda Driz'zt yadda yadda got the shaft yadda yadda dead horse yadda yadda everyone and their dog yadda yadda.

At least one of these alt.rangers does not have spellcasting.

So your saying this issue has been discussed before?

Thanks for the links, guys

 

[shilsen]

Sure, but everyone doesn't think rangers should be without spells. So I compromised. My group is using a homebrew ranger, and I gave it the option of using the PHB ranger spellcasting rules, or go without spells and get 2 extra skill pts a level from 4th lvl. I'm running one right now, and it didn't fit the character to be a spellcaster, so I went the skill point rule. Works fine for us.

 

[Mercule]

Something that I rarely see discussed, but is a reasonable legacy from 1st edition is that Rangers used to have _both_ arcane and divine (druid) spells. Personally, one of my big peeves with 2E rangers was that they lost the arcane spells (believe it or not, I've found a handful of people who agree with me).

I've always seen rangers as being primarily martial, with a knowledge the wilderness. Basically, more "civilized" like a boyscout or borderlander rather than a "natural warrior" or psuedo-native American. In other words, someone with almost nothing in common with druid other than where they work.

I can see rangers picking up a few arcane spells to help them get their job done, but the one-with-nature druid-like spells have never made sense to me. Of course, the vast majority of people disagree with me.

The point is that 3E provides the perfect solution -- multiclassing. So, yeah, I use a totally non-magic alt.ranger. The Woodsman from WoT, with a couple of small mods. That way, people who see the ranger as a purely mundane role get it. People who want a ranger with arcane or divine spells can multiclass to get what they want, too.

Edit: Chant the 3.0/3.5 mantra: "Options, not Restrictions."

 

[Keith]

At the risk of also earning yada yadas, my feeling is that the type of character usually envisioned as a "ranger" is best created using the Fighter class, actually. Take the tracking feat, some ranged weapon ones (could a ranger live without archery? Of course not.), and you quickly find yourself with a set of skills appropriate for a dangerous woodsperson. I think the keys to playing such a character are in the description and behavior; aspects outside of the game mechanics.

This has all been said before, hasn't it? Well, I am a new arrival.

Cheers

 

[dave_o]

I use a slightly modified Woodsman from Wheel of Time for my non-spellcasting Rangers.

But I sorta dig them getting divine spells. It's totally a player decision. It balances, because I think the Woodsman is a bit more martially inclined than the Ranger.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

When I think Ranger, I still have a hard time picturing them with spells.

The spells they do get rarely turn out to be useful anyway.