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

[Waterbizkit]

In home games, assuming you have an amenable DM, getting rid of thieves cant or perhaps an unwanted tool proficiency shouldn't be too hard when swapping out on a one-for-one basis. Recall that backgrounds are mutable in that sense, so doing the same with class ribbons that grant a language or tool proficiency shouldn't be too different. This again assumes a home game with a DM who's not shy about making those sorts of changes.

Now, if you're talking AL or some other kind of organized play... or perhaps even just a home game where your DM doesn't like to deviate from RAW for whatever reason, you can always ignore the language proficiency. Just because something is on your character sheet as a sort of "default" doesn't mean you have to truly acknowledge it in character. This does have the potential to lead to some sticky situations depending on the group you're playing with, but in general should work.

All of that said, if I had my druthers, thieves cant would be tied to the Criminal Background and not the rogue class by default. It just feels better that way to me. This way players who want to create a rogue aren't necessarily saddled with ribbons that imply a criminal background (note lowercase, not referring to the mechanical background) and more importantly, players who want to say... create a wizard with the Criminal Background have a character that can speak thieves cant.

Anyway, all fixable with the right group and DM, even if that unfortunately isn't a solution for everyone.

As the OP and the lack of a spell-less Ranger, that's unfortunate. It's something that quite a few people seem to want. In a similar vein to what I said above, in the right group with the right DM this is probably fixable by using the existing UA spell-less Ranger or perhaps something from the DMs Guild. Again, unfortunately, this won't be a solution available to everyone. The ranger is a bit if an odd duck though... it's almost as though you can get a different description of what the class should be for every person you ask. This puts designers in an awkward position and I suppose they need to draw the line somewhere. Anyway, unfortunate for those who won't be able to work around not having an "official" version, but hopefully not too much more than a speed bump, if even that, to those who can.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

In home games, assuming you have an amenable DM, getting rid of thieves cant or perhaps an unwanted tool proficiency shouldn't be too hard when swapping out on a one-for-one basis. Recall that backgrounds are mutable in that sense, so doing the same with class ribbons that grant a language or tool proficiency shouldn't be too different. This again assumes a home game with a DM who's not shy about making those sorts of changes.

Now, if you're talking AL or some other kind of organized play... or perhaps even just a home game where your DM doesn't like to deviate from RAW for whatever reason, you can always ignore the language proficiency. Just because something is on your character sheet as a sort of "default" doesn't mean you have to truly acknowledge it in character. This does have the potential to lead to some sticky situations depending on the group you're playing with, but in general should work.

All of that said, if I had my druthers, thieves cant would be tied to the Criminal Background and not the rogue class by default. It just feels better that way to me. This way players who want to create a rogue aren't necessarily saddled with ribbons that imply a criminal background (note lowercase, not referring to the mechanical background) and more importantly, players who want to say... create a wizard with the Criminal Background have a character that can speak thieves cant.

Anyway, all fixable with the right group and DM, even if that unfortunately isn't a solution for everyone.

As the OP and the lack of a spell-less Ranger, that's unfortunate. It's something that quite a few people seem to want. In a similar vein to what I said above, in the right group with the right DM this is probably fixable by using the existing UA spell-less Ranger or perhaps something from the DMs Guild. Again, unfortunately, this won't be a solution available to everyone. The ranger is a bit if an odd duck though... it's almost as though you can get a different description of what the class should be for every person you ask. This puts designers in an awkward position and I suppose they need to draw the line somewhere. Anyway, unfortunate for those who won't be able to work around not having an "official" version, but hopefully not too much more than a speed bump, if even that, to those who can.

Which is why the scout should be a fighter sub-class. Thieves' Cant is always in print form and even the Almighty Mike can't do anything to change that. The best thing to do it stop trying to stuff square pegs into round holes.

Honestly, though, if I am going to be honest, a Champion fight with the archery fighting style and outlander background alright works as a spell-less ranger well enough. The scout subclass isn't really necessary.

 

[gyor]

I think Thieves Cant makes sense for scouts for similar reasons as other rogues, a secret language that you don't want anyone else to know them fellow rogues.

Example two Scout go scouting an orc army in the woods, they don't want the Orcs to intercept messages between them, so they use thieves cant, or it's wilderness dilect.

Maybe part of thieves can't is intended for the wild, not cities and it involves barks, bird songs, and so on, disguising the discuss as nature sounds.

 

[mellored]

I always felt Thieves Cant should be "Silent Signals". i.e. sign language.
Anyone who knows it can talk with their hands, without breaking hidden.

And that would makes sense for rangers and rogues.

 

[Mistwell]

I have a solution for someone who does not want thieves cant on their ranger or rogue.

And it will work even in Adventurers League.

Here it is: Take a pen or pencil. If one is not handy, you can even use a marker or crayon.

Now, carefully draw a line through the words "Thieves Cant" on your character sheet. It's OK if your line is not perfectly straight, just drawn a line all the way through the words.

OK, that's it, you're done! Problem solved. And it's perfectly legal in all games!

 

[Ath'kethin]

I have a solution for someone who does not want thieves cant on their ranger or rogue.

And it will work even in Adventurers League.

Here it is: Take a pen or pencil. If one is not handy, you can even use a marker or crayon.

Now, carefully draw a line through the words "Thieves Cant" on your character sheet. It's OK if your line is not perfectly straight, just drawn a line all the way through the words.

OK, that's it, you're done! Problem solved. And it's perfectly legal in all games!

Can I get a citation on the core rulebook and page number on which you found this information? I'm not buying it.

 

[AmerginLiath]

"My character was sick that day in Rogue School. He never properly learned it beyond a Freshman Spanglish level..."

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I liked the Scout Rogue, but the Scout Fighter was more my flavor of Spell-less Ranger.

I hope we get both but I doubt it, and if we only get one I think the scout rogue is the more likely candidate.

I agree, I think they both filled certain niches, and I would like to see them both included, although I suspect if there is one scout, it will be the rogue.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

See if this storyline works: a bunch of the scouts are professional poachers who know thieves cant. Just like Hell's Angel's terminology has slipped into mainstream biker lingo, thieves cant has slipped into high level hunter lingo. On top of that, some scouts are game wardens, who obviously have a desire to pick up on the cant. They might be telling other (law abiding) scouts to keep an open ear for someone who is talking about X (where X is some big of cant). Thus through diffusion, the cant is well known out in the woods. The Thieves Guilds in the big cities would be horrified if they knew this, but that is just Teleport Over country, so they don't pay attention.

 

[ccs]

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.