Ranger without Spells?

[Deceitfulelf]

One of the players in my group wants to play a Ranger without spells, but in exchange for dropping the spells he wants to have a full Druid level Animal Companion. Personally I think he should get a little more to compensate for the loss of spells, but I don't Know what. What everyones thoughts on this? Would it be a fair trade, or should he get more the loss of spells? Also are there any supplements that have a good spell less ranger?

 

[Crothian]

Ya, that's a pretty good trade.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

One of the players in my group wants to play a Ranger without spells, but in exchange for dropping the spells he wants to have a full Druid level Animal Companion. Personally I think he should get a little more to compensate for the loss of spells, but I don't Know what. What everyones thoughts on this? Would it be a fair trade, or should he get more the loss of spells? Also are there any supplements that have a good spell less ranger?

Complete Warrior has a ranger without spells. I do not have an opinion on whether it is good or not, though.

 

[arnon]

Wildscape from FFG also has a number of spell-less rangers, but they mostly add to his/her combat abilities.

arnon

 

[Storyteller01]

Iron Kingdoms uses a spell-less ranger. I've also heard of Rangers gaining a bonus feat when they would normal start casting higher level spells. Equates to one feat per four levels, or so I've heard. I don't know enough about the 3.5 animal companion rules to say whether his idea is good or not.

Do they operate in the same manner as familiars?

 

[Christopher Lambert]

Complete Warrior has a ranger without spells. I do not have an opinion on whether it is good or not, though.

No it's not. It has spells that don't use components, but CW missed the point on the spell-less ranger.

Well, it missed the point in several areas, so I'm not surprised.

 

[Sugarmouse]

I currently have a Ranger with the IK changes implemented.

You get quite nice compensatory stuff for trading in spell casting, such as bonus feats (which Storyteller mentioned) as well as Favoured Terrain, which gives you an increase to certain skills whilst in an environment your Ranger has specialised in. Its more of a "Military Scout' conversion to the Ranger.

Animal Companions have some of the same abilities as Familiars.

I do not see a problem in providing a Ranger with a full equivalent AC, but I would not add any other template/change on top of that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

AEG's Mercenaries has several spell less ranger variants.

Wheel of Time has the Woodsman.

FFG's Path of the Sword has some alternative core classes including a huntsman type.

Black Company has a nice, no spell ranger.

 

[Laurel]

One of the players in my group wants to play a Ranger without spells, but in exchange for dropping the spells he wants to have a full Druid level Animal Companion. Personally I think he should get a little more to compensate for the loss of spells, but I don't Know what. What everyones thoughts on this? Would it be a fair trade, or should he get more the loss of spells? Also are there any supplements that have a good spell less ranger?

I would stay far away from the CW spell-less ranger. I have no experience with the others, but some sound like they could hold promise.

For the specific trade mentioned above, I would agree that simply the increased Companion doesn't quite make up for the loss of spells. However, make sure whatever other bonus (such as extra feats) come later in the ranger development as the spells would. Also, this may limit it too much for you opinion, but narrow down the feat options -keep to fighter bonus feats or some such. Still keeps it open, but does not give access to everything.