Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[GreatLemur]

Oh, man, this is just untainted good news. Spellcasting Rangers never made a damn bit of sense, to me.

The classless thing is pure noodling/theorizing/game tinkering on my part. It isn't something that the core game comes out and tells you how to do.

Don't worry; we'll figure it out.

 

[withak]

And another knife has been thrust into my childhood memories. I weep for all that has been lost.

Is something stopping you from playing previous editions?

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm totally happy about this, as I have never dug the spell-casting (half-ass) aspect of the ranger; I like my rangers to be gritty, smelly, Special Forces types.

 

[Celebrim]

Indeed, good news.

The official Ranger will probably look more like my homebrew 'Hunter' class. So, alongside the list of things I'll need to house rule, I can add a list of things that I won't.

My major problems with Ranger 3.0 were:

1) It carried too much setting specific flavor.
2) It wasn't flexible enough ('Urban Ranger' had to be a whole new class.)
3) It forced you to dabble in magic if you wanted to be a 'hunter', even if that wasn't part of your concept. I always thought if you really wanted a magical hunter in an ideal system you would multiclass (and it would be viable to do so).
4) The concept that the Ranger couldn't do his extra damage to monsters not normally vulnerable to criticals wasn't well thought out ('Undead Hunter' had to be a whole new class.)

It sounds like someone else had similar thoughts. That's all to the good.

Of course, I fear that what they really mean is that the Ranger is still a spellcaster but that his powers are explained as being non-magical. Whether that bears scrutiny is something that will have to wait for the full rules.

 

[FireLance]

Is something stopping you from playing previous editions?

More to the point, it looks like the 4e multiclass system will allow those who want spellcasting rangers (even 1e-style arcane spell dabbling rangers) to play them. They just need to take levels in spellcasting classes. So yes, the "ranger" class doesn't provide spellcasting any more. However, there's nothing to stop a character from taking levels in another class that provides him with the abilities that he wants.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I enjoyed my spellcasting rangers. Ah well, not the first change I haven't liked and unlikely to be the last.

 

[lukelightning]

Heck, I want spell-less clerics.

 

[Mercule]

I enjoyed my spellcasting rangers. Ah well, not the first change I haven't liked and unlikely to be the last.

But, wouldn't it be cool if the 4e multi-classing mechanic worked well enough that you could dip into druid/nature cleric/wizard and have a balanced character that fit the flavor you're looking for with the caster ranger?

It's my hopeful belief (based on various statements from the WotC staff) that this is how things will work. From the sounds of things, WotC has put a lot of effort into balancing multi-classing. If it actually works out well, you should be able to have your druidic caster ranger, I can have my arcane caster ranger, and some of these other folks can have their straight-up martial ranger.

To me, that is one of the biggest lures of 4e.

 

[Wormwood]

Heck, I want spell-less clerics.

Preach it, brother!

 

[Sitara]

I concur. Clercis should either be non-spellcasting or be renamed 'healers' and be good at healing only and defending themselves and others. none of this bless, flametrike, deahknell, etc crap.