Variant Ranger:No Spells

[Torm]

How about a Ranger-flavoured bonus feat at each level.

Ymmmmmmm..... Ranger-flavoured.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The varient Ranger for Swashbuckling Adventures allows a ranger to search for Herbs (with a Survival or Profession (Healer) check) that he/she can use to heal small ammounts of damage at Level 3. The Ranger chooses how much damage he wants to heal (x d6's) and rolls a survival check (DC 5 * x) to see if they can find them. (Gained at 3rd or 4th Level)

At 9th level they can search for poisions DC = cost of poision / 10

At 18th level they get poison use.

WarCraft D20 had a pretty similar mechanic for their scout class. (Unfortunately, their scout came with spell-like abilities as well.)

 

[Sejs]

There's a spell-less ranger variant in Complete Warrior, but uh.. frankly.. it's a little limp. You gain a total of 4 abilities, each when you would get access to 1 spell of a given level (without wis bonus) - and while the first ability (+10 move) is interesting, the other three are uh... spell like abilities, more or less.

Which sorta seems like missing the point; trading the ranger's magic spells for non-spell but still quite magical powers. Uh... no. Try again.


I like the idea of instead of spell-likes, gain one of the barbarian non-rage related abilities, or a feat, though. That sounds pretty much on.

 

[Belegbeth]

Here is one suggestion: each time the Ranger would normally gain a new spell level he gains a +1d6 "ambush" ability (a sneak attack that doesn't work with flanking).

 

[MDSnowman]

There's a spell-less ranger variant in Complete Warrior, but uh.. frankly.. it's a little limp. You gain a total of 4 abilities, each when you would get access to 1 spell of a given level (without wis bonus) - and while the first ability (+10 move) is interesting, the other three are uh... spell like abilities, more or less.

Which sorta seems like missing the point; trading the ranger's magic spells for non-spell but still quite magical powers. Uh... no. Try again.


I like the idea of instead of spell-likes, gain one of the barbarian non-rage related abilities, or a feat, though. That sounds pretty much on.

See when I wrote a review of complete warrior and brought up how insane it was to trade in spells for spell-like abiltities and calling it spell-less I got ripped apart :\

 

[Felon]

There's a spell-less ranger variant in Complete Warrior, but uh.. frankly.. it's a little limp. You gain a total of 4 abilities, each when you would get access to 1 spell of a given level (without wis bonus) - and while the first ability (+10 move) is interesting, the other three are uh... spell like abilities, more or less. Which sorta seems like missing the point; trading the ranger's magic spells for non-spell but still quite magical powers. Uh... no. Try again.

Well, the point is, that's the nature of D&D. The game's got 11 core classes, and only 3 of them have no magical abilities (fighter, barb, rogue). I don't know why there's some special beef with rangers becoming more magically-oriented as they advance to higher levels. A quick scan of the Monster Manual makes it clear that the wilderness isn't just filled with mundane threats like dire wolves, orcs, and the occasional big spider or ROUS. That's the difference between D&D and middle-earth a lot of folks don't seem to get when they critcize the PHB ranger for not emulating Aragorn or Robin Hood or whatever. If a ranger's going to be the quintessential monster hunter, he's got to be able to face supernatural threats.

Having said that, I personally don't care too much for just tossing the ranger a meager asortment of spells. That's not only weak, but it forces him to pray, carry material components, leave a hand free for gestures, shout out incantantations, and so forth. I think the CW ranger's abilities, particularly the innate freedom of movement power, are a much better alternative. Rather than being a hedge mage, this ranger's a warrior armed with the abilities the character needs to face magical opponents. Most of the non-magical alternative abilities I see here are either just co-opting other class's abilities, or they're pretty pale compensation for advancing to high levels in this class.

 

[Sejs]

See when I wrote a review of complete warrior and brought up how insane it was to trade in spells for spell-like abiltities and calling it spell-less I got ripped apart

Well, if it'll make you feel better, people are welcome to rip me appart the same way. I don't mind, honest.

^_^

I don't know why there's some special beef with high-level rangers becoming more magical as they advance.

Personally, I have no preference for a spelled ranger over a non-spelled ranger. But I can see how someone could want the option to have a non-magic using woodsman available as an option. No more than a side bar needed, really. Heh, personally I'd like to see a non-spell assassin prc variant that had more mundane physical prowess type abilities. Maybe that's just me, though.

I think the CW ranger's abilities, particularly the innate freedom of movement power, are a much better alternative.

If it was a constant [Ex] ability, I think it would be less of a problem. As is, it's concentrate, summon up some magic and be FoM'd for a couple rounds once per day.

 

[Grazzt]

Heh, personally I'd like to see a non-spell assassin prc variant that had more mundane physical prowess type abilities. Maybe that's just me, though.

Nope- not just you. That's how I did the assassin IMC. Call it "First Edition Feel" if ya want, but spell-throwing assassins get on my nerves (unless the guy takes levels in a spellcasting class I mean).

 

[Caspian Moon Prince]

I'm actually gonna rework the ranger for my campaign as well and was giving serious thought to either using the Wildlander or at least basing mine off of it. It is very well done.

I just finished up my rework. It is highly based on the wildlander, but I've lessened the abilities a little bit. I've taken away the smite ability and lessened the bonuses to skills to a +3 and added a few more wildlander traits(ranger traits) that come from the 3.5 ranger. It seemed to turn out really well, and I cannot wait to try it out.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Well, the point is, that's the nature of D&D. The game's got 11 core classes, and only 3 of them have no magical abilities (fighter, barb, rogue).

The ranger isn't too different from the barbarian, except the way they fight, and rangers tend to give up stamina for skills. Hence, non-magical.

I don't know why there's some special beef with rangers becoming more magically-oriented as they advance to higher levels.

Well, I don't see why learning how to hunt and survive in the wild is going to somehow make you magical. Do you wake up one morning and say "Mielikki! I can cast spells!"?

I think this came from the nonsense that rnagers had to be good-aligned. Right, being evil prevents you from learning how to fight and learn how to live in the wild.

A quick scan of the Monster Manual makes it clear that the wilderness isn't just filled with mundane threats like dire wolves, orcs, and the occasional big spider or ROUS. That's the difference between D&D and middle-earth a lot of folks don't seem to get when they critcize the PHB ranger for not emulating Aragorn or Robin Hood or whatever. If a ranger's going to be the quintessential monster hunter, he's got to be able to face supernatural threats.

About the only requirement is a magic sword (for when you face something with DR). You don't need the spells - kicking butt is all you need, just like the barbarian or fighter. Those spells aren't going to help you kill a dragon anyway (if that's what you're going after). You surely don't need unflavorful spells like entangle. You don't even need cure light wounds - you can scrounge in the forest and find some herbs like the other rangers.

Considering how weak the spells are, no one should expect the non-magical alternatives to be strong. Some of them, like fast movement, are a lot better than the spells.