Variant Ranger:No Spells

[Steverooo]

Spells

Interesting idea, though you'd have to make a speciffic list of what spells at what level would be available, and which ones arn't. Hunter's Mercy for example, would be just as big a no-no as cures. Same with the Summon Nature's Ally line.

When you get to the last ability (the 4th level spell one) things get scary. Commune with Nature... Tree Stride... eep

Not so scary, to me... Yes, as I said, some common sense would have to be used. I'm not familiar with Hunter's Mercy, but I assume that it aids in a kill... I'd have to look at what it does, before deciding.

As for PHB spells, the only ones (from a quick read-over of PHB:191-2, without reviewing each spell's description), I'd only limit:

Level 1:............................................Level 2:
Delay Poison (1/day)...........................Cure Light Wounds (1/day)
Entangle (1/day)................................Protection From Energy (1/day)
Magic Fang (self, only)........................Spike Growth (1/day)
Resist Energy (1/day)..........................Summon Nature's Ally II (1/day)
Summon Nature's Ally I (1/day)

Level 3:.............................................Level 4:
Command Plants (1/day).......................Animal Growth (1/day)
Cure Moderate Wounds (1/day)..............Cure Serious Wounds (1/day)
Diminish Plants (1/day)..........................Summon Nature's Ally IV (1/day)
Plant Growth (1/day)
Reduce Animal (1/day)
Summon Nature's Ally III (1/day)

What, Commune With Nature too powerful? I don't think so... Remember, it takes 10 minutes' concentration to get three pieces of information, and half an hour to get it all!...

Tree Stride too powerful? In a world with Teleport, and given that it won't work in the oceans, deserts, grasslands, underground, and other such areas where there are no trees (large enough to step into)? I don't see it...

In any case, some of these powers are just too magical, for (Ex) abilities, to me! I have trouble seeing Rangers doing things like Animal Growth, Reduce, Control Pants, Spike Growth, Diminish Plants, etc. If I were doing this, I would probably eliminate all the spells (of those types, anyway) that didn't have a target of "You". In any case, I'd keep the "Casting Time" for anything not constantly in effect.

Any "other" Ranger spells from outside the PHB, the GM is going to have to adjudicate on his own. Briar Web, for instance, is another (1/day) spell (and perhaps Hunter's Mercy is, as well).

And, again, YMMV. Every GM is going to have to work out the details of his or her alternate Ranger for themself, in consultation with their players.

 

[Sejs]

If I were doing this, I would probably eliminate all the spells (of those types, anyway) that didn't have a target of "You".

Actually, that's a good idea. Maybe have it as range: personal or target. Or something like.

Hunter's Mercy, btw, is more or less Ranger True Strike. Makes the caster's next ranged attack automatically threaten a crit, which then needs to be confirmed normally. Currently found in the PGTF, and was also printed somewhere before that but I can't remember where, atm.

 

[feydras]

I was also very disappointed in the Complete Warrior's 'spell-less ranger'. I expected a 'spell-less' and 'spell-like ability less' ranger. For the same reason i was disappointed the first time i saw Monte Cook's revised ranger. I eagerly clicked on the link only to say, what the h***? What's the point of the revision.

I haven't seen the Woodlander class from Midnight, but i can speak to the IK's spell-less ranger. It is a solid class and a good revision of the 3.0 ranger. It needs to be revised for the 3.5 ranger. It will be, as the Iron Kingdoms Campaign Guide is at the printers and should be in stores by mid July. In it they have a 3.5 spell-less ranger. I expect it will be good.

I too am curious about the woodlander class, what kind of abilities does it have?

- Feydras

 

[Ravellion]

Here is mine. It might be a bit too strong.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/tholestia/ranger.html

Rav

edit: Note: It is 3.0.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The barbarian's about being strong enough to dominate nature, the ranger's about understanding and becoming a part of the wild. It's more apt to say a PHB ranger gives up brute strength & stamina for skills and an understanding of nature magic.

I think you're confusing skills with spells.

[qutoe]I suspect it takes longer than one morning. But over time (and levels), the PHB ranger becomes more attuned to nature and learns to tap into natural forces in a limited way.[/quote]

No he doesn't. The ranger who guards his logging camp against gnolls and wild beasts and who is contributing to clear-cutting the forest shouldn't be getting spells from anybody.

At least in D&D they do, and in that context it works because it seems like magic is a highly-accessible force. Moreover, it seems pretty self-evident that to be a full-blown character class that can pull its weight with a party through 20 levels and beyond, a ranger has to be about more than just mundane hunting and foraging skills.

Right, he's also about kicking butt, which he does fairly well.

Furthermore, the spells are weak. He's not giving up much. Why would we give him something powerful in return? That would just lead to an overpowered ranger, something 2e suffered from.

Scrounging for herbs works at low levels, but inevitably it gets eclipsed by what other classes are capable of. Ultimately, there comes a point where foraging for berries just isn't going to cut it next to someone who can cast heal. Not that I think that the ranger's meager spellcasting ability holds up well (I've said as much) but stripping that and having his portfolio solely confined to mundane skills isn't progress.

It's not supposed to keep up with the cleric. I wouldn't expect Aragorn's healing to keep up with Holy Bob's healing. After all, Bob has a direct channel to his deity and had to give up something to do it - his BAB, and so forth.

Upon obtaining acess to fourth leve3l spells, he could always be under the effects of an (Ex) Freedom of Movement, if he wanted. In any case, each Ranger would have 3+ special abilities which are constantly active, in return for losing acess to all of the other spells... A reasonably decent trade-off, if you ask me...

You're going to have to find a very good explanation for how the ranger is somehow immune to spider webs and hold monster. I don't think this is going to work. It's a flavor violation.

Remove the ranger's spells, give him access to the basic weapon specialization feat,

This one won't work either. The ranger isn't supposed to fight as well as the fighter, and furthermore Weapon Specialization is pretty much all the fighter has going for him.

 

[Felon]

I think you're confusing skills with spells.

Please don't be obtuse. Class abilities are, in many cases, very specialized skillsets. As in "a wizard is skilled at casting spells". I'm taking a comprehensive look at the total class package--skills, class features, hit dice, saves, etc--over the course of 20 levels, and possibly more, whereas you're commited to looking at a very narrow conception of what a ranger should be, which sounds like a character that would never advance beyond maybe 5th level. Case in point...

No he doesn't. The ranger who guards his logging camp against gnolls and wild beasts and who is contributing to clear-cutting the forest shouldn't be getting spells from anybody.

This hypothetical ranger probably doesn't know anything about magic, because he's too low level. Now what do you think a 15th-level ranger spends his time doing? The same thing he was doing at 3rd-level, using the same skillset? In D&D, not likely.

Right, he's also about kicking butt, which he does fairly well.

He's OK, but in what capacity does a ranger currently excel based purely on his martial prowess? The brute strength niche is covered by the barbarian, the versatility niche is covered by the fighter, and the rogue's sneak attack outdamages them all.

Furthermore, the spells are weak. He's not giving up much. Why would we give him something powerful in return? That would just lead to an overpowered ranger, something 2e suffered from.

Maybe I'm not getting the thrust of your arguement here, but trading in an inadequate feature for a more effective one doesn't automatically unbalance a class. He's not giving up much, and he's not really getting much. He lost a little versatility, and he's getting a decent defensive ability.

It's not supposed to keep up with the cleric. I wouldn't expect Aragorn's healing to keep up with Holy Bob's healing. After all, Bob has a direct channel to his deity and had to give up something to do it - his BAB, and so forth.

You seem determined not to get the other guy's point, but I'll try to put it more plainly: what class features do you think a mid-to-high-level ranger should possess? What should the ranger be capable of doing at the level that a priest is learning to cast heal? Whether it's a supernatural or extraordinary ability, it should be something that other classes don't already have covered.

You're going to have to find a very good explanation for how the ranger is somehow immune to spider webs and hold monster. I don't think this is going to work. It's a flavor violation.

You mean like the same good explanation for how a bard's music can grant a similar immunity?

The flavor tastes fine to me. I can accept a high-level ranger's rapport with nature heightening to the point where he taps ihto nature magic. Your assertions seem predicated entirely on some central authority being the arbiter of what a ranger is and isn't supposed to be good at. Case in point...

This one won't work either. The ranger isn't supposed to fight as well as the fighter, and furthermore Weapon Specialization is pretty much all the fighter has going for him.

Just curious, do you have similar beefs about other classes? How about bards casting spells? Should they just be magicless guys who hang out in bars and strum their mandolins? Perhaps so, but this would make a bard unplayable.

 

[Desdichado]

Sever folks have made this recommendation. What does the wildlander have going for it? What abilities does, say, a 13th-level wildlander contribute to an adventuring party?

Mostly the same things you'd expect from a ranger (without the spells) but the Wildlander is very a la carte in his approach.

Luckily for those who are asking for more specifics, I created a campaign website both to use as a reference for my campaign, and as an exercise in making an OGL compliant document as well. The Wildlander is included on my site since alternate classes are an important part of my setting (I even have a guy playing a Wildlander, for that matter.) The link for that specific class is right here.

 

[mmadsen]

How about bards casting spells? Should they just be magicless guys who hang out in bars and strum their mandolins? Perhaps so, but this would make a bard unplayable.

A variant Rogue with bardic music, etc. would make a perfectly playable class. (Not a combat monster, certainly, but a perfectly playable alternative Bard class...)

 

[Felon]

A variant Rogue with bardic music, etc. would make a perfectly playable class. (Not a combat monster, certainly, but a perfectly playable alternative Bard class...)

Sure, that could work. Of course, bardic music is a supernatural ability, so it still wouldn't be a magicless class.

The bottom line is that magic in D&D, particularly as it applies to classes, is highly accessable. It isn't like Hyboria or Middle Earth, where there's such a vast gulf between those who can tap into supernatural forces and those who can't that magicians are often spoken of as if they're an inhuman breed unto themselves. This game is chock-full of hedge magic. Every member of the bard class gets access to supernatural musical abilities, every rogue learns enough about spells to detect and disable magical traps, and every monk will eventually gain spell resistance and the ability to dimension door. It's not just a ranger-specific condition.

[EDIT] Incidentally, don't get the wrong impression. I'm not a big champion of the PHB ranger or bard or any of the other semi-magical classes. In fact, I've often argued the reverse on this messageboard--that D&D is too geared towards its own inbred "spellpunk" approach to fantasy rather then providing people with a way to play in Hyboria or Middle-Earth. But OTOH, once I realized that's the way the game currently is, that made it easier to accept individual elements of the game, like the magical ranger. If it's going to lose spells, then IMO it should get something suitably appropriate for living in a spellpunk world in return.

 

[Desdichado]

The bottom line is that magic in D&D, particularly as it applies to classes, is highly accessable. It isn't like Hyboria or Middle Earth, where there's such a vast gulf between those who can tap into supernatural forces and those who can't that magicians are often spoken of as if they're inhuman breed unto themselves. This game is chock-full of hedge magic. Every member of the bard class gets access to supernatural musical abilities, every rogue learns enough about spells to detect and disable magical traps, and every monk will eventually gain spell resistance and the ability to dimension door. It's not just a ranger-specific condition.

Exactly why to get that Hyboria type of feel, I had to modify or replace almost all the classes from D&D for my homebrew. :\