The point is that you'd Never see it from WOTC so it will not be official.
And 90% of major 3PPs won't do it.
So yould likely never get it okayed by a DM.
D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
And 90% of major 3PPs won't do it.
So yould likely never get it okayed by a DM.
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
Used to. Yeah, that doesn't happen anymore.
I am totally on board with your idea deserving to be developed into a house rule/3rd party rule that is not class-specific.
This thread is talking about the 2024 Ranger.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Regarding hunting traps and the like, they definitely fit in the Ranger's wheelhouse. I don't feel like they should define the class, but it makes sense that the Ranger would be the expert in their use. So I think they should be listed as Tools, and while other classes can use them effectively, the Ranger should have Expertise.
Hunting Traps: From my own limited experience with hunting traps here in the real world, they are something that you spend a few minutes setting up, and then you come back a few hours later and check. If your trap is successful, you find a certain amount of food, or a certain cash amount in resources. (At least, this is how lobster pots work.) They're not battlefield weapons, and they're not necessarily "booby traps" that inflict damage.
So to translate that into D&D terms, it's a tool that you set up and leave over a Long Rest. When you return to check it a few hours later, the DM asks for a Wisdom (Hunting Trap) check to see what he finds in the trap. It could be a certain amount of rations, or a certain GP value of pelts, or what-have-you...hunting traps are used for a variety of reasons. It might also trigger a random encounter, because some horrible forest monster took the bait instead!
Hunting Lures: I'd lump these into the same category as traps. They're similar: you spend a few minutes setting them up, add some bait, and then you back away a hundred paces or so and hide. When your quarry comes up to take the bait, you shoot it. I've only done this a couple of times in real life, so I'm hardly an expert, but it works.
So to translate this into D&D terms, a lure would also be something that you set up and leave, probably over a Short Rest. Perhaps the party is on a quest to catch someone's beloved pet, or they're trying to find out what monster is killing the local cattle? Anyway, the player announces what kind of creature they are trying to lure, and the DM would call for a Wisdom (Hunting Lure) roll to see if the monster shows up. And whether or not it brought friends.
Net: as others have already discussed, this should be a Tool.
-----
Anyway. I've used these things successfully and easily, and I'm absolutely not a Ranger. (Those of you who are: thank you for your service.) So to address the use of hunting traps and such, I think the Ranger class only needs three adjustments:
Under "Proficiencies," change:
Tools:None. Hunting Traps, Hunting Lures, Net
Under "Class Features," add:
Expertise: At 1st level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses Hunting Traps and Hunting Lures.
At 6th level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses Nature and Survival.
And under "Starting Equipment," add:
Hunting Traps: From my own limited experience with hunting traps here in the real world, they are something that you spend a few minutes setting up, and then you come back a few hours later and check. If your trap is successful, you find a certain amount of food, or a certain cash amount in resources. (At least, this is how lobster pots work.) They're not battlefield weapons, and they're not necessarily "booby traps" that inflict damage.
So to translate that into D&D terms, it's a tool that you set up and leave over a Long Rest. When you return to check it a few hours later, the DM asks for a Wisdom (Hunting Trap) check to see what he finds in the trap. It could be a certain amount of rations, or a certain GP value of pelts, or what-have-you...hunting traps are used for a variety of reasons. It might also trigger a random encounter, because some horrible forest monster took the bait instead!
Hunting Lures: I'd lump these into the same category as traps. They're similar: you spend a few minutes setting them up, add some bait, and then you back away a hundred paces or so and hide. When your quarry comes up to take the bait, you shoot it. I've only done this a couple of times in real life, so I'm hardly an expert, but it works.
So to translate this into D&D terms, a lure would also be something that you set up and leave, probably over a Short Rest. Perhaps the party is on a quest to catch someone's beloved pet, or they're trying to find out what monster is killing the local cattle? Anyway, the player announces what kind of creature they are trying to lure, and the DM would call for a Wisdom (Hunting Lure) roll to see if the monster shows up. And whether or not it brought friends.
Net: as others have already discussed, this should be a Tool.
-----
Anyway. I've used these things successfully and easily, and I'm absolutely not a Ranger. (Those of you who are: thank you for your service.) So to address the use of hunting traps and such, I think the Ranger class only needs three adjustments:
Under "Proficiencies," change:
Tools:
Under "Class Features," add:
Expertise: At 1st level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses Hunting Traps and Hunting Lures.
At 6th level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses Nature and Survival.
And under "Starting Equipment," add:
- (a) a Hunting Trap or (b) a Hunting Lure
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
The difference between a class ability and a general ability is access. You can give a fighter Wish spells just as easily.
Edit: Overall what WotC needs to do to make spell-free ranger fans happy is to stop trying to force everything interesting into being a spell and allowing space for things other than magic. They will do what they will do, but trying to contort ourselves into the cramped box when we already know WotC won't actually DO anything is a challenge without a prize.
Last edited:
Vaalingrade
Legend
And they could again, if we're assuming the idea that they listen to feedback in good faith.
Of course, I was there for the Next playtest, so I don't, but still, keep hope alive.
The difference is
Designing as the 1st Party IP holder.: WOTC won't make a spell-less for a community who can't agree what it looks like as a 20 level class.
Designing as a 2nd or 3rd party RPG Publisher: a 3PP would only design a popular version of a spell-less that would sell. Barring that they would do like ENWorld publishing and redesign the whole game to make spell-less ranger work.
Designing as a independent houseruling Net Homebrewer: You can do what you want if making money and getting permission are not factors.
This is the problem. There is no 5e spell-less ranger that makes money without fundamental redesign of the game.
Incenjucar
Legend
What is your goal in this thread?
Edit: Out of fairness, my goal is to show how easy it would be to give rangers thematic abilities that are not spells because I, as a person raised hunting, can't stand that I am a better woodsperson than a ranger is.
Last edited:
Vaalingrade
Legend
You know, a few months ago, I would have said WotC wouldn't put forth an unapologetically terrible Warlock, and yet here we are.
Never say never.
Never say never.
To get the community to coalesce around an idea of what a full 20 level spell-less ranger is
Incenjucar
Legend
Around 50 million people play D&D. We don't need to come to a unified conclusion for WotC designers. If they're browsing these threads, giving them ideas and showing our passion is sufficient.
