# Variant Ranger:No Spells



## mrmider (May 31, 2004)

Im trying to make a variant ranger that takes away his spellcasting ability, and im not to sure as to what i should give the class in return.

Any suggestions?

Zero


----------



## Liolel (May 31, 2004)

If you know anyone with the complete warrior, ask to look at it for a few minutes as it has variant ranger and paladins with no spells. The implatation was simple the class gained a new special ability at each level they would get a new level of spells.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (May 31, 2004)

Fast Movement (Ex): Maybe at 4th or 8th level (+10 ft.). Or mayybe +5 ft. at 4th-level and another +5 ft. at 12th-level.

Trailblazing (Ex): Reduce the movement penalties for travelling through thick brush and stuff with a Survival check (DC 15, +2 per additional person)... this can make Fast Tracking more useful. (Fast Track lets you track at full speed but this isn't too useful if your party has a cleric with a speed of 20 ft. because he's wearing that heavy armor.)

You might want to replace combat styles with something else, too - there's not much for spear-wielders, grimlocks or gnolls, for instance.

PS: the Complete Warrior of the "spell-less" ranger was a joke. It still came with spells, you just didn't need components for them. Even worse, they got rid of the few flavorful spells (like _longstrider_) and gave you a spell that lets you Track an opponent without a survival check - so why exactly did you max out Survival again?


----------



## LostSoul (May 31, 2004)

How about a Ranger-flavoured bonus feat at each level where he would have gained a spell of a new level?  I think that's 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th.

This should prolly be in house rules.


----------



## Tetsubo (May 31, 2004)

mrmider said:
			
		

> Im trying to make a variant ranger that takes away his spellcasting ability, and im not to sure as to what i should give the class in return.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Zero




Take a look at the Iron Kingdom's Ranger. No spells at all. It might be what you are looking for.


----------



## Caspian Moon Prince (May 31, 2004)

I've been working on a spell-less ranger for my campaign setting and have come up with two options.

1. Using the Wildlander from Midnight. It is very nice and has a few special abilities, but no spells.

2. Tweaking the variant ranger Monte Cook made available on his site. I'd take away the spells and up the hit dice to d10 and maybe a few weak rangery abilities. 

I still haven't decided which I'll use, but I've always disliked the spell abilities of the ranger.


----------



## res (May 31, 2004)

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.


----------



## Grazzt (May 31, 2004)

Caspian Moon Prince said:
			
		

> I've been working on a spell-less ranger for my campaign setting and have come up with two options.
> 
> 1. Using the Wildlander from Midnight. It is very nice and has a few special abilities, but no spells.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 31, 2004)

I think that trading out the spells for two out of the following three barbarian abilities would be sound.

a) fast movement

b) uncanny dodge

c) damage resistance.

Probably (a) and (c).


----------



## SALADIN THE JUST (May 31, 2004)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> 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.




Like all gathered here, I have disliked the spell-use ability for the Ranger and for the Paladin. Perhaps it will be real useful if those who have managed to craft something to provide those interested with a copy of their work of art. What say you? In the mean time if anyone has access to a spell-less ranger or paladin class, i would be most grateful if you could direct me to the website or provide me with a copy of the class. Thank u!!


----------



## Torm (Jun 1, 2004)

LostSoul said:
			
		

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




Ymmmmmmm..... Ranger-flavoured.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 1, 2004)

res said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 1, 2004)

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 (Jun 1, 2004)

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 (Jun 1, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 1, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 1, 2004)

> 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 (Jun 1, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 1, 2004)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 1, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Ruavel (Jun 1, 2004)

FFG produced a "97% spell free" variant that I quite liked in Path of the Sword called the Hunter...

the replaced spells with further bonuses against chosen foes/favoured enemies...

a sneak attack of sorts against favoured enemies...
the ability to go for days with minimal sleep (to help Track)...
subdual damage with penalties to attack...
"auto" critical conversion on chosen foes once a day...

that's just a few of the items they included....  hope it helps...


----------



## Trainz (Jun 1, 2004)

Wayyy back in first ed, the unearthed arcana ranger had access to weapon specializaiton, and only the fighter had greater weapon specialization (called double-weapon specialization IIRC).

So...

Remove the ranger's spells, give him access to the basic weapon specialization feat, give him back his d10, and allow him to bypass critter's DR by his favored enemy bonus for that particular critter. If he has a +4 versus demons, and a Demon has DR 5, his damage is only diminished by 1.

The ranger player will also be glad to not have to absolutely put a 14 on wis.

A player in a game I currently play in is a 9th level by-the-book ranger. He is so disgusted by it that he agreed to roll a new character one level lower.

He rolled a spiked-chain fighter. Talk about over-compensation.


----------



## Felon (Jun 1, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> 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.




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. 



> 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 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. 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.



> 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.




The fighter and barbarian classes are good for fighting certain types of foes, and poor at figthing others. The ranger needs its own niche where it kicks butt, and just co-opting fast movement, sneak attack dice, bonus fighter feats, or other class features that are already spoken for just isn't going to make that happen. If there's a way to make an effective ranger without magic, I'm all for it. But I'm not hearing that, rather I'm hearing people so intent on removing magic from the class that they let that goal override everything else that's an important class-design consideration. Giving the class druid magic makes it markedly from the barbarian or fighter or paladin or rogue, and that's the whole point.



> 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.




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.


----------



## Steverooo (Jun 1, 2004)

Here's an idea that I have put out, many times, on these threads...  You want a spell-less Ranger?  For every spell that they would be able to cast (12 + bonus for high WIS, at 20th level), let them pick a spell of the appropriate level, and give them an (Ex) ability to do the same thing, at will (within reason... no _Cure X Wounds_, obviously!)

So, at fourth level, when a Ranger with a 14+ WIS would get a whopping 1 spell/day, they instead get one (Ex) ability...  Looking at the list, the PC could pick _Speak With Animals_, and always be able to talk to his animal companion, but instead chooses _Longstrider_, and gains 40' movement, just like the Barbarian.

After gaining a few more first-level powers, when a Ranger would ordinarily get a second level spell, he can now choose a 2nd-level (Ex) ability, such as always being able to set a snare, if a rope/vine and tree are handy.

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...

Now some common sense has to be used, here, as the _Cure Light Wounds_ example shows...  Sure, you could rig up something where a high-level Ranger can "find herbs" and cure 1D8+ HP/day, or something, but...

In any case, giving Rangers (Ex) abilities that let them do the things that spells used to seems fine, IMHO...  ESPECIALLY since many of those spells (_Snare_, etc.) are replacements for missing abilities (Set & Disarm Traps).

YMMV, of course.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jun 1, 2004)

Check out the Wildlander class in the Midnight Setting Book.  Since there is no divine magic in the setting the class was created to replace the Ranger.


----------



## Davelozzi (Jun 1, 2004)

The Woodsman class from the _Wheel of Time RPG_ is also a pretty good spell-less ranger, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 1, 2004)

Iron Kingdoms Ranger is spell-less.

_Midnight_ Wildlander is a spell-less "Ranger."

FFG's _Path of the Sword_ included too spell-less "Rangers" the Hunter and the Outdoorsman.

Ken Hood had a free download for a Bushfighter that was a spell-less ranger.

_The d20 Wheel of Time RPG_ has a spell-less ranger called the Woodsman.

The Ranger Project, a website dedicated to alt.rangers has several spell-less rangers.

Personally, I love the Wildlander variant as my favorite, and one that is easy to slide into the mix with standard classes without any tweaking.  Ken Hood's is also really good from that perspective, and it's free, but it's not as _a la carte_ with its options.


----------



## mmadsen (Jun 1, 2004)

Unearthed Arcana's Wilderness Rogue variant fits the ranger archetype quite nicely -- it's basically a Rogue with the Ranger's skill list (and a few other tweaks).


----------



## Sejs (Jun 1, 2004)

> Here's an idea that I have put out, many times, on these threads... You want a spell-less Ranger? For every spell that they would be able to cast (12 + bonus for high WIS, at 20th level), let them pick a spell of the appropriate level, and give them an (Ex) ability to do the same thing, at will (within reason... no Cure X Wounds, obviously!)




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


----------



## Felon (Jun 1, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Personally, I love the Wildlander variant as my favorite, and one that is easy to slide into the mix with standard classes without any tweaking.  Ken Hood's is also really good from that perspective, and it's free, but it's not as _a la carte_ with its options.




Several 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?


----------



## Steverooo (Jun 2, 2004)

*Spells*



			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 2, 2004)

> 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 (Jun 2, 2004)

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 (Jun 2, 2004)

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 (Jun 2, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Steveroo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Trainz said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 2, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 2, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 2, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 3, 2004)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 3, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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.   :\


----------



## SSquirrel (Jun 3, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> 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.



 Heh you should look back to last month in House Rules. DrSpunj has a thread about a balance sheet which is an excel spread sheet that tweaks D&D and AU into a point buy system. To make Fighters equal out in the balancing with teh otehr classes ( as well as to make each level more "fun") they gain a bonus feat at EACH level not every other.

 Works nicely. Point buy D&D...mix and match whatever abilities ya want. The AU Half and full caster (ie 7 and 9th level max) setup is utilized instead of the 6 different spell progressions of the PHB. Makes Bards, Paladins and Rangers much more powerful spellwise and while I would still prefer a Ranger sans spells, my contention has always been taht it was too much of a "oh here a few trinkets". If they're gonna be partial casters make them PARTIAL CASTERS.

  Hagen


----------



## Felon (Jun 3, 2004)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Heh you should look back to last month in House Rules. DrSpunj has a thread about a balance sheet which is an excel spread sheet that tweaks D&D and AU into a point buy system. To make Fighters equal out in the balancing with teh otehr classes ( as well as to make each level more "fun") they gain a bonus feat at EACH level not every other.




Gaining feat's very level's a bit much (tried it), but something more comparable to the strong hero from D20 Modern might be workable.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 3, 2004)

I'll slide this over to House Rules.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 3, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 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...




Is he suppose to retire at 5th-level? No, I don't think so.



> 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.




He would be doing the same thing as the other non-spellcasting classes.



> 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.




He doesn't. He's not outright better than any of the other fighting classes, but he does have more skills than anyone but the rogue (and he's tougher than the rogue - a few more hit points _and_ a good Fort save).



> 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.




Isn't that like taking a powerful class (the cleric) and trading in Turn Undead for something more powerful? A cleric can do that, but it will cost him feat slots. (Or he can take a busted PrC.)



> 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?




Anytime a new ranger thread comes up, there's usually a list of class features people look at, not all of which are stolen from the barbarian 

The general purpose is to take the ranger's _skills_ and make them more useful - for instance, Camouflage is a great example. It takes an existing skill (Hide) and makes it a lot more useful (you can hide without cover). I think Hide in Plain Sight went a bit too far, however.



> 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.



]

Fair enough, but a few abilities (mainly fast movement and uncanny dodge) come up over and over again. I'm not too fond of uncanny dodge (you already have Listen and Spot as class skills) but I do think it's more flavorful than Evasion.



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




Bardic music is supernatural.



> 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.




That would be an NPC expert with lots of ranks in Perform (storytelling). Of course, if he had a great BAB and some other cool features, he would be a PC class.

(D20 Modern has a very similar Charismatic Hero class that can do something similar to the bard without magic.)



			
				Ssquirrel said:
			
		

> Heh you should look back to last month in House Rules. DrSpunj has a thread about a balance sheet which is an excel spread sheet that tweaks D&D and AU into a point buy system. To make Fighters equal out in the balancing with teh otehr classes ( as well as to make each level more "fun") they gain a bonus feat at EACH level not every other.




Perhaps that is so (I think the fighter needs more powerful high BAB feats, rather than more feats) but Weapon Specialization is still the "classic" fighter feature. No one is proposing giving a ranger rage, for instance.


----------



## Caspian Moon Prince (Jun 3, 2004)

I'm working on the a reworking of the Wildlander and am wanting to see what peoples thoughts on the abilities that give +4 to the different skills. Is this overpowered to you or should it be lessened? 

Just to let you know. My ranger is the wildlander without the smite abilities and a few small extras from the 3.5 ranger as extra traits to get.


----------

