NO Spell Ranger modifications

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

DoctorBadWolf

Jun 23, 2015 0:12:41

So, I generally like the no spell ranger, but it is a bit of a hack.

 

So, I was thinking, what about some ranger specific manuevers, and maybe a rethink of the poison resistance thing? I feel like that could be more interesting.

 

Also, I can't think of any reason to not delete the word "humanoid" from the benefit section of Poultices. There's no reason it shouldn't work for animals. just make it not fix constructs.

 

Maybe the poison thing could instead be the ranger gaining the ability to heal poisons and deseases with poultices?

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Also, perhaps a subclass that expands the poultices even further and/or does other nature/herblore related things?

#2

lawrencehoy

Jun 23, 2015 21:53:19

I like all these ideas. I'm fond of the no-spell ranger; ranger was always my favorite class, but I never used much of the magic. I'm old school though, so the ranger didn't even get magic for quite a while when I played it.

#3

arnwolf666

Jun 24, 2015 15:33:41

Make it a Fighter archetype.

#4

ORC_Cricket

Jun 24, 2015 19:20:15

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

 

You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

 

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

 

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.  

 

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone. 

#5

Lawolf

Jun 24, 2015 21:47:30

So the ranger is lacking without access to spells. Not only in the damage department due to no hunters mark, but also in the utility department. 

 

I don't like use of Battlemaster maneuvers for such a ranger either, so toss those out. I say gut the poultices entirely, and completely remove all daily based resources from the class as well. No need for those cheap knock offs of spells. 

 

So...what if we drew inspiration from 4e Give the class nature related skill tricks for one. Give the class hunters mark as a class feature instead of a spell as well (usable once per rest at first, then maybe even at-will at higher levels). Perhaps allow favored enemy and favored terrain to apply to damage rolls at level 11 to help them keep up in the damage department. There is a lot that could be done here. 

 

#6

SirAntoine

Jun 24, 2015 21:57:29

Extra hit points, free knowledge about monsters, fast movement, stealth, climbing, and more hit points.

#7

ORC_Cricket

Jun 24, 2015 22:16:29

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

 

You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

 

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

 

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.  

 

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone. 

#8

DoctorBadWolf

Jun 25, 2015 15:12:47

A non magical ranger has no reason to be a fighter. Not only would rogue be a better fit, but the class still works fine as it's own class, and is thematically distinct enough to remain mechanically distinct. Further, it would require preclude a no magic beastmaster, or a no magic ranger that still has favored terrain and favored enemy. That is obviously nonsensical as a solution for those who want a non magical ranger.

 

If making it a subclass of another class were a viable option, I wouldn't have made this thread.

(Reply to #8)

arnwolf666

DoctorBadWolf wrote:
(Reply to #9)

DoctorBadWolf

arnwolf666 wrote:
#11

LordCorwin

Jun 26, 2015 8:40:57

If you are saying there should be different ways to represent character concepts, why are you getting upset when someone suggests a different way? Are you saying a player who wants to play a martial spell-less ranger couldn't go with fighter and take complementary background, skills and equipment to be a ranger type character? That sounds like a cool build.

(Reply to #11)

DoctorBadWolf

LordCorwin wrote:
#13

lawrencehoy

Jul 01, 2015 22:21:34

DoctorBadWolf wrote:
#14

Lawolf

Jul 02, 2015 6:36:11

lawrencehoy wrote:
#15

lawrencehoy

Jul 02, 2015 22:47:10

Lawolf wrote: