Cutting Out the Ranger?

[Amaril]

In one of the settings I'm working on at the moment, divine magic always comes from one of two particular sources and has a very specific flavor. Clerics and paladins fit into this magic system just fine, but the whole "divine magic from nature" concept of druidic magic doesn't work, so I'm axing the druid class for the setting. However, this presents me with a slight problem of what to do with the ranger class. Rangers use the same type of animistic divine magic as druids, which doesn't work for the setting, so the way I see it, I have three options for what to do with them: change their spell list, take away their magic and give them something else instead, or axe them along with the druid. Now, the third option would obviously be simplest, but while getting rid of druids was easy, since they're a type of character that just doesn't exist in this world, every setting has room for stealthy wilderness warriors and trackers, even if they don't use magic. If I get rid of the ranger, making a character like that would be harder for players. So, I have two questions. First, if a player wants to play a ranger-type character without magic in this setting, would it be practical for them to create that concept by building another class properly? And second, if not, what should I do with the ranger to make them balanced without magic?

[NavyBlue]

Away from my books at the moment, but as I recall there are several Ranger ACFs that replace spells with some other ability. Why not pick one of those?

[Dienekes]

Depending on options available, ToB Ranger (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update) is a quick easy fix.

If you don't like the magical aspects of Shadow Hand I would suggest replacing it with one of the better Archery style homebrew disciplines.

If you are opposed to Tome of Battle for whatever reason, you can replace Rangers with the Scout class from Complete Adventurer. Though I would suggest allowing them to take the Swift Hunter feat (allows Ranger and Scout levels to stack when determining a few non-magical things) even if they don't have levels in Ranger, it allows their Skirmish ability to work better.

[Amaril]

Any of those would work fine, but is there some way I can solve this problem with core-only? That's my general policy as a DM, partly to keep things simple and prevent too much powergaming, and partly because I don't want to force any players to buy supplements to play in the setting. Using core-only, the first solution that comes to mind would be to play a lightly armored fighter or fighter/rogue with feats for things like tracking and two-weapon fighting (half the ranger's class features are just bonus feats anyway). I'll use some of the supplement stuff if core-only isn't practical, though.

[dextercorvia]

Just take Scout, and let Swift Hunter give them Favored Enemy choices (not the Ranger benefits).

Edit: Core only preferred? That's a horse of a different color.

[Dienekes]

Well, I tend to hate Core Only on principle as I think all the fun non-magical stuff is absent in core. But, honestly, you could just replace spellcasting with say, a fighter bonus feat every 3 levels. Other than that, Fighter/Rogue could work, it'd be annoying the first few levels as you juggle skill points changing up every level, but it can be done.

Oh, and for your players not wanting to buy books. Type this into google then hit the first link:

Scout – Class – D&D Tools

[Urpriest]

Any of those would work fine, but is there some way I can solve this problem with core-only? That's my general policy as a DM, partly to keep things simple and prevent too much powergaming, and partly because I don't want to force any players to buy supplements to play in the setting. Using core-only, the first solution that comes to mind would be to play a lightly armored fighter or fighter/rogue with feats for things like tracking and two-weapon fighting (half the ranger's class features are just bonus feats anyway). I'll use some of the supplement stuff if core-only isn't practical, though.

If you're homebrewing, you're already traveling out of core-only.

Anyway, Rogue and Fighter can both work for this, yes. So can Paladin, really. Another option would be to just keep the Ranger's casting, but make its magic derived from a deity. This isn't a novel concept, Forgotten Realms has done it since the beginning. It's not like Entangle is any weirder of a spell for a god to grant than Obscuring Mist after all.

[RolandDeschain]

There was a post on this forum a while back that introduced the idea of Druids and Rangers(made some other 'divine-type' spellcasters as well) using a third type of magic called "Primal Magic". Switch the casting stat to something like...oh, I don't know...constitution or something and there you go. Done and done.

I'm thinking about doing this with my homebrew setting.

[Amaril]

If you're homebrewing, you're already traveling out of core-only.

Anyway, Rogue and Fighter can both work for this, yes. So can Paladin, really. Another option would be to just keep the Ranger's casting, but make its magic derived from a deity. This isn't a novel concept, Forgotten Realms has done it since the beginning. It's not like Entangle is any weirder of a spell for a god to grant than Obscuring Mist after all.

Yeah, but homebrewing stuff for a setting guide isn't the same. If you have mandatory supplement content, you have to make sure your players either have the right books or can access the content some other way for free. If it's your own stuff just for the setting, you can just hand it to them and say "use this". Well, it feels different to me, at least.

Divine magic in this setting doesn't come from deities--there are none. It comes straight from the powers of Law and Chaos that control the world. Divine casters pick one or the other to devote themselves to. I could give the ranger an alternate spell list that gives their magic a more appropriate flavor for this, but a) that's a lot more work, and b) paladins already fulfill the role of martial champions of Law or Chaos, so rangers would be somewhat redundant flavor-wise in that case.

[dextercorvia]

It's not in the PHB, but it is close.

Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariantWilderness Rogue)

In addition to this, I would change Sneak Attack to only work on Ranged attacks, but remove the 30' limitation.

[lytokk]

Depending on your perspective, the CW non-spell casting ranger would work. Get a 10ft move increase and a couple of other things. ACF's as I understand it are non-core at all. Most Core only games I've been in use most of the completes anyway, mainly for prestige classes since the Core only ones lack a lot of variety.

[Svata]

Divine magic in this setting doesn't come from deities--there are none. It comes straight from the powers of Law and Chaos that control the world. Divine casters pick one or the other to devote themselves to. I could give the ranger an alternate spell list that gives their magic a more appropriate flavor for this, but a) that's a lot more work, and b) paladins already fulfill the role of martial champions of Law or Chaos, so rangers would be somewhat redundant flavor-wise in that case.

Just have the paladins be the martial champions of Law, with rangers being martial champions of Chaos. Justify the nature-spells thing as nature being more primal and chaotic than the ordered, lawfulness that civilization imposes upon it.

[Amaril]

Just have the paladins be the martial champions of Law, with rangers being martial champions of Chaos. Justify the nature-spells thing as nature being more primal and chaotic than the ordered, lawfulness that civilization imposes upon it.

Except that in this cosmology, nature isn't Chaotic--it's neutral. Chaos is pure entropy, and Law is pure stasis. All life comes from the combination of the two: Lawful enough to have permanency and balance, Chaotic enough to permit evolution and change. Mortals who dedicate themselves to one side or the other don't realize it, but if either ever truly won, reality would be destroyed. Point being, divine nature magic doesn't really make sense.

[Urpriest]

Except that in this cosmology, nature isn't Chaotic--it's neutral. Chaos is pure entropy, and Law is pure stasis. All life comes from the combination of the two: Lawful enough to have permanency and balance, Chaotic enough to permit evolution and change. Mortals who dedicate themselves to one side or the other don't realize it, but if either ever truly won, reality would be destroyed. Point being, divine nature magic doesn't really make sense.

Honestly, the huge binary focus on Law/Chaos is kind of odd for a D&D setting to begin with. D&D, 3.5 especially, is well-loved for how populous and diverse it is, how many different angles you can give to everything...pegging everything to one overall conflict seems to weaken that.

Anyway, there's a difference between martial champions of a concept and martial dabblers in the concept. Paladins are the champions of Law and Chaos, whose devotion protects (Divine Grace) and otherwise empowers (Turn Undead, and casting) them. Their casting is weaker than a Cleric's because they gain martial power and blessings from the concept they are devoted to.

By contrast, Rangers are primarily skilled huntsmen. Their class abilities (bonus feats, various stealth benefits) are based on skill. However, as people who are often alone in the wilderness, they often pick up some small devotion, either to Law or to Chaos. Their devotion is not strong enough to get the spells of a Cleric, or the blessings of a Paladin, but they still respect the powers that rule the universe, and that allows them a small part of what the others enjoy. They are not martial champions of Chaos and Law, but they do recognize their power.

Alternatively, just make Rangers arcane, and let them cast in light armor like a bard.

[Komatik]

Any of those would work fine, but is there some way I can solve this problem with core-only? That's my general policy as a DM, partly to keep things simple and prevent too much powergaming, and partly because I don't want to force any players to buy supplements to play in the setting.

Core alone contains about as much hideous spellcaster brokenness as the rest of all splatbooks combined and is pretty much devoid of any actually interesting or powerful mundane gameplay :/

[RPGaddict28]

Make them arcane and let them cast in light armor?

[Metahuman1]

A Psi-warrior or a really well built Wilder could probably play similar to a ranger and make it work fluff wise. There in the SRD along with all the basics you need to play one. Meaning you don't have to spring for extra supplements, which fixes your concern about going outside core.

Or you could make the Ranger half way decent by making his animal companion progress the way a druids does but come online at level 4, and at level 4 let him start getting sneak attack, and extra D6 every two levels. It's a slower progression then a rogue get's that way, but not so much that it's useless. As an added benny, let him sneak attack things immune to sneak attack if there covered as one of his favored enemy's. That should be suitable for covering the loss of casting, which is really the rangers best class feature.

[Coidzor]

Any of those would work fine, but is there some way I can solve this problem with core-only? That's my general policy as a DM, partly to keep things simple and prevent too much powergaming, and partly because I don't want to force any players to buy supplements to play in the setting. Using core-only, the first solution that comes to mind would be to play a lightly armored fighter or fighter/rogue with feats for things like tracking and two-weapon fighting (half the ranger's class features are just bonus feats anyway). I'll use some of the supplement stuff if core-only isn't practical, though.

What, you don't share any access to your books with your players? :smallconfused:

If you expand from Core-only to the SRD, then you get access to wilderness rogues, I suppose.

Though, really, it's probably better to just revisit what you've done to the magic system, the gods, the divine, and the setting that not even the Forgotten Realms answer to Druids and Rangers isn't an option.


Divine magic in this setting doesn't come from deities--there are none. It comes straight from the powers of Law and Chaos that control the world. Divine casters pick one or the other to devote themselves to. I could give the ranger an alternate spell list that gives their magic a more appropriate flavor for this, but a) that's a lot more work, and b) paladins already fulfill the role of martial champions of Law or Chaos, so rangers would be somewhat redundant flavor-wise in that case.

What, did you kill Good and Evil? :smalltongue:

That's gotta be the most weird approach to the Divine I've ever come across though. Especially since usually there's the force of Balance in between the two in most settings that play with that sort of thing and Druids are notoriously associated with Balance and Imbalance. :smallamused:


Except that in this cosmology, nature isn't Chaotic--it's neutral.

Point being, divine nature magic doesn't really make sense.

Nature is neutral by default anyway, at least in the general expectations and culture surrounding the D and the Ds.

Maybe you need to re-examine your idiosyncracies and assumptions as to why this is the case for you.


Yeah, but homebrewing stuff for a setting guide isn't the same.

Homebrewing an alternate magic source is exactly the same, or close enough. :smalltongue:

[pi4t]

You could change the mechanics to one of the spell-less archetypes from Pathfinder:

Skirmisher (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/skirmisher)
Trapper (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/trapper)

If you're not familiar with Pathfinder archetypes, they're basically a way to replace one class ability/set of abilities with another, themed and focussed differently. Both of those just replace the ranger's spells with mundane abilities: handy "tricks" with limited uses per day in the case of the Skirmisher, or setting and disabling traps in the case of the Trapper. Though Pathfinder classes are more powerful than d20 ones, the ranger is made more powerful by adding new abilities rather than enhancing the d20 abilities, so either archetype should slot into a d20 game fairly well.

[Prime32]

Alternatively, just make Rangers arcane, and let them cast in light armor like a bard.

Make them arcane and let them cast in light armor?This is what I'd do; maybe throw in Sword of the Arcane Order for free while you're at it. IIRC rangers had more of an arcane focus in earlier editions anyway?

[Amaril]

What, you don't share any access to your books with your players? :smallconfused:

I don't own any supplements except Complete Arcane and Complete Mage.


Though, really, it's probably better to just revisit what you've done to the magic system, the gods, the divine, and the setting that not even the Forgotten Realms answer to Druids and Rangers isn't an option.

I don't really know anything about Forgotten Realms, actually. Where does druidic magic come from there, then?


What, did you kill Good and Evil? :smalltongue:

That's gotta be the most weird approach to the Divine I've ever come across though. Especially since usually there's the force of Balance in between the two in most settings that play with that sort of thing and Druids are notoriously associated with Balance and Imbalance. :smallamused:

I wasn't in the mood to have objective Good and Evil as cosmic forces in this world. Is there something wrong with that? :smallconfused:

I do sort of have a force of balance in play, kind of. Arcane magic comes from the energy of the soul, which holds both Law and Chaos within it. There isn't any kind of divine power or beings that embody neutrality, though, so I don't think it really makes sense to have neutral divine magic--after all, the whole thing that separates divine magic from arcane in D&D is that divine magic is granted by some outside power, and in my humble opinion, any other explanation for the difference is bullsh*t. How the hell is Dragonlance mysticism not arcane magic? :smallannoyed:


Nature is neutral by default anyway, at least in the general expectations and culture surrounding the D and the Ds.

Maybe you need to re-examine your idiosyncracies and assumptions as to why this is the case for you.

Sorry, I'm just having a little difficulty parsing the latter part of that. Care to elaborate? It sounds like you're trying to be helpful, I definitely want to understand these questions so I can try to answer them. But yeah, I know nature is normally neutral in D&D cosmology, it's just that it was suggested that I attribute animistic divine magic to Chaos, which would imply that nature was Chaotic in this world, which isn't the case.


Homebrewing an alternate magic source is exactly the same, or close enough. :smalltongue:

Yeah, alright, you got me there :smalltongue: Logical inconsistency recognized.

[Amaril]

Honestly, the huge binary focus on Law/Chaos is kind of odd for a D&D setting to begin with. D&D, 3.5 especially, is well-loved for how populous and diverse it is, how many different angles you can give to everything...pegging everything to one overall conflict seems to weaken that.

Ehhh, I think that's really a matter of personal taste. I tend to find settings like Forgotten Realms, which take pains to make every piece of content made for the game valid somewhere in the setting, to be massive, infuriating kitchen sinks with no consistency of flavor. And besides, paring down the system to one main axis isn't unusual--Dragonlance used the Good/Evil conflict almost exclusively over Law/Chaos, and I think that worked fine. I'm just doing the opposite.

[Sith_Happens]

Honestly, the huge binary focus on Law/Chaos is kind of odd for a D&D setting to begin with.

Except, you know, the very first one.:smalltongue:

[Amaril]

Except, you know, the very first one.:smalltongue:

Also this.

[Urpriest]

Ehhh, I think that's really a matter of personal taste. I tend to find settings like Forgotten Realms, which take pains to make every piece of content made for the game valid somewhere in the setting, to be massive, infuriating kitchen sinks with no consistency of flavor. And besides, paring down the system to one main axis isn't unusual--Dragonlance used the Good/Evil conflict almost exclusively over Law/Chaos, and I think that worked fine. I'm just doing the opposite.


Except, you know, the very first one.:smalltongue:

Ok, fine, it's a fine setup for a retclone, or a similarly old-school simplistic setting like Dragonlance. Depending on where 5e goes, it might make sense there too. It's not that great for 3.5, though. 3.5 is the era of Eberron and the like, moral complexity and detailed world-building are the name of the game. Players who prefer...I want to say immature, but I'll be polite and say straightforward...settings like Dragonlance probably aren't going to want to play a splatbook-centric system like 3.5 in the first place.

[Amaril]

Ok, fine, it's a fine setup for a retclone, or a similarly old-school simplistic setting like Dragonlance. Depending on where 5e goes, it might make sense there too. It's not that great for 3.5, though. 3.5 is the era of Eberron and the like, moral complexity and detailed world-building are the name of the game. Players who prefer...I want to say immature, but I'll be polite and say straightforward...settings like Dragonlance probably aren't going to want to play a splatbook-centric system like 3.5 in the first place.

Why does a world based on dualistic cosmic forces have to be simplistic? The complexity of a world shouldn't come from the cosmology or the immortal beings beyond the realm of the physical--that takes the importance away from the stuff the players will be actively dealing with, the stuff that should matter. Complexity comes from the interactions of mortal civilizations, from history, from the lives of the people the players talk to. You don't have to have fifteen species of outsiders as enemies for players to fight; you give your world an interesting natural ecosystem with cool and dangerous wildlife, that's where good encounters should come from.

That's another thing that bothers me about a lot of settings--they focus all their attention on making the cosmology cool, and forget that that's not where the players will be spending most of their time.

[squiggit]

If it's the setting the OP likes let 'em run with it. Doesn't seem like a big deal.

My favorite answers here are the arcane ranger (but I have a soft spot for those personally) or if you want them to be nonmagcal entirely, just smash the ranger and the fighter together. Give the fighter more skill points survival, nature and maybe the animal companion as an option if you like that. Instant nonmagical ranger!

Alternatively you could take your existing fluff and apply it to Druids/rangers. You said magic comes from the soul? Well maybe this sect has figured out a way to draw magic from other spirits around them, so their whole "one with nature" crap just gives them a bunch of plants and animals they could take a bit if power from to fuel themselves. Stupid, but it might work.


I tend to find settings like Forgotten Realms, which take pains to make every piece of content made for the game valid somewhere in the setting, to be massive, infuriating kitchen sinks with no consistency of flavor.
Eh. I usually don't mind it. It's not like the real world isn't a bit of a kitchen sink of animals and beliefs after all, scn with only one major species.

[RavynsLand]

Depending on options available, ToB Ranger (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update) is a quick easy fix.

Is this a real thing?! Or some kind of homebrew? How did I not know this existed? This is awesome. This changes my whole life.

[Urpriest]

Is this a real thing?! Or some kind of homebrew? How did I not know this existed? This is awesome. This changes my whole life.

Homebrew. But the good stuff.

[Talya]

Does your setting have Fey in it?

Are they inherently magical?

Fey are living incarnations of nature - you could just base Nature-magic on the fey, making them a subset of Arcane magic then.

[Amaril]

Does your setting have Fey in it?

Are they inherently magical?

Fey are living incarnations of nature - you could just base Nature-magic on the fey, making them a subset of Arcane magic then.

I hadn't planned on having Fey, exactly. The role of beautiful, mysterious, magical forest-dwelling beings is filled by the star elves. They're basically the high elves of this world--world-dominating magical civilization thousands of years ago, magical power sources of cities devoured by dragon, survivors in the few cities that managed to protect themselves, went into seclusion except for roving bands of genocidal mage-hunters determined to make sure nobody but them can use magic. They're not intended as player characters.

[Troacctid]

Complete Champion has an alternate class feature that replaces Ranger spellcasting with Scout-esque bonus feats at 4th, 8th, 11th, and 14th level.

[Coidzor]

Except, you know, the very first one.:smalltongue:

Pretty sure there was some form of Balance in the first one too, or else it got introduced for very good reasons not that long after.

[Amaril]

None of what I've said is meant to imply that one can't be devoted to neutrality in this setting. Most mortals are neutral--usually because they just don't care, but there are many who actively support balance between Law and Chaos and just want all the conflict between the two to stop, or see its continuation as necessary for the good of the world. It's just that none of those people can use divine magic, because there isn't a third cosmic power that advocates that balance and can grant miracles to followers (many of them are wizards, though).

[Urpriest]

Complete Champion has an alternate class feature that replaces Ranger spellcasting with Scout-esque bonus feats at 4th, 8th, 11th, and 14th level.

To expand on this, since your players don't have access to either Complete Champion or the Scout: if you replace Ranger spellcasting with Fighter bonus feats at those levels, that would probably be fair. It's a bit weak, but Ranger spellcasting is weak in core-only environments anyway.

[Amaril]

Yeah, I'm thinking bonus feats would be a good solution. Thanks for the advice, everybody :smallsmile:

[HighWater]

The simplest fix without cutting out the Ranger or using any other book is to replace every mention "Divine" in their entry with "Arcane". They use a nature-inspired, neutral kind of magic. As you said, nature is neutral in your setting (as default) and Arcane magic is also neutral... I'm not sure why switching those two words around would be any kind of trouble.

If you need some fluff, just make Rangers actually study nature. Trying to be harmonious with it, they resonate with the powerful forces that lie within. As nature is diverse and adaptable, so is Ranger spellcasting, allowing them to pick new spells at every sunrise, channeling a new thread of life with each different spell. Alternatively the Sun is the Bringer of Life and the quintessential force powering nature. Though not a God or even a Primary Force, the Sun is both wild and Chaotic (boiling ball of plasma and unbridled energy that it is) yet strangely orderly (it's path across the heavens is strongly dominated by patterns, the seasons etc.). The Sun could even be the ultimate cooperation between Chaos and Law if you'd like (if you wanna go all physical on this: the Laws of the Universe allow for nuclear fusion and prevent the sun from imploding/exploding, while the constant burning of energy is pretty much the definition of entropy). Rangers, who receive very little spells, receive them from this great source of neutral power. Just because Rangers don't derive their spells from one of the two Primal Forces (Law and Chaos), doesn't mean that forces created by these Primal Forces do not have enough power to still function as a powersource. Heck, by drawing from the Sun, Rangers may actually receive their spells from both Law and Chaos at the same time, filtered and stabilized through Neutral Nature...

(Through that logic, you could probably even bring back the Druids as epitomes of Neutrality, although the star Elves would probably not like that. Though they sound like d-bags anyways.)

As for the star-elves: well, if they hate arcane users as they want a monopoly on the neutral magic, it's all the more interesting to place Rangers on their "To Kill" list too, right? Afterall, dwells in forrest, dabbles with nature-magic, sounds like direct competition and precisely the type of person to discover their hidden cities...

[Amaril]

-snip-

Hmm...I like the fluff of an arcane caster who draws additional power from the souls of others, but not so much as an exclusive to the ranger. I think so might make a PrC based on that for the setting that any arcane caster can qualify for...possibly with the option of gaining additional power from living sacrifices...

As for the star elves, that doesn't even begin to cover it. The Wild Hunt is the stuff of nightmares for other races. They travel around searching out foreigners gifted in magic, and when they find them, they'll slaughter entire settlements surrounding them without even asking questions. The High Council of Wizardry was founded primarily to protect mages from the Hunt.

[Telonius]

Another vote for "make it arcane." It also has the benefit of making ranger a possible entry to Arcane Archer, and making that PrC (at least potentially) something other than a complete waste of ink.