Variant Ranger (no spellcasting)

[rollingForInit]

This has been discussed, so I decided to try to create a variant ranger that replaces the spellcasting with other abilities. I'm definitely not sure whether or not this is balanced, and it's completely lacking a level 17 ability, because I couldn't figure out anything neat for it.

Edit: I've read the feedback here (and elsewhere) and tried to work it into a new suggestion. I'm still not sure about the damage on the Rapid Firing fighting style. I've done some very rough calculations on average damage, and at level 20 it seems the ranger is worse than rogues and fighters in melee, but superior at range. I haven't really done it properly, such as accounting for Action Surge for fighters or the chance to hit from fighters' multiple attacks, etc. Feels fine, though I'm sure a lower damage dice on the bonus attack from Rapid Firing wouldn't gimp it in any way. Obviously, if the ranger is unable to use Master's Mark it falls behind in damage.

Feel free to criticise, just don't make it into a discussion about whether Rangers should have spells or not. That there should be a non-casting Ranger option is the premise of this idea.


New fighting style options: (these should be available to Fighters as well)
* Rapid Firing
When you are attacking with a crossbow or a bow, you can use a bonus action to make an additional attack. You do not add your ability score modifier to the damage of this attack, unless the modifier is negative. [It's been suggested that the bonus attack should use a lower die, e.g. one or two lower than normal, for balance reasons. What do you others think?]
* Swift Precision (prerequisite: Rapid Firing)
When you use Rapid Firing to make an extra attack with a ranged weapon, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

2nd level:
* Master's Mark
You're an experienced hunter and skilled at observing and analyzing your chosen prey. You can use a bonus action to mark one creature that you can see within 90 feet as your quarry. The mark lasts until the creature dies, you capture it or until you have not seen any tracks from it for one day. While the creature is marked, it is treated as if it is your favored enemy, except you don't learn any languages associated with it. In addition to this, the target takes 1d6 extra damage every time you hit it with an attack. If the creature dies while you can see it, you can use a bonus action to mark another creature that you can see as your quarry. If you can see no other creature to mark, the mark expires. Once you have used this ability, you cannot use it again until you have finished a long rest.

3rd level:
Animal Handler (replaces Primeval Awareness)
* You get double your proficiency bonus on any ability checks to calm or befriend a beast.

5th level:
Natural Awareness
* You can spend ten minutes to search the area to find the smallest traces of any aberrations, celestials, dragons, elements, fey, fiends or undead creatures that are within 1 mile (6 miles if you are in your favored terrain). You gain this knowledge by noticing physical traces, smells, sounds and the behaviour of other animals. This feature does not reveal the creatures' location or number.

9th level:
First Aid
* You have advantage on Wisdom checks to stabilize dying creatures. You can also spend one use of a healer's kit to restore 1d6 plus your wisdom modifier hit points to it.

13th level:
New fighting style
* Choose an additional fighting style.

14th:
Heightened Awareness
* When you use your Natural Awareness to locate creatures, you can also tell how many of them are in the area and in what direction they are now. If the creatures are hidden by magic, you can make a Wisdom (Survival) check against the spell DC of the spell to see the tracks anyway.

17th level:
Master Hunter
* You can select a new quarry from the Master's Mark after a short rest.

[Giant2005]

I don't really like the Archery combat styles. You have essentially taken a two-handed weapon and allowed it to be dual-wielded. Obviously when you compare that to dual-wielding single handed weapons or wielding a two-handed weapon, it is always going to come out on top. Rather than base it on Dual-Wielding, you should base it on Polearm Master which is the same in principle (Getting a secon bonus attack with a two-handed weapon). With that in mind, that bonus attack should be doing 1D4 damage regardless of the damage of the weapon used. It could be justified by it being fired with only a half-draw and consequently less force behind the shot (If you feel the need to justify it at all).
Another issue is with Hunter's Mark. It seems relatively balanced with Sneak Attack so I don't have a huge issue with it but what is it exactly? An action, bonus action, or reaction? It seems to be missing a key piece of detail.
Other than that it seems all fine by my standards although essentially pointless as all you seem to have done is turned the Ranger into a Rogue which is kind of unnecessary considering we already have the Rogue class.

[rollingForInit]

I don't really like the Archery combat styles. You have essentially taken a two-handed weapon and allowed it to be dual-wielded. Obviously when you compare that to dual-wielding single handed weapons or wielding a two-handed weapon, it is always going to come out on top. Rather than base it on Dual-Wielding, you should base it on Polearm Master which is the same in principle (Getting a secon bonus attack with a two-handed weapon). With that in mind, that bonus attack should be doing 1D4 damage regardless of the damage of the weapon used. It could be justified by it being fired with only a half-draw and consequently less force behind the shot (If you feel the need to justify it at all).


Mostly, I just felt that Archery otherwise is inferior in damage to two-weapon fighting, since a Ranger that fights in melee would get both attacks with full damage and full ability modifier. Especially combined with the spells you can otherwise use to make several attacks (Swift Quiver at level 17 would allow you to make 2 bonus attacks per attack action). It felt like this was less than that, but spread out across more levels. But I see your point, although I think 1d4 is too little (and it's not hitting with the blunt end of a polearm). Perhaps lowering the the dice used by 1 would be better? A longbow would do 1d6 for the bonus attack, for instance.



Another issue is with Hunter's Mark. It seems relatively balanced with Sneak Attack so I don't have a huge issue with it but what is it exactly? An action, bonus action, or reaction? It seems to be missing a key piece of detail.
Other than that it seems all fine by my standards although essentially pointless as all you seem to have done is turned the Ranger into a Rogue which is kind of unnecessary considering we already have the Rogue class.

Oh. I figured it'd be a bonus action to activate it. Must've missed that.

I don't see how it turns the Ranger into a rogue, though? You're more than welcome to introduce another way for the Ranger to keep up in damage, but I felt it was easy to model it after sneak attack. I don't mind Rangers having similarities to Rogues, since they're basically wilderness rogues. Or rogues are city rangers.

[Giant2005]

Mostly, I just felt that Archery otherwise is inferior in damage to two-weapon fighting, since a Ranger that fights in melee would get both attacks with full damage and full ability modifier. Especially combined with the spells you can otherwise use to make several attacks (Swift Quiver at level 17 would allow you to make 2 bonus attacks per attack action). It felt like this was less than that, but spread out across more levels. But I see your point, although I think 1d4 is too little (and it's not hitting with the blunt end of a polearm). Perhaps lowering the the dice used by 1 would be better? A longbow would do 1d6 for the bonus attack, for instance.

I wouldn't balance any always-on ability around a feature that can be used only once per day nor would I consider archery damage to be inferior to pretty much anything considering that with the +2 attack bonus fighting style they can use the power attack feat for +10 damage and still actually have a reasonable chance to hit as opposed to their melee counterparts.
The 1D6 damage bonus action still isn't balanced but it is much closer. Compared to the Crossbow Expert feat it would do more damage and have a higher range at the expense of losing the disadvantage within 5' feature of Crossbow Expert. That sounds pretty close to balanced until you consider that one is a feat and the other a Fighting Style - the other Fighting Styles are significantly weaker than comparable Feats and these new ones shouldn't be the exception.

[rollingForInit]

I wouldn't balance any always-on ability around a feature that can be used only once per day nor would I consider archery damage to be inferior to pretty much anything considering that with the +2 attack bonus fighting style they can use the power attack feat for +10 damage and still actually have a reasonable chance to hit as opposed to their melee counterparts.
The 1D6 damage bonus action still isn't balanced but it is much closer. Compared to the Crossbow Expert feat it would do more damage and have a higher range at the expense of losing the disadvantage within 5' feature of Crossbow Expert. That sounds pretty close to balanced until you consider that one is a feat and the other a Fighting Style - the other Fighting Styles are significantly weaker than comparable Feats and these new ones shouldn't be the exception.

The Power Attack/Great Weapon Master feat only works with heavy melee weapons, so it cannot be combined with archery.

I see what you mean, but ... The Crossbow Expert feat would still deal more damage, since you get your ability modifier on that bonus attack. Rapid Firing wouldn't give you that, unless you combine it with Swift Precision at level 13. But that means you aren't getting the +2 to hit. So at level 13, at most, you get +1d6+modifier, which is exactly what you get from two-weapon fighting. It's also the same damage you with Crossbow Expert, only Crossbow Expert allows you to use the crossbow in melee without penalty. The only difference, then, would be the range. But then, you wouldn't be able to use any of this at all if you end up in melee, and you can still run out of arrows.

I wouldn't consider 1d4 to be terrible, however. I'd be fine with that, if it'd be the more balanced option damage-wise.

[Giant2005]

The Power Attack/Great Weapon Master feat only works with heavy melee weapons, so it cannot be combined with archery.
I was referring to the Sharpshooter feat which does the same thing as Great Weapon Master but with ranged weapons.



I see what you mean, but ... The Crossbow Expert feat would still deal more damage, since you get your ability modifier on that bonus attack. Rapid Firing wouldn't give you that, unless you combine it with Swift Precision at level 13. But that means you aren't getting the +2 to hit. So at level 13, at most, you get +1d6+modifier, which is exactly what you get from two-weapon fighting. It's also the same damage you with Crossbow Expert, only Crossbow Expert allows you to use the crossbow in melee without penalty. The only difference, then, would be the range. But then, you wouldn't be able to use any of this at all if you end up in melee, and you can still run out of arrows.

I wouldn't consider 1d4 to be terrible, however. I'd be fine with that, if it'd be the more balanced option damage-wise.

No you are right and it seems balanced. I hadn't considered the extra opportunity cost involved in that it takes two Fighting styles to achieve the same effect (and costs the +2 attack bonus). Imo, that attack bonus is enough of a balancing factor against the feat.

[rlc]

I don't see how it turns the Ranger into a rogue, though? You're more than welcome to introduce another way for the Ranger to keep up in damage, but I felt it was easy to model it after sneak attack. I don't mind Rangers having similarities to Rogues, since they're basically wilderness rogues. Or rogues are city rangers.

that's a problem, though. if it's the same thing as sneak attack, then you might as well just call it sneak attack, which screams rogue. i realize this thread isn't for arguing this, but that's the type of thing i meant in the other thread. there are a couple of other niches that you gave it, but they'd make just as much sense if you made this a nature-focused rogue (though that would also mean you would have to change half of the features you gave it because the rogue already gets them...further showing that this is pretty much just a rogue).

[rollingForInit]

that's a problem, though. if it's the same thing as sneak attack, then you might as well just call it sneak attack, which screams rogue. i realize this thread isn't for arguing this, but that's the type of thing i meant in the other thread. there are a couple of other niches that you gave it, but they'd make just as much sense if you made this a nature-focused rogue (though that would also mean you would have to change half of the features you gave it because the rogue already gets them...further showing that this is pretty much just a rogue).

It's not the same thing, the only thing that's the same is the damage. Mechanically it's different.

But I got some ideas from elsewhere on how to better distinguish it (which I agree would be a good thing), and how to exchange the Expertise for something more niched for the Ranger. I'll post an update later. :)

[rollingForInit]

I was referring to the Sharpshooter feat which does the same thing as Great Weapon Master but with ranged weapons.

No you are right and it seems balanced. I hadn't considered the extra opportunity cost involved in that it takes two Fighting styles to achieve the same effect (and costs the +2 attack bonus). Imo, that attack bonus is enough of a balancing factor against the feat.

Oh right, I totally forgot about the Sharpshooter. Sorry.

[rlc]

Okay, "basically" the same then.

But yeah, I'm genuinely interested in the other ideas, because ranger was actually the first class I ever played.

[rollingForInit]

Updated after feedback.

[Totema]

I find the idea of a fighting style with a prerequisite to be unwieldy and asymmetrical. Maybe it would work better as a feat?

[Safety Sword]

I find the idea of a fighting style with a prerequisite to be unwieldy and asymmetrical. Maybe it would work better as a feat?

If it's a feat then it can be taken by those who already have the strong abilities and they further outpace the ranger.

[Giant2005]

The changes are a big improvement imo., it looks pretty balanced to me.

[Galen]

Mostly, I just felt that Archery otherwise is inferior in damage to two-weapon fighting
There's no problem with archery being inferior in damage.
Remember, when you're firing arrows at a monster, you are doing to from range, where monsters are far less likely to retaliate. They have to either waste time closing in, or attack other party members. Fighting in melee requires closing in with the monster, and taking a whole different set of risks. Archery allows for lighter armor, it allows not spending so much precious ability increases on CON (because your hit points are admittedly important, but not as important as they are for someone who does melee). It allows all sorts of shoot-and-hide maneuvers that meleers can only dream of.

If archery would deal as much damage as melee, it would really be unbalanced.

[rollingForInit]

There's no problem with archery being inferior in damage.
Remember, when you're firing arrows at a monster, you are doing to from range, where monsters are far less likely to retaliate. They have to either waste time closing in, or attack other party members. Fighting in melee requires closing in with the monster, and taking a whole different set of risks. Archery allows for lighter armor, it allows not spending so much precious ability increases on CON (because your hit points are admittedly important, but not as important as they are for someone who does melee). It allows all sorts of shoot-and-hide maneuvers that meleers can only dream of.

If archery would deal as much damage as melee, it would really be unbalanced.

It's still quite risky, though; if you end up in melee you'll be useless because you've no features focused on it and no decent armor. And Rangers get spells to increase their ranged damage output; without spells they need something else to do so.

Melee fighters would still deal the most physical damage.

[Person_Man]

My thoughts:

I've think a Ranger needs one "big" signature class ability that makes the class truly unique to the Ranger (and can't be better duplicated with spells) and scales and improves with class levels. My suggestion would be to combine a spell-less Ranger with the Beast Master Ranger. Give the Ranger an uber Wild Empathy (based on Animal Handling Skill, which the Ranger gets auto-proficiency and Expertise in) that allows them to befriend all Beasts, and then allow the Ranger to use befriended Beasts as Companions. The exact mechanics and math of how this works would be important, but it would be a lot more interesting then just having something that's inferior to Animate Dead or Conjure whatever.

Favored Enemy/Terrain: I feel like the Player should be able to just change this via a Long Rest starting at level 1, rather then relying on DM fiat to be useful. You could then just add the ability to automatically identify any creatures of Small size or larger who have passed through the area that the Ranger is in within the past 24 hours, or whatever other enhancements you think would be helpful.

Fighting Styles/Rapid Firing/Swift Precision/Master's Mark/new Fighting Style: Rather then dealing with a bunch of fiddly abilities, I personally would prefer it if the Ranger just got a strait to-hit/damage bonuses with all ranged attacks (bows, crossbows, thrown weapons, etc). The net result is would be the same (ie, better average at-will damage), but its a lot easier to manage and understand.

First Aid: Consider "When you use a healer's kit or Wisdom (Medicine) Skill, you can use a stabilize an adjacent dying creature as a Bonus Action, instead of an Action." DMs who care about resource management in 5E would not want Rangers with dozens of Healer's Kits to become this edition's equivalent of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

[Gwendol]

I'd give the spell-less ranger (ranger-flavored) maneuvers. Typically tied to favored enemy and fighting style, possibly also enhancing the favored terrain aspect.

[Longcat]

Fighting Style chains should not exist, as a single classed class can never access them with the exception of Champion.

[rollingForInit]

Fighting Style chains should not exist, as a single classed class can never access them with the exception of Champion.

So? The Fighter and Ranger are the only ones who get archery fighting styles anyway, and they're the classes that could (with this variant) get two fighting styles. I don't see how it makes anything unbalanced. Besides, there are already fighting styles with prerequisites, since you can't take one if you don't have proper weapon proficiencies. But wait, every class that gives them gives you weapon proficiencies, just like the classes that'd have these new archery styles would be able to get two fighting styles.

Or you could put the archery styles I suggested as class features, but then the Ranger would get both them and a fighting style.