There's an alternate class feature for Rangers written by Marc Radle appearing in Kobold Quarterly #11. Despite my best dysfunctional surfing skills I couldn't find a copy online, so those who haven't seen it please pardon me. It involves sacrificing your spells for Sneak Attack on favored terrain or against favored enemy, Healing/Movement bonus on favored terrain, and gaining some Talents a la Rogue Talents.
So is it worth it? The Ranger spells are not stunning, but the use of wands without upping Use Magic Device (dropped as a class skill with the variant) can be really handy. For more on Ranger spells see the very end of Treantmonk's Ranger Guide. Also if anyone can link to online details of the Radle's alternative that'd be great.
There's an alternate class feature for Rangers ......So is it worth it? ...
I played a Paladin variant in the Age of Worms. I was trying to Mini/Max (Pal/Anointed Knight/Fighter/Marshal) and found that many potentialy helpful feats/prestige classes didn't work without the spellcasting ability.
At the Epic levels, I was the only remaining character that did not cast spells, which seem to be mandatory at high levels of play.
If given a do over, I would have kept spells, but I was playing with some heavyweight number-crunchers.
Hopes this helps. (since its kind of an Apples v. Oranges answer.)
I haven't specifically read the article, but based on what you've written, I wouldn't rush to give up my spellcasting.
Reason is simply versatility. Giving Rangers EVEN MORE against favored enemies and in favored terrain gives you bonuses in the cases where your character is already strongest.
Spells can help you when you are weakest (when you are not in favored terrain and not fighting a favored enemy), taking them away makes you weaker in those cases.
If the trade off gave you bonuses when you AREN'T fighting a favored enemy - now that would be interesting...
There's an alternate class feature for Rangers ......So is it worth it? ...I played a Paladin variant in the Age of Worms. I was trying to Mini/Max (Pal/Anointed Knight/Fighter/Marshal) and found that many potentialy helpful feats/prestige classes didn't work without the spellcasting ability.
At the Epic levels, I was the only remaining character that did not cast spells, which seem to be mandatory at high levels of play.
If given a do over, I would have kept spells, but I was playing with some heavyweight number-crunchers.
Hopes this helps. (since its kind of an Apples v. Oranges answer.)
I have never been a big fan of favored enemy or favored terrain, but if most of your fighting takes place against your favored enemy or in your favored terrain, sneak attack and extra movement speed sound pretty damn good. Rogue talents are awesome as well, so you can't really go wrong with those.
It sounds like a situational tradeoff that might pay off or it might not. Just don't underestimate ranger spells, especially at higher levels, they can really make a difference.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's an alternate class feature for Rangers written by Marc Radle appearing in Kobold Quarterly #11. Despite my best dysfunctional surfing skills I couldn't find a copy online, so those who haven't seen it please pardon me. It involves sacrificing your spells for Sneak Attack on favored terrain or against favored enemy, Healing/Movement bonus on favored terrain, and gaining some Talents a la Rogue Talents.
So is it worth it? The Ranger spells are not stunning, but the use of wands without upping Use Magic Device (dropped as a class skill with the variant) can be really handy. For more on Ranger spells see the very end of Treantmonk's Ranger Guide. Also if anyone can link to online details of the Radle's alternative that'd be great.
Maybe I can help :)
The issue can be purchased right here at Paizo:
In my biased opinion, the class is a very balanced alternative to rangers with spells. There is also much more to the class than simply adding to the favored enemy / favored terrain angle (although that is indeed one aspect). The ranger talents are a fairly important aspect of the class as well.
Please check the class out - it has received quite a bit of good feedback. In fact, I am playing one myself in our weekly Council of Thieves game (currently 7th level) and have found the class to be a lot of fun. I haven't missed spells at all, trust me :)
Treantmonk - I'm a fan of your guides - I'd be very interested if you checked the class out and gave your thoughts.
|
|
I had made a spell-less ranger for a PBP game and they are a pretty nice variant. There was a Ranger Talent for and additional companion that is slightly weaker( had them as a mated pair of tigers). I don't recall all the abilities and talents I chose at the moment, but overall, I would recommend the class. It is well balanced and gives a new perspective.
e class to be a lot of fun. I haven't missed spells at all, trust me :)
Treantmonk - I'm a fan of your guides - I'd be very interested if you checked the class out and gave your thoughts.
I appreciate the compliment, I try to limit my RPG spending to the hardcover books though.
I will say my objection to the class was based on the initial post which suggested it received additional FE/FT bonuses in exchange for spellcasting, which would make the Ranger better when FE/FT was in play and worse when it wasn't, which really isn't the direction you want to go.
If there are other benefits which can help you out when FE/FT aren't applicable, that could potentially change my opinion on the matter.
That said, sometimes it's about flavor too. Some people don't want a Ranger who casts spells. I can certainly understand that.
Treantmonk* and Ellington, I share your concerns about the situational nature of Favored Terrain/ Enemies. Except for Nature's Healing bonus and many** of the Ranger Talents, the benefits are indeed "Favored" dependent.
*Thank you so much for that guide.
**I'm not sure how much detail on a copyrighted article I can give here, so I'm going to err on the side of caution. The article is The Spell-less Ranger by Marc Radle.
|
There are also 'talents' that are not Favored terrain/ enemy based:
Additional companion, low light vision, trap finding, natural healing and improved natural healing, improved tracking, finally there are some bonus feats you can take.
Most of this stuff is pretty lightweight compared to the spellcasting and the biggest bumps the class gets are the sneak attack and fast movement which are terrain based.
I prefer the spell less version myself but thats mostly from a fluffy point of view. I never liked spells for rangers. Yes, I am in the "Hey Aragon didnt cast spells" camp and am firmly entrenched there.
I like the KQ version very much. I would like to see a little more expansion of the talents and off ya go
|
|
It's a great option for a Ranger NPC who would presumably be based in a place where those bonuses would come to play.
That's a great point! Using a spell-less ranger as an npc would be a very cool way to go. He could be an friend OR an adversary.
As a side note, I mentioned I have been playing one a spell-less ranger in our weekly Council of Thieves game ... well, he got killed last session. Big time killed ... like negative 54 hp!!! I will not go into details here, other than to say ...
Anyway, I was pretty bummed but at least it allows me to roll up a new character, so I am going to bring in ... TA DA... a character that is the new class I have under consideration with Kobold Quarterly. It seemed fitting, somehow.
Still, I'm gonna miss Bronwyn Blackrose and his wolf companion, Greypelt.
Sigh ....
Sorry to hear he got killed. I still love your class, and your work as well as Hydro's will be great influences to me when I get up to the Rangers for my campaign setting.
There's an alternate class feature for Rangers written by Marc Radle appearing in Kobold Quarterly #11. Despite my best dysfunctional surfing skills I couldn't find a copy online, so those who haven't seen it please pardon me. It involves sacrificing your spells for Sneak Attack on favored terrain or against favored enemy, Healing/Movement bonus on favored terrain, and gaining some Talents a la Rogue Talents.
So is it worth it? The Ranger spells are not stunning, but the use of wands without upping Use Magic Device (dropped as a class skill with the variant) can be really handy. For more on Ranger spells see the very end of Treantmonk's Ranger Guide. Also if anyone can link to online details of the Radle's alternative that'd be great.
I've read it, and played it, and I don't think it's a poor trade at ALL. The sneak attack you gain is against anything on your favored terrain, just speak with your DM about what terrain is going to be good... and more importantly, you can have TWO animal companions with this variant, one of which is at full level strength (like a druids)... at least that's what I think " In addition, the ranger’s effective druid level when selecting this companion is equal to his ranger level." means...
For the record, I was REALLY against ANY spell-less variant at first. My DM is strongly opposed to ranger and paladin spellcasting (which frustrates me to no end) but I had a real blast with this variant. Try to keep an open mind, and read through the whole thing.
|
I'm playing a spell-less urban ranger in a Council of Thieves campaign right now. We have two other spellcasters - one divine and one arcane - plus it's pretty much all urban (my favored terrain). For favored enemies, I started with human, took a feat (also in KQ11) for native outsides as as extra favored enemy, then took evil outsiders as my second favored enemy. So far, lack of favored terrain and enemies hasn't been a problem. ;)
I am mainly using this as a DM, for Orc Hunters and similar NPCs against my Players. Since they will usually already have favored enemy/allies chosen such that they are effective against my Players, the additional stuff, like a second (full level) animal companion are very effective. I tried an orc spellless ranger with two boars as animal companions (I know, with standard Pathfinder rules, thats not allowed, since the boar is not on the list, but whatever) both at full level (one via the corresponding feat, the other via the ranger talent) and it was very powerful. In addition, not needing to keep track of spells for non-important NPCs helps to better concentrate on the real spellcasters you are running as a DM.
... TA DA... a character that is the new class I have under consideration with Kobold Quarterly. It seemed fitting, somehow.
hmmm, what would that be?
|
|
Gave the class a read there recently and it seems balanced in relation to the old ranger. It looks to be a good option for low magic settings and one of my characters will be playing it as a military scout in an upcoming Ravenloft campaign.
The talents give it a great versatility that goes’s beyond favoured terrain and favoured enemies. I have always thought that this and a spell-less paladin and bard should be options for a less special effects and more grit game.
e class to be a lot of fun. I haven't missed spells at all, trust me :)
Treantmonk - I'm a fan of your guides - I'd be very interested if you checked the class out and gave your thoughts.
I appreciate the compliment, I try to limit my RPG spending to the hardcover books though.
I will say my objection to the class was based on the initial post which suggested it received additional FE/FT bonuses in exchange for spellcasting, which would make the Ranger better when FE/FT was in play and worse when it wasn't, which really isn't the direction you want to go.
If there are other benefits which can help you out when FE/FT aren't applicable, that could potentially change my opinion on the matter.
That said, sometimes it's about flavor too. Some people don't want a Ranger who casts spells. I can certainly understand that.
Well one of the things KQ11 also does is introduce Extra Favored Terrain and Extra favored enemy feats. If you have a good idea of whats going on in your campain, 2 favored terrains at level 3 will mean natures healing, and the sneak attack will work pretty often. If your dm doesnt provide hints as to what kind of terrain and enemies you will be dealing with, you probably shouldnt be a ranger anyway.
One of my players is currently using this class and likes it. He is using it for a ranger from a region similar to alkenstar where magic is taboo, and the people use firearms instead.
|
|
... TA DA... a character that is the new class I have under consideration with Kobold Quarterly. It seemed fitting, somehow.hmmm, what would that be?
Well, it's actually probably too soon to say, since the content for the next issue is not locked in yet, but if you have the current issue, just take a peek at the "Coming Next Issue" blurb and you should be able to figure it out!
Glad people are still having fun with the Spell-less Ranger, by the way! (just to keep things on topic :))
|
|
I prefer the spell less version myself but thats mostly from a fluffy point of view. I never liked spells for rangers. Yes, I am in the "Hey Aragon didnt cast spells" camp and am firmly entrenched there.
I like the KQ version very much. I would like to see a little more expansion of the talents and off ya go
Well, neither did Gandalf, except for a few rare instances...doens't make him less of an archetype.
And I beg to differ. Aragon clearly uses healing magic several times in the books. Yes, he is not speaking in strange voices and making wierd hand gestures, but he does use a rare herb and rely on knowledge only possessed by very few people...the healers in the House of Healing couldn't emulate it (possibly because they lacked ranks in UMD)...
There is a nice healing ability in the class used when in their favoured terrain, which I assume is poltices and the like. It's also non magical.
|
|
There is a nice healing ability in the class used when in their favoured terrain, which I assume is poltices and the like. It's also non magical.I prefer the spell less version myself but thats mostly from a fluffy point of view. I never liked spells for rangers. Yes, I am in the "Hey Aragon didnt cast spells" camp and am firmly entrenched there.
I like the KQ version very much. I would like to see a little more expansion of the talents and off ya go
Well, neither did Gandalf, except for a few rare instances...doens't make him less of an archetype.
And I beg to differ. Aragon clearly uses healing magic several times in the books. Yes, he is not speaking in strange voices and making wierd hand gestures, but he does use a rare herb and rely on knowledge only possessed by very few people...the healers in the House of Healing couldn't emulate it (possibly because they lacked ranks in UMD)...
Absolutely correct!
The Nature's Healing class feature was added for precisely that reason - to give an enhanced non magical healing ability, based off of the Heal skill, that emulates, among other things, Aragorn's non magical healing skills gained through superior knowledge of the flora and fauna (herbs, plants etc) within the rangers various favored environments.
.
I made an alternate ranger without favored enemies (and a reduced spell list), and added sneak attack. So, in general, I am for giving rangers sneak attack.
RAW, it's next-to-impossible for a ranger to consistantly drop large game animals (like an elk or buffalo) with a single shot. Yet they should be the best at doing exactly that. Modern bow hunters do it all the time, and pre-industrial hunters were even better at it.
In fact, while doing some research years ago, I discovered that some Native American stories claimed that, if placed correctly, a lucky hunter could put an arrow completely through a buffalo and strike the animal behind it, bringing down two animals with one shot. True? Who knows? But the stories existed, and doing amazing stuff like that is part of the fun of roleplaying.
My point being, rangers need better damage output. Giving them sneak attack does that.
|
|
There are also 'talents' that are not Favored terrain/ enemy based:
Additional companion, low light vision, trap finding, natural healing and improved natural healing, improved tracking, finally there are some bonus feats you can take.
Most of this stuff is pretty lightweight compared to the spellcasting and the biggest bumps the class gets are the sneak attack and fast movement which are terrain based.
Small mistake here : Trap finding and Nature's healing (and improved) are terrain based.
However, you can also get Trackless step as a talent which is not terrain based.
The good thing is that if you can trade a talent for a Ranger feat (in this case, Additional Favored Terrain), you can easily get a lot of favored terrains quickly.
|
|
I forgot about this thread ... :)
Just in case anyone missed it, the Expanded Spell-less Ranger is now available!
spell less ranger is a great variant class, i like it most than the vanilla ranger...
i cant remember where 3.5 i read a raner with arcane spells instead divine spells... that was awesome too
|
|
Thread necro indeed! :) Glad everyone is digging the class!
Speaking of the Spell-less Ranger, be sure to download the updated version of the PDF from wherever you purchased it - it has an all-new, updated layout so that it is more in line with the other New Paths releases (Expanded Shaman, Expanded Elven Archer etc)
Remember that Paizo produced it's own spell forsaking archetype in the form of the Trapster from Ultimate Combat. I kind of like it myself.Which reminds me I owe you a review, Marc.
But each time I start working on it, I feel like I am doing a Guide to the Spell-less Ranger.
Maybe I should do both.
They did it even earlier with the Skirmisher.
@ The Black raven: Same here. In Drop Dead Studios' "Rogue Glory", the ranger-traps are revised for use with skills and all classes.
(Also, it gives the poor rogue a reason to exist again...)
(Btw.: I had only good experiences with the spell-less ranger, though we also added SGG's Ranger's Knacks as talents to his list for more variety.)
|
|
They did it even earlier with the Skirmisher.Remember that Paizo produced it's own spell forsaking archetype in the form of the Trapster from Ultimate Combat. I kind of like it myself.Which reminds me I owe you a review, Marc.
But each time I start working on it, I feel like I am doing a Guide to the Spell-less Ranger.
Maybe I should do both.
Both of which were released after the Spell-less Ranger :) Just sayin! :)
Seriously, both of Paizo's archetypes have merit and are perfectly valid choices. The fact that so many people seem to really like the Spell-less Ranger despite the existence of the two archetypes from Paizo just makes me a very honored boy!
@ The black raven - I'd LOVE to read your review! Get back to work!
Heck, I'd love to see your Guide to the Spell-less Ranger too :)
@ Endzeitgeist - thanks for the nice words sir!
Hey, by the way - have you guys downloaded the updated version of the PDF yet? Endzeitgeist, based on your original review, I think you will definitely like the updated version! :)
|
The point is valid, but on the other hand, I've run a fair number of rangers in my career and never used a wand for any of them, spell use has never been a big part of my ranger careers.I haven't specifically read the article, but based on what you've written, I wouldn't rush to give up my spellcasting.
Reason is simply versatility. Giving Rangers EVEN MORE against favored enemies and in favored terrain gives you bonuses in the cases where your character is already strongest.
Spells can help you when you are weakest (when you are not in favored terrain and not fighting a favored enemy), taking them away makes you weaker in those cases.
If the trade off gave you bonuses when you AREN'T fighting a favored enemy - now that would be interesting...
That's fine for you, but I too have played more than my fair share of rangers. I ALWAYS use spells with mine. Even if he's not the level, he's always got wands. In 3.5 I used the ranger variant that gave me 0 and 5th level spells. I loved it. For me it was all about having a back up. If your cleric goes down, you want to be able to grab that wand of cure light or cure moderate wounds and bring him back up. Rangers make nice back up healers and divine casters. And Endure Elements is CRITICAL for certain campaigns. If you don't have any one else capable of casting it (and my groups are always in that kind of bind), the spellcasting ranger is crucial to have.
I completely agree Treantmonk. I own both the magazine and the actual Expanded pdf because I've got a new player who's currently playing it only because she's not comfortable with spells. And that's fine. However, I've houseruled into the game, a feat, that lets you use your favored bonuses outside of the terrain. We mostly play adventure paths, and from my experience, I've found that every adventure book rarely stays in the same place twice. This book you're in a cave or underground, this one you're in a city, this one you're on the water, and this one you're in a cloud castle, then an island forest, and now you're fighting in the arctic.
I'm not a fan of the class, at all. It's too circumstantial. My rating is RED. If you're not in your favored terrain, no bonuses when flanking or movement. If you're not fighting your favored enemy, you're in trouble. If your only healer goes down but the wand of serious wounds is available to you, you're screwed. A spellcasting ranger, even without wands if they're high enough level to some kind of natural spellcasting, can get around all of these (yes, favored enemies too). And if you've got the wands on hand, you're golden.