What Ranger or ranger-like classes that don't get spells at some point are out there for d20 or d20 OGL games?
well there's the UA ranger, and also the scout from Complete Adventurer.
Woodsman from the Wheel of Time game.
Somebody on the Monte Cook boards suggested dumping the spells and giving the Ranger the same combat rites progression as an Oathsworn. If you have AE available I think that's a pretty nifty idea.
I have heard of rangers who, instead of earning spellcasting, studied new tricks that let them master more feats. There are also some who gain supernatural abilities rather than spells.
The former is the quick rule from Rokugan (remember it?): at each level where a ranger would get a new spell level, instead, he gains a bonus feat.
The latter is from the rather lame optional rule from Complete Warrior.
FFG's Wildscape, however, is more interesting. It proposes more ranger styles (two-handed fighting, for heavy weapons; explorer, for pioneer-like characters; lorekeepers, wise in the ways of nature; outrider, mounted combat experts; ranger knights, the sword & board routine; slayer, for dedicated hunters; and spear-fighter, as the name implies) and then go on proposing non-spellcasting variants for each ranger style (including Archery and TWF).
It is a very good book, and one of the few of the fine Legends & Lairs series that was made for 3.5. Have you grabbed one when they were sold for $5? I sure did. (And some people badmouth ENWorld, but that's where I found this bargain.)
As an example, the Archery non-spellcasting variants propose this:
Hail of Arrows at 12th level, fire one arrow each at all opponents in a 30-ft. radius as a full-round action. All attacks are made at the normal base attack bonus, with a -2 penalty for each extra opponent (so, -6 on attacks to attack four enemies).
Sniper: At 14th level, the archer may make a single attack against a target and ignore any partial cover and concealment, as a full-round action.
Storm of Arrows: At 16th level. As hail, but may fire two arrows at each target. Penalty is doubled, too.
Deadeye Shot: At 18th level, makes a single attack as a full-round action against a favored enemy. If hit, and if the target fails a Fort save (DC 15 + ranger's Wis bonus), the attack is considered to be a critical hit. (Yeah, things like undead and constructs without the living subtype do not care much.)
Quote from: Vermicious KnidWoodsman from the Wheel of Time game.
Do this. But first ignore the save chart in the WoT book and give them a good Fort save. Then swap out their existing Favored Terrain abilities for the terrain abilities granted by FFG's Outdoorsman (from Path of the Sword - a great book in its own right). That takes a pretty crappy ability and turns it into something useful (going from a +1/2 Dex bonus to attack rolls and making it a +2 on AC and a handful of skills while in the Favored Terrain).
I did this with a character I didn't want casting spells while still being a wilderness warrior type, and it turned out to be very competitive - the extra hit points and skill points made up nicely for the lack of spell augmentation.
Quote from: Aelfinnwell there's the UA ranger, and also the scout from Complete Adventurer.
Which UA Ranger? I took a look at UA last night, and I'm not seeing a variant, including the Prestige Ranger, that doesn't get spells.
I think I found what I'm looking for. It's the Borderer from the Conan RPG. Very similar to the Ranger, but gets no spells or supernatural abilities.
As we remember it, there were approximately 4.3 million alt.rangers when 3e came out...
Quote from: RedcapAs we remember it, there were approximately 4.3 million alt.rangers when 3e came out...
It seemed that way, for sure. The original 3e ranger was too heavily front-loaded, and didn't quite fit the archetype it was going for. I think 3.5 fixed the class nicely, but I still think a spell-less ranger-type was needed. I guess a fighter/rogue multiclass combo would have produced something similar to what I had in mind, but I think the archetype is strong enough to rate its own class. The Borderer seems closest to that archetype, in my opinion.
There's also the Totem Warrior from Arcana Evolved/Unearthed. They're good at fighting (full BAB, a total of five bonus feats by level 20), moderately skilled (4 SP), and they get an animal companion. They also get a bunch of abilities related to their totem. Most of these abilties are non-magical in nature, but some are more supernatural. For example, a Snake totem warrior gets:
1st - +1 Ref saves, +1 dodge bonus to AC, +2 Init.
4th - Take on the shape of a snake (Small viper + 1 HD per level over 3).
8th - +3 natural armor bonus +1 per 4 levels above 8th (snake scales).
12th - Hypnotize.
16th - Poison immunity.
20th - +2 competence bonus to Ref saves and AC, doesn't lose AC bonus when flatfooted.
Of these, Hypnotize and Snake shape are not considered Extraordinary, but rather Supernatural or Spell-like.
None of the totem warriors are spellcasters, but all get at least one supernatural ability (shapechange).
Bump. For shits and giggles.
Quote from: RedcapAs we remember it, there were approximately 4.3 million alt.rangers when 3e came out...
That's because no one can agree on just what, exactly, it means to be a ranger.
Personally, I think the ranger should be somewhere between the fighter and barbarian in terms of raw damage-soaking, don't understand why the fuck a woodsman has an affinity for TWF, and see more tie to arcane magic than divine.
That ain't gonna happen, though.
Hell, most of the rangers that have been in my games didn't even use the spells they had.
Quote from: SobekPersonally, I think the ranger should be somewhere between the fighter and barbarian in terms of raw damage-soaking,
Not much room between d10 and d12 though.
Quotedon't understand why the fuck a woodsman has an affinity for TWF,
Driz'zt.
Quoteand see more tie to arcane magic than divine.
Their magic is pretty much druid-lite (just like paladins are cleric-lite), which also explains the divine nature of it.
Personally I think rangers should not have spellcasting ability. Rather they should be loaded with useful skils like Rogues and leave it at that. Too often Rangers are either played like Fighters or Druids, without being as good as either. IMO, they are one of the most Munchkinized of D&D Core classes.
We think that the Scout, with a few minor modifications (addition of the Longbow to it's weapon list, along with allowing for the weapon specialization line for bow only, and the addition of the track feat) would make an excellent alternate ranger class with no spellcasting.
Also, if you have access to the Iron Kingdoms setting you can find the spell-less Ranger in there. He is much closer to a woodsman than he is to any kind of a spellcaster. IF he gets spells it is not until like 12th level or something.