I'm about to start a low-magic campaign in a very wilderness-y setting, so aside from the spells, Ranger would have been perfect. Alas, the spells make things a little complicated within the world (magic exists, but its use is regulated), so I'd rather just build a fully martial version.
I'd considered Scout (rogue), but we'll have another rogue in the party and I'm concerned about stepping on their toes. Right now I'm looking at a Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter Samurai build (probably wood elf, outlander background and feats for other nature-y skills), but I wanted to see if anyone here had ideas I hadn't considered yet!
If it helps, I've previously played a barbarian from 1-20, and I'm trying to move away from tanking. I enjoyed it, but I'd really like to be more offensive this time around, which is why I'm thinking fighter (soooo many attacks).
Low-Magic setting. Problem is dnd is a fantasy world. Well your stuck with that. Maybe Warlock as its already limited. But yeah ranged fighter; either try samurai ranged or champion.
I'm about to start a low-magic campaign in a very wilderness-y setting, so aside from the spells, Ranger would have been perfect. Alas, the spells make things a little complicated within the world (magic exists, but its use is regulated), so I'd rather just build a fully martial version.
If Ranger is what you really wanted to play, then first thing I'd do is ask your DM about the possibility of reflavouring your spells as non-magical; I have a Ranger I played once that only picks spells I can explain as skill or fantasy gadgetry.
For example, Alarm without the telepathy option is just an elaborate trip wire, Cure Wounds is the use of rare plants etc. (requiring me to keep a supply of these), Hail of Thorns is a special type of arrow I have to make to keep using it and so-on. This way I'm using the spells for the mechanics, but everything must be justified in a non-magical way. In my case I did this by choice to give me some extra RP and crafting, as magic was fully allowed in the campaign, but the same kind of idea could suit a magic restricted campaign?
I'd considered Scout (rogue), but we'll have another rogue in the party and I'm concerned about stepping on their toes.
Second thing to do is ask that player if they'd mind; Rogues can actually be built to play very differently, so they don't necessarily need to feel like they're overlapping. For example, if you're going for a ranger-like Scout then you may take your expertise in perception and survival and maybe investigation, rather than the classic stealth and thieves' tools. A Swashbuckler can be built to be a charismatic face that stands and fights flamboyant one-on-one duels and so-on. Discuss with the other rogue what they have in mind, and how you could both build for your own clear niche within the party.
Right now I'm looking at a Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter Samurai build (probably wood elf, outlander background and feats for other nature-y skills), but I wanted to see if anyone here had ideas I hadn't considered yet!
Samurai can be okay, but I find it a bit underwhelming personally; while I can see the temptation to combo with Elven Accuracy, you're only getting advantage so many times per long rest, so you're likely to find that limiting. I dunno, wouldn't be my first choice, but if you like it, go for it.
The most obvious choice for me would be Battle Master; most of the manoeuvres work just as well at range as they do up close, and you can spin them for a ranger-ish character as extreme skill or luck when you manage to trip someone with an arrow from half a mile away. There's a good selection for building a ranger-y fighter as well if you include the new ones from Tasha's Cauldron.
You don't get easy advantage as a battle master, but if you try to ambush enemies then you should get advantage for being hidden, and that's a very ranger-like way to play.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I second the reflavouring of Ranger spells or going the Scout route. And more importantly, talking to your DM to see what actually is doable in the setting. And depending what level you start on and what level the campaign might take you to there are some interesting options you can take.
My go-to option would be a Fighter/Rogue (Scout) build. Like mentioned you can build Rogues very differently so there shouldn't be too much of a risk of stepping on the other Rogue's toes. Since you get the most Ranger-y stuff from just three levels of Rogue (Scout) this will also make you less likely of doing what the other Rogue does (pro-tip, don't take Nature or Survival until you get them for free at level 3). After you have your three levels of Rogue you can just go Fighter all the way from there. The Champion is simple but effective but the Battle Master gives you more stuff to do and is objectively better. Psi Warrior and Rune Knight would also work for "magic-y but not really" stuff but personally I'd go Battle Master. Maneuvers to play around with and lots of ASIs to flesh out your character.
Another way to do it (again, depending on what your DM says and allows) would be to go Artificer. The Battle Smith is arguably a better Beast Master than the Beast Master. :P
If the you and the DM are cool with it, there is also the older UA Scout for the Fighter. Mixes Ranger passives and a sort of maneuver system separate from Battle Master.
Hmmm. Flavour-wise, a samurai is a long way away from the ranger archeotype. Arcane archer would be the go-to, but they use magic (actually, they don't technically have the Spellcasting feature, so maybe that could work). Cavalier is a no no (it is strange though how you could pick a longbow and shoot it while on a horse), echo knight is too original(except for trickster clerics) and so is psi warrior. Elderitch knight is a no (for clearly obvious reasons). I dont know rune knight to well. Now champions don't have to much flavour, so you can kind of just be whatever, and battle master is good as well because of the whole like aware and big brain tactics. For me I'd go battle master I think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Cavalier is a no no (it is strange though how you could pick a longbow and shoot it while on a horse)
Well, no. Also, Cavaliers don't have to be mounted.
Good point. But they often are.
Don't think I've ever seen one played. In any case, they only have one ability specifically tied to being mounted so it's not like that can't do stuff while on foot.
Have to agree about Scout.. you can play two rogues distinctly differently, and a Scout rogue fits your non-magical ranger very nicely. You can even take a few levels in fighter Battlemaster to further diversify the build. Just make sure you use Rogue as your prime class to get the skill utility that the fighter does not get. Battlemaster on its own could really work well too, however you will be lacking in the Skills and Utility departmentunless you take some feats that buff this. The good news is you will get a few extra feats as a fighter.
Cavalier could work.. the mounted stuff you could flavor as using a more forestry mount type like an elk. Just keep mind that the non-mounted Cavalier abilities are emphasized on Melee, so this may not speak towards your character build.
Also, Haravikk suggested, reflavoring the spells to actual physical applications is a solid approach to low magic. I personally see this as the best option if you eant to be a Ranger and not a Rogue or Battlemaster.
Cavalier is a no no (it is strange though how you could pick a longbow and shoot it while on a horse)
Well, no. Also, Cavaliers don't have to be mounted.
Good point. But they often are.
Don't think I've ever seen one played. In any case, they only have one ability specifically tied to being mounted so it's not like that can't do stuff while on foot.
Well, I guess Cavaliers are be good on foot as well, but being mounted is their general theme;
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Cavalier is a no no (it is strange though how you could pick a longbow and shoot it while on a horse)
Well, no. Also, Cavaliers don't have to be mounted.
Good point. But they often are.
Don't think I've ever seen one played. In any case, they only have one ability specifically tied to being mounted so it's not like they can't do stuff while on foot.
Well, I guess Cavaliers can be good on foot as well, but being mounted is their general theme;
The "general theme" is irrelevant and, as already pointed out, they have but a single ability tied to being mounted. Cavaliers are less tied to being mounted than Rangers are tied to their favoured terrain. So it's not that "Cavaliers can be good on foot as well" but rather "Cavaliers ARE good on foot".
Battle Master Ranger. Definitely with Sharpshooter, and consider also using a hand crossbow with XBE feat.
Use the power attacks (-5 to hit +10 damage) with Precision Attack on the near misses. Other maneuver dice can give spell-like effects with zero magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello!
I'm about to start a low-magic campaign in a very wilderness-y setting, so aside from the spells, Ranger would have been perfect. Alas, the spells make things a little complicated within the world (magic exists, but its use is regulated), so I'd rather just build a fully martial version.
I'd considered Scout (rogue), but we'll have another rogue in the party and I'm concerned about stepping on their toes. Right now I'm looking at a Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter Samurai build (probably wood elf, outlander background and feats for other nature-y skills), but I wanted to see if anyone here had ideas I hadn't considered yet!
If it helps, I've previously played a barbarian from 1-20, and I'm trying to move away from tanking. I enjoyed it, but I'd really like to be more offensive this time around, which is why I'm thinking fighter (soooo many attacks).
Any other ideas?
Low-Magic setting. Problem is dnd is a fantasy world. Well your stuck with that. Maybe Warlock as its already limited. But yeah ranged fighter; either try samurai ranged or champion.
If Ranger is what you really wanted to play, then first thing I'd do is ask your DM about the possibility of reflavouring your spells as non-magical; I have a Ranger I played once that only picks spells I can explain as skill or fantasy gadgetry.
For example, Alarm without the telepathy option is just an elaborate trip wire, Cure Wounds is the use of rare plants etc. (requiring me to keep a supply of these), Hail of Thorns is a special type of arrow I have to make to keep using it and so-on. This way I'm using the spells for the mechanics, but everything must be justified in a non-magical way. In my case I did this by choice to give me some extra RP and crafting, as magic was fully allowed in the campaign, but the same kind of idea could suit a magic restricted campaign?
Second thing to do is ask that player if they'd mind; Rogues can actually be built to play very differently, so they don't necessarily need to feel like they're overlapping. For example, if you're going for a ranger-like Scout then you may take your expertise in perception
and survivaland maybe investigation, rather than the classic stealth and thieves' tools. A Swashbuckler can be built to be a charismatic face that stands and fights flamboyant one-on-one duels and so-on. Discuss with the other rogue what they have in mind, and how you could both build for your own clear niche within the party.Samurai can be okay, but I find it a bit underwhelming personally; while I can see the temptation to combo with Elven Accuracy, you're only getting advantage so many times per long rest, so you're likely to find that limiting. I dunno, wouldn't be my first choice, but if you like it, go for it.
The most obvious choice for me would be Battle Master; most of the manoeuvres work just as well at range as they do up close, and you can spin them for a ranger-ish character as extreme skill or luck when you manage to trip someone with an arrow from half a mile away. There's a good selection for building a ranger-y fighter as well if you include the new ones from Tasha's Cauldron.
You don't get easy advantage as a battle master, but if you try to ambush enemies then you should get advantage for being hidden, and that's a very ranger-like way to play.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I second the reflavouring of Ranger spells or going the Scout route. And more importantly, talking to your DM to see what actually is doable in the setting. And depending what level you start on and what level the campaign might take you to there are some interesting options you can take.
My go-to option would be a Fighter/Rogue (Scout) build. Like mentioned you can build Rogues very differently so there shouldn't be too much of a risk of stepping on the other Rogue's toes. Since you get the most Ranger-y stuff from just three levels of Rogue (Scout) this will also make you less likely of doing what the other Rogue does (pro-tip, don't take Nature or Survival until you get them for free at level 3). After you have your three levels of Rogue you can just go Fighter all the way from there. The Champion is simple but effective but the Battle Master gives you more stuff to do and is objectively better. Psi Warrior and Rune Knight would also work for "magic-y but not really" stuff but personally I'd go Battle Master. Maneuvers to play around with and lots of ASIs to flesh out your character.
Another way to do it (again, depending on what your DM says and allows) would be to go Artificer. The Battle Smith is arguably a better Beast Master than the Beast Master. :P
If the you and the DM are cool with it, there is also the older UA Scout for the Fighter. Mixes Ranger passives and a sort of maneuver system separate from Battle Master.
Battlemaster and even Rune Knight can be effective “Rangers” as well.
Hunter subclass
Hmmm. Flavour-wise, a samurai is a long way away from the ranger archeotype. Arcane archer would be the go-to, but they use magic (actually, they don't technically have the Spellcasting feature, so maybe that could work). Cavalier is a no no (it is strange though how you could pick a longbow and shoot it while on a horse), echo knight is too original(except for trickster clerics) and so is psi warrior. Elderitch knight is a no (for clearly obvious reasons). I dont know rune knight to well. Now champions don't have to much flavour, so you can kind of just be whatever, and battle master is good as well because of the whole like aware and big brain tactics. For me I'd go battle master I think.
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Well, no. Also, Cavaliers don't have to be mounted.
Good point. But they often are.
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
Don't think I've ever seen one played. In any case, they only have one ability specifically tied to being mounted so it's not like that can't do stuff while on foot.
Have to agree about Scout.. you can play two rogues distinctly differently, and a Scout rogue fits your non-magical ranger very nicely. You can even take a few levels in fighter Battlemaster to further diversify the build. Just make sure you use Rogue as your prime class to get the skill utility that the fighter does not get. Battlemaster on its own could really work well too, however you will be lacking in the Skills and Utility departmentunless you take some feats that buff this. The good news is you will get a few extra feats as a fighter.
Cavalier could work.. the mounted stuff you could flavor as using a more forestry mount type like an elk. Just keep mind that the non-mounted Cavalier abilities are emphasized on Melee, so this may not speak towards your character build.
Also, Haravikk suggested, reflavoring the spells to actual physical applications is a solid approach to low magic. I personally see this as the best option if you eant to be a Ranger and not a Rogue or Battlemaster.
Well, I guess Cavaliers are be good on foot as well, but being mounted is their general theme;
When you thought you knew about spellcasting - you played a warlock
Why are most bard colleges a pain to type? I mean bard college of valor, compare to champion or evoker. Same goes for sacred oaths: paladin oath of devotion. That's even worse.
I don't think WoCE were very creative with the rogue and ranger subclass titles. I mean ranger archeotype? Roguish archeotype? Bro! Fighters are better but still is somewhat unsatisfying compare to a monastatic tradition or sacred oath.
The "general theme" is irrelevant and, as already pointed out, they have but a single ability tied to being mounted. Cavaliers are less tied to being mounted than Rangers are tied to their favoured terrain. So it's not that "Cavaliers can be good on foot as well" but rather "Cavaliers ARE good on foot".
I agree with scout, it feels very thematically similar to ranger but without any overt magic.
Arcane Archer would be hard to do, you'd have to reflavor it a LOT to make its abilities non magical and probably not worth the effort.
Battlemaster Fighter also works because of how flexible it is.
Battle Master Ranger. Definitely with Sharpshooter, and consider also using a hand crossbow with XBE feat.
Use the power attacks (-5 to hit +10 damage) with Precision Attack on the near misses. Other maneuver dice can give spell-like effects with zero magic.