Since RANGERS are being changed, would it be possible to get a non-spellcasting, non-magical Ranger archetype at level 2? You know.. Aragorn? Why do all Rangers have to be spellcasters?
I'd just like to play a lightly armored warrior with lots of skills, tracking, mobility, stealth, favored enemies, worldly knowledge, all that flavor. But no magic!
And the Wasteland Wanderer resistances to elemental damage in BG3 are too powerful and feel too magical. A skill should translate into a Save bonus. Resistance to something implies magic or a natural physiological resistance like Tieflings' resistance to Fire because they are half infernal. I don't think Rangers should get resistances, at least not at level 1.
Tbh, I'd rather them just move to Tasha's guide stuff with ranger, having it that when you level you have the option of normal PHB or the Tasha's option. And Rangers in dnd, even back in 2e, would eventually get some form of casting due to their connection with nature. They are less Aragorn and more a cross between Fighter and Druid, that said I would like to see some more of the ranger subclasses added cause I think a few are more martial than others, though all do get magic in some form.
The lightly armored warrior with lots of skills and such can be done with fighter I think. If multiclassing is added you could get one level of ranger and the rest in any martial class, giving you the flavorful level 1 abilities if ranger while having the magic less lightly armored warrior steal thing about.
