D&D 5E [+] Rangers should have monster fighting spells equivalent to Paladin's Smite spells. Discuss!

[Rocker26a]

So Barbarians can't rage with style? "And here we have some fashionable Barbarians walking down the catwalk...."

That's a different skill! Probably looking more at Performance proficiency there.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No, I don't think I am. The problem is the fighter isn't allowed to have nice things in the first place, so the other martial classes have to suffer for it.

No one complains about the Sorceror or the Warlock (or any of the Divine classes) getting access to spell slots. Maneuvers boil down to just being spell slots for the martials, falling between the cantrip and 1st level spell range. It's a bit of a pity that the Barbarian and the Paladin as well are locked out of them, I'm sure they could have some interesting uses for them.

If anything, all the martials should have access to Maneuvers. Like the spell-casting classes, you balance them by having a curated list of which ones they can access, not denying access altogether. The fighter should probably have the broadest array (like the Wizard)*, while the Ranger's are more specialized toward certain creature types or anti-enemy abilities (like Regeneration, Incorporealness or vs. specific creature types). The paladin's list would be more limited to melee feats, those for fighting fiends, celestials and undead or incorporating their "holy" abilities. Barbarians would have Manuevers that synergize with skills, saves or their rage ability - and perhaps some anti-magic capacity.

* The Champion fighter should be the Warlock of the fighter subclasses - around 2-3 locked-in manuevers they just use over and over. The Battlemaster fighter would be the Wizard of the fighter subclasses with a wide range of Manuevers and the Eldritch fighter trades Manuevers for actual spells.

taken as a group, martials mechanics have the potential for really nuanced and interesting combat, unfortunately they are not taken as a group, they are all carved up into individual little pieces that they're barely allowed to share, 'for identity', like how rogue is the Sneaky class, and so only they get sneak attack, no-one else, ever, ranger can't have it with poorer scaling, a 'dirty fighting' fighter or monk subclass can't have it, barbarian? forget it.

 

[Corinnguard]

taken as a group, martials mechanics have the potential for really nuanced and interesting combat, unfortunately they are not taken as a group, they are all carved up into individual little pieces that they're barely allowed to share, 'for identity', like how rogue is the Sneaky class, and so only they get sneak attack, no-one else, ever, ranger can't have it with poorer scaling, a 'dirty fighting' fighter or monk subclass can't have it, barbarian? forget it.

The character classes in D&D are like Hollywood actors who have played the same character in the same series for years to the point where they have been type-cast. If they were to leave a series, they would have a hard time trying to find a new gig because everyone remembers the role they previously played in. And these people are unable at seeing them being something else.

At best, the actor can tweak themselves a bit of who they are in order to play a character who is somewhat new, but also resembles the previous role they played in. This approach is somewhat similar IMO to multiclassing or taking up a subclass such as the Eldritch Knight.

 

[Rocker26a]

like how rogue is the Sneaky class, and so only they get sneak attack, no-one else, ever, ranger can't have it with poorer scaling, a 'dirty fighting' fighter or monk subclass can't have it, barbarian? forget it.

You can make a stealth based character without the Sneak Attack feature. But if you want the Sneak Attack feature specifically, you should consider multiclassing into Rogue. I don't think that's an unreasonable proposition. It's good that classes, particularly the martial classes, have signature abilities that the other classes have no claim to. I don't love that you can get Metamagic and Eldritch Invocations from outside their source class on that basis, but I'm willing to let that go because the spellcasters are kinda different beasts.

 

[ECMO3]

Smite spells would be fine, but what the Ranger needs to actually be consistent with both the fiction and the origin are more traditional spell casting abilities.

IMO Ranger is magical at its core. Aragorn was a caster, Drizzt was a caster (admitedly Drow racial spells, not Ranger spells), 1E Ranger was a caster of both Druid and Arcane spells.

I think the non-magical stealth commando should be relegated to a Fighter or Rogue subclass depending on the bent, but the Ranger needs more traditional magic than he has now.

 

[Remathilis]

Thread: hey I got this idea for a different use for ranger spellcasting! It's a + thread!

Thread devolves into a martials vs casters debate with a side order of spell less ranger.

 

[Rocker26a]

Smite spells would be fine, but what the Ranger needs to actually be consistent with both the fiction and the origin are more traditional spell casting abilities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "if only Ranger had some spells like this, then everything would be perfect!", not at all. There is a looong road ahead of the official Ranger still. I'm happy with what I've got for my homebrew and I don't trust WOTC to offer anything I like as much, but. That doesn't mean there's nothing they could do that would help.

I think the non-magical stealth commando should be relegated to a Fighter or Rogue subclass depending on the bent

But this is a Ranger thing as much as the magic. Aragorn can avoid being seen if he wishes. And he does, on occasion!

 

[Rocker26a]

Thread: hey I got this idea for a different use for ranger spellcasting! It's a + thread!

Thread devolves into a martials vs casters with a side order of spell less ranger.

Yeeaah, conversations circulating around Ranger and it's magical capabilities do be like that, unfortunately.
There have been some really helpful ideas and sentiments offered in there, at least!

 

[ECMO3]

The character classes in D&D are like Hollywood actors who have played the same character in the same series for years to the point where they have been type-cast. If they were to leave a series, they would have a hard time trying to find a new gig because everyone remembers the role they previously played in. And these people are unable at seeing them being something else.

Mechancially I would disagree with this in 5E. With the combination of class, subclass, race and feats 5E characters can go WAY off type without even multiclassing.

A lot of players may have a problem with this, but the mechanics enable it pretty easily

At best, the actor can tweak themselves a bit of who they are in order to play a character who is somewhat new, but also resembles the previous role they played in. This approach is somewhat similar IMO to multiclassing or taking up a subclass such as the Eldritch Knight.

I am playing a 11th level Drow Eldritch Knight with a 20 Charisma who can cast Detect Magic at will and another 14 leveled spells a day (7 EK slots plus once a day Misty Step, Dissonant Whispers, Levitate, Dispel Magic, Faerie Fire, Darkness and Cause Fear). She also has Eldritch Blast which is her primary ranged attack.

I also have played a ton of Fey Wanderer Rangers who were an awesome face and mostly casters by the end of tier 2 and could cast more spells a day than a full caster.

 

[Undrave]

So Barbarians can't rage with style? "And here we have some fashionable Barbarians walking down the catwalk...."

I'm too sexy for my rage
Too sexy for my rage
Rage's going to leave me

I'm too sexy for my chain shirt
Too sexy for my chain shirt
So sexy it hurts...
I'm too sexy for Waterdeep
Too sexy for Waterdeep
Neverwinter and Candlekeep
And I'm too sexy for your party
Too sexy for your party
No way I'm dungeon delving

I'm a Barbarian, you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah, on the catwalk, on the catwalk, yeah
I do my little turn on the catwalk

I'm too sexy for my axe
Too sexy for my axe
Too sexy for Min-Max
And I'm too sexy for my helm
Too sexy for my helm
What ya think about that?