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

[Horwath]

I've never played a 5E Wizard or Sorc that had Fireball in their arsenal. A few of them did have the spell in a scroll or wand though. Ironically the only caster I played that could cast this spell was a light cleric.

IMO there are so many good 3rd level spells, there is not usually room for fireball.

Also most of my Wizards are controllers looking to limit an enemies options or steal actions. Like you said, damage is not their thing.

This.

I do not know why everyone praises fireball so much. sure, it has best damage for 3rd level spells, but even that is quite low for a limited resource. Also the scaling is horrible, maybe if it was +2d6 per level and +5ft radius it would be worth it.

But there is some utility in fireball, if you can hit 5+ target of which none are your allies, then it's good, but that does not come along every fight.

most damage spells are very bad, with even worse upscaling.

I also almost never have Cure Wounds prepared unless I have it always prepared through the metallic Dragon feat. My Clerics have healing word instead. Using HW to yo-yo downed allies is a lot more efficient than getting into touch range and using an action to heal them for 2 more points.

This is more of a game problem.

now it's getting better with +2d8 vs +2d4, but still it is not very good.
There is still yo-yo effect.

maybe remove Cure and buff HW:

Healing word, 1st level spell
Bonus action,
60ft
heal target for 15HP, you can split the healing between target and yourself.
+10 HP per spell level higher than 1st.

in addition, whenever you drop to 0HP you gain exhaustion level, this level(s) are removed when you are healed to 50% of max HP(might be 75 or 100%, depending on how gritty you want your game to be)

 

[Minigiant]

The Ranger has improved ever since then. Master of the wilderness was never a sustainable class niche outside of the Druid.

What the Ranger suffers from in 5e is just design mistakes. Like that’s genuinely it. It’s full of features that just mechanically are not good.

If favored enemy, natural explorer, hide in plain sight, foe slayer, and whichever other ones, were all mechanically strong features, we wouldn’t have all these threads.

I don’t hate the idea of a Reckless Fighting Style.

The 5e ranger was designed for the original Blackmoor/Greyhawk 16 player wargamer groups that the DA and GG ran.

Favored enemy, natural explorer, hide in plain sight, foe slayer, etc are great if you and 12 other people running 1-6 PCs each are making individual ad-hoc parties from a central location and is its surrounds to the 2 dungeons in a weeks walking distance.

Actually OP in that . But that was the point. The new book WOTC is publishing on OD&D will likely describe this.

Few play that way in 2023. And almost none of those people play 5e.

 

[ECMO3]

The 5e ranger was designed for the original Blackmoor/Greyhawk 16 player wargamer groups that the DA and GG ran.

Favored enemy, natural explorer, hide in plain sight, foe slayer, etc are great if you and 12 other people running 1-6 PCs each are making individual ad-hoc parties from a central location and is its surrounds to the 2 dungeons in a weeks walking distance.

Actually OP in that . But that was the point. The new book WOTC is publishing on OD&D will likely describe this.

Few play that way in 2023. And almost none of those people play 5e.

Well the original Ranger did not have most of these features. They could not hide at all (in plain sight or in shadows) and their tracking ability is nowhere near what natural explorer is.

 

[Minigiant]

Well the original Ranger did not have most of these features. They could not hide at all (in plain sight or in shadows) and their tracking ability is nowhere near what natural explorer is.

OD&D Rangers could hide. Hide in Shadows was for hiding in shadows. It was extraordinary,
Same with the tracking. No one could track more than blatant muddy footprints but rangers..

The point was that the OD&D play is different from 5e play.
2014 ranger was given mechanical strength over 1974 problems.
The 2014 ranger was the most OP class for that sort of game because it actually got additional power vs those obstacles.

The 2014 ranger is powerful if you 100% know the most common terrain and enemies and 100% know this will never change because your ranger is your 5th PC in the setting and your 4 previous PCs only saw the same 2 terrains and have been fighting the same monster 50% of the time. The game Gygax and Arneson ran were hubtowns where 15-25 PCs only hung around the same town, dungeon, and wilds around both every 6 levels.

You could pick FE: Orcs and goblins and NE: Forest and dominate a 1970s style hubtown campaign.

 

[Shardstone]

I put this in the wrong thread but I'm leaving it here out of shame.

Give the Swordmage

• Spellstrike
• Cantrip Modification features
• Ability to spend a spell slot to increase the power of ally spellcasting
• Magical Secrets

And that's enough for a thematic and mechanical identity imo. The ability to manipulate cantrips like the Warmage from Valda's Spire and the ability to, say, increase an ally's spell level by spending one of your own, and then having the ability to pick up spells from other classes would all make the Swordmage stand out as a tactical, intelligent, arcane-as-technology/weapon-wielding warrior.

EDIT: Bonus points for making it a point-based caster too, invoking sorcery flavor.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Give the Swordmage

• Spellstrike
• Cantrip Modification features
• Ability to spend a spell slot to increase the power of ally spellcasting
• Magical Secrets

And that's enough for a thematic and mechanical identity imo. The ability to manipulate cantrips like the Warmage from Valda's Spire and the ability to, say, increase an ally's spell level by spending one of your own, and then having the ability to pick up spells from other classes would all make the Swordmage stand out as a tactical, intelligent, arcane-as-technology/weapon-wielding warrior.

EDIT: Bonus points for making it a point-based caster too, invoking sorcery flavor.

is this posted in the right thread shard? given this is the ranger thread.

 

[Shardstone]

whoops

 

[Shardstone]

is this posted in the right thread shard? given this is the ranger thread.

...Hm. It...it seems so...

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Maybe we should go back to first edition Rangers?

Bonus damage against 'giant' type monsters (+1 hp/level, with no cap) - maybe even expand that to Beasts?

Spells? When they get them, they're limited to up to 3rd level druid spells and 2nd level mage spells.

 

[Minigiant]

I think Rangers could support a host of arrow spells as banes

Giantbane Arrow dealing more damage to larger creatures
Fiendbane Arrow having a minor banishment
Undeadbane Arrow turning poison immunity and poison resistance to poison vulnerability
Feybane Arrow preventing teleportation and charms.