Search results

I did realize over the course of this thread that actually litigating on what creatures the spells work on would be a misstep, yeah. It just seemed like it would be sensible when feeling out the shape of it in my head.

Well, that can feasibly be helped? It would be good if the spells were appealing in their own right, but. If that's not enough, it might help if it were more worked into a Ranger's routine. Something I was considering was, giving Rangers their own facet of preparing spells. Maybe letting them...

I may attempt to work that angle for one of these last features I need! Maybe give it a more common bonus alongside it though, just so you're not wondering when the DM will give you a creature that keys off of your class ability. That's one of my primary focuses with all this; don't just...

Yeeaah. These are my feelings too. And while I don't think Hunter's Mark and Zephyr Strike are as good as they could be and ought to be, yeah. They really should be the straightforward template of Ranger spells that more powerful and specialized spells work from. Or something like that, leastways.

Honestly, in my head I'm imagining them working more like. The spells have a radius, and the susceptible creatures within that range are subject to the spell's effects. And one/some of those effects are upon being hit with an attack by the caster.

I do think those could be helpful! I kinda think the game could benefit from a codified subcategory system, or even just tag system, for creatures within a wide umbrella. For bookkeeping if nothing else. However, I think I'd be reluctant to key this idea off of that sort of system specifically...

Exactly! (And I'm always happy to see Conjure Barrage pointed out as lame.) Rangers are the typecast Monster hunters, but when monster hunting is just "dealing lots of damage", they can't really embrace that role.

Refer to the first post!

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure I see what you're getting at there. Why would it necessarily require Rangers to have specifically Spellbooks? What's the correlation as such? Obviously it's not true in absolutely every case, but it's pretty close to that already. Almost every...

I was somewhat leaning towards that sort of system, yeah. The ideas in the first post there, it's more that they key off of particular traits a given creature has than absolutely requiring that they belong to that umbrella category. For instance; that Pac-Man effect for Ghosts (or similar) that...

But that's literally just Divine Smite! I don't think the people who dislike spellcasting on Rangers will be compelled by "just make them a Paladin"! The primary purpose of the spells I'm considering isn't just damage. They might offer it or offer avenues to it, but the whole point is to have...

Thanks! I'm still mulling it over. I like the shape of it in my mind, but. Don't want to let it become too niche, too ubiquitous, or too cumbersome when actually rendered.

That's something I specifically want to avoid, I don't want to inundate the spell list with new stuff. No more than there are types of creature, if that many at all. But beyond that, the idea for this I've got in my head is just what you might call "Banes". I don't know that I'm set on that as...

They don't necessarily augment Divine Smite itself, though they can be used in conjunction with it on the same attack. Exactly! That's what I'm hoping to recreate for Ranger. A smattering of spells for specific scenarios, that may be evocative of their primary ability in some ways, but not a...

Well, that depends; do you think the existence of the Divine Smite ability on Paladin renders the Smite spells obsolete?

Also true, but those problems can be resolved (theoretically)! It's just, yeah. Maybe not especially likely that WOTC will actually do it.

That is their fault, true, but. It's more just a symptom of it being a mechanic present from the initial release, I feel like. They've gone some ways towards helping the matter since, like I say, you can take a fighting style or a feat for maneuvers. It's maybe not perfect, but it's not a hard...

I think you're underrating what this would mean for Battlemaster, in spirit and in practice. You're giving the key to their kingdom to another class. Rangers getting maneuvers from their base class, on-top of maneuvers exclusive to them, that's damaging to Battlemaster's identity in a way that...

Eeeeh. I'm reluctant to have the Ranger tread on the Fighter's toes any further. They're already very between several classes, depending on the rendition.

That's actually something I've come up against in my own homebrewing for Ranger, yeah it could easily be a flavour break depending on how rigidly you define such things. I think you could maaaybe swing certain things that aren't as bad; clenching your fists as a somatic component, muttering some...