D&D 5E Interest in a Spelless, Yet Magical, Bard, Paladin, and Ranger?

[doctorbadwolf]

Now, I'm not asking about whether you think it's feasible. I want to know if you are interested in the idea of playing or seeing in play, any of these classes, sans spellcasting.

My basic concept for all three would be that they have Ritual Casting, but not Spellcasting, and that they are still magical, but are closer to a monk in terms of magic level, and complexity. They'd gain more class features, strengthen the ones they have, and fill the same roles they current fill. A Paladin would still gain a smite style effect, a ranger would still be able to talk to animals and make vines attack their enemies, and a bard would still be able to dazzle, confuse, inspire, and invoke fear, with their voice and mastery of language. They'd regain their pool of resources on a short rest, and I'd probably make them MC compatible with eachother by making them simply use Ki, for now, or basing it on Ki and stating that if you are MCing between MOnk, Variant Bard, Ranger, or Paladin, or Marshal, you have 1 point per level, and can use your points for any ability you have that costs any of the points. But MC concerns would be one of the very last steps of design.

Why? Because IMO spellcasting can often muddy and obscure the actual story of these classes, making their identity less clear. Is the Bard really a support class? Is it even really a Bard? Sometimes, I don't feel like it is, and most players I know who love bards conceptually find the 5e Bard lacking in any regard other than power. The Paladin...I just feel that Spellcasting but no Rituals is absolutely backward for the concept, and the Cleric has to take a lot of the Paladin's goodies in order to be distinct enough to keep in the game. Let the Cleric cast spells. Let the Paladin feel the unnatural in her bones, see past lies, compel the guilty to speak, etc, without worrying about what spells to prepare in a day and whether it will eat too much of their Smite slots.

I'll go into it more once I've seen some replies, but that's the basic gist of what I want to build, and why.

Obviously, Bard is harder than the other two. Don't worry, I'm aware. I've got ideas for that.

 

[Lanefan]

Of those, IMO Bard would be the easiest - provided you're willing to go way outside the 5e box. This is how I rebuilt them for my 1e-variant game.

Take all the abilities a Bard could reasonably ever be expected to have, sort them by level where each ability is listed at the lowest level a Bard could expect to get it (ideally you end up with 3-4 of these per level, with probably more at very low level), and put them on a list. Then, each level a Bard gets to pick which abilities of that level or lower she gets - BUT - the number she can pick is always at least one less than the number that come available that level, thus forcing choices. (in 5e all of this would also replace feats, which they would no longer get access to other than ASIs; and most of these abilities would be strictly limited to Bards only)

For added fun, I put some of these into prerequisite tracks e.g. to get charm monster you must first have charm person.

Some of these abilities are always-on like feats e.g. weapon focus, others work like concentration spells e.g. morale boost or detect magic where the Bard takes x amount of time to get it started then has to keep playing to keep it going (to a continuous maximum of 2 rounds per level* after which an equal-length rest** is required), some work like fire-and-forget spells e.g. charm person, and others work at-will e.g. sonic attack negation where two opposed Bards - if they both have this - can pretty much cancel each other out until-unless one does something other than play/sing.

* - this applies no matter whther the Bard is playing fire-and-forget spells, contentration effects, or anything else: 2 rounds per level of continuous playing forces a rest (one could be a bit more generous at 1st level and give 'em 4 rounds, I think). If a Bard dtops playing before the maximum she must rest for as long as she just played.

** - rest means not playing or singing; she can still do anything else she likes e.g. jump into melee, run away, or whatever.

As these can all be used any time, each needs to be looked at with an eye to restricting what can be done; for example a Bard can only have one person charmed at a time with charm person, otherwise she'd be able to charm the whole town given long enough.

The reason this works for Bards but not for Rangers or Paladins is that the other two classes just don't have enough variety in available abilities to build a big enough table (though come to think of it, 5e Rangers might). The only other class this ability-based model works for is Monk.

Oh, and it helps if in this system Bards are absolutely NOT allowed to multiclass; if they can, things could get broken in a great big hurry.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Rincewind the wizard. Never casts a spell, but is a great adventurer.

(Rincewind is one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld characters, as probably most people on the forum know - he can technically cast One Spell)

 

[Don Durito]

Rangers never really needed spellcasting. Just give them Druidic ritual casting and that's enough.

 

[Coroc]

Other
I would be interested in an elemental ranger (like Darksun) and a spelless bard without magic, so e.g. just using his performance (music/dance/act/sing/recite).

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Paladin and Bard. Although I guess you could just rewrite those classes, replacing their spells with spell-like abilities, without changing anything about what they can actually do. It’s mostly a question of wording, in my opinion.

Now Rangers are something else. I have no idea what a Ranger is supposed to be, but there’s a clear and iconic literary figure of the Hunter, distinct from the Fighter, and I’ve always felt that building a martial class on that concept would be much more interesting than what we got.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Like said in a previous thread, I already let my players decide if they want spells or maneuvers (with small magical effects when using them), but yeah, I'd love to see the return of the Crusader from Bo9S to replace the paladin and a spell less bard that instead have different shouts and songs (ala 13th Age), and a ranger with rituals specialized in explorations.

 

[TwoSix]

Paladin seems like an obvious one. Auto-scaling smites (possibly on a short rest recharge to prevent nova), move some healing power into Lay on Hands (maybe level x 3+Cha), rituals for Find Steed and Find Greater Steed. Pretty easy, since paladins don't use their spells as much for utility since they're hanging onto them for smites. Less smite nova potential and more utility powers.

Oddly, I'd like to see a mostly "spell-less" take on Warlock and Sorcerer. Cantrips, buffed and more plentiful invocations, and ritual casting would make a fun take on the "innate magic" trope, and provide more differentiation from Wizards.

 

[jayoungr]

I wouldn't mind a good spell-less ranger. But I think removing the spells from bards would be nerfing them to the ground and taking away their best feature (versatility) unnecessarily. And I don't have a problem with paladins having spells, since they're thematically in the same box as clerics.

 

[Umbran]

So, I'm playing an Artificer, and in so doing I'm describing all my spellcasting as fiddling with devices and concoctions and such. Every spell I cast has standard effects, but is reskinned in fluff. The character knows he's using magic, rather than super-science or somesuch.

The result, for me, doesn't really feel like "spellcasting" - it feels like a character who produces magic by fiddling with devices and concoctions. The spell slots are merely bookkeeping for game balance that I do on the side, and I'm good with that.

I'd like to see what happens when someone does that reskinning for a bard or ranger, still using the spellcasting for game balance. I see no need to make a spell-less paladin - a paladin is fine with spells derived from their devotion, just like a cleric's.