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

[Undrave]

Could work, potentially! Don't get me wrong, affecting multiples in a radius/zone is only what I'd personally be thinking with this, don't want to litigate what you should do with your ideas!

Don't worry, I came up with my ideas in like 5 minutes, I'm not wedded to them.

 

[Undrave]

Because 5e wasn't built on the idea of monster type uniformity like 1e-3e or monster roles or tags 4e. So you'd either have to contain multiple options in single spells or focus on universally seen traits like size or flight.

There's also senses! How about a 'Thundering Arrow' spell that creates a blast of thunder damage around a central point and everybody who took damage ends up losing Tremor Sense for a while?

The Ranger probably needs ways to resits being mind controlled by Aberrations so some sort of Psychic Shielding could be useful.

 

[Rocker26a]

The Ranger probably needs ways to resits being mind controlled by Aberrations so some sort of Psychic Shielding could be useful.

I strongly wish Iron Mind from Gloomstalker was a base Ranger feature. More than that I wish I could've worked it in as a base Ranger feature on my homebrew levelling table!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is very similar to how I'm imagining it (besides them being spells and I think at least some of them being multi-target could make sense/be good), it's just. Ironing out the details is tricky.

Yeah, making them spells makes sense like I said. Absolutely.
I think some being multi-target makes sense. Like, humanoids tend to fight in groups, as do most undead, many beasts, etc. So having some tools for dealing with groups makes sense.

I haven't fully decided yet, if they're not granted specifically by a feature on the levelling table, I was considering the notion of working it into their spell preparing directly. Maybe not as a mechanic that specifically serves this idea, but a rising tide that lifts all boats. I think I mentioned it in a previous post, the idea that some of their spells can be "hot-swapped". Just for example maybe, "You can exchange a number of spells from your list of prepared spells equal to your Wisdom modifier over the course of a short rest, or by meditating for 10 minutes (as if ritually casting a spell)"? Something that could suggest, Rangers aren't as absolutely rigid as other magic users, they can better adapt as the situation changes. As I say, not entirely sure yet, need to think on it some more.

I like this. I'd probably limit to certain spells granted by a class feature, so you don't need to worry as much about balancing it, but either way I think it's a great idea.

But beyond that, I've been trying to set it up that, there are certain bases that Ranger always has covered, so they can actually prepare the fun/situationally useful stuff without sweating about not bringing their daily drivers. That other thing I said in a previous post, there are certain spells that a Ranger will always be expected to have, so they might as well just get them. I think Primal Awareness was the original inspiration behind it, I just didn't have much attachment to the spells that feature offered. There was that, and the thing of "Warlocks always take EB so why even pretend".

Yeah, one idea I've seen a few places is making Hunter's mark a class feature, and having special spells that key off HM, but really I think that either having fundamental spells built into the class features makes sense, so the ranger can choose pretty freely when choosing prepared spells.

AND, every Conclave now gets 2 spells added per spell level they unlock, the fact that they only get 1 usually is silly to me (nevermind the PHB subclasses getting sweet F.A.). Particularly since Paladins get 2 per spell level, and they don't even worry about casting spells (as much), since they're Smiting! Like I genuinely don't know why they did that, they're the only half-caster who gets, uh. Half.

It also makes no sense that Paladins are prepared and Rangers are known spells. The whole setup is weird.

 

[Rocker26a]

Yeah, one idea I've seen a few places is making Hunter's mark a class feature, and having special spells that key off HM, but really I think that either having fundamental spells built into the class features makes sense, so the ranger can choose pretty freely when choosing prepared spells.

I don't mind the idea of Hunter's Mark, rather than having straightforward scaling, having some optional buffs you can pick from when you cast it. I don't even mind it for this idea, potentially. But yeah only when it's granted for free.
I dislike Hunter's Mark being rendered the Ranger's signature feature though, I much prefer them having an ability that's reminiscent of Hunter's Mark except better and more worthwhile longterm, and then making Hunter's Mark more of a companion to that ability. Me personally, I borrowed that feature from playtest 6, "Hunter's Lore", so when you mark a target you learn what their vulnerabilities, resistances and/or immunities are, and then changed the damage to a flat bonus equal to your WIS.

 

[Corinnguard]

There's also senses! How about a 'Thundering Arrow' spell that creates a blast of thunder damage around a central point and everybody who took damage ends up losing Tremor Sense for a while?

The Ranger probably needs ways to resits being mind controlled by Aberrations so some sort of Psychic Shielding could be useful.

A couple weeks ago I came across a Blizzard Arrow spell on D&D Beyond. The target and those within 10' feet of the target would receive Cold damage and then have to make a DEX save as the ground beneath them turned into hazardous terrain for round. There was also a Chromatic Bow spell that would allow you to switch out damage types whenever you used it. I liked it because it beat getting a spell for each damage type.

 

[Horwath]

As an aside, I HATE this kind of thinking. The "I'm not going to use this, so it's wasted and I should be able to trade it out for something else" thinking. If you want to be a stealthy paladin, then don't wear heavy armor. You don't get to trade it in for skills or feats. That's part of a class based system. Once you start being able to chop up classes and swap around parts (I want to swap armor for skills, and spellcasting for maneuvers) you're just playing a classless system with extra steps.

some could also say that they hate that certain classes are in a straitjacket of having heavy armor for nothing.

I'm sure that in any setting you could have areas and/or cultures that haven't used any heavy armor at all.

 

[Rocker26a]

some could also say that they hate that certain classes are in a straitjacket of having heavy armor for nothing.

I'm sure that in any setting you could have areas and/or cultures that haven't used any heavy armor at all.

Your line of thinking would be more warranted if Paladins only got Heavy armour proficiency, but they don't even just get Heavy and Medium, they get all three, plus shields. I'm not really seeing the straightjacket beyond the implicit theme they shoot for at a baseline, which you are not required to buy into if it doesn't suit you or your character.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't mind the idea of Hunter's Mark, rather than having straightforward scaling, having some optional buffs you can pick from when you cast it. I don't even mind it for this idea, potentially. But yeah only when it's granted for free.
I dislike Hunter's Mark being rendered the Ranger's signature feature though, I much prefer them having an ability that's reminiscent of Hunter's Mark except better and more worthwhile longterm, and then making Hunter's Mark more of a companion to that ability. Me personally, I borrowed that feature from playtest 6, "Hunter's Lore", so when you mark a target you learn what their vulnerabilities, resistances and/or immunities are, and then changed the damage to a flat bonus equal to your WIS.

Yeah 4e Ranger had Ranger’s Quarry that just added a d8 to attacks against a chosen target.

Later I’ll post or send my Bane document so you can see if you want to mine it for ideas at all.

some could also say that they hate that certain classes are in a straitjacket of having heavy armor for nothing.

I'm sure that in any setting you could have areas and/or cultures that haven't used any heavy armor at all.

I have only played the 5e Paladin as a Dex character in light armor and usually a shield. If the class had the two weapon fighting style, I’d be more likely to go with that. Or if the feat that grants a fighting style had a half-ASI or something, bc fighting style is not worth a feat.

 

[Remathilis]

Your line of thinking would be more warranted if Paladins only got Heavy armour proficiency, but they don't even just get Heavy and Medium, they get all three, plus shields. I'm not really seeing the straightjacket beyond the implicit theme they shoot for at a baseline, which you are not required to buy into if it doesn't suit you or your character.

Exactly. There isn't anything that stops a heavy armor character from choosing light armor and a better Dex. You don't get a bonus for choosing one option over another just because the option you chose isn't the default assumption one.