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

[Rocker26a]

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

You lost me, personally.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Feel free to explain what impact the ancient history of the game has on whether what I said is true or not?

 

[Minigiant]

Feel free to explain what impact the ancient history of the game has on whether what I said is true or not?

Because the ranger has to match both how the game is played and it's mechanics.

The 2014 mechanics are not bad.
The 2014 mechanics are made for a monster and terrain style that isn't popular.

So if you make new ranger mechanics and spells that also do match the playstyle, they too will be useless.

This has been the problem rangers keep having in design.

You cannot design a good class based on monster and terrain design without focusing on the design and interaction of monsters and terrain.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because the ranger has to match both how the game is played and it's mechanics.

The 2014 mechanics are not bad.
The 2014 mechanics are made for a monster and terrain style that isn't popular.

So if you make new ranger mechanics and spells that also do match the playstyle, they too will be useless.

This has been the problem rangers keep having in design.

You cannot design a good class based on monster and terrain design without focusing on the design and interaction of monsters and terrain.

No those features literally aren’t good.

Like they’re ribbons most of the time, and they would be in an old school game where goblins and forests aren’t the whole campaign, too.

They’re bad features because they are vastly too situational to be the primary features of a class (which the two level 1 features of a class should be).

It’s not some historical vestige, it’s a design mistake. They weren’t trying to make a feature for written-on-stone-tablets-in-pictographs D&D, they were writing a feature for modern D&D, and screwed up.

Literally all that is required to make them work is to either:

broaden them dramatically while providing universal benefits as well, like the older UA Revised Ranger

replace them with lightly themed mechanics that are broadly useful in most environments (tundra = cord resistence and some benefit to con saves, forest = ignore difficult terrain and gain climb speed, etc)

Replace them with expertise and something like 4e’s rangers quarry

Replace them with bonus spells or similar features that they can pick several of that work against common traits and tactics irrespective of any monster type and wilderness knacks that target certain types of hazards irrespective of a terrain type

Some combination of the above

Any discussion of old school D&D is not required for any of this.

 

[Minigiant]

No those features literally aren’t good.

Like they’re ribbons most of the time, and they would be in an old school game where goblins and forests aren’t the whole campaign, too

That's the point.

They are made for an old school game where goblins and forests are 50% of the whole campaign.

They’re bad features because they are vastly too situational to be the primary features of a class (which the two level 1 features of a class should be).

It’s not some historical vestige, it’s a design mistake. They weren’t trying to make a feature for written-on-stone-tablets-in-pictographs D&D, they were writing a feature for modern D&D, and screwed up.

No it's is history.

Gygaxian 70s play is PCs all been in the same town and only leaving to go to the dungeon via the wild.

In that a campaign, a 2014 ranger would be strong. Because the ranger would be their 3rd or 4th character and can metagame to pick the terrain and favored enemy of the strongest enemies.

Because your 1st level ranger is traveling in the same area as your 5th level fighter. So you dealt with the starvation, foraging, tracking and scouting with your fighter.

The ranger automatically wins those obstacles.

But people don't play 5e that way.

This is why I often say rangers have a playstyle issue AND 5e oversampled old school gamers. The 2014 ranger is super strong under a 1E style DM running hubtowns or multiple PCs/player.

Any redesign or addition has to match the style it was made for and adjust offending core rules

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's the point.

They are made for an old school game where goblins and forests are 50% of the whole campaign.

No it's is history.

Gygaxian 70s play is PCs all been in the same town and only leaving to go to the dungeon via the wild.

In that a campaign, a 2014 ranger would be strong. Because the ranger would be their 3rd or 4th character and can metagame to pick the terrain and favored enemy of the strongest enemies.

Because your 1st level ranger is traveling in the same area as your 5th level fighter. So you dealt with the starvation, foraging, tracking and scouting with your fighter.

The ranger automatically wins those obstacles.

But people don't play 5e that way.

This is why I often say rangers have a playstyle issue AND 5e oversampled old school gamers. The 2014 ranger is super strong under a 1E style DM running hubtowns or multiple PCs/player.

Any redesign or addition has to match the style it was made for and adjust offending core rules

Repeating the same claims doesn’t actually back them up.

It also doesn’t matter in a thread about making features for the Ranger for a homebrew that speak to how most people play 5e right now.

 

[Minigiant]

Repeating the same claims doesn’t actually back them up.

It also doesn’t matter in a thread about making features for the Ranger for a homebrew that speak to how most people play 5e right now.

It does.

I am saying the homebrew should match how you play at home.

If it sounds cool but doesn't match how you actually play, it is no longer useful. It's just a though exercise then That is why classes like ranger and monk always has problems.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It does.

I am saying the homebrew should match how you play at home.

If it sounds cool but doesn't match how you actually play, it is no longer useful. It's just a though exercise then That is why classes like ranger and monk always has problems.

Feel free to argue with someone else about it.

 

[Rocker26a]

So let's see, let me collect my thoughts a little.

I don't think I mind the idea of (my slight modification of) Hunter's Mark being the model for these theoretical new spells; A little bit of damage in a fashion adjacent to the signature ability of the class, and an additional effect that primarily targets enemies with certain common abilities/susceptibilities.

Assuming I go for that at all, I haven't decided whether or not they should be extensions of regular Hunter's Mark that are exclusive to Ranger (i.e. something like Symbol but on upcasts, for example; you cast Hunter's Mark with a 2nd level slot and you gain access to the anti-ghost effect), or if they should be spells unto themselves as the Smite spells are, and that alongside an aspect of Ranger's spellcasting where, they can reshuffle their prepared spells over a short rest/meditation.

And from there, it's mostly a matter of settling on these additional effects, and just how strong they are. There are some potentially tricky things, an anti-flying creature variant may be problematic. Dissuading a Harpy from flying is different to dissuading a Dragon from flying.

 

[ECMO3]

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..

I played a lot of 1E. 1E Rangers were typically in Plate Mail and could hide no better than any other Fighter. They had nothiing comparable to hide in plain sight or any other Ranger hiding ability.

The point was that the OD&D play is different from 5e play.

I thought you were saying the Ranger powers in 5E were a throwback because those powers were useful in 1E, but the Ranger itself was completely different in 1E. My bad.