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

mellored

Legend
Even if I didn't think that Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain should stay in their graves, that is a lot of space on the page and just a lot to sort through, especially for new players. I'm reminded of this part of this one TF2 video.
Break it up over multiple levels.

Low level Favoured Enemy. Choose either
Humanoids
Beasts
Undead

Mid Level Favor Enemy. Chose either
Giants
Constructs
Dragons

High Level Favoured Enemy. Chose either
Celestials
Deamons
Aberrant
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rocker26a

Explorer
Break it up over multiple levels.

I think the limitations that imposes are more meaningful than what it brings to the table. If you're a Ranger whose village was beset by Giants, you don't want to be forced to wait till the mid-game before you're allowed to inform that backstory with your mechanics. "Favoured Enemy" doesn't just mean you're good at killing them, it's suggestive of a desire to seek them out and fight them. So imposing on that mechanically doesn't sit right with me. This was one of the things that I really wish they didn't do for Revised Ranger. I don't like Favoured Enemy in general, but I especially don't like that it locks some creatures behind 6th level.
Whereas approaching it from the framework of spells means you can have the desire from the very beginning, you may even act on it, it's just a little while before you get the perfect tool.
 
Last edited:

mellored

Legend
I think the limitations that imposes are more meaningful than what it brings to the table. If you're a Ranger whose village was beset by Giants, you don't want to be forced to wait till the mid-game before you're allowed to inform that backstory with your mechanics. "Favoured Enemy" doesn't just mean you're good at killing them, it's suggestive of a desire to seek them out and fight them. So imposing on that mechanically doesn't sit right with me.
Whereas approaching it from the framework of spells means you can have the desire from the very beginning, you may even act on it, it's just a little while before you get the perfect tool.
I'm not sure I see much story difference between

I want to kill giants and trained for 9 levels to learn the spell
Vs
I want to kill giants and trained for 9 levels to learn the feature.

The main difference, IMO, is if it's an part of your character or a limited use.

And if your doing the I hate giants thing, than making it a part of your character seems to fit better.

And I feel all the time fits better than a once per day thing.
 

Rocker26a

Explorer
I'm not sure I see much story difference between

I want to kill giants and trained for 9 levels to learn the spell
Vs
I want to kill giants and trained for 9 levels to learn the feature.

You can't opt out of having a Favoured Enemy until you're allowed to take the one you actually care about. You have to have something in the meantime, whether you care about it or not. So it becomes; "I have a burning desire to take revenge on the Giants that plagued my village, but I'm gonna settle for a vendetta against Undead creatures for a couple months". Only Favoured Enemy imposes in this way, a Hunter's Mark or a Zephyr Strike will hurt a Giant all the same, and other creatures besides.

if your doing the I hate giants thing, than making it a part of your character seems to fit better.

I agree, and locking it behind a level imposes on the ability to make it a part of your character.

all the time fits better than a once per day thing.

I agree, and that's why it's an issue. Favoured Enemy wants to be an all the time thing, something you lock in as a part of your character and don't stray from, but the upshot of that is you don't have regular access to your classes' primary ability. So players stuck twiddling their thumbs waiting for their Favoured Enemy say "hm... let me change my favoured enemy to the thing we're fighting frequently now!", and we're left wondering what the point of this feature is (or at least I am). Something's gotta give, and I think it should be the notion of having Favoured Enemies at all. If the Ranger's special du jour is 'consistent damage against what you're fighting', that is doable without imposing on character backstory.

And also yeah, all that but about Favoured Terrain too.
 
Last edited:


These two links are on Laser Llama's take on the Ranger class.


Lasetllama content is the highest quality homebrew available imo and far exceeds the quality of the base phb. I love his ranger, tho the ideas in this thread for spells is very different and imo a new kind of ranger idea.
 

Lasetllama content is the highest quality homebrew available imo and far exceeds the quality of the base phb. I love his ranger, tho the ideas in this thread for spells is very different and imo a new kind of ranger idea.
True, but can imagine a PHB based off of their work? :) It would include not just the classes found in 5e, it would include the Magus, the Shaman, the Warlord, the Psion, and the Vessel class.
 


Undrave

Legend
What if Hunter's Prey was in the base ranger instead of favored foe? Seems like it'd be cool. Add the 4 Prime Shot (you get a bonus to attacks if you are the closest to the target amongst your allies) and you'd have an interesting suite of abilities that are thematic to certain type of enemies but still somewhat generic and have the feature grant you additional picks as you level up. Maybe see if you can crib anything from the 4e At-Wills. Even defensive tactics could be interesting in the base Ranger. Maybe add an option to both that feels more magical? Honestly the Hunter feels closer to what I'd like to see in the base Ranger and we just need a different subclass to replace it with.

That's not a stretch. That's exactly what happened.

The 2014 ranger has 3e class features for 1e play and 5e spellcasting.
We have to mold features to 5e play without gutting all flavor out it nor digging to much into flavor that it bogs down understanding or devolves back into uselessness.
Why would a game in 2014 build for a 1e gaming style where the Ranger didn't have those feature?

Pretty sure the 5e Ranger is just a repudiation of the 4e experiment that was the Martial Ranger.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Why would a game in 2014 build for a 1e gaming style where the Ranger didn't have those feature?
They over-represented the style of 1e and 2e gamers in the 2014 surveys .

5e gamers ended up not preferring gritty hubtowns and wanted rangers as "sneak, mark, and kill" warriors.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top