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

[EzekielRaiden]

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 affirmation to yourself as a verbal component etc.

But yeah I have got something similar to that in my Ranger homebrew, forget exactly what I have down for it but I remember it's called "Internal Focus", and similar to Subtle Spell but maybe not exactly the same for free.
Ahhh, dug it out of an older version. Yeah, I think I borrowed it from another homebrew? A number of them seem to have it. It's this!

Spoiler: Internal Focus, Ranger 2nd Level

When you cast spells that require a material component, you can ignore that component unless it has a value, such as the specially marked sticks, bones, or similar tokens worth at least 25 gp for the augury spell, in which case the components are required.

Well, if we remove half the mechanics that make them spells, and then invent brand-new spells that work in ways spells don't, then the only real element that remains of "spellcasting" is that it's chunky bits of power that you gain both more of, and stronger versions of, as you gain levels.

At that point, you've ripped out almost enough of the "spellcasting" that it barely merits the name anymore, so sure, I can get behind that. You will have done about half the work of making it not actually spells in the first place.

 

[Rocker26a]

Well, if we remove half the mechanics that make them spells, and then invent brand-new spells that work in ways spells don't, then the only real element that remains of "spellcasting" is that it's chunky bits of power that you gain both more of, and stronger versions of, as you gain levels.

At that point, you've ripped out almost enough of the "spellcasting" that it barely merits the name anymore, so sure, I can get behind that. You will have done about half the work of making it not actually spells in the first place.

I mean! I don't know that that's how I'd describe what I'm doing here necessarily! I'd be happy if those that dislike spellcasting on Ranger find the mechanics offered translucent enough that the flavour they prefer can be enforced, but. Y'know.
Is this idea necessarily a huge departure from how spells usually work? Or from how you might reasonably expect a spell could work?

 

[Horwath]

Well, if we remove half the mechanics that make them spells, and then invent brand-new spells that work in ways spells don't, then the only real element that remains of "spellcasting" is that it's chunky bits of power that you gain both more of, and stronger versions of, as you gain levels.

At that point, you've ripped out almost enough of the "spellcasting" that it barely merits the name anymore, so sure, I can get behind that. You will have done about half the work of making it not actually spells in the first place.

That IS the point.

 

[Minigiant]

And I assume your ranger PCs have spells that are useful regardless of circumstance. Having bonus spells that are more targeted would not be a loss

And that's what I'm stressing. That these spells should be made more universally useful or it would not see play over the others.

The Ranger will prepare spells in the revised phb. Not only that, we are inherently discussing houserules and homebrew, so why insist on “this can’t work” rhetoric instead of proposing that prepared Spellcasting would help the Ranger deal with a wide range of critters more effectively?

I'm not saying "this can't work". I am saying that if you focus on the traits of monsters, then you also need to redesign the monsters.

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.

Or redesign the monsters.

Every dragon has a breath weapon and fly speed. Every Giant has a size large or larger. Undead are poorly designed and should all have some negative effect from sunlight and radiant damage, but since they don’t all share that (which is, again, bad design) you don’t try to make an “anti-undead” spell.

The whole point I’ve been making revolves around not focusing on creature type.

But you don't fight a dragon everyday. And that poor design of undead is what I'm talking about. Undead don't share anything, so an anti-undead spell would be forced to focus on undead creature type.

Or we redesign the monsters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean! I don't know that that's how I'd describe what I'm doing here necessarily! I'd be happy if those that dislike spellcasting on Ranger find the mechanics offered translucent enough that the flavour they prefer can be enforced, but. Y'know.
Is this idea necessarily a huge departure from how spells usually work? Or from how you might reasonably expect a spell could work?

Well, "spells" as a D&D mechanical structure, in all editions except 4e (as usual), have had all of the following characteristics, with varying degrees of implementation:

1. A level, which approximately defines how powerful they are, and precisely defines how powerful a character must be in order to cast it
2. A "fire and forget" approach, where the power making the spell happen is lost upon casting (5e is more lenient here than previous eds, but you still lose a slot for it)
3. Cannot be used in certain areas which forbid particular kinds of supernatural activity (antimagic zone, Beholder rays, etc.)
4. Can be countered if an enemy spellcaster has prepared for it (again, 5e is more lenient about how that works)
5. Require some kind of effort to ensure that an enemy doesn't fizzle the spell in some way (3.x was ultra-lenient here, 5e less so, but much more than earlier editions)
6. Feature some combination of "components," usually broken down into physical motions, materials (often, but not always, consumed in the casting), and sounds; if a given spell requires a particular component, being unable to furnish it prevents use of the spell.
7. For spells which inflict negative effects on enemies, a general preference for inducing enemies to make saving throws, rather than for players making attack rolls. Not exclusive, to be sure, but saving throws are far more the domain of magic than martial skill.

With the descriptions you've given, we are removing 3-6, 2 is almost gone in 5e rules anyway (apart from stuff mostly covered by 1 already), and 7 is more a general pattern than an actual hard and fast rule, and that pattern likely would not hold for these monster-hunting spells, since rangers are generally going to hunt monsters by making attack rolls (one would presume, anyway.)

So, yeah, I do feel like this is ripping out essentially everything but the resource mechanic of spells...at which point, if you're already doing that much work and designing these spells meant to have 3-6 stripped away from them, why not simplify the process by just...making up new class features instead?

That IS the point.

See above. If that "IS the point," then it seems like you might as well just take the final step. You've done practically everything else.

 

[AnderNGmx]

Do you eventually mean more spells in their spell lists, or new powers or new spells? Or all of those things?

 

[Corinnguard]

There are seven Paladin Smite spells in 5e- Searing (which is already available to Rangers as an option), Thunderous, Wrathful, Branding, Blinding, Staggering and Banishing. With the exception of Searing Smite, all of these spells use damage types that most monsters are neither immune to or resistant to. There are quite a number of monsters who are resistant or immune to Searing Smite's Fire damage. So wouldn't it be easier to simply make these spells into optional spells for the Rangers? Why invent new monster-fighting spells when you got these anyway?

I think it might be more interesting if the Ranger had access to the Arcane Shots of the Fighter (Arcane Archer). Then they'll get to call the shots.

 

[Horwath]

See above. If that "IS the point," then it seems like you might as well just take the final step. You've done practically everything else.

I would like if Ranger gets rid of spells completely, but as they are determined to have spells on ranger class and use that specific type of resource for a daily power budget, then those features on ranger should be dissimilar to "pure" spellcasters as much as possible.

similar to 3.5e spellcasting and spell-like ability, action cost is the same, effects are the same, but there is no casting components.

also, spell-points should be rangers default to separate from casters even more.

 

[Rocker26a]

There are seven Paladin Smite spells in 5e- Searing (which is already available to Rangers as an option), Thunderous, Wrathful, Branding, Blinding, Staggering and Banishing. With the exception of Searing Smite, all of these spells use damage types that most monsters are neither immune to or resistant to. There are quite a number of monsters who are resistant or immune to Searing Smite's Fire damage. So wouldn't it be easier to simply make these spells into optional spells for the Rangers? Why invent new monster-fighting spells when you got these anyway?

Paladin and Ranger are peer classes, they mirror or parallel eachother in several ways. But Paladin has always been the favourite of the two. It has legitimacy Ranger sorely lacks. I see the Smite spells as an extension of that legitimacy, everyone knows Smite is good and it's desirable to do it even when you're not playing Paladin. I would like to capture some of that legitimacy for Ranger, rather than having them just ride Paladin's coattails.

I think it might be more interesting if the Ranger had access to the Arcane Shots of the Fighter (Arcane Archer). Then they'll get to call the shots.

(Also I am allergic to things that perpetuate the idea that Rangers are solely bow and arrow guys.)

 

[Rocker26a]

With the descriptions you've given, we are removing 3-6

I don't know that that's accurate? 3 would almost certainly still apply, 4 you say yourself that 5E is more lenient about it already, 5 I'm still stewing on it, 6 is more just, I echo the sentiment of "it can be frustrating to be expected to adhere rigidly to the idea of verbal or somatic components when they don't fit your character very well". I'm not necessarily advocating for these spells having no components.

and 7 is more a general pattern than an actual hard and fast rule, and that pattern likely would not hold for these monster-hunting spells, since rangers are generally going to hunt monsters by making attack rolls (one would presume, anyway.)

The framework I'm suggesting I'd prefer working from with these, is Hunter's Mark/Bane! Those are spells you cast at creature(s), and they do stuff, and some of that stuff happens each time you hit the target! Not inflicted on-hit like the Smite spells!

why not simplify the process by just...making up new class features instead?

My Ranger homebrew levelling table is already packed! And plus, these aren't gonna be right for every Ranger.