Spells as class features

[Terebin]

It's often said that certain spells function almost like class features (find familiar, Eldritch blast, Hunter's mark, etc). How would you rewrite these spells as class features? Would that be an improvement or a detriment in your opinion?

[Segev]

It's often said that certain spells function almost like class features (find familiar, Eldritch blast, Hunter's mark, etc). How would you rewrite these spells as class features? Would that be an improvement or a detriment in your opinion?

In 3.5, many of them - like find familiar - were class features. So it would look something like that, most likely.

[GeneralVryth]

Many of the spells as class features tend to be weaker for the actual class and over powered so most I would probably give small buffs to while making them more tied to the class in question (making dips harder to just grab them).

Eldritch Blast:
This is one I would change the most. It would start as a level 1 feature allowing you to attack with an Eldritch Blast as an action. To do so you would make a spell attack roll against your target and if you hit you deal 1d10+cha mod+warlock level force (or likely something that varies with subclass). At levels 5, 11, and 17 add 1d10 to the damage roll. This essentially removes it as a useful multi-class option (instead of being the clear best ranged one), and makes it into the most powerful single attack ability in the game that doesn't require resources to be used. You could have an invocation reformatting it back to a split damage spell (maybe with the restriction each target has to be different but doing 1 die+cha mod+profiency bonus to each).

Hex/Hunter's Mark:
Both of these are abilities their respective classes would get at level 1. They would have their current text minus the concentration requirement and duration. Instead you would be limited to 1+class mod uses per day until 5th level at which point you can use them unlimited times per day.

Smites:
I would re-wrok the smite spells so they are just options for Paladin to use with their smite ability. Smites (including the base feature) would all work the same with the same damage dice, you just get options of which rider (or extra effect) you want based on of your choice if you sacrifice a spell of a certain level. (the extra die of damage with the possibility for another extra die against undead/fiends becomes the default abilities rider). Damage would also be affect by the smite type chosen. The base amount of damage dice (before adding in riders) would be limited to half your paladin level rounded up, even if you use a higher level spell slot. (This means if you want the full effect for a level 5 slot used you nee to be at least a level 9 Paladin, and you will still have fewer rider options as they would come at the point or after a Paladin unlocks the appropriate spell level).

Summon Paladin Mounts:
These just become Paladin abilities you can use once per day, and you can use again by spending a spell slot of appropriate level.

Summon Familiar:
I really would be tempted to make this into a feat requiring having the ability to cast spells. Once you have the ability you can spend an hour and the 10 gold to find a familiar, and its effects just work like the spell.

Other things I would do in a similar vein is I would every spell with a duration of 8 hours and no concentration requirement last until your next long rest. And I would be tempted to do the same thing for spells with a duration of 1 hour (and no concentration requirement) to the next short rest (but this could create other complications).

[Doug Lampert]

In 3.5, many of them - like find familiar - were class features. So it would look something like that, most likely.
Agreed.

1.a) Do not make something that should be class exclusive a spell, especially not if the effect is persistent and can be done in downtime. There are simply too many ways to access a spell (ring of spell storing).

This means that familiars and paladin mounts should be class features.

They figured this one out in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition, 3.0 the ranger and druid animal companions were gained via a level 1 spell. 3.5 they were a class feature. There was a reason for the change.

1.b) Similarly, if fireball is overpowered partly because Wizards are supposed to be good at area control and its a wizard spell; then wouldn't it be better to leave the spell at something you at least thought was vaguely level appropriate, and give wizards a class feature that made them better at area blasting?

Then you could also give them a feature that can add to an element, and the overpowered "iconic" fireball spell suddenly doesn't need to still be overpowered if a bard picks it up and we're suddenly giving wizards class features beyond "casts spells" and "casts more spells" and "casts some additional spells", and even if spellcasting is always going to be near the core of the class, it's nice if it has some other features.

2) If a class is expected to generally have a capability to do its expected damage in combat, do not make it a spell.

Eldritch blast is most people's example of this. Get blast + an invocation and you do Warlock expected damage all day.

But ranger expected damage appears to assume Hunter's Mark. Congratulations, melee rangers now suck because they need to maintain concentration to do what they are supposed to do. If a class is supposed to more or less always have X, just give it X at an appropriate level. And there still ways for someone else with more slots to swipe hunter's mark and do stuff like stack it with Eldritch blast.

Somehow I completely missed just where it became part of the class fantasy for rangers that they start almost every battle with a spell and are only good against one foe at a time and have switching targets for their spell competing with two weapon fighting for a limited bonus action. Just give the guy a level based bonus to damage.