Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[Gold Roger]

One thing that I constantly see on this board is that people don't see a reason to have niche classes. Most often it's said about the ranger and paladin, but it's a problem the barbarian, assassin and others have too.

One argument often brought up is that these classes can be easily done with backgrounds, themes and potentially multiclassing.

Another is that these classes don't have a strong enough identity of their own to warrant their status as class.

These arguments aren't new, of course. You could very well make the case that in 3rd edition multiclassing and PrC's could just as well produce rangers and paladins. Still, the issue warrants discussion.

So, I thought it would be nice to collect reasons people find to keep these classes.


To make a start, I find keeping niche classes in the game allows to further distinguish and personalise PC's.

Yes I can take a fighter, give him a wilderness background and theme and I have a wilderness fighter, pretty much a ranger. I can take a cleric, pick the war domain, knight background and close combat theme and I have a holy warrior that looks an awful lot like a paladin.

But to get my holy warrior or wilderness warrior, I've just expended all my character options. He has that identity, but doesn't go further. With a ranger class I already have that core identity, an iconic wilderness warrior. And now I can things to make him my wilderness warrior. I can add the noble background or a city background, because I already have the wilderness skill needed, and add a facete to his Personality, he's a free roaming noble or a city boy driven out of his birthplace, by violence or maybe because he never felt comfortable. I can add in a religious theme or maybe an arcane one or one that emphazises social interaction and each results in a wilderness warrior who fits the archetype, but is different from all the other wilderness warriors out there. Of course, if I want, I can still pick the default background and theme and run around my "just wilderness guy" PC.


So, what other reasons do you see to keep around niche classes (wether specific ones or all).

 

[Ellington]

I agree. I'd like to be able to make a ranger or a paladin with various background and theme options.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To me, it's about giving people what they want. People read LotR and want to play a ranger. It's iconic. People have ideas about it. They don't need to be multiclassing fighter, rogue, and druid to get what they want.

The paladin is more of a problem because it doesn't map well to anything outside of D&D; it's strictly a D&D-ism, and a niche within that. (Which is why I would replace it with a knight/cavalier/champion/etc., something that accomplishes more in terms of representing a broad archetype).

 

[Deadboy]

You've definitely hit on THE best reason to keep them as classes. I don't want to spend all my customization on making a ranger character when I could START with the Ranger class and spend my customization elsewhere into making it the Ranger I want to play.

Other reasons that I can think of are that most people who want Ranger/Paladins/Barbarians/whathaveyou to be backgrounds instead of classes seemingly want everything boiled down to the big four classes. While that is certainly viable game design, it's not particularly D&D game design. The only thing close was Basic and even that had races as additional classes. And really, if you're going to pair down classes you might as well just go classless and be done with it; there's no compelling argument for having few classes that doesn't also work for having no classes at all.

Another reason is more from the business end: Classes sell books. If WotC narrows down the conception of class they have fewer classes to put in splatbooks and thus people will be less likely to buy the splatbooks.

 

[gloomhound]

I like having paladins and rangers as classes. It just would not seem like D&D to me without them. Sorry but that's the best answer I've got.

 

[Szatany]

The paladin is more of a problem because it doesn't map well to anything outside of D&D; it's strictly a D&D-ism

Not anymore. Three words: World of Warcraft.

 

[tuxgeo]

Another reason to have Paladins and Rangers (et al.) as classes in D&D 5ENext is that some campaigns will be played bare-bones: class and race only, no backgrounds and themes allowed. In such cases, a player would not be able to play a Paladin or a Ranger at all if those types of characters were only achievable through choices of backgrounds and themes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes I can take a fighter, give him a wilderness background and theme and I have a wilderness fighter, pretty much a ranger. I can take a cleric, pick the war domain, knight background and close combat theme and I have a holy warrior that looks an awful lot like a paladin.

...

So, what other reasons do you see to keep around niche classes (wether specific ones or all).

My personal reason is that for me a Ranger is not a wilderness fighter, and a Paladin is not a holy warrior... I see them both as special individuals who were "called" rather than decided to pick their path. So for me a LG knightly war cleric is still a cleric of a certain deity while the Paladin is a chosen by Good itself, and the Ranger is not a scout but is a chosen of who knows? the world itself maybe, but still not just an expert hunter/tracker. Both classes are "organic" enough in concept that deserve to be a niche.

 

[Fifth Element]

But to get my holy warrior or wilderness warrior, I've just expended all my character options. He has that identity, but doesn't go further. With a ranger class I already have that core identity, an iconic wilderness warrior.

I don't find this terribly convincing, because the same could be said about any class. To make a nimble, lightly-armored, two-weapon wielding fighter I have to use a bunch of character options. But now I can't make him my nimble, lightly-armored, two-weapon wielding fighter, because I've already used my character options up.

You mention an "iconic" wilderness warrior, and that's they key. You see rangers and paladins as being iconic unto themselves, and thus deserving full class treatment. But of course, people have different ideas of what classes are iconic, and it doesn't say anything that hasn't been said already. It's essentially just "I really think rangers should be a class."

If you see a swashbuckler (see above) as an iconic concept, then you'll want to be able to make one and still make him yours, as you put it. But if you think of it as a subtype of a fighter or a rogue, then you see no need for a separate class.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To a certain degree, any class is a niche class. You don't even need the Big Four. Or even a single one.

But classes are useful as bags of archetypal characteristics that come bundled together.

And then, with the promise of 5e character modularity, you can swap and switch out parts of your character for others. Or assemble those parts with something totally different. Or whatever.

Like I pointed out in the other thread, having multiple ways to do the same thing (how 4e did Vampires) isn't a bad plan. You pick the one that works best for you (or the two or the three or...) and go wild.

Yeah, you don't NEED a paladin class. But that doesn't mean you can't have one, anyway.

What 5e hasn't shown us yet is the distinct mechanics that these classes bring that backgrounds and themes don't, and how essential those mechanics may or may not be to a given archetype is a potential messy point. But there's no major flaws in the "going at it from four different directions" approach.