Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[Baron Von Mandrick]

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).

I love this post.

I get that some people are saying that if this particular class shouldn't have to use themes, shouldn't have to be a warrior and use themes to turn them into the type of character that a paladin then there should be any other number of character s that should be in the game as well.

But if this is the rationale for allowing every type of character under the sun, then so might the fact that there are fighters, are rogues, or clerics. After all both the Ranger and Paladin were in the initial AD&D Player's Handbook.

 

[1Mac]

This is probably an unoriginal thought, but it seems pretty clear that it was important for WotC to test both the fighty cleric-in-armor and casty cleric-in-robes if both were included in the initial playtest. Since the former is basically a paladin in all but name, could they be deliberately testing how far they can stretch the concept of themes to cover ideas that were previously classes, even classes as hoary and venerable as the paladin? Could that be what the designers meant by saying all classes from the PHBs of all editions' would be included in core; that they could be fashioned by judicious yet straightforward pairings of theme and class?

 

[Abstruse]

I love this post.

I get that some people are saying that if this particular class shouldn't have to use themes, shouldn't have to be a warrior and use themes to turn them into the type of character that a paladin then there should be any other number of character s that should be in the game as well.

But if this is the rationale for allowing every type of character under the sun, then so might the fact that there are fighters, are rogues, or clerics. After all both the Ranger and Paladin were in the initial AD&D Player's Handbook.

And that's where my argument about variation comes in. Is there enough variation in the archetype of the "ranger" or "paladin" or whatever that it needs to have those theme/background options open in order to cover all the ground?

What makes a ranger a ranger and how far from that core idea of a ranger can you get and still meet that archetypical definition of a ranger? If my character can track, can survive in the woods, and is a good archer (or two-weapon fighter); is that a ranger, or is there more to it? Either way, how far from that ideal can you stray and still be a ranger?

Here's an example where I say "no": Assassin.

An assassin is someone who uses stealth and guile to kill quickly. There is a lot of variation to that, but at its core, that's what an assassin is. If I put a theme like "Slayer" on the rogue, it still feels like an assassin of the "quick kill and fade" style. It's someone who hides in the shadows and leaps out to strike doing the most damage possible as quickly as possible to avoid a counter-attack. If I put a theme like "Thief" on the fighter, it still feels like an assassin of the "hitman" style. It's someone who uses skills and stealth to track a target and gain advantage while standing toe to toe until they're dead. If I put a theme like "arcane dabbler" on the rogue, it feels like a mystic ninja style assassin. And so on. I can create all the main variations of an assassin without needing a class to do so.

I also cannot find a way in which the "assassin" archetype would benefit more by being a class than a theme or build type. There's nothing that's part of the core identity that's left out. Anything else is purely roleplaying or background - You give me gold and I kill someone. There's just not enough variation on what is and isn't the archetype of "assassin" to justify that being a class.

Here's an example where I say "yes": Warlord (for the record, I had to be convinced on this one)

A warlord is a martial fighter who takes a leadership and support role, not as effective in combat but able to provide allies with much-needed bonuses and aid. Is this class unique? Yes, it covers ground that feels thematically different from both the cleric and the fighter. If you give the warlord the ability to give other characters actions or make them focused on handing out advantage as well as an option to use mundane healing during combat ("spend an action and use of a healing kit to allow an adjacent ally to spend hit dice"), then the warlord feels completely different from the cleric and fills an entirely different role. It also feels different from the fighter as it can do things that the fighter cannot do.

Does this class have enough room for variations? Yes, depending on what themes they end up with. You can build your warlord to lead from the front, doing damage himself while aiding others. You can build one that leads from the rear, pointing out weaknesses in the enemy lines while dealing out an occasional blow. You can play a warlord that stands back from the fighting entirely, focused solely on aiding allies like the gentlemen officer stereotype the British Empire loved so much. You can focus on aiding your allies or demoralizing your enemies. There's a lot of room to play around here.

That's what I'm trying to do with the other classes. What makes a monk unique from an acrobatic unarmed fighter? What makes a paladin different from a warpriest-style cleric? What makes a ranger different from a woodland archer build fighter or rogue? And how many different variations of those classes can you make using themes that are still at their core a monk, a paladin, a ranger, etc.?

 

[Abstruse]

This is probably an unoriginal thought, but it seems pretty clear that it was important for WotC to test both the fighty cleric-in-armor and casty cleric-in-robes if both were included in the initial playtest. Since the former is basically a paladin in all but name, could they be deliberately testing how far they can stretch the concept of themes to cover ideas that were previously classes, even classes as hoary and venerable as the paladin? Could that be what the designers meant by saying all classes from the PHBs of all editions' would be included in core; that they could be fashioned by judicious yet straightforward pairings of theme and class?

Because they've stated at one point or another that the paladin, ranger, and assassin are all going to be classes. They've stated such about the paladin and ranger recently enough that its a strong possibility they will be presented as pregens in the next playtest packet (this is an educated guess and I have no solid information to back this up, so don't get too excited).

So now we need to examine why these need to be classes instead of just themes or specific builds so we can have educated opinions when they move down the line to things like monk, samurai, ninja, warlord, bard, etc. etc.

 

[Fifth Element]

"It has been a class in the first PHB of an edition," and "There is a demand for it," is enough criteria, I think, for WotC to make it a class in the first PHB of 5e, given the goal of unification and the idea of modular inclusiveness.

Oh sure, but it certainly doesn't meet a criterion of consistent game design goals. If these special snowflakes are only included as classes because of a legacy issue, that might raise the ire of those expecting the game to "make sense" in that way.

Which is to say, if they're going to be classes, we'll all be better served if they have distinctive class features, something that can't be done with feats or done by other classes. "Woodsy fighter" is not distinct enough for a class. If they're going to be classes, the classes have to be designed so that they deserve the status, so to speak.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

And that's where my argument about variation comes in. Is there enough variation in the archetype of the "ranger" or "paladin" or whatever that it needs to have those theme/background options open in order to cover all the ground?

What makes a ranger a ranger and how far from that core idea of a ranger can you get and still meet that archetypical definition of a ranger? If my character can track, can survive in the woods, and is a good archer (or two-weapon fighter); is that a ranger, or is there more to it? Either way, how far from that ideal can you stray and still be a ranger?

Here's an example where I say "no": Assassin.

An assassin is someone who uses stealth and guile to kill quickly. There is a lot of variation to that, but at its core, that's what an assassin is. If I put a theme like "Slayer" on the rogue, it still feels like an assassin of the "quick kill and fade" style. It's someone who hides in the shadows and leaps out to strike doing the most damage possible as quickly as possible to avoid a counter-attack. If I put a theme like "Thief" on the fighter, it still feels like an assassin of the "hitman" style. It's someone who uses skills and stealth to track a target and gain advantage while standing toe to toe until they're dead. If I put a theme like "arcane dabbler" on the rogue, it feels like a mystic ninja style assassin. And so on. I can create all the main variations of an assassin without needing a class to do so.

I also cannot find a way in which the "assassin" archetype would benefit more by being a class than a theme or build type. There's nothing that's part of the core identity that's left out. Anything else is purely roleplaying or background - You give me gold and I kill someone. There's just not enough variation on what is and isn't the archetype of "assassin" to justify that being a class.

Here's an example where I say "yes": Warlord (for the record, I had to be convinced on this one)

A warlord is a martial fighter who takes a leadership and support role, not as effective in combat but able to provide allies with much-needed bonuses and aid. Is this class unique? Yes, it covers ground that feels thematically different from both the cleric and the fighter. If you give the warlord the ability to give other characters actions or make them focused on handing out advantage as well as an option to use mundane healing during combat ("spend an action and use of a healing kit to allow an adjacent ally to spend hit dice"), then the warlord feels completely different from the cleric and fills an entirely different role. It also feels different from the fighter as it can do things that the fighter cannot do.

Does this class have enough room for variations? Yes, depending on what themes they end up with. You can build your warlord to lead from the front, doing damage himself while aiding others. You can build one that leads from the rear, pointing out weaknesses in the enemy lines while dealing out an occasional blow. You can play a warlord that stands back from the fighting entirely, focused solely on aiding allies like the gentlemen officer stereotype the British Empire loved so much. You can focus on aiding your allies or demoralizing your enemies. There's a lot of room to play around here.

That's what I'm trying to do with the other classes. What makes a monk unique from an acrobatic unarmed fighter? What makes a paladin different from a warpriest-style cleric? What makes a ranger different from a woodland archer build fighter or rogue? And how many different variations of those classes can you make using themes that are still at their core a monk, a paladin, a ranger, etc.?

You make good points and as far as the assassin and warlord go I agree with you. Though I wouldn't mind if Warlord was reserved as one of the add on classes to come out in supplemental material.

But I think, like others have mentioned, if the character has to use their allotment of background and theme choices to become a fighter that's a ranger or a cleric that's a paladin it prevents them from being a ranger that's a noble(if noble was a theme or background) or a Paladin who was part of a secret society (if secret society were a theme or background). Both of those themes/backgrounds could work well with a Ranger and Paladin class. And while it might be possible to roll play those choices anyway, they wouldn't get any statistical or skill benefit that other characters got in choosing their theme or background. I think it would put those characters who wanted to play a Paladin or Ranger at a disadvantage that other classes wouldn't be at in order to make their fighter or cleric fit the Ranger or Paladin mold.

So if nobody got theme or background benefits and it all had to be roll played, then I don't think it would be a problem, because the ranger and paladin would be fighters that roll played a certain way and weren't deprived of something the other characters in the game were getting.

 

[Abstruse]

You make good points and as far as the assassin and warlord go I agree with you. Though I wouldn't mind if Warlord was reserved as one of the add on classes to come out in supplemental material.

But I think, like others have mentioned, if the character has to use their allotment of background and theme choices to become a fighter that's a ranger or a cleric that's a paladin it prevents them from being a ranger that's a noble(if noble was a theme or background) or a Paladin who was part of a secret society (if secret society were a theme or background). Both of those themes/backgrounds could work well with a Ranger and Paladin class. And while it might be possible to roll play those choices anyway, they wouldn't get any statistical or skill benefit that other characters got in choosing their theme or background. I think it would put those characters who wanted to play a Paladin or Ranger at a disadvantage that other classes wouldn't be at in order to make their fighter or cleric fit the Ranger or Paladin mold.

So if nobody got theme or background benefits and it all had to be roll played, then I don't think it would be a problem, because the ranger and paladin would be fighters that roll played a certain way and weren't deprived of something the other characters in the game were getting.

I've got a similar take on the bard as well that actually makes it useful while still filling a separate role. But those are definitely support roles and should be in a PHB2 or other supplemental book rather than the core book.

The examples you gave for the ranger and paladin, though, are backgrounds at best. Not themes. If there is a specific paladin or ranger theme that can be applied to finger/cleric/rogue/whatever, the background would still be free. In fact, the Moradin cleric has the Knight background which is probably very similar to your idea of a Noble background (if you're using it as a noun instead of a verb, anyway).

The question is can you apply a theme to a ranger or paladin or any other class - one that you can apply to a different class like rogue, fighter, wizard, cleric, etc. - and end up with characters that still feel like their parent class. Can you make a thief paladin, or a slayer paladin, or a healer paladin and have each one feel unique as a paladin but still different from the thief rogue, slayer fighter, healer cleric, etc. If so, does the new paladin still look, act, and feel like a paladin? Can you do the same for a ranger, a samurai, a monk, etc.? That's the question and that's where I think the line between a class and a theme should go.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Here's my test for whether a concept merits a class: can you think of a MECHANICAL way to differentiate that concept from others?

Do ranger and paladin pass this test? Sure. A paladin isn't just a cleric with high Strength because he relies on weapons rather than spells. Maybe this distinction seems less obvious at level 1, where a cleric only has a couple spells a day, but at higher levels a cleric will be spending probably at least half his time in combat waving his arms around casting spells, while a paladin is calling on divine assistance in a very different way.

Likewise, a ranger isn't just a fighter with skills and a pet, because he's a striker and not a defender. (That is to say, he's highly mobile and excels at targeted damage, whereas a fighter is more about bottlenecking enemy movement and soaking up attacks.) He's also not a rogue, because despite the skills he doesn't rely on situational advantage to hold his own in combat. (Granted, this is a tougher distinction.)

 

[Abstruse]

Here's my test for whether a concept merits a class: can you think of a MECHANICAL way to differentiate that concept from others?

Do ranger and paladin pass this test? Sure. A paladin isn't just a cleric with high Strength because he relies on weapons rather than spells. Maybe this distinction seems less obvious at level 1, where a cleric only has a couple spells a day, but at higher levels a cleric will be spending probably at least half his time in combat waving his arms around casting spells, while a paladin is calling on divine assistance in a very different way.

Like that character from the pregens that fights in melee with a shield and does damage with a giant hammer...oh, what was his class...oh, cleric! Judging from the playtest version of the Moradin cleric, the playtest version of the fighter, and what I know about paladins from 1st-3.5, it looks as though the Moradin cleric's going to be able to stand toe-to-toe for a while. The Guardian theme keeps giving melee-related abilities through third and there's no reason to think it won't keep going in that direction. Like I've said before, you can't change the definition of cleric in order to exclude them from being paladin-like.

Likewise, a ranger isn't just a fighter with skills and a pet, because he's a striker and not a defender. (That is to say, he's highly mobile and excels at targeted damage, whereas a fighter is more about bottlenecking enemy movement and soaking up attacks.) He's also not a rogue, because despite the skills he doesn't rely on situational advantage to hold his own in combat. (Granted, this is a tougher distinction.)

Except the terms "striker" and "defender" don't mean anything in this edition. The fighter pregen in the playtest document is a slayer build. There's nothing defender about that character, it's pure damage. The Moradin cleric is far more of a defender than the fighter is. Hell, the fighter pregen is the best argument you could make for not having barbarian as a class. If they go through with letting fighters take two themes, slap a theme on that one called Berserker that gives him a rage ability and that's a barbarian, only thing missing.

And if you want to talk about being highly mobile and excelling at targeted damage, that's a rogue. Stick a fighter-based theme that gives them the ability to hold their own two-to-two and a woodland-based background to boost tracking and nature skills and that's the same as the ranger you just described. Or make a ranger theme you can stick on the rogue or fighter that gives them track, nature skills, and a favored enemy type mechanic. Rogue = ranged ranger, fighter = two-weapon ranger.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Oh sure, but it certainly doesn't meet a criterion of consistent game design goals. If these special snowflakes are only included as classes because of a legacy issue, that might raise the ire of those expecting the game to "make sense" in that way.

Which is to say, if they're going to be classes, we'll all be better served if they have distinctive class features, something that can't be done with feats or done by other classes. "Woodsy fighter" is not distinct enough for a class. If they're going to be classes, the classes have to be designed so that they deserve the status, so to speak.

All of that, plus making a paladin or ranger class merely for legacy issues is likely to lead to sloppy design--and probably not nearly as good a paladin or ranger class as could have been had with a little more effort.

So deciding that such a class doesn't need anything special is short changing those who want an interesting mechanical class--because maybe some other class would have been more interesting--and short changing those who really want there to be a paladin class--because they are getting half-hearted work.

If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna.