Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[tuxgeo]

I think the problem that I have (and I'm not the only one) is that this is the D&D class that is most based on alignment, and D&D alignment (and the code explicitly defined by the class) definitely does not map very well. I don't see an Arthurian knight as being lawful good. Which is my my original post suggested that a knight/champion might be better.

I agree that "Champion" might be better, with the Paladin being one of the alignments of that; but this means (to me) that the Paladin should be coupled with the Alignments module, wherever that is published.

I don't see Arthurian knights as being the first source of Paladins, though: the word "paladin" etymologically comes from "palatine," referring to the central hill (Collis Palatinus) in Rome; in modern usage, a "Palatine" was "a high-level official attached to imperial or royal courts in Europe since Roman times." That part -- the "high-level official" thing -- really does shout "Lawful!" to me. It also seems to date from pre-Imperial times, before Julius Caesar ended the Roman Republic. (That's Before Common Era (BCE), so it's centuries before the time of Arthur.)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The current fighter build. I'm sick of this argument from the WotC boards and from my own players. The build of the fighter that was released was a specific build style called "slayer" in 4e (and what I've been calling it after its theme). It's the same style build that people in 3.x/PF put together when they want to play a warrior with a giant eff-off sword or axe but don't want to deal with the hassle of all the math involved with the Barbarian's Rage ability. The entire purpose of that build is to do damage, then do more damage, then do a bit more damage, and look I found a bit of damage in that little pocket that's inside my bigger pocket that no one ever uses. Until they release more pregens or the character generation rules, calling the fighter "boring" is premature and incredibly unfair because we haven't actually seen the variations in the fighter class.

To clarify, I personally am a big fan of a good vanilla ice cream. I didn't mean that the playtest fighter is boring; I meant that when I try to reverse-engineer out the CLASS abilities (as distinct from theme or background stuff), all I see is weapon/armor proficiencies and bonuses to attack rolls and damage. (Plus a couple interesting dailies.) These are abilities that ANY weapon-based character would find useful, and therefore, it's easy to say ANY weapon-based class, ranger or paladin or rogue, should just be a fighter with a suitable theme and background.

Now, of course, nobody's saying that about the rogue because we've also seen the playtest rogue (and previous edition rogues), which has elegant and unique mechanics to make that character better at sneaking and fighting dirty than a kitted-up fighter could be. Now honestly, I think pre-4e WOTC did a fairly poor job of coming up with unique mechanics for the Paladin and Ranger classes; in 3e they were almost literally multiclassed fighters with a couple unique flavor abilities. But I think it's very possible for them to come up with mechanics that speak to the essence of the ranger or paladin in a way that a kitted-up fighter or cleric or rogue couldn't. The question will be whether they manage it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But what makes the ranger with the hunter theme different from the ranger with the archer theme or the tempest theme or animal trainer theme? What makes the different rangers unique from one another? If all rangers look exactly alike, why should it be a class instead of just a build?

I can answer that with a bit of a digression.

In 4e, you have (at least) three different ways to do a Vampire. They are not mutually exclusive, so you can have a character that does ALL THREE THINGS, if you want.

I've played a character that does that. So I speak from experience in this regard.

They all get iconic vampire powers. Blood sucking, energy drain, turning into bats and wolves, turning into a cloud, etc. They sometimes do it in slightly different ways, at slightly different levels, and with slightly different mechanics (as befits their different design holes).

What is the difference between Form of the Bat from being a vampire and Crimson Wings from being a Vryloka? (DDI Links) Honestly, not much. And those are in the same book!

So what would the difference between "I'm a ranger and I have two swords!" and "I'm a tempest and I have two swords" be? Probably not much.

This is a good thing, because as much as I am a weirdo and like creating Things That Were Not Meant To Be and then playing them as characters, most people probably aren't. They're going to find the one way that they want to be a vampire, or wield two swords, and use that. And if they somehow decide to be BOTH a tempest and a ranger? Well, then they've spent their limited character creation resources on being able to basically pick whichever of the two "I use two swords" abilities they like the best, since it doesn't magically give you more arms. Much like Kiki the Vampire Cheerleader was able to choose between two different ways to turn into a bat (she went with the Vampire ability: she favored the extra speed over the extra defenses, and I've got a philosophical problem with all of the "when your flying ends you descend safely" insanity. ).

These are all Good Things. Choice. Versatility. Flexibility. Modularity. Now if I decide my campiagn world resembles Coruscant - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki and I ban rangers, I don't also have to ban TWF. Or if I decide that I have an arbitrary problem with TWF ("NO DRIZZIT CLONES EVAR!"), I can banish that without banishing the Ranger.

Well, alright then. It actually needs to be different, and different enough to warrant taking up a slot. Now granted, "enough" is the largely subjective thing here, and runs into the issues of convenience, tradition, and so forth.

So if there are, for examples, classes for fighter, paladin, and cleric--and then multiclasses between them--and then perhaps some themes that poach a bit, such as maybe "cavalier" or "knight" or "templar"--there needs to be something hanging on that paladin class that works well with the central bit of the archetype (by itself or combined with some of those other things), that is "different enough" from a fighter/cleric or a guardian cleric or a templar fighter to make the paladin class not totally redundant. It doesn't need to be huge, but it needs to be there.

They don't need to be very different at all. Blood Drinker from being a vampire and Blood Drain from having the Vampire Heritage feat (and, to a lesser degree, the Vryloka racial utility) fill identical conceptual space: they're both there so that a vampire character can drink the blood of their enemies and gain power from it. They're three solutions to the same problem, but they're all subtly different, because they fit in different design spaces and had different designers and produced different results. Kiki's got at LEAST three different ways to drink someone's blood. Which is great. She's REALLY vampiric. She should be, with as many vampire options as she has.

I'd imagine many TWF abilities looking pretty fundamentally similar (though we've seen solutions that range from "you just get another attack" to "use a power or nothing special happens"), but you could look at, say, the ability to cast some nature magic, in a LOT of different ways. Do they just get some rituals? Do you let them cast druid spells? What about the Nature domain? Well, we don't have to choose just one. We can use whichever one feels right for the design space we have for it. And some character who REALLY wants to cast nature magic might do all of 'em.

A highly modular game doesn't need (or benefit from) niche protection. Wanna make a Paladin with a Knight background and a Cavalier theme and also multiclass as a Fighter and a Cleric? Congrats, you're the 5e version of Kiki. It's not a problem. It IS kind of a monodimensional character, but heck, if that's what you want to play, go for it.

 

[Abstruse]

I can answer that with a bit of a digression.

In 4e, you have (at least) three different ways to do a Vampire. They are not mutually exclusive, so you can have a character that does ALL THREE THINGS, if you want.

I thought we all collectively agreed that we would never again mention the Dhampir Vryloka Vampire...

Also, that example makes my argument for me. Why do you need a race, class, and feat track (and probably a background and theme if I dug a bit deeper) to do essentially the same thing - play a vampire? It's really silly and has been a point of ridicule for 4e.

And on top of all that, none of it really addresses the issue of why the ranger needs to be its own class? "I want to make a half-pixie half-gnome ranger/barbarian!" isn't a good enough reason and at my table is a good way to get punched. And this is coming from the guy who played a 3rd Ed half-orc bard with a 9 Charisma because my DM wouldn't let me re-roll a set of stats where my dump stat was a 5 and my highest roll was a 13.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

These are all Good Things. Choice. Versatility. Flexibility. Modularity. Now if I decide my campiagn world resembles Coruscant - Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki and I ban rangers, I don't also have to ban TWF. Or if I decide that I have an arbitrary problem with TWF ("NO DRIZZIT CLONES EVAR!"), I can banish that without banishing the Ranger.

Re: the last post as a hole, I don't think we are very far apart on how this should work conceptually. I'd probably draw the line on "different enough" a bit stricter than you would, but probably not as much as one might think.

I did want to call out the passage above as a tangent, because I see the problem there as not what we have been discussing, but rather that sticking weapon styles onto classes creates all kinds of problems all by itself. We don't need liberal use of different classes to avoid the ranger ban killing the TWF option. We need TWF option totally separate from class (whether feats, themes, whatever), and then classes can go be as niche or overlap as the system otherwise warrants.

For all their great and wonderful strengths in so many ways, the core problem with classes (and race and alignment and feats and spells and pretty much everything else) is that as soon as someone gets a mechanical widget, they pile too much on it. Half of these problems go away if we quit piling extra stuff on the mechanic until it breaks.

 

[Remathilis]

I always answer these threads by reminding everyone that if you boil everything down to its core, they end up either "hits you with sword", "blasts you with magic" or "does a little of both." With the right combination of skills, feats, multi-classing and spell selection, you can mimic every D&D class the game has ever produced with two classes. Ergo, there is no need for any class beyond "warrior", "caster" and a generous selection of feats and spells.

That leads us to the next question: if we want more than two classes*, what criteria do we use to determine if its worth putting in. Dynamic mechanics? Viable archetype? Popularity? Uniqueness? Something else? The answer need not be the same for each class, mind you.

For example, the sorcerer has a mechanical niche (spontaneous casting vs. prep) and some flavor/archetype going (innate magic in the blood) but you can really argue if they're really all that unique from wizards. Likewise, a monk has a strong unique niche and very dynamic mechanics, but his archetype is limiting to those who allow some form of Eastern mysticism in their game. Do either of these classes deserve space in the PHB?

The point of this is that almost every class has its detractors (even my beloved rogue/thief, one of the core four, has been demoted as "unneeded" by some grognards) and every class has its defenders. If Next is supposed to be the Great Compromise of the Edition Wars, it NEEDS to include them all. Even the ones you don't like, think are really kits/themes/prestige classes/etc in disguise, and wouldn't allow 10 ft from your game. This means warlords and assassins, paladins and rangers, warlocks and sorcerers, monks and barbarians, or clerics and rogues. Ergo, these debates end up just more shouting matches and frequently break out as Edition Skirmishes.

Rather than ask "Is this Needed" we could better spend our time asking "How can we make this class unique, flavorful, and dynamic?" Because honestly, we're noting getting a PHB without a paladin, so lets make him the best class he can be...

*and if you don't, we end this conversation here.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

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.

Yes you were right about those being backgrounds rather than themes.

I think any theme applied to a Ranger or Paladin will be different from other classes in roll playing sense.

But as far as themes that you can apply to Rangers and Paladins that would be different than with other characters from a practical standpoint, I think it depends on what all the available themes would be. But I could see a Ranger having some type of thieving theme that would be different with a Ranger than it would be with a Rogue. Other themes with the Ranger that might be different could be any that give them additional movement and or mobility both in combat or out of combat.

Paladin is a little tougher. But it's possible with some that specialize in diplomacy perhaps. I don't know. I'll have to think on that one some more.

 

[erleni]

I always answer these threads by reminding everyone that if you boil everything down to its core, they end up either "hits you with sword", "blasts you with magic" or "does a little of both." With the right combination of skills, feats, multi-classing and spell selection, you can mimic every D&D class the game has ever produced with two classes. Ergo, there is no need for any class beyond "warrior", "caster" and a generous selection of feats and spells.

That leads us to the next question: if we want more than two classes*, what criteria do we use to determine if its worth putting in. Dynamic mechanics? Viable archetype? Popularity? Uniqueness? Something else? The answer need not be the same for each class, mind you.

For example, the sorcerer has a mechanical niche (spontaneous casting vs. prep) and some flavor/archetype going (innate magic in the blood) but you can really argue if they're really all that unique from wizards. Likewise, a monk has a strong unique niche and very dynamic mechanics, but his archetype is limiting to those who allow some form of Eastern mysticism in their game. Do either of these classes deserve space in the PHB?

The point of this is that almost every class has its detractors (even my beloved rogue/thief, one of the core four, has been demoted as "unneeded" by some grognards) and every class has its defenders. If Next is supposed to be the Great Compromise of the Edition Wars, it NEEDS to include them all. Even the ones you don't like, think are really kits/themes/prestige classes/etc in disguise, and wouldn't allow 10 ft from your game. This means warlords and assassins, paladins and rangers, warlocks and sorcerers, monks and barbarians, or clerics and rogues. Ergo, these debates end up just more shouting matches and frequently break out as Edition Skirmishes.

Rather than ask "Is this Needed" we could better spend our time asking "How can we make this class unique, flavorful, and dynamic?" Because honestly, we're noting getting a PHB without a paladin, so lets make him the best class he can be...

*and if you don't, we end this conversation here.

Fully agree with you. Abstruse mentioned the assassin being somebody who kills enemies in a fast and efficient way (or something like that) and thinks that should be a theme. I agree with him on that, but does that cover the 4e shadow assassin?
NO.
The 4e shadow assassin is defined by stuff like teleporting at-will, shadow form, shrouds, THP generation by hitting unbloodied enemies, and a whole list of assassin powers not shared by any other class.
These mechanics make it a clearly unique class.

Looking at the avenger, who will be a theme is slightly different. What makes the avenger different from an assassin/cleric? A mechanic that in D&DN terms would be closely intertwined with gaining advantage. Than can be easily mimicked in D&DN by a well stated feat.

 

[Abstruse]

Rather than ask "Is this Needed" we could better spend our time asking "How can we make this class unique, flavorful, and dynamic?" Because honestly, we're noting getting a PHB without a paladin, so lets make him the best class he can be...

You're still asking "Is this needed?" when you do that because if you can't make a class unique, flavorful, and dynamic; then you don't need it as a class. And you can't have every class from every edition since they've already stated that some classes from previous editions will be themes (like avenger).

I'll admit, a lot of the people who are asking "Is this needed?" are being literal. They don't like the class so they're trying to lobby to get it removed. However, there are also people asking that question like myself who are trying to approach the same question you are from the other end. Playing devil's advocate as it were. You suggest a way to do that class. I poke holes in it. You refine your suggestion. I poke holes in that. And we keep going until we either find the answers to those questions - how do we make the class unique, flavorful, and dynamic? - or we throw out that idea and start over with a different one. Or we come to the conclusion that the particular class in question can't be made in such a way without still retaining the archetypical feel of that class, and we come to a consensus that it can't work as a class under this rules system.

But as far as themes that you can apply to Rangers and Paladins that would be different than with other characters from a practical standpoint, I think it depends on what all the available themes would be. But I could see a Ranger having some type of thieving theme that would be different with a Ranger than it would be with a Rogue. Other themes with the Ranger that might be different could be any that give them additional movement and or mobility both in combat or out of combat.

Paladin is a little tougher. But it's possible with some that specialize in diplomacy perhaps. I don't know. I'll have to think on that one some more.

That's the thought exercise. Look at the five themes we've seen so far. Extrapolate from them and from the various Q&As, website articles, and chats what themes are going to look like. Then see how many variations you can come up with for that class.

Or approach it from the other side. Come up with as many different build ideas as you can for that class that stretch the definition as much as you can but still fit within that archetype. If a paladin is wearing leather armor and using a bow, is it still a paladin? If a ranger grew up in Waterdeep and can tell you about every square inch of it but doesn't know the first thing about trees other than they have leaves on them, is that still a ranger?

When I'm sitting here arguing against all the stuff I see people saying about the ranger, paladin, and assassin; I'm specifically trying to push the discussion into examining what those classes are. And I extend that do every other class you can think of. Some of them are better served being a class. Some of them are better served being a theme (barbarian, for instance, all boils down to a character who goes all Hulk Smash a couple of times a day...that's a theme).

Why does it matter? Because WotC is watching the various forums around the net to get an idea of what the discussion is. They're also sending out playtest surveys regularly. If they're sending out a survey and every response for keeping a class is "I like this class and we need it" and every response for moving it to a theme is well-reasoned with logical points, the latter is going to have more weight. The same thing applies for arguing that a class is needed because it fills this role in this capacity but can also be modified through choices to do this this and this for different build types while the other side is "this class sucks", the former is going to have more weight.

So tell me...what is a ranger? What can you take away or change from the idea of "ranger" before it stops being a ranger? What can you add to it without straying away from what a ranger is?

 

[Remathilis]

When I'm sitting here arguing against all the stuff I see people saying about the ranger, paladin, and assassin; I'm specifically trying to push the discussion into examining what those classes are. And I extend that do every other class you can think of. Some of them are better served being a class. Some of them are better served being a theme (barbarian, for instance, all boils down to a character who goes all Hulk Smash a couple of times a day...that's a theme).

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A theme is a collection of feats built around a specific role or function. That's all it is, feats. The healer theme is a collection of feats that enhance healing. It doesn't give the PC access to cure spells, or lay on hands, or access to rituals. Likewise, the lurker give you some feats that improve hiding, but doesn't give you sneak attack.

If we decide to make barbarian, or ranger, or paladin a theme, then we decide that its class features are nothing more than feats. Since feats are technically unbound from themes (you can customize your own theme) then I can now build a wizard with lay on hands, or a rogue with barbarian rage, or an cleric who has bard songs. Worse, you can mix and match until my fighter has smite evil, barbarian rage, and death strike. Are we willing to make such class features feats anyone can take?