Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[Abstruse]

You mentioned that PALADINS do not have any variations at all?

Please read Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic splat books.

You will find Paladin's having the default archetype,
then the following new archetypes:

APG: Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant,
Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, and Warrior of the
Holy Light. This section also includes rules for an
alternate version of the paladin class, the antipaladin.

Ultimate Combat: DIVINE HUNTER (this is an archer paladin), EMPYREAL KNIGHT (a celestial servant), HOLY GUN (a gun paladin), HOLY TACTICIAN ( a leader based paladin), KNIGHT OF THE SEPULCHER (anti-paladin variant), SACRED SHIELD ( a shield specialist),

Ultimate Magic: Oathbound Paladin (comes with around 10 oaths)


This is why i really really like what Paizo did here. But it doesn't mean i'm a Pathfinder player, because I just started this one just to try it out. I am a hardcore 4e player.

p.s. you should really read the books

My Pathfinder game is currently in Ravenloft. Last thing I want to read about is paladins. And I'm immediately dismissing two of those because one involves guns and the other is an "anti-paladin" which I've always thought the stupidest idea in a game world with a polythieist pantheon.

Now let's go over the others. Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant,
Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, Warrior of the
Holy Light and Sacred Shield. That really sounds to me like six different names for the same exact archetype - holy knight in shining armor. Need better than that.

Holy Tactician: Oh, so a divine character who stands behind the front lines offering tactical advice and support along with magical healing and divine spells? Sounds almost like a cleric.

Empyreal Knight: So an even holier holy knight in shining armor? Also, the name sounds funny. "Impy-real". Say it out loud with a straight face, I dare you.

Oathbound Paladin: (Looks like the Paladin version of the monk vows. Completely wasted mechanic, that. Anyway...) Doesn't change the fact that the paladin is just a holy knight in shining armor. It's a min/maxer tool to gain a bonus for what they should've been roleplaying in the first place.

So out of all those variations, the only one you gave me that doesn't fit the standard of "Heavy armor, melee fighter, casts divine spells" (which clerics are all capable of as well) is the archer...which clerics are capable of as well. Hell, I've played enough clerics and wizards in 3rd Edition that I never want to see another crossbow as long as I friggin' live.

Sorry, but that's not enough to justify an entire class in my opinion. Every single variation can be done just as well if not better by some use of the established cleric or fighter class with the addition of themes and/or multiclassing.

And it still doesn't address the issue of D&D being set typically in a world with multiple different deities of multiple different personalities with all of whom being the type to take advantage of creating their own divine warriors. A god like Bahamut would have warrior-priests similar to the classic paladin for all his clerics. Show me a paladin class that would work just as well for a follower of Melora, Avandra, and Pelor as they would for Bahamut, Lolth, or Kord.

 

[Zaphling]

My Pathfinder game is currently in Ravenloft. Last thing I want to read about is paladins. And I'm immediately dismissing two of those because one involves guns and the other is an "anti-paladin" which I've always thought the stupidest idea in a game world with a polythieist pantheon.

Now let's go over the others. Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant,
Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, Warrior of the
Holy Light and Sacred Shield. That really sounds to me like six different names for the same exact archetype - holy knight in shining armor. Need better than that.

Holy Tactician: Oh, so a divine character who stands behind the front lines offering tactical advice and support along with magical healing and divine spells? Sounds almost like a cleric.

Empyreal Knight: So an even holier holy knight in shining armor? Also, the name sounds funny. "Impy-real". Say it out loud with a straight face, I dare you.

Oathbound Paladin: (Looks like the Paladin version of the monk vows. Completely wasted mechanic, that. Anyway...) Doesn't change the fact that the paladin is just a holy knight in shining armor. It's a min/maxer tool to gain a bonus for what they should've been roleplaying in the first place.

So out of all those variations, the only one you gave me that doesn't fit the standard of "Heavy armor, melee fighter, casts divine spells" (which clerics are all capable of as well) is the archer...which clerics are capable of as well. Hell, I've played enough clerics and wizards in 3rd Edition that I never want to see another crossbow as long as I friggin' live.

Sorry, but that's not enough to justify an entire class in my opinion. Every single variation can be done just as well if not better by some use of the established cleric or fighter class with the addition of themes and/or multiclassing.

And it still doesn't address the issue of D&D being set typically in a world with multiple different deities of multiple different personalities with all of whom being the type to take advantage of creating their own divine warriors. A god like Bahamut would have warrior-priests similar to the classic paladin for all his clerics. Show me a paladin class that would work just as well for a follower of Melora, Avandra, and Pelor as they would for Bahamut, Lolth, or Kord.

but still, you are still on the losing side since paladins are definitely IN the core class.

 

[Abstruse]

but still, you are still on the losing side since paladins are definitely IN the core class.

Didn't know stating my opinion suddenly means I was playing some sort of game...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I get the side of the counter-argument that says "A fighter/cleric with a horse can make a passable paladin; a fighter/druid with stealth can make a passable ranger;" I don't disagree.

I don't get how that immediately leaps to, "There should be no paladin or ranger class," then.

The idea that classes need their own special unique niche is problematic in a modular game, because that means that the class is not replaceable. A modular game needs to be able to swap out any element it wants. It's perfectly OK to have a hundred different ways to do the same thing, because that allows each player to select the one that's right for them. Sometimes that'll be a class. Sometimes that'll be something else.

There seems to be a pursuit here of simplicity for the sake of simplicity, or a desire that every rules element have some unique place in the game.

It's OK for there to be many different ways to do "wilderness warrior" and "holy crusader" archetypes. Because there's many different variations and directions that could go in.

Yes, you can do a passable paladin with a fighter/cleric.

But why should we HAVE to, when we can also do a passable paladin with a paladin class, and then have BOTH?

 

[Abstruse]

I get the side of the counter-argument that says "A fighter/cleric with a horse can make a passable paladin; a fighter/druid with stealth can make a passable ranger;" I don't disagree.

Not passable. A paladin. I've been calling the Moradin Cleric from the playtest the "paladin" since I got the playtest packet. It looks, feels, and plays like a low-level paladin.

I don't get how that immediately leaps to, "There should be no paladin or ranger class," then.

The idea that classes need their own special unique niche is problematic in a modular game, because that means that the class is not replaceable. A modular game needs to be able to swap out any element it wants. It's perfectly OK to have a hundred different ways to do the same thing, because that allows each player to select the one that's right for them. Sometimes that'll be a class. Sometimes that'll be something else.

There seems to be a pursuit here of simplicity for the sake of simplicity, or a desire that every rules element have some unique place in the game.

It's OK for there to be many different ways to do "wilderness warrior" and "holy crusader" archetypes. Because there's many different variations and directions that could go in.

Yes, you can do a passable paladin with a fighter/cleric.

But why should we HAVE to, when we can also do a passable paladin with a paladin class, and then have BOTH?

Because it's bloat. Between every edition of D&D, all the optional rules, all the Dragon Magazine articles, all the third party OGL books, and all the Pathfinder material; there are probably well over 100 different classes in print for D&D and probably somewhere in the 200-300 range if you count prestige classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, and all of that. And I could make the exact same arguments you're making for any one of them.

I picked the assassin for my example above (or in the other paladin thread, I can't even remember anymore) for a very specific reason - the assassin class is my baby. It's the class I immediately gravitate to. I like the assassin. But I do not want to see an assassin class in D&D Next and especially not in the PHB or equivalent. Anything that an assassin class can do can be done just as well if not better by the judicious choice of class, background, theme, and multiclassing. And that goes for any version of the assassin class you can dig up.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make the paladin a class. Hell, if they don't, there's going to be armies with pitchforks and torches headed toward Seattle. What I'm saying is that I don't see any reason for it to be a class and that it shouldn't be in whatever the core PHB rulebook is. Put it in an optional rules system. Make it an advanced class. That part I really don't care about. But I do care that the core, base rules aren't filled with a bunch of junk (yes, I'm calling stuff I like junk here too) that clutters it up because that class/race/whatever has a cult following.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not passable. A paladin. I've been calling the Moradin Cleric from the playtest the "paladin" since I got the playtest packet. It looks, feels, and plays like a low-level paladin.

I say "potato," you say, "a starchy, tuberous crop from the perennial Solanum tuberosum of the Solanaceae family (also known as the nightshades)."

What defines a "paladin" is something that is obviously going to depend on who is doing the defining.

Because it's bloat.

Bloat? When I think of bloat, I think of useless options that no one really wants. As long as WotC is true to their self-stated class design principles, the classes won't be useless (by design: they'll have tricks that are all their own) and they won't be unwanted (by vocal call in every thread about this).

So, they wouldn't fit the definition of "bloat" that I'd use. They're wanted, and they contribute.

As a side-point: Just because an option exists doesn't mean you have to use it. If 5e is true to the promise of modularity, they won't ASSUME you are using any particular rules. You don't have to have paladins as a class if you're bent out of shape about 'em. That doesn't mean that you have to take away the option for those who want it, though.

But I do care that the core, base rules aren't filled with a bunch of junk (yes, I'm calling stuff I like junk here too) that clutters it up because that class/race/whatever has a cult following.

Welcome to D&D, something that only exists because it has a cult following.

I don't believe WotC should be trying for some modernist's smooth ideal of symmetrical economic rules perfection in any kind of 300-page PHB. In fact, I bet that something like HALF the book is going to be options. Which will include things like "classes," "races," and "skills" as well as a bunch of examples of each.

If you want the slimmest possible version of D&D, you already have it. It's for free. You simply talk to people, and maybe occasionally flip a coin or play Rock-Paper-Scissors or roll a die.

Everything else is "bloat."

So, yeah, the first PHB is probably going to include a lot of inessential things. Like dragonborn. Like assassins. Like paladins. Like gnomes. Like sailors. Like sorcerers. Like skills. Like hit points. Like attack rolls.

For you to draw the line at "paladin" is an arbitrary place to draw the line.

 

[Abstruse]

For you to draw the line at "paladin" is an arbitrary place to draw the line.

Actually, this entire discussion is about where to draw the line, in a different context at least. What should and should not be a class. Like I said, there's over 100 different classes for D&D/d20 out there. You could make arguments for each and every one to be a class in Next. You could almost do a find/replace in this thread with "paladin"/"samurai" and "cleric"/"fighter" and have the exact same debate. Or rogue/pirate or rogue/ninja or cleric/invoker or wizard/warlock or on and on and on. At some point, you have to draw the line between what is a class and what is just a build using other classes/themes/backgrounds.

For me, the line between what should and shouldn't be a class is being able to have enough diversity to support multiple build types without changing what that core class is. Personally, I don't think paladin supports it. Neither does ranger, assassin, or avenger.

Am I upset that paladin is a class in 1st-4th editions? No. In each iteration, they work as designed. In 4e they nailed it perfectly IMO. And if WotC can come up with a design that also works, I will be satisfied. I still probably won't like the class, but it won't bother me. I've stated the two specific reasons I can't see a paladin working as a class. It's not unique enough compared to the cleric and it's not diverse enough to allow for the polytheistic system of pretty much every D&D game world.

The specific reason I don't want paladins in the core game and my hatred of bloat is that I hate being forced to buy things I don't need. I hated spending $30 for the Monster Vault because all I wanted was the book of monsters and had to spend an extra $10 to get a crappy adventure, a poster map I'll never use, and a bunch of tokens when I've already got a huge collection of D&D Miniatures. I hated buying the DMG for 4e just for a couple of rules and tables when probably 3/4 of the book was utterly useless to me.

If this game is going to be modular, I want it to be modular in what I pay for. I want to be able to buy the core rules with the 4 iconic classes leveled through to 20 with enough themes and backgrounds to create a lot of variety. I want the iconic races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling). I want enough rules to run the game and maybe tactical grid combat. I want a list of monsters, magic items, and traps. That's it. Everything else, throw in sourcebooks and I can buy them or not as I like. If you want, chop off the last 10 levels and put it in a red box with a dragon on the cover and a copy of the (updated post-playtest) Caves of Chaos adventure and I'll be a very, very happy boy.

Make me buy a 575 page tome that gives me Popeye arms when I'm constantly passing the damn thing around the game table all session long like Pathfinder and I'm going to be unhappy.

 

[underfoot007ct]

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.

Sometimes the simplest answer, Is the best answer.

 

[grimslade]

Can we make a darn good paladin utilizing themes and backgrounds? Yup.
Can we make a paladin class that resonates with its preceding iterations while providing a solid group of iconic abilities in 5E? Yup.
The point now is to make the paladin class feel like more than can be achieved with a cleric and themes. What is iconic to paladins? Smite already goes to cleric too, so no smite.
Lay on Hands and a Paladin's mount are easy. Immune to fear and giving advantage to fear saves for people close to the paladin. Immunity to disease. Some unique spells in some editions, like divine sacrifice. And while not unique to Paladins, Detect Evil.
Is this enough for a unique class? Yeah, but it's kind of bland and still close to a cleric with a horse.
I would like to see the paladin steal some stuff from the Sword Mage. Some unique channel divinity abilities to imbue his chosen weapon or shield with Holy power. I'd prefer Channel Divinity to actual spell casting, reflecting more of the paladins calling rather than training.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Like I said, there's over 100 different classes for D&D/d20 out there.

I don't think that's a problem. There could be a million. A billion. There's no quantity of classes in existence that, for me, is, "Too Much."

All I need is "enough for my players to be happy."

Now, from a business perspective, WotC might themselves not want to blow a lot of money making a lot of new classes (there are certainly diminishing returns). But there's demand for a paladin class, so that should be fine at least.

For me, the line between what should and shouldn't be a class is being able to have enough diversity to support multiple build types without changing what that core class is.

What end does drawing the line there serve? Why draw the line there? Why define this as something WotC should categorically do rather than something you can do at your own tables for your own games?

I still probably won't like the class, but it won't bother me. I've stated the two specific reasons I can't see a paladin working as a class. It's not unique enough compared to the cleric and it's not diverse enough to allow for the polytheistic system of pretty much every D&D game world.

I could quibble, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with you not liking the Paladin class for any reason you can think of. It's OK that you don't like the Paladin class. You might not like it for a solid reason ("makes a better prestige class"), you might not like it for an arbitrary reason ("I don't like Authurian heroes"), you might not like it for an absurd reason ("Classes that begin with the letter P clearly indicate that WotC hates stutterers!"). Whatever. It's cool.

It's not OK that because of this you want to remove the Paladin class from everyone's version of D&D.

So it's great that YOU don't want a paladin.

It's not so great that you don't want ANYONE to have a paladin.