Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

The issue isn't whether the cleric can go "toe-to-toe." It's whether their class abilities (spells) match up with the paladin archetype (inspirational knight).

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.

This is true, and it's one reason I think they're going to end up changing the fighter class to have at least some basic "stickiness" built in. Maybe the mark thing from 4e, maybe something better. (Mearls and others have suggested this as a possibility in various comments and interviews.)

And if you want to talk about being highly mobile and excelling at targeted damage, that's a rogue.

Well, to keep it in 4e terms you hate, that's pretty much every striker.

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.

Except the rogue mechanics focus on gaining combat advantage for sneak attack, whereas thematically a ranger doesn't focus on backstabbing his enemies while they're distracted.

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.

Again, the current fighter seems too vanilla to me, with nothing defining its mechanical role other than "good with weapons." It's like have a "spellcaster" class that just got bonuses to spell DCs and attack rolls and we were using themes to pick between cleric and wizard spell lists. As that class get a bit more defined, I think the differences from a ranger will stand out more.

 

[Abstruse]

The issue isn't whether the cleric can go "toe-to-toe." It's whether their class abilities (spells) match up with the paladin archetype (inspirational knight).

And what is that archetype exactly? That's one of the questions I've been trying to get answered. What specifically about that archetype means that it is fundamentally different from a cleric? Something other than just backstory because I can roleplay my warpriest-build cleric just like a holy knight.

This is true, and it's one reason I think they're going to end up changing the fighter class to have at least some basic "stickiness" built in. Maybe the mark thing from 4e, maybe something better. (Mearls and others have suggested this as a possibility in various comments and interviews.)

No, Mearls has talked about the fighter getting two themes to allow more versatility in the class in response to complaints the fighter class was "boring". The Guardian theme is the only theme that can really be pulled out and slapped onto it with the current playtest builds we have. I really don't think they're going to put the fighter into more of a guardian/defender/tank role. If they did, that'd encroach even further into what everyone keeps saying the paladin is, making it even less justifiable as a separate class.

Well, to keep it in 4e terms you hate, that's pretty much every striker.

I don't hate 4e. It's just a different system. I like it for what it is and I've got at least two campaign ideas I'd like to run under that system. What I don't like is applying the 4e concept of "roles" to Next because it's counter to what every bit of the design is showing. They're trying to move away from classes being shoehorned into specific roles and allowed more organic builds, so players can create interesting characters without worrying about some pre-defined role.

Except the rogue mechanics focus on gaining combat advantage for sneak attack, whereas thematically a ranger doesn't focus on backstabbing his enemies while they're distracted.

Going back to something that's been said about the sorcerer - make the theme alter the class abilities. "If the Ranger theme is used with the Rogue class, all sneak attack dice are instead treated as favored enemy/hunter's quarry/whatever."

Again, the current fighter seems too vanilla to me, with nothing defining its mechanical role other than "good with weapons." It's like have a "spellcaster" class that just got bonuses to spell DCs and attack rolls and we were using themes to pick between cleric and wizard spell lists. As that class get a bit more defined, I think the differences from a ranger will stand out more.

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.

Frankly, the fighter is probably the single most versatile class. The archetype of "fighter" is so broad and encompassing because it's something that's grounded in reality. I can point to Inago Montoya or Jon Snow or Leonidas or D'artagnan or Kratos or blah blah blah and say "That's a fighter, let's figure out his stats." You can pull from different cultures, different time periods, different fighting styles. It's still a fighter. So saying that the "fighter seems too vanilla" doesn't hold up, at least not until we get enough options to see what the fighter class can do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The "consistent game design goal" is to make a game that resonates with what people expect out of D&D. So it makes sense in light of that goal.

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.

"Woodsy fighter" isn't a class feature. It's an archetype. There are a lot of mechanics that can help achieve that archetype, and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

So lets say we have a ranger who is a good archer, and a good TWF-style skirmisher, and has an animal companion, and has a "favored enemy" and who can use some Nature domain spells maybe. Probably gets Stealth and Natural Lore and, let's say, Survival as a skill. Lets call that grab bag of things the "Ranger Class." It's pretty identifiable as a D&D ranger whatever edition you hail from. The actual 5e ranger probably won't have all that, but this is mostly for the sake of the example.

And then we have an Archer theme. And a Tempest theme. And an Animal Trainer theme. And a Hunter theme. And a Naturalist theme. And a Woodwise background. And those can be added to any character.

So let's say you're one of those folks who hates TWF rangers. Grab the Woodwise background and the Hunter theme and plunk the dude into the rogue class (maybe with a druid multiclass, or plucking feats from the Naturalist theme, if you like the spellcasting) and you have what you want.

Or you're one of those people who thinks the ranger should basically be a fighter, just who knows some stuff about plants and animals. Grab the background, call it a day.

Or if you've always wanted to play a ranger with a shield, pick up the Defender theme with the Ranger class.

Or whatever.

Look at the rogue we have in the playtest docs. There's nothing there that couldn't be handled with a theme or a background. The rogue just gets the rogue-like stuff automatically, for being a rogue. The same is also true of the other classes, ultimately.

This isn't a zero-sum game. Yeah, there's a practical pagecount limit in the first PH, but when you know that the classes you choose to create are somewhat arbitrary anyway, you can ensure that the versions of them you create fit into that pagecount and meet the goals you have for the first book.

Rangers and paladins don't need to be a class, but there's no problem with them being a class, either, aside from apparently screwing with some people's beliefs that there should be only one way to represent a given archetype.

 

[Abstruse]

"Woodsy fighter" isn't a class feature. It's an archetype. There are a lot of mechanics that can help achieve that archetype, and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

So lets say we have a ranger who is a good archer, and a good TWF-style skirmisher, and has an animal companion, and has a "favored enemy" and who can use some Nature domain spells maybe. Probably gets Stealth and Natural Lore and, let's say, Survival as a skill. Lets call that grab bag of things the "Ranger Class." It's pretty identifiable as a D&D ranger whatever edition you hail from. The actual 5e ranger probably won't have all that, but this is mostly for the sake of the example.

And then we have an Archer theme. And a Tempest theme. And an Animal Trainer theme. And a Hunter theme. And a Naturalist theme. And a Woodwise background. And those can be added to any character.

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?

 

[Steely_Dan]

"favored enemy

I would like a return of giant/goblin killer in some form (and if they keep up the good work, IME/IMO, could be viable throughout the levels).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Rangers and paladins don't need to be a class, but there's no problem with them being a class, either, aside from apparently screwing with some people's beliefs that there should be only one way to represent a given archetype.

You are going a bridge too far here. This is not the position being held, at least not by most of us.

You say that the point in having multiple ways to do the same archetype is that you'll get slightly different things that way. It will be a better fit, or you want need to use all your customization options to do the core thing, and so forth. Whatever the reason, the mechanical representation of that archetype is at least a bit different, yes?

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. A paladin class has a bigger claim here, than say, the assassin.

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.

If it isn't there, then either the paladin class should be dropped as a bad fit for 5E OR the fighter and/or cleric should be tweaked a bit to leave more room for the paladin class to fit OR they need to rethink this whole theme thing, if they are gonna mash the paladin in there anyway.

Otherwise, the "paladin" is a mere marketing sop, which is rather insulting, when you think about it.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Otherwise, the "paladin" is a mere marketing sop, which is rather insulting, when you think about it.

The Paladin is righteous and mighty and leave him/her alone.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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).

I completely disagree.

The Paladin is clearly inspired by Arthurian and other similar traditions. It is no more obscure than the Ranger or Necromancer or Seer, and some other concepts that have been rehashed a thousand ways.

I believe the reason people do not "get" the Paladin is they are not first understanding the foundational concept in its original Romantic and Christian terms, and then seeing if the D&D mechanics and setting on hand can accommodate such a concept.

It is nowhere written in stone that Rangers or Necromancers must exist either.

But seeing Paladins as a D&Dism is both wrong and looking at the issue from the wrong direction. If we interpret the Paladin first as a bag of mechanics, then of course it would look like a D&Dism. So will the Wizard. And the Cleric. And everyone else.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I believe the reason people do not "get" the Paladin is they are not first understanding the foundational concept in its original Romantic and Christian terms, and then seeing if the D&D mechanics and setting on hand can accommodate such a concept.

...

But seeing Paladins as a D&Dism is both wrong and looking at the issue from the wrong direction. If we interpret the Paladin first as a bag of mechanics, then of course it would look like a D&Dism. So will the Wizard. And the Cleric. And everyone else.

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.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The Paladin is righteous and mighty and leave him/her alone.

For anyone else skimming along and reading more into that than there is, I'll direct them to go back and read more carefully what my "Otherwise" was referring to.