Paladin/Ranger Belong

[Remathilis]

Yes to both, along with barbarians, bards, druids, monks, assassins, sorcerers, warlocks and warlords.

More is better.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I voted both, I hope they stick with the every class from a PHB1 deal, for one thing it would stop a lot of whining ("where is my goddamn *insert class*?!", but after that I would like them to not spew a bunch more all over the place (2nd Ed was good about that).

 

[Minigiant]

Both
I DON'T what to have to spend my precious character creation resources on creating an iconic D&D character concept and have none left over to customize him afterwards.

I want to make a ranger who casts arcane spells without being level 6.

 

[Texicles]

More is better.

Mentioned this in another post. It's no skin off my nose if they are base classes (which is how I voted), AND there are options to make other classes look and feel an awful lot like these classes. If you want to play a pladinesque cleric, a rangeresqe fighter or an assassinesque rogue, go nuts, but if you want to play the base class and spend your customization options on something else, that should be supported as well.

 

[Remathilis]

Both
I DON'T what to have to spend my precious character creation resources on creating an iconic D&D character concept and have none left over to customize him afterwards.

I want to make a ranger who casts arcane spells without being level 6.

Agreed. The ranger goals blogpost mentioned how archery and dual weilding are themes, so rangers aren't tied to them. Ergo, a ranger can take one of those themes, or something else (lurker = scout, healer = Aragorn, guardian = ranger-knight, all as examples).
That's what I want. I don't want Fighter with the Ranger theme. That's boring.

 

[Minigiant]

Agreed. The ranger goals blogpost mentioned how archery and dual weilding are themes, so rangers aren't tied to them. Ergo, a ranger can take one of those themes, or something else (lurker = scout, healer = Aragorn, guardian = ranger-knight, all as examples).
That's what I want. I don't want Fighter with the Ranger theme. That's boring.

That is it exactly

Without a ranger and paladin class, every one if them is the same.
Plus you can't actually be a D&D style member of the class without some overpower theme.

Could you imagine the broken theme and background with animal friendship/wild empathy, healing, track, animal companions, faceted enemy/hunter's quarry, a fighting style, hiding and perception bonuses, and endurance features.

Or one with smite, lay on hands, auras, healing, poison and disease removal, detect evil/magic, AND a mount?

All on TOP of another class.

Broken.

 

[BobTheNob]

This isnt the first thread on this topic and it has been debated over and over.

I WAS for having paladin/ranger as theme, but the arguments and general groundswell for them as classes won me over. The idea if composite character definition is still a strong one and I think there is still room for themes such as crusader or wilderness expert theme/background. I guess my position is that even if these sorts of theme/backgrounds existed, they dont stand as compelling arguments to omit the ragner and paladin.

Other classes have enough strength of history to also be included like (IMO) bard and druid.

When you start getting more fringe like the Assassin I start groaning a little. Remember, we are not trying to reproduce every past class as a class in 5e. We did that in 4e and it ended up giving me a headache.

 

[underfoot007ct]

This poll proves the "most gamers don't want Paladins & Rangers as classes" to be very incorrect.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Unless 5E is going to have just four classes, they belong.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Lemon curry.

Even paladins and rangers long to belong.