D&D 5E Should Ranger/Paladin get 1 level 1 spellslot at 1st level?

[FrogReaver]

I’d love to hear how, exactly, they are so underpowered.

It's pretty obvious what their combat shortcomings are at level 1. Don't know what else you want here? Me to list all the features those classes get that make them better at combat? Me to run them all through a goblin grind simulation and tell you how many more goblins these other classes kill than them before dying? Like what are you looking for?

Aside from level 1 being incredibly short, as has been noted many times on the forums,

Level 1 is short? So what?

the few gimmicks the other classes get aren’t exactly spammable.

1. So what? Are you really trying to argue that we should only compare class power by looking at spammable abilities?
2. The fighter, rogue, monk all have spammable combat related abilities at level 1.

Most classes, in my experience, get by in the early levels with a lot of basic attacks/cantrips, and rangers aren’t any worse at those than any other class really.

Rangers are worse than fighters, rogues and monks with basic attacks. But why again are we only looking at basic attacks and not the full package?

Additionally, the other pillar abilities can’t be effectively evaluated in a vacuum, but neither should they be dismissed out of hand.

Good thing I never dismissed them. Simply claimed that in many campaigns the rangers and paladins level 1 abilities (besides lay on hands) will never be used at level 1. I even made mention that they are useful abilities to have for a whole campaign, but their use is spotty at level 1.

Multiclassing has to do with it because your fix has only bothered to consider the ranger in isolation, not the effects of being able to dip 1 into ranger for their spells.

If you are worried about level 1 hunters mark then I've got a warlock class and hex spell you should be real real worried about.

You realize heavy armor means pretty much jack at level 1, right?

+1 AC and less MAD dependent. Keep in mind I only referenced it in respect to a cleric and that reference also included martial weapons with it. (ie. a cleric with heavy armor and martial weapons).

A level 1 ranger can easily hit 15 AC with leather, and 17 with a shield, which is more than enough.

Not sure what your point is here

You won’t be getting plate for a while, certainly not before spellcasting is up and running, which seems to be your area of fixation.

who mentioned anything about plate? strawmen are easy to take down. Try discussing real positions.

5e also prides itself on being approachable/easy to learn, which is probably another reason that these classes lack spellcasting at level, to make more classes that are easy entry points to the game for new players. I don’t agree with balancing a game around this idea, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think it was a consideration of the folks at Wizards.

Good thing I'm not talking about actually changing the players handbook!

To put it bluntly, among all the problems these classes might have, you picked one of the least relevant. They take place in a sliver of the game that’s occupied for the least amount of time, and there are many other improvements that could be made (see the multiple iterations of ranger) in lieu of what I consider a corner case, unless you and your group just continually hold level 1 grudge matches.

I expliclty asked about a level 1 change and the argument is that it's not relevant because its at level 1 and level 1 is short. Do you realize how that actually sounds?

 

[FrogReaver]

My error - Thought you were building a multi-class Ranger/Paladin and wanted a spell slot for 2nd level.

Most classes have their ups and downs throughout every level. I think the Paladin becomes a much stronger class as you increase levels, certainly passing Fighters early on. I really don't know why Rangers don't get spells at first level, but I think the class would be just that much better it got cantrips as Druids do at first level or, you know, at all - then 1st level spells starting with 2nd level. I would also add fighting style at 1st - not sure why Rangers have to wait for that.

Yea, I had considered the fighting style at level 1 instead of level 2. I personally like the flavor of the single spell slot at level 1 better but the fighting style would be my next pick. I'm also not opposed to cantrips either but they add more utility than combat ability. Not really what I'm looking for.

 

[Xeviat]

No. They have enough stuff at first level. They get spells at second level, and fighters get action surge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrogReaver]

No. They have enough stuff at first level. They get spells at second level, and fighters get action surge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many times you seen any of their level 1 abilities used at level 1 in your campaigns? (besides lay on hands)

 

[Dualazi]

It's pretty obvious what their combat shortcomings are at level 1. Don't know what else you want here? Me to list all the features those classes get that make them better at combat? Me to run them all through a goblin grind simulation and tell you how many more goblins these other classes kill than them before dying? Like what are you looking for?

The goblin grind would be a more helpful metric if we could agree on the particulars, but many of those features just don’t cut it, really. So a barbarian rocks a combat where he rages, what about the other estimated 5+ combats that day? Yeah, the rogue has sneak attack, which isn’t always a given, and he has less AC/hp to boot.
So yeah, they do have better options than the ranger, which is only if an issue (at this level) if they overshadow the ranger so much that there’s no point in picking it, and I’m not sure I agree.

Level 1 is short? So what?

So, imbalances that last for an hour aren’t significant, and the quality of life improved by fretting about it don’t justify the effort, to say nothing of unbalancing the game elsewhere, such as multiclassing.

1. So what? Are you really trying to argue that we should only compare class power by looking at spammable abilities?
2. The fighter, rogue, monk all have spammable combat related abilities at level 1.

The reason you’re comparing spammable abilities at this level is because even the full casters don’t have a lot of their big guns. This means a lot of level 1 is relegated to just that; basic attack or abilities you can use over and over.

Also, no they do not. Action surge and Cunning action are both level 2, and both action surge and second wind (the only other active ability fighters have by then) are both bound to short rests. Monks likewise are bound to the Ki pool.

Rangers are worse than fighters, rogues and monks with basic attacks. But why again are we only looking at basic attacks and not the full package?

Because you willfully dismissed the full package when you discounted the ranger abilities that affect the other pillar.

Good thing I never dismissed them. Simply claimed that in many campaigns the rangers and paladins level 1 abilities (besides lay on hands) will never be used at level 1. I even made mention that they are useful abilities to have for a whole campaign, but their use is spotty at level 1.

You absolutely did. There are definitely campaigns where they can be useful, and even if there were not, there are few abilities you can swap in its place without problems.

If you are worried about level 1 hunters mark then I've got a warlock class and hex spell you should be real real worried about.

Warlock would be far less attractive of a level dip if Rangers had level 1 spellcasting, on account of better proficiencies, HD, and the potential to go a second level for a fighting style. Not to mention the Hex spell is necrotic damage, the worst type.

+1 AC and less MAD dependent. Keep in mind I only referenced it in respect to a cleric and that reference also included martial weapons with it. (ie. a cleric with heavy armor and martial weapons).

The MAD advantage is largely negligible due to Dex being the wonderstat this game. Rapier and bows put you on par with anyone not using a 2h weapon.

Not sure what your point is here

My point, as above, is that you keep bringing up weapon proficiency (which the ranger has all it needs) and armor proficiency, which again, only becomes a significant advantage later when items like plate show up.

who mentioned anything about plate? strawmen are easy to take down. Try discussing real positions.

See above.

I expliclty asked about a level 1 change and the argument is that it's not relevant because its at level 1 and level 1 is short. Do you realize how that actually sounds?

You opening statement was simply “should they get spellcasting at level 1” and then later expanded this to include arguments about level 1 balance. When I suggested that they are balanced enough in combat and have out of combat exploration abilities, you then decided that the exploration abilities don’t count. So I then opted to show a) that there really aren’t significant differences in balance at level 1, and b) that even if you dismiss the stuff that does balance the classes, then you won’t have to wait long for the stuff that does allegedly balance them.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I don't think they should get spells at first level, the balance is close enough and, if there is a small discrepancy against ranger and paladin (I don't think there is), getting spells would push it far in the other way

 

[MostlyDm]

Personally I just wish all subclasses were pre-declared at level 1. Don't even have to receive benefits, just would help sometimes with fluff and such.

I sort of see your point, at least in some cases. For example, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are both cases where I think that the feel of the class is well served by knowing you intend to go that route in advance and playing up to it, at least a little.

Just personal preference, but a rogue or fighter getting spells out of the blue would feel a bit incongruous.

I do have a similar feeling about the ranger... the paladin has enough supernatural qualities at level 1 that it's not an issue for me. But for the ranger, suddenly getting spells could feel off, tonally, if handled clumsily.

I think giving a spell slot at level 1 is one way to solve this potential tonal problem, but I'm skeptical that it's the best way. My issues have been easily handled just through roleplaying, never felt the need to make any mechanical changes in this area.

Ultimately, level 1 is such a blip that I don't think it matters much if you do it or not. Not all classes are balanced at all levels, by design, so it's not even a really big deal if this was overpowering the ranger and paladin at level 1.

So... I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it's a big deal if someone were to do it. Seems like an ultimately harmless change.

 

[FrogReaver]

The goblin grind would be a more helpful metric if we could agree on the particulars, but many of those features just don’t cut it, really. So a barbarian rocks a combat where he rages, what about the other estimated 5+ combats that day? Yeah, the rogue has sneak attack, which isn’t always a given, and he has less AC/hp to boot.
So yeah, they do have better options than the ranger, which is only if an issue (at this level) if they overshadow the ranger so much that there’s no point in picking it, and I’m not sure I agree.

Well thanks for finally agreeing the other classes mentioned are better at level 1 combat than the ranger and paladin. At least that's a start...

So, imbalances that last for an hour aren’t significant, and the quality of life improved by fretting about it don’t justify the effort, to say nothing of unbalancing the game elsewhere, such as multiclassing.

Well at least you are agreeing there's imbalance there. Another good start.

The reason you’re comparing spammable abilities at this level is because even the full casters don’t have a lot of their big guns. This means a lot of level 1 is relegated to just that; basic attack or abilities you can use over and over.

So let me flip this argument on you. If we only really should be comparing spammable abilities then adding a single level 1 spell slot couldn't imbalance level 1 right?

Also, no they do not. Action surge and Cunning action are both level 2, and both action surge and second wind (the only other active ability fighters have by then) are both bound to short rests. Monks likewise are bound to the Ki pool.

Fighting style is spammable (assuming an offensive one). So is monk martial arts extra attack. So is rogue sneak attack.

Because you willfully dismissed the full package when you discounted the ranger abilities that affect the other pillar.

How many times you seen used the rangers or paladins abilities at level 1? (excluding lay on hands)

You absolutely did. There are definitely campaigns where they can be useful, and even if there were not, there are few abilities you can swap in its place without problems.

I think there is a great many abilities that can be swapped in their place with no problems.

Warlock would be far less attractive of a level dip if Rangers had level 1 spellcasting, on account of better proficiencies, HD, and the potential to go a second level for a fighting style. Not to mention the Hex spell is necrotic damage, the worst type.

If you are talking about a 2 level dip then nothing changes except for a single level. So I'm only going to look at a single level dip.

If damage type necrotic is the only thing you can say against hex then you have a bad argument about getting hunters mark with a 1 level dip unbalancing the game. An ability that does the same thing with a slightly less resisted damage type that can be gotten at the same level does not unbalance the game. I mean are you even really thinking about what you are claiming?

The MAD advantage is largely negligible due to Dex being the wonderstat this game. Rapier and bows put you on par with anyone not using a 2h weapon.

Ignoring this one. Apparently your strategy is to overwhelm with meaningless info. None of this matters to the discussion at hand.

You've already conceded that other classes are better at combat than the level 1 ranger and paladin. Since all the mention of MAD and Heavy armor and everything was in relation to a cleric I think you would extend that concession and include a level 1 cleric of any subclass that gets martial weapons and state that he is better at combat at level 1 than a level 1 ranger or paladin

My point, as above, is that you keep bringing up weapon proficiency (which the ranger has all it needs) and armor proficiency, which again, only becomes a significant advantage later when items like plate show up.

Okay, I'm going to take this slowly. Maybe you will get it this time. A mentioned weapon and armor proficiency in relation to a cleric because not all clerics get the same weapon and armor proficiencies. You think you understand why heavy armor and martial weapons were mentioned in relation to the cleric now?

See above.

You opening statement was simply “should they get spellcasting at level 1” and then later expanded this to include arguments about level 1 balance. When I suggested that they are balanced enough in combat and have out of combat exploration abilities, you then decided that the exploration abilities don’t count. So I then opted to show a) that there really aren’t significant differences in balance at level 1, and b) that even if you dismiss the stuff that does balance the classes, then you won’t have to wait long for the stuff that does allegedly balance them.

a. you haven't shown there aren't significant difference in combat balance. In fact you just conceded that there were significant enough difference in combat balance in this very post I quoted

b. a point we all agree with? level 1 is short. Again so what? Saying level 1 is short over and over again doesn't mean anything. Saying the balance returns after level 1 while true still doesn't do anything about short level 1.

 

[FrogReaver]

I sort of see your point, at least in some cases. For example, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are both cases where I think that the feel of the class is well served by knowing you intend to go that route in advance and playing up to it, at least a little.

Just personal preference, but a rogue or fighter getting spells out of the blue would feel a bit incongruous.

I do have a similar feeling about the ranger... the paladin has enough supernatural qualities at level 1 that it's not an issue for me. But for the ranger, suddenly getting spells could feel off, tonally, if handled clumsily.

I think giving a spell slot at level 1 is one way to solve this potential tonal problem, but I'm skeptical that it's the best way. My issues have been easily handled just through roleplaying, never felt the need to make any mechanical changes in this area.

Ultimately, level 1 is such a blip that I don't think it matters much if you do it or not. Not all classes are balanced at all levels, by design, so it's not even a really big deal if this was overpowering the ranger and paladin at level 1.

So... I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it's a big deal if someone were to do it. Seems like an ultimately harmless change.

Yea, I don't like magic suddenly coming up out of the nowhere 2-3 levels into a class. That's definetly a factor in trying to get rangers and paladins magic at level 1.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yea, I don't like magic suddenly coming up out of the nowhere 2-3 levels into a class. That's definetly a factor in trying to get rangers and paladins magic at level 1.

You're not actually "trying" to get paladins and rangers magic at level 1 though. What you're actually doing is just setting up a scenario in order to argue with people. No more, no less.

Paladins and rangers could have spells at level 1 in your games right now... just by deciding as the DM to give it to them. And you didn't need to come here on the boards to do that. But instead, you posted the question here on the boards to have a "discussion" about the idea. And yet, whenever someone mentioned why they didn't think it was a good or necessary idea, you argued with them telling them why you think they are wrong.

So let's just be honest with what's going on here. You have an opinion that paladins and rangers should have magic at level 1, and you just feel like arguing with people who disagree with you. There's no "discussion" to be had. And people will either choose to engage with you, or choose not to.

But if you really want to "discuss" it because you aren't actually sure it is a good idea... then it would make a little more sense to not just keep dismissing other people's comments out of hand and actually start finding common ground so you can reach a conclusion that is actual useful to you.