D&D 5E Should the Paladin be changed into a more generic half-caster magic knight?

[DEFCON 1]

edit: all the narrative the baseclass probably needs is 'is specially trained to combine martial abilities with magical powers to deal with specialised threats'

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, because your statement actually has a baseline narrative. The arcane half-caster is a threat eliminator. It is a protector and a defender. Which is at least part of the way there. The big question though is how to distinguish this class from the Ranger and the Paladin? The Ranger is an eliminator of threats to the natural world. To nature and those that would ruin it. And they use nature's magic to protect the wilderness and those within it, wearing light armors, skilled in many nature-based abilities for tracking and survival. The Paladin is a heavily-armored knight (with all the acoutrement the identity of 'knight' brings to a person), not necessarily a warrior for the gods but certainly follows the same sorts of moral codes of other divine peoples and protects the world from the evils that manifest just as clerics, priests, and moralistic peoples do. And they swear oaths to these tenets to take on the threats of those that would break those beliefs.

So what threats does this arcane warrior specialize in?

If the Ranger has 'the natural world' and the Paladin has 'good from evil', what does this half-caster focus on? There has to be something more than just "Everything! They protect everything!" Do they protect nobles and those with the money to pay them for their magical protection? Do they deal with the specialized threats to the commonfolk-- the things that go bump in the night and they use their arcane magic to find these magical threats to regular folk? Do they deal specifically with the threats of the Far Realm and other aberrant creatures and events? Give us something that is more than just "essentially a Fighter/Wizard multiclass but with different unique mechanics." Because new mechanics just for the sake of new mechanics is pointless and not something WotC has ever had any inclination to make.

 

[Shardstone]

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, because your statement actually has a baseline narrative. The arcane half-caster is a threat eliminator. It is a protector and a defender. Which is at least part of the way there. The big question though is how to distinguish this class from the Ranger and the Paladin? The Ranger is an eliminator of threats to the natural world. To nature and those that would ruin it. And they use nature's magic to protect the wilderness and those within it, wearing light armors, skilled in many nature-based abilities for tracking and survival. The Paladin is a heavily-armored knight (with all the acoutrement the identity of 'knight' brings to a person), not necessarily a warrior for the gods but certainly follows the same sorts of moral codes of other divine peoples and protects the world from the evils that manifest just as clerics, priests, and moralistic peoples do. And they swear oaths to these tenets to take on the threats of those that would break those beliefs.

So what threats does this arcane warrior specialize in?

If the Ranger has 'the natural world' and the Paladin has 'good from evil', what does this half-caster focus on? There has to be something more than just "Everything! They protect everything!" Do they protect nobles and those with the money to pay them for their magical protection? Do they deal with the specialized threats to the commonfolk-- the things that go bump in the night and they use their arcane magic to find these magical threats to regular folk? Do they deal specifically with the threats of the Far Realm and other aberrant creatures and events? Give us something that is more than just "essentially a Fighter/Wizard multiclass but with different unique mechanics." Because new mechanics just for the sake of new mechanics is pointless and not something WotC has ever had any inclination to make.

Exorcists in Asiatic fantasy are arcane gishes that protect people from curses, like supernatual bodyguards and investigators, as they often have to solve mysteries to undo hauntings and curses. Thisis the fluff my next text will draw from.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

but i'm not discussing individual taste of which version is better, can you not agree with the point that the 5e paladin is a more approachable and versatile concept for people to play?

I find the paladin incredibly restrictive and defined in how it 'should be' whenever I've considered playing it. Perhaps the most restrictive in the game.

Though this particularly ties into its mechanics, which are strictly divine focused with almost no subclass variation.

Every single time I want to make a gishy character, I look at paladin, and then get put off because it's forcing me down a route I don't want to play.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, because your statement actually has a baseline narrative. The arcane half-caster is a threat eliminator. It is a protector and a defender. Which is at least part of the way there. The big question though is how to distinguish this class from the Ranger and the Paladin? The Ranger is an eliminator of threats to the natural world. To nature and those that would ruin it. And they use nature's magic to protect the wilderness and those within it, wearing light armors, skilled in many nature-based abilities for tracking and survival. The Paladin is a heavily-armored knight (with all the acoutrement the identity of 'knight' brings to a person), not necessarily a warrior for the gods but certainly follows the same sorts of moral codes of other divine peoples and protects the world from the evils that manifest just as clerics, priests, and moralistic peoples do. And they swear oaths to these tenets to take on the threats of those that would break those beliefs.

So what threats does this arcane warrior specialize in?

If the Ranger has 'the natural world' and the Paladin has 'good from evil', what does this half-caster focus on? There has to be something more than just "Everything! They protect everything!" Do they protect nobles and those with the money to pay them for their magical protection? Do they deal with the specialized threats to the commonfolk-- the things that go bump in the night and they use their arcane magic to find these magical threats to regular folk? Do they deal specifically with the threats of the Far Realm and other aberrant creatures and events? Give us something that is more than just "essentially a Fighter/Wizard multiclass but with different unique mechanics." Because new mechanics just for the sake of new mechanics is pointless and not something WotC has ever had any inclination to make.

Yeah this crossed my mind as well. Perhaps that while a ranger deals with things from within the natural world, the arcane caster deals is more focused from things outside of it? As well as being specialised anti mages, they're also dedicated to fighting extraplanar threats such as celestials, aberrations, and elementals. Basically, if it's a warlock patron, it fits within the list of things which the arcane gish might specialise in.

And that's in addition to the focus on preventing knowledge, magic, and powerful items from falling into whatever they consider the 'wrong' hands.

However the 'fighting extraplanar threats' aspect starts to come too close to the territory of horizon walker and oath of the watchers. So maybe the focus on fighting spellcasters is the best aspect to focus on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

but i'm not discussing individual taste of which version is better, can you not agree with the point that the 5e paladin is a more approachable and versatile concept for people to play?

Versatile, certainly. I don't see it as more approachable.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't necessarily disagree with you here, because your statement actually has a baseline narrative. The arcane half-caster is a threat eliminator. It is a protector and a defender. Which is at least part of the way there. The big question though is how to distinguish this class from the Ranger and the Paladin? The Ranger is an eliminator of threats to the natural world. To nature and those that would ruin it. And they use nature's magic to protect the wilderness and those within it, wearing light armors, skilled in many nature-based abilities for tracking and survival. The Paladin is a heavily-armored knight (with all the acoutrement the identity of 'knight' brings to a person), not necessarily a warrior for the gods but certainly follows the same sorts of moral codes of other divine peoples and protects the world from the evils that manifest just as clerics, priests, and moralistic peoples do. And they swear oaths to these tenets to take on the threats of those that would break those beliefs.

So what threats does this arcane warrior specialize in?

If the Ranger has 'the natural world' and the Paladin has 'good from evil', what does this half-caster focus on? There has to be something more than just "Everything! They protect everything!" Do they protect nobles and those with the money to pay them for their magical protection? Do they deal with the specialized threats to the commonfolk-- the things that go bump in the night and they use their arcane magic to find these magical threats to regular folk? Do they deal specifically with the threats of the Far Realm and other aberrant creatures and events? Give us something that is more than just "essentially a Fighter/Wizard multiclass but with different unique mechanics." Because new mechanics just for the sake of new mechanics is pointless and not something WotC has ever had any inclination to make.

i would personally try to step back from making each of their identities centred as 'defender of X',

focus the paladin on their oath, they're not necessarily defending something they're focused on a concept and cause, even if that cause is revenge or fame.

focus the ranger on being the adaptable survivor and explorer, more on the skills learned to traverse, navigate and defend themselves in their chosen environments than explicitly protecting them.

then the swordmage specifically fills the niche of 'is primed against dealing with X kind of threats' or 'uses X focus to defend against threats.'

 

[CreamCloud0]

Versatile, certainly. I don't see it as more approachable.

what makes you think it isn't more approachable than previous edition's paladins? i wouldn't say it's the most approachable class in 5e but loosing the strict moral obligations you're expected to keep up to, some of which even extended to the rest of your party certainly puts it ahead of some of the previous paladins in my book.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

i would personally try to step back from making each of their identities centred as 'defender of X',

focus the paladin on their oath, they're not necessarily defending something they're focused on a concept and cause, even if that cause is revenge or fame.

focus the ranger on being the adaptable survivor and explorer, more on the skills learned to traverse, navigate and defend themselves in their chosen environments than explicitly protecting them.

then the swordmage specifically fills the niche of 'is primed against dealing with X kind of threats' or 'uses X focus to defend against threats.'

Ranger text does specially talk about how they specialise in hunting down monsters which threaten civilisation.

"Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons."

 

[Mind of tempest]

i'm not saying make them fighter/rogue level generic, but the quote i replied to was speculating about a narrative (amongst others) of making them 'the chosen of the gods of magic to hunt down those who abuse it's power', that is more than a little specific and would likely shape the entire class as a result.

you don't need the entire history of a mystic order of people attuning themselves to the primal forces and honing their emotions in order to justify why barbarians exist, a blessing, being born under the right star, or simply being exposed to too much magic, there are multiple ways sorcerers can exist for a reason so that not every single one has to be the ancestor of a dragon, paladins were released from the mold of being lawful good religious boyscout and are better for it.

edit: all the narrative the baseclass probably needs is 'is specially trained to combine martial abilities with magical powers to deal with specialised threats'

paladins do make more sense as high conviction divinely sanctioned beat sticks

I liked the 3e paladin better. Said so upthread.

the oaths are better than an alignment even if only as it sorts out what the hell anything means by say LG

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ranger text does specially talk about how they specialise in hunting down monsters which threaten civilisation.

"Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons."

while it does say that, what really exists in their toolkit that mechanically reinforces that position as a defender of civilisation? they get hunters mark but that's not exactly much is it? and more leans onto the hunting side of things which is a separate role, you can hunt on the edges of civilisation or you can hunt deep in the wilds and wilderness but it doesn't really change how you hunt.