D&D 5E Paladin and Ranger Are Backward

[Neonchameleon]

So, the 5e Paladin kicks ass, we all know that, and the Ranger is certainly playable and gets fun around level 5+, but there are some things that just went wrong with both classes, and one of them is Spellcasting.

The Ranger should be more versatile, and the Paladin more focused.

Huh? The ranger is more versatile and the paladin more focused, especially when you use the Tasha's rework to swap out the bad class features. That paladin spell list is exceptionally tightly focused and doesn't have much of what the ranger does (especially spells like spike growth and pass without trace).

Imagine a Ranger that has prepared spells, and something like a class feature that mimics Ritual Caster: Druid.

No, imagine a Paladin that has Known Spells, and regular ritual casting for stuff like detect magic and ceremony.

Don’t those make more sense than what we have?

No. It makes a whole lot less sense than what we have now. I do think the ranger should be able to learn ranger rituals separately from their spells known, but that's another story.

Right now the ranger is the expert who has learnt some things and that's where they get their magic from and few rangers have learned identical things. Meanwhile the Paladin is the divinely empowered warrior whose gods fit what they have for the purpose. Changing it so rangers get cloned downloads into their brains makes no sense.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I wish they would just remove the smite feature and increase a little the power of smite spells to make them interesting and worth the slots.

Then, do the same with ranger, give them ''smites'' that give an extra effect against special type of creatures:

• a smite that removes one of the creatures resistance/immunity until concentration is lost.
• a smite that impedes concealment (branding smite?).
• a smite that deals thunder or force damage that deal + X against construct and object.
• a smite that prevents teleport.
• a smite that prevent special movements: climb/squeeze/flight/burrow etc
• a smite that make an creature Vulnerable to the next attack. (ex: oil-soaked strike -> target is Vulnerable to fire until the end of your next turn).
• a smite that makes an elite creature to lose one Legendary resistance or Legendary action.

Pity we don't have an arcane class with access to spells like that. That was literally the arcane gishes entire niche in other editions.

But yeah imo paladin and ranger are backwards. Rangers should be able to prepare for anything given the time to do so, using their knowledge of the wilds to adapt.

While paladin should know faith based verses and mantras by rote, having had them burnt into their memory by repetition.

 

[Minigiant]

Once again we find that the games I’ve played, run, seen others run, and consumed as digital media, are completely different from your experiences of the game.

I’ve never seen a 5e Paladin not cast spells.

I was somewhat exaggerating.

Paladins do cast spells. Players use what they have. My point is that spellcasting is a lot less emphasized and iconic to Paladin as they were in the past. So it's spellslots and casting can be heavily altered to match the new perception with little backlash.

 

[Eubani]

An idea I had was Bane spells that had a bonus action cast on a weapon attack hit. It would have a base effect like a smite spell, but would have increased/extra effect on a favoured enemy.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

An idea I had was Bane spells that had a bonus action cast on a weapon attack hit. It would have a base effect like a smite spell, but would have increased/extra effect on a favoured enemy.

Exactly.

My favored idea of a ranger would be:

• short-rest, few slots spellcasting based on the warlock's progression, no cantrips, no ''arcanum''.
• ''Invocations'' a la carte, that represent 1) different Favored Enemies (2 different Favored Terrains.

 

[Eubani]

Adding to my previous spell idea, Utility spells cast in you favoured terrain could also gain extra effect.

 

[Eubani]

So to wrap it all up together: Warlock chassis including invocations minus arcanum. Favoured Terrain and enemy could act pact type each granting a broadly usable ability so as to not make them a dead choice. Some spells act as smite spells that grant extra effect when used on favoured enemy and some utility spells that gain extra effect in favoured terrain. Hunters Mark as a class ability so to not reduce availability of other magics.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I gave Rangers prepared spells as a house rules, plus some bonus spells for the PHB conclaves. Trust me, it broke nothing whatsoever. It just let the class breathe a little more.

Huh? The ranger is more versatile and the paladin more focused, especially when you use the Tasha's rework to swap out the bad class features. That paladin spell list is exceptionally tightly focused and doesn't have much of what the ranger does (especially spells like spike growth and pass without trace).

In practice, an actually existing 10th-level ranger's spell list is 6 spells. A 10th-level paladin has around 40, perhaps 9 of which he has immediate access to. The Paladin's actual, in-game casting is far more versatile, because, besides actually having more spells immediately at hand, a Paladin can change up his spells situationally, and a Ranger can't. "Spells known" vs "Spells prepared" completely changes a character's relationship to the class spell list. For a Spells Known class, the class spell list is a list of build options, not much different than the list of feats. For a Spells Prepared class, the class spell list is an active class feature.

As a side note, I think giving Spells Known casters fewer active spells than a Spells Prepared caster was a significant design mistake.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In practice, an actually existing 10th-level ranger's spell list is 6 spells.

9 if you're allowing Tasha's alternate features (7 if you aren't; Primal Awareness is for all practical purposes a spell).

A 10th-level paladin has around 40, perhaps 9 of which he has immediate access to. The Paladin's actual, in-game casting is far more versatile, because, besides actually having more spells immediately at hand, a Paladin can change up his spells situationally, and a Ranger can't. "Spells known" vs "Spells prepared" completely changes a character's relationship to the class spell list.

The thing is that the Paladin spell list is a lot smaller than it looks. If we look at the first level spells the only ones that aren't concentration are Ceremony (25GP cost), command, cure wounds, and purify food & drink. And there are very few you use outside combat. Second level's better (the Pokemount and Zone of Truth both stand out).

As a side note, I think giving Spells Known casters fewer active spells than a Spells Prepared caster was a significant design mistake.

Here we agree. And adding spells to a non-wizard Spells Prepared caster's list should be done with extreme care.

 

[Burnside]

I'm playing a paladin in Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus and cast spells frequently. I often regret using smites unless it's on a crit. I never regret casting Bless.

With a 16 charisma, for levels 1-4 I have generally been more effective using Toll the Dead than attacking with my longsword.

I would 100% trade the paladin ability to change up prepared spells on long rests for the ability to cast ritual spells though.