THANK YOU! You are exactly right. What if, to play a Fighter, you had just a generic class and then had to pick the Soldier background and some "Melee specialist" theme? Making paladins, rangers, barbarians, or other popular classes into themes would just make them all bland, cookie-cutter stereotypes.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes
- Thread starter Gold Roger
- Start date
Yora
Legend
I think a ranger is clearly enough defined for in a more than four-classes system: A fighter/rogue with considerable attack capability and stealth and scouting skills.
However paladins much less so, as I see them. I don't like paladins, I plain out admit that, and I do not "get them". That said, what paladins appear to be to me are "clerics with worse spells and slightly better attack bonus", also limited to lawful good alignment.
But why not play a cleric? Okay, 3.5e speaking here, but a cleric is superior to a paladin in everything except BAB and hit point. And those are far more than compensated with spells.
I can not make a character who can do all the things a ranger can do with a fighter/rogue. No wild empathy, no favored enemy, no spells.
As a cleric, I can do everything a paladin can do, plus so much more! I don't have a problem with there being a paladin class that simply won't get used in my campaigns, but if it gets into the books, it needs a unique role and unique abilities. And not just fluff. You can put the fluff of paladins in fighter/clerics just fine.
However paladins much less so, as I see them. I don't like paladins, I plain out admit that, and I do not "get them". That said, what paladins appear to be to me are "clerics with worse spells and slightly better attack bonus", also limited to lawful good alignment.
But why not play a cleric? Okay, 3.5e speaking here, but a cleric is superior to a paladin in everything except BAB and hit point. And those are far more than compensated with spells.
I can not make a character who can do all the things a ranger can do with a fighter/rogue. No wild empathy, no favored enemy, no spells.
As a cleric, I can do everything a paladin can do, plus so much more! I don't have a problem with there being a paladin class that simply won't get used in my campaigns, but if it gets into the books, it needs a unique role and unique abilities. And not just fluff. You can put the fluff of paladins in fighter/clerics just fine.
My reasons for keeping the ranger and paladin as unique classes is simple: tradition. Both of them, but particularly the paladin, are an important part of D&D's... ahem... brand identity.
There's very little upside to reducing them to themes.
Can you imagine a version of D&D without orc baby-killing paladin arguments?
There's very little upside to reducing them to themes.
Can you imagine a version of D&D without orc baby-killing paladin arguments?
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Just to be clear, I like having some niche classes. Where I have my doubts is the idea that the archetypical ranger, paladin, bard, druid, barbarian, assassin, etc. are the best use of those slots. That is, I'm not against any of them, per se. But I am against any of them that are kept without due consideration for the things around it. The reasons, good or bad, are thus different with each class, and with each edition.
For example, a good reason to have a paladin class is that you've got this warrior type over here and this priestly type over there, and you want to stake out some other ground that is somewhat of a mixture but also brings its own elements into a nifty syngery that is greater than the parts, and "class" is the element of the system best positioned to take that ground.
A bad reason to have a paladin class is because we've always had one, and no matter what happens with the fighter and cleric during the course of the design, we are gonna squeeze a paladin in there somewhere, if we have to get an industrial-strength press to make it thin enough to fit--or radically change the system to leave it a spot.
In reality, the decision will never be that pure, either way, of course. And I don't mind a great deal of soul searching, bending, and even carefully selected system mangling to make the big, traditional ones work. (I'll extend a lot more room here to paladin, ranger, bard, and druid than I would to other classes, too, because they have a bigger claim on that tradition.)
Conversely, if having decided to make most or all traditional classes fit as a goal, then it becomes incumbent on the designers to make a system that readily accommodates them. That's fine to, since this isn't so much a "tail wagging the dog" thing in D&D as a, "who steps first, left leg or right?" thing. That takes us outside the realm of "good reasons" to have a class, though.
For example, a good reason to have a paladin class is that you've got this warrior type over here and this priestly type over there, and you want to stake out some other ground that is somewhat of a mixture but also brings its own elements into a nifty syngery that is greater than the parts, and "class" is the element of the system best positioned to take that ground.
A bad reason to have a paladin class is because we've always had one, and no matter what happens with the fighter and cleric during the course of the design, we are gonna squeeze a paladin in there somewhere, if we have to get an industrial-strength press to make it thin enough to fit--or radically change the system to leave it a spot.
In reality, the decision will never be that pure, either way, of course. And I don't mind a great deal of soul searching, bending, and even carefully selected system mangling to make the big, traditional ones work. (I'll extend a lot more room here to paladin, ranger, bard, and druid than I would to other classes, too, because they have a bigger claim on that tradition.)
Conversely, if having decided to make most or all traditional classes fit as a goal, then it becomes incumbent on the designers to make a system that readily accommodates them. That's fine to, since this isn't so much a "tail wagging the dog" thing in D&D as a, "who steps first, left leg or right?" thing. That takes us outside the realm of "good reasons" to have a class, though.
Daggerswan
First Post
I am not sure where I stand on the issue, but I wanted to correct something here. The paladin is not a D&D-ism. It is a holy knight going all the way back to the old stories of Charlemagne. Roland is an icon as far as I am concerned. If Aragorn gets a class, so should Roland.
fuindordm
Adventurer
Because it's more fun to choose from a menu of ~12 flavourful, evocative archetypes than to drill down through a hierarchy of building blocks. A class description in the PH tells a story about the setting, and gets players interested in filling that role. I like Champions, but I don't want D&D to get too generic.
Because we want to attract new players, and I believe that the traditional presentation of classes is more attractive than a fully modular creation system.
Because we want to attract new players, and I believe that the traditional presentation of classes is more attractive than a fully modular creation system.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I think a lot of the reasoning depends on how we see the direction of D&D Next. We almost have to declare our D&D Next "political affiliation" for our thoughts to make sense.
For me, I strongly support the stated direction of D&D Next, which includes trying to keep all the iconics and make the game work for fans of all versions from OD&D up to 4E. It also includes trying to make it feel more like D&D for more people, as much as can be achieved. I'm such a strong supporter of the design philosophy, that I find myself sometimes voicing my opinion in support of certain inclusions I'd personally rather have relegated to a dark corner of a fringe book, because some people like them, and they have precedent in one version or another.
From this perspective, discussing why we need classes like ranger or paladin has a simple answer: tradition. I like having them as base classes. I also like assassin as a base class, even though it's before my time and I've never had direct experience with it. I wouldn't even mind bringing in the Cavalier and Thief-Acrobat, although I think that's an example of classes that were always fringe enough (ie, not core PHB) that themes might fit better.
If, on the other, hand, a person disagrees with the stated (as well as implied) direction of D&D Next, then their preferences come with an entirely different set of logic. Does it add something significantly unique to the game experience? Does it add extra bloat? Could it still be D&D without it?
I couch almost all of my arguments in light of assumed support of the design philosophy, which means that they are totally invalid arguments if the design philosophy itself is being debated, and the same from the other direction.
As a proponent of mutual understanding and reasonable discourse, I kind of wish we all wore a badge saying where we fell from "Strongly Agree with the Design Philosophy" to "Strongly Disagree with the Design Philosophy."
Of course, that's a pipe dream that isn't going to happen, but man, wouldn't it cut down on a lot of needless debate and make it more profitable.
EDIT: How do I get rid of those hyper-text links in my post? I feel like I'm doing some sort of completely unnecessary advertising, lol.
For me, I strongly support the stated direction of D&D Next, which includes trying to keep all the iconics and make the game work for fans of all versions from OD&D up to 4E. It also includes trying to make it feel more like D&D for more people, as much as can be achieved. I'm such a strong supporter of the design philosophy, that I find myself sometimes voicing my opinion in support of certain inclusions I'd personally rather have relegated to a dark corner of a fringe book, because some people like them, and they have precedent in one version or another.
From this perspective, discussing why we need classes like ranger or paladin has a simple answer: tradition. I like having them as base classes. I also like assassin as a base class, even though it's before my time and I've never had direct experience with it. I wouldn't even mind bringing in the Cavalier and Thief-Acrobat, although I think that's an example of classes that were always fringe enough (ie, not core PHB) that themes might fit better.
If, on the other, hand, a person disagrees with the stated (as well as implied) direction of D&D Next, then their preferences come with an entirely different set of logic. Does it add something significantly unique to the game experience? Does it add extra bloat? Could it still be D&D without it?
I couch almost all of my arguments in light of assumed support of the design philosophy, which means that they are totally invalid arguments if the design philosophy itself is being debated, and the same from the other direction.
As a proponent of mutual understanding and reasonable discourse, I kind of wish we all wore a badge saying where we fell from "Strongly Agree with the Design Philosophy" to "Strongly Disagree with the Design Philosophy."
Of course, that's a pipe dream that isn't going to happen, but man, wouldn't it cut down on a lot of needless debate and make it more profitable.
EDIT: How do I get rid of those hyper-text links in my post? I feel like I'm doing some sort of completely unnecessary advertising, lol.
Abstruse
Legend
The difference between the "core" classes and the "niche" classes is how broad the definition is. A fighter can cover a large ground. The fighter class can cover the heavily-armored sword-and-shield guy, the combat archer, the finesse duelist like Inago Montoya, a bare-chested Conan-style warrior. A rogue can be an Indiana Jones/Lara Croft style treasure hunter, a socially adept conman, the strikes-from-the-shadows assassin, the brutish thug/bandit, or even a Sherlock Holmes style detective. Wizards span a research bookworm dragged from his ivory tower against his will with no combat experience at all, a blaster firebug that gleefully throws around fireballs, a detective that uses magic to solve puzzles and mysteries, and a tactician chessmaster who casts spells to change the battlefield and solve puzzles. Clerics even have vastly different feels depending on their diety and domain now compared to previous editions, as shown by the difference between the Moradin Warpriest and the Pelor laser/healic cleric in the playtest, not even counting the various priests, clerics, and cultists from fiction of all genres.
However, how much range does a paladin really have? It's a heavily armored divine fighter. There's a little room to play around, but if move away from that too much you stop being the idea of a paladin. Same with classes like assassin, avenger, barbarian, etc. I honestly can't see how an assassin class can be better than themes on a Rogue or Fighter. Put a roguish theme on a Fighter and you have a warrior that can use stealth and deception to his advantage. Put a fightery theme on a Rogue and you have a combatant that takes advantage of dirty tactics and ambushes to kill stealthily and quickly. Put a divine theme on a rogue or a rogue theme on a cleric and you have an avenger. Put a theme on a wizard to allow access to some divine spells with some performance-based buffing ability and you've got a bard.
I think they really should approach what should and shouldn't be a class by the range of character types that would fall under that class but still be defined by that class. I personally don't think that paladin and ranger have enough variation to work for that, but that's my opinion. I love the Avenger class from 4e and would love to see a sort of divine assassin class in Next, but I can also see how that would really work better as a theme. If you really think that a class would be better served by being a class with various themes, try to image what a thief paladin or a defender ranger would look like and see if it's still a "paladin" or "ranger".
EDIT: This is my argument for why I believe they should go with a class + theme build for several of the classes of previous editions. I'm not saying I'm right and I'm not trying to say you're wrong if you think paladin/ranger/assassin should be a separate class. I'm just trying to state this is where I feel the line between a class and a class + theme should be drawn, and that's what the real question is here.
However, how much range does a paladin really have? It's a heavily armored divine fighter. There's a little room to play around, but if move away from that too much you stop being the idea of a paladin. Same with classes like assassin, avenger, barbarian, etc. I honestly can't see how an assassin class can be better than themes on a Rogue or Fighter. Put a roguish theme on a Fighter and you have a warrior that can use stealth and deception to his advantage. Put a fightery theme on a Rogue and you have a combatant that takes advantage of dirty tactics and ambushes to kill stealthily and quickly. Put a divine theme on a rogue or a rogue theme on a cleric and you have an avenger. Put a theme on a wizard to allow access to some divine spells with some performance-based buffing ability and you've got a bard.
I think they really should approach what should and shouldn't be a class by the range of character types that would fall under that class but still be defined by that class. I personally don't think that paladin and ranger have enough variation to work for that, but that's my opinion. I love the Avenger class from 4e and would love to see a sort of divine assassin class in Next, but I can also see how that would really work better as a theme. If you really think that a class would be better served by being a class with various themes, try to image what a thief paladin or a defender ranger would look like and see if it's still a "paladin" or "ranger".
EDIT: This is my argument for why I believe they should go with a class + theme build for several of the classes of previous editions. I'm not saying I'm right and I'm not trying to say you're wrong if you think paladin/ranger/assassin should be a separate class. I'm just trying to state this is where I feel the line between a class and a class + theme should be drawn, and that's what the real question is here.
Last edited:
Doug McCrae
Legend
They make character generation faster and easier by removing options. Instead of searching through themes and backgrounds for his fighter, the player just picks the paladin class, and, presumably gets the default paladin theme and background.
Some games, such as those with high lethality, need char gen to be as fast as possible. And some players don't like to wade thru lots of options. Ofc, other players love it, so the options are there for those who want to build their paladin out of bits.
However the main reasons are tradition and nostalgia. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.
