Reasons to have paladins and rangers as classes

[Fifth Element]

What end does drawing the line there serve?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. The core game cannot have 100 classes. Lines have to be drawn.

So it's great that YOU don't want a paladin.

It's not so great that you don't want ANYONE to have a paladin.

While this can be a valid comment for some of these 5E discussions, I don't think it's fair in this case.

Why? Because of the reason behind not seeing the need for a paladin class: the fact that a paladin character can be created, even if there is not a class called "paladin".

No one is advocating taking away the ability to play a character that can do the things that paladins do. The discussion is about whether that should be accomplished by simply having a paladin class, or having a paladin theme added to another class.

It's not about taking anything away, it's about how this something is delivered.

 

[Abstruse]

What end does drawing the line there serve? Why draw the line there? Why define this as something WotC should categorically do rather than something you can do at your own tables for your own games?

I could quibble, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with you not liking the Paladin class for any reason you can think of. It's OK that you don't like the Paladin class. You might not like it for a solid reason ("makes a better prestige class"), you might not like it for an arbitrary reason ("I don't like Authurian heroes"), you might not like it for an absurd reason ("Classes that begin with the letter P clearly indicate that WotC hates stutterers!"). Whatever. It's cool.

It's not OK that because of this you want to remove the Paladin class from everyone's version of D&D.

So it's great that YOU don't want a paladin.

It's not so great that you don't want ANYONE to have a paladin.

The reason where that line should be needs to be discussed is because it is being drawn. They've stated in I think the D&DXP talk that Avenger is going to be a theme rather than a class. That means that people who like the Avenger (like myself) aren't going to get it as a class. WotC doing that raises a very valid question, which is what is the line between a full-out class and just a specific build using other classes/themes? I'd really like to use these paladin/ranger discussions to discuss that question, but it's becoming a "But I like the paladin so it should stay because we all say so and I win and you lose!"

Frankly, I started out playing devil's advocate. I don't like paladins or rangers. I like assassins and avengers. I tried to use assassins as an example because it's a class I know better and I'm attacking my own baby rather than a class others like that I don't. But the antagonistic stance of a lot of comments really pushed me into making statements in response that, after sleeping on, I regret making because they were made in reaction to that antagonistic stance rather than reflective of my own opinions. Putting in the paladin class isn't going to be a make-or-break for me. It's not my preference and not what I want for the core rules (and that extends to any class other than the core four), but it's not going to stop me from buying or playing the game when it comes out if they are included.

But it's important to remember that me not wanting paladins and rangers in the game as classes is trivial compared to the designers of the game not wanting avengers as classes. My opinion means next to nothing, just one more voice in the cacophony that is Next discussions. The developers, though, are the ones that are making the game. Imagine for a moment that I did have power and decided that paladin shouldn't be a class and think about how that would make you feel. That's how I feel when they say that the avenger isn't going to be a class (though probably to a lesser degree because I can see the logic behind it and the avenger doesn't have nearly the roots that the paladin or ranger have in the game's history).

The line between a class and a theme/build has to be drawn somewhere because it is being drawn. The time to discuss that question is right now, as other classes besides the cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue start to be introduced. Right now, they're focusing on the iconic classes that have been core in pretty much every edition of D&D. But how long until they start doing warlords, sorcerers, warlocks, avengers, monks, samurai, assassins, cavaliers, etc. etc.? We really need to talk about this so we understand why that line is being drawn where it is and, more importantly, so that Wizards of the Coast knows that we're thinking about that line.

 

[CM]

I want both.

I want a paladin class and a "divine champion" theme that gives heavy armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency, smiting, and other pseudo-paladin abilities so I can build a templar abjurer wizard. It's too early to tell, but 3e-style paladin/wizard multiclassing may not be satisfactory.

Maybe I could take that same divine champion theme and sub out the heavy armor proficiency for an improved smite feat and give it to a rogue to simulate a 4e Avenger.

I want a warlord class and a "marshal" theme which gives command auras and other ally-boosting abilities.

Unlike real life, there's no reason we can't have it both ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The line has to be drawn somewhere. The core game cannot have 100 classes. Lines have to be drawn.

You say this as if it's a tautology, but I'm unconvinced. There isn't some magical number of classes that is the logically perfect number of classes. If a particular DM feels like they must draw a line, then more power to them, and they should. But WotC doesn't need to universally draw that line for everyone.

Why? Because of the reason behind not seeing the need for a paladin class: the fact that a paladin character can be created, even if there is not a class called "paladin".

All rules are ultimately arbitrary. There's not a "need" for ANY class. There's not a need for any rules. There's not a need for any words or books. This isn't about a need, because if the game was designed with only what was "necessary for play" in mind, we could scrap every rule ever and still have lots of fun pretending to be adventurers in dungeons fighting dragons.

So it's not about a need. It's about a want.

Some people want it as a unique class. Good enough for me.

Some people don't want it as a unique class. And they don't have to have it if they don't want it. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't have it, though.

They've stated in I think the D&DXP talk that Avenger is going to be a theme rather than a class. That means that people who like the Avenger (like myself) aren't going to get it as a class.

There's a few layers to this.

The first is that just because there's no Avenger class in the PHB doesn't mean there won't someday be an Avenger class.

The second is that the reasons for including every class that's been in a PHB in 5e's PHB are about letting people play a game with a "D&D Feel" (whatever that means to them) from Day 1. The Avenger, awesome as it may be, probably isn't integral to that feel. The paladin, for some folks, certainly is.

So you should get your Avenger class. And what applies to the Paladin also applies here: just because it's a theme doesn't mean it can't ALSO be a class. Just because Paladin's a class doesn't mean it can't ALSO be part of other subsystems.

It's not my preference and not what I want for the core rules (and that extends to any class other than the core four), but it's not going to stop me from buying or playing the game when it comes out if they are included.

Perfect! I think we've got little to disagree about, then.

Imagine for a moment that I did have power and decided that paladin shouldn't be a class and think about how that would make you feel. That's how I feel when they say that the avenger isn't going to be a class (though probably to a lesser degree because I can see the logic behind it and the avenger doesn't have nearly the roots that the paladin or ranger have in the game's history).

Personally, a paladin class doesn't seem like mostly what I want, anyway. It'd like to see it as some sort of prestige class/paragon path. You start out as a fighter or a cleric/fighter or a cleric (or whatever) and as you gain levels you become a noble crusader for your god. So it wouldn't hit me personally that hard.

But as you say, it has roots in the game's history, and that's why it's being included as a class in the first PHB. Which, to me, is fine.

And I think you should get your Avenger class. And I also think that people should be able to build "avengers" with assassins, rogues, or clerics (or some multiclass combo) with the priest background and the "Oath-taker" theme (which is where the roll-twice mechanic might live). IMO, there isn't One True Way.

But how long until they start doing warlords, sorcerers, warlocks, avengers, monks, samurai, assassins, cavaliers, etc. etc.? We really need to talk about this so we understand why that line is being drawn where it is and, more importantly, so that Wizards of the Coast knows that we're thinking about that line.

I don't disagree. I just think that "the line" is for every DM to determine. Some DMs may want and welcome all these and more as classes. Others will pick and choose. Some players will like the Warlock class, some players will like the "Devil-Bound" theme, some players will like the "Corrputed" background. Some will take all of those. Some will also have a Witch class, or a Sha'ir class, or an Alienist class, or a Diabolist class.

I personally think this is one of the benefits of the OGL, specifically. WotC might not see much value in publishing a book full of options for role-playing in Africa, but Nyambe's got my back. Even if WotC never sees the logic in publishing an Avenger class, some third party should be able to, even if it IS redundant with some combination of themes and backgrounds and classes or multiclasses.

 

[Abstruse]

You say this as if it's a tautology, but I'm unconvinced. There isn't some magical number of classes that is the logically perfect number of classes. If a particular DM feels like they must draw a line, then more power to them, and they should. But WotC doesn't need to universally draw that line for everyone.

They may not need to, but they are. They've stated that they're talking about which classes work better as a stand-alone class and which work better as a theme to place on an existing class. They specifically stated the avenger as one of those they're going to do as a theme. That's why this discussion needs to take place. Sure maybe sometime in 2019 they'll put out the Divine Class Options IV book and have an avenger class, but that's 5-6 years into the edition (depending on whose estimates you listen to on Next's release).

Wizards of the Coast are the ones drawing a line. Not specific DMs (as they're always going to draw lines to suit their campaign), but the publisher themselves. If they're going to decide which previous edition classes will be classes and which will be themes, we really need to discuss this so that they have more data as to what the fans want.

Personally, I'm fine with the avenger being a theme. It seems to fit better with the design structure they've laid out. Put the avenger theme on a rogue and you've got that chaser build avenger. Put it on a fighter and you've got that stand-your-ground build avenger. Put it on a cleric and it's that help-everyone-else-beat-the-tar-out-of-it avenger. It makes sense.

Same with the assassin (something they mentioned at DDXP as being a class rather than a theme). It works better as a theme than it does as a class. I can get the same versatility of archetypes in an assassin theme as I could from an assassin class, and it would probably work better. And honestly, I could see it working even better as a background than a theme possibly depending on the full list of themes presented.

And third party publishers are not the solution. If you've ever run a 3.x or PF game where you let players take those third party feats or classes, you've seen first-hand how broken that gets in a hurry. I had a player who took a third party swashbuckler class with some other third party class with a weapon out of Dragon magazine and some third-party feat who did 1d8 + Str Mod + Dex Mod + Chr Mod + Int Mod damage and was adding all those modifiers to his BAB for attacks (ending up with a standard attack that was +11 to hit and did 1d8+9 damage with an additional +2 to hit and +3d6 damage if flanking) at fourth level. At a point in the game when a raging barbarian with a greataxe is +9 and 1d12+7. And he then said to me, "Yeah, I could've gotten a few more, but I didn't want to be a munchkin."

This discussion needs to happen and this is the time to have it. The ranger, paladin, and assassin are the perfect classes to have it with. So where does that line between a class and a theme or build go?

 

[Steely_Dan]

"anti-paladin" which I've always thought the stupidest idea in a game world

Aw, I thought Githyanki Anti-Paladins were kinda cool (the originators of Gith, baby!).

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you don't have a problem with paladins existing as a class,

and you also don't have a problem with avengers existing as a theme,

I don't know what the complaint is anymore.

My point is only that there can be more than one way to realize an archetype, and for a paladin and a ranger (and an assassin and a monk and a druid and a bard and a....), class is one way that they can be realized. WotC is pursuing these as classes because people want them as classes, and because they are legacy classes, and that's reason enough for me, since all classes are ultimately fairly arbitrary.

They may or may not do avengers like that, but if you personally want an avenger class you should have it, even if you have to make it yourself or get it from a third party. And if you don't want an avenger class, then you're not missing anything by not having it.

Oh, and just for the record:

And third party publishers are not the solution. If you've ever run a 3.x or PF game where you let players take those third party feats or classes, you've seen first-hand how broken that gets in a hurry.

I've never had a problem, but part of a DM's job is in limiting the players' options to what is campaign-appropriate. I haven't seen much in a 3rd party that was any more egregious than what WotC published themselves. I have, conversely, seen a LOT of OGL stuff that was very well balanced, awesomely flavorful, and not really something I could do without in my games.

 

[Steely_Dan]

and you also don't have a problem with avengers existing as a theme

I see the Avenger as an Assassin/Cleric type (Holy Slayer), but it looks like both those will be classes in 5th Ed (the Assassin being an example of a complicated one).

All I know is there better be some Monk action in the original deal, no waiting years.

 

[1Mac]

You say this as if it's a tautology, but I'm unconvinced. There isn't some magical number of classes that is the logically perfect number of classes.

Maybe not a tautology, but definitely a truism. You're not going to find a "magic number", but there is definitely a number of classes that is too much for the core book. Even if they could design them, WotC is not going to include 1000 classes in the 5e PHB, both because it would literally be unwieldy (like the OED of rulebooks) and impossible to make money from, and because the number of options would be excessive for what is supposed to be the basic game. So once we agree that there is some upper limit to the number of classes the core book can feature, then we must decide how to construe that limit.

It seems part of the point of themes is to efficiently increase the number of character options as much as possible, without resorting to 1000 classes. It's always more efficient to have 2 sets of 20 options that can be freely matched than to have a list of 400 options to pick from. So if a paladin can be made by combining a class and theme, what's the problem? I agree with Abstruse that the Cleric of Moradin is not merely a makeshift attempt at a paladin; it is a paladin, and the fact that it doesn't have the word "paladin" in the class box doesn't change that.

Can you imagine a version of D&D without orc baby-killing paladin arguments?

No, but I can dare to hope.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All I know is there better be some Monk action in the original deal, no waiting years.

Or more to the point... 1 year and 9 months.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Or more to the point... 1 year and 9 months.

Yeah, lame (I almost appreciate the humour), I want people be able to convert/play their character concept from the start.

Oh yeah, Psion.

 

[Abstruse]

If you don't have a problem with paladins existing as a class, and you also don't have a problem with avengers existing as a theme, I don't know what the complaint is anymore.

Because the discussion needs to take place over what is and is not a class in Next. That line is getting drawn and we need to discuss where it should be drawn and why. "That class has always been part of the game!" shouldn't be argument enough, and neither should "fanboys will throw a fit if it's not included!" The former doesn't apply because it's a new edition and there are changes in every edition of the game (the assassin class, for example), and the latter is simply a business argument rather than a game design argument.

My point is only that there can be more than one way to realize an archetype, and for a paladin and a ranger (and an assassin and a monk and a druid and a bard and a....), class is one way that they can be realized. WotC is pursuing these as classes because people want them as classes, and because they are legacy classes, and that's reason enough for me, since all classes are ultimately fairly arbitrary.

It shouldn't be reason enough for you. Descending AC was part of the game for a long time, as was to-hit tables and gold-for-XP and lots of other complicated weirdness. That's not a good enough reason to put them back in the game.

In order for Next to be the best overall version of D&D, there has to be a clear and concise guideline for game design. "That's how we've always done it" doesn't work if how we've always done it is wrong or there's a better way to do it. In some cases you can make the argument that it doesn't "feel" the same, like D&D without AC, HP, classes, or levels. But those mechanics can be made to work in a modern game as the current playtest is showing. If you want to keep something in the game because it's legacy, it shouldn't get a free grandfather clause pass. It should work in the game and fit the current design. If it doesn't, pound on it until it does or find another way to do it.

They may or may not do avengers like that, but if you personally want an avenger class you should have it, even if you have to make it yourself or get it from a third party. And if you don't want an avenger class, then you're not missing anything by not having it.

Again, it's a question of where to draw that line. Why should avengers be on the "theme" side but paladins and rangers be on the "class" side? There's not going to necessarily be a right or wrong answer as it's almost completely opinion based, but the discussion itself is important. What makes a class a class and not a theme? What intrinsic value does a paladin have that makes it a class versus something like an avenger or a samurai? I have my answers and other people have theirs. Me explaining my reasoning and them explaining theirs, then dissecting those reasonings is very important to coming to a consensus about what the game should be.

I've never had a problem, but part of a DM's job is in limiting the players' options to what is campaign-appropriate. I haven't seen much in a 3rd party that was any more egregious than what WotC published themselves. I have, conversely, seen a LOT of OGL stuff that was very well balanced, awesomely flavorful, and not really something I could do without in my games.

Some 3rd party material is very good. Most of it is complete crap, either broken as hell or undervalued. I'm not sure you really remember what it was like in the early 2000s with the complete glut of third party stuff out there. I don't know about you, but I have never had the time or money to buy every single book printed in order to read them all and determine how they would affect my game. Plus I had some very sneaky players, who would ask me one week if this class is okay and then next week ask me if this feat was okay and then a month later, I suddenly see how friggin' broken that combination is once they hit a certain level. And honestly, I'm not sure if that glut has gotten better or worse with Pathfinder considering the number of PDF publishers out there now since I've completely banned all non-Paizo material from my Pathfinder game for exactly that reason.

Having OGL or something similar is a good thing. It allows for a lot more options to be out there and it gives a good way for more established companies to recognize talent, the way that a lot of video game companies use the modding community as a way to scout talent. But it should not be used as a crutch by WotC for game design. "Oh, we don't need to include this class/race/whatever because some third party group will do it" is not going to cut it. We should hold them to a higher standard than that.

 

[Gryph]

To me, it's about giving people what they want. People read LotR and want to play a ranger. It's iconic. People have ideas about it. They don't need to be multiclassing fighter, rogue, and druid to get what they want.

The paladin is more of a problem because it doesn't map well to anything outside of D&D; it's strictly a D&D-ism, and a niche within that. (Which is why I would replace it with a knight/cavalier/champion/etc., something that accomplishes more in terms of representing a broad archetype).

Paladin as an archteype matches up very well to the Arthurian knights of the Grail cycle, Galahad, Percival, etc. The older mechanics for losing Paladinhood and becoming a fighter when you transgress were very evocative of the Lancelot and Gwenivere story.

Later editions that have moved Paladin towards a generic "Diety's Warrior" are more of a generic D&Dism.

I think if you try to broaden the concept of niche classes like Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian and Assassin you create the very problems that spawn this kind of thread. A broad definition of Paladin is going to overlap with Fighter and Cleric and then players will rightly question whether it needs to exist as a separate class.

I believe the niche classes are better game design if they appeal to a smaller pool of the player base looking for a well defined play experience.

 

[Mallus]

Because the discussion needs to take place over what is and is not a class in Next.

Yes. It does.

"That class has always been part of the game!" shouldn't be argument enough, and neither should "fanboys will throw a fit if it's not included!" The former doesn't apply because it's a new edition and there are changes in every edition of the game (the assassin class, for example), and the latter is simply a business argument rather than a game design argument.

This isn't a game design argument. It's a popularity contest. Paladins are popular. Iconic, even. Hell, their stuff is even iconic, cf. sword +5, holy avenger.

In order for Next to be the best overall version of D&D, there has to be a clear and concise guideline for game design.

"Leave in the stuff a lot of people like" is a useful guideline.

 

[Fifth Element]

You say this as if it's a tautology, but I'm unconvinced. There isn't some magical number of classes that is the logically perfect number of classes. If a particular DM feels like they must draw a line, then more power to them, and they should. But WotC doesn't need to universally draw that line for everyone.

If you want to get really pedantic, I'll say that WotC absolutely does need to draw the line somewhere, or else the player's handbook would be infinitely large.

But I just picked some ridiculously high number of classes that D&D has never had in its core game, for purposes of illustration.

So it's not about a need. It's about a want.

No kidding. The specific discussion is not "able to play a paladin or not", but "how exactly are you able to play a paladin." Which was my point, that you were objection to an argument not being made. You want to make sure people can play a paladin if they want to. Which they can, even if it's mechanically a theme instead of a class.

Some people don't want it as a unique class. And they don't have to have it if they don't want it. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't have it, though.

This is what you're missing. The discussion is about whether the paladin should be a class or a theme, not whether it should be in the game at all.

Since WotC must necessarily draw arbitrary lines at what should and should not be a class in the PHB (because the book has a page count), then it's a discussion that must be had.

 

[Skyscraper]

Haven't read the entire thread, but...

Rangers and paladins could (and will hopefully) have unique features too, not accessible by theme or background.

 

[Abstruse]

This isn't a game design argument. It's a popularity contest. Paladins are popular. Iconic, even. Hell, their stuff is even iconic, cf. sword +5, holy avenger.

"Leave in the stuff a lot of people like" is a useful guideline.

There are more World of Warcraft players than there are D&D players. Therefore D&D should be like World of Warcraft. According to a lot of 4e haters, that's exactly what WotC did and it got them a horrible backlash. That's a big complaint with comic book movies that are in production right now, "Dark Knight was popular, so we need to do grim and gritty versions of all the characters!" Great if you're talking about characters suited to that, horrible if it's Superman or Deadpool.

Winning a popularity contest does not make something a good design choice. And if that was all they needed to design the new edition, they wouldn't be bothering with playtests. It'd just be a series of polls saying "Which is your favorite class?" "Which is your favorite race?" "Which is your favorite weapon?" and they'd just put whatever scored highest in the game. Hope you like dragonborns and vampires.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The discussion is about whether the paladin should be a class or a theme, not whether it should be in the game at all.

Since WotC must necessarily draw arbitrary lines at what should and should not be a class in the PHB (because the book has a page count), then it's a discussion that must be had.

"It has been a class in the first PHB of an edition," and "There is a demand for it," is enough criteria, I think, for WotC to make it a class in the first PHB of 5e, given the goal of unification and the idea of modular inclusiveness.

And the fact that the line between what's a class and what's something else is fundamentally arbitrary.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Once you go with a Class-system, it's so arbitrary, if we went with: Priest, Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, it would be a different story.

 

[Deadboy]

The distinction between what is a class and what is not a class is definitely arbitrary; most of these classes we're discussing date back to the earliest editions of D&D, when arbitrary game design was the only type of RPG design there was. No one thought twice about having very broad classes like Fighter, Thief, Magic-User and Cleric and then very focused classes like Paladin, Ranger and Thief-Acrobat. At the time that was acknowledged to some extent by the fact that the focused classes were subclasses, but they were still, functionally, their own thing.

So any further decision we make about what is class and what is theme is almost by definition arbitrary unless we literally decide to boil the classes down to just the big four, plus maybe Psion and Druid. However, since D&D is, and always has been, a class-based system, it makes more sense to have a larger number of classes to create more mechanical distinction outside of feat choices. I would actually argue it makes more sense to take the big four and break them down into smaller, more focused classes so that all classes are focused than it does to fold the focused classes into the broad classes. Classes are popular, classes create more mechanical distinction, therefore dividing concepts by class is a good thing.

To an extent, this has already happened over the past two editions, with the Mage being divided into the Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock and Beguiler in 3.x and with the Druid in 4e with the Warden, Druid and Shaman. So breaking the Rogue and Fighter down as well has some precedent to it.

However, as arbitrary as the decisions have been in the past, I think we all know that legacy is going to be THE deciding factor. WotC already decided to depart from the commonly accepted ways of doing D&D last edition and that created the edition wars. So WotC is going to be very, very, very careful about how it departs from the old ways with the new edition. And getting rid of fan favorite classes is definitely NOT going to be on their agenda. So we will definitely still have the Paladin and Ranger as classes; the Avenger may become a theme, but that's only because, no matter the fact that it was a popular choice in 4e, it only has one edition behind it and thus has no strong legacy overall in D&D.