Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8090379" data-attributes="member: 6987520">But that is because the legacy of Paladin and Ranger changed over editions. The original Paladin in AD&amp;D didn't get cleric spells until level 9. The original Ranger got Druid spells starting at 8th level and Magic-User spells at level 9. They were Fighter subclasses--primarily fighters with some spell and/or magical abilities.So, like the original Paladin and Ranger, the EK is a fighter who can cast some spells...Even if you look at them now, they (Paladins and Rangers) are not even mostly on equal terms in how well they fight and how well they cast spells. They fight more or less as good as the fighter, but are NO WHERE near as good at casting as the Cleric or Druid.But, when 3E came out, they carried over the Paladin and Ranger, but since there was never a Fighter subclass in AD&amp;D which focused on the magic-user spells (the Ranger barely touched on them, only getting 2nd level spells), there was nothing to bring over.I find it a bit funny that the EK is considered a 1/3 caster when they get 4th level spells, closer to being a half-caster IMO really. Anyway, I've never found the Paladin subclasses compelling at all and neither has anyone in our groups. I made up a homebrew subclass for it just to give us one people actually found some interest in. The Ranger's lack of coherent identity has led it to be considered one of the worse classes (for design, that is) in 5E.I still say both Paladin and Ranger (along with with the EK) could have been returned to subclasses of the Fighter and worked well. Then you would have your gish for arcane, divine, and primal on an equal footing. I won't be surprised to see a full arcane gish class someday, but it really needs to be unique for me to feel it is justified...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8090379, member: 6987520"] But that is because the legacy of Paladin and Ranger changed over editions. The original Paladin in AD&D didn't get cleric spells until level 9. The original Ranger got Druid spells starting at 8th level and Magic-User spells at level 9. They [I]were[/I] Fighter subclasses--primarily fighters with some spell and/or magical abilities. So, like the original Paladin and Ranger, the EK is a fighter who can cast some spells... Even if you look at them now, they (Paladins and Rangers) are not even mostly on equal terms in how well they fight and how well they cast spells. They [I]fight[/I] more or less as good as the fighter, but are [I]NO WHERE[/I] near as good at casting as the Cleric or Druid. But, when 3E came out, they carried over the Paladin and Ranger, but since there was never a Fighter subclass in AD&D which focused on the magic-user spells (the Ranger barely touched on them, only getting 2nd level spells), there was nothing to bring over. I find it a bit funny that the EK is considered a 1/3 caster when they get 4th level spells, closer to being a half-caster IMO really. Anyway, I've never found the Paladin subclasses compelling at all and neither has [I]anyone[/I] in our groups. I made up a homebrew subclass for it just to give us one people actually found some interest in. The Ranger's lack of coherent identity has led it to be considered one of the worse classes (for design, that is) in 5E. I still say both Paladin and Ranger (along with with the EK) could have been returned to subclasses of the Fighter and worked well. Then you would have your gish for arcane, divine, and primal on an equal footing. I won't be surprised to see a full arcane gish class someday, but it [I]really [/I]needs to be unique for me to feel it is justified... [/QUOTE]

Verification