D&D 5E Should Ranger/Paladin get 1 level 1 spellslot at 1st level?

[FrogReaver]

Should Ranger/Paladin get 1 level 1 spell at 1st level?

 

[FrogReaver]

Clarification: Speaking primarily about the PHB version of them.

 

[GX.Sigma]

No. They get spellcasting at level 2.

 

[Lanliss]

Depends on if you mean "Should" or "Do". By RAW, No, they get it at 2nd level. If you are talking about "should", that will be subjective, and a decision for you or whoever happens to be DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Depends on if you mean "Should" or "Do". By RAW, No, they get it at 2nd level. If you are talking about "should", that will be subjective, and a decision for you or whoever happens to be DM.

Saying "should" was no mistake. I'm all for that subjective conversation. Thus this thread.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. They get spellcasting at level 2.

Not if the DM rules otherwise

Should the DM rule otherwise?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Not if the DM rules otherwise

Should the DM rule otherwise?

As a DM, I wouldn't. A 1st-level Ranger or Paladin would be too much stronger than a 1st-level Fighter if they got all their class features and spellcasting.

 

[FrogReaver]

As a DM, I wouldn't. A 1st-level Ranger or Paladin would be too much stronger than a 1st-level Fighter if they got all their class features and spellcasting.

Not seeing it. I suppose it depends on how much you value divine sense and favored enemy/natural explorer at level 1.

During a whole campaign I could make a case these are valuable abilities. IMO at level 1 they rarely see play.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm assuming that Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins are all balanced at 1st level. Giving some of them extra features would unbalance them.

Do you disagree with this assumption?

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm assuming that Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins are all balanced at 1st level. Giving some of them extra features would unbalance them.

Do you disagree with this assumption?

yes. IMO ranger and paladin are underpowered at level 1 compared to barbarian or fighter (at least in combat. nor do I believe their other level 1 abilities make up for that at level 1 in the other pillars)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not only do I not think they should get the spells at 1st, I don't think they should get them at 2nd, either. I don't think they should pick up spells until they choose their oath or archetype.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not only do I not think they should get the spells at 1st, I don't think they should get them at 2nd, either. I don't think they should pick up spells until they choose their oath or archetype.

Could one not just move their oath choice to level 1 and give no other benefits for that choice other than the standard ones starting at level 3?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Could one not just move their oath choice to level 1 and give no other benefits for that choice other than the standard ones starting at level 3?

I suppose one could, but I don't care for it on a thematic level. I like the idea of there being some apprentice levels, before the paladin and ranger fully come into their own.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose one could, but I don't care for it on a thematic level. I like the idea of there being some apprentice levels, before the paladin and ranger fully come into their own.

The same apply to clerics and wizards?

 

[Clancey]

As a DM and player, I think multi-classing is a big trade-off and a choice you make when you build a character. Since neither class gets a spell slot at 1st level, why should either class get one? If you want a spell slot at second level, choose one class until third level.

However, as in all things 5e, you are free to rule otherwise if you think it's good for your table. Wheedling the dm is an art !

 

[FrogReaver]

As a DM and player, I think multi-classing is a big trade-off and a choice you make when you build a character. Since neither class gets a spell slot at 1st level, why should either class get one? If you want a spell slot at second level, choose one class until third level.

However, as in all things 5e, you are free to rule otherwise if you think it's good for your table. Wheedling the dm is an art !

Not sure what multiclassing has to do with anything...

But the question you asked was if neither paladin or ranger got a spellslot at level 1 why should the other class get 1 and I would reply I think both classes should get 1.

I believe paladin and ranger abilities at level 1 are terrible (Excluding lay on hands). The figher, barbarian, rogue, monk, and any cleric subclass with heavy armor and martial weapon proficieies all outshine the ranger and paladin in combat at that level.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The same apply to clerics and wizards?

Clerics and wizards are defined by spellcasting. If you can't cast spells, you're not a wizard, full stop. The same isn't true of paladins and rangers.

I do wish the classes were more consistent in when they picked up their subclasses, and I might be okay with pre-subclass clerics and wizards only having cantrips. But that's both a different discussion and a much greater change to the system as written.

 

[Dualazi]

yes. IMO ranger and paladin are underpowered at level 1 compared to barbarian or fighter (at least in combat. nor do I believe their other level 1 abilities make up for that at level 1 in the other pillars)

I’d love to hear how, exactly, they are so underpowered. Aside from level 1 being incredibly short, as has been noted many times on the forums, the few gimmicks the other classes get aren’t exactly spammable. Most classes, in my experience, get by in the early levels with a lot of basic attacks/cantrips, and rangers aren’t any worse at those than any other class really.

Additionally, the other pillar abilities can’t be effectively evaluated in a vacuum, but neither should they be dismissed out of hand.

Not sure what multiclassing has to do with anything...

But the question you asked was if neither paladin or ranger got a spellslot at level 1 why should the other class get 1 and I would reply I think both classes should get 1.

I believe paladin and ranger abilities at level 1 are terrible (Excluding lay on hands). The figher, barbarian, rogue, monk, and any cleric subclass with heavy armor and martial weapon proficieies all outshine the ranger and paladin in combat at that level.

Multiclassing has to do with it because your fix has only bothered to consider the ranger in isolation, not the effects of being able to dip 1 into ranger for their spells.
You realize heavy armor means pretty much jack at level 1, right? A level 1 ranger can easily hit 15 AC with leather, and 17 with a shield, which is more than enough. You won’t be getting plate for a while, certainly not before spellcasting is up and running, which seems to be your area of fixation.

5e also prides itself on being approachable/easy to learn, which is probably another reason that these classes lack spellcasting at level, to make more classes that are easy entry points to the game for new players. I don’t agree with balancing a game around this idea, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think it was a consideration of the folks at Wizards.

To put it bluntly, among all the problems these classes might have, you picked one of the least relevant. They take place in a sliver of the game that’s occupied for the least amount of time, and there are many other improvements that could be made (see the multiple iterations of ranger) in lieu of what I consider a corner case, unless you and your group just continually hold level 1 grudge matches.

 

[Clancey]

Not sure what multiclassing has to do with anything...

But the question you asked was if neither paladin or ranger got a spellslot at level 1 why should the other class get 1 and I would reply I think both classes should get 1.

I believe paladin and ranger abilities at level 1 are terrible (Excluding lay on hands). The figher, barbarian, rogue, monk, and any cleric subclass with heavy armor and martial weapon proficieies all outshine the ranger and paladin in combat at that level.

My error - Thought you were building a multi-class Ranger/Paladin and wanted a spell slot for 2nd level.

Most classes have their ups and downs throughout every level. I think the Paladin becomes a much stronger class as you increase levels, certainly passing Fighters early on. I really don't know why Rangers don't get spells at first level, but I think the class would be just that much better it got cantrips as Druids do at first level or, you know, at all - then 1st level spells starting with 2nd level. I would also add fighting style at 1st - not sure why Rangers have to wait for that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Clerics and wizards are defined by spellcasting. If you can't cast spells, you're not a wizard, full stop. The same isn't true of paladins and rangers.

I do wish the classes were more consistent in when they picked up their subclasses, and I might be okay with pre-subclass clerics and wizards only having cantrips. But that's both a different discussion and a much greater change to the system as written.

Yea, much different discussion. Thanks for answering and sharing though. I'd never encountered that idea.

Personally I just wish all subclasses were pre-declared at level 1. Don't even have to receive benefits, just would help sometimes with fluff and such.

I'm really surprised they didn't go with exception based subclasses. Would have been more flexible IMO. For example:

On one page it would show: Here's the full level 1-20 progression of a fighter.
Subclass xyz
You no longer receive the normal level 3,7,11 features of the fighter.
Instead at level A you get blahblah
At level B you get blahblahblah
At level C you get blahblahblahblah

Something like that would have made subclass adding much easier IMO