A pair o' polls on Partial Casters (Rangers and Paladins)





When do you think Paladins and Rangers should get actual spells?
1st level? Almost like 4e.
About 5th level? Like 3rd edition?
or later like eariler editions?

I personally like about 4-6th level.

It keeps them "mundane" at low level but creates that semi-magical feeling. And it lets you fiddle with spell levels when you scrunch up the range. Cure Mass Wounds level 4 spell for Pallies?

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Oof.  Those are extremely hard for me to answer, due to there being some unknowns.  To me, most importantly, will rangers and paladins be getting martial dice and/or maneuvers?  Secondly, I'd like to know what the designers have in mind for the "role" of these classes.  If they are a hybrids in the purest sense of word, then they should have spells at 1st level.  If they're martial primarily and magical as an afterthought, then 4th or 5th level sounds about right to me.

What I'd really like to know, is what Wizards of the Coast thinks a play character is capable of by level, which should aid in balancing classes appropriately.

Not to blow you off on the poll or anything, Orzel, but I can't accurately answer these questions for you.  However, if certain martial types will never, ever get magic in their career, then I'd go with about 5th level for the hybrids, provided their martial prowess is less than, say, a fighter.  I'll vote that  to reflect accordingly.
I view the paladin as a cleric, with a specialization in fighter to protect the church. Since the spells granted to them is based on good favor with a divine force, then it makes sense to me that they would get spells sooner in their career, although limited in comparison to a cleric.

For the ranger, I view them as a rogue, with a specialization in survival, so similar to skill tricks a ranger would have survival tactics and some of these at higher level may appear to be magical. If they were to gain spells, it would be in the form of boons granted by woodland creatures, so they would not be gained until higher levels once they have proven their loyalty. I am sure an equivalent could be chosen for an urban setting, or even for settings like underground.
No options between 1st and fifth level?


Perhaps at least make it 'about first level' rather than exactly first level - after all, the others are, roughly speaking, ranges.

For example - the Cleric 'once upon a time' didn't get spells until second level.


Regardless - I'd vote for 'around 1st level' - but far fewer of them at any level than a dedicated caster.


It also depends on what other abilities they have.  What, aside from the ability to cast spells, sets them apart from the FIghter?  If spells are a big part of that - they need to get them at 1st level.  If they have a lot of cool, iconic, non-spell powers to set them apart (and hopefully they do) - they can put off spells for several levels.

What worries me more is that the spells retain relevance.  They can't go the route of slow progression - because spell slot rather than caster level is what determines the usefulness/ power of spells, and if they are going to have spells, those spells need to be relevant at the charcters level.  12th level rangers casting 2nd levels spells aren't going to cut it.


I'd almost rather see the ranger, at least, get a bunch of rituals rather than load up on spells.  But then again we haven't seen a druid spell list so I'm not sure what spells he will have anyway.  

Carl
I'd rather both of them had spells as a possible build / variant class feature, as in "If you want to cast spells, you can trade your ____ feature for the ability to...". Then, those who prefer a more martial Ranger or Pally can have them, and those who prefer the mystic version are also happy.

For the version with spells, I'd prefer if they started casting them at 1st level. If you want a magic-feeling R or P, there should be no need to wait for 5 or more levels before you can get it.

EDIT: Yeah, forgot to add, the semi-spellcaster version of these classes should not have as many daily spells as the Cleric or Druid, but the spells should remain relevant at all levels. One of the things that I hated the most in 3e was when I had my 20th-level ranger, I simply ignored all his spells altogether, because not a single one of them reeeeally contributed to the party.
@Ladybackwell

Yes it is hard to vote on this poll without knowing the vision for the classes mechanically.

Vote based on your visions of the classes.

If you see paladins as magical from day one, vote 1st level. If you see paladins as most martial with a few boons and gifts who eventually through heavy championing gains the ability to cast minor magic, choose something later. If you see rangers as a martial druid, feel free to pick 1st level. If you think 3e and 2e had it right for rangers with a fighter/rogue/druid "does what he has to do" guy, pick 5th level. If you see either with a mix of maneuvers, skill tricks, and spells (maybe one of each at level 5), pick option2. If you want purely martial or nonspellcaster rangers and paladins as a default with an option for magic, pick no spells or the level you think that spellcasting option should be available.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The question is nearly unanswerable but I finally went for 5th as a sorta default. In Next though you can make a good case for no spells at all.

The thing is, neither of these classes need spells if they have enough other options, and depending on what direction they go with the classes mechanically it may not make sense. Paladin obviously need divine magical power, but could easily replace spells with divine magic maneuvers, the way Monks have some maneuvers that push well into the magical range. Rangers have less need for magic all together, and depending on which direction they push the class conceptually and mechanically it may make no sense. If they push the natural environment abilities so that Rangers get a decent spread of class related non-magical powers, they can get buy with just a range of maneuvers to give them something to do in combat. If they push something closer to a natural mystic warrior concept, then some spell casting makes sense.
If i want a fighter with cleric spells i'll do fighter/cleric.

Paladin should come with fresh mechanics (aura's), and not simply be a hybrid.

Same with the ranger.  New stuff >>> rehash. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I want the paladin and ranger to be magical but I voted no on spells.

Give the ranger magical strikes ala the 4e seeker and the paladin magical smites like the 4e paladin. Don't be lazy and give them cleric/Druid spells. We can multiclass fighter Druid or fighter cleric for a spellcaster. Make the paladin and ranger unique.
I could see giving rangers and paladins access to primal and divine "maneuvers" instead of spells. Would give a much more martial flavor, which is very appropriate.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I would like them to start with a cantrip and pick up a few more as they go.  But not a spell progression.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

At very least, they should get their own spells.  Like the monk and fighter have their own manuver list.  With only some that overlap.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I never liked Rangers casting spells, so 'no spells'.

The Paladin is just a cleric with heavier armor and bigger weapons, so '1st level.'
One of my payers prefers a paladin, since 5e does not have one yet - other than the proposed classes on this forum - What I have done is modify the fighter class with the differant specials being taken from the 1e paladin and alowing access to them at the appropiate level.   Rangers on the other hand - to me - is a protector of nature, kinda of like a druid, tho more militaristic. 
Ideally, rangers shouldn't have spellcasting by default. I'm very okay with rangers having uncanny ability in terms of tracking, exploration, survival, etc., but overt hocus-pocus is miles away from what's normal for the archetype. I always just kind of assumed that rangers had spellcasting only because that was, a million years ago, the cleanest or most obvious way to implement a fairly large selection of special abilities, but then it kind of crept from there. I recognize that there's enough of a tradition there that it should maybe be an option, but it's a weird default. Many of the things that spells have historically let a ranger do - know direction, calm animals, pass without trace, etc. - should be things that rangers can do, but I'd much rather see them as things that rangers can do because they're uncannily good at that kind of thing, not because Yer A Wizard, Soveliss.

If rangers do have an actual spellcasting progression, I'd rather it be a slow build from level 1 than the sudden right turn at a later level that, in fact, Yer A Wizard.

I'd really like rangers to have some kind of strong central mechanic that makes them tick. Of every class that has ever appeared in a PHB1, they're far and away the least justified as a distinct class mechanically or flavorfully; we can at least fix the former.

I'm warmer on the idea of paladins having an actual spellcasting progression, although it might be cool to see if they can be done well without one. 3.5 paladins are weird because they have an N/Day resource (Smite) another N/Day resource (Lay on Hands), several supernatural casting abilities... and then a vancian spellcasting progression on top of all of that. Nothing wrong with that per se, and it works out fine in play, it's just kind of a pile of systems. Like rangers, I hope that paladins get a strong mechanical core that helps set them apart from fight-y clerics.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I'm very okay with rangers having uncanny ability in terms of tracking, exploration, survival, etc., but overt hocus-pocus is miles away from what's normal for the archetype.

I've always felt that divine magic in general has been pretty well distanced from overt hocus-pocus. There's a big difference between a wizard creating a handful of fire and throwing that such that it explodes, and a cleric holding up a holy symbol until the enemy spontaneously burst into flames. It's like the difference between creating a sword "out of thin air," and pulling a sword out of your hat - there should always be some room for plausible deniability when it comes to divine magic.

Some small number of exceptions do exist, of course, but it should be pretty easy to ensure that the ranged doesn't end up with any of those. And it should go without saying that Vancian-style magic makes very little sense for such things (as long as the system allows for possible alternatives).

I voted 1st level for both, because I see magical access as a defining trait of any class that can have it, and putting it off until later makes it feel like not your character until you get it. I hated that my theoretical favorite class in all of 3.5 was hampered by not gaining arcane access until level 5, or divine access until level 10.

The metagame is not the game.

I prefer my paladins magical from the start but I understand that many don't want their paladins to start as alignment hating, heavy armored, Jedi/Sith apprentices with shields.

And with rangers and magic, I see it as something as something they can pick up. Maybe they are friendly with a hermetic druid. Maybe they met a few fey or outsiders. Maybe they absorbed some latent primal energy. Maybe they stumbled into a fey/elemental plane on time too many. So I like it a bit delayed in access.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I voted no spells for both classes.

I don't really see spell casting fitting vision of a ranger, I see them as more of a scout, hunter or woodsman that is at home in nature. He might have a uncanny ability to scavenge herbs, train animals and hunt prey. His accomplishments would be exceptional, however not magical.

For paladins, I kind of would like to see them be all about the channeled divinities and auras. Paladins are hand of their gods and the their gods power flows out from them. Clerics instead cast spells called upon their gods blessings.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

I voted no spells for both, especially in light of 3e-style multiclassing being the goal with DDN.  I'm really not interested in classes that pre-blend other classes, when I have the option to blend those classes myself, to whatever degree I feel is proper.

I'd much rather have a Paladin and Ranger able to stand on their own, without spells.


That said (and voted), if they must have spells, I'd like them to (a) be optional (pleeeaaaaaase don't make me take spells), and (b) be available at 1st level (if I'm going to want spells, I'd like to be able to have them from the start).
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Frankly I'm tired of traditional casting, the vancian spell-slot system is dull in addition to being bad from a mechanical standpoint.

I'd like to see any supernatural elements of the classes woven into features like smiting or camoflauge. 
I voted none to both, I feel they should receive powers or spell-like abilities, not actual "casting" of spells. 

I've never seen the ranger as a spell caster, druid yes, but to me a ranger will always be a ranged fighter.  Some skills/powers/spell-like abilities to maybe tie a ranger into a nice fighter/druid cluster, I can live with.

Same with Paladin.  If I want a spell casting Paladin, I'll take the Reaper Cleric.

∴ "Virtus junxit, mors non separabit." 

I'm with Phobos.  Rangers and paladins can have magic or supernatural abilities, but they shouldn't "cast spells."  I've never like that idea.

The ranger should also have the option to go much more martial.  I like the ranger as a martial skirmisher, capable in melee and at range at the drop of a hat, but distinct from the rogue in that the ranger's skills focus more on exploiting the environment and a hunter's knowledge and insight of his/her opponents.  Alghout given the broadening of the rogue archetype in D&DN (especially through armor and weapon proficiencies), it's hard to justify that niche without some work.

Paladins will almost inevitably have some overtly supernatural abilities; otherwise they're just very devout fighters.  But spells?  Not necessary, and kind of lame IMO.  Give them something unique.
 

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

But how many "it's magical but it's not a spell" abilities will there be?

I'd hate for it to go the 4e route where every class and their "powers" is 10 pages each and you are forced to move stuff to the PHB2 and PHB3 to fit it all. Then iconic stuff get really released by popularity and Paladins of Freedom and Desert Rangers get shelved into 2016.
Personally, I am willing to suck up Rangers and Paladins having spells rather that giving them another unique thing and the classes split into 3 releases.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

But how many "it's magical but it's not a spell" abilities will there be? I'd hate for it to go the 4e route where every class and their "powers" is 10 pages each and you are forced to move stuff to the PHB2 and PHB3 to fit it all. Then iconic stuff get really released by popularity and Paladins of Freedom and Desert Rangers get shelved into 2016. Personally, I am willing to suck up Rangers and Paladins having spells rather that giving them another unique thing and the classes split into 3 releases.



But if all a ranger/paladin are are a fighter|(cleric or druid) hybrid then why should they even exist as a class. I mean in most editions of D&D you could pull of a better holy warrior by going cleric with a dash of fighter. Same with druids in regards to rangers. If the classes are going to be unique enough to justify having them exist at all, I would much rather them be a unique class with unique mechanics.

Otherwise, just lump them into their "superclass" as a build. Seriously, a war domain cleric does a pretty damn good representation of the paladin. A ranger could just be a subclass of druid. 
Well if you want to use the effect of a spell for the sake of expediency, that's fine, as long as it isn't treated like a spell.  I just don't think rangers and paladins should be "casting spells;" you can label them otherwise and have them activated in a different fashion while still referencing the mechanics of specific spells.

Then again, I don't think cleric should be "casting spells" either, but rather calling on their deities favor, "saying prayers" or what-have-you, but that's mostly flavor.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

I stopped playing rangers after a while because of the wait to get fairly subpar spells. Now, their spells need not be subpar this time around, but if I have to wait until level 5 to get any magic at all, I'll just play something else.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
But how many "it's magical but it's not a spell" abilities will there be?



Personally, these would be like the monk, you get certain ones at certain levels.  At the core, he's a fighter with a strong tie/divotion to a deity/cause.

∴ "Virtus junxit, mors non separabit." 

But how many "it's magical but it's not a spell" abilities will there be? I'd hate for it to go the 4e route where every class and their "powers" is 10 pages each and you are forced to move stuff to the PHB2 and PHB3 to fit it all. Then iconic stuff get really released by popularity and Paladins of Freedom and Desert Rangers get shelved into 2016. Personally, I am willing to suck up Rangers and Paladins having spells rather that giving them another unique thing and the classes split into 3 releases.


I think your confusing class mechanics with page formatting. All that will happen by changing an ability to a spell would be moving the text to a different located. It will take up just as much space in the spell section of the book as it will in the paladin section. Possibly more since it will have to have all the spell nomenclature tact to the beginning of each spell and the paladin spell list in the beginning of the spells section.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

But how many "it's magical but it's not a spell" abilities will there be?



Personally, these would be like the monk, you get certain ones at certain levels.  At the core, he's a fighter with a strong tie/divotion to a deity/cause.



Maybe.  That's a fluff consideration, though.
I think they should both get actual spells starting around 4-6. I also think they should both get martial damage dice, but not maneuvers (at least not as many as a Fighter). Rangers and Paladins should be able to fight as well as a Fighter but without the versatility a Fighter gets, and in exchange they have some magic and their unique class abilities (favored enemy, animal companion, lay on hands, detect evil, etc).

I say actual spells and not spell-like abilities because it would not really change anything except what the abilities are called, but it would necessitate a whole separate section of the book to describe their abilities when many of them probably do the same thing as spells in the Druid and Cleric spell lists.

Special abilities like lay on hands shouldn't function like spells, though, it should be something equivalent to a Cleric's channel divinity.
@Scaling

The issue with paladin/ranger spell scaling was due to them not having full caster status. Combine that with their casting stat being secondary, they could use offensive or defensive general spells at level appropriate strength. So the most useful spells were either instantaneous effects, effect that were caster level independent, effects that had easy targets or were narrow to balance power, or specifically tailored for the classes.

DDN makes spell strength based on the spell slot the spell is placed in. So level 2 spells would mostly be useless one their own at level 7. This would have to be fixed.

@Why spells

Well one benefit of these hybrids having spells is hat it would aid in modules. It would be easier to convert dailies to encounters or to spell powers or to recharge magic if they have an official known progression. Also it aves space. Give the ranger calm animals and the paladin bless rather than write a new "totally not a spell" thing for each iconic ranger and paladin thing.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I'm highly in favor of giving pastiche classes like ranger & paladin the option of going in several different directions.  Here's my proposal:

A 1st-level ranger starts off with good combat abilities and some basic, inherent mechanic that suits the basic ranger premise - I don't care what, but something significant-yet-modest.  At an early level - maybe 1st, maybe 3rd or 5th, whatever - the ranger can choose a path to branch into, whether spellcasting, a companion animal, martial enhancements, skill focus, or what-have-you.  At various points in the level progression, the ranger has the option to progress along an existing path or start a new one.  That way, players who want a simpler, focused ranger, and those who want a little of everything, can get what they want.

Ranger 6 (Scout/Archer build)
- Inherent Weapon Style (Ranged)
- Inherent Survival Talents
- Stage 2 Martial Focus

Ranger 9 (Mystic Warrior build)
- Inherent Weapon Style (Two-Weapon)
- Inherent Survival Talents
- Stage 2 Companion
- Stage 1 Spellcasting

Ranger 15 (Master Hunter build)
- Inherent Weapon Style (Ranged)
- Inherent Survival Talents
- Stage 2 Favored Enemy
- Stage 1 Martial Focus
- Stage 2 Skill Focus

The above are just ROUGH examples; the class-inherent traits, number and style of specialization options, etc. are all pulled outta my keister.

This kind of approach could work for paladins, druids, bards - any class with multiple areas of traditional expertise that people like to fight over.

Consider, discuss, tear apart as you see fit.
Sign In to post comments