Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
1. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. Balanced vs. "Unbalanced" classes
Starting in 3e, the Paladin and Ranger became "balanced" against the Fighter. As a result, they became specialized warriors. Racial (and for the Ranger, alignment) restrictions were removed as part of the racial balancing that replaced the old demi-human level limits as a balance mechanic.
Prior to 3e, the Paladin and Ranger were better than Fighters, restricted only by racial, alignment, code of conduct, and high stat requirements. The fighter had a slightly better multiple attack progression and better access to specialization, but overall the Paladin and Ranger were superior both in terms of passive and active ability options.
Personally, the 'unbalanced' 1e/2e Paladin and Ranger were fine with me, assuming that (a) reasonable character generation is used and (b) the class restrictions are enforced. If you have one exceptional ability score, placing it in Charisma (for a Paladin) forces you to sacrifice melee ability (discounting 4e for a moment), whereas the fighter just slaps that high score in Strength. Thus, the stat requirements essentially provide their own balance, assuming that the PCs are not swimming in 18s.
Flavor-wise, I also like the idea of these classes being "fighter-plus." I like that Launcelot is not less of a fighter simply because he is a Paladin.
B. Class, Sub-Class, Prestige Class, or Specialty
The other consideration whether the Paladin and Ranger are available classes at level one (as their own class or as a Fighter variant) or if they must be earned at a later level (as explored in 3e Unearthed Arcana, much like the 1e Bard). Under current 5e mechanics, "earning" Paladinhood/Rangerhood could be accomplished at mid-level (level 5/6, say) by spending a Fighting Style or acquiring a new Specialty.
C. Assumptions re: 5e Design Team
I'm going to assume that Paladin and Ranger will be designed as "balanced," separate, 3e/4e-style classes. I am admittedly using many 3e concepts.
2. PALADIN AND RANGER DESIGN CONCEPT UNDER CURRENT ASSUMPTIONS
A. Paladin
Key Abilities: Strength, Constitution, and Charisma (Ability Adjustment: +1 to Strength, Constitution, or Charisma)
Starting Hit Points/Hit Die: 1d10
Proficiencies: All weapons, armor, and shields
Suggested Backgrounds: Knight or Priest
Suggested Specialties: Acolyte, Guardian, Healer, Survivor
Hit Die and Weapon Attack Progression: As Fighter
Level Class Abilities
1 Detect Evil, Divine Power
2 Divine Grace
3 Divine Health
4 Divine Magic
5 Cure Disease, Mount
I would use the 3e Paladin abilities here, with a few tweaks:
* Divine Power is a mashup of Smite Evil and Lay on Hands. Essentially, the Paladin gets a pool of Divine Power equal to his class level x charisma modifier, and recharges between short rests using the 5e Hit Die mechanic. Divine Power can be used to add to hit and/or damage against foes (half-effect against non-evil foes), or as an action may be channeled into a touch to heal wounds or damage undead. Alternatively, Divine Power could be represented by a dice pool, but I personally prefer using Charisma as a measure of the Paladin's connection with his God or Higher Power.
* Divine Grace: +1 to all saves (+2 may be too high with flatter DCs in 5e)
* Divine Magic: Paladin gets access to truncated spell list (similar to 3e) that includes Turn Undead, with roughly half the spells/day, spell level, and Magical Attack progression of an equivalent level cleric. Paladin spell DCs are based on the Paladin's Charisma.
Discussion:
The Paladin loses the Fighter's Expertise and Fighting Style and in return gets some passive defensive abilities, utility abilities, some divine spellcasting, and offensive burst damage capability against evil foes. This seems a fair trade, particularly given that most Fighters will put their best statistic in Strength, providing an every-battle edge to the base Fighter. This preserves the Paladin as an evil-fighting specialist and defensive warrior.
B. Ranger
Key Abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom (may add +1 to any of these)
Starting Hit Points/Hit Die: d10
Proficiencies: All weapons, shields, light armor, medium armor
Suggested Backgrounds: Bounty Hunter, Commoner, Soldier, Spy
Suggested Specialties: Archer, Dual Wielder, Healer, Survivor, Jack-of-all-Trades
Hit Die and Weapon Attack Progression: as Fighter
Level Class Ability
1 Skill Mastery, Favored Enemy I, Survival
2 Wild Empathy
3 Endurance
4 Animal Companion, Divine Magic
5 Favored Enemy II
Ability Descriptions:
* Skill Mastery: As per 5e Rogue, but only +2 per skill
* Favored Enemy I: +1 to hit, +1d6 damage to one enemy type
* Favored Enemy II: add another favored enemy type, prior favored enemy increases to +2 to hit, +2d6 damage
* Survival: Gain the Survival skill. If your Background also grants Survival, you may choose another skill or take an additional +2 to any Survival skill check (which stacks with Skill Mastery)
* Wild Empathy: Gain the Animal Handling skill. If you already have Animal handling, you gain an additional +2 to any Animal Handling skill check (which stacks with Skill Mastery)
* Endurance: As per 3e, but a +2 bonus to stamina-related checks and saves
* Animal Companion: As per 3e
* Divine Magic: Ranger gets access to truncated druid-like spell list (similar to 3e), with roughly half the spells/day, spell level, and Magical Attack progression of an equivalent level cleric. Ranger spell DCs are based on the Ranger's Wisdom.
Discussion:
With the loss of Expertise and Fighting Style, the Ranger gains additional skills and skill effectiveness, minor spellcasting, an animal companion, and heightened effectiveness against favored enemies. This makes the 5e Ranger more of an asset during exploration phases of the game and a supplemental warrior in combat, depending on Specialty selected. The Ranger is harder to balance against the Fighter than the Paladin, as there are many non-combat Ranger abilities that simply have no Fighter counterpart.
I intentionally chose not to include 3e-flavor ranger fighting styles as (a) those are now replicated in Specialties and (b) they would raise Ranger combat ability to the level of a Fighter -- and beyond, against a favored enemy. Arguably, Expertise preserves the Fighter's edge on an every-fight basis, however. I can see this both ways, but giving Rangers Fighter-equivalent Fighting Styles would be overpowered -- clearly, Expertise is not as powerful on its own as the plethora of other Ranger abilities above.
3. CONCLUSION
I personally prefer an "unbalanced" Paladin and Ranger, with Fighter abilities plus other stuff and stat requirements (and possibly having them as 'prestige class'/specialty options not available at creation) but that appears unlikely based on current design assumptions. I hope you find my proposed 'balanced' 5e designs compelling.
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Personally, the 'unbalanced' 1e/2e Paladin and Ranger were fine with me, assuming that (a) reasonable character generation is used and (b) the class restrictions are enforced. If you have one exceptional ability score, placing it in Charisma (for a Paladin) forces you to sacrifice melee ability (discounting 4e for a moment), whereas the fighter just slaps that high score in Strength. Thus, the stat requirements essentially provide their own balance, assuming that the PCs are not swimming in 18s.
Consider this thought a level 1 paladin is a member of an organization they buy him his equipment.. but he tithes on his earnings ... however he also gains periodic blessings or boons. These boons and blessings are not free to an extent some are bound up in oaths sure but those oaths are often trivial (like Sampsons dont cut your hair) or CuhCulaines (dont eat dog) or even pretty normal to the character concept (like defend the innocent ummm duh says galahad) the real cost of them is tied up in attunement the keeping only so many items for himself is not an oath its actually a repercussion of his essense being tied up in boons. In effect the Paladin has a path defined by divine boons and blessings. One of them might be like Lancelots strength of 10 men and under the hood be remarkably like the girdle of giant strength.
He is still a fighter plus... and that plus is not something others dont get just a plus of a specific style or trope.
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
Personally, the 'unbalanced' 1e/2e Paladin and Ranger were fine with me, assuming that (a) reasonable character generation is used and (b) the class restrictions are enforced. If you have one exceptional ability score, placing it in Charisma (for a Paladin) forces you to sacrifice melee ability (discounting 4e for a moment), whereas the fighter just slaps that high score in Strength. Thus, the stat requirements essentially provide their own balance, assuming that the PCs are not swimming in 18s.
Consider this thought a level 1 paladin is a member of an organization they buy him his equipment.. but he tithes on his earnings ... however he also gains periodic blessings or boons. These boons and blessings are not free to an extent some are bound up in oaths sure but those oaths are often trivial (like Sampsons dont cut your hair) or CuhCulaines (dont eat dog) or even pretty normal to the character concept (like defend the innocent ummm duh says galahad) the real cost of them is tied up in attunement the keeping only so many items for himself is not an oath its actually a repercussion of his essense being tied up in boons. In effect the Paladin has a path defined by divine boons and blessings. One of them might be like Lancelots strength of 10 men and under the hood be remarkably like the girdle of giant strength.
He is still a fighter plus... and that plus is not something others dont get just a plus of a specific style or trope.
I'd be open to different boons as you suggest ... sort of like Paladin "domains," if you will. I was trying specifically to port over a 1e/3e Paladin to 5e, but as you point out there are different possible benefits of being a holy warrior and different game mechanics to deliver them. I also like your comment on attunement, which is a facet of 5e I didn't address in my OP re: traditional D&D Paladin wealth/item limits.
My point also was, simply, that I would support a "fighter-plus" design ethic with stat requirements, but I recognize that this is not the current design paradigm and that I am probably in the minority within the customer base.
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
From a design perspective the paladin is almost unplayable in game that doesn't focus on badguy smiting until level 5 when the mount starts stealing the show thanks to its higher strength, speed, natural attack count, and natural armor (using 3e as a guideline though I suppose horses in 5e may be less OP than in 3rd). Your primary offensive capabilities are worthless against a wide array of common foes and the paladin lacks any other interesting offensive options until spell casting kicks in.
However that's all forgivable because for some reason many people operate under the notion that paladins are supposed to be the worst class in the game for people who actually want to uphold justice.
I'm less forgiving of the attrociously outdated favored enemy ability and entirely too dangeorus animal companion write up on the ranger.
The orzel method for favored enemies is infinetely superior both from a design and story telling perspective than any amount of attack/damage bonus vs a specific group of enemies. This method requires a bit more work on the designer's end but essentially entails that each favored enemy option is represented by general abilities that can apply vs. anyone using the traditional tactics of the favored enemy. So a kobold hunter gains bonuses against traps and abilities dedicated to helping them against small agile foes who like to abuse a numbers advantage, while a drow slayer would become resistant to poison and learn tricks dedicated to dealing with drow ambush and raider tactics.
The 3e animal companion was one of the most problematic issues in the game specifically because it used stats designed for monsters and allowed easy access to a broad array of beasties with multiple natural attacks, natural armor, and insane physical ability scores.
Companion creatures need to be designed and written according to their own formulae, they can't outshine a player, but need to remain viable and useful at all levels. This is why the 4e method was to try (i said try) to make the animal companion powerful enough that they could justify using the PC's action count rather than running a gimped beast or completely throwing the action economy out the window. This didn't always work, but it's a lot better than the 3e approach of "don't even try to balance anything".
I know people don't believe me when I say this but: class balance is important not just to keep the various fanboys and girls of the various classes happy, but so that new players don't just look at the game and say "Meh, I can just set a mutants and masterminds game in the middle ages and I wont have to deal with these sloppy mechanics" or "Why would anyone ever play anything besides druids or wizards?" or "Wow that's just stupid, i don't want anything to do with this backarsewards game."
I got into dnd when 3rd edition was just coming out, and it was pretty much the only RPG the game stores in my area carried that didn't have a whitewolf sticker on it.
Nowadays though I see M&M, Dragon Age, and even the occasional Cthulhutech title, all competing for space in the rpg section. To say nothing of the alternative options found online such as Tephra, or d20 legend.
I love DnD, but I refuse to be blind to the flaws and sacred cows that inhabit the game. Even my precious 4e is far from perfect. If the game is to continue to be the flagship of the both the tabletop culture and industry it must adapt and strive to be better than it has been in the past. That means that actual thought and foresight must go into the game, and these write ups just don't show any.
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
Thank you for taking the time to reply. My writeup was an attempt at Paladin and Ranger based on my present understanding of the Designer's goals, although I have since learned that (per Mearls) companions may be dealt with in other ways.
RE: my Paladin, I agree that it is underpowered (offensively, anyway) to the Fighter in most encounters, but that was a deliberate trade-off in the interest of balance. The Paladin has a greater variety of combat actions and enhanced defensive/support abilities.
RE: my Ranger, I admit that I did not explore the companion issue at all. As far as favored enemy goes, I am intrigued by your enemy-specific benefits that apply globally. I like your suggestion tremendously and would appreciate a link to orzel.
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
That greater variety of combat actions doesn't actually kick in until level 4. BEcause even with smite and healing, you come out behind a fighter in total options of how to spend your round. IF you want a defensive focus that's fine, but try to make it more engaging and active, spamming normal attacks waiting around for someone to need a heal or someone with an evil alignment to pop up is boring. Link to the basis of the orzel method: community.wizards.com/orzel/blog/2012/06...
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
Thanks, Rampant. I should have read more threads before posting.
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Threads read isn't really the issue. Though it may have helped.
The real problem is that in 3e abilities oriented towards weapon combat were either boring, underpowered, or both (until To9S). So using 3e as the basis for any weapon oriented class is often gonna result in something pretty lame.
|
