Quote from: fearsomepirate;963891Paladins and Rangers have had spells since at least 1e, though. I suspect taking spells away from the Paladin would have caused as much hue and cry as leaving the half-orc out of the PHB did with 4e. Although making it and the Ranger sub-classes of Fighter would have been interesting.

I meant rather to have followed the fighter example.  Make the core Paladin and Ranger without spells--and thus the accompanying appropriate special abilities to compensate.  Then give one or two of the subclasses in each some spells to make the traditional version available.  No one is screaming that they can't have a regular fighter--or regular "thief" for that matter--since those subclasses are clear.  This would also have had the happy side effect of making the Ranger more varied and interesting, with more subclasses than it got.  The Paladin already isn't bad in that respect, at least.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;963892The Paladin already isn't bad in that respect, at least.

The Paladin, in general, seems to be both interesting and work well. If you had your heart set on a magic-free paladin, yes, it is a bad match up. About the only thing I dislike is how well it synergizes with half-elf and either warlock or sorcerer, making that the go-to martial "cheese" combo.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;963889It's the one thing that made me want to throw the book when 5E came out.  It was right there for the taking.  They even had the eldritch knight subclass to show them the way!

Doesn't make any sense, just don't use the class if doesn't fit your campaign. That should be obvious from the fact they released the basic set with only four classes with one sub class each and people were running campaigns with it. When it comes to D&D a class is a detail and not essential to how a edition plays.

This further reinforced by Adventures in Middle Earth which manages to impart a completely different feel by keeping the core mechanics but revamping the different classes.

Quote from: estar;963899Doesn't make any sense, just don't use the class if doesn't fit your campaign. That should be obvious from the fact they released the basic set with only four classes with one sub class each and people were running campaigns with it. When it comes to D&D a class is a detail and not essential to how a edition plays.

This further reinforced by Adventures in Middle Earth which manages to impart a completely different feel by keeping the core mechanics but revamping the different classes.

I can easily use or not use classes, with no angst whatsoever.  I'm more aggravated at the lost opportunity to get it right.  Given WotC's dissatisfaction with the Ranger, they at least seem to agree on that one.  The Paladin is more of a personal quirk, in that I think given the default Paladin spells overlaps too much with the Cleric, constraining both.

I'll probably eventually get around to writing my own version of the Ranger.  Wouldn't be the first time.  Just not a priority right now.

I actually don't see Paladin spells as a problem to be solved.

I think a major design goal of 5e was to feel more like a natural evolution of AD&D. A paladin that had non-spell, unique powers would have been interesting, but I don't think it would have been well-received, and thus not have been viewed as "getting it right." I don't actually see what the problem is to be solved, as you're the first person I've run into who thinks giving the paladin spells was a bad idea from 1e onward. I also don't see it as hindering the cleric in any way.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963901I actually don't see Paladin spells as a problem to be solved.

I think a major design goal of 5e was to feel more like a natural evolution of AD&D. A paladin that had non-spell, unique powers would have been interesting, but I don't think it would have been well-received, and thus not have been viewed as "getting it right." I don't actually see what the problem is to be solved, as you're the first person I've run into who thinks giving the paladin spells was a bad idea from 1e onward. I also don't see it as hindering the cleric in any way.

Well, the case for the Paladin not having spells is weaker than the case for the Ranger not having spells.  No disagreement there.  As to whether it was well received or not, that depends upon how good a job they did.  If they had made a good shot at taking spells out of both, stuck with the Ranger as more important, and then abandoned the Paladin effort as a bridge too far, I'd understand.  So some of my irritation about the Paladin is probably residual irritation against half-measures carried over from the Ranger.

In any case, had it been up to me, I'd probably have flipped the fighter script.  That is, the base Paladin would have had no spells, but then would have had 3-4 subclasses, with all but one getting spells.  On the Ranger, I'd have half or less of the subclasses having spells.  It's easier to add things with the subclasses than take them away.  Heck, if you really wanted to, there's no reason why the base Paladin couldn't have been really base, and then the subclasses particularly strong to compensate.  You can almost get to a Paladin without spells by having a character that just smites all the time (and not a bad option in some cases).  So again, missed opportunity more than grievous fault in the system.

I do suspect (as in, have no evidence, gut instinct, not ready to try to argue it) that the problem with the Ranger is less about class design and more about the problem with wilderness adventures, particularly since the 2E to 3E transition, and the whole "2-weapon fighting" dead-end.  That is, the reason they keep having trouble designing a good Ranger is that the underlying system doesn't really support the core "outdoor scout" as well as it should as an archetype.  That is why I'm in no hurry to mess with the class redesign yet--I think I'll go down the same rat hole that I went down trying to fix the 3E Ranger without touching the underlying system.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;963906Well, the case for the Paladin not having spells is weaker than the case for the Ranger not having spells.  No disagreement there. As to whether it was well received or not, that depends upon how good a job they did.  

"Whaddya mean the 4e Ranger's got no spells? The D&D ranger is supposed to be a hybrid fighter-druid, not some fucking dumbass Peter Jackson Legolas rip-off! I signed up to play D&D, not this stupid Lord of the Rings  anime fanwank casual World of Warcraft newb MMO video game bullshit."

*foams at mouth*
*plays Pathfinder*

There was quite a bit of nerd rage over the 4e Ranger.

QuoteI do suspect (as in, have no evidence, gut instinct, not ready to try to argue it) that the problem with the Ranger is less about class design and more about the problem with wilderness adventures, particularly since the 2E to 3E transition, and the whole "2-weapon fighting" dead-end.  That is, the reason they keep having trouble designing a good Ranger is that the underlying system doesn't really support the core "outdoor scout" as well as it should as an archetype.  That is why I'm in no hurry to mess with the class redesign yet--I think I'll go down the same rat hole that I went down trying to fix the 3E Ranger without touching the underlying system.

Currently running a wilderness sandbox with 2 rangers. I'm using Welsh Piper's rules for getting lost and making sure people track rations, and having a ranger in the party is practically a must. Two-weapon fighting also works fine in 5e, especially if you're going with DEX as your main fighting stat.

Whether two weapon fighting works or not is irrelevant to my point.  Tying it to the Ranger in particular is lame.  5E did at least solve that problem finally with the martial styles.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963891Paladins and Rangers have had spells since at least 1e, though. I suspect taking spells away from the Paladin would have caused as much hue and cry as leaving the half-orc out of the PHB did with 4e. Although making it and the Ranger sub-classes of Fighter would have been interesting.

1e Pals & Rangers got spells around Name/9th level and they were pretty trivial.
4e had a cool Martial-only Ranger.

Yeah, the spells were kind of weak, but they were part of the class. 3.0 made their spells better rather than dumping them completely, so that kind of solidified that dabbling in magic was core to those classes. Keep everything in perspective of time, too. 3rd edition is 17 years old. So I would say that it is well past too late to dump Ranger/Paladin casting without causing a tidal wave of butthurt to wash o'er our fruited plains.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;963900I can easily use or not use classes, with no angst whatsoever.  I'm more aggravated at the lost opportunity to get it right.

They got it right when they released the 5e SRD so you can fix it and share it with other. I am not being sarcastic. Every RPG represents a vision of a author or a committee of authors. The details of the individual classes pales beside the overall design of the system. Proficiency bonus, feats are truly optional, bounded accuracy and so forth and so on. Again classes are a detail like specific spells or magic items.

For example a fundamental consequences of D&D 5e's design that in order to make a class you need to provide elements to fill up 20 levels of progression. Compared to designing classes for a classic editions that is a significant difference when it comes to writing for 5e.  Another is the proficiency and bounded accuracy allows characters to be more or less equal in handling things outside of their class including combat if combat abilities are not part of the class. In that way it plays like OD&D core books do.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;963900Given WotC's dissatisfaction with the Ranger, they at least seem to agree on that one.  The Paladin is more of a personal quirk, in that I think given the default Paladin spells overlaps too much with the Cleric, constraining both.

Well with the ranger, it started out as a way of playing Aragon in D&D. It clearest in the Strategic Review article that originated the class and the AD&D 1st version isn't all that much different. It only when they tried to make it a forest warrior, and then later a two weapon fighter that things started going off the rails.

I would return the class to it Tolkien roots as a warrior Dunedain. Obviously can't use the IP of Middle Earth but the idea that an ancient semi magical culture of men that are heirs to a once mighty realm defending the frontier of the current civilization in partial secretly can be incorporated and it is a concept ripe for adventure. And it has more meat than a forest warrior or a two weapon fighter.

Every RPG system will have gaps or elements that are at variance with a referee's personal vision. I harp this to put out that this is only a problem if an individual thinks that the rules define one's campaign. If you look at the rules as a set of tools instead, then the problem largely goes away. Base most of the rules of a campaign around a single edition to save some time and work, but jettison the stuff that doesn't work and bolt on or create other stuff that does.

I know that, I don't have the time to spend to create ALL of the details of the 5th edition rules. As it turned out it took me nearly a decade to accumulate enough rules to make my own take on classic D&D just doing it in my hobby time. There is a lot of useful material in D&D 5e that not dependent on the paladin or any other class being just so.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;963910"Whaddya mean the 4e Ranger's got no spells? The D&D ranger is supposed to be a hybrid fighter-druid.

The D&D Ranger was supposed to allow a player to play Aragon. The reason the class had Magic user and cleric spells was to reflect the knowledge that the Numenoreans possessed over other men, and the connection to the "deities" of Middle Earth, the Valar. In AD&D 1st the cleric spells got changed into Druid spells.

The ranger first appeared in a article by Joe Fischer in Strategic Review #2

Quote from: estar;963921The D&D Ranger was supposed to allow a player to play Aragon. The reason the class had Magic user and cleric spells was to reflect the knowledge that the Numenoreans possessed over other men, and the connection to the "deities" of Middle Earth, the Valar. In AD&D 1st the cleric spells got changed into Druid spells.

The ranger first appeared in a article by Joe Fischer in Strategic Review #2

I am paraphrasing rage I encountered. Personally, I thought the 4e ranger was just fine because i had no preconception from earlier editions of what it should be like. I was vaguely aware that Neverwinter Nights and Planescape Torment were based on D&D, but that was about the extent of my D&D knowledge when we launched our first 4e campaign with little more than the books and the general sense that we should be having an adventure that involved murdering things in the books. Now that I'm more knowledgeable about various editions, it seems that much of the D&D HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS screaming I dealt with during the late 4e period was actually from 3.x fans who had only vaguest notion of what came before.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone that has had several requests through the years, maybe 5-7 total, to play what is essentially a ranger without spells.  I love the way 5E carved out "class" a mechanical widget and "subclass" as archetype.  Even if they didn't always use it that way.  Strikes a nice balance on an issue where different players have different takes.  I suppose another alternative, though, would be to do a "wilderness scout" fighter subclass.  Might be less trouble in the long run, though skills would be an odd fit.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;963935Might be less trouble in the long run, though skills would be an odd fit.

Honestly speaking, you can use a regular fighter subclass (probably a Dex-based build for med-light armor as well) and just give them the outlander background (and maybe additional appropriate skills through racial skill selection or the skilled feat).