A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
Similarly, I often see discussions on how ranger (and sometimes paladin), shouldn't be spellcasters, but pure martials, with some thematic abilities rather than spells.
Personally I love half casters, and feel they definitely have their place. So I always find it suprising how they seem to be often considered a redundant concept in game.
Back in AD&D paladins and rangers both could cast spells, iirc. I don’t see that changing and they do have a place in the game. Why some wanted them cut, I don’t know. Sure, you could do similar multiclassing but that is an optional rule (no multiclassing at my DM’s table, for instance). So you can’t build a class depending on an optional rule.
A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
Similarly, I often see discussions on how ranger (and sometimes paladin), shouldn't be spellcasters, but pure martials, with some thematic abilities rather than spells.
Personally I love half casters, and feel they definitely have their place. So I always find it suprising how they seem to be often considered a redundant concept in game.
I think the big problem with Rangers and Paladins (and Eldritch Knights) is that unlike Artificers (who are half-casters), Warlocks (who are a very distinct kind of caster that certainly isn't full), and Wizards (who are full casters), they have no way to resolve the fundamental disconnect between Extra Attack and getting progressively better at spells. Warlocks can opt out of EA entirely and both Artificers and Wizards only get EA from specific subclasses (and the Wizard with EA gets a solution for combining casting with attacking). If classes with EA had the ability to take some other upgrade instead, as Warlocks do, it would be easier to justify half caster status.
I think the Ranger could be better designed, or other classes redesigned, to let them fill their niche better. I don't know how they could do that, though. PHB Rangers are very thematic, but unless your DM is actively working to include your skills, they just don't naturally come up very often. For example, Ranger is great if you're actively tracking and hunting your favourite enemy, especially in your favoured terrain. That's very thematic, but...how often does that come up, really? Often you're in dungeons or just travelling. I've only had a situation cone up once where it was used, and to be honest, it didn't get the party anywhere that they weren't already going. I want to keep the Ranger, but most of the skills are either marginal or done just as well bu a different class with other advantages.
I don't really see a problem with them. They're kind of similar to the Ranger in that the Fighter fights better, and the Casters cast better, but they're still strong enough to be good - the Ranger just has too many areas that are duds to sit in that valley very well, while the Paladin does fine, in my opinion. I'm still in the early levels so flaws might become more apparent later.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The "right" way to fix Ranger: overhaul/refocus on the Exploration side of the game because that's where they are meant to shine. Show DMs how to make that happen beyond calling for Survival checks.
The easy way to fix Ranger: give them a direct spell slot > damage conversion akin to Divine Smite and Eldritch Smite.
I think Ranger could totally work as a full martial class with a Hunter's Mark style feature to scale their damage beyond Extra Attacks. The problem is that many of their abilities and features would overlap with existing spell effects. I get why they did it this way. Personally I think they're fine at this point (aside from concentration issues), but I think one of the above two changes would help with a lot of the gripes I see.
A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
I wouldn't cut them myself, but the reasoning itself at least makes some sense. Both of these classes come across as being a mix of two others to an extent. Most other classes don't, or much, much less so. If for some reason you don't like the ranger class, you can sort of justify doing away with it by pointing at multiclassing. It's harder to justify removing wizards, for instance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
I wouldn't cut them myself, but the reasoning itself at least makes some sense. Both of these classes come across as being a mix of two others to an extent. Most other classes don't, or much, much less so. If for some reason you don't like the ranger class, you can sort of justify doing away with it by pointing at multiclassing. It's harder to justify removing wizards, for instance.
Ranger and Paladin were originally invented to specifically be half Fighter and “half caster” (Druid and Cleric respectively), back when there was a difference between “multiclassing” and “dual classing” based on which races could do which and how they worked. (It was waaayy more difficult back then.) They we’re specifically designed to fill a niche that no longer exists, but now they have tenure so they’re here to stay.
Frankly, considering how S-Tier Paladins are, I’m surprised anyone would want to ditch them.
A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
Similarly, I often see discussions on how ranger (and sometimes paladin), shouldn't be spellcasters, but pure martials, with some thematic abilities rather than spells.
Personally I love half casters, and feel they definitely have their place. So I always find it suprising how they seem to be often considered a redundant concept in game.
Are you including Artificers as “½ casters” too? ‘Cause they’re one of my two favorite classes this edition.
I can 'sort of' see the arguement for Ranger though I wouldn't remove it. But paladin I feel really has an identity of its own beyond just being 'part fighter part cleric.' Their oaths, their auras, smites etc. Paladins and Clerics are both divine casters but they feel really distinct to me, even if you compare a more martial cleric to a paladin that likes to use their spell slots for things other than smites. I think something would definitely be lost if you took away paladin and just said 'multiclass fighter and cleric.'
I'm not as familiar with ranger mechanically beyond the first couple levels, but thematically I think they're distinct enough from druid as well that I think they still have a place as a class. They just didn't handle the the class very well in 5E at first pre Tashas.
I don't think that there are so much people who think that these classes should be cut so much as, if asked which classes to cut if you were forced, I think most people would settle on Ranger and Paladin, since they feel like the classes you could recreate through multiclassing if you were desperate.
Half-casters and half-casting are both fine. The people who want to cull half-casters are typically the ones who think that everything could be made a subclass of the four D&D Core Things - fighter, mage, thief, and cleric. I've seen more than one person argue that those four classes should be it in 5e and everything else should be a subclass. Paladin? Fighter subclass. Ranger? Also a fighter subclass. Sorcerer? Mage/wizard subclass. Druid? Cleric subclass. Artificer? Thief subclass. Everything players can do in the game would be restricted to a slight reflavoring of those four base classes, and anything that couldn't be achieved by said reflavoring would be considered something D&D didn't/shouldn't need to bother with.
Needless to say, a lot of other folks rather strongly disagree.
Yes they do i have place i think. I also much prefer having half casters that can cast early on than some that start spellcasting only at mid-level 9+ like in AD&D 2nd edition.
A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
I wouldn't cut them myself, but the reasoning itself at least makes some sense. Both of these classes come across as being a mix of two others to an extent. Most other classes don't, or much, much less so. If for some reason you don't like the ranger class, you can sort of justify doing away with it by pointing at multiclassing. It's harder to justify removing wizards, for instance.
Ranger and Paladin were originally invented to specifically be half Fighter and “half caster” (Druid and Cleric respectively), back when there was a difference between “multiclassing” and “dual classing” based on which races could do which and how they worked. (It was waaayy more difficult back then.) They we’re specifically designed to fill a niche that no longer exists, but now they have tenure so they’re here to stay.
Frankly, considering how S-Tier Paladins are, I’m surprised anyone would want to ditch them.
That's probably why most people saying so wanted to ditch them: some people are just unhappy at the idea that there are classes that aren't aggressively mediocre.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
..., asking which classes people would cut if they could...
I think the bigger issue is that more and more stuff keeps getting added.
Some subclasses like the original beast master might be removed or at least relegated to something like unearthed arcana.
I doubt they would 'remove' or shift any published stuff to UA, but I could see them redoing some of the more lackluster old subclasses the same way they touched up Ranger in Tashas.
I would cut Warlocks and Barbarians before Paladins and Rangers.
Back in 2e it always bugged me that there was no distinction between a “trained fighter” and a brutish type. I was very pleased when WotC added Barbarians in 3e. It felt like a “well finally” type of thing to me.
When they introduced Warlocks in (what 3.5 was it?), it instantly became my favorite class at the time just because they didn’t use the same traditional progression of spell slots as every other caster. I wouldn’t drop them, but I would switch them back to Int like they were intended to use.
Half-casters and half-casting are both fine. The people who want to cull half-casters are typically the ones who think that everything could be made a subclass of the four D&D Core Things - fighter, mage, thief, and cleric. I've seen more than one person argue that those four classes should be it in 5e and everything else should be a subclass. Paladin? Fighter subclass. Ranger? Also a fighter subclass. Sorcerer? Mage/wizard subclass. Druid? Cleric subclass. Artificer? Thief subclass. Everything players can do in the game would be restricted to a slight reflavoring of those four base classes, and anything that couldn't be achieved by said reflavoring would be considered something D&D didn't/shouldn't need to bother with.
Needless to say, a lot of other folks rather strongly disagree.
Oddly; that was my stance on how I thought 3e mismanaged the prestige classes and inherent (some might say forced) multi-classing design space.
My opinion of how 5e approaches the same subject is that it does so in a much more elegant manner. And my idea of the 4 base classes and everything else is a prestige tack-on was/is wrong headed and needlessly complex. 5e handles it just fine as is imo.
Third Edition's problem with prestige classes was that every single book and every single issue of Dragon Magazine needed to have a bunch more prestige classes and they obviously weren't playtesting or even really considering the balance on most of them. There were tons of prestige classes that made it to publication just to pad out page count.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But yeah it's going to be pretty obvious what my answer is here. Half casters are my favourite class type and I wish we had more of them. Bard should have been a half caster, and swordmage should have been a half caster full class.
Half casters have completely different spell lists to their full caster equivalent, resulting in a completely different playstyle than just multiclassing. It's one of my main issues with the eldritch knight. It uses the wizard list, which isn't designed for a martial, and the result is it doesn't feel like a blended magic warrior. Just a fighter with some wizard spells. Sure you could solve this by giving all the full casters tons of martial spells. But then those full casters are walking over martials roles even more than they already do. And pure casters need their 'good at everything' position pushed back on, not walked forward.
I do understand how people want paladin and ranger to be pure martials, as they have been at various points (if not in DnD, then in Pathfinder). Which leaves me wondering if there should be a pure martial ranger and paladin, and a half caster 'divine' (invoker? avenger? runepriest?) and 'primal' (warden? seeker? shaman?) class. Resulting in both groups having their preferred class playstyle represented.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A while ago, I made a thread on here out of curiosities sake, asking which classes people would cut if they could...
One thing which surprised me, was that ranger, and even paladin were some of the most commonly mentioned ones people would axe. With the reasoning being that they were unneeded and could be done as multiclassing and subclasses.
Similarly, I often see discussions on how ranger (and sometimes paladin), shouldn't be spellcasters, but pure martials, with some thematic abilities rather than spells.
Personally I love half casters, and feel they definitely have their place. So I always find it suprising how they seem to be often considered a redundant concept in game.
Back in AD&D paladins and rangers both could cast spells, iirc. I don’t see that changing and they do have a place in the game. Why some wanted them cut, I don’t know. Sure, you could do similar multiclassing but that is an optional rule (no multiclassing at my DM’s table, for instance). So you can’t build a class depending on an optional rule.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think the big problem with Rangers and Paladins (and Eldritch Knights) is that unlike Artificers (who are half-casters), Warlocks (who are a very distinct kind of caster that certainly isn't full), and Wizards (who are full casters), they have no way to resolve the fundamental disconnect between Extra Attack and getting progressively better at spells. Warlocks can opt out of EA entirely and both Artificers and Wizards only get EA from specific subclasses (and the Wizard with EA gets a solution for combining casting with attacking). If classes with EA had the ability to take some other upgrade instead, as Warlocks do, it would be easier to justify half caster status.
I think the Ranger could be better designed, or other classes redesigned, to let them fill their niche better. I don't know how they could do that, though. PHB Rangers are very thematic, but unless your DM is actively working to include your skills, they just don't naturally come up very often. For example, Ranger is great if you're actively tracking and hunting your favourite enemy, especially in your favoured terrain. That's very thematic, but...how often does that come up, really? Often you're in dungeons or just travelling. I've only had a situation cone up once where it was used, and to be honest, it didn't get the party anywhere that they weren't already going. I want to keep the Ranger, but most of the skills are either marginal or done just as well bu a different class with other advantages.
I don't really see a problem with them. They're kind of similar to the Ranger in that the Fighter fights better, and the Casters cast better, but they're still strong enough to be good - the Ranger just has too many areas that are duds to sit in that valley very well, while the Paladin does fine, in my opinion. I'm still in the early levels so flaws might become more apparent later.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The "right" way to fix Ranger: overhaul/refocus on the Exploration side of the game because that's where they are meant to shine. Show DMs how to make that happen beyond calling for Survival checks.
The easy way to fix Ranger: give them a direct spell slot > damage conversion akin to Divine Smite and Eldritch Smite.
I think Ranger could totally work as a full martial class with a Hunter's Mark style feature to scale their damage beyond Extra Attacks. The problem is that many of their abilities and features would overlap with existing spell effects. I get why they did it this way. Personally I think they're fine at this point (aside from concentration issues), but I think one of the above two changes would help with a lot of the gripes I see.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I wouldn't cut them myself, but the reasoning itself at least makes some sense. Both of these classes come across as being a mix of two others to an extent. Most other classes don't, or much, much less so. If for some reason you don't like the ranger class, you can sort of justify doing away with it by pointing at multiclassing. It's harder to justify removing wizards, for instance.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ranger and Paladin were originally invented to specifically be half Fighter and “half caster” (Druid and Cleric respectively), back when there was a difference between “multiclassing” and “dual classing” based on which races could do which and how they worked. (It was waaayy more difficult back then.) They we’re specifically designed to fill a niche that no longer exists, but now they have tenure so they’re here to stay.
Frankly, considering how S-Tier Paladins are, I’m surprised anyone would want to ditch them.
Are you including Artificers as “½ casters” too? ‘Cause they’re one of my two favorite classes this edition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I can 'sort of' see the arguement for Ranger though I wouldn't remove it. But paladin I feel really has an identity of its own beyond just being 'part fighter part cleric.' Their oaths, their auras, smites etc. Paladins and Clerics are both divine casters but they feel really distinct to me, even if you compare a more martial cleric to a paladin that likes to use their spell slots for things other than smites. I think something would definitely be lost if you took away paladin and just said 'multiclass fighter and cleric.'
I'm not as familiar with ranger mechanically beyond the first couple levels, but thematically I think they're distinct enough from druid as well that I think they still have a place as a class. They just didn't handle the the class very well in 5E at first pre Tashas.
I don't think that there are so much people who think that these classes should be cut so much as, if asked which classes to cut if you were forced, I think most people would settle on Ranger and Paladin, since they feel like the classes you could recreate through multiclassing if you were desperate.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Half-casters and half-casting are both fine. The people who want to cull half-casters are typically the ones who think that everything could be made a subclass of the four D&D Core Things - fighter, mage, thief, and cleric. I've seen more than one person argue that those four classes should be it in 5e and everything else should be a subclass. Paladin? Fighter subclass. Ranger? Also a fighter subclass. Sorcerer? Mage/wizard subclass. Druid? Cleric subclass. Artificer? Thief subclass. Everything players can do in the game would be restricted to a slight reflavoring of those four base classes, and anything that couldn't be achieved by said reflavoring would be considered something D&D didn't/shouldn't need to bother with.
Needless to say, a lot of other folks rather strongly disagree.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yes they do i have place i think. I also much prefer having half casters that can cast early on than some that start spellcasting only at mid-level 9+ like in AD&D 2nd edition.
I think the bigger issue is that more and more stuff keeps getting added.
Some subclasses like the original beast master might be removed or at least relegated to something like unearthed arcana.
That's probably why most people saying so wanted to ditch them: some people are just unhappy at the idea that there are classes that aren't aggressively mediocre.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I doubt they would 'remove' or shift any published stuff to UA, but I could see them redoing some of the more lackluster old subclasses the same way they touched up Ranger in Tashas.
I think more people would say that not enough classes and subclasses have been added. (Or, at least, not the right subclasses for the right classes.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would cut Warlocks and Barbarians before Paladins and Rangers.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Back in 2e it always bugged me that there was no distinction between a “trained fighter” and a brutish type. I was very pleased when WotC added Barbarians in 3e. It felt like a “well finally” type of thing to me.
When they introduced Warlocks in (what 3.5 was it?), it instantly became my favorite class at the time just because they didn’t use the same traditional progression of spell slots as every other caster. I wouldn’t drop them, but I would switch them back to Int like they were intended to use.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oddly; that was my stance on how I thought 3e mismanaged the prestige classes and inherent (some might say forced) multi-classing design space.
My opinion of how 5e approaches the same subject is that it does so in a much more elegant manner. And my idea of the 4 base classes and everything else is a prestige tack-on was/is wrong headed and needlessly complex. 5e handles it just fine as is imo.
Third Edition's problem with prestige classes was that every single book and every single issue of Dragon Magazine needed to have a bunch more prestige classes and they obviously weren't playtesting or even really considering the balance on most of them. There were tons of prestige classes that made it to publication just to pad out page count.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well the op definitely needs quotation marks, considering I made the original thread on reddit...
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/q0fma7/do_half_casters_have_a_place_in_dnd/
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/o5lbe5/if_you_could_remove_classes_which_ones_would_you/
But yeah it's going to be pretty obvious what my answer is here. Half casters are my favourite class type and I wish we had more of them. Bard should have been a half caster, and swordmage should have been a half caster full class.
Half casters have completely different spell lists to their full caster equivalent, resulting in a completely different playstyle than just multiclassing. It's one of my main issues with the eldritch knight. It uses the wizard list, which isn't designed for a martial, and the result is it doesn't feel like a blended magic warrior. Just a fighter with some wizard spells. Sure you could solve this by giving all the full casters tons of martial spells. But then those full casters are walking over martials roles even more than they already do. And pure casters need their 'good at everything' position pushed back on, not walked forward.
I do understand how people want paladin and ranger to be pure martials, as they have been at various points (if not in DnD, then in Pathfinder). Which leaves me wondering if there should be a pure martial ranger and paladin, and a half caster 'divine' (invoker? avenger? runepriest?) and 'primal' (warden? seeker? shaman?) class. Resulting in both groups having their preferred class playstyle represented.