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.
There has never been a pure martial Paladin in D&D. How would that even work? How would that be any different than just a fighter?
Rangers were pure martial in 3.5e (and maybe 4e?) but started off with both a bit of mage and a bit of druid magic way back when in 1e. 3.5e they were considered underpowered, so not sure who would be advocating for a return to that.
Spellcasting by any other name would spell as meta, lol.
I mean by that logic, you could say monk is a spellcaster too.
Is there the kind of martial/wizard hybrid that is typically what starters of threads like this really want? No. But there are obvious balancing reasons for that. Minimum for it to work in the way desired, they would likely have to go back to the buff stacking of previous editions.
I still don't understand why a martial/arcane caster hybrid is inherently unbalanced, but a martial/divine and martial/primal hybrids are not.
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.
There has never been a pure martial Paladin in D&D. How would that even work? How would that be any different than just a fighter?
Rangers were pure martial in 3.5e (and maybe 4e?) but started off with both a bit of mage and a bit of druid magic way back when in 1e. 3.5e they were considered underpowered, so not sure who would be advocating for a return to that.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook 2 had optional rules for paladins and rangers that did not have spellcasting ability. They gained other magical powers instead. Rangers were actually quite good under 3.5 rules, it was 3.0 where they were badly underpowered. And they didn't become purely martial until 4E.
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.
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.
With due respect, this is just saying 'overhaul/fix DM's.' Exploration and roles for Rangers is plot and environment dependent and short of somehow trying to force such games on people, no real answer there.
Rogues are a lot less useful in the wilderness away from population centres, locks, traps, etc.
I'm not advocating rigid exploration rules, and I'm not placing the blame on DMs. The DMG throws a bunch of exploration rules out there but it never gives any good examples of how they all fit together or how they might interact with the other two pillars or how different party compositions might have different options altogether. Although we are free to do so, it's not the DM's job to design how exploration challenges should work. We are not supposed to be game designers, that baseline info should be in the DMG. There are articles out on the internet from multiple different sources that do this sort of thing without imposing any new rules or restrictions. I have found them extremely helpful and think similar info should be included in the DMG. I didn't really think spending a bit more ink on how exploration fits into D&D would be considered a hot take.
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.
With due respect, this is just saying 'overhaul/fix DM's.' Exploration and roles for Rangers is plot and environment dependent and short of somehow trying to force such games on people, no real answer there.
Rogues are a lot less useful in the wilderness away from population centres, locks, traps, etc.
I'm not advocating rigid exploration rules, and I'm not placing the blame on DMs. The DMG throws a bunch of exploration rules out there but it never gives any good examples of how they all fit together or how they might interact with the other two pillars or how different party compositions might have different options altogether. Although we are free to do so, it's not the DM's job to design how exploration challenges should work. We are not supposed to be game designers, that baseline info should be in the DMG. There are articles out on the internet from multiple different sources that do this sort of thing without imposing any new rules or restrictions. I have found them extremely helpful and think similar info should be included in the DMG. I didn't really think spending a bit more ink on how exploration fits into D&D would be considered a hot take.
I have to second this. The DMG's rules aren't particularly interesting for rangers unless the DM makes a deliberate effort to think outside the box. Given the DCs the DMG suggests, most of the exploration tasks can be managed with a relatively decent chance of success if one or two characters have middling Wis/Int and Survival and/or Nature proficiency and aside from that there's always magic and bringing some useful equipment or even just rations. To top it off, when the DMG addresses environmental hazards and difficulties most of them are obstacles that can't be made easier to deal with by outdoorsy expertise. Those parts of the DMG are just one giant wasted opportunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It is true that DMs can fill in the gaps for things like exploration rules.
But that's true for literally everything. So I don't really see 'yeah this is lacking in the official rules but the DM can cover it' as much of a defense.
I am curious what a more fleshed out system for exploration might look like in 5E beyond just calling for situational checks like survival to follow tracks, nature to identify wildlife, athletics for crossing difficult terrain etc.
I hope that we do get a more comprehensive ruleset/guide for Exploration in the upcoming revised books. Better yet a book just on exploration that covers various terrains and how they might impact your adventures.
It is true that DMs can fill in the gaps for things like exploration rules.
But that's true for literally everything. So I don't really see 'yeah this is lacking in the official rules but the DM can cover it' as much of a defense.
I am curious what a more fleshed out system for exploration might look like in 5E beyond just calling for situational checks like survival to follow tracks, nature to identify wildlife, athletics for crossing difficult terrain etc.
Rangers could use their woodsy ways to make it easier for the party to cross difficult terrain or avoid penalties from extreme weather, for instance. But the problem isn't really a lack of rules, the problem starts with there being no suggestions or ideas or help for DMs to make exploration more interesting. If you're already a great DM you may not need all that much help with this (and there's plenty of non-official content out there too), but that is - or should be - the whole point of the DMG in the first place: to help DMs with running interesting and engaging adventures. If the book doesn't even try to do that, it's just 300 pages of irrelevance and futility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
There has never been a pure martial Paladin in D&D. How would that even work? How would that be any different than just a fighter?
Rangers were pure martial in 3.5e (and maybe 4e?) but started off with both a bit of mage and a bit of druid magic way back when in 1e. 3.5e they were considered underpowered, so not sure who would be advocating for a return to that.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook 2 had optional rules for paladins and rangers that did not have spellcasting ability. They gained other magical powers instead. Rangers were actually quite good under 3.5 rules, it was 3.0 where they were badly underpowered. And they didn't become purely martial until 4E.
For me, a pure martial paladin is basically a cavalier. A Knight in shining armor with a religious bent. Not saying the 5E cavalier fits that role, but that’s what I think of with a non-spellcasting paladin. Half casters are fine with me.
The D&D cartoon from the ‘80s had Erik the Cavalier. It was the snooty kid with the shield, not really a paladin (though at least a protector) and definitely not a mounted combatant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
There has never been a pure martial Paladin in D&D. How would that even work? How would that be any different than just a fighter?
Rangers were pure martial in 3.5e (and maybe 4e?) but started off with both a bit of mage and a bit of druid magic way back when in 1e. 3.5e they were considered underpowered, so not sure who would be advocating for a return to that.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook 2 had optional rules for paladins and rangers that did not have spellcasting ability. They gained other magical powers instead. Rangers were actually quite good under 3.5 rules, it was 3.0 where they were badly underpowered. And they didn't become purely martial until 4E.
For me, a pure martial paladin is basically a cavalier. A Knight in shining armor with a religious bent. Not saying the 5E cavalier fits that role, but that’s what I think of with a non-spellcasting paladin. Half casters are fine with me.
The Cavalier was also a class in the 3.5 PHB 2. It was intended as a pure martial replacement for paladins that was supposed to avoid the issues with the 3E Paladin's Code of Obstruction Conduct.
It failed at this because it had a code of conduct it was required to follow that was even more Lawful Stupid than the Paladin's.
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.
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 large issue with Rangers and Paladins (and Eldritch Knights) is that not normal for Artificers (who are half-casters), Warlocks (who are an exceptionally unmistakable sort of caster that unquestionably isn't full), and Wizards (who are full casters), they have no real way to determine the basic separate between Extra Attack and improving at spells. Warlocks can quit EA altogether and the two Artificers and Wizards just get EA from explicit subclasses (and the Wizard with EA gets an answer for joining projecting with assaulting). In the event that classes with EA been able to take another redesign all things being equal, as Warlocks do, it is simpler to legitimize half caster status.
I can’t speak to paladins and many of the other half casters as I don’t normally play them so I can’t really say how good or bad they are. Rangers are one one of my go to classes however. I have no interest in seeing it go away. The ranger’s problem is that (pre Tasha) they updated it somewhat but nerfed the PHB & DMG guides to exploration, travel and survival. Tasha solved some of this by replacing outdoor features with combat features. The real solution however is to repair the “third leg” by putting together examples of play and story showing how to make use of the ranger skills. However, I suspect that will never happen as WOtC probably sees their audience much like I do (yes I’m sure I’ll be hearing plenty of outrage about this so be it): relatively young (teens to early 30s), urban/suburban, video game focused, travel via plane with little or no outdoors experience or interest in gaining any. Now I know there are exceptions especially among the old timers here (40’s and up) and more experienced players and DMs (call it 20+ yrs). Outdoor travel, wilderness exploration in untamed but populated region, survival in environments as different as jungles, Arctic, high altitude, open plains, high deserts and low deserts, etc are hard to describe to those who haven’t been in them but entire adventures and campaigns can (and should) be done. But to do that you either have to have some experience with them or have to have good clear guidance on how to do them. The DMG doesn’t provide the later and too many of both generations don’t have the the former. So I doubt wizards will ever try.
The general issue with half casters is that, for a half-caster, spending your action to cast a spell is equivalent to saying "I wish to function as half my actual level this round". The bread and butter for a half-caster has to be things that synergize with their martial abilities. For example, the Paladin list is relatively good, because it has a bunch of bonus action spells (Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, Magic Weapon, Spirit Shroud, Holy Weapon) that directly enhance their primary shtick (there are also smite spells, but they mostly aren't more useful than just using the same slot for smite).
Ranger is pretty much "Oh look, more spell slots to cast Hunter's Mark". Which is an excellent spell, but might as well be a class feature and toss the spellcasting.
The Eldritch Knight has some great options for first level (Absorb Elements, Expeditious Retreat, Shield), but is pretty much done after that, and is also crippled by the fact that evocation is an astonishingly bad choice as one of the schools they have access to (abjuration and transmutation would be way more useful).
Rangers do get some other useful spells that are similar to paladin smite spells. Ensnaring Strke, Zephyr Strike, Lightning arrow, hail of thorns. I think what inhibits them somewhat though is that they are concentration. Meaning they compete with hunter's mark. And even the new Favored Foe, which isn't a spell but requires concentration. I feel like favored foe really shouldn't have required concentration so it could synergize with more ranger spells.
They also get some useful out of combat spells like pass without trace. And some spells that can damage multiple enemies, which I don't think paladins really get?
That said I think paladins generally have it better, but imo it's not so much that rangers are lacking spell options so much as hunter's mark and favored foe compete too much with other concentration spells they could be using.
I wouldn't cut anything but I would rework quite a few things.
There are a few things in 5e that I don't like but are easy fixes. Example: Thieve's Tools. I think that Rogues should get them standard but other classes should only get them through their Background (so if you're a Criminal), a Feat (there are a couple that give you Proficiencies), a subclass (a couple of Bard come to mind), or if you can find someone to teach you. I also feel that only Rogues should be able to have Expertise with them because I sort of miss the days when every class had a 'thing' that was their niche. Fixing little things like this would be easy.
I would like to see a spell-less Ranger and Paladin as options. You could do this by giving the Ranger Ritual Spells so they're not tossing around Healing or Magic Missile in combat but instead have to do the stereotypical ranger thing and make a poultice or brew up medicine. Having no combat spells means more Martial options.
The Paladin could be similar to the Ranger (and again this would be an option that the player can choose or not) in that they'd have special abilities or powers but they would mostly be out of combat. I would put their Healing and curing of diseases in this category. But unlike the Ranger, I can see a Paladin having Holy Power or whatever you want to call it (blessings?) that they COULD use in combat but as less of the 'one-hit smite' and more of the 'bless this sword for the next minute'.
I would abolish the Long Rest as a way of recovering all of your HP. A Short Rest could be left more or less alone with a limit of 2 a day but healing from real damage (or death or near-death) would take days. I hate the 'one long rest fixes everything' system but I use it because my players all wanted it.
I would standardize any class or subclass that had a pet, summoned creature, or Familiar. 5e is a mess and the Battle Smith is a better Beast Master than the Beast Master Ranger. If you have any sort of sidekick, pet, or whatever then you would have a list of what they can do on their own, what they can do with a command from you as a Free Action, and a list if you use a Bonus Action. All such critters would adhere to this list period, full stop, the end.
I would stop the prohibition on PCs larger than Medium. Minotaurs used to be Large creatures. They made them PC-playable and now they're Medium. It's dumb. Either don't make them playable or deal with the fact that you can now totally block a 10' passageway with one PC.
I would find some way to even out the Feats. As it is now some are borderline OP, some are fine and some are weaksauce.
Couldn't disagree more with the thread premise. Half casters have consistently been some of the best and most interesting characters at my tables. Having spells makes them feel less same-y in combat than characters like Barbarians or non-BM Fighters and having a toolkit of abilities makes them a lot more interesting out of combat too.
Slight asterisks there because Paladin is sort of an exception here, most paladins I see spam Smite and end up mostly feeling like they don't actually have spells anyways. Ranger/EK/AT/Artificers however are generally more well designed.
I sort of snicker when I here someone saying that you can make a ranger equivalent by multiclassing. Let’s start by working backward- a L20 ranger has the spell slots of a L10 caster, so your multiclass is going to be a L10 fighter/L10 sorceror (known spells not learned remember) with (I assume) the outlander background so you gain the survival skill but nature and stealth are not available to you (PHB SKILL LISTS) in essence what you have is maybe an Eagle Scout but not a Green Beret or a Mountain Man, maybe a George Washington but not a Daniel Boone. In 5e’s combat/social environment I suppose it’s a better outdoors man than either a straight fighter (Braddock) or a straight sorceror but in any game/table that actually uses the outdoors/exploration/travel/survival leg of the game your going to have major problems because it just ain’t a real ranger. The same can be said for any of the half casters although each plays a diffident role in the game. If your in their area of expertise nothing else really does the job you need right.
Couldn't disagree more with the thread premise. Half casters have consistently been some of the best and most interesting characters at my tables. Having spells makes them feel less same-y in combat than characters like Barbarians or non-BM Fighters and having a toolkit of abilities makes them a lot more interesting out of combat too.
Slight asterisks there because Paladin is sort of an exception here, most paladins I see spam Smite and end up mostly feeling like they don't actually have spells anyways. Ranger/EK/AT/Artificers however are generally more well designed.
I don't have much experience playing paladin, but from what I have played honestly I prefer using the smite spells. They're not as efficient. They're concentration so even if you get a hit right away to trigger them it eats any other concentration spell. Eats a bonus action if you have something else to use BAs on. And they're less damage than just divine smiting. You also can't fish for crits with them.
But I love the flavor and utility of the smite spells. Throwing an enemy back with thunderous smite or making an enemy afraid of you etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pathfinder 2e has a pure martial Paladin.
I prefer them being half casters though.
I mean I'm against Paladin being a pure martial, as I agree it would just be a fighter with some shiny bits on the side.
I assume it would still have a divine smite type feature. Just not done through spell slots.
I mean by that logic, you could say monk is a spellcaster too.
I still don't understand why a martial/arcane caster hybrid is inherently unbalanced, but a martial/divine and martial/primal hybrids are not.
The 3.5 Player's Handbook 2 had optional rules for paladins and rangers that did not have spellcasting ability. They gained other magical powers instead. Rangers were actually quite good under 3.5 rules, it was 3.0 where they were badly underpowered. And they didn't become purely martial until 4E.
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'm not advocating rigid exploration rules, and I'm not placing the blame on DMs. The DMG throws a bunch of exploration rules out there but it never gives any good examples of how they all fit together or how they might interact with the other two pillars or how different party compositions might have different options altogether. Although we are free to do so, it's not the DM's job to design how exploration challenges should work. We are not supposed to be game designers, that baseline info should be in the DMG. There are articles out on the internet from multiple different sources that do this sort of thing without imposing any new rules or restrictions. I have found them extremely helpful and think similar info should be included in the DMG. I didn't really think spending a bit more ink on how exploration fits into D&D would be considered a hot take.
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 have to second this. The DMG's rules aren't particularly interesting for rangers unless the DM makes a deliberate effort to think outside the box. Given the DCs the DMG suggests, most of the exploration tasks can be managed with a relatively decent chance of success if one or two characters have middling Wis/Int and Survival and/or Nature proficiency and aside from that there's always magic and bringing some useful equipment or even just rations. To top it off, when the DMG addresses environmental hazards and difficulties most of them are obstacles that can't be made easier to deal with by outdoorsy expertise. Those parts of the DMG are just one giant wasted opportunity.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It is true that DMs can fill in the gaps for things like exploration rules.
But that's true for literally everything. So I don't really see 'yeah this is lacking in the official rules but the DM can cover it' as much of a defense.
I am curious what a more fleshed out system for exploration might look like in 5E beyond just calling for situational checks like survival to follow tracks, nature to identify wildlife, athletics for crossing difficult terrain etc.
I hope that we do get a more comprehensive ruleset/guide for Exploration in the upcoming revised books. Better yet a book just on exploration that covers various terrains and how they might impact your adventures.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Rangers could use their woodsy ways to make it easier for the party to cross difficult terrain or avoid penalties from extreme weather, for instance. But the problem isn't really a lack of rules, the problem starts with there being no suggestions or ideas or help for DMs to make exploration more interesting. If you're already a great DM you may not need all that much help with this (and there's plenty of non-official content out there too), but that is - or should be - the whole point of the DMG in the first place: to help DMs with running interesting and engaging adventures. If the book doesn't even try to do that, it's just 300 pages of irrelevance and futility.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
For me, a pure martial paladin is basically a cavalier. A Knight in shining armor with a religious bent. Not saying the 5E cavalier fits that role, but that’s what I think of with a non-spellcasting paladin.
Half casters are fine with me.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The D&D cartoon from the ‘80s had Erik the Cavalier. It was the snooty kid with the shield, not really a paladin (though at least a protector) and definitely not a mounted combatant.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Cavalier was also a class in the 3.5 PHB 2. It was intended as a pure martial replacement for paladins that was supposed to avoid the issues with the 3E Paladin's Code of
ObstructionConduct.It failed at this because it had a code of conduct it was required to follow that was even more Lawful Stupid than the Paladin's.
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 think the large issue with Rangers and Paladins (and Eldritch Knights) is that not normal for Artificers (who are half-casters), Warlocks (who are an exceptionally unmistakable sort of caster that unquestionably isn't full), and Wizards (who are full casters), they have no real way to determine the basic separate between Extra Attack and improving at spells. Warlocks can quit EA altogether and the two Artificers and Wizards just get EA from explicit subclasses (and the Wizard with EA gets an answer for joining projecting with assaulting). In the event that classes with EA been able to take another redesign all things being equal, as Warlocks do, it is simpler to legitimize half caster status.
I can’t speak to paladins and many of the other half casters as I don’t normally play them so I can’t really say how good or bad they are. Rangers are one one of my go to classes however. I have no interest in seeing it go away. The ranger’s problem is that (pre Tasha) they updated it somewhat but nerfed the PHB & DMG guides to exploration, travel and survival. Tasha solved some of this by replacing outdoor features with combat features. The real solution however is to repair the “third leg” by putting together examples of play and story showing how to make use of the ranger skills. However, I suspect that will never happen as WOtC probably sees their audience much like I do (yes I’m sure I’ll be hearing plenty of outrage about this so be it): relatively young (teens to early 30s), urban/suburban, video game focused, travel via plane with little or no outdoors experience or interest in gaining any. Now I know there are exceptions especially among the old timers here (40’s and up) and more experienced players and DMs (call it 20+ yrs). Outdoor travel, wilderness exploration in untamed but populated region, survival in environments as different as jungles, Arctic, high altitude, open plains, high deserts and low deserts, etc are hard to describe to those who haven’t been in them but entire adventures and campaigns can (and should) be done. But to do that you either have to have some experience with them or have to have good clear guidance on how to do them. The DMG doesn’t provide the later and too many of both generations don’t have the the former. So I doubt wizards will ever try.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The general issue with half casters is that, for a half-caster, spending your action to cast a spell is equivalent to saying "I wish to function as half my actual level this round". The bread and butter for a half-caster has to be things that synergize with their martial abilities. For example, the Paladin list is relatively good, because it has a bunch of bonus action spells (Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, Magic Weapon, Spirit Shroud, Holy Weapon) that directly enhance their primary shtick (there are also smite spells, but they mostly aren't more useful than just using the same slot for smite).
Ranger is pretty much "Oh look, more spell slots to cast Hunter's Mark". Which is an excellent spell, but might as well be a class feature and toss the spellcasting.
The Eldritch Knight has some great options for first level (Absorb Elements, Expeditious Retreat, Shield), but is pretty much done after that, and is also crippled by the fact that evocation is an astonishingly bad choice as one of the schools they have access to (abjuration and transmutation would be way more useful).
Rangers do get some other useful spells that are similar to paladin smite spells. Ensnaring Strke, Zephyr Strike, Lightning arrow, hail of thorns. I think what inhibits them somewhat though is that they are concentration. Meaning they compete with hunter's mark. And even the new Favored Foe, which isn't a spell but requires concentration. I feel like favored foe really shouldn't have required concentration so it could synergize with more ranger spells.
They also get some useful out of combat spells like pass without trace. And some spells that can damage multiple enemies, which I don't think paladins really get?
That said I think paladins generally have it better, but imo it's not so much that rangers are lacking spell options so much as hunter's mark and favored foe compete too much with other concentration spells they could be using.
I wouldn't cut anything but I would rework quite a few things.
There are a few things in 5e that I don't like but are easy fixes. Example: Thieve's Tools. I think that Rogues should get them standard but other classes should only get them through their Background (so if you're a Criminal), a Feat (there are a couple that give you Proficiencies), a subclass (a couple of Bard come to mind), or if you can find someone to teach you. I also feel that only Rogues should be able to have Expertise with them because I sort of miss the days when every class had a 'thing' that was their niche. Fixing little things like this would be easy.
I would like to see a spell-less Ranger and Paladin as options. You could do this by giving the Ranger Ritual Spells so they're not tossing around Healing or Magic Missile in combat but instead have to do the stereotypical ranger thing and make a poultice or brew up medicine. Having no combat spells means more Martial options.
The Paladin could be similar to the Ranger (and again this would be an option that the player can choose or not) in that they'd have special abilities or powers but they would mostly be out of combat. I would put their Healing and curing of diseases in this category. But unlike the Ranger, I can see a Paladin having Holy Power or whatever you want to call it (blessings?) that they COULD use in combat but as less of the 'one-hit smite' and more of the 'bless this sword for the next minute'.
I would abolish the Long Rest as a way of recovering all of your HP. A Short Rest could be left more or less alone with a limit of 2 a day but healing from real damage (or death or near-death) would take days. I hate the 'one long rest fixes everything' system but I use it because my players all wanted it.
I would standardize any class or subclass that had a pet, summoned creature, or Familiar. 5e is a mess and the Battle Smith is a better Beast Master than the Beast Master Ranger. If you have any sort of sidekick, pet, or whatever then you would have a list of what they can do on their own, what they can do with a command from you as a Free Action, and a list if you use a Bonus Action. All such critters would adhere to this list period, full stop, the end.
I would stop the prohibition on PCs larger than Medium. Minotaurs used to be Large creatures. They made them PC-playable and now they're Medium. It's dumb. Either don't make them playable or deal with the fact that you can now totally block a 10' passageway with one PC.
I would find some way to even out the Feats. As it is now some are borderline OP, some are fine and some are weaksauce.
Couldn't disagree more with the thread premise. Half casters have consistently been some of the best and most interesting characters at my tables. Having spells makes them feel less same-y in combat than characters like Barbarians or non-BM Fighters and having a toolkit of abilities makes them a lot more interesting out of combat too.
Slight asterisks there because Paladin is sort of an exception here, most paladins I see spam Smite and end up mostly feeling like they don't actually have spells anyways. Ranger/EK/AT/Artificers however are generally more well designed.
I sort of snicker when I here someone saying that you can make a ranger equivalent by multiclassing. Let’s start by working backward- a L20 ranger has the spell slots of a L10 caster, so your multiclass is going to be a L10 fighter/L10 sorceror (known spells not learned remember) with (I assume) the outlander background so you gain the survival skill but nature and stealth are not available to you (PHB SKILL LISTS) in essence what you have is maybe an Eagle Scout but not a Green Beret or a Mountain Man, maybe a George Washington but not a Daniel Boone. In 5e’s combat/social environment I suppose it’s a better outdoors man than either a straight fighter (Braddock) or a straight sorceror but in any game/table that actually uses the outdoors/exploration/travel/survival leg of the game your going to have major problems because it just ain’t a real ranger. The same can be said for any of the half casters although each plays a diffident role in the game. If your in their area of expertise nothing else really does the job you need right.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't have much experience playing paladin, but from what I have played honestly I prefer using the smite spells. They're not as efficient. They're concentration so even if you get a hit right away to trigger them it eats any other concentration spell. Eats a bonus action if you have something else to use BAs on. And they're less damage than just divine smiting. You also can't fish for crits with them.
But I love the flavor and utility of the smite spells. Throwing an enemy back with thunderous smite or making an enemy afraid of you etc.