Aid, Air Bubble, Animal Messenger, Darkvision, Healing Spirit, Lesser Restoration, Locate Animals or Plants, Pass Without Trace, Protection from Poison, Silence, Summon Beast
Conjure Animals, Meld into Stone, Plant Growth, Protection from Energy, Revivify, Speak with Plants, Summon Fey, Water Breathing, Water Walk
Conjure Woodland Beings, Dominate Beast, Guardian of Nature, Stoneskin
Commune with Nature, Conjure Volley, Greater Restoration, Steel Wind Strike, Wrath of Nature
I said what I said, and I am aware of what's on the ranger's spell list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Taking a hybrid class that doesn't do either weapon attacks or spell casting particularly well and forcing them to stick to only one or the other when full classes gets to do their specialized action, is a recipe for making hybrid-classes significantly weaker in comparison.
Yes and that is by design. The point is for different classes / subclasses to offer different things they are good at so that none are ever in direct competition with each other. Classes being in direct competition with each other is terrible for players and the game as a whole because there can only be one winner, so if two classes do the same thing one will objectively be better than the other and thus the loser becomes a "trap" class that nobody plays.
This is fundamentally the problem with Monk because a large portion of players view the Monk as serving the same role as the Fighter - standing in melee hitting things lots of times to deal high damage to them - thus since Monk doesn't do those things better than a Fighter does it is considered garbage in much maligned. (IMO monk is meant to be more of a mobile skimisher / battlefield controller but for various reasons doesn't really manage that either). Ranger's problem is similar in that while they have a clear niche - the optimal explorer - the class features are too limited to really achieve that and exploration is often forgotten about post-level 5 which again leaves Ranger directly competing with Fighter or Paladin and there can be only one winner....
Hybrid classes are MEANT to sacrifice specialization for breath of options. Just as the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard was that Sorcerer specializes in a small number of spells that they are super good a using, whereas Wizard has more options but is less good at using any particular one. Pure martial should deal more damage than hybrid classes b/c they don't have the OOC utility or support options that the hybrid has, meanwhile full casters should be be better at casting spells and have more utility than hybrids b/c they don't have the option for tanking or focused DPR than hybrids have.
Either you can be the best at something and suck at everything else or you can be ok at a lot of things.
Taking a hybrid class that doesn't do either weapon attacks or spell casting particularly well and forcing them to stick to only one or the other when full classes gets to do their specialized action, is a recipe for making hybrid-classes significantly weaker in comparison.
Yes and that is by design. The point is for different classes / subclasses to offer different things they are good at so that none are ever in direct competition with each other. Classes being in direct competition with each other is terrible for players and the game as a whole because there can only be one winner, so if two classes do the same thing one will objectively be better than the other and thus the loser becomes a "trap" class that nobody plays.
This is fundamentally the problem with Monk because a large portion of players view the Monk as serving the same role as the Fighter - standing in melee hitting things lots of times to deal high damage to them - thus since Monk doesn't do those things better than a Fighter does it is considered garbage in much maligned. (IMO monk is meant to be more of a mobile skimisher / battlefield controller but for various reasons doesn't really manage that either). Ranger's problem is similar in that while they have a clear niche - the optimal explorer - the class features are too limited to really achieve that and exploration is often forgotten about post-level 5 which again leaves Ranger directly competing with Fighter or Paladin and there can be only one winner....
Hybrid classes are MEANT to sacrifice specialization for breath of options. Just as the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard was that Sorcerer specializes in a small number of spells that they are super good a using, whereas Wizard has more options but is less good at using any particular one. Pure martial should deal more damage than hybrid classes b/c they don't have the OOC utility or support options that the hybrid has, meanwhile full casters should be be better at casting spells and have more utility than hybrids b/c they don't have the option for tanking or focused DPR than hybrids have.
Either you can be the best at something and suck at everything else or you can be ok at a lot of things.
kinda, but not exactly, because in dnd 5e, there is also a heavy fantasy/trope element to classes.
The phb doesnt advise you to pick classes based on gameplay archetypes, but rather based on what fantasy you are trying to fullfill. And thats how most players play/choose classes.
The most important thing in the design is that someone who picks a class feels like they are playing the fantasy they chose. A dude who picks a barbarian is not going to be satisfied if barbarian's playstyle is long ranged debuffer even if that is a role no other class fills and they are excellent at it. They wouldn't care if both barbarian and fighter are front line meleers, as long as barbarian's front line melee is satisfying, and feels barbarian like.
Also, dnd isn't actually heavily designed around those heavily separated game play roles. (tank/dps/heals/support/debuffer/mid range/etc) there is tons of overlap, and somethings not developed at all.
That said I think many people like paladin because it actually is close to the fantasy, Divine Knight, mixing magic with melee, and supporting allies. If this was an MMO or video game, or even just a more gamey game. I would say paladin has way too much offense, defense, support and utility. Its actually pretty strong at a lot of things. But in the context of 5e, its fine.
It feels like a holy knight, fighter has a different feel, and I wasn't wishing I was a paladin when I played fighter/barbarian.
5e isnt designed such that the combat requires or promotes a high level of power gaming to progress/succeed.
The most important thing in the design is that someone who picks a class feels like they are playing the fantasy they chose. A dude who picks a barbarian is not going to be satisfied if barbarian's playstyle is long ranged debuffer even if that is a role no other class fills and they are excellent at it. They wouldn't care if both barbarian and fighter are front line meleers, as long as barbarian's front line melee is satisfying, and feels barbarian like.
This very much depends on the player. There are plenty of players who love the 5e Monk as is, because it fulfills the fantasy they want, but that doesn't change the fact that it can very often be overshadowed by other characters and feel pretty useless to play despite fulfilling the fantasy. If a barbarian and a fighter were in the same party and the fighter always did more damage, and always survived longer standing toe-to-toe with the enemy next to the barbarian then the barbarian player is probably going to feel pretty dissatisfied even if the barbarian still feels like a barbarian, and pretty soon you'll have those barbarian players instead playing Fighters and reflavouring their fighter abilities to be more barbarian-ish, e.g. having plate armour make of the skin and bones of their enemies, having their maneuvers be raw strength rather than technique, or having their tactical knowledge come from smelling the blood of their enemies rather than military strategy.
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at. Note that nowhere did I say that "thing" has to be a classic MMO party "role", there are far far more options that those labels that are still sufficient to make that class special. And the "thing" can be a specific combination of things rather than one singular thing e.i.: Fighter = DPR + combat/build tactics Barbarian = DPR + surviving getting in the face of the enemy Paladin = Nova damage + leader-y Ranger = DPR + finding the enemy Rogue = sneaking in to anywhere and everywhere Monk = neutralize the annoying problems hiding in the enemy back lines Cleric = keep the party going Druid = use the surroundings to hinder the enemy or help your friends Bard = Distract/disrupt the enemy + inspire the party to victory Sorcerer = spam a few spells to maximum effect Wizard = have a spell for every problem
It is certainly open to debate how well these classes realize these roles for good or ill, but these are clearly distinct things for them to do.
The most important thing in the design is that someone who picks a class feels like they are playing the fantasy they chose. A dude who picks a barbarian is not going to be satisfied if barbarian's playstyle is long ranged debuffer even if that is a role no other class fills and they are excellent at it. They wouldn't care if both barbarian and fighter are front line meleers, as long as barbarian's front line melee is satisfying, and feels barbarian like.
This very much depends on the player. There are plenty of players who love the 5e Monk as is, because it fulfills the fantasy they want, but that doesn't change the fact that it can very often be overshadowed by other characters and feel pretty useless to play despite fulfilling the fantasy. If a barbarian and a fighter were in the same party and the fighter always did more damage, and always survived longer standing toe-to-toe with the enemy next to the barbarian then the barbarian player is probably going to feel pretty dissatisfied even if the barbarian still feels like a barbarian, and pretty soon you'll have those barbarian players instead playing Fighters and reflavouring their fighter abilities to be more barbarian-ish, e.g. having plate armour make of the skin and bones of their enemies, having their maneuvers be raw strength rather than technique, or having their tactical knowledge come from smelling the blood of their enemies rather than military strategy.
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at. Note that nowhere did I say that "thing" has to be a classic MMO party "role", there are far far more options that those labels that are still sufficient to make that class special. And the "thing" can be a specific combination of things rather than one singular thing e.i.: Fighter = DPR + combat/build tactics Barbarian = DPR + surviving getting in the face of the enemy Paladin = Nova damage + leader-y Ranger = DPR + finding the enemy Rogue = sneaking in to anywhere and everywhere Monk = neutralize the annoying problems hiding in the enemy back lines Cleric = keep the party going Druid = use the surroundings to hinder the enemy or help your friends Bard = Distract/disrupt the enemy + inspire the party to victory Sorcerer = spam a few spells to maximum effect Wizard = have a spell for every problem
It is certainly open to debate how well these classes realize these roles for good or ill, but these are clearly distinct things for them to do.
It does depend on the player, but most people, and the advice of the phb aren't leading players that way.
balance is always about how much. People play fighting games knowing characters have teirs, the question is, how close the teirs are, and also if you are in the same teir.
IE the difference has to be significant enough to be noticeable, and seem like it defines your success more than other factors.
As far as your preferred roles, some of them are too narrow for a class to be designed around it. subclasses can have such a narrow focus, but actual classes need to such that any 4 classes will work. your rogue and monk are too niche to be the basis for a class.
Also I don't think your monk vision, druid vision, sorcerer vision, and paladin vision represent what most people who pick the class are looking for. Some of them represent what they ended up being in 2014. (like I don't think Nova damage is intrinisic to the idea of a paladin)
that said your take isnt illogical, I just don't really agree thats the best direction for 5e
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at.
Each class needs to have a distinctive play style and some distinctive features, but that doesn't prevent it from being the same basic role as another class. The basic party roles in 5e are
Front Line: Barbarian, Fighter (can make an okay skirmisher), Paladin (has a side of support)
Scout/Skirmisher: Monk, Ranger, Rogue (all three can sort of front line... but only sort of)
Support: Bard, Cleric, Druid (often intrudes on the scout role)
Artillery: Sorcerer, Warlock (marginal), Wizard
and it is typically possible to replace one class in a given role with a different class without dramatically affecting how dungeon crawls play out.
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at.
Each class needs to have a distinctive play style and some distinctive features, but that doesn't prevent it from being the same basic role as another class. The basic party roles in 5e are
Front Line: Barbarian, Fighter (can make an okay skirmisher), Paladin (has a side of support)
Scout/Skirmisher: Monk, Ranger, Rogue (all three can sort of front line... but only sort of)
Support: Bard, Cleric, Druid (often intrudes on the scout role)
Artillery: Sorcerer, Warlock (marginal), Wizard
and it is typically possible to replace one class in a given role with a different class without dramatically affecting how dungeon crawls play out.
On the subject of the paladin, I've seen people make the claim that they are the premier tanking class, because unlike the barbarian (who is better at dealing with pure damage), the paladin can better deal with non-damage attacks which would remove them from combat.
On the subject of the paladin, I've seen people make the claim that they are the premier tanking class, because unlike the barbarian (who is better at dealing with pure damage), the paladin can better deal with non-damage attacks which would remove them from combat.
The paladin is premiere among the 2014 classes for saves but are often a bit durability challenged relative to barbarian and fighter. For 2024 classes the fighter is probably the best because resilient went from "meh" to "amazing" and they generally have spare ASIs to use on feats such as resilient.
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at.
Each class needs to have a distinctive play style and some distinctive features, but that doesn't prevent it from being the same basic role as another class. The basic party roles in 5e are
Front Line: Barbarian, Fighter (can make an okay skirmisher), Paladin (has a side of support)
Scout/Skirmisher: Monk, Ranger, Rogue (all three can sort of front line... but only sort of)
Support: Bard, Cleric, Druid (often intrudes on the scout role)
Artillery: Sorcerer, Warlock (marginal), Wizard
and it is typically possible to replace one class in a given role with a different class without dramatically affecting how dungeon crawls play out.
On the subject of the paladin, I've seen people make the claim that they are the premier tanking class, because unlike the barbarian (who is better at dealing with pure damage), the paladin can better deal with non-damage attacks which would remove them from combat.
paladin's big tanking advantage is access to support magic and recovery. Barbarian really only has high HP, and rage. And if they are using reckless attacks they aren't really better than most martials/half casters
paladin's big tanking advantage is access to support magic and recovery.
Paladin's big tanking advantage is auras; prior to level 7 they aren't super durable. Though one benefit of the way the playtest did smite spells is that it means shield-based styles are actually a reasonable choice.
paladin's big tanking advantage is access to support magic and recovery.
Paladin's big tanking advantage is auras; prior to level 7 they aren't super durable. Though one benefit of the way the playtest did smite spells is that it means shield-based styles are actually a reasonable choice.
durability includes recovery, and possible spells. lay on hands exists, cure spells, shield of faith is level 1, aid etc. a Paladin can have 23 AC (plate+shield+shield of faith+defense fighting style) versus barbarian's 19 AC. which is a ratio of 22barb%to 25paladin% damage taken per round at level 5. Lay on hands is essentially + 5hp per level per day.
Paladin also has more tools to make them a primary target, (part of tanking), compel duel, warding bond. whereas for barbarian, its just if the enemy wants to target them for no particular reason.
just because many paladins ignore these capabilities, doesnt mean they don't have the capability. just like a reckless attacking barbarian essentially nullifies rage reduction.
100% not true. many spells lose potency as you level up, and a spell that you get at 5th level may fizze into much lower levels of usefulness at higher levels. Just because some spells remain useful, that is not true of all spells. Sleep is an example. It's great below about level 4, arguably overpowered, but after that it loses a lot of usefulness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
100% not true. many spells lose potency as you level up, and a spell that you get at 5th level may fizze into much lower levels of usefulness at higher levels. Just because some spells remain useful, that is not true of all spells. Sleep is an example. It's great below about level 4, arguably overpowered, but after that it loses a lot of usefulness.
While I agree that some spells are less useful in higher tiers, I feel like they're in the minority. Damage spells for example are always relevant as damage is damage, it being lower than a full caster might get is just the trade off for being a half caster, meanwhile things like control spells remain strong as long as you have a competitive save DC (though again, having a slightly lower save DC is part of the half caster trade off).
I very much doubt that spells with limited windows are in the majority, even on the half caster lists. The main problem IMO is that a lot of half caster specific spells just aren't that impressive, a number of the Ranger only spells for example aren't amazing (weaker even than spells at the same level), but these should be the spells that these half casters are being encouraged to take.
At least with Paladin we've seen some effort to change the smite spells into something you might actually use instead of the divine smite every paladin gets (and is just as good, if not better, in most cases). Didn't really see much of the same for Ranger unfortunately, but that's why we really need the next UA to show off a lot more spell changes, or give us a chance to give feedback on the spell lists only.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yep. I think the ranger could use some more options is all. I think Paladin is in a pretty good place, and was even before the smite changes. Without the smites, their spell list was filled with a bunch of stuff that's extremely useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Ranger has a better out of combat spread imo, particularly if the campaign is open to exploration and other environmental interactions as opposed to being some form of straight dungeon crawl.
Ranger has a better out of combat spread imo, particularly if the campaign is open to exploration and other environmental interactions as opposed to being some form of straight dungeon crawl.
And out of combat spreads mean the action economy problems with half casters aren't relevant. If the party has a druid, the ranger is likely to be outshadowed in that role, but druids are not super common.
Even with a Druid in the party, they can coordinate to spread the spells. Like the Ranger can lean into detection stuff like Detect Magic, Pass Without Trace, and the Locate spells, while the Druid leans more into nature manipulation and animal interactions.
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at.
Each class needs to have a distinctive play style and some distinctive features, but that doesn't prevent it from being the same basic role as another class. The basic party roles in 5e are
Front Line: Barbarian, Fighter (can make an okay skirmisher), Paladin (has a side of support)
Scout/Skirmisher: Monk, Ranger, Rogue (all three can sort of front line... but only sort of)
Support: Bard, Cleric, Druid (often intrudes on the scout role)
Artillery: Sorcerer, Warlock (marginal), Wizard
and it is typically possible to replace one class in a given role with a different class without dramatically affecting how dungeon crawls play out.
On the subject of the paladin, I've seen people make the claim that they are the premier tanking class, because unlike the barbarian (who is better at dealing with pure damage), the paladin can better deal with non-damage attacks which would remove them from combat.
Battlefield control is a distinct thing vs taking damage. I personally would not put "resisting mind control" under the definition of "tanking". Battlefield control abilities are almost universally ranged, saving throw abilities so can target anyone in the party at anytime thus the whole concept of tanking doesn't work for them at all. There is absolutely no features or mechanisms to make those abilities target anyone in particular, whereas vs melee attacks a 'tank' can use AoO to punish creatures for targeting someone else, for ranged attacks a melee 'tank' can get within 5ft of them to impose DA on the ranged attack, for saving throw-based abilities melees can do nothing (ok Mage Slayer offers a slight option against specifically spells but e.g. vs a dragon's breath attack ain't nothing you can do .)
Ranger has a better out of combat spread imo, particularly if the campaign is open to exploration and other environmental interactions as opposed to being some form of straight dungeon crawl.
The problem is a primary caster is going to out-do a Ranger on nearly all OOC stuff, and once your party reaches level 7+ they have so many spellslots it doesn't cost them much to just use magic to solve everything, whereas in levels 1-4 a Rogue's expertise is most likely going to be better that anything the Ranger can do with their 1st level spell slots. For a small party though, where characters need to be able to excel at more than one thing, that's where Ranger shines.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I said what I said, and I am aware of what's on the ranger's spell list.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yes and that is by design. The point is for different classes / subclasses to offer different things they are good at so that none are ever in direct competition with each other. Classes being in direct competition with each other is terrible for players and the game as a whole because there can only be one winner, so if two classes do the same thing one will objectively be better than the other and thus the loser becomes a "trap" class that nobody plays.
This is fundamentally the problem with Monk because a large portion of players view the Monk as serving the same role as the Fighter - standing in melee hitting things lots of times to deal high damage to them - thus since Monk doesn't do those things better than a Fighter does it is considered garbage in much maligned. (IMO monk is meant to be more of a mobile skimisher / battlefield controller but for various reasons doesn't really manage that either). Ranger's problem is similar in that while they have a clear niche - the optimal explorer - the class features are too limited to really achieve that and exploration is often forgotten about post-level 5 which again leaves Ranger directly competing with Fighter or Paladin and there can be only one winner....
Hybrid classes are MEANT to sacrifice specialization for breath of options. Just as the difference between Sorcerer and Wizard was that Sorcerer specializes in a small number of spells that they are super good a using, whereas Wizard has more options but is less good at using any particular one. Pure martial should deal more damage than hybrid classes b/c they don't have the OOC utility or support options that the hybrid has, meanwhile full casters should be be better at casting spells and have more utility than hybrids b/c they don't have the option for tanking or focused DPR than hybrids have.
Either you can be the best at something and suck at everything else or you can be ok at a lot of things.
kinda, but not exactly, because in dnd 5e, there is also a heavy fantasy/trope element to classes.
The phb doesnt advise you to pick classes based on gameplay archetypes, but rather based on what fantasy you are trying to fullfill. And thats how most players play/choose classes.
The most important thing in the design is that someone who picks a class feels like they are playing the fantasy they chose. A dude who picks a barbarian is not going to be satisfied if barbarian's playstyle is long ranged debuffer even if that is a role no other class fills and they are excellent at it. They wouldn't care if both barbarian and fighter are front line meleers, as long as barbarian's front line melee is satisfying, and feels barbarian like.
Also, dnd isn't actually heavily designed around those heavily separated game play roles. (tank/dps/heals/support/debuffer/mid range/etc) there is tons of overlap, and somethings not developed at all.
That said I think many people like paladin because it actually is close to the fantasy, Divine Knight, mixing magic with melee, and supporting allies. If this was an MMO or video game, or even just a more gamey game. I would say paladin has way too much offense, defense, support and utility. Its actually pretty strong at a lot of things. But in the context of 5e, its fine.
It feels like a holy knight, fighter has a different feel, and I wasn't wishing I was a paladin when I played fighter/barbarian.
5e isnt designed such that the combat requires or promotes a high level of power gaming to progress/succeed.
This very much depends on the player. There are plenty of players who love the 5e Monk as is, because it fulfills the fantasy they want, but that doesn't change the fact that it can very often be overshadowed by other characters and feel pretty useless to play despite fulfilling the fantasy. If a barbarian and a fighter were in the same party and the fighter always did more damage, and always survived longer standing toe-to-toe with the enemy next to the barbarian then the barbarian player is probably going to feel pretty dissatisfied even if the barbarian still feels like a barbarian, and pretty soon you'll have those barbarian players instead playing Fighters and reflavouring their fighter abilities to be more barbarian-ish, e.g. having plate armour make of the skin and bones of their enemies, having their maneuvers be raw strength rather than technique, or having their tactical knowledge come from smelling the blood of their enemies rather than military strategy.
Each class needs to have something unique and special that they are good at. Note that nowhere did I say that "thing" has to be a classic MMO party "role", there are far far more options that those labels that are still sufficient to make that class special. And the "thing" can be a specific combination of things rather than one singular thing e.i.:
Fighter = DPR + combat/build tactics
Barbarian = DPR + surviving getting in the face of the enemy
Paladin = Nova damage + leader-y
Ranger = DPR + finding the enemy
Rogue = sneaking in to anywhere and everywhere
Monk = neutralize the annoying problems hiding in the enemy back lines
Cleric = keep the party going
Druid = use the surroundings to hinder the enemy or help your friends
Bard = Distract/disrupt the enemy + inspire the party to victory
Sorcerer = spam a few spells to maximum effect
Wizard = have a spell for every problem
It is certainly open to debate how well these classes realize these roles for good or ill, but these are clearly distinct things for them to do.
It does depend on the player, but most people, and the advice of the phb aren't leading players that way.
balance is always about how much. People play fighting games knowing characters have teirs, the question is, how close the teirs are, and also if you are in the same teir.
IE the difference has to be significant enough to be noticeable, and seem like it defines your success more than other factors.
As far as your preferred roles, some of them are too narrow for a class to be designed around it. subclasses can have such a narrow focus, but actual classes need to such that any 4 classes will work. your rogue and monk are too niche to be the basis for a class.
Also I don't think your monk vision, druid vision, sorcerer vision, and paladin vision represent what most people who pick the class are looking for. Some of them represent what they ended up being in 2014. (like I don't think Nova damage is intrinisic to the idea of a paladin)
that said your take isnt illogical, I just don't really agree thats the best direction for 5e
Each class needs to have a distinctive play style and some distinctive features, but that doesn't prevent it from being the same basic role as another class. The basic party roles in 5e are
and it is typically possible to replace one class in a given role with a different class without dramatically affecting how dungeon crawls play out.
On the subject of the paladin, I've seen people make the claim that they are the premier tanking class, because unlike the barbarian (who is better at dealing with pure damage), the paladin can better deal with non-damage attacks which would remove them from combat.
The paladin is premiere among the 2014 classes for saves but are often a bit durability challenged relative to barbarian and fighter. For 2024 classes the fighter is probably the best because resilient went from "meh" to "amazing" and they generally have spare ASIs to use on feats such as resilient.
paladin's big tanking advantage is access to support magic and recovery. Barbarian really only has high HP, and rage. And if they are using reckless attacks they aren't really better than most martials/half casters
Paladin's big tanking advantage is auras; prior to level 7 they aren't super durable. Though one benefit of the way the playtest did smite spells is that it means shield-based styles are actually a reasonable choice.
durability includes recovery, and possible spells. lay on hands exists, cure spells, shield of faith is level 1, aid etc. a Paladin can have 23 AC (plate+shield+shield of faith+defense fighting style) versus barbarian's 19 AC. which is a ratio of 22barb%to 25paladin% damage taken per round at level 5. Lay on hands is essentially + 5hp per level per day.
Paladin also has more tools to make them a primary target, (part of tanking), compel duel, warding bond. whereas for barbarian, its just if the enemy wants to target them for no particular reason.
just because many paladins ignore these capabilities, doesnt mean they don't have the capability. just like a reckless attacking barbarian essentially nullifies rage reduction.
Paladin survivability is extremely high.
No, 5e EKs had a different, but comparable (and lesser) feature. The one I stated was not part of the 5e EK.
100% not true. many spells lose potency as you level up, and a spell that you get at 5th level may fizze into much lower levels of usefulness at higher levels. Just because some spells remain useful, that is not true of all spells. Sleep is an example. It's great below about level 4, arguably overpowered, but after that it loses a lot of usefulness.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
While I agree that some spells are less useful in higher tiers, I feel like they're in the minority. Damage spells for example are always relevant as damage is damage, it being lower than a full caster might get is just the trade off for being a half caster, meanwhile things like control spells remain strong as long as you have a competitive save DC (though again, having a slightly lower save DC is part of the half caster trade off).
I very much doubt that spells with limited windows are in the majority, even on the half caster lists. The main problem IMO is that a lot of half caster specific spells just aren't that impressive, a number of the Ranger only spells for example aren't amazing (weaker even than spells at the same level), but these should be the spells that these half casters are being encouraged to take.
At least with Paladin we've seen some effort to change the smite spells into something you might actually use instead of the divine smite every paladin gets (and is just as good, if not better, in most cases). Didn't really see much of the same for Ranger unfortunately, but that's why we really need the next UA to show off a lot more spell changes, or give us a chance to give feedback on the spell lists only.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yep. I think the ranger could use some more options is all. I think Paladin is in a pretty good place, and was even before the smite changes. Without the smites, their spell list was filled with a bunch of stuff that's extremely useful.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Ranger has a better out of combat spread imo, particularly if the campaign is open to exploration and other environmental interactions as opposed to being some form of straight dungeon crawl.
And out of combat spreads mean the action economy problems with half casters aren't relevant. If the party has a druid, the ranger is likely to be outshadowed in that role, but druids are not super common.
Even with a Druid in the party, they can coordinate to spread the spells. Like the Ranger can lean into detection stuff like Detect Magic, Pass Without Trace, and the Locate spells, while the Druid leans more into nature manipulation and animal interactions.
Battlefield control is a distinct thing vs taking damage. I personally would not put "resisting mind control" under the definition of "tanking". Battlefield control abilities are almost universally ranged, saving throw abilities so can target anyone in the party at anytime thus the whole concept of tanking doesn't work for them at all. There is absolutely no features or mechanisms to make those abilities target anyone in particular, whereas vs melee attacks a 'tank' can use AoO to punish creatures for targeting someone else, for ranged attacks a melee 'tank' can get within 5ft of them to impose DA on the ranged attack, for saving throw-based abilities melees can do nothing (ok Mage Slayer offers a slight option against specifically spells but e.g. vs a dragon's breath attack ain't nothing you can do .)
The problem is a primary caster is going to out-do a Ranger on nearly all OOC stuff, and once your party reaches level 7+ they have so many spellslots it doesn't cost them much to just use magic to solve everything, whereas in levels 1-4 a Rogue's expertise is most likely going to be better that anything the Ranger can do with their 1st level spell slots. For a small party though, where characters need to be able to excel at more than one thing, that's where Ranger shines.