Paladins and Rangers are not Wizards and Clerics


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion


Hello all. I love the ranger, I have never played a paladin, but I think I could enjoy it from a role-playing and roll-playing perspective. There is just one thing that bothers me, the spells. Now, I have nothing against spellcasters, just these classes as such. I don't know where WotC came up with them having spells at all. Maybe spell-like abilities, but not spells outright.
When Complete Warrior came out and I read the Table of Contents having "non-spellcasting" Paladins and Rangers I was very excited. Until I read their "fix". Basically what WotC did was take multiple uses of abilities and make them once per day abilities. At 11th level I can gain the ability to give myself +4 to Str, Wis or Cha for one minute per level only ever ONCE PER DAY. Or I can take my spells normally and eventually prepare a Bull's Strength, Owl's Wisdom or Eagle' Splendor a few times a day.
I guess my point is, please don't give these classes spells, but also don't give them something stupid in return. Not that I expect anything bad coming from Paizo seeing the new classes so far. I guess I've just wanted to vent about the Paladin/Ranger for a little while and this seemed like the time to do it.

Grand Lodge

You should look into Monte Coook's Book of Experimental Might. The paladin and ranger disciplines might be just what you want.

Liberty's Edge

You might want to check out the "Rangers, Paladins and Spells" thread as this is exactly what is being discussed (plus, we probably want to keep the number of more or less duplicate threads to a minimum)

Thanks!

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / Paladins and Rangers are not Wizards and Clerics All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion