This isn't a suggestion thread, so I figured it'd go here.

I want to start a discussion I feel hasn't really been had, or at least hasn't been had to my knowledge:

I feel that Paladin and Ranger are functionally two ways of approaching the same concept of a "divine warrior", and that the way they are interpreted on Amia would benefit from this viewpoint.

I would like to ask that for the purposes of this discussion everyone set aside any and all RP notions about what these classes are or represent; while those will come into the discussion, this is first and foremost a discussion based on the mechanical aspects of the classes and their suitability for an altered paradigm of their potential RP purposes. Hence, any preconceived notions about what these classes "must" be is only detrimental to the discussion and missing the point.

First, let me lay the groundwork by providing a basic class comparison:

Shared attributes:
- d10 HP per level
- Identical BAB progression
- Identical spell level progression
- Identical feat progression (aside from Favored Enemy)
- Identical spell level range (1-4)
- Most shared skill foci

Shared spells:
- Resist Elements
- All Cure spells
- Freedom of Movement

Highly analogous spells:
- Cat's Grace & Bull's Strength/Eagle's Splendor
- GMW & Blade Thirst

Major differences:
- Feat availability
- Free feats
- Several low- or non-analogous spells
- Animal companion for Ranger
- Stat foci

Don't be fooled by the brevity of the 'differences' list- those differences are extremely significant to the two being independent classes. However, I hold that these differences bolster the idea that they're two sides of the same coin and are not completely different coins. They are two very different approaches to the same concept, one that is very informed by how the classes can approach combat and what tools are in their 'toolbox'.

What is the toolbox?
The toolbox is a concept I'll refer to a few times. Basically, it is the set of skills, abilities, and spells potentially available to the class in question. As noted above, Paladin and Ranger share large sections of their toolboxes; both classes have an equivalent base melee skill, both have several analogous spells, both share a core set of combat skills. However, it's the differences between their toolboxes that makes each unique and which are the real driving force behind my argument. You see, while both classes share the concept of a divinely-powered fighter and many aspects of their base structure, their differences lead to very different applications of the same concept.

What are these differences? Why are they so important?
It boils down to combat focuses: Paladin is more focused on one-on-one "stand and fight" combat, while Ranger is much more about battlefield control, minions, and (potentially) stealth combat. Let's dig into the nuts and bolts of how and why this is:

Paladin:
The Paladin is about honor in combat, or so I feel. With no summons, it's by nature a single combatant. With no help, it concurrently receives wonderful and powerful feats like Lay On Hands, Smite Evil, Divine Might/Shield, Divine Grace, etc. This is natural and logical: to be an effective combatant the Paladin must be able to pull the entire load himself without resorting to dirty tactics. He's about skill and strength of steel/resolve, and not necessarily about winning. As such they lack the stealth and trap foci of Rangers, as these are, while not inherently dishonorable, highly suggestive of dishonorable tactics that simply seem alien to the concept the Paladin appears to represent. Their saves, smites, spells and self-healing capabilities all play into this: The Paladin is direct and straightforward when taking care of business and must be able to weather any and all punishment. Therefore, he's tough as nails on all fronts.

Ranger:
The Ranger is the flip side of combat; the class is better suited to a 'victory over honor' fighting style. It lacks the sheer burstability and saves of the Paladin, instead getting a healthy array of battlefield control spells, skills, feats and abilities. The Ranger is often simply outpowered by the Paladin in a stand-up fight, but the Ranger is by no means confined to said stand-up fight; rather, the Ranger can and will set up traps, battlefield control spells (Grease, Entangle, Darkness, Etc) and use stealth/distraction companions and summons to gain a tactical advantage. Then, once that advantage is gained, Rangers have an amazing focus on dealing a very large amount of damage very quickly: Bane of Enemies, Dual-Wield, Favored Enemy, etc. all allow Ranger to not only deal massive amounts of damage in a hurry but to even specifically hate on certain people. In short, Ranger isn't as powerful up-front as Paladin, but it can play very, very dirty and be absolutely unfair in how it goes about it.

Thus, while both are divine warriors, the Paladin is condusive to an "honor before victory" style, while the Ranger is condusive to a "victory before honor" style. This is not, of course, to say that they can't be played differently, but the differences in their toolboxes greatly enable these mindsets.

What I'm getting at, really, is that we may be limiting RP potential and holding ourselves back by pigeonholing these classes into their current respective roles, especially Ranger. Time and again I've butted up against "Rangers are woodland fighters" when the class itself is only a building block for the character it's part of. The label on the character sheet is as OOC as the combat log, but there exists a stubborn and in my opinion foolish narrow view that the class is and must be connected to the wilds.

"Ranger" is only a name, as is "Paladin". What they represent right now is, unfortunately, highly informed by those names. To draw an analogy, it feels like we're building a structure out of Legos and defining what that structure is by the Legos used rather than by the totality of the structure. These classes are merely building blocks for a greater whole, and by artificially narrowing our concepts associated with them we foreclose opportunities for new and unexpected RP, characters, and concepts.

Paladin also suffers from this pigeonholing: This argument has come up before, and the usual response is "Divine Champion fills the need for non-LG holy warriors." It does not. In my opinion DC (and Blackguard, for that matter) shouldn't even be in the same ballpark as Ranger and Paladin because it's (they're) mechanically far more different from either of these classes than they are from each other. I see us constraining ourselves by imposing needlessly narrow RP preconceptions that are absolutely nowhere on the character sheet. However, as Paladin's alignment restrictions aren't the main focus of this discussion and as they've been extensively discussed before, I will leave this part at that.

Thus, I believe it would be beneficial to not only expand how we view these two classes, but to also scale back our own notions of what they must be. I believe Ranger is entirely viable as a nongood Paladin-equivalent; this really is what I'm getting at with this discussion: Not Paladin's limitations and preconceptions, but Ranger's. I believe and argue vigorously that Ranger is the ideal nongood Paladin; its focuses and skills predispose it to unethical, dirty, or just plain cruel combat, while at its very core it's very, very close in structure to the Paladin.

Now, as to a few lingering issues:
- Woodland Stride: Yeah, not even going to argue this one. It's a feat with direct RP flavor opposite to what I just argued. It's also pretty inconsequential and I feel it should just be ignored. +2 to hide and move silently is nothing to make a stink over.
- Bane of Enemies/Favored Enemy: Paladins in PnP have access to Bladebane. Plus, completely hating an entire group to the point of wanting to murder them more effectively is sort of a specialty of religion. Bane seems like it's rather easy to incorporate into a character concept, and can always be left out if it doesn't fit the concept.
- Stat focus: Ranger is dex-based. Paladin is cha- and str-based. Usually. As builds are flexible and we're under no obligation to fit the expectation of 'usual stats' for a class, I see this as a non-issue but wanted to touch on it to indicate it hasn't been utterly ignored.
- Animal companion: I see this as an opportunity, actually. A shifting of the way Ranger is viewed would also mean opening up requests for different sorts of companions- a fiendish one for an evil-type, or maybe something like a Lantern Archon for the odd goodly type, so on. I can only feel this is a neat opportunity for development.

But, you ask, would Rangers as we know them now still exist?
Of course. This would change nothing about the traditional Ranger we all know and (some) love. The Ranger fits perfectly into the category of Divine Warrior, albeit in service of a nature deity. Expanding the concepts the class can represent simply allows consideration of new and (in my opinion) interesting ways of creating characters.

Therefore, in light of all the above, I believe that Ranger is really a poorly-named class and is in fact a sort of fraternal twin to Paladin. I'm curious to see what others think of this concept- do you agree? Disagree? Why? Can this idea be improved? Refined? Is it merely a dumb idea to be ignored? You tell me. This is the way I see it, and I welcome discussion for or against it.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

As the player of a brand new Paladin/Master Scout (which is kinda rangery?) I am eager to contribute to this discussion and I will as soon as I am able to. I just wanted to post about how excited I am.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

Class RP is, like, what you make of it, man.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

To a point but there are some fundamentals that need to be accepted, even if very few.

Paladins with little to no exception are blessed by the deities they serve. As a result of these blessings they are expected to hold to a code of conduct.

Rangers are .. a bit more open ended I'll freely admit but they do tend to fall within a certain spectrum dependant on the ranger and if he's a normal ranger or some sort of variant.

There are countless ways to RP a paladin. There are countless ways to RP a ranger too. That's the point I'm making. Trying to pigeonhole classes together into one mold is counterproductive to a healthy RP environment. If everything was meant to be played one way, this game wouldn't be fun at all.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

I think Eurgiga is arguing for that same conclusion, Derk.

I think you're inferring something from my post that isn't there, Hackums. I never said I was disagreeing with that principle.

Now, that's not to say I agree with some of the other points. The "shared attributes" section is kind of misleading. None of those are part of the class' core identity. All those indicate are that they're a physical combat class with limited magic use.

If by "two sides of the same coin", Eurgiga means "kill things according to a code of conduct", then yes...I agree with that. Otherwise, they're entirely different. The Ranger is absolutely the hunter/stalker character trope while the Paladin is the Holy Crusader. Yes, they both kill things. But their methods and reasons for killing things are, except in cases where motivations overlap (this same correlation can be made for any classes, really), entirely different. That's like saying an assassin and cleric are similar because they both have tools to kill their enemies.

I would also argue against Ranger being a "divine warrior". It's true their spells are granted by a god/goddess, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being a warrior devoted entirely to the god's cause. Those spells have one thing in mind when looking at them as a whole: survival. A Paladin's spell list has something different in mind: eradication of the enemy. Now, a Ranger will fall if their actions swing wide of what their god/goddess wants of them, but they are by no means bound to duty like a Paladin is. You could certainly play a Ranger as a divine warrior, but you could just as easily not. You cannot, however, play a Paladin as anything but.

_________________
Remember when I knew a boxer, baby

Er... after reading the OP a few times slowly and carefully just to be sure, I think I got overly excited over nothing. It's really contradictory and to be perfectly honest I don't know what you're asking for. :/

At the beginning you say this:



...and you start to talk about mechanics, but then there are two paragraphs containing preconceived notions of what Paladins and Rangers are and represent. This continues until the end of the post.

What do you waaaaant...?

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

Rangers can't cast Darkness.
Not all Rangers are Dex based.

I agree that Paladins are "Holy/Divine Warriors". They are designed to be self supporting Smiters of evil, able to hold their own against demons, devils, and such. They are the elite fighters of their chosen God, and represent a moral code of honor. They stood and defended their Kings, their churches, their Gods, and the people of those institutions.

Rangers, in my opinion, should be nature based as described in the Player's Hand Book. Just look at their Spell list in the PHB, and tell me what they are based upon. Yes, they are Divine Spells, granted by a deity, but they are not "Holy Warriors", being more concerned with the environment and creatures, than anything else. Rangers are not the elite warriors of a God, more akin to fighters, only they thrive in a natural setting. Multi-classing has formed too many misconceptions about this class, creating "city rangers", which is ridiculous, again in my opinion. I think they share with Paladin, the "loner" aspect of personality, but little else.

I've noticed a trend lately, with many people wanting to blend the classes into each other (skills, feats, etc.). They were designed to be what they are, for a reason. Diversity. I have to say, that all of the DM's I've been in Campaigns under, would not permit the god-awful multi-classing, and Skill dumping that I see taking place. First off, Skills are to be used as you gain your levels. "Spend all your Skill Points. You can't save them to spend later", is on page 62 of the PHB. But...game mechanics *shrugs* We all do it. It's a frickin video game, that pales in comparison to table-top. And Amia has made claims that it's not D&D, a shame, because that's what Neverwinter is, and even the Realm we play in. Anyway, I think the classes should remain basically as they were intended, with balance tweaks perhaps, due to poor and hasty (video) game creation, by people that had no clue.

Disclaimer: I am in no way demeaning the DM Staff here. Amia started out not nearly as lore proficient as it is today. The Amia Staff does a tremendous job, and takes a lot of flak, all without pay.

_________________

That's kind of the problem. It's impossible to completely divorce concepts about the classes' identity from a discussion of them. I am trying to point out the basic mechanical similarities and ask if such a broad interpretation of the potential applications of Ranger is warranted. I tried very hard to keep the "preconceptions" as you call them limited to only inferences based on the mechanical aspects of the classes rather than anything that might be drawn from their name. I know it seems like an internal contradiction, but to some degree you have to at least make basic inferences about what they can do, and I tried to keep the language neutral to indicate that I am only expressing what I see the mechanics as supporting.

What I want is to, as best I can put it, see if people feel like Ranger (and impliedly Paladin) suffer from our own perceptions of what those classes "should" be as opposed to what can be inferred simply by the mechanics of the classes themselves, or if others actually don't see a conflict at all, or even if there's a good argument to be made for those limited perceptions and why they're good for the community. I'm not trying to get any specific answer, but I am pointing out both that the classes are mechanically close enough that one can reasonably ape the other as my reasoning behind why I feel as I do. Is it reasonable to view the class in this broader spectrum of character possibilities, or are they truly just too different and specialized to ever truly be considered 'fraternal twins' as I've expressed?

I know that probably clears absolutely nothing up, but I was rather looking forward to reading your wall-o-text.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Okay, I disclaimed the Dex thing and Darkness is just nitpicking.

What you're saying is at the heart of why I think there's this 'limiting perception' in place. I think the PHB and source materials are a good thing when they inform and enable a character or concept, but not when they place additional restrictions not mechanically represented in NWN. For example, I want to build a shadowjumping shadow dragon because the concept simply seems fun. Many of my build concepts will include Druid, even though lorewise it's ridiculous (please don't attack this example, I don't even know if this build is possible off the top of my head) simply because I can reach my end goal that way. The character itself is just the character, a big fat mish-mash of classes and numbers that somehow turn into an entity. This concept is larger than the original question, however, and I'm trying to limit the discussion to just one or two classes without exploding a huge mess all over the place because the concept is simply too broad.

I don't feel that having individually segregated classes with defined ideas of what they are is in any way condusive to concept or character diversity- while I certainly agree with what you seem to be saying that there's a bloody annoying number of "homogenized do-everything" characters, I think they are not the point of what I'm talking about and almost feel like it's more a complaint about powerbuilders. What I mean is that divorcing the class names from anything except the hard numbers on the character sheet enables (in my opinion) far greater concept diversity because builders aren't constrained by RP considerations that couldn't reasonably be inferred just by looking at the sheets.

Spells, however, are a valid point. As our spells must (mostly) inherently adhere to their PnP equivalents and the RP behind them, many class-specific or class-limited spells necessarily carry over some of that non-mechanical flavour; to do otherwise would simply be a nightmare for the DMs both for logistics and memory. From that perspective, yes, I can see justifiable reasons to impose concept limitations based on nonmechanical RP considerations. However, I do disagree with the idea that "diversity" is enhanced by imposing more limitations than what are necessary for sanity and sense.

As noted, my original concept is a subset of this larger consideration; I didn't really want to take on a huge blanket assertion as it's simply impractical to do so on many levels.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

I agree with your basic premise. Classes absolutely should not be seen as anything but toolkits to represent your inspired concept. It is a somewhat doomed discussion, though, because I believe it boils down to personality type.

Forgive me the crude generalisation, but my years of experience and observation on these forums and others suggest that there is a line dividing two groups of people on many similar issues. One side needs and enjoys being told what to do, and for others to be told, too; they want clear rules and parametres within which to play and enjoy the game. For them, uncertainty and ambiguity is a frustrating problem or a necessary evil to be minimised and dismissed. They want to know how it is, period. Because if there is no answer, how can we trust others to play fair or, in fact, play the same game of D&D at all?

The other side abhors someone telling them how to interpret and play the game. They want to break preconceptions and live off the shades of gray. They are willing to dismiss or heavily reinterpret pieces of the rules that don't suit their purposes because, hey, who could possibly know better. When they see a problem, they don't expect a cut-and-dry solution but rather appreciate the problem as such, and all the possibilities it opens up. If we don't trust others to play fair, how can we expect personal freedom of interpretation, either; and if we don't have that creative freedom, what is the point of playing an old RPG in the first place?

I have tried to be as fair as possible in my characterisation. Obviously, I have strong personal disdain for the former attitude, so some bias is to be expected. My point is, however, that given this fundamental difference it is hopeless to try to convince the other side of your specific arguments (how classes should be used or a given concept interpreted, for example) when the premises are entirely different. You can be sure you're right because X follows or is presupposed, but when the opponent thinks X is not a good thing to begin with, you just won't find enough common ground.

_________________

You can have an atheist ranger.

You cannot have an atheist paladin.

I must say I've never seen ranger as a divine class, both conceptually or literally.

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

An Athiest Ranger (no chosen God), would have no Spells, since they are granted by a deity.

_________________

Sure, but would benefit from many a feat granted to Rangers.

An atheist paladin got nothing.

_________________
Mercadier - *sleeps six feet under the warm sands of Khem*
Alex - Life is adventure or nothing!
Eddie - Sex, drugs and rock'n... more sex.
=========
Obsidian (inactive)

I just want to point out that I have a (moderately) successful str-based ranger and a solidly-built dex paladin. I don't even mean to refute your point here, actually I think the fact that you can freely bizarro-flip the stats means that really the "traditional stat focus" is meaningless. Which I think supports your argument?

I pretty much agree though - whether (D&D design-side) someone dropped the ball or it was a deliberate design decision, every god can sponsor rangers. And every ranger gets a naturey list. Well, every cleric gets the same spell list as every other cleric too (except for domain spells). So what this means to me is, yeah - in a technical sense Ranger is a divine class, but more importantly they can be played that way (although it's non-essential). I mean, why not? Obviously many archetypes are mutually exclusive for the individual, but yes I agree that Ranger can be whatever you want it to be within the parameters of the class. Really you can run the gamut between atheist, sufficient-lip-service-but-really-more-interested-in-other-things-ist, or devout follower of whoever (be they nature deity or no). I mean it's written in the rules that you can be a ranger of Asmodeus, or Velsharoon. You obviously can't revere nature like a druid and well frankly you should be choosing your deities for a reason - so you may as well be devout, you may as well be a holy warrior.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

To be more constructive: rather than find parallels or try to distil a class to what it's really about, I like to think of it like this: every class level is a collection of loosely related but distinct abilities. This, obviously, is OOC: you don't just "ding" and suddenly raise your BAB, HP, detection skills, learn a new spell and get a job point in Fishing when your meat shield kills a giant king. It is an approximation of what kind of stuff your character has learned roughly in the period between two levels.

Moreover, every class comes with a predefined package that represents the archetype game developers had in mind for it. Now, this can be very fitting for some characters, but I wager it doesn't accurately represent most PCs. Even if you multiclass, and even if you customise with feats and skills, you're still limited to a fairly rigid set of predefined choices. In some cases, you just can't make it work, your character sheet and character concept won't align 100% no matter what you try.

So my stance is, to exaggerate a little: you need not role-play (all of) your character sheet. I know, that seems very controversial and against the mantra of most RP devotees. But frankly, it is the only stance which respects role-play over gameplay. I am primarily interested in telling a story, or creating a living character, and the game is a tool to represent that as closely as possible. So rather than trouble myself over whether Joon is really Lawful Neutral (I wager he's not; but I could make a good argument for at least LN, TN, NG and CG as his alignment), I accept the fact that it's the closest I can get for an unarmored, wrestling Friar Tuck type of Oghmanyte priest. If I dropped the Monk levels, I could make his build more faithful to the RP in some aspects, but lose a lot more of the concept in other aspects.

So to revise my thesis a little: you need not role-play (all of) your character sheet, as long as you have a reason for everything on it and it was the best choice available.

So! What do I actually think about the topic? I think it's a good idea to look at the features of classes and focus on the aspects that best fit your concept. Then you try to come up with a build that maximises features fitting to your concept and minimises features that seem out-of-place. But alas, the nature of D&D is such that you'll usually have something extra. Joon has Stunning Fist, a Divine Avenger of Hoar type of Ranger can summon bunnies and sneak in the woods, even if that has nothing to do with the concept. So you just suck it up and play it down. So it's not like Ranger is a "nature-themed warden or hunter with a divine patron"; rather it is a toolkit that is perhaps best suited to represent such a concept, but can really represent many concepts that have nothing to do with nature or even hunting. It is all about identifying the core features (in Ranger's case, perhaps, divine spells, a reskinnable companion, and combat training against a specific enemy) and picking the class that best aligns with your character concept.

I already mentioned a champion of Hoar; I could see that work very well as Ranger, reskinning the animal companion to a trained bloodhound, learning to fight humanoids and others who need some revenge, and drawing on semi-clerical spells. Even if there is nothing whatsoever nature- or survival- or tracking-themed about the character, Ranger can still be the best fit to represent the concept.

_________________

First of all:



(Emphasis mine)

Haha, don't do that. I was quoting you.



I've typed up seven different responses to this paragraph here and deleted all of them because I feel like your wording is some sort of debate tactic judo, impossible to quantify and even harder to discuss. From the phrasing of the OP I feel that you don't think there should be a roleplay limitation on how you play either class, but I can't be sure, so I don't really want to get into it unless I know exactly what you're after.

What do you want? Is there something you want to play but you're worried it would get canned if anyone found out? Do you want to play a Paladin who acts like a Ranger without the paladin code? Do you want the alignment restriction removed? Do you want to make a Ranger who says they're a Paladin and smites favored enemies?

What do you waaaaaaant?

EDIT: Also, I am salivating at the idea of debating some of the other points raised in this thread that aren't directly related to your amorphous question, but I'm trying to be good.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

Personally, I perceive that classes are their name, and not just the range of their abilities.
A class is the combination of its mechanics and its spirit, the spear at the head of the spear indicating the direction.

In the other hand, I agree with how the kit of the classes are designed in the case, one being a head-on stupid honorable fighter, and the other having the ability to manipulate the field to the advantage.

But then again, what's your point for the discussion? I'm hoppin' aboard the same train with Council here.

_________________
Womans in your town

The thing about Rangers and Paladins is that they don't just fulfill different combat roles, they also have very different types of goals. The nature deities that Rangers follow generally have a set of common characteristics, and are united by theme. Paladin deities, however, are entirely dependant on alignment, which means there is no defining theme. A Paladin of Mystra is going to have wildly different goals from a Paladin of Hoar, and there is little reason the two should ever interact.

I'm kind of in favour of dropping the alignment restriction on Paladins. Not because I feel there's something massively wrong with the class as it is, but because it seems arbitrary that evil or chaotic deities aren't able to bestow "divine warrior"-abilities to their followers as a base class. I kinda think it'd make more sense for Divine Champion to be a base class, with Paladin and Blackguard being prestige classes.

_________________
Currently playing:
Aven Brinyflask
Safaya Dalai
Riyit
Chsera Hile

(Credits to Raua for the sprite, sauce -here-.)

This. I never pictured it before, and I like this line of thought.

_________________
Womans in your town

That is a pipedream, but a pleasant one. In general, base classes should have been stripped of all fluff and presented with as little lore specificity as possible.

I have to correct you, though, Larsaan. Rangers can follow any deity (and thus have any goals), not just nature deities. There is contradictory information on this in the canon material, but this is the line Amia takes (and indeed is most supported by the late 3.5 material).

_________________

Sorry for the misattribution!

Just debate whatever you want, the original post is somewhat unfocused anyway and it's not like we're asking for any changes based on the discussion. It's more or less become a big mish-mash of ideas, just throw your thoughts at the wall and see what sticks.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

I think I understand what Eurgiga is trying to get at. As such, for sake of clarity and being concise, I will respond to the things I've read with bullet-point thought blurbs:

Paladin and Ranger are analogous insofar as they are martial classes with a splash of divine; or, perhaps more specifically, Paladin is to Cleric what Ranger is to Druid. This is a broad generalization, mind, but an accurate one.

Paladins are not "pigeonholed" any more than a Monk or a Cleric is -- they have a set of parameters within which they must operate to functionally role play appropriately and still maintain their mechanical benefits. However, I would argue that of all the classes in Neverwinter Nights it is far more difficult for the average person to appropriately role play a Paladin (which is, in part, why their abilities are just so darn good).

Rangers have very loose restrictions and can easily fit into almost any mold, only more restrictive than vanilla Fighter and common Rogue. However, they still have parameters they must follow. If they do not, they fall and lose their spells and abilities like anyone else.

In NWN we do not have all the classes, prestige classes, and options that are available in pen and paper Dungeons & Dragons. Thus, at times, with a request, we must use certain classes and kits available to us to emulate another. As an example (and one that will likely hit home with this thread and what Eurgiga is trying to get to): An Antipaladin is not feasible on Amia. A cleric is not nearly martial enough, too heavily invested in casting; a Paladin cannot be made outside its alignment parameters; and a Blackguard or a Divine Champion do not a equivalent to a Paladin make. Thus, Ranger is absolutely the best stand-in for an Antipaladin. Is it 100% correlated with the pen and paper version? Of course not. But it's a heck of a lot closer than all the other options.

These are, of course, special circumstances. One cannot simply roll a Paladin of Meilikki and get an animal companion; nor can one make a Ranger and call it anything but a Ranger without proper requests made. It's still fun to talk about, though.

_________________
"I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest."

I think you are partially mistaken about the request part, RA. You can freely emulate classes with some specific restrictions. There have been some attempts to limit this freedom, but so far they have not been codified into law. I have reposted this like four times now; it still hasn't made it into the rules, but it has the authority of tradition and, more importantly, anything that the rules don't explicitly prohibit is allowed by default (note that Sune was already DM by the time of writing):



It doesn't mean much for the most contested cases like paladin, of course. I mean, by that formulation (which is just my attempt to put into words something that was always ambiguous) a PC with paladin levels is still subject to the core requirements of conduct, so even if he doesn't call himself a paladin he'll have to act very much like one. But it is a real distinction, nonetheless.

The topic in Rules, titled "Creation Your Character", should contain all legitimate rules concerning character creation. Somehow it has actually lost the piece about special powers like Psionics being request-only. There should be an effort to codify a general rule of thumb along the lines sketched above, and a list of special cases that require requests. It is OK that some things are request-only, but every player and DM seems to have a slightly different idea of where the line goes. It needs to be considered carefully, one prestige class or ability at a time, and recorded for future reference.

Something like Psioncs, Truenamers, Ur-Priests would obviously be request-only; Bladesingers, Shamans, Dirge Singers, Invisible Blades etc. are fairly uncontroversially fair game. The debatable area would be stuff like Warlocks (some of which have been requested) and Servants of the Fallen or Heretics of the Faith (for which I would propose a simple rule: if it's in the list of predefined examples in LEoF for PoF and lore kosher, no request; if it's something out of the ordinary, request). In any case, until we get specifics like this, there is no guarantee of consistent treatment.

_________________

I think the 1st and 2nd edition did not really make a lot difference between ranger and paladin, only that they allowed rangers to be NG or CG other than LG. Of course there were abilities such as animal empathy but it didn't really mean much since you were only allowed to cast spells from lvl 9.

Originally the ranger was inspired by Aragorn, and was restricted to good alignments (maybe even lg but i don't remember). At that time the spirit of the class was actually a character that defended civilization from the wilderness. Personally I am actually confused about what the ranger actually is anymore, but it's not necessarily a warden of nature. What I hope happens in this discussion is that a core for ramgers is revealed, because I have a hard time figuring what Earalenia, Aragorn, the ranger of Asmadeus and the urban ranger has in common in the end. For me though, the dex-based and dual-wielding ranger archetype is an abomination. A ranger for me should be able to use a longsword, and still be able to sneak around

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition

Wait, what does that make Crow? He's a Str based dual longsword wielding ranger, who is actually a fair sneak.

_________________

Hush. Crow doesn't count.

_________________
Womans in your town

Crow is a ranger that can't make up his mind he claims to be concerned about nature but seems more like the chivalrous/heroic Aragorn-like ranger

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition