D&D 5E L&L: New Packet Hits This Wednesday
Kobold Avenger
Legend
The thing with there being druid circle for specializing in either wildshape or spellcasting, certainly leaves the door open for a splat-book to cover other druid circles such as specializing in companions.
Raith5
Adventurer
Hah. My thoughts exactly, especially at first level. I know they said that non core four classes would have a narrower focus but spell casting just tramples all over the skilled woodsman vibe which is at the core of the class. Calming animals, detecting or delaying poisons, detecting animals, resisting weather etc - should be skills.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Overall I'm pretty pleased with what I read in this article. I look forward to the new packet!
Druid: I'm glad that they're giving wild shape at level 1. I'm also glad that they're getting specific forms instead of being told to look through the monster manual and recalculate your entire character. That said, a hound? Huh? Wouldn't a wolf be more thematically appropriate? It's a minor nitpick, I know.
Paladin: I'm not fond of the alignment-division, but at least they don't have to be LG, so it's a HUGE step in the right direction, and I can live with this. I'm also glad that good paladins can only detect undead and fiends, instead of having a plot-breaking evil-radar. I'm not sure how I feel about the warden being a N paladin. I'll just have to see it.
Ranger: I love that favored enemy gives benefits that are broadly useful, so you no longer have to hope that a specific creature type will be in the adventure. I'm not fond of the spellcasting, however. I think spells should be optional. I also am not happy that TWF and Archery are being removed from the class. I hope this doesn't mean that my ranger can never use things like Rapid Shot without multiclassing as a Fighter! I think it would be better if they let you choose between a fighting style and spells.
Fighter: It looks like expertise dice are once again a fighter-only thing, so fighters finally have something unique to call their own. I'm also glad that they're a sort of encounter resource, rather than something you use every single turn. That gives it a nice strategic element that was lacking before.
Math: Thank the gods, MDD are going away! I'm a bit leery of extra attacks, but as long as they keep them in check (say, no more than 3 attacks by level 20) and don't have any kind of confusing iterative attack and full attack action nonsense, it could work.
Plus, since martial character attacks won't scale in damage anymore, cantrips no longer need to become better than 1st, 2nd or even 3rd level spells anymore, restoring spells to common sense. Hopefully, this will result in alot less people complaining about at-will cantrips.
Druid: I'm glad that they're giving wild shape at level 1. I'm also glad that they're getting specific forms instead of being told to look through the monster manual and recalculate your entire character. That said, a hound? Huh? Wouldn't a wolf be more thematically appropriate? It's a minor nitpick, I know.
Paladin: I'm not fond of the alignment-division, but at least they don't have to be LG, so it's a HUGE step in the right direction, and I can live with this. I'm also glad that good paladins can only detect undead and fiends, instead of having a plot-breaking evil-radar. I'm not sure how I feel about the warden being a N paladin. I'll just have to see it.
Ranger: I love that favored enemy gives benefits that are broadly useful, so you no longer have to hope that a specific creature type will be in the adventure. I'm not fond of the spellcasting, however. I think spells should be optional. I also am not happy that TWF and Archery are being removed from the class. I hope this doesn't mean that my ranger can never use things like Rapid Shot without multiclassing as a Fighter! I think it would be better if they let you choose between a fighting style and spells.
Fighter: It looks like expertise dice are once again a fighter-only thing, so fighters finally have something unique to call their own. I'm also glad that they're a sort of encounter resource, rather than something you use every single turn. That gives it a nice strategic element that was lacking before.
Math: Thank the gods, MDD are going away! I'm a bit leery of extra attacks, but as long as they keep them in check (say, no more than 3 attacks by level 20) and don't have any kind of confusing iterative attack and full attack action nonsense, it could work.
Plus, since martial character attacks won't scale in damage anymore, cantrips no longer need to become better than 1st, 2nd or even 3rd level spells anymore, restoring spells to common sense. Hopefully, this will result in alot less people complaining about at-will cantrips.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Clerics get Channel Divinity, which has some healing uses.
It sounds like they're using a similar philosophy for the priest classes as the martial classes--they share the same basic progression, but get something on top of that: the fighter gets maneuvers and the paladin gets magic, but they share the base fighting capabilities (damage bonus/extra attacks). Sounds like the Cleric gets channel divinity and the Druid gets wild shape, but they share the base priesty capabilities (spells).
There's something very pleasingly 2e about it all. I wonder if they'll do the same for the magic-usery classes--if so, what's the Wizard's unique thing?
(Either that, or he's just saying Druids get the same cure spells at the same spell levels as Clerics.)
This is mine.
Last edited:
MortalPlague
Adventurer
Personally, I love it. It feels like a good fit; it's the druid's paladin, whereas the cavalier is the cleric's paladin. We'll know more when we see it, of course.
I agree with you there. I'm sad to see it come to prominence, when I was hoping it would be gone entirely. As far as I'm concerned, Strider is the model ranger, and he doesn't use magic at all.
delericho
Legend
I like what he said about two-weapon wielders being as good as two-hander and sword-and-board users by default. But if they're including feats to make you better with two-weapon style (which they should), they should also be sure to include feats to make the other styles better as well.
And some feats for using a single weapon (and nothing in the other hand) wouldn't go amiss, too.
And some feats for using a single weapon (and nothing in the other hand) wouldn't go amiss, too.
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
I'm very curious to see what changes have been made to the races. As I stated in a previous thread, I really hope that they have changed the ability modifiers, especially those for humans.
Li Shenron
Legend
Wow, at least a weaker earlier than I thought, and 3 new classes in the same package! 
I pretty much like all the anticipated changes mentioned in the article!
Only the encounter-based expertise dice got me worried, but let's see how it works, if it's fatigue-based then I might be ok with it.
I seriously hope one day they'll reconsider the Human ability bonuses, but I don't think this is when, because the article basically mentions minor changes.
I think they are trying to avoid the old "paladin as ultimate Sherlock" problem that can stem from letting him spot anyone with evil alignment, and also they probably want the Detect Evil feature work also in games without alignment.
Good undead can exist if you want them to. It depends on the campaign setting... I don't see much problem in leaving Detect Evil a bit open-ended so that the DM has some room to fit it into the campaign. Essentially what this first version of Detect Evil will probably do is allow to detect creatures who are unquestionably evil by nature, and the DM might have a saying on which ones really are.
I pretty much like all the anticipated changes mentioned in the article!
Only the encounter-based expertise dice got me worried, but let's see how it works, if it's fatigue-based then I might be ok with it.
I seriously hope one day they'll reconsider the Human ability bonuses, but I don't think this is when, because the article basically mentions minor changes.
I think they are trying to avoid the old "paladin as ultimate Sherlock" problem that can stem from letting him spot anyone with evil alignment, and also they probably want the Detect Evil feature work also in games without alignment.
Good undead can exist if you want them to. It depends on the campaign setting... I don't see much problem in leaving Detect Evil a bit open-ended so that the DM has some room to fit it into the campaign. Essentially what this first version of Detect Evil will probably do is allow to detect creatures who are unquestionably evil by nature, and the DM might have a saying on which ones really are.
