D&D 5E L&L: New Packet Hits This Wednesday

[am181d]

Why retread the same ground again? Don't get hooked up that you can only play a skilled nature character as the ranger class. It's not like some earlier editions where there was a skill divide between them.

How is a Ranger that gets spells at 1st level not a Druid? How is a Paladin that gets spells at 1st level not a Cleric?

(The answer to these questions are the same as the answer to yours.)

Personally, I *greatly* prefer Paladins and Rangers to have special abilities unique to their specialty *but no overt spellcasting.* I think there's plenty of space to define a non-spellcasting Ranger (with environmental- and foe-specific capabilties) that don't intrude on what the Fighter or Rogue already do.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've always seen a problem with rolling 1 attack at a time as always being slow, and in that case it's probably better to roll attack and damage at the same time.

That can help. IMXP spellcasters have always been slower than fighter-types in resolving their turn, so multiple attack rolls don't bother me very much (to a certain point, obviously... 3/round is a good maximum for me).

 

[Li Shenron]

How is a Ranger that gets spells at 1st level not a Druid? How is a Paladin that gets spells at 1st level not a Cleric?

(The answer to these questions are the same as the answer to yours.)

Personally, I *greatly* prefer Paladins and Rangers to have special abilities unique to their specialty *but no overt spellcasting.* I think there's plenty of space to define a non-spellcasting Ranger (with environmental- and foe-specific capabilties) that don't intrude on what the Fighter or Rogue already do.

I would also prefer this, but as a second choice I would settle for spells that are unique to their classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

How is a Ranger that gets spells at 1st level not a Druid? How is a Paladin that gets spells at 1st level not a Cleric?

(The answer to these questions are the same as the answer to yours.)

Personally, I *greatly* prefer Paladins and Rangers to have special abilities unique to their specialty *but no overt spellcasting.* I think there's plenty of space to define a non-spellcasting Ranger (with environmental- and foe-specific capabilties) that don't intrude on what the Fighter or Rogue already do.

I would also prefer this, but as a second choice I would settle for spells that are unique to their classes.

 

[Klaus]

How is a Ranger that gets spells at 1st level not a Druid? How is a Paladin that gets spells at 1st level not a Cleric?

(The answer to these questions are the same as the answer to yours.)

Personally, I *greatly* prefer Paladins and Rangers to have special abilities unique to their specialty *but no overt spellcasting.* I think there's plenty of space to define a non-spellcasting Ranger (with environmental- and foe-specific capabilties) that don't intrude on what the Fighter or Rogue already do.

As Mearls posted on Twitter, the most important part of the feedback at this point is: is it fun? Does it feel right? That is more important than balance at this point (and while you can adjust balance objectively, adjusting "fun/right" is very subjective). So if spellcasting paladins and rangers feel wrong to you at the table, make sure you comment on that in your feedback.

 

[Gebrothru]

If a fighter gains a 2nd attack without penalty, this represents an effective doubling of damage output at a single level gain; not so good. Adding the 2nd attack with penalty reduces this effect, but complicates play and makes 3rd attacks at a severe penalty.

One option might be to introduce the 2nd attack at a penalty (e.g. -5), but reduce this by 1 at subsequent level increases. Additional attacks when this penalty had reduced to zero. This would avoid the big step change in damage and almost-useless 3rd attacks. Of course, more housekeeping.

 

[Bow_Seat]

If a fighter gains a 2nd attack without penalty, this represents an effective doubling of damage output at a single level gain; not so good. Adding the 2nd attack with penalty reduces this effect, but complicates play and makes 3rd attacks at a severe penalty.

One option might be to introduce the 2nd attack at a penalty (e.g. -5), but reduce this by 1 at subsequent level increases. Additional attacks when this penalty had reduced to zero. This would avoid the big step change in damage and almost-useless 3rd attacks. Of course, more housekeeping.

I think they are avoiding the doubling of damage pretty well. I noticed in the Legends and Lore section that fighters will have to do some kind of recharge in order to do big damage using their expertise dice. If we go ahead and presuppose that the majority of fighter damage is going to come from the expertise dice, rather than regular weapon damage dice, then adding an extra melee attack will not be doubling the fighter's damage/round.

If it is the case, however, that the expertise damage applies to all attacks from that round (which I don't think they will) then you are right that it would double the damage.

 

[VinylTap]

It would be nice if the Ranger could choose between Magic or a powerful animal companion. I'm not super keen on forcing the class to use spells, but the option is optimal.

 

[Pour]

It would be nice if the Ranger could choose between Magic or a powerful animal companion. I'm not super keen on forcing the class to use spells, but the option is optimal.

Part of me feels the team has to opt for magic, because it's one of the few, somewhat flimsy differences between a Ranger as a class and a Fighter with woodland hunter or scout-type specialties and a specified selection of feats/weapon choices which comprise the idea of a 'ranger'. I think the spell list is about all separating the concept of Paladins and Fighters, as well. That said, I imagine the oath mechanics will further separate Paladin from Fighter, but there is a glaring martial overlap between all fighting classes and the Fighter I'm still not seeing reconciled.

 

[Kobold Boots]

On Ranger v. Fighter

Rangers in 1e had spells if their attributes were high enough and they had high enough levels to get access to them. They were a sub-class of Fighter. Fighters didn't have much to save them from being less cool than Rangers or Paladins as I remember and those classes were pretty much "better" overall than fighter.

Later editions did things to beef up the fighter and make him worth playing. Ultimately, the fighter needs to be able to deal more damage, more often and take more damage, more often, than the other classes. He can stand to not be cool in other areas, because that's the class's niche. Give them whatever mechanic or weapon and armor choices you need to to make that happen and you succeed.

You can do whatever you need to do with Ranger and Paladin to make them a strong thematic choice that makes a player want to play them; but they can't do what the fighter does. If that means the Ranger isn't the best archer or the best swordsman, but they have spell-like abilities that allow them to supernaturally track or detect poison or whatever great. That's the choice of the player. Really, when it's thought about through to the end; there's no functional difference between any character and any other character on the sliding power scale.. it's just what the theme gives the character and where the character's focus is. But at the point where you've got spell-like abilities that can be used a certain number of times a day.. just call them spells and be done with it.

Generally, I think that's where they're going with first-level spells for Pally and Ranger.

On Pally and alignment types

I'm glad they've separated the term Paladin from Cavalier, Warden and Blackguard. Honestly, I wish they'd have reversed that and made Cavalier the source with Paladin, Warden and Blackguard the descriptors because there's a lot of history and vibe to the Paladin name that should be retained and the Cavalier core class is more like the 1e UA approach. Still it's semantics.

For me: I'll make sure the Paladin is the holy knight, the Warden is the druidic champion and the Blackguard is the infernal bastard they need to be and I doubt highly that they'll be anything like each other in terms of vibe when met in game such that anyone calls them "hey neutral pally" or "hey evil pally".. cause to me that's wrong.

I think the direction they're going is a solid one and I'll be sure to un-fubar whatever the community at large decides to fubar when the game system gets to my table.