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

[Salamandyr]

We've already got a non spell using ranger...fighter with a woodsman background.

Color me happy that, at least based on what we've seen so far, they appear to have made the ranger and paladin something distinct from "fighter with a bunch of extra stuff".

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Hmm, interesting.

Paladin & options for other alignments sound good. I forget who suggested the overall category should be Knight or Cavalier with the Paladin title reserved for the Good variant, but I agree with that approach as well to maintain the historical linkage of Paladin with LG/Good.

Druid is a good start, though I think I'd like an option to trade wild shape for an animal companion as an alternate design.

Ranger ... nice to see the mandatory fighting styles dropped, though I'd prefer an option to trade off spells, perhaps for increased skills or an animal companion (one plus for the 4E ranger was the ability to decide how to trade among various prior D&D ranger archetypes).

The other mechanics sound like a step in the right direction but I'll have to see the packet.

 

[Salamandyr]

Animal companions...I want this to be something anybody can have.

 

[Grimmjow]

so who is happy that the warden is a neutral paladin? i think its an idea worth trying and am exicited by it but im sure there are others who are not

Animal companions...I want this to be something anybody can have.

a theme? that would be a good idea.

 

[Bow_Seat]

so who is happy that the warden is a neutral paladin? i think its an idea worth trying and am exicited by it but im sure there are others who are not

I'm digging it, although I would also have been cool with a sort of LN justicar.

 

[Salamandyr]

so who is happy that the warden is a neutral paladin? i think its an idea worth trying and am exicited by it but im sure there are others who are not



a theme? that would be a good idea.

I don't even want that. Want a dog? Go spend the gp to buy one and train it. Want a gryphon? Go out and find an egg. Pets and companion should be something that anyone can acquire through roleplaying. I don't want a pet class...I want pets.

Now to veer into a complete other subject. As I said above, the nonspell using ranger is the fighter with the woodsman background. I'm serious about this. There should not be a single non-magical thing that the ranger can do better than a fighter who has taken the right options to be a woodsman; tracking, woodlore, stealth-the fighter ought to be able to do all of those things as well as a ranger class. I shouldn't ever need to have a ranger, if I don't want a magical wood guy class. Skilled skirmish fighter ought to be an archetype of fighter, not a type of ranger.

Same with the paladin; if I want to play a non-magic, secular knight in shining armor, I should be able to do that with the fighter class. My campaigns shouldn't need paladins to have knights, rangers to have valiant woodsmen, or barbarians to have savage "men of the north."

 

[Dice4Hire]

Overall, I have to agree. Make classes by mixing the pieces, not fine tuning different classes by adding different pieces.

Too many classes is harder to balance and less interesting to me.

 

[GX.Sigma]

so who is happy that the warden is a neutral paladin?

Haven't played enough 4e to see a Warden. What's a Warden?

Edit: I looked it up in the PHB2. So it's just a fighter/druid? Why do we need a class for that?

 

[Pour]

I think the Paladin-Warden-Blackguard is worth a try, but I'm not sure definition by alignment is as exciting as definition by Oath. Not only would it free up alignment restrictions (is alignment still optional?), it also opens up the possibility of creating an interesting union of Power Sources, Patrons, Gods, and Ideals from a number of editions influencing this sort of Paragon or Champion. As someone mentioned elsewhere, you could create interesting design space with a champion of anything from Heaven, Hell, demons, primal spirits, a certain kingdom or civilization, Bushido, Truth, Greed, The Prince of Frost, or Cthulhu. This expanded concept could join together such not only Blackguard, Warden, and Paladin, but also Hexblade (martial-oriented Warlocks). And if the Oath was magical, could we possible see the Swordmage?

Then again, this is a big step in the specificity direction, and if we're going this deep into differentiating martial types, then I imagine we're going to be seeing all kinds of full classes in the future derived from any number of fictional concepts so long as they can justify specific mechanics. It's my personal opinion, then, if this is the chosen design paradigm that the Warlord and some type of Avenger/Assassin hybrid get spots.

I do still want to see a version of the playtest with core four and expansive options to create all other classes within the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue, though, too. Otherwise I'm not sure which I like better.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't even want that. Want a dog? Go spend the gp to buy one and train it. Want a gryphon? Go out and find an egg. Pets and companion should be something that anyone can acquire through roleplaying. I don't want a pet class...I want pets.

Now to veer into a complete other subject. As I said above, the nonspell using ranger is the fighter with the woodsman background. I'm serious about this. There should not be a single non-magical thing that the ranger can do better than a fighter who has taken the right options to be a woodsman; tracking, woodlore, stealth-the fighter ought to be able to do all of those things as well as a ranger class. I shouldn't ever need to have a ranger, if I don't want a magical wood guy class. Skilled skirmish fighter ought to be an archetype of fighter, not a type of ranger.

Same with the paladin; if I want to play a non-magic, secular knight in shining armor, I should be able to do that with the fighter class. My campaigns shouldn't need paladins to have knights, rangers to have valiant woodsmen, or barbarians to have savage "men of the north."

This is the sort of reducto ad infinitum argument that really accomplishes nothing. D&D has never been a game of the "magic user" and the "fighting man" with a dozen archetypes. So arguing that you don't need anything other than those and some archetypes isn't going to be a productive way to go.