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

[Libramarian]

I definitely think calling the "good" Paladin, "Paladin", while still having alternate paladin subclasses of different alignment/oaths, would be just enough of a nod towards that being the traditional paladin without forcing it on everyone.

I like everything else in the article.

Very interested in seeing these exploration rules.

 

[1of3]

I'm on the edge concerning Ranger casting. I'd rather have the option to choose a spell or a fighter ability at every level.

For the Paladin, I think the mount is a little late. 8th level is well in the territory of Flight, bordering Teleport. And the Paladin gets a horse? Furthermore the Mount is an iconic element of the Paladin, it changes the way the character looks. I'd rather have those at first level, much like they put Wildshape at first level.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Mike Mearls had confirmed on Twitter a few weeks ago that Ranger, Druid and Paladin would be capable of healing, and thus having Ranger and Paladin having spells at 1st level can be a great way to remove pressure off of the Cleric as healing class. I was a bit uneasy at first, but considering those two classes were spellcasters in their history its not a big stretch to have them get to cast right from the begining and it help the system. So i feel better about it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ranger - ... In this case, taking away the Ranger's TWF/Archery (a good thing, IMO) leaves the Ranger with Favored Enemies and... well, that's it really. The Ranger's "wilderness lore" has most been covered by spells since the days of AD&D. So it makes sense to fill it with spells (presumably with overlap from the Druid).

Maybe the Ranger could have both a Favored Enemy and a Favored Terrain. These and unique Ranger spells, plus a subclassing mechanics (Ranger's Lodges?) could be enough for the class to stand on its own with decent breadth.

Paladin - ... While the default options are based on good and evil, it's certainly possible to extend that to be alignment-neutral. I also like the continued separation of the Paladin from the Cleric in the realm of power source. I suppose that you could make Oaths or re-skin them to be based on Gods, but this way there's no built-in obligation.

I think that if the designers would realize how redundant the energy channeling concept is for the Cleric (it serve no purpose significantly different from spells), this would "free" the channeling mechanic to be used as the defining mechanic for another class, i.e. the Paladin, in which case we will have a supernatural but spell-less Paladin class which I think is a good middle ground, considering that a lot of people don't like Paladins with spells but the majority still wants them to have some unearthly powers.

In any case Oaths are much better than having Paladins belong to a specific God. Clerics are already the fighting champions of their deities, otherwise they would be mere priests.

I hope however that Neutral Paladins will be meant in a strong sense i.e. True Neutrality, not "unaligned" which is way too weak to base an ethos on it.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

If I understand right, the 5e designers are specifically trying to avoid "pets" as default class features, and rather have them as something that more or less anyone can have but nobody has by default. The Paladin's Mount is the first exception to that IIRC, however there's a hint at the fact that it won't be a fighting pet at least, and will work more like part of your equipment (if you pass me the expression).

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.

The way I see it, buying/training animals or finding through roleplay will always be possible, just as hiring mercenaries.

But not every gaming group likes that, especially is the group is more into action rather than roleplay and building characters through narrative. So having some "character building blocks" like feats that grant you a pet or a cohort can come handy in those groups.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

You're absolutely right!

I guess the reason is simply that this is the first draft, it has to have some options but that doesn't end here, so they started with the first most glaring possibilities.

In the future, it should be possible to have several Paladins even for each alignment (as general reference, groups not using alignment can still have those Paladins but will ignore the alignment tag), depending on how narrow or wide a Paladin's ethos is.

The problem with using the fighter is they are proficient in all armor. I am no longer willing to tell players to ignore armor proficiency to meet the concept of a light armored weapon and the rules not giving them something extra in return for effectively giving up standard class features. I am also no longer willing to start making patches for things like this- the designers need to address it in the rules.

Should be solved by creating a decent reason for wearing each armor. Well maybe all of them is a bit hard, but at least decent reasons enough for choosing Light over Medium over Heavy, even for a Fighter who is proficient in all. After all, that's what already happens with shields: using sword & board is going to be designed to that it isn't straight better than 2 weapons or a 2-handed weapon, so those classes who have shield proficiencies have the advantage of flexibility rather than a straight better option. Maybe this should be done for armors also?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

A quick thought on how multiple attacks might work without dramatically increasing damage when you acquire an additional attack. Let's assume that they also move towards weapon dice affecting your damage output, rather than having martial damage dice explicitly. So, at first level you get 1[W], and that might increase every few levels until it reaches some maximum. Along side this, independently, you might have a maximum number of attacks, starting at 1 (+1 with two weapon fighting) and also increasing every few levels until it reaches some maximum.

If we take an imaginary mid-level character who has a maximum of 2 attacks per action and 4[W] damage. There are several ways you could dictate how multiple attacks work, but I will discount that each attack does your 4[W] damage, since that does provide the dramatic increase in output mentioned above. You could declare before each attack how many [W] you are committing to that attack, roll and deal damage if you hit - I think this would be a little slow though as people have to assess likelihood to hit, toughness of target and so on each time they want to attack. You could declare *after* each attack how many [W] you are committing to that attack, roll and then choose how much damage you will deal - this still requires you to think about toughness of target, but less about your chance to hit. Now, that might be a bit too generous - you miss once, but there's no penalty other than you must commit all your damage to your remaining attack, which is no great loss against a single target. So, a small penalty might be that you lose 1[W] damage for each attack you miss. Multiple targets? You have the flexibility to attack different enemies, and you can divide the damage up on the fly. Single target? You're encouraged to commit all your damage if you hit first time, but if you *don't* then you get another chance.

I think a simple system like this would make martial-oriented classes have much more impact in combat. Not only will they be able to slice up multiple enemies with a single action, but they are *very* good against single targets, as their damage is made less all-or-nothing. The progression in damage output would also be smoother - no sudden doubling, with the most dramatic increase appearing when you get your second attack - though this would be an average increase, the maximum would not change.

 

[Bluenose]

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'd be happy if the Warden was a Nature "paladin", rather than it being an alignment thing. The Green Knight of Nature, to go with the White Knight of Generic Good Religion and the Black Knight of Generic Evil Religion. I'd prefer the overall name of the class to be Champion, someone who has sworn an oath to a particular cause. Paladin, Warden, and Blackguard as the sub-classes/builds. I suspect there's scope for other types, believing in Law or Chaos for example.

I think they're also missing a trick with the Ranger. While I'm not a fan of symmetry for the sake of symmetry, I think there's a decent argument in favour of having a class for people who represent an ethos (the way the "Paladin" does) but does so through subterfuge rather than direct combat. With Avengers, the more magical/mystical type of Assassin, and Rangers as the sub-classes/builds; these being respectively associated with Good, Evil, and Nature.

 

[Obryn]

I'm lost--what's ironic? Does the analogy depend on whether or not warlords are as iconic as paladins? Cuz I don't think many people would say they are.

I don't think there's a standard, canonical scale of "iconic-ness." To many 4e players, I'd argue the Warlord is more so.

-O

 

[Kobold Boots]

On "oaths" and "alignments"

Unless it's possible rules-wise to take an alignment and oath that diverge in context of the good/evil axis e.g. an evil character takes a vow of fealty to a good ruler that he will not break for sake of the oath alone; I don't really see the purpose of having alignment and oaths for characters that can take both.

Now if such a combination is possible, I'm all for it as that adds some depth of character that I like. If it isn't, just have oaths supercede the primary axis for those characters. Example: Good and Evil are alignments. Law, Neutrality and Chaos are replaced by oaths.