D&D 5E L&L: New Packet Hits This Wednesday
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The experience at my table was a bit different. For those with the cleric/rogue progression is was very similar to what you said. But since AC didn't keep up with full BAB, the first hit usually needed a 2 or better, it wasn't until the third attack that it was less then even odds of hitting.
Actually, my biggest issue was how serial it was. You needed to hit, do damage, see if they were still up, do another with a different bonus, etc. If it was all attacks made at once with the same modifier to the die it would have significantly sped up table time for the maneuver.
LightPhoenix
First Post
Hey, an actual interesting L&L article! Shock and amazement!
Druid - I like the idea for Wildshape, but I'm expecting "Shape Bloat" to be an eventual problem for the Druid. Personally, I'd prefer some sort of modular system; you get base stats plus some adjustments for each form. That way, for example, you can model a bunch of Medium Animals (dogs, wolves, what have you) and have them be relatively balanced. In this system, you might choose classes of forms instead of specifics (ex: Medium Animal, Tiny Animal, Medium Elemental, etc). I guess it ends up being a sort of 3E/4E amalgamation.
Ranger - The problem with the Ranger as a class ties back to the problem with the Warlord from last week's Q&A. That is, while the concept holds its own weight, the class itself is designed as basically a "Fighter-hybrid." 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).
Paladin - I like that the Paladin has taken over the "knight" archetype from the Fighter, and that the class is designed to be easily extensible. 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.
Fighter - I'll have to see the mechanic in action, but I like the flavor evoked by the idea of pausing in combat. It follows the flow of most combats a little more realistically, in that there's a series of attacks, ripostes, defenses, trades, and then a slight pause before the next series. I like that damage bonus is gone, but I'm extremely skeptical of multiple attacks; that was a very onerous issue in high-level 3E play. That said, I very much like the implication that while all this new stuff is being developed, they are still iterating the older stuff as well. Obviously the Fighter is getting another pass this time around; hopefully the other classes get additional passes as well.
Druid - I like the idea for Wildshape, but I'm expecting "Shape Bloat" to be an eventual problem for the Druid. Personally, I'd prefer some sort of modular system; you get base stats plus some adjustments for each form. That way, for example, you can model a bunch of Medium Animals (dogs, wolves, what have you) and have them be relatively balanced. In this system, you might choose classes of forms instead of specifics (ex: Medium Animal, Tiny Animal, Medium Elemental, etc). I guess it ends up being a sort of 3E/4E amalgamation.
Ranger - The problem with the Ranger as a class ties back to the problem with the Warlord from last week's Q&A. That is, while the concept holds its own weight, the class itself is designed as basically a "Fighter-hybrid." 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).
Paladin - I like that the Paladin has taken over the "knight" archetype from the Fighter, and that the class is designed to be easily extensible. 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.
Fighter - I'll have to see the mechanic in action, but I like the flavor evoked by the idea of pausing in combat. It follows the flow of most combats a little more realistically, in that there's a series of attacks, ripostes, defenses, trades, and then a slight pause before the next series. I like that damage bonus is gone, but I'm extremely skeptical of multiple attacks; that was a very onerous issue in high-level 3E play. That said, I very much like the implication that while all this new stuff is being developed, they are still iterating the older stuff as well. Obviously the Fighter is getting another pass this time around; hopefully the other classes get additional passes as well.
Libramarian
Adventurer
The paladin "builds" sound more distinct than builds to me, they sound like subclasses. Which would mean that you're either a cavalier, warden or blackguard---no one is simply a paladin. I don't think this is a good idea for such an iconic class. "Paladin" should do double duty as both the name of this group of subclasses and the name of the good one, replacing "cavalier". So you would have paladin--good, warden--neutral, blackguard--evil.
Actually, they never talked about Expertise Dice in relation to Damage. Martial Damage Dice are a thing. Expertise Dice look to be something else that can: "gain a bonus to AC or attack rolls, along with other specific abilities" - which is something Martial Damage Dice don't do. They've removed the static Martial Damage Bonus from higher levels and replaced it with Extra Attacks. Nobody said anything about removing Martial Damage Dice or Maneuvers or anything like that.
On top of that Martial Damage Dice would still have to be split among all your attacks in a turn. You don't get to spend the same 5d6 on Attack #1 and then spend it again of Attack #2.
- Marty Lund
Obryn
Hero
I was going to reply with a breakdown of how your thoughts about Paladins, I'd apply to Warlords. But then I decided against, and just to post that I found this more than a little ironic.
-O
FitzTheRuke
Legend
IMO, This may just be the most eagerly anticipated packet since the first one. It sounds like there are many improvements, and the new classes are intriguing in the least. Can't wait.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
I take comfort in Mike's second paragraph about the druid, which begins:
"Wild shape is a daily ability that allows a druid to turn into a specific, chosen form. For instance, a 1st-level druid can transform into . . ."
Because Mearls said that it's a "chosen" form, I'm guessing that this means that any one druid can have one (and only one) wildshape form at 1st level; but, in addition to that, it also means that the chosen form at 1st level can vary from druid to druid.
Perhaps if he had said, "For example . . ." in place of "For instance, . . ." that meaning might have been more clear (if that is, indeed, what he meant).
I am glad to see the Paladin and Ranger icasting spells at first level in Next. I was just thinking about creating 3e class variants for both that do the same. However,I also want versions that don't cast spells (which was not an uncommon variant on 3e message boards long before WOTC printed Complete Warrior and Complete Champion and something that I think 4e did right with the 4e Ranger).
