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

[Salamandyr]

I don't care what Conan did. If the character concept is a warrior that has only been trained in light armor, then the game should give the character something in exchange. Later if the character wants to learn medium armor or heavy armor, they should take appropriate feats (and, yes, I want to see the armor and weapon proficiency feats return)

The game does give the player something in exchange. A character in light armor can move further in a round than a character in heavy armor. Also, they are better at stealth, and depending on their dexterity, they may be almost as hard to hit as someone in full plate.

So level of protection becomes a question of how much you leverage protection versus other things, like comfort, speed, and skill use...pretty much like real life.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't care what Conan did. If the character concept is a warrior that has only been trained in light armor, then the game should give the character something in exchange. Later if the character wants to learn medium armor or heavy armor, they should take appropriate feats (and, yes, I want to see the armor and weapon proficiency feats return)

You mean like some kind of GURPS or FATE style mechanic, where you can take a mechanical disadvantage for an advantage elsewhere?

When I saw 'first level wildshape' the only thing I thought of was being cheated since thats normally why I invested in a druid. Now a simple 1 level of multiclass and everyone has easy access to it.

You like your toy less if everyone gets to play with it?

I'm referring to having both extremely broad classes like Fighter and extremely specific classes as Ranger and Paladin done well in the same game while maintaining the integrity of their mechanical design space without overlap and optimization. I think in order to guard against bloat, lesser options and varying design quality, and a less-focused and less-cohesive edition as a whole, the designers have to choose one or the other.

You mean they shouldn't have broad classes like the Fighter alongside narrow classes like the Paladin, and that the best way to do it is to either have fewer, broad classes (warrior, rogue, magic-user, priest) or more, narrow classes (slayer, knight, duelist, swashbuckler, ranger, thief, thief-acrobat, assassin, arcanist, mage, swordmage, illusionist, priest, druid, paladin, etc. etc. etc.)? I disagree.

 

[calprinicus]

Think of it this way. Now you'll no longer be stuck playing only one character class if what's really important to you is playing a shapeshifter.

More probably, I'll bet that multiclassing doesn't automatically give you ever first level ability of a new class.

Valid. I hope that they limit the multiclass benefits. looking at how much frontloading there is you could get very powerful very quick if allowed to multiclass each level. Im also a fan of the no multiclass option. If not it might be houseruled.

 

[Salamandyr]

They've already said in a couple different places that multiclassing won't give you all the benefits from every classes. I don't think I've heard of their changing their minds on that.

Me, I'm happy with the frontloading. I hated how 3rd edition would often lock up the classes' signature abilities behind multiple levels so sometimes you'd have to play for months before your character could actually do the thing you wanted your character to do. To me, it was a bad overreaction to a minor problem.

One thing 4e got right was letting your character kick butt from day 1.

 

[Pour]

You mean they shouldn't have broad classes like the Fighter alongside narrow classes like the Paladin, and that the best way to do it is to either have fewer, broad classes (warrior, rogue, magic-user, priest) or more, narrow classes (slayer, knight, duelist, swashbuckler, ranger, thief, thief-acrobat, assassin, arcanist, mage, swordmage, illusionist, priest, druid, paladin, etc. etc. etc.)? I disagree.

To each their own.

 

[GX.Sigma]

To each their own.

I'm curious though, why do you think that? What's wrong with having some classes be broader than others?

 

[Gorgoroth]

Very exciting!!

I've never cast a single spell as a ranger in any edition, or even seen one cast. But, that's not to say they shouldn't. Pathfinder had a couple neat ones I wouldn't have minded trying, but never got around to it.

Paladins being Cavaliers / Wardens / Blackguards. Yeah, semantically I think they should have reversed it, since they all have mounts that are basically horses (of whatever natural/supernatural origin), the superclass should have been Cavalier with subclasses Paladin / Warden / Blackguard, but it's a very good design nonetheless and makes little difference in practice. To respond to why Wardens are not simply Fighter/Druids or Paladin/Druids with N alignment, well, I played in 4e and a guy played a Warden (who's a defender) exactly like a beat cop who enforces the rules or his mission, without too much passion but basically like a beat cop version of a paladin. If you specifically flavour it as being the equivalent as the muscle Champion of the Druids, it makes sense they'd have some magic but still but super tough and mobile, and that means horses. Perfect flavour, perfect!! Good job, Wizards (and you know I don't say that often).

For the druid, I always loved Everquest druids having lots of wizardy blasty spells, even some nature-flavoured teleport spells at high levels, as well as healing (though I think cleric should surpass them in that regard, really, let them have their forte guys!). Clerics should be beefier and take more damage, but druids should dish it out more, as the wilds are a terrible and dangerous place!

A LG paladin should focus more on laying hands on the sick and frail and weak, whereas a cleric comes in and brings the fallen hero back from the dead, parts the seas, and clears the swarms of locusts (or maybe that's druids, or both...there should be some overlap there depending on the deity). I can see some deities even favoring only druid spells, and some others allowing some wizard ones, ala 3e domain lists.

Also, pretty happy they removed the TWF and fighting styles from the ranger, but their favored enemy should be robust and not kludgy. I think they should also get a bonus to speed, giving them a good reason to stay out of heavy armor for recons, but still nevertheless be faster (by 5 feet, maybe. Barbarians 10) no matter what armor they wear. So a dwarf ranger in plate could have speed 30, ...wizard! (to quote Scott Pilgrim).

+ I definitely see the ranger getting variants with no spells in subsequent books, but am glad they're turning it around here. Those two classes alone, having spells from level 1, should massively reduce even the desire to multiclass. E.g. in Pathfinder, with decent builds of archetypes, you could get to play exactly what you want without having a laundry list of classes on your sheet. The core classes should just work, have their niche (which giving rangers and paladins spells from level 1 achieves, brilliantly. I didn't see that one coming, I admit...but I love it).

24 hours left until wednesday!

 

[Falling Icicle]

Wild shape is a daily ability that allows a druid to turn into a specific, chosen form.

I really hope it isn't just once per day. I think it would be better if Wild Shape were an at-will ability, but druids couldn't cast spells in animal forms.

 

[Blackwarder]

I doubt it but I really hope the ranger (and to a lesser extant the Druid) will be tha class that dominate in the exploration pillar of play, especially wilderness exploration, the rogue should be the dungeon/urban expert. I'm tired of the game being designed only with combat in mind...

Warder

 

[Libramarian]

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

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.