Legends & Lore: This Week in D&D (3/18/2013)

YAY!!! multiple attacks!!! 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I am... pleased. The Druid sounds awesome, and I love how you can focus on either spellcasting or wildshape, and that both have potential to be powerful. The Paladin sounds really good and fairly unique. I'm a bit iffy about the ranger being more magic-y, and the descrition of the fighter getting more stuff also worrys me, but I will reserve any real judgement until after reading and playing. In all, im very, VERY excited!
EDIT: also, yay multiple attacks! 
I am not displeased, so at least there's that. The classes sound like they have potential, and things seem to be getting slightly better as the playtest moves forward, so I will be cautiously optimistic about them. I am very glad to see the Paladin being given options of all alignment, though I'm wary of how this will play out in practice.

Otherwise, I'm mostly excited that they've finally realized Swift actions are a good idea, and I'm also curious about what they've done with races this time (though not as optimistic as I am about classes). Races are sort of a big deal to me, and there's really no excuse for screwing them up as badly as they have been so far.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
At least it sounds interesting. Spellcasting at level 1 for rangers and paladins and no more assume fighitng styles for the ranger.

 Wildshape at level 1 is going to take a bit of getting used to. Very eager to see the Druid followed by ranger. Good news on the races like Crimson said. Swift actions lol may as well bring back 3rd or 4th ed round actions (except for full attack).

 Damage being replaced with fun stuff.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Can't say I'm too surprised- nothing interesting here for me.

Fighter changes, crappy
Paladin- horrid
Ranger- meh
Druid - may have potential but considering the rest of the stuff is so bad and druids never were a huge interest for me this doesn't really do much.


Swift actiosn lol may as well bring back 3rd or 4th ed round actions (except for full attack).

Wut?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I like pretty much all of this.

The druid is exactly what I was hoping for, with wildshape at level one, but (hopefully) with wildshape actually meaning something.

The warden as the neutral paladin is kind of different, but I can dig it. It's not at all what I was expecting, but I think it's a pretty inspired fit, given the paladin class's affinity for noble beasts and magical self-augmentation, plus the theme of really standing for a cause.

I like that they're using Orzel's favored enemy idea. I'm less excited about ranger spellcasting, since that, in my mind, moves the class further from the archetype it represents, but I guess it's important to distinguish it from the fighter, and spellcasting certainly does that.

Somewhat noteworthy - Both of the historical pet classes are in this packet, but their pets aren't mentioned (although the third-place pet class, the paladin, does get one). Have pets been dropped from their concepts, or are they being saved for later?

Glad that the math fixes finally made it in.

The slow march towards re-implementing swift/minor actions appears to be proceeding apace.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Can't say I'm too surprised- nothing interesting here for me.

Fighter changes, crappy
Paladin- horrid
Ranger- meh
Druid - may have potential but considering the rest of the stuff is so bad and druids never were a huge interest for me this doesn't really do much.





Keep in mind, neither you nor I have actually played this packet. If you keep an open mind about each packet and remain cautiously optimistic, you might be surprised. I know I usually am surprised. I, for one, try to look on the bright side of things. If there is a something I hate with a burnign passion about a particular packet, I don't get up in arms until I know for certain that no one besides me is complaining about it in the forums (coz that means it likely won't change). This is a playtest, afterall. Nothing is truely set in stone.

EDIT: also, for those who are talking about swift/minor actions, those weren't mentioned - just a name-change for power words to "swift spells" to make it work with the larger magic system. It (to me) doesn't imply much about the action system.
He likes 4th ed and they're bringing back the classics like spellcasting Druids, Rangers and Paladins and that is badwrongfun.

 Crimson it seems they are reskinning words of power as some sort of swift casting mechanic. They may as well bring back swft/minir actions at that point. I can happily use either one as they both get the job done. They could for example have Fighters get their things back after 3 minor rounds and it is up to the fighter how he want to do it. 1 minor action per round, 3, 1 then 2 etc to recharge the manuveurs.

 Someitng like that would be sweet and make encounter powers a bit more believable and get the 4th ed players back some stuff.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

If you keep an open mind about each packet and remain cautiously optimistic, you might be surprised.



It's a lovely sentiment, but a lofty one.
There's simply too many people carrying around too much angst for "open minds" to prevail.
When you have so many people on these boards who are already 100% convinced that DDN is not, and will not ever be, for them, and have already written it off for another edition or game (which begs the question of what they're doing here to begin with, instead of hanging around their favorite edition's or game's boards), optimism and open-mindedness are already  lost causes.

EDIT: Keep in mind that the person you quote said this in another thread: "The difference shas and those like him insist that ONLY his way could ever be fun and having anything other than those options he approves of should even be considered." This is the same person now telling others that options that we haven't even seen in action yet are terrible. The double-standard on these boards is ridiculous.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Two things I am most curious about:

1) How they are transforming the MDD for fighters into Expertise Dice. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to the bounded accuracy for the fighter to be able to increase his chance of hitting something using Expertise Dice, but I am very interested in playtesting it.

2) Skill Dice -- it sounds like they are expanding how it can be used. Should be interesting!

A new playtest packet is always exciting! 
also, for those who are talking about swift/minor actions, those weren't mentioned - just a name-change for power words to "swift spells" to make it work with the larger magic system. It (to me) doesn't imply much about the action system.

Of course it does. It means that they've realized WYTAA abilities don't work. They have to be regulated or else they explode. Swift/Minor actions are the simplist and most logical conclusion. It's not there yet, but it's creeping toward it, and that's good.

Crimson it seems they are reskinning words of power as some sort of swift casting mechanic. They may as well bring back swft/minir actions at that point. I can happily use either one as they both get the job done. They could for example have Fighters get their things back after 3 minor rounds and it is up to the fighter how he want to do it. 1 minor action per round, 3, 1 then 2 etc to recharge the manuveurs.

 Someitng like that would be sweet and make encounter powers a bit more believable and get the 4th ed players back some stuff.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't even seem to relate to what I was confused about before, so now I'm just more confused about what you're talking about.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
He likes 4th ed and they're bringing back the classics like spellcasting Druids, Rangers and Paladins and that is badwrongfun.

 Crimson it seems they are reskinning words of power as some sort of swift casting mechanic. They may as well bring back swft/minir actions at that point. I can happily use either one as they both get the job done. They could for example have Fighters get their things back after 3 minor rounds and it is up to the fighter how he want to do it. 1 minor action per round, 3, 1 then 2 etc to recharge the manuveurs.

 Someitng like that would be sweet and make encounter powers a bit more believable and get the 4th ed players back some stuff.



First off, I don't see what's wrong with liking 4E. I appreciate the agreement, but still... I also haven't seen anywhere in Stoloc's post that says he like 4E. Let's keep it clean, here. I feel bad enough after starting a topic discussing the necessity of the Warlord and hoping that people might stay reasonable (a pipe dream, i know). Anyway, yeah. I don't see swift/minor actions returning, but that's just me, and also a topic of another thread, i think
I like pretty much all of this.

The druid is exactly what I was hoping for, with wildshape at level one, but (hopefully) with wildshape actually meaning something.

The warden as the neutral paladin is kind of different, but I can dig it. It's not at all what I was expecting, but I think it's a pretty inspired fit, given the paladin class's affinity for noble beasts and magical self-augmentation, plus the theme of really standing for a cause.

I like that they're using Orzel's favored enemy idea. I'm less excited about ranger spellcasting, since that, in my mind, moves the class further from the archetype it represents, but I guess it's important to distinguish it from the fighter, and spellcasting certainly does that.

+1 to this.

The Druid sounds almost exactly like what I was hoping for, and although I've never been a big fan of Ranger spell-casting I'm interested to see how they handle it and if the class apeals to me. I am very pleased that the fighting styles are no longer baked into the Ranger class.

I've thought about the similarities in theme with the Paladin and Warden before, and I think combining them is a reasonable move. I do wonder if there will be scope for a neutral paladin that isn't a devotee of nature as far as the class abilities are concerned, but am hopeful that it'll come down to a simple re-flavouring of their mount and nothing more. I like the sound of the fit they've come across.

Somewhat noteworthy - Both of the historical pet classes are in this packet, but their pets aren't mentioned (although the third-place pet class, the paladin, does get one). Have pets been dropped from their concepts, or are they being saved for later?


I suspect that pets has gone the way of the dodo, at least in the basic version of the game. I haven't seen the previous playtests first-hand, but have Wizards retained familiars? I've not heard anything about that yet.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

If you keep an open mind about each packet and remain cautiously optimistic, you might be surprised.



It's a lovely sentiment, but a lofty one.
There's simply too many people carrying around too much angst for "open minds" to prevail.
When you have so many people on these boards who are already 100% convinced that DDN is not, and will not ever be, for them, and have already written it off for another edition or game (which begs the question of what they're doing here to begin with, instead of hanging around their favorite edition's or game's boards), optimism and open-mindedness are already  lost causes.




I agree on a practicle level (particularly about why people who have given up on DDN still use and post on the DDN boards) but my idealistic side, which recent university classes have stirred up, is going to keep trucking and hoping that it might be able to help people think differently. Oh well. 
Well well well, finally a new packet.  Hopefully some good changes and some real progress.  I will be excited to go through it.  I can only hope that my players will suffer through again.  Everytime I bring up DDN at this point they just look at me with disgruntled faces.

They want to wait until it comes out... I want to playtest it.  Luckily for me.. this is D&D, where the DM IS GOD!!!!  MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! 
Of course it does. It means that they've realized WYTAA abilities don't work. They have to be regulated or else they explode. Swift/Minor actions are the simplist and most logical conclusion. It's not there yet, but it's creeping toward it, and that's good.



Yep, I'm glad they are finally noticing what was obvious to anying paying attention months ago.


First off, I don't see what's wrong with liking 4E. I appreciate the agreement, but still... I also haven't seen anywhere in Stoloc's post that says he like 4E. Let's keep it clean, here. I feel bad enough after starting a topic discussing the necessity of the Warlord and hoping that people might stay reasonable (a pipe dream, i know). Anyway, yeah. I don't see swift/minor actions returning, but that's just me, and also a topic of another thread, i think



I agree there's nothing wrong with liking 4e and I do- never hid that fact and not ashamed of it.
FWIW I am also a huge fan of stuff from 2e, 1e, BECMI and even liked 3e when it first came out.


It is sad that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting something that 4e did well, but yes, at least it does seem they are being dragged there.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

I'm definately curious about the changes, especially to races. Still hope to see a martial/arcane hybrid class poke its head out in a future packet (like the earlier sorcerer, but with better mechanics, IMO). I just hope the paladin class as a whole isn't still expected to wear heavy armor.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I've never been a big fan of Ranger spell-casting I'm interested to see how they handle it and if the class apeals to me. I am very pleased that the fighting styles are no longer baked into the Ranger class.

Pretty much. Spellcasting is really cool, I just don't really like it all that much on the ranger. I sort of feel like for most of the things the ranger can do with spells, it's cooler if the ranger can do those things just because he's a badass ranger instead. That doesn't make as much sense for some of the splashy, blatantly supernatural effects, but many of those things feel somewhat strange as ranger capabilities anyway. Who knows, maybe it'll be cool, it's just not the direction I would have taken the ranger intuitively.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I'm curious about how the Fighter's expertise dice will work. It seems to be on a small enough recharge that it won't break the math (maybe accuracy has been scaled back a bit with damage so it'll just bring them to current levels) but it also gives Fighters some sort of out of exploration/interaction ability in allowing them a way to make "impossible" shots to interact with the environment. Not much but something.

Really interested to see how Paladins work now with the Warden folded in. It makes sense though and I wonder if they're still going to have a Warden build for the Barbarian like they originally mentioned.

Hopefully the dragon hunting Ranger build has more than fear immunity. I like Rangers not being forced in to a fighting style. I wonder if they'll have a different spell list than the druid or the same... that wasn't clear.

Hoping that humans are fixed and that racial weapon crap is gone.
Druid
Wildshape at level one, yay!
Matches cleric healing, yay!
Choice of spellcasting focus vs wildshape focus, yay!

Paladin
Alignment choices, yay!
Surprise oath of neutrality 'warden', cool!
A mount that's useful, w00t!

Ranger
Spellcasting emphasis, interesting!
Favored enemy bonuses, shiny!

New Spells
Nice!

Math
Progress!

Fighter
I'm intrigued!

Skills
There has been such confusion about skills, their use 'passively', and other such awkwardness in understanding that I'm glad they've given it thought and refinement.

Two-Weapon Fighting
Hallelujah!

Swift Spell
Nifty!

Races
Ooooh!

Exploration Rules
Finally!

I'm excited! 

Somewhat noteworthy - Both of the historical pet classes are in this packet, but their pets aren't mentioned (although the third-place pet class, the paladin, does get one). Have pets been dropped from their concepts, or are they being saved for later?

I'm pretty sure they've stated that pets will be an option available to all once implemented, much like fighting styles and the like.

Danny

It is sad that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting something that 4e did well, but yes, at least it does seem they are being dragged there.



Oh?  And what is that?
(Note: not sarcasm, not cynical, not baiting, just genuinely asking.)
(Note about note: Isn't it sad that I feel the need to make that note?  I blame the internet) 
Many little gems in there...

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

It is sad that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting something that 4e did well, but yes, at least it does seem they are being dragged there.

Oh? And what is that?

Pretty sure they were talking about Minor Actions.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Yes, I was talking about minor actions.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

Druid
Wildshape at level one, yay!
Matches cleric healing, yay!
Choice of spellcasting focus vs wildshape focus, yay!

Paladin
Alignment choices, yay!
Surprise oath of neutrality 'warden', cool!
A mount that's useful, w00t!

Ranger
Spellcasting emphasis, interesting!
Favored enemy bonuses, shiny!

New Spells
Nice!

Math
Progress!

Fighter
I'm intrigued!

Skills
There has been such confusion about skills, their use 'passively', and other such awkwardness in understanding that I'm glad they've given it thought and refinement.

Two-Weapon Fighting
Hallelujah!

Swift Spell
Nifty!

Races
Ooooh!

Exploration Rules
Finally!

I'm excited! 

Somewhat noteworthy - Both of the historical pet classes are in this packet, but their pets aren't mentioned (although the third-place pet class, the paladin, does get one). Have pets been dropped from their concepts, or are they being saved for later?

I'm pretty sure they've stated that pets will be an option available to all once implemented, much like fighting styles and the like.




(1) I hope that wildshape is more than once per day eventually.  As a 3e druid I was in wildshape 90% of the time.  I prefered it that way.  Perhaps a more limited 'combat' form of wildshape and a less limited 'travel' form could work out the kinks in that.

(2) THe paladin mount thing.... I gotta be honest, I hate it.  It pigeonholes the paladin.  What if I am a dwaven paladin who lives undergound... why do I have a mount?  I mean, I am cool with some kind of divine boon, but does it have to be a mount?

(3) I believe that you and I have had it out about passive skill use Smile... so I am equally interested in greater clarity there.  Same with TWF.  It just needs to be written in a way that makes sense before I start using my better judgement.  I would like to know the baseline before I start mucking with things.

(4) Thank goodness for exploration rules.  I was wondering when they would get arond to that.  It has been a lot of the combat pillar and very little of the other two so far.  Hopefully this will dovetail nicely with the improved skills section.

I am excited... too bad my group meets on Tuesdays... I will have to wait a whole week before I bungle them through another playtest session. 
Yes, I was talking about minor actions.



AH, yeah I think it was an understandable attempt on their part to simplify the action economy.  But 3e brought about swift immediate and free actions for a reason.  and 4e improved on them for a reason. Getting rid of minor actions did seem like a step backwards.  I think that only an abuse of free actions and immediate actions really bogged things down.  Putting minor actions back in just helps clean things up IMO.
Interesting concept for the Druid with the choice of a circle so you can focus on spells or wildshape

Love the concept behind the Ranger's favored enemy themed around creature, but with mechanics broader and more versatile

Also to the exploration rules and math overhaul

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

So it seems to me that the designers took the v3.5 paladin, spruced him up with DDN math, and slapped 1st level spellcasting. They know alignment is a bit of an issue so instead of making the class modular to alignment they just reinforced it 3 different ways . And what are those class features of the Cavalier going to do when they're not fighting Undead or Evil bad-guys? What good is Detect Demons when there might not ever be any present in the campaign? And what's going to happen to those who play in campaigns with no alignment what-so-ever? They observed that people were a bit flustered that the Paladin's Special Mount was really hard to use in Dungeons, so instead of a different class feature they made it obsolete in combat. I'll have to wait to Wednesday before I write it off completely. I'm hoping to be proven wrong about my assumptions but so far, it's not looking good. 


EDIT: I do like the Warden idea, though I completely had to forget about the 4E version and re-imagine it as a Warden from the Wheel of Time series as it fits far more thematically.     

 
(1) I hope that wildshape is more than once per day eventually.  As a 3e druid I was in wildshape 90% of the time.  I prefered it that way.  Perhaps a more limited 'combat' form of wildshape and a less limited 'travel' form could work out the kinks in that.

I'm sure that the opportunity to wildshape will increase with levels, much like the barbarian's rage.

(2) THe paladin mount thing.... I gotta be honest, I hate it.  It pigeonholes the paladin.  What if I am a dwaven paladin who lives undergound... why do I have a mount?  I mean, I am cool with some kind of divine boon, but does it have to be a mount?

They did clarify that the mount had weak attacks and was intended more for overland travel, so one may ignore the feature with negligible impact (it seems).

(3) I believe that you and I have had it out about passive skill use ... so I am equally interested in greater clarity there.  Same with TWF.  It just needs to be written in a way that makes sense before I start using my better judgement.  I would like to know the baseline before I start mucking with things.

LOL I've pretty much been a lone voice regarding the skill changes, but I believe most have come to see what I see.

It seems as though there isn't going to be much change, just clarity in presentation -- which seems to be sorely needed! ;)

(4) Thank goodness for exploration rules.  I was wondering when they would get arond to that.  It has been a lot of the combat pillar and very little of the other two so far.  Hopefully this will dovetail nicely with the improved skills section.

Yes! Hopefully these are awesome!

I am excited... too bad my group meets on Tuesdays... I will have to wait a whole week before I bungle them through another playtest session. 

That will be the longest wait EVAR!

We're playing Wednesday night. LOL 

Danny

(2) THe paladin mount thing.... I gotta be honest, I hate it.  It pigeonholes the paladin.  What if I am a dwaven paladin who lives undergound... why do I have a mount?  I mean, I am cool with some kind of divine boon, but does it have to be a mount?


You may live underground but not all adventures will be underground or connected to your part of underground.  You're not much of a Paladin if you are staying in your cozy keep all the time.  I assume we'll see additional mounts at some point for underground caverns (lizards like the Drow?) or water-based paladins.

And yes, it has to be a mount. Sacred cow and all that. :P
And yes, it has to be a mount. Sacred cow and all that.

4E Paladin did just fine without it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
(2) THe paladin mount thing.... I gotta be honest, I hate it.  It pigeonholes the paladin.  What if I am a dwaven paladin who lives undergound... why do I have a mount?  I mean, I am cool with some kind of divine boon, but does it have to be a mount?


You may live underground but not all adventures will be underground or connected to your part of underground.  You're not much of a Paladin if you are staying in your cozy keep all the time.  I assume we'll see additional mounts at some point for underground caverns (lizards like the Drow?) or water-based paladins.

And yes, it has to be a mount. Sacred cow and all that. :P



I have no problem with it being an option but it being required makes my skin crawl.

I've run several paladins in the decades I've played  DnD and only 1 time in a 1shot game was the mount an important part of the character.  The 2e Roman campaign I played a paladin in- Paladin's mount just wasn't appropriate to the setting.  My 4e paladin I played for the entirety of a 4 year campaign- wasn't a cavalier either.

Might be a sacred cow to some but I'd rather it be served up medium rare with a nice baked potato.




(2) THe paladin mount thing.... I gotta be honest, I hate it.  It pigeonholes the paladin.  What if I am a dwaven paladin who lives undergound... why do I have a mount?  I mean, I am cool with some kind of divine boon, but does it have to be a mount?

They did clarify that the mount had weak attacks and was intended more for overland travel, so one may ignore the feature with negligible impact (it seems).




To me, this is a bad thing. I really don't like ignoring class features because Campaign. Which it appears the DM will probably have to do in order for the Paladin to feel like he's contributing to the story outside of "I attack, but not as good as the Fighter". What is SO strange, IMO, is that they saw how there were problems with Rangers being stuck with a specific monster type as a Favored Enemey and they adjusted accordingly but didn't give the paladin the same view.
Heh. Remember last May when Monte Cook left DDNext, and we got our first package two weeks later?

Flash forward to this month: martial healing gets lampooned by design team, and we get a playtest package two weeks later! Pattern? 

Warden as paladin? It certainly works, as a Nature Paladin goes. As a catch-all for all neutral Paladins, I don't think every Neutral worshipper is into Nature, but it's a good niche for the protector of the wilds.  

 
If you keep an open mind about each packet and remain cautiously optimistic, you might be surprised.



It's a lovely sentiment, but a lofty one.
There's simply too many people carrying around too much angst for "open minds" to prevail.
When you have so many people on these boards who are already 100% convinced that DDN is not, and will not ever be, for them, and have already written it off for another edition or game (which begs the question of what they're doing here to begin with, instead of hanging around their favorite edition's or game's boards), optimism and open-mindedness are already  lost causes.



I must say, as someone who has long lost faith in DDNext, what Mike is saying does interest me. It feels very substantive, both in new crunch, and in changes to the system. I can't say I'm back on the bandwagon, but I am curous about it again. And if it piques my interest, perhaps I'll playtest it again.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

It's probably fruitless to speculate now, but having a horse as a class feature just for overland travel seems pretty marginal, since it's mostly useful in situations where the party has access to mounts anyway. It's certainly possible to generate cases where somebody has to ride off ahead and it's fine to split the party for that, but from a mechanical standpoint, it's mostly saving money on a horse? Again, too early to speculate, though. They could give the paladin's mount the ability to increase the speed of other nearby mounts, which would be a cool exploration-pillar niche for a class that's not traditionally real deep on those beyond Detect Evil.

I'm totally fine with mostly flavor abilities. If the party is all riding horses and the Paladin is riding an AWESOME horse, that's worth the few lines of rules text on its own.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I have no problem with it being an option but it being required makes my skin crawl.

Look on the bright side. Even if it is mandatory at first, chances are pretty good that you'll get some alternative option later on down the line?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Finally exploration rules. I crossing my fingers for hurricanes.

Personally, I just don't like rangers and paladins having spells level 1 by default. I don't mind them having magical features at level 1 or there being options for magic at level 1. But full blown spells.

I'll be okay if we can cast Jump, Cure X Wounds, or Longstrider and still attack.  I can't think of any other swift spells for rangers and paladins.

I kninda wonder how rangers would be if I didn't make that blog post. Would they they thought to broadened FE on their own? Killed rangers and made them a fighter/druid buid with a specialty? Made rangers into a straight fighter/ranger? I mean I thought up broader FE back in 2E when I argued the DM to let be use use of my bonus to lower my AC or raisy my saning throws vs Giant class monsters.

Expertise dice are mana now? Bwhat?

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!