If you want surreal HDR, you don't want Lightroom. If you want increased dynamic range and beautiful, natural looking images, Lightroom's HDR happens to be excellent. Not perfect yet, but still really good. It creates smaller files sizes that the 32bit images that can come back to Lightroom for processing. It's also practically a raw file too, with full White Balance control.
But like I've said, if it's the surreal saturated gritty HDR you want, look elsewhere.
Do you know how it stacks up against Photoshop? I was going to try it tonight but the pictures I took weren't exactly the type of pictures I'd use HDR with. I did it anyway but I could quickly tell it didn't make much of a difference. I haven't gotten to do a landscape since I've had lightroom CC. I'm looking for the more natural look but with the skies that pop. I can get that on photoshop for sure, I've been doing it on there a while now. But I've heard everyone say don't do it in lightroom. What about Panoramas?
Again, it's creating a Pano file as almost raw. To be clear it's demosaicing the sensor information into a useable format, but other than that it's essentially a raw file. It's not the same engine as Photoshop and some people have had stitches where one image was ignored or misplaced. I've been fortunate with all of mine so far, and I do a few. Back when I had a Smugmug account I'd a whole gallery of them. And will again when I redo my site for the millionth time.
Rocky Nook, my publisher, have a free ebook on HDR and Panos:
I didn't write it, so it's not self promo, but as it's free, you may find it of use.