D&D (2024) The more I think about it, the least I like class groups.

[doctorbadwolf]

I love 2e, but if I was to list the thing I like about it (strong flavor, lore, kits, nwps, ease of use, the settings...) I'd find that class groups/classes are among my least favorite things about the edition. To begin with, they feel tacked on, and are overall restrictive at worst and pointless at best. And they eventually had to break the mold anyway...

And now we have 1DD and I see more of the same. To me there is no point in wanting to force round pegs into square holes. What do Bards, Rogues and Ranges have in common? Just expertise? Why not place bards with mages and rangers with warriors? Why are paladins placed with clerics if we want to give them combat styles anyway?

IMO class groups will be straitjackets that will force classes to feel blander and less unique. At that point just get rid of everything but the boring 4 and save on the effort and pagecount. (Disclaimer please don't do that either)

I don’t mind how they look in this UA, but I don’t like “grid filling” design behavior.

Any time game design seems to say, “well, the existence of X implied the existence of its opposite, Y” I roll my eyes. D&D already has an overly symmetrical and “neat” cosmology, I’d rather not see the game design follow that same path.

So, if every class has to fit, and we have weird stuff like paladins that don’t fit well, what effect will that have on the game?

If they start changing the classes to better fit their group, I’m not gonna be happy with that.

 

[Mephista]

I'd like to see feats in the future that grant extra Divine Channeling for Priests, or enhanced Expertise for the skill monkies, or a way to improve ki/rage/superiority points.

Each group has some mechanics in common. Focusing on those mechanics for feats or items or other stuff is neat.

There's potential. We shall see if it's ever realized. Fighting style is not it.

 

[niklinna]

I'd like to see feats in the future that grant extra Divine Channeling for Priests, or enhanced Expertise for the skill monkies, or a way to improve ki/rage/superiority points.

I'm kind of amazed I've never seen this mooted before. I've seen this sort of thing in many a roleplaying game but not D&D. I'm not sure somebody will take a feat for x more ki points over an ASI, but it would depend on the value of x!

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[Lojaan]

I like them personally. I like how all classes in the "expert" group could be considered "rogues". Similar how sorcerers, warlocks and wizards could be called "mages".

I like it because of how you can make a team by saying we need an expert, a hitter, a mage and one of the gods favoured, and then have fun with composition.

Also (should) help with class design - a class should fulfil their group function first, and then possibly branch out to a second.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m indifferent to the idea myself. In a system built for it from the ground up it could have potential, but slapped onto 5e it seems like it won’t do much, positive or negative.

 

[MarkB]

I like them personally. I like how all classes in the "expert" group could be considered "rogues". Similar how sorcerers, warlocks and wizards could be called "mages".

I like it because of how you can make a team by saying we need an expert, a hitter, a mage and one of the gods favoured, and then have fun with composition.

Also (should) help with class design - a class should fulfil their group function first, and then possibly branch out to a second.

I can't say I agree. One of the nice things about 5e is that you really don't need to pick out a particular group - pretty much any party you throw together can work.

And I don't want a class to serve its group role first and its own identity second, and I don't really see that in this group of classes.

 

[Lojaan]

I can't say I agree. One of the nice things about 5e is that you really don't need to pick out a particular group - pretty much any party you throw together can work.

And I don't want a class to serve its group role first and its own identity second, and I don't really see that in this group of classes.

You can still have your party of 5 barbarians if you like, regardless of these, or any, groupings.

I definitely want a class to serve it's group role first, and its own identity second. It is a very useful design aid - without it, you can get classes that aren't good at the thing that they are supposed to be good at, or classes that no one seems to know what they are supposed to be good at (see various iterations of the monk), and that is nobody's friend.

I can see that you favor a classless approach tho so anything like this would never appeal to you. That is fair enough. Each to their own.

 

[Marandahir]

You can still have your party of 5 barbarians if you like, regardless of these, or any, groupings.

Oddly enough, this is reminiscent of 1e elements, like how Barbarians weren't allowed to associate with Mages, and were suspicious of Priests, but could freely associate with Warriors and Experts… The 5 Barbarian party was intentional there.

That was also Gygaxian racism at play, though I fear that only furthers the point…

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I kinda like it, but I don't think it's going to be a big thing in the end.

 

[Lycurgon]

I definitely want a class to serve it's group role first, and its own identity second. It is a very useful design aid - without it, you can get classes that aren't good at the thing that they are supposed to be good at, or classes that no one seems to know what they are supposed to be good at (see various iterations of the monk), and that is nobody's friend.

I can see that you favor a classless approach tho so anything like this would never appeal to you. That is fair enough. Each to their own.

I don't want this approach. If the first concern with class design is Class Group before it's own identity it will lead to bad class design.

In the UA a Paladin is assigned the priests group and that group is defined as "Stewards of Divine or Primal magic, focusing on healing, utility, and defense"
The current Paladin does not fill that group role primarily, it is more focused on being combatant and damage dealer. It has some elements of healing, utility and defense, sure; but Paladins is a poor choice if you are wanting them for their healing ability. A Paladin would have to have a big redesign to be primarily filling their group role above their own identity.

It also limits future concepts. If WotC ever create a Psion/Mystic class for Dark Sun, they would either need to define Psionics into Arcane magic to fit the Mage Group, or make them Experts with the Expertise feature just to fit that group or would need to create a new group all their own.

If they ever create a Swordmage/Arcane Gish class, they would either have to focus on being primarily a Mage - focusing on Destruction and Utility magic, or on being primarily a Warrior - A master of combat that deals and endures many wounds. This would be a disservice to a Swordmage class which is about combining Combat and Magic. The original 4e Swordmage is a Defender, but being focused on defense can't be a main focus for a class unless it fits the Priest Group.

There are so many problems with a focus on Group before class identity.