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

[MoonSong]

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)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean for all we know... these class groupings might very well only be for the playtests in order to explain why the classes are appearing together in each packet and once the book is released they may very well have little to no functionality. So I dunno if its worth getting too tied up into it right now. And as far as blandness... if the only thing tying these three classes together is the Expertise ability, then we can't really say they are losing any uniqueness. They are all still as unique as they ever were, other than them sharing this one mechanic. It's not like we say that all the weapon-using classes are bland because they all share the weapon combat mechanics, or that the casters are all one big soup because they all use spell slots.

 

[DEFCON 1]

EDIT: Okay... bad example on the spell slots-- there are plenty of folks here that certainly would call all the caster classes bland because of it, LOL!

 

[MarkB]

At the moment they're just terminology, and a way of allowing at least some content to be restricted to specific types of character without having to re-write those restrictions every time a new class is introduced.

But it is a tenuous grouping, and they're already having to make special allowances in order to make it fit. Like, the Fighting Style feats are restricted to warriors, but Rangers get a special exemption, and no doubt Paladins will likewise have one. I could easily see them making some Mage-specific feats in a later playtest, and then giving Bards an exemption.

At best, it feels like it's going to need some significant refinement by the time they go to press.

 

[Amrûnril]

At the moment they're just terminology, and a way of allowing at least some content to be restricted to specific types of character without having to re-write those restrictions every time a new class is introduced.

But it is a tenuous grouping, and they're already having to make special allowances in order to make it fit. Like, the Fighting Style feats are restricted to warriors, but Rangers get a special exemption, and no doubt Paladins will likewise have one. I could easily see them making some Mage-specific feats in a later playtest, and then giving Bards an exemption.

At best, it feels like it's going to need some significant refinement by the time they go to press.

Yeah, the restrictions already require a number of exceptions to match current functionality, and I'm not sure what value they add in the first place. If a Cleric wants to take a fighting style feat, that's an outside the box choice, but I don't see any reason to prohibit it. And any feats that actually require a class group specific feature to function can simply have the feature itself as a prerequisite.

Like shared spell lists, class groups strike me as a categorization exercise that may have marginal benefits for forwards compatibility but that relies on ignoring a lot of the interesting nuance that currently exists in the game.

 

[CleverNickName]

Same, @MoonSong, but for a different reason.
What I wanted was 4 base classes with dozens of interchangeable subclasses...not another branch on the Character Class tree. (Which may or may not be the case; it's a little early to tell.)

Like, they could start with just four classes: Warrior (non-caster), Priest (half-caster), Mage (full caster), and Expert (skill focused). Then make everything else a subclass, and make them all interchangeable: "paladin" wouldn't just be for Warriors; it could be selected by Mage, Priest, or Expert...giving it a very different feel and flavor for each. A warrior with the paladin subclass might play a lot like a 4E marshal, a priest with the paladin subclass might play a lot like the classic 5E paladin, and a mage with the paladin subclass might feel a lot like a Celestial warlock, for example.

I'll throw it over the fence in the next survey, see what the devs think of my idea, but I don't have high hopes. A moogle can dream, I guess.

 

[MarkB]

Same, @MoonSong, but for a different reason.
What I wanted was 4 base classes with dozens of interchangeable subclasses...not another branch on the Character Class tree. (Which may or may not be the case; it's a little early to tell.)

Like, they could start with just four classes: Warrior (non-caster), Priest (half-caster), Mage (full caster), and Expert (skill focused). Then make everything else a subclass, and make them all interchangeable: "paladin" wouldn't just be for Warriors; it could be selected by Mage, Priest, or Expert...giving it a very different feel and flavor for each. A warrior with the paladin subclass might play a lot like a 4E marshal, a priest with the paladin subclass might play a lot like the classic 5E paladin, and a mage with the paladin subclass might feel a lot like a Celestial warlock, for example.

I'll throw it over the fence in the next survey, see what the devs think of my idea, but I don't have high hopes. A moogle can dream, I guess.

That sounds like a potentially interesting approach, but sadly not one they could really go for in a half-edition.

 

[CleverNickName]

That sounds like a potentially interesting approach, but sadly not one they could really go for in a half-edition.

It's true. This wouldn't be backwards-compatible in the least. Heck, it might not even be considered "D&D enough" for any edition. The distinct character classes are one of the baseline expectations of D&D. I think the purists would balk if there isn't a Fighter or a Cleric mentioned specifically, by name, in the Character Classes section.

 

[MarkB]

It's true. This wouldn't be backwards-compatible in the least. Heck, it might not even be considered "D&D enough" for any edition. The distinct character classes are one of the baseline expectations of D&D. I think the purists would balk if there isn't a Fighter or a Cleric mentioned specifically, by name, in the Character Classes section.

Yeah, it wouldn't bother me - I've been hoping for a classless approach to D&D since back when 4e was being developed - but I recognise that it's a definite no-no for most players.

 

[niklinna]

Same, @MoonSong, but for a different reason.
What I wanted was 4 base classes with dozens of interchangeable subclasses...not another branch on the Character Class tree. (Which may or may not be the case; it's a little early to tell.)

Like, they could start with just four classes: Warrior (non-caster), Priest (half-caster), Mage (full caster), and Expert (skill focused). Then make everything else a subclass, and make them all interchangeable: "paladin" wouldn't just be for Warriors; it could be selected by Mage, Priest, or Expert...giving it a very different feel and flavor for each. A warrior with the paladin subclass might play a lot like a 4E marshal, a priest with the paladin subclass might play a lot like the classic 5E paladin, and a mage with the paladin subclass might feel a lot like a Celestial warlock, for example.

I'll throw it over the fence in the next survey, see what the devs think of my idea, but I don't have high hopes. A moogle can dream, I guess.

My only question is, if a Priest is one half caster, what's the other half?