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

[Ashrym]

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.

There are several feats with class group as a prereq. They seem to be serving a mechanical function.

 

[Lojaan]

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.

I think you are arguing against your own point. If you do not concern yourself with class group then that will lead to bad class design. Classes do not exist in a vacuum. They need to match up against other classes, contribute to a group, and their game mechanics need to reinforce their identity.

Let's ignore the Paladin until we see what is planned for both that class and group, but the swordsmage is a great example - if you don't decide what group it is going to be a part of, which function it will fulfill, then you end up in a situation where it is kinda good at a bunch of things but cannot actually fulfill any role. You need to decide if your swordsmage is going to be a warrior who does magic, or a mage who fights in melee, and design the class accordingly. Trying to be both (which has been done before) leaves you with a class that is both bad as a warrior and a bad as a mage.

In my opinion, another example of this being done badly is the current 5e ranger. Heaps and heaps of class identity but on the page it's all over the place. Placing them in the expert group gives them a clear focus, which the mechanics of the class reinforces. These are the guys with the skills. Yes, they can also fight, but they're not Warriors. Don't expect them to go toe to toe with a barbarian. Unless they are fighting on their own terms, and then the barbarian isn't going to see them coming. And they are always fighting on their own terms.

Anyway, I see the class groups as useful tools to help refine class identities to ensure that their game role and mechanics actually reinforces this identity.

HOWEVER

This entirely relies on this being executed well and.. well let's see how the rest of the playtest goes. I am well aware that I am basing my positive opinion on the one group that we have seen in detail so far. I may agree with you after we see how Paladins and Warlocks turn out.

 

[Mephista]

they would either need to define Psionics into Arcane magic to fit the Mage Group,

Just an aside, but....
We have at least four psionics subclasses, spread between mage, warrior and expert.

Dark Suns also tries to redefine a bard as an alchemist which... Hard sell under current rules.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

I think Healing and Defense defines the Paladin quite well. There's a reason they were called Defenders in 4e. I get that we rolled some archetypes of attackers into Paladin in 5e, but the base class ability is far more focused on party support and being the meat shield.

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.

Mystic/Psion would fit better as a Priest, imho.

Arcane Gishes are in various categories. Bladesingers and Hexblades are mages. Artificers and College of Swords Bards and Arcane Tricksters are Experts. Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers, and Rune Knights are Warriors.

The problem with the idea of an Arcane Gish class is that it's not unified under a single banner, because there's no one singular definition of what it should be - much like the issues with Psionicists. That's why it's far far far better defined in the margins - combat-focused arcanists or magic wielding warriors of various classes. That lets everyone get the concept they want rather than trying to shoehorn a bunch of related but functionally different ideas into a single class.

 

[Blue]

I remember in 3.5 where material would come out in one splat book, and no other expansions would ever reference it and it would be effectively left to die on the vine. Having broad categories that new material can either reference or become part of avoids that issue nicely.

As a side note, I see some people discussing these grouping as if they are the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller and I don't feel that these are designed to fit those categories at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are several feats with class group as a prereq. They seem to be serving a mechanical function.

Sure. And if I had to make a personal guess, I suspect they probably will stick (just like I expect the 3 spell groups to continue.) But it's still well early in the process and it would not be difficult for them to eventually decide to toss out the class groupings as well as go back to class-specific spell lists somewhere down the line if they find them causing issue.

At this point there are a lot of rules they've introduced that seem like they are here to stay... but I don't think anything is immutable right now. So no reason to get up in arms thinking we are stuck necessarily.

 

[Blue Orange]

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

Adventurer Conqueror King actually had a Priestess class with double clerical spell progression but no combat ability, vows of pacifism and other restrictions. A more familiar example might be the white mage job of various Final Fantasy games; a very effective healer with little combat or offensive magic ability.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

On the contrary, I fear they may end up promoting homogenization at the cost of class identity. Early signals point towards the gutting of the sorcerer's essence and a worst case scenario the gutting of everything good about it.

 

[Mephista]

On the contrary, I fear they may end up promoting homogenization at the cost of class identity. Early signals point towards the gutting of the sorcerer's essence and a worst case scenario the gutting of everything good about it.

Okay, but what is the essence of the sorcerer? Everyone I ask gives me different answers. Or they default to the old 3e version.

 

[Li Shenron]

Among the many things I don't like, the class groups don't really bother me as such, but the hidden danger of such categorization could be pretty much the subtle effect it can have on further design, like thinking "we shouldn't give the Ranger this new ability because it's an expert and not a warrior". The beauty of classes is that each one of them has a strong identity of its own, they don't need to be put in boxes.