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

[Blue]

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.

I'm interested in this. What early signs have you seen?

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO, unless they are going to drastically increase the number of classes in 5e, it would make more sense to just have a list of prereq classes rather than box them into groups and refer to the group. Especially since many classes are more hybrid in nature.

 

[Pedantic]

Given that were hearing about class groupings entirely as prerequisites to feats, maybe what we really need are feat classifications instead? I'm immediately thinking about Fantasy Craft's feat categories.

You'd have Chance Feats, Covert Feats, Melee Weapon Feats and so on, and classes that have out bonus feats would reference the groups you could take from. It also has a thing where some features/feats would scale with the number of feats in a given category you had, but that feels like too much in feat starved 5e. You could take any feat you wanted with your general feats from level progression.

That feels like it achieves the same kind of future proofing and referencing they get from this, without awkwardness in fitting the classes into specific boxes.

 

[Blue]

IMO, unless they are going to drastically increase the number of classes in 5e, it would make more sense to just have a list of prereq classes rather than box them into groups and refer to the group. Especially since many classes are more hybrid in nature.

They did stuff like this in 3.5, and then when new material came out in later expansions it could reference things, but nothing else ever referenced it. So if there was a new spellcaster later spells never would be put on it's list, etc.

This is a much more future-proof way.

 

[FrogReaver]

They did stuff like this in 3.5, and then when new material came out in later expansions it could reference things, but nothing else ever referenced it. So if there was a new spellcaster later spells never would be put on it's list, etc.

This is a much more future-proof way.

If there was a new spell caster…. There has been all of 1 new class in 5e.

I agree it solves that problem. But #1 I’m just not sure that’s a big problem for 5e given the number of new classes and #2 boxing things together in boxes that don’t really fit can have a much bigger downside toward class design.

 

[SakanaSensei]

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.

Worlds Without Number does this and I love that about the system. You've got your core three classes, Warrior, Expert, Mage, with mage having several schools that can be taken, many of which are half classes.

Want a Paladin? Go Warrior + the mage subclass focused on smiting the wicked. Cleric is Warrior + Healer. Rogue? Warrior + Expert. Anything not covered by class to fit your fantasy is probably covered by the foci (feats).

Really don't need a thousand different ways to skin a displacer beast.

 

[FrogReaver]

Worlds Without Number does this and I love that about the system. You've got your core three classes, Warrior, Expert, Mage, with mage having several schools that can be taken, many of which are half classes.

Want a Paladin? Go Warrior + the mage subclass focused on smiting the wicked. Cleric is Warrior + Healer. Rogue? Warrior + Expert. Anything not covered by class to fit your fantasy is probably covered by the foci (feats).

I prefer the class system in stars without number as well - though I also prefer a system with less steep gains in PC power as well. So that may be part of it for me.

Really don't need a thousand different ways to skin a displacer beast.

IMO. Some people do.

 

[Li Shenron]

Given that were hearing about class groupings entirely as prerequisites to feats, maybe what we really need are feat classifications instead? I'm immediately thinking about Fantasy Craft's feat categories.

You'd have Chance Feats, Covert Feats, Melee Weapon Feats and so on, and classes that have out bonus feats would reference the groups you could take from. It also has a thing where some features/feats would scale with the number of feats in a given category you had, but that feels like too much in feat starved 5e. You could take any feat you wanted with your general feats from level progression.

That feels like it achieves the same kind of future proofing and referencing they get from this, without awkwardness in fitting the classes into specific boxes.

There is always a downside...

It might seem more "tidy" to group feats, but then what happens after a while is that PCs of a certain class keep choosing the same feats and feel 'samey', while at the same time some creative choices are prevented. Imagine if all combat feats could only be taken by warrior-group classes, they would only serve the purpose of reinforcing stereotypes but not expanding character options. There are a few feats that were even specifically designed for creating hybrid concepts as in "light multiclassing", so the purpose of feats certainly isn't only to reinforce stereotypes.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is always a downside...

It might seem more "tidy" to group feats, but then what happens after a while is that PCs of a certain class keep choosing the same feats and feel 'samey', while at the same time some creative choices are prevented. Imagine if all combat feats could only be taken by warrior-group classes, they would only serve the purpose of reinforcing stereotypes but not expanding character options. There are a few feats that were even specifically designed for creating hybrid concepts as in "light multiclassing", so the purpose of feats certainly isn't only to reinforce stereotypes.

I actually think better designs usually occur when feats are siloed off to some degree. The designers can be more creative when they don't have to worry about how the feat in question interacts with 20 different classes and 80 different subclasses. Instead, only needing to consider the ramifications for a few classes opens up his design space by freeing him of unnecessary constraints.

 

[Pedantic]

There is always a downside...

It might seem more "tidy" to group feats, but then what happens after a while is that PCs of a certain class keep choosing the same feats and feel 'samey', while at the same time some creative choices are prevented. Imagine if all combat feats could only be taken by warrior-group classes, they would only serve the purpose of reinforcing stereotypes but not expanding character options. There are a few feats that were even specifically designed for creating hybrid concepts as in "light multiclassing", so the purpose of feats certainly isn't only to reinforce stereotypes.

I mean, that concern is only further exacerbated by grouping classes instead of feats. You could quite reasonably have 6 feat categories, and generally have classes that give you bonus feats picking from 2 categories at a time. The rest of that comes down to designing enough feats that are broad and effective enough in application that multiple characters want them.