D&D (2024) UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior

[UngainlyTitan]

Some one suggested "Devoted" which I think it good.

 

[Yaarel]

Some one suggested "Devoted" which I think it good.

That makes sense. I can live with that.

"Devotee" is a common word, ranging from a religious fanatic to a football enthusiast.

It implies having made a "vow", whether formal or informal, but in English generally means any kind of dedicated behavior.

I heard on TV, a character describe "devotion" as the intersection between obligation and love.

 

[Haplo781]

In D&D though, Mystic means Psionics. I'd very much expect that if they create a new Psionic class later on, it would be in the Priest group, and be called a Mystic.

I HIGHLY doubt they're going to drop Priest, unfortunately. I'd personally just go with Healer.

Also, I lament the loss of the Thaumaturge.

In the Sidekick classes, we have Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster - but there are subclasses for these. Expert's subclasses are essentially which saving throw they are proficient in (and thus likely are focused on for their skill monkeying) - Dex, Int, or Cha. So, Artisan, Bookish, or Face. Warrior subclasses are Attacker or Defender (roughly equivalent 4e Striker and Defender roles).

Meanwhile, Spellcaster subclasses are Mage, Healer, and Thaumaturge - Int, Wis, and Cha, respectively, as well as Wizard, Cleric/Druid, Bard/Warlock spell lists. These are the equivalent to the Arcane Spell List / Mage Class Group, Divine & Primal Spell Lists / Priest Class Group, and a missing Spell List / Missing Class Group.

I've been frustrated since 2015 when they gave the 4e Swordmage spells in SCAG to just Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. That design was carried over to their updates in 2019's TCoE. But clearly, TO WOTC, Mage & Arcane mean specifically those three classes. But clearly Bards are Arcane because they've been Arcane since 3e kinda, so we'll give them access to just that spell list… but give them some bonus healing spells and access to other spells of their choice at Paragon levels… this does allow warrior Bards to get the Swordmage spells (assuming they make it into the 2024 PHB). But I think it really would make more sense in general to create a Thaumaturge spell list and let Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks access it, while Wizards and Artificers use the Mage spell list. Maybe these 4 class groups are forced chassis that causes more problems than it solves - akin to the power source x party role matrix in 4e.

Actually, this is more like how 4e turned Alignment into a line from a grid than the 4e character grid - roles and power sources are getting confused and forced together in weird ways. I think class groups COULD work as long as they really don't try to Grid fill. Grid Filling is the danger here - where you want your spreadsheets to look balanced so you move options around into places that don't make sense for those options and thus restrict them from their archetype's fun.

I propose Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why dont we just call them: the Expert group, the Mage group, the Warrior group, and the Jesus group?

Are you honestly suggesting that names dont matter?

We need names that avoid ethnocentrism as much as possible.

The term "Priest" group is dead wrong for a significant percentage of the reallife human species.

The concept of a "priest", namely an official who maintains a temple and the offerings to the god there, can be part of this group. But there are many other concepts that are part of this group too, including sages like rabbis and imams, and nontheistic shamans, seers, and monastics.

The 5e Paladin is nontheistic! In no way does it in itself qualify as a kind of "priest".

By contrast, the Paladin can be a "mystic" warrior.

The word Paladin is just as ethnocentric. Monk and Barbarian are possible issues for other reasons, but it doesn't look like WotC's planning on changing any of them.

 

[Blue Orange]

The word Paladin is just as ethnocentric. Monk and Barbarian are possible issues for other reasons, but it doesn't look like WotC's planning on changing any of them.

I'd rather see them ditch 'Monk', personally. 'Priest' kind of fits, but most monks outside the Shaolin monastery in China (and most inside) are not martial artists.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd rather see them ditch 'Monk', personally. 'Priest' kind of fits, but most monks outside the Shaolin monastery in China (and most inside) are not martial artists.

My point is, name recognition is more important to WotC than any blowback they  might get on that particular issue.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Why dont we just call them: the Expert group, the Mage group, the Warrior group, and the Jesus group?

Are you honestly suggesting that names dont matter?

We need names that avoid ethnocentrism as much as possible.

The term "Priest" group is dead wrong for a significant percentage of the reallife human species.

The concept of a "priest", namely an official who maintains a temple and the offerings to the god there, can be part of this group. But there are many other concepts that are part of this group too, including sages like rabbis and imams, and nontheistic shamans, seers, and monastics.

The 5e Paladin is nontheistic! In no way does it in itself qualify as a kind of "priest".

By contrast, the Paladin can be a "mystic" warrior.

Are you suggesting Christianity is the only religion with Priests, because that is far from true.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

That makes sense. I can live with that.

"Devotee" is a common word, ranging from a religious fanatic to a football enthusiast.

It implies having made a "vow", whether formal or informal, but in English generally means any kind of dedicated behavior.

I heard on TV, a character describe "devotion" as the intersection between obligation and love.

Devotee could apply to any class, its too generic.

Priest is fine, it's no worse then the term Cleric itself, in fact it's much more broadly applible to more religions then Cleric or Paladin themselves are and those terms aren't going anywhere.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Devotee could apply to any class, its too generic.

And "Expert" somehow isn't? Or "Mage" in a game where most classes can cast spells?

 

[bedir than]

Could they do something crazy and make Paladins full casters?

There's no reason to think this is true.

We know that the Expert has 1 full caster, 1 half-caster and 1 base non-caster.

What reason is there to think that each of the class groupings has to have the same spellcasting?