Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[SkidAce]

Just as a minor point... I think Rangers will fall into the Trickster group rather than the Warrior group. They're all over the Exploration pillar, which I believe to be Trickster area.

If I had to guess... things will shake out like this:

WARRIORS: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk
TRICKSTERS: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
PRIESTS: Cleric, Druid
MAGES: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer

And despite the fact the identity of what an actual real-world 'monk' is... in D&D the Monk has never had spellcasting, nor any real connection to the gods. So thinking it should fall into the Priests category is only based upon the real-world concept of "Monk", as opposed to what it actual does and who it is in the fiction of D&D.

I like your chart, and it clarifies for me that "trickster" should be called "expert".

Thanks.

 

[Li Shenron]

But what is the point of having crunchy backgrounds if not to use it to make niche concepts viable?

That's certainly up for discussion!

I am not sure really... the feeling I got, was that backgrounds were simply a way to put together a delivery mechanic for skills and a narrative concept. That is, instead of just letting you to pick skills, the game provided a package of skills with added narrative, so that it looks coherent, story-based, and easier for casual players.

But they were also specifically separate/indipendent from class, so as to achieve a couple of added benefits: (1) allowing more character diversification (at least in comparison with 3e approach of "class skills") and (2) in some specific cases allowing to pick someone else's expertise in something that all the party benefits from, such as lockpicking/trapfinding, so that the proverbial "party without a Rogue" could still have that covered. It was not the only way to do so however, in fact there wasn't e.g. ever a background granting healing, but instead there was a feat for that, and that specific lockpicking/trapfinding also became a feat at some point.

I think this is the dividing line: They don't have the guts to demote paladin to less than class status. Instead they invent a class groups tier and end up at the same place, only with extra unnecessary complexity.

The reason for that is only that Paladin as a complex archetype (i.e. class) has a long history in the game, too much to demote it.

But that doesn't mean that we couldn't also have a background, a feat chain, or another class' subclass later on that would allow a "light Paladin" template to apply to another class. I think for instance the Knight background of a few packets ago was very close: it was obviously missing all the Paladin's tropes which are just too big to fit into the current implementation of backgrounds, but otherwise it only needed a more "holy" connotation, maybe a slight mix with the Priest background, and it would work. But in order to have also divine powers, the current backgrounds aren't suitable... OTOH feats are definitely suitable so you might be able to re-create someone Paladin-enough with a combination of backgrounds and feats.

Overall, I wouldn't be against expanding the backgrounds framework so that it would deliver more than the current mix of traits, skills and proficiencies. IMHO the key design issue here, would be to decide if a background should be a fixed package like currently (i.e. you get all the stuff at once, even tho the bonuses increase by level) or if it would be extended over a range of levels. The latter IMHO is quite necessary if you wanted one background to deliver several advanced features such as paladin spells, lay on hands, turn undead etc.

 

[TwoSix]

Actually, I think WotC could steal a page from Paizo and use their "Mythic Paths", which I like better as a set of standardized superclasses.

Archmage
Champion
Guardian
Hierophant
Marshal
Trickster

The names could be further simplified, but I like breaking up "hit things" classes and "tough" classes, and making the leader type its own thing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the main aspect they are using for warriors are having proficiency with all martial weapons and extra attack at level 5. Any class with martial weapons and extra attacks is a warrior. That is what makes a ranger a warrior. Rangers are warriors who can track, sneak, spot, heal, and SUPERDEATHKILL the foe they trained against.

Don't agree. In my opinion... what will make a class fall under the class group of Warrior is not one or two specific mechanics, but rather having the entire class package be built such that it is on par with each of the other classes in the group.

Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians all fulfill the same primary role-- the melee face-smasher, damager, defender, "everyone get behind me!" type of class. Do Rangers fit that role? Would you ever think or want to use a Ranger as that guy if your party was without a Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian? If the answer is 'no' (and I'm willing to bet most people probably don't see the Ranger in that light)... then the class wouldn't fall under the Warrior group banner.

Right now... I don't think most people see the Monk in that way either. Which means that if their intention is to have it in the Warrior group... they probably will need to make some adjustments to the class so that it becomes more combat-focused and fits better its place as a potential replacement for a Fighter or Barbarian in a party.

 

[Zaukrie]

I am not sure if groups matter much....sounds like they will be used very broadly to ease set up of classes in terms of hit points and a few other things.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm still not sold on the need for class groups (just like I'm not sold on the need for creature types). At some point, the distinction becomes academic.

Absolutely!

It's not a bad thing per se to have these groups, let's have them... but the many posts in this thread and the L&L responses about "class X should not really be superclass Y, they should be superclass Y!" already prove that this categorization is only going to cause useless debate.

I mean, we already have endless discussions on what ability e.g. a Ranger "should" have. That's OK, because when you play the game, it actually makes all the difference in the world whether your Ranger PC can do this or cannot do that. Debating class features is natural and I dare say healthy, because class features are the game you're going to play.

But then, with the exception of the "core 4 classes", do we really need to artificially create a system of labels that will only make us argue where each non-core-4 class "should" belong? Do we really need then to force changes to already designed classes in order them to fit into one category?

This is counterproductive because all non-core-4 classes are already hybrids. If they just slap these labels on them, but don't actually change the classes, then I'm all for it. If they start changing the classes to conform to the lables, then it's really going to cause damage because all those classes don't fit naturally under a single label (as proved by the conflicting opinions here) and will be made to fit by emphasizing one side of them at the expense of the other.

This whole thing reminds me of when you have to fill an application and they ask you to write you "Race". Someone has decided that there's a list of N races, and one box must be ticked. What if you're dad was caucasian and mom afro-american? What if you grandparents were japanese+scandinavian+caribbean+arabic? No, you have to tick one box or you can't submit your application. But whose fault is it? Is it yours, your grandparents', or is it the fault of wanting categories at all costs, and wanting to fit everyone under them?

I don't think feats or magic items need to give much reference to the underlying "group."

I am thinking the same.

On one hand I think I understand Mearls' idea: should they design a magic item, it might be easier to say "can be used by all Mages" instead of saying "can be used by Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks...". The list of superclasses is very likely going to be fixed, the list of classes might not be fixed, although they said they want it to be.

But on the other hand, how often does it really happen that you need a magic item like that? Traditionally, scrolls and wands (and other items that cast spells) can be used by those who have the spell on their class spells list. You can't say "usable by Mages" if different classes under Mage have different spells lists. Almost every other magic item works the same for everyone, or works only for those who have a specific ability, no matter the class. Occasionally there is magic items that work for a specific class, like "a Holy Avenger in the hands of a Paladin...", which you still need.

So that's the whole point: how the hell superclasses are going in practice to be useful for magic items, when the vast majority of magic items never actually worked based on class groups?

Furthermore, we are going to have lots of subclasses designed as crossovers, such as Fighter subclasses that casts some Wizard spells and Wizard subclasses that fight better, so that you can make your Fighter/Wizard PC in ways other than multiclassing. For these subclasses, will magic items work or not?

Simply, magic items work based on what you can do (i.e. if their benefit applies to your capabilities), not based on what you are, because "what you are" i.e. what's your class name (or superclass name or another label) is nothing in the fantasy world, it's just a label. Unless it represents something real, like alignment, race or (very rarely) class indeed, but creating a system of additional labels when the game is going to be full of exceptions sounds quite unreasonable to me.

 

[DMZ2112]

Always glad to see the four cardinal points of D&D get attention, no matter what they're being called. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water; North, South, East, and West; Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief. Love it.


IMHO, the traditional D&D monk and ranger are tricksters (or possibly clerics). There is a big difference between an archer and a ranger, and between a pugilist and a monk. Unarmed and ranged warriors should be represented by robust options in fighter design, not by new classes.


My sense of whimsy enjoys "trickster," but I have to admit that if the goal was to avoid the specificity of "thief" it is not a great choice. I /can/ read "trickster" as "someone with a bag of tricks," if I try, but it's much easier to read it as "tricky person," which has clear and often inappropriate connotations.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians all fulfill the same primary role-- the melee face-smasher, damager, defender, "everyone get behind me!" type of class. Do Rangers fit that role? Would you ever think or want to use a Ranger as that guy if your party was without a Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian? If the answer is 'no' (and I'm willing to bet most people probably don't see the Ranger in that light)... then the class wouldn't fall under the Warrior group banner.

Anyone who answers "yes" to that question has no idea what a ranger is. A ranger absolutely falls under that banner. Later editions have increasingly forced him into the rogue category, and there's no better time to fix that than now.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Anyone who answers "yes" to that question has no idea what a ranger is. A ranger absolutely falls under that banner. Later editions have increasingly forced him into the rogue category, and there's no better time to fix that than now.

*Pats on head* Yes, JRR... we know you feel. We know.

 

[TwoSix]

Anyone who answers "yes" to that question has no idea what a ranger is. A ranger absolutely falls under that banner. Later editions have increasingly forced him into the rogue category, and there's no better time to fix that than now.

To be fair, I think there's room in the Ranger class for both Aragorn-style leader and a Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando, although I'd like to see the Rogue subsume both the Bear Grylls style badass and the MacGyver-esque "use what's around me to make a cunning plan" archetypes.