Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Wicht]

Thinking about it, I think I like magic items that work...

...for everyone
...for some people at random
...for people of a certain race
...for people of a certain alignment
...for people with a certain ability (e.g. "spellcasting" or "arcane spellcasting" or "use magic device")
...for people of a certain "level" (perhaps... I'm a bit uncertain about this...)
...for people of a certain faith or religion
...for people at random
...for one person only

But oddly enough, magic items that work for people of a certain class or group of classes don't sound that good to me.

The certain level works if the item "unlocks" powers at certain key moments.

But overall, yeah, that's where I am coming from too.

 

[Zireael]

Also...surely these are the type of debates that we should have been having at the start of the Playtest I reckon.

I agree completely.

Somebody upthread suggested the superclass idea be replaced with tags.
I must say I like the idea of certain magic items being limited to certain tags only. But the master thief example is not something I like. How would he know what tag the character has?

Tags/superclass, as somebody mentioned, would make it easier to delineate rules for future expansions (let's not kid ourselves, we all know we'll get splats plenty)

As for names: a good solution was presented upthread:

Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief

 

[DMZ2112]

But oddly enough, magic items that work for people of a certain class or group of classes don't sound that good to me.

Well, that makes perfect sense. Personally, I like to think of classes as an intrinsic part of the reality of D&D, like alignments or races, but that's a bit of an odd philosophy. It's far more common to just think of them as jobs, and a job is hardly a mystical predestined force.

Still, the idea that a realm is as shaped by the fact that its ruler is a Fighter as it is by the fact that he is an Elf and Chaotic Good is one of those things I've always loved about my personal vision of D&D. A Fighter isn't just a guy with a sword, he represents a martial tradition that pervades reality itself. I dig that.

 

[Wicht]

I am not even seeing how it is an abstraction. That's also not in your argument against it. How does, say, a Ranger being a member of the warrior classification, so that the game achieves a certain commonality for all warrior-types which can be used to help new players recognize what sorts of additional classes are like, and can aid in future product releases that include additional sub-classes in that warrior classification, a higher level of abstraction?

It is an abstraction to say: Magic Item X does not work for anyone that does not belong to Class Group Y, where Class Group Y is an arbitrary categorization made specifically for the purpose of "balance" and mechanics. That is specifically the issue I have and is the specific thing I am complaining about. It's, imo, lazy design.

You show me where they said that's how it's going to work.

I don't know specifically that's how it's going to work. I am saying that is how I am hoping it does not work and if it does work that way, I will be disappointed. We are pontificating on a future and expressing opinions about possibilities. There are some possibilities I find superior to others and I am saying as much. I am not claiming to know this is what the future holds. In fact, when I first discovered the possibility yesterday of this course being followed, I was surprised because it seemed like such a lame way of doing magic items.

I had hopes that sort of edition-warring language would end, particularly for this kind of issue. Hey Wicht, if 5e isn't for you, fine, 5e isn't for you. But leave the, "and I am speaking for everyone" sort of language out of it (which is what "this looks very good for [another game]" implies - since you're obviously referring to many more people than just yourself). This sort of classification system isn't the end of the world for me, for example, even if it did work how you think it will (and I don't think it will work that way).

What part of "I" means to you, I am speaking for everyone. If "I" am hoping that they do things a certain way, then "I" am expressing my personal opinion. I am not claiming to be speaking for everyone else. I can see how the "its looking good for Paizo," could be construed that way, but it could equally be construed, and should be in the context of "me" speaking for "myself," to mean that "it is looking good for Paizo to be keeping my business." I do not claim, in this case, to be representative of anyone other than me.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Thinking about it, I think I like magic items that work...

...for everyone
...for some people at random
...for people of a certain race
...for people of a certain alignment
...for people with a certain ability (e.g. "spellcasting" or "arcane spellcasting" or "use magic device")
...for people of a certain "level" (perhaps... I'm a bit uncertain about this...)
...for people of a certain faith or religion
...for people at random
...for one person only

But oddly enough, magic items that work for people of a certain class or group of classes don't sound that good to me.

That's not so odd. All of those things you list can be viewed as in character elements. A person could stand there and say, "oh this sword is dedicated to the god of justice" or "only dwarves can bear the Iron Crown" or something. But class groups make far less sense than that. Why does this item work for the Rogue but not the Ranger with the Guild Thief background? Why does the sword dedicated to the god of justice work for his priests, but not his paladins? Etc.

It's of course not a given that things will really work out like this on launch day, mind you. But I have yet to see even a single benefit to adopting this method. Does it really make it easier to design feats and magic items? I don't think so. It conjures up weird corner cases like the ones brought up earlier, and it's not as if there haven't been plenty of feats and items that worked just fine without these class groupings.

 

[Warbringer]

I totally agree. Although I recognize that it exists, I don't quite understand the emotional reaction some people get to a "class" being "demoted". Its not like there are any real "Rangers" out there that will lose their jobs.

Well, a whole bunch of park "Rangers" just got furloughed here in the states ....

 

[Derren]

The Trickster definition seems problematic.
Defining them as "guys who do skill checks" means that characters in other groups can't be all that good at skills so to not encroach on the Tricksters turf. And that leads to the 3E fighter.
Instead they should find a other role for rogues and let other characters have their skills, too.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Isn't this discussion of what classes can use what items mostly orthogonal to class groups? The rule doesn't have to be "Wands of Magic Missile can only be used by Mages." Maybe it'll be "Activate the Wand of Magic Missile with a DC 12 Intelligence (Arcana) check. Mages succeed automatically." Or maybe the class group could just be used to provide an additional bonus, such as "Mages holding a Wand of Magic Missile may treat Magic Missile as a prepared spell." All of these rules can exist in a future-proof way due to the existence of the Mage group.

But then, what qualifies one to be a "mage?" Are hexblades included? What about swordmages? Bladedancers? Rangers who take a 1e "arcane magic" style option? How about druids or clerics who take Gandalf as their primary inspiration? Priests of the god of magic? Rogues patterned after "detectives" who use divination magic? What about illusionists who don't normally cast the spell? Arcane tricksters? Arcane Archers?

The distinction becomes functionally meaningless in practice. What falls into the "mage" bucket is essentially arbitrary, without relevance to the characters that people play. At least "If you can cast Magic Missile..." is a clear mechanical and fictional criteria, and it opens it up to a Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Druid, Cleric, or Barbarian who takes a hypothetical "Arcane Student" feat (that gives them a few cantrips), regardless of which class they take.

I mean, why give Character X some advantage or benefit just because they checked the right box at character creation, and prohibit Character Z from getting that same benefit because they didn't? Whether or not you cast the Magic Missile spell might be relevant for whether or not you can use the Wand of Magic Missiles, but it says jack all about HD size, armor proficiency, role in the world, or if you should be able to qualify for metamagic feats.

It's not exactly orthogonal, because that's among the reasons mearls gave for why class groups are useful. But I don't see their utility from that. There's no benefit to saying "All mages automatically use Magic Missile from this wand, and everyone else has to make an INT check," because it still relies on the essentially meaningless border-guarding of what a "mage" is and is not. If you said "Those who know Magic Missile can use it automatically from this wand, and everyone else has to make an INT check," that'd be better. If you said, "Everyone can use Magic Missile from this wand, but remember that DMs can impose restrictions for any reason" I'd be pretty much totally satisfied, but that's a little "un-D&D."

 

[Salamandyr]

The Trickster definition seems problematic.
Defining them as "guys who do skill checks" means that characters in other groups can't be all that good at skills so to not encroach on the Tricksters turf. And that leads to the 3E fighter.
Instead they should find a other role for rogues and let other characters have their skills, too.

Not necessarily. There are a number of ways for tricksters to be able to be "the skill guys" without turning other classes into the 3E fighters.

For one thing, there's how 5e does it now. Every class has a chance to do anything. For the skills they're proficient in, they've got a reasonable chance of success. But the trickster could do more. Whereas a fighter or wizard could hide behind rocks, scrub terrain, or around a corner to get the drop on a monster (DC 15 check), a rogue could hide in the dark corner of a room (DC 20 or more check) with about the same difficulty.

A charming warrior, or cleric might talk a monster into letting the party get by without a fight, but the bard could talk the monster into joining the party.

Or you could do it just by giving the skill guys more skills. So a stealthy fighter and a stealthy rogue are pretty much equivalent, but the rogue also has a half dozen other "tricks".

Or you could do a little of both.

The thing I've noticed in my playtests is that the rogue, with his expertise does overshadow everybody else when he gets to use it, just as the fighter overshadows everybody else in combat, but the rogue can't do everything at once, and so the party has to choose where to use him, and then rely on the other characters to handle other areas--the same as how while the fighter dominates combat, there's still a lot for the cleric, the rogue, and the bard to do.

 

[Mistwell]

It is an abstraction to say: Magic Item X does not work for anyone that does not belong to Class Group Y, where Class Group Y is an arbitrary categorization made specifically for the purpose of "balance" and mechanics. That is specifically the issue I have and is the specific thing I am complaining about. It's, imo, lazy design.

But, again, it doesn't necessarily work that way, and none of your language until now left any room for it to work any way other than what you had previously described. If you agreed with me all along it might not work that way, it would have been helpful for you to have said something earlier?

I don't know specifically that's how it's going to work. I am saying that is how I am hoping it does not work and if it does work that way, I will be disappointed.

OK, well, understood.

What part of "I" means to you, I am speaking for everyone. If "I" am hoping that they do things a certain way, then "I" am expressing my personal opinion. I am not claiming to be speaking for everyone else. I can see how the "its looking good for Paizo," could be construed that way, but it could equally be construed, and should be in the context of "me" speaking for "myself," to mean that "it is looking good for Paizo to be keeping my business." I do not claim, in this case, to be representative of anyone other than me.

If you say that's what you meant, then OK I take you at your word.