Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Pseudopsyche]

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.

I think we can all agree that labels/keywords such as "mage" could be abused or misused to create poor rules. My main point is that they could also have some value. The difference between "is a Mage" and "can cast Magic Missile" is more about granularity than anything else. An Arcane Student feat could just as easily say, "You qualify as a Mage for the purposes of using magic items" as "You may add some spells to your spell list".

Both granularities have their advantages. You might say that it makes more sense for a warlock who can cast Burning Hands but not Magic Missile to be able to use a Wand of Burning Hands more easily than a Wand of Magic Missile. I might say that it's simpler and more streamlined for a warlock player who finds a Scroll of Evard's Black Tentacles to remember that warlocks count as Mages instead of having to consult a rulebook to determine if Evard's Black Tentacles is a "warlock spell".

As someone else pointed out, this discussion is really all about abstraction, which is the practice of treating two distinct things as being essentially the same, in some context. I'm not arguing that a Wizard and a Warlock are the same, but I am suggesting that there are enough contexts in which a Wizard and Warlock should be treated as the same, that it's worthwhile to create the abstraction.

If I publish an adventure with the last remaining wand of a long-lost Thassilonian arcane spell, I just want to be able to say that any Mage can use it, instead of having to enumerate specific arcane classes or arcane spells that can serve as prerequisites instead. Or, if you like, any character can use it, but any Mage can attempt to learn the spell.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think we can all agree that labels/keywords such as "mage" could be abused or misused to create poor rules. My main point is that they could also have some value.

I think my main point is that I don't see what value it creates. It's meaningless categorization for no real benefit.

The difference between "is a Mage" and "can cast Magic Missile" is more about granularity than anything else. An Arcane Student feat could just as easily say, "You qualify as a Mage for the purposes of using magic items" as "You may add some spells to your spell list".

True, but why should it have to do both? Of what benefit is the distinction of being a Mage? Why can't it just give you some spells you can cast, and then have the capacity to cast those spells count enough for using items that rely on you casting those spells? (If you even want items to rely on that, which I'm certainly open to them NOT relying on that)

Both granularities have their advantages. You might say that it makes more sense for a warlock who can cast Burning Hands but not Magic Missile to be able to use a Wand of Burning Hands more easily than a Wand of Magic Missile. I might say that it's simpler and more streamlined for a warlock player who finds a Scroll of Evard's Black Tentacles to remember that warlocks count as Mages instead of having to consult a rulebook to determine if Evard's Black Tentacles is a "warlock spell".

Why not just let anyone with training in Arcana use scrolls? Or anyone with an INT of 10+Spell Level? Why introduce another category that then excludes, say, a paladin of a Cthuloid deity from using an item that summons tentacles just because she's not a "mage?" And why does she get to use a Holy Avenger? What is or is not a "mage" is meaningless, arbitrary, and artificial -- it can't help but not capture the actual kinds of characters that may or may not want to use a scroll that lets them summon tentacles.

As someone else pointed out, this discussion is really all about abstraction, which is the practice of treating two distinct things as being essentially the same, in some context. I'm not arguing that a Wizard and a Warlock are the same, but I am suggesting that there are enough contexts in which a Wizard and Warlock should be treated as the same, that it's worthwhile to create the abstraction.

I don't think your suggestion is well supported. A character who learns magic from dusty tomes of forgotten lore and a character who learns magic from pacts sworn with questionable extraplanar entities are two completely, fundamentally, different kinds of character. They share the "learns magic" verbage, but they share that verbage with 95% of every fantasy archetype, so that's not a very useful distinction.

If I publish an adventure with the last remaining wand of a long-lost Thassilonian arcane spell, I just want to be able to say that any Mage can use it, instead of having to enumerate specific arcane classes or arcane spells that can serve as prerequisites instead. Or, if you like, any character can use it, but any Mage can attempt to learn the spell.

Why not just say that anyone can use it? Or anyone with Scroll proficiency? Or anyone with an Int of 15 or more?

Why introduce an entirely new, largely meaningless, super-category?

 

[Falling Icicle]

From Twitter:
@redcometcasval And Sorcerer and Warlock go back to full classes again? Also, is Mage d4 or d6? Article makes it unclear.
@mikemearls sorcerer and warlock are their own classes, wizard is d6 hit die.

I'm very glad to hear this.

@Gweemaran I'm concerned that these "half power source, half role" groupings will pigeon-hole classes and/or force a grid.
@mikemearls the intent behind it is the opposite - they're very broad and each one can incorporate a lot of concepts

@mikemearls To be clear about today's L&L: The groups don't have anything to do with class design. They help us describe a completed class.
@mikemearls They let us make blanket statements in adventures, magic items, and so on that apply to whole ranges of classes.

That addresses pretty much all of the concerns I had with this idea. As long as the class groups are just labels and don't shoe-horn class design, I have no objections.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm very glad to hear this.



That addresses pretty much all of the concerns I had with this idea. As long as the class groups are just labels and don't shoe-horn class design, I have no objections.

Yeah, pretty good on that regard. Very 2e by the way. But I still don't see how this couldn't have been solved by using keywords or a system reliant on proficiencies.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yeah, pretty good on that regard. Very 2e by the way. But I still don't see how this couldn't have been solved by using keywords or a system reliant on proficiencies.

They could do both. A magic staff, for example, could be "usable only by mages" or "usable by anyone with proficiency with staves as an implement," depending on what they want to do.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Why introduce another category that then excludes, say, a paladin of a Cthuloid deity from using an item that summons tentacles just because she's not a "mage?" And why does she get to use a Holy Avenger? What is or is not a "mage" is meaningless, arbitrary, and artificial -- it can't help but not capture the actual kinds of characters that may or may not want to use a scroll that lets them summon tentacles.

Same reason an orc storm shaman shouldn't be able to fly a B-52 bomber. It has to do with the nature of the item and how it is used, not the effect.

 

[pemerton]

I see your point, but a ranged fighter ought to be doing those things, too, and he doesn't have proficiency with stealth. So...?

I'm the wrong person to ask on this - I like 4e's ranger archer, and also archer warlord (who speaks to the alternative archery archetype - of leading a whole troop of archers Agincourt-style).

I hate hybrid classes, I really do.

I totally agree.

<snip>

I'd imagine a "Woodsman" speciality and background could be written that would get you most of the way to Ranger

I tend to go the other way. Given the inherence, to D&D play, of fiddly mechanical distinctions that make no difference at the broad archetype level (eg paladin & cleric), I favour many classes to capture all the different nuances.

That's not an argument for broad class groups, though.

Such a system works fine at a certain level of abstraction. I could see something like Burning Wheel getting away with it.

I don't follow this. BW is a classless, lifepath PC build system, based on skills a bit like Runequest. How would a "class groups" system fit into BW?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Gygax, that notoriously lazy designer!

Why do the gods answer only the prayers of some of the followers? Whatever story you tell in the fiction to answer that question, tell the same story to explain why the sword reaches full potency only in the hands of this particular wielder.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This would be fine with me, but I haven't yet seen any hint of how this might be mechanically achieved. (Eg the bard has no special prowess in relation to the interaction rules.)

 

[Mistwell]

I'd be OK with Expert or Specialist, but I still prefer Rogue.