Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Pseudopsyche]

There's almost no such thing as a totally useless game element, but I think that this classification system comes preeeeety close. I actually don't mind the labeling as a purely aesthetic thing; that's basically harmless. I'm still profoundly unconvinced that it has even the slightest mechanical benefits, though.

Both 3E and 4E used class names as prerequisites for several rules elements, from feats to prestige classes and paragon paths. Why not formally define the concept of "mage" so that future modules can use "Prerequisite: Mage" instead of "Prerequisite: Wizard" and be compatible with the Warlock, Sorcerer, and even whatever third-party content decides to use this keyword? All this does is create a language for players and rules to use when talking about characters in a way that generalizes beyond the core classes.

There are non-mechanical benefits, too. As the original article said:

Our goal with class groups is to provide an easy framework that magic items and other abilities can use to refer to classes, to give people a set of terms they can use to compare and contrast classes in broad strokes, and to make it easy for players to understand how the classes beyond the core four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) relate to that basic group.

It would be nice to communicate to a group of brand new players that it's definitely okay to create a party with a druid, paladin, bard, and sorcerer, and still have all their bases covered for the starter adventure they just bought.

You may disagree about the value of these benefits, compared to the costs, but the potential for benefits certainly exists.

 

[Wicht]

Both 3E and 4E used class names as prerequisites for several rules elements, from feats to prestige classes and paragon paths.

Can you give me an example of a 3x feat or prestige class that called out a specific class by name as a prerequisite.

 

[TwoSix]

There is a basic assumption in your posts that certain magic items will be unusable by certain classes, as opposed to simply more useful in the hands of someone specialized in the thing that magic item is about. That assumption has been questioned, repeatedly, with many examples at this point as to how it might work differently than your assumption. So, why are you continuing with the assumption? You keep stating it as if WOTC declared the class system WILL be used to prevent certain classes from using certain items - with entirely zero support for that claim. It's possible, but it's also highly possible it's not that, and we have no word at all to confirm it one way or the other.

I'm pretty sure the Twitter quote of "Only tricksters can see the thief-king!" certainly leads thoughts down the path of "Only X class will be able to do/use Y". It doesn't have to be proven that a circumstance WILL happen to point out that the circujmstance is bad, only the fact that it's still a possibility that's still on the table. One is certainly entitled to yell "Please don't chop off my head!" if a stranger walks into the room with an axe, even if the chance is fairly remote.

 

[TwoSix]

Can you give me an example of a 3x feat or prestige class that called out a specific class by name as a prerequisite.

Weapon Specialization.

 

[Wicht]

Weapon Specialization.

I'll give you that one, though in fairness, there are a few classes other than fighter that allow you to qualify for it as well, as if you were a fighter. But other than the handful of fighter only combat feats I can't think of any others. And scrolling through the feats I don't see any others for any other classes.

What about Prestige Classes?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The system I mentioned, you CAN get special benefit from using it. It works for you just fine. However, it works BETTER for the guy whose class is experienced with such things. There is no "can't" involved.

Yes, there is: "I CAN'T get it to work BETTER for me, whose arbitrarily-determined class group is not, according to WotC, to be experienced with such things, even though my particular character/class/archetype actually should have it work BETTER for me."

If you're saying someone gets a special benefit because of X, that's introducing the same problem as saying that someone is barred from that special benefit because they are not X. When X makes sense, no problem. When X is unrelated to the actual kind of character you're playing, problem. Class groups are not related to the actual kind of character you're playing. There are elements that would be (ability scores, particular proficiencies, etc.).

Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
Cleric classes tend to be better at receiving divine aid than others.
Fighter classes tend to be better at the use of unusual melee weapons than others

All of this "tends to" is completely irrelevant to characters in the specific. Perhaps a rogue character is a trickster and socialite, someone who wants to be seen and not be stealthy. Perhaps a mage character is a dabbler, who picks up a few spells here and there but who appreciates knowledge and wisdom more in general than arcane magic particularly. Maybe the character most in touch with the divine in this party is a particularly devout warlock who sees the alien entities he worships as gods. Maybe my fighter is a straight sword-and-board specialist with no equipment frills.

None of these are corner cases, and all of these would create a problem with any class group system that tried to lock down what a character should be permitted or enabled to do, or to get EXTRA benefit from, based on their class group, which can't help but be arbitrary, because it has no relation to how the character is actually conceived of and played.

You've basically gotten the same response from many people at this point - what you want is, at it's heart, a class-less system.

You're wrong there, too. Perhaps you do not understand what I want. Thankfully, I've broken down some of the big benefits I've seen in class systems, and posted links to those break-downs to help you understand.

I get it that you see no virtue in it. But others, like myself, do. And we've given you lots of examples of things this type of system helps accomplish. Things that people like, done in that manner.

I haven't seen anything that this system helps to accomplish that requires this system to accomplish. Elucidate me.

 

[pemerton]

arbitrarily-determined class group

Whether or not one likes the system WotC ends up running with, I doubt that it will be arbitrary. Mearls has already stated the reasons behind it, and they're not considerations that no rational person could be moved by.

But if my ranger is a 1e-style ranger with wizard spells, that's not something the system should be able to handle?

1st ed rangers couldn't use scrolls - just saying.

Can you give me an example of a 3x feat or prestige class that called out a specific class by name as a prerequisite.

But other than the handful of fighter only combat feats I can't think of any others.

Spell Mastery.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Whether or not one likes the system WotC ends up running with, I doubt that it will be arbitrary. Mearls has already stated the reasons behind it, and they're not considerations that no rational person could be moved by.

The reasons behind the system itself are separable from the process of determining who is in which "class group." The chatter on this thread has revealed that determining which "class group" a given class falls into is extraordinarily subjective and personal. Because classes are not monolithic or specific, members of a given class may fall into one group or another or all or none depending on how they are played in the specific.

That's what's arbitrary. There's nothing about, say, a thief, that necessarily makes it a rogue. All of the brutal scoundrels more interested in dishing out savage beatings than skulking about in the shadows would certainly dispute that group.

The reasons behind the system are valid reasons in that they are things that deserve to be addressed, but addressing those concerns doesn't lead one to this system, necessarily.

1st ed rangers couldn't use scrolls - just saying.

Not even scrolls of protection? Regardless, the idea isn't to replicate an old class, it is to say, if I play a ranger who knows arcane spells (which is a character with some precedent), why can I not be a mage?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I'll give you that one, though in fairness, there are a few classes other than fighter that allow you to qualify for it as well, as if you were a fighter. But other than the handful of fighter only combat feats I can't think of any others. And scrolling through the feats I don't see any others for any other classes.

What about Prestige Classes?

As the person who made the original assertion, I have to admit that my memory was playing tricks with me, and my characterization of 3E as using classes as prerequisites certainly was not accurate. My bad.

That said, my main point is that class groups provide another alternative to formalizing relationships between characters and game elements. No one's saying that you can't define prerequisites for items, feats, or prestige/paragon/multiclass levels without using class groups. I'm just saying that "Prerequisite: Warrior" is a reasonable alternative to "Prerequisite: has proficiency with all martial weapons" or "Prerequisite: Fighter". Maybe it would be nice to have an Eldritch Knight prestige class that is compatible with some future class (from some module or third-party publisher) that is only proficient with swords.

You could argue that "proficiency with all martial weapons" is a better prerequisite for something called "Eldritch Knight", but the "Warrior" label clearly has potential applications. I suppose someone could argue that he didn't like any applications anybody could possibly ever imagine for class groups, but then I'd have to agree to disagree.

 

[SageMinerve]

I don't share your view of the purpose of classes (I list five reasons to use a class system there, and I wouldn't rank "stops you from doing other things" among those virtues). We can have fighters casting fireballs and rogues casting healing spells, just like we can have wizards using swords and clerics using thieves' tools. While I wouldn't expect these to be the default, I would expect the game to enable me to swap out whatever fighters get at level 5 for the ability to cast fireball if it made sense for me in my game. If that change is going to suddenly make the character not a warrior or also a mage, because now that character needs to be able to use a wand of fireballs....yeah, that's hugely unnecessary.

I went back and read your article. Weirdly enough, I find that "It's more about what you can't do than what you can do" intersects with your 5 reasons, but especially #2 and #5.
But it's apples and oranges, really.

You're talking about virtues (I'd call it "goals" or "objectives" personally because using such a "charged" word like "virtue" has the nasty side-effect (unintended, IM sure) of putting your opinion up there on a pedestal and opinions that disagree way, way down below. Not good for debate).

I myself talk about how they're built ("classes list things a PC can and can't do"). Notice that there's no commentary implied about whether it's a good or a bad thing.

The thing is, to come back to your article, you mention Streamlining Decision-Making as one of your 5 virtues. I happen to agree a lot with that. It's just that your "fighter learning fireball" example seems to be in direct contradiction.

But if my ranger is a 1e-style ranger with wizard spells, that's not something the system should be able to handle?

Without any more details about how such a ranger would be defined, I can't really have an opinion on this. It could go either way:

1) If the ranger casts spells in a spontaneous / instinctive manner (à la Sorcerer), I'd say no, he can use scrolls. But that's just my taste. If the game went and said such a ranger can use scrolls, it wouldn't be the end of the world to me;

2) If the ranger is more of an "academic" wizard, with a spellbook and all, I'd say yes use scrolls. After all, if he's using a scrollbook, he can surely use a scrollpage, right?

So there you have it, and even though it's a bit tangential to the debate: if someone uses a spellbook to learn his spells, he can use scrolls. Clear, logical, coherent. [/sidetrack]

Again, I can think of at least five reasons, and none of them are prohibitive, because forbidding things isn't really the point of a class, as far as I can see. Rogues don't generally know healing magic because rogues generally have no reason to learn healing magic [...]

No reason to learn magic? Why the hell not? Is he never wounded? Does he think he will go through all of his adventuring life without having his life threatened at least once by injury, poison or some such thing?

[...] not because the game would be abandoning all semblance of a class system if they learned it. Maybe the thieves in my campaign are theives of life who steal years from others and give them to their allies, and they belong to a guild that opposes the dominant church of death and light where shimmering knights of undeath defend the realm from outsiders. The game should make it easy to do that [...]

First of all, before I address this, let me stress that I find your example to be an extremely corner case, that has no basis outside of supporting your argument.

That being said, are rogues/thieves really the best way to represent what you're describing? Your "thieves of life" are stealing life, that doesn't make them thieves.