Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Mistwell]

I think the ways that people will want to sort through the options start making indexes like that less useful than they could otherwise be. If I'm looking for healing powers or powers that reference symbols or fire powers or powers that key off of a given ability score or whatever, that's not going to be captured by that list. This is perhaps the kind of thing that is better served by an online compendium with multiple power types than by some pages in a book. In that environment, the word "warrior" or "rogue" would be broad enough that it would be pretty meaningless.



I think the issue here is defining the "role" of a priest. What is a party missing if it is missing a priest? Maybe healing, but not if they have a warlord-style or 4e-style bard, no? Maybe a party without a priest isn't actually missing anything? Certainly if 5e continues 4e's principle of "you don't need a cleric!" and expands it to even "you don't need ANY particular role!" as it seems to be, priests wouldn't do anything essential that isn't available to everyone else.

This is what I meant by you hand-waiving other people's ideas.

What he proposed is useful for some people, as an organizational tool. You objected that it is "less useful than it otherwise could be" and said it would be better as an online system. OK, but that's not a fair objection, as you can ALSO do an online system that covers even more data, but printed in the book you it would remain a helpful thing for some people.

And rather than continuing to play whack-a-mole with your objections, I am going to drill down on this one first. Can you admit that such an organization in the PHB might be useful for some people, even if there are other online systems that would be even more useful, and even if it's not something you personally plan to use?

I feel like every time someone raises a point about how such a class system can be useful without the harms you foreshadow, you view your job as minimizing that point rather than considering it. Can we at least get to one point where you don't say "Could be done better" or "Not helpful for me"? Or is it just that you've made up your mind and that's that?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is what I meant by you hand-waiving other people's ideas.

I believe you may be confusing thinking about the flaws in the proposed idea for hand-waving. I'm engaging the ideas to see if they're of much actual value, and finding them fairly wanting.

t. Can you admit that such an organization in the PHB might be useful for some people, even if there are other online systems that would be even more useful, and even if it's not something you personally plan to use?

No problem admitting that. We can easily slide the "no apparent purpose" dial up a notch to "no real constructive purpose." I have been convinced that there is a purpose for which there may be some small marginal utility: If one is an offline gamer and one needs a list of magic items sorted by classical "four character type" kinds of characters, such a list could certainly provide some bang for the buck.

Is that a coherent defense of the class group concept, though?

OK, but that's not a fair objection, as you can ALSO do an online system that covers even more data, but printed in the book you it would remain a helpful thing for some people.

I don't know what's not fair about it. "Is that the best use of the page count?" is a pretty relevant issue. WotC has an online system that presumably could serve as such an index, and would be a much better tool than a vague list of indistinct general groups, so given that, why blow pagecount on something of pretty marginal utility? Why accept kind-of-useful-in-some-cases when the path to very-useful-in-many-cases is clear?

I feel like every time someone raises a point about how such a class system can be useful without the harms you foreshadow, you view your job as minimizing that point rather than considering it. Can we at least get to one point where you don't say "Could be done better" or "Not helpful for me"?

Well, what's the point here in this conversation? I'm here to express my criticism of the problems that the advertised idea of class groups bring, and to be enlightened as to what they offer those who have become enamored of them, to see if such offerings can be better met without said problems that class groups bring, in an effort to learn more about what people like about their games and to hopefully improve the game in some small way. I'm interested in 5e being the best D&D it can be.

"Can be done better" and "Not helpful to many folks" are relevant things to talk about for that goal. That's relevant to critiquing a proposed 5e game mechanic. Which is, to be clear, what I'm doing here.

 

[Mistwell]

... and to be enlightened as to what they offer those who have become enamored of them.

Put bluntly, you're not coming across to me as someone genuinely interested in that goal. You're coming across as dismissive. For example, you said it was "pretty marginal utility" to organize it like that in the print book. To you, sure. To me, it's highly useful. Someone else said it would be helpful to them as well. And that's what I am talking about here - people tell you "I like X" and instead of taking that at face value, you're dismissive of it by re-characterizing those opinions which don't match your own as "marginal".

So, are you genuinely here to be enlightened as to as to what they offer those who have become enamored of them, or are you here to tell us why those offerings are not of utility to you regardless of whether they are of utility to others?

 

[Li Shenron]

I guess others have already mentioned this but anyway, Mike Mearls on Twitter has clarified that introducing class groups will not affect the design of classes themselves, i.e. they will not modify classes in order to shoehorn them into specific class groups.

That was my main worry about class groups, thus with that hopefully set for good, I'm not really worried anymore. The matter with magic items is still there, but it's definitely less important to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For example, you said it was "pretty marginal utility" to organize it like that in the print book. To you, sure. To me, it's highly useful.

Great, so there's the next step in the conversation. What is useful to you about a 1-4 page (depending on item quantity) index in the DMG of magic items organized by which stereotypical one of the Big Four classes might be most interested in it, that a searchable database of magic items that allows for a more granular breakdown would not provide?

Because from what I can see, it would only be more useful in the instance that I (a) didn't plan out what items to hand out in advance, (b) had no smartphone/internet access, (c) cared about the traditional delineation of D&D classes when I was handing out items, and (d) wanted to look at the entire field of possibility all at once, and didn't care about supplements.

That's a lot of potential places for a list of magic items by stereotypical D&D class to not be that useful. But maybe your experience is different than what I'd expect!

 

[Mistwell]

Great, so there's the next step in the conversation. What is useful to you about a 1-4 page (depending on item quantity) index in the DMG of magic items organized by which stereotypical one of the Big Four classes might be most interested in it, that a searchable database of magic items that allows for a more granular breakdown would not provide?

First, it's nonsense to be talking about additional pages here. The items will be listed regardless of their organization. We're talking about adding a single header to four groups of items, and a fifth header to "the rest". That's it. It's purely an organizational tool, composed of these words, "Rogue Items; Mage Items; Fighter Items; Cleric Items; Other Items", or something like that. It's a total of 10 words we're talking about, repeated in the index.

As to your either/or claim, I guess we're not communicating. An online tool would be plenty handy, and it could do more. However, having that organization in the book has utility because I am usually not at my computer when reading a book, and the purpose of the hardcopy book is to read it. Your argument could just as easily apply to the book itself - why publish a hardcopy book when you can just publish the rules purely online, with no page count requirements at all? You had to know that answer - so why are you making that kind of either/or claim about hardcopy vs. online organizational tools with this issue? It's hopefully both of course.

Because from what I can see, it would only be more useful in the instance that I (a) didn't plan out what items to hand out in advance,

Or you're planning on USING A BOOK, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.

(b) had no smartphone/internet access,

Or preferred using the BOOK YOU BOUGHT, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.

(c) cared about the traditional delineation of D&D classes when I was handing out items,

I am saying I care about it, someone else said they care about it, WOTC seems to see some utility in that traditional delineation and they're making decisions based on extensive playtesting and professional analysis and survey data. So, I am guessing they have good reason to believe many people like it.

and (d) wanted to look at the entire field of possibility all at once, and didn't care about supplements.

Which is generally how one uses a rulebook.

Almost all your arguments apply to the book itself, and not just this issue. Why even print the book, if your arguments were good ones?

 

[I'm A Banana]

First, it's nonsense to be talking about additional pages here. The items will be listed regardless of their organization.

Sure, but what format that list would take is apparently an open question. I had made the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that the primary mode of organization would have been the most easily referenced, ie, alphabetical, and that this would be a secondary means of organization for additional utility. If your proposal is that this four-box division be the sole method of organization, then we apparently need to have a whole other discussion about why alphabetical organization is superior to most others when presenting list of things to be referenced. Or at least about what you're actually envisioning here.

We're talking about adding a single header to four groups of items, and a fifth header to "the rest". That's it. It's purely an organizational tool, composed of these words, "Rogue Items; Mage Items; Fighter Items; Cleric Items; Other Items", or something like that. It's a total of 10 words we're talking about, repeated in the index.

Right, and, depending on the quantity of magic items, that could take a couple of pages to list. That's what I said. So we're in agreement?

As to your either/or claim, I guess we're not communicating. An online tool would be plenty handy, and it could do more. However, having that organization in the book has utility because I am usually not at my computer when reading a book, and the purpose of the hardcopy book is to read it.

So your idea is both? Fair enough. Then we're just to: "how much space is reasonable to spend on this, given the potential utility."

Which, we may be on "agree to disagree" territory. There's a dearth of data for us about who might use those couple of pages, and we're each colored by our own experiences. My experiences suggest that the conjunction of those four elements is rare enough that a page or 4 probably isn't the best use of DMG space. Your experiences apparently suggest otherwise. There's not a lot of neutral data that can confirm or disabuse either of us.

I can't help but believe at this point, though, that what we're talking about bears no real relation to what Mearls is proposing. So perhaps we can work backwards from here.

Your argument could just as easily apply to the book itself - why publish a hardcopy book when you can just publish the rules purely online, with no page count requirements at all? You had to know that answer - so why are you making that kind of either/or claim about hardcopy vs. online organizational tools with this issue? It's hopefully both of course.

Or you're planning it USING A BOOK, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.

Or preferred using the BOOK YOU BOUGHT, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.

Since I didn't propose not using your book like a book, or not having a book, I can only assume you're being facetious. If you'd like to clarify, I'm listenin'.

I am saying I care about it, someone else said they care about it, WOTC seems to see some utility in that traditional delineation and they're making decisions based on extensive playtesting and professional analysis and survey data. So, I am guessing they have good reason to believe many people like it.

Sure. And to present a list sorted by that metric in the DMG alongside an alphabetical list of magic items might be enough utility/word to justify that. I think convincing me of that would require data neither of us probably has access to, but I can at least accept we're down to dueling experiences at this point. Again, though, I'm not really sure how this relates to Mearl's actual proposal?

Almost all your arguments apply to the book itself, and not just this issue. Why even print the book, if your arguments were good ones?

There's a lot of things a book does aside from helping you look up magic items. I presume this is obvious, but I can go into some more detail if you'd like.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure, but what format that list would take is apparently an open question. I had made the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that the primary mode of organization would have been the most easily referenced, ie, alphabetical, and that this would be a secondary means of organization for additional utility. If your proposal is that this four-box division be the sole method of organization, then we apparently need to have a whole other discussion about why alphabetical organization is superior to most others when presenting list of things to be referenced. Or at least about what you're actually envisioning here.



Right, and, depending on the quantity of magic items, that could take a couple of pages to list. That's what I said. So we're in agreement?

A couple of pages to list ten words? They're either going to list all the items in the index, or not, and that doesn't change with this addition we're discussing. The only addition is ten words in the index, and ten words in the text itself. There are no pages. There isn't even an additional paragraph, aside from "these are not restricted to class, just tend to be associated with them" sentence. It will be alphabetical within each of those five sections. It's not that weird, it's been alphabetical by type of item (weapon, want, potion, etc..) or by body slot (feet, head, hands, etc..) in the prior editions, so simply listing it by character type (cleric, fighter, etc..) isn't that weird.

So your idea is both? Fair enough. Then we're just to: "how much space is reasonable to spend on this, given the potential utility."

I said both, in the two prior posts, and then a third time in the one you're replying to.

Which, we may be on "agree to disagree" territory. There's a dearth of data for us about who might use those couple of pages

Words. Ten words, and a single sentence.

and we're each colored by our own experiences. My experiences suggest that the conjunction of those four elements is rare enough that a page or 4 probably isn't the best use of DMG space. Your experiences apparently suggest otherwise. There's not a lot of neutral data that can confirm or disabuse either of us.

It's not pages (and yeesh, the message you were replying to said outright it's not pages), and I explained that we're talking about a concept that WOTC seems to think their survey respondents and playtesters like. Of course, it's not just for this organization of magic items, there are many other reasons people put forth, but I wanted to drill down on just one to demonstrate that, when push comes to shove, there might be something useful here in this concept.

I can't help but believe at this point, though, that what we're talking about bears no real relation to what Mearls is proposing. So perhaps we can work backwards from here.

Since I didn't propose not using your book like a book, or not having a book, I can only assume you're being facetious. If you'd like to clarify, I'm listenin'.

You said "just use the online index, it's better". Which isn't using a book like a book, unless you're book is also a computer.

Sure. And to present a list sorted by that metric in the DMG alongside an alphabetical list of magic items might be enough utility/word to justify that. I think convincing me of that would require data neither of us probably has access to, but I can at least accept we're down to dueling experiences at this point. Again, though, I'm not really sure how this relates to Mearl's actual proposal?

There's a lot of things a book does aside from helping you look up magic items. I presume this is obvious, but I can go into some more detail if you'd like.

And there are a lot of applications for this classification system beside just magic item organization. But I was focusing on one concept to finally nail you down on one of these points and quit dismissing the whole concept out of hand. We've made progress, you're not just mostly dismissing it. Maybe we can move on to one of the other points now too...like how "this class is new to you, but you know it's sort of similar to that other class you are already familiar with because it's also a type of Rogue" is useful for new players who start with a Basic boxed set.

 

[jrowland]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]

Will you guys just get it over with and kiss already?

How's that for "Marginally Useful" and/or "Dismissive"?

 

[pemerton]

All they need is the Fighter class, and then to swap some of the fighter abilities for big blasty fire spells (like burning hands and fireball and wall of fire and maybe meteor swarm). Should be something an individual DM can do easy and quick -- a simple swap-out of certain abilities at certain levels for others.

4e had a rough parity in abilities of a given level, I don't think 5e should abandon that, in the interest of its goal of modularity and getting 4e fans on board.

I am with [MENTION=69067]SageMinerve[/MENTION] on this one - I think the 4e ship has sailed, and the current playtest shows basically zero suggestion that this sort of thing will be possible.

They are talking about sub-class building guidelines, but those will have to be pretty sophisticated guidelines to support the sort of thing you're talking about.

For instance, which 1st level fighter ability from the current playtest (which includes a fighting style, second wind, d10 rather than d6 hp, plus access to better armour and shields) would you trade in for access to Burning Hands 1x/day? (For reference, the 1st level mage gains an extra memorised spell, 2x/day casting plus another 1 with Arcane Recovery, plus 3 cantrips, plus Ritual Casting.)

When we see how 13th Age handles multi-classing we might have a better idea of how what you are calling for can be done, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.

Sword-wielding magic dude is one of the backbone archetypes of pretty much any anime or video game RPG on the market. D&D should certainly default to supporting them. If anything, "guy who fights with magic" or "gish" should be the class group, and cleric should be a member of it.

To treat the cleric in this way - thereby favouring mechanical function over fictional nature as the basis for categorisation - would be a radical step, I think.