D&D (2024) UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior

[darjr]

Yea, these are reminiscent of previous things but are not the same.

Primal for instance is more like how they are grouping spells.

 

[dmgorgon]

2e style class groups are great.

 

[Marandahir]

Yea, these are reminiscent of previous things but are not the same.

Primal for instance is more like how they are grouping spells.

Correct, but so is Divine. So calling a Druid a Divine class group member but then locking off the Divine spell list from them would be a problem.

 

[Aldarc]

They aren't really either power source nor role, really. All four groupings are more...narrative structure.

Yeah, much like with PF2, the spell lists are more about power source.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I agree that the nomenclature for the "divine" group is problematic, as you can't use divine as it refers to a power source, and that priest, cleric and mystic seem too narrowly defined for one reason or another.

That said, I'm not sure of the utility of grouping things into four superclasses, twelve classes and forty-eight subclasses in the first place; it seems to be more of an aesthetic conceit to achieve some kind of symmetry, rather than a practical one.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I agree that the nomenclature for the "divine" group is problematic, as you can't use divine as it refers to a power source, and that priest, cleric and mystic seem too narrowly defined for one reason or another.

That said, I'm not sure of the utility of grouping things into four superclasses, twelve classes and forty-eight subclasses in the first place; it seems to be more of an aesthetic conceit to achieve some kind of symmetry, rather than a practical one.

The stated reason is that it enables feats and other subsystems to be restricted by grouping. Which seems reasonable to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The same way the terms 'D&D Next' and 'One D&D' were/are being used for these playtest events but didn't/won't actually appear as the name of the game once published... there's always a chance that these spell groups and these class groups won't actually appear in the published documents either. We are still probably a year out from finalization... plenty of time for them to decide to keep all the classes on their own, all spells to be re-divided into individual class lists, and for feats to be individually assigned.

For all we know, all these class groups end up being are just their way of deciding which trio of classes appear in each playtest packet.

 

[Parmandur]

The same way the terms 'D&D Next' and 'One D&D' were/are being used for these playtest events but didn't/won't actually appear as the name of the game once published... there's always a chance that these spell groups and these class groups won't actually appear in the published documents either. We are still probably a year out from finalization... plenty of time for them to decide to keep all the classes on their own, all spells to be re-divided into individual class lists, and for feats to be individually assigned.

For all we know, all these class groups end up being are just their way of deciding which trio of classes appear in each playtest packet.

Well, they are testing for more than that, but none of this is set in stone.

My gut says the Groups stay, though.

 

[Yaarel]

In 1e, the Paladin and Ranger were subclasses of the Fighter class.

Where UA reassigns the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger to different groups − namely Warrior, Priest, and Expert, respectively − it feels like a commitment to give the Ranger a distinctive identity as a reason to exist as a separate class.

 

[ART!]

I want to go on record as disliking the term "Experts", because aren't the other classes experts, too? It strikes me as a "working title" for a group of classes that they didn't know where else to put.