D&D 5E Class Group Traveller

Explorer is probably the best option I've heard (other than rogue, which was redefined as a class for 3e, so off the menu). Adventurer doesn't work, because all PCs are more or less defined as adventurers. Traveler isn't the best option, because it isn't focused enough--it doesn't have sufficient distance from what all adventurers do anyway. Ranger also is a warrior, it's not the best idea to move them.

Explorer works well because, while it is a word one might apply to many adventurers of any class (just like "warrior") as a defined term it implies a certain set of skills and a tone focused on by that group, like warrior, priest, and mage.

It's really a balancing act.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's a balancing act that has little over-riding benefit. So what if we now label Classes such-and-such? What actual difference does it make? So why bother putting such inordinate design time into such a balancing act?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's a balancing act that has little over-riding benefit. So what if we now label Classes such-and-such? What actual difference does it make? So why bother putting such inordinate design time into such a balancing act?

Inordinate design time?

It's minimal design time, for a tool that allows a variety of things, including magic item tags (works X for all classes except Mage, where it works X+Y), encounter tags (King reacts negatively to X classes), newbie transition from Basic to Advanced classes (Warrior classes are all somewhat similar), adventure design (Adventure works best if the party has at least one X), organizational benefits (indexing helps organize the classes), etc..

So you get lots from it, for very little design time. I mean, how much time do you think it takes to slap a one word class parenthesis on something? It's just a tag.
 



Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
They'll spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with disputes and complaints from people who disagree with the arbitrary categorisations.

Why? I don't think most people will care more than 30 seconds. It's a tag. It's mostly an organizational tool and shorthand.
 

It's been a major talking point since it was announced last week. It was a major issue with 4e for some (without wanting to turn this into an edition war thing). Classifying Classes leads to a point of contention amongst fans who (inevitably) envision things differently.
 

GSHamster

Adventurer
I don't think it covers the Urban Thief, which is a very strong archetype within the dex based classes. Urban thieves usually stay put within a city, which doesn't really match up with traveler.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's been a major talking point since it was announced last week.

Everything they announce is a major talking point.

It was a major issue with 4e for some (without wanting to turn this into an edition war thing). Classifying Classes leads to a point of contention amongst fans who (inevitably) envision things differently.

That was a mechanical issue however. This isn't. If they classify something different than you like, it has almost no mechanical impact on you. As long as you know how they are classifying it, you can use the organizational benefits. But they've been really clear that the tag has no impact on how they craft the class. So...why do you think this will remain an ongoing issue?

I think this is one of those times where people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've yet to hear how it harms anyone's game in any way, but I've seen lots of little useful things that come from it.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I don't think it covers the Urban Thief, which is a very strong archetype within the dex based classes. Urban thieves usually stay put within a city, which doesn't really match up with traveler.

What if we start calling 'Urban Thieves', Vagrants, Trespassers, and Spies?

Do you see the connection more strongly now?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top