Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Plaguescarred]

Class Groups
Legends & Lore
By Mike Mearls

Classes and groups. Mages and wizards. Monks and fighters. What are we talking about? Mike goes over the thinking behind classes and class groups this week.

What do you think?

 

[KidSnide]

Using class groups seems like a very effective method of handling the magic item problem (or other prerequisite problems), although I think the "trickster" label is pretty lousy.

But the examples at the bottom of the article are silly and seem like remnants of prescriptive "role" design from 4e. Sure, maybe it makes sense for the Monk to have a d10 hit dice because the class is just a little too fragile. But the class group shouldn't define aspects of the class design. A class that combines aspects of the different groups is fine. Why isn't the Monk a warrior and a trickster? Surely, any feat, magic item or prestige-ability that is appropriate for warriors or tricksters would be appropriate for Monks. Likewise, Bards should have access to magic items that are usable by mages or rogues.

In the same way, I buy into this idea that a class has to act as a adequate substitute for one of the big four. Yeah, Monks don't have the tanking capability of fighters. So what? They are pretty goods sneaks, have excellent defenses against magic and have funky magic powers to compensate. So long as it all seems balanced in the end, the other monk abilities can compensate for the fact that a monk is a slightly second rate fighter. (I'm not saying that every other edition succeeded in this balance, just that the balance is the goal, not fitting the class into a specific box.)

So long as a Monk is an awesome monk, I don't think very many players are going to be disappointed if it's a second rate warrior. D&DN isn't that fragile.

-KS

 

[pemerton]

Class groups don't really move me much one way or the other. But it's good to hear that rogues, bards and monks might be getting much-needed hp boosts, and the monk some further defence boosts.

Also, it's amusing that the natural synonym for "trickster" - namely, "rogue" - can't be used as it was in AD&D 2nd ed because it has become a class name.

And I don't see any relationship to 4e roles at all. "Mages . . . rely on spells to overcome obstacles" - this doesn't tell me anything about what these characters can do, except that by default its likely to be more versatile than a non-spell-using trickster, who "excel(s) at ability checks" and is therefore likely to be constrained by the designers' conceptions of what is possible without magic.

Also, unless some fairly strict limitations are put on spell lists and magical capabilities, I don't see how tricksters will be "the most flexible characters".

 

[Stormonu]

I'm ready to go back to the 2E groupings of something like Warrior, Arcanist, Priest and Rogue.

And a monk is a priest type, not a warrior and definitely not a rogue or trickster. A middling fighter with fixed miraculous abilities.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Glad they're un-grouping classes in certain ways, and I'm not against a lighter touch when grouping in general. I really don't think it's necessary, but I also don't think creature types (or a variety of other things) are necessary, either. Does a Staff of Power need to refer to a mage? How do you determine if you are a mage? I mean, obviously a Wizard 15 is a mage. And obviously, they'll determine if borderline classes, like the Bard, are mages. But, if I'm a Fighter 14 / Bard 1, am I a mage? Fighter 10 / Bard 5?

If I'm a Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 / Rogue 1, am I a Warrior / Mage / Priest / Trickster? Am I now encouraged to multi-class into multiple class groupings just to qualify for more magic item / feat prerequisites?

Why not just leave it at "requires the ability to cast arcane spells [of Nth level, if necessary]"? Is saying "can only be used by a mage" that much easier, considering the complications this might bring to the game? Mr. Mearls says "If applied correctly, grouped classes can make handling things such as magic items, feats, and other options much easier as the game expands." Personally, I'm not convinced yet.

Side note:

Tricksters are experts in a variety of fields.

Then, for the love of Pelor, just call them Experts. Wouldn't that be easier?

 

[Kobold Stew]

This feels to me like a really elaborate solution to the mage/sorcerer/warlock problem, one that spills out way beyond the classes it is intending to fix. I wasn't worried about not being able to play a multiclass Mage/Sorcerer, but I know some on these boards were.

For them, this answer -- adding a layer of administration above "classes" but which serves exactly the same purpose as "classes" for all classes except for the arcane casters -- may be exactly the answer they are looking for. I hope so, because at a first glance (and I know that's all this is) it feels like a needless complication for all other characters.

The class groups themselves are pretty lame: 4e had a better meta-class classification, where it served a conceptual purpose in party-building.

Both of the example fixes are red herrings: there is nothing about the class groups that is needed to bring these fixes in.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I really don't see the point. Why are magic items wanting to reference classes in the first place? Shouldn't they, at most, refer to class features? If you have a staff that's intended to be useful to all arcane casters, then key it's bonus to arcane magic, which is a shared feature across several classes.

The problem with the mage is that they haven't actually shown us how alternative casting mechanisms would work. They floated the concept in isolation under a single class.

I don't think the feedback would be so negative if they had presented the mage, bard, and perhaps a fighter subclass as having wizardry, then gave us an alternative casting system that could be swapped in to all of those classes. Thus, you could also have a warlock that was either a full or a half spellcaster. Same with Sorcery.

But they didn't. They tried to instead create a single class for all different arcane casters.

Oh well. I'm not all that worried about it. Separate classes worked before.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I'm good with class groups if it help and make expanding the game easier. Not sure about the Trickster group name though, I'd prefer Expert i think.

PS Can a moderator edit the title for me please, i missed a S in Class Group. Thanks!

 

[mach1.9pants]

trickster is a very narrow word, even skill monkey is better!

 

[Li Shenron]

I am ok with having superclasses / class groups. I think it is better than having one Mage superclass while all other classes are individual. But I also think that not having any superclass would be just the same. I only don't like much the "hybrid" approach.

While I say I am ok with the approach, I still don't buy the benefits at all:

There are a few benefits to this approach.

It gives a framework in which we can add new casting styles and approaches to magic that are specific to settings.
It makes expanding the game easier, since we can create one list of spells for those classes.
It simplifies magic items, since something like a staff of power can refer to the mage. We know that any future classes included under the mage can still use that item.

First point, the "framework" is ok but it's not really needed. In previous editions if you wanted to add a new casting style, you'd make a new class. There is no problem with that. Some people seem to dislike having 20 classes in the game, but how is that different from having 10 classes, some of which have multiple versions so that the total is still 20?

Second point, it makes it easier only as long as it's really appropriate for that list of spells to be identical, otherwise it makes it harder. And no surprise, a few lines later Mearls admits that using the same list of spells for Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock would be inappropriate...

Third point, this is ok if and only if you want magic items restricted to a subset of characters, like "only priests can use this item". But this is only one possibility, and by nature it defines something about the fantasy world which is not appropriate to every campaign. Overall I don't have much against this, but it's hardly important.

And a monk is a priest type, not a warrior and definitely not a rogue or trickster. A middling fighter with fixed miraculous abilities.

And here lies the real downside of adding another layer of categorization. As soon as you frame the categories, you want to use them, and they tend to force the game to conform to them.

Is the Monk more like a warrior, a priest or a trickster? Is the Bard more like a warrior, a trickster or a mage? Depends who you ask!

The point is, the Monk is a Monk, and the Bard is a Bard. Without superclasses, there is no issue, you just design them in whatever way you feel right. With superclasses, they are already puzzled about how to make them fit into one superclass, a problem that did not exist yesterday, and they are tempted to force changes that weren't needed before.