Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[MoonSong]

The other benefit is multiclassing. Now you can refer to class groups instead of individual classes and fix broken future comboes without an errata each time a new class comes out.

When you multiclass into a warrior class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have 3 or more warrior levels.
When you multiclass and do not already have Extra Attack, you do not gain Extra attack until your warrior levels are 8 or greater or your character level is 11 or greater.
Your caster level is your mage and priest levels plus half your trickster and warrior levels, rounded down.

Yes because we know rangers and paladins have enver a caster level

Seriously, this isn't anyhting that couldn't be solved by having a simple "Multiclass proficiencies" entry on classes that are specially front loaded in that regard. or just saying that you don't get proficiencies until theird level on a class. Not really anything that couldn't be done without grouping. And really if every class has to comply with a very straight and rigid mold the differences between them will drop. And that is bad.

 

[Remathilis]

Why would -in setting- a sword reject a soldier sorcerer who has good strength and has spent feats to be good in melee, what is the justification behind it? why a scholar fighter who has spent his feats into gettng spells and probably even his subclass too, not be allowed to use a pearl of power? in fiction the difference between a thief cleric (of thievery) and a priest rogue(thief) is very thin, why have a pointless gamist restriction that breaks the immersion? specially since it puts a strain on class design and compromises class identity?

What's the justification for a mace of disruption only working in the hands of a priest and not a rogue or a wand of fireballs in the hands of an invoker but not an illusionist? Magic is magic, after all.

So I'll cut you a deal: you let fighters fully use staves of power or wands of healing and I'll let mages benefit from potions of heroism. Deal?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I think [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] makes some very good points. Why add these class groups, if the only thing we get out of it is restrictions? That's the only thing they have talked about so far.

Actually, Mearls mentioned several goals of class groups in his article, but only one has received much attention.

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.

Personally, I find the last goal the most compelling. The archetypical party is a cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Yes, skilled players and a skilled DM could make a party of four wizards fun, but the classic party is the baseline for most published adventure material. How does an inexperienced gaming group know that their proposed party of paladin, druid, sorcerer, and bard covers all the bases for the starter adventure they just bought?

Mearls went out of his way to portray the class groups as descriptive, not prescriptive. The groups exist as a way to talk about the classes, both for players and for future rules.

We'll probably look at the monk's AC and boost its Hit Die to d10 if we categorize it as a warrior, or give it Expertise in a few skills if it's a trickster.

I don't think Mearls is trying to pigeonhole the monk. He's trying to balance the monk against the other classes by seeing how it stacks up against the core four. How they improve the monk depends on whether they decide it should be more like a warrior or more like a trickster.

 

[Wicht]

What's the justification for a mace of disruption only working in the hands of a priest and not a rogue or a wand of fireballs in the hands of an invoker but not an illusionist? Magic is magic, after all.

So I'll cut you a deal: you let fighters fully use staves of power or wands of healing and I'll let mages benefit from potions of heroism. Deal?

With Use Magic Device as a skill, they can.

Eh, I was ambivalent about 5e, but this idea of having "group" specific magic items leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I hope they don't do it, but if they do, its a major turn off. I would much rather prefer skill set related magic items. There's no reason a fighter, wizard, cleric or rogue shouldn't all be able to use Boots of Stealth, and there is no reason a wizard, picking up a magic sword, shouldn't be able to stab somebody with it. Granted, if an item requires divine or arcane magic, then it seems only natural that a wizard or cleric would get far more use out of it; but then again, a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword.

 

[variant]

Firstly, the 'Trickster' name is really lousy. At least groupings are better than the complete inconsistency that having a Mage meta-class had, but it makes me wonder how the hybrid classes are going to work. Where will the Ranger be?

I am glad to see the warlock and sorcerer won't be sharing the spell list of the wizard. I hope the warlock has its own list of spell-like abilities like 3e.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes because we know rangers and paladins have enver a caster level

Seriously, this isn't anyhting that couldn't be solved by having a simple "Multiclass proficiencies" entry on classes that are specially front loaded in that regard. or just saying that you don't get proficiencies until theird level on a class. Not really anything that couldn't be done without grouping. And really if every class has to comply with a very straight and rigid mold the differences between them will drop. And that is bad.

I agree. It's not the best option. It is one that mostly works and it is the simplest. And it's the option designers (official and third party) are least likely to mess up. The issue is the better options go against the design goal of making modifying DDN super easy.

 

[Remathilis]

With Use Magic Device as a skill, they can.

Eh, I was ambivalent about 5e, but this idea of having "group" specific magic items leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I hope they don't do it, but if they do, its a major turn off. I would much rather prefer skill set related magic items. There's no reason a fighter, wizard, cleric or rogue shouldn't all be able to use Boots of Stealth, and there is no reason a wizard, picking up a magic sword, shouldn't be able to stab somebody with it. Granted, if an item requires divine or arcane magic, then it seems only natural that a wizard or cleric would get far more use out of it; but then again, a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword.

Yay! Wizards and priests get to play with all the toys, and fighters and rogues don't.

CoDzilla and Batman Wizard, RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!

 

[Wicht]

Yay! Wizards and priests get to play with all the toys, and fighters and rogues don't.

CoDzilla and Batman Wizard, RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!

Uh, yeah. I'm sure that's what I meant when I said, "With Use Magic Device, they can," and "a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword."

 

[Zaruthustran]

I don't really see why "who qualifies for magic items" is a driving force behind game design choice/class groupings. Want to limit a Staff of Power to just Mages and Priests? Have its power be an increase in caster level, or an extra spell slot at the highest spell level the wielder can cast. There you go: Mages and Priests will want this item, and Warriors and Tricksters (ugh--that name sucks) won't.

 

[Klaus]

Mearls mentioned on Twitter that these Class groups will be used mostly as a shorthand for "these types of characters". His example: they could have an adventure where the thief king will let tricksters into his throne room, but all others must remain outside.