Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Remathilis]

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."

There is no "Use Magic Device" in Next. Right now, they can't use wands, scrolls, or anything like that.

Meanwhile, Priests get the same attack bonus at a fighter right now, and with the right proficiency has equal ability with a sword. Sure, a fighter gets abilities but a cleric also gets buff spells which I think more than equals them.

So a wizard or a priest right now gets to play with all the toys (spellcaster and not) regardless if its better suited to another class, while the fighter and rogue can only use the not-caster ones.

Trust me, wizard and cleric dominance was one thing I didn't want to return.

 

[Wicht]

There is no "Use Magic Device" in Next.

Well see, that seems to be your problem right there.

 

[Mistwell]

I think this thread is a good example of why the class groups are not a good idea. We're already doing contortions to fit classes into one group or another.

This presumes "bunch of fans on the internet" are as competent at game design as professional game designers. All it really proves is we're not good at working with this game design idea, not that professionals are not good at it.

 

[Mistwell]

I suspect one primary motivation for this is a future Basic set book.

I think they want to put out a Basic book, with a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief. No skills, no feats, no backgrounds, just ability checks and ability stat increases at certain levels.

And then when you buy the "advanced" books and supplements, it simply adds to that existing Basic system, with character compatibility.

To accomplish that, everything works best if it fits with those four classes from the Basic book. So that a new player picks up an advanced book and says, "OK, a Ranger is just like the Fighter, except it has these three or four different things".

I know it won't work exactly like that, but I suspect that's one of the driving concepts behind this idea.

 

[Stormonu]

This may have something to do with the title choice of "Trickster" vs. "Rogue" or "Expert" in the first place -which I agree is horrendous and needs changing back to the 2e titles (Which incidentally, @Stormonu , did include "Wizard" as a group, not "Arcanist". jus' sayin').

My use of arcanist was very deliberate. If they're going to rejigger rogue to trickster, I think Arcanist is a better description that Mage - Mage could be - and should be - a "subclass" right there beside Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Witch and the half-dozen other specialties. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with as snazzy a name for the Divine casters - Diviner has already been absconded by the arcane classes.

Overall, I think the class buckets are nice starting points. They give you a base framework from which can swap in and out abilities, and it gives you a starting point for that dreaded word - balance. Yeah, Yeah, ALL the classes should be balanced against each other, but subdividing that balance isn't a bad idea. It also creates a bit a familiarity. "Oh, the Wizard is an arcanist? Good, I know I'll be casting spells, so I probably don't want to go running into melee. Oh, the Spellknife can do that, but he gives up some of his spell power? Cool. Maybe I'll try that. Nah, I'd rather not play a Spellblade (Fighter); they give up too much spellcasting."

Hybrid classes - the bard, monk, warblade and the like may be a little more difficult to throw into one or the other, but picking one gives you a starting point for building the class.

 

[Manabarbs]

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.

That seems strictly inferior from both a mechanics-accomplishing-what-you-want standpoint and from an understandability standpoint compared to just referring directly to the class features. What does the first rule get you that "when you multiclass into a class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have three or more levels in classes that grant that proficiency", aside from a bunch of extra words and strange corner cases where things like taking levels in a non-heavy-armor warrior class suddenly lets you qualify for heavy armor?

Magic items are similar. There's a reason that things in previous editions that require class features in order to make sense call out those class features as their prerequisites, and not less precise groupings of classes that aren't what you're really looking for. I don't think it's harmful to try to clump classes into groups based on... whatever criteria it is that they're using, but I'm not convinced that it buys you anything. "I dunno, maybe Boots of Speed or something could be limited to tricksters?" feels like a post hoc attempt to justify using that grouping, not a problem that's actually in need of solving. Has anybody, in the history of their D&D experience, ever felt like "boy, I really wish there was another, more arbitrary way to limit access to magic items based on class?" The idea that maybe rogue-y classes - but not ALL rouge-y characters, and a lot of characters who aren't very rogue-y at all - should have some magic items that ONLY they can use really feels like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[MoonSong]

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?

In order a) there is no justification it should worl fo rthe rogue too b) the illusionist (assuming 2e) has forsaken the use of evocation magic thats why (not). Finally there should be feats that allow those uses to a fighter.

 

[Kobold Stew]

There is no "Use Magic Device" in Next.

Not true!

Rogue (Thief), level 13.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This presumes "bunch of fans on the internet" are as competent at game design as professional game designers. All it really proves is we're not good at working with this game design idea, not that professionals are not good at it.

What it illustrates is the power and danger of classifications. People naturally try to classify things. Naming a finite set of classifications alters how people perceive a set of items.

In 4E, the moment they described the four roles and power sources, people started creating a class grid, and trying to fill holes. They suddenly felt absences that they hadn't before.

With the four class groups, you have what were previously considered to be hybrid classes being shoved into the new roles. Do they fit? Somewhat. But are the classifications more useful?

4E's roles served a purpose. I may not have liked it very much, but the intent was clear, and the chosen roles achieved their goal.

My first argument is that the described classifications don't achieve their goal, which is to find a mechanism by which to describe commonalities among classes. That's because most of the classes that aren't the core four are a blend of concepts. The Paladin blends fighter with Cleric. The Ranger blends with the Druid. The Bard with the Wizard or Sorcerer. A useful mechanic would permit a class to have multiple descriptors.

My second argument is that the goal is unnecessary. Class descriptions can tell people how they relate to the more familiar classes. Magic items can key to class features. Spells can be organized into lists that classes reference, not the other way around. All of these things feel more natural.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Because only the fighter is fated to wield it?

Or to come at it another way, why do the gods only answer the prayers of clerics and paladins, but not fighters and rogues? Whatever explains that, (mutatis mutandis) explains the sword.

scrolls[/I] and wands (and other items that cast spells) can be used by those who have the spell on their class spells list. You can't say "usable by Mages" if different classes under Mage have different spells lists. Almost every other magic item works the same for everyone, or works only for those who have a specific ability, no matter the class. Occasionally there is magic items that work for a specific class, like "a Holy Avenger in the hands of a Paladin...", which you still need.

When you say "traditionally", I think maybe you mean "in 3E".

In Gygax's AD&D each class has a list of the magic items it can use - some of this is set out in the item tables themselves, and some in class descriptions (eg look at the illusionist or ranger class descriptions). Not all wands, for instance, cast spells, and even when they do you don't necessarily need the spell on your list to use the wand (my memory tells me this is true of the Wand of Missiles and Wand of Fireballs).

I'm not saying that we should go back to that. Maybe the 3E approach is better - or the 4e approach, in which anyone can use a scroll but implements (wands, staves, symbols etc) require proficiency. But neither is particularly traditional.

Paladin as a complex archetype (i.e. class) has a long history in the game, too much to demote it.

Again, if you look at AD&D the paladin is basically identical in archetype to the cleric - heavy armour, decent hp, decent range of weapons. - both are holy warriors. The differences depend upon mechanical minutiae - slightly different attack tables (although the effect of these is somewhat diluted by the cleric's more generous XP progression), the paladin having +2 to save on the fighter table compared to the cleric using the (generally superior) cleric table, the paladin's turning being a bit weaker (especially once XP costs are factored in), cleric healing via spells whereas the paladin heals via a distinct class ability.

Stripped of these mechanical minutiae - eg translated into a free-descriptor game - the AD&D cleric and the AD&D paladin are the same character. It's mechanics, not archetype, that distinguish them.

Subsequent editions have introduced more differences - 2nd ed AD&D specialty priests aren't all holy warriors, for instance, and 3E clerics have a much-increased spell selection which pushes them in some ways closer to the magician than the holy warrior in archetype. But then 4e really reverts to AD&D - the difference between cleric and paladin is almost purely mechanical (many characters could be viably built as either a STR cleric or a STR paladin, depending what aspect of the character the build is meant to emphasise).

I don't object to paladins being a distinct class from clerics, but I think the designers need to be aware that this is primarily about showcasing mechanical variation rather than archetypical variation. (Some people will always read strong story differences into the mechanical differences - eg they will see a major difference between a cleric's spells and a monk or paladin's magical class features - but I don't think the designers can take it for granted that mechanical differences will carry this sort of story baggage with them.)

The ranger definitely has a strong warrior component, but it isn't his focus. A ranged-combat-focused warrior ought to be more focused on combat than the ranger, and substantially less focused on spells and stealth than the ranger.

I don't think I agree with this. Or at least the stealth bit - I've got no very strong view on spells, but my default preference is for a spell-less ranger a la 4e or AD&D up to 7th level.

But as far as stealth and ranged combat are concerned, I think the two go together. It's inherent in the idea of attacking from a difference that you try to take advantage of cover, superior terrain, deception as to where the attack is coming from, etc.