Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[LightPhoenix]

I'm not averse to some sort of keyword system; used properly it can provide clarity to situations where natural prose creates ambiguity.

Why not make the Staff of Power say something like, "If you can cast arcane spells of 1st level or higher?" Well, Bards don't cast arcane spells in this packet. Okay, "If you can cast spells of 1st level of higher?" Do Psions really cast spells? They use powers, right? So can they use it? It's that sort of ambiguity that a keyword system is designed to prevent.

That said, my personal opinion is that in general there should be less restrictions, rather than more. Continuing on the Staff of Power, just say (3E style) you can use your caster level instead of the staff. I don't even care if you have a caster level; Fighter wants to use it, why not? Probably not the best choice of weapon, but it evokes some cool imagery nonetheless.

 

[pemerton]

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

But would also make more obvious that when it comes to using magic, or to revering the gods, they are not experts. Which for me compounds the worry that "relies on spells to overcome obtacles" is not describing a field of tasks in which a character excels, but rather a source of power which has the potential (bassed on past experience) to be open-ended in its capabilities in a rather game-changing fashion.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think they should have the guts to use backgrounds as intended. Some classes are just backgrounds. Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue. The same goes for any concept except for the core four. Paladin, bard, warlock, whatever are merely background variations of fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. Some combinations are weak.

Keep four classes. Add secondary skill named after other character concepts and be done with it. Fighter (paladin), Fighter (warlock), Fighter (warlord), fighter (bounty hunter).

 

[Minigiant]

I think they should have the guts to use backgrounds as intended. Some classes are just backgrounds. Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue. The same goes for any concept except for the core four. Paladin, bard, warlock, whatever are merely background variations of fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. Some combinations are weak.

Keep four classes. Add secondary skill named after other character concepts and be done with it. Fighter (paladin), Fighter (warlock), Fighter (warlord), fighter (bounty hunter).

That would require empowering the background and skill system, something they do not want to do.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think they should have the guts to use backgrounds as intended. Some classes are just backgrounds. Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue. The same goes for any concept except for the core four. Paladin, bard, warlock, whatever are merely background variations of fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. Some combinations are weak.

Keep four classes. Add secondary skill named after other character concepts and be done with it. Fighter (paladin), Fighter (warlock), Fighter (warlord), fighter (bounty hunter).

I don't think this is using backgrounds "as intended", but rather as you intend. Which is fine, they could be used like that, but it's not how they intended backgrounds in the last year and a half (although "cloistered monk" or "temple monk" would be conceptually a background appropriate to the current backgrounds intentions).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

They should definitely call them Rogues instead of Tricksters, then stop trying to make the individual class so general.

 

[heptat]

Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue.

Frosty, I agree with Stromonu – a monk is a type of priest. Yeah they can bash people up and sneak around, but that's because of their dedication to a higher calling.

Rock on.

 

[Minigiant]

They should definitely call them Rogues instead of Tricksters, then stop trying to make the individual class so general.

Indeed
And also strip sneak attack out of most of them. Give each rogue a gimmick.
Thieves get Sneak attack, assassins get Death attack, acrobats get Tumbling jump kick, bards get Songs and Magic, dancers get Dances and Magic, gadgeteers get traps and HIGH EXPLOSIVES!!

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm very relived that they aren't trying to fit every type of arcane magic user into the wizard class anymore. I like the new approach. It reminds me a lot of 2e.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I don't think this is using backgrounds "as intended", but rather as you intend. Which is fine, they could be used like that, but it's not how they intended backgrounds in the last year and a half (although "cloistered monk" or "temple monk" would be conceptually a background appropriate to the current backgrounds intentions).

Alright, maybe they stated some other intent. But what is the point of having crunchy backgrounds if not to use it to make niche concepts viable? I think this is the dividing line: They don't have the guts to demote paladin to less than class status. Instead they invent a class groups tier and end up at the same place, only with extra unnecessary complexity.