Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Wicht]

Spell Mastery.

That's another one.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm pretty sure the Twitter quote of "Only tricksters can see the thief-king!" certainly leads thoughts down the path of "Only X class will be able to do/use Y". It doesn't have to be proven that a circumstance WILL happen to point out that the circujmstance is bad, only the fact that it's still a possibility that's still on the table. One is certainly entitled to yell "Please don't chop off my head!" if a stranger walks into the room with an axe, even if the chance is fairly remote.

"The Thief-King will only allow his guards to admit Rogues" as short hand for "The Thief King will only allow Thieves, Bards, and Swashbucklers past his guards" is not anything similar to "This cloak of invisibility will only function when worn by Rogues". The first is purely a role-playing descriptive short-hand, the second is a mechanical function of a listed item.

And my objection isn't to someone speculating that it might work out that way (I thought I made that clear). My objection is to people declaring it does in fact work a specific way, ignoring possible counter-examples, and then beating that strawman down with said axe. I'm trying to address what I view as an overreaction to an unproven assumption that's being declared as fact.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, there is: "I CAN'T get it to work BETTER for me, whose arbitrarily-determined class group is not, according to WotC, to be experienced with such things, even though my particular character/class/archetype actually should have it work BETTER for me."

If you're saying someone gets a special benefit because of X, that's introducing the same problem as saying that someone is barred from that special benefit because they are not X. When X makes sense, no problem. When X is unrelated to the actual kind of character you're playing, problem. Class groups are not related to the actual kind of character you're playing. There are elements that would be (ability scores, particular proficiencies, etc.).

We disagree about what class groups are. They do relate to the actual kind of character you're playing, and if they don't, you should be picking a different class. All rogues, regardless of your actual character, have a number of abilities which allow them to see how to use stealth better than others. It's right there in the class description, "Rogues use skill, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand." It's implied by their ability to sneak attack and cunning action. This is a core concept to all rogues.

Now you can not like that, and not want that for your character. In which case, I suggest you choose a different class, or a different game.

All of this "tends to" is completely irrelevant to characters in the specific. Perhaps a rogue character is a trickster and socialite, someone who wants to be seen and not be stealthy.

First, this begs the question as to why he wants the cloak of stealth. But second, that doesn't mean he is incapable of understanding how to benefit better from a stealth item than others. As you said, this guy tries to not be stealthy, so he understands what is and is not stealthy better than someone who doesn't think about that issue much at all.

N... based on their class group, which can't help but be arbitrary, because it has no relation to how the character is actually conceived of and played.

They're not arbitrary. They have to lock down SOME concepts for classes or else it becomes a class-less system. So they're going to pick some things you're class is better at than others. Which, again, is why I think you want a class-less system but you're saying you don't. OK, then accept that a class-based system inherently will make each class better at some things than others, regardless of how you want to play that class, unless you multi-class enough to embrace your personal concept in a mish-mash of classes.

I haven't seen anything that this system helps to accomplish that requires this system to accomplish. Elucidate me.

People have named half a dozen in this thread at this point, and you've either hand-waived or ignored most of them. Why should I go back and gather than information just for you to hand-waive it some more? Demonstrate to me you have an open mind on this issue and I can do that, but right now the language you're using seems pretty firmly in the "I've made up my mind and no matter what you say I see no use in this bad thing".

 

[TwoSix]

What about Prestige Classes?

Master Specialist, Complete Mage, requires 3 levels of a specialist wizard.

I should get a prize.

 

[DMZ2112]

Master Specialist, Complete Mage, requires 3 levels of a specialist wizard.

Yeah, I remember the seminar at Gen Con 2000 fondly wherein it was stated that prestige classes would not require levels in specific base classes. Great idea, and it lasted a long time. But eventually (and inevitably) some designers got lazy.

 

[Wicht]

Master Specialist, Complete Mage, requires 3 levels of a specialist wizard.

I should get a prize.

Ah, I never read Complete Mage.

Some designer did indeed get lazy.

Edit: I would give you XP by way of prize, but it says I gotta spread it around first.

 

[MoonSong]

Ah, I never read Complete Mage.

Some designer did indeed get lazy.

Edit: I would give you XP by way of prize, but it says I gotta spread it around first.

Have you covered. Though Master specialist was closer to a glorified bunch of alternate class features than an actual prestige class

 

[I'm A Banana]

The thing is, to come back to your article, you mention Streamlining Decision-Making as one of your 5 virtues. I happen to agree a lot with that. It's just that your "fighter learning fireball" example seems to be in direct contradiction.

It might help you to think about it this way: a player who knows they want to play a dude in heavy armor with a big sword who blasts fire all around has a distinct archetype that they want to play. Their decision-making is streamlined: they will pick abilities that enhance their armor, that enhance their big swords, and that enhance their ability to toss around fire. Their chosen kind of character might make perfect sense at the table and with the group. There might even be a group of fire-using warriors in the world that the character fits into. It's not exactly a traditional D&D archetype, but for that player, in that game, it is a kind of character that makes a lot of sense and sounds like fun to them.

All they need is the Fighter class, and then to swap some of the fighter abilities for big blasty fire spells (like burning hands and fireball and wall of fire and maybe meteor swarm). Should be something an individual DM can do easy and quick -- a simple swap-out of certain abilities at certain levels for others. It's still streamlined decision-making, it just involves being given Fireball in place of some other fighter feature that is irrelevant to the character.

1) If the ranger casts spells in a spontaneous / instinctive manner (à la Sorcerer), I'd say no, he can use scrolls. But that's just my taste. If the game went and said such a ranger can use scrolls, it wouldn't be the end of the world to me;

2) If the ranger is more of an "academic" wizard, with a spellbook and all, I'd say yes use scrolls. After all, if he's using a scrollbook, he can surely use a scrollpage, right?

So there you have it, and even though it's a bit tangential to the debate: if someone uses a spellbook to learn his spells, he can use scrolls. Clear, logical, coherent.

So, if 5e uses class groups, and sorcerers are "mages," even illiterate, barbarian sorcerers will be able to use (or "get extra effects out of") mage-group items like scrolls and tomes.

Meanwhile, if 5e uses a system more like I'm proposing, they can perhaps use "Spellbook Proficiency" as a prerequisite to using scrolls and the like, and now no illiterate barbarian sorcerer will be able to use the items, and also a scholar-priest who prepares a spellbook WILL be able to use them, and all that makes a lot more sense.

No reason to learn magic? Why the hell not? Is he never wounded? Does he think he will go through all of his adventuring life without having his life threatened at least once by injury, poison or some such thing?

Because if he learned how to heal himself, he wouldn't be as good at sneaking and stealing, and he wants to call himself a thief. There's an opportunity cost to learning an ability: when you learn X, you can't learn Y or Z at the same time. In order for him to learn to heal his wounds, he might've had to trade, say, expertise in Stealth -- maybe some thieves would trade that, but not any of them who wanted to be really good in stealth.

First of all, before I address this, let me stress that I find your example to be an extremely corner case, that has no basis outside of supporting your argument.

It's not that exceptional -- 4e-style bards are thieves who learn healing magic, and though their fiction is different, they're going to be just as irked if only priests get all the good healing effects.

That being said, are rogues/thieves really the best way to represent what you're describing? Your "thieves of life" are stealing life, that doesn't make them thieves.

They belong to a criminal underworld of skulking characters who dwell in shadow and live by their wits, they just also happen to be able to heal. They sound like rogues to me.

But then that's part of the issue with the class groups: defining them isn't going to be consistent or obvious.

 

[SageMinerve]

It might help you to think about it this way: a player who knows they want to play a dude in heavy armor with a big sword who blasts fire all around has a distinct archetype that they want to play. Their decision-making is streamlined: they will pick abilities that enhance their armor, that enhance their big swords, and that enhance their ability to toss around fire. Their chosen kind of character might make perfect sense at the table and with the group. There might even be a group of fire-using warriors in the world that the character fits into. It's not exactly a traditional D&D archetype, but for that player, in that game, it is a kind of character that makes a lot of sense and sounds like fun to them.

All they need is the Fighter class, and then to swap some of the fighter abilities for big blasty fire spells (like burning hands and fireball and wall of fire and maybe meteor swarm). Should be something an individual DM can do easy and quick -- a simple swap-out of certain abilities at certain levels for others. It's still streamlined decision-making, it just involves being given Fireball in place of some other fighter feature that is irrelevant to the character.

To be able to have something like what you're suggesting explicitly stated in the rules book, you'd need to either:

1) Make sure that, for level X, all class abilities from all classes are equivalent (so you can for example swap a 5th lvl Fighter class ability for a 5th lvl Wizard ability);
OR
2) Have some kind of a chart that tells you class abilities are worth in relation to each other.

First solution is probably the easier one, even though I see at least two potential problems:
*Some people will see this as too 4th edition-esque;
*comparing non-spell casters with spell casters may become a little bit of a headache.

Second solution, frankly, is a Rolemaster-esque nightmare: can you imagine the number and size of charts required? Furthermore, it wouldn't take into account new classes.

Now, if you want as a house-rule to make said swap of abilities and everybody at your table agrees, then go ahead and do it! You don't need anything from the rules and this discussion becomes a bit unnecessary.

So, if 5e uses class groups, and sorcerers are "mages," even illiterate, barbarian sorcerers will be able to use (or "get extra effects out of") mage-group items like scrolls and tomes.

Meanwhile, if 5e uses a system more like I'm proposing, they can perhaps use "Spellbook Proficiency" as a prerequisite to using scrolls and the like, and now no illiterate barbarian sorcerer will be able to use the items, and also a scholar-priest who prepares a spellbook WILL be able to use them, and all that makes a lot more sense.

Well, we don't know that hypothetical class group "Mage" will grant all its classes scroll proficiency. To bring that up to support your point after I answered your question is kinda fishy, to say the least.

We can either discuss things as they are known to us now, or we can state upfront hypotheses and discuss them. Anything else is a waste of time.

It's not that exceptional -- 4e-style bards are thieves who learn healing magic, and though their fiction is different, they're going to be just as irked if only priests get all the good healing effects.

It's only terminology, but I'm fine with saying that Bards are Rogue characters. However, I wouldn't call them thieves. Bards are not people who steal but also happen to sing while doing it (which wouldn't be conductive to a long and successful career, I might add )

They belong to a criminal underworld of skulking characters who dwell in shadow and live by their wits, they just also happen to be able to heal. They sound like rogues to me.

But then that's part of the issue with the class groups: defining them isn't going to be consistent or obvious.

As a campaign idea, what you're describing sounds like fun.

But rules-wise, we're back to the fireball-tossing fighter. It's too much of a corner case and too much of a hassle to include in the core rules. If you want them, house-rule them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To be able to have something like what you're suggesting explicitly stated in the rules book, you'd need to either:

1) Make sure that, for level X, all class abilities from all classes are equivalent (so you can for example swap a 5th lvl Fighter class ability for a 5th lvl Wizard ability);
OR
2) Have some kind of a chart that tells you class abilities are worth in relation to each other.

First solution is probably the easier one, even though I see at least two potential problems:
*Some people will see this as too 4th edition-esque;
*comparing non-spell casters with spell casters may become a little bit of a headache.

Second solution, frankly, is a Rolemaster-esque nightmare: can you imagine the number and size of charts required? Furthermore, it wouldn't take into account new classes.

Now, if you want as a house-rule to make said swap of abilities and everybody at your table agrees, then go ahead and do it! You don't need anything from the rules and this discussion becomes a bit unnecessary.

4e had a rough parity in abilities of a given level, I don't think 5e should abandon that, in the interest of its goal of modularity and getting 4e fans on board. If fireball is a significant advantage over whatever a fighter can do at level 5, that imbalance is a problem for both 4e fans who liked class balance, and for people who want to swap out class features. I'm not personally in favor of getting rid of good 4e developments just because 4e used them -- I like keeping my babies when I throw out the bathwater.

Well, we don't know that hypothetical class group "Mage" will grant all its classes scroll proficiency. To bring that up to support your point after I answered your question is kinda fishy, to say the least.

I don't think it's too much to say that, if (a) wizards and sorcerers both use arcane magic, and so (b) they are both mages, and (c) "mage" is a category that determines who can use what magic items, that it then follows that (d) mages can use scrolls. I could certainly be wrong, but it's a reasonable projection.

But the broader point is that the class group threatens to create nonsensical exclusions and inclusions. Something like "spellbook proficiency" is less likely to do that (though, it must be said, still possible -- the only way to avoid it entirely is to drop prerequisites entirely), because it captures a finer level of detail than "knows how to use arcane magic."

It's only terminology, but I'm fine with saying that Bards are Rogue characters. However, I wouldn't call them thieves. Bards are not people who steal but also happen to sing while doing it (which wouldn't be conductive to a long and successful career, I might add )

Sure. Then they're rogue characters who might want to be the party's best healer. If wands of cure light wounds are reserved for or powered up by priest characters only, why should that exclude bards? That's an example of the nonsensical, arbitrary, irrelevant-to-actual-play nature of these things that I'm talking about.

As a campaign idea, what you're describing sounds like fun.

But rules-wise, we're back to the fireball-tossing fighter. It's too much of a corner case and too much of a hassle to include in the core rules. If you want them, house-rule them.

I don't think the fireball fighter needs to be necessarily included in the core rules, but I do think that the rules set should enable me to do this kind of thing, and not throw up pointless roadblocks. Class groups are a pointless roadblock. I shouldn't render magic items, feats, and magic systems irrelevant just because I dare to have a cleric of a god of night and stealth who is a priest but who might want to use a lot of things designed for rogues.