Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Tovec]

How 'bout...just going the "old school" route?

Under the Staff of the Magi, it will say, quite clearly, "Mages only."

Under BARD it reads, "The due to their extensive knowledge in legends and lore coupled with their spell-casting capacity and magical know how, the Bard is the only class with access to all types of magical items, as well as enchanted armor or weapons with which they have proficiency."

And each table can figure out which way the wind [of the Staff of the Magi] blows on their own.

Because many groups (especially newer groups/players) are going to now fight over the issue that bards should be allowed to use SotM because they have this line, whereas others are going to point to the staff to where it says "mage only" and say they can't. And it is an issue based solely on the words provided not on the interpretation you are trying to evoke. Unless the bard description has "mage" in it you are going to have this issue as people have become more used to keywords and "specific overrides general" so that specific of SotM will override general "bards can use all magics" even when the group itself hasn't decided (or worse when they have decided but now the rules are getting in the way).

The "old school" route may work for old schoolers who are used to it, but mid-schoolers and new-schoolers get hosed/confused?

 

[Mistwell]

The item would just say "Mages and Bards Only".

There, now was that so hard?

 

[Warbringer]

I thought [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s deduction on what sup-classes are insightful, and the only real reason for them to exist, in that they are a 1:1 mapping with the core classes, but avoid confusion by trying to use the class name as the super-class (which most of experienced gamers are used to)

"The Basic edition includes four classes, a Fighter [Warrior], a Cleric [Priest], a Thief [Rogue], and a Wizard [Mage]. You look at the Advanced edition and you see things like Barbarian [Warrior], Druid [Priest], Assassin [Rogue], and Sorcerer [Mage], along with a bunch of other classes that you don't recognize but they all have those tags after them that you do recognize from the Basic game."

 

[Warbringer]

I don't know how else to explain it. You view the bard as somewhat of a wizard because he casts arcane spells. I don't. They may use some of the same tools, but they are a completely different persuasion. I see a bard as a rogue who happens to know a few spells.

In a non-class based system, where"powers" and "abilities" are purchased with points, it becomes obvious that a bard is nothing more than a dabbler, as he tries to pay for skills, armor wearing and wielding more than simple weapons. At that time, the nard as a class actually disappears as its more valuable to trade other elements in the rogue makeup (ie sneak attack for charm/perform abilities) than lose sneak attack.

 

[MoonSong]

On this Staff of the Magi thing. I've never DMed on 2e and I actually never play Mages so hadn't heard -or care - about it. But the 3e and 4e versions are usable by bards, in fact by pretty much anybody with an investment on UMD (3.x) or proficient with staffs (4e). Moreover as an artifact/rare item it isn't something that can be taken for granted for anyone. So it is a corner case as it is. I don't see how a very specific magic item that may not even make sense for sorcerers and warlocks but it may for bards but in some people's minds is a Wizard only thing justifies making a whole subsystem that isn't very useful while the alternatives (keywords or proficiencies) work way damn better and are more organic.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't see how a very specific magic item that may not even make sense for sorcerers and warlocks but it may for bards but in some people's minds is a Wizard only thing justifies making a whole subsystem that isn't very useful while the alternatives (keywords or proficiencies) work way damn better and are more organic.

It's obviously not just about a single item. They didn't even mention this item in the articles. People asked for examples, and they got many examples of how this system could be helpful, and that was just one of those many examples.

More importantly, it seems that it IS a keyword.