Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Remathilis]

To me the class groups say

1. Warriors get prof with martial weapons and meduim armor or better.
2. Tricksters get a +5 expertise and a few bonus skill profs
3. Priests get medium armor and full magic of a limited versatility
4. Mages get full magic

So a ranger and paladin are still warriors. They just get inklings or priest and trickster. Some magic for both and bonus skills for rangers. A bard is still a trickster but with magic. The monk would be classified as tricksters (acrobatics and insight) but with better combat (better AC, unarmed weapons, KI).

I see it like this as well (except the monk, he's a warrior with trickster elements, not vice-versa).

Note that rangers, bards, and paladins are 1/2 casters. Magic is a minor part of their identity. They still fall under the main banners of warrior and/or trickster, with elements of priest and/or mage.

My groupings would be:
WARRIOR: Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk
MAGE: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
PRIEST: Cleric, Druid
TRICKSTER(EXPERT): Rogue, Bard

If they REALLY want to go old-school...
WARRIOR: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian
PRIEST: Cleric, Druid, Monk*
WIZARD: Mage, Sorcerer, Warlock
ROGUE: Thief, Bard

* A monk would be a priest caster with martial arts instead of weapons, armor, and channel divinity. Kinda a divine bard.

Other news:
1. Yay that mage spit-back-out sorcerer and warlock into full-classdom!
2. HD is being fiddled with. Good. I've grown accustomed to d8 for rogues.

 

[heptat]

If I had to guess... things will shake out like this:

WARRIORS: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk
TRICKSTERS: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
PRIESTS: Cleric, Druid
MAGES: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer

And despite the fact the identity of what an actual real-world 'monk' is... in D&D the Monk has never had spellcasting, nor any real connection to the gods. So thinking it should fall into the Priests category is only based upon the real-world concept of "Monk", as opposed to what it actual does and who it is in the fiction of D&D.

You're probably right Defcon, but moving Monk to PRIESTS gives 3 classes to each category, symmetry! LOL

Oh and what you said about using multiclassing for straddling two class groups, I couldn't agree more.

 

[ki11erDM]

If this means you have a group, a class, and a subclass... then I HATE this. I see zero reason to add another layer of complexity just for semantics.

If this means you have just a group, and a class...then this is ok. Still silly, but at least it seems to satisfy those that could not get over the idea of having two people throwing fireballs and magic missiles around, just with different mechanics, having the same class name.

As another bonus this does help them create design space for psionics. They can now just release a splat book that adds a 'Group' called psionics.

As for the trickster debate. "Expert" is horrible. Expert in what? Spells? Pottery? Flossing? The only name that fits is Rogue. Then give me a Rake class...

 

[Minigiant]

Rangers get into melees with orcs, giants, and dragons. When combat starts, their first action is to draw weapons (as a free action) and attack, not hide or cast a spell (unless it is a free action and a buff or weapon related) or flee. So they are warriors.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

To be fair, I think there's room in the Ranger class for both Aragorn-style leader and a Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando, although I'd like to see the Rogue subsume both the Bear Grylls style badass and the MacGyver-esque "use what's around me to make a cunning plan" archetypes.

Why can't the Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando also be in the warrior fold? When I think of that particular archetype, I picture John Rambo.

 

[Minigiant]

Why can't the Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando also be in the warrior fold? When I think of that particular archetype, I picture John Rambo.

It is.
The warrior class group just says you get d10 HD or better, proficiency with shields and medium armor or better, proficiency with all simple and martial weapons, and extra attack at level 5.

A commando style ranger would get all the warrior package and be classified a warrior.
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I see monks closer to a rogue than a fighter nowadays as I see it as a skills class first and a martial artist second. Especially with the new usages of Ki. A monk feels like an expert who trades sneak attack for super kung fu or elemental karate.

 

[Ratskinner]

The problem with this system is the hybrid classes. Paladin's, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Battleminds.

Take the Paladin its gets a d10 hp, Martial Weapon, all armour and shields, extra attack and a fighting style, but in every other ability it gets divine magic, from divine spells and Channel Divinity like the Cleric, to unique abilities like Auras of protection, Courage, resolve, Divine health, Smite and improved smite, oath features. So tell me is it a priest or a warrior?

The problem there, is the Cleric, not the Paladin...sorta. Traditionally, D&D has 3 mechanical structures: Combat, Casting, and Skills...and yet has 4 traditional archetypes. Honestly, the Cleric is already the Hybrid between "Caster" and "Fighter", and shouldn't be holding up a "corner" of its own. The Paladin is merely a fighter who has splashed some caster. Except, y'know, "divine" vs "arcane". Eliminate that divide, and you get something closer to True20 and eliminate a lot of smaller issues as well.

Of course, that's not the only way to handle it. You could merge the mechanics for all three and then there is no mechanical distinction. That lets you make class/group design decisions on a different basis; perhaps flavor or combat role.

 

[Dausuul]

Glad to hear they're deep-sixing the "One Arcane Caster To Rule Them All" class. I don't really buy the argument for this categorization scheme, and I suspect they will find it falls apart when asked to handle classes like paladins and rangers, but whatever. They can slap their group labels on things if it makes them feel better.

The problem there, is the Cleric, not the Paladin...sorta. Traditionally, D&D has 3 mechanical structures: Combat, Casting, and Skills...and yet has 4 traditional archetypes. Honestly, the Cleric is already the Hybrid between "Caster" and "Fighter", and shouldn't be holding up a "corner" of its own. The Paladin is merely a fighter who has splashed some caster. Except, y'know, "divine" vs "arcane". Eliminate that divide, and you get something closer to True20 and eliminate a lot of smaller issues as well.

I wouldn't mind having a fourth corner for cleric to hold up; the problem, as you say, is that the cleric is half caster and half warrior. I could envision a divide between Combat, Offensive Casting, Support Casting, and Skills. But as currently constituted, there is no dedicated Support Caster class, only a Support/Combat hybrid.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I think you could say the same for Barbarians, maybe even Rangers, heck Clerics (if you eliminate the arcane/divine divide.) I don't think we're in a position to draw a very fine distinction about what, precisely, counts a class. Adding in backgrounds, skills, etc. only muddies that water.

 

[MoonSong]

Part of me wants to do the victory dance, knowing we will have true warlocks and sorcerers and not instruction manuals to get something that claims to be them but not really is good to hear and somehow increased my interest in Next. However seeing their "solution" makes me scream "But they already have a solution, proficiencies!!"

Yes proficiencies solve the problem. Make implements proficiencies you give to a class, now make magic items give some minor benefits to anyone and more to people who are proficient with them. Bingo there goes your problem!!.