Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[DMZ2112]

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. The ranger is a highly specialized class, and poorly represents combat archers as a whole.

Class variants can solve some problems of class design but they can't really resolve issues of intent. A variant fighter is never going to cast spells; why would a variant ranger /not/ cast spells? I think the issue here is that people want -- and have always wanted -- the ranger to be two very disparate things, largely because there has never been a ranged fighter archetype in D&D that holds a candle to the effectiveness of the ranger.

There ought to be a robust ranged option for fighters that doesn't make them second fiddles to rangers in combat. If anything, the ranger ought to be second fiddle to the ranged fighter, because the ranger's focus is not on combat exclusively.

If this robust option exists in the warrior archetype, there's no question that the ranger becomes the trickster counterpart. No?

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I would put in the Warrior class group, as a subclass for Ranger. Or possibly Fighter.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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.

Maybe, and I'm not necessarily endorsing this, it would be beneficial to use tags instead of groups. For example, a ranger would be a warrior and expert. Paladin? A warrior and priest. Then spell lists and magic items can be tied to keywords.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

No... some Rangers do this. Just like some Rogues do this. Just like some Bards do this. So are you saying Rogues and Bards should be Warriors too?

Just because a character fights with weapons in melee doesn't mean it automatically goes into the Warrior class group.

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.

Because John Rambo isn't out in front of everybody "tanking" as it were. You said it yourself... he's doing guerrilla tactics. Which means (based upon how it seems WotC is defining these groups) Rambo is not a Warrior. He is not the "face" of the Combat pillar.

Instead, Rambo (IE the Ranger) is the "face" of Exploration pillar. Fighting is certainly a part of what the class is (now) known for... but not primarily what it is known for. And thus (in my guess) is probably where their idea of the Tricksters would fall.

Has the Ranger evolved from where it was in AD&D? Yup. And I don't expect a "return to form" for the Ranger anytime soon. Maybe I'm wrong... but I suspect I'm right.

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

I think it's pretty straightforward, honestly. Ranger as warrior is just a mix of sacred cow and misappropriation. The problem with the paladin is not one of categorization, but rather the fact that historically the cleric is already /also/ a warrior. I'm hoping we see that mitigated in D&D5 with domains affecting equipment proficiencies. A war cleric and a life paladin ought to have similar combat capability but very different class abilities.

Maybe, and I'm not necessarily endorsing this, it would be beneficial to use tags instead of groups. For example, a ranger would be a warrior and expert. Paladin? A warrior and priest. Then spell lists and magic items can be tied to keywords.

Clever.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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. The ranger is a highly specialized class, and poorly represents combat archers as a whole.

That's because the ranger shouldn't be a class focused on archery. He's a warrior, period. The choice to focus on archery or melee should be the player's and not be dictated by the class mechanics. Don't get me started on the two-weapon fighting shoehorn, grrrr.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No... some Rangers do this. Just like some Rogues do this. Just like some Bards do this. So are you saying Rogues and Bards should be Warriors too?

No, just because one can, in a pinch, do something, does not make that his focus. I'm trained in first aid, if you come to me bleeding, I can patch you up, but I'd suggest you see a doctor if there's one available.

Because John Rambo isn't out in front of everybody "tanking" as it were.

Apparently, we didn't watch the same movie.

Has the Ranger evolved from where it was in AD&D? Yup. And I don't expect a "return to form" for the Ranger anytime soon. Maybe I'm wrong... but I suspect I'm right.

Let's hope you're wrong, because otherwise, he ain't a ranger. A ranger SHOULD be on the front lines. Stealth and spells were always secondary aspects of the class. A ranger must have the same hit dice and attack table as a paladin and barbarian, and any other warrior class. I'm not opposed to the fighter being SLIGHTLY better, but the ranger should be just as viable as any other warrior "class." Otherwise, he's just a thief who can't pick locks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's not a bad thing per se to have these groups, let's have them... but the many posts in this thread and the L&L responses about "class X should not really be superclass Y, they should be superclass Y!" already prove that this categorization is only going to cause useless debate.

Whenever I see disagreements like this, I see it as a place for modular design to come in and save the day. A rangers melee machines, skilled outdoorsfolk, agile archers, wilderness assassins, even priests or wizards with nature-based magic?

YES. They are all those things and more. The debates over what they "should be" are pointless, because they should always be whatever works best for your games, and that's going to be different in every game.

This is counterproductive because all non-core-4 classes are already hybrids. If they just slap these labels on them, but don't actually change the classes, then I'm all for it. If they start changing the classes to conform to the lables, then it's really going to cause damage because all those classes don't fit naturally under a single label (as proved by the conflicting opinions here) and will be made to fit by emphasizing one side of them at the expense of the other.

I think if you slap these labels on and the labels are meaningless, then...well....why have the labels? But much like 4e's "roles" shaped class design, these class groups can't help but do something very similar. If you make a monk a warrior, they're going to have different focuses than if you make the monk a mage or a rogue, and that will shape and limit what we think of as a "monk" in 5e.

But on the other hand, how often does it really happen that you need a magic item like that? Traditionally, scrolls 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.

I don't even really see a need for that. Why not have "A Holy Avenger in the hands of a Lawful Good person proficient in Holy Symbols and Swords..."? Clearly includes paladins, but not exclusively paladins (A Lawful Good Mystic Theurge with a sword-based feat!), expanding its use and robbing none of the iconic "paladin-ness" from the thing.

I don't see much to gain from a system that revolves around class groups. Serving as prerequisites for feats or magic items seems like pointless siloing. You can add casting styles and share spell access without it.

Simply, magic items work based on what you can do (i.e. if their benefit applies to your capabilities), not based on what you are, because "what you are" i.e. what's your class name (or superclass name or another label) is nothing in the fantasy world, it's just a label. Unless it represents something real, like alignment, race or (very rarely) class indeed, but creating a system of additional labels when the game is going to be full of exceptions sounds quite unreasonable to me.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement, here.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]
You are hung up on the names of the groups and not what they mean. A Warrior in D&D gets a good HD, good armor, good weapons, and mutliple attacks. A Trickster gets mutilple (4 or more) bonus skill proficiency, a some expertises, bad armors, and average HD & weapons. A Priest gets full magic of a very resticted list, and decent armor and weapons. A Mage gets full magic of a massive list and bad EVERYTHING else.

This is not all a member of any class group gets but that is the skeleton for it.

So rangers and paladin are warriors. They have the basic warrior package of d10 HP, martial weapons, shields, martial weapons, medium armor, and multiple attacks. Then they are tweaked.

This is why monks are hard. Which skeleton is better for them? d10, medium armor or High AC, and multiple attacks? d6 or d8, light armor or moderate AC, and 4 skill proficiencies?

 

[DMZ2112]

That's because the ranger shouldn't be a class focused on archery. He's a warrior, period. The choice to focus on archery or melee should be the player's and not be dictated by the class mechanics. Don't get me started on the two-weapon fighting shoehorn, grrrr.

Sorry, my bias was showing. You're right about fighting style, of course. I still disagree about categorizing him with the fighter and barbarian, though.