-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends & Lore: Clas Groups
- Thread starter Plaguescarred
- Start date
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
This is why I think "Monk" should be a background and the class should be called the "Martial Artist." Not all martial artists are monks, nor are all monks martial artists.
Klaus
First Post
Or not. Monks are great at kicking asses because ass-kicking ability demonstrates their progress in the road to personal enlightenment.
I am all for moving the Monk to the Warrior group. That's where the Arcane Archer and the Hexblade should end up, as well (you don't have to be a Mage to be a spellcaster, and you don't have to be a Priest to be religious).
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?
Another problem, where do other classes belong to, like Shadowcaster, Psion, 3e Binder, Incarnae, and so on?
I see three solutions.
1. Allow a Class to belong to multiple superclasses, so a Paladin is both Priest and Warrior, I'd allow the 5e Bard to belong to all if them.
2. Allow Hybrid Classes to choose which superclass to belong to as a choice point so at level 2 a Paladin decides if he wants channel divinity or a fighting style for example.
3. Make Hybrids thier own Superclass, so the Hybrids superclass would include Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Monks. To extend this idea you could also have an exotic superclass for Psions and weird stuff like shadow magic and incarnae. This would be the best amd simplest idea.
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?
Another problem, where do other classes belong to, like Shadowcaster, Psion, 3e Binder, Incarnae, and so on?
I see three solutions.
1. Allow a Class to belong to multiple superclasses, so a Paladin is both Priest and Warrior, I'd allow the 5e Bard to belong to all if them.
2. Allow Hybrid Classes to choose which superclass to belong to as a choice point so at level 2 a Paladin decides if he wants channel divinity or a fighting style for example.
3. Make Hybrids thier own Superclass, so the Hybrids superclass would include Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Monks. To extend this idea you could also have an exotic superclass for Psions and weird stuff like shadow magic and incarnae. This would be the best amd simplest idea.
You can't blame them though. A noticeable and loud part of the D&D fanbase is highly focused on first visual impression. Converting what was previously a class into an upgraded background would need very high approval among the fans before they'd do it. I predicted falling back into class groups a while ago because of this. Only the "moderately unloved" traditional and newer classes could ever be nonclasses.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
I'm just struck be the distinct and very obvious omission of ANY reference to psionics.
My understanding, certainly from the threads on this forum, that the psions being tucked under the "Mage Umbrella" [tm] was the largest cause of uproar and negative reaction. Sorcerers and Warlocks being there...ruffled some feathers, sure...but I didn't see the outrage of immersion breakage about those two. They both use arcane magic. *Poof* They go under Mage, easy peasy. The Psionics are the ones that had everyone tilting their heads sayin' "Whuuuuuh?"
Unless they intend...to place sorcerer and/or warlock under "Trickster" offering it higher HD, lesser armor and more-than-mages-but-still-few/light/simple weapons. They are Tricksters who use magic along iwth whatever is dtermined to be their "expert skills." This may have something to do with the title choice of "Trickster" vs. "Rogue" or "Expert" in the first place -which I agree is horrendous and needs changing back to the 2e titles (Which incidentally, @Stormonu , did include "Wizard" as a group, not "Arcanist". jus' sayin').
As for a Monk being a priest, I can totally get behind that. However, both D&D tradition and the very flatly stated criteria for inclusion of their proposed class groups, it would seem the Monk does belong under "Rogue" (for their array of non-magical skill) or Warrior (for their primary function/defining trait as "unarmed combat guy").
To make them a Priest class would require a fairly complete overhaul/refocusing of their traditional D&D fluff...and crunch, as they currently have Priests defined as "masters of divine magic." So to do that, you need to make the Monk all about channeling divine energies and/or actually casting spells for their powers...or saying their uncanny physical prowess and "mystical" skills are the result of some achieved (or innate) direct divine connection...but then, isn't that what Clerics have? Change the fluff of both to make a Cleric's (and Paladin) one chosen/imbued by the gods, while a Monk's connection is sought after/achieved by the monk them self...the deity is not looking to help you, you are not one of their chosen...but they eventually notice you and throw you a few scraps/tidbits of divine power for your trouble/devotion.
I have no problem with rewriting the Monk's fluff (it probably could have benefited from it at least 3 editions ago), I just don't see it happening.
My understanding, certainly from the threads on this forum, that the psions being tucked under the "Mage Umbrella" [tm] was the largest cause of uproar and negative reaction. Sorcerers and Warlocks being there...ruffled some feathers, sure...but I didn't see the outrage of immersion breakage about those two. They both use arcane magic. *Poof* They go under Mage, easy peasy. The Psionics are the ones that had everyone tilting their heads sayin' "Whuuuuuh?"
Unless they intend...to place sorcerer and/or warlock under "Trickster" offering it higher HD, lesser armor and more-than-mages-but-still-few/light/simple weapons. They are Tricksters who use magic along iwth whatever is dtermined to be their "expert skills." This may have something to do with the title choice of "Trickster" vs. "Rogue" or "Expert" in the first place -which I agree is horrendous and needs changing back to the 2e titles (Which incidentally, @Stormonu , did include "Wizard" as a group, not "Arcanist". jus' sayin').
As for a Monk being a priest, I can totally get behind that. However, both D&D tradition and the very flatly stated criteria for inclusion of their proposed class groups, it would seem the Monk does belong under "Rogue" (for their array of non-magical skill) or Warrior (for their primary function/defining trait as "unarmed combat guy").
To make them a Priest class would require a fairly complete overhaul/refocusing of their traditional D&D fluff...and crunch, as they currently have Priests defined as "masters of divine magic." So to do that, you need to make the Monk all about channeling divine energies and/or actually casting spells for their powers...or saying their uncanny physical prowess and "mystical" skills are the result of some achieved (or innate) direct divine connection...but then, isn't that what Clerics have? Change the fluff of both to make a Cleric's (and Paladin) one chosen/imbued by the gods, while a Monk's connection is sought after/achieved by the monk them self...the deity is not looking to help you, you are not one of their chosen...but they eventually notice you and throw you a few scraps/tidbits of divine power for your trouble/devotion.
I have no problem with rewriting the Monk's fluff (it probably could have benefited from it at least 3 editions ago), I just don't see it happening.
Last edited:
ppaladin123
Adventurer
I imagine they are going to go with option #1. Paladin is a warrior and priest hybrid (so is the ranger I suppose). Something like a eventual swordmage/eldritch knight base class is a warrior and mage. Of course saying that a mage is necessarily arcane means there is no place for psionics or other magic sources. And priests currently have primal magic users (druids) stuffed into them.
I think they could give power source a role again to use with these categories. Something like:
druid = priest (primal)
cleric = priest (divine)
psion =mage (psionic)
wizard = mage(arcane)
then you have hybrids like this:
ranger = warrior, priest(primal)
paladin=warrior, priest(divine)
psychic warrior = warrior, mage(psionic)
shadowblade = trickster, mage (arcane)
and so forth.
heptat
Explorer
Heh, fair enough.
Yeah, I don't know what those things (Arcane Archer, Hexblade) are...shows my vintage
Klaus
First Post
I wouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the Paladin uses divine spells. They are warriors first and foremost (ditto on the Ranger), extremely resilient and a front-line combatant. That is why they're Warriors.
The "Mage" isn't about casting arcane spells, it's about relying on spells more than anything and being more frail than other classes. By those parameters, the Psion and the Sorcerer fit in well. I'd even say the Invoker would qualify.
The "Priest" is about middle-of-the-road toughness coupled with support magic. If the name got changed to something less divine-oriented, this is where the Bard would end up. Something related to... leading, maybe?
I can see the Warlock going either way: getting more frail, but with boosted spellcasting, to fall within the Mage, or getting reduced spellcasting to fit in with the Tricksters.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm still not sold on the need for class groups (just like I'm not sold on the need for creature types). At some point, the distinction becomes academic. If there's a "cloistered priest" variant that's less durable than a priest but still a priest because they use divine magic, or an "arcane trickster" variant that uses spells to replace skills, or even the Bard (who may be a mage, or may be a warrior, or may be a priest if it has druid spells...) or the Monk (who may be a priest with passive abilities instead of active abilities, or a warrior with unarmed fighting, or a rogue good at jumping/spying/climbing....).....
I don't think feats or magic items need to give much reference to the underlying "group." Personally, I don't see why a Staff of Power needs to have much of a requirement at all, but you can also code in things like "Requires Staff proficiency" or "Requires Spell proficiency" or whatever, if you'd like. Especially if these items are optional and additive, the only requirements are flavor-based requirements, not much of a balance concern at all. "Oh no, the Fighter can use a Staff of Power, that's the exact same power increase as the Wizard using it!!!" And feats fall into a similar bucket: there is a such thing as a "general feat," and I don't see much value in siloing feats away where certain characters are just prohibited from accessing them.
And the framework for casting styles and ability to expand the game? Just disentangle class abilities (ie, a spell list) from the core mechanic of the class (ie, slot-based spellcasting), and allow people to mix and match. It's not so incredibly difficult.
So I'm not that convinced that Mike's list of three things is really all that difficult to gain through other methods. And "class groups" seem like kind of an unnecessary distinction, still.
I'm with the consensus that "Trickster" is not a great name. "Rogue" fits better, Expert if you're not willing to do the daring thing and change the rogue class to not be so broad and meaningless.
Yeah, it's a positive move, but they've yet to sell me on the need for this distinction.
I don't think feats or magic items need to give much reference to the underlying "group." Personally, I don't see why a Staff of Power needs to have much of a requirement at all, but you can also code in things like "Requires Staff proficiency" or "Requires Spell proficiency" or whatever, if you'd like. Especially if these items are optional and additive, the only requirements are flavor-based requirements, not much of a balance concern at all. "Oh no, the Fighter can use a Staff of Power, that's the exact same power increase as the Wizard using it!!!" And feats fall into a similar bucket: there is a such thing as a "general feat," and I don't see much value in siloing feats away where certain characters are just prohibited from accessing them.
And the framework for casting styles and ability to expand the game? Just disentangle class abilities (ie, a spell list) from the core mechanic of the class (ie, slot-based spellcasting), and allow people to mix and match. It's not so incredibly difficult.
So I'm not that convinced that Mike's list of three things is really all that difficult to gain through other methods. And "class groups" seem like kind of an unnecessary distinction, still.
I'm with the consensus that "Trickster" is not a great name. "Rogue" fits better, Expert if you're not willing to do the daring thing and change the rogue class to not be so broad and meaningless.
Yeah, it's a positive move, but they've yet to sell me on the need for this distinction.
Similar Threads
