Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Li Shenron]

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.

Well, according to the L&L and Q&A articles, we should subclasses taking care of shifting focus in a variety of directions for each class.

Maybe superclasses won't damage anything, even if they end up shifting some classes to conform their superclass expectations, as long as there will still be subclasses shifting the focus back to other directions, so that those who disagree about e.g. the Ranger being a Warrior, can still pick a subclass that shifts it back to being an Expert/Trickster, etc.

I think if you slap these labels on and the labels are meaningless, then...well....why have the labels?

I was kind of writing that between the lines

But much like 4e's "roles" shaped class design, these class groups can't help but do something very similar.

I didn't really follow how roles evolved in 4e, but what I remember in the early 4e days was that those were supposed to be tactical roles. And I didn't like that idea at all! That was much worse for me than forcing the Ranger to be more warrior-like or the Bard to be more expert-like. It was much more specifically forcing into a combat role. It's something I really would not want as part of choosing a class.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm very relived that they aren't trying to fit every type of arcane magic user into the wizard class anymore. I like the new approach. It reminds me a lot of 2e.

If they add the inability in Core to multiclass within a group, like 2E did, I'll be right there liking it. Then they can add a simple optional rule that removes this restriction (and probably absolve themselves of any future balance issues up front [again]).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Whew! What a headache. And it comes right at the point when they have decided to stop the public playtest. So, if nothing else, for most of us, WE HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY LEFT TO LET OUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN.

There may be good reasons for the class groups, but they are design reasons, they are not play reasons. The 4e roles were play reasons: they were a tool for balancing the party. Defcon 1's thoughts, tying certain classes to the so-called pillars, would be another way that this could help players -- and particularly new players. That I can get behind.

As it is presented (in what must be seen as only a preliminary feeler), it adds a layer of organization (and so complicates things for new players), and solves one problem by creating several more (as the empassioned views on all sides in this thread show).

I recognize that class groups may be a useful design tool, but I'd rather that the added complications be kept out of the game. Keep it under the hood: use it, sure, and maybe even present the conceptual groupings in the DMG if that helps DMs. I do not see it being anything but a bone of contention or a source of confusion for players.

 

[RevTurkey]

Is this all about selling splat books?

If they group classes for magic item use then they can add more sub classes at a later date.

They can then put Magic Staff useable by Mages
Boots of quickness useable by Tricksters
Sword of Dobber useable only by Warriors

you get the idea...with these divisions the basic core rules can still be useable when things get revised and new subclasses added at a later date. Otherwise you have to list EVERY class that can use an item and with new content added through other books they would have to know in advance everything they are going to release which would be constricting...

OR...they could in fact do just that and it would work anyway.

IF they have the vast majority of items useable by ANY character with maybe Alignment, Racial, Ability or Level requirements...and then have the truly rare stuff like Staff of Wizardry keyed to an exact class....so a holy blade useable by Paladins. A wand useable by just Warlocks. A set of prayer beads for a Cleric of a Healing Diety?

just an untested random thought...

What is easier to manage...classes that define character and development or a bunch of stuff that comes and goes. My priority would be to make the classes more important and not tie them up with unnatural restriction.

 

[Remathilis]

I think, if we're willing to trim off a bit of sacred cow, this could really work.

WARRIORS: Good AC, martial weapons, d10 (or better HD), multiple attacks.
MAGE: Poor AC, limited weapons, d6 HD, full casting magic, offense-oriented spells.
PRIEST: Moderate AC, simple weapons, d8 HD, full casting magic, defense-oriented spells.
TRICKSTER: Moderate AC, decent selection of weapons, d8 HD, multiple skills, Expertise.

These become the "baseline" for all classes. Then, you change things to garner these results. For example, the barbarian and monk are both warriors who don't wear heavy armor, so they get class features to boost their AC to be on par. Druids and clerics get different weapons and armor lists, different divine powers (channel vs. wild shape) and different spell focus, but both are healers, buffers, and good against specific foes (undead/outsiders vs. animal/fey). A bard is as good as a rogue in skills, but trades sneak attack and nimble attacks for songs and spells. Subclasses can further customize things by giving specialization at the expense of something else (a ranger who is a master of combat but has weaker spells).

So a few classes might get tweaked (rangers might acquire some AC compensation, monks become more warrior-like, druids gain more buffs and lose some elemental attack spells) but if it means selecting a monk or a ranger is as good in the warrior slot as a paladin or fighter, I'm all for it.

They don't have to destroy the flavor of each class, just make sure its good at its primary focus (combat, magic, healing, skills).

 

[jrowland]

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

Quoting Gyor, but really addressing all who express this point.

Forget for a moment what you think a Paladin is, or a Monk, or any other so-called "hybrid" class. If assume a "paladin" class, one could certainly envision a more Martial Flavored version, a more Divine spellcaster version, perhaps even a more trickster or mage version (these last two are a stretch, but bear with me). From the article, and I think given its history, Paladin is the name used for the more Warrior than Spellcaster version. They may make a more Divine spellcaster Paladin type and call it "War Domain Priest" or some such.

So those complaining of a Monk falling under "Warrior", I am sure there may come a time when a monk version under the trickster heading will appear (ninja?), or one under the mage or priest heading. It may not be called "Monk". No matter. To (badly) paraphrase Shakespeare: A Monk by any other name still kicks just as much ass.

So to look at Gyors possible solutions:

1) There will be multiple sub-classes, A warrior Paladin and a Divine Paladin for example. As an extra, I doubt they will restrict a Warrior Paladin from using Divine Magic Items, for example. It will probably be a class feature.
2) The choice is made when choosing a class, "Paladin" if you want more martial, "War Priest" if you want more divine power
3) Not really going to happen. The idea is for reference and consistent building over time. A new class in a later splat book will want to reference the superclasses.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

While I'm normally a fan of the "Umbrella" method (A "Main" catgory, and then sub-categories), I'm not sure it works for D+D, at least in my mind. The jury is still out for me; I'll wait and see how it's finally implemented.

However, it concerns me that they've annouced this change seemingly at the last minute, epsecially since it seems like it should have been a "Basic Game Design" discussion, before more than a year into the Playtesting process....

Dpn't get me wrong: While I'm glad that WotC has offered a public playtest, I think they took fan opinion TOO MUCH into account in some instances. (WotC has an R+D department for a reason; they need to have their own vision for the game; by trying to please everyone, I feel like they'll end up pleasing no-one.)

And I definitely think "Trickster" as an umbrella name has got to go...

 

[Frostmarrow]

They could tie the class groups to weapon types. Slashing warriors, Bludgeoning priests, Piercing rogues and Special-homing-area blast wizards. Assign classes accordingly. Make weapon type matter.

Slashing: Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin use swords, scimitars, and axes.

Piercing: Ranger, Rogue and Bard use spears, bows, and rapiers

Bludgeoning: Cleric, Druid, and Monk use maces, clubs, and fists.

Unarmed: Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer take pride in not carrying weapons at all. (Yes they do - don't argue.)

 

[hamakto]

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..

I honestly think think that this summary is a good start to the discussion. To be honest, I am a big fan of DnD history and keeping traditions alive from the old days because it is what makes DnD what it is. But on the flip side, we need to look at how things have morphed with editions over they years. In the early days of DnD, before skills became prevalent you needed to have different classes to bring abilities to players.

With the advent of 3e (and beyond), skills have been taking a more prominent role in blurring class abilities (at least for experts). What I see is that we really have three groupings of classes:

1. Warriors
2. Experts
3. Casters

There are sub-types to each of those categories (of course). Now why am I stating the obvious?

What is a Ranger?

going old school: Warrior, with some stealth and tracking skills, and a few very minor Druid Spells
going new school: Warrior with combat tricks (TWF and Ranged) , bonus to tracking skills, medium-high skill points, more spells. Those pre-built in combat tricks to make up for losing class identity.

This kills me to say this, but in 5e should the ranger just disappear as a class? To be honest, it is basically a warrior with certain skills. The spells are very minor and could be moved to encounter/once per day type abilities.

Just make it a warrior and add traits/background to the character to give the ranger special powers (i.e. tracking, etc). If they want to pick up minor druid powers, then the same or a second trait/background to dip into that as a minor ability.

Is it really worth an entire class? No. I know backgrounds and traits are supposed to be optional, but honestly you can simplify the game by making them core requirements and solve a huge amount of issues. Plus, if we replace class abilities we help prevent power creep in the game.

Take a look at the cleric. It is primarily a channeler type (divine). To compensate for a lesser spells selection they pick up the ability to use armor and/or weapons.

Does the druid need a separate class? It may... but a druid is a cleric that has a background tree that replaces half a dozen class abilities (or less) and worships a nature deity (i.e. limited spell list by deity).

A barbarian as written is really separate enough as a class that it would stand alone.

Sorcerer and Warlock would be stand alone as they use separate mechanics.

Now to just change direction a little bit, I would like to see the following breakdowns for classes:

Martial - Primary combat based abilities
Expert - Primary skill based abilities
Channeling (Divine) - Power comes from a 3rd party (deity, spirits, demons).
Essence/Mana (Arcane) - Power drawn from the world around the caster
Ki/Mentalist (Psion) - Power drawn from within

(note - primal and other power sources from 4e can fit into one of the 3 categories above)

Those five definitions are a better description of classes than what they are proposing. They clearly indicate what they are best at. What secondary abilities they have beyond that are not relevant to be honest.

So if we look at things as a primary / secondary focus:

Monk - Martial (unarmed) / psion
Ranger - Martial / expert
Paladin - Martial / divine
Bard - Expert / arcane

 

[Zaruthustran]

I agree with those who've observed that it's a bit late in the process to be talking about such a fundamental re-org. But they are talking about it, so:

It makes sense, to me, to group classes. It allows for some functional differentiation. A melee Warrior should be fundamentally different from a melee Trickster. That's my hope: that they take this as an opportunity to fundamentally differentiate those four classifications. Firstly into "Magic-users" (Mages and Priests) and "Weapon-users" (Warriors and Tricksters). The Paladin and Ranger should not get spells (as we know them in this current packet); they should instead get a selection of magical (or supernatural) abilities. Spells should be limited only to Mages and Priests.

Actually, I'd love it if only Mages got spells. And Priests instead used an entirely separate system of magic--a pet peeve is that Arcane spells and Divine spells work the exact same way. I'd prefer that Divine spells functioned as described: as magic granted by a higher power. I'd love it if Priests had to actually pay attention to their god's (or patron's) ethos, had to perform certain rituals, observe certain prohibitions, perform certain rites. That they had a "favor" score, much like the Warlock from the earlier packets. Now THAT would be something. THAT would make the Cleric something other than "a caster, like the Wizard, but has a spell list with Healing and without Fireball. And more hit points, and better weapons and armor, and can Channel Divinity."

Yes, I'd love for Warrior, Trickster, Mage, and Priest (or whatever final names are chosen) to behave fundamentally differently. If they're going to go through the trouble of introducing this classification, it should mean something.