Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Zaruthustran]

Another thought: it makes sense to classify based on how the class interacts with the world.

Warrior: applies self to others. Internal power. Hits things. Lots of direct damage abilities.
Trickster: applies others to self. External opportunity. Takes advantage of things. Lots of reaction abilities, or setup abilities (traps).
Mage: applies self's magic. Internal power. Blasts things. Lots of direct application of magic to the world.
Priest: applies others' magic. External beseeching. Mediates things. Conduit of magic; channels and redirects the world's magic.

Hmm... seeing some interesting parallels between warrior and mage, and trickster and priest. There might be something there.

Psionics would fit in where appropriate. A psion who used psionics to augment his own body or physical abilities would be a warrior. A psion who used psionics to affect the world would be a Mage. Druids would be priests--their power comes from nature, not from within. Rangers would likely be Tricksters; they take advantage of the environment. Barbarians would be Warriors--they apply themselves to the environment. Monks could fit in all four, depending on how Kung-fu-movie you wanted to get.

But man, these are some big-time changes. Way too late to be reformatting in such a way.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Also, unless some fairly strict limitations are put on spell lists and magical capabilities, I don't see how tricksters will be "the most flexible characters".

Well, now they have put skills back, I hope they expand vastly on what tricksters can do with them - and give a decent amount of skills some niche protection now they're no longer vaguely defined "ability checks". Not super hopeful on that, though...

 

[Li Shenron]

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

...

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...

Your post made me think: did we have "lists of every class that can use an item" in 3e, an edition that didn't have class groups?

It's understandable that a Magic Staff that casts arcane spells is usable only by mages.

But since when Boots of Quickness have been useable only by Rogues and Bards? Since when a Sword of Dobber would have been useable only by Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers, instead of anybody able to pick it up and swing it?

These are restrictions that don't exist at the moment, and AFAIK didn't exist back then even in AD&D 2e which indeed had class groups. Do we want to add a system that actually creates this restrictions, only for the purpose of making the system itself worth existing?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I've only read the first few pages, so others may (have) already said the same thing. If I read what Mike said right, most people didn't care much for the idea, but they're going ahead with it anyway. Well, add me to the list. But then, I'm one of those who really want to get rid of the Arcane/Divine divide in magic. Yep, the Trickster name sucks. And yeah, I noticed that he didn't say word one about Psions either. Not that I care one way or the other, but a lot of people do. In short, I think its a Bad Idea!

 

[Remathilis]

Your post made me think: did we have "lists of every class that can use an item" in 3e, an edition that didn't have class groups?

It's understandable that a Magic Staff that casts arcane spells is usable only by mages.

But since when Boots of Quickness have been useable only by Rogues and Bards? Since when a Sword of Dobber would have been useable only by Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers, instead of anybody able to pick it up and swing it?

These are restrictions that don't exist at the moment, and AFAIK didn't exist back then even in AD&D 2e which indeed had class groups. Do we want to add a system that actually creates this restrictions, only for the purpose of making the system itself worth existing?

Not so much in 3e, but in 2e...

1.) Certain magic rods, staves, and wands could only be used by certain classes (snake staves by priests, wands of fire by wizards, rod of lordly might by warriors)
2.) Some potions (potion of heroism) worked only for certain groups (warriors).
3.) Certain spells worked different depending on the recipient's strength (Strength spell; amount of Str gained was determined by class)
4.) Certain magical weapons (mace of disruption) had special abilities that only worked for certain groups (priests). Otherwise, they were just normal weapons.
5.) Some worked better AGAINST certain foes (Intelligent weapon special purpose, swords vs. magic-users) as well.
6.) There were a few that were unique in that they only worked for ONE class (holy avenger, staff of the woodlands) vs. the whole group.

So there were examples in earlier D&D, and a few carried over into 3e (usually as arcane- or divine-spellcaster only items). I wouldn't mind some return to "group exclusive" items like potions of heroism or warriors getting a bigger boost from the strength spell. It would add some flavor and encourage certain spells and items used to effect the best possible target vs. self-buffing the cleric, druid, or wizard into uberdom.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So there were examples in earlier D&D, and a few carried over into 3e (usually as arcane- or divine-spellcaster only items).

I'm not sure that any of those "class-exclusive items" can't be handled with prerequisites OTHER than class. ("If you have a Strength of 16+, the Potion of Heroism also does XYZ") These prerequisites would make the item more versatile and adaptable to different games, while still reinforcing the "Item X is SUPER GOOD for characters like Y!" benefit you get from that link.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure that any of those "class-exclusive items" can't be handled with prerequisites OTHER than class. ("If you have a Strength of 16+, the Potion of Heroism also does XYZ") These prerequisites would make the item more versatile and adaptable to different games, while still reinforcing the "Item X is SUPER GOOD for characters like Y!" benefit you get from that link.

Yeah, but that gets into problems like a fighter with a strength of 15 getting less benefit out of a potion of heroism than a cleric with a strength of 16.

Its easy to section off caster-items (a wand of fire only works for those who know fire-magic) but I don't want to give clerics and wizard access to every cool toy a fighter and rogue can get as well. I'm fine with some unique, group-class specific items that a caster can't use regardless of ability score or proficiency. Wizards get to dream of staves of power and clerics maces of disruption, let the fighter dream of vorpal swords and the rogue rapiers of puncturing.

 

[MoonSong]

Yeah, but that gets into problems like a fighter with a strength of 15 getting less benefit out of a potion of heroism than a cleric with a strength of 16.

Its easy to section off caster-items (a wand of fire only works for those who know fire-magic) but I don't want to give clerics and wizard access to every cool toy a fighter and rogue can get as well. I'm fine with some unique, group-class specific items that a caster can't use regardless of ability score or proficiency. Wizards get to dream of staves of power and clerics maces of disruption, let the fighter dream of vorpal swords and the rogue rapiers of puncturing.

Why would -in setting- a sword reject a soldier sorcerer who has good strength and has spent feats to be good in melee, what is the justification behind it? why a scholar fighter who has spent his feats into gettng spells and probably even his subclass too, not be allowed to use a pearl of power? in fiction the difference between a thief cleric (of thievery) and a priest rogue(thief) is very thin, why have a pointless gamist restriction that breaks the immersion? specially since it puts a strain on class design and compromises class identity?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] makes some very good points. Why add these class groups, if the only thing we get out of it is restrictions? That's the only thing they have talked about so far.

Having these class groups also looks to pidgin hole the classes:

We'll probably look at the monk's AC and boost its Hit Die to d10 if we categorize it as a warrior, or give it Expertise in a few skills if it's a trickster.

Is there any reason they shouldn't create a class that sits between the Fighter and the Rogue? Just because it doesn't fit into four arbitrarily defined groups, is not a good reason in my mind.

Prerequisits for feats and magic items is something I really dislike. I think magic items and feats should be made in such a way that they are most useful in the hands of some classes, but still useable for other classes, although the usefulness of them might be questionable.

Personally, I like having a well-rounded party with characters that are best at a certain aspect, but decent at several others. Prerequisits often make these kind of characters suboptimal OR you have to go through a bunch of hoops bending the system to get what you want. In 3.x I usually used a bunch of PrC's to create such a character, while in 4e I have used hybrids (that at least were 80% as good as a straight up character).

I really hope the try to rely as little as possible on preqrequisits, and instead create feats and magic items that vary in usefulness according to the character picking them up. Take the Whirlwind feat from 3.x. Instead of having 4 prerequisit feats, they could have said that you only got a maximum number of attacks equal your dexterity modifier. Typically, the feat was useful for str-based characters in full plate, so putting 14 in dex is a sacrifice, but it's useful. For a character with 18 dex it's very powerful.

 

[Minigiant]

The other benefit is multiclassing. Now you can refer to class groups instead of individual classes and fix broken future comboes without an errata each time a new class comes out.

When you multiclass into a warrior class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have 3 or more warrior levels.
When you multiclass and do not already have Extra Attack, you do not gain Extra attack until your warrior levels are 8 or greater or your character level is 11 or greater.
Your caster level is your mage and priest levels plus half your trickster and warrior levels, rounded down.