Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Zireael]

I guess others have already mentioned this but anyway, Mike Mearls on Twitter has clarified that introducing class groups will not affect the design of classes themselves, i.e. they will not modify classes in order to shoehorn them into specific class groups.

That was my main worry about class groups, thus with that hopefully set for good, I'm not really worried anymore. The matter with magic items is still there, but it's definitely less important to me.

That's a very good thing.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, it is a good thing - but I still question what advantage they will get from grouping in this way. I just see it as a point that different gamers can argue about. If, for example, they decide that the Monk is a Warrior, then people who think it's more of a Rogue (Trickster?!) will disagree. So will those who think it's more of a Priest.

I guess what I'm saying is that game designers may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.

 

[Kobold Stew]

game designers may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.

Exactly. (and cf. post 73)

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]

Will you guys just get it over with and kiss already?

How's that for "Marginally Useful" and/or "Dismissive"?

That entirely depends on how good a kiss it is.

 

[Savage Wombat]

That entirely depends on how good a kiss it is.

Kisses are overpowered in 3.5.

 

[Kobold Stew]

...but they're a really useful encounter power in 4e. (Be thankful they're not a daily!).

 

[jrowland]

Well, it is a good thing - but I still question what advantage they will get from grouping in this way. I just see it as a point that different gamers can argue about. If, for example, they decide that the Monk is a Warrior, then people who think it's more of a Rogue (Trickster?!) will disagree. So will those who think it's more of a Priest.

I guess what I'm saying is that game designers may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.

One should also note that while "Monk" might be (from the designers internal notes) a "warrior", the "Ninja" in a future splatbook might very well be the "Trickster Monk" other players are looking for.

I think there is room for three monks: A warrior, trickster, and cleric version (my head can't seem to envision a mage monk...i keep getting Wu Jen which is just a flavor mage). However, I think the designers are right in that the classic D&D monk is probably more of a warrior (martial artist and all that) and that is a good start.

 

[TwoSix]

...but they're a really useful encounter power in 4e. (Be thankful they're not a daily!).

My half-elf managed to make it an at-will with Versatile Master, and it also does a slide 2 and makes the target fall prone. Charisma bonus for the win.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

For those who worried that class groups would be used to restrict access to many feats or items, we have some additional clarification from Rodney Thompson in today's Q&A: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131004

 

[Wicht]

For those who worried that class groups would be used to restrict access to many feats or items, we have some additional clarification from Rodney Thompson in today's Q&A: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131004

I get the feeling that they are still feeling their way along design wise. They seem to still be in the brainstorming stage, which I find a little surprising, considering the last player packet was already released.