Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[JamesonCourage]

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

Thanks for the link.

However, I'm not convinced, at all, how this is useful, still. If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"? If they're thinking about making entire races count as a class group, will things slip through the cracks? Will they have to make every background, domain, etc. describe what class group you fall into now? If a tricky Cleric domain doesn't say "you're a Trickster", you're not one, right?

I just don't see how this extra layer of mechanical presentation is helpful. And, again, this isn't me just disagreeing with it. I literally don't see what it adds, mechanically, that other things can't replace more efficiently.

 

[TrippyHippy]

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.

There are two things that come to mind from reading this. Firstly, much of the debates regarding Classes, or expanding Classes can simply be put towards later supplements - and this also includes things like Races too (do we really need to include Kender in the core, etc). If we have problems implementing alternative Magic-Using Classes (Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, etc) in the core, then simply wait and put them into an expanded magic supplement were alternatives could be presented.

The second thing is that from your own interpretation, the Monk is really an amalgamation of different aspects - Warrior, Trickster, Priest - that makes it folly to attempt to categorise it as one thing or another. So why do it?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

However, I'm not convinced, at all, how this is useful, still. If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"?

I'm no longer in the game of trying to convince anybody of anything in this thread, but I will at least point out that in the latest packet, the term "arcane magic user" isn't explicitly defined. Unless I missed something, the class description for Mage (which will likely be renamed back to Wizard) begins with "As a student of arcane magic," and it has a class feature called Arcane Tradition. Is this enough for the Wizard to be an "arcane magic user"? What if they change the flavor text and rename "Arcane Tradition" to "Wizardry School"? I suppose they could introduce the 4E notion of power source, but how different is "Power Source: Arcane" from "Class Group: Mage"?

In my opinion, the answer to the last question is that 4E drew a formal distinction between Power Source and Role. Monday's article reveals the current thinking to be that "mages" are physically vulnerable, while "warriors" are the toughest. Even in 4E we quickly learned that arcane defenders had a splash of controller, and divine defenders had a splash of leader. In other words, some power sources were oriented toward particular roles.

Personally, I'd rather they bring back Role and Power Source as independent labels (and be more disciplined regarding the temptation to fill in the matrix for its own sake), but we know a substantial part of the player base strongly associates e.g. healing with divine magic. In this sense, saying that priests' magic "can heal or protect their allies" is acknowledging a property of the standard D&D world, for better or for worse.

Anyway, as a design element, class groups present tradeoffs. Sure, maybe a cleric of a war god should qualify for a "dwarven defender" prestige class on the basis of having proficiency with all martial weapons. But if the prestige class required "warrior" instead of martial weapon proficiencies, then a monk can qualify for "dwarven defender". (Remember that we don't have attack bonus anymore.)

Anyway, I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm convinced that "class groups" will necessarily be a positive contribution to the game. We really haven't seen enough to know. It's an idea they've floated. I can see some merits and some risks. As some people say: As always, play what you like.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

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.

They are definitely not afraid to consider new design elements, that's for sure. But "class groups" in particular seems less about changing the current designs of the classes (the core of the game) and more about choosing how to express that design in a way that is the most accessible both to players and to future rules content.

 

[jrowland]

The second thing is that from your own interpretation, the Monk is really an amalgamation of different aspects - Warrior, Trickster, Priest - that makes it folly to attempt to categorise it as one thing or another. So why do it?

Well, my interpretation is that there are a lot of different interpretations of monk. Why only present one? Because that one is the most common. The other ones can come later.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I suppose they could introduce the 4E notion of power source, but how different is "Power Source: Arcane" from "Class Group: Mage"?

I don't like this, either. It's just as bad to me. In 5e, when you multi-class into multiple classes, are you part of those class groups, now? Would the same be true of power sources, if they were used? I just don't see what these add.

However, I can definitely see what "can only be wielded by someone who can cast arcane magic" or "can only be wielded by someone capable of casting 3rd level arcane spells" adds. As the designers, if you want a magic wand of fireballs to only be used by arcane magic users (because you think it fits their archetype the best), I think it makes a lot more sense to write that, rather than come up with a "class group" for mages.

In my opinion, the answer to the last question is that 4E drew a formal distinction between Power Source and Role. Monday's article reveals the current thinking to be that "mages" are physically vulnerable, while "warriors" are the toughest. Even in 4E we quickly learned that arcane defenders had a splash of controller, and divine defenders had a splash of leader. In other words, some power sources were oriented toward particular roles.

This seems to fit what I know of 4e.

Personally, I'd rather they bring back Role and Power Source as independent labels (and be more disciplined regarding the temptation to fill in the matrix for its own sake), but we know a substantial part of the player base strongly associates e.g. healing with divine magic. In this sense, saying that priests' magic "can heal or protect their allies" is acknowledging a property of the standard D&D world, for better or for worse.

I don't mind role in 4e, but I don't mind seeing it gone. I like power source just fine, but I think they need to be careful with it. I wouldn't object to it being in 5e, though.

Anyway, as a design element, class groups present tradeoffs. Sure, maybe a cleric of a war god should qualify for a "dwarven defender" prestige class on the basis of having proficiency with all martial weapons. But if the prestige class required "warrior" instead of martial weapon proficiencies, then a monk can qualify for "dwarven defender". (Remember that we don't have attack bonus anymore.)

Yeah... I see basically only downsides from adding class groups. I think everything they can do can be better served through other methods. I can't think of a single thing that should have a particular class group as a requirement that wouldn't better be served by something else. The class groups they've presented are just too broad.

Anyway, I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm convinced that "class groups" will necessarily be a positive contribution to the game. We really haven't seen enough to know. It's an idea they've floated. I can see some merits and some risks. As some people say: As always, play what you like.

Yeah, we'll definitely see on the implementation, as we haven't seen any real hard examples yet. What I've heard snippets of them (the Thief Lord only wanting to see Tricksters, for example), I don't like. But, it's early, yet. As always, play what you like

 

[GX.Sigma]

Am I the only one who likes the idea of class groups?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think you might be! even today's Q and A seemed to back pedal a bit.

I suspect that there are a lot of us who could be convinced, if we felt there was a concrete advantage for the player with their implementation. for me, it adds a level that accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done in a more straight forward way (always recognizing it is just a concept at present, and there may be hidden depths when it is implemented.)

 

[Zireael]

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.

I agree that the labels should be DM-side, not player-side.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I've got no problem with them. They were around in 2E which I played extensively and they were the least of the broken bits, if at all.

Personally I'd only use them when constructing adventures and I'm sure some players would use them when deciding what character to play. If the party consisted of say 3 tricksters and a mage, I'd skew the adventure design in that general direction. There's often a team player person who's happy to play the priest if that's a role not yet represented. I don't like pushing that button but like I say, a team player style person will go that direction & I'm loathe to dampen enthusiasm.

I imagine some resistance is springing from experience with the failed 4E striker role. But the character damage output is fairly well distributed across all classes, so not much to fear there.