Legends & Lore: Clas Groups

[Mistwell]

When I've played with young new players (about a dozen over the course of the next playtest, some several times), no one has had difficulties choosing a class. If they don't know the word, a one-sentence explanation is all they need. This really is not a problem.

For you and your 12 experiences.

However, my experiences differ.

And, even when I read a new class for the first time, it would be helpful to know what base class it's supposed to be somewhat similar to. When I first saw the Avenger class I was thinking "where the heck does this fit"?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I don't think it's a problem, no. That nobody needs help choosing a class is not true, but I'd agree that such help is easily available in most cases.

But I agree with Mistwell's sentiment couple of posts above.


But focusing such worries on kids always feels off to me. I won't hesitate throwing a 12 year old a 300 page rulebook, but I'd never hand it over to an adult for fear he'd run away.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think it's a problem, no. That nobody needs help choosing a class is not true, but I'd agree that such help is easily available in most cases.

But I agree with Mistwell's sentiment couple of posts above.


But focusing such worries on kids always feels off to me. I won't hesitate throwing a 12 year old a 300 page rulebook, but I'd never hand it over to an adult for fear he'd run away.

Yeah by new players I don't necessarily mean kid with all the time in the world on his hands. I mean the married working adult with children who always wanted to give D&D a try but doesn't have the time to read a big rulebook.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Let's avoid mischaracterizing each others' positions, shall we.

I've given my dataset for this particular playtest and I've said it's not a problem for them. Your opinion is that it is. Fine --

but, to be clear, I'm not talking about "kid with all the time in the world on his hands". I'm talking about new rpg players who with no background or hangups, when given a choice, make it instinctually. None of them is reading any rulebook, let alone the imagined 300-page one.

Your concern about how a given class fits into an entire scheme? That is not a concern ANY new player faces.

And, since you want the opinions of married working adults, I can tell you that it's not a problem for at least some new players (x=3; i.e. all those I called up just now) who are in their first 4e campaign.

Am I saying that a new player can't share your anxieties about class choice and functionality? Of course not. But, in my experience, this is a trivial thing to overcome.

 

[Mistwell]

No, my 12-year old nephew perused the classes document and confidently chose Paladin (also perfect as it's a solo campaign).

When I've played with young new players (about a dozen over the course of the next playtest, some several times),

Let's avoid mischaracterizing each others' positions, shall we...but, to be clear, I'm not talking about "kid with all the time in the world on his hands". I'm talking about new rpg players

To be clear, Weather Report previously mentioned an example of a 12 year old, and you emphasized "young" in your post and now when challenged on it you changed it to be simply "new" and not "young new". I think you also said elsewhere you learned at a young adolescent or pre-adolescent age, correct? So explain to me again how we're mischaracterizing your position?

I'm talking about new rpg players who with no background or hangups, when given a choice, make it instinctually. None of them is reading any rulebook, let alone the imagined 300-page one.

Your concern about how a given class fits into an entire scheme? That is not a concern ANY new player faces.

It is when they come at the game first from a Basic edition which includes just four classes, and then they buy the Advanced edition with a whole lot more. Which was my point. It's how I came into the game, it's how a lot of people on this board came into the game, and it appears to be a big part of the WOTC plans for this new game.

And, since you want the opinions of married working adults, I can tell you that it's not a problem for at least some new players (x=3; i.e. all those I called up just now) who are in their first 4e campaign.

Ah, see previously I thought your "dozen" comment was referring to this playtest, not another edition of the game. I don't want to argue about whether there is something common to 4e classes that isn't there with 5e or not...I think it's probably more productive to focus on 5e experiences.

Am I saying that a new player can't share your anxieties about class choice and functionality? Of course not. But, in my experience, this is a trivial thing to overcome.

It's often the kind of difference that can be between picking up the game on impulse, or not. I really think the key method in the past in recruiting new players unattached to an existing group was the various Basic editions of the game. How thick the books are become relevant. How easy the thick books are to navigate and relate things back to previously understood concept from the thinner box set become relevant.

 

[Mistwell]

double post

 

[Kobold Stew]

Hi Mistwell --

I'm not sure this is productive. Strictly in the context of 5e: we both have anecdotal evidence, and yours differs from mine. I've found Next really easy to introduce to players who haven't played rpgs before. They haven't struggled choosing classes. And, in that context, I see no benefit to be gained from introducing Class Groups.

Viking Bastard's hypothetical worries

But Cleric? Paladin? What's that? What's the difference? Ranger, wa-huh? Druid, what like in Asterix? Etc.

just do not ring true to me.

I, like you, started with a Basic D&D years ago, and progressed. But that experience (no doubt romanticized by distance by both of us) is not really relevant to the discussion of 5e.

KS

 

[Mistwell]

I, like you, started with a Basic D&D years ago, and progressed. But that experience (no doubt romanticized by distance by both of us) is not really relevant to the discussion of 5e.

KS

It's absolutely relevant, as it appears to be the model 5e is following. To me, it seems obviously they've set the game up to create an easy Basic boxed set of the game, with no skills/backgrounds or feats and just one class from each of the four main class groups, all in a fairly thin set of rulebooks (or maybe just one book) along with dice and some sort of sample adventure. Other...comments from people being paid to consult for 5e but who are not on the design team itself...suggest (without outright saying it) this is indeed part of the plan.

So if the plan (as it seems to be) is to create a Basic boxed set of the game to sell in Toys R Us, Walmart, Target, K-Mart, toy stores, bookstores, and other stores like those, then past results from such a similar boxed set is relevant, and things that would assist in transitioning from such a Basic set to a more Advanced game are relevant.

Now imagine you learn the new game from a Boxed set you purchased as an impulse buy at Target, having heard about D&D from an Ad or news over the years or a Facebook post or whatever. You play it, and like it, and want more of that game and see the ad in the back for the Advanced edition. The Basic edition includes four classes, a Fighter [Warrior], a Cleric [Priest], a Thief [Rogue], and a Wizard [Mage]. You look at the Advanced edition and you see things like Barbarian [Warrior], Druid [Priest], Assassin [Rogue], and Sorcerer [Mage], along with a bunch of other classes that you don't recognize but they all have those tags after them that you do recognize from the Basic game.

That sense of familiarity, that the Advanced game is like the Basic game just with additional similar stuff, helps you make the decision to buy that Advanced game. It reduces the intimidation factor inherent in buying such a big book as opposed to the little book you already bought. It suggests the stuff you read in the bigger book will be similar enough to the stuff you already know that you won't be bogged down by thousands of new rules and details that are unfamiliar.

That, to me, is a huge advantage of using these classification tags. It might not help you transition, heck you probably won't ever play the Basic game. But it will help someone new to the hobby transition from the Basic to the Advanced books. And it will help again when they look at the supplements that have those tags as well. That makes it a useful tool for the game in general, though not necessarily helpful for you and your group.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks for this. I do understand what you are saying; I just do not agree.

 

[TrippyHippy]

<shrug>

I have never, in all my roleplaying years ever come across anyone who struggled to understand the Class system and be able to make choices regarding Class. I don't really see how the Class Groups really help newbie players - when given a list of new Classes beyond the 'core four', their eyes just usually open wider and they love the increased choice of exotic new Classes.

For me the problem with Class Groups is it creates a rod for your own back in terms of player dissent and dissonance. If I was asked to group the current Classes it would be something like:

Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Mages: Wizard (Sorcerer, Warlock/Witch)
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Monk
Whatever: Bard, Ranger, Rogue

The Sorcerer and Warlock/Witch I've left in brackets as we've not seen them in the final play packet, although we can assume that they'd be Mages should that be the grouping. The ones in italics highlight the problems. They're the ones people will debate about, in terms of which Class goes in which group, and/or highlight the problems of nomenclature.

Now I highlighted my groupings to illustrate that a) plenty of people would disagree with them, and b) if they choose to hardwire 'official' groupings that differ, then I'm always going to have dissonance with them. I'd always find a disconnect with Monks being portrayed as Warriors for example, because when I play them I still see them as being part of a religious order - albeit one based on personal development and asceticism rather than invoking external gods. As soon as you hardwire the groups you've lost a segment of the audience's consensus.

I read some people (presumably 4e fans) were calling for power sources to be brought back, but I'd have the same problem. I definitely do not see Monks as 'psychic' , or Bards as drawing from the same base 'Arcane' power as Wizards and Sorcerers, for example (I see Bards more as 'Primal'). Again, it's a disconnect for me. Yet, if we were to rearrange the power sources to my liking, other fans would disagree.

So, in short, I think the advantages of officially grouping Classes in no way outweighs the problems caused by implementing them. From the admittance of the designers the actual mechanical effect of having them is minimal anyway. So seriously, why bother creating a point to argue about for the sake of it? The Classes work fine as they are - let players group them in their own minds if they like.