Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6193332" data-attributes="member: 23484">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. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?345345-Legends-amp-Lore-Clas-Groups/page7&p=6193281&viewfull=1#post6193281" target="_blank">Defcon 1's thoughts</a>, 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.</blockquote>