Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pseudopsyche" data-source="post: 6193545" data-attributes="member: 54600">Actually, Mearls mentioned several goals of class groups in his article, but only one has received much attention.Personally, I find the last goal the most compelling. The archetypical party is a cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Yes, skilled players and a skilled DM could make a party of four wizards fun, but the classic party is the baseline for most published adventure material. How does an inexperienced gaming group know that their proposed party of paladin, druid, sorcerer, and bard covers all the bases for the starter adventure they just bought?Mearls went out of his way to portray the class groups as descriptive, not prescriptive. The groups exist as a way to talk about the classes, both for players and for future rules.I don't think Mearls is trying to pigeonhole the monk. He's trying to balance the monk against the other classes by seeing how it stacks up against the core four. How they improve the monk depends on whether they decide it should be more like a warrior or more like a trickster.</blockquote>