Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6196330" data-attributes="member: 6668292">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.This seems to fit what I know of 4e.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.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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification