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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TrippyHippy" data-source="post: 6197676" data-attributes="member: 27252"><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, PaladinMages: Wizard (Sorcerer, Warlock/Witch)Priests: Cleric, Druid, MonkWhatever: Bard, Ranger, RogueThe 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.</blockquote>

Verification