OneDnD UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior

[Minigiant]

Are those all confirmed officially as having those keywords? Or are you just saying that the paladin is very warriorlike and you would consider him to be both a warrior and a priest?

The Ranger is a Expert but counts as a Warrior for fighting style feats.
The UA says the Paladin a priest. The 5e Paladin had fighting style.

2+2

 

[Maxperson]

The Ranger is a Expert but counts as a Warrior for fighting style feats.
The UA says the Paladin a priest. The 5e Paladin had fighting style.

2+2

Not necessarily. The ranger gets it as a case of specific beats general. He specifically as a class ability has access to fighting styles and is also specifically NOT a warrior, so the ranger does not have access to any future warrior group only feats that are not fighting styles. I expect that the paladin will be similarly limited.

 

[Minigiant]

Not necessarily. The ranger gets it as a case of specific beats general. He specifically as a class ability has access to fighting styles and is also specifically NOT a warrior, so the ranger does not have access to any future warrior group only feats that are not fighting styles. I expect that the paladin will be similarly limited.

My first post was before the UA came out.
The Paladin will likely be like you said. It will count as a Warrior for Fighting styles.
It and the Ranger might end up counting more of the Warrior because Crawford suggested that magic items might have group requirements and I can't see Paldins and Rangers not getting magic swords, axes,and warhammers going over well at all.

 

[cbwjm]

My first post was before the UA came out.
The Paladin will likely be like you said. It will count as a Warrior for Fighting styles.
It and the Ranger might end up counting more of the Warrior because Crawford suggested that magic items might have group requirements and I can't see Paldins and Rangers not getting magic swords, axes,and warhammers going over well at all.

I'd say that it is highly unlikely that the items you've called out will have any form of restrictions on who can use them anyway. More likely it will be items such as the staff of power or a staff of healing having restrictions, magical arms and armour, not so much.

 

[Maxperson]

My first post was before the UA came out.
The Paladin will likely be like you said. It will count as a Warrior for Fighting styles.
It and the Ranger might end up counting more of the Warrior because Crawford suggested that magic items might have group requirements and I can't see Paldins and Rangers not getting magic swords, axes,and warhammers going over well at all.

I don't think that they are going to gate magic weapons behind the warrior group. The Rod of Lordly Might, though...

 

[Parmandur]

Could they do something crazy and make Paladins full casters?

They won't do anything that breaks compatibility with 5E Subclasses, so...no.

 

[Parmandur]

I'd say that it is highly unlikely that the items you've called out will have any form of restrictions on who can use them anyway. More likely it will be items such as the staff of power or a staff of healing having restrictions, magical arms and armour, not so much.

I don't think that they are going to gate magic weapons behind the warrior group. The Rod of Lordly Might, though...

There is precedent for thisnin AD&D, however. It wouldn't surprise me if they at least test it out.

 

[Maxperson]

There is precedent for thisnin AD&D, however.

I don't remember that. A magic dagger could be used by anyone. The only reason wizards could not use magic swords is that they could not use swords. Not because they were warrior only.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't remember that. A magic dagger could be used by anyone. The only reason wizards could not use magic swords is that they could not use swords. Not because they were warrior only.

True, but it would be a way for WotC to reinforce trope space, by making the Warriors the ones who can use the signature magical weapons, in spite of basic Proficiency being way easier to pick up than in AD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

True, but it would be a way for WotC to reinforce trope space, by making the Warriors the ones who can use the signature magical weapons, in spite of basic Proficiency being way easier to pick up than in AD&D.

I don't think they will do that. You might see things like the Rod of Lordly Might or Vorpal Sword get gated, but not magic weapons in general and not all special magic weapons.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think they will do that. You might see things like the Rod of Lordly Might or Vorpal Sword get gated, but not magic weapons in general and not all special magic weapons.

For sure, I would expect it to be on a case by case basis: buy offering Warrior only magic weapons is one tool for DMs to use.

 

[cbwjm]

There is precedent for thisnin AD&D, however. It wouldn't surprise me if they at least test it out.

Very limited though and for very specific items like the holy avenger, which is honestly fine to still restrict its full power to the paladin. But otherwise, it seems unlikely that weapons and armour will be generally restricted, it'll be for more unique items like the avenger sword.

 

[Yaarel]

I am ok with "Devoted".

Any thoughts about "Adherent"?

An adherent and "to adhere" are terms I use in everyday speech when referring various kinds of spiritual communities.



This D&D group of classes doesnt need to be theistic. It doesnt even need to be religious. But it does need to be "sacred".

For example, the Paladin is a Paladin because of making an oath. Whether this oath is personal or part of a community, the life-altering commitment takes on a defacto sacred status that all things revolve around. The "Devotion Paladin" is literally "Devoted".

Xanathars focuses on the "Cosmic Force". This approach is spot on for the Cleric class and to implement this approach generates a spiritual community that exhibits verisimilitude within the setting. A "Force" is a meaningful influence and a powerful symbol. The Force can be different things in different communities. Each of the Cleric domains is in fact a Cosmic Force. The Force might be consciousness, or light, or love, or war, or the quest for knowledge, or life itself. The community understands why the Force is powerful, why this Force is the deepest aspect of their reality, why their community depends on it. They respect it and dedicate their lives to it.

The Cosmic Force is exactly what the Cleric class is about. But it is also what the Druid class and Paladin class are about. Often, for a Druid community, nature is the Force, and for a Cleric community a deity is the Force. But the reverse can be true. Some Druid communities dedicate themselves to a deity of nature, and some Cleric communities are nontheistic engage a sacred in a different way. Meanwhile, for the Paladin, the Cosmic Force is some cause that is worth fighting for.

 

[Tutara]

Priest is used for a whole lot of religions current and past, so it does fit as a general term for a religious class category.

Apologies, I’ve not expressed myself clearly.

I don’t particularly like priest exactly because it sounds like you need to be an ordained minister that is part of an organised religion (and for me invokes a specific religion due to where I live, which I happily concede is personal bias, the same as any other opinion). It doesn’t fit the image of the paladin very well, for example, as you yourself note.

I would rather a term divorced from religion that still conveys faith. I liked the suggestion of Mystic, but there have been some other good ones too. That said, I’ll not lose sleep over it.

 

[darjr]

Never mind. Not being a religious person I think I’ll stay out of this debate.

 

[Maxperson]

Apologies, I’ve not expressed myself clearly.

I don’t particularly like priest exactly because it sounds like you need to be an ordained minister that is part of an organised religion (and for me invokes a specific religion due to where I live, which I happily concede is personal bias, the same as any other opinion). It doesn’t fit the image of the paladin very well, for example, as you yourself note.

I would rather a term divorced from religion that still conveys faith. I liked the suggestion of Mystic, but there have been some other good ones too. That said, I’ll not lose sleep over it.

That's clearer, thanks. I still disagree, but more because the vast majority of priests in the game are clerics of organized religions. I think it better to just call them priests, but write into the classes that they don't have to be part of organized religions or be referred to as priests.

 

[Lojaan]

I like 'divine' instead of priest.

It says clearly that they are linked to the gods, but it doesn't imply an occupation, or organisation.

 

[Marandahir]

I like 'divine' instead of priest.

It says clearly that they are linked to the gods, but it doesn't imply an occupation, or organisation.

Are Druids Divine and not Primal?

We get into tricky keyword territory here, due to the semi-conflation of role and power source in these class groups.

 

[Parmandur]

Are Druids Divine and not Primal?

We get into tricky keyword territory here, due to the semi-conflation of role and power source in these class groups.

They aren't really either power source nor role, really. All four groupings are more...narrative structure.

 

[Lojaan]

Are Druids Divine and not Primal?

We get into tricky keyword territory here, due to the semi-conflation of role and power source in these class groups.

Ugh you are right.

How about 'devout'?