Yea, these are reminiscent of previous things but are not the same.
Primal for instance is more like how they are grouping spells.
Yeah, much like with PF2, the spell lists are more about power source.They aren't really either power source nor role, really. All four groupings are more...narrative structure.
The stated reason is that it enables feats and other subsystems to be restricted by grouping. Which seems reasonable to me.I agree that the nomenclature for the "divine" group is problematic, as you can't use divine as it refers to a power source, and that priest, cleric and mystic seem too narrowly defined for one reason or another.
That said, I'm not sure of the utility of grouping things into four superclasses, twelve classes and forty-eight subclasses in the first place; it seems to be more of an aesthetic conceit to achieve some kind of symmetry, rather than a practical one.
Well, they are testing for more than that, but none of this is set in stone.The same way the terms 'D&D Next' and 'One D&D' were/are being used for these playtest events but didn't/won't actually appear as the name of the game once published... there's always a chance that these spell groups and these class groups won't actually appear in the published documents either. We are still probably a year out from finalization... plenty of time for them to decide to keep all the classes on their own, all spells to be re-divided into individual class lists, and for feats to be individually assigned.
For all we know, all these class groups end up being are just their way of deciding which trio of classes appear in each playtest packet.
I bet that what we got for group names in the UA will be in the final product.I want to go on record as disliking the term "Experts", because aren't the other classes experts, too? It strikes me as a "working title" for a group of classes that they didn't know where else to put.
All of the group names are a bit imperfect. Every class should be an "Expert" at their role. Most classes are "Mages" (in the sense that they can cast magic). More than 3 classes can be considered "Warriors". And "Priest" doesn't really fit Paladin or Druid all that well, while I personally think that the Cleric would be better if renamed to "Priest" ("Clergy" might work better because it applies to people of all religious roles, but that's too close to "Cleric").I want to go on record as disliking the term "Experts", because aren't the other classes experts, too? It strikes me as a "working title" for a group of classes that they didn't know where else to put.
Expert is the historical term for non-magical NPC skillmonkies. See the NPC classes in Essentials Kit and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for it appearing in 5e: Warriors, Experts, and Spellcasters (that last of which had subclasses; Mages = Mage Group, Healers = Priest Group, and Thaumaturges are split up now because they were created essentially in 5e to represent the NPC charismatic generic arcane spellcaster that was something like bards, sorcerers, and warlocks).I want to go on record as disliking the term "Experts", because aren't the other classes experts, too? It strikes me as a "working title" for a group of classes that they didn't know where else to put.
For me its mainly the first one, where "mysticism" is in the context of "mystics" in the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu traditions, and referring to similar accounts among those adherents who try to describe their transcendent experience. The mystics tend to self-identify with each other, regardless of religious tradition, and each of them is intentionally going beyond the routines of their religious tradition.Yeah, I think it's mainly that second one - mystic and mystery derive from a Greek word for secret, usually used with secrets related to religious rites etc, just like you describe (in modern Greek it's spelt μυστήριον and pronounced mistEErion). Seems a good fit for the group