# UA Groups: Expert, Mage, Priest, Warrior



## Yaarel (Sep 29, 2022)

The playtests organize the classes into four "groups":
expert, mage, priest, warrior.

These groups resemble the 2e groups:
rogue, wizard, priest, warrior.

Even so, the UA groups behave like 4e roles, in the sense of a wellrounded party will have at least one class from each group. Exactly what each group brings to the party remains unclear, and is unlikely to be the 4e roles. For example, the UA warrior group will probably combine the 4e defender and striker roles, and perhaps have aspects of leader and controller roles as well. The UA expert group will all have the Expertise mechanic to improve skill proficiency. Presumably there is more to the expert group as well. At least some feats will have a group as a prerequisite. So, these feats will also reflect the mechanics and narratives that typify the classes in the expert group.

The plan so far is, the 2024 Players Handbook will have twelve classes and forty-eight subclasses. Possibly, there will three classes per group in this Players Handbook. The expert group will include the following classes: Bard, Ranger, Rogue. The Artificer will also be an expert class but it will not be in the Players Handbook.

Judging by what we know from the UA announcement, and comparing to the 2e groups. Interestingly, instead of a "2e warrior", the Ranger will be 2024 "expert".

[Edit]: Now that the UA is out, here are the groups.










Spoiler: Earlier text



The 2024 Players Handbook groups will probably look like the following:

Expert (2e Rogue): Rogue, Bard, Ranger
Mage (2e Wizard): Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock (?)
Priest (2e Priest): Cleric, Druid (?), Monk (?)
Warrior (2e Warrior): Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin (?)

The Ranger as an expert is a surprise, a pleasant one.  Where the question marks are may also be surprises. Some forumers suggest swapping the Paladin and Monk. But who knows? Perhaps the Druid is a mage and the Warlock is a priest? We will see.



Regarding base classes, the expert group currently includes: non-caster, part-caster, full-caster. This probably wont parallel the other groups, but it suggests a group doesnt especially relate to spellcasting in itself.

In addition to the Artificer, any hypothetical classes such as Warlord, Psion, and Swordmage would add to the list of classes beyond the Players Handbook, and each correlate with one of the four groups.

Mention your hopes and fears about these four groups.


----------



## Leatherhead (Sep 29, 2022)

I could see the case for Warlock fitting into the priest group. Mostly to differentiate them from Sorcerers, who are otherwise uncomfortably close to each other in terms of theming.  On the other hand, I kind of want to see some grid filling, putting a full caster, half caster,  and a "martial" into each group.

Monk could be a warrior, maybe. IF they decide the change it up significantly to better fit the role.


----------



## Baumi (Sep 29, 2022)

Are the Names confirmed yet? I know that Expert and Warrior was mentioned, but I don't remember the other ones. And I would rather see Arcane and Divine than Mage and Priest, which sounds too specific to me.

Sadly the Video confirmed that the Artificier is not in the new Player Handbook, but at least he is more integrated now.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 29, 2022)

Baumi said:


> Are the Names confirmed yet? I know that Expert and Warrior was mentioned, but I don't remember the other ones. And I would rather see Arcane and Divine than Mage and Priest, which sounds too specific to me.



Yes, the names are confirmed. Jeremy Crawford mentioned "Experts, Warriors, Priests, and Mages" in the video.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 29, 2022)

Experts: Bard*&, Ranger**, Rogue^&, (Artificer&^)
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter^, Monk
Mages: Sorcerer%, Wizard, Warlock
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin**


*Will count as Mage as well
**Will count as Warrior as well
&Will have subclasses that counts as Warrior
^Will have subclasses that count as Mage
%Will have subclasses that count as Priest


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 29, 2022)

Leatherhead said:


> I could see the case for Warlock fitting into the priest group. Mostly to differentiate them from Sorcerers, who are otherwise uncomfortably close to each other in terms of theming.  On the other hand, I kind of want to see some grid filling, putting a full caster, half caster,  and a "martial" into each group.
> 
> Monk could be a warrior, maybe. IF they decide the change it up significantly to better fit the role.



I strongly agree o. Warlock, it very much does not belong I. The caster group.  I could see it going in priest or warrior depending on how they structure the groups & the warlock class. As a gm it's very frustrating seeing warlock claim so much of the wizard & sorcerer themes & fluff on top of their own while doing the same thing with the spells


----------



## Krachek (Sep 29, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Experts: Bard*&, Ranger**, Rogue^&, (Artificer&^)
> Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter^, Monk
> Mages: Sorcerer%, Wizard, Warlock
> Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin**
> ...



That is more realistic, and if we add multi classing we will have more than half the party that will qualify in two or more groups! So the concept of niche for each character will collapse easily.
The concept is nice, but it will become a loose and minor tool really fast.


----------



## tetrasodium (Sep 29, 2022)

Krachek said:


> That is more realistic, and if we add multi classing we will have more than half the party that will qualify in two or more groups! So the concept of niche for each character will collapse easily.
> The concept is nice, but it will become a loose and minor tool really fast.




They were mentioned as being used for feat prerequisites.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are used to minimize the front loaded slingshot power jumps that comes with multiclassing similar to the already present proficiency differences for starting with a class & multiclassing into it but for abilities rather than just skills. It would render that gating almost pointless if you had classes where each level counted as a generic level in two groups. 

 Crawford covered the classes pulling from different pools though.  In on my phone so can't give specific quote but... The thing he said was something along the lines of how the bard and ranger each pull their own unique blend of bits from the warrior mage and priest groups.

Thankfully I don't think we are going to see a continuation of 5e's "I'm a full caster too so should be treated with the same lore perks as a wizard with things that involve esoteric arcane stuff _and_ be allowed to shed that to be treated like a bsrd/ranger when we come across esoteric bsrd/ranger stuff or things that would be downsides to wizards".  Instead you might see "well as a 2/3 mage progression and a level ten bard does my mage 3 help me with this?" .Ranger would be the same but I'm guessing priest given they are historically divine casters.  I could see certain archetype that lean deeper into casting bumping that to 2/3 with occasional plus one jumps or maybe even 1/2 progression. 

 Anything much more than 2/3 however should be a mage or priest pool class with a fraction of warrior or expert stuff. Niche archetypes that lean more into caster can pull specific bits at specific levels like 3.x bonus feats but there is no reason to give too much access to the pool on a generic level.  Doing otherwise would result in the same "nobody can really have nice things because everyone eose has good enough of that area too & there is no room for the nice things to have opportunity costs" problems that ultimately plague so much of 5e


----------



## Gorck (Sep 29, 2022)

This is my prediction as to how they will be assigned:

Experts: Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
Mages: Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock
Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin

I suspect the Artificer will be an Expert, and I can also see a 4th class in the other three groups: Warlord in Warriors, Psion in Mages, and Shaman in Priests.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 29, 2022)

Four class groups eh? If that's the direction we're going in, I'd expect the following:

To allow for more differentiation across existing weapon types, modifiers for each type of weapon against each type of armor will be calculated.

To deal with excess HP problems, level caps on damage for spells will be removed. Also, overgods' HP will be capped at 400 and existing creatures' HP revised downward to match.

To limit multiclassing exploits, characters taking a new class will be required to forfeit all class abilities associated with existing classes until those have been surpassed by the new class. As an optional rule, bards will be required to obtain levels in fighter and thief first to reflect their martial and roguish abilities. This will also cut down on players attempting to sing at the game table.

In response to complaints about death saves making the game too easy, characters will be 'unconscious' at 0 HP, 'dying' at -1 to -9 HP, and 'dead' at -10 HP.

To maintain parity among classes, to-hit bonuses will be calculated through a class- and level-dependent formula abbreviated as Targeting Helpers Averaged Compensation 0, with the 0 serving as a mnemonic baseline against which all classes are measured.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Sep 29, 2022)

I am more confused about where to put monk as it is hard to place.


----------



## hipster_benches (Sep 29, 2022)

I'm guessing all the Priests will have Channel Divinity. I don't really see the Warlock fitting into that, so I think the Priests will be Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. They will probably rework Channel Divinity to be useable proficiency bonus times per long rest (Paladin might be half proficiency bonus times per long rest). Then Wild Shape (and everything that uses Wild Shape) will be changed to be a Channel Divinity option for Druids.

Likewise, I'm guessing all the Warriors will have a Fighting Style and get Extra Attack. For Monk, this might afford some versatility in how they play. I could see Monks getting to choose from Dueling, Blind Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting. Hopefully Monks also get bumped up to a d10 hit die.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 29, 2022)

No need to guess, it's published


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 29, 2022)

Based on those groups, what I see happening is:

Paladin: more focus on divine buffing/auras, etc.  Less damage dealing
Monk: more KI abilities and points to fuel increase in damage.  Perhaps instead of damage, their combat prowess comes in stunlocks and other battlefield control features.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 29, 2022)

They're bringing back the divine/primal/arcane trichotomy from 4e, eh? (Of course 4e had a few more power sources too.)

It's just interesting how these things keep cycling around.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 29, 2022)

The term "priest" is problematic, because it ethnocentrically specifies theism in the context of a temple or church. For example, there is a reason why the sages of Jewish "rabbi" and Muslim "imam" avoid term priest. Likewise a nontheistic animistic "shaman" avoids the term priest, as does a Buddhist "monk".

A more multicultural term is "clergy", which is any official religious function, including priest, teacher, psychic, sibling/monk/nun, and so on.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 29, 2022)

They need a word that isn't 'cleric'. It's not clear paladins _are_ clergy, which are formal leaders within established religions. A paladin could easily be following a solitary path of dedication, and a druid could be protecting the forest all by themselves. Of course, 'priest' is even more specific.

'Monks' really ought to be 'martial artists', though--it's an old reference to Shaolin monks from the 1970s that really doesn't apply to most monastic groups (which are much closer to clerics in D&D terms).


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 29, 2022)

This sounds familiar.  It wasn't that long ago that I was arguing for only having 4 classes and making everything else a subclass.

EDIT:  Found it.  Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.








						D&D 5E - Challenge: Invent a PHB Class List with 6 Classes
					

Warrior Rogue Priest Mage Psion   Basically like 2E. Everything else is an MC or subclass    Could boil it down to 3.   Expert Spellcaster Warrior




					www.enworld.org
				











						Revised 6E prediction thread
					

Yes, there have been many prediction threads about 6e in the past.  This thread isn't mean to predict when 6e will come out, but when it does, what changes do you expect to see based on what you've seen WoTC do in the past few years in regards to errata, rules changes, design directions, etc...




					www.enworld.org
				











						D&D General - Class or Subclass importance
					

I don't think parent classes are bad. However I don't think all the common expanded archetype in Modern D&D can fit into 3 or 4 parent classes without glut and bloat.  Monks, alchemists, tinkers, beastmasters, tacticians, scholars, jaguars, and artificers don't fit the fighter/caster/thief nor...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## squibbles (Sep 30, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> [...] Mention your hopes and fears about these four groups. [...]



Will do!

Hope: That when they say warriors are "masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds", they mean it and intend to have that be a thing that distinguishes those classes as opposed to "these are classes without expertise or spellcasting". _ESPECIALLY_ so for monks.

Fear: That these are ad hoc groups rather than coherent categories--that, for example, paladins, rangers, and fighters will have far more in common mechanically and in-setting than, say, paladins and druids, such that anytime there is a cool magic item or feat for 'warrior classes' there will be a little disclaimer that says rangers and paladins can use it too. And, inversely, that there won't be many cool magic items or feats for 'priest classes' because, thematically, druids don't have much in common with clerics and paladins.



hipster_benches said:


> I'm guessing all the Priests will have Channel Divinity. I don't really see the Warlock fitting into that, so I think the Priests will be Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. They will probably rework Channel Divinity to be useable proficiency bonus times per long rest (Paladin might be half proficiency bonus times per long rest). Then Wild Shape (and everything that uses Wild Shape) will be changed to be a Channel Divinity option for Druids.
> 
> Likewise, I'm guessing all the Warriors will have a Fighting Style and get Extra Attack. For Monk, this might afford some versatility in how they play. I could see Monks getting to choose from Dueling, Blind Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting, Interception, Thrown Weapon, and Unarmed Fighting. Hopefully Monks also get bumped up to a d10 hit die.





Sacrosanct said:


> Based on those groups, what I see happening is:
> 
> Paladin: more focus on divine buffing/auras, etc.  Less damage dealing
> Monk: more KI abilities and points to fuel increase in damage.  Perhaps instead of damage, their combat prowess comes in stunlocks and other battlefield control features.



While you guys' predictions make sense (and I would likely enjoy such changes) I am quite skeptical that WotC would make this degree of changes in the new rules (even though it's not a lot). Judging by what we've seen, the classes in the expert group don't differ a lot from their current iterations--features have been moved around, modified, and rationalized, but not many features have been added that are new or conceptually different. The ranger for example, had already gotten expertise via the Tasha's revisions, though it went by a different name.

I suspect paladins, for example, will be very nearly the same as they are currently; just as fighty as fighters, but with some features renamed, moved around, or made to be more similar to other features (i.e. proficiency times per day, once on your turn only, etc.).

I look forward to being proved wrong!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> This sounds familiar.  It wasn't that long ago that I was arguing for only having 4 classes and making everything else a subclass.
> 
> EDIT:  Found it.  Turns out, I've been advocating for this for a while now.
> 
> ...



This isn't exactly the same. The classes within the different class groups have some pretty major differences: hit die, different spell progression (for the classes that get spells), and most class features being different just to name a few.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The term "priest" is problematic, because it ethnocentrically specifies theism in the context of a temple or church. For example, there is a reason why the sages of Jewish "rabbi" and Muslim "imam" avoid term priest. Likewise a nontheistic animistic "shaman" avoids the term priest, as does a Buddhist "monk".
> 
> A more multicultural term is "clergy", which is any official religious function, including priest, teacher, psychic, sibling/monk/nun, and so on.



I doubt there are nearly enough people with that specific objection to make a difference to WotC.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I doubt there are nearly enough people with that specific objection to make a difference to WotC.



WotC cannot preach multicultural "inclusivity" with one breath, then with the next breath say, "F- you, Non-Euro religions!"


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> WotC cannot preach multicultural "inclusivity" with one breath, then with the next breath say, "F- you, Non-Euro religions!"



You can argue that they shouldn't, but they certainly _can_.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 30, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This isn't exactly the same. The classes within the different class groups have some pretty major differences: hit die, different spell progression (for the classes that get spells), and most class features being different just to name a few.



Well no, but I never was very good at seeing the future...


----------



## Horwath (Sep 30, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Experts: Bard*&, Ranger**, Rogue^&, (Artificer&^)
> Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter^, Monk
> Mages: Sorcerer%, Wizard, Warlock
> Priests: Cleric, Druid, Paladin**
> ...



Barbarian could have a subclass that is an expert: Totem barbarian with extra skills at 6th level and maybe sooner. Expertise at 10th level.


----------



## Tutara (Sep 30, 2022)

I am not a massive fan of ‘priest’ - for me, it’s like calling them rabbis or vicars, because the word is the word for an ordained member in a specific real world religion. I’d prefer a term that relates to faith or devotion that doesn’t invoke either Father Ted or a need to be part of an organised religion. Trouble is, I can’t think of anything I like - devotee? Bit naff. Zealot? Utterly perjorative. Hmmm.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 30, 2022)

Tutara said:


> I am not a massive fan of ‘priest’ - for me, it’s like calling them rabbis or vicars, because the word is the word for an ordained member in a specific real world religion. I’d prefer a term that relates to faith or devotion that doesn’t invoke either Father Ted or a need to be part of an organised religion. Trouble is, I can’t think of anything I like - devotee? Bit naff. Zealot? Utterly perjorative. Hmmm.



Mystic - see Starfinder


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Mystic - see Starfinder



Mystics are specifically religious people who seek spiritual truth _outside_ of organized religion, though.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 30, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Mystics are specifically religious people who seek spiritual truth _outside_ of organized religion, though.



Actually, no. The meaning of "mystic" is not that narrow. It does deal with divine experiences, which may or may not be outside of organized religion. The Oracle of Delphi, for example, was a female mystic who was a part of the organized religious and cultic practices of the ancient Hellenes.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Actually, no. The meaning of "mystic" is not that narrow. It does deal with divine experiences, which may or may not be outside of organized religion. The Oracle of Delphi, for example, was a female mystic who was a part of the organized religious and cultic practices of the ancient Hellenes.



Ah, thank you. I did not know that.

I guess we still don't have a defined term, though. It's tricky to come up with something culture-neutral because religious practitioners are such a huge part of culture, and differ a lot from culture to culture.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 30, 2022)

In D&D though, Mystic means Psionics. I'd very much expect that if they create a new Psionic class later on, it would be in the Priest group, and be called a Mystic. 

I HIGHLY doubt they're going to drop Priest, unfortunately. I'd personally just go with Healer.

Also, I lament the loss of the Thaumaturge.

In the Sidekick classes, we have Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster - but there are subclasses for these. Expert's subclasses are essentially which saving throw they are proficient in (and thus likely are focused on for their skill monkeying) - Dex, Int, or Cha. So, Artisan, Bookish, or Face. Warrior subclasses are Attacker or Defender (roughly equivalent 4e Striker and Defender roles). 

Meanwhile, Spellcaster subclasses are Mage, Healer, and Thaumaturge - Int, Wis, and Cha, respectively, as well as Wizard, Cleric/Druid, Bard/Warlock spell lists. These are the equivalent to the Arcane Spell List / Mage Class Group, Divine & Primal Spell Lists / Priest Class Group, and a missing Spell List / Missing Class Group. 

I've been frustrated since 2015 when they gave the 4e Swordmage spells in SCAG to just Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. That design was carried over to their updates in 2019's TCoE. But clearly, TO WOTC, Mage & Arcane mean specifically those three classes. But clearly Bards are Arcane because they've been Arcane since 3e kinda, so we'll give them access to just that spell list… but give them some bonus healing spells and access to other spells of their choice at Paragon levels… this does allow warrior Bards to get the Swordmage spells (assuming they make it into the 2024 PHB). But I think it really would make more sense in general to create a Thaumaturge spell list and let Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks access it, while Wizards and Artificers use the Mage spell list. Maybe these 4 class groups are forced chassis that causes more problems than it solves - akin to the power source x party role matrix in 4e. 

Actually, this is more like how 4e turned Alignment into a line from a grid than the 4e character grid - roles and power sources are getting confused and forced together in weird ways. I think class groups COULD work as long as they really don't try to Grid fill. Grid Filling is the danger here - where you want your spreadsheets to look balanced so you move options around into places that don't make sense for those options and thus restrict them from their archetype's fun.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

Except in BECMI D&D, where 'mystic' meant 'monk'. Or the Dragonlance version of it that was some kind of cleric-spell-casting sorcerer. And druids might not be healers primarily. You can't win. 

Seems like there were a lot of fun 4e classes like the warlord and swordmage that fell by the wayside.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> In D&D though, Mystic means Psionics. I'd very much expect that if they create a new Psionic class later on, it would be in the Priest group, and be called a Mystic.
> 
> I HIGHLY doubt they're going to drop Priest, unfortunately. I'd personally just go with Healer.
> 
> ...



Mystic meant psionics in a UA that didn't go anywhere.  It means nothing now.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

You know, I was realizing we've never had a secular healer. Modern medicine is a huge body of knowledge with little religious connection (though it was stronger historically), so it's not impossible. I guess they felt they needed another magic-user type to balance out the fireball-slinging wizard (sorcerer, warlock), and after that you've got path dependence.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> You know, I was realizing we've never had a secular healer. Modern medicine is a huge body of knowledge with little religious connection (though it was stronger historically), so it's not impossible. I guess they felt they needed another magic-user type to balance out the fireball-slinging wizard (sorcerer, warlock), and after that you've got path dependence.



This is a real problem if you apply the 5e rules to any setting approaching and beyond the modern era.  Doctors need to exist or those settings feel extremely false to me.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> This is a real problem if you apply the 5e rules to any setting approaching and beyond the modern era.  Doctors need to exist or those settings feel extremely false to me.



It's an interesting question. Is medicine more of an Intelligence or a Wisdom skill?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 30, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> It's an interesting question. Is medicine more of an Intelligence or a Wisdom skill?



I've always thought Int, regardless of what the books say.


----------



## Aldarc (Sep 30, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> In D&D though, Mystic means Psionics.



Only in a failed psionic UA did the Mystic mean Psionics. Usually in D&D, the Psion means Psionics. 



Marandahir said:


> I'd very much expect that if they create a new Psionic class later on, it would be in the Priest group, and be called a Mystic.



The Starfinder Mystic (and its subtypes) covers the same thematic ground as psionics, druids, clerics, shamans, and more. It's basically the intuitive, deeper truths of the universe caster that is the counterpart to the intellectual, magic as a form of science caster represented by the Technomancer. 

I doubt that they would drop the term "priest" either. But I did offer the term as something that could work for the discussion at hand.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Only in a failed psionic UA did the Mystic mean Psionics. Usually in D&D, the Psion means Psionics.
> 
> 
> The Starfinder Mystic (and its subtypes) covers the same thematic ground as psionics, druids, clerics, shamans, and more. It's basically the intuitive, deeper truths of the universe caster that is the counterpart to the intellectual, magic as a form of science caster represented by the Technomancer.
> ...



Right. They _were_ trying to copy the fourfold system of 2e and to a lesser extent 1e D&D (since 3e didn't classify classes that way and 4e had different sets of roles).

Maybe 'priest' is just the best bad option. I've seen it for Buddhist clergy. I wouldn't mind seeing a 'rabbi' variant that uses Int rather than Wis, but that's a story for another day, and another user. (I would be _way _too tempted to stick all the Jackie Mason, etc. jokes I grew up with in.)


----------



## DeviousQuail (Sep 30, 2022)

We have our four groupings and for the Experts they made all the subclass features occur at the same levels: 3, 6, 10, 14. This meant adding an extra feature for the bard, as they only had three before, and shuffling levels downward for the rogue. Assuming they decide to do something similar for the other three groups I have predictions for their subclass feature levels.

Mage: 1, 6, 10, 14


Spoiler: Mage Reasoning




Currently we have Sorcerer (1, 6, 14, 18), Warlock (1, 6, 10, 14), and Wizard (2, 6, 10, 14)
This was discussed in another thread but for flavor and design reasons I don't think they'll wait until level 3. You could probably do that with the Wizard but it would be awkward for Sorcerers and Warlocks. Too much of what they are is tied to their subclass for them to wait.
Wizards get their first subclass feature at level 1 instead of 2. You could switch the subclass with Arcane Recovery to prevent an empty level.
Warlocks already do this if you don't include their pact boons.
Sorcerers are currently 1, 6, 14, 18 so you just have to push the last two up a bit. I doubt anyone will complain and it leaves level 18 open for a class wide capstone like we saw with the Experts.



Warrior: 3, 7, 10, 15


Spoiler: Warrior Reasoning




Currently we have Fighters (3, 7, 10, 15, 18), Monk (3, 6, 11, 17), and Barbarian (3, 6, 10, 14). Level 3 is a given but it gets tougher after that.
I think they do level 7 instead 6 for the next subclass feature because if Fighters switch their 6 and 7th level then they're getting back-to-back feats at levels 7 and 8. Whereas switching the Monk lets us move Evasion and/or Stillness of Mind to 6, which is fine. Barbarians move Feral Instinct and Instinctive Pounce to 6, which is also fine. 
The next one is tricky because the Fighter and Barbarian 10th level features are very different from the monk 11th level feature. 11th level features are meant to be power jumps as you enter a new tier of play. I'd be more in favor of pushing the monk's feature down to level 10 and hope no one minds getting Purity of Body one level later.
Finally, while it's possible they go with 5 subclass feature levels I'm predicting they go with 4. Since level 18 will be reserved for the capstone feature I think we'll see Fighters either get new features or some combination of their 15th and 18th level features rolled into one. Moving the Fighter away from level 15 is tough because you run into the issue of potentially having back-to-back feats again. But if we move the others to level 15 then monks can switch Timeless Body to level 17 or it stays at 15 and Perfect Self and Empty Body move down to backfill. Barbarians can just switch Persistent Rage and their path feature. I don't think there is any conflict there between class and subclass abilities.



Priest (until we find a better word I guess): 2, 6, 10, 17


Spoiler: Priest Reasoning




Currently we have Paladins (3, 7, 15, 20), Cleric (1, 2, 6, 8, 17), and Druid (2, 6, 10, 14). I regret doing this all now.
This is tough. Cleric's get their power from their god. It also affects their channel divinity. If they don't start at level 1 then they need to at least start at level 2. Starting at level 3 would be way too big of a power jump with the features and full caster spell bump. They also have an additional subclass feature compared to the others. My guess is they all get pushed to level 2. Clerics will just have to be faithful for a level before getting their reward at level 2.
Paladins might have to push their Divine Smite to level 3 to make room but they'll get their Channel Divinity at level 2 just like clerics. It won't hurt that their Oath Spells will also come online at the same level as their spellcasting.
Wild Shape is the Druid version of Channel Divinity I guess so getting that and their subclass features at the same time keeps them in line with the other two.

Druid and Cleric probably won't have their next feature at level 7 because that's a spell bump for them. Paladins could get their general aura and unique aura at the same time at level 6. I doubt Conquest Paladins would complain. But that leaves an empty level for them at level 7. Moving anything to fill the gap gets repetitive or wonky. A new class feature, likely a ribbon, gets added at 7th.
Now I'm going to work backwards. Level 20 is epic boon time. That means pushing Archdruid, Divine Intervention Improvement, and the last Paladin subclass feature down. But if we stick with class wide capstones at 18 then the Paladin needs to drop that last subclass feature even further. I'm guessing level 17 for all of them. No change for Cleric. Druids have to move Timeless Body or Beast Spells to fill in at 14. I'd vote Beast spells.
I'm aware this breaks the spell bump rule I set out earlier but Clerics were already doing it anyway.

With that done we just have to figure out the Paladin 15, Cleric 8, and Druid 10. They are all over the map in terms of power. 
Cleric 8 could actually be replaced by the Tasha's variant. None of them were really unique enough to warrant it being a subclass feature. Perhaps an additional feature at level 10 or make the level 10 Divine Intervention feature a subclass thing. Instead of just randomly rolling and hoping your god isn't asleep at the wheel we could get a divine intervention that matches the god's portfolio. Then at level 18 they can just ask for anything.
Druids can just do their normal thing.
Paladins could have their 15 drop to 10 but they'd need to be nerfed a bit. Cleansing Touch moves from 14 to 15 and Aura of Courage gets pushed to 14. Honestly, I know that sucks but otherwise they'll need to make another new feature for Paladins. They did it in the UA so it could happen and then this all fits better.





All of this has the side effect of making every subclass have four levels worth of features. That could allow for some interesting cross class additions in the future. Particularly with level 10 being shared across all classes and two features showing up earlier and one feature happening after.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Sep 30, 2022)

I support using the term Priest for the group, it's flavourful. 

 I think for each group the common element is Experts-Expertise, Warriors Extra Attack & Fighting Style Feats, Priests Channel Divinity Feats (with Wildspace being a festure that isn't a feature, but is still fueled by channel Divinity).

 I'm curious what kind of feats the Priests get. Like obviously a healing one, but what other ones?

 Could they do something crazy and make Paladins full casters?


----------



## Mind of tempest (Sep 30, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I support using the term Priest for the group, it's flavourful.
> 
> I think for each group the common element is Experts-Expertise, Warriors Extra Attack & Fighting Style Feats, Priests Channel Divinity Feats (with Wildspace being a festure that isn't a feature, but is still fueled by channel Divinity).
> 
> ...



where is monk and paladin in this line up?


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> where is monk and paladin in this line up?



According to the playtest document, paladins are priests, and monks are warriors.


----------



## Blue Orange (Sep 30, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Could they do something crazy and make Paladins full casters?



I think the all-important game balance comes in. Classes can't be better than other classes, or everyone will just play those classes. Thus the endless rebalancing over the editions, as players find ways to exploit the system, and D&D _attracts_ players who like to optimize complex systems--for many people it's a big part of the fun of the game. Remember, paladins fight better than clerics and druids. They have to have some kind of drawback. Adventurer Conqueror King had a nice system for custom class creation where you could mix & match custom classes that were 1/2 fighter, 1/4 mage, and 1/4 cleric or something. 

The alternative is, of course, a skills-based system or some kind of point-based character build as is done in many other RPGs, but then it wouldn't feel like D&D anymore. There's the long expectation of 'pick race/ancestry, pick class, pick equipment, pick spells if spellcaster, get adventuring'. There are all kinds of drawbacks in terms of custom characters that can't be made (look at all the arguments over gish builds), but ultimately it's lasted for almost 50 years. For all their edition-profiteering-and-tweaking, they're doing _something_ right, or we'd be playing _DragonQuest_ 5th edition.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 1, 2022)

Tutara said:


> I am not a massive fan of ‘priest’ - for me, it’s like calling them rabbis or vicars, because the word is the word for an ordained member in a specific real world religion. I’d prefer a term that relates to faith or devotion that doesn’t invoke either Father Ted or a need to be part of an organised religion. Trouble is, I can’t think of anything I like - devotee? Bit naff. Zealot? Utterly perjorative. Hmmm.



Maybe something like "Devout" would fit better?  They all seem to have a "devotion" to a something - Cleric to a god, Druid to nature, and Paladin to a cause.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 1, 2022)

I'm actually quite keen on keeping the group titles as listed, mostly because it seems like an homage to 2e which is right up there as a favourite edition of mine, though changing rogue to expert seems like a great change.

My only real issue with the groups is the way they've assign classes to them. Bard and rogue being experts makes sense, but I see the ranger as a warrior first with an expert overlay, the same with the paladin albeit I see them as a warrior with a priest overlay. The issues that have arisen from this is what we see in the feats, paladin will clearly have an exception just like the ranger in regard to fighting styles, but will they also have an exception for the epic boons, and if so, should they be in the warrior group instead?


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 1, 2022)

Expert
Mage
*Mystic*
Warrior



Rename the problematic Priest as the Mystic group.

The term "mystic" connotes religion but in diverse ways that are beyond the routine of any traditional customs.

Also, even tho the term mysticism denotes a transcendent worldview, it can be theistic or nontheistic. Reallife mystic traditions refer to Buddhist mystical traditions, for example. Also, popculture often uses the term "mystic" for any magical practice whether nontranscendent or not. So it is possible to talk about mystical traditions within animism, for example.

I like the name Mystic for the Psion class. But I am also ok with the name Psion being an endearing D&D-ism, even when generally avoiding psionic technobabble. So it is ok to use the term Mystic for the group of classes. Indeed, a Psion can easily be a Mystic class alongside the theistic Cleric and nontheistic Paladin.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Expert
> Mage
> *Mystic*
> Warrior
> ...




 Or they can just keep using Priest, this isn't real world religions, they are fantasy religions, even when using fantasy races.

 If you use something as generic as mystic it's going to be baizzaire that Monks are in the Warrior group given that Monks are universally Mystics.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 1, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Or they can just keep using Priest, this isn't real world religions, they are fantasy religions, even when using fantasy races.
> 
> If you use something as generic as mystic it's going to be baizzaire that Monks are in the Warrior group given that Monks are universally Mystics.



Why dont we just call them: the Expert group, the Mage group, the Warrior group, and the Jesus group?

Are you honestly suggesting that names dont matter?

We need names that avoid ethnocentrism as much as possible.

The term "Priest" group is dead wrong for a significant percentage of the reallife human species.

The concept of a "priest", namely an official who maintains a temple and the offerings to the god there, can be part of this group. But there are many other concepts that are part of this group too, including sages like rabbis and imams, and nontheistic shamans, seers, and monastics.

The 5e Paladin is nontheistic! In no way does it in itself qualify as a kind of "priest".

By contrast, the Paladin can be a "mystic" warrior.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 1, 2022)

Right now, the group includes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin.

The Paladin is a "nonpriest".

The D&D version of the Druid is normally nontheistic, and is a nonpriest.

Even the Cleric is defacto "itinerant", lacking officially-assigned temple offering duties.

None of these classes are "priests".

It is possible to use the background to build a "priest" concept.

But none of the three classes have anything to do with what the word "priest" means.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 1, 2022)

Some one suggested "Devoted" which I think it good.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 1, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Some one suggested "Devoted" which I think it good.



That makes sense. I can live with that.

"Devotee" is a common word, ranging from a religious fanatic to a football enthusiast.

It implies having made a "vow", whether formal or informal, but in English generally means any kind of dedicated behavior.

I heard on TV, a character describe "devotion" as the intersection between obligation and love.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> In D&D though, Mystic means Psionics. I'd very much expect that if they create a new Psionic class later on, it would be in the Priest group, and be called a Mystic.
> 
> I HIGHLY doubt they're going to drop Priest, unfortunately. I'd personally just go with Healer.
> 
> ...



I propose Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 1, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Why dont we just call them: the Expert group, the Mage group, the Warrior group, and the Jesus group?
> 
> Are you honestly suggesting that names dont matter?
> 
> ...



The word Paladin is just as ethnocentric.  Monk and Barbarian are possible issues for other reasons, but it doesn't look like WotC's planning on changing any of them.


----------



## Blue Orange (Oct 2, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> The word Paladin is just as ethnocentric.  Monk and Barbarian are possible issues for other reasons, but it doesn't look like WotC's planning on changing any of them.



I'd rather see them ditch 'Monk', personally. 'Priest' kind of fits, but most monks outside the Shaolin monastery in China (and most inside) are _not_ martial artists.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 2, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> I'd rather see them ditch 'Monk', personally. 'Priest' kind of fits, but most monks outside the Shaolin monastery in China (and most inside) are _not_ martial artists.



My point is, name recognition is more important to WotC than any blowback they _ might_ get on that particular issue.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 2, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Why dont we just call them: the Expert group, the Mage group, the Warrior group, and the Jesus group?
> 
> Are you honestly suggesting that names dont matter?
> 
> ...




 Are you suggesting Christianity is the only religion with Priests, because that is far from true.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 2, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> That makes sense. I can live with that.
> 
> "Devotee" is a common word, ranging from a religious fanatic to a football enthusiast.
> 
> ...




 Devotee could apply to any class, its too generic.

 Priest is fine, it's no worse then the term Cleric itself, in fact it's much more broadly applible to more religions then Cleric or Paladin themselves are and those terms aren't going anywhere.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Devotee could apply to any class, its too generic.



And "Expert" somehow isn't? Or "Mage" in a game where most classes can cast spells?


----------



## bedir than (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Could they do something crazy and make Paladins full casters?



There's no reason to think this is true.

We know that the Expert has 1 full caster, 1 half-caster and 1 base non-caster.

What reason is there to think that each of the class groupings has to have the same spellcasting?


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 2, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And "Expert" somehow isn't? Or "Mage" in a game where most classes can cast spells?



Mage in dnd tends to specifically refer to those that cast arcane spells, so it kind of does work.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 2, 2022)

bedir than said:


> There's no reason to think this is true.
> 
> We know that the Expert has 1 full caster, 1 half-caster and 1 base non-caster.
> 
> What reason is there to think that each of the class groupings has to have the same spellcasting?




 Just a thought that popped into my head, I think it's extremely unlikely as well.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 2, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> The word Paladin is just as ethnocentric.  Monk and Barbarian are possible issues for other reasons, but it doesn't look like WotC's planning on changing any of them.



Even so, in English, the term "paladin" also specifically means an advocate or champion of any kind of cause.

The English word rarely refers to its historical meaning.



"Barbarian" like "savage" is actually problematic if representing a culture. However for D&D a "savage" class that is intentionally animalistic like a werewolf concept seems ok.



"Monk" refers to any kind of monastic community, so is somewhat more multicultural.

Personally, I would rather call the "Monk" base class "Athlete", anyway, to emphasize the unarmed physical feats, and open the base class to more character concepts.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 2, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Even so, in English, the term "paladin" also specifically means an advocate or champion of any kind of cause.
> 
> The English word rarely refers to its historical meaning.
> 
> ...




 Athlete, wow, not even Martial Artist?


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Devotee could apply to any class, its too generic.
> 
> Priest is fine, it's no worse then the term Cleric itself, in fact it's much more broadly applible to more religions then Cleric or Paladin themselves are and those terms aren't going anywhere.



Priest is highly problematic. Like saying "White".

Religion is the most important, most sacred, aspect of any reallife culture.

To violate the religions of other cultures is highly offensive. Nothing is more offensive to a reallife culture.

Priest is wrong.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Athlete, wow, not even Martial Artist?



"Martial Artist" has too many syllables.

Athlete works best − especially if a Warrior class.

The Shaolin-esque Monk can be an Athlete subclass. Ideally, it is possible to build a character concept that is a mythologically accurate Shaolin Monk, but at the same time use these same features in ways that fit seemlessly in any other D&D culture.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Athlete, wow, not even Martial Artist?



I like Adept.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 2, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Priest is highly problematic. Like saying "White".
> 
> Religion is the most important, most sacred, aspect of any reallife culture.
> 
> ...



I know you feel strongly about this, and I respect that, but I just don't see this complaint getting the momentum you would need to actually change WotC's mind.


----------



## bedir than (Oct 2, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Priest is highly problematic. Like saying "White".



Is there literature or anything that supports this. I know you said that Islamic imams object to being called priests, but I've literally met dozens and studied Near Eastern Cultures & Civilizations -- this objection never came up. Saying "we're like priests but different" was a rather common way to introduce themselves to outsiders.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 2, 2022)

bedir than said:


> Is there literature or anything that supports this. I know you said that Islamic imams object to being called priests, but I've literally met dozens and studied Near Eastern Cultures & Civilizations -- this objection never came up. Saying "we're like priests but different" was a rather common way to introduce themselves to outsiders.



To offer an analogy to help an other culture to understand is one thing.

It is a different thing to imperialistically or colonialistically misrepresent an other culture − and then arrogantly insist one has some kind of right to misrepresent an other culture.

It matters to refer religious topics accurately, sensitively, and with nuance.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 2, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Maybe something like "Devout" would fit better?  They all seem to have a "devotion" to a something - Cleric to a god, Druid to nature, and Paladin to a cause.






UngainlyTitan said:


> Some one suggested "Devoted" which I think it good.



I like your "Devoted" better than my "Devout" suggestion.  Devout is an adjective, while Expert, Mage, and Warrior are all nouns.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 2, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Priest is highly problematic. Like saying "White".
> 
> Religion is the most important, most sacred, aspect of any reallife culture.
> 
> ...




WTF?!?! I don't even know where to begin in responding to this. Priests exist in all races and many world religion none of which have EVER objected to D&D using the term Priest, not one religion, domination, sect, etc...

 Christians, Wiccans, Hindus, Recreationists, Jews (they used to have Priests, don't anymore), etc..., all have Priests, it's an extreme common religious term that is exclusive to no religion. Show me the outrage over it, besides yourself.

 Edited: I'm done with this part of this discussion, I'm starting to get angry so it's time to bow out before I say something I regret.


----------



## Blue Orange (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> WTF?!?! I don't even know where to begin in responding to this. Priests exist in all races and many world religion none of which have EVER objected to D&D using the term Priest, not one religion, domination, sect, etc...
> 
> Christians, Wiccans, Hindus, Recreationists, Jews (they used to have Priests, don't anymore), etc..., all have Priests, it's an extreme common religious term that is exclusive to no religion. Show me the outrage over it, besides yourself.



Technically they're still around; the _Kohanim _(that's most commonly 'Cohen' these days in Anglophone countries--it passes by patrilineal descent so, yeah, the 'Hallelujah' singer and Borat are technically priests) had duties in the temple, but it got destroyed. There are a few remaining special rules--if you're Orthodox and you're a Cohen you can't marry a divorced woman, for example, and you're supposed to deliver the 'priestly blessing' where you make the 'shin' letter with your hands (looks just like the Vulcan 'live long and prosper' sign, and in fact that's where Leonard Nimoy, who's Jewish, got it from).






						Kohen - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





But...eh, 'Devoted' does kind of make more sense. I don't know if anyone else is upset, but the character classes do indeed include nontheistic divine spellcasters like the Druid, and if they make shaman equivalents that mostly work with spirits that wouldn't fit either.

And I like 'Martial Artist' for 'Monk' too. A completely secular _capoierista_ is best modeled by a monk in D&D terms.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> *Will count as Mage as well
> **Will count as Warrior as well
> &Will have subclasses that counts as Warrior
> ^Will have subclasses that count as Mage
> %Will have subclasses that count as Priest



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?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

Tutara said:


> I am not a massive fan of ‘priest’ - for me, it’s like calling them rabbis or vicars, because the word is the word for an ordained member in a specific real world religion. I’d prefer a term that relates to faith or devotion that doesn’t invoke either Father Ted or a need to be part of an organised religion. Trouble is, I can’t think of anything I like - devotee? Bit naff. Zealot? Utterly perjorative. Hmmm.



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.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> According to the playtest document, paladins are priests, and monks are warriors.



I really wish that had been reversed.  Paladins are warriors with some divine ability.  Monks are literally part of monasteries, temples and cloisters.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 2, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Except in BECMI D&D, where 'mystic' meant 'monk'. Or the Dragonlance version of it that was some kind of cleric-spell-casting sorcerer. And druids might not be healers primarily. You can't win.
> 
> Seems like there were a lot of fun 4e classes like the warlord and swordmage that fell by the wayside.






Micah Sweet said:


> Mystic meant psionics in a UA that didn't go anywhere.  It means nothing now.






Aldarc said:


> Only in a failed psionic UA did the Mystic mean Psionics. Usually in D&D, the Psion means Psionics.
> 
> 
> The Starfinder Mystic (and its subtypes) covers the same thematic ground as psionics, druids, clerics, shamans, and more. It's basically the intuitive, deeper truths of the universe caster that is the counterpart to the intellectual, magic as a form of science caster represented by the Technomancer.
> ...




Mandela effect, I guess. I could have sworn there was an old edition of D&D where the Psionicist was called the Mystic - beyond the UA.



Haplo781 said:


> I propose Leader, Striker, Defender, and Controller.




Those still sort of exist - the Bard gets healing spells here because they don't want to totally gut it's ability to function that way. But those roles were limited to the combat pillar, and 5e roles are trying to address the other two pillars of the game, too. Experts deal with the social and skillful and exploration pillars. Mages do too, but less from a skill check angle and more from a spell angle (Bards and Rangers enhance their innate skillfulness with spells; the three Mage classes mostly lack the skillfulness but get around it with smart spell use). Priests sometimes have skillful functions, but they're more focused on Defender and Leader combat roles than their out-of-combat social pillar and exploration pillar functions. They are indeed a hybrid sitting in the middle, much like the Cleric was back in 1e as the original half-caster that combined martial talent with magical ability. 

Warriors are Defenders, Strikers, and presumably with the right specializations, Healers and even Controllers. That is to say, they're entirely focused on the Combat pillar. They MIGHT have some social or exploration or skillful challenges they are equipped to deal with, and some subclasses may dabble in magical abilities, but these classes are about combat, front and center.

4e characters dealt with the exploration pillar and the social pillar mostly via non-class features - Ritual Caster, Martial Talents, Skills Challenges, some rare Feats, and during Essentials, some class features that were seen as very out of place and considered by some to be ribbons given that they had no combat function. Utility Powers SOMETIMES were useful out of combat but they were almost entirely written to be combat focused because the game highlighted the combat vs everything else divide of D&D. 

5e still has that divide, but various classes are better at combat versus better at other pillars. Heck, the whole reason the Ranger has been so broken in different directions over the edition was because they set out in D&D Next to make the Ranger the best at the Exploration Pillar - leading them to underperform in combat, while just not achieving fun in exploration since they either struggled or rendered the challenge moot to the point of the DMs skipping over travel entirely. This UA reels them back from TCOE in some major ways, though the changes to Hunter's Quarry are welcome; it does the same genie-back-in-the-bottle attempt with Bards, and to a much lesser extent with Rogues.

So while I appreciate the deep cut to 4e's roles, and find them of some use, this thema is almost like taking those, semi-combining it with the Power Sources that they formed a chassis with (Primal still sits in a weird place cutting across 3/4 of the class groups), and expanding them to the other pillars that 4e didn't lock to specific classes.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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?



None of this is confirmed. @Minigiant was just speculating. 


Maxperson said:


> I really wish that had been reversed. Paladins are warriors with some divine ability. Monks are literally part of monasteries, temples and cloisters.



But they're not like religious monks in the slightest. Paladins are religious. Monks are just Orientalist Martial Artists.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 2, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> None of this is confirmed. @Minigiant was just speculating.



That's what I thought.  I mean as a DM those added categories make a lot of sense.  I certainly won't stop a paladin from getting great weapon fighting just because it's for warriors.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> But they're not like religious monks in the slightest. Paladins are religious. Monks are just Orientalist Martial Artists.



Religious doesn't equal priest, though.  Paladins are plate wearing, greatsword using, smiting warriors from heck(hell doesn't feel right).

And monks are not just martial artists.

"Monks make careful study of a magical energy that most *monastic traditions* call ki."

"*Small walled cloisters* dot the landscapes of the worlds of D&D, tiny refuges from the flow of ordinary life, where time seems to stand still."

"Some monks live entirely apart from the surrounding population, secluded from anything that might impede *their spiritual progress*."

Monks may not be priests in the spellcasting sense, but they are far closer to priests than they are warriors.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 2, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> None of this is confirmed. @Minigiant was just speculating.
> 
> But they're not like religious monks in the slightest. Paladins are religious. Monks are just Orientalist Martial Artists.



Classwise, yes. But in terms of outside of D&D-inspired Fantasy, while a Druid is just a Celtic Cleric, a Paladin is a Knight of Charlemagne and a Monk is a religious ascetic. As you can see, while Paladins would be associated with religion because the Matter of France is very much a religious warrior saga, it's really about Knights, i.e., Warriors, while the term Monk has been misappropriated onto Martial Artists due to the Shaolin Temple. 

I agree that Paladin should be a Priest and Monk should be a Warrior, fyi, just stating that that's where the issues arise. I have no qualms with the idea that Paladins are Priests with access to a handful of Warrior-group features, and Rangers are Experts with the same. I'd almost advocate for a Swordmage or Hexblade type Mage class with the same too, but I don't need grid-filling, and a handful of Artificer subclasses already meet my needs for an Arcane gish (as does the Hexblade, the Eldritch Knight, the College of Valour, the College of Swords, the Bladesinger, etc). I feel like some of those subclasses would have a feature that says "you can take Fighting Style feats, even though you are not in the Warrior group."

I do think Fighting Style feats are trap option, as written, since they're only really worth taking as a first level feat or else as part of the Fighting Style class feature. To that end, I'd rather that class feature be opened up to ANY Fighting Style regardless of your class, rather than just the most obvious and recommended ones (heck, as with spell selection, recommend Archery, Defense, or TWF, but don't prevent us from starting our Ranger with Sword-and-Board, etc).


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Could they do something crazy and make Paladins full casters?



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


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 2, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> 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 said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2022)

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 (Oct 3, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2022)

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


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 3, 2022)

Tutara said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2022)

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 (Oct 4, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> 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'?


----------



## darjr (Oct 4, 2022)

Yea, these are reminiscent of previous things but are not the same.

Primal for instance is more like how they are grouping spells.


----------



## dmgorgon (Oct 4, 2022)

2e style class groups are great.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 4, 2022)

darjr said:


> Yea, these are reminiscent of previous things but are not the same.
> 
> Primal for instance is more like how they are grouping spells.




Correct, but so is Divine. So calling a Druid a Divine class group member but then locking off the Divine spell list from them would be a problem.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 4, 2022)

Parmandur said:


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



Yeah, much like with PF2, the spell lists are more about power source.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 6, 2022)

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.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 6, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> 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.



The stated reason is that it enables feats and other subsystems to be restricted by grouping. Which seems reasonable to me.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 6, 2022)

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.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 6, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> 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.



Well, they are testing for more than that, but none of this is set in stone.

My gut says the Groups stay, though.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 6, 2022)

In 1e, the Paladin and Ranger were subclasses of the Fighter class.

Where UA reassigns the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger to different groups − namely Warrior, Priest, and Expert, respectively − it feels like a commitment to give the Ranger a distinctive identity as a reason to exist as a separate class.


----------



## ART! (Oct 6, 2022)

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.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 6, 2022)

ART! said:


> 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.



I bet that what we got for group names in the UA will be in the final product.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 6, 2022)

ART! said:


> 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").


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 7, 2022)

ART! said:


> 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).


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 7, 2022)

I'm also not keen on Priest/Divine/Clergy as the name of that group. Devout does seem broader, which is good. I saw someone suggest Favoured in a different thread, which would be good if included the warlock too. Spiritual? Mystic?


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 7, 2022)

The names I like are:
• Mystic
• Adherent
• Devoted

Also:
• Reverent

Reverent means "revering", to regard with awe and dignity.

(Not to be confused with reverend, one who is revered by others.)



All of these terms are in relationship with a Cosmic Force, whatever it is for a particular sacred community.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2022)

The term mystic relates to "mystery".

Properly, the mystery sotospeak refers to the aspects of a transcendent experience that cannot be expressed in words − such as unity with the Divine or the enlightenment of Nirvana.

Alternatively, the mystery can also refer to any esoteric traditions that are intentionally kept secret from the public, and having initiation rites and private transmission of traditions.

As a D&D term, a Mystic can mean any kind of magical tradition that requires personal participation in the magic itself.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 8, 2022)

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


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 8, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> 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



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.

Then again, in the ancient context, it is mainly the second one, where it often refers to the "mystery religions".

But when referring to modern esoteric traditions with secret rites, I pretty much never hear it described as "mysticism" − unless it is transcendent.

In any case, Mystic is a great fit for the D&D group.


----------



## Blue Orange (Oct 8, 2022)

One of the big differences from the real world is there's a whole other group that effectively works with the supernatural in a very detached, mechanical fashion, more like modern-day scientists and engineers than anything else.


----------

