# Legends & Lore: Clas Groups



## Plaguescarred (Sep 30, 2013)

Class Groups
Legends & Lore
By Mike Mearls

Classes and groups. Mages and wizards. Monks and fighters. What are we talking about? Mike goes over the thinking behind classes and class groups this week.

What do you think?


----------



## KidSnide (Sep 30, 2013)

Using class groups seems like a very effective method of handling the magic item problem (or other prerequisite problems), although I think the "trickster" label is pretty lousy.

But the examples at the bottom of the article are silly and seem like remnants of prescriptive "role" design from 4e.  Sure, maybe it makes sense for the Monk to have a d10 hit dice because the class is just a little too fragile.  But the class group shouldn't define aspects of the class design.  A class that combines aspects of the different groups is fine.  Why isn't the Monk a warrior _and_ a trickster?  Surely, any feat, magic item or prestige-ability that is appropriate for warriors or tricksters would be appropriate for Monks.  Likewise, Bards should have access to magic items that are usable by mages or rogues.

In the same way, I buy into this idea that a class has to act as a adequate substitute for one of the big four.  Yeah, Monks don't have the tanking capability of fighters.  So what?  They are pretty goods sneaks, have excellent defenses against magic and have funky magic powers to compensate.  So long as it all seems balanced in the end, the other monk abilities can compensate for the fact that a monk is a slightly second rate fighter.  (I'm not saying that every other edition succeeded in this balance, just that the balance is the goal, not fitting the class into a specific box.)

So long as a Monk is an awesome monk, I don't think very many players are going to be disappointed if it's a second rate warrior.  D&DN isn't that fragile.  

-KS


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2013)

Class groups don't really move me much one way or the other. But it's good to hear that rogues, bards and monks might be getting much-needed hp boosts, and the monk some further defence boosts.

Also, it's amusing that the natural synonym for "trickster" - namely, "rogue" - can't be used as it was in AD&D 2nd ed because it has become a class name.

And I don't see any relationship to 4e roles at all. "Mages . . . rely on spells to overcome obstacles" - this doesn't tell me anything about what these characters can do, except that by default its likely to be more versatile than a non-spell-using trickster, who "excel(s) at ability checks" and is therefore likely to be constrained by the designers' conceptions of what is possible without magic.

Also, unless some fairly strict limitations are put on spell lists and magical capabilities, I don't see how tricksters will be "the most flexible characters".


----------



## Stormonu (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm ready to go back to the 2E groupings of something like Warrior, Arcanist, Priest and Rogue.

And a monk is a priest type, not a warrior and definitely not a rogue or trickster.  A middling fighter with fixed miraculous abilities.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Sep 30, 2013)

Glad they're un-grouping classes in certain ways, and I'm not against a lighter touch when grouping in general. I really don't think it's necessary, but I also don't think creature types (or a variety of other things) are necessary, either. Does a Staff of Power need to refer to a mage? How do you determine if you are a mage? I mean, obviously a Wizard 15 is a mage. And obviously, they'll determine if borderline classes, like the Bard, are mages. But, if I'm a Fighter 14 / Bard 1, am I a mage? Fighter 10 / Bard 5?

If I'm a Fighter 1 / Wizard 1 / Cleric 1 / Rogue 1, am I a Warrior / Mage / Priest / Trickster? Am I now encouraged to multi-class into multiple class groupings just to qualify for more magic item / feat prerequisites?

Why not just leave it at "requires the ability to cast arcane spells [of Nth level, if necessary]"? Is saying "can only be used by a mage" that much easier, considering the complications this might bring to the game? Mr. Mearls says "If applied correctly, grouped classes can make handling things such as magic items, feats, and other options much easier as the game expands." Personally, I'm not convinced yet.

Side note:


			
				Mr. Mearls said:
			
		

> Tricksters are *experts* in a variety of fields.



Then, for the love of Pelor, just call them Experts. Wouldn't that be easier?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Sep 30, 2013)

This feels to me like a really elaborate solution to the mage/sorcerer/warlock problem, one that spills out way beyond the classes it is intending to fix. I wasn't worried about not being able to play a multiclass Mage/Sorcerer, but I know some on these boards were. 

For them, this answer -- adding a layer of administration above "classes" but which serves exactly the same purpose as "classes" for all classes except for the arcane casters -- may be exactly the answer they are looking for. I hope so, because at a first glance (and I know that's all this is) it feels like a needless complication for all other characters.

The class groups themselves are pretty lame: 4e had a better meta-class classification, where it served a conceptual purpose in party-building. 

Both of the example fixes are red herrings: there is nothing about the class groups that is needed to bring these fixes in.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Sep 30, 2013)

I really don't see the point. Why are magic items wanting to reference classes in the first place? Shouldn't they, at most, refer to class features? If you have a staff that's intended to be useful to all arcane casters, then key it's bonus to arcane magic, which is a shared feature across several classes.

The problem with the mage is that they haven't actually shown us how alternative casting mechanisms would work. They floated the concept in isolation under a single class.

I don't think the feedback would be so negative if they had presented the mage, bard, and perhaps a fighter subclass as having wizardry, then gave us an alternative casting system that could be swapped in to all of those classes. Thus, you could also have a warlock that was either a full or a half spellcaster. Same with Sorcery.

But they didn't. They tried to instead create a single class for all different arcane casters.

Oh well. I'm not all that worried about it. Separate classes worked before.


----------



## Plaguescarred (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm good with class groups if it help and make expanding the game easier. Not sure about the Trickster group name though, I'd prefer Expert i think.

PS Can a moderator edit the title for me please, i missed a S in Class Group. Thanks!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Sep 30, 2013)

trickster is a very narrow word, even skill monkey is better!


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 30, 2013)

I am ok with having superclasses / class groups. I think it is better than having one Mage superclass while all other classes are individual. But I also think that _not_ having any superclass would be just the same. I only don't like much the "hybrid" approach.

While I say I am ok with the approach, I still don't buy the benefits at all:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> There are a few benefits to this approach.
> 
> It gives a framework in which we can add new casting styles and approaches to magic that are specific to settings.
> It makes expanding the game easier, since we can create one list of spells for those classes.
> It simplifies magic items, since something like a staff of power can refer to the mage. We know that any future classes included under the mage can still use that item.




First point, the "framework" is ok but it's not really needed. In previous editions if you wanted to add a new casting style, you'd make a new class. There is no problem with that. Some people seem to dislike having 20 classes in the game, but how is that different from having 10 classes, some of which have multiple versions so that the total is still 20?

Second point, it makes it easier only as long as it's really appropriate for that list of spells to be identical, otherwise it makes it harder. And no surprise, a few lines later Mearls admits that using the same list of spells for Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock would be inappropriate...

Third point, this is ok if and only if you want magic items restricted to a subset of characters, like "only priests can use this item". But this is only one possibility, and by nature it defines something about the fantasy world which is not appropriate to every campaign. Overall I don't have much against this, but it's hardly important.



Stormonu said:


> And a monk is a priest type, not a warrior and definitely not a rogue or trickster.  A middling fighter with fixed miraculous abilities.




And here lies the real downside of adding another layer of categorization. As soon as you frame the categories, you want to use them, and they tend to force the game to conform to them.

Is the Monk more like a warrior, a priest or a trickster? Is the Bard more like a warrior, a trickster or a mage? Depends who you ask!

The point is, the Monk is a Monk, and the Bard is a Bard. Without superclasses, there is no issue, you just design them in whatever way you feel right. With superclasses, they are already puzzled about how to _make them fit_ into one superclass, a problem that did not exist yesterday, and they are tempted to force changes that weren't needed before.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm not averse to some sort of keyword system; used properly it can provide clarity to situations where natural prose creates ambiguity.  

Why not make the Staff of Power say something like, "If you can cast arcane spells of 1st level or higher?"  Well, Bards don't cast arcane spells in this packet.  Okay, "If you can cast spells of 1st level of higher?"  Do Psions really cast spells?  They use powers, right?  So can they use it?  It's that sort of ambiguity that a keyword system is designed to prevent.

That said, my personal opinion is that in general there should be less restrictions, rather than more.  Continuing on the Staff of Power, just say (3E style) you can use your caster level instead of the staff.  I don't even care if you have a caster level; Fighter wants to use it, why not?  Probably not the best choice of weapon, but it evokes some cool imagery nonetheless.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 30, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Then, for the love of Pelor, just call them Experts. Wouldn't that be easier?



But would also make more obvious that when it comes to using magic, or to revering the gods, they are _not_ experts. Which for me compounds the worry that "relies on spells to overcome obtacles" is not describing a field of tasks in which a character excels, but rather a source of power which has the potential (bassed on past experience) to be open-ended in its capabilities in a rather game-changing fashion.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 30, 2013)

I  think they should have the guts to use backgrounds as intended. Some classes are just backgrounds. Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue. The same goes for any concept except for the core four. Paladin, bard, warlock, whatever are merely background variations of fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. Some combinations are weak.

Keep four classes. Add secondary skill named after other character concepts and be done with it. Fighter (paladin), Fighter (warlock), Fighter (warlord), fighter (bounty hunter).


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

Frostmarrow said:


> I  think they should have the guts to use backgrounds as intended. Some classes are just backgrounds. Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue. The same goes for any concept except for the core four. Paladin, bard, warlock, whatever are merely background variations of fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. Some combinations are weak.
> 
> Keep four classes. Add secondary skill named after other character concepts and be done with it. Fighter (paladin), Fighter (warlock), Fighter (warlord), fighter (bounty hunter).




That would require empowering the background and skill system, something they do not want to do.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 30, 2013)

Frostmarrow said:


> I  think they should have the guts to use backgrounds as intended. Some classes are just backgrounds. Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue. The same goes for any concept except for the core four. Paladin, bard, warlock, whatever are merely background variations of fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue. Some combinations are weak.
> 
> Keep four classes. Add secondary skill named after other character concepts and be done with it. Fighter (paladin), Fighter (warlock), Fighter (warlord), fighter (bounty hunter).




I don't think this is using backgrounds "_as intended_", but rather as _you_ intend. Which is fine, they _could_ be used like that, but it's not how they intended backgrounds in the last year and a half (although "cloistered monk" or "temple monk" would be conceptually a background appropriate to the current backgrounds intentions).


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 30, 2013)

They should definitely call them Rogues instead of Tricksters, then stop trying to make the individual class so general.


----------



## heptat (Sep 30, 2013)

Frostmarrow said:


> Monk is a background that can be added to fighter or rogue.




Frosty, I agree with Stromonu – a monk is a type of priest. Yeah they can bash people up and sneak around, but that's because of their dedication to a higher calling.

Rock on.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> They should definitely call them Rogues instead of Tricksters, then stop trying to make the individual class so general.




Indeed
And also strip sneak attack out of most of them. Give each rogue a gimmick.
Thieves get Sneak attack, assassins get Death attack, acrobats get Tumbling jump kick, bards get Songs and Magic, dancers get Dances and Magic, gadgeteers get traps and HIGH EXPLOSIVES!!


----------



## Falling Icicle (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm very relived that they aren't trying to fit every type of arcane magic user into the wizard class anymore. I like the new approach. It reminds me a lot of 2e.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 30, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> I don't think this is using backgrounds "_as intended_", but rather as _you_ intend. Which is fine, they _could_ be used like that, but it's not how they intended backgrounds in the last year and a half (although "cloistered monk" or "temple monk" would be conceptually a background appropriate to the current backgrounds intentions).




Alright, maybe they stated some other intent. But what is the point of having crunchy backgrounds if not to use it to make niche concepts viable? I think this is the dividing line: *They don't have the guts to demote paladin to less than class status*. Instead they invent a class groups tier and end up at the same place, only with extra unnecessary complexity.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 30, 2013)

heptat said:


> Frosty, I agree with Stromonu – a monk is a type of priest. Yeah they can bash people up and sneak around, but that's because of their dedication to a higher calling.
> 
> Rock on.




I second this.

Rockin.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Sep 30, 2013)

This is why I think "Monk" should be a background and the class should be called the "Martial Artist." Not all martial artists are monks, nor are all monks martial artists.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 30, 2013)

heptat said:


> Frosty, I agree with Stromonu – a monk is a type of priest. Yeah they can bash people up and sneak around, but that's because of their dedication to a higher calling.




Or not. Monks are great at kicking asses because ass-kicking ability demonstrates their progress in the road to personal enlightenment.

I am all for moving the Monk to the Warrior group. That's where the Arcane Archer and the Hexblade should end up, as well (you don't have to be a Mage to be a spellcaster, and you don't have to be a Priest to be religious).


----------



## gyor (Sep 30, 2013)

The problem with this system is the hybrid classes. Paladin's, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Battleminds.

 Take the Paladin its gets a d10 hp, Martial Weapon, all armour and shields, extra attack and a fighting style, but in every other ability it gets divine magic, from divine spells and Channel Divinity like the Cleric, to unique abilities like Auras of protection, Courage, resolve, Divine health, Smite and improved smite, oath features. So tell me is it a priest or a warrior?

 Another problem, where do other classes belong to, like  Shadowcaster, Psion, 3e Binder, Incarnae, and so on?

 I see three solutions.

 1. Allow a Class to belong to multiple superclasses, so a Paladin is both Priest and Warrior, I'd allow the 5e Bard to belong to all if them.

 2. Allow Hybrid Classes to choose which superclass to belong to as a choice point so at level 2 a Paladin decides if he wants channel divinity or a fighting style for example.

 3. Make Hybrids thier own Superclass, so the Hybrids superclass would include Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Monks. To extend this idea you could also have an exotic superclass for Psions and weird stuff like shadow magic and incarnae. This would be the best amd simplest idea.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

Frostmarrow said:


> Alright, maybe they stated some other intent. But what is the point of having crunchy backgrounds if not to use it to make niche concepts viable? I think this is the dividing line: *They don't have the guts to demote paladin to less than class status*. Instead they invent a class groups tier and end up at the same place, only with extra unnecessary complexity.




You can't blame them though. A noticeable and loud part of the D&D fanbase is highly focused on first visual impression. Converting what was previously a class into an upgraded background would need very high approval among the fans before they'd do it. I predicted falling back into class groups a while ago because of this. Only the "moderately unloved" traditional and newer classes could ever be nonclasses.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm just struck be the distinct and very obvious omission of ANY reference to psionics.

My understanding, certainly from the threads on this forum, that the psions being tucked under the "Mage Umbrella" [tm] was the largest cause of uproar and negative reaction. Sorcerers and Warlocks being there...ruffled some feathers, sure...but I didn't see the outrage of immersion breakage about those two. They both use arcane magic. *Poof* They go under Mage, easy peasy. The Psionics are the ones that had everyone tilting their heads sayin' "Whuuuuuh?"

Unless they intend...to place sorcerer and/or warlock under "Trickster" offering it higher HD, lesser armor and more-than-mages-but-still-few/light/simple weapons. They are Tricksters who use magic along iwth whatever is dtermined to be their "expert skills." This may have something to do with the title choice of "Trickster" vs. "Rogue" or "Expert" in the first place -which I agree is horrendous and needs changing back to the 2e titles (Which incidentally,  @_*Stormonu*_  , did include "Wizard" as a group, not "Arcanist". jus' sayin').

As for a Monk being a priest, I can totally get behind that. However, both D&D tradition and the very flatly stated criteria for inclusion of their proposed class groups, it would seem the Monk does belong under "Rogue" (for their array of non-magical skill) or Warrior (for their primary function/defining trait as "unarmed combat guy").

To make them a Priest class would require a fairly complete overhaul/refocusing of their traditional D&D fluff...and crunch, as they currently have Priests defined as "masters of divine magic." So to do that, you need to make the Monk all about channeling divine energies and/or actually casting spells for their powers...or saying their uncanny physical prowess and "mystical" skills are the result of some achieved (or innate) direct divine connection...but then, isn't that what Clerics have? Change the fluff of both to make a Cleric's (and Paladin) one chosen/imbued by the gods, while a Monk's connection is sought after/achieved by the monk them self...the deity is not looking to help you, you are not one of their chosen...but they eventually notice you and throw you a few scraps/tidbits of divine power for your trouble/devotion.

I have no problem with rewriting the Monk's fluff (it probably could have benefited from it at least 3 editions ago), I just don't see it happening.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Sep 30, 2013)

gyor said:


> The problem with this system is the hybrid classes. Paladin's, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Battleminds.
> 
> Take the Paladin its gets a d10 hp, Martial Weapon, all armour and shields, extra attack and a fighting style, but in every other ability it gets divine magic, from divine spells and Channel Divinity like the Cleric, to unique abilities like Auras of protection, Courage, resolve, Divine health, Smite and improved smite, oath features. So tell me is it a priest or a warrior?
> 
> ...





I imagine they are going to go with option #1. Paladin is a warrior and priest hybrid (so is the ranger I suppose).  Something like a eventual swordmage/eldritch knight base class is a warrior and mage. Of course saying that a mage is necessarily arcane means there is no place for psionics or other magic sources. And priests currently have primal magic users (druids) stuffed into them.

I think they could give power source a role again to use with these categories. Something like:

druid = priest (primal)
cleric = priest (divine)
psion =mage (psionic)
wizard = mage(arcane)

then you have hybrids like this:
ranger = warrior, priest(primal)
paladin=warrior, priest(divine)
psychic warrior = warrior, mage(psionic)
shadowblade = trickster, mage (arcane)

and so forth.


----------



## heptat (Sep 30, 2013)

Klaus said:


> Or not. Monks are great at kicking asses because ass-kicking ability demonstrates their progress in the road to personal enlightenment.




Heh, fair enough.



Klaus said:


> I am all for moving the Monk to the Warrior group. That's where the Arcane Archer and the Hexblade should end up, as well (you don't have to be a Mage to be a spellcaster, and you don't have to be a Priest to be religious).




Yeah, I don't know what those things (Arcane Archer, Hexblade) are...shows my vintage


----------



## Klaus (Sep 30, 2013)

ppaladin123 said:


> I imagine they are going to go with option #1. Paladin is a warrior and priest hybrid (so is the ranger I suppose).  Something like a eventual swordmage/eldritch knight base class is a warrior and mage. Of course saying that a mage is necessarily arcane means there is no place for psionics or other magic sources. And priests currently have primal magic users (druids) stuffed into them.
> 
> I think they could give power source a role again to use with these categories. Something like:
> 
> ...




I wouldn't get too hung up on the fact that the Paladin uses divine spells. They are warriors first and foremost (ditto on the Ranger), extremely resilient and a front-line combatant. That is why they're Warriors.

The "Mage" isn't about casting arcane spells, it's about relying on spells more than anything and being more frail than other classes. By those parameters, the Psion and the Sorcerer fit in well. I'd even say the Invoker would qualify.

The "Priest" is about middle-of-the-road toughness coupled with support magic. If the name got changed to something less divine-oriented, this is where the Bard would end up. Something related to... leading, maybe? 

I can see the Warlock going either way: getting more frail, but with boosted spellcasting, to fall within the Mage, or getting reduced spellcasting to fit in with the Tricksters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm still not sold on the need for class groups (just like I'm not sold on the need for creature types). At some point, the distinction becomes academic. If there's a "cloistered priest" variant that's less durable than a priest but still a priest because they use divine magic, or an "arcane trickster" variant that uses spells to replace skills, or even the Bard (who may be a mage, or may be a warrior, or may be a priest if it has druid spells...) or the Monk (who may be a priest with passive abilities instead of active abilities, or a warrior with unarmed fighting, or a rogue good at jumping/spying/climbing....).....

I don't think feats or magic items need to give much reference to the underlying "group." Personally, I don't see why a _Staff of Power_ needs to have much of a requirement at all, but you can also code in things like "Requires Staff proficiency" or "Requires Spell proficiency" or whatever, if you'd like. Especially if these items are optional and additive, the only requirements are flavor-based requirements, not much of a balance concern at all. "Oh no, the Fighter can use a Staff of Power, that's the exact same power increase as the Wizard using it!!!" And feats fall into a similar bucket: there is a such thing as a "general feat," and I don't see much value in siloing feats away where certain characters are just prohibited from accessing them.

And the framework for casting styles and ability to expand the game? Just disentangle *class abilities* (ie, a spell list) from the core mechanic of the class (ie, slot-based spellcasting), and allow people to mix and match. It's not so incredibly difficult. 

So I'm not that convinced that Mike's list of three things is really all that difficult to gain through other methods. And "class groups" seem like kind of an unnecessary distinction, still.

I'm with the consensus that "Trickster" is not a great name. "Rogue" fits better, Expert if you're not willing to do the daring thing and change the rogue class to not be so broad and meaningless.  

Yeah, it's a positive move, but they've yet to sell me on the need for this distinction.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2013)

One point to make here is that Paladins now have their own spell list, of which many of those spells ARE NOT ones Clerics have too.

So no... Paladins are no longer "Fighter/Clerics" by some people's definitions.  Paladins are Paladins.  WotC's just finally gotten around to making its spell list reflect that, probably in an effort just to finally get the "Fighter/Cleric" people to realize that that is NOT what Paladins are or going to be.

And on another note in regards to how some folks think "hybrid" classes should belong to two class groups... I don't agree.  Because that does two things:

1) It waters down that "hybrid" class in power because of the attempt to make it relatively equal across both class groups.  This was always the problem with the older edition bard-- not a strong enough weapon combatant, not a strong enough healer, not a strong enough trickster type.  So it was a middling class all the way around because they were afraid of giving the bard TRUE power to be relatively on par with other classes *and* to then also give the class additional roles and abilities.  The "support class" syndrome.

The Fighter, the Barbarian, the Paladin, (and now possibly the Monk)... they all need to be _focused_ on martial weapon/combat.  Sure, you can give them extra other abilities to help facilitate that-- combat styles, smites, rages, flurries of blows... but they still need to be built to more or less be equivalent to each other (if not out and out replacements for each other.)  Because as soon as you make one of these (or another class) a "half-warrior"... it's now the bard.  Just too weak to be nothing more than a support class, and thus not worth the paper its printed on.

2)  If you really want characters to straddle two class groups, we already have that.  It's called "multiclassing".  THAT'S how you can create characters that grab parts of different class groups.  So why would we want to jam the "hybrid" classes into the exact same hole that "multiclassing" is meant to fill?  Let multiclassing create the half-warrior/half-trickster character, rather than try and force the ranger to do it.  Let the Ranger be on par with the Rogue so that it can be a competent replacement in a group that doesn't have a Rogue.  Don't hamstring the Ranger by making it a weak-ass Fighter and a weak-ass Rogue.  Because that serves nobody.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

To me the class groups say 


Warriors get prof with martial weapons and meduim armor or better.
Tricksters get a +5 expertise and a few bonus skill profs
Priests get medium armor and full magic of a limited versatility
Mages get full magic

So a ranger and paladin are still warriors. They just get inklings or priest and trickster. Some magic for both and bonus skills for rangers. A bard is still a trickster but with magic. The monk would be classified as tricksters (acrobatics and insight) but with better combat (better AC, unarmed weapons, KI).


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 30, 2013)

Another nod to 2E! I didn't think Mearls was such a fan.



Jeff Carlsen said:


> I really don't see the point. Why are magic items wanting to reference classes in the first place? Shouldn't they, at most, refer to class features? If you have a staff that's intended to be useful to all arcane casters, then key it's bonus to arcane magic, which is a shared feature across several classes.
> 
> The problem with the mage is that they haven't actually shown us how alternative casting mechanisms would work. They floated the concept in isolation under a single class.
> 
> ...




But ya. All that. 

3E probably had this right. I see why they don't want a label like "arcane spellcaster"...but I see this as less constructive.

And they are so not done yet, after all this time. Not even with the "core".


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2013)

Minigiant said:


> So a ranger and paladin are still warriors.




Just as a minor point... I think Rangers will fall into the Trickster group rather than the Warrior group.  They're all over the Exploration pillar, which I believe to be Trickster area.

If I had to guess... things will shake out like this:

WARRIORS:  Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk
TRICKSTERS:  Rogue, Ranger, Bard
PRIESTS:  Cleric, Druid
MAGES:  Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer

And despite the fact the identity of what an actual real-world 'monk' is... in D&D the Monk has never had spellcasting, nor any real connection to the gods.  So thinking it should fall into the Priests category is only based upon the real-world concept of "Monk", as opposed to what it actual does and who it is in the fiction of D&D.


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 30, 2013)

As I'm for fewer, broader classes, class groups works for me.  I'm really sorry that feedback is leading them to dropping sorcerers and warlocks from being part of the "mage" group.  

I just hope that tricksters get a hit die bump.  They're expected to participate in melee combat, but they don't have the hit points to stand up to it.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Sep 30, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm still not sold on the need for class groups (just like I'm not sold on the need for creature types). At some point, the distinction becomes academic. ...



Good points, especially if they are to be used for prerequisites. I don't like prerequisites for feats either. Often you end up going through loops, planning your character 8 levels in advance so you can multiclass and pick up assorted feats just to take the feat or ability you want. (Especially stat requirements for feats is just plain stupid in my opinion)


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 30, 2013)

My biggest concern is about spell lists, even if they do have generic spell lists for each class grouping, there was the impression given that some spells are going to be class exclusive.  And then we're back to the situation where Wizards will continually get new stuff, while other possible Mage classes will rarely get anything exclusively new past the first product they appear in.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 30, 2013)

I do not like it.

Have some balls, go against the caving force which apparently you don't like too. 

Mage and Warrior as group titles are fine. Trickster and Priest are not, how about Expert and Mystic.

The monk is more than just a punching guy. I see them as a Jedi, jedi are not limited to punching. The best approach would be having the monk be a casting style that could be applied to a caster and they develop their abilities through using supernatural abilities. Like always on powers. That whole concept is out the window as a possibility though. So warrior punching guy. Sure.

This post was valiant attempt to divide the d&d community. Are we not fractured enough?


----------



## Bluenose (Sep 30, 2013)

TerraDave said:


> Another nod to 2E! I didn't think Mearls was such a fan.




I don't really see the similarity to the groupings in 2e, except in the sense that there are groups of classes. 2e groups had actual mechanical similarities, the same ThAC0, the same saving throws, the same gain of NWPs, and other things. These groups don't seem to have much similarity bar Mealrs thinks these classes belong over here and those belong over there. And it's not as if the fanbase agrees, witness the arguments over Monks, Warlocks, Bards, Paladins, and others, and which category they belong in.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just as a minor point... I think Rangers will fall into the Trickster group rather than the Warrior group.  They're all over the Exploration pillar, which I believe to be Trickster area.
> 
> If I had to guess... things will shake out like this:
> 
> ...




I think the main aspect they are using for warriors are having proficiency with all martial weapons and extra attack at level 5. Any class with martial weapons and extra attacks is a warrior. That is what makes a ranger a warrior. Rangers are warriors who can track, sneak, spot, heal, and SUPERDEATHKILL the foe they trained against.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 30, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just as a minor point... I think Rangers will fall into the Trickster group rather than the Warrior group.  They're all over the Exploration pillar, which I believe to be Trickster area.
> 
> If I had to guess... things will shake out like this:
> 
> ...




I like your chart, and it clarifies for me that "trickster" should be called "expert".

Thanks.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 30, 2013)

Frostmarrow said:


> But what is the point of having crunchy backgrounds if not to use it to make niche concepts viable?




That's certainly up for discussion! 

I am not sure really... the feeling I got, was that backgrounds were simply a way to put together a delivery mechanic for skills and a narrative concept. That is, instead of just letting you to pick skills, the game provided a package of skills with added narrative, so that it looks coherent, story-based, and easier for casual players.

But they were also specifically separate/indipendent from class, so as to achieve a couple of added benefits: (1) allowing more character diversification (at least in comparison with 3e approach of "class skills") and (2) in some specific cases allowing to pick someone else's expertise in something that all the party benefits from, such as lockpicking/trapfinding, so that the proverbial "party without a Rogue" could still have that covered. It was not the only way to do so however, in fact there wasn't e.g. ever a background granting healing, but instead there was a feat for that, and that specific lockpicking/trapfinding also became a feat at some point.



Frostmarrow said:


> I think this is the dividing line: *They don't have the guts to demote paladin to less than class status*. Instead they invent a class groups tier and end up at the same place, only with extra unnecessary complexity.




The reason for that is only that Paladin as a complex archetype (i.e. class) has a long history in the game, too much to demote it.

But that doesn't mean that we couldn't also have a background, a feat chain, or another class' subclass later on that would allow a "light Paladin" template to apply to another class. I think for instance the Knight background of a few packets ago was very close: it was obviously missing all the Paladin's tropes which are just too big to fit into the current implementation of backgrounds, but otherwise it only needed a more "holy" connotation, maybe a slight mix with the Priest background, and it would work. But in order to have also divine powers, the current backgrounds aren't suitable... OTOH feats are definitely suitable so you might be able to re-create someone Paladin-enough with a combination of backgrounds and feats.

Overall, I wouldn't be against expanding the backgrounds framework so that it would deliver more than the current mix of traits, skills and proficiencies. IMHO the key design issue here, would be to decide if a background should be a fixed package like currently (i.e. you get all the stuff at once, even tho the bonuses increase by level) or if it would be extended over a range of levels. The latter IMHO is quite necessary if you wanted one background to deliver several advanced features such as paladin spells, lay on hands, turn undead etc.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2013)

Actually, I think WotC could steal a page from Paizo and use their "Mythic Paths", which I like better as a set of standardized superclasses.

Archmage
Champion
Guardian
Hierophant
Marshal
Trickster

The names could be further simplified, but I like breaking up "hit things" classes and "tough" classes, and making the leader type its own thing.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2013)

Minigiant said:


> I think the main aspect they are using for warriors are having proficiency with all martial weapons and extra attack at level 5. Any class with martial weapons and extra attacks is a warrior. That is what makes a ranger a warrior. Rangers are warriors who can track, sneak, spot, heal, and SUPERDEATHKILL the foe they trained against.




Don't agree.  In my opinion... what will make a class fall under the class group of Warrior is not one or two specific mechanics, but rather having the entire class package be built such that it is on par with each of the other classes in the group.

Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians all fulfill the same primary role-- the melee face-smasher, damager, defender, "everyone get behind me!" type of class.  Do Rangers fit that role?  Would you ever think or want to use a Ranger as that guy if your party was without a Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian?  If the answer is 'no' (and I'm willing to bet most people probably don't see the Ranger in that light)... then the class wouldn't fall under the Warrior group banner.

Right now... I don't think most people see the Monk in that way either.  Which means that if their intention is to have it in the Warrior group... they probably will need to make some adjustments to the class so that it becomes more combat-focused  and fits better its place as a potential replacement for a Fighter or Barbarian in a party.


----------



## Zaukrie (Sep 30, 2013)

I am not sure if groups matter much....sounds like they will be used very broadly to ease set up of classes in terms of hit points and a few other things.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 30, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm still not sold on the need for class groups (just like I'm not sold on the need for creature types). At some point, the distinction becomes academic.




Absolutely!

It's not a bad thing per se to have these groups, let's have them... but the many posts in this thread and the L&L responses about "class X should not really be superclass Y, they should be superclass Y!" already prove that this categorization is only going to cause useless debate.

I mean, we already have endless discussions on what ability e.g. a Ranger "should" have. That's OK, because when you play the game, it actually makes all the difference in the world whether your Ranger PC can do this or cannot do that. Debating class features is natural and I dare say healthy, because class features _are_ the game you're going to play.

But then, with the exception of the "core 4 classes", do we really need to artificially create a system of _labels_ that will only make us argue where each non-core-4 class "should" belong? Do we really need then to _force changes_ to already designed classes in order them to fit into one category?

This is counterproductive because all non-core-4 classes are already hybrids. If they just slap these labels on them, but don't actually change the classes, then I'm all for it. If they start changing the classes to conform to the lables, then it's really going to cause damage because all those classes don't fit naturally under a single label (as proved by the conflicting opinions here) and will be made to fit by emphasizing one side of them at the expense of the other.

This whole thing reminds me of when you have to fill an application and they ask you to write you "Race". Someone has decided that there's a list of N races, and one box must be ticked. What if you're dad was caucasian and mom afro-american? What if you grandparents were japanese+scandinavian+caribbean+arabic? No, you have to tick one box or you can't submit your application. But whose fault is it? Is it yours, your grandparents', or is it the fault of wanting categories at all costs, and wanting to fit everyone under them?



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think feats or magic items need to give much reference to the underlying "group."




I am thinking the same.

On one hand I think I understand Mearls' idea: should they design a magic item, it might be easier to say "can be used by all Mages" instead of saying "can be used by Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks...". The list of superclasses is very likely going to be fixed, the list of classes might not be fixed, although they said they want it to be.

But on the other hand, how often does it really happen that you need a magic item like that? Traditionally, _scrolls_ and _wands _ (and other items that cast spells) can be used by those who have the spell on their class spells list. You can't say "usable by Mages" if different classes under Mage have different spells lists. Almost every other magic item works the same for everyone, or works only for those who have a specific ability, no matter the class. Occasionally there is magic items that work for a specific class, like "a Holy Avenger in the hands of a Paladin...", which you still need.

So that's the whole point: how the hell superclasses are going _in practice_ to be useful for magic items, when the vast majority of magic items never actually worked based on class groups? 

Furthermore, we are going to have lots of subclasses designed as crossovers, such as Fighter subclasses that casts some Wizard spells and Wizard subclasses that fight better, so that you can make your Fighter/Wizard PC in ways other than multiclassing. For these subclasses, will magic items work or not? 

Simply, magic items work based on what you can do (i.e. if their benefit applies to your capabilities), not based on what you are, because "what you are" i.e. what's your class name (or superclass name or another label) is nothing in the fantasy world, it's just a label. Unless it represents something real, like alignment, race or (very rarely) class indeed, but creating a system of additional labels when the game is going to be full of exceptions sounds quite unreasonable to me.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 30, 2013)

Always glad to see the four cardinal points of D&D get attention, no matter what they're being called.  Earth, Air, Fire, and Water; North, South, East, and West; Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief.  Love it.


IMHO, the traditional D&D monk and ranger are tricksters (or possibly clerics).  There is a big difference between an archer and a ranger, and between a pugilist and a monk.  Unarmed and ranged warriors should be represented by robust options in fighter design, not by new classes.


My sense of whimsy enjoys "trickster," but I have to admit that if the goal was to avoid the specificity of "thief" it is not a great choice.  I /can/ read "trickster" as "someone with a bag of tricks," if I try, but it's much easier to read it as "tricky person," which has clear and often inappropriate connotations.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians all fulfill the same primary role-- the melee face-smasher, damager, defender, "everyone get behind me!" type of class.  Do Rangers fit that role?  Would you ever think or want to use a Ranger as that guy if your party was without a Fighter, Paladin, or Barbarian?  If the answer is 'no' (and I'm willing to bet most people probably don't see the Ranger in that light)... then the class wouldn't fall under the Warrior group banner.




Anyone who answers "yes" to that question has no idea what a ranger is.  A ranger absolutely falls under that banner.  Later editions have increasingly forced him into the rogue category, and there's no better time to fix that than now.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Anyone who answers "yes" to that question has no idea what a ranger is.  A ranger absolutely falls under that banner.  Later editions have increasingly forced him into the rogue category, and there's no better time to fix that than now.




_*Pats on head*_ Yes, JRR... we know you feel.  We know.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Anyone who answers "yes" to that question has no idea what a ranger is.  A ranger absolutely falls under that banner.  Later editions have increasingly forced him into the rogue category, and there's no better time to fix that than now.



To be fair, I think there's room in the Ranger class for both Aragorn-style leader and a Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando, although I'd like to see the Rogue subsume both the Bear Grylls style badass and the MacGyver-esque "use what's around me to make a cunning plan" archetypes.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 30, 2013)

Minigiant said:


> To me the class groups say
> 
> 
> Warriors get prof with martial weapons and meduim armor or better.
> ...




I see it like this as well (except the monk, he's a warrior with trickster elements, not vice-versa). 

Note that rangers, bards, and paladins are 1/2 casters. Magic is a minor part of their identity. They still fall under the main banners of warrior and/or trickster, with elements of priest and/or mage. 

My groupings would be:
WARRIOR: Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk
MAGE: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
PRIEST: Cleric, Druid
TRICKSTER(EXPERT): Rogue, Bard

If they REALLY want to go old-school...
WARRIOR: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian
PRIEST: Cleric, Druid, Monk*
WIZARD: Mage, Sorcerer, Warlock
ROGUE: Thief, Bard

* A monk would be a priest caster with martial arts instead of weapons, armor, and channel divinity. Kinda a divine bard. 

Other news:
1. Yay that mage spit-back-out sorcerer and warlock into full-classdom! 
2. HD is being fiddled with. Good. I've grown accustomed to d8 for rogues.


----------



## heptat (Sep 30, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If I had to guess... things will shake out like this:
> 
> WARRIORS:  Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk
> TRICKSTERS:  Rogue, Ranger, Bard
> ...




You're probably right Defcon, but moving Monk to PRIESTS gives 3 classes to each category, symmetry! LOL

Oh and what you said about using multiclassing for straddling two class groups, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## ki11erDM (Sep 30, 2013)

If this means you have a group, a class, and a subclass... then I HATE this.  I see zero reason to add another layer of complexity just for semantics.

If this means you have just a group, and a class...then this is ok.   Still silly, but at least it seems to satisfy those that could not get over the idea of having two people throwing fireballs and magic missiles around, just with different mechanics, having the same class name.

As another bonus this does help them create design space for psionics. They can now just release a splat book that adds a 'Group' called psionics.  

As for the trickster debate.  "Expert" is horrible.  Expert in what?  Spells?  Pottery? Flossing?  The only name that fits is Rogue.  Then give me a Rake class...


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

Rangers get into melees with orcs, giants, and dragons. When combat starts, their first action is to draw weapons (as a free action) and attack, not hide or cast a spell (unless it is a free action and a buff or weapon related) or flee. So they are warriors.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> To be fair, I think there's room in the Ranger class for both Aragorn-style leader and a Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando, although I'd like to see the Rogue subsume both the Bear Grylls style badass and the MacGyver-esque "use what's around me to make a cunning plan" archetypes.




Why can't the Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando also be in the warrior fold?  When I think of that particular archetype, I picture John Rambo.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Why can't the Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando also be in the warrior fold?  When I think of that particular archetype, I picture John Rambo.




It is.
The warrior class group just says you get d10 HD or better, proficiency with shields and medium armor or better, proficiency with all simple and martial weapons, and extra attack at level 5.

A commando style ranger would get all the warrior package and be classified a warrior.
 [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I see monks closer to a rogue than a fighter nowadays as I see it as a skills class first and a martial artist second. Especially with the new usages of Ki. A monk feels like an expert who trades sneak attack for super kung fu or elemental karate.


----------



## Ratskinner (Sep 30, 2013)

gyor said:


> The problem with this system is the hybrid classes. Paladin's, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Battleminds.
> 
> Take the Paladin its gets a d10 hp, Martial Weapon, all armour and shields, extra attack and a fighting style, but in every other ability it gets divine magic, from divine spells and Channel Divinity like the Cleric, to unique abilities like Auras of protection, Courage, resolve, Divine health, Smite and improved smite, oath features. So tell me is it a priest or a warrior?




The problem there, is the Cleric, not the Paladin...sorta. Traditionally, D&D has 3 mechanical structures: Combat, Casting, and Skills...and yet has 4 traditional archetypes. Honestly, the Cleric is already the Hybrid between "Caster" and "Fighter", and shouldn't be holding up a "corner" of its own. The Paladin is merely a fighter who has splashed some caster. Except, y'know, "divine" vs "arcane". Eliminate that divide, and you get something closer to True20 and eliminate a lot of smaller issues as well. 

Of course, that's not the only way to handle it. You could merge the mechanics for all three and then there is no mechanical distinction. That lets you make class/group design decisions on a different basis; perhaps flavor or combat role.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 30, 2013)

Glad to hear they're deep-sixing the "One Arcane Caster To Rule Them All" class. I don't really buy the argument for this categorization scheme, and I suspect they will find it falls apart when asked to handle classes like paladins and rangers, but whatever. They can slap their group labels on things if it makes them feel better.



Ratskinner said:


> The problem there, is the Cleric, not the Paladin...sorta. Traditionally, D&D has 3 mechanical structures: Combat, Casting, and Skills...and yet has 4 traditional archetypes. Honestly, the Cleric is already the Hybrid between "Caster" and "Fighter", and shouldn't be holding up a "corner" of its own. The Paladin is merely a fighter who has splashed some caster. Except, y'know, "divine" vs "arcane". Eliminate that divide, and you get something closer to True20 and eliminate a lot of smaller issues as well.




I wouldn't mind having a fourth corner for cleric to hold up; the problem, as you say, is that the cleric is half caster and half warrior. I could envision a divide between Combat, Offensive Casting, Support Casting, and Skills. But as currently constituted, there is no dedicated Support Caster class, only a Support/Combat hybrid.


----------



## Ratskinner (Sep 30, 2013)

Frostmarrow said:


> Alright, maybe they stated some other intent. But what is the point of having crunchy backgrounds if not to use it to make niche concepts viable? I think this is the dividing line: *They don't have the guts to demote paladin to less than class status*. Instead they invent a class groups tier and end up at the same place, only with extra unnecessary complexity.




I think you could say the same for Barbarians, maybe even Rangers, heck Clerics (if you eliminate the arcane/divine divide.) I don't think we're in a position to draw a very fine distinction about what, precisely, counts a class. Adding in backgrounds, skills, etc. only muddies that water.


----------



## MoonSong (Sep 30, 2013)

Part of me wants to do the victory dance, knowing we will have true warlocks and sorcerers and not instruction manuals to get something that claims to be them but not really is good to hear and somehow increased my interest in Next. However seeing their "solution" makes me scream "But they already have a solution, proficiencies!!"

Yes proficiencies solve the problem. Make implements proficiencies you give to a class, now make magic items give some minor benefits to anyone and more to people who are proficient with them. Bingo there goes your problem!!.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 30, 2013)

The ranger definitely has a strong warrior component, but it isn't his focus.  A ranged-combat-focused warrior ought to be more focused on combat than the ranger, and substantially less focused on spells and stealth than the ranger.  The ranger is a highly specialized class, and poorly represents combat archers as a whole.

Class variants can solve some problems of class design but they can't really resolve issues of intent.  A variant fighter is never going to cast spells; why would a variant ranger /not/ cast spells?  I think the issue here is that people want -- and have always wanted -- the ranger to be two very disparate things, largely because there has never been a ranged fighter archetype in D&D that holds a candle to the effectiveness of the ranger.

There ought to be a robust ranged option for fighters that doesn't make them second fiddles to rangers in combat.  If anything, the ranger ought to be second fiddle to the ranged fighter, because the ranger's focus is not on combat exclusively.

If this robust option exists in the warrior archetype, there's no question that the ranger becomes the trickster counterpart.  No?


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 30, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Why can't the Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando also be in the warrior fold?  When I think of that particular archetype, I picture John Rambo.



I would put in the Warrior class group, as a subclass for Ranger.  Or possibly Fighter.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Sep 30, 2013)

I think this thread is a good example of why the class groups are not a good idea. We're already doing contortions to fit classes into one group or another.

Maybe, and I'm not necessarily endorsing this, it would be beneficial to use tags instead of groups. For example, a ranger would be a warrior and expert. Paladin? A warrior and priest. Then spell lists and magic items can be tied to keywords.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 30, 2013)

Minigiant said:


> Rangers get into melees with orcs, giants, and dragons. When combat starts, their first action is to draw weapons (as a free action) and attack, not hide or cast a spell (unless it is a free action and a buff or weapon related) or flee. So they are warriors.




No... _some_ Rangers do this.  Just like _some_ Rogues do this.  Just like _some_ Bards do this.  So are you saying Rogues and Bards should be Warriors too?

Just because a character fights with weapons in melee doesn't mean it automatically goes into the Warrior class group.




			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Why can't the Guerrilla Fighter/Navy SEAL commando also be in the warrior fold? When I think of that particular archetype, I picture John Rambo.




Because John Rambo isn't out in front of everybody "tanking" as it were.  You said it yourself... he's doing guerrilla tactics.  Which means (based upon how it seems WotC is defining these groups) Rambo is not a Warrior.  He is not the "face" of the Combat pillar.

Instead, Rambo (IE the Ranger) is the "face" of Exploration pillar.  Fighting is certainly a part of what the class is (now) known for... but not primarily what it is known for.  And thus (in my guess) is probably where their idea of the Tricksters would fall.

Has the Ranger evolved from where it was in AD&D?  Yup.  And I don't expect a "return to form" for the Ranger anytime soon.  Maybe I'm wrong... but I suspect I'm right.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 30, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I think this thread is a good example of why the class groups are not a good idea. We're already doing contortions to fit classes into one group or another.




I think it's pretty straightforward, honestly.  Ranger as warrior is just a mix of sacred cow and misappropriation.  The problem with the paladin is not one of categorization, but rather the fact that historically the cleric is already /also/ a warrior.  I'm hoping we see that mitigated in D&D5 with domains affecting equipment proficiencies.  A war cleric and a life paladin ought to have similar combat capability but very different class abilities.



> Maybe, and I'm not necessarily endorsing this, it would be beneficial to use tags instead of groups. For example, a ranger would be a warrior and expert. Paladin? A warrior and priest. Then spell lists and magic items can be tied to keywords.




Clever.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> The ranger definitely has a strong warrior component, but it isn't his focus.  A ranged-combat-focused warrior ought to be more focused on combat than the ranger, and substantially less focused on spells and stealth than the ranger.  The ranger is a highly specialized class, and poorly represents combat archers as a whole.




That's because the ranger shouldn't be a class focused on archery.  He's a warrior, period.  The choice to focus on archery or melee should be the player's and not be dictated by the class mechanics.  Don't get me started on the two-weapon fighting shoehorn, grrrr.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 30, 2013)

> No... some Rangers do this. Just like some Rogues do this. Just like some Bards do this. So are you saying Rogues and Bards should be Warriors too?




No, just because one can, in a pinch, do something, does not make that his focus.  I'm trained in first aid, if you come to me bleeding, I can patch you up, but I'd suggest you see a doctor if there's one available.



> Because John Rambo isn't out in front of everybody "tanking" as it were.




Apparently, we didn't watch the same movie.



> Has the Ranger evolved from where it was in AD&D? Yup. And I don't expect a "return to form" for the Ranger anytime soon. Maybe I'm wrong... but I suspect I'm right.




Let's hope you're wrong, because otherwise, he ain't a ranger.  A ranger SHOULD be on the front lines.  Stealth and spells were always secondary aspects of the class.  A ranger must have the same hit dice and attack table as a paladin and barbarian, and any other warrior class.  I'm not opposed to the fighter being SLIGHTLY better, but the ranger should be just as viable as any other warrior "class."  Otherwise, he's just a thief who can't pick locks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 30, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> It's not a bad thing per se to have these groups, let's have them... but the many posts in this thread and the L&L responses about "class X should not really be superclass Y, they should be superclass Y!" already prove that this categorization is only going to cause useless debate.




Whenever I see disagreements like this, I see it as a place for modular design to come in and save the day. A rangers melee machines, skilled outdoorsfolk, agile archers, wilderness assassins, even priests or wizards with nature-based magic?

YES. They are all those things and more. The debates over what they "should  be" are pointless, because they should always be whatever works best for your games, and that's going to be different in every game. 



> This is counterproductive because all non-core-4 classes are already hybrids. If they just slap these labels on them, but don't actually change the classes, then I'm all for it. If they start changing the classes to conform to the lables, then it's really going to cause damage because all those classes don't fit naturally under a single label (as proved by the conflicting opinions here) and will be made to fit by emphasizing one side of them at the expense of the other.




I think if you slap these labels on and the labels are meaningless, then...well....why have the labels? But much like 4e's "roles" shaped class design, these class groups can't help but do something very similar. If you make a monk a warrior, they're going to have different focuses than if you make the monk a mage or a rogue, and that will shape and limit what we think of as a "monk" in 5e. 



> But on the other hand, how often does it really happen that you need a magic item like that? Traditionally, _scrolls_ and _wands _ (and other items that cast spells) can be used by those who have the spell on their class spells list. You can't say "usable by Mages" if different classes under Mage have different spells lists. Almost every other magic item works the same for everyone, or works only for those who have a specific ability, no matter the class. Occasionally there is magic items that work for a specific class, like "a Holy Avenger in the hands of a Paladin...", which you still need.




I don't even really see a need for that. Why not have "A Holy Avenger in the hands of a Lawful Good person proficient in Holy Symbols and Swords..."? Clearly includes paladins, but not exclusively paladins (A Lawful Good Mystic Theurge with a sword-based feat!), expanding its use and robbing none of the iconic "paladin-ness" from the thing. 

I don't see much to gain from a system that revolves around class groups. Serving as prerequisites for feats or magic items seems like pointless siloing. You can add casting styles and share spell access without it. 



> Simply, magic items work based on what you can do (i.e. if their benefit applies to your capabilities), not based on what you are, because "what you are" i.e. what's your class name (or superclass name or another label) is nothing in the fantasy world, it's just a label. Unless it represents something real, like alignment, race or (very rarely) class indeed, but creating a system of additional labels when the game is going to be full of exceptions sounds quite unreasonable to me.




Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement, here.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]
You are hung up on the names of the groups and not what they mean. A *Warrior* in D&D gets a good HD, good armor, good weapons, and mutliple attacks. A *Trickster* gets mutilple (4 or more) bonus skill proficiency, a some expertises, bad armors, and average HD & weapons. A *Priest* gets full magic of a very resticted list, and decent armor and weapons. A *Mage* gets full magic of a massive list and bad EVERYTHING else.

This is not all a member of any class group gets but that is the skeleton for it.

So rangers and paladin are warriors. They have the basic warrior package of d10 HP, martial weapons, shields, martial weapons, medium armor, and multiple attacks. Then they are tweaked.

This is why monks are hard. Which skeleton is better for them? d10, medium armor or High AC, and multiple attacks? d6 or d8, light armor or moderate AC, and 4 skill proficiencies?


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 30, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> That's because the ranger shouldn't be a class focused on archery.  He's a warrior, period.  The choice to focus on archery or melee should be the player's and not be dictated by the class mechanics.  Don't get me started on the two-weapon fighting shoehorn, grrrr.




Sorry, my bias was showing.  You're right about fighting style, of course.  I still disagree about categorizing him with the fighter and barbarian, though.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 30, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Whenever I see disagreements like this, I see it as a place for modular design to come in and save the day. A rangers melee machines, skilled outdoorsfolk, agile archers, wilderness assassins, even priests or wizards with nature-based magic?
> 
> YES. They are all those things and more. The debates over what they "should  be" are pointless, because they should always be whatever works best for your games, and that's going to be different in every game.




Well, according to the L&L and Q&A articles, we should subclasses taking care of shifting focus in a variety of directions for each class.

Maybe superclasses won't damage anything, even if they end up shifting some classes to conform their superclass expectations, as long as there will still be subclasses shifting the focus back to other directions, so that those who disagree about e.g. the Ranger being a Warrior, can still pick a subclass that shifts it back to being an Expert/Trickster, etc.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think if you slap these labels on and the labels are meaningless, then...well....why have the labels?




I was kind of writing that between the lines 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> But much like 4e's "roles" shaped class design, these class groups can't help but do something very similar.




I didn't really follow how roles evolved in 4e, but what I remember in the early 4e days was that those were supposed to be _tactical _roles. And I didn't like that idea at all! That was much worse for me than forcing the Ranger to be more warrior-like or the Bard to be more expert-like. It was much more specifically forcing into a combat role. It's something I really would not want as part of choosing a class.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 30, 2013)

Falling Icicle said:


> I'm very relived that they aren't trying to fit every type of arcane magic user into the wizard class anymore. I like the new approach. It reminds me a lot of 2e.




If they add the inability in Core to multiclass within a group, like 2E did, I'll be right there liking it. Then they can add a simple optional rule that removes this restriction (and probably absolve themselves of any future balance issues up front [again]).


----------



## Kobold Stew (Sep 30, 2013)

Whew! What a headache. And it comes right at the point when they have decided to stop the public playtest. So, if nothing else, for most of us, WE HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY LEFT TO LET OUR THOUGHTS BE KNOWN. 

There may be good reasons for the class groups, but they are design reasons, they are not play reasons. The 4e roles were play reasons: they were a tool for balancing the party. Defcon 1's thoughts, tying certain classes to the so-called pillars, would be another way that this could help players -- and particularly new players. That I can get behind. 

As it is presented (in what must be seen as only a preliminary feeler), it adds a layer of organization (and so complicates things for new players), and solves one problem by creating several more (as the empassioned views on all sides in this thread show). 

I recognize that class groups may be a useful design tool, but I'd rather that the added complications be kept out of the game. *Keep it under the hood*: use it, sure, and maybe even present the conceptual groupings in the DMG if that helps DMs. I do not see it being anything but a bone of contention or a source of confusion for players.


----------



## RevTurkey (Sep 30, 2013)

Is this all about selling splat books? 

If they group classes for magic item use then they can add more sub classes at a later date.

They can then put Magic Staff useable by Mages
Boots of quickness useable by Tricksters 
Sword of Dobber useable only by Warriors

you get the idea...with these divisions the basic core rules can still be useable when things get revised and new subclasses added at a later date. Otherwise you have to list EVERY class that can use an item and with new content added through other books they would have to know in advance everything they are going to release which would be constricting...

OR...they could in fact do just that and it would work anyway.

IF they have the vast majority of items useable by ANY character with maybe Alignment, Racial, Ability or Level requirements...and then have the truly rare stuff like Staff of Wizardry keyed to an exact class....so a holy blade useable by Paladins. A wand useable by just Warlocks. A set of prayer beads for a Cleric of a Healing Diety?

just an untested random thought... 

What is easier to manage...classes that define character and development or a bunch of stuff that comes and goes. My priority would be to make the classes more important and not tie them up with unnatural restriction.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 30, 2013)

I think, if we're willing to trim off a bit of sacred cow, this could really work. 

WARRIORS: Good AC, martial weapons, d10 (or better HD), multiple attacks. 
MAGE: Poor AC, limited weapons, d6 HD, full casting magic, offense-oriented spells. 
PRIEST: Moderate AC, simple weapons, d8 HD, full casting magic, defense-oriented spells. 
TRICKSTER: Moderate AC, decent selection of weapons, d8 HD, multiple skills, Expertise.

These become the "baseline" for all classes. Then, you change things to garner these results. For example, the barbarian and monk are both warriors who don't wear heavy armor, so they get class features to boost their AC to be on par. Druids and clerics get different weapons and armor lists, different divine powers (channel vs. wild shape) and different spell focus, but both are healers, buffers, and good against specific foes (undead/outsiders vs. animal/fey). A bard is as good as a rogue in skills, but trades sneak attack and nimble attacks for songs and spells. Subclasses can further customize things by giving specialization at the expense of something else (a ranger who is a master of combat but has weaker spells). 

So a few classes might get tweaked (rangers might acquire some AC compensation, monks become more warrior-like, druids gain more buffs and lose some elemental attack spells) but if it means selecting a monk or a ranger is as good in the warrior slot as a paladin or fighter, I'm all for it. 

They don't have to destroy the flavor of each class, just make sure its good at its primary focus (combat, magic, healing, skills).


----------



## jrowland (Sep 30, 2013)

gyor said:


> The problem with this system is the hybrid classes. Paladin's, Rangers, Monks, Bards, Battleminds.




Quoting Gyor, but really addressing all who express this point.

Forget for a moment what you think a Paladin is, or a Monk, or any other so-called "hybrid" class. If assume a "paladin" class, one could certainly envision a more Martial Flavored version, a more Divine spellcaster version, perhaps even a more trickster or mage version (these last two are a stretch, but bear with me). From the article, and I think given its history, Paladin is the name used for the more Warrior than Spellcaster version. They may make a more Divine spellcaster Paladin type and call it "War Domain Priest" or some such. 

So those complaining of a Monk falling under "Warrior", I am sure there may come a time when a monk version under the trickster heading will appear (ninja?), or one under the mage or priest heading. It may not be called "Monk". No matter. To (badly) paraphrase Shakespeare: A Monk by any other name still kicks just as much ass. 

So to look at Gyors possible solutions:

1) There will be multiple sub-classes, A warrior Paladin and a Divine Paladin for example. As an extra, I doubt they will restrict a Warrior Paladin from using Divine Magic Items, for example. It will probably be a class feature. 
2) The choice is made when choosing a class, "Paladin" if you want more martial, "War Priest" if you want more divine power
3) Not really going to happen. The idea is for reference and consistent building over time. A new class in a later splat book will want to reference the superclasses.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Sep 30, 2013)

While I'm normally a fan of the "Umbrella" method (A "Main" catgory, and then sub-categories), I'm not sure it works for D+D, at least in my mind. The jury is still out for me; I'll wait and see how it's finally implemented.

However, it concerns me that they've annouced this change seemingly at the last minute, epsecially since it seems like it should have been a "Basic Game Design" discussion, before more than a year into the Playtesting process....  

Dpn't get me wrong: While I'm glad that WotC has offered a public playtest, I think they took fan opinion TOO MUCH into account in some instances.  (WotC has an R+D department for a reason; they need to have their own vision for the game; by trying to please everyone, I feel like they'll end up pleasing no-one.)

And I definitely think "Trickster" as an umbrella name has got to go...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 30, 2013)

They could tie the class groups to weapon types. Slashing warriors, Bludgeoning priests, Piercing rogues and Special-homing-area blast wizards. Assign classes accordingly. Make weapon type matter.

Slashing: Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin use swords, scimitars, and axes.

Piercing: Ranger, Rogue and Bard use spears, bows,  and rapiers

Bludgeoning: Cleric, Druid, and Monk use maces, clubs, and fists.

Unarmed: Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer take pride in not carrying weapons at all. (Yes they do - don't argue.)


----------



## hamakto (Sep 30, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> I think it's pretty straightforward, honestly.  Ranger as warrior is just a mix of sacred cow and misappropriation.  The problem with the paladin is not one of categorization, but rather the fact that historically the cleric is already /also/ a warrior.  I'm hoping we see that mitigated in D&D5 with domains affecting equipment proficiencies.  A war cleric and a life paladin ought to have similar combat capability but very different class abilities..




I honestly think think that this summary is a good start to the discussion.  To be honest, I am a big fan of DnD history and keeping traditions alive from the old days because it is what makes DnD what it is.  But on the flip side, we need to look at how things have morphed with editions over they years.  In the early days of DnD, before skills became prevalent you needed to have different classes to bring abilities to players.

With the advent of 3e (and beyond), skills have been taking a more prominent role in blurring class abilities (at least for experts).  What I see is that we really have three groupings of classes:

1.  Warriors
2.  Experts
3.  Casters

There are sub-types to each of those categories (of course).  Now why am I stating the obvious?

What is a Ranger? 

going old school:  Warrior, with some stealth and tracking skills, and a few very minor Druid Spells
going new school:  Warrior with combat tricks (TWF and Ranged) , bonus to tracking skills, medium-high skill points, more spells.  Those pre-built in combat tricks to make up for losing class identity.

This kills me to say this, but in 5e should the ranger just disappear as a class?  To be honest, it is basically a warrior with certain skills.  The spells are very minor and could be moved to encounter/once per day type abilities.

Just make it a warrior and add traits/background to the character to give the ranger special powers (i.e. tracking, etc).  If they want to pick up minor druid powers, then the same or a second trait/background to dip into that as a minor ability.

Is it really worth an entire class? No.  I know backgrounds and traits are supposed to be optional, but honestly you can simplify the game by making them core requirements and solve a huge amount of issues.  Plus, if we replace class abilities we help prevent power creep in the game.

Take a look at the cleric.  It is primarily a channeler type (divine).  To compensate for a lesser spells selection they pick up the ability to use armor and/or weapons.  

Does the druid need a separate class?  It may... but a druid is a cleric that has a background tree that replaces half a dozen class abilities (or less) and worships a nature deity (i.e. limited spell list by deity).

A barbarian as written is really separate enough as a class that it would stand alone.

Sorcerer and Warlock would be stand alone as they use separate mechanics.

Now to just change direction a little bit, I would like to see the following breakdowns for classes:

Martial - Primary combat based abilities
Expert - Primary skill based abilities
Channeling (Divine) - Power comes from a 3rd party (deity, spirits, demons).
Essence/Mana (Arcane) - Power drawn from the world around the caster
Ki/Mentalist (Psion) - Power drawn from within

(note - primal and other power sources from 4e can fit into one of the 3 categories above)

Those five definitions are a better description of classes than what they are proposing.  They clearly indicate what they are best at.  What secondary abilities they have beyond that are not relevant to be honest.

So if we look at things as a primary / secondary focus:

Monk - Martial (unarmed) / psion
Ranger - Martial / expert
Paladin - Martial / divine
Bard - Expert / arcane


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 30, 2013)

I agree with those who've observed that it's a bit late in the process to be talking about such a fundamental re-org. But they are talking about it, so:

It makes sense, to me, to group classes. It allows for some functional differentiation. A melee Warrior should be fundamentally different from a melee Trickster. That's my hope: that they take this as an opportunity to fundamentally differentiate those four classifications. Firstly into "Magic-users" (Mages and Priests) and "Weapon-users" (Warriors and Tricksters). The Paladin and Ranger should not get spells (as we know them in this current packet); they should instead get a selection of magical (or supernatural) abilities. Spells should be limited only to Mages and Priests.

Actually, I'd love it if only Mages got spells. And Priests instead used an entirely separate system of magic--a pet peeve is that Arcane spells and Divine spells work the exact same way. I'd prefer that Divine spells functioned as described: as magic granted by a higher power. I'd love it if Priests had to actually pay attention to their god's (or patron's) ethos, had to perform certain rituals, observe certain prohibitions, perform certain rites. That they had a "favor" score, much like the Warlock from the earlier packets. Now THAT would be something. THAT would make the Cleric something other than "a caster, like the Wizard, but has a spell list with Healing and without Fireball. And more hit points, and better weapons and armor, and can Channel Divinity."

Yes, I'd love for Warrior, Trickster, Mage, and Priest (or whatever final names are chosen) to behave fundamentally differently. If they're going to go through the trouble of introducing this classification, it should mean something.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Sep 30, 2013)

Another thought: it makes sense to classify based on how the class interacts with the world.

Warrior: applies self to others. Internal power. Hits things. Lots of direct damage abilities.
Trickster: applies others to self. External opportunity. Takes advantage of things. Lots of reaction abilities, or setup abilities (traps). 
Mage: applies self's magic. Internal power. Blasts things. Lots of direct application of magic to the world.
Priest: applies others' magic. External beseeching. Mediates things. Conduit of magic; channels and redirects the world's magic. 

Hmm... seeing some interesting parallels between warrior and mage, and trickster and priest. There might be something there.

Psionics would fit in where appropriate. A psion who used psionics to augment his own body or physical abilities would be a warrior. A psion who used psionics to affect the world would be a Mage. Druids would be priests--their power comes from nature, not from within. Rangers would likely be Tricksters; they take advantage of the environment. Barbarians would be Warriors--they apply themselves to the environment. Monks could fit in all four, depending on how Kung-fu-movie you wanted to get.

But man, these are some big-time changes. Way too late to be reformatting in such a way.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Sep 30, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Also, unless some fairly strict limitations are put on spell lists and magical capabilities, I don't see how tricksters will be "the most flexible characters".



Well, now they have put skills back, I hope they expand vastly on what tricksters can do with them - and give a decent amount of skills some niche protection now they're no longer vaguely defined "ability checks". Not super hopeful on that, though...


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 30, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> They can then put Magic Staff useable by Mages
> Boots of quickness useable by Tricksters
> Sword of Dobber useable only by Warriors
> 
> ...




Your post made me think: *did *we have "lists of every class that can use an item" in 3e, an edition that didn't have class groups? 

It's understandable that a Magic Staff that casts arcane spells is usable only by mages.

But since when Boots of Quickness have been useable only by Rogues and Bards? Since when a Sword of Dobber would have been useable only by Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers, instead of anybody able to pick it up and swing it?

These are restrictions that don't exist at the moment, and AFAIK didn't exist back then even in AD&D 2e which indeed had class groups. Do we want to add a system that actually _creates_ this restrictions, only for the purpose of making the system itself worth existing?


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 30, 2013)

I've only read the first few pages, so others may (have) already said the same thing. If I read what Mike said right, most people didn't care much for the idea, but they're going ahead with it anyway. Well, add me to the list. But then, I'm one of those who _really_ want to get rid of the Arcane/Divine divide in magic. Yep, the Trickster name sucks. And yeah, I noticed that he didn't say word one about Psions either. Not that I care one way or the other, but a lot of people do. In short, I think its a Bad Idea!


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 30, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> Your post made me think: *did *we have "lists of every class that can use an item" in 3e, an edition that didn't have class groups?
> 
> It's understandable that a Magic Staff that casts arcane spells is usable only by mages.
> 
> ...




Not so much in 3e, but in 2e...

1.) Certain magic rods, staves, and wands could only be used by certain classes (snake staves by priests, wands of fire by wizards, rod of lordly might by warriors)
2.) Some potions (potion of heroism) worked only for certain groups (warriors).
3.) Certain spells worked different depending on the recipient's strength (Strength spell; amount of Str gained was determined by class)
4.) Certain magical weapons (mace of disruption) had special abilities that only worked for certain groups (priests). Otherwise, they were just normal weapons. 
5.) Some worked better AGAINST certain foes (Intelligent weapon special purpose, swords vs. magic-users) as well. 
6.) There were a few that were unique in that they only worked for ONE class (holy avenger, staff of the woodlands) vs. the whole group.  

So there were examples in earlier D&D, and a few carried over into 3e (usually as arcane- or divine-spellcaster only items). I wouldn't mind some return to "group exclusive" items like potions of heroism or warriors getting a bigger boost from the strength spell. It would add some flavor and encourage certain spells and items used to effect the best possible target vs. self-buffing the cleric, druid, or wizard into uberdom.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 30, 2013)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So there were examples in earlier D&D, and a few carried over into 3e (usually as arcane- or divine-spellcaster only items).




I'm not sure that any of those "class-exclusive items" can't be handled with prerequisites OTHER than class. ("If you have a Strength of 16+, the Potion of Heroism also does XYZ") These prerequisites would make the item more versatile and adaptable to different games, while still reinforcing the "Item X is SUPER GOOD for characters like Y!" benefit you get from that link.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 30, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not sure that any of those "class-exclusive items" can't be handled with prerequisites OTHER than class. ("If you have a Strength of 16+, the Potion of Heroism also does XYZ") These prerequisites would make the item more versatile and adaptable to different games, while still reinforcing the "Item X is SUPER GOOD for characters like Y!" benefit you get from that link.




Yeah, but that gets into problems like a fighter with a strength of 15 getting less benefit out of a potion of heroism than a cleric with a strength of 16. 

Its easy to section off caster-items (a wand of fire only works for those who know fire-magic) but I don't want to give clerics and wizard access to every cool toy a fighter and rogue can get as well. I'm fine with some unique, group-class specific items that a caster can't use regardless of ability score or proficiency. Wizards get to dream of staves of power and clerics maces of disruption, let the fighter dream of vorpal swords and the rogue rapiers of puncturing.


----------



## MoonSong (Sep 30, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, but that gets into problems like a fighter with a strength of 15 getting less benefit out of a potion of heroism than a cleric with a strength of 16.
> 
> Its easy to section off caster-items (a wand of fire only works for those who know fire-magic) but I don't want to give clerics and wizard access to every cool toy a fighter and rogue can get as well. I'm fine with some unique, group-class specific items that a caster can't use regardless of ability score or proficiency. Wizards get to dream of staves of power and clerics maces of disruption, let the fighter dream of vorpal swords and the rogue rapiers of puncturing.




Why would -in setting- a sword reject a soldier sorcerer who has good strength and has spent feats to be good in melee, what is the justification behind it? why a scholar fighter who has spent his feats into gettng spells and probably even his subclass too, not be allowed to use a pearl of power? in fiction the difference between a thief cleric (of thievery) and a priest rogue(thief) is very thin, why have a pointless gamist restriction that breaks the immersion? specially since it puts a strain on class design and compromises class identity?


----------



## Blackbrrd (Sep 30, 2013)

I think [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] makes some very good points. Why add these class groups, if the only thing we get out of it is restrictions? That's the only thing they have talked about so far.

Having these class groups also looks to pidgin hole the classes:


> We'll probably look at the monk's AC and boost its Hit Die to d10 if we  categorize it as a warrior, or give it Expertise in a few skills if it's  a trickster.




Is there any reason they shouldn't create a class that sits between the Fighter and the Rogue? Just because it doesn't fit into four arbitrarily defined groups, is not a good reason in my mind.

Prerequisits for feats and magic items is something I really dislike. I think magic items and feats should be made in such a way that they are most useful in the hands of some classes, but still useable for other classes, although the usefulness of them might be questionable. 

Personally, I like having a well-rounded party with characters that are best at a certain aspect, but decent at several others. Prerequisits often make these kind of characters suboptimal OR you have to go through a bunch of hoops bending the system to get what you want. In 3.x I usually used a bunch of PrC's to create such a character, while in 4e I have used hybrids (that at least were 80% as good as a straight up character).

I really hope the try to rely as little as possible on preqrequisits, and instead create feats and magic items that vary in usefulness according to the character picking them up. Take the Whirlwind feat from 3.x. Instead of having 4 prerequisit feats, they could have said that you only got a maximum number of attacks equal your dexterity modifier. Typically, the feat was useful for str-based characters in full plate, so putting 14 in dex is a sacrifice, but it's useful. For a character with 18 dex it's very powerful.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 30, 2013)

The other benefit is multiclassing. Now you can refer to class groups instead of individual classes and fix broken future comboes without an errata each time a new class comes out.

When you multiclass into a warrior class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have 3 or more warrior levels.
When you multiclass and do not already have Extra Attack, you do not gain Extra attack until your warrior levels are 8 or greater or your character level is 11 or greater.
Your caster level is your mage and priest levels plus half your trickster and warrior levels, rounded down.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 1, 2013)

Minigiant said:


> The other benefit is multiclassing. Now you can refer to class groups instead of individual classes and fix broken future comboes without an errata each time a new class comes out.
> 
> When you multiclass into a warrior class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have 3 or more warrior levels.
> When you multiclass and do not already have Extra Attack, you do not gain Extra attack until your warrior levels are 8 or greater or your character level is 11 or greater.
> Your caster level is your mage and priest levels plus half your trickster and warrior levels, rounded down.



Yes because we know rangers and paladins have enver a caster level

Seriously, this isn't anyhting that couldn't be solved by having a simple "Multiclass proficiencies" entry on classes that are specially front loaded in that regard. or just saying that you don't get proficiencies until theird level on a class. Not really anything that couldn't be done without grouping. And really if every class has to comply with a very straight and rigid mold the differences between them will drop. And that is bad.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 1, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> Why would -in setting- a sword reject a soldier sorcerer who has good strength and has spent feats to be good in melee, what is the justification behind it? why a scholar fighter who has spent his feats into gettng spells and probably even his subclass too, not be allowed to use a pearl of power? in fiction the difference between a thief cleric (of thievery) and a priest rogue(thief) is very thin, why have a pointless gamist restriction that breaks the immersion? specially since it puts a strain on class design and compromises class identity?




What's the justification for a mace of disruption only working in the hands of a priest and not a rogue or a wand of fireballs in the hands of an invoker but not an illusionist? Magic is magic, after all. 

So I'll cut you a deal: you let fighters fully use staves of power or wands of healing and I'll let mages benefit from potions of heroism. Deal?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 1, 2013)

Blackbrrd said:


> I think [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] makes some very good points. Why add these class groups, if the only thing we get out of it is restrictions? That's the only thing they have talked about so far.



Actually, Mearls mentioned several goals of class groups in his article, but only one has received much attention.


			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Our goal with class groups is to provide an easy framework that magic items and other abilities can use to refer to classes, to give people a set of terms they can use to compare and contrast classes in broad strokes, and to make it easy for players to understand how the classes beyond the core four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) relate to that basic group.



Personally, I find the last goal the most compelling. The archetypical party is a cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. Yes, skilled players and a skilled DM could make a party of four wizards fun, but the classic party is the baseline for most published adventure material. How does an inexperienced gaming group know that their proposed party of paladin, druid, sorcerer, and bard covers all the bases for the starter adventure they just bought?

Mearls went out of his way to portray the class groups as descriptive, not prescriptive. The groups exist as a way to talk about the classes, both for players and for future rules.



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> We'll probably look at the monk's AC and boost its Hit Die to d10 if we categorize it as a warrior, or give it Expertise in a few skills if it's a trickster.



I don't think Mearls is trying to pigeonhole the monk. He's trying to balance the monk against the other classes by seeing how it stacks up against the core four. How they improve the monk depends on whether they decide it should be more like a warrior or more like a trickster.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> What's the justification for a mace of disruption only working in the hands of a priest and not a rogue or a wand of fireballs in the hands of an invoker but not an illusionist? Magic is magic, after all.
> 
> So I'll cut you a deal: you let fighters fully use staves of power or wands of healing and I'll let mages benefit from potions of heroism. Deal?





With Use Magic Device as a skill, they can.  

Eh, I was ambivalent about 5e, but this idea of having "group" specific magic items leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I hope they don't do it, but if they do, its a major turn off. I would much rather prefer skill set related magic items.  There's no reason a fighter, wizard, cleric or rogue shouldn't all be able to use Boots of Stealth, and there is no reason a wizard, picking up a magic sword, shouldn't be able to stab somebody with it. Granted, if an item requires divine or arcane magic, then it seems only natural that a wizard or cleric would get far more use out of it; but then again, a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword.


----------



## variant (Oct 1, 2013)

Firstly, the 'Trickster' name is really lousy. At least groupings are better than the complete inconsistency that having a Mage meta-class had, but it makes me wonder how the hybrid classes are going to work. Where will the Ranger be?

I am glad to see the warlock and sorcerer won't be sharing the spell list of the wizard. I hope the warlock has its own list of spell-like abilities like 3e.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 1, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> Yes because we know rangers and paladins have enver a caster level
> 
> Seriously, this isn't anyhting that couldn't be solved by having a simple "Multiclass proficiencies" entry on classes that are specially front loaded in that regard. or just saying that you don't get proficiencies until theird level on a class. Not really anything that couldn't be done without grouping. And really if every class has to comply with a very straight and rigid mold the differences between them will drop. And that is bad.




I agree. It's not the best option. It is one that _mostly_ works and it is the simplest. And it's the option designers (official and third party) are least likely to mess up. The issue is the better options go against the design goal of making modifying DDN super easy.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 1, 2013)

Wicht said:


> With Use Magic Device as a skill, they can.
> 
> Eh, I was ambivalent about 5e, but this idea of having "group" specific magic items leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I hope they don't do it, but if they do, its a major turn off. I would much rather prefer skill set related magic items.  There's no reason a fighter, wizard, cleric or rogue shouldn't all be able to use Boots of Stealth, and there is no reason a wizard, picking up a magic sword, shouldn't be able to stab somebody with it. Granted, if an item requires divine or arcane magic, then it seems only natural that a wizard or cleric would get far more use out of it; but then again, a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword.




Yay! Wizards and priests get to play with all the toys, and fighters and rogues don't. 

CoDzilla and Batman Wizard, RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> Yay! Wizards and priests get to play with all the toys, and fighters and rogues don't.
> 
> CoDzilla and Batman Wizard, RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!




Uh, yeah.  I'm sure that's what I meant when I said, "With Use Magic Device, they can," and "a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword."


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 1, 2013)

I don't really see why "who qualifies for magic items" is a driving force behind game design choice/class groupings. Want to limit a Staff of Power to just Mages and Priests? Have its power be an increase in caster level, or an extra spell slot at the highest spell level the wielder can cast. There you go: Mages and Priests will want this item, and Warriors and Tricksters (ugh--that name sucks) won't.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 1, 2013)

Mearls mentioned on Twitter that these Class groups will be used mostly as a shorthand for "these types of characters". His example: they could have an adventure where the thief king will let tricksters into his throne room, but all others must remain outside.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 1, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Uh, yeah.  I'm sure that's what I meant when I said, "With Use Magic Device, they can," and "a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword."




There is no "Use Magic Device" in Next. Right now, they can't use wands, scrolls, or anything like that. 

Meanwhile, Priests get the same attack bonus at a fighter right now, and with the right proficiency has equal ability with a sword. Sure, a fighter gets abilities but a cleric also gets buff spells which I think more than equals them. 

So a wizard or a priest right now gets to play with all the toys (spellcaster and not) regardless if its better suited to another class, while the fighter and rogue can only use the not-caster ones. 

Trust me, wizard and cleric dominance was one thing I didn't want to return.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> There is no "Use Magic Device" in Next.




Well see, that seems to be your problem right there.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> I think this thread is a good example of why the class groups are not a good idea. We're already doing contortions to fit classes into one group or another.




This presumes "bunch of fans on the internet" are as competent at game design as professional game designers.  All it really proves is we're not good at working with this game design idea, not that professionals are not good at it.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

I suspect one primary motivation for this is a future Basic set book.

I think they want to put out a Basic book, with a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief.  No skills, no feats, no backgrounds, just ability checks and ability stat increases at certain levels.

And then when you buy the "advanced" books and supplements, it simply adds to that existing Basic system, with character compatibility.  

To accomplish that, everything works best if it fits with those four classes from the Basic book.  So that a new player picks up an advanced book and says, "OK, a Ranger is just like the Fighter, except it has these three or four different things".  

I know it won't work exactly like that, but I suspect that's one of the driving concepts behind this idea.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 1, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> This may have something to do with the title choice of "Trickster" vs. "Rogue" or "Expert" in the first place -which I agree is horrendous and needs changing back to the 2e titles (Which incidentally,  @_*Stormonu*_  , did include "Wizard" as a group, not "Arcanist". jus' sayin').




My use of arcanist was very deliberate.  If they're going to rejigger rogue to trickster, I think Arcanist is a better description that Mage - Mage could be - and should be - a "subclass" right there beside Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Witch and the half-dozen other specialties.  Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with as snazzy a name for the Divine casters - Diviner has already been absconded by the arcane classes.

Overall, I think the class buckets are nice starting points.  They give you a base framework from which can swap in and out abilities, and it gives you a starting point for that dreaded word - balance.  Yeah, Yeah, ALL the classes should be balanced against each other, but subdividing that balance isn't a bad idea.  It also creates a bit a familiarity.  "Oh, the Wizard is an arcanist?  Good, I know I'll be casting spells, so I probably don't want to go running into melee.  Oh, the Spellknife can do that, but he gives up some of his spell power?  Cool.  Maybe I'll try that.  Nah, I'd rather not play a Spellblade (Fighter); they give up too much spellcasting."

Hybrid classes - the bard, monk, warblade and the like may be a little more difficult to throw into one or the other, but picking one gives you a starting point for building the class.


----------



## Manabarbs (Oct 1, 2013)

Minigiant said:


> The other benefit is multiclassing. Now you can refer to class groups instead of individual classes and fix broken future comboes without an errata each time a new class comes out.
> 
> When you multiclass into a warrior class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have 3 or more warrior levels.
> When you multiclass and do not already have Extra Attack, you do not gain Extra attack until your warrior levels are 8 or greater or your character level is 11 or greater.
> Your caster level is your mage and priest levels plus half your trickster and warrior levels, rounded down.



That seems strictly inferior from both a mechanics-accomplishing-what-you-want standpoint and from an understandability standpoint compared to just referring directly to the class features. What does the first rule get you that "when you multiclass into a class that grants heavy armor proficiency, you do not get heavy armor proficiency until you have three or more levels in classes that grant that proficiency", aside from a bunch of extra words and strange corner cases where things like taking levels in a non-heavy-armor warrior class suddenly lets you qualify for heavy armor?

Magic items are similar. There's a reason that things in previous editions that require class features in order to make sense call out those class features as their prerequisites, and not less precise groupings of classes that aren't what you're really looking for. I don't think it's harmful to try to clump classes into groups based on... whatever criteria it is that they're using, but I'm not convinced that it buys you anything. "I dunno, maybe Boots of Speed or something could be limited to tricksters?" feels like a post hoc attempt to justify using that grouping, not a problem that's actually in need of solving. Has anybody, in the history of their D&D experience, ever felt like "boy, I really wish there was another, more arbitrary way to limit access to magic items based on class?" The idea that maybe rogue-y classes - but not ALL rouge-y characters, and a lot of characters who aren't very rogue-y at all - should have some magic items that ONLY they can use really feels like a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> What's the justification for a mace of disruption only working in the hands of a priest and not a rogue or a wand of fireballs in the hands of an invoker but not an illusionist? Magic is magic, after all.
> 
> So I'll cut you a deal: you let fighters fully use staves of power or wands of healing and I'll let mages benefit from potions of heroism. Deal?




In order a) there is no justification it should worl fo rthe rogue too b) the illusionist (assuming 2e) has forsaken the use of evocation magic thats why (not). Finally there should be feats that allow those uses to a fighter.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> There is no "Use Magic Device" in Next.




Not true! 

Rogue (Thief), level 13.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> This presumes "bunch of fans on the internet" are as competent at game design as professional game designers.  All it really proves is we're not good at working with this game design idea, not that professionals are not good at it.




What it illustrates is the power and danger of classifications. People naturally try to classify things. Naming a finite set of classifications alters how people perceive a set of items.

In 4E, the moment they described the four roles and power sources, people started creating a class grid, and trying to fill holes. They suddenly felt absences that they hadn't before.

With the four class groups, you have what were previously considered to be hybrid classes being shoved into the new roles. Do they fit? Somewhat. But are the classifications more useful?

4E's roles served a purpose. I may not have liked it very much, but the intent was clear, and the chosen roles achieved their goal.

My first argument is that the described classifications don't achieve their goal, which is to find a mechanism by which to describe commonalities among classes. That's because most of the classes that aren't the core four are a blend of concepts. The Paladin blends fighter with Cleric. The Ranger blends with the Druid. The Bard with the Wizard or Sorcerer. A useful mechanic would permit a class to have multiple descriptors.

My second argument is that the goal is unnecessary. Class descriptions can tell people how they relate to the more familiar classes. Magic items can key to class features. Spells can be organized into lists that classes reference, not the other way around. All of these things feel more natural.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> Why would -in setting- a sword reject a soldier sorcerer who has good strength and has spent feats to be good in melee, what is the justification behind it?



Because only the fighter is fated to wield it?

Or to come at it another way, why do the gods only answer the prayers of clerics and paladins, but not fighters and rogues? Whatever explains that, (mutatis mutandis) explains the sword.



			
				Li Shenron;6193233Traditionally said:
			
		

> scrolls[/I] and _wands _ (and other items that cast spells) can be used by those who have the spell on their class spells list. You can't say "usable by Mages" if different classes under Mage have different spells lists. Almost every other magic item works the same for everyone, or works only for those who have a specific ability, no matter the class. Occasionally there is magic items that work for a specific class, like "a Holy Avenger in the hands of a Paladin...", which you still need.



When you say "traditionally", I think maybe you mean "in 3E".

In Gygax's AD&D each class has a list of the magic items it can use - some of this is set out in the item tables themselves, and some in class descriptions (eg look at the illusionist or ranger class descriptions). Not all wands, for instance, cast spells, and even when they do you don't necessarily need the spell on your list to use the wand (my memory tells me this is true of the Wand of Missiles and Wand of Fireballs).

I'm not saying that we should go back to that. Maybe the 3E approach is better - or the 4e approach, in which anyone can use a scroll but implements (wands, staves, symbols etc) require proficiency. But neither is particularly traditional.



Li Shenron said:


> Paladin as a complex archetype (i.e. class) has a long history in the game, too much to demote it.



Again, if you look at AD&D the paladin is basically identical in archetype to the cleric - heavy armour, decent hp, decent range of weapons. - both are holy warriors. The differences depend upon mechanical minutiae - slightly different attack tables (although the effect of these is somewhat diluted by the cleric's more generous XP progression), the paladin having +2 to save on the fighter table compared to the cleric using the (generally superior) cleric table, the paladin's turning being a bit weaker (especially once XP costs are factored in), cleric healing via spells whereas the paladin heals via a distinct class ability.

Stripped of these mechanical minutiae - eg translated into a free-descriptor game - the AD&D cleric and the AD&D paladin are the same character. It's mechanics, not archetype, that distinguish them.

Subsequent editions have introduced more differences - 2nd ed AD&D specialty priests aren't all holy warriors, for instance, and 3E clerics have a much-increased spell selection which pushes them in some ways closer to the magician than the holy warrior in archetype. But then 4e really reverts to AD&D - the difference between cleric and paladin is almost purely mechanical (many characters could be viably built as either a STR cleric or a STR paladin, depending what aspect of the character the build is meant to emphasise).

I don't object to paladins being a distinct class from clerics, but I think the designers need to be aware that this is primarily about showcasing mechanical variation rather than archetypical variation. (Some people will always read strong story differences into the mechanical differences - eg they will see a major difference between a cleric's spells and a monk or paladin's magical class features - but I don't think the designers can take it for granted that mechanical differences will carry this sort of story baggage with them.)



DMZ2112 said:


> The ranger definitely has a strong warrior component, but it isn't his focus.  A ranged-combat-focused warrior ought to be more focused on combat than the ranger, and substantially less focused on spells and stealth than the ranger.



I don't think I agree with this. Or at least the stealth bit - I've got no very strong view on spells, but my default preference is for a spell-less ranger a la 4e or AD&D up to 7th level.

But as far as stealth and ranged combat are concerned, I think the two go together. It's inherent in the idea of attacking from a difference that you try to take advantage of cover, superior terrain, deception as to where the attack is coming from, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 1, 2013)

Klaus said:


> Mearls mentioned on Twitter that these Class groups will be used mostly as a shorthand for "these types of characters". His example: they could have an adventure where the thief king will let tricksters into his throne room, but all others must remain outside.



That sounds bad to me. Aren't backgrounds and their traits meant to handle this sort of thing?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> What it illustrates is the power and danger of classifications.




Only if your assumptions about how it will play out are correct.  And odds are they are not because, as I said, you're not a professional game designer and neither am I.  It's only a bad thing if it's not done well.  I think you will admit classification systems can work well.  

It's you're assumption it cannot work out well, or that you fully comprehend what they're doing despite lack of enough information to know how it will play out, that I am questioning.  I think it's fair to question what they've said so far, of course, I just don't think your fairly strong conclusions are well supported by the information at your disposal.


----------



## Sunseeker (Oct 1, 2013)

Hey look!  A definition of classes that still gives the Warrior/Fighter/Guy with a pointy stick the short end.  Gee...what a surprise. /eye roll


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, but that gets into problems like a fighter with a strength of 15 getting less benefit out of a potion of heroism than a cleric with a strength of 16.




That's not really a problem, in my mind. No one _needs_ to get a big bonus out of any particular magic item, and if the party fighter has a lower strength than the party cleric, perhaps the item is a better fit for that cleric, anyway (the fighter is probably a better fit for things that require, say, a high DEX or a high WIS or something -- clearly, that fighter shouldn't be the one doing things that revolve around having a high STR in the party). 



> Its easy to section off caster-items (a wand of fire only works for those who know fire-magic) but I don't want to give clerics and wizard access to every cool toy a fighter and rogue can get as well. I'm fine with some unique, group-class specific items that a caster can't use regardless of ability score or proficiency. Wizards get to dream of staves of power and clerics maces of disruption, let the fighter dream of vorpal swords and the rogue rapiers of puncturing.




I don't see any problem with giving _everyone_ access to all the cool toys, personally. I don't know why anyone who loves swords (from the fighter to the skill-based ranger to the sword-dancing monk to the spell-casting bladedancer to the tanky swordmage to the skald-like bard) shouldn't dream of a vorpal sword, and why all characters who love light weapons (from the light-weapon fighter to the cleric of the nobility to the Musketeer-esque paladin to a wizard-dilletante) can't dream of a rapier of piercing. I also don't see why any character who can cast spells (hexblades and paladins and arcane-tatooed barbarians and runic axe-users and monks who learn elemental ki arts and whatever) can't dream of items that let them use those spells more often (scrolls, wands, whatever). 

None of those distinctions make any sense to hard-code into the game. "Oh, I suppose my cleric of bravery and courage can't get the extra bonus from a _potion of heroism_ because I forgot to check the right box during character creation" isn't a situation I want to see. 3e and 4e combined have given me more than my fill of pointless, niche little items that are only useful to very specific kinds of characters.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> That sounds bad to me. Aren't backgrounds and their traits meant to handle this sort of thing?




I'm with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], here. Some thief-king in the world is going to decide based on the little box you checked at character creation that the priest of the god of thieves and luck isn't welcome in a place that the foppish noble bard-duellist with ties to the knights is, just because one happens to be a "priest" and one happens to be a "trickster," based purely on academic class distinctions? This sounds like a recipe for frustration and facepalming. 

All of these distinctions are going to be artificial at some point. There's no getting around it -- they don't grow organically out of the game as it is played, they represent someone trying to overprocess and over-define from a high level. My fallen ronin doesn't need to check a box that says "Rogue" to say that he gets by on his wits, or a box that says "Warrior" to say that he uses heavy armor, or a box that says "Priest" to say that he holds his ancestors as still helping him to this day, or a box that says "Mage" to use the magical abilities the souls of his ancestors, trapped in his swords, give him. 

This model is useful for demonstrating that "rogue" and "fighter" (and, to a large degree, "priest") are as meaninglessly vague as "mage" was in their own ways, but I don't really see much of a benefit in using it in any way.


----------



## Tovec (Oct 1, 2013)

Klaus said:


> Mearls mentioned on Twitter that these Class groups will be used mostly as a shorthand for "these types of characters". His example: they could have an adventure where the thief king will let tricksters into his throne room, but all others must remain outside.



And IF the monk is a trickster, why should the thief king let him into his throne room?



pemerton said:


> That sounds bad to me. Aren't backgrounds and their traits meant to handle this sort of thing?



I agree. And 5e is just getting stranger as this keeps happening.

There is no reason I can see that the outlook of a thief king should depend on a superclass that he can't see. I mean if Mearls is accurate and it will be descriptive only, how do characters in a game know a ranger is a warrior or a trickster? Or a bard a trickster instead of an arcanist (really digging this new name over mage).

It just raises too many random questions and doesn't seem to define enough things clearly enough. The argument a couple pages ago about multiclassing seems to be the best argument I've seen in favour of these superclasses and that (as already said) is easily solved if you include a multiclass section of a class.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 1, 2013)

Just to pile on (just caught up on this thread), why wouldn't a Cleric with thief-like domains and/or deity be invited in? What about someone with a thief-like Background? As pemerton mentioned, why wouldn't the thief king want these PCs there? Isn't this something that his traits / personality play into?

I'm just not getting why this is necessary. And not in a "I disagree" sort of way; I'm just not seeing the logical benefit of this type of thing yet.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Oct 1, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...
> None of those distinctions make any sense to hard-code into the game. "Oh, I suppose my cleric of bravery and courage can't get the extra bonus from a _potion of heroism_ because I forgot to check the right box during character creation" isn't a situation I want to see. 3e and 4e combined have given me more than my fill of pointless, niche little items that are only useful to very specific kinds of characters.
> 
> ....
> ...



I hope the designers listen to you, because I agree with every word you write here.

How would the Thief-King know what boxes are checked on your character? It's not like the characters are wearing labels with their class groups.

Basically, I think they should just drop the idea, since none of the examples of how it can be used makes the game better (in my opinion).


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 1, 2013)

Blackbrrd said:


> How would the Thief-King know what boxes are checked on your character? It's not like the characters are wearing labels with their class groups.



_Detect class group_?

Yeah, it reeks of game-ism when in-world events are suddenly referencing metagame terms. Classes can almost get a pass for that, since they often denote a certain training as well (though you should be able to bluff your well around it with some improv and appropriate clothing), but that's about it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 1, 2013)

As a side-note, I generally like the idea of character options with in-game meaning. The idea of a thief-king only really listening to the members of the local thieves' guild makes a lot of sense, and rewards engagement with an element of the world, like the guild. 

I even think that "class" can be the place where that hangs: I love the idea of lots of very world-specific classes embedded in a flexible system. 

Trying to put every character into a broader class group is just cramming square pegs into round holes, though. Let each class, and magic item, and feat, be authentic _to itself_, and we don't need to worry about ill-fitting general categories.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Only if your assumptions about how it will play out are correct.  And odds are they are not because, as I said, you're not a professional game designer and neither am I.




Come off of it. I've done design work and been paid for it and I think its a generally bad idea. Being a professional game designer is not some guarantee that any given idea will be good. We all have good ideas and bad, regardless of income or experience. This particular rule is bad in my opinion because it would create unnecessary restrictions and does little to improve the game experience in game: it merely makes new design easier. Its a cop-out in design. Its not even novel. Some boardgames already do the same thing. But a boardgame delivers a different experience than an RPG and I would not advise RPG designers to emulate boardgames in their design, the flow should go the other way imo.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Only if your assumptions about how it will play out are correct.  And odds are they are not because, as I said, you're not a professional game designer and neither am I.  It's only a bad thing if it's not done well.  I think you will admit classification systems can work well.
> 
> It's you're assumption it cannot work out well, or that you fully comprehend what they're doing despite lack of enough information to know how it will play out, that I am questioning.  I think it's fair to question what they've said so far, of course, I just don't think your fairly strong conclusions are well supported by the information at your disposal.




Sure, it's possible I'm missing something, but that doesn't invalidate either of my arguments.

Plus, we've seen much of what the designers conclude pass through the forums, so some fans are perfectly capable game designers. Also, the link in my signature is my game company, though the fact that I'm a part-time game designer has no bearing on the legitimacy of my arguments, which must stand on their own merit.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 1, 2013)

Yep Gary Gygax was a professional game designer but I don't think many people are playing Cyborg Commando or Dangerous Journeys...

That said, I like Mistwell's positive take on things. It's easy to be negative and I have have been convinced to think again several times by Mistwell...making interesting and perceptive comments.

i do agree with Wicht though...I don't think this helps much as described so far.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Oct 1, 2013)

A few months ago I started a thread in this exact topic, and I'm still of the opinion that 2E-style class groups are a nice addition. So, you can put me on the "yay!" group for this one.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 1, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's not really a problem, in my mind. No one _needs_ to get a big bonus out of any particular magic item, and if the party fighter has a lower strength than the party cleric, perhaps the item is a better fit for that cleric, anyway (the fighter is probably a better fit for things that require, say, a high DEX or a high WIS or something -- clearly, that fighter shouldn't be the one doing things that revolve around having a high STR in the party).
> 
> I don't see any problem with giving _everyone_ access to all the cool toys, personally. I don't know why anyone who loves swords (from the fighter to the skill-based ranger to the sword-dancing monk to the spell-casting bladedancer to the tanky swordmage to the skald-like bard) shouldn't dream of a vorpal sword, and why all characters who love light weapons (from the light-weapon fighter to the cleric of the nobility to the Musketeer-esque paladin to a wizard-dilletante) can't dream of a rapier of piercing. I also don't see why any character who can cast spells (hexblades and paladins and arcane-tatooed barbarians and runic axe-users and monks who learn elemental ki arts and whatever) can't dream of items that let them use those spells more often (scrolls, wands, whatever).
> 
> None of those distinctions make any sense to hard-code into the game. "Oh, I suppose my cleric of bravery and courage can't get the extra bonus from a _potion of heroism_ because I forgot to check the right box during character creation" isn't a situation I want to see. 3e and 4e combined have given me more than my fill of pointless, niche little items that are only useful to very specific kinds of characters.




Nope. Sorry. Unless you are going to allow my 5th level rogue to use the wand of magic missiles, I don't want your mage wearing those boots of the master thief. This reeks of "casters get everything, martials get some" that launch CoDzilla and Batman Wizard threads. I want some unique items that only work just for monks, barbarians, rangers, fighters, rogues, and bards just like I want ones that can only work for wizards, clerics, druids, warlock, paladins, and sorcerers.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Only if your assumptions about how it will play out are correct. And odds are they are not because, as I said, you're not a professional game designer and neither am I.




_argumentum ad verecundiam_ (appeal to [false, revered] authority).

Better: "odds are they are not because you are not part of the paid design team". But then, that's why we're all here, right?


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 1, 2013)

Also...surely these are the type of debates that we should have been having at the start of the Playtest I reckon.

i think with every post Mearls alienates somebody or some group of players. I think it is past time he said enough and go off and just make the game.

if I were him and his team I would have a look at the data, soak it all up a bit and then start again. Too many cooks spoil the broth and all. For good or bad I think this game needs more flavour, character and distinction...something I think gets watered down from a long playtest.

At the moment I find it easy enough to sell the idea of playing '13th Age', 'DCC RPG', 'Pathfinder' etc but I struggle to really nail down why they should play D&D Next other than....because it is er...D&D? Anyway...I am going off topic, sorry.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Come off of it. I've done design work and been paid for it and I think its a generally bad idea. Being a professional game designer is not some guarantee that any given idea will be good.




I think we both agree that classification systems CAN work.  Other games do it successfully, and even AD&D essentially did it successfully.  

So the question, to me at least, isn't "can this work", it's merely "will the system they chose work out?"

And we won't know that until the final product.  But, I'd put the odds pretty high for professional game designers working for the largest TRPG company in the world given 2+ years of design time and a full team to do it of doing it right.  Certainly I'd put those odds above the odds of an amateur who got paid a couple times who declares it's not looking right to them.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 1, 2013)

lol


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Kobold Stew said:


> _argumentum ad verecundiam_ (appeal to [false, revered] authority).
> 
> Better: "odds are they are not because you are not part of the paid design team". But then, that's why we're all here, right?




It's not a false authority.  A team of professional game designers, working for the largest TRPG company in the world, with the most resources, and 2+ years time to work on it, with another team of playtesters and surveys and public feedback, is not a false authority.  That's an actual authority.  In court, you could establish those guys as an expert in RPG game design.  

I am not saying they WILL design it great, as experts can be flawed.  I am saying I'd put odds on it that they will succeed at it if such a system can work out well, and also that I think such systems have worked well in other games including (sort of) a prior edition of D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 1, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> Nope. Sorry. Unless you are going to allow my 5th level rogue to use the wand of magic missiles, I don't want your mage wearing those boots of the master thief. This reeks of "casters get everything, martials get some" that launch CoDzilla and Batman Wizard threads. I want some unique items that only work just for monks, barbarians, rangers, fighters, rogues, and bards just like I want ones that can only work for wizards, clerics, druids, warlock, paladins, and sorcerers.




Yeah, your assumption of my bias is dead wrong. Honestly, I got no problem with a thief using wands of magic missiles. In the at all. In fact, I _prefer_ magic items that can be used by anyone for whatever reason, but I'm a godless heretic.  

But "caster vs. noncaster" is not even the real distinction between that wand and those boots. The real distinction is that a wand is an item designed to give you _more uses of a specific ability_ than you'd otherwise have (a wand gives you X uses of a spell you can cast -- not everyone knows that spell), and the boots are designed to improve one kind of action (the boots improve something that any character can attempt -- everyone can try and be sneaky). So lets compare apples to apples, here.

A fighter using a wand of magic missiles would be like a wizard getting a sword that let them use the fighter's bonus attack for free 20 times. Which, yeah, no real problem with. Also no real problem with requiring that you can use that bonus attack in the first place as a prerequisite to using that weapon. I think sensible prerequisites like "if an item gives you extra uses of an ability, you should be able to use that ability" or "requires a high ability score" (maybe those boots require a high DEX!) are generally unobtrusive and reinforce character uniqueness, so they're not a big problem. They're also not necessary, though, so removing them entirely and letting the rogue sling magic missiles and the fighter use scrolls of fireball won't break D&D for me. Arguably with things like _Necklace of Fireballs_ and _Gauntlets of Ogre Strength_, that kind of stuff happens anyway (rogues can use fireball! clerics can have high STR!).


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> experts can be flawed.  I am saying I'd put odds on it that they will succeed at it if such a system can work out well, and also that I think such systems have worked well in other games including (sort of) a prior edition of D&D.




I'm not denying that they are game designers, or that there is a team designing this game, and it might be successful. All that's trivially true. I am denying that one's thoughts about game design are invalid ("...odds are they are not...") because he or she may not be a professional game designer.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 1, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I don't think I agree with this. Or at least the stealth bit - I've got no very strong view on spells, but my default preference is for a spell-less ranger a la 4e or AD&D up to 7th level.
> 
> But as far as stealth and ranged combat are concerned, I think the two go together. It's inherent in the idea of attacking from a difference that you try to take advantage of cover, superior terrain, deception as to where the attack is coming from, etc.




I see your point, but a ranged fighter ought to be doing those things, too, and he doesn't have proficiency with stealth.  So...?

I hate hybrid classes, I really do.  This is why I thought backgrounds and specialties were so brilliant.  You could effect a perfectly serviceable bard by rolling a wizard with the minstrel background and a skilly specialty (which specialty that was changed a lot between packets).  Fun rangers and paladins could be similarly constructed.

Fundamentally, I don't think these class groups should be /groups/ -- I think they should be the only classes.  Classes should be broadly archetypal, with variation /within/ them.  The ranger ought to either be a combat rogue with nature expertise or a skilly fighter with nature expertise, but probably the former.

That aside, the ranger could be an archetype, but you need to focus on what makes him unique, not what makes him a warrior or a trickster.  For me, that's his survivalism.  He's not good with a bow because he's a warrior, he's good with a bow because you hunt with one.  He fights in close quarters with two weapons because he developed his combat style by observing animals, who are similarly armed.  He tracks poachers through acres of wilderness on a diet of tree bark and his own urine for an opportunity to demonstrate the principles of Darwinian evolution with a few well-placed snares and blinds.  The underbrush parts for a druid; the ranger just moves through it like it did.

These are things that do not characterize any other class, and they are why the ranger deserves to be his own beast.  This is why I think he is a trickster and not a warrior, because his essence is skilly.  His combat capability is not critical to his core concept.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Kobold Stew said:


> I'm not denying that they are game designers, or that there is a team designing this game, and it might be successful. All that's trivially true. I am denying that one's thoughts about game design are invalid ("...odds are they are not...") because he or she may not be a professional game designer.




I didn't say invalid, that would be deductive reasoning.  I am saying odds are, which is inductive reasoning.  You could be right, I just would bet on the WOTC design team being right on this one.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 1, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yeah, your assumption of my bias is dead wrong. Honestly, I got no problem with a thief using wands of magic missiles. In the at all. In fact, I _prefer_ magic items that can be used by anyone for whatever reason, but I'm a godless heretic.



Isn't this discussion of what classes can use what items mostly orthogonal to class groups? The rule doesn't have to be "Wands of Magic Missile can only be used by Mages." Maybe it'll be "Activate the Wand of Magic Missile with a DC 12 Intelligence (Arcana) check. Mages succeed automatically." Or maybe the class group could just be used to provide an additional bonus, such as "Mages holding a Wand of Magic Missile may treat Magic Missile as a prepared spell." All of these rules can exist in a future-proof way due to the existence of the Mage group.


----------



## Ratskinner (Oct 1, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> I see your point, but a ranged fighter ought to be doing those things, too, and he doesn't have proficiency with stealth.  So...?
> 
> I hate hybrid classes, I really do.  This is why I thought backgrounds and specialties were so brilliant.  You could effect a perfectly serviceable bard by rolling a wizard with the minstrel background and a skilly specialty (which specialty that was changed a lot between packets).  Fun rangers and paladins could be similarly constructed.




I totally agree. Although I recognize that it exists, I don't quite understand the emotional reaction some people get to a "class" being "demoted". Its not like there are any real "Rangers" out there that will lose their jobs. Especially if you can play a character that's effectively identical to previous characters anyway. ::shrug::



DMZ2112 said:


> Fundamentally, I don't think these class groups should be /groups/ -- I think they should be the only classes.  Classes should be broadly archetypal, with variation /within/ them.  The ranger ought to either be a combat rogue with nature expertise or a skilly fighter with nature expertise, but probably the former.




I think that tangentially illustrates another bonus effect of putting more weight on the backgrounds and specialities...namely, the Grognard and the Newbie disagree on what a "ranger" is...with BG/Specs...they can both be right!



DMZ2112 said:


> That aside, the ranger could be an archetype, but you need to focus on what makes him unique, not what makes him a warrior or a trickster.  For me, that's his survivalism.  He's not good with a bow because he's a warrior, he's good with a bow because you hunt with one.  He fights in close quarters with two weapons because he developed his combat style by observing animals, who are similarly armed.  He tracks poachers through acres of wilderness on a diet of tree bark and his own urine for an opportunity to demonstrate the principles of Darwinian evolution with a few well-placed snares and blinds.  The underbrush parts for a druid; the ranger just moves through it like it did.
> 
> These are things that do not characterize any other class, and they are why the ranger deserves to be his own beast.  This is why I think he is a trickster and not a warrior, because his essence is skilly.  His combat capability is not critical to his core concept.




I'd imagine a "Woodsman" speciality and background could be written that would get you most of the way to Ranger from either Warrior or Trickster, and maybe even most of the way from Cleric/Wizard(Magic-User) to Druid.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> And we won't know that until the final product.  But, I'd put the odds pretty high for professional game designers working for the largest TRPG company in the world given 2+ years of design time and a full team to do it of doing it right.  Certainly I'd put those odds above the odds of an amateur who got paid a couple times who declares it's not looking right to them.




Heh. An amateur getting paid a "couple times," I was always taught, made them a professional. Some people are just more fortunate to be able to be paid enough to make a living at it (and some of us have other things we think are more important). 

For what its worth, I didn't say "its not looking right."  Its not an issue of whether it can work or not. Obviously it can. Plenty of boardgames use that sort of artificial delineation to achieve "balance." However, I pointedly think, for an RPG like Dungeons and Dragons, the very idea is itself a bad idea. As in "It goes completely against the grain of what I want in an RPG like DnD." As in, "no level of polish or professionalism is going to make it a good idea for what I want from DnD." Such a system works fine at a certain level of abstraction. I could see something like Burning Wheel getting away with it. But for a game like DnD, I don't want that same level of abstraction, and if I did, I would be playing a different game.  I prefer a more detailed oriented approach. If I am playing a fighter, and I find boots of stealth, I want to be able to be the fighter that now, via the magic boots, can be as stealthy as any rogue. I don't want to be told, "no, those boots are for a different sort of character and your fighter can't use them because it does not fit the character type or the 'group type' of your character." 

I had hopes of WotC producing a game I could like and play, but if they are following this sort of design philosophy, I think its looking very good for Paizo. :/


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 1, 2013)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Maybe, and I'm not necessarily endorsing this, it would be beneficial to use tags instead of groups. For example, a ranger would be a warrior and expert. Paladin? A warrior and priest. Then spell lists and magic items can be tied to keywords.




The more I think about it, the more I believe Jeff is right (despite his lack of conviction  ).  What we need is an inclusive system rather than an exclusive one.  If you've got to have hybrid classes (groan), shoehorning them into the groups defined by their component parts is just madness.  A ranger is not a warrior or a trickster; he's both, and if you're going to label him he should benefit from possession of both labels, not be punished by being given one arbitrarily.

But I still think the better solution is keeping classes to a high archetypal standard so you don't need labels.  Each class should be its own label.  As I said in my previous post, I think you can make a case for the ranger as a survivalist archetype.  I'm less certain about the archetypal differences between the warlock, the sorcerer, and the wizard.


----------



## gyor (Oct 1, 2013)

Mike pointed out that for say an item that effects divine (primal magic) it would state its usable by Druids and Rangers even though they aren't in the same superclass.

 So this tells me that superclass will have a very minium influence and specific needs of a class will take priority over the tendancies of the Superclass, although I can see specific feats, Prestiage Classes, Subclasses, adapted to Superclasses. 

 Example the Purple Dragon Knight Prestiage Class, prerequiste most be a Warrior Class, Hierophant Prestiage class must be one of the Priest Classes. Archmage must be a member of a Mage Class. Thief of Amn must be a member of a trickster class.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Heh. An amateur getting paid a "couple times," I was always taught, made them a professional. Some people are just more fortunate to be able to be paid enough to make a living at it (and some of us have other things we think are more important).
> 
> For what its worth, I didn't say "its not looking right."  Its not an issue of whether it can work or not. Obviously it can. Plenty of boardgames use that sort of artificial delineation to achieve "balance." However, I pointedly think, for an RPG like Dungeons and Dragons, the very idea is itself a bad idea.




Yeah, it's used in RPGs, and was used (sort of) in a prior edition of D&D itself.  Do we really need to go through a list of other RPGs that use similar classifications for classes, or can we both agree some other RPGs have done so?



> As in "It goes completely against the grain of what I want in an RPG like DnD." As in, "no level of polish or professionalism is going to make it a good idea for what I want from DnD." Such a system works fine at a certain level of abstraction. I could see something like Burning Wheel getting away with it. But for a game like DnD, I don't want that same level of abstraction, and if I did, I would be playing a different game.




I am not even seeing how it is an abstraction.  That's also not in your argument against it.  How does, say, a Ranger being a member of the warrior classification, so that the game achieves a certain commonality for all warrior-types which can be used to help new players recognize what sorts of additional classes are like, and can aid in future product releases that include additional sub-classes in that warrior classification, a higher level of abstraction?



> I prefer a more detailed oriented approach. If I am playing a fighter, and I find boots of stealth, I want to be able to be the fighter that now, via the magic boots, can be as stealthy as any rogue. I don't want to be told, "no, those boots are for a different sort of character and your fighter can't use them because it does not fit the character type or the 'group type' of your character."




You show me where they said that's how it's going to work.  I already described how this sort of classification system can work to help with magic items, without it excluded use by some classes.  As repeated twice already, here is an example, "Boots of Elven Kind: While wearing these books, rogues gain expertise in Dex (move silent) checks, all others gain skill proficiency in those checks."  That's it, you achieve a useful differentiation between the broad classes without denying use of the item.  Rogues can utilize a magic item that provides stealth better than fighters, but fighters still gain a stealthy benefit from them.

And when I said earlier that maybe you're not seeing the whole picture and making assumptions, this is the sort of thing I was referring to.  You're assuming you have all the information necessary to draw a conclusion that it WILL operate a certain way, when you simply don't have that kind of information.  You're depending on your own imagination, and how you think it will likely operate, and instead of phrasing your reaction in that context, you're instead declaring you know it operates a certain way and that way is bad.



> I had hopes of WotC producing a game I could like and play, but if they are following this sort of design philosophy, I think its looking very good for Paizo. :/




I had hopes that sort of edition-warring language would end, particularly for this kind of issue.  Hey Wicht, if 5e isn't for you, fine, 5e isn't for you.  But leave the, "and I am speaking for everyone" sort of language out of it (which is what "this looks very good for [another game]" implies - since you're obviously referring to many more people than just yourself).  This sort of classification system isn't the end of the world for me, for example, even if it did work how you think it will (and I don't think it will work that way).


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 1, 2013)

Thinking about it, I think I like magic items that work...

...for everyone
...for people of a certain race
...for people of a certain alignment
...for people with a certain ability (e.g. "spellcasting" or "arcane spellcasting" or "use magic device")
...for people of a certain "level" (perhaps... I'm a bit uncertain about this...)
...for people of a certain faith or religion
...for people at random
...for one person only

But oddly enough, magic items that work for people of a certain class or group of classes don't sound that good to me.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> Thinking about it, I think I like magic items that work...
> 
> ...for everyone
> ...for some people at random
> ...




The certain level works if the item "unlocks" powers at certain key moments.  

But overall, yeah, that's where I am coming from too.


----------



## Zireael (Oct 1, 2013)

RevTurkey said:


> Also...surely these are the type of debates that we should have been having at the start of the Playtest I reckon.




I agree completely.

Somebody upthread suggested the superclass idea be replaced with tags.
I must say I like the idea of certain magic items being limited to certain tags only. But the master thief example is not something I like. How would he know what tag the character has?

Tags/superclass, as somebody mentioned, would make it easier to delineate rules for future expansions (let's not kid ourselves, we all know we'll get splats plenty)

As for names: a good solution was presented upthread:  







> Fighting Man, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 1, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> But oddly enough, magic items that work for people of a certain class or group of classes don't sound that good to me.




Well, that makes perfect sense.  Personally, I like to think of classes as an intrinsic part of the reality of D&D, like alignments or races, but that's a bit of an odd philosophy.  It's far more common to just think of them as jobs, and a job is hardly a mystical predestined force.

Still, the idea that a realm is as shaped by the fact that its ruler is a Fighter as it is by the fact that he is an Elf and Chaotic Good is one of those things I've always loved about my personal vision of D&D.  A Fighter isn't just a guy with a sword, he represents a martial tradition that pervades reality itself.  I dig that.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> I am not even seeing how it is an abstraction.  That's also not in your argument against it.  How does, say, a Ranger being a member of the warrior classification, so that the game achieves a certain commonality for all warrior-types which can be used to help new players recognize what sorts of additional classes are like, and can aid in future product releases that include additional sub-classes in that warrior classification, a higher level of abstraction?




It is an abstraction to say: Magic Item X does not work for anyone that does not belong to Class Group Y, where Class Group Y is an arbitrary categorization made specifically for the purpose of "balance" and mechanics. That is specifically the issue I have and is the specific thing I am complaining about. It's, imo, lazy design. 




> You show me where they said that's how it's going to work.




I don't know specifically that's how it's going to work. I am saying that is how I am hoping it does not work and if it does work that way, I will be disappointed. We are pontificating on a future and expressing opinions about possibilities. There are some possibilities I find superior to others and I am saying as much. I am not claiming to know this is what the future holds. In fact, when I first discovered the possibility yesterday of this course being followed, I was surprised because it seemed like such a lame way of doing magic items. 





> I had hopes that sort of edition-warring language would end, particularly for this kind of issue.  Hey Wicht, if 5e isn't for you, fine, 5e isn't for you.  But leave the, "and I am speaking for everyone" sort of language out of it (which is what "this looks very good for [another game]" implies - since you're obviously referring to many more people than just yourself).  This sort of classification system isn't the end of the world for me, for example, even if it did work how you think it will (and I don't think it will work that way).




What part of "I" means to you, I am speaking for everyone. If "I" am hoping that they do things a certain way, then "I" am expressing my personal opinion. I am not claiming to be speaking for everyone else. I can see how the "its looking good for Paizo," could be construed that way, but it could equally be construed, and should be in the context of "me" speaking for "myself," to mean that "it is looking good for Paizo to be keeping *my *business."  I do not claim, in this case, to be representative of anyone other than me.


----------



## Sage Genesis (Oct 1, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> Thinking about it, I think I like magic items that work...
> 
> ...for everyone
> ...for some people at random
> ...




That's not so odd. All of those things you list can be viewed as in character elements. A person could stand there and say, "oh this sword is dedicated to the god of justice" or "only dwarves can bear the Iron Crown" or something. But class groups make far less sense than that. Why does this item work for the Rogue but not the Ranger with the Guild Thief background? Why does the sword dedicated to the god of justice work for his priests, but not his paladins? Etc.

It's of course not a given that things will really work out like this on launch day, mind you. But I have yet to see even a single benefit to adopting this method. Does it really make it easier to design feats and magic items? I don't think so. It conjures up weird corner cases like the ones brought up earlier, and it's not as if there haven't been plenty of feats and items that worked just fine without these class groupings.


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 1, 2013)

Ratskinner said:


> I totally agree. Although I recognize that it exists, I don't quite understand the emotional reaction some people get to a "class" being "demoted". Its not like there are any real "Rangers" out there that will lose their jobs.




Well, a whole bunch of park "Rangers" just got furloughed here in the states ....


----------



## Derren (Oct 1, 2013)

The Trickster definition seems problematic.
Defining them as "guys who do skill checks" means that characters in other groups can't be all that good at skills so to not encroach on the Tricksters turf. And that leads to the 3E fighter.
Instead they should find a other role for rogues and let other characters have their skills, too.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 1, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Isn't this discussion of what classes can use what items mostly orthogonal to class groups? The rule doesn't have to be "Wands of Magic Missile can only be used by Mages." Maybe it'll be "Activate the Wand of Magic Missile with a DC 12 Intelligence (Arcana) check. Mages succeed automatically." Or maybe the class group could just be used to provide an additional bonus, such as "Mages holding a Wand of Magic Missile may treat Magic Missile as a prepared spell." All of these rules can exist in a future-proof way due to the existence of the Mage group.




But then, what qualifies one to be a "mage?" Are hexblades included? What about swordmages? Bladedancers? Rangers who take a 1e "arcane magic" style option? How about druids or clerics who take Gandalf as their primary inspiration? Priests of the god of magic? Rogues patterned after "detectives" who use divination magic? What about illusionists who don't normally cast the spell? Arcane tricksters? Arcane _Archers?

The distinction becomes functionally meaningless in practice. What falls into the "mage" bucket is essentially arbitrary, without relevance to the characters that people play. At least "If you can cast Magic Missile..." is a clear mechanical and fictional criteria, and it opens it up to a Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Druid, Cleric, or Barbarian who takes a hypothetical "Arcane Student" feat (that gives them a few cantrips), regardless of which class they take. 

I mean, why give Character X some advantage or benefit just because they checked the right box at character creation, and prohibit Character Z from getting that same benefit because they didn't? Whether or not you cast the Magic Missile spell might be relevant for whether or not you can use the Wand of Magic Missiles, but it says jack all about HD size, armor proficiency, role in the world, or if you should be able to qualify for metamagic feats. 

It's not exactly orthogonal, because that's among the reasons mearls gave for why class groups are useful. But I don't see their utility from that. There's no benefit to saying "All mages automatically use Magic Missile from this wand, and everyone else has to make an INT check," because it still relies on the essentially meaningless border-guarding of what a "mage" is and is not. If you said "Those who know Magic Missile can use it automatically from this wand, and everyone else has to make an INT check," that'd be better. If you said, "Everyone can use Magic Missile from this wand, but remember that DMs can impose restrictions for any reason" I'd be pretty much totally satisfied, but that's a little "un-D&D."_


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 1, 2013)

Derren said:


> The Trickster definition seems problematic.
> Defining them as "guys who do skill checks" means that characters in other groups can't be all that good at skills so to not encroach on the Tricksters turf. And that leads to the 3E fighter.
> Instead they should find a other role for rogues and let other characters have their skills, too.




Not necessarily.  There are a number of ways for tricksters to be able to be "the skill guys" without turning other classes into the 3E fighters.

For one thing, there's how 5e does it now.  Every class has a chance to do anything.  For the skills they're proficient in, they've got a reasonable chance of success.  But the trickster could do more.  Whereas a fighter or wizard could hide behind rocks, scrub terrain, or around a corner to get the drop on a monster (DC 15 check), a rogue could hide in the dark corner of a room (DC 20 or more check) with about the same difficulty. 

A charming warrior, or cleric might talk a monster into letting the party get by without a fight, but the bard could talk the monster into joining the party.

Or you could do it just by giving the skill guys more skills.  So a stealthy fighter and a stealthy rogue are pretty much equivalent, but the rogue also has a half dozen other "tricks".

Or you could do a little of both.

The thing I've noticed in my playtests is that the rogue, with his expertise does overshadow everybody else when he gets to use it, just as the fighter overshadows everybody else in combat, but the rogue can't do everything at once, and so the party has to choose where to use him, and then rely on the other characters to handle other areas--the same as how while the fighter dominates combat, there's still a lot for the cleric, the rogue, and the bard to do.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Wicht said:


> It is an abstraction to say: Magic Item X does not work for anyone that does not belong to Class Group Y, where Class Group Y is an arbitrary categorization made specifically for the purpose of "balance" and mechanics. That is specifically the issue I have and is the specific thing I am complaining about. It's, imo, lazy design.




But, again, it doesn't necessarily work that way, and none of your language until now left any room for it to work any way other than what you had previously described.  If you agreed with me all along it might not work that way, it would have been helpful for you to have said something earlier?



> I don't know specifically that's how it's going to work. I am saying that is how I am hoping it does not work and if it does work that way, I will be disappointed.




OK, well, understood.



> What part of "I" means to you, I am speaking for everyone. If "I" am hoping that they do things a certain way, then "I" am expressing my personal opinion. I am not claiming to be speaking for everyone else. I can see how the "its looking good for Paizo," could be construed that way, but it could equally be construed, and should be in the context of "me" speaking for "myself," to mean that "it is looking good for Paizo to be keeping *my *business."  I do not claim, in this case, to be representative of anyone other than me.




If you say that's what you meant, then OK I take you at your word.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 1, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Side note:
> 
> Then, for the love of Pelor, just call them Experts. Wouldn't that be easier?



.

"Experts" is an even dumber name. Wizards are kind of "experts" at their chosen craft, no? And Fighters would be rather more learned in a larger group of weapons, and........


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> But, again, it doesn't necessarily work that way, and none of your language until now left any room for it to work any way other than what you had previously described.  If you agreed with me all along it might not work that way, it would have been helpful for you to have said something earlier?




Hrm...



Wicht said:


> Eh, I was ambivalent about 5e, but this idea of having "group" specific magic items leaves a bad taste in my mouth.* I hope they don't do it, but if they do, its a major turn off.* I would much rather prefer skill set related magic items.  There's no reason a fighter, wizard, cleric or rogue shouldn't all be able to use Boots of Stealth, and there is no reason a wizard, picking up a magic sword, shouldn't be able to stab somebody with it. Granted, if an item requires divine or arcane magic, then it seems only natural that a wizard or cleric would get far more use out of it; but then again, a skilled fighter is going to get a lot more mileage out of the magic sword.




Emphasis added.

Anyway. Apology accepted and thank you for taking me at my word.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 1, 2013)

Herschel said:


> "Experts" is an even dumber name. Wizards are kind of "experts" at their chosen craft, no? And Fighters would be rather more learned in a larger group of weapons, and........




I'm fond of the name "Depicklers."  Because they get the party out of pickles.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 1, 2013)

Fan cleaners.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> I'm fond of the name "Depicklers."  Because they get the party out of pickles.



Yeah but that gets confusing when you start fighting undead deep-pickles and their mini-onion-minions.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> Thinking about it, I think I like magic items that work...
> 
> ...for everyone
> ...for people of a certain race
> ...




Members of some classes tend to be better at certain types of activities than members of other classes.  So for example:

Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
Cleric classes tend to be better at receiving divine aid than others.
Fighter classes tend to be better at the use of unusual melee weapons than others.

Having magic items which work better for those who are better at doing the sorts of things those items help with, makes sense to me.

So for example:

"Elvish Boots: When worn, rogues gain expertise in Dex (move silent) checks, others gain skill proficiency in such checks."
"Wand of Eldritch Rays: Fires a ray of energy at a target within 25', doing 1d6 damage, or 2d6 if fired by a Mage."
"Rod of Healing: This rod heals 1d6 hit points of damage to a target within 25", or 2d6 damage if used by a Cleric."
"Staggering Maul +1: This Maul deals 2d6+1 bludgeoning damage.  Targets struck must succeed on a DC15 Constitution save or else are Restrained for 1 round. Fighters wielding this weapon may choose to Stun targets rather than restrain them." 

In all of these examples, the item is usable by anyone, but it works better if used by a particular class which is naturally better at the sorts of things that item does.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Hrm...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My bad, I didn't see that you wrote that earlier.  Sorry about that.

For what it is worth, I prefer "Items work better in the hands of a particular class" instead of "item only works in the hands of a particular class".


----------



## Wicht (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> My bad, I didn't see that you wrote that earlier.  Sorry about that.
> 
> For what it is worth, I prefer "Items work better in the hands of a particular class" instead of "item only works in the hands of a particular class".




That is itself a superior design mechanic, I would agree.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 1, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Members of some classes tend to be better at certain types of activities than members of other classes.  So for example:
> 
> Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
> Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
> ...




This is a great way to do it.

For example, 2nd edition Strength spell upped your strength score based on your group. Warriors got 1d8, Rogues and Priests 1d6, Wizards 1d4. The 2nd edition version of Cat's Grace did the same thing with dexterity (Rogues 1d8, Warrior/Wizard 1d6, Priest 1d4). You could cast them on the weaker classes (wizards for strength, for example) but it was much more beneficial to cast it on warriors.

Likewise, a potion of heroism gave warriors +4 effective levels of warrior. If you weren't a warrior, your stats matched that OF a 4th level warrior (and if you were better, such as a better thac0, you gained no benefit). So it was always better to give one to a fighter rather than to the wizard unless you wanted one as a last-ditch measure. 

That's the advantage; giving class specific items rewards those classes. Sure, a thief could use a wand of magic missiles in 2e, but he had to roll an attack roll while a wizard did not. It makes sense to give it to the wizard. I don't want a lot of these, but a few items that reward warriors or tricksters that have limited use to priests or mages (and vice versa) I think is a good thing.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 1, 2013)

Herschel said:


> .
> 
> "Experts" is an even dumber name. Wizards are kind of "experts" at their chosen craft, no? And Fighters would be rather more learned in a larger group of weapons, and........



I so, so disagree. "Tricksters" are people who trick people. "Experts" are experts at something. The former is obviously not what these people always are. The latter is. Go Expert over Trickster.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 1, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The distinction becomes functionally meaningless in practice. What falls into the "mage" bucket is essentially arbitrary, without relevance to the characters that people play. At least "If you can cast Magic Missile..." is a clear mechanical and fictional criteria, and it opens it up to a Fighter, Thief, Assassin, Druid, Cleric, or Barbarian who takes a hypothetical "Arcane Student" feat (that gives them a few cantrips), regardless of which class they take.
> 
> I mean, why give Character X some advantage or benefit just because they checked the right box at character creation, and prohibit Character Z from getting that same benefit because they didn't? Whether or not you cast the _Magic Missile_ spell might be relevant for whether or not you can use the _Wand of Magic Missiles_, but it says jack all about HD size, armor proficiency, role in the world, or if you should be able to qualify for metamagic feats.



I think we can all agree that labels/keywords such as "mage" could be abused or misused to create poor rules. My main point is that they could also have some value. The difference between "is a Mage" and "can cast Magic Missile" is more about granularity than anything else. An Arcane Student feat could just as easily say, "You qualify as a Mage for the purposes of using magic items" as "You may add some spells to your spell list".

Both granularities have their advantages. You might say that it makes more sense for a warlock who can cast Burning Hands but not Magic Missile to be able to use a Wand of Burning Hands more easily than a Wand of Magic Missile. I might say that it's simpler and more streamlined for a warlock player who finds a Scroll of Evard's Black Tentacles  to remember that warlocks count as Mages instead of having to consult a rulebook to determine if Evard's Black Tentacles is a "warlock spell".

As someone else pointed out, this discussion is really all about abstraction, which is the practice of treating two distinct things as being essentially the same, in some context. I'm not arguing that a Wizard and a Warlock are the same, but I am suggesting that there are enough contexts in which a Wizard and Warlock should be treated as the same, that it's worthwhile to create the abstraction.

If I publish an adventure with the last remaining wand of a long-lost Thassilonian arcane spell, I just want to be able to say that any Mage can use it, instead of having to enumerate specific arcane classes or arcane spells that can serve as prerequisites instead. Or, if you like, any character can use it, but any Mage can attempt to learn the spell.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> I think we can all agree that labels/keywords such as "mage" could be abused or misused to create poor rules. My main point is that they could also have some value.




I think my main point is that I don't see what value it creates. It's meaningless categorization for no real benefit.



> The difference between "is a Mage" and "can cast Magic Missile" is more about granularity than anything else. An Arcane Student feat could just as easily say, "You qualify as a Mage for the purposes of using magic items" as "You may add some spells to your spell list".




True, but why should it have to do both? Of what benefit is the distinction of being a Mage? Why can't it just give you some spells you can cast, and then have _the capacity to cast those spells_ count enough for using items that rely on you casting those spells? (If you even want items to rely on that, which I'm certainly open to them NOT relying on that)



> Both granularities have their advantages. You might say that it makes more sense for a warlock who can cast Burning Hands but not Magic Missile to be able to use a Wand of Burning Hands more easily than a Wand of Magic Missile. I might say that it's simpler and more streamlined for a warlock player who finds a Scroll of Evard's Black Tentacles  to remember that warlocks count as Mages instead of having to consult a rulebook to determine if Evard's Black Tentacles is a "warlock spell".




Why not just let anyone with training in Arcana use scrolls? Or anyone with an INT of 10+Spell Level? Why introduce another category that then excludes, say, a paladin of a Cthuloid deity from using an item that summons tentacles just because she's not a "mage?" And why does she get to use a Holy Avenger? What is or is not a "mage" is meaningless, arbitrary, and artificial -- it can't help but not capture the actual kinds of characters that may or may not want to use a scroll that lets them summon tentacles.



> As someone else pointed out, this discussion is really all about abstraction, which is the practice of treating two distinct things as being essentially the same, in some context. I'm not arguing that a Wizard and a Warlock are the same, but I am suggesting that there are enough contexts in which a Wizard and Warlock should be treated as the same, that it's worthwhile to create the abstraction.




I don't think your suggestion is well supported. A character who learns magic from dusty tomes of forgotten lore and a character who learns magic from pacts sworn with questionable extraplanar entities are two completely, fundamentally, different kinds of character. They share the "learns magic" verbage, but they share that verbage with 95% of every fantasy archetype, so that's not a very useful distinction. 



> If I publish an adventure with the last remaining wand of a long-lost Thassilonian arcane spell, I just want to be able to say that any Mage can use it, instead of having to enumerate specific arcane classes or arcane spells that can serve as prerequisites instead. Or, if you like, any character can use it, but any Mage can attempt to learn the spell.




Why not just say that anyone can use it? Or anyone with Scroll proficiency? Or anyone with an Int of 15 or more? 

Why introduce an entirely new, largely meaningless, super-category?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Oct 2, 2013)

> From Twitter:
> @redcometcasval And Sorcerer and Warlock go back to full classes again? Also, is Mage d4 or d6? Article makes it unclear.
> @mikemearls sorcerer and warlock are their own classes, wizard is d6 hit die.




I'm very glad to hear this.



> @Gweemaran I'm concerned that these "half power source, half role" groupings will pigeon-hole classes and/or force a grid.
> @mikemearls the intent behind it is the opposite - they're very broad and each one can incorporate a lot of concepts
> 
> @mikemearls To be clear about today's L&L: The groups don't have anything to do with class design. They help us describe a completed class.
> @mikemearls They let us make blanket statements in adventures, magic items, and so on that apply to whole ranges of classes.




That addresses pretty much all of the concerns I had with this idea. As long as the class groups are just labels and don't shoe-horn class design, I have no objections.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 2, 2013)

Falling Icicle said:


> I'm very glad to hear this.
> 
> 
> 
> That addresses pretty much all of the concerns I had with this idea. As long as the class groups are just labels and don't shoe-horn class design, I have no objections.




Yeah, pretty good on that regard. Very 2e by the way. But I still don't see how this couldn't have been solved by using keywords or a system reliant on proficiencies.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Oct 2, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> Yeah, pretty good on that regard. Very 2e by the way. But I still don't see how this couldn't have been solved by using keywords or a system reliant on proficiencies.




They could do both. A magic staff, for example, could be "usable only by mages" or "usable by anyone with proficiency with staves as an implement," depending on what they want to do.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why introduce another category that then excludes, say, a paladin of a Cthuloid deity from using an item that summons tentacles just because she's not a "mage?" And why does she get to use a Holy Avenger? What is or is not a "mage" is meaningless, arbitrary, and artificial -- it can't help but not capture the actual kinds of characters that may or may not want to use a scroll that lets them summon tentacles.



Same reason an orc storm shaman shouldn't be able to fly a B-52 bomber. It has to do with the nature of the item and how it is used, not the effect.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> I see your point, but a ranged fighter ought to be doing those things, too, and he doesn't have proficiency with stealth.  So...?



I'm the wrong person to ask on this - I like 4e's ranger archer, and also archer warlord (who speaks to the alternative archery archetype - of leading a whole troop of archers Agincourt-style).



DMZ2112 said:


> I hate hybrid classes, I really do.





Ratskinner said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd imagine a "Woodsman" speciality and background could be written that would get you most of the way to Ranger



I tend to go the other way. Given the inherence, to D&D play, of fiddly mechanical distinctions that make no difference at the broad archetype level (eg paladin & cleric), I favour many classes to capture all the different nuances.

That's not an argument for broad class groups, though.



Wicht said:


> Such a system works fine at a certain level of abstraction. I could see something like Burning Wheel getting away with it.



I don't follow this. BW is a classless, lifepath PC build system, based on skills a bit like Runequest. How would a "class groups" system fit into BW?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> It is an abstraction to say: Magic Item X does not work for anyone that does not belong to Class Group Y, where Class Group Y is an arbitrary categorization made specifically for the purpose of "balance" and mechanics. That is specifically the issue I have and is the specific thing I am complaining about. It's, imo, lazy design.



Gygax, that notoriously lazy designer!

Why do the gods answer only the prayers of some of the followers? Whatever story you tell in the fiction to answer that question, tell the same story to explain why the sword reaches full potency only in the hands of this particular wielder.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

Salamandyr said:


> A charming warrior, or cleric might talk a monster into letting the party get by without a fight, but the bard could talk the monster into joining the party.



This would be fine with me, but I haven't yet seen any hint of how this might be mechanically achieved. (Eg the bard has no special prowess in relation to the interaction rules.)


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

I'd be OK with Expert or Specialist, but I still prefer Rogue.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Gygax, that notoriously lazy designer!
> 
> Why do the gods answer only the prayers of some of the followers? Whatever story you tell in the fiction to answer that question, tell the same story to explain why the sword reaches full potency only in the hands of this particular wielder.




I would argue that the clerics ability to receive answers to their prayers is inherent to the genre. It is not arbitrary nor was it a decision made for "balance," but rather was chosen to capture the feel of the archetype. 

If a sword is atuned to a particular individual, I have no problem with that either. Again, fits the story being modeled. 

To say that the seven league boots only work for some people but not for others breaks the story archetype being modeled by the item. 

I have no problems, as someone noted above, with magic items working according to skills, alignment, race, age, or any of a number of other "character" factors, as appropriate. But a grouping of magic items where some potions only works for fighter types and some only work for rogue types, etc. does not provide the experience I wanted. As far as I remember, Gygax designed potions worked for whomever drank them. 

So Wizard staffs working mainly for wizards, is just fine with me. But when a halfling looks into a palintir, I think it should work for him, even if he can't control it, fully.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> Same reason an orc storm shaman shouldn't be able to fly a B-52 bomber. It has to do with the nature of the item and how it is used, not the effect.




Why shouldn't an orc storm shaman fly a B-52 bomber if that's what makes sense for the game? The DM introduced that bomber, presumably to be used, so why not let that character use it? And in a world where B-52 bombers are being used like magic items, who is to say that the orc storm shaman isn't also a pilot? These are not incompatible archetypes.


----------



## Ratskinner (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I tend to go the other way. Given the inherence, to D&D play, of fiddly mechanical distinctions that make no difference at the broad archetype level (eg paladin & cleric), I favour many classes to capture all the different nuances.




I think you're right about the fiddly bits for D&D. I just don't think we have to include all those nuances in the class. So, _if_ we are packaging fiddly bits into different silos of character (race _& subrace_, class _& subclass_, _background, specialty\feats_), then those silos and the associated choices should all be solidly meaningful (IMO). Within that kind of environment, I balk at a profusion of classes. If we reduce the number of silos, then, sure, include more elements under those silos. Otherwise, I think you run the risk of either producing a lot of splat that ends up overlapping (I think 2e had like 6 "official" ways to be a "ninja"...and _then _came out with a "Ninja's Handbook"), and/or you end up with choice points that have little meaning. (Of course, I also favor a much lower total of fiddly bits in general.)


----------



## SageMinerve (Oct 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I would argue that the clerics ability to receive answers to their prayers is inherent to the genre. It is not arbitrary nor was it a decision made for "balance," but rather was chosen to capture the feel of the archetype.




And I would argue that the D&D cleric archetype is probably one of the few archetypes that mostly didn't exist pre-D&D.

I've always felt weird with the cleric class because I believe, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentions, that gods should answer people's prayers if it strikes their fancy: if Athena finds that Odysseus is a Hero that advances her ideals, she'll help him directly and indirectly regardless of the fact that Odysseus is (not) one of her priests.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> But a grouping of magic items where some potions only works for fighter types and some only work for rogue types, etc. does not provide the experience I wanted. As far as I remember, Gygax designed potions worked for whomever drank them.




Not all of them.  IIRC, potions of heroism, superheroism, invulnerability, and Giant strength only work for fighters.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> And I would argue that the D&D cleric archetype is probably one of the few archetypes that mostly didn't exist pre-D&D.



Agreed. Or rather, to the extent that it did exist, it is the same archetype as the paladin, namely, the holy warrior. And being a holy warrior isn't something you _train_ for - the gods bestow vocations upon their chosen vessels.



SageMinerve said:


> I've always felt weird with the cleric class because I believe, as pemerton mentions, that gods should answer people's prayers if it strikes their fancy: if Athena finds that Odysseus is a Hero that advances her ideals, she'll help him directly and indirectly regardless of the fact that Odysseus is (not) one of her priests.



In Gygax's AD&D the upshot of this is slightly ad hoc rules for divine intervention. But Achilles seems to get it almost whenever he needs it - is he therefore best modelled as a cleric rather than a fighter?



Wicht said:


> I would argue that the clerics ability to receive answers to their prayers is inherent to the genre. It is not arbitrary nor was it a decision made for "balance," but rather was chosen to capture the feel of the archetype.



To the best of my knowledge the cleric class was introduced into the game to counter-balance a vampire PC, as a type of undead hunter (I think Van Helsing was one inspiration, and maybe Solomon Kane was another source of inspiration for that sort of character).



Wicht said:


> If a sword is atuned to a particular individual, I have no problem with that either. Again, fits the story being modeled.
> 
> To say that the seven league boots only work for some people but not for others breaks the story archetype being modeled by the item.
> 
> ...



There's a lot here.

First, as [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] pointed out, Gygax designed plenty of potions that worked only for fighters. And the fact that fighters can use a wide range of magic items was called out in their class description as a valuable class feature (contrast the monk, who from memory can't use potions at all, and is heavily restricted in relation to other items too; or the illusionist, who has far fewer useable magic items than the MU). These were clearly decisions connected to the mechanical effectiveness of each class.

Second, if 7 league boots work for anyone than make that part of their item description - but it doesn't follow that all other items work the same.

Third, in Tolkien a hobbit can't use the Palantir - all Pippin does is trigger the curse and get his mind temporarily blasted by Sauron - so why should s/he be able to in the game, if fidelity to genre is what we're after. Even Gandalf couldn't use the Palantir safely (as Saruman's experience revealed) - Denethor was better at it than Saruman, but Aragorn was the true wielder (hence the ability of 10th level rangers in Gygaxian AD&D to use crystal balls!).

The real design issue, it seems to me, is this: are classes simply bundles of features and capabilities, or are they primarily bundles of story elements expressed in mechanical terms? 3E and PF take the first approach, and it is also a central par of 4e; classic D&D takes the second approach - hence wizards can't use swords or armour, only fighters can benefit from potions of heroism, etc, and 4e adopts a version of this approach, too, by combining fairly tight class design (except for wizards in later supplements) with very limited cross-classing.

If classes are meant to be bundles of story elements, and a key genre conceit is that only the greatest of crusaders will wield a Holy Avenger, then it makes perfect sense for there to be a class restriction on the use of that item. Part of what you get, when you choose to play a paladin, is the possiblity of living out that particular story with your PC. When you choose to play a different class you're choosing a different bundle of story elements, which won't include a Holy Avenger but might include something else.



Ratskinner said:


> I think you're right about the fiddly bits for D&D. I just don't think we have to include all those nuances in the class. So, _if_ we are packaging fiddly bits into different silos of character (race _& subrace_, class _& subclass_, _background, specialty\feats_), then those silos and the associated choices should all be solidly meaningful (IMO). Within that kind of environment, I balk at a profusion of classes.



I understand the force of the argument, but I think you're asking background and feats to bear a load that would be too big a change for a fairly conservative D&D design like Next.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> who is to say that the orc storm shaman isn't also a pilot? These are not incompatible archetypes.



They're not _incompatible_, but they are both strong individual archetypes (the analogy here is multiclassing).


----------



## Ratskinner (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I understand the force of the argument, but I think you're asking background and feats to bear a load that would be too big a change for a fairly conservative D&D design like Next.




I'm not sure about "too big a change", given things in the d20 era. However, you're certainly correct about the conservative (if not ocassionally retro) design part. I'm not sure how necessary that is, but the powers that be seem to think it is.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I tend to go the other way. Given the inherence,  to D&D play, of fiddly mechanical distinctions that make no  difference at the broad archetype level (eg paladin & cleric), I  favour many classes to capture all the different nuances.




Absolutely understood.  Me, I have a noted lack of appreciation for mechanical nuance.  I'd just as soon have a single arcane spellcasting class as three with slightly different approaches to the same spell list.

I think subclasses would work great for reworking a wizard as a warlock or sorcerer, but see little need for three top-level arcanists.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> Absolutely understood.  Me, I have a noted lack of appreciation for mechanical nuance.  I'd just as soon have a single arcane spellcasting class as three with slightly different approaches to the same spell list.
> 
> I think subclasses would work great for reworking a wizard as a warlock or sorcerer, but see little need for three top-level arcanists.



I could really get behind this. 4e started to head a bit this way in some of its later releases (assuming I've got your meaning right), but could have gone further. For instance, I think that 4e could probably have merged the STR cleric and the paladin, and the WIS cleric and the invoker, without too much loss if it was done well.

But D&Dnext seems to be based on a fairly traditional conception of what "feels like" D&D, and that seems to mean that a lot of these classes have to be distinct.


----------



## Zireael (Oct 2, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Members of some classes tend to be better at certain types of activities than members of other classes.  So for example:
> 
> Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
> Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
> ...




This is a very good idea.


----------



## Bluenose (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Agreed. Or rather, to the extent that it did exist, it is the same archetype as the paladin, namely, the holy warrior. And being a holy warrior isn't something you _train_ for - the gods bestow vocations upon their chosen vessels.




Well, partly. There's another type of holy magician that does study and perform magic invoking their chosen deity, generally mystical sects. The practice is widespread even in the Abrahamic faiths, perhaps especially in the Abrahamic faiths. A Catholic priest performing an exorcism is practising magic in a ritual form learnt from books, as is a Jewish Kabbalist using the Seal of Solomon for protection from possession. On the other hand, they're not typically warriors in any way, very unlike the D&D Cleric/Druid/Priset. And I'll note a persistent insistence by the practitioners that they're performing "miracles" rather than "magic".


----------



## Cyberen (Oct 2, 2013)

We all agree, I presume, that Basic D&D should present the Big Four as Class choice and nothing more.
At the end of the spectrum, enlightened groups should have the choice between :
* a toolkit including many fiddly bits, almost point-based chargen.
* a toolkit permitting to tailor custom classes, fulfilling individual and group (genre) expectations.
Those 2 traditions have both their merits and supporters, and I believe Next should serve them both (obviously not at the same time !)
Perhaps Class groups could facilitate the transition (enlightenment)between the base and the full custom version.
I would add that I was, and always had been, very skeptical of the Paladin class... until the September version which knocked me off of my feet with its awesomeness. So I don't really believe anymore in theoretical class delineation talking...


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> And I would argue that the D&D cleric archetype is probably one of the few archetypes that mostly didn't exist pre-D&D.
> 
> I've always felt weird with the cleric class because I believe, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentions, that gods should answer people's prayers if it strikes their fancy: if Athena finds that Odysseus is a Hero that advances her ideals, she'll help him directly and indirectly regardless of the fact that Odysseus is (not) one of her priests.




Eh, its a conflation of two different archetypes actually: the prophets of Jewish and Christian scripture, and the holy warriors of the medieval catholic church. The "spells" of the cleric are very much modeled on many of the miracles of the Old and New Testaments with a slight gamist twist to make it fit the game.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 2, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I so, so disagree. "Tricksters" are people who trick people. "Experts" are experts at something. The former is obviously not what these people always are. The latter is. Go Expert over Trickster.





So they're more learned in magic than Wizards? Experts is a moronic name, that's more for things like sages and the like because each class would be the "experts" in their fields over the "rogue-ish". Trickster is merely horrible, it doesn't claim/imply superior knowledge over more actually learned characters.  

Dabbler would be a better term even.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Not all of them.  IIRC, potions of heroism, superheroism, invulnerability, and Giant strength only work for fighters.




I truly did not remember that. I had to go back and recheck the DM's Guide but you are right. They do say fighter only. My bad.  I notice that 2e changed this up in a few of them, like Giant Strength, and I must confess I don't actually remember ever using the rules as written and must assume (though memory of 1e is hazy) that we houseruled those fighter only potions to work on everyone.  

I still hold its bad design, but I admit that Gygax, much as I appreciate his work, did indeed do thus.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 2, 2013)

Herschel said:


> So they're more learned in magic than Wizards?



Potentially academically, I would imagine. I could see them saying "magic works this way" better than a Wizard could, they just can't cast spells as well.


Herschel said:


> Experts is a moronic name, that's more for things like sages and the like because each class would be the "experts" in their fields over the "rogue-ish".



At least "expert" would mean "expert at something." Trickster means "tricks people." That's not at all what they're trying to get across, though. That's what makes "trickster" such a bad name.


Herschel said:


> Trickster is merely horrible, it doesn't claim/imply superior knowledge over more actually learned characters.



They might actually have more knowledge about certain things, though, couldn't they? I'm not super up-to-date on 5e skills at all. It's changed too much, and I don't have the latest packet, and this new L&L only muddies the waters more for me.


Herschel said:


> Dabbler would be a better term even.



I don't much like it. Maybe "specialist" or something. But even "dabbler" is better than "trickster", which is truly, utterly terrible, as it doesn't represent what they're going for at all.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Third, in Tolkien a hobbit can't use the Palantir - all Pippin does is trigger the curse and get his mind temporarily blasted by Sauron - so why should s/he be able to in the game, if fidelity to genre is what we're after. Even Gandalf couldn't use the Palantir safely (as Saruman's experience revealed) - Denethor was better at it than Saruman, but Aragorn was the true wielder (hence the ability of 10th level rangers in Gygaxian AD&D to use crystal balls!).




Its off topic, but I have to dispute your interpretation of the text. Pippin very much activates the magic item. But he lacked the ability to counteract the will of Sauron who had full control of the Palantir. The items weren't cursed as such, they were merely under the power of the evil of the age. 

Gandalf could have used the Palantir but he did not want to place himself in a contest with Sauron on that particular field. His humility prevented him from taking the chance. It was not a matter of power but of caution, caution which Aragorn forswore when he pitted himself against Sauron in a battle of wills.  

All of this plays out to a particular theme of Lord of the Rings: that the ability to do something is not equal to the right or wisdom of doing a thing. 

But anyone, regardless of class, could activate the Palantir: we have example of a hobbit, a nobleman, a ranger and a wizard all using the same item. Likewise, the rings of power would operate for anyone, but if you lacked the will to fully control them, then the results were suboptimal.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 2, 2013)

Rogue. Call 'em Rogues. Fills your ragamuffins and urchin pickpockets, your burglars and treasure-hunting explorers, your cads and rakes and scoundrels, your acrobats and jesters, your spies and scouts, your malcontents and loners, the stealthy, the speedy and the secret, fits the "jacks-of-all-trades" of bards and rangers and/or the specific skills of monks and mariners.

"Trickster" doesn't do this. "Expert", really, doesn't do this. "Explorer" doesn't do this.

There is absolutely no reason the class group should not be referred to as Rogue. They changed the class name from Thief to Rogue after more than half of the game's history (and iterations). What's the issue with changing it_ back_?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 2, 2013)

The problem with 'Tricksters' as a name is just a microcosm of the overall problem: if you choose to over-categorise then you are just creating more issues for people to argue about.

Seriously, what real benefit is there to grouping Classes this way? Are people just addicted to arguing about what 'type' a Monk Class is or not? Or what names to give each group? Classes give us everything we need to know, and if there is a manageable core of them (about 10-12), and customisable options with sub-classes and backgrounds, etc, then why add a tertiary level of organization? Just for the sake of it, apparently.

Stick with 10 iconic Classes in the core (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard). Add more in supplements if you want (like having sorcery and witchcraft along with other magical styles saved for a magical option supplement). Break them down into sub-classes if you want. Leave the superfluous categorisation, of how each Class could be grouped, to each individual who likes to think about such things.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> They're not _incompatible_, but they are both strong individual archetypes (the analogy here is multiclassing).




And now I have to learn multiclassing rules and deal with _heaps_ of added complexity just because the designers wanted to throw up a pointless roadblock to stop storm shamans from also being pilots? _FOR WHAT BENEFIT?_ All that rule is doing right now is making it harder for my players to play things that don't fit within the designers' preconceived and largely irrelevant notions of what "types of characters" exist at my table.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Pippin very much activates the magic item.



In much the same way that anyone can activate a Cloak of Poisonousness by putting it on.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 2, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> And I would argue that the D&D cleric archetype is probably one of the few archetypes that mostly didn't exist pre-D&D.
> 
> I've always felt weird with the cleric class because I believe, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentions, that gods should answer people's prayers if it strikes their fancy: if Athena finds that Odysseus is a Hero that advances her ideals, she'll help him directly and indirectly regardless of the fact that Odysseus is (not) one of her priests.




Not to delve into religion, but that's new testament dogma.  Pre Jesus, a cleric (priest) was required as an intermediary to forward prayers.  It may be Christian specific, but the archetype was there.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I could really get behind this. 4e started to head a bit this way in some of its later releases (assuming I've got your meaning right), but could have gone further. For instance, I think that 4e could probably have merged the STR cleric and the paladin, and the WIS cleric and the invoker, without too much loss if it was done well.
> 
> But D&Dnext seems to be based on a fairly traditional conception of what "feels like" D&D, and that seems to mean that a lot of these classes have to be distinct.




I agree, it does look that way, but does a character type being distinct necessarily mean it has its own class?  This is a bit of a change of focus, but there were an awful lot of bladesingers around in AD&D2.  I think they were very distinct, and they were a multiclass kit.  I suspect there would be a strong lobby behind them as "feeling like" D&D, but they've never been a base class.

I worked up a list of 28 classes from D&D3, and the Pathfinder APG for flavor, (the only reason I didn't use D&D4 was volume [and, okay, what I see as redundancy {see above re: WIS clerics and invokers}]) and I found eight of them that I felt were distinct enough in themselves and from each other to be classes; the rest could easily be resolved as a subclass or feat track.  I think eight is a really good number.

That will probably be another thread, though.

What is really great about this thread is that no matter what we or Wizards decide, I feel confident that I will be able to mod the D&D5 class system into whatever sort of experience I want it to be, without the need to write dozens of powers.  Yay for dungeon master agency!

(Sorry for the faint criticism of D&D4; I humbly request that it not derail the thread.)



Kamikaze Midget said:


> And now I have to learn multiclassing rules and deal with _heaps_ of added complexity just because the designers wanted to throw up a pointless roadblock to stop storm shamans from also being pilots? _FOR WHAT BENEFIT?_ All that rule is doing right now is making it harder for my players to play things that don't fit within the designers' preconceived and largely irrelevant notions of what "types of characters" exist at my table.




The designers' notions of what "types of characters" exist at your table are pretty central and relevant to the playing of a class-based roleplaying system.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Not to delve into religion, but that's new testament dogma.  Pre Jesus, a cleric (priest) was required as an intermediary to forward prayers.  It may be Christian specific, but the archetype was there.



I'm confused - if it's Christian-specific, how can it be pre-Jesus?


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Not to delve into religion, but that's new testament dogma.  Pre Jesus, a cleric (priest) was required as an intermediary to forward prayers.  It may be Christian specific, but the archetype was there.




More to the point, in ancient myth the gods were far more likely to do bad things than good things to people who caught their eye.  That's not a great basis for a class.

...What am I saying?  The Pathfinder oracle is fantastic.  Still, the point stands; if you're going to replace clerics with universal communion the cost-benefit ratio should be huge.

Better that the gods wait to be asked...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> The designers' notions of what "types of characters" exist at your table are pretty central and relevant to the playing of a class-based roleplaying system.




You've got it backwards, mate. Design is the art of crafting something that is going to be useful in some way to the audience that you intend to be the consumers of your design. What matters isn't what WotC thinks should be a type of character, what matters is what *I think should be a type of character*, and what you think should be a type of character and what, collectively, we think should be the types of characters. 

As this thread actively demonstrates, our thinking on this issue is diverse -- infinite, even. What works for the guy who wants rangers to be Rogues isn't going to work for the guy who wants rangers to be Warriors or the guy who wants Rangers to be Priests. So dictating what the class "is" and implementing that from the top down isn't going to be useful in playing the game -- it is inevitably going to be flawed. So that leads to the question, "What does this element actually *do*? And can whatever it does be done in other ways?" 

And it doesn't look like it *does* anything. None of the things that Mearls has mentioned using the class group for requires something like a class group to do. It introduces unnecessary problems for no actual benefit.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You've got it backwards, mate.




Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.



> And it doesn't look like it *does* anything. None of the things that Mearls has mentioned using the class group for requires something like a class group to do. It introduces unnecessary problems for no actual benefit.




This is fundamentally true, but I do love me some categorization.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.




It's inaccurate to call this my opinion. It's the opinion of countless design professionals across genre and medium, one of the many ways they distinguish design from art. I'm merely an observer of that behavior and self-definition. 



> This is fundamentally true, but I do love me some categorization.




One of the beautiful things about modular design: you can always introduce another layer of categorization if you want.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> I'm confused - if it's Christian-specific, how can it be pre-Jesus?




I mis-spoke - It's old testament, so therefore Judaism.  I don't claim to be a religious scholar.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I mis-spoke - It's old testament, so therefore Judaism.  I don't claim to be a religious scholar.




Sort of. Prayer was always something, even in the Old Testament individuals could do, but the priest served as the one who spoke to God on behalf of man, in regards to sanctification and propitiation. What both Old Testament and New Testament both affirm is that some prayers are more effective than others, depending on the spiritual qualities of the one doing the prayer. cf. Isaiah 59:1-3; James 5:16-18.

Most specifically though, its the miracles of the Old and New Testaments which provide an archetype for the powers and those miracles were always individually given so that only the select could do them.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's inaccurate to call this my opinion. It's the opinion of countless design professionals across genre and medium, one of the many ways they distinguish design from art. I'm merely an observer of that behavior and self-definition.




Okay.  They are also entitled to their opinions.


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 2, 2013)

Numenara has the right approach in naming this role "jacks" (as in jack of all trades)


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Numenara has the right approach in naming this role "jacks" (as in jack of all trades)




I love the crap out of this, but it's just as inaccurate as any other label.  Still rooting for Depickler.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 2, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Having magic items which work better for those who are better at doing the sorts of things those items help with, makes sense to me.




The opposite makes the same sense to me.

I mean, you have a Rogue in the party who's an ace at stealth, you let him find a Cloak that makes him even better, a super-ace!

In the other party, they have no Rogue, nobody's an ace at stealth, decent at the very best. They find the same Cloak, no one is still an ace at stealth.

It's not that this is actually particularly good for the game... you've done an extra favor to someone who maybe didn't even need it, and didn't help much someone you could have. 

I'm not going to rip my hair out if they do this, but it's not an improvement on the game IMO. If anything, it encourages characters to boost what they are already good at, and discourages others to get good at something they are not, because you can bet that the Cloak won't go to the non-Rogue because it would feel "wasted" on them. 

Note that both of these (boosting the best guy, and boosting the others) could be a good thing after all... it's just that if magic items don't provide new abilities but only makes you better at something you already normally are, at least we have one possibility less.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And now I have to learn multiclassing rules and deal with _heaps_ of added complexity just because the designers wanted to throw up a pointless roadblock to stop storm shamans from also being pilots? _FOR WHAT BENEFIT?_ All that rule is doing right now is making it harder for my players to play things that don't fit within the designers' preconceived and largely irrelevant notions of what "types of characters" exist at my table.



If you want a game where anyone can do anything they want, maybe a class-based game isn't what you're looking for.

Or, to put it another way: if you don't want to deal with restrictions imposed by the designers, you should just ignore those restrictions.

There's nothing to say there can't be an Orc Storm Shaman / Bomber Pilot / Marketing Manager / Computer Programmer, but it's a bit ridiculous to expect the designers to assume all storm shamans know C++.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> The opposite makes the same sense to me.
> 
> I mean, you have a Rogue in the party who's an ace at stealth, you let him find a Cloak that makes him even better, a super-ace!
> 
> ...




I am viewing this from a simulation standpoint - people who tend to be good at stealth, know how to use an item that helps with stealth to it's optimum use.  You seem to be viewing it from a game balance standpoint.  Which I don't much care about, as game balance on this fine a level is simply not something I want from a game, and not something 5e is focused on.  

Of course the stealth cloak is likely to be given to the guy good at stealth - just like the big two handed magic axe is likely to be given to the dwarf already using a big two handed axe, and the wand to the guy who already uses arcane magic with a wand, and the holy rod that kills undead to the guy who already uses holy items to kill undead.  That's the whole point of classes to begin with - focused concepts which are different from other focused concepts.  D&D is not a classless system, and the system is going to support the class-themed concept within the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> If you want a game where anyone can do anything they want, maybe a class-based game isn't what you're looking for.




That's not what I want. I want a game where storm shamans can also be pilots, where thieves can sometimes cast spells, where warriors might get their prayers to the war-god answered. I want a game where class is defined in terms of _what you can do_ and not in terms of _what you can't do_. 

I want a game that doesn't break if my fighter wants to use a wand of magic missiles just because she's not a "mage-group" character.




> Or, to put it another way: if you don't want to deal with restrictions imposed by the designers, you should just ignore those restrictions.




I'm questioning the need for and benefit of these restrictions in the first place. 



> There's nothing to say there can't be an Orc Storm Shaman / Bomber Pilot / Marketing Manager / Computer Programmer, but it's a bit ridiculous to expect the designers to assume all storm shamans know C++.




Yep, it's much more reasonable to expect them to not design a game where my ranger can't use a scroll simply because "rangers aren't mages" and where my cleric of the god of thieves can't talk to the thief-king because "clerics aren't tricksters." Especially when there's no benefit to gain from it. Since that's what I actually want, my desires don't seem to be too unreasonable.


----------



## Manabarbs (Oct 2, 2013)

Does the extra complexity that comes with making magic items work differently for different groups of classes _really_ buy us enough that it's worth it? Imagine that we have two characters in a party. One is a rogue with +6 to stealth, and one is a paladin with +0 to stealth. (The exact numbers aren't important, of course.) This two-person party finds a cloak of +3 stealth. Either the party can have the rogue wear it for a total of +9 to stealth, or the party can have the paladin wear it, so he'll have +3 to stealth and the rogue will have +6. The first setup makes the rogue super awesome at solo stealth - using a magic item to augment what you're already good at - and the second is better if the group needs to sneak around together - using a magic item to (sort of) patch up a weakness a little. Is that a bad state of affairs? Does the game benefit in any way from the item being made more complicated? In a lot of cases, magic items that "should" be for a certain type of character naturally work out that way anyway. Do you want the +5 Awesome Longsword to be better for fighty-types than for wizards? It already is! You don't need to forbid non-warriors from using it; it's already correct for the fighter to take the sword because _he or she is the best at using a sword_. The item is naturally worse for a wizard because wizards are bad at using swords. (If a wizard is as good as a fighter at using a sword, that's a class design issue.) Making the item more complicated by making it give +5 to warriors and only +2 to everyone else is a pointless complication.

There's almost no such thing as a _totally_ useless game element, but I think that this classification system comes preeeeety close. I actually don't mind the labeling as a purely aesthetic thing; that's basically harmless. I'm still profoundly unconvinced that it has even the slightest mechanical benefits, though.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's not what I want. I want a game where storm shamans can also be pilots, where thieves can sometimes cast spells, where warriors might get their prayers to the war-god answered. I want a game where class is defined in terms of _what you can do_ and not in terms of _what you can't do_.
> 
> I want a game that doesn't break if my fighter wants to use a wand of magic missiles just because she's not a "mage-group" character.
> 
> ...




There is a basic assumption in your posts that certain magic items will be unusable by certain classes, as opposed to simply more useful in the hands of someone specialized in the thing that magic item is about.  That assumption has been questioned, repeatedly, with many examples at this point as to how it might work differently than your assumption.  So, why are you continuing with the assumption? You keep stating it as if WOTC declared the class system WILL be used to prevent certain classes from using certain items - with entirely zero support for that claim.  It's possible, but it's also highly possible it's not that, and we have no word at all to confirm it one way or the other.

To put it another way - maybe your ranger can use a mage scroll, but a mage can get more use out of the mage scroll than your ranger (the spell on the scroll will work better for the mage than it will for the ranger because the mage knows how to get the most out of the spell, but it will work for both).

In that way, the class system can accomplish a useful goal of enhancing classes, without denying use of magic items to classes outside of that goal.


----------



## SageMinerve (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's not what I want. I want a game where storm shamans can also be pilots, where thieves can sometimes cast spells, where warriors might get their prayers to the war-god answered. I want a game where class is defined in terms of _what you can do_ and not in terms of _what you can't do_.




IMHO you have it backwards: classes are defined first and foremost by what they can't do, not what they can do, because otherwise what's the point of having classes? Why don't we have fighters casting fireballs? Why don't we have rogues casting healing spells?

Any RPG has to put boundaries on how characters can be built: for D&D, it's classes; for GURPS / HERO and others, it's character points; still others, like FATE, it's a number of pick-and-choose items from various categories... Doesn't matter how, but you can't be anything you want and do whatever you want, otherwise there's really no point in playing (where's the fun in playing a God-mode PC with no weaknesses and access to every kind of power?)

As for the specific example of rangers using scrolls, it can (and does IMO) make sense story-wise: using a magic scroll requires to be familiar with magical scripts and language, arcane gestures, concentration... not things that typical rangers have training in.

After all, plenty of people can't make heads-or-tails of IKEA assembling charts IRL, and I for one would argue that those are a lot less complex than magical scrolls...


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 2, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> I am viewing this from a simulation standpoint - people who tend to be good at stealth, know how to use an item that helps with stealth to it's optimum use.  You seem to be viewing it from a game balance standpoint.  Which I don't much care about, as game balance on this fine a level is simply not something I want from a game, and not something 5e is focused on.
> 
> Of course the stealth cloak is likely to be given to the guy good at stealth - just like the big two handed magic axe is likely to be given to the dwarf already using a big two handed axe, and the wand to the guy who already uses arcane magic with a wand, and the holy rod that kills undead to the guy who already uses holy items to kill undead.  That's the whole point of classes to begin with - focused concepts which are different from other focused concepts.  D&D is not a classless system, and the system is going to support the class-themed concept within the game.




Not so much about balance, rather I think I was viewing it from the point of view of opening up new possibilities.

Of course one way to go, is have the Fighter find the uber weapon, Wizard find the uber staff, Rogue find the uber cloak etc., so that the Fighter is even stronger at fighting, the wizard casts even stronger fireballs, the Rogue is even better at hiding...

It's not at all wrong per se, but what do you get in the end this way? Numbers creep, even higher probabilities of success... which maybe then have to be compensated by buffing encounters or increasing challenges so that the game is more or less at the same "sweet spot" of challenges.

What I had in mind, rather than balance, was tossing-in some additional options. Let the Rogue use a Wand of Fireballs, the Wizard use an Arrow of Slaying, and the Fighter use a Cloak of Invisibility, and each of them has one option to try out they didn't have before.

The point is, if magic items are only occasionally restricted (or are restricted in ways other than class i.e. restricted to those who are already good at something), you still have the choice whether you want to distribute them "right" or oddly. If restrictions by class are the standard (not that this is actually currently suggested...) there is no choice.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's not what I want. I want a game where storm shamans can also be pilots, where thieves can sometimes cast spells, where warriors might get their prayers to the war-god answered. I want a game where class is defined in terms of _what you can do_ and not in terms of _what you can't do_.
> 
> I want a game that doesn't break if my fighter wants to use a wand of magic missiles just because she's not a "mage-group" character.




This is going to sound strident, and I apologize in advance:

It sounds like what you want is a game where classes are so customizable that their subclasses/variants/builds/what-have-you undermine the sovereignty of other classes.  At which point I would echo [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION]: why have classes at alll?

Warriors don't wield wands because wielding wands is one of the things that makes a mage a mage (or a priest a priest, depending on the spell in the wand).  And being able to make a skill check to wield wands is one of the things that makes a depickler a depickler.  (It WILL catch on, dammit.)


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 2, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> IMHO you have it backwards: classes are defined first and foremost by what they can't do, not what they can do, because otherwise what's the point of having classes? Why don't we have fighters casting fireballs? Why don't we have rogues casting healing spells?




Magic Items could be used exactly to "break" those limitations.

Maybe Gygax didn't want that to happen. After all, it's actually easier to balance magic items if you know who's going to use them, so a Wand of X in the hands of someone who anyway can cast X, can be abusive only by how many uses it has, while in the hands of someone else becomes more valuable but the value is harder to estimate.

But there's other ways to break the limitations, first and foremost multiclassing. In 5e we additionally have subclasses that mix with other classes' features, and feats for "light multiclassing". It's strange that in an edition with so many ways to mix and expand your character abilities, they want to add a restriction to magic items, which is the are of the game that _more than anything else_ we were told was going to be optional and in the hands of the DM.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> There is a basic assumption in your posts that certain magic items will be unusable by certain classes, as opposed to simply more useful in the hands of someone specialized in the thing that magic item is about.  That assumption has been questioned, repeatedly, with many examples at this point as to how it might work differently than your assumption.  So, why are you continuing with the assumption?




Your assertion of my assumption is false. I merely regard the difference between "can't use it" and "can't get a special benefit for using it" as largely irrelevant, because the part I'm interested in is the _can't_. As I explained above, there's still no virtue in making this distinction that is fundamentally unconnected to the actual play of a particular character.



			
				SageMinerve said:
			
		

> IMHO you have it backwards: classes are defined first and foremost by what they can't do, not what they can do, because otherwise what's the point of having classes? Why don't we have fighters casting fireballs? Why don't we have rogues casting healing spells?




I don't share your view of the purpose of classes (I list five reasons to use a class system there, and I wouldn't rank "stops you from doing other things" among those virtues).  We can have fighters casting fireballs and rogues casting healing spells, just like we can have wizards using swords and clerics using thieves' tools. While I wouldn't expect these to be the default, I would expect the game to enable me to swap out whatever fighters get at level 5 for the ability to cast _fireball_ if it made sense for me in my game. If that change is going to suddenly make the character not a warrior or also a mage, because now that character needs to be able to use a wand of fireballs....yeah, that's hugely unnecessary. 



> As for the specific example of rangers using scrolls, it can (and does IMO) make sense story-wise: using a magic scroll requires to be familiar with magical scripts and language, arcane gestures, concentration... not things that typical rangers have training in.




But if my ranger is a 1e-style ranger with wizard spells, that's not something the system should be able to handle?



			
				 DMZ2112 said:
			
		

> It sounds like what you want is a game where classes are so customizable that their subclasses/variants/builds/what-have-you undermine the sovereignty of other classes. At which point I would echo @GX.Sigma : why have classes at alll?




Again, I can think of at least five reasons, and none of them are prohibitive, because forbidding things isn't really the point of a class, as far as I can see. Rogues don't generally know healing magic because rogues generally have no reason to learn healing magic, not because the game would be abandoning all semblance of a class system if they learned it. Maybe the thieves in my campaign are theives of life who steal years from others and give them to their allies, and they belong to a guild that opposes the dominant church of death and light where shimmering knights of undeath defend the realm from outsiders. The game should make it _easy_ to do that. Inventing and imposing meaningless class groups is a completely unnecessary barrier to that kind of localization, because suddenly that staff of the necromancer would make a lot of sense in the hands of the warriors of my world despite being designed for "mages" and the Healer feat reserved for priests wouldn't be able to be enhanced by my "rogues who know some healing magic," because they're not technically priests.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 2, 2013)

Warbringer said:


> Numenara has the right approach in naming this role "jacks" (as in jack of all trades)



I also love the term "jack", and I think Numenera benefits from its clean slate and having just the three classes: glaive (warrior), nano (mage), and jack (trickster).

And sure, I'll throw some more trickster alternatives into the ring:
Opportunist
Troubleshooter
Fixer


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> Not so much about balance, rather I think I was viewing it from the point of view of opening up new possibilities.
> 
> Of course one way to go, is have the Fighter find the uber weapon, Wizard find the uber staff, Rogue find the uber cloak etc., so that the Fighter is even stronger at fighting, the wizard casts even stronger fireballs, the Rogue is even better at hiding...
> 
> It's not at all wrong per se, but what do you get in the end this way? Numbers creep, even higher probabilities of success... which maybe then have to be compensated by buffing encounters or increasing challenges so that the game is more or less at the same "sweet spot" of challenges.




They're aware of this going in, and are using bounded accuracy to deal with it.  It's not like you could avoid this to begin with: any system that depends on both classes and levels will have numbers creep, and either a plan to deal with that, or not.  This game has a plan to deal with that.  Now, there are classless and level-less systems out there, but they're just not D&D.

If you want a mage good at stealth, give them the boots of stealth I mentioned.  They won't be as good at sneaking as the rogue, and the boots won't help them sneak as well as the rogue, but they will be better at sneaking.  If they REALLY want to focus on stealth, they just need to multiclass as a rogue.  But you're not going to get the full effect of another classes key ability by picking up that single magic item anyway...so I am not sure how the result could be any better for the desire you have other than it does in fact make you better at sneaking.



> What I had in mind, rather than balance, was tossing-in some additional options. Let the Rogue use a Wand of Fireballs, the Wizard use an Arrow of Slaying, and the Fighter use a Cloak of Invisibility, and each of them has one option to try out they didn't have before.




So a class-based system where magic items routinely break down the classes and anyone can be anything through magic items? Come on, surely you see the issues inherent in such a system.  Why not just go for a class-less system if that's your intent?



> The point is, if magic items are only occasionally restricted (or are restricted in ways other than class i.e. restricted to those who are already good at something), you still have the choice whether you want to distribute them "right" or oddly. If restrictions by class are the standard (not that this is actually currently suggested...) there is no choice.




If they can give you the class ability of another class, we know how they will be distributed as surely as we know how they'd be distributed under the currently discussed system.  If the rogue only gets better at something he was already great at and never failed at anyway, but the mage instead gets a rogue ability they couldn't succeed at before, it's definitely going to the mage in that system.  You have to choose which system you want, and I think the obvious choice is to have a class-based system that reinforces that system with magic items if there is a choice.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 2, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> There is absolutely no reason the class group should not be referred to as Rogue. They changed the class name from Thief to Rogue after more than half of the game's history (and iterations). What's the issue with changing it_ back_?



I tend to agree, but here's why they won't do it. If you rename Rogue to Thief and Trickster to Rogue, then the class now called Thief is broader than its name. The problem is that "Thief" was never a good name in the first place.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Your assertion of my assumption is false. I merely regard the difference between "can't use it" and "can't get a special benefit for using it" as largely irrelevant, because the part I'm interested in is the _can't_. As I explained above, there's still no virtue in making this distinction that is fundamentally unconnected to the actual play of a particular character.




The system I mentioned, you CAN get special benefit from using it.  It works for you just fine.  However, it works BETTER for the guy whose class is experienced with such things.  There is no "can't" involved.

Here it is again:



Mistwell said:


> "Elvish Boots: When worn, rogues gain expertise in Dex (move silent) checks, others gain skill proficiency in such checks."
> "Wand of Eldritch Rays: Fires a ray of energy at a target within 25', doing 1d6 damage, or 2d6 if fired by a Mage."
> "Rod of Healing: This rod heals 1d6 hit points of damage to a target within 25", or 2d6 damage if used by a Cleric."
> "Staggering Maul +1: This Maul deals 2d6+1 bludgeoning damage.  Targets struck must succeed on a DC15 Constitution save or else are Restrained for 1 round. Fighters wielding this weapon may choose to Stun targets rather than restrain them."
> ...




It's not "fundamentally unconnected to the actual play of a particular character" because:



Mistwell said:


> Members of some classes tend to be better at certain types of activities than members of other classes.  So for example:
> 
> Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
> Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
> ...




You've basically gotten the same response from many people at this point - what you want is, at it's heart, a class-less system.  You want any class to be able to be any other class, through magic items.  If you want that, it's better to do that through the class system itself, and multi-classing system and hybrid system.  You're not going to get anyone using any item exactly to the same effect in every classes hands.  That view simply doesn't work well with a class-based system, because it makes the class system much less meaningful and D&D players seem to like class systems.

I get it that *you* see no virtue in it.  But others, like myself, do.  And we've given you lots of examples of things this type of system helps accomplish.  Things that people like, done in that manner.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> I tend to agree, but here's why they won't do it. If you rename Rogue to Thief and Trickster to Rogue, then the class now called Thief is broader than its name. The problem is that "Thief" was never a good name in the first place.




At this point it doesn't matter if it was a good name in the first place, because it has enough goodwill surrounding it from tradition that it's now a good name for this game.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 2, 2013)

Manabarbs said:


> There's almost no such thing as a _totally_ useless game element, but I think that this classification system comes preeeeety close. I actually don't mind the labeling as a purely aesthetic thing; that's basically harmless. I'm still profoundly unconvinced that it has even the slightest mechanical benefits, though.



Both 3E and 4E used class names as prerequisites for several rules elements, from feats to prestige classes and paragon paths. Why not formally define the concept of "mage" so that future modules can use "Prerequisite: Mage" instead of "Prerequisite: Wizard" and be compatible with the Warlock, Sorcerer, and even whatever third-party content decides to use this keyword? All this does is create a language for players and rules to use when talking about characters in a way that generalizes beyond the core classes.

There are non-mechanical benefits, too. As the original article said:


			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Our goal with class groups is to provide an easy framework that magic items and other abilities can use to refer to classes, to give people a set of terms they can use to compare and contrast classes in broad strokes, and to make it easy for players to understand how the classes beyond the core four (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) relate to that basic group.



It would be nice to communicate to a group of brand new players that it's definitely okay to create a party with a druid, paladin, bard, and sorcerer, and still have all their bases covered for the starter adventure they just bought.

You may disagree about the value of these benefits, compared to the costs, but the potential for benefits certainly exists.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Both 3E and 4E used class names as prerequisites for several rules elements, from feats to prestige classes and paragon paths.




Can you give me an example of a 3x feat or prestige class that called out a specific class by name as a prerequisite.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 2, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> There is a basic assumption in your posts that certain magic items will be unusable by certain classes, as opposed to simply more useful in the hands of someone specialized in the thing that magic item is about.  That assumption has been questioned, repeatedly, with many examples at this point as to how it might work differently than your assumption.  So, why are you continuing with the assumption? You keep stating it as if WOTC declared the class system WILL be used to prevent certain classes from using certain items - with entirely zero support for that claim.  It's possible, but it's also highly possible it's not that, and we have no word at all to confirm it one way or the other.



I'm pretty sure the Twitter quote of "Only tricksters can see the thief-king!" certainly leads thoughts down the path of "Only X class will be able to do/use Y".  It doesn't have to be proven that a circumstance WILL happen to point out that the circujmstance is bad, only the fact that it's still a possibility that's still on the table.  One is certainly entitled to yell "Please don't chop off my head!" if a stranger walks into the room with an axe, even if the chance is fairly remote.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Can you give me an example of a 3x feat or prestige class that called out a specific class by name as a prerequisite.



Weapon Specialization.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Weapon Specialization.




I'll give you that one, though in fairness, there are a few classes other than fighter that allow you to qualify for it as well, as if you were a fighter. But other than the handful of fighter only combat feats I can't think of any others. And scrolling through the feats I don't see any others for any other classes.  

What about Prestige Classes?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> The system I mentioned, you CAN get special benefit from using it.  It works for you just fine.  However, it works BETTER for the guy whose class is experienced with such things.  There is no "can't" involved.




Yes, there is: "I CAN'T get it to work BETTER for me, whose arbitrarily-determined class group is not, according to WotC, to be experienced with such things, even though my particular character/class/archetype actually should have it work BETTER for me."

If you're saying someone gets a special benefit because of X, that's introducing the same problem as saying that someone is barred from that special benefit because they are not X. When X makes sense, no problem. When X is unrelated to the actual kind of character you're playing, problem. Class groups are not related to the actual kind of character you're playing. There are elements that would be (ability scores, particular proficiencies, etc.). 



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Rogue classes tend to be better at stealth than others.
> Mage classes tend to be better at arcane magic than others.
> Cleric classes tend to be better at receiving divine aid than others.
> Fighter classes tend to be better at the use of unusual melee weapons than others




All of this "tends to" is completely irrelevant to characters in the specific. Perhaps a rogue character is a trickster and socialite, someone who wants to be seen and not be stealthy. Perhaps a mage character is a dabbler, who picks up a few spells here and there but who appreciates knowledge and wisdom more in general than arcane magic particularly. Maybe the character most in touch with the divine in this party is a particularly devout warlock who sees the alien entities he worships as gods. Maybe my fighter is a straight sword-and-board specialist with no equipment frills.

None of these are corner cases, and all of these would create a problem with any class group system that tried to lock down what a character should be permitted or enabled to do, or to get EXTRA benefit from, based on their class group, which can't help but be arbitrary, because it has no relation to how the character is actually conceived of and played. 



> You've basically gotten the same response from many people at this point - what you want is, at it's heart, a class-less system.




You're wrong there, too. Perhaps you do not understand what I want. Thankfully, I've broken down some of the big benefits I've seen in class systems, and posted links to those break-downs to help you understand. 



> I get it that *you* see no virtue in it.  But others, like myself, do.  And we've given you lots of examples of things this type of system helps accomplish.  Things that people like, done in that manner.




I haven't seen anything that this system helps to accomplish that requires this system to accomplish. Elucidate me.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> arbitrarily-determined class group



Whether or not one likes the system WotC ends up running with, I doubt that it will be arbitrary. Mearls has already stated the reasons behind it, and they're not considerations that no rational person could be moved by.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> But if my ranger is a 1e-style ranger with wizard spells, that's not something the system should be able to handle?



1st ed rangers couldn't use scrolls - just saying.



Wicht said:


> Can you give me an example of a 3x feat or prestige class that called out a specific class by name as a prerequisite.





Wicht said:


> But other than the handful of fighter only combat feats I can't think of any others.



Spell Mastery.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Whether or not one likes the system WotC ends up running with, I doubt that it will be arbitrary. Mearls has already stated the reasons behind it, and they're not considerations that no rational person could be moved by.




The reasons behind the system itself are separable from the process of determining who is in which "class group." The chatter on this thread has revealed that determining which "class group" a given class falls into is _extraordinarily_ subjective and personal. Because classes are not monolithic or specific, members of a given class may fall into one group or another or all or none depending on how they are played in the specific. 

That's what's arbitrary. There's nothing about, say, a thief, that necessarily makes it a rogue. All of the brutal scoundrels more interested in dishing out savage beatings than skulking about in the shadows would certainly dispute that group. 

The reasons behind the system are valid reasons in that they are things that deserve to be addressed, but addressing those concerns doesn't lead one to this system, necessarily. 



> 1st ed rangers couldn't use scrolls - just saying.




Not even _scrolls of protection_?  Regardless, the idea isn't to replicate an old class, it is to say, if I play a ranger who knows arcane spells (which is a character with some precedent), why can I not be a mage?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 2, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I'll give you that one, though in fairness, there are a few classes other than fighter that allow you to qualify for it as well, as if you were a fighter. But other than the handful of fighter only combat feats I can't think of any others. And scrolling through the feats I don't see any others for any other classes.
> 
> What about Prestige Classes?



As the person who made the original assertion, I have to admit that my memory was playing tricks with me, and my characterization of 3E as using classes as prerequisites certainly was not accurate. My bad.

That said, my main point is that class groups provide another alternative to formalizing relationships between characters and game elements. No one's saying that you can't define prerequisites for items, feats, or prestige/paragon/multiclass levels without using class groups. I'm just saying that "Prerequisite: Warrior" is a reasonable alternative to "Prerequisite: has proficiency with all martial weapons" or "Prerequisite: Fighter". Maybe it would be nice to have an Eldritch Knight prestige class that is compatible with some future class (from some module or third-party publisher) that is only proficient with swords.

You could argue that "proficiency with all martial weapons" is a better prerequisite for something called "Eldritch Knight", but the "Warrior" label clearly has potential applications. I suppose someone could argue that he didn't like any applications anybody could possibly ever imagine for class groups, but then I'd have to agree to disagree.


----------



## SageMinerve (Oct 2, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't share your view of the purpose of classes (I list five reasons to use a class system there, and I wouldn't rank "stops you from doing other things" among those virtues).  We can have fighters casting fireballs and rogues casting healing spells, just like we can have wizards using swords and clerics using thieves' tools. While I wouldn't expect these to be the default, I would expect the game to enable me to swap out whatever fighters get at level 5 for the ability to cast _fireball_ if it made sense for me in my game. If that change is going to suddenly make the character not a warrior or also a mage, because now that character needs to be able to use a wand of fireballs....yeah, that's hugely unnecessary.




I went back and read your article. Weirdly enough, I find that "It's more about what you can't do than what you can do" intersects with your 5 reasons, but especially #2 and #5.
But it's apples and oranges, really. 

You're talking about virtues (I'd call it "goals" or "objectives" personally because using such a "charged" word like "virtue" has the nasty side-effect (unintended, IM sure) of putting your opinion up there on a pedestal and opinions that disagree way, way down below. Not good for debate).

I myself talk about how they're built ("classes list things a PC can and can't do"). Notice that there's no commentary implied about whether it's a good or a bad thing.

The thing is, to come back to your article, you mention *Streamlining Decision-Making* as one of your 5 virtues. I happen to agree a lot with that. It's just that your "fighter learning fireball" example seems to be in direct contradiction.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> But if my ranger is a 1e-style ranger with wizard spells, that's not something the system should be able to handle?




Without any more details about how such a ranger would be defined, I can't really have an opinion on this. It could go either way:

1) If the ranger casts spells in a spontaneous / instinctive manner (_à la _Sorcerer), I'd say no, he can use scrolls. But that's just my taste. If the game went and said such a ranger can use scrolls, it wouldn't be the end of the world to me;

2) If the ranger is more of an "academic" wizard, with a spellbook and all, I'd say yes use scrolls. After all, if he's using a scrollbook, he can surely use a scrollpage, right?

So there you have it, and even though it's a bit tangential to the debate: if someone uses a spellbook to learn his spells, he can use scrolls. Clear, logical, coherent. [/sidetrack]



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Again, I can think of at least five reasons, and none of them are prohibitive, because forbidding things isn't really the point of a class, as far as I can see. Rogues don't generally know healing magic because rogues generally have no reason to learn healing magic [...]




No reason to learn magic? Why the hell not? Is he never wounded? Does he think he will go through all of his adventuring life without having his life threatened at least once by injury, poison or some such thing?



Kamikaze Midget said:


> [...] not because the game would be abandoning all semblance of a class system if they learned it. Maybe the thieves in my campaign are theives of life who steal years from others and give them to their allies, and they belong to a guild that opposes the dominant church of death and light where shimmering knights of undeath defend the realm from outsiders. The game should make it _easy_ to do that [...]




First of all, before I address this, let me stress that I find your example to be an extremely corner case, that has no basis outside of supporting your argument.

That being said, are rogues/thieves really the best way to represent what you're describing? Your "thieves of life" are stealing life, that doesn't make them thieves.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 2, 2013)

pemerton said:


> Spell Mastery.




That's another one.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I'm pretty sure the Twitter quote of "Only tricksters can see the thief-king!" certainly leads thoughts down the path of "Only X class will be able to do/use Y".  It doesn't have to be proven that a circumstance WILL happen to point out that the circujmstance is bad, only the fact that it's still a possibility that's still on the table.  One is certainly entitled to yell "Please don't chop off my head!" if a stranger walks into the room with an axe, even if the chance is fairly remote.





"The Thief-King will only allow his guards to admit Rogues" as short hand for "The Thief King will only allow Thieves, Bards, and Swashbucklers past his guards" is not anything similar to "This cloak of invisibility will only function when worn by Rogues".  The first is purely a role-playing descriptive short-hand, the second is a mechanical function of a listed item.

And my objection isn't to someone speculating that it might work out that way (I thought I made that clear).  My objection is to people declaring it does in fact work a specific way, ignoring possible counter-examples, and then beating that strawman down with said axe.  I'm trying to address what I view as an overreaction to an unproven assumption that's being declared as fact.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yes, there is: "I CAN'T get it to work BETTER for me, whose arbitrarily-determined class group is not, according to WotC, to be experienced with such things, even though my particular character/class/archetype actually should have it work BETTER for me."
> 
> If you're saying someone gets a special benefit because of X, that's introducing the same problem as saying that someone is barred from that special benefit because they are not X. When X makes sense, no problem. When X is unrelated to the actual kind of character you're playing, problem. Class groups are not related to the actual kind of character you're playing. There are elements that would be (ability scores, particular proficiencies, etc.).




We disagree about what class groups are.  They do relate to the actual kind of character you're playing, and if they don't, you should be picking a different class.  All rogues, regardless of your actual character, have a number of abilities which allow them to see how to use stealth better than others.  It's right there in the class description, "Rogues use skill, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand." It's implied by their ability to sneak attack and cunning action.  This is a core concept to all rogues.

Now you can not like that, and not want that for your character.  In which case, I suggest you choose a different class, or a different game.



> All of this "tends to" is completely irrelevant to characters in the specific. Perhaps a rogue character is a trickster and socialite, someone who wants to be seen and not be stealthy.




First, this begs the question as to why he wants the cloak of stealth.  But second, that doesn't mean he is incapable of understanding how to benefit better from a stealth item than others.  As you said, this guy tries to not be stealthy, so he understands what is and is not stealthy better than someone who doesn't think about that issue much at all.



> N... based on their class group, which can't help but be arbitrary, because it has no relation to how the character is actually conceived of and played.




They're not arbitrary.  They have to lock down SOME concepts for classes or else it becomes a class-less system.  So they're going to pick some things you're class is better at than others.  Which, again, is why I think you want a class-less system but you're saying you don't.  OK, then accept that a class-based system inherently will make each class better at some things than others, regardless of how you want to play that class, unless you multi-class enough to embrace your personal concept in a mish-mash of classes.



> I haven't seen anything that this system helps to accomplish that requires this system to accomplish. Elucidate me.




People have named half a dozen in this thread at this point, and you've either hand-waived or ignored most of them.  Why should I go back and gather than information just for you to hand-waive it some more? Demonstrate to me you have an open mind on this issue and I can do that, but right now the language you're using seems pretty firmly in the "I've made up my mind and no matter what you say I see no use in this bad thing".


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 3, 2013)

Wicht said:


> What about Prestige Classes?



Master Specialist, Complete Mage, requires 3 levels of a specialist wizard.

I should get a prize.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 3, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Master Specialist, Complete Mage, requires 3 levels of a specialist wizard.




Yeah, I remember the seminar at Gen Con 2000 fondly wherein it was stated that prestige classes would not require levels in specific base classes.  Great idea, and it lasted a long time.  But eventually (and inevitably) some designers got lazy.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 3, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Master Specialist, Complete Mage, requires 3 levels of a specialist wizard.
> 
> I should get a prize.




Ah, I never read Complete Mage.

Some designer did indeed get lazy.

Edit: I would give you XP by way of prize, but it says I gotta spread it around first.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 3, 2013)

Wicht said:


> Ah, I never read Complete Mage.
> 
> Some designer did indeed get lazy.
> 
> Edit: I would give you XP by way of prize, but it says I gotta spread it around first.




Have you covered. Though Master specialist was closer to a glorified bunch of alternate class features than an actual prestige class


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> The thing is, to come back to your article, you mention *Streamlining Decision-Making* as one of your 5 virtues. I happen to agree a lot with that. It's just that your "fighter learning fireball" example seems to be in direct contradiction.




It might help you to think about it this way: a player who knows they want to play a dude in heavy armor with a big sword who blasts fire all around has a distinct archetype that they want to play. Their decision-making is streamlined: they will pick abilities that enhance their armor, that enhance their big swords, and that enhance their ability to toss around fire. Their chosen kind of character might make perfect sense at the table and with the group. There might even be a group of fire-using warriors in the world that the character fits into. It's not exactly a traditional D&D archetype, but for that player, in that game, it is a kind of character that makes a lot of sense and sounds like fun to them.

All they need is the Fighter class, and then to swap some of the fighter abilities for big blasty fire spells (like burning hands and fireball and wall of fire and maybe meteor swarm). Should be something an individual DM can do easy and quick -- a simple swap-out of certain abilities at certain levels for others. It's still streamlined decision-making, it just involves being given Fireball in place of some other fighter feature that is irrelevant to the character.



> 1) If the ranger casts spells in a spontaneous / instinctive manner (_à la _Sorcerer), I'd say no, he can use scrolls. But that's just my taste. If the game went and said such a ranger can use scrolls, it wouldn't be the end of the world to me;
> 
> 2) If the ranger is more of an "academic" wizard, with a spellbook and all, I'd say yes use scrolls. After all, if he's using a scrollbook, he can surely use a scrollpage, right?
> 
> So there you have it, and even though it's a bit tangential to the debate: if someone uses a spellbook to learn his spells, he can use scrolls. Clear, logical, coherent.




So, if 5e uses class groups, and sorcerers are "mages," even illiterate, barbarian sorcerers will be able to use (or "get extra effects out of") mage-group items like scrolls and tomes. 

Meanwhile, if 5e uses a system more like I'm proposing, they can perhaps use "Spellbook Proficiency" as a prerequisite to using scrolls and the like, and now no illiterate barbarian sorcerer will be able to use the items, and also a scholar-priest who prepares a spellbook WILL be able to use them, and all that makes a lot more sense. 



> No reason to learn magic? Why the hell not? Is he never wounded? Does he think he will go through all of his adventuring life without having his life threatened at least once by injury, poison or some such thing?




Because if he learned how to heal himself, he wouldn't be as good at sneaking and stealing, and he wants to call himself a thief. There's an opportunity cost to learning an ability: when you learn X, you can't learn Y or Z at the same time. In order for him to learn to heal his wounds, he might've had to trade, say, expertise in Stealth -- maybe some thieves would trade that, but not any of them who wanted to be really good in stealth. 



> First of all, before I address this, let me stress that I find your example to be an extremely corner case, that has no basis outside of supporting your argument.




It's not that exceptional -- 4e-style bards are thieves who learn healing magic, and though their fiction is different, they're going to be just as irked if only priests get all the good healing effects. 



> That being said, are rogues/thieves really the best way to represent what you're describing? Your "thieves of life" are stealing life, that doesn't make them thieves.




They belong to a criminal underworld of skulking characters who dwell in shadow and live by their wits, they just also happen to be able to heal. They sound like rogues to me.

But then that's part of the issue with the class groups: defining them isn't going to be consistent or obvious.


----------



## SageMinerve (Oct 3, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It might help you to think about it this way: a player who knows they want to play a dude in heavy armor with a big sword who blasts fire all around has a distinct archetype that they want to play. Their decision-making is streamlined: they will pick abilities that enhance their armor, that enhance their big swords, and that enhance their ability to toss around fire. Their chosen kind of character might make perfect sense at the table and with the group. There might even be a group of fire-using warriors in the world that the character fits into. It's not exactly a traditional D&D archetype, but for that player, in that game, it is a kind of character that makes a lot of sense and sounds like fun to them.
> 
> All they need is the Fighter class, and then to swap some of the fighter abilities for big blasty fire spells (like burning hands and fireball and wall of fire and maybe meteor swarm). Should be something an individual DM can do easy and quick -- a simple swap-out of certain abilities at certain levels for others. It's still streamlined decision-making, it just involves being given Fireball in place of some other fighter feature that is irrelevant to the character.




To be able to have something like what you're suggesting explicitly stated in the rules book, you'd need to either:

1) Make sure that, for level X, all class abilities from all classes are equivalent (so you can for example swap a 5th lvl Fighter class ability for a 5th lvl Wizard ability);
OR
2) Have some kind of a chart that tells you class abilities are worth in relation to each other.

First solution is probably the easier one, even though I see at least two potential problems:
*Some people will see this as too 4th edition-esque;
*comparing non-spell casters with spell casters may become a little bit of a headache.

Second solution, frankly, is a Rolemaster-esque nightmare: can you imagine the number and size of charts required? Furthermore, it wouldn't take into account new classes.

Now, if you want as a house-rule to make said swap of abilities and everybody at your table agrees, then go ahead and do it! You don't need anything from the rules and this discussion becomes a bit unnecessary.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> So, if 5e uses class groups, and sorcerers are "mages," even illiterate, barbarian sorcerers will be able to use (or "get extra effects out of") mage-group items like scrolls and tomes.
> 
> Meanwhile, if 5e uses a system more like I'm proposing, they can perhaps use "Spellbook Proficiency" as a prerequisite to using scrolls and the like, and now no illiterate barbarian sorcerer will be able to use the items, and also a scholar-priest who prepares a spellbook WILL be able to use them, and all that makes a lot more sense.




Well, we don't know that *hypothetical* class group "Mage" will grant all its classes scroll proficiency. To bring that up to support your point after I answered your question is kinda fishy, to say the least.

We can either discuss things as they are known to us now, or we can state upfront hypotheses and discuss them. Anything else is a waste of time.




Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's not that exceptional -- 4e-style bards are thieves who learn healing magic, and though their fiction is different, they're going to be just as irked if only priests get all the good healing effects.




It's only terminology, but I'm fine with saying that Bards are Rogue characters. However, I wouldn't call them thieves. Bards are not people who steal but also happen to sing while doing it (which wouldn't be conductive to a long and successful career, I might add )




Kamikaze Midget said:


> They belong to a criminal underworld of skulking characters who dwell in shadow and live by their wits, they just also happen to be able to heal. They sound like rogues to me.
> 
> But then that's part of the issue with the class groups: defining them isn't going to be consistent or obvious.




As a campaign idea, what you're describing sounds like fun.

But rules-wise, we're back to the fireball-tossing fighter. It's too much of a corner case and too much of a hassle to include in the core rules. If you want them, house-rule them.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> To be able to have something like what you're suggesting explicitly stated in the rules book, you'd need to either:
> 
> 1) Make sure that, for level X, all class abilities from all classes are equivalent (so you can for example swap a 5th lvl Fighter class ability for a 5th lvl Wizard ability);
> OR
> ...




4e had a rough parity in abilities of a given level, I don't think 5e should abandon that, in the interest of its goal of modularity and getting 4e fans on board. If _fireball_ is a significant advantage over whatever a fighter can do at level 5, that imbalance is a problem for both 4e fans who liked class balance, and for people who want to swap out class features. I'm not personally in favor of getting rid of good 4e developments just because 4e used them -- I like keeping my babies when I throw out the bathwater.  



> Well, we don't know that *hypothetical* class group "Mage" will grant all its classes scroll proficiency. To bring that up to support your point after I answered your question is kinda fishy, to say the least.




I don't think it's too much to say that, if (a) wizards and sorcerers both use arcane magic, and so (b) they are both mages, and (c) "mage" is a category that determines who can use what magic items, that it then follows that (d) mages can use scrolls. I could certainly be wrong, but it's a reasonable projection. 

But the broader point is that the class group threatens to create nonsensical exclusions and inclusions. Something like "spellbook proficiency" is less likely to do that (though, it must be said, still possible -- the only way to avoid it entirely is to drop prerequisites entirely), because it captures a finer level of detail than "knows how to use arcane magic." 



> It's only terminology, but I'm fine with saying that Bards are Rogue characters. However, I wouldn't call them thieves. Bards are not people who steal but also happen to sing while doing it (which wouldn't be conductive to a long and successful career, I might add )




Sure. Then they're rogue characters who might want to be the party's best healer. If _wands of cure light wounds_ are reserved for or powered up by priest characters only, why should that exclude bards? That's an example of the nonsensical, arbitrary, irrelevant-to-actual-play nature of these things that I'm talking about. 



> As a campaign idea, what you're describing sounds like fun.
> 
> But rules-wise, we're back to the fireball-tossing fighter. It's too much of a corner case and too much of a hassle to include in the core rules. If you want them, house-rule them.




I don't think the fireball fighter needs to be necessarily included in the core rules, but I do think that the rules set should _enable me to do this kind of thing_, and not throw up pointless roadblocks. Class groups are a pointless roadblock. I shouldn't render magic items, feats, and magic systems irrelevant just because I dare to have a cleric of a god of night and stealth who is a priest but who might want to use a lot of things designed for rogues.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 3, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> It's only terminology, but I'm fine with saying that Bards are Rogue characters. However, I wouldn't call them thieves. Bards are not people who steal but also happen to sing while doing it (which wouldn't be conductive to a long and successful career, I might add )



I'm starting to think that Rogues/Thieves have just as much of a "it's not a skillset, it's a culture!" issue that Barbarians have.  Maybe the whole concept of criminal underworld guy who's connected to a guild should be moved to a background.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 3, 2013)

SageMinerve said:


> But rules-wise, we're back to the fireball-tossing fighter. It's too much of a corner case and too much of a hassle to include in the core rules. If you want them, house-rule them.



Sword-wielding magic dude is one of the backbone archetypes of pretty much any anime or video game RPG on the market.  D&D should certainly default to supporting them.  If anything, "guy who fights with magic" or "gish" should be the class group, and cleric should be a member of it.


----------



## SageMinerve (Oct 3, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I'm starting to think that Rogues/Thieves have just as much of a "it's not a skillset, it's a culture!" issue that Barbarians have.  Maybe the whole concept of criminal underworld guy who's connected to a guild should be moved to a background.




I sometimes think so too. But those issues, in my mind, are much more important with Barbarians, Paladins and Monks.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 3, 2013)

*L&L: Class Groups*

Worth noting: I just went to the DDI Compendium and looked up all 4E Feats that include the phrase, _*any arcane class*_. I got 47 hits, all from Arcane Power and Dragon Magazine. 

OK, that kind of thing lets feats apply to existing and future arcane classes without having an overarching super-class named "Mage" or "Magic-User" or "Arcanist," or whatever; so couldn't the same sort of thing supplant the proposed super-classes entirely? We could have feats and items apply to "any arcane class," or to "any divine class," or to "any martial class," or to "any technical or artistic class," or to "any primal class," or to "any psionic class" without loss of generality.

If that would work, what do the players of the game need the super-classes for? Especially if the super-classes are going to be little more than handy labels for the designers?


----------



## SageMinerve (Oct 3, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> Sword-wielding magic dude is one of the backbone archetypes of pretty much any anime or video game RPG on the market.  D&D should certainly default to supporting them.  If anything, "guy who fights with magic" or "gish" should be the class group, and cleric should be a member of it.




Not a bad suggestion, actually: non-caster fighters, mages and "hybrid" (blends fighting with magic) would make sense as class groups.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 3, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I'm starting to think that Rogues/Thieves have just as much of a "it's not a skillset, it's a culture!" issue that Barbarians have.  Maybe the whole concept of criminal underworld guy who's connected to a guild should be moved to a background.




Ha, yeah, sure.

"Personal possessions: one leather mask--"

"It's a cultural thing."

"--One set of thieves' tools--"

"ROGUES' tools, thank you very much."

"--One grappling hook and attached elven silk rope--"

"I'm a performance artist."

"--One serrated stiletto."

"...It's the weapon of my people?"


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 3, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> "--One serrated stiletto."
> 
> "...It's the weapon of my people?"



Sure, but that's the marriage of a skill set (stealth, lock and trap expertise, sneak attacks) and a culture (urban assassin).  You could do the same job with a warrior base, or a caster base.  You can be a stealthy guy from a barbarian culture.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 3, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> My objection is to people declaring it does in fact work a specific way, ignoring possible counter-examples, and then beating that strawman down with said axe.  I'm trying to address what I view as an overreaction to an unproven assumption that's being declared as fact.



No kidding. Some people seem oddly fixated on the possibility that this "class group" concept might be used to constrain the design of the game in specific ways contrary to their personal preferences, despite any concrete evidence that the designers will do so. When someone is ignoring or dismissing out of hand other's points of view, it's less of a discussion and more like preemptive edition warring. Let's all just not engage.

In the interest of making a positive contribution to this thread, here's another way in which these descriptive labels might hypothetically help the game. Certain feats and magic items could be organized by class group in the PHB and DMG (respectively), not as any sort of prerequisite but to help players and DMs sort through all the options. A player for a warrior class can start by looking at all the warrior-oriented feats. A gaming group without a warrior in the party can look at these feats for their non-warrior PCs to help fill the role. A DM can give warrior-oriented magic items to that party for the same purpose. An adventure writer could use these tables as quick guide to ensuring balanced treasure distribution in an adventure. Obvious, many feats and magic items would NOT be oriented towards any class group. Example: a wand of cure light wounds, usable by anybody, might be categorized as a "Priest" item since it helps Priests fill their role more efficiently, or it helps stand in for an absent Priest.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:
			
		

> Certain feats and magic items could be organized by class group in the PHB and DMG (respectively), not as any sort of prerequisite but to help players and DMs sort through all the options.




I think the ways that people will want to sort through the options start making indexes like that less useful than they could otherwise be. If I'm looking for healing powers or powers that reference symbols or fire powers or powers that key off of a given ability score or whatever, that's not going to be captured by that list. This is perhaps the kind of thing that is better served by an online compendium with multiple power types than by some pages in a book. In that environment, the word "warrior" or "rogue" would be broad enough that it would be pretty meaningless. 



			
				Pseudopsyche said:
			
		

> Example: a wand of cure light wounds, usable by anybody, might be categorized as a "Priest" item since it helps Priests fill their role more efficiently, or it helps stand in for an absent Priest.




I think the issue here is defining the "role" of a priest. What is a party missing if it is missing a priest? Maybe healing, but not if they have a warlord-style or 4e-style bard, no? Maybe a party without a priest isn't actually missing anything? Certainly if 5e continues 4e's principle of "you don't need a cleric!" and expands it to even "you don't need ANY particular role!" as it seems to be, priests wouldn't do anything essential that isn't available to everyone else.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 3, 2013)

TwoSix said:


> I'm starting to think that Rogues/Thieves have just as much of a "it's not a skillset, it's a culture!" issue that Barbarians have.  Maybe the whole concept of criminal underworld guy who's connected to a guild should be moved to a background.



Well, we do have a "Thief" background in the current playtest packet. That's probably where something called "Thief" belongs, given the apparent interpretation of "Background" as "Profession prior to becoming an adventurer". (Note that this is different from 4E, where the original PHB2 backgrounds where largely "Circumstance of how you grew up" and themes were the "What you were doing just before you became an adventurer".)

It's just a matter of not having a better name yet. "Barbarian" as a class is shorthand for "warrior who fights more with ferocity than discipline and who stays up due more to savage endurance than heavy armor". "Barbarian" as a culture would be a better fit for a PHB2-style background or perhaps a human sub-race.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think the ways that people will want to sort through the options start making indexes like that less useful than they could otherwise be. If I'm looking for healing powers or powers that reference symbols or fire powers or powers that key off of a given ability score or whatever, that's not going to be captured by that list. This is perhaps the kind of thing that is better served by an online compendium with multiple power types than by some pages in a book. In that environment, the word "warrior" or "rogue" would be broad enough that it would be pretty meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the issue here is defining the "role" of a priest. What is a party missing if it is missing a priest? Maybe healing, but not if they have a warlord-style or 4e-style bard, no? Maybe a party without a priest isn't actually missing anything? Certainly if 5e continues 4e's principle of "you don't need a cleric!" and expands it to even "you don't need ANY particular role!" as it seems to be, priests wouldn't do anything essential that isn't available to everyone else.




This is what I meant by you hand-waiving other people's ideas.

What he proposed is useful for some people, as an organizational tool.  You objected that it is "less useful than it otherwise could be" and said it would be better as an online system.  OK, but that's not a fair objection, as you can ALSO do an online system that covers even more data, but printed in the book you it would remain a helpful thing for some people.

And rather than continuing to play whack-a-mole with your objections, I am going to drill down on this one first.  Can you admit that such an organization in the PHB might be useful for some people, even if there are other online systems that would be even more useful, and even if it's not something you personally plan to use?

I feel like every time someone raises a point about how such a class system can be useful without the harms you foreshadow, you view your job as minimizing that point rather than considering it.  Can we at least get to one point where you don't say "Could be done better" or "Not helpful for me"? Or is it just that you've made up your mind and that's that?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2013)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> This is what I meant by you hand-waiving other people's ideas.




I believe you may be confusing thinking about the flaws in the proposed idea for hand-waving. I'm engaging the ideas to see if they're of much actual value, and finding them fairly wanting. 



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> t. Can you admit that such an organization in the PHB might be useful for some people, even if there are other online systems that would be even more useful, and even if it's not something you personally plan to use?




No problem admitting that. We can easily slide the "no apparent purpose" dial up a notch to "no real constructive purpose." I have been convinced that there is a purpose for which there may be some small marginal utility: If one is an offline gamer and one needs a list of magic items sorted by classical "four character type" kinds of characters, such a list could certainly provide some bang for the buck. 

Is that a coherent defense of the class group concept, though?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> OK, but that's not a fair objection, as you can ALSO do an online system that covers even more data, but printed in the book you it would remain a helpful thing for some people.




I don't know what's not fair about it. "Is that the best use of the page count?" is a pretty relevant issue. WotC has an online system that presumably could serve as such an index, and would be a much better tool than a vague list of indistinct general groups, so given that, why blow pagecount on something of pretty marginal utility? Why accept kind-of-useful-in-some-cases when the path to very-useful-in-many-cases is clear?



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I feel like every time someone raises a point about how such a class system can be useful without the harms you foreshadow, you view your job as minimizing that point rather than considering it. Can we at least get to one point where you don't say "Could be done better" or "Not helpful for me"?




Well, what's the point here in this conversation? I'm here to express my criticism of the problems that the advertised idea of class groups bring, and to be enlightened as to what they offer those who have become enamored of them, to see if such offerings can be better met without said problems that class groups bring, in an effort to learn more about what people like about their games and to hopefully improve the game in some small way. I'm interested in 5e being the best D&D it can be.

"Can be done better" and "Not helpful to many folks" are relevant things to talk about for that goal. That's relevant to critiquing a proposed 5e game mechanic. Which is, to be clear, what I'm doing here.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ... and to be enlightened as to what they offer those who have become enamored of them.




Put bluntly, you're not coming across to me as someone genuinely interested in that goal. You're coming across as dismissive.  For example, you said it was "pretty marginal utility" to organize it like that in the print book.  To you, sure.  To me, it's highly useful.  Someone else said it would be helpful to them as well.  And that's what I am talking about here - people tell you "I like X" and instead of taking that at face value, you're dismissive of it by re-characterizing those opinions which don't match your own as "marginal".

So, are you genuinely here to be enlightened as to as to what they offer those who have become enamored of them, or are you here to tell us why those offerings are not of utility to you regardless of whether they are of utility to others?


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 3, 2013)

I guess others have already mentioned this but anyway, Mike Mearls on Twitter has clarified that introducing class groups will _not_ affect the design of classes themselves, i.e. they will not modify classes in order to shoehorn them into specific class groups.

That was my main worry about class groups, thus with that hopefully set for good, I'm not really worried anymore. The matter with magic items is still there, but it's definitely less important to me.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2013)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> For example, you said it was "pretty marginal utility" to organize it like that in the print book. To you, sure. To me, it's highly useful.




Great, so there's the next step in the conversation. What is useful to you about a 1-4 page (depending on item quantity) index in the DMG of magic items organized by which stereotypical one of the Big Four classes might be most interested in it, that a searchable database of magic items that allows for a more granular breakdown would not provide? 

Because from what I can see, it would only be more useful in the instance that I (a) didn't plan out what items to hand out in advance, (b) had no smartphone/internet access, (c) cared about the traditional delineation of D&D classes when I was handing out items, and (d) wanted to look at the entire field of possibility all at once, and didn't care about supplements. 

That's a lot of potential places for a list of magic items by stereotypical D&D class to not be that useful. But maybe your experience is different than what I'd expect!


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Great, so there's the next step in the conversation. What is useful to you about a 1-4 page (depending on item quantity) index in the DMG of magic items organized by which stereotypical one of the Big Four classes might be most interested in it, that a searchable database of magic items that allows for a more granular breakdown would not provide?




First, it's nonsense to be talking about additional pages here.  The items will be listed regardless of their organization.  We're talking about adding a single header to four groups of items, and a fifth header to "the rest". That's it.  It's purely an organizational tool, composed of these words, "Rogue Items; Mage Items; Fighter Items; Cleric Items; Other Items", or something like that. It's a total of 10 words we're talking about, repeated in the index.

As to your either/or claim, I guess we're not communicating.  An online tool would be plenty handy, and it could do more.  However, having that organization in the book has utility because I am usually not at my computer when reading a book, and the purpose of the hardcopy book is to read it.  Your argument could just as easily apply to the book itself - why publish a hardcopy book when you can just publish the rules purely online, with no page count requirements at all? You had to know that answer - so why are you making that kind of either/or claim about hardcopy vs. online organizational tools with this issue? It's hopefully both of course.



> Because from what I can see, it would only be more useful in the instance that I (a) didn't plan out what items to hand out in advance,




Or you're planning on USING A BOOK, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.



> (b) had no smartphone/internet access,




Or preferred using the BOOK YOU BOUGHT, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.



> (c) cared about the traditional delineation of D&D classes when I was handing out items,




I am saying I care about it, someone else said they care about it, WOTC seems to see some utility in that traditional delineation and they're making decisions based on extensive playtesting and professional analysis and survey data.  So, I am guessing they have good reason to believe many people like it.



> and (d) wanted to look at the entire field of possibility all at once, and didn't care about supplements.




Which is generally how one uses a rulebook.

Almost all your arguments apply to the book itself, and not just this issue.  Why even print the book, if your arguments were good ones?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> First, it's nonsense to be talking about additional pages here.  The items will be listed regardless of their organization.




Sure, but what format that list would take is apparently an open question. I had made the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that the primary mode of organization would have been the most easily referenced, ie, alphabetical, and that this would be a secondary means of organization for additional utility. If your proposal is that this four-box division be the *sole* method of organization, then we apparently need to have a whole other discussion about why alphabetical organization is superior to most others when presenting list of things to be referenced. Or at least about what you're actually envisioning here. 



> We're talking about adding a single header to four groups of items, and a fifth header to "the rest". That's it.  It's purely an organizational tool, composed of these words, "Rogue Items; Mage Items; Fighter Items; Cleric Items; Other Items", or something like that. It's a total of 10 words we're talking about, repeated in the index.




Right, and, depending on the quantity of magic items, that could take a couple of pages to list. That's what I said. So we're in agreement?



> As to your either/or claim, I guess we're not communicating.  An online tool would be plenty handy, and it could do more.  However, having that organization in the book has utility because I am usually not at my computer when reading a book, and the purpose of the hardcopy book is to read it.




So your idea is both? Fair enough. Then we're just to: "how much space is reasonable to spend on this, given the potential utility."

Which, we may be on "agree to disagree" territory. There's a dearth of data for us about who might use those couple of pages, and we're each colored by our own experiences. My experiences suggest that the conjunction of those four elements is rare enough that a page or 4 probably isn't the best use of DMG space. Your experiences apparently suggest otherwise. There's not a lot of neutral data that can confirm or disabuse either of us. 

I can't help but believe at this point, though, that what we're talking about bears no real relation to what Mearls is proposing. So perhaps we can work backwards from here. 



> Your argument could just as easily apply to the book itself - why publish a hardcopy book when you can just publish the rules purely online, with no page count requirements at all? You had to know that answer - so why are you making that kind of either/or claim about hardcopy vs. online organizational tools with this issue? It's hopefully both of course.
> 
> Or you're planning it USING A BOOK, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.
> 
> Or preferred using the BOOK YOU BOUGHT, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.




Since I didn't propose not using your book like a book, or not having a book, I can only assume you're being facetious. If you'd like to clarify, I'm listenin'. 



> I am saying I care about it, someone else said they care about it, WOTC seems to see some utility in that traditional delineation and they're making decisions based on extensive playtesting and professional analysis and survey data.  So, I am guessing they have good reason to believe many people like it.




Sure. And to present a list sorted by that metric in the DMG alongside an alphabetical list of magic items might be enough utility/word to justify that. I think convincing me of that would require data neither of us probably has access to, but I can at least accept we're down to dueling experiences at this point. Again, though, I'm not really sure how this relates to Mearl's actual proposal?



> Almost all your arguments apply to the book itself, and not just this issue.  Why even print the book, if your arguments were good ones?




There's a lot of things a book does aside from helping you look up magic items. I presume this is obvious, but I can go into some more detail if you'd like.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, but what format that list would take is apparently an open question. I had made the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that the primary mode of organization would have been the most easily referenced, ie, alphabetical, and that this would be a secondary means of organization for additional utility. If your proposal is that this four-box division be the *sole* method of organization, then we apparently need to have a whole other discussion about why alphabetical organization is superior to most others when presenting list of things to be referenced. Or at least about what you're actually envisioning here.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and, depending on the quantity of magic items, that could take a couple of pages to list. That's what I said. So we're in agreement?




A couple of pages to list ten words? They're either going to list all the items in the index, or not, and that doesn't change with this addition we're discussing.  The only addition is ten words in the index, and ten words in the text itself.  There are no pages.  There isn't even an additional paragraph, aside from "these are not restricted to class, just tend to be associated with them" sentence.  It will be alphabetical within each of those five sections.  It's not that weird, it's been alphabetical by type of item (weapon, want, potion, etc..) or by body slot (feet, head, hands, etc..) in the prior editions, so simply listing it by character type (cleric, fighter, etc..) isn't that weird.



> So your idea is both? Fair enough. Then we're just to: "how much space is reasonable to spend on this, given the potential utility."




I said both, in the two prior posts, and then a third time in the one you're replying to. 



> Which, we may be on "agree to disagree" territory. There's a dearth of data for us about who might use those couple of pages




Words.  Ten words, and a single sentence.



> and we're each colored by our own experiences. My experiences suggest that the conjunction of those four elements is rare enough that a page or 4 probably isn't the best use of DMG space. Your experiences apparently suggest otherwise. There's not a lot of neutral data that can confirm or disabuse either of us.




It's not pages (and yeesh, the message you were replying to said outright it's not pages), and I explained that we're talking about a concept that WOTC seems to think their survey respondents and playtesters like.  Of course, it's not just for this organization of magic items, there are many other reasons people put forth, but I wanted to drill down on just one to demonstrate that, when push comes to shove, there might be something useful here in this concept.



> I can't help but believe at this point, though, that what we're talking about bears no real relation to what Mearls is proposing. So perhaps we can work backwards from here.
> 
> Since I didn't propose not using your book like a book, or not having a book, I can only assume you're being facetious. If you'd like to clarify, I'm listenin'.




You said "just use the online index, it's better".  Which isn't using a book like a book, unless you're book is also a computer.



> Sure. And to present a list sorted by that metric in the DMG alongside an alphabetical list of magic items might be enough utility/word to justify that. I think convincing me of that would require data neither of us probably has access to, but I can at least accept we're down to dueling experiences at this point. Again, though, I'm not really sure how this relates to Mearl's actual proposal?
> 
> There's a lot of things a book does aside from helping you look up magic items. I presume this is obvious, but I can go into some more detail if you'd like.




And there are a lot of applications for this classification system beside just magic item organization.  But I was focusing on one concept to finally nail you down on one of these points and quit dismissing the whole concept out of hand.  We've made progress, you're not just *mostly *dismissing it.  Maybe we can move on to one of the other points now too...like how "this class is new to you, but you know it's sort of similar to that other class you are already familiar with because it's also a type of Rogue" is useful for new players who start with a Basic boxed set.


----------



## jrowland (Oct 4, 2013)

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]

Will you guys just get it over with and kiss already?

How's that for "Marginally Useful" and/or "Dismissive"?


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> All they need is the Fighter class, and then to swap some of the fighter abilities for big blasty fire spells (like burning hands and fireball and wall of fire and maybe meteor swarm). Should be something an individual DM can do easy and quick -- a simple swap-out of certain abilities at certain levels for others.





Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e had a rough parity in abilities of a given level, I don't think 5e should abandon that, in the interest of its goal of modularity and getting 4e fans on board.



I am with  [MENTION=69067]SageMinerve[/MENTION] on this one - I think the 4e ship has sailed, and the current playtest shows basically zero suggestion that this sort of thing will be possible.

They are talking about sub-class building guidelines, but those will have to be pretty sophisticated guidelines to support the sort of thing you're talking about.

For instance, which 1st level fighter ability from the current playtest (which includes a fighting style, second wind, d10 rather than d6 hp, plus access to better armour and shields) would you trade in for access to Burning Hands 1x/day? (For reference, the 1st level mage gains an extra memorised spell, 2x/day casting plus another 1 with Arcane Recovery, plus 3 cantrips, plus Ritual Casting.)

When we see how 13th Age handles multi-classing we might have a better idea of how what you are calling for can be done, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.



TwoSix said:


> Sword-wielding magic dude is one of the backbone archetypes of pretty much any anime or video game RPG on the market.  D&D should certainly default to supporting them.  If anything, "guy who fights with magic" or "gish" should be the class group, and cleric should be a member of it.



To treat the cleric in this way - thereby favouring mechanical function over fictional nature as the basis for categorisation - would be a radical step, I think.


----------



## Zireael (Oct 4, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> I guess others have already mentioned this but anyway, Mike Mearls on Twitter has clarified that introducing class groups will _not_ affect the design of classes themselves, i.e. they will not modify classes in order to shoehorn them into specific class groups.
> 
> That was my main worry about class groups, thus with that hopefully set for good, I'm not really worried anymore. The matter with magic items is still there, but it's definitely less important to me.




That's a very good thing.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 4, 2013)

Well, it is a good thing - but I still question what advantage they will get from grouping in this way. I just see it as a point that different gamers can argue about. If, for example, they decide that the Monk is a Warrior, then people who think it's more of a Rogue (Trickster?!) will disagree. So will those who think it's more of a Priest. 

I guess what I'm saying is that _game designers_ may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something  you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 4, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> _game designers_ may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something  you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.




Exactly. (and cf. post 73)


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2013)

jrowland said:


> [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]
> 
> Will you guys just get it over with and kiss already?
> 
> How's that for "Marginally Useful" and/or "Dismissive"?




That entirely depends on how good a kiss it is.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Oct 4, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> That entirely depends on how good a kiss it is.




Kisses are overpowered in 3.5.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 4, 2013)

...but they're a really useful encounter power in 4e. (Be thankful they're not a daily!).


----------



## jrowland (Oct 4, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, it is a good thing - but I still question what advantage they will get from grouping in this way. I just see it as a point that different gamers can argue about. If, for example, they decide that the Monk is a Warrior, then people who think it's more of a Rogue (Trickster?!) will disagree. So will those who think it's more of a Priest.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that _game designers_ may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something  you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.




One should also note that while "Monk" might be (from the designers internal notes) a "warrior", the "Ninja" in a future splatbook might very well be the "Trickster Monk" other players are looking for.

I think there is room for three monks: A warrior, trickster, and cleric version (my head can't seem to envision a mage monk...i keep getting Wu Jen which is just a flavor mage). However, I think the designers are right in that the classic D&D monk is probably more of a warrior (martial artist and all that) and that is a good start.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 4, 2013)

Kobold Stew said:


> ...but they're a really useful encounter power in 4e. (Be thankful they're not a daily!).



My half-elf managed to make it an at-will with Versatile Master, and it also does a slide 2 and makes the target fall prone.  Charisma bonus for the win.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 4, 2013)

For those who worried that class groups would be used to restrict access to many feats or items, we have some additional clarification from Rodney Thompson in today's Q&A: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131004


----------



## Wicht (Oct 4, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> For those who worried that class groups would be used to restrict access to many feats or items, we have some additional clarification from Rodney Thompson in today's Q&A: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131004




I get the feeling that they are still feeling their way along design wise. They seem to still be in the brainstorming stage, which I find a little surprising, considering the last player packet was already released.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 4, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> For those who worried that class groups would be used to restrict access to many feats or items, we have some additional clarification from Rodney Thompson in today's Q&A: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131004



Thanks for the link.

However, I'm not convinced, at all, how this is useful, still. If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"? If they're thinking about making entire races count as a class group, will things slip through the cracks? Will they have to make every background, domain, etc. describe what class group you fall into now? If a tricky Cleric domain doesn't say "you're a Trickster", you're not one, right?

I just don't see how this extra layer of mechanical presentation is helpful. And, again, this isn't me just disagreeing with it. I literally don't see what it adds, mechanically, that other things can't replace more efficiently.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 5, 2013)

jrowland said:


> One should also note that while "Monk" might be (from the designers internal notes) a "warrior", the "Ninja" in a future splatbook might very well be the "Trickster Monk" other players are looking for.
> 
> I think there is room for three monks: A warrior, trickster, and cleric version (my head can't seem to envision a mage monk...i keep getting Wu Jen which is just a flavor mage). However, I think the designers are right in that the classic D&D monk is probably more of a warrior (martial artist and all that) and that is a good start.




There are two things that come to mind from reading this. Firstly, much of the debates regarding Classes, or expanding Classes can simply be put towards later supplements - and this also includes things like Races too (do we really need to include Kender in the core, etc). If we have problems implementing alternative Magic-Using Classes (Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, etc) in the core, then simply wait and put them into an expanded magic supplement were alternatives could be presented. 

The second thing is that from your own interpretation, the Monk is really an amalgamation of different aspects - Warrior, Trickster, Priest - that makes it folly to attempt to categorise it as one thing or another. So why do it?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 5, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> However, I'm not convinced, at all, how this is useful, still. If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"?



I'm no longer in the game of trying to convince anybody of anything in this thread, but I will at least point out that in the latest packet, the term "arcane magic user" isn't explicitly defined. Unless I missed something, the class description for Mage (which will likely be renamed back to Wizard) begins with "As a student of arcane magic," and it has a class feature called Arcane Tradition. Is this enough for the Wizard to be an "arcane magic user"? What if they change the flavor text and rename "Arcane Tradition" to "Wizardry School"? I suppose they could introduce the 4E notion of power source, but how different is "Power Source: Arcane" from "Class Group: Mage"?

In my opinion, the answer to the last question is that 4E drew a formal distinction between Power Source and Role. Monday's article reveals the current thinking to be that "mages" are physically vulnerable, while "warriors" are the toughest. Even in 4E we quickly learned that arcane defenders had a splash of controller, and divine defenders had a splash of leader. In other words, some power sources were oriented toward particular roles.

Personally, I'd rather they bring back Role and Power Source as independent labels (and be more disciplined regarding the temptation to fill in the matrix for its own sake), but we know a substantial part of the player base strongly associates e.g. healing with divine magic. In this sense, saying that priests' magic "can heal or protect their allies" is acknowledging a property of the standard D&D world, for better or for worse.

Anyway, as a design element, class groups present tradeoffs. Sure, maybe a cleric of a war god should qualify for a "dwarven defender" prestige class on the basis of having proficiency with all martial weapons. But if the prestige class required "warrior" instead of martial weapon proficiencies, then a monk can qualify for "dwarven defender". (Remember that we don't have attack bonus anymore.)

Anyway, I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm convinced that "class groups" will necessarily be a positive contribution to the game. We really haven't seen enough to know. It's an idea they've floated. I can see some merits and some risks. As some people say: As always, play what you like.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Oct 5, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I get the feeling that they are still feeling their way along design wise. They seem to still be in the brainstorming stage, which I find a little surprising, considering the last player packet was already released.



They are definitely not afraid to consider new design elements, that's for sure. But "class groups" in particular seems less about changing the current designs of the classes (the core of the game) and more about choosing how to express that design in a way that is the most accessible both to players and to future rules content.


----------



## jrowland (Oct 5, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> The second thing is that from your own interpretation, the Monk is really an amalgamation of different aspects - Warrior, Trickster, Priest - that makes it folly to attempt to categorise it as one thing or another. So why do it?




Well, my interpretation is that there are a lot of different interpretations of monk. Why only present one? Because that one is the most common. The other ones can come later.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 5, 2013)

Pseudopsyche said:


> I suppose they could introduce the 4E notion of power source, but how different is "Power Source: Arcane" from "Class Group: Mage"?



I don't like this, either. It's just as bad to me. In 5e, when you multi-class into multiple classes, are you part of those class groups, now? Would the same be true of power sources, if they were used? I just don't see what these add.

However, I can definitely see what "can only be wielded by someone who can cast arcane magic" or "can only be wielded by someone capable of casting 3rd level arcane spells" adds. As the designers, if you want a magic wand of fireballs to only be used by arcane magic users (because you think it fits their archetype the best), I think it makes a lot more sense to write that, rather than come up with a "class group" for mages.


Pseudopsyche said:


> In my opinion, the answer to the last question is that 4E drew a formal distinction between Power Source and Role. Monday's article reveals the current thinking to be that "mages" are physically vulnerable, while "warriors" are the toughest. Even in 4E we quickly learned that arcane defenders had a splash of controller, and divine defenders had a splash of leader. In other words, some power sources were oriented toward particular roles.



This seems to fit what I know of 4e.


Pseudopsyche said:


> Personally, I'd rather they bring back Role and Power Source as independent labels (and be more disciplined regarding the temptation to fill in the matrix for its own sake), but we know a substantial part of the player base strongly associates e.g. healing with divine magic. In this sense, saying that priests' magic "can heal or protect their allies" is acknowledging a property of the standard D&D world, for better or for worse.



I don't mind role in 4e, but I don't mind seeing it gone. I like power source just fine, but I think they need to be careful with it. I wouldn't object to it being in 5e, though.


Pseudopsyche said:


> Anyway, as a design element, class groups present tradeoffs. Sure, maybe a cleric of a war god should qualify for a "dwarven defender" prestige class on the basis of having proficiency with all martial weapons. But if the prestige class required "warrior" instead of martial weapon proficiencies, then a monk can qualify for "dwarven defender". (Remember that we don't have attack bonus anymore.)



Yeah... I see basically only downsides from adding class groups. I think everything they can do can be better served through other methods. I can't think of a single thing that should have a particular class group as a requirement that wouldn't better be served by something else. The class groups they've presented are just too broad.


Pseudopsyche said:


> Anyway, I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm convinced that "class groups" will necessarily be a positive contribution to the game. We really haven't seen enough to know. It's an idea they've floated. I can see some merits and some risks. As some people say: As always, play what you like.



Yeah, we'll definitely see on the implementation, as we haven't seen any real hard examples yet. What I've heard snippets of them (the Thief Lord only wanting to see Tricksters, for example), I don't like. But, it's early, yet. As always, play what you like


----------



## GX.Sigma (Oct 5, 2013)

Am I the only one who likes the idea of class groups?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 5, 2013)

I think you might be! even today's Q and A seemed to back pedal a bit. 

I suspect that there are a lot of us who could be convinced, if we felt there was a concrete advantage for the player with their implementation. for me, it adds a level that accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done in a more straight forward way (always recognizing it is just a concept at present, and there may be hidden depths when it is implemented.)


----------



## Zireael (Oct 5, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, it is a good thing - but I still question what advantage they will get from grouping in this way. I just see it as a point that different gamers can argue about. If, for example, they decide that the Monk is a Warrior, then people who think it's more of a Rogue (Trickster?!) will disagree. So will those who think it's more of a Priest.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that _game designers_ may find it useful to categorise the Classes for their own design purposes, but it doesn't need to to be something  you need to publicly present to the gamers who play it. Just stick with 10 Classes which are iconic, and don't just create another stratification for gamers to debate about. It provides no real benefit in the game.




I agree that the labels should be DM-side, not player-side.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Oct 5, 2013)

I've got no problem with them. They were around in 2E which I played extensively and they were the least of the broken bits, if at all.

Personally I'd only use them when constructing adventures and I'm sure some players would use them when deciding what character to play. If the party consisted of say 3 tricksters and a mage, I'd skew the adventure design in that general direction. There's often a team player person who's happy to play the priest if that's a role not yet represented. I don't like pushing that button but like I say, a team player style person will go that direction & I'm loathe to dampen enthusiasm.

I imagine some resistance is springing from experience with the failed 4E striker role. But the character damage output is fairly well distributed across all classes, so not much to fear there.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 5, 2013)

There's nothing wrong with class groups. At worst, they're simple organizational/layout sections for the books. At best they have various mechanics or traits linked in...which would also double as an organizational/layout tool. Either way, nobody's getting hurt or having their sacrosanct class options taken away


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> Am I the only one who likes the idea of class groups?




No, I like them a lot as well.  Mostly because I think they are a great help for new players transitioning from a basic book with just the four classes into an advanced group, to help them understand what new classes are similar to old classes they are familiar with.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 7, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> No, I like them a lot as well.  Mostly because I think they are a great help for new players transitioning from a basic book with just the four classes into an advanced group, to help them understand what new classes are similar to old classes they are familiar with.



Do you really think new players struggle to choose Classes?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 7, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> Do you really think new players struggle to choose Classes?




Yes, often.

I my experience, new players connect best with races.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 7, 2013)

Well, your experience is different to mine. New players may need guidance with the rules in play but one thing I've never had to guide them with is choosing a Class.


----------



## Weather Report (Oct 7, 2013)

So, will the Sorcerer and Warlock be their own separate classes or not?

Will the Barbarian have d10 HP?

Overall, poorly worded, noncommittal, vague article.

I at least got:

-Mage (sorcerer, warlock, wizard)

-Priest (cleric, druid)

-Trickster (bard, rogue)

-Warrior (barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger)


----------



## Weather Report (Oct 7, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> Do you really think new players struggle to choose Classes?




No, my 12-year old nephew perused the classes document and confidently chose Paladin (also perfect as it's a solo campaign).


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> Do you really think new players struggle to choose Classes?




I think in dealing with a huge rulebook, anything that makes categorizing and organizing it quickly is a helpful tool.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 7, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, your experience is different to mine. New players may need guidance with the rules in play but one thing I've never had to guide them with is choosing a Class.




Sure.

Wizard and Fighter--no problem. Everybody grogs that. Usually the Rogue, too (or at least, grog thief/swashbuckler/skill monkey).

But Cleric? Paladin? What's that? What's the difference? Ranger, wa-huh? Druid, what like in Asterix? Etc.

Mitigated by how much D&D-descended media people have taken in.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 7, 2013)

When I've played with young new players (about a dozen over the course of the next playtest, some several times), no one has had difficulties choosing a class. If they don't know the word, a one-sentence explanation is all they need. This really is not a problem.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2013)

Kobold Stew said:


> When I've played with young new players (about a dozen over the course of the next playtest, some several times), no one has had difficulties choosing a class. If they don't know the word, a one-sentence explanation is all they need. *This really is not a problem.*




For you and your 12 experiences.

However, my experiences differ.

And, even when I read a new class for the first time, it would be helpful to know what base class it's supposed to be somewhat similar to.  When I first saw the Avenger class I was thinking "where the heck does this fit"?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 7, 2013)

I don't think it's a problem, no. That nobody needs help choosing a class is not true, but I'd agree that such help is easily available in most cases. 

But I agree with Mistwell's sentiment couple of posts above.


But focusing such worries on kids always feels off to me. I won't hesitate throwing a 12 year old a 300 page rulebook, but I'd never hand it over to an adult for fear he'd run away.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2013)

Viking Bastard said:


> I don't think it's a problem, no. That nobody needs help choosing a class is not true, but I'd agree that such help is easily available in most cases.
> 
> But I agree with Mistwell's sentiment couple of posts above.
> 
> ...




Yeah by new players I don't necessarily mean kid with all the time in the world on his hands.  I mean the married working adult with children who always wanted to give D&D a try but doesn't have the time to read a big rulebook.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 7, 2013)

Let's avoid mischaracterizing each others' positions, shall we. 

I've given my dataset for this particular playtest and I've said it's not a problem for them. Your opinion is that it is. Fine -- 

but, to be clear, I'm not talking about "kid with all the time in the world on his hands". I'm talking about new rpg players who with no background or hangups, when given a choice, make it instinctually. None of them is reading any rulebook, let alone the imagined 300-page one. 

Your concern about how a given class fits into an entire scheme? That is not a concern ANY new player faces. 

And, since you want the opinions of married working adults, I can tell you that it's not a problem for at least some new players (x=3; i.e. all those I called up just now) who are in their first 4e campaign.

Am I saying that a new player can't share your anxieties about class choice and functionality? Of course not. But, in my experience, this is a trivial thing to overcome.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2013)

Weather Report said:


> No, *my 12-year old nephew* perused the classes document and confidently chose Paladin (also perfect as it's a solo campaign).






Kobold Stew said:


> When I've played with *young *new players (about a dozen over the course of the next playtest, some several times),






Kobold Stew said:


> Let's avoid mischaracterizing each others' positions, shall we...but, to be clear, I'm not talking about "kid with all the time in the world on his hands". I'm talking about new rpg players




To be clear, Weather Report previously mentioned an example of a 12 year old, and you emphasized "young" in your post and now when challenged on it you changed it to be simply "new" and not "young new".  I think you also said elsewhere you learned at a young adolescent or pre-adolescent age, correct? So explain to me again how we're mischaracterizing your position?



Kobold Stew said:


> I'm talking about new rpg players who with no background or hangups, when given a choice, make it instinctually. None of them is reading any rulebook, let alone the imagined 300-page one.
> 
> Your concern about how a given class fits into an entire scheme? That is not a concern ANY new player faces.




It is when they come at the game first from a Basic edition which includes just four classes, and then they buy the Advanced edition with a whole lot more.  Which was my point.  It's how I came into the game, it's how a lot of people on this board came into the game, and it appears to be a big part of the WOTC plans for this new game. 



> And, since you want the opinions of married working adults, I can tell you that it's not a problem for at least some new players (x=3; i.e. all those I called up just now) who are in their first 4e campaign.




Ah, see previously I thought your "dozen" comment was referring to this playtest, not another edition of the game.  I don't want to argue about whether there is something common to 4e classes that isn't there with 5e or not...I think it's probably more productive to focus on 5e experiences.



> Am I saying that a new player can't share your anxieties about class choice and functionality? Of course not. But, in my experience, this is a trivial thing to overcome.




It's often the kind of difference that can be between picking up the game on impulse, or not.  I really think the key method in the past in recruiting new players unattached to an existing group was the various Basic editions of the game.  How thick the books are become relevant.  How easy the thick books are to navigate and relate things back to previously understood concept from the thinner box set become relevant.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2013)

double post


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 7, 2013)

Hi Mistwell -- 

I'm not sure this is productive. Strictly in the context of 5e: we both have anecdotal evidence, and yours differs from mine. I've found Next really easy to introduce to players who haven't played rpgs before. They haven't struggled choosing classes. And, in that context, I see no benefit to be gained from introducing Class Groups.

Viking Bastard's hypothetical worries


Viking Bastard said:


> But Cleric? Paladin? What's that? What's the difference? Ranger, wa-huh? Druid, what like in Asterix? Etc.



just do not ring true to me.

I, like you, started with a Basic D&D years ago, and progressed. But that experience (no doubt romanticized by distance by both of us) is not really relevant to the discussion of 5e. 

KS


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 7, 2013)

Kobold Stew said:


> I, like you, started with a Basic D&D years ago, and progressed. But that experience (no doubt romanticized by distance by both of us) is not really relevant to the discussion of 5e.
> 
> KS




It's absolutely relevant, as it appears to be the model 5e is following.  To me, it seems obviously they've set the game up to create an easy Basic boxed set of the game, with no skills/backgrounds or feats and just one class from each of the four main class groups, all in a fairly thin set of rulebooks (or maybe just one book) along with dice and some sort of sample adventure.  Other...comments from people being paid to consult for 5e but who are not on the design team itself...suggest (without outright saying it) this is indeed part of the plan.

So if the plan (as it seems to be) is to create a Basic boxed set of the game to sell in Toys R Us, Walmart, Target, K-Mart, toy stores, bookstores, and other stores like those, then past results from such a similar boxed set is relevant, and things that would assist in transitioning from such a Basic set to a more Advanced game are relevant.

Now imagine you learn the new game from a Boxed set you purchased as an impulse buy at Target, having heard about D&D from an Ad or news over the years or a Facebook post or whatever.  You play it, and like it, and want more of that game and see the ad in the back for the Advanced edition.  The Basic edition includes four classes, a Fighter [Warrior], a Cleric [Priest], a Thief [Rogue], and a Wizard [Mage].  You look at the Advanced edition and you see things like Barbarian [Warrior], Druid [Priest], Assassin [Rogue], and Sorcerer [Mage], along with a bunch of other classes that you don't recognize but they all have those tags after them that you do recognize from the Basic game.

That sense of familiarity, that the Advanced game is like the Basic game just with additional similar stuff, helps you make the decision to buy that Advanced game. It reduces the intimidation factor inherent in buying such a big book as opposed to the little book you already bought.  It suggests the stuff you read in the bigger book will be similar enough to the stuff you already know that you won't be bogged down by thousands of new rules and details that are unfamiliar.  

That, to me, is a huge advantage of using these classification tags.  It might not help you transition, heck you probably won't ever play the Basic game.  But it will help someone new to the hobby transition from the Basic to the Advanced books.  And it will help again when they look at the supplements that have those tags as well.  That makes it a useful tool for the game in general, though not necessarily helpful for you and your group.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 7, 2013)

Thanks for this. I do understand what you are saying; I just do not agree.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 8, 2013)

<shrug>

I have never, in all my roleplaying years ever come across anyone who struggled to understand the Class system and be able to make choices regarding Class. I don't really see how the Class Groups really help newbie players - when given a list of new Classes beyond the 'core four', their eyes just usually open wider and they love the increased choice of exotic new Classes. 

For me the problem with Class Groups is it creates a rod for your own back in terms of player dissent and dissonance. If I was asked to group the current Classes it would be something like: 

Warriors: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Mages: Wizard (Sorcerer, Warlock/Witch)
Priests: Cleric, Druid, _Monk_
_Whatever_: Bard, _Ranger_, _Rogue_

The Sorcerer and Warlock/Witch I've left in brackets as we've not seen them in the final play packet, although we can assume that they'd be Mages should that be the grouping. The ones in italics highlight the problems. They're the ones people will debate about, in terms of which Class goes in which group, and/or highlight the problems of nomenclature. 

Now I highlighted _my_ groupings to illustrate that a) plenty of people would disagree with them, and b) if they choose to hardwire 'official' groupings that differ, then _I'm_ always going to have dissonance with them. I'd always find a disconnect with Monks being portrayed as Warriors for example, because when I play them I still see them as being part of a religious order - albeit one based on personal development and asceticism rather than invoking external gods. As soon as you hardwire the groups you've lost a segment of the audience's consensus. 

I read some people (presumably 4e fans) were calling for power sources to be brought back, but I'd have the same problem. I definitely do not see Monks as 'psychic' , or Bards as drawing from the same base 'Arcane' power as Wizards and Sorcerers, for example (I see Bards more as 'Primal'). Again, it's a disconnect for me. Yet, if we were to rearrange the power sources to my liking, other fans would disagree. 

So, in short, I think the advantages of officially grouping Classes in no way outweighs the problems caused by implementing them. From the admittance of the designers the actual mechanical effect of having them is minimal anyway. So seriously, why bother creating a point to argue about for the sake of it? The Classes work fine as they are - let players group them in their own minds if they like.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"?




The Q&A seems to describe a system that's all about gatekeeping. If it is used with such a light, infrequent touch -- only with "highly specialized" mechanics -- it's more about defining who isn't allowed to do a thing (or get extra out of a thing) than giving a list of items that a given character can use. Rodney pretty much comes out and says it: 


			
				Rodney Thompson said:
			
		

> These groups are just a tag or label that can be applied to the classes, grouping them by their common elements, so that in the rare case where we need to restrict another game object, we can do so



My main reaction here is _why the heck we need to do the restriction at all_. Is it going to break the game if my cleric of the god of magic gets her hands on a full-potency _staff of the magi_? Probably not. It's a magic item -- a purely additive bonus. 

If they're being conservative and applying it only in highly specialized ways, it's not even going to be very useful for organization purposes. Just, you know, if your DM rolls a random magic item and it's a _staff of the magi_ or something similar, your party fighter can't use it fully, even if he has an INT of over 9,000 and your party mage, as a sorcerer, is mostly a CHA monkey who used INT as his dump stat? 

Bleh. At least if they apply it conservatively, it will be a label I can pretty much ignore, but I'm still with a lot of the people who question how much the game is really gaining from this particular "tech."


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> If the Staff of the Magi needs an arcane magic user to wield it, what is gained by saying "needs to be a mage" over "needs to be wielded by an arcane magic user"?




Mechanically?  Nothing.  But it's a staff of the magi.  It should be a wizardly only item.  Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one, but rangers and bards?  They just don't have the know how or the magical oomph.  If anyone can use a staff of the magi, the game loses a lot of flavor.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 8, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Mechanically?  Nothing.  But it's a staff of the magi.  It should be a wizardly only item.  Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one, but rangers and bards?  They just don't have the know how or the magical oomph.  If anyone can use a staff of the magi, the game loses a lot of flavor.




"Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one" -> Why?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 8, 2013)

Li Shenron said:


> "Sorcerors and warlocks should be able to use one" -> Why?






JRRNeiklot said:


> They just don't have the know how or the magical oomph.




Seems to me he addressed your question the very paragraph you quoted.  They have the magical oomph.  The game represents this in multiple ways, not the least of which is full casting ability.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 8, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Mechanically?  Nothing.



Then why add it? Why not go with "can only be used by arcane magic users" (or "characters capable of casting an arcane spell", or whatever wording you prefer)?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Then why add it? Why not go with "can only be used by arcane magic users" (or "characters capable of casting an arcane spell", or whatever wording you prefer)?




Why say all that, when all they need to do is say Mage?

 They said SAID it's for shorthand use, as a tag.  That's why. Shorthand has use in language, and they're using it in the normal manner shorthand is used.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Then why add it? Why not go with "can only be used by arcane magic users" (or "characters capable of casting an arcane spell", or whatever wording you prefer)?




Because then any trickster who can cast dancing lights can use a staff of the magi, otherwise.  That may not be unbalancing mechanically, but it's genre breaking.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 8, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Why



No offense, but I'll be bowing out of the conversation with you. I hope others gain something productive with your ongoing input in the thread.

Edit: Feel free to continue to reply to my posts in this thread. I likely won't respond, but my posts are fair game to comment on.


JRRNeiklot said:


> Because then any trickster who can cast dancing lights can use a staff of the magi, otherwise.  That may not be unbalancing mechanically, but it's genre breaking.



Okay, so "Mage" isn't good enough, because any level 1 Wizard can do it. Why not "anyone capable of casting a Nth level arcane spell"?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Okay, so "Mage" isn't good enough, because any level 1 Wizard can do it. Why not "anyone capable of casting a Nth level arcane spell"?




I'd be happy with that as long as "Nth" is greater than the highest spell level any half or 3/4 caster (like ranger or bard) will ever see.

Edit:  That won't work either, as that would set a very high level requirement to use a particular item.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 8, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I'd be happy with that as long as "Nth" is greater than the highest spell level any half or 3/4 caster (like ranger or bard) will ever see.
> 
> Edit:  That won't work either, as that would set a very high level requirement to use a particular item.



Okay, so I guess the question is, why shouldn't a Bard or something be able to use a Staff of the Magi, if he's capable of hitting high level arcane spells (at very high level) and is very knowledgeable (he's a bard, so very knowledgeable, and he's also a caster)?

And, another question: what level should a Wizard be able to use the Staff of the Magi? And why? I think answering these honest questions might help me in this conversation. I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusions (Wizards should get to use it, but not Bards or Rangers), so this might help me out.

(Full disclosure: You're way too old school for me to agree with, in the end, I think. But I still think it'd be productive to work out where you're coming from.)


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Okay, so I guess the question is, why shouldn't a Bard or something be able to use a Staff of the Magi, if he's capable of hitting high level arcane spells (at very high level) and is very knowledgeable (he's a bard, so very knowledgeable, and he's also a caster)?
> 
> And, another question: what level should a Wizard be able to use the Staff of the Magi? And why? I think answering these honest questions might help me in this conversation. I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusions (Wizards should get to use it, but not Bards or Rangers), so this might help me out.
> 
> (Full disclosure: You're way too old school for me to agree with, in the end, I think. But I still think it'd be productive to work out where you're coming from.)




Sure, as you say, I come from a first edition background.  Wizards, magic users, etc are learned, scholarly folk who have dedicated their lives to learning about magic.  Rangers are dabblers, and bards, well, don't get me started.  Bards shouldn't even have arcane spells, but since they do, they also fall under the dabbler mantle.  They just can't make it work.  Nor should a wizard be able to charm someone with a song.

As for level, level one, if he can get his hands on one, but that shouldn't be very likely to happen.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 8, 2013)

RE: the Staff of the Magi question...

It could be keyed to casting level? I mean, I don't recall/know off the top of my head what its powers are, but maybe something like for any class other than wizards, you must be able to cast arcane spells of matching levels to access each suite of powers of the Staff of the Magi."

...so other mages would have to be capable of casting 3rd level spells to use the Fireball/Lightning bolt powers of the staff...maybe 4th level or 5th level spells for the staff's full abilities. So it would require a minimum of a 7th or 9th level wizard to fully master the staff.

Would that keep a bard from using it...no, I suppose not, once they could use 3rd, 4th, 5th level spells. But I'm also of the opinion that a powerful enough bard could/should hve the knowledge, if not raw ability, to "jimmy" the staff to function for them.

Other than that, I would prefer a "wizards only" stamp on the Staff of the Magi, specifilly.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 8, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Sure, as you say, I come from a first edition background.  Wizards, magic users, etc are learned, scholarly folk who have dedicated their lives to learning about magic.  Rangers are dabblers, and bards, well, don't get me started.  Bards shouldn't even have arcane spells, but since they do, they also fall under the dabbler mantle.  They just can't make it work.  Nor should a wizard be able to charm someone with a song.



Right, I know you have seemingly non-mainstream views on the Bard / Ranger, but I'm not here to fight you on those views. I'm just curious why someone as highly knowledgeable as the Bard and as magically gifted as the Bard shouldn't be able to use a magical staff that a Wizard can use. The Bard seems to fit the "scholarly folk" bit (Bardic Knowledge, usually access to all Knowledge / Lore skills, etc.), as well as the "dedicated their lives to learning about magic" bit (it's a big part of their class, and they get much more magic than most other people in the world).


JRRNeiklot said:


> As for level, level one, if he can get his hands on one, but that shouldn't be very likely to happen.



Okay. I think I'm just asking why, fictionally, this should be the case. I think that's mainly what I'm wondering about. Why, fictionally, is it okay for a level 1 Wizard to use one, but not a level 18 Bard?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 8, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Okay. I think I'm just asking why, fictionally, this should be the case. I think that's mainly what I'm wondering about. Why, fictionally, is it okay for a level 1 Wizard to use one, but not a level 18 Bard?




The same reason a level 20 carpenter can't fly a plane but a level 1 pilot can.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Oct 8, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The same reason a level 20 carpenter can't fly a plane but a level 1 pilot can.




Carpenters don't fly planes, they shave down the edges of doors with them.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 9, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The same reason a level 20 carpenter can't fly a plane but a level 1 pilot can.



But, again, fictionally, a Bard is extremely knowledgeable, and capable of arcane magic. I'm asking what the difference is between him and the Wizard here (to you, obviously). As far as I can tell, they're both pilots.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 9, 2013)

Does it help if we only consider items in the current playtest document? Imagining how a not-yet-described item (Staff of the Magi) interacts with a proposed rule change (class groups) is unlikely to find any common ground from which a reasoned position can be argued.


----------



## Tovec (Oct 9, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> The same reason a level 20 carpenter can't fly a plane but a level 1 pilot can.




Define the skills of the first level pilot. How many of those can the carpenter pick up before he becomes a pilot, or more specifically how many can he have and NOT be a pilot officially.

JamesonCourage has no problem considering arcane knowledge, access to arcane spells, and "knowledge / lore" as defining characteristics of "mage" enough to qualify for full benefits - though not at first level. You don't and that is cool but don't try to make it so black and white like we are idiots for not coming around to your way of thinking. We understand but disagree with it, not we don't understand at all.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 9, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> But, again, fictionally, a Bard is extremely knowledgeable, and capable of arcane magic. I'm asking what the difference is between him and the Wizard here (to you, obviously). As far as I can tell, they're both pilots.




Well, ok, then, to continue the pilot analogy, if they are both pilots, the bard flies a cropduster.  That doesn't mean he can fly an F15.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 9, 2013)

Tovec said:


> Define the skills of the first level pilot. How many of those can the carpenter pick up before he becomes a pilot, or more specifically how many can he have and NOT be a pilot officially.
> 
> JamesonCourage has no problem considering arcane knowledge, access to arcane spells, and "knowledge / lore" as defining characteristics of "mage" enough to qualify for full benefits - though not at first level. You don't and that is cool but don't try to make it so black and white like we are idiots for not coming around to your way of thinking. We understand but disagree with it, not we don't understand at all.




Show me where I called anyone an idiot?  Nevermind, just another troll to put on ignore.


----------



## Tovec (Oct 9, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Show me where I called anyone an idiot?  Nevermind, just another troll to put on ignore.




Its too bad you are ignoring me, I don't ignore you even though I think you are trolling us; saying the same thing over and over without concessions.

Who say's the staff of a magi is a F15? Who says all "pilots" can fly F15s? What are the requirements to fly an F15? How about someone who knows how to fly a F15 but is not (or ever been) in the airforce?

EDIT: Show me where I said you did call us idiots.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 9, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Well, ok, then, to continue the pilot analogy, if they are both pilots, the bard flies a cropduster.  That doesn't mean he can fly an F15.



Okay, I can dig that, depending on your explanation (and I say that honestly). What, fictionally, makes the Wizard so much more knowledgeable that he's capable at level 1, where a Bard isn't by level 20?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Oct 9, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Okay, I can dig that, depending on your explanation (and I say that honestly). What, fictionally, makes the Wizard so much more knowledgeable that he's capable at level 1, where a Bard isn't by level 20?




I don't know how else to explain it.  You view the bard as somewhat of a wizard because he casts arcane spells.  I don't.  They may use some of the same tools, but they are a completely different persuasion.  I see a bard as a rogue who happens to know a few spells.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Oct 9, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I don't know how else to explain it.  You view the bard as somewhat of a wizard because he casts arcane spells.  I don't.  They may use some of the same tools, but they are a completely different persuasion.  I see a bard as a rogue who happens to know a few spells.



I guess that's the difference. I see the Bard as better than 99-99.9% of the population when it comes to arcane magic, as well as being extremely knowledgeable (generally speaking). If the Staff of the Magi needs to be used by someone who is capable in arcane magic, and who is knowledgeable about magic, then the Bard fits.

I haven't heard why the Bard doesn't work for you, I just accept that it doesn't. If you can't explain it, I'll stop asking questions, but so far all I've heard is basically "they're different" but not much on why they are (other than "the Bard is a rogue with a few spells"). I'm okay ending the conversation here, if there's nowhere else we can go.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 9, 2013)

Hmm... currently the bard really only happens to know few spells... nothing really magelike... 

So I think, class groupings can help for magic items. I can perfectly see them using it as prerequisite. I don´t see a problem however, also using "being able to cast arcane spells" as other prerequisites. They could also be combined with AND or OR.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 9, 2013)

Mistwell said:


> Seems to me he addressed your question the very paragraph you quoted.  They have the magical oomph.  The game represents this in multiple ways, not the least of which is full casting ability.




There are always possible counterarguments: Clerics and Druids have full casting ability, but cannot use a Staff of the Magi; Wizards understand spells through hard study, while Warlocks just get them as part of a deal and never truly understand them, so they don't have the "oomph" to also understand how a Staff of the Magi works.

Mine was of course a rhetorical question. I do not care what you or the other poster answer to "Why?". The possible answers in favor or against (including my own counterarguments, which are made up on the spot, I don't actually believe in them) are all reasonable and worthless at the same time.

A Staff of the Magi (SotM) is simply usable by anyone you want it to be able to.

There is no fundamental reason why a game where all (and only) Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlock can use a SotM is a better game or a more reasonable game than another where only all Wizards can, or another where all spellcasters can, or another where "only arcane spellcasters of at least 5th level can, provided they are Lawful Good and born on Monday", or another where only a few individuals chosen by fate can.

The only obvious discriminant is if the SotM works in a way that is not applicable to some characters. If the SotM description says something about spell slots, and the character does not have spell slots, then the SotM as written cannot be used by that character.

The rest is up to the designers, they can do what they want: they can make the SotM usable by all Mages or by Wizards only. They are both "correct design". Then if you want to play by the book you follow their decision, but you can always change it to fit your preferences and nobody has the right to tell you that you should not.


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 9, 2013)

How 'bout...just going the "old school" route?

Under the Staff of the Magi, it will say, quite clearly, "Mages only."

Under BARD it reads, "The due to their extensive knowledge in legends and lore coupled with their spell-casting capacity and magical know how, the Bard is the only class with access to all types of magical items, as well as enchanted armor or weapons with which they have proficiency." 

And each table can figure out which way the wind [of the Staff of the Magi] blows on their own.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 9, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> How 'bout...just going the "old school" route?
> 
> Under the Staff of the Magi, it will say, quite clearly, "Mages only."
> 
> ...




I approve.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 9, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> How 'bout...just going the "old school" route?
> 
> Under the Staff of the Magi, it will say, quite clearly, "Mages only."
> 
> ...



I would probably lose the "only class" text, as that presupposes that another class will not be added with the same ability.  Other than that, seems fine.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 9, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> How 'bout...just going the "old school" route?
> 
> Under the Staff of the Magi, it will say, quite clearly, "Mages only."
> 
> ...




This reminds me that these groups are very helpful for old-school styles. You might do something like "Dwarves can only be priests and warriors" or somesuch.

Not that this makes me personally like it any better...


----------



## Tovec (Oct 9, 2013)

steeldragons said:


> How 'bout...just going the "old school" route?
> 
> Under the Staff of the Magi, it will say, quite clearly, "Mages only."
> 
> ...




Because many groups (especially newer groups/players) are going to now fight over the issue that bards should be allowed to use SotM because they have this line, whereas others are going to point to the staff to where it says "mage only" and say they can't. And it is an issue based solely on the words provided not on the interpretation you are trying to evoke. Unless the bard description has "mage" in it you are going to have this issue as people have become more used to keywords and "specific overrides general" so that specific of SotM will override general "bards can use all magics" even when the _group_ itself hasn't decided (or worse when they have decided but now the rules are getting in the way).

The "old school" route _may_ work for old schoolers who are used to it, but mid-schoolers and new-schoolers get hosed/confused?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 9, 2013)

The item would just say "Mages and Bards Only".  

There, now was that so hard?


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 10, 2013)

I thought [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s deduction on what sup-classes are insightful, and the only real reason for them to exist, in that they are a 1:1 mapping with the core classes, but avoid confusion by trying to use the class name as the super-class (which most of experienced gamers are used to)

_"The Basic edition includes four classes, a Fighter [Warrior], a Cleric [Priest], a Thief [Rogue], and a Wizard [Mage]. You look at the Advanced edition and you see things like Barbarian [Warrior], Druid [Priest], Assassin [Rogue], and Sorcerer [Mage], along with a bunch of other classes that you don't recognize but they all have those tags after them that you do recognize from the Basic game."_


----------



## Warbringer (Oct 10, 2013)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I don't know how else to explain it.  You view the bard as somewhat of a wizard because he casts arcane spells.  I don't.  They may use some of the same tools, but they are a completely different persuasion.  I see a bard as a rogue who happens to know a few spells.




In a non-class based system, where"powers" and "abilities" are purchased with points, it becomes obvious that a bard is nothing more than a dabbler, as he tries to pay for skills, armor wearing and wielding more than simple weapons. At that time, the nard as a class actually disappears as its more valuable to trade other elements in the rogue makeup (ie sneak attack for charm/perform abilities) than lose sneak attack.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 10, 2013)

On this Staff of the Magi thing. I've never DMed on 2e and I actually never play Mages so hadn't heard -or care - about it. But the 3e and 4e versions are usable by bards, in fact by pretty much anybody with an investment on UMD (3.x) or proficient with staffs (4e). Moreover as an artifact/rare item it isn't something that can be taken for granted for anyone. So it is a corner case as it is. I don't see how a very specific magic item that may not even make sense for sorcerers and warlocks but it may for bards but in some people's minds is a Wizard only thing justifies making a whole subsystem that isn't very useful while the alternatives (keywords or proficiencies)  work way damn better and are more organic.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 10, 2013)

KaiiLurker said:


> I don't see how a very specific magic item that may not even make sense for sorcerers and warlocks but it may for bards but in some people's minds is a Wizard only thing justifies making a whole subsystem that isn't very useful while the alternatives (keywords or proficiencies)  work way damn better and are more organic.




It's obviously not just about a single item.  They didn't even mention this item in the articles.  People asked for examples, and they got many examples of how this system could be helpful, and that was just one of those many examples.

More importantly, it seems that it IS a keyword.


----------

