I just realized we are going back to 4 classes, and I think I love it

[Rukelnikov]

As the title says, classes are gonna belong to 4 groups, quoting JC from the interview:

"When you are building a party now, uh, if you want to create sort of a classic balanced DnD party, one way you can do that is, make sure you have a memeber in your group from each of the class groups"

I take this as meaning that the group you belong to may end up being more impactful than the class/es you belong to, considering they are all gonna be privvy to the same set of Feats, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were attunement restrictions by class group either.

I just expect that if the feats level/group requirements can both apply simultaneosly (prerequisite: 4th lvl Expert), that the sum of your "group" levels is the one taken into account, so a Rogue 4, Ranger 4, and Rogue2/Ranger2 could all access said Feat.

On the "I love it part", I had said in the hopes for next edition that I'd like to see 3e UAs generic classes with only expert, warrior and spellcaster. They seem to have gone for Expert, Warrior, Mage, Priest, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

My prediction:

Warrior: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk*
Mage: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin*

* These 2 could be switched

[ProsecutorGodot]

Right now all we really know is that they have a unifying mechanic (in the case of the next UA, Skill Expertise) and will have access to feats that other class groups won't.

I don't see this as really 4 classes. Who knows, I might end up being surprised and tomorrow we'll see "this is the sneak attack expert, this is the half casting expert, and this is the full casting expert and that's all the differences." though that's very unlikely imo.

This is just an additional tag on your character for modularity. My tinfoil hat theory is a bit tangential to this, perhaps multiclassing would be limited to your group. That seems a lot more restrictive than what they seem to intend for 1d&d though.

I believe in the video JC is rather specific that magic items and feats in a future UA will include class group restrictions.

[Ulsan Krow]

Hell lets go to 1 class, make DnD Runescape

Anyhow,


Warrior: Fighter, Barbarian
Expert: Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Artificer
Mage: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priest: Cleric, Druid

Paladin, Monk are the two hard to pin ones. Methinks Monk goes Warrior and Paladin goes into Priest, but Paladin has historically been before classified as Warrior and Monk under Cleric + Paladin gets Fighting Style so I'm not sure

[animorte]

Yes, please and thank you. I appreciate the concept of actually making a standard for what to expect of the different type of roles you're expected. I'm sure they'll set each of them apart enough, likely just using existing mechanics and features. It certainly looks as such, having a full caster, half-caster, and non-caster in the very next UA as an example. I could see similar balance in other areas as well such as Divine: Cleric (full-caster), Paladin (half-caster), Monk (non-caster).

I think we still face the concern of how all their math overall is going to work without too much overlap or some areas struggling to be represented properly. If there were exactly 12 total classes, we could have a perfect distribution of these groups and spell lists. Alas, we do not. People have expressed their various concepts of how this spreadsheet might look in the other thread.

[LudicSavant]

As the title says, classes are gonna belong to 4 groups, quoting JC from the interview:

"When you are building a party now, uh, if you want to create sort of a classic balanced DnD party, one way you can do that is, make sure you have a memeber in your group from each of the class groups"

I take this as meaning that the group you belong to may end up being more impactful than the class/es you belong to, considering they are all gonna be privvy to the same set of Feats, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were attunement restrictions by class group either.

I just expect that if the feats level/group requirements can both apply simultaneosly (prerequisite: 4th lvl Expert), that the sum of your "group" levels is the one taken into account, so a Rogue 4, Ranger 4, and Rogue2/Ranger2 could all access said Feat.

I like the fact that 5e D&D isn't designed like a Trinity MMO where X class is Y role, where you can make a party of 4 characters of different subclasses and builds who are all from the same class and still end up with a well-rounded party. If this was one of the games I was designing, I would probably go even further in that regard, make characters have even more customization and player expression and the like. For example, making it so that while a Wizard might consistently have Int as a primary stat, all secondary stats could be interesting choices to consider that differentiate your playstyle in a meaningful way, whether it's the muscle Wizard or the charismatic dashing Wizard or the wise Wizard or the agile cunning Wizard. A game where playing the same class differently on a subsequent playthrough could yield a very different kind of character.

I'm wary of the notion that One D&D might go in the opposite direction, leaning more heavily into stereotypes and homogeneity. Things like locking feats to a 'class role' seems like it could very easily lead to encouraging players to just keep trodding down the pre-trodden paths. I'm hoping it doesn't, though.

Also, wary of one of the roles being 'priest.' Why does the grouping have to be inherently religious? Past editions have even had atheistic options for Clerics, let alone other classes. If their whole pitch is about One D&D being for everyone, it seems like a misstep to assign a worldview to an entire grouping of classes.

[AvatarVecna]

*insert 4e joke here*

[Ulsan Krow]

*insert 4e joke here*

Ah yes, the Warfender, Strikespert, Magetroller, and my most beloved of all, the Prieder

[animorte]

A game where playing the same class differently on a subsequent playthrough could yield a very different kind of character.
This is the kind of game I thoroughly enjoy and one reason current Warlock is my favorite class.


ArcaneDivinePrimal
ExpertBardRogue?Ranger
MageWizardClericSorcerer
PriestWarlock?PaladinDruid
WarriorFighter?MonkBarbarian


Here's a predicted pile of boogers that barely makes sense. I just slotted some stuff in where it makes the most sense to me without overlapping. Some are clearly a stretch, especially based on their choice of terminology. Also considering some of them aren't even casters and I'm aligning them with a spell list anyway.

[Rukelnikov]

Hell lets go to 1 class, make DnD Runescape

I said in that same thread, probable the same post, that I'd like it if there were no classes, which is the same as having 1, so, I'd be up for that


I like the fact that 5e D&D isn't designed like a Trinity MMO where X class is Y role, where you can make a party of 4 characters of different subclasses and builds who are all from the same class and still end up with a well-rounded party. If this was one of the games I was designing, I would probably go even further in that regard, make characters have even more customization and player expression and the like. For example, making it so that while a Wizard might consistently have Int as a primary stat, all secondary stats could be interesting choices to consider that differentiate your playstyle in a meaningful way, whether it's the muscle Wizard or the charismatic dashing Wizard or the wise Wizard or the agile cunning Wizard. A game where playing the same class differently on a subsequent playthrough could yield a very different kind of character.

Im all in favor of customization, to this day I still think 3e was the best edition character creation wise, I do not think that having 4 main "classes" necessarily goes against that. Its another layer, as if choosing "Bard, Ranger, Rogue" would be choosing your "subclass" at lvl 1, which will each have a subclass of their own. I do also expect to see easier access to feats, maybe instead of being every 4 class levels, they are every 4 group levels, or less preferrably, 3 or maybe 2, depending how impactful new feats are gonna be.


I'm wary of the notion that One D&D might go in the opposite direction, leaning more heavily into stereotypes and homogeneity. Things like locking feats to a 'class role' seems like it could very easily lead to encouraging players to just keep trodding down the pre-trodden paths. I'm hoping it doesn't, though.

I'm hoping for quite the opposite really. Currently if you wanna add smite to your repertoire, you need to go Paladin, or look for a 2nd rate similar feature, if Smite is turned into a feat that is accessed by being from the Priest group, your options have increased. I can totally see where your worries lie, and maybe I'm just optimistic about it. I don't expect the next edition at release to have more character archetypes supported on release than 5e's current, but I do expect more flexibility between their features, thus in a way a deeper pool. Splatbooks will then cover more area, with the depth given by the base system (I may just be being optimistic).


Also, wary of one of the roles being 'priest.' Why does the grouping have to be inherently religious? Past editions have even had atheistic options for Clerics, let alone other classes. If their whole pitch is about One D&D being for everyone, it seems like a misstep to assign a worldview to an entire grouping of classes.

I don't like the Priest group, because the Druid feels forced there, and we could also have monk there, and even warlock could also go in there. If they called it "word symbolising borrowed power" that'd be better for me.

[Millstone85]

I don't like the Priest group, because the Druid feels forced there, and we could also have monk there, and even warlock could also go in there. If they called it "word symbolising borrowed power" that'd be better for me.In another thread, I didn't realize they were bringing back the Priest group, thinking instead that they were following Tasha's sidekicks, and I made this table:




Martial
Arcane
Divine
Primal


Mage
-----
Sorcerer
and Wizard
Cleric
Druid


Warrior
Fighter
Warlock(?)
Paladin
Barbarian


Expert
Rogue
Artificer
and Bard
Monk(?)
Ranger

It wasn't perfect but I thought there was a certain elegance to it. :smallannoyed:

[Ulsan Krow]

Also, wary of one of the roles being 'priest.' Why does the grouping have to be inherently religious? Past editions have even had atheistic options for Clerics, let alone other classes. If their whole pitch is about One D&D being for everyone, it seems like a misstep to assign a worldview to an entire grouping of classes.


Methinks that since one of the 4 base classes is mage (inherent magic power) it makes sense to have another base class that is about borrowed/extrinsic magic power, i.e. the Priest. It's the only way it makes sense for these two classes to be entirely distinct from the other

in that sense, Warlock might be a Priest type pokemon and hell, Monk should be Mage after all

[Ortho]

Im all in favor of customization, to this day I still think 3e was the best edition character creation wise, I do not think that having 4 main "classes" necessarily goes against that.

It does, implicitly. If each superclass has a role, then there's pressure on you to play to that role.

I don't like this change. I'd prefer each class to have their own distinct identity, not one that's interchangeable with 2 or 3 others.

[Rukelnikov]

It does, implicitly. If each superclass has a role, then there's pressure on you to play to that role.

I don't like this change. I'd prefer each class to have their own distinct identity, not one that's interchangeable with 2 or 3 others.

Tbh I'd prefer a grab bag of features with prerequisites and no classes, I am hoping this brings us closer to that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It does, implicitly. If each superclass has a role, then there's pressure on you to play to that role.

I don't like this change. I'd prefer each class to have their own distinct identity, not one that's interchangeable with 2 or 3 others.

We don't know yet whether this is even the case, it seems a bit doom and gloom to assume this before we've seen any actual content on the classes. I'll be right there with you complaining about it if that does turn out to be true but giving classes a broader classification is not in itself any indication of homogenization.

[Ulsan Krow]

It does, implicitly. If each superclass has a role, then there's pressure on you to play to that role.

I don't like this change. I'd prefer each class to have their own distinct identity, not one that's interchangeable with 2 or 3 others.



I am agree but I have revised my opinion on this in the past 30 minutes with this rationale, so long as they don't go overboard with 4e level stratification: some roles are inherent and unavoidable even with the current designations

You're not going to be able to solve non magical problems without a Mage. (But class to class there can be exceptions - the Bard, the Artificer, some Priest classes can address this if the individual class is designed in that manner)

Likewise, if you want as much broad, reliable non magical skill interactivity as possible you want an Expert (But class to class there can be exceptions - the more flexible casters can compensate and moreover, skills are something all classes already engage with - i.e. if the classes, backgrounds etc pick well there's little issue here).

Furthermore, if you want a frontline tank who can keep and incentivise aggression on theyselves, a Warrior is in order (But class to class there can be exceptions - the Wildshaping Druid is another frontliner, a well built Cleric can perform to this duty etc)

Lastly, I don't know what the Priest does specifically. I suppose *shudders* if you want the very best support and, ugh, healing, you'd come by this little guy. This one is the most dubious. (But class to class there can be exceptions)

And not even considering separate classes but separate subclasses also. In terms of the barebones gist of roles I think it's reasonable to apportion some roles that already exist in the game in some meaningful capacity, but to keep the system flexible enough that other classes have the option to both assume the delegations of other roles and shirk their own core roles as well

[Dienekes]

Hmm, I a bit less excited than the OP. For me, the major benefit of classes is being able to cordon off discrete mechanics to make playing an archetype satisfying in a unique way. Being able to create mechanics that directly make the player feel like they're playing the chosen class. Without forcing the other players to interact with them.

I like when classes are flavorful and unique.

That said, I kinda doubt that this move will be quite as unified as the OP would like. We'll see tomorrow of course. But the Bard has pretty much always been a support class, and the Rogue has been pretty pidgeonholed into a Skirmisher with their mechanics. I kinda don't think those two concepts can be really called the same class even if they do end up sharing a couple features.

[Ulsan Krow]

We don't know yet whether this is even the case, it seems a bit doom and gloom to assume this before we've seen any actual content on the classes. I'll be right there with you complaining about it if that does turn out to be true but giving classes a broader classification is not in itself any indication of homogenization.


We kind of do though, since Jeremiah Crawfordsworth already alluded to this in the teaser. I.e. that the 4 overarching class grouping can be a design suggestion for newcomers as to how to build a well balanced party that can address all roles - the implicit premise being that each class within a grouping must meaningfully represent and fulfil some shared role with other classes under the same grouping

[Bobthewizard]

Here's what I think they'll do:

Skilled: Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Arcane: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Devoted: Cleric, Druid, Paladin (I think they might move Paladin to martial so there's only 2 here)
Martial: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk (+ Paladin?)

Here's what I think would be more interesting:

Skilled: Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Studied: Wizard, Cleric, Fighter
Innate: Sorcerer, Druid, Barbarian
Oathed: Warlock, Paladin, Monk

[Zhorn]

For the concept of 'feature groups', I like it as a future proofing concept regarding any class based restrictions as they discussed in the video.

I also like the potential it offers in multiclassing within the group; say Extra attack is instead granted at Warrior lv5, so multiclassing within the niche area of the Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin) doesn't delay that common signature feature. That is if the go that route (still waiting to see the new experts playtest).

I don't however like the push of "a group needs one of each of these roles". Already have enough trouble breaking new players out of the video game mindset of 'this person is THE tank, this person is THE healer, etc', I don't want that to instead be further enforced on them.

waiting to see.

[Ulsan Krow]

For the concept of 'feature groups', I like it as a future proofing concept regarding any class based restrictions as they discussed in the video.

I also like the potential it offers in multiclassing within the group; say Extra attack is instead granted at Warrior lv5, so multiclassing within the niche area of the Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin) doesn't delay that common signature feature. That is if the go that route (still waiting to see the new experts playtest).

I don't however like the push of "a group needs one of each of these roles". Already have enough trouble breaking new players out of the video game mindset of 'this person is THE tank, this person is THE healer, etc', I don't want that to instead be further enforced on them.

waiting to see.

I am agreement with this entirely

[Rafaelfras]

*insert 4e joke here*

Right???
Whats next? same resources for everyone?

[Ulsan Krow]

Right???
Whats next? same resources for everyone?


One DnD Playtest Part 3: Paragon Roads

[animorte]

Skilled: Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Studied: Wizard, Cleric, Fighter
Innate: Sorcerer, Druid, Barbarian
Oathed: Warlock, Paladin, Monk

Let's do this one. It refrains from specifically having a caster base. Perhaps it would allow the types of abilities and skills that can accomplish enough of what spells are capable of so you can realistically expect a better grasp of balance in all pillars of play.

[ProsecutorGodot]

We kind of do though, since Jeremiah Crawfordsworth already alluded to this in the teaser. I.e. that the 4 overarching class grouping can be a design suggestion for newcomers as to how to build a well balanced party that can address all roles - the implicit premise being that each class within a grouping must meaningfully represent and fulfil some shared role with other classes under the same grouping

suggestion of roles =/= enforcement of roles

It's very possible to have a broad set of skills and a diverse set of more particular abilities, however it can't be denied that there already exists an implicit "role" to classes, even now in 5e. My understanding is that DND has always had these suggestions of roles and in the past those suggestions have been much more forceful than they are now.

[paladinn]

Crawford worked on 4e; so it's not a surprise that they are leaning toward "power source+group", almost like 4e's "power source+role."

Warrior+Martial = Fighter
Warrior+Primal = Barbarian
Warrior+Divine = Paladin
Warrior+Arcane = ?? (Swordmage/EK)

Expert+Martial = Rogue
Expert+Primal = Ranger
Expert+Divine = Monk?
Expert+Arcane = Bard

Mage+Martial = ?? (Warlock/Hexblade)
Mage+Primal = ?? (Shaman)
Mage+Divine = ?? (Divine Soul)
Mage+Arcane = Wizard

Priest+Martial = ??(Paladin/Warpriest)
Priest+Primal = Druid
Priest+Divine = Cleric
Priest+Arcane = ??(Arcana Domain)

We'll see more soon I know. My biggest regret now is that rangers are going to be experts ala 4e. Rangers were fighter subclass in 0e and 1e and practically that in 2e and 3e. I fear they are going to be merged with the Scout Rogue subclass.

[Ulsan Krow]

suggestion of roles =/= enforcement of roles

It's very possible to have a broad set of skills and a diverse set of more particular abilities, however it can't be denied that there already exists an implicit "role" to classes, even now in 5e. My understanding is that DND has always had these suggestions of roles and in the past those suggestions have been much more forceful than they are now.


Exactly. There are already implicit roles that exist and tend to abide by those categorisations of warrior/expert/mage/priest (though it depends on what we see tomorrow with how Paladin and Monk are categorised, perhaps some others too) so I both agree and am fine with it.

But the point you made was that

giving classes a broader classification is not in itself any indication of homogenization.

Which it is. As you are acknowledging now, there is some degree of role homogeneity within these 'superclasses', the addendum we are discussing is just that that homogeneity already exists but without classification.

Now the question is, does such a classification impose any additional unnecessary role enforcement or rule out any diversification and design agency that currently exists? On that query, you would be right then: we need to wait to find out.

[animorte]

I have a theory that that trying to space out the abilities and features gained from each class more standard across the entire board. Kind of like Extra Attack being the standard at 5th level (except some subclasses getting it at 6). I sincerely hope they also standardize the level at which each subclass is acquired. By having a starting group, maybe this idea will be much easier to accomplish. That and being able to start at level 1. It seems that people rarely start at level 1 in 5e (I think because disparity in subclasses).

[Frogreaver]

As the title says, classes are gonna belong to 4 groups, quoting JC from the interview:

"When you are building a party now, uh, if you want to create sort of a classic balanced DnD party, one way you can do that is, make sure you have a memeber in your group from each of the class groups"

I take this as meaning that the group you belong to may end up being more impactful than the class/es you belong to, considering they are all gonna be privvy to the same set of Feats, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were attunement restrictions by class group either.

I just expect that if the feats level/group requirements can both apply simultaneosly (prerequisite: 4th lvl Expert), that the sum of your "group" levels is the one taken into account, so a Rogue 4, Ranger 4, and Rogue2/Ranger2 could all access said Feat.

On the "I love it part", I had said in the hopes for next edition that I'd like to see 3e UAs generic classes with only expert, warrior and spellcaster. They seem to have gone for Expert, Warrior, Mage, Priest, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

My prediction:

Warrior: Fighter, Barbarian, Monk*
Mage: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin*

* These 2 could be switched

I predict. Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller. Deja vu.

[solidork]

Random stab in the dark for the commonalities between the other groups:

Warrior - Superiority Dice (it could be Extra Attack, but you'd have to sell me on Rangers and either Monks or Paladins losing it)
Priest - Channel Divinity (maybe a more generic name like Invoke Power)
Mage - This one is tougher. Metamagic actually makes sense thematically (it makes sense to me that the arcane casters would have it) but I doubt they'd do that.

[gloryblaze]

I feel like multiple people in multiple threads have brought up the idea of this two-axis matrix of "group x power source" (a la 4e), and I honestly don't really know where it's coming from? I watched the Crawford video and nothing that was said seems to even remotely suggest that that's what their going for. The classification of spells into 3 lists seems entirely orthogonal to this new class grouping context, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'll get proven wrong tomorrow, but that's what it seems to me, at least. I would bet good money that the groups are just:

Expert
Bard
Ranger
Rogue
Artificer*

Mage
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Priest
Cleric
Druid
Paladin

Warrior
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk

*confirmed by JC to be non-core (so not in the UA) but an Expert nonetheless

[Witty Username]

I am personally more partial to expert, spellcaster, warrior in these setups. Partially because in a similar vein to LudicSavant's wariness, I find the priest role obnoxious and partially I find the game mechanics of the
priest vs mage stuff kinda odd.

I do also question the need of it, classes are benefited by not having to fall neatly into a broader category.
A few things to act as unified mechanics for simplicity reasons, sure (extra attack does its job pretty well selling a character is good at fighting, a role with extra attack on it is probably fine) an umbrella to dictate play behavior to the classes under it, I'm not interested in.

[Leon]

Archtypes, not classes. If it were classes then you'd be a Expert Class with a Subclass of Rogue/Bard/Ranger or Artificer.
Priest doesn't have enough definition to separate it from any other caster. The spells lists however may be their own quasi Archetype.

[tiornys]

Neither power sources nor the announced groupings map well onto the 4E roles. Warrior encompasses at least defender and striker, Expert encompasses at least striker and leader, Priest at least defender and leader, and Mage at least striker and controller. This is reinforced by the announced classes in the Expert group: as they exist in current 5E, Rogues are strikers, Rangers are striker/controllers, and Bards are leader/controllers (and each has current subclasses that expand into other roles). I don't see them making the massive thematic changes that would be necessary to slot these class groupings into the 4E roles.

[Yakk]

The Warrior, Expert, Mage, Priest goes back to the first 4 classes of D&D. It has a lot of legacy.

In old D&D, the Priest class didn't get spells at level 1, had an important ability that wasn't spellcasting (turn undead), had limited access to magic weapons, full access to magic armor. Amusingly the first Cleric was basically an anti-vampire class, built to deal with a DM decision to allow a player to play a vampire named Sir Fang.

The Expert class got dungeon-interacting skills, full access to magic weapons, limited access to magic armor. Honestly, my favourite Expert class I've seen was the pre-D&D Talent based one, where they used the Mage spell table for their Rogue; but instead of spells, they got Talents, which could be used at-will. An Expert would get "lockpicking" Talent, and they would just unlock locks when they used it. Now, this isn't the best mechanics for today, as "eliminate part of game" isn't that fun, but back in the day (with how dungeon crawls worked) being able to not have a chance to fail on certain problems was very useful.

The Warrior class got full access to magic armor and weapons.

The Mage class got next to no access to magic armor and weapons, got spellcasting at level 1. Their spells tended to be flashier and change the course of a battle compared to the Priest.

Monk, as it is inspired by stories of Buddhist Monks, being a Priest class makes sense. It moving away from Warrior/Expert may actually help it get a better identity.

Distinguishing Paladin and Cleric is tricky; but, if you make the Paladin a Warrior, and the Cleric a Priest, it does help here. Paladins source material comes from Warriors who are Holy/Religious; Clerics are Priests who are Violent.

[Slipjig]

Tbh I'd prefer a grab bag of features with prerequisites and no classes, I am hoping this brings us closer to that.

That could result in a good game. But if they go this route they probably shouldn't call it DnD anymore.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't see this as really 4 classes. Who knows, I might end up being surprised and tomorrow we'll see "this is the sneak attack expert, this is the half casting expert, and this is the full casting expert and that's all the differences." though that's very unlikely imo.


I like the fact that 5e D&D isn't designed like a Trinity MMO where X class is Y role, where you can make a party of 4 characters of different subclasses and builds who are all from the same class and still end up with a well-rounded party. If this was one of the games I was designing, I would probably go even further in that regard, make characters have even more customization and player expression and the like. For example, making it so that while a Wizard might consistently have Int as a primary stat, all secondary stats could be interesting choices to consider that differentiate your playstyle in a meaningful way, whether it's the muscle Wizard or the charismatic dashing Wizard or the wise Wizard or the agile cunning Wizard. A game where playing the same class differently on a subsequent playthrough could yield a very different kind of character.

I'm wary of the notion that One D&D might go in the opposite direction, leaning more heavily into stereotypes and homogeneity. Things like locking feats to a 'class role' seems like it could very easily lead to encouraging players to just keep trodding down the pre-trodden paths. I'm hoping it doesn't, though.

Also, wary of one of the roles being 'priest.' Why does the grouping have to be inherently religious? Past editions have even had atheistic options for Clerics, let alone other classes. If their whole pitch is about One D&D being for everyone, it seems like a misstep to assign a worldview to an entire grouping of classes.

I'm not overly worried. This looks like the 4 class groups that 2nd edition AD&D had -- broad categories where they share a similar feature and might get a in-group set of selections (kits and splatbooks in 2e, feats here). I remember from then that the groupings didn't actually do that much (other than AD&D-specific mechanics like using the same saves or ThAC0 progression) -- you honestly couldn't replace the party Thief with a Bard (if you were going dungeon-crawling), despite them being in the same group, and at high levels there were cleric spells you really wanted that druids couldn't replicate (coming back from the dead not-as-a-lemur being a big one). Until we see otherwise, I feel that this is just grouping together things with like features, and maybe giving them earlier/easier access to feats that effect those like features.

[Unoriginal]

The Fighter ends up re-classified as one of the Expert classes.

Crawford has an interview where he says that it was hard to find where to place the Fighter, but in the end they're experts at fighting so it makes sense.

[ZRN]

I like the fact that 5e D&D isn't designed like a Trinity MMO where X class is Y role, where you can make a party of 4 characters of different subclasses and builds who are all from the same class and still end up with a well-rounded party. If this was one of the games I was designing, I would probably go even further in that regard, make characters have even more customization and player expression and the like. For example, making it so that while a Wizard might consistently have Int as a primary stat, all secondary stats could be interesting choices to consider that differentiate your playstyle in a meaningful way, whether it's the muscle Wizard or the charismatic dashing Wizard or the wise Wizard or the agile cunning Wizard. A game where playing the same class differently on a subsequent playthrough could yield a very different kind of character.

I'm wary of the notion that One D&D might go in the opposite direction, leaning more heavily into stereotypes and homogeneity. Things like locking feats to a 'class role' seems like it could very easily lead to encouraging players to just keep trodding down the pre-trodden paths. I'm hoping it doesn't, though.

Also, wary of one of the roles being 'priest.' Why does the grouping have to be inherently religious? Past editions have even had atheistic options for Clerics, let alone other classes. If their whole pitch is about One D&D being for everyone, it seems like a misstep to assign a worldview to an entire grouping of classes.

If I had to guess, what they're trying to do is reuse the 4e roles without getting yelled at, and with more focus on non-combat utility. "Expert" is "guy who can pick locks," "Priest" is "guy who can heal and resurrect," "Mage" is "guy who can AOE and later on teleport/plane shift/etc.," and "Warrior" is "guy who primarily just fights good."

Monk is a mobile skirmisher like rogue, but it's not an "expert" because they're not that good at skills, so a monk/fighter/cleric/wizard party will have a harder time at picking locks and other skill stuff.

[paladinn]

Distinguishing Paladin and Cleric is tricky; but, if you make the Paladin a Warrior, and the Cleric a Priest, it does help here. Paladins source material comes from Warriors who are Holy/Religious; Clerics are Priests who are Violent.

Paladins originally didn't cast spells; they were clearly warriors. They could heal and were immune to disease, had protection from evil and could call a special steed. They also had a badly-defined "dispel evil" at-will ability that is probably better replaced with smiting.

My current favorite paladin (and ranger) version is in Castles&Crusades, and is spell-less. If one wants to keep a paladin as a warrior, ditch spells and just use the spell levels as smite-points.

[Millstone85]

Monk is a mobile skirmisher like rogue, but it's not an "expert" because they're not that good at skills, so a monk/fighter/cleric/wizard party will have a harder time at picking locks and other skill stuff.Isn't that odd, though? When I picture a monastery, occidental or oriental, I see the monks doing everything by themselves: cleaning, cooking, repairing, making pots, cultivating a garden with a beehive or two, etc.

Then you have the lonely travelling monk, who might have just been a glorified beggar IRL but in a fantasy setting would more likely be the resourceful sort both outdoors and in the cities they pass through.

And, sorry if I seem obsessed with filling grids, but the fact is that we have an arcane expert and a primal expert but no divine expert.

[Yakk]

Paladins originally didn't cast spells; they were clearly warriors. They could heal and were immune to disease, had protection from evil and could call a special steed. They also had a badly-defined "dispel evil" at-will ability that is probably better replaced with smiting.

My current favorite paladin (and ranger) version is in Castles&Crusades, and is spell-less. If one wants to keep a paladin as a warrior, ditch spells and just use the spell levels as smite-points.
"Mage" doesn't have to be equal to "spellcaster".

The mage archtype does cast spells, but that doesn't have to be what makes it distinct.


If I had to guess, what they're trying to do is reuse the 4e roles without getting yelled at, and with more focus on non-combat utility. "Expert" is "guy who can pick locks," "Priest" is "guy who can heal and resurrect," "Mage" is "guy who can AOE and later on teleport/plane shift/etc.," and "Warrior" is "guy who primarily just fights good."

Monk is a mobile skirmisher like rogue, but it's not an "expert" because they're not that good at skills, so a monk/fighter/cleric/wizard party will have a harder time at picking locks and other skill stuff.
No, it isn't 4e they are mimicing.

It is red box and pre-red box D&D.

The first 4 non-demihuman classes where Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric and Thief.

[Psyren]

I feel like multiple people in multiple threads have brought up the idea of this two-axis matrix of "group x power source" (a la 4e), and I honestly don't really know where it's coming from? I watched the Crawford video and nothing that was said seems to even remotely suggest that that's what their going for. The classification of spells into 3 lists seems entirely orthogonal to this new class grouping context, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'll get proven wrong tomorrow, but that's what it seems to me, at least. I would bet good money that the groups are just:

Expert
Bard
Ranger
Rogue
Artificer*

Mage
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Priest
Cleric
Druid
Paladin

Warrior
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk

*confirmed by JC to be non-core (so not in the UA) but an Expert nonetheless

Congrats, you nailed it :smallsmile:

Also Bards can steal spells from the Mage and Priest groups, Ranger can steal Fighting Styles from the Warrior group, and Rogue gets the most Expertises of anyone in the group

[deadman1204]

More samey bland simplification. Its like a bad fetish.

Simple does not mean better.

[Rukelnikov]

That could result in a good game. But if they go this route they probably shouldn't call it DnD anymore.

That's probably true.

Anyway groups seem much less relevant than I expected, the only feats requiring Expert group are 20th level.

[Psyren]

That's probably true.

Anyway groups seem much less relevant than I expected, the only feats requiring Expert group are 20th level.

All the Fighting Styles require Warrior group (though Rangers gain access to them, and maybe Paladin will too?)

We also haven't seen magic items yet which are also expected to be gated by group.

[LudicSavant]

The material in the One D&D playtest makes it look like they're just making arbitrary boxes for the sake of putting things in boxes. For example:



https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/821299993787760640/1025126860469837925/unknown.png

Like, this is basically just an epic boon variant of Fey-Touched or Fey Teleportation, but they decided to make it class-exclusive for some reason. Why does this sort of thing need to be class-exclusive?

It reminds me of the bad old days when they'd just randomly slap requirements like "must be Chaotic Neutral" on some random generic bonus. Boxes for the sake of boxes.


I don't however like the push of "a group needs one of each of these roles". Already have enough trouble breaking new players out of the video game mindset of 'this person is THE tank, this person is THE healer, etc', I don't want that to instead be further enforced on them.

waiting to see.

Yeah, I really hope they won't push to enforce narrow stereotypes. That would definitely be a downgrade in my eyes.

[Rukelnikov]

The material in the One D&D playtest makes it look like they're just making arbitrary boxes for the sake of putting things in boxes. For example:



Like, this is basically just an epic boon variant of Fey-Touched, but they decided to make it class-exclusive for some reason. Why does this sort of thing need to be class-exclusive?

It reminds me of the bad old days when they'd just randomly slap requirements like "must be Chaotic Neutral" on some random generic bonus. Boxes for the sake of boxes.

I can't understand how they "revise" the epic boons and write that, no tonly is the gating dubious, that's not a level 20 feature.

[Psyren]

I don't see the issue with the groupings thing, it's a helpful tool to new players. "What should I play?" "Here's what everyone else is." "Oh neat, it says here you don't have anything from this group, that narrows it down from 12 to 3 for me."



Like, this is basically just an epic boon variant of Fey-Touched or Fey Teleportation, but they decided to make it class-exclusive for some reason. Why does this sort of thing need to be class-exclusive?

Agree completely, this is laughably weak for an "epic boon", especially a gated one. Even Misty Step at-will would have been questionable, but 1/rest is criminal.

[Rukelnikov]

Agree completely, this is laughably weak for an "epic boon", especially a gated one. Even Misty Step at-will would have been questionable, but 1/rest is criminal.

Tbh, most of the other printed ones don't really feel taht epic to begin with. Misty Step at will may not be as strong as I'd like a 20th level feature, but at least it would be in line with some of the other powers, I don't consider 1 auto hit per combat necessarily better than at will Misty Step.

1/short rest is below current half feat level :S

[Psyren]

Tbh, most of the other printed ones don't really feel taht epic to begin with. Misty Step at will may not be as strong as I'd like a 20th level feature, but at least it would be in line with some of the other powers, I don't consider 1 auto hit per combat necessarily better than at will Misty Step.

1/short rest is below current half feat level :S

Agreed.

The ones I think are... least bad include Irresistible Offense, Unfettered and Undetectability.

[LudicSavant]

I don't see the issue with the groupings thing, it's a helpful tool to new players. "What should I play?" "Here's what everyone else is." "Oh neat, it says here you don't have anything from this group, that narrows it down from 12 to 3 for me."

The issue is that it reinforces the notion that X class = Y role, even though (in current 5e) this isn't true (and that's a good thing).

In 5e, your role isn't determined by your class, it's determined by your subclass and build choices. This is why you can make a well-rounded party from 4 members of the same class, etc. In 5e, a healer might be a Life Cleric, a Dream Druid, or a Redemption Paladin... or it could be a Lore Bard, or a Jorasco Wizard, or a Divine Soul Sorcerer, a Celestial warlock, a Mercy Monk, or even a Thief Rogue with the Healer feat and UMDing a magic staff.

[Psyren]

The issue is that it reinforces the notion that X class = Y role like a hard "Holy Trinity" design philosophy MMO, even though (at least in 5e, as well as various past editions of D&D) this isn't true (and that's a good thing).

That isn't a bad notion for brand new players. And experienced ones like us can safely ignore it. I'm not seeing the issue with it as a teaching tool.

How many times do new players come here asking that very question and get told things like "it looks like you don't have a skillmonkey" or "who is your frontliner?"

[gloryblaze]

The issue is that it reinforces the notion that X class = Y role like a hard "Holy Trinity" design philosophy MMO, even though (at least in 5e, as well as various past editions of D&D) this isn't true (and that's a good thing).

In 5e, your role isn't determined by your class, it's determined by your subclass and build choices. This is why you can make a well-rounded party from 4 members of the same class, etc. In 5e, a healer might be a Life Cleric, a Dream Druid, or a Redemption Paladin... or it could be a Lore Bard, or a Jorasco Wizard, or a Divine Soul Sorcerer, a Celestial warlock, a Mercy Monk, or even a Thief Rogue with the Healer feat and UMDing a magic staff.

There's nothing to indicate that playing "off-role" won't still be an option for more experienced players, though. Bards arguably got slightly better at healing, thanks to the new Song of Restoration giving them some of their old heals back, the new Bardic Inspiration being exceptionally good at pop-up/jack-in-the-box combat healing (which some people would say is the only "good" combat healing, though personally i consider certain spells like polymorph or heal to be worth casting as "heals" in combat), and the new version of Magical Secrets being able to grab old goodies like heal while still potentially cribbing off-class goodies like aura of vitality off the Divine list. So a lore bard can definitely play at being a Priest.

The grouping is more helpful for a brand-new player (or especially group of players!) who want to build a diverse party without splat-diving for stuff like Mark of Healing or knowing about certain combos like Disciple of Life + goodberry/aura of vitality. If a brand new player looks at a party that has a paladin, a cleric, a druid, and a fighter in it, they can think to themself "hmm, I see three Priests and a Warrior. Maybe I should consider playing rogue or wizard." That's unlikely to lead them to a super fun or creative build choice, but neither is it likely to lead them to feel overshadowed or a fifth wheel—in fact, unless one of those other players has specifically built to play "off-role", it will likely steer them into an unoccupied party niche.

Preventing new players from accidentally feeling overshadowed is probably a good thing, so I see no real harm in the class groups as presented. Again, this all feels like a very minor change. The sky isn't going to fall if the staff of the magi says "requires attunement by a Mage" instead of "requires attunement by a sorcerer, warlock, or wizard".

[Rukelnikov]

Agreed.

The ones I think are... least bad include Irresistible Offense, Unfettered and Undetectability.

Irresistible Offense and Undetectability I think are ok, that's the "poer level" I'd expect from a 20th level feature, Unfettered feels rather weak to me, it should be "you don't provoke attacks of opportunity by moving and you can escape grapples"

[LudicSavant]

There's nothing to indicate that playing "off-role"

in fact, unless one of those other players has specifically built to play "off-role"

An archer Fighter isn't a "frontliner class playing off-role," it's just one of the various roles that a Fighter can fill.

That's the thing. In 5e, a class is not a mechanical role. It's not helpful to start telling people that it is; there are far more helpful models for teaching even if that was the goal.

But of course, they aren’t really just using this as a framework for teaching. They’re actively using it to introduce restrictions in places where there don't need to be restrictions (like the Misty Step feat example above).

The examples from the playtest so far look an awful lot like boxes for the sake of boxes.

[KorvinStarmast]

This looks like the 4 class groups that 2nd edition AD&D had -- broad categories where they share a similar feature and might get a in-group set of selections (kits and splatbooks in 2e, feats here). ...snip... Until we see otherwise, I feel that this is just grouping together things with like features, and maybe giving them earlier/easier access to feats that effect those like features. I am with the Duck.

Simple does not mean better. Disagree. KISS principle is what got the masses to buy into 5e, after the insular 'needs complexity' crowd had gone to the extremes.

Like, this is basically just an epic boon variant of Fey-Touched or Fey Teleportation, but they decided to make it class-exclusive for some reason. Why does this sort of thing need to be class-exclusive? It doesn't, please make mention of this in the feedback. I will.

It reminds me of the bad old days when they'd just randomly slap requirements like "must be Chaotic Neutral" on some random generic bonus. Boxes for the sake of boxes.
Concur.


The issue is that it reinforces the notion that X class = Y role, even though (in current 5e) this isn't true (and that's a good thing).

In 5e, your role isn't determined by your class, it's determined by your subclass and build choices. This is why you can make a well-rounded party from 4 members of the same class, etc. In 5e, a healer might be a Life Cleric, a Dream Druid, or a Redemption Paladin... or it could be a Lore Bard, or a Jorasco Wizard, or a Divine Soul Sorcerer, a Celestial warlock, a Mercy Monk, or even a Thief Rogue with the Healer feat and UMDing a magic staff. Yes.

[Psyren]

An archer Fighter isn't a "frontliner class playing off-role," it's just one of the various roles that a Fighter can fill.

That's the thing. In 5e, a class is not a mechanical role. It's not helpful to start telling people that it is; there are far more helpful models for teaching even if that was the goal.

But of course, they aren’t really just using this as a framework for teaching. They’re actively using it to introduce restrictions in places where there don't need to be restrictions (like the Misty Step feat example above).

The examples from the playtest so far look an awful lot like boxes for the sake of boxes.

I still think you're viewing it too narrowly. They're not saying Warrior and Expert are "mechanical roles" like Tank and DPS are. They're saying that those groupings have thematic features that new players might find helpful in combination.

I have little doubt we'll still be able to make things like sneaky monks, melee druids and controller bards. But if a player opens the book looking for a theme, getting directed to 3 classes rather than 12 is a good thing. And then as they get more experienced with the game they can branch out.

I just think that too often around here we lose sight of how even a TTRPG this relatively simple can be daunting to complete newcomers.

[gloryblaze]

An archer Fighter isn't a "frontliner class playing off-role," it's just one of the various roles that a Fighter can fill.

That's the thing. In 5e, a class is not a mechanical role. It's not helpful to start telling people that it is; there are far more helpful models for teaching even if that was the goal.

But of course, they aren’t really just using this as a framework for teaching. They’re actively using it to introduce restrictions in places where there don't need to be restrictions (like the Misty Step feat example above).

The examples from the playtest so far look an awful lot like boxes for the sake of boxes.

The "Warrior" group description says nothing about "frontliner class". It says "master of combat who can deal and endure many wounds." I'd say an archer fighter fights that description quite well.

[Corran]

An archer Fighter isn't a "frontliner class playing off-role," it's just one of the various roles that a Fighter can fill.

That's the thing. In 5e, a class is not a mechanical role. It's not helpful to start telling people that it is; there are far more helpful models for teaching even if that was the goal.

But of course, they aren’t really just using this as a framework for teaching. They’re actively using it to introduce restrictions in places where there don't need to be restrictions (like the Misty Step feat example above).

The examples from the playtest so far look an awful lot like boxes for the sake of boxes.
Some restrictions may be good for the game. For example, frontloading has its issues in 5e. If multiclassing is restricted in some way via groups, we may have less of that.

That said, I am not very excited by the idea of grouping classes together because I dont see any reason for it. I too prefer each class to be its own thing and I dont see any benefits in putting classes in boxes, and that's because I dont want to see similar features shared between classes.

If they avoid what 4e did that essentially gave pretty much the same abilties to the classes of a specific role, grouping could be a fix when it comes to having frontloaded features. (Why not do away with the frontloading instead? Maybe they want the classes to be somewhat frontloaded if they know that most games take place in the low levels)

[LudicSavant]

It doesn't, please make mention of this in the feedback. I will.
Concur.

Yes.

https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png


They're not saying Warrior and Expert are "mechanical roles" like Tank and DPS are.

The "Warrior" group description says nothing about "frontliner class"

And since it doesn't tell you what mechanical role you have, it doesn't actually resolve questions like "who is your frontliner?"


How many times do new players come here asking that very question and get told things like "it looks like you don't have a skillmonkey" or "who is your frontliner?"

What they're actually doing is setting up arbitrary walls with things like "Prerequisite: this Misty Step feat can only be taken by Expert or Mage classes."

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/821299993787760640/1025126860469837925/unknown.png

They're just limits on customization that don't need to be there.

[tiornys]

Not disagreeing with the general evaluation, but a couple of comments are underselling the Misty Step boon. It's significantly better than 1/short rest, as you get it back on rolling initiative as well. Still weak.

[gloryblaze]

https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png




And since it doesn't tell you what mechanical role you have, it doesn't actually resolve questions like "who is your frontliner?"



What they're actually doing is setting up arbitrary walls with things like "Prerequisite: this Misty Step feat can only be taken by Expert or Mage classes."

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/821299993787760640/1025126860469837925/unknown.png

They're just limits on customization that don't need to be there.

My argument wasn't that it resolves questions like "who is your frontliner," it's that

a) The groupings are almost entirely observational/descriptive, so ultimately so minor as to be almost a non-change, and
b) Explicitly stating those observations has at least some value in that it allows new players to avoid accidentally making themselves feel overshadowed in their own niche by other PCs

Addressing a: After seeing the Expert classes, the changes from the 2014 PHB seem almost entirely unrelated to the Expert designation except the explicit inclusion of Expertise in Ranger (over TCoE's Canny). Bards are still full-casters with a lot of support baked in, rangers are still archer/TWF DPR specialists (just better ones now) with a side of Druidic casting and Dex/Wis skills, and Rogues are almost unchanged, at least in the base class (off-round sneak attacks getting removed doesn't change their "mechanical role", and Subtle Strikes might partially compensate for the lost DPR). So the Expert designation didn't do any sort of terrible homogenization, like making Bard and Rogue into half casters or taking Fighting Style away from Ranger or anything like that.

RE: using groups as feat/magic item prereqs. I will agree that this seems to be the one major substantive/prescriptive/mechanical effect of these changes. If each Fighting Style is a feat takable only by Warriors, that blows for a hypothetical Swords Bard or Bladesinger who used to be able to grab Defense or Dueling with Fighting Initiate and now has to go blow chunks... except, we can already see them addressing this in their Ranger design. Rangers get a class feature that lets them take fighting styles. No reason College of Swords or School of Bladesinging can't get a subclass feature that says "you count as a warrior for feat prerequisites under circumstances x, y, and z". And it's not like this problem is even new to One DND. If your level 20 Mark of Healing halfling wizard wanted to attune to a Rod of Resurrection, they already have to go blow chunks. So if the item's attunement prereqs are changed from "cleric, druid, or paladin" to "Priest" it literally will be the same as before. And there's no reason specific item prereqs have to fall exactly on group lines. Maybe Staff of Healing will require attunement by "a Priest or bard", since bards are currently on the whitelist for it.

Addressing b: I tend to think the whole "overshadowed"/"party niche" thing is often overblown*, but if a new player decides to play abarbarian, they're more likely to feel directly overshadowed by a fighter than, say, a cleric or wizard. Same for sorcerer being more likely to feel like his toes are being stepped on by a wizard then a druid, even if they're both full casters, because the druid lacks a lot of the non-concentration AoE blasts that a new sorcerer player will feel drawn to (like fireball)/

*More of a good thing might be not be AS good as having a second, different good thing—or maybe, when that one good thing is in high demand, it's better! I have some experience playing competitive Pokémon, and there's a somewhat counterintuitive teambuilding concept called "[type]spam", such as birdspam in Gen 6 with Talonflame + Mega Pinsir, or waterspam on many rain teams. The idea is that you have two Pokémon of the same type and same role (both are powerful offensive threats). By the time your opponent has successfully dealt with the first, their main counter to that Pokémon will be weakened to the point that the second Pokémon can come in and clean up. For example, if your opponent relies on a Choice Scarf Tyranitar to switch into Flying type attacks, they can bring it in on your Choice Band Talonflame (taking ~30% damage), stay in to take a second Brave Bird (another ~30%), and kill your Talonflame with a Rock move. But then, later in the game, if you ever get an opening to Swords Dance with Pinsir, you no longer have to hard read the TTar switch in and call it out with Close Combat. You can just click STAB Aerilate Return and finish off the TTar's remaining 40% HP, no problem.

This isn't directly applicable in DND, but the concept can translate. For instance, I recently ran an encounter in my Wild West campaign where my party was in a combat involving a pegasus riding archer. Only one person in the party had ranged capability better than the 40/120 range of a revolver, so the archer stayed at 150 feet in the air (out of revolver long range, inside longbow short range) and sniped the one threat to death. The archer was reduced to middling HP in the process, but once the threat was dead, the party ended up admitting defeat, running and finding cover after trying a few wacky tactics (dimension dooring a melee character onto the pegasus's back—they got a round of attacks in before the pegasus used its turn to invert and fall, while the rider used feather fall on herself and the horse but not the interloper). In that situation, if the party had a second archer, they would have killed the pegasus rider just as the first archer died. Well, in this case the character with ranged capabilities who died was a warlock, but the point stands.

Similar concept is the "kiting party" where literally everyone takes Stealth expertise and builds for high mobility and long range combat. They try to bypass combat as much as possible, and if/when caught, they all take advantage of their range to attempt to kite the enemy to death while fleeing. Effective, even though everyone has significant role overlap.

[Witty Username]

Doesn't the argument that these are entirely description based categories go out the window when their are game mechanics tied to them?
Like why should rangers be gated out of the warrior category? They fit the mold well enough.

Hm. This is also a minor disagreement I have with the clarifications presented, Paladin and Ranger map much more closely to warrior than priest or expert to me, maybe some AD&D memory cropping up.

Another thing, since there are already unified mechanics presented. I feel like the sorcerer vs wizard problem isn't going away any time soon. They already feel very similar in gameplay and thematic feel, I expect this may get worse with time rather than better.

[Ulsan Krow]

Doesn't the argument that these are entirely description based categories go out the window when their are game mechanics tied to them?
Like why should rangers be gated out of the warrior category? They fit the mold well enough.

Hm. This is also a minor disagreement I have with the clarifications presented, Paladin and Ranger map much more closely to warrior than priest or expert to me, maybe some AD&D memory cropping up.

Another thing, since there are already unified mechanics presented. I feel like the sorcerer vs wizard problem isn't going away any time soon. They already feel very similar in gameplay and thematic feel, I expect this may get worse with time rather than better.



Yes, these codified roles are lame and unnecessary. And your point that

Paladin and Ranger map much more closely to warrior than priest or expert to me

speaks to another issue I have with these 4 group distinctions in that the designers have obviously taken some liberty to tamper and squash some classes into a certain group just to keep some sense of parity with X number of classes fitting into A, B, C group

that's a bit annoying to me in the sense that, for example, a designer is now approaching Paladin not necessarily to maintain the identity of a Paladin, but of a Priest-esque. Its the same reason I really disliked the martial/primal/arcane/divine etc power source system and that was even a step further by distilling it down so mechanically to martial striker, defender leader, primal controller, striker etc

[Psyren]

Not disagreeing with the general evaluation, but a couple of comments are underselling the Misty Step boon. It's significantly better than 1/short rest, as you get it back on rolling initiative as well. Still weak.

Point, it's indeed 1/combat.



And since it doesn't tell you what mechanical role you have, it doesn't actually resolve questions like "who is your frontliner?"


You're getting hung up on that example. Yes, we'll still be able to have frontliners that aren't Warriors or Priests. Groupings like these are still a useful way for completely new people to think about "adventuring party."

Also, what gloryblaze said.

[Witty Username]

You're getting hung up on that example. Yes, we'll still be able to have frontliners that aren't Warriors or Priests. Groupings like these are still a useful way for completely new people to think about "adventuring party."


Not if they are based on misunderstanding.

There is value in thinking about party roles:
Blaster, Sniper, Warrior, Strategist, Controller, etc.

But tying them to classes communicates those classes do that thing and the others don't.
I don't want to play a Paladin, they aren't good at fighting, I want to play a Barbarian.

I am reminded of some 3.5 books I liked, Complete Scoundrel and Complete Mage. Complete Scoundrel: What is a Scoundrel and how you can be one, and how those concepts apply to each class as the first chapter.
Complete mage: chapter 2 (because chapter 1 was a in depth look at the philosophy behind each school of mage), what roles can be filled as an Arcane caster and how to go about it, with a mix of recommended spells, classes and ways to embrace the mindset behind the roles.
Both good advice for thinking about party dynamics and ways of approaching the game. And a similar thing in D&D now would be fine.
The 4 roles thing is not that. Assigning classes to specific roles and assigning feats, boons and such to them muddies the issue as a teaching tool more than it helps.

[LudicSavant]

I don't however like the push of "a group needs one of each of these roles". Already have enough trouble breaking new players out of the video game mindset of 'this person is THE tank, this person is THE healer, etc', I don't want that to instead be further enforced on them.


Not if they are based on misunderstanding.

There is value in thinking about party roles:
Blaster, Sniper, Warrior, Strategist, Controller, etc.

But tying them to classes communicates those classes do that thing and the others don't.
I don't want to play a Paladin, they aren't good at fighting, I want to play a Barbarian.

I am reminded of some 3.5 books I liked, Complete Scoundrel and Complete Mage. Complete Scoundrel: What is a Scoundrel and how you can be one, and how those concepts apply to each class as the first chapter.
Complete mage: chapter 2 (because chapter 1 was a in depth look at the philosophy behind each school of mage), what roles can be filled as an Arcane caster and how to go about it, with a mix of recommended spells, classes and ways to embrace the mindset behind the roles.
Both good advice for thinking about party dynamics and ways of approaching the game. And a similar thing in D&D now would be fine.
The 4 roles thing is not that. Assigning classes to specific roles and assigning feats, boons and such to them muddies the issue as a teaching tool more than it helps.

Yep, exactly.

This is introducing a hurdle to teaching players, not the other way around.


You're getting hung up on that example.

Psyren, all of the examples in the playtest are like that.

For example, they took (part of) one perfectly functional feat from XGTE (Fighting Initiate), split it up into six different feats that basically take up an entire page, and then limited them all to the Warrior Group. That's just taking content we already had and adding unnecessary walls to it.

[Rukelnikov]

For example, they took (part of) one perfectly functional feat from XGTE (Fighting Initiate), split it up into six different feats that basically take up an entire page, and then limited them all to the Warrior Group. That's just taking content we already had and adding unnecessary walls to it.

Yeah, I expected it to be in the other direction, where they took a previously class only feature and made it available to all the group.

[Kane0]

Makes sense to me, better than wasting wordcount by splitting 'get a fighting style' into a half dozen feats

[ProsecutorGodot]

Makes sense to me, better than wasting wordcount by splitting 'get a fighting style' into a half dozen feats

On the other hand, they've saved word count by having the details of the fighting styles listed only once, in the feats section, rather than individually in each class that has one.

Would I say that saving word count is a good enough reason for this? Not really, in my opinion, and fighting styles are such a small thing that I don't see much reason to limit them by group. It would be even more of a bummer if fighting styles became the decided "unique option" of the warrior group. Also weird that of all things monks are able to pick these feats, unless much is changed the only reliable options are Archery and Dueling.

[Ulsan Krow]

Makes sense to me, better than wasting wordcount by splitting 'get a fighting style' into a half dozen feats


Wait are you not a fan of redundancy? Huh.




(Seriously though, what functional purpose are they gunning at divvying it up? I am not clued in on how and why the team deemed it necessary)

[Witty Username]

So, for fighting style specificly:

You get a fighting style being a class feature that all warriors get, and a list of fighting styles warriors can choose from, would be fine.
Rangers getting Great weapon master and Paladins Archery is a useful tool for characters and their are decent reasons to do that (from a RP perspective, balance has different concerns we can discuss later) even if their abilities still lends to rangers using archery and Paladins great weapon fighting.
Making them a list of feats, and also restricting the list to the "Warrior" tag is less helpful. Rangers and Paladins needing to be allow listed draws attention to this, for example Barbarian will be able to take these, but don't get them inherently(may change with the UA, not related to my point), so they are warriors? Yes and No, they can use weapons effectively, but that is not their focus. What makes this different than rogue? Is there something intrinsic to rogue that prevents them from benefiting from fighting styles?

Making fighting styles a list of feats everyone can get, but using them as a feature for particular classes, to sell the narrative is fine. Unified mechanics can be good for the game. Silos of mechanics will likely just cut off character nuance.

I feel like the 'Mage' category will have a lot of things in it that would be 'too powerful to hand other classes' and be really good and making mages overperform.

[Psyren]

Psyren, all of the examples in the playtest are like that.

For example, they took (part of) one perfectly functional feat from XGTE (Fighting Initiate), split it up into six different feats that basically take up an entire page, and then limited them all to the Warrior Group. That's just taking content we already had and adding unnecessary walls to it.

None of this is "necessary." It's all elective design. They want Fighting Styles to be a thing that are special to Warriors, Rangers, and maybe Paladins. It's exactly as arbitrary as making them available to every class was.