New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    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.
    Last edited by Witty Username; 2022-09-28 at 10:16 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Leon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Gender
    Male2Female

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

    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.
    Last edited by Leon; 2022-09-29 at 12:45 AM.
    Thankyou to NEOPhyte for the Techpriest Engiseer
    Spoiler
    Show

    Current PC's
    Ravia Del'Karro (Magos Biologis Errant)
    Katarina (Ordo Malleus Interrogator)
    Emberly (Fire Elemental former Chef)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    Just play the character you want to play. Don't feel the need to squeeze every point out of the build.
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    take this virtual +1.
    Peril Planet

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

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

    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.
    Last edited by tiornys; 2022-09-29 at 12:53 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Yakk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

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

    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.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Orc in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Jan 2021

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukelnikov View Post
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

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

    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.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Apr 2020

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakk View Post
    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.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ZRN View Post
    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.
    Homebrew planar maps for D&D 5e:
    • Standard planes: English / French / Medal
    • Additional planes: English / French / Thread (eventually)
    • For spelljamming: English / French / Thread (eventually)

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Yakk's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by paladinn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZRN View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Yakk; 2022-09-29 at 09:57 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gloryblaze View Post
    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

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2022

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

    More samey bland simplification. Its like a bad fetish.

    Simple does not mean better.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipjig View Post
    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.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukelnikov View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Thumbs up Re: I just realized we are going back to 4 classes, and I think I love it

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by One D&D playtest
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhorn View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2022-09-29 at 03:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    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
    Last edited by Rukelnikov; 2022-09-29 at 03:26 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukelnikov View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2022-09-29 at 03:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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?"
    Last edited by Psyren; 2022-09-29 at 03:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Jun 2017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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".

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    May 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    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"

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

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

    Quote Originally Posted by gloryblaze View Post
    There's nothing to indicate that playing "off-role"
    Quote Originally Posted by gloryblaze View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2022-09-29 at 05:25 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by deadman1204 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Jun 2017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Corran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Greece
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LudicSavant View Post
    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)
    Last edited by Corran; 2022-09-29 at 06:05 PM.
    Hacks!

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

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

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    It doesn't, please make mention of this in the feedback. I will.
    Concur.

    Yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    They're not saying Warrior and Expert are "mechanical roles" like Tank and DPS are.
    Quote Originally Posted by gloryblaze View Post
    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?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren
    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."



    They're just limits on customization that don't need to be there.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2022-09-29 at 06:22 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •