Class tags were a thing WotC introduced partway through the 2014 era of 5e. They've continued with it for the 2024 iteration. The reason for them, according to the new MM's intro, is to alert the DM that such a creature is eligible to attune to magic items that have that class as an attunement requirement.
With that in mind, I did a skim-through of the entire book here on DDB to see what all stat blocks had a class tag. The only monsters with class tags are the Lich (wizard) and the Mummy Lord (cleric). The only NPCs with class tags are the three Mages (wizard) and the three Priests (cleric). That's it!
I understand that the print version of the book gives the Druid stat block the "druid" class tag, but the DDB version doesn't have it. (Not sure which is the error.)
This feels like a real missed opportunity to me! I mean, on the one hand, the class tags feel a bit superfluous ... but if you're gonna use them, you might as well make full use of them.
At the very least,* I think the following stat blocks should have had class tags as well.
Interestingly, there are no rangers in the MM. They could have included a Scout variant with ranger spells, for instance.
What are your thoughts?
*I think you could also make the argument that the various non-spellcasting class creatures and NPCs should have their respective class tags as well (so the Assassin would have the "rogue" tag, while the Berserkers would have the "Barbarian" tag and the Warriors would have the "Fighter" tag and so on), but I'm not sure how useful that would be, since there are few, if any, magic items with attunement limited to those classes.
1) I'd guess the reason is that most of these aren't assumed to have magic items at all, let alone class-specific-attunement magic items. Whereas something like a Lich or a Mummy Lord has the opposite expectation.
2) If you do want to hand out attuned magic items to these then yeah, some common sense is probably in order. If I as a DM want to give a Druid a druid-attunement item, I'd be hard-pressed to see why that would be a problem.
1) I'd guess the reason is that most of these aren't assumed to have magic items at all, let alone class-specific-attunement magic items. Whereas something like a Lich or a Mummy Lord has the opposite expectation.
2) If you do want to hand out attuned magic items to these then yeah, some common sense is probably in order. If I as a DM want to give a Druid a druid-attunement item, I'd be hard-pressed to see why that would be a problem.
I would think a noble could be expected to have a magic item or two! A death knight might have a magic sword. A questing knight might have a holy avenger. The cultist hierophant might have a rod of the pact keeper or something.
I just think if they're going to bother giving some stat blocks a class tag, they might as well be thorough about it. Otherwise, there's not much point. As a DM, I can just give any monster any magic item anyway, so there's no need for these class tags. But if they're gonna use them, they might as well put some effort into it!
I would think a noble could be expected to have a magic item or two! A death knight might have a magic sword. A questing knight might have a holy avenger. The cultist hierophant might have a rod of the pact keeper or something.
They might, sure. Or they might not. But a lich definitely will.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Class tags were a thing WotC introduced partway through the 2014 era of 5e. They've continued with it for the 2024 iteration. The reason for them, according to the new MM's intro, is to alert the DM that such a creature is eligible to attune to magic items that have that class as an attunement requirement.
With that in mind, I did a skim-through of the entire book here on DDB to see what all stat blocks had a class tag. The only monsters with class tags are the Lich (wizard) and the Mummy Lord (cleric). The only NPCs with class tags are the three Mages (wizard) and the three Priests (cleric). That's it!
I understand that the print version of the book gives the Druid stat block the "druid" class tag, but the DDB version doesn't have it. (Not sure which is the error.)
This feels like a real missed opportunity to me! I mean, on the one hand, the class tags feel a bit superfluous ... but if you're gonna use them, you might as well make full use of them.
At the very least,* I think the following stat blocks should have had class tags as well.
Bandit Deceiver = wizard (it's an arcane trickster!)
Bullywug Bog Sage = druid
Centaur Warden = druid
Cultist Fanatic = cleric
Cultist Hierophant = warlock
Cultist, Aberrant = cleric?
Cultist, Death = cleric?
Cultist, Elemental = cleric and/or sorcerer?
Cultist, Fiend = warlock
Death Knight / DK Aspirant = paladin
Druid = druid
Githzerai Monk = monk
Githzerai Psion = wizard?
Goblin Hexer = wizard
Knight, Questing = paladin
Kuo-toa Archpriest = cleric
Lizardfolk Geomancer = druid
Merfolk Wavebender = cleric or druid?
Mind Flayer Arcanist = wizard
Noble Prodigy = sorcerer
Performer Maestro = bard
Performer Legend = bard
Sahuagin Priest = cleric
Interestingly, there are no rangers in the MM. They could have included a Scout variant with ranger spells, for instance.
What are your thoughts?
*I think you could also make the argument that the various non-spellcasting class creatures and NPCs should have their respective class tags as well (so the Assassin would have the "rogue" tag, while the Berserkers would have the "Barbarian" tag and the Warriors would have the "Fighter" tag and so on), but I'm not sure how useful that would be, since there are few, if any, magic items with attunement limited to those classes.
1) I'd guess the reason is that most of these aren't assumed to have magic items at all, let alone class-specific-attunement magic items. Whereas something like a Lich or a Mummy Lord has the opposite expectation.
2) If you do want to hand out attuned magic items to these then yeah, some common sense is probably in order. If I as a DM want to give a Druid a druid-attunement item, I'd be hard-pressed to see why that would be a problem.
I would think a noble could be expected to have a magic item or two! A death knight might have a magic sword. A questing knight might have a holy avenger. The cultist hierophant might have a rod of the pact keeper or something.
I just think if they're going to bother giving some stat blocks a class tag, they might as well be thorough about it. Otherwise, there's not much point. As a DM, I can just give any monster any magic item anyway, so there's no need for these class tags. But if they're gonna use them, they might as well put some effort into it!
They might, sure. Or they might not. But a lich definitely will.