PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
They already made that comment... In the Youtube interview. IIRC Also look on page 2 of the Expert PDF.
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
They already made that comment... In the Youtube interview. IIRC
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
They already made that comment... In the Youtube interview. IIRC
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
As others have noted, they did, but it's a somewhat odd suggestion because what makes a balanced party is capabilities, and the actual capabilities provided by different experts are wildly different -- you can't trade a bard for a rogue and think they'll be good at the same things. If I were grouping by actual party role I would probably go with:
Artillery: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Front Line: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Scout: Monk, Ranger, Rogue
Support: Bard, Cleric, Druid
(it's also desirable to have a face, but that's kind of a cross-group capability; bards are by themselves at the top of that group, and the second tier includes paladin, sorcerer, warlock, and (if they choose to build for it) ranger/rogue.
But it's very appropriate to go with the group naming scheme of Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Expert for the sake of shared role themes, no matter what Rogues, Bards, Artificers, and Rangers (I know this is looser for this class) are more tailored to be skill monkey. It's easy to go describing the classes like they do in modern fantasy games, but I like this approach better since they describe the classes better.
The groups they picked in this UA are classic DnD. They go all the way back to the Fighting-Man, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief. Those are the roles that were always needed in a game of DnD, as it is envisioned, unique from modern games.
You need a warrior to take and deal damage, a priest to buff and heal the party, an expert to scout and look for traps, and a mage to bend the laws of nature when all else fails.
Dnd has always been about a party exploring dangerous places, fighting monsters, and winning treasure or acclaim. The rules aren't just based on combat like an MMO would be. You need everything. The 3 classes they picked for warrior are all fighters. They use different means, but they all beat up monsters real good. The 3 mage classes are all glass cannons with utility spells and high damage to get you out of trouble. The priest classes can all heal and support the party. If you can't find a Cleric, a Druid or Paladin will do. The experts are bit off an odder mix, but Rogues and Rangers both definitely fill the old scout role. And bards and artficers can fill in gaps in the party just as well as the others. They're handy when you need old fashioned skill and luck to get you out of a tight spot.
There are lots of cool and thematic ways you could group them differently, many of them suggested here. They would all make for good games if done well. Even DnD tried it once, but it was the least popular edition. And so different from what people think DnD should be, that people don't even include it when comparing editions. Others options exist, but I think the one they went with fits DnD best.
The groups they picked in this UA are classic DnD. They go all the way back to the Fighting-Man, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief. Those are the roles that were always needed in a game of DnD, as it is envisioned, unique from modern games.
No, they aren't. If you want to have characters that actually translate as those roles, they would be:
Just a side note, but the Blood Hunter is not a class WoTC designed. It hasn't even been given the go-ahead as a third-party designed class. It's Matthew Mercer's homebrew, and nothing more. It's on DnDBeyond because of Mercer's business relationship with the company, but it's not official in any sense. And WoTC has nothing to do with that class. You have to be careful with that because I see a lot of people commenting on Blood hunter as if it's official WoTC, and it's not. It's homebrew.
Fair enough, but the fact that WoTC now owns DDB and has decided to keep it up means they are directly affiliated with the class. Not only that, but they have worked on several books with Mercer, the maker of this class. So I'd say it is a popular homebrew class that WoTC has made available on their website (DDB), as they have done with no other class. Having Blood Hunter be made an official class would certainly be awesome and I don't think that when compared to adding other classes, it would be too unrealistic.
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
Legally, WotC and Hasbro inherited whatever contract DDB and its previous owners had with Mercer to host the Blood Hunter. There's no direct affiliation. It's a preexisting business arrangement they are forced to honor until the contract expires, is renegotiated, or is otherwise terminated.
For example, DDB is still a sponsor for Critical Role's third campaign. Which means WotC and Hasbro, by extension, are sponsors. And, right now, they don't have a say in the matter. Not if they don't want to deal with fines and potential court costs for breach of contract.
I'm not even excepting artificer to make it into the PH, the odds of a new class will be slim. And unless they are changing their business model and going big into supplements again like 3e I wouldn't expect much if anything new for a while after it launches.
PS- Did anyone notice that there are four different players in the average D&D group, and now there are four different "types" of classes as well. I wonder if WotC is going to advice that about one of each type should be in each adventuring party.
In 4th edition it was already like that, if I remember correctly. I actually played very little 4e, but I seem to remember that in the PHB the classes were divided according to the type of player.
In 4th edition it was already like that, if I remember correctly. I actually played very little 4e, but I seem to remember that in the PHB the classes were divided according to the type of player.
Character classes in 4th edition had a Power Source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Divine) and a Role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker). Party balance suggested one of each role, but what 1DD has done is more like divide by power source.
In 4th edition it was already like that, if I remember correctly. I actually played very little 4e, but I seem to remember that in the PHB the classes were divided according to the type of player.
Character classes in 4th edition had a Power Source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Divine) and a Role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker). Party balance suggested one of each role, but what 1DD has done is more like divide by power source.
In 4th edition it was already like that, if I remember correctly. I actually played very little 4e, but I seem to remember that in the PHB the classes were divided according to the type of player.
Character classes in 4th edition had a Power Source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Divine) and a Role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker). Party balance suggested one of each role, but what 1DD has done is more like divide by power source.
You listed “Divine” twice.
Probably meant Primal for the second one.
Also 4th edition actually had six power sources in total: Arcane, Divine, Primal, Martial, Psionic, and Shadow.
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
My bad for missing it. I skim the PDF and mostly only read the whole of areas that seem to be more important or controversial because I just don't have time to read every page. I literally just finished watching the video for this UA now since I had lost my spot and had a bunch of other things occur, but you guys are right, they do mention it in about midway through the 16th minute.
On a more related note, since WotC has been careful with their language on Artificer, I do wonder that they might add more classes if/when they add Artificer in a book like Tasha's. Maybe if they expand with more classes they'd add one to each group to keep it even? I dunno, it seems like wishful thinking to me. That being said, if they were to add one class to each group I think they could have Artificer for Expert Group, psionics dude for Mage Group, Witch for Priest Group, and Blood Hunter for warrior group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
The groups they picked in this UA are classic DnD. They go all the way back to the Fighting-Man, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief. Those are the roles that were always needed in a game of DnD, as it is envisioned, unique from modern games.
No, they aren't. If you want to have characters that actually translate as those roles, they would be:
Fighting Man: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Cleric: Bard, Cleric, Druid
Magic-User: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.
Thief: Monk, Ranger, Rogue.
I only meant that the division of 4 groups being Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Expert was classic. There are lots of ways to debate which class belongs in each group. Some might argue that a Monk is a Priest, and a Bard is a Mage. Or that Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers should be their own group. Or that Warlocks are really closer to Priests because they believe in a higher (lower?) power. Bards don't use faith to heal people. They cast wizard spells with their smiles. We could all suggest different arrangements all day.
WotC has decided that the best way to group them is by shared powers. Warriors all excel at (primarily) melee combat and share abilities that work in combat like multiple attacks. Priests all share powers that heal and buff the party. Mages all share arcane magic that leans towards the destructive. Experts all share special skills in the form of expertise, jack of all trades, hunting and survival specialties, and reliable talent, as well as some unruly utility spells.
This makes it easier for them to share feats, spells, and abilities as a group. And it's easy for new players to know what they are getting with a class. Do you want to hit monsters a lot? Pick a warrior. Do you want to heal your party and fight pretty good? Pick a priest. Do you want to cast cool damage spells? Pick a mage. Do you want to be good at a lot of skills? Pick an expert.
I'm not saying it's the way I would have even grouped them. But it does make a lot of sense for DnD and the way they are using the groups. And if you do pick one of each group for a party, even without knowing anything about the game, your team will automatically have all of the bases covered. A Monk, a Druid, a Sorcerer, and a Ranger will have all of the same variety of powers and ability to face challenges as a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Thief.
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
My bad for missing it. I skim the PDF and mostly only read the whole of areas that seem to be more important or controversial because I just don't have time to read every page. I literally just finished watching the video for this UA now since I had lost my spot and had a bunch of other things occur, but you guys are right, they do mention it in about midway through the 16th minute.
On a more related note, since WotC has been careful with their language on Artificer, I do wonder that they might add more classes if/when they add Artificer in a book like Tasha's. Maybe if they expand with more classes they'd add one to each group to keep it even? I dunno, it seems like wishful thinking to me. That being said, if they were to add one class to each group I think they could have Artificer for Expert Group, psionics dude for Mage Group, Witch for Priest Group, and Blood Hunter for warrior group.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. If they might make one new class for each group to release with Artificer later. That would be pretty cool.
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
My bad for missing it. I skim the PDF and mostly only read the whole of areas that seem to be more important or controversial because I just don't have time to read every page. I literally just finished watching the video for this UA now since I had lost my spot and had a bunch of other things occur, but you guys are right, they do mention it in about midway through the 16th minute.
On a more related note, since WotC has been careful with their language on Artificer, I do wonder that they might add more classes if/when they add Artificer in a book like Tasha's. Maybe if they expand with more classes they'd add one to each group to keep it even? I dunno, it seems like wishful thinking to me. That being said, if they were to add one class to each group I think they could have Artificer for Expert Group, psionics dude for Mage Group, Witch for Priest Group, and Blood Hunter for warrior group.
No worries. I do the same thing, I just figured that part would be controversial. I guess I was right. 😂
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
My bad for missing it. I skim the PDF and mostly only read the whole of areas that seem to be more important or controversial because I just don't have time to read every page. I literally just finished watching the video for this UA now since I had lost my spot and had a bunch of other things occur, but you guys are right, they do mention it in about midway through the 16th minute.
On a more related note, since WotC has been careful with their language on Artificer, I do wonder that they might add more classes if/when they add Artificer in a book like Tasha's. Maybe if they expand with more classes they'd add one to each group to keep it even? I dunno, it seems like wishful thinking to me. That being said, if they were to add one class to each group I think they could have Artificer for Expert Group, psionics dude for Mage Group, Witch for Priest Group, and Blood Hunter for warrior group.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. If they might make one new class for each group to release with Artificer later. That would be pretty cool.
IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building. That would be where the artificer and other world-specific classes can go.
Consider how diverse the various worlds of DnD are and it kind of makes sense to put the more steampunk characters in their own class group--or basically any other class type that might feel out of place in a standard DnD campaign unless the background for that home-world explains why they exist.
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
When creating a party of adventurers, one way to form a well-rounded group is to include at least one member of each Class Group. That said, mix and match Classes to your heart’s content!
My bad for missing it. I skim the PDF and mostly only read the whole of areas that seem to be more important or controversial because I just don't have time to read every page. I literally just finished watching the video for this UA now since I had lost my spot and had a bunch of other things occur, but you guys are right, they do mention it in about midway through the 16th minute.
On a more related note, since WotC has been careful with their language on Artificer, I do wonder that they might add more classes if/when they add Artificer in a book like Tasha's. Maybe if they expand with more classes they'd add one to each group to keep it even? I dunno, it seems like wishful thinking to me. That being said, if they were to add one class to each group I think they could have Artificer for Expert Group, psionics dude for Mage Group, Witch for Priest Group, and Blood Hunter for warrior group.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. If they might make one new class for each group to release with Artificer later. That would be pretty cool.
IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building. That would be where the artificer and other world-specific classes can go.
Consider how diverse the various worlds of DnD are and it kind of makes sense to put the more steampunk characters in their own class group--or basically any other class type that might feel out of place in a standard DnD campaign unless the background for that home-world explains why they exist.
That's a good idea. I would enjoy seeing a set of optional classes in the DMG or another book that are there to use if they fit your theme. Subclasses as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They already made that comment...
In the Youtube interview. IIRC
Also look on page 2 of the Expert PDF.
They said it directly in the Expert Classes UA, page 2, top of the right hand column:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What he said
As others have noted, they did, but it's a somewhat odd suggestion because what makes a balanced party is capabilities, and the actual capabilities provided by different experts are wildly different -- you can't trade a bard for a rogue and think they'll be good at the same things. If I were grouping by actual party role I would probably go with:
(it's also desirable to have a face, but that's kind of a cross-group capability; bards are by themselves at the top of that group, and the second tier includes paladin, sorcerer, warlock, and (if they choose to build for it) ranger/rogue.
But it's very appropriate to go with the group naming scheme of Warrior, Mage, Priest, and Expert for the sake of shared role themes, no matter what Rogues, Bards, Artificers, and Rangers (I know this is looser for this class) are more tailored to be skill monkey. It's easy to go describing the classes like they do in modern fantasy games, but I like this approach better since they describe the classes better.
If they're going to recommend 'one of each for a balanced party', it should actually be true that one of each makes a balanced party.
The groups they picked in this UA are classic DnD. They go all the way back to the Fighting-Man, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief. Those are the roles that were always needed in a game of DnD, as it is envisioned, unique from modern games.
You need a warrior to take and deal damage, a priest to buff and heal the party, an expert to scout and look for traps, and a mage to bend the laws of nature when all else fails.
Dnd has always been about a party exploring dangerous places, fighting monsters, and winning treasure or acclaim. The rules aren't just based on combat like an MMO would be. You need everything. The 3 classes they picked for warrior are all fighters. They use different means, but they all beat up monsters real good. The 3 mage classes are all glass cannons with utility spells and high damage to get you out of trouble. The priest classes can all heal and support the party. If you can't find a Cleric, a Druid or Paladin will do. The experts are bit off an odder mix, but Rogues and Rangers both definitely fill the old scout role. And bards and artficers can fill in gaps in the party just as well as the others. They're handy when you need old fashioned skill and luck to get you out of a tight spot.
There are lots of cool and thematic ways you could group them differently, many of them suggested here. They would all make for good games if done well. Even DnD tried it once, but it was the least popular edition. And so different from what people think DnD should be, that people don't even include it when comparing editions. Others options exist, but I think the one they went with fits DnD best.
No, they aren't. If you want to have characters that actually translate as those roles, they would be:
Legally, WotC and Hasbro inherited whatever contract DDB and its previous owners had with Mercer to host the Blood Hunter. There's no direct affiliation. It's a preexisting business arrangement they are forced to honor until the contract expires, is renegotiated, or is otherwise terminated.
For example, DDB is still a sponsor for Critical Role's third campaign. Which means WotC and Hasbro, by extension, are sponsors. And, right now, they don't have a say in the matter. Not if they don't want to deal with fines and potential court costs for breach of contract.
I'm not even excepting artificer to make it into the PH, the odds of a new class will be slim. And unless they are changing their business model and going big into supplements again like 3e I wouldn't expect much if anything new for a while after it launches.
In 4th edition it was already like that, if I remember correctly. I actually played very little 4e, but I seem to remember that in the PHB the classes were divided according to the type of player.
Character classes in 4th edition had a Power Source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Divine) and a Role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker). Party balance suggested one of each role, but what 1DD has done is more like divide by power source.
You listed “Divine” twice.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ahh. Thank you. I skipped 4e. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My bad for missing it. I skim the PDF and mostly only read the whole of areas that seem to be more important or controversial because I just don't have time to read every page. I literally just finished watching the video for this UA now since I had lost my spot and had a bunch of other things occur, but you guys are right, they do mention it in about midway through the 16th minute.
On a more related note, since WotC has been careful with their language on Artificer, I do wonder that they might add more classes if/when they add Artificer in a book like Tasha's. Maybe if they expand with more classes they'd add one to each group to keep it even? I dunno, it seems like wishful thinking to me. That being said, if they were to add one class to each group I think they could have Artificer for Expert Group, psionics dude for Mage Group, Witch for Priest Group, and Blood Hunter for warrior group.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I only meant that the division of 4 groups being Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Expert was classic. There are lots of ways to debate which class belongs in each group. Some might argue that a Monk is a Priest, and a Bard is a Mage. Or that Barbarians, Druids, and Rangers should be their own group. Or that Warlocks are really closer to Priests because they believe in a higher (lower?) power. Bards don't use faith to heal people. They cast wizard spells with their smiles. We could all suggest different arrangements all day.
WotC has decided that the best way to group them is by shared powers. Warriors all excel at (primarily) melee combat and share abilities that work in combat like multiple attacks. Priests all share powers that heal and buff the party. Mages all share arcane magic that leans towards the destructive. Experts all share special skills in the form of expertise, jack of all trades, hunting and survival specialties, and reliable talent, as well as some unruly utility spells.
This makes it easier for them to share feats, spells, and abilities as a group. And it's easy for new players to know what they are getting with a class. Do you want to hit monsters a lot? Pick a warrior. Do you want to heal your party and fight pretty good? Pick a priest. Do you want to cast cool damage spells? Pick a mage. Do you want to be good at a lot of skills? Pick an expert.
I'm not saying it's the way I would have even grouped them. But it does make a lot of sense for DnD and the way they are using the groups. And if you do pick one of each group for a party, even without knowing anything about the game, your team will automatically have all of the bases covered. A Monk, a Druid, a Sorcerer, and a Ranger will have all of the same variety of powers and ability to face challenges as a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Thief.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing. If they might make one new class for each group to release with Artificer later. That would be pretty cool.
No worries. I do the same thing, I just figured that part would be controversial. I guess I was right. 😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building. That would be where the artificer and other world-specific classes can go.
Consider how diverse the various worlds of DnD are and it kind of makes sense to put the more steampunk characters in their own class group--or basically any other class type that might feel out of place in a standard DnD campaign unless the background for that home-world explains why they exist.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
That's a good idea. I would enjoy seeing a set of optional classes in the DMG or another book that are there to use if they fit your theme. Subclasses as well.