This is something that has been on my mind since the first playtest document was released and the Expert Classes doc didn't exactly alleviate the feeling.
As the title says, I think that the direction that's being taken in 1DnD's development with thinking of classes in terms of Class Groups is not a good one.
To me it hearkens back too much to the attempt to divide classes into 'roles' (shared and/or mirrored by monsters) in 4e... And the way that robbed class design of a lot of its creativity. In 4e, classes were pretty much reduced to combat roles and the whole reason that 4e had a whole bunch of classes that were never seen before and didn't return in 5e is that class design went along the lines of "ok, we need a tank, healer/buffer, damage dealer and crowd control each for our 'martial', 'arcane', 'divine', 'primal' and 'psionic' flavours (aka 'sources')". And it's telling that even in 4e where that was almost rigidly adhered to, they couldn't make it work completely, because veteran players were clamouring for the inclusion of their favourite 3.5e classes, rigid role/flavour framework be damned.
And so we ended up, across three Player's Handbooks with exactly five 'Controller' classes (almost one for each flavour, but the Seeker, a Ranger with the serial number filed off, is Primal rather than Martial, because it showed up in PHB3, at which point focus testing determined that people thought Martials were boring), four 'Defender' classes (one for each flavour except Arcane, which got a tank in the Forgotten Realms book instead), Five 'Leader' classes (exactly one for each flavour) and Seven 'Striker' classes (one for each flavour plus two that exist solely because people wanted their favourite 3.5e class back even though the appropriate 'flavour' slot was already filled by an existing 3.5e class).
In the end, thinking of classes purely in terms of combat roles didn't make the game better. If anything, it made it worse.
Now... When I read the Class Groups for 1DnD, I see the same attempt to boil down the big 12 classes to equal groupings based on 'what they do'. And that's immediately an issue.
The description for the 'Mages' class group, for instance, reads: "Adepts ofArcane magic, focusing on utility and destruction". Except, hold on one second. That's not an accurate description of these classes as we know them. For one Wizards tend to focus on utility or destruction, not generally both and they're the only one of the 'Mages' class group actually known for their tendency to pick up utility spells (because in 3.5e and 5e, they're the only Prepared casters in that group. They trade the reliability of having perpetual access to every spell they know for the flexibility of being able to learn spells beyond the ones they get at level ups, but only being able to prepare a limited selection from among them.) And generally speaking of the 'Mages' class group in their current 5e incarnation, Wizards tend to be the only ones with enough spell slots and versatility to be utility casters. Most utility casters in parties that don't have a Wizard are either Bards or Druids (or Clerics, but Clerics can do everything, depending on their Domain), even if the party has a Sorcerer or Warlock. Sorcerers tend not to go for (m)any utility spells at all, because their selection of spells is fairly limited. That's what sets them apart thematically from Wizards far more than their 'meta magic', much as even 5e likes to pretend otherwise. Warlocks, meanwhile, can't even reliably be classed as 'Arcane' casters at all. According to the 1DnD documents Arcane spells are classified as follows: "An Arcane Spell draws on the ambient magic of themultiverse." That's not what Warlocks do. Warlocks draw on the power of a being they've made a pact with, be they a being from the Outer Planes ('Divine'), a powerful Fey or Djinn ('Primal', by proxy) or a being from the Far Plane ("Eldritch???"). There's exactly one Warlock Patron that might be classes as drawing on 'the ambient magic of the multiverse' and that's the Hexblade Patron. And even then it's the Hexblade itself, not the Warlock, who does it. (And of course certain Sorcerous Origins face the same issue. Divine souls draw their power from Divine sources, natch. Clockwork Souls likewise draw their power from the Outer Planes, specifically those associated with Law. Storm Sorcery is explicitly linked to one of the Inner Planes.)
This is more than just an issue of how the three origins of spells are worded though. The Class Groups implicitly recall 4e's combat roles (except with the semi-acknowledgement that pretty much all classes can be 'Strikers') The explanation of Class Groups may say you can mix and match classes as you like, but it's pretty evident from some of the 'Class Group' specific feats we've seen so far that at least some feats useful for a specific role in the party are going to be gated behind certain Class Groups and, worse, many spells are going to be gated behind 'flavours sources'. Assurances that you're free to mix and match classes are nice, but undercut by the fact that there's obviously an attempt to shift the classes to a 'designated combat role' format.
Want to be a support Bard who heals and aids the party with Cure Wounds and buffs like Heroism and Enhance Ability, like you used to? Well too bad, the Priest Class Group mafia has decided it doesn't like you muscling in on its turf, so it's been decided that you've got no spell list unique to your class now. Instead you have a general 'Arcane spells' list and we're restricting which spells you can pick from those based on School. Also Arcane casters all use damage and crowd control spells exclusively now, so even if we allowed you to pick from the schools that have healing or buff spells, they're not on the list any more. If you want to heal, you'll have to use Cure Wounds' crummier ranger cousin Healing Word or your Inspiration dice as a reaction.
Want to be a Cleric who wades into the fray as a frontline fighter, like you used to? Well... That's fine, actually, Clerics can do whatever they want as always, CoDzilla's back in full force, we're even giving you the option of Heavy Armour and Martial Weapons back. We're taking away the ability of every class that isn't in our designated 'healer' class group to heal effectively, but we wouldn't want to take away the ability of Clerics to be absolute combat monsters, because how else will we get people to play the class we've decided should be the party healer?
Yeah, looks like the whole 'designated combat role' thing for 1DnD broke down before it even started when it comes to Clerics, but I expect it will still be the driving conceit behind changes to literally every other class group.
You haven't even seen any "groups" except Experts, and even those are grouped pretty loosely. One is full martial, another is primal gish, third is full arcane caster with half of arcane spell list. And clerics always had heavy armor and martial weapons in certain subclasses.
I don't think groups are a bad idea and clerics being released alone does not mean WotC aren't still doing priest classes in a later release. Partly I think the UA was more because WotC said there would be regular releases and the release of the latest UA would have been pretty bare if it didn't have at least one class in it, potentially they wanted to get a feel for the "holy orders" or some other part.
In the expert classes, Ranger can still cast evocation spells, Rogue can still sneak attack and Bard is still a full caster, there is not a rigidness to the class groups that they can only do there "thing" and that is it but that rather they are the main cover. Also healers weren't really so much of a thing in 5E and I do not believe that combat healing will be predominate in one D&D either, but we shall see.
I think there's potentially some truth to this, but it's also pretty early to make a lot assumptions about things that haven't been released.
I do think there's a bit of discomfort with a few classes that seem to straddle multiple groups. Bards are experts, but you could make an argument that the 5e bard would fit in the mages group. Paladins are priests, but would fit well in the warriors group. Rangers are experts, but could also be warriors. I'm not entirely sure where warlocks should fit, but I suppose mage is the best of the 4 options.
However, at least with Rangers, they gave some options to move into a warrior-y direction. We haven't seen paladins, but I'd imagine they'll have similar options. Clerics, as you mentioned, seem to still be able to go in a lot of directions.
Of the released classes, the bard still feels the most uncomfortable in that regard, but mostly I think it's a result of the new magic source spell lists causing so many changes to their available spells, and the removal of early/mid-level magical secrets for the lore bard. The UA bard feels a bit pigeon-holed compared to the 5e bard at low levels.
So, I can understand the concern, but it's not the time to hit the panic button yet IMO. I think the full list of priest classes, and the results of the 2nd UA survey will be pretty telling, but even then we have a long way to go.
I think some concern is warranted. At least as a thought to keep in the back of our minds while reviewing it all. To not get carried away with new things too much.
But so far, it mostly looks like it's just better organization. By naming Groups, they can also categorize feats and spell lists, etc. As we see with the Ranger, a class in one Group can get access to another Group's features as easily as saying 'you can take Warrior feats.'
Bards got a lot of changes to spells available, and abilities come online later all around, but otherwise the classes still resemble their 5e versions pretty closely. That could all change the further we get into it, but I'm hopeful for the time being.
Pretty sure spell list were done so it’s easier to add spells in later books. They wouldn’t have to explain who gets access to the new spell. It’s a divine necromancy spell. Anyone who can learn divine necromancy spells can learn this new one. It’s simple. Not the whole why doesn’t my class have access to this new spell. Which honestly I found myself asking a lot. Many new spells came out over the course of 5e that I thought would be great on my class, but for some unknown reason I didn’t have access. Going forward you will have an understanding why you don’t have access. Do I agree with current spell list, no, but I understand and like the concept.
But there the divide was more about mechanics then roles. In that editions for example all classes in the same group had the same hitdice, to hit bonus and used the same table for saves. It was a way not to have to print the same info multiple times.
So in DnD one they could put the explanation of hoe expertise works under he header of the expert group. And then for the classes in the group they just have to say gain expertise in X skill
Class groups in AD&D 2nd edition were essentially an attempt to bash together the classes from AD&D 1st edition and the human classes from Basic. Each of the four class groups had a main class (Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief) that was the basic (and Basic) version of that class with no complex abilities, but also no special restrictions. And then the other classes in the Class Group were more specialised variants that had a list special abilities and special restrictions (including the hefty stat requirements that would become a feature of 3x Prestige Classes) that the main class didn't have. The only restriction the main classes had was that you couldn't have below 9 in their main stat.
AD&D 2nd edition, if translated to 5e design language, had four classes with two or three subclasses you could choose among at 1st level.
It’s a divine necromancy spell. Anyone who can learn divine necromancy spells can learn this new one. It’s simple. Not the whole why doesn’t my class have access to this new spell. Which honestly I found myself asking a lot. Many new spells came out over the course of 5e that I thought would be great on my class, but for some unknown reason I didn’t have access. Going forward you will have an understanding why you don’t have access.
It's not Divine (it's also in the Primal list) and not necromancy (it's abjuration in 1D&D and it hasn't been necromancy for a while. It was Conjuration in 3.5e. It was evocation in 5e.)
But putting that aside... Do you have an understanding of why you don't have access? In this system it seems to me that there would be more spells that it makes sense for a character to have access to, but that don't show up on the right list. And, indeed, spells that it doesn't make sense for your character to have access to, but that they do, because they're on the list. Vicious Mockery, the Bard's signature cantrip, is suddenly available to everyone who draws from the Arcane spell list. Hex, the Warlock exclusive spell that combos with Eldritch Blast in 5e, is now available to everyone who draws from the Arcane spell list... Even though since 1D&D, unlike 5e, doesn't consider spells 'attacks' anymore and Hex therefore does nothing to benefit the main way of dealing damage to enemies that classes that draw from the Arcane spell list other than Warlocks (presumably, since Eldritch Blast isn't on the Arcane list and is therefore now probably a special attack granted by the class or an invocation rather than a cantrip). In fact all the class exclusive spells that are on those classes' lists because they're thematic to that specific class (and rarely a subclass for a different class) except Eldritch Blast are on their Class Group's list now, so Druids can now cast things like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Barrage and Clerics can cast things like the Paladin (near exclusive) Smite spells. Also Find Steed for some reason.
I understand why people are saying its too early to be worried, but I disagree.
Now is exactly the time to be worried. The history of D&D's development shows that when people only get worried once the designers of the new edition are proven to have taken a bad direction, those designers have also been working on that direction for so long that they're unwilling to change from it.
In fact, D&D's development has a history of coming out with a good version that most players love, then they develop the next edition and try all sorts of stuff to 'evolve' the game and create a very flawed version that most players dislike and then they have to develop a new version to fix all the issues people have with the flawed version and in the mean time a lot of people will have stopped playing in favour of other systems.
That's how we ended up with 4e and with 3.0e before that (and Basic, even before that).
And while I don't worship at the altar of Mike Mearls like some do, I do find it telling that talk of creating 'the next evolution' in D&D started not soon after he, as the person in charge of fixing WotC's mess after the last time they tried to create 'the next evolution' of D&D, left WotC.
But then on the other hand I suppose I should take heart that at least some of the decisions made so far (like moving away from 'race' nomenclature towards 'species' and stopping the practice of treating the moral alignment of sentient beings as some kind of biological imperative) are actually pretty good.
Now is exactly the time to be worried. The history of D&D's development shows that when people only get worried once the designers of the new edition are proven to have taken a bad direction, those designers have also been working on that direction for so long that they're unwilling to change from it.
In fact, D&D's development has a history of coming out with a good version that most players love, then they develop the next edition and try all sorts of stuff to 'evolve' the game and create a very flawed version that most players dislike and then they have to develop a new version to fix all the issues people have with the flawed version and in the mean time a lot of people will have stopped playing in favour of other systems.
That's how we ended up with 4e and with 3.0e before that (and Basic, even before that).
A lot of people hate on 4e, but even though it's universally seen as a failure, it was very useful and significant in its experimental value. Every now and then, the system inevitably becomes bloated and complaints pile up. Even if it was possible to make a perfect edition, it would eventually become stale. Experiments are needed to push things forward, and at worst you at least gain understanding of what not to do.
Change for change's sake isn't always a good thing and you shouldn't try to fix that which isn't broken, but you also have to remember that things that don't evolve, usually die out.
I just feel that this class group thing is not the right direction for the change to go in.
Like, you weren't wrong earlier when you said that the Experts group is grouped pretty loosely... But that's actually part of my concern. If we look at the actual in-document description for the Experts group in all three of the 1D&D docs so far, you can see that the group of classes we got is exactly what that description says: Polymaths (i.e. skill focussed characters) with the Expertise feature (Rogues at level 1, Bards at level 2, Rangers have it slotted in arbitrarily at level 11) and features from other classes:
The Rogue is a skill-focussed class with some of the damage dealing and avoidance features of the Warrior class group. The Bard is a skill-focussed class with some of the spell casting of the Mage group. The Ranger is a skill-focussed class with some of the spell casting of the Priest (Primal, specifically) group.
But at the same time the Class Group's focus is already breaking down. Bards also have some of the healing of the Priest group, because Bards have been capable of being healers since 3rd Edition, but not nearly as much as they used to. Rangers have some features of the Warrior group, because they started off as a Fighter subclass in the earliest editions and didn't gain magic until later. And that's sort of the problem. In 5e the Bard, Rogue and Ranger don't really fit into a single group. They are all experts, but they're not all experts in the same way. In fact, what groups them together isn't 'expertise' (either the concept or the feature) all classes are experts in their chosen thing, but that they are skill monkeys. And even in that they are not equal.
The Rogue is an expert in stealth and subterfuge and the way its class features work means that the player also needs to be an expert in tactics and position to get the most out of their single attack per turn. Their Expertise feature gives them the ability to excel in certain skills, even ones that aren't necessarily complementary, or even compatible, with their expertise in stealth. If they got Animal Handling as a proficient skill from somewhere (like a background), they can be better at using animals for various tasks than even the Druid. The Bard, meanwhile, is a literal Jack of All Trades class. While they are, no matter what else they do, expert entertainers and social movers, a Bard, depending on how the player builds them, can be the social powerhouse who does all the party's talking, the main healer who keeps the party alive through battle, a damage dealer, crowd control, a support caster with a bevy of useful buffs and utility spells or even a frontline fighter with formidable survivability and damage output. The Ranger, lastly, is an expert outdoorsman who is an expert in the terrain they know best. And that's pretty much all they are. They're great to have on a wilderness adventure in their Favoured Terrain where they get to use all their cool 'in-touch-with-nature' features, but take them out of that terrain and they become a lot less useful. Take them into a city or an ancient ruin that the DM doesn't count as 'natural terrain' and put them up against something that isn't their Favoured Enemy, they become either Fighters without the armour and extra attacks or Rogues without the Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.
Bards and Rangers might fit into the a group together, being classes who combine lots of useful utility features with spellcasting. But not with Rogues who don't have spells on their own. Bards and Rogues might fit into the same group as skill focussed characters who can branch out to become experts in any field they choose. But not with Rangers, whose expertise is so narrowly defined that if you look up 'crippling overspecialisation' in an encyclopaedia, you will find a picture of a Ranger frozen in a block of ice in the Arctic because her Favoured Terrain choices were 'Desert' and 'Swamps' and being able to move at full speed across difficult terrain like slippery ice doesn't help if you don't know where you're going. (Don't worry, the rest of the party was rescued by the Rogue, whose Expertise in Nature and Survival works in any terrain). Rangers and Rogues might fit into one group if the group is 'expert navigators of a specific terrain', where the specific terrain of the Rogue is a trapped dungeon (and also urban areas with thieves they can cant with) and the specific terrain of the Ranger is, of course, their Favoured Terrain (and only their Favoured Terrain). But the Bard isn't an expert in any terrain, not matter how much he brags about his conquest of guys with huge... Tracts of land.
Point being the Rangers suck and Bards are awesome.
No... Wait...
Point being that the Expert Class Group is cobbled together from classes that don't really belong in a group together and barely fit the group they've been put into anyways. In the process, one of those classes (Bard, naturally) has been severely reduced and one of those classes (Rangers) has been given a slight upgrade RAW wise (relative to what happened to the other two classes in the Expert doc, at least).
And even Rangers have been done dirty in a thematic sense. Their class feature descriptions have been rewritten so that instead of being able to do certain things because of their expert knowledge of natural terrain and such, they're now the result of some vague woo-woo non-specific 'connection to nature' and 'calling on primal energies'. They were shoved into the 'Expert' Class Group while having been rewritten thematically to de-emphasise their actual expertise.
Anyway, this same 'one of these is not like the others' theme persists in the other Class Groups:
Mages are 'adepts of Arcane magic, focussing on utility and destruction'. Sorcerers and Wizards are that first part, mostly... If you exclude Divine Souls, through different means, sure. But Warlocks aren't. Warlocks are guys and gals and non-binary palls who entered into a mutual contract with a powerful being whose powers may or may not (usually not) be Arcane in nature. Meanwhile, Sorcerers practically never focus on 'utility'. They have a limited selection of spells known which they can only change at level up and no access to Ritual casting without a separate feat (that anyone with sufficient Int or Wis, neither of which tend to be a Sorcerer's priority, can take). Sorcerers don't 'focus on utility', they begrudgingly accept taking a utility spell instead of a spell that does damage after the fifteenth time the other players passive-aggressively mention that a certain utility spell might have been useful in this situation. At which point bastard DMs like myself then no longer have situations where that spell would have been useful occur. (I kid, I assure you).
Priests are 'Stewards of Divine and Primal magic, focussing on healing, utility and defence'. That's true for Clerics and Druids. Paladins, though? Paladins are warriors (small 'w', but actually also capital 'W', if we're honest) first and foremost. They might use magic (which may or may not be Divine. The magic of Oath of the Ancients Paladins is almost certainly Primal in nature, pun not intended) to augment their combat abilities in their pursuit of eradicating evil (or your competition, if you're an Oath of the Conqueror Paladins). They could best be described as masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds... That sounds familiar for some reason... who swear an oath that lets them use magic to supplement their abilities to do both. If Paladins were primarily Divine magic users, then the only thing setting them apart from Clerics would be the ability to wear Heavy Armour and use Martial Weapons and their exclusive access to Smite spells. ... Wait.
Warriors are 'Masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds' (ah, that's why it sounded familiar). That describes Barbarians perfectly and also Fighters if they didn't skimp on Constitution in favour of Intelligence so they can be Eldritch Knights (Look, 5e had only been released for like half a year and I didn't realise it was objectively worse than simply multi-classing into Sorcerer, okay?). But Monks? Monks can have massive damage output if they manage their Ki well, but they have the same ability to 'endure many wounds' as a wet noodle. All their time and ki points not spent going 'muda, muda, muda' (or 'ora, ora, ora' if you prefer) on their enemies is spent trying to 'endure' as few wounds as possible. Mostly by making sure that it's the Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin who has to 'endure many wounds' in their stead.
These classes don't fit the group they're classified under. Trying to force them into that mould will make those classes less unique and interesting... Not forcing them into that mould makes the entire practice of putting classes into groups pointless. Either way, designing from that perspective is just not a good idea.
I'm not a fan of mechanics based on group category. I'm really not a fan of 3 spell lists that are shared because that takes away from the identity of many classes.
I also don't agree with the the actual groups. I see it more as...
Rangers, Rogues and Bards are all skill monkey types. All three are known for stealth and perceptive abilities. Rangers focus on tracking and animal empthy, rogues on slight of hand and lock picking, and bards on their performances. I agree that they should have Expertise.
Sorcerer, Warlock both debuted as alternative Wizard classes. They share certain spells in common no one else gets by default. Especially Counterspell.
Paladin, Druid, Cleric all have some variation of Channel Divinity and are known for their healing. Certainly there's a number of differences between them, but when all is said and done, the mechanics show a clear link.
Warriors. In 5e, the monk has ki points, the barbarian has a pool of daily points to fuel their Rage, and Fighter... action surges, Indomitable, Second Wind, and many subclasses with their maneuever, psi, etc points. All three of the Warriors have different point systems to them to function along with a focus on martial ability without spell slots.
No matter how you look at it, the base 12 classes do fit into these groups. And I can see future items / feats that directly interact with those features. Assuming that my guesses on warriors and mages are correct, we haven't seen them yet.
Now, forcing future classes to fit into this style might be a bit... awkward. I really don't like shoving Artificer into Expert, especially when that feature doesn't affect tools, only skills, now. They're expert craftsmen, but... crafting shouldn't be skill checks in the first place. And I really don't like restricting Fighting Styles to warriors, especially when there's been zero hints of expert, priest or mage restricted feats before level 20. Like, Fighting Styles has nothing to do with the Warrior mechanics beyond using weapons. Give me something that directly interacts with ki/rage/battle dice, not.. this.
I think the class groups aren't actually that big of a deal. So far, they really only seem to mechanically affect feat restrictions. Though I can understand some ways the flavor has failed a few classes within their group.
The real place of friction for me is the spell source lists. I understand WOTC's desire to make the game forward compatible when new spells and classes are released, but I don't think this is the best way to handle it. I think they're too wrapped up in the idea that the printed books have to be the end-all-be-all of the rules of D&D.
JC even mentioned something about this in the UA1 survey results video that came out recently. He said there were certain design mistakes they couldn't fix in 5e because those words were printed in physical books, and that's what people had access to. And their justification for the spell source lists and the class groups is basically the same idea. A desire to make sure the physical books don't ever need to be superseded by additional rules or errata.
But it's 2022, and I'd be surprised if there are a significant amount of players who
don't have access to digital tools (or can't access a reference website with feats/spells and their class restrictions) -- AND
will buy additional source books or adventures that might change or supersede a rule in another book they own -- AND
would have a detrimental experience by not being made aware of those changes.
Now, there is something to be said for making sure the physical books are as accurate and future-compatible as possible, but it feels like they're moving too far in that direction. Trying to solve for a problem that isn't actually a big deal in 2022 (or 2024 when One D&D is released). If they have recent data that shows otherwise, I'd be really curious to know about it. Because the tradeoff for that forward compatibility seems worse than the problem their trying to solve.
But I really doubt they're going to remove the class groups or spell lists at this point. It seems to be a fairly fundamental part of their design philosophy. I think our best bet is to continue to give feedback about how they can wrangle these new categorizations to better fit the mechanics and flavor (and our expectations as players) for for each class/subclass.
Class groups in AD&D 2nd edition were essentially an attempt to bash together the classes from AD&D 1st edition and the human classes from Basic. Each of the four class groups had a main class (Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief) that was the basic (and Basic) version of that class with no complex abilities, but also no special restrictions. And then the other classes in the Class Group were more specialised variants that had a list special abilities and special restrictions (including the hefty stat requirements that would become a feature of 3x Prestige Classes) that the main class didn't have. The only restriction the main classes had was that you couldn't have below 9 in their main stat.
AD&D 2nd edition, if translated to 5e design language, had four classes with two or three subclasses you could choose among at 1st level.
It’s a divine necromancy spell. Anyone who can learn divine necromancy spells can learn this new one. It’s simple. Not the whole why doesn’t my class have access to this new spell. Which honestly I found myself asking a lot. Many new spells came out over the course of 5e that I thought would be great on my class, but for some unknown reason I didn’t have access. Going forward you will have an understanding why you don’t have access.
It's not Divine (it's also in the Primal list) and not necromancy (it's abjuration in 1D&D and it hasn't been necromancy for a while. It was Conjuration in 3.5e. It was evocation in 5e.)
But putting that aside... Do you have an understanding of why you don't have access? In this system it seems to me that there would be more spells that it makes sense for a character to have access to, but that don't show up on the right list. And, indeed, spells that it doesn't make sense for your character to have access to, but that they do, because they're on the list. Vicious Mockery, the Bard's signature cantrip, is suddenly available to everyone who draws from the Arcane spell list. Hex, the Warlock exclusive spell that combos with Eldritch Blast in 5e, is now available to everyone who draws from the Arcane spell list... Even though since 1D&D, unlike 5e, doesn't consider spells 'attacks' anymore and Hex therefore does nothing to benefit the main way of dealing damage to enemies that classes that draw from the Arcane spell list other than Warlocks (presumably, since Eldritch Blast isn't on the Arcane list and is therefore now probably a special attack granted by the class or an invocation rather than a cantrip). In fact all the class exclusive spells that are on those classes' lists because they're thematic to that specific class (and rarely a subclass for a different class) except Eldritch Blast are on their Class Group's list now, so Druids can now cast things like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Barrage and Clerics can cast things like the Paladin (near exclusive) Smite spells. Also Find Steed for some reason.
I understand why people are saying its too early to be worried, but I disagree.
Now is exactly the time to be worried. The history of D&D's development shows that when people only get worried once the designers of the new edition are proven to have taken a bad direction, those designers have also been working on that direction for so long that they're unwilling to change from it.
In fact, D&D's development has a history of coming out with a good version that most players love, then they develop the next edition and try all sorts of stuff to 'evolve' the game and create a very flawed version that most players dislike and then they have to develop a new version to fix all the issues people have with the flawed version and in the mean time a lot of people will have stopped playing in favour of other systems.
That's how we ended up with 4e and with 3.0e before that (and Basic, even before that).
And while I don't worship at the altar of Mike Mearls like some do, I do find it telling that talk of creating 'the next evolution' in D&D started not soon after he, as the person in charge of fixing WotC's mess after the last time they tried to create 'the next evolution' of D&D, left WotC.
But then on the other hand I suppose I should take heart that at least some of the decisions made so far (like moving away from 'race' nomenclature towards 'species' and stopping the practice of treating the moral alignment of sentient beings as some kind of biological imperative) are actually pretty good.
In the 1dnd system the reason would be because those spells aren’t on my list or are a school I’m restricted from casting. So I would understand why I don’t have access. In 1dnd the bard will have better access to damage dealing cantrips at the cost of sharing vicious mockery. I’m okay with that. Also I have never seen a Paladin cast a smite spell in actual play. I’ve seen it twice watching on twitch. It was a newer player. Divine smite is just better than smite spells so most experienced players save the spell slot for Divine Smites. I have seen a cleric use a smite spell in 5e. So again I’m not worried about those spells being shared with clerics unless Divine Smite changes. I don’t know why they would change it. I do fear they will make it once per turn, because they made the eldritch smite invocation once per turn when it came out years after the 2014 phb. I will say eldritch smite is far stronger than divine smite and the additional things it does merited a once per turn usage while Divine smite is fine. Hopefully they don’t change it at all. Find Steed being shared feels weird to me, but even that doesn’t really matter. The signatures of a Paladin are divine smite and auras. Long as they are the only ones to have those they will feel like a Paladin.
So far groups don’t mean anything except feat restrictions. You won’t be getting fighting styles on your rogue, wizard or cleric. Paladins like rangers will have an exception.
We probably won’t come to an agreement because we play with different groups. Our play styles and experiences with the game have us looking at it from different perspectives. I hope the game never loses that bit of magic. I believe with 5e there is a table for every type of player if they can find it.
I dunno, some of what you said seems like a stretch.
Like... Yes, they're all skill monkeys, but that's about all they share. Bards aren't known to be particularly Stealthy. Don't get me wrong, Bards are the 'can be developed to do anything' class, so they can be excellent at Stealth if they want... But they don't have class features that give them benefits for stealth. Rogues and Rangers do. It's still a case of the 'one of these is not like the others' result inevitable from trying to fit 12 classes with unique features into four groups of three based on superficial similarities.
As for the Warrior group. Yes, they do all have a resource pool, but they aren't unique in having a resource pool... And two of them only have a resource pool if you stretch the definition of 'resource pool' to include 'once per Short/Long Rest actions' (if you don't, then Barbarians and Fighters do not have a resource pool at all... In fact the only classes that have a resource pool of that kind are Monks and Sorcerors). But they all work very differently. Monks have a pool of points that grows with every level that they can spend freely on performing or enhancing a variety of different actions. Barbarians could be said to have a 'pool' of points they can spend on rages... If you ignore that what they actually have is a single class feature they can activate a set number of times per Long Rest. Also, unlike Monks who spend points to do actions, Barbarians simply activate an ability that gives certain benefits (and a few restrictions that don't matter much unless they're multi-classed with a Caster class) that lasts up to a minute. And Fighters have a several class features that they can activate (depending on level) between one and three times per Rest (Short Rest for Action Surge and Second Wind, Long Rest for Indomitable) each. If Barbarians could use their Rages for literally anything else (and they can't. Even for their Subclasses, when those interact with Rage, it's an added effect to the Rage feature, rather than something they can do instead of Rage, like some Druid Subclasses allow them to do with their Wildshapes) and if Fighters had a pool of activations that refilled on Short Rests that they could use on activating Action Surge, Second Wind or Indomitable any number of times until their pool was spent... Then you might have had a point. As is, the only thing that all the classes in the 'Warrior' group have in common is that they're all the classes that don't have innate spell casting that aren't the Rogue.
'Mages': While it might not be wrong to call them a 'alternative (to the) Wizard' class' role in parties, they were not quite conceived 'alternative wizards' as originally conceived. Originally, when they were first thought up for 3.xE Warlocks worked somewhat differently from spellcasters (which they were explicitly not). Warlocks were fairly unique in the class framework in that they had Eldritch Blast, an ability (which its own rules text points out is spell-like, but explicitly not a spell) and a number of selectable invocations that could either be effects that could be applied to Eldritch Blast to change how it worked (Blasts) or add some effect to it (Essences) or to create a specific effect, some of which replicated existing spells. Warlocks, and my love for them as a class stemming from my 3.5e playing days, are actually a large part of why I'm not a fan of this Class Group nonsense. Warlocks were a fresh new idea when they first appeared. They were explicitly users of magic, but equally explicitly not casters of spells. When Warlocks were ported over to 5e, they were turned into spellcasters and I can sorta understand why, since accessibility was an important cornerstone for 5e and having a class that was like a spellcaster in some ways, but not a spellcaster in many others could be confusing. But that did rob them of some of their uniqueness and turned them from powerhouses who might be limited in what they could do compared to true spell casters, but could do what little they could an infinite number of times without ever running out of power into casters who are, memetically, constantly whining about wanting to take a Short Rest after every encounter so they can get their paltry two spell slots back. Trying to force them even more into the mould of Sorcerors and Wizards is not going to improve what people who fell in love with Warlocks in 3.5e love the class for. Funnily enough, since you mentioned Counterspell, one of the interesting things about Warlocks in 3.5e was that they were immune to counterspells, because Invocations were, explicitly, not spells.
And priests... Well... The reality of the matter is that the two most popular classes for people who want to play the party healer in 5e are Cleric and Bard. Most people who play Druids play them for their Wildshape ability, not their spellcasting and when they do play druids who use their spells, it tends to be specific combat spells (whence the memetic Druid Death Laser). And while there's a good number of people who play Paladin healers, the Paladin way of being the party healer mostly consists of getting downed party members up with a single point of Lay on Hands and maybe casting Prayer of Healing after combat ends. Paladins in 5e, being half Casters, don't have the Spell Slots to be effective main healers except by that method, nor are they meant to be and therefore (re)designing them from the perspective of putting them in the dedicated 'healer' class group would probably have to involve majorly shifting the entire feel of the class.
The thing is that the classes in D&D are varied and have a whole range of abilities. You could take any three of them, put them in a group and then argue why they could belong in that group together.
Let me show you: Barbarians, Rogues and Sorcerers belong in a group together because they're all classes that rely on a combination of Constitution and Dexterity for their survivability and use their unique class features to maximise their damage output and minimise the damage they take.
Nothing about that is untrue, but if you then decide to make a bunch of feats exclusive for this group, a lot of them aren't going to be beneficial to more than one, at most two, of the classes in the group. Because when I say that they 'use their unique class features to maximise their damage output and minimise the damage they take', that's unspecific enough that it encompasses the damage bonuses to weapon attacks from Sneak Attack and Rage respectively for Rogues and Barbarians and of bonuses to spells from Metamagic for Sorcerers and the combination of Cunning Action to disengage and damage reduction from Rage respectively for Rogues and Barbarians and the ability to use magic at range, along with the fact that every Sorcerous Origin gives some kind of enhanced defence or survivability feature, for Sorcerers.
Looking at the classes as they're grouped now, I can't think of any feats that would actually benefitevery Class in that group that should be exclusive to that group (i.e. that wouldn't also benefit several classes outside it) without redesigning at least one of the classes in question. Most Fighting Styles don't really benefit Monks, since even the ones compatible with a Monk using Monk Weapons don't benefit Unarmed Strikes (and the Feats that do benefit Unarmed Strikes, like Grappler, aren't Warrior group exclusive). Any 'Warrior' exclusive feats that have to do with weapons or armour wouldn't really benefit Monks, for that matter. The only way to make 'Warrior' group feats that benefit all the classes in the Warrior group equally is to make significant changes to the Monk class so that they are no longer primarily rely on Unarmed Strikes (which is, like, their most defining feature).
C'mon guys, these "groups" are as loose as they get. they're not bound mechanically and even experts, who share the same feature, play very differently.
I dunno, some of what you said seems like a stretch
It's not hard to see that Expert classes had Expertise, Priest classes had Channel Divinity features used for various things, Mage classes have spells like Counterspell, and Warrior classes have no spells but quasi-magic effects tied to numerous abilities per rest called by different names (Rogue has no spells, but all core abilities are unlimited use until 18, plus the Expert thing).
This was 5.0, before groups were official 1dnd. There's a definite trend here. You are missing the forest for the trees.
Now, it's very possible they will focus on different aspects than I am, but there's definitely links
I understand your concerns, but I don't necessarily agree with them all as it is still too early to tell.
One thing I wanted to say about Warlocks being in the Mages group. I think of it a little differently, especially since we now know classes will not get subclasses until 3rd level. Warlocks do make a pact with a Patron, but I could see it as the character draws their limited spell slots from the "ambient magic of the multiverse" but it is the Pact Boon, invocations, etc that they draw from their Patron. Like, the deal with the Patron gives them the spark of "magic" and the rest of the class features come directly from the Patron. Yeah, that's maybe a bit of a stretch, but they are going to have to adjust how the Warlock works from 5E to 1DD anyway so maybe it will be better explained in the Mages UA.
And the description of the Groups is just fluff. They don't carry any mechanical benefits or restrictions. Just like the fluff at the beginning of class descriptions or the fluff in spell descriptions, etc. Like Burning Hands, the fluff is you extend your two hands, put your thumbs together, fingers splayed, and a sheet of fire shoots out from them. But mechanically you only need one hand to cast the spell.
I do have concerns on the spell lists, who can access what spells or who can't, not the groupings themselves. And I didn't care how they handled the Bard feature Songs of Restoration that kind of gave back the healing aspects of the Bard spell list because they were not on the arcane list. Maybe it will be revised, maybe not. And maybe they just want to move the Bard in a different direction from previous editions. They gained spells they didn't have and lost spells they did have. I guess these kinds of things will happen with a new edition.
C'mon guys, these "groups" are as loose as they get. they're not bound mechanically and even experts, who share the same feature, play very differently.
Yeah... That's my point. Mechanically, thematically, play-style wise the class groups aren't a coherent whole, but semi-arbitrary collections of three 5e classes that were then assigned a commonality based on something they vaguely have in common.
If that was all they were, I would shake my head at the whole thing, but say 'okay, sure'.
But that's not all they are when it comes to one of 1D&D's design focusses, because the intention is to make these groups bound mechanically through Group exclusive Feats and magic items and whatnot.
Experts are skill monkeys. That's a fairly major part of all of the expert classes, and you even admitted that. Seems like a pretty good grouping to me, since you can make feats that hone in on the expertise of these classes.
Priests all have Channel Divinity. I'd bet hard cash that they will make Wild Shape a Channel Divinity (or Channel Primitivity or whatever). It's not just that they're all healers. I can think of some really cool feats that improve/change Channel Divinity.
Warriors are weapon users in the thick of frays. None of the base classes have spells, all of them are melee (exception for ranged fighter), all of them usually take a lot of blows, and all of them (theoretically) dish out some good damage. You can make some good damage dealing/damage reduction feats for these guys, as well as the fighting styles which we've seen.
Mages are arcane casters, with all of their classes having heavy emphasis on spells. Warlock has always been listed as an arcane caster, that's nothing new. You can make feats that hone in spellcasting like War Caster, Elemental Adept, and plenty of new ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So...
This is something that has been on my mind since the first playtest document was released and the Expert Classes doc didn't exactly alleviate the feeling.
As the title says, I think that the direction that's being taken in 1DnD's development with thinking of classes in terms of Class Groups is not a good one.
To me it hearkens back too much to the attempt to divide classes into 'roles' (shared and/or mirrored by monsters) in 4e... And the way that robbed class design of a lot of its creativity. In 4e, classes were pretty much reduced to combat roles and the whole reason that 4e had a whole bunch of classes that were never seen before and didn't return in 5e is that class design went along the lines of "ok, we need a tank, healer/buffer, damage dealer and crowd control each for our 'martial', 'arcane', 'divine', 'primal' and 'psionic' flavours (aka 'sources')".
And it's telling that even in 4e where that was almost rigidly adhered to, they couldn't make it work completely, because veteran players were clamouring for the inclusion of their favourite 3.5e classes, rigid role/flavour framework be damned.
And so we ended up, across three Player's Handbooks with exactly five 'Controller' classes (almost one for each flavour, but the Seeker, a Ranger with the serial number filed off, is Primal rather than Martial, because it showed up in PHB3, at which point focus testing determined that people thought Martials were boring), four 'Defender' classes (one for each flavour except Arcane, which got a tank in the Forgotten Realms book instead), Five 'Leader' classes (exactly one for each flavour) and Seven 'Striker' classes (one for each flavour plus two that exist solely because people wanted their favourite 3.5e class back even though the appropriate 'flavour' slot was already filled by an existing 3.5e class).
In the end, thinking of classes purely in terms of combat roles didn't make the game better. If anything, it made it worse.
Now... When I read the Class Groups for 1DnD, I see the same attempt to boil down the big 12 classes to equal groupings based on 'what they do'. And that's immediately an issue.
The description for the 'Mages' class group, for instance, reads: "Adepts of Arcane magic, focusing on utility and destruction". Except, hold on one second. That's not an accurate description of these classes as we know them.
For one Wizards tend to focus on utility or destruction, not generally both and they're the only one of the 'Mages' class group actually known for their tendency to pick up utility spells (because in 3.5e and 5e, they're the only Prepared casters in that group. They trade the reliability of having perpetual access to every spell they know for the flexibility of being able to learn spells beyond the ones they get at level ups, but only being able to prepare a limited selection from among them.) And generally speaking of the 'Mages' class group in their current 5e incarnation, Wizards tend to be the only ones with enough spell slots and versatility to be utility casters. Most utility casters in parties that don't have a Wizard are either Bards or Druids (or Clerics, but Clerics can do everything, depending on their Domain), even if the party has a Sorcerer or Warlock.
Sorcerers tend not to go for (m)any utility spells at all, because their selection of spells is fairly limited. That's what sets them apart thematically from Wizards far more than their 'meta magic', much as even 5e likes to pretend otherwise.
Warlocks, meanwhile, can't even reliably be classed as 'Arcane' casters at all. According to the 1DnD documents Arcane spells are classified as follows: "An Arcane Spell draws on the ambient magic of the multiverse."
That's not what Warlocks do. Warlocks draw on the power of a being they've made a pact with, be they a being from the Outer Planes ('Divine'), a powerful Fey or Djinn ('Primal', by proxy) or a being from the Far Plane ("Eldritch???"). There's exactly one Warlock Patron that might be classes as drawing on 'the ambient magic of the multiverse' and that's the Hexblade Patron. And even then it's the Hexblade itself, not the Warlock, who does it.
(And of course certain Sorcerous Origins face the same issue. Divine souls draw their power from Divine sources, natch. Clockwork Souls likewise draw their power from the Outer Planes, specifically those associated with Law. Storm Sorcery is explicitly linked to one of the Inner Planes.)
This is more than just an issue of how the three origins of spells are worded though. The Class Groups implicitly recall 4e's combat roles (except with the semi-acknowledgement that pretty much all classes can be 'Strikers') The explanation of Class Groups may say you can mix and match classes as you like, but it's pretty evident from some of the 'Class Group' specific feats we've seen so far that at least some feats useful for a specific role in the party are going to be gated behind certain Class Groups and, worse, many spells are going to be gated behind '
flavourssources'.Assurances that you're free to mix and match classes are nice, but undercut by the fact that there's obviously an attempt to shift the classes to a 'designated combat role' format.
Want to be a support Bard who heals and aids the party with Cure Wounds and buffs like Heroism and Enhance Ability, like you used to? Well too bad, the Priest Class Group mafia has decided it doesn't like you muscling in on its turf, so it's been decided that you've got no spell list unique to your class now. Instead you have a general 'Arcane spells' list and we're restricting which spells you can pick from those based on School. Also Arcane casters all use damage and crowd control spells exclusively now, so even if we allowed you to pick from the schools that have healing or buff spells, they're not on the list any more. If you want to heal, you'll have to use Cure Wounds' crummier ranger cousin Healing Word or your Inspiration dice as a reaction.
Want to be a Cleric who wades into the fray as a frontline fighter, like you used to? Well... That's fine, actually, Clerics can do whatever they want as always, CoDzilla's back in full force, we're even giving you the option of Heavy Armour and Martial Weapons back. We're taking away the ability of every class that isn't in our designated 'healer' class group to heal effectively, but we wouldn't want to take away the ability of Clerics to be absolute combat monsters, because how else will we get people to play the class we've decided should be the party healer?
Yeah, looks like the whole 'designated combat role' thing for 1DnD broke down before it even started when it comes to Clerics, but I expect it will still be the driving conceit behind changes to literally every other class group.
You haven't even seen any "groups" except Experts, and even those are grouped pretty loosely. One is full martial, another is primal gish, third is full arcane caster with half of arcane spell list. And clerics always had heavy armor and martial weapons in certain subclasses.
I don't think groups are a bad idea and clerics being released alone does not mean WotC aren't still doing priest classes in a later release. Partly I think the UA was more because WotC said there would be regular releases and the release of the latest UA would have been pretty bare if it didn't have at least one class in it, potentially they wanted to get a feel for the "holy orders" or some other part.
In the expert classes, Ranger can still cast evocation spells, Rogue can still sneak attack and Bard is still a full caster, there is not a rigidness to the class groups that they can only do there "thing" and that is it but that rather they are the main cover. Also healers weren't really so much of a thing in 5E and I do not believe that combat healing will be predominate in one D&D either, but we shall see.
I think there's potentially some truth to this, but it's also pretty early to make a lot assumptions about things that haven't been released.
I do think there's a bit of discomfort with a few classes that seem to straddle multiple groups. Bards are experts, but you could make an argument that the 5e bard would fit in the mages group. Paladins are priests, but would fit well in the warriors group. Rangers are experts, but could also be warriors. I'm not entirely sure where warlocks should fit, but I suppose mage is the best of the 4 options.
However, at least with Rangers, they gave some options to move into a warrior-y direction. We haven't seen paladins, but I'd imagine they'll have similar options. Clerics, as you mentioned, seem to still be able to go in a lot of directions.
Of the released classes, the bard still feels the most uncomfortable in that regard, but mostly I think it's a result of the new magic source spell lists causing so many changes to their available spells, and the removal of early/mid-level magical secrets for the lore bard. The UA bard feels a bit pigeon-holed compared to the 5e bard at low levels.
So, I can understand the concern, but it's not the time to hit the panic button yet IMO. I think the full list of priest classes, and the results of the 2nd UA survey will be pretty telling, but even then we have a long way to go.
I think some concern is warranted. At least as a thought to keep in the back of our minds while reviewing it all. To not get carried away with new things too much.
But so far, it mostly looks like it's just better organization. By naming Groups, they can also categorize feats and spell lists, etc. As we see with the Ranger, a class in one Group can get access to another Group's features as easily as saying 'you can take Warrior feats.'
Bards got a lot of changes to spells available, and abilities come online later all around, but otherwise the classes still resemble their 5e versions pretty closely. That could all change the further we get into it, but I'm hopeful for the time being.
Pretty sure spell list were done so it’s easier to add spells in later books. They wouldn’t have to explain who gets access to the new spell. It’s a divine necromancy spell. Anyone who can learn divine necromancy spells can learn this new one. It’s simple. Not the whole why doesn’t my class have access to this new spell. Which honestly I found myself asking a lot. Many new spells came out over the course of 5e that I thought would be great on my class, but for some unknown reason I didn’t have access. Going forward you will have an understanding why you don’t have access. Do I agree with current spell list, no, but I understand and like the concept.
Class groups where a thing in ADnD 2nd edition.
But there the divide was more about mechanics then roles.
In that editions for example all classes in the same group had the same hitdice, to hit bonus and used the same table for saves.
It was a way not to have to print the same info multiple times.
So in DnD one they could put the explanation of hoe expertise works under he header of the expert group.
And then for the classes in the group they just have to say gain expertise in X skill
Kinda.
Class groups in AD&D 2nd edition were essentially an attempt to bash together the classes from AD&D 1st edition and the human classes from Basic. Each of the four class groups had a main class (Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief) that was the basic (and Basic) version of that class with no complex abilities, but also no special restrictions. And then the other classes in the Class Group were more specialised variants that had a list special abilities and special restrictions (including the hefty stat requirements that would become a feature of 3x Prestige Classes) that the main class didn't have. The only restriction the main classes had was that you couldn't have below 9 in their main stat.
AD&D 2nd edition, if translated to 5e design language, had four classes with two or three subclasses you could choose among at 1st level.
It's not Divine (it's also in the Primal list) and not necromancy (it's abjuration in 1D&D and it hasn't been necromancy for a while. It was Conjuration in 3.5e. It was evocation in 5e.)
But putting that aside... Do you have an understanding of why you don't have access? In this system it seems to me that there would be more spells that it makes sense for a character to have access to, but that don't show up on the right list. And, indeed, spells that it doesn't make sense for your character to have access to, but that they do, because they're on the list.
Vicious Mockery, the Bard's signature cantrip, is suddenly available to everyone who draws from the Arcane spell list.
Hex, the Warlock exclusive spell that combos with Eldritch Blast in 5e, is now available to everyone who draws from the Arcane spell list... Even though since 1D&D, unlike 5e, doesn't consider spells 'attacks' anymore and Hex therefore does nothing to benefit the main way of dealing damage to enemies that classes that draw from the Arcane spell list other than Warlocks (presumably, since Eldritch Blast isn't on the Arcane list and is therefore now probably a special attack granted by the class or an invocation rather than a cantrip).
In fact all the class exclusive spells that are on those classes' lists because they're thematic to that specific class (and rarely a subclass for a different class) except Eldritch Blast are on their Class Group's list now, so Druids can now cast things like Hunter's Mark and Conjure Barrage and Clerics can cast things like the Paladin (near exclusive) Smite spells. Also Find Steed for some reason.
I understand why people are saying its too early to be worried, but I disagree.
Now is exactly the time to be worried. The history of D&D's development shows that when people only get worried once the designers of the new edition are proven to have taken a bad direction, those designers have also been working on that direction for so long that they're unwilling to change from it.
In fact, D&D's development has a history of coming out with a good version that most players love, then they develop the next edition and try all sorts of stuff to 'evolve' the game and create a very flawed version that most players dislike and then they have to develop a new version to fix all the issues people have with the flawed version and in the mean time a lot of people will have stopped playing in favour of other systems.
That's how we ended up with 4e and with 3.0e before that (and Basic, even before that).
And while I don't worship at the altar of Mike Mearls like some do, I do find it telling that talk of creating 'the next evolution' in D&D started not soon after he, as the person in charge of fixing WotC's mess after the last time they tried to create 'the next evolution' of D&D, left WotC.
But then on the other hand I suppose I should take heart that at least some of the decisions made so far (like moving away from 'race' nomenclature towards 'species' and stopping the practice of treating the moral alignment of sentient beings as some kind of biological imperative) are actually pretty good.
A lot of people hate on 4e, but even though it's universally seen as a failure, it was very useful and significant in its experimental value. Every now and then, the system inevitably becomes bloated and complaints pile up. Even if it was possible to make a perfect edition, it would eventually become stale. Experiments are needed to push things forward, and at worst you at least gain understanding of what not to do.
Change for change's sake isn't always a good thing and you shouldn't try to fix that which isn't broken, but you also have to remember that things that don't evolve, usually die out.
Yeah, I'm definitely not opposed to change.
I just feel that this class group thing is not the right direction for the change to go in.
Like, you weren't wrong earlier when you said that the Experts group is grouped pretty loosely... But that's actually part of my concern. If we look at the actual in-document description for the Experts group in all three of the 1D&D docs so far, you can see that the group of classes we got is exactly what that description says: Polymaths (i.e. skill focussed characters) with the Expertise feature (Rogues at level 1, Bards at level 2, Rangers have it slotted in arbitrarily at level 11) and features from other classes:
The Rogue is a skill-focussed class with some of the damage dealing and avoidance features of the Warrior class group.
The Bard is a skill-focussed class with some of the spell casting of the Mage group.
The Ranger is a skill-focussed class with some of the spell casting of the Priest (Primal, specifically) group.
But at the same time the Class Group's focus is already breaking down. Bards also have some of the healing of the Priest group, because Bards have been capable of being healers since 3rd Edition, but not nearly as much as they used to. Rangers have some features of the Warrior group, because they started off as a Fighter subclass in the earliest editions and didn't gain magic until later.
And that's sort of the problem. In 5e the Bard, Rogue and Ranger don't really fit into a single group. They are all experts, but they're not all experts in the same way. In fact, what groups them together isn't 'expertise' (either the concept or the feature) all classes are experts in their chosen thing, but that they are skill monkeys. And even in that they are not equal.
The Rogue is an expert in stealth and subterfuge and the way its class features work means that the player also needs to be an expert in tactics and position to get the most out of their single attack per turn. Their Expertise feature gives them the ability to excel in certain skills, even ones that aren't necessarily complementary, or even compatible, with their expertise in stealth. If they got Animal Handling as a proficient skill from somewhere (like a background), they can be better at using animals for various tasks than even the Druid.
The Bard, meanwhile, is a literal Jack of All Trades class. While they are, no matter what else they do, expert entertainers and social movers, a Bard, depending on how the player builds them, can be the social powerhouse who does all the party's talking, the main healer who keeps the party alive through battle, a damage dealer, crowd control, a support caster with a bevy of useful buffs and utility spells or even a frontline fighter with formidable survivability and damage output.
The Ranger, lastly, is an expert outdoorsman who is an expert in the terrain they know best. And that's pretty much all they are. They're great to have on a wilderness adventure in their Favoured Terrain where they get to use all their cool 'in-touch-with-nature' features, but take them out of that terrain and they become a lot less useful. Take them into a city or an ancient ruin that the DM doesn't count as 'natural terrain' and put them up against something that isn't their Favoured Enemy, they become either Fighters without the armour and extra attacks or Rogues without the Sneak Attack and Cunning Action.
Bards and Rangers might fit into the a group together, being classes who combine lots of useful utility features with spellcasting. But not with Rogues who don't have spells on their own.
Bards and Rogues might fit into the same group as skill focussed characters who can branch out to become experts in any field they choose. But not with Rangers, whose expertise is so narrowly defined that if you look up 'crippling overspecialisation' in an encyclopaedia, you will find a picture of a Ranger frozen in a block of ice in the Arctic because her Favoured Terrain choices were 'Desert' and 'Swamps' and being able to move at full speed across difficult terrain like slippery ice doesn't help if you don't know where you're going. (Don't worry, the rest of the party was rescued by the Rogue, whose Expertise in Nature and Survival works in any terrain).
Rangers and Rogues might fit into one group if the group is 'expert navigators of a specific terrain', where the specific terrain of the Rogue is a trapped dungeon (and also urban areas with thieves they can cant with) and the specific terrain of the Ranger is, of course, their Favoured Terrain (and only their Favoured Terrain). But the Bard isn't an expert in any terrain, not matter how much he brags about his conquest of guys with huge... Tracts of land.
Point being the Rangers suck and Bards are awesome.
No... Wait...
Point being that the Expert Class Group is cobbled together from classes that don't really belong in a group together and barely fit the group they've been put into anyways. In the process, one of those classes (Bard, naturally) has been severely reduced and one of those classes (Rangers) has been given a slight upgrade RAW wise (relative to what happened to the other two classes in the Expert doc, at least).
And even Rangers have been done dirty in a thematic sense. Their class feature descriptions have been rewritten so that instead of being able to do certain things because of their expert knowledge of natural terrain and such, they're now the result of some vague woo-woo non-specific 'connection to nature' and 'calling on primal energies'. They were shoved into the 'Expert' Class Group while having been rewritten thematically to de-emphasise their actual expertise.
Anyway, this same 'one of these is not like the others' theme persists in the other Class Groups:
Mages are 'adepts of Arcane magic, focussing on utility and destruction'. Sorcerers and Wizards are that first part, mostly... If you exclude Divine Souls, through different means, sure. But Warlocks aren't. Warlocks are guys and gals and non-binary palls who entered into a mutual contract with a powerful being whose powers may or may not (usually not) be Arcane in nature. Meanwhile, Sorcerers practically never focus on 'utility'. They have a limited selection of spells known which they can only change at level up and no access to Ritual casting without a separate feat (that anyone with sufficient Int or Wis, neither of which tend to be a Sorcerer's priority, can take). Sorcerers don't 'focus on utility', they begrudgingly accept taking a utility spell instead of a spell that does damage after the fifteenth time the other players passive-aggressively mention that a certain utility spell might have been useful in this situation. At which point bastard DMs like myself then no longer have situations where that spell would have been useful occur. (I kid, I assure you).
Priests are 'Stewards of Divine and Primal magic, focussing on healing, utility and defence'. That's true for Clerics and Druids. Paladins, though? Paladins are warriors (small 'w', but actually also capital 'W', if we're honest) first and foremost. They might use magic (which may or may not be Divine. The magic of Oath of the Ancients Paladins is almost certainly Primal in nature, pun not intended) to augment their combat abilities in their pursuit of eradicating evil (or your competition, if you're an Oath of the Conqueror Paladins). They could best be described as masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds... That sounds familiar for some reason... who swear an oath that lets them use magic to supplement their abilities to do both. If Paladins were primarily Divine magic users, then the only thing setting them apart from Clerics would be the ability to wear Heavy Armour and use Martial Weapons and their exclusive access to Smite spells. ... Wait.
Warriors are 'Masters of combat who can deal and endure many wounds' (ah, that's why it sounded familiar). That describes Barbarians perfectly and also Fighters if they didn't skimp on Constitution in favour of Intelligence so they can be Eldritch Knights (Look, 5e had only been released for like half a year and I didn't realise it was objectively worse than simply multi-classing into Sorcerer, okay?). But Monks? Monks can have massive damage output if they manage their Ki well, but they have the same ability to 'endure many wounds' as a wet noodle. All their time and ki points not spent going 'muda, muda, muda' (or 'ora, ora, ora' if you prefer) on their enemies is spent trying to 'endure' as few wounds as possible. Mostly by making sure that it's the Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin who has to 'endure many wounds' in their stead.
These classes don't fit the group they're classified under. Trying to force them into that mould will make those classes less unique and interesting... Not forcing them into that mould makes the entire practice of putting classes into groups pointless.
Either way, designing from that perspective is just not a good idea.
I'm not a fan of mechanics based on group category. I'm really not a fan of 3 spell lists that are shared because that takes away from the identity of many classes.
I also don't agree with the the actual groups. I see it more as...
Experts using expertise as a group gimmick seems too minor when everyone uses skills.
So. My 2 cents.
Rangers, Rogues and Bards are all skill monkey types. All three are known for stealth and perceptive abilities. Rangers focus on tracking and animal empthy, rogues on slight of hand and lock picking, and bards on their performances. I agree that they should have Expertise.
Sorcerer, Warlock both debuted as alternative Wizard classes. They share certain spells in common no one else gets by default. Especially Counterspell.
Paladin, Druid, Cleric all have some variation of Channel Divinity and are known for their healing. Certainly there's a number of differences between them, but when all is said and done, the mechanics show a clear link.
Warriors. In 5e, the monk has ki points, the barbarian has a pool of daily points to fuel their Rage, and Fighter... action surges, Indomitable, Second Wind, and many subclasses with their maneuever, psi, etc points. All three of the Warriors have different point systems to them to function along with a focus on martial ability without spell slots.
No matter how you look at it, the base 12 classes do fit into these groups. And I can see future items / feats that directly interact with those features. Assuming that my guesses on warriors and mages are correct, we haven't seen them yet.
Now, forcing future classes to fit into this style might be a bit... awkward. I really don't like shoving Artificer into Expert, especially when that feature doesn't affect tools, only skills, now. They're expert craftsmen, but... crafting shouldn't be skill checks in the first place. And I really don't like restricting Fighting Styles to warriors, especially when there's been zero hints of expert, priest or mage restricted feats before level 20. Like, Fighting Styles has nothing to do with the Warrior mechanics beyond using weapons. Give me something that directly interacts with ki/rage/battle dice, not.. this.
I think the class groups aren't actually that big of a deal. So far, they really only seem to mechanically affect feat restrictions. Though I can understand some ways the flavor has failed a few classes within their group.
The real place of friction for me is the spell source lists. I understand WOTC's desire to make the game forward compatible when new spells and classes are released, but I don't think this is the best way to handle it. I think they're too wrapped up in the idea that the printed books have to be the end-all-be-all of the rules of D&D.
JC even mentioned something about this in the UA1 survey results video that came out recently. He said there were certain design mistakes they couldn't fix in 5e because those words were printed in physical books, and that's what people had access to. And their justification for the spell source lists and the class groups is basically the same idea. A desire to make sure the physical books don't ever need to be superseded by additional rules or errata.
But it's 2022, and I'd be surprised if there are a significant amount of players who
Now, there is something to be said for making sure the physical books are as accurate and future-compatible as possible, but it feels like they're moving too far in that direction. Trying to solve for a problem that isn't actually a big deal in 2022 (or 2024 when One D&D is released). If they have recent data that shows otherwise, I'd be really curious to know about it. Because the tradeoff for that forward compatibility seems worse than the problem their trying to solve.
But I really doubt they're going to remove the class groups or spell lists at this point. It seems to be a fairly fundamental part of their design philosophy. I think our best bet is to continue to give feedback about how they can wrangle these new categorizations to better fit the mechanics and flavor (and our expectations as players) for for each class/subclass.
In the 1dnd system the reason would be because those spells aren’t on my list or are a school I’m restricted from casting. So I would understand why I don’t have access.
In 1dnd the bard will have better access to damage dealing cantrips at the cost of sharing vicious mockery. I’m okay with that. Also I have never seen a Paladin cast a smite spell in actual play. I’ve seen it twice watching on twitch. It was a newer player. Divine smite is just better than smite spells so most experienced players save the spell slot for Divine Smites. I have seen a cleric use a smite spell in 5e. So again I’m not worried about those spells being shared with clerics unless Divine Smite changes. I don’t know why they would change it. I do fear they will make it once per turn, because they made the eldritch smite invocation once per turn when it came out years after the 2014 phb. I will say eldritch smite is far stronger than divine smite and the additional things it does merited a once per turn usage while Divine smite is fine. Hopefully they don’t change it at all. Find Steed being shared feels weird to me, but even that doesn’t really matter. The signatures of a Paladin are divine smite and auras. Long as they are the only ones to have those they will feel like a Paladin.
So far groups don’t mean anything except feat restrictions. You won’t be getting fighting styles on your rogue, wizard or cleric. Paladins like rangers will have an exception.
We probably won’t come to an agreement because we play with different groups. Our play styles and experiences with the game have us looking at it from different perspectives. I hope the game never loses that bit of magic. I believe with 5e there is a table for every type of player if they can find it.
I dunno, some of what you said seems like a stretch.
Like... Yes, they're all skill monkeys, but that's about all they share. Bards aren't known to be particularly Stealthy. Don't get me wrong, Bards are the 'can be developed to do anything' class, so they can be excellent at Stealth if they want... But they don't have class features that give them benefits for stealth. Rogues and Rangers do. It's still a case of the 'one of these is not like the others' result inevitable from trying to fit 12 classes with unique features into four groups of three based on superficial similarities.
As for the Warrior group. Yes, they do all have a resource pool, but they aren't unique in having a resource pool... And two of them only have a resource pool if you stretch the definition of 'resource pool' to include 'once per Short/Long Rest actions' (if you don't, then Barbarians and Fighters do not have a resource pool at all... In fact the only classes that have a resource pool of that kind are Monks and Sorcerors). But they all work very differently.
Monks have a pool of points that grows with every level that they can spend freely on performing or enhancing a variety of different actions.
Barbarians could be said to have a 'pool' of points they can spend on rages... If you ignore that what they actually have is a single class feature they can activate a set number of times per Long Rest. Also, unlike Monks who spend points to do actions, Barbarians simply activate an ability that gives certain benefits (and a few restrictions that don't matter much unless they're multi-classed with a Caster class) that lasts up to a minute.
And Fighters have a several class features that they can activate (depending on level) between one and three times per Rest (Short Rest for Action Surge and Second Wind, Long Rest for Indomitable) each.
If Barbarians could use their Rages for literally anything else (and they can't. Even for their Subclasses, when those interact with Rage, it's an added effect to the Rage feature, rather than something they can do instead of Rage, like some Druid Subclasses allow them to do with their Wildshapes) and if Fighters had a pool of activations that refilled on Short Rests that they could use on activating Action Surge, Second Wind or Indomitable any number of times until their pool was spent... Then you might have had a point.
As is, the only thing that all the classes in the 'Warrior' group have in common is that they're all the classes that don't have innate spell casting that aren't the Rogue.
'Mages': While it might not be wrong to call them a 'alternative (to the) Wizard' class' role in parties, they were not quite conceived 'alternative wizards' as originally conceived. Originally, when they were first thought up for 3.xE Warlocks worked somewhat differently from spellcasters (which they were explicitly not). Warlocks were fairly unique in the class framework in that they had Eldritch Blast, an ability (which its own rules text points out is spell-like, but explicitly not a spell) and a number of selectable invocations that could either be effects that could be applied to Eldritch Blast to change how it worked (Blasts) or add some effect to it (Essences) or to create a specific effect, some of which replicated existing spells. Warlocks, and my love for them as a class stemming from my 3.5e playing days, are actually a large part of why I'm not a fan of this Class Group nonsense. Warlocks were a fresh new idea when they first appeared. They were explicitly users of magic, but equally explicitly not casters of spells. When Warlocks were ported over to 5e, they were turned into spellcasters and I can sorta understand why, since accessibility was an important cornerstone for 5e and having a class that was like a spellcaster in some ways, but not a spellcaster in many others could be confusing. But that did rob them of some of their uniqueness and turned them from powerhouses who might be limited in what they could do compared to true spell casters, but could do what little they could an infinite number of times without ever running out of power into casters who are, memetically, constantly whining about wanting to take a Short Rest after every encounter so they can get their paltry two spell slots back. Trying to force them even more into the mould of Sorcerors and Wizards is not going to improve what people who fell in love with Warlocks in 3.5e love the class for.
Funnily enough, since you mentioned Counterspell, one of the interesting things about Warlocks in 3.5e was that they were immune to counterspells, because Invocations were, explicitly, not spells.
And priests... Well... The reality of the matter is that the two most popular classes for people who want to play the party healer in 5e are Cleric and Bard. Most people who play Druids play them for their Wildshape ability, not their spellcasting and when they do play druids who use their spells, it tends to be specific combat spells (whence the memetic Druid Death Laser). And while there's a good number of people who play Paladin healers, the Paladin way of being the party healer mostly consists of getting downed party members up with a single point of Lay on Hands and maybe casting Prayer of Healing after combat ends. Paladins in 5e, being half Casters, don't have the Spell Slots to be effective main healers except by that method, nor are they meant to be and therefore (re)designing them from the perspective of putting them in the dedicated 'healer' class group would probably have to involve majorly shifting the entire feel of the class.
The thing is that the classes in D&D are varied and have a whole range of abilities. You could take any three of them, put them in a group and then argue why they could belong in that group together.
Let me show you:
Barbarians, Rogues and Sorcerers belong in a group together because they're all classes that rely on a combination of Constitution and Dexterity for their survivability and use their unique class features to maximise their damage output and minimise the damage they take.
Nothing about that is untrue, but if you then decide to make a bunch of feats exclusive for this group, a lot of them aren't going to be beneficial to more than one, at most two, of the classes in the group. Because when I say that they 'use their unique class features to maximise their damage output and minimise the damage they take', that's unspecific enough that it encompasses the damage bonuses to weapon attacks from Sneak Attack and Rage respectively for Rogues and Barbarians and of bonuses to spells from Metamagic for Sorcerers and the combination of Cunning Action to disengage and damage reduction from Rage respectively for Rogues and Barbarians and the ability to use magic at range, along with the fact that every Sorcerous Origin gives some kind of enhanced defence or survivability feature, for Sorcerers.
Looking at the classes as they're grouped now, I can't think of any feats that would actually benefit every Class in that group that should be exclusive to that group (i.e. that wouldn't also benefit several classes outside it) without redesigning at least one of the classes in question. Most Fighting Styles don't really benefit Monks, since even the ones compatible with a Monk using Monk Weapons don't benefit Unarmed Strikes (and the Feats that do benefit Unarmed Strikes, like Grappler, aren't Warrior group exclusive). Any 'Warrior' exclusive feats that have to do with weapons or armour wouldn't really benefit Monks, for that matter. The only way to make 'Warrior' group feats that benefit all the classes in the Warrior group equally is to make significant changes to the Monk class so that they are no longer primarily rely on Unarmed Strikes (which is, like, their most defining feature).
C'mon guys, these "groups" are as loose as they get. they're not bound mechanically and even experts, who share the same feature, play very differently.
It's not hard to see that Expert classes had Expertise, Priest classes had Channel Divinity features used for various things, Mage classes have spells like Counterspell, and Warrior classes have no spells but quasi-magic effects tied to numerous abilities per rest called by different names (Rogue has no spells, but all core abilities are unlimited use until 18, plus the Expert thing).
This was 5.0, before groups were official 1dnd. There's a definite trend here. You are missing the forest for the trees.
Now, it's very possible they will focus on different aspects than I am, but there's definitely links
I understand your concerns, but I don't necessarily agree with them all as it is still too early to tell.
One thing I wanted to say about Warlocks being in the Mages group. I think of it a little differently, especially since we now know classes will not get subclasses until 3rd level. Warlocks do make a pact with a Patron, but I could see it as the character draws their limited spell slots from the "ambient magic of the multiverse" but it is the Pact Boon, invocations, etc that they draw from their Patron. Like, the deal with the Patron gives them the spark of "magic" and the rest of the class features come directly from the Patron. Yeah, that's maybe a bit of a stretch, but they are going to have to adjust how the Warlock works from 5E to 1DD anyway so maybe it will be better explained in the Mages UA.
And the description of the Groups is just fluff. They don't carry any mechanical benefits or restrictions. Just like the fluff at the beginning of class descriptions or the fluff in spell descriptions, etc. Like Burning Hands, the fluff is you extend your two hands, put your thumbs together, fingers splayed, and a sheet of fire shoots out from them. But mechanically you only need one hand to cast the spell.
I do have concerns on the spell lists, who can access what spells or who can't, not the groupings themselves. And I didn't care how they handled the Bard feature Songs of Restoration that kind of gave back the healing aspects of the Bard spell list because they were not on the arcane list. Maybe it will be revised, maybe not. And maybe they just want to move the Bard in a different direction from previous editions. They gained spells they didn't have and lost spells they did have. I guess these kinds of things will happen with a new edition.
Voice your concerns in the surveys.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yeah... That's my point. Mechanically, thematically, play-style wise the class groups aren't a coherent whole, but semi-arbitrary collections of three 5e classes that were then assigned a commonality based on something they vaguely have in common.
If that was all they were, I would shake my head at the whole thing, but say 'okay, sure'.
But that's not all they are when it comes to one of 1D&D's design focusses, because the intention is to make these groups bound mechanically through Group exclusive Feats and magic items and whatnot.
Experts are skill monkeys. That's a fairly major part of all of the expert classes, and you even admitted that. Seems like a pretty good grouping to me, since you can make feats that hone in on the expertise of these classes.
Priests all have Channel Divinity. I'd bet hard cash that they will make Wild Shape a Channel Divinity (or Channel Primitivity or whatever). It's not just that they're all healers. I can think of some really cool feats that improve/change Channel Divinity.
Warriors are weapon users in the thick of frays. None of the base classes have spells, all of them are melee (exception for ranged fighter), all of them usually take a lot of blows, and all of them (theoretically) dish out some good damage. You can make some good damage dealing/damage reduction feats for these guys, as well as the fighting styles which we've seen.
Mages are arcane casters, with all of their classes having heavy emphasis on spells. Warlock has always been listed as an arcane caster, that's nothing new. You can make feats that hone in spellcasting like War Caster, Elemental Adept, and plenty of new ones.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)