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.
Then again, ranger gets access to warrior group feats, and I can bet 10 bucks that paladin will get it as well... I just don't think it will be that big of a deal overall. Also, it is possible that it might actually loosen some restrictions, like Holy Avenger will be a priest group item rather than paladin exclusive.
Then again, ranger gets access to warrior group feats, and I can bet 10 bucks that paladin will get it as well...
Yes, and that makes the grouping even more pointless. As it stands right now, the only class outside the Mage group that uses Mage group features (The Bard, with Arcane spellcasting) doesn't get Mage exclusive feats and the only class outside the Priest group that uses Priest group features (The Ranger, with Primal spellcasting) doesn't get Priest exclusive feats. So Mages get feats exclusive to Mages and Priests get feats exclusive to Priests, but at least one, probably two, classes outside the Warrior group get Warrior exclusive feats, which, by definition, means those feats aren't exclusive to the Warrior group. We don't know whether any classes outside the Expert group are going to get access to Expert exclusive feats, but if they do then those feats also aren't exclusive to Experts (and if they are, then why are Warriors the only class group not to get feats exclusive to them?).
I think that what people aren't getting here is that I'm not talking about this because I think the current groups are wrong (though I do, definitely, think that), but because I think trying to divide the classes in D&D into any discrete groups and making that part of the design philosophy is the wrong way to go about it.
I think that what people aren't getting here is that I'm not talking about this because I think the current groups are wrong (though I do, definitely, think that), but because I think trying to divide the classes in D&D into any discrete groups and making that part of the design philosophy is the wrong way to go about it.
Well, yeah, I can agree with this. Grouping begets symmetry, and symmetry is boring.
Then again, ranger gets access to warrior group feats, and I can bet 10 bucks that paladin will get it as well...
Yes, and that makes the grouping even more pointless. As it stands right now, the only class outside the Mage group that uses Mage group features (The Bard, with Arcane spellcasting) doesn't get Mage exclusive feats and the only class outside the Priest group that uses Priest group features (The Ranger, with Primal spellcasting) doesn't get Priest exclusive feats. So Mages get feats exclusive to Mages and Priests get feats exclusive to Priests, but at least one, probably two, classes outside the Warrior group get Warrior exclusive feats, which, by definition, means those feats aren't exclusive to the Warrior group. We don't know whether any classes outside the Expert group are going to get access to Expert exclusive feats, but if they do then those feats also aren't exclusive to Experts (and if they are, then why are Warriors the only class group not to get feats exclusive to them?).
I think that what people aren't getting here is that I'm not talking about this because I think the current groups are wrong (though I do, definitely, think that), but because I think trying to divide the classes in D&D into any discrete groups and making that part of the design philosophy is the wrong way to go about it.
Actually you are making the groupings seem perfectly correct. There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group. They didn’t include the bard in those items in 5e. Why would they make it a mage in One dnd?
There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group. They didn’t include the bard in those items in 5e. Why would they make it a mage in One dnd?
It took me a while to respond to this, because I actually fact-checked this claim.
You know... If you're going to make something up, it's probably better to do so somewhere other than the website that has the tools needed to check your claim.
There are not 'so many' 5e magic items restricted to 'sorcerer, warlock, wizard' unless by 'so many' you meant 'one'. In the entire catalogue of official WotC magic items there is exactly one magic item that is restricted to only sorcerer, warlock and wizard. And even that single one is from the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, i.e. a specific setting guide.
The closest you could come to supporting this claim is that there are a bunch of items restricted specifically to wizards and wizards only... But even then that's because those items are spellbooks and wizards are the only ones that use spellbooks.
These labels are just for ease of creation on the WOTC side and DND Beyond. How they organize data in these groupings will make it easier to use that information (features and spells) in character creations. In the future, you can say that adding stuff in the groups will be easier and spend fewer pages explaining why.
There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group. They didn’t include the bard in those items in 5e. Why would they make it a mage in One dnd?
It took me a while to respond to this, because I actually fact-checked this claim.
You know... If you're going to make something up, it's probably better to do so somewhere other than the website that has the tools needed to check your claim.
There are not 'so many' 5e magic items restricted to 'sorcerer, warlock, wizard' unless by 'so many' you meant 'one'. In the entire catalogue of official WotC magic items there is exactly one magic item that is restricted to only sorcerer, warlock and wizard. And even that single one is from the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, i.e. a specific setting guide.
The closest you could come to supporting this claim is that there are a bunch of items restricted specifically to wizards and wizards only... But even then that's because those items are spellbooks and wizards are the only ones that use spellbooks.
Robe of the Archmagi, buddy. It LITERALLY calls them all mages. Also the staff of the magi and the staff of power (a very spell-focused item). Nice job looking through the entire catalogue of official WotC magic item, my guy.
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)
There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group. They didn’t include the bard in those items in 5e. Why would they make it a mage in One dnd?
It took me a while to respond to this, because I actually fact-checked this claim.
You know... If you're going to make something up, it's probably better to do so somewhere other than the website that has the tools needed to check your claim.
There are not 'so many' 5e magic items restricted to 'sorcerer, warlock, wizard' unless by 'so many' you meant 'one'. In the entire catalogue of official WotC magic items there is exactly one magic item that is restricted to only sorcerer, warlock and wizard. And even that single one is from the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, i.e. a specific setting guide.
The closest you could come to supporting this claim is that there are a bunch of items restricted specifically to wizards and wizards only... But even then that's because those items are spellbooks and wizards are the only ones that use spellbooks.
Robe of the Archmagi, buddy. It LITERALLY calls them all mages. Also the staff of the magi and the staff of power (a very spell-focused item). Nice job looking through the entire catalogue of official WotC magic item, my guy.
Thank you. I just saw their reply and was about to call them on it, but saw you beat me to it. Glad I’m not the only one to see that blatant lie or maybe major mistake.
Minor mistake, as the case happens to be. I went off of the Notes, because I own almost all sourcebooks, but not all adventures. And the notes for most items place their attunement requirements first, so I assumed all of them did, but apparently those for the Basic Rules items don't.
So, yeah, big whoop. You've successfully proven that I miscounted and that instead of 1, there are a whole 4 out of the 797 magic items in the whole D&D items catalogue that can be attuned to only by Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards. Hell, there are probably one or two more that I couldn't see because the Notes for those don't put attunement at the front either (such as, I presume, the Blackstaff from Dragon Heist, but I can't confirm that, because I don't own Dragon Heist).
The items that can only be attuned by Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards are still not so numerous that the sentence "There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group." makes any damn sense.
Minor mistake, as the case happens to be. I went off of the Notes, because I own almost all sourcebooks, but not all adventures. And the notes for most items place their attunement requirements first, so I assumed all of them did, but apparently those for the Basic Rules items don't.
So, yeah, big whoop. You've successfully proven that I miscounted and that instead of 1, there are a whole 4 out of the 797 magic items in the whole D&D items catalogue that can be attuned to only by Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards. Hell, there are probably one or two more that I couldn't see because the Notes for those don't put attunement at the front either (such as, I presume, the Blackstaff from Dragon Heist, but I can't confirm that, because I don't own Dragon Heist).
The items that can only be attuned by Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards are still not so numerous that the sentence "There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group." makes any damn sense.
Minor to you, major to me since you attempted to downplay my claim and accused me of not knowing what I’m talking about which you are still trying to do. You are making another mistake. The word a lot is relative. You failing to acknowledge that WotC already established in the basic rules and 2014 PHB what classes they considered mages. Which is the point I’m making. Bards weren’t considered mages in 5e so they wouldn’t and shouldn’t be in 1dnd. How many items can you find that are only for bards, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards as a combined group. As far as I know that number is 0. While I don’t think there are any, but I leave room for the possibility there is one. I’ll let you the great researcher seek those items out. Also I own every source book and have been playing this game on and off since 3e. I guess your goal of flexing that you own all the sourcebooks was pointless.
Worth noting: making every single class its own unique free bird able to fly alone in the sky means all updates and post-launch content for that class must also be the same hand-sculpted stuff. As an avid artificer player who has seen the class go almost entirely utterly unsupported since it was created, allow me to say that I'm all for getting to piggyback on "Expert" class group features and updates. Being a special snowflake with no further support at all from any source ever ******* sucks.
Worth noting: making every single class its own unique free bird able to fly alone in the sky means all updates and post-launch content for that class must also be the same hand-sculpted stuff. As an avid artificer player who has seen the class go almost entirely utterly unsupported since it was created, allow me to say that I'm all for getting to piggyback on "Expert" class group features and updates. Being a special snowflake with no further support at all from any source ever ******* sucks.
That's actually a really great point, I hadn't considered that.
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)
Worth noting: making every single class its own unique free bird able to fly alone in the sky means all updates and post-launch content for that class must also be the same hand-sculpted stuff. As an avid artificer player who has seen the class go almost entirely utterly unsupported since it was created, allow me to say that I'm all for getting to piggyback on "Expert" class group features and updates. Being a special snowflake with no further support at all from any source ever ****ing sucks.
Well, with regards to that:
The reason why I'm clanging the alarm bell now rather than after the very first 1D&D UA doc, which also had these Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists and class groups listed, is that back then the understanding that most people had was that those spell lists would be general spell lists that all the classes using that category of magic would draw from and then individual classes would have individual class spell lists to add spells for that class not on the general list.
These last two docs, though, prove that that is not the case.
The thing is, I also love Artificers. I build homebrew settings rather than running established settings specifically because I want to run games in a setting where I can have Artificers around as a playable class and as NPCs without them feeling wildly out of place. Half the reason I keep pointing to what happened to Bards is that Bards are in a similar position to Artificers and if they're willing to work a staple PHB class like the Bard into the ground this hard for the sake of their 'Four groups of Three classes linked thematically to the traditional four human classes of Basic D&D' design principle, how much worse are they going to treat the class that they haven't been supporting throughout 5e and aren't even putting in the PHB for 1D&D even though people have been clamoring for it to be a PHB class since 3.5e Eberron?
Like Bards in 5e, Artificers can also fill pretty much any role in the party.
If, like me, you love Artificers, this move is especially bad, because you can bet your bottom dollar that due them getting put in the 'Expert' group, the days where an Artificer had the option to heal as well as a Cleric or do magic damage as well as a Sorcerer or Warlock are gone. Also like Bards, Artificers in 1D&D are almost guaranteed to end up restricted to only a limited selection of schools on the Arcane spell list. So we can be prepared to say goodbye to either half the utility or half the damage spells we used to be able to use. And we can expect to be locked out of Feats that enhance Healing spells (not that it matters since we won't get any anyway) or damaging spells, since those will doubtless be limited to the 'Priest' and 'Mage' class groups respectively.
And what are we getting in return? Some feats that will be exclusive to 'Experts' that are almost guaranteed to revolve around combat mobility (well, I guess Armorers will be happy with that, at least), the Dexterity stat and the Expertise feature (which will doubtless not be worded to support Tool Expertise, since Artificers will probably be even more of an afterthought, what with them being an untidy appendage that ruins the symmetry of the 4x3 structure).
With all due respect, your arguments are riddled with minor mistakes. Rather than admit to being wrong, doubling down is possibly not the best move.
Like, with the magic item thing, there's a fair number of magic staves in the core book that allow attunement by warlocks, sorcerers, wizards and druids. Just as the Ranger gets minor access to Warrior feats/items despite being an Expert (and likely ), so too might the druid get Mage access despite being a Priest. Likewise, there's a few Priest-themed staves that can be attuned by clerics, druids and warlocks. Showing that warlocks have a minor "Priest" vibe like rangers have a minor "Warrior" vibe.
This simultaneously allows one to showcase how you could have groups work while still allowing flexibility with individual classes.
The reason why I'm clanging the alarm bell now rather than after the very first 1D&D UA doc, which also had these Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists and class groups listed, is that back then the understanding that most people had was that those spell lists would be general spell lists that all the classes using that category of magic would draw from and then individual classes would have individual class spell lists to add spells for that class not on the general list.
These last two docs, though, prove that that is not the case.
As someone that realized what they were doing with the three spell lists back in that first UA, and was quite vocal about it, I will say that what you're arguing is not comparable. People were resistant to the idea because its a fairly big change. People aren't resistant to the idea of class groups because, to be honest, its something that 5e was basically already doing, and this is just making it official. You're comparing apples and rocks.
And the unified spell lists aren't a bad idea either. It works well for Cleric/Paladin and Druid/Ranger. Its future proofed for any new classes and it makes it easier to make new homebrew spellcasters. We have evidence that unified spell lists work well thanks to other games doing it. Granted, these games usually have far more classes than 5e does, but the point remains.
The problem with Arcane bards (and I'll argue Arcane warlocks too) is that they either should have a fourth list, subclass spell lists, access to Magic Secrets earlier, or be able to draw from all three with restricted lists.
Half the reason I keep pointing to what happened to Bards is that Bards are in a similar position to Artificers and if they're willing to work a staple PHB class like the Bard into the ground this hard for the sake of their 'Four groups of Three classes linked thematically to the traditional four human classes of Basic D&D' design principle, how much worse are they going to treat the class that they haven't been supporting throughout 5e and aren't even putting in the PHB for 1D&D even though people have been clamoring for it to be a PHB class since 3.5e Eberron?
Like Bards in 5e, Artificers can also fill pretty much any role in the party.
Ehhhh.... "what happened to bards" comes down to three things, really. Arcane spell list alone doesn't quite fit, which has a number of solutions detailed above, and not enough BI uses, which was frankly always an issue with Bard. And the "I feel forced to be a healer" issue, which is kinda tied to the spell list issue. It wouldn't surprise me to hear they made the bard exactly this way to provoke reactions and see the feedback - wouldn't be the first time. Challenging your assumptions is a good thing.
Remember. PLAYTEST.
Artificers, meanwhile... honestly, their spell list woes is easily solved by subclass spells. And they're half-casters anyways. Its even easier to tweak them.
If, like me, you love Artificers, this move is especially bad, because you can bet your bottom dollar that due them getting put in the 'Expert' group, the days where an Artificer had the option to heal as well as a Cleric or do magic damage as well as a Sorcerer or Warlock are gone.
They never could damage as well as a sorcerer/warlock nor heal as well as a Cleric, nor have they ever had access to resurrection magic. Also, there's more to being a mage or a priest than just dealing/healing damage.
Also like Bards, Artificers in 1D&D are almost guaranteed to end up restricted to only a limited selection of schools on the Arcane spell list. So we can be prepared to say goodbye to either half the utility or half the damage spells we used to be able to use.
Yes, lets ignore Song of Restoration and Magical Secrets features. I mean, hells. I'll be the first to gripe that Magical Secrets is meaningless for balance discussion because it comes on line so late and most games never reach that level. But the bard very much does have access to spells beyond the Arcane, and lots of potential ways to fix the spell list woes, nearly all of which apply to Artificer as well.
Is this another "minor mistake?"
And we can expect to be locked out of Feats that enhance Healing spells (not that it matters since we won't get any anyway) or damaging spells, since those will doubtless be limited to the 'Priest' and 'Mage' class groups respectively.
And what are we getting in return? Some feats that will be exclusive to 'Experts' that are almost guaranteed to revolve around combat mobility (well, I guess Armorers will be happy with that, at least), the Dexterity stat and the Expertise feature (which will doubtless not be worded to support Tool Expertise, since Artificers will probably be even more of an afterthought, what with them being an untidy appendage that ruins the symmetry of the 4x3 structure).
So far, the only non-epic feats with a group tag are Fighting Styles, and I doubt that will last. There's zero Expert exclusive feats. Even the feats that grant Expertise are open to anyone.
Monks are part of the Warrior group, who desire combat mobility and the Dex stat as much as any rogue. I imagine there's more than a few Fighters who likewise desire the same. Such restrictions would be silly. Compare to the spell-singing bard and bow-ranger, who want mobility as much as an alchemist and artillerist. If the latter two don't want mobility, then the former don't either, so making combat mobility Expert thing is odd.
D&D has been very careful with feats that boost spell damage - Elemental Adept and Flames of Phlegethos - of which the former is already in the UA without group restrictions and the latter is Tiefling specific feat. Musician, Inspiring Leader and Healer feats from the UA are likewise unbound by group, and the chef feat likely would be open ended as well.
Artificers probably will have a class ability to use any magic item, regardless of restriction, given that's their big deal.
Any other issues with the sky falling, Chicken Little?
Any other issues with the sky falling, Chicken Little?
Oh you can f- right off with that attitude.
You say I'm making mistakes because I don't see the potential solutions you do. Well I hate to tell you this, but it matters not one fig how many solutions you see if the official WotC design team doesn't see them.
Also, speaking of 'mistakes':
Like, with the magic item thing, there's a fair number of magic staves in the core book that allow attunement by warlocks, sorcerers, wizards and druids.
There's two staves in the core book that fit that description. Staff of Fire and Staff of Frost. Both of these are elemental spell enhancing items and Druids have a lot of elemental spells in their class spell list in 5e. Likewise all the magic staves that are 'Cleric, Druid and Warlock' are nature themed and are therefore in keeping with the theme of an Archfey Warlock.
This is, to me, exactly an example of how the class groups of 1D&D don't fit comfortably with the class identities as they exist in 5e (and earlier, because that's important to me too. It's not like the classes have never changed, but only in the 1D&D documents we've seen so far and in 4e have classes changed by removing things that were core to their identity previously).
The reason why I think this whole 'but the magic items and who can attune them shows what was always intended' bullsh argument doesn't hold weight is that the two people who have brought it up so far have conveniently neglected to mention the Staff of Healing, which is a Bard, Cleric or Druid staff. If that small amount of other items 'prove' that the Class Groups are correct, then the Staff of Healing 'proves' that they aren't.
You say that making Expert exclusive feats that revolve around combat mobility would be odd as if that means it's not going to happen. And you know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe that won't happen. But I think it will and you're acting like I said all combat mobility feats would be Expert exclusive, when that's not what I said. The reason that I think that those are the things that Expert exclusive feats will be focussed on is exactly the theme we've seen in the propose (including non-exclusive) Expert class Epic Boons. Of the Epic Boons we've seen so far, three of them focus on mobility (EB of Dimensional Travel, EB of Speed and EB of The Unfettered) and while Warriors only get two of those and Mages only get one, Experts get all three. That's what I'm basing this assumption on.
And yeah, it's still only an assumption.All of this is assumption. It's assumption I'm making based on rather being safe than sorry. Maybe I'm completely wrong on all of this. That's why the first two words in the title of this thread are Personal Opinion. I don't mind people saying 'I don't think this will happen', which I haven't been arguing with those people.
Who I am arguing with, though, are the people who, paraphrased, say 'Your assumption that this could be bad is wrong, because my assumption that it won't be is more important.'
And most importantly I'm arguing against people who are mostly being contrarian and not actually bothering to try to understand what I'm saying, but still insist I'm wrong. Otherwise they would never use (again: paraphrased) 'we can circumvent the Class Groups concept entirely to fix any issues that might arise from using it' as a counter argument to my saying that putting energy and effort into designing from the perspective of class groups is bad because it either requires forcing the classes in those groups into a rigid mould or else breaking that mould so thoroughly on so many occasions that it makes the entire exercise pointless (and makes the few instances where the mould is strictly adhered to feel bad).
One place I found magic item restriction off putting was the ranger and druid specific items. The new groups do not fix It. Too bad.
But I believe wotc intends to find the most efficient description means for each thing. So a theoretical ranger/druid item would say that but an expert item would say that.
Spells use the new grouping but also has spell schools. Sub features add specific spells(bard). It seems eldrich blast still exists as a spell but is not on any list(although that may change)
Modifying Classification methods can only change things so much. And at the very least it does solve the "new content issue" much better than other methods presented so far.
One place I found magic item restriction off putting was the ranger and druid specific items. The new groups do not fix It. Too bad.
But I believe wotc intends to find the most efficient description means for each thing. So a theoretical ranger/druid item would say that but an expert item would say that.
Spells use the new grouping but also has spell schools. Sub features add specific spells(bard). It seems eldrich blast still exists as a spell but is not on any list(although that may change)
Modifying Classification methods can only change things so much. And at the very least it does solve the "new content issue" much better than other methods presented so far.
They are doing groups, but I'm willing to bet that they're also doing spell list affinity when dealing with this kind of thing. I can see them having magic items that are "Divine" only or "Primordial" only. So, you'll have things like Amulets of Ultimate Good that's "Divine Spell List" so that paladins, clerics and anyone else using divine magic spellcasting can access.
I'm betting Eldritch Blast is going to be a class feature now, instead of a spell. With how they're flattening the curve on all the multiclass power gaming shinanigans, it makes sense that they're going to get rid of the sorlock/bardlock/hexadin stuff.
Then again, ranger gets access to warrior group feats, and I can bet 10 bucks that paladin will get it as well... I just don't think it will be that big of a deal overall. Also, it is possible that it might actually loosen some restrictions, like Holy Avenger will be a priest group item rather than paladin exclusive.
Yes, and that makes the grouping even more pointless. As it stands right now, the only class outside the Mage group that uses Mage group features (The Bard, with Arcane spellcasting) doesn't get Mage exclusive feats and the only class outside the Priest group that uses Priest group features (The Ranger, with Primal spellcasting) doesn't get Priest exclusive feats.
So Mages get feats exclusive to Mages and Priests get feats exclusive to Priests, but at least one, probably two, classes outside the Warrior group get Warrior exclusive feats, which, by definition, means those feats aren't exclusive to the Warrior group. We don't know whether any classes outside the Expert group are going to get access to Expert exclusive feats, but if they do then those feats also aren't exclusive to Experts (and if they are, then why are Warriors the only class group not to get feats exclusive to them?).
I think that what people aren't getting here is that I'm not talking about this because I think the current groups are wrong (though I do, definitely, think that), but because I think trying to divide the classes in D&D into any discrete groups and making that part of the design philosophy is the wrong way to go about it.
I can see potential problems but they may not manifest as we have only seen experts.
The spell groups I think are already showing problems.
Well, yeah, I can agree with this. Grouping begets symmetry, and symmetry is boring.
Actually you are making the groupings seem perfectly correct. There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group. They didn’t include the bard in those items in 5e. Why would they make it a mage in One dnd?
It took me a while to respond to this, because I actually fact-checked this claim.
You know... If you're going to make something up, it's probably better to do so somewhere other than the website that has the tools needed to check your claim.
There are not 'so many' 5e magic items restricted to 'sorcerer, warlock, wizard' unless by 'so many' you meant 'one'. In the entire catalogue of official WotC magic items there is exactly one magic item that is restricted to only sorcerer, warlock and wizard. And even that single one is from the Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, i.e. a specific setting guide.
The closest you could come to supporting this claim is that there are a bunch of items restricted specifically to wizards and wizards only... But even then that's because those items are spellbooks and wizards are the only ones that use spellbooks.
These labels are just for ease of creation on the WOTC side and DND Beyond. How they organize data in these groupings will make it easier to use that information (features and spells) in character creations. In the future, you can say that adding stuff in the groups will be easier and spend fewer pages explaining why.
Robe of the Archmagi, buddy. It LITERALLY calls them all mages. Also the staff of the magi and the staff of power (a very spell-focused item). Nice job looking through the entire catalogue of official WotC magic item, my guy.
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)
Thank you. I just saw their reply and was about to call them on it, but saw you beat me to it. Glad I’m not the only one to see that blatant lie or maybe major mistake.
Minor mistake, as the case happens to be. I went off of the Notes, because I own almost all sourcebooks, but not all adventures. And the notes for most items place their attunement requirements first, so I assumed all of them did, but apparently those for the Basic Rules items don't.
So, yeah, big whoop. You've successfully proven that I miscounted and that instead of 1, there are a whole 4 out of the 797 magic items in the whole D&D items catalogue that can be attuned to only by Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards. Hell, there are probably one or two more that I couldn't see because the Notes for those don't put attunement at the front either (such as, I presume, the Blackstaff from Dragon Heist, but I can't confirm that, because I don't own Dragon Heist).
The items that can only be attuned by Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards are still not so numerous that the sentence "There are so many 5e magic items restricted to sorcerer, warlock wizard that can now just read mage group." makes any damn sense.
Minor to you, major to me since you attempted to downplay my claim and accused me of not knowing what I’m talking about which you are still trying to do. You are making another mistake. The word a lot is relative. You failing to acknowledge that WotC already established in the basic rules and 2014 PHB what classes they considered mages. Which is the point I’m making. Bards weren’t considered mages in 5e so they wouldn’t and shouldn’t be in 1dnd. How many items can you find that are only for bards, sorcerers, warlocks and wizards as a combined group. As far as I know that number is 0. While I don’t think there are any, but I leave room for the possibility there is one. I’ll let you the great researcher seek those items out. Also I own every source book and have been playing this game on and off since 3e. I guess your goal of flexing that you own all the sourcebooks was pointless.
Worth noting: making every single class its own unique free bird able to fly alone in the sky means all updates and post-launch content for that class must also be the same hand-sculpted stuff. As an avid artificer player who has seen the class go almost entirely utterly unsupported since it was created, allow me to say that I'm all for getting to piggyback on "Expert" class group features and updates. Being a special snowflake with no further support at all from any source ever ******* sucks.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's actually a really great point, I hadn't considered that.
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)
Well, with regards to that:
The reason why I'm clanging the alarm bell now rather than after the very first 1D&D UA doc, which also had these Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists and class groups listed, is that back then the understanding that most people had was that those spell lists would be general spell lists that all the classes using that category of magic would draw from and then individual classes would have individual class spell lists to add spells for that class not on the general list.
These last two docs, though, prove that that is not the case.
The thing is, I also love Artificers. I build homebrew settings rather than running established settings specifically because I want to run games in a setting where I can have Artificers around as a playable class and as NPCs without them feeling wildly out of place. Half the reason I keep pointing to what happened to Bards is that Bards are in a similar position to Artificers and if they're willing to work a staple PHB class like the Bard into the ground this hard for the sake of their 'Four groups of Three classes linked thematically to the traditional four human classes of Basic D&D' design principle, how much worse are they going to treat the class that they haven't been supporting throughout 5e and aren't even putting in the PHB for 1D&D even though people have been clamoring for it to be a PHB class since 3.5e Eberron?
Like Bards in 5e, Artificers can also fill pretty much any role in the party.
If, like me, you love Artificers, this move is especially bad, because you can bet your bottom dollar that due them getting put in the 'Expert' group, the days where an Artificer had the option to heal as well as a Cleric or do magic damage as well as a Sorcerer or Warlock are gone.
Also like Bards, Artificers in 1D&D are almost guaranteed to end up restricted to only a limited selection of schools on the Arcane spell list. So we can be prepared to say goodbye to either half the utility or half the damage spells we used to be able to use.
And we can expect to be locked out of Feats that enhance Healing spells (not that it matters since we won't get any anyway) or damaging spells, since those will doubtless be limited to the 'Priest' and 'Mage' class groups respectively.
And what are we getting in return? Some feats that will be exclusive to 'Experts' that are almost guaranteed to revolve around combat mobility (well, I guess Armorers will be happy with that, at least), the Dexterity stat and the Expertise feature (which will doubtless not be worded to support Tool Expertise, since Artificers will probably be even more of an afterthought, what with them being an untidy appendage that ruins the symmetry of the 4x3 structure).
With all due respect, your arguments are riddled with minor mistakes. Rather than admit to being wrong, doubling down is possibly not the best move.
Like, with the magic item thing, there's a fair number of magic staves in the core book that allow attunement by warlocks, sorcerers, wizards and druids. Just as the Ranger gets minor access to Warrior feats/items despite being an Expert (and likely ), so too might the druid get Mage access despite being a Priest. Likewise, there's a few Priest-themed staves that can be attuned by clerics, druids and warlocks. Showing that warlocks have a minor "Priest" vibe like rangers have a minor "Warrior" vibe.
This simultaneously allows one to showcase how you could have groups work while still allowing flexibility with individual classes.
As someone that realized what they were doing with the three spell lists back in that first UA, and was quite vocal about it, I will say that what you're arguing is not comparable. People were resistant to the idea because its a fairly big change. People aren't resistant to the idea of class groups because, to be honest, its something that 5e was basically already doing, and this is just making it official. You're comparing apples and rocks.
And the unified spell lists aren't a bad idea either. It works well for Cleric/Paladin and Druid/Ranger. Its future proofed for any new classes and it makes it easier to make new homebrew spellcasters. We have evidence that unified spell lists work well thanks to other games doing it. Granted, these games usually have far more classes than 5e does, but the point remains.
The problem with Arcane bards (and I'll argue Arcane warlocks too) is that they either should have a fourth list, subclass spell lists, access to Magic Secrets earlier, or be able to draw from all three with restricted lists.
Ehhhh.... "what happened to bards" comes down to three things, really. Arcane spell list alone doesn't quite fit, which has a number of solutions detailed above, and not enough BI uses, which was frankly always an issue with Bard. And the "I feel forced to be a healer" issue, which is kinda tied to the spell list issue. It wouldn't surprise me to hear they made the bard exactly this way to provoke reactions and see the feedback - wouldn't be the first time. Challenging your assumptions is a good thing.
Remember. PLAYTEST.
Artificers, meanwhile... honestly, their spell list woes is easily solved by subclass spells. And they're half-casters anyways. Its even easier to tweak them.
So far, the only non-epic feats with a group tag are Fighting Styles, and I doubt that will last. There's zero Expert exclusive feats. Even the feats that grant Expertise are open to anyone.
Monks are part of the Warrior group, who desire combat mobility and the Dex stat as much as any rogue. I imagine there's more than a few Fighters who likewise desire the same. Such restrictions would be silly. Compare to the spell-singing bard and bow-ranger, who want mobility as much as an alchemist and artillerist. If the latter two don't want mobility, then the former don't either, so making combat mobility Expert thing is odd.
D&D has been very careful with feats that boost spell damage - Elemental Adept and Flames of Phlegethos - of which the former is already in the UA without group restrictions and the latter is Tiefling specific feat. Musician, Inspiring Leader and Healer feats from the UA are likewise unbound by group, and the chef feat likely would be open ended as well.
Artificers probably will have a class ability to use any magic item, regardless of restriction, given that's their big deal.
Any other issues with the sky falling, Chicken Little?
Oh you can f- right off with that attitude.
You say I'm making mistakes because I don't see the potential solutions you do. Well I hate to tell you this, but it matters not one fig how many solutions you see if the official WotC design team doesn't see them.
Also, speaking of 'mistakes':
There's two staves in the core book that fit that description. Staff of Fire and Staff of Frost. Both of these are elemental spell enhancing items and Druids have a lot of elemental spells in their class spell list in 5e.
Likewise all the magic staves that are 'Cleric, Druid and Warlock' are nature themed and are therefore in keeping with the theme of an Archfey Warlock.
This is, to me, exactly an example of how the class groups of 1D&D don't fit comfortably with the class identities as they exist in 5e (and earlier, because that's important to me too. It's not like the classes have never changed, but only in the 1D&D documents we've seen so far and in 4e have classes changed by removing things that were core to their identity previously).
The reason why I think this whole 'but the magic items and who can attune them shows what was always intended'
bullshargument doesn't hold weight is that the two people who have brought it up so far have conveniently neglected to mention the Staff of Healing, which is a Bard, Cleric or Druid staff. If that small amount of other items 'prove' that the Class Groups are correct, then the Staff of Healing 'proves' that they aren't.You say that making Expert exclusive feats that revolve around combat mobility would be odd as if that means it's not going to happen. And you know what? Maybe you're right. Maybe that won't happen.
But I think it will and you're acting like I said all combat mobility feats would be Expert exclusive, when that's not what I said. The reason that I think that those are the things that Expert exclusive feats will be focussed on is exactly the theme we've seen in the propose (including non-exclusive) Expert class Epic Boons. Of the Epic Boons we've seen so far, three of them focus on mobility (EB of Dimensional Travel, EB of Speed and EB of The Unfettered) and while Warriors only get two of those and Mages only get one, Experts get all three. That's what I'm basing this assumption on.
And yeah, it's still only an assumption.All of this is assumption. It's assumption I'm making based on rather being safe than sorry. Maybe I'm completely wrong on all of this. That's why the first two words in the title of this thread are Personal Opinion. I don't mind people saying 'I don't think this will happen', which I haven't been arguing with those people.
Who I am arguing with, though, are the people who, paraphrased, say 'Your assumption that this could be bad is wrong, because my assumption that it won't be is more important.'
And most importantly I'm arguing against people who are mostly being contrarian and not actually bothering to try to understand what I'm saying, but still insist I'm wrong. Otherwise they would never use (again: paraphrased) 'we can circumvent the Class Groups concept entirely to fix any issues that might arise from using it' as a counter argument to my saying that putting energy and effort into designing from the perspective of class groups is bad because it either requires forcing the classes in those groups into a rigid mould or else breaking that mould so thoroughly on so many occasions that it makes the entire exercise pointless (and makes the few instances where the mould is strictly adhered to feel bad).
One place I found magic item restriction off putting was the ranger and druid specific items. The new groups do not fix It. Too bad.
But I believe wotc intends to find the most efficient description means for each thing. So a theoretical ranger/druid item would say that but an expert item would say that.
Spells use the new grouping but also has spell schools. Sub features add specific spells(bard). It seems eldrich blast still exists as a spell but is not on any list(although that may change)
Modifying Classification methods can only change things so much. And at the very least it does solve the "new content issue" much better than other methods presented so far.
They are doing groups, but I'm willing to bet that they're also doing spell list affinity when dealing with this kind of thing. I can see them having magic items that are "Divine" only or "Primordial" only. So, you'll have things like Amulets of Ultimate Good that's "Divine Spell List" so that paladins, clerics and anyone else using divine magic spellcasting can access.
I'm betting Eldritch Blast is going to be a class feature now, instead of a spell. With how they're flattening the curve on all the multiclass power gaming shinanigans, it makes sense that they're going to get rid of the sorlock/bardlock/hexadin stuff.
They did say in the video that Eldritch Blast was going to be a Warlock feature now.
Oh, they did? I haven't watched the latest round of videos yet.