Personally, I quite like that particular change, because Eldritch Blast was a class feature rather than a spell when they were first introduced in 3.5e (the whole point of Warlocks was that they were magic users who weren't spellcasters.)
I also think, personally, that giving Rangers general access to the Expertise feature instead of a situational pseudo-expertise that only functions in their favoured terrain will make them a more appealing class. Though at the same time I also think that the rewrite of their abilities on the whole kinda robs them of their flavour as expert survivalists (what with all their features suddenly deriving from a 'woo-woo' magical connection to nature, essentially making them 'martially-inclined druid' types, rather than from their expert familiarity with nature allowing them to thrive in that environment up to and including being able to draw from its inherent magical energies in a way similar to, but distinct from Druids).
They did say in the video that Eldritch Blast was going to be a Warlock feature now.
I don't think that's completely accurate, I think they indicated it would be warlock specific but weather it's a class specific spell or feature is yet to be determined. (If we are referencing the same video.)
As for class specific spells, I think there are several that work well being limited to the one class and a few exceptions (such as magical secrets). Limited but room for creative options is a big part of the 5e fun for many players.
They did say in the video that Eldritch Blast was going to be a Warlock feature now.
I don't think that's completely accurate, I think they indicated it would be warlock specific but weather it's a class specific spell or feature is yet to be determined. (If we are referencing the same video.)
As for class specific spells, I think there are several that work well being limited to the one class and a few exceptions (such as magical secrets). Limited but room for creative options is a big part of the 5e fun for many players.
You might be right. I couldn't remember which video it was to go looking for it. It's a small distinction, but it could matter.
Based on the way spell lists have been compiled into three large groups, and the fact we haven't seen any other spells left out from the PHB, I think a feature is probably more likely. It would be a real outlier if it's still a spell, but only usable by one class. You couldn't even take it with Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate, since those specify picking one of the three master spell lists - Arcane. Divine, or Primal.
If it is a spell, the only way to take it currently is to take a level in Warlock. Might as well be a feature at that point. But who knows.
Personally, I quite like that particular change, because Eldritch Blast was a class feature rather than a spell when they were first introduced in 3.5e (the whole point of Warlocks was that they were magic users who weren't spellcasters.)
I also think, personally, that giving Rangers general access to the Expertise feature instead of a situational pseudo-expertise that only functions in their favoured terrain will make them a more appealing class. Though at the same time I also think that the rewrite of their abilities on the whole kinda robs them of their flavour as expert survivalists (what with all their features suddenly deriving from a 'woo-woo' magical connection to nature, essentially making them 'martially-inclined druid' types, rather than from their expert familiarity with nature allowing them to thrive in that environment up to and including being able to draw from its inherent magical energies in a way similar to, but distinct from Druids).
While I understand the feelings people have, i am going to add my opinion.
The "expertise" (phb) rangers got actually made them better experts. Because you often don't know what skills are gating key information. Sometimes you as an expert need to know the history or Archana of a senario. And the 6 stat system makes the phb features spread more evenly across stats. All adventurers goals are M.A.D in the end. And at least phb rangers know "what they know". It helps avoid the dissonance of the expert being outshined by the newbie,(while still having a chance for the fun narrative of the less knowledgeable having the one important detail.)
Now there's something to say about an ability being "mother may I" dependant but often it's more theoretical or a dming problem anyway.
I would have kept phb ranger expertise features to a # per period mechanic. But if we loose it I would accept it. But hide in plain sight is the one that really needs to be fixed and returned.
The classification system "could" represent bad flattening of the classes but it dosen't have to. Like I said somewhere else the survey results video about experts will really make the final call for me as to if they are actually improving or just spinning a tale to sell a new edition. Right now I have few problems with 5e at my tables.
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).
The main reason I keep saying you are wrong is because you are. Your opinion is based on things that aren’t true. There was very little effort to needed to place classes into these groups. Do these classes have overlap absolutely, but many of the concepts of these groups were affirmed in the 2014 PHB. So far I’ve seen no evidence of the groups having negative effects on the game. If anything I’ve seen WotC saying these groups will only matter when we say they do. We already have evidence they don’t intend to lock things away from classes that previously had them because of these groups. Rangers still have access to fighting styles, Bards still have access to healing (differently, but that’s spell it’s not groups). Staff of healing access was given to 3 full casters who had healing spells on their list. It does not in any way take away from the idea that the mage group existed in concept in 2014. Mages could use the staff of power and a few other mage items designed for the PHB. Going forward they can simply the wording in the books. Example: Staff of Power- prerequisite mage group. Instead of having to write out out the three classes it considers mages. The expert group is simply a group of classes that have expertise. It’s easily the most fluid group. Bards are still Jack of all trades masters of none full casters who could easily fill the role of priest or mage for a moment while also handling many skill checks. As written in 1dnd they still do that. I will say I don’t like Jack of all trades feature and magical secrets coming on so late, or their spell list being so restricted. I will also admit magical secretes is much more powerful in 1dnd. Rouges are still rogues and rangers are still searching for an in game identity. This group has wildly different members and all they really share is they gain expertise. Honestly this group could be called the outliers. The priest group is just people who are healers. Could the bard be in this group, yeah, but the bard could also even as written in 1dnd fit in the mage group. That’s why it’s in the outlier group. Priest group is pretty easy to understand. Clerics are clerics, druids are druids, and Paladins are Paladins. For the most part they can be left alone other than making them fit 3,6,10,14. Which might be weird for every priest. What they did with cleric was fine, so I’m hopeful for the other two. Warrior group makes sense. Could Rangers and Paladins be in this group instead, sure, but they have group crossover similar to the bard. That’s a good thing. These groups aren’t rigid. things. The thing that’s suppose to be new and special to this group is a new way of weapon use. Wait is the Paladin and Ranger not going to get this new weapon stuff? Maybe not. If they don’t make too many changes to 5e Paladin it won’t need this, but it might get this. Ranger is still lost on identity so we will figure this out as we go along. Mage group is easily identifiable. It’s the same group that the 2014 phb considered mages. Sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards.
You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but base it on something real. Not just opinions based on your imaginations. You seem to have decided the groups mean something more than what we have been shown. You also refuse to acknowledge that this group divide was simple make. They literally explained how they picked the groups, and so far any class that rides the lines between groups has gotten features to help them continue to ride that line.
While I understand the feelings people have, i am going to add my opinion.
The "expertise" rangers got actually made them better experts. Because you often don't know what skills are gating key information. Sometimes you as an expert need to know the history or Archana of a senario. And the 6 stat system makes the phb features spread more evenly across stats. All adventurers goals are M.A.D in the end. And at least phb rangers know "what they know". It helps avoid the dissonance of the expert being outshined by the newbie,(while still having a chance for the fun narrative of the less knowledgeable having the one important detail.)
Counterpoint. New skill uses are better than old Favored Enemy. Arcane covers Fiends, Fey, Elementals and others. Nature covers plants, all beasts and monstrosities, I believe. With old Ranger, you could only pick only one of those at level 1. They're much more defined.
Favored Terrain was a crapshoot - published campaigns often traversed between forests, swamps plains and mountains at low (pre-level 6) levels.
The main reason I keep saying you are wrong is because you are.
Really? Because honestly my assumption was that the reason you are so dead set on saying I'm wrong is because I embarrassed you when you said that Cure Wounds is a Necromancy spell and I pointed out it hasn't been Necromancy since AD&D 2e.
At any rate, I have no interest in engaging on this topic with you, specifically.
Well, there are healing spells that don't deal with the meat as such. Lesser and Greater Restoration are healing spells (in the sense that they have the 'Healing' tag), for instance, and they heal more esoteric aspects than pure meat.
They don't restore hitpoints though.
I think that the whole 'not just meat' narrative has more to do with that Hitpoints don't just represent one's physical intactness, but also more broad concepts like tiring (not Exhaustion, the game concept that tracks long term lack of rest, but the more getting tired in the short term), pain, blood loss and general fitness to fight, both physical and mental. That's probably why the Fighter's self-healing ability is called Second Wind and why Bards can enhance healing on a Short Rest by playing an uplifting tune.
It's not a perfect representation, of course, no 'health tracking' system for any Tabletop RPG is. And that's not really a bad thing, since any system that was a perfect representation would also likely be incredibly cumbersome and probably not very fun.
While I understand the feelings people have, i am going to add my opinion.
The "expertise" rangers got actually made them better experts. Because you often don't know what skills are gating key information. Sometimes you as an expert need to know the history or Archana of a senario. And the 6 stat system makes the phb features spread more evenly across stats. All adventurers goals are M.A.D in the end. And at least phb rangers know "what they know". It helps avoid the dissonance of the expert being outshined by the newbie,(while still having a chance for the fun narrative of the less knowledgeable having the one important detail.)
Counterpoint. New skill uses are better than old Favored Enemy. Arcane covers Fiends, Fey, Elementals and others. Nature covers plants, all beasts and monstrosities, I believe. With old Ranger, you could only pick only one of those at level 1. They're much more defined.
Favored Terrain was a crapshoot - published campaigns often traversed between forests, swamps plains and mountains at low (pre-level 6) levels.
I am Skipping the ranger specific stuff because I find more than a few replies on it belongs in its own place. I only brought it up to help establish gamplay principles and make a connection to "appeal" is not universal and how apparent clean up and categorization can sometimes give unexpected results.
By defining skills by monster types it actually removed flexibility in the system. Often there were two or more approaches to skill gated information each with unique flavor. this new approach really guides it Into one skill which may create new incongruity. Such as making it more unlikely for a ranger to invest in specific types. I think this is a mistake but may be wrong.
Similarly new clarification of specific actions also may make things less functional( example hiding being a condition appears to make it a universal toggle rather than a relative one. Meaning one creatures LOS ruins it for all enemies) meanwhile other actions may be an improvement.
Now the question is does class classification help or hinder the flexibility or fun of the game. I have yet to see something definitively bad results from class groups and any proposed problems so far seem unlikely. However it is a possibility that wotc could misuse the groups but they seem to be firm on keeping them but not overly restricted as of function so far.
I'm not sure I really agree with that principle. You say more than one approach and lots of flexibility, I say unclear as hell and the DMs had to make things up on the fly and have lots of guess work. I mean, I guess there's lots of flexibility if everyone has to make up their own stuff, but that's not really what I consider flexibility. Flexibility means (to me at least) that we have a structure in place, not a gaping hole.
I also think that "hate" mechanics that encourage you to focus on specific types is a bad mechanic to have. Not just rangers, but paladins, clerics as well. Example - clerics used to just have the Turn Undead feature for channel divinity. If you never fought undead... then it was useless. It was a dead skill, taking up part of the clerics "power budget." If you did fight undead? The encouters were trivialized compared to everyone else. This creates a situation where the DM had to choose between leaving a character feature unused... or throwing fights that had to be strong enough to not be ignored, or... throwing some in a larger fight as throw aways while the real fights happen with everything not. Or more.
Being a specialist in this way puts an unnecessary burden on the DM (or the DM ignores it and the player potentially feels like it was a waste). Being a hyper specialist is... not a good thing, in my experience in the game.
The hiding thing is admittedly funky, but hiding-as-positive-status-condition isn't a terrible idea. Plenty of games do it. We've got a year to get it right, after all.
"Now the question is does class classification help or hinder the flexibility or fun of the game." - - Well, in a way it hinders the flexibility of the game, in that any future classes will have to fit into one of these categories. Expert classes will need Expertise at levels 1 or 2. I presume that Priests will need a Channel Divinity or Wild Shape adjacent ability. Mages and Warriors unknown. That said... Those same future classes will have spell, feat and backwards magic item compatibility / support, which I will argue increases the fun of the game.
So, we kind of have a trade of here. Flexibility and Fun are a bit of opposite sides here. The structure is reducing flexibility but increasing fun.
The main reason I keep saying you are wrong is because you are.
Really? Because honestly my assumption was that the reason you are so dead set on saying I'm wrong is because I embarrassed you when you said that Cure Wounds is a Necromancy spell and I pointed out it hasn't been Necromancy since AD&D 2e.
At any rate, I have no interest in engaging on this topic with you, specifically.
Nope honestly paid that no attention because I had no clue what you meant. I was giving a generic example and I assumed you were randomly talking about something really specific and out of context and now I know my assumption was correct. Lol
I'm not sure I really agree with that principle. You say more than one approach and lots of flexibility, I say unclear as hell and the DMs had to make things up on the fly and have lots of guess work. I mean, I guess there's lots of flexibility if everyone has to make up their own stuff, but that's not really what I consider flexibility. Flexibility means (to me at least) that we have a structure in place, not a gaping hole.
I also think that "hate" mechanics that encourage you to focus on specific types is a bad mechanic to have. Not just rangers, but paladins, clerics as well. Example - clerics used to just have the Turn Undead feature for channel divinity. If you never fought undead... then it was useless. It was a dead skill, taking up part of the clerics "power budget." If you did fight undead? The encouters were trivialized compared to everyone else. This creates a situation where the DM had to choose between leaving a character feature unused... or throwing fights that had to be strong enough to not be ignored, or... throwing some in a larger fight as throw aways while the real fights happen with everything not. Or more.
Being a specialist in this way puts an unnecessary burden on the DM (or the DM ignores it and the player potentially feels like it was a waste). Being a hyper specialist is... not a good thing, in my experience in the game.
The hiding thing is admittedly funky, but hiding-as-positive-status-condition isn't a terrible idea. Plenty of games do it. We've got a year to get it right, after all.
"Now the question is does class classification help or hinder the flexibility or fun of the game." - - Well, in a way it hinders the flexibility of the game, in that any future classes will have to fit into one of these categories. Expert classes will need Expertise at levels 1 or 2. I presume that Priests will need a Channel Divinity or Wild Shape adjacent ability. Mages and Warriors unknown. That said... Those same future classes will have spell, feat and backwards magic item compatibility / support, which I will argue increases the fun of the game.
So, we kind of have a trade of here. Flexibility and Fun are a bit of opposite sides here. The structure is reducing flexibility but increasing fun.
While I still feel that a swordmage or Spellsword is a class missing from 5e I doubt they will appear in 1dnd. I don’t expect there to be any new classes. Just new subclasses and reworks of 5e subclasses for at least 5 years after the transition to 1dnd. Any new classes will be 3rd party, but it’s easy to classify anything within the four groups. The only thing that wouldn’t fit into one of the four groups is a full caster with divine or primal Spellcasting but restricted from healing spells. That’s definitely not a class I see WotC making, but if someone third party makes something they can throw it into a group anyway, create a new group, or give it features that allow it be in that group under certain circumstances.
While I still feel that a swordmage or Spellsword is a class missing from 5e I doubt they will appear in 1dnd. I don’t expect there to be any new classes. Just new subclasses and reworks of 5e subclasses for at least 5 years after the transition to 1dnd.
This just keeps frustrating me. There's primial and divine gish classes in the game, but for an actual gish, arcane gish... Eldritch knight, bladesinger, hexblade, battle smith, no subclass was quite there, they're all awkward in some ways. Eldritch knight has crappy progression and his spells lose to melee attacks. Bladesinger is powerful, yet only activates being himself a limited amount of times per day (not usually an issue though). Hexblade was meant to exist from the beginning as Pact of the Blade, but Pact of the Blade lacked survivability and was MAD, so hexblade subclass is one big crutch upon that half-baked mechanic, riddled with limitations in the best traditions of warlock class (a subclass based around a connection with a sentient artifact weapon is specifically prohibited from using sentient artifact weapons). And then there's battle smith, which is ased around a construct pet and has a strange selection of spells available. This is madness. I mean, a spellblade class is just begging to be made.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
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)
While I still feel that a swordmage or Spellsword is a class missing from 5e I doubt they will appear in 1dnd. I don’t expect there to be any new classes. Just new subclasses and reworks of 5e subclasses for at least 5 years after the transition to 1dnd. Any new classes will be 3rd party, but it’s easy to classify anything within the four groups. The only thing that wouldn’t fit into one of the four groups is a full caster with divine or primal Spellcasting but restricted from healing spells. That’s definitely not a class I see WotC making, but if someone third party makes something they can throw it into a group anyway, create a new group, or give it features that allow it be in that group under certain circumstances.
Spellswords, psions, warlords, summoners (there's your primal full caster w/o healing)... All of which a fair amount of people say are missing from 5e, but technically do exist as concepts. Just not concepts people like the mechanics for.
So, at this point? I'm honestly going to say that any non-core class is repeating themes already covered by the core 12. Yes, even Artificer. New classes are going to repeat concepts but in new ways that will give a different play exprience. Which will be their value.
Ultimately, non-core classes won't get the subclass love core classes do, even if they will get access to spells, feats and magic items. But I'm willing to bet that even the 5e writers want to put some new classes out there.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique?
That's the fun part. You don't.
I've seen several attempts at making spell blade classes. Invariably they end up feeling like paladins with no auras and healing, but more teleports and self-defensive spells.
The fear of overlap is ultimately the biggest roadblock, so just... Give up on making it unique and make something people enjoy playing.
I mean... Look at blood hunter. It's an alchemy based Ranger. Yet people like playing it.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
Does it has to have a different source of power? Druids and rangers use the same magic in the same way. Clerics and Paladins, too, because paladins serve deities or religious orders in the end. It makes perfect sense for a group of warriors to specialize in bringing arcane magic to the frontlines and breach the enemy lines with destructive and controlling magic or fight spellcasters with their own methods. Eldritch Knight was always half-assed. Very poor 1/3 progression with most of the tiny selection of spells being extremely weak, and features that provided only the raw basics of spell-melee synergy that werepointless anyway because hitting stuff with sword three times was better in 99% cases. Some abjuration made sense, but that was nothing compared to paladin's sheer incredible might.
The point of classification into groups is at least partially to allow the possibility of such new classes while having a framework to build off of.
Different people will create different ideas of "fun", "appeal" or "gameplay voids"
Whether or not we need a spell blade is a different topic than the general ability to integrate new classes. That part of the new organization and groupings seems good.
However there may be too strict groups that squeeze out unique options, flavor or playstyles. That seems bad. As of yet there are a small number of places that seem negatively affected and I hope they will be resolved in a way for a lot of cool stories and play experiences. There's still time to fix some of the problems we will see if they do.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
Point blank casting- ranged spells cast in melee range don’t suffer from disadvantage and add your Spellcasting mod to damage roll. Improved Concentration- add Int to concentration checks.
subclasses could be things like:
Swordmage which pays tribute with the aegis abilities from 4e. Making this subclass tanky.
Duskblade which pays tribute to 3.5 class is more melee focused and could let you channel certain types of your spells as part of your attack action freeing your bonus action. But not for a channel spell.
Crusader/Templar could add some divine magic leaning you toward a Paladin feel.
Warden could lean you toward a Ranger feel by giving you some primal magic.
I believe it’s unique enough feel to merit it’s own class, but I’m also sure it will never be. Unless I homebrew it and let my players play one. I still wouldn’t get that opportunity since I’ll never ask someone else to let me play my own homebrew at their table. I hope no one does that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally, I quite like that particular change, because Eldritch Blast was a class feature rather than a spell when they were first introduced in 3.5e (the whole point of Warlocks was that they were magic users who weren't spellcasters.)
I also think, personally, that giving Rangers general access to the Expertise feature instead of a situational pseudo-expertise that only functions in their favoured terrain will make them a more appealing class. Though at the same time I also think that the rewrite of their abilities on the whole kinda robs them of their flavour as expert survivalists (what with all their features suddenly deriving from a 'woo-woo' magical connection to nature, essentially making them 'martially-inclined druid' types, rather than from their expert familiarity with nature allowing them to thrive in that environment up to and including being able to draw from its inherent magical energies in a way similar to, but distinct from Druids).
I don't think that's completely accurate, I think they indicated it would be warlock specific but weather it's a class specific spell or feature is yet to be determined. (If we are referencing the same video.)
As for class specific spells, I think there are several that work well being limited to the one class and a few exceptions (such as magical secrets). Limited but room for creative options is a big part of the 5e fun for many players.
You might be right. I couldn't remember which video it was to go looking for it. It's a small distinction, but it could matter.
Based on the way spell lists have been compiled into three large groups, and the fact we haven't seen any other spells left out from the PHB, I think a feature is probably more likely. It would be a real outlier if it's still a spell, but only usable by one class. You couldn't even take it with Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate, since those specify picking one of the three master spell lists - Arcane. Divine, or Primal.
If it is a spell, the only way to take it currently is to take a level in Warlock. Might as well be a feature at that point. But who knows.
While I understand the feelings people have, i am going to add my opinion.
The "expertise" (phb) rangers got actually made them better experts. Because you often don't know what skills are gating key information. Sometimes you as an expert need to know the history or Archana of a senario. And the 6 stat system makes the phb features spread more evenly across stats. All adventurers goals are M.A.D in the end. And at least phb rangers know "what they know". It helps avoid the dissonance of the expert being outshined by the newbie,(while still having a chance for the fun narrative of the less knowledgeable having the one important detail.)
Now there's something to say about an ability being "mother may I" dependant but often it's more theoretical or a dming problem anyway.
I would have kept phb ranger expertise features to a # per period mechanic. But if we loose it I would accept it. But hide in plain sight is the one that really needs to be fixed and returned.
The classification system "could" represent bad flattening of the classes but it dosen't have to. Like I said somewhere else the survey results video about experts will really make the final call for me as to if they are actually improving or just spinning a tale to sell a new edition. Right now I have few problems with 5e at my tables.
The main reason I keep saying you are wrong is because you are. Your opinion is based on things that aren’t true. There was very little effort to needed to place classes into these groups. Do these classes have overlap absolutely, but many of the concepts of these groups were affirmed in the 2014 PHB. So far I’ve seen no evidence of the groups having negative effects on the game. If anything I’ve seen WotC saying these groups will only matter when we say they do. We already have evidence they don’t intend to lock things away from classes that previously had them because of these groups. Rangers still have access to fighting styles, Bards still have access to healing (differently, but that’s spell it’s not groups).
Staff of healing access was given to 3 full casters who had healing spells on their list. It does not in any way take away from the idea that the mage group existed in concept in 2014. Mages could use the staff of power and a few other mage items designed for the PHB. Going forward they can simply the wording in the books. Example: Staff of Power- prerequisite mage group. Instead of having to write out out the three classes it considers mages.
The expert group is simply a group of classes that have expertise. It’s easily the most fluid group. Bards are still Jack of all trades masters of none full casters who could easily fill the role of priest or mage for a moment while also handling many skill checks. As written in 1dnd they still do that. I will say I don’t like Jack of all trades feature and magical secrets coming on so late, or their spell list being so restricted. I will also admit magical secretes is much more powerful in 1dnd. Rouges are still rogues and rangers are still searching for an in game identity. This group has wildly different members and all they really share is they gain expertise. Honestly this group could be called the outliers.
The priest group is just people who are healers. Could the bard be in this group, yeah, but the bard could also even as written in 1dnd fit in the mage group. That’s why it’s in the outlier group. Priest group is pretty easy to understand. Clerics are clerics, druids are druids, and Paladins are Paladins. For the most part they can be left alone other than making them fit 3,6,10,14. Which might be weird for every priest. What they did with cleric was fine, so I’m hopeful for the other two.
Warrior group makes sense. Could Rangers and Paladins be in this group instead, sure, but they have group crossover similar to the bard. That’s a good thing. These groups aren’t rigid. things. The thing that’s suppose to be new and special to this group is a new way of weapon use. Wait is the Paladin and Ranger not going to get this new weapon stuff? Maybe not. If they don’t make too many changes to 5e Paladin it won’t need this, but it might get this. Ranger is still lost on identity so we will figure this out as we go along.
Mage group is easily identifiable. It’s the same group that the 2014 phb considered mages. Sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards.
You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but base it on something real. Not just opinions based on your imaginations. You seem to have decided the groups mean something more than what we have been shown. You also refuse to acknowledge that this group divide was simple make. They literally explained how they picked the groups, and so far any class that rides the lines between groups has gotten features to help them continue to ride that line.
Counterpoint. New skill uses are better than old Favored Enemy. Arcane covers Fiends, Fey, Elementals and others. Nature covers plants, all beasts and monstrosities, I believe. With old Ranger, you could only pick only one of those at level 1. They're much more defined.
Favored Terrain was a crapshoot - published campaigns often traversed between forests, swamps plains and mountains at low (pre-level 6) levels.
Really? Because honestly my assumption was that the reason you are so dead set on saying I'm wrong is because I embarrassed you when you said that Cure Wounds is a Necromancy spell and I pointed out it hasn't been Necromancy since AD&D 2e.
At any rate, I have no interest in engaging on this topic with you, specifically.
Speaking of Healing spells....
I've been thinking that they were changing it to Abjur. because of the whole spell school thing. On the other hand....
They have been pushing that HP isn't meat narrative lately, and having healing spells that deal strictly with meat.... Kinda strange, no?
Well, there are healing spells that don't deal with the meat as such. Lesser and Greater Restoration are healing spells (in the sense that they have the 'Healing' tag), for instance, and they heal more esoteric aspects than pure meat.
They don't restore hitpoints though.
I think that the whole 'not just meat' narrative has more to do with that Hitpoints don't just represent one's physical intactness, but also more broad concepts like tiring (not Exhaustion, the game concept that tracks long term lack of rest, but the more getting tired in the short term), pain, blood loss and general fitness to fight, both physical and mental. That's probably why the Fighter's self-healing ability is called Second Wind and why Bards can enhance healing on a Short Rest by playing an uplifting tune.
It's not a perfect representation, of course, no 'health tracking' system for any Tabletop RPG is. And that's not really a bad thing, since any system that was a perfect representation would also likely be incredibly cumbersome and probably not very fun.
I am Skipping the ranger specific stuff because I find more than a few replies on it belongs in its own place. I only brought it up to help establish gamplay principles and make a connection to "appeal" is not universal and how apparent clean up and categorization can sometimes give unexpected results.
By defining skills by monster types it actually removed flexibility in the system. Often there were two or more approaches to skill gated information each with unique flavor. this new approach really guides it Into one skill which may create new incongruity. Such as making it more unlikely for a ranger to invest in specific types. I think this is a mistake but may be wrong.
Similarly new clarification of specific actions also may make things less functional( example hiding being a condition appears to make it a universal toggle rather than a relative one. Meaning one creatures LOS ruins it for all enemies) meanwhile other actions may be an improvement.
Now the question is does class classification help or hinder the flexibility or fun of the game. I have yet to see something definitively bad results from class groups and any proposed problems so far seem unlikely. However it is a possibility that wotc could misuse the groups but they seem to be firm on keeping them but not overly restricted as of function so far.
I'm not sure I really agree with that principle. You say more than one approach and lots of flexibility, I say unclear as hell and the DMs had to make things up on the fly and have lots of guess work. I mean, I guess there's lots of flexibility if everyone has to make up their own stuff, but that's not really what I consider flexibility. Flexibility means (to me at least) that we have a structure in place, not a gaping hole.
I also think that "hate" mechanics that encourage you to focus on specific types is a bad mechanic to have. Not just rangers, but paladins, clerics as well. Example - clerics used to just have the Turn Undead feature for channel divinity. If you never fought undead... then it was useless. It was a dead skill, taking up part of the clerics "power budget." If you did fight undead? The encouters were trivialized compared to everyone else. This creates a situation where the DM had to choose between leaving a character feature unused... or throwing fights that had to be strong enough to not be ignored, or... throwing some in a larger fight as throw aways while the real fights happen with everything not. Or more.
Being a specialist in this way puts an unnecessary burden on the DM (or the DM ignores it and the player potentially feels like it was a waste). Being a hyper specialist is... not a good thing, in my experience in the game.
The hiding thing is admittedly funky, but hiding-as-positive-status-condition isn't a terrible idea. Plenty of games do it. We've got a year to get it right, after all.
"Now the question is does class classification help or hinder the flexibility or fun of the game." - - Well, in a way it hinders the flexibility of the game, in that any future classes will have to fit into one of these categories. Expert classes will need Expertise at levels 1 or 2. I presume that Priests will need a Channel Divinity or Wild Shape adjacent ability. Mages and Warriors unknown. That said... Those same future classes will have spell, feat and backwards magic item compatibility / support, which I will argue increases the fun of the game.
So, we kind of have a trade of here. Flexibility and Fun are a bit of opposite sides here. The structure is reducing flexibility but increasing fun.
Nope honestly paid that no attention because I had no clue what you meant. I was giving a generic example and I assumed you were randomly talking about something really specific and out of context and now I know my assumption was correct. Lol
While I still feel that a swordmage or Spellsword is a class missing from 5e I doubt they will appear in 1dnd. I don’t expect there to be any new classes. Just new subclasses and reworks of 5e subclasses for at least 5 years after the transition to 1dnd. Any new classes will be 3rd party, but it’s easy to classify anything within the four groups. The only thing that wouldn’t fit into one of the four groups is a full caster with divine or primal Spellcasting but restricted from healing spells. That’s definitely not a class I see WotC making, but if someone third party makes something they can throw it into a group anyway, create a new group, or give it features that allow it be in that group under certain circumstances.
This just keeps frustrating me. There's primial and divine gish classes in the game, but for an actual gish, arcane gish... Eldritch knight, bladesinger, hexblade, battle smith, no subclass was quite there, they're all awkward in some ways. Eldritch knight has crappy progression and his spells lose to melee attacks. Bladesinger is powerful, yet only activates being himself a limited amount of times per day (not usually an issue though). Hexblade was meant to exist from the beginning as Pact of the Blade, but Pact of the Blade lacked survivability and was MAD, so hexblade subclass is one big crutch upon that half-baked mechanic, riddled with limitations in the best traditions of warlock class (a subclass based around a connection with a sentient artifact weapon is specifically prohibited from using sentient artifact weapons). And then there's battle smith, which is ased around a construct pet and has a strange selection of spells available. This is madness. I mean, a spellblade class is just begging to be made.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
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)
Spellswords, psions, warlords, summoners (there's your primal full caster w/o healing)... All of which a fair amount of people say are missing from 5e, but technically do exist as concepts. Just not concepts people like the mechanics for.
So, at this point? I'm honestly going to say that any non-core class is repeating themes already covered by the core 12. Yes, even Artificer. New classes are going to repeat concepts but in new ways that will give a different play exprience. Which will be their value.
Ultimately, non-core classes won't get the subclass love core classes do, even if they will get access to spells, feats and magic items. But I'm willing to bet that even the 5e writers want to put some new classes out there.
That's the fun part. You don't.
I've seen several attempts at making spell blade classes. Invariably they end up feeling like paladins with no auras and healing, but more teleports and self-defensive spells.
The fear of overlap is ultimately the biggest roadblock, so just... Give up on making it unique and make something people enjoy playing.
I mean... Look at blood hunter. It's an alchemy based Ranger. Yet people like playing it.
Does it has to have a different source of power? Druids and rangers use the same magic in the same way. Clerics and Paladins, too, because paladins serve deities or religious orders in the end. It makes perfect sense for a group of warriors to specialize in bringing arcane magic to the frontlines and breach the enemy lines with destructive and controlling magic or fight spellcasters with their own methods. Eldritch Knight was always half-assed. Very poor 1/3 progression with most of the tiny selection of spells being extremely weak, and features that provided only the raw basics of spell-melee synergy that werepointless anyway because hitting stuff with sword three times was better in 99% cases. Some abjuration made sense, but that was nothing compared to paladin's sheer incredible might.
The point of classification into groups is at least partially to allow the possibility of such new classes while having a framework to build off of.
Different people will create different ideas of "fun", "appeal" or "gameplay voids"
Whether or not we need a spell blade is a different topic than the general ability to integrate new classes. That part of the new organization and groupings seems good.
However there may be too strict groups that squeeze out unique options, flavor or playstyles. That seems bad. As of yet there are a small number of places that seem negatively affected and I hope they will be resolved in a way for a lot of cool stories and play experiences. There's still time to fix some of the problems we will see if they do.
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
Point blank casting- ranged spells cast in melee range don’t suffer from disadvantage and add your Spellcasting mod to damage roll.
Improved Concentration- add Int to concentration checks.
subclasses could be things like:
Swordmage which pays tribute with the aegis abilities from 4e. Making this subclass tanky.
Duskblade which pays tribute to 3.5 class is more melee focused and could let you channel certain types of your spells as part of your attack action freeing your bonus action. But not for a channel spell.
Crusader/Templar could add some divine magic leaning you toward a Paladin feel.
Warden could lean you toward a Ranger feel by giving you some primal magic.
I believe it’s unique enough feel to merit it’s own class, but I’m also sure it will never be. Unless I homebrew it and let my players play one. I still wouldn’t get that opportunity since I’ll never ask someone else to let me play my own homebrew at their table. I hope no one does that.