The first of four class design UAs for One D&D introduced the idea of class groups, sorting the original 12 classes from the 2014 Player's Handbook into four categories - categories that will presumably also cover any other classes they add to the game moving forward (the Artificer, for example, is an Expert). The idea was to group thematically similar classes and then allow for some features such as feats or possibly magic items to be categorized by class group. The groups are Warrior (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk,) Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin,) Expert (Bard, Ranger, Rogue,) and Mage (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard).
It appears that the groups will share some mechanic that ties them together. Bards and Rogues have always had the Expertise feature, and Rangers in the new design also get Expertise (expanding upon the Tasha's revised Ranger's version of it to simply bring it in line with the other classes).
Conceptually, the groups could potentially help players build a balanced party, making sure they have one of each group. In theory.
I wanted to start with Priests because I think this is going to be a category where the included classes are a bit odd.
Though it was never a term in the official rules, players have often referred to "martial" classes, sometimes contrasting them with "casters." These weren't perfect categories - it wasn't clear if the Rogue, being a class that used weapons to fight, was one, or if, because it lacked the Extra Attack feature, it was not.
Still, I think that the new design for Rangers makes its role and strengths similar enough to the Rogue and Bard that I can understand why it is grouped with them. The Ranger bleeds a little into the Warrior category, reflected in getting access to Fighting Style feats.
But I wonder if Paladins will fit in as well with Priests.
The shared mechanic for the classes in the Priest category I think could easily be some variation on Channel Divinity. Already both Paladins and Clerics have this feature. Druids don't, but recent subclasses have started treating their Wild Shape feature as an ersatz resource - the three subclasses for Druids in Tasha's all have alternate uses for Wild Shape "charges," and so it might make more sense moving forward to have Druids use a "Channel Nature" feature that works like Channel Divinity (coming back on a short rest, just like Wild Shape does) and make Wild Shape one of the options to use with Channel Nature.
So, that's easily solved, with all three Priests "channeling" as their group mechanic.
However, I'm less convinced about the ability for all three Priests to fill the expected role in a group.
Clerics are D&D's standard healers. Druids, though, are also quite capable healers, even if they might lag a little behind with fewer healing spells than Clerics (though some that Clerics don't get.)
But the group role that a Paladin plays is much more similar to a Barbarian or melee Fighter. They are arguably the best front-line tank (thanks to the boosted saving throws on top of heavy armor). Paladins do have some built-in healing with Lay on Hands, but as a half-caster, they don't get any resurrection magic until level 9, and they'll never be able to pump out the massive healing that a Cleric or Druid can at higher levels.
So, are we then going to see the Paladin redesigned to function more as a healer?
I don't know for certain. The three Experts make a lot of sense sitting in that category, but they do go about their roles in very different ways - especially the Bard, who is not designed to put out damage like the Rogue or Ranger (in fact, I think the Bard is likely a more powerful healer with this new design than it was previously). Still, it makes sense.
Healers in D&D don't work like they do in something like World of Warcraft. A WoW healer is basically spending every fight doing little other than casting heals (unless the fight is going particularly well). And ultimately, mitigating damage is just as powerful as healing - damage reduced is as good as HP regained.
So, I wonder they are going to emphasize a Paladin's ability to reduce a party's incoming damage. Could that be enough to make a group that is, say, a Paladin, Monk, Warlock, and Rogue, not lament the lack of a dedicated healer healer?
The thing is, I personally love the Paladin as its is currently designed. It's one of the most satisfying classes I've played in D&D. So, I'm hesitant for it to undergo any huge changes. Getting their subclass capstones at level 14 will be a rather dramatic change - but at least more players are likely to actually use their "Ult." (I'm also hoping that they can be activated with a bonus action and repeated using a spell slot).
Currently, in my Wildemount campaign (the only game I'm regularly getting to play as a player) our group is two paladins, a fighter, and two wizards. While we thus have, as you can see, quite limited healing capabilities, both paladins have the interception fighting style, which honestly is probably saving us more HP than we would be getting from a Cleric who could heal us (we only just hit level 5). This, of course, is something that Fighters could use as well.
And, to be fair, Paladins are the only class (as opposed to subclass) that automatically have a built-in healing mechanism (other than the new version of Bards). You could build a Cleric with no healing whatsoever, but any Paladin is going to have it as a baseline option. Maybe that's enough to make a Paladin "priest-like."
What I think might be interesting to see is what Epic Boons are shared between Warriors and Priests. Right now, Experts share a fair number of them (and we've only seen the Epic Boons that Experts can pick up.)
Regarding Druids, I do hope that we're going to see Druids taken more seriously as fully-capable healers. They're already close to that point, but Clerics are built just a little better for it, especially regarding high-level spells like Power Word Heal or Mass Heal.
Lore-wise, I think it'll be kind of an interesting challenge to square Druids being priests, and delving into what it means, precisely, to be a priest. Clerics and Paladins channel Divine magic (now a rules-meaningful term,) which means the magic of the gods and the outer planes, which embody abstract principles and philosophies (a philosophy cleric or paladin can still channel divine magic because their commitment to, for example, a certain conception of duty and selfless valor to further perfect their souls embodies the ethos of Mount Celestia, even if they have no personal connection to a deity that inhabits that plane.) But Druids are tied instead to the Inner Planes, the raw material and "stuff" of existence. Is that spiritually fulfilling in the same way?
Also, if magic items are going to be tied to class groups, will paladins be able to use a lot of spellcasting items like staves?
There are a lot of pieces that we have yet to get a good look at, so this is all deeply speculative.
No comments:
Post a Comment