D&D Next (5E) Given the choice...




+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Steeliest of the dragons SILVER SUBSCRIBER
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)

    steeldragons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Andorra
    Posts
    3,443
    Blog Entries
    29
    OSR Goodman Games OSRIC EN Publishing Gygax Memorial Fund

    Ignore steeldragons

    Given the choice...

    Let's assume that allll of the classes form the PHBs are all in their...exactly the way you want them.

    There is space left for onnnnnne/1/uno/un/eins/ONE more class.

    Do you use the space for:
    A) A Psychic/Psionic/guy with mental powers class

    or

    B) A spellsword/swordmage/"gish"/guy with a sword who casts spells class?

    Go.
    --SD
    Steel Dragons' "All Things Orea" Blog right here on EN world!
    http://www.enworld.org/forum/blog.ph...1-steeldragons
    Steel Dragons' "All Things Orea" Blog right here on EN world!

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    DEFCON 1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Burlington, MA
    Posts
    5,328

    Ignore DEFCON 1
    I'd rather all the psychic abilities just be listed as "spells" in the spell list (like in the days of old with clairvoyance, ESP, telekinesis, telepathy etc. etc.), and then have two Sorcerer Origins that give us the gish and psion. As I would prefer each Origin to have its own spell list just like each Cleric Domain is supposed to have its own spell list... you can separate out the psychic abilities into the Psion Sorcerer's list, and the swordmagic abilities into the Gish list.

    No need for new classes at all.

    *EDIT*

    Truth be told... if we were to have space for one new class beyond the PHB ones... I'd prefer the Shaman. I think we need another spellcasting class that is more nature/spirit/animist in form. We've got the two "arcanist" spellcasters in the Wizard and Sorcerer, the two "make deals with higher powers" spellcasters in the Cleric and Warlock... having a Druid and Shaman (especially for our more monstrous races like orcs, gnolls, minotaurs etc.) makes more sense.
    Last edited by DEFCON 1; Sunday, 7th October, 2012 at 06:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Mattachine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    793

    Ignore Mattachine
    Given a choice between psionics and gish, I would choose psionics. The game is going to have some sort of multiclass rules, so maybe they'll get it right for fighter/magic-users.
    Glamour is a rocky road!

  4. #4
    Since psionics were in the 1e PHB, I feel the psion should be a core class in Next--and not as an appendix.

    If psionics are going to be part of D&D (as they have been for 30 years) let's stop treating them like the red-headed step-child. They are firmly established in genre literature as phenomena different from magic in both character and flavor. I believe that, from the beginning, Next should give DMs who want to model that type of story element clear and balanced tools for doing do.

  5. #5
    Member
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    gideonpepys's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Posts
    781
    Blog Entries
    1
    D&D ZEITGEIST I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore gideonpepys
    The gish is such a popular archetype that it really should be included in the 5E PHB. Wizard/fighter multiclass doesn't really cut it.

    Psionics should be a module. IMHO they are totally superfluous to the core setting of a fantasy game, but because of their historical associations, should be available for specific campaigns.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)

    the Jester's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Shingletown, CA 96088
    Posts
    20,664

    Ignore the Jester
    First of all, "Gish" is a term specifically for a githyanki fighter/mage, so I see no need to have it in the PH at all.

    I also see no need for a core psion, personally; I like psionics, but think they go better in a supplement so that psionics-haters can ignore them.

    So I'd use the space for something other than a class.
    the Jester

    The Monster Project

    Buy my first self-published weird sci-fi novel from Amazon here!

  7. #7
    The Psion (preferably Psionicist). Psionics has a very long history in D&D (going back to an OD&D supplement). It does have a sci-fi flavor, but I don't mind that. I actually think D&D makes as much if not more sense as a sci-fantasy game than a pure fantasy game. (Who built the dungeons? An ancient, technologically advanced race? Aliens? The game goes in this direction easily.)
    Quote Originally Posted by the Jester View Post
    I also see no need for a core psion, personally; I like psionics, but think they go better in a supplement so that psionics-haters can ignore them.
    What about Dragonborn or Warlord haters? D&D Next is the "haters gonna hate" edition, yes?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    No. Not only is the psion class not presented in any PH1, but psionics aren't exactly a strong fantasy trope (they /are/ a classic sci-fi bit). Definitely belong in a supplement or setting product (like Athas).
    This is pedantic. Psionics is in the AD&D PHB. No, not as a class technically, but it's in there (any character has a chance of acquiring psionic powers).

    As for psionics not being a strong enough fantasy trope, are you applying the same test to say, Monks? Or Beholders?

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Defender (Lvl 8)

    Raith5's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    685

    Ignore Raith5
    I would vote for the swordmage but I did not like the 4th ed take on this archetype.

    I really dont care about psionics either way. Maybe they could have a specialization with some psionic options given that psionics has not been a clear class in original PHB?

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,008

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    Quote Originally Posted by Libramarian View Post
    I actually think D&D makes as much if not more sense as a sci-fantasy game than a pure fantasy game. (Who built the dungeons? An ancient, technologically advanced race? Aliens? The game goes in this direction easily.)
    I suppose that could be taken as evidence that D&D is a miserable failure at modeling the fantasy genre...

    I mean, it cribbed it's magic system from The Dying Earth, which is a science-fiction series by Jack Vance (thus 'Vancian'), set on a distant-future Earth.

    This is pedantic. Psionics is in the AD&D PHB. No, not as a class technically, but it's in there (any character has a chance of acquiring psionic powers).
    No more so than the "every class in a PH1" rubric is in the first place. Only 3e and 4e have PH2's.

    But, yes, psionics have long been a feature of D&D - in a supplement or appendix. But the Psionisist didn't appear until 2e, in a supplement, and none of the later psionic classes make the "in a PH1" cut, either.

    I think you could make a strongish case for a 'Wild Talent' option of some sort, though. It doesn't sound like the Specialty successor to Themes is quite appropriate for that, and Background would also be pushing it, but there might be some way of pulling it off...

    As for psionics not being a strong enough fantasy trope, are you applying the same test to say, Monks? Or Beholders?
    Yes. Monks, while not as off-base as psionics, are too loaded with pseudo-cultural baggage, and belong in some sub-genre or setting supplement, not in the PH1 (but, they /were/ PH1, so they're in, nothing much to be done about that). Monsters I'm not too concerned about. It's much less controversial to just not use a monster (few campaigns are going to use /every/ published monster!) than to ban a class (which can leave a player bent out of shape).

  10. #10
    Psion. It has a long history and identity in D&D.

    Which isn't to say I don't want a swordmage or the like. D&D has done this many times, but I feel like it never settled on one. There's a similar non-commitment to the psion/fighter type character, with the psychic warrior being a strong presence in Third Edition, but absent from Fourth.

    Additionally, part of me thinks that the swordmage and the psychic warrior should be options for the fighter in high level play.
    ApathyGames.com

+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Choice
    By BrooklynKnight in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Monday, 20th January, 2003, 10:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •