D&D 5E Given the choice...

ZombieRoboNinja · Oct 7, 2012

The draconic sorcerer is already pretty gishy, and I expect there will be other builds for wizards and maybe warlocks that will work too.

Isn't the psion technically in one of the 1e or 2e phbs?

Jester David · Oct 7, 2012

I'm assuming that by "all the PHB classes" you mean "all classes that were in previous PHBs" and not "all the classes that were in the 3e/4e PHB".
Because I want my bard. And know that there are some pretty ardent warlord/warlock supporters.

Hrm... a new class.

While psionics are popular and have a strong legacy, those really do work best as a module. And all-in-one expansion book like in 3e.

So I'll agree with a lot of the other posters and say a gish class. The swordmage/ magus/ spellsword/ bladesinger/ duskblade. It's hard to do well with multiclassing rules, and it's something you should be able to do from first level.

Neonchameleon · Oct 7, 2012

Some sort of swordmage/magus/spellsword/bladesinger. In 3.5 I had to fake one using the Bard. (4e has a few). And no, it isn't the same thing as a multiclass - at least it shouldn't be.

CasvalRemDeikun · Oct 8, 2012

Provided the game doesn't royally screw up multiclassing, there should be no need for a Gish class. You should be able to make a fully functioning and not gimped version without a separate class. Perhaps a PrC could be used to meld the fighter and wizard abilities together, but there really isn't much need for a class.

So I guess that leaves the psionics guy. I guess I am okay with a psion class, but not a psychic warrior. Again, for the same reason we don't really need a gish, just MC Fighter and Psion and add in a PrC that melds the abilities more.

tuxgeo · Oct 8, 2012

steeldragons said:
Let's assume . . . < snip>

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

I'll go with what Tovec said in leaving an XP comment for you:
(C) There are lots of other good choices.
As DEFCON1 said, the Shaman would be a good choice; and I have personally become partial to the Invoker because of its superb flavor.

To me, Psionics is a separate system and needs its own supplement; and anyone should be able to make a worthy fighter/mage using the robust multi-classing rules that WotC is surely going to give us any old time now.

I'm kind of afraid that, for a person who wants to play a caster who has at-will area-of-effect spells, the new inclusiveness is going to require that person to play 4th edition instead of 5E Next.

(Yes, I know it's still "early days" in the playtest. Maybe that'll be a module. I can hope, right?)

Libramarian · Oct 8, 2012

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.)

the Jester said:
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?

Tony Vargas said:
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?

Raith5 · Oct 8, 2012

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?

Tony Vargas · Oct 8, 2012

Libramarian said:
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).

Neonchameleon · Oct 8, 2012

CasvalRemDeikun said:
Provided the game doesn't royally screw up multiclassing, there should be no need for a Gish class. You should be able to make a fully functioning and not gimped version without a separate class. Perhaps a PrC could be used to meld the fighter and wizard abilities together, but there really isn't much need for a class.

I couldn't disagree more! A multiclass fighter/wizard is a poor excuse for someone wielding sword magic and really messes up the archetype. If you are an actual gish you shouldn't be either casting spells or hitting people with your sword and one stops while you do the other, which is what the multiclass would indicate. You should be melding the two abilities into one near-seamless whole.

The Pathfinder Magus provides a good illustration of this - the magus first gets magic to enhance his sword, second practices casting with one hand while wielding his sword with the other at the same time, and third delivers touch attacks through his sword. He melds swordplay and melee using abilities that work on the synergy of the two. A multiclass is a half-assed attempt to get someone with abilities of both, but it doesn't actually help you meld the two disciplines.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 8, 2012

The other thing to remember here, when it comes to the psion or gish... is that thus far they have been pretty strong in telling us that only the Fighter / Rogue / Cleric / Wizard are going to be built more "generically" in terms of Story (and thus allow them to go further afield with what the class represents). All the other classes, however, are being built with a much more focused and narrow Story. Warlocks have Patrons and borrow/steal their power. Rangers (apparently) have a Code of Conduct and belong to a ranger organization). And I'm fairly confident the other classes will also have those kind of narrow focuses.

Which means that *if* the psion or gish gets added as a class... they'll both have their own focused Story as well. Those people who would want generic psionics in the first PH represented by the Psion class... don't get your hopes up. If the Psion was in that first PH... I'd be fairly certain that they'd probably have something along the lines of Far Realms incursion Story from 4E. If you don't want that singular Story as to why the Psion exists... you don't want the Psion in the PHB. You want it in a second book where more generic psionic rules are presented so you can create your own Story for your various psionic characters.

And as far as the Gish is concerned... again, it'd only appear in the first PH with a very specific Story... one that was markedly different than the Stories of the Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Cleric. So we wouldn't see Bladesingers, Hexblades, Swordmages and Spellswords, because their Stories are all over the place (and even intrude on some of the Stories that already exist.) You'd need to see ONE Story that explains how the swordfighter acquires and channels magical power that ISN'T the sciency aspect of Wizard, nor the innate reservoir of the Sorcerer, nor the granted power of the Cleric or Warlock. Without that Story... then a new class probably won't get created.