D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Remathilis]

The psion/wizard split doesn't bother me that badly. While "psionics isn't magic", the classes were very similar in build in 3e. Enough so that most psionic classes had caster equivalents (in terms of role in the group, not 1:1 conversions). Psion/Wiz, Wilder/Sorc, Psy Warrior/Duskblade, Ardent/Cleric, Divine Mind/Paladin, etc. What I like about this is that one could theoretically get rid of ALL caster classes and replace them with psionic equivalents/subclasses and keep most, if not all, of the ten core classes viable. Still, I think psionics is going to be its own supplement down the road so that all the classes can use it (wild talents and all) but when it comes, I do expect the psionic power source to co-op the mage for one of its classes.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Psionics is very much magic, I've had that view of seeing things that way since Mage: the Ascension, where almost anything can be magic. While that game hardly ever touched on psychic powers, it certainly used such things as an example of what could be someones magical style. Mostly it represented advanced technology and pseudo-science as magic, where psionics would fit in. It also represented some martial arts as another style of magic. And if someone's raygun was just as much of a magic focus as a wand in a game where magic is described as the ability to bend reality to one's will, it doesn't take much of a stretch to apply that other games.

In fact 3e basically started to use some of the same concept by the time the Psionic Handbook came around, and 3.5e basically cemented the concept that psionics are magic. The whole idea that Psionics was different and not magic was back in the unwieldy 2e Psionics guide. There's a whole bunch of issues I had with that book, in retrospect it added even worse mechanics in the edition that already pretty bad rules mechanics in the form of THAC0.

I know it'll piss off a bunch about Psions using Magic Missile, Telekinesis, Shield, Confusion, Wall of Force, Charm Person, Dominate Person, Thunderwave, Mage Hand, and so on, but that's how it's going to be going forward in 5e.

 

[Dausuul]

2) Because they have always had their own class...

No, they haven't. 2E implemented the barbarian as a fighter kit. BD&D implemented paladin as a class option for high-level fighters, druid as an option for high-level clerics, and didn't have ranger or barbarian at all. On the other hand, the psion has never been implemented as a subclass of anything.

 

[Mistwell]

That was a quirk of 3E. In every other edition, psionics and arcane magic have been quite distinct.

You're conflating psionics in general with the Psion class. The two are not the same. While Psions use psionics, their creation in 3e (which is where the Psion class comes from) is rather similar to the wizard.

The Psionists came about in 3e - where they Furthermore, the lore of D&D is extremely firm that magic and psionics are Not The Same.

This is Not The Case. Every iteration of Psionics I read always had an alternative method for adapting the psionics system to simply be magic. Much of the early development in Dragon and Dungeon magazine were analogizing them to the Deryni of Katherine Kurtz's novels, and there Psionics WAS magic. There was always an ongoing discussion, even in the early days, as to whether Psionics had to be distinct from magic, or simply a different flavor of essentially the same thing.

 

[KidSnide]

You're conflating psionics in general with the Psion class. The two are not the same. While Psions use psionics, their creation in 3e (which is where the Psion class comes from) is rather similar to the wizard.

This is Not The Case. Every iteration of Psionics I read always had an alternative method for adapting the psionics system to simply be magic. Much of the early development in Dragon and Dungeon magazine were analogizing them to the Deryni of Katherine Kurtz's novels, and there Psionics WAS magic. There was always an ongoing discussion, even in the early days, as to whether Psionics had to be distinct from magic, or simply a different flavor of essentially the same thing.

The Psion class comes from 2nd edition where (under the name "Psionicist") it was essentially completely different from magic. In fact, it was so different from the regular magic rules, it slowed the game down quite a bit. Also, "psionics is different" was the rule. A psionicist could operate in an anti-magic shell and wasn't affected by Dispel Magic.

In 3.0, psionics was still pretty wacky, but WoTC switched the default setting from "psionics is different" to "psionics is magic". In both 3.5 and 4e, psionics lost more and more of its distinctiveness, albeit with the benefit of not having to learn an entirely different subsystem. Rob Heiret summarized the history of psionics in a D&D Alumni article back in 2010.

Speaking just for myself, the gameworld where my games take place was written in the 90s, so psionics have always been different to me. I don't mind losing a bunch of semi-functional unique-and-wacky subsystems, so long as psionics have a distinct and different feel. If Psions just feel like a cross between an Enchanter and a Telekinetic-themed Evoker, then I don't think they serve a useful function. I'm willing to wait and see how things come out, but I don't think a Psion is any more like a Wizard than a Druid is like a Wizard.

-KS

 

[Mistwell]

The Psion class comes from 2nd edition where (under the name "Psionicist")

You know how we can tell it didn't come from 2nd edition? Because IT WAS A DIFFERENT NAME, AND FUNCTIONED DIFFERENTLY.

The Psion comes from 3e. The Psion is not the Psionicist. The two are different classes.

it was essentially completely different from magic. In fact, it was so different from the regular magic rules, it slowed the game down quite a bit. Also, "psionics is different" was the rule. A psionicist could operate in an anti-magic shell and wasn't affected by Dispel Magic.

In 3.0, psionics was still pretty wacky, but WoTC switched the default setting from "psionics is different" to "psionics is magic". In both 3.5 and 4e, psionics lost more and more of its distinctiveness, albeit with the benefit of not having to learn an entirely different subsystem. Rob Heiret summarized the history of psionics in a D&D Alumni article back in 2010.

Speaking just for myself, the gameworld where my games take place was written in the 90s, so psionics have always been different to me. I don't mind losing a bunch of semi-functional unique-and-wacky subsystems, so long as psionics have a distinct and different feel. If Psions just feel like a cross between an Enchanter and a Telekinetic-themed Evoker, then I don't think they serve a useful function. I'm willing to wait and see how things come out, but I don't think a Psion is any more like a Wizard than a Druid is like a Wizard.

-KS

I'm all for a different feel to them, but I again reiterate that there was an ongoing debate back to AD&D as to whether it was magic in a different flavor, or something different. The ties to Deryni magic were real, and repeated by TSR several times in Dragon magazine. Third party publishers at the time also picked that tie-in up, like Mayfair Games' Role Aids: Witches contained material on using the Deryni in D&D / AD&D. And of course many psionic "powers" overlapped with wizard spells, even in 1e.

So yes to different feel, but I think they can safely use the umbrella of the mage without tramping on the history of D&D, given some prior ties to it being a different flavor of magic were already there all the way back to 1e, and were certainly there when the Psion class began with 3e.

 

[KidSnide]

You know how we can tell it didn't come from 2nd edition? Because IT WAS A DIFFERENT NAME, AND FUNCTIONED DIFFERENTLY.

The Psion comes from 3e. The Psion is not the Psionicist. The two are different classes.

Yeah, sure. Just like the magic-user is a totally different class than the 4e wizard.

-KS

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, sure. Just like the magic-user is a totally different class than the 4e wizard.

-KS

A Basic/Expert edition magic-user is a different class than a 4e wizard.

 

[pemerton]

Psion has only been in 2nd and 3rd Ed

4e has psions.

A Basic/Expert edition magic-user is a different class than a 4e wizard.

But it's not really a different class from the 3E wizard.

And even moreso, a 2nd ed AD&D generalist wizard is not really a different class from the 1st ed AD&D magic-user, despite the name change; whereas a 2nd ed AD&d illusionist is in many ways quite different from the 1st ed AD&D Illusionist, despite the continuity in the name.

 

[gyor]

The psion/wizard split doesn't bother me that badly. While "psionics isn't magic", the classes were very similar in build in 3e. Enough so that most psionic classes had caster equivalents (in terms of role in the group, not 1:1 conversions). Psion/Wiz, Wilder/Sorc, Psy Warrior/Duskblade, Ardent/Cleric, Divine Mind/Paladin, etc. What I like about this is that one could theoretically get rid of ALL caster classes and replace them with psionic equivalents/subclasses and keep most, if not all, of the ten core classes viable. Still, I think psionics is going to be its own supplement down the road so that all the classes can use it (wild talents and all) but when it comes, I do expect the psionic power source to co-op the mage for one of its classes.

You forgot Soulknife/Rogue and Lurker/Beguiler