D&D 5E Classes, Subclasses, and Object Oriented Programming

[1of3]

Eh, no. That's not what framing means. Framing is the way you talk about things, the terms, metaphors and relationships you use. When you say something, you activate a whole lot of related concepts at the same time: The frame. Choosing a fitting frame, is a very clever way to manipulate others (and yourself), as replies will usually stay within the same frame.

 

[Mistwell]

Eh, no. That's not what framing means. Framing is the way you talk about things, the terms, metaphors and relationships you use. When you say something, you activate a whole lot of related concepts at the same time: The frame. Choosing a fitting frame, is a very clever way to manipulate others (and yourself), as replies will usually stay within the same frame.

I know full well what framing means, and I am saying that because all things have both a way of doing things and a power source behind that way of doing things, re-framing for one or the other doesn't change things because you will always get both discussed anyway.

For example, when you frame the issue of divine magic sourced from a deity, you still get people talking about laying on hands and touching holy symbols. It doesn't matter how you frame the issue - the concepts of actions and source of power for those actions are so intertwines that both will be discussed anyway, and people do not stay within that frame.

If you don't believe me, go ahead and try to start a topic that frames magic in terms of how things are done. See how quickly the source of power gets raised. I bet it's in the first five replies. Because the two issues are so linked that you cannot "manipulate" the discussion by directing it towards one or the other frame.

 

[GSHamster]

Why do you all frame magic in terms of "sources"? That notion presupposes that magic is an "energy" or "substance". On the other hand we can frame magic as a method, a certain way of doing things.

Because the existing class split is based on source. Arcane vs Divine. So that's the first thing we go to.

 

[Tovec]

Of course I understand others have a problem with it, and said as much. I am asking WHY they have the problem - not "because", and not "tradition:, but specifically why it's best if they are distinct sources of spell-like abilities, with some detail as to why it's so important to differentiate between psionic power and sorcerer power, for example.

Because:

Because all ways of doing things have sources of power. My source of power to type this message right now is the burning of caloric energy, fueled through my consumption of food and beverages. The source of power to heal someone by touch is divine in nature, according to all D&D lore (and the method of doing it is touching someone, calling on your deity, and perhaps touching your holy symbol). So, there is always a way of doing things, AND a source of power, simultaneously.

and:

Because the existing class split is based on source. Arcane vs Divine. So that's the first thing we go to.

You, and GSHamster, have answered it yourself... yourselves?

Beyond that, if you still need more I say (to the best of my knowledge); EVERY EDITION OF THE GAME has also had a magic/psionic split in source. All of them. Different degrees of parallel or transparency but they have all had psionics as their own thing.

The point is, if they're going to have a difference between TWO sources (arcane, divine) then they should have THREE in total (psionics) instead. If not, if all magic is just magic then fine, but I don't think WotC thinks that so why start now.

Short answer:
Why aren't psions really just wizards?
The same reason that clerics aren't.

Explain the second and I'll explain the first.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Short answer:
Why aren't psions really just wizards?
The same reason that clerics aren't.

Explain the second and I'll explain the first.

I don't know, guys - this seems like a strong argument to me. Maybe, if you can fit Psion under Wizard, you haven't built Psion correctly.

 

[bogmad]

Sorcerers (as you said) can be psionic in nature now. Joining psionic classes as their power in inborn/innate.


Also agreed.
But if there is going to be a difference between arcane and divine then there should also be one for psionic. If not, then I don't care either way.

I really don't get saying sorcerers and psions are essentially doing the same thing.
I mean, sure it's all fluff [when powers/spells work the same way], but still pretty different fluff.

Arcane power, whether from an internal source (sorcerer) or external (wizard), is a matter of manipulating some sort of arcane power or "weave" or underlying force. Sorcerers just happen to create that power from within. Psions [when done the way I prefer with them being separate from "magic" in the arcane sense] aren't necessarily creating or pulling at something new into being, but using force of mind to manipulate reality or that "supernatural essence". It's a fine distinction that gets mushy easily, I'll concede as psionics are clearly "supernatural" as well. The sorcerers power isn't mental, even if it's charisma as his base stat; he's just manipulating this extra power that is created or expelled by him.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Topologically speaking, a cop and a donut are the same shape.

Programmatically speaking, a wizard and a psion share the same base class. Same type of hit dice, same magic bonus progression, same armor proficiencies., same primary feature of being able to cause supernatural effects.

A cleric only shares the same values for one of these base properties: creating supernatural effects. Otherwise, the values are between those of the Mage and a fighter, making a cleric it's own thing.

At the most basic l can see why they're doing it this way. Really, swapping out Wizardry for Sorcery or Psionics pretty gives you a brand new class, especially when you couple it with the other features that will be "swapped out" with that arcane tradition. I really don't get what the fuss is all about.

 

[MoonSong]

At the most basic l can see why they're doing it this way. Really, swapping out Wizardry for Sorcery or Psionics pretty gives you a brand new class, especially when you couple it with the other features that will be "swapped out" with that arcane tradition. I really don't get what the fuss is all about.

The problem is, Mike Mearls have already said in Tweeter those features won't be swapped out, he has no problem with warlocks and sorcerers brewing potions, knowing lots of stuff and writing scrolls. Besides who said we want Warlock and sorcerer to be tied to the same progression as the wizard? they should be better at mundane stuff, not only because of their flavor -they didn't wasted their youths readying books, in fact they are still young-- but also for balance, warlock and sorcerer casting are far underpowered against the strategical-tactical power of wizards and we want that addressed.

Swapping cast mechanics may give you a new class, but that class won't really be a sorcerer warlock or psion.

 

[Mistwell]

Because:

and:

You, and GSHamster, have answered it yourself... yourselves?

Nope.

All things have sources of power. But that doesn't explain why it has to have the specific source of power you want. Which is what I was asking for. You've just made an argument - psionics need a source of power that is psionic in nature because all things need a source of power. That's not a response...it' skipped the "because", which is the only thing I was asking for.

Beyond that, if you still need more I say (to the best of my knowledge); EVERY EDITION OF THE GAME has also had a magic/psionic split in source.

From 3rd edition onward, it's been just another type of spell. Prior to that it had optional psionics as magic sections.

I'm asking for more than just "because" and "tradition". Give me the REASON it is important to you that it not be arcane. There must be something?

The point is, if they're going to have a difference between TWO sources (arcane, divine) then they should have THREE in total (psionics) instead.

WHY?

Stop just restating "It should". You've formulating three ways now of simply saying "it should be this way because it should be this way." WHY SHOULD IT BE THAT WAY?

If not, if all magic is just magic then fine, but I don't think WotC thinks that so why start now.

Some magic is sourced by deities or through an intermediary of a deity. Other magic is not. Why is psionics NOT arcane, given arcane just means "magic that isn't divine in nature"?

Short answer:
Why aren't psions really just wizards?
The same reason that clerics aren't.

Psions obtain their source of power from a deity?

Explain the second and I'll explain the first.

I just did.

 

[Mistwell]

I really don't get saying sorcerers and psions are essentially doing the same thing.
I mean, sure it's all fluff [when powers/spells work the same way], but still pretty different fluff.

Is it?

One has a genetic predisposition to spontaneously cast spells, while the other has the predisposition to spontaneously cast spell-like spells. How is that "pretty different" fluff. WHAT is the fluff about psionic magic that is genuinely different from the fluff about sorcerer magic?

Arcane power, whether from an internal source (sorcerer) or external (wizard), is a matter of manipulating some sort of arcane power or "weave" or underlying force.

It is? How is using your mind to manipulate your own internal power to telikentically move something different from using your mind to telikentically move something?

manipulate reality or that "supernatural essence". It's a fine distinction that gets mushy easily, I'll concede as psionics are clearly "supernatural" as well.

Why would we have a different category based on a mushy fine distinction?

The sorcerers power isn't mental, even if it's charisma as his base stat; he's just manipulating this extra power that is created or expelled by him.

How is it not mental? It's based on his genetics, it has a thought connected to it, his personal willpower is directly involved...that's not mental?