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

[I'm A Banana]

Psions obtain their source of power from a deity.

Parsing the wordplay flourishes here, I grok this to mean that:

Clerics aren't wizards because clerics obtain their source of power from a deity.
Psions aren't wizards because psions obtain their source of power from psychic energy.
Wizards are ARE wizards because wizards obtain their source of power from obscure lore and hidden knowledge.
Warlocks aren't wizards because warlocks obtain their source of power from extraplanar entities that are not exactly deities (perhaps they are clerics?)
Artificers aren't wizards because artificers obtain their source of power from tools and items.

So that a specific origin in the fiction dictates what is a Wizard and what is not.

So that, essentially, every Wizard in FR is actually a cleric because Mystara = The Weave? If I'm parsing this right?

 

[Morrus]

Is there much non-D&D literature where magic in a world comes from such a wide range of sources?

 

[gyor]

Think classes will be defined more by technique then power source.

So Mages will be defined as Casting technology Specialists, Fighters Martial.Specialists (I do not mean tjat in a powersource.way), Rogues Experise Specialists, Clerics Religous Specialists, Druids Ecological Mystic Specialization, Ranger Enviromental Adaptation Specialists, Monk Personal Perfection specialist, Barbarian inner potiential Specialists, Bard Artistic Specialist, and Paladin Values based Specialist.

 

[Mistwell]

Psions aren't wizards because psions obtain their source of power from psychic energy.

How is psychic energy different from whatever the sorcerer is using?

BTW, I said earlier I'd be cool with Warlocks being divine casters, and if a particular setting grants all wizards power from a deity, I'd make that power source divine in nature as well. Not sure why it wouldn't be.

 

[Tovec]

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

I'm not sure what is covered in the OGL/SRD and what isn't. So I think it is probably a very terrible idea for me just to quote whole sections of the psionics books to prove you wrong.

Let me just say that in those 3e books that there is a clear distinction that psionics is its own thing. There is an option rule that is proposed that allows what is called "magic-psionics transparency" which allows.. well things like detect magic to sense psionics. However, prior to this that was not even a thought let alone a proposed Optional rule.

In 4e books, which I'm sure isn't allowed in OGL/SRD, it specifies that psionics is its own power source. So is divine and arcane power sources. This actually bothered me as monks then became psionic but that is beside the point. Yes, in this way it is another kind of magic but in this way it is also an equal branch of magic, as arcane or divine are. I tend not to use 4e as it is a poor example, creating martial and primal power sources too. But it does follow the pattern of all editions having psionic as NOT arcane, so it isn't too poor of one.

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?

You say that "because" and "tradition" aren't allowed. Why not? Seems kind of arbitrary.

Further, what reasons have you to change it, outside of it being a change? You are (arbitrarily) not allowed to use class structure or subclasses as reasons.

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?

Here you were talking about why there should be three types, or why there should be two?
If you say "why there should be three," and assume there should be TWO, then I ask why not ONE.

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"?

A. That is not the definition of arcane.
B. Nor is that the definition of the split.
C. Because psionics is NOT arcane. Just as arcane is NOT divine. It is a property of being arcane/psionic in relation to divine/arcane(and divine).
D. You STILL exclude druids, fiend-worshipers, and pretty much all divine casters that are NOT a cleric with that definition. STILL.

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.

Um.. no they don't.

Explain the second and I'll explain the first.

I just did.

You really REALLY didn't.

Even assuming you meant that..
*Clerics* obtain their source of power from a deity.
That doesn't answer why they aren't arcane any more than saying
*Psions* obtain their source of power from their mind.

So, as you didn't answer that one, I'll propose another which is more in line with my reasoning:

Why aren't psions really just wizards?
The same reason wizards aren't clerics.

You answer why wizards aren't clerics WITHOUT saying arcane magic =/= divine.
And I'll do by best to answer why psions aren't wizards without saying psionics =/= arcane (or divine).

 

[bogmad]

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?

Look, I acknowledged it's mushy, ok? Psionics has more of a basis in sci fi, when you go back to the classic original sources; I think we can acknowledge that. At least I've seen it complained on by others who don't want sci fi psychics in their old school fantasy games. It's more of a pseudo-scientific pretending that something in his DNA effects whatever medium thought travels through or whatever. The point (and again, it's a fine point I'll concede) is that the classic idea of psionics is that it's affecting reality differently than the way magic affects reality.

And no, a sorcerer's power isn't based on his genetics. It's based on some extra thing he's infused with, be it magic from a "bloodline" or his pregnant mom being infused with some artifact or whatever. You can go all fantasy/sci fi and say that if delve far enough it shows up on a genetic level, but the classic fantasy all these archetypes are based on don't really worry about "genetics" too much. And many would say that it isn't some extra chromosome that lets him use magic, but some other fuel or power coursing through his blood other than DNA. Never said willpower wasn't what a sorcerer uses to control his power, but that's different than what his power is.

Hell, I'm not even saying that you can't call them the same thing if you want. But why the need to force me to say that they are as well? Yes, in 3rd edition the standard was that psionics was just another form of magic and detectable as such. I've already said more than once that I didn't like that approach and would rather go the other route. Am I not allowed to now?

Sorry to bring this thread off topic. I don't even mind if psionics end up in the mage class ultimately, as long as it's done well enough. As said above, if subclasses are tweaked enough that they can pretty much fully encompass the full class they once were, I don't really care what your naming structure is.

I do have some concerns though, and saying that sorcerers and psions are basically the same thing kinda sets a lot of them off.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How is psychic energy different from whatever the sorcerer is using?

Sorcerers are, in the fiction, using their dragon blood, so the sorcerer's source of power is their genetics or maybe actually their blood -- their life-force, the mantle of power from ancient ancestors. Like, they've got a little sparkle floating around inside them, and they can push that sparkle out.

Psions are using mental energy, so their source of power is explicitly their brains, which apparently allow them to manipulate molecules, excite atoms, split time and space, and connect to the mental auras of others. Like, their minds just see all of infinity at once and can alter the world by imagining how it would be different. The world sparkles, they just can manipulate it with their brains.

Sorcerer vs. Psion is sort of Mutants vs. New Age Retro Hippies.

BTW, I said earlier I'd be cool with Warlocks being divine casters, and if a particular setting grants all wizards power from a deity, I'd make that power source divine in nature as well. Not sure why it wouldn't be.

I don't really think I said you wouldn't be? Warlocks as divine casters is kind of weirdly appealing to me, just because it fits their story so well and so perversely.

And I think in FR, the distinction between using the Weave vs. worshiping Mystara is kind of like the distinction between building a fire, and worshiping the goddess of fire. Or going sailing on the ocean, and worshiping the god of the ocean. The god is part of the physical world, but just because the ocean is required to go sailing doesn't mean that sailing is inherently something religious. Anyone with the proper knowledge can build a fire or sail a ship or cast a spell. Some just also pledge their lives to the agenda of the personification of fire or the ocean or magic. It's not about the source of power (it came from a god), but about your relationship to that source.

 

[Sir Brennen]

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.

It's still a playtest document, and I think we might be seeing some changes still. The next packet is being delayed due, in part, to changes based on the last round of feedback. He said he personally didn't see a problem with potions and scrolls for all, not that they absolutely won't change.

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

I think You're interjecting a lot of your personal vision of what a character from these classes could be. Who says a 1st level wizard has to be old? Who says a sorcerer gets his power when he's young, or a warlock hasn't been chasing a good deal of esoteric knowledge in dusty tomes to learn how to properly make his pact, therefore making him very scholarly?

-- but also for balance, warlock and sorcerer casting are far underpowered against the strategical-tactical power of wizards and we want that addressed.

Seems to me a good way to address that imbalance is to create the classes from the same chassis. And I've found the 3e psion to have been just as powerful and more flexible than the wizard in the same party. 4e took the "same chassis for all classes" to the extreme in the name of balance. Only in 1st and 2nd editions would I say psi wasn't up to snuff. Otherwise, are you just assuming warlocks and psions in Next will be underpowered if they don't have their own class? Not following the logic there.

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

Except when I look at the psion in my 3e XPH, that's exactly what I see. Same hit dice, attack bonus and saves as a wizard. Swapped in a new casting mechanic. Even imitated some of the wizards class features like Familiar and various craft item feats. Yes, the fluff is different, but mechanically they're very similar.

That'a what I see in the Mage class; just a grouping of those very base similarities. From there, changing Wizardry to Psionics or Sorcery is not just the casting mechanic changing, but the fluff and, (I believe will be the case in the final product), some changes to the base features, including probably some equivalencies like Familiar and Psi-Crystal. Then when you get to changing Schools for Bloodlines, Pacts, Devotions, etc... How is such a character "not really" a Sorcerer, Warlock or Psion?

 

[Mistwell]

There is an option rule that is proposed that allows what is called "magic-psionics transparency" which allows.. well things like detect magic to sense psionics.

I thought that became the standard rule.

You say that "because" and "tradition" aren't allowed. Why not? Seems kind of arbitrary.

"Because" isn't a reason at all. And, I am trying to figure out if it's just tradition, or something else. If it's purely tradition, then I am not sure why it's risen to this level of importance with some people.

Further, what reasons have you to change it, outside of it being a change?

A lot have already been given, but much of it comes down to streamlining, and fewer sources of magic means you don't need to run concurrent by separate rules for two different sources when there is already tons of overlap between the two. That's not arbitrary.

Here you were talking about why there should be three types, or why there should be two?
If you say "why there should be three," and assume there should be TWO, then I ask why not ONE

I think you should split it when you have a clear distinction. Divine vs. Non-Divine is a clear distinction. I'm not seeing the distinction between the amorphous arcane and the equally amorphous psionic. I keep asking, but it so far seems to come down to tradition and what the best defenders of the split admit to be a fine and vague difference that's hard to explain.

A. That is not the definition of arcane.
B. Nor is that the definition of the split.

We've been through this. It IS the definition. Unless you can explain another one.

C. Because psionics is NOT arcane. Just as arcane is NOT divine. It is a property of being arcane/psionic in relation to divine/arcane(and divine).

This is yet another "It's different because!" and "It's tradition".

D. You STILL exclude druids, fiend-worshipers, and pretty much all divine casters that are NOT a cleric with that definition. STILL.

That was already explained above, and inherent in "intermediary". I don't think anyone has trouble with druids being divine, with nature as the intermediary between deities and the world.

*Clerics* obtain their source of power from a deity.
That doesn't answer why they aren't arcane any more than saying
*Psions* obtain their source of power from their mind.

If Sorcerers obtain their source of power from an inherent genetic ability to spontaneously cast spells, WHY is that different from Psions? See if you can answer that question without saying "Because it's different", or "Because past editions said so". What's the REASON it's different?

Why aren't psions really just wizards?

Because they're really just sorcerers. IE, they are spontaneous casters rather than studied ones.

The same reason wizards aren't clerics.

Nope. Clerics use deity-magic, and don't memorize spells from books.

You answer why wizards aren't clerics WITHOUT saying arcane magic =/= divine.

Arcane /= divine because divine is sourced to deities and arcane is not. That IS a difference. It's not a "because" answer, and it's not a "tradition" answer, it's an actual reason.

And I'll do by best to answer why psions aren't wizards without saying psionics =/= arcane (or divine).

The question is, why are psions not sorcerers? Discard wizards - wizards are not spontaneous casters. So, why are they not sorcerers?

 

[Mistwell]

And no, a sorcerer's power isn't based on his genetics.

Go read all the flavor text for D&D sorcerers. It says they're born that way. It says it may be related to dragon's being in their ancestry.

Hell, [/I]I'm not even saying that you can't call them the same thing if you want. But why the need to force me to say that they are as well? Yes, in 3rd edition the standard was that psionics was just another form of magic and detectable as such. I've already said more than once that I didn't like that approach and would rather go the other route. Am I not allowed to now?

What's with this weird tactic that people are starting to use...that I am forcing you to have my opinion by stating my own opinion? Can we stop that please. If you don't know my motives, ask. Stop assuming my motives...particularly stop assuming nefarious motives when you have no evidence of that.