D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Zardnaar]

I don't under


I don't understand how it's so hard for you (and some others) to correctly understand the point I'm making.

I'm not sure why you still seem to think my argument is "a witch class is needed". That would be quite a silly argument. Did we need psionics, even as a subclass? Isn't that adequately approximated by illusion and enchantment?

Since nothing like this is needed, maybe they should just stop all development on 5e?

Now maybe we can both set hyperbole aside. My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options instead of subclasses tucked under an existing class they don't even thematically mesh well with.

I think thematically and mechanically the warlock covers the witch class. A few corner cases can be covered by new invocations and archetypes.

A dedicated shapedshifter class for example can't be covered although we have the moon druid.

That requires a new class. Psion needs a new class. A few others are in a similar boat.

 

[Salthorae]

Both in dragon magazine options, and pop culture media. Way earlier if you count Howard’s Conan stories

Ok. I'll give you Conan for sure, but nothing those guys do can't also be modeled by the Warlock class as is. already.

My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options

No, I get your point.

And my reply to that has already been that they're not going to do a separate class for something a niche as a "witch". Even Crawford, in the Youtube video posted today for the UA Psionicist Wizard, straight up said, "we're not going to do a full Psion class because no one plays them, as neat as they are."

With their slow/limited release schedule in 5e, they're designing for the masses, not the niche. Witch is just a niche spellcaster for whom most of the checkboxes are ticked by the existing Warlock class and some flavor.

I keep using witch because it is the only one that you have specifically mentioned as something that needs that full Class space as a design concept. If you bring up others, I'll talk about how to do them with existing things. shrug

Psion is not going to be a ''wizard subclass''.

That's not what I got from Crawford's statement's today in his video on the UA Wizard.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Now maybe we can both set hyperbole aside. My point is simply that some concepts, if they're going to be developed, really make a lot more sense as full class options instead of subclasses tucked under an existing class they don't even thematically mesh well with.

If that's your point, then I can agree. The obvious follow up is, should those classes exist within the default D&D setting, or are they better left as an exercise for the DM?

Remember, the rules of the game describe only the tiniest fraction of possible fantasy settings. Most fantasy worlds have nothing that works even remotely like a D&D wizard. You can't use the wizard class to describe Gandalf, or Dumbledore, or Harry Dresden. The rules simply don't fit the desired narrative. And there's no reason you couldn't add in a new type of magic user, which would allow for new character archetypes to be expressed, but... I mean, the setting is already kind of full, as it is. Adding another spellcaster wouldn't really help the lore of the world at all. If anything, there's already too much going on.

So if you want to add some new classes for your own world, then that makes perfect sense. It just doesn't follow at all that WotC would publish more classes on their own, since they already have enough for their official settings.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

That's not what I got from Crawford's statement's today in his video on the UA Wizard.

I've not listened to it yet. I still believe the ''two pronged approach'' that Mearl intented in his previous Happy fun hours still hold. Time will tell.

To be honest, I dont really care if we skip the psion-as-class in favor of psi-fueled subclass. I dont really think we need another full caster just for the sake of having a new (not)spells list.

Psychic warrior
Soulknife
Aberrant Mind and Chaos sorcerer
Astral self monk
Wildsoul barb
etc

all of this would be enough psionics for me personally .

 

[Salthorae]

Time will tell.

Indeed it will!

I wouldn't be upset if we did see both a full Psion and these Psionic subclasses around at the same time. I just don't think it'll happen.

Astral self monk

This was my least favorite of the newly release UA's. I'd honestly hate to see that as the "psionic monk" that someday makes print.

There is a ton of thematic overlap between Monk and Psion. I loved the old 3.5 PrC Psionic Fist, and I think any of the existing Monk abilities/subclasses can easily re-flavor "ki points" to "PSP" (or whatever) and boom you've got Psionic Monks. I really didn't care for the Astral Self Monk and its implementation.

 

[tglassy]

I posted this elsewhere, but you know, I really just want them to make a Space Ranger class. I mean, how long do I have to wait for that? And I don't mean fluffing an existing class to mimic what my ideal of a Space Ranger would be. Oh no. I want full on new mechanics. I want WOTC to take their time, spend their money and develop ME a freaking class that I would love to play, based on my own perception of what that class should be. I want a button on the back of my character's pack that lets him do karate chop action. I want a laser beam coming out of his hand, and I want a bonus action retractible face mask that gives him the ability to breath in space, and I want that to be a class mechanic, not just some "suit" that he can buy. And the mechanics better be very, very different from what's already out there, because I envision a Space Ranger being very, very different from everything that's already been done. And don't give me this "Use a Home-brew" bull. It has to be official or WOTC has failed me, personally. You might say that all of what a Space Ranger is could be accomplished by providing a space suit for a specific amount of gold and picking any class to go with it, but that just won't fit my vision of this game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See, to me it feels like a streamlined and elegant way to develop the system without cluttering up the number of classes themselves, which was a huge issue for me in 3.5

To me it really doesn't, because if it were that there wouldn't be half as many classes in the PH. Warlocks, Bards, & Sorcerers would be traditions. Druids would be Nature Clerics. Paladins & Ranger would be archetypes that tap divine spells like the EK does arcane - Berserker (Barbarian would just be a more evocative name for the Outlander background), likewise, would be a fighter archetype.

And, even if 5e were being designed in an elegant, streamlined way to maximize coverage without a lot of superfluous classes, it'd still need a full-class psionic of some sort.

 

[Zardnaar]

Might be easier to update the 3.5 psionist. ASI as wizard, update the powered to 5E versions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What hypothetical which design couldn't be done using the warlock?
Beyond casts spelks and maybe white and black magic there is no iconic witch concept that couldn't be done with the warlock or maybe another spellcasting class?

It depends on which witch you're talking about. A proper neo-pagan witch is essentially a priestess, more like a D&D Druid than a D&D warlock. The burning-times Christian stereotype of the witch, a perverse soul-peddling Satanist, would be closer to the Warlock.
The D&D witch, OTOH, isn't quite either. The old-school witch was a Major Villain NPC, with over-the-top spell powers - in 5e, that'd be a Legendary monster stat block. Later versions shaded into a sort of arcane priestess, who used wizard-like powers but in a cultural role closer to a priest or shaman - in 5e, that could be a wizard with an appropriate background, acolyte, or something customized for the culture in question.

 

[Zardnaar]

It depends on which witch you're talking about. A proper neo-pagan witch is essentially a priestess, more like a D&D Druid than a D&D warlock. The burning-times Christian stereotype of the witch, a perverse soul-peddling Satanist, would be closer to the Warlock.
The D&D witch, OTOH, isn't quite either. The old-school witch was a Major Villain NPC, with over-the-top spell powers - in 5e, that'd be a Legendary monster stat block. Later versions shaded into a sort of arcane priestess, who used wizard-like powers but in a cultural closer to a priest or shaman - in 5e, that could be a wizard with an appropriate background, acolyte, or something customized for the culture in question.

Witch was a kit in 2E. Warlock and wizard would be the best bet.