D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Vael]

That's not necessarily unfair, but all base classes would have to clear that same bar.

Any bar the hot-mess of the Ranger, unfocused mundanity of the Fighter, vanished niche-protection of the Rogue, desperate forced mechanical differentiation of the Sorcerer, cultural specificity of the Druid/Monk/Barbarian, and/or the doable-with-MCing Ranger or Paladin could clear, the Psion and Warlord soar over with yards to spare, the Artificer probably clears with little difficulty, and the Shaman at least has a shot at with a good running start. Also in the running, all the various 'Gish' classes, because, damn, the 5e Ranger brings that bar down.

But, I mean, if your point is that only classes not already 'in the bag' (the PH) need to clear that bar, by all means, make a compelling case for that double-standard.

Well, for one, we're talking about 5e as is, not 6e, so the Core 12 plus Artificer have the advantage of having been already printed, we're not going back in time to kill the Ranger, this has been about what to add to 5e.

Second, a lot of the more niche classes can be expressed in relation to one of the core classes. The Gish is a Fighter and Wizard ... well, we have both of them, and they have subclasses expressing that character option. A Psychic Warrior is a Fighter that wields Psionic powers ... then haven't I just defined another Fighter Subclass?

Third, DnD is a genre unto itself, and the current suite of classes all have a history within DnD. Warlock is a term that has a slightly different meaning outside of DnD. Sure, a lot of that is built into the DnD Warlock, but so is a lot of other things, like Eldritch Blast.

And, while I remain a defender of 4e, it seems to get a bit of a bad rap in some spaces. So the classes that got attention and defining features in 4e, well, it's not necessarily good PR.

Finally, there is a lower bar when there's a lower number of classes, because you want to increase the diversity of class options. But as more and more classes are created, it does become a point of diminishing returns. The 20th class you add to the game is less interesting than the 7th.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

A Psychic Warrior is a Fighter that wields Psionic powers ...

Psychic Warrior was a class for 3.X, it's the version I'd pick as a model. At least in regard to that version, saying that it's a fighter that wields psionic powers is as accurate as saying that a monk is a fighter that fights unarmed. I'd say that defining the paladin as a fighter that wields divine power is actually more accurate.

(And now I just remembered what a horrible take on the concept the AU version is. I hope that stuff never gets published as official psionics for 5e.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think the problem psionics face in D&D is the same as guns face in D&D. The general population views psionics like sci fi, not fantasy. So outside of an outlier population of fans, it will never truly be part of core D&D. No matter how many times rules for it get published. And I think the results Jeremy was alluding to really back that up.

It doesn't mean psionics are bad, or people are badwrong for enjoying them. Just that it's generally associated with sci fi, and not high fantasy. That's the realm of magic.

I've heard the "psionics is just sci fi magic" from many, no doubt. I wonder why Mind Flayers get a pass, though? Clearly all are psionic, but only some are also magic users.

This is why I like the psionics is different division because it represents a different subset of enemies which if different than magic represent a different challenge.

The different feel for me stems back to the 1e system of paper/scissors/rock/lizard/Spock of the ego whip and intellect fortress set of 5 powers and how they interacted. Magic spells haven't had a system like that.

I'm done talking my opinions on the Psion as a class topic, though. I have been away from Enworld for awhile and have noticed a sharp change in friendliness from the past times I've been heavily invested here. It feels to me like everyone has to prove their opinion is right rather than listen and empathize....and also realize that opinions are by nature always right.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Psychic Warrior, saying that it's a fighter that wields psionic powers is as accurate as saying that a monk is a fighter that fights unarmed. I'd say that defining the paladin as a fighter that wields divine power is actually more accurate.

Yes.
The monk is a fighter that studies unarmed martial arts, the ranger's a woodsy fighter with nature spells, a paladin is a divinely-empowered fighter, a barbarian a tribal fighter harnessing primal rage, a bladesinger/Eldritch knight/duskblade/hexblade/magus/warmage/gish is a fighter trained in arcane magic, a rogue is a sneaky/opportunistic fighter.

 

[Xeviat]

I've heard the "psionics is just sci fi magic" from many, no doubt. I wonder why Mind Flayers get a pass, though? Clearly all are psionic, but only some are also magic users.

This is why I like the psionics is different division because it represents a different subset of enemies which if different than magic represent a different challenge.

The different feel for me stems back to the 1e system of paper/scissors/rock/lizard/Spock of the ego whip and intellect fortress set of 5 powers and how they interacted. Magic spells haven't had a system like that.

I'm done talking my opinions on the Psion as a class topic, though. I have been away from Enworld for awhile and have noticed a sharp change in friendliness from the past times I've been heavily invested here. It feels to me like everyone has to prove their opinion is right rather than listen and empathize....and also realize that opinions are by nature always right.

But when a creature has a spellcasting (psionics) feature, those spells can still be counter spelled or dispelled. They still function as the spells they are. That's all people mean when they say psionics is magic.

They removed the hardline distinction between Divine and Arcane magic; there's no differences like divine magic can be cast in armor and arcane magic cannot be. The only differences are the thematics of the class and which implements they can use.

All a psionic spellcaster would need is an ability that lets them ignore material components, as if they were using an implement, unless there is a cost to those components. In effect, the psionic spellcaster would be their own implement. Or maybe they could use crystals.

I do fully agree, though, that if the Psion (or Mystic) is going to be its own class, it's got to have something going for it that separates it. The druid and cleric are separated by their abilities other than their spell lists. The Psion will need solid class abilities to differentiate it (and I think slightly more than just using PP, because there is an SP variant already in the DMG). Remember how unsatisfying the Sorcerer was in 3E in the eyes of the char op builders?

 

[Vael]

Yes.
The monk is a fighter that studies unarmed martial arts, the ranger's a woodsy fighter with nature spells, a paladin is a divinely-empowered fighter, a barbarian a tribal fighter harnessing primal rage, a bladesinger/Eldritch knight/duskblade/hexblade/magus/warmage/gish is a fighter trained in arcane magic, a rogue is a sneaky/opportunistic fighter.

Cool. So it's agreed, we're going back in time and removing all classes and calling 5e GURPS.

Seriously, of the gishes mentioned, we have all but three, so why do we need a Gish or a Magus or a Duskblade?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cool. So it's agreed, we're going back in time

Nope, there's no going back in time: the precedent set by the Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, and even Rogue is there. We can't just dismiss the Psychic Warrior out of hand because it seems like it could be a "Fighter with..."
OTOH, the Eldritch Knight is a precedent that leaves the door wide open to a Psychic Warrior fighter sub-class that faux-multiclasses with the Psion like the EK does with the wizard.

Seriously, of the gishes mentioned, we have all but three, so why do we need a Gish or a Magus or a Duskblade?

If MCing weren't explicitly optional, there'd be no need for even one of 'em.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

But when a creature has a spellcasting (psionics) feature, those spells can still be counter spelled or dispelled. They still function as the spells they are. That's all people mean when they say psionics is magic.

Yes, if don't play the "Psionics are different" then there really is not much difference (or need) between a Psion and a Sorcerer. Or a difference between a mind flayer using it's native mind control versus just casting Dominate Person.

As said, I enjoy having a different set of buttons for psionics on my GM console.

 

[Xeviat]

Cool. So it's agreed, we're going back in time and removing all classes and calling 5e GURPS.

Seriously, of the gishes mentioned, we have all but three, so why do we need a Gish or a Magus or a Duskblade?

I'm going to keep leaning back on Mike Mearls's "can we make 12 subclasses with this class idea" for my opposition to a martial gish class. I don't see the fantasy archetype for it that isn't self referential. A paladin is different from a fighter/cleric, partially because it's based on something that's a more solid concept. Whether d&d popularized that concept doesn't matter at this point.

The only arcane Gish concept I've seen that I think could be the basis of a full class is the "mystical swordsman" from some anime and manga. That treads in a direction that is walked by the monk, but could be distinct enough. And there is enough design space there, as evidenced by Book of Nine Swords.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm going to keep leaning back on Mike Mearls's "can we make 12 subclasses with this class idea" for my opposition to a martial gish class. I don't see the fantasy archetype for it that isn't self referential. The only arcane Gish concept I've seen that I think could be the basis of a full class is the "mystical swordsman" from some anime and manga. That treads in a direction that is walked by the monk, but could be distinct enough. And there is enough design space there, as evidenced by Book of Nine Swords.

Quite apart from the fact that all you need to do fighter/magic-user (which "Gish" is just githynaki-speak for) is remotely functional multi-classing, which 5e went & made optional, there have been so many classes, sub-classes, PrCs, themes/PPs, going there, that you could probably come up with 12 sub-classes just by listing them all.
What've we got?

Gish (of course)
Eldritch Knight
Bladesinger
Bard (3.5 bard, I'm think'n, or eSkald)
Duskblade
Hexblade
Magus

bettern' halfway to 12, and I know there have been others... like, wasn't there a magical gunfighter in PF1?

A paladin is different from a fighter/cleric, partially because it's based on something that's a more solid concept. Whether d&d popularized that concept doesn't matter at this point.

Oh, the concept of the Paladin - the pious knight in shining armor along the lines of Parsifal/Galahad and Lancelot, the highest echelon of the vassals of Charlemagne, the metaphorical name adopted by the main character in Have Gun, Will Travel, the Crusaders & Templars of history, etc - was popular enough before D&D.

It's the D&D Cleric that's lacking in distinct precedent. 2e, for instance, called out Archbishop Turpin from the Song of Roland as, like, the myth/legend exemplar of the Cleric. He was literally a Paladin (one of the Peers of Charlemagne) - in the story he used sword & lance to slaughter Saracens like everyone else, and never used a bit of magic.