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

[1of3]

Personally, I don't think that solution will make fans of psionics happy. It means that dispel magic, etc will affect psionics.

It did in 3rd edition by the standard rules. I would be quite happy, if psioncists had a bonus against dispelling and a chance to work in antimagic.

 

[Mistwell]

Or there is no arcane magic. If I'm not mistaken a divine /arcane split isn't referenced anywhere in the rules.

Also "arcane magic" is rather meaningless by itself. A "mage casts arcane spells" is a tautology. In what way are arcane spells different from other spells? As soon as we try to actually express what it means, I can see several ways to fit a psionicist in.

- Arcane magic is the changing of reality with one's own will. - Psionicist check.

- Arcane magic is understanding of the universe within quasi-technical framework and then manipulating it. - Psionicist check.

"Arcane magic is magic which is not directly sourced from deities, nor channeled from the deities through an intermediary."

There you go. Warlock's magic, Psion's magic, Wizard's magic, all of it is not directly sourced or channeled from a deity, so it's arcane magic.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I did say that the fix was to explicitly note that psionics is a type of arcane magic.

Personally, I don't think that solution will make fans of psionics happy. It means that dispel magic, etc will affect psionics.

But that's sort of tangential to my main point that inheriting mechanics from the base class will inevitably cause issues. But like I noted above, it isn't an obvious problem, but a subtle one. An edition's worth of subclasses, and the inevitable jury-rigged hacks to fix things will make the problem more obvious.

I do not accept that it is a problem. D&D is not a programming language and technical issues that arise in application design from inheritance does not really apply to D&D class design. All elements defined by a class, feat or a spell is an exception to some basic mechanic in the general rules.
Also in general in an rpg the basic and class rules will not change over the lifetime of the game. Errata can occur but errata in an rpg in not like a bug fix in a codebase. Most subclass material will be additive in that it will introduce new mechanics not override the base class mechanics.

 

[Tovec]

"Arcane magic is magic which is not directly sourced from deities, nor channeled from the deities through an intermediary."

There you go. Warlock's magic, Psion's magic, Wizard's magic, all of it is not directly sourced or channeled from a deity, so it's arcane magic.

Not to mention Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Demon-Worshipers, Devil-Worshipers, and Domain-casting clerics. I'm sure there are others.

You CAN throw the net out very large about what is or is not arcane magic, wide enough to include psionics and warlocks.
You CAN similarly throw it wide enough and exclude them too. The phrasing can be written either way. I think the problem here is that you want to include them and others don't, and you are trying to use certain language to force those who don't like it to agree with you.
What if Arcane magic referred to magic that comes from study of arcane sigils. Or study of magic at all. If you do this latter definition then you include psions but exclude sorcerers. It is all a matter of phrasing.

 

[Mistwell]

Not to mention Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Demon-Worshipers, Devil-Worshipers, and Domain-casting clerics. I'm sure there are others.

You CAN throw the net out very large about what is or is not arcane magic, wide enough to include psionics and warlocks.
You CAN similarly throw it wide enough and exclude them too. The phrasing can be written either way. I think the problem here is that you want to include them and others don't, and you are trying to use certain language to force those who don't like it to agree with you.
What if Arcane magic referred to magic that comes from study of arcane sigils. Or study of magic at all. If you do this latter definition then you include psions but exclude sorcerers. It is all a matter of phrasing.

Tovec, I am not trying to use language to force people to agree with me. Don't attribute motives. I was simply providing an example of how it could be done if we wanted to do it that way - not telling people they had no choice but to do it that way.

I do think Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and domain clerics, all use divinely sourced magic. In many of those cases, it's deity-magic that is filtered through an intermediary, but I think those are all divine classes. But maybe not, let's see how they write the flavor text.

I also think Arcane magic is the catch-all for non-divine magic. It has no real meaning aside from secretive and obscure or hidden. It's been used to include studied and spontaneous magic of all sorts, that isn't divine in nature.

Now I can see making warlocks divine magic or arcane, depending on the flavor that goes with the text. If they're getting their magic from a demon, I can see how that magic could be divine nature, through a demon intermediary. I can also see how it would be non-divine in nature, and therefore arcane.

But for Psionics, I think if they want to combine it with arcane, I see no problem with it from my perspective. It's clearly not divine (even the Deryni books made it clear there was a distinction between Deryni's psionic magic and the divine magic of the healers). It seems to fit, from my perspective, as much as sorcerer's magic fits with arcane (spontaneous innate talent that is not learned from studying).

In fact, the difference between the "source of power" between Sorcerers and Psions has always escaped me. What exactly is the difference between a genetic predisposition to spontaneous non-divine arcane-spell abilities (Sorcerers) and predisposition to spontaneous non-divine spell-like abilities (Psions)? That already seems like a pretty fine, and not very meaningful, difference. Is moving an object with your "mind" really so different than moving an object with your hand gestures and your mind, such that it requires an entirely different source of that magical-seeming effect?

I get that some people prefer it that way. What I don't get is why it matters so much, given the differences seem pretty vague.

 

[Tovec]

Tovec, I am not trying to use language to force people to agree with me. Don't attribute motives. I was simply providing an example of how it could be done if we wanted to do it that way - not telling people they had no choice but to do it that way.

Unless I say otherwise, it is probably safe to assume that everything I write is "to the best of my knowledge" or "my best guess". I would have said so if I knew exactly what you thought, unfortunately MY telepathic abilities haven't kicked in yet. My bad.

I do think Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and domain clerics, all use divinely sourced magic. In many of those cases, it's deity-magic that is filtered through an intermediary, but I think those are all divine classes. But maybe not, let's see how they write the flavor text.

Agreed. Which was my point about the phrasing you gave. All of those classes use divine magic. Just as psionic classes use psionic magic. However the definition you gave would lump each of those classes in with Arcane just as surely as a wizard.

Also, ALL magic comes from a source. Where or what that source is seems to be completely arbitrary. Druids get magic from nature, but are divine. Clerics get magic from their god, or the cosmos (domain cleric). Cultists from their fiend of choice. Wizards from the ether/magical nodes/magical sigils. Warlocks from pacts. Sorcerers from their own blood. Psions from their minds. All have a source.

I also think Arcane magic is the catch-all for non-divine magic. It has no real meaning aside from secretive and obscure or hidden. It's been used to include studied and spontaneous magic of all sorts, that isn't divine in nature.

I think this is the problem exactly. As far as I understand it there is three main types of magic. Actually I'm fairly sure there are others but for now let's assume there is only three.

Divine is magic from a divine source, be that nature or gods or whatever. Arcane is "magic that is not divine." Psionic (as far as I understand the original intent) is "magic that is NOT divine NOR arcane." If your set is "non-divine" then we're going to have a problem.

But for Psionics, I think if they want to combine it with arcane, I see no problem with it from my perspective. It's clearly not divine (even the Deryni books made it clear there was a distinction between Deryni's psionic magic and the divine magic of the healers). It seems to fit, from my perspective, as much as sorcerer's magic fits with arcane (spontaneous innate talent that is not learned from studying).

Imagine my surprise that You lack any problem with that. Imagine it.

Now, imagine how much problem Others will have with that. Perhaps then you'll see the problem. Others are the ones with the objection, obviously not you.

Now I can see making warlocks divine magic or arcane, depending on the flavor that goes with the text. If they're getting their magic from a demon, I can see how that magic could be divine nature, through a demon intermediary. I can also see how it would be non-divine in nature, and therefore arcane.

In fact, the difference between the "source of power" between Sorcerers and Psions has always escaped me. What exactly is the difference between a genetic predisposition to spontaneous non-divine arcane-spell abilities (Sorcerers) and predisposition to spontaneous non-divine spell-like abilities (Psions)? That already seems like a pretty fine, and not very meaningful, difference. Is moving an object with your "mind" really so different than moving an object with your hand gestures and your mind, such that it requires an entirely different source of that magical-seeming effect?
(First quote taken out of order, but it works with the following better.)
Okay, this might solve a lot of problems I (and others) have with the Mage superclass. Wizards can be arcane, get magic from sigils or from whatever you like. They are prepared and all that.

Warlocks can then be (along with others) divine, forming pacts with divine beings (good or evil).

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

I get that some people prefer it that way. What I don't get is why it matters so much, given the differences seem pretty vague.

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.

Mind you, this mostly comes up as it affects the mage class. Which people don't feel it should. Even 4e - the most unlike of the editions - defined psionics as its own thing. How far from the crowd do you have to be to have all editions agreeing that psionics is a different thing, including 4e?

 

[1of3]

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.

 

[howandwhy99]

The term "level" has quite enough definitions in D&D. And the issues that arise with its multiple definitions still affect games today. I can't say I'd suggest including that kind of repetition again for a game to any designer.

What if each player for each unique game was to redefine wholly every term? Do they even need to let the other players know they are doing so? What do you consider game mechanics then? How do you write game books where the many definitions of only a few terms become the new area for splatbook explosion? I'd hate to have to read such a glossary much less write one.

What the OP suggest could be a door to whole new field of games to play. It sounds interesting, but it contradicts most of what makes games games. The programming method he is referring to allows reference to be the backbone of communication for different programs and then allows each program to treat those references in whatever way it wants. Games designed similarly, I would guess, isolate players more often into their own private game. There might be a shared language, but not really. It's more shared verbalization, not shared understanding. In fact, I suggest this is almost design constructed to impede shared understanding.

 

[Mistwell]

Now, imagine how much problem Others will have with that. Perhaps then you'll see the problem. Others are the ones with the objection, obviously not you.

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.

Okay, this might solve a lot of problems I (and others) have with the Mage superclass. Wizards can be arcane, get magic from sigils or from whatever you like. They are prepared and all that.

Warlocks can then be (along with others) divine, forming pacts with divine beings (good or evil).

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

If they're going to have three sources of magic, I'd be fine putting sorcerer under psionic and warlock under divine magic. I'm just still at a loss as to why it's important to have psionic spell-like magic be sourced from a different source than the other non-divine sources.

 

[Mistwell]

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 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.