I'd like to see different kind of psions, because a fighter-psion is very different from a caster-psion. I think some kind of "divine sorcerer" would be a legit niche, like the favored soul/oracle. Also an alchemist class.
D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy
I'd like to see different kind of psions, because a fighter-psion is very different from a caster-psion. I think some kind of "divine sorcerer" would be a legit niche, like the favored soul/oracle. Also an alchemist class.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
For me, the alchemist may be best done as a subclass of artificer, but I can see a full class too. But I don't like the PF mutagen chugger alchemist, so your mileage may wildly vary. Agreed on the rest. A mystic, a more psionic subclass for monks, and a fighter type that makes various weapons with their mind, and augments their physical abilities with psionics. Also, I loved the ardent in 4e, at least conceptually.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Yeah. 20 year olds have their faces stuck in their phones and don't pay attention. I've got one of them in my game.
Imaro
Legend
But won't a class based system by necessity (unless of course it has an unlimited number of classes, and thus unlimited resources, pagecount, etc.) miss certain specific character concepts? I don't think that's a flaw in 5e, though I guess it could be a flaw in class-based systems as a whole...
Tony Vargas
Legend
Only one, and no similar problem with thirtysomethings? Lucky you!Yeah. 20 year olds have their faces stuck in their phones and don't pay attention. I've got one of them in my game.
Nod. Par for the course, there are always critics & apologists who go too far. At least this time around the critics aren't rabid enough to start an Edition War.
But, 5e is in the mold of classic D&D, and the classic, class(npi)-based approach to modeling characters is based on, well, having a list of classes, and expanding the number of classes you can model by expanding that list. That's just the bottom line. If you turn on 3e style MCing, you can get /some/ of the ability of that edition to mix-and-match to model different concepts, and 5e does, like 4e, have Backgrounds that can be appended to any class to do likewise. It's also possible to re-skin 5e content - more so than in 3e, less so than with 4e, but it's possible.
So even as a player, you have some flexibility to reach beyond class stereotypes. But, adding classes is still necessary to bring everyone on board. Not every class ever, but at very least every class (or character concept later implemented as a class) ever in a PH1, preferably every one ever in a PH, and a selection of the most unique/compelling examples from non-PH classes.
That's as close as they could come to fulfilling the 'big tent'/inclusiveness mandate, while also working within the 'evoke the classic game' mandate. But, hey, they knew the job was tough (impossible) when they took it!
Agreed.
I never cared for psionics, personally (too sci-fi, a common complaint), nor the ("orientalism" of the) Monk for that matter, so I wasn't open to the PH3 versions of psionics - and I was suspicious of the PP mechanic. Then I held my nose long enough to actually play in a game with a few of 'em, and, they were fine, actually. In fact, I finally played a hybrid Ardent, and, yes, I have to admit they're a fine class concept. Given how mushy 5e is with source and role, they might just as easily be a Warlord or Mystic (or even Artificer, if a Shaman can be one, why not?) sub-class as be a class in their own right, I suppose.
To some extent, yes (and that's why my favorite games are classless, although I'm okay with class-based ones), but I think there are tiers of how unique certain concepts are and thus needing their own class. Going back to the PF example, the classes in the ACG are not necessary. some would even say they're filler. I think they're okay and some of them really fun, but they aren't necessary, they are just elaborating some classes and combinations into a new class. Like the swashbuckler is really fun, but could be emulated relatively easily by rogue, or fighter, or even ranger.
However, some concepts I think is more necessary to have their own class, because they couldn't be easily emulated with the existing ones, like the artificer, psionics, a true gish, divine sorcerer, etc. Those classes are just working too differently from the existing ones both thematically and mechanically.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Speaking for myself, I enjoy tons of classes. Subclasses will often not be able to add enough to a class to create enough of a difference in an archetype, where a new class will. Similarly, just because a ranger is kinda sorta a scout, doesn't make it a scout. Some are okay with approximations. I prefer specifically tailored differences. It's those differences that make the "scout" stand apart from the "ranger" or "ranger with scout subclass".
Yeah, I agree. That's basically the case with the 5e gishes. A full class could build from the get-go toward a specific theme, role, or style. A subclass simply can't do that much, because it's just adding some quirks to the mother class.
As a sidenote: call me a heretic, but seeing how PF loosened up the traditional class structure with myriads of archetypes and feats and hybrid classes, honestly I'd be glad to see a PF 2 built on a classless system. That would be easily my favorite fantasy rpg. It's not likely to happening, since PF is essentially D&D and that move would probably alienate a lot of fans, but I'd like it.
As a sidenote: call me a heretic, but seeing how PF loosened up the traditional class structure with myriads of archetypes and feats and hybrid classes, honestly I'd be glad to see a PF 2 built on a classless system. That would be easily my favorite fantasy rpg. It's not likely to happening, since PF is essentially D&D and that move would probably alienate a lot of fans, but I'd like it.
