Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7673456" data-attributes="member: 996">Which is transformational.&nbsp; It changes their nature.&nbsp; They were strictly martial, they become casters.&nbsp; &nbsp;I'd count them among the 8 sub-classes that don't cast spells, rather than the 30 that do, yes.&nbsp; But, it's still using magic.&quot;Add to&quot; is a change.&nbsp; I get that you're fixated on the kind of change, but there is precedent for sub-classes changing the base class in dramatic ways.&nbsp; Adding spell casting, for instance is radically changing spell access &amp; spell lists.&nbsp;And Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Paladins do so at 1st.&nbsp; The thing about a precedent is that it doesn't have to happen the majority of the time to be established, it only has to happen once.&nbsp; Three classes picking sub-classes at first level is more than adequate precedent.&nbsp;There are, in fact, no sub-class rules in the PH.&nbsp; It's not a class-design ruleset, it's just a set of classes.&nbsp; What there are, is precedents, in the existing 38 sub-classes.&nbsp; I shouldn't have to explain why adding a sub-class is simpler than adding a new base class, you've been pointing it out, yourself:&nbsp; most of the class is already designed, you just have to design what makes the sub-class unique.A Psion as Sorcerer sub-class, for instance, is easy.&nbsp; The Sorcerer even already uses a point mechanic.&nbsp; Your heritage is Psionic (maybe Far Realms if that's used explicitly), you get some features related to that, like telepathy and psionic combat, say, and you're off.&nbsp; &nbsp;Depends on what goal of the design is.&nbsp; A balanced class shouldn't break anything, unless there's an unintended/undetected synergy with some other game element.&nbsp; A class designed, as most 5e classes have been, to evoke classic feel, OTOH, may be a tad 'broken' by some measures, if the original - like the 2e psion, for instance - was.&nbsp;I'm fine with new mechanics, if they're clear/balanced/playable mechanics (which isn't even relevant, since obtuse/broken/problematic mechanics are hardly anathema to the 5e philosophy).&nbsp; But, new mechanics present challenges.&nbsp; It's not a catch-22, it's a trade-off.&nbsp; There's greater design effort and you're 'betting' more if you go with the more extensive splatbook vs a UA article, for instance.&nbsp; Both are valid options.&nbsp;Sorcerer is the most obvious choice for a psionic sub-class, it's been brought up in multiple threads here and on the WotC boards, and it's pretty intuitive, being the class for in-born magic.&nbsp; In addition, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue have no magic abilities to 'change' before choosing a sub-class, so tacking on psionics to them the same way arcane is tacked on with the EK and AT or rituals tacked on to the Totem Barbarian would be fine.&nbsp; Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7673456, member: 996"] Which is transformational. It changes their nature. They were strictly martial, they become casters. I'd count them among the 8 sub-classes that don't cast spells, rather than the 30 that do, yes. But, it's still using magic. "Add to" is a change. I get that you're fixated on the kind of change, but there is precedent for sub-classes changing the base class in dramatic ways. Adding spell casting, for instance is radically changing spell access & spell lists. And Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Paladins do so at 1st. The thing about a precedent is that it doesn't have to happen the majority of the time to be established, it only has to happen once. Three classes picking sub-classes at first level is more than adequate precedent. There are, in fact, no sub-class rules in the PH. It's not a class-design ruleset, it's just a set of classes. What there are, is precedents, in the existing 38 sub-classes. I shouldn't have to explain why adding a sub-class is simpler than adding a new base class, you've been pointing it out, yourself: most of the class is already designed, you just have to design what makes the sub-class unique. A Psion as Sorcerer sub-class, for instance, is easy. The Sorcerer even already uses a point mechanic. Your heritage is Psionic (maybe Far Realms if that's used explicitly), you get some features related to that, like telepathy and psionic combat, say, and you're off. Depends on what goal of the design is. A balanced class shouldn't break anything, unless there's an unintended/undetected synergy with some other game element. A class designed, as most 5e classes have been, to evoke classic feel, OTOH, may be a tad 'broken' by some measures, if the original - like the 2e psion, for instance - was. I'm fine with new mechanics, if they're clear/balanced/playable mechanics (which isn't even relevant, since obtuse/broken/problematic mechanics are hardly anathema to the 5e philosophy). But, new mechanics present challenges. It's not a catch-22, it's a trade-off. There's greater design effort and you're 'betting' more if you go with the more extensive splatbook vs a UA article, for instance. Both are valid options. Sorcerer is the most obvious choice for a psionic sub-class, it's been brought up in multiple threads here and on the WotC boards, and it's pretty intuitive, being the class for in-born magic. In addition, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue have no magic abilities to 'change' before choosing a sub-class, so tacking on psionics to them the same way arcane is tacked on with the EK and AT or rituals tacked on to the Totem Barbarian would be fine. Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification