Really concerned about class design

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
One last time. Tons of classes just trying to fill every possible need simply leads to bloat, confusion, issues with multi-classing and niche builds that are broken. It was a major mistake of previous editions. A lot of the weight carried by new classes was removed by rules simplification and backgrounds so they aren't as necessary.

With 5E they're limiting to classes that make sense and fill in major gaps. We're not going to have the dozens of classes. We might get a psion. I think the odds of getting anything like your brawler is slim and none and Slim just left town. I think that's a good thing.
This may be true, but is the addition of a Psion and perhaps a Witch, Warlord, and Shaman a "ton" of classes.

Is this your "slippery-slope" argument?

If I recall correctly, 3e's niche builds were a result of, say, dozens of classes and almost as many prestige classes, coupled with expanded feats spread across many, many books.

Is this really the same?
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
This may be true, but is the addition of a Psion and perhaps a Witch, Warlord, and Shaman a "ton" of classes.

Is this your "slippery-slope" argument?

If I recall correctly, 3e's niche builds were a result of, say, dozens of classes and almost as many prestige classes, coupled with expanded feats spread across many, many books.

Is this really the same?
It seems to be that the slippery slope fallacy is at the heart of the argument of those who are disagreeing, which is something I've addressed numerous times in this thread.

The changes made to the core system for 5e are enough to almost entirely eliminate the possibility of the type of bloat we saw with 3.5. This is why we aren't likely to see "soulknife" and "psychic warrior" appear as more than subclasses, which is as it should be. But it doesn't mean the core psion should be shoved into an existing class. In truth, people are conflating two separate issues -

a. Throwing out new splat options too quickly ad nauseam is a problem (I don't entirely disagree with this premise, but everyone is illogically presupposing that I do, bringing that baggage into the discussion, and not listening to me when I repeatedly tell them to stop.)

b. Occasional new classes = new splat options ad nauseam and is therefore a problem (not only do I disagree with this premise, I find it to be so irrational that it's difficult to coherently argue with).

It seems people have trouble separating these two things conceptually when they are, in fact, separate concerns. For example, I would almost make the case that we're approaching too much bloat when it comes to subclasses, and that shifting to slowly designing new classes instead would be more streamlined/elegant. Even just one a year would be a great pace I think.

This is a textbook case of slippery slope fallacy. It's sort of similar to opposing gay marriage because you're worried about humans marrying animals or adults marrying children. It's an illogical leap that's so irrational it's hard to argue against other than just candidly telling people it's a bad argument and to come up with something better if they expect to maintain a foothold in the discussion (as an aside, this is ultimately why gay marriage kept gaining support until it passed and is now a mostly bipartisan issue).
 
Last edited:

Warpiglet

The pig to end all wars
A few well designed additions are not synonymous with the bloat of prestige and other classes of older editions.

Some would say we are nearing an ideal amount of options to avoid bloat and goofy combos.

I feel pretty comfortable with current class offerings but would welcome occasional new subclass choices.

That said, no one has enough evidence to draw a hard line here. It's subjective.

Frankly I can say no matter what, the slow approach is good. If hey add a few more it will not in any way break the game. However, whatever is added my sincere hope is that it is well thought out (very well thought out) with special attention to multiclassing abuse.

I think they will do what the fan base wants largely with an eye on continued steady growth of the fandom vs. reckless growth.

We will see what happens...
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I'm laughing so hard that tears are rolling out of my mouth-tentacles. This is the same weak argument you've used throughout the thread.

Give me a single reason why we shouldn't have a Psion that isn't "it's unnecessary".

I'll be waiting.
What is a psion other than "space magic"? We have two basic sources of magic now, arcane and divine. While there's some overlap, they feel different and unique with different focuses.

Yet no one has over a couple of threads ever explained what psionic magic would feel like other than "otherworldly", no components and "it's not magic even though it bends reality in a supernatural way".

I don't give a fig if they ever make a psion or not. I won't use it in my campaign; I do see it could be useful for a space fantasy game.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I'm laughing so hard that tears are rolling out of my mouth-tentacles. This is the same weak argument you've used throughout the thread.

Give me a single reason why we shouldn't have a Psion that isn't "it's unnecessary".

I'll be waiting.
Well, one of the biggest reasons, one that has been cited several times in these threads, is the same one the Jeremy Crawford gave in his interview. That is, a psion (in the context of what people want with a set of unique mechanics to the class), “while fun, was hardly used. And we do not want to create a complete new set of rules that players and DMs have to learn, and new books they have to buy.”

There’s your reason other than “not necessary”. And since it’s been cited many times in these threads in the past week, I’m not sure why you’d ask for an example as if no other reasoning was given, when surely you had seen those posts.

If we do see a psion, it’s going to be mechanically similar to existing rules, and won’t be what people want who are fans of the class. And the reason is other than “not necessary”, but based on business decisions.
 

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
What is a psion other than "space magic"? We have two basic sources of magic now, arcane and divine. While there's some overlap, they feel different and unique with different focuses.

Yet no one has over a couple of threads ever explained what psionic magic would feel like other than "otherworldly", no components and "it's not magic even though it bends reality in a supernatural way".

I don't give a fig if they ever make a psion or not. I won't use it in my campaign; I do see it could be useful for a space fantasy game.
Just as I thought, after nearly an hour, you were unable to come up with anything other than this. So really, you see a Psion as a "space mage", and you have no real reasons for opposing it.

I recognize when a debate is not worth it, good day.
 

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
Well, one of the biggest reasons, one that has been cited several times in these threads, is the same one the Jeremy Crawford gave in his interview. That is, a psion (in the context of what people want with a set of unique mechanics to the class), “while fun, was hardly used. And we do not want to create a complete new set of rules that players and DMs have to learn, and new books they have to buy.”

There’s your reason other than “not necessary”. And since it’s been cited many times in these threads in the past week, I’m not sure why you’d ask for an example as if no other reasoning was given, when surely you had seen those posts.

If we do see a psion, it’s going to be mechanically similar to existing rules, and won’t be what people want who are fans of the class. And the reason is other than “not necessary”, but based on business decisions.
Well, no one is forced to buy new books, so I find Crawford's statement somewhat suspect. They don't even have to create a new set of rules, which only a few people have been arguing for, it would just be nice if they made a Psion that was distinct from spellcasters in a few ways.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Just as I thought, after nearly an hour, you were unable to come up with anything other than this. So really, you see a Psion as a "space mage", and you have no real reasons for opposing it.

I recognize when a debate is not worth it, good day.
Who said I oppose it? I said I don't see a justification and as @Sacrosanct just pointed out, neither do the devs. You can't seem to come up with any justification either other than a dismissive attitude.

I'd rather have them work on something useful that will have broad appeal.
 

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
Who said I oppose it? I said I don't see a justification and as @Sacrosanct just pointed out, neither do the devs. You can't seem to come up with any justification either other than a dismissive attitude.

I'd rather have them work on something useful that will have broad appeal.
But that's just it, this is still your argument; that the Psion is not necessary. And, don't try to fool me by saying that you never opposed the implementation of the Psion or other new classes, that's patently dishonest, so, please give me some level of credit.

As I have said many times, this exact argument can be used against any other class in the game, past, future, or present, so I simply don't see it's validity. As for the devs, I don't give a flying fig what Jeremy Crawford thinks, I'm just expressing an opinion.

Answer me this, why should we not have a Psion? Because you've shifted your argument several times, even though the core is always "it's unnecessary".
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Well, no one is forced to buy new books, so I find Crawford's statement somewhat suspect. They don't even have to create a new set of rules, which only a few people have been arguing for, it would just be nice if they made a Psion that was distinct from spellcasters in a few ways.
You asked for one reason other than it’s not necessary. I simply reminded you of a big reason that’s been already given many times. So can we stop trying to act like the only reason for not having a unique psion is because people are arguing it’s not necessary? Because that’s not true. There is a very real reason from both a design perspective, and a business perspective.

Personally I think there is room for one. But I can see Crawford’s reasoning as well.

Also, DMs in AL would be forced to buy new books because the DM needs to be aware of how each PC works in the game. And it’s one more set of rules said DM would have to be familiar with. That runs counter to the design philosophy of keeping things core and simple
 

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
You asked for one reason other than it’s not necessary. I simply reminded you of a big reason that’s been already given many times. So can we stop trying to act like the only reason for not having a unique psion is because people are arguing it’s not necessary? Because that’s not true. There is a very real reason from both a design perspective, and a business perspective.

Personally I think there is room for one. But I can see Crawford’s reasoning as well.

Also, DMs in AL would be forced to buy new books because the DM needs to be aware of how each PC works in the game. And it’s one more set of rules said DM would have to be familiar with. That runs counter to the design philosophy of keeping things core and simple
Ah, I see. This is why I always thought that Tyrdamned AL would be the death of the game! Regardless, I understand the position of the devs, I just disagree with it.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
But that's just it, this is still your argument; that the Psion is not necessary. And, don't try to fool me by saying that you never opposed the implementation of the Psion or other new classes, that's patently dishonest, so, please give me some level of credit.

As I have said many times, this exact argument can be used against any other class in the game, past, future, or present, so I simply don't see it's validity. As for the devs, I don't give a flying fig what Jeremy Crawford thinks, I'm just expressing an opinion.

Answer me this, why should we not have a Psion? Because you've shifted your argument several times, even though the core is always "it's unnecessary".
When did I oppose it? I've stated that I've never seen justification in any edition. I think it could be a good option in a space fantasy game. Nobody has ever provided a clear picture of what a psion is or should be. I think class bloat is a bad thing for the game.

WOTC has limited resources. Why would they publish a book that only a small minority would buy? If they thought it had enough broad base appeal to justify development and opportunity cost of not working on other things they would.

There's just not enough demand for it and no amount of complaining by a minority is going to change that. Want a psion in your game? Homebrew, change the fluff of an existing class or go out to the DmsGuild and find one.
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
I would actually argue with Crawford himself on this. If psionics doesn't get used enough to justify its development, there's a legacy problem there that WotC has the ability to actually solve for 5e, and they shouldn't cop out of it.

They never really position it in such a way where it would get used a bunch. Setting it up for failure then complaining when it's a failure and using it to cop out of continually refining it is a bad strategy. The fact is they've already effort into developing a mystic class and then a ton more effort into developing psionic subclasses, so this argument is both silly and moot. Does psionics have an audience? Yes. Would WotC lose money developing psionics as a full class? Ridiculously unlikely. Is this a cop out from Crawford so he can just focus on his beloved subclasses instead? Pretty much, yes.
 

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
When did I oppose it? I've stated that I've never seen justification in any edition. I think it could be a good option in a space fantasy game. Nobody has ever provided a clear picture of what a psion is or should be. I think class bloat is a bad thing for the game.

WOTC has limited resources. Why would they publish a book that only a small minority would buy? If they thought it had enough broad base appeal to justify development and opportunity cost of not working on other things they would.

There's just not enough demand for it and no amount of complaining by a minority is going to change that. Want a psion in your game? Homebrew, change the fluff of an existing class or go out to the DmsGuild and find one.
Please stop saying that you never opposed it, as it was very clear that you did. Regardless, Psionics is in no way space-exclusive, and there have, in fact, been rather clear justifications for what a Psion is.

However, and it infuriates me to see this, this is essentially the same argument as always.

Tell me, why do you see a reason to have a Sorcerer, a Paladin, a Warlock, Ranger, or Rogue, when they could easily all be subclasses?
 

bedir than

Adventurer
I would actually argue with Crawford himself on this. If psionics doesn't get used enough to justify its development, there's a legacy problem there that WotC has the ability to actually solve for 5e, and they shouldn't cop out of it.

They never really position it in such a way where it would get used a bunch. Setting it up for failure then complaining when it's a failure and using it to cop out of continually refining it is a bad strategy. The fact is they've already put a ton of effort into developing a mystic class and then a ton more effort into developing psionic subclasses, so this argument is both silly and moot.
It's not as if he has access to data from every edition that shows it was infrequently used. He's not some rando commenting on the internet, but instead fully informed about every class's popularity over the decades.
 

Eric V

Adventurer
But that's just it, this is still your argument; that the Psion is not necessary. And, don't try to fool me by saying that you never opposed the implementation of the Psion or other new classes, that's patently dishonest, so, please give me some level of credit.

As I have said many times, this exact argument can be used against any other class in the game, past, future, or present, so I simply don't see it's validity. As for the devs, I don't give a flying fig what Jeremy Crawford thinks, I'm just expressing an opinion.

Answer me this, why should we not have a Psion? Because you've shifted your argument several times, even though the core is always "it's unnecessary".
What does "necessary" even mean in this context? It's a game; NONE of it is "necessary." If the wizard was missing and we only had the sorcerer and warlock, would the wizard be "necessary?" Or would people just say "fluff your abilities like you're using a spellbook?"

Necessity is a weird argument in a make-believe game; how about what's fun? There's clearly people that will have fun with a psion. More than other classes, even (I saw way more psions over 30 years than I did druids, for example).

It's bizarre to oppose other peoples' wishes for fun within the game, it really is.
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
It's not as if he has access to data from every edition that shows it was infrequently used. He's not some rando commenting on the internet, but instead fully informed about every class's popularity over the decades.
This is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making. But, to bite anyway, I wouldn't put so much confidence in his knowledge on this. This is what we call the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
 

Advertisement

Top