Really concerned about class design

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
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.
As I've always said, the real question is whether the Psion would be harmful (explicitly) to the game, not whether or not it's more or less popular than some other classes.
 

bedir than

Adventurer
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.
This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, which has a specific meaning.

I'm not claiming he's right because he's the authority, which would be the actual fallacy.

I'm claiming that those with access to data are more likely to be right than a rando on the internet. The data shows the psion is not popular. I don't care who is sharing it.

Stop operating in bad faith.
 

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, which has a specific meaning.

I'm not claiming he's right because he's the authority, which would be the actual fallacy.

I'm claiming that those with access to data are more likely to be right than a rando on the internet. The data shows the psion is not popular. I don't care who is sharing it.

Stop operating in bad faith.
Okay, I'll push back a tad. How do you know that Crawford regularly looks over pages of sale data to look at things like this?
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, which has a specific meaning.

I'm not claiming he's right because he's the authority, which would be the actual fallacy.

I'm claiming that those with access to data are more likely to be right than a rando on the internet. The data shows the psion is not popular. I don't care who is sharing it.

Stop operating in bad faith.
It is, actually. As I said, though, it doesn't even matter. If Crawford thought they would lose money on psionics, what was the point of developing a whole class for UA to begin with? This argument simply doesn't hold much water. If Crawford thought psionics struggled in previous editions, that should be a challenge to do it right this edition. Not an excuse to cop out and half-ass it. In my opinion, this doesn't bode well for him to lead this edition successfully.
 
Last edited:

Aebir-Toril

std::cout << "Hi" << '\n';
It is, actually. As I said, though, it doesn't even matter. If Crawford thought they would lose money on psionics, what was the point of developing a whole class for UA to begin with? This argument simply doesn't hold much water. If Crawford thought psionics struggled in previous editions, that should be a challenge to do it right this edition. Not an excuse to cop out and half-ass it.
If I recall correctly, the Warlock and Ranger have a spotty history as well, but a significant minority of players really like them.
 

the Jester

Legend
The homebrew version I use has a ton of unique mechanical features that emphasize athletic maneuvers and grappling (tied to the base class progression); it allows tertiary score options such as Charisma for brawlers that have more of an entertainer background. The subclass archetypes are fight clubs (gladiator, improviser, pugilist, wild one, wrestler, and spellfist). The spellfist is particularly cool as it uses a unique casting mechanic involving magical tattoos/body art, but they are all quite distinct from one another in terms of both flavor and crunch.
Thanks for this.

Even so, I don't see any reason that this can't be handled by the monk. Its ability to Dash, Dodge, and Disengage as a bonus action (with ki points) can probably handle most athletic maneuvers (which isn't even to mention the ability to run up walls or other monk special goodies). I can see an entertainer-type gladiator monk subclass that has some Cha options as an interesting idea. I've already got a custom monk who focuses on grappling. The spellfist sounds like a variant tattooed monk from 3e (also already in my game as a monk path)... I just still don't see anything distinct enough that it justifies a whole base class, but as I have said, the bar I hold for justifying a base class is pretty high.
 

the Jester

Legend
What justification is there for the Sorcerer? ... What's the Justification for a Cleric? ... What's the justification for Druid? ... Whats the Justification for a Fighter?
The justification is, "It was in a Players Handbook in an earlier edition."

During the 5e design process, it was explicitly stated that one of the goals was to let you play anything from any edition's PH from day one, straight out of the PH. So if you're looking for justifications for the classes (and even some subclasses) in 5e, that's the answer.

But there was never a witch, psion, brawler, or what have you in a Players Handbook. The closest was the 1e appendix on psionics, which wasn't a class at all, but a tacked-on, unbalanced afterthought.
 

the Jester

Legend
You're frustrated because you are emotionally invested in the idea that I'm somehow wrong when you have no good arguments to demonstrate how without resorting to strawmen, so you just continue trying to condescend and attack my personality instead.

Everyone on your side of this debate is doing one of these two things - arguing using strawmen because they are intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding/misrepresenting my argument, or throwing the discussion off course by criticizing my message/tone because they don't have any actual good arguments.
Or genuinely disagreeing with you. Don't overlook that possibility.
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
Or genuinely disagreeing with you. Don't overlook that possibility.
Yeah but if you can't come up with coherent arguments that justify your disagreement and instead resort to hyperbole, strawmen, appeals to authority/history, red herrings, or slippery slopes, don't act surprised when I don't really accept your disagreement.

Thanks for this.

Even so, I don't see any reason that this can't be handled by the monk. Its ability to Dash, Dodge, and Disengage as a bonus action (with ki points) can probably handle most athletic maneuvers (which isn't even to mention the ability to run up walls or other monk special goodies). I can see an entertainer-type gladiator monk subclass that has some Cha options as an interesting idea. I've already got a custom monk who focuses on grappling. The spellfist sounds like a variant tattooed monk from 3e (also already in my game as a monk path)... I just still don't see anything distinct enough that it justifies a whole base class, but as I have said, the bar I hold for justifying a base class is pretty high.
Because it would require overhauling both the flavor and the mechanics of the monk, including all of its subclasses, which, in my opinion, makes less sense than just designing a new class that better fits the concept.
 

the Jester

Legend
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.
I'd argue that is completely wrong. The 2e Complete Book of Psionics; a whole setting (and a highly successful one that has seen further books in later editions) that completely revolves around psionics (Dark Sun); the complete rewrite of psionics in later 2e Dark Sun; another revision in the Players Option books; the 3.0 AND 3.5 Psionics books; the presence of psionic abilities in a number of splat books in 3e; the presence of psionics as a major thing in Eberron, which was one of 3e's big spotlight product lines (and which has been updated in both 4e and 5e already, albeit without much of a psionics bent in the 5e version); 4e having a entire Players Handbook with about half its focus on psionics, not to mention an actual Psionic Power book- D&D has worked hard to integrate psionics and make it mainstream over the years.

The lack of popularity of psionics in D&D is absolutely not for lack of trying on the part of the designers. And I say this as a huge fan of psionics.
 

TiwazTyrsfist

Adventurer
The justification is, "It was in a Players Handbook in an earlier edition."

During the 5e design process, it was explicitly stated that one of the goals was to let you play anything from any edition's PH from day one, straight out of the PH. So if you're looking for justifications for the classes (and even some subclasses) in 5e, that's the answer.

But there was never a witch, psion, brawler, or what have you in a Players Handbook. The closest was the 1e appendix on psionics, which wasn't a class at all, but a tacked-on, unbalanced afterthought.

Psiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
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.
I have no idea why you insist on making personal attacks on Jeremy. I’d wish you’d stop. Especially since they are unwarranted.
We don’t have to speculate. He literally gave the reason, and it’s not what you are assuming.

since the inception, the psion hasn’t been all that popular. I think it’s fair that Jeremey has this information in hard data. It doesn’t matter how you cook liver and onions, it won’t change the fact that only a few people find the appeal of it. It doesn’t make those people wrong, but they need to accept that they are in the minority.

So it’s just as Jeremy explained. They want to keep the rules to the core and simple, and there simply hasn’t been enough of a demand to warrant a whole new set of mechanics that a dedicated psion would need to appease its fans. If we see a dedicated class in dark sun, it most likely will have a chassis very similar to another class.

Either way, I’m asking you sincerely, can you please stop insulting him and others?
 

Vael

Adventurer
I have no idea why you insist on making personal attacks on Jeremy. I’d wish you’d stop. Especially since they are unwarranted.

Either way, I’m asking you sincerely, can you please stop insulting him and others?
Cosigned. I've met Jeremy, he graciously signed my PHB, and I find these personal attacks incredibly distasteful. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to besmirch their character.
 

Einlanzer0

Explorer
Cosigned. I've met Jeremy, he graciously signed my PHB, and I find these personal attacks incredibly distasteful. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to besmirch their character.
It's quite a leap to suggest I'm besmirching his character.

In fact, I could argue that accusing me of that is besmirching mine to distract from from the actual discussion.
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Hero
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.
Here's 7.

1) It makes multi-class combinations which are unbalanced more difficult to predict as the number of classes (as opposed to sub-classes) increase;

2) Any themes it contains which overlap with existing themes from other classes will dilute those other classes;

3) It establishes psionics as equal importance to magic (after campaigns have run for sometimes 6 years with little psionics) which can upend setting themes where psionics are not of equal importance to magic - making them subclasses allows a lot more control over how prominent they are as their own separate "thing" in the setting because it eases in through only a few level touchstones, but a separate class would establish it across all 20 levels and be much more noticeable and therefore more prone to breaking the verisimilitude of established campaigns. And while yes a DM can always control their setting, it's more complicated when you use rotating DMs where one likes Psionics more than the other, or where a DM wants his players to enjoy the use of new books they buy and tries hard to incorporate it but has more difficulty absorbing a full class on a new theme as opposed to a subclass.

4) It increases the odds of option paralysis, where the number of choices presented by a subclass is significantly fewer than the increasing the number of classes and therefore it's own subclasses.

5) It increases the odds you will have a problem of the haves vs the have-nots in games. When new subclasses are introduced this can be a minor issue, but they're still just new sub-themes to existing classes which are typically viewed as not game-altering in nature as "the new hotness" that players who cannot afford that book might want. However a new class, with it's own sub-classes, risks it being more of a major issue where the prominence of the theme can be viewed as "the new hotness" and therefore cause a sense of inequality in the game when some players might want to enjoy that material but cannot access it / afford it (and while you might suggest they can just borrow it, that has it's own equality dynamics - people cannot afford something don't like admitting they cannot afford it, and might feel embarrassed asking to borrow it, and might feel compelled to spend money on it they don't have because of those feelings).

6) Psion as it's own class isn't as popular, according to the Data WOTC has access to and you do not, than using them as a sub-class. Giving more people what they want is a good thing.

7) I don't want a full-class Psion (anymore) and spending limited time and resources working on something I don't want them to work on means they cannot spend that limited time and resources working on something I do want them to work on.
 
Last edited:

bedir than

Adventurer
Okay, I'll push back a tad. How do you know that Crawford regularly looks over pages of sale data to look at things like this?
If your choice is someone who possibly has access to the data versus someone who clearly does not, why would anyone make the assumption of knowledge to those who clearly do not?

It is, actually. As I said, though, it doesn't even matter. If Crawford thought they would lose money on psionics, what was the point of developing a whole class for UA to begin with? This argument simply doesn't hold much water. If Crawford thought psionics struggled in previous editions, that should be a challenge to do it right this edition. Not an excuse to cop out and half-ass it. In my opinion, this doesn't bode well for him to lead this edition successfully.
No, it is not.

Saying "Bob Smith read the book" is not an appeal to Bob Smith's authority. It is a recognition of knowledge, not based on their status at all.

Also, did you just try to claim that 5e isn't successful?

I think you've let the argument about class get in the way of reasonable discussion. By all marks Crawford et al are doing better with this edition than has ever been accomplished before.
 

Advertisement

Top