D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

Tony Vargas

Legend
The one thing about psionics that we learned when they did the original UAs about it was that there were actually two different types of psionics-- and that trying to do a "one size fits all" ruleset to cover them didn't seem to work.

The first type is the generic Psion. The one that if we were to say was going to be a class, would have as subclasses probably the Telepath and the Telekinetic. This is the one that is most spellcaster-like (if we were to align psionics at all to the base game for comparative reasons.) The other type of psionics is the ones that are not primarily known for it, but rather are other things first and who supplements it with psionics. The Psychic Warrior is first and foremost a warrior, and uses psionics to boost its fighting. The Soulknife is a roguish/monkish person who uses psionics to boost their abilities.
Well, that sounds like 3e Psionics.

Also, there's two kinds of psionics: "Magic" and "not-Magic." (also a 3e ism, as it was the clearest in leaving which is which to the DM.)

Then there's 1e/'wild talent' psionics, as an adjunct to other character choices (class, race &c), vs psionics as a class, starting with the 2e Psionicist.

1) Because Jeremy is right... new mechanical systems in supplemental books just don't get much play or use from the general D&D gaming audience (Book of Nine Swords or Magic of Incarnum anyone?)
Sure. It doesn't mean they're not bad ideas, just that Core sees more play (and more sales: thus WotC's utterly-cynical "everything is Core" war-cry for 4e).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As others have said - if they are going to do Dark Sun, then they'll need a Psion. But until they do Dark Sun... they don't have a compelling need to do a Psion.

I suspect this will be a chicken and egg situation which will ensure that we get neither in 5E. Which is a pity. I think if the Mystic hadn't been shouted down, but rather developed over another UA or two, we'd have something balanced and playable by now and DS would likely be coming out 2020.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I think if the Mystic hadn't been shouted down, but rather developed over another UA or two, we'd have something balanced and playable by now and DS would likely be coming out 2020.
What makes you think the Mystic would have been singled out to be made balanced & playable, when no other 5e class has been subjected to such brutal treatment?

I should've thought the premier psionic class would be at least as broken as a full caster.
 


generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
What makes you think the Mystic would have been singled out to be made balanced & playable, when no other 5e class has been subjected to such brutal treatment?

I should've thought the premier psionic class would be at least as broken as a full caster.
I hate how the Mystic was shouted down so brutally, criticized as a 'broken' class on weak parameters, and, generally, critiqued on the basis of things which are applicable to any Wizard.

"Too good at everything", hmm..?
 

Wiseblood

Adventurer
So.... I've been feeling this for a while. While, granted, we got the Artificer in the Eberron book, there's been a long term dearth of new classes for 5e. Especially in light of the new UA, it really worries me that it appears to be because WotC thinks they can/should simply turn every new class concept into a subclass for one of the existing classes.

I love subclasses, but I think that's a terrible approach, and it really needs to get called out as a problem IMO.

First, it attempts to solve the (hypothetical) problem of class bloat by adding clutter within classes, which really doesn't make much sense. 5e already addresses class bloat as a potential problem by having subclasses at all, but when the theme or fantasy represented within a class starts to take you all over the place with subclass options, that's an indicator we've departed from "elegant" and landed at "sloppy". As a practical concern, this makes it more difficult for players to digest what their options really are. They have to reverse engineer a concept or go through a layered path-choosing process.

Second, subclasses aren't multi-class friendly, so tying more and more class options to them inhibits the leveraging of multi-class rules to create a unique class concept. In other words, they result in less customization, not more.

Third, there are numerous areas where it just doesn't really make thematic sense, either in terms of edition history/lore or in terms of verisimilitude. I can easily get on board with Psychic Warrior being a subclass for Fighter - because it's a perfect use of the subclass system to expand options without class bloat. I cannot get on board with the base Psion being a "Wizarding tradition" because it is not. One of many reasons for this is the thematic need for psionics to exist as a full-enough system to potentially replace traditional magic in a more sci-fi setting based on precedents established in previous editions.

Fourth, it just feels like a lazy way to develop the system that players have weirdly adopted as a good approach when it isn't (sort of a rationalizing-the-status-quo bias). If they had started with only 4 or 5 classes, this approach might have made the most sense, but they didn't & that ship has sailed. So drawing a line now and de-emphasizing classes in favor of subclasses is starting to make the whole edition feel sloppily executed.

The bottom line is that if the concept that you're imagining is a.) very interesting, and b.) broad enough that you can easily mentally conjure many different subtypes within that class, there is no reason to not take the time to develop it into a full class instead of band-aiding it as a nonsensical subclass tacked on to an arbitrarily chosen class. My personal favorite examples of this are the witch and the shaman, but there are tons of others.

D&D 5e is a semi-generic and self referential game. Creation of new classes would only serve a small percentage of campaigns. These classes would do the same thing that existing classes do with the changes being additional caveats and flavor.

This is why so many have proposed building within existing classes.

So really, new classes I think would have a setting requirement.

IE: Psionics for Dark Sun

Artificer for Eberron

Though, I could be wrong see disclaimer.

Disclaimer: I have a strong desire for fewer classes. The kitchen sink approach to D&D classes bothers me. As a DM and as a Player. The attempt at too many genre takes me out of the shared space. There is also a tendency to enhance that which is flavorful so that it can compete with those things that are proven or pragmatic.

Evidence can be found looking at the Monk class and the Fighter class. The monk hits as hard with their hands as the fighter with a magic sword. The monk is as hard to hurt while wearing a burlap sack as the fighter wearing 40 lbs. of metal designed prevent or minimize injury.
 

Vael

Legend
I'll confess, I'm in a middle space here. I like the conservative approach to prefer subclasses over class bloat. That said, I do think there should be a Psionic base class (whether it's called the Psion or Mystic) and there's space for a few other classes.

However ... there are several classes that I've seen brought up here that don't meet what I'd consider the requirements for it to be a full class. The Witch and Shaman, specifically, to be honest, don't seem to me to be full classes.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Mearls laid out the standard that for WotC, the standard is about ten possible Subclasses at minimum (not that all the PHB Classes are there yet).

Could the Psion have 10 sub-classes? Well, there have been more than a few psionic classes and sub-classes over the editions.

Psionicist
1)Wild Talent
2)Psion
3)Psychic Warrior
4)Soul Knife
5)Wilder
6)Ardent
7)Battlemind
...
even Monk. ;P
And, in 4e, at least, there were builds under each class, as well, the Psion, for instance, could be a
8) Telepath,
9) Telekinetic, or
10) Shaper
sadly the builds for the Ardent and Battlemind weren't quite so differentiating.

Sounds doable. And, like you said, 5 years in, they haven't even gotten to 10 ea for all the PH classes, even given all the MC-like builds cross-pollenating among them.


Warlord
official builds:
1) Tactical
2) Inspiring
3) Bravura
4) Resourceful
5) Skirmisher
6) Insightful
plus an alternate feature that substantially changed the class if you took it:
7)Archer Warlord
Then there was a fan build that received official support
8) 'Lazy' Warlord
And, there were Paragon Paths, quite a few, but two of which suggested to me ideas for the kind of MC-lite archetypes the fighter and rogue both seem to get:
9) Arcane Battlemaster (name lifted from a Paragon Path): In the D&D world, spells very often turn the tide of battle, if not decide it from the beginning, so it only makes sense that there are commanders who shape their tactics around the effective use of caster assets, and, probably, pick up wizardry second-hand, INT-focused as the warlord can be.
10) Infernal Strategist (ditto): Some will pay any price for victory. The Infernal Strategist employs both magical powers and diabolical gambits gleaned from the darkest and most perilous of arcane sources.

Two more ideas along those lines:
Crusader: The 1/3rd Cleric or half-Paladin Warlord, a leader of zealots and champion of a divine cause, who, in the D&D world, obviously can't get away with it without displaying actual divine powers.
The Thaneborn (name lifted from barbarian build): A traditional leader of a clan or tribe or the like, by right of birth. The Thane leads 'his people' in battle, and others call those people 'barbarians'). A faux-Barbarian-MC who's rage is not as potent, but is 'contagious' to his allies.

And, general brainstorming has seen additional ideas like:

The Hector: Originally suggested by Wrecan based on a small number of Warlord exploits that it could be built around, but clearly under-developed in 4e as it tended to encroach on the Controller role, for obvious reasons.
This is the warlord who harangues, taunts, deceives, and outmaneuvers the enemy into making tactical mistakes and generally playing into his hands. The Hector focuses on his enemies more than his allies - allies, you should be able to count on. The Hector's acid words are carefully chosen and wickedly delivered to goad enemies into the worst course of action before them. You might think that such tactics are worthless against enemies who speak a different language or that lack the capacity for thought at all. But, humanoids have many forms of expression in common besides words, and it takes only a passing knowledge of a culture to know what could set someone off. And 'mindless' enemies are the easiest of all to manipulate, as they are the most predictable of opponents.

Protector: Protectors are capable individuals who take responsibility for the welfare of others. Anywhere there's even a trace of civilization, people need to be guided and protected, often from eachother. Protectors may work from a position of legitimate authority, like a peace officer or sheriff, they may be chosen by acclaim, looked to naturally in times of trouble, or even be self-appointed would-be heroes. They make a point of guiding, keeping save, and, when necessary, saving others. They will also tend to be adept at defusing potentially violent situations or resolving them with limited injury and loss of life. They emphasize prudence, common sense, community spirit and organization. Even when working with very capable even reckless allies like adventurers, the Protector counsels caution and careful, deliberate action - but, very often, Protectors do not heed their own advice, and may dash in to play the hero in moments of crisis.

The Artillerist: Whether actual medieval siege weapons, archers, or casters provide it, the advantage of a stand-off capability cannot be overstated. Setting up and making the most of that advantage is the specialty of this Warlord. Where there are not source resource to direct, the Artillerist takes up whatever weapons are available to provide the direct advantages of ranged support to his allies - taking a shot at just the right moment, even if it is easily dodged or blocked, can give an ally an advantage or opening, or put an enemy out of it's best tactical position as it seeks over or crouches behind its shield...

The Marshal: This is the Warlord who, by whatever means, 'marshals' lesser troops - volunteers, conscripts, villagers, bandits, whatever - into an effective fighting force. It's a classic trope, 'training the villagers to fight for themselves' for instance, and, it side-steps one of the problems with attack-granting and barking commands: this Warlord doesn't have to do it with PCs, mussing their precious bad-boy doesn't-work-well-with-others edginess. He has his own NPC grunts to abuse. It also side-steps the problem with pet classes and henchmen: that they impact the action economy. The Marshal would have his unit of recruits that he commands to move around, holding positions, or making concerted attacks ("when you see the whites of their eyes!") of high value. All of which would be resolved by the player of the Marshal, on his turn, using his actions. A volley from his unit of archers, for instance, wouldn't be a bunch of attacks rolled by the DM one on each archers turn, rather, it'd be done on the Marshals' turn, and create a beaten zone, enemies in it would get skewered (save:1/2). That kinda thing. And, yes, it could include a warlord that 'marshals' animals bred & trained for combat, or a posse comitatus under the mantle of the law (or those could be broken out and be good at similar gambits)
 
Last edited:

TiwazTyrsfist

Adventurer
Class: Psionicist
Subclasses
1. Clairsentient (Seer)
2. Psychokinetic
3. Psycometabolic (Shape-Shifter)
4. Psychoporter (Teleport)
5. Telepath
6. Meta-Psionicist (Meta)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
What makes you think the Mystic would have been singled out to be made balanced & playable, when no other 5e class has been subjected to such brutal treatment?

I should've thought the premier psionic class would be at least as broken as a full caster.
None of the 5e classes are broken, Tony.
 

Remove ads

Top