D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[generic]

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?

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

[Joke] I want a full treatment for both War-Mime and Cake-Baker as 5e classes.

 

[Einlanzer0]

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).

 

[Warpiglet]

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]

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]

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.

 

[generic]

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.

 

[generic]

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]

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.

 

[generic]

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".