D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Sacrosanct]

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

 

[generic]

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]

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]

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.

 

[generic]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Oofta]

Please stop saying that you never opposed it, as it was very clear that you did.

Stop calling me a liar.

 

[Einlanzer0]

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.

 

[generic]

Stop calling me a liar.

I never called you a liar, or, at least, I didn't try to.