D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[generic]

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]

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.

 

[Eric V]

WOTC has limited resources. Why would they publish a book that only a small minority would buy?

A whole book?! Who asked for a whole book? People are asking if an official version of the psion can be released.

Sheesh.

 

[generic]

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]

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.

 

[generic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.