Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 7865013" data-attributes="member: 6788934">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).</blockquote>

Verification