D&D General What is the right amount of Classes for Dungeons and Dragons?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

That is just as much of a game perspective as anything presented.

Ok, how about I just say a different perspective then?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Only if you build the world that way. There are other ways to build the world, such as what I posted above. That’s how a whole lot of anime, manga, light novels, etc build the world. It’s not about game mechanics. Healing is simply another type of magic, not something special and separate. There’s no inherent reason to make it divinely granted. That’s a worldbuilding choice not everyone will make. The distinction collapses if you build your world that way. And I do.

I added a bit to my post. Arcane cast spells, spiritualist do not.

And anything a rogue could do can be covered in the same class as a fighter in my opinion. That way you can mix and match expert and warrior to your desired level

 

[Aldarc]

Ok, how about I just say a different perspective then?

It is a different perspective.

But do you think that there is possibly a reason why the Warrior, Rogue, and Mage power trio is fairly pervasive in a lot of video games? Why do you think that this arrangement may have more intuitive pull for many people than a Martialist, Spiritualist, and Arcanist?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Maybe every class isn’t for you? I mean having a special ancestry / background is a pretty common trope in the fantasy genre. I definitely think D&D should support that

not my point at all, I am well aware of the subjective nature of what I like and I do not advocate the end of a sorcerer.

Oh look! It's a Psion!

Seriously, both the 2e/3.0/3.5 psion and the 3.0/3.5 sorcerer written by an unimaginative student who went through plagiarising the wizard's homework, changed the spellbook, added one idea went through things with a thesaurus, and presented the copied work as their own.

Both had about one good idea each in their replacement for the spellbook that made it into core casting for 5e (taking away what was special about them) - whether spontaneous casting (of which spell points are a form) or upcasting.

There are two key differences between the two; the sorcerer was made copying the wizard's homework to give an excuse to squirrel more wizard spells into the game, while the psion was made copying the wizard's spellbook as a cash grab to sell more shovelware books. And the fact that the 4e and 5e sorcerer then had people work out how they could be different and useful to cover a wider range of concepts while the psion predates subclasses.

So why do you put up with the "I am so special I get to cast weird customised spells by the power of my mind unlike normal casters, making me too special for normal magic school"? The psion is the poster child for inexplicably special characters in D&D - right down to 1e giving you a percentage chance for psionic powers.

The mystic is much better. Partly because it's not Yet Another Caster (with spells cribbed off the wizard) except the lazy student has looked up an alternative to Caster in the thesaurus and come up with Manifester. Instead their things aren't presented, formatted, and contain the guff of spells. Partly because they haven't just lazily copied the wizard basic features.

But mostly because the blocks of powers you get from disciplines add theming, interest, and allow for interesting things done with design synergies.

And this is why the psion is a truly sucky class. It takes an interesting concept (psionics) and homogenises it into a generic power point spellcaster where the differences other than just splurging minor variants of spells over the sytem have been folded in ot the core casting method of 5e or into the Aberrant Mind.

And if you want that then don't even look at the Psion. We've had three core versions and as mentioned the good ideas have been folded into the core casting or the Aberrant Mind.

The Mystic is at least getting somewhere.

Depends on the system. If it's one that isn't drowning in magic then you might.

again I need to remind you that the otherside of this discussion is not arguing against the mystic being a better idea just the a psychic caster of some sort should exist who casts and is not a subclass,ideally all agree it should be in some way different from basic casting in some ideally useable nad interesting form I love the mystic but it needed more refinement, which we never got as there is a genuine never psionics voting block.

 

[overgeeked]

I added a bit to my post. Arcane cast spells, spiritualist do not.

According to your worldbuilding, not mine.

And anything a rogue could do can be covered in the same class as a fighter in my opinion. That way you can mix and match expert and warrior to your desired level

Not really. The fighter focuses on combat. The rogue focuses on exploration. The mage focuses on magic. They are three almost mutually exclusive domains. You build your world how you want, and I'll build my world how I want.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It is a different perspective.

But do you think that there is possibly a reason why the Warrior, Rogue, and Mage power trio is fairly pervasive in a lot of video games? Why do you think that this arrangement may have more intuitive pull for many people than a Martialist, Spiritualist, and Arcanist?

Because video games could not make the cleric work outside of the abstract, you can't role play faith well in most games with a side order of computer guys in the past being less god-loving on average

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

According to your worldbuilding, not mine.

Of course, never meant to imply otherwise

Not really. The fighter focuses on combat. The rogue focuses on exploration. The mage focuses on magic. They are three almost mutually exclusive domains. You build your world how you want, and I'll build my world how I want.

As you said: your worldbuilding, not mine.

From mine it would be they are both experts: on in fighting and one in exploration (though I don’t imagine that as the rogues role myself).

So if I took your world view it would be 2 classes:

Expert
Mage

 

[Neonchameleon]

not my point at all, I am well aware of the subjective nature of what I like and I do not advocate the end of a sorcerer.

again I need to remind you that the otherside of this discussion is not arguing against the mystic being a better idea just the a psychic caster of some sort should exist who casts and is not a subclass,ideally all agree it should be in some way different from basic casting in some ideally useable nad interesting form I love the mystic but it needed more refinement, which we never got as there is a genuine never psionics voting block

If there is a genuine "never psionics" voting block then they've failed utterly; the Soulknife, the Aberrant Mind, the new GOOlock, and the Psi Warrior are all going to be core. Psionics are in the game whether they like it or not. Which means that this block is fairly small. (Of course how big it is relative to the size of those that want psions but dislike the aberrant mind is an open question).

As for whether there is a need for a psychic caster, I don't think there's a need for one. I think there's value if and only if it comes with something interesting and usable mechanically. If there's nothing there then we have a range of psionic characters possible and are even going to get psionic characters in core.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It is a different perspective.

But do you think that there is possibly a reason why the Warrior, Rogue, and Mage power trio is fairly pervasive in a lot of video games? Why do you think that this arrangement may have more intuitive pull for many people than a Martialist, Spiritualist, and Arcanist?

Because people haven’t been presented with a better option and / or they are stuck in old tropes?

More seriously, I think it is just easier to separate the fighter and the expert, so that why they do it. I prefer them as different sides of the same sliding scale of one class:

At the end of the x-axis is the combat expert (fighter); the end of the y-axis is the exploration expert (rogue); at the end of the z-axis is the social expert (bard?)

 

[Aldarc]

Because people haven’t been presented with a better option and / or they are stuck in old tropes?

That's certainly possible. I just don't think that you are presenting better tropes that would convince me to switch my perspective, which is fine.

More seriously, I think it is just easier to separate the fighter and the expert, so that why they do it. I prefer them as different sides of the same sliding scale of one class:

I agree that it is likely easier to separate the warrior and the expert, mostly because IME they scratch different itches for people going into a lot of games it crops up in: combat and skills. The expert is generally not as good at combat as the warrior, because they are more interested in skills and the out-of-combat side of the game. The warrior is more interested in the combat aspect of the game. The mage is more interested in the magical shenanigans side of the game that can turn both combat and skills on their head.

At the end of the x-axis is the combat expert (fighter); the end of the y-axis is the exploration expert (rogue); at the end of the z-axis is the social expert (bard?)

I already mentioned Fantasy AGE that uses the Warrior (Combat), Envoy (Social), Rogue (Exploration), and Mage (Magic).