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

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe we shouldn't be telling people who aren't satisfied that they should be satisfied because we're satisfied?

That depends on what would satisfy them. "I want 70 pages of spells for my class" would meaningfully make the game worse. "The options I want are there but I'm not the default" is being silly.

But what I hope for is "here's a playstyle that isn't covered"

 

[Vaalingrade]

That depends on what would satisfy them. "I want 70 pages of spells for my class" would meaningfully make the game worse.

How.

How is another book with player options going to make the game worse than the wizard already makes it without taking spells into account?

 

[Hatmatter]

How.

How is another book with player options going to make the game worse than the wizard already makes it without taking spells into account?

Well, I will weigh in here cautiously as I am not that committed -- merely thinking out loud: there is reasonable concern that the law of unintended consequences might make a new psionic system independent of the spell system possibly (especially in multi-classing situations) result in over-powered options. As I am sure you know, that was a specter that took over much of the discourse around 3rd edition and the D&D designers have been (rightfully) concerned about keeping it in check for 4th and 5th edition, using different means to do so in each case. They have even acknowledged in the last couple weeks in the Game Informer interview that even after the extensive playtest of D&D Next, part of the object of class and subclass revisions in the PHB coming out in a few months is to make sure that some multi-class options are not over-powered (while, at the same time, they are trying to preserve other, popular multi-class options).

 

[Aldarc]

I never really played 3rd edition, so I can't speak to that, but I would say that the subclass and feat option are superior to the way psioncis were handled in 1st and 2nd edition (and I loved them in 2nd edition). I will admit I have a soft spot for how power sources were handled in 4th edition, as I always liked that, but over time, as I mentioned above, I have come to appreciate the elegance of using the existing subclass structure, the existing spell structure, and feats to capture psionics.

IMHO, Third Edition probably was psionics at its most balanced, though not at first. The 3.0e psionics by Bruce Cordell were a trainwreck. Bruce Cordell's revision in 3.5e made psionics much better, though not perfect when it comes to the various classes. The soulknife. for example, woefully underperformed.

There was a subequent revision, much as PF1 did for core 3.5, Dreamscarred Press did for 3.5 psionics, updating it for PF1. Dreamscarred Press introduced a lot more psionic classes than the ones originally part of 3.5e. That was probably the pinnacle of psionics. It was Dreamscarred Press's passion project. Sadly Dreamscarred Press basically crashed and burned some time after their Kickstarter for updating psionics for Starfinder 1.

The Psion during this time was Tier 4 (out of 5) in power, as was the case for any class that took you to 9th level spells or equivalent. So while it was powerful, it wasn't Druid, Cleric, or Wizard levels of godhood.

In 3e psionics counted as magic for most effects. Things like Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, Detect Magic, etc. would equally affect Psionics as it did other forms of magic. Psionics used power points instead of spells, but you were limited by your character level in terms of how much you could upcast spells. There were also psionic feats that let you - much like a 5e Warlock's invocations - have spell-like psionic abilities as long as you had a mechanic called Psionic Focus, and you could expend your Psionic Focus sometimes for other benefits.

I do not mind using the pre-existing spell system and spells for psionics. I am not opposed to psionic subclasses. I am not a fan, however, of having psionics relegated to only subclasses, particularly of the Sorcerer. It would be nice to have at least one Psion/Psychic/Mystic or whatever people want to call it. It can use spells, but I would like a tighter thematic and aesthetic focus for the Psion with a psionic spell list and not just the Sorcerer or Warlock spell list plus some psionic ones bolted on. My preference for primary stat for a Psion would be Wisdom > Intelligence > Charisma. I think that there are more than enough potential subclasses for just a Psion to warrant a Psion full class rather than relegate one flavor of Psion to a single subclass.

But more than that, I don't like being aggressively and abrasively shouted at and told to shut up and like the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer or that it's the best psion for 5e. That sort of behavior has worked against the arguments of the person and have done just as much to turn me off from the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer as my other pre-existing preferences. Someone can scream at me until the cows come home that the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer is the best Psion for 5e or that Psions are just Sorcerers, but that doesn't change the fact for me that it fails to scratch my itch for psionics. Those are the breaks.

But I do hope there are some revisions to the sorcerer that will better accommodate a psionic user.

I doubt it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How.

How is another book with player options going to make the game worse than the wizard already makes it without taking spells into account?

Because it basically dumps another wizard's worth of problems into the game. Except being a splatbook it's going to be worse playtested than the PHB spells - and if they are releasing the spells all together there's even less likelihood they've done a decent job of reading, verifying, and playtesting them. The question isn't if they've put the next Silvery Barbs or Healing Spirit into the game but how many times. And that's before we get into combos.

The problems caused by the wizard are not caused by the base class. They are caused by the wizard's spells. All of them. You aren't asking for just another wizard's worth of problems, you are asking for a poorly playtested wizard knockoff's worth of problems.

Adding to this, in order to use a character class I need a rough mental map of how the spells work because spells are class features. So it makes the Psion hard to use. And as a DM I need a rough understanding of what the PCs characters will do. You're just trying to brush off a whole lot homework as no big deal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I will also say that there are some particular features of the aberrant mind that lead to a particular version of the psionicist, but not, for example, the Professor X version or the highly trained monastic-type.

The thing is I struggle to see both these characters' places in D&D. Professor X is to me a clear NPC with absurd ranges but who has mobility problems and rarely goes out in the field. And "highly trained monastic types" stay in their monasteries training. (Yes, that includes martial artist monks). Adventurers, even monks, have to be rough and ready types learning in the school of hard knocks.

But, overall, I think there is a great breadth of psionic ability that can be expressed through a combination of the psionic subclasses and through taking the psionic feats, especially now that everyone gets a feat at 1st level.

Definitely.

 

[Mecheon]

Whenever the Battlemaster "Warlord" comes up people have clearly and relevant mechanical descriptions of what the warlord did but the Battlemaster didn't. And there is strong consensus as to what these are. And why the playstyle doesn't match at all.

Whenever the Psion comes up there are (as in this thread) people asking for things already done by the Aberrant Mind. No one has ever mentioned one single thing I am aware of about how the Aberrant Mind has a different playstyle to the Psion. Because it doesn't.

And people insisting that because one option at level 14 is something they dislike it ruins the whole thing. And people insisting that psychic spells aren't magic because someone with a thesaurus replaced "caster" with "manifester".

I have a large buffet here - Aberrant Mind, GOOlock, Whispers Bard, Astral Self Monk, Soulknife, Psi Warrior.

Both were mechanically distinct in previous editions. They have a history

Aberrant Mind is aberration themed, per its name and suggested background, so aren't filling the role of it, because being a psion isn't just 'being aberration'. GOOlock is "I made a deal with an eldritch entity", it isn't psionic in the slightest, you're just working for Cthulhu or Hastur. Whispers Bard is about shadows and general secret stuff, doesn't have a psionic component at all. Astral Self monk is about being summoning a Stand, it doesn't have a psionic component. Soulknife is a stabby rogue themed class, it isn't a dedicated psion. Psi Warrior, likewise, is a warrior with some psionics, not a dedicated psion.

They work differently because they are different classes. We already have that range; GOOlock Bladelock and Soulknife are both psychics with psychic weapons.

Cool, doesn't matter. They're not psychics. Someone using a magic weapon doesn't mean we shouldn't have a wizard.

Which is why the existing buffet is better than your It Must Be A Class And Nothing Else Will Do.

I've pointed out the failings of the options. Like, out of those options suggested, half of them have nothing to do with psionics in the slightest to the point one is being Goku. Is that what you're offering me compared to the game's history? Three options that have nothing to do with the concept, and three that barely touch it?

Which is what you are trying to do. You are saying there must be one psychic class.

Meanwhile the existing options are the opposite. We have sorcerers, warlocks, bards, monks, rogues, and fighters all with psionic options.

Yes, I'd like options expanded into a new class because the existing options aren't scratching the itch as presented. The Aberrant Mind sorcerer isn't good enough as a dedicated psion, therefore, looking at a new class

We can slap in a thousand, thousand more subclasses but they're probably going to fail to scratch the itch because, despite what the people who want everything smushed down into 4 classes will tell you, sometimes its just easier to do something as a new class

And they had four basic features

• Wizard hp, armour, weapons, and wizard level centralisation on spellcasting.
• A spell point casting system with the number of spells points you got being based on wizard totals
• Spells you could cast without VSM components
• 70 pages worth of shovelware spells that were often knock-off wizard spells, many referencing the wizard spells by name. There were a few gems in there.

And the Aberrant Mind nails points 1-3. It doesn't bother with the shovelware - if a spell is good enough to include it is good enough to share.

Don't forget "Running off relevant stats for a psion" and "Themed as a psychic character first and foremost", which the Aberrant Mind fails on.

What are these "half the things" it can't do? Because so far no one I can recall has presented one single thing the Aberrant Mind can't do that a Psion can other than call itself a full class. No one I can recall other than me has even mentioned a single one of the spells that hasn't been ported - or any of the ephemera like psycrystals.

And it is a straight up lie to say that Aberrant Mind is being presented as the only option. I've been pointing out revised GOOlocks, Whispers Bards, and Soulknives.

Cast dedicated psion spells that are all theirs and not part of the wizard's hedgemoney. Use a different stat system supporting psionics (just saying, Aberrant Mind runs on Cha like all sorcs), and that's before the simple fact that, y'know, it doesn't feel like you're playing a psion and imposing your will on the world but instead a sorcerer with more tentacle themed magic and a pinch of psionics.

So what you are saying is that if you don't want the aberration theming no one is making you use it? It's simply the default and alternatives are written in for if you want to play other ways. Your literal complaint here is that it makes plenty of room for your tastes without orbiting around them.

None of the alternatives feel like "This is a psion, a longstanding class from Dungeons and Dragons". Like, you've put in the subclass that's about punching people ala Jojo's Bizarre Adventure in this

Gamefeel is an absolute thing in this game, and ideas that would have been great previously (playtest sorcerer) were downvoted for not feeling appropriate for what people thought it was. This is just another case. No, the Charisma focused subclass themed around the Flying Spaghetti Monster touching you with his noodly apendage does not feel like the Intellect based Psion of previous editions

 

[Mind of tempest]

Specialist wizards? Extremely.

The way Illusionists were now just specialist wizards? Not very. Their One Unique Thing was their own spell list.

Meanwhile Aberrant Minds have what people talk about as the Psion things - power points, psychic magic, and upcasting. All they lack is the unique Psion spells - but not one single time have I ever seen anyone spontaneously name a specific Psion spell or two as being core to what made psions. There are no iconic or style making spells

No we can't have Another Wizard Knock-off. The wizard exists. So does the sorcerer. And the Aberrant Mind uses "psionic mechanics" like power points and if it's the playstyle of the Psion you are interested in the Aberrant Mind nails it.

If they are going to share wizard spells the way sorcerers do then what's the point in them? And if they aren't and you're going to dump other classes onto the game to justify your Psion the way the 3.x sorcerer was dumped on the game to justify wizard spells, no. That shouldn't have happened.

And we've already got the multiclass subclasses with the Soulknife and Psi Warrior. So it won't be them.

You're working with an Artificer amount of space at most. If you make it mystic like it might work. If you try to just be a Psion the Aberrant Mind exists so you're basically adding nothing to the game that isn't there except a calamari-free Aberrant Mind.

Use his telekinesis to fly, shimmering with energy as he did because someone broke his chair? Yes. Prof X isn't great at it because his specific issues with his legs translate to general mobility in ways that don't fit D&D rules. And he would be a bad adventurer and unsuitable D&D PC because of it.

See invisible people with telepathy? I don't recall it coming up but he would have if it did.

Move freely underwater? No - mobility is an explicit problem for Professor X. D&D doesn't really do his legs-for-power trade.

"Not necessarily" = it is if you want it to be.

The fact that your argument is "it doesn't have to be psychic power" is telling. You're trying to make it not work.

It's a D&D Psion, with explanations tied to D&D psychic lore (like Ilithids and other aberrations). It's not a "true psion" any more than it is a True Scotsman.

And there are already more varied choices than a single psionic class could provide just among primary casters. No one Psion class could cover the Aberrant Mind, the revised GOOlock and the Whispers Bard. So clearly the problem isn't one of variety or flexibility.

Which means that ancestors doing the nasty with aberrants isn't a necessary part of the class.

Yes. They are a specific thing. And not Aberrant Minds.

we had a wizard knock off before the sorcerer it was called the cleric it has its own knock offs.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It keeps getting mentioned that we don’t want spell bloat/redundancy but how many psionic themed spells are there anyway? And how many of those are trapped on the wizard spell list? (Although i dare say the bard also has quite a collection of psychic spells)

If you collected all the appropriate spells from all over would you actually have enough to fill out a psion class spell list?

 

[Aldarc]

It keeps getting mentioned that we don’t want spell bloat/redundancy but how many psionic themed spells are there anyway? And how many of those are trapped on the wizard spell list? (Although i dare say the bard also has quite a collection of psychic spells)

If you collected all the appropriate spells from all over would you actually have enough to fill out a psion class spell list?

It's worth taking a look. I may look at that later. It would probably be easier to cross compare with the 3e Psion, since that has more spell analogues.