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

It's a three step process:

1. Make Psionics a subclass of sorcerer
2. Eliminate sorcerer, fold into wizard.
3. BOOM! Wizard more powerful.

They don't call them Psions of the Coast...
I would potentially kill the Wizard too and break it up into smaller thematic chunks. At the very least, I would have the audacity to truncate the Wizard's spell list. I think that the Wizard is trying to be too much, and it's eating a lot of growth potential for other archetypes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



I would potentially kill the Wizard too and break it up into smaller thematic chunks. At the very least, I would have the audacity to truncate the Wizard's spell list. I think that the Wizard is trying to be too much, and it's eating a lot of growth potential for other archetypes.
Just sorcerer as the arcanist with a pact of the book Warlock who gets to cheat-swap spells known.
 

  • Swordmage class w/ psychic powers subclass (Psi-warrior). Limited list of "use in combat" style powers.
  • Monk subclass for your shaolin/wuxia monks with amazing "mind-over-body" powers.
  • Psychic class w/ various discipline subclasses for the straight up "telepath/mind blasters" and "(various-)kineticists" and an "empath/healer." Lists of powers for each discipline, e.g. the mysterious "mind-reader" telepath character is not going to be able to do (or to the extent) the telekinetic "force mage" style character can. Either/both can engage in "psychic/mind-to-mind combat" in the Dreaming or Astral Planes, but the telepath will be at a massive advantage.

If one must...and I am on the fence for the most part (leaning toward "nuh-uh") about the whole "shapeshifting" as a psychic power. BUT, if one wants, I could see making a Shaman or, maybe, Druid subclass that is specifically a....what did they call them?...."psychometobolic?" (gods. terrible name.) But, if it were a "psychic/mental power" that opens the door for "mutant powers" style shapeshifting characters.
 

A fan base that keeps taking everyone else's toys and keeping new things from being made?

Each time a class is made, dozens of character concepts die. The more you silo abilities and powers, the more ways to play slip through your fingers. Rather than making more bad classes to cover niches left out by narrow rigid classes, you should be demanding more flexible classes.
 

A fan base that keeps taking everyone else's toys and keeping new things from being made?
That would be those who want to revert the current psionic buffet to there being One True Psionic Class and it being a knock-off wizard.
Or make a whole new one. The point is trying something new instead fo the same old spellcaster we've always had because the psion isn't supposed to be a spellcaster.
But a spellcaster is what a Psion has always been. "Psion" is not a generic name. It is a name with a history and a consistent implementation across 2e, 3.0, and 3.5. (And the 4e one was different but a pure "let's try making encounter powers based on power points" spamtastic mess).

I've been advocating the Mystic as a better starting point. Because unlike the Psion it's not just an off-brand wizard.
Again, the point is that people don't want it to be a wizard.
The psion is a wizard with the serial numbers filed off.
And yet you just said you advocated the also-wizard Mystic.
The Mystic is starting to get somewhere with its disciplines. I think that it needs more time in development but there are numerous meaningful differences between the mystic and the off-brand wizard that was the psion.
  • The psion had hit points, armour, and weapon proficiencies that were exactly the same as the wizard. None of these applies to the mystic.
  • The psion had spells that were formatted like spells with a student using a thesaurus to change things like "caster level" to "manifester level". The Mystic does not
  • The psion picked spells in about the same way as any other caster. The mystic picked disciplines and got their abilities as packages.
Is the mystic a cousin of the wizard? Definitely. But so is the cleric. If anything I'd say that the mystic was further mechanically from the wizard than the cleric is.
That's the point! That's why we need a new class!
So ... not the Psion then. The psion is an old class whose good bits have already been taken onboard. It is not a new class.
And a list of powers! And basically a whole book of player-facing content and then five more for other concepts that got forced into subclasses where they don't belong!

More classes! More classes for a hundred years!
Yay! Shovelware!

New classes only where existing ones do not do the job.
No ban lists and just adapt?
No 5e if it returns to the glurge of 2e and 3.X and drops what quality control it has. I do not pay money to game developers to fix their game or just read any hair-brained idea that crosses their heads. I've enough of those myself.
 


Each time a class is made, dozens of character concepts die. The more you silo abilities and powers, the more ways to play slip through your fingers. Rather than making more bad classes to cover niches left out by narrow rigid classes, you should be demanding more flexible classes.
i don't see how that works, adding new classes doesn't cut off anything from those that came before, if a warlord was finally made it's not going to take away battlemaster, in fact it'll open up new possibilities due to new multiclass combinations(even if i don't personally care for the existence of multiclassing)
 
Last edited:

I don't even actually like psionics. I just don't dislike psion players enough to wish ti disenfranchise them.
That's me.

Personally the style of Psionics id would prefer to play I'd hate to DM.

I'd be okay with Psionic spellcasting if I could trust D&D designers to not share them outside the class.

I think my biggest gripe with Psionic spell is 5e is that they are balanced for a wizardly character not a psionic character.
 

Remove ads

Top