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

[steeldragons]

There is no rational reason for wanting a psion that shouldn't be addressed by better design of the core magic system, and I don't count "but I want my psi points!" as a rational reason.

(bolding mine)

Putting aside your right to be aribiter for what you consider/accept as "a rational reason," for yourself, I am very interested in hearing what the above bolded section means. I've seen this argument, in several threads (usually as refers to psionics, in some sorcerer threads also) over the years, but am completely at a loss as to what that is supposed to mean.

Why would having a "slot system" for class A, and a "point system" for class B in the same game alleged to be "too complex! can't possibly work! too much for players to grasp/handle!"

What does a "better design of the core magic system" look like? What is it supposed to have...? or not have?... as compared to the "1-5 or 7 or 9 spell levels progression, with increasing numbers of slots to X for this class, Y for that, to Z for the other..." that we have now?

 

[Celebrim]

What does a "better design of the core magic system" look like? What is it supposed to have...? or not have?... as compared to the "1-5 or 7 or 9 spell levels progression, with increasing numbers of slots to X for this class, Y for that, to Z for the other..." that we have now?

You tell me. What is the thing missing from the core system you describe that you feel you get from "psionics"?

 

[steeldragons]

You tell me. What is the thing missing from the core system you describe that you feel you get from "psionics"?

hahaha. Nuh-no. That's not how this works.

I am not the one asserting the magic system needs "a better core design" so as to include psionics within some single unified system. So, I am not the one who has to define what is meant by what you (and others) have said.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Hate seems a strong word. I find every past expression of "psionic" fundamentally flawed and every expression of it post 1e AD&D strictly unnecessary. The only concept for psionic that every made sense was innate arcane knacks or gifts that did not depend on the level of the character and as such was not tied to class. Psionic as just another class never made sense at all and made even less sense after the introduction of the sorcerer which divided arcane into either "born with it" or "learned it by studying" already which made "psionic" (again, a horrible name) just another sort of arcane magician that was born with their magic. As such, I find the inclusion of the class absolutely pointless and likely a marker of bad overall design in the system, since a well-designed system would not require such a class.

And as such, I'd rather the design team work on something else, particularly since in my opinion there has never been a full and complete version of the game since like 1e AD&D which while complete was marred by lots of poor design. 3e improved the design, but instead of working to make a complete functional system worked really hard at selling books for short term profit at expense of the long-term health of the system, resulting ultimately in undermining its own design and making almost everyone unhappy but theoretical optimizers that treat chargen as the whole game.

There is no rational reason for wanting a psion that shouldn't be addressed by better design of the core magic system, and I don't count "but I want my psi points!" as a rational reason.

After a full, complete and well-designed system is available as the core game, I'd be happy to see alternative magic systems published but the degree of modularity implied by such a design would mean there would never be anything like the "psion" as people imagine it. Instead you'd just have a swappable way to play wizards with spell points instead of spell slots that would perfectly integrate with the entire rest of the system and there wouldn't be stupid arguments like, "But my magic goes through spell resistance because it's psionics and not magic!" Likewise, you'd have wizards that could cast "ego whip" or "body weaponry" in the base game.

define a completely functional system then?

This is in dispute. More accurately I'd have said that the pre-Tasha's sorcerers suck, but the Abberant Mind and Clockwork Soul and Lunar Sorcerer don't because they've fixed what made the sorcerer suck. And the 5.24 sorcerer doesn't look as if it's going to suck. We are on the second or third attempt at a balanced sorcerer class in 5e.

You've an entire buffet of psychic options in D&D 5e:

• Aberrant Mind Sorcerer
• GOOlock (my first ever 5e character was a GOOlock Psion - and the 3.24 one looks pretty good)
• Whispers Bard. Also Eloquence or Glamour
• Soulknife Rogue
• Psi Warrior Fighter
• Astral Self Monk

You already have plenty of other psychic options. Aberrant Mind isn't my first choice for a psychic character. Depending on the character for me that would be either a 5.24 GOOlock or a Soulknife. Where they can do things - but the major thing about them isn't rationing power points and counting the number of spells.

But the Aberrant Mind hits just about all the mechanical beats that made the psion distinct from a wizard; it's a powerpoint class with fungible power points that doesn't use V, S, or M components when using its psychic spells, and can upcast. There are only a few major mechanical differences between an Aberrant Mind and a 2e or 3.5 Psion:

• It doesn't get 70 pages worth of extruded spells paid for by the page and frequently called things like Levitation, Psionic. Instead it gets a psychic spin on existing spells without bothering to rename the spells.
• It has a whiff of calamari - and most fictional psychics who are primary casters are explicitly creepy and outsiders
• It calls itself a subclass not a class.
• It is forced to use Charisma not intelligence. (I'd argue (a) psychics should default to charisma and (b) there should be more flexibility for a lot of classes in casting stat - when I'm not outright Death To Ability Scores).

Yes. Yes I think the idea of the psion sucks like an industrial strength hoover and the implementations have sucked like Charybdis in every edition they have been in (even 4e but that was for different resasons). And I think that the design team has produced the best psionics D&D has ever had - and I would rather they worked on something else.

Now why, conceptually do I think the psion sucks as a representation of psychic characters? (As I believe I've made clear I am a fan of psionics - just not the psion).

• Psychic characters are not D&D spellcasters. D&D spellcasters are all about throwing around a huge variety of spells. Psychics in fiction tend to just have a tiny handful of fundamental abilities that they have to build off.
• Particularly for the "big" psionic characters (Prof X, Jean Grey, Carrie, Mewtoo, Emperor Palpatine) psychics have an otherness or creepiness about them, and psions from the design brief feel a lot more antiseptic than wizards. Tying them to the Far Realm adds that in - and as well as being a thematic match mechanically matches a significant portion of fiction including Warhammer 40k and Babylon 5.
• Having one core psychic class sucks up all the air in the room and says that "Psionics work this way", leaving actually good implementations of various types of psychic (like the Soulknife or even the OneD&D GOOlock) looking odd.

And this is before we get into the implementation costs like 70 pages of spells.

a goolock is not psionic any more than archfae makes you a wizard.
bards I can't even find word for that suggestion.
then what do you want? if you want people to make something for you it helps to focus on getting them to see the desire for that instead of being against something?

 

[Vael]

Given the Warlock's popularity and the absolute outrage at the UA that tried them as Half-Casters, there is market for spellcasters that don't function the same as the core spellcasters do, and I do see Psionics as a way to fill that desire. It's also what I'd like from the Artificer, I'm not a fan of the current iteration. Once we get out of the Core classes, I do think there should be some more mechanical variation.

 

[jasper]

5 with a study period

 

[CreamCloud0]

the thing casting can't do that psionics is based on doing is let me have one of my at will abilities of (just as example) cure wounds, and by spending points any time i use it i can give it any combination of:
-using it as a bonus action
-increasing it's range
-increasing it's level
-auto-maximise it's healing
-targeting multiple creatures
-adding the effects of lesser restoration
-adding the healing as temp HP

*cure wounds prob isn't the BEST example as at-will healing is broken but you get the idea.

 

[Neonchameleon]

a goolock is not psionic any more than archfae makes you a wizard.

A PHB GOOlock is a caster with telepathy and some of the more psychic spells.

A OneD&D GOOlock has things like explicitly psychic spells, a beefed up Awakened Mind, and replaces its entropic shield with the ability to use telepathy offensively to get advantage against them and force them to have disadvantage on attack rolls against you. It's as psychic as a psion and a better representation of a wide array of fictional psionics than someone who just casts spells using spell points (other than filing the serial numbers off the spell part).

bards I can't even find word for that suggestion.

Not my fault that you aren't as deft with words or as close to psionics as the average bard.

then what do you want? if you want people to make something for you it helps to focus on getting them to see the desire for that instead of being against something?

I want the psion to stay in its rightful place in D&D. Six foot underground and well tamped down, with the Aberrant Mind having a lower overhead and being a more strongly thematic implementation of 90% of the psionicists that would fit that group.

The Mystic had some interesting things going on. Alternate casting systems are worth looking at - but the Psion barely even qualified as that. If someone were to try to resurrect Truenaming or Incarnum I'd wish them luck.

 

[Baron Opal II]

And most likely inspiration for the Chainmail wizard was a war game scenario where the battle of Minas Tirith was played out and which included a Wizard figure with the power to cast fireballs and lightning bolts.

The blast patterns of which mimic two specific Napoleonic-era explosive artillery shells.
This is why lightning bolt doesn't start at the caster, but is a line that can be at some distance.

Pardon the tangent.

 

[Celebrim]

hahaha. Nuh-no. That's not how this works.

I beg your pardon but this is exactly how it works.

The full quote is: "There is no rational reason for wanting a psion that shouldn't be addressed by better design of the core magic system "

If there isn't a rational reason for wanting a psion, then there is no need to change the design of the core magic system. If on the other hand, there is some rational complaint about the core magic system then that complaint can be addressed by refinement of the core magic system.

I am not the one asserting the magic system needs "a better core design" so as to include psionics within some single unified system

I'm not the one asserting that the magic system needs a better core design or even that it needs to include psionics at all. In fact, I've made pretty clear that I think the game is better without them. But again, if there is a rational reason for wanting psionics because of some deficiency in the core system, it's better addressed by refining the core system.

And further, even though I'm not under any obligation here since I'm not the one dissatisfied with the present system, I've already speculatively engaged in this process. For example, some commentators on the psion express joy that they have more "fine control" over a spell in various ways by being able to inject points into the spell to spontaneously metamagic the spell. And that seems like a potentially reasonable non-selfish and thoughtful complaint given how awesome the concept of metamagic is and how generally unsatisfactory the implementation was in 3e. But as I pointed out, a cool solution to that problem has existed since way back in 3e when Monte Cook in reimagining the D&D magic system for his Arcana Unearthed project built metamagic into the spell descriptions as a universal property of the system. And I'd also like to point out how the system he built is in a lot of ways congruent with the 5e Mystic class where it's "spells" could be cast at multiple power levels depending on how many points you put into them.

So it seems to me if this complaint is valid enough to justify the psion, then it's valid enough of a complaint against the system that every magic using class ought to benefit from it and not try to solve it by tacking on an extra class and extra magic system. The design work should more properly go into refining the core system.

So, I am not the one who has to define what is meant by what you (and others) have said.

I think what I said was quite clear.