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

[Minigiant]

Because the "I Attack" fighter is terrible design to? I mean, I can point you to the threads on this boards where people talk about just how terrible of a design that is. Here is one of mine as a sample: D&D General - The Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard Problem

Designing the fighter is one of the hardest challenges in D&D and it's so rarely done well. Probably the 1e AD&D fighter was the most balanced fighter the game has ever had. The 3e one was so bad it was famously unplayable and generally considered a tier 7 class that wasn't even good at its own schtick.

True

But that's only because the designers force fighter to cover so many archetypes and tropes that the skeleton can't handle the weight.

However if Psions 1-3 powers from a list of 18 (3 from each school) , you'd please probably 80-90% of the people who don't want "psionic wizard".

 

[Remathilis]

it's. not. magic. please stop insisting they are, the nuances and differences of the process are important and your disregard for them is insulting to everyone who actually cares, just because they can achieve vaguely the same end result does not mean they are the same thing, your refusal to acknowledge their basic premise is not helping your case in us valuing your input.

Even as someone who wants to see a psion in D&D, this is just semantics. It reminds me of the supernatural fighter argument: it does not matter what the effects are as long as you don't say the "M" word.

Magic can take on a variety of forms in D&D. Arcane, divine, primal, psionic, etc. I want a psionic base class and if they use 95% of the spell system with a few tweaks, that'd be all right with me. I don't complain arcane and divine magic is mechanically the same, I won't if psionics is too. I just want better than a sorcerer subclass.

 

[Celebrim]

but the words we use do make them different things, the lines we draw are important to the fantasy, it's all made up but that doesn't make it all the same,

Is there even an argument being offered in that? Are you offering up anything in the way of evidence?

And to the extent that you are offering up an argument, it's a semantic argument and therefore it supports my position. I've already anticipated and disarmed it by pointing out that the words are synonyms. But let's just take it one step further.

One of the most common reputed psychic powers is the ability to communicate with the dead - as in movies like 'Ghost' and 'The Sixth Sense'. But if this power exists then it implies that the world we live in is one where people not only have souls, but that these souls are disembodied - dare I say ethereal - and hanging around on earth wanting to communicate. And thus we are already describing the world of the medium and the mystic and the sorcerer. And indeed, we're already describing the world described by practitioners of magic and already describing basically the same process for "gifted" individuals to contact the dead. This is the world of magical gifts and talents, of seventh sons of seventh sons and wise women and all of that. And this should not be surprising, because the word 'psychic' itself comes out of the 19th century Spiritualism movement which was just the old magic of the world dressed up in a waistcoat and made presentable in the parlor.

Psychic is just magic, and psionic - since it isn't about putting a machine in your brain that extends your senses like the "telepath corp" in War Against the Chtorr (actual psionics) - is just an inadvertent misnaming by the authors in 1e AD&D of psychic based on (I'd have to look up my Jon Peterson) last reading some science fiction book where psionic was used in place of psychic to dress up magic as presentable in the spaceship (assuming that book lacked actual psionics machines). So psionic is just magic. It's all the same stuff doing the same things using the same assumptions about how the world works practiced through the same focusing of the mind and willpower to force things to obey your thoughts.

 

[jmartkdr2]

who plays with spell components I have not seen anyone do that?

Every game I've been in, so I guess that 50/50

 

[Vaalingrade]

Lol, I must be one of the few Incarnum fans, I've a few half-baked attempts at an Incarnum system for 5e.

Incarnum was a brilliant idea that came at the worst possible time as its edition was entering its swan song and just as the Bo9S was eating all the attention by being the most brilliant book of the era.

 

[Maxperson]

For me the number is at least 20. The 12 PHB classes, artificer, psion, marshal and warlord are 16 right off the bat. I'm sure there are at least 4 more concepts that deserve a class.

 

[Minigiant]

Here me out.

A Knight class.

It's a medium or heavy armor warrior class that specializes in a Fighting style and skills of a chosen or crafted martial culture. Subclasses are individual weapon specializations in a culture's favored weapon or devotions to a culture's favored skill.

The fighter shifts more to a martial generalist who is skilled in multiple weapon styles and has a broad range of physical and mental prowess.

Knight- Weapon Specialist class
Fighter- Weapon Generalist class

 

[Neonchameleon]

my inference on the words front seemed not to translate there are no words to express my outrage at such a suggestion

Oh it did. I'm just finding your outrage ridiculous and to fly in the face of the themes of both bards and psionics, which overlap a lot especially if you don't somehow tie bards to music.

wait you do see the psion and mystic are just the evolutionary line of the same thing one just grew a more fantasy name?

"Just an evolutionary line of the same thing" in the same way that wolves and labradors are the same evolutionary line? The Psion is a spell point wizard with a splash of paint who casts what appear to me to be clearly and unambiguously spells.

The mystic for starters isn't physically templated off a wizard. They can wear armour and have more hit points than the wizard; they are solid adventurers with some physicality. Their powers show the legacy of having started life as a wizard variant. But let's compare roughly equivalent abilities between a mystic and a 5e wizard.

Climbing (2 psi). You grow tiny hooked claws that give you gain a climbing speed equal to your walking speed.​

vs

Spider Climb​

2 Transmutation​

Casting Time: 1 action​

Range: Touch​

Target: One willing creature you touch​

Components: V S M (A drop of bitumen and a spider)​

Duration: Up to 1 hour​

Classes: Artificer, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard​

Until the spell ends, one willing creature you touch gains the ability to move up, down, and across vertical surfaces and upside down along ceilings, while leaving its hands free. The target also gains a climbing speed equal to its walking speed.​

Now half of what's in the spell is in the mystic ability is shared. But doesn't need writing. The first was the whole thing. And a mystic doesn't pick a random assortment of spells, they pick the discipline and get all the abilities from it. Meanwhile the 3.5 Psion, being a generic caster with the serial numbers filed off picked spells like a generic caster that were sometimes so generic they literally referenced the arcane spell.

Or to put things another way the psion (ignoring 4e) looks to me, other than the 70 pages of spells, like someone made a very simple "flavour is free" homebrew of a spell point wizard, and called it a psion. And then got paid by the column inch for the spells and the fluff (this is a general problem I find in both 2e and 3.x; they have more fluff rather than better fluff). The Mystic looks to me like a first or second draft from someone actually trying to do something different and that's worth taking into playtesting. And yes I can see how one is related to the other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Even as someone who wants to see a psion in D&D, this is just semantics. It reminds me of the supernatural fighter argument: it does not matter what the effects are as long as you don't say the "M" word.

Magic can take on a variety of forms in D&D. Arcane, divine, primal, psionic, etc. I want a psionic base class and if they use 95% of the spell system with a few tweaks, that'd be all right with me. I don't complain arcane and divine magic is mechanically the same, I won't if psionics is too. I just want better than a sorcerer subclass.

And I absolutely do not want a psionic base class. I'll take three (as long as we do better than either the 3.5 Wilder or the 3.5 Soulknife for the second and third) but I consider zero to be a huge improvement over one.

This is because when you only have one class that uses a power source you are making some very important decisions (like number of hit points, proficiencies, and playstyle) about what the overwhelming majority of people using that power source do and implying they are almost all the same. I consider Professor X and Psylocke being members of different classes to be a good thing. Which means that it's three classes or a collection of subclasses for me if we want to explore what psionics actually are.

 

[Mecheon]

Is there even an argument being offered in that? Are you offering up anything in the way of evidence?

And to the extent that you are offering up an argument, it's a semantic argument and therefore it supports my position. I've already anticipated and disarmed it by pointing out that the words are synonyms. But let's just take it one step further.

Hang on, nah. Nah. Let's drag this screeching backwards.

Both the Cleric and the Wizard cast magic. As per your very argument here, you're saying "Remove the Cleric and just give all of its stuff to the Wizard". That's your argument. "Its magic therefore its just another wizard" falls flat when this game has, for decades, had a seperate, secondary sort of magic in divine magic

This is why I've define it as Arcane Magic versus Psionic Magic, with Divine Magic and Nature Magic (IE: Druid/Barbarian stuff) as their own thing

One of the most common reputed psychic powers is the ability to communicate with the dead - as in movies like 'Ghost' and 'The Sixth Sense'. But if this power exists then it implies that the world we live in is one where people not only have souls, but that these souls are disembodied - dare I say ethereal - and hanging around on earth wanting to communicate. And thus we are already describing the world of the medium and the mystic and the sorcerer. And indeed, we're already describing the world described by practitioners of magic and already describing basically the same process for "gifted" individuals to contact the dead. This is the world of magical gifts and talents, of seventh sons of seventh sons and wise women and all of that. And this should not be surprising, because the word 'psychic' itself comes out of the 19th century Spiritualism movement which was just the old magic of the world dressed up in a waistcoat and made presentable in the parlor.

Cool. That's. Not what we want in D&D psionics. We want to throw people around with our mind and tear their brain out with a thought. This isn't a D&D psionics spell and, hell, it isn't even a wizard spell half the time because its a Divine one. This is irrelevant to the discussion on D&D psionics because we're emulating "Pop culture psychic", not "19th century Spiritualism"

Psychic is just magic, and psionic - since it isn't about putting a machine in your brain that extends your senses like the "telepath corp" in War Against the Chtorr (actual psionics) - is just an inadvertent misnaming by the authors in 1e AD&D of psychic based on (I'd have to look up my Jon Peterson) last reading some science fiction book where psionic was used in place of psychic to dress up magic as presentable in the spaceship (assuming that book lacked actual psionics machines). So psionic is just magic. It's all the same stuff doing the same things using the same assumptions about how the world works practiced through the same focusing of the mind and willpower to force things to obey your thoughts.

Psychic power isn't the magic D&D presented however. It isn't the magic of wizards or sorcerers. It isn't Arcane Magic, which is their magic

Wizards don't cast every magic. They don't cast Divine magic, the magic of gods. They don't cast the magic of nature, the domain of druids. Psionics may be magic, but it isn't wizard magic, and therefore they shouldn't get access to it and it can be split into its own thing. Otherwise, this "Its magic" argument is saying "Remove the Cleric" and that's going to be a far larger hurdle

And I absolutely do not want a psionic base class. I'll take three (as long as we do better than either the 3.5 Wilder or the 3.5 Soulknife for the second and third) but I consider zero to be a huge improvement over one.

This is because when you only have one class that uses a power source you are making some very important decisions (like number of hit points, proficiencies, and playstyle) about what the overwhelming majority of people using that power source do and implying they are almost all the same. I consider Professor X and Psylocke being members of different classes to be a good thing. Which means that it's three classes or a collection of subclasses for me if we want to explore what psionics actually are.

Once we got one base class, we can grab its mechanics piecemeal and look at merging into other classes, like how Divine Soul sorcerer and Celestial warlock grab from the Cleric playbook. Those two classes existing doesn't mean we want to get rid of clerics, but it opens avenues to keep a mechanical identity around