But what about the Psion.
Psionics, as fans have made pretty clear, needs to be a non-spellcasting class, that still has resources and mechanics to its supernatural behavior. I actually quite liked the Mystic they playtested, for example, and was very sad they abandoned it rather than trying to iterate more.
Then again, I was also sad that they utterly abandoned the playtest Sorcerer (which was an awesome, transforming mixed spellcaster, with a struggling-with-the-power-in-your-soul theme) and Warlock (which, while admittedly less well-developed, had the super interesting mechanic of having to actually sacrifice something for each "boon"--Invocation, as we'd call it now--granted). But the arbitrary popularity threshold said those things couldn't be allowed to stand, so they were axed, along with all the cool ACTUAL differentiation they brought with them.
I'm going to go with Sorcerer.
It is slightly redundant as an Arcane Caster
It's full on redundant as a CHA based caster.
A lot of their subclasses have problems.
A Warlock would make a better "I have magic in my blood and that causes me to have supernatural powers" character than a Sorcerer would from a mechanical standpoint (Invocations are way better than metamagic for that invoking that kind of playstyle).
And finally, the thing that puts it over the edge against lackluster classes (like the Monk): The existence of the Sorcerer, and people trying to preserve it's toes, have shot down interesting potential subclasses from UA.
That last thing is really the main reason for me. Monks might be bad, but at least they haven't stopped Barbarians and Fighters from getting their own twists on Unarmed Fighting.
If you want to complain about the Sorcerer being boring and too similar to other classes, you have only the fanbase to blame. Wizards
tried to do something new. Too many people shouted it down, so they dropped it like a hot rock.
The other classes have safety in numbers; they all feel at home in a similar set of quasi-Euro, pseudo-medieval adjacent settings that seem natural
Yeah...gonna stop you right there. This is, quite literally, just "because the others are more traditional." Tradition as an argument isn't particularly persuasive. "We do this because it's what we've always done" would mean there should never have been a Cleric or Thief class, because the only
truly traditional classes are Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Further, what "seems natural" to you may be WILDLY different from what "seems natural" to others. Why should your--and
only your--perception of what "seems natural" be promoted to "what goes for everyone?"
And yes, I know this is a thread about personal preferences. I'm not going to argue if someone's honest opinion is "because I just don't want it, and I was asked what things I wouldn't want."
De gustibus non disputandum est. But I don't really cotton to the notion that (for example) "person who makes difficult, magically-binding bargains with eldritch beings" is anywhere near as generic as you're painting it, let alone some of the particularly niche things like Druids, Bards, or Paladins. If we're gonna talk about opinions, we should present them as opinions.
Of course personally I find Clerics the most demanding class of a setting. They tend to expect you to provide them with a whole pantheon of gods. That's really much more demanding than just conceding that "okay, so you're like the one crazy inventor in this world" or "alright, I guess there is some sort of kung-fu monastery on some distant part of the map".
But...they get approved for inclusion, despite being
more disruptive than these other things, because...?
