Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 8095770" data-attributes="member: 59057">I hope you all know, we are the loud minority. Everyone else does not go to DnD discussion forums. During DnDnext there was a similar discussion about the warlord. The questions are:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">is it different enough to justify an own class?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">does it play well with the existing rules</li> </ul>For the first one:Is the archetype so wide, that you need to do subclasses to do very different things, other base classes can do? Or is it better to just add archetype subclasses to the base classes. Or do you do 3 new classes? In 5e usually the answer is adding subclasses to differwnt classes. The artificer somehow managed to escape the default solution. (There were attemtps to make the artificer a wizard subclass.)For the second one:Psionics added that late to a system making it distinct from magic most probably is too imbalanced or you need to change the existing monsters and rules, at what point it is not worth it. Especially if you want your 3 core books to stay 95% relevant, which WotC so far has made a good job of. WotC already has made a precedent how Psionics work: As an example take the mind flayer. His psionics is done by chosing the right spells.You really don't want different rules depending on which books you include. Right now, allowing everyone to chose PHB and any single other book works. I have 3rd point: in every edition I played we stopped using psionics, because it was never worth it. Memorizing an extra set of rules only to please a single character out of 5 or 6 is bad enough... and then on Top you have to balance encounters out against a different type of attack. In a different Thread AC 25 a few times per day maes the DM desperate.</blockquote>

Verification