![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unhappy with the New Classes
Feb. 26th, 2010 12:18 pmPlayers Handbook 3 is coming out in a few weeks, and I'm not too thrilled with some of the new classes, the Ardent and the Battlemind in particular. It has nothing to do with the mechanics; I haven't played them, but I like the basics of psionics in 4E (using points to "augment" at-will powers was an inspired idea), and nothing seems inherently game-breaking.
My issue isn't with the mechanics, but with the flavor ... or the lack thereof. One of the benefits of classes is that they have clear cultural referents, evoking characters from history, fiction or legend. Think of Paladins and Lancelot comes to mind. Barbarians? Conan. Wizards? Gandalf. Other classes at least represent real groups of people, like clerics, shamans, assassins (ninja!!!!!) and so forth.
Psionics were always exceptional in this regard, since their referents are from comics or science fiction (Professor X, Jedi Knights, guys blowing up heads in Scanners). I was intrigued, therefore, when designers turned the Monk into a psionic class. Aha! I thought. Since Shaolin monks were Buddhists, maybe the psionic classes would be drawn from Eastern ascetic traditions? I remember one of the old Samurai classes, in Dragon magazine, acquired psionics at high levels; it made sense, reflecting Zen mental discipline. Make the Monk a psionic striker, the Samurai a psionic defender, the Guru a psionic leader...
Instead we get the Battlemind. The name indicates the power source (psionic) and the role (defender), nothing more. Picture a Battlemind outside of combat. What does he look like? Where does he come from? What's his social status? You can answer these questions with the core D&D classes. Not with the Battlemind. These new classes may have way kewl powers, but I don't think they'll add much to the game.
My issue isn't with the mechanics, but with the flavor ... or the lack thereof. One of the benefits of classes is that they have clear cultural referents, evoking characters from history, fiction or legend. Think of Paladins and Lancelot comes to mind. Barbarians? Conan. Wizards? Gandalf. Other classes at least represent real groups of people, like clerics, shamans, assassins (ninja!!!!!) and so forth.
Psionics were always exceptional in this regard, since their referents are from comics or science fiction (Professor X, Jedi Knights, guys blowing up heads in Scanners). I was intrigued, therefore, when designers turned the Monk into a psionic class. Aha! I thought. Since Shaolin monks were Buddhists, maybe the psionic classes would be drawn from Eastern ascetic traditions? I remember one of the old Samurai classes, in Dragon magazine, acquired psionics at high levels; it made sense, reflecting Zen mental discipline. Make the Monk a psionic striker, the Samurai a psionic defender, the Guru a psionic leader...
Instead we get the Battlemind. The name indicates the power source (psionic) and the role (defender), nothing more. Picture a Battlemind outside of combat. What does he look like? Where does he come from? What's his social status? You can answer these questions with the core D&D classes. Not with the Battlemind. These new classes may have way kewl powers, but I don't think they'll add much to the game.
