”The D&D spell system is made for generalist casters,”
What’s your proof of this?
The characters it makes.
A system's purpose is what it does. The D&D spell system does nothing to induce players not to play generalists. Taking a specific spell closes off no future options. It does nothing to incentivize any future spell choice. The larger game rewards flexibility. The hypothetical fire mage fares poorly against fire-resistant foes, and gets no benefit for being a fire mage.
My understanding is that the biggest issue with Aberrant Mind as the Psion class is not merely that it has spell slots, but that the spells cast (including those with subtle magic or with psionic magic, actually) are still magic, with respect to interacting with anti-magic effects and to the extent they are castable conventionally without metamagic, are cast conventionally, with the same verbal, somatic and/or material components as when cast by any other sorcerer or for that matter any other class which can cast them.
The bolded, right here? This is why psionics is never going to be a thing wholly diverged from magic; the rest of the system simply isn't built with a treehouse magic system in mind and as such would either require a massive overhaul of the monster compendium and/or class options to allow for counter-play (which would piss off psi enthusiasts) or just leave them with an absurd exploit (Which would piss off everyone else).
Alternately, GM's just keep contriving limitations on Psions in order to bring them down to earth which is basically bullying.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
Also, I have some suggestions for people who want D&D/superheroes/RPGs with psionics:
Palladium Fantasy RPG This is very much a classic fantasy RPG from the Palladium megaversal system which offers players a plethora of different classes including no less then 4 dedicated psychic classes (Sensitive, Healer, Mystic and Mind Mage) as well as allowing non-dedicated psychic classes to have access to a handful of minor powers if their race allows for it.
Beyond the supernatural Another Classic from the folks at palladium books; virtually all of the character classes in this game are psychics of varying sorts acting (typically) as psychic investigators dealing with supernatural elements and trying to leverage their more focused power sets to allow them to complete their jobs.
Heroes unlimited! One of the first RPG's I "got gud" at way back in the mid 90's, Heroes unlimited presents a plethora of different superhero archetypes including the Psionic character class.
Best part of these products? They operate on the same rule set and thus can be merged by a GM to varying degrees to create new and unique settings and worlds.
”The D&D spell system is made for generalist casters,”
What’s your proof of this?
The characters it makes.
A system's purpose is what it does. The D&D spell system does nothing to induce players not to play generalists. Taking a specific spell closes off no future options. It does nothing to incentivize any future spell choice. The larger game rewards flexibility. The hypothetical fire mage fares poorly against fire-resistant foes, and gets no benefit for being a fire mage.
I disagree very much. In fact, you can’t play a wizard without specializing into one of the schools or other subclasses. You get two spells per level. Certain subclasses are going to encourage you to take more of that school’s spells (Divination, for example, via Expert Divination). Every subclass plays a little differently and spending some of your 20 + spells learned per level on spells that don’t work with your subclass is just a waste.
But they very clearly actually designed it, which was miles ahead of what had come before. I doesn't have to be great. It doesn't even have to be good. It certainly doesn't have to be to your taste. All it needs is a more-or-less coherent rules model.
And, before you say it, yes "use spell slots for all powers" would be a coherent rules model. And 5e doesn't do that. It's never done that. It uses it for all casters, which works, until you have a caster archetype that doesn't fit the mold. They've not yet made the jump from "spells and powers" to "just powers", but it's an obvious step.
They "very clearly actually designed" 5e too. You may not like what they designed, but design it they did. And if the objective was to have design that would be accessible for newcomers but have the depth to retain veterans, they nailed that.
And if you're not asking for psionics to be casters, but be equal to casters... again, how?
I realize that thinking about systems abstractions is a specialized skill, but can you really not imagine the existence of another functional system beyond the ones that you have? It doesn't have to be one you'd want to play, but just consider the vague possibility that the design space may not be played out.
Uh, I'm the one who's happy with spell slots for psionics, remember? You're the one who wants a functioning bread submarine, the burden of that "imagination" is on you. I'm not going to construct your argument for you.
”The D&D spell system is made for generalist casters,”
What’s your proof of this?
The characters it makes.
A system's purpose is what it does. The D&D spell system does nothing to induce players not to play generalists. Taking a specific spell closes off no future options. It does nothing to incentivize any future spell choice. The larger game rewards flexibility. The hypothetical fire mage fares poorly against fire-resistant foes, and gets no benefit for being a fire mage.
I disagree very much. In fact, you can’t play a wizard without specializing into one of the schools or other subclasses. You get two spells per level. Certain subclasses are going to encourage you to take more of that school’s spells (Divination, for example, via Expert Divination). Every subclass plays a little differently and spending some of your 20 + spells learned per level on spells that don’t work with your subclass is just a waste.
It's also worth noting that by going off meta with your spell choices you can wind up with some really fun and creative solutions to problems that you wouldn't have by playing as a generalist; Like an enchanter playing mind games all over the place or an illusionist gas lighting people in real time would be hilariously fun.
”The D&D spell system is made for generalist casters,”
What’s your proof of this?
The characters it makes.
A system's purpose is what it does. The D&D spell system does nothing to induce players not to play generalists. Taking a specific spell closes off no future options. It does nothing to incentivize any future spell choice. The larger game rewards flexibility. The hypothetical fire mage fares poorly against fire-resistant foes, and gets no benefit for being a fire mage.
I disagree very much. In fact, you can’t play a wizard without specializing into one of the schools or other subclasses. You get two spells per level. Certain subclasses are going to encourage you to take more of that school’s spells (Divination, for example, via Expert Divination). Every subclass plays a little differently and spending some of your 20 + spells learned per level on spells that don’t work with your subclass is just a waste.
And yet... everybody does. Lots of them.
You're also pulling subclasses into the penumbra of the spell system, which seems a bit of a stretch. And there are more casters than just wizards. And, to be frank, wizard subclasses in general are pretty unimpressive, and most of them do very little to really incentivize spell choice.
My understanding is that the biggest issue with Aberrant Mind as the Psion class is not merely that it has spell slots, but that the spells cast (including those with subtle magic or with psionic magic, actually) are still magic, with respect to interacting with anti-magic effects and to the extent they are castable conventionally without metamagic, are cast conventionally, with the same verbal, somatic and/or material components as when cast by any other sorcerer or for that matter any other class which can cast them.
The bolded, right here? This is why psionics is never going to be a thing wholly diverged from magic; the rest of the system simply isn't built with a treehouse magic system in mind and as such would either require a massive overhaul of the monster compendium and/or class options to allow for counter-play (which would piss off psi enthusiasts) or just leave them with an absurd exploit (Which would piss off everyone else).
Alternately, GM's just keep contriving limitations on Psions in order to bring them down to earth which is basically bullying.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
I would suggest you look again; virtually all demons, yugoloths and devils have innate magic resistance which psionics (by virtue of being not magic) will just bypass giving them a massive leg up over all the caster classes. Ergo they would either need to be reworked or left with a massive weakness relative to other characters.
Furthermore, I already outlined an example of how this Loophole turns into a problem for the game as a whole when I explained how it undermines the entire point of a Beholder fight: that players are going to have to play around the absence of magic (which happens if the central eye is staring at you) or it's ability to obliterate you (the central eye isn't which allows it to use all the other eye stalks (including the one that disintegrates)) which leads to them and the GM both having to get really inventive and just having a really good time with unorthodox tactics and strategy as opposed to just using the tactic(tm).
This combined with the lack of counterplay (since it typically only requires you to be conscious... and sometimes that's not even a limitation) means that GMs and other players are going to be stuck with a character that is wildly overpowered and simply unfun to have as a party member.
Really, this whole thing just comes off as kind of silly to me since one of the biggest problems with 3rd was that it was built to make caster classes these unasailable gods that the mechanics couldn't actually reign in or contain. Fifth has taken great pains to ensure that in giving them a breadth of abilities they were never again going to be in a position where they could one shot bosses or have unlimited actions per turn or any of a billion "Feature not a bug" mechanics that were present before... and now we have people arguing for the ability to simply ignore those carefully contained mechanics.
I realize that thinking about systems abstractions is a specialized skill, but can you really not imagine the existence of another functional system beyond the ones that you have? It doesn't have to be one you'd want to play, but just consider the vague possibility that the design space may not be played out.
Uh, I'm the one who's happy with spell slots for psionics, remember? You're the one who wants a functioning bread submarine, the burden of that "imagination" is on you. I'm not going to construct your argument for you.
You're the one who's arguing that standard casters or highly-rigid subclasses are the only viable path to psychic characters.
You said:
You know what else was a system of unconnected generalist powers with clear power tiering? Psionics.
The only way to get away from that is to make something so narrow in focus and weak that it won't be on par with spellcasting. Which we got, via Psi Warrior and Soulknife, so that's fine.
I merely asked you to consider the possibility that soulknife is not the only direction possible from that starting point.
I mean... Soul knife and Psi-warrior seem to be exactly what you're asking for WRT a psi class: you have a handful of Power Points (PP), curtailed powers that you can use to achieve specific effects and no spell slots.
My understanding is that the biggest issue with Aberrant Mind as the Psion class is not merely that it has spell slots, but that the spells cast (including those with subtle magic or with psionic magic, actually) are still magic, with respect to interacting with anti-magic effects and to the extent they are castable conventionally without metamagic, are cast conventionally, with the same verbal, somatic and/or material components as when cast by any other sorcerer or for that matter any other class which can cast them.
The bolded, right here? This is why psionics is never going to be a thing wholly diverged from magic; the rest of the system simply isn't built with a treehouse magic system in mind and as such would either require a massive overhaul of the monster compendium and/or class options to allow for counter-play (which would piss off psi enthusiasts) or just leave them with an absurd exploit (Which would piss off everyone else).
Alternately, GM's just keep contriving limitations on Psions in order to bring them down to earth which is basically bullying.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
I would suggest you look again; virtually all demons, yugoloths and devils have innate magic resistance which psionics (by virtue of being not magic) will just bypass giving them a massive leg up over all the caster classes. Ergo they would either need to be reworked or left with a massive weakness relative to other characters.
Furthermore, I already outlined an example of how this Loophole turns into a problem for the game as a whole when I explained how it undermines the entire point of a Beholder fight: that players are going to have to play around the absence of magic (which happens if the central eye is staring at you) or it's ability to obliterate you (the central eye isn't which allows it to use all the other eye stalks (including the one that disintegrates)) which leads to them and the GM both having to get really inventive and just having a really good time with unorthodox tactics and strategy as opposed to just using the tactic(tm).
This combined with the lack of counterplay (since it typically only requires you to be conscious... and sometimes that's not even a limitation) means that GMs and other players are going to be stuck with a character that is wildly overpowered and simply unfun to have as a party member.
Really, this whole thing just comes off as kind of silly to me since one of the biggest problems with 3rd was that it was built to make caster classes these unasailable gods that the mechanics couldn't actually reign in or contain. Fifth has taken great pains to ensure that in giving them a breadth of abilities they were never again going to be in a position where they could one shot bosses or have unlimited actions per turn or any of a billion "Feature not a bug" mechanics that were present before... and now we have people arguing for the ability to simply ignore those carefully contained mechanics.
Saying 'All creatures of this class (demons, for instance) that are resistant to magic are resistant to psionics, too' is hardly a difficult thing to manage.
But you are essentially repeating what I just said (bolded) and treating it as some sort of rebuttal.
My understanding is that the biggest issue with Aberrant Mind as the Psion class is not merely that it has spell slots, but that the spells cast (including those with subtle magic or with psionic magic, actually) are still magic, with respect to interacting with anti-magic effects and to the extent they are castable conventionally without metamagic, are cast conventionally, with the same verbal, somatic and/or material components as when cast by any other sorcerer or for that matter any other class which can cast them.
The bolded, right here? This is why psionics is never going to be a thing wholly diverged from magic; the rest of the system simply isn't built with a treehouse magic system in mind and as such would either require a massive overhaul of the monster compendium and/or class options to allow for counter-play (which would piss off psi enthusiasts) or just leave them with an absurd exploit (Which would piss off everyone else).
Alternately, GM's just keep contriving limitations on Psions in order to bring them down to earth which is basically bullying.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
I would suggest you look again; virtually all demons, yugoloths and devils have innate magic resistance which psionics (by virtue of being not magic) will just bypass giving them a massive leg up over all the caster classes. Ergo they would either need to be reworked or left with a massive weakness relative to other characters.
Furthermore, I already outlined an example of how this Loophole turns into a problem for the game as a whole when I explained how it undermines the entire point of a Beholder fight: that players are going to have to play around the absence of magic (which happens if the central eye is staring at you) or it's ability to obliterate you (the central eye isn't which allows it to use all the other eye stalks (including the one that disintegrates)) which leads to them and the GM both having to get really inventive and just having a really good time with unorthodox tactics and strategy as opposed to just using the tactic(tm).
This combined with the lack of counterplay (since it typically only requires you to be conscious... and sometimes that's not even a limitation) means that GMs and other players are going to be stuck with a character that is wildly overpowered and simply unfun to have as a party member.
Really, this whole thing just comes off as kind of silly to me since one of the biggest problems with 3rd was that it was built to make caster classes these unasailable gods that the mechanics couldn't actually reign in or contain. Fifth has taken great pains to ensure that in giving them a breadth of abilities they were never again going to be in a position where they could one shot bosses or have unlimited actions per turn or any of a billion "Feature not a bug" mechanics that were present before... and now we have people arguing for the ability to simply ignore those carefully contained mechanics.
Or simply say 'all creatures of this class of being have resistance to psionics, too. Which is hardly a difficult thing to manage
Or you can just accept that psionics is magic and subject to the same rules and mechanics.
My understanding is that the biggest issue with Aberrant Mind as the Psion class is not merely that it has spell slots, but that the spells cast (including those with subtle magic or with psionic magic, actually) are still magic, with respect to interacting with anti-magic effects and to the extent they are castable conventionally without metamagic, are cast conventionally, with the same verbal, somatic and/or material components as when cast by any other sorcerer or for that matter any other class which can cast them.
The bolded, right here? This is why psionics is never going to be a thing wholly diverged from magic; the rest of the system simply isn't built with a treehouse magic system in mind and as such would either require a massive overhaul of the monster compendium and/or class options to allow for counter-play (which would piss off psi enthusiasts) or just leave them with an absurd exploit (Which would piss off everyone else).
Alternately, GM's just keep contriving limitations on Psions in order to bring them down to earth which is basically bullying.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
I would suggest you look again; virtually all demons, yugoloths and devils have innate magic resistance which psionics (by virtue of being not magic) will just bypass giving them a massive leg up over all the caster classes. Ergo they would either need to be reworked or left with a massive weakness relative to other characters.
Furthermore, I already outlined an example of how this Loophole turns into a problem for the game as a whole when I explained how it undermines the entire point of a Beholder fight: that players are going to have to play around the absence of magic (which happens if the central eye is staring at you) or it's ability to obliterate you (the central eye isn't which allows it to use all the other eye stalks (including the one that disintegrates)) which leads to them and the GM both having to get really inventive and just having a really good time with unorthodox tactics and strategy as opposed to just using the tactic(tm).
This combined with the lack of counterplay (since it typically only requires you to be conscious... and sometimes that's not even a limitation) means that GMs and other players are going to be stuck with a character that is wildly overpowered and simply unfun to have as a party member.
Really, this whole thing just comes off as kind of silly to me since one of the biggest problems with 3rd was that it was built to make caster classes these unasailable gods that the mechanics couldn't actually reign in or contain. Fifth has taken great pains to ensure that in giving them a breadth of abilities they were never again going to be in a position where they could one shot bosses or have unlimited actions per turn or any of a billion "Feature not a bug" mechanics that were present before... and now we have people arguing for the ability to simply ignore those carefully contained mechanics.
Or simply say 'all creatures of this class of being have resistance to psionics, too. Which is hardly a difficult thing to manage
Or you can just accept that psionics is magic and subject to the same rules and mechanics.
Simply because upper and lower planar creatures exist and are powerful?
As I said, simply changing the name does not change the nature.
My understanding is that the biggest issue with Aberrant Mind as the Psion class is not merely that it has spell slots, but that the spells cast (including those with subtle magic or with psionic magic, actually) are still magic, with respect to interacting with anti-magic effects and to the extent they are castable conventionally without metamagic, are cast conventionally, with the same verbal, somatic and/or material components as when cast by any other sorcerer or for that matter any other class which can cast them.
The bolded, right here? This is why psionics is never going to be a thing wholly diverged from magic; the rest of the system simply isn't built with a treehouse magic system in mind and as such would either require a massive overhaul of the monster compendium and/or class options to allow for counter-play (which would piss off psi enthusiasts) or just leave them with an absurd exploit (Which would piss off everyone else).
Alternately, GM's just keep contriving limitations on Psions in order to bring them down to earth which is basically bullying.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
I would suggest you look again; virtually all demons, yugoloths and devils have innate magic resistance which psionics (by virtue of being not magic) will just bypass giving them a massive leg up over all the caster classes. Ergo they would either need to be reworked or left with a massive weakness relative to other characters.
Furthermore, I already outlined an example of how this Loophole turns into a problem for the game as a whole when I explained how it undermines the entire point of a Beholder fight: that players are going to have to play around the absence of magic (which happens if the central eye is staring at you) or it's ability to obliterate you (the central eye isn't which allows it to use all the other eye stalks (including the one that disintegrates)) which leads to them and the GM both having to get really inventive and just having a really good time with unorthodox tactics and strategy as opposed to just using the tactic(tm).
This combined with the lack of counterplay (since it typically only requires you to be conscious... and sometimes that's not even a limitation) means that GMs and other players are going to be stuck with a character that is wildly overpowered and simply unfun to have as a party member.
Really, this whole thing just comes off as kind of silly to me since one of the biggest problems with 3rd was that it was built to make caster classes these unasailable gods that the mechanics couldn't actually reign in or contain. Fifth has taken great pains to ensure that in giving them a breadth of abilities they were never again going to be in a position where they could one shot bosses or have unlimited actions per turn or any of a billion "Feature not a bug" mechanics that were present before... and now we have people arguing for the ability to simply ignore those carefully contained mechanics.
Or simply say 'all creatures of this class of being have resistance to psionics, too. Which is hardly a difficult thing to manage
Or you can just accept that psionics is magic and subject to the same rules and mechanics.
Simply because upper and lower planar creatures exist and are powerful?
As I said, simply changing the name does not change the nature.
No, but implementing whole new mechanics without actually taking into consideration the ramifications on the extent mechanics of the game is an incredibly bad idea particularly when the reason for doing so comes across as utterly whimsical.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
It's not impossible to balance, it just means that you have to accept being worse in routine situations to make up for the advantage in specialized circumstances.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
It's not impossible to balance, it just means that you have to accept being worse in routine situations to make up for the advantage in specialized circumstances.
Well, I said 'difficult to impossible.'
And being weaker/worse in routine situations is a balancing issue, since most situations are going to be routine
”The D&D spell system is made for generalist casters,”
What’s your proof of this?
The characters it makes.
A system's purpose is what it does. The D&D spell system does nothing to induce players not to play generalists. Taking a specific spell closes off no future options. It does nothing to incentivize any future spell choice. The larger game rewards flexibility. The hypothetical fire mage fares poorly against fire-resistant foes, and gets no benefit for being a fire mage.
I disagree very much. In fact, you can’t play a wizard without specializing into one of the schools or other subclasses. You get two spells per level. Certain subclasses are going to encourage you to take more of that school’s spells (Divination, for example, via Expert Divination). Every subclass plays a little differently and spending some of your 20 + spells learned per level on spells that don’t work with your subclass is just a waste.
And yet... everybody does. Lots of them.
You're also pulling subclasses into the penumbra of the spell system, which seems a bit of a stretch. And there are more casters than just wizards. And, to be frank, wizard subclasses in general are pretty unimpressive, and most of them do very little to really incentivize spell choice.
Are you sure that you meant that reply to be to me?
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
It's not impossible to balance, it just means that you have to accept being worse in routine situations to make up for the advantage in specialized circumstances.
Like this is part of the bit with being a specialist: you trade off being good in the majority of circumstances in order to be great at specific ones.
Take for example the Battlerager barbarian; this is for my money the king of the grapple specs and as a result is able to consistently lock down a medium sized creature and do damage with it's spiked armor. Against most man-sized enemies this is really, really good! The problem is that if you are dealing with something bigger then you (like say... an ogre) or lacks solid mass (An ooze, a ghost or most elementals) you're grapple power simply doesn't work.
Alternately, there is the Eloquence bard. They are hands down the God emperors of social situations since they're going to be in auto success territory on all but the most absurd checks by the time they're level 5 and they have some of the most devastatingly good combat support options in the game... but if they're separated from their companions and have to fight solo they're probably the weakest spec in the entire game.
This is what we call good game design because it ensures that while you can be really, really good at something you are going to be trading off for that which is fine because it means the other classes have an opportunity to shine.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
It's not impossible to balance, it just means that you have to accept being worse in routine situations to make up for the advantage in specialized circumstances.
Yep. Flexibility for power is a pretty common balancing tradeoff.
Of course, in D&D "combat" is pretty much the only truly routine situation, but there's still options within combat to turn the dials on (single target vs multiple, control vs damage, offense vs defense, staying power vs burst power, etc.)
The characters it makes.
A system's purpose is what it does. The D&D spell system does nothing to induce players not to play generalists. Taking a specific spell closes off no future options. It does nothing to incentivize any future spell choice. The larger game rewards flexibility. The hypothetical fire mage fares poorly against fire-resistant foes, and gets no benefit for being a fire mage.
There would have to be a different method of counter-play, but that is not, in and of itself impossible.
Most monsters would be unaffected. Not only is the CR system a mess anyway, right now, but just as most monsters have no special general resistances to magic, there is no reason for them to have any special general resistances to psionics. Fire is fire is fire, whether created chemically, magically or using pyrokinesis and one can substitute in any different damage type in there (and psychic power name associated with that damage type) and the logic still apply.
Balancing issues center more around the fact that psi powers traditionally have fewer drawbacks (subtlety, more likely to be 'on demand,' not shut down as easily by magic, etc) than magical ones do, which is why I am saying that they would be, IMO, difficult to impossible to balance well.
Also, I have some suggestions for people who want D&D/superheroes/RPGs with psionics:
Palladium Fantasy RPG This is very much a classic fantasy RPG from the Palladium megaversal system which offers players a plethora of different classes including no less then 4 dedicated psychic classes (Sensitive, Healer, Mystic and Mind Mage) as well as allowing non-dedicated psychic classes to have access to a handful of minor powers if their race allows for it.
Beyond the supernatural Another Classic from the folks at palladium books; virtually all of the character classes in this game are psychics of varying sorts acting (typically) as psychic investigators dealing with supernatural elements and trying to leverage their more focused power sets to allow them to complete their jobs.
Heroes unlimited! One of the first RPG's I "got gud" at way back in the mid 90's, Heroes unlimited presents a plethora of different superhero archetypes including the Psionic character class.
Best part of these products? They operate on the same rule set and thus can be merged by a GM to varying degrees to create new and unique settings and worlds.
I disagree very much. In fact, you can’t play a wizard without specializing into one of the schools or other subclasses. You get two spells per level. Certain subclasses are going to encourage you to take more of that school’s spells (Divination, for example, via Expert Divination). Every subclass plays a little differently and spending some of your 20 + spells learned per level on spells that don’t work with your subclass is just a waste.
You mean 4e, the thing 5e was objectively a clear step up from? Why yes, yes it did, thanks for proving my point.
They "very clearly actually designed" 5e too. You may not like what they designed, but design it they did. And if the objective was to have design that would be accessible for newcomers but have the depth to retain veterans, they nailed that.
And if you're not asking for psionics to be casters, but be equal to casters... again, how?
Uh, I'm the one who's happy with spell slots for psionics, remember? You're the one who wants a functioning bread submarine, the burden of that "imagination" is on you. I'm not going to construct your argument for you.
It's also worth noting that by going off meta with your spell choices you can wind up with some really fun and creative solutions to problems that you wouldn't have by playing as a generalist; Like an enchanter playing mind games all over the place or an illusionist gas lighting people in real time would be hilariously fun.
And yet... everybody does. Lots of them.
You're also pulling subclasses into the penumbra of the spell system, which seems a bit of a stretch. And there are more casters than just wizards. And, to be frank, wizard subclasses in general are pretty unimpressive, and most of them do very little to really incentivize spell choice.
I would suggest you look again; virtually all demons, yugoloths and devils have innate magic resistance which psionics (by virtue of being not magic) will just bypass giving them a massive leg up over all the caster classes. Ergo they would either need to be reworked or left with a massive weakness relative to other characters.
Furthermore, I already outlined an example of how this Loophole turns into a problem for the game as a whole when I explained how it undermines the entire point of a Beholder fight: that players are going to have to play around the absence of magic (which happens if the central eye is staring at you) or it's ability to obliterate you (the central eye isn't which allows it to use all the other eye stalks (including the one that disintegrates)) which leads to them and the GM both having to get really inventive and just having a really good time with unorthodox tactics and strategy as opposed to just using the tactic(tm).
This combined with the lack of counterplay (since it typically only requires you to be conscious... and sometimes that's not even a limitation) means that GMs and other players are going to be stuck with a character that is wildly overpowered and simply unfun to have as a party member.
Really, this whole thing just comes off as kind of silly to me since one of the biggest problems with 3rd was that it was built to make caster classes these unasailable gods that the mechanics couldn't actually reign in or contain. Fifth has taken great pains to ensure that in giving them a breadth of abilities they were never again going to be in a position where they could one shot bosses or have unlimited actions per turn or any of a billion "Feature not a bug" mechanics that were present before... and now we have people arguing for the ability to simply ignore those carefully contained mechanics.
"Objective" is a word with a meaning.
5e is objectively more popular than 4e. That's about the only way you can compare the two objectively.
In terms of clean and functional systems design, I don't think it's even close. But that's still not objective.
You're the one who's arguing that standard casters or highly-rigid subclasses are the only viable path to psychic characters.
You said:
I merely asked you to consider the possibility that soulknife is not the only direction possible from that starting point.
You are clearly unwilling.
I mean... Soul knife and Psi-warrior seem to be exactly what you're asking for WRT a psi class: you have a handful of Power Points (PP), curtailed powers that you can use to achieve specific effects and no spell slots.
Saying 'All creatures of this class (demons, for instance) that are resistant to magic are resistant to psionics, too' is hardly a difficult thing to manage.
But you are essentially repeating what I just said (bolded) and treating it as some sort of rebuttal.
Or you can just accept that psionics is magic and subject to the same rules and mechanics.
Simply because upper and lower planar creatures exist and are powerful?
As I said, simply changing the name does not change the nature.
No, but implementing whole new mechanics without actually taking into consideration the ramifications on the extent mechanics of the game is an incredibly bad idea particularly when the reason for doing so comes across as utterly whimsical.
It's not impossible to balance, it just means that you have to accept being worse in routine situations to make up for the advantage in specialized circumstances.
Well, I said 'difficult to impossible.'
And being weaker/worse in routine situations is a balancing issue, since most situations are going to be routine
Are you sure that you meant that reply to be to me?
It's not even particularly difficult. The hard part is getting people to accept limitations.
Like this is part of the bit with being a specialist: you trade off being good in the majority of circumstances in order to be great at specific ones.
Take for example the Battlerager barbarian; this is for my money the king of the grapple specs and as a result is able to consistently lock down a medium sized creature and do damage with it's spiked armor. Against most man-sized enemies this is really, really good! The problem is that if you are dealing with something bigger then you (like say... an ogre) or lacks solid mass (An ooze, a ghost or most elementals) you're grapple power simply doesn't work.
Alternately, there is the Eloquence bard. They are hands down the God emperors of social situations since they're going to be in auto success territory on all but the most absurd checks by the time they're level 5 and they have some of the most devastatingly good combat support options in the game... but if they're separated from their companions and have to fight solo they're probably the weakest spec in the entire game.
This is what we call good game design because it ensures that while you can be really, really good at something you are going to be trading off for that which is fine because it means the other classes have an opportunity to shine.
Yep. Flexibility for power is a pretty common balancing tradeoff.
Of course, in D&D "combat" is pretty much the only truly routine situation, but there's still options within combat to turn the dials on (single target vs multiple, control vs damage, offense vs defense, staying power vs burst power, etc.)