The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours.
The fact that you consider the latter issue relevant shows how stuck you are in prior editions. A sorcerer can wear heavy armor if they have the proficiency and strength to do it, just like any other class.
The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours. Sorcerers have to choose every body how to fill the spell slots, but the mindwalkers haven't to worry at all, allowing more space to improvise in the last moment.
So, what, you basically just want a high AC always Subtle spellcaster with a bigger list of known spells to cast from? That sounds insanely OP.
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Accept that psionics is non-viable within the context of modern D&D
Seek out other RPGs that contain support for Psionics
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
Asha-Mason didn’t say “difficult.” They said “non-viable,” like.a ham sandwich at a Jewish picnic or a submarine with screen windows.
I was the one who said 'difficult to impossible.' They seem to have taken that as 'impossible." I was disagreeing with dismissing it outright as impossible, especially without explanation. There is no inherent contradiction so your examples of impossible do not apply.
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Accept that psionics is non-viable within the context of modern D&D
Seek out other RPGs that contain support for Psionics
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
Asha-Mason didn’t say “difficult.” They said “non-viable,” like.a ham sandwich at a Jewish picnic or a submarine with screen windows.
I was the one who said 'difficult to impossible.' They seem to have taken that as 'impossible." I was disagreeing with dismissing it outright as impossible, especially without explanation. There is no inherent contradiction so your examples of impossible do not apply.
I said not-viable because you've painted yourself into a corner with what is acceptable as "psionics" as being either too powerful or perpetually in need of errata (which no company is ever going to want to do)
The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours. Sorcerers have to choose every body how to fill the spell slots, but the mindwalkers haven't to worry at all, allowing more space to improvise in the last moment.
You can say psionic powers aren't necessary, but other can answer we don't need a new book about undead, dragons, giants, drows or aberrations. The true key is if there are enough players who wanted to buy it.
* If now they are going to release a LEGO: Horizon Zero, why not a LEGO: Dark Sun videogame?
Psions and mentalists in fiction often do have verbal and somatic components. They often take the form of holding the hand to the head and pointing (often with an open palm in case of telekinesis) while shouting something like “open your mind.”
Clerics can cast spells in heavy armor, so can bards if they have the armor proficiency. Actually, so can Druids if they can find armor of the right material and get the proficiency. So can Hexblades. There’s nothing about armor prohibiting casting magic. I think Sorcerers with the right meta magic can cast in armor as well.
The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours. Sorcerers have to choose every body how to fill the spell slots, but the mindwalkers haven't to worry at all, allowing more space to improvise in the last moment.e?
Psions in prior editions had a list of powers known just like 5e sorcerers do. There's no difference.
* Let's remember the psionic manifesters can wear heavy armour.
We're talking about 5e, remember? Every other spellcaster can cast in heavy armor too now, including sorcerers and wizards. All you need is proficiency/training, which psions wouldn't get natively either, so they're no better off than any of the other full casters would be.
You can say psionic powers aren't necessary, but other can answer we don't need a new book about undead, dragons, giants, drows or aberrations. The true key is if there are enough players who wanted to buy it.
Sure, but what makes you think those same players wouldn't buy a psionic book that uses spellcasting as the base? Because Paizo proved quite easily that they would.
The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours. Sorcerers have to choose every body how to fill the spell slots, but the mindwalkers haven't to worry at all, allowing more space to improvise in the last moment.
So, what, you basically just want a high AC always Subtle spellcaster with a bigger list of known spells to cast from? That sounds insanely OP.
But it does sound intriguing. What would be needed for such a class to be balanced. I mean, just as a thought experiment?
They probably couldn’t have any powers at first level, else they’d be OP compared to the Wizard and Fighter. They might get either Message or Mage Hand and that would be all until second level. At that point, they could pick up Magic Missile (since the missile travels from them to the target, enemies could tell who cast it), or Charm Person (if the enemy makes their save, they know who cast it) or Unseen Servant. At 5th or 6th level, they’d get a lower-powered Detect Thoughts which allows the target to detect them on a successful save, Augury, or Dust Devil.
I said not-viable because you've painted yourself into a corner with what is acceptable as "psionics" as being either too powerful or perpetually in need of errata (which no company is ever going to want to do)
I do not see the 'perpetual need for errata' that you do. That they would have to re-work every demon, devil and fiend, for example was a suggestion that simply tagging a line into the Psi book that such beings will be resistant, or even that such beings can be resistant at the discretion of the DM is not, to me, the horrible impossible barrier that you seem to think it is. And if beholders really are vulnerable to them (despite everything beholders have other than that anti-magic eye, including massive intelligence, perhaps the beholder is actually the minion of a mind flayer. Or perhaps one of those massively intelligent beholders is also a psion.
Adjusting monsters doesn't have anywhere the balancing issues that adjusting PC's does, since the DM is balancing things with respect to monsters constantly to keep the party challenged. It is balance against other PC's where the main balancing issues live..
I said not-viable because you've painted yourself into a corner with what is acceptable as "psionics" as being either too powerful or perpetually in need of errata (which no company is ever going to want to do)
I do not see the 'perpetual need for errata' that you do. That they would have to re-work every demon, devil and fiend, for example was a suggestion that simply tagging a line into the Psi book that such beings will be resistant, or even that such beings can be resistant at the discretion of the DM is not, to me, the horrible impossible barrier that you seem to think it is. And if beholders really are vulnerable to them (despite everything beholders have other than that anti-magic eye, including massive intelligence, perhaps the beholder is actually the minion of a mind flayer. Or perhaps one of those massively intelligent beholders is also a psion.
Adjusting monsters doesn't have anywhere the balancing issues that adjusting PC's does, since the DM is balancing things with respect to monsters constantly to keep the party challenged. It is balance against other PC's where the main balancing issues live..
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
You're conflating three different questions here:
Whether psi is magic in the fiction
Whether psi is magic in the game mechanics
Whether psi should use the spellcasting system.
There are solutions (of varying satisfactoriness to various people) for any combination of answers to those three questions.
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
You're conflating three different questions here:
Whether psi is magic in the fiction
Whether psi is magic in the game mechanics
Whether psi should use the spellcasting system.
There are solutions (of varying satisfactoriness to various people) for any combination of answers to those three questions.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason why a distinction is necessary.
Edit: And keep in mind, I've read this thread from start to finish and my first post was on like page 4.
I do not see the 'perpetual need for errata' that you do. That they would have to re-work every demon, devil and fiend, for example was a suggestion that simply tagging a line into the Psi book that such beings will be resistant, or even that such beings can be resistant at the discretion of the DM is not, to me, the horrible impossible barrier that you seem to think it is.
Except one of the principles of 5e is that monster statblocks are self-contained. You shouldn't need to hunt down some random line somewhere else to determine what interactions if any that monster has with psionics.
And if beholders really are vulnerable to them (despite everything beholders have other than that anti-magic eye, including massive intelligence, perhaps the beholder is actually the minion of a mind flayer.
Er... are you familiar with how Beholders work? They wouldn't be a minion to anyone; every other creature is lesser.
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
Exactly. What's the point beyond novelty? I have yet to see one.
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
You're conflating three different questions here:
Whether psi is magic in the fiction
Whether psi is magic in the game mechanics
Whether psi should use the spellcasting system.
There are solutions (of varying satisfactoriness to various people) for any combination of answers to those three questions.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason why a distinction is necessary.
Well, yes. That's to be expected. You're not going to hear a compelling reason, because you're entirely happy with "psi can just be magic, and use the regular spell system". No reason given will ever compel you out of that opinion.
But do you understand that they are separate questions, and that different people, even those that broadly agree on a desire for a psi system in 5e, might answer them differently?
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
You're conflating three different questions here:
Whether psi is magic in the fiction
Whether psi is magic in the game mechanics
Whether psi should use the spellcasting system.
There are solutions (of varying satisfactoriness to various people) for any combination of answers to those three questions.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason why a distinction is necessary.
Well, yes. That's to be expected. You're not going to hear a compelling reason, because you're entirely happy with "psi can just be magic, and use the regular spell system". No reason given will ever compel you out of that opinion.
But do you understand that they are separate questions, and that different people, even those that broadly agree on a desire for a psi system in 5e, might answer them differently?
No, my issue is that no one has actually put forward a compelling reason for why we need this distinction. I've heard a lot of people argle bargle about things which when they're even half way coherent would add complexity for the sake of complexity and/or needless distinction and/or serious mechanical problems.
It would be akin to me arguing that the rules do not and can not properly reflect the Urumi (AKA the Indian whip sword) because you see their undulating twisting patterns form a web of steel that inflicts lascerating damage which is clearly not the same as slashing and that only a player who is of the kalari class (which just has to be in the game) can wield it properly.
No reason given will ever compel you out of that opinion.
Which reason? All I've seen is "we want something that isn't spellcasting because that's what we want."
But, don’t you understand? They should be different because (whatever reason is next in line which is different from every other reason mentioned so far and will, as they were, soon be disproven)..
No reason given will ever compel you out of that opinion.
Which reason? All I've seen is "we want something that isn't spellcasting because that's what we want."
🙄
If you honestly believe that, through this entire thread, nobody has ever given a reason to support their interest in a psi class, or to counter the arguments of those who are opposed to same, then you are so deeply locked into mistaking your own opinions for logic that there's no point in arguing with you.
(If you don't honestly believe that, and are just denying the existence of arguments because you don't like the idea they're arguing toward, there's still no point.)
For the record, my interaction with this thread has taken me from "I don't really think D&D needs psi, but I'm idly curious about what's being discussed" to "I still don't think D&D needs psi, but the spellcasting system in general, and aberrant mind in particular, are indeed poor fits, and I could totally design a psi class if I wanted to", just based on the reasons presented by the people who wanted psi.
(Everything else is an unusual amount of likely-to-be-interrupted free time and xkcd 386.)
There are solutions (of varying satisfactoriness to various people) for any combination of answers to those three questions.
The answers to your questions are
Usually but not always. It's relatively rare to have both in the same setting, and where both appear it often turns out that magic is a form of psi, or psi is a form of magic (mind-magic or something; it's more common to distinguish between physical/elemental magics and mental/spiritual magics), but I've seen fiction where they were distinct. In D&D fiction, psi only appears rarely; in AD&D era fiction they're distinct, but there have been multiple retcons to how the universe works since then.
In current game mechanics, the answer is 'yes'.
That's a game design question. The short answer is "Don't create new game mechanics unless you absolutely have to"
The fact that you consider the latter issue relevant shows how stuck you are in prior editions. A sorcerer can wear heavy armor if they have the proficiency and strength to do it, just like any other class.
So, what, you basically just want a high AC always Subtle spellcaster with a bigger list of known spells to cast from? That sounds insanely OP.
I was the one who said 'difficult to impossible.' They seem to have taken that as 'impossible." I was disagreeing with dismissing it outright as impossible, especially without explanation. There is no inherent contradiction so your examples of impossible do not apply.
Good news LucisCarlos171: you can play this up armored psychic under the published rules!
It's called the Psiwarrior and is found on page 42 of Tashas.
I said not-viable because you've painted yourself into a corner with what is acceptable as "psionics" as being either too powerful or perpetually in need of errata (which no company is ever going to want to do)
Really the whole situation reminds me of this:
Psions and mentalists in fiction often do have verbal and somatic components. They often take the form of holding the hand to the head and pointing (often with an open palm in case of telekinesis) while shouting something like “open your mind.”
Clerics can cast spells in heavy armor, so can bards if they have the armor proficiency. Actually, so can Druids if they can find armor of the right material and get the proficiency. So can Hexblades. There’s nothing about armor prohibiting casting magic. I think Sorcerers with the right meta magic can cast in armor as well.
Psions in prior editions had a list of powers known just like 5e sorcerers do. There's no difference.
We're talking about 5e, remember? Every other spellcaster can cast in heavy armor too now, including sorcerers and wizards. All you need is proficiency/training, which psions wouldn't get natively either, so they're no better off than any of the other full casters would be.
Sure, but what makes you think those same players wouldn't buy a psionic book that uses spellcasting as the base? Because Paizo proved quite easily that they would.
But it does sound intriguing. What would be needed for such a class to be balanced. I mean, just as a thought experiment?
They probably couldn’t have any powers at first level, else they’d be OP compared to the Wizard and Fighter. They might get either Message or Mage Hand and that would be all until second level. At that point, they could pick up Magic Missile (since the missile travels from them to the target, enemies could tell who cast it), or Charm Person (if the enemy makes their save, they know who cast it) or Unseen Servant. At 5th or 6th level, they’d get a lower-powered Detect Thoughts which allows the target to detect them on a successful save, Augury, or Dust Devil.
I do not see the 'perpetual need for errata' that you do. That they would have to re-work every demon, devil and fiend, for example was a suggestion that simply tagging a line into the Psi book that such beings will be resistant, or even that such beings can be resistant at the discretion of the DM is not, to me, the horrible impossible barrier that you seem to think it is. And if beholders really are vulnerable to them (despite everything beholders have other than that anti-magic eye, including massive intelligence, perhaps the beholder is actually the minion of a mind flayer. Or perhaps one of those massively intelligent beholders is also a psion.
Adjusting monsters doesn't have anywhere the balancing issues that adjusting PC's does, since the DM is balancing things with respect to monsters constantly to keep the party challenged. It is balance against other PC's where the main balancing issues live..
To which I would respond that if we've reached the point where psionics is the same as magic for all intents and purposes why then do we need to bother with a new system to support it as opposed to players just reflavoring?
You're conflating three different questions here:
There are solutions (of varying satisfactoriness to various people) for any combination of answers to those three questions.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason why a distinction is necessary.
Edit: And keep in mind, I've read this thread from start to finish and my first post was on like page 4.
Except one of the principles of 5e is that monster statblocks are self-contained. You shouldn't need to hunt down some random line somewhere else to determine what interactions if any that monster has with psionics.
Er... are you familiar with how Beholders work? They wouldn't be a minion to anyone; every other creature is lesser.
Exactly. What's the point beyond novelty? I have yet to see one.
Well, yes. That's to be expected. You're not going to hear a compelling reason, because you're entirely happy with "psi can just be magic, and use the regular spell system". No reason given will ever compel you out of that opinion.
But do you understand that they are separate questions, and that different people, even those that broadly agree on a desire for a psi system in 5e, might answer them differently?
Which reason? All I've seen is "we want something that isn't spellcasting because that's what we want."
No, my issue is that no one has actually put forward a compelling reason for why we need this distinction. I've heard a lot of people argle bargle about things which when they're even half way coherent would add complexity for the sake of complexity and/or needless distinction and/or serious mechanical problems.
It would be akin to me arguing that the rules do not and can not properly reflect the Urumi (AKA the Indian whip sword) because you see their undulating twisting patterns form a web of steel that inflicts lascerating damage which is clearly not the same as slashing and that only a player who is of the kalari class (which just has to be in the game) can wield it properly.
But, don’t you understand? They should be different because (whatever reason is next in line which is different from every other reason mentioned so far and will, as they were, soon be disproven)..
🙄
If you honestly believe that, through this entire thread, nobody has ever given a reason to support their interest in a psi class, or to counter the arguments of those who are opposed to same, then you are so deeply locked into mistaking your own opinions for logic that there's no point in arguing with you.
(If you don't honestly believe that, and are just denying the existence of arguments because you don't like the idea they're arguing toward, there's still no point.)
For the record, my interaction with this thread has taken me from "I don't really think D&D needs psi, but I'm idly curious about what's being discussed" to "I still don't think D&D needs psi, but the spellcasting system in general, and aberrant mind in particular, are indeed poor fits, and I could totally design a psi class if I wanted to", just based on the reasons presented by the people who wanted psi.
(Everything else is an unusual amount of likely-to-be-interrupted free time and xkcd 386.)
The answers to your questions are
"Interest in a psi class" is not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to "interest in a psi class that doesn't interact with the spellcasting system."