I don't remember the part of the rules of 5ed telling now the arcane spellcasters could wear heavy armour. If this was true, then it would be used by the munchkins.
And we here are also about how the psions could be OP in certain situations by fault of a design failure.
There are titles of psionics being sold in DMGuild.
OK, here the risk is players started to say the version by 3PP may be better.
Are there enough classes? We also could say there are enough subclasses. In this edition there were only two no-core classes, the artificer and the bloodhunter, and this was by a 3PP. I am more interested into a sourcebook with a new class than the classic crunch. I bought a lot of 3.5 books, and I have got enough spells, feats and prestige classes.
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
That is the only rule that limits spellcasting in armor. People usually don't use heavy because the investment to get heavy armor proficiency and the strength to wear the armor is quite high.
I don't remember the part of the rules of 5ed telling now the arcane spellcasters could wear heavy armour. If this was true, then it would be used by the munchkins.
And we here are also about how the psions could be OP in certain situations by fault of a design failure.
There are titles of psionics being sold in DMGuild.
OK, here the risk is players started to say the version by 3PP may be better.
Are there enough classes? We also could say there are enough subclasses. In this edition there were only two no-core classes, the artificer and the bloodhunter, and this was by a 3PP. I am more interested into a sourcebook with a new class than the classic crunch. I bought a lot of 3.5 books, and I have got enough spells, feats and prestige classes.
1. Magic is only restricted if the player doesn't have the associated proficiency.
2. Implementing a whole new power set in an environment that wasn't designed with it in mind can and will absolutely cause problems. Like, this shouldn't be surprising.
3.The Dm's guild also has a disturbing number of books dedicated to Geese as well.
4. New for the sake of new is not exactly a compelling argument.
If you honestly believe that, through this entire thread, nobody has ever given a reason to support their interest in a psi class
"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."
Oh sweet summer child, what they've proposed at points is a class that doesn't interact with the extent mechanics of 5e which... yeah, that's going to kind of crater support for a Psi class.
I don't remember the part of the rules of 5ed telling now the arcane spellcasters could wear heavy armour. If this was true, then it would be used by the munchkins.
It is true. And trying to propose brand new rules while not even fully understanding the current ones doesn't help your case.
Oh sweet summer child, what they've proposed at points is a class that doesn't interact with the extent mechanics of 5e which... yeah, that's going to kind of crater support for a Psi class.
It's a balance nightmare, and they have yet to explain why it wouldn't be.
And really, the only argument against Aberrant Mind that wasn’t disproven is “I don’t like it.”
That’s a valid reason, but not a compelling one.
I mean... you could argue that you need to perform an excessive number of subtle spells to sell the fantasy but that didn't seem to be Yurei's argument.
It's a balance nightmare, and they have yet to explain why it wouldn't be.
Pretty much. Like, even if we break this down to something like... a telekinetic who's only power is being able to move things around you still have huge problems with balancing out how much force can be generated and at what cost, how dextrous is it (IE can it pick a lock? sign a letter? play the piano?), how freely it can do these things... and we're not even at the point where we're doing things like combat applications (IE creating barriers, throwing things, wielding weapons, Flight, applying telekinesis directly to an enemies anatomy...) or how people can actually counter this.
Like that is all stuff that you can't just give vague rules for and then dump it in the GM's lap to try and parse out.
And really, the only argument against Aberrant Mind that wasn’t disproven is “I don’t like it.”
That’s a valid reason, but not a compelling one.
I mean... you could argue that you need to perform an excessive number of subtle spells to sell the fantasy but that didn't seem to be Yurei's argument.
And we responded to that argument. Subtle Spells are inherently more powerful than non-subtle ones, so to balance casting everything subtly, a psion sorcerer who wants to do that would have the drawback of burning most if not all their sorcery points on it, and not being able to modify those manifestations with further metamagic.
And really, the only argument against Aberrant Mind that wasn’t disproven is “I don’t like it.”
That’s a valid reason, but not a compelling one.
I mean... you could argue that you need to perform an excessive number of subtle spells to sell the fantasy but that didn't seem to be Yurei's argument.
And we responded to that argument. Subtle Spells are inherently more powerful than non-subtle ones, so to balance casting everything subtly, a psion sorcerer who wants to do that would have the drawback of burning most if not all their sorcery points on it, and not being able to modify those manifestations with further metamagic.
But don’t you understand? Any counter-argument that is ignored is automatically defeated.
Yeah, it's important to remember that if people are going to propose additions to the game, the further they deviate from established mechanics the more obvious the problems with them they will be which is going to attract criticism. This isn't a bad thing either since it brings into perspective the problems with their proposal (IE magic and psionics being seperate and thus creating issues with creatures who have innate resistances to the former).
For myself, my opposition to psionics is that the way it's been described by different people has come across as deeply problematic and ignores how the creators have pretty much done all they intend to do with this which has included:
The psiwarrior (person who empowers their martial abilities with psionics)
The soulknife (person who uses a psychic blade (ala Psylocke) to engage in mayhem)
The Abberant mind (a sorcerer who's powers have a mental slant)
The Great old one pact (A warlock who has made deals with Lovecraftian horrors)
Two psychic feats (telepathy and Telekinesis which give players a suite of associated abilities).
Beyond this, there is simply Reflavoring wherein people simply reinterpret extent mechanics and describe them as Psionic; Paladin, Barbarian, Wizard, Fighter and bard are simple enough re-contextualize as drawing their powers from deep within their own mind.
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.
You only need to hunt such things down if you are playing strict Adventurers League and it is hardly a given that Adventurers League is anything that the rules should be written around.
Fizban's exists despite dragons existing in earlier monster compendiums. Xanathar's exists, despite covering areas stated in earlier compendiums.
As for how beholders 'work' if beholders were infallible and impossible to trick then the PC's would always automatically lose against them. There is nothing in their statblocks that make them actual unbeatable Gods. They would not knowingly accept being a minion to anyone but that does not equate to never being a minion.
What is the point of any class besides 'Fighter?' Variety.
Aw bummer, I thought Beholders were an evolution of mind flayers. After sucking enough brains, they grow more tentacles. Their brain becomes overdeveloped and huge while the body atrophies away. The tentacles then grow into the eye stalks, powers dependent on what kind of brains they consumed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It's a balance nightmare, and they have yet to explain why it wouldn't be.
Pretty much. Like, even if we break this down to something like... a telekinetic who's only power is being able to move things around you still have huge problems with balancing out how much force can be generated and at what cost, how dextrous is it (IE can it pick a lock? sign a letter? play the piano?), how freely it can do these things... and we're not even at the point where we're doing things like combat applications (IE creating barriers, throwing things, wielding weapons, Flight, applying telekinesis directly to an enemies anatomy...) or how people can actually counter this.
Like that is all stuff that you can't just give vague rules for and then dump it in the GM's lap to try and parse out.
Why would that be any more difficult than with Mage Hand, Mage Hand (Arcane Trickster version) and the Telekinesis spell?
Creating barriers? You have wall of force or wall of wind as models to base the ability on. Applying anything to an enemy's anatomy directly? You cannot do that with Sharpshooter or Create Water or anything else, so why would there be a question with this?
The balancing issues are with respect to subtle everything and not being magical rather than pretty much anything else you have listed there.
The balancing issues are with respect to subtle everything and not being magical rather than pretty much anything else you have listed there.
The big problem with 'not being magical' is that, as someone designing dungeons or monsters, 90% of the time you want something that blocks, detects, or protects against magic to do the same for psi, because the real reason you put whatever feature it is in the adventure is because you want people to solve a problem without using their supernatural powers. There are sometimes campaign-specific exceptions, but they're as likely to be "only certain types of magic are affected" as being "magic is affected but psi is not". As such, it's much easier from a design perspective (and eliminates a need to go back and errata everything) to just make magical countermeasures work against psi, unless specifically noted.
The balancing issues are with respect to subtle everything and not being magical rather than pretty much anything else you have listed there.
The big problem with 'not being magical' is that, as someone designing dungeons or monsters, 90% of the time you want something that blocks, detects, or protects against magic to do the same for psi, because the real reason you put whatever feature it is in the adventure is because you want people to solve a problem without using their supernatural powers. There are sometimes campaign-specific exceptions, but they're as likely to be "only certain types of magic are affected" as being "magic is affected but psi is not". As such, it's much easier from a design perspective (and eliminates a need to go back and errata everything) to just make magical countermeasures work against psi, unless specifically noted.
And it is that difficult to come up with something that covers psi instead? Presumably any Psi book would have a listing of such creatures.
Every DM presumably knows the party they are designing for and is designing for that party regardless. Keep in mind that something that blocks magic will also normally block npn-magical passage so that would normally cover psi. Either way, no need to errata everything. That is nothing that an integration paragraph or two in the Psi book couldn't handle.
It's a balance nightmare, and they have yet to explain why it wouldn't be.
Pretty much. Like, even if we break this down to something like... a telekinetic who's only power is being able to move things around you still have huge problems with balancing out how much force can be generated and at what cost, how dextrous is it (IE can it pick a lock? sign a letter? play the piano?), how freely it can do these things... and we're not even at the point where we're doing things like combat applications (IE creating barriers, throwing things, wielding weapons, Flight, applying telekinesis directly to an enemies anatomy...) or how people can actually counter this.
Like that is all stuff that you can't just give vague rules for and then dump it in the GM's lap to try and parse out.
Why would that be any more difficult than with Mage Hand, Mage Hand (Arcane Trickster version) and the Telekinesis spell?
Creating barriers? You have wall of force or wall of wind as models to base the ability on. Applying anything to an enemy's anatomy directly? You cannot do that with Sharpshooter or Create Water or anything else, so why would there be a question with this?
The balancing issues are with respect to subtle everything and not being magical rather than pretty much anything else you have listed there.
If you're literally just using everying that's come before why do you need a whole new powerset for this and not just say... Play an arcane trickster?
Because yeah: Improved mage hand is like 50% of their schtick.
Edit: Holy crap, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Arcane trickster covers the overwhelming majority of what it is that Psi enthusiasts want; Illusion and Enchantment magic covers all your telepathy stuff, Ledgermain gives you telekinesis at a reasonable level... hell you can even argue that sneak attack is you using your powers to discover a distracted enemies weaknesses and exploit them.
If you're literally just using everying that's come before why do you need a whole new powerset for this and not just say... Play an arcane trickster?
Because yeah: Improved mage hand is like 50% of their schtick.
Using some things that came before should be expected. We are talking about a prospective new class for 5e D&D, not some completely different game with no connections at all to 5e.
And there being overlap does not equate to 'using everything.' We have been through this, too.
If you're literally just using everying that's come before why do you need a whole new powerset for this and not just say... Play an arcane trickster?
Because yeah: Improved mage hand is like 50% of their schtick.
Using some things that came before should be expected. We are talking about a prospective new class for 5e D&D, not some completely different game with no connections at all to 5e.
And there being overlap does not equate to 'using everything.' We have been through this, too.
Canabalizing the unique defining aspect of a subclass that gives you basically everything you are asking for isn't exactly a good argument.
I'm pretty sure at some point in the 30 pages that this topic has been discussed we've been over this.
If you're literally just using everying that's come before why do you need a whole new powerset for this and not just say... Play an arcane trickster?
Because yeah: Improved mage hand is like 50% of their schtick.
Using some things that came before should be expected. We are talking about a prospective new class for 5e D&D, not some completely different game with no connections at all to 5e.
And there being overlap does not equate to 'using everything.' We have been through this, too.
Canabalizing the unique defining aspect of a subclass that gives you basically everything you are asking for isn't exactly a good argument.
I'm pretty sure at some point in the 30 pages that this topic has been discussed we've been over this.
The over the top rhetoric is still not making any arguments, here. The arcane trickster is still the arcane trickster. Just because the subclass has one subtle ability (which is still magical, by the way) does not mean it is any better than the aberrant mind sorcerer to function as a Psion class.
"it has something, therefore it has everything!" is just a restating of "Well if you are using anything from the existing rules, you already have everything!" argument. Please stop repeating yourself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't remember the part of the rules of 5ed telling now the arcane spellcasters could wear heavy armour. If this was true, then it would be used by the munchkins.
And we here are also about how the psions could be OP in certain situations by fault of a design failure.
There are titles of psionics being sold in DMGuild.
OK, here the risk is players started to say the version by 3PP may be better.
Are there enough classes? We also could say there are enough subclasses. In this edition there were only two no-core classes, the artificer and the bloodhunter, and this was by a 3PP. I am more interested into a sourcebook with a new class than the classic crunch. I bought a lot of 3.5 books, and I have got enough spells, feats and prestige classes.
See Armor and Shields
That is the only rule that limits spellcasting in armor. People usually don't use heavy because the investment to get heavy armor proficiency and the strength to wear the armor is quite high.
1. Magic is only restricted if the player doesn't have the associated proficiency.
2. Implementing a whole new power set in an environment that wasn't designed with it in mind can and will absolutely cause problems. Like, this shouldn't be surprising.
3.The Dm's guild also has a disturbing number of books dedicated to Geese as well.
4. New for the sake of new is not exactly a compelling argument.
Oh sweet summer child, what they've proposed at points is a class that doesn't interact with the extent mechanics of 5e which... yeah, that's going to kind of crater support for a Psi class.
And really, the only argument against Aberrant Mind that wasn’t disproven is “I don’t like it.”
That’s a valid reason, but not a compelling one.
It is true. And trying to propose brand new rules while not even fully understanding the current ones doesn't help your case.
It's a balance nightmare, and they have yet to explain why it wouldn't be.
I mean... you could argue that you need to perform an excessive number of subtle spells to sell the fantasy but that didn't seem to be Yurei's argument.
Pretty much. Like, even if we break this down to something like... a telekinetic who's only power is being able to move things around you still have huge problems with balancing out how much force can be generated and at what cost, how dextrous is it (IE can it pick a lock? sign a letter? play the piano?), how freely it can do these things... and we're not even at the point where we're doing things like combat applications (IE creating barriers, throwing things, wielding weapons, Flight, applying telekinesis directly to an enemies anatomy...) or how people can actually counter this.
Like that is all stuff that you can't just give vague rules for and then dump it in the GM's lap to try and parse out.
And we responded to that argument. Subtle Spells are inherently more powerful than non-subtle ones, so to balance casting everything subtly, a
psionsorcerer who wants to do that would have the drawback of burning most if not all their sorcery points on it, and not being able to modify those manifestations with further metamagic.But don’t you understand? Any counter-argument that is ignored is automatically defeated.
Yeah, it's important to remember that if people are going to propose additions to the game, the further they deviate from established mechanics the more obvious the problems with them they will be which is going to attract criticism. This isn't a bad thing either since it brings into perspective the problems with their proposal (IE magic and psionics being seperate and thus creating issues with creatures who have innate resistances to the former).
For myself, my opposition to psionics is that the way it's been described by different people has come across as deeply problematic and ignores how the creators have pretty much done all they intend to do with this which has included:
You only need to hunt such things down if you are playing strict Adventurers League and it is hardly a given that Adventurers League is anything that the rules should be written around.
Fizban's exists despite dragons existing in earlier monster compendiums. Xanathar's exists, despite covering areas stated in earlier compendiums.
As for how beholders 'work' if beholders were infallible and impossible to trick then the PC's would always automatically lose against them. There is nothing in their statblocks that make them actual unbeatable Gods. They would not knowingly accept being a minion to anyone but that does not equate to never being a minion.
What is the point of any class besides 'Fighter?' Variety.
Aw bummer, I thought Beholders were an evolution of mind flayers. After sucking enough brains, they grow more tentacles. Their brain becomes overdeveloped and huge while the body atrophies away. The tentacles then grow into the eye stalks, powers dependent on what kind of brains they consumed.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Why would that be any more difficult than with Mage Hand, Mage Hand (Arcane Trickster version) and the Telekinesis spell?
Creating barriers? You have wall of force or wall of wind as models to base the ability on. Applying anything to an enemy's anatomy directly? You cannot do that with Sharpshooter or Create Water or anything else, so why would there be a question with this?
The balancing issues are with respect to subtle everything and not being magical rather than pretty much anything else you have listed there.
The big problem with 'not being magical' is that, as someone designing dungeons or monsters, 90% of the time you want something that blocks, detects, or protects against magic to do the same for psi, because the real reason you put whatever feature it is in the adventure is because you want people to solve a problem without using their supernatural powers. There are sometimes campaign-specific exceptions, but they're as likely to be "only certain types of magic are affected" as being "magic is affected but psi is not". As such, it's much easier from a design perspective (and eliminates a need to go back and errata everything) to just make magical countermeasures work against psi, unless specifically noted.
And it is that difficult to come up with something that covers psi instead? Presumably any Psi book would have a listing of such creatures.
Every DM presumably knows the party they are designing for and is designing for that party regardless. Keep in mind that something that blocks magic will also normally block npn-magical passage so that would normally cover psi. Either way, no need to errata everything. That is nothing that an integration paragraph or two in the Psi book couldn't handle.
If you're literally just using everying that's come before why do you need a whole new powerset for this and not just say... Play an arcane trickster?
Because yeah: Improved mage hand is like 50% of their schtick.
Edit: Holy crap, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Arcane trickster covers the overwhelming majority of what it is that Psi enthusiasts want; Illusion and Enchantment magic covers all your telepathy stuff, Ledgermain gives you telekinesis at a reasonable level... hell you can even argue that sneak attack is you using your powers to discover a distracted enemies weaknesses and exploit them.
Using some things that came before should be expected. We are talking about a prospective new class for 5e D&D, not some completely different game with no connections at all to 5e.
And there being overlap does not equate to 'using everything.' We have been through this, too.
Canabalizing the unique defining aspect of a subclass that gives you basically everything you are asking for isn't exactly a good argument.
I'm pretty sure at some point in the 30 pages that this topic has been discussed we've been over this.
The over the top rhetoric is still not making any arguments, here. The arcane trickster is still the arcane trickster. Just because the subclass has one subtle ability (which is still magical, by the way) does not mean it is any better than the aberrant mind sorcerer to function as a Psion class.
"it has something, therefore it has everything!" is just a restating of "Well if you are using anything from the existing rules, you already have everything!" argument. Please stop repeating yourself.