Most, if not all, of these, are culturally read as magic. Traditionally, there's no differentiation between "psychic powers" and "magic"; that's a modern invention.
In the modern paradigm, psychic powers are generally done entirely with the Power Of The Mind, while magic is done with chanting, weird ingredients, strange carvings, etc. The differentiation is much stronger in fiction than it is in real-world practices, where magic, religion, and psychic powers all overlap.
In the modern paradigm, psychic powers are associated with new age mysticism, which involves chanting, weird ingredients, strange carvings, etc. The pure 'power of the mind' psi comes mostly from science fiction and superhero genres, both of which are significantly out of scope for D&D.
I'll admit that D&D doesn't successfully emulate every genre of psi powers, but it probably does a better job of implementing psi powers than it does implementing magic.
I'm unclear where we got the idea that the Psion has shapeshifting like a Druid. In fact, I'm unclear where shapeshifting as a Druid as _anything_ to do with mental powers. Mental powers are typically things like telepathy, telekinesis, precognition, etc.
"Meaning, to you, the rest of what the druid brings is meaningless" I'm getting really tired of your side putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Stop it.
As for Alter Self, do I really need to list all the ways Druid shapeshifting is superior?
I did not bring shapeshifting into this. You did by way of your ChatGPT based analysis. ChatGPT seemed to think that Psions should not be allowed to compete with 'Druid transformative capability' and you seem to be defending that, so, if a Psion was competitive with that druidic feature alone, ChatGPT was arguing that, in and of itself, would make Psions unbalanced.
The implication clearly being that they cannot be allowed to compete with any class in literally anything. And body transformation is often considered a form of mental power. It is not the only way to achieve such, but that is, again, that "overlap will happen" thing.
ChatGPT was discussing utility. It was saying that the Psion.shouldn’t steal the Druid’s contribution to utility.
Likewise, the characteristic powers of the Psion would be things such as Telepathy and other classes shouldn’t be as powerful in. those powers as the Psion.
I swear it is like you are deliberately missing the point.
I'm unclear where we got the idea that the Psion has shapeshifting like a Druid. In fact, I'm unclear where shapeshifting as a Druid as _anything_ to do with mental powers. Mental powers are typically things like telepathy, telekinesis, precognition, etc.
"Meaning, to you, the rest of what the druid brings is meaningless" I'm getting really tired of your side putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Stop it.
As for Alter Self, do I really need to list all the ways Druid shapeshifting is superior?
I did not bring shapeshifting into this. You did by way of your ChatGPT based analysis. ChatGPT seemed to think that Psions should not be allowed to compete with 'Druid transformative capability' and you seem to be defending that, so, if a Psion was competitive with that druidic feature alone, ChatGPT was arguing that, in and of itself, would make Psions unbalanced.
The implication clearly being that they cannot be allowed to compete with any class in literally anything. And body transformation is often considered a form of mental power. It is not the only way to achieve such, but that is, again, that "overlap will happen" thing.
ChatGPT was discussing utility. It was saying that the Psion.shouldn’t steal the Druid’s contribution to utility.
Likewise, the characteristic powers of the Psion would be things such as Telepathy and other classes shouldn’t be as powerful in. those powers as the Psion.
I swear it is like you are deliberately missing the point.
It was citing a very specific aspect of utility. As others have been saying, it does a shallow comparison at best picking out of context phrases and tossing them together to sound profound. .
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.
1. There are still a substantial number of players who consider even base 5e to be complex. Your idea to scatter hidden rules and interactions around the place just so you can have novel psionics is not going to improve that.
2. Neither Fizbans nor Xanathars include hidden monster rules last I checked. Any statblocks they include are self-contained and easy to pick up. Because everything uses magic.
3. Goalpost shift, you didn't say anything about the Beholder being "tricked." You called it a minion of the mindflayer, which is something they would never willingly do.
4. Bread submarines are "variety" too. Variety only works when it delivers a mechanical benefit. All 13 of the base classes in the game are quite varies, but they all use magic that interacts with the existing magic system rather than trying to do something new for novelty's sake.
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.
Whether it's "difficult" or not is irrelevant; the question is whether it's worth the design time to develop, test, and publish a class, monsters, and items to cater to a niche subsystem. Even in the exceedingly unlikely even they deemed it to be so, that sourcebook would get one follow-up at most in the entire edition's lifespan, as we saw repeatedly before, and largely be a waste of time they could have allocated to fleshing out the systems/classes that do get that kind of support.
What I could get behind is a system to convert any spellcaster to a psychic manifester by removing the verbal and somatic components of their spells, for some kind of balanced cost. This is something every sorcerer can already do, today.
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.
Of course it's magical. That's the point - any psionic or psychic class they end up making will need to be magical. Being magical doesn't mean they can't use those other two labels if you prefer those - Paizo proved that.
Most, if not all, of these, are culturally read as magic. Traditionally, there's no differentiation between "psychic powers" and "magic"; that's a modern invention.
In the modern paradigm, psychic powers are generally done entirely with the Power Of The Mind, while magic is done with chanting, weird ingredients, strange carvings, etc. The differentiation is much stronger in fiction than it is in real-world practices, where magic, religion, and psychic powers all overlap.
In the modern paradigm, psychic powers are associated with new age mysticism, which involves chanting, weird ingredients, strange carvings, etc. The pure 'power of the mind' psi comes mostly from science fiction and superhero genres, both of which are significantly out of scope for D&D.
I'll admit that D&D doesn't successfully emulate every genre of psi powers, but it probably does a better job of implementing psi powers than it does implementing magic.
So it is only ok because it is magic and not natural? So then mind flayers, githzerai and githyanki are only ok as long as they are magical?
And a setting where both exist must be some sort of abomination? (Despite having been there in earlier editions... )
So it is only ok because it is magic and not natural? So then mind flayers, githzerai and githyanki are only ok as long as they are magical?
And a setting where both exist must be some sort of abomination? (Despite having been there in earlier editions... )
In AD&D psi powers were distinct from magic. They were also completely dysfunctional and thus not something to emulate.
In D&D 3e psi powers were magic, just with a separate set of mechanics.
In D&D 4e psi was a separate power source, but whether it was magic was a moot point, because magic wasn't a keyword in the first place; the possible power sources were arcane, divine, martial, primal, and psi, and it was pretty rare for power source to matter (in 4th edition a beholder's central eye could affect martial powers).
A setting that has both psi and magic, where they are distinct, is certainly possible. It's just not something you can reasonably insert into D&D 5th edition.
Actually the good news is that I have a choice of about a dozen playable classes that were built to work with the extent mechanics of the game and enough options for adaptation that I have an almost gluttonous number of options.
But you don't need most of those. Just use your imagination. Look:
Wizard: Sorcerer. Getting spells from books is just flavor
Warlock: Also Sorcerer. Patrons? Flavor
Cleric: Divine Soul Sorcerer
Druid: Divine Soul Sorcerer who takes Polymorph
Bard: Just a Sorcerer with instrument proficiency
Barbarian: Fighter
Monk: As you've pointed out, just a Battlemaster (With the Unarmed Fighting style)
Rogue: Fighter with the Skilled and Skill Expert feats
Ranger: Multiclass Arcane archer/Sorcerer
Paladin: Multiclass Fighter/Divine Soul
Imagine how much better D&D could be if WotC hadn't wasted all that time and all those pages on so many unnecessary classes!
What does the phrase "mechanical support for the fiction" mean to you?
Semantic handwaving.
All of those classes have distinctive concepts and distinctive mechanics underlying those concepts. For example, the wizard has the spell book mechanic distinguishing it from the sorcerer.
The Psiom has no distinctive concept sepersting it from the sorcerer. H there is no reason that has been given, other than “I don’t like it,” that seperates a Psion from a Sorcerer.
A reminder to those who argue 'Flavor is free': "Flavor is free" is completely equivalent to "flavor is meaningless."
If your stance is that a player can describe the visual effects of their abilities however they like, but the DM should, will, and must actively go out of their way to ignore those descriptions, treat the player as being completely identical to every other member of their class, ignore any trappings of the character's abilities, possessions or history that differ from The Expected Norm, and prevent the player from ever benefitting from or being hindered by their specific choice of trappings?
Then your stance is "flavor is meaningless." Not "flavor is free." You are effectively arguing that flavor is nothing but surface-level cosmetics, no more impactful than a Fortnite MTX skin. The player can skin their abilities however they wish but that skin is ignored in favor of what the DM thinks the character is/should be.
Is it any wonder other players reject this notion?
Non-psychic example: a barbarian comes from a tribe that has formed a covenant with an ancient protector spirit. The barbarian's rage is a manifestation of this covenant; when they enter their rage, the runes of the covenant burn on their skin and the protector spirit's ghostflame blazes in their eyes. The extra damage from their rage comes in the form of spectral flames enveloping their weapon, and the spirit bolsters their body as part of the covenant. According to a "Flavor Is Free" table, this is fine.
Now, midway through the campaign, the party is tracking enemies in a town near the barbarian's tribal lands. The barbarian informs the DM they would like to meditate, attempt to commune with their tribe's protector spirit and seek guidance on the movements of foes that threaten the tribe as well as the party. This is Changing The Rules, allowing the barbarian a benefit stemming from the cosmetic trappings of their abilities. This is not fine. The barbarian would be told "you're not a cleric or warlock. You can't commune with otherworldly beings. Your whole protector-spirit thing is just for funsies and visual flair, you can't use it to try and help the party solve their problem." The barbarian is effectively being told their protector spirit doesn't actually exist. This undermines the character's entire history and tale and makes their story nothing but a Fortnite MTX on the bog-standard ordinary barbarian.
This goes the other way as well - "flavor is free" means the DM is not justified in telling the barbarian "as you enter this unhallowed ground, you feel a cold churning in your gut. Somehow, instinctively, you know this place is anathema to your protector spirit - you cannot Rage in this place." Again, this is Changing The Rules, and Changing The Rules is not okay. Your flavor must, at all times and in all ways, be completely transparent and irrelevant to the game being played or it ceases being "flavor". And, thusly, ceases being "free".
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.
1. There are still a substantial number of players who consider even base 5e to be complex. Your idea to scatter hidden rules and interactions around the place just so you can have novel psionics is not going to improve that.
2. Neither Fizbans nor Xanathars include hidden monster rules last I checked. Any statblocks they include are self-contained and easy to pick up. Because everything uses magic.
3. Goalpost shift, you didn't say anything about the Beholder being "tricked." You called it a minion of the mindflayer, which is something they would never willingly do.
4. Bread submarines are "variety" too. Variety only works when it delivers a mechanical benefit. All 13 of the base classes in the game are quite varies, but they all use magic that interacts with the existing magic system rather than trying to do something new for novelty's sake.
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.
Whether it's "difficult" or not is irrelevant; the question is whether it's worth the design time to develop, test, and publish a class, monsters, and items to cater to a niche subsystem. Even in the exceedingly unlikely even they deemed it to be so, that sourcebook would get one follow-up at most in the entire edition's lifespan, as we saw repeatedly before, and largely be a waste of time they could have allocated to fleshing out the systems/classes that do get that kind of support.
What I could get behind is a system to convert any spellcaster to a psychic manifester by removing the verbal and somatic components of their spells, for some kind of balanced cost. This is something every sorcerer can already do, today.
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.
Of course it's magical. That's the point - any psionic or psychic class they end up making will need to be magical. Being magical doesn't mean they can't use those other two labels if you prefer those - Paizo proved that.
I am not the one bringing up a "Won't someone think of the Beholders!" argument with respect to balancing a hypothetical Psion class.
There are people who consider chess and checkers complex. We are discussing hypothetical optional rules, not changes to the core books. Those who think any given sourcebook adds too much complexity are always free not to use it. Or not to buy it at all. There is not even any proposed Psi book out there, WotC or Third Party, so also more than a little premature for any particular deep concerns of such even existing.
"Hidden monster rules" is a term you seem to be pulling out of hiding. If you want to discuss such a term, please explain what you mean by it.
I am not the one moving the goalposts here. I am not the one who has suggested that Psionics, simply by being able to bypass the anti magic eye specifically, would not merely somehow trivialize Beholders but that would somehow completely unbalance the game. Note that is not outright stated, but merely implied, which leads to situations like this. If I have misunderstood that, please explain what the issue really is. I did not call all Beholders minions of Mindflayers. I was suggesting a scenario in which one was. And no, they would not be knowingly so, but unknowingly is, by definition, unknowingly.
Every class uses magic that interacts with the normal magic system?
To the extent existing classes interact with the normal magic system, yes, they interact with the normal magic system, but please show me the rule that states that a fighter or rogue must use magic? That every special ability they have, regardless of subclass, is magical?
Define "Interact." Magic shuts down non-magic all the time. It is sort of magic's thing. But, as is constantly pointed out, only according to what the magical whatever says it does. Magical water does not always put out fires, depending on spell. Magical fire does not always actually burn objects or set things on fire, depending on spell. These situations already exist and the game hasn't imploded from them, so why would any different ones cause it to?
5. Again, we are talking about a hypothetical class with just raw ideas sitting beside it. Most of the naysaying is "Well what about <hypothetical specific situation????>" and never in any constructive way, but purely "It cannot possibly work because this might happen."
6. How do you get from "It is non-magical mind based power" to "So which of those classes ignores/is opaque with regards to the existing magic system? Or is this yet another false equivalency from you?" That is not any false equivalency from anyone other than yourself. A Psion would not be magic immune nor magic invisible any more than any random person walking down the street is magic immune or magic invisible. It is as if the argument against Psions is "If someone hits someone else over the head with a blunt object, no magic is involved. That can't be allowed! It bypasses magic! " It would bypass a spell designed to block magical melee attacks, but spells so specific are not normal at all
What does the phrase "mechanical support for the fiction" mean to you?
Semantic handwaving.
All of those classes have distinctive concepts and distinctive mechanics underlying those concepts. For example, the wizard has the spell book mechanic distinguishing it from the sorcerer.
But I'm assured that you can just use your imagination, and that wanting mechanical support for parts of the fiction is just semantic handwaving.
No, you’ve been assured that such mechanics don’t need to be peculiar to the Psion.
But, at this point, why should you stop putting words in other people’s mouths?
A reminder to those who argue 'Flavor is free': "Flavor is free" is completely equivalent to "flavor is meaningless.”
If your stance is that a player can describe the visual effects of their abilities however they like, but the DM should, will, and must actively go out of their way to ignore those descriptions, treat the player as being completely identical to every other member of their class, ignore any trappings of the character's abilities, possessions or history that differ from The Expected Norm, and prevent the player from ever benefitting from or being hindered by their specific choice of trappings?
Then your stance is "flavor is meaningless." Not "flavor is free." You are effectively arguing that flavor is nothing but surface-level cosmetics, no more impactful than a Fortnite MTX skin. The player can skin their abilities however they wish but that skin is ignored in favor of what the DM thinks the character is/should be.
Is it any wonder other players reject this notion?
Non-psychic example: a barbarian comes from a tribe that has formed a covenant with an ancient protector spirit. The barbarian's rage is a manifestation of this covenant; when they enter their rage, the runes of the covenant burn on their skin and the protector spirit's ghostflame blazes in their eyes. The extra damage from their rage comes in the form of spectral flames enveloping their weapon, and the spirit bolsters their body as part of the covenant. According to a "Flavor Is Free" table, this is fine.
Now, midway through the campaign, the party is tracking enemies in a town near the barbarian's tribal lands. The barbarian informs the DM they would like to meditate, attempt to commune with their tribe's protector spirit and seek guidance on the movements of foes that threaten the tribe as well as the party. This is Changing The Rules, allowing the barbarian a benefit stemming from the cosmetic trappings of their abilities. This is not fine. The barbarian would be told "you're not a cleric or warlock. You can't commune with otherworldly beings. Your whole protector-spirit thing is just for funsies and visual flair, you can't use it to try and help the party solve their problem." The barbarian is effectively being told their protector spirit doesn't actually exist. This undermines the character's entire history and tale and makes their story nothing but a Fortnite MTX on the bog-standard ordinary barbarian.
This goes the other way as well - "flavor is free" means the DM is not justified in telling the barbarian "as you enter this unhallowed ground, you feel a cold churning in your gut. Somehow, instinctively, you know this place is anathema to your protector spirit - you cannot Rage in this place." Again, this is Changing The Rules, and Changing The Rules is not okay. Your flavor must, at all times and in all ways, be completely transparent and irrelevant to the game being played or it ceases being "flavor". And, thusly, ceases being "free".
“A reminder to those who argue 'Flavor is free': "Flavor is free" is completely equivalent to "flavor is meaningless.””
No, its not.
Flavor affects how a character is roleplayed and fits into the milieu-not meaningless at all.
”If your stance is that a player can describe the visual effects of their abilities however they like, but the DM should, will, and must actively go out of their way to ignore those descriptions, treat the player as being completely identical to every other member of their class, ignore any trappings of the character's abilities, possessions or history that differ from The Expected Norm, and prevent the player from ever benefitting from or being hindered by their specific choice of trappings?”
Nobody is claiming that you can cast a magic missile and claim it is fire and the GM has to act like it is fire. We’re saying that you cast Magic Missile and claim that it is created vis Psionics.
Nobody is claiming that you can cast a magic missile and claim it is fire and the GM has to act like it is fire. We’re saying that you cast Magic Missile and claim that it is created vis Psionics.
The issue there is that you are merely making a character who calls Magic 'Psionics.'
Again, they could call it George it would still be the same. It is just another round of "If we make the cake look nutritious, maybe they'll actually feel properly fed after trying to live off of it."
Nobody is claiming that you can cast a magic missile and claim it is fire and the GM has to act like it is fire. We’re saying that you cast Magic Missile and claim that it is created vis Psionics.
The issue there is that you are merely making a character who calls Magic 'Psionics.'
Again, they could call it George it would still be the same. It is just another round of "If we make the cake look nutritious, maybe they'll actually feel properly fed after trying to live off of it."
Actually, we’re saying that Psionics creates magical effects, the same way ki does.
The issue there is that you are merely making a character who calls Magic 'Psionics.'
That's because that's what a psion is in D&D. A psion is someone who has Spellcasting(Psionics), exactly the way all the psionic monsters have Spellcasting(Psionics).
... Nobody is claiming that you can cast a magic missile and claim it is fire and the GM has to act like it is fire. We’re saying that you cast Magic Missile and claim that it is created vis Psionics.
If a player wants to create a Flame Needles spell based on Magic Missile, that's between the player and the DM.
But you have also proven my point. "You cast Magic Missile and claim it is created via 'Psionics'." Why should I? What is the point? If a player wants to play a psychic character, but you-the-DM are going to treat it as a conventional spellcaster, call it a conventional spellcaster, have the world react to it as a conventional spellcaster, and otherwise actively go out of your way to avoid acknowledging the players' "flavor"? The player's flavor is meaningless. It's so much wind they're spewing to no effect or purpose. You're ignoring their concept, ignoring their "roleplaying", ignoring their character because you don't like their flavor.
If you-the-DM signed off on their concept in the first place, you have no business ignoring that concept. If you are unwilling to honor the player's concept and story, why should they be willing to honor yours? What standing do you have to complain about your players never roleplaying when you make it starkly plain you're going to ignore their roleplaying in the first place?
That's why I've come to hate 'flavor is free'. It's a pithy Internet Witticism that encourages ignoring your players. It's easy-to-regurgitate Fake Wisdom, and people who don't think deeper or harder come away with exactly the opposite idea they should've learned.
But you have also proven my point. "You cast Magic Missile and claim it is created via 'Psionics'." Why should I? What is the point? If a player wants to play a psychic character, but you-the-DM are going to treat it as a conventional spellcaster, call it a conventional spellcaster, have the world react to it as a conventional spellcaster, and otherwise actively go out of your way to avoid acknowledging the players' "flavor"? The player's flavor is meaningless. It's so much wind they're spewing to no effect or purpose. You're ignoring their concept, ignoring their "roleplaying", ignoring their character because you don't like their flavor.
As a DM, if I want to treat psychics as different, I can do so without any mechanical support, just like I can treat a cleric of Torm differently from a cleric of Bane despite the fact that they are mechanically identical down the the subclass, and if I don't want to treat them as different, different mechanics won't change my mind.
As a DM, if I want to treat psychics as different, I can do so without any mechanical support, just like I can treat a cleric of Torm differently from a cleric of Bane despite the fact that they are mechanically identical down the the subclass, and if I don't want to treat them as different, different mechanics won't change my mind.
And yet the player is not allowed to make their character any different? You're saying that the DM can, if they so deign, decide whether or not to ignore the player's fluff/story/roleplaying, but the player has absolutely no right to want an actual, tangible differentiator and reason to be what they wish to be?
That's the answer to 'why isn't the Aberrant Mind good enough?', by the way. The Aberrant Mind has no reason to be a psychic character. It has no justification for being a psychic character. It offers no mechanical support for the concept of "psychic character", and despite all the scornful dismissal of the idea, mechanical support is important. Mechanics and fluff need to work together to sell an idea. If they don't? The game is off, and no amount of Flavor-Is-Free-ing people will fix it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the modern paradigm, psychic powers are associated with new age mysticism, which involves chanting, weird ingredients, strange carvings, etc. The pure 'power of the mind' psi comes mostly from science fiction and superhero genres, both of which are significantly out of scope for D&D.
I'll admit that D&D doesn't successfully emulate every genre of psi powers, but it probably does a better job of implementing psi powers than it does implementing magic.
ChatGPT was discussing utility. It was saying that the Psion.shouldn’t steal the Druid’s contribution to utility.
Likewise, the characteristic powers of the Psion would be things such as Telepathy and other classes shouldn’t be as powerful in. those powers as the Psion.
I swear it is like you are deliberately missing the point.
It was citing a very specific aspect of utility. As others have been saying, it does a shallow comparison at best picking out of context phrases and tossing them together to sound profound. .
1. There are still a substantial number of players who consider even base 5e to be complex. Your idea to scatter hidden rules and interactions around the place just so you can have novel psionics is not going to improve that.
2. Neither Fizbans nor Xanathars include hidden monster rules last I checked. Any statblocks they include are self-contained and easy to pick up. Because everything uses magic.
3. Goalpost shift, you didn't say anything about the Beholder being "tricked." You called it a minion of the mindflayer, which is something they would never willingly do.
4. Bread submarines are "variety" too. Variety only works when it delivers a mechanical benefit. All 13 of the base classes in the game are quite varies, but they all use magic that interacts with the existing magic system rather than trying to do something new for novelty's sake.
Whether it's "difficult" or not is irrelevant; the question is whether it's worth the design time to develop, test, and publish a class, monsters, and items to cater to a niche subsystem. Even in the exceedingly unlikely even they deemed it to be so, that sourcebook would get one follow-up at most in the entire edition's lifespan, as we saw repeatedly before, and largely be a waste of time they could have allocated to fleshing out the systems/classes that do get that kind of support.
What I could get behind is a system to convert any spellcaster to a psychic manifester by removing the verbal and somatic components of their spells, for some kind of balanced cost. This is something every sorcerer can already do, today.
Of course it's magical. That's the point - any psionic or psychic class they end up making will need to be magical. Being magical doesn't mean they can't use those other two labels if you prefer those - Paizo proved that.
So it is only ok because it is magic and not natural? So then mind flayers, githzerai and githyanki are only ok as long as they are magical?
And a setting where both exist must be some sort of abomination? (Despite having been there in earlier editions... )
Just because something was in a previous edition that does not mean it should be brought over to current editions.
I say that as someone who is consistently frustrated with changes to the game's lore from previous editions.
A setting that has both psi and magic, where they are distinct, is certainly possible. It's just not something you can reasonably insert into D&D 5th edition.
All of those classes have distinctive concepts and distinctive mechanics underlying those concepts. For example, the wizard has the spell book mechanic distinguishing it from the sorcerer.
The Psiom has no distinctive concept sepersting it from the sorcerer. H there is no reason that has been given, other than “I don’t like it,” that seperates a Psion from a Sorcerer.
So which of those classes ignores/is opaque with regards to the existing magic system? Or is this yet another false equivalency from you?
A reminder to those who argue 'Flavor is free': "Flavor is free" is completely equivalent to "flavor is meaningless."
If your stance is that a player can describe the visual effects of their abilities however they like, but the DM should, will, and must actively go out of their way to ignore those descriptions, treat the player as being completely identical to every other member of their class, ignore any trappings of the character's abilities, possessions or history that differ from The Expected Norm, and prevent the player from ever benefitting from or being hindered by their specific choice of trappings?
Then your stance is "flavor is meaningless." Not "flavor is free." You are effectively arguing that flavor is nothing but surface-level cosmetics, no more impactful than a Fortnite MTX skin. The player can skin their abilities however they wish but that skin is ignored in favor of what the DM thinks the character is/should be.
Is it any wonder other players reject this notion?
Non-psychic example: a barbarian comes from a tribe that has formed a covenant with an ancient protector spirit. The barbarian's rage is a manifestation of this covenant; when they enter their rage, the runes of the covenant burn on their skin and the protector spirit's ghostflame blazes in their eyes. The extra damage from their rage comes in the form of spectral flames enveloping their weapon, and the spirit bolsters their body as part of the covenant. According to a "Flavor Is Free" table, this is fine.
Now, midway through the campaign, the party is tracking enemies in a town near the barbarian's tribal lands. The barbarian informs the DM they would like to meditate, attempt to commune with their tribe's protector spirit and seek guidance on the movements of foes that threaten the tribe as well as the party. This is Changing The Rules, allowing the barbarian a benefit stemming from the cosmetic trappings of their abilities. This is not fine. The barbarian would be told "you're not a cleric or warlock. You can't commune with otherworldly beings. Your whole protector-spirit thing is just for funsies and visual flair, you can't use it to try and help the party solve their problem." The barbarian is effectively being told their protector spirit doesn't actually exist. This undermines the character's entire history and tale and makes their story nothing but a Fortnite MTX on the bog-standard ordinary barbarian.
This goes the other way as well - "flavor is free" means the DM is not justified in telling the barbarian "as you enter this unhallowed ground, you feel a cold churning in your gut. Somehow, instinctively, you know this place is anathema to your protector spirit - you cannot Rage in this place." Again, this is Changing The Rules, and Changing The Rules is not okay. Your flavor must, at all times and in all ways, be completely transparent and irrelevant to the game being played or it ceases being "flavor". And, thusly, ceases being "free".
Please do not contact or message me.
I am not the one bringing up a "Won't someone think of the Beholders!" argument with respect to balancing a hypothetical Psion class.
5. Again, we are talking about a hypothetical class with just raw ideas sitting beside it. Most of the naysaying is "Well what about <hypothetical specific situation????>" and never in any constructive way, but purely "It cannot possibly work because this might happen."
6. How do you get from "It is non-magical mind based power" to "So which of those classes ignores/is opaque with regards to the existing magic system? Or is this yet another false equivalency from you?" That is not any false equivalency from anyone other than yourself. A Psion would not be magic immune nor magic invisible any more than any random person walking down the street is magic immune or magic invisible. It is as if the argument against Psions is "If someone hits someone else over the head with a blunt object, no magic is involved. That can't be allowed! It bypasses magic! " It would bypass a spell designed to block magical melee attacks, but spells so specific are not normal at all
No, you’ve been assured that such mechanics don’t need to be peculiar to the Psion.
But, at this point, why should you stop putting words in other people’s mouths?
I have to say, Ashla_Mason seemed much more categorical than that.
But sure. If wanting mechanical support for the fiction is just semantic handwaving, but only when it's about psychic characters, why is that?
“A reminder to those who argue 'Flavor is free': "Flavor is free" is completely equivalent to "flavor is meaningless.””
No, its not.
Flavor affects how a character is roleplayed and fits into the milieu-not meaningless at all.
”If your stance is that a player can describe the visual effects of their abilities however they like, but the DM should, will, and must actively go out of their way to ignore those descriptions, treat the player as being completely identical to every other member of their class, ignore any trappings of the character's abilities, possessions or history that differ from The Expected Norm, and prevent the player from ever benefitting from or being hindered by their specific choice of trappings?”
Nobody is claiming that you can cast a magic missile and claim it is fire and the GM has to act like it is fire. We’re saying that you cast Magic Missile and claim that it is created vis Psionics.
The issue there is that you are merely making a character who calls Magic 'Psionics.'
Again, they could call it George it would still be the same. It is just another round of "If we make the cake look nutritious, maybe they'll actually feel properly fed after trying to live off of it."
Actually, we’re saying that Psionics creates magical effects, the same way ki does.
That's because that's what a psion is in D&D. A psion is someone who has Spellcasting(Psionics), exactly the way all the psionic monsters have Spellcasting(Psionics).
If a player wants to create a Flame Needles spell based on Magic Missile, that's between the player and the DM.
But you have also proven my point. "You cast Magic Missile and claim it is created via 'Psionics'." Why should I? What is the point? If a player wants to play a psychic character, but you-the-DM are going to treat it as a conventional spellcaster, call it a conventional spellcaster, have the world react to it as a conventional spellcaster, and otherwise actively go out of your way to avoid acknowledging the players' "flavor"? The player's flavor is meaningless. It's so much wind they're spewing to no effect or purpose. You're ignoring their concept, ignoring their "roleplaying", ignoring their character because you don't like their flavor.
If you-the-DM signed off on their concept in the first place, you have no business ignoring that concept. If you are unwilling to honor the player's concept and story, why should they be willing to honor yours? What standing do you have to complain about your players never roleplaying when you make it starkly plain you're going to ignore their roleplaying in the first place?
That's why I've come to hate 'flavor is free'. It's a pithy Internet Witticism that encourages ignoring your players. It's easy-to-regurgitate Fake Wisdom, and people who don't think deeper or harder come away with exactly the opposite idea they should've learned.
Please do not contact or message me.
As a DM, if I want to treat psychics as different, I can do so without any mechanical support, just like I can treat a cleric of Torm differently from a cleric of Bane despite the fact that they are mechanically identical down the the subclass, and if I don't want to treat them as different, different mechanics won't change my mind.
And yet the player is not allowed to make their character any different? You're saying that the DM can, if they so deign, decide whether or not to ignore the player's fluff/story/roleplaying, but the player has absolutely no right to want an actual, tangible differentiator and reason to be what they wish to be?
That's the answer to 'why isn't the Aberrant Mind good enough?', by the way. The Aberrant Mind has no reason to be a psychic character. It has no justification for being a psychic character. It offers no mechanical support for the concept of "psychic character", and despite all the scornful dismissal of the idea, mechanical support is important. Mechanics and fluff need to work together to sell an idea. If they don't? The game is off, and no amount of Flavor-Is-Free-ing people will fix it.
Please do not contact or message me.