And, as I said, I don't agree with the Bard being a skill monkey. There's no way that JoaT compares favorably to expertise in four skills.
Bard gets expertise in four skills; they're generally better social skill monkeys than rogues due to the rest of their package, rogues are typically better at other things. The best skill monkey to fill the ranger role is probably a rogue (scout), possibly multiclassed with something (the last build I did like that combined rogue with rune knight, there are also some decent battle master combos).
I did not say it indirectly either and given your demonstrated penchant for putting words in other peoples' mouths, you are incapable of reliably reporting what ChatGPT said.
I literally copied and pasted and referenced your post I was taking that from.
That you and I disagree over the term 'overlap,' well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
No,you ddn't, because I never said it indirectly.
Is English not your native language or something? It is cool if it isn't. That sure would explain a lot at this point in the dialogue.
"And pretty much the only way to significantly overlap with the general utility provided by shapeshifting is to have shapeshifting. Nothing else will do."
Wrong. For example, the Druid provides quite a bit of general utility by their ability to take on a beast form for hours at a time. They can, for example, be in the same room with someone for hours and never be detected. The Psion should be able to provide general utility by keeping the party in telepathic contact. These do not overlap.
That is insisting that the Psion not be able to shapeshift, because you have decided that they are good enough at telepathic contact to ensure they are providing equivalent levels of utility (and that this is true for every Psion, too).
Agreed those do not overlap. You are insisting there should be no overlap. But you are simply stating that as a fact.
Is the Ranger supposed to be more of a skill monkey than the Rogue? If so, that's new to me. The Rogue can match or beat the Ranger in any random terrain. The Ranger is the most skilled martial, but martials aren't well-known for their skills.
The ranger is supposed to be the master of wilderness survival.
And, as I said, I don't agree with the Bard being a skill monkey. There's no way that JoaT compares favorably to expertise in four skills.
Bards also get expertise in four skills.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
Is the Ranger supposed to be more of a skill monkey than the Rogue? If so, that's new to me. The Rogue can match or beat the Ranger in any random terrain. The Ranger is the most skilled martial, but martials aren't well-known for their skills.
The ranger is supposed to be the master of wilderness survival.
And, as I said, I don't agree with the Bard being a skill monkey. There's no way that JoaT compares favorably to expertise in four skills.
Bards also get expertise in four skills.
The Ranger still will be the master of survival, if they choose to be. Not only will they have skill expertise, but they will be making some checks at advantage just because they have the Ranger class, can back that up with some spells, and for outdoor toughness, they will reduce exhaustion by one level every rest. Some adventures do list the terrain as causing exhaustion merely for being out in them for too long - IIRC the jungles of Chult in one of the FR adventures. Plus, it's more likely for the Ranger to have a higher Wis score (since spellcasting uses it) than a Rogue (Scout not withstanding).
Likewise, the Bard will almost always have a higher base Charisma than a Rogue, making them better at social skills even without counting the effects of magic.
The Rogue, however, is going to be a close second if they want at those skills, will be in first place against anyone other than a pure specialist, and at higher levels gets one great feature even those specialists lack - mitigating low dice rolls.
Subclasses can modify things, like a Soulknife's bonus die can put them above just about anybody, although there is a limit to how often that can be done, and the Eloquence Bard gets reliable skill like a Rogue , but only has two options for what.
I did not say it indirectly either and given your demonstrated penchant for putting words in other peoples' mouths, you are incapable of reliably reporting what ChatGPT said.
I literally copied and pasted and referenced your post I was taking that from.
That you and I disagree over the term 'overlap,' well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
No,you ddn't, because I never said it indirectly.
Is English not your native language or something? It is cool if it isn't. That sure would explain a lot at this point in the dialogue.
"And pretty much the only way to significantly overlap with the general utility provided by shapeshifting is to have shapeshifting. Nothing else will do."
Wrong. For example, the Druid provides quite a bit of general utility by their ability to take on a beast form for hours at a time. They can, for example, be in the same room with someone for hours and never be detected. The Psion should be able to provide general utility by keeping the party in telepathic contact. These do not overlap.
That is insisting that the Psion not be able to shapeshift, because you have decided that they are good enough at telepathic contact to ensure they are providing equivalent levels of utility (and that this is true for every Psion, too).
Agreed those do not overlap. You are insisting there should be no overlap. But you are simply stating that as a fact.
I don't believe that Psions should be able to shapeshift. But, that's because, when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind.
However, my stance that Psions should not be able to shapeshift is a very different thing from the claim that no other class can shapeshift. It is also very different from claiming that my belief should be the prevailing one. I'm open to debate on this. What I am not open to debate on is that the Psion be as good at shapeshifting as the Druid, again because when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind. It is the Druid's schtick. Telepathy, Telekinesis, Object Reading. etc. are the Psion's schtick.,
I'm not sure why psions and shapeshifting came up, but my take on psions and shapeshifting is "the more things you think psions should be able to do, the less reason there is to distinguish them from sorcerer". If psions can do everything a conventional spellcaster can do... they're conventional spellcasters who call their spellcasting 'psionics'.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
The actual point is now two fold: 1) the chatgpt argument that psions shouldn’t overlap another class is a bogus one and gaslighting as we already have a subclass overlapping and arguably superior in a number of areas (scout rogue vs rangers).
2) it’s bogus twice since we have the bard and rogue overlapping each other as skill monkeys no matter which is actually “the best”
at this point in the game classes and subclasses overlap each other frequently enough for that not to be a valid argument against psions.
i get the dislike of shapechanging being a possibility for psions - it’s certainly not what comes first to my mind either. However, psychometabolism with variou body controls including shape shifting, healing, hardening etc was one of the original psychic areas in the 1-3e psionics so like it or not it’s at the very least open for discussion. The real problem is designing a mechanic the doesn’t really feel like casting spells but allows for a range of abilities that can grow or change over a 10 level power structure. The martial vs magic divide is really. Caused because the martial attacks and damage don’t scale the way magic attacks and damage scale. If the psion scales like a martial it feels weak, if it scales like magic it feels like magic to a lot of folks that then say “why bother? It’s just magic”. Finding a mechanic that feels different but scales more or less like magic is the hard part to satisfy everyone. The monk is a good example of this - its abilities mostly scale like a martial but feel more like magic so no one is really happy with it.
The actual point is now two fold: 1) the chatgpt argument that psions shouldn’t overlap another class is a bogus one and gaslighting as we already have a subclass overlapping and arguably superior in a number of areas (scout rogue vs rangers).
2) it’s bogus twice since we have the bard and rogue overlapping each other as skill monkeys no matter which is actually “the best”
at this point in the game classes and subclasses overlap each other frequently enough for that not to be a valid argument against psions.
i get the dislike of shapechanging being a possibility for psions - it’s certainly not what comes first to my mind either. However, psychometabolism with variou body controls including shape shifting, healing, hardening etc was one of the original psychic areas in the 1-3e psionics so like it or not it’s at the very least open for discussion. The real problem is designing a mechanic the doesn’t really feel like casting spells but allows for a range of abilities that can grow or change over a 10 level power structure. The martial vs magic divide is really. Caused because the martial attacks and damage don’t scale the way magic attacks and damage scale. If the psion scales like a martial it feels weak, if it scales like magic it feels like magic to a lot of folks that then say “why bother? It’s just magic”. Finding a mechanic that feels different but scales more or less like magic is the hard part to satisfy everyone. The monk is a good example of this - its abilities mostly scale like a martial but feel more like magic so no one is really happy with it.
I can agree with this point. "Overlap" isn't a problem, as it already exists in the game between several other classes. "Does it better than the specialist" would likely be a problem, and "Does multiple things better than any of the specialists" definitely would be a problem.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness wThere arrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
There are 8 terrains. The Ranger will have a max of 3 of them as favored. That means the Ranger is more than likely not going to be in a favored terrain unless the GM intervenes. But, if we are factoring in GM intervention, then ANY class can be the dominant skill monkey.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness wThere arrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
There are 8 terrains. The Ranger will have a max of 3 of them as favored. That means the Ranger is more than likely not going to be in a favored terrain unless the GM intervenes. But, if we are factoring in GM intervention, then ANY class can be the dominant skill monkey.
That seems to be moving the goalposts. A Rogue will NOT be better than the Bard or the Ranger in their areas of specialty. They will be better than anyone else though, and will be competitive against those specialists (a close second most of the time) even then.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness wThere arrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
There are 8 terrains. The Ranger will have a max of 3 of them as favored. That means the Ranger is more than likely not going to be in a favored terrain unless the GM intervenes. But, if we are factoring in GM intervention, then ANY class can be the dominant skill monkey.
That seems to be moving the goalposts. A Rogue will NOT be better than the Bard or the Ranger in their areas of specialty. They will be better than anyone else though, and will be competitive against those specialists (a close second most of the time) even then.
How is that moving the goal post? The question is which class deserves to have the title of "the skill monkey." Comparing the Rogue in his typical adventuring mode to a Ranger in an adventuring mode that most likely won't be the case seems like putting one's thumb on the scale to me.
Wren, the ranger gets expertise in 3 terrains and proficiency in 3 skills which might include nature and survival. before Xanther's he was (along with the druid) the "wilderness expert" its true that a rogue could potentially take nature and survival as two of his skills and then take expertise in them as well effectively outdoing the ranger in his own area - but it was not how folks typically played the rogue so it wasn't a significant problem or overlap. then in Xanther's we got the scout rogue who got as just one of his abilities expertise in both nature and survival along with his other 4 skills and 4 expertises. this wasn't just overlap it was enough to make far too many folks think the ranger was (now) a garbage class.
your moving the goalposts because when creating a ranger you should be consulting your DM about what terrains you should pick so your not left high and dry all the time with your 1-3 expertises.
What your really doing is trying to duck the arguments and refocus on anything you can to shift the discussion away from the points we are making. These are:
1) there is already a fair amount of "overlap" between classes and subclasses in 5e so any argument against psions that relies on them "overlaping" an existing class is a red herring and bogus.
2) shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes.
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
4) we are looking for help in worki9ng out a mechanic or 3 that would provide the feel we want while still somehow fitting into the 10 level power structure that is core to the game - especially for the nonmartial side where psions would reside.
"your moving the goalposts because when creating a ranger you should be consulting your DM about what terrains you should pick so your not left high and dry all the time with your 1-3 expertise."
I acknowledged GM intervention in an earlier response to you. If the game designers had intended for the Ranger to be in his favored terrain as often as you seem to desire, then they wouldn't have limited him to three of eight.
" there is already a fair amount of "overlap" between classes and subclasses in 5e so any argument against psions that relies on them "overlaping" an existing class is a red herring and bogus." This is a straw man. I already acknowledged that other classes have shapeshift. Druid gets the best shapeshifting skills. Their advanced shapeshifting abilities give them utility that other shapeshifting classes don't have. My argument has been that the Psion shouldn't overlap that utility.
"shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes." I acknowledge this to be true, but "that's the way it was in earlier editions" isn't a particularly compelling argument, if it were, we'd be playing those earlier editions.
"those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion." Fair enough, but the reverse is equally true. Those of us who don't want an entirely new subsystem added because it adds complexity and steepens the learning curve for both new players and new GMs being told to "just suck it up" is equally a nonstarter.
"we are looking for help in worki9ng out a mechanic or 3 that would provide the feel we want while still somehow fitting into the 10 level power structure that is core to the game - especially for the nonmartial side where psions would reside." Thus bypassing the first discussion of whether the game should even have such rules - sounds like you're saying "just suck it up" to me - which is a nonstarter.
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
A fundamental rule of RPGs is "don't reinvent something that already exists" Psions do not fill any game or story role that is not already filled by existing subclasses (most notably aberrant mind).
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
A fundamental rule of RPGs is "don't reinvent something that already exists" Psions do not fill any game or story role that is not already filled by existing subclasses (most notably aberrant mind).
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bard gets expertise in four skills; they're generally better social skill monkeys than rogues due to the rest of their package, rogues are typically better at other things. The best skill monkey to fill the ranger role is probably a rogue (scout), possibly multiclassed with something (the last build I did like that combined rogue with rune knight, there are also some decent battle master combos).
That is insisting that the Psion not be able to shapeshift, because you have decided that they are good enough at telepathic contact to ensure they are providing equivalent levels of utility (and that this is true for every Psion, too).
Agreed those do not overlap. You are insisting there should be no overlap. But you are simply stating that as a fact.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The Ranger still will be the master of survival, if they choose to be. Not only will they have skill expertise, but they will be making some checks at advantage just because they have the Ranger class, can back that up with some spells, and for outdoor toughness, they will reduce exhaustion by one level every rest. Some adventures do list the terrain as causing exhaustion merely for being out in them for too long - IIRC the jungles of Chult in one of the FR adventures. Plus, it's more likely for the Ranger to have a higher Wis score (since spellcasting uses it) than a Rogue (Scout not withstanding).
Likewise, the Bard will almost always have a higher base Charisma than a Rogue, making them better at social skills even without counting the effects of magic.
The Rogue, however, is going to be a close second if they want at those skills, will be in first place against anyone other than a pure specialist, and at higher levels gets one great feature even those specialists lack - mitigating low dice rolls.
Subclasses can modify things, like a Soulknife's bonus die can put them above just about anybody, although there is a limit to how often that can be done, and the Eloquence Bard gets reliable skill like a Rogue , but only has two options for what.
I don't believe that Psions should be able to shapeshift. But, that's because, when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind.
However, my stance that Psions should not be able to shapeshift is a very different thing from the claim that no other class can shapeshift. It is also very different from claiming that my belief should be the prevailing one. I'm open to debate on this. What I am not open to debate on is that the Psion be as good at shapeshifting as the Druid, again because when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind. It is the Druid's schtick. Telepathy, Telekinesis, Object Reading. etc. are the Psion's schtick.,
I'm not sure why psions and shapeshifting came up, but my take on psions and shapeshifting is "the more things you think psions should be able to do, the less reason there is to distinguish them from sorcerer". If psions can do everything a conventional spellcaster can do... they're conventional spellcasters who call their spellcasting 'psionics'.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
The actual point is now two fold:
1) the chatgpt argument that psions shouldn’t overlap another class is a bogus one and gaslighting as we already have a subclass overlapping and arguably superior in a number of areas (scout rogue vs rangers).
2) it’s bogus twice since we have the bard and rogue overlapping each other as skill monkeys no matter which is actually “the best”
at this point in the game classes and subclasses overlap each other frequently enough for that not to be a valid argument against psions.
i get the dislike of shapechanging being a possibility for psions - it’s certainly not what comes first to my mind either. However, psychometabolism with variou body controls including shape shifting, healing, hardening etc was one of the original psychic areas in the 1-3e psionics so like it or not it’s at the very least open for discussion. The real problem is designing a mechanic the doesn’t really feel like casting spells but allows for a range of abilities that can grow or change over a 10 level power structure. The martial vs magic divide is really. Caused because the martial attacks and damage don’t scale the way magic attacks and damage scale. If the psion scales like a martial it feels weak, if it scales like magic it feels like magic to a lot of folks that then say “why bother? It’s just magic”. Finding a mechanic that feels different but scales more or less like magic is the hard part to satisfy everyone. The monk is a good example of this - its abilities mostly scale like a martial but feel more like magic so no one is really happy with it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I can agree with this point. "Overlap" isn't a problem, as it already exists in the game between several other classes. "Does it better than the specialist" would likely be a problem, and "Does multiple things better than any of the specialists" definitely would be a problem.
There are 8 terrains. The Ranger will have a max of 3 of them as favored. That means the Ranger is more than likely not going to be in a favored terrain unless the GM intervenes. But, if we are factoring in GM intervention, then ANY class can be the dominant skill monkey.
That seems to be moving the goalposts. A Rogue will NOT be better than the Bard or the Ranger in their areas of specialty. They will be better than anyone else though, and will be competitive against those specialists (a close second most of the time) even then.
How is that moving the goal post? The question is which class deserves to have the title of "the skill monkey." Comparing the Rogue in his typical adventuring mode to a Ranger in an adventuring mode that most likely won't be the case seems like putting one's thumb on the scale to me.
Wren, the ranger gets expertise in 3 terrains and proficiency in 3 skills which might include nature and survival. before Xanther's he was (along with the druid) the "wilderness expert" its true that a rogue could potentially take nature and survival as two of his skills and then take expertise in them as well effectively outdoing the ranger in his own area - but it was not how folks typically played the rogue so it wasn't a significant problem or overlap. then in Xanther's we got the scout rogue who got as just one of his abilities expertise in both nature and survival along with his other 4 skills and 4 expertises. this wasn't just overlap it was enough to make far too many folks think the ranger was (now) a garbage class.
your moving the goalposts because when creating a ranger you should be consulting your DM about what terrains you should pick so your not left high and dry all the time with your 1-3 expertises.
What your really doing is trying to duck the arguments and refocus on anything you can to shift the discussion away from the points we are making. These are:
1) there is already a fair amount of "overlap" between classes and subclasses in 5e so any argument against psions that relies on them "overlaping" an existing class is a red herring and bogus.
2) shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes.
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
4) we are looking for help in worki9ng out a mechanic or 3 that would provide the feel we want while still somehow fitting into the 10 level power structure that is core to the game - especially for the nonmartial side where psions would reside.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
"your moving the goalposts because when creating a ranger you should be consulting your DM about what terrains you should pick so your not left high and dry all the time with your 1-3 expertise."
I acknowledged GM intervention in an earlier response to you. If the game designers had intended for the Ranger to be in his favored terrain as often as you seem to desire, then they wouldn't have limited him to three of eight.
" there is already a fair amount of "overlap" between classes and subclasses in 5e so any argument against psions that relies on them "overlaping" an existing class is a red herring and bogus." This is a straw man. I already acknowledged that other classes have shapeshift. Druid gets the best shapeshifting skills. Their advanced shapeshifting abilities give them utility that other shapeshifting classes don't have. My argument has been that the Psion shouldn't overlap that utility.
"shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes." I acknowledge this to be true, but "that's the way it was in earlier editions" isn't a particularly compelling argument, if it were, we'd be playing those earlier editions.
"those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion." Fair enough, but the reverse is equally true. Those of us who don't want an entirely new subsystem added because it adds complexity and steepens the learning curve for both new players and new GMs being told to "just suck it up" is equally a nonstarter.
"we are looking for help in worki9ng out a mechanic or 3 that would provide the feel we want while still somehow fitting into the 10 level power structure that is core to the game - especially for the nonmartial side where psions would reside." Thus bypassing the first discussion of whether the game should even have such rules - sounds like you're saying "just suck it up" to me - which is a nonstarter.
A fundamental rule of RPGs is "don't reinvent something that already exists" Psions do not fill any game or story role that is not already filled by existing subclasses (most notably aberrant mind).
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)