I mean yes: 4e existed and it worked really good for psi (as I've acknowledged in the past) but 4e was also a radical departure from the mechanical systems and design theory that had existed for decades before that. It was also pretty roundly rejected by the player base because of that. I say this as someone who really liked 4th as a sort of "saturday morning cartoon" game as opposed to 3rd with it's "We're going to present you with the illusion of multitudes of choices and balanced systems" approach.
As to the rest of it (which is just as valid) my point was that if we're talking about pure hypotheticals with no real ties to reality then literally anything is possible; it's shcroedingrs cat if you also a word processer, 2 more cats and a lighter.
While the 4th edition of D&D failed to meet Hasbro’s objectives, it wasn’t a failure as a game system. In fact, it was one of the best I’ve played—remarkably balanced and effective at streamlining gameplay. By the end of 3.5, each turn could drag on for 20-30 minutes, leaving players bored and impatient. The 4th edition addressed this issue, and I’d be thrilled to see its mechanics revived in some form, perhaps for other Wizards of the Coast properties that aren’t as dependent on the traditional D&D model.
Regarding the psionics of past editions, they were somewhat-balanced, and the psionic class functioned as intended. However, the lack of uniformity in the 5th edition’s design philosophy would likely hinder the integration of such a class. This is because the success of the psionic class in previous editions was due in part to a consistent gameplay cycle across all classes. The 5th edition, on the other hand, revisited the approach of 3.5, simplifying it and removing many complex mechanics, which included elements that supported the psionic class.
The 5th edition stands on its own, and while it’s interesting to reflect on previous systems, direct comparisons aren’t entirely practical. If we were to liken the editions to food, 1.0 through AD&D 2.0 would be apples, 3rd and 3.5 would be oranges, 4th would be a chocolate bar, and 5th would be a banana—with 5.5 potentially being a chocolate-covered banana.
Note: The 4th edition’s failure to fulfill Hasbro’s ambitions wasn’t due to poor sales or a lack of community engagement. D&D has consistently been the top-selling tabletop role-playing game, and the 4th edition was no exception. It’s speculated that Hasbro’s goals involved leveraging the Open Game License (OGL). Unlike previous editions, the 4th edition was not released under the OGL; instead, it offered a licensing agreement that granted Hasbro rights to derivative games. To my knowledge, this was not widely adopted, except by Hasbro’s own subdivisions—for instance, My Little Pony received a 4th edition release. Meanwhile, smaller game studios that had thrived under the D20 system continued to do so under the OGL, and companies that had traditionally collaborated with Wizards of the Coast branched out on their own, such as with Pathfinder. It seems Hasbro attempted to monopolize a niche market and did not succeed, prompting Wizards of the Coast to create the 5th edition in an effort to reconcile with the community.
The connection between 4e, the martial/caster divide, and psi is this:
There is a significant group of D&D players who
Want high level magic to be ridiculous and gamebreaking with no effective counters other than other high level magic.
Reject any attempt to make non-spellcasters ridiculous and gamebreaking.
Complain about high level D&D being unplayable.
4th edition massively toned down the gamebreaking potential of high level magic (violating #1) and to the extent gamebreaking capabilities did exist, gave them more or less equally to all classes (violating #2). The problem with psi is that you have a choice between making it ridiculous and gamebreaking, and making it inferior, and if it is to be gamebreaking, it's expected that it fit within the same paradigm as magic because doing anything else makes high level even less playable.
High-level magic is quite easily countered by martials. Have an18th-level rogue and an Archwizard in a city and the Master Rogue has a kill order for the Archwizard by any means necessary.. The Archwizard is going to die. It might take a week or two, but the conclusion is certain, even with Foresight.
There used to be a practice of comparing builds by having them both start on an open plane 100ft apart. That comparison is stupid.
Sure - if the archwizard knows absolutely nothing about the kill order and spends all their time hanging out drinking dodgy grog at Slappy Jack's Hooch Hole.
If the archwizard actually acts like an archwizard?
A.) They can just leave the plane, hang out in the City of Brass for a while or such. They can teleport to a different continent, or transform themself into a dragon, or any number of other things that makes it Problematic, if not impossible, to kill them. B.) They can just let themselves be killed after mailing all their stuff to the location of their hidden Clone, wake up, get a second Clone started, and turn up when it's ready to finish going about their business. C.) They can use their plethora of information-gathering magics to find the Master Rogue and end his sorry ass first. D.) They can live in an archmage's tower that constitutes a whole-ass Dungeon Raid for magicless mooks, in addition to A, B, and C, because that's what archmages do.
An archmage that dies because a dude with a knife shivved them a few times is an archmage that had no business claiming that title. Even assuming a Master Rogue's inability to fail skill checks and the use of exceptionally expensive poisons, the archmage only dies in that situation because they felt like it or because the GM handed them the Idiot Ball. There's a reason high-level spellcaster monsters' spell lists in the MM were all eye-wateringly insane; giving something like Vecna the ability to cast the sort of spells he damn well should be casting makes him effectively unstoppable.
High-level magic is quite easily countered by martials. Have an18th-level rogue and an Archwizard in a city and the Master Rogue has a kill order for the Archwizard by any means necessary.. The Archwizard is going to die. It might take a week or two, but the conclusion is certain, even with Foresight.
If the archwizard has no idea that a threat even exists and doesn't take any precautions, sure. Otherwise, the rogue is toast, because if you don't have nondetection or similar, you really can't win.
High-level magic is quite easily countered by martials. Have an18th-level rogue and an Archwizard in a city and the Master Rogue has a kill order for the Archwizard by any means necessary.. The Archwizard is going to die. It might take a week or two, but the conclusion is certain, even with Foresight.
If the archwizard has no idea that a threat even exists and doesn't take any precautions, sure. Otherwise, the rogue is toast, because if you don't have nondetection or similar, you really can't win.
Yurei1453 listed a bunch of actual Archwizard things they can do, if they think someone is trying to kill them. But you have to understand, even the good Archwizards assume there is another high level wizard looking to take their title. So They expect to have assassins coming at them daily. So they will do the entire list of things Yurei said, and then some, like stealing an immortal child of a goddess to leech their life force off of (BG3), become a lich (Every lich in the game), steal the life essence of their entire world and an ancient dragon... see Dark Sun setting for that one. (****ing Sorcerer Kings are truly messed up and evil)
The problem wasn’t that it gave everyone powers. I’m all in for giving all characters powers.
The problems with 4e were too many to count, but mostly revolve around the attempt to make it a video game. The narrative drama was replaced with dice mechanics for everything.
The homogenization was also a problem; that's all Pantagruel was saying. Nobody is saying it didn't have multiple problems, just that that particular one is germane to the thread.
Regarding the psionics of past editions, they were somewhat-balanced, and the psionic class functioned as intended. However, the lack of uniformity in the 5th edition’s design philosophy would likely hinder the integration of such a class. This is because the success of the psionic class in previous editions was due in part to a consistent gameplay cycle across all classes. The 5th edition, on the other hand, revisited the approach of 3.5, simplifying it and removing many complex mechanics, which included elements that supported the psionic class.
The primary thing that made past-edition psionics even remotely balanced was Psionics-Magic Transparency, which the psionics proponents in this thread claim not to want. You cannot have balance without it, unless psionics are so weak that transparency doesn't matter, which I'm guessing they wouldn't want either. Even the psionic classes we have now in 5e rely on transparency, such as the most powerful abilities of the Soulknife and Psi Warrior (their hour-long invisibility and telekinesis respectively) being magic.
Regarding this hypothetical 4th tier Rogue v. Wizard thing, obviously if the Wizard knows both that they are being targeted in general and who is after them they can do a lot, but otherwise it's much more up in the air. At 17th level, an Assassin has 9d6 Sneak Attack damage, and on top of auto-crits on a surprise attack it's a DC 19 CON save or the damage is doubled again. And the Assassin subclass is also specialized in disguises and infiltration, so let's assume that unless the Wizard has some way to specifically pick them out from dozens of yards away, they get that surprise attack. Their to-hit will be at least +11, probably closer to +13 from a magic weapon at this point. If the Wizard keeps Mage Armor up they'll have something like 15-17 AC, maybe all the way up to 19 if they have an AC boosting magic item. Shield or SB don't come into play because you can't take reactions when surprised, so it's an advantage attack of +13 (making it functionally ~+17 iirc) against AC of 19; that means that functionally it would be about 1 in 20 odds of failure. And the Wizard is going to have maybe +2 to CON saves in typical builds, so they need a 17 or higher to make that save, giving 4 in 5 odds they take 36d6 Sneak Attack damage. I think we can safely assume they won't survive the hit. Now, hypothetically the Wizard could use Foresight to negate the Sneak Attack, but that spell has an 8 hour duration and can only be cast once a day, meaning if we assume a typical 16 hour period of activity they are only covered half the time. They could also set Contingency to Dimension Door out of danger or put a Wall of Force around them. But there's no discretion over the trigger and the material component is expensive and theoretically rare. So this all comes down to the narrative/meta level of "who is better at concealing themselves and their capabilities before the Big Moment", and thus cannot be answered quantifiably. And the best spell a Wizard has for divining the identity of a hypothetical assassin is Divination, which is extremely narrow and limited in what it can reveal, given that you need to ask about a specific goal, event, or activity occurring in the next 7 days, and the response is not necessarily going to be explicit. Plus, the Amulet of of Proof Against Detection and Location is only Uncommon, so a 4th tier Assassin specifically targeting a Wizard is almost certainly going to have one.
So, in the end, capability-wise each is potentially able to foil the other; if the Rogue is able to ensure a clear Sneak Attack, it's pretty much game over. If the Wizard is able to conceal their defenses or otherwise see the Rogue coming, they can counterattack or flee. Thus narratively speaking either outcome is valid, since the final result is dependent on plot events rather than quantifiable features.
Regarding this hypothetical 4th tier Rogue v. Wizard thing, obviously if the Wizard knows both that they are being targeted in general and who is after them they can do a lot, but otherwise it's much more up in the air.
The issue isn't with what happens if the rogue successfully engages the wizard by ambush. The issue is that a wizard who's actually being a problem that might need dealing with is probably going to make themselves impossible to engage (a wizard who's just being a random civilian might well be ambushable but also doesn't actually need countering).
Regarding this hypothetical 4th tier Rogue v. Wizard thing, obviously if the Wizard knows both that they are being targeted in general and who is after them they can do a lot, but otherwise it's much more up in the air.
The issue isn't with what happens if the rogue successfully engages the wizard by ambush. The issue is that a wizard who's actually being a problem that might need dealing with is probably going to make themselves impossible to engage (a wizard who's just being a random civilian might well be ambushable but also doesn't actually need countering).
Plus, a wizard that is actually good at just being a random civilian is likely not to be deliberately targeted since they appear to just be a random civilian and they personally would have to be the one civilian assassinated specifically in the middle of a crowd of other random civilians, which, given the whole "you lose hide on attacking regardless of circumstance" rule, is likely not going to go well for the assassin.
The problem wasn’t that it gave everyone powers. I’m all in for giving all characters powers.
The problems with 4e were too many to count, but mostly revolve around the attempt to make it a video game. The narrative drama was replaced with dice mechanics for everything.
The homogenization was also a problem; that's all Pantagruel was saying. Nobody is saying it didn't have multiple problems, just that that particular one is germane to the thread.
Regarding the psionics of past editions, they were somewhat-balanced, and the psionic class functioned as intended. However, the lack of uniformity in the 5th edition’s design philosophy would likely hinder the integration of such a class. This is because the success of the psionic class in previous editions was due in part to a consistent gameplay cycle across all classes. The 5th edition, on the other hand, revisited the approach of 3.5, simplifying it and removing many complex mechanics, which included elements that supported the psionic class.
The primary thing that made past-edition psionics even remotely balanced was Psionics-Magic Transparency, which the psionics proponents in this thread claim not to want. You cannot have balance without it, unless psionics are so weak that transparency doesn't matter, which I'm guessing they wouldn't want either. Even the psionic classes we have now in 5e rely on transparency, such as the most powerful abilities of the Soulknife and Psi Warrior (their hour-long invisibility and telekinesis respectively) being magic.
By "transparency", I presume you mean interactivity i.e. things like Dispel, Counter, and Antimagic all shut psychic abilities down? That's not necessarily an issue, though it is an annoyance. No, I don't particularly like magical powers being given strict dominance over psychic powers (i.e. magic can easily and effortlessly counteract psychic abilities but psychic abilities have no leverage whatsoever to counteract magic at all), but complete and utter separation isn't a hill I'll die on.
I still think it would be preferable, mind you, but I understand the arguments against it even if I think they're a little overwrought and unfair. After all, martial characters have had to deal with magic being able to turn them off for free without one single recourse or counter for the entire edition so far. Concentration is a nonanswer since that's damage in general and archetype agnostic.
The otherwise completely off topic rogue vs. wizard thing is getting at this idea that magic is utterly dominant in 5e. It counters EVERYTHING, and has absolutely no counters itself save for more of itself. This is indeed Annoying, but I see no way out of it given the structure of the edition. It's probably one big reason why people hate the idea of actually competent psychic characters (in other words, not the ******* Aberrant Mind) so much - they already hate that magic is essentially uncounterable, and having a second ability that falls outside even the limited and unreliable partial counters to magic is just not okay.
Even if it otherwise makes perfect sense for psychic abilities to not be on the same wavelength as conventional magic. *Because they're not magic.*
I'd argue that if we're talking about a proper real deal arch wizard the Rogue is going to have an extremely hard time engaging him; Wizards of that caliber have a tendency to make their homes death traps for unwitting rogues with everything from extra-dimensional spaces, wards, Summons, Constructs, conventional traps, puzzles, alarms and other shenanigans that are all there to do 2 things:
Kill/incapacitate the invader
Alert the wizard
Now, if the Rogue can actually getto the wizard then things can potentially get really ugly for said wizard but even there things can get real ugly for the Rogue since there is a plethora of spells a mage can throw out that can kill/cripple him in short order and that's assuming the Wizard hasn't set up any contingencies for escaping his would be murderer and then hunting them down as they see fit.
So is it possible? Yes. Is it an even match? God no.
Ultimately it’s a question of who is better able to play to their strengths. The actual spell list does not allow a Wizard to make themselves inherently untouchable, and for every Mordenkainen who goes off and lives in their Tower of Seclusion loaded with wards and such, you’ll also have a Khelben Arenson who’s part of an active community and cannot remain safely on his home turf 24/10. In play you’ll be more likely to be faced with the former than the latter because it is more engaging for the party as a whole, but even by the numbers spellcasting is not an inherent end-all-be-all.
It's probably one big reason why people hate the idea of actually competent psychic characters (in other words, not the ******* Aberrant Mind) so much - they already hate that magic is essentially uncounterable, and having a second ability that falls outside even the limited and unreliable partial counters to magic is just not okay.
Having a completely different broken mechanic in addition to the existing broken mechanics would make the game even less playable at higher levels, but the reason I hate treating psi as not magic is that it is magic, just a different tradition -- it's certainly no further away from other magic than the gap between, say, wizardry and divine miracles.
It's probably one big reason why people hate the idea of actually competent psychic characters (in other words, not the ******* Aberrant Mind) so much - they already hate that magic is essentially uncounterable, and having a second ability that falls outside even the limited and unreliable partial counters to magic is just not okay.
Having a completely different broken mechanic in addition to the existing broken mechanics would make the game even less playable at higher levels, but the reason I hate treating psi as not magic is that it is magic, just a different tradition -- it's certainly no further away from other magic than the gap between, say, wizardry and divine miracles.
Whether or not it's magic in a game-mechanical sense is probably a minor issue. (It'd be interesting if it wasn't, and it could be arranged to create a setup where magic beats martial beats psi beats magic, but that would need it to be tied into the base system design at a much deeper level than can be achieved at this point in 5e.)
3e and 4e both had systems where you had a base action that you could expend extra resources to make better; in 3e it was low base cost abilities, in 4e it was at-will powers (4th edition equivalent of cantrips), so that sounds like what Yurei wants to do. 3e warlock also had a system where your eldritch blast could be dynamically upgraded.
By "transparency", I presume you mean interactivity i.e. things like Dispel, Counter, and Antimagic all shut psychic abilities down? That's not necessarily an issue, though it is an annoyance. No, I don't particularly like magical powers being given strict dominance over psychic powers (i.e. magic can easily and effortlessly counteract psychic abilities but psychic abilities have no leverage whatsoever to counteract magic at all), but complete and utter separation isn't a hill I'll die on.
Dispel, Antimagic, and Detection are what I meant. Countering I'm okay with psionics bypassing; for starters psionics has no components, so there's no stimulus to trigger a counter anyway - and for two, that's how it worked in 3.5 as well, neither could counter the other. So that's totally fine.
I still think it would be preferable, mind you, but I understand the arguments against it even if I think they're a little overwrought and unfair. After all, martial characters have had to deal with magic being able to turn them off for free without one single recourse or counter for the entire edition so far. Concentration is a nonanswer since that's damage in general and archetype agnostic.
The otherwise completely off topic rogue vs. wizard thing is getting at this idea that magic is utterly dominant in 5e. It counters EVERYTHING, and has absolutely no counters itself save for more of itself. This is indeed Annoying, but I see no way out of it given the structure of the edition. It's probably one big reason why people hate the idea of actually competent psychic characters (in other words, not the ******* Aberrant Mind) so much - they already hate that magic is essentially uncounterable, and having a second ability that falls outside even the limited and unreliable partial counters to magic is just not okay.
Even if it otherwise makes perfect sense for psychic abilities to not be on the same wavelength as conventional magic. *Because they're not magic.*
I genuinely don't think magic is as utterly dominant / all-encompassing as you do. Sure it's capable of very powerful effects, but most spells have substantial limits baked in too; the degree to which magic is "uncounterable" or needs specific counters is I think vastly overstated around here. We don't need to try and shoehorn psionics into some kind of misguided rock-paper-scissors arrangement in order for magic to have functioning limitations.
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical? I mean, there’s no feasible alternative. The Martial would be doing SOMETHING, SOMETHING that is significantly beyond what humans without magic are capable of (whether that is increasing strength beyond human maximum, momentarily moving faster than can be explained mundanely, etc.).
So, this topic martial vs. magic is kind of a red herring. At high levels, it is all magic anyway. I mean, at high levels, Barbarians can have more hit points than a slab of granite the same size.
Since dragon breath (among other things) is deemed non-magical, it does demonstrate that there are high level effects that are non-magical
Thus the concept that psionics could actually be non magical is legit. However it also follows that there would be anti-psi spells, even if they do not necessarily also affect magic.
In fact, the biggest problem balancing psionics is that it usually does magical effects with fewer of the counters.
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical?
It doesn't have to be magical, but it should be associated with some superhuman force, and in a faux-medieval setting this is probably going to be magical, though not necessarily any more magical than, say, ki powers. Historical examples of mythic heroes generally involve a connection with the divine, mythic villains may be involved with malign supernatural entities. More modern settings sometimes replace magic with advanced technology.
The issue isn't really magic vs mundane, it's spellcaster vs martial.
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
Can we just all agree that if we were to give a martial something similar in power level to high level spells, it would HAVE to be magical? I mean, there’s no feasible alternative. The Martial would be doing SOMETHING, SOMETHING that is significantly beyond what humans without magic are capable of (whether that is increasing strength beyond human maximum, momentarily moving faster than can be explained mundanely, etc.).
So, this topic martial vs. magic is kind of a red herring. At high levels, it is all magic anyway. I mean, at high levels, Barbarians can have more hit points than a slab of granite the same size.
Since dragon breath (among other things) is deemed non-magical, it does demonstrate that there are high level effects that are non-magical
Thus the concept that psionics could actually be non magical is legit. However it also follows that there would be anti-psi spells, even if they do not necessarily also affect magic.
In fact, the biggest problem balancing psionics is that it usually does magical effects with fewer of the counters.
Well, point of order - dragons ARE magical, it's just not the kind of magic that can be dispelled. Per Sage Advice:
You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:
the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect
In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type.
So the high-level martial effects would also be magical, just not magical in a game rules sense. But they would be magical in the fiction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While the 4th edition of D&D failed to meet Hasbro’s objectives, it wasn’t a failure as a game system. In fact, it was one of the best I’ve played—remarkably balanced and effective at streamlining gameplay. By the end of 3.5, each turn could drag on for 20-30 minutes, leaving players bored and impatient. The 4th edition addressed this issue, and I’d be thrilled to see its mechanics revived in some form, perhaps for other Wizards of the Coast properties that aren’t as dependent on the traditional D&D model.
Regarding the psionics of past editions, they were somewhat-balanced, and the psionic class functioned as intended. However, the lack of uniformity in the 5th edition’s design philosophy would likely hinder the integration of such a class. This is because the success of the psionic class in previous editions was due in part to a consistent gameplay cycle across all classes. The 5th edition, on the other hand, revisited the approach of 3.5, simplifying it and removing many complex mechanics, which included elements that supported the psionic class.
The 5th edition stands on its own, and while it’s interesting to reflect on previous systems, direct comparisons aren’t entirely practical. If we were to liken the editions to food, 1.0 through AD&D 2.0 would be apples, 3rd and 3.5 would be oranges, 4th would be a chocolate bar, and 5th would be a banana—with 5.5 potentially being a chocolate-covered banana.
Note: The 4th edition’s failure to fulfill Hasbro’s ambitions wasn’t due to poor sales or a lack of community engagement. D&D has consistently been the top-selling tabletop role-playing game, and the 4th edition was no exception. It’s speculated that Hasbro’s goals involved leveraging the Open Game License (OGL). Unlike previous editions, the 4th edition was not released under the OGL; instead, it offered a licensing agreement that granted Hasbro rights to derivative games. To my knowledge, this was not widely adopted, except by Hasbro’s own subdivisions—for instance, My Little Pony received a 4th edition release. Meanwhile, smaller game studios that had thrived under the D20 system continued to do so under the OGL, and companies that had traditionally collaborated with Wizards of the Coast branched out on their own, such as with Pathfinder. It seems Hasbro attempted to monopolize a niche market and did not succeed, prompting Wizards of the Coast to create the 5th edition in an effort to reconcile with the community.
And a Happy Pride Month to those celebrating!
The connection between 4e, the martial/caster divide, and psi is this:
There is a significant group of D&D players who
4th edition massively toned down the gamebreaking potential of high level magic (violating #1) and to the extent gamebreaking capabilities did exist, gave them more or less equally to all classes (violating #2). The problem with psi is that you have a choice between making it ridiculous and gamebreaking, and making it inferior, and if it is to be gamebreaking, it's expected that it fit within the same paradigm as magic because doing anything else makes high level even less playable.
Sure - if the archwizard knows absolutely nothing about the kill order and spends all their time hanging out drinking dodgy grog at Slappy Jack's Hooch Hole.
If the archwizard actually acts like an archwizard?
A.) They can just leave the plane, hang out in the City of Brass for a while or such. They can teleport to a different continent, or transform themself into a dragon, or any number of other things that makes it Problematic, if not impossible, to kill them.
B.) They can just let themselves be killed after mailing all their stuff to the location of their hidden Clone, wake up, get a second Clone started, and turn up when it's ready to finish going about their business.
C.) They can use their plethora of information-gathering magics to find the Master Rogue and end his sorry ass first.
D.) They can live in an archmage's tower that constitutes a whole-ass Dungeon Raid for magicless mooks, in addition to A, B, and C, because that's what archmages do.
An archmage that dies because a dude with a knife shivved them a few times is an archmage that had no business claiming that title. Even assuming a Master Rogue's inability to fail skill checks and the use of exceptionally expensive poisons, the archmage only dies in that situation because they felt like it or because the GM handed them the Idiot Ball. There's a reason high-level spellcaster monsters' spell lists in the MM were all eye-wateringly insane; giving something like Vecna the ability to cast the sort of spells he damn well should be casting makes him effectively unstoppable.
Please do not contact or message me.
If the archwizard has no idea that a threat even exists and doesn't take any precautions, sure. Otherwise, the rogue is toast, because if you don't have nondetection or similar, you really can't win.
Yurei1453 listed a bunch of actual Archwizard things they can do, if they think someone is trying to kill them. But you have to understand, even the good Archwizards assume there is another high level wizard looking to take their title. So They expect to have assassins coming at them daily. So they will do the entire list of things Yurei said, and then some, like stealing an immortal child of a goddess to leech their life force off of (BG3), become a lich (Every lich in the game), steal the life essence of their entire world and an ancient dragon... see Dark Sun setting for that one. (****ing Sorcerer Kings are truly messed up and evil)
The homogenization was also a problem; that's all Pantagruel was saying. Nobody is saying it didn't have multiple problems, just that that particular one is germane to the thread.
The primary thing that made past-edition psionics even remotely balanced was Psionics-Magic Transparency, which the psionics proponents in this thread claim not to want. You cannot have balance without it, unless psionics are so weak that transparency doesn't matter, which I'm guessing they wouldn't want either. Even the psionic classes we have now in 5e rely on transparency, such as the most powerful abilities of the Soulknife and Psi Warrior (their hour-long invisibility and telekinesis respectively) being magic.
Because the point was "magic is only counterable by magic" and nondetection is magic (and rather expensive to maintain unless you have a magic item).
Regarding this hypothetical 4th tier Rogue v. Wizard thing, obviously if the Wizard knows both that they are being targeted in general and who is after them they can do a lot, but otherwise it's much more up in the air. At 17th level, an Assassin has 9d6 Sneak Attack damage, and on top of auto-crits on a surprise attack it's a DC 19 CON save or the damage is doubled again. And the Assassin subclass is also specialized in disguises and infiltration, so let's assume that unless the Wizard has some way to specifically pick them out from dozens of yards away, they get that surprise attack. Their to-hit will be at least +11, probably closer to +13 from a magic weapon at this point. If the Wizard keeps Mage Armor up they'll have something like 15-17 AC, maybe all the way up to 19 if they have an AC boosting magic item. Shield or SB don't come into play because you can't take reactions when surprised, so it's an advantage attack of +13 (making it functionally ~+17 iirc) against AC of 19; that means that functionally it would be about 1 in 20 odds of failure. And the Wizard is going to have maybe +2 to CON saves in typical builds, so they need a 17 or higher to make that save, giving 4 in 5 odds they take 36d6 Sneak Attack damage. I think we can safely assume they won't survive the hit. Now, hypothetically the Wizard could use Foresight to negate the Sneak Attack, but that spell has an 8 hour duration and can only be cast once a day, meaning if we assume a typical 16 hour period of activity they are only covered half the time. They could also set Contingency to Dimension Door out of danger or put a Wall of Force around them. But there's no discretion over the trigger and the material component is expensive and theoretically rare. So this all comes down to the narrative/meta level of "who is better at concealing themselves and their capabilities before the Big Moment", and thus cannot be answered quantifiably. And the best spell a Wizard has for divining the identity of a hypothetical assassin is Divination, which is extremely narrow and limited in what it can reveal, given that you need to ask about a specific goal, event, or activity occurring in the next 7 days, and the response is not necessarily going to be explicit. Plus, the Amulet of of Proof Against Detection and Location is only Uncommon, so a 4th tier Assassin specifically targeting a Wizard is almost certainly going to have one.
So, in the end, capability-wise each is potentially able to foil the other; if the Rogue is able to ensure a clear Sneak Attack, it's pretty much game over. If the Wizard is able to conceal their defenses or otherwise see the Rogue coming, they can counterattack or flee. Thus narratively speaking either outcome is valid, since the final result is dependent on plot events rather than quantifiable features.
The issue isn't with what happens if the rogue successfully engages the wizard by ambush. The issue is that a wizard who's actually being a problem that might need dealing with is probably going to make themselves impossible to engage (a wizard who's just being a random civilian might well be ambushable but also doesn't actually need countering).
Plus, a wizard that is actually good at just being a random civilian is likely not to be deliberately targeted since they appear to just be a random civilian and they personally would have to be the one civilian assassinated specifically in the middle of a crowd of other random civilians, which, given the whole "you lose hide on attacking regardless of circumstance" rule, is likely not going to go well for the assassin.
By "transparency", I presume you mean interactivity i.e. things like Dispel, Counter, and Antimagic all shut psychic abilities down? That's not necessarily an issue, though it is an annoyance. No, I don't particularly like magical powers being given strict dominance over psychic powers (i.e. magic can easily and effortlessly counteract psychic abilities but psychic abilities have no leverage whatsoever to counteract magic at all), but complete and utter separation isn't a hill I'll die on.
I still think it would be preferable, mind you, but I understand the arguments against it even if I think they're a little overwrought and unfair. After all, martial characters have had to deal with magic being able to turn them off for free without one single recourse or counter for the entire edition so far. Concentration is a nonanswer since that's damage in general and archetype agnostic.
The otherwise completely off topic rogue vs. wizard thing is getting at this idea that magic is utterly dominant in 5e. It counters EVERYTHING, and has absolutely no counters itself save for more of itself. This is indeed Annoying, but I see no way out of it given the structure of the edition. It's probably one big reason why people hate the idea of actually competent psychic characters (in other words, not the ******* Aberrant Mind) so much - they already hate that magic is essentially uncounterable, and having a second ability that falls outside even the limited and unreliable partial counters to magic is just not okay.
Even if it otherwise makes perfect sense for psychic abilities to not be on the same wavelength as conventional magic. *Because they're not magic.*
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd argue that if we're talking about a proper real deal arch wizard the Rogue is going to have an extremely hard time engaging him; Wizards of that caliber have a tendency to make their homes death traps for unwitting rogues with everything from extra-dimensional spaces, wards, Summons, Constructs, conventional traps, puzzles, alarms and other shenanigans that are all there to do 2 things:
Now, if the Rogue can actually get to the wizard then things can potentially get really ugly for said wizard but even there things can get real ugly for the Rogue since there is a plethora of spells a mage can throw out that can kill/cripple him in short order and that's assuming the Wizard hasn't set up any contingencies for escaping his would be murderer and then hunting them down as they see fit.
So is it possible? Yes. Is it an even match? God no.
Ultimately it’s a question of who is better able to play to their strengths. The actual spell list does not allow a Wizard to make themselves inherently untouchable, and for every Mordenkainen who goes off and lives in their Tower of Seclusion loaded with wards and such, you’ll also have a Khelben Arenson who’s part of an active community and cannot remain safely on his home turf 24/10. In play you’ll be more likely to be faced with the former than the latter because it is more engaging for the party as a whole, but even by the numbers spellcasting is not an inherent end-all-be-all.
Having a completely different broken mechanic in addition to the existing broken mechanics would make the game even less playable at higher levels, but the reason I hate treating psi as not magic is that it is magic, just a different tradition -- it's certainly no further away from other magic than the gap between, say, wizardry and divine miracles.
Whether or not it's magic in a game-mechanical sense is probably a minor issue. (It'd be interesting if it wasn't, and it could be arranged to create a setup where magic beats martial beats psi beats magic, but that would need it to be tied into the base system design at a much deeper level than can be achieved at this point in 5e.)
3e and 4e both had systems where you had a base action that you could expend extra resources to make better; in 3e it was low base cost abilities, in 4e it was at-will powers (4th edition equivalent of cantrips), so that sounds like what Yurei wants to do. 3e warlock also had a system where your eldritch blast could be dynamically upgraded.
Dispel, Antimagic, and Detection are what I meant. Countering I'm okay with psionics bypassing; for starters psionics has no components, so there's no stimulus to trigger a counter anyway - and for two, that's how it worked in 3.5 as well, neither could counter the other. So that's totally fine.
I genuinely don't think magic is as utterly dominant / all-encompassing as you do. Sure it's capable of very powerful effects, but most spells have substantial limits baked in too; the degree to which magic is "uncounterable" or needs specific counters is I think vastly overstated around here. We don't need to try and shoehorn psionics into some kind of misguided rock-paper-scissors arrangement in order for magic to have functioning limitations.
Since dragon breath (among other things) is deemed non-magical, it does demonstrate that there are high level effects that are non-magical
Thus the concept that psionics could actually be non magical is legit. However it also follows that there would be anti-psi spells, even if they do not necessarily also affect magic.
In fact, the biggest problem balancing psionics is that it usually does magical effects with fewer of the counters.
It doesn't have to be magical, but it should be associated with some superhuman force, and in a faux-medieval setting this is probably going to be magical, though not necessarily any more magical than, say, ki powers. Historical examples of mythic heroes generally involve a connection with the divine, mythic villains may be involved with malign supernatural entities. More modern settings sometimes replace magic with advanced technology.
The issue isn't really magic vs mundane, it's spellcaster vs martial.
Dragon breath is magical. It's just not a spell. To quote the Sage Advice Compendium
Well, point of order - dragons ARE magical, it's just not the kind of magic that can be dispelled. Per Sage Advice:
So the high-level martial effects would also be magical, just not magical in a game rules sense. But they would be magical in the fiction.