Also, Are there any actual supported modern settings? Like I know we have rules for them and there have been such settings in the past, but Last I checked the last "modern" setting that was officially handled by WotC was Gamma World which ran in the 4e system and was released...13 years ago?
Somebody wants an anime-style D&D and others would rather other thing. WotC has to offer different options, or players will look for these in the 3PPs.
Just because there's a particular niche in the market doesn't mean the major producer needs to attempt to create a product to fill it; they're focused on products that appeal to the market as a whole rather than narrow segments. 3PP is the place to look for things like anime-style options or a whole psionic subsystem.
But the heroes of D&D have got their own style, very different. Profesor Xavier's pupils aren't like students of Strange Academy, or recruits in Avengers Academy.
They're really not. Like Stan Lee has been quoted as saying the reason he came up with the mutant term was because he was getting tired of trying to figure out explanations for characters gaining super powers and thus created a no explanation required umbrella term.
Force adepts from Star Wars don't need somatic, material or verbal components.
How often is this actually an issue in your campaigns? Like outside of very specific situations none of this is a real issue at my table and that's usually when spells have a component that actually costs money.
Somebody wants an anime-style D&D and others would rather other thing. WotC has to offer different options, or players will look for these in the 3PPs.
I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but there are literally hundreds of Anime and Manga that do everything they can to ape the style of classic D&D; Record of Lodoss war, Goblin slayer, Delicious in Dungeon, Bastard for the ages, just about every god damn isekai... So yeah, D&D has that covered for the most part and if people need something more extreme then that Big Eyes Small Mouth would be the go to choice.
If the psionic powers need material, somatic or verbal components then it is nos psionic but magic.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
I would love for WotC to produce a Psion class. I think it would be great. I have tried playing an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and it doesn't quite scratch that itch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Force adepts from Star Wars don't need somatic, material or verbal components.
If the psionic powers need material, somatic or verbal components then it is nos psionic but magic.
So don't use components then. Cast everything with Subtle Spell. When you run out of sorcery points, cash in some of your slots for more. Pick up Telepathic and Telekinetic for good measure.
You don't have to be an Aberrant Mind; every sorcerer can be reflavored as psionic.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Force adepts from Star Wars don't need somatic, material or verbal components.
If the psionic powers need material, somatic or verbal components then it is nos psionic but magic.
So don't use components then. Cast everything with Subtle Spell. When you run out of sorcery points, cash in some of your slots for more. Pick up Telepathic and Telekinetic for good measure.
You don't have to be an Aberrant Mind; every sorcerer can be reflavored as psionic.
Also If you're looking to play as a Jedi: Valor bard, hexblade and Eldritch knight are all right there and ready to be your magic sword man archetype.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
IE
Just because sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does not mean sufficiently advance technology and magic are the same thing.
If there can be one method to break the laws of physics, there can be other different methods that break the laws of physics, yet achieve the same end results.
Again, semantic handwaving does not really solve anything.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
Well, wrong timeframe for new age, it's actually 19th century spiritualism (mediums, seances, etc), but it's a clear antecedent. In general, psychic abilities are an attempt add a scientific-sounding paint job to magic.
Regarding the "I don't want components" bloc, I'd say there's pretty much no way they're going to make a class with something like full casting power abilities that doesn't use them, especially if mind stuff is supposed to be the focus. One of the very few drawbacks/limitations to spellcasting is that without Subtle Spell you can't really conceal most casts unless your DM is very generous about V and S components. This is clearly by design to prevent casters from always fishing for a Charm/Dominate Person or similar effect in social encounters, so it's highly unlikely it's going anywhere.
Just because sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does not mean sufficiently advance technology and magic are the same thing.
If there can be one method to break the laws of physics, there can be other different methods that break the laws of physics, yet achieve the same end results.
If the 'sufficiently advanced technology' breaks the laws of physics, it's magic.
You know, if I thought you were convincible, I might. But I don't, so you can do the work yourself.
I'll stick with addressing what you're willing to defend then.
Oh, I'm entirely willing to defend anything I said. But, since:
You have presumably been reading the thread
You are still arguing the way you are
I must conclude that you have seen my arguments, and didn't find them persuasive. So I'm not gonna waste my time digging them up so you can say "those don't refute my arguments".
Quick quiz: how many similar but actually different methods are there for casting classes to choose and manage their spells? I count at least five, and I suspect there are more. Were those carefully considered?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in Kara-Tur? Is there a spell selection method you have a problem with? Because I don't. (Except Ranger, they should be prepared casters, but we already know that's getting fixed.)
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
Until players can agree on what prions should be then absolutely the developers should hold off on building the class. Without a target to build to, developers would just be firing blind.
That's not how game design works. Designers design. Playtesters react, and the designers iterate or change course based on the feedback they get. At no point does the playerbase as a whole set the course. To try that would get you nowhere, because players don't actually agree on anything. Even the question "should there be psychic classes?" is disputed, and that's a much higher-level question than "how should they work?" You can't even get agreement on how existing classes should work: the designers pick a direction and go.
Even with the revised 5e playtest, which is an extremely unusual process, that's not how it was done. The had ideas, developed them in-house, and then sent some of them out to the public to see how they landed. There was some tweaking in response to comment, but mostly it was just picking among options.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
IE
Just because sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does not mean sufficiently advance technology and magic are the same thing.
If there can be one method to break the laws of physics, there can be other different methods that break the laws of physics, yet achieve the same end results.
Again, semantic handwaving does not really solve anything.
I like how you are poo-pooing on me for "semantic handwaving" while the proponents of psionics are engaged in semantic fist shaking.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
It also enters into a question of whether or not it's realistically feesible within the framework of the game itself.
Like as an example, I'm sure that their would be people who would be really excited to have giant anime robots (IE Eva unit 01) but how someone would balance out a party that has a member in a 40 meter tall suit of armor would be beyond me.
Taking a feat to get adequate telepathy is not "picking spells".
The main thing the half-feat gives you is a spell without the components. You can just take the spell without it and make it Subtle, it's not hard. For the transmission side of things, you can either use the Message cantrip or the Aberrant Mind speech ability.
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
This is just as much an argument against psionics as a discrete subsystem as it is for it, you realize that right?
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
This is just as much an argument against psionics as a discrete subsystem as it is for it, you realize that right?
A discrete, standalone, subsystem is not "minor variations". (Well, maybe "just do it with spell slots" would be, if you're gonna patch it to make it more psychic-like.)
That has its own confusion load, as I've mentioned, but it's fundamentally different in type; more of an initial hurdle issue than an ongoing "which one is this?" Does anyone think battlemaster powers, or warlock invocations, or artificer infusions, are confusing just because they're not spells? (The answer is almost certainly "yes", but not statistically significant.) "There are too many classes and subclasses, each with their own things", is much more common, and legit, but 5e has a definite design decision on that axis already.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
That might be appropriate for things like "necromancers are overpowered in the new season of diablo 4" or "Mishra's Bottle Washer needs banning in Standard" - you look at the available evidence, see if it's actually true, decide if you care, make some attempt to figure out what the metagame will look like after, and make the call.
But for new things like this? Yeah, no. You'll have high-level data like "there's a bunch of players who want psychic powers in D&D -- look at how busy that thread is!", but the decision to do it is made on high-level strategy like "We're doing Dark Sun/a completely different psionic-based setting" or "We're doing PHB2, with the updated Artificer and some other classes, so start kicking around the new class ideas." The designers almost certainly aren't allowed to read the forums, due to the generally-accepted issue of "they used my idea! I'll sue!" (Which is vastly overrated IMO, but common.) They're certainly not going to look for consensus at the high level, much less the implementation level.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
A Hummer, Porsche, Dodge Trans-am, PT cruiser, Delorean, Pinto and Model T ford may all have different names and performances but at the end of the day they are still all automobiles and still powered by an internal combustion engine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, Are there any actual supported modern settings? Like I know we have rules for them and there have been such settings in the past, but Last I checked the last "modern" setting that was officially handled by WotC was Gamma World which ran in the 4e system and was released...13 years ago?
Just because there's a particular niche in the market doesn't mean the major producer needs to attempt to create a product to fill it; they're focused on products that appeal to the market as a whole rather than narrow segments. 3PP is the place to look for things like anime-style options or a whole psionic subsystem.
They're really not. Like Stan Lee has been quoted as saying the reason he came up with the mutant term was because he was getting tired of trying to figure out explanations for characters gaining super powers and thus created a no explanation required umbrella term.
How often is this actually an issue in your campaigns? Like outside of very specific situations none of this is a real issue at my table and that's usually when spells have a component that actually costs money.
I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but there are literally hundreds of Anime and Manga that do everything they can to ape the style of classic D&D; Record of Lodoss war, Goblin slayer, Delicious in Dungeon, Bastard for the ages, just about every god damn isekai... So yeah, D&D has that covered for the most part and if people need something more extreme then that Big Eyes Small Mouth would be the go to choice.
Psionics is literally just magic that a bunch of pretentious science fiction writers came up with back in the 50s because they wanted to have space wizards.
I would love for WotC to produce a Psion class. I think it would be great. I have tried playing an Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and it doesn't quite scratch that itch.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
So don't use components then. Cast everything with Subtle Spell. When you run out of sorcery points, cash in some of your slots for more. Pick up Telepathic and Telekinetic for good measure.
You don't have to be an Aberrant Mind; every sorcerer can be reflavored as psionic.
Well, sort of. The actual word 'psionics' comes from 1950s SF, but 'psi' as a term comes via multiple steps from the Greek word psyche (and just means mind, spirit, breath), and the idea of psychic powers is visible in 19th century parapsychology; for example, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882.
Also If you're looking to play as a Jedi: Valor bard, hexblade and Eldritch knight are all right there and ready to be your magic sword man archetype.
Which would have been new age mysticism and re-interpretation of traditional folk lore.
IE
Just because sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic does not mean sufficiently advance technology and magic are the same thing.
If there can be one method to break the laws of physics, there can be other different methods that break the laws of physics, yet achieve the same end results.
Again, semantic handwaving does not really solve anything.
Well, wrong timeframe for new age, it's actually 19th century spiritualism (mediums, seances, etc), but it's a clear antecedent. In general, psychic abilities are an attempt add a scientific-sounding paint job to magic.
Regarding the "I don't want components" bloc, I'd say there's pretty much no way they're going to make a class with something like full casting power abilities that doesn't use them, especially if mind stuff is supposed to be the focus. One of the very few drawbacks/limitations to spellcasting is that without Subtle Spell you can't really conceal most casts unless your DM is very generous about V and S components. This is clearly by design to prevent casters from always fishing for a Charm/Dominate Person or similar effect in social encounters, so it's highly unlikely it's going anywhere.
If the 'sufficiently advanced technology' breaks the laws of physics, it's magic.
Taking a feat to get adequate telepathy is not "picking spells".
Oh, I'm entirely willing to defend anything I said. But, since:
I must conclude that you have seen my arguments, and didn't find them persuasive. So I'm not gonna waste my time digging them up so you can say "those don't refute my arguments".
When you're arguing that the spellcasting system is "carefully considered", I think that's an extremely relevant question.
Just to spell it out: It's an example of how it's a pile of arbitrary decisions, at least some of which are "because we've always done it that way". Even if you're making the choices for flavor reasons, you need to be very careful, because minor variations on a mechanic are inherently confusing to players. I think they're going to be down to two, maybe three, in revised, which is a much better number.
That's not how game design works. Designers design. Playtesters react, and the designers iterate or change course based on the feedback they get. At no point does the playerbase as a whole set the course. To try that would get you nowhere, because players don't actually agree on anything. Even the question "should there be psychic classes?" is disputed, and that's a much higher-level question than "how should they work?" You can't even get agreement on how existing classes should work: the designers pick a direction and go.
Even with the revised 5e playtest, which is an extremely unusual process, that's not how it was done. The had ideas, developed them in-house, and then sent some of them out to the public to see how they landed. There was some tweaking in response to comment, but mostly it was just picking among options.
Actually, in this type of situation, it's exactly how game design works and is intended to work -- in any situation where your goal is to implement a feature that has been requested by users, the first step is to try and figure out what they're actually asking for, then figure out what you can actually implement and determine whether that matches the request.
I like how you are poo-pooing on me for "semantic handwaving" while the proponents of psionics are engaged in semantic fist shaking.
It also enters into a question of whether or not it's realistically feesible within the framework of the game itself.
Like as an example, I'm sure that their would be people who would be really excited to have giant anime robots (IE Eva unit 01) but how someone would balance out a party that has a member in a 40 meter tall suit of armor would be beyond me.
The main thing the half-feat gives you is a spell without the components. You can just take the spell without it and make it Subtle, it's not hard.
For the transmission side of things, you can either use the Message cantrip or the Aberrant Mind speech ability.
Sure thing.
This is just as much an argument against psionics as a discrete subsystem as it is for it, you realize that right?
I'll try this again. They have substantive criteria that go along with what they consider psionics. So, for that matter, do writers who have used such concepts in a literary context.
Changing names of things that do not fit those criteria does not make them fit those criteria.
A discrete, standalone, subsystem is not "minor variations". (Well, maybe "just do it with spell slots" would be, if you're gonna patch it to make it more psychic-like.)
That has its own confusion load, as I've mentioned, but it's fundamentally different in type; more of an initial hurdle issue than an ongoing "which one is this?" Does anyone think battlemaster powers, or warlock invocations, or artificer infusions, are confusing just because they're not spells? (The answer is almost certainly "yes", but not statistically significant.) "There are too many classes and subclasses, each with their own things", is much more common, and legit, but 5e has a definite design decision on that axis already.
That might be appropriate for things like "necromancers are overpowered in the new season of diablo 4" or "Mishra's Bottle Washer needs banning in Standard" - you look at the available evidence, see if it's actually true, decide if you care, make some attempt to figure out what the metagame will look like after, and make the call.
But for new things like this? Yeah, no. You'll have high-level data like "there's a bunch of players who want psychic powers in D&D -- look at how busy that thread is!", but the decision to do it is made on high-level strategy like "We're doing Dark Sun/a completely different psionic-based setting" or "We're doing PHB2, with the updated Artificer and some other classes, so start kicking around the new class ideas." The designers almost certainly aren't allowed to read the forums, due to the generally-accepted issue of "they used my idea! I'll sue!" (Which is vastly overrated IMO, but common.) They're certainly not going to look for consensus at the high level, much less the implementation level.
A Hummer, Porsche, Dodge Trans-am, PT cruiser, Delorean, Pinto and Model T ford may all have different names and performances but at the end of the day they are still all automobiles and still powered by an internal combustion engine.