As a note, I'm not saying that current game mechanics are particularly good, just that they're what we have, and if you want an add-on to an existing game rather than just publishing a brand new game, you deal with the game as it currently exists. If I was writing a game from scratch it wouldn't look terribly much like D&D, but I'm not.
The reality of class-based RPGs is that you're not going to get exactly what you want unless you want exactly what the game offers, so you have to accept some reflavoring. That said, the core problem with demands for psionic classes with new mechanics isn't that existing classes give them exactly what they want, it's that creating exactly what they want is, from a game design perspective, a bad idea.
D&D is already a sprawling mass of excess complexity. It doesn't need more complexity, it needs less. That means, if at all possible, fit new concepts into existing mechanics, and if you absolutely have to use new mechanics, keep them short (and even with short mechanics, expect them to be undersupported in the future, look at warlock and artificer). The warlock is all of 6 pages long, some of which is fluff, and that's long for a core class, the average is 4 pages. So, consider that a hard cap -- say, 2 pages for the fluff, basic level-up tables, and so on, 2 pages for the new power mechanics, 2 pages for 3 subclasses. If you can do that without referencing existing spells, more power to you, but I have my doubts.
D&D power interactions and countering is already sufficiently overly complicated that it makes tier 3/4 games unplayable unless everyone agrees to ignore most of it. Adding a new system that doesn't interact with existing counters will start making even tier 2 unplayable. So, just live with psi powers being countered by defenses against magic, and magic being countered by psi defenses.
To expand on this: If you were to create a whole new class with whole new mechanics fully divorced from those that already exist then you are going to create a serious problem not only by virtue of adding another system to the game (because this is what Psionic enthusiasts want) but also creating intense balance issues since none of the pre-existing content was built with these possibilites in mind.
Like even accounting for how the powers of a psion would be somehow limited in scope (which borders on ridiculous as a term when we are talking about a character who has a power like telekinesis) the way people have described wanting to have it (no VSM) means that it lacks counterplay options which is a hurdle that every other class needs to deal with; the barbarian needs to be persistently hitting or getting hit, the fighter needs weapons, the mage needs VSM, The ranger relies on his bow... while the Psion merely needs to be conscious (and sometimes that doesn't even need to be a thing given that dream walkers are a thing) to be able to do whatever the hell he wants and by virtue of him not being magic from a mechanical standpoint completely bypasses the defenses of multiple creatures that rely on this to present an actual challenge to players.
This is why in the decade that 5e has been a thing we as players have received precisely 1 new class in the form of the artificer and even it was built largely using the established mechanics of 5e as opposed to something cut from whole cloth.
edit: I swear to christ I am not trying to get top of the page with every post.
Also the artificer was an established class in 3rd edition, or at least 3.5, and is a fairly critical class to one of the established campaign settings. Although funny enough, that same campaign setting is also the one where psionics is the most established.
Ehhhh.... I'd argue that Dark Sun is the true Psionics setting since it was constructed with showcasing them and their distinction from conventional magic.
As a note, I'm not saying that current game mechanics are particularly good, just that they're what we have, and if you want an add-on to an existing game rather than just publishing a brand new game, you deal with the game as it currently exists. If I was writing a game from scratch it wouldn't look terribly much like D&D, but I'm not.
See, I'd argue that the rules for 5e are probably the best we've ever had for D&D from a general gameplay standpoint (4e might beat it in terms of combat but ombat was pretty much the only thing it had to offer) but there are limits to how far you can stretch them before you are simply better served by playing another game entirely.
As an example: I think battletech is a really cool setting and the big lumbering Mechs that are it's mascots are gloriously fun. I would never propose adding them to the game however as something like the Hussar (a comparatively light mech) can traverse 420 meters (or about 275.squares) per turn in a straight line running while firing it's singular weapon (which can liquify somewhere around a half ton of metal per shot) has an effective range of 450 meters (295 squares at long range though it's short range would be closer to 98 squares) and stands 8 meters tall which makes it about as big as a storm giant would be so far outside of what the game can rationally contain as to be ridiculous.
See, I'd argue that the rules for 5e are probably the best we've ever had for D&D from a general gameplay standpoint
Well, that's not a super high bar, D&D hasn't really been an innovator in game design since 1980 or so, though it did avoid some of the pitfalls of second generation games, such as overdoing complexity (people who complain about the speed of D&D combat have never tried to run a combat in, say, Runequest or Fantasy Hero or GURPS).
In terms of doing what it was designed to do, 4th edition was the best, it's just that what it was designed to do wasn't a terribly good match on what people wanted to play.
The reality of class-based RPGs is that you're not going to get exactly what you want unless you want exactly what the game offers, so you have to accept some reflavoring. That said, the core problem with demands for psionic classes with new mechanics isn't that existing classes give them exactly what they want, it's that creating exactly what they want is, from a game design perspective, a bad idea.
D&D is already a sprawling mass of excess complexity. It doesn't need more complexity, it needs less. That means, if at all possible, fit new concepts into existing mechanics, and if you absolutely have to use new mechanics, keep them short (and even with short mechanics, expect them to be undersupported in the future, look at warlock and artificer). The warlock is all of 6 pages long, some of which is fluff, and that's long for a core class, the average is 4 pages. So, consider that a hard cap -- say, 2 pages for the fluff, basic level-up tables, and so on, 2 pages for the new power mechanics, 2 pages for 3 subclasses. If you can do that without referencing existing spells, more power to you, but I have my doubts.
D&D power interactions and countering is already sufficiently overly complicated that it makes tier 3/4 games unplayable unless everyone agrees to ignore most of it. Adding a new system that doesn't interact with existing counters will start making even tier 2 unplayable. So, just live with psi powers being countered by defenses against magic, and magic being countered by psi defenses.
Hell, I'm not even against more complexity, if it serves a purpose. Like if they wanted to add a "stamina points" resource system to 5e, like Pathfinder Unchained did in PF1 and like DC20 is looking to do - that has the purpose of giving martials more interesting buttons to press in a fight, and letting them do things that are more powerful but balanced by having a resource to manage like slots are for casters/gishes, or psionic dice are for the psionic martials. So I'd actually be okay with that. But demanding that psionics not use or even interact with the existing spellcasting framework and get something new (which they can't even define properly) is just complexity for its own sake, for no better reason than novelty.
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Accept that psionics is non-viable within the context of modern D&D
Seek out other RPGs that contain support for Psionics
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Accept that psionics is non-viable within the context of modern D&D
Seek out other RPGs that contain support for Psionics
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Accept that psionics is non-viable within the context of modern D&D
Seek out other RPGs that contain support for Psionics
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
Asha-Mason didn’t say “difficult.” They said “non-viable,” like.a ham sandwich at a Jewish picnic or a submarine with screen windows.
“A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.”
That would need to be proven and not merely asserted.
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
The real issue is that psi is totally viable -- as long as you accept that it's a type of magic, and follows the general rules of magic. It might be nice to have a more ethereal/astral themed type of psi, as opposed to far realm (there's no clear connection between, say, githyanki, githzerai, kalashtar, thought eaters, etc, and the far realm) but that's just a minor variant on aberrant mind or GOOlock, replace a couple of powers and spells and you're done.
As far as I know, “magic” is never defined in cannon anywhere in such a way that makes it exclude Psi. Further, if one were to arbitrarily say that magic gains it’s power from outside the self while psionics gains its powers from the self (a problematic definition to be sure), then psionics is no difference than sorcery.
As far as I know, “magic” is never defined in cannon anywhere in such a way that makes it exclude Psi. Further, if one were to arbitrarily say that magic gains it’s power from outside the self while psionics gains its powers from the self (a problematic definition to be sure), then psionics is no difference than sorcery.
Things outright stated as magical are and things which are not usually are not. Spells are specifically described as magical.
As far as I know, “magic” is never defined in cannon anywhere in such a way that makes it exclude Psi. Further, if one were to arbitrarily say that magic gains it’s power from outside the self while psionics gains its powers from the self (a problematic definition to be sure), then psionics is no difference than sorcery.
Things outright stated as magical are and things which are not usually are not. Spells are specifically described as magical.
If that is the ONLY definition, then the solution is obvious. DND can define Psi as magic. At that point, arguing that it should be defined otherwise would be a mistake. DnD would say it is magic, therefore it is magic, therefore it should be defined as magic, therefore asserting that it should be defined otherwise would be a mistake.
For the record, I wouldn't allow the kind of full-on high-tech flavor in Ashla's example here. But the general idea of "my spells are single-use devices I cobbled together during spell preparation" is a fine one, particularly for an artificer casting their spells through their tinker's tools. I would just bring it down a notch to steampunk/victorian or Archimedean rather than using modern RPGs.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Accept that psionics is non-viable within the context of modern D&D
Seek out other RPGs that contain support for Psionics
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
It's not a question of whether it's constructive or not; Psionic enthusiasts have been presented with multiple options for pursuing a character with mental powers and the persistent response has been "No, not good enough."
As such we go back to the two options that I presented: Accept this intrinsic truth and continue to play D&D or move on to another system that offers what they want.
Things outright stated as magical are and things which are not usually are not. Spells are specifically described as magical.
See this is why I brought up that proponents like yourself lack fluidity of thought; you're insistance that magic:/:psionics is preventing you from actually having the psionic characters you want. Once you can let go of this rigid outlook you will see that so many more posibilities exist for you Kotath.
Things outright stated as magical are and things which are not usually are not. Spells are specifically described as magical.
Plenty of things are silent on it, but either way it doesn't particularly help your argument. A substantial number of monsters (e.g. githyanki warrior, mind flayer, gem dragons) have a trait like Innate Spellcasting (Psionic), and feats such as telekinetic grant spells, which pretty clearly indicates that psionics is considered magic.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
I have no idea what you mean by "simple renaming." And I never said the artificer is using "actual technology."
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
Would you mind spelling out what you would consider to be "constructive?" We're explaining why WotC is unlikely to create an official version of what you seem to want. And obviously, nobody posting in this thread can make anything official either. If you're instead looking to homebrew something unofficial of your own, that's completely fine, but there's a different subforum for that.
The real issue is that psi is totally viable -- as long as you accept that it's a type of magic, and follows the general rules of magic. It might be nice to have a more ethereal/astral themed type of psi, as opposed to far realm (there's no clear connection between, say, githyanki, githzerai, kalashtar, thought eaters, etc, and the far realm) but that's just a minor variant on aberrant mind or GOOlock, replace a couple of powers and spells and you're done.
As far as I know, “magic” is never defined in cannon anywhere in such a way that makes it exclude Psi. Further, if one were to arbitrarily say that magic gains it’s power from outside the self while psionics gains its powers from the self (a problematic definition to be sure), then psionics is no difference than sorcery.
My opinion is divine and primal magic are two different type of magic, but there are players who disagree me.
D&D sourcebooks said magic is using an outer power like a tool, and psionic is using within power to be the tool.
* Let's remember the psionic manifesters can wear heavy armour.
* Without Dark Sun or a new-brand setting like this selling sourcebooks about psionic powers is more difficult, and game designers are too busy, but we are talking about ten years, and not only 3PPs but also homebrewd versions of psionic powers are published.
Any players don't want psionic powers, but others are willing to spend money to buy the updated version.
If they needed some update to fix possible power unbalances the PDFs can be replaced easily. Now in the internet age publishing printed book aren't so necessary. WotC is making money with online sales.
My opinion is divine and primal magic are two different type of magic, but there are players who disagree me.
There aren't any abilities that care whether they're different types of magic, other than maybe some informational abilities, so it doesn't really matter if they're different types of magic.
The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours. Sorcerers have to choose every body how to fill the spell slots, but the mindwalkers haven't to worry at all, allowing more space to improvise in the last moment.
You can say psionic powers aren't necessary, but other can answer we don't need a new book about undead, dragons, giants, drows or aberrations. The true key is if there are enough players who wanted to buy it.
* If now they are going to release a LEGO: Horizon Zero, why not a LEGO: Dark Sun videogame?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a note, I'm not saying that current game mechanics are particularly good, just that they're what we have, and if you want an add-on to an existing game rather than just publishing a brand new game, you deal with the game as it currently exists. If I was writing a game from scratch it wouldn't look terribly much like D&D, but I'm not.
Ehhhh.... I'd argue that Dark Sun is the true Psionics setting since it was constructed with showcasing them and their distinction from conventional magic.
See, I'd argue that the rules for 5e are probably the best we've ever had for D&D from a general gameplay standpoint (4e might beat it in terms of combat but ombat was pretty much the only thing it had to offer) but there are limits to how far you can stretch them before you are simply better served by playing another game entirely.
As an example: I think battletech is a really cool setting and the big lumbering Mechs that are it's mascots are gloriously fun. I would never propose adding them to the game however as something like the Hussar (a comparatively light mech) can traverse 420 meters (or about 275.squares) per turn in a straight line running while firing it's singular weapon (which can liquify somewhere around a half ton of metal per shot) has an effective range of 450 meters (295 squares at long range though it's short range would be closer to 98 squares) and stands 8 meters tall which makes it about as big as a storm giant would be so far outside of what the game can rationally contain as to be ridiculous.
Also I could just go play the battletech rpg.
Dark Sun is mostly defunct though, while Eberron is still an active setting.
Well, that's not a super high bar, D&D hasn't really been an innovator in game design since 1980 or so, though it did avoid some of the pitfalls of second generation games, such as overdoing complexity (people who complain about the speed of D&D combat have never tried to run a combat in, say, Runequest or Fantasy Hero or GURPS).
In terms of doing what it was designed to do, 4th edition was the best, it's just that what it was designed to do wasn't a terribly good match on what people wanted to play.
Hell, I'm not even against more complexity, if it serves a purpose. Like if they wanted to add a "stamina points" resource system to 5e, like Pathfinder Unchained did in PF1 and like DC20 is looking to do - that has the purpose of giving martials more interesting buttons to press in a fight, and letting them do things that are more powerful but balanced by having a resource to manage like slots are for casters/gishes, or psionic dice are for the psionic martials. So I'd actually be okay with that. But demanding that psionics not use or even interact with the existing spellcasting framework and get something new (which they can't even define properly) is just complexity for its own sake, for no better reason than novelty.
That is actually the RAW design of the Artificer. They are still infusing their creations with magic. It is not actual technology. A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.
Simple renaming does not accomplish either any of that other than simply saying you did.
It stands to reason then, that the only ways forward for psionic enthusiasts to proceed from here then are either
Difficult does not necessarily equal impossible. If they are going to try, they should go out to do so eyes open. More importantly simply saying things like "Can't do it," is non-contstuctive without a real discussion of the issues, whice many here have been avoiding so far.
"Go away," and "What you've got is good enough" are completely non-constructive.
Asha-Mason didn’t say “difficult.” They said “non-viable,” like.a ham sandwich at a Jewish picnic or a submarine with screen windows.
“A branch of 'magic' sufficiently different from magic to be considered something other than magic, as has been pointed out, either thereby becomes nigh always simply superior or has to be nerfed down to where it is balanced with everything else.”
That would need to be proven and not merely asserted.
The real issue is that psi is totally viable -- as long as you accept that it's a type of magic, and follows the general rules of magic. It might be nice to have a more ethereal/astral themed type of psi, as opposed to far realm (there's no clear connection between, say, githyanki, githzerai, kalashtar, thought eaters, etc, and the far realm) but that's just a minor variant on aberrant mind or GOOlock, replace a couple of powers and spells and you're done.
As far as I know, “magic” is never defined in cannon anywhere in such a way that makes it exclude Psi. Further, if one were to arbitrarily say that magic gains it’s power from outside the self while psionics gains its powers from the self (a problematic definition to be sure), then psionics is no difference than sorcery.
Things outright stated as magical are and things which are not usually are not. Spells are specifically described as magical.
If that is the ONLY definition, then the solution is obvious. DND can define Psi as magic. At that point, arguing that it should be defined otherwise would be a mistake. DnD would say it is magic, therefore it is magic, therefore it should be defined as magic, therefore asserting that it should be defined otherwise would be a mistake.
It's not a question of whether it's constructive or not; Psionic enthusiasts have been presented with multiple options for pursuing a character with mental powers and the persistent response has been "No, not good enough."
As such we go back to the two options that I presented: Accept this intrinsic truth and continue to play D&D or move on to another system that offers what they want.
See this is why I brought up that proponents like yourself lack fluidity of thought; you're insistance that magic:/:psionics is preventing you from actually having the psionic characters you want. Once you can let go of this rigid outlook you will see that so many more posibilities exist for you Kotath.
Plenty of things are silent on it, but either way it doesn't particularly help your argument. A substantial number of monsters (e.g. githyanki warrior, mind flayer, gem dragons) have a trait like Innate Spellcasting (Psionic), and feats such as telekinetic grant spells, which pretty clearly indicates that psionics is considered magic.
I have no idea what you mean by "simple renaming." And I never said the artificer is using "actual technology."
Would you mind spelling out what you would consider to be "constructive?" We're explaining why WotC is unlikely to create an official version of what you seem to want. And obviously, nobody posting in this thread can make anything official either. If you're instead looking to homebrew something unofficial of your own, that's completely fine, but there's a different subforum for that.
^ These.
My opinion is divine and primal magic are two different type of magic, but there are players who disagree me.
D&D sourcebooks said magic is using an outer power like a tool, and psionic is using within power to be the tool.
* Let's remember the psionic manifesters can wear heavy armour.
* Without Dark Sun or a new-brand setting like this selling sourcebooks about psionic powers is more difficult, and game designers are too busy, but we are talking about ten years, and not only 3PPs but also homebrewd versions of psionic powers are published.
Any players don't want psionic powers, but others are willing to spend money to buy the updated version.
If they needed some update to fix possible power unbalances the PDFs can be replaced easily. Now in the internet age publishing printed book aren't so necessary. WotC is making money with online sales.
There aren't any abilities that care whether they're different types of magic, other than maybe some informational abilities, so it doesn't really matter if they're different types of magic.
Previous edition sourcebooks are not authoritative for 5th edition, and by that definition all sorcerers are psions.
The psions or mindwalkers don't need somatic or verbal components, and they can wear heavy armours. Sorcerers have to choose every body how to fill the spell slots, but the mindwalkers haven't to worry at all, allowing more space to improvise in the last moment.
You can say psionic powers aren't necessary, but other can answer we don't need a new book about undead, dragons, giants, drows or aberrations. The true key is if there are enough players who wanted to buy it.
* If now they are going to release a LEGO: Horizon Zero, why not a LEGO: Dark Sun videogame?