“It does not have to compel you or anyone else. Any such book would be like Eberron or Spelljammer or even Tashas' or Xanathars,' completely optional content in whole or in part.”
In that case then, I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find third party content of a range of different psion mechanics.
“Transparent to anti-magic is not the same as transparent to magic, either, although magical fire being immune to psi pyrokinesis would be a potential balancing limitation. An arcane trickster's spells (incl their mage hand) though are magical and subject to anti-magic. ”
I confess I am befuddled about what you mean by “transparent to magic” since anti-magic is a form of magic in my view.
I am also confused by him since he's stated that he wants psionics to be seperate from magic except for how it mechanically interacts with the game which... what?
“It does not have to compel you or anyone else. Any such book would be like Eberron or Spelljammer or even Tashas' or Xanathars,' completely optional content in whole or in part.”
In that case then, I’d be surprised if you couldn’t find third party content of a range of different psion mechanics.
“Transparent to anti-magic is not the same as transparent to magic, either, although magical fire being immune to psi pyrokinesis would be a potential balancing limitation. An arcane trickster's spells (incl their mage hand) though are magical and subject to anti-magic. ”
I confess I am befuddled about what you mean by “transparent to magic” since anti-magic is a form of magic in my view.
"Difficult to impossible to balance" is likely why there is no third party version.
"Transparent to Magic" is a term you seem to have originally attributed to Yuriel. My take on that concept starts with Psi not being Magic. Since psi is not magic, barriers to magic do not block psi. However barriers to physical do block psi, so physical barriers created by magic could block psi. This dovetails with the "Magic does what it says it does" concept.
And these are just basic ideas. You two, especially Ashla, seem to be taking an "If you don't have all the answers, go away or settle for what already exists" approach.
This is a forum. For discussion. It is not a trade show and even if someone comes up with a completely finished, completely brilliant first draft of an entire Psi based book, neither of you are likely to make or break any market for it. Nor would presenting any such thing here in full detail publicly be particularly wise sales and distribution strategy.
And it is that difficult to come up with something that covers psi instead?
Yes, it's that difficult. No-one is going back, searching through every book, and adding errata for all of them. Particularly since it's entirely pointless because it will just be things like "Beholder: antimagic cone also blocks psionics".
If you really want to have psi be different, just say "Psi is not arcane magic". That will cover the cases it's actually useful to distinguish.
And it is that difficult to come up with something that covers psi instead?
Yes, it's that difficult. No-one is going back, searching through every book, and adding errata for all of them. Particularly since it's entirely pointless because it will just be things like "Beholder: antimagic cone also blocks psionics".
If you really want to have psi be different, just say "Psi is not arcane magic". That will cover the cases it's actually useful to distinguish.
Outside of RP/lore how often would that actually be?
And it is that difficult to come up with something that covers psi instead?
Yes, it's that difficult. No-one is going back, searching through every book, and adding errata for all of them. Particularly since it's entirely pointless because it will just be things like "Beholder: antimagic cone also blocks psionics".
If you really want to have psi be different, just say "Psi is not arcane magic". That will cover the cases it's actually useful to distinguish.
Outside of RP/lore how often would that actually be?
It's mostly for plot device issues such as "the holy city of blah persecutes wizards".
So, I'm going to ask a question that the other enthusiasts have danced around and is critical to the discussion at hand Lia_black: with your proposed class, is psionics magic?
Let me stop you right there. The problem here, is that you're looking for excuses as to why something can't be what you want in order to justify the need for a class that meets whatever standards you think a psion needs to have regardless of whether or not it creates more problems then it solves for the game as a whole... as opposed to looking at what already exists and seeing what it could be with a little creativity and imagination.
The problem here is that, in your particularly condescending way, you're arguing that "flavor is free".
And it's not.
Flavor without mechanical effect is free.
Your eldritch blast can be a stream of screaming green skulls. Your magic missile can be a bunch of phantasmal kittens. Your fireball can be blue.
Your lightning bolt can't be invisible. Even if you cast it with subtle spell.
My monk can do flying windmill kicks, leg sweeps, tail strikes, and head butts to her heart's content. They're all unarmed attacks. It's all cool.
The person who wants more detailed martial arts rules will not be satisfied with this. They want leg sweeps to cause the prone condition, etc. You cannot tell them to just say it's a leg sweep; they need mechanical support for the fiction they want. A monk subclass that focuses on causing status effects might well be sufficient. (Possibly Open Hand, more likely a homebrew built on that chassis.)
(If that's not sufficient, they probably are out of luck; D&D's combat system is too abstracted to support anything resembling detailed martial arts.)
There is a point at which dissonance between mechanics and fiction causes a breakdown
I had a warlock in one game. I took the power that let me cast levitate at will, and asked the GM if I could simply be hovering slightly above the ground all the time, as one of the many signifiers that this character was becoming increasingly disconnected from anything that could be considered normal.
If the DM had said no, I still could've described the character as hovering all the time, and the fiction would've been fine... until I, say, fell into a pit trap, instead of blithely gliding on, possibly not immediately noticing I'd mislaid the rest of the party.
Would this have been that big a deal? Not really, but it's illustrative of the problem.
When you say "you can have your psi! just play aberrant mind/arcane trickster/every other class that's been bandied about, which I think is all of them", you are setting up significant ludonarrative dissonance right out of the box.
This doesn't matter to you, because you don't want the fiction in the first place.
To somebody who does want the fiction, your supposed solutions range from "awkward at best, requiring significant extra attention to the mechanics and deliberate character weakening" (aberrant mind) to "you're basing this entirely on the invisible mage hand" to "huh?"
So, I'm going to ask a question that the other enthusiasts have danced around and is critical to the discussion at hand Lia_black: with your proposed class, is psionics magic?
This is a question that you all have weirdly fixated on, and it's entirely irrelevant to any evaluation of the draft. (Or, indeed, any psi class idea.)
You can flip the answer between "yes" and "no" and it will have zero effect of the design, and relatively little on how it balances into the rest of the game. (I will not be arguing this point, because it is entirely too minor a question to have taken up as much of the discussion as it has.)
And it is that difficult to come up with something that covers psi instead?
Yes, it's that difficult. No-one is going back, searching through every book, and adding errata for all of them. Particularly since it's entirely pointless because it will just be things like "Beholder: antimagic cone also blocks psionics".
If you really want to have psi be different, just say "Psi is not arcane magic". That will cover the cases it's actually useful to distinguish.
I'll try that again, since it was apparently unclear:
And it is that difficult to come up with something new that covers psi instead? I already explained a lack of a need to change Beholders and the concept of being unable to add anything new that in any way made any given specific monster weaker somehow breaking the game has already been proven false with things like Dragonlances (weaker in 5e than in earlier editions but still very effective, especially in intended context) or various other new (optional) additions to the game.
Seems weird to me that it isn't comparing the Psionic Energy Dice to the Official Psionic Energy Dice as published by WotC
That's because ChatGPT is entirely incapable of doing the task set before it. It is a probabilistic text generator. That's all it is. It's strikingly good at generating text that looks like answers, but it has no ability to understand concepts, and doesn't know anything. Using it here is a waste of everyone's time.
My quick evaluation (I only skimmed it):
Looks conceptually sound, particularly for the level of development it doesn't have.
It's going to have resource starvation issues, particularly at mid-high levels.
The extra attack should probably only be on psi attacks -- there's no real connection between stabbing somebody and psi powers. It should perhaps scale on level like cantrips do.
Not sure the class has enough to do, though that's going to be partly dependent on subclasses.
I'll try that again, since it was apparently unclear:
And it is that difficult to come up with something new that covers psi instead?
It's that difficult to add that thing that covers psi to previously published creatures and adventures. And it's completely pointless because it will just amount to "everything that blocks magic also blocks psi", because when anti-magic effects show up in adventures, they're really intended as anti-superpower effects and they're only listed as anti-magic because that's the only type of superpower that exists in the setting.
So, I'm going to ask a question that the other enthusiasts have danced around and is critical to the discussion at hand Lia_black: with your proposed class, is psionics magic?
As far as I'm concerned, it should be as much magic as divine power or natural druidic spells are also magic. If arcane power can interact with divine or natural power sources, I don't see why psionics needs to be different in that regard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
I'll try that again, since it was apparently unclear:
And it is that difficult to come up with something new that covers psi instead?
It's that difficult to add that thing that covers psi to previously published creatures and adventures. And it's completely pointless because it will just amount to "everything that blocks magic also blocks psi", because when anti-magic effects show up in adventures, they're really intended as anti-superpower effects and they're only listed as anti-magic because that's the only type of superpower that exists in the setting.
The bolded does not follow. And if the 'There intended as anti-superpower' was true, then beholders or equivalent would be everywhere high level. Different superpowers being useful in different places is a deeper version of the same trope.
Starjammer did not require reworking every existing creature to describe what other pre-existing creatures do in Astral Space. The various books set in very cold or very hot climates did not require re-writing existing creatures for there to be appropriate creatures. Appropriate creatures were added to cover such concerns.
In terms of narrative metaphysics, it's probably fine to be "yet another way of manipulating the weave" in FR, at least.
I agree, psi would/should/is just another flavor of magic in the game of D&D. Not to say other do not agree with this or that they have to.
So is monk Ki magical, then? And therefore does not work in an anti-magic field?
I think the answer to that is "no" but it's been ages since I read the monk class and that spell description side-by-side. But that's not what any of what you quoting is talking about.
The bolded does not follow. And if the 'There intended as anti-superpower' was true, then beholders or equivalent would be everywhere high level. Different superpowers being useful in different places is a deeper version of the same trope.
Most adventures do not have a lot of anti-magical defenses, and in those situations whether psi is a type of magic is irrelevant. Where specific defenses against magic do exist, they're usually either "prevent adventure-breaking actions" or "add a unique challenge to a situation", and in both cases you don't want psi working either.
As for "different superpowers being useful in different places", that's not a D&D trope, because D&D adventures aren't written with a specific party composition in mind.
Seems weird to me that it isn't comparing the Psionic Energy Dice to the Official Psionic Energy Dice as published by WotC
That's because ChatGPT is entirely incapable of doing the task set before it. It is a probabilistic text generator. That's all it is. It's strikingly good at generating text that looks like answers, but it has no ability to understand concepts, and doesn't know anything. Using it here is a waste of everyone's time.
Oh, I totally disagree with this.
Even ChatGPT3 was useful and gave helpful answer. ChstGPT4o is a significant improvement. Is it at the level of human intelligence? No. But, even a spreadsheet can provide.helpful insight to a problem and ChstGPG4o is far beyond a spreadsheet.
Its critics tend to harp on the fact that it isn’t at the level of human intelligence and overlook how it surpasses tools we’ve had in the past. That’s like complaining that an electric screwdriver can’t design and build a house for you and overlooking the advantages it has over a manual screwdriver.
I'm not going to go into the merits and limitations of ChatGPT, as it's off topic for this thread, and arguably this entire forum.
But... look at the fruits of its labor.
ChatGPT's "analysis" is trash.
Literally the first comparison it makes is false -- battlemaster's dice are not linked to proficiency bonus.
It's all written in ChatGPT's usual "freshman doing the assignment at the last minute without having done the reading" style. It never explains its suggestions.
It makes comparisons that make no sense -- how is protective field like the Paladin's protective auras? Or even shield? Meanwhile, there are a number of similar abilities that go unmentioned.
The class comparisons are almost all:
Sort of a summary of the class's thing (sometimes wrong: "Magic" is not a fighter specialty)
"Make sure the psion doesn't compete with the thing"
Druid may be most egregious, where it suggests making sure the class with no shapechanging doesn't overlap with the druid's shapechanging.
Its final suggestions would unilaterally nerf what's already probably underpowered. Its "fix" for psionic burst is perhaps the worst. At once per long rest, it basically gives the base class no high-powered damage abilities. If you reduce the dice, this 14th-level ability doesn't even compete with fireball.
In terms of narrative metaphysics, it's probably fine to be "yet another way of manipulating the weave" in FR, at least.
I agree, psi would/should/is just another flavor of magic in the game of D&D. Not to say other do not agree with this or that they have to.
So is monk Ki magical, then? And therefore does not work in an anti-magic field?
To me yes, especially in the abstract, when you take into consideration how it works with the weave. I also feel that psi would be similar too. The anti-magic field component, I feel, is to help balance it with the 5e rules/design.
I am also confused by him since he's stated that he wants psionics to be seperate from magic except for how it mechanically interacts with the game which... what?
"Difficult to impossible to balance" is likely why there is no third party version.
"Transparent to Magic" is a term you seem to have originally attributed to Yuriel. My take on that concept starts with Psi not being Magic. Since psi is not magic, barriers to magic do not block psi. However barriers to physical do block psi, so physical barriers created by magic could block psi. This dovetails with the "Magic does what it says it does" concept.
And these are just basic ideas. You two, especially Ashla, seem to be taking an "If you don't have all the answers, go away or settle for what already exists" approach.
This is a forum. For discussion. It is not a trade show and even if someone comes up with a completely finished, completely brilliant first draft of an entire Psi based book, neither of you are likely to make or break any market for it. Nor would presenting any such thing here in full detail publicly be particularly wise sales and distribution strategy.
Yes, it's that difficult. No-one is going back, searching through every book, and adding errata for all of them. Particularly since it's entirely pointless because it will just be things like "Beholder: antimagic cone also blocks psionics".
If you really want to have psi be different, just say "Psi is not arcane magic". That will cover the cases it's actually useful to distinguish.
Outside of RP/lore how often would that actually be?
It's mostly for plot device issues such as "the holy city of blah persecutes wizards".
So, I'm going to ask a question that the other enthusiasts have danced around and is critical to the discussion at hand Lia_black: with your proposed class, is psionics magic?
The problem here is that, in your particularly condescending way, you're arguing that "flavor is free".
And it's not.
Flavor without mechanical effect is free.
Your eldritch blast can be a stream of screaming green skulls. Your magic missile can be a bunch of phantasmal kittens. Your fireball can be blue.
Your lightning bolt can't be invisible. Even if you cast it with subtle spell.
My monk can do flying windmill kicks, leg sweeps, tail strikes, and head butts to her heart's content. They're all unarmed attacks. It's all cool.
The person who wants more detailed martial arts rules will not be satisfied with this. They want leg sweeps to cause the prone condition, etc. You cannot tell them to just say it's a leg sweep; they need mechanical support for the fiction they want. A monk subclass that focuses on causing status effects might well be sufficient. (Possibly Open Hand, more likely a homebrew built on that chassis.)
(If that's not sufficient, they probably are out of luck; D&D's combat system is too abstracted to support anything resembling detailed martial arts.)
There is a point at which dissonance between mechanics and fiction causes a breakdown
I had a warlock in one game. I took the power that let me cast levitate at will, and asked the GM if I could simply be hovering slightly above the ground all the time, as one of the many signifiers that this character was becoming increasingly disconnected from anything that could be considered normal.
If the DM had said no, I still could've described the character as hovering all the time, and the fiction would've been fine... until I, say, fell into a pit trap, instead of blithely gliding on, possibly not immediately noticing I'd mislaid the rest of the party.
Would this have been that big a deal? Not really, but it's illustrative of the problem.
When you say "you can have your psi! just play aberrant mind/arcane trickster/every other class that's been bandied about, which I think is all of them", you are setting up significant ludonarrative dissonance right out of the box.
This doesn't matter to you, because you don't want the fiction in the first place.
To somebody who does want the fiction, your supposed solutions range from "awkward at best, requiring significant extra attention to the mechanics and deliberate character weakening" (aberrant mind) to "you're basing this entirely on the invisible mage hand" to "huh?"
This is a question that you all have weirdly fixated on, and it's entirely irrelevant to any evaluation of the draft. (Or, indeed, any psi class idea.)
You can flip the answer between "yes" and "no" and it will have zero effect of the design, and relatively little on how it balances into the rest of the game. (I will not be arguing this point, because it is entirely too minor a question to have taken up as much of the discussion as it has.)
I'll try that again, since it was apparently unclear:
And it is that difficult to come up with something new that covers psi instead? I already explained a lack of a need to change Beholders and the concept of being unable to add anything new that in any way made any given specific monster weaker somehow breaking the game has already been proven false with things like Dragonlances (weaker in 5e than in earlier editions but still very effective, especially in intended context) or various other new (optional) additions to the game.
That's because ChatGPT is entirely incapable of doing the task set before it. It is a probabilistic text generator. That's all it is. It's strikingly good at generating text that looks like answers, but it has no ability to understand concepts, and doesn't know anything. Using it here is a waste of everyone's time.
My quick evaluation (I only skimmed it):
It's that difficult to add that thing that covers psi to previously published creatures and adventures. And it's completely pointless because it will just amount to "everything that blocks magic also blocks psi", because when anti-magic effects show up in adventures, they're really intended as anti-superpower effects and they're only listed as anti-magic because that's the only type of superpower that exists in the setting.
As far as I'm concerned, it should be as much magic as divine power or natural druidic spells are also magic. If arcane power can interact with divine or natural power sources, I don't see why psionics needs to be different in that regard.
In terms of narrative metaphysics, it's probably fine to be "yet another way of manipulating the weave" in FR, at least.
The bolded does not follow. And if the 'There intended as anti-superpower' was true, then beholders or equivalent would be everywhere high level. Different superpowers being useful in different places is a deeper version of the same trope.
Starjammer did not require reworking every existing creature to describe what other pre-existing creatures do in Astral Space. The various books set in very cold or very hot climates did not require re-writing existing creatures for there to be appropriate creatures. Appropriate creatures were added to cover such concerns.
Why the reaction like nothing new ever happens?
I agree, psi would/should/is just another flavor of magic in the game of D&D. Not to say other do not agree with this or that they have to.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
So is monk Ki magical, then? And therefore does not work in an anti-magic field?
I think the answer to that is "no" but it's been ages since I read the monk class and that spell description side-by-side. But that's not what any of what you quoting is talking about.
Most adventures do not have a lot of anti-magical defenses, and in those situations whether psi is a type of magic is irrelevant. Where specific defenses against magic do exist, they're usually either "prevent adventure-breaking actions" or "add a unique challenge to a situation", and in both cases you don't want psi working either.
As for "different superpowers being useful in different places", that's not a D&D trope, because D&D adventures aren't written with a specific party composition in mind.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/11-monk#TheMagicofKi
I'm not going to go into the merits and limitations of ChatGPT, as it's off topic for this thread, and arguably this entire forum.
But... look at the fruits of its labor.
ChatGPT's "analysis" is trash.
Literally the first comparison it makes is false -- battlemaster's dice are not linked to proficiency bonus.
It's all written in ChatGPT's usual "freshman doing the assignment at the last minute without having done the reading" style. It never explains its suggestions.
It makes comparisons that make no sense -- how is protective field like the Paladin's protective auras? Or even shield? Meanwhile, there are a number of similar abilities that go unmentioned.
The class comparisons are almost all:
Druid may be most egregious, where it suggests making sure the class with no shapechanging doesn't overlap with the druid's shapechanging.
Its final suggestions would unilaterally nerf what's already probably underpowered. Its "fix" for psionic burst is perhaps the worst. At once per long rest, it basically gives the base class no high-powered damage abilities. If you reduce the dice, this 14th-level ability doesn't even compete with fireball.
To me yes, especially in the abstract, when you take into consideration how it works with the weave. I also feel that psi would be similar too. The anti-magic field component, I feel, is to help balance it with the 5e rules/design.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.