It is a semantic dismissal when you insist that changing the name should be sufficient to satisfy those who are repeatedly saying they want something much more substantial than a mere name change.
And then decline to provide mechanics for what they want. "I want something different but I can't explain what it is" is not productive.
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent," "Vecna will become impotent," "They have to have weaknesses!" (as if that was in question), "They cannot be allowed to do anything at all as well as any existing class" (the they cannot be allowed to shapeshift as well as druids line from ChatGPT) and likely a few others I am not remembering here.
Or the mantra "Here are options we think you would be happy with if you just change the name"
Meanwhile, the new line that is creeping in is "Well since you do not have a completely thought out, finished proposal, you have no valid points"
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent,"
People aren't actually discussing what they want. They're discussing interactions they don't want. Describe what you want the character to do. Whether those effects need to be, for example, magical or easily detectable, is mostly dependent on what those effects are.
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent,"
People aren't actually discussing what they want. They're discussing interactions they don't want. Describe what you want the character to do. Whether those effects need to be, for example, magical or easily detectable, is mostly dependent on what those effects are.
I don't buy that. "People" have absolutely been discussing what they want, in varying degrees of abstractness and specifics. Maybe some big (hyperbolic) posts by Yurie didn't...
You are also assuming that the Sorcerer has absolutely nothing else better to do with their sorcerer points, particularly since, if they cast something like a fireball, sure the enemy would not be warned by the gestures but as with most direct attack spells, they still see something fly from the caster to the target.
That's... that's literally the point Kotath 🤨 If you want the mechanical advantage of casting all your powers without needing VSM components, there has to be a cost associated with that in order to balance it against spellcasting. How are you still not grasping this concept?
Of course, the mechanical balance is a lot easier to manage if you're not stuck using the exact same power framework.
And in actual D&D settings, characters with class levels are incredibly difficult to imprison for any length of time without turning the regular old lockup into a magical supermax. It's simply a fact of the system, and really undermines that particular argument against psi.
It's truly not that hard, especially for lower-level characters. The vast majority of spells that would enable casters to escape or circumvent incarceration need material components/foci (which can be confiscated), movement/speech (which can be restricted) and/or sight (which can be blocked.)
There's plenty of non-spell powers that don't necessarily. By 5th level, sorcerers are probably unholdable. (I found one spell that's a guaranteed escape, and I didn't finish the list by any means.)
And the designers designed those spells that way for a reason - because they put actual thought into the system they created that you seem determined to overlook for some reason.
Given the general sloppiness of the 5e rules, I think you're giving them way too much credit. For instance: Misty step is mechanically different from Dimension Door, and so Misty step can bypass barriers that DD can't. Was this careful design?
"My proposed psionics system?" The closest thing I have to a "proposed system" is a quarter-assed thing I wrote off the top of my head to illustrate how such a class might be structured. It addressed none of these questions, because they were irrelevant.
You all constantly take every single thing somebody talking about psi said might be a property of it, and turn it into something that everyone arguing for psi in the general case is in favor of, and must satisfy you about before psionics is viable.
Given that my own psionics don't appear to be effective over the internet, I can only evaluate the things that you say about your proposal, yes. And if you're not actually proposing anything, then tell me, where do we go from here?
I mean, I'm mostly here because I find the game-design arguments against psi generally quite weak.
Which is a statement about the common lore. Not even the D&D lore. What people in general think. How it works in fiction.
What fiction is that? The most common inspirations for psionics that I'm aware of are things like HP Lovecraft, X-Men, Dune, maybe Wheel of Time if we want to get fancy.
There's a whole bunch of F&SF, particularly from like the 50s-70s, in which the modern fictional concept of psi was built up. Of your examples, really only the X-Men are a big influence, and HPL and WoT don't touch on it at all AFAIR. Dune sort of does, but I consider The Tomorrow People a more important text (well, TV show).
Of course, the whole thing draws on parapsychology, and spiritualism, and traditional practices that are far older, but the idea of a science of mind powers as an achievable thing centers there.
And of course chakras from various spiritual mythologies/religions that I don't think we can elaborate on here. Lead doesn't feature as a specific deterrent in any of them; all of the times I've seen lead come up in fiction, it's effective at blocking all magic, not just psionics. So where are you getting lead > psionics from?
If I were to actually do the historical study, I suspect I'd find it's most prominent in traditional practices, where the difference between "magic" and "powers of the mind" is not a real division. The whole "lead blocks divination" thing is likely of the same derivation, since far-seeing is often considered psychic powers.
I expect I'd find it in some of the fiction, but it's entirely possible it all springs from Superman's X-Ray vision, and has no historical antecedent.
In any event, it's still a perfectly reasonable option if you must have something to block psi at a mundane level.
They don't seem to have the same concerns about components or need to be able to imprison psychics that you do:
Therefore, psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed.
One way of putting the difference in expectations that has occurred to me:
Spells let casters spend resources to do psychic things
Psychic characters have an inherent ability to do those things
If a telepath wants to talk to somebody nearby with their mind, they can just do it. If a telekinetic wants to grab a beer from the cooler without getting up, they just do it.
If a caster wants to do those things, they have to take an action in order to take the actual action.
Now, obviously this isn't a big deal to you, but it's a base-level failure of the mechanics to support the fiction. The fact that Paizo's players are at least somewhat satisfied with their approach does not make it the only approach, or the best approach, or equally satisfactory to everybody.
And D&D 5 doesn't even get as mechanically close to the fiction as whichever Pathfinder that is.
A psychic character is a character who does the things psychics do -- chiefly telepathy (and related effects), telekinesis (and related effects), and ESP (clairvoyance and similar effects). All of those exist as spells. We also have canonical examples of psychic monsters, and guess what -- they cast those spells.
The Aboleth (first psi monster I checked) casts no spells. It just is telepathic. Telepathy as a stand-alone ability isn't even in its stat block. Same for mind flayers. Some of the abilities are spells, some are powers that are not spells. Even the spells get an exception to the regular spell rules.
And they're spells not because there's any inherent advantage, but because it's a convenient shorthand. If a psi system existed, they'd be psi powers.
I really can't follow all of this debate, but the focus on countering and dispelling for psionics is bizarre. It's as though you have this interesting idea for a concept (psionics) that has many possible interesting interpretations, but you choose to make the whole franchise hinge on knocking out one of the key pillars of balancing the game (cancellability). Why is this so central to that particular power fantasy?
If I was to be a more bitter and cynical sort I'd think it was because the proponents of psionics want a treehouse magic system that is able to do end runs around the limitations that exist for wizards so that they can just be betterer.
More Likely, I think they don't understand that having (not)magic as a system just makes the game a more confusing and imbalanced mess.
It’s not to both statements here - at least for me. But at least some of us have ideas for what psionics should look like and would like to see something close to our ideas in the 5e (+) game. I played with psionics way back in 1&2e and into 3e in both campaigns where magic could and couldn’t counter psi and it works in both if you keep in mind that if magic can’t counter psi then, for balance, psi can’t counter magic either. I don’t really expect WOTC to ever create a form of psi beyond their toe step subclasses so I created my own several years ago. It’s point based like the 1/2e versions but adapted to fit the modern 10 power levels (cantrips & L1-9) of that is a part of the core structure of D&D as any sort of psi is going to have to fit into that in some way. I’ve run it as both being and not being affected by magic . Psi, because it resembles magic ends up on the magic side of the magic - melee divide but I can see ways of toning down both to shrink that divide without overly disrupting the game especially at the lower levels where most folks play.
It is a semantic dismissal when you insist that changing the name should be sufficient to satisfy those who are repeatedly saying they want something much more substantial than a mere name change.
First of all, "I don't want to use spell slots" is really just change for change's sake.
It's not. It's a claim that the extant caster framework doesn't support what's wanted.
Thid, "I want new mechanics" is fine... but then you should actually define what those new mechanics are, in sufficient detail to evaluate their balance and feasibility.
No.
Spitballing, brainstorming, trying things out to see what works -- these are game design. Tossing ideas out for feedback is valid practice.
Trying to shoot everything down before it's had a chance to become balanced and feasible is unconstructive.
The only person to come close to a usable level of detail about "what I actually want" is Lia Black, and it was ... okay?
It was a very basic draft. "...okay?" is pretty good for something at that level of development. And you lot were right on top of it making demands like "it must be magic" and "chatGPT says it shouldn't be better than any class at anything".
Anyway, to further that "no" above: Saying "the mechanics do not support the thing I want" is not illegitimate. Adding "...and here's why" is nice, but not required. Insisting people do game design just to want something out of the game is unreasonable.
And even if they did, it's not gonna make a psi class happen. WotC or third-parties will not be consulting this thread in order to publish such a beast. If they do it, they'll do it their own way, to fit their own needs and design aesthetics.
As I said a ways up... if you can't fit the entire class description, including three subclasses, in five to six pages, it's probably too complex.
That's only true of about four of the extant classes.
Every single caster takes up more space than that. It's just hidden, because the class powers they choose from are off in another chapter.
... Meanwhile, the new line that is creeping in is "Well since you do not have a completely thought out, finished proposal, you have no valid points"
Strange as it is to agree with Kotath, this is the crux of it. I could discuss what I think would be fun - I actually find myself missing the old Psi Die idea, from the Psi UA, prior to the "Psionic Energy Pool" rework. The idea of psychic abilities ebbing and flowing throughout the day as the tides of the astra shift strikes me as a very cool means of separating psychic characters from magic users. Mages are 100% go, all'a time; they get all their ammo at the start of the day, burn all their ammo in the first fight because nobody teaches restraint in Magic School, and then they're down to their cantrips.
The psychic character? Their abilities wax and wane. They can't "run out of ammo", but instead their abilities wither and strengthen as they use them, requiring a degree of flexibility and adaptiveness on the part of the psychic character that spellcasters simply never have to bother with. It also leaves more room for class abilities and subclass ribbons than full-up spellcasting, which occupies virtually the entirety of any spellcaster's alloted power budget.
I could discuss these things...but then a dozen people would find the tiniest, most mundane and pointless nits to pick for the sake of being artificially and meaninglessly dismissive. Such as "this means your psychic character has an advantage against Vecna! DX" Excuse me, how often is that a real concern? Are we going to design entire classes around whether or not they're acceptably hosed by freaking Vecna? That is not a real argument and anyone with sense knows it.
Any time anyone tries to propose a framework or a slightly more concrete idea because people keep sealioning for one, that more concrete idea gets shredded by people who are emotionally invested in preventing psychic characters from existing in D&D, and then that shredding is broadened out to all of psionics. "See? This proposal doesn't work for me specifically, therefore all possible implementations of non-spellcasting psi throughout all of D&D are just as bad."
It's infuriating, demoralizing, and depressing to put some real thought and effort into trying to figure out the basis for a non-spellcasting psychic system, only for other people to rip chunks off of it and weaponize them against you because they're asking for something as polished, thought-out, tested, and ready to go as a third-party book developed for months by an entire development team...from one person, who is not a game designer, in a matter of hours.
The ask is utterly unreasonable, and the response people get when they try anyways is horrid. So why should we feed that sort of disrespectful garbage?
The ChatGPT thing said that the Psion’s utility shouldn’t intrude on the Druid’s shapeshifting. It did not suggest that the Psions should have shape shifting.
There’s a big difference between biofeedback(the kind of psychometabolism the Psion should have) and shapeshifting.
Nevertheless, it was argued by the pro-psionics are different side that psions should have polymorph
The analysis was comparing directly to Wildshape. Since when do Druids have biofeedback spells or abilities? Note that Druids have limited shapeshifting too, so we aren't comparing with unrestricted shapechange, regardless. So why not say "Wildshape equivalent?"
The ChatGPT analysis was something you did, then since it was convenient to your arguments, have been treating it as some sort of unquestionable expert. You still have not explained why no Psion should be able to complete with wildshape, specifically, regardless of how all else about the Psion class is balanced. otherwise.
Honestly, do you have trouble following a thread of dialogue?
or are you simply making an effort to misrepresent what was said in order to shore up your argument?
I men, you've repeatedly put words in my mouth in order to build straw men out of them. It is really getting to the point that I'm growing tired of trying to have a dialogue with you.
If I am misunderstanding you, then please explain how I am doing so. If you have changed your mind on any given point, simply say so. This is the first that you have brought up biofeedback. It was not mentioned at all in the ChatGPT creation you posted for discussion. That was post #640.
The relevant portion is:
Druid:
Circle of the Moon, Circle of Stars: High versatility with wild shape and star map features.
Suggestions: Ensure the Psion’s features provide utility without overlapping with the Druid's transformative abilities.
That is saying that the Psion should not overlap those specific Druidic features. Note, not even 'equal or surpass' or 'compete with' but 'overlap.' (Meanwhile, while citing two separate subclasses as if a druid can have both).
The ChatGPT thing said that the Psion’s utility shouldn’t intrude on the Druid’s shapeshifting. It did not suggest that the Psions should have shape shifting.
There’s a big difference between biofeedback(the kind of psychometabolism the Psion should have) and shapeshifting.
Nevertheless, it was argued by the pro-psionics are different side that psions should have polymorph
The analysis was comparing directly to Wildshape. Since when do Druids have biofeedback spells or abilities? Note that Druids have limited shapeshifting too, so we aren't comparing with unrestricted shapechange, regardless. So why not say "Wildshape equivalent?"
The ChatGPT analysis was something you did, then since it was convenient to your arguments, have been treating it as some sort of unquestionable expert. You still have not explained why no Psion should be able to complete with wildshape, specifically, regardless of how all else about the Psion class is balanced. otherwise.
Honestly, do you have trouble following a thread of dialogue?
or are you simply making an effort to misrepresent what was said in order to shore up your argument?
I men, you've repeatedly put words in my mouth in order to build straw men out of them. It is really getting to the point that I'm growing tired of trying to have a dialogue with you.
If I am misunderstanding you, then please explain how I am doing so. If you have changed your mind on any given point, simply say so. This is the first that you have brought up biofeedback. It was not mentioned at all in the ChatGPT creation you posted for discussion. That was post #640.
The relevant portion is:
Druid:
Circle of the Moon, Circle of Stars: High versatility with wild shape and star map features.
Suggestions: Ensure the Psion’s features provide utility without overlapping with the Druid's transformative abilities.
That is saying that the Psion should not overlap those specific Druidic features. Note, not even 'equal or surpass' or 'compete with' but 'overlap.' (Meanwhile, while citing two separate subclasses as if a druid can have both).
Now, in defending that, what did you mean?
As I told you before, shapechanging is not what the Druid provides to the party. What the druid provides to the party is utility. HOW the druid provides it is utility.
What ChatGPT is saying is to not let the utility that the Psion provides to the party overlap the utility that the Druid provides.
So, the druid does not provide shapechanging, they provide utility (that happens to be shapechanging) and the Psion should not overlap that utility (i.e. the shapechanging) ?
Or are you saying that the Psion should not be allowed similar levels of utility regardless of how that utility is achieved? (which would be even more restrictive)
The ChatGPT argument is a bogus one to start with as we already have classes and subclasses that not only overlap but in some cases are better than those of the class that is supposed to be the best ( think nature and survival skills of the scout rogue vs those of the ranger) . As for the argument that you can call it anything you want while using the same mechanics as a Wizard - bogus as well, names do have meaning they are not interchangeable. They carry connotations of mechanics and cause, effects and reasons why and how things work. So names imply mechanics. So no, a magic user with all telepathy/telekinetic/clairsentient spells is not a psion it’s still a Wizard. A major problem is that 5e (and d&d in general) has a magic system built around 10 levels of power so any other system is almost forced to adopt a 10 scale system as well - whether it is psi points, Ki points, sorcery points or invocations, etc. 20 character levels and 10 power levels force pretty much the same progressions for all characters - a power level step every other character level and some sort of extra ability ( movement, save/proficiency/AC, etc on the intervening character levels. That means that a psionic system is either going to be series built in abilities with limited uses ( like the monk) with 1 or 2 basic unlimited abilities or it’s going to have power ranked abilities that the character can choose from and use as long as they have the slots/points/ whatever to use them. The first calls for creating what are really 3-5 separate classes - one for each type of psion, the other could be a single class with the subclass based on the the area of psi the P.C. focuses on similar to the subclasses for wizards. A possible third approach is to create a suite of abilities for each subclass that grow in power as the P.C. advances. They can use the basic abilities but are limited in how often and which advanced powers they can use.
The ChatGPT argument is a bogus one to start with as we already have classes and subclasses that not only overlap but in some cases are better than those of the class that is supposed to be the best ( think nature and survival skills of the scout rogue vs those of the ranger) .
Rangers are supposed to be great survivalists, but I don't know that they are supposed to be the best survivalists. Rogues are supposed to be the skill monkeys.
This is where the issue seems to be here "The" skill monkies. "The" class with shapechanging utility. The game is simply not designed in that absolutist manner.
There clearly are other telepathy options, other mind reading options, to the extent that you have been arguing that Psions should not exist at all as a separate class. So this particular argument seems to equate to "Psions should be limited to things no one else does"
The ChatGPT argument is a bogus one to start with as we already have classes and subclasses that not only overlap but in some cases are better than those of the class that is supposed to be the best ( think nature and survival skills of the scout rogue vs those of the ranger) .
Rangers are supposed to be great survivalists, but I don't know that they are supposed to be the best survivalists. Rogues are supposed to be the skill monkeys.
This is where the issue seems to be here "The" skill monkies. "The" class with shapechanging utility. The game is simply not designed in that absolutist manner.
There clearly are other telepathy options, other mind reading options, to the extent that you have been arguing that Psions should not exist at all as a separate class. So this particular argument seems to equate to "Psions should be limited to things no one else does"
Yes or no, are Rogues the skill monkeys of the game?
As for Druids being the only ones with shapeshifting, this is just YET ANOTHER attempt by you to put words in my mouth that I never said. It is like you have some basic malfunction that prevents you from responding to what was actually said.
I did not say or suggest that Druids are the only ones with shapeshifting. They are, however, the best at it and it is one of their signature abilities. They don't have to spend a spell slot on it. They don't have to worry about concentrating on it. They get it at an earlier level than anyone else. They can stay shifted for much longer. They don't need components to transform. They are considered natural shapeshifters. Their enhanced shapeshifting provides utility that other forms of shapeshifting don't have.
You did not say it directly. The issue is that ChatGPT was treating it as if druids are either the only ones or that Psions are the only ones not allowed to compete with Druids in that area. Druids do have some advantages in that area, but I would argue that, for most of the kind of reconnaissance you seem to be applying it to, they are likely best just with Speak with Animals and convincing a scout much more expendable than themselves. Beast Sense and Speak with Animals are both ritual castable.
But what I was reacting to was the term 'overlap,' which suggests that the Psion should not merely not be as good as the druid in such capacity, but have no such capacity at all, even if only by way of a subclass, even if they did need concentration, etc, etc, etc.
Note that my initial criticism was of the ChatGPT comment in that regard. It has only gone beyond that to the degree of attempts to claim it is saying something other than what it is saying.
Circle of the Moon, Circle of Stars: High versatility with wild shape and star map features.
Suggestions: Ensure the Psion’s features provide utility without overlapping with the Druid's transformative abilities.
That is saying that the Psion should not overlap those specific Druidic features. Note, not even 'equal or surpass' or 'compete with' but 'overlap.' (Meanwhile, while citing two separate subclasses as if a druid can have both).
Now, in defending that, what did you mean?
As I told you before, shapechanging is not what the Druid provides to the party. What the druid provides to the party is utility. HOW the druid provides it is utility.
What ChatGPT is saying is to not let the utility that the Psion provides to the party overlap the utility that the Druid provides.
So, the druid does not provide shapechanging, they provide utility (that happens to be shapechanging) and the Psion should not overlap that utility (i.e. the shapechanging) ?
Or are you saying that the Psion should not be allowed similar levels of utility regardless of how that utility is achieved? (which would be even more restrictive)
Still not understanding you, here.
The Druid provides utility via shapechanging. They can sneak into places even rogues can't. They can fly without concentration. They can swim faster than Alter Self and, also, without Concentration. They can bank massive temp hit points. They can gain new senses such as scent and radar. This is utility.
The Psion can also provide utility. They can provide telepathic communication amongst the party at an earlier level than Rory's Telepathic Bond. They can Detect Thoughts. They can object read.
The Psion's utility should not overlap the Druid's, just as the Druid's utility can't overlap the Psion's.
So the Psion's utility, which has no overlap with the utility of the druid's shapechanging, should not overlap it?
That's not really much of a suggestion.
And pretty much the only way to significantly overlap with the general utility provided by shapeshifting is to have shapeshifting. Nothing else will do.
This is to ensure that no class has its thunder stolen.
A class's thunder is never based entirely on one thing.* It's a synergy of its various abilities. Druids are a beefy support class. If we added another class that was all about shapeshifting, where that was its thing, it'd still not have the druid's full-caster spell list. For the players who are looking for the fantasy of "turn into animals", that new class might well win out over the druid, but there's still plenty of room for the druid to exist in. Overlap is only a problem when you're usurping the class's role. Shapechanger-as-striker (the most likely way to go) would be more likely to be stepping on the rogue than the druid.
* except for sorcerers, who have nothing going for them vs wizards except metamagic.
This is where the issue seems to be here "The" skill monkies. "The" class with shapechanging utility. The game is simply not designed in that absolutist manner.
Yes or no, are Rogues the skill monkeys of the game?
No.
If there is one, it's the Bard, who has both expertise and JoaT.
But really, it's both. In the very simplified version: Rogue is striker and scout with skills, Bard is caster with skills. (And they lean to different sets of skills because of their other abilities' needs.)
I did not say it indirectly either and given your demonstrated penchant for putting words in other peoples' mouths, you are incapable of reliably reporting what ChatGPT said.
I literally copied and pasted and referenced your post I was taking that from.
That you and I disagree over the term 'overlap,' well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
The ChatGPT argument is a bogus one to start with as we already have classes and subclasses that not only overlap but in some cases are better than those of the class that is supposed to be the best ( think nature and survival skills of the scout rogue vs those of the ranger) .
Rangers are supposed to be great survivalists, but I don't know that they are supposed to be the best survivalists. Rogues are supposed to be the skill monkeys.
Wren, your dodging go back and actually compare the PHB ranger and the scout rogue abilities from Xanthers - the ranger gets 3 skills and IF they take nature and survival they get expertise with wisdom and intelligence checks ( not all checks) in the 3 terrains they chose, the scout rogue is granted full expertise in both nature and survival on top of their 4 skills and 4 expertises. . Further - look at the other 3 scout rogue abilities and tell me they shouldn’t have been ranger abilities from the get go. Skirmishers is an always on junior zephyr strike, superior mobility should be an upper level ranger ability as well as a rogue ability, and both ambush master and sudden strike make at least as much sense as ranger abilities as they do as rogue abilities. This is what I mean about the subclass in many ways replacing the class in the class’s own area of specialization. Until the scout rogue the Druid and ranger were the “wilderness” classes with the Druid being the full caster and the ranger being the martial force with minor casting. The scout rogue comes along and replaced the ranger in many folks minds as the prime wilderness martial. Given that trying to use anything that says that a psion can’t be allowed because it “overlaps” some other class is, to me at least, a joke, a bogus argument and an attempt to gaslight the conversation.
further I’m with kotah on the “skill monkeys” only maybe more so- the third skill monkey was the ranger. The bard and ranger got 3 skills at full proficiency, the rogue got 4 + thieves tools and eventually expertise in 4 of the five. The bard got jack of all trades giving him half expertise in skills he didn’t take while the ranger got partial expertise in his terrains. Every other class got only 2 skills and no expertise. That argument doesn’t fly .
Is the Ranger supposed to be more of a skill monkey than the Rogue? If so, that's new to me. The Rogue can match or beat the Ranger in any random terrain. The Ranger is the most skilled martial, but martials aren't well-known for their skills.
The ranger is supposed to be the master of wilderness survival.
And, as I said, I don't agree with the Bard being a skill monkey. There's no way that JoaT compares favorably to expertise in four skills.
And, as I said, I don't agree with the Bard being a skill monkey. There's no way that JoaT compares favorably to expertise in four skills.
Bard gets expertise in four skills; they're generally better social skill monkeys than rogues due to the rest of their package, rogues are typically better at other things. The best skill monkey to fill the ranger role is probably a rogue (scout), possibly multiclassed with something (the last build I did like that combined rogue with rune knight, there are also some decent battle master combos).
I did not say it indirectly either and given your demonstrated penchant for putting words in other peoples' mouths, you are incapable of reliably reporting what ChatGPT said.
I literally copied and pasted and referenced your post I was taking that from.
That you and I disagree over the term 'overlap,' well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
No,you ddn't, because I never said it indirectly.
Is English not your native language or something? It is cool if it isn't. That sure would explain a lot at this point in the dialogue.
"And pretty much the only way to significantly overlap with the general utility provided by shapeshifting is to have shapeshifting. Nothing else will do."
Wrong. For example, the Druid provides quite a bit of general utility by their ability to take on a beast form for hours at a time. They can, for example, be in the same room with someone for hours and never be detected. The Psion should be able to provide general utility by keeping the party in telepathic contact. These do not overlap.
That is insisting that the Psion not be able to shapeshift, because you have decided that they are good enough at telepathic contact to ensure they are providing equivalent levels of utility (and that this is true for every Psion, too).
Agreed those do not overlap. You are insisting there should be no overlap. But you are simply stating that as a fact.
Is the Ranger supposed to be more of a skill monkey than the Rogue? If so, that's new to me. The Rogue can match or beat the Ranger in any random terrain. The Ranger is the most skilled martial, but martials aren't well-known for their skills.
The ranger is supposed to be the master of wilderness survival.
And, as I said, I don't agree with the Bard being a skill monkey. There's no way that JoaT compares favorably to expertise in four skills.
Bards also get expertise in four skills.
The Ranger still will be the master of survival, if they choose to be. Not only will they have skill expertise, but they will be making some checks at advantage just because they have the Ranger class, can back that up with some spells, and for outdoor toughness, they will reduce exhaustion by one level every rest. Some adventures do list the terrain as causing exhaustion merely for being out in them for too long - IIRC the jungles of Chult in one of the FR adventures. Plus, it's more likely for the Ranger to have a higher Wis score (since spellcasting uses it) than a Rogue (Scout not withstanding).
Likewise, the Bard will almost always have a higher base Charisma than a Rogue, making them better at social skills even without counting the effects of magic.
The Rogue, however, is going to be a close second if they want at those skills, will be in first place against anyone other than a pure specialist, and at higher levels gets one great feature even those specialists lack - mitigating low dice rolls.
Subclasses can modify things, like a Soulknife's bonus die can put them above just about anybody, although there is a limit to how often that can be done, and the Eloquence Bard gets reliable skill like a Rogue , but only has two options for what.
I'm not sure why psions and shapeshifting came up, but my take on psions and shapeshifting is "the more things you think psions should be able to do, the less reason there is to distinguish them from sorcerer". If psions can do everything a conventional spellcaster can do... they're conventional spellcasters who call their spellcasting 'psionics'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent," "Vecna will become impotent," "They have to have weaknesses!" (as if that was in question), "They cannot be allowed to do anything at all as well as any existing class" (the they cannot be allowed to shapeshift as well as druids line from ChatGPT) and likely a few others I am not remembering here.
Or the mantra "Here are options we think you would be happy with if you just change the name"
Meanwhile, the new line that is creeping in is "Well since you do not have a completely thought out, finished proposal, you have no valid points"
People aren't actually discussing what they want. They're discussing interactions they don't want. Describe what you want the character to do. Whether those effects need to be, for example, magical or easily detectable, is mostly dependent on what those effects are.
I don't buy that. "People" have absolutely been discussing what they want, in varying degrees of abstractness and specifics. Maybe some big (hyperbolic) posts by Yurie didn't...
Of course, the mechanical balance is a lot easier to manage if you're not stuck using the exact same power framework.
There's plenty of non-spell powers that don't necessarily. By 5th level, sorcerers are probably unholdable. (I found one spell that's a guaranteed escape, and I didn't finish the list by any means.)
Given the general sloppiness of the 5e rules, I think you're giving them way too much credit. For instance: Misty step is mechanically different from Dimension Door, and so Misty step can bypass barriers that DD can't. Was this careful design?
I mean, I'm mostly here because I find the game-design arguments against psi generally quite weak.
There's a whole bunch of F&SF, particularly from like the 50s-70s, in which the modern fictional concept of psi was built up. Of your examples, really only the X-Men are a big influence, and HPL and WoT don't touch on it at all AFAIR. Dune sort of does, but I consider The Tomorrow People a more important text (well, TV show).
Of course, the whole thing draws on parapsychology, and spiritualism, and traditional practices that are far older, but the idea of a science of mind powers as an achievable thing centers there.
If I were to actually do the historical study, I suspect I'd find it's most prominent in traditional practices, where the difference between "magic" and "powers of the mind" is not a real division. The whole "lead blocks divination" thing is likely of the same derivation, since far-seeing is often considered psychic powers.
I expect I'd find it in some of the fiction, but it's entirely possible it all springs from Superman's X-Ray vision, and has no historical antecedent.
In any event, it's still a perfectly reasonable option if you must have something to block psi at a mundane level.
They don't seem to have the same concerns about components or need to be able to imprison psychics that you do:
One way of putting the difference in expectations that has occurred to me:
If a telepath wants to talk to somebody nearby with their mind, they can just do it. If a telekinetic wants to grab a beer from the cooler without getting up, they just do it.
If a caster wants to do those things, they have to take an action in order to take the actual action.
Now, obviously this isn't a big deal to you, but it's a base-level failure of the mechanics to support the fiction. The fact that Paizo's players are at least somewhat satisfied with their approach does not make it the only approach, or the best approach, or equally satisfactory to everybody.
And D&D 5 doesn't even get as mechanically close to the fiction as whichever Pathfinder that is.
The Aboleth (first psi monster I checked) casts no spells. It just is telepathic. Telepathy as a stand-alone ability isn't even in its stat block. Same for mind flayers. Some of the abilities are spells, some are powers that are not spells. Even the spells get an exception to the regular spell rules.
And they're spells not because there's any inherent advantage, but because it's a convenient shorthand. If a psi system existed, they'd be psi powers.
It’s not to both statements here - at least for me. But at least some of us have ideas for what psionics should look like and would like to see something close to our ideas in the 5e (+) game. I played with psionics way back in 1&2e and into 3e in both campaigns where magic could and couldn’t counter psi and it works in both if you keep in mind that if magic can’t counter psi then, for balance, psi can’t counter magic either. I don’t really expect WOTC to ever create a form of psi beyond their toe step subclasses so I created my own several years ago. It’s point based like the 1/2e versions but adapted to fit the modern 10 power levels (cantrips & L1-9) of that is a part of the core structure of D&D as any sort of psi is going to have to fit into that in some way. I’ve run it as both being and not being affected by magic . Psi, because it resembles magic ends up on the magic side of the magic - melee divide but I can see ways of toning down both to shrink that divide without overly disrupting the game especially at the lower levels where most folks play.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's not. It's a claim that the extant caster framework doesn't support what's wanted.
No.
Spitballing, brainstorming, trying things out to see what works -- these are game design. Tossing ideas out for feedback is valid practice.
Trying to shoot everything down before it's had a chance to become balanced and feasible is unconstructive.
It was a very basic draft. "...okay?" is pretty good for something at that level of development. And you lot were right on top of it making demands like "it must be magic" and "chatGPT says it shouldn't be better than any class at anything".
Anyway, to further that "no" above: Saying "the mechanics do not support the thing I want" is not illegitimate. Adding "...and here's why" is nice, but not required. Insisting people do game design just to want something out of the game is unreasonable.
And even if they did, it's not gonna make a psi class happen. WotC or third-parties will not be consulting this thread in order to publish such a beast. If they do it, they'll do it their own way, to fit their own needs and design aesthetics.
That's only true of about four of the extant classes.
Every single caster takes up more space than that. It's just hidden, because the class powers they choose from are off in another chapter.
Strange as it is to agree with Kotath, this is the crux of it. I could discuss what I think would be fun - I actually find myself missing the old Psi Die idea, from the Psi UA, prior to the "Psionic Energy Pool" rework. The idea of psychic abilities ebbing and flowing throughout the day as the tides of the astra shift strikes me as a very cool means of separating psychic characters from magic users. Mages are 100% go, all'a time; they get all their ammo at the start of the day, burn all their ammo in the first fight because nobody teaches restraint in Magic School, and then they're down to their cantrips.
The psychic character? Their abilities wax and wane. They can't "run out of ammo", but instead their abilities wither and strengthen as they use them, requiring a degree of flexibility and adaptiveness on the part of the psychic character that spellcasters simply never have to bother with. It also leaves more room for class abilities and subclass ribbons than full-up spellcasting, which occupies virtually the entirety of any spellcaster's alloted power budget.
I could discuss these things...but then a dozen people would find the tiniest, most mundane and pointless nits to pick for the sake of being artificially and meaninglessly dismissive. Such as "this means your psychic character has an advantage against Vecna! DX" Excuse me, how often is that a real concern? Are we going to design entire classes around whether or not they're acceptably hosed by freaking Vecna? That is not a real argument and anyone with sense knows it.
Any time anyone tries to propose a framework or a slightly more concrete idea because people keep sealioning for one, that more concrete idea gets shredded by people who are emotionally invested in preventing psychic characters from existing in D&D, and then that shredding is broadened out to all of psionics. "See? This proposal doesn't work for me specifically, therefore all possible implementations of non-spellcasting psi throughout all of D&D are just as bad."
It's infuriating, demoralizing, and depressing to put some real thought and effort into trying to figure out the basis for a non-spellcasting psychic system, only for other people to rip chunks off of it and weaponize them against you because they're asking for something as polished, thought-out, tested, and ready to go as a third-party book developed for months by an entire development team...from one person, who is not a game designer, in a matter of hours.
The ask is utterly unreasonable, and the response people get when they try anyways is horrid. So why should we feed that sort of disrespectful garbage?
Please do not contact or message me.
If I am misunderstanding you, then please explain how I am doing so. If you have changed your mind on any given point, simply say so. This is the first that you have brought up biofeedback. It was not mentioned at all in the ChatGPT creation you posted for discussion. That was post #640.
The relevant portion is:
That is saying that the Psion should not overlap those specific Druidic features. Note, not even 'equal or surpass' or 'compete with' but 'overlap.' (Meanwhile, while citing two separate subclasses as if a druid can have both).
Now, in defending that, what did you mean?
So, the druid does not provide shapechanging, they provide utility (that happens to be shapechanging) and the Psion should not overlap that utility (i.e. the shapechanging) ?
Or are you saying that the Psion should not be allowed similar levels of utility regardless of how that utility is achieved? (which would be even more restrictive)
Still not understanding you, here.
The ChatGPT argument is a bogus one to start with as we already have classes and subclasses that not only overlap but in some cases are better than those of the class that is supposed to be the best ( think nature and survival skills of the scout rogue vs those of the ranger) . As for the argument that you can call it anything you want while using the same mechanics as a Wizard - bogus as well, names do have meaning they are not interchangeable. They carry connotations of mechanics and cause, effects and reasons why and how things work. So names imply mechanics. So no, a magic user with all telepathy/telekinetic/clairsentient spells is not a psion it’s still a Wizard. A major problem is that 5e (and d&d in general) has a magic system built around 10 levels of power so any other system is almost forced to adopt a 10 scale system as well - whether it is psi points, Ki points, sorcery points or invocations, etc. 20 character levels and 10 power levels force pretty much the same progressions for all characters - a power level step every other character level and some sort of extra ability ( movement, save/proficiency/AC, etc on the intervening character levels. That means that a psionic system is either going to be series built in abilities with limited uses ( like the monk) with 1 or 2 basic unlimited abilities or it’s going to have power ranked abilities that the character can choose from and use as long as they have the slots/points/ whatever to use them. The first calls for creating what are really 3-5 separate classes - one for each type of psion, the other could be a single class with the subclass based on the the area of psi the P.C. focuses on similar to the subclasses for wizards. A possible third approach is to create a suite of abilities for each subclass that grow in power as the P.C. advances. They can use the basic abilities but are limited in how often and which advanced powers they can use.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This is where the issue seems to be here "The" skill monkies. "The" class with shapechanging utility. The game is simply not designed in that absolutist manner.
There clearly are other telepathy options, other mind reading options, to the extent that you have been arguing that Psions should not exist at all as a separate class. So this particular argument seems to equate to "Psions should be limited to things no one else does"
You did not say it directly. The issue is that ChatGPT was treating it as if druids are either the only ones or that Psions are the only ones not allowed to compete with Druids in that area. Druids do have some advantages in that area, but I would argue that, for most of the kind of reconnaissance you seem to be applying it to, they are likely best just with Speak with Animals and convincing a scout much more expendable than themselves. Beast Sense and Speak with Animals are both ritual castable.
But what I was reacting to was the term 'overlap,' which suggests that the Psion should not merely not be as good as the druid in such capacity, but have no such capacity at all, even if only by way of a subclass, even if they did need concentration, etc, etc, etc.
Note that my initial criticism was of the ChatGPT comment in that regard. It has only gone beyond that to the degree of attempts to claim it is saying something other than what it is saying.
So the Psion's utility, which has no overlap with the utility of the druid's shapechanging, should not overlap it?
That's not really much of a suggestion.
And pretty much the only way to significantly overlap with the general utility provided by shapeshifting is to have shapeshifting. Nothing else will do.
A class's thunder is never based entirely on one thing.* It's a synergy of its various abilities. Druids are a beefy support class. If we added another class that was all about shapeshifting, where that was its thing, it'd still not have the druid's full-caster spell list. For the players who are looking for the fantasy of "turn into animals", that new class might well win out over the druid, but there's still plenty of room for the druid to exist in. Overlap is only a problem when you're usurping the class's role. Shapechanger-as-striker (the most likely way to go) would be more likely to be stepping on the rogue than the druid.
* except for sorcerers, who have nothing going for them vs wizards except metamagic.
No.
If there is one, it's the Bard, who has both expertise and JoaT.
But really, it's both. In the very simplified version: Rogue is striker and scout with skills, Bard is caster with skills. (And they lean to different sets of skills because of their other abilities' needs.)
I literally copied and pasted and referenced your post I was taking that from.
That you and I disagree over the term 'overlap,' well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Wren, your dodging go back and actually compare the PHB ranger and the scout rogue abilities from Xanthers - the ranger gets 3 skills and IF they take nature and survival they get expertise with wisdom and intelligence checks ( not all checks) in the 3 terrains they chose, the scout rogue is granted full expertise in both nature and survival on top of their 4 skills and 4 expertises. . Further - look at the other 3 scout rogue abilities and tell me they shouldn’t have been ranger abilities from the get go. Skirmishers is an always on junior zephyr strike, superior mobility should be an upper level ranger ability as well as a rogue ability, and both ambush master and sudden strike make at least as much sense as ranger abilities as they do as rogue abilities. This is what I mean about the subclass in many ways replacing the class in the class’s own area of specialization. Until the scout rogue the Druid and ranger were the “wilderness” classes with the Druid being the full caster and the ranger being the martial force with minor casting. The scout rogue comes along and replaced the ranger in many folks minds as the prime wilderness martial. Given that trying to use anything that says that a psion can’t be allowed because it “overlaps” some other class is, to me at least, a joke, a bogus argument and an attempt to gaslight the conversation.
further I’m with kotah on the “skill monkeys” only maybe more so- the third skill monkey was the ranger. The bard and ranger got 3 skills at full proficiency, the rogue got 4 + thieves tools and eventually expertise in 4 of the five. The bard got jack of all trades giving him half expertise in skills he didn’t take while the ranger got partial expertise in his terrains. Every other class got only 2 skills and no expertise. That argument doesn’t fly .
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The ranger is supposed to be the master of wilderness survival.
Bards also get expertise in four skills.
Bard gets expertise in four skills; they're generally better social skill monkeys than rogues due to the rest of their package, rogues are typically better at other things. The best skill monkey to fill the ranger role is probably a rogue (scout), possibly multiclassed with something (the last build I did like that combined rogue with rune knight, there are also some decent battle master combos).
That is insisting that the Psion not be able to shapeshift, because you have decided that they are good enough at telepathic contact to ensure they are providing equivalent levels of utility (and that this is true for every Psion, too).
Agreed those do not overlap. You are insisting there should be no overlap. But you are simply stating that as a fact.
The Ranger still will be the master of survival, if they choose to be. Not only will they have skill expertise, but they will be making some checks at advantage just because they have the Ranger class, can back that up with some spells, and for outdoor toughness, they will reduce exhaustion by one level every rest. Some adventures do list the terrain as causing exhaustion merely for being out in them for too long - IIRC the jungles of Chult in one of the FR adventures. Plus, it's more likely for the Ranger to have a higher Wis score (since spellcasting uses it) than a Rogue (Scout not withstanding).
Likewise, the Bard will almost always have a higher base Charisma than a Rogue, making them better at social skills even without counting the effects of magic.
The Rogue, however, is going to be a close second if they want at those skills, will be in first place against anyone other than a pure specialist, and at higher levels gets one great feature even those specialists lack - mitigating low dice rolls.
Subclasses can modify things, like a Soulknife's bonus die can put them above just about anybody, although there is a limit to how often that can be done, and the Eloquence Bard gets reliable skill like a Rogue , but only has two options for what.
I'm not sure why psions and shapeshifting came up, but my take on psions and shapeshifting is "the more things you think psions should be able to do, the less reason there is to distinguish them from sorcerer". If psions can do everything a conventional spellcaster can do... they're conventional spellcasters who call their spellcasting 'psionics'.