The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness warrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
The actual point is now two fold: 1) the chatgpt argument that psions shouldn’t overlap another class is a bogus one and gaslighting as we already have a subclass overlapping and arguably superior in a number of areas (scout rogue vs rangers).
2) it’s bogus twice since we have the bard and rogue overlapping each other as skill monkeys no matter which is actually “the best”
at this point in the game classes and subclasses overlap each other frequently enough for that not to be a valid argument against psions.
i get the dislike of shapechanging being a possibility for psions - it’s certainly not what comes first to my mind either. However, psychometabolism with variou body controls including shape shifting, healing, hardening etc was one of the original psychic areas in the 1-3e psionics so like it or not it’s at the very least open for discussion. The real problem is designing a mechanic the doesn’t really feel like casting spells but allows for a range of abilities that can grow or change over a 10 level power structure. The martial vs magic divide is really. Caused because the martial attacks and damage don’t scale the way magic attacks and damage scale. If the psion scales like a martial it feels weak, if it scales like magic it feels like magic to a lot of folks that then say “why bother? It’s just magic”. Finding a mechanic that feels different but scales more or less like magic is the hard part to satisfy everyone. The monk is a good example of this - its abilities mostly scale like a martial but feel more like magic so no one is really happy with it.
The actual point is now two fold: 1) the chatgpt argument that psions shouldn’t overlap another class is a bogus one and gaslighting as we already have a subclass overlapping and arguably superior in a number of areas (scout rogue vs rangers).
2) it’s bogus twice since we have the bard and rogue overlapping each other as skill monkeys no matter which is actually “the best”
at this point in the game classes and subclasses overlap each other frequently enough for that not to be a valid argument against psions.
i get the dislike of shapechanging being a possibility for psions - it’s certainly not what comes first to my mind either. However, psychometabolism with variou body controls including shape shifting, healing, hardening etc was one of the original psychic areas in the 1-3e psionics so like it or not it’s at the very least open for discussion. The real problem is designing a mechanic the doesn’t really feel like casting spells but allows for a range of abilities that can grow or change over a 10 level power structure. The martial vs magic divide is really. Caused because the martial attacks and damage don’t scale the way magic attacks and damage scale. If the psion scales like a martial it feels weak, if it scales like magic it feels like magic to a lot of folks that then say “why bother? It’s just magic”. Finding a mechanic that feels different but scales more or less like magic is the hard part to satisfy everyone. The monk is a good example of this - its abilities mostly scale like a martial but feel more like magic so no one is really happy with it.
I can agree with this point. "Overlap" isn't a problem, as it already exists in the game between several other classes. "Does it better than the specialist" would likely be a problem, and "Does multiple things better than any of the specialists" definitely would be a problem.
The Ranger is supposed to be a wilderness wThere arrior. I'm unaware of anywhere where they are called the master of wilderness survival.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
As for Bards getting expertise in four skills, I stand corrected. However, they get it much later than Rogues and at the same time (roughly) that Rogues get Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent is superior to JoAT (please double-check my statistics on that).
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
My point was regarding whose schtick it is. The Bard simply isn't as good at skills as the Rogue.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
There are 8 terrains. The Ranger will have a max of 3 of them as favored. That means the Ranger is more than likely not going to be in a favored terrain unless the GM intervenes. But, if we are factoring in GM intervention, then ANY class can be the dominant skill monkey.
That seems to be moving the goalposts. A Rogue will NOT be better than the Bard or the Ranger in their areas of specialty. They will be better than anyone else though, and will be competitive against those specialists (a close second most of the time) even then.
Wren, the ranger gets expertise in 3 terrains and proficiency in 3 skills which might include nature and survival. before Xanther's he was (along with the druid) the "wilderness expert" its true that a rogue could potentially take nature and survival as two of his skills and then take expertise in them as well effectively outdoing the ranger in his own area - but it was not how folks typically played the rogue so it wasn't a significant problem or overlap. then in Xanther's we got the scout rogue who got as just one of his abilities expertise in both nature and survival along with his other 4 skills and 4 expertises. this wasn't just overlap it was enough to make far too many folks think the ranger was (now) a garbage class.
your moving the goalposts because when creating a ranger you should be consulting your DM about what terrains you should pick so your not left high and dry all the time with your 1-3 expertises.
What your really doing is trying to duck the arguments and refocus on anything you can to shift the discussion away from the points we are making. These are:
1) there is already a fair amount of "overlap" between classes and subclasses in 5e so any argument against psions that relies on them "overlaping" an existing class is a red herring and bogus.
2) shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes.
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
4) we are looking for help in worki9ng out a mechanic or 3 that would provide the feel we want while still somehow fitting into the 10 level power structure that is core to the game - especially for the nonmartial side where psions would reside.
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
A fundamental rule of RPGs is "don't reinvent something that already exists" Psions do not fill any game or story role that is not already filled by existing subclasses (most notably aberrant mind).
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
A fundamental rule of RPGs is "don't reinvent something that already exists" Psions do not fill any game or story role that is not already filled by existing subclasses (most notably aberrant mind).
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
And, if you could summarize since it's too late for me to run back through the past half dozen pages, what exactly do you want from a Psion besides "like magic, but not"- which has been repeatedly pointed out as being both very ambiguous and somewhere between reinventing the wheel and building a better mousetrap? Also, component-less casting of mind reading, mind influencing, or psychic attacks is pretty much a non-starter; they have very clearly made the necessity of obvious casting a cornerstone of 5e, with Sorcerers in general and Aberrant Mind in particular being the ones who can be built to ignore that restriction at critical moments.
And yet, in forty pages, no one has yet explained what reason, rhyme, justification or meaning there is behind calling a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots a "psychic" character rather than just a brain-damaged spellcaster. The closest has been Pantagruel saying "all specialized spellcasters suck so you have no reason to be any different", which is an explanation of why specialized spellcasters are bad and should feel bad. Not an explanation of why a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots is somehow not a spellcaster and is instead a psychic character.
Yurei, you're the one (though not the only one) drawing this false dichotomy and expecting every dissenting voice to swallow it whole unchallenged. Psychic characters can be spellcasters, despite all your beliefs to the contrary. If you still believe otherwise, you're simply wrong.
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?
Then don't? Nobody is forcing you to defend your position here. Bypass the forums entirely and e-mail WotC directly if you don't think anyone here is worth trying to convince. But as long as the proposals are being made here, I and others are going to continue discussing/critiquing them.
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?
Yes? Because no matter how powerful the spellcaster, Misty Step can be stopped by a blindfold. Dimension Door can't. So what's the problem?
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? I'm still not hearing where you got the lead > psionics thing from, or any inkling of how you think it would work in D&D.
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.
You can't restrict a psychic spellcaster in PF by tying them up, but you can restrict them in other ways. Simply making them afraid/intimidated for example makes Emotion components impossible. Good thing prisons aren't a scary place right?
Regarding lead, it is a thing in 5e and previous editions that a thin sheet of lead is enough to block sensory effects such as Detect Magic, Detect Thoughts, or Detect Evil and Good and probably a few other tracking/detection type spells, but they notably do not block most if not all forms of telepathy or things like Message/Sending, so trying to use this facet in ways beyond basically reproducing the spells I just mentioned seems like it would be a messy and convoluted affair to implement both in print and in actual play.
If you're okay with 7-day recharge for psionics and that works for you, great. I'm not going to tell you what you should like.
But you viewing frequency as a "lesser extent" is a fundamental problem I have with your mindset regarding the printed game's design. It's not lesser, at all - the rest-basis for spell slot recovery is an absolute cornerstone of the system and the power level that spells are allowed to have. Even the Warlock, which is short-rest-based, suddenly becomes long-rest-based when you get above 5th-level spells. That's completely intentional. And if you still don't view it that way, we probably have too big an impasse on the edition's underlying design for further debate to be productive.
I do not think you understand what I am trying to say. Whether or not I think about the rest based system is irrelevant. I do not really care either way.
What I care about is psionics being a separate system, with some level of interactivity with magic and other systems, and have appropriate levels of costs and limitations. I do not think why you keep assuming I (or anyone else) want psionics to be something super over powered, when that is not what we want at all.
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?
I do not think anyone wants psionics to all be just spells. Not even magic is all spells, and many magical abilities do not even use VSM components.
I want psionics to be versatile like magic, not to the same degree of versatility, but a significant fraction of that versatility. Some psionic abilities can be like Wild Shape or Channel Divinity, where no VSM is required. Some psionic abilities can be like spells, where VSM might be required. And some psionic abilities can cast spells, will usually be subject to the spell's VSM rules 99% of the time, but occasionally not for capstones and specific/special cases (Archdruid Wild Shape for example ignores VS components and many M components).
Yurei, you're the one (though not the only one) drawing this false dichotomy and expecting every dissenting voice to swallow it whole unchallenged. Psychic characters can be spellcasters, despite all your beliefs to the contrary. If you still believe otherwise, you're simply wrong.
I do not mind some psions being spellcasters, but I do not want all psions by default be spellcasters. I think what Yurei wants is a class that is dedicated to psionic stuff, just like how we have a whole host of spellcasters devoted to magical stuff, with wizards specifically being super specialized in magic.
Monk's main schtick is Ki, and I want psion to be like that, where its main schtick is psionics. Can some psions be spellcasters? Sure, that sounds great. But I do not want psions by default be spellcasters, just like how I do not want monks by default be spellcasters.
Spellcasters, by fundamental definition, are not psychic characters.
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.
Paladins can heal without using magic via Lay on Hands, whereas clerics usually heal with magical spells. Nothing wrong with psionic people do some stuff that magical people can do without using magic.
And why does psionics have to conform to spell casting and magic rules rather than be closer to Ki or Invocations or Maneuvers?
1. Ki does create magical effects.
2. Maneuvers are reflections of martial prowess and don't require defiance of the laws of physics.
Divine Intervention is not automatically blocked by antimagic field. A cleric can obviously ask their diety to cast Fireball for them, but it generally makes more sense for clerics to ask their diety to help them defeat an enemy, and let the GM choos a reasonably powerful intervention to help accomplish that request. And if Antimagic Field is present, I think it would be a dick move if the GM casts a spell on purpose to get it cancelled, rather than trying to help the cleric out with a method that does not get denied by the field, like making the enemy trip and lose their concentration or something. Outright killing the enemy is also an option, but only the most dire of situations would warrant that, like a high level boss fight where Divine Intervention is the last resort and the cleric gets to enjoy the spot light and saves the day.
I'm sorry that the stictest interpretation of the rules does not agree with what you'd like them to be.
Now, If I was in this situation as a GM and a player succeeded at the miserable chance to get this work? I would consider what they were hoping the god would do, consider the domain/responsibilities of the god and put through an effect based on a spell but since gods are operating at a much higher level of being then mortals their acts would supercede such a zone unless it had been created by another divine effect (IE bones of a fallen god from the time of troubles in FR or a preceding act of God).
Regardless: it's still magic.
Ki does not always create magical effects. Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, etc. are not magical. Anti Magic Field cannot shut those things down.
I would also argue Ki is not magical in game mechanic terms. While the introductory sections of the monk describes Ki as magical, treating that section as more than flavor text creates an issue where Antimagic Field can shut a monk down as if they are a spellcaster, which I do not think that is intentional. Ki is also described as if it were background magic innate to D&D's reality, like how dragons are innate. Ki and dragons are magical from our perspective, but it is not magical from D&D's perspective. I would treat that introductory text to Ki as flavor text like paladin Oaths.
Divine Intervention is not magical. The GM chooses the nature of the intervention, and if that intervention is that Lady Luck made the enemy wizard trip on a rock, hit their head on a spike, and die, there is nothing the enemy wizard can prevent with their Anti Magic Field. There is nothing magical about tripping, having a head impaled, and then dying.
No. My argument has been that creating a whole new power set that exists outside of the conventional confines of the established mechanics of the game is bad for the game and can only lead to disaster.
I want psionics to basically be another system separate from magic, just like Ki, Maneuvers, Metamagic, Feats, and whatnot. I want psionics to be able to interact with magic, but I do not want it to be magical by default.
Paladin's Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, and Aura of Protection are magical abilities from our perspective, but they are not magical in game mechanic terms, and Anti Magic Field cannot shut those abilities down. Divine Health on the other hand does not protect paladins in an Anti Magic Field, which is completely stupid in my opinion, but paladins can catch a cold in there. Divine Smite is magical since it requires using spell slots, but Improved Divine Smite is not magical.
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?
I do not think anyone wants psionics to be completely uncounterable. Just because psionics does not interact with magic by default does not mean it is uncounterable.
Epic Heroism wizard (and a few other classes and subclasses) that can spam Wish already exists in the game, and Create Magen was also later released that basically allowed all wizards to spam Wish no matter what their rest rules are. Anti Magic Field can certainly cancel Wish, but it is not a realistic counter if the GM lets a player get to that point in the first place.
Nobody is asking for psionics to be that broken. I am asking for psionics (and by extension all other classes) to have a significant fraction of a wizard's versatility and be powerful enough so that wizards do not hog the spotlight.
I do not see why psionics could not have some Somatic, Verbal, Material components or even a focus.
By default, I would not want all psionic abilities to have Somatic, Verbal, and Material components. Not all magical abilities are spells or uses spell slots.
However, I am not opposed to some psionic abilities use SVM components.
Let’s say a party of six PCs are dungeon crawling. It has already been claimed by the pro-psionics are different crowd that prions can have the ability to polymorph. The pasión is polymorphed into a rodent and tries to pass himself off as the wizard’s familisr. How is the monster supposed to know that he just got ego whipped by the wizard’s familiar?
There are traps and minions. Area of effect spells can also work. Powerful enemies can also have truesight.
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. 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. The only person to come close to a usable level of detail about "what I actually want" is Lia Black, and it was ... okay?
I do not think going into deep detail is necessary. I gave plenty of in game examples where abilities that are magical from our real life perspective are not magical in terms of game mechanics. Cleric's Divine Intervention is not magical by default. Hexblade's Curse , Paladin's Lay on Hands, Bardic Inspiration, Psi Warrior's Bulwark of Force, Giant barbarian's Elemental Cleaver, and countless other abilities are not magical.
Hell, some abilities that are clearly influenced by magic are not magical at all. Necromancy wizard's Inured to Undeath is not a magical ability at all, but it is clearly magical from our real life perspective, and it is caused by interacting with necromantic magic so much. On the other hand, paladin's Divine Health is needlessly magical.
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
There is the Mystic UA. Beyond does not support UA anymore though, and I do not think Mystic was ever supported on here since Mystic was created before Beyond was a thing.
I do not think 5e is such an inflexible system that we cannot add new stuff to it. Artificer was added way later.
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
And, if you could summarize since it's too late for me to run back through the past half dozen pages, what exactly do you want from a Psion besides "like magic, but not"- which has been repeatedly pointed out as being both very ambiguous and somewhere between reinventing the wheel and building a better mousetrap? Also, component-less casting of mind reading, mind influencing, or psychic attacks is pretty much a non-starter; they have very clearly made the necessity of obvious casting a cornerstone of 5e, with Sorcerers in general and Aberrant Mind in particular being the ones who can be built to ignore that restriction at critical moments.
I, too, would like to see this. However, it is my understanding that Displays that have nothing to do with V, S, M components are acceptable, but you still have to balance against being in a Silence field, being grappled, having a spell focus taken away from you, etc.
I mean, Aberrant Mind lets you cast Subtle spells practically all day long, but you aren't interested in that. So, what do you want?
I'm not looking for a fully-designed class, just a bullit point list of requirements and, preferably, some justification besides "that's what I want"
Also, why does it need to be an official class?
Just my personal takes on this:
I don't believe anyone at all said it had to be an official class. And even if it was official, it would not be core.
Any ability that has a touch range would clearly have at least that level of somatic component.
Aberrant Mind is a good starting point but:
Non-magical, at least in the casts/detects/abjured as magic definition
A full class, not a subclass. This facilitates dropping the rest of the sorcerer's spellcaster trappings, but also facilitates better specialization
In keeping with (2) a dedicated abilities list. Personally, I see these as somewhere between spells and feats but non-magical (per (1))
Magic retains its place by way of both general versatility and anti-psi spells. Many such spells already exist.
To the extent body transformation is a thing, likely just alter-self level other than possibly for a transformation based subclass.
This is just a quick list, with no attempt at detail. There would be a lot to work out with respect to balancing such a class, of course.
Regarding lead, it is a thing in 5e and previous editions that a thin sheet of lead is enough to block sensory effects such as Detect Magic, Detect Thoughts, or Detect Evil and Good and probably a few other tracking/detection type spells, but they notably do not block most if not all forms of telepathy or things like Message/Sending, so trying to use this facet in ways beyond basically reproducing the spells I just mentioned seems like it would be a messy and convoluted affair to implement both in print and in actual play.
Message is blocked by "A thin sheet of lead" among other things. Sending can go extraplanar so it is arguably well beyond telepathy. And not sure why you would need to reprint anything. The Fear and Stress rules from Ravenloft can be used anywhere the DM thinks they should be applicable without having to do any formal re-writes of whatever other adventure or setting the DM is applying them to, just to use an obvious example.
It is like saying that nothing should exist beyond the core books or the core books should be edited to account for every subsequent publishing since everything new touches on the core in some way. Such efforts are simply not needed.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
And, if you could summarize since it's too late for me to run back through the past half dozen pages, what exactly do you want from a Psion
It seems pretty unreasonable to me to ask people to do extra work because you don't want to.
Also, component-less casting of mind reading, mind influencing, or psychic attacks is pretty much a non-starter; they have very clearly made the necessity of obvious casting a cornerstone of 5e, with Sorcerers in general and Aberrant Mind in particular being the ones who can be built to ignore that restriction at critical moments.
They made casting obvious in 5e, just like it's been in every other (or nearly so) version of D&D. That's not making it a cornerstone, that's just leaving it as it is. And then having a class that can just blow through that restriction, which really suggests it's not a cornerstone of the design at all. If it was, it'd be a much bigger deal to break it, rather than being that thing that all sorcerers do.
And yet, in forty pages, no one has yet explained what reason, rhyme, justification or meaning there is behind calling a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots a "psychic" character rather than just a brain-damaged spellcaster. The closest has been Pantagruel saying "all specialized spellcasters suck so you have no reason to be any different", which is an explanation of why specialized spellcasters are bad and should feel bad. Not an explanation of why a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots is somehow not a spellcaster and is instead a psychic character.
Yurei, you're the one (though not the only one) drawing this false dichotomy and expecting every dissenting voice to swallow it whole unchallenged. Psychic characters can be spellcasters, despite all your beliefs to the contrary. If you still believe otherwise, you're simply wrong.
Casters can do psychic stuff. But if you try to make the default caster model work for the actual archetypes for psychics, they don't fit. Just like they don't for any kind of specialized caster. They're still made for generalists.
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?
Yes? Because no matter how powerful the spellcaster, Misty Step can be stopped by a blindfold. Dimension Door can't. So what's the problem?
Similar abilities should work similarly, except in ways that are clearly spelled out. Deliberately making differences that are only noticeable to people with significant rules knowledge is unforgivably bad design.
I don't think they deliberately made it so you can misty step through wall of force and prismatic sphere, but can't DD. It's just a combination of sloppiness and rulings after the fact.
And it's far from the only example of sloppiness in 5e. So arguments about how they carefully designed the fiddly little details for balance don't fly here.
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? I'm still not hearing where you got the lead > psionics thing from,
Are you expecting a specific cite? I said up front it was a general impression.
As I recall, lead is commonly supposed to be a block on psychic powers.
or any inkling of how you think it would work in D&D.
"Psychic powers are blocked by a thin layer of lead"
Similar abilities should work similarly, except in ways that are clearly spelled out. Deliberately making differences that are only noticeable to people with significant rules knowledge is unforgivably bad design.
I do not think you understand what I am trying to say. Whether or not I think about the rest based system is irrelevant. I do not really care either way.
What I care about is psionics being a separate system, with some level of interactivity with magic and other systems, and have appropriate levels of costs and limitations. I do not think why you keep assuming I (or anyone else) want psionics to be something super over powered, when that is not what we want at all.
I don't think you WANT it to be overpowered, no - but Ashla, Wren and I are trying to explain to you that would be the natural consequence of a power system that:
(a) can do similar (if not identical) things to what spellcasting can do at the same levels and the same frequency, (b) lacks spell components that would allow for mundane detection/countermeasures to its use, and (c) is opaque to all the other things that can interfere with spellcasting, particularly spells and monster abilities designed for that purpose.
Now, I can only speak for myself, but if you actually made a proposal that addressed those 3 points I'd be more than happy to evaluate it. But you and others seem to expect me to just read your minds and divine your intent/vision that way. Your desire is coming through loud and clear - you want a class/system that has "a significant fraction of a wizard's versatility" - but that tells me nothing about how you plan to balance it, particularly against the three points above.
I do not think anyone wants psionics to all be just spells. Not even magic is all spells, and many magical abilities do not even use VSM components.
I want psionics to be versatile like magic, not to the same degree of versatility, but a significant fraction of that versatility. ...
I do not mind some psions being spellcasters, but I do not want all psions by default be spellcasters. I think what Yurei wants is a class that is dedicated to psionic stuff, just like how we have a whole host of spellcasters devoted to magical stuff, with wizards specifically being super specialized in magic.
Monk's main schtick is Ki, and I want psion to be like that, where its main schtick is psionics. Can some psions be spellcasters? Sure, that sounds great. But I do not want psions by default be spellcasters, just like how I do not want monks by default be spellcasters. ...
Paladins can heal without using magic via Lay on Hands, whereas clerics usually heal with magical spells. Nothing wrong with psionic people do some stuff that magical people can do without using magic.
I want psionics to basically be another system separate from magic, just like Ki, Maneuvers, Metamagic, Feats, and whatnot. I want psionics to be able to interact with magic, but I do not want it to be magical by default.
Paladin's Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, and Aura of Protection are magical abilities from our perspective, but they are not magical in game mechanic terms, and Anti Magic Field cannot shut those abilities down. Divine Health on the other hand does not protect paladins in an Anti Magic Field, which is completely stupid in my opinion, but paladins can catch a cold in there. Divine Smite is magical since it requires using spell slots, but Improved Divine Smite is not magical.
By default, I would not want all psionic abilities to have Somatic, Verbal, and Material components. Not all magical abilities are spells or uses spell slots.
However, I am not opposed to some psionic abilities use SVM components.
(Snipped some parts for length.)
I am 100% fine with psionicists having some abilities that are not spells, have no spell components, and even that aren't affected by the other things that affect "foreground magic" too. There's a label for abilities like that, they're called class features and subclass features. But those are intended to be ancillary abilities to the caster's main schtick, not the core of their kit. A Druid's Wild Shape, a Paladin's Lay on Hands/Aura, A Diviner Wizard's Portent - those are all things that aren't spells, but they are intended to be used alongside the spells that the bulk of their class power comes from, and are balanced accordingly.
There is the Mystic UA. Beyond does not support UA anymore though, and I do not think Mystic was ever supported on here since Mystic was created before Beyond was a thing. I do not think 5e is such an inflexible system that we cannot add new stuff to it. Artificer was added way later.
I haven't had the time to read the Mystic in depth yet, but at first glance it appears to address the 3 issues I listed above. Their disciplines count as magic spells (pg 9), so they're transparent to things like detection, dispelling and AMF. They have the benefit of lacking components, but this is balanced by the lack of ammunition, and the lack of flexibility/slow rate of acquisition for their discipline powers; each discipline contains about 5 powers for example, but you typically won't have access to more than 2-3 of them in most campaigns due to the Psi Limit. And in general, discipline powers are weaker than spells of the same level - for example, Adaptive Shield works like the 1st-level spell Absorb Elements, but a Mystic wouldn't be able to use the latter until 3rd level at least, and doing so would use up 1/4 of their total resources for the day.
Message is blocked by "A thin sheet of lead" among other things. Sending can go extraplanar so it is arguably well beyond telepathy.
I have no problem with lead blocking magical/psionic communication and information gathering. But that's not the same as saying lead should block all psionics. Again, how would that even work? Could you wear a lead-lined cloak and be immune to a psion's fireball?
Similar abilities should work similarly, except in ways that are clearly spelled out. Deliberately making differences that are only noticeable to people with significant rules knowledge is unforgivably bad design.
Which is why psi should use the magic rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seems to be part of the class fantasy to me.
The point is not which is better, but that being the skills character is not uniquely a rogue or bard thing.
That is going to depend on which skills are in question. My money is still on the Bard for social skills, and if it's an Eloquence Bard, it becomes a surefire bet rather than a probable one. For all else, the Rogue beats the Bard but will be behind the Ranger for wilderness survival (due to class abilities adding extras to the Ranger). In a favored terrain, the Ranger will be ignoring difficult terrain, be able to forage or track while traveling without perception penalties, will double the amount of food found when foraging, and get additional information while tracking - in addition to "doubling all proficiency bonuses made using Int or Wis" relating to that terrain, basically expertise without calling it that. Which makes me wonder if it would double expertise if the character had it from a feat - that would make it beyond anything any Rogue could achieve, but I'm not read up on rules clarifications there, and my own GM's would rule against it as cheese.
The actual point is now two fold:
1) the chatgpt argument that psions shouldn’t overlap another class is a bogus one and gaslighting as we already have a subclass overlapping and arguably superior in a number of areas (scout rogue vs rangers).
2) it’s bogus twice since we have the bard and rogue overlapping each other as skill monkeys no matter which is actually “the best”
at this point in the game classes and subclasses overlap each other frequently enough for that not to be a valid argument against psions.
i get the dislike of shapechanging being a possibility for psions - it’s certainly not what comes first to my mind either. However, psychometabolism with variou body controls including shape shifting, healing, hardening etc was one of the original psychic areas in the 1-3e psionics so like it or not it’s at the very least open for discussion. The real problem is designing a mechanic the doesn’t really feel like casting spells but allows for a range of abilities that can grow or change over a 10 level power structure. The martial vs magic divide is really. Caused because the martial attacks and damage don’t scale the way magic attacks and damage scale. If the psion scales like a martial it feels weak, if it scales like magic it feels like magic to a lot of folks that then say “why bother? It’s just magic”. Finding a mechanic that feels different but scales more or less like magic is the hard part to satisfy everyone. The monk is a good example of this - its abilities mostly scale like a martial but feel more like magic so no one is really happy with it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I can agree with this point. "Overlap" isn't a problem, as it already exists in the game between several other classes. "Does it better than the specialist" would likely be a problem, and "Does multiple things better than any of the specialists" definitely would be a problem.
That seems to be moving the goalposts. A Rogue will NOT be better than the Bard or the Ranger in their areas of specialty. They will be better than anyone else though, and will be competitive against those specialists (a close second most of the time) even then.
Wren, the ranger gets expertise in 3 terrains and proficiency in 3 skills which might include nature and survival. before Xanther's he was (along with the druid) the "wilderness expert" its true that a rogue could potentially take nature and survival as two of his skills and then take expertise in them as well effectively outdoing the ranger in his own area - but it was not how folks typically played the rogue so it wasn't a significant problem or overlap. then in Xanther's we got the scout rogue who got as just one of his abilities expertise in both nature and survival along with his other 4 skills and 4 expertises. this wasn't just overlap it was enough to make far too many folks think the ranger was (now) a garbage class.
your moving the goalposts because when creating a ranger you should be consulting your DM about what terrains you should pick so your not left high and dry all the time with your 1-3 expertises.
What your really doing is trying to duck the arguments and refocus on anything you can to shift the discussion away from the points we are making. These are:
1) there is already a fair amount of "overlap" between classes and subclasses in 5e so any argument against psions that relies on them "overlaping" an existing class is a red herring and bogus.
2) shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes.
3) those of us asking for a psion class are not willing to just make a wizard and call it a psion that doesn't have the feel or mechanic we are looking for so telling us to just suck it up is a nonstarter in the discussion.
4) we are looking for help in worki9ng out a mechanic or 3 that would provide the feel we want while still somehow fitting into the 10 level power structure that is core to the game - especially for the nonmartial side where psions would reside.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A fundamental rule of RPGs is "don't reinvent something that already exists" Psions do not fill any game or story role that is not already filled by existing subclasses (most notably aberrant mind).
You keep saying to just play Aberrant Mind and are repeatedly told by those that want a psion class that they don't want to play an Aberrant Mind. Why do you continue to do it?
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Because that is the 5e psion. It's like arguing "I don't like the 5e fighter, I want the fighter to be X instead". Which is a perfectly reasonable ask... for 6th edition.
I see. Well, I guess the only thing to say is no. Aberrant Mind doesn't fit what I want from a psion class.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
And, if you could summarize since it's too late for me to run back through the past half dozen pages, what exactly do you want from a Psion besides "like magic, but not"- which has been repeatedly pointed out as being both very ambiguous and somewhere between reinventing the wheel and building a better mousetrap? Also, component-less casting of mind reading, mind influencing, or psychic attacks is pretty much a non-starter; they have very clearly made the necessity of obvious casting a cornerstone of 5e, with Sorcerers in general and Aberrant Mind in particular being the ones who can be built to ignore that restriction at critical moments.
Yurei, you're the one (though not the only one) drawing this false dichotomy and expecting every dissenting voice to swallow it whole unchallenged. Psychic characters can be spellcasters, despite all your beliefs to the contrary. If you still believe otherwise, you're simply wrong.
Then don't? Nobody is forcing you to defend your position here. Bypass the forums entirely and e-mail WotC directly if you don't think anyone here is worth trying to convince. But as long as the proposals are being made here, I and others are going to continue discussing/critiquing them.
Yes? Because no matter how powerful the spellcaster, Misty Step can be stopped by a blindfold. Dimension Door can't. So what's the problem?
And? I'm still not hearing where you got the lead > psionics thing from, or any inkling of how you think it would work in D&D.
You can't restrict a psychic spellcaster in PF by tying them up, but you can restrict them in other ways. Simply making them afraid/intimidated for example makes Emotion components impossible. Good thing prisons aren't a scary place right?
Regarding lead, it is a thing in 5e and previous editions that a thin sheet of lead is enough to block sensory effects such as Detect Magic, Detect Thoughts, or Detect Evil and Good and probably a few other tracking/detection type spells, but they notably do not block most if not all forms of telepathy or things like Message/Sending, so trying to use this facet in ways beyond basically reproducing the spells I just mentioned seems like it would be a messy and convoluted affair to implement both in print and in actual play.
Sorry for the long reply, but I wanted to reply to quite a few comments. Been busy for the past few days, so I am cramming it all in now.
I do not think you understand what I am trying to say. Whether or not I think about the rest based system is irrelevant. I do not really care either way.
What I care about is psionics being a separate system, with some level of interactivity with magic and other systems, and have appropriate levels of costs and limitations. I do not think why you keep assuming I (or anyone else) want psionics to be something super over powered, when that is not what we want at all.
I do not think anyone wants psionics to all be just spells. Not even magic is all spells, and many magical abilities do not even use VSM components.
I want psionics to be versatile like magic, not to the same degree of versatility, but a significant fraction of that versatility. Some psionic abilities can be like Wild Shape or Channel Divinity, where no VSM is required. Some psionic abilities can be like spells, where VSM might be required. And some psionic abilities can cast spells, will usually be subject to the spell's VSM rules 99% of the time, but occasionally not for capstones and specific/special cases (Archdruid Wild Shape for example ignores VS components and many M components).
I do not mind some psions being spellcasters, but I do not want all psions by default be spellcasters. I think what Yurei wants is a class that is dedicated to psionic stuff, just like how we have a whole host of spellcasters devoted to magical stuff, with wizards specifically being super specialized in magic.
Monk's main schtick is Ki, and I want psion to be like that, where its main schtick is psionics. Can some psions be spellcasters? Sure, that sounds great. But I do not want psions by default be spellcasters, just like how I do not want monks by default be spellcasters.
Paladins can heal without using magic via Lay on Hands, whereas clerics usually heal with magical spells. Nothing wrong with psionic people do some stuff that magical people can do without using magic.
Ki does not always create magical effects. Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, etc. are not magical. Anti Magic Field cannot shut those things down.
I would also argue Ki is not magical in game mechanic terms. While the introductory sections of the monk describes Ki as magical, treating that section as more than flavor text creates an issue where Antimagic Field can shut a monk down as if they are a spellcaster, which I do not think that is intentional. Ki is also described as if it were background magic innate to D&D's reality, like how dragons are innate. Ki and dragons are magical from our perspective, but it is not magical from D&D's perspective. I would treat that introductory text to Ki as flavor text like paladin Oaths.
Divine Intervention is not magical. The GM chooses the nature of the intervention, and if that intervention is that Lady Luck made the enemy wizard trip on a rock, hit their head on a spike, and die, there is nothing the enemy wizard can prevent with their Anti Magic Field. There is nothing magical about tripping, having a head impaled, and then dying.
I want psionics to basically be another system separate from magic, just like Ki, Maneuvers, Metamagic, Feats, and whatnot. I want psionics to be able to interact with magic, but I do not want it to be magical by default.
Paladin's Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, and Aura of Protection are magical abilities from our perspective, but they are not magical in game mechanic terms, and Anti Magic Field cannot shut those abilities down. Divine Health on the other hand does not protect paladins in an Anti Magic Field, which is completely stupid in my opinion, but paladins can catch a cold in there. Divine Smite is magical since it requires using spell slots, but Improved Divine Smite is not magical.
I do not think anyone wants psionics to be completely uncounterable. Just because psionics does not interact with magic by default does not mean it is uncounterable.
Epic Heroism wizard (and a few other classes and subclasses) that can spam Wish already exists in the game, and Create Magen was also later released that basically allowed all wizards to spam Wish no matter what their rest rules are. Anti Magic Field can certainly cancel Wish, but it is not a realistic counter if the GM lets a player get to that point in the first place.
Nobody is asking for psionics to be that broken. I am asking for psionics (and by extension all other classes) to have a significant fraction of a wizard's versatility and be powerful enough so that wizards do not hog the spotlight.
By default, I would not want all psionic abilities to have Somatic, Verbal, and Material components. Not all magical abilities are spells or uses spell slots.
However, I am not opposed to some psionic abilities use SVM components.
There are traps and minions. Area of effect spells can also work. Powerful enemies can also have truesight.
I do not think going into deep detail is necessary. I gave plenty of in game examples where abilities that are magical from our real life perspective are not magical in terms of game mechanics. Cleric's Divine Intervention is not magical by default. Hexblade's Curse , Paladin's Lay on Hands, Bardic Inspiration, Psi Warrior's Bulwark of Force, Giant barbarian's Elemental Cleaver, and countless other abilities are not magical.
Hell, some abilities that are clearly influenced by magic are not magical at all. Necromancy wizard's Inured to Undeath is not a magical ability at all, but it is clearly magical from our real life perspective, and it is caused by interacting with necromantic magic so much. On the other hand, paladin's Divine Health is needlessly magical.
There is the Mystic UA. Beyond does not support UA anymore though, and I do not think Mystic was ever supported on here since Mystic was created before Beyond was a thing.
I do not think 5e is such an inflexible system that we cannot add new stuff to it. Artificer was added way later.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Just my personal takes on this:
I don't believe anyone at all said it had to be an official class. And even if it was official, it would not be core.
Any ability that has a touch range would clearly have at least that level of somatic component.
Aberrant Mind is a good starting point but:
This is just a quick list, with no attempt at detail. There would be a lot to work out with respect to balancing such a class, of course.
Message is blocked by "A thin sheet of lead" among other things. Sending can go extraplanar so it is arguably well beyond telepathy. And not sure why you would need to reprint anything. The Fear and Stress rules from Ravenloft can be used anywhere the DM thinks they should be applicable without having to do any formal re-writes of whatever other adventure or setting the DM is applying them to, just to use an obvious example.
It is like saying that nothing should exist beyond the core books or the core books should be edited to account for every subsequent publishing since everything new touches on the core in some way. Such efforts are simply not needed.
It seems pretty unreasonable to me to ask people to do extra work because you don't want to.
They made casting obvious in 5e, just like it's been in every other (or nearly so) version of D&D. That's not making it a cornerstone, that's just leaving it as it is. And then having a class that can just blow through that restriction, which really suggests it's not a cornerstone of the design at all. If it was, it'd be a much bigger deal to break it, rather than being that thing that all sorcerers do.
Casters can do psychic stuff. But if you try to make the default caster model work for the actual archetypes for psychics, they don't fit. Just like they don't for any kind of specialized caster. They're still made for generalists.
Similar abilities should work similarly, except in ways that are clearly spelled out. Deliberately making differences that are only noticeable to people with significant rules knowledge is unforgivably bad design.
I don't think they deliberately made it so you can misty step through wall of force and prismatic sphere, but can't DD. It's just a combination of sloppiness and rulings after the fact.
And it's far from the only example of sloppiness in 5e. So arguments about how they carefully designed the fiddly little details for balance don't fly here.
Are you expecting a specific cite? I said up front it was a general impression.
"Psychic powers are blocked by a thin layer of lead"
See also https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/fx0ms0/ivorytower_game_design_read_this_quote_from_monte/
I don't think you WANT it to be overpowered, no - but Ashla, Wren and I are trying to explain to you that would be the natural consequence of a power system that:
(a) can do similar (if not identical) things to what spellcasting can do at the same levels and the same frequency,
(b) lacks spell components that would allow for mundane detection/countermeasures to its use, and
(c) is opaque to all the other things that can interfere with spellcasting, particularly spells and monster abilities designed for that purpose.
Now, I can only speak for myself, but if you actually made a proposal that addressed those 3 points I'd be more than happy to evaluate it. But you and others seem to expect me to just read your minds and divine your intent/vision that way. Your desire is coming through loud and clear - you want a class/system that has "a significant fraction of a wizard's versatility" - but that tells me nothing about how you plan to balance it, particularly against the three points above.
(Snipped some parts for length.)
I am 100% fine with psionicists having some abilities that are not spells, have no spell components, and even that aren't affected by the other things that affect "foreground magic" too. There's a label for abilities like that, they're called class features and subclass features. But those are intended to be ancillary abilities to the caster's main schtick, not the core of their kit. A Druid's Wild Shape, a Paladin's Lay on Hands/Aura, A Diviner Wizard's Portent - those are all things that aren't spells, but they are intended to be used alongside the spells that the bulk of their class power comes from, and are balanced accordingly.
I haven't had the time to read the Mystic in depth yet, but at first glance it appears to address the 3 issues I listed above. Their disciplines count as magic spells (pg 9), so they're transparent to things like detection, dispelling and AMF. They have the benefit of lacking components, but this is balanced by the lack of ammunition, and the lack of flexibility/slow rate of acquisition for their discipline powers; each discipline contains about 5 powers for example, but you typically won't have access to more than 2-3 of them in most campaigns due to the Psi Limit. And in general, discipline powers are weaker than spells of the same level - for example, Adaptive Shield works like the 1st-level spell Absorb Elements, but a Mystic wouldn't be able to use the latter until 3rd level at least, and doing so would use up 1/4 of their total resources for the day.
I have no problem with lead blocking magical/psionic communication and information gathering. But that's not the same as saying lead should block all psionics. Again, how would that even work? Could you wear a lead-lined cloak and be immune to a psion's fireball?
Which is why psi should use the magic rules.