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.
I don't believe that Psions should be able to shapeshift. But, that's because, when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind.
However, my stance that Psions should not be able to shapeshift is a very different thing from the claim that no other class can shapeshift. It is also very different from claiming that my belief should be the prevailing one. I'm open to debate on this. What I am not open to debate on is that the Psion be as good at shapeshifting as the Druid, again because when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind. It is the Druid's schtick. Telepathy, Telekinesis, Object Reading. etc. are the Psion's schtick.,
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How is that moving the goal post? The question is which class deserves to have the title of "the skill monkey." Comparing the Rogue in his typical adventuring mode to a Ranger in an adventuring mode that most likely won't be the case seems like putting one's thumb on the scale to me.
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.
"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 expertise."
I acknowledged GM intervention in an earlier response to you. If the game designers had intended for the Ranger to be in his favored terrain as often as you seem to desire, then they wouldn't have limited him to three of eight.
" 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." This is a straw man. I already acknowledged that other classes have shapeshift. Druid gets the best shapeshifting skills. Their advanced shapeshifting abilities give them utility that other shapeshifting classes don't have. My argument has been that the Psion shouldn't overlap that utility.
"shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes." I acknowledge this to be true, but "that's the way it was in earlier editions" isn't a particularly compelling argument, if it were, we'd be playing those earlier editions.
"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." Fair enough, but the reverse is equally true. Those of us who don't want an entirely new subsystem added because it adds complexity and steepens the learning curve for both new players and new GMs being told to "just suck it up" is equally a nonstarter.
"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." Thus bypassing the first discussion of whether the game should even have such rules - sounds like you're saying "just suck it up" to me - which is a nonstarter.
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.
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"
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't believe that Psions should be able to shapeshift. But, that's because, when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind.
However, my stance that Psions should not be able to shapeshift is a very different thing from the claim that no other class can shapeshift. It is also very different from claiming that my belief should be the prevailing one. I'm open to debate on this. What I am not open to debate on is that the Psion be as good at shapeshifting as the Druid, again because when I think of mentalism, shapeshift is not what comes to mind. It is the Druid's schtick. Telepathy, Telekinesis, Object Reading. etc. are the Psion's schtick.,
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How is that moving the goal post? The question is which class deserves to have the title of "the skill monkey." Comparing the Rogue in his typical adventuring mode to a Ranger in an adventuring mode that most likely won't be the case seems like putting one's thumb on the scale to me.
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.
"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 expertise."
I acknowledged GM intervention in an earlier response to you. If the game designers had intended for the Ranger to be in his favored terrain as often as you seem to desire, then they wouldn't have limited him to three of eight.
" 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." This is a straw man. I already acknowledged that other classes have shapeshift. Druid gets the best shapeshifting skills. Their advanced shapeshifting abilities give them utility that other shapeshifting classes don't have. My argument has been that the Psion shouldn't overlap that utility.
"shapeshifting and psychometabolic abilities have been a part of earlier psionic class so they have the potential to be part of any future classes." I acknowledge this to be true, but "that's the way it was in earlier editions" isn't a particularly compelling argument, if it were, we'd be playing those earlier editions.
"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." Fair enough, but the reverse is equally true. Those of us who don't want an entirely new subsystem added because it adds complexity and steepens the learning curve for both new players and new GMs being told to "just suck it up" is equally a nonstarter.
"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." Thus bypassing the first discussion of whether the game should even have such rules - sounds like you're saying "just suck it up" to me - which is a nonstarter.
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.
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?
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.