Never mind. Whatever. I'll never be okay with "you don't deserve to play so shut up and leave", that will never be the answer, but there's nothing I can do to get you people to stop saying it.
So fine. Ban psi at your tables, like you already do. Campaign to ban psi from the books. Whatever floats your boats.
Enjoy.
No one is telling you whether or not you deserve to play the game, just that your ask as you have presented it is not a feasible feature to integrate into a hard RPG system such as D&D, and that there are alternative softer systems that could let you scratch this roleplay itch.
Simply stating it is not feasible to integrate does not make that so.
1) "Been in game since" does not equal "Not obscure."
2) Again, Pyrokinesis is not 'Conjure fire.' It is heat things to flashpoint. Lava would almost certainly be outside the reach, 18d10 being rather extreme, but equivalent to a very hot forge? There are natural fires that can cause steel to buckle. The fires used to smelt metal are certainly far hotter than a typical fire pit. The fires that would be used to smelt or work Mithril or Adamantium would be that much hotter. But regardless, it would still be magical fire, which means it is pretty easy to extinguish. Vecna can cast Prestidigitation.
Unicorns and Rakshasa are not obscure monsters. There's nothing we can do but disagree on that front. And I was scratching the surface when it came to monsters that can dispel / resist / interfere with magic anyway; I didn't even get to the humanoid statblocks like Abjurer for example.
"Heat things to flashpoint" I'm fine with. "Do so without magic" is where you lose me, and will continue to lose me, so agree to disagree it is yet again.
Vecna the Archlich can counterspell; I'm not sure what the Prestidigitation thing is in aid of.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
Why does your imagination hinge on something that's inherently unbalanced? Why can't you imagine something that fits with the design principles of this game?
If you refuse to, then as frustrating as it might be for you, "play something better suited to your goals" is indeed the answer.
How often do you run or play adventures with unicorns as serious enemies? And you are acting like a lack of resistance is some sort of instant loss. Rakshasa you have a better case regarding, but would a Psion really be that much better against one than a Paladin?
I did miss Vecna's counterspell, but if that is your issue, then, again, sorcerers. PLUS, it is hardly a difficult thing to give him a mind blank spell. And no, you do not have to formally edit your copy of the module to manage that as a DM.
Your bolded statement is saying you do not like the way they want to play, so they should have to play something else, despite not playing at any table you are playing at. That is clearly gatekeeping.
The 'design principles' are nowhere near so absolute.
Never mind. Whatever. I'll never be okay with "you don't deserve to play so shut up and leave", that will never be the answer, but there's nothing I can do to get you people to stop saying it.
So fine. Ban psi at your tables, like you already do. Campaign to ban psi from the books. Whatever floats your boats.
Enjoy.
No one is telling you whether or not you deserve to play the game, just that your ask as you have presented it is not a feasible feature to integrate into a hard RPG system such as D&D, and that there are alternative softer systems that could let you scratch this roleplay itch.
Simply stating it is not feasible to integrate does not make that so.
You know what you can do is prove us wrong. Create the class.
How old editions screwed up is not useful save as a "don't do this" guideline.
Then why in the name of Ilsensine are you trying to repeat their mistakes? Psionics not using / being opaque to Spellcasting is exactly such a "don't do this" guideline.
Because throughout all this I have drilled down to the primary, irreconcilable difference between psychic abilities and Spellcasting.
Psychic abilities have to be intuitive and natural. They need to feel like the character is flexing/making use of a natural extension of themselves, like the ability is intrinsically a part of them. Spellcasting is unacceptably, irreparably bad at this. Spellcasting - a spellcaster using a spell slot to cast a spell - gets one single big fancy concretely defined capital-E Effect, and that's it. The ability is so extrinsic to the character it is in fact sometimes painful. You're not flexibile a natural ability as a spellcaster, you're invoking a pattern that exists outside of yourself. You're not really using magic - you're summoning something else's magic to do a specific thing in a specific way in a specific place, and then the magic leaves.
This is utterly anathema to psychic abilities, and the two ideals cannot be reconciled. This is also why the sorcerer fails utterly - the sorcerer's "innate magic" is no more innate to the damned sorcerer than their pointy hat or the horse they rode in on. Their magic is as utterly separate from them as any other spellcaster's, and it's why they fundamentally fail as a class. If a proposed system cannot solve this? Then it fails as a psychic character/ability system.
Question: Would you consider the Warlock Invocation Mask of Many Faces to be a natural and intuitive type power? I'm just trying to calibrate what mechanically seems intuitive and natural here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
The rules in 5e are like a sponge; squishy, twistable and they can change their relative texture due to the environment they exist in.
That having been said they will never be a cybertruck because that is simply beyond the parameters of the reality that they exist in.
Hence why one of my ongoing refrains when people complain about how the rules are what they are I direct them to other systems that are more in line with what they have expressed an interest in; Aeon Trinity has both Cyberpunk and Psionics as parts of it's core aesthetics so I truly believed that giving this to her as a suggestion was in her best interest.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
With due respect, those are two separate issues. It is not about individual rules or exceptions, it’s about the conceptual framework the system is built on. D&D is designed around the idea that powers are discreet packaged and defined effects; a DM is free to redefine the effects or fiddle with the packaging of course, but if one class instead simply takes a statement like “you can move things with the power of your mind” and leaves it to the player and DM to determine what that actually means for play on a spur of the moment case by case basis then yes, you are breaking the game, insofar as you’re essentially creating an entire separate set of core rules and systems for certain players. I’m not saying there’s a law of the universe that makes such a thing fundamentally impossible- much like it’s not literally impossible that soccer could be reworked to allow laying hands on the ball- but you’re going to alienate the majority of people who like the system as it is, particularly if this is paradigm shift is only applied to a small segment of the game. No, D&D is not as rigid as those other examples you gave, but within the scope of TTRPGs rather than making comparisons that are tangential at best it is a very rigid system, and that rigidity is a deliberate feature. Introducing a single class that ignores this would massively warp table dynamics, and I sincerely doubt it would be for the better if everyone else is working off defined features while one person is working off the power of their imagination and a few rolls. You’d literally need to build a whole new system from the ground up to make this concept fit, at which point you’re hitting the other side of the Ship of Theseus question: how much can you remove functions and replace them with ones that operate differently before you’ve created a new product altogether. Thus, the recommendations that if one desires this system, they should look into the products that are specifically made to provide it rather than demand an apple tree give them peaches.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
The rules in 5e are like a sponge; squishy, twistable and they can change their relative texture due to the environment they exist in.
That having been said they will never be a cybertruck because that is simply beyond the parameters of the reality that they exist in.
Hence why one of my ongoing refrains when people complain about how the rules are what they are I direct them to other systems that are more in line with what they have expressed an interest in; Aeon Trinity has both Cyberpunk and Psionics as parts of it's core aesthetics so I truly believed that giving this to her as a suggestion was in her best interest.
Why, exactly? Where in the rules does it say that? So... the laser weapons and antimatter rifle in the DMG are really magical? Where, exactly, does it say this?
You are treating your own preferences and tolerances as some sort of mechanical limiters.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
The rules in 5e are like a sponge; squishy, twistable and they can change their relative texture due to the environment they exist in.
That having been said they will never be a cybertruck because that is simply beyond the parameters of the reality that they exist in.
Hence why one of my ongoing refrains when people complain about how the rules are what they are I direct them to other systems that are more in line with what they have expressed an interest in; Aeon Trinity has both Cyberpunk and Psionics as parts of it's core aesthetics so I truly believed that giving this to her as a suggestion was in her best interest.
Why, exactly? Where in the rules does it say that? So... the laser weapons and antimatter rifle in the DMG are really magical? Where, exactly, does it say this?
You are treating your own preferences and tolerances as some sort of mechanical limiters.
You are coming across as someone with Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
If it is as easy as you repeatedly tell us it is to create the class, then create it already.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
With due respect, those are two separate issues. It is not about individual rules or exceptions, it’s about the conceptual framework the system is built on. D&D is designed around the idea that powers are discreet packaged and defined effects; a DM is free to redefine the effects or fiddle with the packaging of course, but if one class instead simply takes a statement like “you can move things with the power of your mind” and leaves it to the player and DM to determine what that actually means for play on a spur of the moment case by case basis then yes, you are breaking the game, insofar as you’re essentially creating an entire separate set of core rules and systems for certain players. I’m not saying there’s a law of the universe that makes such a thing fundamentally impossible- much like it’s not literally impossible that soccer could be reworked to allow laying hands on the ball- but you’re going to alienate the majority of people who like the system as it is, particularly if this is paradigm shift is only applied to a small segment of the game. No, D&D is not as rigid as those other examples you gave, but within the scope of TTRPGs rather than making comparisons that are tangential at best it is a very rigid system, and that rigidity is a deliberate feature. Introducing a single class that ignores this would massively warp table dynamics, and I sincerely doubt it would be for the better if everyone else is working off defined features while one person is working off the power of their imagination and a few rolls. You’d literally need to build a whole new system from the ground up to make this concept fit, at which point you’re hitting the other side of the Ship of Theseus question: how much can you remove functions and replace them with ones that operate differently before you’ve created a new product altogether. Thus, the recommendations that if one desires this system, they should look into the products that are specifically made to provide it rather than demand an apple tree give them peaches.
So now you seem back to insisting that since there is no finished product to discuss, discussions should never start that could lead to a finished product. Circular.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
With due respect, those are two separate issues. It is not about individual rules or exceptions, it’s about the conceptual framework the system is built on. D&D is designed around the idea that powers are discreet packaged and defined effects; a DM is free to redefine the effects or fiddle with the packaging of course, but if one class instead simply takes a statement like “you can move things with the power of your mind” and leaves it to the player and DM to determine what that actually means for play on a spur of the moment case by case basis then yes, you are breaking the game, insofar as you’re essentially creating an entire separate set of core rules and systems for certain players. I’m not saying there’s a law of the universe that makes such a thing fundamentally impossible- much like it’s not literally impossible that soccer could be reworked to allow laying hands on the ball- but you’re going to alienate the majority of people who like the system as it is, particularly if this is paradigm shift is only applied to a small segment of the game. No, D&D is not as rigid as those other examples you gave, but within the scope of TTRPGs rather than making comparisons that are tangential at best it is a very rigid system, and that rigidity is a deliberate feature. Introducing a single class that ignores this would massively warp table dynamics, and I sincerely doubt it would be for the better if everyone else is working off defined features while one person is working off the power of their imagination and a few rolls. You’d literally need to build a whole new system from the ground up to make this concept fit, at which point you’re hitting the other side of the Ship of Theseus question: how much can you remove functions and replace them with ones that operate differently before you’ve created a new product altogether. Thus, the recommendations that if one desires this system, they should look into the products that are specifically made to provide it rather than demand an apple tree give them peaches.
So now you seem back to insisting that since there is no finished product to discuss, discussions should never start that could lead to a finished product. Circular.
No, I’m saying that a discussion that involves introducing a class that interacts with the core system in such a fundamentally different way is a non-starter.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
With due respect, those are two separate issues. It is not about individual rules or exceptions, it’s about the conceptual framework the system is built on. D&D is designed around the idea that powers are discreet packaged and defined effects; a DM is free to redefine the effects or fiddle with the packaging of course, but if one class instead simply takes a statement like “you can move things with the power of your mind” and leaves it to the player and DM to determine what that actually means for play on a spur of the moment case by case basis then yes, you are breaking the game, insofar as you’re essentially creating an entire separate set of core rules and systems for certain players. I’m not saying there’s a law of the universe that makes such a thing fundamentally impossible- much like it’s not literally impossible that soccer could be reworked to allow laying hands on the ball- but you’re going to alienate the majority of people who like the system as it is, particularly if this is paradigm shift is only applied to a small segment of the game. No, D&D is not as rigid as those other examples you gave, but within the scope of TTRPGs rather than making comparisons that are tangential at best it is a very rigid system, and that rigidity is a deliberate feature. Introducing a single class that ignores this would massively warp table dynamics, and I sincerely doubt it would be for the better if everyone else is working off defined features while one person is working off the power of their imagination and a few rolls. You’d literally need to build a whole new system from the ground up to make this concept fit, at which point you’re hitting the other side of the Ship of Theseus question: how much can you remove functions and replace them with ones that operate differently before you’ve created a new product altogether. Thus, the recommendations that if one desires this system, they should look into the products that are specifically made to provide it rather than demand an apple tree give them peaches.
So now you seem back to insisting that since there is no finished product to discuss, discussions should never start that could lead to a finished product. Circular.
Who said the discussion should never start? Clearly, the discussion started forty-nine pages ago. Those on my side have given you multiple reasons why what you want can't be done. Yet, you insist that it can. The only place to go from here is to have you prove us wrong. The only way to do that is for you to build the damned class already.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
The rules in 5e are like a sponge; squishy, twistable and they can change their relative texture due to the environment they exist in.
That having been said they will never be a cybertruck because that is simply beyond the parameters of the reality that they exist in.
Hence why one of my ongoing refrains when people complain about how the rules are what they are I direct them to other systems that are more in line with what they have expressed an interest in; Aeon Trinity has both Cyberpunk and Psionics as parts of it's core aesthetics so I truly believed that giving this to her as a suggestion was in her best interest.
Why, exactly? Where in the rules does it say that? So... the laser weapons and antimatter rifle in the DMG are really magical? Where, exactly, does it say this?
You are treating your own preferences and tolerances as some sort of mechanical limiters.
The point is not whether not they are magical, the point is that they do not fundamentally change how someone makes a weapon attack or receives damage from that attack. When you hit the BBEG with one, you don’t then say “because I hit them in the chest, they’re now going to die in several days because I tore up and cauterized their intestines”. They’re hit, they take the appropriate damage as with any weapon, and the game moves on.
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
The rules in 5e are like a sponge; squishy, twistable and they can change their relative texture due to the environment they exist in.
That having been said they will never be a cybertruck because that is simply beyond the parameters of the reality that they exist in.
Hence why one of my ongoing refrains when people complain about how the rules are what they are I direct them to other systems that are more in line with what they have expressed an interest in; Aeon Trinity has both Cyberpunk and Psionics as parts of it's core aesthetics so I truly believed that giving this to her as a suggestion was in her best interest.
Why, exactly? Where in the rules does it say that? So... the laser weapons and antimatter rifle in the DMG are really magical? Where, exactly, does it say this?
You are treating your own preferences and tolerances as some sort of mechanical limiters.
The issue is that the fundamental underlying mechanics of D&D don't work the way that Yurei and others have inferred they want them to and there are other, better systems for this.
Out of curiousity, have you played other Pen and paper RPGs? Ones that didn't utilize the D20 system?
And now we're back to the same dismissive scornful bullshit we always wind up at. "Go away." "Play something else." "Leave the table." Every variation of 'you don't deserve a seat here' one can come up with.
Whatever happened to "in D&D you can attempt anything you can imagine", hm?
When you’re upset because you can’t touch the ball with your hands, you don’t insist they need to change the rules of soccer, you go play basketball instead.
With due respect, in that statement, you are essentially saying that the rule that DM's can homebrew somehow breaks the game. This is not soccer. This is not chess. The rules are much more complex and not actually so rigid.
With due respect, those are two separate issues. It is not about individual rules or exceptions, it’s about the conceptual framework the system is built on. D&D is designed around the idea that powers are discreet packaged and defined effects; a DM is free to redefine the effects or fiddle with the packaging of course, but if one class instead simply takes a statement like “you can move things with the power of your mind” and leaves it to the player and DM to determine what that actually means for play on a spur of the moment case by case basis then yes, you are breaking the game, insofar as you’re essentially creating an entire separate set of core rules and systems for certain players. I’m not saying there’s a law of the universe that makes such a thing fundamentally impossible- much like it’s not literally impossible that soccer could be reworked to allow laying hands on the ball- but you’re going to alienate the majority of people who like the system as it is, particularly if this is paradigm shift is only applied to a small segment of the game. No, D&D is not as rigid as those other examples you gave, but within the scope of TTRPGs rather than making comparisons that are tangential at best it is a very rigid system, and that rigidity is a deliberate feature. Introducing a single class that ignores this would massively warp table dynamics, and I sincerely doubt it would be for the better if everyone else is working off defined features while one person is working off the power of their imagination and a few rolls. You’d literally need to build a whole new system from the ground up to make this concept fit, at which point you’re hitting the other side of the Ship of Theseus question: how much can you remove functions and replace them with ones that operate differently before you’ve created a new product altogether. Thus, the recommendations that if one desires this system, they should look into the products that are specifically made to provide it rather than demand an apple tree give them peaches.
So now you seem back to insisting that since there is no finished product to discuss, discussions should never start that could lead to a finished product. Circular.
Who said the discussion should never start? Clearly, the discussion started forty-nine pages ago. Those on my side have given you multiple reasons why what you want can't be done. Yet, you insist that it can. The only place to go from here is to have you prove us wrong. The only way to do that is for you to build the damned class already.
I would argue that if he could cite a framework using the game's mechanics that would be a good start for this; something that could work as a proof of concept as opposed to just arguing that we're just closed minded.
I would argue that if he could cite a framework using the game's mechanics that would be a good start for this; something that could work as a proof of concept as opposed to just arguing that we're just closed minded.
The player says 'My character is using this ability,' which names an ability their character has, and the effects of that ability are adjudicated by the DM, possibly (but not always, depending on the ability) involving a die roll on the part of the player, sometimes on the part of the DM, sometimes even on both their parts.
This "But it has to be magical" is simply not true, or else no one could so much as bap anyone or anything with a stick unless the stick was magical. It would not be possible to burn anyone with a non-magical torch.
There are spells that magically do the equivalent of bapping someone with a stick or burning them with fire. Such spells neither break non-magical methods, nor are mundane methods broken by the existence of such spells.
Everything else is just a question of scale, to be balanced. What limits on how often someone can be bapped or otherwise effected, are details to be worked out. Your objections are aesthetic ones, not limits to what mechanics work within the system.
Your bolded statement is saying you do not like the way they want to play, so they should have to play something else, despite not playing at any table you are playing at. That is clearly gatekeeping.
They can play whatever they want and so can you. That is why homebrew exists.
I would argue that if he could cite a framework using the game's mechanics that would be a good start for this; something that could work as a proof of concept as opposed to just arguing that we're just closed minded.
The player says 'My character is using this ability,' which names an ability their character has, and the effects of that ability are adjudicated by the DM, possibly (but not always, depending on the ability) involving a die roll on the part of the player, sometimes on the part of the DM, sometimes even on both their parts.
This "But it has to be magical" is simply not true, or else no one could so much as bap anyone or anything with a stick unless the stick was magical. It would not be possible to burn anyone with a non-magical torch.
There are spells that magically do the equivalent of bapping someone with a stick or burning them with fire. Such spells neither break non-magical methods, nor are mundane methods broken by the existence of such spells.
Everything else is just a question of scale, to be balanced. What limits on how often someone can be bapped or otherwise effected, are details to be worked out. Your objections are aesthetic ones, not limits to what mechanics work within the system.
So, build the class, already. You keep telling us how easy it would be to create. But, your actual actions aren't backing up your words. Like I said, you're coming across as if you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Out of curiousity, have you played other Pen and paper RPGs? Ones that didn't utilize the D20 system?
I have played rather a lot of other PnPRPGs. Non-D20 games I have played include GURPS (3d6 based), Middle Earth Roleplaying, Rolemaster, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu (all percentile based), Champions (many d6 based), as well as rather a lot of others. I don't even remember what dice were used for Ace of Aces or Aftermath or Twilight 2000 or Cyberpunk or Shadowrun or any of the White Wolf games... Cannot remember what dice were used for Tunnels and Trolls or for Bunnies and Burrows. I think The Fantasy Trip was 2d6 based, but I would not swear to that. Cannot remember what dice for Paranoia!.... Top Secret was percentile, as I recall.
Never have actually played any of the Palladium RPGs... a regret of mine, actually.
Probably at least a dozen more I am forgetting, but also other d20 games (including all versions of D&D/AD&D right from the White Box on).
Out of curiousity, have you played other Pen and paper RPGs? Ones that didn't utilize the D20 system?
I have played rather a lot of other PnPRPGs. Non-D20 games I have played include GURPS (3d6 based), Middle Earth Roleplaying, Rolemaster, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu (all percentile based), Champions (many d6 based), as well as rather a lot of others. I don't even remember what dice were used for Ace of Aces or Aftermath or Twilight 2000 or Cyberpunk or Shadowrun or any of the White Wolf games... Cannot remember what dice were used for Tunnels and Trolls or for Bunnies and Burrows. I think The Fantasy Trip was 2d6 based, but I would not swear to that. Cannot remember what dice for Paranoia!.... Top Secret was percentile, as I recall.
Never have actually played any of the Palladium RPGs... a regret of mine, actually.
Probably at least a dozen more I am forgetting, but also other d20 games (including all versions of D&D/AD&D right from the White Box on).
Thank you for posting this.
Now, with that having been said: are you sure that one of the other systems that you listed that moved away from the D&D model of dice mechanics wouldn't make for a better fit for a player who wants to play around with psionics?
Simply stating it is not feasible to integrate does not make that so.
How often do you run or play adventures with unicorns as serious enemies? And you are acting like a lack of resistance is some sort of instant loss. Rakshasa you have a better case regarding, but would a Psion really be that much better against one than a Paladin?
I did miss Vecna's counterspell, but if that is your issue, then, again, sorcerers. PLUS, it is hardly a difficult thing to give him a mind blank spell. And no, you do not have to formally edit your copy of the module to manage that as a DM.
Your bolded statement is saying you do not like the way they want to play, so they should have to play something else, despite not playing at any table you are playing at. That is clearly gatekeeping.
The 'design principles' are nowhere near so absolute.
Neither does stating that it is.
You know what you can do is prove us wrong. Create the class.
Question: Would you consider the Warlock Invocation Mask of Many Faces to be a natural and intuitive type power? I'm just trying to calibrate what mechanically seems intuitive and natural here.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The rules in 5e are like a sponge; squishy, twistable and they can change their relative texture due to the environment they exist in.
That having been said they will never be a cybertruck because that is simply beyond the parameters of the reality that they exist in.
Hence why one of my ongoing refrains when people complain about how the rules are what they are I direct them to other systems that are more in line with what they have expressed an interest in; Aeon Trinity has both Cyberpunk and Psionics as parts of it's core aesthetics so I truly believed that giving this to her as a suggestion was in her best interest.
With due respect, those are two separate issues. It is not about individual rules or exceptions, it’s about the conceptual framework the system is built on. D&D is designed around the idea that powers are discreet packaged and defined effects; a DM is free to redefine the effects or fiddle with the packaging of course, but if one class instead simply takes a statement like “you can move things with the power of your mind” and leaves it to the player and DM to determine what that actually means for play on a spur of the moment case by case basis then yes, you are breaking the game, insofar as you’re essentially creating an entire separate set of core rules and systems for certain players. I’m not saying there’s a law of the universe that makes such a thing fundamentally impossible- much like it’s not literally impossible that soccer could be reworked to allow laying hands on the ball- but you’re going to alienate the majority of people who like the system as it is, particularly if this is paradigm shift is only applied to a small segment of the game. No, D&D is not as rigid as those other examples you gave, but within the scope of TTRPGs rather than making comparisons that are tangential at best it is a very rigid system, and that rigidity is a deliberate feature. Introducing a single class that ignores this would massively warp table dynamics, and I sincerely doubt it would be for the better if everyone else is working off defined features while one person is working off the power of their imagination and a few rolls. You’d literally need to build a whole new system from the ground up to make this concept fit, at which point you’re hitting the other side of the Ship of Theseus question: how much can you remove functions and replace them with ones that operate differently before you’ve created a new product altogether. Thus, the recommendations that if one desires this system, they should look into the products that are specifically made to provide it rather than demand an apple tree give them peaches.
Why, exactly? Where in the rules does it say that? So... the laser weapons and antimatter rifle in the DMG are really magical? Where, exactly, does it say this?
You are treating your own preferences and tolerances as some sort of mechanical limiters.
You are coming across as someone with Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
If it is as easy as you repeatedly tell us it is to create the class, then create it already.
So now you seem back to insisting that since there is no finished product to discuss, discussions should never start that could lead to a finished product. Circular.
No, I’m saying that a discussion that involves introducing a class that interacts with the core system in such a fundamentally different way is a non-starter.
Who said the discussion should never start? Clearly, the discussion started forty-nine pages ago. Those on my side have given you multiple reasons why what you want can't be done. Yet, you insist that it can. The only place to go from here is to have you prove us wrong. The only way to do that is for you to build the damned class already.
The point is not whether not they are magical, the point is that they do not fundamentally change how someone makes a weapon attack or receives damage from that attack. When you hit the BBEG with one, you don’t then say “because I hit them in the chest, they’re now going to die in several days because I tore up and cauterized their intestines”. They’re hit, they take the appropriate damage as with any weapon, and the game moves on.
The issue is that the fundamental underlying mechanics of D&D don't work the way that Yurei and others have inferred they want them to and there are other, better systems for this.
Out of curiousity, have you played other Pen and paper RPGs? Ones that didn't utilize the D20 system?
I would argue that if he could cite a framework using the game's mechanics that would be a good start for this; something that could work as a proof of concept as opposed to just arguing that we're just closed minded.
The player says 'My character is using this ability,' which names an ability their character has, and the effects of that ability are adjudicated by the DM, possibly (but not always, depending on the ability) involving a die roll on the part of the player, sometimes on the part of the DM, sometimes even on both their parts.
This "But it has to be magical" is simply not true, or else no one could so much as bap anyone or anything with a stick unless the stick was magical. It would not be possible to burn anyone with a non-magical torch.
There are spells that magically do the equivalent of bapping someone with a stick or burning them with fire. Such spells neither break non-magical methods, nor are mundane methods broken by the existence of such spells.
Everything else is just a question of scale, to be balanced. What limits on how often someone can be bapped or otherwise effected, are details to be worked out. Your objections are aesthetic ones, not limits to what mechanics work within the system.
The goalpost you're attempting to move was "obscure" - not how "serious" (whatever that even means) they are.
They can play whatever they want and so can you. That is why homebrew exists.
So, build the class, already. You keep telling us how easy it would be to create. But, your actual actions aren't backing up your words. Like I said, you're coming across as if you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I have played rather a lot of other PnPRPGs. Non-D20 games I have played include GURPS (3d6 based), Middle Earth Roleplaying, Rolemaster, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu (all percentile based), Champions (many d6 based), as well as rather a lot of others. I don't even remember what dice were used for Ace of Aces or Aftermath or Twilight 2000 or Cyberpunk or Shadowrun or any of the White Wolf games... Cannot remember what dice were used for Tunnels and Trolls or for Bunnies and Burrows. I think The Fantasy Trip was 2d6 based, but I would not swear to that. Cannot remember what dice for Paranoia!.... Top Secret was percentile, as I recall.
Never have actually played any of the Palladium RPGs... a regret of mine, actually.
Probably at least a dozen more I am forgetting, but also other d20 games (including all versions of D&D/AD&D right from the White Box on).
Thank you for posting this.
Now, with that having been said: are you sure that one of the other systems that you listed that moved away from the D&D model of dice mechanics wouldn't make for a better fit for a player who wants to play around with psionics?