That sucks too because PHB+1 is probably the most restrictive and unfun thing about Adventurers League.
It's a weird rule for 5E, too. It would have made sense in 3rd edition when there were about a million and a half splatbooks, but given that 5E only has about ten books with player character content it's overkill.
well its apparently not becuase of unintended combinations, like i have always thought, but rather just to make looking shit up easier
"[text describing the phb +1 rule]. This restriction enshures that players don't need to own a lot of books to make a character and makes it easier for DM's to know how all the characters in the campaign work. Since DM's in a shared campaign must deal with a broad range of characters, rather than the same characters each week, it can be difficult to track all the interactions and abillities possible through mixing all the options freely"
To illustrate what they mean, imagine in the future that the blood hunter, roughly as it is on dnd beyond currently, releases in some future rules supplement, and i (being a nasty trickster) make an wonderfully edgy 7th level blood hunter of the profane soul (fiend) who is predictably an tiefling of the zariel bloodline with the flames of pheletegros racial feat. I could then use their Pact Magic to cast green flame blade, which would activate the flame aura of the flames of pheletegros feat so that creatures who attack me take 1d4 fire damage, and then since i cast an cantrip i could use the 7th level mystic frenzy feature to make an melee attack as an bonus action. If you wanted to verify any of those details such as if the green flame needs a second spell attack to hit a second target, if the retributive fire damage needs an reaction, if i can take the bonus action before casting, etc we would have three sepperate sourcebooks to consult, the scag (or nowadays TCoA), XGtE, as well as the blood hunter supplement, oh yeah and i forgot to mention how i get to reroll 1's on spells that deal fire damage, like this is by no means an broken character but it has plenty of moving parts despite being an single classed character, and you would need to consult multiple sourcebooks constantly to double check what each thing does and for the DM to get an overview of what this character is all about, which i assume is key in an AL game (no idea, not played in AL yet)
compared this to the much less nasty moon druid 6/ totem warrior barbarian 5, whose gimmic is turning into a rhino and then combining charge with multiattack and his nimble escape. Most of his features come from the player's handbook, but his race is in volo's guide. This means that just making shure you remember / know how a feature works is much easier and nasty little me will not come to the table with an backpack full of books i have to spread out across the table and constantly juggle between but rather just two books, one of which will probably be in the hands of every other player at the table as well, its quicker and easier to look stuff upp and it will probably improve the enjoyment of people who need now suffer less of my nasty tricks
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Well, you DID make it well-known that you'd not allow players at your table to play a concept they enjoy because you don't personally like it.
Doesn't get more selfish than that.
A DM can ban anything he wants at his table, this isn’t new. A player *demanding* his DM to allow him to play something that the DM is not comfortable with is actually selfish. This isn’t some democracy where players get to force the DM to make changes because they aren’t having fun otherwise - the real-world way you work this out is just not play together. It’s simple.
You and Sposta make some really great points (although Sposta is being SUPER inflexible for no good reason, and comes across as VERY self-centered).
[sic]
I think where you guys might be getting hung up is on flavor and theme. What I allow at my table is for players to describe their spells, class features, etc. any way they like as long as they don't alter mechanics. On page 4 of this thread I gave suggestions for how to build perfectly viable psionic concepts using just what's in the PHB. If you're willing to not get hung up in the linguistics of the flavor text as written, you can reskin ANY of the spells, feats, or class features to make them fit your concept.
I don’t want to “reskin Spellcasting as Psionics.” I want an entirely different system for Psionics. I am entirely inflexible on that point. So if I come across as inflexible that would be why.
As to my being self-centered, you’re entitled to your opinion. (But personally attacking me by calling me names makes you come across as something I won’t type in polite company.)
Well, you DID make it well-known that you'd not allow players at your table to play a concept they enjoy because you don't personally like it.
Doesn't get more selfish than that.
As DM, I can ban any damned thing I like for any reason. I have also banned Wild Magic as it does not fit my campaign setting, Aberrant Mind because I know some of my players would be inappropriate with their tentacles, and certain races because they simply do not exist on my world. As DM, I have to do 10X as much work as the other 7 players combined. If I would not enjoy the work because of a subclass or race ruining the world I have spent the past 28&1/2 years (give it take) building, then I’d rather not effing do it at all. So no, it’s not selfish.
The players only have to show up at my house for a few hours every two weeks, eat food that I bought and cooked, drink beverages that I have purchased, and play in a world I have been crafting for almost 3 decades. Meanwhile I provide food & drinks for 8 people, and spend all of my free time working on things for their campaign. A player wining about not being allowed to play 1 gorram character concept in 1 gorram campaign is selfish.
Especially when, out of the dozen or so players in our group, 4 of us are DMs. So they can play whatever the hell they want in one of the other DM’s worlds, but not mine.
You and Sposta make some really great points (although Sposta is being SUPER inflexible for no good reason, and comes across as VERY self-centered).
But what I think might be missing is that the changes to the way spell slots function in 5e already function much like psi points from previous systems. On top of that, certain classes (Monks and Sorcerers) already have additional point systems on top of what we have that work in much the same way. So, in some sense, we kind of already have psi points baked into the system. And don't forget Warlocks; with their spell slots being renewed on a short rest, they kind of function more like a psi point from earlier editions than they do a spell slot, in the conventional sense.
And - on top of that - cantrips play a much bigger part in 5e than they ever have. With cantrips, you literally have bread and butter powers that you can use at will.
I think where you guys might be getting hung up is on flavor and theme. What I allow at my table is for players to describe their spells, class features, etc. any way they like as long as they don't alter mechanics. On page 4 of this thread I gave suggestions for how to build perfectly viable psionic concepts using just what's in the PHB. If you're willing to not get hung up in the linguistics of the flavor text as written, you can reskin ANY of the spells, feats, or class features to make them fit your concept.
That - in my opinion - is the hidden genius of 5e.
Ironically, you've hit on something I was just thinking about myself, on my afternoon walkabout break. Getting the feet moving really does stir the brain to better functionality.
This book, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything Soup, has people enormously excited for a plethora of new mechanical options. Xanathar's Guide to Everything is heralded as one of the best D&D books ever printed, despite honestly being a scattered mess of unrelated nonsense, simply because it shoved a ton of new ideas and mechanical crunch out into the wild. People go wild for new UA the moment it's released; the CFVs UA document and DDB's inability to implement all that lovely new mechanical crunch has been one of the biggest points of contention in the service's history.
And yet? Whenever folks like Sposta or myself ask for some way to differentiate psionics from magic - for some mechanical crunch to back up the fluff - we're told that The Infinite Power of ReFlAvOrInG(C) is all we need to turn any old wizard or sorcerer into a Master Mentalist. That so long as we truly believe - and squint hard enough, and agree not to question why our 'Master Mentalist' needs to scream magic words, wave his arms like a seizure patient, and carry twenty pounds of magical reagents (i.e. provide spell components) to use their "innate psychic abilities" - we can absolutely play any psychic character we could possibly imagine.
Does that not strike anyone else as strange? That people can be so hyped and excited for new subclasses, new spells, an entirely new set of character generation rules in the Lineage system and an entirely new set of character progression rules in Variant Class Features, and yet be so overwhelmingly hostile towards this one thing simply because a game system north of thirty years old which handled everything poorly by modern standards also happened to handle this one specific thing poorly?
We're getting psionic subclasses in Tasha's Soup Pot of Alla'it, which means Wizards has made a decision on how psychic abilities will be handled Until The End of 5e. No more debate, no more UA. They've reached a decision, that decision is final, and both Sposta and myself are pretty certain it's a decision only people who don't like psychic characters are going to appreciate. We are, perhaps, entitled to a certain measure of regret over that loss? Especially as it means the final death of any and all "Master Mentalist" characters we may have ever elected to play?
Back on topic though - I’m with @iamsposta - if Psionics are reskinned spells, I’m not doing it at my table either. It’s just weird and doesn’t fit in the game world neatly at all.
I think you responded to the wrong post Kotath. Yurei is the one getting specific about components and such. I don’t mind kiais and wrote gestures for Psionicists. For me, it’s simpler than all that. Is it on this list?
I think you responded to the wrong post Kotath. Yurei is the one getting specific about components and such. I don’t mind kiais and wrote gestures for Psionicists. For me, it’s simpler than all that. Is it on this list?
I am more than a little curious about how the CFVs will have changed from UA to finished product. I hope not too much. It would be a shame if some of my best ideas got dunked before I even played them because it will most likely take DDB longer to roll out CFVs than it will for the books to get delivered.
I think you responded to the wrong post Kotath. Yurei is the one getting specific about components and such. I don’t mind kiais and wrote gestures for Psionicists. For me, it’s simpler than all that. Is it on this list?
Then it’s Spellcasting. And PSIONICS =/= SPELLCASTING
Or: if you can counterspell or dispell it, it is not psionics....
I wouldn’t even mind it terribly if Magic and Psionics interacted for game balance reasons. I honestly don’t mind Psionics being a form of “magic” per se, it’s their being represented by Spellcasting specifically that I object to.
An interesting point arose in the artificer forums, with the so-called "tweaking" of the artificer as well as its general new-ness. Mainly: are there going to be CFVs for the artificer as well, which will go entirely untested due to the timing of the book and DDB's total inability to model CFVs, or is the artificer stuck as-is? I'm pretty sure the "tweaking" is going to amount to nothing more than culling any mention of Eberron or Eberron-specific ideas from the class, but I am rather curious how CFVs and artificers will interact, if at all.
An interesting point arose in the artificer forums, with the so-called "tweaking" of the artificer as well as its general new-ness. Mainly: are there going to be CFVs for the artificer as well, which will go entirely untested due to the timing of the book and DDB's total inability to model CFVs, or is the artificer stuck as-is? I'm pretty sure the "tweaking" is going to amount to nothing more than culling any mention of Eberron or Eberron-specific ideas from the class, but I am rather curious how CFVs and artificers will interact, if at all.
Maybe adding a few spells (either new ones from Tasha's, or old ones that make thematic sense) to the spell list? A list of new infusions? Dare we hope for a replacement for the Alchemist's Wild Magic potions?
An interesting point arose in the artificer forums, with the so-called "tweaking" of the artificer as well as its general new-ness. Mainly: are there going to be CFVs for the artificer as well, which will go entirely untested due to the timing of the book and DDB's total inability to model CFVs, or is the artificer stuck as-is? I'm pretty sure the "tweaking" is going to amount to nothing more than culling any mention of Eberron or Eberron-specific ideas from the class, but I am rather curious how CFVs and artificers will interact, if at all.
Yeah, that's what I think too. The tweaking will be in the eberron flavor text, but I do hope they do some class feature variants for the Artificer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Maybe adding a few spells (either new ones from Tasha's, or old ones that make thematic sense) to the spell list? A list of new infusions? Dare we hope for a replacement for the Alchemist's Wild Magic potions?
I mean, ifthey are doing some CFV for the artificer, they could do an alchemical homunculus as a variant of the alchemists' potions. I'm relatively sure that they will have some new spells on the artificer's spell list, but I don't know how many. The artificer does have a few named spells (bigby's hand, mordenkainen's faithful hound), so maybe some more will be added.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
An interesting point arose in the artificer forums, with the so-called "tweaking" of the artificer as well as its general new-ness. Mainly: are there going to be CFVs for the artificer as well, which will go entirely untested due to the timing of the book and DDB's total inability to model CFVs, or is the artificer stuck as-is? I'm pretty sure the "tweaking" is going to amount to nothing more than culling any mention of Eberron or Eberron-specific ideas from the class, but I am rather curious how CFVs and artificers will interact, if at all.
I've thought of that as well, and I really doubt they'd create a weird asymmetry whereby every class except for artificer gets feature variants. I'd be more skeptical if they weren't re-printing the artificer, but the fact that they are is clearly an attempt to bring it more into the "core rules" than it is when it's just in a setting book. What I kind of expect (this is based on absolutely nothing) is that the feature variants will be in their own section. I.e., the artificer reprint will be as you say: just the artificer, and any "tweaks" will be to make it more setting-agnostic. But there will be artificer feature variants/enhancements in the feature variants/enhancements section.
I think you responded to the wrong post Kotath. Yurei is the one getting specific about components and such. I don’t mind kiais and wrote gestures for Psionicists. For me, it’s simpler than all that. Is it on this list?
Then it’s Spellcasting. And PSIONICS =/= SPELLCASTING
Or: if you can counterspell or dispell it, it is not psionics....
I wouldn’t even mind it terribly if Magic and Psionics interacted for game balance reasons. I honestly don’t mind Psionics being a form of “magic” per se, it’s their being represented by Spellcasting specifically that I object to.
So, if a Psion class was released, and the main feature of it was titled Psionic Magic (like Pact Magic) and they still used Spell Slots for their effects, but they removed (or heavily minimized) the components nature of casting, would you be ok with that?
Not trying to be hostile at all. Just curious if a middle ground does exist. I for one hate the idea of Psionics getting the benefits of magic (the big flashy magical effects) without drawbacks (Counterspell/Antimagic zones). If they made a Psionic class that was like the Artificer, for example, that used a form of magic to replicate Psionics mechanically, I would be fine with a full class. My concern is about the balance more than anything.
One of my players is a die hard Psionics fan and wants a full class. I even worked on a homebrew class for them that basically took the Warlock, turned it into an Int caster, and instead of invocations, they got to pick modifications/enhancements to their main “spell” based on their subclass (Mage Hand for Telekinetic, Message for Telepath, and so on). Would that work for you as a middle ground?
Any thoughts on possible spells added to the artificer list from the UA or in the CFV section? Dragon's breath and Tenser's floating disk are the ones that come to mind at first.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Gawd, I would kill someone's grandma to get the Alchemical Homunculus back over the godawful Wild Chemistry nonsense. It still wouldn't make the Alchemist playable compared to the other three, but taking the Alchemist might stop being strictly worse than taking no subclass at all.
Gawd, I would kill someone's grandma to get the Alchemical Homunculus back over the godawful Wild Chemistry nonsense. It still wouldn't make the Alchemist playable compared to the other three, but taking the Alchemist might stop being strictly worse than taking no subclass at all.
I feel the same way. If they're "fixing" the Beast Master, they might as well help out the Alchemist a bit, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think you responded to the wrong post Kotath. Yurei is the one getting specific about components and such. I don’t mind kiais and wrote gestures for Psionicists. For me, it’s simpler than all that. Is it on this list?
Then it’s Spellcasting. And PSIONICS =/= SPELLCASTING
Or: if you can counterspell or dispell it, it is not psionics....
I wouldn’t even mind it terribly if Magic and Psionics interacted for game balance reasons. I honestly don’t mind Psionics being a form of “magic” per se, it’s their being represented by Spellcasting specifically that I object to.
So, if a Psion class was released, and the main feature of it was titled Psionic Magic (like Pact Magic) and they still used Spell Slots for their effects, but they removed (or heavily minimized) the components nature of casting, would you be ok with that?
Just curious what two books Jeremy Crawford was meaning when he said "To rectify that, we’ve not only made changes to Curse of Strahd, but in two upcoming books, we will also show — working with a Romani consultant — the Vistani in a way that doesn’t rely on reductive tropes,”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Let the Mists surround you...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
well its apparently not becuase of unintended combinations, like i have always thought, but rather just to make looking shit up easier
"[text describing the phb +1 rule]. This restriction enshures that players don't need to own a lot of books to make a character and makes it easier for DM's to know how all the characters in the campaign work. Since DM's in a shared campaign must deal with a broad range of characters, rather than the same characters each week, it can be difficult to track all the interactions and abillities possible through mixing all the options freely"
To illustrate what they mean, imagine in the future that the blood hunter, roughly as it is on dnd beyond currently, releases in some future rules supplement, and i (being a nasty trickster) make an wonderfully edgy 7th level blood hunter of the profane soul (fiend) who is predictably an tiefling of the zariel bloodline with the flames of pheletegros racial feat. I could then use their Pact Magic to cast green flame blade, which would activate the flame aura of the flames of pheletegros feat so that creatures who attack me take 1d4 fire damage, and then since i cast an cantrip i could use the 7th level mystic frenzy feature to make an melee attack as an bonus action. If you wanted to verify any of those details such as if the green flame needs a second spell attack to hit a second target, if the retributive fire damage needs an reaction, if i can take the bonus action before casting, etc we would have three sepperate sourcebooks to consult, the scag (or nowadays TCoA), XGtE, as well as the blood hunter supplement, oh yeah and i forgot to mention how i get to reroll 1's on spells that deal fire damage, like this is by no means an broken character but it has plenty of moving parts despite being an single classed character, and you would need to consult multiple sourcebooks constantly to double check what each thing does and for the DM to get an overview of what this character is all about, which i assume is key in an AL game (no idea, not played in AL yet)
compared this to the much less nasty moon druid 6/ totem warrior barbarian 5, whose gimmic is turning into a rhino and then combining charge with multiattack and his nimble escape. Most of his features come from the player's handbook, but his race is in volo's guide. This means that just making shure you remember / know how a feature works is much easier and nasty little me will not come to the table with an backpack full of books i have to spread out across the table and constantly juggle between but rather just two books, one of which will probably be in the hands of every other player at the table as well, its quicker and easier to look stuff upp and it will probably improve the enjoyment of people who need now suffer less of my nasty tricks
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
A DM can ban anything he wants at his table, this isn’t new. A player *demanding* his DM to allow him to play something that the DM is not comfortable with is actually selfish. This isn’t some democracy where players get to force the DM to make changes because they aren’t having fun otherwise - the real-world way you work this out is just not play together. It’s simple.
also, bear hugs are banned at my table. 😂
As DM, I can ban any damned thing I like for any reason. I have also banned Wild Magic as it does not fit my campaign setting, Aberrant Mind because I know some of my players would be inappropriate with their tentacles, and certain races because they simply do not exist on my world. As DM, I have to do 10X as much work as the other 7 players combined. If I would not enjoy the work because of a subclass or race ruining the world I have spent the past 28&1/2 years (give it take) building, then I’d rather not effing do it at all. So no, it’s not selfish.
The players only have to show up at my house for a few hours every two weeks, eat food that I bought and cooked, drink beverages that I have purchased, and play in a world I have been crafting for almost 3 decades. Meanwhile I provide food & drinks for 8 people, and spend all of my free time working on things for their campaign. A player wining about not being allowed to play 1 gorram character concept in 1 gorram campaign is selfish.
Especially when, out of the dozen or so players in our group, 4 of us are DMs. So they can play whatever the hell they want in one of the other DM’s worlds, but not mine.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ironically, you've hit on something I was just thinking about myself, on my afternoon walkabout break. Getting the feet moving really does stir the brain to better functionality.
This book, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything Soup, has people enormously excited for a plethora of new mechanical options. Xanathar's Guide to Everything is heralded as one of the best D&D books ever printed, despite honestly being a scattered mess of unrelated nonsense, simply because it shoved a ton of new ideas and mechanical crunch out into the wild. People go wild for new UA the moment it's released; the CFVs UA document and DDB's inability to implement all that lovely new mechanical crunch has been one of the biggest points of contention in the service's history.
And yet? Whenever folks like Sposta or myself ask for some way to differentiate psionics from magic - for some mechanical crunch to back up the fluff - we're told that The Infinite Power of ReFlAvOrInG(C) is all we need to turn any old wizard or sorcerer into a Master Mentalist. That so long as we truly believe - and squint hard enough, and agree not to question why our 'Master Mentalist' needs to scream magic words, wave his arms like a seizure patient, and carry twenty pounds of magical reagents (i.e. provide spell components) to use their "innate psychic abilities" - we can absolutely play any psychic character we could possibly imagine.
Does that not strike anyone else as strange? That people can be so hyped and excited for new subclasses, new spells, an entirely new set of character generation rules in the Lineage system and an entirely new set of character progression rules in Variant Class Features, and yet be so overwhelmingly hostile towards this one thing simply because a game system north of thirty years old which handled everything poorly by modern standards also happened to handle this one specific thing poorly?
We're getting psionic subclasses in Tasha's Soup Pot of Alla'it, which means Wizards has made a decision on how psychic abilities will be handled Until The End of 5e. No more debate, no more UA. They've reached a decision, that decision is final, and both Sposta and myself are pretty certain it's a decision only people who don't like psychic characters are going to appreciate. We are, perhaps, entitled to a certain measure of regret over that loss? Especially as it means the final death of any and all "Master Mentalist" characters we may have ever elected to play?
Please do not contact or message me.
Back on topic though - I’m with @iamsposta - if Psionics are reskinned spells, I’m not doing it at my table either. It’s just weird and doesn’t fit in the game world neatly at all.
As I said previously, Psionics in 2e were NOT as complicated as people thought, people just never bothered to read the book. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/79185-tashas-cauldron-of-everything-and-d-d-celebration?comment=183
I hope the Psionic Die returns and the Psionic Feats return as well, or something similar. I adored new mechanics.
I think you responded to the wrong post Kotath. Yurei is the one getting specific about components and such. I don’t mind kiais and wrote gestures for Psionicists. For me, it’s simpler than all that. Is it on this list?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
Then it’s Spellcasting. And PSIONICS =/= SPELLCASTING
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Or: if you can counterspell or dispell it, it is not psionics....
I am more than a little curious about how the CFVs will have changed from UA to finished product. I hope not too much. It would be a shame if some of my best ideas got dunked before I even played them because it will most likely take DDB longer to roll out CFVs than it will for the books to get delivered.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I wouldn’t even mind it terribly if Magic and Psionics interacted for game balance reasons. I honestly don’t mind Psionics being a form of “magic” per se, it’s their being represented by Spellcasting specifically that I object to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Insofar as non-psychic discussion goes...
An interesting point arose in the artificer forums, with the so-called "tweaking" of the artificer as well as its general new-ness. Mainly: are there going to be CFVs for the artificer as well, which will go entirely untested due to the timing of the book and DDB's total inability to model CFVs, or is the artificer stuck as-is? I'm pretty sure the "tweaking" is going to amount to nothing more than culling any mention of Eberron or Eberron-specific ideas from the class, but I am rather curious how CFVs and artificers will interact, if at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
Maybe adding a few spells (either new ones from Tasha's, or old ones that make thematic sense) to the spell list? A list of new infusions? Dare we hope for a replacement for the Alchemist's Wild Magic potions?
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
Yeah, that's what I think too. The tweaking will be in the eberron flavor text, but I do hope they do some class feature variants for the Artificer.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean, if they are doing some CFV for the artificer, they could do an alchemical homunculus as a variant of the alchemists' potions. I'm relatively sure that they will have some new spells on the artificer's spell list, but I don't know how many. The artificer does have a few named spells (bigby's hand, mordenkainen's faithful hound), so maybe some more will be added.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've thought of that as well, and I really doubt they'd create a weird asymmetry whereby every class except for artificer gets feature variants. I'd be more skeptical if they weren't re-printing the artificer, but the fact that they are is clearly an attempt to bring it more into the "core rules" than it is when it's just in a setting book. What I kind of expect (this is based on absolutely nothing) is that the feature variants will be in their own section. I.e., the artificer reprint will be as you say: just the artificer, and any "tweaks" will be to make it more setting-agnostic. But there will be artificer feature variants/enhancements in the feature variants/enhancements section.
So, if a Psion class was released, and the main feature of it was titled Psionic Magic (like Pact Magic) and they still used Spell Slots for their effects, but they removed (or heavily minimized) the components nature of casting, would you be ok with that?
Not trying to be hostile at all. Just curious if a middle ground does exist. I for one hate the idea of Psionics getting the benefits of magic (the big flashy magical effects) without drawbacks (Counterspell/Antimagic zones). If they made a Psionic class that was like the Artificer, for example, that used a form of magic to replicate Psionics mechanically, I would be fine with a full class. My concern is about the balance more than anything.
One of my players is a die hard Psionics fan and wants a full class. I even worked on a homebrew class for them that basically took the Warlock, turned it into an Int caster, and instead of invocations, they got to pick modifications/enhancements to their main “spell” based on their subclass (Mage Hand for Telekinetic, Message for Telepath, and so on). Would that work for you as a middle ground?
Any thoughts on possible spells added to the artificer list from the UA or in the CFV section? Dragon's breath and Tenser's floating disk are the ones that come to mind at first.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Gawd, I would kill someone's grandma to get the Alchemical Homunculus back over the godawful Wild Chemistry nonsense. It still wouldn't make the Alchemist playable compared to the other three, but taking the Alchemist might stop being strictly worse than taking no subclass at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
I feel the same way. If they're "fixing" the Beast Master, they might as well help out the Alchemist a bit, too.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Is it on this list?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells
Then it’s Spellcasting.
And PSIONICS =/= SPELLCASTING
If any one of the words “spell,” “cast,” “casting,” or “caster” would apply then it is Spellcasting.
And PSIONICS =/= SPELLCASTING
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just curious what two books Jeremy Crawford was meaning when he said "To rectify that, we’ve not only made changes to Curse of Strahd, but in two upcoming books, we will also show — working with a Romani consultant — the Vistani in a way that doesn’t rely on reductive tropes,”
Let the Mists surround you...