There is a significant (if the split in those mentioned threads is indicative of the playerbase's general leanings) subsection of players who believe that psionic abilities should feel distinct and different from arcane spellcasting.
Honestly, I feel like we're talking about a very passionate, vocal minority here. One that, from their reaction to various suggested compromises in those past threads, is basically offended by anything less than the exact system they envision. And since many of them envision different things, trying to appease them is an impossible task. The one thing they can agree on is that it should be a completely new, specialized, independent system that has nothing to do with spellcasting - which unfortunately for them is antithetical to 5e's casual-friendly design principles.
It's time to embrace spells as a design element and not a specific arcane or divine ritual. We have frickin barbarians that can cast Clairvoyance. Those guys are no more spellcast-y than psionics need be, rather they have an ability that is represented as a spell because spells are nice packages of actions and effects that everyone is familiar with.
If you want a class that has telekinesis that is described as "you can do anything that telekinesis would allow you to do," that's just homebrew, man. That's where stuff like that belongs.
Neither do I, that’s why I’m polishing my Banhammer.
The thing is, at the end of the day this really only hurts you and prevents the players at your table from potentially playing something they could really enjoy, just cause you arw upset about it. Also, everyone really needs to stop truing to argue with IamSposta about this cause you are not gonna change their mind, and this is 1000% not the thread for another psionics argument please for the love of the gods stop.
There is a significant (if the split in those mentioned threads is indicative of the playerbase's general leanings) subsection of players who believe that psionic abilities should feel distinct and different from arcane spellcasting.
Honestly, I feel like we're talking about a very passionate, vocal minority here. One that, from their reaction to various suggested compromises in those past threads, is basically offended by anything less than the exact system they envision. And since many of them envision different things, trying to appease them is an impossible task. The one thing they can agree on is that it should be a completely new, specialized, independent system that has nothing to do with spellcasting - which unfortunately for them is antithetical to 5e's casual-friendly design principles.
It's time to embrace spells as a design element and not a specific arcane or divine ritual. We have frickin barbarians that can cast Clairvoyance. Those guys are no more spellcast-y than psionics need be, rather they have an ability that is represented as a spell because spells are nice packages of actions and effects that everyone is familiar with.
If you want a class that has telekinesis that is described as "you can do anything that telekinesis would allow you to do," that's just homebrew, man. That's where stuff like that belongs.
I would honestly be so down for an AD&D 5E that would address a lot of issues like this and could do so much more. Ive been looking into pathfinder2 for this exact reason but its hard to find a group that newb friendly lol
I would honestly be so down for an AD&D 5E that would address a lot of issues like this and could do so much more. Ive been looking into pathfinder2 for this exact reason but its hard to find a group that newb friendly lol
is it even correct to call it advanced dungeons and dragons still? wasint it like 1e last time they stopped using basic and advanced to differ between the rule systems?
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
I would honestly be so down for an AD&D 5E that would address a lot of issues like this and could do so much more. Ive been looking into pathfinder2 for this exact reason but its hard to find a group that newb friendly lol
is it even correct to call it advanced dungeons and dragons still? wasint it like 1e last time they stopped using basic and advanced to differ between the rule systems?
We could really call it whatever we want but i know they did AD&D at least twice
Both 1st and 2nd edition had Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. 3/3.5 Dropped it. I think anything with a more complex rule set than what we currently have could easily be called Advanced (and would be a nice throw back to older editions of the game.)
The issue is that your desire for "a simpler psionics system that plays nicely with the rest of the game" is directly and uncontestably contrary to my desire for "a psionics system that clearly, mechanically differentiates 'PSYCHIC' from 'MAGIC'". You're basically demanding that psionics be spellcasting with a purple filter over them because of war wounds from 2e. I'm demanding that psionics be mechanically distinct from spellcasting to avoid war wounds from 5e. Two mutually exclusive, incompatible stances. Wizards job, should it decide to be an actual game developer instead of Pasta Wallflingers, is to navigate the No Man's Land between those two war camps and find the third option where both of us are at least acceptably satisfied.
Since Wizards categorically refuses to be game developers instead of Pasta Wallflingers, and since, as they say in business, "nobody has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people", what we're going to get is "Psionics" that consists of spellcasting with a purple filter over it. Folks like Sposta and I will raise hell, y'all will take smug gleeful pleasure in telling us to shut up, and we will simply be sad and await some other game system figuring out usable online tools because when 5e proudly says "we've made the Sidekick classes playable for those people who find 5e too complicated and want an easier start!", it's become readily apparent that there is simply no room in this system for intelligence. None at all, whatsoever. When the game's core development team STILL doesn't realize that massively oversimplifying character creation and class progression is not how you introduce new people to the game (see spoiler below), there's just no hope for those people who would like the game to stop assuming we're all drooling brain-damaged simpletons who can't be trusted with so much as basic arithmetic, let alone things like Choice or Depth or Engagement.
Beyond a certain point, oversimplfying character creation more and more and MOAR has sharply diminishing returns on introducing new players to a game like D&D. What developers have constantly found is that while a streamlined creation experience does indeed help, what really blocks people from getting into a game is systems/rules overload. When one tries to teach a Non-Gamer how to be a Gamer, there's essentially a language barrier in place; the Non-Gamer is not STUPID, they're just not familiar with the language of gaming. The proper way to introduce someone who's never played D&D before to D&D is something the Essentials kit tried but ultimately failed to do, and that is to present a stripped-down variation of the game in which mechanics are introduced over time, instead of all at once. Teach them the language, rather than assume they're too stupid to learn the language.
The answer is NOT "give the person a Sidekick character and then start playing Curse of Strahd", it's "create an adventure specifically tailored to introduce mechanics over the course of five to ten sessions, rather than all in one large lump sum at the start. Don't bother with saving throws until session 3, for example. Don't use enemies that have more than one thing they do on their turn until the Final Boss at the end. Toss out rules like encumbrance, rations/water, and other helpful-but-unessential side rules until the real game. Tailor that first mini-campaign to avoid information overload while respecting that whoever you're introducing to the game is intelligent enough to understand the rules, provided they're not all shoved up her nose at once."
Sadly, Wizards is not a game development company, and so can't be expected to actually know how game development works. How I wish it were otherwise.
I would honestly be so down for an AD&D 5E that would address a lot of issues like this and could do so much more. Ive been looking into pathfinder2 for this exact reason but its hard to find a group that newb friendly lol
is it even correct to call it advanced dungeons and dragons still? wasint it like 1e last time they stopped using basic and advanced to differ between the rule systems?
2e AD&D also overlapped with the Basic Set. 3e is when they dropped the “Advanced,” but all the WotC editions exist in continuity with AD&D, not the Basic Set. So, in some sense, we’re already (still) playing AD&D.
I would honestly be so down for an AD&D 5E that would address a lot of issues like this and could do so much more. Ive been looking into pathfinder2 for this exact reason but its hard to find a group that newb friendly lol
is it even correct to call it advanced dungeons and dragons still? wasint it like 1e last time they stopped using basic and advanced to differ between the rule systems?
2e AD&D also overlapped with the Basic Set. 3e is when they dropped the “Advanced,” but all the WotC editions exist in continuity with AD&D, not the Basic Set. So, in some sense, we’re already (still) playing AD&D.
On this day blessed by the Platinum Dragon we are all playing AD&D.
>> Okay then, here's what it was like in 2E. If you were playing a psionic character, you made several die rolls and consulted two pages in the Psionics Manual to see if you could deal 1d6+4 damage to the bandit, while the wizard said they were casting Burning Hands, noted on their character sheet that they'd used the spell slot, and then did 1d4+6 damage to the bandit.
Or, if you found yourself up against a psychic foe, you could initiate psychic combat, which consisted of declaring that you were going to initiate psychic combat and everyone else at the table praying that the party's thief could backstab the opponent before the psychic combat actually started. Because it was like playing Rock, Paper, Scissors, only with dice and at least eight different options to choose from every round, and while that was happening the rest of the party sat around unable to do anything.
And then there was the total headache of dealing with the "magic and psionics are different ad don't work on each other" rule.
That is why if psionics gets resurrected for 5E, so many people are demanding a simplier system that plays nicely with the rest of the game instead of the stinking messes that previous editions had.
Is this what people think? Or are you just regurgitating it from a shady memory?
You rolled a Power Strength roll based on what Psionic you were using and applied the effect if you succeeded (kinda like... every spell in existence).
So for example Project Force. The Power Score was Con -2, so if your Con was 14 you had to roll (14-2) 12 or less on a d20 for success. If you rolled 1-11 it did 1d6 + a modifier, if you rolled a 12 exactly (considered a critical hit for Psionics) *also* knocked the opponent down. A roll of 20 (considered a crit fail for Psionics) made the Psion affected instead.
Save for half damage.
Psionic battles were similar as above but you had contested scores and you used a cool rock-paper-scissors mechanic to see who would win a “best of five” Psionic battle.
And that’s it. These glorified “OMG IT WAS AN ABOMINATION”-type posts are hyped up so much that I seriously think people just never read the book....?
Edit: Even simpler... you used a Power Point system for everything - each Psionic would have a cost to initiate and a cost to maintain. So you could maintain multiple Psionics as long as you had Power Points remaining.
For example, Adrenaline Control for example, cost 8 to start and another 4 to maintain on each round.
That is why if psionics gets resurrected for 5E, so many people are demanding a simplier system that plays nicely with the rest of the game instead of the stinking messes that previous editions had.
Why can’t it be both simple and not spellcasting?!? Fighters are simple, and except for the Eldritch Knight have no Spellcasting. Barbarians are fairly simple, and have no Spellcasting. Why can a Psionicist be both fairly straightforward and still not have Spellcasting?!? Just sayin’.
Neither do I, that’s why I’m polishing my Banhammer.
The thing is, at the end of the day this really only hurts you
and prevents the players at your table from potentially playing something they could really enjoy, just cause you arw upset about it.
Also, everyone really needs to stop truing to argue with IamSposta about this cause you are not gonna change their mind,
and this is 1000% not the thread for another psionics argument please for the love of the gods stop.
Won’t hurt me one bit. In fact, the very concept of representing Psionics as Spellcasting is so offensive to me that thinking about it is actively making my blood pressure go up, I can feel it. Banning it will hurt less.
****‘em. If they want to play a subclass I banned them there are three other DMs in our group.
Not even a snowball’s chance in Hell of changing my mind.
Agreed. That’s why I directed conversations about that toward two alternative threads. Twice.
The "you can reskin anything" idea is great for you, but some of us are really sick of the concept and want actual official rules and features. It has gotten to the point that as soon as I read the words "you can reskin...." I pretty much stop reading and move on.
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.)
The "you can reskin anything" idea is great for you, but some of us are really sick of the concept and want actual official rules and features. It has gotten to the point that as soon as I read the words "you can reskin...." I pretty much stop reading and move on.
This. I sincerely think it’s great that the game has so much flexibility. You can reskin anything. But pretending that that’s anywhere near as good and as satisfying as actual mechanical support is ridiculous. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining, or however the expression goes.
The "you can reskin anything" idea is great for you, but some of us are really sick of the concept and want actual official rules and features. It has gotten to the point that as soon as I read the words "you can reskin...." I pretty much stop reading and move on.
The "you can reskin anything" idea is great for you, but some of us are really sick of the concept and want actual official rules and features. It has gotten to the point that as soon as I read the words "you can reskin...." I pretty much stop reading and move on.
This. I sincerely think it’s great that the game has so much flexibility. You can reskin anything. But pretending that that’s anywhere near as good and as satisfying as actual mechanical support is ridiculous. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining, or however the expression goes.
Also, telling people that they "just have to reskin it" also is kind of an insult. It basically is like saying "you're not thinking creatively" or "you're dumb if you want a different mechanic" because we are inflexible in the one thing that we want. Of course we're inflexible in our one thing! Everyone is inflexible in the core part of the thing you want. I am inflexible in letting another person come up to me and punch me in the face, but that's not because I'm just some stubborn stickler who won't compromise on anything, it's because I'm not going to let someone walk over me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Honestly, I feel like we're talking about a very passionate, vocal minority here. One that, from their reaction to various suggested compromises in those past threads, is basically offended by anything less than the exact system they envision. And since many of them envision different things, trying to appease them is an impossible task. The one thing they can agree on is that it should be a completely new, specialized, independent system that has nothing to do with spellcasting - which unfortunately for them is antithetical to 5e's casual-friendly design principles.
It's time to embrace spells as a design element and not a specific arcane or divine ritual. We have frickin barbarians that can cast Clairvoyance. Those guys are no more spellcast-y than psionics need be, rather they have an ability that is represented as a spell because spells are nice packages of actions and effects that everyone is familiar with.
If you want a class that has telekinesis that is described as "you can do anything that telekinesis would allow you to do," that's just homebrew, man. That's where stuff like that belongs.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The thing is, at the end of the day this really only hurts you and prevents the players at your table from potentially playing something they could really enjoy, just cause you arw upset about it.
Also, everyone really needs to stop truing to argue with IamSposta about this cause you are not gonna change their mind, and this is 1000% not the thread for another psionics argument please for the love of the gods stop.
I think the name could use some work TBH
I would honestly be so down for an AD&D 5E that would address a lot of issues like this and could do so much more. Ive been looking into pathfinder2 for this exact reason but its hard to find a group that newb friendly lol
is it even correct to call it advanced dungeons and dragons still? wasint it like 1e last time they stopped using basic and advanced to differ between the rule systems?
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
(Sorry for the spam, ive just caught up with the thread. Last post for now i promise)
Here is a list of the assumed subclasses coming to the book:
Artificer-Armorer, + the entire reprint of the class with all 3 subclasses, new infusions and de-ebberoned
Barbarian- Path of the Beast & Wild Soul
Bard- College of Creation + Eloquence reprinted from Theros
Cleric- Twilight & Unity domains + Order reprinted from ravnica
Druid-Circle of Stars &Wildfire + Spored reprinted from Ravnica
Fighter- Rune Knight and Psi Knight
Monk-Way of Astral Self and Mercy
Paladin- Oath of the Watchers + Glory reprinted from Theros
Ranger- Swarmkeeper and Fey wanderer (how is ranger always the lamest??)
Rogue- Phantom and Soul Knife
Sorcerer- Psionic and Clockwork Soul (aberrant mind was still the superior name)
Warlock- Lurker in the Deep and Genie
Wizard- Order of Scribes + Bladesinger reprinted from SCAG
We could really call it whatever we want but i know they did AD&D at least twice
Both 1st and 2nd edition had Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. 3/3.5 Dropped it. I think anything with a more complex rule set than what we currently have could easily be called Advanced (and would be a nice throw back to older editions of the game.)
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I absolutely understand that, 6LG.
The issue is that your desire for "a simpler psionics system that plays nicely with the rest of the game" is directly and uncontestably contrary to my desire for "a psionics system that clearly, mechanically differentiates 'PSYCHIC' from 'MAGIC'". You're basically demanding that psionics be spellcasting with a purple filter over them because of war wounds from 2e. I'm demanding that psionics be mechanically distinct from spellcasting to avoid war wounds from 5e. Two mutually exclusive, incompatible stances. Wizards job, should it decide to be an actual game developer instead of Pasta Wallflingers, is to navigate the No Man's Land between those two war camps and find the third option where both of us are at least acceptably satisfied.
Since Wizards categorically refuses to be game developers instead of Pasta Wallflingers, and since, as they say in business, "nobody has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people", what we're going to get is "Psionics" that consists of spellcasting with a purple filter over it. Folks like Sposta and I will raise hell, y'all will take smug gleeful pleasure in telling us to shut up, and we will simply be sad and await some other game system figuring out usable online tools because when 5e proudly says "we've made the Sidekick classes playable for those people who find 5e too complicated and want an easier start!", it's become readily apparent that there is simply no room in this system for intelligence. None at all, whatsoever. When the game's core development team STILL doesn't realize that massively oversimplifying character creation and class progression is not how you introduce new people to the game (see spoiler below), there's just no hope for those people who would like the game to stop assuming we're all drooling brain-damaged simpletons who can't be trusted with so much as basic arithmetic, let alone things like Choice or Depth or Engagement.
Beyond a certain point, oversimplfying character creation more and more and MOAR has sharply diminishing returns on introducing new players to a game like D&D. What developers have constantly found is that while a streamlined creation experience does indeed help, what really blocks people from getting into a game is systems/rules overload. When one tries to teach a Non-Gamer how to be a Gamer, there's essentially a language barrier in place; the Non-Gamer is not STUPID, they're just not familiar with the language of gaming. The proper way to introduce someone who's never played D&D before to D&D is something the Essentials kit tried but ultimately failed to do, and that is to present a stripped-down variation of the game in which mechanics are introduced over time, instead of all at once. Teach them the language, rather than assume they're too stupid to learn the language.
The answer is NOT "give the person a Sidekick character and then start playing Curse of Strahd", it's "create an adventure specifically tailored to introduce mechanics over the course of five to ten sessions, rather than all in one large lump sum at the start. Don't bother with saving throws until session 3, for example. Don't use enemies that have more than one thing they do on their turn until the Final Boss at the end. Toss out rules like encumbrance, rations/water, and other helpful-but-unessential side rules until the real game. Tailor that first mini-campaign to avoid information overload while respecting that whoever you're introducing to the game is intelligent enough to understand the rules, provided they're not all shoved up her nose at once."
Sadly, Wizards is not a game development company, and so can't be expected to actually know how game development works. How I wish it were otherwise.
Please do not contact or message me.
2e AD&D also overlapped with the Basic Set. 3e is when they dropped the “Advanced,” but all the WotC editions exist in continuity with AD&D, not the Basic Set. So, in some sense, we’re already (still) playing AD&D.
It surely doesn’t feel like that imho
On this day blessed by the Platinum Dragon we are all playing AD&D.
Is this what people think? Or are you just regurgitating it from a shady memory?
You rolled a Power Strength roll based on what Psionic you were using and applied the effect if you succeeded (kinda like... every spell in existence).
So for example Project Force. The Power Score was Con -2, so if your Con was 14 you had to roll (14-2) 12 or less on a d20 for success. If you rolled 1-11 it did 1d6 + a modifier, if you rolled a 12 exactly (considered a critical hit for Psionics) *also* knocked the opponent down. A roll of 20 (considered a crit fail for Psionics) made the Psion affected instead.
Save for half damage.
Psionic battles were similar as above but you had contested scores and you used a cool rock-paper-scissors mechanic to see who would win a “best of five” Psionic battle.
And that’s it. These glorified “OMG IT WAS AN ABOMINATION”-type posts are hyped up so much that I seriously think people just never read the book....?
Edit: Even simpler... you used a Power Point system for everything - each Psionic would have a cost to initiate and a cost to maintain. So you could maintain multiple Psionics as long as you had Power Points remaining.
For example, Adrenaline Control for example, cost 8 to start and another 4 to maintain on each round.
It wasn’t complicated.
Why can’t it be both simple and not spellcasting?!? Fighters are simple, and except for the Eldritch Knight have no Spellcasting. Barbarians are fairly simple, and have no Spellcasting. Why can a Psionicist be both fairly straightforward and still not have Spellcasting?!? Just sayin’.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The "you can reskin anything" idea is great for you, but some of us are really sick of the concept and want actual official rules and features. It has gotten to the point that as soon as I read the words "you can reskin...." I pretty much stop reading and move on.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
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.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This. I sincerely think it’s great that the game has so much flexibility. You can reskin anything. But pretending that that’s anywhere near as good and as satisfying as actual mechanical support is ridiculous. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining, or however the expression goes.
Preach!!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Also, telling people that they "just have to reskin it" also is kind of an insult. It basically is like saying "you're not thinking creatively" or "you're dumb if you want a different mechanic" because we are inflexible in the one thing that we want. Of course we're inflexible in our one thing! Everyone is inflexible in the core part of the thing you want. I am inflexible in letting another person come up to me and punch me in the face, but that's not because I'm just some stubborn stickler who won't compromise on anything, it's because I'm not going to let someone walk over me.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Hey yall were are off topic