Assuming the point was 'single purpose effects' -- the general rule is that when a particular class ability can do a large number of different things you treat them as spellcasting with a spell list.
Show me that “general rule” anywhere in any book. Please, as I am unaware of its existence.
Also, the Battle Master and Arcane Archer have subclass features that completely violate that potentially nonexistent “rule” you mentioned. And only some of the Way of the Four Element’s features and the Warlock’s Invocations use Spells. Class/Subclass features that do magical things without relying on spellcasting is nothing new to D&D, and especially in this edition.
So imagining a Class based on that concept is no stretch to meat all.
The argument just falls flat to me.
People time and again have pointed out that for there to be a new Class, it would have to fill a niche that no other class fills. And as you have pointed out at least twice, no other class does that. I agree that Bards and Clerics/Paladins and Druids/Rangers and Artificers should all use something other than Spellcasting as a mechanic for their abilities. Bards should use “Bardsong,” and Clerics and Paladins should use “Miracles,” and Druids and Rangers should use [insert something nature sounding here], and Artificers should use “Magitech” (or whatever). But they have all (with the exception of the Artificer) used some version Spellcasting since 1974 (or whenever their initial appearance happened).Psionics never has. Why should Psionics not be that alternative to spellcasting that it has always been? That’s why I want it more than anything, because it was the only real alternative to spellcasting that D&D has ever had. I want that alternative. They already reduced the Artificer to being just another spellcaster. Let us at least have the Psionicist. One measly little class is all I ask for.
Honestly this seems to be the community perspective and it seems that they might be secretly testing new mechanics (Psi Die) as a way to test aspects.
Psi die was canned so I am interested in what they will try (if anything) next.
Actually, if you just allow Sorcerers to use Spell Points (instead of Slots), and just make the conversion rate of Sorcery Points:Spell Points a 1:1, and basically leave everything else the same they suck way less.
I'm with you in theory, but not in execution. The restriction of only casting 1 spell of each level 6th and higher seems arbitrary and restrictive. It's much too similar to the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum effects, the Sorcerer just has all the valid options of their Spells Known.
My other feeling is that Sorcerers should be able to cast more spells per day than other spell casting classes, due to that whole "magic is in my blood" thing. But that actually gets easier to change with that system, you just add a new Class Feature that increases the rate at which they gain Spell Points.
So if got your Psi class, would you want the Attack/Defense chart back? How would you run mental combat?
I liked the chart. It made psionic combat like playing poker or something more strategic than roll, hit damage, roll, hit, damage.
Based on hearing some people describe Psychic Combat, I personally would find a way to simplify it. If everyone else at the table groans loudly when you start it, and looks for some way, ANY way, to make it end sooner, it probably needs a mechanical overhaul.
What was this said chart? I didn't play any of the older e's, so I don't know.
You had five attack modes, and five defense modes, and different attack modes were more or less effective against different defense modes. It was an interesting enough subsystem that didn't really fit very well with the rest of the game system, which is mostly very low res for combat.
I would actually skip the “Psychic Combat“ and let it just use the regular combat rules. If two Psionicists go back and forth at each other during combat and only use mental powers that would be “mental combat” after all.
Saying that psionics is just a science re-skin of magic has everything to do with Clarke's Third Law. Sufficiently advanced technology (innate mind powers, in this case) is indistinguishable from magic. It is not a re-skin when science does something once considered literally impossible.
That would require psi to be technology, and innate powers are generally not technology (unless the way you gain psychic powers is by being experimented on by mad scientists, which is an occasional variant in science fiction or supers settings, but not for fantasy settings).
Actually, if you just allow Sorcerers to use Spell Points (instead of Slots), and just make the conversion rate of Sorcery Points:Spell Points a 1:1, and basically leave everything else the same they suck way less.
I'm with you in theory, but not in execution. The restriction of only casting 1 spell of each level 6th and higher seems arbitrary and restrictive. It's much too similar to the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum effects, the Sorcerer just has all the valid options of their Spells Known.
My other feeling is that Sorcerers should be able to cast more spells per day than other spell casting classes, due to that whole "magic is in my blood" thing. But that actually gets easier to change with that system, you just add a new Class Feature that increases the rate at which they gain Spell Points.
It’s not arbitrary and it’s restrictive on purpose since they would no longer need to convert spell slots to sorcery points and again to swap spell levels. With just Spell Points that’s already a lot more flexible (and efficient, and doesn’t require the action to do), and as spell points could be converted directly to Sorcery Points 1:1, then there’s your refresh. Eventually they get 133 Spell Points.
First of all, some of those things should probably have been spells to start with. Second, all of those things are single purpose effects.
I was using the definition form popular literature; if a character is described as moving things with their mind and reading thoughts, they will likely be labeled as psychic. If a character is summoning things with rituals, shooting blasts of fire, ect. they will likely be considered magical.
And when a precognitive uses a crystal ball to focus their thoughts, magic or psychic? Or a psychic healer focuses through a stone or crystal?
It depends on where the power comes from. If it comes from within the users mind, then psychic. From an outside force, magical. While a psychic could use a focus, they wouldn't need it. It would just make using their powers easier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
If people dislike psionics in their setting, surely they should just not allow them in their games?
Psionics has been in dnd for a long time, and it's only this edition where it's seemingly been axed. Then again axing content seems to be 5e's speciality.
That is nit picking. Technology is engineering is merely applied science. That man may evolve new powers that mankind did not have (or were not so developed) earlier in history is a theoretical possibility.
Technology implies that someone actually applied science to the problem. If it's just something you're born with, and you aren't the product of deliberate design, no-one applied any science to you, so it's not technology.
That is nit picking. Technology is engineering is merely applied science. That man may evolve new powers that mankind did not have (or were not so developed) earlier in history is a theoretical possibility.
Technology implies that someone actually applied science to the problem. If it's just something you're born with, and you aren't the product of deliberate design, no-one applied any science to you, so it's not technology.
Well, not quite. People have been manipulating genetics without the use of technology for millennia. See dogs, bananas, apples, Mendel's experiments with pea plants...
That is nit picking. Technology is engineering is merely applied science. That man may evolve new powers that mankind did not have (or were not so developed) earlier in history is a theoretical possibility.
Technology implies that someone actually applied science to the problem. If it's just something you're born with, and you aren't the product of deliberate design, no-one applied any science to you, so it's not technology.
You are taking Clarke's Third Law absolutely literally. It is not meant to be so.
That is nit picking. Technology is engineering is merely applied science. That man may evolve new powers that mankind did not have (or were not so developed) earlier in history is a theoretical possibility.
Technology implies that someone actually applied science to the problem. If it's just something you're born with, and you aren't the product of deliberate design, no-one applied any science to you, so it's not technology.
Well, not quite. People have been manipulating genetics without the use of technology for millennia. See dogs, bananas, apples, Mendel's experiments with pea plants...
One can argue that Mendel's work, and agriculture and animal domestication and breeding in general are one of humanity's earliest technologies (techne logos, techniques or "know how/how to" aided by a logos "discussion or discourse"). By extension, and to return back to the game, Wizard magic is definitely a technology, other class magics are debatably so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think that it is much easier to disallow something than it is to create something form scratch. If you don't like a new class or subclass, just say it's not allowed at your table. If you are a player and someone else is using it and having fun with it, then maybe it isn't as bad as you think. But it would be much more difficult for a DM to build and playtest a new class. It is much easier for DM's if new content exists as an option.
Yep this.
If a class exists which you don't want, you say "This class isn't allowed at my table". Job done.
If a class doesn't exist which you want, you have to spend months gradually designing and playtesting the thing to work it to a balanced and acceptable state, and then every single time you ever want to use it you have to look for the tiny percentage of DMs who will allow homebrew classes.
Sure, if you want to publish it. In my opinion homebrew needs to only work at your table. Unless you plan to publish your new class and get other people to play it, you don't really have to playtest it against every possible scenario and balance it against every other class.
You can make a homebrew class that absolutely shits on sorcerers if no one at your table plays one.
Uh, no. I like homebrewing, but if I homebrew a class or subclass, it has to be relatively balanced. I do spend months tinkering with the hombrewed thing of my design, just to make sure it feels right. If I get the slightest hint that an ability is overpowered for its current level, I scrap that feature, move some things around, and do whatever I can to try fixing it.
Maybe you prefer your homebrew to be OP as hell or underpowered as the Four Elements Monk, but I do not. I know many more members of this community that like homebrew to be balanced than I do those who like unbalanced homebrew.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If people dislike psionics in their setting, surely they should just not allow them in their games?
Psionics has been in dnd for a long time, and it's only this edition where it's seemingly been axed. Then again axing content seems to be 5e's speciality.
Axing content.... ?
Lol.... you expected everything from the last 40 years to be translated into the current mechanics and released in a single book, despite the prior four editions having had very different approaches to many of these ideas?
And no one is going to show up at your door to confiscate your books from earlier editions. You are still free to run those editions. And lest you complain that DDB does not support them, there was NO such site that supported any edition at all like this until relatively recently. Not even sure if there was any such support of 4e. This level of computer technology did not exist when 1e was released.
I never stated that I expected 5e to have everything from every edition ever.
But 5e has by far the least player options of any edition I've played. It's extremely disappointing not being able to make my ideal character in game, when it was possible in not only prior editions, but both editions of pathfinder too.
And moving from 5e comes with the downside of pathfinder/earlier editions having overly complex rules. The sole reasons I like 5e are the streamlined rules and dnd beyond.
Gosh, just read through the last 4ish pages. We're back on the psionics debate. Great. We literally shouted down that discussion many pages back because we did not want this thread to devolve into the terror that is inevitable when we start discussing the validity of psionics in 5e. Can we not? We've already had 4ish threads about this, if the few people discussing it still want to move to PMs to scream their absolute opinions at each other, I would appreciate it. Anyone with me?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Gosh, just read through the last 4ish pages. We're back on the psionics debate. Great. We literally shouted down that discussion many pages back because we did not want this thread to devolve into the terror that is inevitable when we start discussing the validity of psionics in 5e. Can we not? We've already had 4ish threads about this, if the few people discussing it still want to move to PMs to scream their absolute opinions at each other, I would appreciate it. Anyone with me?
We tried to stop, but it consumed the thread. Again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Because of its extreme lack of meaningful content compared to prior editions. Tiny number of classes because the burden of content got moved to subclasses. Except subclasses (with an exception or two) completely fail to provide serious playstyle or mechanics changes over the base class.
Meaning I can't build many characters I like in a satisfying way, which I could in prior editions.
Do you think it is some sort of actual law or something? Do you even understand it? There are plenty of examples of things that were once seen as magic that are now explained by science. A good literary example of psionics being assumed to be magic would be Steven King's 'Carrie' in which the title character is telekinetic but her mother believes her daughter is demon possessed or using witchcraft.
That's actually a case of people being wrong about what flavor of magic was involved (well, maybe wrong; definitions of witchcraft are vague enough that it being telekinesis does not prevent it from also being witchcraft).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly this seems to be the community perspective and it seems that they might be secretly testing new mechanics (Psi Die) as a way to test aspects.
Psi die was canned so I am interested in what they will try (if anything) next.
I'm with you in theory, but not in execution. The restriction of only casting 1 spell of each level 6th and higher seems arbitrary and restrictive. It's much too similar to the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum effects, the Sorcerer just has all the valid options of their Spells Known.
My other feeling is that Sorcerers should be able to cast more spells per day than other spell casting classes, due to that whole "magic is in my blood" thing. But that actually gets easier to change with that system, you just add a new Class Feature that increases the rate at which they gain Spell Points.
I would actually skip the “Psychic Combat“ and let it just use the regular combat rules. If two Psionicists go back and forth at each other during combat and only use mental powers that would be “mental combat” after all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That would require psi to be technology, and innate powers are generally not technology (unless the way you gain psychic powers is by being experimented on by mad scientists, which is an occasional variant in science fiction or supers settings, but not for fantasy settings).
It’s not arbitrary and it’s restrictive on purpose since they would no longer need to convert spell slots to sorcery points and again to swap spell levels. With just Spell Points that’s already a lot more flexible (and efficient, and doesn’t require the action to do), and as spell points could be converted directly to Sorcery Points 1:1, then there’s your refresh. Eventually they get 133 Spell Points.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It depends on where the power comes from. If it comes from within the users mind, then psychic. From an outside force, magical. While a psychic could use a focus, they wouldn't need it. It would just make using their powers easier.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Man. Even after everybody bagged on me to not restart the whole Psionics Argument however-many pages ago, too. Here we are.
Please do not contact or message me.
If people dislike psionics in their setting, surely they should just not allow them in their games?
Psionics has been in dnd for a long time, and it's only this edition where it's seemingly been axed. Then again axing content seems to be 5e's speciality.
@Yurei 1453: Eeeeee-yuuuuuup...
*sigh*
Technology implies that someone actually applied science to the problem. If it's just something you're born with, and you aren't the product of deliberate design, no-one applied any science to you, so it's not technology.
Well, not quite. People have been manipulating genetics without the use of technology for millennia. See dogs, bananas, apples, Mendel's experiments with pea plants...
This^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Clarke's Third Law is talking about technology. It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to something that isn't technology.
One can argue that Mendel's work, and agriculture and animal domestication and breeding in general are one of humanity's earliest technologies (techne logos, techniques or "know how/how to" aided by a logos "discussion or discourse"). By extension, and to return back to the game, Wizard magic is definitely a technology, other class magics are debatably so.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Uh, no. I like homebrewing, but if I homebrew a class or subclass, it has to be relatively balanced. I do spend months tinkering with the hombrewed thing of my design, just to make sure it feels right. If I get the slightest hint that an ability is overpowered for its current level, I scrap that feature, move some things around, and do whatever I can to try fixing it.
Maybe you prefer your homebrew to be OP as hell or underpowered as the Four Elements Monk, but I do not. I know many more members of this community that like homebrew to be balanced than I do those who like unbalanced homebrew.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I never stated that I expected 5e to have everything from every edition ever.
But 5e has by far the least player options of any edition I've played. It's extremely disappointing not being able to make my ideal character in game, when it was possible in not only prior editions, but both editions of pathfinder too.
And moving from 5e comes with the downside of pathfinder/earlier editions having overly complex rules. The sole reasons I like 5e are the streamlined rules and dnd beyond.
Gosh, just read through the last 4ish pages. We're back on the psionics debate. Great. We literally shouted down that discussion many pages back because we did not want this thread to devolve into the terror that is inevitable when we start discussing the validity of psionics in 5e. Can we not? We've already had 4ish threads about this, if the few people discussing it still want to move to PMs to scream their absolute opinions at each other, I would appreciate it. Anyone with me?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We tried to stop, but it consumed the thread. Again.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Because of its extreme lack of meaningful content compared to prior editions. Tiny number of classes because the burden of content got moved to subclasses. Except subclasses (with an exception or two) completely fail to provide serious playstyle or mechanics changes over the base class.
Meaning I can't build many characters I like in a satisfying way, which I could in prior editions.
That's actually a case of people being wrong about what flavor of magic was involved (well, maybe wrong; definitions of witchcraft are vague enough that it being telekinesis does not prevent it from also being witchcraft).