I would imagine that the reason those who subscribe to the OSR don't want more classes is because it doesn't fit what they think D&D should be. Am I right, grognards?
I would imagine that the reason those who subscribe to the OSR don't want more classes is because it doesn't fit what they think D&D should be. Am I right, grognards?
What did you just call me?!?
Grognard is a general term for old school players, or did I use the wrong term?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Grognard, in general, is a derisive term used to refer to those too dense, thick, or otherwise impaired to adapt to anything but the simplest of ideas, and who reacts to any idea beyond their capacity with hostility. It is not a term for old-school players, or at least I would not recognize it as such.
I would imagine that the reason those who subscribe to the OSR don't want more classes is because it doesn't fit what they think D&D should be. Am I right, grognards?
What did you just call me?!?
Grognard is a general term for old school players, or did I use the wrong term?
It is generally used as an insult.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
So, the question remains: Do you not want more classes with new themes "alien" to original D&D because it doesn't fit the image of D&D in your experience? (Directed to any old school players who object to adding new classes.)
Also, 5e is the most popular edition of DnD......ever. I think WotC is doing the right thing in diversifying DnD with more options, and I think the other 9.5 million 5e players agree :D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
So I have only ever played 5E and thus have not played classes like Psicnoics and martial casters. What is a Psionic? What does it do that Wizards, or other arcane casters in 5E, can't do that separate them from being more than subclasses like they are slotted to be in TCoE?
Much the same like the difference between a druid and a wizard. Or a cleric and a wizard. Arcane, Divine and Nature casters (e.g wizards, clerics, druids) draw their powers from outside sources. Whether that's the Weave, some god of the multiverse or the force of life and the land itself. Psionics draw their powers from their own mind instead and as far as I remember the Pathfinder versions their abilities are focused around telekinetic and psychic effects. E.g. manifesting a spectral suit of armor to protect yourself, calling forth psychic blades to slice your enemies, manipulating thoughts while hiding and protecting your own thoughts etc.
I think a lot of fitting spells already exist for that, but all existing classes carry some kind of flavour that conflicts with the idea of a Psychic caster. Wizards require spellbooks, Druids have stange wildshapes, Warlocks require pacts and Clerics require some kind of deity and domain selection. Sorcerers would probably be the best fit, but Pathfinder also had several martial options for Psionics and Sorcerers with their D6 HP aren't good for melee combat. Bards would be another good chassis, but still carry their bardic inspiration, Song of Rest and Jack of all Trades that kinda break the concept.
Also, 5e is the most popular edition of DnD......ever. I think WotC is doing the right thing in diversifying DnD with more options, and I think the other 9.5 million 5e players agree :D
If we take the poll result as an extremely inaccurate measurement it seems to indicate a majority of players actually disagrees with that. 66% in the poll voted against new classes, which is basically the same as voting against new options & character concepts.
When I think back at the "5.5e" thread from Yurei that actually sounds about right. :/ And one of 5e's biggest charm is the perceived simplicity of the rules.
So I have only ever played 5E and thus have not played classes like Psicnoics and martial casters. What is a Psionic? What does it do that Wizards, or other arcane casters in 5E, can't do that separate them from being more than subclasses like they are slotted to be in TCoE?
Much the same like the difference between a druid and a wizard. Or a cleric and a wizard. Arcane, Divine and Nature casters (e.g wizards, clerics, druids) draw their powers from outside sources. Whether that's the Weave, some god of the multiverse or the force of life and the land itself. Psionics draw their powers from their own mind instead and as far as I remember the Pathfinder versions their abilities are focused around telekinetic and psychic effects. E.g. manifesting a spectral suit of armor to protect yourself, calling forth psychic blades to slice your enemies, manipulating thoughts while hiding and protecting your own thoughts etc.
I think a lot of fitting spells already exist for that, but all existing classes carry some kind of flavour that conflicts with the idea of a Psychic caster. Wizards require spellbooks, Druids have stange wildshapes, Warlocks require pacts and Clerics require some kind of deity and domain selection. Sorcerers would probably be the best fit, but Pathfinder also had several martial options for Psionics and Sorcerers with their D6 HP aren't good for melee combat. Bards would be another good chassis, but still carry their bardic inspiration, Song of Rest and Jack of all Trades that kinda break the concept.
I see, but couldn't that just be a subclass for a sorcerer? I guess I am asking what does magic from the mind, not the weave, mechanically differ outside of the source. Because even though sorcerers are arcane casters they origins can be different and offer slight differences but keep the core sorcerer features. What would a Psionic class do to be different and bring as a class with subclasses built to enhance its class features? I guess the main question I had was what did a Psionic do in 3e that made it work differently than a wizard or sorcerer or bard. And to further expand upon that what would it, in the 5E system, do to be unique enough to warrant a class with its own subclasses? It is sad I have to say this but I am not against the idea of Psionics or other new classes, I am just curious since so many people are passionate about Psionics that I feel out of the loop of what makes them cool and unique.
So I have only ever played 5E and thus have not played classes like Psicnoics and martial casters. What is a Psionic? What does it do that Wizards, or other arcane casters in 5E, can't do that separate them from being more than subclasses like they are slotted to be in TCoE?
Much the same like the difference between a druid and a wizard. Or a cleric and a wizard. Arcane, Divine and Nature casters (e.g wizards, clerics, druids) draw their powers from outside sources. Whether that's the Weave, some god of the multiverse or the force of life and the land itself. Psionics draw their powers from their own mind instead and as far as I remember the Pathfinder versions their abilities are focused around telekinetic and psychic effects. E.g. manifesting a spectral suit of armor to protect yourself, calling forth psychic blades to slice your enemies, manipulating thoughts while hiding and protecting your own thoughts etc.
I think a lot of fitting spells already exist for that, but all existing classes carry some kind of flavour that conflicts with the idea of a Psychic caster. Wizards require spellbooks, Druids have stange wildshapes, Warlocks require pacts and Clerics require some kind of deity and domain selection. Sorcerers would probably be the best fit, but Pathfinder also had several martial options for Psionics and Sorcerers with their D6 HP aren't good for melee combat. Bards would be another good chassis, but still carry their bardic inspiration, Song of Rest and Jack of all Trades that kinda break the concept.
The whole 'psychic blades' thing never made any sense to me. Using your mind to enhance your body, sure. Using your mind to shape energy, sure. However using your mind to create some sort of blades of 'psychic energy' that you fight with as if they are conventional weapons? Yeah.... no. Unless your brain is in your hands or something....
Some sort of force blades, or the equivalent of mage armor but creating the field mentally instead of magically, sure, but the Psylocke thing? Always found that silly....
So... what's the difference between calling it "psychic blade" and calling it "force blade"? If you can create arbitrarily shaped force fields with your mind (like e.g. an Aegis in Pathfinder with their suit), why not shape a weapon instead?
LeviathanSol, before we bring the whole psionics debate to this thread, again, I'm going to refer you to a different thread. If you read that, you'll see that this has already been discussed extensively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
How does magic from the gods differ from magic of the weave? How does magic from the weave differ from magic drawn from the primal forces of nature? Why are wizards, clerics, and druids not all just two-feature subclasses of a single basic "Magic Man" class?
Psychic characters operate on completely different rules than most spellcasters. A spellcaster has access to millions of spells, but can only cast spells [X] number of times before depleting their MP for the day. A psychic character, typically, never "runs out" of their power. They have far fewer abilities, but the abilities they do have tend to be more broadly useful and are also available at will. A telekinetic can't decide they throw fire now, or manipulate water, or summon demons, or enchant the mind, or create magical illusions, or raise the dead, or any of the other hundred and seven things a wizard can do. They can move objects with their minds, and that's about it. But they can ALWAYS do that, and their telekinetic ability is broad enough to afford them a suite of options and adventuring tools they can rely on.
That sort of ability profile is often considered anathema to D&D, which is a game of resource attrition. *Everything* in D&D is supposed to cost something, people can't wrap their heads around characters who have access to supernatural abilities without cost or penalty. But just such a framework is required for a psychic character to feel psychic, and not like a sad bad crap-assed sorcerer with purpler-than-usual magic who's deliberately making bad spell choices just to stick with a theme. Because trust me, none of the psychic subclasses in Tasha's are going to actually feel like their "Psychic" powers are meaningful, or helpful, or in any way worthwhile over just being a damned wizard. But...well. I'll leave off my bitterness over the tragic mishandling of psychic abilities in 5e for now.,
How does magic from the gods differ from magic of the weave? How does magic from the weave differ from magic drawn from the primal forces of nature? Why are wizards, clerics, and druids not all just two-feature subclasses of a single basic "Magic Man" class?
Psychic characters operate on completely different rules than most spellcasters. A spellcaster has access to millions of spells, but can only cast spells [X] number of times before depleting their MP for the day. A psychic character, typically, never "runs out" of their power. They have far fewer abilities, but the abilities they do have tend to be more broadly useful and are also available at will. A telekinetic can't decide they throw fire now, or manipulate water, or summon demons, or enchant the mind, or create magical illusions, or raise the dead, or any of the other hundred and seven things a wizard can do. They can move objects with their minds, and that's about it. But they can ALWAYS do that, and their telekinetic ability is broad enough to afford them a suite of options and adventuring tools they can rely on.
That sort of ability profile is often considered anathema to D&D, which is a game of resource attrition. *Everything* in D&D is supposed to cost something, people can't wrap their heads around characters who have access to supernatural abilities without cost or penalty. But just such a framework is required for a psychic character to feel psychic, and not like a sad bad crap-assed sorcerer with purpler-than-usual magic who's deliberately making bad spell choices just to stick with a theme. Because trust me, none of the psychic subclasses in Tasha's are going to actually feel like their "Psychic" powers are meaningful, or helpful, or in any way worthwhile over just being a damned wizard. But...well. I'll leave off my bitterness over the tragic mishandling of psychic abilities in 5e for now.,
I see, so this is a system issue, not a class issue. Since the idea of a true Psionics class would mean they don't need short rests or long rests to regain their abilities, they would break the balance 5E has in place for other spell casters.
Psychic characters operate on completely different rules than most spellcasters. A spellcaster has access to millions of spells, but can only cast spells [X] number of times before depleting their MP for the day. A psychic character, typically, never "runs out" of their power.
I see no evidence for that being true -- sure, Psylocke doesn't run out of power, but neither does Dr Strange. Non-superhero psychics are just as prone to running out of energy as non-superhero magicians.
Also, 5e is the most popular edition of DnD......ever. I think WotC is doing the right thing in diversifying DnD with more options, and I think the other 9.5 million 5e players agree :D
If we take the poll result as an extremely inaccurate measurement it seems to indicate a majority of players actually disagrees with that. 66% in the poll voted against new classes, which is basically the same as voting against new options & character concepts.
When I think back at the "5.5e" thread from Yurei that actually sounds about right. :/ And one of 5e's biggest charm is the perceived simplicity of the rules.
That's probably because most peoples 'idealised character' can be made from the existing classes. Once people have enough options to make their ideal character, they naturally don't want more to complicate things.
It's a pity pathfinder 2e has rules which are such a nightmarish mess, as it definitely seems to cater more for players who want to build their own character rather than pick an out of the box chess piece. Its character and class system is so far beyond what dnd 5e can do it's not even close.
@LeviathanSol: The thing about psionics in D&D is that they were introduced as an alternative to magic, and since they were meant to be an alternative, they couldn't just be a copy/paste, they needed to be mechanically different. This has been the case throughout the game's history (apart from possibly 4e, which seems to be pretty universally disliked)
To address the latter part of your question, the reason why some of us folks are so passionate about psionics being different is because that's the point behind psionics even existing in the first place, to be different. Saying to a person who wants a separate psionics system "Just use magic and reflavor it as using your mind" is exactly the same as coming up to a person who likes having a magic system and saying to them "Just use crossbows and reflavor it as casting spells". It's not the same, even remotely.
Plus, one of the personal gripes I have with people wanting psionics strictly as subclasses/spellcasting and nothing else is that by that logic, we don't even need that, all they really need to do that is to take sorcerer and the subtle spell metamagic and reflavor everything using that; I think that would be incredibly lazy design however, and be unsatisfactory for a lot more than just myself.
Psychic characters operate on completely different rules than most spellcasters. A spellcaster has access to millions of spells, but can only cast spells [X] number of times before depleting their MP for the day. A psychic character, typically, never "runs out" of their power.
I see no evidence for that being true -- sure, Psylocke doesn't run out of power, but neither does Dr Strange. Non-superhero psychics are just as prone to running out of energy as non-superhero magicians.
True or not, a class that isn't balanced around the broken assumption the current rest system makes would be nice. And the UA dice mechanic sounds like it could actually balance powers without relying on limited resource per rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What did you just call me?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Grognard is a general term for old school players, or did I use the wrong term?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Grognard, in general, is a derisive term used to refer to those too dense, thick, or otherwise impaired to adapt to anything but the simplest of ideas, and who reacts to any idea beyond their capacity with hostility. It is not a term for old-school players, or at least I would not recognize it as such.
Please do not contact or message me.
It is generally used as an insult.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Okay, then. Changed to old school players.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So, the question remains: Do you not want more classes with new themes "alien" to original D&D because it doesn't fit the image of D&D in your experience? (Directed to any old school players who object to adding new classes.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Also, 5e is the most popular edition of DnD......ever. I think WotC is doing the right thing in diversifying DnD with more options, and I think the other 9.5 million 5e players agree :D
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Much the same like the difference between a druid and a wizard. Or a cleric and a wizard. Arcane, Divine and Nature casters (e.g wizards, clerics, druids) draw their powers from outside sources. Whether that's the Weave, some god of the multiverse or the force of life and the land itself. Psionics draw their powers from their own mind instead and as far as I remember the Pathfinder versions their abilities are focused around telekinetic and psychic effects. E.g. manifesting a spectral suit of armor to protect yourself, calling forth psychic blades to slice your enemies, manipulating thoughts while hiding and protecting your own thoughts etc.
I think a lot of fitting spells already exist for that, but all existing classes carry some kind of flavour that conflicts with the idea of a Psychic caster. Wizards require spellbooks, Druids have stange wildshapes, Warlocks require pacts and Clerics require some kind of deity and domain selection. Sorcerers would probably be the best fit, but Pathfinder also had several martial options for Psionics and Sorcerers with their D6 HP aren't good for melee combat. Bards would be another good chassis, but still carry their bardic inspiration, Song of Rest and Jack of all Trades that kinda break the concept.
If we take the poll result as an extremely inaccurate measurement it seems to indicate a majority of players actually disagrees with that. 66% in the poll voted against new classes, which is basically the same as voting against new options & character concepts.
When I think back at the "5.5e" thread from Yurei that actually sounds about right. :/ And one of 5e's biggest charm is the perceived simplicity of the rules.
Lightsabers in DnD LOL
I see, but couldn't that just be a subclass for a sorcerer? I guess I am asking what does magic from the mind, not the weave, mechanically differ outside of the source. Because even though sorcerers are arcane casters they origins can be different and offer slight differences but keep the core sorcerer features. What would a Psionic class do to be different and bring as a class with subclasses built to enhance its class features? I guess the main question I had was what did a Psionic do in 3e that made it work differently than a wizard or sorcerer or bard. And to further expand upon that what would it, in the 5E system, do to be unique enough to warrant a class with its own subclasses? It is sad I have to say this but I am not against the idea of Psionics or other new classes, I am just curious since so many people are passionate about Psionics that I feel out of the loop of what makes them cool and unique.
So... what's the difference between calling it "psychic blade" and calling it "force blade"? If you can create arbitrarily shaped force fields with your mind (like e.g. an Aegis in Pathfinder with their suit), why not shape a weapon instead?
LeviathanSol, before we bring the whole psionics debate to this thread, again, I'm going to refer you to a different thread. If you read that, you'll see that this has already been discussed extensively.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
@Leviathan:
How does magic from the gods differ from magic of the weave? How does magic from the weave differ from magic drawn from the primal forces of nature? Why are wizards, clerics, and druids not all just two-feature subclasses of a single basic "Magic Man" class?
Psychic characters operate on completely different rules than most spellcasters. A spellcaster has access to millions of spells, but can only cast spells [X] number of times before depleting their MP for the day. A psychic character, typically, never "runs out" of their power. They have far fewer abilities, but the abilities they do have tend to be more broadly useful and are also available at will. A telekinetic can't decide they throw fire now, or manipulate water, or summon demons, or enchant the mind, or create magical illusions, or raise the dead, or any of the other hundred and seven things a wizard can do. They can move objects with their minds, and that's about it. But they can ALWAYS do that, and their telekinetic ability is broad enough to afford them a suite of options and adventuring tools they can rely on.
That sort of ability profile is often considered anathema to D&D, which is a game of resource attrition. *Everything* in D&D is supposed to cost something, people can't wrap their heads around characters who have access to supernatural abilities without cost or penalty. But just such a framework is required for a psychic character to feel psychic, and not like a sad bad crap-assed sorcerer with purpler-than-usual magic who's deliberately making bad spell choices just to stick with a theme. Because trust me, none of the psychic subclasses in Tasha's are going to actually feel like their "Psychic" powers are meaningful, or helpful, or in any way worthwhile over just being a damned wizard. But...well. I'll leave off my bitterness over the tragic mishandling of psychic abilities in 5e for now.,
Please do not contact or message me.
Ah, my bad. I wasn't thinking about it in game terms and more trying to describe the effects. :D
I see, so this is a system issue, not a class issue. Since the idea of a true Psionics class would mean they don't need short rests or long rests to regain their abilities, they would break the balance 5E has in place for other spell casters.
I see no evidence for that being true -- sure, Psylocke doesn't run out of power, but neither does Dr Strange. Non-superhero psychics are just as prone to running out of energy as non-superhero magicians.
That's probably because most peoples 'idealised character' can be made from the existing classes. Once people have enough options to make their ideal character, they naturally don't want more to complicate things.
It's a pity pathfinder 2e has rules which are such a nightmarish mess, as it definitely seems to cater more for players who want to build their own character rather than pick an out of the box chess piece. Its character and class system is so far beyond what dnd 5e can do it's not even close.
@LeviathanSol: The thing about psionics in D&D is that they were introduced as an alternative to magic, and since they were meant to be an alternative, they couldn't just be a copy/paste, they needed to be mechanically different. This has been the case throughout the game's history (apart from possibly 4e, which seems to be pretty universally disliked)
To address the latter part of your question, the reason why some of us folks are so passionate about psionics being different is because that's the point behind psionics even existing in the first place, to be different. Saying to a person who wants a separate psionics system "Just use magic and reflavor it as using your mind" is exactly the same as coming up to a person who likes having a magic system and saying to them "Just use crossbows and reflavor it as casting spells". It's not the same, even remotely.
Plus, one of the personal gripes I have with people wanting psionics strictly as subclasses/spellcasting and nothing else is that by that logic, we don't even need that, all they really need to do that is to take sorcerer and the subtle spell metamagic and reflavor everything using that; I think that would be incredibly lazy design however, and be unsatisfactory for a lot more than just myself.
True or not, a class that isn't balanced around the broken assumption the current rest system makes would be nice. And the UA dice mechanic sounds like it could actually balance powers without relying on limited resource per rest.