Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Psionics is a magic reskin. Psionics has been a magic reskin since before D&D existed, it's literally just "We want to add an aura of Science to magic". Hence the reason it has no real role in D&D, its purpose is to add magic in settings where magic doesn't exist.
Has it, though? Magic is traditionally depicted as requiring candles, a circle, sacrifice ect. while psychic powers are pure force of will. An example of a setting that has both is Stephen King's Dark Tower. Randall Flag is a Sorcerer and wields magic, while the Breakers are Psions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Psionics is a magic reskin. Psionics has been a magic reskin since before D&D existed, it's literally just "We want to add an aura of Science to magic". Hence the reason it has no real role in D&D, its purpose is to add magic in settings where magic doesn't exist.
Magic yes, Spellcasting no. Not all magic is spellcasting. I have no problem with Psionics being a form of “magic” per se. My only objection is that it should not be “Spellcasting.” 5e has a vast array of abilities that are “Magic but not Spellcasting.”
Hell with this forum's shitty quote system. Doing it manually. AHEM:
"The problem is that there are a lot of players who want anything that sounds cool or powerful to them to be added and expecting that everything they think should be official simply should, ignoring, often willfully, that they take no risks in making such demands whereas filling every such demand does actually cost publishers real money.
And when the demand isn't strong enough, that is money simply tossed out the window." ~Kotath
Come on, Kotath. You've seen the arguments for these things that many of us have put down. Do you honestly think folks like Third, Sposta, Mezzurah, myself and others are powermongering? Every single cotton-pickin' one of us knows exactly where to go with the multiclassing rules as it currently stands to create a character leagues above what anybody else can manage. Hint: the Great 5e Charisma ******** is a much bigger issue for 'balance' than any new prospective single class would be.
Your argument is basically that Wizards should exercise some GOD DAMNED GAME DESIGN, which most of us would joyfully concur with. It would be wonderful if Wizards would do their ****ing job, instead of just vomiting a rolling wall-pasta brainstorm of nonsense at The Community with a bunch of poorly-timed surveys saying "IF WE SOLD THIS, WOULD YOU BUY IT?!" Alas, that's not the world we live in. As it stands, folks are going to argue that Wizards should provide at least the basic framework of the options we need until DDB gets around to giving people the option to build a straight-up homebrew base class so we can finally dispense with the baggage of the PHB classes if we need to.
With due respect, they do not know any of you any more than they know me or we know each other. And you in particular have insisted it is their job to design something that you want with minimal details from you as to what you want.
Their job is to make product that makes them money. Whether that happens to please either of us specifically in the process is not actually in their job description. We are not contracting them, nor are we investors (or at least I am not) and anyone here who is a large enough investor to have any real say would have a far better forum than this to put ideas forward in. This is not even the WoTC forums, let alone any WoTC bullpen or board meeting.
You are asking for what you want, which does not automatically equate to what would turn them a profit even in the short term let alone long term.
Moreover, you seem to want a balanced universal system, something that NO ONE has been able to develop and yet seem to expect this as your gamer-given right, something they are simply slacking off in not designing for you.
With due respect, good luck with that.
I noticed you spotted the key.
Yuriel used the term "we need", and you corrected that to "you want".
The idea that you can cull elements of the game you don’t like is valid and I agree except that 5e D&D has embedded many of these components into settings, adventures, the sub-classes are a mandatory component of base classes at 3rd level not to mention the way the classes have been balanced many of them are culled naturally because they are so under powered in the game as a whole and others have to be rebalanced or removed. Even certain basic concepts like disarming and parrying blows are not possible unless you force a battle master into the game.
its a really difficult design space to adjust, there is no base version of DND in 5e to work from, doing something like removing Domains for Cleric or cutting sub-classes entirely is just too deep of a cut for the mechanics to still function.
but yeah I agree if the system had a base, core game and everything beyond that was an optional system like sub-classes I would have no beef with them adding tons of crunch to the game as long as it’s easy to remove and ignore without breaking the game
It is still extremely easy to just not allow certain subclasses and allow others. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater....you can just tweak elements of things without removing them wholesale.
Like I made War Cleric have Extra Attack instead of its 6th level Channel Divinity. Playtesting it currently to see if its a mistake or not...honestly its been fine as the player is doing less damage than if they were slinging spells but its fun for them.
I am pretty close to just nixing sorcerer...not because I feel they are overpowered or I don't like their mechanics...but because its pretty easy to build a terrible sorcerer with class choices and I mostly play with newer players. I do not want the headache of having to describe to them why sorcerer is actually a bad class from a design perspective and how likely they will be forced to MC to get the most out of the build or be VERY careful with subclass/spell/metamagic selection.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The idea that you can cull elements of the game you don’t like is valid and I agree except that 5e D&D has embedded many of these components into settings, adventures, the sub-classes are a mandatory component of base classes at 3rd level not to mention the way the classes have been balanced many of them are culled naturally because they are so under powered in the game as a whole and others have to be rebalanced or removed. Even certain basic concepts like disarming and parrying blows are not possible unless you force a battle master into the game.
its a really difficult design space to adjust, there is no base version of DND in 5e to work from, doing something like removing Domains for Cleric or cutting sub-classes entirely is just too deep of a cut for the mechanics to still function.
but yeah I agree if the system had a base, core game and everything beyond that was an optional system like sub-classes I would have no beef with them adding tons of crunch to the game as long as it’s easy to remove and ignore without breaking the game
It is still extremely easy to just not allow certain subclasses and allow others. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater....you can just tweak elements of things without removing them wholesale.
Like I made War Cleric have Extra Attack instead of its 6th level Channel Divinity. Playtesting it currently to see if its a mistake or not...honestly its been fine as the player is doing less damage than if they were slinging spells but its fun for them.
I am pretty close to just nixing sorcerer...not because I feel they are overpowered or I don't like their mechanics...but because its pretty easy to build a terrible sorcerer with class choices and I mostly play with newer players. I do not want the headache of having to describe to them why sorcerer is actually a bad class from a design perspective and how likely they will be forced to MC to get the most out of the build or be VERY careful with subclass/spell/metamagic selection.
I mean, I'm fully expecting them to just remove sorcerer in 6e. It's clear the they hate the thing and will do anything they can to make it bad in favour of their golden child. Warlock fills the spontaneous casting feel better than the current sorcerer mechanics.
Thematically I love sorcerer, and would love it to be a great and unique class, but in 5e it's just downright awful.
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.
So D&D wizards are psychics? Other than that, well, popular literature is pretty inconsistent on that and it's rare that you have a distinct set of "does magic but not psi" and "does psi but not magic". Finally, once again, how is this any more distinct than bardsong and divine miracles?
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.
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.
So D&D wizards are psychics? Other than that, well, popular literature is pretty inconsistent on that and it's rare that you have a distinct set of "does magic but not psi" and "does psi but not magic". Finally, once again, how is this any more distinct than bardsong and divine miracles?
Again, I was talking about literature, not D&D. The Wizards are using their mind either, they are using the Weave. I also don't think that Clerics should cast spells either, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I mean, I'm fully expecting them to just remove sorcerer in 6e. It's clear the they hate the thing and will do anything they can to make it bad in favour of their golden child. Warlock fills the spontaneous casting feel better than the current sorcerer mechanics.
Thematically I love sorcerer, and would love it to be a great and unique class, but in 5e it's just downright awful.
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.
And WotC were the ones who introduced the Sorcerer to D&D back in 3e, where they did use points instead of slots. In fact, WotC basically cannibalized the old 1/2e Psionicist when they took over D&D. “Spell Points” (which Sorcerers originally used) were a direct cannibalization os Psi Points, and Metamagic (which was available to all arcane spellcasters in 3e) was a direct cannibalization of Metapsionics.
The idea that you can cull elements of the game you don’t like is valid and I agree except that 5e D&D has embedded many of these components into settings, adventures, the sub-classes are a mandatory component of base classes at 3rd level not to mention the way the classes have been balanced many of them are culled naturally because they are so under powered in the game as a whole and others have to be rebalanced or removed. Even certain basic concepts like disarming and parrying blows are not possible unless you force a battle master into the game.
its a really difficult design space to adjust, there is no base version of DND in 5e to work from, doing something like removing Domains for Cleric or cutting sub-classes entirely is just too deep of a cut for the mechanics to still function.
but yeah I agree if the system had a base, core game and everything beyond that was an optional system like sub-classes I would have no beef with them adding tons of crunch to the game as long as it’s easy to remove and ignore without breaking the game
It is still extremely easy to just not allow certain subclasses and allow others. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater....you can just tweak elements of things without removing them wholesale.
Like I made War Cleric have Extra Attack instead of its 6th level Channel Divinity. Playtesting it currently to see if its a mistake or not...honestly its been fine as the player is doing less damage than if they were slinging spells but its fun for them.
I am pretty close to just nixing sorcerer...not because I feel they are overpowered or I don't like their mechanics...but because its pretty easy to build a terrible sorcerer with class choices and I mostly play with newer players. I do not want the headache of having to describe to them why sorcerer is actually a bad class from a design perspective and how likely they will be forced to MC to get the most out of the build or be VERY careful with subclass/spell/metamagic selection.
I mean, I'm fully expecting them to just remove sorcerer in 6e. It's clear the they hate the thing and will do anything they can to make it bad in favour of their golden child. Warlock fills the spontaneous casting feel better than the current sorcerer mechanics.
Thematically I love sorcerer, and would love it to be a great and unique class, but in 5e it's just downright awful.
I don't think there is any evidence that they hate sorcerers, nor do I think they are intentionally making anything bad. That would be like saying that "they hate the Ranger and gave up fixing it, so don't expect a Ranger in 6e" despite no proof of that being true.
I'm just grumpy that the shiny new spell frost fingers from icewind dale has been made wizards only, despite previously being a sorcerer spell, and thematically there is 0 sense not to give it to sorcerers.
I'm just grumpy that the shiny new spell frost fingers from icewind dale has been made wizards only, despite previously being a sorcerer spell, and thematically there is 0 sense not to give it to sorcerers.
Nothing is stopping you from making it available to all casters =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I mean, I'm fully expecting them to just remove sorcerer in 6e. It's clear the they hate the thing and will do anything they can to make it bad in favour of their golden child. Warlock fills the spontaneous casting feel better than the current sorcerer mechanics.
Thematically I love sorcerer, and would love it to be a great and unique class, but in 5e it's just downright awful.
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.
And WotC were the ones who introduced the Sorcerer to D&D back in 3e, where they did use points instead of slots. In fact, WotC basically cannibalized the old 1/2e Psionicist when they took over D&D. “Spell Points” (which Sorcerers originally used) were a direct cannibalization os Psi Points, and Metamagic (which was available to all arcane spellcasters in 3e) was a direct cannibalization of Metapsionics.
This is the best way to fix sorcerer IMO. More use of Metamagic which is what sorcerer needs. The idea that metamagic is powerful enough to be a class definition only holds true if they can use it routinely vs. having all your SP used up in one fight in the early tiers.
Sorcerers get a lot better at later levels but 90% of games end by 10th level and they are still pretty bad at that level IMO.
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.
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.
Has it, though? Magic is traditionally depicted as requiring candles, a circle, sacrifice ect. while psychic powers are pure force of will. An example of a setting that has both is Stephen King's Dark Tower. Randall Flag is a Sorcerer and wields magic, while the Breakers are Psions.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Magic yes, Spellcasting no. Not all magic is spellcasting. I have no problem with Psionics being a form of “magic” per se. My only objection is that it should not be “Spellcasting.” 5e has a vast array of abilities that are “Magic but not Spellcasting.”
Why can Psionics not be added to that list?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I noticed you spotted the key.
Yuriel used the term "we need", and you corrected that to "you want".
It is still extremely easy to just not allow certain subclasses and allow others. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater....you can just tweak elements of things without removing them wholesale.
Like I made War Cleric have Extra Attack instead of its 6th level Channel Divinity. Playtesting it currently to see if its a mistake or not...honestly its been fine as the player is doing less damage than if they were slinging spells but its fun for them.
I am pretty close to just nixing sorcerer...not because I feel they are overpowered or I don't like their mechanics...but because its pretty easy to build a terrible sorcerer with class choices and I mostly play with newer players. I do not want the headache of having to describe to them why sorcerer is actually a bad class from a design perspective and how likely they will be forced to MC to get the most out of the build or be VERY careful with subclass/spell/metamagic selection.
You are using a very narrow definition of magic. The 'evil eye' is literally staring at someone and causing bad things to happen to them.
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.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I disagree, but that is irrelevant. They do exist as “Magic but not Spellcasting” in 5e.
I fail to see your point, please elaborate?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I mean, I'm fully expecting them to just remove sorcerer in 6e. It's clear the they hate the thing and will do anything they can to make it bad in favour of their golden child. Warlock fills the spontaneous casting feel better than the current sorcerer mechanics.
Thematically I love sorcerer, and would love it to be a great and unique class, but in 5e it's just downright awful.
So D&D wizards are psychics? Other than that, well, popular literature is pretty inconsistent on that and it's rare that you have a distinct set of "does magic but not psi" and "does psi but not magic". Finally, once again, how is this any more distinct than bardsong and divine miracles?
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.
Again, I was talking about literature, not D&D. The Wizards are using their mind either, they are using the Weave. I also don't think that Clerics should cast spells either, but that isn't really relevant to the discussion.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
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.
And WotC were the ones who introduced the Sorcerer to D&D back in 3e, where they did use points instead of slots. In fact, WotC basically cannibalized the old 1/2e Psionicist when they took over D&D. “Spell Points” (which Sorcerers originally used) were a direct cannibalization os Psi Points, and Metamagic (which was available to all arcane spellcasters in 3e) was a direct cannibalization of Metapsionics.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't think there is any evidence that they hate sorcerers, nor do I think they are intentionally making anything bad. That would be like saying that "they hate the Ranger and gave up fixing it, so don't expect a Ranger in 6e" despite no proof of that being true.
I'm just grumpy that the shiny new spell frost fingers from icewind dale has been made wizards only, despite previously being a sorcerer spell, and thematically there is 0 sense not to give it to sorcerers.
Nothing is stopping you from making it available to all casters =)
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
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.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What was this said chart? I didn't play any of the older e's, so I don't know.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This is the best way to fix sorcerer IMO. More use of Metamagic which is what sorcerer needs. The idea that metamagic is powerful enough to be a class definition only holds true if they can use it routinely vs. having all your SP used up in one fight in the early tiers.
Sorcerers get a lot better at later levels but 90% of games end by 10th level and they are still pretty bad at that level IMO.
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.
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.
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.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting