Everyone is not meant to mean 100% of people who play the game, but appealing to most people who are interested in a design. The point is that you want most of the players who have a character concept that is Psionic to enjoy playing the class, no matter their level of experience or preference in mechanics. Also can you please stop saying we want the Psion to be as complex as a Champion fighter? I never have said that, I actually would be fine with something equal in complexity to the Warlock. My entire point is it’s fine to have something that is a different take within the existing mechanics (like the Warlock does)... most of us just turn away from an entire alternate system to spell casting. I just suggest that you achieve the same goals you would have in the new system, but utilizing existing terms, mechanics, and systems to achieve them. If the point system is meant to display the flexibility of the Psion, can’t you tweak spells to be more flexible than any other caster in the game? This way newer tables can have this material and not be confused on how it potentially interacts with magic?
As Saga and Levi said, the ideal goal is subclasses for other character classes to be the oversimplified, mechanically barren stuff the K.I.S.S. folks want, while the Psion class itself is more complex and nuanced. That allows for people with 'character concepts that are Psionic' to utilize those subclasses for the fighter, rogue, sorcerer, monk, what-have-you and avoid the depth they don't want, while people with a need for more engaging gameplay can gravitate to the Psion.
As to your other point? The warlock is not complex. Not really. The warlock is variable. The warlock has more decision points, by far, than other classes. If that means complexity to you, then yes, the warlock is complex. But none of the warlock's individual abilities are remotely difficult to grasp or understand. The interactions between those simple options create emergent complexity, which is another name for depth. You say "It's okay for the psion to be as complicated as the warlock! We're not trying to make it as simple as the Champion fighter!"
I say that the psion needs to be at least as complex and emergent as the warlock. You should be glad I'm not in charge of designing a psion class, Positron. My notion would involve at least three layers of branching decision trees, any of which save maybe the first one could change whenever the psion desired to reconfigure into a new set of options. A psion I designed would have access to several different psionic 'stances' of sorts, which determine what that psion can do with its selection of psionic abilities. Imagine if a warlock could change their Pact Boon at any time, and if each and every Invocation they selected had the potential to act differently based on their currently active Boon. Your Agonizing Blast Strike applies to Eldritch Blast while you bear the Tome, to your Pact weapon while you bear the Blade, and to the attacks delivered by your familiar while you bear the Chain, as just one simple example.
THAT is the kind of emergent depth I'm hoping for in a Psion. I'll never get it, though. 5e is deathly, mortally terrified of depth, because people who can't see the bottom of the pool won't jump in. They need to be able to see the bottom, see everything laid out for them and understand it all within a single 144-character Twitter post, or they bail. Thus why the God Damned Champion fighter remains so infuriatingly popular, and why I assume Wizards only strays from that template of "abilities so simple we could teach Koko the Gorilla how to play them" when they absolutely cannot figure out any other way to continue to abrogate their game design responsibilities.
So. Let us hope you get your simple subclasses while we get a base Psion class worthy of the name. Because like I said earlier, there's only so many warlocks I can play, it'd be nice to have another class that actually respects my friggin' intelligence enough to be worth my time.
Could you quickly get a job at WoTC? I would like to see this psion officially published.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Through intense study and meditation, you have unlocked secrets within your mind many thought to be impossible.While spellcasters create effects by utilizing a limited resource until depleted, whether through components, channeling the power of their gods or patrons, or some other source, yours is special and comes from your own mind.This stretching of the psyche and expanded imagination also manifests in your Psionic effects.You do not receive spell slots to cast spells, instead you recreate their effects, and you can do so until you exhaust your mind to its Psionic Limit.You can only recreate spells at a level up to the level listed on the Psion class table.Your limit is equal to your level in this class.Recreating a spell effect is considered casting the spell at the level you are recreating it for the purposes of spells like Detect Magic or Counterspell.
Whenever you recreate the effect of a spell, you add the level at which the spell effect was cast to a cumulative total.This total cannot exceed your Psionic Limit.Whenever you finish a short or long rest, this total resets to 0.”
+ Later levels risk casting beyond the limit but at the cost of exhaustion
+ Add a focus type mechanic that makes it so you don’t need material without cost OR vocal if in the range of telepathy
This is what I picture.It may not be what you guys want exactly, and I didn’t put a chart down but would probably follow Warlock spell levels, then add a Mystic arcanum like feature later.I’m curious what is wrong with doing this and what the benefit is of making it more complicated to experience narratively?
This is what I picture.It may not be what you guys want exactly, and I didn’t put a chart down but would probably follow Warlock spell levels, then add a Mystic arcanum like feature later.I’m curious what is wrong with doing this and what the benefit is of making it more complicated to experience narratively?
The problem with that is the use of spells to replicate psionics. If you want just the subclasses, great, you're going to get them. Enjoy your psionics. We want a new system for psionics, not just replicating pact magic or spellcasting. This makes it too simple, and infuriatingly lacking in the depth psionics can have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The problem with that is the use of spells to replicate psionics. If you want just the subclasses, great, you're going to get them. Enjoy your psionics. We want a new system for psionics, not just replicating pact magic or spellcasting. This makes it too simple, and infuriatingly lacking in the depth psionics can have.
I think my question is more narratively. If this version of Psion exists and is creating spell effects (mostly Illusion and Enchantment with some new ones added in) and it has this more flexible version of casting spells that basically does what points do, what in the game is your version doing that this one wouldn’t? I understand you want “depth” which I would maybe phrase as “intricacy” but that is not narratively different, just your experience performing the same things? Unless I am mistaken, I just haven’t seen any examples.
The problem with that is the use of spells to replicate psionics. If you want just the subclasses, great, you're going to get them. Enjoy your psionics. We want a new system for psionics, not just replicating pact magic or spellcasting. This makes it too simple, and infuriatingly lacking in the depth psionics can have.
I think my question is more narratively. If this version of Psion exists and is creating spell effects (mostly Illusion and Enchantment with some new ones added in) and it has this more flexible version of casting spells that basically does what points do, what in the game is your version doing that this one wouldn’t? I understand you want “depth” which I would maybe phrase as “intricacy” but that is not narratively different, just your experience performing the same things? Unless I am mistaken, I just haven’t seen any examples.
Okay, think of it like this. You know how jedi can lift rocks and other objects, right? They have to start out small, and move onto heavier and heavier objects later on. So, the Psion would have an ability to lift objects and creatures at level one, and it would scale as you level up, to heavier objects and creatures, more objects and creatures at once, and being able to use force to crush the objects and creatures you're using telekinesis on. This can't be accomplished with spells reflavored as psionics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, think of it like this. You know how jedi can lift rocks and other objects, right? They have to start out small, and move onto heavier and heavier objects later on. So, the Psion would have an ability to lift objects and creatures at level one, and it would scale as you level up, to heavier objects and creatures, more objects and creatures at once, and being able to use force to crush the objects and creatures you're using telekinesis on. This can't be accomplished with spells reflavored as psionics.
Ok, so you choose a single effect as this class (let’s stick to Telekinetics) and it scales as you level in the class. Mechanically does this work like a ranged weapon or extension of yourself? For example, are you making an attack roll, grapple check? Does it increase with your Int Mod or Proficiency bonus?
You're focusing on the narrative, Positron. The idea that the mechanics "shouldn't get in the way of the story". That someone who has a strong desire to play a powerful psychic character should be able to do so without any more investment in or mastery of the system beyond that required to play a Champion fighter.
The issue you're running into is that for many of us, "mechanics" and "story" are not two separate things, each to be weighed and settled on with one held paramount. Story informs mechanics enforces story defines mechanics. If the two do not work hand in hand, the mechanics intuitively deriving from the lore and the lore neatly dsescribing the mechanical effects, then the game as a whole is off and will continue to be off no matter what either of those things does.
You want psionics to just be another form of spellcasting. Use the same spells with the same rules as every other spellcaster in the game because that's what's comfortable for you and your table, and you don't care what the mechanics are so long as they're not Getting In The Way. Well, on this end of the bridge the lack of mechanics is what's Getting In The Way. The slipshod, ramshackle implementation of psionics sucks and makes it effectively impossible to play a psionic character. Trust me - I've tried.
Great example - the Arcane Trickster makes a better 'psychic rogue' than the Soulknife does. Take some of the psionic talent feats from the latest UA (if you're using a version of character progression that allows for it), and select an AT spell list that reflects psychic talent, and the Trickster is much closer to a proper 'psychic' rogue than the Soulknife. Either version of the Soulknife. That is not to say it's close. It could sorta-kinda stand in for an untrained, streetwise wild talent with only minor psionic abilities if you squint sideways hard enough and decide that you Want To Believe, but that's as far as it goes.
The only other class that came anywhere close? Believe it or not, the School of Psionics wizard, provided you treated it as exactly what Wizards-the-shitty-game-devs said it was - a magical researcher who specialized in rigorous arcanoscientific study of psionic manifestations without necessarily having a psionic gift themselves. That was an interesting flavor and I miss it, though at least I lucked out enough to still have a character built on it so huzzah me.
Nevertheless. Without some bones under the meat, 'psionics' doesn't properly exist. You can't just twist the spellcasting engine around to make psionics, because PSYCHIC POWERS ARE NOT WIZARDRY. Psychic powers are distinct and separate from arcane magic and divine miracles and need to be treated as such, or it will. Not. Work.
Because believe it or not, some of us care about the game underneath the story as much as we care about the story. If the two don't harmonize, it's a bad experience. If we didn't care about the numbers we'd just go play Overlight or FATE or the like, ne?
The problem with that is the use of spells to replicate psionics. If you want just the subclasses, great, you're going to get them. Enjoy your psionics. We want a new system for psionics, not just replicating pact magic or spellcasting. This makes it too simple, and infuriatingly lacking in the depth psionics can have.
You're focusing on the narrative, Positron. The idea that the mechanics "shouldn't get in the way of the story"....
The issue you're running into is that for many of us, "mechanics" and "story" are not two separate things, each to be weighed and settled on with one held paramount. ...
...Well, on this end of the bridge the lack of mechanics is what's Getting In The Way....
...Because believe it or not, some of us care about the game underneath the story as much as we care about the story....
Yurei,
I’ll personally take it a step further. I care more about mechanics than story. Because, quite frankly, we will make the story good regardless. I don’t have to worry about that because I play with interesting people. We will get a good story no matter what. But for me, most of my enjoyment (as a player) comes from my character.
Positron,
For you, you want a simple mechanic that doesn’t get in the way because for you, the game is an excuse to tell the story. For me, the story is just an excuse to play the game. For me, as a player, the enjoyment of the mechanics is more important than my enjoyment of the story. (When I DM, my enjoyment is my players’ enjoyment. They like story so I give it to them.)
I’m the player that skips the cutscenes to get back to the playing. I had no idea what the actual story behind Halo was until after Halo 3. And to be honest, I still don’t care. I don’t need to know what the excuse for shooting aliens is, I just need ammo and map marker where the aliens are.
Quite literally for me, when I am a player, the game matters more than the story. Why do you keep insisting that my fun is wrong?!?
So a proper example has occured to me at last, or at least a discussion point worth bringing up.
@Positron: Do you consider the bard class to be freely available to everyone? That anybody can, and should, play a bard if they feel like it? That anyone who can play a Champion fighter is also capable of playing a bard?
I don't. I do not play bards, despite the fact that I vibe pretty fiercely on that class and would likely have several on standby if not for the fact that I have zero musical talent whatsoever, nor do I have any other performance skill or the sort of lightning wit that could make up for a lack of musical acumen. Now certainly I could play a bard without any of those things - and in fact I've got character narratives/backstories set up which eliminates the need for them - but the long and the short of it is that such a character would be an insult to the class. Bards are fast-talking bombastic jackanapes for whom everybody is The Audience, and it's why the entire Internet loves a good bard player. With or without the damnable horndoggedness. I cannot live up to the hype, I cannot provide the sort of energy and on-demand instant witticism the class demands, and so I cannot properly play a bard. No matter how much that fact vexes me.
Do you think that's all hogwash? That it doesn't matter if I can't sing, or spit sick rhymes, or tell moving tales, or insult a goblin so hard the thing takes psychic damage while the DM snorts his Pepsi and the table howls with laughter? That I should totally be able to play a bard anyways if that's the story I want to tell? Because I don't. No matter how much it burns in my craw that I can't play the awesome, tale-inspiring magical-rogue scoundrel that lives in my head.
And that is perfectly fine. Different classes require different skillsets, not every player is created identical, and sometimes a player just has to accept that something is beyond his abilities. That doesn't mean there aren't other stories they can tell, other characters they can explore. Trying to make every last single class equally appealing to every last single player simply means the options for what we all get to play are limited to only those things everybody can comfortably play without any investment or attachment. And that is no way to design a game.
I merely brought up the example as a means of demonstrating that the goal of "everybody can play everything!" is already a bust. Some players aren't IRL charismatic enough to play the dashing rake. Some players don't have the inventiveness and problem-solving skills to play D&D run a spellcaster as anything but a basic blaster. Some players can't tolerate restrictions on their actions in the game and thus can't (properly) play clerics, paladins or warlocks.
Trying to make every single class be every single thing to every single person is a fool's errand and a surefire way to sink your game. Psions don't need to appeal to Every Single Player, they need to appeal to enough players. There's Champion fighters for everybody else.
It has the spells of a wizard, the hit die of a barbarian, the attacks of a fighter, the smites of a paladin, a warlock's invocations, whatever's good about ranger, clerics channel divinity, sorcerers metamagic, artificers infusions, druids wild shape, rogues sneak attack, bards expertise, and a monks ki! Its great, balanced, and everyone loves it!
It has the spells of a wizard, the hit die of a barbarian, the attacks of a fighter, the smites of a paladin, a warlock's invocations,whatever's good about ranger,clerics channel divinity, sorcerers metamagic, artificers infusions, druids wild shape, rogues sneak attack, bards expertise, and a monks ki! Its great, balanced, and everyone loves it!
I merely brought up the example as a means of demonstrating that the goal of "everybody can play everything!" is already a bust. Some players aren't IRL charismatic enough to play the dashing rake. Some players don't have the inventiveness and problem-solving skills to play D&D run a spellcaster as anything but a basic blaster. Some players can't tolerate restrictions on their actions in the game and thus can't (properly) play clerics, paladins or warlocks.
Trying to make every single class be every single thing to every single person is a fool's errand and a surefire way to sink your game. Psions don't need to appeal to Every Single Player, they need to appeal to enough players. There's Champion fighters for everybody else.
Crawling basically already said my view to this. There is a difference between a story (which can be changed) standing in the way of the player vs the mechanics (which are rules) to be followed standing in the way. You can play a version of a Charismatic Bard that fits your personality by saying “they do a dance” or “they tell a random joke”... Justifying the Psion needs to be complicated because it is Intelligence based and therefore it’s players should be doesnt sound right to me.
it should “feel” intelligent in the game, but appeal to any player that is attracted to the trope of the Psion. If it doesn’t, they won’t dedicate the resources to it.
And any player running a bard who resorts to "they do a dance" or "they tell a funny joke" should be ashamed of themselves and switch characters immediately.
I am very firmly on the side of "Charisma checks are correct; everything else is backwards" in the age-old debate of whether a player should be allowed to just announce an action and make the DM narrate it. A shy, awkward, nervous player with no charisma in reality cannot play a dashing, swaggering overconfident jack Sparrow-esque rake no matter how much he might wish to, or what his skills say. A slow, dense player without much imagination cannot play a quick-witted, highly intelligent and creative problem-solver, no matter what his skills say. A creepy jackhole with no people skills cannot play a wise, insightful Friendly Sage - again, no matter what his skills say.
Each of these players can take steps to try and address those weaknesses. D&D is a great place to do so, but saying "I do a cool dance" or "I woo him with flattery" or "I convince the guard to let us through" isn't really playing the game. It's forcing the DM to play your character for you, and the DM has enough on her plate without having to play all her PCs, too. Especially if she doesn't have that particular skillset, either.
If you want your game to be memorable? If you want it to be awesome? You have to play within your capabilities. Play characters you can pull off, or play things only a bit outside your abilities to try and challenge yourself to stretch to meet them.
This isn't directly related to the class design of the Psion, but man. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get one class - one, single, class - that required the least, slightest bit of investment and comprehension to play well?
What do you mean when you say "'Charisma Checks are correct; everything else is backward'"? Didn't you specifically give examples that someone shouldn't just ask for a check?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
What do you mean when you say "'Charisma Checks are correct; everything else is backward'"? Didn't you specifically give examples that someone shouldn't just ask for a check?
My mistake. I believed this issue was well known. I'll leave the description in spoilers since it's veering pretty heavily off-topic.
There's a persistent debate I've seen in many a D&D circle that states "Charisma checks are backwards". In most cases the player says "I do X", the DM sets a DC and assigns a roll, and then narrates the result. In the case of many Charisma checks, most prominently Persuasion or Deception, the player says "I do X', the DM says "okay, what do you say?" and makes the player narrate/describe/roleplay their words, then assigns a DC and calls for a roll if she feels one is warranted.
There's a subset of players who believe this form is backwards, and that Charisma checks should also be a case of "I do X" and the DM assigning a roll before narrating the result. They believe this makes the game more inclusive, allowing any player to play any character no matter how bad the mismatch between them - especially since physical scores such as Strength and Dexterity are not IRL prerequisites for their in-game counterparts the way Intelligence and Charisma are.
As you yourself noted, I am not one of those players. I hate "I do X", and I do not actually allow it in my game. Someone trying to Persuade or Deceive in my games gets to speak the words they're Persuading or Deceiving with. Someone attempting to Perform gets to describe their performance. Someone fishing for an Acrobatics check to do some dumb thing or other gets to describe the actual in-game actions their character is taking. At no point does a player ever get to say "can I roll [Skill here] to win?" They get to play a role and inform their DM of what their character is doing. I will then assign a role if a roll is needed (spoilers: one of the benefits of this 'backwards', player-narrated system is sometimes you do a good enough job with your action that you get to succeed without rolling) and narrate the result.
This is the basis of my belief that a truly great D&D game, one everybody remembers and tells awesome war stories about for years to come - or the same game in any system, really - comes when every player plays to their strengths. I am an individual of average at best IRL charisma, and my "Wisdom" abilities i.e. perceptiveness, intuitive insight, empathy, and the like are...well. I share my favorite artificers WIS of 6, let's say. But I am a keenly intelligent individual with a great deal of real-world tinkery sort of knowledge and over twenty years of voracious fantasy and sci-fi reading, as well as diceless freeform roleplaying, to back me up.
I make an absolutely piss-poor, utterly unacceptable bard. I am not great at being a cleric or paladin, since I'm too pragmatic for either class and tend to balk at Sworn Codes - though there's a small handful of exceptions. I have to be very careful with high Wisdom characters; I can fake high sensory acuity and perceptiveness in the context of the game world, but I cannot fake Insight and have to stretch real damn hard to make Insight work at any level. On the flip side, I make a goddamned fantastic rogue and a pretty slick wizard, warlock, or artificer. when I play those classes, aligned to my strengths, I am extremely effective and my party can not only rely on me, they can enjoy playing with me. When I try to play characters outside that template...well. My one and only cleric only worked because she rolled an Intelligence of 6, she was a fight-happy Tempest cleric of Kord for whom that was probably an asset rather than a detriment, and I hammed it up hard enough to make folks laugh, but that did not fit well and I was not a particularly effective member of the party with poor Cynai.
That's the sort of thing folks like me think about when designing both games and characters, as a DM or a player. And one of the reasons I hate the thought of a prospective Psion class being dumbed down to the point of Champion fighter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Could you quickly get a job at WoTC? I would like to see this psion officially published.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
“Psionics:
Through intense study and meditation, you have unlocked secrets within your mind many thought to be impossible. While spellcasters create effects by utilizing a limited resource until depleted, whether through components, channeling the power of their gods or patrons, or some other source, yours is special and comes from your own mind. This stretching of the psyche and expanded imagination also manifests in your Psionic effects. You do not receive spell slots to cast spells, instead you recreate their effects, and you can do so until you exhaust your mind to its Psionic Limit. You can only recreate spells at a level up to the level listed on the Psion class table. Your limit is equal to your level in this class. Recreating a spell effect is considered casting the spell at the level you are recreating it for the purposes of spells like Detect Magic or Counterspell.
Whenever you recreate the effect of a spell, you add the level at which the spell effect was cast to a cumulative total. This total cannot exceed your Psionic Limit. Whenever you finish a short or long rest, this total resets to 0.”
+ Later levels risk casting beyond the limit but at the cost of exhaustion
+ Add a focus type mechanic that makes it so you don’t need material without cost OR vocal if in the range of telepathy
This is what I picture. It may not be what you guys want exactly, and I didn’t put a chart down but would probably follow Warlock spell levels, then add a Mystic arcanum like feature later. I’m curious what is wrong with doing this and what the benefit is of making it more complicated to experience narratively?
The problem with that is the use of spells to replicate psionics. If you want just the subclasses, great, you're going to get them. Enjoy your psionics. We want a new system for psionics, not just replicating pact magic or spellcasting. This makes it too simple, and infuriatingly lacking in the depth psionics can have.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think my question is more narratively. If this version of Psion exists and is creating spell effects (mostly Illusion and Enchantment with some new ones added in) and it has this more flexible version of casting spells that basically does what points do, what in the game is your version doing that this one wouldn’t? I understand you want “depth” which I would maybe phrase as “intricacy” but that is not narratively different, just your experience performing the same things? Unless I am mistaken, I just haven’t seen any examples.
Okay, think of it like this. You know how jedi can lift rocks and other objects, right? They have to start out small, and move onto heavier and heavier objects later on. So, the Psion would have an ability to lift objects and creatures at level one, and it would scale as you level up, to heavier objects and creatures, more objects and creatures at once, and being able to use force to crush the objects and creatures you're using telekinesis on. This can't be accomplished with spells reflavored as psionics.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ok, so you choose a single effect as this class (let’s stick to Telekinetics) and it scales as you level in the class. Mechanically does this work like a ranged weapon or extension of yourself? For example, are you making an attack roll, grapple check? Does it increase with your Int Mod or Proficiency bonus?
You're focusing on the narrative, Positron. The idea that the mechanics "shouldn't get in the way of the story". That someone who has a strong desire to play a powerful psychic character should be able to do so without any more investment in or mastery of the system beyond that required to play a Champion fighter.
The issue you're running into is that for many of us, "mechanics" and "story" are not two separate things, each to be weighed and settled on with one held paramount. Story informs mechanics enforces story defines mechanics. If the two do not work hand in hand, the mechanics intuitively deriving from the lore and the lore neatly dsescribing the mechanical effects, then the game as a whole is off and will continue to be off no matter what either of those things does.
You want psionics to just be another form of spellcasting. Use the same spells with the same rules as every other spellcaster in the game because that's what's comfortable for you and your table, and you don't care what the mechanics are so long as they're not Getting In The Way. Well, on this end of the bridge the lack of mechanics is what's Getting In The Way. The slipshod, ramshackle implementation of psionics sucks and makes it effectively impossible to play a psionic character. Trust me - I've tried.
Great example - the Arcane Trickster makes a better 'psychic rogue' than the Soulknife does. Take some of the psionic talent feats from the latest UA (if you're using a version of character progression that allows for it), and select an AT spell list that reflects psychic talent, and the Trickster is much closer to a proper 'psychic' rogue than the Soulknife. Either version of the Soulknife. That is not to say it's close. It could sorta-kinda stand in for an untrained, streetwise wild talent with only minor psionic abilities if you squint sideways hard enough and decide that you Want To Believe, but that's as far as it goes.
The only other class that came anywhere close? Believe it or not, the School of Psionics wizard, provided you treated it as exactly what Wizards-the-shitty-game-devs said it was - a magical researcher who specialized in rigorous arcanoscientific study of psionic manifestations without necessarily having a psionic gift themselves. That was an interesting flavor and I miss it, though at least I lucked out enough to still have a character built on it so huzzah me.
Nevertheless. Without some bones under the meat, 'psionics' doesn't properly exist. You can't just twist the spellcasting engine around to make psionics, because PSYCHIC POWERS ARE NOT WIZARDRY. Psychic powers are distinct and separate from arcane magic and divine miracles and need to be treated as such, or it will. Not. Work.
Because believe it or not, some of us care about the game underneath the story as much as we care about the story. If the two don't harmonize, it's a bad experience. If we didn't care about the numbers we'd just go play Overlight or FATE or the like, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Ditto.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yurei,
I’ll personally take it a step further. I care more about mechanics than story. Because, quite frankly, we will make the story good regardless. I don’t have to worry about that because I play with interesting people. We will get a good story no matter what. But for me, most of my enjoyment (as a player) comes from my character.
Positron,
For you, you want a simple mechanic that doesn’t get in the way because for you, the game is an excuse to tell the story. For me, the story is just an excuse to play the game. For me, as a player, the enjoyment of the mechanics is more important than my enjoyment of the story. (When I DM, my enjoyment is my players’ enjoyment. They like story so I give it to them.)
I’m the player that skips the cutscenes to get back to the playing. I had no idea what the actual story behind Halo was until after Halo 3. And to be honest, I still don’t care. I don’t need to know what the excuse for shooting aliens is, I just need ammo and map marker where the aliens are.
Quite literally for me, when I am a player, the game matters more than the story. Why do you keep insisting that my fun is wrong?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So a proper example has occured to me at last, or at least a discussion point worth bringing up.
@Positron: Do you consider the bard class to be freely available to everyone? That anybody can, and should, play a bard if they feel like it? That anyone who can play a Champion fighter is also capable of playing a bard?
I don't. I do not play bards, despite the fact that I vibe pretty fiercely on that class and would likely have several on standby if not for the fact that I have zero musical talent whatsoever, nor do I have any other performance skill or the sort of lightning wit that could make up for a lack of musical acumen. Now certainly I could play a bard without any of those things - and in fact I've got character narratives/backstories set up which eliminates the need for them - but the long and the short of it is that such a character would be an insult to the class. Bards are fast-talking bombastic jackanapes for whom everybody is The Audience, and it's why the entire Internet loves a good bard player. With or without the damnable horndoggedness. I cannot live up to the hype, I cannot provide the sort of energy and on-demand instant witticism the class demands, and so I cannot properly play a bard. No matter how much that fact vexes me.
Do you think that's all hogwash? That it doesn't matter if I can't sing, or spit sick rhymes, or tell moving tales, or insult a goblin so hard the thing takes psychic damage while the DM snorts his Pepsi and the table howls with laughter? That I should totally be able to play a bard anyways if that's the story I want to tell? Because I don't. No matter how much it burns in my craw that I can't play the awesome, tale-inspiring magical-rogue scoundrel that lives in my head.
And that is perfectly fine. Different classes require different skillsets, not every player is created identical, and sometimes a player just has to accept that something is beyond his abilities. That doesn't mean there aren't other stories they can tell, other characters they can explore. Trying to make every last single class equally appealing to every last single player simply means the options for what we all get to play are limited to only those things everybody can comfortably play without any investment or attachment. And that is no way to design a game.
Please do not contact or message me.
I merely brought up the example as a means of demonstrating that the goal of "everybody can play everything!" is already a bust. Some players aren't IRL charismatic enough to play the dashing rake. Some players don't have the inventiveness and problem-solving skills to
play D&Drun a spellcaster as anything but a basic blaster. Some players can't tolerate restrictions on their actions in the game and thus can't (properly) play clerics, paladins or warlocks.Trying to make every single class be every single thing to every single person is a fool's errand and a surefire way to sink your game. Psions don't need to appeal to Every Single Player, they need to appeal to enough players. There's Champion fighters for everybody else.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's why I made the Everyman class!
It has the spells of a wizard, the hit die of a barbarian, the attacks of a fighter, the smites of a paladin, a warlock's invocations, whatever's good about ranger, clerics channel divinity, sorcerers metamagic, artificers infusions, druids wild shape, rogues sneak attack, bards expertise, and a monks ki! Its great, balanced, and everyone loves it!
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I just laughed so hard I almost peed a little.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Crawling basically already said my view to this. There is a difference between a story (which can be changed) standing in the way of the player vs the mechanics (which are rules) to be followed standing in the way. You can play a version of a Charismatic Bard that fits your personality by saying “they do a dance” or “they tell a random joke”... Justifying the Psion needs to be complicated because it is Intelligence based and therefore it’s players should be doesnt sound right to me.
it should “feel” intelligent in the game, but appeal to any player that is attracted to the trope of the Psion. If it doesn’t, they won’t dedicate the resources to it.
And any player running a bard who resorts to "they do a dance" or "they tell a funny joke" should be ashamed of themselves and switch characters immediately.
I am very firmly on the side of "Charisma checks are correct; everything else is backwards" in the age-old debate of whether a player should be allowed to just announce an action and make the DM narrate it. A shy, awkward, nervous player with no charisma in reality cannot play a dashing, swaggering overconfident jack Sparrow-esque rake no matter how much he might wish to, or what his skills say. A slow, dense player without much imagination cannot play a quick-witted, highly intelligent and creative problem-solver, no matter what his skills say. A creepy jackhole with no people skills cannot play a wise, insightful Friendly Sage - again, no matter what his skills say.
Each of these players can take steps to try and address those weaknesses. D&D is a great place to do so, but saying "I do a cool dance" or "I woo him with flattery" or "I convince the guard to let us through" isn't really playing the game. It's forcing the DM to play your character for you, and the DM has enough on her plate without having to play all her PCs, too. Especially if she doesn't have that particular skillset, either.
If you want your game to be memorable? If you want it to be awesome? You have to play within your capabilities. Play characters you can pull off, or play things only a bit outside your abilities to try and challenge yourself to stretch to meet them.
This isn't directly related to the class design of the Psion, but man. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get one class - one, single, class - that required the least, slightest bit of investment and comprehension to play well?
Please do not contact or message me.
What do you mean when you say "'Charisma Checks are correct; everything else is backward'"? Didn't you specifically give examples that someone shouldn't just ask for a check?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
So...Hunter's Mark?
Yeah. I like rangers (they are my second or third favorite class), but they don't have much going for them in the power department.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
My mistake. I believed this issue was well known. I'll leave the description in spoilers since it's veering pretty heavily off-topic.
There's a persistent debate I've seen in many a D&D circle that states "Charisma checks are backwards". In most cases the player says "I do X", the DM sets a DC and assigns a roll, and then narrates the result. In the case of many Charisma checks, most prominently Persuasion or Deception, the player says "I do X', the DM says "okay, what do you say?" and makes the player narrate/describe/roleplay their words, then assigns a DC and calls for a roll if she feels one is warranted.
There's a subset of players who believe this form is backwards, and that Charisma checks should also be a case of "I do X" and the DM assigning a roll before narrating the result. They believe this makes the game more inclusive, allowing any player to play any character no matter how bad the mismatch between them - especially since physical scores such as Strength and Dexterity are not IRL prerequisites for their in-game counterparts the way Intelligence and Charisma are.
As you yourself noted, I am not one of those players. I hate "I do X", and I do not actually allow it in my game. Someone trying to Persuade or Deceive in my games gets to speak the words they're Persuading or Deceiving with. Someone attempting to Perform gets to describe their performance. Someone fishing for an Acrobatics check to do some dumb thing or other gets to describe the actual in-game actions their character is taking. At no point does a player ever get to say "can I roll [Skill here] to win?" They get to play a role and inform their DM of what their character is doing. I will then assign a role if a roll is needed (spoilers: one of the benefits of this 'backwards', player-narrated system is sometimes you do a good enough job with your action that you get to succeed without rolling) and narrate the result.
This is the basis of my belief that a truly great D&D game, one everybody remembers and tells awesome war stories about for years to come - or the same game in any system, really - comes when every player plays to their strengths. I am an individual of average at best IRL charisma, and my "Wisdom" abilities i.e. perceptiveness, intuitive insight, empathy, and the like are...well. I share my favorite artificers WIS of 6, let's say. But I am a keenly intelligent individual with a great deal of real-world tinkery sort of knowledge and over twenty years of voracious fantasy and sci-fi reading, as well as diceless freeform roleplaying, to back me up.
I make an absolutely piss-poor, utterly unacceptable bard. I am not great at being a cleric or paladin, since I'm too pragmatic for either class and tend to balk at Sworn Codes - though there's a small handful of exceptions. I have to be very careful with high Wisdom characters; I can fake high sensory acuity and perceptiveness in the context of the game world, but I cannot fake Insight and have to stretch real damn hard to make Insight work at any level. On the flip side, I make a goddamned fantastic rogue and a pretty slick wizard, warlock, or artificer. when I play those classes, aligned to my strengths, I am extremely effective and my party can not only rely on me, they can enjoy playing with me. When I try to play characters outside that template...well. My one and only cleric only worked because she rolled an Intelligence of 6, she was a fight-happy Tempest cleric of Kord for whom that was probably an asset rather than a detriment, and I hammed it up hard enough to make folks laugh, but that did not fit well and I was not a particularly effective member of the party with poor Cynai.
That's the sort of thing folks like me think about when designing both games and characters, as a DM or a player. And one of the reasons I hate the thought of a prospective Psion class being dumbed down to the point of Champion fighter.
Please do not contact or message me.