Positron, you want the subclasses to be simple and easy to play, right? You'd be happy if we got those, but not overly upset if we don't get what we want, right? (I will paraphrase throughout this. Quoting will take too much sifting and too much space.)
What I want is for you to get the subclasses however you want them, as simple as possible so new players can play them as well. I want something that is fun for you, and I also want something that is fun for me.
Your point that "my side doesn't want that, so WotC won't waste their time doing that because it's pointless" is offensive and selfish. I'm not meaning to offend you, I have autism, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, I just call it like I see it. It's offensive to say that us getting something that is complicated because that's what we want in the game is incorrect and pointless because most people don't want that. It's selfish to not want my side that is a "sizable part of the community" to have what we want. You have said that you want us to get something that will make us happy, but you have repeatedly set limits to what amount of our fun we are allowed to want or ask for.
You said "A new class should use spellcasting or pact magic because it's easier and pointless to not use it". We disagree with this, because of a few points:
It shows effort to make a new system, which we will appreciate more.
It is new, and new is better.
We want to be able to use our brains in the game when using our abilities.
We won't like it if it isn't a new system.
Spellcasting=/=Psionics
You also said that story is more important than the mechanics, right? We disagree because mechanics show depth. Sure, if I wanted, I could just reflavor a Battlemaster Fighter to a psionic warrior, using Superiority Dice as psionic power to enhance our attacks. Want a ranged psionic attacker? Just play a battlemaster with a longbow, and flavor the bow as somatic components you have to perform in order to blast someone with energy. Reflavor the arrow as a psionic piece of matter that you use to fuel your attacks. See, you can reflavor any ability or subclass/class as anything else, but that's not good enough for us. We want a new mechanic for this because it enhances the play experience, and we don't have to say, "Well, I really want to play that character, but it doesn't really exist, so let's just play pretend!"
Designing a psionic system that doesn't function like psionics is playing pretend. Yes, I understand D&D is a game of pretend, but we need rules to outline the realm of the game. If the game didn't have mechanics or anything, we could just pretend literally everything. I could have no dice, DM screen, papers, character sheets, pencils, or anything else. We could do D&D without anything if we wanted to, but it would be different, wouldn't it? The mechanics of the game make D&D less pretend. It makes part of it rooted in the real world. It gives us restrictions, abilities, rules, and everything else that makes D&D be D&D.
Adding new mechanics makes the game feel more real. If you're getting what you want, which we know you are, why the hell do you care if we get what we want?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
Yurei,
I gotta firmly disagree with you about that. While I encourage roleplay whenever possible, that is unfair. Considering the stereotypical “D&D nerd” with the neckbeard, and the “mom’s basement smell” by your logic most people would never play a Bard. I cannot carry a tune in a bucket, and I can’t always come up with a good joke or story. I do my best, but I’m no Regal.
The point of playing D&D is to be someone else. How can anyone ever be someone else if they are forced to play who they are. Using that same argument you should no longer be allowed to play cross-gendered characters. That’s not fair. Boring people can play Bards too. You can play a Bard. Wanna know how you get to be good at playing a Bard if you’re not naturally inclined to it? The same way everyone gets better at anything... practice.
I have a good singing voice in real life, but I can't actually do it at a table. I'd get too nervous, and it would overall just be better. If I ever play a bard, which I probably won't, and I ever want to say what I sing, I will look for a youtube video of it, and play it.
I agree. D&D is for becoming someone else, but if I need a specific toolset to become another person, that's not D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don’t mean to offend. Heck, If the resources were infinite I’d be all for putting out material every week to appease every corner of the market. But, here is the main gripe, it took them years to design one new class in the Artificer, which is a half-caster with some invention abilities. If your expectations for a Psionic class are as follows, it would take until 6.5e to see it come to light. Add the fact that all that work is for a small minority of players, and subclasses could be added in a few months to a year, or a class that uses spellcasting could take a year or two, I’m concerned with the expectations versus the reality.
I just don’t really see a world where you get the mechanics and original systems, get them tested, and prove to the corporation that despite low survey results it’s worth printing books that most players have said they don’t want. Sorry, I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s the reality of the situation.
I don’t mean to offend. Heck, If the resources were infinite I’d be all for putting out material every week to appease every corner of the market. But, here is the main gripe, it took them years to design one new class in the Artificer, which is a half-caster with some invention abilities. If your expectations for a Psionic class are as follows, it would take until 6.5e to see it come to light. Add the fact that all that work is for a small minority of players, and subclasses could be added in a few months to a year, or a class that uses spellcasting could take a year or two, I’m concerned with the expectations versus the reality.
I just don’t really see a world where you get the mechanics and original systems, get them tested, and prove to the corporation that despite low survey results it’s worth printing books that most players have said they don’t want. Sorry, I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s the reality of the situation.
Well it already existed in 2nd edition. It wasn't that great but it was still more viable than just slapping the psychic damage type on a spell and calling it quits. I don't have the handbook anymore so I'm going on memory but my main gripe then was that it didn't really fit in 2nd because it was a bit more basic then, for example a wizard, but it would fit in 5e a lot more.
I don’t mean to offend. Heck, If the resources were infinite I’d be all for putting out material every week to appease every corner of the market. But, here is the main gripe, it took them years to design one new class in the Artificer, which is a half-caster with some invention abilities. If your expectations for a Psionic class are as follows, it would take until 6.5e to see it come to light. Add the fact that all that work is for a small minority of players, and subclasses could be added in a few months to a year, or a class that uses spellcasting could take a year or two, I’m concerned with the expectations versus the reality.
Okay, a few points.
First, the resources aren't infinite, but they're enough. It didn't take them years to design the Artificer, it took them two sets of tries. They tried once for XGtE, and tried again for Eberron: Rising from the Last War. Sure, there were multiple phases of playtesting and different versions of the same class, but they basically had to try only twice when they knew they wanted an Artificer. They didn't even try a second class version of a Psion this round of UA. If they do, it might pass.
Second, it wouldn't be a waste to give us what we want. Sure, it's going to take time. Sure, it's only for a minority of the community, but Jeremy Crawford said we were a "sizable minority". Maybe some of the people who want simple psionics will use the Psion class, if they give it to us. Sure, we're smaller than the other group, but that doesn't make us less important. How big our group is, we don't know, but we know it's large enough for WotC to want to make us happy as well.
Third, this wouldn't delay the release of a Dark Sun book. If they release a Psion class in UA next month or a month after that, we could give feedback a month later, they put out another version after a month, and then do another survey. If it passes, they can put it in a Dark Sun book. Additionally, the survey can have a first question that asks if they want a new class for psionics, if they answer no, they don't get to give feedback on the rest of it. If they answer yes, they get to give feedback. This way, they get feedback from my group of the community that wants a psion class, and see how popular it is among the people they're designing it for. A UA Psion doesn't have to pass among the people who don't want a class for psionics, because they're not the ones they're designing it for.
This is all assuming they were telling the truth when they said that they want to make my group happy. Dark Sun is probably not too far away, and I want psionics to be done right in it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
a lot of talk about psionics being too complicated, but the way the mystic did it was quite simple actually, all you have to explain to anew player is:
-instead of having spell slots, you have an pool of points you can spend to activate different effects, your psi points. Just like spell slots they disappear when you spend them and you regain them at the end of an long rest
-instead of choosing spells individually, you get small "packets" containing different effects fueled by your psi points, the different disciplines
-there is a limit on how many of your points you may spend on a single effect at one time, your psi limit
-once you reach 11th level you need to introduce the psionic mastery feature, but by then you should already be familiar with the mystic and psionics
this does not seem like something too complicated to teach new players, honestly the way the mystic worked seemed quite fine, as long as you perhaps just tone down its power level, remove mystic restoration and strength of mind since they are slightly OP and also not necessary for the class to have, and lastly remove bonus disciplines from the sub classes since it gave the mystic just a little too much versatility at level 1, oh and also mystic restoration disiplince ought to be removed or made into an subclass exclusive thing. Oh yeah and while no spell components is kind of an main feature of the identity of psionics some kind of similar mechanic might be nice, maybe every discipline is connected to a different "dogma" you must follow to access that particular disiplince, you might only be able to use mastery of fire if you are not wet, might be unable to use iron body if you are not touching metal, you might not be able to use nomadic step if you are physically bound by rope or manacles. With just those changes, and maybe a couple of other refinements an new psion or mystic class would be perfect, or at least ready for another round of play testing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The Mystic had more problems then that. The points array was based on spell points and that chart was reduculous. There were no restrictions on which subclass could take what disciplines, the Focus part was confusing for people. It needed a lot of work to make it viable.
Levi: my point is that the Artificer is still a half caster that uses existing mechanics and it took them a while to narrow down how to make that work. They didn’t have to test spellcasting because they knew it already worked. Psion will take longer because you aren’t going to plug in existing mechanics like you said, so each piece will likely need ran through the gauntlet. And like I had said, if the surveys come back that they like the psion but hate the points system... well we know what will happen. They don’t differentiate between the “forum goers who like complicated” and the “stupid masses whose opinion for the class doesn’t matter”
I have personally addressed you twice now with a question, and you seem to be flat out ignoring me. Why?
Sorry I thought it was rhetorical / I answered it in another response to someone else. Your fun isn’t wrong, but the way you want it implemented is. If a new player joins DND and wants to play a Psion and finds their character concept would fit perfectly in that class and it’s subclasses, but can’t because the mechanics act as barrier to play... well that is an unnecessary obstacle.
That is why position remains that the Psion as a class shouldn’t be purposefully designed to do this, which is what it sounds like you want.
Levi: my point is that the Artificer is still a half caster that uses existing mechanics and it took them a while to narrow down how to make that work. They didn’t have to test spellcasting because they knew it already worked. Psion will take longer because you aren’t going to plug in existing mechanics like you said, so each piece will likely need ran through the gauntlet. And like I had said, if the surveys come back that they like the psion but hate the points system... well we know what will happen. They don’t differentiate between the “forum goers who like complicated” and the “stupid masses whose opinion for the class doesn’t matter”
First, the Artificer started out as a quarter-caster.
Second, they developed a whole new system for it to be based around, the Infusions. Sure, they seem to be based a bit off of Eldritch Invocations, but they're not very similar in functionality or mechanics.
Third, they don't have to use a point system. I personally want it, but don't care if we get a real Psion if it doesn't have a point system.
Fourth, they can differentiate between the two groups, because they know who they're building the class for. They can ignore most of the feedback from the people who don't want a psion class, because frankly, they don't matter. Just like my community of people don't matter when it comes to feedback for the Psionic subclasses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Well, I finally read this whole thread. All 38 pages. Now I have a slightly better understanding of the arguments that are going on in it.
The main argument seems to be: Does a psioncist class need a new system, or should it use spellcasting? I am in the camp of having a whole different system for psionics, not because of flavor, but because their are already so many different classes that use spell slots and casting. If I could redesign 5e, Wizards would use spell slots, Sorcerers would use the same spells but use points instead of slots, Warlocks would use janky Wizard casting, Clerics would pray to gods and get stuff, and basically every class would have its own unique "spellcasting" system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I have personally addressed you twice now with a question, and you seem to be flat out ignoring me. Why?
Sorry I thought it was rhetorical / I answered it in another response to someone else. Your fun isn’t wrong, but the way you want it implemented is. If a new player joins DND and wants to play a Psion and finds their character concept would fit perfectly in that class and it’s subclasses, but can’t because the mechanics act as barrier to play... well that is an unnecessary obstacle.
That is why position remains that the Psion as a class shouldn’t be purposefully designed to do this, which is what it sounds like you want.
Not at all. Why would making a different system that is equally as complex as Spellcasting act as a barrier when the Spellcasting system doesn’t?!? Just because it’s different? I think you must have an insultingly low estimate of people’s intelligence.
I have personally addressed you twice now with a question, and you seem to be flat out ignoring me. Why?
Sorry I thought it was rhetorical / I answered it in another response to someone else. Your fun isn’t wrong, but the way you want it implemented is.
(I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, Sposta has that covered.)
So, my fun is wrong, then. The way that it's implemented determines how fun it is. To us, it will only be fun if it is implemented the way that we want it, because we know how we want it.
Additionally, you're not in charge of how people are allowed to have fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I am confused, do you guys want it to be equally complex or more complex? I am mixing up everyone’s opinion or it hasn’t really been stated. If it’s equally complex then it’s fine, but I’ve said we don’t really have examples of what you are picturing, other than pointing to things that players have tested and determined are too complex.
I’ve also been pretty clear. I think you can have fun and find complexity, but not put all those eggs in one class and sanction it off.
Also I can state it in a different angle. If you have two players that wants to play a character like Jean Grey, and one is a new player wanting easy to understand designs and the other is experienced and wanting intricate mechanics, then how does your strategy work? If both players can make Jean Grey, one in a Sorcerer subclass and one in the harder to use Psion class, then you naturally have overlap like I said earlier. You are designing the same concepts twice. This is why I’m saying that the smart thing to do is put all the character concepts in one tree (whether subclasses or a class) and then add the complexity throughout the GAME as an option, if that is what you want. I’m not saying your fun is wrong, but the method of making this a class specific addition to complexity just makes little sense to me.
I personally do not think that the psionic mechanic must be “complex” in and of itself. Simply having it be different adds breadth, depth, and a modicum of intricacy to the game as a whole. That is the “complexity” that I am after. And I do not fear an overlap. Let two different character types both be Jean Grey. So what? It doesn’t hurt anything. What it does is give me (and everyone else) options on how to make Jean Grey different ways. Simply having a new variety of choices from which to build my characters would be welcome.
... If players nowadays want to play Jean Grey, some can use sorcerer and others can use Warlock and the Phoenix as a patron. This doesn't mean you're overlapping, just that you have different paths to fulfill an idea. This is just the norm, I mean an RPG system that allows only one way to achieve your idea for a character is a pretty meh one.
In a side note, I still prefer the Psidie mechanic over a point system for casting spells, D&D is definitively not built in a way that allows a spell point system to work properly. And even if I want a Psion class, I also want Psionic subclasses, mainly because I love 'gish' and psionics always shine in this.
Now, about mechanics... what about combining the Psidie with the disciplines? The Psion chooses a subclass level one, between Telekinesis, Telepathy, Teleportation, Psychometabolism, Metacreativity, and Clairvoyance, each one gives access to one Greater Discipline, with the same name, that contains 6 powers, separated in 2 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 2 Master powers. Beginners' power can be used for anyone, Initiate can only be used after a character reaches Psion 7th level, and Masters in the 14th level. Besides this, each Greater Discipline gives access to one cantrip, without components.
Besides this, there are Minor Disciplines. You gain access to one in the 2nd level, and another one every 5 levels after this (7th, 12th, 17th), each Minor discipline contains 4 power, 1 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 1 Master. It's not necessary a lot of disciplines in this case, 8 or 10 is already more than enough.
I personally do not think that the psionic mechanic must be “complex” in and of itself. Simply having it be different adds breadth, depth, and a modicum of intricacy to the game as a whole. That is the “complexity” that I am after. And I do not fear an overlap. Let two different character types both be Jean Grey. So what? It doesn’t hurt anything. What it does is give me (and everyone else) options on how to make Jean Grey different ways. Simply having a new variety of choices from which to build my characters would be welcome.
Then that is all fine. Some people started suggesting increased complexity as an equivalent to depth, so it gets confusing as to what people mean when they describe wanting depth. i don’t think 128 Psi Points and a conversion charts are equal in complexity.
I also am fine with the idea of having both represented, but I think our concerns come from the same place. Let’s say we have a Soul Knife, Aberrant Mind, and a Psychic Warrior. A new player wants to play Professor Xavier, and it’s only available in a hard to use Psion class. That’s my hang up, where do concepts fall? Is every concept attempted in Psion also given a subclass? Where is the line and balance?
I think what a lot of the disconnect is here - besides some players valuing depth over accessibility and others valuing the inverse - is an absolute, starving-man desperation for choice in our games.
Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition purports itself "the world's greatest role playing game". This claim is based solelyt on the strength of 5e's sales, and not on any inherent superiority of the system. Those sales are achieved through slavish adherence to a doctrine of absolutely maximizing accessibility. One of the sacrifices it makes to do so is choice. When you create a first-level character in D&D 5e, you have already made eighty percent of all the meaningful decisions that will ever be made for that character. If you select a subclass at first level, a'la sorcerers and clerics, then you are completely done making meaningful choices for that character basically forever, with the slim exception of deciding whether you're able to hamstring yourself with one of the eight or so feats in the game which are actually worth allocating in place of an ASI. If you choose a subclass at second or third instead, you get to make the final meaningful decision of your character's existence at that level, after which the entirety of your character's development is on strict, unwavering autopilot, outside of multiclassing rules. Because it's more accessible if the game builds your character for you, without any input from you whatsoever after grudgingly allowing you to make two or three choices at the start.
I hate that. I hate it fiercely. I hate it without reservation. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I HATE it, I FREAKING HATE IT!!! It is awful, it is putrid, it is one of the greatest sins Fifth Edition has committed against its community, and the fact that its juggernaut success means everybody else is slobbering to follow suit makes me wonder if I should even continue trying to play these rule-bound systems or if I should just go back to running freeform. Every paladin is completely identical to every other paladin. Every monk is identical to every other monk. Every sorcerer is identical to every other sorcerer. So on and so forth. Even the artificer, supposedly the cerebral, creative Invent-y class, is more or less the same way. My battlesmith I enjoy running and vexing her DM with is more or less identical to every other battlesmith created by anyone ever, with the sole exception of taking a wizard level to complement her background.
The only way to buck the system and make a character that is even the slightest bit unique to you and your game is to multiclass your ass off, or to make a warlock and avoid the usual Blastlock nonsense. Or to go so deep into the homebrew weeds that you may as well be playing a different system.
If any prospective Psion class is built the same way, with the same stupid rules as the rest of 5e, I will probably scream. I need. CHOICES. I need some freaking AGENCY in my "role playing game", which is why all of the campaigns my play group runs regardless of who's in the DM seat have pretty heavy homebrew allowance in terms of character generation and progression. Because 5e's assumption that we're all too stupid to understand how this sort of thing works and insistence that we stay in our little baby carrier seats while it does all the driving for us is infuriating and I find myself increasingly unwilling to stand for it.
No 5e, I am not a blithering moron. Give me the ******* wheel and let me drive my own god damned character, please.
This is the key point here.
Positron, you want the subclasses to be simple and easy to play, right? You'd be happy if we got those, but not overly upset if we don't get what we want, right? (I will paraphrase throughout this. Quoting will take too much sifting and too much space.)
What I want is for you to get the subclasses however you want them, as simple as possible so new players can play them as well. I want something that is fun for you, and I also want something that is fun for me.
Your point that "my side doesn't want that, so WotC won't waste their time doing that because it's pointless" is offensive and selfish. I'm not meaning to offend you, I have autism, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, I just call it like I see it. It's offensive to say that us getting something that is complicated because that's what we want in the game is incorrect and pointless because most people don't want that. It's selfish to not want my side that is a "sizable part of the community" to have what we want. You have said that you want us to get something that will make us happy, but you have repeatedly set limits to what amount of our fun we are allowed to want or ask for.
You said "A new class should use spellcasting or pact magic because it's easier and pointless to not use it". We disagree with this, because of a few points:
You also said that story is more important than the mechanics, right? We disagree because mechanics show depth. Sure, if I wanted, I could just reflavor a Battlemaster Fighter to a psionic warrior, using Superiority Dice as psionic power to enhance our attacks. Want a ranged psionic attacker? Just play a battlemaster with a longbow, and flavor the bow as somatic components you have to perform in order to blast someone with energy. Reflavor the arrow as a psionic piece of matter that you use to fuel your attacks. See, you can reflavor any ability or subclass/class as anything else, but that's not good enough for us. We want a new mechanic for this because it enhances the play experience, and we don't have to say, "Well, I really want to play that character, but it doesn't really exist, so let's just play pretend!"
Designing a psionic system that doesn't function like psionics is playing pretend. Yes, I understand D&D is a game of pretend, but we need rules to outline the realm of the game. If the game didn't have mechanics or anything, we could just pretend literally everything. I could have no dice, DM screen, papers, character sheets, pencils, or anything else. We could do D&D without anything if we wanted to, but it would be different, wouldn't it? The mechanics of the game make D&D less pretend. It makes part of it rooted in the real world. It gives us restrictions, abilities, rules, and everything else that makes D&D be D&D.
Adding new mechanics makes the game feel more real. If you're getting what you want, which we know you are, why the hell do you care if we get what we want?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I have a good singing voice in real life, but I can't actually do it at a table. I'd get too nervous, and it would overall just be better. If I ever play a bard, which I probably won't, and I ever want to say what I sing, I will look for a youtube video of it, and play it.
I agree. D&D is for becoming someone else, but if I need a specific toolset to become another person, that's not D&D.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
LeviRocks,
I don’t mean to offend. Heck, If the resources were infinite I’d be all for putting out material every week to appease every corner of the market. But, here is the main gripe, it took them years to design one new class in the Artificer, which is a half-caster with some invention abilities. If your expectations for a Psionic class are as follows, it would take until 6.5e to see it come to light. Add the fact that all that work is for a small minority of players, and subclasses could be added in a few months to a year, or a class that uses spellcasting could take a year or two, I’m concerned with the expectations versus the reality.
I just don’t really see a world where you get the mechanics and original systems, get them tested, and prove to the corporation that despite low survey results it’s worth printing books that most players have said they don’t want. Sorry, I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s the reality of the situation.
Well it already existed in 2nd edition. It wasn't that great but it was still more viable than just slapping the psychic damage type on a spell and calling it quits. I don't have the handbook anymore so I'm going on memory but my main gripe then was that it didn't really fit in 2nd because it was a bit more basic then, for example a wizard, but it would fit in 5e a lot more.
Okay, a few points.
First, the resources aren't infinite, but they're enough. It didn't take them years to design the Artificer, it took them two sets of tries. They tried once for XGtE, and tried again for Eberron: Rising from the Last War. Sure, there were multiple phases of playtesting and different versions of the same class, but they basically had to try only twice when they knew they wanted an Artificer. They didn't even try a second class version of a Psion this round of UA. If they do, it might pass.
Second, it wouldn't be a waste to give us what we want. Sure, it's going to take time. Sure, it's only for a minority of the community, but Jeremy Crawford said we were a "sizable minority". Maybe some of the people who want simple psionics will use the Psion class, if they give it to us. Sure, we're smaller than the other group, but that doesn't make us less important. How big our group is, we don't know, but we know it's large enough for WotC to want to make us happy as well.
Third, this wouldn't delay the release of a Dark Sun book. If they release a Psion class in UA next month or a month after that, we could give feedback a month later, they put out another version after a month, and then do another survey. If it passes, they can put it in a Dark Sun book. Additionally, the survey can have a first question that asks if they want a new class for psionics, if they answer no, they don't get to give feedback on the rest of it. If they answer yes, they get to give feedback. This way, they get feedback from my group of the community that wants a psion class, and see how popular it is among the people they're designing it for. A UA Psion doesn't have to pass among the people who don't want a class for psionics, because they're not the ones they're designing it for.
This is all assuming they were telling the truth when they said that they want to make my group happy. Dark Sun is probably not too far away, and I want psionics to be done right in it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
a lot of talk about psionics being too complicated, but the way the mystic did it was quite simple actually, all you have to explain to anew player is:
-instead of having spell slots, you have an pool of points you can spend to activate different effects, your psi points. Just like spell slots they disappear when you spend them and you regain them at the end of an long rest
-instead of choosing spells individually, you get small "packets" containing different effects fueled by your psi points, the different disciplines
-there is a limit on how many of your points you may spend on a single effect at one time, your psi limit
-once you reach 11th level you need to introduce the psionic mastery feature, but by then you should already be familiar with the mystic and psionics
this does not seem like something too complicated to teach new players, honestly the way the mystic worked seemed quite fine, as long as you perhaps just tone down its power level, remove mystic restoration and strength of mind since they are slightly OP and also not necessary for the class to have, and lastly remove bonus disciplines from the sub classes since it gave the mystic just a little too much versatility at level 1, oh and also mystic restoration disiplince ought to be removed or made into an subclass exclusive thing. Oh yeah and while no spell components is kind of an main feature of the identity of psionics some kind of similar mechanic might be nice, maybe every discipline is connected to a different "dogma" you must follow to access that particular disiplince, you might only be able to use mastery of fire if you are not wet, might be unable to use iron body if you are not touching metal, you might not be able to use nomadic step if you are physically bound by rope or manacles. With just those changes, and maybe a couple of other refinements an new psion or mystic class would be perfect, or at least ready for another round of play testing
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The Mystic had more problems then that. The points array was based on spell points and that chart was reduculous. There were no restrictions on which subclass could take what disciplines, the Focus part was confusing for people. It needed a lot of work to make it viable.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Levi: my point is that the Artificer is still a half caster that uses existing mechanics and it took them a while to narrow down how to make that work. They didn’t have to test spellcasting because they knew it already worked. Psion will take longer because you aren’t going to plug in existing mechanics like you said, so each piece will likely need ran through the gauntlet. And like I had said, if the surveys come back that they like the psion but hate the points system... well we know what will happen. They don’t differentiate between the “forum goers who like complicated” and the “stupid masses whose opinion for the class doesn’t matter”
Positron,
I have personally addressed you twice now with a question, and you seem to be flat out ignoring me. Why?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sorry I thought it was rhetorical / I answered it in another response to someone else. Your fun isn’t wrong, but the way you want it implemented is. If a new player joins DND and wants to play a Psion and finds their character concept would fit perfectly in that class and it’s subclasses, but can’t because the mechanics act as barrier to play... well that is an unnecessary obstacle.
That is why position remains that the Psion as a class shouldn’t be purposefully designed to do this, which is what it sounds like you want.
First, the Artificer started out as a quarter-caster.
Second, they developed a whole new system for it to be based around, the Infusions. Sure, they seem to be based a bit off of Eldritch Invocations, but they're not very similar in functionality or mechanics.
Third, they don't have to use a point system. I personally want it, but don't care if we get a real Psion if it doesn't have a point system.
Fourth, they can differentiate between the two groups, because they know who they're building the class for. They can ignore most of the feedback from the people who don't want a psion class, because frankly, they don't matter. Just like my community of people don't matter when it comes to feedback for the Psionic subclasses.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well, I finally read this whole thread. All 38 pages. Now I have a slightly better understanding of the arguments that are going on in it.
The main argument seems to be: Does a psioncist class need a new system, or should it use spellcasting? I am in the camp of having a whole different system for psionics, not because of flavor, but because their are already so many different classes that use spell slots and casting. If I could redesign 5e, Wizards would use spell slots, Sorcerers would use the same spells but use points instead of slots, Warlocks would use janky Wizard casting, Clerics would pray to gods and get stuff, and basically every class would have its own unique "spellcasting" system.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Not at all. Why would making a different system that is equally as complex as Spellcasting act as a barrier when the Spellcasting system doesn’t?!? Just because it’s different? I think you must have an insultingly low estimate of people’s intelligence.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
(I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, Sposta has that covered.)
So, my fun is wrong, then. The way that it's implemented determines how fun it is. To us, it will only be fun if it is implemented the way that we want it, because we know how we want it.
Additionally, you're not in charge of how people are allowed to have fun.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am confused, do you guys want it to be equally complex or more complex? I am mixing up everyone’s opinion or it hasn’t really been stated. If it’s equally complex then it’s fine, but I’ve said we don’t really have examples of what you are picturing, other than pointing to things that players have tested and determined are too complex.
I’ve also been pretty clear. I think you can have fun and find complexity, but not put all those eggs in one class and sanction it off.
Also I can state it in a different angle. If you have two players that wants to play a character like Jean Grey, and one is a new player wanting easy to understand designs and the other is experienced and wanting intricate mechanics, then how does your strategy work? If both players can make Jean Grey, one in a Sorcerer subclass and one in the harder to use Psion class, then you naturally have overlap like I said earlier. You are designing the same concepts twice. This is why I’m saying that the smart thing to do is put all the character concepts in one tree (whether subclasses or a class) and then add the complexity throughout the GAME as an option, if that is what you want. I’m not saying your fun is wrong, but the method of making this a class specific addition to complexity just makes little sense to me.
I personally do not think that the psionic mechanic must be “complex” in and of itself. Simply having it be different adds breadth, depth, and a modicum of intricacy to the game as a whole. That is the “complexity” that I am after. And I do not fear an overlap. Let two different character types both be Jean Grey. So what? It doesn’t hurt anything. What it does is give me (and everyone else) options on how to make Jean Grey different ways. Simply having a new variety of choices from which to build my characters would be welcome.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
... If players nowadays want to play Jean Grey, some can use sorcerer and others can use Warlock and the Phoenix as a patron. This doesn't mean you're overlapping, just that you have different paths to fulfill an idea. This is just the norm, I mean an RPG system that allows only one way to achieve your idea for a character is a pretty meh one.
In a side note, I still prefer the Psidie mechanic over a point system for casting spells, D&D is definitively not built in a way that allows a spell point system to work properly. And even if I want a Psion class, I also want Psionic subclasses, mainly because I love 'gish' and psionics always shine in this.
Now, about mechanics... what about combining the Psidie with the disciplines? The Psion chooses a subclass level one, between Telekinesis, Telepathy, Teleportation, Psychometabolism, Metacreativity, and Clairvoyance, each one gives access to one Greater Discipline, with the same name, that contains 6 powers, separated in 2 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 2 Master powers. Beginners' power can be used for anyone, Initiate can only be used after a character reaches Psion 7th level, and Masters in the 14th level. Besides this, each Greater Discipline gives access to one cantrip, without components.
Besides this, there are Minor Disciplines. You gain access to one in the 2nd level, and another one every 5 levels after this (7th, 12th, 17th), each Minor discipline contains 4 power, 1 Beginner, 2 Initiate, and 1 Master. It's not necessary a lot of disciplines in this case, 8 or 10 is already more than enough.
Then that is all fine. Some people started suggesting increased complexity as an equivalent to depth, so it gets confusing as to what people mean when they describe wanting depth. i don’t think 128 Psi Points and a conversion charts are equal in complexity.
I also am fine with the idea of having both represented, but I think our concerns come from the same place. Let’s say we have a Soul Knife, Aberrant Mind, and a Psychic Warrior. A new player wants to play Professor Xavier, and it’s only available in a hard to use Psion class. That’s my hang up, where do concepts fall? Is every concept attempted in Psion also given a subclass? Where is the line and balance?
I think what a lot of the disconnect is here - besides some players valuing depth over accessibility and others valuing the inverse - is an absolute, starving-man desperation for choice in our games.
Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition purports itself "the world's greatest role playing game". This claim is based solelyt on the strength of 5e's sales, and not on any inherent superiority of the system. Those sales are achieved through slavish adherence to a doctrine of absolutely maximizing accessibility. One of the sacrifices it makes to do so is choice. When you create a first-level character in D&D 5e, you have already made eighty percent of all the meaningful decisions that will ever be made for that character. If you select a subclass at first level, a'la sorcerers and clerics, then you are completely done making meaningful choices for that character basically forever, with the slim exception of deciding whether you're able to hamstring yourself with one of the eight or so feats in the game which are actually worth allocating in place of an ASI. If you choose a subclass at second or third instead, you get to make the final meaningful decision of your character's existence at that level, after which the entirety of your character's development is on strict, unwavering autopilot, outside of multiclassing rules. Because it's more accessible if the game builds your character for you, without any input from you whatsoever after grudgingly allowing you to make two or three choices at the start.
I hate that. I hate it fiercely. I hate it without reservation. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I HATE it, I FREAKING HATE IT!!! It is awful, it is putrid, it is one of the greatest sins Fifth Edition has committed against its community, and the fact that its juggernaut success means everybody else is slobbering to follow suit makes me wonder if I should even continue trying to play these rule-bound systems or if I should just go back to running freeform. Every paladin is completely identical to every other paladin. Every monk is identical to every other monk. Every sorcerer is identical to every other sorcerer. So on and so forth. Even the artificer, supposedly the cerebral, creative Invent-y class, is more or less the same way. My battlesmith I enjoy running and vexing her DM with is more or less identical to every other battlesmith created by anyone ever, with the sole exception of taking a wizard level to complement her background.
The only way to buck the system and make a character that is even the slightest bit unique to you and your game is to multiclass your ass off, or to make a warlock and avoid the usual Blastlock nonsense. Or to go so deep into the homebrew weeds that you may as well be playing a different system.
If any prospective Psion class is built the same way, with the same stupid rules as the rest of 5e, I will probably scream. I need. CHOICES. I need some freaking AGENCY in my "role playing game", which is why all of the campaigns my play group runs regardless of who's in the DM seat have pretty heavy homebrew allowance in terms of character generation and progression. Because 5e's assumption that we're all too stupid to understand how this sort of thing works and insistence that we stay in our little baby carrier seats while it does all the driving for us is infuriating and I find myself increasingly unwilling to stand for it.
No 5e, I am not a blithering moron. Give me the ******* wheel and let me drive my own god damned character, please.
Please do not contact or message me.
That’s my position. Psionics doesn’t have to be inherently any more challenging than Spellcasting. Just inherently different from Spellcasting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting