What I'm talking about is something very clear and specific - my assertion that if you have a good enough selection of feats that you can emmulate just about any character concept.
Your assertion is based on two flaws: the first is the use of "good enough," which is undefined. The second is your presumption that it's not possible for a feat not to exist. If something isn't available, you just say "yes it is," write it, and have that be the end of it. If you categorically reject the restrictions of a restricted system, then you're not having the same conversation anymore.
If your contention is that neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder have a very good selection of feats, then we are in full agreement. In truth the feats in both are lousy and poorly thought out IMO.
I'm not going to get into the issue of what's "good" about their feats, either in execution or selection, because it ultimately doesn't matter. There simply aren't enough to make every possible character concept imaginable (especially if you want to try and keep mechanical balance consistent - though given that you have a feat to turn all spellcasting into spell-like abilities, that's clearly not a concern for you either).
But the fact that the two published rule sets have lousy feats is not a contridiction to my claim that a good enough set of feats can in fact emmulate just about any character concept. This excercise was intended to prove that.
And it failed. You had to invent entirely new material - the nature of which was both largely undefined and dubious in its value - and still had to bastardize the character concept in order to make it work.
So yes, my answer is in some sense, "just make stuff up", although in this case some of this stuff has been in use for 10 years now. So for me, it's more 'real' and definative than Pathfinder is.
How long you've been using your house rules aren't really relevant to the discussion of the limits of the underlying game system. Your home game is not a test case for the flexibility of an inflexible system when you essentially hand-wave all limits away.
I don't think I can make that any clearer.
First of all, the use of the word psionic in D&D is flawed. The word psionic is the sibling of the word 'bionic'. It means, "Possessing a machine which enhances the ability of the mind." The idea in the word psionic might be that people have radios implanted in their brains which allows them to think to other people similarly equipped. That is not magic, but neither is it D&D 'psionics'.
Talking about the etymology of a particular term isn't particularly relevant, at least not here. Moving on...
So what is D&D 'psionics'? The answer is that D&D psionics are psychics. But psychic powers are magic powers and they come from exactly the same magical traditions of the late 19th and early 20th century that are the most direct real world basis of the D&D Wizards. It's a common parentage and common belief system.
You're demonstrably wrong here. While certain spell effects are definitely lifted from real world mythologies, stories, and other materials, the act of how spells are prepared and cast has nothing to do with any magical traditions; it's based near-totally on the works of Jack Vance.
The only distinguishing factor between the psion and the D&D wizard is mechanics. Both are clearly magic users.
The mechanics have in-game analogues that make them notably different. Spellcasting isn't psionics in any regard - the only point of commonality between them is that recent editions have kept their effects "transparent" for game purposes.
Spider-Man is a mutant resulting from the bite of a magical spider which granted him magical abilities.
Spider-Man is not a mutant, per se, as defined in the Marvel-verse, nor are his abilities magical (though I'm not very up-to-date on the comics, so if you can give a title and issue number where that's said to be otherwise, I'll cede the point).
While I'm aware that the classical silver age Spider-Man was also a gadgeteer, even so his gadgets were sufficiently advanced that they can be considered magical (power of plot). So the question is, in the D&D universe what is the analogue of Spider-Man, and the answer is that any human that derives magical abilities from his inherent power as a result of his connection to something inhuman is a sorcerer.
No, it's not. You've hand-waved his gadgetry and his powers to be "magic!" and then said "magic equals spellcaster," both of which are fallacious. Spider-Man doesn't use magic, and having inherent magical abilities doesn't mean that you're necessarily a sorcerer (as any class with inherent supernatural abilities, such as the monk, shows).
Stock D&D 3.0 only provided for a connection to Draconic power, and that weakly. My game alllows you to create a Verminous Bloodline Body Sorcerer, pick up Web Splat, Web Line, Danger Sense, Web, etc. as spells and in essence play Spider Man. Sure, if I was going for full genera emulation, I'd play Mutants and Masterminds instead, but if someone comes to me and says, "I basically want to play Spider-Man", I can say, "Yeah, I'm good with that. Here's how you do it..."
You can create a weak analogue, sure, but that's all it is.
Spider man clearly has somatic gestures in the comics. As a sorcerer, he automatically has Eschew Material Components as a bonus feat, so we don't have to worry about that. The fact that he has to say something to cast is a small matter I consider fairly trivial. In game, feel free to role play this as quippy one liners.
Remind me again, what's the somatic component for his spider sense?
You keep using 'entirely made up' as if that in some how invalidated my assertion that with a sufficiently well designed class/feat system, you can play just about any concept you want.
Because it does. The entire method by which the class/level system operates is exception-based. If you simply presume that all exceptions exist (and that you don't even need to take a feat for many, if not most of them) then you've invalidated the premise that you're working off of. It's fine if you're playing a game where anyone can take whatever powers they want whenever they want to - but that's not utilizing the class/level system anymore (or at least not the "class" part of it).
And many other sources, not limited to 1e, GURPS, 4e, Ravenloft, and my own head.
Celebrim's Complete House Rules, Player's Handbook Edition.
Which is fine for you, and absolutely useless for everyone else.
No, the fact that you claimed to be both a psionist and not a spellcaster is a severe comprimise to the character concept.
On the contrary, it shows the weakness of your position, since you've necessarily had to work with a concept that your homebrew isn't able to handle. Hene why you then try and make a weak work-around to come up with something that bears a superficial resemblance.
I can't help it if you have an unworkable contridiction in your concept.
It's not unworkable, though I do agree that you can't help it; that's part of the nature of the system you've constructed.
In some form, your character is magical. I've chosen to avoid mechanical variation for its own sake and consolidate 'I use magic' into a comparitively small set of concepts that can be flavored or repurposed as necessary.
That's fine, but it falls flat when it runs up against any sort of paranormal or supernatural ability that isn't "spellcasting," let alone "magic."
Again, I can't fix nonsense. Psionic powers are magic.
Again, that assertion is nonsense, which is why you can't fix it.
Excuse me, but I'm not bending my rules. Bending my rules would be rewritting Improved Unarmed Strike and Superior Unarmed Strike to allow for unarmed combatants that compete on equal footing with peer armed foes. But other than that, the choices I presented are my rules as written.
Personal fiat is not a rule; it's whim that happens to have been written down. If you reject existing terms and definitions in favor of whatever you make up, then you're just babbling to yourself.
Again, how does this counter my assertion that with a good enough set of feats you can have any concept you want?
See above. You don't have a good enough set of feats - your answer to this is to make stuff up, and then when their limits are shown to make more stuff up, and then when
their limits are shown to make
even more stuff up, ad infinitum.
Sorry, but my sorcerer and the bloodline concept I'm using predates pathfinder by almost 4 years, and is based loosely on my own thoughts and a Dragon magazine article. The implementation is entirely my own though.
Sorry, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. Talking about a given system requires a shared basis for understanding. Randomly redefining aspects of it and then acting as though they're a given just sounds like nonsense to everyone else.
Actually, all of them are.
All the moreso then.
I'm not equating them. They are equated simply by natural language.
That's self-evidently not true. If they were, we wouldn't have two different terms for the same thing. Psionics isn't magic; it's psionics.
Actually, I honestly think I've implemented the concept better than the system in your link (actually a lot better), which mechanically didn't actually hit on the key points at all.
You haven't, not even close. Let's walk through it.
For example, in your link your implement your spirit enemy as a familiar companion. But by the rules, such a familiar companion would never actually be thwarting you and would lack the power to really do so. It wouldn't be a powerful foe, and technically is supposed to be a fully obedient extension of your characters's will.
Wrong. See the line: "specialized for half-cost – the companion does not need to obey Dirk and actively works to corrupt him to evil."
The key character concept, the internal conflict between the PC and this tempter spirit capable of hurting your loved ones doesn't exist in your implementation, and it exists in spades in mine.
Actually, it exists in spades in mine, and only barely exists in yours. That's what happens when you 1) don't read the source material, and 2) just make up your own instead.
Likewise, the sense of you finding yourself to be something more than human, both superhuman and monstrous, really isn't brought out by your tame safe implementation.
Er, I never said that he wasn't human. That's your attempt to (again) add something that isn't there
You present a concept for a character that doesnt' fully understand himself and isn't in full control of his life, and you tried to implement it by a nice tame player centric list of desired powers, some of which like 'Witchcraft III' (whatever that is) didn't seem to fit the concept either.
Leaving aside that I never said anything about "doesn't fully understand himself," the implementation is spot-on perfect, unlike the weak analogue you've cobbled together by making up questionable new material.
If you want to learn more about the system I used (e.g. where witchcraft III comes from), I urge you to check out the
book I used to do so. It's a point-buy character creation system that's still totally viable with the d20 System - it's also a far more open and flexible resource that what you've appeared to cobble together.
What do you mean that they don't work? In what way do they not implement the character who is tormented by a familiar spirit, is discovering growing powers over negative energy, and is capable of superhuman feats of unarmed combat prowess? Your problem is that you don't merely want to implement a concept.
No, your problem is that you don't want to implement a concept. I've already come up with a concept for a character - the whole point of this exercise is to try and implement that concept with as little compromise as possible. Your way is all about compromise. You hold that any supernatural power must be magic, and can be satisfactorily implemented by Vancian-style spellcasting. I'm saying that's not so, and that your system can't handle that.
You seem to want to control as a player the mechanics used to implement the concept.
Picking what mechanics they take for their character does tend to be part of the player's prerogative.
Now, I'll grant that there's a limit to this, but saying "all mystic powers of any stripe are Vancian-style spellcasting," is not a reasonable limit.
So for example, your assertion that 'psionics aren't magic' is rooted not in any normal language or logic, but primarily in your sense that psionics mean spell points and not spell slots. So your going, essentially, "Hey, you game doesn't have spell points, so it can't implement my concept!"
It's rooted in both normal language and logic, as I've inarguably pointed out above. It's also based on the fact that psionics isn't implemented by spoken words, physical gestures, and material components, which your system necessitates, and thus robs the player of the very agency you claim to be encouraging.
And yet, not existing outside of my game isnt' the same as not existing. It's not handwaving.
It's entirely handwaving. Saying, "it exists because I've imagined it" is setting the bar so low that it's hard not to trip over it.
I've got a 540 page player's handbook currently in use by a table of 6 players who would get a big laugh out of your assertion that my rules 'don't work'.
That's fine, I've got a book roughly half that size and a group of 8 who would get a big laugh out of your assertion that your "rules" work.
