Hussar
Legend
Well, that's certainly an interpretation.
D&D 5E In your Years of Gaming, How many Psionic Characters did you See played
Well, that's certainly an interpretation.
Hussar
Legend
I guess it comes down to what you consider to be a new mechanic. Needing a tool, to me, is no different than any other caster. Tool or holy symbol or whatever, who cares? To me, that's so minor that I find it weird the people care.
To be honest, if that's the sticking point for psionics - no components, people really have to get over themselves.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I kind of find this insulting, and I'm not generally very easily offended. I bring up my response not to get argumentative or because I think you were intending to be insulting, but to point out that yes, it really is extremely important to some of us that psionics not use components. It's on a very short of list of what I consider identity-level D&D Psionics traits. It's licking A-1 from a hot grill important.
Hussar
Legend
I'm sorry, but, really? You couldn't just say, "Yes, the official rules have components, but, we're going to ignore that at my table"?
Look, I get dying on a hill for something, but, this seems to be a pretty minor hill that would be extremely easy to ignore.
Olrox17
Hero
No, it’s not. You don’t really get psionics and their appeal, I get it, it’s cool, but try not tell other people why they shouldn’t want what they want.
I’ll give you an example. What if the 5e wizard didn’t have a spell book class feature? What if spellbooks weren’t mentioned at all in the class’ description? Do you think wizards fans would be fine with that? Would they agree with me if I told them “eh whatever, it’s fluff, just houserule a spellbook at your table”?
No they wouldn't. Spellbooks are an important part of the wizard's identity, and the mechanics have to reflect that. No somatic or verbal components is an important part of psionics. In 3e they had "displays", instead. Auditory, material, mental, olfactory, or visual cues that a psionic powers was being used. That's closer to the psion's identity.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Well, I cannot speak for "wizard fans", but, for myself? Would not care in the slightest. Adding in "needs spellbook" is so low of a priority in the identity of a wizard that I really cannot even imagine anyone caring so much that they'd rather NOT have a wizard class at all.
I guess I'm just nowhere near that fussy. I think I can count on one hand the number of times a wizard's spellbook has ever actually mattered in play. Other than as treasure I suppose. But, care so much that I'd rather not have a wizard class at all, than have a wizard with no spellbook? Yeah, not a hill I would even consider climbing, let alone dying on.
Hussar
Legend
Just another thought to add.
See, I remember, not that long ago, when druids absolutely needed a golden sickle and mistletoe to cast their spells. This was absolutely required. Yet, 3e ejected that bit and, well, everyone got over it.
I remember when paladins absolutely had to be Lawful Good. This was absolutely required and core to the identity of the class. Yet 5e ejected that and everyone got over it.
I remember when clerics absolutely could not use edged weapons. This was absolutely required and core to the identity of the class. Yet, 2e started ejecting that notion and 3e buried it for good. And everyone got over it.
Classes change. What goes into a class changes. What is the "important part" of the identy of a class one day is on the cutting room floor the next. Insisting that X MUST be part of the class just because that's the way it was before doesn't really hold a lot of water when you look at 5e and the evolution of virtually every class over the course of various editions. Other than maybe, and very maybe, a fighter, none of the classes look much like they did before.
See, I remember, not that long ago, when druids absolutely needed a golden sickle and mistletoe to cast their spells. This was absolutely required. Yet, 3e ejected that bit and, well, everyone got over it.
I remember when paladins absolutely had to be Lawful Good. This was absolutely required and core to the identity of the class. Yet 5e ejected that and everyone got over it.
I remember when clerics absolutely could not use edged weapons. This was absolutely required and core to the identity of the class. Yet, 2e started ejecting that notion and 3e buried it for good. And everyone got over it.
Classes change. What goes into a class changes. What is the "important part" of the identy of a class one day is on the cutting room floor the next. Insisting that X MUST be part of the class just because that's the way it was before doesn't really hold a lot of water when you look at 5e and the evolution of virtually every class over the course of various editions. Other than maybe, and very maybe, a fighter, none of the classes look much like they did before.
Olrox17
Hero
That's good for you. No joke, not being fussy is good for your health.
However, I believe we can agree that this hobby has sacred cows, and that great backlash happens when those cows are slaughtered with carelessness.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Why? Every iteration of a Psion/Mystic in the 5e UA has required no components. Even the Sorcerer psionic subclass can remove components as they turn magic into psionics. 1e, 2e and 3e had no components.
We may or may not ever get a Psion, but if it does come, it won't need components.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
There's no hill to die on. This not a sticking point for WotC, since they agree with us that Psions/Mystics don't need components. If they make one and release it, it will not require components. There may or may not be visual, aural or scent displays like 3e, but those are not components.
