D&D 5E People didn't like the Psionic Talent Die

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not really a stretch of a reflavor. Pick Variant Human, pick 'Magic Intitiate: Sorcerer', choose 'Friends', 'Message' and 'Charm Person' as spells. Now you have an innate talent to influence others. You either learn to play with their emotion using the power of Bardic training, or you study Enchantment School magic to perfect your innate abilities.

There, one reflavoring that covers everything in one go. Then you don't have to justify crap. It's just stuff you can DO.

If that works for you, cool for you. I’m not going to reflavor an entire class and call it something else, and most people are about the same on that. A bard isn’t a psion, and it or an enchantment wizard at best cover only one type of psion

Please stop trying to aggressively force your bitterness into my face, though.

 

[Weiley31]

Your Psi Knight is simply competing with your Rune Knight - which do you prefer?

Both!

 

[Undrave]

If that works for you, cool for you. I’m not going to reflavor an entire class and call it something else, and most people are about the same on that. A bard isn’t a psion, and it or an enchantment wizard at best cover only one type of psion

Please stop trying to aggressively force your bitterness into my face, though.

It's fine if it doesn't work for you too, I was just not sure what you meant by 'kludge'. If I had came up with a weird Bard/Wizard/Warlock MC mess, I would accept 'kludge' as a description. I'm not arguing my idea is the perfect solution either, or what everyone wants, just that it's EASY. I don't particularly find it a difficult leap to make is all, but I guess we're all different

Also, I'm not even sure what a Psion should look like beyond what the Enchanter can already do. Personally I was fine with just adding Psionic flavour through subclasses.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's fine if it doesn't work for you too, I was just not sure what you meant by 'kludge'. If I had came up with a weird Bard/Wizard/Warlock MC mess, I would accept 'kludge' as a description. I'm not arguing my idea is the perfect solution either, or what everyone wants, just that it's EASY. I don't particularly find it a difficult leap to make is all, but I guess we're all different

Also, I'm not even sure what a Psion should look like beyond what the Enchanter can already do. Personally I was fine with just adding Psionic flavour through subclasses.

Easy=\=satisfying or effective at accomplishing the concept, is the thing.

 

[Undrave]

Easy=\=satisfying or effective at accomplishing the concept, is the thing.

Fair enough!

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, not really. I’ve never felt that way about any of the characters I’ve made in 5e.
I have only felt that way about builds suggest here and elsewhere online that “already do that”.

Obviously experiences differ, but I’ve felt this way about just about every 5e character I’ve played. It takes until at least 3rd level before a character’s basic functions are all online, and depending on the subclass may take until 6th or 7th level before it really comes into its own. And there is always class baggage that is irrelevant to the concept at best and actually hinders it at worst. I know I’m far from the only one who feels this way.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nope, they really do not want psi in their game. They see psi as something for sci-fi only. One of them even said:" If I wanted to play stupid Star Wars, I'd go for SW game. This is D&D. Don't mess with my D&D."
For some reason, they don't like my favorite movie. And they associate psi with SW. They are not sci-fi fans.

Those are some really specific conclusions you've drawn about an awful lot of people.

I'm actually sort-of in the camp you describe (not that I would terribly mind having psionics in D&D, but the way I distinguish genres it's not a great fit). And I've seen a few other people say similar things.

But I would not be so bold as to make the sweeping generalizations you do (or the sweeping generalizations made in the post you were responding to).

 

[Lem23]

Indeed. 5e says you get to be an illusionist wizard, but you still end up firebolting your enemies 50% of the time.

That's up tot he player to choose spells that fir their concept surely? If you want to play a pure illusionist, then just choose illusion spells, and not fireball. If anything this proves the point that 5e is better - in 3e either you're an illusionist or you aren't; in 5e you can choose to be a pure illusionist, a pure mage, or an illusionist that also likes to cast fireballs. Three concepts instead of 2.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

wrong thread, sorry

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

That's up tot he player to choose spells that fir their concept surely? If you want to play a pure illusionist, then just choose illusion spells, and not fireball. If anything this proves the point that 5e is better - in 3e either you're an illusionist or you aren't; in 5e you can choose to be a pure illusionist, a pure mage, or an illusionist that also likes to cast fireballs. Three concepts instead of 2.

The problem is: you end up firebolting people not because you want to, but because this is what's usually available for your character to do. Much like the life cleric that probably casts about 2-3 sacred flames for every spell slot spent on heal/support. There's no "minor phantasmal killer" cantrip, wisdom save or take 1d6 psychic damage. There's no "target gains 2 temporary HP" cantrip. Basically: as far as mechanical diversity is concerned, 5e pays lip-service to the idea of multiple character concepts. And now I'm not even talking about subsystems anymore, this is about a diviner using mostly divination magic, instead of setting things on fire.