D&D 5E What's wrong with this psion?

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think it is a matter of the psion not being able to do anything -distinct-.

This is an issue all across 5e, of course, with some spells appearing on as many as 8 classes' spell lists, but I suppose the hope was that psions might escape that paradigm.

As it stands, any sorcerer can accomplish what a psion can...because there is no psion, per se; only a flavored sorcerer.

Look, if no one else in the party chooses any of the same powers, etc. it can feel distinct...but if an enchanter chooses some of the spells that do the exact same thing, it starts to feel like more of a pretense. Shrug.

Personally, I dislike the character building pre-game activity, nor do I find mechanical differentiation particularly compelling. I know a psionic sorcerer and an enchanter wizard will be nothing alike because my players aren't dullards.

 

[TwoSix]

I meant the psionic characters where more flexible in the few effects they could manafest.

Psionics had a narrower range but had more control within that range. More like a superhero who could do a lot with their 1-3 powers.

That makes sense. I use the homebrew psion I use for precisely that reason.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Personally, I dislike the character building pre-game activity, nor do I find mechanical differentiation particularly compelling. I know a psionic sorcerer and an enchanter wizard will be nothing alike because my players aren't dullards.

Well then you're never going to grok the underlying issue - psions should be distinct form spellcasters. For some people refluffing is enough, for other it just isn't.

Insulting everyone with different perceptions than you is just rude, however.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Well then you're never going to grok the underlying issue - psions should be distinct form spellcasters. For some people refluffing is enough, for other it just isn't.

Insulting everyone with different perceptions than you is just rude, however.

I don't believe in a separation of fluff and mechanics. In my game fluff = mechanics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Right, they just use 'psychic powers' which totally are not just another name for spells! Make a fluff sidebar that psions use 'psychic powers' which for rules purposes are represented by spells. Done.

So if I call my champion fighter a wizard, and call their longsword attacks spells, there's no need to have a wizard class, right? It's not like they play any differently. I don't see why we need all these 'classes.'

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So if I call my champion fighter a wizard, and call their longsword attacks spells, there's no need to have a wizard class, right? It's not like they play any differently. I don't see why we need all these 'classes.'

Real question: Is this post a parody or are you seriously proposing that argument?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't believe in a separation of fluff and mechanics. In my game fluff = mechanics.

So if I change the name of a thing, that necessarily means the feel of the thing changes, even if no other changes are included?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Real question: Is this post a parody or are you seriously proposing that argument?

I'm wondering where the line is: how far do you think refluffing can go, and why is your answer correct for me?

 

[Weiley31]

Wait. You're annoyed with the 5e psionic sorcerer because it doesn't fit the 4e fluff?

I never said I was annoyed with the 5E Psionic Sorcerer? I said that in my 5E games, I use Primal, Arcane, Divine, and Psionics as the power sources for Spells and Psionics. I technically only borrow a few things from 4E for lore purposes.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So if I change the name of a thing, that necessarily means the feel of the thing changes, even if no other changes are included?

I do a lot of house ruling. Many of house rules are made and applied on the fly based on the fluff overruling the normal game mechanics. Mikes Book of Suggestions isn't meant to cover all situations.