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

[Eric V]

About psionics? I agree. They don't care much about psionics beyond sales. And I think it would be a weird if they did care more than that.

I think about D&D as a whole, no?

 

[Eric V]

The designer design first, then put it through internal playtesting, then external playtesting, then the voting. They don't get people to vote on the mechanic first and then design.

But, even if they did that, your argument doesn't hold water. Design is about meeting needs. Sometimes design finds a need without input and it's golden, but that's rare. Much more often, a need is identified and constraints are identified and then design does golden work turning out something that meets both. This is the more common route. But the argument that design needs to be unfettered for the best stuff to happen is just bunk -- quite often constraint spurs design and creativity.

No, you are wrong; no one said completely unfettered. Being "fettered" by the lowest common denominator when it comes to creativity, however, is awful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, you are wrong; no one said completely unfettered. Being "fettered" by the lowest common denominator when it comes to creativity, however, is awful.

Again, saying this ignores the entire first half of my response. Design isn't being fettered, it's done, then tested, then tested again, feedback is received, and then there's a vote. That's not fettering, it's pretty free design that's then checked to see if people actually want it. The idea that you'd get something you'd like if only other people didn't get a say is, well, very optimistic at best.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd probably go Int/Wis or Wis/Cha, or possibly Con/Cha. WotC has plenty of times where the saves aren't really aligned with the overall flow of the class.

I'd probably just give a smattering of Int, Wis, and Cha skills to the class as a whole. With backgrounds and skill versatility, getting the skills you want for a concept is a pretty minor issue.

Let's brainstorm.

What about weapon and armor proficiencies? Hit Dice? Would it have ritual casting?

 

[Eric V]

Again, saying this ignores the entire first half of my response. Design isn't being fettered, it's done, then tested, then tested again, feedback is received, and then there's a vote. That's not fettering, it's pretty free design that's then checked to see if people actually want it. The idea that you'd get something you'd like if only other people didn't get a say is, well, very optimistic at best.

It's really not about what I like, actually; my group doesn't even play 5e anymore (though we will probably do AiME), so I don't really have a horse in this race.

It's more a matter of a lack of creativity, something fresh and new..."The best products satisfy needs people didn't even know they had." I would hope that the industry leader would be the first place to go for that level of creativity, and maybe they would be (The playtest packets were great!), but for a voting segment who are, it would seem, very conservative by nature.

 

[TwoSix]

Let's brainstorm.

What about weapon and armor proficiencies? Hit Dice? Would it have ritual casting?

Simple/light, d6, yes. Spells known with ritual casting. Spell versatility as per Tasha’s.

Keep the chassis basic/weak to allow for differentiation within subclass.

 

[Krachek]

My favorite way of doing psionics in 5e would be to use ability check to manifest powers. It also allows the idea that many psi disciplines would require different stats to make sense. The powers would have a check to use, with more effect the more you beat said DC. Powers would be selected from a short pool for each type.

You would have 2 types of Powers: Manifestations (at-will and safe), and Testaments (powerful, but risky). Testaments would be risky because you would gain Exhaustion level if you failed the DC, making the rest of your Powers use for the day more complicated. A feature would let you spend HDs to ignore Exhaustion effect for 1 round.

Ex:
Kinetic Throw (Manifestation)
Action
Instant
Strength or Intelligence

Make an ability check against a DC 12; on a success, choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn't being worn or carried. The object flies in a straight line up to 60 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 2d10 bludgeoning damage.

Augment: The maximum weight of objects that you can target with this spell increases by 5 pounds, and the damage increases by 1d10, for each +5 over the DC.

Summon Ectoplasm (Testament)
Action
1 Minute, Concentration
Wisdom or Intelligence

Make an ability check against a DC 15; on a success, you conjure an Gelatinous Cube within the range of the power for 1 minute or until your concentration ends.

Augment: The creature gains 5 temporary hit point for each +5 over the DC.

The actual exhaustion will be harsh on those power, since you get disadvantage after the first failure.
The shun around the frenzy ability show me that this mechanic won’t be popular.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The actual exhaustion will be harsh on those power, since you get disadvantage after the first failure.
The shun around the frenzy ability show me that this mechanic won’t be popular.

Indeed. Unless Testament are really powerful enough to justify the exhaustion cost (which I dont think Frenzy is), Exhaustion might be too high a cost. I could go with reduced Max HP to represent the strain, or just plain old X/long rest instead.

Exhaustion gained from exploration will still be a pain for the psionic user, but advantages are pretty easy to come by with racial features or other class features, or plain old Help feature, so countering the disadvantage from Exhaustion in a pinch would not be that hard.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's really not about what I like, actually; my group doesn't even play 5e anymore (though we will probably do AiME), so I don't really have a horse in this race.

It's more a matter of a lack of creativity, something fresh and new..."The best products satisfy needs people didn't even know they had." I would hope that the industry leader would be the first place to go for that level of creativity, and maybe they would be (The playtest packets were great!), but for a voting segment who are, it would seem, very conservative by nature.

Again, because you don't seem to be listening -- the designers design first, people vote on it last. People voting on things, or having inputs, is the last step after the designers have a crack at being creative. Psionics went through a ton of iterations -- all rejected by the users. This is not a case of restricted design freedom because they get customer feedback, because that feedback comes at the end of the design but before final polish.

And, I don't know who you're quoting there about the best products, but that's not true. Lots of truly crappy products have met needs people didn't know they had and been improved through the customer feedback loop, and plenty of great products exist that meet needs people know they have. It's a cliched statement that shows it's flaws on even the most shallow of inspections.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I went ahead and looked through the Monster Manual, Volo's Guide to Monsters, and Mordenkainan's Tome of Foes to verify how psionics is already done in 5e.

1) The psionics ability is always based on either Intelligence or Wisdom (depending on the creature)
2) In every case, without exception, psionics explicitly requires no components

This includes not only the monster statblocks (of which there are quite a few), but also the PC stats for githyanki and githzerai.

Sounds like we have already been told the fundamentals of how 5e psionics works--even for some PCs. I don't think there is any reason for those two points to be in question. The question is when we are going to get class-based access to 5e psionics for PCs.