D&D 5E What's wrong with this psion?

Then you will have to argue why mine is wrong and yours is better than the conventional understanding of "homebrew." But this is something that you have yet to do either convincingly or at all. How is the conventional understanding of "homebrew" wrong?

Not really. Many people defined words differently,"courage" (Plato vs. Aristotle), for example. Few dictionaries, even, define words in identical ways. Many individuals disagree with those definitions. Language is a messy thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think reverence to tradition is silly. Everyone should use whatever rules work for his/her world. Mike's homebrew decided on spells. Your homebrew can use something else. Personally, I like Mike's ideas here, so I'll probably use them. You don't need to.
The discussion is not on the reverence of tradition.

It's on people not believing that they are deviating from the tradition.

You can use Psionics as Spells. You just must admit that you are changing the rules.
 

Not really. Many people defined words differently,"courage" (Plato vs. Aristotle), for example. Few dictionaries, even, define words in identical ways. Many individuals disagree with those definitions. Language is a messy thing.
Here is a difference between what you are describing and you: they are defining their terms whereas you are not. You also can't just weasel out of using words and terms unconventionally by saying that people defining terms differently. Make your case for why your sense of homebrew is the correct usage.
 

The thing I'll be most curious about is eventually hearing how many of the Psionics players end up using the Psionic Soul sorcerer just as-is... rather than actually using the Spell Point variant rule? Because that variant rule would certainly help with their idea of the fantasy of the psion. Will Psionic Soul players actually go through the effort of converting Spell Points? Or will they just use spell slots to avoid the hassle despite claiming that they are an anathema to true psions?

You might want to re-check the spell-point rules for 5E.

They're not what you seem to think they are. It's just a hat for the spell-slot system to use - you take spell points, you convert them into a slot, then you use the slot to cast a spell normally. It gives you a bit more flexibility, but not a huge amount. Furthermore, with Sorcerers, it makes a mess, because Sorcerers already have a pool of point they can use to cast metamagic and spells, and you've inexplicably got these two incompatible pools to mess around with, which is far more hassle than even the 2E Psionicist, let alone others.

And you still haven't solved any of the major problems, like the VSM components, all the psionic stuff that isn't a spell (or isn't a spell Sorcerers can have), that the balance is even worse than usual because WotC assume you're going to take fairly sensible spells rather than restrict yourself to a theme (let alone blow Sorcerer points just to support that theme), nor can you boost a lot of the stuff, nor is there any psychic combat or like - I could go on.

And there's the other problem, most of the people suggesting this idea are being massively hypocritical, because by the same token we could eliminate a lot of classes, most them, and crudely and inaccurately emulate them, but most people who push this idea are extremely angry if it's suggested that we, say, delete wizards and subsume them into Sorcerers.

Plus, there's the Artificer problem. Conceptually, the Artificer is less distinct from the Wizard than Psion/Psionicist is, considerably less. Almost everything an Artificer does could be subsumed into a Wizard subclass and a few spells (yes, they're a weird half-caster sort of thing in 5E, but that was an eccentric choice, particularly in the context of the Bard becoming a full caster, and I think partly an attempt to justify their own existence). Yet they exist.
 

Here is a difference between what you are describing and you: they are defining their terms whereas you are not. You also can't just weasel out of using words and terms unconventionally by saying that people defining terms differently. Make your case for why your sense of homebrew is the correct usage.

I did define my terms: OD&D is the original. Everything else is a house rule because it is a derivation from the original.

Just like Noah story is a variation of the Gilgamesh myth. As far as we know, the Gilgamesh myth is the oldest known version of the story. Every derivation is simply someone else's homebrew variant, whether published or not.
 





Circular reasoning is using a word to define itself.

Homebrew: A personalized derivation of the original D&D.

That isn't circular.

Whether it's circular or not, there's no logic to what you're saying, because AD&D etc. aren't "personalized derivations" of OD&D, as a matter of simple fact. They're generic (i.e. not personal) games. 3E, 4E and 5E are more games loosely inspired by OD&D than derivations, too.
 

Remove ads

Top