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

[Aldarc]

Circular reasoning is using a word to define itself.

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

That isn't circular.

That's not what circular reasoning means. Oh wait. I forgot that you like to redefine terms willy-nilly.

This also still fails to make a cogent case for why your understanding of homebrew is the correct one over against conventional usage. Obviously this sense of homebrew doesn't work for Savage Worlds or Basic Roleplaying, does it?

 

[EscherEnigma]

Works for me. I played psionics in 3rd at tabletop, and 2nd in that Dark Sun game, and the real difference was never mechanics, it was fluff. And this? Can easily be fluffed.

 

[Coroc]

What makes this character not a psion?

Human 9th Level Psionic Soul Sorcerer
Cantrips: Friends, Mage Hand, Message, Mind Sliver, Minor Illusion
1st Level: Charm Person, Id Insinuation
2nd Level: Detect Thoughts, Hold Person, Levitate
3rd Level: Fear, Psionnic Blast
4th Level: Confusion, Ego Whip
5th Level: Dominate Person

Metamagic: Subtle Spell, Heightened Spell

It is ok if you add silent spell stil lspell and (whatever the name of the feat is) cast without components.

Then you can easily replace a psion class with this reskinned sorcerer. Same way how they did it (in a not so perfect way) for the favored soul.

Edit : you also should add the pspell point variant although it is not absolutely necessary (and if so, you should also allow its use to normal sorcerers in your game or better make its use mandatory for sorcerer types)

 

[Coroc]

To me psionics belongs in a sci fi game...

Why? So you neither use mind flayers nor aboleths in your games? They are such great mobs, D&D would feel poorer without them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I see. So WotC went the default easy route by making psionics spells rather than a more intricate system that the die hards want...

...but a psionics player having to juggle two pools of spell points is too big a hassle to deal with. Right.

I don't think you're doing your side of the argument any favors here.

And you still haven't solved any of the major problems, like the VSM components

Actually there IS no problem. Because anyone who plays a Psionic Soul Sorcerer won't be using spell components-- just exactly like the other 99% of all the rest of us D&D players already DON'T USE SPELL COMPONENTS.

The only thing you AREN'T getting is a line written in the book that says "You don't have to use spell components". But seeing as how almost all of us already don't do that... a line like that doesn't actually gain you anything other than being able to pat yourself on the back and say "See, WotC GETS me!" That's pure ego. It doesn't matter that when you actually play the game it won't run any differently whether that line was in the book or not.

A rule that almost no one uses is a rule that doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, there's absolutely no reason to get bent out of shape that it exists.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

AD&D was Gygax's new ways of playing OD&D.
AD&D 2e was Zeb Cook's way of playing OD&D.
3e was Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams's way of playing OD&D.
4e was Rob Heinsoo's.
5e was Mike Mearls's.

Pendragon was Greg Stafford's Authurian inspired OD&D.
Traveler was Marc W. Miller's OD&D in space.

OD&D defined itself, not as a set of rules, but as an framework for creating one's own personalized game. Without OD&D none of those games would exist. They all derive themselves from it. Some of those personalized homebrews also have a price tag, but they're all equally valid ways to play the game.

• "Will enjoy playing DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®. Its possibilities go far beyond any previous offerings anywhere!"
• "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time "
• "Actually, the scope need not be restricted to the medieval; it can stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future, but such expansion is recommended at such time as the possibilities in the medieval aspect have been thoroughly explored. "

 

[Eric V]

That's why if they were gonna hide Psionics in TCOE, they should have bit the bullet and remade the 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e Psionics because lt wouldn't have hurt sales anyway.

No one would say "I'm not buying TCOE because it has 2e Psionics".

Exactly. That way, people who were anti-psionics (for whatever reason) would just ignore that part, and those who wanted a non-pre-existing 5e class for their psions would get that too.

 

[Eric V]

I'd suggest, then, that you try a game that isn't the biggest, most popular game on the market, because that game will be catered to the widest audience possible, so your pet systems are unlikely to show up. Homebrew, or look into OSR, you'll be happier if you want to play a game that isn't widely popular. I suggest branching way out, but I think that it's you that might be too conservative to really get into something like Apocalypse World. I could be wrong, and would be thrilled to find out I was.

Did I ask you for your suggestions? In the future please keep your "advice" and "suggestions" to people who actually ask for them (assuming there are any such people); it's really awkward to be on the receiving end of "advice" from someone you would never trust to provide any.

For the record, my group has moved on from 5e; if the designers of the game were ever just trusted to deliver without making appeals to the masses, we'd consider it again.

 

[Eric V]

No.

The Bard's magic tune is a formula.
The Sorcerer's blood has runes and their fingerprints have the arcane word for magic hidden in it.
Ra does the formula and gives it to his light clerics.

D&D's magic system is not a soft magic system. It has rules, science, and logic.


EDIT:
The Fireball Spell is a VSM spell.
It has a verbal component
It has a somatic component
It has a material component

The sorcerer, wizard, fiend warlock, efreeti genie warlock, artilierist artificer and light domain cleric all must do a verbal component, a somatic component, a material component to cast fireball.

The wizard does the hand symbol for fire and says "Furdonix Flamba"
The sorcerer points 3 fingers and says "Fireball"
The light cleric holds up his amulet and says "By the strength of Ra"
The fiend warlock draws an X with his finger in the air and says "'I summon the Fires of Phlegthos"

Them's formulas.

I love that, despite the different sources of power, they all need bat guano and sulfur. Why is your god asking for that, anyway?

But my favourite is bards, clerics, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all with their different power sources all needing that straight piece of iron to cast hold person.

Magic is science in the PHB.

 

[Aldarc]

AD&D was Gygax's new ways of playing OD&D.
AD&D 2e was Zeb Cook's way of playing OD&D.
3e was Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams's way of playing OD&D.
4e was Rob Heinsoo's.
5e was Mike Mearls's.

Pendragon was Greg Stafford's Authurian inspired OD&D.
Traveler was Marc W. Miller's OD&D in space.

OD&D defined itself, not as a set of rules, but as an framework for creating one's own personalized game. Without OD&D none of those games would exist. They all derive themselves from it. Some of those personalized homebrews also have a price tag, but they're all equally valid ways to play the game.

• "Will enjoy playing DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®. Its possibilities go far beyond any previous offerings anywhere!"
• "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time "
• "Actually, the scope need not be restricted to the medieval; it can stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future, but such expansion is recommended at such time as the possibilities in the medieval aspect have been thoroughly explored. "

Doesn't this ignore the games from which OD&D derived? So is OD&D also a homebrew? So your definition does render "homebrew" to the point of meaningless and without much of a purpose.