D&D 5E What's wrong with this psion?

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
:) 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.
This seems to be becoming a habit. You recently had a time out for insulting other users, and here you are at it again. Don’t post in this thread again, please.
 

log in or register to remove this ad







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

Literally no-one is asking for an intricate system.

People are asking for a straightforward system that isn't spells. Like in, y'know, 3E or 4E. Even 2E's psionics was no more "intricate" than 2E's spells, just different.

...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. ;)

I'm not sure why you thinking making something up "people want an intricate psionics system!" and then arguing against it is "doing your side favours", so that's pretty mystifying. Seems like a pretty cheap and obvious strawman argument to me.

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.

Oh dear. VSM are spell components. Not just material components. 99% of players don't use material components. Certainly the vast majority of groups use V&S components when it matters (like when trying to cast a spell from stealth).

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.

ROFL. I love how eagerly you seize on this, like "CHECKMATE, IVAN! Get back to the Soviet Union, you loser!", when in fact you've just misunderstood what "spell components" are.

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. "

None of those are homebrew, mate. That's like opening a Bud Lite, drinking it down, and saying "God I love homebrew beer!".

You know what this is - this is Steamed Hams. You're Principal Skinner, and you're serving me "steamed hams". I feel honoured in a way.
 

Literally no-one is asking for an intricate system.

People are asking for a straightforward system that isn't spells. Like in, y'know, 3E or 4E. Even 2E's psionics was no more "intricate" than 2E's spells, just different.

I think the main problem with separating psionics from spells may be the combination of high page count and low market interest in psionics. Yes, die-hard psionics lovers exist (many are active on this forum), but they make up a small percentage of the player base.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
I think the main problem with separating psionics from spells may be the combination of high page count and low market interest in psionics. Yes, die-hard psionics lovers exist (many are active on this forum), but they make up a small percentage of the player base.
Which group had a higher headcount....

The number of 5e players who were neutral or positive towards a discrete psionics system.

The number of 5e players who were neutral or positive towards a Ravnica campaign setting.


Which made it to print?
 

Remove ads

Top