Spelljammer Dark Sun confirmed? Or, the mysterious case of the dissappearing Spelljammer article...

[Faolyn]

give we are talking about a leisure product which was never needed, using the word needed is utterly wrong, there is a desire for it and it does not make anything worse so it is perfectly livable to do so.

You are being unnecessarily pedantic here.

no one can agree on how to lead most of our nations does not mean we are not to try (metaphor), I care not about mechanics as I can live with most.

I don't know what national leadership has to do with game mechanics.

I see nothing wrong with overlap as if we got rid of overlap the bard would have to go by definition, and the people who want reproductive rituals with dragons would whip up a hell of a storm.

Bards have a niche of their own. Some of their spells may overlap, but the bard's niche is unique: they get their magic from music.

Psions are, in terms of flavor, mostly identical to sorcerers, since both of them get their magic from their own bodies.

6e may never happen thus there is no point discussing it.

I find it highly unlikely that there will never be a 6e, unless humanity dies out first.

not every idea works with reflavouring besides I am not always allowed to.

That's on your DM, then, not on the game.

they disagree on mechanics oddly not thematics and the thematics are what will sell.

Also unlikely, since people are less likely to buy something if the mechanics are bad--especially if the mechanics are the core element. It's not like a setting that you could use with a different system. If the psion has pretty themes but doesn't play well, it's useless.

what is sci fi or not is irrelevant.

In a fantasy game, it's not irrelevant. A lot of people don't want science fiction elements in a fantasy game. I don't. So if the Voidrunner psion feels too sci fi-ish, I wouldn't allow it in my generally lower-fantasy games.

did we need the artificer for 5e, no but we got it so for dark sun the psion should be their.

I don't recall there being multiple versions of the artificer being touted. Also, the artificer was built primarily for a specific setting.

 

[JEB]

I don't recall there being multiple versions of the artificer being touted.

There were three UA artificers:

• The original, designed as a wizard subclass.
• The second, rebuilt as a standalone class, and later released on the DM Guild.
• The third, an overhaul of the previous, which was adjusted and expanded upon one more time before release in Eberron.

 

[Parmandur]

give it is a social game it is not as irrelevant as you like to pretend.

Then it's a matter of changing the people one plays with, ones who will allow what the books allow.

do not play coy come up with something supported by the fiction show me the teeth of your point?

I was 100% serious: you can remove deities from a Cleric and call it a Psion, and it would work in practice.

The fiction is arbitrary and easily replaceable.

 

[Parmandur]

There were three UA artificers:

• The original, designed as a wizard subclass.
• The second, rebuilt as a standalone class, and later released on the DM Guild.
• The third, an overhaul of the previous, which was adjusted and expanded upon one more time before release in Eberron.

Yup, it went through the same process that they did for the Mystic for Xanathar's Guide, bit fhe Mystic didn't make it.

 

[ersatzphil]

...and I hated the Psionic Die mechanic.

May I ask why? I've been playing in a long-running Black Hack game, and have rather liked the usage die mechanic. Honest question.

 

[Shardstone]

Man you know, I was about to say that I'm tired talking about Psions but...I AM LITERALLY NEVER TIRED OF TALKING ABOUT PSIONS LOL!

Ok so, Psions. Mystics. I, as a newcomer to D&D, a youngin' by Enworld standards, love the concept so much. The idea of a variant supernatural ability outside of SPELLS (not MAGIC, key point here) that you could build classes and subclasses off of and use to design worlds with only psionics instead of spellcraft is super titillating. The narrative fantasy is also there. The wandering ascetic; the mutant; touched by an alien power; experiment gone wrong (or right!); these ideas are unsatisfyingly covered in D&D, at least to my taste, and the Mystic/Psion pays for them in spades. Add in new (actually old) ideas, like Dune's Bene Gesserit or nordic volvur and fortune tellers/oracles, and you have a fully functional, unique, and not-op base class.

Its a shame that WotC just didn't have the vision at the time to make this come true. Their Mystic was unnecessarily 2E; at this point, WotC didn't understand that it didn't need to appeal to oldheads anymore, and that it indeed could do whatever the Hell they wanted with the game. So, they produce a Mystic ala the very first one, with flavor about them being wandering weirdos with strange quirks and all these disciplines they could focus on. The subclasses were all old ideas for when Psionics was literally just Spells-but-not-Spells, like the Wu Jen, and also tried to give it supreme role versatility with subclasses like the Soul Knife. Finally, they created a bunch of powers that were just not balanced with the framework.

The thing is, when this didn't work 3 times, I don't think its because WotC was "giving up" per se, but that they couldn't AFFORD more development time on it. WotC books take about a year to develop according to them, sometimes more; when the book is published, they have to move on to the next one. Outside of Tasha's, there has been no space for a Mystic class to show up, and for Tasha's they spent time working on the Artificer instead. So, before they could really realize the potential of magical psionics (which are NOT SPELLCASTING, IN 5E THESE CLASSES ARE "SPELLCASTERS" NOT MAGIC-USERS), they had to can it and move on.

But, there's a new edition coming. That means another chance, where they can use the data from the LAST PLAYTEST to create a new psionic class. I'm hopeful, but not really.

 

[Parmandur]

Man you know, I was about to say that I'm tired talking about Psions but...I AM LITERALLY NEVER TIRED OF TALKING ABOUT PSIONS LOL!

Ok so, Psions. Mystics. I, as a newcomer to D&D, a youngin' by Enworld standards, love the concept so much. The idea of a variant supernatural ability outside of SPELLS (not MAGIC, key point here) that you could build classes and subclasses off of and use to design worlds with only psionics instead of spellcraft is super titillating. The narrative fantasy is also there. The wandering ascetic; the mutant; touched by an alien power; experiment gone wrong (or right!); these ideas are unsatisfyingly covered in D&D, at least to my taste, and the Mystic/Psion pays for them in spades. Add in new (actually old) ideas, like Dune's Bene Gesserit or nordic volvur and fortune tellers/oracles, and you have a fully functional, unique, and not-op base class.

Its a shame that WotC just didn't have the vision at the time to make this come true. Their Mystic was unnecessarily 2E; at this point, WotC didn't understand that it didn't need to appeal to oldheads anymore, and that it indeed could do whatever the Hell they wanted with the game. So, they produce a Mystic ala the very first one, with flavor about them being wandering weirdos with strange quirks and all these disciplines they could focus on. The subclasses were all old ideas for when Psionics was literally just Spells-but-not-Spells, like the Wu Jen, and also tried to give it supreme role versatility with subclasses like the Soul Knife. Finally, they created a bunch of powers that were just not balanced with the framework.

The thing is, when this didn't work 3 times, I don't think its because WotC was "giving up" per se, but that they couldn't AFFORD more development time on it. WotC books take about a year to develop according to them, sometimes more; when the book is published, they have to move on to the next one. Outside of Tasha's, there has been no space for a Mystic class to show up, and for Tasha's they spent time working on the Artificer instead. So, before they could really realize the potential of magical psionics (which are NOT SPELLCASTING, IN 5E THESE CLASSES ARE "SPELLCASTERS" NOT MAGIC-USERS), they had to can it and move on.

But, there's a new edition coming. That means another chance, where they can use the data from the LAST PLAYTEST to create a new psionic class. I'm hopeful, but not really.

The Mystic was meant for Xanathar's Guide, part of why that book ended up a bit short, even with padding. The Common Magic items page is part of what they added.on the last second, when mass combat and the Mystic didn'tmake the cut.

The Mystic actually isn't a take on the 2E Psion. It also isn't a take on the 3E Paion. Or the 4E Paion. In fact, that's four entirely different incompatible takes on the concept.

 

[Shardstone]

The Mystic was meant for Xanathar's Guide, part of why that book ended up a bit short, even with padding. The Common Magic items page is part of what they added.on the last second, when mass combat and the Mystic didn'tmake the cut.

The Mystic actually isn't a take on the 2E Psion. It also isn't a take on the 3E Paion. Or the 4E Paion. In fact, that's four entirely different incompatible takes on the concept.

I don't know why you started talking about other takes on the psion, when I didn't. I'm talking only 2E. Don't muddy the waters with 3E or 4E and pretend I brought those up.

Anyway.

Yes, it is certainly a take on the 2E psion. Read the fluff of the Mystic, then read the fluff of the ORIGINAL MYSTIC CLASS. It essentially the same. Let's not play games around obvious facts.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't know why you started talking about other takes on the psion, when I didn't. I'm talking only 2E. Don't muddy the waters with 3E or 4E and pretend I brought those up.

Anyway.

Yes, it is certainly a take on the 2E psion. Read the fluff of the Mystic, then read the fluff of the ORIGINAL MYSTIC CLASS. It essentially the same. Let's not play games around obvious facts.

It really isn't, is the thing? It has different fluff and utterly different mechanics. The 5E Mystic UA was not a 2E style Psion. That's the thing, no prior edition approached the concept the same way, and the 5E take wasn't derived from those other takes but was another start from scratch.

 

[Shardstone]

It really isn't, is the thing? It has different fluff and utterly different mechanics. The 5E Mystic UA was not a 2E style Psion. That's the thing, no prior edition approached the concept the same way, and the 5E take wasn't derived from those other takes but was another start from scratch.

You're telling me the AD&D Mystic which is what it is called, which is a wandering ascetic with psionic powers, is in no way releated to the UA Mystic, a wandering ascetic with psionic powers.