D&D General What is the right amount of Classes for Dungeons and Dragons?

the thing casting can't do that psionics is based on doing is let me have one of my at will abilities of (just as example) cure wounds, and by spending points any time i use it i can give it any combination of:
-using it as a bonus action
-increasing it's range
-increasing it's level
-auto-maximise it's healing
-targeting multiple creatures
-adding the effects of lesser restoration
-adding the healing as temp HP

*cure wounds prob isn't the BEST example as at will-healing is broken but you get the idea.
Agreed that Cure Wounds is a terrible example.

But here are other examples of why the Aberrant Mind and the One D&D GOOlock are better psions than the 3.5 psion (and from memory the 2e psion) ever was.
  • As far as 5e goes the warlock is the master of At Will magic; Invocations are better than spells this way
  • If we want the metamagic/metapsionic route that you advocate here then the 3.5 Psion needed their Psionic Focus to use metapsionics, and needed a full round action to get it back. Aberrant Minds have far more freedom on their metamagic
This doesn't mean that we couldn't or shouldn't go further. I'd genuinely like to see something based largely on at wills and building them up. (It might prove too complex in play for too many players but is certainly worth exploring).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If the Aberrant mind is going to be our psion, it needs more psionic themed spells. Especially ones that are sorcerer and warlock only so wizards can't gobble them up. There were a number of them in the Tasha run up only to see all but Mind Whip get dropped.
 


If the Aberrant mind is going to be our psion, it needs more psionic themed spells. Especially ones that are sorcerer and warlock only so wizards can't gobble them up. There were a number of them in the Tasha run up only to see all but Mind Whip get dropped.
Which leads to the question of what effects you think a wizard shouldn't be able to learn to do?
 

If the Aberrant mind is going to be our psion, it needs more psionic themed spells. Especially ones that are sorcerer and warlock only so wizards can't gobble them up. There were a number of them in the Tasha run up only to see all but Mind Whip get dropped.

Back like in 2004 when I was processing the conversion of my 1e AD&D campaign world into 3e and what I would do with psionics and in particular what I felt was the best way to bring psionic monsters into the game that might have been missed by the core 3e game (which don't get me wrong, I thought on the whole was a tremendously good effort) I actually ran through the 1e AD&D psionic rules and listed everything that was in them that wasn't in the 3e rules. And I basically came to the conclusion that the list was pretty short - attack and defense abilities and a few interesting disciplines that where just some other way to do something with a slightly different block of text than a spell.

So I just made those spells. Psionic blast was now a spell. Body weaponry was now a spell. And so forth.
 



I beg your pardon but this is exactly how it works.

The full quote is: "There is no rational reason for wanting a psion that shouldn't be addressed by better design of the core magic system "

If there isn't a rational reason for wanting a psion, then there is no need to change the design of the core magic system. If on the other hand, there is some rational complaint about the core magic system then that complaint can be addressed by refinement of the core magic system.



I'm not the one asserting that the magic system needs a better core design or even that it needs to include psionics at all. In fact, I've made pretty clear that I think the game is better without them. But again, if there is a rational reason for wanting psionics because of some deficiency in the core system, it's better addressed by refining the core system.

And further, even though I'm not under any obligation here since I'm not the one dissatisfied with the present system, I've already speculatively engaged in this process. For example, some commentators on the psion express joy that they have more "fine control" over a spell in various ways by being able to inject points into the spell to spontaneously metamagic the spell. And that seems like a potentially reasonable non-selfish and thoughtful complaint given how awesome the concept of metamagic is and how generally unsatisfactory the implementation was in 3e. But as I pointed out, a cool solution to that problem has existed since way back in 3e when Monte Cook in reimagining the D&D magic system for his Arcana Unearthed project built metamagic into the spell descriptions as a universal property of the system. And I'd also like to point out how the system he built is in a lot of ways congruent with the 5e Mystic class where it's "spells" could be cast at multiple power levels depending on how many points you put into them.

So it seems to me if this complaint is valid enough to justify the psion, then it's valid enough of a complaint against the system that every magic using class ought to benefit from it and not try to solve it by tacking on an extra class and extra magic system. The design work should more properly go into refining the core system.



I think what I said was quite clear.
Something that captures the flavor of the psion, which has a few key points:

1. IS NOT SPELLCASTING. If it's the same as a wizard, it's not a psion. This has been the core feature of psionics for 45 years by now, and at no point has "just make them like every other spellcaster but call them psions" ever been seen as an acceptable answer. It doesn't need to be very different or wholly unique -the difference between spellcasting and pact magic is enough of a change, but just calling a sorcerer a psion while making them wave a wand and chant an incantation ain't gonna cut it. If you really think you'll just convince all the players who aren't satisfied with wizards-as-psions with your brand-new, never-before-suggested "just reflavor it!" argument you really have not been reading the room - for 45 years.

2. Is based on pure mental discipline, not components or special words or items needed.

3. Focuses on the kinds of powers psychic are known for in fiction: telepathy, telekinesis, etc.

4. Ties into the existing psionic lore of DnD, like Mind Flayers and Gith and aboleths.
 

Which leads to the question of what effects you think a wizard shouldn't be able to learn to do?
i think maybe it's less a question of what effects can't they do but a question of scale, finesse and power. wizard is the ultimate generalist, but a generalist ultimately should be outmatched in any given area by a specialist.
 

  1. Adept
  2. Archivist
  3. Ardent
  4. Aristocrat
  5. Artificer
  6. Barbarian
  7. Bard
  8. Basiran Dancer
  9. Battle Dancer
  10. Beguiler
  11. Binder
  12. Brigand
  13. Cleric
  14. Commoner
  15. Crusader
  16. Death Master
  17. Divine Mind
  18. Dragon Shaman
  19. Dragonfire Adept
  20. Dread Necromancer
  21. Druid
  22. Duskblade
  23. Eidolon
  24. Eidoloncer
  25. Exemplar
  26. Expert
  27. Factotum
  28. Favored Soul
  29. Fighter
  30. Friar
  31. Gladiator
  32. Healer
  33. Hexblade
  34. Incarnate
  35. Infiltrator
  36. Inventor
  37. Jester
  38. Knight
  39. Lurk
  40. Magewright
  41. Magnifico
  42. Mariner
  43. Marshal
  44. Master
  45. Monk
  46. Mountebank
  47. Mystic
  48. Nightstalker
  49. Ninja
  50. Noble
  51. Paladin
  52. Psion
  53. Psychic Rogue
  54. Psychic Warrior
  55. Ranger
  56. Rogue
  57. Samurai
  58. Savant
  59. Scout
  60. Shadowcaster
  61. Sha'ir
  62. Shaman
  63. Shugenja
  64. Sohei
  65. Sorcerer
  66. Soulborn
  67. Soulknife
  68. Spellcaster
  69. Spellsinger
  70. Spellthief
  71. Spirit Shaman
  72. Swashbuckler
  73. Swordsage
  74. Totemist
  75. Truenamer
  76. Urban Adept
  77. Voodan
  78. Warblade
  79. Warlock
  80. Warmage
  81. Warrior
  82. Wilder
  83. Wizard
  84. Wu Jen
I actually think this list has some holes, honestly.
 

Remove ads

Top