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

[Parmandur]

I didn't say that they were working for an external power.

Most Warlocks I've seen aren’t tied to a Patron all that tightly.

 

[Parmandur]

You quoted Warlock class texts that mention and refer to a "patron". A "pact" is with an external power.

All of the Warlock flavor is wrong for a Psion.

Flavor is fungible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most Warlocks I've seen arentied to a Patron all that tightly.

It’s kinda hard to make a particularly strong tie and still maintain the warlock’s autonomy. Also, hard for the DM to incorporate into an campaign that the patron isn’t built into to begin with.

 

[Mind of tempest]

But is a psionicist class really needed? I mean, a full levels 1-20 psionicist?

why not you got telepathy, people smashing things around, masters of flesh people who deal with the soul in the non-currupt make an undead army way, would it not be fun?
would you rather port it into sorcerer who barely works, graft it on top of the bloated mess of wizard or would you rather do it right?

I didn't say that they were working for an external power.

you said a warlock, a warlock without someone to work for is like a cleric without a god, kinda dumb.

Yes, new options are increasingly esoteric. That’s why I wouldn't expect any new Classes anytime soon: there is much conceptual space.

See also, the Tasha's options, which are more significant than 1E Psionics at least.

what conceptual space, the martials just get spells added to them, and the casters have not had anything inspiring for a while just reasons for them to cast new spells, give me something evocative.

non of them were full caster of sufficient verity, I do not hate them but a start is not the main course.
comparing them to 1e is nuts, wizards have many times the arcane might of 1e.

Flavor is fungible.

I do not want to have to negotiate with a dm to get the flavour I want.

 

[Parmandur]

It’s kinda hard to make a particularly strong tie and still maintain the warlock’s autonomy. Also, hard for the DM to incorporate into an campaign that the patron isn’t built into to begin with.

Exactly.

 

[Yaarel]

Flavor is fungible.

Not to me. Not in 5e.

5e blends mechanics and flavors together. It is all baked in.

As a DM, I rely on narrative adjudication − meaning, flavor is more important than mechanics for determining the outcome of a scenario.

In 5e, I refuse to fight against the tide of flavor. Period.

I want a Psion class, whose mechanics and flavor are for the purpose of actualizing psionic themes.

 

[bedir than]

You quoted Warlock class texts that mention and refer to a "patron". A "pact" is with an external power.

All of the Warlock flavor is wrong for the Psion.

I didn't quote texts referring to a patron. I did mention a pact. I described that pact. The words I chose were to establish how the The Deep Mind can represent a psion with Warlock powers using established flavor.
I would prefer to not have words I didn't use attributed to me.

 

[Yaarel]

I do not want to have to negotiate with a dm to get the flavour I want.

Heh. And as a DM, I dont want to fight against what the players are reading in the Players Handbook.

 

[Parmandur]

you said a warlock, a warlock without someone to work for is like a cleric without a god, kinda dumb.

Cleric's don't need gods, per the core rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

you said a warlock, a warlock without someone to work for is like a cleric without a god, kinda dumb.

I’m pretty sure by “warlock” they meant “two spell slots that recover on a short rest, cantrips, and individually selected class abilities to enhance the above or grant additional powers.”