D&D 5E Everything wrong with the Wizard Psionics subclass

[Ashrym]

Your fundamental idea that it proves the need to not have a class is incorrect. It shows that reskinning actually has no value.

Putting a "haha" on my post isn't a rebuttal. Tautology isn't a rebuttal.

Your argument is reskinning is invalid because we can reskin any class. My response is yes we can, and you just also stated that yes we can. If we can, how does that deny that we can do that with a psionic class? The answer is that it doesn't.

Your rebuttal is simply a restatement of your premise using different words. That's what I was pointing out. The implication is because we did not with some classes we should not with psionics, which is a false equivalency after jumping to the conclusion that other reasons weren't relevant to the addition of those other classes.

I've demonstrated using reskinning many times. Bards are one of my favorite topics on it because there are a lot of different bard tropes and the bard class is focused more on the fili, skald, and jongleur inspirations. That doesn't mean a person cannot make a bard differently by playing a druid, fighter, rogue, or barbarian. The label itself is meaningless to the concept. You can all yourself in game whatever you want.

I can play a psionic character now by specific spell selection and interpretation of what the verbal and somatic requirements actually represent. If I use drugs, incense, or a crystal ball for materials or a focus I'm still following tropes and reskinning mechanics. The concept is what we make of it as players. It's the need to have specific and unique powers or mechanics that doesn't actually exist. Simply saying reskinning isn't valid because things can be reskinned doesn't change that.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Putting a "haha" on my post isn't a rebuttal. Tautology isn't a rebuttal.

Your argument is reskinning is invalid because we can reskin any class. My response is yes we can, and you just also stated that yes we can. If we can, how does that deny that we can do that with a psionic class? The answer is that it doesn't.

Your rebuttal is simply a restatement of your premise using different words. That's what I was pointing out. The implication is because we did not with some classes we should not with psionics, which is a false equivalency after jumping to the conclusion that other reasons weren't relevant to the addition of those other classes.

I've demonstrated using reskinning many times. Bards are one of my favorite topics on it because there are a lot of different bard tropes and the bard class is focused more on the fili, skald, and jongleur inspirations. That doesn't mean a person cannot make a bard differently by playing a druid, fighter, rogue, or barbarian. The label itself is meaningless to the concept. You can all yourself in game whatever you want.

I can play a psionic character now by specific spell selection and interpretation of what the verbal and somatic requirements actually represent. If I use drugs, incense, or a crystal ball for materials or a focus I'm still following tropes and reskinning mechanics. The concept is what we make of it as players. It's the need to have specific and unique powers or mechanics that doesn't actually exist. Simply saying reskinning isn't valid because things can be reskinned doesn't change that.

you guys realize these are all aesthetic questions with no objective answer?

 

[Ashrym]

you guys realize these are all aesthetic questions with no objective answer?

I realize that discussing the pros and cons of a topic requires actual points to discuss and an open mind to all sides of the discussion.

Is that close enough?

 

[Shardstone]

Putting a "haha" on my post isn't a rebuttal. Tautology isn't a rebuttal.

Your argument is reskinning is invalid because we can reskin any class. My response is yes we can, and you just also stated that yes we can. If we can, how does that deny that we can do that with a psionic class? The answer is that it doesn't.

Your rebuttal is simply a restatement of your premise using different words. That's what I was pointing out. The implication is because we did not with some classes we should not with psionics, which is a false equivalency after jumping to the conclusion that other reasons weren't relevant to the addition of those other classes.

I've demonstrated using reskinning many times. Bards are one of my favorite topics on it because there are a lot of different bard tropes and the bard class is focused more on the fili, skald, and jongleur inspirations. That doesn't mean a person cannot make a bard differently by playing a druid, fighter, rogue, or barbarian. The label itself is meaningless to the concept. You can all yourself in game whatever you want.

I can play a psionic character now by specific spell selection and interpretation of what the verbal and somatic requirements actually represent. If I use drugs, incense, or a crystal ball for materials or a focus I'm still following tropes and reskinning mechanics. The concept is what we make of it as players. It's the need to have specific and unique powers or mechanics that doesn't actually exist. Simply saying reskinning isn't valid because things can be reskinned doesn't change that.

Alot of stuff said here that basically amounts to "Because you can reskin it, you shouldn't want anything else." But if reskinning is a catch-all swish army knife then that means it is only providing a very basic experience. This basic experience can be argued as good or bad for the mainstream; that's not my concern. My concern is how it feels for me and my group.

For me and my group, we enjoy using game mechanics to set aside different concepts. We believe that the mechanics of D&D are what brings a story to life. This is a belief shared by Mearls and Crawford, who have stated that when they design rules, they are designing it to emulate certain story or trope ideas.

Because of this, playing a Sorcerer, ignoring all the fluff, and then pretending that a Dragon Origin is actually a elementalist is not satisfying to us. It might be satisfying to you, and that's good, but your argument comes from a place of personal bias, and you are attempting to use it to invalidate the experiences of others.

In my experience, at my table(s), we do not enjoy reskinning. To us, reskinning is at best a way to make something look cool, and is not used to make something, like say a Barbarian, pretend to be a Psion. We want mechanics to differentiate these story ideas, because this makes us feel as if we are doing something fresh, unique, and interesting.

By all means, keep reskinning. That's good that you enjoy it. But everyone who comes into this thread and says "You should not want more classes because we can reskin stuff and we like that" does no favors for the conversation. It just ends up with people feeling attacked and invalidated because you people are so insistent on your way being the right way.

EDIT: Pros and Cons is different then what is in a lot of this thread. A lot of this thread is instead people saying that we shouldn't want a new class because it can be created through some manner of frankenstein concepts and/or reskinning. There were some cons mentioned, like about class bloat and what not, but largely this conversation has just been about invalidating one side and pretending that your thoughts and feelings deserve a rebuttal.

 

[Ashrym]

Alot of stuff said here that basically amounts to "Because you can reskin it, you shouldn't want anything else."

That's putting words in my mouth. What I said was reskinning is a valid option when you said it wasn't. Nothing more. Nothing less.

What I said about psionics was that wizards don't cut it and I would prefer a base class with the 6 subclasses, if you missed it. I also acknowledged I like the flavor and that I did not actually play the class much anyway being honest.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet they do it.

And yet they don't. For every time Professor X uses the finger to the head, he also has a time where he does nothing at all. Luke used the mind trick on Jabba without waiving his hand. It's purely option or habit that causes them to make the gestures. It absolutely is not a part of their power.

That argument that there wasn't such a tell or display of power didn't exist in 3e or 4e. There were descriptions on demonstrating that manifestation. If a DM handwaved it away, it wasn't what we had in the last 2 editions. It was the standard expectation. Just like the magic / psionics transparency (they are the sae and affect each other equally) was the default rule. Psionics is Different was an optional rule.

I don't care if there is some sort of visual or auditory display that happens, kinda like 3e had. There just can't be components to use the powers and still remain psionics.

The way you describe psionics hasn't existed in D&D since 2e, and that required making ability checks in order to manifest powers on top of spending power points.

I don't know about 4e, but 3e was just the way I describe it. There were no somatic, verbal or material components to manifest powers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's just saying the same thing twice. Reskinning has clear merit because I do it all the time to create my concept of a character from existing classes. Not just D&D.

It can be fantastic, though the availability has varied in D&D over the editions. In 2e, for instance, if you wanted to re-skin the cosmetic look of your fireball, you actually cast a 2nd level spell, called Sense Shifting, that'd do it. (I'm pretty sure I'm remembering that right - one of my players loved it.)

In 3e - AFAIK, for the first time - you, as the player, explicitly had the option to re-skin your character's personal appearance and his gear. Thus, bastard sword & glaive could equal katana and naginata. That never caused any controversy, at all.
But, it was late 3.5 and some fiddly feat called Spell Thematics before you could much mess with how your spell effects looked.

4e expanded on that, letting you re-skin prettymuch anything/everything about your character, short of changing keywords. So, even then, you couldn't re-skin your Sorcerer as a Psion.

AFAIK, 5e is less permissive than that with re-skinning, from the player side. The DM, of course, has carte blanche - he can not just re-skin, but re-muscle, bone, and vital organ whatever he wants.

"Anything can be reskinned" is actually the bad argument because it acknowledges the lack of need for the psionic classes. Demonstrating that point with other classes doesn't disprove that it also applies to psionic classes; it reinforces it.

The point is that "you can already (sorta) do it by re-skinning (if you squint real hard)" is not a valid bar for psionics to clear for inclusion. Because if it were a valid bar, it'd've blocked most of the PH classes. You'd prettymuch have had a loosely-defined Fighter and Magic-User.

Re-skinning as an excuse to exclude a concept with a history that encompasses virtually the entire history of D&D is also just really, really weak. And, is moreso in context when you consider the conceit that 5e classes are designed concept-first.
Re-skinning is mechanics-first/concept-last design.

And yet they do it. That demonstration of manifesting power is common in the tropes. Glowing eyes and pointing gestures and more. Bleeding noses if you prefer. It's also D&D.

Well, it's not D&D, per se. D&D VSM is still fairly well defined. V are audible, strange-language, incantations; S are visible, conspicuous gestures; materials range from the cheap/mundane/inconspicuous to the expensive and/or eye-catching. And they're hard /requirements/.

Typical uses of psionics encompass such things as 'looks of intense concentration,' sweeping gestures, and secondary manifestations (lights flickering, wind, objects levitating). But, I can't think of an example of "I can't use my psychic powers with my hands tied," the closest thing I can come up with for a verbal requirement is in giving commands to a dominated target, bordering on hypnosis, really. They're more like accompaniments than requirements.

That argument that there wasn't such a tell or display of power didn't exist in 3e or 4e. There were descriptions on demonstrating that manifestation.

3e made it very clear that psionic powers had manifestations, so they were obvious. I don't recall if it had requirements. In 4e, players described powers as they liked, but it was always obvious you were using a power - 4e just played very 'above board' that way, regardless.

Psionics is Different was an optional rule.

And 5e, the Big Tent, DM Empowerment, edition, is big on optional rules.

 

[Aldarc]

You're right, Psionicists never move a muscle or say a word when using their powers.

My meta-textual take is that these are primarily visual storytelling cues for the audience that a given character is using their power.

 

[GobiWon]

Psionicist should be a unique class but built on the Sorcerer backbone and use the spell point system from the DMG, but it needs it's own unique Spell (Powers) list that does not overlap with any of the current spell lists. Archtypes should be chosen at third that reflect a concentration in one of classic disciplines. This is why this is so hard to do in UA. No one wants to develop a whole new lists of spells (powers). It is a daunting task but needs to be done if they are going to do this right.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Psionicist should be a unique class but built on the Sorcerer backbone and use the spell point system from the DMG, but it needs it's own unique Spell (Powers) list that does not overlap with any of the current spell lists. Archtypes should be chosen at third that reflect a concentration in one of classic disciplines. This is why this is so hard to do in UA. No one wants to develop a whole new lists of spells (powers). It is a daunting task but needs to be done if they are going to do this right.

Many classic psionic effects already exist as spells. If psionics are supposed to cast spells and have a spell list, I see no reason to build everything from scratch.

I’m convinced, though, that psionics should not be spell-based, but have various powers that you test for an effect, like the force powers in SW Saga, for example. And have an upkeep cost in PSPs as a substitute for the concentration mechanic.