IME, that didn't stop the players who thought "ranger" meant "ranged combat" instead of "open range". The ranger as a wanderer and woodsman / hunter was a bit lost along the way.
It never occued to me that people would look at it like that...huh.
IME, that didn't stop the players who thought "ranger" meant "ranged combat" instead of "open range". The ranger as a wanderer and woodsman / hunter was a bit lost along the way.
And, as a side note, what new mechanics does the artificer have that doesn't appear in another class?
No, just pointing out that your opinion about psionics is dangerously trying to masquerade as a fact. That's all.So ... attacking the fact that I have an opinion? That I never personally saw a reason to use psionics? Whew. Those are compelling arguments.
Have you answered the questions? Nope.As far as warlock vs other spell-casting classes, have you even read the class? Sorcerer vs wizard is a little closer but even then you have a different primary stat, metamagic and limited spell list vs flexibility and so on.
You're repeating this bad faith argument again. I don't think you're really good at attentive listening or otherwise you wouldn't.Could you come up with a unique psion? Sure. But nobody seems to agree on what it would look like.
You can express your opinion, but that does not mean that your opinion is with merit or made in good faith. I am not blaming you for anything other than not approaching this discussion with good faith and you repeatedly falling back on strawman arguments. But I look forward to you accusing others of "blaming the anti-psionic Illuminati" again when all else fails.I get tired of this argument and being accused of telling people they can't express their opinion. Don't blame me that it's never been a popular class.
I don't necessarily care if psionics uses spell points or spell slots or Mystic-style power augmentation, but your overall argument doesn't seem to hold much water under scrutiny. Many casters are given workarounds for these things as well. The arcane/divine focus is meant to bypass most material components as per eschew materials of old. The Sorcerer can select subtle spell for its Metamagic. The GOO Warlock does not need VSM for its telepathy as its a subclass feature. The Artificer can work around VSM with its infusions, spell storing, and magic items. Then there is the Shadow Monk and 4 Elements Monk who are already using their Ki point as spell points for their spells (equivalent to 1/3 of a level equivalent warlock's Pact Magic converted to spell points). Feats exist to help spellcasters bypass somatic components. So it seems that psionics can be different because other pre-existing casters are also permitted to be different. So what if psionics doesn't need a traditional focus, feat, or metamagic for it? Why are you so reticent about this? Furthermore, it's not like spell points aren't already an option in the DMG.The whole "spell points" thing is a non-starter right from the get go. Plus the whole "psionics are different, for no real reason that just to be different" completely turns me off. EVERY other caster uses spells the same way - VSM. Why should psionics be any different?
Wasn't this a requirement of the wizard? Vancian or Neo-Vancian spellcasting with level 9 spells and a spellbook? As Tony says, 5e classes have been mostly about mirroring earlier editions in various ways and forms.Insisting that psionics HAS to mirror earlier editions is a non-starter for me. No other class does, so, why should psionics be any different?
Maybe for someone who has no interest in psionics but not for people who actually plan on using psionics.To me, the UA captures a psionicist perfectly well.
So what if psionics were more like a Warlock's invocations? A bunch of at-will and per Short Rest powers? Because right now, I'm hearing much the same as your argument above, "spellcasting is all the same except ALL the differences we find."I phrased that poorly. What new mechanics does the artificer have that would require a completely new system? Infusing items is simply spell casting. Not particularly any different from Warlock Invocations. I mean, seriously, is there really a difference between knowing how to make an infusion to make Goggles of the Night and Witchsight (or whatever one lets warlocks see in the dark - sorry, forgot the right name)?
Lolz, no.The only real reason [Artificers] have their own class is because their casting rate is different from full casters.
Likely not. Wands are a big thing in Harry Potter. Sure, wandless magic exists, but it is usually something that comes with mastery of the wand form. So the aesthetic of Eleven's powers is wrong for HP-style wizards. Plus, her skill set is more restricted than what a typical wizard in Harry Potter's world would be expected to know. This is also a point of contention regarding psionics vs. arcane magic. It's the everything else that a psionic would be saddled with if they were just reclassified as wizards.Now, as far as a "clear distinction" between psychic (or psionic) and magic, that distinction is because psionics are used in Science Fiction. We don't call Eleven from Stranger Things a wizard or a warlock because Stranger Things is SF. However, plunk her down in Westeros and poof, she's a wizard Harry.
Sure this is why Star Wars is Science Fantasy, but I doubt that either of us would argue that jedi and sith should use a spell slot system or typical VSM requirements for how they use the Force. Most reasonable people would agree that Force-use fits closer to the subtlety of D&D psionics (or a monk's Ki) far than it does D&D arcane or divine magic. This is because psionics has accrued a different set of aesthetics, flavor, and power source than what we typically think of as D&D arcane magic or wizardry. When we look to games like Pillar of Eternity, the Cipher is referred to as a psionist - with subclasses like the Psion, Soul Blade, Ascendant, and Beguiler - and it's different than a Wizard or other class. So it's not as if psionics and its ilk is exclusively restricted to Science Fantasy. And it already exists in Eberron and Dark Sun. So you are welcome to dismiss it as something that should be restricted to science fantasy, but its inclusion as a concurrent part of Fantasy alongside Arcane/Divine magic is a ship that has long sailed for decades now.Psionics or psychics or whatever term tickles your fancy is just a way for SF writers to avoid having to actually explain why they have wizards in their SF setting. Heck, Jedi are a pretty good reason why Star Wars ISN'T science fiction but rather fantasy with a funny moustache.
FYI, you sound like the anti-warlord crowd and making similar sort of arguments too. If you can sympathize - and I don't know, maybe it's a false sympathy - then maybe you should not be in the business of contributing to the angst. Golden Rule and all that.Look, I get the angst. I'm a warlord fan. I've been told EXACTLY what I'm telling you as the reasons why I can't have a warlord in 5e. That the existence of battlemasters and various other classes should be good enough for me and would I please stop bothering everyone.
I phrased that poorly. What new mechanics does the artificer have that would require a completely new system? Infusing items is simply spell casting. Not particularly any different from Warlock Invocations. I mean, seriously, is there really a difference between knowing how to make an infusion to make Goggles of the Night and Witchsight (or whatever one lets warlocks see in the dark - sorry, forgot the right name)?
Artificers cast spells exactly like all other casters. Their abilities are not particularly different from warlocks. While the effects might be a bit different, the mechanic is the same - choose a small number of effects at a given level.
Nothing in the Artificer class requires anything remotely like a new subsystem of mechanics. The only real reason they have their own class is because their casting rate is different from full casters.
Now, as far as a "clear distinction" between psychic (or psionic) and magic, that distinction is because psionics are used in Science Fiction. We don't call Eleven from Stranger Things a wizard or a warlock because Stranger Things is SF. However, plunk her down in Westeros and poof, she's a wizard Harry.
Psionics or psychics or whatever term tickles your fancy is just a way for SF writers to avoid having to actually explain why they have wizards in their SF setting.
Heck, Jedi are a pretty good reason why Star Wars ISN'T science fiction but rather fantasy with a funny moustache.
Let's take a look at the 5E poster child for psionics, the Mind Flayer. Creepy attitude? Check. Ability that does psychic damage? Check. New or different spells that are different from any other spell casting monster? Nope.
They just have spell like abilities, a list of spells from the PHB and the psionic label attached to their Innate Spellcasting. Take away a bit of fluff and there's nothing about them that's different. Based on just stats and not story you wouldn't know they were psionicists.
So lets say I take a hell hound, swap out breath weapon damage type, give them advantage on saves vs magic instead of immunity to fire. Does that make them a psionic puppy?
If it does, then just give a sorcerer or warlock different power source and you're done.
Let's take a look at the 5E poster child for psionics, the Mind Flayer. Creepy attitude? Check. Ability that does psychic damage? Check. New or different spells that are different from any other spell casting monster? Nope.
They just have spell like abilities, a list of spells from the PHB and the psionic label attached to their Innate Spellcasting. Take away a bit of fluff and there's nothing about them that's different. Based on just stats and not story you wouldn't know they were psionicists.
If it does, then just give a sorcerer or warlock different power source and you're done. If it doesn't then I would argue that there's no real difference between a mind flayer and any other monster with innate spellcasting abilities.
But if you give a psionic based characters there's a couple of questions. If you ignore the common trope of people using psychic abilities also having visible gestures, words or focus (aka, V,S,M components), then they've just gotten an advantage over other spell casters. What's the counter-balancing cost? What happens in an anti-magic zone? If they work just like other spell casters, what's the point?
So far, nobody here has shown any psychic that needs to use gestures or words to use their abilities. Jedi don't have to. Professor X didn't have to. And I haven't seen any other examples offered up. Do you have an example?If you ignore the common trope of people using psychic abilities also having visible gestures, words or focus (aka, V,S,M components), then they've just gotten an advantage over other spell casters. What's the counter-balancing cost? What happens in an anti-magic zone? If they work just like other spell casters, what's the point?