D&D 5E Offering: my humble, simple Psion class

[DND_Reborn]

Should it be "simple"? In previous editions psionics has always been more complex optional "advanced rules".

You could of course, but as a core class I would advise against it. Once it is well rounded out, variant rules could be offered like other systems in 5E, but the main rules should be simple following 5E design philosophy.

Is anyone else other than @vincegetorix going to use these rules they're making? If no, then it doesn't matter how simple or complex they design them.

I think it only matters if you hope to encourage more people to use it. Again, I am only saying this as the base design ideals for 5E has always been (to my understanding) keeping thing simple and maybe offering variants for more complex rules.

From the start so far, I would certainly be willing to try adding a psionic character. This could be the basis for adding the psionc soul and other subclasses to the remaining core ones. (Personally, this is not something I favor, but I can contribute to the design so others can enjoy it.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it only matters if you hope to encourage more people to use it. Again, I am only saying this as the base design ideals for 5E has always been (to my understanding) keeping thing simple and maybe offering variants for more complex rules.

From the start so far, I would certainly be willing to try adding a psionic character. This could be the basis for adding the psionc soul and other subclasses to the remaining core ones. (Personally, this is not something I favor, but I can contribute to the design so others can enjoy it.)

Based upon the number of times and number of people who keep trying to create a Warlord here on the boards, it tells me that nobody seems to actually use any of these class designs that get made. So people spend dozens of pages arguing about the design of something is totally inconsequential.

So trying to help a designer balance their design a little bit for their own use? If they asked for the help, great! But trying to convince them that their design isn't "right" though? Completely pointless. Cause no one else but them is going to use it and thus "right" or "wrong" means nothing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Based upon the number of times and number of people who keep trying to create a Warlord here on the boards, it tells me that nobody seems to actually use any of these class designs that get made. So people spend dozens of pages arguing about the design of something is totally inconsequential.

So trying to help a designer balance their design a little bit for their own use? If they asked for the help, great! But trying to convince them that their design isn't "right" though? Completely pointless. Cause no one else but them is going to use it and thus "right" or "wrong" means nothing.

True, I never saw a need for a warlord myself. But, I think some people probably are using either homebrew suggested here or their own.

The OP asked for people to review and advise, that's all I've been doing. They are free to take it or leave it as they choose. Considering @vincegetorix's "love' response to my initial post, I hope they are finding my feedback useful. As far as my advice about keeping things simple, that is also because I hope (call me a dreamer LOL) that if something is designed well enough and in line with WotC's design goals, maybe it will serve as a base to become something official.

A good enough design will maybe create something others will use. You never know and I am an eternal optimist.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Yes, simplicity should be an important point. In the end its a mechanic for a game we, a bunch of casual 20-something-to-30 y.o fr play on a Friday night after the job, kids sitting on our laps till they fall asleep, cup of wine in our hands. This is meant to be fun to be played at the table (mine at least), not to give anyone a white-room-number-crunching good time.

I dont like non-core/advanced concepts with the idea of ''big-kids toys'' in my mind. Complexity for the sake of being complex, creating two-level of system mastery leads to the old Ivory Tower design of Cook. Many people do not want a more advanced/complex class just to have the same power output than a basic class; they also want to be rewarded for having engaged with said complexity with a greater output.

So, you appear to be using the UA Psychic Talent Die unmodified. None of your higher level powers reduce the die size, though, which means there are no controls on the usage

I dont know if the power of Psionic Superiority are strong enough to warrant a die reduction. I'll probably modify the PS like this:

• Bonus action on a hit or failed save on any power (remove the level 1 spell or higher)
• Add the PS die as damage automatically instead of ''on a miss'', plus the extra effect.
• Automatically reduce the die one size.

I think that will make it more in line with the battlemaster maneuvers.

For the "official" approach so far UAMystic3 is the best approach. Take the first 3 subclasses, ad a wild talent houserule for all other classes and you are good to go for your DS campaign.

I thought of simplifying the mystic by cutting a bunch of the disciplines and archetypes. Keeping the Immortal, Ardent, Awakened and Nomad. Then:

• Tack the Wild talent feat on it
• Remove the ''focus'' part of the disciplines.
• Reduce the number of discipline per character
• Mystical recovery: bonus action to gain THP equal to the roll of a psi die.
• Consumptive power: Roll a Psi die and regain that amount in psi point, lose 3 x the regain points in max hp until next long rest. Reduce the die size.
• Psionic Mastery: roll one Psi die for the number of gained psi point to spend on the feature.
• Level 20: Immune to charm, poison, diseases, aging and can add roll twice for when rolling a psi die and choose one.