log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Psionics in Tasha

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
Sure, but I would say the same is true for the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard. Does it really matter that one is learned arcane magic and the other is innate arcane magic? Is that not also mostly a matter of style and aesthetics that sets them apart? So why not represent both with the same class?
I'll go one farther and closer in concept...

I want to play a character who dedicates themselves to a high powered being, who in return for me doing their bidding grants me magical abilities.

Am I describing WARLOCK or CLERIC?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Kobold Avenger

Adventurer
I'm still waiting to see if we eventually get the proposed Psion class that Mearls tinkered with in a UA, that one used spell slots like any other caster, but the spell slots could be used to enhance some special cantrips the class got.
 

The answer is no. Even before I see any rules, being a Sorcerer makes it an arcane class and psionics are not arcane. Right off the bat that makes it fail. Second, these spells have verbal components and psionics don't have components. So from what I've seen so far it fails on that front as well.


I don't require perfect, but "passable" equates to mediocre and mediocre is not sufficient for anything I play. I want the rules to at least be decent to good

Hi,

Big fan of psionics here (loved the Dragon Magazine Psioncist "NPC" class). On your "psionics don't have components" stand, isn't it fairly common in literature to see either Mantras (Dune) or Focuses (I am thinking the cubes from Katherine Kurtz's work) that are either required or at least help pull off the psionic powers that are used?

Even if WOTC developed a full sub-system with specific classes, I would not be surprised if there were not some type of requirements along those lines.

Hope this is not too much of a sidebar discussion, just wanted to ask.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Agree 100%.

It would be interesting if Sorcerer was a "template" that could be applied to other full casters. You lost some spells, but channel your magic internally, and gain metamagics.

And likewise--get rid of the Warlock and make it a subclass of Cleric.
I think between 1-3 full casters is probably the max that D&D really needs, and other concepts can be subclasses or reskins.

Of course, I favor broader classes for D&D in general (or hyper-specific ones.) 5e being an awkward middle is one of my least favorite things about it.
 

I think between 1-3 full casters is probably the max that D&D really needs, and other concepts can be subclasses or reskins.

Of course, I favor broader classes for D&D in general (or hyper-specific ones.) 5e being an awkward middle is one of my least favorite things about it.

In Communist Russia, one class* fits all.

*Stalin was an NPC.
 

Vael

Hero
I'm still waiting to see if we eventually get the proposed Psion class that Mearls tinkered with in a UA, that one used spell slots like any other caster, but the spell slots could be used to enhance some special cantrips the class got.

You mean the one from his Happy Fun design hours?

Agreed, the concept felt like a winner to me. Given that there is already a system for using points instead of slots in the DMG, you kinda got the best of both worlds: a Psion that still looks and plays like a conventional caster, but could use the Spell Point system for tables that wanted Psionics to feel unique.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I think between 1-3 full casters is probably the max that D&D really needs, and other concepts can be subclasses or reskins.

Of course, I favor broader classes for D&D in general (or hyper-specific ones.) 5e being an awkward middle is one of my least favorite things about it.
Yep, the game is really about maybe 7 or 8 classes--the rest are off-shots and variants of the core concept IMO.

Sure, you could go even broader, but by then your "subclasses" really almost become classes in their own ways, so what is the point? Nothing really in going so far.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I think between 1-3 full casters is probably the max that D&D really needs, and other concepts can be subclasses or reskins.

Of course, I favor broader classes for D&D in general (or hyper-specific ones.) 5e being an awkward middle is one of my least favorite things about it.
1-3 full casters (learned, pact, innate) and then 4 spell lists representing different power sources (arcane, divine, occult/psionic, primal). That should give you a nice spread.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
1-3 full casters (learned, pact, innate) and then 4 spell lists representing different power sources (arcane, divine, occult/psionic, primal). That should give you a nice spread.
That could give you as many as 12 combinations--more than enough IMO for decent variety, niche, or whatever.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I think between 1-3 full casters is probably the max that D&D really needs, and other concepts can be subclasses or reskins.

Of course, I favor broader classes for D&D in general (or hyper-specific ones.) 5e being an awkward middle is one of my least favorite things about it.

By that logic we should have 3 warrior classes, 3 skills classes, and 3 hybrid classes (as multiclassing would NOT work because of how crazily frontloaded these classes would be.

But we only have 2 warriors, 1 expert, and 2 hybrids.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
To me Arcane magic is math. That's why wizards are old, have high intelligence, and use books.

Sorcerer are just people who have those same formulas emblazoned in their blood and mind and can activate the same MATH without knowing how exactly the formula works.

A psion pushes the air. No math. no coding. only PUSH!

This is why I feel psionic spells feel off. Psions aren't don't arcane math, they do regular math. They are litterally doing normal physics to figure out where the rock they chuck goes. Not using Agamemmix's formula to find Sybu's number to add to the Fire Invocation Index to create a smokeless fuelless fireball.

It's just "Me make fire. Me have pyrokinesis.".
 

While I am looking forward to the Pisonics section in Tashas: I am preparing myself for it probably being the one part of the book that will go ah man.
 

glass

(he, him)
Yes, a sorcerer with psion theme is what psions are in this edition. You're rejecting this approach without having seen the rules because it is not called 'psion'. You're irrationally fixated on the nomenclature.
Nomenclature matters. You yourself said that the fact that they are calling this "psionics" means that want psionics closer to what it was in previous editions (any of them) are probably going to be SOL.

Right. So a blanket justification of irrationally hate anything they come up with, even if you fail to logically explain why.
De gustibus non est disputandum. Matters or personal taste are inherrently irrational, and a "logical explanation" is neither required nor (in most cases) possible. That applies to yours just as much as ours.

_
glass.
 

And likewise--get rid of the Warlock and make it a subclass of Cleric.
Warlock and Cleric fulfill two very different fantasies and remain completely different things. There is literately nothing common between their mechanics or how they function

I disagree with merging sorcerer away into anything, and I especially disagree with trying to get rid of warlock as well
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
Warlock and Cleric fulfill two very different fantasies and remain completely different things. There is literately nothing common between their mechanics or how they function
I want to play a character who dedicates themselves to a high powered being, who in return for me doing their bidding grants me magical abilities.

Am I describing WARLOCK or CLERIC?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I want to play a character who dedicates themselves to a high powered being, who in return for me doing their bidding grants me magical abilities.

Am I describing WARLOCK or CLERIC?
A warlock. A cleric has faith and a desire to uphold his god's portfolios. Rarely does the God have the cleric running around doing his bidding. A warlock patron on the other hand....
 

I want to play a character who dedicates themselves to a high powered being, who in return for me doing their bidding grants me magical abilities.

Am I describing WARLOCK or CLERIC?
Cleric, as they're dedicated

Try to do any of these blatant warlock things as a cleric and see how well it goes

Researcher who stumbled across an ancient tome in a library. Upon opening it, their mind was exposed to that of something beyond, from which they took a sliver of power. But they now know you're there, and their great eyes that should not be come ever closer...
Gambler who gambled far too much until they made a bet they couldn't win. Someone came to help them, but now they're in debt to someone they'd rather not be. In order to ensure their debt gets paid, well, this wealthy patron has sent an imp or two to make sure you're in a position to pay up.
You had a one-night stand with a beautiful woman. Next thing you know, you've forgotten the last 2 months of your life and you have strange new powers, tied to the ever-flowing power of life and nature. You're pretty sure she's got a vested interest in you, and, hey, how were you to know she was actually a Fey and so help you if you go to the Feywild?
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Warlock and Cleric fulfill two very different fantasies and remain completely different things. There is literately nothing common between their mechanics or how they function

I disagree with merging sorcerer away into anything, and I especially disagree with trying to get rid of warlock as well
Not really IMO, but you do you. For my reasons, see the following post:

I want to play a character who dedicates themselves to a high powered being, who in return for me doing their bidding grants me magical abilities.

Am I describing WARLOCK or CLERIC?
 

COMING SOON! Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top