log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Psionics in Tasha


log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Look at the d20 version, earlier than the SAGA rules, not to be confused with the d6 West End Games version.
I'm aware of the D20 version, although I didn't engage with it. Looking over some things on the web, though, it had worse problems with Force as skill than SAGA did, and SAGA had some glaring problems. These both essentially boil down to the issue that the skill system doesn't progress like the attack or save systems -- it's faster and easier to pump. Also, a number of the d20 skills essentially didn't allow saves or didn't allow other abilities to affect them because they were skill checks, not attack rolls or saving throws. It was a mess, and I'd rather not see it back. My last pass with SAGA was essentially rewriting the force skills section, which was abandoned as too much work for too little improvement and we just played different games. Which is sad, as I own all of the SAGA books save 2, and they're still on my shelf. And, as I understand it, SAGA was the improved and adjusted version of the d20 Force skill systems!
 

glass

(he, him)
Considering that neither of them are actually arguments that address the inclusion of a skill and feat system in any objective measure, I'm not sure why you would find them "good enough". But that's all you.
I seem to be saying this a lot recently, but de gustibus non est disputandum. When it comes to tastes, an objective argument is neither required nor possible.

_
glass.
 

I'm aware of the D20 version, although I didn't engage with it. Looking over some things on the web, though, it had worse problems with Force as skill than SAGA did, and SAGA had some glaring problems. These both essentially boil down to the issue that the skill system doesn't progress like the attack or save systems -- it's faster and easier to pump. Also, a number of the d20 skills essentially didn't allow saves or didn't allow other abilities to affect them because they were skill checks, not attack rolls or saving throws.
And we already have the same problem with grab and shove and we had it worse in 4e: skill vs defense.
In 5e ability check can be modified much more easily than attack rolls or saving throws.
For example hex can easily give disadvantage to all int ability checks. If psionics were tied to them, it was hard counter. Also the simple guidance cantrip can give you +1d4.
 

The Mystic was absolutely the Psion. All you have to do is look at it an the Psion class to see that it was 5e's version with a new name.

And the Mystic is in fact, real evidence. How strong that evidence is, is the only question.

It was also the Soul Knife, Ardent, Battlemind, and Wu Jen. As well as the Mystic and the Psion.

So again, this is not good evidence.

If someone is a tired, their reactions are slowed(disadvantage on ability checks). One level of exhaustion isn't even enough to slow someone down.

Neither is being poisoned. Guess that means poisoning people isn't a big deal. I mean, it doesn't do anything other than make you a little sleepy (ie, the same thing as Exhaustion was doing).

Not really. I'm just going by what it does. It doesn't take much tiredness to cause slowed reactions and thought, which equates to disadvantage on everything. Going by nothing but the rules, all it is is a bit of lost sleep. And heck, lack of sleep doesn't even give any exhaustion unless you invoke the optional rule from Xanathar's, and even then it probably takes 2-3 days before you suffer exhaustion.

Here you are saying that the game doesn't equate to the real world, and you have to invoke the optional rule that makes it more like the real world in order for lack of sleep to even have the chance to exhaust you. After 2-3 days without sleep, you'd have disadvantage, too. ;)

No, you aren't going by what it does. Because what it does includes all of those things I mentioned that you didn't even address. You are going by real world logic.

And, like I said, if you were going to continue to ignore that, then there was no point in continuing this line of discussion. Because you won't engage in the facts.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, you aren't going by what it does. Because what it does includes all of those things I mentioned that you didn't even address. You are going by real world logic.

And, like I said, if you were going to continue to ignore that, then there was no point in continuing this line of discussion. Because you won't engage in the facts.
Fine. Let's go with the facts.

Fact #1: Missing a long rest results in no exhaustion levels at all. That's RAW. Optional rules are irrelevant as no particular table can be counted on to be using them. If you want to bring in that optional rule from Xanathar's for your personal game, you can and you will have created your own problem.

Fact #2: Since disrupting the long rest of the Psion results in no exhaustion levels or any other penalty other than not getting abilities recharged, the Psion who gets 6 hours of rest is just a bit sleepy. Nothing is happening that is the same as poison.

Them's the facts.
 

Azzy

Newtype
I seem to be saying this a lot recently, but de gustibus non est disputandum. When it comes to tastes, an objective argument is neither required nor possible.

_
glass.
Right, and you're right—it's entirely subjective. Keep in mind how this particular thread of the conversation started, though:

Samloyal23 stated, "I have yet to see a good argument against having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." To which I blithely retorted, "On the other hand, I have yet to see a good argument for having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." Matching a dismissive statement with an equally dismissive statement with a bit of wry irony for a nod and a wink.

With that throwaway statement out of the way, though, I then went on to address their actual contention with what I believe to be a credible (YMMV) argument for why a skill and feat system isn't well suited to 5e mechanics. I was expecting this to begin a line of conversation wherein Samloyal23 and I (and anyone else) could actually discuss the subject in a worthwhile manor because I thought that they might be wishing to have a productive exchange on the matter.

Unfortunately, Sabathius42 jumped on my opening statement rather than the actual meat of my post with two non-arguments and ending with, "[If these]...are both not good arguments then I'm not sure what else is going to sway you." Since their words suggested that their non-arguments should be enough to sway me, I responded as such. And since those weren't actual arguments for Samloyal23's stance on a skill and feat system and, they wouldn't sway a fence-sitter let alone someone, such as myself, who has given reasons why such a system wound be ill-fitting for the current edition. If Sabathius42 had just said that those were their personal reasons for supporting a skill and feat system, that would be one thing entirely. But they presented them as something that should "sway" someone else, and in that case, no—those are not actual arguments for a skill and feat system and they are not reasons that would sway the opinion of anyone that wasn't already in favor of such a system.

So, to wit, if Sabathius42 is stating that these are good enough reasons for them to be in favor of such a system—more power to them. If, as their initial response to me implies, that they believe that these are valid reasons to convince me or others of their standpoint, then, no, they're wrong. So, no, I don't think that Sabathius42 needs better arguments to justify their opinion to themselves. However, if they want to be part of a discussion that actually weighs the merits and flaws of held opinions and to convince others that their opinions have merit, then yes, they need to put forth a viable argument that actually addresses the subject rather than something tantamount to "just because I think it should be this way". 🤷‍♀️
 


Azzy

Newtype
You're right I did miss that context. Apologies.

_
glass.
Ah, no worries. To be fair, I could have been clearer in my response to Samloyal23—maybe Sabathius42 misread my intentions in my response to Samloyal23 and things just spiraled from there. We're all (allegedly) human. ;)
 


Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
Right, and you're right—it's entirely subjective. Keep in mind how this particular thread of the conversation started, though:

Samloyal23 stated, "I have yet to see a good argument against having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." To which I blithely retorted, "On the other hand, I have yet to see a good argument for having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." Matching a dismissive statement with an equally dismissive statement with a bit of wry irony for a nod and a wink.

With that throwaway statement out of the way, though, I then went on to address their actual contention with what I believe to be a credible (YMMV) argument for why a skill and feat system isn't well suited to 5e mechanics. I was expecting this to begin a line of conversation wherein Samloyal23 and I (and anyone else) could actually discuss the subject in a worthwhile manor because I thought that they might be wishing to have a productive exchange on the matter.

Unfortunately, Sabathius42 jumped on my opening statement rather than the actual meat of my post with two non-arguments and ending with, "[If these]...are both not good arguments then I'm not sure what else is going to sway you." Since their words suggested that their non-arguments should be enough to sway me, I responded as such. And since those weren't actual arguments for Samloyal23's stance on a skill and feat system and, they wouldn't sway a fence-sitter let alone someone, such as myself, who has given reasons why such a system wound be ill-fitting for the current edition. If Sabathius42 had just said that those were their personal reasons for supporting a skill and feat system, that would be one thing entirely. But they presented them as something that should "sway" someone else, and in that case, no—those are not actual arguments for a skill and feat system and they are not reasons that would sway the opinion of anyone that wasn't already in favor of such a system.

So, to wit, if Sabathius42 is stating that these are good enough reasons for them to be in favor of such a system—more power to them. If, as their initial response to me implies, that they believe that these are valid reasons to convince me or others of their standpoint, then, no, they're wrong. So, no, I don't think that Sabathius42 needs better arguments to justify their opinion to themselves. However, if they want to be part of a discussion that actually weighs the merits and flaws of held opinions and to convince others that their opinions have merit, then yes, they need to put forth a viable argument that actually addresses the subject rather than something tantamount to "just because I think it should be this way". 🤷‍♀️

I am tired of playing "Amateur Lawyer Defense Hour" on ENWorld so i'll just say "Yes, you are correct" and kindly ask you to stop ending statements regarding me or what I have said with the 🤷‍♂️ emoji. It rudely implies that not only is your argument the correct one, but that someone else's is so incorrect that it is somehow baffling to you that it was even made.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top