D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[JiffyPopTart]

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?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sorcerer really shouldn't be a separate class.

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.

Am I describing WARLOCK or CLERIC?

And likewise--get rid of the Warlock and make it a subclass of Cleric.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

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.

 

[Wolfram stout]

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]

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.