D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Aldarc]

That could give you as many as 12 combinations--more than enough IMO for decent variety, niche, or whatever.

Maybe also throw in a gish class for good measure.

 

[Minigiant]

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.".

 

[Weiley31]

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]

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.

 

[Mecheon]

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

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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]

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....

 

[Mecheon]

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?

 

[DND_Reborn]

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?