Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8566193" data-attributes="member: 87792">Thanks for warning me what's coming. Your game, your rules. On this point I like the official rules the way they are and think that changing them would be making them significantly worse.Then house rule it. Your game, your rules. I like the way the official rules are right now.Which is when we look at subclasses - like the existing ones of the Soulknife or Psi Warrior.Somehow 5e manages to do things both ways at the same time and people are complaining about both at once, each as if the other one isn't there.Every new subsystem makes games worse because they make the games harder to learn and more confusing.This doesn't mean they don't also make the game better because they do good things. But the burden of proof for a new system is on showing it is a good thing. And it's something that's harder to do when the archetype is already covered. People who want specific psionic mechanics already have them. People who want psychic powers as spells already have them. It's only want people who want their specific take on psionics that don't.So what you're saying is that even with your own personal search history and social media presence your top three includes one about why they are hated, one showing almost no interest, and a couple of almost dead entries?And no I don't normally write much about psionics in D&D. I don't think I ever really have off this board.There is already a D&D 5e psionics book that has been published. It's called Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. And it's the best psionics book there has been in any edition of D&D by a pretty large margin. In part because it doesn't drop ridiculous numbers of rules on everything if someone wants to play a psychic character.Tasha's of course didn't have the first psionic characters in 5e; we had the Great Old One Warlock in the PHB and the College of Whispers Bard in Xanathar's.A tiny number of people seem to be left wanting by it - as far as I can tell it's those who for some reason want utter perfection and aren't willing to accept anything less than it despite not having a coherent design. Those who, despite there being a literal power point using subclass that uses spell like abilities and power points think that a taste of the far realm is too much and are going to throw out the Aberrant Mind. Meanwhile people who, like me, want to play psionic characters have been since it was just the PHB.And when we've already got a psionics book published it would be throwing out a significant part of the design philosophy of 5e to get an entire other  one. It wouldn't have been out of line with 2e, 3.0, 3.5, or 4e to get splat bloat reaching psionics. And it wasn't out of line with 1e to get ridiculous psionic attack and defence modes. But it is out of line with 5e's philosophy.So throw whichever one you don't like out and you have your psionic system. The problem is that you're asking for an imposed Grand Unified Theory. D&D IMO shouldn't worry that much about grand unified theories of psionics until it has the grand unified theory of the hit point - which is far more fundamental. Then we can follow it with a Grand Unified Magical Theory - and while doing so explain why some magic is spells and other +1 weapons.The rules are IMO much better used as a user interface than a physics engine.Do you have anything beyond appeals to emotion and that you don't like the way the official rules work at your table? The psychic characters are already there. It's just that a few people don't like the way they are implemented.</blockquote>

Verification