D&D 5E What's wrong with this psion?

[Crimson Longinus]

So if I call my champion fighter a wizard, and call their longsword attacks spells, there's no need to have a wizard class, right? It's not like they play any differently. I don't see why we need all these 'classes.'

There perhaps is a slightly bigger difference here and you know it. 'Psychic power' and 'spell' are literally the same thing, they both are the user causing some sort of a supernatural effect using their will.

 

[Minigiant]

That makes sense. I use the homebrew psion I use for precisely that reason.

Ideally, my psion would only have ~10 general powers. The rest would be locked behind subclasses. At best you could snag a power from another subclass adjacent to yours. So a beast mind could snag a psionic fist power because they are both egoists.

Each power would have an at will half, a power point boost half, and augments that affect both halves. Cannot decide on how it rests yet. And likely won't as I lack the time and drive.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I never said I was annoyed with the 5E Psionic Sorcerer? I said that in my 5E games, I use Primal, Arcane, Divine, and Psionics as the power sources for Spells and Psionics. I technically only borrow a few things from 4E for lore purposes.

Sorry, it's sometimes hard to tell who's on which side of the argument.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I do a lot of house ruling. Many of house rules are made and applied on the fly based on the fluff overruling the normal game mechanics. Mikes Book of Suggestions isn't meant to cover all situations.

So you would use changes to the rules to make it feel different?

But people who want to change the rules to make the thing feel different are "dullards"?

 

[jmartkdr2]

There perhaps is a slightly bigger difference here and you know it. 'Psychic power' and 'spell' are literally the same thing, they both are the user causing some sort of a supernatural effect using their will.

Psions in prior editions always had distinct mechanics for manifesting powers, that worked differently from the mechanics for spells. So this is not literally true unless you aren't referring to the rules of the game. What changed to make those differences no longer relevant? Why is/was having that distinction wrong? How does the game benefit from no longer having that distinction?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So you would use changes to the rules to make it feel different?

But people who want to change the rules to make the thing feel different are "dullards"?

I don't change the rules per say. The world is the rules. The mechanics layer on top of the world (not the other way around). For me, the goal isn't to make things feel different; the goal is to provide a reasonably predictable way for the players to interact with the fantasy world. Nevertheless, the world governs the mechanics, not the other way around. Any time the fluff clashes with the rules, the fluff wins.

Someone who cannot make the champion fighter interesting is a dullard.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Psions in prior editions always had distinct mechanics for manifesting powers, that worked differently from the mechanics for spells. So this is not literally true unless you aren't referring to the rules of the game.

I am not referring to the rules, I'm referring to the concepts.

What changed to make those differences no longer relevant? Why is/was having that distinction wrong? How does the game benefit from no longer having that distinction?

It is just confused design to needlessly have multiple different ways to do the same basic thing. Like barbarians and fighters don't have completely different mechanics for hitting things with weapons.

 

[Weiley31]

Sorry, it's sometimes hard to tell who's on which side of the argument.

In your defense, the arguments are constant.

 

[Eric V]

Well then you're never going to grok the underlying issue - psions should be distinct form spellcasters. For some people refluffing is enough, for other it just isn't.

Insulting everyone with different perceptions than you is just rude, however.

That's his thing, though; he's staying on-brand!

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't change the rules per say. The world is the rules. The mechanics layer on top of the world (not the other way around). For me, the goal isn't to make things feel different; the goal is to provide a reasonably predictable way for the players to interact with the fantasy world. Nevertheless, the world governs the mechanics, not the other way around. Any time the fluff clashes with the rules, the fluff wins.

Someone who cannot make the champion fighter interesting are dullards.

Let me see if I understand you:

Okay, so in your world, are psionics different form magic?

If yes, then of course you would have the mechanics reflect that. Somehow - the details don't matter. But the fluff say they are different, so the rules are different. Is that what you mean?

If no (psioincs are just magic spelled weirdly), then I would argue your fluff for psionics is out-of-synch with what people want psionics to mean. And that's fine for your own game, but not a good counterargument to people wanting the two concepts to be distinct from each other. You not wanting a thing is not an argument against me playing it.

And your dullard comment wasn't in response to wanting interesting characters - it was about wanting mechanically distinct characters.