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

[Ovinomancer]

It seems to me that these arguments are due to the fact that people conflate a concept with a mechanic. For people that just want the concept, the mechanic doesn't matter, and you get the OP -- utilizing existing mechanics to create a concept. The counterarguments to this are uniformly about not having the desired mechanics. The concept is secondary to having the desired mechanics. And, as well noted, this is where it gets into problems because people cannot seem to agree on the mechanics. They look at an implementation of the concept and lock on the lack of the desired mechanics.

And, that's fine. Being a mechanics wonk is perfectly well and good. I just wish that there'd be less of a rhetoical position that it's about what psionics mean when you're making mechanics arguments -- it's not about the concept, it's about the mechanical implementation. The OP is a perfectly good representation of the concept of a psion.

 

[Aldarc]

LOL Artificers... right.

INT: Wizards, Artificers (again.. ),

Sorry that the viable existence of the Artificer class inconveniences your analysis.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Psionics added that late to a system making it distinct from magic most probably is too imbalanced or you need to change the existing monsters and rules, at what point it is not worth it. Especially if you want your 3 core books to stay 95% relevant, which WotC so far has made a good job of. WotC already has made a precedent how Psionics work: As an example take the mind flayer. His psionics is done by chosing the right spells.

This is basically why when I saw the 5e Mind Flayer I knew there wouldn't be psionics that made me happy. Someday I hope there's a version of D&D that thinks about where psionics fits in from the very begining of the design process, but not holding my breath on it.

 

[humble minion]

Boo! Do you not like the Artificer trope, or the WotC implementation of said trope?

The WotC implementation of the artificer is very Eberron-y. Which is great for Eberron (and which is entirely reasonable since the artificer had its origins in the original 3e Eberron anyway), but it makes for a questionable fit in other settings. Try to bring one to my Dark Sun game, for instance, and i'd laugh in your face.

I'd like some more effort to go into making the artificer work in lower-tech settings. Something like a magesmith, who inscribes runes on the works of his forge, for instance. Just tone the wacky steampunk hijinks and magic walking flamethrowers down a tad and it'd be much more broadly applicable.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Boo! Do you not like the Artificer trope, or the WotC implementation of said trope?

The trope? Not so much but meh whatever.

WotC's implementation? Hell NO!

Sorry that the viable existence of the Artificer class inconveniences your analysis.

That's quite alright. I appreciate your understanding.

The class is not well-balanced at all IMO. We tried it once, found it way OP, and immediately banned it from the table. While I can appreciate WotC making the attempt, and I am sure some people love it because it is OP, it definitely doesn't work for us.

Finally, it should have been a subclass of wizard IMO, not a full-caster class unto itself. But, fortunately for me we don't have to use it and I suppose fortunately for you (who want it) you have it. Win-win.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The WotC implementation of the artificer is very Eberron-y. Which is great for Eberron (and which is entirely reasonable since the artificer had its origins in the original 3e Eberron anyway), but it makes for a questionable fit in other settings.

Exactly. That is a big part of it.

We don't play in Eberron or like that sort of campaign world--so it isn't surprising the class is not a fit for our table.

 

[Aldarc]

Finally, it should have been a subclass of wizard IMO, not a full-caster class unto itself. But, fortunately for me we don't have to use it and I suppose fortunately for you (who want it) you have it. Win-win.

The wizard subclass proved highly unpopular in WotC's test run of the concept. People wanted it as a full-class.

 

[TwoSix]

The trope? Not so much but meh whatever.

WotC's implementation? Hell NO!

I don't care much for WotC's implementation myself, so I get where you're coming from. Just another case where good homebrew is superior to official stuff.

 

[Aldarc]

The WotC implementation of the artificer is very Eberron-y. Which is great for Eberron (and which is entirely reasonable since the artificer had its origins in the original 3e Eberron anyway), but it makes for a questionable fit in other settings. Try to bring one to my Dark Sun game, for instance, and i'd laugh in your face.

Sure, but there are a lot of concepts you potentially couldn't bring to your Dark Sun game, so it's not as if the Artificer would be the sole outlier here. But Dark Sun is far more niche than Eberron. Eberron was built with the idea that everything in D&D has a place in Eberron. Artificers could probably work without a problem in either Forgotten Realms or Exandria. And would an Artificer really be out of place in a Ghosts of Saltmarsh game?

 

[TwoSix]

The WotC implementation of the artificer is very Eberron-y. Which is great for Eberron (and which is entirely reasonable since the artificer had its origins in the original 3e Eberron anyway), but it makes for a questionable fit in other settings. Try to bring one to my Dark Sun game, for instance, and i'd laugh in your face.

I see your point, but the "laugh at you if you brought it to Dark Sun" also invalidates paladins and clerics, so...