I admit that owlbears have their uses, but trying to crossbreed a turkey with a crocodile is unlikely to end up in something viable. I don't see any good reason to do this.Dragonhelm wrote:So as a mental exercise (pun intended! ), let's talk about how we would shape psionics for 5e.
Some basic assumptions:
1. A Psionics Handbook for 5e would look at all editions of psionics as inspiration.
Unfortunately, it's the most probable course, because "No Developer Left Behind (except really good ones)" policy seems to be The Thing To Do currently, so we're in for another round of "oooh! Let's drag all the ludicrous junk along - as a favor to our newest star who spend great effort failing to mix copypasted material with finger-painted loonie stuff into something palatable, because throwing it out would offend our poor child" theatre. If all the tiptoeing around FR4e is any indication.
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): This rant is just full of snarkyness towards Wizards of the Coast designers and comparing them to disadvantaged children is really rude. And considering that the book that Seethyr was talking about is not even published yet, your continual arguments that the book will be bad purely because it is published by Wizards of the Coast, hold no logical basis.
It is? Who competed - that one and and the book nicknamed "Complete Crud"?..Dragonhelm wrote: 2. The most popular psionics system, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, would be the prime inspiration.
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): You are demanding answers from other forum members and being rude. And your question seems to be a loaded question. You comments read more like an interrogation than a conversation. Please stop talking to people like this. It is just not nice.
...even more so than in Complete Handbook of Skittering Glowy Crystals? Oh, yes. This at least is likely to be funny.Dragonhelm wrote: 6. The handbook would attempt to evoke more of a fantasy flavor.
See, the problem is that the very fact there's an "attempt to evoke flavor" means that something is already made from inedible materials and now it's saccharine "fluff" time.
Conversely, this cannot happen to elements developed with intent to model a setting. Like e.g. "The Will and the Way". They come with flavors already.
Well... yes. It have to be either one or another.Dragonhelm wrote: 7. The handbook would present psionics as either magic or its own power source.
This definitely was a factor. Unfortunately, ease of pronunciation for the lolcat-speaking target audience doesn't necessarily give taste to sound, like e.g. "Nob" or "Dakka". "Psion" sounds much like "aggro", "crit" and other word-mongrels born of chewing gum (I have other theories, but am being charitable tot WoW-speakers here). IMHO.Dragonhelm wrote: Classes: Psion (so much cooler sounding and easier to say/spell than psionicist)
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): No you are not being "charitable to WoW-speakers" - you are being snarky about them.
Well, yes. With easy multiclassing, there's no point not to make custom variant classes for specialization. 3e didn't go as far as it could with this.Dragonhelm wrote:Psion Subclasses: Based on disciplines. Similar to wizard schools or cleric domains.
The question remains: what for?Dragonhelm wrote: Subclasses for other classes: Psychic Warrior (not Battlemind) for the fighter, soulknife for the rogue. Maybe a mentalism domain for the cleric (to represent the ardent?).
Wilder - Probably folded into the psion somehow.
Which is tied to the main question: what is the purpose of the whole thing - to make a MMORPG style set of meaningless gimmicks or to actually model settings?
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Again, you are demanding that other forum users answer loaded questions. As for "the ain question" - the main question in this topic is: "[In 5e psionics]...what would you like to see (if anything)?" Your demands have nothing to do with helping Seethyr get feedback on his question.
In the sense "stick one horrible idea to another, so they are easier to drown", yes. Redundant loonie magic to "cuteness-is-magic!" and fanwank on sexual misadventures of dragons. Sounds about right.Dragonhelm wrote: As an alternative, the psion could be made into a subclass of the sorcerer. It actually would fit quite well.
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Bizarre rant, followed by a snarky use of a forum smiley.
What for? In 3e form it's just ridiculous.Dragonhelm wrote: Psicrystals: These are a must.
MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Again you are demanding answers and dismissing the opinion of another forum user.
If "number of" means a progression glued on a side - again, it's pointless due to multiclassing. If WT in the classic sense - well, yes, it have to be done via feats, if only because this horrid part of mechanics apparently wasn't given a better alternative yet.Dragonhelm wrote:Feats: Wild Talent, allowing any class to have a few power points and a small number of powers.