I need some feedback (or, 5e Psions)

[Sir Brandon]

Lots of people have made homebrew Psions for 5e. I have too. It's here. (http://http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4013101)

The thing is, I've had very few replies to the thread, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary (or polite) for me to continue posting updates. But I've put quite a lot of work into it.

Thoughts?

[DontEatRawHagis]

Lots of people have made homebrew Psions for 5e. I have too. It's here. (http://http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4013101)

The thing is, I've had very few replies to the thread, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary (or polite) for me to continue posting updates. But I've put quite a lot of work into it.

Thoughts?

To be honest, get it to a point where you are comfortable with it. Whether or not anyone else is looking at it is besides the point. Only a handful of people I know use other peopld's homebrews. But if you are having fun with making it. Share it.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Lots of people have made homebrew Psions for 5e. I have too. It's here. (http://http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4013101)

Thoughts?

I think your link is broken.

I'm not sure the augment system you're using is necessary. The flexibility is nice, but in my opinion it introduces more problems than it solves. 5e wizards (in their current form) already augment spells when they cast them at higher levels. If the sorcerer uses spell points, you're going to end up with what's only a more-complicated sorcerer.

I'm really turned off by the scale you're using for power points. If you keep with the old sorcerer's setup, then 1 power point would be equivalent to 1 spell level. Instead you're using the needlessly-complicated 3e system which was reliant on caster level. 5e seems to have abandoned caster level scaling in favor of simplicity, and I'd like to see that simplicity in a 5e psionics system. Obviously using this kind of system would require each augment to be more powerful and less granular.

In my opinion, I think the psion should simply be an august-2012-playtest-sorcerer with a different spell list. If powers are meant to be extremely flexible and defining, maybe it will be better to limit the psion to all of 20 powers in total, and a level 20 psion would only know 10 of them.

I think that talents should be less about powers and more about unique abilities. Perhaps make talents equivalent to 5e cantrips? Cantrips are meant to be bread-and-butter at-wills that define your caster. What if you made talents at-will or short-rest abilities unique to the traditional 6 psionic disciplines?

We have no idea what 5e summoning is going to look like, but I like what you have for the astral construct.

I agree that the limited spells known pool is a good idea.

[momogila]

I think your link is broken.

I'm not sure the augment system you're using is necessary. The flexibility is nice, but in my opinion it introduces more problems than it solves. 5e wizards (in their current form) already augment spells when they cast them at higher levels. If the sorcerer uses spell points, you're going to end up with what's only a more-complicated sorcerer.

I'm really turned off by the scale you're using for power points. If you keep with the old sorcerer's setup, then 1 power point would be equivalent to 1 spell level. Instead you're using the needlessly-complicated 3e system which was reliant on caster level. 5e seems to have abandoned caster level scaling in favor of simplicity, and I'd like to see that simplicity in a 5e psionics system. Obviously using this kind of system would require each augment to be more powerful and less granular.

In my opinion, I think the psion should simply be an august-2012-playtest-sorcerer with a different spell list. If powers are meant to be extremely flexible and defining, maybe it will be better to limit the psion to all of 20 powers in total, and a level 20 psion would only know 10 of them.

I think that talents should be less about powers and more about unique abilities. Perhaps make talents equivalent to 5e cantrips? Cantrips are meant to be bread-and-butter at-wills that define your caster. What if you made talents at-will or short-rest abilities unique to the traditional 6 psionic disciplines?

We have no idea what 5e summoning is going to look like, but I like what you have for the astral construct.

I agree that the limited spells known pool is a good idea.

thanks for info


http://watchfree.me/114/w.png

[da_chicken]

Lots of people have made homebrew Psions for 5e. I have too. It's here. (http://http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4013101)

The thing is, I've had very few replies to the thread, and I'm wondering whether it's necessary (or polite) for me to continue posting updates. But I've put quite a lot of work into it.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I have no plans to include psionics in any of my games as a playable class, let alone before I see the final game mechanics or learn how the final game truly plays. Psionics was never my favorite archetype to begin with, and TSR and WotC botched the implementation of psionics so often that it's completely soured the concept for me. The only time they didn't was 4e, and that's because psionics aren't different from any other power source in 4e. I understand and appreciate that you've put a tremendous amount of effort into it and it does show, but that kind of content just doesn't interest me personally.

Not posting to be a jerk, just trying to give some honest feedback.

[Lokiare]

I think your link is broken.

I'm not sure the augment system you're using is necessary. The flexibility is nice, but in my opinion it introduces more problems than it solves. 5e wizards (in their current form) already augment spells when they cast them at higher levels. If the sorcerer uses spell points, you're going to end up with what's only a more-complicated sorcerer.

I'm really turned off by the scale you're using for power points. If you keep with the old sorcerer's setup, then 1 power point would be equivalent to 1 spell level. Instead you're using the needlessly-complicated 3e system which was reliant on caster level. 5e seems to have abandoned caster level scaling in favor of simplicity, and I'd like to see that simplicity in a 5e psionics system. Obviously using this kind of system would require each augment to be more powerful and less granular.

In my opinion, I think the psion should simply be an august-2012-playtest-sorcerer with a different spell list. If powers are meant to be extremely flexible and defining, maybe it will be better to limit the psion to all of 20 powers in total, and a level 20 psion would only know 10 of them.

I think that talents should be less about powers and more about unique abilities. Perhaps make talents equivalent to 5e cantrips? Cantrips are meant to be bread-and-butter at-wills that define your caster. What if you made talents at-will or short-rest abilities unique to the traditional 6 psionic disciplines?

We have no idea what 5e summoning is going to look like, but I like what you have for the astral construct.

I agree that the limited spells known pool is a good idea.

The 5E sorcerer was pulled because the people at WotC didn't realize what a gish is. Their implementation gave half the bonuses of a fighter and half the spell DC and spell attack power of a wizard with a much more limited spell list. So on any given round the character would play like half a fighter or half a wizard, instead of playing like a full fighter or full wizard on any given round. They didn't realize that you don't halve the power of the fighter and wizard because you can only use one of them on any given round. The only thing that made the class worthwhile to play was the sorcerer only features that almost made it as good as a fighter if you optimized for it.

The best way they could create a sorcerer would be to make it a plain fighter build without the path stuff added on with both the fighters attack and damage bonuses and the wizards spell attack and DC bonuses, then allow them to pick up two spells at first and one spell every level after it, consider all spells they know prepared and then give them 1-2 slots per level to cast from so that they will have a very limited amount of spells to choose from and cast from.

I'd like to see psionics be a point buy type system. Where you get specific psionic powers and as you level you get to invest psionic points to improve each of your psionic powers. For example:


Psionic Blast
A blast of mental energy slams into your target damaging them.
Effect: Choose a target within 10 feet and make a ranged attack. If you hit they take 1d4 + your mental stat in psychic damage.
Psionic Points: You can choose to spend one psionic point to increase the range by 5 feet, increase the damage by one die size (up to 1d10), or add an additional target (all targets must be adjacent to each other).

Then you could add on top of that the regular power point system to boost it further:


Psionic Blast
...
Effect:...
Psionic Points:...
Power Points: If you use a power point the range increases by 10 feet and you gain advantage on one attack roll.

That would be my take on it. It would definitely give it a completely different feel than spells.

[Envyus]

The 5E sorcerer was pulled because the people at WotC didn't realize what a gish is. Their implementation gave half the bonuses of a fighter and half the spell DC and spell attack power of a wizard with a much more limited spell list. So on any given round the character would play like half a fighter or half a wizard, instead of playing like a full fighter or full wizard on any given round. They didn't realize that you don't halve the power of the fighter and wizard because you can only use one of them on any given round. The only thing that made the class worthwhile to play was the sorcerer only features that almost made it as good as a fighter if you optimized for it.

The best way they could create a sorcerer would be to make it a plain fighter build without the path stuff added on with both the fighters attack and damage bonuses and the wizards spell attack and DC bonuses, then allow them to pick up two spells at first and one spell every level after it, consider all spells they know prepared and then give them 1-2 slots per level to cast from so that they will have a very limited amount of spells to choose from and cast from.

I'd like to see psionics be a point buy type system. Where you get specific psionic powers and as you level you get to invest psionic points to improve each of your psionic powers. For example:



Then you could add on top of that the regular power point system to boost it further:



That would be my take on it. It would definitely give it a completely different feel than spells.

They already made a new Sorcerer.

[Lokiare]

They already made a new Sorcerer.

Sure, but mine is better.

[Envyus]

Sure, but mine is better.

You know this how? Have you seen the new Sorcerer? Have you played the New Sorcerer? I don't think you have and and are making comments that have no answer yet.

[Lokiare]

You know this how? Have you seen the new Sorcerer? Have you played the New Sorcerer? I don't think you have and and are making comments that have no answer yet.

I've read the article on the subject and no matter how they implement what they said, it will be a worse system than the one I posted above. Unless they just throw their current sorcerer out.

It would be like someone telling you that they have this awesome one cylinder plastic engine they are going to put in your car and you pull out your old 4 cylinder steel engine and say there is no way that plastic engine is will work better than my steel engine. Some things you don't have to see to know how it will work.

[Zweisteine]

I've read the article on the subject and no matter how they implement what they said, it will be a worse system than the one I posted above. Unless they just throw their current sorcerer out.
You know, I've heard occasionally that "better" and "worse" are entirely subjective ideas. You should probably stop acting like they're not. It (probably) would be perfectly fine in most people's minds if you said you are thoroughly convinced your system is better, but everyone is free to hold their own opinions, and most prefer not to have others' opinions stated as fact.


It would be like someone telling you that they have this awesome one cylinder plastic engine they are going to put in your car and you pull out your old 4 cylinder steel engine and say there is no way that plastic engine is will work better than my steel engine. Some things you don't have to see to know how it will work.
What if it's plastic stronger than steel, and it's a really, really powerful cylinder?


On the subject of the thread:
I feel like 6 powers known at 20th level isn't very many.

Also, your table seems a bit damaged (strange bolding pattern).

[Lokiare]

You know, I've heard occasionally that "better" and "worse" are entirely subjective ideas. You should probably stop acting like they're not. It (probably) would be perfectly fine in most people's minds if you said you are thoroughly convinced your system is better, but everyone is free to hold their own opinions, and most prefer not to have others' opinions stated as fact.


What if it's plastic stronger than steel, and it's a really, really powerful cylinder?


On the subject of the thread:
I feel like 6 powers known at 20th level isn't very many.

Also, your table seems a bit damaged (strange bolding pattern).

Sure, there are those people that fall into the masochistic group that like punishing themselves and would play a less effective character for 'role playing' reasons as some kind of odd challenge, but in general people don't play like that. If you want I can go point by point why the 5E implementation is fraught with problems. Just let me know.

Plastic by definition would never stand up to the stress and temperatures that an engine requires and the cylinder would have to be nearly as big as the vehicle and by 10x as fast as a normal cylinder to propel it. I used to work at a plastics factory and we had this really tough clear plastic that was nearly indestructible. It would not work in an engine with constant heat and stress.

I do agree 6 powers at level 20 is a little low compared to casters who will have 23+ spells known by level 20, not including those they scribe from scrolls and other spell casters spell books.

[Zweisteine]

Sure, there are those people that fall into the masochistic group that like punishing themselves and would play a less effective character for 'role playing' reasons as some kind of odd challenge, but in general people don't play like that. If you want I can go point by point why the 5E implementation is fraught with problems. Just let me know.
I don't know where you live, but in every adventure I've been in, role playing has at least been mentioned as art of the game, if not used as a major function. So far as I know, most D&D players roleplay. It's kind of inherent in the MOARPGS (mother of all role playing games). Now, I don't know about playing 4e, and I hear it has more emphasis on combat, but I doubt the roleplaying is gone.
And I see you have fallen victim to the Stormwind Fallacy: role playing and optimization are not mutually exclusive. I recently made a heavily optimized character, and he has a personality and backstory. He plays well, and is fun. (And when I say optimized, I don't mean "I chose the clearly good spells. I mean "I'm a Dragonwrought Kobold who is probably immune to anything the final boss can do.)

Third, you entirely ignored what I said. In fact, you made it worse. I said that not everyone might agree that your system is better, and you went on to say that it was (basically) because they wanted weaker characters. Maybe what some people think of as "better" isn't your same idea.

Watch as I make a class that is "better" than yours. Forgive the lack of detail; I'm a bit pressed for time right now.
Sorcerer
The last nine columns are spells of different levels.


Level
Features
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9


1
Spellcasting, Familiar
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1


2
9
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1


And so on.

Proficiencies: All tools, all skills, all weapons, all armor, all shields, everything else.
Spellcasting:
A sorcerer knows all the spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, and does not need to prepare them to cast them. [Insert other standard casting stuff here.] Save DCs are 20+spell level.

And so forth.







Plastic by definition would never stand up to the stress and temperatures that an engine requires and the cylinder would have to be nearly as big as the vehicle and by 10x as fast as a normal cylinder to propel it. I used to work at a plastics factory and we had this really tough clear plastic that was nearly indestructible. It would not work in an engine with constant heat and stress.
:smallannoyed: That was supposed to be a hypothetical example, not a real one. I don't actually know anything about engineering of any sort. Though quick research shows me the plastics can have higher melting temperatures than steel. But that's besides the point.

[Lokiare]

I don't know where you live, but in every adventure I've been in, role playing has at least been mentioned as art of the game, if not used as a major function. So far as I know, most D&D players roleplay. It's kind of inherent in the MOARPGS (mother of all role playing games). Now, I don't know about playing 4e, and I hear it has more emphasis on combat, but I doubt the roleplaying is gone.
And I see you have fallen victim to the Stormwind Fallacy: role playing and optimization are not mutually exclusive. I recently made a heavily optimized character, and he has a personality and backstory. He plays well, and is fun. (And when I say optimized, I don't mean "I chose the clearly good spells. I mean "I'm a Dragonwrought Kobold who is probably immune to anything the final boss can do.)

And NO... Not even close...

I never said people don't role play, that's the little straw man you just invented. Read my post again. I said that some people might like the challenge of an ineffective character for 'role playing reasons'. I did not say 'everyone likes an ineffective character for role playing reasons.'. The Stormwind fallacy states that roleplaying and optimizing is not mutually exclusive for 'some people', not 'all people'. Now that we've cleared that up, you still haven't actually addressed my point.


Third, you entirely ignored what I said. In fact, you made it worse. I said that not everyone might agree that your system is better, and you went on to say that it was (basically) because they wanted weaker characters. Maybe what some people think of as "better" isn't your same idea.

It actually is better. Simply because some people want to intentionally play an inferior class for roleplaying and challenge reasons, actually proves my point. Now some people might not like my take on the Sorcerer, but mechanically it is superior to WotC 5E implementation which is fraught with problems.


Watch as I make a class that is "better" than yours. Forgive the lack of detail; I'm a bit pressed for time right now.
Sorcerer
The last nine columns are spells of different levels.


Level
Features
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9


1
Spellcasting, Familiar
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1


2
9
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1


And so on.

Proficiencies: All tools, all skills, all weapons, all armor, all shields, everything else.
Spellcasting:
A sorcerer knows all the spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, and does not need to prepare them to cast them. [Insert other standard casting stuff here.] Save DCs are 20+spell level.

And so forth.







Yeah, you removed the challenge part of fun from the class. While a group that is entirely role playing and don't care one bit about the mechanics might like your version (as they will like literally any mechanical version), anyone playing with that one will quickly find the fun sucked out of the game as they realize there is zero challenge and they basically automatically win every combat and encounter. In other words your version is worse than WotC version based on about 3-4 types of fun.


:smallannoyed: That was supposed to be a hypothetical example, not a real one. I don't actually know anything about engineering of any sort. Though quick research shows me the plastics can have higher melting temperatures than steel. But that's besides the point.

Plastics also warp, bend, or shatter at much lower pressure and temperatures than steel as well as becoming more warp able, bendable, and shatter able as they rise in temperature. The point was that there is in fact a wrong way to make a class and WotC has in fact done it.

Just like the 3E Sorcerer was mechanically inferior to a 3E Wizard of the same level because it had less known spells, and less castable spells and the inability to use some metamagic feats. Its only saving grace was that people liked the idea of inborn magic (the role playing side) and were willing to take a slightly inferior class mechanically to say they had the role playing parts. They are making a similar error in 5E, especially since they are likely to try to force the psion under the umbrella of the Sorcerer as they discussed in some convention talk or another.

[Envyus]

It actually is better. Simply because some people want to intentionally play an inferior class for roleplaying and challenge reasons, actually proves my point. Now some people might not like my take on the Sorcerer, but mechanically it is superior to WotC 5E implementation which is fraught with problems.

This is the part were your argument becomes stupid and falls apart. You don't know what the 5e is sorcerer is like. You can't say that because you don't know the answer despite what you keep saying you know. I think this I know everything attitude is why I dislike you. The it is Mechanically Superior Thing you brought up is bull**** because you don't know what the class will be like.

Also Pretty much everyone of people I have seen play classes because this like how they play or the feel of the class. Most of the time it has nothing to do with how strong a class is.


Yeah, you removed the challenge part of fun from the class. While a group that is entirely role playing and don't care one bit about the mechanics might like your version (as they will like literally any mechanical version), anyone playing with that one will quickly find the fun sucked out of the game as they realize there is zero challenge and they basically automatically win every combat and encounter. In other words your version is worse than WotC version based on about 3-4 types of fun.

This was a joke anyone can make a Class that is "Mechanically Superior" you just don't seen to get what we are telling you.

[Lokiare]

This is the part were your argument becomes stupid and falls apart. You don't know what the 5e is sorcerer is like. You can't say that because you don't know the answer despite what you keep saying you know. I think this I know everything attitude is why I dislike you. The it is Mechanically Superior Thing you brought up is bull**** because you don't know what the class will be like.

Also Pretty much everyone of people I have seen play classes because this like how they play or the feel of the class. Most of the time it has nothing to do with how strong a class is.


This was a joke anyone can make a Class that is "Mechanically Superior" you just don't seen to get what we are telling you.

You could be right. The developers could have completely lied to us in their articles about how the sorcerer will work. They could have been lying to us this whole time and 5E won't look almost identical to the final play test packet like they said. It looks like you are going to make me go over the sorcerer articles line by line aren't you. I'll do that later. I have somewhere to be right now.

[Zweisteine]

I never said people don't role play, that's the little straw man you just invented. Read my post again. I said that some people might like the challenge of an ineffective character for 'role playing reasons'. I did not say 'everyone likes an ineffective character for role playing reasons.'. The Stormwind fallacy states that roleplaying and optimizing is not mutually exclusive for 'some people', not 'all people'. Now that we've cleared that up, you still haven't actually addressed my point.
All right, I'll concede that you never said that.
However, you implied it, and along with your later statement a about 3e sorcerers, you reached the same point. If playing the WotC 5e Sorcerer would be "self-crippling for roleplaying reasons," then playing a 5e sorcerer would be the same. And it is not. A sorcerer can be far more useful than a wizard in many situations. There are reasons besides roleplaying to play a sorcerer.


It actually is better. Simply because some people want to intentionally play an inferior class for roleplaying and challenge reasons, actually proves my point. Now some people might not like my take on the Sorcerer, but mechanically it is superior to WotC 5E implementation which is fraught with problems.
And now were back where we started. You have not seen the final WotC 5e Sorcerer. Until you have, you can not know that yours is better. Please stop stating that as fact.


Yeah, you removed the challenge part of fun from the class. While a group that is entirely role playing and don't care one bit about the mechanics might like your version (as they will like literally any mechanical version), anyone playing with that one will quickly find the fun sucked out of the game as they realize there is zero challenge and they basically automatically win every combat and encounter. In other words your version is worse than WotC version based on about 3-4 types of fun.
1. That was a joke. I was just showin that a "mechanically superior" class is possible.
2. Who's to say that the WotC sorcerer isn't more fun to play than yours. Don't forget that "fun" is incredibly subjective, moreso than even class effectiveness.


Plastics also warp, bend, or shatter at much lower pressure and temperatures than steel as well as becoming more warp able, bendable, and shatter able as they rise in temperature.
:annoyed:
http://data3.whicdn.com/images/66191961/large.jpg


The point was that there is in fact a wrong way to make a class and WotC has in fact done it.
No. There is a wrong was to make a class, and it looks like this:


Features
Level
Proficiency bonus


Immunity to monks
5
+e


donuts
3
+π


I assume you meant, "there is a bad way to make a class."


Just like the 3E Sorcerer was mechanically inferior to a 3E Wizard of the same level because it had less known spells, and less castable spells and the inability to use some metamagic feats. Its only saving grace was that people liked the idea of inborn magic (the role playing side) and were willing to take a slightly inferior class mechanically to say they had the role playing parts.
I addressed that at the top of this post. Also, sorcerers have more spells per day, and can be (and many people play them as) metamagic specialists, though it does take some effort.


They are making a similar error in 5E, especially since they are likely to try to force the psion under the umbrella of the Sorcerer as they discussed in some convention talk or another.
I doubt they'll do that, if only because it means they can't sell a separate book for Psionics.


You could be right. The developers could have completely lied to us in their articles about how the sorcerer will work. They could have been lying to us this whole time and 5E won't look almost identical to the final play test packet like they said. It looks like you are going to make me go over the sorcerer articles line by line aren't you. I'll do that later. I have somewhere to be right now.
And this is a false dichotomy.
There are many different possibilities.
1. You're right, and the published sorcerer will suck.
2. That statement you jut made was right, and WotC is lying.
3. WotC is hiding some interesting sorcerer features for later reveals (or for anything else).
4. The class will be edited further before the release.
5. You could be wrong. Maybe your class isn't better. (I realize that you cannot be convinced of that, so I'll add this: It doesn't matter if you provide an argument that your class is better. Even if the probabbty is infinitessimally small (or 0), this is an important possibility, so I had to list it. I come to agree with you, his possibility remains, but would extend to both of us being wrong.)


I'll bet that half of that was incomprehensible. I'm a bit tired right now. And using a mobile device. Sorry for any typos.

[Envyus]

Just like the 3E Sorcerer was mechanically inferior to a 3E Wizard of the same level because it had less known spells, and less castable spells and the inability to use some metamagic feats. Its only saving grace was that people liked the idea of inborn magic (the role playing side) and were willing to take a slightly inferior class mechanically to say they had the role playing parts. They are making a similar error in 5E, especially since they are likely to try to force the psion under the umbrella of the Sorcerer as they discussed in some convention talk or another.

This is not true at all. Sorcerers for the most part are almost as good as Wizards and can easily beat them depending on the situation. Also they are easier to play and lots of people prefer Spontaneous spell casting to prepared. This is the matter of fun and has little to do with Roleplaying.

Once again you appear not to get it. How fun the class is to play is much more important then how good a class is.

[Lokiare]

With the game being released in 2 months, my interest in arguing points is waning. My final opinion before release is:

5E = Train Wreck.

[Envyus]

With the game being released in 2 months, my interest in arguing points is waning. My final opinion before release is:

5E = Train Wreck.

My final response to you.

5E = Nothing as it has not come out yet.

[Zweisteine]

At the very least, it will sell a large number of copies on the first print run, then slowly die out as everyone prefers their previous favorite edition.

It won't fail completely, because there will be some people who will like it. At least a few of those people will be experienced enough to DM, and a small number of those players will introduce new players ot the new edition, and create a fifth generation of D&D players.

But it won't completely fail, because most D&D players who didn't already form an unchangeable opinion (like you, Lokiare) will at least want to try the new edition, even if it's only a little. That means that a good number of people will have to buy the books. I know I will.

[Lokiare]

At the very least, it will sell a large number of copies on the first print run, then slowly die out as everyone prefers their previous favorite edition.

It won't fail completely, because there will be some people who will like it. At least a few of those people will be experienced enough to DM, and a small number of those players will introduce new players ot the new edition, and create a fifth generation of D&D players.

But it won't completely fail, because most D&D players who didn't already form an unchangeable opinion (like you, Lokiare) will at least want to try the new edition, even if it's only a little. That means that a good number of people will have to buy the books. I know I will.

My opinion is completely malleable. Its simply based on facts. In order for me to like 5E it has to be at least as good as my preferred edition and possibly have improvements. Instead it has many, many flaws that are worse than previous editions. I'm not going to lie to myself and others and say I will like 5E when I won't. I don't do things like that.

I agree with your other points though. A lot of people will buy it initially, then the word will get out that its worse than any previous edition and sales will drop off in the first year, supplements will go unbought, and eventually Mearls and Co. will be laid off and the D&D side of WotC will be shut down. Hasbro will shift to making board games with the D&D intellectual Property and that will be the end of the game.

[Garan]

It's funny, I opened this thread thinking I'd see some neat psion homebrew that I might end up using. Instead, I see a back and forth about a sorcerer that is itself an unknown at the time. And then there was some stuff about how 5E is or isn't going to be terrible, and the like.

WHY, PEOPLE, WHY?!
Can people not just get along about other people's favorite edition? Sure, 5E has some flaws, that's why they have a playtest! And if you really want to say 3.5/Pathfinder is great, you really don't want me to start.
The issues with publishing a mechanically imbalanced class is that it was published that way (and thus the first version anyone will read). If they do, in fact, have a mechanically terrible class, I GUARANTEE you that someone will write a fix for it within a week. And if no one else does, I will. Just look at 3.5 fighter, with it's myriad of fixes.

</rant>
So, with regards to the actual class we're supposed to be discussing here:
Flavor-wise, looks cool. I didn't spend time comparing it to power levels of other classes, but with some playtesting could be lots of fun. Maybe I'll show it to my DM and try one out next time.

And people, with regards to preferred editions: I really tend not to care about the "edition" I play- I've been having more fun with WHFRP than I've had with 3.5, simply because I'm playing with people that make the game fun. If the people I'm playing with want to play an edition of something I'm unfamiliar with, I'll play that. And just remember, not many people play 2E anymore even though it was very popular in its time. Generations come and go,