I wish WotC would errata the Soulknife (Rant)

[LudicSavant]

I don't know about you, but if I play a Soulknife, the absolute last thing I want to do is have to carry a physical weapon. But thanks to the bizarre wording of Psychic Blades, that's exactly what I have to do.

I can't just chill and be Psylocke, oh no, if I ever want to interact with half the weapon attack mechanics in the game, I have to carry around actual physical weapons and worry about drawing and dropping them to switch between them and Psychic Blades.

All of this stems from the bizarre wording of Psychic Blades, which makes them exist only when you take the Attack Action, as if they forgot that an awful lot of weapon attacks (including all reaction attacks) don't use that. Any other mechanic that uses weapon attacks cannot apply. This is in addition to the fact that Psychic Blades can't benefit from magic weapons, or any weapon buff spells from the party.

I really feel like a number of things in Tasha's needed another quality assurance pass. And this is a big one for me, because it kind of fundamentally ruins the theme of a Soulknife for me. I don't want to have to carry a regular knife made of steel, I want that to be irrelevant because I can summon a knife from my soul.

Not only do I find it annoying and unthematic, I also find it immersion-breaking. There's no apparent in-world reason why you can't swing a psychic blade on an opportunity attack, or a Riposte or a Brace (if you took the Fighting Initiate or Martial Adept feats, or multiclassed), or a Ravenite Dragonborn's reaction attack, or a Charge (if anyone actually ever took that feat), or the Reaction granted by an allied Order Cleric, or an allied Commander's Strike, or a High Elf's Booming Blade, or anything else. It just feels weird and arbitrary and janky that I have to draw a sidearm for that to happen (and then drop or holster said sidearm when I want to use my Psychic Blades). It feels like an oversight that should be corrected in order for Soulknives to just... you know... act like Soulknives.

It's a shame, because if it weren't for the janky wording of the rules, Soulknife would be... actually kind of solid? Like, something you could actually see someone playing instead of a Swashbuckler or Arcane Trickster, once in a blue moon.

PS: While I'm in complaining mode, a lesser annoyance is that Psi-Bolstered Knack cannot be used unless an ability check is a binary pass/fail. There's no in-world reason for this or anything, it's just a result of an arbitrary quirk in the wording, very possibly a result of the writer not remembering that there are options other than binary pass/fail checks.

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed. The fact that they use melee weapons but can't use them for Opportunity Attacks just seems....odd.

I do also think it's silly that, of the two psionic subclasses in the game, one of them relies on using Weapon Attacks, and it's the Rogue.

Of all the ways they could have added psionics for Rogues, the way they thought to do it was through throwing ghost knives, and not, you know, telekinetically controlling a normal knife or something.

[Evaar]

Fully agree.

There are a lot of subclass mechanics that just seem to misunderstand how the action economy even works. I don't know who's designing them, but they need better QA.

One thing that got fixed was the UA Fey Wanderer. They had the feature allowing you to add psychic damage to your weapon attacks as a bonus action. Oh great, another Ranger feature that doesn't work with dual wielding! But wait, they thought of that - if you want to make a bonus action offhand attack, you can use that same action to create this effect! But.... that means that you take the Attack action without the bonus damage, then apply the bonus damage just to the single offhand attack. What? Like, they fixed that, but how was that even in the UA when it seems really obvious that it doesn't accomplish what it's trying to accomplish?

Or the Beast Barbarian Claws. Because they aren't light weapons, and you aren't wielding them in your hands, you can't dual wield with them - they don't even technically qualify for the Dual Wielder feat. Even though your hands are empty. In order to dual wield, you'd need to use two short swords in those clawed hands. So if you're a Beast Barbarian using claws and you want to make 4 attacks on a round, here's how you do it - wield two light weapons, take the Attack action and make your first attack with the light weapon in your right hand. Then drop that weapon. Attack with your right hand claw, and then attack again with your right hand claw as per the feature. Now as a bonus action attack with your left hand light weapon. Free object interaction to pick up the weapon you dropped, repeat on the next turn.

This is all in keeping with the rules. OR they could've just classified the Claws as Light and let them have 4 attacks. I have no idea why they didn't. It's not like their damage is broken. If it was, make it a lower die.

It just doesn't seem like we really get proper QA on these things. They put something up, the community comments, then the next version goes live whether it works or not. It's pretty frustrating and leads to a whole lot of chaff among the wheat in player options.

And not only is it immersion breaking for people like us, who understand how this works, it must feel like such a bait and switch for a new player who doesn't realize the trap they've fallen for. Most of the Soulknife's features are based around using the psychic blades. Homing Strike doesn't work unless you're using the psychic blades. So how are they going to feel if they try taking Magic Initiate for Booming Blade, which they heard was great for a Rogue, only to find out it doesn't work? This is more than an intentional limitation of what the subclass is good at; it's a trap. It's setting players up to fail because they didn't read the rules closely enough to know that something doesn't work the way it obviously should.

And that's just bad design.

[Theodoxus]

I totally agree with everything except the bit about Psylocke. She commonly has a secondary weapon on her... but that's a very minor quibble, as it appears (can't say definitively) that Betsy Braddock was the inspiration for the class in 3E and that has remained in every iteration - even in one as poorly expressed as the Tasha version.

Totally random aside - why does EVERYONE want to make Psylocke of Asian decent? She's British (when did the double t in British disappear?!?) through and through! Her brother is Captain Brittain, for cripes sake. /rant

Just curious, LS, if you ran the zoo, how would you errata the subclass into something workable?

[Evaar]

Totally random aside - why does EVERYONE want to make Psylocke of Asian decent? She's British (when did the double t in British disappear?!?) through and through! Her brother is Captain Brittain, for cripes sake. /rant

Because she swapped bodies with Kwannon and was in a Japanese woman's body for I believe the entirety of the 90s and 2000s until I stopped paying attention. Wikipedia tells me they got their own bodies back in 2018, but at that point Braddock started going by Captain Britain and Kwannon took on the Psylocke name.

So for most of the character's portrayal, when you see "Psylocke" you see her depicted as an Asian woman.

[quindraco]

I agree 100%, but some of the leaks of the new Ravenloft content has me concerned that a lack of QA is WotC's new normal. Literally every class in Tasha's has at least one glaring rules issue. Even if they leave it to rot with no errata, I'm hoping new content was at least proofread by someone who's maybe played the game at least once.

[LudicSavant]

Just curious, LS, if you ran the zoo, how would you errata the subclass into something workable?

If I ran the zoo I would hire a couple of optimizers of well-proven diligence to play and break the @#$% out of everything I write and iterate a few times before I even put something up on UA in the first place.

But before that, I would have just made Psychic Blades work for any opportunity to make a weapon attack (not just the Attack action).

[Greywander]

Really, it should just be any time you make a weapon attack. It just makes so much more sense to allow you to conjure the blade at any time. In fact, why not let us conjure the blade even when we're not attacking? Or just make it a free action to conjure/dismiss the blade, so that it's more compatible with other effects that involve weapons, such as spells that enhance weapons? If it's a free action, you can by default summon the blade any time you need a weapon, whether you're making an attack or buffing the weapon or whatever.

Or heck, we can go one simpler: it's just an always-on natural-weapon-esque thing. You don't need to "conjure" or "dismiss" it, it's just always there all the time. It's not always there, i.e. when you're not using it you can't see it and it doesn't do anything, but at any given time an empty hand is in a quantum state of both holding the psychic blade and holding nothing, whichever you happen to need. Basically, it's like a natural weapon that you always have out, but requires a free hand to actually wield.

Eh, maybe that wasn't so simple after all. It's simple in that it's easy to run once you wrap your head around it, but explaining it might be a bit counter intuitive and certainly different from how anything else works.

[Evaar]

Whenever you would make a weapon attack and have at least one free hand, you can choose to attack with your psychic blades.

Ta-da

[quindraco]

If I ran the zoo I would hire a couple of optimizers of well-proven diligence to play and break the @#$% out of everything I write and iterate a few times before I even put something up on UA in the first place.

But before that, I would have just made Psychic Blades work for any opportunity to make a weapon attack (not just the Attack action).

100% agree. And for balance purposes, I would allow the soulknife to manifest darts instead of daggers, if they preferred. The knives are a good deal more useful if you can apply the Archery style to them, and while I have no idea why they banned the things from making OAs, if the intent is to force the class to be a ranged one, commit already.

[Jerrykhor]

The only reason i am not making a wall of text rant is that i had played the Soulknife from the Mystic UA for 2 years+ before, and am not planning to play another psychic character again. This version from Tasha's look super lame, so I'm just going to pretend it never exist.

[JackPhoenix]

This is all in keeping with the rules. OR they could've just classified the Claws as Light and let them have 4 attacks. I have no idea why they didn't. It's not like their damage is broken. If it was, make it a lower die.

Propably because they didn't want the beast barbarian to have 4 attacks, and missed the rule loophole that allows to use it with TWF. The 3rd attack is there exactly to replicate that effect.

[Warder]

The only reason i am not making a wall of text rant is that i had played the Soulknife from the Mystic UA for 2 years+ before, and am not planning to play another psychic character again. This version from Tasha's look super lame, so I'm just going to pretend it never exist.

The Soulknife from the Mystic was the most fun I've had playing any character in 5e D&D, though it devolved into "you can do anything" at level 7-8, just like the other Mystic subclasses, so I'm glad our campaign ended at 8. I feel similar to you, but for the sole reason that the direction WotC took psionics has to be the most boring and least inspired imaginable. They had one job - make psionics weird - and they chose to make it the same as "any other magic".

[ZRN]

Propably because they didn't want the beast barbarian to have 4 attacks, and missed the rule loophole that allows to use it with TWF. The 3rd attack is there exactly to replicate that effect.

Yes, exactly. Same with the soul knife honestly: people here are complaining that the subclass precludes some common optimization techniques like Magic Initiate and multiclassing, but honestly that’s probably the design intent: psychic blades basically gives you two-weapon fighting and a better version of thrown weapon fighting, plus lets you do psychic damage, plus you can never be disarmed. All with no secondary stat requirement (unlike psi warrior) and with other really good subclass benefits. For a single class rogue that’s pretty useful! If it worked like some here are suggesting, it might be quite powerful for e.g. a fighter multiclass, especially when you could stack the benefit of fighting styles and feats, so rather than open that kettle of fish and deal with more high-optimization power creep they basically locked it down to single-class rogues with no funny business.

Now, for both soul knife and psi warrior I wish they’d done a bit more to promote SOME kind of multiclassing - feels weird that my psi warrior can’t dip into aberrant mind effectively because their psionics key off of different stats - but I don’t think the issue is just that they suck at wording.

[Unoriginal]

Have you considered that the whole "Soulknives don't benefit from non-Attack action attack and magic weapons" thing was made on purpose?

I'm not saying that it is something I like, but in adition of the old "don't assume malevolence when incompetence is the most likely explanation", "don't assume incompetence when a choice you disagree with is the most likely explanation" is also applicable here.

It seems to me that the Soulknife is kind of supposed to be the "Attack action" Rogue.

[Theodoxus]

Yes, exactly. Same with the soul knife honestly: people here are complaining that the subclass precludes some common optimization techniques like Magic Initiate and multiclassing, but honestly that’s probably the design intent: psychic blades basically gives you two-weapon fighting and a better version of thrown weapon fighting, plus lets you do psychic damage, plus you can never be disarmed. All with no secondary stat requirement (unlike psi warrior) and with other really good subclass benefits. For a single class rogue that’s pretty useful! If it worked like some here are suggesting, it might be quite powerful for e.g. a fighter multiclass, especially when you could stack the benefit of fighting styles and feats, so rather than open that kettle of fish and deal with more high-optimization power creep they basically locked it down to single-class rogues with no funny business.

Now, for both soul knife and psi warrior I wish they’d done a bit more to promote SOME kind of multiclassing - feels weird that my psi warrior can’t dip into aberrant mind effectively because their psionics key off of different stats - but I don’t think the issue is just that they suck at wording.


Have you considered that the whole "Soulknives don't benefit from non-Attack action attack and magic weapons" thing was made on purpose?

I'm not saying that it is something I like, but in adition of the old "don't assume malevolence when incompetence is the most likely explanation", "don't assume incompetence when a choice you disagree with is the most likely explanation" is also applicable here.

It seems to me that the Soulknife is kind of supposed to be the "Attack action" Rogue.

And that's perfectly legitimate. However, a simple addition to the wording would still keep the psychic blades from being uber (used with magic items/blade cantrips) but allow the Rogue to still be a Rogue without needing a secondary physical weapon:

PSYCHIC BLADES
3rd-level Soulknife feature
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action or use your Reaction to make an attack, you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade.

Simple. Covers OAs and party friendly things like Commander's Strike and Order Cleric assistance. And it certainly doesn't break the game nor class.

(And since both Commander's Strike and Voice of Authority both stipulate that you can make a single attack with your Reaction, there's no fear in your Rogue making 4 attacks round, even if you could somehow massage the rules to otherwise allow it.)

[Segev]

With the beast barbarian, this reasoning makes sense. It seems likely that they were trying to make the class functional at a particular, expressly detailed fighting style, and not able to stack more attacks on from other sources.

I find it harder to believe that the soul knife would be so ridiculous in combo with other features if it...had a weapon. The psychic blades are not terrible when you can use hem, but they're hardly amazing. They're little better than a sixth level monk's ki-infused strikes. Worse, given how they're worded. If they could just manifest any time the rogue made an attack that could be made with a weapon, they'd barely be better than the monk feature.

[Chaos Jackal]

psychic blades basically gives you two-weapon fighting and a better version of thrown weapon fighting, plus lets you do psychic damage, plus you can never be disarmed. All with no secondary stat requirement (unlike psi warrior) and with other really good subclass benefits.

It also means you're stuck with the same non-upgrading weapon for the entirety of your carreer, missing out on anything potentially useful in terms of magic items in the process as well as any sort of buff from spells or class features that relies on your weapons... well, not disappearing every six seconds. And you can't even make a choice between your Psychic Blades and said buffed weapons because you can't use the majority of your features when not having a Psychic Blade.

You also don't need to be disarmed because you conveniently disarm yourself, making you unable to take any aoo at all, unless you play like a failed jongleur, tossing a regular weapon on the ground at the start of each turn and then picking it up as a free object interaction at its end. It's just really frustrating and dumb to do so all the time, and it also kinda beats the purpose of creating swords with your mind if you need to juggle corporeal swords to keep yourself threatening outside of your turn.

The Soulknife might be far from the weakest rogue subclass, but the issue here isn't whether it sucks, it's that the restrictions placed upon it are really pointless and seem to have no purpose. Absolutely nothing would break if the Soulknife was able to keep their blades outside their turn, and if their blades could be somehow buffed by themselves or others as the game went on. They would be actual Soulknives in that case, in fact, relying fully on their mind swords rather than on cheap loopholes just to be able to take an aoo.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be fair, it wouldn't be a Soulknife if it wasn't dysfunctional somehow:smallsigh:

(I never noticed that particular quirk before. Path of the Beast might have just been sloppy wording, but Soulknife looks just careful enough to have been intentional.)


I feel similar to you, but for the sole reason that the direction WotC took psionics has to be the most boring and least inspired imaginable. They had one job - make psionics weird - and they chose to make it the same as "any other magic".
Agreed... Oh well, we'll always have homebrew rewrites (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/g8T2tW3Z7).

[Segev]

To be fair, it wouldn't be a Soulknife if it wasn't dysfunctional somehow:smallsigh:

(I never noticed that particular quirk before. Path of the Beast might have just been sloppy wording, but Soulknife looks just careful enough to have been intentional.)


Agreed... Oh well, we'll always have homebrew rewrites (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/g8T2tW3Z7).

Pathfinder 1's soul knife is pretty solid.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife/

[Theodoxus]

That's because Paizo took the 3.5 class and tweaked it until it was workable in their system, and it's not a rogue by any stretch.

We're kinda stuck in 5E with it being a Rogue subclass outside of homebrew. Might as well try to make it actually playable.

[Segev]

That's because Paizo took the 3.5 class and tweaked it until it was workable in their system, and it's not a rogue by any stretch.

We're kinda stuck in 5E with it being a Rogue subclass outside of homebrew. Might as well try to make it actually playable.

I was responding to the blue text, which references the soul knife's history in other editions. While I know it was a joke, I felt pointing out a time it was actually done well was warranted.

I think making it a rogue subclass was one of the several mistakes the 5e implementation made.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Pathfinder 1's soul knife is pretty solid.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife/
I forgot about that one. You're right, it's not bad.

Agreed it shouldn't have been a Rogue subclass. Or any subclass, for that matter. A feat is a lot more reasonable.

EDIT: Something like...

Soul Knife
You have learned how to concentrate the power of your mind into a blade of pure psionic energy, granting you the following benefits:

As a bonus action, you may create your Soul Knife in an empty hand. It vanishes if it ever leaves your grasp, but may be conjured again freely. Each time you create it, you may have it take the form of one simple or martial melee weapon you are proficient in, or two identical weapons with the Light property. Regardless of its form, a Soul Knife deals psychic damage instead of bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. If the weapon has the Thrown property, the Soul Knife lasts long enough to strike its target.
When you score a critical hit with your Soul Knife, the target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw, with a DC of 8 + the ability modifier you applied to the attack + your Proficiency bonus. On a failure, they are Frightened until the end of their next turn.

[noob]

Maybe the soulblade could be the following: "Make any martial weapon you can wield out of thin air within one or more of your hands as some sort of glowing weapon as a free action, you can dismiss it as a free action and if lost or if it leaves your hands it undoes itself"
And as grod say it could be acquired as a feat potentially instead of needing a rogue subclass.

[ZRN]

Absolutely nothing would break if the Soulknife was able to keep their blades outside their turn, and if their blades could be somehow buffed by themselves or others as the game went on.

I mean, do we know this is true? There’s no imaginable build that could take advantage of having weapons that do psychic damage, basically get crossbow expert for thrown knives, etc.? And in the future nobody will ever WANT to make a subclass that would be broken if you gave it permanent psychic blades?

I’m honestly all for letting them use the blades for OAs and I’d allow that as DM, but beyond that I do get the limitation.

[LudicSavant]

I suspect that the sheer awkwardness of the wording stems from the fact that they weren't quite sure how to make the wording support the "the psychic blade is manifested in the instant you make an attack" flavor cleanly, and just sort of forgot the sheer volume of things in the system that make you attack outside the Attack action (it's a lot of things), and how little in-world sense it would make for those things to not function.

However, we don't actually know, and I see little point to blind speculation on designer intent -- it's not like WotC only erratas things they did on accident.

If it actually turns out that the intention was really to make it so that Soulknives can't do basic Rogue things or even basic "person swinging a weapon" things unless they start using a regular knife instead of their soulknife for reasons they couldn't possibly hope to explain in-character ("look, I can't swing my weapon when the commander says unless it's an actual, physical weapon"), then that intention sucks.

Speculation as to balance-related motives for this seem unlikely to me. Not only is this printed right alongside the likes of the gorram Twilight Cleric, but "you can use your weapon to make weapon attacks" is not exactly the kind of concept that tends to break games. In addition, there are far less janky levers for a designer to use to balance things.


There’s no imaginable build that could take advantage of having weapons that do psychic damage, basically get crossbow expert for thrown knives, etc.?

There are tons of ways to turn your weapon attacks into damage types of comparable value to Psychic (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF), and you can already throw weapons with a bonus action if you have two hands free.

So yes, as Chaos Jackal says, there's nothing that's gonna break there.


Two-Weapon Fighting PHB p195

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

[Evaar]

If it actually turns out that the intention was really to make it so that Soulknives can't do basic Rogue things or even basic "person swinging a weapon" things unless they start using a regular knife instead of their soulknife for reasons they couldn't possibly hope to explain in-character ("look, I can't swing my weapon when the commander says unless it's an actual, physical weapon"), then that intention sucks.


Exactly. Same for Path of the Beast. Folks arguing it’s probably intentional need to show me the math that makes this a useful feature and also make a compelling case that they intended you to use a shield while slashing wildly with your claws - because there’s absolutely no reason not to.

Just like Wolverine always used a shield in one hand and used his claws in the other. So evocative. So immersive.

[Segev]

Exactly. Same for Path of the Beast. Folks arguing it’s probably intentional need to show me the math that makes this a useful feature and also make a compelling case that they intended you to use a shield while slashing wildly with your claws - because there’s absolutely no reason not to.

Just like Wolverine always used a shield in one hand and used his claws in the other. So evocative. So immersive.

I would actually suggest that the INTENTION was that it NOT be usable with TWF at all, but just grant the attacks it is listed as granting. The wonky wording was - by my estimation - a failed attempt to prevent interactions of that sort. It seems unlikely to me that they intended the beast barbarian to match the monk for number of attacks in early/mid levels.

[noob]

I would actually suggest that the INTENTION was that it NOT be usable with TWF at all, but just grant the attacks it is listed as granting. The wonky wording was - by my estimation - a failed attempt to prevent interactions of that sort. It seems unlikely to me that they intended the beast barbarian to match the monk for number of attacks in early/mid levels.

Then they could have written "you can not use any other mechanic that grants extra attacks with this mechanic except for opportunity attacks and extra attacks granted by the barbarian class"

[Eldariel]

If I ran the zoo I would hire a couple of optimizers of well-proven diligence to play and break the @#$% out of everything I write and iterate a few times before I even put something up on UA in the first place.

But before that, I would have just made Psychic Blades work for any opportunity to make a weapon attack (not just the Attack action).

It's amazing that the one time they did this in 3.X (Swiftblade), they turned a turd of a class into one of the most beloved Prestige Classes of the whole edition and one of the only cases where losing caster levels might've been worth it and then they just kinda...never did it again. Instead listening to playtesters with zero chance of ever acquiring system mastery due to literally playing with each completely different iteration of the rules for the first time whenever they had to provide feedback. So we get a game that's fine for a first timer but becomes more and more obviously full of holes as you learn more of the stupid quirks and corner cases.

[Segev]

Then they could have written "you can not use any other mechanic that grants extra attacks with this mechanic except for opportunity attacks and extra attacks granted by the barbarian class"

What's "an extra attack?"

Is the bonus action attack from dual-wielding an "extra" attack, or no? Is "extra" just something granted by the explicitly-named "extra attack" feature?

I'm mostly just pointing out that it's not quite so easy as you might think, and that they likely were TRYING to do just that, but their wording didn't work right.

[noob]

What's "an extra attack?"

Is the bonus action attack from dual-wielding an "extra" attack, or no? Is "extra" just something granted by the explicitly-named "extra attack" feature?

I'm mostly just pointing out that it's not quite so easy as you might think, and that they likely were TRYING to do just that, but their wording didn't work right.

I forgot they made extra attack be a name.
So I guess additional attacks would have worked better.
Design is kind of hard when you start making new words up and that you need each designer to know all the words so I can understand them trying to use something that does minimise risks of word collision.
They just did not realise it made a weird situation involving dual wielding and repeated weapon dropping making a fighting style that makes even silly fictional characters that clubs people with a gun made of guns look in wonder.

[Chaos Jackal]

I mean, do we know this is true? There’s no imaginable build that could take advantage of having weapons that do psychic damage, basically get crossbow expert for thrown knives, etc.? And in the future nobody will ever WANT to make a subclass that would be broken if you gave it permanent psychic blades?

I’m honestly all for letting them use the blades for OAs and I’d allow that as DM, but beyond that I do get the limitation.

As Ludic already pointed out, none of these things are actually that unique or strong.

Anyone can throw knives as a bonus action (and with the new fighting style classes that get more attacks than a rogue can throw significantly more knives too). Sure, you get to regenerate yours rather than carry around a bunch of handaxes, but unless you're really strapped for encumbrance you won't really mind. And I don't think anyone has complained so far about how powerful the thrown weapon builds enabled by the new style are.

As for psychic damage, don't let its non-physical nature fool you; magical BPS is on par, if not better, unless you expect to be fighting bearbarians in a significant percentage of your combats. Numerous ways of making attacks magical already exist, magical weapons are possibly the most common magical item awarded to players, but I don't think anyone ever considered Ki-Infused Strikes or Pact of the Blade to be broken or exploitable.

So yes, I can confidently say we know a rogue holding a psychic blade 24/7 isn't breaking anything. It's more or less the same as holding a magical shortsword or hand crossbow.

[ZiddyT]

Have you considered that the whole "Soulknives don't benefit from non-Attack action attack and magic weapons" thing was made on purpose?

I'm not saying that it is something I like, but in adition of the old "don't assume malevolence when incompetence is the most likely explanation", "don't assume incompetence when a choice you disagree with is the most likely explanation" is also applicable here.

It seems to me that the Soulknife is kind of supposed to be the "Attack action" Rogue.

I mean, bad design is incompetence, though? Like, if that's your job and you don't do it well, what else would you call it? Intentional or not it's clearly a poor implementation that people aren't satisfied with.

[BerzerkerUnit]

And that's perfectly legitimate. However, a simple addition to the wording would still keep the psychic blades from being uber (used with magic items/blade cantrips) but allow the Rogue to still be a Rogue without needing a secondary physical weapon:

PSYCHIC BLADES
3rd-level Soulknife feature
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action or use your Reaction to make an attack, you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade.

Simple. Covers OAs and party friendly things like Commander's Strike and Order Cleric assistance. And it certainly doesn't break the game nor class.

(And since both Commander's Strike and Voice of Authority both stipulate that you can make a single attack with your Reaction, there's no fear in your Rogue making 4 attacks round, even if you could somehow massage the rules to otherwise allow it.)

Notably, there are attack actions that do not involve attack rolls (grapples, shoves the previously mentioned commander's strike)... it's possible you could manifest the blade and wait to make the attack until a later point in time.

Probably. I'm pretty sure the word Action was intended to be deleted before print. "Whenever you make an attack" would allow you to make all attacks with it and not likely create additional difficulty.

[Segev]

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more the flavor they wanted might've made sense to just give them a natural weapon with the properties they want. It is intangible and invisible unless they are making a weapon attack with it, and they must have an otherwise-empty hand with which to make a weapon attack with it.

[Evaar]

I would actually suggest that the INTENTION was that it NOT be usable with TWF at all, but just grant the attacks it is listed as granting. The wonky wording was - by my estimation - a failed attempt to prevent interactions of that sort. It seems unlikely to me that they intended the beast barbarian to match the monk for number of attacks in early/mid levels.

Then just make them light weapons and don’t give them a third extra attack of their own.

Except that would raise the question “why are these better than handaxes or short swords?”

[Greywander]

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more the flavor they wanted might've made sense to just give them a natural weapon with the properties they want. It is intangible and invisible unless they are making a weapon attack with it, and they must have an otherwise-empty hand with which to make a weapon attack with it.
I actually said this earlier in the thread. But yeah, I think this would have been the way to go.


Or heck, we can go one simpler: it's just an always-on natural-weapon-esque thing. You don't need to "conjure" or "dismiss" it, it's just always there all the time. It's not always there, i.e. when you're not using it you can't see it and it doesn't do anything, but at any given time an empty hand is in a quantum state of both holding the psychic blade and holding nothing, whichever you happen to need. Basically, it's like a natural weapon that you always have out, but requires a free hand to actually wield.

[ZRN]

Then just make them light weapons and don’t give them a third extra attack of their own.

Except that would raise the question “why are these better than handaxes or short swords?”

Yeah, I imagine the idea was to let you play as if you were two-weapon fighting without it taking up your bonus action.

Honestly I can’t imagine any DM allowing this picking up and dropping weapon nonsense for either subclass. I agree that they both should be more carefully written, but come on, this is why it’s nice to have a human adjudicating.

[Segev]

Then just make them light weapons and don’t give them a third extra attack of their own.

Except that would raise the question “why are these better than handaxes or short swords?”

The answer to that second one would be "because it's a class feature."

[loki_ragnarock]

I don't know, I kind of like it the way it is. I know. Boo. Hiss.

As it is now, the Soulknife screams of casual rogue. The rogue that can walk somewhere and not look out of place because they're not equipped the way normal adventurers are; an option, a style. If the soulknife wants to walk into a secure place never sweating the pat down, they can. Easily. Readily. And with a little bit of intentional effort, they can still murder someone on the other side of the checkpoint without leaving a mark on the body. This isn't a class for dungeon delvers; it's a class for city slickers, subterfuge, and superspy antics.

As it is now, it's a class that carries an undetectable, untraceable one shot derringer. I get that people would probably prefer it be packing a six-shooter or a repeating rifle, but that's different enough to evoke a different theme than what they might have been going for. That said, if a soulknife wants to go in with armed for war with a brace of daggers, nothing's stopping them; they can pick up that repeating rifle and go to town, just like any other rogue. But no other rogue has that one shot derringer.

And that's an interesting niche. Terrible if you're looking for Betsy Braddock, but pretty cool if you're looking for a psychic James Bond.

[Segev]

I don't know, I kind of like it the way it is. I know. Boo. Hiss.

As it is now, the Soulknife screams of casual rogue. The rogue that can walk somewhere and not look out of place because they're not equipped the way normal adventurers are; an option, a style. If the soulknife wants to walk into a secure place never sweating the pat down, they can. Easily. Readily. And with a little bit of intentional effort, they can still murder someone on the other side of the checkpoint without leaving a mark on the body. This isn't a class for dungeon delvers; it's a class for city slickers, subterfuge, and superspy antics.

As it is now, it's a class that carries an undetectable, untraceable one shot derringer. I get that people would probably prefer it be packing a six-shooter or a repeating rifle, but that's different enough to evoke a different theme than what they might have been going for. That said, if a soulknife wants to go in with armed for war with a brace of daggers, nothing's stopping them; they can pick up that repeating rifle and go to town, just like any other rogue. But no other rogue has that one shot derringer.

And that's an interesting niche. Terrible if you're looking for Betsy Braddock, but pretty cool if you're looking for a psychic James Bond.

And yet, they can't use most of their rogue features while doing it.

The proposed fixes/changes generally would change none of what you like about it.

[LudicSavant]

I don't know, I kind of like it the way it is. I know. Boo. Hiss.

As it is now, the Soulknife screams of casual rogue. The rogue that can walk somewhere and not look out of place because they're not equipped the way normal adventurers are; an option, a style. If the soulknife wants to walk into a secure place never sweating the pat down, they can. Easily. Readily. And with a little bit of intentional effort, they can still murder someone on the other side of the checkpoint without leaving a mark on the body. This isn't a class for dungeon delvers; it's a class for city slickers, subterfuge, and superspy antics.

As it is now, it's a class that carries an undetectable, untraceable one shot derringer. I get that people would probably prefer it be packing a six-shooter or a repeating rifle, but that's different enough to evoke a different theme than what they might have been going for. That said, if a soulknife wants to go in with armed for war with a brace of daggers, nothing's stopping them; they can pick up that repeating rifle and go to town, just like any other rogue. But no other rogue has that one shot derringer.

And that's an interesting niche. Terrible if you're looking for Betsy Braddock, but pretty cool if you're looking for a psychic James Bond.

Arcane Tricksters can do that niche. The whole shebang -- walk in without weapons, murder someone on the other side of the checkpoint without leaving a mark on the body, and use an actual limited-ammo psychic derringer.

WotC's Soulknives, on the other hand, are actually strongly encouraged to bring the brace of physical daggers. If they don't, they are cut off from interacting with an awful lot of mechanics that are important to Rogues (and teammates of Rogues, and even enemies of Rogues, because it's just that janky).

[MaxWilson]

As Ludic already pointed out, none of these things are actually that unique or strong.

Side note: LudicSavant basically means "genius at games." Referring to LudicSavant by the adjective "Ludic" is sort of like just calling him "of games." If you're going to give him a nickname it's probably more polite to call him Savant than Ludic, but full name LudicSavant is probably best.

I agree that psychic damage isn't actually all that special compared to magical piercing, not worth extreme measures to stop PCs from acquiring. It does have some interesting combos with Star Spawn Hulks but that's more an Evil DM thing than a PC thing.

[Chaos Jackal]

Honestly I can’t imagine any DM allowing this picking up and dropping weapon nonsense for either subclass. I agree that they both should be more carefully written, but come on, this is why it’s nice to have a human adjudicating.
That's kind of the point. It's stupid, even if the DM allows it, and it beats the purpose of both subclasses, given that you're supposed to not need weapons in the first place.
However, in the Soulknife's case, it also means you're left without any of the many ways to do reaction attacks, including attacks of opportunity. You disarm yourself every six seconds, which is equally nonsensical.

Side note: LudicSavant basically means "genius at games." Referring to LudicSavant by the adjective "Ludic" is sort of like just calling him "of games." If you're going to give him a nickname it's probably more polite to call him Savant than Ludic, but full name LudicSavant is probably best.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this is... but given that the name can just as well mean "playful genius", that ludic is an adjective and that the person in question had even included its definition in their signature at one point, I dare say it's not unreasonable to use it as standalone. It's also pretty distinctive and immediately recognizable, so there's no danger of someone skipping over it, confusing it with something else, or understanding it in a wrong context.

I tend to use full names, but sometimes I simply write something in more of a hurry and include shortened names and more short forms in general. If LudicSavant has an issue with Ludic, Savant, LS or whatever way their name might be abbreviated, I of course would have no issue complying with their desires.

[LudicSavant]

I'm cool with just Ludic -- you can just think of it as calling me "Playful." Or the full name as something rather like "Scholar of Play." :smallsmile:


: of, relating to, or characterized by play : playful

: a person of learning, especially one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field (as of science or literature)

[Grod_The_Giant]

And that's an interesting niche. Terrible if you're looking for Betsy Braddock, but pretty cool if you're looking for a psychic James Bond.
The thing is, that doesn't change if you can form the knife whenever you're allowed to make an attack, or if it's a toggle on/off sort of thing. It just opens up more possibilities.

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with the general consensus that it is an ill written feature. If you were allowed to just spawn a weapon, like a poor man's Pact of Blade, it would work with EA, as it is now it doesn't. I guess an argument for it working could be made though since the wording is not that clear, but it does use the singular form throughout the features entire description ("make the attack with that blade"). Why wouldn't they want to allow it to work with Extra Attack? Them sucking at min/maxing is a possibility, but I'd lean towards a simpler reason, because they wanted to disincentivize multiclassing.

The irony is, disincentivizing MCing with EA classess, would mean going against Soulknife 3/Monk X, which would be thematically in line with how the class was intended back in 3e, a mobile unarmored combatant that doesn't need weapons.

[loki_ragnarock]

And yet, they can't use most of their rogue features while doing it.

The proposed fixes/changes generally would change none of what you like about it.

... can't use most of their rogue features while doing it?

Uncanny dodge doesn't work anymore? Cunning Action? Expertise? Evasion? Reliable Talent? Slippery Mind? Elusive? Stroke of Luck?
Thieves Cant?
Those don't work anymore?

I suspect you're overstating the case, there. They psychic blades are incompatible with a subset of actions that have to do with damage optimization in a given round, but *most* rogue features are totally unaffected. Off turn sneak attacks aren't the core of the rogue, and they never have been.

Meanwhile, the Soulknife has an ability that has a better than good chance of turning failure into success, long before you get reliable talent. Heck, if you've a bard in the party, you can aim for truly ludicrous challenges from level 3 onwards and have a good chance of success. At the time they get a boost to make the knives always hit, they get a movement power. Both of those seem more in keeping with the thematics of a rogue than off turn sneak attacks. Success with style = rogue. Damage galore = a rogue kitted for war.

But even if you compare it to the core sub-classes... none of them really get a game changing offensive ability at level 3. Thieves straight don't. ATs get... a cantrip or spell that's incompatible with sneak attack. Assassins - ostensibly the most murdery of the rogue types - gets a narrowly useful ability that also is mostly incompatible with off turn sneak attacks. (Which is to say that conceptually a party backed assassin could squeeze out a scenario where maybe you could, but the logistics involved would make it so rare and narrow as to be singular.)
You have to go to Xanathar's before that dynamic changes much. Inquisitives get some skill powers, but they do get an offensive power; they can make a check to get sneak attack against people they normally couldn't get sneak attack with, with certain limitations. Maybe could benefit from off turn sneak attacks, but that seems real secondary. Masterminds get a support ability that can amplify the offense of others, but doesn't really do anything to promote off turn sneak attacks. Scouts get mobility and skills, neither of which go to off turn sneak attacks. Swashbucklers get an aggressive mobility power and an extra set of conditions under which they can sneak attack, which might lead to more off turn sneak attacks.
Soul knife seems to go with the majority there, in that it doesn't promote off turn sneak attacks. The only ones that do are Swashbucklers (under specific and readily achievable circumstances), Inquisitors (under fairly narrow circumstances), and Assassins (under nearly impossible circumstances).

So... again, I think you're overstating that they can't use most of their rogue features. Facilitating off turn sneak attacks isn't a core identity of the rogue class. Neither the subclasses nor the base chassis really do anything to emphasize it, and the ones that do are entirely incidental in that - just like the Soulknife - the simply increase the circumstances in which you can sneak attack someone. For the Swashbuckler, it's when dueling someone. For the Soulknife, it's when totally unarmed.
Except the other Tasha's rogue, which made my jaw drop. They went all in for damage optimization on that one, didn't they?

The proposed changes of just manifesting a blade would - in fact - change some of the stuff I like about it, which I will explain in a but a moment. But first, I must move on to:


Arcane Tricksters can do that niche. The whole shebang -- walk in without weapons, murder someone on the other side of the checkpoint without leaving a mark on the body, and use an actual limited-ammo psychic derringer.

WotC's Soulknives, on the other hand, are actually strongly encouraged to bring the brace of physical daggers. If they don't, they are cut off from interacting with an awful lot of mechanics that are important to Rogues (and teammates of Rogues, and even enemies of Rogues, because it's just that janky).
Nah. An arcane trickster walks in able to summon their repeating rifle at will, with an action. Such is the security challenge of Shadow Blade.
But there are some key differences:
The AT doesn't get to have their on call repeating rifle until 7th level.
The on call repeating rifle takes an (EDIT: Bonus) action to manifest. That's a big time difference in how a scene plays out when it sticks around in your hand.
The on call repeating rifle has effectively 1/3 the range, and no language that lets you have it back if you do choose to creatively disarm yourself.
The on call repeating rifle also doesn't have any language included that indicates it leaves no mark; it does psychic damage, but ruling that it leaves no trace is outside the boundaries of the spell. Perhaps an intuitive addition, but when one calls it out specifically and the other doesn't it makes a distinction.

Yeah, the AT could go ham with scorching ray in that scenario, if they spent their few free spells on something that doesn't even let them sneak attack. But that's still hitting after 8th level, and definitely leaves some marks. They're probably more flexible in general, but that's the power of spell slots... a power that doesn't provide perfect parity, here.

Meanwhile, the Soulknife walks through security without issue, much like the AT, but the post security plays out differently. For the AT, the get through and summon their repeating rifle, security sees they're pulling out a repeating rifle, and now they have to shoot up the place with alerted security. For the Soulknife, by the time anything resembling a weapon comes into the scene to alert security the attack is literally in progress and it's too late to adjust the response. It's not a summon then attack; it's summoned as part of the attack. And that opens up a whole mess of scenarios that simply manifesting a blade doesn't cover. And if they miss? Do over! It's built right in for high reliability, needs to succeed, yet subtle scenarios. The kind of scenario where you touch your ear in a crowded room and say, "I'm in."

It's a better assassin than the assassin, to repeat a phrase we've all said over and again about any number of other things. But it's also a better Mastermind than the Mastermind, because of the psychic whispers turning him into a mobile command center with impenetrable communications encryption. This guy can heist, probably better than just about any rogue. It's right there in the flavor text:
Most governments would also be happy to employ a Soulknife as a spy. A throwaway that matches the features perfectly.
That's the niche they're running with. It isn't an ability that's supposed to always ensure you have a brace of daggers. It's an ability to keep you a threat when you don't have a brace of daggers. An ability that expands the circumstances where you can sneak attack to "when I'm entirely unarmed and non-threatening" in a way similar to the Swashbuckler's "when I'm one on one with blade in hand." The kind of subtle option expansion that's appropriate when compared to all other rogues to date. (Except that other rogue in Tasha's, which is a bit bonkers on the murder optimization, and definitely steps outside of comparable design space for rogues.)

The above elements are why I like it. Yeah, you can probably change it to make it more Betsy Braddock without breaking the game, but it does change the subtleties of the theme. It does, in fact, make me like it less with the proposed change, but that's because I look at it and see Mission Impossible or Agent 47 rather than X-Men and Psylocke.
And I really like Mission Impossible as a premise for adventures. X-Men is just a touch too... superheroey for me.

[Segev]

Arcane tricksters don't need Shadow Blade to do that. A number of damage cantrips exist.

You wax eloquent over how I am overstating my case, but you fail to address the one big point I made: what, in any proposal to let the soul knife actually have a psychic blade at will rather than under games limited circumstances, prevents what you are touting as ways it is good?

[loki_ragnarock]

Arcane tricksters don't need Shadow Blade to do that. A number of damage cantrips exist.

You can't sneak attack with those, the damage potential of sneak attacking with a weapon is consistently higher, and they run off of a secondary stat.

That's not parity.



You wax eloquent over how I am overstating my case, but you fail to address the one big point I made: what, in any proposal to let the soul knife actually have a psychic blade at will rather than under games limited circumstances, prevents what you are touting as ways it is good?

Because "always carrying a brace of daggers" is thematically different than "having an ace up your sleeve."

One is an action movie. One is a spy thriller.

[Segev]

You can't sneak attack with those, the damage potential of sneak attacking with a weapon is consistently higher, and they run off of a secondary stat.

That's not parity.And yet you're saying it is no big deal that the soul knife is disarmed and can't sneak attack except specifically on his turn. And hold up not being able to sneak attack off turn as no big deal except to people "optimizing damage" as if that were a bad thing.



Because "always carrying a brace of daggers" is thematically different than "having an ace up your sleeve."

One is an action movie. One is a spy thriller.

Name for me a spy who willingly disarms himself in a spy thriller, and san only use his ace up his sleeve in weirdly specific combat ways. Explain to me how having to carry a brace of daggers you draw and drop to make room for your signature weapon enhances "spy thriller."

Why is getting a signature weapon as a class feature still requiring you to carry regular weapons that you now have to juggle to be able to do what most rogues can do in combat? How does not using your class feature except when you're otherwise screwed make you a more interesting or better rogue?

Frankly, always being armed with weapons that can't be found when you're searched IS "having an ace up your sleeve."

How does being unable to make opportunity attacks make you a "spy thriller" while being able to stab the target as he passes the "waiter" make it an action movie?

What about having to wait your turn rather than act opportunistically makes the genre difference? And how does the ability to be an "action movie" prevent you from being in a "spy thriller?"

[Grod_The_Giant]

Because "always carrying a brace of daggers" is thematically different than "having an ace up your sleeve."

One is an action movie. One is a spy thriller.
a) If it's an at-will blade, the difference is purely descriptive.
b) The "brace of daggers" was in reference to using your soul knife to attack on your turn and then drawing a dagger in case of opportunity attacks, readied actions and the like.

[Segev]

a) If it's an at-will blade, the difference is purely descriptive.
b) The "brace of daggers" was in reference to using your soul knife to attack on your turn and then drawing a dagger in case of opportunity attacks, readied actions and the like.

To close the loop on this: it is the version that exists right now that requires the soul knife to carry a literal physical brace of daggers. So if you want a "spy movie" you want to change it to being available more easily and under less ridiculously gameist restrictions.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not aware of the best optimization methods for Rogues, but from what I've seen the most common piece of advices for more damage is "get a way for a second attack with a bonus action (usually via Dual Wielding or Crossbow Expert)". The Psychic Blade gives you that without investment, and both at range and in melee.

"Can't Psychic Blade for Opportunity Attacks" seems to be a deliberate choice from WotC. And so is the "generate a weapon for a brief flash" flavor. One may disagree with those choices, but I don't think it's a huge deal.


To close the loop on this: it is the version that exists right now that requires the soul knife to carry a literal physical brace of daggers.

That is demonstrably untrue and you perfectly know it. There is no *requirement* that a Soulknife carries a brace of daggers.

A Soulknife will do more than fine without any weapon, in fact.


Also, since it was brought up: a Soulknife is entirely capable to do a Readied action to attack with Psychic Blade.


Ready
Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it.



Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action

A Soulknife can Ready to use the Attack action as a reaction. And such using the Psychic Blade.

[quindraco]

It's a better assassin than the assassin, to repeat a phrase we've all said over and again about any number of other things. But it's also a better Mastermind than the Mastermind, because of the psychic whispers turning him into a mobile command center with impenetrable communications encryption. This guy can heist, probably better than just about any rogue. It's right there in the flavor text:
Most governments would also be happy to employ a Soulknife as a spy. A throwaway that matches the features perfectly.
That's the niche they're running with. It isn't an ability that's supposed to always ensure you have a brace of daggers. It's an ability to keep you a threat when you don't have a brace of daggers. An ability that expands the circumstances where you can sneak attack to "when I'm entirely unarmed and non-threatening" in a way similar to the Swashbuckler's "when I'm one on one with blade in hand." The kind of subtle option expansion that's appropriate when compared to all other rogues to date. (Except that other rogue in Tasha's, which is a bit bonkers on the murder optimization, and definitely steps outside of comparable design space for rogues.)


The L3 abilities on a Soulknife are what you want on the guy outside in the van to have while the spies inside do the spying work. They're not well-designed for actual spying. If Knack worked on all ability checks or telepathy could be used on the nonconsenting, there'd be some utility there for spywork, but RAW, Soulknives are a decent pick for a spy's hacker support.

[noob]

I'm not aware of the best optimization methods for Rogues, but from what I've seen the most common piece of advices for more damage is "get a way for a second attack with a bonus action (usually via Dual Wielding or Crossbow Expert)". The Psychic Blade gives you that without investment, and both at range and in melee.

"Can't Psychic Blade for Opportunity Attacks" seems to be a deliberate choice from WotC. And so is the "generate a weapon for a brief flash" flavor. One may disagree with those choices, but I don't think it's a huge deal.



That is demonstrably untrue and you perfectly know it. There is no *requirement* that a Soulknife carries a brace of daggers.

A Soulknife will do more than fine without any weapon, in fact.


Also, since it was brought up: a Soulknife is entirely capable to do a Readied action to attack with Psychic Blade.




A Soulknife can Ready to use the Attack action as a reaction. And such using the Psychic Blade.

But the Soulknife fights better by also grabbing a dagger and being able to do an attack of opportunity: that way they get two attacks when the opponent triggers an opportunity attack unlike what your Soulknife does that grants them only a single attack.
In fact worse: since your Soulknife will not have AOO then opponents will take actions that could trigger aoos from normal characters without fear of punishment.
It is why at the very least the soulblade should be usable for opportunity attacks.

[ZRN]

To close the loop on this: it is the version that exists right now that requires the soul knife to carry a literal physical brace of daggers. So if you want a "spy movie" you want to change it to being available more easily and under less ridiculously gameist restrictions.

Like I said, I agree that the knife should be available for at least opportunity attacks, but it’s not “gamist” that they currently aren’t. If anything it’s narrativist: the assumption is that it takes a moment of focus to prepare your blade and you can’t do that fast enough to use it as part of a reaction. (As we’re all discussing here, the family design would just be to let you write “psychic dagger” on your equipment sheet and assume you can use it whenever you make a weapon attack.)

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm of the opinion that natural weapons and other features that mean you have permanent access to a weapon are consistently overvalued by WotC.

It's why Tabaxi are a dex-based race, yet are stuck with str-only claws that are significantly worse than even a basic dagger 99% of the time.

It's why Pact of the Blade basically needed an entire subclass to (over)correct.

And, in this case, it's why the Soulknife has weird restrictions on what it can and can't use its psychic blades for.


I suspect that this is partially due to WotC still harbouring the delusion that magic weapons are an optional feature, rather than something that will be a core part of 99.9% of all D&D games (not that that explains or excuses tabaxi claws being worse than even a mundane dagger). If a game has very few or no magic items then having unlimited access to either a magic weapon or a weapon with a rarely-resisted damage type probably looks pretty good.

The issue is that whilst this might be true in 0.01% of D&D games, those abilities are going to suck in the other 99.9% of games where magic items are a thing. Now not only are abilities like Psychic Blades nothing to write home about, they're awkward to use on top of that.

Indeed, I can't help but recall Grod's Law:


Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

Personally, I don't think the Soulknife's psychic blades are too strong to begin with. But even if you're worried about that, the solution is not to "balance" them by making them awkward to use.

As Lucid pointed out in the opening post, a core part of why this sort of design is bad is that it affects how the class feels. A class can be mechanically weak yet still feel really fun. Because even if you're not especially powerful, you at least feel like you're living up to your archetype (or the style of character you want to play). conversely, a class can be mechanically strong but still feel really bad to play. For example, the sorcerer is powerful because it's a full caster, yet it often feels bad because of its pitiful spell selection and the fact that few (if any) of it's mechanics really make you feel like you're playing a born mage. Same with the Beastmaster Ranger - even if it wasn't fairly weak, it would still feel awful because your companion acts less than a faithful pet and more like a robot with broken AI.

In essence, I think it would be better to have the blades be weaker and work like proper blades - with opportunity attacks and the like - than have them be strong but break both verisimilitude and the flavour of the class. Not that I think they're especially strong, just I think that would be a better balancing philosophy.

As an aside, it's possible I'm in the minority here but I just find the current psionic stuff to be rather uninspiring. I can understand the issues with the mystic and with potentially not wanting what amounts to an entirely different magic system, but I'm also not sure tacking on a handful of Power Die to an existing class and calling it a day is the best solution.

[Segev]

But the Soulknife fights better by also grabbing a dagger and being able to do an attack of opportunity: that way they get two attacks when the opponent triggers an opportunity attack unlike what your Soulknife does that grants them only a single attack.
In fact worse: since your Soulknife will not have AOO then opponents will take actions that could trigger aoos from normal characters without fear of punishment.
It is why at the very least the soulblade should be usable for opportunity attacks.
Exactly.

When the Thief is better at combat than the Soul Knife unless the Soul Knife is either forgoing his psychic blades in favor of normal weapons, or is doing a weird juggling act to drop his normal weapons on his turn and have them on-hand off-turn, there's a problem with the Soul Knife.

[loki_ragnarock]

And yet you're saying it is no big deal that the soul knife is disarmed and can't sneak attack except specifically on his turn. And hold up not being able to sneak attack off turn as no big deal except to people "optimizing damage" as if that were a bad thing.

I do, because off turn sneak attack isn't in particular a roguish thematic specialty so much as it is a mechanical peculiarity. You can't do it with a cantrip, but you also can't sneak attack *at all* with a cantrip, which puts it thematically behind the psychic blades.

I could also note, again, that the soul knife doesn't leave a mark, where firebolt and chill touch presumably do. And because the damage potential is so much lower, the couple of moments of frantic struggle as two people try to get the upper hand before one party can call for help means that they aren't particularly appropriate to that end; if it takes a couple of extra rounds, that's too much for the genre. They got away. They sounded the alarm. You shot them, but wounded them without killing them. And then it turns into an action movie.



Name for me a spy who willingly disarms himself in a spy thriller, and san only use his ace up his sleeve in weirdly specific combat ways.
What am I? A pop culture professor that I can come up with something that narrow on the fly? A Brad Neely?
Spy's get disarmed all the time; "willingly" is an addendum that narrows things down a touch much, yeah? Subtract the willingly and it's not uncommon; Pierce Brosnan as 007 has a rather memorable scene involving an exploding pen. Make it an antagonist, and it becomes more common still; subtle wet work generally makes people not root for the character the way running around with a rifle causing collateral damage does. A peculiarity of the culture, that we should squirm at the sight of one person brutally murdered but cheer at an office building exploding.
It's not just weirdly specific combat ways, though; the whole of the class is like carrying whatever specialized gizmo you need to x, y, and zed. That it also includes a combat specific trump card is on brand for the whole package. Further, "willingly disarming" is a bit much, yeah? Spy thrillers often include a person packing a silenced pistol or the like, which isn't a weapon you use to take on dozens of guards unless it's secretly an action movie.


Explain to me how having to carry a brace of daggers you draw and drop to make room for your signature weapon enhances "spy thriller."
Easy; you've moved into the action movie portion of your spy thriller, where everyone is checking their guns and making "chachink" sounds as the pull back before or just after delivering a dramatic line like "it's show time."
When they start doing things like preparing to go in and murder a bunch of people, they pick up their repeating rifle/brace of daggers while preparing to drop from the helicopter; classic action movie transition. The Soulknife can move back and forth seamlessly between the two, but if you want him to use his silenced handgun because it looks cooler then he has to drop the rifle, or dual wield the rifle and the handgun.
It fits the genre it fits; make it so it's just that they're never disarmed, and there's no transition. It's always an action movie, at every step of the way, with an homage to thriller.


Why is getting a signature weapon as a class feature still requiring you to carry regular weapons that you now have to juggle to be able to do what most rogues can do in combat? How does not using your class feature except when you're otherwise screwed make you a more interesting or better rogue?

Does a Thief bonus to climb speed matter when fighting on a flat plain? If you aren't building the adventures to play to those strengths, yeah, those strengths go wasted. If you are building an action movie, yeah, Psychic Knives has less value. Not no value; you can still carry your repeating rifle. But if it's all firefights all the time, maybe it's appropriate the silenced pistol be kept in holster. Or - because it's an action movie and things should look cool - dual wield the pistol with the repeating rifle.




Frankly, always being armed with weapons that can't be found when you're searched IS "having an ace up your sleeve."

Yes, but if it's a repeating rifle you can smuggle anywhere, it's an action movie. Not a thriller.


How does being unable to make opportunity attacks make you a "spy thriller" while being able to stab the target as he passes the "waiter" make it an action movie?

Scale of conflict. Scale of scene.

The opportunity attacks say things about the scene:
1) You didn't subdue the target and they are getting away. This is valid thriller territory; the fecal fan scenario.
2) Oh my god, why are you fighting an entire room of people? This is an action movie.
3) Your killing someone with a subtle weapon in front of a bunch of witnesses. Chaos erupts. The armed people respond. This is an action movie, and it doesn't much matter that you didn't leave a mark on the body when everyone saw you do it. Why was it a plot point to emphasize the no marks part when you're just using it out in the open where everyone can see? Why were you coordinating with your team of specialists deployed all throughout this operation if this was the payoff? This movie's got some holes.

Constraints make a thriller.



What about having to wait your turn rather than act opportunistically makes the genre difference?
Intent and risk. The character has to make a choice to escalate to violence, rather than reacting to it. It enhances the tendency towards other options - convincing, pleading, running - in a scene. Those would be the only choices available to most rogues while unarmed, but the Soulknife can choose violence pretty spectacularly. They just have to weigh the risk; do I take them down in one shot, or do I blow this whole operation if I wound him and he runs away? That's dramatic tension.

If the opportunity attack happens its just sneak attacking the target and sneak attacking them again if they're foolish enough to run away. They'll be super dead and I'll just have to hide the body to keep people from going on high alert. No worries, but that's action movie with an infiltration sub-plot; my choice of violence is the right choice and assures victory (and probably moral superiority. Bonus!)


And how does the ability to be an "action movie" prevent you from being in a "spy thriller?"
I don't think there's anything about this class that does prevent you from being in an action movie. You'll just want to grab your brace daggers for those sequences you want to pal around with Rambo Runeknight, and you'll look really cool with your silenced pistol dual wielded with your brace of daggers while he's hulking out and carrying the scene he's designed for. You'll be as effective as most rogues, and more effective than a good few.

Again, it won't break the game if you want to always use the silenced pistol; it'll still look cool. It's just going to be the case that you've removed every constraint from the character at that point, and without constraints it ain't a thriller.


Which is to say; I don't think it needs an errata. I think it's just built to a different set of themes than most people were hoping to get out of it. The first abilities that you see when cracking it open aren't "you got some fancy mind daggers there, buddy."
The first thing you see is "I don't fail." The second thing you see is "I have hithertofore unseen powers to coordinate people." The third thing you see is "you got some fancy mind daggers there, buddy."
I don't think they put it in that order for giggles. I don't think the knives are really the star of the show. Just another tool in the kit.

[Corran]

How does being unable to make opportunity attacks make you a "spy thriller" while being able to stab the target as he passes the "waiter" make it an action movie?
Good question. While I do not agree that having the ability to make OA's without an actual weapon on you is hurting the (presumably) desired spy theme (I can think of some arguments to the contrary, though I dont really buy them), I think the point that I would make is that if the theme is spy thriller then missing out on some combat optimization does not matter all that much as it would if the theme was action movie. Similarly, it will matter less the less the player/table is into optimization.

=======================================

I dont know if that design was intentional (though I am thinking it was not), but if it was, I'll go on and make a wild guess at why they did it. The inspiration behind it was a character who throws knives. Setting up your range at 60' while allowing for a bonus action attack, means that most(/some) of the time you are better off than a CBE rogue without even taking the feat. That seems intentional. To encourage sticking to throwing the knives, they held back on some of the potential for melee optimization.

[Willowhelm]

I don't think they put it in that order for giggles. I don't think the knives are really the star of the show.

I’m not going to get into the rest of this particularly. I do think it was an oversight but it’s all speculation. Did they do it on purpose? We don’t know. Giving motivations is just more speculation on top of speculation.

The problem with your comments about the order in which the abilities are presented is pretty simple - the subclass name is soulknife. It’s the first thing you see, before a single ability is even mentioned. It sets the expectation right up front.

[noob]

The fact the "always armed rogue" is going to be stronger by grabbing a random fork in order to get opportunity attacks outside of their turns is just something so nonsensical and so much unfitting of the espionage theme I can not really understand the point of such thing.

Imagine james bond with in one hand his silenced gun and a fork in the other hand because "he needs the fork as heavy armament and to fend close opponents".
Would it makes even the slightest sense?
Right now the fact you are stronger by holding literally anything that can be used as an improvised weapon due to purely additional aoos makes some really weird situations.
"curses they broke my fork now I grab that wooden chair leg to keep fighting"
Then the next scene "while running in the fire the wooden chair leg caught fire so I dropped it and found a tea pot as a substitute weapon"
All that time while also having their silenced pistol.
It is just plain weird and will turn any espionage movie in a comedy when it reach the action scenes.

[Corran]

The issue is that whilst this might be true in 0.01% of D&D games, those abilities are going to suck in the other 99.9% of games where magic items are a thing. Now not only are abilities like Psychic Blades nothing to write home about, they're awkward to use on top of that.
I really dont understand this. At least in the rogue's case. Granted, my table almost nevers uses magic weapons (especially ones that come with a +X flat bonus), and I've never really taken a good look at any magic items, but what's the big loss here? The bulk of the rogue's damage comes from sneak attack, and the soulknife gets a second chance at it even from range (and without having to spend any feats for that), so I dont see how a +1, +2 or +3 would make that much of a difference.

I can see the argument that as an ability it favors ranged combat more than it favors melee combat, and I think that's a valid argument, but dont see this decision/accident as something resulted from a need to generally nerf the ability just becase it gives you a magic weapon when you would most likely not have one. If viewed as an intentional nerf, then the decision clearly has to do with the desire to have the soulknife throw those knifes instead of stabbing with them, and not because they are magic.

[loki_ragnarock]

The fact the "always armed rogue" is going to be stronger by grabbing a random fork in order to get opportunity attacks outside of their turns is just something so nonsensical and so much unfitting of the espionage theme I can not really understand the point of such thing.

Imagine james bond with in one hand his silenced gun and a fork in the other hand because "he needs the fork as heavy armament and to fend close opponents".
Would it makes even the slightest sense?
Right now the fact you are stronger by holding literally anything that can be used as an improvised weapon due to purely additional aoos makes some really weird situations.
"curses they broke my fork now I grab that wooden chair leg to keep fighting"
Then the next scene "while running in the fire the wooden chair leg caught fire so I dropped it and found a tea pot as a substitute weapon"
All that time while also having their silenced pistol.
It is just plain weird and will turn any espionage movie in a comedy when it reach the action scenes.

I don't think you can sneak attack with a fork, technically. I mean, you could grab a fork, but an opportunity attack that doesn't generate sneak attack is a hinderance at best. I don't think any improvised weapons get the finesse property. Which is a shame; picking up improvised weapons and struggling through an action scene basically describes a good many Bond scenes.

[noob]

I don't think you can sneak attack with a fork, technically. I mean, you could grab a fork, but an opportunity attack that doesn't generate sneak attack is a hinderance at best. I don't think any improvised weapons get the finesse property. Which is a shame; picking up improvised weapons and struggling through an action scene basically describes a good many Bond scenes.

A regular attack rather than nothing is a significant boost.
And james bond usually does not do that while he have his regular concealed weapon too.
Also james bond is probably the closest to comedy spying film and some elements are intentionally comedic such as the evil guy that throws hats so it is why some more push toward that domain would make it lack the ability to not be a comedy.
James bond picking at once a fork and his gun would definitively enter the domain of comedy just like the hat throwing villain and the more comedic elements are added the harder it is to make the whole thing be serious.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think you can sneak attack with a fork, technically. I mean, you could grab a fork, but an opportunity attack that doesn't generate sneak attack is a hinderance at best. I don't think any improvised weapons get the finesse property. Which is a shame; picking up improvised weapons and struggling through an action scene basically describes a good many Bond scenes.

Any improvised weapon which sufficiently resembles an actual weapon uses the actual weapon's stats, per PHB guidance. If a DM rules that a fork is good enough to be an improvised dagger (in keeping with genre conventions), then you get sneak attack damage with it. You only fall back on the default 1d4 + no proficiency if it doesn't resemble an actual weapon.

[loki_ragnarock]

A regular attack rather than nothing is a significant boost.
And james bond usually does not do that while he have his regular concealed weapon too.
Eh... maybe? A guard has 11 hp; a soulknife doing a sudden sneak attack at third level has a pretty good chance of dropping him. A soulknife using a fork has a zero chance of the same. (EDIT: Unless the DM says "treat it like a dagger." Which is fine, I'm just not sure I'd rely on that.)
Probably, if the intent is to take on multiple guards, the soulknife should just arm themselves with appropriate weaponry.


To be fair, Bond's grip is pretty terrible compared to most PCs. Guy loses his gun more often than I lose my mind.

[noob]

Eh... maybe? A guard has 11 hp; a soulknife doing a sudden sneak attack at third level has a pretty good chance of dropping him. A soulknife using a fork has a zero chance of the same.
Probably, if the intent is to take on multiple guards, the soulknife should just arm themselves with appropriate weaponry.


To be fair, Bond's grip is pretty terrible compared to most PCs. Guy loses his gun more often than I lose my mind.
The aoo is purely additional.
The soulknife on its turn sneak attack with a soulblade(including bonus action attack) then the soulknife put his fork in his hand ready to do an aoo then the turn ends and the guards will have to avoid triggering aoos thus making them have an harder time to maneuver and if they trigger an aoo it is purely additional damage that could make the hit guard more likely to drop on later turns.
So the soulknife is boosted by having a fork instead of not having it because the soulknife is not losing any opportunity to sneak attack but also does limit the movement of the opponents(unless they are fine with taking the damage from the fork).

[Corran]

Scale of conflict. Scale of scene.

The opportunity attacks say things about the scene:
1) You didn't subdue the target and they are getting away. This is valid thriller territory; the fecal fan scenario.
2) Oh my god, why are you fighting an entire room of people? This is an action movie.
3) Your killing someone with a subtle weapon in front of a bunch of witnesses. Chaos erupts. The armed people respond. This is an action movie, and it doesn't much matter that you didn't leave a mark on the body when everyone saw you do it. Why was it a plot point to emphasize the no marks part when you're just using it out in the open where everyone can see? Why were you coordinating with your team of specialists deployed all throughout this operation if this was the payoff? This movie's got some holes.

Constraints make a thriller.

Changing from spy thriller to action movie will be a matter of how successful you'll be. Failing to kill the target before they get away and sound the alarm is what puts you in action movie terittory. And due to how hp/surprise works, being effective enough with your silenced gun is a necessity in order to remain into spy thriller teritorry. I get that you like there being a difference when you are in a spy scene and when you are in an action scene, but I think that's a luxury we cannot afford. And that's because it's hard enough to stay into spy thriller terittory in the first place. Having the ability to sneak attack off turn does not solve this issue (heck, it doesn't even come near enough), but it surely helps.

Besides, if having the subclass abilities be tailored enough to act differently in different situations (eg spy scene as opposed to action scene), the first thing the developers would do would be to restrict using the psionic energy dice (a feature that plays incredibly well with checks, which is what you will be mostly doing when in spy thriller teritorry) only out of combat, and they didn't do that.

[Dr. Cliché]

I really dont understand this. At least in the rogue's case. Granted, my table almost nevers uses magic weapons (especially ones that come with a +X flat bonus), and I've never really taken a good look at any magic items, but what's the big loss here?

The loss is that you either eschew your central class ability or else never benefit from a magic weapon.

Bear in mind that if you don't use magic weapons then you'd be a part of the 0.01% of tables I mentioned where the ability seems fine and perhaps even strong.

However, I think you're severely underestimating the potential of Magic items. e.g. a character with Flame Tongue is going to be doing 2d6 extra damage with each swing (modifiers notwithstanding, you're looking at more than twice the normal damage for most swords, exactly twice the normal damage at worst). Meanwhile, your psychic blades are still only doing their base damage. And this is assuming fairly common weapons (Flame Tongue is only a Rare weapon). If your game has even rarer/stronger weapons, I doubt it will be long before the Soulknife's psychic blades start to look pretty underwhelming.

Contrast that with Warlocks, who can at least attune to a magic weapon and use it in lieu of manifesting a 'normal' Pact of the Blade weapon.

(Incidentally, this could be at least partially fixed by making the Soulknife a Monk class, as then you've already got a built-in scaling mechanic.)

[Unoriginal]

Exactly.

When the Thief is better at combat than the Soul Knife unless the Soul Knife is either forgoing his psychic blades in favor of normal weapons, or is doing a weird juggling act to drop his normal weapons on his turn and have them on-hand off-turn, there's a problem with the Soul Knife.

At equal ASI investment, the Thief will always be worse at combat than the Soul Knife even if the Thief is fully armed.

Being able to make opportunity attacks is not an advantage big enough to even start to close the gap between them.

[Evaar]

The answer to that second one would be "because it's a class feature."

You misunderstand. I meant “what about this is better than just using short swords or handaxes?”

The art attached to the subclass shows a Barbarian with claws out and nothing in her hands. She’s playing counter to how the subclass functions mechanically.


The job of subclass design ought to follow these steps:
1) Determine a fantasy archetype you want to realize.
2) Design mechanics that evoke that archetype and incentivize the kind of play style it should have.
3) Adjust and balance those mechanics so they play well within the game.

What Ludic is saying about Soulknife and I am saying about the Claws is that there was a fundamental failure in step 2, because the mechanics as designed incentivize play that runs counter to the archetype. The Soulknife has to carry a bunch of weapons if they want to play optimally. The Claw Beast Barbarian has to use a shield or juggle light weapons or at least make 1 attack with a two handed weapon if they want to play optimally. These are dumb things that run counter to the archetypes they’re trying to evoke. If they’re intentional, they’re bad design. If they’re unintentional, they’re sloppy design.

Either way, they should be fixed.

[JackPhoenix]

The fact the "always armed rogue" is going to be stronger by grabbing a random fork in order to get opportunity attacks outside of their turns is just something so nonsensical and so much unfitting of the espionage theme I can not really understand the point of such thing.

Imagine james bond with in one hand his silenced gun and a fork in the other hand because "he needs the fork as heavy armament and to fend close opponents".
Would it makes even the slightest sense?
Right now the fact you are stronger by holding literally anything that can be used as an improvised weapon due to purely additional aoos makes some really weird situations.
"curses they broke my fork now I grab that wooden chair leg to keep fighting"
Then the next scene "while running in the fire the wooden chair leg caught fire so I dropped it and found a tea pot as a substitute weapon"
All that time while also having their silenced pistol.
It is just plain weird and will turn any espionage movie in a comedy when it reach the action scenes.

Random fork? No. Actual weapon better suited for quick close combat situations? Who would've done something so riddicc...
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8495/8325898654_4528a42422.jpg
https://www.seekpng.com/png/full/146-1462236_45-tactical-knife-mw2-call-of-duty-modern.png
https://forum.playboundless.com/uploads/default/original/2X/d/dec89c7728df485ef0bbbf1f6dde5f594803110d.png

Nevermind


The aoo is purely additional.
The soulknife on its turn sneak attack with a soulblade(including bonus action attack) then the soulknife put his fork in his hand ready to do an aoo then the turn ends and the guards will have to avoid triggering aoos thus making them have an harder time to maneuver and if they trigger an aoo it is purely additional damage that could make the hit guard more likely to drop on later turns.
So the soulknife is boosted by having a fork instead of not having it because the soulknife is not losing any opportunity to sneak attack but also does limit the movement of the opponents(unless they are fine with taking the damage from the fork).

Why would anyone *need* a fork? You do realize unarmed attacks exist, right?

[Segev]

I'm still scratching my head over how a soul knife being able to actually use his signature weapon whenever a rogue might want to use a weapon is somehow destroying the "spy thriller" possibilities.

[noob]

Why would anyone *need* a fork? You do realize unarmed attacks exist, right?
You deal 1.5 more average damage(because the damage dice is 1d4(damage dice from an improvised weapon that is not close enough to an actual weapon) and not 1) with the random fork which is non negligible:


Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
especially since rogues have low str.


Random fork? No. Actual weapon better suited for quick close combat situations? Who would've done something so riddicc...
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8495/8325898654_4528a42422.jpg
https://www.seekpng.com/png/full/146-1462236_45-tactical-knife-mw2-call-of-duty-modern.png
https://forum.playboundless.com/uploads/default/original/2X/d/dec89c7728df485ef0bbbf1f6dde5f594803110d.png

Nevermind

And yes an actual melee weapon as a sidearm when gun wielding makes sense just not a fork but this implementation makes so that even a fork is a significant advantage.

[JackPhoenix]

You deal 1.5 more average damage(because the damage dice is 1d4(damage dice from an improvised weapon that is not close enough to an actual weapon) and not 1) with the random fork which is non negligible:

Which does matter less than you may think, because that 1.5 extra average damage is more than made up for by having at least +2 more to attack. Unless the rogue took Tavern Brawler to be proficient with improvised weapons, in which case his unarmed damage is also 1d4 + Str, so it doesn't matter.


especially since rogues have low str.

I don't see any requirement for rogues to have low Str anywhere in the rules.

[OracleofWuffing]

I'm still scratching my head over how a soul knife being able to actually use his signature weapon whenever a rogue might want to use a weapon is somehow destroying the "spy thriller" possibilities.
All this time, I thought 007 always got the girl because of his suave charm and dapper demeanor. Turns out, it was his psychic blades.

[noob]

Which does matter less than you may think, because that 1.5 extra average damage is more than made up for by having at least +2 more to attack. Unless the rogue took Tavern Brawler to be proficient with improvised weapons, in which case his unarmed damage is also 1d4 + Str, so it doesn't matter.



I don't see any requirement for rogues to have low Str anywhere in the rules.

The fact rogues benefits from high dex and from using finesse weapons and the fact dex is usually very useful due to the improvement to initiative and the ability to have good ac without significant amounts of armour(useful for spying purposes) means that a spying rogue will end up with high charisma, high dex and then probably not have good str because they already spent a lot of stat points.

[loki_ragnarock]

All this time, I thought 007 always got the girl because of his suave charm and dapper demeanor. Turns out, it was his psychic blades.

No, it was his Psi-Bolstered Knack.

Turning failures into sexy success.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Any improvised weapon which sufficiently resembles an actual weapon uses the actual weapon's stats, per PHB guidance. If a DM rules that a fork is good enough to be an improvised dagger (in keeping with genre conventions), then you get sneak attack damage with it. You only fall back on the default 1d4 + no proficiency if it doesn't resemble an actual weapon.

The moral of this is: always say "Please" and "Thank You" when asking a rogue to pass you the salt at the dinner table....otherwise, the rogue may "Fork" you up! 🃏

[Theodoxus]

I'm still scratching my head over how a soul knife being able to actually use his signature weapon whenever a rogue might want to use a weapon is somehow destroying the "spy thriller" possibilities.

WTF plays D&D as a spy thriller?!?

The closest I ever got was Dragon Heist, and half the table was BORED out their minds because they weren't doing anything, waiting for 'the sneaks' to finish scouting a location.

Seriously, the game isn't set up for being a Spy Thriller. Sure, you can probably do it fairly well with a table of 2 or 3 players, but more than that - yawn fest. James Bond is a SOLO character, heck his "backup henchmen" are hundreds of miles away. Mission Impossible is a little better, but Ethan is still pretty solo when it comes to combat - the only thing D&D does adequately well for the spy thriller.

No, Soulblade shouldn't be thought of in that respect. We already have Mastermind and Inquisitive to handle that, and neither brings forth an image of a martial character like soulKNIFE does.

As for the idea that Rogues aren't trying to get off turn attacks, you've either never played a Rogue or tried to optimize one (as the thread header is about). Because yeah, the name of the game is getting as many possible sneaks in that you can. That's the whole point of going TWF; that's the strength of the Swashbuckler and why it is so popular; that's why players of Rogues absolutely adore Battlemasters and Order Clerics. More sneak means faster Boss kills. And that's good for the whole party. Your Life Cleric will love you for it. So removing the SKs ability to get off-turn sneaks with their signature weapon, and having to rely on a physical weapon instead, is sad.

My SB Rogue with a Repeating Hand Crossbow (thanks Arty buddy!) can use that weapon with Commander's Strike no problem. MY SK Rogue with no weapons other than the psychic blades can't. That's a very harsh cost of convenience, no?

[Selion]

In the warlock feature for pact weapons sage advise used an interesting argument (emphasis mine):



If a warlock uses Pact of the Blade to bond with a magic
weapon, does that weapon have to be a melee weapon,
and can the warlock change the weapon’s form? [... omissis]
You can also use Pact of the Blade to bond with a magic
weapon, turning it into your pact weapon. This magic
weapon doesn’t have to be a melee weapon, so you could
use the feature on a +1 longbow, for instance. [... omissis]
The feature allows the conjuring forth of a melee weapon,
yet we allow more versatility when it comes to magic weapons. We didn’t want a narrow focus in this feature to make
a warlock unhappy when a variety of magic weapons appear in a campaign. Does this versatility extend outside the
melee theme of the feature? It sure does, but we’re willing to occasionally bend a design concept if doing so is likely to increase a player’s happiness.

Soul knife just haven't got the same treatment, they're stuck with their soul weapons and cannot profit from most magic treasures. I think that it's still a solid subclass, even if the DM applies RAW, but it's frustrating choosing between a nice magic item that would synergizes with your features and your class abilities.
The AOO thing is just plain bull***, any sane DM should hand weave it IMHO.

[loki_ragnarock]

WTF plays D&D as a spy thriller?!?

Probably the same crazies who played it as a post apocalypse survival game, or a space opera, or a horror game, or to explore philosophical idles made manifest.

[Theodoxus]

Probably the same crazies who played it as a post apocalypse survival game, or a space opera, or a horror game, or to explore philosophical idles made manifest.

All of those easily handle an ensemble cast (ala a D&D party); all of them can center around combat as well. None of them are remotely close in flavor to a spy thriller.

Granted exploring philosophical ideas is pretty open ended - but presumably, if you're using the 5E engine, you're not centering those ideas around managing a pig farm or recording profit and loss for your megacorp, and certainly not tracking down a stolen shipment of plutonium as it crosses various broker hands...

[ZRN]

You misunderstand. I meant “what about this is better than just using short swords or handaxes?”

The art attached to the subclass shows a Barbarian with claws out and nothing in her hands. She’s playing counter to how the subclass functions mechanically.


The job of subclass design ought to follow these steps:
1) Determine a fantasy archetype you want to realize.
2) Design mechanics that evoke that archetype and incentivize the kind of play style it should have.
3) Adjust and balance those mechanics so they play well within the game.

What Ludic is saying about Soulknife and I am saying about the Claws is that there was a fundamental failure in step 2, because the mechanics as designed incentivize play that runs counter to the archetype. The Soulknife has to carry a bunch of weapons if they want to play optimally. The Claw Beast Barbarian has to use a shield or juggle light weapons or at least make 1 attack with a two handed weapon if they want to play optimally. These are dumb things that run counter to the archetypes they’re trying to evoke. If they’re intentional, they’re bad design. If they’re unintentional, they’re sloppy design.

Either way, they should be fixed.

First off, why doesn’t the dual wielder feat work again?



You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.

Is there a specific rule somewhere that you’re not “wielding” a claw that grows out of your hand? The +1 AC part says “in each hand” but not this bullet point.

Either way, I think it’s a stretch to parallel the weird drop-a-weapon-and-pick-it-up attempt to “optimize” your way into a fourth attack the designers were pretty clearly trying to stop you from getting, and Ludic The Genius of Love’s point that, RAW, you need to carry an extra physical dagger with your soulknife if you want to use opportunity attacks, which are pretty core to any melee character and particularly rogues. Taking opportunity attacks isn’t “playing optimally” with a rogue, it’s just... playing one at even a bare minimum of competence.

[Rukelnikov]

First off, why doesn’t the dual wielder feat work again?



Is there a specific rule somewhere that you’re not “wielding” a claw that grows out of your hand? The +1 AC part says “in each hand” but not this bullet point.

Either way, I think it’s a stretch to parallel the weird drop-a-weapon-and-pick-it-up attempt to “optimize” your way into a fourth attack the designers were pretty clearly trying to stop you from getting, and Ludic The Genius of Love’s point that, RAW, you need to carry an extra physical dagger with your soulknife if you want to use opportunity attacks, which are pretty core to any melee character and particularly rogues. Taking opportunity attacks isn’t “playing optimally” with a rogue, it’s just... playing one at even a bare minimum of competence.

I know its not the focus of the thread but I've read it in many posts here already. I'm assuming this is at lvl 5 once you have EA.

IMO the sequence is:


Hand Axe in one hand, Claw in the other
Take the Attack action, Claw + Free Claw Attack
Object interaction unseath another Hand Axe
Second Attack (from EA), either Hand Axe
Since you were wielding both, you now BA throw a Hand Axe


You end ready for next turn (1 Hand Axe, 1 Claw), you are not doing anything silly, and you are actually mixing thrown attacks without it sucking. I always thought it was pretty cool tbh.

[LudicSavant]

So, it was asked earlier how we might word a weapon that can have a similar draw/undraw flavor like Psychic Blades, without running into the wording stumbles that it does. It turns out that there is some obscure precedence for this in the rulebooks from a garbage feat (but it's only garbage because it's undertuned/underpowered, not because it's janky and breaks interaction with the rest of the rulebooks).

Dragon Hide! The Dragonborn racial feat from XGtE.

"You grow retractable claws from the tips of your fingers. Extending or retracting the claws requires no action."

That's it. You can just word it like that! Summoning the blades requires no action, and they vanish after you complete a weapon attack. Easy peasy.

[Rukelnikov]

So, it was asked earlier how we might word a weapon that can have a similar draw/undraw flavor like Psychic Blades, without running into the wording stumbles that it does. It turns out that there is some obscure precedence for this in the rulebooks from a garbage feat (but it's only garbage because it's undertuned/underpowered, not because it's janky and breaks interaction with the rest of the rulebooks).

Dragon Hide! The Dragonborn racial feat from XGtE.

"You grow retractable claws from the tips of your fingers. Extending or retracting the claws requires no action."

That's it. You can just word it like that! Summoning the blades requires no action, and they vanish after you complete a weapon attack. Easy peasy.

I'm pretty sure they were aware they could make it simpler, after all they could just copy paste pact of the blade. They chose not to.

[Segev]

I'm pretty sure they were aware they could make it simpler, after all they could just copy paste pact of the blade. They chose not to.

Pact of the Blade doesn't have the "instant appear" functionality that is obviously intended by the lengths they went to expressly put it in there. What is unclear is how deliberate the limitations on which attack actions it could be used with was intentional or an oversight as they wrote it to try to make them appear and disappear with each attack.

LudicSavant is correct: the wording for the feat he quoted yields the behavior as an option and also expands it to more traditional soul knife behavior, such as actually showing the psychic blade(s) as armaments.

[Rukelnikov]

Pact of the Blade doesn't have the "instant appear" functionality that is obviously intended by the lengths they went to expressly put it in there. What is unclear is how deliberate the limitations on which attack actions it could be used with was intentional or an oversight as they wrote it to try to make them appear and disappear with each attack.

LudicSavant is correct: the wording for the feat he quoted yields the behavior as an option and also expands it to more traditional soul knife behavior, such as actually showing the psychic blade(s) as armaments.

If you mean because PotB is a bonus action, the usual way of wordig it is "for free", its widely used, they could just write that. They didn't want it to behave as a regular weapon, like the Dragonhide Claws do.

[LudicSavant]

If you mean because PotB is a bonus action

Pact of the Blade is not a bonus action.

[Hael]

Trying to divine the intent of the designers is so opaque in this edition, its not really worth arguing about. Take for instance the recent wording of booming blade that removes the cost component. Something that clearly seems intended to go after shadowblade interactions with few other possibilities. But then Crawford does what amounts to a 180 degree mea culpa on twitter.

My guess is that the team is large and the right toe doesnt necessarily speak to the left pinky and things get lost in translation.

[Evaar]

First off, why doesn’t the dual wielder feat work again?

Is there a specific rule somewhere that you’re not “wielding” a claw that grows out of your hand? The +1 AC part says “in each hand” but not this bullet point.

You’re right, I was misremembering. It’s the AC bonus that doesn’t work. Your hands are explicitly empty, otherwise you can’t use the claw.

Maybe the weapon juggling is more advanced than they felt the need to worry about (but the designers should have the level of system mastery this many years into this edition that they would see it). But a shield isn’t non-obvious, and it’s counter to the intended flavor. Clearly. See my earlier sarcasm about Wolverine and his famous shield.

[Rukelnikov]

Pact of the Blade is not a bonus action.

Ok, action, its irrelevant to the point that they could change it to free.

[Selion]

Trying to divine the intent of the designers is so opaque in this edition, its not really worth arguing about. Take for instance the recent wording of booming blade that removes the cost component. Something that clearly seems intended to go after shadowblade interactions with few other possibilities. But then Crawford does what amounts to a 180 degree mea culpa on twitter.

My guess is that the team is large and the right toe doesnt necessarily speak to the left pinky and things get lost in translation.

What? Has something happened post tacha regarding booming blade?

[Ashe]

The answer to that second one would be "because it's a class feature."
That's worse! Much more of an opportunity cost than 2gp.


... can't use most of their rogue features while doing it?
But even if you compare it to the core sub-classes... none of them really get a game changing offensive ability at level 3. ... Swashbucklers get an aggressive mobility power and an extra set of conditions under which they can sneak attack, which might lead to more off turn sneak attacks.

It's certainly never been useful to kite enemies, act first or get to use your core ability when fighting an enemy on your own!

Not sure if I'm using blue text correctly but you get the idea, to say that soulknife is breaking new ground but ignore what swashbuckler can do is deliberately ignoring what other subclasses can do for you to try and make a point.


One is an action movie. One is a spy thriller.

Why are you trying to play a spy thriller in the group stabs things to death in dark dungeon game?


I really dont understand this. At least in the rogue's case. Granted, my table almost nevers uses magic weapons (especially ones that come with a +X flat bonus), and I've never really taken a good look at any magic items, but what's the big loss here? The bulk of the rogue's damage comes from sneak attack, and the soulknife gets a second chance at it even from range (and without having to spend any feats for that), so I dont see how a +1, +2 or +3 would make that much of a difference.

Hit chance = more sneak attack, it's not rocket science. Also, why wouldn't you use magic items? You're just ridding yourself of anything to meaningfully interact with itemswise post level 5.

[Valmark]

What? Has something happened post tacha regarding booming blade?

Assuming there is nothing new besides the reprint and SCAG errata a change was that now Booming Blade requires a weapon with a price as a material component.

The only effect it has is that now Shadowblade cannot be used with BB (or GFB).

JC pretty much went "Oh wait that wasn't intended I'd allow it" if I recall the tweet/tweets correctly.

[ZRN]

What? Has something happened post tacha regarding booming blade?

They errata'd the material components to include a weapon worth at least 1sp, so you can't use it with shadow blade anymore. (They also changed the wording on the range, which caused some initial confusion but doesn't seem to have any actual gameplay implications.)

JC said in Twitter that as DM he'd probably allow a player to use shadow blade and booming blade together. To me, though, that isn't really him "backtracking" - that seems more like him saying, "These spells don't technically work together RAW anymore but a nice DM might let you use them together anyway." Unless there's more to this debate that I'm missing.

[Unoriginal]

They errata'd the material components to include a weapon worth at least 1sp, so you can't use it with shadow blade anymore. (They also changed the wording on the range, which caused some initial confusion but doesn't seem to have any actual gameplay implications.)

JC said in Twitter that as DM he'd probably allow a player to use shadow blade and booming blade together. To me, though, that isn't really him "backtracking" - that seems more like him saying, "These spells don't technically work together RAW anymore but a nice DM might let you use them together anyway." Unless there's more to this debate that I'm missing.

Crawford's twitter is no longer considered official rulings anymore, he's just giving his opinion as a DM.

[Evaar]

Crawford's twitter is no longer considered official rulings anymore, he's just giving his opinion as a DM.

Right. He told us what the intent of the change was - to close a loophole that no one thought was a loophole. Specifically, because the component was a weapon and didn’t specify a value, they wanted to make clear that you can’t just produce that weapon for free from a component pouch.

No one thought you could do that, but they felt a need to fix it anyway and in so doing created a host of actual issues that have less obvious answers for DMs to figure out. Can a psychic blade be used for Booming Blade? Shadow Blade? Natural weapons? What’s the value of a magic item? What about improvised weapons? Etc etc.

[loki_ragnarock]

It's certainly never been useful to kite enemies, act first or get to use your core ability when fighting an enemy on your own!

Not sure if I'm using blue text correctly but you get the idea, to say that soulknife is breaking new ground but ignore what swashbuckler can do is deliberately ignoring what other subclasses can do for you to try and make a point.


Huh. That's an interesting takeaway. Did you stop reading at some point? Or did I sufficiently obfuscate my meaning with layers of silliness? Either way, a correction is in order.

I actually brought it up as a point of comparison because I'm pointing out that the soulknife isn't really doing anything new in that regard, just different from core assumptions. I think in that same post I say that they're in the same conceptual vein for expanding the instances in which one can sneak attack. I think they compare favorably, as the ability reads in Tasha's; they both increase the instances in which a character can sneak attack, making the ability more flexible. "I can sneak attack when dueling someone" vs "I can sneak attack disarmed and bucknekkid." There's parity there.
I do think the soulknife is breaking new ground; the psychic knives aren't it, though. It's not the psychic knives that're class defining; the theme is psychic, not knives. The emphasis is on *soul*, not knife. Knife might be in the name, but just wait till you find out Champion doesn't give you any abilities that demonstrate you are the very best good boy from the American Kennel Club.
(I also don't use the blue text, so I'm likewise unsure if I'm using it right; everything I say and write is so tinted by mirth that maybe I should be using it exclusively? But also, now I want to play a character that is the very best good boy from the American Kennel Club, so does it really qualify as sarcasm?)

But the idea that the Soulknife somehow doesn't get to use most of their rogue features without opportunity attacks? Nah, dawg. Context of the base rogue chassis doesn't support that position in the least, and the context provided by their near peers don't really support that, either. It's a perfectly viable ability as it is. It gives you a pew-pew that you can use without penalty in melee range that you're always armed with; it puts darts to shame, and makes dagger ranged attacks look like weaksauce when you take into account the action economy required for drawing them. You can kite with it almost as well as a shortbow, but getting stuck in melee with it doesn't impart disadvantage, *and* you can attack twice a round sans a deep multi-class. You don't ever need to drop it, you can never be disarmed, you don't even need to wield it if the situation doesn't call for it, and your murder weapon can never really be traced to you so long as you ice the witnesses because it ceases to exist the moment it's done the dirty work. You can take the clothes of whoever you subdued to incorporate into your new disguise with impunity because you've left zero marks and spilled zero blood, and when they find your victim whoever is investigating will have a devil of a time identifying how they were killed, let alone who killed them. Also, it does psychic damage.
The whole package is solid. It doesn't *need* the upgrade to be a serviceable ability; it serves remarkably well already, even without benefiting off turn sneak attacks. It's got solid mechanical boons and "ribbon" applications that make it compelling without totally obviating all other possible options, which I think is generally good design.

In short, I think it's balanced as it is. And if you really need to benefit from doing off turn sneak attacks, the "I drop my dagger, pew-pew, and pick it up again as my interact with object so Owen the Order Cleric can let me off turn sneak attack" is just as easily depicted as the supremely badass "I flip my dagger in the air, hurl a blast of psionic energy against a distant foe across the room, take two steps to jab another fella in the gut with a psionic fist while the tossed dagger lands in my other outstretched hand, only to seamlessly bury it in someone when Owen the Order Cleric yells a warning at me."

The "absurd" sequence is pure Jedi smoothness when you aren't obsessed with labeling it absurd; Jedi are absurd, yeah, but some people find that sort of absurd cool. It's an attack sequence you simply can't do with a bow. It's a sequence that would be impossible to do with a brace of daggers without a specific fighting style for any other rogue; losing a level to multi-classing or an ASI to a feat. It's a sequence that is *uniquely* in the wheel house of the Soulknife. Yeah, you must carry a dagger to be perfectly optimized (or a short sword, or a rapier, whatever; daggers - as Roxette would say - got the look), but optimized isn't a requirement. A character can abstain from carrying a dagger and be perfectly fine just relying on the ability provided by the subclass, but are even better at the action movie shenanigans than most rogues - except maybe the swashbuckler - just by picking up a knife and flipping it in the air.

I suppose most of what I wrote was a bit more oblique, but the ability in the context of what other rogues can do is perfectly fine. As it is. No upgrade needed.

-----------------------
Further, many of the complaints about how it doesn't ever upgrade when compared to using magic weapons aren't addressed by making it compatible with opportunity attacks; the soulknife is still better served by carrying that magic dagger for much of their career, anyway. Fixing that "issue" would require a total rethink of the class, one where the soul loses out to the knife. I doubt I'd like the result as much.
-----------------------

As for "who would play a spy-thriller with D&D," maybe the same people who used it as a mechanism to explore dynastic responsibility and obligation, and the nature of state level power?

Regardless, it's a much easier proposition when characters can be in multiple locations, doing multiple things, while still being in perfect communication with each other; soulknife gets that, no one else does. To me, that's subclass defining because it naturally opens up a whole style of gameplay that would otherwise be difficult.
The knives? The knives are the ribbon.

[noob]

The knives? The knives are the ribbon.
That is exactly the problem: it is not a psionic rogue but a soulknife but yet the knife is irrelevant.
If they removed the knife and called it psionic rogue it would be fine but right now it seems it is supposed to uphold the legacy of the previous soulknives that got average knives but made out of psionics.
I think the psionic knife should be a feat and that the psionic rogue should get something else.

[Evaar]

The knives? The knives are the ribbon.

First, I'm sorry, but you gotta work on your brevity.

But to respond to this point in particular - if the psychic blades are a ribbon then why do Homing Strikes and Rend Mind only work with them?

(The answer is because they aren't a ribbon, they're a build-around feature that's poorly designed.)

[OracleofWuffing]

Regardless, it's a much easier proposition when characters can be in multiple locations, doing multiple things, while still being in perfect communication with each other; soulknife gets that, no one else does. To me, that's subclass defining because it naturally opens up a whole style of gameplay that would otherwise be difficult.
The knives? The knives are the ribbon.
A ribbon that encourages you to split the party and play differently from the rest of table? Yeah, in that case, I'm all for DMs ruling a nerf that allows psychic blades for other weapon attacks just to stop those shenanigans.

[Segev]

A ribbon that encourages you to split the party and play differently from the rest of table? Yeah, in that case, I'm all for DMs ruling a nerf that allows psychic blades for other weapon attacks just to stop those shenanigans.

I want to agree with this, but I'm confused by your use of the term "nerf," here. My confusion makes me wonder if I'm misunderstanding you. Could you please clarify?

[quindraco]

Regardless, it's a much easier proposition when characters can be in multiple locations, doing multiple things, while still being in perfect communication with each other; soulknife gets that, no one else does. To me, that's subclass defining because it naturally opens up a whole style of gameplay that would otherwise be difficult.

Soulknives don't get what you described.

Soulknives get a communication hub, which is absolutely not perfect communication. Everyone in the network can talk to the Soulknife and the Soulknife can talk to everyone, but members who are not the hub cannot talk directly to other members who are not the hub. One of the consequences is that communication is generally bottlenecked: if Adam wants to talk to Bob through Carl, the message will send on Adam's turn and deliver on Bob's, assuming the Soulknife is faithful, and Bob's reply suffers the same bottleneck.

Still, I think the communications network is, in practice, more subclass-defining than the psychic knives, because they messed up the wording on the psychic knives. You're definitely wrong about the ribbon thing: they intended the blades to be subclass-defining, or the subclass wouldn't be reliant on them for the L9 and L17 subclass features.

The most powerful ability Soulknives get is, I maintain, L3 access to a radically inferior version of the L14 Lore Bard ability, because it stacks. Soulknives now own access to the highest ability checks in the game, assuming you're applying buffs - I think we're up to 1d20(reliable from self, advantage from bard) + 2d4 (peace cleric + guidance) + 1d4 (some races, check-specific) + proficiency*2 (self) + stat modifier + some magic items + inspiration (bard) + knack (self), or, at high level:

max(10,2d20 keep highest) + 3d4 + 2d12 + 12 + 5 + magic items, or on average a solid 52 + items (min 32, max 73).

[loki_ragnarock]

First, I'm sorry, but you gotta work on your brevity.

But to respond to this point in particular - if the psychic blades are a ribbon then why do Homing Strikes and Rend Mind only work with them?

(The answer is because they aren't a ribbon, they're a build-around feature that's poorly designed.)
If favored enemy is a ribbon, then why does Foe Slayer only work with it? And yet, people make that claim here frequently. There are whole threads that devolve into that exact argument, except for rangers. Ribbon doesn't really have a set meaning, so far as I can tell from context.

Psychic Blades are a ribbon to me because they don't define a playstyle. Stabby-rogue already exists, slightly different ways to stab are boring, and do nothing to redefine anything about the rogue. Making adjustments to make this an ever so slightly more stabby-rogue would continue to be boring; they are already better than alot of stabby rogues at being stabby, for the reasons listed so briefly above. But that doesn't redefine the way you can take on the world. Being able to constantly communicate silently with dispersed units? The tactical and strategic implications of that are enough to change the way you play the game; that's the kind of thing that defines a class. That's the kind of thing that makes Soul Knife unique.

The theme is soul, not knife. If you want knife to be the singular or even the primary focus, you've got a fighter kit. As it is we have a class that reads "I don't fail" as their central theme, which is a more rogue kit. I read it and see a rogue kit.
In order:
"I don't fail."
"I redefine team play."
"Stabby knives that are better than most weapons that rogues have access to in most capacities while not totally overshadowing them in *every* way while packing a tonne of flavor. Nicely done, that's a finely threaded needle."
"I don't fail, but at stabbing this time, continuing a theme established by the first ability more than the third ability."
"New use of cunning action that's could put Dash to shame or leave them flummoxed, that's pretty cool. I mean, it's not misty step but it's close, but it suffers from alot of needless rolling like much of the stuff that made it into Tasha's. Regardless, a great way to break a grapple for free."
"Invisibility... okay, I guess they ran out of ideas here, why they think a second level spell a couple of times a day is the bees knees is beyond me. I guess they could potentially cast it more often than an AT, but that would really pigeon hole them into only doing that. They should take a second swing at this feature, because they missed me with this,"
"Stunning strike, but not as good, for a rogue. Well, it's something; rogues aren't really meant to be offensive maestros, but throwing them a bone is probably for the best."

That basically reads like a rogue kit. Two "I don't fail" abilities - echoes of reliable talent and stroke of luck - very rogue-y. A movement power reminiscent of cunning action combining dash and disengage into one, very rogue-y. A stealth power that sort of doubles as a defense power, easily countered by myriad things by that level; boooooooooooooring but rogue-y. And three offensive powers; psychic pew-pew, psychic pew-pew with proper sights, and pew-pew rings a bell, spread out over a broad area.
That's about the right ratio for a rogue. It's also about the right weight for combat focus in a rogue. It's got one ability that overshadows them all and makes the class its own thing.

Honestly, the only bit I'd argue needs changed is that level 13 ability. Invisibility? 6 levels after an AT gets it? Lame. But even though I think it's lame, I also don't think it's errata worthy. Though the more I think about it, the more I see the synergy between it and their 17th level ability, which makes both of them better in total. Serviceable, I suppose.

That said, you see psychic blades as a build-around feature poorly designed. I see it as a masterclass in design. Just because the ability doesn't immediately lend itself to a commonly exploited DPR booster isn't a bad thing. Of course, that it does nothing to *stop* a commonly exploited DPR booster isn't a bad thing, either; you just need to grab a sole blade.

[OracleofWuffing]

I want to agree with this, but I'm confused by your use of the term "nerf," here. My confusion makes me wonder if I'm misunderstanding you. Could you please clarify?
I'm under the impression that "nerf" implies a reduction in capability, at least in the context of game mechanics. All other things equal: if a ruling reduced the damage of a damage dealing character, that's a nerf; if a ruling reduced the amount of spells a spellcaster had, that's a nerf; and if a ruling reduced the amount of skills a skillmonkey could have, that's a nerf. So, I say that a ruling that prevents a spy from being a spy is also a nerf.

Like you, I do not fully comprehend the reasons why the ruling prevents the Soulknife from being a spy. I make no declaration that the Soulknife should or should not be a spy, but it is apparent from discussion that it is possible and this ruling, somehow, would interfere with it.

Naturally, the ruling carries all your standard caveats with it. DMs should be upfront at game zero about their intentions to decisively alter how a ribbon changes the very being of a class. Players should always clear ambiguities with their DMs before trying things. Stay hydrated, but don't overhydrate. If a rash appears, consider contacting a physician.

[Segev]

If favored enemy is a ribbon, then why does Foe Slayer only work with it? And yet, people make that claim here frequently.

I believe the point being made when people say that lies in the fact that they're saying it derisively: Favored Enemy wasn't intended to be a ribbon, but effectively is so weak that it is only as good as one.

I don't think the mind blade feature is actually as weak as favored enemy. But I also think that it was meant to be subclass-defining, NOT a ribbon.

[loki_ragnarock]

Soulknives don't get what you described.

True.
Once it's combat rounds, sure, but even then it's not that onerous when thinking is a free action. Outside of combat it's a pretty flawless radio, if dependent on the operator.


Still, I think the communications network is, in practice, more subclass-defining than the psychic knives, because they messed up the wording on the psychic knives. You're definitely wrong about the ribbon thing: they intended the blades to be subclass-defining, or the subclass wouldn't be reliant on them for the L9 and L17 subclass features.
Eh, one of the two features at 9 is dependent on the knives. The other is a movement power that got tied in because shoving in two features at 9 is gauche; no other subclass pre-Tasha's tries to pull that. Pretending it's a blade power is the sad justification for ability creep, really. And if forced to choose between the two to stay true to precedent... I'd rather have the teleport. Meaningful accuracy is already supplied by the 3rd level ability's second attack.


The most powerful ability Soulknives get is, I maintain, L3 access to a radically inferior version of the L14 Lore Bard ability, because it stacks. Soulknives now own access to the highest ability checks in the game, assuming you're applying buffs - I think we're up to 1d20(reliable from self, advantage from bard) + 2d4 (peace cleric + guidance) + 1d4 (some races, check-specific) + proficiency*2 (self) + stat modifier + some magic items + inspiration (bard) + knack (self), or, at high level:

max(10,2d20 keep highest) + 3d4 + 2d12 + 12 + 5 + magic items, or on average a solid 52 + items (min 32, max 73).

I agree, mostly. It's like they watched the threads here where people were all "Lore bard is better than a rogue at being a skill guy" and said to themselves, "Oh, we will friggan see about that come the next book, I'll tell you what." The ability reads like a patch to help that in isolation, but in combination with all the other optional rules introduced over time... game seems to be stretching it's systems at the seams.

The ability is a bit better than the lore bard ability in some ways; it isn't expended if you still manage to fail. You only ever have to *try* to expend it if you fail. That makes it a little less good at generically pumping up absurd numbers, but numbers become meaningless after DC 30 unless it's an opposed check between PCs; I've been assured that rolling into the next tier of success higher than "practically impossible" does not mean you are allowed to do the impossible, while monsters and NPCs don't got the juice to oppose over 30. (Minus an edge case I'm unfamiliar with.)
"I never fail" is a pretty cool schtick, all told. It's very on brand for a rogue... they're just getting it hella early, because I think it maps a little closer to - and is probably better than, in some ways, and certainly synergizes with - reliable talent. Mostly it encourages the character to shoot for the moon or try the nearly impossible from an earlier point in their career; the sort of thing you'd want from someone with a magical brain.

Player - What I would like to do, having been discovered where I shouldn't be, is convince the guard that he's asleep on duty and just having a dream, and that I'm a part of his subconscious telling him to stop dreaming about work because he spends enough waking hours here and maybe he should dream about visiting the tavern instead.
DM - I'm ruling that as nearly impossible. DC 30 Persuasion.
Players - Excellent. I feel like I've got a good shot at this. Ah, 25, a failure. Let's add six to that for a 31.
DM - Well, with the aid of your magical brain playing at the edges of his awareness to induce a facsimile of a dream state, he wanders off his shift and to his favorite tavern while flipping the bird to his coworkers, convinced that there will be no consequences for these actions, as this is a dream and he hates Larry, which you know because he tells Larry loudly and colorfully before exiting. Lose your psi-die.

Player - I would like to leap across this chasm.
DM - There are rules for how far you can leap. It's strength based. But sure, like many DMs I'll let you roll to see if you can make it or not. But as I give with one hand, I shall take with the other; I'm ruling that nearly impossible. DC 30 Athletics.
Player- Huzzah! I shall see you on the other side, knaves! A 26, failure. *Gasp* But lets add four to that for a 30!
DM - You leap into the night sky, an act of suicide that draws in a collective gasp of breath from the assembled knaves. Using your enormous, magical brain, you pyrokinetically ignite the fart you've psychometabolized out of your booty with the force of a jet, propelling you the last few feet to your final destination. The knaves are astounded. Surely they will tell stories of the blazing butt bandit for all time. Lose your psi-die.
Player - I... am famous now?

It's kind of glorious in it's flexibility for representing psionic acumen. Roll, fail, something magic brainy happens, success. It sort of rewards moonshots most, even if most DMs are going to go Jedi rather than puerile.

[J-H]

I just wish it was a decent melee weapon. Unfortunately, it's written as a throwing weapon, where you're throwing around little psychic daggers instead of manifesting a personal lightsaber.

Bleh.

[Selion]

If favored enemy is a ribbon, then why does Foe Slayer only work with it? And yet, people make that claim here frequently. There are whole threads that devolve into that exact argument, except for rangers. Ribbon doesn't really have a set meaning, so far as I can tell from context.

Psychic Blades are a ribbon to me because they don't define a playstyle. Stabby-rogue already exists, slightly different ways to stab are boring, and do nothing to redefine anything about the rogue. Making adjustments to make this an ever so slightly more stabby-rogue would continue to be boring; they are already better than alot of stabby rogues at being stabby, for the reasons listed so briefly above. But that doesn't redefine the way you can take on the world. Being able to constantly communicate silently with dispersed units? The tactical and strategic implications of that are enough to change the way you play the game; that's the kind of thing that defines a class. That's the kind of thing that makes Soul Knife unique.

The theme is soul, not knife. If you want knife to be the singular or even the primary focus, you've got a fighter kit. As it is we have a class that reads "I don't fail" as their central theme, which is a more rogue kit. I read it and see a rogue kit.
In order:
"I don't fail."
"I redefine team play."
"Stabby knives that are better than most weapons that rogues have access to in most capacities while not totally overshadowing them in *every* way while packing a tonne of flavor. Nicely done, that's a finely threaded needle."
"I don't fail, but at stabbing this time, continuing a theme established by the first ability more than the third ability."
"New use of cunning action that's could put Dash to shame or leave them flummoxed, that's pretty cool. I mean, it's not misty step but it's close, but it suffers from alot of needless rolling like much of the stuff that made it into Tasha's. Regardless, a great way to break a grapple for free."
"Invisibility... okay, I guess they ran out of ideas here, why they think a second level spell a couple of times a day is the bees knees is beyond me. I guess they could potentially cast it more often than an AT, but that would really pigeon hole them into only doing that. They should take a second swing at this feature, because they missed me with this,"
"Stunning strike, but not as good, for a rogue. Well, it's something; rogues aren't really meant to be offensive maestros, but throwing them a bone is probably for the best."

That basically reads like a rogue kit. Two "I don't fail" abilities - echoes of reliable talent and stroke of luck - very rogue-y. A movement power reminiscent of cunning action combining dash and disengage into one, very rogue-y. A stealth power that sort of doubles as a defense power, easily countered by myriad things by that level; boooooooooooooring but rogue-y. And three offensive powers; psychic pew-pew, psychic pew-pew with proper sights, and pew-pew rings a bell, spread out over a broad area.
That's about the right ratio for a rogue. It's also about the right weight for combat focus in a rogue. It's got one ability that overshadows them all and makes the class its own thing.

Honestly, the only bit I'd argue needs changed is that level 13 ability. Invisibility? 6 levels after an AT gets it? Lame. But even though I think it's lame, I also don't think it's errata worthy. Though the more I think about it, the more I see the synergy between it and their 17th level ability, which makes both of them better in total. Serviceable, I suppose.

That said, you see psychic blades as a build-around feature poorly designed. I see it as a masterclass in design. Just because the ability doesn't immediately lend itself to a commonly exploited DPR booster isn't a bad thing. Of course, that it does nothing to *stop* a commonly exploited DPR booster isn't a bad thing, either; you just need to grab a sole blade.

I agree that psi blades are not the best thing in this class, but it's clearly one of its defining features. Developers just have been shy because they didn't want to give the class nice utility powers and better striking abilities in respect to other rogue subclasses, but I think the limitations are not on purpose, they wanted a psychic damage rogue with a few goodies, they failed in delivering its combat abilities and nailed the utility side.
Furthermore its abilities are not that unique, SK telepathy is one of the best available by level 3, but eventually a wizard casting rary's telepathyc bond by ritual would overshadow completely this power. Skill bonuses are good, but a bard could be a skill monkey just as good as a SK. Of course bards and wizards are top notch in utility, SK just reduce the gap in respect to other rogues, which is good, but it's not exceptional.

[LudicSavant]

I don't know, I kind of like it the way it is. I know. Boo. Hiss.


Just because the ability doesn't immediately lend itself to a commonly exploited DPR booster isn't a bad thing.

The Soulknife does not "prevent a DPR exploit." You can do reaction attacks as a Soulknife, you are just encouraged by its bizarre wording to do it in a particularly silly and immersion-breaking way involving drawing and dropping non-psychic knives. If the devs had actually wanted to stop off-turn sneak attacks, all they would have had to do is change one line, not create this mess.

What it's actually doing is preventing your weapon from acting like a weapon, and thus breaking half the interactions with the rest of the system (including both helpful and harmful effects to the Rogue player, from themselves, allies, and enemies) in a way that cannot be explained in-character any time it comes up. Tons of mechanical interactions with attacks simply do not function as a result of its uniquely janky wording.

The issue isn't balance, it's janky spaghetti code.

And, as others have been saying, fixing the spaghetti code would not somehow prevent them from doing any of the spy stuff you've talked about. If anything, it would make them do those things more cleanly.

If it was actually supposed to be a slow, one-shot derringer, then... sure, you could redesign it to work like that if you wanted, but that's not how it actually performs right now (you can use Psychic Blades multiple times a round, at-will, and they still work with Haste and such). It just performs like it's glitching out.

[Unoriginal]

The Soulknife does not "prevent a DPR exploit." You can do reaction attacks as a Soulknife, you are just encouraged by its bizarre wording to do it in a particularly silly and immersion-breaking way involving drawing and dropping non-psychic knives. If the devs had actually wanted to stop off-turn sneak attacks, all they would have had to do is change one line, not create this mess.

What it's actually doing is preventing your weapon from acting like a weapon, and thus breaking half the interactions with the rest of the system (including both helpful and harmful effects to the Rogue player, from themselves, allies, and enemies) in a way that cannot be explained in-character any time it comes up. Tons of mechanical interactions with attacks simply do not function as a result of its uniquely janky wording.

The issue isn't balance, it's janky spaghetti code.

And, as others have been saying, fixing the spaghetti code would not somehow prevent them from doing any of the spy stuff you've talked about. If anything, it would make them do those things more cleanly.

If it was actually supposed to be a slow, one-shot derringer, then... sure, you could redesign it to work like that if you wanted, but that's not how it actually performs right now (you can use Psychic Blades multiple times a round, at-will, and they still work with Haste and such). It just performs like it's glitching out.

There is no mess nor spaghetti code. The ability is clear, the rules are clear.

Wanting to dig a hole after you've been given a hammer does not make it a bad hammer. The Psychic Blade works as indented, and without issue within what is intended.

"It is frustrating that the Soulknife subclass doesn't let my Rogue do opportunity attacks unless I don't use its signature feature" is an opinion, and an understandable one. "The Soulknife subclass breaks half the interactions with the rest of the system" or "the Soulknife subclass encourages you to do something silly and immersion-breaking to get your opportunity attacks" are simply factually incorrect statements.

The Soulknife discourages you from seeking to do opportunity attacks, by encouraging the character to focus on an Attack-action-second-attack-bonus-action-with-both-hands-free method for DPR that doesn't allow opportunity attacks.

Again, I'm not saying that anyone has to like it. But if you don't like the chocolate ice cream you're served, saying "this vanilla ice cream is terrible" is simply incorrect.

[LudicSavant]

Wanting to dig a hole after you've been given a hammer does not make it a bad hammer. If it worked like a hammer everyone in this thread would be happy. :smalltongue:


The Soulknife discourages you from seeking to do opportunity attacks, by encouraging the character to focus on an Attack-action-second-attack-bonus-action-with-both-hands-free method for DPR that doesn't allow opportunity attacks.

The truth is quite the opposite. The Soulknife-as-written has every bit as much mechanical incentive to seek opportunity attacks as other Rogues do, despite the fact that their Psychic Blades cannot be used on said opportunity attacks. They just use regular blades for it.


"the Soulknife subclass encourages you to do something silly and immersion-breaking to get your opportunity attacks"

The incentive to do said thing is a direct result of the Soulknife's wording -- if that wording did not exist, there would be no incentive to do that thing.


"The Soulknife subclass breaks half the interactions with the rest of the system"

When I say it breaks off mechanical interactions with the rest of the system, I mean this:


Tons of mechanical interactions with attacks simply do not function as a result of its uniquely janky wording.

The Soulknife does, in fact, make it so that mechanical interactions with every element of the system that involve weapon attacks outside of the Attack action (which is a lot of interactions, much more than just opportunity attacks) do not function with Pyschic Blades. It's not just opportunity attacks, it's a bloody ton of things. Every single rule that says you make a weapon attack (instead of saying you make the Attack action). Everything from opportunity attacks to Inspiring Surge to Confusion to Vengeful Assault and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. It's not a short list.

That is simply a fact written in the rulebooks, regardless of your statement to the contrary.

[Unoriginal]

When I say it breaks off mechanical interactions with the rest of the system, I mean this:



The Soulknife does, in fact, make it so that mechanical interactions with every element of the system that involve weapon attacks outside of the Attack action (which is a lot of interactions, much more than just opportunity attacks) do not function with Pyschic Blades. It's not just opportunity attacks, it's a bloody ton of things. Every single ability that says you make a weapon attack (instead of saying you make the Attack action). Everything from opportunity attacks to Inspiring Surge to Confusion to Vengeful Assault and so on and so on and so on and so on and son on.

That is simply a fact written in the rulebooks, regardless of your statement to the contrary.

Indeed, Psychic Blades do not interact with every element on the system that involves weapon attacks outside of the Attack action.

It does not *break* anything. "No interaction" does not mean "broken game element".

[Evaar]

Indeed, Psychic Blades do not interact with every element on the system that involves weapon attacks outside of the Attack action.

It does not *break* anything. "No interaction" does not mean "broken game element".

We're not saying it's "broken." We're saying it's badly designed. It should interact with those other features. There's no good reason it shouldn't. The Soulknife isn't somehow so superior to the other Rogue subclasses that there's a balance related reason to prevent them from getting effective off-turn attacks with their defining feature when grouped with, say, an Order Cleric. And yet that is the result of the way the rules are written. Thus, poor design.

Yes it does what it says. What it says is counterintuitive, unnecessarily limiting, and incentivizes silly workarounds like weapon juggling.

[loki_ragnarock]

The Soulknife does not "prevent a DPR exploit." You can do reaction attacks as a Soulknife, you are just encouraged by its bizarre wording to do it in a particularly silly and immersion-breaking way involving drawing and dropping non-psychic knives. If the devs had actually wanted to stop off-turn sneak attacks, all they would have had to do is change one line, not create this mess.
.
To be fair, I don't claim it prevents a DPR exploit. The ability just doesn't lend itself to such.

I mean, I'd been sitting on this pun for *pages*, but I did put it out there:

Of course, that it does nothing to *stop* a commonly exploited DPR booster isn't a bad thing, either; you just need to grab a sole blade.

[Theodoxus]

Indeed, Psychic Blades do not interact with every element on the system that involves weapon attacks outside of the Attack action.

It does not *break* anything. "No interaction" does not mean "broken game element".

Ok, you're arguing that as written, it's not broken. Would you find the subclass overpowered if the wording were simply "Whenever you make an attack..."?

Yes, this would massively expand what you can use psychic blades on. Basically everything outside of the blade cantrips thanks to lack of material cost. But it's a d6. Most Rogues would find greater benefit from a rapier for melee attacks or a longbow if an elf or obtained martial proficiency in one of the myriad ways you can... But as written, Loki's correct, it's a ribbon. Unless you're gaining a benefit from using psychic damage specifically, there are better options more often than not - which then begs the question, what's the point of the subclass. If it's just telepathic communication, there are better options that don't leave you missing out on better Rogue subclass abilities. If it's the psychic bonuses to skills... there are better ways to go about that, that again don't leave you missing out on better Rogue subclasses.

And I think Loki's right - it should have been called the Psychic Rogue. Emphasizing the name of the subclass on knives, that are ridiculously underpowered is the epitome of a trap choice.

[Rukelnikov]

Ok, you're arguing that as written, it's not broken. Would you find the subclass overpowered if the wording were simply "Whenever you make an attack..."?

Yes, this would massively expand what you can use psychic blades on. Basically everything outside of the blade cantrips thanks to lack of material cost. But it's a d6. Most Rogues would find greater benefit from a rapier for melee attacks or a longbow if an elf or obtained martial proficiency in one of the myriad ways you can... But as written, Loki's correct, it's a ribbon. Unless you're gaining a benefit from using psychic damage specifically, there are better options more often than not - which then begs the question, what's the point of the subclass. If it's just telepathic communication, there are better options that don't leave you missing out on better Rogue subclass abilities. If it's the psychic bonuses to skills... there are better ways to go about that, that again don't leave you missing out on better Rogue subclasses.

And I think Loki's right - it should have been called the Psychic Rogue. Emphasizing the name of the subclass on knives, that are ridiculously underpowered is the epitome of a trap choice.

That wording would not require taking the Attack action, which means you could cast Eldritch Blast and replace each beam with a Psychic Blade attack, which means better attack progression than a fighter, AND if you combine it with sorcerer for quicken, it would get pretty nuts.

If the effect you are looking for is to have it behave like a weapon, just say that "you can summon/dismiss your blades as a free action".

[Valmark]

That wording would not require taking the Attack action, which means you could cast Eldritch Blast and replace each beam with a Psychic Blade attack, which means better attack progression than a fighter, AND if you combine it with sorcerer for quicken, it would get pretty nuts.

If the effect you are looking for is to have it behave like a weapon, just say that "you can summon/dismiss your blades as a free action".

That wouldn't fix anything would it? Though if it was a problem one could simply say to substitute it to weapon attacks and not just attacks.

[Rukelnikov]

That wouldn't fix anything would it? Though if it was a problem one could simply say to substitute it to weapon attacks and not just attacks.

I meant keep the stats, replace the way you access the blades.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action, As a free action you can manifest a psychic blade from your each free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6."

That way its a normal weapon, it deals 1 more damage on average if you dual wield. You can rewrite that part too instead of scratching it, but seems unnecessary.

[Theodoxus]

That wording would not require taking the Attack action, which means you could cast Eldritch Blast and replace each beam with a Psychic Blade attack, which means better attack progression than a fighter, AND if you combine it with sorcerer for quicken, it would get pretty nuts.

If the effect you are looking for is to have it behave like a weapon, just say that "you can summon/dismiss your blades as a free action".

I reject this reading of EB. The order of operation isn't arbitrary. The spell first requires you to make a ranged spell attack. Even then, "make a separate attack roll for each beam" doesn't allow you to change beam to any other kind of attack.

[Rukelnikov]

I reject this reading of EB. The order of operation isn't arbitrary. The spell first requires you to make a ranged spell attack. Even then, "make a separate attack roll for each beam" doesn't allow you to change beam to any other kind of attack.

If a feature says "whenever you make an attack", any spell that makes an attack roll is fulfilling the condition. Why do you suggest it doesn't work?

[Theodoxus]

{Scrubbed} I said what I said.

[Rukelnikov]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} I said what I said.


I reject this reading of EB. The order of operation isn't arbitrary. The spell first requires you to make a ranged spell attack. Even then, "make a separate attack roll for each beam" doesn't allow you to change beam to any other kind of attack.

I don't see how order of operations has anything to do

Action, Cast a Spell(Fire Bolt)
Fire Bolt calls for an attack
Any feature that says whenever you make an attack is applicable now.

[Theodoxus]

I don't see how order of operations has anything to do

Action, Cast a Spell(Fire Bolt)
Fire Bolt calls for an attack
Any feature that says whenever you make an attack is applicable now.

No, Fire Bolt calls specifically for a ranged spell attack. You can't just swap out a ranged spell attack for any old attack you want.

It's a bad example, nowhere in the cantrip description does it ever say simply 'attack roll' unlike EB, which only states 'attack roll' at the end, regarding multiple beams.

And order of operation is important with EB, because, as I note above, it starts with "make a ranged spell attack." And again, you can't swap out any other type of attack. Else rules don't matter. Words don't matter.

[Segev]

Here, I think, is how I would propose rewording/reworking the feature. I borrowed from LudicSavant's idea of stealing wording from Dragon Hide, and I massaged the language a little bit in the ability to make it work more smoothly with other mechanics in the game:


Psychic Blades
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Summoning or banishing one of these blades requires no action, but you must have a hand free to summon it. You are always considered armed if you have a hand available to summon your blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse, light, and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage, and it vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target if it is not in your hand, or if you let go of it for any reason other than to throw it.

If you use this blade in a bonus action attack granted by dual wielding, the damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

You still CAN summon it right before and banish it right after an attack. I removed the extra "you can attack as a bonus action" clause and simply lean on the dual-wielding rules, adding the Light tag to the blade so it can be used in conjunction with other weapons should you so desire. I added the language about always being considered armed for clarity; it is technically true anyway since you can, with no action, manifest the blade at any point to be armed at a key instant.

Are there any holes in this? Does it break anything?

[Rukelnikov]

Here, I think, is how I would propose rewording/reworking the feature. I borrowed from LudicSavant's idea of stealing wording from Dragon Hide, and I massaged the language a little bit in the ability to make it work more smoothly with other mechanics in the game:


Psychic Blades
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Summoning or banishing one of these blades requires no action, but you must have a hand free to summon it. You are always considered armed if you have a hand available to summon your blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse, light, and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage, and it vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target if it is not in your hand, or if you let go of it for any reason other than to throw it.

If you use this blade in a bonus action attack granted by dual wielding, the damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

You still CAN summon it right before and banish it right after an attack. I removed the extra "you can attack as a bonus action" clause and simply lean on the dual-wielding rules, adding the Light tag to the blade so it can be used in conjunction with other weapons should you so desire. I added the language about always being considered armed for clarity; it is technically true anyway since you can, with no action, manifest the blade at any point to be armed at a key instant.

Are there any holes in this? Does it break anything?

I don't think it breaks anything, nothing that comes to mind right now at least. But you lose attribute to damage of dual wielding attack since now you are relying on those rules, maybe clarify that you can summon one in each hand, and if you do so, both can add attribute to damage?


No, Fire Bolt calls specifically for a ranged spell attack. You can't just swap out a ranged spell attack for any old attack you want.

It's a bad example, nowhere in the cantrip description does it ever say simply 'attack roll' unlike EB, which only states 'attack roll' at the end, regarding multiple beams.

And order of operation is important with EB, because, as I note above, it starts with "make a ranged spell attack." And again, you can't swap out any other type of attack. Else rules don't matter. Words don't matter.

Eh... okay...

[Valmark]

I meant keep the stats, replace the way you access the blades.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action, As a free action you can manifest a psychic blade from your each free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6."

That way its a normal weapon, it deals 1 more damage on average if you dual wield. You can rewrite that part too instead of scratching it, but seems unnecessary.

Ah I see, that makes a lot of sense! Sorry for the confusion.


No, Fire Bolt calls specifically for a ranged spell attack. You can't just swap out a ranged spell attack for any old attack you want.

It's a bad example, nowhere in the cantrip description does it ever say simply 'attack roll' unlike EB, which only states 'attack roll' at the end, regarding multiple beams.

And order of operation is important with EB, because, as I note above, it starts with "make a ranged spell attack." And again, you can't swap out any other type of attack. Else rules don't matter. Words don't matter.

I think you're getting the terminology mixed up. Your proposed change was to be able to use the Knife for attacks- that means it applies to any attack.

Homewever you now seem (to me) to be saying that since it's a spell attack you can't use a weapon- which isn't at all what your proposed change does. For that you should have said "Whenever you make a weapon attack". Was that what you meant?

[Segev]

Had a realization: Psychic Blades are simple melee weapons. That means they're Monk weapons.

A monk / Soul Knife can improve the damage on his psychic blades with his monk damage die, which applies as early as level 5 when he uses the bonus action attack with an off-hand psychic blade.

Not sure how useful that is overall, since monks already are "always armed" thanks to their unarmed strikes, but it does make for an extra damage type they can choose from.

[Valmark]

Had a realization: Psychic Blades are simple melee weapons. That means they're Monk weapons.

A monk / Soul Knife can improve the damage on his psychic blades with his monk damage die, which applies as early as level 5 when he uses the bonus action attack with an off-hand psychic blade.

Not sure how useful that is overall, since monks already are "always armed" thanks to their unarmed strikes, but it does make for an extra damage type they can choose from.

I think it would be as early as level 8- you need 3 levels of rogue in addition to the 5 needed for the d6 die.

Shame you can't combine it with Kensei (as far as I can see)- not particularly effective but pretty flavorful.

[Segev]

I think it would be as early as level 8- you need 3 levels of rogue in addition to the 5 needed for the d6 die.

Shame you can't combine it with Kensei (as far as I can see)- not particularly effective but pretty flavorful.

Sorry, you're right. I was thinking of the monk levels only, but yes, you'd need level 8 to have soul knife and the monk levels for the d6 die.

[JackPhoenix]

Assuming there is nothing new besides the reprint and SCAG errata a change was that now Booming Blade requires a weapon with a price as a material component.

The only effect it has is that now Shadowblade cannot be used with BB (or GFB).

JC pretty much went "Oh wait that wasn't intended I'd allow it" if I recall the tweet/tweets correctly.

And the main and actually intended effect is to prevent using BB with arcane foci or pulling infinite number of weapons out of your component pouch.


I meant keep the stats, replace the way you access the blades.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action, As a free action you can manifest a psychic blade from your each free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6."

That way its a normal weapon, it deals 1 more damage on average if you dual wield. You can rewrite that part too instead of scratching it, but seems unnecessary.

Congratulations. You've taken a working feature, and actually broke it (because THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE ACTION IN 5e, AND PEOPLE SHOULD FINALLY REALIZE THAT) because you didn't like how it work.

[Valmark]

And the main and actually intended effect is to prevent using BB with arcane foci or pulling infinite number of weapons out of your component pouch.

All the arcane foci accomplished was occupying your hand- the weapon was already required by the text.

You wouldn't be able to pull out any weapon you haven't purchased since those have a fixed price, so that too wasn't possible beforehand. Is there even a statement? First time I hear that.

Literally the only thing the errata accomplished was forbidding Shadow Blade from working.

EDIT: And the Psyknife and the other weapons without a price.

[Chaos Jackal]

Congratulations. You've taken a working feature, and actually broke it (because THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE ACTION IN 5e, AND PEOPLE SHOULD FINALLY REALIZE THAT) because you didn't like how it work.

Congratulations. You've taken a simple and obvious intent, and actually focused on it in the most deliberately unhelpful way possible.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. You can manifest or dismiss a psychic blade from your free hand. Manifesting or dismissing the blade requires no action. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll.
You can manifest a second blade when you use this feature, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this second blade is 1d4 instead of 1d6. You can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with the second psychic blade as a bonus action."

There. It used the same language as the existing feature, juxtaposed with the language of the Dragon Hide feat already mentioned at least twice in this thread.

Now, can you tell us what your actual problem with wanting the blades to not disappear after attacking is, rather than deliberately getting stuck on language and ignoring intent?

[Segev]

Congratulations. You've taken a working feature, and actually broke it (because THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE ACTION IN 5e, AND PEOPLE SHOULD FINALLY REALIZE THAT) because you didn't like how it work.


Congratulations. You've taken a simple and obvious intent, and actually focused on it in the most deliberately unhelpful way possible.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. You can manifest or dismiss a psychic blade from your free hand. Manifesting or dismissing the blade requires no action. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll.
You can manifest a second blade when you use this feature, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this second blade is 1d4 instead of 1d6."

There. It used the same language as the existing feature, juxtaposed with the language of the Dragon Hide feat already mentioned at least twice in this thread.

Now, can you tell us what your actual problem with wanting the blades to not disappear after attacking is, rather than deliberately getting stuck on language and ignoring intent?

I'd like to add my proposal again, since I am not sure it hasn't been utterly missed in the argument over ... something. It's similar to yours, actually, Chaos Jackal, though I refined it a little by adding the Light tag to the psychic blades and leaning on normal dual-wielding rules rather than ... hm, no, I see why that might be bad. As written, I guess, it actually lets you apply your stat to damage, while mine removes that by leaning on dual wielding. Still, here it is for discussion and comparison purposes. I think I covered all the bases, but I'm not sure:


Here, I think, is how I would propose rewording/reworking the feature. I borrowed from LudicSavant's idea of stealing wording from Dragon Hide, and I massaged the language a little bit in the ability to make it work more smoothly with other mechanics in the game:


Psychic Blades
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Summoning or banishing one of these blades requires no action, but you must have a hand free to summon it. You are always considered armed if you have a hand available to summon your blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse, light, and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage, and it vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target if it is not in your hand, or if you let go of it for any reason other than to throw it.

If you use this blade in a bonus action attack granted by dual wielding, the damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

You still CAN summon it right before and banish it right after an attack. I removed the extra "you can attack as a bonus action" clause and simply lean on the dual-wielding rules, adding the Light tag to the blade so it can be used in conjunction with other weapons should you so desire. I added the language about always being considered armed for clarity; it is technically true anyway since you can, with no action, manifest the blade at any point to be armed at a key instant.

Are there any holes in this? Does it break anything?

[Chaos Jackal]

Yeah, you were the second case of Dragon Hide mentioning Segev; should have made that clear.

Like you said, it's what you decide to lean on. I just went for changing as few things as possible in the language (and in the process neglected to specify that you can attack with the second blade as a bonus action, edited that in).

Bottom line, it's not really hard to make the feature functional outside the rogue's turn, and so far it doesn't seem to be breaking anything if done so.

[JackPhoenix]

All the arcane foci accomplished was occupying your hand- the weapon was already required by the text.

The spell allowed you to make an attack with a weapon. It did not have to be the same as the material component (another thing that changed in the erra


You wouldn't be able to pull out any weapon you haven't purchased since those have a fixed price, so that too wasn't possible beforehand. Is there even a statement? First time I hear that.

"But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell."
"Component Pouch: A component pouch is a small, watertight leather belt pouch that has compartments to hold all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost (as indicated in a spell’s description)."

The spell's description indicates no cost. It doesn't matter weapons have cost listed anywhere else. Hold Person doesn't stop working with a component pouch just because there's a price for iron listed in the trade goods section.


Congratulations. You've taken a simple and obvious intent, and actually focused on it in the most deliberately unhelpful way possible.

No, I completely ignored the intent, not focusing on it at all, because that's not my point.


Now, can you tell us what your actual problem with wanting the blades to not disappear after attacking is, rather than deliberately getting stuck on language and ignoring intent?

Who says I've got a problem with that? I ignore intent because I don't care what are you trying to accomplish, I'm pointing out that the "fix" doesn't work, because it refers to things that don't exist. Which is rather important, considering the thread is all about how the feature works (or doesn't work, or should work) by RAW.

[Evaar]

Here, I think, is how I would propose rewording/reworking the feature. I borrowed from LudicSavant's idea of stealing wording from Dragon Hide, and I massaged the language a little bit in the ability to make it work more smoothly with other mechanics in the game:


Psychic Blades
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Summoning or banishing one of these blades requires no action, but you must have a hand free to summon it. You are always considered armed if you have a hand available to summon your blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse, light, and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage, and it vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target if it is not in your hand, or if you let go of it for any reason other than to throw it.

If you use this blade in a bonus action attack granted by dual wielding, the damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

You still CAN summon it right before and banish it right after an attack. I removed the extra "you can attack as a bonus action" clause and simply lean on the dual-wielding rules, adding the Light tag to the blade so it can be used in conjunction with other weapons should you so desire. I added the language about always being considered armed for clarity; it is technically true anyway since you can, with no action, manifest the blade at any point to be armed at a key instant.

Are there any holes in this? Does it break anything?

I would remove the Light property and add back the bonus action language. It's a different thing, and it's a little confusing to have the Light property but also specify that it deals psychic damage... "plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll." That language is part of the original feature, but I think it's there because of how it works. If you look at a different, similar feature - like the Path of the Beast Claws - it doesn't include the ability modifier clause. Otherwise it seems like it's using the existing dual wielding rules but modifying them to add the ability modifier, which is effectively what the current feature does, but it's less explicit so it's a little confusing about whether that's the intent.

[LudicSavant]

I meant keep the stats, replace the way you access the blades.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action, As a free action you can manifest a psychic blade from your each free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6."

That way its a normal weapon, it deals 1 more damage on average if you dual wield. You can rewrite that part too instead of scratching it, but seems unnecessary.

Note there's no such thing as a "free action" in 5th edition. You could use a wording similar to Dragon Hide's "requires no action."

[Segev]

I would remove the Light property and add back the bonus action language. It's a different thing, and it's a little confusing to have the Light property but also specify that it deals psychic damage... "plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll." That language is part of the original feature, but I think it's there because of how it works. If you look at a different, similar feature - like the Path of the Beast Claws - it doesn't include the ability modifier clause. Otherwise it seems like it's using the existing dual wielding rules but modifying them to add the ability modifier, which is effectively what the current feature does, but it's less explicit so it's a little confusing about whether that's the intent.

Good point. My thought process was, "Why NOT let them use the psychic blade as the off-hand weapon even if they attacked with a real short sword?" but I can see the issues this creates.

[ZRN]

I meant keep the stats, replace the way you access the blades.

"You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action, As a free action you can manifest a psychic blade from your each free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6."

That way its a normal weapon, it deals 1 more damage on average if you dual wield. You can rewrite that part too instead of scratching it, but seems unnecessary.

Free actions aren't a thing in 5e, are they? It has to be part of another action/movement/reaction.

Also, what, the daggers now last forever? Forget adventuring, I'm going to start a knife store!

[Rukelnikov]

Congratulations. You've taken a working feature, and actually broke it (because THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE ACTION IN 5e, AND PEOPLE SHOULD FINALLY REALIZE THAT) because you didn't like how it work.

There are lots, they've been renamed to not an action. And someplaces it even still says "for free" like in the rule that allows the free object interaction per turn:

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

Btw, I don't necessarilly want it to behave as a weapon, but I was offering the most obvious solution to those that do want it to.


Note there's no such thing as a "free action" in 5th edition. You could use a wording similar to Dragon Hide's "requires no action."

Yeah, that works too, but I prefer "for free" as in the "Other Activity on Your Turn" part.


Free actions aren't a thing in 5e, are they? It has to be part of another action/movement/reaction.

Also, what, the daggers now last forever? Forget adventuring, I'm going to start a knife store!

I don't understand the daggers part, what do you mean?

[LudicSavant]

I don't understand the daggers part, what do you mean?

He's suggesting that since your wording makes no mention of the daggers vanishing, a player might think that they can generate permanent knives that they can give (or sell) to someone else.

E.g. I believe the constructive point he is trying to make is that the wording could make it clearer that the knives are nontransferable, as you no doubt intended.


Free actions aren't a thing in 5e, are they? It has to be part of another action/movement/reaction.

Though such mechanics are not referred to as 'free actions' in 5e, there are things that can be done at any time, even off-turn. For example, dropping Concentration works this way.

[Rukelnikov]

He's suggesting that since your wording makes no mention of the daggers vanishing, he thinks he can generate permanent knives that he can give to someone else.

E.g. I believe the constructive point he is trying to make is that the wording should make it clear that the knives are nontransferable to others.

Oh you are right, yeah that should be included.

Now that I think about it, current rules don't prevent that either. So one could theoretically take the Attack action, generate the blade, initiate a shove, end your action without making an attack, and now give the blade to somebody else.

I guess this people don't proof read their stuff.

[Segev]

Tried another refinement of wording, taking into account Chaos Jackal's version and Evaar's comments.


Psychic Blades
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Creating or banishing a blade takes no action and can even happen even off your turn, but you must have a free hand to hold the blade when creating it. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. On a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage. The blade vanishes immediately when it leaves your hand unless it is thrown as part of an attack. When thrown, the blade lasts long enough to make the attack, and vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

[ZRN]

Tried another refinement of wording, taking into account Chaos Jackal's version and Evaar's comments.


Psychic Blades
You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Creating or banishing a blade takes no action and can even happen even off your turn, but you must have a free hand to hold the blade when creating it. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. On a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage. The blade vanishes immediately when it leaves your hand unless it is thrown as part of an attack. When thrown, the blade lasts long enough to make the attack, and vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range.

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.


I think there might be technical issues with the wording of the final paragraph here, because it would allow you to get the bonus action attack even if you got the first attack through some other means than the Attack action. For example, if you somehow get a reaction attack on your turn (is this possible?), you could then throw another knife as a bonus action and use your action for something else. Ditto if you use something like booming blade (although I guess that wouldn’t work since it was errata’d).

[Segev]

I think there might be technical issues with the wording of the final paragraph here, because it would allow you to get the bonus action attack even if you got the first attack through some other means than the Attack action. For example, if you somehow get a reaction attack on your turn (is this possible?), you could then throw another knife as a bonus action and use your action for something else. Ditto if you use something like booming blade (although I guess that wouldn’t work since it was errata’d).

That last paragraph is the wording that already exists, actually, in the canon rules from TCE. I also think it's safe because you can't take bonus actions when it's not your turn.

[ZRN]

That last paragraph is the wording that already exists, actually, in the canon rules from TCE. I also think it's safe because you can't take bonus actions when it's not your turn.

The wording as it already exists assumes you can only make a knife as part of the Attack action; since we've changed that to "for free whenever you want," there are potential weird cases where you could attack through some other means (like Booming Blade before the errata) and still get to do a bonus attack.

Even weirder, you could cast Dissonant Whispers, make an opportunity attack when the enemy moves away, and then use your bonus action to attack with a second knife.

[Segev]

The wording as it already exists assumes you can only make a knife as part of the Attack action; since we've changed that to "for free whenever you want," there are potential weird cases where you could attack through some other means (like Booming Blade before the errata) and still get to do a bonus attack.

Even weirder, you could cast Dissonant Whispers, make an opportunity attack when the enemy moves away, and then use your bonus action to attack with a second knife.

Hm. I see what you're saying. How about this:


You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Creating or banishing a blade takes no action and can even happen even off your turn, but you must have a free hand to hold the blade when creating it. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. On a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage. The blade vanishes immediately when it leaves your hand unless it is thrown as part of an attack. When thrown, the blade lasts long enough to make the attack, and vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range.

After you take the attack action on your turn with a one-handed weapon, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

The changed portion is in green. This is designed to deliberately allow use of the psychic blade in combination with any weapon that can be wielded in one hand. This might need toning back since that would allow d8 weapons like the longsword or the rapier, though.

[sayaijin]

I have another proposal. In this thread, I've seen complaints about the blades not acting like darts and the usual complaint with class feature weapons - they get outclassed by magic weapons. My change would fix both of those:


Psychic Blades Rework
Also at 3rd level, You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you would use your action or reaction to make a weapon attack, you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. Alternatively, the magic blade can be a duplicate of another weapon you are carrying that you are proficient with, and it gains the thrown property. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.


This allows you to use your +1 short sword (or longsword!) as a psychic blade, but it removes the free TWF ability. I think that's a fair trade.

[Segev]

While I agree that the lack of stacking wtih magic weapons is an issue, I also think that we already have two classes that can do things with magic weapons. The soulknife legacy is of making the blades more magical on their own, but that isn't really feasible without MASSIVE changes to what we have. I think making it possible to off-hand a psychic blade with a magic weapon is probably good enough.

[Dr. Cliché]

While I agree that the lack of stacking wtih magic weapons is an issue, I also think that we already have two classes that can do things with magic weapons. The soulknife legacy is of making the blades more magical on their own, but that isn't really feasible without MASSIVE changes to what we have. I think making it possible to off-hand a psychic blade with a magic weapon is probably good enough.

Daily reminder that the Soulbalde should have been a Monk class. :smallwink:

[Selion]

While I agree that the lack of stacking wtih magic weapons is an issue, I also think that we already have two classes that can do things with magic weapons. The soulknife legacy is of making the blades more magical on their own, but that isn't really feasible without MASSIVE changes to what we have. I think making it possible to off-hand a psychic blade with a magic weapon is probably good enough.

"You can channel a psychic enhancement into a magic weapon as long as you hold it in your hands, the weapon damage is psychic, otherwise the weapon retains all its abilities. A weapon enhanced this way is considered a psi blade for soulknife class features, but it cannot be thrown unless the weapon type has the thrown properties"
(i'm not native english, i'm sure it can be written better)

[ZRN]

"You can channel a psychic enhancement into a magic weapon as long as you hold it in your hands, the weapon damage is psychic, otherwise the weapon retains all its abilities. A weapon enhanced this way is considered a psi blade for soulknife class features, but it cannot be thrown unless the weapon type has the thrown properties"
(i'm not native english, i'm sure it can be written better)

I'm not sure how we went from Ludic's initial complaint, "the soulknife can't do basic rogue stuff without also carrying physical weapons," to a "fix" that focuses on "let's make sure the soulknife can use his soul blades while also carrying physical weapons."

To recap, here are the advantages of psychic blades:
1. They don't leave a mark (situational, good for stealth ops)
2. You always have them available (can't be disarmed)
3. They do psychic instead of physical damage
4. You effectively have the Two-Weapon Fighting style for free with them

Now, if you just gave soulknives all that stuff at third level, along with probably the best skill-boosting rogue subclass ability and definitely the best intraparty communication ability, I feel like it's fair to say that aside from specialized builds, they'd be far and away the most powerful rogue subclass.

So the psychic blades come with disadvantages as well:
1. Your higher-level features are tied to the blades, so you're locked into using them.
2. You can't use them with reaction attacks
3. You can't upgrade them with magical weapons
4. You can't use them with actions other than the Attack Action (e.g. no Booming Blade)
5. Even with the Attack action you can't use them with the Extra Attacks feature

#1 is basically an amplifier - it's only an issue if/to the degree that the rest are an issue.

#2 here is a pretty clear problem thematically, because even a single-class no-feat PHB-race rogue is going to really want to do reaction attacks, so you're basically stuck carrying around some physical daggers. While you can certainly make a non-silly soulknife who does carry blades, and in some ways I'd argue the subclass leans more towards "expert psionic assassin who you'd expect to be well-equipped, including backup weapons" than "monk-like ascetic who fights only with weapons that are an extension of his mind," this should be rectified. And it could, easily, either (conservatively) by allowing you to make opportunity attacks with the blades, or (a bit more liberally) by allowing them to work with ANY reaction that calls for a weapon attack.

#3, #4 and #5 are arguably part of the balancing for the subclass. If you just get rid of ALL of them, the subclass is arguably pretty overpowered compared to other rogue subclasses. I'd say #4 and #5 don't have much of an effect on verisimilitude because they basically restrict how you build your character: Booming Blade and Extra Attack don't work with the blades, so don't take Magic Initiate or five levels of fighter unless you want to carry a physical weapon around.

#3 is frustrating because its impact is entirely dependent on the DM - if they give away magic weapons like candy, AND if they're not customizing available magic items at all (either through magic item crafters/stores or just through fudging the loot the party finds), this really sucks for the soulknife. But since we're talking about house rules anyway, we're assuming at least a somewhat lenient/understanding DM, so how about just letting the rogue find/buy a custom item that ups damage by other means - maybe an Eyepatch of the Bloodseer that lets you see your enemies' blood pumping in their arteries, so you deal an extra xd6 sneak attack damage? Whatever, it's not that hard to think of cool magic items that increase damage without being a physical weapon the rogue has to wield.

So overall, I'd say a sufficient "fix" would be the following bolded parts:


Also at 3rd level, You can manifest your psionic power as shimmering blades of psychic energy. Whenever you take the Attack action or use a reaction that calls for a melee or ranged weapon attack, you can manifest a psychic blade from your free hand and make the attack with that blade. This magic blade is a simple melee weapon with the finesse and thrown properties. It has a normal range of 60 feet and no long range, and on a hit, it deals psychic damage equal to 1d6 plus the ability modifier you used for the attack roll. The blade vanishes immediately after it hits or misses its target, and it leaves no mark on its target if it deals damage.

After you attack with the blade using the Attack action, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.

Then, just assume the DM isn't going to be a **** about finding equipment that allows the rogue to murder people in interesting new ways.

[Segev]

I'm not sure how we went from Ludic's initial complaint, "the soulknife can't do basic rogue stuff without also carrying physical weapons," to a "fix" that focuses on "let's make sure the soulknife can use his soul blades while also carrying physical weapons."

Technically, nothing prevents using a psychic blade with physical weapons as-is. It's just usually sub-optimal. But a psychic blade attack could absolutely be followed up with a dual wielding bonus action attack with, say, a dagger.

Switching that around as an option is not necessary to answer Ludic's initial complaint, but there's an underlying dissatisfaction with psychic blades having wonky "only when these rules toys are on the table" implementation that forces the game construct into the fiction layer.

To the characters, Sammy the Soul Knife can make a psychic blade appear, but only if he attacks with it BEFORE he attacks with his dagger, and only sometimes, not any time he could attack with a weapon. And nobody can explain what the difference is unless they know the game mechanics running their universe.

To forestall arguments about whether this is a valid goal or not, I wish to point out that this post is answering the question, "How did we get from Ludic's complaint to a 'fix' that involves letting a soul knife use physical weapons at the same time as the soul knife?"

[Selion]

So the psychic blades come with disadvantages as well:
1. Your higher-level features are tied to the blades, so you're locked into using them.
2. You can't use them with reaction attacks
3. You can't upgrade them with magical weapons
4. You can't use them with actions other than the Attack Action (e.g. no Booming Blade)
5. Even with the Attack action you can't use them with the Extra Attacks feature


I'm ok with 1,4 and potentially with 3 (i think it's more lack of specific magic items, but i'm fine with that), but 1 and 5 are consequences of an obscure interpretation of rules that breaks completely the narrative.
I don't think that they have been written this way as a mean to balance a powerful subclass, i really hope that WOTC doesn't use quibbles to resolve balance issues.
There's not a way in the universe that a guy that can summon instantly a dagger couldn't stab someone as an opportunity attack, while he could have done it with a common dagger.

[ZRN]

I'm ok with 1,4 and potentially with 3 (i think it's more lack of specific magic items, but i'm fine with that), but 1 and 5 are consequences of an obscure interpretation of rules that breaks completely the narrative.
I don't think that they have been written this way as a mean to balance a powerful subclass, i really hope that WOTC doesn't use quibbles to resolve balance issues.
There's not a way in the universe that a guy that can summon instantly a dagger couldn't stab someone as an opportunity attack, while he could have done it with a common dagger.

For the record, I'm also okay with 1, 3, and 4 and think 2 is a mistake or bad design choice (don't know or care which). I could go either way with 5 - honestly as DM I'm fine saying, "it takes a couple seconds to recharge your psionic reserve to make a new blade, so you need to have some physical blades as well for your fighter11/rogue9 to make 7 attacks with Action Surge."

That said, I don't think WOTC "uses quibbles to resolve balance issues" so much as "writes the rules to be as simple as possible, while making a decent attempt to forestall weird powergaming tactics." The beast barbarian thing is a decent example - they wanted the claw to be a way of getting an extra attack per round without using up your bonus action, and they took the basic step of making the claw non-light so you couldn't just dual-wield on top of that without a feat, but they didn't worry too much about people adopting weird pick-up-and-drop-weapon sequences to sneak in an extra attack, because they assume the DM is there to regulate.

Same here, I think - they wanted cool psychic daggers, but didn't want to worry about weird multiclass and feat combos, so they just restricted it to the attack action. They probably overcompensated on this one, though.