D&D 5E Do you want psionics in your D&D?

lowkey13 · Jun 22, 2017

*Deleted by user*

iserith · Jun 22, 2017

I'm conflicted.

Traditionally, I don't like psionics in my D&D. It doesn't feel like it fits, outside of a setting set up with it in mind such as Dark Sun (which is more Barsoom to me than D&D in the Desert). So, my gut says "No psionics in my D&D..." if we're talking about a generic D&D setting. I've held that opinion for a very long time.

On the other hand, I have no issues with players re-skinning/re-flavoring if they happen to like particular mechanics and unless I have a particularly compelling reason to refuse to use certain mechanics, I'm inclined to just let players take what they want.

I will admit to being a little dissatisfied at the recent choice of one of my players to take the UA mystic in my current campaign. Not so much because the power level is a tick higher than other PCs, but because the superhero aspect of the character doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the group. It's not disruptive or overpowered (a term thrown around way too much). I just don't like it.

But I'm trying to do better.

BookBarbarian · Jun 22, 2017

No matter how good or balanced Psionics/Mystics are, I don't think they fit in the types of games i like to run/play in which tend to be in the sword and sorcery or high fantasy range.

By no means am I against them being made, I'm just not likely to use them.

Fleetwood C. DeVille · Jun 22, 2017

I have never liked psionics outside of literature. (Katherine Kurtz' Deryni series).

It reads well, but as a game feature it always left me cold.

MNblockhead · Jun 22, 2017

I would like psionics but would like it to be different than magic. Dispel magic should not work against psionic effects and magic resistance should not count against it.

Psionic abilities should not be subject to line of sight / cover rules governing magic. If you see, perceive, or know of someone's location you can affect them. If a psionic wielding character sees someone through a windows, they should be able to use their psionic ability, even if an equivalent spell would not work because of line of sight and cover rules.

To balance the above advantages, and to create a distinct flavor, Psionics characters should be limited to a very small, select number of psionic abilities: telekinesis, clairvoyance, mind blasts, read minds, control person/beast, mind blank, ability to buff strength and constitution temporarily, etc. The focus should be on increasing the power and versatility of individual psionic abilities more than adding more abilities.

CydKnight · Jun 22, 2017

I do not have to have psionics in my games but this does not mean I would not allow them if they became available.

Xeviat · Jun 22, 2017

I like the change from Psion to Mystic. Along with the 4E notion of the Monk as a Psionic class, I've just merged the concept of Psionics and Ki. They're one and the same. The magic of the mind, body, and soul. This way, the Mystic is every bit as fantastic as the Wizard, and doesn't seem out of place.

I disagree with it working differently than magic. Magic is magic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

akr71 · Jun 22, 2017

I am open to it, but I'm not sure v3 is there yet. I think for it to work it has to be a class, not an ability some have and some do not as per [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] AD&D observation.

Some days I feel like it should just be a monk archtype - other days I view it as sort of alt-wizard. Neither option is wholly satisfying... If 5e ever introduces prestige classes, I think I will find the Mystic more palatable. Until then, it is an interesting, but an incomplete concept.

DEFCON 1 · Jun 22, 2017

I found the inclusion of the Monk into the Psionic power source in 4E to be a breath of fresh air. It made Ki make much more sense.

I find the changing of the psi-based class and their effects away from the "scientific" nomenclature of "psionics" to a more fantasy-esque form in the "mystic" to be another breath of fresh air. It means that monks are now no longer on an island all by themselves in the game. Monks and mystics form their own branch of the supernatural in D&D just like clerics and paladins do, druids and rangers do, and wizards and warlocks do.

I find that I am much more interested in treating Sorcerers as a part of that monk/mystic island than keeping them with wizards and warlocks. Ki - Psi - Sorcery. They are all point-based, and they are all about the energy within you that you use to create supernatural effects. Whether or not you want to define it as "magic" is up to you. Personally... I am SO GLAD that 5E now treats the term "magic" as merely the overall definition of "supernatural effect" in the game, that I have no problem calling Ki - Psi - Sorcery "magic". Arcane magic? Divine magic? Primal magic? Pact magic? Psionic magic? Whatever. It's all the same. It's all "supernatural effects" that a character can get and use, whether that be powers given or bartered to you, figured out by you through complex scientific experimentation, manifesting from nature, manifesting from a powerful oath you swear, or merely because you have midichlorians/the X-gene inside of you that allow you to create these effects.

All of it is "magic" because the effects are magical. And thus I'm completely fine with the mystic being a new class that can manifest this magic, because it is a nice off-shoot of the monk and its no longer alone on its island.