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

[Ninja-radish]

SF fandom of the 1940-1960s, where you were allowed to get away with magic if you called it psionics and set the rest of the story in SF trappings, otherwise it was just fantasy, and fantasy was the unserious low-prestige SF ghetto that didn't sell as well. The sales problem went away after the sudden Tolkien emergence on the US market in the latter 1960s, but the prestige issue in the magazine letter columns, SF zines, and conventions took rather longer to shift.

(That the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America is the SFWA is a legacy of this; the name originally didn't include "and Fantasy" because everybody knew fantasy was just a subgenre of SF. Which could never be called "sci fi", because that meant trashy 1950s films, not the Serious Business of the true literature of ideas that was SF.)

Very interesting stuff, I had no idea about all that backstory.

 

[pogre]

I voted no, but that is just for my campaigns.

I am not against psionics being added as an option to 5e. I have no problems not having options in my campaign that do not fit the themes of my campaign world. A lot of people seem to really want psionics and that's more than enough reason to include it as a choice.

A lot of the enjoyment of the game for many people is having tons of PC options - they would be frustrated by the constraints of my game. That does not mean they are wrong for wanting lots of options, and I'm not wrong for restricting them. We just should not play together.

 

[GlassJaw]

I certainly don't need them, and I don't think D&D does in general.

I haven't seen much benefit for introducing them in any edition. Most of the time they muddy the waters of defining "magic" and introduce some oddball mechanic that has balance issues.

Overall it feels like a lot of designee why gets spent on the psionic concept with little positive in return.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[BoldItalic]

Do you want psionics in your D&D?

I knew beforehand that you would be asking that question, because I made you ask it. Your mind is utterly under my control. But you don't believe it is and that's why I'm getting away with it. *evil cackle*

 

[TwoSix]

I knew beforehand that you would be asking that question, because I made you ask it. Your mind is utterly under my control. But you don't believe it is and that's why I'm getting away with it. *evil cackle*

BoldItalic: I am playing a gnome paladin in your campaign, and you will give him a holy avenger.
Lowkey: Yes, you are playing a gnome paladin in my campaign, and I will give you a holy avenger.

 

[JeffB]

They are only a consideration nearly 40 years later because Gary felt he needed to throw Brian a bone.

As I always answer when this question has come up for 3.x, 4e and now 5e-

Once they figure out a simple way to handle it without being magic spells with the serial numbers filed off, I would like to see it. IMO they should be looking at how "The Force" has been handled in various Star Wars games over the years.

 

[Mercule]

Was 4e explicit that psionics come from the Far Realm? Because 3e and before weren't, so Forgotten Realms psionics from those eras wouldn't be officially from the Far Realm.

It's also worth noting that while 4e (I think) made all aberrations from the Far Realm, and 3e may have at least hinted at that, that is not the case in 5e. Someone even mentioned something to that effect in a tweet. Aberrations have different origins. Some are from the Far Realm or influenced by it; some aren't. In fact, 5e has actually been pretty conservative on actually saying "X is from the Far Realm". I think they are leaving a lot of that up to individual interpretation.

I have no idea. But, if psionics in the Realms don't come from the Far Realm, I don't know why it'd be the default presentation in core rules. At that point, it's really just Eberron that uses that excuse, so it's a set-specific thing. It just shows what a mess the whole psionics == Far Realm thing is. Why bother with anything more than a "hey, here are some ideas" sidebar?

 

[MiraMels]

Looking at the Mystic playtest just makes me sleepy. I already learned the ins and outs of one spellcasting system that 9/12 classes in the game run on, and the thought of having to run games with a brand new system for casting your spells (sorry 'manifesting' your 'psionics') that only one class uses is just...god that sounds like a lot of work, and I'm not really sure what that works gains me, as a DM.

The only way I would see myself incorporating psionics into my games would be if they wholly replaced the traditional spellcasting system. (Setting and campaign where the only classes available were Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, and Mystic.)

 

[see]

Very interesting stuff, I had no idea about all that backstory.

Yes, well, it's been fifty years since the Conan stories were republished, the hippies discovered Tolkien, Star Trek caused a major inrush into SF fandom, and Harlan Ellison released Dangerous Visions. There are still effects of the era when John W. Campbell defined the genre to be found, but it's very much history now. D&D was not rooted in the Campbellian Era, but was born in the froth after the asteroid hit.

 

[schnee]

I don't like Psionics for player characters.

I love it as an alternate power source for villains and BBEGs, that is really weird and difficult to predict because it does things that normal magic doesn't do.

I think it's because when you see magic in Conan or most other pulp sword & sorcery fiction, those wizards are doing things that are subtle, weird, and offbeat. It's not Fireballs, it's... like the 'Noose of Flesh' from the Elric saga that made a big wall of flesh that surrounded an army, swept inward like a tidal wave, and basically dissolved and absorbed all the living combatants inside and left their empty armor on the battlefield. Really gross and odd.

Having everything in the world obey the same logic is boring. I want threats that players can't automatically figure out sometimes to keep them on their toes.