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

[JeffB]

And, later, as with the weapon vs. armor table, he considered their addition a mistake.

From what I gathered he and Tim never liked them (psionics) as presented in EW or AD&D,it was just appealing to his financial partner's want/ego.

 

[cbwjm]

From what I gathered he and Tim never liked them (psionics) as presented in EW or AD&D,it was just appealing to his financial partner's want/ego.

Well I'm glad that neither of them had a chance to veto psionics because I find them to be an awesome addition to DnD. I've loved the inclusion of psionics since I came across them in 2e.

 

[JeffB]

Well I'm glad that neither of them had a chance to veto psionics because I find them to be an awesome addition to DnD. I've loved the inclusion of psionics since I came across them in 2e.

I think you need to re-read my post. Thats not what I was saying, nor them.

 

[cbwjm]

I think you need to re-read my post. Thats not what I was saying, nor them.

Maybe you need to be more clearly explain what you mean.

 

[JeffB]

Maybe you need to be more clearly explain what you mean.

Neither Tim nor Gary had issue with the idea of psionics, they had issue with Brian Blume's sucky set of rules for them.

But they let Brian have his way because he raised a stink about Gary and Dave getting their own supplements and he wanted to add in a bunch of his house rules to Eldritch Wizardry..psionics, the weird initiative rules, etc. These core of Brian's psionic rules later on were moved into AD&D for the same appeasement reasons.

I don't know what 2e Psionics rules looked like. They may be a variation on Brian's for all I know?.But the original psionics rules are a hot mess.

 

[Greg K]

I suppose, based upon my previous post, I should state my own position. In theory, I have no problem with "mental" powers in many campaigns that I would run. However, with regard to D&D, I have never seen an official version that i have liked in terms of both class as well as flavor and/or mechanics and, therefore, don't create a space in my campaigns for official psionics rules (despite my like of Dark Sun). The 5e Mystic as of the full class presented in Unearthed Arcana just continues the trend of my dislike for official classes. It would take changes to the base class (e.g. removing telepathy as a standard class ability), ditching several of the subclass, rewriting other subclasses and adding new subclasses for me to give the DMs Guild playtest another look.

 

[Yaarel]

I suppose, based upon my previous post, I should state my own position. In theory, I have no problem with "mental" powers in many campaigns that I would run. However, with regard to D&D, I have never seen an official version that i have liked in terms of both class as well as flavor and/or mechanics and, therefore, don't create a space in my campaigns for official psionics rules (despite my like of Dark Sun). The 5e Mystic as of the full class presented in Unearthed Arcana just continues the trend of my dislike for official classes. It would take changes to the base class (e.g. removing telepathy as a standard class ability), ditching several of the subclass, rewriting other subclasses and adding new subclasses for me to give the DMs Guild playtest another look.

Write your own version of the Mystic, as you would ideally want it, publish it DMs Guild, and see if it gets any traction with other players.

 

[Celebrim]

Umm...that's like saying "We already have the Fighter, why do we need a Barbarian or Paladin or any other class that can swing a sword? One class that can swing a sword should be enough"

Argument by improper analogy. The problem with psionics is not that they introduce a new class to the game. The problem is that they introduce a new system to the game.

I hate trying to argue by analogy, but I'll risk doing so to try to show you why your analogy is improper. A psionic is not analogous to another sort of magic using class. A standard magic using class is to a class like psionic, as a class like fighter would be to a class like 'warrior' that used a pool of exploding d6's rather than d20's to make to hit rolls, and when it hit consulted charts to inflicted wounds and statuses based on degree of success rather than applying hit point damage.

If you look at a set of psionic rules, whether we are talking about GURPS or D&D, typically there are not only large questions around how psionics work differently than magic, but whether they are balanced with magic (typically, the systems are too different for them to be ever balanced), and most complicatedly at all, how they interact with magic. For example, do psionics work in an anti-magic field, and does spell resistance effect them? If you have something that makes you immune to the spell 'clairvoyance', are you also immune to the power 'clairvoyance'. If you find a wand of clairvoyance, and you know the power 'clairvoyance' can you treat the wand as having a spell that is on your caster list? And on and on and so on and so forth.

For myself, as a DM with simulationist leanings, equally problematic is explaining in game what exactly psionics are coherently alongside an existing coherently explained magical system.

NO. Because diversity is a good thing.

No it isn't. Diversity is a neutral property. Diversity can either be good or bad depending on the context and sort of diversity we are talking about.

 

[Ninja-radish]

Argument by improper analogy. The problem with psionics is not that they introduce a new class to the game. The problem is that they introduce a new system to the game.

I hate trying to argue by analogy, but I'll risk doing so to try to show you why your analogy is improper. A psionic is not analogous to another sort of magic using class. A standard magic using class is to a class like psionic, as a class like fighter would be to a class like 'warrior' that used a pool of exploding d6's rather than d20's to make to hit rolls, and when it hit consulted charts to inflicted wounds and statuses based on degree of success rather than applying hit point damage.

If you look at a set of psionic rules, whether we are talking about GURPS or D&D, typically there are not only large questions around how psionics work differently than magic, but whether they are balanced with magic (typically, the systems are too different for them to be ever balanced), and most complicatedly at all, how they interact with magic. For example, do psionics work in an anti-magic field, and does spell resistance effect them? If you have something that makes you immune to the spell 'clairvoyance', are you also immune to the power 'clairvoyance'. If you find a wand of clairvoyance, and you know the power 'clairvoyance' can you treat the wand as having a spell that is on your caster list? And on and on and so on and so forth.

For myself, as a DM with simulationist leanings, equally problematic is explaining in game what exactly psionics are coherently alongside an existing coherently explained magical system.



No it isn't. Diversity is a neutral property. Diversity can either be good or bad depending on the context and sort of diversity we are talking about.

Well, if you're trying to balance psionics against magic your first issue is that magic itself is horrifically unbalanced. Casters always dominate play, and have since I first started gaming back in 2nd edition. I've never seen a campaign that wasn't dominated by the full casters in my lifetime.

Now, psionics is neutral in itself, it's just a word. Everything depends on implementation. So far, I would agree that the 5E implementation of psionics has been terribly flawed. However, that doesn't mean that will continue to be the case when they get around to releasing psionics as an expansion next year or the year after.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, if you're trying to balance psionics against magic your first issue is that magic itself is horrifically unbalanced.

There is that, yes, but to be fair, psionics has mostly been pretty amazingly imbalanced, too, so it shouldn't be too hard to balance them against eachother...

Casters always dominate play, and have since I first started gaming back in 2nd edition. I've never seen a campaign that wasn't dominated by the full casters in my lifetime.

I have seen campaigns that weren't dominated by full casters. They were campaigns where no one played a full caster. Technically, that includes all 4e campaigns, since there was no full/half- caster distinction (I guess the closest thing to a 4e half-caster would be a class or build that used both weapon & implement powers, like the Paladin); in 4e, I've even seen a game go well with /no/ casters (all the PCs were Martial classes), at all. Of course, even in 4e (OK, technically it was Essentials), I've seen campaigns dominated, if to a lesser degree than usual, by a Wizard.

Was 4e explicit that psionics come from the Far Realm?

Not exactly, no, it was a little more involved than the UA version. Psionics were painted as a reaction of the World Axis universe to incursions by the Far Realm. Like an 'immune response,' or something. :shrug: There were also psionics who didn't hold with the theory, though there was no denying that aberrations were real, of course, the Far Realm wasn't a plane you could really visit, or even directly confirm the existence of, so, if you wanted to cut it out of your campaign, you could change the fluff of aberrations that they were some ancient foes of the primordials, or that they arise from twisted insane magic, or whatever works...

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.

5e leaves hard rules crunch up to individual interpretation, opting in/out, and modding, so it would be really out of character to paint fluff into a corner, like they almost did with the Far Realm connection, and have done with the Weave. The Far Realm connection to psionics /should/ appear in the final version of the Mystic, but it should be a side-bar referencing the World Axis cosmology, there should also be some recognition of the prevalence of psionic powers among classic aberrant creatures, like mind flayers and intellect devourers...