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

[ccs]

I've tried (and failed) to like psionics ever since 1e. I kinda like the general idea of them - Barsoom, comics, etc.
But overall they don't really fit the type of D&D I prefer.

And I pretty much hate all the versions of their rules to date.
In particular I hate the rules as a DM. In order to have this stuff in my game I'd have to be proficient in a whole separate rules system - for something I'm not really interested in running.
So there's no psionics in my games.

I hope that when psionics are added to this edition they will come in their own, self-contained, book. NOT intermixed with something else I want. That way I can just let it sit ignored on the FLGS shelf.

As far as other people using psionics? As long as they don't expect to use it when I'm the DM I don't mind. I can be a player in a game where psionics are an option.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I was following your argument .... and then you went too far, Mr. Lucas.

Sir, you must understand that there is a scientific basis for all things. Things don't "just happen". OF COURSE there is a scientific explanation of the Force! Just because our galaxy is far, far away from yours doesn't mean the laws of physics don't exist! And in order to manipulate the laws of physics, we first needed to learn what it was made of.

You can't magically broadcast an image across a planet without first understanding how the electromagnetic spectrum works. Likewise, you can't shoot lightning from your fingertips without first understanding the scientific principles that allow for that electromagnetic build up to occur. We call those principles 'midichlorians'. It all makes perfect sense when you think about it. But too many people just want to turn their brains off and not have to think. Woe be to them!

Sincerely,

Georgiford Antontio Lucas the Third
First of his Name
Lord of the Two Jars

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

This is one of my biggest peeves about psionics implementation. If they had made the Mystic a subclass of Monk, Sorcerer, or Wizard that used the existing systems, I’d be perfectly happy with psionics.

Instead, they’ve always been done as something different, and have invariably ended up with balance issues. While I’ve no problem with people that like psionics for the flavor, those that like psionics for how easily they can be abused get my goat. To me that’s really pushing the social contract of D&D between player and DM.

Cons:
1. Not part of the core rules. It's really, really hard to retcon a new system on to the core rules and get it rights. Stuffing something into an appendix (ahem) doesn't mean that future published products will take it into account.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Kobold Stew]

My dislike of psionics has mellowed over the editions.

In AD&D, they were cool but so fundamentally unbalancing that they ruined any game they were in (that I played, as a happy teenager). The players who had rolled psionics also had suspiciously high stats, and it was just unpleasant). It wasn't balanced.

In 3.5, there was too much of them. when introduced, there were too many options, too many niche skills, too much powercreepy overkill. I was in my 30s, as a jaded adult playing with friends, we simply gave them a pass. We weren't interested. It wasn't constrained.

Now in 5e, the mystic looks great. A single class that can yield multiple diverse builds, I think it is better designed than (at least) half the classes in the PHB. It keys off Intelligence, the dumpiest stat. Sure, it has problems that I understand legacy players resent, but for me it is both balanced and constrained, which I see as virtues.

Do I wish there were more non-spellcasting classes? Absolutely -- but that's a separate issue. Introducing a better spell casting class than some of those already in place is only a win, and that's what the current mystic does (to my increasingly senile 48-year old eye, playing with those same friends, but now new ones as well).

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

(...)

Generally I don't want psionics.

But the latest Mystic updates got me more interested each time, even the name change starts to make sense. If they keep going in this direction, shifting psionics from
Sci-fi to fantasy, they have a good chance to win me over, precisely for the reasons explained by #Defcon 1.

 

[TwoSix]

I tend to alternate between two types of campaigns.

1) Kitchen-sink games, where everything is open to the players and I encourage them to play different stuff as much as possible. Use supplements, find a cool class on the internet, whatever works for the player.

2) Tightly focused games, where the campaign starts with a very limited set of options I decide on to fit the theme. My next game is using the 5e chassis, but doesn't even have classes, for example.

For either of those, psionics is simply another overflowing table in the garage sale of D&D options at my disposal (and my players, in campaign style 1). So I welcome anything new that WotC puts out.

Plus, it's more fodder for forum discussions about balance, which is never a bad thing.

 

[Gradine]

I was honestly a pretty big fan of the implementation of psionics in 3.X, but I was always the only person in my gaming group who thought that. A few of my friends like the Soulknife at least, though.

Frankly, two of my favorite settings (Eberron and Dark Sun) have psionics baked into them. They're ignorable enough in Eberron, I suppose, and that's what I've mostly done with my current group (who universally hate psionics). If nothing else, the existence of psionics makes the existence of more official support for those two settings more likely, and that's a win in my book regardless of what form they ultimately take. And I mostly like where they're going with the Mystic.

 

[Ninja-radish]

I love psionics and hate magic, mostly because of the image. Psionics has the cool Professor X image of briefly closing your eyes and concentrating, then BAM! Something miraculous happens.

Whereas magic has that Harry Potter image of some dork in a bathrobe speaking gibberish, waving a stick around and wiggling their fingers. Ugh. Don't even get me started on how stupid material components are. Bat crap, eye of newt, toe of frog. Lame.

 

[jasper]

NO. NO. NO.
Not even if I got $100 for every psionic book sold. And a dollar for every time the "P" word was mentioned.
To much sci fic in my fantasy.