Psionics - core or not?

[Plane Sailing]

.

And removing arcane or divine magic instead, obviously, is no option at all.

Id certainly be up for a system where there was just one source of magic and the clerics called it divine, the wizards called it arcane and the psions called it mental.

(side note - autocorrect tried to make psions into pistons, then passions, and finally prions!)

 

[Ahnehnois]

My impression is that the mentality has been shifted from "everything is core" to "almost nothing is core" (the toolbox idea). Given that, psionics has enough of a presence in D&D that it absolutely deserves to be presented with the initial playtest. This allows the skeptics to get comfortable with it, and the rules to be properly playtested in context. It won't suit everyone, but then again, neither will the classic magic system or any number of other rules.

5e needs to establish a framework for alternative "magics" into which psionics, incarnum, warlocks, witches, binders and the like can be grouped. The crunch should be similar, to allow for seamless integration into digital assistants, but the fluff would be different for all.

Frankly, I think the absolute opposite is true. Every different type of supernatural power should have completely different mechanical underpinnings. Otherwise, there is (as others have said) no real reason to call out these different types of powers.

Psionics ought to be a highly intuitive skill/feat/ability score based system with no slots, points, powers, or any other extraneous mechanics. It should feel completely natural, and thus completely different from the classic but hackneyed Vancian magic system.

Frankly I don't think they have a place in magical fantasy, it is a sci-fi trope. In a fantasy game they are just spell casters with a different backstory IMO.

I think they actually have more of a presence than most people realize.

For example one of the things 4e got right (hey, it happens) was putting monks under the psionic envelope. The whole eastern 'qi'/'ki' concept has something of a science-y feel to it and doesn't mesh with traditional D&D flavor, but is absolutely a valid fantasy trope and feels very 'psionic' to me. Similarly, I wrote a psionic class based on the idea of a yogi.

I think the seer is also more appropriate as a psionic archetype than a divine magic one (or, at least, both are independently valid).

Even given that it does have a bit of a sci-fi feel, so do D&D's Lovecraftian elements (including psionic monsters like illithids), or its Frankenstein-like flesh golems, or its steampunk elements (particularly Eberron). I certainly think psychic powers are more appropriate for fantasy then, say, warforged, or heroes with spiked hair and six packs or hourglass bodies. D&D accepts a wide variety of influences, and there's not a clear line between sci-fi and fantasy.

 

[Otakkun]

I'd say include them in the core, but redesign the magic system so that they have their niche. Just like clerics have healing, psions should have something that's unique to them.

 

[Gronin]

while I am not opposed to their existence I would rather see other things fill the pages of the core books

 

[Li Shenron]

Not Core unless they do one thing they they wont do: give psionics a magical niche (AKA remove telepathy, telekinesis, and mind control form divine and arcane).

But how about those who want telepathy, telekinesis and mind control in the game, but not psionics?

Psionics MUST be designed at the same time as core magic. It MUST or psionics will be unbalanced, boring, or misunderstood once again.

I am not sure, but I think in 3.0 psionics were designed at the same time more or less, but the book got published a little later. Being designed in parallel doesn't strictly require to put them in the PHB (and in fact many things in the early splatbooks were just PHB leftovers).

 

[El Mahdi]

My personal opinion, don't include them in the core. But, if WotC's data collection shows that Psionics are popular enough with a big enough audience, then they should or shouldn't include it based on that (and not on my opinion - though I doubt anyone is in danger of having WotC base the game on my opinions).

However, I also do not use them in my games. It's never been something I liked. But if I had a player that absolutely wanted to use them, I'd be okay with it...but I'd very much demand a roleplaying archetype that fits it. Like an Indian Mystic, or Oriental Mentalist, or something like that. I guess that's always been my biggest problem with them. As presented in the rules/books, they never seemed to fit any existing fantasy archetype I've ever come across. They've always appeared to me as a Modern Archetype shoehorned into a Medieval Fantasy game, with mechanics that poorly interact with the rest of the games rules, and seem designed predominantly from a gamist perspective.

If they were more fleshed-out and based on a suitable medieval archetype, with a roleplaying background (not just an in-game/mechanics background), then I'd probably not have a problem with them.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I enjoy psionics, but I don't think they should be core. I think very, very little should be core. I think many optional things should be it he first PHB, and I'd be delighted if psionics was among those things.

But how about those who want telepathy, telekinesis and mind control in the game, but not psionics?

I think the best way to handle this is to have the psionics module list spells that should be removed if psionics are being used. That way non-psionics using games have access to those spells, but psions have a nitch in actual play.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Minigiant]

But how about those who want telepathy, telekinesis and mind control in the game, but not psionics?

That's why it wont happen. Fans like their wizards and clerics with psychic damage, telepathy, telekinesis and mind control.

Psionics lacks a purpose though. It currently is just arcane with healing with a different system. It has no reason to be here.

I am not sure, but I think in 3.0 psionics were designed at the same time more or less, but the book got published a little later. Being designed in parallel doesn't strictly require to put them in the PHB (and in fact many things in the early splatbooks were just PHB leftovers).

Oh I know that it was designed at the same time. But it did not seem to be designed with arcane and divine magic. Psionics is an alternate system with no purpose. It's different just to be. One could make an illusionist with telepathy, telekinesis and mind control spells and copy to purpose of a psion.

For example divine casters have the best healing and evil creature control but lacks the raw damage and rule bending. Arcane caster excel at blasting and rule/reality bending but has fewer healers and an armor limitation. Psionics needs to have a clear strength and weakness alongside other casters. This goes for primal casters if the druid is moved to its own type of magic.

 

[Li Shenron]

Psionics is an alternate system with no purpose. It's different just to be. One could make an illusionist with telepathy, telekinesis and mind control spells and copy to purpose of a psion.

For example divine casters have the best healing and evil creature control but lacks the raw damage and rule bending. Arcane caster excel at blasting and rule/reality bending but has fewer healers and an armor limitation. Psionics needs to have a clear strength and weakness alongside other casters.

Well I've never actually played with psionics rules, so my ideas on them are second-hand, but IIRC they seemed to have a unique mechanic (flexible points instead of spell slots) in 3ed which IMHO fit with the concept of mental powers that can be "pushed" more to activate the stronger effects. Of course the same thing could fit someone's concept of the wizard too, but I was fine with vancian.

I also supposed that psionics powers were in fact specialized on mind-affecting stuff (targetting both enemies, friends, and self) and were the best at that. It is also however possible for them not to be the best but just on par, if psions are intended to replace wizards and sorcerers in some settings rather than coexist.

 

[Dragonhelm]

While I've been a huge fan of psionics for many years, I realize that it isn't for everyone. Far from it, even though it's been there since nearly day one.

To me, psionics is the poster child for what modular design is all about. Add them in if you like them, ignore them if you hate them.

As for effects that duplicated with other forms of magic, that is a side effect of an ever-changing and evolving game that has lasted for 4 decades. Had the game been designed from the ground up today, then there would be a clear delineation between power sources. 4e tried this to a degree. Alas, there are enough legacy elements in the game that some duplication is bound to happen. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it.

Now when can we expect the return of incarnum?