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

[MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION] -- that's what i'd say to anyone who felt the need to add it. I think we agree: any table can add or take away flavour text; that's my point. It is meaningless at most tables, and I don't get why people care about that aspect to the degree they seem to do when posting on boards.

Mercule said:

Why can't you just add your own flavor? This sentiment comes up in multiple contexts and it confounda me. It's easier to add flavor than to remove or change it. I'm all good with a very noncommittal sidebar that gives some ideas or possibilities. I'm definitely opposed to adding flavor like this directly into the rules, though. Thus is a setting element. It's actually wrong for some official settings (Dark Sun).

Click to expand...

Agreed. Expecting the developers at WOTC to intuitively know your preferred flavor is ludicrous. If you don't like the fluff, replace it with something you do like. Problem solved.

lowkey13 said:

b. Once you decide to go on a class-based system, you end up with something like the Mystic. But here's the thing. 5e is already built on a spell basis. Really. Almost every class either casts spells or has spell-like equivalents. Most monster abilities are written in terms of spell equivalents, and magic items as well. So ... you end up having a mystic, in effect, "cast spells" using their mind. You can fancy it up (they use "psi points") but you still have to call it magic (as the mystic does) in order to incorporate it into the system (dispel magic, etc.). So psionics is basically just a fancy magic system by another name. And then ... what's the point?

Click to expand...

I think you can eat your cake and have it too in this respect. 5e has a limited number of options that directly interact with "magic" as rules jargon. The Sage Advice compendium clarifies exactly what does and doesn't count as magic for rules purposes (basically, if it is a spell, a magic item, uses a spell attack roll, or explicitly says it is "magical" it is, otherwise it is not), and explains that plenty of other stuff in the world is magical in the more general sense. And spells like dispel magic are even more limited--they only effect spells.

There is a lot of room for supernatural effects that don't fit under the magic keyword (so to speak) in 5e. In fact, many monster abilities are exactly that. Ki is that, except where it explicitly duplicates spells.

So 5e supports supernatural abilities that don't count as magic in the specific jargon sense fairly well.

Thematically, the previous playtests had a cool take on it, that psionics was a way of manipulating reality from outside the boundaries of it. When psionics duplicated a spell (like some monster abilities labeled as Psionics) it was manipulating reality to cause it to produce that magical effect. Otherwise, it wasn't magic. Now, there was a truly unfortunate connection to the Far Realms that really only works as an option (it just doesn't fit a lot of psionic themes), but if they set that aside, the description for how it can work as "not magic" was pretty cool.

So basically, I guess I'm saying that the previous Mystic playtest handled the issues you are talking about quite well. If they took the best bits of the latest two playtests they could probably make a better foundation to build on than either one of them.

Really though, psionics starts with a theme. It isn't about saying, "hey, I want a different way to do magic--er I mean "not" magic" and then giving it a theme from there. It starts with, "hey, some sort of psychic mind stuff would be cool!" So that's where you start. Then you figure out how to make it unique from any other particular class, and make it high quality product. That's about all I care about personally. I like the concept of it not being magic, but if they can do it better as a form of magic, I'm fine with that. Theme and quality of mechanical presence are the important parts for me.

iserith said:

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.

Click to expand...

Same here. To me, psionics are too far outside the norm that the mechanic is relegated to denizens of the Far Realm. And since I don't allow Illithid PCs, then nah, man. I'm good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using EN World mobile app

I didn't even like psionics in 1e. Seemed like a Mary Sue thing, to be honest. You've got magic, why have 'brain magic', too? It gets even more crazy if magic and psionics aren't coterminous - like if you need psionics defenses along with magical defenses. It adds a layer of complexity that's not required for good storytelling in most cases. I suppose I can see special cases for it in D&D - illithids - and that's about it. Just my $0.02.

hastur_nz said:

I've used Psionics in my 3.5 game, where they were finally OK (2e tried to fix them, but implementation was off even for DarkSun). I've also played a Fighter/Mystic recently in 5e (v2, then v3), and it had some big problems still IMO including what the top 10 or so levels should really be about.

For me, Psionics work best in D&D when they are:
* a core part of the game i.e. an option for players, NPC, monsters etc
* different in flavour and implementation, but only slightly different
* balanced vs spells - especially allowing psionic and spell effects to be 'the same' i.e. dispel magic works vs psionics etc
i.e. an option that's essentially "spells using the mind", and it's a Class or Monster Feature (e.g. Psionic Mind Flayer, Dragons might use Psionics instead of Spells, etc), not an add-on.

For 3.5, the saying that stuck with me for Psionics was: "this is how a Sorcerer should be", i.e. the Psionics Point pool, which can be used to manifest(cast) whatever power(spell) you had access to; and the ability to Augment a power.

In 5e, we already have Augmentation for spells. DMG has a Spell Points system, and not surprisingly that's what the Mystic uses. Where the Mystic fails so far, is that it is not designed clearly in terms of spells vs psionics, and the 'differentiation' between a Psion vs Spell caster is mainly that a Mystic ends up being "jack of all trades, master of none" - as they head to 20th level, they learn most powers, but none of them are spectacular. If we could tighten up the flavour differences between "core psion vs core spell slinger", and give more focus and power (not breadth) to the Mystic as they level up, and make it compatible with multiclassing (some seriously OP dip potential as written, and spells vs psionic points if you have access to both); well, if you could fix all that, then I'd love to see Psionics back in 5e.

As far as game Settings go, while Psionics were a core part of Dark Sun, I feel they could easily be part of any other game world, it's just that traditionally they have been a bolt-on after the fact, instead of embraced and integrated early on. Have fun trying to work it into the Forgotten Realms though - maybe they arrive on the Sword Coast soon via Chult?

Click to expand...

Psionics is in FR. House Oblodra, a Drow psiobic House, nearly toppled House Baenre during Lolth's Silence. Kimmurial (sp?), a remnant of Oblodra, runs Bregan D'earth as Jarlaxle's number 2.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

I think 3.5 soured my experiences with this stuff early on, and now I am tainted forever from the emotional scarring.

I recall one guy who, without fail would ALWAYS make a Psionic character. Not only did this get dull, but Some players butted heads over how pushy some of his Characters would be played as.

So, I would prefer to give Psionics a wide berth but I certainly won't stop anyone from enjoying it. I just may not understand the need for it.

So, my opinions - as everyone knows - are legion...

I am completely indifferent to the idea of 'psionics' in a game. If you want to play a psychic character or the in world equivalent of a Jedi Knight, then I'm completely OK with that.

What I absolutely detest is 'psionics' implemented with an entirely different implementation than the games magic system.

Let's be absolutely clear 'psionic' powers or 'psychic' powers or whatever you want to call them are just magic with a different word. Psionics are just another sort of magic user. In 3.X edition for example, I implemented them in my homebrew as a sort of sorcerer. Things like body weaponry, thought shield, tower of iron will, and psionic blast are spells. Some spells are marked with the 'psychic' descriptor, and you have feats you can take that make you a better 'psychic' wizard or sorcerer. But I absolutely loathe with a loathing of great loathing the idea that psionics are fundamentally mechanically different from all other sorts of magic and that the attraction and interest in psionics is ultimately tied to arbitrary mechanical differences in the games implementation of them compared to magic. I don't like having to try to balance to completely different systems. I don't like having to mentally keep track of two entirely separate systems. I don't like having to try to explain in world two entirely different systems of magic, especially when some many of the powers inherently overlap (telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc.).

In 1e it sort of made sense that psionics had a different implementation than other sorts of magic, because psionics represented an innate magical ability that was not tied to the character's class or experience. You were either psionic or you weren't and your psionic abilities were in addition to and supplementary to your class abilities. You couldn't train them. You probably couldn't acquire them. They seemed like a great thing at first, but the nature of the rules made them really a curse because human psionics were invariably weaker than pretty much any psionic monster that they'd ever face, and the first time you fought a psionic creature you probably lost your character. It sort of made sense, it was kind of cool in a very 1e weird way, but it wasn't in any way balanced or in the long run fun. Be in 2e and thereafter, psionics have been tied to class and as such are just a alternate mechanical system for magical abilities purely for its own sake that adds absolutely nothing to the game, and nothing to the game as a game. It ultimately boils down to just mechanical preference for 'mana point' based systems as opposed to D&D's standard 'spell slot' system. Once you have psionics as a class that studies their arts and develops their mental powers, they are just wizards or sorcerers by a different name and slightly different rules.

If you as a DM want to only have psionic classes in your game, and drop the standard magical classes like Wizard and perhaps even Cleric, then that might make some sense as an aesthetic and mechanical choice. I could totally see a game world where 'psionic' was the only spellcaster class. But to have both systems available, purely for the sake of mechanical diversity, makes no sense to me at all.

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"

NO. Because diversity is a good thing.

Ninja-radish said:

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"

NO. Because diversity is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for...