D&D 5E (2014) Do you want psionics in your D&D?

[cbwjm]

Actually, I think the current mystic would work well as the class for the sorcerers in David Eddings's series of books.

 

[Aldarc]

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 do think you rightly have a valid concern about adding more new systems to the game. Where I would push back, however, is that, in general though not necessarily with you, this point is not evenly applied, but often restricted to psionics. Although we may say that all casters cast spells, there are different systems and substems at play. The warlock casts spells, for example, but pact magic operates differently than a wizard or sorcerer's spellslot spells per day system. Likewise, the monk does not operate off of spells, but has their abilities, including spells gained from subclasses, fueled by their ki points. We already have multiple concurrent magic systems in the game. (The artificer will also be adding a new system to the game via their infusions.)

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.

I believe a lot of these concerns have been addressed in the 3.5+ editions. (And it sounds that 3.5 and Dreamscarred Press's take on psionincs would serve your purposes best as they more concretely address these points that you raise.)

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.

Here is another set of presumptions that I find contentious, namely that (a) psionics are incongruent with the pre-existing magical systems, and (b) that the magical system is presmed as "coherently explained," which is a particular sentiment that may be far from universal or true. For me, D&D does not present a coherent magic sytem. The distinction between divine and arcane magic, as is often the case, is one of those D&Disms that I personally find incoherent. I can at least sympathize with your distaste for psionics from a similar perspective of my distate for the arcane/divine magic divide. The simulationist in me would prefer a more universal magic system. For example, Arcana Evolved is one such universal system that still clearly draws on D&D in its approach and familiarity (and it clearly influenced the 5e magic system).

 

[Celebrim]

I do think you rightly have a valid concern about adding more new systems to the game. Where I would push back, however, is that, in general though not necessarily with you, this point is not evenly applied, but often restricted to psionics.

Some probably do, though its also possible that people don't like psionics for reason other than the addition of a system.

Although we may say that all casters cast spells, there are different systems and substems at play. The warlock casts spells, for example, but pact magic operates differently than a wizard or sorcerer's spellslot spells per day system.

You'll be gratified to know that neither warlocks nor binders have ever been a part of my game.

Likewise, the monk does not operate off of spells, but has their abilities, including spells gained from subclasses, fueled by their ki points. We already have multiple concurrent magic systems in the game. (The artificer will also be adding a new system to the game via their infusions.)

Well first, that attribute of the monk is a fairly new one. Older editions did not treat monks as spell-casters. And yes, I dropped monks from my game back in 1e.

I believe a lot of these concerns have been addressed in the 3.5+ editions. (And it sounds that 3.5 and Dreamscarred Press's take on psionincs would serve your purposes best as they more concretely address these points that you raise.)

I would say that 3.5 edition psionics is probably the best take. But as I said before, I'd only actually use those classes if I dropped the more usual magic using classes from the setting.

Here is another set of presumptions that I find contentious, namely that (a) psionics are incongruent with the pre-existing magical systems...

Once being a 'psi' became a class that could be trained, it became nearly impossible for me to explain what it was that wasn't already covered by a magic-user. Psionics are 'mental'. So is wizardly magic. Psionics discipline their mind; so do wizards. Psionic power arises from within the self, and so does a wizards or sorcerers magic. Psionics are either native talent or learned. Depending on which is true, how are they fundamentally different from wizards or sorcerers?

and (b) that the magical system is presmed as "coherently explained," which is a particular sentiment that may be far from universal or true.

I'm sure the sentiment is far from universal. Many DM's I've met have never even been able to explain why wizards memorize spells and then can't cast them again after they do. It is just the way that it is, and they don't understand it, and many probably think it's just a stupid way to achieve balance.

For me, D&D does not present a coherent magic sytem. The distinction between divine and arcane magic, as is often the case, is one of those D&Disms that I personally find incoherent.

How is it incoherent? The distinction between divine and arcane is one of the most straight forward in the game. Divine casters draw their power from outside of themselves. Their magic is gifted to them by some inherently magical being. As a consequence, many divine casters can lose their magic if they offend those magical powers and thus they often have expected behavior they must conform to. Arcane casters on the other hand develop power within themselves, by disciplining their mind and long labor in study of the secret ways of the universe, or else by drawing on secret wells of arcane power hidden in their heritage. Are their classes that have blurred this distinction? Probably. But they've never been a part of my game, and would be rejected if they appeared to have been assigned 'arcane' or 'divine' arbitrarily or purely for mechanical reasons.

The arcane/divine divide explains in a very simple way, even though they use basically the same system (spells divided by levels and spell slots to hold them), different classes have access to different powers. Much of the perceived incoherence has to do with people making assumptions about how things work that aren't part of the system, for example assuming that clerics use their faith to make miracles - something not a part of the system at all, and from my point of view wholly incoherent when applied to D&D.

I can at least sympathize with your distaste for psionics from a similar perspective of my distate for the arcane/divine magic divide. The simulationist in me would prefer a more universal magic system.

A universal magic system would make sense if there was only a single source of magical power, and in turn would suggest that there is only a single spell-casting class. The arcane/divine divide suggests at least two sources of magical power. For my part though, for some settings, I might go down to a single spellcasting class, joining to the arcane/divine divide at the point it most closest resembles real world magical traditions (which for lack of a better term we'll class the 'occult' tradition). For 3.5, the class I'd almost certainly choose as the one universal spellcaster would probably be the Green Ronin shaman (or if I was playing 5e, a class I'd homebrew from that model). However, I can imagine settings where I'd adopt the Psion as the one universal spellcaster, particularly if the setting didn't have a lot of occult elements (usually non-animist settings).

But the arcane/divine divide has a basis in real world magical tradition, particularly during the medieval/early modern era that D&D draws on, when distinctions were made between magia, goetia, and theurgy. It also supports D&D's iconic priest/wizard divide, albeit the D&D wizard has no real basis in ancient/historical magical tradition and is a wholly modern creation (almost to the point of being a D&Dism), and if you had to pick one or the other to represent how people actually believed magic worked, you'd be better off with the cleric. Nonetheless, the D&D wizard has been so successful and iconic, that it pretty much has defined 'wizard' in people's minds ever since then.

 

[Ninja-radish]

I think the other reason I hate Vancian Magic and prefer psionics is because when I play a psionic character, I feel like my character has a unique or at least unusual talent. Magic seems like just a bunch of rote memorization to me, no talent involved. It feels like "Ok, so to cast Fireball I say these gibberish words, move my hands this way, and throw this bat guano around. Got it, what's the next spell?".

With psionics, the feel is more of an exceptional talent you're born with and can't just be taught, rather than going to Hogwarts and learning incantations or whatever. I personally find that dull.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm still using my homebrewed psychics. They seem to work fairly well.

• Light armor. Simple weapons. d6 HD.
• Power [or if you prefer "Psi-"]-Points with a base amount by level + Int. mod. + Cha. mod. Recharging overnight. For 5e, I'd probably let it be your Int. mod. on a short rest, all on a long.
• A "Fortified Mind" [at 1st level] offers save bonuses to mental and emotional attack and/or intrustion (other psychic powers, enchantments and most illusion magic).
• Your Mental "Talents" not just available for psychic-to-psychic combat, but generally low powered. The Psychic's "cantrips" equivalent, though still with a point cost, are available to all psychic characters/beings. I suppose, given the nature of at-will cantrips in 5e, talent powers (or at least a few) should be made at-will/no point cost for use in 5e.
• Your "Discipline" powers/features coming in at 2nd level. Developed thus far: Telepathy (duh), Telekinesis (which may be flavored as any kind of energy control for those looking for a pyro- or cryo-kinetics), Clairvoyance (your seer's and precognition), and Empathy (for emotional reads, control, ye olde "sensitivity to psychic impressions," and some healing)
• A base feature (4th?) that let's you engage in two separate powers at once, either 2 talents or a talent and a discipline power at the same time.
• A base class feature (5th level, I think) that allows you to "overextend" yourself beyond daily allotment of PP by burning Constitution points to sustain powers beyond your limits. Accruing exhaustion and possibly leading to one's own demise if not handled properly. It's not "Arcane Recovery" but gives you a chance to go "above and beyond" from time to time.
• Powers are broken into increasing increments of point cost but there are no "level limits" and [again, per 5e parlance/for 5e use] there are no "powers known." If you have the points available, you can manifest a given power from your discipline (or a talent).

There's other fun tidbits as you level up, but don't need to give away the farm. Thinking the multi-power thing might be OPed for 4th and might swap that out for the "Psychic Screen" feature (currently at 7th, I think), letting you provide mental protections/defenses for allies/others in your immediate area.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. I think I understand where people are coming from when they think of D&D psionics as sci-fi (with power names like "Id Insinuation" for instance) but I think they are giving too much credit to that flavor and not enough to the way other editions have represented it.

That flavor was much more pronounced in 2e and, especially, 1e, it wasn't just the names, it was what many of the disciplines & sciences did & how they worked, not that there was much separation between fluff and crunch back then, but terms like synapses and molecules permeated classic psionics.

The other WotC editions deviated from that, some, while 5e calls back to it more.

Is there really anything un-D&D about the Eastern Mysticism flavor? No, of course not. It's extremely appropriate in a fantasy game.

D&D has a long history of 'orientalism,' starting with the Monk and the 1e Oriental Adventures supplement, in which there was a mechanically-superior orientalist version of every class, every one of which had some sort of 'Ki' power.

I do think you rightly have a valid concern about adding more new systems to the game. Where I would push back, however, is that, in general though not necessarily with you, this point is not evenly applied, but often restricted to psionics.

Not true, the 'no more new sub-systems' card is also played against new weapons, new archetypes, and of course, new classes, especially the Warlord.

Although we may say that all casters cast spells, there are different systems and substems at play. The warlock casts spells, for example, but pact magic operates differently than a wizard or sorcerer's spellslot spells per day system. Likewise, the monk does not operate off of spells, but has their abilities, including spells gained from subclasses, fueled by their ki points. We already have multiple concurrent magic systems in the game. (The artificer will also be adding a new system to the game via their infusions.)

Yep, but they all reference spells, so though the system is different, they can re-cycle large portions of the existing rules.

Here is another set of presumptions that I find contentious, namely that (a) psionics are incongruent with the pre-existing magical systems, and (b) that the magical system is presmed as "coherently explained," which is a particular sentiment that may be far from universal or true. For me, D&D does not present a coherent magic sytem.

It's certainly doesn't model magic found in most of the broader fantasy genre at all well. It's coherent enough mechanically, though, as any remotely workable system would have to be.

 

[Ninja-radish]

Actually, I think the current mystic would work well as the class for the sorcerers in David Eddings's series of books.

Works pretty well for Raymond Feist's Magician series too.

 

[Celebrim]

Works pretty well for Raymond Feist's Magician series too.

The Magician series was directly inspired by a D&D campaign, so much so that numerous D&D-isms show up in the text in a rather overt manner - especially in the first book. Pug is quite certainly a 1e AD&D M-U, at least in his original derivation.

 

[Ninja-radish]

Interesting, I had no idea that series was inspired by a D&D campaign. I don't recall alot of D&D references in it, but it's been a long time since I've read those books.

 

[Celebrim]

Interesting, I had no idea that series was inspired by a D&D campaign. I don't recall alot of D&D references in it, but it's been a long time since I've read those books.

Feist was a player in campaign where the DM had come with up essentially 'Middle Earth' (JRR Tolkien) meets 'Tékumel' (MAR Barker) with the serial numbers filed off, and as presented through the lens of D&D. Feist was so inspired by the game that he wanted to turn its basic elements into a novel, apparently unaware (or figuring he could get away with it) that Tékumel was someone else's intellectual property. That actually turned out to be a good thing, because Feist is a better writer than MAR Barker, and probably is the best ambassador for the Empire of the Petal Throne ever.

Nonetheless, reread the encounters with the elves, dark elves, dwarves, wraith, gold dragon, and so forth again in the first book. The D20's are rattling on practically every page.