Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Mercurius]

I don't see the issue. Psionics can be considered an optional rule, with rules for both a Psion class and add-on psionic abilities for other classes. Every DM/table decides how it fits into their campaign.

"Problem" solved in about 30 words.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't see the issue. Psionics can be considered an optional rule, with rules for both a Psion class and add-on psionic abilities for other classes. Every DM/table decides how it fits into their campaign.

"Problem" solved in about 30 words.

Except this debate falls into the "we're not really arguing about what happens at our own tables, we're arguing about the future of D&D" category.

 

[Asisreo]

In many case of sci fi and literature, the difference is simple, but with wide ramifications.

If you use magic, you are using magic.

Conversely, psionics, even if appearing similar, is actually "science" and a real cause and effect.

Spock was not using magic.*




*I should put that in my sig.

Yeah sure, neither was Thor technically but why go through the work of balancing kinda-but-not magic when you could just have it magic and flavor it different. Would it help if the text said "While it may look and act like arcane or divine magic, it actually uses a mental science too complex for most mortals to uncover. When you use a spellslot, you are actually pulling the mental powers from within!"

I mean. It sounds like the only thing stopping psionics is the flavor text when Wizards can literally just write it like people want.

 

[Big Bucky]

Conversely, psionics, even if appearing similar, is actually "science" and a real cause and effect.

Spock was not using magic.*

It’s like the old saying about advanced enough technology being indistinguishable from magic. The question for me is what is magic in D&D. It’s outside the normal realm of what people can do but it’s learnable. If it’s learnable that’s kind of science-based. We don’t understand how wizards make magic but that’s because it’s beyond our comprehension. Just like someone in the Middle Ages would think WiFi is magic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It’s like the old saying about advanced enough technology being indistinguishable from magic. The question for me is what is magic in D&D. It’s outside the normal realm of what people can do but it’s learnable. If it’s learnable that’s kind of science-based. We don’t understand how wizards make magic but that’s because it’s beyond our comprehension. Just like someone in the Middle Ages would think WiFi is magic.

Arthur C. Clarke.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So it's basically the Warlord situation???

Yes, it would seem so.

 

[Mercurius]

Except this debate falls into the "we're not really arguing about what happens at our own tables, we're arguing about the future of D&D" category.

But D&D is played at our own tables - that is the future of the game. No need for unnecessary legislation unless you care what others do at their tables, or you're completely beholden to the RAW. Play the game you want to play, and use WotC as the resource that it is. It really is a non-issue whether psionics is Psion-only or powers available to all..if both are presented as options.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

OK. You probably want a clarification on that last part. Remember what I said about WotC ignoring niche stuff? They are not going to publish a book of psionic rules which is going to be ignored by over half of the player-base because it's weird, complicated, overpowered, or just different for the sake of being different. It's not that the people who want psioncs to be special are wrong, but that ship has more or less sailed and the people who are voting against normalization are basically just ensuring that if they can't have it their way, nobody can. Even if they don't realize it.

Honest answer. Since the beginning of the 5e era which of the following have you seen more often in the circles in which you discuss Dungeons & Dragons?

1. I want there to be a fleshed out psionic class.
2. I want there to be a fleshed out Magic the Gathering setting.

 

[grimslade]

I love psionics. I have played them at my table in every edition except 4E. I even liked the psionic combat rules.
The problem is how to bring psionics into 5E. There, my bias upfront.
I like this latest iteration of psionic subclasses. The psyknight and soulknife represent their predecessors well enough and fit well with existing classes. This is the tamest implementation of psionics they can do.
The psionic talent die is a wonky mechanic. The rolling max and reducing the die or rolling 1 and growing the die gimmick is a rare occurrence and feels pointless in play. It is something fiddly to track and is outside player control. It is inverse from the normal roll high to succeed. It is different, however.
I feel like 5E is ready to stretch a little bit. Why not expand the Psionic Talent Die (PTD) mechanic and introduce a new system to represent psionics. I would love to see a departure from spell slots and spell points. Maybe the PTD could represent your psionic reserves beyond regular resources and you spend die size to gain extra effects per die size spent. Or the PTD can be spent to recharge an ability.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Jeremy Crawford actually mentioned this problem in a twitter post a while back. The "psionics are different" approach is never going to happen, so those who want that will never be happy.