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

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson let me refresh your memory of my post that started us down this path:

No, psionics are not so painful that I can't put up with it. My opinion is that it doesn't really fit the genre, and I would like D&D more if they didn't try to shoehorn in every concept. That's all. Relax. My opinion is going to cost you neither the Psion nor the Warlord

I dislike the Warlord. it's not going to make it into my game.

 

[Magister Ludorum]

Personaly,

I just want a version with power points, more points in power used-more/better effect.

Also not having verbal/somatic components is a must have.

Ability to "burn" HPs for more power points is also desirable.

My preference would be for a system with no power points. A psionic power slot system (just like spell slots) works better and doesn't distort the game mechanics in unpredicted ways.

A line can added to the description to refer to the DMG optional spell point system, but the core mechanic should be compatible with the other classes.

It would also be okay to reprint that system in whatever book psionic classes and subclasses appear in as an optional rule for psionics.

Just so you know where I'm coming from. I've been GMing D&D since 1978 and have used psionics in every edition from the Eldritch Wizardry supplement to 4e. I've been using something like a more bland version of the psionic sorcercer since 5e came out.

Psionics (mostly based on Katherine Kurtz, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Julian May) have been an integral part of my games from the beginning, but I dislike Dark Sun as a setting.

It seems to me that what we really need are some of the psionic abilities written up as spells so that they're available in the game.

We also need more psionic subclasses like the College of the Ardent bard (or would that be Oath of the Ardent paladin) and Way of Zuoken monk.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't play official AL, but our table rule is "make DDAL legal characters".

Honestly, this "if you don't like it, don't use it" is a total canard, unless you happen to play with people who all share your preferences.

Even if/when I'm the DM, I'm not going to be a jerk and say, "No, you can't use that perfectly legal option."

No but you can say "this is the kind of game I want to run and the limits I'm putting on it and the homebrew I'm using. If that interests you, welcome. If not, this isn't the game for you."

I can enjoy the occasional gonzo game and mini campaign with all these young folk and their scaly, fury, multi-class, magic heros. But sometimes I need to get way and say, no, no dragonborn, no tabaxi, no tieflings.

But usually, I find placing limits on the campaign make it more interesting and these limits have nothing to do with Adventurer's League.

For example, run a campaign where everyone is human and no magic using classes are allowed. So fighters and rogues basically.
Or every one plays Paladins and maybe one cleric. All arcane magic is evil in this campaign and your job to root out this corrupting evil.
and so forth.

The nice thing about 5e is you can run very different types of games without worrying too much about balance.

 

[MNblockhead]

That's another bogus argument, because nobody wants to play other games.

Usually like your posts Elfcrusher, but really?

Sure seem to be lots of other games out there. I guarantee that I get on Roll20's Find a Game now and by playing a non-DnD game tonight or, if I'm unlucky, then within two days.

Beside, even if "everybody" is playing D&D, are you seriously suggesting that none of them would be willing to play a campaign to place some limits on class types, races, feats, etc?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Usually like your posts Elfcrusher, but really?

Sure seem to be lots of other games out there. I guarantee that I get on Roll20's Find a Game now and by playing a non-DnD game tonight or, if I'm unlucky, then within two days.

Beside, even if "everybody" is playing D&D, are you seriously suggesting that none of them would be willing to play a campaign to place some limits on class types, races, feats, etc?

I could probably find an online game with strangers. But if I want to play in person with my local group, it's going to be D&D.

I'm surprised you are surprised. I see posts all the time from people complaining that they can't find anything other than 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Usually like your posts Elfcrusher, but really?

Sure seem to be lots of other games out there. I guarantee that I get on Roll20's Find a Game now and by playing a non-DnD game tonight or, if I'm unlucky, then within two days.

Beside, even if "everybody" is playing D&D, are you seriously suggesting that none of them would be willing to play a campaign to place some limits on class types, races, feats, etc?

My thought was tellling someone who likes to play DnD to just play a different game like Dungeon World or something is an argument Elfcrusher doesn't like. Added into the fact that DnD 5e is by far the most populous section of RPGs on most sites

 

[Mecheon]

My opinion is that it doesn't really fit the genre, and I would like D&D more if they didn't try to shoehorn in every concept.

Problem though is some of the most iconic D&D enemies, in at least Aboleths and Illithids, are psionic.

Psionics isn't some concept being shoehorned in for the sake of it, its been well embraced and is being used by iconically D&D enemies. I can understand not liking that, but the ship is long sailed on D&D having that concept around

 

[Jd Smith1]

Why would you not like that? The whole point of a kitchen sink approach is that you use what you like from the sink and don't use the stuff you don't like. Then the group over there does the same. If you don't use psionics and they do, no harm no foul at either table.

Because 'kitchen sink' systems are wasteful. Instead of focusing on identifying and fixing rules, the designers are looking for yet one more juvenile gimmick to throw in. I restrict my campaign to the Players Handbook, and that's it.

Meanwhile, I keep an eye out for games designed by people who are looking to create quality, rather than quantity. They're out there.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Problem though is some of the most iconic D&D enemies, in at least Aboleths and Illithids, are psionic.

Psionics isn't some concept being shoehorned in for the sake of it, its been well embraced and is being used by iconically D&D enemies. I can understand not liking that, but the ship is long sailed on D&D having that concept around

I don't use either race. I played brown book D&D, and neither were iconic then. The MF showed up a bit in AD&D (1e), but it certainly wasn't iconic. I abandoned D&D after that because of the quantity over quality issues, finally returning to 5e, but once again the 'pile on junk' aspect leaves me cold.

And looking for a new fantasy system.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't use either race. I played brown book D&D, and neither were iconic then. The MF showed up a bit in AD&D (1e), but it certainly wasn't iconic. I abandoned D&D after that because of the quantity over quality issues, finally returning to 5e, but once again the 'pile on junk' aspect leaves me cold.

And looking for a new fantasy system.

Well, good luck with your search I suppose. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Aboleths and Mind Flayers, they make great enemies