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

[FlyingChihuahua]

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.

You really should tbh, they're pretty awesome.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

That's a great point.

But monsters can do lots of things that PCs can't do.

I love psionics on weird, terrifying, extra-dimensional enemies.

Just like I liked hand-crossbows when those evil drow used them, as I (personally) first encountered in the "Against the Giants" modules. But I like hand-crossbows a lot less when PCs have them.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are two fantasy games done by Free League that are both excellent - Symbaroum, and The Forbidden Lands. Neither is exactly low-magic, but both could certainly be played that way. I suggest them for the quality of the system and setting, rather than simply the low-magic thing.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

And looking for a new fantasy system.

Or you could keep using just the Core books and go with one of the many 3rd party settings out there that use them. Or go with a new game that uses the SRD for the core mechanics and then add their own twist to them, like Adventures in Middle-Earth. That way people do not have to learn a whole new system if they already know 5E.

 

[Mecheon]

But monsters can do lots of things that PCs can't do.

Completely true, but they did crack the floodgates open that long ago that I think its implanted as a thing, even though the only real psionic-using races that stuck were the Gith

Mind, I'm a 4E fan who loves Shardminds so, y'know, slightly biased towards psionics being a thing

 

[Guest 6801328]

Completely true, but they did crack the floodgates open that long ago that I think its implanted as a thing, even though the only real psionic-using races that stuck were the Gith

Mind, I'm a 4E fan who loves Shardminds so, y'know, slightly biased towards psionics being a thing

Yeah, I certainly don't expect them to not do psionics. And I'm not going to quit 5e because of it. I'm probably not even going to mention my dislike of it it to my group.

But, since somebody brought it up, I also think that psionics, especially in PCs, feels more sci-fi than fantasy to me.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Yeah, I certainly don't expect them to not do psionics. And I'm not going to quit 5e because of it. I'm probably not even going to mention my dislike of it it to my group.

But, since somebody brought it up, I also think that psionics, especially in PCs, feels more sci-fi than fantasy to me.

Ultimately though, isn't Sci-Fi just another form of fantasy?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Are we though? I mean a big part of this debate is about how Psionics hasn't been the same thing in every edition, doesn't mean the same thing to different people, and there is no consensus on even what kind of format it should take.

Given that...are we really arguing about anything which will have a meaningful impact on future editions of D&D given the prior versions don't seem to have impacted this one very much for this topic?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ultimately though, isn't Sci-Fi just another form of fantasy?

This is one of those, "the existence of dawn does not disprove the difference between day and night" things.

We could have a long philosophical argument about whether they are really the same thing.

But if you don't see the difference, I'm unlikely to convince you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Are we though? I mean a big part of this debate is about how Psionics hasn't been the same thing in every edition, doesn't mean the same thing to different people, and there is no consensus on even what kind of format it should take.

Given that...are we really arguing about anything which will have a meaningful impact on future editions of D&D given the prior versions don't seem to have impacted this one very much for this topic?

Quite possibly. But I suspect we all still think, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we are arguing about the future of D&D.

(Because isn't that one of our core competencies on this forum? Ignoring overwhelming evidence?)