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

Human knowledge has always advanced – fire and stone tools are even older than homo sapiens – and human beings have always tried to make sense of the world around them using their reason and the best information available.

But I think we can trace an explanation of paranormal powers that is recognisable to us as scientific, or at least as an attempt to be scientific, back to the concept of animal magnetism, also known as mesmerism, in the late 18th century. Perhaps even to a specific date, November 23rd 1775. The following excerpt is from the entry Animal Magnetism by Bertrand Méheust in the Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism (2006):

[Franz Anton] Mesmer’s reputation as a doctor and healer soon began to grow. In 1775, Prince Elector Max Joseph of Bavaria invited him to assist in an investigation of séances of exorcism held near Constance by Father Johann Joseph Gassner, a priest who was attracting crowds and performing what appeared to be miraculous healings, laying on his hands to expel evil spirits. On November 23, 1775, after observing Gassner, Mesmer undertook to reproduce the same phenomena. He found that he could produce seizures in an epileptic patient merely by a touch of the finger, and could cause the sick to have apparent convulsions. On the strength of this, he concluded that Gassner was sincere, but did not understand what he was doing; his cures were real, but explainable by the effect of a mysterious agent, hitherto unknown: the "animal magnetism" that he, Mesmer, had just discovered. Thus mesmerism was born from an unlikely combination of efforts: the attempt to interpret exorcism from a rational standpoint; experimentation in magnetic medicine; and the first tentative theories of electricity and magnetism...​
In April 1784 Armand Marie Jacques Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur, Colonel of Artillery and a prominent landowner, began to spend his spare time healing his employees by magnetizing them according to the principles of Mesmer’s doctrine. He was called to the bedside of a young peasant suffering from an inflammation of the lungs. Suddenly and unexpectedly, he plunged his patient into a mysterious state of unconsciousness… The patient’s personality changed; a new self emerged, which seemed to overhang his waking consciousness. Furthermore, the young man appeared to be able to predict the course of his malady, to establish its stages, and to read the thoughts of his healer, even before they were fully formed… Puységur established, in repeating the experiment upon more patients, that this state of consciousness could be reproduced fairly regularly, and that other somnambulists were equally capable of diagnosing maladies, reading thoughts, and perceiving events outside normal consciousness.​

Animal magnetism influenced notions of magic, which I think is what leads to the synthesis of magic and psychic powers we see in later works of 20th or 21st century fantasy. From the chapter Science and the Occult by Egil Asprem in The Occult World (2015):

The different theories and practices associated with Mesmerism came to exert an enormous influence on nineteenth-century esoteric currents, notably occultism and spiritualism. It provided a science-like explanation of magic in Joseph Ennemoser’s Geschichte der Magie (1844), which in turn became the single most important influence on H.P. Blavatsky’s published works of Theosophy. Eliphas Levi’s massively influential Dogme et rituel de la haute magie similarly looked to Mesmerism for its account of the magical agent, 'astral light'.​
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


I know you said this isn't a research paper, and my response obviously isn't, but this is just wrong.

Not only do we have JRR Tolkien's work which in part is a reflection on the War and industrialization, even things like The Wizard of Oz is full of allegories of a changing culture and people's place within it. Heck, I've never read it, but I'd guarantee that A Song of Fire and Ice deals heavily in Moral and Ethical questions.

On my bookshelf I have The Hollows series, The Mercy Thompson series, and the Kate Daniels series all of which deals with how humanity might react to magic appearing in the world, and touch on issues of class, various -isms that divide us (race, sex, gender, wealth, ect) and people just struggling to find their own place in the world.

The Stormlight Archive has no good and evil (even the big omnipotent evil force is actually just the emotion of Passion taken to the extreme) and focuses on how broken people try to hold themselves together and reach towards a moral ideal, even though they will always fall short.

Another one I've never read, but The Black Company certainly has never sounded like something with Destiny and simple morality.

And Sci-Fi? I'm not familiar with many sci-fi books, but let us take a moment for science fiction movies.

Pacific Rim? A straight Good vs Evil believe in yourself story.

Independence Day? Same thing

Avatar? Seems pretty simplistic in its presentation of morality.

Transformers? Heck, Power Rangers has some series that are completely science fiction, with no magic just "alien technology" like the Chrono-Rangers or Light Speed Rescue.


You may decide to argue that none of these simple Sci-Fi stories are "good" science fiction, but they are science fiction. And I'm sure if I went out on Amazon and looked for "valiant humanity fighting against the alien threat" I'd find quite a few black and white tales that don't try and make any deep statements.

Both genres have both sides, this is not a way to distinguish between them.

And, there you have the point. You cannot define genre by the edges. These are all stories that shade into fantasy rather than SF because they are far more of a fantasy themed story. Granted, I'd still call all of them SF, but, far more in the overlap of the Venn diagram.

You MUST define genre by the centers. There's just no other way to define them. All you can do, when defining genre, is choose a handful of similarities. The farther from those similarities a work is, the farther it is from the center of that genre.

So, sure, you can always pick works that bridge the two genres. Of course you can. That's the way genre works.
 

This thread, wow. I pop in every once in a while and the arguments over genre just keep rolling on.

Short and sweet, psionics is not-magic magic, or pseudoscientific magic, that has a strong genre basis in fantastic literature and also in history and mythology (very recent mythology).

It's been a part of the D&D game from nearly the beginning, and has been controversial among fans that long as well. While it's (almost) always been a part of D&D, it's usually been "on the side" and not tightly integrated into the core D&D experience.

Some folks really don't like the mild incongruity of psionics with the more sword-and-sorcery elements of core D&D and/or just don't feel it adds much.

Others LOVE classic D&D psionics for all sorts of reasons. It provides additional options for characters, and for world-building. It's often different in tone and in mechanics from the core, so can be a fun and refreshing change of pace. It allows world-building elements and character archetypes that core D&D doesn't model well. And, again, it does have a basis in genre, in fantastic literature, and allows us to model some of our favorite characters, situations, and worlds from those stories.

What I would like WotC to do is twofold. Continue exploring adding "mystical" or "occult" mentalism character options as subclasses, feats, etc. Paizo does something similar in their "occult" block of character classes. But also create an optional system that translates the classic D&D psionics rules to 5th Edition, complete with a psion class, the six disciplines, wild talents, and all the rest. Those of us who love D&D's quirky take on mental powers can use it, and those of us who don't can ignore it.

I can understand if WotC is hesitant to put resources into a book that will only appeal to a portion of the audience . . . . so let a third-party company take it on! Are those guys from Dreamscarred Press, of "Ultimate Psionics" fame, still around?

In the meantime, I'll play around with some of the options on the DM's Guild. I'm really impressed with the "Korranberg Chronicle: Psionics Primer", even though I'm not a fan of some of their choices . . . .
 

Thanks to all adding to my collected thoughts on psionics/magic, how they interact in the Forgotten Realms in specific and how they interact as designed in 5e in general.

With all the supplies points provided I begrudgingly have to lower my hope that psionics would be different officially and realize that the only way that's going to happen in a game is by myself homebrewing them to be so.

If we are at a point where at some level every power is just "magic" with different methods of accessing that magic....I no longer see the need to bother having psionics in 5e. If psionics is just the same magic used by wizards, sorcerer's, and warlocks then I'd rather not see a 4th class muddying the waters of retreading the same ground.

Id rather new classes explore new ground but I think I've been convinced I'm not going to find much new ground in 5e.
 

And, there you have the point. You cannot define genre by the edges. These are all stories that shade into fantasy rather than SF because they are far more of a fantasy themed story. Granted, I'd still call all of them SF, but, far more in the overlap of the Venn diagram.

You MUST define genre by the centers. There's just no other way to define them. All you can do, when defining genre, is choose a handful of similarities. The farther from those similarities a work is, the farther it is from the center of that genre.

So, sure, you can always pick works that bridge the two genres. Of course you can. That's the way genre works.

I can agree to that basic premise, but I don't agree that Fantasy is defined by simply being black and white morality tales. There is simply too much fantasy that isn't for me to believe that is the case.
 

I can agree to that basic premise, but I don't agree that Fantasy is defined by simply being black and white morality tales. There is simply too much fantasy that isn't for me to believe that is the case.

Yeah, it has to have elves and dwarves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:



This is the kind of thing I don't get. They seem the same to me. The power just comes from their mind.

Sorcerers have magic juice flowing through them that they got from somewhere. When they cast spells they more or less do it exactly like wizards, with magical incantations, bat guano and precise gestures. They aren't smart enough to understand all that mumbo jumbo the way a wizard does, and unlike a cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, or warlock, no higher being or force has their back, so the reason it works for them is because of all that majic juice infusing them.

Psions are not infused with magic juice. They are just people who know how to do incredible things with their minds, like moving objects, reading thoughts, etc. No mumbo jumbo needed or desired. Just think it and it happens.
 

Remove ads

Top