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

[Chaosmancer]

I'm still not sure that this conversation matters for the purposes of answering this genre question. If we want to discuss whether psionics in D&D is magic, then this just goes back to what @DEFCON 1 said: it depends on what is meant by magic.

It's odd to me, for example, that divine "magic" constitutes magic considering that there is a long pattern in history of saying that supernatural effects performed by the faithful are "miracles" and explicitly not magical, since "magic" is something performed by the non-faithful, charlatans, pagans, etc. But by D&D standards, the "magic" of wizards and the "miracles" of clerics are one and the same: magic.

This might skirt the edge, but this reminds me of something I learned years ago.

The Bible has a line in it, about "not suffering a witch to live" which is in large part why 'magic' is the realm of the "non-faithful". But that is actually a poor translation. The original word in Hebrew has a different connotation, instead of "witch" the meaning is more accurately "one who uses magic to harm others"

And that is because the stories of the famous and powerful Rabbis who performed "miracles" were seen as magic by those people. The Golem of Prague was made by inscribing the word for Life upon it, the tradition heavily leans about only Rabbis of certain purity and devotion knowing certain words, because speaking those words were words of power. And they would only allow those of good character who would exercise restrain learning those secrets.

Very tangentially related to the conversation, I just like how DnD is reflecting an much older understanding of what magic is, but combining the multiple practices under a single Aegis.

I don't mind psionics being a form of magic, as per 3e and 4e D&D, BUT this is again where I take issue: the attempt by people to advocate that the wizard subsume all things magical. So I would argue that psionics, psychics, and the "occult" (to borrow the Pathfinder 2 term) do have a sufficiently different set of class fantasy and aesthetics from the wizard, warlock, and sorcerer to justify its own identity as a class or form of magic (e.g., divine, arcane, etc.). I would also say that this form of magic may even have its own advantages (and disadvantages) and that a lack of material components would be part of that, since that fits the aesthetics. I did like the earlier suggested idea that a Psion gradually learns to remove the need of the various spell components or can play with concentration mechanics for their spells/powers, but that it's not necessarily automatic.

I don't mind a Psion class. I think it will have to work a little to be different from an Enchanter Wizard with the proper spell list, but I am interested in seeing how they would accomplish that.

My favorite idea so far has been adopting the structures of the Warlock into the Psion Class, since having something similar to invocations feels right mechanically.

 

[Kinematics]

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

<snip>

I've spent some time thinking this over, and I think I'm going to agree with you. My argument was entirely too specific a limitation, and I've been able to come up with other sci-fi stories that aren't constrained in that way.

I still feel that this is a division that decently separates sci-fi and fantasy, but it's definitely not a sufficient or complete division.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've spent some time thinking this over, and I think I'm going to agree with you. My argument was entirely too specific a limitation, and I've been able to come up with other sci-fi stories that aren't constrained in that way.

I still feel that this is a division that decently separates sci-fi and fantasy, but it's definitely not a sufficient or complete division.

Wow. An internet argument resulted in a changed opinion! Where's my calendar?!

(Not making fun of you, just noting the rarity of the event. Kudos to you for being a good sport!)

 

[Aldarc]

This might skirt the edge, but this reminds me of something I learned years ago.

The Bible has a line in it, about "not suffering a witch to live" which is in large part why 'magic' is the realm of the "non-faithful". But that is actually a poor translation. The original word in Hebrew has a different connotation, instead of "witch" the meaning is more accurately "one who uses magic to harm others"

And that is because the stories of the famous and powerful Rabbis who performed "miracles" were seen as magic by those people. The Golem of Prague was made by inscribing the word for Life upon it, the tradition heavily leans about only Rabbis of certain purity and devotion knowing certain words, because speaking those words were words of power. And they would only allow those of good character who would exercise restrain learning those secrets.

FYI, the perceived differences between "magic" and "miracles" in a number of ancient religious traditions amounts to more than just a single verse in Exodus about sorceresses (kašafah).

Very tangentially related to the conversation, I just like how DnD is reflecting an much older understanding of what magic is, but combining the multiple practices under a single Aegis.

D&D is one of the last systems on earth that I would look to about how historical peoples understood magic. I'm more likely to recommend Greg Stafford's Runequest or M.A.R. Barker's Tékumel have a far better grasp of ancient magic.

I don't mind a Psion class. I think it will have to work a little to be different from an Enchanter Wizard with the proper spell list, but I am interested in seeing how they would accomplish that.

Psionics is far more than just enchanting magic. Plus, a wizard's spell preparation and spell books don't really jive with the aesthetics or class fantasy of psionics. So again, the idea of "just play an enchanting wizard" comes across as tone deaf.

My favorite idea so far has been adopting the structures of the Warlock into the Psion Class, since having something similar to invocations feels right mechanically.

Thanks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Psionics is far more than just enchanting magic. Plus, a wizard's spell preparation and spell books don't really jive with the aesthetics or class fantasy of psionics. So again, the idea of "just play an enchanting wizard" comes across as tone deaf.

You seem to have been mistaken on a lot of what I was trying to say, but I picked this bit out to focus on.

If your conception of a psion is to read minds, alter memories, and pick things up with telekinesis, then when you build a class for that you need to keep in mind that an Enchanter wizard can do all these things with spells. I couldn't give a single care to the aesthetics or class fantasy, that isn't the point.

The point is that if the class is built in such a way that does not distinguish it mechanically from what a wizard with the correct spell list can already do, then you have failed to create anything worth playing. How is "I spend 3 psi points and bind us in a telepathic bond for an hour" different from just casting Rary's telepathic bond? How do we distinguish Telekinesis the spell from Telekinesis the ability?

This is important if you actually want a working class. Because if it is just a funny looking wizard, or worse, a funny looking wizard who is weaker than a normal wizard, then you have not accomplished your goal.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You seem to have been mistaken on a lot of what I was trying to say, but I picked this bit out to focus on.

If your conception of a psion is to read minds, alter memories, and pick things up with telekinesis, then when you build a class for that you need to keep in mind that an Enchanter wizard can do all these things with spells. I couldn't give a single care to the aesthetics or class fantasy, that isn't the point.

The point is that if the class is built in such a way that does not distinguish it mechanically from what a wizard with the correct spell list can already do, then you have failed to create anything worth playing. How is "I spend 3 psi points and bind us in a telepathic bond for an hour" different from just casting Rary's telepathic bond? How do we distinguish Telekinesis the spell from Telekinesis the ability?

This is important if you actually want a working class. Because if it is just a funny looking wizard, or worse, a funny looking wizard who is weaker than a normal wizard, then you have not accomplished your goal.

So what exactly (and I apologize if you've been saying this for 25 pages and I haven't notice) do you want a Psion to do that a Wizard can't do?

EDIT: And I'm not sure I would support an argument that it just needs difference mechanics than Vancian casting. To me that's the same argument that Emerikol used to use about 1/day martial abilities being...oh hell I can't even remember that phrase he made up. Oh, right, dissociative mechanics.

Sure, if the character knows he can only use it once a day, and will be able to use it again tomorrow at dawn, then it's a little strange. But I don't interpret it that way. It's up to the player to explain (or not, if he/she doesn't care) why it can only be used once a day. Maybe your warrior can only do that Whirlwind Kung Fu attack when he or she gets really, really, really angry. And that doesn't happen very often. Never more than once a day, if you stop and think about it, but that's pure coincidence. Really. Or maybe the enemies just have to be in exactly the right positions for it to work. You use it whenever you see the right tactical setup, but....also entirely coincidentally...that never seems to happen more than once a day. Weird.

So, anyway, I don't think Wizards go around saying, "Yeah, I only have 2 3rd level spell slots left today...". Instead, some magic is more taxing than other magic, and there's a limit to what they can do. And it just so happens that that casting web more than X times a day is just too much for them. And if they push it, and cast it more time than that...well, they just might be too mentally fried to use much higher level magic. (Translation: they expended a 3rd level slot. It worked better than usual, which was nice, but dang that was exhausting.)

So if you want to build a dedicated Psion class, I find it perfectly reasonable to make a Wizard, pick all spells that you find flavorful and appropriate, come up with some explanation for VSM (or go Sorcerer), and roleplay as a mysterious psion.

I realize that is just not going to satisfy a bunch of you. But I'm just explaining why I'm not really sold on the "need" for a new class.

EDIT 2: I could, however, picture a Wizard subclass that gives you a few ribbons and perks to help bring the concept to life a little more.

I keep playing around with a Witch class because, well, I like witches. But I've come to the conclusion that I can make a really cool Witch built on a Wizard. And also as a Warlock. Heck, even as a Druid. Witch class is totally not needed. And that's without any new subclasses. But new subclasses would help.

 

[Aldarc]

So what exactly (and I apologize if you've been saying this for 25 pages and I haven't notice) do you want a Psion to do that a Wizard can't do?

Not require a spellbook for starters.

So if you want to build a dedicated Psion class, I find it perfectly reasonable to make a Wizard, pick all spells that you find flavorful and appropriate, come up with some explanation for VSM (or go Sorcerer), and roleplay as a mysterious psion.

I realize that is just not going to satisfy a bunch of you. But I'm just explaining why I'm not really sold on the "need" for a new class.

Yeah, because it would have wizard spell preparation, a spell book, and a bunch of non-thematic spells that will be optimal in any "how to play a psionic wizard" guide.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not require a spellbook for starters.

Yeah, because it would have wizard spell preparation, a spell book, and a bunch of non-thematic spells that will be optimal in any "how to play a psionic wizard" guide.

Sorcerer, then.

Oh, look! There’s a new subclass in UA!

(That was meant to be funny, not dismissive.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I realize that is just not going to satisfy a bunch of you. But I'm just explaining why I'm not really sold on the "need" for a new class.

I wasn't sold on the need for any of the books that they have printed (except maybe the need for a 5e in general), much less any of the individual components of those books, but what does me (or you, or any individual) being sold on them have to do with anything?

If we are going to limit the content of new books to just be things that can't be built by reskinning already existing content then we are severely limit the length and breadth to which 5e can be designed. Reskinning and relying on subclasses only does not provide the design space to allow for new and interesting rules modules to be added to the game. I don't think there is anything particularly "Psionic feeling" about the psionic die, but at least its something new to design around and provide a common theme various game elements can adjust to. I fully would expect that if the "psionic die" became the official hallmark of psionic characters, then an updated Mind Flayer would be released that took advantage of that same mechanic.

I have no idea what makes a "witch" different from a warlock, or a druid, or a wizard, or any other spellcasting class. That is something that you can define for yourself, and your answer is probably as unique as everyone else that would want a "witch" to exist in their game. We already have three (maybe 4 if you count the artificer, I don't have that book) arcane spellcasting base classes that do the same thing "casting magical spells" but that use slightly different mechanics to do so. Do we need a 4th (or 5th) arcane spellcasting class? No, we really don't. Just because we don't need it, though, doesn't necessarily mean that a well designed and interesting arcane caster class couldn't be developed in the future that we didn't realize we wanted. The warlock design in 3.X was awesome, and that was added "after the fact". At the time the concept of "A wizard who can use their spells over and over as many times as they want" would have been thought of as unfair and a horrible idea by many. In actual play, however, the Warlock felt entirely different than the Wizard/Sorcerer and went on to become a core class concept.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I wasn't sold on the need for any of the books that they have printed (except maybe the need for a 5e in general), much less any of the individual components of those books, but what does me (or you, or any individual) being sold on them have to do with anything?

Zero. We are debating because it’s interesting, right?

If we are going to limit the content of new books to just be things that can't be built by reskinning already existing content then we are severely limit the length and breadth to which 5e can be designed. Reskinning and relying on subclasses only does not provide the design space to allow for new and interesting rules modules to be added to the game. I don't think there is anything particularly "Psionic feeling" about the psionic die, but at least its something new to design around and provide a common theme various game elements can adjust to. I fully would expect that if the "psionic die" became the official hallmark of psionic characters, then an updated Mind Flayer would be released that took advantage of that same mechanic.

I have no idea what makes a "witch" different from a warlock, or a druid, or a wizard, or any other spellcasting class. That is something that you can define for yourself, and your answer is probably as unique as everyone else that would want a "witch" to exist in their game. We already have three (maybe 4 if you count the artificer, I don't have that book) arcane spellcasting base classes that do the same thing "casting magical spells" but that use slightly different mechanics to do so. Do we need a 4th (or 5th) arcane spellcasting class? No, we really don't. Just because we don't need it, though, doesn't necessarily mean that a well designed and interesting arcane caster class couldn't be developed in the future that we didn't realize we wanted. The warlock design in 3.X was awesome, and that was added "after the fact". At the time the concept of "A wizard who can use their spells over and over as many times as they want" would have been thought of as unfair and a horrible idea by many. In actual play, however, the Warlock felt entirely different than the Wizard/Sorcerer and went on to become a core class concept.

.

Not sure I’m following your argument, but I’ll say that I don’t particular see the need for shiny new mechanics, either. Existing ones work fine, and injecting entirely new ones run the risk of them being objectively better.

But I think it’s because we just desire different things out of new content. I already think Wizard and Sorcerer and Warlock make two similar concepts too many.