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

[Marandahir]

A few things:

Much of the Fairy Tales, Folklore, Myths, and Legends that we know today had morals grafted onto them by their collectors and redactors. The Brothers Grimm were not some exception to this. They had an editorial intent to publish a collection of tales that spoke to what they saw as the specifically Deutsch character, as part of a larger Nationalist movement. They sit very much on the Romantic side of the Romanticism vs Enlightenment debate that lies at the core of many of the arguments this thread has engaged in. But the tales themselves do not possess an inherently "Romantic" quality, and they themselves predate the morals. Same thing with Biblical narratives - the authorship differs between say, the parables and the framing of the parables describing what the parable means.

This is important when we talk about the roots of Fantasy. Fantasy is not a story of morals at its heart. It's a venture into Faërie - into the perilous unknown, where the laws of the universe don't necessary apply. This CAN mean that you need to follow traditions if you are to survive in a Fairy Tale, but just as often you need to break from the traditions and warnings and use your own wit. Belle has to learn to love the Beast and see his inner goodness to save her father. Bluebeard's wife needs to trust her gut and escape a psychopathic murderer-husband. But both of these closely-related stories have a number of morals grafted onto them over the years, which don't necessarily follow with the actions of the characters.

I highly suggest reading Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" for a good lesson on what the genre of Fantasy is and where its boundaries are. Tolkien never finished the Silmarillion because he started trying to make his Fantasy conform to newly learned Astrophysical science of the time and began to doubt the whole purpose of his mythology (he wanted to throw out the flat earth-made-round narrative as well as the world before the rising of the sun; these are both quite fantastical ideas that are diminished as he tries to retrofit them into the current understanding of Earth, given that he was supposing a mythic past for our current world). Down that road he was heading, the entire Mythology collapses and this deeply troubled the man to his dying days. It's an attempt to graft elements of science fiction upon the fantasy, and for Tolkien, once he started going that route, it caused ripple headaches throughout the body of work.

Fantasy need not be set in a mythic or medieval past. Urban Fantasy is a very popular subgenre that deals with the fantasy races, magic, the paranormal, psionics, ghosts, monsters like vampires & werewolves, and the occult, but in an otherwise modern, urban setting. But it still retains the essential idea of Fantasy: that this is inherently unknowable territory. We are not in a world that might one day be. We are beyond the threshold of reality and where we go, we must take caution. There may be rules but they do not conform to the rules of our universe.

What does this mean for Psionics? Of course it's a fantasy concept. It TENDS to show up in fantasy with settings that are otherwise rough analogues to the 1800s-onward toward the future, after the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment in Europe - as others have discussed. It's a form of magic related to disciplines that were at a given time still mysterious while other sciences marched on.

I love the Psionic Talent dice mechanic. I'm not wedded to these these subclasses or a Psion class or lackthereof.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

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.

Myself personally? I'm also not sold on the "need" for a new class. But I think it could be fun and since other people want it, I'm okay with trying to figure it out.

And, I'm not really sure of the answer to the question of what they can do that a wizard can't, in broad strokes.

I like the Psy Knight though, I think the idea of creating mental shields to protect their allies is cool, and I love the cover mechanic they gave them. That is neat.

But, that isn't a Psion, that is a subclass for the fighter, so what would a pure psion look like? I've got a 3pp one (the Kibble Tasty Psion from GM Binder) that I'm quite happy with, and they seemed to have gone the route of giving limited spells, but giving abilities that stack within their at-wills. So, for example, the Mind-Reading subclass (name escapes me and I'm not pulling it up) has an ability that gives their target disadvantage on their next save against an ability after they've been hit with that subclass's at-will attack. Representing the "foot in the door" of having accessed their mind and thoughts.

They have a "projection" subclass that focuses on powering up a summoned ally, which is kind of neat, but is all of this what other people will want? I don't know.


What I do know though is that for those who want the Psion class, they have to contend with exactly what you are saying. It has to be interesting enough, and have different enough powers that it can't just be copied by the wizard. How you go about that can change, but that is the goal, at the end of the day.

 

[Marandahir]

Oh, one other thought though:

I'd totally be up for a 5.5e where Sorcerer doesn't require components for spells but has other restrictions, and can use Int, Wis, or Cha as its casting stat (and thus allows Psion as a very clear concept of it).

If we HAVE to have a Psion class, then yeah, use the Sorcerer as a chassis, switch to spell points (merge pool with Sorcery points), change to Int casting, remove components, switch up the spell list to be mostly illusions, enchantments, and conjurations, plus some elemental evocation spells due to things like pyrokinesis. Give it some sort of additional restriction to make up for component requirement removal. Maybe even fewer spells known? I'm not sure.

But Sorcerer is incredibly close to the language of the Psion. It speaks a lot to how Ability Scores have restricted the narrative malleability of casters while not so much for martial characters (who might be Str based or might be Dex based depending on build). I could see Int-based Clerics, Wis-based Wizards, Cha-based Druids, Int-based Sorcerers, Int-based Warlocks, Cha-based Wizards, even Wis or Int-based Bards.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I'm a fan of novelty. I don't like to listen to the same songs over and over. I don't play a videogame longer than it takes me to beat it once. I rarely reread a book. If a new restaurant opens up i'm going to hit it up the first week its open. I am certainly in the "Cult of the New" when it comes to my boardgame hobby.

5e is extremely stagnant when it comes to OFFICIAL additional character choice. Without a stream of new content for me to consume, I eventually run out of interest in exploring the system because I have already "seen it all" when it comes to the mechanics, which are front and center in every combat (which is heavy in the games in which I am player) and applicable in most non-combat encounters.

I would have moved on to a different system already if not for the fact that the rest of my game group seems to enjoy 5e and voted to do Part 2 of the campaign I ran at the beginning of 5e rather than begin a new campaign in Torg: Eternity.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm a fan of novelty. I don't like to listen to the same songs over and over. I don't play a videogame longer than it takes me to beat it once. I rarely reread a book. If a new restaurant opens up i'm going to hit it up the first week its open. I am certainly in the "Cult of the New" when it comes to my boardgame hobby.

5e is extremely stagnant when it comes to OFFICIAL additional character choice. Without a stream of new content for me to consume, I eventually run out of interest in exploring the system because I have already "seen it all" when it comes to the mechanics, which are front and center in every combat (which is heavy in the games in which I am player) and applicable in most non-combat encounters.

I would have moved on to a different system already if not for the fact that the rest of my game group seems to enjoy 5e and voted to do Part 2 of the campaign I ran at the beginning of 5e rather than begin a new campaign in Torg: Eternity.

Fair enough. I get my novelty from the adventures, and don’t need it from the mechanics and character options. But to each his or her own.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

5e D&D doesn't really define what "magic" is, and it varies in different settings. In FR it's tied to the weave, which, as the body of a goddess, is divine in origin. In Dark Sun magic is fuelled by life energy drawn from the environment. In Eberron it's tied to the creation myth of the three primordial dragons, and powered by dragonshards. Ravnica and Theros don't really define the relationship between wizards and planeswalker magic, but planeswalker magic is fuelled by mana drawn from the land (and psionics is simply blue magic).

So, if you don't know what magic is, it makes it very difficult to define what is and is not magic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not terribly interested in playing psionic characters (in case that hasn't been obvious) but I just played around with making a Sorcerer with the new rules, and I gotta admit it's appealing to me.

With a variant human, and using the new Feats, you can still get to an 18 Cha by level 4, with two really sweet abilities to boot. There are plenty of flavorful cantrips (the new Mind Sliver, Friends, Mage Hand, Message, Minor Illusion) and spells (the new spells, plus Shield, Sleep, Suggestion...). Subtle Spell and Twinned Spell for metamagic abilities.

With Telekinetic feat you could get an extra cantrip, but I think I'd take the +30' bonus instead. In my experience the range on mage hand is often a limitation.

At level 8 I guess I'd get the 20 Cha, but after that I'd take the rest of the new Feats. Inspiring Leader would also be tempting, and is ripe for refluffing as psionics.

Next time I need a new character I just might see if the DM will sign off.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it matters because there seems to be an easy solution to part of the problem.

Say Psionics is a form of magic, and a lot of things stop being issues. There is no question about how Psionics and spells interact, there is no reason not to use spells to represent psionic effects that they mirror, and we can balance them around existing spellcasters and existing systems. Even if they work slightly differently we don't have the issue of trying to find a way balance a system that doesn't interact with the existing systems.

But, people wish to keep insisting that Psionics isn't magic, that it has nothing to do with magic, that it works entirely different from magic, that it's very existence is different from magic. But, that just doesn't seem to be true, and trying to explore that difference is what led us into Fantasy versus Science Fiction.

There has been what, one person who insists on Psionics not being magic and being separate? The great majority of those who want Psionics have been okay with it being a form of magic.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

It's different in the same way as a Rogue doing rapier damage + 2d6 sneak attack +2 for strength is different from a Paladin doing rapier damage +2d6 smite +2 for strength.

How you get there is very important to the feel of the class.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

As well as VSM, which Psionics from prior editions and UA articles, as well as WotC's current thinking doesn't require.