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

[Maxperson]

Yeah, so, since there's no one else here that seems to have the same opinion as me, I will have to be the spokesperson for my group of people that agree with this opinion. It's not bad to have standards. I have standards to what Psionics must be for me to approve it, and it's a very small list that I said above. I don't think it's bad to have a guideline of what you want for psionics.

There's having standards. And there's being so rigid that you end up never getting married, because nobody can meet them.

We have standards as well. We're just a hell of a lot more flexible in what we will enjoy.

 

[Maxperson]

I actually empathize (and sympathize!) with wanting psionics to be non-spells. Same with @Maxperson's desire for psionics to have no VSM. I get it, I really do.

In both cases, maybe at least partly because I'm weirdly nostalgic for the 1e version.

And at the same time, I can set those desires aside and evaluate the latest UA on its own merits. I actually like it more and more as I mull it over. I filled out the survey and gave it pretty high marks.

I gave it high marks as well. Then at the end I told them that I wanted a Psion class of some sort. The UA was good, but it wasn't a substitute for a Psion.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

No. No, no, no. Nonononononono. Spells cannot be psionic powers or vice versa.

I do respect that opinion (I don't think psionics can be spells in the fiction), but I'm still trying to figure out precisely where it's centered. Which editions of previous psionics are you familiar with? Of the ones with which I'm familiar the presentation of psionic powers has been done in the following manners:

1e) Psionic powers are discrete things that cost a set amount of points to activate and have effects described similar to spells, but are not in fact spells. In some of the descriptions, it directly references spells from the the PHB, such as "This discipline [the psionic power clairvoyance] is the same as the magic-user spell, clairvoyance (q.v.), except that unknown areas up to 20’ distant can be scanned." Points recover gradually over time.
2e) Same as 1e, except I don't believe there are references to PHB spells, instead just writing up the entire effect. (I don't have current access to the 2e psionic rules, so I'm going by memory on this one. I also didn't have the later 2.5e revision, so I don't really know what was different in it.)
3.0e) Mostly the same type of presentation as 2e. Psionic powers now have levels that are equivalent to spell levels. Power points recover all at once in the morning.
3.5e) As 3.0e, except that many psionic powers directly reference PHB spells again like they did in 1e, and some powers can be augmented by spending more points to get increased effects. It tells you what happens when you do so inside the power description (essentially the exact same mechanic as 5e's "at higher levels" element in many spells, but with points rather than slots. This was almost certainly the original inspiration for that element in 5e spells).
4e) Powers mostly use the universal AEDU setup, except instead of Encounter powers they could use points (I think?) to augment At-Will powers to do extra stuff.

So unless Eldritch Wizardry or the later 2e revision did it completely differently, psionic powers have always been mechanically analogous to spells. What has also always been true is that in the world they are not spells. They are are something different that uses similar rules structures. (Editions have varied about whether or not they were considered magic, with 3.5e treating them as a type of magic by default, and the rest treating them as not magic).

Where do you feel the line is where psionics become too closely connected to spells to be acceptable? Does it make a difference that in 1e and 3.5e they directly said "same as <spell in PHB>" after describing the uniquely different psionic elements, while in 2e and 3.0e they reprinted the text from the PHB with a few changed words instead? Or do you object to all of those editions' (1e-3.5e) presentations? (If so, I'm assuming you're basing your preference on 4e?)

For me, I have no problem with mechanically representing psionics with spell statblocks like they've done for half of the game's history. What matters to me is just that they preserve the important elements (both mechanics and fluff) that are different, like that they don't require incantations, gestures, and reagents because they sprout from inside of you without spellcasting trappings, and that they are not spells in the lore. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me if there is a psionic power called "explosive blast" and they write up it up and say it does 8d6 points of fire damage in a 20' radius, or if they they write it up and say "this power produces the same effect as fireball" or if they describe how psionic powers work differently than spells mechanically and conceptually, and then provide a Psion power list of the the spells that mechanically represent the psionic powers the Psion class can call upon at various levels. D&D has done all of those sorts of things in the past. (I do have a preference against unnecessary reprints, so if a book is going to mimic something in the PHB with a few differences, I'd lean towards favoring them just referencing it rather than reprinting.)

I gave it high marks as well. Then at the end I told them that I wanted a Psion class of some sort. The UA was good, but it wasn't a substitute for a Psion.

I couldn't get past the psi die that I just don't feel works. I gave relatively good ratings for some elements of the Psi Knight, less so for the Soul Knife, and I had a difficult time knowing what to do with the Psionic Soul. I mostly assumed it would be the typical Dark Sun Sorcerer and that a Psion class would exist also, but even with that, I wasn't happy with some of what it did.

 

[Aldarc]

While this position may well indeed be one shared by many people, you might not want to assume that they agree with your on "good" and "bad". I don't. I like the current UA.

Really? Ugh. It presented one of my least favorite iterations of psionics to date. I do have more specific problems with the psi dice and less with general concepts or abilities presented in the soul knife and psionic knight. (Also with the lack of a proper psion.) It's too gimmicky, rolling high resulting in a downgraded die is not psychologically rewarding for players, and there's not enough player control over their resources. I also don't think that the psi dice conveys the class fantasy or psionics well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Really? Ugh. It presented one of my least favorite iterations of psionics to date. I do have more specific problems with the psi dice and less with general concepts or abilities presented in the soul knife and psionic knight. (Also with the lack of a proper psion.) It's too gimmicky, rolling high resulting in a downgraded die is not psychologically rewarding for players, and there's not enough player control over their resources. I also don't think that the psi dice conveys the class fantasy or psionics well.

Yup, I actually like it. The mechanic is interesting and not very finicky (it is a little finicky), and the applicatuon to the fighter and rogue create new niches that I like. I couldn't care less if it was calked psionics or frumpty-muppity. I don't have any big stake in there being something called psionics or what that has to be. I'm travelling light in regard to psionics.

My only real care is that psionics be interesting and fit the rest of 5e design. And example: No components is pretty far down my interesting axis so it has very little weight with me as a needed mechanic. It's kind of a boring hook to hang thungs on. No components does, however, upend the design applecart a bit if it doesn't come at a cost. VSM is a limiter on magic on 5e often enough that magic without it is a step up in utility and power. So, I don't really care if there's no components, so long as it's paid for in the design.

At the end of the day, though, I'm fine with the disagreement. Again, if everyone agreed with me, it would be boring. And, if you get the psionics you want, I'd be happy with that -- I don't need it to be my way or nothing. I'd prefer interesting design, but if it's rehashed and reflavored casting, ok.

 

[Catulle]

I'm sure there's some leeway to look at messing with, say, the concentration tag and dependent submechanics if need be by way of.. "limiters"

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sure there's some leeway to look at messing with, say, the concentration tag and dependent submechanics if need be by way of.. "limiters"

I can't play leeways, though, only soecific implementations. Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but when someone starts talking "possibles" instead of implementations, I roll my eyes. Especially when the assumption is that someone else will do the designing.

 

[Catulle]

I mean, somebody else (at Wizards) will inevitably be doing the design: all we can do here is shoot the breeze about the design spaces we can see.and the degree to which those exist.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I mean, somebody else (at Wizards) will inevitably be doing the design: all we can do here is shoot the breeze about the design spaces we can see.and the degree to which those exist.

Just don't try to start a thread about next generation VTTs. The naysayers will come out of the woodwork.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean, somebody else (at Wizards) will inevitably be doing the design: all we can do here is shoot the breeze about the design spaces we can see.and the degree to which those exist.

Sure, tautologically Wizards will design what Wizards designs. This is a trivial observation along the lines of, "it's raining when it rains."

We, however, will consume what Wizards designs, and, we have input into what Wizards designs. If the sum extent of your input on a possibke design point is that Wizards might design something, well, okay, thanks for that. Not very interesting.

Discussion of what design should accomplish, especially when feedback on design is open, should drill a bit further down than noting designers have unspecified and potentially unlimited options. The point of the feedback isn't to let Wizards know this, but to curtail those options to those most palatable.

So, yeah, the bland pronouncement of the obvious is maybe not as clever as you think it is.