D&D General What’s The Big Deal About Psionics?

[LuisCarlos17f]

If there are troubles now with fighters vs wizards then I don't want to imagine the day when manhwa/manhua readers create the cultivator class, a jumping-tree warrior.

WotC should publish the psion mysthic class or this will be by some 3PP. Why not to add a new discipline: Athanatism? (about manipulating souls and spirit, not only undeads).

Have you thought about munchkins combos? For example a rogue+teleportation psion. Or a psion wilder could create totall chaos in the middle of the market, but nobody could notice who is the responsable. With telekinesis you could use a dagger to kill the lord for a high society party, but no witness could know who is the murderer. Even creating a little piece of ectoplasm should be enough to block a gundpowder canon, or to cut the ropes of (cross)bows.

I guess today the game designers will be using software for virtual tabletops for faster playtestings, but this simulations can't help too much with powers about storytelling effects, for example about to read minds or to detect certatin elements.

 

[Hussar]

More advanced or lower cost versions of the traditional mind powers.

A telepathic effect that snatches a memory or deep thought then project an image to charm, frighten, enrage, or harm the target.
A telekinetic effect that grabs a target and slams the target into obstacles or foes
An object reading effect to read the object's owners current thoughts or last thoughts when holding the item.
A creative effect to create an corrosive tentacle, venomous maw, hardened claw, or fiery eye out of ectoplasm or shards.

Or one of the 1e. 2e 3e or 4e stuff that isn't in 5e.

We wont get Psionics as Spells from WOTCs without 12-25 new spells.

Again, though, why couldn't these be templated as spells? And, since none of these are particularly different from existing spells (different enough to justify a new spell, but, not particuarly different - the memory one is Phantasmal Killer mixed with a Calm Emotions spell. Telekinetic grab is just a Bigsby's hand. So on and so forth.

So, again, I'm a little lost here. If these can be done as spells, you're basic problem is that it makes wizards better? But, wizards can already do pretty much everything you've listed here. Adding artificers didn't make wizards stronger. Heck, let's be honest here, a PHB only wizard isn't particularly weaker than a PHB+everything else wizard. It's not like adding spells has actually made wizards particularly stronger. I've yet to see massive threads talking about how wizards are so powerful.

As far as I'm concerned, asking for a completely different casting ability for psions is like asking for an entirely different combat system for a monk. As if the only way to differentiate a monk from a fighter was if monks suddenly rolled percentiles to hit and used a different damage pool. I am really not seeing the issue here.

 

[Minigiant]

Again, though, why couldn't these be templated as spells?

Never said they couldn't be spells. You haven't be listening.
My point is a Spell based Psion would have a low chance of being good as it won't get the exclusivity and page space to make a could base class.

You'll either get a wonky wizard that nobody will care about or buy or you'll need to dedicate 25+ pages of a book to it.

 

[James Gasik]

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, obviously, it is a Wizard! Seriously though, it's simply that yes, you could make a new (oh boy!) subclass for the Wizard and call it the MIND MAGE, who specializes in melting brains with his amazing psycho power.

But for fans of Psionics, that's kind of doing a disservice to the identity of Psionic powers as being something beyond regular magic. That has an actual mystique of it's own. If it's just another Wizard- well do we really need more of them?

As for missing threads about Wizard dominance, I only started posting here recently, but I can point you at some other forums which light on fire about them (and casters in general) fairly often. But there's a reason I'm here and not there...

 

[Hussar]

Never said they couldn't be spells. You haven't be listening.
My point is a Spell based Psion would have a low chance of being good as it won't get the exclusivity and page space to make a could base class.

You'll either get a wonky wizard that nobody will care about or buy or you'll need to dedicate 25+ pages of a book to it.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have zero problem with a Psion as a base class. That's fine. I don't think psions should be a subclass of existing classes. That won't make anyone happy.

But, you don't need an entirely incompatible magic system to get a new class. The Artificer proves that.

IOW, we can have both a new psion base class AND a new class that uses the existing spell mechanics. Since there's virtually nothing a psion is doing that is original - most psionic effects are simply existing spells with a bit of a twist - I have no idea why you'd need a completely new casting system just to add psionics to the game.

And, let's not forget, there's more to adding psionics than simply the class as well. Psionics adds a LOT on the DM's side of the screen as well - new magic items, new monsters, changes and alterations to existing monsters, so on and so forth. Insisting that psionics MUST NOT use the existing spell system is ensuring that D&D will never have a psionic system.

 

[Minigiant]

@Hussar

I think my point keeps whooshing over your head.

My point is that

1. The 5e spell system is designed to create classes like the wizard, cleric, and sorcerer.
2. If you don't either create a bunch of new exclusive spells or a new mechanic, you will just be creating an alternative wizard or sorcerer
3. Nobody wants an alternative wizard or sorcerer as a psion. Not enough to spend money on it
4. Therefore a Psion would either need a bunch of new exclusive spells with new effects or a whole new mechanical skeleton to validate spending money purchasing it.

TLDR: There is no money in a Psionics as Spells Psion with no new spells. Because a bad version of it already exists.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well that's both right and niche protection is a corrosive force in game design.

If you don't want niche protection it is extremely counterproductive to have a class-based system in the first place.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One spell that I want to see is a cantrip that does real telekinesis, not a floating hand.

Let the cantrip move unattended objects and willing creatures within Tiny size. And spend slots to increase the size of the effect.

I just always just houserule the Mage Hand to be invisible force instead of a literal spectral hand. I think it is cooler that way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It works well to organize every spell in D&D into themes and subthemes. (It resembles Cleric domains but the taxonomy is more thuro.) Then each character concept can choose about three subthemes from the same or different themes, depending on class.

A Wizard might pick Enchantment (Mind), Earth-Fire (Elemental), and Divination (Spirit), for a Pyromancer concept.

Each subtheme has its own spell list.

Yeah, something like that would be a good idea. I have always though that D&D spell schools are a terrible way to categorise spells. They're messy and thematically weak. There would be much better ways to do it.

 

[Yaarel]

I just always just houserule the Mage Hand to be invisible force instead of a literal spectral hand. I think it is cooler that way.

Much cooler!

Also there is a mechanical difference.

Real telekinesis is more fluid. For example, it can make water flow up out of a cup, then in midair separate into droplets and threads forming patterns. A "hand" cant do anything like this.

Telekinesis can open a lock. One still needs to know how locks work and make a normal Sleight of Hand skill check, but the finer telekinesis can serve as tools to reach inside. A "hand" cant do this.

There is a reason for the limitation of a hand. But for a telekinetic character concept, real telekinesis at-will is vital.