• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

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.
I don’t think adding psionics should be thought as ‘adding a new/secondary magic system’ to be integrated across the board as Magic currently is but merely a new class mechanism, like how fighter battle manoeuvres and ki are not arbitrary spread around to any monster or creature to give them a quick buff unless they are specifically unique and/or have class levels?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The psionic fans divide into different camps.

I.really.dislike.fiddly.experimental.mechanics.

There must be two classes.

The 3e Psion needs to be as simple as possible with normal full-caster mechanics and medievalesque mind flavor. Let it be normal.

There can be a second separate class, maybe call it the 2e Psionicist. It can be a half-caster or its Monk-like equivalent, and its mechanics and flavors can be as fringe as you want.

Let the camp that likes psionics being part of traditional D&D, have that!
As I've already said, you don't NEED a new set of rules to play a narrative Psion. You can already do this by reskinning an existing class. There is already a subclass of sorcerer explicitly written to fill this niche.

There already isn't much daylight between sorcerer and wizards as designed. I'm not sure how you could wedge a third full caster using spells and slots without crowding into an area that doesn't have a lot of space available to make things feel different.
 

Seriously "I can do everything but heal"wizard is the D&D trope I hate the most. Half the fun of spellcasters is the stuff you can't do, stuff you can't control, stuff you'd be overpowered in, and stuff that was forbidden.
That's another thing that's always a problem for psionics: wizards already have almost all their stuff.

And that makes me think that psionics are a lost cause for 5e. Well, that and the way various designers have already introduced psionics-lite via various subclasses and seem to think that that's enough. I hope that whenever 6e is made (and it will probably need to be a full edition change, not the 5.5e that's Coming Soon (tm)), the wizard gets a bit of a nerf concerning traditionally psionic abilities, so there's room for the psion to do their own stuff.

I'm also not a fan of making psionics strongly tied to the Far Realm. Psionics should primarily be an internal thing. It's OK if Far Realm stuff uses psionics (the mind flayer and aboleth are pretty strong precedents), but that doesn't mean that psionics are inherently Lovecraftian. You don't see Jean Grey being all tentacly and stuff (except when Masque has had a bit of fun).
 

As I've already said, you don't NEED a new set of rules to play a narrative Psion. You can already do this by reskinning an existing class. There is already a subclass of sorcerer explicitly written to fill this niche.

There already isn't much daylight between sorcerer and wizards as designed. I'm not sure how you could wedge a third full caster using spells and slots without crowding into an area that doesn't have a lot of space available to make things feel different.
simply do not build it to the wizard spec for a starter we are in need of a none religious support class that is not good at everything like bard is why not put the psion there?
That's another thing that's always a problem for psionics: wizards already have almost all their stuff.

And that makes me think that psionics are a lost cause for 5e. Well, that and the way various designers have already introduced psionics-lite via various subclasses and seem to think that that's enough. I hope that whenever 6e is made (and it will probably need to be a full edition change, not the 5.5e that's Coming Soon (tm)), the wizard gets a bit of a nerf concerning traditionally psionic abilities, so there's room for the psion to do their own stuff.

I'm also not a fan of making psionics strongly tied to the Far Realm. Psionics should primarily be an internal thing. It's OK if Far Realm stuff uses psionics (the mind flayer and aboleth are pretty strong precedents), but that doesn't mean that psionics are inherently Lovecraftian. You don't see Jean Grey being all tentacly and stuff (except when Masque has had a bit of fun).
it barely scratches the itch so it is just going to keep demand for it high.
 

If you don't want niche protection it is extremely counterproductive to have a class-based system in the first place.
Not really. It's a matter of design philosophy.

Are classes feature packages designed for being the building blocks of characters or are they boxes to lock the players into once they make a choice.

If the former, there is room to have classes that are optimal for a certain player intent instead of the scorched earth 'MY TOYS' niche protection the wizard enjoys.
 

That's another thing that's always a problem for psionics: wizards already have almost all their stuff.

And that makes me think that psionics are a lost cause for 5e. Well, that and the way various designers have already introduced psionics-lite via various subclasses and seem to think that that's enough. I hope that whenever 6e is made (and it will probably need to be a full edition change, not the 5.5e that's Coming Soon (tm)), the wizard gets a bit of a nerf concerning traditionally psionic abilities, so there's room for the psion to do their own stuff.

I'm also not a fan of making psionics strongly tied to the Far Realm. Psionics should primarily be an internal thing. It's OK if Far Realm stuff uses psionics (the mind flayer and aboleth are pretty strong precedents), but that doesn't mean that psionics are inherently Lovecraftian. You don't see Jean Grey being all tentacly and stuff (except when Masque has had a bit of fun).
Yes. Sadly the best that can be hoped for 5e is the Aberrant Mind. Is it a poor psion? Yes, but even the sorcerer is a poor sorcerer. The wizard just occupies too much design space.
 

As I've already said, you don't NEED a new set of rules to play a narrative Psion. You can already do this by reskinning an existing class. There is already a subclass of sorcerer explicitly written to fill this niche.

There already isn't much daylight between sorcerer and wizards as designed. I'm not sure how you could wedge a third full caster using spells and slots without crowding into an area that doesn't have a lot of space available to make things feel different.
I want official psionic support for psionic themes within traditional D&D mechanics and medieval flavor.

I already mentioned, I hate the mechanics of the Sorcerer class. There is no reskinning it.

Moreover, I treat official narrative as rules for DM narrative adjudication of outcomes. 5e differs from 4e, because where 4e designs mechanics independently for easy reflavoring, 5e bakes narrative into the mechanics. In 5e, official flavor is mechanics.

It is easier for me to tell you to homebrew your own Psionicist mechanics, than for you to tell me to reflavor a Psion from officially baked-in flavor.

Moreover while using standard D&D mechanics, the Psion full caster requires official mechanical support, such as how to ignore costly gp spell components, and mechanically actualizing certain psionic concepts such as real telekinesis.

The solution is two classes.

One is a normal Psion full caster.

The other is a Psionicist fringe experiment.
 
Last edited:

As I've already said, you don't NEED a new set of rules to play a narrative Psion. You can already do this by reskinning an existing class. There is already a subclass of sorcerer explicitly written to fill this niche.
While you can, it is not the best approach. We could just have 4 classes, too.
There already isn't much daylight between sorcerer and wizards as designed.
They have some structural similarities, but I find them to play mechanically differently due to the metamagic. Further, the RPG hooks of each class are VERY differernt. If you find that playing them is very similar to you, then there is a large part of the D&D experience that is available to you that you're not capitalizing upon.
I'm not sure how you could wedge a third full caster using spells and slots without crowding into an area that doesn't have a lot of space available to make things feel different.
I've addressed this numerous times throughout this thread. I've been doing it for 30 years.

In my setting, a wizard uses their intellect and mental prowess to pull magic from the spell weave, craft and shape it, and turn it into their spells. A sorcerer's [heritage/taint] allows them to pull magic from the weave and through force of personality, force it into their spell. A psion generates power within themelf and then crafts it into their psionic abilities.

Psionics do not tie to the weave, and thus do not interact with magic that is built on the weave connection such as anti-magic (such as a beholder eye), detect as magical under detect magic, or get beaten by a counterspell. Their abilities, historically, have not relied upon 'spells' but have instead been crafted differently. The psion has a 'metagame' aspect when they battle other psionic creatures with the various psionic attacks and defenses being a 'rock, paper, scissors' (or boulder, parchment, shears) game where you can invest in a wider variety fo defenses at the cost of limiting your offensive capability, or you can use fewer defenses and gamble that the enemy won't attack with the right psionic attack to pierce your defenses more easily.

Psions, historically in my setting, do not play like wizards. They play like super heroes/villains, like Professor X, Jean Gray, Martian Manhunter, or the Shadow King. When a psion faces a non-psionic character, the distinction is lessened, although as I do not generally use 'spells' as a template for their abilities they are distinct. However, when two psionic creatures face each other in battle, it is a distinctly unique situation.

They're also, due to the lore of my setting, tied back to the Far Realm (as it is now known - this is the modern evolution of the lore in my setting - it used to be a bit different but that story would take a lot of explaining), which gives them a distinct connection to many aberrations and a connection to the Cthulhu mythos, which is a MAJOR player in my setting's big storylines.

In 5E, I have not fully implemented psionic rules for players to use and have not encouraged psionic PCs as I have WAITED for official rules to be provided so that I can adapt from them (as using mainstream psionics would be more approachable than teaching people my unique system by itself), but it is there behind the scenes in my psionic monster designs, and in the psionic NPCs that the PCs encounter.

Regardless, if you think there is no unique design space around which to have psionics be a meaningful, distinct, engaging and beneficial element in your D&D games, many of us have decades of evidence that proves that notion wrong.
 

Because it makes things so much easier.

I can add psionic effects to any monster with casting ability without pause. How much is an "at will power plus resource augment" worth? I have to rewrite a fair chunk of the monster - granting it an entire subsystem that isn't compatible with the existing casting system, just for a creature that's going to act three or four times? Not going to happen.

Keeping everything as spells makes balance so much simpler - you simply judge the power of a power based on the spells, so, a psionic effect simply slots into the existing spell list - just like they've already done.

There is no real justification for adding a new subsystem here. It's just not needed.
Monsters don't need to use player rules anymore. Ease of use is a primary concern when the DM is running 8 combatants. Player characters can be more complex. MOAR SPELLZ isn't an exciting direction for future classes. There's already too many pointless variations of essentially the same thing as is.

Giving a new class different methods of building/using resources make it play different from the bog standard caster attrition method. The chassis for such a class would also work well for Bo9S classes.
 
Last edited:

They did. It's DMs giving spells more power than they are written to give that causes that issue. Things like breaking Charm Person by allowing it to be waaaaaaay stronger than the 1st level spell it's written to be. Or running too few encounters. That's not WotC's fault.
Balancing the game around a trash encounter video game grind is WOTC"s fault. People aren't running that many fights because it's not fun or engaging. They're largely risk free and pointless in terms of stakes, existing only as an attrition grind. You could halve spell slots and halve the number of fights and the game would be better. Their own adventures aren't even following that model.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top