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

[Neonchameleon]

The aberrant mind doesn't fix the low number of sorcery points to make all spells psionic and low number of meta magic.

Fix via subclass is not valid design.

The 'low number of sorcery points' isn't a broken class and neither's the 'low number of meta magic'. They are issues that the class isn't as sharp as it could be - but you have always been able to trade slots for meta magic. There's a difference between a slightly bland class and a class that's an active negative play experience.

Fix via subclass is better than nothing. And I'd argue it's actually the best way of fixing the sorcerer and what should be done is to go back and punch up the other sorcerer subclasses rather than tweak the base class. A class design with a weak base class and powerful subclasses is valid design and allows for a lot of intra-class variety.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To reiterate something said a few times that seems to be ignored a lot in this thread:

* You can do psionics as just another form of magic, and in that case it doesn't have a distinct and important place in a setting. The aberrant mind sorcerer is an example of such an implementation.

* However, there is ample design space and benefit to creating a psionic system (or just revising prior versions) that is not just a paint of coat on a wizard/sorcerer body. While the psionic PC may not fit, thematically, into all campaigns (as the artificer and warlock do not fit into all settings), but for those that do have space for it to fit, it can be a HUGE part of the setting. Those of us that have run settings for decades and built psionics into the DNA of our setting are disappointed by the delay in implementing rules for them, and in the case of 5E, many of us are extremely frustrated that we've been waiting 7 to 9 years to see something official.

You have this. You've got the Psi Warrior and Soulknife with psionic energy dice and abilities.

And the number of people who've run settings for decades is tiny - and the number who I think would accept WotC's rulings now is a fraction of that.

Here are a couple spots earlier in this thread where I address how I use psionics historically, and why dropping them on a sorcerer build did not serve my setting well.

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

They’re just different spells. They’re spells, but from a different source and maybe a lil weird, but not really that special. Near as I can tell. I am sure I’m missing something because every time Dark Sun comes up there’s a grip ton of hand wringing about getting Psionics right. It just...

www.enworld.org

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

And since anyone apparently can get magic powers from some shady guy offering pacts in a dark alley, they're not even all that special in-universe either. I've played with many DMs who have Adventuring Guilds in various cities. Now I'm half tempted to install Pact Offices, where...

www.enworld.org

With all due respect I don't see anything here that makes a good argument:

1. You talk about how you don't want dispel magic to affect your psionics - while using a houseruled homebrew setting. This can be houseruled
2. You talk about the Weave (which I want nowhere near my homebrew settings) and how it's a travesty that Aberrant Minds use the weave - when it's your setting and you can change this. And you do that without mentioning Psi Warriors and Soulknives.
3. "My psionic/psychic warriors are heavily inspired by the Jedi - players wanted it, and I provided it. Psions are your Super Hero and Horror Story figures, with clairsentience, metacreativity, psychokinesis, psychometabolism, psychoportation, telepathy, and metapsionics being the core of their powers." A lot of this feels very soulknify. I think the only one that doesn't exist between the soulknife and psi warrior is the self-referential Metapsionics.

 

[Yaarel]

The Sorcerer class is unsatisfying because both its mechanics and flavor are seriously wrong.

If you are happy with the Aberrant Sorcerer for yourself, then I am happy for you.

But for me, I require a fresh start.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A number of people do care whether Psionics and Magic are fungible and think it's a big deal if they don't mix. They just don't post much on threads about psionics. They don't particularly care about what other people are doing as long as they have their fun - at least they don't compare until special snowflake characters start overshadowing the game in a way that makes everyone else's life harder. As it will do to have to look up every supernatural ability to see if it's a spell or a psychic power.

This group includes GMs who don't want their lives made harder, and includes a lot of players who don't want the game to get more complex. A group that represents the target market of D&D but not the target market of ENWorld.

You will also displease a serious group of fairly laisssez-faire GMs and fairly harried players who want things like spells to be treated with spell rules. And who will have their games made worse if the game gets more arbitrarily complex as everyone needs to remember what's a spell and what's a power - unless psychic powers don't look like spells.

Which is why 5e did what it did. If you want psion style spell-slot style psionics you can play the Aberrant Mind and put up with psionics being magic style. If on the other hand you want abilities rather than pseudo-spellcasting you can play a Soulknife or Psi Warrior which don't have magic as spells.

5e already has psionics and it's managed the best of both worlds here. If you want a laundry list of spell style abilities that uses the classic "if it looks like a spell it is a spell" transparency then you can. You can play your psion (it's an Aberrant Mind). If you just want psychic powers you've other subclasses - and the ones with psychic dice don't interact with the spell system.

When I google Reddit for psionics of the top three threads two are about how psionics are hated and one's asking what the big deal is and aren't they just spellcasters? People do not want overbearing psionic systems any more than they want the 1e attack and defence modes back.

There are still an awful lot of people complaining for a so-called solved problem. Or is that just on EN World?

In any case, Morrus is making a Level Up supplement that includes psionics, so that will likely do the job for me.

 

[Minigiant]

The 'low number of sorcery points' isn't a broken class and neither's the 'low number of meta magic'. They are issues that the class isn't as sharp as it could be - but you have always been able to trade slots for meta magic. There's a difference between a slightly bland class and a class that's an active negative play experience.

Fix via subclass is better than nothing. And I'd argue it's actually the best way of fixing the sorcerer and what should be done is to go back and punch up the other sorcerer subclasses rather than tweak the base class. A class design with a weak base class and powerful subclasses is valid design and allows for a lot of intra-class variety.

The issue is that it still doesn't solve the "why not play a wizard?" question. The sorcerer is so far behind the wizard that outside of cheese, any subclass that fixes it would have to be classified as overpowered.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are still an awful lot of people complaining for a so-called solved problem. Or is that just on EN World?

This is why I checked Reddit. Quora (one of my other haunts) appears to be entirely free of people asking for psionic classes. Yes, it seems to be mostly an EN World thing and almost entirely from people who are fans of much older editions.

The issue is that it still doesn't solve the "why not play a wizard?" question. The sorcerer is so far behind the wizard that outside of cheese, any subclass that fixes it would have to be classified as overpowered.

Once you fix the number of spells known (which is crippling; the sorcerer should know more spares than the wizard can prepare) Twin Spell becomes really effective. I do think that an Aberrant Mind sorcerer is good enough to stand up to a wizard and a Clockwork Soul can stand up to e.g. a transmuter.

And there isn't a wizard I'm aware of that can e.g. haste two allies at once. (No, Metamagic Adept won't do it as the feat only gives you two metamagic points)

 

[Steampunkette]

A number of people do care whether Psionics and Magic are fungible and think it's a big deal if they don't mix. They just don't post much on threads about psionics. They don't particularly care about what other people are doing as long as they have their fun - at least they don't compare until special snowflake characters start overshadowing the game in a way that makes everyone else's life harder. As it will do to have to look up every supernatural ability to see if it's a spell or a psychic power.

This group includes GMs who don't want their lives made harder, and includes a lot of players who don't want the game to get more complex. A group that represents the target market of D&D but not the target market of ENWorld.

You will also displease a serious group of fairly laisssez-faire GMs and fairly harried players who want things like spells to be treated with spell rules. And who will have their games made worse if the game gets more arbitrarily complex as everyone needs to remember what's a spell and what's a power - unless psychic powers don't look like spells.

Which is why 5e did what it did. If you want psion style spell-slot style psionics you can play the Aberrant Mind and put up with psionics being magic style. If on the other hand you want abilities rather than pseudo-spellcasting you can play a Soulknife or Psi Warrior which don't have magic as spells.

5e already has psionics and it's managed the best of both worlds here. If you want a laundry list of spell style abilities that uses the classic "if it looks like a spell it is a spell" transparency then you can. You can play your psion (it's an Aberrant Mind). If you just want psychic powers you've other subclasses - and the ones with psychic dice don't interact with the spell system.

When I google Reddit for psionics of the top three threads two are about how psionics are hated and one's asking what the big deal is and aren't they just spellcasters? People do not want overbearing psionic systems any more than they want the 1e attack and defence modes back.

So uh...

This is a lot of "But what about MY GAME?!" and the answer is, as it has ever been "Your game. Your rules."

You wanna use the Aberrant Mind as the only "Psion" at your table, cool. I'd rather have a Psion Class.

You wanna use the standard Spell List as the only "Powers" at your table, cool. I'd rather have distinct powers.

You wanna make Dispel Magic stop Psionic effects... uh... Sure? I didn't say magic couldn't stop psionics or psionics couldn't stop magic. I said don't make them fungible. Which means interchangeable.

Also: Arbitrarily complex is -just- hilarious. Literally any new system or feat or spell or race or class or even archetype makes the game "Arbitrarily more complex" than it is. "Games made worse" is similarly just adorable 'cause there's nothing about Psionics that by it's nature makes games bad, unless you just personally -hate- Psionics...

As to your Reddit Googling: Google tailors results to your search history and social media presence. My first three when inputting your search parameters ("r dnd psionics site:www.reddit.com") are "What are Psionics in D&D?" "Psionics in 5e" and "Why are Psionics so Hated?". Hmm... Wonder if you thinking psionics as a separate system from "Just being spells" automatically making games worse and overcomplicating things might have any kind of impact on that...

You don't -have- to play in Eberron just 'cause there's an Eberron book out there. You don't -have- to play with Psionics if there's a Psionics book out there. And even if there is a Psionics book out there and you do play with it, you get the final say. But unless there's a book out there that actually, y'know, adds a Psionics System? It'll leave people wanting.

As to "5e has psionics and the best of both worlds"... nah. It has Mind Spells as just a subtype of a subtype of Spellcaster, using all the same spells and stuff that already exists -or- you can play a rogue or fighter with a super special Expertise Dice from Level Up. I get that it's the best of what -you- want, Neonchameleon. But that doesn't make it the best of both worlds.

If Psionics is two separate systems that have nothing to do with one another (Spellcasting and Psionic Dice) then there's no thread that actually connects them. No mechanical construct that is "Psionics". And that's not any thing. It's two things kept a world apart.

It just makes it a really basic and half-hearted attempt to appease "Serious laissez-faire DMs". Ain't that an oxymoron? Also... Harried Players? Special Snowflake Characters? Everyone's lives harder? Geeze. Lots of appeals to emotion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So uh...

This is a lot of "But what about MY GAME?!" and the answer is, as it has ever been "Your game. Your rules."

Thanks for warning me what's coming. Your game, your rules. On this point I like the official rules the way they are and think that changing them would be making them significantly worse.

You wanna use the Aberrant Mind as the only "Psion" at your table, cool. I'd rather have a Psion Class.

Then house rule it. Your game, your rules. I like the way the official rules are right now.

You wanna use the standard Spell List as the only "Powers" at your table, cool. I'd rather have distinct powers.

Which is when we look at subclasses - like the existing ones of the Soulknife or Psi Warrior.

Somehow 5e manages to do things both ways at the same time and people are complaining about both at once, each as if the other one isn't there.

Also: Arbitrarily complex is -just- hilarious. Literally any new system or feat or spell or race or class or even archetype makes the game "Arbitrarily more complex" than it is. "Games made worse" is similarly just adorable 'cause there's nothing about Psionics that by it's nature makes games bad, unless you just personally -hate- Psionics...

Every new subsystem makes games worse because they make the games harder to learn and more confusing.

This doesn't mean they don't also make the game better because they do good things. But the burden of proof for a new system is on showing it is a good thing. And it's something that's harder to do when the archetype is already covered. People who want specific psionic mechanics already have them. People who want psychic powers as spells already have them. It's only want people who want their specific take on psionics that don't.

As to your Reddit Googling: Google tailors results to your search history and social media presence. My first three when inputting your search parameters ("r dnd psionics site:www.reddit.com") are "What are Psionics in D&D?" "Psionics in 5e" and "Why are Psionics so Hated?". Hmm... Wonder if you thinking psionics as a separate system from "Just being spells" automatically making games worse and overcomplicating things might have any kind of impact on that...

So what you're saying is that even with your own personal search history and social media presence your top three includes one about why they are hated, one showing almost no interest, and a couple of almost dead entries?

And no I don't normally write much about psionics in D&D. I don't think I ever really have off this board.

You don't -have- to play in Eberron just 'cause there's an Eberron book out there. You don't -have- to play with Psionics if there's a Psionics book out there. And even if there is a Psionics book out there and you do play with it, you get the final say. But unless there's a book out there that actually, y'know, adds a Psionics System? It'll leave people wanting.

There is already a D&D 5e psionics book that has been published. It's called Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. And it's the best psionics book there has been in any edition of D&D by a pretty large margin. In part because it doesn't drop ridiculous numbers of rules on everything if someone wants to play a psychic character.

Tasha's of course didn't have the first psionic characters in 5e; we had the Great Old One Warlock in the PHB and the College of Whispers Bard in Xanathar's.

A tiny number of people seem to be left wanting by it - as far as I can tell it's those who for some reason want utter perfection and aren't willing to accept anything less than it despite not having a coherent design. Those who, despite there being a literal power point using subclass that uses spell like abilities and power points think that a taste of the far realm is too much and are going to throw out the Aberrant Mind. Meanwhile people who, like me, want to play psionic characters have been since it was just the PHB.

And when we've already got a psionics book published it would be throwing out a significant part of the design philosophy of 5e to get an entire other one. It wouldn't have been out of line with 2e, 3.0, 3.5, or 4e to get splat bloat reaching psionics. And it wasn't out of line with 1e to get ridiculous psionic attack and defence modes. But it is out of line with 5e's philosophy.

If Psionics is two separate systems that have nothing to do with one another (Spellcasting and Psionic Dice) then there's no thread that actually connects them. No mechanical construct that is "Psionics". And that's not any thing. It's two things kept a world apart.

So throw whichever one you don't like out and you have your psionic system. The problem is that you're asking for an imposed Grand Unified Theory. D&D IMO shouldn't worry that much about grand unified theories of psionics until it has the grand unified theory of the hit point - which is far more fundamental. Then we can follow it with a Grand Unified Magical Theory - and while doing so explain why some magic is spells and other +1 weapons.

The rules are IMO much better used as a user interface than a physics engine.

It just makes it a really basic and half-hearted attempt to appease "Serious laissez-faire DMs". Ain't that an oxymoron? Also... Harried Players? Special Snowflake Characters? Everyone's lives harder? Geeze. Lots of appeals to emotion.

Do you have anything beyond appeals to emotion and that you don't like the way the official rules work at your table? The psychic characters are already there. It's just that a few people don't like the way they are implemented.

 

[Umbran]

Do you have anything beyond appeals to emotion and that you don't like the way the official rules work at your table?

Mod note:
And, you think this ending isn't, itself, an appeal to emotion?

You might want to consider whether this closing, and the rest of the post, could actually be expected to serve a constructive purpose. It sure doesn't get you out of butting heads...

How about we stand down and, instead of demanding things from each other and play games of trying to one-up each other on negation, we start showing some respect? Hm? I think that'd be awesome.

Thanks, all.

 

[James Gasik]

Is this what we're down to now? Google searches to "prove" how many people want Psionics to exist or be unique? LOL.

Look, I get the argument. Why add something strange and new to the game unless it serves a good purpose. But I remember a lot of the arguments about 4e where people claimed all classes felt the same, they all got "spells', some were similar to those given by other classes, and many mechanics were shared as well.

And there was a vocal group of people who didn't like it, imagine that, and wanted WotC to make each new class feel unique and special! That didn't make them special snowflakes, that made them want uniqueness. If all spellcasters work like the Wizard, for example, with no unique mechanical systems, would people really be happy with that?

But hey, each subclass of Wizard adds new systems. Maybe they can make a Philosopher's stone with multiple uses. Maybe they create a temporary hit point shield when casting spells. Maybe they can make a second attack and have a limited use mechanic to add their Intelligence to their AC! Upthread I even mentioned the time a completely new kind of spellcaster was added to 3e, and was both easy to use, and didn't even cause a fuss (other than some first glance knee jerk reactions) with the Warlock of that edition.

And as far as alternate magic systems go, what about the Rune Knight? Obviously magical, doesn't use spells. If WotC expanded on that idea and gave us a Runecaster class, would that really be so bad?

Oh and wanting better versions of things that already exist? Who hasn't wanted a Beastmaster that really works since the PHB came out? Would devoting time to that be a waste of time and resources?

TLDR: yes, reinventing the wheel for the sake of doing so is bad. Reinventing the wheel to keep the game feeling fresh and renewing it's sense of wonder? Completely the opposite.