D&D 5E (2024) Githzerai Psion? Thri-kreen Psion? Where's My Psion?

[Mind of tempest]

Where it replaces magic, it doesn’t have magic AND psionics. Psionics is the magic of that setting.

Magic or Psychic? - TV Tropes

Functional Magic and Psychic Powers frequently fulfill similar purposes in a plot. They're mysterious, fantastic, and enable one individual to wield incredible power. They are for the most part intertwined and interchangeable. What happens when a …

tvtropes.org

observe examples.

 

[Corinnguard]

Where it replaces magic, it doesn’t have magic AND psionics. Psionics is the magic of that setting.

Which RPG setting has it where psionics replaced magic?

 

[Vael]

It's a pity they gave up on the Mystic. Because while it certainly wasn't perfect, I thought the general concept had a lot going for it. Packaging psionic powers into larger disciplines makes sense to me as a way to make sure that the caster was more thematic and giving psionics a different flavor then just spells without components. I also liked Psionic Focus, the idea that one could switch between different additional passive abilities.

That said, the class was a little too scattered. It was trying to cover every psionic concept in a single class, (while not giving us a good selection of telekinetic disciplines) and the initial balance between disciplines was off.

 

[Yaarel]

It's a pity they gave up on the Mystic. Because while it certainly wasn't perfect, I thought the general concept had a lot going for it. Packaging psionic powers into larger disciplines makes sense to me as a way to make sure that the caster was more thematic and giving psionics a different flavor then just spells without components. I also liked Psionic Focus, the idea that one could switch between different additional passive abilities.

That said, the class was a little too scattered. It was trying to cover every psionic concept in a single class, (while not giving us a good selection of telekinetic disciplines) and the initial balance between disciplines was off.

In the current Mystic design, the bundling is a problem.

Giving powers "tags", like spell schools and spell domains, is welcome.

But forcing unwanted features, or denying concept required features, is the problem. The Mystic does this problem deeply.


Ultimately, redundant fringe mechanics − doing something that 5e already does but then in an incompatible way − will always be unhelpful and to many unappealing.

This is the same reason psionics never mainstreamed in D&D: redundant fringe mechanics.

The only reason why psionics is able to enter 5e core now is because these versions of psionics use normal 5e mechanics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which RPG setting has it where psionics replaced magic?

The assumed setting of the Voidrunner's Codex?

 

[Scribe]

Words don't always fall out of use because something else replaces them. The fall out of use because they are no longer relevant, specifically in this case because the pseudoscience it was based around has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Minigiant]

I think people keep walking over to issue that some people want to be Professor X while other people want to be Yoda and It's hard to make both of them in the same class.

Then you got the guy who wants to make a Cthulhu cultist with mind tentacle powers weaseling themselves into the same space.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Ultimately, redundant fringe mechanics − doing something that 5e already does but then in an incompatible way − will always be unhelpful and to many unappealing.

This is the same reason psionics never mainstreamed in D&D: redundant fringe mechanics.

The only reason why psionics is able to enter 5e core now is because these versions of psionics use normal 5e mechanics.

I've constantly argued that Psionics should just use what's in the already existing spell system. And that's exactly what the Psionic subclasses of Sorcerer and Warlock do.

Burdening a DM with having to learn a new system just because one player wants to play a psionic character is not something that should be encouraged.

Of course because we have to deal with too many who want completely fringe mechanics for psionics, I don't have an optimistic outlook on their being a Psion class anytime soon.

I guess they could try a "blind playtest" with A/B options. As in not use the name "Psion" or even directly mention psionics, but some like "what do you think of the stargazer or the exercise-instructor classes?" before eventually saying "yes that was the psionic class" some time after the playtest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think people keep walking over to issue that some people want to be Professor X while other people want to be Yoda and It's hard to make both of them in the same class.

Then you got the guy who wants to make a Cthulhu cultist with mind tentacle powers weaseling themselves into the same space.

I could make either as a Voidrunner's Psion off the top of my head. Probable as an Esper too. Different archetypes of course.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've constantly argued that Psionics should just use what's in the already existing spell system. And that's exactly what the Psionic subclasses of Sorcerer and Warlock do.

Burdening a DM with having to learn a new system just because one player wants to play a psionic character is not something that should be encouraged.

Of course because we have to deal with too many who want completely fringe mechanics for psionics, I don't have an optimistic outlook on their being a Psion class anytime soon.

I guess they could try a "blind playtest" with A/B options. As in not use the name "Psion" or even directly mention psionics, but some like "what do you think of the stargazer or the exercise-instructor classes?" before eventually saying "yes that was the psionic class" some time after the playtest.

The problem with this stance is that you are actively advocating for fewer game options for everyone, because you personally don't see a benefit to having more.

Don't see a good reason for a psion class? Ban it.