D&D (2024) Psionics: What Do You Want?

[Reynard]

Effects based systems have been around for most of the life of the hobby and in all that time D&D has obstinately refused to get on board.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Having played both, most powers were practically the same as spells with the exception of power checks (in a lot of cases replacing saving throws) and PSPs (in place of spell slots), and psionic combat (being a side system for attack/defense with entirely different rules). To say that the base systems for powers and spells are wildly different is semantics. That's not to knock 1E, 2E, or 2.5E psionics - I enjoyed them immensely, especially psionic combat, but the common system they've been working toward since 3E is an easier entry for players - but I wouldn't mind a more robust psionic combat system, in 5E, too.

I played a Psionicist in 2E, and only twice had PCs with psionics in 1E (one it was a curse, I had it but so few points and powers that it became a liability and left me open to psionics from creatures I wasn't strong enough to have much of a chance against; the other time it was a mixed bag).

If you review the power of psionics in 1E and 2E, you will find a lot of non-spell-like powers in my opinion.

But given your above post, that would seem to argue even further against the idea of them seeming like other casters. Both systems show psionics in 5E don't have to use spell slots, either, but 5E is about simplicity (so they say) so keeping with spell slots is just a way to gauge their power in a way we already understand.

In addition, 1st Ed psionics was an addition to an existing character (fighter, wizard, etc...).

Which is an important distinction in my opinion. Unless Dragon Magazine released a psionic class in 1E, I don't know of one until 2E introduced it.

 

[Willie the Duck]

1E psionic and 2E psionicist characters were practically spellcasters in all but name, just with a different resource management in manifesting/activating, relying on PSPs instead of Spell Slots, and the whole idea of power checks was from 2E, with 1E power activation just working if you could pay the points, and then either requiring a saving throw, or with attack/defense mode combat, a percent chance of success (basically a different kind of saving throw). 3E was more transparent in powers being analogous to spells, and 3.5 even more so. Complexity was always inherent in psionics, especially with 1E and 2E. 2E Psionicists could know up to 35 powers at level 20 - 2025 Psion caps out at 22 Spells, not counting any granted by their subclass, and 5E offers scalability on quite a few spells available to the new Psion.

Having psionics in 1E and being a Psionicist in 2E felt nothing like being a magic-user, cleric, druid, mage, priest or anything like them in my experience. The systems were very different in many ways, which you even outline, so I don't see how you can fee they were "practically spellcasters in all but name" but hey, you do you.

Having played both, most powers were practically the same as spells with the exception of power checks (in a lot of cases replacing saving throws) and PSPs (in place of spell slots), and psionic combat (being a side system for attack/defense with entirely different rules). To say that the base systems for powers and spells are wildly different is semantics. That's not to knock 1E, 2E, or 2.5E psionics - I enjoyed them immensely, especially psionic combat, but the common system they've been working toward since 3E is an easier entry for players - but I wouldn't mind a more robust psionic combat system, in 5E, too.

I think you are both right at times. IMO, psionics in AD&D (particularly playing a Psionicist class in 2e) did feel different, but the powers (especially in 1E) also were very much spell-like. There were other factors at play, including:

• At the time, slight changes to the framework were larger because no other class/option had them. Simple things like picking (with constraints) your abilities at level-up -- when all arcane casters collected spells in books and all divine casters selected from the whole class list (barring their god overruling a selection) -- seemed like a bigger deal. So picking disciplines, sciences, and devotions (with prerequisites) was a whole new framework. Once things got added like the 2e arcane specialists or priestly spheres and then 3e sorcerers and warmages and so on, this doesn't seem so significant, but at the time it was.
• The qualities of the class (or being a class that has the abilities, in the case of wild talents) other than the spells/powers had a huge effect. Being a paladin had a huge impact outside of their granted abilities just by making you put that 17 you rolled into Cha instead of Str. Being a 2e fighter-mage meant you were spending your entire career looking for a suit of elven chain (because other avenues to a decent AC were much rarer). Being a wild talent fighter who could 'cast' clairvoyance was going to feel different from a magic user casting the same spell because being a magic user in AD&D was a very specific curated experience (same for cleric, illusionist, druid, and bard).
• The 2e psionicist class, in particular, was itself a very specific experience outside of the powers it used. In addition to their spells, they were a d6 hd class that wore up to hide armor and a shield and used shortbows/shortswords/spears, advanced kinda at the rate rangers/paladins did, and their nonweapon proficiency slots taken up mostly by a set of extra powers hidden in their nonweapon-proficiency section (ranging from nice-but-optional to you-want-this). That, as much as any specifics about their power set, made them distinct from any of the spellcasting class options available. The demihuman races that could rise to decent level with them (dwarves and halflings, for once), which classes they could multiclass with (fighter and thief), and which multiclasses actually played well together is decidedly different from either mages or clerics.
• Occasionally the specifics of 'casting' did make a difference. The PSP/round cost of most ongoing powers definitely made you change your when-to-cast decision. The 2e check to manifest influenced whether you relied upon having the power (having a parachute you are unsure will work is only marginally better than not having one at all), but given that a single point of damage while casting did that for any spell, this was hardly unique to psionics. Certainly the dreaded possibility of targeting oneself made psionic Disintegrate wildly different from the spellcasting version (although that ends up being the exception that proves the rule in that everyone always mentions that one example, showcasing how little other powers had that going on).
• Despite what I said above, there were some psionic powers that were very much not spell-like. The psionic combat ones (and the whole new subsystem inherent to their use) in particular, but also Dream Travel, Hear Light/Feal Sound/etc., Graft Weapon, and others. In part that was because the AD&D spell list was not so expansive as it is now. Worth noting though is that a lot of those powers are the ones that you tried once and then didn't select again, instead going for Animate Object, Biofeedback, Detonate, Dimension Door, Invisibility, Metamorphosis, Molecular Agitation, Teleport, and others that look and feel very much like like-named or mostly-equivalent spells. A lot of the more inventive stuff, much like the really imaginative spells in 2e's Tome of Magic or the like, didn't really integrate well with the existing game (ex. the perceptible groans from the rest of the table when a psion entered/got dragged into psionic combat, and they and the DM went off to resolve that while the rest of the party rolled up netrunners for their next Shadowrun game or something).

So, yeah. IMO most of the psionic powers (particularly the ones that ended up getting used) were very similar to spells. That did not stop the experience of playing a psionic (full on psionicist or definitely a wild talent) be a wholly distinct experience from playing another caster.

 

[Deset Gled]

The debates about psions as casters involves another secondary debate, which is rarely pursued clearly and directly, about what we think mechanics are in narrative terms. It's alluded to in some of SteamPunkette's discussion above, but I think it's worth getting out more clearly:

...

I agree with all this quite a bit, and I particularly enjoy the way you voiced these ideas without falling into the trap of jargon that so often drags these discussions down.

Building on your post, I would add to and/or summarize part of what you say as the idea of different power sources. One of the critical things that leads to the narrative differences between wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, psions, etc, is that their abilities come from different sources of power. Wizards use procedures and intelligence to wield magic as if it were similar to science. The cleric doesn't really control magic themselves, they recieve their magical access from the god they worship. Druids get their magical power from nature, Warlocks have pacts, etc. Because the power of magic is accessed differently, it follows that there could be different mechanics to describe how the magic is used. Psions, IMNSHO, bring to the table a completely new power source, and thus I would prefer that they have different mechanics that help show - not tell - what makes them different.

It's also very notable that D&D 5e completely (and, probably intentionally) fails to deal with power sources. Unfortunately, almost all magic in this edition is virtually indistinguishable. 3e separated out Arcane magic from Divine, and Supernatural abilites from Spell-like, and generally did a lot of Magic A is Magic A type stuff. 5e, OTOH, just says "magic", then does jazz hands and exits stage left. This makes it harder for a psion to feel different from a wizard, because there's already less to make a wizard different from a sorcerer (etc.). Without a more developed magic system related to describing "hard" magic rules, it's actually kind of hard to justify why psions needs to be a new class instead of just being a subclass of other casters (IMNSO, a subclass of warlock would make the most sense, but that's another rabbit hole). It's an issue with the underlying system that is hard to patch/modify with new classes.

 

[The Sigil]

In a perfect world, all caster classes would have their own unique magic system and list of effects. No two classes would share fireball unless they both used wizard magic. They wouldn't even share the same mechanics, with spell slots, points, ability checks, exhaustion levels, or mana all fueling a different class each.

We kind of had that in 1e. The introduction of "specialty priests" in 2e with access to spells that had formerly been exclusive to the Wizard started to blur those lines. In 3e, bards lost their own spell lists and joined the ranks of "arcane casters" and the druids lost theirs and got lumped in with "divine casters." Homogenization where every caster can have access to every spell seems to have gotten worse over time.

The thing is, the only hard-and-fast rule I can see that mechanically differentiates "arcane" from "divine" any more is "arcane casters don't get healing magic" (Simbul's Synostodweomer from 1e's The Magister notwithstanding).

That said, there are some common effects (e.g., a light spell) that should probably be able to "cross over" and be mechanically repeatable. I think PF2E might be on the right path with having Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult power sources, but there's still way too much overlap in the spell lists, with most spells being on two or more lists.

Of course, I generally prefer each magical tradition in my world to have a relatively small, curated spell list (here I am thinking on the order of 12 spells per level). Wizards can in theory learn any spell they are exposed to, but on level-up should be restricted to spells from their study tradition (2024 school, if you will). Other classes should have an even harder time "going off the reservation" - a sorcerer whose magic comes due to a red dragon ancestor, for example, shouldn't have access to cold magic at all. Priests get no offensive spells on their domain lists (this probably comes from my old-school divide of "wizards don't heal, clerical damage is worse than wizard damage" and yes I know people will produce counter-examples).

In this sort of world, psionic disciplines would each in theory have their own very narrow spell list like everyone else, but something in me just rankles at psionics... so in every D&D world I've ever DM'd, psionics simply aren't a thing (most half-races aren't a thing either, "in this house, we obey the laws of genetics"). They simply don't fit into my worlds' physics (plus magic) - their "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" - so they are omitted.

I get others like Psionics. I'm not saying "get rid of them." I'm simply saying, "I have no use for them" in my games the same way I have no use for Genasi, Tieflings, Dragonborn, etc. and the same way others have no use for <Mechanic X> and just don't use it (e.g., "Alignment"). There's room in the books/at the table for everyone to have stuff they like and stuff they have no use for, kind of like a buffet.

 

[Steampunkette]

The issue I have with this line of thinking is that psionics gets separated as being distinct mechanics and abilities from magic, but allows nine other classes to use magic the same way with the same spells only using "the fiction" to separate them. Nobody bats an eye that a wizard uses a spell book and formula to cast a blast of fire, the druid calls on the primal spirit of the sun, the cleric prays to the God of fire, the warlock learned it from their devil daddy, the sorcerer just does it because dragons and the artificer built a flame thrower with spare junk. They all get fireball, 3rd level evocation, 8d6 fire save for half.

In a perfect world, all caster classes would have their own unique magic system and list of effects. No two classes would share fireball unless they both used wizard magic. They wouldn't even share the same mechanics, with spell slots, points, ability checks, exhaustion levels, or mana all fueling a different class each.

Of course, that perfect world would have a 10,000 page PHB to accommodate all those unique classes with unique magic, or each class would have 8 spells per level tops with a lot of cuts to each list. How many different mechanical expressions of a blast of fire can you make?

So since we already accept* that the bard, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, sorcerer, wizard, warlock and artificer are all using the same mechanics and pools of effects, I see no issue adding psion to the list.

* Obviously, not everyone does. Many would like several of those classes removed, made nonmagical, or using different mechanics. I don't think anyone is outright banning them because they use the same magic system of the others.

... so... coldest hot take on record 'cause I've made it evident, before:

I hate that the caster classes have been homogenized to the degree that they have.

Sorcerers and Wizards should have different spell lists. Some overlap, sure. But largely distinct. With Wizards getting lots of extra spell slots specifically for information/exploration/social spellcasting while the Sorcerer instead relies on class abilities to cover those aspects.

Similarly, Clerics and Druids should have entirely different spell lists from Sorc/Wizard, and only 7 levels of spells they can cast.

Note: Not "They can only cast a maximum of 7th level spells". 7th level Cleric Spells should be up there with 9th level Wizard spells in power. Their power gain should be shifted to play into that, with fewer spell slots compared to Sorcerer/Wizard and more inherent healing effects tied to the classes rather than it just being spell slots.

Their healing should also -be- different. 2d8 compared to 1d8+Regen with the regen being 2 points for 3 rounds, stacking. Just as an example.

Warlocks? They can stay mostly like they are. But also deserve their own "Dark Magic" spellcasting list separate from everyone else.

And Bards... well. Bards should be arcane half-casters with their own spell list focusing on illusions, charms, music, art, dance, and comedy. They should also get Extra Attack at 5th level and basically function like the Paladin to a Wizard's Cleric.

And while they all cast spells, their magics should be broken out into four sources. Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. With each power source defined separate from the others, and the methods they use to achieve their goals represented in the mechanics of -their- spells. Can there be overlap in the function of spells? Sure. An 8d6 3rd level spell is all well and good, but it won't be the -same- spell. Different ranges, components, areas... etc.

Take the "Broken Plate" example:

A Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Warlock are all given a test to repair a broken plate.

The Wizard uses magic to bind the larger pieces together, but some of the plate is lost, so gold fills in the missing pieces pulverized beyond Arcane magic's ability to repair. Some is lost and replaced.

The Cleric takes a shard of the broken plate and uses their magic to make a whole plate around and from it. There are still many shards of porcelain on the floor, but a plate is restored.

The Druid looks to the plate and knows it can never truly be restored, because as a thing it has been destroyed. And thus is the cycle of all. But from the earth a new plate is created to serve the same purpose.

The Warlock looks down at the shards pushes them as close together as possible, and impossibly uses a Staple Gun to put most of the plate back together. It's missing bits that aren't replaced and oddly shaped with a few sharp edges... but what remains still holds food like any other plate.

Sadly for me, and happily for a lot of people, I'll never be the lead designer of a D&D Edition!

 

[Remathilis]

We kind of had that in 1e. The introduction of "specialty priests" in 2e with access to spells that had formerly been exclusive to the Wizard started to blur those lines. In 3e, bards lost their own spell lists and joined the ranks of "arcane casters" and the druids lost theirs and got lumped in with "divine casters." Homogenization where every caster can have access to every spell seems to have gotten worse over time.

Wrong. AD&D had four caster lists: MU, illusionist, cleric, druid. 1e bards used druid spells, 2e bards used wizard spells, 3e is actually when bards got their own list. The illusionist list got placed with the MU spells in 2e (when illusionist became a wizard with specific schools rather than a curated list) and all cleric and druid spells got put into spheres that determine your spell access. (Which created weird things like clerics getting reincarnate but druids didn't).

1e: four lists, with bard, ranger and paladin using druid, druid/MU and cleric respectively.
2e: two lists (wizard and priest) but access depends on school of magic (wizard) or sphere of influence (priest) the class grants access to.
3e: each class got unique lists, and cleric got extra spells with domains. Sorcerer and wizard shared a list.
4e: every power for every class was unique
5e: each class gets it's own list, with certain classes granting bonus spells known. Bards eventually get four class lists to choose from.

 

[Incenjucar]

If I were to build a psionics system today I'd lean closer to Pathfinder 2E's kineticists with power points replacing their aura yo-yo balancing act. One or two core disciplines, the option to expand or focus, lower raw power in exchange for constant access, and builds that may rely heavily on enhancing martial abilities rather than ignoring them.

If there's no way to fully seperate psionics from magic for balance issues, I'd want to at least see low-grade, unpowered psionics get treated as non-magical; martial when it nudges, magical when it shoves.

 

[Remathilis]

... so... coldest hot take on record 'cause I've made it evident, before:

I hate that the caster classes have been homogenized to the degree that they have.

Sorcerers and Wizards should have different spell lists. Some overlap, sure. But largely distinct. With Wizards getting lots of extra spell slots specifically for information/exploration/social spellcasting while the Sorcerer instead relies on class abilities to cover those aspects.

Similarly, Clerics and Druids should have entirely different spell lists from Sorc/Wizard, and only 7 levels of spells they can cast.

Note: Not "They can only cast a maximum of 7th level spells". 7th level Cleric Spells should be up there with 9th level Wizard spells in power. Their power gain should be shifted to play into that, with fewer spell slots compared to Sorcerer/Wizard and more inherent healing effects tied to the classes rather than it just being spell slots.

Their healing should also -be- different. 2d8 compared to 1d8+Regen with the regen being 2 points for 3 rounds, stacking. Just as an example.

Warlocks? They can stay mostly like they are. But also deserve their own "Dark Magic" spellcasting list separate from everyone else.

And Bards... well. Bards should be arcane half-casters with their own spell list focusing on illusions, charms, music, art, dance, and comedy. They should also get Extra Attack at 5th level and basically function like the Paladin to a Wizard's Cleric.

And while they all cast spells, their magics should be broken out into four sources. Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal. With each power source defined separate from the others, and the methods they use to achieve their goals represented in the mechanics of -their- spells. Can there be overlap in the function of spells? Sure. An 8d6 3rd level spell is all well and good, but it won't be the -same- spell. Different ranges, components, areas... etc.

Take the "Broken Plate" example:

A Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Warlock are all given a test to repair a broken plate.

The Wizard uses magic to bind the larger pieces together, but some of the plate is lost, so gold fills in the missing pieces pulverized beyond Arcane magic's ability to repair. Some is lost and replaced.

The Cleric takes a shard of the broken plate and uses their magic to make a whole plate around and from it. There are still many shards of porcelain on the floor, but a plate is restored.

The Druid looks to the plate and knows it can never truly be restored, because as a thing it has been destroyed. And thus is the cycle of all. But from the earth a new plate is created to serve the same purpose.

The Warlock looks down at the shards pushes them as close together as possible, and impossibly uses a Staple Gun to put most of the plate back together. It's missing bits that aren't replaced and oddly shaped with a few sharp edges... but what remains still holds food like any other plate.

Sadly for me, and happily for a lot of people, I'll never be the lead designer of a D&D Edition!

That's still too similar for what I'm describing. I'm thinking more akin to a wizard using Vancian casting, clerics using the channeling mechanism of binders, druids using spell points, sorcerer using incarnum like chakras, Warlocks only having invocations (no spells or slots) like the 3e warlock, etc. But we accept that all of those classes use spell slots, up casting, VSM, etc.They are all using mending in some mechanical effect, even if the flavor is slightly different.

In the former case, where everyone is playing their own mini game to cast magic, I would expect psionics to look like the Mystic. But D&D doesn't, so I expect psionics to look like the Psion. But what I actually don't want is 10 classes using spellcasting and an 11th using mystic mechanics. That just makes psionics feel like a redhead step child.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think we're talking across each other, here. This is what I'm referring to:

View attachment 406881

One power. Six different effect options.

1) Deal Psychic Damage
2) Telepathic Communication
3) Read Surface Thoughts
4) Put someone to Sleep by psychic attack
5) Steal Memory
6) Drive someone Batty with psychic attack.

Six functions, one power. And then the basic functions of "Add Damage" or "Increase Range" or "Make it hit two targets". For a total of nine variable functions off one power.

Granted, I only wrote up 12 powers in the entire book. Each has variable functions like these and, also, there's not really any "Tiering" to the powers except the augment costs...

Ok this little screenshot convinced me to check out your psion