D&D (2024) What Should a Psion Be Able To Do?

[mellored]

I'd like to get rid of the countless containers of different sizes, and have a few large containers with measurement lines.

Put that on the to do list for 6e.

But let's not add more containers to 5e when we already have a semi-universal one.

IMO.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

"Spell" is just a container. You can put whatever you want into it. It's main use is to balance and limit effects.

So I don't see how renaming Fireball into a "Power" would change anything except maybe sounding a bit more universal.


But please explain what you see as the difference.

Calling it a "container" means it has no effect on the shape of what you put in it. That's flatly not true.

Spells--specifically focused on "full" spellcasters here--have a specific structure for:

• How they are gained as a resource (a specific fixed schedule of slots)
• How they are learned (roughly, 1-2 per level)
• How their potency is distributed (ten levels of slots from 0=cantrips to massively powerful 9th level spells)
• How their potency is designed (e.g. 3rd level spells generally do XdY damage)
• Spell components, and both the thematic and mechanical costs/limitations these entail
• How they interact with other effects (AMF, counterspell, etc.)
• What kinds of AoE they can have
• How their effects are centered/located/etc.
• It forces everyone to abide by the same restrictions on when an effect becomes accessible
• And many more

"Spells" is not JUST a container. It's a container of a very specific size and shape that can only accept things chopped into the correct shape. That's why you (and WotC) felt compelled to create exemptions to the component and interaction rules--because those are one of the numerous facets of what it means to be "a spell" and their removal does do something (albeit not very much IMO) to move away from what it means to be "a spell".

Or, to turn the above into a "what limitations does 'spell' induce?" direction:

• You can't design a class that gains more new...let's call them "knacks" early on, but fewer later, e.g. tier I at 1, tier II at 2, tier III at 3, tier IV at 5, tier V at 7, tier VI at 9, etc. (so 1/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/3 which works out to 18 levels overall--comparable to but quite distinct from spellcasting)
• You can't design a class that only learns "knacks" infrequently, but in larger chunks (say, 3 at a time), or where knowing one low-level "knack" guarantees you will then pick up a higher-level "knack" later on
• You can't design a different distribution of power, e.g. only six tiers of "knacks", or 12 tiers, or 20, or what-have-you
• You can't make different choices about what counts as balanced vs imbalanced in terms of damage output or effect
• You can't just willy-nilly ignore components (hence why WotC's exception still requires M components consumed, or with a cost)
• You can't just willy-nilly ignore interaction with other effects
• New types or variations on areas aren't permitted (e.g. an effect which makes multiple parallel lines isn't compatible with 5e spell AoEs)
• New modes or aspects of targeting aren't permitted
• Effects "out of sequence" from spells can't be added--so, for instance, no spellcasting Psion can form a group mind connection until they reach level 9 and get access to Rary's telepathic bond

Spells lock us into a large number of design assumptions and limitations. Supernatural power in general does not limit us so--as we can see in the sadly limited tracery of non-spell supernatural powers available. By not restricting ourselves to the design space of "it has to be spells and only spells", we gain a huge design space to play with that, if we remain serious about keeping psionics distinct, really does offer a number of ways to do things differently.

And all of that is without even touching that "if it looks like fireball, if it sounds like fireball (etc., etc.) then just let it use fireball" isn't a valid argument, for several reasons. It presumes that all spells are as basic and as simple as fireball, that fireball is the only meaningful way an AoE fire damage ability could manifest supernaturally and mechanically, and that most if not all Psion abilities would simply be 1:1 equivalent with an already existing spell to the point that any effort spent designing it would be indistinguishable from just doing the same spell with incidental tweaks (e.g. an Int save instead of a Con save or whatever--that's small enough to be incidental.) Most spells are rather more complex than fireball, there are many different ways AoE fire damage could occur both in terms of thematics and in terms of mechanics, and there's no reason that Psion abilities would track anywhere near that closely with spells, especially if we do as implied above and aim for different resource schedules, different rates of acquisition, etc.

Which, I agree with @Scribe that it is very much not a trivial task to do this. Unfortunately, I also agree that WotC is too lazy to actually do that amount of design work, and will almost guaranteed end up sticking with a pure spellcaster that is functionally "Wizard with actual class features and fewer spells per day". But you miss 100% of the shots you don't attempt. I can hope that there are enough "psionics is NOT spellcasting" folks out there that could convince WotC to change their minds. It worked with the Warlock, after all. It could work again.

 

[mellored]

"Spells" is not JUST a container.

Most of what you listed applies to "Slots".
And I completely agree i don't want yet another full caster.

The only shape that "Spell" has is a number associated with it's nominal power. Which is useful for balancing, but not a limit.

• You can't design a class that gains more new...let's call them "knacks" early on, but fewer later, e.g. tier I at 1, tier II at 2, tier III at 3, tier IV at 5, tier V at 7, tier VI at 9, etc. (so 1/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/3 which works out to 18 levels overall--comparable to but quite distinct from spellcasting)

Umm... why not?

Looks nearly identical to a level 18 Eldritch Knight
1/1/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/3

• You can't design a class that only learns "knacks" infrequently, but in larger chunks (say, 3 at a time), or where knowing one low-level "knack" guarantees you will then pick up a higher-level "knack" later on

I expect most players prefer a more gradual improvements, but nothing stops it.

• You can't design a different distribution of power, e.g. only six tiers of "knacks", or 12 tiers, or 20, or what-have-you

Not sure how that would be helpful though when all class have 20 levels.

Worth noting invocations have 7 levels.

• You can't make different choices about what counts as balanced vs imbalanced in terms of damage output or effect

Spells get modified all the time.

Adding Cha to damage, removing concentration, target self only, move the zone, prevent ally damage, increase the die size, increase targets, change casting time...
Have all been done to modify "Spells".

Also, there was a UA about downcasting spells. Didn't pass, but nothing stops a "you can cast fireball at-will, but it deals 4d6 damage".

• You can't just willy-nilly ignore components (hence why WotC's exception still requires M components consumed, or with a cost)

Druids cast Find Familar without a cost.

• You can't just willy-nilly ignore interaction with other effects

Sacred Flame ignores cover.
Elemental Adept ignores resistance.
Warcaster ignores hand requirements.

• New types or variations on areas aren't permitted (e.g. an effect which makes multiple parallel lines isn't compatible with 5e spell AoEs)

Gust of Wind is 10' wide and 60' long. Pretty much 2 parallel lines.
Cloud Kill slowly moves away from you.
Chain Lightning is a different shape too.
And you could easily make a T shaped spell.

• New modes or aspects of targeting aren't permitted

Dream targets a sleeping person.

• Effects "out of sequence" from spells can't be added--so, for instance, no spellcasting Psion can form a group mind connection until they reach level 9 and get access to Rary's telepathic bond

The Telepath at level 3 does.
Not as a "Spell", but it could easily be one.

And I'm pretty sure one subclass could cast a spell a level earlier than normal. Might of been in a UA, but nothing stops giving Psions getting Rary's telepathic bond at lower level.

Spells lock us into a large number of design assumptions and limitations.

Those where your assumptions.
Not actual limitations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

i agree with what you're saying but i think the issue most lies in that initial statement for some people, 'everything supernatural is a derivative of magic' feels like a backwards classification to us in the same way that 'the entire EM spectrum is a derivative of ultra-violet' feels backwards.

It’s more like “all light is energy.”

 

[Staffan]

And I'm pretty sure one subclass could cast a spell a level earlier than normal. Might of been in a UA, but nothing stops giving Psions getting Rary's telepathic bond at lower level.

I don't think the system likes giving earlier access to a spell to specific classes, at least not as a prepared/known spell. Spell level is inherent to the spell in 5e, unlike 3e where different classes could have the same spell at different levels (e.g. bards getting suggestion as a 2nd level spell instead of 3rd). You could have a 5th level class ability that says "You can cast Rary's telepathic bond without using a spell slot. Once you've done that you can't do it again until you've taken a long rest.", but you can't have "Rary's telepathic bond is a 3rd level spell for you." You could also have a new spell that mimics RTB, perhaps with some parts tweaked, and place it at whatever spell level you want.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Put that on the to do list for 6e.

But let's not add more containers to 5e when we already have a semi-universal one.

IMO.

I have no desire to take away the Wizard's containers, because they work.. for the Wizard.

 

[mellored]

I don't think the system likes giving earlier access to a spell to specific classes,.

It doesn't. A 5th level spell is balanced to be a big thing for 9th level characters. And it would generally be too big for a level 5 character.

But that's not a hard rule.

"You can cast Rary's telepathic bond without using a spell slot. Once you've done that you can't do it again until you've taken a long rest.", but you can't have "Rary's telepathic bond is a 3rd level spell for you."

Well you could do the second one.
But I the first would make more sense.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It’s more like “all light is energy.”

no, i do mean the thing that i said in the way that i said it, 'all supernatural is a subset of magic' feels backwards in the same way 'all light is a subset of UV' does

 

[doctorbadwolf]

no, i do mean the thing that i said in the way that i said it, 'all supernatural is a subset of magic' feels backwards in the same way 'all light is a subset of UV' does

That isn’t accurate, regardless of what you meant. I didn’t correct what you meant, I stated that what you meant is incorrect.

Supernatural powers are all magic, just as all EM wavelengths are energy.

Magic just means supernatural powers, effects, or states of being. That’s all Magic is.

Claiming otherwise is like claiming that ultra-violet light isn’t energy. It’s simply false.


ETA: Especially in the context here, which is that psionics are magic, your comparison just doesn’t seem to be the same type of comparison as what you are responding to with it.

If what you want to argue is that “supernatural” is the umbrella, and “magic” is an item under that umbrella, your comparison didn’t accomplish that. (I also, again, am saying that such an argument is false)

No matter what the item is called, if it does impossible things that we generally understand as being outside the bounds of natural laws, it’s magic.

 

[Incenjucar]

That isn’t accurate, regardless of what you meant. I didn’t correct what you meant, I stated that what you meant is incorrect.

Supernatural powers are all magic, just as all EM wavelengths are energy.

Magic just means supernatural powers, effects, or states of being. That’s all Magic is.

Claiming otherwise is like claiming that ultra-violet light isn’t energy. It’s simply false.

You're using a colloquial definition, but other usage narrows magic down as a subset of the supernatural. Supernatural is the broader term, even though they are often used interchangably.