D&D 5E (2024) [+] What does a non-spellcaster Psion need/look like?

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden

Is it possible for a Barbarian to serve as the Psionic noncaster?

It is easy for me to see the Barbarian as the power of ones own soul, especially Berserkr, then Beast becoming the soul of an animal, Zealot applying ones soul wholeheartedly. Finally the Tree is ones own soul as the microcosm interrelating the multiversal macrocosm.

I wonder if a new Barbarian subclass can emphasize the superheroish themes, including flight. Barbarian already has something like bodyarmor, but perhaps additional options can offer force armor or so on.

I could see others interpeting it so, but I would not do so myself.

The primary reason being that the Barbarian--even in 5e--is portrayed as something unthinking. Even if it has moved quite far away from the "wild-eyed madness" type origin, no longer looking quite like Cú Chulainn's "warp-spasms" ("ríastrad") that made him equally dangerous to friend and foe, the Barbarian Rage is still antithetical to powers of the mind. Remember that 5e Rage forbids not just spellcasting, but concentration of any kind. Now, I want to be clear that I am not saying that because I want psionics to resemble spellcasting, but because I see concentration as representing the powers of the mind, whether they be spells or psi powers, and thus Rage forbidding that is a pretty big impediment. Not necessarily an absolute dealbreaker (hence, I could see others doing it), but a pretty big one for what I'm looking for.

Here soon, I'll articulate some of my own ideas. As noted, I was intending for this thread to be a place for others to voice their ideas first, before I launched into my own thoughts. It's been about three weeks, I'd say that's enough time for folks to get their thoughts in!

 

[Yaarel]

I could see others interpeting it so, but I would not do so myself.

The primary reason being that the Barbarian--even in 5e--is portrayed as something unthinking. Even if it has moved quite far away from the "wild-eyed madness" type origin, no longer looking quite like Cú Chulainn's "warp-spasms" ("ríastrad") that made him equally dangerous to friend and foe, the Barbarian Rage is still antithetical to powers of the mind. Remember that 5e Rage forbids not just spellcasting, but concentration of any kind. Now, I want to be clear that I am not saying that because I want psionics to resemble spellcasting, but because I see concentration as representing the powers of the mind, whether they be spells or psi powers, and thus Rage forbidding that is a pretty big impediment. Not necessarily an absolute dealbreaker (hence, I could see others doing it), but a pretty big one for what I'm looking for.

Here soon, I'll articulate some of my own ideas. As noted, I was intending for this thread to be a place for others to voice their ideas first, before I launched into my own thoughts. It's been about three weeks, I'd say that's enough time for folks to get their thoughts in!

Psionics includes emoting. And taking on an animalistic mind. It relates to shapeshifting, mind first, then body.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

A "psionic barbarian" is possible, but it would be more like the wilder class. I imagine something like a mixture of "abomination" (Marvel increible Hulk's archienemy) and a crazy Scarlet Witch when she is furious, or a mutant-like enemy like a kaiju with ray attacks style Godzilla.

Or we could give other example, Blanka, the greenskin with electric powers from Street Fighters.

It wouldn't be like the standar psion/mystic whose power comes from mental training but something more instictive, like no-sentient monsters with psionic powers.

Maybe the barbarian is the host of some symbiont-like creature with psionic powers, like Venom and Carnage, Spiderman's enemies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Psionics includes emoting. And taking on an animalistic mind. It relates to shapeshifting, mind first, then body.

I can see that being one specific specialization of it, sure. I don't see the Barbarian working as the baseline for all of it, is the problem.

Like this feels like saying that the Barbarian works for, say, Paladin, because you could view Rage as being a transcendental state of communion with something beyond you. Sure, you could do that, but where's the aura? Where's the divine smite? Etc.

Yes, there are elements that relate. There are also elements that don't, in both directions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just had a thought. I fundamentally do not see the point of the Psion we have been presented - a pretty generic caster trying to force itself between the sorcerer and wizard. But my first main RPG was GURPS and GURPS psionics is as different from GURPS magic as D&D magic is from Stars Without Numbers' psionic system. So why not steal that?

Or if we must have an Int based version of a Charisma caster as a Psion use the warlock for crying out loud. And write the Invocation-equivalent disciplines properly with no referencing anything that contains Components. In order to lift a 25lb rock a Psion should not be burning spell slots any more than a fighter is. Instead something more like "As an action You can telekinetically lift unattended objects in line of sight and 50ft telekinetically using up to 10lbs* your Int or Cha score. If you wish to split this load adding each new item takes an action and the conbined weight does not exceed your capacity. You may move all objects you have lifted up to 30' as a bonus action".

 

[Yaarel]

I can see that being one specific specialization of it, sure. I don't see the Barbarian working as the baseline for all of it, is the problem.

Like this feels like saying that the Barbarian works for, say, Paladin, because you could view Rage as being a transcendental state of communion with something beyond you. Sure, you could do that, but where's the aura? Where's the divine smite? Etc.

Yes, there are elements that relate. There are also elements that don't, in both directions.

The actual berserkr is a mind shape, hamr, a self-visualization. It is the power of the mind.

Meanwhile the D&D 2024 Barbarian Rage is magical, understood variously: "primal", "fierce spirit", ancestral "forebear", "anguish of the world", "wild magic" − even explicitly ones "own deepest self".

It is straightforward to read the Barbarian as a Psionic class utilizing the soul, especially the soul that takes on a wild self-identity.

Perhaps you are looking for a Psionic class with different features?

But the Barbarian class comes across as Psionic enough. A Psionic subclass can heighten this.

 

[Yaarel]

Obviously, the Barbarian class mentions "primal" flavor. (And the Zealot subclass is "divine".)

The thing is, I dont consider animal magic to be "primal", because humans are animals. Anything that animals do, sleep, hunger, fury, etcetera, humans do too. There is no "other". For this reason, I tend to associate animal magic with Psionic shapeshifting, empathy, and so on.

Primal seems more exactly the nonanimal aspects of nature: the elements and plants, especially in the sense of forming relationships with natural features.

Both Psionic and Primal are the personal magic of the soul, whether the soul of a human-animal or the soul of a waterfall. Thus neither are the impersonal magic of the weave. The Arcane and Divine feel impersonal, whether the cosmic machinery or the cosmic creation.

In any case, a Psionic subclass with superheroic features, is seamlessly Barbarian.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The actual berserkr is a mind shape, hamr, a self-visualization. It is the power of the mind.

Meanwhile the D&D 2024 Barbarian Rage is magical, understood variously: "primal", "fierce spirit", ancestral "forebear", "anguish of the world", "wild magic" − even explicitly ones "own deepest self".

It is straightforward to read the Barbarian as a Psionic class utilizing the soul, especially the soul that takes on a wild self-identity.

Perhaps you are looking for a Psionic class with different features?

But the Barbarian class comes across as Psionic enough. A Psionic subclass can heighten this.

Ah, see, I was understanding your suggestion as "The Barbarian is perfectly adequate to fulfill this concept", as opposed to what it sounds like here, which is "The Barbarian could be used as one expression of this concept". The former I vehemently disagree with, the latter I think is perfectly fine, even good--a psionic Rage could be very interesting, presuming other psionic mechanics have already been articulated.

 

[Zardnaar]

I could see a psionic barbarian. Their belief in themselves empowers them.

Paint armor red it goes faster. Pick up a crossbow and their belief provides the dakka for for it to shoot psionically empowered arrows.

They could even go Waaaaagh when they rage.

I'll let myself out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Obviously, the Barbarian class mentions "primal" flavor. (And the Zealot subclass is "divine".)

The thing is, I dont consider animal magic to be "primal", because humans are animals. Anything that animals do, sleep, hunger, fury, etcetera, humans do too. There is no "other". For this reason, I tend to associate animal magic with Psionic shapeshifting, empathy, and so on.

Primal seems more exactly the nonanimal aspects of nature: the elements and plants, especially in the sense of forming relationships with natural features.

Both Psionic and Primal are the personal magic of the soul, whether the soul of a human-animal or the soul of a waterfall. Thus neither are the impersonal magic of the weave. The Arcane and Divine feel impersonal, whether the cosmic machinery or the cosmic creation.

In any case, a Psionic subclass with superheroic features, is seamlessly Barbarian.

At least for my part, I see psionic and primal as equally distinct things--and I do see primal as quite distinct from the self, because of many of the symbols and rituals involved with it.

Primal magic involves a kind of transcendental understanding, it's just not the kind of understanding that can be communicated through text. That's something that both arcane and divine magic share: they are communication, from one entity to another. Primal magic isn't about communication, but immersion.

While for you, man is an animal and thus just as much part of these things as everything else, I don't quite see it that way. Instinct is something difficult to understand--yes, humans have instincts, but a lot of them are pretty weak and minor compared to what other animals possess. When you then enhance that conceptual space with supernatural power--where instinct can literally be magic, itself--then learning from and drawing on the instinctual-supernatural can be outside of the self, without being totally other to the self, the way arcane or divine magic implicitly are.

If you like, you could say that I divide these four kinds of magic into a grid: "foreign" vs "innate" (arcane/divine are "foreign" to the self, coming from observation or revelation, psionic/primal are "innate" to the self, being the mind and the body), and "analytical" vs "intuitive" (arcane/psi are analytical, divine/primal are intuitive). Psi is, in this sense, most different from divine because it differs on both axes.

(This is also probably the point where I should note that I'd prefer that all four types--arcane, divine, primal, psionic--have to some degree distinct mechanical expression and result, significantly more than what D&D 5e has ended up doing, where they're all functionally 100% the same and differ almost exclusively in pure-fluff descriptive text. Since arcane/divine sailed long ago and 5.5e tripled down on "primal is literally just a different spell list" too, psi is the only remaining axis upon which some kind of differentiation can still be present.)