D&D General So… psionic powers are no longer purely mental?

Silam

Explorer
Sorry, this is old news, but I was looking at the Unearthed Arcana about Psions and noticed that the "Psion spells" have verbal and/or somatic components now?

I thought psionic powers were purely mental, as opposed to magic, which requires gesticulation, shouting and the blood of a virgin ox.

So I guess sorcerers with their metamagic are the closest thing to a psion nowadays?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The most recent version of Psion is a spellcaster, so the spells have the typical components. But the class itself has this provision:
Psionic Spellcasting. When you cast a Psion spell, that spell doesn’t require a Verbal or Material component, even if the spell includes “V” or “M” in its “Components” entry, except Material components that are consumed by the spell or have a cost specified in the spell.
I assume for somatic they're imagining something like Professor X holding his hand to his head.
charles-xavier-professor-x.gif
 


Sorry, this is old news, but I was looking at the Unearthed Arcana about Psions and noticed that the "Psion spells" have verbal and/or somatic components now?

I thought psionic powers were purely mental, as opposed to magic, which requires gesticulation, shouting and the blood of a virgin ox.

So I guess sorcerers with their metamagic are the closest thing to a psion nowadays?

Yeah the 5e designers gave up on making Psionics mean anything and just made it a spellcaster with vaguely thematic spells.

I dont know if any 3rd parties have created an actual working Psionics system
 

Yeah the 5e designers gave up on making Psionics mean anything and just made it a spellcaster with vaguely thematic spells.

100% true. But can't you generallize that in 5e, basically everything is just vaguely thematic spells? It's not like warlocks, bards, or any other caster have anything different. Heck, even a lot of non-caster stuff is just thematic spells, ranging from racial stuff, monster abilities, and even some feats.

You gotta go back to 3e if you want that truly satisfying "Magic A is Magic A, Magic B is Magic B" crunch.
 


For the D&D community, psionics is like 4 very different and distinct things.

So WOTC offshore the more complex ideas to 3PPs.
The problem isn't that it means different things to different people.

It's that WotC's chosen design method for 5e is design-by-committee, just via survey. When there's a clear agreement about what something should be in broad strokes, e.g. everyone agrees Druids should have shapeshift (but might quibble about fine details), then this method works.* When there is deep disagreement, on the other hand, it is completely nonfunctional. That's why they tried like four shots at fixing/changing the Ranger (and Sorcerer...and Monk...and Warlock...), why they tried like three or four times to create a Psion, etc., etc.

Simply put, outside of a relatively small set of basic things--very loosely the "core four" classes + Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, and maybe Bard--it is WILDLY impractical to demand that 70% of the community agree on a design before you begin iterating. Frankly, it's impractical to demand even 50% approval before proceeding, because no group has a clear majority opinion. At best, you'll see a plurality of about 40% if you're lucky when it comes to psionics, because that more than most things has extremely strong opinions and a lot of them are....let's say "at loggerheads".

Up to a certain point, particularly with the most "general" classes, it's very good to ensure you have a broad base of solid approval before you proceed with your designs. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard are all intentionally pretty generic classes. They aren't "for everyone" because nothing truly is "for everyone", but they're about as close as you'll get to "for everyone", and thus having the thumbs-up, even preliminarily, from a clear majority of your user base is a good idea. (I'd personally make it "anything clearly over 60% is fine, but if it's between 60% and 70%, try to figure out what the folks who aren't on board don't like, and address it", but that's just me.) After that point, however, trying to make sure that EVERY class ALWAYS gets an unequivocal supermajority is not only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to the game's design. It leads to milquetoast slop like what the 5.0 Sorcerer and Warlock were--barely functional compared to their peers and actively conflicting with the way people really play the game--or things being stuck in eternal development hell, as happened with psionics.

And now we're stuck with the worst of all worlds: psionics that are very literally just more spells that work exactly like all other spells.
 

The problem isn't that it means different things to different people.

It's that WotC's chosen design method for 5e is design-by-committee, just via survey. When there's a clear agreement about what something should be in broad strokes, e.g. everyone agrees Druids should have shapeshift (but might quibble about fine details), then this method works.* When there is deep disagreement, on the other hand, it is completely nonfunctional. That's why they tried like four shots at fixing/changing the Ranger (and Sorcerer...and Monk...and Warlock...), why they tried like three or four times to create a Psion, etc., etc.

Simply put, outside of a relatively small set of basic things--very loosely the "core four" classes + Barbarian, Druid, Paladin, and maybe Bard--it is WILDLY impractical to demand that 70% of the community agree on a design before you begin iterating. Frankly, it's impractical to demand even 50% approval before proceeding, because no group has a clear majority opinion. At best, you'll see a plurality of about 40% if you're lucky when it comes to psionics, because that more than most things has extremely strong opinions and a lot of them are....let's say "at loggerheads".

Up to a certain point, particularly with the most "general" classes, it's very good to ensure you have a broad base of solid approval before you proceed with your designs. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard are all intentionally pretty generic classes. They aren't "for everyone" because nothing truly is "for everyone", but they're about as close as you'll get to "for everyone", and thus having the thumbs-up, even preliminarily, from a clear majority of your user base is a good idea. (I'd personally make it "anything clearly over 60% is fine, but if it's between 60% and 70%, try to figure out what the folks who aren't on board don't like, and address it", but that's just me.) After that point, however, trying to make sure that EVERY class ALWAYS gets an unequivocal supermajority is not only a waste of time, it's actively harmful to the game's design. It leads to milquetoast slop like what the 5.0 Sorcerer and Warlock were--barely functional compared to their peers and actively conflicting with the way people really play the game--or things being stuck in eternal development hell, as happened with psionics.

And now we're stuck with the worst of all worlds: psionics that are very literally just more spells that work exactly like all other spells.
Thats a issue.

But the biggest one is that D&D has 4 different histories for psioinics and the fans are split between about 4 ideas that cannot be combined NOR does wotc want to make 4 new mechanics.

1) Far Realm Struggling Tentacles and Claws Psychic
2) Psionic Spell Slot Wizard
3) Power Point Goey Psion
4) Mind Psuedoscience Psionicist
 

Yeah the 5e designers gave up on making Psionics mean anything and just made it a spellcaster with vaguely thematic spells.

I dont know if any 3rd parties have created an actual working Psionics system
Yup. MCDM has the Talent, A5E has both the Voidrunner's Codex psions AND @Steampunkette 's Esper from Paranormal Power, pretty sure laserllama has something out cuz he just seems to make everything, and who knows how many homebrew versions.
 


Remove ads

Top