D&D 5E Do you want psionics in your D&D?

[Yaarel]

In my eyes, there are two concepts.
• A Mystic whose psionics focuses on ranged spells. (Psion).
• A Mystic whose psionics focuses on melee spells. (Psywar).

It is debatable whether it is better to keep these concepts in the same class, or split them into two classes.


In either case, I hope the melee-Mystic is a full caster, like the ranged-Mystic is a full caster. In other words, I hope the melee-Mystic is more like the 4e Swordmage, and less like the 5e Eldritch Knight.

The Eldritch Knight is a mundane nonmagical Fighter, who dabbles in magic.
Instead, the Swordmage is a full caster, who fights by strictly magical means.

I want the melee-Mystic to fight in melee by strictly magical means, such as telekinetic punches, rather than Strength.



Perhaps a reasonable design approach is to split the ranged and melee concepts into two separate psionic class, but make sure they synergize well when multiclassing, so that their various combinations will also result as full casters.

Likewise, it should be easy to build a Fighter who dabbles in a psionic multiclass.

In any case, the salient difference to consider is ranged psionic effects verses melee psionic effects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In my eyes, there are two concepts.
• A Mystic whose psionics focuses on ranged spells. (Psion).
• A Mystic whose psionics focuses on melee spells. (Psywar).

...they shouldn't be 'spells...'

It is debatable whether it is better to keep these concepts in the same class, or split them into two classes.

The fighter can go melee or ranged based on a style choice, alone (not even a separate sub-class for Archer), and though there aren't a lot of 'melee spells' any caster can just choose some of them if they want 'em. In 5e ranged v melee is a fairly minor distinction, anyway.

That said, the Bard has a sub-class that's a bit more melee-oriented, and the Druid is divided between two circles, one that's more oriented towards casting, one that's better at melee'ing in animal forms.

There's no class that's basically just like another class, but melee instead of ranged.

Likewise, it should be easy to build a Fighter who dabbles in a psionic multiclass.

Two of the three 3.x psionic classes could just be sub-classes of other classes, never mind the mystic: Psychic Warrior, of the Fighter (to Mystic what EK is to Wizard); Soul Knife of the Rogue (ditto, AT).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Psionics has always had reasonable themes in D&D. Originally it was often found in underground races, including duergar. Then in 2e they made the feel be mostly Indian mysticism. For some reason many people seem unaware of that version, which is a shame, as it is a completely appropriate flavor for D&D.

What is easier is to just select from among several flavor options.
The Far Realm connection to psionics

Which wasn't originally there (unless one chose to read into it in 1e)

should be presented, as an in-setting hypothesis or a DM option, one of at least a few.

Yes, absolutely. This is the only way it works well with the totality of D&D tradition.

Similarly, the Weave should be presented as one way of explaining arcane magic, that's nominally official in FR, at the most, but not the only one.

It already is in 5e, right there in the sidebar that mentions it. It is specifically described as: "..a kind of interface between the will of the spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface."

That's just taking the philosophy of DM Empowerment and optional rules that's already prevalent in 5e to the realm of fluff, where it works even better and with fewer downsides.

Yep.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which wasn't originally there (unless one chose to read into it in 1e)

The far Realm was introduced in some 2e module, and the selection of psionic monsters in the 1e MM included some pretty darn Lovecraftian ones, as already mentioned. So not hard at all to read in.

It already is in 5e, right there in the sidebar that mentions it. It is specifically described as: "..a kind of interface between the will of the spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface."

Close, but not quite. We shouldn't accept something along the similar lines of: "Psionic power comes from an incomprehensibly alien plane of existence, sages call it The Far Realm, but individual Mystics have varied ways of naming and imagining it."

I think a better way to go would be to give the DM some clear choices to tick off:

Psionics is Magic vs Psionics is different.

Psionic power is internal vs Psionic power comes from a source.

Psionic discipline develops latent, natural power in a quest for perfection vs psionic discipline controls unnatural corrupting power while trying to maintain the wielder's sanity.

Stuff like that.

 

[Greg Benage]

Certain aberrations only.

 

[Shasarak]

Be careful what you wish for...

View attachment 85445

I dont get it, be careful of what you wish for because look at the awesome stuff you can get just by wishing it?

 

[Azzy]

Why are people still harping on about the Far Realms? The last iteration of the Mystic dropped that bit of fluff.

 

[Gradine]

I'm not really a big fan of all of these archetypes being rolled into a single class.

If Soul-Knife makes sense as an archetype for any PHB class, it would be Monk. In fact, I've slapped a new coat of paint on the Open Hand Monk to build some Soul-Knife NPCs before.

Second the Psychic Warrior as Fighter archetype though.

 

[Mercule]

[MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION] -- that's what i'd say to anyone who felt the need to add it. I think we agree: any table can add or take away flavour text; that's my point. It is meaningless at most tables, and I don't get why people care about that aspect to the degree they seem to do when posting on boards.

If I read your earlier post correctly, we mostly agree. One big difference I've noticed between the D&D of TSR and the D&D of WotC* is that the older editions tended to present ideas and evoke the imagination with the way they were presented. The newer editions tend to proscribe defaults. There's an art that seems to have been lost somewhere along the line.

I'm fine with an author posing a theory about psionics in one paragraph and totally contradicting it in the next as he presents another idea seed. Or doing vanilla rules with a sidebar that poses the question of "Where do psionics come from?" then giving a list of ideas. I'm not cool with Mearls having an itch because he wants to have an answer about what psionics are and then saddling every gaming group with that preference unless the DM changes it, intentionally.

* It may not have anything to do with the changing of hands. I just can't find a better line to draw than between 2E and 3E.

 

[Mercule]

There's a lot of Lovecraft influence in D&D. Wingless-Star-Spawn-of-C'thulhu 'Mind Flayers' are just the most obvious. They're also among the most notorious users of psionics. And they're aberrations.

Do you cut all aberrations from the game, or just change the type to something less annoying?

Agreed with the Lovecraftian influences. I don't hate Lovecraft, just peanut butter in my chocolate, so to speak.

As for aberrations, I won't say I never use any of them. I think I used a mind flayer once, in 1E and an aboleth in 2E. I don't think I've ever used a beholder. Some of the lesser aberrations -- cloakers, ropers, etc. (assuming those are even classified as such) -- don't see much use, but that's more based on opportunity than any true objection to them. For all real purposes, though, the marquee aberrations don't really exist in my home brew settings.

I do run Eberron, though, from time to time. There I don't really emphasize the Quari, but they certainly exist and I'm fine with them as part of that setting. It's just one explanation among many for things.

The Far Realm is just a plane no one can really go to, cutting it couldn't be easier.

I shouldn't have to "cut" it from the base game. Actually, I'm fine with it being somewhere in some hypothetical 5E Manual of the Planes. I just don't want to see it baked into a bunch of other stuff. It definitely doesn't belong in anything other than a sidebar in psionics, and then only at the same level of emphasis as "and, sometimes people who have been around magical disasters manifest psionics". In other worlds, the core psionic rules should be equally usable with Dark Sun (where they come from the magical fallout) as with the Realms where (I guess) they come from the Far Realms. Neither should have to do any more tweaking to the flavor inserted into the psionics rules.

Meh. Inventing something, even something as HPL-derivative as the Far Realm, may or may not be that easy for everyone, and, fluff can be a source of inspiration, even if you do end up changing it. So just not having it isn't a wonderful idea, especially when it comes to a game like 5e strongly tied to a setting (or settings... hmm... maybe I shouldn't have brought it up). Settling on just one fluff explanation just leads to exactly this kind of argument, where those who like it insist 'just don't use it' and those who don't insist 'just add it yourself.' Divisive and counter-productive.

What is easier is to just select from among several flavor options.
The Far Realm connection to psionics should be presented, as an in-setting hypothesis or a DM option, one of at least a few. Similarly, the Weave should be presented as one way of explaining arcane magic, that's nominally official in FR, at the most, but not the only one.

That's just taking the philosophy of DM Empowerment and optional rules that's already prevalent in 5e to the realm of fluff, where it works even better and with fewer downsides.

I think I agree with all this. As I mentioned in my last post, I think the art of inspiring and supporting DMs has been fading from D&D. It's a big multiverse and has room for Dark Sun with no gods, Forgotten Realms where you might bump into one at Walmart, and Eberron where the jury is out (just to pick one clear difference in settings).