D&D 5E (2014) Do you want psionics in your D&D?

[Yaztromo]

It depends on the setting: in some setting Psionics works brilliantly, in others not.

 

[Shasarak]

I guess it is a double edge sword really. Yes I want Psionics but do I want to be stuck with some half assed Far Realms contamination or hokey fantasy Mystic version?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I want Psionics but do I want to be stuck with some half assed Far Realms contamination

I find it hard to understand this attitude: this might just be a factor of the people I play with, and so I'm curious --

Why can't you simply disregard the flavour text? how does "some half assed Far Realms contamination" in the fluff shape or constrain your actual play? Is it the DM that enforces adherence to canon, or all the players?

 

[hastur_nz]

I've used Psionics in my 3.5 game, where they were finally OK (2e tried to fix them, but implementation was off even for DarkSun). I've also played a Fighter/Mystic recently in 5e (v2, then v3), and it had some big problems still IMO including what the top 10 or so levels should really be about.

For me, Psionics work best in D&D when they are:
* a core part of the game i.e. an option for players, NPC, monsters etc
* different in flavour and implementation, but only slightly different
* balanced vs spells - especially allowing psionic and spell effects to be 'the same' i.e. dispel magic works vs psionics etc
i.e. an option that's essentially "spells using the mind", and it's a Class or Monster Feature (e.g. Psionic Mind Flayer, Dragons might use Psionics instead of Spells, etc), not an add-on.

For 3.5, the saying that stuck with me for Psionics was: "this is how a Sorcerer should be", i.e. the Psionics Point pool, which can be used to manifest(cast) whatever power(spell) you had access to; and the ability to Augment a power.

In 5e, we already have Augmentation for spells. DMG has a Spell Points system, and not surprisingly that's what the Mystic uses. Where the Mystic fails so far, is that it is not designed clearly in terms of spells vs psionics, and the 'differentiation' between a Psion vs Spell caster is mainly that a Mystic ends up being "jack of all trades, master of none" - as they head to 20th level, they learn most powers, but none of them are spectacular. If we could tighten up the flavour differences between "core psion vs core spell slinger", and give more focus and power (not breadth) to the Mystic as they level up, and make it compatible with multiclassing (some seriously OP dip potential as written, and spells vs psionic points if you have access to both); well, if you could fix all that, then I'd love to see Psionics back in 5e.

As far as game Settings go, while Psionics were a core part of Dark Sun, I feel they could easily be part of any other game world, it's just that traditionally they have been a bolt-on after the fact, instead of embraced and integrated early on. Have fun trying to work it into the Forgotten Realms though - maybe they arrive on the Sword Coast soon via Chult?

 

[Shasarak]

I find it hard to understand this attitude: this might just be a factor of the people I play with, and so I'm curious --

Why can't you simply disregard the flavour text? how does "some half assed Far Realms contamination" in the fluff shape or constrain your actual play? Is it the DM that enforces adherence to canon, or all the players?

Of course I can ignore the stupid half assed stuff and on the other hand given the choice why not choose some actual good flavour that does not have to be ignored by trying to turn your character into some kind of contaminated or mutated freak?

I dont really understand the attitude of having to settle for sub par material.

 

[SkidAce]

Psionics has been in my campaign world from the very beginning (early 80's?).

The Elder Races had it, its more prevalent in humans than other races but still rare. (are they related to gith?)

And because its not good clean divine magic, may have no visible effect, and can READ YOUR MIND!!!! (dun dun dun) most places persecute the wielders like witches from Salem.


Dos the above make total sense?, nah...but its a good backdrop for the game and ancient mysteries. Like the old mind flayer empire etc.



P.S. And before anyone asks, arcane magic is..tolerated, somewhat like science they don't understand by the populace, unless they think you are a warlock or cavorting with demons, then they persecute you.

 

[TheNoremac42]

I sometimes give my BBEG psionic powers just to spice things up. "Oh, that's a nice antimagic field you have there. Have a Feeble Mind!"

Functionally, very similar to magic. Just different sources.

 

[cbwjm]

Of course I can ignore the stupid half assed stuff and on the other hand given the choice why not choose some actual good flavour that does not have to be ignored by trying to turn your character into some kind of contaminated or mutated freak?

I dont really understand the attitude of having to settle for sub par material.

What relationship to the far realms? You might want to check the last Mystic UA because, unless they added it back in when they put it up on the DMs Guild, that connection is gone.

 

[Mercule]

In my games, Psionics are tied to the Far Realm, Aberrations and oddities. They fit into my games by not fitting into my games neatly. They grate and conflict with the environment - and I use that to create the right atmosphere.

And this is why psionics will never please everyone. Of all the suggestions for psionics that have any legs, the one that most turns me off is "tied to the Far Realm". I'm sure someone could find something that I like less, and I don't have a problem with any given DM or setting being able to use it that way (again, I think one of the best things about psionics is the blank slate), but any psionics system that calls out the Far Realm is an automatic failure, IMO.

I loathe Lovecraft, aberrations, and the Far Realm, but love psionics. They must be able to exist without each other.

 

[Mercule]

Why can't you simply disregard the flavour text? how does "some half assed Far Realms contamination" in the fluff shape or constrain your actual play? Is it the DM that enforces adherence to canon, or all the players?

Why can't you just add your own flavor? This sentiment comes up in multiple contexts and it confounda me. It's easier to add flavor than to remove or change it. I'm all good with a very noncommittal sidebar that gives some ideas or possibilities. I'm definitely opposed to adding flavor like this directly into the rules, though. Thus is a setting element. It's actually wrong for some official settings (Dark Sun).