D&D 5E How does 5e know what you're thinking? Psionics Mechanics..

[Ultimatecalibur]

With all the talk of making psionics a wizard specialty or sorcererous origin, I'm curious how many people who are fans of that approach are actually fans of the psion, or just see that as a way to tuck away something they're not really fond of in the first place?


Full disclosure, I'm of the psioncs =/= magic crowd and would be disappointed if it didn't have its own unique mechanic aside from arcane sources.

Is anyone a fan of the psion who would actually prefer to have it just be a bloodline, specialty, etc?

I'm curious because wotc's been saying they want to please fans who enjoy playing particular class, and a lot of the discussion here seems to quickly turn to "I don't like this class so lets subsume it to something else!" Which only seems to please folks who didn't intend on playing that class anyway.

I've noticed that, too. Whether it's psionics, specific classes, or whatever, people who aren't fond of a particular mechanic sometimes seem to think that they're making a magnanimous concession by saying, "Okay, it can be in the game, but only in an uninteresting, half-functional form."

This is supposed to be the "everything but the kitchen sink" edition, so if the fanbase really wants something, WotC should make sure they do that thing well if they decide to include it at all. If people don't want to include those things in their particular game that they're running, they can just say, "Make your characters now, but remember, no psions/barbarians/warlords/etc."

My problem with the psionics=/=magic concept has nothing to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with the self-segregating nature of the fluff. The fluff used for Psionics in D&D and other media where both more traditional magics and Psionics exist as distinct concepts tends to attempt to make Psionics out as something completely different and alien but has it doing the same things as already existing magics. Mind reading and control, hypnotism, the various forms of -kinesis, perception manipulation and many other "psionic powers" are already covered by existing magic. What does Psionics actually add to D&D that isn't already covered.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I've noticed that, too. Whether it's psionics, specific classes, or whatever, people who aren't fond of a particular mechanic sometimes seem to think that they're making a magnanimous concession by saying, "Okay, it can be in the game, but only in an uninteresting, half-functional form."

This is supposed to be the "everything but the kitchen sink" edition, so if the fanbase really wants something, WotC should make sure they do that thing well if they decide to include it at all. If people don't want to include those things in their particular game that they're running, they can just say, "Make your characters now, but remember, no psions/barbarians/warlords/etc."

The problem is, there are a lot of people out there right now who are EXTREMELY against the idea of this being "everything but the kitchen sink" edition.

A member of my group for frequently DMs who's not involved in the online scene told me that he does not want the PHB to have any optional material. He doesn't want to have to tell players they can't have this or that. He's in favor of optional material to make up campaign settings but basically wants to be able to tell people to make character out of X campaign setting or just simply PHB only characters and never have to give any more details than that.

I'm so extremely against that I can't even express who much I disagree with him, but that sentiment is out there.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

My problem with the psionics=/=magic concept has nothing to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with the self-segregating nature of the fluff. The fluff used for Psionics in D&D and other media where both more traditional magics and Psionics exist as distinct concepts tends to attempt to make Psionics out as something completely different and alien but has it doing the same things as already existing magics. Mind reading and control, hypnotism, the various forms of -kinesis, perception manipulation and many other "psionic powers" are already covered by existing magic. What does Psionics actually add to D&D that isn't already covered.

Well in my opinion most of those things simply shouldn't be covered by magic

That was one of the promises of early 4e that got thrown to the wayside...

But seriously magic shouldn't be reading minds, that's the domain of psionics.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I, for one, would be very disappointed if psionics was entirely subsumed into other classes. I want a psion class with its own mechanics. The psion has a long tradition of having its own mechanics.

I also prefer that psionics and magic are different things, perhaps not as much in effect, but definitely in cause. For this reason more than any other, I want psionics planned for from the beginning.

At the same time, I don't think that the mechanics need to be the same as they were in previous editions. I wouldn't say that it's ever been done right. And part of that is a failure to limit the scope of a psions abilities.

The Psion should be the master of telepathy and telekinesis, much like the rouge is the master of skills and stealth. The developers are already addressing this in spell and class design by making sure that a Wizard with invisibility doesn't replace the rogue. I want the same consideration for that which belongs to the psion.

Now, all of that said, I'm not against psionic options for other classes in addition to the psion. Much as I could gladly support a Wild Talent background or specialty.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I have never gotten the desire that psionics=/="magic" and that the game needs a psionic equivalent for everything. Psionics is just a modern day pseudoscientific refluffing of magic.

If Psionics make an appearance in 5e/Next I hope it ends something like the following:

• Wizards get a Mentalist tradition.
• Sorcerers get a Wild Talent Origin.
• Warlocks get a Pact with a mental super construct.
• Monks get Psychic Warrior and Soul Knife styles.

This would/will work for some. I like it as a form of Psionic's light. But I feel like it could lack the full depth that proper Psionic classes could bring to the table. Although I'm not 100% certain I like the Monk being tied to Psychic Warrior and Soul Knives.. Those could almost be Specialist talents if done right.

 

[bogmad]

I also prefer that psionics and magic are different things, perhaps not as much in effect, but definitely in cause. For this reason more than any other, I want psionics planned for from the beginning.

Exactly. While the effects might be the same or similar, how you get there is completely different.

Kinda like how in 2nd edition at least, psionic invisibility required psychic combat and "clouding the mind" of each individual creature you were hid from -instead of throwing a coat of invisibility over you or whatever. Which on a slight tangential note, is one way to even differentiate the effect of psionic invisibility from the spell as well as possibly prevent it from outclassing the rogue.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

For me... use Ken Hood's Skills and Feats Psionics..

This system allows any character class to pick up a wild talent and maybe invest enough to be solid in one aspect of psionics, and has a pure Psion class that can master more of the mind bending crazyness.

It might need some tweaking to fit Next's paradigms, but I think that would be worth it.

And the Martial Artist version too.. heck, bring Ken Hood in to oversee the whole revision!

 

[timASW]

With all the talk of making psionics a wizard specialty or sorcererous origin, I'm curious how many people who are fans of that approach are actually fans of the psion, or just see that as a way to tuck away something they're not really fond of in the first place?


Full disclosure, I'm of the psioncs =/= magic crowd and would be disappointed if it didn't have its own unique mechanic aside from arcane sources.

Is anyone a fan of the psion who would actually prefer to have it just be a bloodline, specialty, etc?

I'm curious because wotc's been saying they want to please fans who enjoy playing particular class, and a lot of the discussion here seems to quickly turn to "I don't like this class so lets subsume it to something else!" Which only seems to please folks who didn't intend on playing that class anyway.

I liked psionics a lot. But I always narrated it as: arcane magic comes from outside of oneself, Divine magic comes from the gods and psionics come solely from within yourself.

So since thats how I've thought of it since AD&D days it only feels right to me to make it part of sorcerer. As their powers also come from within and not without.

 

[The Shadow]

With all the talk of making psionics a wizard specialty or sorcererous origin, I'm curious how many people who are fans of that approach are actually fans of the psion, or just see that as a way to tuck away something they're not really fond of in the first place?

Just to clarify my post, my preference would be to see a full psion class and psionics system.

I was saying that if for whatever reason we can't or don't get that, I could maybe live with a Wild Talent sorcerer. It would be a distinct second-best, if not third-best, but better than nothing.

I also am of the psionics != magic persuasion; if it were up to me, Dispel Magic wouldn't work on it. (Then again, if it were up to me, Dispel Magic wouldn't work on divine 'magic' either!)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Very light, very open-ended mechanics. No slots, no points, no powers.

If you're a pyro, you gain some ability that says you're a pyro, and when you try to do things, roll a skill like everyone else. Simple, basic, yet integrated into the existing mechanical framework. The Psychic's Handbook is a good place to start.