If Psion is fixed and official does it belong into FR as basic and RAW?

5e is at least as supportive of DM Empowerment as any other ed, and quite possibly the most straightforwardly and intentionally so.
Officialdom and Core status and RaW are not the major considerations they have been in past eds.
 

Kurotowa

Adventurer
I draw a distinction between "Exists as a player option" and "Exists as a common and well known part of the setting that helps shape events and NPC attitudes".

This distinctions exists because I consider PCs to be inherently exceptional. They're rare talents, people marked by destiny, characters with backstories full of unusual events. If they want to be one of the last survivors of a hidden race, the few practitioners of an obscure discipline, or the few holders of a unique power then that's just fine. They don't have to be some random farmboy who picked up a shovel and brained the orc that was trying to eat their cow. Not unless they want to be, because in its own way that's a special heroic backstory all its own.

The other side of this coin, though, is that the setting doesn't have to be rewritten around these rare and exceptional PCs. One tortle PC doesn't mean that there's now a tortle empire and tortle ships can be found in every port. One psion PC doesn't mean psionics is now a recognized profession with their own guild helping train the psionic inquisitors that kingdoms use to ferret out dissent among their own people. It's okay to leave these things as rare and exceptional. And if a DM wants to veto a particular thing as being a little too exceptional to fit their campaign's theme, well, that's their right as DM.
 

Coroc

Hero
You do realize that this comes off like a fairly accusative question, and it unlikely to fly well at all, yes? Hint - if you want a reasonable conversation, don't open by telling your audience that they are hypocrites.
Yeah this was maybe not so fair of me, I do not judge the playstyle of others or what they like or do not.
My intent was more to make fans of everything goes a bit more aware that many of the things they think are rules aka crunch/mechanics in fact are fluff/prosa.

And psionics obviously should be optional crunch, and classes, races, spells are obviously pure fluff and can be ruled in and out as someone prefers to.
 

Stormonu

Hero
No to default Core. Too late in 5E cycle for it to be designated as a core feature.

However, I would certainly allow it if player's request to use it, and I would not be adverse to using psionic-enabled alternate monsters (such as a psionic Mind Flayer and Aboleth).
 

Coroc

Hero
But what if I want a character that uses gnomes as weapons and dual-wields them?
As long as it is a halfgiant character and not a goliath, I would totally allow this (The gnomes have to be paladins of course). For gnome protection laws it is unfortunately required that the gnomes be dead before the halfgiant is allowed to use them as a makeshift weapon.
So yes, but you will not get those typical squeaky noises when they impact on the opponent.

New magic item: crossspiked gnome club: Made of a (dead) gnome (paladin) with his two rapiers pierced through his skull in a cross shaped manner, so a halfgiant can easily use this as a spiked club.
damage 2d4 versus normal and large and 2d20 versus size small creatures.


Side note: really like gnomes, I even like tinker gnomes, in some campaigns they are far more easy to incorporate than halflings. Plus I like them being illusionists, rogues ,clerics, articficers and if it must be fighters. Guess which classes I do no not like in conjucntion with gnomes :p
 

Mecheon

Explorer
By definition, if you want Dragonborn in Greyhawk or dual-wielding gnomes with rapier in any setting ...
Oh no, you've summoned me from my gnomelair to defend my "Dragonborn would totally fit in Greyhawk and if I ever DM there I'm giving them a bit of a seafarer background because reasons (also did anyone ever do anything with Oerth's totally-not-Australia because that's a big ol' blank space for stuff to come from, probably everything spider-based at least)"

Anywho, psionics has been hooked into the game for absolute yonks so I have no issues with them
 
L

lowkey13

Guest
Oh no, you've summoned me from my gnomelair to defend my "Dragonborn would totally fit in Greyhawk and if I ever DM there I'm giving them a bit of a seafarer background because reasons (also did anyone ever do anything with Oerth's totally-not-Australia because that's a big ol' blank space for stuff to come from, probably everything spider-based at least)"
To be the dog star* for a second, I think that one of the best things about Greyhawk is the extent to which there remains a great deal for DMs to fill in (especially if you, like me, base your campaign off of 1983 and prior). I prefer hooks and hints, not being told what is there.

In that way, I would not want Dragonborn mandated in the setting, especially not retconned into the Flanaess, but I would have no problem with people putting them into their home campaign, and/or hints of them existing elsewhere on Oerth.

But in the end, whatever might be released wouldn't really be for me, either.

Anywho, psionics has been hooked into the game for absolute yonks so I have no issues with them
And, for the most part, psionics have always been an afterthought that never quite jibed, other than campaigns that explicitly built around them from the ground up, like Dark Sun.

Personally, I love psionics so much that I homebrewed my own system for 1e based off of Julian May's books, but I wouldn't want them mandated for all settings.



*Y SO SIRIUS?
 

Mecheon

Explorer
And, for the most part, psionics have always been an afterthought that never quite jibed, other than campaigns that explicitly built around them from the ground up, like Dark Sun.

Personally, I love psionics so much that I homebrewed my own system for 1e based off of Julian May's books, but I wouldn't want them mandated for all settings.
I came in at a weird angle to D&D, through Neverwinter Nights. So, y'know, given one of the first things you do in that game's (not the best) campaign is go and hunt down an intellect devourer among other creatures. So my D&D experience has that "Oh man there are brain-eating squid-faced psychics who have walking brain monsters as pets" right at the start

I definitely understand some settings not having it but when your introduction starts at the mind flayers, beholders, and finally putting a name to childhood inexplicable dinosaur toys that are now rust monsters, and going back from there, its always gonna be a weird path
 

Coroc

Hero
...

Personally, I love psionics so much that I homebrewed my own system for 1e based off of Julian May's books, but I wouldn't want them mandated for all settings.
Well as they are mechanics, they would need some Sirius justification in what form they are there and why and what impact this has:

E.g. Lets just take the mindflayers and aboleths from FR being mainly hidden in the underdark, ... or the city sewers, according to some of their lore both are kind of far realm creatures, so no problem for justifying them being different and have Sirius powers which are not conventional.

Compare DS, there the psi is a the consequence of everything mutated and it is all around, justification given again, also magic is kind of shunned and so you got another "magic" partially taking the role of wizardly magic.

But let us now assume Psionics suddenly becomes "Core" in e.g. greyhawk or FR in a way that many adventurers and NPCs are Mystics. Then that is a force suddenly, which has impact on almost everything.
It competes with wizardly magic. It competes with clerical magic (Where does it come from? Is it a gift from the gods? Is it innate good or evil? etc. etc.)

So that are two different things and it should not be just handwaved, imho .
 
L

lowkey13

Guest
I came in at a weird angle to D&D, through Neverwinter Nights. So, y'know, given one of the first things you do in that game's (not the best) campaign is go and hunt down an intellect devourer among other creatures. So my D&D experience has that "Oh man there are brain-eating squid-faced psychics who have walking brain monsters as pets" right at the start

I definitely understand some settings not having it but when your introduction starts at the mind flayers, beholders, and finally putting a name to childhood inexplicable dinosaur toys that are now rust monsters, and going back from there, its always gonna be a weird path
Weirdly, OD&D and 1e worked with intellect devourers and mind flayers just fine without the (optional) psionics rules. That's kind of what I meant. There were rules for eating your brain, and also optional psionics rules. And it was very hard to incorporate the mass of D&D (which assumed no psionics) with the psionics.

So the classic conundrum in D&D is that either the rules for psionics are distinct (as in OD&D and 1e) in which case everything ignores them, or they are just magic by another name (as proposals for 5e have been), in which case they don't seem very special.

IMO, you'd really need to build the edition from the beginning with them if you wanted them used widely.
 

Coroc

Hero
I came in at a weird angle to D&D, through Neverwinter Nights. So, y'know, given one of the first things you do in that game's (not the best) campaign is go and hunt down an intellect devourer among other creatures. So my D&D experience has that "Oh man there are brain-eating squid-faced psychics who have walking brain monsters as pets" right at the start

I definitely understand some settings not having it but when your introduction starts at the mind flayers, beholders, and finally putting a name to childhood inexplicable dinosaur toys that are now rust monsters, and going back from there, its always gonna be a weird path
That is funny, you stumbled across some feature namely mindflayers and intellect devourers, which was part of being typically for FR as compared to a pure vanilla setting back then.

Really, in the late 80s and 90s if someone asked me, what the difference between forgotten realms and greyhawk products I bought in the game store was, I would have told him:
See they both are quite normal settings but FR got the underdark prominent with drow and all those abberations like mindflayers and beholders. And most of these have magic resistance, can you imagine? They shrug of spells, some with an 80% probability!

The spider queen series was more known for being greyhawk with the folks starting with 1e, for me drow were totally a FR thing, existent in greyhawk but not that important.
 

Coroc

Hero
Weirdly, OD&D and 1e worked with intellect devourers and mind flayers just fine without the (optional) psionics rules. ...
As did 2e, the paralyzing power of the mindflayer was depicted as being a kind of at will spell wit ha saving throw, the brain eating required all four tentacles to hit.
Int.- devourers were protected, in that almost everything did cause no or minimal damage to them, I cannot remember right now how they could infect you though.
 
Back in the day, like 1e, Psionics were nearly invisible to non-psionic characters. There was only one attack, the infamous Psionic Blast, that'd crossover and affect non-psionics, apart from that psionics was just two characters squinting at eachother for maybe a round (because it was a 1-min round, and psionic combat progressed in 6-sec segments) before something pretty awful happened to one of them for no apparent reason. Some psionic monsters might not even be noticed by a party without a psionic character, others not display that psionics, for want of an actual Psionic blast or overt discipline. Those that did, like the Mind Flayer unleashing Psionic Blast, would just come off as having a special attack or ability.

So it was pretty plausible for psionics to exist in a setting, without overtly impacting or informing it. Which is lovely for a wholly-optional sub-system.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
So here is one for you sinkhole fans:

Assume there is finally some official product for a psion/mystic class, should it then become part of the base lore and part of all settings or only for those who have extensive lore for it like Eberron or DS?
I'd argue that it already is part of the base lore of D&D, what with duergar, mindflayers, aboleths, yuan-ti, etc.

I don't know about forcing it into all settings, but for many, it's already there (just not to the degree of Eberron and Dark Sun). The example you give for the FR, but GH also has Xuoken, and such. I think Dragonlance had it, too. And it would be present in most, if not all, 2e settings.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I was only okay with Psionics in 1E. Did not keep up with lore, fiction books, or splat books in 2E. As an AL dm I don't want to have carry another book in my bag just for one class.
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
Back in the day, like 1e, Psionics were nearly invisible to non-psionic characters. There was only one attack, the infamous Psionic Blast, that'd crossover and affect non-psionics, apart from that psionics was just two characters squinting at eachother for maybe a round (because it was a 1-min round, and psionic combat progressed in 6-sec segments) before something pretty awful happened to one of them for no apparent reason. Some psionic monsters might not even be noticed by a party without a psionic character, others not display that psionics, for want of an actual Psionic blast or overt discipline. Those that did, like the Mind Flayer unleashing Psionic Blast, would just come off as having a special attack or ability.

So it was pretty plausible for psionics to exist in a setting, without overtly impacting or informing it. Which is lovely for a wholly-optional sub-system.
Yes, I really liked the feel of 1e psionics (the implementation has several issues). The fast and "invisible" combats give me an Asimovian Second Foundation vibe.
 

Advertisement

Top