A player who wanted to play Aragorn was the original Ranger.... but as I said they didnt consider creating a well defined skill system applicable to everyone and instead all the way back made that class using spells it was not because "D&D rangers" have spells it was because D&D game designers were using the same subsystem they did for the characters able to do something extraordinary. (but because they made low level effects kick in at high level it was arguably a failure)
Okay, this is a discussion that involves design decisions that started in the 70's and has nothing to do with the Psionics.
Should Gygax and Arneson designed the ranger to use a complex skill system instead of magic? I don't care. I honestly don't. They gave the Ranger magic. It happened, and so for as long as I have ever seen a DnD book where the Ranger was in it, they had magic. Except for 4e.
So, for longer than I have been alive, "DnD Rangers have spells" whether that was because they felt the 1/100th elvish and king nature of Aragon meant he should have magic, or because they were too lazy to allow extraordinary people use their grit and mettle to do extraordinary things that did not involve magic does not matter. They made the call, the game has followed that path. DnD Rangers have magic.
And it might be a waste of energy for no real benefit or it might result in imbalance between those using different systems (in fact it usually has) and it might require needless complexity and so needless subsystem learning on the part of players. So that while skills were elaborated on in the previous edition it was done so largely by using the same structure and level gating and so on as the utility powers and tada utility spells / rituals.
If you want to make all Psionics use skills, go ahead. I don't think that applies to anything I've been saying, and I don't think it will make anyone else happy. But if you want the skill system to cover it, go for it.
Yes indeed I agree entirely but there is a very vocal crew who insists everything should be using distinct mechanical structures.
I understand that, which is why I was trying to explain a very logical reason why the designers might be hesitant to pull the trigger on creating entirely distinct mechanical structures. By pointing out that the current design philosphy helps prevent bloat from near-identical abilities, by tying them into magic and spells.
I'm not even making a judgement call on whether it is the best decision for the game or will lead to ruin. I'm just trying to show where the thought process might be more complex than "Despite being a fan and working my dream job designing the game I love I am either too lazy or too stupid to innovate interesting ideas and instead want to make everything spells because that is easy and I am both lazy and stupid."
Instead, I propose there is a logical and thoughtful idea behind the design choice, and that they will likely stick with it in the future.
See, this is the first fallacy. We don't have "mechanics for telekinesis". We have an arcane spell, cast using Vancian magic, requiring chanting of magical words accompanied by gesturing, that happens to be called Telekinesis.
You are looking to the point of "how do I activate this ability" I was looking at "what is the effect of this ability".
That is not a fallacy, that is a difference in focus.
IT allows you to use an action to move creatures and objects with a thought, as long as they are in range. Making ability checks vs strength, moving and even lifting them if they fail, restraining them with the grip. Or move an object up to 1,000 lbs, ripping objects away from people, using fine manipulation. The only deficiency in the spell is the lack of explicit ability to whack people with the objects you pick up.
And frankly, I'm not concerned at all about it being "arcanely cast" because it could be a bard spell and cast by playing the flute, or used as a Sorcerer spell with Silent Metamagic and used with no sign, or put into an item like a rod and activated that way. The method of delivery is changeable. It is the effect that matters.
First of all, they screwed up by naming it like that. In line with the Arcane, it should have been called Bigby's Hand and it should have had some kind of visual display, just like Mage Hand has. Because as it is now it steps over Psionics, and not the other way around. But this is a detail we can't change unfortunately, and my point is another.
That would have been incredibly confusing, considering it would step on the spell Bigby's Hand. The one that has a visual display of a hand just like Mage Hand. Might have something to do with why they called it Telekinesis, since instead of being Bigby's Hand, it was meant to be a spell that granted Telekinesis.
The point is, as I said, we just have one spell with the name, not everything that can ever be called Telekinesis. Sure, makes no sense to change it if we want to do exactly the same, but who said we would want to do the same, with Psionics?
I'm going to regret asking I suppose, but what else do you want Telekinesis to do other than move a person or object without touching it?
I mean, I guess it is limited in requiring an action, so it can't be a used as a reaction against an attack to stop it, and it is a single focus at a time, so you can't hold up a swarm of different objects, but in terms of what the effect is, it is pretty much the entire thing.
In Psionics, Telekinesis would be very different from what is portrayed by the spell inaptly called like this. And that's what would set it apart, not just the mechanical way we make the same effect.
By doing what?
Would you not make an opposed skill check? Not move creatures up to huge size? Not move objects up to 1,000 lb?
Sure, I could see a Psion class get the ability to have multiple telekinetic effects active at the same time. Of course, the ability to hold an arbitrary number of creatures helpless and rip away all their weapons might just be a little OP, so there will still be limits on it.
See, you can say "well the effect would be very different" but without telling me how you would do something differently, I have to assume that this effect of "move things without touching them, via invisible force using your mental stat" is pretty dang close to what most people would expect from "Telekinesis"
Psionics is supposed to be completely different from magic, or there would be absolutely no need for it. There is a need for a different force, because magic is in essence the manipulation of external forces that are bigger than the caster. Psionic on the contrary is the controlling of hidden potential within the user, and doesn't borrow power from anywhere or anything else.
This is why it needs to be way more flexible than Vancian Magic: because the user has full control on it. And that's why it needs different mechanics.
If you just think of psionics as the collection of effects it produces, and not the way they are produced, and the niche they should fill when it comes to player's fantasies, you are better off just expanding the spell list and producing subclasses, like they are doing.
"Completely different from magic" and "doesn't borrow power from anywhere" are your own conclusions. Maybe I want to do Psionics through a Hinduism lens, manipulating the dream of reality by pulling upon the power of the universal consciousness. Maybe I want to do it through the connection to the Universal Subconcious of all living things, a Noosphere of power just waiting to be tapped and exploited.
All of those are Psionic, but they are definetly explicitly tapping into forces and powers from beyond the self.
And, just because you want it to be more flexible, doesn't mean that is a good idea for balance.
The best you are likely to get is like the mystic did. A power that allows you to spend more points to increase the effect. That isn't "more flexible" than arcane magic, just divided up differently.
And, of course the way they are produced matters, but you can change that with such minimal effort it isn't even a blip on the design radar.
Look, I'll do it now. Instead of saying an arcane formula when casting a spell, you give a shout of effort as you bend the universe to your will. Instead of weaving complex formula with your hands, you point at the offending individual as you glower at them.
Done. It is no longer Arcane magic being cast.
Because, frankly, 99% of the time. My players just say "I cast Fireball" and we describe the effects. Very rarely do they mention how they do so, what materials are in their hands, or any of that. "I cast Fireball, make a Dex Save" is no more Arcane than "I cast Cure Wounds, gain back
roll die 5 hp" is a prayer to the God Ilmater, or a call upon the power of nature, or the sound of beautiful music.
But here I touch my last point: there is a need, from the players' perspective, of Psionics as something different. It has to do with the psychology behind the role-playing. It's important for some players to feel like their character doesn't rely on external forces and the manipulation of something mysterious and inhuman like magic. You could say it's about the flavor, and I refer back to my previous point: the flavor is not conveyed by the spell mechanics. Not at all. These type of players don't want just a story: they want to feel that difference at the table, in the gaming aspect. They want to feel like they are harnessing a different system.
If you don't feel the same, it doesn't mean you should deprive these players of this possibility. The point of 5e, at least in its beginning, was to have a system that is modular, with players and DMs deciding what to use and what not to. By not making a different system you lose everything I described, for no good reason: because you could have the different system and just avoid using it, ESPECIALLY since you think we already have all the elements needed to recreate the effect. YOU could have Psionics with existing elements. People who are invested in it cannot, and you shouldn't root for this outcome, because you have nothing to lose in this, but they do.
I can't help players feel different at the table, if they are so determined to feel different that they can't possibly use the same system. If you look upon a Druid wielding the might of Spirits of Nature older than civilization, a cleric channeling the divine will of the Goddess of the Hearth, a Bard singing songs passed from master to master over 500 years to alter reality, and say "But, you all are too similiar, I want to be different instead" then I think this is an issue deeper than mechanics.
Because, what I said above does't contradict what I just said. The fact that Cure Wounds looks the same no matter who casts it doesn't change the fact that the theme and power of the classes does feel different when people care enough to channel that into the story.
But, you are saying that isn't different enough. You have to be even more different. You can't just use spell points, that's still too similiar. You
need something completely unique that no one else is using. You can't just use the same mechanics and change the story you tell with them, it needs to be completely different.
Well, I'm not going to support that.
I'm not going to get in the way either, I'm not advocating against it. That could be a fine way to do things, end up with some fun mechanics. But, if we don't get it, we don't lose Psionics. Stories are not effected by this decision, players can look at it and change whatever they want.
In fact, as you demonstrated in this very thread, you can make your own psionic system that is exactly what you want, and if they release something that isn't that... you can still make your own system, still alter it to fit what you want.
Yes, DnD could be more modular. We could have a unique casting system for every race and class, unique skill mechanics for every martial, unique this, unique that... but saying that it is absolutely necessary is not true. And, while that may be a fun system for the people who like it, I think back to this summer when I tried to teach myself Shadowrun 4e.
I picked a single system, "be a mage" and I nearly burnt my brain out trying to understand it all. That single decision was more complex than every single class in 5e combined. I have no idea how cyberware works, cybermancy works, guns work, melee works, I spent everything just trying to understand how spells and spirits work.
And, when I thought, maybe I could run a Shadowrun game, teach some people how to play it, I laughed myself sick. Because I have had players who have trouble picking up 5e. They would never understand Shadowrun.
But, I can definitely say, magic is completely different from anything else in that game's system, and it is highly flexible.
dnd.wizards.com
