D&D 5E Psionic Mages?

[bogmad]

So it was recently mentioned at on twitter that psion will be a subclass of Mage.

Does this fit in with the whole idea of "story first?" for classes? Are psionics just a different form of magic or something completely different? I always viewed it as distinct, but I did notice in 3e that "psionics as distinct from magic" was an optional rule.
Then, in the little 4e Dark Sun fiction I read (less said on that particular novel the better) it was repeatedly mentioned as "psionic magic" and seemed to be approached differently than I remember it being back in the 2e era.
Has psionics blending into magic been a trend throughout the history of D&D?

Does putting the psion in the mage camp limit psionics to a narrative of "psionics are always just an unusual form of magic" or will there be openness to a "mage" wielding just about any weird supernatural force you can fit to it? Does a mage not being limited to arcane power dilute the story of what a mage is?

I know a lot of people just hate psionics in general, but I was always a fan. I'm trying to be open to how the rules might turn out, but this one thing is bugging me more than others. It's like if we started lumping certain priests into just another mage subclass based on their mechanics.

 

[steeldragons]

It could be just an organizational thing. As someone who has worked up mage and psychic classes for my own system, and have always considered them separate things (arcane magic vs. psionic/psychic powers, that is), it is kinda a pain/inelegant to have to have an array of "Wizard/Mage classes" and then...the Psychic as just an "additional" class since it doesn't lump in with Warriors or Rogues or Priests or Mages...really.

So it may simply be, in an attempt to be elegant and "simple"...they are lumping the psion in with the Mage classes. So you'd be able to have a "Mage-Wizardry style + Traditions", "Mage-Sorcery style + Origins [or Bloodlines or whatever]", "Mage-Psionic style + [just guessing/off the top of my head] Disciplines" to allow for a "Telepath" or a "Telekinetic" or a "Seer/Clairvoyant" etc...

But yeah, I don't like it at first glance because, for me, those with innate mental powers were never the mage/wizard guys. They were/are psychics/psions/psionicists/insert class name of choice.

 

[Mistwell]

I always viewed Psionics in terms of the wonderful Deryni novels by Katherine Kurtz. And in that respect, it's magical, and I think fine to call it simply a different kind of mage.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

That's what I do in my home brew, "psyche" is a secret (or school), but thats a pretty major revision for Next

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm still in disbelief that they're even considering this. Psions have never been mages. What psion wants to call itself a mage? "Hey guys, I'm a psychic mage! I'm just like that other guy with the spellbook and weird components, but instead I stare at things intently."

And what does this say about a game that's supposed to be all about modularity and supporting previous edition's styles of play? If I can't play a warlock or psion that's not a mage, they've failed at that goal.

 

[Mistwell]

Guys, it's an organizational thing - purely a title in the book. In your game, you call them whatever you want, you treat them however you want. Those are role playing decisions, not "how do I organize the book" decisions. But organizationally, it makes some sense to put psionics under the broader arcane magic part of the book, using the generic "mage" title.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Source? This is the closest I've found, and it's hardly confirmation of the psion being mixed in:

daganev - In the packet, level 6 mage gets scribe scroll. lvl 10 brew potions. Doesn't seem to fit a sorcerer, warlock or psion?

mikemearls - I think it fits warlocks (think classic witch) and psions pretty well. Sorcerer is a little odd, but I think it fits

 

[Falling Icicle]

Guys, it's an organizational thing - purely a title in the book.

As I said in the other thread, if it was just an organizational thing I wouldn't be so upset. Having warlocks and psions use the same spell list as wizards and not be able to multiclass with each other are not merely organizational things!

 

[bogmad]

Source? This is the closest I've found, and it's hardly confirmation of the psion being mixed in:

daganev - In the packet, level 6 mage gets scribe scroll. lvl 10 brew potions. Doesn't seem to fit a sorcerer, warlock or psion?

mikemearls - I think it fits warlocks (think classic witch) and psions pretty well. Sorcerer is a little odd, but I think it fits

Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls23 Aug
@Gyor1 @Gweemaran @redcometcasval Psionics will be under the mage. Something like the psychic warrior/battlemind would be a fighter subclass

Organizationally I might get it, but the emphasis on class design has been on supporting the story up until this point so it seems weird that we've gotten barbarian and monks as separate classes because of their story and their history, yet psions get lumped into a class based soley on mechanics.
I thought I remembered way back hearing something about how one of the designers had a really cool approach to psionics, but that was before even the sorcerer and warlock packet so that probably doesn't count for much. But it would have been interesting to see, especially since I think it would be good to have widely different mechanics for psions. I suppose there would be very different spell lists for psions? Selecting from a "spell" list at all kinda feels anathema to me, though I guess the distinction for some might be mainly semantics.

 

[Warbringer]

So on this Mearls is simply wrong ... I guess I now know why Cordell left.

This captures no feeling of D&D historically, and I finally feel this is the only version I will not own ... Mearls is simply wrong and his mystic focus is a signal this game somewhere where it will fail (much like essentials where he was in charge)

Oh .. And to the surveys, what confirmation bias.

I'm bowing out .. No more playtests ... No more Next for me and my group ... I'll spend my $100 a month somewhere else other than this monstrosity