Psionics - core or not?

[Someone]

I'd say not in core. Frankly I don't think they have a place in magical fantasy, it is a sci-fi trope. In a fantasy game they are just spell casters with a different backstory IMO.

In other mythologies I’ve found examples of enlightened people with capabilities very similar to what we understand as psionics; they almost always are spiritual people and could be classified as priests, but the supernatural feats they are capable of are described as result of their superior understanding of the universe, not as intervention from divine beings so I don't quite agree it's a sci-fi trope as much as fireball being called "spherical plasma detonation" makes magic sci-fi.

In any case, they do not fit the standard western fantasy settings and if 5e wants to stick to that then it shouldn’t be core. However I hope there’s at least to “fake” it in core and there are ways to play a mage eschewing spellbook and somatic/verbal components, and enough of the thematically appropriate spells.

 

[Miar]

Haven't poked my head in here in awhile and may or may not pick up 5E but this thread made me want to chime in.

I feel like people are mixing up different things. One is magic flavor, one is mechanic and the last being type of 'spell'. I think 5E should separate these things. They should describe flavors of 'magic' Priestly, Wizard, Psionic and then the spells using descriptors such as 'conjuration', 'healing' and 'mental'. Then let the DM decide which flavor they want to use with which mechanics (Vancian, point based, encounter) and descriptors. They might lay out several base ways to divide them dependent of the style of play.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

But if the rules can support characters as different as fighters, rouges, clerics, and wizards (let alone some of the other funky ones), what's wrong with a psionic character using another different set of mechanics?

Clerics aren't much different from Wizards at all, they may get some variety of "turn undead" and a different spell list but that's really all. Similiarly psionics should be just the points-based way of doing magic. The fact that there's power points, and some exclusive powers makes it different enough.

Anything else such a psionic combat, or not having levels to go with powers such as they did in 2e, made it too different, and far more likely to be excluded from campaigns (including DMs who are neutral about psionics), and it makes it likely it will be even completely passed over by most designers.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Clerics aren't much different from Wizards at all, they may get some variety of "turn undead" and a different spell list but that's really all.

No they aren't. But fighters are different from spellcasters. So there are at least two fundamentally different archetypes that work just fine. Why not a third one that's in between, somewhat supernatural but with mechanics more like a fighter or a rogue?

 

[Mallus]

In an appendix in a core rule book, just like in the old days.

 

[Steely_Dan]

C) Psions are a different class(es) and follow their own wonky mechanics

I think one of the key aspects is not making it "wonky".

 

[Steely_Dan]

Clerics aren't much different from Wizards at all, they may get some variety of "turn undead" and a different spell list but that's really all.

What about the armour and weapon proficiency (and role, though I am not a fan of "roles" as we know them in 4th Ed)?

 

[JohnSnow]

While there are fantasy settings that use psionics, they are usually the only magic in said settings. Off the top of my head, Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series and Christopher Stasheff's Warlock series both use psionics. And while both series have a sci-fi element, in that they involve worlds cut off from (and reconnectd TO) a spacefaring society, both are certainly much more "fantasy" in their settings.

Off the top of my head, the Shannara and Pern books are also nominally sci-fi in that sense.

But the fact that they don't seem to co-exist with other magic systems implies they should be an alternative module. But whether that module is included in the first series of books or printed later doesn't much matter to me.

Although D&D is pretty unique in presenting a setting that has multiple "forms" of magic. So in that sense, psionics is no more required to be "non-core" than, say, divine magic.

 

[grimslade]

CORE!
Psionics needs to be in the first book. It should be optional in the same way that skill ranks and feats should be optional. It needs to be core with regards to Mind Flayers, Githyanki, -zerai, and aboleth. The balance and allowance of design space for psionics needs to be there so it does not seem tacked on and an afterthought.

Psionics, however, as a term can pass on. So can psion. Psychic is one option. Mystic might be another.
Bring back the border ethereal as the land of the transitory spirits and dreams. So mystics can be clairvoyants and masters of the mental realm. Monks with their meditation can advance physical prowess with the power of spirit. Mystics can 'pierce the veil' to expand the possible. Mystics and Monks, I like it.
Psionics has as much place as divine casters? Where is the spell casting cleric in fantasy literature? I see more psions than invokers.

 

[steeldragons]

"Magic" in general needs a face lift. But yes, Psionics (preferably relabeled/rebranded) need to be in core from the get go. I never think/thought of psionics as a "type of magic", but knowing a lot of other people do, then it could go something like this...

Arcane: harnessing and directing arcane energies. The magic of Wizards/Mages.

Divine: communing with and channeling the energies of deities and their intermediaries. The magic of Clerics/Priests.

Natural: communing with and channeling the energies of the Physical natural world. The magic of Druids.

Primal: communing with and channeling the energies of the Spirit world. The magic of Shamans(?)

Mental: harnessing and directing one's personal mental/psychic energies. The "magic" of Psychics/Mystics.

Then Warlocks use a combo of "Primal and Arcane."
A "Runepriest" or similar flavored concept could be "Primal and Divine."
Bards are "Arcane and Natural".
Witches, perhaps, are "Arcane and Natural", also...or "Natural and Mental" or "Mental and Arcane" or "Primal and Natural"?
Theurges and/or special ritual casters could be "Divine and Arcane."
Etc. etc.

Just a thought.
--SD