Psionics--the Poll!

[Aldarc]

I mean, they tried that. They really tried, for years. First they gave us a Psion core class (they called it a "Awakened Mystic") in an Unearthed Arcana article. And after getting feedback, they released a different version ("Mystic, Take Two") seven months later. Then they released a third version ("The Mystic Class") thirteen months after that, before switching--based on our feedback--to psionic subclasses instead (first in 2019, and then revised in 2020).

It's tempting to blame Wizards of the Coast for not getting it right, but they made a solid attempt to give us a Psion class and we ruined it. Subclasses were apparently the only compromise that the majority could agree on.

I kinda think that WotC tried to do too much with the Mystic class in its third version, which is what killed it. However, I also think that WotC kind of missed the opportunity to present a basic psion class with spell slots. IMHO, they gave up too soon with a lot of unexplored options.

 

[grimslade]

I do not think there is any proponent for psionics design at WotC. It is why we have the Aberrant Sorcerer subclass as psionic caster in 5e. Much of the problem with how psionics is presented, the wizard is the owner of all things even remotely supernatural. Hammering everything into a vancian/gygaxian cage. A lot of the time, my desire for a psionics system is half nostalgia and half wanting any other system but vancian spellcasting. I want to see the Occultist represented. I want to see a player option to counter the Illithid, the Aboleth, Sorcerer-Kings, Jedi, and Professor X.

 

[CleverNickName]

Has anyone tried the Spell Points optional rule, on page 288-289 of the DMG? I know that most of us have read them, but I'm curious how they worked at your table.

(I love them, and not just for psions.)

 

[Bohandas]

Some of the systems are neat and it's a neat aesthetic until you look closely at it and realize that lore-wise and philosophically it's completely nonsense word salad even when compared to other fantastical elememts like magic

 

[Tonguez]

within the current rules system? probably no

3,5 psionics was better, but needs streamlining - I like Psychic Warrior

 

[R_J_K75]

I'm responding for 5E D&D, which I said no. The way the rules are written now, everyone gets a saving throw, or a defense against everything, so it's not something that interests me anymore. We used it in our 2E Darksun games and FR too. It could still be pretty deadly in DS if you weren't playing a Psion of some kind as you only had 1 or 2 defenses, even worse in FR if you had no defenses, so getting mind blasted by an Illithid was pretty deadly.

 

[dbm]

I answered ‘yes’ but the answer is more like ‘it depends’. Which isn’t a no…

Where psionics are in-genre they clearly need to be there. GURPS Psionics was mentioned already and it is a great set of psionics rules, very evocative of psionics in fiction (especially Julian May’s Galactic Milieu / Many Coloured Lands books).

Rolemaster was also mentioned and Mentalism magic is a great implementation of psionics abilities IMO. The rules really differentiate it in terms of both the things it can do (lots of telepathy, telekinesis etc while little elemental magic or direct healing of others) and the limitations it imposes (helmets really mess with Mentalism, and helmets are really important in Rolemaster…).

The differentiation doesn’t need to be super crunchy to be effective, either. Savage Worlds psychic abilities have different assumed ‘trappings’ to other types of powers like hermetic magic, for example. While these are all about the flavour the GM is encouraged to take them into consideration when adjudicating actions. For example, psychic abilities tend to be less visible than ‘flashy’ magic but might have limitations as a result of how they are described by their player. Additionally, Savage Worlds has many edges which are tied to specific types powers to make them more mechanically differentiated. For example, there is an edge which makes resisting mind powers more difficult, which only psychics can buy. People with wizardry have different beneficial edges open to them.

When would I not want psionics? Really only in either totally grounded games where such things have no place, or when they are poorly implemented and it isn’t adding any fun in play.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I voted "No thanks."

In theory I might enjoy a game with psi if the setting was right and the psionic rules were carefully crafted. In practice psionics is even worse than magic in terms of "everyone who is anyone must have psi powers, or at least must invest heavily in defenses vs psionics." Psi also suffers from "having psi abilities makes you one of the Chosen Ones with the all-important GIFT" - which is something I dislike. (I don't like it when it comes to spellcasting, either. I house-rule away the need for any sort of "special bloodline" requirement when it comes to sorcerers, for example. Instead sorcery just requires an alternative path of spellcasting study to learn.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why is this thread in General but the talk is mostly about D&D-like games?

"Psionics" or "psychic powers" is what people in the real world started calling magic when believing in magic became too embarrassing. It is just a different name for the same thing.

I don't want psionics in D&D. It already has magic, and it already has too many sources of it. It just doesn't add anything, there already is mental magic, and whole "like magic, but a bit more sciencey" stuff doesn't make sense in a world where there already is plentiful and blatant magic (and which already is pretty "sciencey.")

Now in some other game, weird modern paranormal investigation or some soft scifi, sure.

 

[aramis erak]

It's a simple yes-or-no question: would you like to have Psionics in your game?

To which my answer is, "Only in some settings."
So, once again, forming a false dichotomy by bad poll construction.