D&D (2024) We have Arcane, Divine, and Primal lists now. Why not Psionic?

[DEFCON 1]

I can only go off of what I've played and seen in stuff like actually plays. My entire experience has been that of taking the Spell Components very seriously (and using focuses for low cost Material componentsis part of the system), and Matt Mercer on Critical Role is a huge stickler about them, almoat as much as the WotC actual plays. And that has to be the single biggest influence on newer DMs...

Maybe. No way for either of us to know who's right though, so it ain't worth arguing over.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe. No way for either of us to know who's right though, so it ain't worth arguing over.

How dare you be reasonable.

 

[Kurotowa]

I can only go off of what I've played and seen in stuff like actually plays. My entire experience has been that of taking the Spell Components very seriously (and using focuses for low cost Material componentsis part of the system), and Matt Mercer on Critical Role is a huge stickler about them, almoat as much as the WotC actual plays. And that has to be the single biggest influence on newer DMs...

To add another pure anecdote to the pile, my group's DMs are usually only sticklers for spell components when it obviously matters. Like, verbal components only come up when you're trying to be unobtrusive, and somatic components when you've got your hands full with important plot items. Which means that minor issues get ignored, and they only get enforced when it's a dramatic complication. Which is a lower standard than rigorous enforcement but a higher one than removing them entirely.

 

[Parmandur]

To add another pure anecdote to the pile, my group's DMs are usually only sticklers for spell components when it obviously matters. Like, verbal components only come up when you're trying to be unobtrusive, and somatic components when you've got your hands full with important plot items. Which means that minor issues get ignored, and they only get enforced when it's a dramatic complication. Which is a lower standard than rigorous enforcement but a higher one than removing them entirely.

Well, fair: like during a rest, they don't cause complications.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How dare you be reasonable.

My apologies. Let me try again.

YER WRONG!!! WRONG DANGNABBIT!!! I'M THE RIGHT ONE, YOU HEAR ME?!? ME!!!!!

Ahem. There. Proper EN World etiquette engaged.

 

[Emberashh]

So why does it matter then that the game includes them for the 17 people across the globe who actually use them? Or includes equipment weights for the 23 people who use encumbrance? They literally serve a purpose for only a tiny percentage of the gaming populace and could not be any easier to strip out for those who don't want to use them.

Ive come to the conclusion the reason things like this don't mesh well is because they aren't integrated into the gameplay loop. Your encumberance going up or down doesn't induce any meaningful changes in the gameplay other than an arbitrary "you don't have this thing", which obviously isn't very satisfying.

Thats why when I looked at Durability as a system it occured to me to make it so that its both seamlessly a part of the gameplay you're already doing (throwing damage dice) and provides new options to you depending on your roll and your class. Rolling well grants any character Boons that they can use on their next roll, rolling poorly takes away Durability and overall damage.

But then Classes come in and start messing with that give and take. A new Barbarian sub I'm chewing on is going to be all about exploiting the tendency Improvised weapons to break on their first use to chain up into some absurd boosts, and will grow in power even into the epic levels by allowing them to rip off parts of their enemies to use as weapons and armor.

Rip off a Dragons claw and one of its scales, and start bashing it with it. And when they break, now you can either go in for a big attack with a conventional weapon, get an easier refresh by stealing more parts, or you could get other benefits. Im still theorizing what all I could introduce there but the ideas sound.

So long story short, I personally haven't chewed on encumberance much (beyond knowing I favor a volumetric slot system over weight), but the idea is going to be the same there. There will be benefits and drawbacks that will have meaningful interaction with the rest of the gameplay loop, and ideally it'll blend seamlessly into something you'd already be doing.

 

[MGibster]

D&D had robots and crashed spaceships from a very early stage, as a result of its influence from pulp science-fantasy like Vance and Zelazny, and you're complaining about psionics as sci-fi BS near your D&D? Puh-leze.

Let's be fair here, there are a lot of things that used to be in the game that aren't there any more. Modifications to abilities based on race, orcs almost always being evil, THAC0, races, and even psionics. The Expedition to Barrier Peaks was released in 1980, and D&D hasn't exactly leaned hard into the robots and laser pistols since then.

 

[Aldarc]

Let's be fair here, there are a lot of things that used to be in the game that aren't there any more. Modifications to abilities based on race, orcs almost always being evil, THAC0, races, and even psionics. The Expedition to Barrier Peaks was released in 1980, and D&D hasn't exactly leaned hard into the robots and laser pistols since then.

Are you seriously comparing psionics to problematic racist elements of the game? Talk about false equivalence.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

But those of us who are psionics fans generally like it because it is different from spellcasting, and because it's an alternative magic system. Feats and sub-classes is not enough – we want 2-3 classes with a full complement of sub-classes that explore different psionic niches. Basically, what the Expanded Psionics Handbook was for 3.5e.

So in a lot of ways, the Monk class. Honestly, when 5e first came along, had they just called the Monk a Psion, called them Psi Points instead of Ki Points, made a few other minor changes, it would've avoided a lot of the cultural appropriation issues of the Monk class. And it would've provided a mostly separate magic system for Psions.

Unfortunately, that ship has likely sailed for OneD&D. Were they to make these changes now, I suspect the response from psionics fans would just be "No dice! All you did was slap a new coat of paint on the Monk!"

Of course, all this is being written by someone that detests psionics, so maybe I'm wildly wrong about the whole thing.

 

[Staffan]

So in a lot of ways, the Monk class. Honestly, when 5e first came along, had they just called the Monk a Psion, called them Psi Points instead of Ki Points, made a few other minor changes, it would've avoided a lot of the cultural appropriation issues of the Monk class. And it would've provided a mostly separate magic system for Psions.

The monk could have been a fine paladin/ranger equivalent to a proper psion, but it's a bit too martial to fill the main psionic role. And incidentally, the 4e monk used the Psionic power source.