D&D General What’s The Big Deal About Psionics?

[Yaarel]

I don't want 3E psionics to be the source of 5E psionics. Sorry, but with 3 editions worth of material, I think its time that we sublimate everything into a new streamlined system with powers that draw on not just D&D's past but also the cultural touchstones of today. Most 3E Psionics were literally just spells. We can do better then that.

That is why we need two classes.

One is for an effective fullcaster Psion.

The other is for an experimental mechanical failure (heh, just kidding).



Probably refer to the D&D traditional 3e Psion as the 5e Psion class.

Refer to the non-D&D, untraditional experiment as the 5e Mystic class.

 

[glass]

I don't want 3E psionics to be the source of 5E psionics. Sorry, but with 3 editions worth of material, I think its time that we sublimate everything into a new streamlined system with powers that draw on not just D&D's past but also the cultural touchstones of today. Most 3E Psionics were literally just spells. We can do better then that.

Nether do I particularly. I just object to the historical revisionism about what 3e psionics were actually like.

_
glass.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't want 3E psionics to be the source of 5E psionics. Sorry, but with 3 editions worth of material, I think its time that we sublimate everything into a new streamlined system with powers that draw on not just D&D's past but also the cultural touchstones of today. Most 3E Psionics were literally just spells. We can do better then that.

To me, the best way to do it is off 1e.

Take the list of Devotions and Sciences from 1e.
Convert them into 5e versions. If their is a spell for it in the same exact form, copy that power as the spell sans VSM.

 

[Shardstone]

That is why we need two classes.

One is for an effective fullcaster Psion.

The other is for an experimental mechanical failure (heh, just kidding).



Probably refer to the D&D traditional 3e Psion as the 5e Psion class.

Refer to the non-D&D, untraditional experiment as the 5e Mystic class.

Man why are you in here telling ppl not to have a unique psion and then say ultimately there should just be a spellcaster and a unique one hahahahaha. Obviously for WotC, in a perfect world, would have probably 3 psionic classes. The experimental one, the full spellcaster one, and the half-psionic one. The problem, however, is making these feel distinct narratively. After all, in 5E, it isn't so much about just mechanics but also about the story the class tells.

Mystic = Experimental Psion. Easy on this one, and it has the flavor of a vagabond or ascetic who is diving deep into these strange, near-insane powers and growing from them. Mysticism is something 5E doesn't really tap into, so you can get a lot of cool flavorful abilities here.

Psion = Spellcasting Psychic. They probably have rigid orders, are more about control, use their psychic abilities to cast spells, and so on. Give them abilities dealing with the Far Realm, the Astral Plane, and all that other sciency-stuff.

But what is the Half-Psion? Well, it'd have subclasses like Lurker and Morph and so on. But, this doesn't really give us a central class theme or story. Mutant? People probably won't buy that. So we remake the Monk, making the monk a martial artist who enhances their body through their mind, allowing sometimes the casting of spells.

Monk, Mystic, Psion. Kind of like Artificer, Sorcerer, Wizard

It checks out!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This thread has looked into the 2e Psionicist and its weird mechanics.

Nobody in this thread thinks those 2e mechanics are a good idea.

Even the forumer who advocated them has radically modified them, and is actually advocating for his own homebrew system.

Every proposal for a weird psionic mechanic in this thread is not D&D.

2nd edition D&D isnt D&D? I personally liked the 2E ones, and a revised/balanced form of that is essentially what I want. They fit well with Darksun, and highlighted the magic/psionic divide that was important from a story perspective in the setting. They added risk, which is sorely lacking to D&D's magic which is too cheap and easy. I'll give you the contact/tangent/defense mode mini-game could have used some adjustment, but it was an improvement over the existing save or die mechanic where a single roll decided the fight (hi hold person!). Dividing them up into devotions, disciplines, sciences set up the framework well for what could be adapted to 5E.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

We've already been through this numerous times.

1. It's too Far Realm-based.
2. It lacks breadth. It is distinctly a subset of the sorcerer and thus might work if you have one player who wants to play a psion in a world where psionics is almost unknown, but it is entirely unsuited to a Dark Sun campaign or an Eberron campaign focusing on Sarlona, the Kalashtar, and/or the Inspired, where you'd want the ability to have a dozen different psions who all have different abilities, just like you can have a dozen different wizards who all have different spells.
3. Many specific abilities are lacking, such as low-level telekinesis, pyrokinesis, healing, body modification, psychic illusions, and assorted other classic psionic abilities. Most of these should be able to be expressed in many different ways. For example, you can use telekinesis for protection (either long-term like mage armor or short-term like shield or blade ward), lifting moderate weights, unlocking doors, offense (either via direct bolts of force or by throwing things around). You can do some of them via regular sorcerer spells, but then you won't get the benefits of psionic sorcery.

1) That's fluff. Easily removed and nothing changes.
2) Make spell lists based on the disciplines. Part of making magic users unique is limiting their abilities (bring back spheres!). I'm puzzled how you view sorcerers the same and not wizards. Wizards, particularly in a party, tend to have the exact same spells!
3) That seems like a handful of new spells or modifying the trappings of existing spells.

All of these seem pretty easy to bang out in less than an afternoon. Like I said, your wish seems mostly there.

 

[Yaarel]

Man why are you in here telling ppl not to have a unique psion and then say ultimately there should just be a spellcaster and a unique one hahahahaha.

The Psion is an important and popular traditional D&D option that is still missing from 5e.

However there is still room for a separate design space to experiment with innovations, without the baggage of an already ongoing D&D tradition.

There can be an experimental class, but it cant be the Psion class.

Anyway, thru this entire thread, I advocate two separate 5e psionic classes.

Obviously for WotC, in a perfect world, would have probably 3 psionic classes. The experimental one, the full spellcaster one, and the half-psionic one.

Yeah, three new classes is still possible, as long as each has a concept and a mechanical need that merit the class design space.

As long as I have the D&D Psion, I am flexible about what a non-D&D Mystic looks like.

Maybe the experimental Mystic can somehow choose subclasses to be either a fullcaster or a partcaster (or their equivalents). Then the experimental class can meet both needs.

 

[Shardstone]

The Psion is an important and popular traditional D&D option that is still missing from 5e.

However there is still room for a separate design space to experiment with innovations, without the baggage of an already ongoing D&D tradition.

There can be an experimental class, but it cant be the Psion class.

Anyway, thru this entire thread, I advocate two separate 5e psionic classes.



Yeah, three new classes is still possible, as long as each has a concept and a mechanical need that merit the class design space.

As long as I have the D&D Psion, I am flexible about what a non-D&D Mystic looks like.

Maybe the experimental Mystic can somehow choose subclasses to be either a fullcaster or a partcaster (or their equivalents). Then the experimental class can meet both needs.

My thought is that if we have Psionic Disciplines or whatever, there would be a default discipline that lets you learn spells you can via psi points. The spellcaster Psion would use spell slots and psi die for its subclasses. Mystic would be all psi points. Monk is psi points + martial stuff.

 

[Yaarel]

My thought is that if we have Psionic Disciplines or whatever, there would be a default discipline that lets you learn spells you can via psi points. The spellcaster Psion would use spell slots and psi die for its subclasses. Mystic would be all psi points. Monk is psi points + martial stuff.

The Psion Shapeshifter discipline=subclass (psycometabolic, shapechange, healing) might work as a half-caster, occupying slots with always-on spells.

Once its essential Shapechange, Healing, and combat Buff spells are in place, it might not need more spells and can focus on melee effectiveness. Even so, for the sake of flavor, I want the Shapeshifter to only deal magical damage regardless of whatever weapon is in hand: force, acid, necrotic, cold, lightning, etcetera, but not mundane pierce, slash, nor bludgeon.

But please no "psi die". I want the Psion to be without fiddly crap.

Anything "experimental" belongs to the Mystic. Please allow the Psion class to be the Psion class.

 

[Yaarel]

My thought is that if we have Psionic Disciplines or whatever, there would be a default discipline that lets you learn spells you can via psi points. The spellcaster Psion would use spell slots and psi die for its subclasses. Mystic would be all psi points. Monk is psi points + martial stuff.

The Monk has weird mechanics and sucks because of it. Please, no.

Leave the Psion fullcaster alone.

I dont care if designers make the Mystic suck. But I do care if they make the Psion suck.