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

[James Gasik]

If we could get that, it would be nice, but whether or not anyone is going to expend the resources to create such a system is the question. WotC likely won't do it if they think the majority of their player base will turn up their noses at it- they want to make money, after all.

This thread proves one thing, and that's not only is there resistance to class bloat, there is a huge divide on what psionics is/could be. If the people posting in a psionics thread can't agree on this, I'm not sure what it says for the player base at large.

But a man (woman/elf/eldritch abomination) can dream!

 

[Yaarel]

It depends on the setting.

In 1e, a setting means the "campaign" or "milieu" that results from the worldbuilding of a particular table.

In 2e, it sometimes means an "official setting".

Even so, even today, many DMs homebrew, and worldbuilders continue to innovate new worlds.

Gygax mentions having gods in his own campaign, in the sense of powerful creatures. His writings often have his own campaign in mind when the topic comes up.

Even so, note the 1e DMG glossary definition:

"Deities - Any of the god-like beings of myth and legend the DM desires, which may be included in the campaign."

Notably, in 1e, the existence of gods strictly depends on the campaign setting. Whatever the DM worldbuilder wants.

In some settings there may be no gods. The gods dont exist.

The mythic concepts that the DM might borrow from can come from any reallife culture.

Even in a setting where gods exist, the term "gods" might not mean gods, but rather things like trees or other sacred concepts, depending on the reallife culture that inspires the mythic concept.

1e is about worldbuilding.



For the sake of clarification. In animism, the relationship with other nature beings is a neighborly one. If a special relationship develops between a human and a nonhuman, the appropriate term is "friend". Not "priest". There is no such thing as "worship", which is a strictly theistic concept, and obviously no such thing as gods.

 

[James Gasik]

Friend....or minion?

 

[Yaarel]

Friend....or minion?

In animism the term is "friend": an actual friendship, same as between two humans.

 

[Yaarel]

Ultimately, I want an elegant psionics system not only because I really like the idea of psionics as a concept, but because I'm bored of spells all the time. I want something a little different. I want a little extra spice. You don't have to like it. Ban it at your table.

I still hope for two psionic classes, a traditional Psion full spellcaster, and a new Mystic with weird mechanics.

 

[Minigiant]

This thread proves one thing, and that's not only is there resistance to class bloat, there is a huge divide on what psionics is/could be. If the people posting in a psionics thread can't agree on this, I'm not sure what it says for the player base at large.

I don't think there is really a divide of what psionics between fans who really want psionics.

I think that if you polled "How much do you want Psionics in 5th edition?" 0 meaning I don't want Psionics at all and 5 meaning I really want one or more Psionics classes, you'd get the whole range from 0s, 1s, 2s,3s, 4s, and 5s.

All the 5s would be okay with the same mechanics. The 5s would individually have preferences but would support something around the same thing. Similar with the 4s, 3s, 2s etc . However the 5s, 3s, and 1s would not want the same mechanic.

That's the core problem I think for psionics. You cant get a mechanic that the people who really like Psionics, the people just like Psionics, and the people who sorta like Psionics will all agree on.

Like the Tasha's Psionics is good enough for a 2 or 3. But since it doesn't delve heavy enough into Psionic possibilities, isn't a full class, and the lore is short, it isn't enough for a 4 or 5. And it's too much for a 1. And a 0 doesn't even want it.

 

[James Gasik]

That's also probably true. Either way, it goes to show that I don't think anyone's expectations will be fully met. There will be psionics, but the form it takes probably won't be the one the fans want. But we'll see, I'm happy to be completely wrong.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think that if you polled "How much do you want Psionics in 5th edition?" 0 meaning I don't want Psionics at all and 5 meaning I really want one or more Psionics classes, you'd get the whole range from 0s, 1s, 2s,3s, 4s, and 5s.

This is true.

All the 5s would be okay with the same mechanics.

This isn't. It's the people who really really want psionics who are most adamant about what that psionics needs to look like, and they have very different ideas, depending mostly on which edition they played first.

Your "3s and 4s" are the ones who aren't choosy about what psionics looks like, so long as it gets included.

 

[Jer]

Like the Tasha's Psionics is good enough for a 2 or 3. But since it doesn't delve heavy enough into Psionic possibilities, isn't a full class, and the lore is short, it isn't enough for a 4 or 5. And it's too much for a 1. And a 0 doesn't even want it.

The lore being short is because it's an add-on that is not used in many campaign settings. Even in Eberron you have the Kalashtar and that's about it - and the lore for the Aberrant Mind, the Soulknife, and the Abberrant Mind might be "good enough" for an Eberron campaign that is going to be focused on Khorvaire or Xen'drick and not Sarlona.

If they decide to release Athas as a published setting, that's where I'd expect the psionic lore to get more detailed. And also where I'd expect to see either more subclasses or a full-blown psionicist class. Or if for some reason they release a second Eberron book about Sarlona (which I don't see happening, but I guess anything can). Or if some new settings come along that might use it.

However I'm going to disagree that your 5 scoring folks would agree on an implementation. I think Wizards is basically screwed with most (though not all) of those folks - there isn't going to be a 5e implementation that will satisfy all of them because they're so invested in their own vision of psionics that whatever Wizards does is going to be wrong. It won't be enough like 2e. It'll be too much like 2e and not enough like 3e. It'll be too much like 3e. And so on. I agree with Paul that it's mostly going to be the 3 and 4 folks in your reckoning who are going to be happy with wherever we land.

 

[Minigiant]

This isn't. It's the people who really really want psionics who are most adamant about what that psionics needs to look like, and they have very different ideas, depending mostly on which edition they played first.

I don't think the 5s really disagreeing as much as there is no full 5e concept to coalesce around and the 5s are too busy arguing with 1s and 0s.