D&D 5E (2024) [+] What does a non-spellcaster Psion need/look like?

[Yaarel]

I find distinguishing the power sources from each other is a useful conversation. What makes Psionic differ from Primal, Arcane, Divine, even Martial?

At least for my part, I see psionic and primal as equally distinct things--and I do see primal as quite distinct from the self, because of many of the symbols and rituals involved with it.

I view "Primal" as mostly a synonym for "animism". Thus the features of nature − a particular mountain, a particular river, a particular skyey light, etcetera − are "selves" that impose a psychological presence. Each feature is a unique neighbor who is members of a human community. Each natural feature is a kind of "soul".

Primal magic involves a kind of transcendental understanding, it's just not the kind of understanding that can be communicated through text. That's something that both arcane and divine magic share: they are communication, from one entity to another. Primal magic isn't about communication, but immersion.

The role of a shamanic is to negotiate peace among the members of a community that includes humans and other natural features. Shamanism is purely about communication.

While for you, man is an animal and thus just as much part of these things as everything else, I don't quite see it that way. Instinct is something difficult to understand--yes, humans have instincts, but a lot of them are pretty weak and minor compared to what other animals possess. When you then enhance that conceptual space with supernatural power--where instinct can literally be magic, itself--then learning from and drawing on the instinctual-supernatural can be outside of the self, without being totally other to the self, the way arcane or divine magic implicitly are.

What distinguishes humanity from other animals is the capacity of speech. This capacity is to a degree that is a gamechanger, spiritually speaking.

Consider the D&D Human is a kind of Beast that has a "Humanoid soul", with microcosmic levels that include Astral ideals, Ethereal force, and Material aura. The Warforged is a Construct with a Humanoid soul, and so on.

In the case of the Human, the addition of a Humanoid soul is an additional layer. The Beast aspect never ceases to exist. Beasts have "souls", albeit without the gamechanging degree of speech. It is impossible to talk about Human magic without also talking about Beast magic as well. For example, many spells that affect a Human − Sleep, Friendship, Charm, Calm Emotions, Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Enthrall, Fear, etcetera − are conceptually animal magic − Beast magic − that affects the animal nature of a Human.

The creature type Humanoid, is a creature that has the "soul" of a speaker. In some sense, this Humanoid soul is a microcosm that interrelates the entire multiversal macrocosm, simultaneously. This cosmic comprehensiveness is what makes Humanoids fascinating to other sapient creature types.

If you like, you could say that I divide these four kinds of magic into a grid: "foreign" vs "innate" (arcane/divine are "foreign" to the self, coming from observation or revelation, psionic/primal are "innate" to the self, being the mind and the body),

Yeah, this is what I am saying. I would characterize it as external (Arcane/Divine) versus internal (Psionic/Primal).

But then I also relate the external to the D&D tradition of a "Weave", where the stuff of the multiverse is mysteriously capable of magical phenomena.

Then Arcane manipulates this Weave scientifically. Divine manipulates this Weave linguistically − semiotically including symbols, archetypes, paradigms, deep structures, ethical ideals, oaths, etcetera. All of this linguistic influence is Astral, where the realm of the patterns of language exist and even preexist matter.

and "analytical" vs "intuitive" (arcane/psi are analytical, divine/primal are intuitive). Psi is, in this sense, most different from divine because it differs on both axes.

Psionic includes irrational − emotional, beastly, transcendent that cant be put into words. Thus "analytical" is a nonuseful characterization. Meanwhile, analysis, reason, rationality, conceptual insight, can all be intuitive knowledge. Compare the personality type "NT", Intuitive Thinking.

I see the distinction between Psionic versus Primal as human soul versus nonhuman soul. In this case the nonhuman Primal soul is especially the personality of an elemental feature (a mountain, an ocean, an arctic blizzard, a glacier, a lightning storm, a sunbeam, a tree, a forest, etcetera). Then the human Psionic soul extends to Beast and Humanoid.

Come to think of it, perhaps Arcane versus Divine is also a distinction between nonhuman versus human, respectively. Albeit the Divine is external to ones soul in the sense that one is a self.

I'd prefer that all four types--arcane, divine, primal, psionic--have to some degree distinct mechanical expression and result, significantly more than what D&D 5e has ended up doing, where they're all functionally 100% the same and differ almost exclusively in pure-fluff descriptive text.

Preference is important, when determining how a setting or a game engine should work. I want mechanical distinctions between the power types, but am cautious.

A musthave is, Psionic must never depend on a source other than ones own soul. There must never be "Material components", especially never "costly" gp components that depend on money instead of soul. I am actually ok with Verbal and Somatic because voice and body are aspects of ones sense of self, soul. So in certain concepts, such as understanding the Bard as a Psionic class − the soul of a shaman or the soul of an artist − the Verbal component is appropriate.

The antipathy of Psionic against material components might not apply to Primal, in the sense of the presence of a natural feature (a watery river, a fiery sunbeam, an earthy mountain, an airy storm, a plantal tree). The component might be material, by definition, despite referring to the innate soul of the component.

Since arcane/divine sailed long ago and 5.5e tripled down on "primal is literally just a different spell list" too, psi is the only remaining axis upon which some kind of differentiation can still be present.)

I am ok with each power source emphasizing certain thematic spells. However, there are themes that overlap. For example, I view both Arcane and Primal as essentially relating to the elements of matter. Both Arcane and Psionic essentially relate to ethereal force. And so on. The specific combination of spell themes that are "modal" for a power source, is what distinguishes it from the other sources that have other thematic combinations.

Regarding spells, any power source can include casters and noncasters. Even the Martial power source could have a "caster" sotospeak, such as a hypothetical 4e-style Warlord that uses the 5e 2024 Warlock as a chassis. The cantrips would be "stances", the short-rest spells "exploits", and so on.

Ultimately it is only the themes that distinguish the power sources from each other. Of course, mechanics are necessary to actualize these themes.