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

[aco175]

Right, but what really is "a spell?" Because if we have discrete powers that have clearly defined effects then that to me is "a spell" even if we call it something else.

This is where I was reading the thread title. I was thinking a non-caster would be more a fighter or fighter/monk maybe. I keep seeing taking spells and making them 'powers' or 'Jedi mind trix' but to me they are all just spells. So, I'm not sure if there can be a non-caster psion to me.

To make what I think the thread is looking for might be to take a few at-will cantrips and allow them to scale with level. I can see spells like Shield and Thunderwave being able to use 1/short rest or proficiency bonus times per day. This seems to give them the Jedi feel. I could also see some Swordmage things added to make them more mobile with the limited teleport.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Frankly, I find this silly at best, and it looks pretty dang disingenuous from where I'm sitting.

That is, it seems quite obvious to me that spells are very different things from augmentable powers. Yes, 3e (uniquely) did put psionic powers on a 1-to-9 level system like spells, but psionics were still different from spells--in several ways.

The spellcaster psion we're going to get in 5.5e is, quite literally, almost entirely identical to a wizard. It's not just "well these things kind of function like spells". They literally are almost exclusively Wizard spells, just with a (very, very slight) bent toward mentalism stuff.

Like, why on earth should a psion get Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting? Why would they get polymorph? Eyebite? Power word fortify?

Several of these are simply filler to ensure that certain checkboxes are ticked. They have nothing to do with supporting the theme, developing psionic abilities, or exploring the design space. Even some of the brand-new spells are like this, like bleeding darkness!

Yes, psionic abilities--if they are done exactly as they were in 3e--will have some kind of similarity to spells. But if that's the tack you want to take, then Battle Master maneuvers are spells too, because those are discrete powers with clearly defined effects.

Broadening "spell" to mean literally any defined mechanical ability ever sounds like a pretty bad definition of "spell" when we have several characteristics that are specific to "spells" and not shared by other kinds of ability, supernatural or not.

Like, NGL, this feels like openly trying to subvert the [+] thread by saying "well since all abilities are effectively spells anyway, you're wrong for not wanting spells".

No need to be hostile. I was not trying to subvert +, I was merely trying to clarify what is meant by "spells" in this context.

And I have no super clear recollection of how 3e psionics worked, but "discrete and defined supernatural effects that can be augmented" describes what spells are in 5e. And I think 3e psionic powers were basically spells in all but name. They had levels, they could be "upcast" with using extra points.

Now I totally agree that what is thematically appropriate is a huge deal, and just copying wizard spells is not great (granted, the part of the issue is that wizard is the versatile caster that can in theory do anything except heal, so some overlap is inevitable.)

But I did not mean specific spells, I meant the structure of spell. Like if a psion had a lot of bespoke thematically appropriate spells powers that used same mechanical structure than spells, that could be augmented by upcasting, (perhaps being cast with points instead of slots) would that be acceptable? It is fine if you think it is not, I was just trying to understand what you mean when you say "no-spellcasting" but I must admit I find it rather perplexing if you find 3e powers to be acceptable under this definition as the differences seem rather cosmetic to me.

 

[Yaarel]

This is where I was reading the thread title. I was thinking a non-caster would be more a fighter or fighter/monk maybe. I keep seeing taking spells and making them 'powers' or 'Jedi mind trix' but to me they are all just spells. So, I'm not sure if there can be a non-caster psion to me.

To make what I think the thread is looking for might be to take a few at-will cantrips and allow them to scale with level. I can see spells like Shield and Thunderwave being able to use 1/short rest or proficiency bonus times per day. This seems to give them the Jedi feel. I could also see some Swordmage things added to make them more mobile with the limited teleport.

"Spells" are a technically specific mechanic: literally spend spell slots. Spell points are a simpler way to implement spell slots, but the cost of each spell still is a slot. Spells range in power from slot 1 to slot 9.

Cantrips differ from standard spells, in that they dont spend slots. Relatedly, things that are always-on, feel less like spells. Cantrips are always on.

However, cantrips dont scale well. Any class that emphasizes cantrips, tends to be great at the lowest tier and suck at the highest tier. This is one of the reasons why I insist the 3e Psion must, always, always, always, be awesome at levels 17 thru 20, thus must be a fullcaster. Cantrips are a trap mechanic. Partcasters tend to have the same ineffectiveness at the highest levels.

Ensuring simple powers that are easy to build and easy to play − at every tier of levels − is actually a very difficult design challenge.

 

[Desdichado]

by spellcaster psion i think they pretty much just mean a 'psion' who's mechanics are just those of a regular caster's with a themed list, maybe with some tweaked mechanics for them like metamagic.

like how some people consider aberrant mind sorcerer enough to count as a 'psion'.

See, again, I liked how they did it in 3e, where psionics was very explicitly different than magic. It used focus and powerpoints, and felt more like psychic powers as they're usually defined, and even when they had psionic powers that mimicked magic spells, they at least had a different mechanic for using the f/x and a different name with a different feel.

One thing that I found both frustrating and intriguing at the same time, however, was that if you had the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic, you could effectively replace magic entirely with psionics and it would work differently mechanically, but in the end, end up giving you more or less the same suite of effects. Having an unusual game where you replaced all magic with psionics would give you a pretty different feel, and yet... it would still be a completely viable specifically D&D game. I've always thought that was what psionics should be, probably, at least in the D&D context. If psionics were supposed to be something wildly different than magic, it wasn't that; it was just an alternate mechanical and flavor approach to magic.

Having them be something more like a fantasy Jedi is the other way that I can see psionics obviously going. In 3e psionics, you could probably get there somewhat by buffing up the soulknife with a few psionic powers. I always thought the soulknife was obviously underpowered anyway.

 

[Yaarel]

See, again, I liked how they did it in 3e, where psionics was very explicitly different than magic. It used focus and powerpoints, and felt more like psychic powers as they're usually defined, and even when they had psionic powers that mimicked magic spells, they at least had a different mechanic for using the f/x and a different name with a different feel.

One thing that I found both frustrating and intriguing at the same time, however, was that if you had the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic, you could effectively replace magic entirely with psionics and it would work differently mechanically, but in the end, end up giving you more or less the same suite of effects. Having an unusual game where you replaced all magic with psionics would give you a pretty different feel, and yet... it would still be a completely viable specifically D&D game. I've always thought that was what psionics should be, probably, at least in the D&D context. If psionics were supposed to be something wildly different than magic, it wasn't that; it was just an alternate mechanical and flavor approach to magic.

Having them be something more like a fantasy Jedi is the other way that I can see psionics obviously going. In 3e psionics, you could probably get there somewhat by buffing up the soulknife with a few psionic powers. I always thought the soulknife was obviously underpowered anyway.

I strongly prefer fluid spell points over prepackaged spell slot lumps. But there is every reason for Wizard, Cleric, Druid, etcetera to be using spell points too, especially to help simplify the highest levels.

Spell points in themselves arent psionics − albeit I agree the prepackaged slots fell less intuitive, thus less psionic.

 

[Remathilis]

That is, it seems quite obvious to me that spells are very different things from augmentable powers. Yes, 3e (uniquely) did put psionic powers on a 1-to-9 level system like spells, but psionics were still different from spells--in several ways.

Gonna disagree on this. I will gladly agree 2e psionics were fairly unique since there is only two levels of power (science and devotion) and it has a lot of mechanics not seen in 2e spells (power score, crit failure, psionic combat). Even the 3.0e psion felt far more different than 3e casters. But the 3.5 psion is a spell point caster with a bunch of tweaked spells (some not even that different, see Levitate, Psionic).

Which brings me to an important question: what's more important; the psion having a unique "casting" mechanic or unique powers (spells)? If you had to pick just one, which is it? Because if psion is just using power points to cast the psionic version of Levitate, Knock, or Energy Ball, have we done enough to make Psionics unique? What if we made them use spell slots but have a completely unique spell list with zero overlap with traditional casters? Is THAT unique enough? (Obviously, these are both extremes used to emphasize effect).

I bring this up to emphasize that psionics can differ via method or effect, but the further you stray in both directions, the harder it gets to design for balance, role, and complexity.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Gonna disagree on this. I will gladly agree 2e psionics were fairly unique since there is only two levels of power (science and devotion) and it has a lot of mechanics not seen in 2e spells (power score, crit failure, psionic combat). Even the 3.0e psion felt far more different than 3e casters. But the 3.5 psion is a spell point caster with a bunch of tweaked spells (some not even that different, see Levitate, Psionic).

Which brings me to an important question: what's more important; the psion having a unique "casting" mechanic or unique powers (spells)? If you had to pick just one, which is it? Because if psion is just using power points to cast the psionic version of Levitate, Knock, or Energy Ball, have we done enough to make Psionics unique? What if we made them use spell slots but have a completely unique spell list with zero overlap with traditional casters? Is THAT unique enough? (Obviously, these are both extremes used to emphasize effect).

I bring this up to emphasize that psionics can differ via method or effect, but the further you stray in both directions, the harder it gets to design for balance, role, and complexity.

I feel that the latter is more important. "This guy does different things than the wizard." It would feel different in the story. Slightly different mechanics that produce the same effects to me just seems like an unnecessary complication. It does not produce a difference in the narrative.

Of course the issue with bespoke effect is that D&D spellcasting is so versatile, and basically all classic "psionic" stuff is already covered by magic. Telepathy, telekinesis etc are all doable by spellcasters. Now if we were designing things from the ground up, this would be easy to fix: simply do not give those effects to the other classes. But when we are trying to add this new class into an already existing game that option is not available. This is why satisfying prion is so hard to design; it is hard to give them a niche, as the existing magic classes can already do everything.

 

[Yaarel]

Of course the issue with bespoke effect is that D&D spellcasting is so versatile, and basically all classic "psionic" stuff is already covered by magic. Telepathy, telekinesis etc are all doable by spellcasters. Now if we were designing things from the ground up, this would be easy to fix: simply do not give those effects to the other classes. But when we are trying to add this new class into an already existing game that option is not available. This is why satisfying prion is so hard to design; it is hard to give them a niche, as the existing magic classes can already do everything.

It helps to think about which themes are "modal".

For example, what is the concept of a "wizard"? In my eyes, it is the "creator" class. So appropriate powers for a Wizard to have include: elementalism-alchemy (earth-transmutation, energy-evocation), illusion-constructs, and telekinesis-force.

Other classes can also have elementalism, illusion, or telekinesis, but no other classes emphasize the combination of these three themes. These three are only "modal" for the Wizard.

The Wizard can completely delete everything relating prescience-spacetime-teleportation, telepathy-enchantment, planar-summoning (including necromancy), and still saliently feel like a "wizard".

For example, I would give planar-summoning (including necromancy) to the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock.

Bard, Psion, and either Sorcerer or Warlock, gain telepathy-enchantment.

Wizard, Druid, and Sorcerer gain elementalism-alchemy.

Etcetera.

Each mage class can have three or four themes that are modal for that class. Each unique combination makes a class feel distinctive.

 

[Desdichado]

It helps to think about which themes are "modal".

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, what you are proposing is much more than a unique approach to psionics; that's a ground-up redesign of all supernatural f/x in D&D altogether. That'll never happen except maybe in some alternative approach to the game that isn't specifically D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, what you are proposing is much more than a unique approach to psionics; that's a ground-up redesign of all supernatural f/x in D&D altogether. That'll never happen except maybe in some alternative approach to the game that isn't specifically D&D.

The guiltiest class is the Wizard.

In 1e, the Wizard was the every-magic class, literally the "magic-user". But D&D has evolved and radiated from its simplest origins. Today, there are many different kinds of magic-users, mages. Specialization is important. For the Wizard to continue to be the every-magic class is becoming disruptive to the game.

The other classes are thematically tighter. For example, the main difference between Bard and Druid is telepathy-enchantment versus elementalism-alchemy. They share shapeshifting-healing and prescience-spacetime-teleportation in common.

Fixing the Wizard by reducing its magical thematics goes a long way to resolving the issue.