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

[Remathilis]

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.

This has always been an issue of psionics being shunted off to the "optional" side of D&D. D&D wants to have Psionic effects (telepathy, telekinesis, mind reading) but people either complain about it being too "sci-fi" or not fitting D&D's fantasy concept (artificer has the same problem) so the wizard and other casters get the fun toys of the psion and when it comes time from the psion to exist as extra, their spot at the table is gone.Maybe if psionicist had a seat in the PHB, there would be a more prominent role for them.

(Aside: I think the wizard is too overstuffed as is and barely leaves enough space for any other arcane class. The only reason it isn't the only caster in the game is the hard line on healing and animal magics to keep clerics and druids with a niche. I'd rather than seven unique arcane classes than the "one class to rule them all" magic-user).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think we've hit on a fundamental divide that people assume their own premise on and therefore have trouble communicating with those from the other premise:

Is what's most salient in making psionics different the method of manifesting the effect, or the nature of the effect?

I'm firmly in the first category. I'm literally fine if psionic powers are just taken straight out of the existing PHB spell list, as long as they require no components to manifest, don't use spell slots, are an appropriately chosen list, and not-magic fluff. That's what psionics are about to me. (I also can't understand how people can't see that jedi, firestarter style psionics, Eleven from Stranger Things, etc, are fundamentally different from Harry Potter, Gandalf, folklore curses, or even Doctor Strange, since for me psionics are a fairly clearly defined subset of supra-normal capabilities distinct from the magic subset, which is distinct from other types of super hero sunsets, while I think that for some people "magic" and "supra-normal capability" are synonyms, which is another major divide in premise, but might be getting beyond the scope of this thread).

What is the OP's take on this divide, to better focus useful discussion?

Psionics is one of those topics where instead of engaging in trying to identify the different elements and agendas and devising a common vocabulary of discussion, we tend to all use words the way we prefer and assume everyone else is an idiot.

 

[Steampunkette]

I mean... y'all've seen how I did it, right?

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

personally i think i fall more on the side of a different power/casting mechanic mattering more to the psion than the spells themselves, ultimately there's only so many distinct effects supernatural powers will produce so i think making the playfeel of the psion feel distinct to regular casting is more important.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

For me at least, what makes spellcasting “casting a spell” is the components: the magic words, specific hand and finger movements, the weird pun-based ingredients. To not be soellcasting, these need to be removed or replaced.

3e replaced components with indicators: a distinct sound or burst of light or ectoplasmic residue that made it obvious to everyone that you were doing something (unless you used meta psionics to hide these) thus triggering counterspell reactions.

That’s pretty much the bare minimum, in my opinion, for making psionics “not spells.”

 

[Yaarel]

The spell list needs to eliminate the "Components" entry.

The "costly" gp Material component is anathema for psionic flavor.

Every class needs to have its own method for spellcasting. It is the class whose class flavor defines which component is in play.

The Bard should use Verbal (poem, song, command) to cast every spell. Except its subclasses might allow Material (musical instrument) or Somatic (dance) instead.

The Wizard can be both Material (wand) and Verbal (spell).

The Druid might be Material (components pouch), only, to wield the magical properties of various herbal and animal ingredients.

It is the class that needs to determine the spellcasting method. Not the obsolete one-size-fits-all Components entry in the spell appendix in the back of the book.

Delete the Components entry from every spell description.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think a big decision needs to be made when implementing psionics: Just how immiscible is it with magic? - Although this doesn't necessarily dictate whether Psions are spellcasters or not.

Can an astral Construct or ongoing psionic effect be dispelled with Dispel Magic? Could it be picked up with Detect Magic? Would it work in an Antimagic field?
Could psionic powers even damage a creature immune to non-magical attacks?

Would a non-spellcaster psion's abilities include the ability to use effects that replicate psionic-themed spells like Telekinesis, etc? Even if it doesn't use spell slots, the same components etc, would you want it to refer to the spells as a space-saving measure? Or have completely unique mechanics?

 

[aco175]

I think a big decision needs to be made when implementing psionics: Just how immiscible is it with magic? - Although this doesn't necessarily dictate whether Psions are spellcasters or not.

Can an astral Construct or ongoing psionic effect be dispelled with Dispel Magic? Could it be picked up with Detect Magic? Would it work in an Antimagic field?
Could psionic powers even damage a creature immune to non-magical attacks?

Would a non-spellcaster psion's abilities include the ability to use effects that replicate psionic-themed spells like Telekinesis, etc? Even if it doesn't use spell slots, the same components etc, would you want it to refer to the spells as a space-saving measure? Or have completely unique mechanics?

I view them as just another type of magic, since it creates an effect from about nothing. If is cannot be dispelled I fear that things would be back to 2e days with either not using them or everyone would use them since the modules tended to only deal with the traditional classes. It was the god class at the time.

 

[Yaarel]

I think a big decision needs to be made when implementing psionics: Just how immiscible is it with magic? - Although this doesn't necessarily dictate whether Psions are spellcasters or not.

Can an astral Construct or ongoing psionic effect be dispelled with Dispel Magic? Could it be picked up with Detect Magic? Would it work in an Antimagic field?
Could psionic powers even damage a creature immune to non-magical attacks?

Would a non-spellcaster psion's abilities include the ability to use effects that replicate psionic-themed spells like Telekinesis, etc? Even if it doesn't use spell slots, the same components etc, would you want it to refer to the spells as a space-saving measure? Or have completely unique mechanics?

All magic is "magic". But there are different power sources.

When a primal Druid does a Wild Shape, it isnt a "spell". It is a class feature. When the Druid casts Cure Wounds, it is a "spell".

Each power source can do things that are spells, and that arent spells.

When the Psi Warrior does a Protective Field, it isnt a spell. But when a Psion casts ("manifests") a Shield, it is a spell.

The psionic power source can include classes that are fullcasters and noncasters.

But it is all magic − superhuman phenomena.


For the power sources, I would like to organize:

• Cosmic Weave Magic: both Arcane and Divine
• Personal Soul Magic: both Psionic and Primal

Whether the power sources rely on the magical properties inherent in the universe or on the magical properties inherent in the conscious soul, might have mechanical implications. But in any case, the flavor is significant.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is what's most salient in making psionics different the method of manifesting the effect, or the nature of the effect?

Definitely.

I'm firmly in the first category. I'm literally fine if psionic powers are just taken straight out of the existing PHB spell list, as long as they require no components to manifest, don't use spell slots, are an appropriately chosen list, and not-magic fluff. That's what psionics are about to me.

So I agree that psionics should not require material components (well perhaps some focusing crystals or something like that might be appropriate for some powers,) but given that 5e already rarely cares about material components with focuses being a thing, and people probably not bothering to track either, that is not much to hang identity on. Like sorcerer with appropriate spell selection and using spell point would fulfil your requirement.

I think the effect matters more. Like if we are looking this like a story, whether one uses spell slots or psionic points or whatnot is not visible, it is not a difference that manifests in the narrative. What we see is what the characters do.

(I also can't understand how people can't see that jedi, firestarter style psionics, Eleven from Stranger Things, etc, are fundamentally different from Harry Potter, Gandalf, folklore curses, or even Doctor Strange, since for me psionics are a fairly clearly defined subset of supra-normal capabilities distinct from the magic subset, which is distinct from other types of super hero sunsets, while I think that for some people "magic" and "supra-normal capability" are synonyms, which is another major divide in premise, but might be getting beyond the scope of this thread).

The thing is, to me these are just different descriptions of the same basic thing. Like Stranger Things literally has a hell dimension with demons living in it and the psions can commune with them. If it was set in the 16th century, with all the exact same powers and phenomena but without modern labs and scientist it would come across as witchcraft.

And it is very rare for the same setting to have both magic, and psychic powers, because ultimately the latter is just a modern description of the former. Some superhero settings might, but they tend to be chaotic hodgepodges without coherent worldbuilding anyway. Though so is D&D, so in that sense it is perfectly appropriate for it to have both too.