D&D 5E What if Psionics is a kind of Divine magic?

[Yaarel]

That's certainly an interesting take on it, one that I hadn't thought of before.

That being said, I think they should let psionics be whatever the DM wants it to be, not tied to a specific cosmology/setting. For example, I'd probably still utilize psionics as a distinct force from arcane and divine magic and emphasize it's more "sci-fi" overtones.

I agree that all classes need to be conceived and written in ways that are setting neutral.

We know that most DMs create their own Homebrew settings that are interesting to them and their adventurers. Classes must accommodate and facilitate this creativity.

At the same time, it helps D&D players to illustrate a concrete example of how a class can fit within the context of a particular world setting. A separate textbox can explain how the class and its magical powers and social organizations interacts with the rest of the cosmos. So, the textbox can explain how Psion functions as part of Divine ‘Force’, similar to how the textbox explains how the Bard (a healer) functions as part of the Arcane ‘Weave’.

But the description of a class works best when it is aware of the need to be setting neutral. A DM might want to use the Psion class for a Modern setting, and should be able to do so without getting to tangled up in the class description for the Psion.

It bothers me, the Cleric class description is way too tangled up in a specific kind of world setting. It is difficult to export this class to other kinds settings. This heavy-handed baked-in flavor is actually Hasbro corporation at work. It seeks to ‘brand’ and trademark the D&D gods, and to pressure D&D players to use them. Heh, the Cleric class is basically a corporate plant. Even the SRD5 goes out of its way to explicitly trademark the names of the D&D gods and the Outer Planes, and to pressure by means of the Cleric class and by means of the Acolyte being the only feat available, to monetize this Hasbro property. I feel this heavy handedness is misguided and will eventually backfire. A gentler approach that focuses all of this trademark property within a specific setting, such as Forgotten Realms, or perhaps especially Planescape, is more appropriate. Then players who like it can use the Planescape setting. Likewise, players who want a different kind of setting can easily use the same core gaming rules for their own creative setting. Pushing the gods on all people who ever see or play D&D is ultimately a mistake.

Anyway. I agree classes need to be open to different kinds setting assumptions. That includes how the Psion class, even if a Divine class, relates to different kinds of worlds with different kinds of explanations for how Psionics works.

 

[Mistwell]

The Deryni books, by Katherine Kurtz, were some of the original source material TSR used to create the AD&D Psionics rules. And in those books, psionics is divine magic. Psionic rituals were powered by arch angels, and the divine right of king was involved as well, and healing was a rare subset of Deryni powers. It definitely can work, and work well. But it's tricky.

 

[Morlock]

For whatever it's worth, I've always preferred to design all magic, regardless of whether it's called arcane, divine, psionic, or whatever, as (mostly) tapping into an external power source*. The innate talent (i.e., the ability to tap into the external power source) and a few effects (telepathy, mesmerism, etc.) can be self-powered, but the juicy stuff requires an external source.

In the setting I'm developing, all magic is psionics and it's externally-powered, except for some of the information-oriented stuff. Very much mind-magic, with sci-fi overtones, as Ill put it.

*I'm an outlier because I'm replacing arcane magic with psionics, reskinning magic as psionics, however you want to put it.

If psionics is a type of divine magic, it will save me the cost of whatever book that's printed in. I have no interest in a psionics that merely duplicates the game mechanics of spells. They can call the power source whatever they want as long as they aren't just reskinning a magic system.

I have not been 100% happy with any treatment of psionics in D&D, but the closest they came was in 2nd Edition, where psionics was a power system that was effectively skill-based, and entirely distinct from the two types of magic in the game.

I could go either way. The game mechanics of spells are pretty flexible in 5e (spell slots of higher level, optional spell point system, etc.). What matters to me is more the effects and the flavor. And that psionic classes stay relatively balanced with existing classes.

I don't really care for 2e's psionics, at least as far as I remember. I'd rather have something more vertical where the powers scale with level, or something that uses spells to do the same.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree that all classes need to be conceived and written in ways that are setting neutral.

We know that most DMs create their own Homebrew settings that are interesting to them and their adventurers. Classes must accommodate and facilitate this creativity.

At the same time, it helps D&D players to illustrate a concrete example of how a class can fit within the context of a particular world setting. A separate textbox can explain how the class and its magical powers and social organizations interacts with the rest of the cosmos. So, the textbox can explain how Psion functions as part of Divine ‘Force’, similar to how the textbox explains how the Bard (a healer) functions as part of the Arcane ‘Weave’.

But the description of a class works best when it is aware of the need to be setting neutral. A DM might want to use the Psion class for a Modern setting, and should be able to do so without getting to tangled up in the class description for the Psion.

It bothers me, the Cleric class description is way too tangled up in a specific kind of world setting. It is difficult to export this class to other kinds settings. This heavy-handed baked-in flavor is actually Hasbro corporation at work. It seeks to ‘brand’ and trademark the D&D gods, and to pressure D&D players to use them. Heh, the Cleric class is basically a corporate plant. Even the SRD5 goes out of its way to explicitly trademark the names of the D&D gods and the Outer Planes, and to pressure by means of the Cleric class and by means of the Acolyte being the only feat available, to monetize this Hasbro property. I feel this heavy handedness is misguided and will eventually backfire. A gentler approach that focuses all of this trademark property within a specific setting, such as Forgotten Realms, or perhaps especially Planescape, is more appropriate. Then players who like it can use the Planescape setting. Likewise, players who want a different kind of setting can easily use the same core gaming rules for their own creative setting. Pushing the gods on all people who ever see or play D&D is ultimately a mistake.

Anyway. I agree classes need to be open to different kinds setting assumptions. That includes how the Psion class, even if a Divine class, relates to different kinds of worlds with different kinds of explanations for how Psionics works.

Good news! 5e has an OGL, and psionics was previously open in 3e. You can build your own divine/psionic class, or even a setting neutral PHB, if you want. You'll need to create some new stuff to replace the missing spells, feats, backgrounds and subclasses, but most of that stuff is world-specific anyway.

Take your ideas and make a great product and revolutionize the world.

 

[Otterscrubber]

In my campaigns, we have a simple way of handling psionics. We don't. I know I am in a minority here but frankly for some reason psionics in D&D always felt like an abomination to me. At least as an option for PCs. It's fine to hand wave and allow monsters to have psionics as the descriptive flavor for their mechanical abilities that could be represented in other ways, but I never allow players to have them. If they really want "mind powers" that bad, play a caster and call it what you will, but I never did feel it should be it's own thing with a class and/or specific rules for it.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’m with you, pretty much. I don’t mind psychic abilities in fantasy, but in D&D, I’ve never been happy with psionics. The rules have always seemed to be poorly balanced and/or easily exploited.

For my part, I’d be happy with psionics just being paths for existing classes like the monk, sorcerer, and indeed, cleric could work too. If they have to be there at all.

In my campaigns, we have a simple way of handling psionics. We don't. I know I am in a minority here but frankly for some reason psionics in D&D always felt like an abomination to me.

 

[TwoSix]

The Deryni books, by Katherine Kurtz, were some of the original source material TSR used to create the AD&D Psionics rules. And in those books, psionics is divine magic. Psionic rituals were powered by arch angels, and the divine right of king was involved as well, and healing was a rare subset of Deryni powers. It definitely can work, and work well. But it's tricky.

Warcraft priests also have a strong subset of mental effects. They can heal with the Holy Light, but can tap into Shadow to cast spells like Mind Blast, Mind Flay, and Dominate Mind.

 

[Yaarel]

Warcraft priests also have a strong subset of mental effects. They can heal with the Holy Light, but can tap into Shadow to cast spells like Mind Blast, Mind Flay, and Dominate Mind.

Yeah.

Similarly, there is the situation where a Divine being is a Psionic, such as an Angel with Telepathy, a Demon with Telekinesis, a Fate who can precognize the future, and so on.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

From the other direction, the word ‘psyche’ means soul. It is the same thing.

It means 'soul', but not 'mind'. It's not the same thing; there is a distinction, just like in English and probably hundreds of other languages. 'Mind' is nous/noos.

 

[Yaarel]

It means 'soul', but not 'mind'. It's not the same thing; there is a distinction, just like in English and probably hundreds of other languages. 'Mind' is nous/noos.

Yeah, Psyche specifically means ‘soul’.

They also used it in the sense of ‘self’. So even grammatically, they might say ‘he was talking to his soul’ to mean ‘he was talking to himself’.

The ‘soul’ includes a sense of self awareness, in this sense, personal consciousness.

When Freud used the term ‘psychology’, he intentionally meant ‘the study of the soul’. I suspect, his point was that the human mind is fundamentally irrational, and ‘study of the mind’ sounded too rational.