Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Maxperson]

When did this become an analogy on dating? Also, that's not how my standards when it comes to the Psion are. I have 3 requirements before I will approve the system. You have a similar number of requirements, right?

1. Must have a psion based class. I honestly couldn't care less if they made psionic rogues, monks or sorcerers as long as there's a psion class.
2. The class cannot be a spell caster. No spells instead of powers.
3. Must be easy to understand. (5e philosophy.)

That's it. Those are my requirements. How are any of those like "being so rigid that you end up never getting married?"

Because psionics in literally every edition of D&D, from 1e to 5e(UAs) have not met those requirements. If those are your requirements, there's never going to be a 5e psionic marriage in your future. Powers are going to be like "spells" in some regard.

 

[Maxperson]

The mystic was. The newer systems aren't, which IMHO is the only thing they have going for them, besides flavor.

I don't think it was any more complicated than Wizards, Battlemasters or other heavy resource class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think it was any more complicated than Wizards, Battlemasters or other heavy resource class.

And it was playtest material that was discarded.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because psionics in literally every edition of D&D, from 1e to 5e(UAs) have not met those requirements. If those are your requirements, there's never going to be a 5e psionic marriage in your future. Powers are going to be like "spells" in some regard.

Yes, none of the previous editions met these requirements. Here's a question:
Did any of the psionic systems from previous editions get overwhelming positive feedback?
As far as I know, no. Psionics in 5e has to be simple, there has to be a class based around it, and they cannot cast spells as we know them in 5e. No spell slots, no casting Telekinesis or Telepathy. That's not how I want Psionics in 5e. Sure, there may be some abilities that work similarly to spells in some regards, but they wouldn't be spellcasting. You couldn't counterspell them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't think it was any more complicated than Wizards, Battlemasters or other heavy resource class.

I remember the Mystic being a 29ish paged PDF with a ton of disciplines that anyone could take. Do you not remember that? That's super overcomplicated.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Did any of the psionic systems from previous editions get overwhelming positive feedback?
As far as I know, no.

You said previously that you didn't play previous editions, and you're not very familiar with them. So how would you know one way or another what the feedback was at the time? (Not that WotC or TSR went out of their way to solicit feedback.)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You said previously that you didn't play previous editions, and you're not very familiar with them. So how would you know one way or another what the feedback was at the time? (Not that WotC or TSR went out of their way to solicit feedback.)

I know what people have said about the systems. I've heard a ton of people complain about every prior edition's psionic system. I didn't play them, but I know how some people felt about them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, none of the previous editions met these requirements. Here's a question:
Did any of the psionic systems from previous editions get overwhelming positive feedback?
As far as I know, no. Psionics in 5e has to be simple, there has to be a class based around it, and they cannot cast spells as we know them in 5e. No spell slots, no casting Telekinesis or Telepathy. That's not how I want Psionics in 5e. Sure, there may be some abilities that work similarly to spells in some regards, but they wouldn't be spellcasting. You couldn't counterspell them.

Why does it have to be a class? This is something you've said a number of times, but haven't laid out the case. It's clearly not because of tradition, which seems to be a large argument for others, so what's the case here?

Why can it not use spells? You insist it must have powers, but haven't even bothered to scope out what "powers" mean in a broad sense. Are these a few things, a lot of things, scaled power like spell levels, what? Just saying powers instead of spells is kinda empty absent any context. With others, who reference previous editions, I can make guesses, because previous editions had psionic powers. I have no idea what you're talking about, though, as you expressly reject previous editions as the source of your wants.

And, as for simple, if you're introducing a brand new system of magic ("powers"), there's no way you're going to get simple. It's going to look like the Mystic -- many pages.

I'm not stomping on your wants, here -- you're welcome to them. I'm asking if you've done much more than get to the vaguely worded desires part.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why does it have to be a class? This is something you've said a number of times, but haven't laid out the case. It's clearly not because of tradition, which seems to be a large argument for others, so what's the case here?

It has to be a class, because in order to do psionics properly, it cannot be spell based. If they completely represent psionics by subclasses, the main psion is going to be spell based. That's proven with the Psionic Sorcerer in this UA.

Why can it not use spells? You insist it must have powers, but haven't even bothered to scope out what "powers" mean in a broad sense. Are these a few things, a lot of things, scaled power like spell levels, what? Just saying powers instead of spells is kinda empty absent any context. With others, who reference previous editions, I can make guesses, because previous editions had psionic powers. I have no idea what you're talking about, though, as you expressly reject previous editions as the source of your wants.

It cannot be based on spellcasting, because it should scale differently. In this video, they explained how Wizards can cast psionic spells. They are essentially "copying" psionic abilities but in spells, which functionally works, but IMHO it doesn't truly represent the power of psionics:
It cannot be a spellcaster in the sense that they use spell slots or sorcery points to cast Bigby's Hand or Rary's Telepathic Bond or Telekinesis. What I would prefer to this is a new system that is simpler. Essentially, your subclass would choose whether you're a Telepath, Psychokinetic, or some other discipline of psion. You would get some base powers at level one, and as you'd level up, those abilities would automatically scale and power up.

And, as for simple, if you're introducing a brand new system of magic ("powers"), there's no way you're going to get simple. It's going to look like the Mystic -- many pages.

What evidence do you have for this statement? The fact that they haven't made a simple psion class in 5e yet is not proof that it can't be done. I am personally developing a psionic class, and it is fairly simple in mechanics. It's certainly going to be shorter than the Mystic when it's finished.

I'm not stomping on your wants, here -- you're welcome to them. I'm asking if you've done much more than get to the vaguely worded desires part.

I have explained my wants in previous pages in the thread, but I will just restate them again when asked.

 

[Maxperson]

I remember the Mystic being a 29ish paged PDF with a ton of disciplines that anyone could take. Do you not remember that? That's super overcomplicated.

It was 28 pages. 2 pages of intro, 2 of general class mechanics, 6 pages of subclass explanation, 16 pages of "spells" and 2 pages of talents.

Compare that to Wizard with 1 page of intro, 2 pages of general class mechanics, 5 pages of subclass explanation and 30+ pages of spells.

Same number of pages on general mechanics. Wizards have 1 less page of subclass explanation. Wizards have at least double the number of spell pages for players to learn. Wizards have no talents pages.

The complexity is pretty even, unless you count powers/spells in that, in which case the Wizard dwarfs the Psion in complexity.