Unearthed Arcana WotC Surveys: Implementation vs. Interest

Status
Not open for further replies.
But then it's just a sorcerer/wizard/warlock with a limited spell list. Maybe they effectively get silenced and stilled spells for free if you aren't modeling Star Wars psionics.

Yeah, I'm okay with that. But WotC haven't offered that.

There's not a lot of distinction other than no components. As far as wands and component I've also read stories about having and object that help focus energy.

Psionics is just space magic when the authors didn't want wizards.
And clerical magic is just magic which waves holy symbols instead of wands, and bard magic is just magic with a musical instrument.

If you can have clerics and bards a separate class to wizards no reason for not having a psionics class.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Sunk cost fallacy is a thing for a reason. It's still a rational ask to try to kill further expenditure of development on unwanted material.
The sunk cost fallacy would apply if they continued the behavior because of the existing investment. Here they are continuing the behavior because customers (and settings) have expressed an interest. Thus that fallacy does not apply here.

Goal: You want to minimize future development time spent on psions.

Do you choose option that take Y resources, or the option where you spend X+Y resources.

X is the initial development pass. Y is the polish development pass.

Rationally, the first option is better.
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Oh definitely, and it worked against the Mystic, and I daresay it'll work against any Psion-type class, and as long as WotC listen to Angry Internetians we'll be stuck with only the very most anodyne and mediocre of mechanical content. Hell, they'll probably manage to get most of the recent class improvements nixed!
[edit - I was being unnecessarily aggressive in my response. Self deleted]
 
Last edited:


Aldarc

Legend
The thing about psionics which I think is what causes questions is the fact that the "spell list" (for lack of a better term) of a would-be psionic class has just been subsumed by arcane casters to the point where there isn't enough obvious differentiation.
Couldn't this argumentation be used as a reason why warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are not necessary when wizards already have most of their spells? And FYI in at least 3e and 4e it was called their "power list."

What else does the psionic power source have for spells/disciplines/whatever that is different than the lists of the arcane, divine, and primal sources and can separate them to warrant the need of its own thing? As far as I personally can tell... very little (if nothing at all.)
There is overlap between primal and arcane, particularly with things like elemental magic. There is overlap between divine and primal sources, particularly with things like healing and restorative magic. I think that we could say - much as Pathfinder 2 does with its "Occult" power source - that overlap can exist between divine (and ki) and arcane sources that are suitable for psionic magic: mental magic, divination, telekinesis, monk-like mysticism, psycho-metabolism, mind over body, astral dimension and constructs, etc.

What is that psionic spell list going to have that does not make it look like an arcane spell list with just the names all different? That's the real issue.
shrug That seems less like a real issue and more like the flimsy excuse that people are making to keep the psion from consideration as a class. It doesn't really hold up much weight under scrutiny really. The sorcerer and warlock both have smaller spell lists than the wizard and do similar things.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Psionics is a science fiction trope that D&D assimilated. If you want to find what psionics should be like you need to look at science fiction.

Talking of which I can think of a psionic warlock.
s4lyta2.jpg

Lyta Alexander, Babylon 5. Has her powers massively boosted by her Vorlon (AKA Great Old One) patron.
Lyta was a psion before she had a patron.

And there are plenty of fantasy antecedents for "power of the mind" vs. magic.
 

Oofta

Legend
,,,
That seems less like a real issue and more like the flimsy excuse that people are making to keep the psion from consideration as a class.
...

LOL. Nobody is "keeping the psion from consideration as a class". The devs tried a few options, none was popular enough to make it into a publication yet. That may or may not change.

There is no anti-psion illuminati.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
The attraction of the Psion is undeniably mechanical. People want a point-based class with non-spell abilities. Why?, because it's fun, it's something different.

Also, any argument that we don't need the Psion because "psionics is just another type of magic" is utter, worthless, illogical trash (no offense).

If that's your argument, then what is the justification for Divine magic, Druidic magic, Warlocks, or Sorcerers when we could easily just have a single "Magic-User" class.

In fact, if Psionics is too "mushy", then why is Bardic magic, or, in fact, the distinction between any type of magic, meaningful at all.

The main point is, why is Psionics hated by some with such passion, while other archetypes of magic go unnoticed?

There may be no clear definition of a Psion, but there is no clear definition of a Bard, or a Sorcerer, or a Warlock either. They're all just Wizards that cast their spells in funky ways, so what is their reason for existence?

Now, we instinctively know that this argument is lacking. Why?, because Bards are inherently different than Wizards, as are Psions.

You can't say that apples are just oranges while denying that oranges are oranges.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
Also, any argument that we don't need the Psion because "psionics is just another type of magic" is utter, worthless, illogical trash (no offense).
.....

The main point is, why is Psionics hated by some with such passion, while other archetypes of magic go unnoticed?

I think you answered your own question. You're arguing that psionics is not just another form of magic, which is a big reason why people don't like it. Because it fits more sci fi and not fantasy, and for a lot of people, it doesn't feel right in a fantasy setting. Magic = fantasy. Psionics = sci fi. Which is why other types of magic is OK. Because they are magic. And like you say, psionics is not magic.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Please do not equate "dishonest" with "wrong". Folks can easily be wrong without being liars, so this comes off as really rude.
I think you answered your own question. You're arguing that psionics is not just another form of magic, which is a big reason why people don't like it. Because it fits more sci fi and not fantasy, and for a lot of people, it doesn't feel right in a fantasy setting. Magic = fantasy. Psionics = sci fi.
No, that's intellectually dishonest. I do not wish to come across as rude, but you're wrong. Psionics is not inherently "sci-fi" (D&D bends genre anyway, just look at Spelljammer), and that was not my argument.

My argument is that psionics is no more disruptive than having 'divine' magic as opposed to 'arcane' magic. Where exactly is this trend in most fantasy literature?
 

Oofta

Legend
So I'll ask my question again. What would a psion look like other than a sorcerer/warlock/wizard with different fluff? Spell points? There's a variant rule in the DMG. What spells or powers would distinguish them?
 

Aldarc

Legend
LOL. Nobody is "keeping the psion from consideration as a class". The devs tried a few options, none was popular enough to make it into a publication yet. That may or may not change.
The options that the devs tried weren't particularly good, typically being too radical in either one way or the opposite way. The same was true for the first few iterations of the Artificer. I would not mind a Psion that used spells. And 5e already has alternative spell mechanics apart from full casting that would be suitable for psionics: i.e., Ki and Pact Magic.

There is no anti-psion illuminati.
Don't get snarky about me being demeaning to you if you only planned on engaging in similar behavior yourself. It comes across as hypocritical.
 

I think a big reason for the success of 5e is it's simplicity. So the Mystic class was, by the 5e paradigm, far too complicated.

A much simpler class, much the same as sorcerer but with it's own spell list and a few tweaks with regards to components could well be more popular. I think WotC may be overthinking the problem.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
So I'll ask my question again. What would a psion look like other than a sorcerer/warlock/wizard with different fluff? Spell points? There's a variant rule in the DMG. What spells or powers would distinguish them?
What is a Sorcerer but a Wizard with some tweaks? Your entire argument seems hypocritical to me.
 

Oofta

Legend
The options that the devs tried weren't particularly good, typically being too radical in either one way or the opposite way. The same was true for the first few iterations of the Artificer. I would not mind a Psion that used spells. And 5e already has alternative spell mechanics apart from full casting that would be suitable for psionics: i.e., Ki and Pact Magic.

Don't get snarky about me being demeaning to you if you only planned on engaging in similar behavior yourself. It comes across as hypocritical.
Then it's not people "keeping a psion from being developed". It's that nobody has come up with a clear picture of what a psion should be in 5E. Big difference.
 

Oofta

Legend
What is a Sorcerer but a Wizard with some tweaks? Your entire argument seems hypocritical to me.
Those classes play differently. Again: what would a psion look like? We have basic archetypes. Wizards learn from books, sorcerers (which to me are basically psions by a different name, YMMV) have natural ability, bards are just sooo darned cute.

I have no problem with psions, but nobody can seem to address that basic issue other than "I want ... something". Which is what I originally asked. What would make them unique other than fluff?
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
No, that's intellectually dishonest. I do not wish to come across as rude, but you're wrong. Psionics is not inherently "sci-fi" (D&D bends genre anyway, just look at Spelljammer), and that was not my argument.

My argument is that psionics is no more disruptive than having 'divine' magic as opposed to 'arcane' magic. Where exactly is this trend in most fantasy literature?

Then maybe I misunderstood. You literally said that any argument that psionics was another form of magic was garbage. That means you don't think it's like any other form of magic. Which is also the answer to your question as to why some people don't like it. Because it's not another form of magic, but something completely unique. And for many, like me, magic fits well in fantasy because magic is all over fantasy literature and tropes, while psionics is common in sci fi, but I can't really recall it that often in traditional high fantasy literature. (and using spelljammer doesn't help your argument, because it's extremely niche and is not part of the core D&D fantasy game, and many people didn't like it when playing D&D)
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Those classes play differently. Again: what would a psion look like? We have basic archetypes. Wizards learn from books, sorcerers (which to me are basically psions by a different name, YMMV) have natural ability, bards are just sooo darned cute.

I have no problem with psions, but nobody can seem to address that basic issue other than "I want ... something". Which is what I originally asked. What would make them unique other than fluff?
Tell me, how would a Psion not play differently than another spellcaster? If your metric indicates that Sorcerers play differently than Wizards to an appreciable degree, then why is this not the case for an official class with no spells, psi points, and disciplines that scale with points?

The Mystic, the most official Psion, is rather different than a spellcaster, is it not?
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Then maybe I misunderstood. You literally said that any argument that psionics was another form of magic was garbage. That means you don't think it's like any other form of magic. Which is also the answer to your question as to why some people don't like it. Because it's not another form of magic, but something completely unique. And for many, like me, magic fits well in fantasy because magic is all over fantasy literature and tropes, while psionics is common in sci fi, but I can't really recall it that often in traditional high fantasy literature.
Alright, fair enough. My argument was that psionics is not the same as magic mechanically, but I suppose it can be said to be an archetype of magic lore-wise.

Of course, Psionics is explicitly, even in lore, no magic.

I think I understand your objection now, but I don't see how a bit of genre-bending that has been in D&D for ages and ages is something new and unusual.
 

Oofta

Legend
Tell me, how would a Psion not play differently than another spellcaster? If your metric indicates that Sorcerers play differently than Wizards to an appreciable degree, then why is this not the case for an official class with no spells, psi points, and disciplines that scale with points?

The Mystic, the most official Psion, is rather different than a spellcaster, is it not?

TBH I didn't pay any attention to the mystic (and didn't vote in the poll for that matter). So I can't answer the question.

My point has been that everything you claim you want is either a variant rule or fluff. There are variant rules for spell points. I don't see how supernaturally bending the world to your will with your mind is not magic with a different label.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top