Unearthed Arcana WotC Surveys: Implementation vs. Interest

[Oofta]

You answer your own second question here. For a number of fans of psionics, what that alternate source of magic represents is appealing because it has a different set of thematics and aesthetics than fireball-slinging wizards wielding cosmic powers, pious clerics drawing upon their gods, primal druids wielding nature, and bards singing their magic.

So have a warlock or sorcerer with a different patron.

Unless you come up with an entirely different spell list/system it just becomes a different power source with slightly different fluff.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

During the TSR days they pushed out a lot of material, a lot of which was of dubious profitability or popularity.

They managed to do it in 1st, 3rd and 4th editions, as well as the unprofitable 2nd.

Yes, or course the number of players wanting to do science fantasy or other crossovers, or get rid of the generic fantasy tropes are a minority. I think the issue for WotC is "how to cater to minority interests", because every player has a minority interest of one sort or another.

Personally, I think online only content is the way to go. If you keep production costs low it doesn't matter if only 20% of the market is interested.

 

[Aldarc]

So have a warlock or sorcerer with a different patron.

I suspect if we were being intellectually honest, we could recognize that the concept of a patron is not a good thematic fit for psionics.

Unless you come up with an entirely different spell list/system it just becomes a different power source with slightly different fluff.

Why wouldn't there be a different spell list? And what's wrong with having a different power source with different fluff and spell list when that's what we have for the wizard, sorcerer, cleric (and/or paladin), druid (and/or ranger), warlock, bard, artificer, and monk? It's not as if the psion is somehow the straw that breaks the camel's back here.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I suspect if we were being intellectually honest, we could recognize that the concept of a patron is not a good thematic fit for psionics.

I suspect people who aren't well versed in science fiction tropes may not have much idea what psionics should look like.

 

[Aldarc]

I suspect people who aren't well versed in science fiction tropes may not have much idea what psionics should look like.

I'm more interested in D&D tropes.

 

[Oofta]

I suspect if we were being intellectually honest, we could recognize that the concept of a patron is not a good thematic fit for psionics.

Why wouldn't there be a different spell list? And what's wrong with having a different power source with different fluff and spell list when that's what we have for the wizard, sorcerer, cleric (and/or paladin), druid (and/or ranger), warlock, bard, artificer, and monk? It's not as if the psion is somehow the straw that breaks the camel's back here.

There are only a handful of spells that are unique to a class; yes different classes have a handful of different powers but most of the spells are shared.

But it still seems like "fluff" and "no components" is the justification.

P.S. Don't justify your opinion by demeaning mine please. "Intellectually honest" seems to be just another way of "you're too stupid to understand".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm more interested in D&D tropes.

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.

Lyta Alexander, Babylon 5. Has her powers massively boosted by her Vorlon (AKA Great Old One) patron.

 

[Oofta]

I suspect people who aren't well versed in science fiction tropes may not have much idea what psionics should look like.

I'm quite familiar with the trope. If they came up with a sci-fi game or a D20 modern, some change to the look and feel of magic users might be appropriate.

But you could easily make clerics medics with nanotech and wizards psions.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm quite familiar with the trope. If they came up with a sci-fi game or a D20 modern, some change to the look and feel of magic users might be appropriate.

But you could easily make clerics medics with nanotech and wizards psions.

Psionic characters in science fiction do not throw fireballs.

I think that illustrates the key point: Even if psionics works just the same as magic, a psion needs it's own spell list, defined as much by what is NOT on it as what is. And in 5e to have your own spell list you need to be a class.

 

[Aldarc]

There are only a handful of spells that are unique to a class; yes different classes have a handful of different powers but most of the spells are shared.

Then use the spells that are appropriate for psionics and add new spells for them that are likewise appropriate. I don't see the big deal here. As a few others have floated, you don't necessarily need a new subsystem created, when psions could use something similar to warlock pact magic, autoscaling spells that recharge on a short rest.

But it still seems like "fluff" and "no components" is the justification.

So what? Why is this a big deal when "fluff" is a big justification for all of the classes?

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.

And psionics is a fantasy trope that science fiction assimilated, but I am more interested in how it exists in D&D much as how most people prefer wizards as they are understood in the context of D&D than in the context of the wider fantasy fiction.