Do mind flayers suck? (proverbially; not just brains)

[Dalebert]

We just played an adventure with some mind flayers. On the long ride home, I got an earful of my friend's thoughts on why he hates them, and he hates them a LOT.

Now let's be clear. He hates them as a D&D concept and story; not he hates them because they're scary and eat your brains. We dispatched one fairly str8-forwardly without much complication actually (aside from the rest of that encounter being a bit insane). I'll try to summarize his basic points.

1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.
2) People like Lovecraft (I know I do) and they try to cram it into D&D.
3) They're SO alien we can't possibly understand their motivations. This foreign nature of them is a big part of their terror. But then D&D stories humanize them in order to make characters we actually can understand and relate to. (I have to admit, almost every game I'm in has some mind flayer that's humanized and works with the party in some way without eating their brains.)
4) Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy. It's this special thing that has an exemption from the normal rules. His example: A mage-slayer's AoO isn't triggered by a mind flayer's psionic attacks.

I have more to say about the discussion including his thoughts on what a good mind flayer story/adventure would be like but I'm going to pause here to see what folks think about his points to avoid wall of text information overload (too late?).

[MrStabby]

I agree with pretty much all your points.

That said i still like them because they are weird and different. THey have their own style and are so distinctive.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't know of a definition of science fiction that would put magic squids as inherently science fiction instead of fantasy...

Mind Flayers are great because they represent an evil creature that cannot be reconciled with human civilization. It has to eat us, and unlike an Anne Rice novel cannot just take a sip and walk away. For it to live we have to be cattle, reversing our normal relationship to the world.

On the humanizing issue, that sounds like you are playing them wrong and then complaining about your own usage.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree that they feel "too sci-fi". They're otherworldly, yes, but that doesn't mean they're sci-fi. They're not "little green men with ray guns" sci-fi; they're still constrained to the fantasy "medieval-ish" time-line/tech and the while psionics thing might tend to be more sci-fi than fantasy as a rule, it's not entirely outside the realm of fantasy and can be a refreshing divorce from magic, lending further credence to their "otherworldlyness".

I see them as a great addition to a plane-hopper campaign (along with the Gith). Amidst the weird and wonderful of the diverse things you'll encounter across the planes, mind flayers are something that are otherworldly even to them.

[Coffee_Dragon]

There may have been thematically coherent high fantasy D&D settings (Dragonlance?) with which the science fantasy/pulp flavour of mind flayers would be incompatible, but as far as the various PHB/DMG sets and clear majority of supplements and settings go they are in good company.

[Dalebert]

On the humanizing issue, that sounds like you are playing them wrong and then complaining about your own usage.

I didn't write the myriad adventures that depict them thusly.


I disagree that they feel "too sci-fi". They're otherworldly, yes, but that doesn't mean they're sci-fi. They're not "little green men with ray guns" sci-fi; they're still constrained to the fantasy "medieval-ish" time-line/tech and the while psionics thing might tend to be more sci-fi than fantasy as a rule, it's not entirely outside the realm of fantasy and can be a refreshing divorce from magic, lending further credence to their "otherworldlyness".


This point didn't seem huge to me personally. Their mind blast is a special monster attack like many other monster abilities that aren't spells, e.g. medusa gaze, displacer's displacement, etc. Then they do things like Dominate Monster that actually is a spell so it's not so bad.

We kind of drifted off from this subject toward psionics in general and that's where I did share some beef. The idea of players using psionics (not yet introduced in AL) does bother me. To me, it seems if you want to play a psionicist, you build a sorcerer with Subtle Spell and psionic-ish spells. If someone feels the need to add psionics as this separate thing, they're just trying to get around the normal rules and limits of magic and be an extra special snowflake.

[Beleriphon]

I think that mind flayers fall squarely into Edgar Rice Burroughs space fantasy or sword & planet genres. Which D&D certainly encompasses more so than a Star Trek like sci-fi genre, or even Star Wars seems to be.

On the note of published adventures and humanized mind flayers it is inevitable they'll be humanized. We don't really have a frame of reference outside of human experience to apply to something. That said mind flayers can be allies, they aren't obligated to be enemies only, just that it helps if they have inscrutable motives and don't interact with the characters in normal ways.

For example a mind flayer has knowledge the players need, or says it can get said information. What does the mind flayer want in exchange? Food perhaps, which could be the brain of the person that has the info the players want, it could be information about something else, magic items, a book, anything. The important thing here is that the thing the mind flayer wants is either obviously horrific and it doesn't even seem to notice, or its so mundanely normal the players can't figure out why it wants such a thing.

[Sception]

The sci-fi/fantasy complaints sound like they're coming from a player who is upset about peanut butter getting in their chocolate. I can certainly understand if they don't like the combination, even to the point of being allergic to it, but a great many players find them to be two great tastes that taste great together.

People too often 'doing it wrong' and undercutting the alien horror of aberrations by humanizing them and making them allies if not buddies, though, that's a complaint I can get behind. I agree that defeats the entire point. Which is fine if defeating the point is the point, as in some sort of parody or subversion, but that's usually not the case.

[JellyPooga]

I'd tend to agree that psionics for player characters can easily be refluffed from other Classes; Sorcerer with Subtle Spell being an obvious choice, but not the only one.

[MrFahrenheit]

I don't see why they proverbially suck...most of the original MM were creatures pulled from other works, whether Greek mythology (chimaera, medusa, hydra) or fantasy/fiction series (elves, dwarves, orcs). But not all. Beholders are an example of made-up creatures, while mind flayers are pulled from modern fiction. I'm sure someone who knows lore better than I could point out additional modern sci-fi/fiction creatures.

EDIT: and as a DM, I love em. One of the few, if not only, early-CR creatures that can outright kill a PC dropped to zero.

[Draco4472]

Well, the far-realms are pretty lovecraftian in nature, and mind flayers have some link and/or heritage to that place outside the multiverse. Reflavored, they can be fantasy, but otherwise I see them as more lovecraftian as opposed to sci-fi.

[Nifft]

1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.
2) People like Lovecraft (I know I do) and they try to cram it into D&D.
These are legit points, but they're hardly unique to Mind Flayers.

D&D has been cramming sci-fi elements into the game since the beginning -- one of the earliest modules for 1e involved exploring a crashed space ship with "iron golems" (robots) that were meant to be recognizable to the players, but very mysterious to the PCs.

Also, D&D has always been a kitchen-sink game where everything gets thrown in. Lovecraft was certainly one of those things.


3) They're SO alien we can't possibly understand their motivations. This foreign nature of them is a big part of their terror. But then D&D stories humanize them in order to make characters we actually can understand and relate to. (I have to admit, almost every game I'm in has some mind flayer that's humanized and works with the party in some way without eating their brains.)
That sounds like a tone mistake on the part of the DM.

I have never seen a "humanized" Mind Flayer, and I've never used one in any of my games.


4) Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy. It's this special thing that has an exemption from the normal rules. His example: A mage-slayer's AoO isn't triggered by a mind flayer's psionic attacks.
This is wrong. A dragon's fiery breath is also not going to trigger a mage-slayer's AoO, but not because it's special -- it's just not a spell.

There are lots of non-spell things which are magical. Mage-Slayer is a good feat, but it doesn't cover everything supernatural in the world. Your friend needs to deal with it.

[King539]

I remember using a "humanized" mid flayer in one of my games. My players made the mistake of trusting him throughout the entire campaign, which ended when the mind flayer led them to his elder brain, then proceeded to betray them and feast on their brains. :smalltongue:

I'm an LE DM.

[hymer]

I agree with the points on psionics. I can understand his point of view on the rest, but I don't subscribe to it. I've yet toactually experience a relatable mind flayer, e.g., except in a Spelljammer campaign, which is so ridiculous and contemptible anyway that nobody cared about that.

[DragonSorcererX]

I agree with the points on psionics. I can understand his point of view on the rest, but I don't subscribe to it. I've yet toactually experience a relatable mind flayer, e.g., except in a Spelljammer campaign, which is so ridiculous and contemptible anyway that nobody cared about that.

But 5e Psionics looks much more fantastical than sci-fi, they even called the Psion as Mystic, and that thing of the Orders looks really "monastic" instead of something that a "totally not wizard" would study on a "totally not magic school" that psionics were in 3.5

[hymer]

But 5e Psionics looks much more fantastical than sci-fi, they even called the Psion as Mystic, and that thing of the Orders looks really "monastic" instead of something that a "totally not wizard" would study on a "totally not magic school" that psionics were in 3.5

Too little too late. As far as I'm concerned, they'd do better to make psionics a subclass of wizard. Or even better, stop entirely mucking about with that *expletive*.

[Dr.Samurai]

1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.
I think this is more an issue of what your player's idea of the game world is. Ancient cultures had myths of people visiting from the sky or other worlds, and I don't think that's necessarily sci-fi. As someone else mentioned, they aren't running around shooting lasers or anything like that. If your player expects that medieval fantasy cannot include creatures from another world or plane, then yeah, I can see the complaint.

2) People like Lovecraft (I know I do) and they try to cram it into D&D.
Where's the try lol? They did, and I'm glad. This is just arbitrary. In other words, this isn't a reason to not like mind flayers. It seems like he's just tacking it on to add some oomph to his complaint. D&D borrows from all sorts of stories and myths and legends, etc.

3) They're SO alien we can't possibly understand their motivations. This foreign nature of them is a big part of their terror. But then D&D stories humanize them in order to make characters we actually can understand and relate to. (I have to admit, almost every game I'm in has some mind flayer that's humanized and works with the party in some way without eating their brains.)

This is unavoidable and not unique to the mind flayer. Consider any super genius immortal great evil. There's no way your DM will play it straight. We can only make an alien creature as alien as we can imagine, which is not going to be very alien. To do that, the creature's actions and motivations would be unknowable to you with no hope of understanding or figuring it out through the campaign. That could work, but some people might find that unsatisfying.

4) Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy. It's this special thing that has an exemption from the normal rules. His example: A mage-slayer's AoO isn't triggered by a mind flayer's psionic attacks.

In what way is psionics more sci-fi and less fantasy? It's all special magicky stuff. It's not like there's some attempt to ground psionics in realism, to explain how the psion just incinerated those kobolds, or teleported 30ft away. It's mysticism, which is prevalent in many cultures and isn't sci-fi. It's just a different way of affecting the world with powers.

[baticeer]

They are very sci-fi and very Lovecraftian but to many people that's a reason they're great, not a reason they suck. Also, the entire aberration creature type is like that. I understand why someone might not enjoy those kind of monsters personally, but that doesn't mean they are out of place in D&D.

As for psionics being a special thing... the fact that psionics != magic is the whole point of psionics. This is why I'm not a fan of the idea that psionics should be mechanically represented with "just play a sorcerer" or something like that. IMO, using it correctly depends a lot on context. A psion PC could feel very "special snowflake" in a typical high-fantasy world, but won't be out of place if the setting is Dark Sun. The ability of psionic powers to bypass (for example) detect magic is going to seem like "getting around the rules" unless there are other psions out there in the world who have a "detect psionics" type ability.

[SharkForce]

psionics actually fits in far better with the mythology and legends of a number of cultures than D&D's magic.

if anything is kinda weird and screwy, it's vancian magic. when was the last time you heard a story apart from D&D or jack vance where a wizard had enough magic to launch a whole bunch of minor spell effects but couldn't combine that energy to launch another big one because they'd already done it earlier today? what other fantasy literature have you ever read where the wizard says "oh, sorry, i can't cast suggestion, i dropped my snake tongue"?

magic has you throwing miniature pies at people to make them laugh, building cathode ray tubes for clairvoyance, waving a glowstick like you're at a rave for hypnotic pattern, and using a magnifying glass to burn people like a child burning ants for sunbeam, making a stink bomb from the sulfur in rotten eggs, and petrifying someone by covering them in mud and then using lime to make it quickly dry up and harden...

but sure, you just go right on ahead and tell me that psionics is too sci-fi for you.

[DragonSorcererX]

Too little too late. As far as I'm concerned, they'd do better to make psionics a subclass of wizard. Or even better, stop entirely mucking about with that *expletive*.

Oh, you are just a hater, this is something that exists since the first edition of D&D.

[Nifft]

magic has you throwing miniature pies at people to make them laugh, building cathode ray tubes for clairvoyance, waving a glowstick like you're at a rave for hypnotic pattern, and using a magnifying glass to burn people like a child burning ants for sunbeam, making a stink bomb from the sulfur in rotten eggs, and petrifying someone by covering them in mud and then using lime to make it quickly dry up and harden...

My favorite of these is that the material component for detect thoughts is a copper piece.

You literally give a penny for someone's thoughts.

D&D's magic is made of puns.

[nilshai]

1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.

Sci-fi means science fiction. Aliens are not sci-fi, unless they have fictional science. Mind Flayer have no fictional science, they use their innate powers. You simply understand sci-fi wrong.

[Dr.Samurai]

psionics actually fits in far better with the mythology and legends of a number of cultures than D&D's magic.

if anything is kinda weird and screwy, it's vancian magic. when was the last time you heard a story apart from D&D or jack vance where a wizard had enough magic to launch a whole bunch of minor spell effects but couldn't combine that energy to launch another big one because they'd already done it earlier today? what other fantasy literature have you ever read where the wizard says "oh, sorry, i can't cast suggestion, i dropped my snake tongue"?

magic has you throwing miniature pies at people to make them laugh, building cathode ray tubes for clairvoyance, waving a glowstick like you're at a rave for hypnotic pattern, and using a magnifying glass to burn people like a child burning ants for sunbeam, making a stink bomb from the sulfur in rotten eggs, and petrifying someone by covering them in mud and then using lime to make it quickly dry up and harden...

but sure, you just go right on ahead and tell me that psionics is too sci-fi for you.
QFT!

Obligatory minimum posting characters...

[Cybren]

This forums bad habit of trying to convince people that theyre wrong about subjective feelings regarding aesthetic qualities is showing

[Tvtyrant]

This forums bad habit of trying to convince people that theyre wrong about subjective feelings regarding aesthetic qualities is showing

That is basically what the internet is for, discussing subjective feelings. "I like this" really only has two responses: "Me too" "I don't."

[CrimsonConcerto]

I don't understand what the problem is.

First of all, the line between science-fiction and fantasy is blurry anyway, and sci-fi is arguably just a sub-category of fantasy. I don't see what's wrong with D&D having options for multiple different campaign genre types, from dungeon crawls to political introgue to apocalyptic to Lovecraftian horror to even science fiction.

Second, I'll gladly take Mindflayers and Aboleths and Psionics, with all of their unique lore I can use and build from, any day of the week over Goblins and Orcs and Bugbears and Hobgoblins and Ogres and Generic-Ugly-Boring-Interchangable-Antagonist-Race-#295. If that's your thing, then you're welcome to it, but let me have mine too. =)

[Dr.Samurai]

This forums bad habit of trying to convince people that theyre wrong about subjective feelings regarding aesthetic qualities is showing
He literally posted to ask us for our opinions on those "subjective feelings regarding aesthetic qualities". Are people only allowed to post opinions that are in agreement with his friend's?

[Knaight]

I don't see it. The decision to make overly humanized mind flayers does seem questionable to me (mostly because from a tone perspective that sort of thing fits much better into something like WoD than D&D, what with the whole innate terrible monster struggling to be better than their nature thing), but other than that? Psionics isn't really a science fiction thing, it crops up every so often in fantasy and while it isn't in most fantasy neither is almost everything else in D&D. It's a kitchen sink system that tends to support kitchen sink systems, and psionics fits right in there. As far as being aliens, not really? They aren't from space, they're basically a monster that consists of taking a human, replacing its head with an animal part (in this case an entire squid), then doing some merging to prevent it from literally just being a human with an animal part head. That sort of thing crops up all the time in mythology, frequently without the bit where they're even merged well. They fit alongside the various other monstrous humanoids pretty well, but they're just strange enough to get pushed out of the category. Cramming in Lovecraft is a similar deal - does it fit most fantasy settings? No. When the setting already consists of raiding greek mythology, Tolkien, Howard, Vance, Leiber, history books from pretty much the iron age through the early modern period, and a dozen other sources I'm not listing that already don't fit together well, Lovecraft just seems like par for the course.

[Tanarii]

2) People like Lovecraft (I know I do) and they try to cram it into D&D.
They were supposedly inspired by the art from a lovecraft piece, and the person that did the cramming was Gygax.

There's lots of weird stuff that has been in D&D from nearly the beginning. It's as much a part of D&D as anything else. Because that's what D&D is. A game that took the piss out of a bunch of different sources. Some clearly fantasy, and others not so much.

[Cybren]

He literally posted to ask us for our opinions on those "subjective feelings regarding aesthetic qualities". Are people only allowed to post opinions that are in agreement with his friend's?

People trying to argue with the OPs friend are free to do what they like but
1) the OPs friend isn't here (yet) and
2) you can't prove or disprove whether something feels sci fi or not to them.

I don't begrudge a discussion on that- psionics do tend to have a bit too much modernity for my tastes in fantasy, but there's a nonzero number of "let me prove why you[r friend] is wrong" going on

[nanoboy]

They were supposedly inspired by the art from a lovecraft piece, and the person that did the cramming was Gygax.


Quoted for truth. Lovecraft was one of the important influences for D&D, even if authors like Tolkien, Howard, and Vance are more important. Lovecraft (and Howard for that matter) wrote weird fiction, a genre that mashed up the then new genres of science fiction and fantasy. The aliens in Lovecraft seemed to mix science and magic, as their cultists cast spells through the strange energies that the aliens provided. You can see that influence all over D&D.

[AbyssStalker]

Got it cephlapods are off the random event menu.

Just kidding, it would probably depend on presentation as to rather it would remind me of sci-fi or not, but this is a thing that varies, if you have anything that lends heavily to one genre, people often won't be able dis-associate that as something that can be in multiple genres or atleast not be instantly reminded of the first genre, not that this is bad persay, but it does carry the risk of not being able suspend belief or enjoy whatever uses it next.

What did your friend have to say on the topic of a more interesting illithid, did he suggest anything substantial that would help make it distinguishable as fantasy material to him?

[SharkForce]

People trying to argue with the OPs friend are free to do what they like but
1) the OPs friend isn't here (yet) and
2) you can't prove or disprove whether something feels sci fi or not to them.

I don't begrudge a discussion on that- psionics do tend to have a bit too much modernity for my tastes in fantasy, but there's a nonzero number of "let me prove why you[r friend] is wrong" going on

1) maybe the OP's friend *is* here, and if or when that friend does arrive, all this stuff will in fact still be there in all likelihood. i see no reason to wait for the OP's friend to give us special permission to respond.

2) some of the OP is "X feels like _____". but some of it is not. for example, "Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy. It's this special thing that has an exemption from the normal rules. His example: A mage-slayer's AoO isn't triggered by a mind flayer's psionic attacks."

the claim is not the psionics feels sci-fi to the OP (which cannot be disproven), but rather that psionics ARE more sci-fi than fantasy. which is a silly argument for a few reasons: psionics are used in a variety of fantasy stories, psionics fit the "magic" from other cultures quite well in some cases, and vancian magic doesn't feel much like any fantasy i've heard of outside of jack vance or stuff inspired by him, and if i'm honest most D&D novels don't even feel like they're using vancian magic for the past several decades (probably because it feels like a really weird limitation for most of the writers... i mean, when was the last time you can remember a D&D novel where the cleric didn't have a healing spell that day because they thought a bless would be more handy? or a wizard who was expecting to spend a relaxing day at home didn't somehow have magic missile and fireball handy instead of the unseen servants and similar you might expect?)

and then another claim that is not a feeling: "psionics is this special thing that gets special treatment". uhh... not especially. it hasn't for the past two editions, as far as i can tell. it might be slightly different in this edition, but it doesn't seem like it's getting a huge amount of special treatment... and certainly the *specific* example is absurd, because as someone else already noted, there are tons of creatures that get to use magical abilities which are not spells without triggering mage slayer AoO, which means psionics is not really any sort of special snowflake here. it is, in fact, working in pretty much the exact same way as a variety of other abilities that generate magical effects that are already in the game, and there is absolutely nothing unusual about that specific example any more than there would be for a pit fiend's teleport or an imp's ability to become invisible.

these things can (and have been) disproved. psionics are not more sci-fi than fantasy, and they aren't some special snowflake just because they aren't spells.

hell, the mind flayers in the monster manual aren't even really psionic at all. they're purely magical. they have absolutely no psionic abilities whatsoever. we may some day get a psionic mind flayer (and for those who enjoy psionics and are sick of people telling us we're having badwrongfun because we aren't still mad about the rules for psionics from 40+ years ago or that because they personally have decided psionics are somehow more science fiction than electrocuting people with a basic experiment in static electricity turned up to 11, i hope that some day we'll get psionics rules).

[hymer]

Oh, you are just a hater, this is something that exists since the first edition of D&D.

You're saying that like it's a bad thing? Yes, I hate the particular flavour of psionics in my D&D games. I'm not telling you to start hating it, nor trying to convert you to the hating side.

[Armok]

After reading Volos, it seems more to me that somebody's been putting Ridley Scott into my fantasy than Lovecraft... in fact, thinking on it, they're basically really smart Xenomorphs with brains replacing the stomache stuff.

Which is absolutely terrifying to me, and makes me want to run a horror adventure where the party explores a long dead Illithid ruin, only to discover it's tadpoles are still alive...

[arrowed]

I must say I'm not a fan of the idea of psionics, although I've never played a game with it in, because it seems so out-of-place in relation to the rest of the world: wizards- learning and knowledge lets them cast magic. clerics- power from a divine source lets them cast magic. druids- power from nature lets them cast magic. sorcerers- an ancestral legacy lets them cast magic.
And then psionic users? Mental discipline and focus lets them use this thing that is NOT magic but is very similar.
In worlds where magic is a thing that is a pervasive part of reality and unifies the whole supernatural array of monsters, classes that do impossible things, and items that do weird stuff, psionics feels tacked-on.

[Dalebert]

My favorite of these is that the material component for detect thoughts is a copper piece.
You literally give a penny for someone's thoughts.
D&D's magic is made of puns.

I feel like they addressed this with foci that replace the puns if you don't care for them. You can have your burger the way you like it--with cheese or without.


What did your friend have to say on the topic of a more interesting illithid, did he suggest anything substantial that would help make it distinguishable as fantasy material to him?

We had a conversation about how farm animals view humans. We are no more than cattle to an illithid. They don't necessarily just attack us on sight to eat our brains. That would make them very boring. The point isn't that a mind flayer raises us to be eaten. It's that a chicken cannot fathom the motivations of a human. That makes creating a good mind flayer story challenging because you have to try to place yourself into an unfathomable alien mind, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Aim for the stars so you can hit the moon.


I must say I'm not a fan of the idea of psionics, although I've never played a game with it in, because it seems so out-of-place in relation to the rest of the world: wizards- learning and knowledge lets them cast magic. clerics- power from a divine source lets them cast magic. druids- power from nature lets them cast magic. sorcerers- an ancestral legacy lets them cast magic.
And then psionic users? Mental discipline and focus lets them use this thing that is NOT magic but is very similar.
In worlds where magic is a thing that is a pervasive part of reality and unifies the whole supernatural array of monsters, classes that do impossible things, and items that do weird stuff, psionics feels tacked-on.

This. Yes, you CAN make a completely separate category of explaining how "impossible" things happen in a low-tech world by why do that? I feel like it contradicts the 5e design choice of keeping things simple. Either psionics is rare and thus excessively special snowflakey or it's as common and widespread as magic. Either way, it's added tedium that doesn't need to be there.

"We already have several melee and a good support & healing class. I guess I'll play my wizard. We good?"

"Crap. We still don't have anyone to deal with the psionic stuff."

*headaches* *facepalm*

[Larpus]

I'm a sucker for aberrations and themes of orange and blue morality, so while I never used mind flayers in my time DMing (too predictable at my table), I have absolutely nothing against them.


1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.
2) People like Lovecraft (I know I do) and they try to cram it into D&D.

I can definitely see where he's coming from, but with the correct narrative, the exploration of an alien vessel/temple/place/thing can be chilling and effective until it dawns on everyone what is going on.

I had my DM narrate one such instance where we randomly happened upon a fallen spaceship, but he described it as a "weird metal dungeon, seemed like something made if dwarves had similar visual tastes to elves" and proceeded to narrate the whole thing very eerily and mysterious, with weird runes everywhere that no one seemed to be able to understand (though a few characters seemed familiar here and there), given that most enemies are sciency-inclined, it certainly didn't feel out of place and everyone was surprised when we saw the mind flayers and all the pieces fell into place.

More so, if your friend hasn't played, search youtube for Demon's Souls Tower of Latria (https://youtu.be/NdCXUE0AR1Y?t=2m8s), dark fantasy game and that one map has mind flayers, they're absolutely terrifying and not out of place at all, though their "alien" aspect is mostly ignored/refluffed, which might be another way to do it, remove the "alien" bit and leave it as magic/demon/ritual.


3) They're SO alien we can't possibly understand their motivations. This foreign nature of them is a big part of their terror. But then D&D stories humanize them in order to make characters we actually can understand and relate to. (I have to admit, almost every game I'm in has some mind flayer that's humanized and works with the party in some way without eating their brains.)

This I can totally see the problem.

I have never gone through this nor had the desire to do it, so I can't quite understand, but I suppose a way to do it would be the mind flayer needs some of the characters alive for some reason, but through mutual agreement doesn't eat the brains of the useless ones (it really needs the thing out of the PCs) and then, once it has what it wants....it either turns on the party or deems them too strong to be worth the risk or something.


4) Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy. It's this special thing that has an exemption from the normal rules. His example: A mage-slayer's AoO isn't triggered by a mind flayer's psionic attacks.

This I actually agree with if he means psionic PCs.

I mean, I have nothing against it when coming from a monster, especially an aberration which is supposed to be otherworldly.

But I'm not a fan of psionic characters, but that's mostly because they're almost never woven into fantasy worlds' lore, won't go in details because that's not the point here, but I'm ok with monsters doing that "unfair" stuff, it's kind of their thing and a decent way to make an encounter feel truly different if the PCs are relying too much on a single strategy.

EDIT: I ought to say that I'm only ok with monsters breaking the rules as a "one-off" thing, if the DM's making a campaign around mind flayers or the such, then yeah, psionic mechanics will need to be expanded and possibly abide by normal magic rules if one of the PCs has that as a main strategy or focus or at least warn said player, it's not fun to have a character ill suited for the campaign at hand of no fault of your own.

[Contrast]

The idea of players using psionics (not yet introduced in AL) does bother me. To me, it seems if you want to play a psionicist, you build a sorcerer with Subtle Spell and psionic-ish spells. If someone feels the need to add psionics as this separate thing, they're just trying to get around the normal rules and limits of magic and be an extra special snowflake.


This. Yes, you CAN make a completely separate category of explaining how "impossible" things happen in a low-tech world by why do that? I feel like it contradicts the 5e design choice of keeping things simple. Either psionics is rare and thus excessively special snowflakey or it's as common and widespread as magic. Either way, it's added tedium that doesn't need to be there.

"We already have several melee and a good support & healing class. I guess I'll play my wizard. We good?"

"Crap. We still don't have anyone to deal with the psionic stuff."

*headaches* *facepalm*

As someone who would be perfectly content if they never introduced psionics - could the same argument not be used for excluding all bar one other magic class from the game? Lets choose...wizards as the most iconic I guess. Then just refluff as necessary and have a nature school and a belief school and a music school etc. Wanting to play as a spellcaster is wanting to play as a special snowflake - you are literally magic. If the class plays mechanically differently then clearly there is scope to include it. Its not 'necessary' sure but thats why they didn't include it in the core books, not a reason to exclude it in the future.

I don't see what the difference is between the fluff for psionics and ki points (using your mind, honed by years of study and training, to access mystical energy and achieve impossible feats). Or indeed between psionics and wizard casting (using your mind, honed by years of study and training, to access mystical energy and achieve impossible feats).

So I don't really agree that Illithid don't fit in a fantasy setting. If anything I would say, for example, that they would feel more at home in a D&D setting than they would in a Rogue Trader game. They would probably feel even more at home in a Numenera game (mostly because the setting for that game setting is full of weird inexplicable stuff). That said, they don't fit in a certain type of fantasy. If you want to play a chivalric knight slaying a dragon to save a princess then an illithid lair is going to be a pretty extreme shift in expectations. But I would find a sphinx, slaadi, xorn, umber hulks, thri-keen, etc also aren't things you'd typically expect to encounter if you're aiming for a stereotypical King Authurian fantasy theme.

The bit where I agree is that psionics should utilise the same 'stuff' as magic. So if you're immune to Hold Person for some reason, you are immune to the psionic equivilent of Hold Person. If I cast Dispel Magic, it dispels psionic effects. Then there's no 'oh well now we need someone to cover that as well'.

[CrimsonConcerto]

How are y'all so weirded out by Psionics supposedly "not fitting traditional Western fantasy" but I don't ever hear anybody complain about Monk?

[Coffee_Dragon]

How are y'all so weirded out by Psionics supposedly "not fitting traditional Western fantasy" but I don't ever hear anybody complain about Monk?

Hey, I'll complain about the monk and the warlock and the druid if anyone will only listen.

[Zombimode]

1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.
[...]
4) Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy.

I've never understood the complains about Psionics being SienceFiction.

What kind of SienceFiction do these people refer to? Neither Asimov nor Lem talk about Psions or Mind Flayers.
I think Larry Niven has some Slaver race in his KnownSpace that reminded me of Mind Flayers, but I always though that he cribbed that off of D&D (Spelljammer) and not the other way arround.
StarTrek has some telepaths. While it is true that D&D Psionics contain Telepathy, Telepathy is all over the place in Fantasy and especially D&D. Are telepathic demons also SciFi?
Mass Effect has nothing of that sort. Biotics do not share Psionics fluff.

The only Sciencefiction universe that has actual Psions (that I know of) is Babylon5, and I considered that aspect to be fantasy.

So, what kind of SienceFiction people think of if they say Psionics are SciFi?


Edit: Also, whats up with the notion that Psionics are not magic?
What else should it be?
Sure, it is not Wizard-Magic, but neither is the Magic of Clerics or Druids or Warlocks.

[Dalebert]

I like Lovecraft in D&D myself. Hell, my last homebrew campaign was Cthulhu-monster-end-of-the-world themed and it had mind-flayers central to the plot.


As someone who would be perfectly content if they never introduced psionics - could the same argument not be used for excluding all bar one other magic class from the game? Lets choose...wizards as the most iconic I guess.

I'm not against a new class if it's called for, and I'm especially not against a new archetype to flavor a class. The breakdown is wizards represent learned magic and sorcerers represent innate magical power. Then they each have archetypes and spell selection to specialize and flavor them further. That seems like plenty to me to cover the bases.

The "special snowflakeyness" I speak of is from the splat books of psionics that mirrored magic almost perfectly but it was it's own category of energy. The only thing that really defined it as psionics was that it was arbitrarily different from magic, e.g. worked in anti-magic fields but psionics had anti-psionic fields. It was "the same cept different". Hell, you could even enchant objects with mind energy! That was just beyond absurd. It was "Even though I'm doing something I could do another way already, I want to do it special" and it essentially amounted to doing it better. You didn't have V,S,M either which was huge. It just lends itself to brokenness.


I don't see what the difference is between the fluff for psionics and ki points (using your mind, honed by years of study and training, to access mystical energy and achieve impossible feats). Or indeed between psionics and wizard casting (using your mind, honed by years of study and training, to access mystical energy and achieve impossible feats).

There's not much difference and that's the way I like it. In fact, ki is a type of magic and arguably some feats of ki would be subject to anti-magic fields. The fact that monks use ki points and sorcerers use sorcery points is no big deal. Those are just mechanics of the class--a way of applying limits to the usage of their features just like spell slots. It's just a slightly more elaborate method than saying "You can use this feature once/twice/whatever until you get a short or long rest." It's not a whole new set of rules that everyone needs to learn as a central factor of the world. I'm not arguing for extreme simplicity adn saying monks should have to have spell slots. I'm really just expressing what I think is a reasonable concern about excessive splat based on what we should have learned from previous editions' mistakes.


The bit where I agree is that psionics should utilise the same 'stuff' as magic. So if you're immune to Hold Person for some reason, you are immune to the psionic equivilent of Hold Person. If I cast Dispel Magic, it dispels psionic effects. Then there's no 'oh well now we need someone to cover that as well'.

Tend to agree here. That makes it less suspect though possibly still "splatty".

[Millstone85]

Also, whats up with the notion that Psionics are not magic?
What else should it be?
Sure, it is not Wizard-Magic, but neither is the Magic of Clerics or Druids or Warlocks.The core idea is that wizards, clerics, druids, warlocks and sorcerers are all using the same "ambient magic field", sometimes known as the Weave.

Psions aren't. That's why they ignore stuff like dead magic zones or wild magic zones, where spells wouldn't work or would go awry. It is also why psionics are usually regarded not as another type of magic, but as their own thing.

Which is an interesting idea, if the DM is willing to develop on it. In any Dark Sun campaign, for example, it is a major plot point that nearly all the magic in the world has become a pollution, making psionics the clean energy.

[Zombimode]

The core idea is that wizards, clerics, druids, warlocks and sorcerers are all using the same "ambient magic field", sometimes known as the Weave.

Is that a 5e Thing?
Because 3.5 antimagic fields block Psionics just fine.

[Millstone85]

Is that a 5e Thing?
Because 3.5 antimagic fields block Psionics just fine.Well, it will be a 5e thing if Unearthed Arcana is any indication.
Psionics and magic are two distinct forces. In general, an effect that affects a spell has no effect on a psionic effect. There is one important exception to this rule. A psionic effect that reproduces a spell is treated as magic. A psionic effect reproduces a spell when it allows a psionic creature or character to cast a spell. In this case, psionic energy taps into magic and manipulates it to cast the spell.
For example, the mind flayer as presented in the Monster Manual has the Innate Spellcasting (Psionics) feature. This feature allows the mind flayer to cast a set of spells using psionic energy. These spells can be countered with dispel magic and similar effects.Oh, but the Weave as the default magic model is already in the PHB.
All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding -- learned or intuitive -- of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power -- gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.

[Joe the Rat]

I spent 3 editions disliking the idea of psionics in D&D (Wasn't literate during the whitebox days, didn't encounter it in B/X / BECMI, and I was in Gamer Odinsleep for 4th). It was a discussion on wotc's Next boards that clarified something for me.

It's not the concept of mysterious mind powers, or even the different-from-magic implementation (though the actual implementations weren't always the best). It's the pseudoscientific trappings. It's all the badly abused greek roots and "Sciences" and "Disciplines" and the fact that they went with the preferred by sci-fi "psionics" rather than Psychic, or Mentalist (Thanks Rolemaster!), or as 5e is trying, Mystic. Telepathy, ESP, remote sensing, teleportation and telekinesis and transformation... We have incantations to create these effects, yes, but they are fantasy staples, usually without the 70's paranormal nomenclature. Less Vulcan Mind Meld (which has an awesome fantasy-style name), more staring into your soul and pulling out the details.



After reading Volos, it seems more to me that somebody's been putting Ridley Scott into my fantasy than Lovecraft... in fact, thinking on it, they're basically really smart Xenomorphs with brains replacing the stomache stuff.

Which is absolutely terrifying to me, and makes me want to run a horror adventure where the party explores a long dead Illithid ruin, only to discover it's tadpoles are still alive...They split it. Giegeresque slimy horror went to the Illithid, chest bursters went to the Slaad.

[arrowed]

Besides my bug with psionics, I'll just say I do like what I've read and heard of mind flayers. They are memorable, and like dragons and demons they represent another faction of the big overarching field of fantasy. They won't fit everywhere and just like not everyone likes a 'there is a perpetual war between good and evil going on' campaign with angels and demons using earth as a battleground, not everyone wants eldritch alien horrors.
But to address the point of 'OK, so why have wizards AND clerics AND ki?' They all have different mechanics to some degree, yes, but they all get under the umbrella of magic.
Apologies for bringing physics into this, but it kind of feels like all the magic is analogous to the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. They seem quite different, and cause different effects, but ultimately they can just about be shown to be connected by one underlying set of principles.
And then psionics is like blimmin gravity, causing all sorts of similar things but being the odd one that means we can't have a nice unified field theorem.

[djreynolds]

They crave most of all.... bear totem barbarian.

What a match that would be in the arena.... awesome fight

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not against a new class if it's called for, and I'm especially not against a new archetype to flavor a class. The breakdown is wizards represent learned magic and sorcerers represent innate magical power. Then they each have archetypes and spell selection to specialize and flavor them further. That seems like plenty to me to cover the bases.
Well... it's not plenty enough for other people. I'd love playing a sorcerer that didn't need to explain what kind of magical creature or force was mingled in his blood. I want someone that can bend reality because he can just do it, not because he is part dragon or fey or shadow or whatever. Psions can do that. Do they lock themselves away in towers and study old musty tomes? No. Do they have dragon blood that is the source of their power? No. They are the source of their own power, they just alter reality through their will. They are more wizard-y than D&D wizards and sorcerers. If you give me a choice between spell slots and spell points, I will pick the points. For me it's a no-brainer.

The "special snowflakeyness" I speak of is from the splat books of psionics that mirrored magic almost perfectly but it was it's own category of energy. The only thing that really defined it as psionics was that it was arbitrarily different from magic, e.g. worked in anti-magic fields but psionics had anti-psionic fields. It was "the same cept different". Hell, you could even enchant objects with mind energy! That was just beyond absurd.
Then use psionics/magic transparency... Problem solved.

It was "Even though I'm doing something I could do another way already, I want to do it special" and it essentially amounted to doing it better.
Vancian magic is just clunky. You keep foisting this "special snowflake" intent onto people that want to use a magic system that is intuitive and better represents magic than wizards and sorcerers.

You didn't have V,S,M either which was huge. It just lends itself to brokenness.
In most of my games, these components do not come up nearly enough to make the claim that this is huge or broken.

There's not much difference and that's the way I like it. In fact, ki is a type of magic and arguably some feats of ki would be subject to anti-magic fields. The fact that monks use ki points and sorcerers use sorcery points is no big deal. Those are just mechanics of the class--a way of applying limits to the usage of their features just like spell slots. It's just a slightly more elaborate method than saying "You can use this feature once/twice/whatever until you get a short or long rest." It's not a whole new set of rules that everyone needs to learn as a central factor of the world. I'm not arguing for extreme simplicity adn saying monks should have to have spell slots. I'm really just expressing what I think is a reasonable concern about excessive splat based on what we should have learned from previous editions' mistakes.
I just want to point out that none of this has anything to do with psionics being too science fiction. You stereotype psionics as overpowered, and serving no purpose other than to evade anti-magic measures and allow characters to be special snowflakes. So you don't like psionics because you don't like psionics. No problem. Keep the mind flayer using spell-like abilities, don't mention it's alien heritage, and try not to humanize it by keeping communication with the party limited. Play it as very smart and very deadly.

[Dalebert]

There's an elemental monk. What about mystic as a monk archetype with access to a limited scope of spells through ki? Seems like it might work. Maybe all the melee stuph is excessive though.

[EvilAnagram]

Well... it's not plenty enough for other people. I'd love playing a sorcerer that didn't need to explain what kind of magical creature or force was mingled in his blood. I want someone that can bend reality because he can just do it, not because he is part dragon or fey or shadow or whatever.

Wild magic.

[Joe the Rat]

I thought the idea of monks being "psychic-source-aligned" made good sense. Psionic energy being analogous to ki - generated by the living body/mind/soul, though the Monk may draw more from physical conditioning, while a "full caster" relies more on pure mental exercises.

Psion/Mystic as a class, Monk has a Tradition that uses these features (Way of the Inner Eye or some such).

[Knaight]

You're saying that like it's a bad thing? Yes, I hate the particular flavour of psionics in my D&D games. I'm not telling you to start hating it, nor trying to convert you to the hating side.

It's more that some of your specific reasons seem a bit weird, particularly the ones along the lines of things breaking an otherwise cohesive world. It was never cohesive in the first place, there's a bunch of stuff jammed together in a ridiculous thematic mismatch, and the only reason it works at all is that once enough stuff is jammed together the features of an incohesive kitchen sink mess suddenly becomes its own aesthetic. I'm with you on being a "hater"; psionics specifically don't draw more ire than lots of other stuff but the whole kitchen sink approach does nothing, particularly because of how much certain sources keep cropping up.

[SharkForce]

I spent 3 editions disliking the idea of psionics in D&D (Wasn't literate during the whitebox days, didn't encounter it in B/X / BECMI, and I was in Gamer Odinsleep for 4th). It was a discussion on wotc's Next boards that clarified something for me.

It's not the concept of mysterious mind powers, or even the different-from-magic implementation (though the actual implementations weren't always the best). It's the pseudoscientific trappings. It's all the badly abused greek roots and "Sciences" and "Disciplines" and the fact that they went with the preferred by sci-fi "psionics" rather than Psychic, or Mentalist (Thanks Rolemaster!), or as 5e is trying, Mystic. Telepathy, ESP, remote sensing, teleportation and telekinesis and transformation... We have incantations to create these effects, yes, but they are fantasy staples, usually without the 70's paranormal nomenclature. Less Vulcan Mind Meld (which has an awesome fantasy-style name), more staring into your soul and pulling out the details.

many of those words are also used by magic. clairvoyance/clairaudience, telepathy, ESP, teleportation, telekinesis, disintegrate, etc. you hate the references to science? boy, alchemy must really make you angry then, that's a much more blatant reference than any psionic ability. the only one I don't think magic has used from your list is remote sensing.

if these arguments could not be used to describe D&D magic just as much as D&D psionics, these complaints would have a lot more credibility. as is, it basically amounts to not having any real reason to dislike psionics that you can explain, and just picking some random arbitrary thing to blame it on.

I'm not saying you have to like psionics. you don't even really need a reason to dislike them, any more than I need a reason to not like eating coconut. but this is just silly. psionics is horrible for doing the exact same thing magic in D&D has been doing for decades? bull crap. wizards have been doing crappy pseudo-science in D&D for 5 editions now, and I'm supposed to believe that psionics having crappy pseudo-science elements is just an unbearable problem? I don't buy it.

meanwhile, some people like the flavour of psionics. not because it's broken (it hasn't been for some time, and in fact was far less broken than magic in 3.x D&D), not even because it acted differently from magic to allow abuses (I don't think 4e addressed this in any way, but 3.x spent far more time assuming that magic-psionics transparency was a thing than it ever spent with psionics is different). hell, I know people who hate 2nd edition psionics because it supposedly doesn't allow people to defend against it (note: when I looked through every psionic power I could find in 2nd edition, there were a handful of powers that don't allow a save. most of these powers were doing pretty unimpressive things, and were certainly far less impressive than the magic options that didn't allow saves which were all over the place, and even the powers that don't have a save often allow at least some defense that makes them harder to use than a similar spell).

and the fact that a large number of people *do* like psionics is more than enough reason for psionics to exist in D&D. I don't like fighters, particularly. I find them boring, I dislike their lack of options... and that doesn't mean that they need to be removed from the game. my personal disliking of fighters is irrelevant, because lots of other people do like them in their current exact form with no changes whatsoever. it doesn't matter if the idea of a vanilla fighter being the supposed equal of a powerful spellcaster is laughable to me or not. they belong in the game because they are for someone else, and this game does not revolve around what I personally want.

[Joe the Rat]

... which is the essence of why I got over it. Was that not clear?

[Dr.Samurai]

Wild magic.
Doesn't fit.

[Grytorm]

Personally, influenced by a Let's Read I read, Mind Flayers have a bit of a problem in that they are aesthetically muddled. Where each possible look could be cool but that mixing them seems awkward. Like, steampunkesque valves and gauges and leather bodysuits, tron lines and sterile smooth surfaces, biotech, or just go for oddly normal weapons and armor. I think each of those would be a cool direction to take them.

[EvilAnagram]

Doesn't fit.

It precisely fits the criteria you mentioned.

[Dalebert]

Doesn't fit.

It doesn't fit perfectly your concept, but I think the point is that a new sorcerer archetype might work fine for this. It doesn't necessarily call for a completely separate category of energy in the world.

[Dr.Samurai]

It precisely fits the criteria you mentioned.
No it doesn't.

It doesn't fit perfectly your concept, but I think the point is that a new sorcerer archetype might work fine for this. It doesn't necessarily call for a completely separate category of energy in the world.
I understand what you're saying here. I think if we move away from psionics being different from magic, we'd avoid the "new energy" thing. Divine Magic is different from Arcane Magic, but they both interact consistently with each other. I don't see why Psionic Magic can't be the same way (and in fact, the transparency rules treated them that way).

Could we get an archetype that doesn't use spell slots and isn't tied to chaotic forces of Limbo or storms or dragons or something? Sure. I'd probably play it. But I'm not averse to a psion. It's just another magic to me.

[hymer]

It's more that some of your specific reasons seem a bit weird, particularly the ones along the lines of things breaking an otherwise cohesive world.

...

What?

I may have expressed my happiness about a duality in magic (arcane/divine) in some former thread, particularly as opposed to a third non-magic kind of magic. But I don't believe I've ever said that psionics break an otherwise cohesive world. At most it screws with an otherwise fairly cohesive dualistic magical system.

My gripe about psionics is not reasonable; it's aesthetic. Yeah, sure, I grab on to any other inconveniences I can find, as they aggravate me all the more because the whole thing annoys me to start with. But the specialness (if that's a word) psionics has always been presented to me as having makes me want to get rid of it, because it annoys me. Like when an actor or character you hate shows up on your favourite show.

[EvilAnagram]

No it doesn't.


While that's a compelling and nuanced argument that showcases your rhetorical mastery, it absolutely does.

These are the criteria you mentioned:


I'd love playing a sorcerer that didn't need to explain what kind of magical creature or force was mingled in his blood. I want someone that can bend reality because he can just do it, not because he is part dragon or fey or shadow or whatever.
Let's take a look at the PHB, under the heading of Wild Magic:


...Or your magic could be a fluke of your birth, with no apparent cause or reason.
Well, that looks like someone who is just magical for no reason, who can, "bend reality because he can just do it, not because he is part dragon or fey or shadow or whatever." In fact, that is someone who can do that, so it fits your criteria.

[Dr.Samurai]

While that's a compelling and nuanced argument that showcases your rhetorical mastery, it absolutely does.
*takes a bow*

These are the criteria you mentioned:


Let's take a look at the PHB, under the heading of Wild Magic:


Well, that looks like someone who is just magical for no reason, who can, "bend reality because he can just do it, not because he is part dragon or fey or shadow or whatever." In fact, that is someone who can do that, so it fits your criteria.
Yeah, it still comes with all of the chaos/luck/chance baggage. And you can bend reality like the wizard, except you can't control it and crazy stuff happens when you do. And spell slots.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, it still comes with all of the chaos/luck/chance baggage. And you can bend reality like the wizard, except you can't control it and crazy stuff happens when you do. And spell slots.

And none of that was explicitly forbidden by your criteria.

[Dr.Samurai]

And none of that was explicitly forbidden by your criteria.
I didn't forbid anything. I didn't say "I bet you can't find me a thing that satisfies all of these things!" I'm explaining why I and other people might like the psion over the wizard and sorcerer. I specifically mentioned sources of power, spell slots, and a system that is more intuitive and feels more "wizard-y" than the wizard or sorcerer.

If you want points for pointing out that the wild magic sorcerer has a line of text indicating his power might just be his own without an external source, no problem. I award you fifty bajillion points.

You know what... make it one hundred bajillion points :smallcool:.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm just saying that the flavor you seem to be asking for is already present in the game. I can't help you if you dislike the basic ways in which magic functions in 5e, nor can I suggest ways to feel more "wizardy" beyond casting powerful spells that help you to control the battlefield, but I can say complaining that specific fluff isn't ppresent when it is seems silly.

[Knaight]

I'm just saying that the flavor you seem to be asking for is already present in the game. I can't help you if you dislike the basic ways in which magic functions in 5e, nor can I suggest ways to feel more "wizardy" beyond casting powerful spells that help you to control the battlefield, but I can say complaining that specific fluff isn't ppresent when it is seems silly.

It's not the same flavor at all. One of the two is along the lines of "by sheer luck you chanced into supernatural power", the other is "you have trained your mental focus such that you can rewrite reality with your mind". These are distinct concepts, and it's entirely reasonable to like one but not the other. Some specific reasons to like one but not the other seem odd, such as labeling the second one as sci-fi*

*Although this oddity in my case is at least partially because I'm a hard-liner in what qualifies as sci-fi and will boot something into fantasy the moment psionics shows up. Even without that line though, where only other definitions are used I see lot more of psionics in fantasy than science fiction.

[EvilAnagram]

It's not the same flavor at all. One of the two is along the lines of "by sheer luck you chanced into supernatural power", the other is "you have trained your mental focus such that you can rewrite reality with your mind". These are distinct concepts, and it's entirely reasonable to like one but not the other. Some specific reasons to like one but not the other seem odd, such as labeling the second one as sci-fi

He wasn't asking for that. He was specifically asking for a caster who can just do magic (and also possesses indistinct qualities that can't quite be described but are nonetheless of absolute import).

[Knaight]

He wasn't asking for that. He was specifically asking for a caster who can just do magic (and also possesses indistinct qualities that can't quite be described but are nonetheless of absolute import).

Yes, then some of the particulars were clarified.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm just saying that the flavor you seem to be asking for is already present in the game.
Right, and I'm telling you it isn't. There's more to it than what I posted. Had I known you were going to hop in and make an issue out of this, I would have tried to be more exhaustive.

I can't help you if you dislike the basic ways in which magic functions in 5e, nor can I suggest ways to feel more "wizardy" beyond casting powerful spells that help you to control the battlefield
I know you can't. I'm not asking you to fulfill my wants and desires. I'm telling you that some people prefer power/spell points over vancian spell slots because it feels more like real magic from fantasy. Some people want to manipulate magic because they trained to do so, not because their blood is special. The psion, if you recall in 3.5 and 4th, was intelligence based, not charisma based.

If we were to try and break down what I want specifically (as opposed to simply making a case for psionics), it'd be an intelligence based caster that uses power points (or spell points) and is a generalist (meaning not focused on one gimmick or another). The rest of the fluff I can manage on my own.

but I can say complaining that specific fluff isn't ppresent when it is seems silly.
Yeah sure. In taking that one sentence out of my post, you have demonstrated that. I award you eleventeen internets in addition to the four thousand bajillion points I awarded you earlier.

[Vogonjeltz]

I have more to say about the discussion including his thoughts on what a good mind flayer story/adventure would be like but I'm going to pause here to see what folks think about his points to avoid wall of text information overload (too late?).

Your friend can relax, most sci-fi is just fantasy in space (as opposed to actually being about fictional science).

That being said, your friend should check out Volo's Guide, it has a great rundown on Mindflayers psychology and why they act the way they do.


On the humanizing issue, that sounds like you are playing them wrong and then complaining about your own usage.

Volo's describes the ones that go out on their own, leaving the hive mind.


I've never understood the complains about Psionics being SienceFiction.

Well, for one thing, it's not science fiction. There's no science. That's literally what science fiction requires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

"historically science fiction stories were intended to have at least a faint grounding in science-based fact or theory at the time the story was created,"

Psionics has no basis in science fact.

[Millstone85]

In addition to "humans as farm animals" and "unfathomable alien minds", a theme to explore is how illithids are themselves food for the Elder Brain of the colony, how they see it as becoming one with a greater being, and how they might similarly regard their consumption of human brains as welcoming lesser consciousnesses into their own.

To humanize an illithid in a way that makes them more creepy, you can have them assume the personality of one of their victims, and then of another, and another, saying things like "We are together now. You should join us". Never have them talk as themself, or rather the whole of themself, because that's beyond the adventurers' understanding.

And then yes, of course, there's the illithid who breaks from this worldview and tries to escape the colony and the Elder Brain through lichdom.

[Deleted]

We just played an adventure with some mind flayers. On the long ride home, I got an earful of my friend's thoughts on why he hates them, and he hates them a LOT.

Now let's be clear. He hates them as a D&D concept and story; not he hates them because they're scary and eat your brains. We dispatched one fairly str8-forwardly without much complication actually (aside from the rest of that encounter being a bit insane). I'll try to summarize his basic points.

1) They feel sci-fi as opposed to fantasy. They're aliens.
2) People like Lovecraft (I know I do) and they try to cram it into D&D.
3) They're SO alien we can't possibly understand their motivations. This foreign nature of them is a big part of their terror. But then D&D stories humanize them in order to make characters we actually can understand and relate to. (I have to admit, almost every game I'm in has some mind flayer that's humanized and works with the party in some way without eating their brains.)
4) Psionics in general are more sci-fi than fantasy. It's this special thing that has an exemption from the normal rules. His example: A mage-slayer's AoO isn't triggered by a mind flayer's psionic attacks.

I have more to say about the discussion including his thoughts on what a good mind flayer story/adventure would be like but I'm going to pause here to see what folks think about his points to avoid wall of text information overload (too late?).

Some random responses to your points...

1: Scify is fantasy. There is no difference. Spelljammer.
2: I hate lovecraft (well, find it to be over rated) but love Mindflayers.
3: Many things are schemers in D&D and yet used as brutes
4: Scify and fantasy are the same thing. Spelljammer... Star Ocean Till The End of Time.

The idea that science fiction isn't fantasy or can't stick with the middle earth type fantasy is quite silly to me. Someone or something from a spaceship went down to the D&D world is like if someone from the U.S.A went to a 3rd world country. They are from totally different backgrounds but they are rooted in the same reality.

If I took my cellphone to some places of the world, I would be called a witch.

[CrimsonConcerto]

Are the people who think psionics are sci-fi the same people that think Star Wars is sci-fi?

[DracoKnight]

Are the people who think psionics are sci-fi the same people that think Star Wars is sci-fi?

Star Wars is science fantasy, not science fiction. There is actually a difference :smalltongue:

EDIT: I misunderstood what you were saying, but my point still stands.