Complaints against Psionics

[Vaz]

So, a lot of comments say that Psionics are broken. Prove it.

[Mortis_Elrod]

So, a lot of comments say that Psionics are broken. Prove it.

Do you mean the current Mystic ? Or the idea of psionics in general?

[Kobard]

So, a lot of comments say that Psionics are broken. Prove it.You will need to be more specific here about whether you mean in past editions or pertaining to the current iteration of the UA Mystic. Psionics was broken in past editions, but it was also balanced in the revised 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook (and further balanced in brilliant work by Dreamscarred Press) and in 4E.

[Mortis_Elrod]

You will need to be more specific here about whether you mean in past editions or pertaining to the current iteration of the UA Mystic. Psionics was broken in past editions, but it was also balanced in the revised 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook (and further balanced in brilliant work by Dreamscarred Press) and in 4E.

I mean I wouldn’t say psionics was balanced in 3.5. That edition was all over the place. 4E I would agree though.
5e? I think it’s not OP it’s just so different than anything else that it appears that way. It’s definetly bordering it though. Needs more work but not a lot, and it also needs it’s own session 0 just to make sure everyone knows how it all works and understands the limits.

[Unoriginal]

I've never played the Mystic or seen it played, but I've heard you could burn through your all your ressources to do the equivalent of casting 3 fireballs in one turn, before lvl 10. I might not remember correctly, though.

[Vaz]

I'm in a 5e forum, not 4e, 3.5, or pathfinder. Kind of obvious I'm talking about 5e Psionics, and unless there is another bit of first party content that has Psionics outside of the Mystic, yes I'm talking about the mystic.

No more information is necessary, because I'm creating a thread where those who have a complaint with Psionics can go and post it down, as I've seen a growing trend in people saying Mystic is OP, but not providing evidence or examples.

I don't think it is, so for those who feel it is, here is ghe thread to discuss where Psionics were broken.

(Also, 3.5 Psionics were no less broken than casting, which means that if you were playing with Full Spellcasters, then Psionics was on the same level, and a combination of crap DM and crappier players allowed it to go ahead).

[ZorroGames]

Don’t waffle, tell how you really feel. :smallwink:

Seriously, one experience in AD&D and I declared it a non-thing at my table. It has been broken since day one and “fixed” or not it never will be at my table. The Horror, the horror!

[bc56]

Don’t waffle, tell how you really feel. :smallwink:

Seriously, one experience in AD&D and I declared it a non-thing at my table. It has been broken since day one and “fixed” or not it never will be at my table. The Horror, the horror!

Yeah, in my mind psionics belongs in the Far Realm and nowhere else. Whether or not it's mechanically balanced, it just doesn't fit in the theme of a fantasy game with knights, dragons, and wizards. Aberrations are supposed to be unnatural, so I am fine with them having it, but no one else should.

[Unoriginal]

I don't se what's weirder in a Psion having telepathy or telekinesis than in a Wizard or a dragon casting a spell that grants telepathy or telekinesis

[Gardakan]

Psionic aren't broken. The game is definitely far from being broken by any combination I saw at any table. The T-Rex with haste still remains to bestow in Tier 2.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I don’t see where Psionics is disconnected from fantasy. It’s just another brand of magic.

But idk maybe I’m the odd one out. I once offered a friend a spot in an campaign and when I said I might include very early guns (flintlock, matchlock) he was out of it. Couldn’t play D&D with guns, like it broke his personal code.

Maybe psionics is the same way with people?

[Gardakan]

I don’t see where Psionics is disconnected from fantasy. It’s just another brand of magic.

But idk maybe I’m the odd one out. I once offered a friend a spot in an campaign and when I said I might include very early guns (flintlock, matchlock) he was out of it. Couldn’t play D&D with guns, like it broke his personal code.

Maybe psionics is the same way with people?

They are a variation of Sorcerer after all. Innate abilities that some trained, while Sorcerer remains ''untrained'' in the sense that it flows through them (thus allowing them to cheat out the system sort of).

Psionics have flexibility within their way of spending the amount of manifestation powers they have in their pool.

[Kobard]

I mean I wouldn’t say psionics was balanced in 3.5. That edition was all over the place. 4E I would agree though.
5e? I think it’s not OP it’s just so different than anything else that it appears that way. It’s definetly bordering it though. Needs more work but not a lot, and it also needs it’s own session 0 just to make sure everyone knows how it all works and understands the limits.3.5E was all over the place, but the most powerful XPH psionic class, the Psion, was only Tier 2 in the 3.X power rankings, with the other classes being below Tier 2. I would call that comparatively more balanced than the PHB itself.

[Mortis_Elrod]

They are a variation of Sorcerer after all. Innate abilities that some trained, while Sorcerer remains ''untrained'' in the sense that it flows through them (thus allowing them to cheat out the system sort of).

Psionics have flexibility within their way of spending the amount of manifestation powers they have in their pool.

I agree completely.

However I will say that I think it be better received if the flexibility was spread out among more than once class.

If I were to redo the Mystic version 3 is have one Mystic class with maybe 2-3 subclasses being Wu-Jen, Psion, Avatar, and a Fighter subclass, a rogue subclass, and maybe a monk subclass.

Not to say that the Mystic is wrong, but I think one of the complaints is that it’s all bundled into one class as a generalist, when 5e has a lot more focused classes.

5e is already pretty rigid in my eyes so I think having something as flexible as the Mystic is very strong. Which many find overwhelmingly strong.

[Hrugner]

3rd level access to wall of wood seems a bit too potent.
The nomadic mind ability to be proficient in every skill would be a little unsettling to tables that use skills often.
Scrying with no save at first level through Find Creature is a bit much.
Psionic blast's damage with no save or to hit roll required is a bit weird for the game.



It's things like that. Mystic appears to have been developed without touching back to the core game. I'm sure there are others as well.

[Mortis_Elrod]

3rd level access to wall of wood seems a bit too potent.
The nomadic mind ability to be proficient in every skill would be a little unsettling to tables that use skills often.
Scrying with no save at first level through Find Creature is a bit much.
Psionic blast's damage with no save or to hit roll required is a bit weird for the game.



It's things like that. Mystic appears to have been developed without touching back to the core game. I'm sure there are others as well.
I think those are very minor problems. The Disciplines themselves need some rewording but there’s not many things about the class itself that needs fixing. This is like blaming Wizards for having access to certain spells . The spells are the issue.

But anyway,

1. Might be an issue for some. I think the walls stats need to to be toned down and it be fine. Conversely changing all the walls psi point cost by 1 would solve the issue.

2. Only an issue If someone else wanted to be good at certain skill in which case nomad is just going to cover other areas. This is fixed by teamwork and at not like getting free expertise or jack of all trades. Non issue here.

3. Scying in general is I think the issue. Or rather if a DM can handle a scrying in a campaign. I feel like this is also a non issue for the purpose of the Mystic but sure a save can be added wouldn’t change much I think.

4. I will agree that free damage is very weird. Though recently we got a Spore Druid who can use reaction for free damage, not nearly as much though. I think they are toying with this idea.

[Kobard]

If I were to redo the Mystic version 3 is have one Mystic class with maybe 2-3 subclasses being Wu-Jen, Psion, Avatar, and a Fighter subclass, a rogue subclass, and maybe a monk subclass.IMHO, the soulknife should be a monk subclass. The monk has what most people envision from the monk anyway. The subclass could just provide the monk with chi-powered psiblade that expands the monk's base package.

[Mortis_Elrod]

IMHO, the soulknife should be a monk subclass. The monk has what most people envision from the monk anyway. The subclass could just provide the monk with chi-powered psiblade that expands the monk's base package.

Yeah I would agree. That’s my monk subclass. Rogue would be based on the Lurk, and fighter would be Psychic Warrior.

[Kobard]

Yeah I would agree. That’s my monk subclass. Rogue would be based on the Lurk, and fighter would be Psychic Warrior.I know that you got my point, but also I want to clarfiy that I had a mental slipup: "The monk has what most people envision from the soulknife anyway." That said, I would prefer the Dreamscarred Press Cryptic as a model for the Rogue subclass. I think that the Cryptic did a better job of representing a more unique take on a psionic rogue class than the Lurk. But agree on the psionic warrior.

[DivisibleByZero]

Psionics were wonky and broken in AD&D.
Psionics were misunderstood in 3e. It was balanced well, if a bit on the higher end, but were not understood by most and therefore called "broken" by much of the masses.
Psionics were balanced in 4e, but everything was cookie cutter in 4e so that's no surprise.
Psionics in 5e are still a work in progress.

[Naanomi]

But idk maybe I’m the odd one out. I once offered a friend a spot in an campaign and when I said I might include very early guns (flintlock, matchlock) he was out of it. Couldn’t play D&D with guns, like it broke his personal code.

Maybe psionics is the same way with people?
Some people still feel that way about monks and the ‘eastern’ stuff in their ‘western’ fantasy

Psionics is the best example of ‘a different kind of magic’ in DnD... if I want a weird cabal of people doing things in ways no one understands, Psionics is among my goto explanations behind the scenes. My love of Darksun may bias me in this though.

Mechanically, like a lot of UA material, the mystic is frontloaded and some of the abilities are mechanically offputing in various ways... but nothing ‘broken’ really

[DivisibleByZero]

Spell Point Variant from the DMG:
Class Lvl | Spell Points | Max Spell Lvl
--- 1st --------- 4 ------------ 1st (2pts)
--- 2nd -------- 6 ------------ 1st
--- 3rd -------- 14 ------------ 2nd (3pts)
--- 4th -------- 17 ------------ 2nd
--- 5th -------- 27 ------------ 3rd (5pts)
--- 6th -------- 32 ------------ 3rd
--- 7th -------- 38 ------------ 4th (6pts)
--- 8th -------- 44 ------------ 4th
--- 9th -------- 57 ------------ 5th (7pts)
--- l0th -------- 64 ------------ 5th

You'll notice that this is the exact same progression for the UA Mystic. Up to and including level 10, the Mystic has the exact same "spellcasting power" as any other spellcaster that would potentially be using the Spell Point Variant in the DMG.
Under that Spell Point Variant, you can create as many slots as you want for spell levels 1-5, but you can only create a single spell slot of level 6-9, and regain the ability to create each of those higher level slots only upon taking a long rest.
The Mystic handles these higher levels differently, but mathermatically it amounts to the same overall "spell power" being granted.
A normal spellcaster gets to cherry pick the spells he wants to take, whereas the Mystic basically chooses "spell groups" instead.
What this means is that overall, their power levels are fairly equivalent.
The Mystic loses a bit in spell selection, but he gains in versatility, passive abilities, and multi-effect concentration abilities.

Some of the individual Disciplines are a bit imbalanced and/or wonky, but the overall balance of the chassis is exactly in line with other full spellcasters.

[dejarnjc]

In combat, mystics are mostly fine outside multi-classing and some disciplines that need to be re-balanced / re-worded. Perpetual darkness, the aforementioned wall of wood, and AC stacking are the biggest offenders. Generally speaking though, the class balance is fine and probably a little under-powered compared to say a Druid, Cleric, or Wizard.


Out of combat, potentially OP. The fact that mystics don't give any tell when they're "casting" creates tons of potentially abusable situations although this is definitely campaign/DM specific.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I know that you got my point, but also I want to clarfiy that I had a mental slipup: "The monk has what most people envision from the soulknife anyway." That said, I would prefer the Dreamscarred Press Cryptic as a model for the Rogue subclass. I think that the Cryptic did a better job of representing a more unique take on a psionic rogue class than the Lurk. But agree on the psionic warrior.

I’ll have to look up that Cryptic class, sounds interesting. I do remember the Lurk being lackluster in 3.5 and probably not a lot going for it in terms of flavor.

[Millstone85]

I don’t see where Psionics is disconnected from fantasy. It’s just another brand of magic.Amusingly, to explain the difference between classic D&D-style magic and psionics, I would use two space operas.

Magic is what gives a wizard his power. It's an energy field that surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the multiverse together.

Or it is the untapped potential of humanoids that can be brought to the surface through the meditation techniques of strange new civilizations.

And yes, I know Star Wars is more often regarded as fantasy than Star Trek.


Some people still feel that way about monks and the ‘eastern’ stuff in their ‘western’ fantasyStill hoping for ki points to be usable as psi points and vice versa.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I wouldn't call it necessarily overpowered, but it's real rough. There are a lot of individual power effects that are wonky or not quite correctly leveled, but the package nature of the powers mitigates that somewhat. Probably needs some GM oversight to use at the moment.

I'd say it's about one more substantial draft away from being done. Besides a lot of the powers needing a little polishing, and high-level powers needing to be invented, it needs to be split into at least two classes, and probably more like three (a psychic with Awakened/Avatar stuff, a gish with Immortal/Nomad stuff, and the Wu Jen as an Avatar: The Last Airbender type class). And I think Psychic Focuses (the more interesting mechanic) need to eat Talents so you only have one set of at-will stuff to deal with.

[robbie374]

Psionics is basically magic reflavored. One thing I dislike is how magic requires spell components and managing free hands, whereas psionics gets to do the same things with no limitations. Also, just as magic is included throughout the game, scattered among all the classes and races, so psionics should be. Either everything should have an interaction with psionics, or psionics should be officially magic and spells that are done differently.

[ZorroGames]

Psionics were wonky and broken in AD&D.
<snip>
Psionics in 5e are still a work in progress.

Indeed. When a Psionic combat began all the other players would use the bathroom or refresh snacks/beverages while Psionic character and Psionic monster/NPC finished 10 rounds of Psionic combat before anyone else acted.

Only a slight exaggeration.

Shownme the AL version and we can talk.

Until then... pass.

[Squiddish]

Short version, not quite distinct enough from magic but still can't be countered in the ways magic can or indeed at all.

I do not have nearly enough time to write out the long version right now.

[Vaz]

Short version, not quite distinct enough from magic but still can't be countered in the ways magic can or indeed at all.

I do not have nearly enough time to write out the long version right now.

Such as? Being indistinct from magic is either a benefit or complaint from where you stand. Some think it as too different, others think it as too similar. What the ****?

It is differwnt, but mechanically similar. X person spends Y1 resource and gets Z effect. Functionally, exactly the same as X person spending X2 resource and getting Z effect.

It can be counterspelled or dispelled for the most part. So what are you whinging about? The inability to counterspell Extra Attack or Smites?

Not gonna lie, most arguments against Mystic (aside from some pp costs) are absolute grubs.

[LeonBH]

Such as? Being indistinct from magic is either a benefit or complaint from where you stand. Some think it as too different, others think it as too similar. What the ****?

It is differwnt, but mechanically similar. X person spends Y1 resource and gets Z effect. Functionally, exactly the same as X person spending X2 resource and getting Z effect.

It can be counterspelled or dispelled for the most part. So what are you whinging about? The inability to counterspell Extra Attack or Smites?

Not gonna lie, most arguments against Mystic (aside from some pp costs) are absolute grubs.

I really don't care about Mystics one way or the other, but why don't you make an argument about why they're good?

And no, you can't Counterspell a psionic effect (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/841452880338939904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2017%2F0 3%2F14%2Fso-now-counterspell-wouldnt-work-against-a-psionic-effect-but-antimagic-field-would-work%2F) because it has no spellcasting components.

[Dudewithknives]

The issues are 3 fold:

1. The class is horrendously imbalanced with itself. Some subclasses are amazing while others are garbage, but everyone can pick any paths or talents. Nobody is going to look at psyknife, and think it is just as good as avatar or wujin.

2. Psychic Assault is crazy.

Their first ability is just spend points do d8s damage, no save, no to hit, just plain take damage depending on how many points they can spend. With the focus from the same path it adds +2 on top.

Ego Whip - 3 psy points and you just straight up shut someone down, even if they make the check.

3. Most of their abilities are based on int saves if they get saves at all. Most classes have most abilities based on common saves and get only 2 or 3 based on the uncommon saves.


Bonus: can't counterspell them either.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The issues are 3 fold:

1. The class is horrendously imbalanced with itself. Some subclasses are amazing while others are garbage, but everyone can pick any paths or talents. Nobody is going to look at psyknife, and think it is just as good as avatar or wujin.

2. Psychic Assault is crazy.

Their first ability is just spend points do d8s damage, no save, no to hit, just plain take damage depending on how many points they can spend. With the focus from the same path it adds +2 on top.

Ego Whip - 3 psy points and you just straight up shut someone down, even if they make the check.

3. Most of their abilities are based on int saves if they get saves at all. Most classes have most abilities based on common saves and get only 2 or 3 based on the uncommon saves.


Bonus: can't counterspell them either.

ok so again this is a discipline problem not a problem with a class itself, rhe disciplines need to be tweaked but there's plenty of options that don't and are also good. And While yes you can't counterspell psionics You can still detect it . Its all still magic. So you can't use one spell on it? therefore broken? i dont think so. How often are people running in to counterspells anyway? Its maybe come up once in my experience, and that was before 5th edition.

As far as your first point goes, having played multiple soul knives as is, I've not had problems of feeling behind or anything of the sort. Most of the time I'm dealing the most damage.

Most classes have a few subclasses that are stronger than the others or weaker than the rest. This does not break the class.

[LeonBH]

ok so again this is a discipline problem not a problem with a class itself, rhe disciplines need to be tweaked but there's plenty of options that don't and are also good. And While yes you can't counterspell psionics You can still detect it . Its all still magic. So you can't use one spell on it? therefore broken? i dont think so. How often are people running in to counterspells anyway? Its maybe come up once in my experience, and that was before 5th edition.

As far as your first point goes, having played multiple soul knives as is, I've not had problems of feeling behind or anything of the sort. Most of the time I'm dealing the most damage.

Most classes have a few subclasses that are stronger than the others or weaker than the rest. This does not break the class.

Semantics. The question is, is Psionics broken, not the Disciplines or the class. Psionics as a whole.

[Dudewithknives]

Semantics. The question is, is Psionics broken, not the Disciplines or the class. Psionics as a whole.

It is not semantics, every type of psyionicist can take whatever discipline they want so certain ones being broken as hell is a problem with the class.

Also the concept of them not being able to be counterspelled means that at level 3 and up, Ego Whip 8s spend 3 points make the big bad useless, ignore resistance, ignore legendary save, ignore immunities, ignore everything, just make the enemy useless.

The class could be tweaked and it would be fine.

[LeonBH]

It is not semantics, every type of psyionicist can take whatever discipline they want so certain ones being broken as hell is a problem with the class.

Also the concept of them not being able to be counterspelled means that at level 3 and up, Ego Whip 8s spend 3 points make the big bad useless, ignore resistance, ignore legendary save, ignore immunities, ignore everything, just make the enemy useless.

The class could be tweaked and it would be fine.

I meant that the distinction between "the class is broken" and "the Discipline is broken" is semantics, because it's just two ways of giving the same answer to the question.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I meant that the distinction between "the class is broken" and "the Discipline is broken" is semantics, because it's just two ways of giving the same answer to the question.

thats like saying wizards are broken if a few spells are broken.

Class itself aside from the disciplines is fine with a few exceptions (reword psionic mastery for god's sake)

Also thats now how ego whip works, at all. Doesn't bypass any of those.

[LeonBH]

thats like saying wizards are broken if a few spells are broken.

Class itself aside from the disciplines is fine with a few exceptions (reword psionic mastery for god's sake)

Also thats now how ego whip works, at all. Doesn't bypass any of those.

No, it's like saying "magic is broken" - because it is. Wish, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, Glibness, and Mirage Arcana can break your game. Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard still exists in this edition - and that's a bad thing.

TBH, I don't have any strong feelings for or against the Mystic class. But I personally think, as far as UA goes, it's too complex up front and I'd rather not play it, or not DM for someone who wants to play it. There's too much room for unanticipated cheese, either because of the RAW, or because the DM or player hasn't mastered the class and thus one or both interprets it in a way that buffs it. The easiest approach is to not touch it until it becomes more streamlined.

[Mortis_Elrod]

No, it's like saying "magic is broken" - because it is. Wish, Simulacrum, True Polymorph, Glibness, and Mirage Arcana can break your game. Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard still exists in this edition - and that's a bad thing.

TBH, I don't have any strong feelings for or against the Mystic class. But I personally think, as far as UA goes, it's too complex up front and I'd rather not play it, or not DM for someone who wants to play it. There's too much room for unanticipated cheese, either because of the RAW, or because the DM or player hasn't mastered the class and thus one or both interprets it in a way that buffs it. The easiest approach is to not touch it until it becomes more streamlined.

I'll agree on that. It's definitely easier not to touch it.

[Dudewithknives]

thats like saying wizards are broken if a few spells are broken.

Class itself aside from the disciplines is fine with a few exceptions (reword psionic mastery for god's sake)

Also thats now how ego whip works, at all. Doesn't bypass any of those.

Yes it does, ego whip is save for half damage, it does not say, "and you do not take the other effects", like Dissonant Whispers or other spells, only the damage is cut in half.

It is not a stun, hold, paralysis or any other condition in the game, so no immunities get it.

It does not matter if you make the save or not, so legendary save does not matter.

The taking damage is not a requirement of the loss of offensive actions, so immunity does not matter.

You can't even counterspell it because you are not casting a spell.

If a person with ego whip wants to shut down the offense of your big bad, they just get within 60 feet and spend 3 psi points.

Could it have been a typo the fact that is does not say that the loss of action is ignored if you make the save, sure. As it is written though it isn't.

[Finlam]

I'll throw my hat in the arena and just say:

Psionic Focus needs to be changed or moved to at least 3rd level.

The focus abilities are mostly very situational, but very good. If psionics was released today, in its current form, nearly every optimized build would have at least 1 psionic (Mystic) level just for the focus alone. The Mystic 1 would be the new Warlock 2.

This mean a lot of DMs who may or may not like psionics will now have entire parties where everyone is somewhat psionic for poorly explained reasons. A lot of DMs don't care for psionics and this will create tension at tables.

Psionics are broken at the moment and, if released in their current form, would actually harm the game.

That said, I agree with Grod: they are one more major revision (and some minor tweaks) from being release ready. I'm opti-mystic that the devs will get it to where it needs to be before release.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Yes it does, ego whip is save for half damage, it does not say, "and you do not take the other effects", like Dissonant Whispers or other spells, only the damage is cut in half.

It is not a stun, hold, paralysis or any other condition in the game, so no immunities get it.

It does not matter if you make the save or not, so legendary save does not matter.

The taking damage is not a requirement of the loss of offensive actions, so immunity does not matter.

You can't even counterspell it because you are not casting a spell.

If a person with ego whip wants to shut down the offense of your big bad, they just get within 60 feet and spend 3 psi points.

Could it have been a typo the fact that is does not say that the loss of action is ignored if you make the save, sure. As it is written though it isn't.

You only suffer the effect if you fail the save.


On a failed save, the creature takes 3d8 psychic
damage, and it is filled with self-doubt, leaving it
able to use its action on its next turn only to take
the Dodge, Disengage, or Hide action


On a successful saving throw, it takes half as much damage.

It clearly says what happens on a failed save and a successful save.

And if thats not clear, look at frostbite, or enervation, or earth tremor. OR you can just read the effect, since as jeremy crawford has said, every spell is its own rule. An effect like this doesn't have to say if you succeed you dont fail. It says exactly what happens on each scenario.

[LeonBH]

What build of Mystic/Sorcerer would enable an Ego Whip/Quickened Slow to burn through Legendary Resistance in two turns?

[Zalabim]

They are a variation of Sorcerer after all. Innate abilities that some trained, while Sorcerer remains ''untrained'' in the sense that it flows through them (thus allowing them to cheat out the system sort of).
I just wanted to say that Sorcerers do train, they just don't train like wizards. They (probably) train more like fighters, and especially barbarians, since magic is a part of their body.

I agree completely.

However I will say that I think it be better received if the flexibility was spread out among more than once class.

If I were to redo the Mystic version 3 is have one Mystic class with maybe 2-3 subclasses being Wu-Jen, Psion, Avatar, and a Fighter subclass, a rogue subclass, and maybe a monk subclass.

Not to say that the Mystic is wrong, but I think one of the complaints is that it’s all bundled into one class as a generalist, when 5e has a lot more focused classes.

5e is already pretty rigid in my eyes so I think having something as flexible as the Mystic is very strong. Which many find overwhelmingly strong.
The mystic as it's been offered is very cleric-like in its format. I know I've heard that the wizard should be split up into separate classes, but I haven't heard the same said about clerics nearly so much.


3rd level access to wall of wood seems a bit too potent.
The nomadic mind ability to be proficient in every skill would be a little unsettling to tables that use skills often.
Scrying with no save at first level through Find Creature is a bit much.
Psionic blast's damage with no save or to hit roll required is a bit weird for the game.



It's things like that. Mystic appears to have been developed without touching back to the core game. I'm sure there are others as well.

Wall of wood does seem to have a lot of HP. It'd be easy to climb over when space permits though, so it's kinda like Plant Growth.
Nomadic Mind is fine. It's not proficiency in every skill, and even always having proficiency in every skill wouldn't overshadow anyone who was focused on that skill unless the Mystic also had a better attribute there.
Find Creature isn't scrying. It's accurate to within no better than 1 square mile, and up to 9 square miles. You also only learn where the creature is (and I hope the place has a descriptive name), not where that place is in relation to you.
Psionic Blast is a worse Magic Missile. Psychic Blast is actually scary.


I wouldn't call it necessarily overpowered, but it's real rough. There are a lot of individual power effects that are wonky or not quite correctly leveled, but the package nature of the powers mitigates that somewhat. Probably needs some GM oversight to use at the moment.

I'd say it's about one more substantial draft away from being done. Besides a lot of the powers needing a little polishing, and high-level powers needing to be invented, it needs to be split into at least two classes, and probably more like three (a psychic with Awakened/Avatar stuff, a gish with Immortal/Nomad stuff, and the Wu Jen as an Avatar: The Last Airbender type class). And I think Psychic Focuses (the more interesting mechanic) need to eat Talents so you only have one set of at-will stuff to deal with.
Wizard needs to be split into at least three classes. Mystic is fine as one class as long as all the subclasses rely on the same gross class functions. There may be room for more psychic classes, but each one needs its own important features to set it apart, and they'll all still draw from a similar pool of effects. There's no reason to block the telekinetic from teleporting, the psychic warrior from causing fear, or the telepath from hurling boulders. Subsuming Talents into Psychic Focus is interesting, but that could get a little clunky and repetitive as you need a Talent for every Focus.
--------
[rest skipped because Psionic Blast and Ego Whip have already been addressed]

[Drascin]

My experience with a Mystic is that the main problem is that the different disciplines are really not balanced among themselves.

A fair few are terribly weak and ridiculously not worth it, most are good and fair, and a couple are "what the living ****", especially when combined by mix-and-matching them from all the different subclasses. Basically it feels to me like the problem people have is that they are very much not thought with multiclassing in mind, because Mystic 1 would give many classes a whole lot of stuff because you can just pick the "good" couple disciplines for their focus and level 1 spells and never touch mystic again.

But, as someone playing a straight Wu-Jen (ie, I'm just picking Wu-Jen disciplines, I'm going for "one with nature" theme) as a taoist hermit, I can tell you I'm simply less powerful than the wizard, in every sense. I just get some passive bennies (immunity to falls as a passive is really cool -it's not even that good, because really, how often does that even come up, but it makes a beautiful statement) and better HP to make up for it.

Thing is, multiclassing is an optional rule in this edition, basically the equivalent of the old editions' Unearthed Arcana rules, and a GM can very reasonably say "no multiclassing to Mystic. Either you're a Mystic or you're not". So I kind of have trouble getting terribly up in arms about it or wanting them to gut the class only so people can't abuse it through multiclassing.

[Asmotherion]

Design Wise

-They are out of place from the 5e basic design. Instead of adding more subclasses to the existing classes, it's designed to add new classes.

-It does not offer something really useful as it is, that could not be covered by psionic subclasses of core classes for specific campains.

-If I don't use Spell Points Variant in my game, why would I want a class that uses Psi points? Don't force that on my game through a class mechanic. If on the other hand I did use that Variant, your new class would look like more of the same really.

-If I understand correctly "their stuff isn't magic, so they are allowed to do their stuff in an anti-magic field, dead magic or wild magic zone etc". Practically we promote the new kid as the cool kid who can just ignore the restrictions all other casters have to go through. They also get weird mechanics to get emphasis on "we don't use magic but something else", and those mechanics are like you try to play a diferent game/eddition of D&D.

-Everything about each and every individual "Psionic Order" says "Wizard Subclass", "Rogue Subclass", "Barbarian Subclass", "Paladin Subclass" etc. subtly inside the text (irony; it might as well have). It's just copy-paste of what already exists. Nothing new, just alternative ways to re-create what was already here. Pass.

Lore Wise

-If I want to make a psionic character (and don't get me wrong, I love to do so), I'll just make one with vanilla 5e content. If I need any refluffing, I'll work with my DM, because 5e is great like that. Old one Warlock with Eldritch (Agonising+Repelling) Blast and Mage Hand is the most Psionic Character I've ever Played. He was using Force damage at-will, pushing things as he tore them appart, could use Mage Hand for At-Will (limited) telekinesis, and could speak telepathically. He eventually could use telekinesis to do even more awesome stuff. Arcane Tricksters who can use Invisible Mage Hand At-will are also quite Psionic Themselves. We Don't need more mechanics for "Psionics", we have everything we need already covered.

[Dr. Cliché]

You only suffer the effect if you fail the save.

Nope. The Successful save says nothing about the creature not suffering the other effects.


It clearly says what happens on a failed save and a successful save.

Yes, and it clearly states that the only benefit of passing your save is that you take half the damage.


Look at how comparable spells are worded.

e.g. Dissonant Whispers:

On a failed save, it takes 3d6 psychic damage and must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move as far as its speed allows away from you. The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit.


On a successful save, the target takes half as much damage and doesn’t have to move away.


Or take Destructive Wave:

Each creature you choose within 30 feet of you must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 5d6 thunder damage,as well as 5d6 radiant or necrotic damage (your choice),and be knocked prone.


A creature that succeeds on its saving throw takes half as much damage and isn’t knocked prone.


See how the successful save also tells you what effects (if any) the creature avoids as a result of passing the relevant saving throw?

[Drascin]

-If I understand correctly "their stuff isn't magic, so they are allowed to do their stuff in an anti-magic field, dead magic or wild magic zone etc". Practically we promote the new kid as the cool kid who can just ignore the restrictions all other casters have to go through. They also get weird mechanics to get emphasis on "we don't use magic but something else", and those mechanics are like you try to play a diferent game/eddition of D&D.

No, actually. Psionics is explicitly called as a type of magic and therefore doesn't work in antimagic fields and the like. The only weirdness is that it explicitly doesn't have somatic or verbal components, so you can cast it by staring really hard at a guy.


-Everything about each and every individual "Psionic Order" says "Wizard Subclass", "Rogue Subclass", "Barbarian Subclass", "Paladin Subclass" etc. subtly inside the text (irony; it might as well have). It's just copy-paste of what already exists. Nothing new, just alternative ways to re-create what was already here. Pass.


Personally, I feel that the Wu-Jen Mystic has allowed me do a kind of character that would have required some weirdass Element Monk/Sorcerer multiclass that would have absolutely not worked (among other things, because I don't even know if my DM allows multiclassing).

I can, however, accept that you could have split it into multiple classes. It certainly would have reduced the chance of weird unexpected cross-discipline synergies that the author didn't expect. But personally, I like consolidating things. Why make a new class as a spontaneous cleric when you could just make a Divine Soul subclass for Sorcerer and piggyback off its mechanics, and so on. It is pretty clear that the original design of Mystic was thought up for Awakened and Immortal (the Psion and Psywarrior), and the other three subclasses were kind of added by piggybacking on the mechanics.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Nope. The Successful save says nothing about the creature not suffering the other effects.



Yes, and it clearly states that the only benefit of passing your save is that you take half the damage.


Look at how comparable spells are worded.

e.g. Dissonant Whispers:





Or take Destructive Wave:





See how the successful save also tells you what effects (if any) the creature avoids as a result of passing the relevant saving throw?

I’ve can also pull up spells. Look at frostbite, enervation earth tremor.

It says what happens on a succcess. It doesn’t have to say what doesn’t. It doesn’t say your poisoned stunned and petrified all at the same time but that doesn’t mean you are. This is completely not RAW or RAI. Just because a couple other spells have redundant wording doesn’t mean the discipline needs it.

[mephnick]

No, actually. Psionics is explicitly called as a type of magic and therefore doesn't work in antimagic fields and the like. The only weirdness is that it explicitly doesn't have somatic or verbal components, so you can cast it by staring really hard at a guy.

This is my biggest issue. They get subtle spell. For free. Forever.

That is wildly unbalanced regardless of the class they stick it on. You don't just get to wave components and visible spellcasting away because of fluff. That's not how it works.

[Dr. Cliché]

I’ve can also pull up spells. Look at frostbite, enervation earth tremor.

None of which are remotely comparable in terms of wording.

Frostbite and Earth Tremor make no mention of successful saves. As far as they are concerned, something only happens if the save is failed.

Enervation describes the successful save first. It then goes on to describe the additional effects that occur on a failed save.

Want to try again?



It says what happens on a succcess. It doesn’t have to say what doesn’t.

Yes it does. The only exceptions would be if it specified the effect of a successful save first (like Enervation) or else only specified that something happens on a failed save (like Frostbite), in which case it can be assumed that nothing happens on a successful save.

However, Ego Whip does neither - it clearly states what happens on a successful save. You take half damage. Nowhere does it say that you don't suffer the other effects - unlike every other spell written in that manner.


It doesn’t say your poisoned stunned and petrified all at the same time but that doesn’t mean you are.

If you're resorting to this nonsense then you must be aware your argument has no leg to stand on.

[Mortis_Elrod]

This is my biggest issue. They get subtle spell. For free. Forever.

That is wildly unbalanced regardless of the class they stick it on. You don't just get to wave components and visible spellcasting away because of fluff. That's not how it works.

I see this being a big issue for some, non issue for others.

What would you do instead? Honestly I think forcing components to psionics would break many people’s idea of it.

What components would you start adding to the disciplines ?

[Mortis_Elrod]

None of which are remotely comparable in terms of wording.

Frostbite and Earth Tremor make no mention of successful saves. As far as they are concerned, something only happens if the save is failed.

Enervation describes the successful save first. It then goes on to describe the additional effects that occur on a failed save.

Want to try again?


Yes it does.



If you're resorting to this nonsense then you must be aware your argument has no leg to stand on.

Enervation wording is no different, the message remains the same regardless if the sentence was first or not. Your adding in effects to the discipline that aren’t there. Earth tremor must have the same knocked prone effect since it doesn’t say it doesn’t. Same with every other spell I mentioned. That is precisely your argument: “it doesn’t say it doesn’t”

Dissonant whispers doesn’t do the exact same thing as ego whip. So comparing them was wrong in the first place.


And again as Jeremy Crawford has stated, each spell is its own rule. You can’t look at other spells and decide what happens. Each effect is its own.

[Drascin]

This is my biggest issue. They get subtle spell. For free. Forever.

That is wildly unbalanced regardless of the class they stick it on. You don't just get to wave components and visible spellcasting away because of fluff. That's not how it works.

Personally, I just don't think it's... that big a deal?

I've always felt that Subtle spell for other classes has traditionally been way overcosted, myself. It's a handy bonus, but I never saw someone burn a feat on getting still spell back when I played 3rd, let me assure you. Plus, well, the Mystic disciplines are generally weaker than similar spells, and they don't get the same progression (mystic stops at 5th level spells), and honestly my tables kind of ignore the components for the non-full casters because honestly speaking having a Ranger start to gesticulate and go "hocum pocum gobledygookum" to cast a spell feels super weird and remembering which spells have what components and what can you cast while holding your shield and what you can't and stuff is a pain in the behind for basically no benefit.

[mephnick]

What would you do instead?

At least give them some kind of visual cue that something is happening. Halo of light when they cast or glowing eyes.


what can you cast while holding your shield and what you can't and stuff is a pain in the behind for basically no benefit.

It's the single major drawback of taking a shield. You can ignore it if you want but to say it's meaningless is wrong. Decisions need give and take to be balanced.

People can do whatever they want, I was just saying why I'll never allow psionics in their current form.

[Drascin]

At least give them some kind of visual cue that something is happening. Halo of light when they cast or glowing eyes.



It's the single major drawback of taking a shield. You can ignore it if you want but to say it's meaningless is wrong. Decisions need give and take to be balanced.

People can do whatever they want, I was just saying why I'll never allow psionics in their current form.

I dunno, maybe it's from playing with the people I play, but we have a party of six with that, and there's one shield in the entire party, and that's the Fighter. The entire reason for ignoring components is aesthetics, after all.

Heck, I add visual elements to most of my disciplines, completely unforced, for reasons of aesthetics. It's just that they're not the typical gobledygook of D&D magic. The fact that there are no forced specific components means I can just make it look like waterbending katas and lean on the mysticism angle, rather than the hermeticism of D&D magic. It's never really been an issue.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't dislike psionics, but I'm not a massive fan of the 5e version.

I'm planning a homebrew class at the moment that makes psionics and ki be the same power source. I'm calling it the Psychic, at 1st level it gets Unarmoured Defence, Mind Blast (opponent makes a Wisdom save or takes 1dX damage), then at level 2 gains ki points, mind speak, and various telepathic powers as they increase in level. I'm uncertain what I'll be doing for the subclasses, I'm considering one focused on psionic combat (getting a variety of ways to use ki points to enhance their Mind Blast), a mind control one (denying actions and inflicting the charmed condition), and one more than I have no idea about. Maybe luck manipulation or some justification for giving buffs to your allies.

I find that this make psionics different from magic more than the current version does, and much more similar to the other internal power source in the game. I agree that it's not what everybody would like, but I just ended up wondering 'how could I make a successful psion that didn't feel like a full caster' and it's the result.

[JackPhoenix]

Psionics isn't broken.

Psionics isn't in 5e. Not yet. Sure, there are few monsters with psionics, but that doesn't really count. There's some playtest material on the level of dandwiki stuff. There are some homebrew psionic classes and stuff. That doesn't really matter.

Only when psionics gets officially released can we argue if it's broken or not.

[Naanomi]

Psionics isn't broken.

Psionics isn't in 5e. Not yet. Sure, there are few monsters with psionics, but that doesn't really count. There's some playtest material on the level of dandwiki stuff. There are some homebrew psionic classes and stuff. That doesn't really matter.

Only when psionics gets officially released can we argue if it's broken or not.
People are specifically evaluation the Unearthed Arcana Mystic class here...

[JackPhoenix]

People are specifically evaluation the Unearthed Arcana Mystic class here...

I'm reacting to the OP. It's hard to argue if something's broken if we haven't seen the final version yet... playtests are all over the place and differ from the released material.

[ZorroGames]

I'm reacting to the OP. It's hard to argue if something's broken if we haven't seen the final version yet... playtests are all over the place and differ from the released material.

Again, show me an AL finished 5e class and I would consider discussing it. So far the examples I have seen are just gussied up broken clones of the OD&D disasters I saw.

[KorvinStarmast]

Again, show me an AL finished 5e class and I would consider discussing it. So far the examples I have seen are just gussied up broken clones of the OD&D disasters I saw. There was a design change in theme from OD&D / 1e AD&D that arrived in a supplement to 2e AD&D (original 2e AD&D had no psionics) where they decided to make a class based on psionics, rather than adding psionics on top of another class if you rolled really high. Ever since then, the "psionics is a third kind of magic has been an ongoing issue to address with greater or lesser success. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/72422/22566)

For my money, the Angry GM explains this issue as well as anyone does (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/).

An example of what made OD&D / 1e psionics a pain in the butt: take a magic user who has gained a few levels, has a high INT, and who also got an insane roll for "are you psionic or not" and who then adds psionics on top of regular magic user ability. So long as the MU survives the first couple of levels where a stiff wind will knock him over, there's some serious power addition going on.

The UA material so far shows me that WoTC's team is trying to fold in psionics so that it blends with the rest of the 5e model. They want to avoid some of the previous clunkiness, though there was some improvement over time. So far, I agree with you: get it to where they allow it in AL.

[Anonymouswizard]

For my money, the Angry GM explains this issue as well as anyone does (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/).

I disagree with Angry on quite a bit. For one psionics does have a place in fantasy.

Not in all fantasy, but it's equivalent to supernatural martial arts. Psionics is like controlling your chi, in Wuxia somebody being awesome due to mastering their chi is normal and expected, but in A Song of Ice and Fire it's completely out of the left field. Psionics works in fantasy if you let it fit.

Psionics works brilliantly in Dark Sun, because the world is designed around psionics being a thing. 4e even worked out that you can pretty much take divine magic out of the equation and Dark Sun still works because Divine Magic is only there because it's expected (now 4e still left Primal classes in there, but that worked because there was a thematic place for them, and they could easily have removed them). Dark Sun, as a fantasy setting, cares about two kinds of powers, the normal one that everybody has access to and is called psionics, and the corrupt one that destroyed the world called (arcane) magic. Sure, it could have been written with psionics being replaced by divine magic, but the setting works as-is because psionics is considered standard, everything and anything has at least one psionic power and those that can afford to develop it.

Psionics doesn't work in Dragonlance, because it's essentially bolted onto a world where all magic comes from the gods. Although it's less explicit in Forgotten Realms the exact same thing occurs.

Angry's insistence that psionics has no place in fantasy is bad and elitest. 'Oh it fits in this fantasy setting because this 100% fantasy setting with no science fiction elements is science fantasyish.'

Now I get his point about psionics being special and using it's own system, which was true even in 4e (although I personally liked it more than Encounter Powers). So I think in 5e, if the designers want to bring in psionics they should either have them use slots and spellspowers known, or they should go the monk route and give a small number of points that reset on a short rest, and a bunch of powers to be activated by those points. If you want to go for the latter option you're intentionally seperating them from wizards, as their powers will be smaller and more specialised (although each individual power might be broader).

I think psionics as a alternate version of the Monk's ki system is better than another caster class, even if it's different because it uses points and disciplines and whatever. Because it could potentially be a very different playstyle to that offered by any existing class, which is worth making new mechanics for compared to 'like a wizard but with their mind'. The end result is that there's a lot of things that magic does that psionics cannot, but psionics is still an interesting and viable option due to providing a number of options that renew quickly.

For his final note, psionics is singular in the way magic is singular, and plural in the way magic is plural. It's 'why does psionics suck'. Yes, magic has exactly the same annoyances that come from a word pluralising so it looks and sounds identical to the singular. But it gets picked on for the very legitimate fact it's a singular with an s on the end, and those are rare words.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I’ll have to look up that Cryptic class, sounds interesting. I do remember the Lurk being lackluster in 3.5 and probably not a lot going for it in terms of flavor.

The psychic rogue (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) did a good job of being a rogue with psionics bolted on and a model for how I'd like a rogue subclass referencing a shared psionics system.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

I've played psionics in AD&D, in 3.5 and in 5enI don't know what's that "4th edition" people keep talking of...) and psionics have been always broken. Because they usually access to very powerful disciplines early on and can stack tons of damage. Also, it's totally broken that they don't have any V,S,M components, so you can just cover in a corner, act as if you were crying and you were not a menace at all and start exploding heads. And that's in a combat. In non combat encounters you can manipulate everything around you without being noticed. It's just so broken.

But...

But it's not as broken as the Monk's Stunning Strike in 5e, what I consider just the most utterly and indisputable broken single ability (with no combos) of all history of D&D, so what the hell. Way to go.

[Naanomi]

Again, show me an AL finished 5e class and I would consider discussing it. So far the examples I have seen are just gussied up broken clones of the OD&D disasters I saw.
This stance confuses me... I’d prefer to discuss and hopefully influence balance through evaluation of the official playtest material *before* it becomes ‘official’ rather than just complain about it and develop ‘fixes’ afterwards

[Millstone85]

Not in all fantasy, but it's equivalent to supernatural martial arts. Psionics is like controlling your chi, in Wuxia somebody being awesome due to mastering their chi is normal and expected, but in A Song of Ice and Fire it's completely out of the left field.Here is something I found interesting about the Overlord anime. Some characters say things like "Martial Art: Focus Battle Aura" in a way that is (beside the old cliché of calling your attacks) clearly intended as a videogamesque self-buffing. And this is regarded as separate from "magic casters" and their spells.

I guess this would be one way to introduce psionics in a D&D setting. After a certain level, fighters, monks and rogues have honed their body and disciplined their mind to the point where they can do outright supernatural stuff. And it is different from magic, or a different form of magic than spellcasting.

However, this doesn't quite work for the pure psion, the one who is all meditation and no sweat.

[Hrugner]

Wall of wood does seem to have a lot of HP. It'd be easy to climb over when space permits though, so it's kinda like Plant Growth.
Nomadic Mind is fine. It's not proficiency in every skill, and even always having proficiency in every skill wouldn't overshadow anyone who was focused on that skill unless the Mystic also had a better attribute there.
Find Creature isn't scrying. It's accurate to within no better than 1 square mile, and up to 9 square miles. You also only learn where the creature is (and I hope the place has a descriptive name), not where that place is in relation to you.
Psionic Blast is a worse Magic Missile. Psychic Blast is actually scary.



I agree that wall of wood isn't as big a deal out doors, but it can negate encounters in doors with ease, no roll, and a minimum investment. It needs fewer hit points or the ability to knock it down. Yeah, it's a bit like plant growth, but available at level 1 rather than 5.

Since it only takes a standard action to change proficiency, it's fair to say they have proficiency in all skills, languages, and tools. Yeah, they should probably actually be proficient in immediate skills like acrobatics, perception and athletics. You're right that they wouldn't overshadow everyone's skills just a good chunk of people with minimal investment.

Find creature gives you understanding, not data. You know where they are, not the name of where they are.

Fair enough on the psi blast magic missile comparison.

[Anonymouswizard]

Here is something I found interesting about the Overlord anime. Some characters say things like "Martial Art: Focus Battle Aura" in a way that is (beside the old cliché of calling your attacks) clearly intended as a videogamesque self-buffing. And this is regarded as separate from "magic casters" and their spells.

I guess this would be one way to introduce psionics in a D&D setting. After a certain level, fighters, monks and rogues have honed their body and disciplined their mind to the point where they can do outright supernatural stuff. And it is different from magic, or a different form of magic than spellcasting.

However, this doesn't quite work for the pure psion, the one who is all meditation and no sweat.

This is why I wish psionics was more specific. You're not a psion, you're a telepath who gains mind reading from looking and listening until you see and hear more, sort of like a heightened version of the highly developed psychology in Issac Asimov's Second Foundation. Others can be harder, but if we take the idea of training and focusing on one thing we can work out the same idea for a lot of powers.

You spent years casting sticks and stones, reading the outcomes, and waiting for it to happen, until you begin to notice the patterns in everything.

Ever since you were young you always were different. You never went the exciting or easiest way, but always the quickest you knew. Always looking for a faster way, no matter the requirement or the cost. Until one day you managed to find a quicker way than ever before, a way around reality.

They say if you play with fire you'll get burnt. You discovered it was true, but wanting another outcome you spent ages, burning bit by bit, until the fire didn't hurt. It flowed around you, accepting you as one of it's own, bending to your will.

Examples of how to present Precognition, Teleportation, and Pyrokinesis in a more fantasy 'work to unlock powers' manner. Note that none of them are the meditation psion, they all gained their powers from working at one thing until they became supernaturally good. As the monk pushes their body to be faster and harder these people push their bodies and their minds past the limit.

On the other hand, the monk already partially gains their powers from inner reflection. If we're letting the Monk in (and I see no reason not to) then there's no reason that a different sort of meditation and discipline can't unlock other powers.

Although at that point I'm pulling out Legends of the Wulin or Qin: the Warring States and just running a Wuxia game.

[KorvinStarmast]

For one psionics does have a place in fantasy. Not in all fantasy, Yeah, we agree, it can fit.
Psionics works brilliantly in Dark Sun, because the world is designed around psionics being a thing. Amen.

Angry's insistence that psionics has no place in fantasy is bad and elitest. Oh please, name calling is not needed.

Angry's Position is his personal taste, to be sure, but it's actually rational given that psionics' origin in a different genre is well documented in some interviews with Gygax and Kask. The Mind Flayer was not inspired by swords and sorcery, but more by Sci Fi and Lovecraft. The Mind Flayer was the first psionic monster, Strategic Review issue 1 or 2. The fantasy genre you and I know today is a case of recursion: somewhere in the late 70's the game itself (and stuff like C&S, Rune QUest, etc) changed what fantastic literature was like given the influence of the TTRPG fantasy hobby itself. (See also vestigial influences of Traveller on Firefly ...) If you look at one of the comments near the bottom of the comments on that post, a good summary is there.


So I think in 5e, if the designers want to bring in psionics they should either have them use slots and spellspowers known, or they should go the monk route and give a small number of points that reset on a short rest, and a bunch of powers to be activated by those points. If you want to go for the latter option you're intentionally seperating them from wizards I am moved to the monk model if those are the choices.

I think psionics as a alternate version of the Monk's ki system is better than another caster class, even if it's different because it uses points and disciplines and whatever. I am with you.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I'd go one further, magic has a place in science fiction. I don't mean sufficiently advanced technology, I man actual, honest to god mutter weird words and cast spells magic.

Psionics in fantasy is mystical. Magic in science fiction is scientific (although not always understood), with some straddling of the line to consider everything. There's a tendency to handwave magic in SF away as psionics or technology, but real sorcery can appear in a science fiction story and make sense.

Plus the two genres are hard to untangle anyway. The main difference is in the styling until you get into hard SF, which honestly might just be a counterpart to fantasy worlds created through logical extrapolation from a starting point.

[Asmotherion]

The psychic rogue (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) did a good job of being a rogue with psionics bolted on and a model for how I'd like a rogue subclass referencing a shared psionics system.

That's what I am talking about. Psionic subclasses being an optional, world specific thing, perhaps released in a "Dark Sun Adventurer's Guide". It should be enough to pass the message that it is not a concept acceptable in all worlds, the default being "no".

I like psionics in fantasy; that said, in most worlds, the concept is too close to magic, and if one exists in a world it is either "replicated through magic" (though, in most cases, subtle magic), or identical to magic, except localised differantly (as in a culture far away may call magic "psionics", or a specific school of magic such as Divination "Precognition" and evocation "Psychokinesis").

If I had to vote, I say yes to psionics, but only if they come in this specific form:
-Subclasses for existing classes instead of core class(es)
-World specific book, preferably Dark Sun.

[Unoriginal]

]

For my money, the Angry GM explains this issue as well as anyone does (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/).

Most of what he talks about doesn't seem to apply to 5e psionic, which is simply a different way to channel magic.

There is nothing science-y or science-fictiony about it or the like.

It seems that he's more Angry about the name being sorta-science-fiction than anything else.

[Dudewithknives]

Most of what he talks about doesn't seem to apply to 5e psionic, which is simply a different way to channel magic.

There is nothing science-y or science-fictiony about it or the like.

It seems that he's more Angry about the name being sorta-science-fiction than anything else.

It is the same thing as having firearms/gunslingers in the game, some people love it, some people are very vocal about "That is not my D&D"

[Psikerlord]

Main problem with psionics in d&d:

1. Points system that effectively allows spamming 1 point powers or using all PP's in a mega nova burst for highest level power is, the higher you get, more and more OP until broken.

2. Power use is Silent and Stealthy and unable to pinpoint source.

3. Typically not "magic" but "psionics" and therefore not susceptible to the usual counters of dispel magic, counterspell, etc (not sure if that applies in 5e, have read the psionics rules since ages ago).

4. To me, psionics has more of a sci-fi feel than fantasy. I like it on crazy horrific aberrations however.

[Naanomi]

4. To me, psionics has more of a sci-fi feel than fantasy. I like it on crazy horrific aberrations however.
I feel less this way in 5e than any other edition... a psionicist is a sci-fi superpower guy, a mystic is a meditating yogi with the powers of enlightenment and the like. Just the name change has really lined up with where my home campaign has taken the fluff before anyways

[druid91]

The issues are 3 fold:

1. The class is horrendously imbalanced with itself. Some subclasses are amazing while others are garbage, but everyone can pick any paths or talents. Nobody is going to look at psyknife, and think it is just as good as avatar or wujin.

2. Psychic Assault is crazy.

Their first ability is just spend points do d8s damage, no save, no to hit, just plain take damage depending on how many points they can spend. With the focus from the same path it adds +2 on top.

Ego Whip - 3 psy points and you just straight up shut someone down, even if they make the check.

3. Most of their abilities are based on int saves if they get saves at all. Most classes have most abilities based on common saves and get only 2 or 3 based on the uncommon saves.


Bonus: can't counterspell them either.

1.) This is true of most things in 5e. Noone is going to claim the mastermind rogue stacks up to the Assassin.

2.) Oh no, you can spend the equivalent of spell slots to do guaranteed mediocre damage to a single target. This is so horribly overpowered. And Ego whip only does half damage if they succeed the save? The rider only takes effect if they fail. Like all the other riders.

3.) And? Whether a particular save is common or uncommon is up to the whims of the GM.

[LeonBH]

1.) This is true of most things in 5e. Noone is going to claim the mastermind rogue stacks up to the Assassin.

2.) Oh no, you can spend the equivalent of spell slots to do guaranteed mediocre damage to a single target. This is so horribly overpowered. And Ego whip only does half damage if they succeed the save? The rider only takes effect if they fail. Like all the other riders.

3.) And? Whether a particular save is common or uncommon is up to the whims of the GM.

So you're telling me you're going to insert Int proficient saves on creatures specifically to screw the psion in your party?

Int saves being uncommon is the default and expected. You are saying it doesn't have to be. Therefore, what are you implying?

[Unoriginal]

I thought people wanted more rules involving Int

[Consensus]

For my money, the Angry GM explains this issue as well as anyone does (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/).

Wow. That article completely changed my opinion in of that guy. Instead of clarifying what specific flavor of fantasy he wants his game to be, he presents an option that he will kick you out for, assuming you will ONLY pick it if you're an attention hog. This guy.

[Drascin]

I agree that wall of wood isn't as big a deal out doors, but it can negate encounters in doors with ease, no roll, and a minimum investment. It needs fewer hit points or the ability to knock it down. Yeah, it's a bit like plant growth, but available at level 1 rather than 5.

Level 3, actually. It's basically a second level spell instead of a 3rd level spell, for the Mystic. Remember to check costs and maximum PP expenditure, it's the way the class gates spell access. Wall of Wood costs 3 PP, you can't spend 3PP until you're level 3, therefore you don't get access to the spell until level 3.


Since it only takes a standard action to change proficiency, it's fair to say they have proficiency in all skills, languages, and tools. Yeah, they should probably actually be proficient in immediate skills like acrobatics, perception and athletics. You're right that they wouldn't overshadow everyone's skills just a good chunk of people with minimal investment.

I do get that they wanted the Nomad to be able to plug the party's lacking skills, as a psionic mobility skillmonkey, but it does seem like the Nomadic Mind focus is a tad too, I dunno, easy.

I'd probably have made one of the Nomad subclass features the ability to swap around any number of their skill proficiencies with a short rest's worth of meditation. That way the Nomad can still "equip" whichever skills it looks like the party will need to plug for the coming situations but can't just have every skill on the fly in any situation where he doesn't need his other foci.

[Kobard]

For my money, the Angry GM explains this issue as well as anyone does (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck/). I can't say that I agree with his assessment. I agree with Anonymouswizard that psionics does have a place in fantasy. In fact, it comes up a lot. We see it in a lot of alternative fantasy where magic tends to be less about Michael Bay exploding fireballs in people's faces, but, rather, where is magic is far more subtle or even mystical. We see it a lot in romantic fantasy book series, which is why it is prominent, for example, in the Blue Rose RPG. We see it in Star Wars, which is admittedly Science-Fantasy.

[Anonymouswizard]

Most of what he talks about doesn't seem to apply to 5e psionic, which is simply a different way to channel magic.

There is nothing science-y or science-fictiony about it or the like.

It seems that he's more Angry about the name being sorta-science-fiction than anything else.

I mean, back in 3.X the standard rule was that 'magic and psionics are identical', and that a character or creature got listed resistance to one or the other based on which the book focused on (which was generally magic), but it would apply to the other. Them being unrelated was an optional rule that was noted to potentially break the game due to most monsters not being designed with it in mind.

I'm agreeing with you that his source of anger seems to be directed at the name, he makes a very good point about the mechanics which was still an issue in 4e, and the fact that they're normally shoehorned in because the setting designer didn't expect them when sorting everything out. But he spends most of the article raging about how 'psionics aren't fantasy' and 'the best use is to screen potential players'.

For the record, I don't play a psychic because I want to be a special snowflake, I play a psychic because I don't want to be asked yet again why my enchanter or illusionist isn't throwing fireballs.


It is the same thing as having firearms/gunslingers in the game, some people love it, some people are very vocal about "That is not my D&D"

Fair, although I honestly find the lack of guns in D&D a bit weird. The tech level is roughly where I'd expect them to be developed, although at the point where it's more 'soldiers might be armed with arquebuses, PCs won't want the drawbacks most of the time'. It's one of the reasons I love the LotFP rulebook, the fact that it provides decent firearms rules at the end that make them a viable option, especially for challenging higher level PCs, but justifying PCs that want to stick with bows or crossbows.


4. To me, psionics has more of a sci-fi feel than fantasy. I like it on crazy horrific aberrations however.

I still don't get the reason for 'more sf than fantasy feel', although I get that it's a personal preference.

For the record, I prefer to make horrific aberrations related to magic instead, and regulate psionics to a case of 'the more limited form of magic humanoids can actually use'.

My favourite speculative fiction game setting is Eldritch Skies, which is a (soft) science fiction setting based off Lovecraft, and so has psychic powers (an inherent thing) and magic (a learnt thing) as options for PCs, with multiple variations on magic based on how you cast the spell (rituals, meditation, mathematics...). I'm a bit annoyed at it being with Savage Worlds these days, because while it is 'Lovecraftian pulp space opera' I feel like the games I'd run with it would be generally noncombat focused, but it can easily be converted to GURPS (which has essentially statted all of the weapons and armour in Ultra-Tech, and you can build the spells with Advantages) which works for me.


Wow. That article completely changed my opinion in of that guy. Instead of clarifying what specific flavor of fantasy he wants his game to be, he presents an option that he will kick you out for, assuming you will ONLY pick it if you're an attention hog. This guy.

Very true, I remember it coming up in another article, 'I allow X, only so I can ban players who choose it'. Angry does seem to put forth a rather controlling and antagonistic style, which is why I really want to start my own GMing blog which goes more for 'work with your players, but draw the line'. Somebody wants to play a psion, but nobody's picked a wizard? Maybe there's no arcane spellcasting in this world, magic is granted by the gods and the power of the mind is recognised as a field of study. Somebody wants to play the last member of the old empire's wizard tradition who yadda yadda yadda? Fine if it's the thing about the character, but not if it's only one element. Stuff like that.

Thankfully, if somebody presented me with an option only to boot me when I picked it I'd happily leave and warn other players away. If I don't want say druids in my game I'll say 'I'm not allowing the druid class in this game, nature priests will use the cleric class, if you don't like that than I hope you can find a game more suitable to you'. Although D&D really needs a shapeshifter option without all the baggage attached or having to wait until level 7 to get the combat forms. I'm not offended if somebody leaves my game because they don't want to play in a game without quarterlings or a game with guns, it's like being annoyed at somebody because they don't want to play Shadowrun (I think I still have my copy of 3e).

I don't use Stars Without Number because I don't like having psionics as a major element in my science fiction. Traveller is more my style, they're an optional thing that appear near the end of the book if people really want them, GURPS even moreso because the psionics chapter is actually more of 'here's how to use the existing rules to represent psionics'.

[mephnick]

Wow. That article completely changed my opinion in of that guy.

Mine opinion on him has never changed. He's a confused weird guy I'd never want to hang out with, but he picks apart the game and it's mechanics like no one else.

It's a refreshing read outside of all the hippy dippy "say yes and..", "just have fun!!" "Forget rules, you do you!" useless D&D blogs out there.

[Anonymouswizard]

Mine opinion on him has never changed. He's a confused weird guy I'd never want to hang out with, but he picks apart the game and it's mechanics like no one else.

It's a refreshing read outside of all the hippy dippy "say yes and..", "just have fun!!" "Forget rules, you do you!" useless D&D blogs out there.

I always forget how much the second has become the standard advice.

Remember when the advice was to change saying 'no' into 'yes, but...'? I found that actually useful, the idea that you should allow something but attach strings or consequences to it instead of just outright denying it. Especially when it came to failure, the idea that rolls can be to avoid complications rather than avoid failures made my games a lot faster paced.

But that was a very specific thing focused more on keeping the game from grinding to a halt. It's even been worked into some rulesets, Fate mentions that failing a roll might mean the action succeeds but with a cost if failure isn't interesting. A lot of advice comes down to these days 'ignore the rules when they suit you, the GM', which just annoys me. I'll also note that a vague encouragement of railroading is coming back, with the justification that it can 'make the game more fun', although I suspect that's a reaction to the sandbox style being presented as an ideal for years.

To the point where I'm writing a blog post right now about the purpose of rules. Spoiler, rules are the basis of the contract we make when sitting down at the table, whether it's a book I paid £40 for or one side of A4 I got off the internet. The idea is that most of the time we follow what's written so that we can have a reasonable expectation of what we can do, while it's fine to ignore the rules occasionally doing so all the time means that nobody except the GM knows what's reasonable.

[KorvinStarmast]

I always forget how much the second has become the standard advice. It was always there. See Arneson, see Gygax commentary in how to ref a game in his letters in Strat Review and in his response to Alarums and excursions. (Aside: I am a little disappointed in Rob Kuntz not being able to get his book to print. I bought the short summary, wherein he outlines his analytical model on Arneson's genius in game design and his role as a paradigm breaker. But the longer work is yet to get finished).

Where that fundamental premise got forgotten was in the explosion of the game and the attempts to define/constrain "what is this thing?" and the influence of cons/modules/standardization. (Thankfully, the RPG landscape has also exploded over the years and we all have great choices in front of us).

Heck, AL seems to be running afoul of this same basic difficulty, in terms of "what's the game played at a table" versus "what's this standardized thing?"

Nothing new under the sun.

If you focus too much on mechanics you will miss the point of an RPG: the play's the thing. Always has been, reaching back to the Twin Cities days.

[KorvinStarmast]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542539-Mind-Over-Matter-A-Guide-to-the-5e-Mystic

There's a thread to build a Mystic/Psionic guide.
You gonna help?