Mike Mearl's Happy Fun Hour - Psion

[RoastCabose]

So, if you've been following Mike Mearl's Happy Fun Hour, you would know that Mearls has been working on psionics in 5e for the past few weeks. If you didn't, now you do. You're welcome.

Anyway, this has been an interesting development, as he's been going at it from an opposite direction than most of the community, and from WotC earlier attempts. If somebody could link to the twitch vod or YouTube posting, that would be great cause this is my first post.

So, instead of just trying to go cold Turkey into the concept of psionics and create from scratch, he tries to create psionic classes within the system without a new subsystem of any kind. In doing this, he tries, over the course of subclasses for the wizard, fighter, and monk, to give spell casting and psionic features to these classes. This is met with limited success, as many of the staple psionic abilities; telepathy, telekinesis, mind over matter type stuff, is left wanting by tradition spells as that's just not their domain.

Through this process, he does a pretty good job of crystallizing some psionic archetypes and ability sets that should be shared, and that's where he came up with the psionic spell list. This list would essentially be a new school of magic with some of it's own rules. And as he expanded on it, he came through with this idea of disciplines, or modal magic that other suites of spells build upon.

I think he's really hit on something flavorful with this structure, and while I disagree with calling them spells, I love the image it's all built up here. I highly recommend everyone to watch all of these in the psionics series, as it's quite the interesting process.


To wrap it up, it looks like we'll have a bundle of psionics themed stuff for a release down the road, including:


Psychic Warrior - Fighter subclass that is essentially the psionic equivalent to Eldritch Knight
Mentalist - Wizard subclass meant to give a telepath flavour
Soulknife - Monk subclass with blades made out of psionic energy
Lurk - Rogue subclass alters people's perceptions to give themselves true invisibility. Can't detect you if they can't notice you, or even acknowledge your presence.
Pact of the Abberant - Warlock subclass that makes a pact with an Elder Brain or Abeloth. Doesn't directly have the psionic powers type deal as the other choices, but it's in the same ballpark.


Psion - The new d6 hit die class with the following subclasses

Avatar/Ardent - specializes in emotional control, and inspiring others
Nomad - manipulating space and time in the pursuit of knowledge
Constructor - a "summoner" who creates psionic constructs and imbues them with abilities
Metamorph - shapeshifter, more fine-tuned than druid shapeshifting, really mind over matter flavoured.
Telekinetic - moves **** with their mind, force damage abound
Telepath - Psychic damage abound, read minds, possibly just going to be a mentalist


The only things on this list to keep in mind is that the subclasses were more of off hand mentions that would have a psionic flavour, but not necessarily straight up psionics, and that the Avatar/Ardent may end up being a Bard thing instead of Psion. I'd like to see telekinetic rolled into the Wu Jen and just have this TK powers style subclass too, cause I also feel like the Wu Jen name is out of place. Or maybe those elemental powers will simply go to everyone. Idk what's the thoughts on this stuff?

[Derpaligtr]

So, if you've been following Mike Mearl's Happy Fun Hour, you would know that Mearls has been working on psionics in 5e for the past few weeks. If you didn't, now you do. You're welcome.

Anyway, this has been an interesting development, as he's been going at it from an opposite direction than most of the community, and from WotC earlier attempts. If somebody could link to the twitch vod or YouTube posting, that would be great cause this is my first post.

So, instead of just trying to go cold Turkey into the concept of psionics and create from scratch, he tries to create psionic classes within the system without a new subsystem of any kind. In doing this, he tries, over the course of subclasses for the wizard, fighter, and monk, to give spell casting and psionic features to these classes. This is met with limited success, as many of the staple psionic abilities; telepathy, telekinesis, mind over matter type stuff, is left wanting by tradition spells as that's just not their domain.

Through this process, he does a pretty good job of crystallizing some psionic archetypes and ability sets that should be shared, and that's where he came up with the psionic spell list. This list would essentially be a new school of magic with some of it's own rules. And as he expanded on it, he came through with this idea of disciplines, or modal magic that other suites of spells build upon.

I think he's really hit on something flavorful with this structure, and while I disagree with calling them spells, I love the image it's all built up here. I highly recommend everyone to watch all of these in the psionics series, as it's quite the interesting process.


To wrap it up, it looks like we'll have a bundle of psionics themed stuff for a release down the road, including:

Psychic Warrior - Fighter subclass
Mentalist - Wizard subclass
Soulknife - Monk subclass
Lurk - Rogue subclass
Pact of the Abberant(Elder Brain/Abeloth) - Warlock subclass
Path of the Immortal - Barbarian subclass
Psion - new class with
Avatar/Ardent - specializes in emotional control, and inspiring others
Nomad - manipulating space and time in the pursuit of knowledge
Constructor - a "summoner" who creates psyonic constructs and imbues them with abilities
Metamorph - shapeshifter, more finetuned than druid shapeshifting, really mind over matter flavoured.
Telekinetic - moves **** with their mind, force damage abound
Telepath - Psychic damage abound, read minds

The only things on this list to keep in mind is that those last 2 subclasses were more of off hand mentions that would have a psionic flavour, but not necessarily straight up psionics, and that the Avatar/Ardent may end up being a Bard thing instead of Psion. I'd like to see telekinetic rolled into the Wu Jen and just have this TK powers style subclass too, cause I also feel like the Wu Jen name is out of place. Or maybe those elemental powers will simply go to everyone. Idk what's the thoughts on this stuff?

If Psionics aren't their own thing, there really isn't much of a point in having them. Just having them be subclasses or "totally not arcane/divine casters" seems like it's a waste of time.

What I loved about 3e and 4e psionics is just how different they were from the other classes.

[DivisibleByZero]

What I loved about 3e and 4e psionics is just how different they were from the other classes.

.... Except that they really weren't that different at all.
Psions in 3e were spell point casters (read: wizards) with a different (but extremely similar overall) spell list.
Psions in 4e were just like every other 4e class.
The only real differences in either edition were that spell points was not a variant (but were baked into the class standard), and fluff. That's it.

[Derpaligtr]

.... Except that they really weren't that different at all.
Psions in 3e were spell point casters (read: wizards) with a different (but extremely similar overall) spell list.
Psions in 4e were just like every other 4e class.

4e psionics were very different lol. Go look at their power list and then compare it to a wizard or fighter's. Compare their at-will abilities.

3e psionics had core rules for spell points and their powers worked fundamentally different. You could adjust how many PP you put into the power to change it up. That wasn't something a full caster (wizard/cleric/etc) could do without multiclassing or feats (changing spells).

[DivisibleByZero]

4e psionics were very different lol. Go look at their power list and then compare it to a wizard or fighter's. Compare their at-will abilities.

3e psionics had core rules for spell points and their powers worked fundamentally different. You could adjust how many PP you put into the power to change it up. That wasn't something a full caster (wizard/cleric/etc) could do without multiclassing or feats (changing spells).
Point 1) they worked exactly the same as every other class. The only difference was that you powered up your cantrips instead of getting encounter abilities.

Point 2) And that is precisely how casters in 5e work already.... They spend higher slots instead of points, but it amounts to the same. If you use the variant rule, they work exactly the same. Full stop.

[RoastCabose]

If Psionics aren't their own thing, there really isn't much of a point in having them. Just having them be subclasses or "totally not arcane/divine casters" seems like it's a waste of time.

What I loved about 3e and 4e psionics is just how different they were from the other classes.

Ignoring the fact that 3e psionics was mostly regular magic with "psychic" slapped in front of it, I agree with you. However, it was explicitly stated that the psionic spell list is it's own school with it's own spells that only (sub)classes with psionics can access, and these spells would work differently than basically any other spells. Their purpose would be to synergize with one another, or more specifically build on these disciplines, which are basically concentration cantrips that don't break with just damage. Like this constructor would have an imaginary friend cantrip, and then they would buff it up with spells

Now I definitely get not wanting to use the word spell. I would much prefer having cantrips be called talents, disciplines remain as they are, and spells be called powers. Further than that though, as to points versus slots, I go back and forth. Right now I'm leaning on a combination of the two, ala sorcerer.


Point 1) they worked exactly the same as every other class. The only difference was that you powered up your cantrips instead of getting encounter abilities.

Point 2) And that is precisely how casters in 5e work already.... They spend higher slots instead of points, but it amounts to the same. If you use the variant rule, they work exactly the same. Full stop.

I don't know about 4e never played it, but as someone who has DM'd two different sorcerers from the same player, one with spell points and one with spell slots, I can tell you that they work differently. With Spell points, there's no real reason not to sling your most powerful stuff as often as you can, cause you just have the point for it. Decisions also tend to be rendered quicker, cause they feel more like abilities with a cost, then a resource to be spent.

I definitely found spell points to be more powerful, cause it's just that much more flexible.

[Kite474]

Add me as another for the "unsatisfied" camp. Mostly because without point casting or the other oddities that will come with that this just feels like the same old thing 5e is doing. Only with the Psionic flavor text.

I also imagine the "special" psionic spell list will probably be just copying from the PHB with the fluff appropriately changed.

All in all, it feels like it's an easy way out. Instead of exploring new ground or retrying old things in new ways they are just doing the same old dance they have done for almost 5 years now for 5e. Im sure what they will do will be sound mechanics wise and all that. So far they have been doing fine. My disatisfaction comes more from how unquniqe it all is

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't know about 4e never played it, but as someone who has DM'd two different sorcerers from the same player, one with spell points and one with spell slots, I can tell you that they work differently. With Spell points, there's no real reason not to sling your most powerful stuff as often as you can, cause you just have the point for it. Decisions also tend to be rendered quicker, cause they feel more like abilities with a cost, then a resource to be spent.

I definitely found spell points to be more powerful, cause it's just that much more flexible.

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.
A psion is an Int based caster who uses spell points.
That is a wizard using the optional variant rule.

You guys are being soccer moms, who ordered a 7up and when the waiter brought you a Sierra Mist you asked to speak with the manager.
You already have what you want, and you're just complaining about the branding.

[Phoenix042]

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.
A psion is an Int based caster who uses spell points.
That is a wizard using the optional variant rule.

You guys are being soccer moms, who ordered a 7up and when the waiter brought you a Sierra Mist you asked to speak with the manager.
You already have what you want, and you're just complaining about the branding.

That's a terrible example; Sierra mist actually tastes significantly worse than 7up. Like I know flavor is supposed to be a matter of oinion, but sierra mist actually changed their recipe a while back and a lot of people dislike it now. It's pretty much accepted fact that it's not as good as 7up or sprite.

But yea, that doesn't really invalidate your point. Psionics in 3e especially was really just watered down and reflavored arcane magic. It used psi points, but it still gave you pretty much the same basic tools.

I hope they come up with enough unique stuff here that they actually arrive at the 1st iteration of psionics that appeals to me.

I've always loved the idea, but never enjoyed the actual mechanics in D&D before. These subclasses sound kind of cool to me, though. Hope to see them in a UA soon.

[Nifft]

3.0e Psionics were significantly different from any spellcasting in that edition. It had psionic combat with attack modes & defense modes right out of 1e. It's absurd to claim that 3.0e Psionics were just another type of spellcasting. The 3.0e power point reserve perks were oddball benefits that saw adaptation in 3.5e for regular spellcasters.


3.5e Psionics were closer to spellcasting, but also quite distinct. Psionic Feats were a big deal when they were first published -- feats that gave you at-will supernatural abilities! The flexibility of augmentation was new, and 5e may have stolen that mechanic wholesale for all spellcasters, but within its edition it was significantly different from how a spellcaster would work.


4e Psionics were distinct in play from other classes. I wonder if the claim of similarity is just some generic edition-war tripe about how all 4e classes are the same? They're not, of course, and the one Psion which I played in 4e felt very different from my long-term 4e Wizard.


Sierra Mist is not that tasty, please bring me a nice single-malt Scotch instead.

[Luccan]

Honestly, I want a Psionic subclass for all classes. Psionic barbarians who rage and unleash powerful mental energy, clerics who pray and meditate to receive mental powers beyond their own natural ability, druidic caretakers of collective consciousness, rangers tracking the mental and emotional footprint of their quarry. A psionic oath paladin might swear to protect knowledge and of course the sorcerer would get the wilder subclass. I think it could be fun for each class to have its own psionic related option.

Edit: How could I forget? A psionic bard. They get songs stuck in your head.

[Ralanr]

I am saddened that there is no psionic barbarian subclass concept.

[Phoenix042]

3.0e Psionics were significantly different from any spellcasting in that edition. It had psionic combat with attack modes & defense modes right out of 1e. It's absurd to claim that 3.0e Psionics were just another type of spellcasting. The 3.0e power point reserve perks were oddball benefits that saw adaptation in 3.5e for regular spellcasters.

So I actually checked this real quick, and I think you're right. At least at the 3.0 level, psionics seem pretty mechanically distinct.



3.5e Psionics were closer to spellcasting, but also quite distinct. Psionic Feats were a big deal when they were first published -- feats that gave you at-will supernatural abilities! The flexibility of augmentation was new, and 5e may have stolen that mechanic wholesale for all spellcasters, but within its edition it was significantly different from how a spellcaster would work.

Alright, yea, the feats were interesting and different, that's true. And having never played a psionic character, I guess I really can't say that I understand them well enough to give a thorough critique.

I just helped build a few for some players, and I remember that I was not intrigued by the mechanics and the players gave up those characters after a while.


Sierra Mist is not that tasty, please bring me a nice single-malt Scotch instead.

I prefer a hearty tankard of mead. I do not understand how beer became this ubiquitous thing in our society, and yet no one has mead on tap.

[Drascin]

I don't really have the time nor the inclination to watch a few long videos. I just wanna ask - what does the structure look like? Cause the Mystic's most interesting feature, mechanically, was that you didn't pick specific spells willy-nilly like literally every other caster in the game, but you chose entire thematic packages, and honestly I really liked the idea and felt it really helped a Mystic character get an identity in an organic manner. And I feel like losing that for "you just pick any individual spells you want from this big psionics list", like every other caster in the game already does, would be a net loss.

[Unoriginal]

I prefer a hearty tankard of mead. I do not understand how beer became this ubiquitous thing in our society, and yet no one has mead on tap.

Beer is made from relatively easy-to-cultivate-and-harvest-in-large-quantity grains (which you can also eat in case you'd rather have food than booze, but a lot of other grains can be used for food instead), mead is made of honey, which is significantly harder to get in large quantity (at least before the modern means appeared) and back in the days was basically the only thing to give a sweet taste to food (aside from fruits), so people had reasons to not use it for alcohol.

Like many things, it's a question of ressource availability.

[Rynjin]

You guys are being soccer moms, who ordered a 7up and when the waiter brought you a Sierra Mist you asked to speak with the manager.
You already have what you want, and you're just complaining about the branding.

A more apt comparison is when I order root beer at a restaurant and they bring me Dr. Pepper.

It''s not the same thing. Not even close. ='(

[DivisibleByZero]

Bottom line:
You want a caster who uses intelligence as a caring stat, and has flexibility to spend points on upcasting.
That's a psion.

Casters already can upcast spells in 5e.
The spell point variant already exists.
A wizard with spell points is mechanically a psion. The differences are exclusively fluff.
You have your lemon-lime cola. The branding doesn't matter.

[Rynjin]

I didn't want lemon lime soda, I wanted root beer

[Nifft]

Bottom line: Why is every other post in this thread you being a negative nancy?


The branding doesn't matter. If branding didn't matter, why are so many people playing D&D?

[Millstone85]

Pact of the Abberant - Warlock subclass that makes a pact with an Elder Brain or Abeloth. Doesn't directly have the psionic powers type deal as the other choices, but it's in the same ballpark.A psionic warlock subclass would compete with the Great Old One, especially if it is called the Aberrant.


If Psionics aren't their own thing, there really isn't much of a point in having them. Just having them be subclasses or "totally not arcane/divine casters" seems like it's a waste of time.Fluff-wise, a distinction between psionic casters and arcane/divine casters could make as much sense as the distinction between arcane casters and divine casters. 4e categorizing druids and more as "primal" casters was fine by me as well.

What annoys me is that both 4e and 5e went for spell lists organized by class, and 5e is only now reintroducing the concept of an unified list for a power source.


I don't really have the time nor the inclination to watch a few long videos. I just wanna ask - what does the structure look like? Cause the Mystic's most interesting feature, mechanically, was that you didn't pick specific spells willy-nilly like literally every other caster in the game, but you chose entire thematic packages, and honestly I really liked the idea and felt it really helped a Mystic character get an identity in an organic manner.
A wizard with spell points is mechanically a psion.I am siding with Drascin here, though I also very much liked the stance mechanics of the Mystic.

[carrdrivesyou]

I don't really have the time nor the inclination to watch a few long videos. I just wanna ask - what does the structure look like? Cause the Mystic's most interesting feature, mechanically, was that you didn't pick specific spells willy-nilly like literally every other caster in the game, but you chose entire thematic packages, and honestly I really liked the idea and felt it really helped a Mystic character get an identity in an organic manner. And I feel like losing that for "you just pick any individual spells you want from this big psionics list", like every other caster in the game already does, would be a net loss.

I really have to echo this! The Mystic really developed in its own organic way, which was unique to the class without creating new mechanics for psionics as a whole. Completely scrapping the class (which has gone through THREE versions) just seems like a waste of time, effort, and inspiration. Honestly, I have to say I am rather disappointed with this decision.

Additionally, I can understand adding psionic subclasses for the other classes, especially things like the Immortal being for a barbarian, or Soul Knife for a monk. Thematically, they sorta make sense. But the rest of the chassis wouldn't really make sense to divide up. It's a DnD class, not a pie, don't slice it apart. Adding a whole new subsection of spells just for caster just doesn't make any flipping sense. It seems more complicated than it has to be. I mean, are EKs and ATs gonna get access to these? Are certain subclasses getting access only? What's the plan here?

Tl;Dr: Keep the Mystic, add some psionic subclasses; why add more complicated mechanics for full casters?

[Millstone85]

Adding a whole new subsection of spells just for caster just doesn't make any flipping sense. It seems more complicated than it has to be. I mean, are EKs and ATs gonna get access to these? Are certain subclasses getting access only? What's the plan here?From previous threads, the plan seems to be for only the mystic (renamed psion after a poll) and psionic subclasses to get access to this spell list. Taking the fighter for example, the psychic warrior would have access to it, but the eldritch knight would not.


The Mystic really developed in its own organic way, which was unique to the class without creating new mechanics for psionics as a whole.They did have to explain how certain psionic disciplines counted as spells for the purpose of counterspell and such, while other disciplines did not. Now it seems they are all spells, which is simpler.

[Pelle]

Bottom line:
You want a caster who uses intelligence as a caring stat, and has flexibility to spend points on upcasting.
That's a psion.

Casters already can upcast spells in 5e.
The spell point variant already exists.
A wizard with spell points is mechanically a psion. The differences are exclusively fluff.
You have your lemon-lime cola. The branding doesn't matter.

I have a friend who is very enthusiastic about the 3.5 psion, and wanted to always play that if possible. His reason was that he mechanically likes having limited powers and a budget of points to spend, with the great flexibility of deciding on which powers to use and how many points to spend to decide how powerfully the power is used.

I said he could have all that with the 5e sorceror using spell points, but no, for some undefined reason that was apparently not good enough. So my impression is that people just want psions to be different, with no clear ideas on how...

[RoastCabose]

I don't really have the time nor the inclination to watch a few long videos. I just wanna ask - what does the structure look like? Cause the Mystic's most interesting feature, mechanically, was that you didn't pick specific spells willy-nilly like literally every other caster in the game, but you chose entire thematic packages, and honestly I really liked the idea and felt it really helped a Mystic character get an identity in an organic manner. And I feel like losing that for "you just pick any individual spells you want from this big psionics list", like every other caster in the game already does, would be a net loss.

We don't really know the structure of the class. With this, he was deciding what the subclasses should be, what are the level 1 stats such as hit die and weapon/armor prof, and when the subclass comes in, which probably will be level 1.

As for the spells themselves, we also don't know. I suspect they won't be packaged together anymore, but instead, since they're made to synergize on these disciplines, you'll want to pick ones that would be grouped together anyway. But I'm just spitballing here.

Really, we won't get the meat of the Psion till next Tuesday.

[DivisibleByZero]

So my impression is that people just want psions to be different, with no clear ideas on how...

Precisely.
The problem is that Psions were never really different to begin with, despite what people seem to think. They were Wizards who traded their adaptability of spells prepared for spells known and flexibility in the power of their spells.
That was it.
They were Wizard-lite with more flexibility and less adaptability.
Not nearly as different as some people want you to believe.
See below:
What I loved about 3e and 4e psionics is just how different they were from the other classes.Not different. They were extremely similar to other casters.

The Mystic was different.
The problem with the Mystic was they they were trying to do too much with the class, and it should have been 3 or 4 or even 5 different classes.

[Phoenix042]

Like many things, it's a question of ressource availability.

I should have known I'd get a reasonable and thorough answer linking back to something like resource management from the posters on this forum.

Curse you and your fancy logic. I want more mead dammit!

And more people to recognize that it's vastly better than their cheaply-made alcohol.

On topic, I'd be fine with psionics taking the form of spells as long as they add significantly more spells that are on that list, and the class features alter the way psions use spells to a significant degree.

I don't know exactly what form that would take; sorcerers alter the way they cast spells, via metamagic. Warlocks get access to similar spells compared to everyone else, but a few signature spells and a unique way of using spell slots actually manages to make a warlock VERY different in play compared to other casters.

Invocations, potent cantrips, signature spells, magical secrets, maleable illusions, expert divination, magical ambush, spell thief, war magic, etc.

These features all define and augment the way that a given class learns and casts spell. Using features along the same vein, I think we could get a psion that was mechanically distinct and fun to play while still fundamentally relying on the existing spell system.

I hope they can pull that off, but I'll admit that I'm not positive what form that would take.

[Derpaligtr]

Precisely.
The problem is that Psions were never really different to begin with, despite what people seem to think. They were Wizards who traded their adaptability of spells prepared for spells known and flexibility in the power of their spells.
That was it.
They were Wizard-lite with more flexibility and less adaptability.
Not nearly as different as some people want you to believe.
See below:Not different. They were extremely similar to other casters.

The Mystic was different.
The problem with the Mystic was they they were trying to do too much with the class, and it should have been 3 or 4 or even 5 different classes.

Casters had at-wills, encounter spells, and daily spells (wizards had a spell book that allowed them to switch out their daily spells and cpuld get a feat that expanded that option even more...)

Psions had augmentable at-wills and daily powers. The lower level abilities get better over time, sometimes you don't want to switch them out for a higher level power. The casters were constantly switching out encounter spells.

See the difference there? I undersrand you want that to be the exact same thing, but it's not. They play, mechanically different, and no matter how much you want to say otherwise... The proof is on paper.

What, to be different does psionics have to use a d6 system? A d12 system? Maybe rock, paper, scissors? By your logic, the fighter and warlock are the exact same thing because they get short rest abilities.

[Unoriginal]

I should have known I'd get a reasonable and thorough answer linking back to something like resource management from the posters on this forum.

Curse you and your fancy logic. I want more mead dammit!

And more people to recognize that it's vastly better than their cheaply-made alcohol.


On the topic of alcohol, Tomb of Annihilation speaks about how the most popular drink in Chult is the tej, a sweet alcohol made of honey.

[DivisibleByZero]

See the difference there?

No, I don't.
Instead of encounter powers they powered up their at-will powers and turned them into encounter powers. So they still got encounter powers, they just worked exactly the same as their at-wills with a fancy new rider attached. Big deal.
This is not some awesome difference like you seem to think. It was actually pretty lame in my mind. But it certainly wasn't game breaking different like you're trying to claim.

[Rebonack]

A 'psionic' Warlock patron strikes me as wholly redundant, since that's already what the Great Old One patron is trying to be. It has all the usual staples, telepathy, telekinesis, mind control, ect. If the GOO patron were focused more on fear and insanity rather than generic mentalist stuff then I could see a psionic Warlock being necessary.

Here's a confession, I honestly feel like the features and spells the GOO Warlock gets right now would already fit better as an Elder Brain/Aboleth patron than a great old one.

[Monster Manuel]

I think a lot of the disappointment comes from the idea that the unique format of the Mystic's Disciplines (where there's a core power which uses concentration, with sub-powers that you unlock/use by spending additional psi points) would be replaced with more standard spells (cast with a level X+ slot, here are the results). That's a mechanical change, rather than a simple flavor one.

I'm hoping that this isn't the case, though. If the new exclusive psionic spell list includes spells like, for instance, Adaptive Body, which is a Level 2 Psion Spell, which lets you ignore the need to eat, sleep or breathe while you maintain concentration. IN ADDITION, if you upcast at level 3 you can also extend the benefits to one or more extra creatures, at level 4 you can add energy resistance, at level 5 you can energy immunity. That gives you the feel of the Adaptive Body Mystic discipline, but makes it a spell more in line with other spells, using the existing resource management system rather than having to add spell points or some other wonky new mechanics..

If they could pull off something like that, I think it's best of both worlds and I'd be excited about this. It keeps what people like about the existing UA psionic powers, but doesn't add the complexity of a whole new magic system.

[RoastCabose]

No, I don't.
Instead of encounter powers they powered up their at-will powers and turned them into encounter powers. So they still got encounter powers, they just worked exactly the same as their at-wills with a fancy new rider attached. Big deal.
This is not some awesome difference like you seem to think. It was actually pretty lame in my mind. But it certainly wasn't game breaking different like you're trying to claim.

I'm gonna be honest here, you're being a real downer on everyone here, and I kinda want to know why you're arguing so hard against what essentially is semantics. Psionics, while similar to spellcasting, has been different in previous editions. They are slightly less discrete than traditional magic, and their slight differences in mechanics are what give them a flavor. Nobody is saying that they're "game breaking different" what ever that means. They just are different in some way, and we are hoping that they stay different, instead of being a bunch of regular spells that are learned and cast the same way

To the degree in which psionics differ from traditional spellcasting is really the current point of contention, and you seem to think that unless it runs as a completely different system, from the ground up unrelated to spellcasting, it's not that different from spellcasting. I believe that to be false.

I guess my question is what do you see in a "different" psionics system? How would you define different?

[Millstone85]

A 'psionic' Warlock patron strikes me as wholly redundant, since that's already what the Great Old One patron is trying to be. It has all the usual staples, telepathy, telekinesis, mind control, ect. If the GOO patron were focused more on fear and insanity rather than generic mentalist stuff then I could see a psionic Warlock being necessary.I agree.


Here's a confession, I honestly feel like the features and spells the GOO Warlock gets right now would already fit better as an Elder Brain/Aboleth patron than a great old one.Whereas I feel that an elder brain or an aboleth would be well within the theme of a great old one patron.

[Rynjin]

Perhaps I'm skewed by playing Pathfinder instead of 3.5, but Powers were often quite different from spells in how they functioned in any case if the two are at all equivalent.

Metamorphosis is not at all the same as Polymorph. Catfall is different from Feather Fall. Astral Construct is not even close to Summon Monster, and so on.

[Luccan]

The mechanical appeal of the Psionics I'm most familiar with was the ability to augment powers. Not just pump in points to make them stronger (which, yes, would be similar to casting from a higher slot), many powers could actively be changed in some fashion. Astral Constructs could gain different abilities when created using psionic powers, for instance, and choosing these abilities was a tactical decision. Most powers that focused on energy could use whatever kind of energy the psion wanted at the time. What made psionics unique in past editions was on the fly customization of their powers and if those powers just become static spells, there really isn't much reason to making a psion class. Just dump the Telepath onto wizards, Kineticists onto sorcerers, and the weaker psionic classes on rogue, monk, and fighter and you're done.

[Aimeryan]

The mechanical appeal of the Psionics I'm most familiar with was the ability to augment powers. Not just pump in points to make them stronger (which, yes, would be similar to casting from a higher slot), many powers could actively be changed in some fashion. Astral Constructs could gain different abilities when created using psionic powers, for instance, and choosing these abilities was a tactical decision. Most powers that focused on energy could use whatever kind of energy the psion wanted at the time. What made psionics unique in past editions was on the fly customization of their powers and if those powers just become static spells, there really isn't much reason to making a psion class. Just dump the Telepath onto wizards, Kineticists onto sorcerers, and the weaker psionic classes on rogue, monk, and fighter and you're done.

This. Such a form of customisation was one of the major differences between powers and spells.

That said, there is something to be said for just some flavour refluffing; I particularly like what a Bard is capable of, but I loath the performance aspect of it - a refluff to being psychic (and the small mechanical changes that might require to support it) would be of much interest to me. More Jedi, less Jester.

[dejarnjc]

This. Such a form of customisation was one of the major differences between powers and spells.

Unfortunately the designers seem to be unnaturally averse to even the perception of complexity in a class so I doubt we'll ever see such customization in 5e.

[Fire Tarrasque]

I love this. Psionics have been, in every edition besides 5th (and maybe 4th? Not sure there) ABSURDLY unbalanced. Mystic is better, but still above the power curve (though I haven't bought it off DM's guild so who knows, it could be perfect now.) Making them subclasses puts much less pressure on it for balance, as an OP subclass won't have as much of an effect as an OP class.

Also, why are you people ignoring the fact that we're getting a second psionic class?

That would make for a total of 15 classes by WOTC.

[Aimeryan]

I love this. Psionics have been, in every edition besides 5th (and maybe 4th? Not sure there) ABSURDLY unbalanced. Mystic is better, but still above the power curve (though I haven't bought it off DM's guild so who knows, it could be perfect now.) Making them subclasses puts much less pressure on it for balance, as an OP subclass won't have as much of an effect as an OP class.

Also, why are you people ignoring the fact that we're getting a second psionic class?

That would make for a total of 15 classes by WOTC.

Apart from the StPE variant of Psion, 3.5e psionic users were generally more balanced than spell casters.

[dejarnjc]

Apart from the StPE variant of Psion, 3.5e psionic users were generally more balanced than spell casters.

Yeah clerics and wizards have been the worst offenders of broken balance IMO.

[Kuu Lightwing]

As some alreaday mentioned, I think this way, there's not much reason to have psionics at all, since it's niche isn't distinct enough on its own to cover it with the same mechanics as spellcasting. In other words, it's going to do the same thing spellcasters do in the same manner spellcasters do, so, why not play one of the many spellcasters that already exist instead? I think psionics need to be mechanically distinguished from regular spellcasting.

But aside from that, can I mention how I hate the idea of Telepath being a Wizard subclass? I basically couldn't play the most iconic psionic archetype without making him an dude with a spellbook? Why?

[MeeposFire]

Perhaps I'm skewed by playing Pathfinder instead of 3.5, but Powers were often quite different from spells in how they functioned in any case if the two are at all equivalent.

Metamorphosis is not at all the same as Polymorph. Catfall is different from Feather Fall. Astral Construct is not even close to Summon Monster, and so on.

That is because those are only similar they are not the same. You could create a catfall spell with the same exact effects as the power and call it a spell and then they would be nigh identical.

That being said I see as both being true and all of you are arguing over fine details. On one hand you are right spell casting and psionics do have key differences in 3e and 4e that mark them as different. In fact in 3.5 the biggest change is not the more obvious power points but rather the upcasting and no free caster level improvements on many powers that differentiates psionics from spells.

That being said Divide is right too that difference is in the grand scheme of things still just a slight alternative change to the original rules and they are on the whole very similar.

Note how in 5e which is an edition that tries to make call backs as much as possible has decided to make casting essentially 3.5e psionics but using spell slots in stead of points. It was close enough to the original 3e and prior casting that this was considered OK by the D&D masses so I would say this kind of shows how it is not the much different in the grand scheme of things.

In addition I would also note that since spell casting now operates like 3e psionics that means that you really lost what was mechanically the biggest difference between casting and manifesting. Really the only thing they could do that prior editions did to make it feel psionic for some people is to use power points which was what 4e did. 4e psionics (and as I recall 3e psionics before 3.5) were really the same thing with an alternative coat of paint. Yes a 4e psion had no encounter powers and could use power points to upgrade at wills but was essentially an alternative encounter power system (it did give some slightly different nuances to be fair and so it did not play exactly the same but they were very similar).

I think long term they are going to go with in the end with spellcasting but switching it to spell points, call them power points, and just make it thematically psionic . I think they give a couple of extra rules for them such as no components but they will have manifestations and little things like that will probably be enough to make psionic fans happy while keeping the overall mechanics very similar to what we have already.

[Aimeryan]

That being said I see as both being true and all of you are arguing over fine details. On one hand you are right spell casting and psionics do have key differences in 3e and 4e that mark them as different. In fact in 3.5 the biggest change is not the more obvious power points but rather the upcasting and no free caster level improvements on many powers that differentiates psionics from spells.

As mentioned previously, upcasting was not the only mechanical difference; augmentation of different effects were just as, if not more, relevant at differentiating the two.



I think long term they are going to go with in the end with spellcasting but switching it to spell points, call them power points, and just make it thematically psionic . I think they give a couple of extra rules for them such as no components but they will have manifestations and little things like that will probably be enough to make psionic fans happy while keeping the overall mechanics very similar to what we have already.

If they also allow for differentiating augmentations then I think most would be happy. Otherwise, its simply spells by another name - which might be fine if the spells/powers are different enough to existing spells, however, I feel there would likely be much overlap.

If they make the cantrip equivalents more interesting that might also be enough to make me happy. Cantrips (or weapon attacks) are pretty much all you do at earlier levels most of the time as a caster, but they are pretty dull. I preferred 3.5e greater amount of resources - even at low level you would rarely just attack as a caster (which is what 95% of cantrips are).

[Millstone85]

But aside from that, can I mention how I hate the idea of Telepath being a Wizard subclass? I basically couldn't play the most iconic psionic archetype without making him an dude with a spellbook? Why?That shocks me too.

Besides the magobabble of carrying their own personal weave, I think psions would have three main centers of interest:
* Telepathy, including mental communication, mind reading, mind control and psychic damage.
* Telekinesis, including levitation, force fields and force damage.
* Self-boosting, through harmony of body and mind.

Admittedly, the third one is very monk-like, so maybe it doesn't need to be a psion subclass. Or is it the monk that doesn't need a psionic subclass? Both? Not sure.

But if there is going to be a psion subclass with a focus on telekinesis, there should be one for telepathy.

[Luccan]

You could have the Telepath wizard's spellbook be mental. Sit down every morning and decide from a mental catalog of spells which they will devote their consciousness to applying today. Considering the unspoken agreement in every game I've seen since 3.X that the DM doesn't go after the spellbooks anyway (not necessarily one I think is always good, but whatever) it doesn't seem overly advantageous.

[Theoboldi]

Oh no, I really hope OP is wrong and being a telepath is not completely delegated to a wizard subclass. I really want to play that archetype without all the trappings of traditional spellcasting, spellbooks and the ability to scribe stuff off random scrolls you can find.

And as I've said before, I hope the spellcasting system psions end up with at least resembles somewhat the cool, individual packages of power that the mystic had. They were unbalanced, sure, but they were a great foundation for a super flavorful system.

[RoastCabose]

Oh no, I really hope OP is wrong and being a telepath is not completely delegated to a wizard subclass. I really want to play that archetype without all the trappings of traditional spellcasting, spellbooks and the ability to scribe stuff off random scrolls you can find.

And as I've said before, I hope the spellcasting system psions end up with at least resembles somewhat the cool, individual packages of power that the mystic had. They were unbalanced, sure, but they were a great foundation for a super flavorful system.

The Mentalist is just the wizard subclass, by the end of the video Mearls had said that the telepath would probably end up in the Psion as an archtype anyway, since they had a d6 hit die.

I also feel like a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees. By what Mearls has said, the Psionic Spell list would be spells in name only, by having different concentration rules, little or no components, their own effects that are psionic exclusive, like the entire idea of using the spells to build on each other. I mean, the archtypes presented don't have a lot of conceptual overlap with existing spells, besides maybe the Nomad.

[Millstone85]

The Mentalist is just the wizard subclass, by the end of the video Mearls had said that the telepath would probably end up in the Psion as an archtype anyway, since they had a d6 hit die.That's a relief. When I read...
Mentalist - Wizard subclass meant to give a telepath flavour
Telepath - Psychic damage abound, read minds, possibly just going to be a mentalist I thought it meant just the opposite, that there wouldn't be a psion (telepath) because of the wizard (mentalist).


I also feel like a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees. By what Mearls has said, the Psionic Spell list would be spells in name only, by having different concentration rules, little or no components, their own effects that are psionic exclusive, like the entire idea of using the spells to build on each other.Even in name only, they would then qualify as targets for dispel magic. Or did he just compare it to a spell list?

[Jama7301]

That's a relief. When I read... I thought it meant just the opposite, that there wouldn't be a psion (telepath) because of the wizard (mentalist).

Even in name only, they would then qualify as targets for dispel magic. Or did he just compare it to a spell list?

I may be misreading the tone of this post, but it sounds like people want Psionics to be...


Unique and not tied to any existing system
Adaptable
Powerful
Not affected by common anti-magic techniques


Because if that's the case, I could see a situation where Psionics blows up the power creep, if the only thing that can counter Psionics is more Psionics.

[MeeposFire]

As mentioned previously, upcasting was not the only mechanical difference; augmentation of different effects were just as, if not more, relevant at differentiating the two.




If they also allow for differentiating augmentations then I think most would be happy. Otherwise, its simply spells by another name - which might be fine if the spells/powers are different enough to existing spells, however, I feel there would likely be much overlap.

If they make the cantrip equivalents more interesting that might also be enough to make me happy. Cantrips (or weapon attacks) are pretty much all you do at earlier levels most of the time as a caster, but they are pretty dull. I preferred 3.5e greater amount of resources - even at low level you would rarely just attack as a caster (which is what 95% of cantrips are).

You get that already as I recall (I do not normally play spellcasters so I am going by some faulty memory here) doesn't some hold, charm, or domination effects allow you to affect new targets when you cast them at higher levels or to affect more targets? The concept is already there. Yes 3.5 psionics did it more often but the concept has been taken and so I do not think it would feel as different now as it did back then and even then it was spell casting with some changed rules to make it seem different.

I do not see how 3e casters at low level had such great resources. Unless you were getting more equipment than you should or you are not being pressured to use resources casters would tend to fall into using a poor weapon attack (or alternivtives) a lot heck that is a common refrain of plinking away with a crossbow as a sorcerer at low levels and lamenting on how they did not feel magical because of it.

[Theoboldi]

I may be misreading the tone of this post, but it sounds like people want Psionics to be...


Unique and not tied to any existing system
Adaptable
Powerful
Not affected by common anti-magic techniques


Because if that's the case, I could see a situation where Psionics blows up the power creep, if the only thing that can counter Psionics is more Psionics.

It need not be overly adaptable, nor more powerful than other classes. I personally liked the idea of psions having only a few, but versatile disciplines. And I dont care if magic can dispel it so long as it can do the same to magic. It does need to be unique though, in some way at least. Otherwise it just feels like spellcasting with the numbers filed off.

To give an example of a psionics system I like, there is the one in Stars Without Numbers. Psions there are restricted to a few different psionic disciplines, that give basic effects which grow as the psion gains more ranks in that discipline, as well as specific talents that give you further, specialised options. It feels very different from just knowing distinct spells, and more like somebody improving in the discipline of telekinesis or something directly.

The mystic playtest was similar to it, giving that same distinct feeling from spellcasting, at least to me. And that distinctiveness alongside the psionic flavour is really what I crave.

That aside, glad to know that the telepath will most likely be a psion subclass. I dont have the time to watch these lenghty videos and can only go off of what I read in dev posts and summaries like these, so the recent tweets were very disheartening.

[Kane0]

My proposal: Split psionics down the middle.

- One one end you have the 'old style' of psionics, that is to say similar to existing magic/casting but not quite, is bundled into existing mechanics via subclasses and new spells.
- On the other end is the new class, a refined UA Mystic. With the above done it doesn't have to do everything itself anymore, and i'd take inspiration from 3.5 Incarnum and the discipline package concept. Can also tie into the above 'old style' with access to spellcasting using its own list.

That way we can have a bit of both and it blends into the existing game better than a full standalone subsystem, and it can please the greatest number of people.

[Aimeryan]

You get that already as I recall (I do not normally play spellcasters so I am going by some faulty memory here) doesn't some hold, charm, or domination effects allow you to affect new targets when you cast them at higher levels or to affect more targets? The concept is already there. Yes 3.5 psionics did it more often but the concept has been taken and so I do not think it would feel as different now as it did back then and even then it was spell casting with some changed rules to make it seem different.

I do not see how 3e casters at low level had such great resources. Unless you were getting more equipment than you should or you are not being pressured to use resources casters would tend to fall into using a poor weapon attack (or alternivtives) a lot heck that is a common refrain of plinking away with a crossbow as a sorcerer at low levels and lamenting on how they did not feel magical because of it.

More targets is not a different effect, it is just a more powerful effect. Many powers in 3.5e had different ways they would work or do (additionally) different things entirely. It was part of the resource management system that made powers far more interesting than they would otherwise had been.

3.5e casters have more resources at early levels, once you take things like bonus spells per day from ability modifier, specialist schools, etc. into account. There are less recommended encounters per day in 3.5e, as well (4 vs. 6-8). Level 1 spells also felt more useful and was more variation (5e, its Sleep or don't bother).

5e made Cantrips unlimited and then made that the default action for a caster, feeling less need for spell slots. Cantrips are both poor damage and dull, however. If Psionics changes this, then that would be enough for me to be happy.

[RoastCabose]

Even in name only, they would then qualify as targets for dispel magic. Or did he just compare it to a spell list?

No, it is going to be a spell list, as of right now, and be called spells. That may change, especially if they all work on slightly different rules, but I can see why they would be spells. It would be for stuff like Dispel Magic, plus being able to keep the verisimilitude of using the word spell for nearly all magical effects.

He's talked a bit about how psionics were unique in the way they interacted with magic, but he, and I for that matter, wouldn't them to be immune to **** like anti magic fields and other spell canceling ****. Cause that just means the psion's only counters are other psions.

[Millstone85]

I may be misreading the tone of this post, but it sounds like people want Psionics to be...


Unique and not tied to any existing system
Adaptable
Powerful
Not affected by common anti-magic techniques


Because if that's the case, I could see a situation where Psionics blows up the power creep, if the only thing that can counter Psionics is more Psionics.I was just really curious to know whether or not Mearls envisioned psionic disciplines with the "spell" tag, as that has mechanical consequences. But neither answer would bother me.


No, it is going to be a spell list, as of right now, and be called spells. That may change, especially if they all work on slightly different rules, but I can see why they would be spells. It would be for stuff like Dispel Magic, plus being able to keep the verisimilitude of using the word spell for nearly all magical effects.

He's talked a bit about how psionics were unique in the way they interacted with magic, but he, and I for that matter, wouldn't them to be immune to **** like anti magic fields and other spell canceling ****. Cause that just means the psion's only counters are other psions.Okay, thank you for the clarification.

[DivisibleByZero]

My proposal: Split psionics down the middle.

- One one end you have the 'old style' of psionics, that is to say similar to existing magic/casting but not quite, is bundled into existing mechanics via subclasses and new spells.
- On the other end is the new class, a refined UA Mystic. With the above done it doesn't have to do everything itself anymore, and i'd take inspiration from 3.5 Incarnum and the discipline package concept. Can also tie into the above 'old style' with access to spellcasting using its own list.

That way we can have a bit of both and it blends into the existing game better than a full standalone subsystem, and it can please the greatest number of people.

That is exactly the plan.
These subclasses are going into the old/existing system, while the new class will be more of a deviation.
That has been Mearls' plan all along.

The subclasses are being created first so that players and DMs who want to implement psionics in some manner right now, but don't want to use the Mystic as is, have an option. And those options will arrive in UA before the revamped Mystic does.