Realization: 3.5 Psionics and 5th edition spell slots are very much alike each other.

[Arkhios]

I mean, when you look at them side by side, both systems work with a similar idea:

You know or prepare spells from each level you have access to.

In 5th edition, you have a certain amount of spell slots you can spend to cast spells, and you can up-cast most spells with higher level spell slots.

In 3.5 Psionics, you have a certain amount of power points which you must spend to manifest powers, and you can augment many powers with spending more power points.

Now, I'm aware that Power Points allow a bit more detailed points/power micromanagement, but by default, they both are very similar in my opinion.

The similarity should be evident when comparing the concepts of "up-casting" and "Augment".


This led me to another realization that it's absolutely pointless to try and create an entirely new method for 5th edition to handle psionics, when even the powers themselves are very much like spells.
Just make all psionic classes use the same method and just call psionics magic, just like the rest. Besides, 5th edition already makes no difference between the spells themselves. Spells are just spells. Magic is just Magic. It's the classes that make the difference in whether you're called a divine or arcane class, and even then it's mostly superficial. It wouldn't shake any balance to add a third type into the classes: Psionic.

I'd say that the Aberrant Sorcerer is perfect representation of psionics in 5th edition, in general, although I'm not entirely sure if its features are balanced otherwise. But thematically, it works. Following the same example, other psionically themed classes could work within same framework.

[Justin Sane]

Spells are just spells. Magic is just Magic. It's the classes that make the difference in whether you're called a divine or arcane class, and even then it's mostly superficial.See, here's the thing: I agree with the exact point you make right after this, "one more magic type can't hurt". My problem is, too often "this is magic" is conflated with "this uses spells".

[Kuu Lightwing]

If psionics is exactly as magic, then psionics has no reason to exist. Simply as that.

Why? Because, like it or not, psionics is, by it's core is "magic, but different", and without it being different, it fails to do what it is set to do. Yes it wouldn't shake any balance to add another spellcaster that works like all other spellcasters and call it a psion. It would also be absolutely pointless.

I also am not convinced that we cannot have any other mechanics than existing mechanics. Why not? Saying that some people wouldn't want to learn a new mechanics is in my opinion pretty harmfull approach to game design. Those people could simply disallow psionics if they don't want it.

[Arkhios]

If psionics is exactly as magic, then psionics has no reason to exist. Simply as that.

Why? Because, like it or not, psionics is, by it's core is "magic, but different", and without it being different, it fails to do what it is set to do. Yes it wouldn't shake any balance to add another spellcaster that works like all other spellcasters and call it a psion. It would also be absolutely pointless.

I also am not convinced that we cannot have any other mechanics than existing mechanics. Why not? Saying that some people wouldn't want to learn a new mechanics is in my opinion pretty harmfull approach to game design. Those people could simply disallow psionics if they don't want it.

Pact Magic also handles spells exactly like spellcasters (Casting spells needs spell slots. Pact Magic provides a different source of spell slots), so why does the Warlock exist?

Or, since spells are spells, why are the bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard separate classes (not to mention several subclasses that also have the ability to cast spells)?

If all those have a valid niche to fulfill, then so does the Psion (or other Psionic classes). Whether they're handled as full classes or sub-classes is really irrelevant to me (arguably, at all).
it really doesn't matter how small that niche is. Warlock is perfectly capable of handling its own secluded niche alone. Why couldn't the Psion?

I didn't say that Psionics shouldn't be different. Not at all. But Psionics can be different in other ways than the one how Mystic handles it.

My point is that you could reasonably implement the Psion as a Wizard sub-class for example, with their sub-class features appropriately themed towards psionics.

Or you could create a full new class that uses intelligence as their spellcasting ability, gains spells like a Sorcerer does, but is different enough from sorcerer at the same time. It's entirely possible to do. And a psion does have a niche to fill. Like it or not. Purely mental magical prowess has been untouched so far.

My point is that the differentiation of magic type is the invisible wedge between class and magic. Class defines the type of your magic, while magic itself is entirely neutral whether it's arcane, divine, or the presumable psionic.
To prove my point: you could detach the Wizard's spell list from the Wizard class and attach it to cleric. Now the spells would be labeled as divine magic because Cleric is a class with divine theme. Likewise, you could detach cleric's spell list from the Cleric class and attack it to the Wizard. Now, the spells would be arcane spells because Wizard is a class with arcane theme.

I mean that Psionics could use the existing spell descriptions as they are, making unique spell lists for Psionic classes, and just use them in their own unique way. There's no point in reinventing the wheels (in this case, spells as powers and vice versa). The thing I'm disputing here is that I find it pointless to remake a spell into a power, using almost exactly same wording, and then label it as a "not-spell" while they clearly do the same thing.

I sincerely think that Pathfinder handled psionics a.k.a. psychic magic well. Pathfinder's psychic spellcasters use the same spells as any other class does, and some spells uniquely tailored for them. But they replace Somatic and Verbal components with Thought and Emotion components (respectively).

I'm NOT saying that 5th edition had to use the same replacements, but replacing the same fundamentals as Somatic and Verbal components could be the way to handle psionics in 5th edition.

[Kuu Lightwing]

The main question is what do you want from psionics. The niche of "purely mental magical prowess" is incredibly vague, and I don't understand what that means. Telekinetic and telepathy powers? (every spellcasters can have those) Casting with no components? (Subtle spell, the class is hardly interesting for a concept)

You say that aberrant mind sorcerer is a perfect implementation of psionics, but it's just a regular sorcerer with Tzeench corruption, so despite sometimes sprouting tentacles and casting some vaguely "psychic" spells subtly, they are going to cast fireballs by waving their hands, screaming "abra-kadabra" and throwing bat poo at people most of the time anyway. It is just a sorcerer, but with tentacles. And the same would be for a Wizard subclass, if not worse, because Wizard by definition is a dude with a spellbook, which psion is not.

What I'm saying, by using this framework you also limit your design space for available mechanics. In fact, look at warlock. Warlock is a short-rest spellcaster. But wait, 6+ spells are apparently too powerful for that, so they instead made them cast every spell above level 5 just like any other spellcaster. Same would be done to psion if they "just make it another spellcaster" - they would have something different... beyond level 6 where they turn into just another wizard.

And why _should_ you use spells for psionics anyway? Why not base it off monk ki points for example? After all, ki points are closer to power points than spell slots, and ki is a type of magic, so even if you insist that psionics is a type of magic, it doesn't mean that psionics must use spells. Actually with all that fluff about psionics being a mental discipline, doesn't that make even more sense to be a more monk-ish class? Hell, in 4e monk was a psionic class.

Or make psion powers more flexible, like some base effect wich you modify with something akin to invocations, but more elabotate. After all since "augmentation" is kind of the thing that spellcasters do anyway, something else could be done to reflect the augmentation of 3.5e psionics (which by the way, was not always limited to "spend more points to get more dice"). There are many ways you could go with it. Even Mystic idea of giving disciplines in "packages" is kinda interesting, regardless of what you think about the class balance itself.

[Willie the Duck]

This led me to another realization that it's absolutely pointless to try and create an entirely new method for 5th edition to handle psionics, when even the powers themselves are very much like spells.

On a fundamental level, this is the underlying problem with psionics as a whole--why do they exist? Initially, the were included in oD&D as a bone thrown by Gygax to the people that thought that Vancian magic was too fiddly and too specific to one authors' vision of magic and could we please have a spell point system?, to which he gave them those forms of magic most often used in sci-fi ('psychic powers' as it were). Of course, since normal D&D wizards also got most of those powers, the spell point mechanism became part and parcel of the distinction that psionics had from other magic. Except of course that D&D magic has been slowly moving towards the spell point system (in 3e by having the sorcerer class, which at that the time was defined by daily spell slots and not metamagic, and now in 5e with all the classes using a spell slot system).

So there's really no specific reason for psionics to exist in the game at all -- except that people want them! That's true not just for "an entirely new method for 5th edition to handle psionics" but for the character type (class, classes, or sub-class(es)) as a whole. Except, for a game, where all the specifics are 'because people want them,' and much of the conventions that it embraces are sufficiently distinct from the genres that inspired the game that it can be considered it's own little self-sustaining micro-genre, there aren't any larger-scale justifications for why things should or shouldn't exist within the game except 'because people want them'. If a sufficient proportion of gamers want psionics (honestly not clear on that myself), and a sufficient proportion of them want it to be mechanically distinct from other forms of casting (also not clear), then that's all the justification needed.

[Justin Sane]

and a sufficient proportion of them want it to be mechanically distinct from other forms of casting

Yes, please. Having psionics implemented as simply another spell-casting variant feels like ... like if the Battlemaster used specific spells instead of maneuvers.

[Aimeryan]

Do people consider the spell point variant listed in the DMG as balanced? Can it be used in AL games?

I think the answers to those two questions inform on the usefulness of a psionic magic system.

[Drache64]

I love psionics, I want psionics in 5e, I play a mystic any time a DM allows Unearthed Arcana.

Not really an opinion on the OP, I just thought this was a psionics anonymous meeting....

[Rukelnikov]

Do people consider the spell point variant listed in the DMG as balanced? Can it be used in AL games?

I think the answers to those two questions inform on the usefulness of a psionic magic system.

I consider the SV variant system as more powerful than the Mystic's psionics from UA, it probably can't be used in AL, but who cares, you can't loot gold from your enemies in AL, its as far from D&D as you can get, "kill & don't loot".

I played from lvl 9 to 17 with a Nomad in the party, he was pretty good, but definitely not OP, the (real) full casters were already outshining him hard by that point.

NOTE: The nomadic mind Psionic Focus was nerfed to only being able to grant 1 proficiency /long rest, the first time you focused on it you choose the proficiency you get, and you would get the same one on subsequent focuses until your next long rest, this was the only thing we deemed truly (innately) broken and is not a power or talent.

[Millstone85]

The similarity should be evident when comparing the concepts of "up-casting" and "Augment".What I want for 5e psionics is upcastable cantrips.

For example, there could be a psionic discipline that works similarly to mage hand when cast at no cost, but becomes more like telekinesis the more points you spend on it.

This way, psionics would still be known for the ability to augment stuff. Plus, I think it would be fun to play.


My problem is, too often "this is magic" is conflated with "this uses spells".Unearthed Arcana went from "psionics and magic are two distinct forces" to "psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting".

To me, the first version was pointless. What makes that miraculous energy different from this miraculous energy? But I like the second one a lot.

Well, at least flavor-wise. But if psionic disciplines did work like upcastable cantrips, I would understand the game treating them as such.


Why not base it off monk ki points for example?I would love it if there was a way to convert psi points into ki points, and vice versa. Perhaps a feat called Unity of Body and Mind, of which the Soul Knife monk would have a stronger version as a feature.

[Arkhios]

-- why _should_ you use spells for psionics anyway? Why not base it off monk ki points for example? --

I mean, sure, ki points as a basis for Psionics could work well. But I see little reason in rewriting every damn effect that is more or less equal to an already existing spell when you could just use the spells as written and use the ki or "ki" as the resource to "cast" them.

Honestly, adding an invocation-like class feature that lets you adjust your known spells isn't a bad idea. It would certainly make the class feel different from (other) spellcasters, while still being able to use spells as written.


I really wonder why you're so adamant about wanting to remake (especially rewrite) powers or disciplines as entirely different from spells and waste literally hundreds of work hours to recreate abilities that are similar to spells, when spells would work for both concepts.

Why is it so important that a psionic effect, that is clearly just as magical as a spell effect, has to be "not-spell, but still similar"?

[Rukelnikov]

I mean, sure, ki points as a basis for Psionics could work well. But I see little reason in rewriting every damn effect that is more or less equal to an already existing spell when you could just use the spells as written and use the ki or "ki" as the resource to "cast" them.

Honestly, adding an invocation-like class feature that lets you adjust your known spells isn't a bad idea. It would certainly make the class feel different from (other) spellcasters, while still being able to use spells as written.


I really wonder why you're so adamant about wanting to remake powers or disciplines as an entirely different thing and waste literally hundreds of work hours to recreate abilities that are similar to spells, when spells work for both concepts.

Psionics and regular magic are not two branches of the same kind of magic, and thus need to use something different than slots for them not to be mechanically interchangeable, same reason a 4 elems monk get powers fueled by ki instead of getting spell slots and spells.

If they are spells... then they are spells, which means you can mix match psionics with "regular" magic, a psion1/wizard8, would be able to upcast lvl 1 psion spells, basically meaning that psionics and magic are interchangeable and just two different branches of the same discipline, like current Sorcerers and Druids.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I mean, sure, ki points as a basis for Psionics could work well. But I see little reason in rewriting every damn effect that is more or less equal to an already existing spell when you could just use the spells as written and use the ki or "ki" as the resource to "cast" them.

Honestly, adding an invocation-like class feature that lets you adjust your known spells isn't a bad idea. It would certainly make the class feel different from (other) spellcasters, while still being able to use spells as written.

IF the effect replicates a spell, then they can say "you can cast x spell by doing y and z". But it does not necessarily have to replicate a spell's effect.
There's only so many ways you can alter the existing spells, because spells are written as self-contained. That's not the only way to produce magical effects in the world. The mystic approach is the other way to do it - to build psionic disciplines as bundles with multiple powers, or build them differently - make the powers modular. Like you have base "spells" and could attach rider effects to it. And you can't just utilize regular spells for it, because Fireball is not balanced around the idea of, say, stunning people caught in the blast.



I really wonder why you're so adamant about wanting to remake (especially rewrite) powers or disciplines as entirely different from spells and waste literally hundreds of work hours to recreate abilities that are similar to spells, when spells would work for both concepts.

Why is it so important that a psionic effect, that is clearly just as magical as a spell effect, has to be "not-spell, but still similar"?
Because I want new and interesting mechanics that are not just a skin for Sorcerer for people who are into tentacle porn.

[Waazraath]

In earlier editions, the designers really tried to make psionics not 'just magic with a different name'. They tried to give it its own niche, by, among others, having it a bit more sci-fi themed, having special materials related to psionics (crystals, crystals everywhere!), own items (dorjes instead of wands, psi crowns, etc.) made powers that didn't have a spell equivalent, gave it a niche within the supernatural (being more then spells themed towards time manipulation, telepathy, telekinesis, energy manipulation)...

This wasn't perfect of course. There was still a lot of overlap with 'normal' magic, including a whole bunch of spells/powers that were exactly the same, including the name (nonono, it was PSIONIC dispel magic!), there was still overlap in thematics (cause there were already some spells occupying the niche that psionics tried to occupy), there were classes that fulfilled the same roles.

But all in all, it was something really different, with a different feel and its own system. This is of course also the problem with fitting it in into an existing game world. Cause anything not in the core rules will feel as an add on, and not everybody will be willing to work with it, and be willing to learn an extra system. Even more important, it can't be easily fitted into the lore backwards. If a setting never had psionics so far, where did it come from?

Therefore I understand if the 5e designers aren't too eager, or in any case: very very careful, about adding psionics, or other systems. Which is a shame, cause in 3.x I loved ToB, binding, psionics and even incarnum. But I'm a nerd who enjoys mastering a new system, and I known many a casual player who really doesn't want to bother with that kind of stuff.

[8wGremlin]

Spit balling:
What if Psionics was a different spell list with different effects based on upcasting.

Such as size, or number of targets, or self to touch to range, all based on upcasting.

Every class has access to this list but they have to give up their old spell list to do so, you either have Magic, or Psionics.
there would be exceptions obviously Divine sorcerer throws a spanner in the works but would have Psionic and Cleric

- may be its an Alternative Class feature
- may be its accessed via a feat


whatever. any idea here will not see offical D&D print, as it's a legal minefield for WoTC.

[Arkhios]

Because I want new and interesting mechanics that are not just a skin for Sorcerer for people who are into tentacle porn.

I feel you're overreacting to my choice of words, about how I felt the Aberrant Sorcerer handled psionics well within 5e framework.

Plus, that derogatory implication of tentacle porn fantasies is "mildly" offensive. I should report that, but I'm willing to let it slide. This time.

Let me rephrase: I don't think that Aberrant Sorcerer is entirely perfect as a representation of a psionic class option. But I do think there's much more potential in Aberrant Sorcerer's approach compared to Mystic which is just all over the place (really, that class tries to fit ALL psionic tropes into one class, and that's foolish). It has a few potential ideas, but I don't like how the class is built. In case it wasn't clear, I do think that Psi Points need to be a thing, but I'm not entirely sure if it had to be the carrying beam under that construction.

About not being entirely perfect: I didn't mean to imply that the tentacle theme was a "perfect tinder match" for psionics. I get you're possibly upset that I appeared to make that allegation with my words, but I didn't mean to. It's the other parts about the sorcerous origin that I do agree with (although I would've tried to implement the additional spells known a bit differently; not sure how, but not like that). However, I do like the idea that Psionics is connected to the Far Realms (one possible allegory for that is Outer Space, which strongly implies Sci-Fi theme), which seems to be the direction it has been going towards over the years. It would give the powers of the mind "more meat under its flesh". But not everything related to Far Realm has to come with tentacles attached — or penetrated.


That being said, my original point was that 3.5 psionics, with its inherent augmentation system, IS very similar to 5th edition's spellcasting. I don't think there's much left to debate on this matter. THAT was the point in my OP. After that point, I was ONLY spitballing the possibilities how they could implement psionics into the game.
My intent was NOT to try and undermine the necessity of implementing Psionics into this edition, but rather, evoke a discussion over a more tightly knit implementation in regards to the prevalent magic system.

Obviously not everyone likes my idea (or is it just me and my opinions, by principle, I dunno), but there you have mine. Like it, or don't. Big deal.

I do really like psionics. I did so when I started this hobby in 3.5 era, I liked it in 4e, but 5e and Mystics has continuously driven me away from it, even though I've tried to like Mystic. I simply don't. It's a mess. Loud and clear.

[Millstone85]

However, I do like the idea that Psionics is connected to the Far Realms (one possible allegory for that is Outer Space, which strongly implies Sci-Fi theme), which seems to be the direction it has been going towards over the years.If so, I would make the connection about the discovery of psionics, rather than what psionics is.

A wizard's studies are turned outward. What makes the world tick? Where do I pull to obtain a desired effect?

A psion's studies are turned inward. What lies within one's own body, mind and soul? How do I bring a desired effect as an extension of myself?

If a setting follows the Weave model, which 5e encourages, then a psion could be said to train their aura into a personal weave.

Now, the Far Realm is sometimes portrayed as a plane, or set of planes, where creatures are surrounded by their own physical and magical laws, which change with their contemplations. So the practice of psionics on a given world could originate with aberrations that are from, or touched by, the Far Realm.

[Arkhios]

If so, I would make the connection about the discovery of psionics, rather than what psionics is.

A wizard's studies are turned outward. What makes the world tick? Where do I pull to obtain a desired effect?

A psion's studies are turned inward. What lies within one's own body, mind and soul? How do I bring a desired effect as an extension of myself?

If a setting follows the Weave model, which 5e encourages, then a psion could be said to train their aura into a personal weave.

Now, the Far Realm is sometimes portrayed as a plane, or set of planes, where creatures are surrounded by their own physical and magical laws, which change with their contemplations. So the practice of psionics on a given world could originate with aberrations that are from, or touched by, the Far Realm.

Exactly like so.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I feel you're overreacting to my choice of words, about how I felt the Aberrant Sorcerer handled psionics well within 5e framework.

Plus, that derogatory implication of tentacle porn fantasies is "mildly" offensive. I should report that, but I'm willing to let it slide. This time.

I think you are overreacting. No reason to take that remark personally, I'm just criticizing the design choice, that's it. I can return to calling it Chaos corruption.


Let me rephrase: I don't think that Aberrant Sorcerer is entirely perfect as a representation of a psionic class option. But I do think there's much more potential in Aberrant Sorcerer's approach compared to Mystic which is just all over the place (really, that class tries to fit ALL psionic tropes into one class, and that's foolish). It has a few potential ideas, but I don't like how the class is built. In case it wasn't clear, I do think that Psi Points need to be a thing, but I'm not entirely sure if it had to be the carrying beam under that construction.

About not being entirely perfect: I didn't mean to imply that the tentacle theme was a "perfect tinder match" for psionics. I get you're possibly upset that I appeared to make that allegation with my words, but I didn't mean to. It's the other parts about the sorcerous origin that I do agree with (although I would've tried to implement the additional spells known a bit differently; not sure how, but not like that). However, I do like the idea that Psionics is connected to the Far Realms (one possible allegory for that is Outer Space, which strongly implies Sci-Fi theme), which seems to be the direction it has been going towards over the years. It would give the powers of the mind "more meat under its flesh". But not everything related to Far Realm has to come with tentacles attached — or penetrated.

Well, that's the thing, Mystic has few interesting ideas, but class itself is meh. But the solution is not to throw away all the ideas and return to the old comfortable corner of yet another caster, it to rebalance the class and disciplines. They themselves admitted that one problem with it is that they tried to roll all the possible archetypes (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Psychic Rogue) into one class and that made it much more clumsy. Well duh. Split it then. Or don't try to build everything at once, start with the core of psion.

While for the sorcerer - remove all the mucus and tentacles, which are not related to the core mechanic anyway - and all the sorcerer subclass does is "Here's the list of spells, and you can cast them from your sorcerer points with no components." I'm not particularly upset about aberrant sorcerer, I just don't think it's an interesting way to do psionics. Like battlemaster fighter isn't an interesting way to do Tome of Battle.

As for Far Realms connection and other fluff it is a different discussion entirely. Historically IIRC psionics could have had different origins, but Far Realm creatures commonly associated with psionics, so that's not surprising. Speaking of fluff and tentacles, isn't it weird to have a psion cast Evard's Black Tentacles? It's clearly a spell, and not just any spell, a named spell invented by a well-known wizard. Same goes for Rary's Telepatic Bond really.



That being said, my original point was that 3.5 psionics, with its inherent augmentation system, IS very similar to 5th edition's spellcasting. I don't think there's much left to debate on this matter. THAT was the point in my OP. After that point, I was ONLY spitballing the possibilities how they could implement psionics into the game.
My intent was NOT to try and undermine the necessity of implementing Psionics into this edition, but rather, evoke a discussion over a more tightly knit implementation in regards to the prevalent magic system.

Obviously not everyone likes my idea (or is it just me and my opinions, by principle, I dunno), but there you have mine. Like it, or don't. Big deal.

I do really like psionics. I did so when I started this hobby in 3.5 era, I liked it in 4e, but 5e and Mystics has continuously driven me away from it, even though I've tried to like Mystic. I simply don't. It's a mess. Loud and clear.

Here's the different approach. You are saying that since spellcasting works more like psionics in 3.5e, psionics should be rolled into spellcasting. But I think that because of that, it should distance itself from spellcasting more instead. An example would be sorcerer in this edition. Since all magic now works like spontaneous casting worked in 3.5e, Sorcerer was given a new niche, because the concept of "you have more flexibility with your spell slot usage" wasn't true anymore. I won't debate whether it was a good idea to have metamagic restricted only to sorcerers or not, but it is what it is. Psionics also should have a new niche and new design, because what made it mechanically different in 3.5e does not exist anymore.

[Millstone85]

They themselves admitted that one problem with it is that they tried to roll all the possible archetypes (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Psychic Rogue) into one class and that made it much more clumsy. Well duh. Split it then. Or don't try to build everything at once, start with the core of psion.On that note, do you think they should make fighter and rogue subclasses that have access to the psion's list of disciplines, similarly to the eldritch knight and arcane trickster with wizard spells, or that they should release several psionic classes?

[Kuu Lightwing]

On that note, do you think they should make fighter and rogue subclasses that have access to the psion's list of disciplines, similarly to the eldritch knight and arcane trickster with wizard spells, or that they should release several psionic classes?

I don't know. For psychic warrior I'll probably prefer a separate class, maybe even with special disciplines, but it depends on what is the base class looks like. If they do that "just cast spells from power points thing" then we can just make eldritch knight with psychic reskin...

[Dork_Forge]

I don't know. For psychic warrior I'll probably prefer a separate class, maybe even with special disciplines, but it depends on what is the base class looks like. If they do that "just cast spells from power points thing" then we can just make eldritch knight with psychic reskin...

Just curious, what did you find clumsy about it? There was certainly some tweaking in regard to some disciplines (and I think that bonus action heal ability belonged in the Immortal subcllass not a class wide ability), but I found it very satisfying being able to build out the character as I wanted by picking and choosing disciplines (with some broader things handled by the subclass). Personally I'd love to just see a more refined version of the Mystic published with a feat called Psionic Awakening that anyone with a 13 Int could take to get some Psionics (alas Magic Initiate and Martial Adept), sadly this won't happen I know but it still feels better than tacking psionics into caster subclasses.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Just curious, what did you find clumsy about it? There was certainly some tweaking in regard to some disciplines (and I think that bonus action heal ability belonged in the Immortal subcllass not a class wide ability), but I found it very satisfying being able to build out the character as I wanted by picking and choosing disciplines (with some broader things handled by the subclass). Personally I'd love to just see a more refined version of the Mystic published with a feat called Psionic Awakening that anyone with a 13 Int could take to get some Psionics (alas Magic Initiate and Martial Adept), sadly this won't happen I know but it still feels better than tacking psionics into caster subclasses.

You mean mystic in general? I haven't gotten around to test the actual class myself, but what I didn't like about it is that if I were to build a martial character with that framework, I'd have to spend psi points on pretty much everything I do. I want an extra attack? Psi points. I want AC? Psi points. I get that some builds could do lots of damage in one attack by investing like ****ton amount of points, but it's a single attack, and if it misses, I wasted something like a third of my daily resources on nothing. So I'm not impressed by that nova all that much. I do not know how a more "caster" archetype would have worked better, but then again I didn't get to test it.

And regardless of my opinion, given how negative overall reception of Mystic is, it hardly matters. Maybe it's not OP and it's versatility comes at a cost of expending a lot of psi points so you'd probably rather leave that to jobs that are more suited for sneaking/traps/whatever. But, because of outcry of Mystic being too OP, it doesn't matter anymore.

[Temperjoke]

I think that before we can solidly create psion-themed subclasses for current classes, we need a class that is purely focused on psionics, with psionic skills and traits that are uniquely belonging to it. For example, sorcerers may be spellcasters, but they have spell points and metamagic that separate it from the wizard. Warlocks have invocations and pact boons that separate it. Once we figure out what a mystic should have by itself as a class, then you can explore what a fighter-mystic would be, or a rogue-mystic, or a wizard-mystic, etc.

I think that this is why they're having trouble with the mystic. They've got all these ideas that work really well as subclasses of current classes, but they don't have the foundation of the mystic really worked out on it's own. At least in my opinion.