What do you want for a Psionics system?

[CptnCopyright!~]

Hi! I've decided to try my hand at creating a psionics system for DnD 5e and would really like to know what people want out of a system like that. I know I will create at least one class for the system, but I do have plans for three other classes, a set of psionic subclasses, and new magic items. My main questions are:

What do you want out of a psionics system?
Do you prefer psi points or Psionic Energy dice (the Tasha's version)?
What did you like/dislike about the mystic? What do you like/dislike about the psionic options in Tasha's?
How do you think psionics should be handled? This includes ideas you've had, things you liked from previous editions, what you've seen other people do, etc.
Do you think 5e should have a psionics system at all?

[Nifft]

- Should feel different than spells.

- Should multi-class well both between two psi classes, psi / spell classes, and psi / muggles.

- Should not break the game in terms of power, nor should be inferior in terms of power.

- Yeah, it'd be cool to have psionics in 5e.

[CountDVB]

Admittingly just a streamlined and tweaked version of the 3.5 Psionic material

[MrStabby]

Hi! I've decided to try my hand at creating a psionics system for DnD 5e and would really like to know what people want out of a system like that. I know I will create at least one class for the system, but I do have plans for three other classes, a set of psionic subclasses, and new magic items. My main questions are:

What do you want out of a psionics system?
Do you prefer psi points or Psionic Energy dice (the Tasha's version)?
What did you like/dislike about the mystic? What do you like/dislike about the psionic options in Tasha's?
How do you think psionics should be handled? This includes ideas you've had, things you liked from previous editions, what you've seen other people do, etc.
Do you think 5e should have a psionics system at all?

Ok, so roughly:

1) Verstile fluff that lends itself to sloting in well into most classic fantasy genres as well as the setings where it has historially been present. Renaming and removing the word "psionic" is probably a great start.

2) A reason to exist as something seperate to magic - or at least seperate to spellcasting. There must be an obvious answer as to why, for a specific concept, spellcasting is not the answer but this other system is.

3) If there is a Mystic, it should feel mystic. A sense of the unknown, a bit of mystery and a strong feel of the supernatural.

4) Any psionic content should be balanced, it should not outshine any other option nor obviate any other ability. It can be cool and powerful but must find its own niche.

5) It should be fun to play. Enough options to feel deep but not a sea of options that can slow down the game with decision paralysis.

6) It should be fun to play alongside - options should compliment what other classes do and add valeue to their awesome stuff not detract from it.



For the specific questions:

The psionic dice were a cool system that added an element of unpredictability; far prefer the UA version to Tasha's though. I would prefer that to the psi points of the mystic.

[Maat Mons]

Personally, I was quite fond of 3.5 psionics. And I'd like to see a system that feels like an evolution of that.

To a large extent, 5e has already incorporated the good elements of 3.5 psionics into its regular spellcasting system.

One of the biggest and most important differences 3.5 psionics had from 3.5 spellcasting was that things scaled. So spellcasting had, for example, Cure Light Wounds. It was a 1st-level spell, and didn't heal any more damage if you cast it out of a higher-level slot. Then it had Cure Moderate Wounds, which was the same except 2nd level and it healed slightly more. And then there was Cure Serious Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds...

Psionics condensed many such giant lists of nearly-identical spells into one that had a mechanism for scaling it up. 5e has followed suit. It was and is good.

3.5 psionics also didn't go in for that nonsense where many 3.5 casters had to decide, at the start of each day, how many times they were going to cast any given spell that day. That was dumb, and it was a good move for 3.5 psionics to get rid of it. It was also a good move for 5e to not bring that terrible idea back.

In 3.5, the best way to describe psionics was "what spellcasting should have been."

There are a few ideas from 3.5 psionics that 5e should have copied for its spellcasting system, but didn't. These were the use of a single pool of resources to cast from (instead of 9 different pools of spell slots), the elimination of the concept of materials and focuses, and not letting any classes change their capabilities on a daily basis.

I haven't looked at any of 5e's implementations of psionics. But I'd be happy with a base like Sorcerer, with 25 or more spells known at 20th level, spell points (or something similar) instead of spell slots, and no need of materials or focuses.

I also haven't looked at 5e's version of the spell points variant. I haven't played much 5e at all. But if I were designing a cost structure, for power points, or whatever, I'd be inclined to go with 1 power point per level of the power. And then a power point reserve equal to your class level which replenishes on a short rest. Actually, I liked late 3.5's "per encounter" system more than 5e's short rests. If you wouldn't feel it messes with underlying system assumptions too much, I'd like to see the "per encounter" idea come back.

If you are up for sorting through thought even more disorganized that the ones I've shared here, I have a thread of musing on this subject (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?601095-Dumping-out-the-cluttered-contents-of-my-head-regarding-psionics).

[Dienekes]

Honestly, all I want is a subsystem that feels distinct from the two forms of casting already in 5e: Warlock Pact Casting and Everything Else. I suppose spell point variant is technically a third, but that’s a variant rule.

If you can find a way to make that subsystem fit coherently with the fluff of what psionics actually are which I admit is pretty vague, well that’s gravy.

[clash]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I think that psionics should

A) use spell slots: Spells already scale like psionic used to and it fits into the smooth multi classing system of 5e
B) use components: they exist to limit spell casters. I played a mystic without them components and just that element was incredibly broken.
C) interact with normal magic so that they are not suddenly immune to things like dispel magic and counterspell
D) should not create psionic copies of existing spells. Just add the appropriate existing spells to the class list and expand it with new class exclusive spells.

That being said I think it needs its own class. I wouldn't mind it having a different spell progression or use the pact magic progression to multi class well with warlock. I also really like the idea of picking spell domains rather than individual spells.

[Maat Mons]

I'm not sure how much cross-talk is desired in this thread. I'll start engaging in some. If it's unwelcome, just tell me to stop.



I'll definitely agree that psionic classes should multiclass well with other psionic classes. I think 5e handles multiclassing between spellcasting classes very well. Which is all the more notable for how poorly it worked in earlier editions. A similar degree of internal inter-compatibility is a worthwhile goal for any homebrew system to aspire to.

I'm not certain how I feel about aiming for compatibility between psionics and spellcasting. This is definitely possible. One simple way to do it would be to just have psionic classes function exactly as spellcasting classes. At times, I have found myself thinking this would be a good approach to take.

As for compatibility with martial classes... Probably something could be done to achieve that. Any psionics system which is so multi-classing-friendly as to play nice with martials would surely also play well with casters.

If the major ways to advance psionics are number of power points, maximum number of power points spent on a single manifestation, highest level of power learnable, and number of powers known, some could be advanced by levels in a particular class, some by total levels in psionic classes, and some by character level.

For symmetry with multiclassing in spellcasting, I suppose a psionics system should advance number of powers known and maximum level of power learnable only the class you're taking levels in. And psionic classes should stack with each other for number of power points, and maximum power points spent on a single manifestation.

But which of those two should advance even for non-psionic classes? Number of power points? Or maximum power points spent on a single manifestation? I suppose it has to be the first one. After all, if it were the second one, multiclass characters might very well not have enough power points in their pool to actually take advantage of the fact that they can spend a whole bunch all at once.



I'm not sure if psionics needs to feel different than spells. It would be a plus, sure. But I wouldn't mind too much if psionics did the same thing in this homebrew as they did in 3.5. Just be spellcasting, except with the parts people complained about improved.

Not that I know enough about 5e to know what people are complaining about.




On the subject of using spell slots for psionics. I'll admit I've spent a fair bit of time leaning in that direction myself. The major reason not to is that spell slots are needlessly complex. With a pool of power points, there's only one number to keep track of. With spell slots, it starts as jus one number, your number of 1st-level spell slots. But from there it just keeps growing. Eventually you have nine different levels of spells, and each one is a separate number to keep track of in terms of uses remaining.

The major reason to use spell slots is that there aren't very many elegant ways to enforce 5e's notion that spell slots above 5th level need special treatment. If you use a fluid point system, there's no inherent difference between spending points to cast a 5th-level spell and spending points to cast a 6th-level spell. You can add an extra limitation like "for levels above 5th, only one spell of each level per day." But then you're tracking whether or not you've cast a spell of each level, and you're pretty much back to where you were when you were tracking spell slots.



Getting rid of components may be unbalanced for some spells. But it's possible to just not put those spells on the spell lists of the classes that get to ignore components. Just make sure you word the ability that allows components to be ignored so that it works only on spells from that specific class. If there's an effect a class ought to have access to, and the spell that normally provides it is balanced by a component, I suppose you'd just have to write a new spell that occupies a similar niche, and is balanced by some other factor.



I'd make the psionic classes a soft replacement for the spellcasting classes. If you wanted to run a game where spellcasting just isn't a thing, and psionics is the only magical stuff around, the psionic classes should be designed so that a party can still cover all needed effects with just psionics. But it should also be possible to use psionic classes alongside magical classes. And people shouldn't look at psionic classes, and immediately recognize them as the psionic version of an existing magical class.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Hard pass on a "magic but..." system. Another pass on 3.5 but for 5e.

It seems pretty clear we're going to have a dice based resource pool which I'm fine with. I'm not sure there will be a psionic core class this edition, but if we get one I can see it being short rest dependent with the dice recovery mechanic upgraded from 1/short rest to proficiency bonus per short rest.

With that in mind, discipline trees could work. Stick with tightly defined schtick, Telepathy, Telekinesis, ESP, maybe Psychometabolics. Disciplines would be a series of discrete effects basically on par with the existing psi subclass options (and indeed I think they should be lifted almost whole cloth from the subclasses with some changed capstones that come on line ~level 10).

Leave 11-20 for "Metapsionics" which allow you to expand areas, ranges, targets, etc but also boost the DPR potential of the powers to bring them in line with 6th-9th level spells.

Thinking about it like this gives me an idea to add into the homebrew forum, I'll come back and add a link once I've got something together.

[VoxRationis]

I'm not sure on what the system should look like mechanically, but the objective I would hold from a psionics system would be that it reinforces the idea that abilities and contests of psionics exist on a different plane, as it were, from normal aspects of the game system. I would like the system to express in its mechanics the idea of two opposing psionicists fighting one another and doing nothing visible to an outside observer, but having an intricate mental fencing match on a series of dimensions unknown to the layperson, where victory is not merely granted to one who can grit their teeth and squint harder than one's opponent, but through an actual triumph of intellect. To my limited understanding of the mechanics involved, I believe that AD&D tried this with its psionics, with a table of different psionic attacks and defenses and how well they performed against one another. It is also my (limited) understanding that the particular implementation tried was unwieldy and unpopular, but the idea behind such an approach resonates with me.

All this relates somewhat to a point which several of the above posters have mentioned, which is that psionics have to be meaningfully different from regular magic in the system. They shouldn't just be a different way to arrange access to the same in-game effects on one's character sheet.
(Things get a little muddy when dealing with enchantment magics here. Ideally, this would be an issue that the developers of a game system would think out before making it in the first place. I can think of several options here:

Enchantments and the mental aspects of psionics are synonymous and rely on the same mechanics;
Enchantment effects do not exist;
Enchantments represent a surface level of interaction with the mental realm, working crudely on a results level and not interacting with fine control at a deeper level, though its effects are easier to achieve and harder to counter immediately.*)

As an example of the sort of system (if not the particular implementation, for I am developing this spontaneously and have not thought too deeply about how it would relate to the themes of a setting or system or whether I am most fond of this particular mechanical setup), consider the following precepts:

One's psyche follows the classic Freudian id/ego/superego division;
Each part of the psyche has some sort of "weight" or "dominance" score derived from various sources, including one's ability scores (id corresponding to Charisma, ego to Intelligence, superego to Wisdom);
One's mind is most resilient when the three parts are balanced in relation to one another;
Different kinds of mental assaults attempt to manipulate one's psyche so as to throw off this balance in order to leave one vulnerable to a secondary attack; for example, an effect might be called "Repression" and reduce one's id score by some amount corresponding to one's own superego score;
Different sort of active mental defenses exist, interacting differently with the different sorts of attacks, some working to constrain an attacker's options, others to weather an assault, others to counterattack.


*For example, a suggestion effect from a spell might be resisted only with a simple Wisdom save at the moment of casting, but remain vulnerable to various Gilbert & Sullivan-style quibbling, while the same effect through a psionic battle might require all the maneuvering and hullabaloo I mention shortly, but by the time the effect actually takes place, the target becomes given to it wholeheartedly and cannot quibble, instead executing the suggestion in full keeping with its creator's intent.

[sandmote]

To my limited understanding of the mechanics involved, I believe that AD&D tried this with its psionics, with a table of different psionic attacks and defenses and how well they performed against one another. It is also my (limited) understanding that the particular implementation tried was unwieldy and unpopular, but the idea behind such an approach resonates with me.
I haven't had the chance to try this version of psionics, but as far as I'm aware it was (in addition to being unwieldy and unpopular), extremely weak. There was one analysis I saw that basically argued that trying to defend yourself psionically against psionic attacks was less effective than doing nothing. And everything I've seen either argues or straight up assumes that psionic attacks are useless for a PC to try (probably for the same reasons).


It seems pretty clear we're going to have a dice based resource pool which I'm fine with. I'm not sure there will be a psionic core class this edition, but if we get one I can see it being short rest dependent with the dice recovery mechanic upgraded from 1/short rest to proficiency bonus per short rest. I like the dice based poll, but prefer the scaling system of the UA to the version in Tasha's.

What I would do is let the PC refresh their one psionic die a number of times equal to their proficiency bonus, and then refresh both at the end of a short rest. So if you start with a D10 you can wait until the die is gone on a long adventuring day, and refresh it so you're using only d10's and d8's if you have a short adventuring day. I hope that would fix some of the problems monks have where they have to operate in a middle ground where they can't get out damage fast enough in a 5 minute day to get their full benefits but they burn out before everyone else if there's aren't regular short rests being taken.

I agree with the need to make psionics distinct, and do not like the use of spell slots for it. Off the top of my head, I'd just like to note the following as practical suggestions to making that work:

Add a pair of additional damage types, so psionic attacks aren't as consistently dealing psychic. Off the top of my head, "aura," and "stimulation," damage. Then add a footnote giving some of these resistances to creatures that otherwise don't have a resistance to psychic.
Add more conditions, and break up what conditions can be created by psionics vs. spellcasting. You could add some sort of more minor effects that are created by multiple powers but don't get touched by spells (or are very rare for spells to cause). I also already use Bloodied from 4e, and you could make some powers that grant bonuses or penalties for being bloodied (ex: everyone bloodied in this area gains X benefits or character gains THP if they start their turn bloodied before the power ends) without having any similar spells.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I’m developing my take for class design contest 15 on this forum. Pls keep an eye out for it.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628968-D-amp-D-Base-Class-Contest-XV-Chat-Thread

[Kane0]

Hi! I've decided to try my hand at creating a psionics system for DnD 5e and would really like to know what people want out of a system like that. I know I will create at least one class for the system, but I do have plans for three other classes, a set of psionic subclasses, and new magic items. My main questions are:

What do you want out of a psionics system?
Do you prefer psi points or Psionic Energy dice (the Tasha's version)?
What did you like/dislike about the mystic? What do you like/dislike about the psionic options in Tasha's?
How do you think psionics should be handled? This includes ideas you've had, things you liked from previous editions, what you've seen other people do, etc.
Do you think 5e should have a psionics system at all?


- I liked the Psi Die conceptually, much more unique than just renamed spell points. In fact adopting points into the Psi Die mechanic could be interesting if those points aren't spent and gone like slots are, but rather invested and shuffled around like 3.5's Incarnum
- I liked the Mystic's bundled powers into thematic groupings compared to spellcasting's cherry-picking. Mystic just happened to have too broad access is all (probably because everything was crammed into one class)
- 5e could absolutely support Psionics, though of course it would have to be handled in a way that 5e supports and not just ripped from another edition.
- Ideally two classes, one 'full' psionicist and one 'half'. They could rely on different primary mental stats, or subclasses could be what differentiates which mental stat is used.
- A good mix of at-will, short-rest and long-rest abilities is a must, as is compatibility with other classes in terms of multiclassing
- Psionics could get quite complicated depending on implementation, so spreading it around between different mechanics could work. Like how Warlock splits itself up with Invocations and Pact Boon on top of its spellcasting and subclasses.

[Ilerien]

My five copper pieces here.
Any custom psionics subsystem should be compatible with Tasha's psionic subclasses, so psionic dice by necessity. I'd think of Tasha's psi warrior and soulknife as eldritch knight and arcane trickster likenesses, so maybe you want to create a base psion class using the same subsystem, just expanded. Considering Tasha at least reusing old 3.5e class names and broad concepts, maybe this psion should have subclasses based on 3.5e psionic disciplines, like wizard has subclasses based on schools that correspond to spell schools of old editions. But keeping with the theme introduced in Tasha and earlier 5e sources, they should be less like spells (as 3.5e powers were) and more like a broad set of powers (like warlock invocations) a psion would be able to pick from.

[RedGeomancer]

First some comments on flavor, then mechanics.

Flavor

A lot of flavor does not have to be prescribed. It is fluff which can vary from campaign to campaign. Are psionics rare or commonplace? Are psionics more common in particular cultures? They already have a strong connection to particular races (mind flayers, duergar), although these are just called "psionics", and function no differently than magic. But it might be interesting if one human/elvish/orcish culture had no arcanists but lots of psionicists. Are psionics more science-fictiony, or more mystical? Going back to AD&D, the flavor leaned more toward science fiction, with many modern ideas such as "neurons" and "id". I think 2e and 3.x went more New Age, and the UA Mystic also goes in that direction. Mysticism is perhaps a better fit for a fantasy game, but this could be refluffed for different campaigns without changing the mechanics.

As mentioned by others here, psionics has to have a reason for existing and being separate from magic. IMO I don't like Tasha's approach because psionics seems to be just magic with a few special class features. This does lead into how to distinguish them mechanically, but at core, if they are not going to be distinct, don't have psionics. Or, just refluff all magic as psionics and be done. If they do both exist and are distinct, they should interact in very limited ways. Psionics should be immune to dispel magic and counterspell. This could make it quite powerful, but psionic abilities should similarly be very constrained in how they interact with magic. One would have to decide the exact limits. For example, a wizard casts fireball. If the psionicist can control temperature in their environment, perhaps some discipline that allows you to counteract fire as a reaction would work, or perhaps this is magical fire and the psionic discipline has no effect.

Mechanics

I agree with Maat Mons that a lot of 3.x psionics has already been incorporated in the 5e spellcasting system, including scaling of spells (casting with higher-level slots) and not having to decide (prepare) exactly how many times you want to cast each spell.

I think psionics should use a point pool, not spell slots. Psionic disciplines (spell-like abilities) would not use slots, but would have a minimum cost and could be scaled by putting more psionic points into its use. This could be designed from scratch, but if you apply the 5e spell points variant to psionics, you could then design disciplines using the well-understood mechanics for determining the level of a spell, which would make it easier to keep psionics on par with magic in power.

It is true that AD&D psionics was overly complicated. However, there is one useful feature of it. All psionic attacks are resisted by psionic defenses, and if the attack succeeds, the loser loses psionic points. Additional effects happen only against non-psionic creatures or defenseless psionicists (those who run out of power points).

This could work quite nicely with 5e psionic creatures. The mind flayer's Mind Blast forces DC 15 Intelligence saving throw, and if failed does 4d8+4 psychic damage and stuns the creature for 1 minute. This would apply to all non-psionic characters like normal, but a psionic character, if they fail the saving throw, would instead lose 4d8+4 power points and would not be stunned. The su-monster's Psychic Crush forces DC 11 Wisdom saving throw, doing 5d6 psychic damage and stunning for 1 minute if failed. If a psionic character fails save, psychic damage reduces power points instead, and the character isn't stunned.

I don't know if attacks/defenses need to get clever names. I would suggest that there be an option to attack Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. In order to keep as closely aligned with published 5e material, you could use take names from monster entries, e.g. Mind Blast for an Intelligence attack (based on mind flayer), etc.

Questions that would need to be answered related to this proposed mechanic:

* Are INT/WIS/CHA attacks tied to psionic class? Can a character learn *all* of them?
* Does a character have to learn INT/WIS/CHA defenses? If so, non-psionic characters would have to be treated as non-proficient in, say, the INT save vs Mind Blast, even if the character does have proficiency in INT saves.
* Do attacks/defenses cost psionic points? This would deplete pool faster. Without it, the attacks become like cantrips, so there is a benefit to leaving as is. OTH, it would allow an easy scaling mechanism--the more points you put into it, the more damage it does if you are successful.
* How many power points do monsters have? Currently, the mind flayer's Mind Blast recharges on 5-6, but it never runs out. Adding point pool means Mind Blast can now be used every round, but if a psionic character depletes the mind flayer's pool, it can no longer Mind Blast. This is one more thing to keep track of however.
* Could *all* psychic damage be taken by power pool? Saves character hit points at the cost of depleting their effectiveness faster.
* When/how fast does this combat happen? In AD&D psionic combat happened 10 times as fast as regular combat, but who the hell wants to sit around while the psionic character takes 10 turns? On the other hand, it would be cool if psionic attacks happened at the "speed of thought". Can psionic creature use INT for initiative instead of DEX?

Another way to distinguish psionics is to turn all psionic attacks into contests. So instead of the mind flayer forcing a DC 15 saving throw, the mind flayer would attack Intelligence with d20+5. This does increase dice rolling, but the advantage is that psionic *characters* now get to make an attack roll instead of forcing a saving throw (which is both more passive and to me feels magicky).

I could be wrong, but I think the disciplines will be easiest to create, as they are most spell-like. Adding psychic combat would be a major way to way make psionics stand apart.

[MrStabby]

First some comments on flavor, then mechanics.

Flavor

A lot of flavor does not have to be prescribed. It is fluff which can vary from campaign to campaign. Are psionics rare or commonplace? Are psionics more common in particular cultures? They already have a strong connection to particular races (mind flayers, duergar), although these are just called "psionics", and function no differently than magic. But it might be interesting if one human/elvish/orcish culture had no arcanists but lots of psionicists. Are psionics more science-fictiony, or more mystical? Going back to AD&D, the flavor leaned more toward science fiction, with many modern ideas such as "neurons" and "id". I think 2e and 3.x went more New Age, and the UA Mystic also goes in that direction. Mysticism is perhaps a better fit for a fantasy game, but this could be refluffed for different campaigns without changing the mechanics.

As mentioned by others here, psionics has to have a reason for existing and being separate from magic. IMO I don't like Tasha's approach because psionics seems to be just magic with a few special class features. This does lead into how to distinguish them mechanically, but at core, if they are not going to be distinct, don't have psionics. Or, just refluff all magic as psionics and be done. If they do both exist and are distinct, they should interact in very limited ways. Psionics should be immune to dispel magic and counterspell. This could make it quite powerful, but psionic abilities should similarly be very constrained in how they interact with magic. One would have to decide the exact limits. For example, a wizard casts fireball. If the psionicist can control temperature in their environment, perhaps some discipline that allows you to counteract fire as a reaction would work, or perhaps this is magical fire and the psionic discipline has no effect.

Mechanics

I agree with Maat Mons that a lot of 3.x psionics has already been incorporated in the 5e spellcasting system, including scaling of spells (casting with higher-level slots) and not having to decide (prepare) exactly how many times you want to cast each spell.

I think psionics should use a point pool, not spell slots. Psionic disciplines (spell-like abilities) would not use slots, but would have a minimum cost and could be scaled by putting more psionic points into its use. This could be designed from scratch, but if you apply the 5e spell points variant to psionics, you could then design disciplines using the well-understood mechanics for determining the level of a spell, which would make it easier to keep psionics on par with magic in power.

It is true that AD&D psionics was overly complicated. However, there is one useful feature of it. All psionic attacks are resisted by psionic defenses, and if the attack succeeds, the loser loses psionic points. Additional effects happen only against non-psionic creatures or defenseless psionicists (those who run out of power points).

This could work quite nicely with 5e psionic creatures. The mind flayer's Mind Blast forces DC 15 Intelligence saving throw, and if failed does 4d8+4 psychic damage and stuns the creature for 1 minute. This would apply to all non-psionic characters like normal, but a psionic character, if they fail the saving throw, would instead lose 4d8+4 power points and would not be stunned. The su-monster's Psychic Crush forces DC 11 Wisdom saving throw, doing 5d6 psychic damage and stunning for 1 minute if failed. If a psionic character fails save, psychic damage reduces power points instead, and the character isn't stunned.

I don't know if attacks/defenses need to get clever names. I would suggest that there be an option to attack Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. In order to keep as closely aligned with published 5e material, you could use take names from monster entries, e.g. Mind Blast for an Intelligence attack (based on mind flayer), etc.

Questions that would need to be answered related to this proposed mechanic:

* Are INT/WIS/CHA attacks tied to psionic class? Can a character learn *all* of them?
* Does a character have to learn INT/WIS/CHA defenses? If so, non-psionic characters would have to be treated as non-proficient in, say, the INT save vs Mind Blast, even if the character does have proficiency in INT saves.
* Do attacks/defenses cost psionic points? This would deplete pool faster. Without it, the attacks become like cantrips, so there is a benefit to leaving as is. OTH, it would allow an easy scaling mechanism--the more points you put into it, the more damage it does if you are successful.
* How many power points do monsters have? Currently, the mind flayer's Mind Blast recharges on 5-6, but it never runs out. Adding point pool means Mind Blast can now be used every round, but if a psionic character depletes the mind flayer's pool, it can no longer Mind Blast. This is one more thing to keep track of however.
* Could *all* psychic damage be taken by power pool? Saves character hit points at the cost of depleting their effectiveness faster.
* When/how fast does this combat happen? In AD&D psionic combat happened 10 times as fast as regular combat, but who the hell wants to sit around while the psionic character takes 10 turns? On the other hand, it would be cool if psionic attacks happened at the "speed of thought". Can psionic creature use INT for initiative instead of DEX?

Another way to distinguish psionics is to turn all psionic attacks into contests. So instead of the mind flayer forcing a DC 15 saving throw, the mind flayer would attack Intelligence with d20+5. This does increase dice rolling, but the advantage is that psionic *characters* now get to make an attack roll instead of forcing a saving throw (which is both more passive and to me feels magicky).

I could be wrong, but I think the disciplines will be easiest to create, as they are most spell-like. Adding psychic combat would be a major way to way make psionics stand apart.

I think that the ability contest/skill contest approach is really interesting and flavourful. I can see it enforcing a certain focus on what can be done - I.e. pushing psionics to have an effect on creatures rather than non animate objects... but I have a bit of a reservation.

I think you need to put all of the buffs into any base class. Otherwise things like guidance, Jack of all trades, enhance ability etc. become a bit of a tax for the class.

One theme that I think could differentiate psionics is that maybe you can sense your target psionically rather than visually and can remove the stipulation that the target be visible on so many spells.

I would also really like ways that martial characters can break psionic effects. I can see a bit of a rock/paper/scissors type affair. Psionic beats "magic" as cant be dispelled, anti magic fielded etc. Magic beats martials as spells can counter movement or attacks but physical strength cant counter spells... I would really like it if the triangle could be completed such that physical rather than mental aptitude was the counter to psionics.

[RedGeomancer]

I think that the ability contest/skill contest approach is really interesting and flavourful. I can see it enforcing a certain focus on what can be done - I.e. pushing psionics to have an effect on creatures rather than non animate objects... but I have a bit of a reservation.

I think you need to put all of the buffs into any base class. Otherwise things like guidance, Jack of all trades, enhance ability etc. become a bit of a tax for the class.

Hmm, I said "ability contest", but I was thinking about it more as an attack roll/defense roll. I wouldn't want guidance to improve one's psionic attack, for the same reason that guidance doesn't improve a melee/spell attack roll, or improve someone's spell save DC.

OTH, I think I know what you mean about "putting all of the buffs into any base class". A martial can use STR or DEX to attack with a finesse weapon, they don't have to specifically have STR weapon proficiency or DEX weapon proficiency. They're just proficient in *the weapon*. I was thinking about the INT attack as a weapon that one is proficient in, but that conflates the weapon with the ability score used to attack with. I could see an argument either way.


I would also really like ways that martial characters can break psionic effects. I can see a bit of a rock/paper/scissors type affair. Psionic beats "magic" as cant be dispelled, anti magic fielded etc. Magic beats martials as spells can counter movement or attacks but physical strength cant counter spells... I would really like it if the triangle could be completed such that physical rather than mental aptitude was the counter to psionics.

There is a precedent for this in AD&D:


During psionic combat the creatures involved can engage in no other activity.… If the attention of a creature is distracted by physical attack or spell damage or effect (such as charm, hold, etc.) it cannot engage in attack, although its defenses remain

I'm not sure how to work this into 5e. Remember in AD&D spellcasters could be interrupted by an attack when casting their spells, and 5e has done away with that. But maybe there is some way to make psionicists vulnerable to "interruption", or at least make it easier to attack someone (advantage?) locked in psionic combat. OTH, I do like the idea of the psionicist who freezes the martial in mid-sword-stroke (some psionic version of hold person). But maybe they can't do that if another psionicist has them locked in psychic combat.

[sandmote]

It is true that AD&D psionics was overly complicated. However, there is one useful feature of it. All psionic attacks are resisted by psionic defenses, and if the attack succeeds, the loser loses psionic points. Additional effects happen only against non-psionic creatures or defenseless psionicists (those who run out of power points).What happens if a character with power points chooses not to use psionics to defend themselves? Do they lose power points or take the additional effects? I ask because I don't recall this being covered in the analysis I'd previously read. The analysis instead covered the chances of a psionic attack succeeding against a target based on whether or not the target opens their mind to defend.

On 5e, I also like the idea that a martial character has some agility to resist effects over and above casters. I made a "Bodily Autonomy (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?595515-Bodily-Autonomy-Skill-(Reverse-Autohypnosis))" skill that's thematically a reverse of the 3.5e autohypnosis. It could maybe be adapted into a class feature for martials to give them extra defense.


I'm not sure how to work this into 5e. Remember in AD&D spellcasters could be interrupted by an attack when casting their spells, and 5e has done away with that. But maybe there is some way to make psionisist vulnerable to "interruption", or at least make it easier to attack someone (advantage?) locked in psionic combat. OTH, I do like the idea of the psion who freezes the martial in mid-sword-stroke (some psionic version of hold person). But maybe they can't do that if another psion has them locked in psychic combat.

Maybe give psionic classes a special reaction that can be used to block psionic/magic/weapon attacks? Then have a power that paralyzes the martial using this special reaction; if the psion used the action type to defend against a psionic attack then they no longer have it available to use that particular power.

After writing that, an additional action type might also help the feel that psionics is less physically demanding than spellcasting, because its now so fluid it helps your action economy. Then if they need the use of that special action to keep up in damage/defense/utility/control/ect. and it might simoulatanously feel like they're also being interrupted?

[RedGeomancer]

What happens if a character with power points chooses not to use psionics to defend themselves? Do they lose power points or take the additional effects? I ask because I don't recall this being covered in the analysis I'd previously read. The analysis instead covered the chances of a psionic attack succeeding against a target based on whether or not the target opens their mind to defend.

AD&D didn't have psychic damage (or any damage types, really), so other than loss of psionic points, all psionic attacks produce conditions: Confusion, stunning, permanent or temporary insanity, coma, or death could affect non-psionic characters and defenseless psionicists, while defenseless psionicists can also permanently lose attack/defense modes or a psionic discipline (spell). There was no provision in the rules for a psionicist to choose to forgo a defense. The cost of being defenseless is just too high.

[sandmote]

AD&D didn't have psychic damage (or any damage types, really), so all other than loss of psionic points, all psionic attacks produce conditions: Confusion, stunning, permanent or temporary insanity, coma, or death could affect non-psionic characters and defenseless psionicists, while defenseless psionicists can also permanently lose attack/defense modes or a psionic discipline (spell). There was no provision in the rules for a psionicist to choose to forgo a defense. The cost of being defenseless is just too high.

After googling a bunch, it looks like I was mistakenly thinking of 2e. Thank you for the clarification.

[Breccia]

Admittingly just a streamlined and tweaked version of the 3.5 Psionic material

I mean, I could just say "This" and walk away.

But really, I just have 3 wants.

1) Balance
1st and 2nd Edition Psionics were...um...gosh, just a little OP. 3rd Ed gave them a familiar-looking "spell" list, and also, the "psionics and magic share resists" which basically meant any monsters or items made before psionics were a thing weren't fish in a barrel. Was this mandatory? No, but it did damn near enforce psionics weren't suddenly unstoppable gods or unplayably impotent.

2) A Speciality to Themselves
If psionicists had exactly the same game stats and powers as the sorcerer, then you're basically deciding what color paint you want. If psionicists exist, they should just be objectively better in a few key areas. I don't see them throwing fireballs, even if you do say "psychokinetic fireball" and handwave the rest. I do seem them better at long-range telepathic communication and sensing, doing psiconic damage and defense, and versions of telekenisis. One thing I did like from 2nd Ed psionics was the "psychometabolism" subspec, where they modified their body slightly (or more).

3) Ways to Screw With Them
There's plenty of things out there which harass spellcasters. There should be ways to harass psions as well. The most obvious example of what I'm talkig about are the V/S/M components for spells that most people don't associate with psionics. If two people can both use, for example, sleep, but one can do it without being detected, or while being grappled, etc. and theother can't, that's not going to work. Not only does this give the player a significant advantage, the DM could also just make a bunch of enemy psions and deny the PCs the chance to counterspell (and so forth). Spellcasting is typically obvious and recognized, psionics are typically not. In order to keep that fair, there must be other restrictions to keep psionic abilities comparable and fair.

What kind of restrictions? Honestly, nothing perfect leaps to mind HARDEE HAR HAR but a few less-than-perfect ideas did.

** Psionic abilities are hampered by magical items.
** Psionicists can't wear a helmet, and this should cost their AC against smart enemies who go for the head.
** Targets that success against a psionic attack's saving throw cause a backlash against the psion.
** Every psionicist can sense when a pisonic power is used within XXX distance of them.
** Related: psion-hunting monsters are common.
** To use a psionic ability in a useful amount of time (say, six seconds or so) requires a special focus, probably loaded with crystals. Brandishing this would basically replace V/S/M components and make psionic abilities far easier to spot and interfere with. The psionicist could raise the ability cost (level? points?) to go without the focus.
** Everyone knows about lead.

Also, keep an eye out for options that aren't just a telepath. A telekinetic specialist who can move their own body, perhaps, and curve thrown weapons in flight could be (game-stat-wise) a modified monk, replacing Wis with Int.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I mean, I could just say "This" and walk away.

But really, I just have 3 wants.

1) Balance
1st and 2nd Edition Psionics were...um...gosh, just a little OP. 3rd Ed gave them a familiar-looking "spell" list, and also, the "psionics and magic share resists" which basically meant any monsters or items made before psionics were a thing weren't fish in a barrel. Was this mandatory? No, but it did damn near enforce psionics weren't suddenly unstoppable gods or unplayably impotent.

2) A Speciality to Themselves
If psionicists had exactly the same game stats and powers as the sorcerer, then you're basically deciding what color paint you want. If psionicists exist, they should just be objectively better in a few key areas. I don't see them throwing fireballs, even if you do say "psychokinetic fireball" and handwave the rest. I do seem them better at long-range telepathic communication and sensing, doing psiconic damage and defense, and versions of telekenisis. One thing I did like from 2nd Ed psionics was the "psychometabolism" subspec, where they modified their body slightly (or more).

3) Ways to Screw With Them
There's plenty of things out there which harass spellcasters. There should be ways to harass psions as well. The most obvious example of what I'm talkig about are the V/S/M components for spells that most people don't associate with psionics. If two people can both use, for example, sleep, but one can do it without being detected, or while being grappled, etc. and theother can't, that's not going to work. Not only does this give the player a significant advantage, the DM could also just make a bunch of enemy psions and deny the PCs the chance to counterspell (and so forth). Spellcasting is typically obvious and recognized, psionics are typically not. In order to keep that fair, there must be other restrictions to keep psionic abilities comparable and fair.

What kind of restrictions? Honestly, nothing perfect leaps to mind HARDEE HAR HAR but a few less-than-perfect ideas did.

** Psionic abilities are hampered by magical items.
** Psionicists can't wear a helmet, and this should cost their AC against smart enemies who go for the head.
** Targets that success against a psionic attack's saving throw cause a backlash against the psion.
** Every psionicist can sense when a pisonic power is used within XXX distance of them.
** Related: psion-hunting monsters are common.
** To use a psionic ability in a useful amount of time (say, six seconds or so) requires a special focus, probably loaded with crystals. Brandishing this would basically replace V/S/M components and make psionic abilities far easier to spot and interfere with. The psionicist could raise the ability cost (level? points?) to go without the focus.
** Everyone knows about lead.

Also, keep an eye out for options that aren't just a telepath. A telekinetic specialist who can move their own body, perhaps, and curve thrown weapons in flight could be (game-stat-wise) a modified monk, replacing Wis with Int.

I’m building one of these for the class contest (XV go check it out).

I have a rule in there that a passive insight of 10 is usually enough to feel a Psionicist is the source of an effect. But I’m not going to hang a bunch of Magic’s trappings on it.

[Kane0]

Grod took a great crack at psionics a while back as well, for anyone looking for a reference point.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?593739-Psionics-Reloaded-the-Psion-and-Psychic-Warrior-ALL-DISCIPLINES-NOW-COMPLETE-(PEACH)

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I think that psionics should

A) use spell slots: Spells already scale like psionic used to and it fits into the smooth multi classing system of 5e
B) use components: they exist to limit spell casters. I played a mystic without them components and just that element was incredibly broken.
C) interact with normal magic so that they are not suddenly immune to things like dispel magic and counterspell
D) should not create psionic copies of existing spells. Just add the appropriate existing spells to the class list and expand it with new class exclusive spells.

That being said I think it needs its own class. I wouldn't mind it having a different spell progression or use the pact magic progression to multi class well with warlock. I also really like the idea of picking spell domains rather than individual spells.

I'll back this but have also some alternative ideas:

1. Psionics should be based on subclass design. One class having to then sub-divide everything for all the "classic" classes (like Psi Warrior, Psion, Wilder, etc.) gets bloated and messy. The current incarnations with the Psi Warrior as a Fighter subclass and the Soul Knife for the Rogue were heading in the right direction.

2. Influences for all psionic classes should be brought back at least in some regard (yes even the Battlemind from 4e).

3. No gimmick mechanics for the sake of being different as noted with the whole Psi Dice the current Psi Warrior and Soul Knife are using. 5e has made things simple by being uniform in design for a number to items. Having something "different for the sake of different" is a bad design philosophy.

4. Other psionic races need a return in some form but still keep design philosophies in mind as seen with the Gith. Followed racial designs while still having a psionic influence and also being something stand a part.

Regarding point one and two here is an example of what is meant.

Battlemind - Barbarian.
Ardent - Bard
Mind/Psionic Domains or Divine Mind - Cleric
Lurk - Rogue
Soul Knife - Monk
Wilder - Sorcerer
Psion - Wizard
Ectopic Adept - Artificer
Psychic Warrior - Fighter
Pyrokineticist (Kineticist) - Druid
Illumine Soul - Paladin
Elocater - Ranger
Flayerspawn Psychic - Warlock

[Morphic tide]

For me, what I want from Psionics is to have it be focused on amplification of base mechanics rather than the widgetism of spellcasting, where the options truly incomparable to the mundane are extremely narrow niches explained through telepathy and drawing extraplanar energy, chosen on the singular basis of what 5e is missing. "Acceptable" minionmancy and buff spells have the crippling issue of Concentration gutting their options, but by keeping buffs focused on simply amplifying what's already present and constraining minion output to a very direct analogue of the other uses of the resource funding them, we can balance character types 5e's current systems are completely detached from.

In terms of option list, I love the Discipline method. Designing around competencies like that is extremely useful for managing bloat because it makes you ask the question of niches to fill so you focus on fulfilling the functions you want the class to handle, and makes it so you can be specifically reliant on combining effects without screwing over progression because you choose the interdependent blocks instead of single abilities. Rather than needing the player to pick up three or four Powers to handle their melee offenses, the basic competency of melee offense is one solid block, and buffing it to roughly compare to a Paladin or Stone Sorcerer's properties is another block.

When it comes to resources, I've mulled over making a partial progression Wilder for the current class contest that's been mentioned already, and desperately wanted to use the Talent Die. Consequently, I'm thinking of having the Talent Die take over for the first die you roll, greatly expanding endurance because the first die isn't necessarily spent, and consequently one-die effects fill a lot of the cantrip niche, with the remainder being in the Discipline headers. I'll also be repurposing Psi Limit as a per-round constraint and re-introducing formal Power Levels, giving clearer Counterspell interactions and undercutting nova issues. And for the Psionic Dice themselves, twice proficiency should be fine with the Talent Die cutting into expenses and a class built around it can make further efforts.

Given the overall structure I have in mind, it should be workable to have 6th+ level effects in the common dice pool, as the Talent Die and keeping the twice-proficiency base pool makes using them at all a major decision because they eat huge fractions of your daily resources, doubly important from the Talent Die offset, many Powers adding to something else, and a significant reliance on flat per-Power benefits. The summation being that they're a highly exponential opportunity cost for their quality of effect.