Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 178
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    The most common reason I see that psionics isn't being implemented is that the community can't decide on what it wants. So, let's try to change that a little bit. What can we all agree psionics should be, or shouldn't be? Personally, I just want it to be cast through PSI points.
    Current Character(s):
    Vincent Longshadow - College of Whispers Half Elf Bard
    Dag Cannith - Armorer Elf Artificer

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Troll in the Playground
     
    jaappleton's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2016

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Flavor the abilities however the hell you want. But they need to be affected by things like Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, etc. Why? Because you canít bring in something new that requires something old to be reworked. Sorry, but thatís how it needs to be.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    What I want? I want something that captures the mechanical flavor of 3.5 psionics.

    I can be more ambitious, and could accept other things, but at the least it needs to feel like its own subsystem, and it needs to capture a sense of mental power.

    I could see something playing with the tattoos in the newest UA, but as a set of class features rather than as magic items, perhaps.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaappleton View Post
    Flavor the abilities however the hell you want. But they need to be affected by things like Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, etc. Why? Because you canít bring in something new that requires something old to be reworked. Sorry, but thatís how it needs to be.
    Doing that would go against the lore of several settings though.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaappleton View Post
    Flavor the abilities however the hell you want. But they need to be affected by things like Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Antimagic Field, etc. Why? Because you canít bring in something new that requires something old to be reworked. Sorry, but thatís how it needs to be.
    Absolutely agree. And magic resistance.

    I hate the fluff but the mechanics work pretty well in terms of points spent. I think that the UA mystic was good in the sense it let you be someone who could do very powerful things but more often the more efficient use of resource was a trickle of smaller but more efficient effects. Awesome powers, realised in mechanics without overshadowing other players should be the ideal. Of course the UA mystic didn't really manage the last bit.

    In whatever form it comes, I would like to see something more focused. None of this broad range of powers stuff, non of this being really good at loads of things: secect a couple of things to focus on well, to be the character theme.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Doing that would go against the lore of several settings though.
    Such as?

    I've been playing a 3.5 Cerebremancer recently and purely with what's available in SRD. Psionics-Magic Transparency has been a thing for a while.
    My 5th Edition D&D Homebrew:
    Don't look for an insult when there is none.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anon von Zilch View Post
    Words actually mean things, people!


    Current Characters:
    Arkhios "Wolfhammer", V.Human Paladin (Ancients) 5 (Dawnfall: The Greendale Campaign)
    Anarriel, Valenar Fighter (Cavalier/TBD) 4 (Eberron: Embers of the Last War)

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkhios View Post
    Such as?

    I've been playing a 3.5 Cerebremancer recently and purely with what's available in SRD. Psionics-Magic Transparency has been a thing for a while.
    Well for starters Forgotten Realms which is the default setting for 5e. In there Psionics works fine inside an anti-magic field.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Honestly I would like to see psionics implmented as a new full caster using spellslots and the like. Why reinvent the wheel. I think there is room for another full caster focused on psychic abilities. We have 3 charisma full casters, 2 wisdom and only one int. Lets make another int full caster and a new set of spells and abilities to fill the gaps.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Doing that would go against the lore of several settings though.
    Possibly one way around that is to make a psionics mechanic that's about how you generate various effects, even if the effects themselves are "magical." So a psionic creature doesn't have slots or prepared whatevers, and isn't interacting directly with the weave or whatever else supports the existence of magic. It generates things using psi points or something. But the manifestation of that process is still magical in the sense of the mechanics.

    A big stumbling block is that psionics is either a form of magic or it's not. If it is, then the effects are also magic. If not, then we're moving into more of a science fiction setting which feels outside the core of what D&D is. It also brings up other questions, like why has no one industrialized and automated magic and psionics?

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    I want Psionics to be a some what mechanically distinct system to Magic with some advantages and disadvantages mostly because there are some interesting D&D settings that have Psionics as something distinct from magic, Eberron to a lesser extent and Dark Sun to a greater extent, and having it just be re-fluffed magic would take away from that. Whether that means psi points or a spell slot like system where the number and power of spell slots is different, does not matter to me so much as the fact that it is different and new. Also, yes the default assumption probably needs to be that the current limited about of magical counters still applies. On the other hand magical counters are so limited, particularly limited to counters by magical creatures, that having Psionics bypass that and not Psionics counters could work but magic item presents and currently written mess that up.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Psionics should change the current axis with 'martials' on one end and 'spellcasters' on the other to one with martials in the middle, psionics on one side and casters on the other. I feel like magic and psionics should not mix well. On is man over nature (the force of the mind bending the world to suit them) the other is nature over man (people taking water from the ocean of power)
    There should be half-psions and psionic subclasses for martials and martial subclasses for psions.
    There should not be any crossing over of casters and psionics, perhaps even making them difficult to multiclass across - perhaps you have to take a level of a martial class to be able to take one of a caster (or vice versa)
    Now, as previously mentioned, the chasm we must cross is the effect of things like dispel magic on psionics.

    There are two ways to go about this while preserving the whole 'psionics is not just magic from your brain' thing.
    1. These do not affect psionics. However, this works both ways - the enemy cannot stop the PCs' psionics and the PCs cannot the enemies' psionics.
    2. These do not affect psionics. However, psionics has its own ways of stopping it - preferably not just reskins of these spells.

    I would say 1 is better than 2 unless you can think of ways to stop psionics that have the same efficiency (output/input - ie counterspell takes a 3rd level slot and needs rolls for higher level spells but can be cast on a reaction and can shut down a caster with good rolls) as these spells.

    An example of this would be a Disrupt ability. You can spend a psi slot/psi points/psi whatever to force someone Concentrating on a psionic effect to have to roll a Concentration check or lose the effect. Make it cheaper to use, but less effective - only works on concentration.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Taking inspiration from 4e, I want a class built on augmentable at-will powers.

    For example, a psion could know the mage hand cantrip and spend 1 psi point to make the hand invisible, another psi point to make the hand carry more than 10 pounds, etc.

    On the subject of psionics and magic, there is an interesting comparison to be made between the successive UAs. They went from "Psionics and magic are two distinct forces" to "Psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting" to just describing spells being cast psionically.

    For flavor, I would prefer the second approach. Psionics is magic, but psionic disciplines aren't spells. This emphasizes that you are not manipulating the Weave but a magic all your own. Crunch-wise, however, it is just much simpler to use spells.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerT20 View Post
    Psionics should change the current axis with 'martials' on one end and 'spellcasters' on the other to one with martials in the middle, psionics on one side and casters on the other. I feel like magic and psionics should not mix well. On is man over nature (the force of the mind bending the world to suit them) the other is nature over man (people taking water from the ocean of power)
    There should be half-psions and psionic subclasses for martials and martial subclasses for psions.
    There should not be any crossing over of casters and psionics, perhaps even making them difficult to multiclass across - perhaps you have to take a level of a martial class to be able to take one of a caster (or vice versa)
    Now, as previously mentioned, the chasm we must cross is the effect of things like dispel magic on psionics.

    There are two ways to go about this while preserving the whole 'psionics is not just magic from your brain' thing.
    1. These do not affect psionics. However, this works both ways - the enemy cannot stop the PCs' psionics and the PCs cannot the enemies' psionics.
    2. These do not affect psionics. However, psionics has its own ways of stopping it - preferably not just reskins of these spells.

    I would say 1 is better than 2 unless you can think of ways to stop psionics that have the same efficiency (output/input - ie counterspell takes a 3rd level slot and needs rolls for higher level spells but can be cast on a reaction and can shut down a caster with good rolls) as these spells.

    An example of this would be a Disrupt ability. You can spend a psi slot/psi points/psi whatever to force someone Concentrating on a psionic effect to have to roll a Concentration check or lose the effect. Make it cheaper to use, but less effective - only works on concentration.
    Illithids that are also Wizards is a classic so restricting multiclassing by RAW would be a mistake. Leave it up to the DM to force that kind of stuff in his campaign.


    In terms of dealing with Magic, if Psionics was focused on damage dealing effects the need for things like Counterspell/Dispel Magic are lessened. If you want the Psionic class to be able to replicate all the stuff from the wizard spell list then the need for magic to be able to effect Psionics becomes important.

    I think the main question people should be asking is what are psionics going to actually do? What role will they fill. If it's simply a Wizard with a different spell system then I'd be pretty disappointed.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Don't make it different for the sake of being different.

    What I mean is, however you describe psionics, a psionic class would probably function as a spell caster mechanically. Allot of people want them to have a separate system from spells to make them feel unique, but what does this actually mean in gameplay terms? If you have two systems doing pretty much the same thing, then it's really hard not to a.) have one of the systems strictly superior, or b.) have the actual differences in the systems be negligible.

    I'm not saying the psion necessarily has to use spell slots and all the rest, but if it doesn't there should be really good reasons thematically and mechanically why not.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Habber_Dasher View Post
    Don't make it different for the sake of being different.

    What I mean is, however you describe psionics, a psionic class would probably function as a spell caster mechanically. Allot of people want them to have a separate system from spells to make them feel unique, but what does this actually mean in gameplay terms? If you have two systems doing pretty much the same thing, then it's really hard not to a.) have one of the systems strictly superior, or b.) have the actual differences in the systems be negligible.

    I'm not saying the psion necessarily has to use spell slots and all the rest, but if it doesn't there should be really good reasons thematically and mechanically why not.
    I would guess the main reason to want to avoid spell slots is the whole mutliclassing thing where levels from classes merge together to create your list of spell slots.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Thinking about how to make Psionics different I would suggest this.

    You start off with a Cantrip like spell called Mind Blast that deals psychic damage to a target where they save for half/no damage. The target has advantage on the save if they are at full hit points.

    Your "spells" are mostly things that apply conditions onto enemies such as Charmed, Blinded, Frightened, Incapacitated, etc... However these "spells" can only be cast on a creature that failed it's save vs your Mind Blast. Either they would be Bonus Action or have to be cast the very next turn.

    So you are basically attacking the mind and once you have knocked down their mental defences then you can start using your powerful abilities on the creature.


    Balance wise, it's strong since you apply the effect after knowing they failed the save so you'd have to limit the number of times per day you can use the "spells". So either they have a pool of psionic points and these effects cost a lot so that you can use them only a few times between rests or have something similar to the Warlock's Pact Magic slots.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Thinking about how to make Psionics different I would suggest this.

    You start off with a Cantrip like spell called Mind Blast that deals psychic damage to a target where they save for half/no damage. The target has advantage on the save if they are at full hit points.

    Your "spells" are mostly things that apply conditions onto enemies such as Charmed, Blinded, Frightened, Incapacitated, etc... However these "spells" can only be cast on a creature that failed it's save vs your Mind Blast. Either they would be Bonus Action or have to be cast the very next turn.

    So you are basically attacking the mind and once you have knocked down their mental defences then you can start using your powerful abilities on the creature.


    Balance wise, it's strong since you apply the effect after knowing they failed the save so you'd have to limit the number of times per day you can use the "spells". So either they have a pool of psionic points and these effects cost a lot so that you can use them only a few times between rests or have something similar to the Warlock's Pact Magic slots.
    OK that is kinda cool a set of classes that focuses on chaining things together. I would be hesitant to make it too single target focused so martials still have their signal target focus understated. But, a set of classes with abilities that are lackluster by themselves but are designed to combo well, particularly if they also combo with non-psionic actions could be really cool. A bit of a high skill ceiling and a different play style then concentration limited casters. If you avoid any ability that can last more then one fight you can probably keep it balanced. A fight of mind games and mind strategy could fit psionics well.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Millstone85 View Post
    Taking inspiration from 4e, I want a class built on augmentable at-will powers.

    For example, a psion could know the mage hand cantrip and spend 1 psi point to make the hand invisible, another psi point to make the hand carry more than 10 pounds, etc.

    On the subject of psionics and magic, there is an interesting comparison to be made between the successive UAs. They went from "Psionics and magic are two distinct forces" to "Psionics is a special form of magic use, distinct from spellcasting" to just describing spells being cast psionically.

    For flavor, I would prefer the second approach. Psionics is magic, but psionic disciplines aren't spells. This emphasizes that you are not manipulating the Weave but a magic all your own. Crunch-wise, however, it is just much simpler to use spells.
    That could be cool. So mage hand can be upgraded through to something like bigby's hand? Firebolt has upgrades to take it through to flame strike territory?

    I like the idea of chains of spells with different upgrades but that you only get a small number of and that the versatility comes from the upgrades you add.

    Thinking back the UA mystic came kind of close - you got your disciplines there that were thematic. The problem was you got too many so you were still a generalist.

    I wouldn't mind a narrower version (and possibly simpler).

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Illithids that are also Wizards is a classic so restricting multiclassing by RAW would be a mistake. Leave it up to the DM to force that kind of stuff in his campaign.


    In terms of dealing with Magic, if Psionics was focused on damage dealing effects the need for things like Counterspell/Dispel Magic are lessened. If you want the Psionic class to be able to replicate all the stuff from the wizard spell list then the need for magic to be able to effect Psionics becomes important.

    I think the main question people should be asking is what are psionics going to actually do? What role will they fill. If it's simply a Wizard with a different spell system then I'd be pretty disappointed.
    Actually, Psions don't take that much after wizards

    Empaths would be better suited being compared to bards, or perhaps enchantment wizards if you must
    Seers could be compared to divination wizards, but generally, they delve more into divination while wizards are stronger if they generalise
    And the third iconic (in my experience) type of psion is the Wu Jen, which is more comparable to a Four Elements Monk or perhaps the Sorceror
    The thing is that all psionics focuses more on things like manipulating people, premotions or changing the environment than doing the typical wizardy stuff. While wizards can do all of these, a fighter could technically do plenty of things a wizard can if given enough time and resources

    If I were to be able to make one thing sure about a potential Psion for 5e, it would be that the Order disciplines/whatevers are Order specific. So a Divination wizard can Divine and cast fireball, but a Seer can See and do it better than a Diviner, but cannot send out damage in the same way as that wizard.

    TL;DR Wizards are more general, psions should be more specialised.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
    Well for starters Forgotten Realms which is the default setting for 5e. In there Psionics works fine inside an anti-magic field.
    Forgotten Realms is many things, but it isn't the default setting for 5e. Despite all the books they've published, none of them, not even PHB, claims any of the settings as default for 5e.
    Last edited by Arkhios; 2020-04-01 at 01:21 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Not necessary, but I really think there should be ki - whaterverthehellpsionsuseasaresource equivalency. But I tend to see Monks as Physical Adepts to the Psion/Mystic/Mentalist's Caster.
    Why yes, Warlock is my solution for everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    Active Abilities are great because you - the player - are demonstrating your Dwarvenness or Elfishness. You're not passively a dwarf, you're actively dwarfing your way through obstacles.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe the Rat View Post
    Not necessary, but I really think there should be ki - whaterverthehellpsionsuseasaresource equivalency. But I tend to see Monks as Physical Adepts to the Psion/Mystic/Mentalist's Caster.
    This is my thought, too. Monks have a lot of powers that make people think of a "physical psionic", and some that fit other kinds of psionics, too (like being able to speak anyone's language).

    Monks have a place in the psionic concept, or you're kinda burning a few bridges.


    I think subclasses are the way to go when it comes to fixing the diversity problem. Having one psychic that plays in 12 different ways is a lot harder to make than adding to 12 existing playstyles to each have their own "psychic". So if you want a "Mage psychic", that's in the "Mage" class. If you want the "Lucky Psychic", that's in the "Lucky" class. And so on.


    Lastly, I think the monk's Ki point system is something that should carry over. Not only does the Monk already have problems with multiclassing (and adding more reason would help that), but using a universal currency ties all of the psionics together to be able to work together. Otherwise, it'd be like saying the Storm Herald Barbarian and Four Elements Monk are related because they both deal elemental damage. Mechanics need to work together, since it will naturally become how we envision them.

    Put another way, there's a reason we clump the 5e versions of Clergymen and Voodoo Shamans as being similar despite having different themes, and that's because it's the mechanics that make them similar.

    Using an existing currency has the added benefit of adding content without adding complications. Everyone knows how Ki points work, and adding a new system means more workload for the DM and everyone else. Cutting down on complexity will make it more acceptable (consider how popular the Artificer has been), which is something Psionics desperately needs from the player-base.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-04-01 at 03:39 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas Iíve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. Youíre a gem of the community here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post

    5th Edition Homebrewery

    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerT20 View Post
    Actually, Psions don't take that much after wizards

    Empaths would be better suited being compared to bards, or perhaps enchantment wizards if you must
    Seers could be compared to divination wizards, but generally, they delve more into divination while wizards are stronger if they generalise
    And the third iconic (in my experience) type of psion is the Wu Jen, which is more comparable to a Four Elements Monk or perhaps the Sorceror
    The thing is that all psionics focuses more on things like manipulating people, premotions or changing the environment than doing the typical wizardy stuff. While wizards can do all of these, a fighter could technically do plenty of things a wizard can if given enough time and resources

    If I were to be able to make one thing sure about a potential Psion for 5e, it would be that the Order disciplines/whatevers are Order specific. So a Divination wizard can Divine and cast fireball, but a Seer can See and do it better than a Diviner, but cannot send out damage in the same way as that wizard.

    TL;DR Wizards are more general, psions should be more specialised.
    I think there is another one. The telekinesis specialist that focuses on shaping forces with their mind. Telekinesis spell, walls of force and force damage.

    I could also see elements of conjugation as a specialist - those that can, inceptionstyle, create and bend whole worlds in their mind. Given that the earliest spell with reference to creating a world is possibly banishment (if the harmless demiplane is created this way) so this theme might have to be tagged on to another.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerT20 View Post
    Actually, Psions don't take that much after wizards

    Empaths would be better suited being compared to bards, or perhaps enchantment wizards if you must
    Seers could be compared to divination wizards, but generally, they delve more into divination while wizards are stronger if they generalise
    And the third iconic (in my experience) type of psion is the Wu Jen, which is more comparable to a Four Elements Monk or perhaps the Sorceror
    The thing is that all psionics focuses more on things like manipulating people, premotions or changing the environment than doing the typical wizardy stuff. While wizards can do all of these, a fighter could technically do plenty of things a wizard can if given enough time and resources

    If I were to be able to make one thing sure about a potential Psion for 5e, it would be that the Order disciplines/whatevers are Order specific. So a Divination wizard can Divine and cast fireball, but a Seer can See and do it better than a Diviner, but cannot send out damage in the same way as that wizard.

    TL;DR Wizards are more general, psions should be more specialised.
    I think the majority of wizards spells have been done with Psionics in literature. For example instead of Fireball, the Psion causes every creatures/objects in a radius to spontaneously combust. The fluff surrounding it would be different but if they could very easily make psionic abilities be equivalent to exisiting spells which would be disappointing.

    I'm not sure the list of existing spells that couldn't be justified as being done via psionics is very big when you look at the result.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerT20 View Post
    And the third iconic (in my experience) type of psion is the Wu Jen, which is more comparable to a Four Elements Monk or perhaps the Sorceror
    Wu Jen is oriental-flavored spellcaster. It's got nothing to do with psionics, and definitely isn't iconic in any way.
    It's Eberron, not ebberon.
    It's not high magic, it's wide magic.
    And it's definitely not steampunk. The only time steam gets involved is when the fire and water elementals get loose.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by 47Ace View Post
    OK that is kinda cool a set of classes that focuses on chaining things together. I would be hesitant to make it too single target focused so martials still have their signal target focus understated. But, a set of classes with abilities that are lackluster by themselves but are designed to combo well, particularly if they also combo with non-psionic actions could be really cool. A bit of a high skill ceiling and a different play style then concentration limited casters. If you avoid any ability that can last more then one fight you can probably keep it balanced. A fight of mind games and mind strategy could fit psionics well.
    At early levels it would be normal for it to be single target focused, but sure at higher levels being able to effect more then one target would make sense.

    In terms of chaining things if the effect of the psionic "spell" lasted until the end of your next turn, then it would open things up. So turn one you Mind Blast and apply Restrained Condition, turn 2 you use another "spell" that can only be cast against Restrained targets that causes Incapacitated/Paralysis. Similarly you apply Charmed conditions on turn 1, and then get to Confuse/Dominate on later turns, etc...

    The one issue is that fights are designed to be so short that trying to chain together stuff beyond 1-2 rounds might not be very good in practice. It also needs to be balanced vs caster who simply cast a save or suck spell that immediately apply the big effect. Which probably means accessing those types of effects at earlier levels, so instead of getting a Dominate Person like effect at 9th level the Psion might get it at level 5 or 7, but it takes several rounds of targeting the creature before you actually get the full effects.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    As far as psionic classes go, the mystic from a few years back was pretty poorly received, and it appears that WotC has changed its approach to psychics in 5e, with a more recent Unearthed Arcana creating psionic subclasses for the Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Basically, it looks like psionic powers in 5e are just existing spells, although the UA did introduce a few more spells with a more psychic focus as well.

    As someone that has only ever played 5e D&D, I've only read a bit about how psionics worked in previous additions (as far as I understand it, as sort of a point-based alternate casting system). It seems to me that the Monk and the new UA subclasses work flavor-wise as psionics, and I suppose that the alternate spell points system presented in the 5e DMG could be used to represent the traditional point-based casting of a psionic character.
    Currently worldbuilding Last Haven: a setting formed on a titan's corpse! If you have a moment, I would love your feedback!

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Troll in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam113097 View Post
    As far as psionic classes go, the mystic from a few years back was pretty poorly received, and it appears that WotC has changed its approach to psychics in 5e, with a more recent Unearthed Arcana creating psionic subclasses for the Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Basically, it looks like psionic powers in 5e are just existing spells, although the UA did introduce a few more spells with a more psychic focus as well.

    As someone that has only ever played 5e D&D, I've only read a bit about how psionics worked in previous additions (as far as I understand it, as sort of a point-based alternate casting system). It seems to me that the Monk and the new UA subclasses work flavor-wise as psionics, and I suppose that the alternate spell points system presented in the 5e DMG could be used to represent the traditional point-based casting of a psionic character.
    I think a lot of people didn't like the balance of the UA mystic but seemed pretty happy with its style and general approach.

    From what I have seen people seemed to like it more than the recent UA, at least as a foundation for the class.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    I agree that they should be ki based. I think that the old psionic modes of combat should be converted to base class abilities and your specialization should be your subclass.

    So every psion would be able to use things like ego lash or The Tower of Iron Will. But empaths would have different charm based abilities, and psychokinetics would have kinetic skills.

    I think you could make 5 iconic psionic subclasses fairly easily.
    1. Empaths
    2. Seer
    3. Telepath
    4. Telekinetic
    5. Pyrokinetic

    After those five you would start to get in the territory of subclasses in existing classes rather than types of psion.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Chesterfield, MO, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Survey: What can we agree (or disagree) on Psionics?

    WOTC casts ďMind EditĒ and all traces of memory about Psionic existing in D&D is lost forever.
    With one exception, I play AL games only nowdays.

    I am the eternal Iconoclast.

    Mountain Dwarfs Rock!

    Song of Gorm Gulthyn
    Blessed be the HAMMER my strength which teaches my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.

    Otto von Bismarck Quotes

    When you want to fool the world, tell the truth.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •