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

[Millstone85]

While I get that not everybody would like this portrayal of psionics as "pseudo-eastern magic that also happens to be used by pseudo-Lovecraftian horrors", I too am on the side of the monk/mystic connection, whether that involves both classes using ki points or just lore about monasteries forming them both.

This could range from the ability to affect the world around you solely using your mind to interpreting it as the ability to use your mind to directly manipulate "magic" or "the weave of existence" to create effects.

In 5e lore, a distinction is made between (1) the raw magic that permeates all existence and (2) the Weave, a spellcasting interface that is damaged in some places.

My favorite interpretation of psionics involves a character turning their aura into a personal miniature weave, so they can manipulate raw magic even in places where the Weave has been fully torn. If that seems unfair, consider how there might be areas where the Weave is stronger instead, and a psionic character would not benefit from them. It might also be entirely a matter of flavor, should a DM decide to never use such local properties of the Weave.

Unlike an area where the Weave is torn, an antimagic field actively suppresses spells and other magical effects. For balance reasons, I would have it work just fine against this personal weave. The case of dispel magic is more delicate, as it would depend on psionic effects being considered not just magical but more specifically spells.

[LibraryOgre]

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.

The hallmark of psionics in every edition of D&D has been flexibility compared to normal casters. If I were to kitbash a psionicist class, I would base them on a sorcerer, but replace all spell slots with the appropriate amount of sorcery points. Spells could be refluffed as necessary, but convert sorcery points to spell slots as you need or want them.

[Witty Username]

What makes Psionics different from normal spellcasters?

The short version, it depends on the edition.

The long version, In 3.5, Powers closely resembled spells. They each had a level from 1-9 which would determine a point cost (from 1 for 1st level powers and 17 for a 9th level power). Also, virtually any power could be increased in effect by spending more points, in the same vain as using spell slots of higher level. The difference being that Psions didn't usually have mass versions of powers or higher level damage abilities(ish). Like say a psionic Hold Monster(we will get there) would maybe be a 2nd level power, which would affect humanoids but you could spend points to either effect more creatures of affect more outlandish monster (scaling up to aberations, fiends, dragons, etc). Or say burning hands and thunderwave, Psions would have an energy wave which they would pick fire, cold, lightning, or thunder (each with their own secondary effects) and then be able to spent point to increase the damage as needed rather then multiple spells for each damage type. The last big one is that instead of concentrating to maintain a power, Psionics tended to spent more points to extend the duration of powers

Disclamer, these examples are not actual powers, and sharing names with real powers is purely coincidental.

This version could be fairly represent able in 5e, the big reason for it to be a class as opposed to a subclass would be the power point system instead of spell slots. Also, to port some of the weirder powers like Synesthete("You receive one kind of sensory input when a different sense is stimulated. In particular, you Feel light or Feel sound").

[LibraryOgre]

The hallmark of psionics in every edition of D&D has been flexibility compared to normal casters. If I were to kitbash a psionicist class, I would base them on a sorcerer, but replace all spell slots with the appropriate amount of sorcery points. Spells could be refluffed as necessary, but convert sorcery points to spell slots as you need or want them.

And, since I'm gauche enough to quote myself, I whipped this up. Then my computer shat itself, and I rewrote it.

[Witty Username]

And, since I'm gauche enough to quote myself, I whipped this up. Then my computer shat itself, and I rewrote it.

So, for comments on that should we post here or on the other thread?

My big concern on using sorcerer as the base of a psionistist is I feel int is the power of the mind stat rather than cha.

[Morphic tide]

Personally, I'd have Psionics be moved to Short Rest recovery, completely lacking Long Rest specific "plot magic". Additionally, I'd very heavily emphasize it as being focused on amplifying base game mechanics, rather than bypassing them like spellcasting has a habit of doing. Blasting would be practical due pretty much total proliferation of rider effects, rather than actually being competitive with Warlock damage numbers. Keeping Disciplines as the Mystic has them helps corral the effects, and helps with the idea of the exact ability list being differing expressions of a small number of underlying effects.

I'd also have Psionic Focus carry substitutions to port forward 3.5's damage type selection, and expand on this by including saves against conditions as the sole effect you're substituting into. So on top of Energy Claws being replaced with just substituting your bonus damage for extra investment, you can instead have an on-hit Fear save, and conversely have your condition-dedicated effects be swapped out for targeting modes on damage. And piggyback off your multi-target attempt-to-render-Unconcious to apply multi-target healing. Cuts down on the abilities that need written quite considerably, because there only needs to be one ability with a given targeting property, and also forces some interesting Discipline diversity to just have the targeting modes you need to function properly.

With the currently-absent matter of summoning, I'd have the Astral Construct's Discipline be about building them out of a list of effects, with those effects being able to be used on existing creatures to grant them capabilities and action economy manipulations tied to not losing an HP buffer to represent the oft-requested "armor" version. The Psicrystal would be tied to the Discipline that sources the Glyph of Warding effects (and Cognizence Crystal creation), having a similar tie-together roll allowing it to be used as the Quicken and Twin equivalent, using its action to set off the various Powers that have been placed in it beforehand.

In general, I'd turn Psionics into combinatorial explosion, having a lot of "spell building" going on as you look at what you can replace, what Disciplines let you plug in another Power, where bonuses are stacking up into something potentially silly in its output and so on. But laying out the basic rules of it to keep the efficiency for a given level capped off, by carefully avoiding any cases of multiple multi-targets or overlapping durations to turn the scaling cubic.

[Sception]

What makes Psionics different from normal spellcasters?

What makes normal spellcasters different from warlocks? What makes paladins different from clerics? What makes rogues different from dex fighters with a criminal background? Why even have more classes than just "wizard" and "muggle"? Sometimes different mechanics are fun for the sake of having different mechanics, because different abilities based on a different resource management system allow for different and fresh game play experiences, something that a game that's been around as long as 5e could really benefit from. I've played enough full casters in 5e that more subclasses of the same casting more or less the same spells with exactly the same resource management that more of that just doesn't interest me.

In contrast, a novel magic system with band new classes, not just new subclass window dressing on the same classes I've played many times already, greatly interests me, regardless of what lore gets painted on to justify it. It could be psionics, incarnum, shadowcasting, whatever. It could even just be "magic, but just different for no reason at all" and I'd be fine with it.

[Joe the Rat]

In contrast, a novel magic system with band new classes, not just new subclass window dressing on the same classes I've played many times already, greatly interests me, regardless of what lore gets painted on to justify it. It could be psionics, incarnum, shadowcasting, whatever. It could even just be "magic, but just different for no reason at all" and I'd be fine with it.

Thought: would mining Magic of Incarnum for ideas be worthwhile? I see a lot of overlap in Mind Magic and Soul Magic. But maybe I'm just channeling the JoJo's Bizarre Tradition UA.

[Dr. Cliché]

I have to be honest, a lot of what I'm seeing in this thread sounds like "I want to play a sorcerer... except much better."

It seems people want to play an innate magic caster except that she uses spell points, her spells have 0 Verbal or Somatic components, and, oh yes, said spells are also immune to Counterspell and are unaffected by Magic Resistance, Anti-Magic field or literally any other existing defence.

Mary Sue much?


I mean, I can understand people wanting a better sorcerer class but I's prefer to actually fix the sorcerer, rather than introducing a new class that completely surpasses it.

[clash]

I agree. I think a big problem with psionics is people are asking for things that are overpowered compared to other spellcasting classes, then complaining when wotc releases something that is overpowered compared to other spellcasting classes.

In my opinion in order for a psionics class to actually work and be balanced, it should use a physical focus and be obvious that you are using it just like spellcasting. It has also been said before but it needs to be affected by things like counterspell and anti-magic. It can't just be a straight up improvement over normal spellcasting. That's the definition of power creep.

[MoiMagnus]

My honest opinions.

1) Psionic should make use of their Int, and of the enemies' Int save. [Though let's avoid "save or die" on Int because far too many classical monsters have crappy Int.]

2) No new mechanical overlay. In particular not "mental battle" system, or weird interaction with the spell system. [New mechanics internal to the class, like monk's Ki, or warlock's weird spell slots, are fine. The point is that there is no additional rule players should need to know if they face an enemy psionic]

3) Similarly to other 5e class, the focus of the class should be fighting-related abilities. Master telepath only good at plotting schemes are subclass materials, not core. But in particular, this mean the class should not rely on clever uses of utility effects like telekinesis to be good in combat. [That kind of class end up either crap for the average players, or too OP when a particularly ingenious player prey on a beginner DM]

4) This is not a wizard. You don't have a big list of spells to go through. I think from the PHB "Monk, way of the 4 elements" is what is the nearest from what I would love the Psionic to be.

5) The UA mystic was fine to me, up to (a) too many disciplines per character to my taste and (b) too complex to my taste (c) possibly OP, but I've not seen it in play. More precisely I'd rather have less disciplines but slightly stronger ones, in particular stronger Psychic Focus (the ability that doesn't cost psi points). Then, you have both psi talent and discipline, which are two new mechanics to take in account. Couldn't they be merged together? Or maybe changed the psychic talents into cantrip and give access to cantrips to mystics? Or transforming them into feats available to everyone? And could we get rid of the psi limit and instead use "At higher levels" kind of formalism when needed? Why do you give a discipline outside their order to 1st level Mystic? They already have enough things to read within their order...

EDIT: And I don't really care about that silent casting stuff, so I won't miss it if psychic powers have vocal/somatic component [though I'd gladly replace the vocal by "telepathic sound"]. I'm still reasonably against material components.

[Tanarii]

I want it to be a series of subclasses for the existing classes. Psionic powers should be class features and spells. New spells can be invented if there is a gap where we need more mind-focus spells. But personally I think enchantment, phantasm style illusions, divination, and transmutation (self) spells do a good job of covering stuff already.

For example, a Psion would be a good Wizard subclass. Give them a Subtle-spell like ability at 2nd, not necessarily unlimited. Give them a bonus to enchantments and phantasms at 6th. Etc.

[Mehangel]

What I would like to see:

1: Psionics are powered off Ki; this would boost monks, by allowing additional uses of that resource.

2: Psionics/Magic non-transparency; Magic Resistance and Psionic Resistance should be two separate things, Dead Magic Zones should not affect Psionics; Psionics should not affect Undead, Constructs, and Mind Blanked targets.

Having this non-transparency makes implementing settings like Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms easier to maintain.

3: Psionics/Magic transparency; I am okay with Dispel & Counterspell working on Psionics. I am also okay with things like Restoration spells working on Psionic'ly imposed negative conditions.

Having this transparency may help reduce potential headaches that GMs could encounter.

[Theoboldi]

I want it to be a series of subclasses for the existing classes. Psionic powers should be class features and spells. New spells can be invented if there is a gap where we need more mind-focus spells. But personally I think enchantment, phantasm style illusions, divination, and transmutation (self) spells do a good job of covering stuff already.

For example, a Psion would be a good Wizard subclass. Give them a Subtle-spell like ability at 2nd, not necessarily unlimited. Give them a bonus to enchantments and phantasms at 6th. Etc.

See, I disagree completely with this. There are way too many things a wizard can do that a psion should not be capable of. Like throwing fireballs or summoning demons. And just not taking those is honestly a bad solution, since it relies entirely on self-policing and playing your character suboptimally when they come across spellbooks.

If psionics are to use the same mechanics as spellcasting, they should at the very least have their own list and class, like the bard, focused on thematically psionic powers like mental manipulation and telekinesis. None of this “grease, psionic“ stuff from 3rd edition.

And no components. It's not like they're a particularely important balancing mechanism anyways. If need be, give them some sort of visual or obvious audatoery manifestation or make it so that the psion has to visibly concentrate. But components as they are just do not fit the psion thematic.

Magic dispelling psionics or visa versa I dont really care about, but for simplicity I tend towards letting them interact. After all, many setting already seperate divine and arcane magic very clearly, but those can still dispel each other.

[EggKookoo]

Just repeating the idea that it might be interesting to apply psionics via a template, similar to the way zombies and maybe lyncathropes are done.

[Dr. Cliché]

See, I disagree completely with this. There are way too many things a wizard can do that a psion should not be capable of. Like throwing fireballs or summoning demons. And just not taking those is honestly a bad solution, since it relies entirely on self-policing and playing your character suboptimally when they come across spellbooks.

To be honest, I actually think this is also an issue with many of the current casters.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think 4e's psionics had some good ideas that could work in 5e. The Mystic kind of does the same thing, what with having base powers that get stronger when you dump more points into it, but I think squashing the math, number of powers, and points system and rolling cantrip right into the power sets would settle a lot about that class. Reduce it's complexity and godlike versatility in favor of being more straightforward and easy to use. Use the monk's ki as a basis (and I'm all for the idea of ki being a type of psionics again, it made so much sense). Separate powers out into different subclasses and design the class more like the cleric, where your 'domain' strongly impacts your play from the beginning. And while it might be nice to have a concise all-in-one psionic class, I'd prefer to see two major chassis to reduce the chances that powers that might be strong alongside specific other powers end up on the same character without going through some multiclass hoops (and thus requiring a higher level to utilize).

This could allow for a new monk subclass that has access to a few power sets of their own, too, which would be great. And psionic monsters using the same power sets wouldn't need to come with a user's manual to understand.

[Millstone85]

I have to be honest, a lot of what I'm seeing in this thread sounds like "I want to play a sorcerer... except much better."

It seems people want to play an innate magic caster

That would depend on what you mean by "innate".

A psion's magic comes from within, that is true, but she is an Int-based student of the magic found within any mind, much as a wizard learns to manipulate the Weave.

This is very different from having an intuitive understanding of magic as a result of some odd ancestry or planar accident.

And no components. It's not like they're a particularely important balancing mechanism anyways. If need be, give them some sort of visual or obvious audatoery manifestation or make it so that the psion has to visibly concentrate. But components as they are just do not fit the psion thematic.

4e represented all its psionic characters with a halo, sometimes a halo of floating runes. It had no mechanical consequence back then, as the edition didn't care about a spell being obvious or not.

But I would definitely have psionic disciplines require this as a new form of component.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the psychic warrior and soul knife UA subclasses for fighter and rogue are a good idea. {snip} Maybe do it like pact magic, can cast the same spells but as a separate resource.

If they could clean up pshcyic warrior and soul knife, that would be great. And yeah, like pact magic but INT based.

Yes please:
- Interacts on an equal basis to magic (dispel magic, counterspell, etc)
- Mix of at-will, short and long rest resources
- Point based resources, hopefully to fuel and/or boost powers
- Disciplines in a vein similar to magic schools
- Subclasses of existing classes

Agree with all but the last.

No thanks:
- Slot based resources
- Copying spells
- One classes that covers aaaaalllll of psionics

Agree with all but the last.
I'd rather the INT based psion class than the Artificer. ( A matter of personal taste)

I think we can all agree that - mechanics aside - psionics should be about bald heads, plunging necklines, tattoos, and crystals.

Absolutely. Star Trek the Movie, (the first one) comes to mind ...

Don't forget being disproportionately ripped, even though the only "muscles" you use are your brains.

Lean muscles, not bulky muscles, since psionic energy expenditure burns fat!

The hallmark of psionics in every edition of D&D has been flexibility compared to normal casters.

Sorcery points as a model is a good one, as would be the spell points model.

I have to be honest, a lot of what I'm seeing in this thread sounds like "I want to play a sorcerer... except much better."

I am not in that group. Sorcerer has its own strengths and weaknesses; psion IMO needs to be its own INT based PC class.

I agree. I think a big problem with psionics is people are asking for things that are overpowered compared to other spellcasting classes

Yeah. BLoat sometimes comes from a fan base that does not understand balance.

1) Psionic should make use of their Int, and of the enemies' Int save.

2) No new mechanical overlay.

3) Similarly to other 5e class, the focus of the class should be fighting-related abilities.

4) This is not a wizard. You don't have a big list of spells to go through. I think from the PHB "Monk, way of the 4 elements" is what is the nearest from what I would love the Psionic to be.

But needs a lot of work to get 'right"

5) The UA mystic was fine to me, up to (a) too many disciplines per character to my taste and (b) too complex to my taste (c) possibly OP, but I've not seen it in play.

I am all for silent casting. :)

What I would like to see:

1: Psionics are powered off Ki; this would boost monks, by allowing additional uses of that resource.

2: Psionics/Magic non-transparency; Magic Resistance and Psionic Resistance should be two separate things, Dead Magic Zones should not affect Psionics; Psionics should not affect Undead, Constructs, and Mind Blanked targets.

I'd rather not, though I appreciate the direction you are taking this idea.

Having this non-transparency makes implementing settings like Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms easier to maintain.

Yep.

3: Psionics/Magic transparency; I am okay with Dispel & Counterspell working on Psionics. I am also okay with things like Restoration spells working on Psionic'ly imposed negative conditions.

Having this transparency may help reduce potential headaches that GMs could encounter.

I bolded your last part because I agree with that part so very much.

As ever, my commentary on how psionics became a headache. (Pun intended)

[Draconi Redfir]

Note: i have never played any psionic class, nor 5th edition. everything i say may and probably will be wrong as a result.

For me, i always picture Psionic abilities as "Magic-like" without being "Magic". So you can move objects around with telekinesis, but since it's not magical and is instead mental, effects like Anti-magic field should have no effect. Perhaps instead, spells such as "Mind Blank" could be given the ability to interrupt Psionic abilities. So sometimes Magic is more advantageous, and sometimes Psionics are more advantageous.

"Dispel" effects should probably work for both though.

[LibraryOgre]

See, I disagree completely with this. There are way too many things a wizard can do that a psion should not be capable of. Like throwing fireballs or summoning demons.

Charlie McGee might argue with the first one.

Since 2e, there's been a lot of erosion of niche protection, to the point where there are relatively few "This class shouldn't be able to do X because another class can" is pretty much gone.

[Theoboldi]

Charlie McGee might argue with the first one.

Since 2e, there's been a lot of erosion of niche protection, to the point where there are relatively few "This class shouldn't be able to do X because another class can" is pretty much gone.

That's not what I meant by that at all, though. I don't think a psion shouldn't be able to do those things because the wizard can do them, they should not be able to do them because it does not fit the psion archetype. It's like if the barbarian suddenly earned a spellbook and the ability to write down spells in it. Nice for a shaman kind of character, but it feels entirely wrong for someone who wants the particular archetype that a barbarian should offer.

[micahaphone]

As ever, my commentary on how psionics became a headache. (Pun intended)

Korvin, I really like your writing on the matter and the linked article from the Angry GM, it hits the nail on the head as to why I'm not a huge fan of psionic systems in a game - that it feels un thematic in D&D. I feel the Angry GM's version, focusing on magic being external vs psionics being internal glosses a tad over wizards - their knowledge is certainly internal but the magic comes from an external source to be manipulated, so they are a bit of both.

Another rpg, Stars Without Numbers, a sci fi post-golden age setting, uses psychics as their magic system/casters, with each character specializing in only one branch of powers. Telekinesis, pyrokensis, healing(-kinesis?), teleportation, etc. That feels much more on brand to sci fi than to a fantasy setting.

As said in the angry gm article,

psionics is essentially a metaphor for the conquest of science over nature. And that’s why it feels weird to many people when you put it alongside magic. Because, thematically, those things are talking about two very different worlds. Now, not everyone cares. Obviously. That’s why I started with that whole thing about suspension of disbelief. But to people who give a s$&% about themes, consciously or un-, having psionics in the world is like driving a car with a one tire that’s slightly the wrong size. The car goes, sure. But it feels weird and you might do some serious damage to your suspension in the long term.

And for everyone who didn't click through to your writing, here's the very end of it

Bottom line
Psionics are only controversial if:

you let them be, or,

at a given table, a DM doesn't want to be bothered with them and a player wants to use them.

A "Session Zero" or "Same Page Tool" kind of conversation should sort that out before play begins.

That kind of conflict -- can I use this feature or not? -- was bound to arise in the bloatier editions (AD&D 2.0 and later) whose avalanche of supplements and features (What is core, anyway?) won't appeal to every DM.

It is fair to say that psionics isn't alone in being a table-by-table feature in the game.
- Example: In our current campaign (5e) the DM did not approve Variant Human for our table.

Since DM's don't DM for the pay, that isn't a bad thing: it's either available at a DM's table, or it isn't. No controversy.

---------------------
Edit:
reading through the angry gm article does remind me why I usually skip over him. He's got some good points but god there's a lot of elitism and antagonism wrapped around it all. Certainly lives up to the name.

[Foxydono]

It has also been said before but it needs to be affected by things like counterspell and anti-magic. It can't just be a straight up improvement over normal spellcasting. That's the definition of power creep.

I fundamentally disagree. Every class has their special ability, be it being versitile, having metamagic, rage, etc. For a psion, doing stuff with your mind is at the core of what the class is, so no v, s,m. This also means no counterspell by definition.

Whether the effects of psions are magical in nature and if they can be dispelled or if anti magic works is another matter. I'd like to say no.. But that might be too powerful.

But that can be compensated with a small spell list and ki/psi points. Anyway, psion that uses V, S, M is no psion.

[Segev]

Thought: would mining Magic of Incarnum for ideas be worthwhile? I see a lot of overlap in Mind Magic and Soul Magic. But maybe I'm just channeling the JoJo's Bizarre Tradition UA.

I actually have long thought that merging the "shuffle points into this thing for benefit" and the "spend points for bigger benefit" mechanics of Incarnum + Psionics should be merged. 3.0 had a cool idea with psionic feats that took investiture of power points. 3.5 did away with that with "maintaining psionic focus," which I thought was...disappointing.

A good model for it, I think, would actually be the occultist from Pathfinder.

Not the spells/spellcasting, but the way mental focus works with implements resonant and focus powers. Though integrating psionic powers as spell-ish things back in could be done by making them another thing to spend focus on.

[KorvinStarmast]

Another rpg, Stars Without Numbers, a sci fi post-golden age setting, uses psychics as their magic system/casters, with each character specializing in only one branch of powers. Telekinesis, pyrokensis, healing(-kinesis?), teleportation, etc. That feels much more on brand to sci fi than to a fantasy setting.

1. Thank you for your kind compliment. 2. Stars Without Number: i've heard good things about the game but have never played it.

[Sam113097]

I strongly agree with the idea that any potential psionic class should have a flexible casting system that is based on spending Ki points, as I feel that the Monk already is a psionic class in my opinion, using mental fortitude and Ki points to achieve spell-like effects.

[micahaphone]

1. Thank you for your kind compliment. 2. Stars Without Number: i've heard good things about the game but have never played it.

The Revised version (2nd ed effectively) is real good - there's a free pdf of the basic rules, and the full book version has a huge host of DM tools that let you generate planets, sectors, societies, conflicts, species, etc. Very useful tools! I like the use of 2d6 out of combat and D20 in combat - being skilled in a thing is useful and a massive boon on 2d6, but combat is more unpredictable, swingy, and deadly.

--------------------------------

Back on topic, I think your "added complexity vs value" point is a big concern. While 5E is a simplified edition, D&D is still fairly complicated, there's many rules and it's easy to forget something. Adding another version of magic that-isn't-magic is a lot of new complexity, and I'm not sure there's enough value.

[Habber_Dasher]

Could someone explain the whole Ki connection to me? Monks are martial class. Even though a few subclasses have spells or spell-like abilities, Ki points are used primarily to support this role, allowing monks to get in, hit things, and avoid being hit, better. In this way they're closer to a battlemaster's superiority dice than spell or "psi" points. Is it just that they're both point systems? Is it a thematic thing?

[Millstone85]

Could someone explain the whole Ki connection to me? [...] Is it a thematic thing?

It is a thematic thing.

Ki is the magic that flows through living bodies. That should include the brain, and at least one monk feature appears to confirm this (Tongue of the Sun and Moon, "you learn to touch the ki of other minds").

Because the psion is often accused of not belonging in D&D, this is an attempt to connect it to the lore of a more accepted class. Of course, many feel like the monk doesn't belong either.