# Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?



## Mercule (Jun 9, 2015)

Not sure whether I agree/disagree with his original question. I'd more say that I'm not opposed to the idea. 

I do like what he's laying down, though. I think Psi, Divine, and Arcane magic would be best served by being very distinct from one another. Divine is channeling power inherent in some other being (typically a god). Arcane is manipulating energy around you, but external to you. Psionic is drawing on your own, internal energy. If I can accept that divine and arcane magic use the same mechanic, I can accept that psionics do, too. But... psionics are the most alien and non-traditional of the power sources, so it helps to give them a distinct mechanic, and I'd rather have at least one of the three use a different mechanic. It's almost a sacred cow, at this point.

I do like his take on old ones, though. I've never liked the "outside our reality" idea. Reality is reality. If it exists, it's part of reality. We already have planes in D&D, what is "outside"? But, things from before this iteration or simply long since forgotten -- that I like.

The scientific terminology for psionics has always bothered me. Feels more sci-fi than fantasy, even understanding that fantasy can be considered a sub-genre of sci-fi. I'd be happy to purge those terms.


----------



## delericho (Jun 9, 2015)

> "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting"




Needs? Disagree. I think the flavour's okay, but that's not to say I wouldn't also be okay if it were changed. Ideally, though, if they do change it then I want the ability to change it _back_ if I feel the need. Options, not restrictions!



> "Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots.




I agree about not using spell slots. I thing the "not duplicating spells" is too much, though - there are some powers that are currently spells that _should_ have psionic equivalents, and I don't see any benefit in reinventing the wheel just to have a power that is all-but the same.



> One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale....




I'd much rather it was another expression of the Monk's ki - something internal that some characters can draw on.

And include a Psychic Warrior class, or similar, with distinctly Wuxia roots.



> One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."




Nope, don't like that. Dark Sun's environmental issues were really about what happens when _magic_ runs amok, with the psionic aspect representing a 'safe' alternative. Tying the environmental waste into psionics damages that setting, IMO.

Plus, I actually don't like being told "psionic is _this_" or "magic is _that_". That may well work for your settings, but that doesn't mean it will work for mine.

All that said, and because the post is probably overly negative as-is: I'm definitely intrigued to see what he comes up with, and would almost certainly buy a psionics supplement. If for no other reason than I want to play both Dark Sun and Eberron, and both those settings include psionics as a fairly integral part (DS moreso, of course).


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm suspicious of meddling. Is the flavour of psionics from 3E/3.5E/4E not still suitable?


----------



## AverageCitizen (Jun 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> Dark Sun's environmental issues were really about what happens when _magic_ runs amok, with the psionic aspect representing a 'safe' alternative. Tying the environmental waste into psionics damages that setting, IMO.




Yeah, I feel like is is misinterpreting the setting at a fundamental level, here. Of course, I only came in to it at 4e. Am I missing something?


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 9, 2015)

Pasted from other thread....

"I" understand what I want...but am having difficulty explaining it. Or perhaps, as I have said, I'm in the minority.


But I do know this, regardless of what conclusions and debates or motives for my needs anyone chooses to discern.

1. Don't want re-fluffed magic (in play it does not illustrated the difference I expect enough).
2. I want something I can add in a spoonful at a time (like a wild talent, granted by an encounter with a psychic boulder).
3. I like the old psuedo science feel (that's part of its attraction, could it be super science, from a world far far away?, each table's call (read The Many Colored Land by Julian May))

YMMV.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...ing-Soon-To-D-D&page=7#comments#ixzz3caZjn5JU


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 9, 2015)

Where is his question/comments?  So I can chime in there...


----------



## arjomanes (Jun 9, 2015)

I REALLY like this line of thought. 

Psionics should alter the setting as much as the other power sources do. 

A setting that has divine powers has deities, gods, saints, miracles, clerics, paladins, temples, churches, inquisitions, crusades, and relics. There is a lot that ties this power to the setting. 

A setting that has arcane powers has wizards and sorcerers, witches, necromancy, enchantment, charms, spells, familiars, summoning, orbs and staves. Magic has a definite place in the setting as well. 

I also think the notion of "primal" powers is a solid concept, with druids, shamans, barbarians, animists, totems, trophies, weather and nature magic, spirits and primordial forces.

So what makes psionics different, and how can its presence or absence affect the setting? I personally think it can work well with the idea of cosmic horror and mind-melting terror that the Far Realm invokes. If you look at the traditionally psionic monsters, they are alien things. I also like the idea of giving the powers common names, rather than the scientific descriptors they have always had. 

Personally if I were to add psionics to my game, it would come with aberrations as a key element of the setting. I would include Lovecraftian great old ones, creatures like mindflayers and beholders, and make psionics powered by the presence of these creatures and how they warp reality. Or it would be a very wuxia-influenced game that used both psionics and ki side-by-side. As mentioned by Mike Mearls, Dark Sun also has a different spin on psionics, but no less world-altering. 

I'd have a hard time just dropping psionics into a standard high-fantasy medieval European world without it being a world-altering event (even if it's slow and insidious at first). I think Eberron is an example of how psionics exists side-by-side with traditional fantasy. Sarlona is a very different place than Korvaire, and the psionics are a result of outside influence. From time to time psionics can bleed into the rest of Eberron, but it is a unique power that has huge implications for the setting.


----------



## AriochQ (Jun 9, 2015)

One of the most exciting things in 1e was rolling a character that ended up with psionic abilities.  One of the biggest dissapointments is when you realized he had just enough power to have his butt handed to him by every other psionic user (actually making him weaker, since non-psionic character were safe from psionic attacks).

Of the many versions since, none has really made me think psionics fit well in a fantasy setting.  Mind Flayers are cool and all, but that is because they are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 9, 2015)

I am a little uncomfortable with the question being "Should the flavor be changed " and the bit about "...drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic level"..it sounds to me like he's asking "is it ok if we make psionics tied to the Far Realms somehow" and to that I say, wholeheartedly, Don't. You. Dare.

The flavor of psionics is that it is mental/psychic powers, exhibiting/manifesting your own internal power. I do not understand/know what he could want to do/mean about changing that flavor and still call it psionics.

So...No, I guess. No, you should NOT change the flavor of psionics...and it most certainly doesn't "need" to be changed.

EDIT to add: And no, Dark Sun should not be presented as the "pinnacle" of what a world with psionics can/should be like.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 9, 2015)

My biggest want for Psionics rules is that they're comprehensive enough to replace arcane and divine magic. Something on the scale of Pathfinder's Ultimate Psionics.

Really, that's my best advice for Mearls; look at what they did with Ultimate Psionics. The powers, items, flavor, etc; I'm not really sold on the classes; I want a psion class that's as broad as the wizard in terms of what characters can achieve.

But I don't think I'll mind, whatever they do with Psionics, because I'm resigned to the idea that I'll have to do Psionics myself to get what I want.

I don't mind nomenclature like "psychokinetics." I see that stuff as player lingo, not in-setting terminology. That said, I wouldn't mind some good fantasy-setting-appropriate lingo.

I don't give a flip about duplicating existing spells, either, because I'm not looking at using psionics alongside magic.



> 3. I like the old psuedo science feel




Agreed.


----------



## Chocolategravy (Jun 9, 2015)

Doesn't sound like he's too concerned about taking from previous editions, more about making sure it's different/weird but not warlock weird or like other casters.


----------



## Goemoe (Jun 9, 2015)

I like where Mike is heading and I really hope his work on it is serious. Give us more input, Mike. Psionics are most dominant in Athas, but Eberron needs psionics as well. I do like real tomes over digital ones too...

Good thoughts though!


----------



## Mercule (Jun 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'd much rather it was another expression of the Monk's ki - something internal that some characters can draw on.



Missed that on my first read, but my thoughts should be obvious from the rest of my post. Tying psionics to aberrations, the Far Realm, etc. would be very, very bad, IMO. Eberron kinda gets away with it because I just view the Kalashtar, etc. as bringing a big battery with them. I definitely don't see your average human psion having any more relationship with anything alien than the average wizard. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a psion is less likely to have anything to do with some sort of Far Realm or outside entity because they are their own power source, whereas a wizard might actually learn something from an Old One.

If that's what Mike thinks the current flavor is, then I absolutely, unconditionally agree that it needs to be changed for 5E. Powered by sniffing unicorn farts would be more appropriate than tying it to alien entities/sources. Of course, I generally think the entire concept of the Far Realm should be dropped from D&D like rotten sausage.



> And include a Psychic Warrior class, or similar, with distinctly Wuxia roots.



In 3E, I eventually just said, "You want to play a Monk? Do Psychic Warrior and learn to use your fists."



> Nope, don't like that. Dark Sun's environmental issues were really about what happens when _magic_ runs amok, with the psionic aspect representing a 'safe' alternative. Tying the environmental waste into psionics damages that setting, IMO.



Agreed. Psionics could be interpreted as an _effect_ of the Athas apocalypse, but not a _cause_. I actually yanked the "extreme magical fallout can cause psionics" for my home brew. If someone used an artifact for very long (years), their offspring had a very high likelihood of manifesting psionics due to the residual power. Also, one particular evil empire had been using magic for a millennium to reshape their land and twist their subjects. Fully a quarter of their population had some level of psionic ability, even if minor.



> Plus, I actually don't like being told "psionic is _this_" or "magic is _that_". That may well work for your settings, but that doesn't mean it will work for mine.



I'll agree with you, here -- unless, of course, the new decree comes down to match my opinion. 

Of course, that opinion may change for my next campaign.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 9, 2015)

Along the lines of being comprehensive, I'd like to see psionic wizards, psionic sorcerers, psionic druids, psionic clerics, psionic paladins, etc.

But I'm probably not the guy Mearls should be asking. I've got a pretty specific setting in mind that I want my psionics rules to work with. And I'm not even going to call it psionics, I'm going to call it magic, and just use the fluff, flavor, feel, mechanics, etc., of psionics as seen in 3e, Pathfinder, etc.

ETA:


> The flavor of psionics is that it is mental/psychic powers, exhibiting/manifesting your own internal power. I do not understand/know what he could want to do/mean about changing that flavor and still call it psionics.




This is true, traditionally speaking, and another reason why my vision for psionics is quite divergent. My setting's going to use a form of psionics that is a lot like traditional magic in the sense that a lot of the effects involve tapping into a power source. The human brain doesn't generate the energy to do much in the physical world, you see. Internally-powered effects in this setting will be limited to telepathy and its derivatives, basically. That suite of internally-powered abilities will be used to tap into the ambient psionic energy suffusing the setting.

Much like Jedi and the Force (before the mitichlorian thing, anyway). So I suppose it's not _that_ divergent.

Then there's my vision for things like summoning, which will be yet another paradigm, that of simply using telepathy to call forth beings from "elsewhere," who may or may not show up.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 9, 2015)

I agree with Mike. Psionics should absolutely have different mechanics, limitations, and consequences than arcane or divine magic.  Playing a psion needs to feel very different from playing a wizard, cleric, or warlock, and there are lots of ways to accomplish this: tie powers to a skill/activation roll, involve the exhaustion mechanic or make HP a fungible resource for power use, give psions fewer but broader powers compared to traditional spellcasters, and so forth.

The power list of a psion should be distinct from that of a cleric or a wizard, and at least as different from both as the cleric and wizard lists are from each other. However, I don't mind if some powers work exactly like similar spells--Dominate and Detect Thoughts, for example.  But I would like psionic invisibility to work differently from magical invisibility.  Psionics should have a lot of unique stuff too: I'm personally fond of metacreativity powers with weird effects (like summoning a pseudo-monster or an ectoplasmic shroud), and completely uninterested in psionic fireball, psionic shard ranged attack, etc.

As for the source of psionic power, that is less important to me than the rule support that will make the psion a unique experience as a player. There are several possible sources: other planes of existence, harnessing one's internal power, or simply reaching a state of enlightenment that lets you manipulate reality. The choice of power source has some consequences on campaign setting and fluff, but as far as I'm concerned all sources can have identical rules.

The pseudoscience names have some charm, but don't really fit in a fantasy setting. But again, that's not a big concern.

Finally, some might argue that we have too many sources of "magic" in the game already. I tend to agree and disallowed sorcerers from my campaign for this reason.  But I still would love to see a psionics book (or at least a big chapter of some other book) come out that gives the subject a treatment as complete as arcane magic or divine magic in the PH.  Then I could run a modern horror campaign that only allows arcane or psionic, or a sci-fi campaign that only allows psionic and warlock, and so on.  The more choices the better--they don't all need to go in the same game!


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 9, 2015)

I much prefer the source of psionic power to be internal, like Ki.  Or genetic based, like a sorcerer.  It can even be fed by living things around you, like Dark Sun.  But I really do not like "the old ones" as the source.


----------



## delericho (Jun 9, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Psionics could be interpreted as an _effect_ of the Athas apocalypse, but not a _cause_. I actually yanked the "extreme magical fallout can cause psionics" for my home brew. If someone used an artifact for very long (years), their offspring had a very high likelihood of manifesting psionics due to the residual power. Also, one particular evil empire had been using magic for a millennium to reshape their land and twist their subjects. Fully a quarter of their population had some level of psionic ability, even if minor.




I really like this.


----------



## Banesfinger (Jun 9, 2015)

I've always imagined psionics as a psychic extension of the character...a summoned psychic avatar.  Only those with "detect psionics" would see these psychic avatars. 
A novice could call on their avatar, but would need to meditate (leaving his physical body vulnerable), while a master psionicist could call on his avatar (using a bonus action?) while doing other tasks (fighting actions, spellcasting actions, etc).
The psionic avatar could be directed to do many things:
- Attack (psychokinesis)
- Move and manipulate objects (telekinesis)
- Observe things from a distance (clairsentient)
- Help the PC lift things (psycometabolism)
- Move and call the PC to their position (psycoportation),
etc.
Two psionic creatures battling each other would actually send their avatars to battle one another (the outside observer wouldn't see any physical contact).

From a game mechanics stand-point, the avatar would be lite on stats (maybe 2-3), and would be similar to calling on a barbarian's rage (limited time, but added powers).


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 9, 2015)

On the one hand, I get the desire to strip the new-age elements out of psionics (pseudoscience naming, crystals, chakra, etc), but I think that misses the point of psionics. Psionics isn't "magic under another name", its a whole different worldview and should embrace elements those elements.It should borrow from earlier psionics, incarnum, and elements of eastern and occult mysticism to make something very different from the classic model D&D magic tries to emulate. It should work in Kara Tur, Ravenloft, and Dark Sun equally, and while I don't mind an (obvious) connection to the Far Realm (or other planes of thought), I don't want to miss the opportunity to play an eastern yogi, a spiritualist, a jedi, or a X-Men like telepath as well; something doable in 3.5.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jun 9, 2015)

There's plenty of reasons why psionics won't get used by DMs.  A big factor would be if the mechanics are too different (and automatically assumed to be overpowered), most DMs aren't going to try to learn a vastly different new sub-system just because some player wants to feel special.

And then there's problems down the road such as future support, and integration with other things that come along.  Psionics should be something that could dropped in a campaign without too much of a readjustment of game balance and rules.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 9, 2015)

I liked both 2e psionics and 3e psionics. (I never saw 1e or much of 4e psionics, so I can't comment on those.)

I'm indifferent as to the pseudo-science terms. Take them or leave them.

What is vital to me is that psionics is internal energy. Psychic powers. It can be ki, or Indian enlightenment, or new age, or pseudo-science, or something explained in an entirely new D&D-originated fantasy manner.

It should *absolutely not* have a single thing to do with Far Realms or "unsettling" (in that sense) junk. That whole flavor is already straining what D&D is for some people, and to make psionics connected to it is just to make them less appealing to a decent portion of the fan-base.

Make sure that you can mimic the feel of 2e *and* 3e *and* 4e, and if it is possible to give it a new twist, go for it! Just *don't* make that twist be Psionics: Cthulu Edition.


----------



## graves3141 (Jun 9, 2015)

I liked how psionics was handled in 3rd edition... specifically, the Expanded Psionics Handbook was pretty awesome.  

Of all the things for Mearls to be concerned about and working on right now, I would have guessed psionics to be dead last.  Doing it wrong has the potential to really screw up the game and then you can say goodbye to whole "evergreen" idea for 5E.  Seems like a big risk for little gain when WotC could more easily and safely set future APs in places that do not require psionics like Dragonlance, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc...


----------



## Ristamar (Jun 9, 2015)

Kobold Avenger said:


> A big factor would be if the mechanics are too different (and automatically assumed to be overpowered), most DMs aren't going to try to learn a vastly different new sub-system just because some player wants to feel special.




I think that's the most important consideration.  

Psionics shouldn't require a separate book packed with layers of new mechanics and subsystems.  If making psionics feel more "fantasy" or "D&D" encourages simplification and synergy with the existing rule set, then I think that's great.  I never cared much for the pseudoscience fluff, regardless.  

Psionics not replicating any current spells is an ultimately senseless goal.  I can admire the effort to be original, but the Monster Manual already has plenty of creatures with historically/thematically appropriate "psionic" abilities that mimic spell effects.  There's no need to to start gutting their stat blocks for the sake of originality.


----------



## S1Q3T3 (Jun 9, 2015)

Well, no. The only reason to have psionics is to have something with a distinctive flavor to it. If it looks and/or feels like something more traditional in fantasy settings, such as magic, then what is the point of it at all?

I'm not even sure what fantasy-flavored psi ought to look like. It's not really a feature of classic fantasy stories. It's something that is more native to sci-fi, but has been successfully adopted into D&D. 

So screw blending in. Psi powers should be weird. A better question might be, what attributes should psi have (or lack) to make it a worthwhile addition to a D&D campaign?

My unsolicited opinion:

* It should be mechanically and dramatically different from magic. Psi and magic have core similarities -- unseen powers invoked via extensive training and unusual talent and/or mental discipline -- so psi should be strongly distinct from that.

* Although they should be distinct from one another, there should be clear rules about how magic and psi interact with one another, and these should include some overlap in defensive/protective mechanics. An 18th-level psionic master should not be helpless before a tyro in magic and vice versa. And poor Muggles do not need the additional disadvantage of arranging both magical and psionic countermeasures.

* Psionic powers are typically "blunt" in the sense that they do not unfold a complex series of effects over time, are not typically flashy in the manner of arcane spells (except for psionic illusions, of course,) and emphasize body control and manipulation of basic forces (telekinesis, pyrokinesis, etc.) So these are likely elements of drawing a strong distinction between psionics and magic.

* Psionics are at their best when psis are folk who emphasize mastery of both mind and body. The Eberron monks, the Jedi, even the Psiblade or whatever it was called. So maybe we don't need a psionic-master wizard analogue. The idea of a physically awkward, frail wizard focused on magic first and last doesn't fit as well with psionics and having them makes it harder to maintain a strong magic/psionics distinction. I think D&D psionics should focus on classes with something else going on as well, with perhaps some feats for characters who would like a bit of a minor talent.

My 2 cents. Good luck!


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 9, 2015)

"No psionic power duplicates a spell." 

Seriously? Unless 'duplicates' is interpreted to mean 'does exactly the same thing but a different number of times per day' or something similar, you've already killed a huge number of things that a psion class could/should have with the PHB. Mind reading, mind control, clairvoyance - all out for psions, unless you decide to interpret 'duplicate' in an absolutely literal sense.


----------



## FallenAkriel (Jun 9, 2015)

For me, I feel psionic is simply the complete version of "Ki". It's a mastery over your mind and body that you can also extend to modify your surrounding. 
Multiple explanations are possible: Mutation from an hostile environment, too much exposure to the far realms or genetic. They are all good.

It could be a feat tree mechanic to get powers or a Difficulty class mechanic with each 6 psionic group link to an specific attribute each (Psychometabolism = Con, Clairsentience = Wisdom).

New age names needs to go to feel more like fantasy.


----------



## spinozajack (Jun 9, 2015)

I would definitely pick up a 5th edition psionics book! 

I can't wait to see why kind of interesting non-mage-like mechanics and powers they come up with.

It gives me ideas to make a campaign twist where magic is suddenly under siege from the god of magic being killed or maybe magic is just really rare, or outlawed by order of the Emperor. (with scrying and detect spells used extensively to ensure compliance).


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Jun 9, 2015)

Bluenose said:


> "No psionic power duplicates a spell."
> 
> Seriously? Unless 'duplicates' is interpreted to mean 'does exactly the same thing but a different number of times per day' or something similar, you've already killed a huge number of things that a psion class could/should have with the PHB. Mind reading, mind control, clairvoyance - all out for psions, unless you decide to interpret 'duplicate' in an absolutely literal sense.




This is exactly why we don't need psionics. At all. We've already got magic; (both arcane and divine) another set of "kewl powerz" would be altogether redundant.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 9, 2015)

Mearls said:


> He asked yesterday "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting", and then followed up with some more comments today.




I really don't understand the question laid out in this form... "Blend more smoothly" could be so easily interpreted as "feel and work a lot like regular spells" (which is the opposite of what he says in the next part) or something else entirely.



Mearls said:


> "Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.
> 
> One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."




All these I like a lot. I am not a huge fan of psionics in D&D traditional campaigns (in fact, I never used them in my own), but should psionics be in the game, I would totally prefer them to be separate from spells, both narratively and mechanically. It doesn't have to be a totally new mechanic on the other hand, a Psion class that somewhat resembles the mechanics of the Warlock or the Sorcerer (minus the normal slots) would be different enough.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 9, 2015)

Seems to me that this is the clearest indication as to why the sorcerer spell list is mainly all blaster spells.  Because they were trying to save the "mental" abilities of the internal-energy class for when they made the psionic characters.  You'd be hard pressed to actually design and fluff psionics and a psion class... a group of people that manipulate internal energy to create extraordinary effects... that was different than a sorcerer who had access to charm spells, mind reading spells, mental illusions etc.

"What's the difference" people would ask?  Well, the sorcerer has an internal energy that they use to manipulate the environment and the minds of others and it's called Magic... whereas the psion has an internal energy that they use to manipulate the environment and the minds of others and it's called Psionics.  "And how are those internal energies different?"  One is the power of the mind, and the other is the mind using magic.  "Then why is the power of the mind not magic?"  Because.  It's psionics.  Psionics isn't magic.  Even if they do the exact same thing.

At that point, if all you could then do to separate them is say "mechanics are different!" it's not really much of a difference there, is it?  So at the very least... by _not_ letting the sorcerer use all the mental magics like wizards can, there can be at least *a little bit* of space between what the sorcerer and the psion can do and how they do it.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 9, 2015)

Let's look at what we have already.

1: Wizards - Using complex gestures and formula to tap into the essence that is magic.

2: Sorcerers - Innate power "from with in" that allows them to channel magic instinctively. 

3: Clerics - Power granted from the gods.

4: Warlocks - Power granted by making a pact with an entity. 

5: Monks - Discipline of the mind, body, and spirit. 

So what exactly does that leave for Psionics?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 9, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Let's look at what we have already.
> 
> 2: Sorcerers - Innate power "from with in" that allows them to channel magic instinctively.
> 
> So what exactly does that leave for Psionics?



My mind was coming to this, already. Many folks, including myself, view psionics as being internal power. The Sorcerer is already supposed to fill that niche. Maybe we just need a new Sorcerer sub-class. The Magic Initiate could serve as a "wild talent" feat. Leaves me unsatisfied, but it's got some teeth, as an argument.

Then again, we have the Druid class, which seems to be either "Power from nature" or "Power from the old gods". The former could be lumped into a special case of Wizard. The latter would be Cleric.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 9, 2015)

Seems like a lot of hair splitting to me.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 9, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Seems like a lot of hair splitting to me.




Yup.  It's a lot of hair splitting that people are super-passionate about.  Just take a look at Kamikazee Midget's thread about the Artificer to get a perfect example of it.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 9, 2015)

Hi,

I'm caught between Carrie as a sorcerer and Liz Sherman from Hellboy as a pyrokineticist.

I do think that a Monk as a Ki Warrior fits psionics.  And Illithid and Gith fit psionics very well.

A holy mystic seems to obtain power more from the spirit world and that doesn't seem to fit psionics.

I'm alright with the far realms feel, but agree that that should not be the only way to present psionics.

I also think that psionics should be optional, as, many if not most games to not use it.

But, I agree that psionics should have a distinctive feel.  There should be overlap (the limitation on their being no duplicates seems artificial), but, simply relabeling spells as powers would be weak sauce.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm happy to hear about the high bars he'd have in place. 

I'm cool with the pulpy sci-fi aspects of Psionics, but I get that that's a dealbraker for some. 

So lets do a bit of digging...

_Psionics in old-school D&D is mostly a mutation_
[sblock]
This is the Dark Sun / Githyanki / Githzerai version of psionics: some creatures are born with the ability to harness their mental powers. Others are not. Some go on to harnass this ability for personal power (psions), others simply have a weird trick they do (wild talents), but all creatures with psionic power are born that way. This makes it not unlike 5e's conception of sorcerer abilities: it is a thing that chooses you, not a thing that you choose, a power you were born with. 

In this vein, it's important that it not be involved with any extraplanar whatits. It's natural. In Dark Sun, it's creatures finding a way to live in a transformed world. The Gith races were created by manipulating evolution. 

*Themes*: Life, evolution, transformation, the future, lineage, heritage. 

*The Main Problem Here*: This is pretty explicitly science-y. When you start talking about evolution and breeding programs and adaptation and biology you're out of the realm of the mythic and into the realm of the pulpy sci-fi stuff. There is no deity who created psionics or maintains psionics like there are deities of magic. There is no otherworld of psionics like there is of the fey or of shadow. For a chunk of players, this is like midichlorians in their Jedi - it's going to mess with the vibe their world has going on. While certainly appropriate for pulpy sci-fi games (or D&D games that loot from that fantastic tradition, as Dark Sun does to a certain degree with Barsoom), it ain't a comfy fit for medeivalesqueries. When someone in the tradition of misty isles and maidens in the lake hears a voice talking in their head, it is a fey or a demon, it isn't "telepathy." 

*The Attempts to Thread*: In 3e, it was just accepted that psionics was one part pulpy, one part new agey, and three parts "exotic." So your dungeonpunk brain-ninja got crawling tatoos. Cool, maybe a bit dated, but we've left the land of misty isles and maidens in the lake _far behind_ at that point, and it's not necessarily a great match for Dark Sun's stone-age brutality vibe, either.

In 4e, psionics was from the Far Realm, basically, though the Far Realm was never really milked for its pulpy connotations as much as it was just another villain in the Nentir Vale. This made it outside and alien and foreign and invasive - but something new and strange that some folks mastered. Again, didn't mesh well with Dark Sun's vibe.
[/sblock]

_The Mechanical Vibe_
[sblock]
At their introduction, psionics was a potential power-up your character might get. This fits the "quirk of evolution" narrative quite well.

In 2e, psionics was something you could train to be, and could fail to use. Or you could get it "wild" 1e style. But the powers required an internal effort on your part that, often enough, wouldn't take. Works pretty well for a "trying to master this power you've been saddled with" vibe.

In 3e, psionics was spells. Using power points could change the dynamic a bit - you could nova bigger, resulting in a more spikey power curve. But that was just "being a wizard, but MORE SO." The experience was to burn bright and hot and then run away.

In 4e, psionics was powers. Again, using power points could change that dymanic a bit - you could be more flexible, more adaptable. The experience was to be able to slide one effect into many different categories depending on need - and also to nova bigger.
[/sblock]

...so taking those raw ingredients, here's some ideas....

*Decadent Nobles*
The medieval idea that the rich and powerful were so exotic as to be _different people_ is literally true in this version of the story: their breeding has created psionic potential. Children with the Gift are considered especially choice husbands or brides. Their powers give them a power and force of personality that others can only hope for. In this model, the psionics is largely about persuasion and influence - a psionic person attracts others, ensures loyalty, can motivate others to do great things. Psionics is mostly telepathy / empathy. Perhaps the Gifted can hear the cries of their people. Perhaps they can simply, Machiavelli-style, manipulate them. The base system is one not of mental domination, but of rewarding people for doing as you desire (perhaps a la some 4e-style leader mechanics), and of picking up on their subtleties (Insight!), and of perhaps punishing those who don't perform with withering scorn (_vicious mockery_ +++!). The Gifted cultivate a certain aura, a glamour, that others naturally fall in line with. 

When you go to something like Dark Sun, this is represented by the sorcerer-kings and the infleunce they wield. It also is just one small part of the potential galaxy of psionic talent - the Gift takes many forms, and you expand it with some more...biological...aspects, honing in on Dark Sun's themes of evolution and transformation. If the Gifted of your medievalvania are the nobles, the Gifted of Dark Sun are mutants, transformed by their world into something no longer quite (demi)human anymore. There's a man with an eye in the center of his head, there's a woman whose touch feels like ice-knives, there's a guy over in Nibenay who they say is blind, but who can see the minds of people. And perhaps there's one in Tyr who is amassing an army of loyal followers with a slight sparkle in their eye...

_Mechanical Schtick_: This version of psionics might use an expanded version of 3e's psionic focus: when you have it, you have a constant effect on those around you (an aura), and you can spend it to achieve a powerful momentary effect, and harness it again by using your actions. You don't "run out of it," it's like you always have a concentration slot filled, but can choose to end it to gain a momentary effect. "Psionic Combat" is as much a political battle as it is a mental one, and have often caught innocents in the crossfire. For more overt, pulpy effects, you might make the aura more of a literal thing, or even a psychical transformation.

_Heroes and Villains_: A PC may be one of the Gifted (regardless of background - perhaps it showed up in an urchin!), and thus attract the attention of other powerful Gifted, and of those who seek to end the Gift. Many of the other Gifted are ambivalent characters at best - the worst manipulate others without conscious, seeing themselves as greater than them. The best try to use their empathy to make the world a better place, but also find it taxing and exhausting, the great burden of knowing how much everyone is suffering. 

*Dreams and Nightmares*
In this version of the story, psionic energy is the power of dreams. Those who have it would be said in our world to be 'honing their subconscious,' but in the medeivalesque world, they are dream-travelers, shamans, witches, creatures of the night and of the moon, akin to the dark shadow beneath the druids. Clad in black and silver, these agents fight a battle that many are not aware is happening - a battle over minds, over souls, happening while we sleep. They travel the ethereal, the astral, the dream-logic of the feywild, the nightmare realms of shadow - they may even be more at home there than they are in our world. They know the mushrooms to pick and the herbs to collect to travel through your mind, to help you confront the burdens on you, and to vanquish them. The things that you dream about are real, and can really affect you, and this includes the horrors that you dream about, the nightmares that haunt you. An illithid isn't just a horrible entity from beyond the stars, it is _literally a creature of nightmares_. The githzerai and githyanki are scarred and changed from _living a life enslaved to their internal horrors_. 

In a world like Dark Sun, this ability is the dream of the sorcerer-kings: a power they could control that wouldn't destroy the world. They're making this dream a reality through the practice of the Will and the Way, but of course, as they dream, others do, too. Wild talents are those born due to the sorcerer-king's dreams of power. 

_Mechanical Schtick_: Meditation calls up the dream world for you to interact with, and while you are in a trance-like state, you can perform certain special actions. Think of it like a barbarian's rage, only while raging, a sort of sphere of influence expands out, and within that sphere, you exercise your psionic abilities - make your dreams a reality. You might even go super flexible and open-ended with it, not unlike illusion and phantasm powers. You might steal an idea from early psionic combat - you have to "open" your enemy to influence, and then you do with them as you please. 

_Heroes and Villains_: This version does use aberrations, but as nightmares, not as aliens. Cthulu isn't from beyond the stars, he's from barely-remembered primordial fears. It's more "Lovecraftian" in the sense that it is madness, dream-logic, fey-addled (and the fey and the shadow should have a big influence - maybe they are subclasses!). He's incomprehensible because _you cannot know yourself_. Illithids aren't just brain-eaters for the body-horror of it, they're that dream where you are trapped somewhere dark where there is screaming and moaning and a horrible cold moistness and the things that lurk in the darkness crave you for your utility. 
The heroes who fight against these nightmares are experimenters and artists and mental healers, creatures of twilight and dawn who also know that the darkness contains light, and that dreams and hope are the best fight against hopelessness and futility. There's a potentially Tolkeinish conflict there, between the things that would cause you to give up hope, and the little lights of joy that you can find there. 


*The Champions*
In this version of the story, we bite the bullet: we say that Dark Sun is the most popular version of psionics, so lets go all "loot the best things from the best settings" and say that Dark Sun's psionics is now _the_ psionics. What does this mean in practice? Psionic power is like a knighthood - something that elevates someone into a noble echelon based on their utility to their patron. Every knight has a lord, every psion has an owner, a powerful person who uses a psion to achieve their own goals. It costs a lot of time and money to train someone properly in the use of this ability, and, once they have it, they owe a great debt to their benefactor that they spend the rest of their lives repaying. They must be loyal. They must be willing. They must be pliable. Psions are commanders, conjurers, war-casters, honed tools of their patron's will. 

Many psionic patrons are good folks, leaders and generals with a particular sort of need for an elite member of society. Like knights going around with horses and swords and emblazoned shields, psions go around branded as well. But, of course, a common psion origin story for a PC might be one of rebellion: I decided that I didn't owe that loyalty anymore. Like a ronin, you may be come an outcast, a turncoat...but that doesn't mean you're bad, or that your lord was good. 

In Dark Sun, you don't need to do much to change this - the patrons are just all sorcerer-monarchs, maybe add some of the more "mutation"-style abilities.

_Mechanical Schtick_: The patrons are domain-like subclasses that change what you were taught or what you are good at. The core, though, is a core set of abilities that all psions get that are perhaps exemplars of the six sciences - every psion gets some one ability to represent each of the six. So, like, a psion can use _The Speech_ to talk to others without being heard (telepathy) and can then maybe enhance that with a resource like points. Another example would be using _The Avatar_ (psychometoblism) to enhance an ability check of someone, and spending points to undergo a more drastic transformation (wings! reach!), or _The Sight_ (clairsentience) to get an inkling of what is forthcoming, and spending points to change that outcome! This gives you a 2e-like system of sciences and devotions (or Senses and Sharpenings or whatever). The key is that the basic use of the ability is _party-friendly_, something you can use on the "troops." (Also: did someone say inspirational healing?!  )

_Heroes and Villains_: This narrative was made for duelin': you will face off against the psions of your  enemies in deadly mental combats to weaken them, so that the "troops" can more easily fall. They become strategic members of your war party, beacons that call others to their side. The vilest are those who work for vile creatures - the champions of wicked kings or the champions leading armies of undead. The best are those who defend the innocent in their homeland by leading armies out to valiantly protect the home base, using violence only to guard life.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 9, 2015)

I think in order to have a proper Psionics set of mechanics that don't feel like spellcasting, you need a complex game system like 3rd edition.

I don't think 5th edition can really pull it off.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Jun 9, 2015)

Now that I think about it I think he is conflating happened in Athas in Dark Sun with what would happen to Eberron if the Inspired get their way. He wants them to be the same, so he has forgotten that they are completely different. I'm sure he's being straightened out.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 9, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Let's look at what we have already.
> 
> 1: Wizards - Using complex gestures and formula to tap into the essence that is magic.
> 
> ...




I might break it down a bit furhter, more thoroughly, thusly:

Wizard: Source: External. Flavor: Arcane Magic. Access: External. Flavor: Learning spells/forumlae [including ritual]/components & item use.

Cleric: Source: External. Flavor: Divine Magic granted by the gods. Access: External. Flavor: Learning or "given" the proper spells[prayers]/formulae[rites]/components[holy symbol] and item use.

Druid: Source: External. Flavor: Divine Magic granted by a connection to the forces of nature [or, more simply, "Nature Magic"]. Access: External. Learning or granted proper spells/formulae/components[mistletoe/herbs] and item use.

Sorcerer: Source: External. Flavor: Arcane Magic. Access: Internal. Flavor: Innate channeling of arcane magic to produce spell effects, initiate item use, inherently figure out proper formulae.

Warlock: Source: Internal. Flavor: Arcane Magic as granted/imbued by non-divine entity. Access: Internal & External. Flavor: being "granted" proper spells/formulae[invocations]/components and item use to "evoke" the magical power they have been given and/or [in a more limited way than Wizards or Sorcerers] harness and direct arcane energies properly.

Monks: Source: Internal. Flavor: One's own spiritual power, labelled as "Ki". Access: Internal. Flavor: accessing one's "ki" through years of disciplined training and focus.

So...Psionics would/could be seen as...

Psions: Source: Internal. Flavor: One's own mental/psychic power, labeled as [let's say] "psyche." Access: Internal. Flavor: accessing one's "psyche" through intense concentration/focus (which may but doesn't necessarily have to include years of training or discipline)...[and/or potentially using/turning the psyche/minds of others against themselves.]

Is that distinct enough for a new base class with separate [at least 2 or 3] subclasses and maybe also minor power feats? I don't know. I think so. But I'm not calling the shots.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 9, 2015)

My favorite part about 5e is how it alters classic D&D mechanics and flavor just for the sake of being different from older editions!

Oh, wait. I mean the opposite of that.


----------



## Vael (Jun 9, 2015)

> Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots.




Strongly Agree. Psionicists should not feel like spellcasters. That said, they still need to have their areas of expertise. So Telepaths should still do all the things that Telepaths do. But yes to no "Psionic X".



> One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc.



Slightly Disagree. I like the idiosyncrasy. But I'm not wedded to the notion.



> But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.




Disagree. Psionics, to me, is more internal, and less about touching external powers. 



> One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."




... I'm not sure what to make of this. My Dark Sun fu is not great, but I thought the prevalence of Psionics was due to how destructive magic use is. Obviously, a Psionic user should be balanced with a spell caster of the same level, so why play the cosmic balance game?


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 9, 2015)

Psionics is simple and this feels like an effort to overcomplicate the matter.

Psionics is the power of the mind.  It's different from knowing how to properly issue the command words that unlock the fundamental elements of reality.  It's different from calling on the power of another to shape reality for you.  It's very close to Ki.  It's the power of the mind, your pure force of will shaping reality as you see fit.

I will unabashedly refuse to accept any psionic material that is somehow based on some sort of powers sourced from unearthly beings or extra-dimensional forces.  There's nothing unearthly about psionics, and there shouldn't be.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 9, 2015)

The biggest thing they're going to run into is the fact that if indeed they make it a single class with 2 to 3 sub-classes, players will have to accept that the _range_ of combat power in the psionic character won't be nearly as great as they have been previously.  You're going to be looking at the combat potential spread that you find in the various Cleric domains.  All have the same hit points, all have fairly comperable armor and weapon use, all are missing fighting styles, extra attacks etc.

Which means that those people who were hoping for a much wider range of psionic characters... the Psychic Warrior matching the combat power of the Fighter down through the Psion matching the combat power of the Wizard... that won't come across with only a single class.  Instead... if we did want that kind of range-- you'd really need to create the psionic mechanics that are different and separate and can be layered _on top_ of the existing classes.  So a sub-class of the Fighter than uses psionics (like a psionic EK), a sub-class of the Rogue that uses psionics (like a psionic AT), a sub-class of the Sorcerer that uses full psionics, etc.  If that's the kind of range people want for their psionic characters, that'd probably the direction they'll have to go.

Unless of course they just create 3 or more _entirely new_ classes for psionics, but to me that kind of wastes the point of having sub-classes in the first place.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 9, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I will unabashedly refuse to accept any psionic material that is somehow based on some sort of powers sourced from unearthly beings or extra-dimensional forces.  There's nothing unearthly about psionics, and there shouldn't be.



I kind of agree, and kind of don't.

I agree that psionics should be primarily internal. However, I can certainly see some kind of encounter with eldritch beings "awakening" that internal power - the psion doesn't draw power from the Far Realm, but the Far Realm unlocked the psion's inherent power. That should only be one possible "origin" however - training and discipline should be a far more common origin story.

I can also see psionics as being the power that (many) eldritch things use. You already have mind flayers and aboleths being heavily into psionics, and those are pretty alien. It should not be the only psionic path, but it should be around.

On a final note, and this is directed at the thread in general: psionics that can't accurately portray Dark Sun are not useful psionics, and Dark Sun was based around 2e psionics. 2e psionics were generally not so good with energy, but pretty good with intangibles. It was extremely poor at direct damage - it basically topped out at the equivalent of _heat metal_.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Jun 9, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> I might break it down a bit furhter, more thoroughly, thusly:
> 
> Wizard: Source: External. Flavor: Arcane Magic. Access: External. Flavor: Learning spells/forumlae [including ritual]/components & item use.
> 
> ...





I'm with you on psionics being an inner power source. I like that.

A nitpick though, I feel like you've missed the mark on warlocks and sorcerors. Specifically, warlocks are quintessential external (they get their power from pacts) and sorcerors are quintessential internal (they get their power from innate magic).


----------



## Fralex (Jun 9, 2015)

I talked about what I'd like to see psionics be a while ago, and I stand by it:


Fralex said:


> There aren't any magic-based classes that aren't also spellcasters! The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, even. But it's a well-known kind of character: the guy/gal who only knows one or two simple tricks, but they can use them all the time and find new ways to use them. This is quite different from a spellcaster, who has a whole bunch of different expendable abilities. It would be more like... using magic as a weapon, I suppose. Fighters don't _learn new weapons_ when they get stronger; they don't even _use_ all that many different weapons. Why not have a class that treats magic the same way?
> 
> Usually, when I think of a psychic from a story, they didn't really have lots of different psychic abilities. Like, Matilda's whole range of psionic talents were just basic telekinesis. The oracles from stories rarely can do anything else associated with psionics, unless they're also wizards of some sort. So although the overall range of things psychics are known to be capable of is quite expansive, few psychics have _all_ those powers.




I don't really care that much if psionic powers have pseudoscientific or new-agey names. I mean, there's a couple spells that sound like that, too. More importantly, I don't really imagine psionic powers to be so expansive that there would even _be_ an in-world nomenclature for each one. You might not even need to break it down any farther than the six psionic disciplines:


Fralex said:


> *Psychokinesis-* The ability to conjure energy and move objects mentally, at a distance.
> *Psychoportation-* The ability to mentally warp spacetime for instantaneous transportation through space or, in some cases, time.
> *Psychometabolism-* The ability to manipulate biological processes with but a thought to induce healing, adrenaline rushes, and other physiological boosts.
> *Clairsentience-* Also known as Extrasensory Perception. Grants a person special senses to access useful hidden information, most commonly about the future.
> ...




And the names the practitioners of these disciplines sound more like medieval-level mysticism. Psychoportators are called Nomads, Psychometabolists are called Egoists, and Clairsentients are called Seers.


----------



## jrowland (Jun 9, 2015)

I would caution people with the thought that there is a difference between 

"Tied to Far Realm" as in psionics _derive_ from far realm and are a far realm schtick. i.e. Far Realm begets Psionics.

and

"Tied to Far Realm" as in using psionics _attracts_ Far Realm denizens. i.e. Psionics Begets Far Realm. "Mage brains are fine, but nothing tastes as sweet as a psions brain - Zerxiplad the Mind Flayer"

In the former, you lock psionics down thematically, in the latter, psionics can be fairly broad, but the Far realm is locked down thematically (which it already is). So, in this latter case, you could do a broad design choice for psionics but still have a narrow Far Realm psionics (sub-classes, organizations, storylines) that specialize in Mind Flayers.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 9, 2015)

> * Psionic powers are typically "blunt" in the sense that they do not unfold a complex series of effects over time, are not typically flashy in the manner of arcane spells




This. In fact, I had this typed up already:

One of my design goals is to make psionics more plausible than magic. And, following from that is my goal to minimize the apparent intelligence involved. E.g., a fireball doesn't imply much in the way of outside intelligence. But an animated object? That seems to require some external intelligence, to a degree (and if it doesn't, I'm sure we can dig up some spells that do; edit: Guards & Wards is a great example). Otherwise, it would take all the caster's effort to control the thing, essentially occupying it himself. For every effect that I'm converting from magic to psionics, I have to ask myself if the caster's intellect is really enough to drive it. If not, my tendency is to axe it. But it's a balancing act. Take healing. You could make the argument that there's no way in hell a caster has the mental processing power required to go in there and manage all those cells himself. On the other hand, it's fairly plausible to conceive of some higher biological processes further up the hierarchy, that the healer is influencing.

Other design goals include axing the more physically impossible stuff, like teleportation, time travel, etc.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 9, 2015)

AverageCitizen said:


> I'm with you on psionics being an inner power source. I like that.
> 
> A nitpick though, I feel like you've missed the mark on warlocks and sorcerors. Specifically, warlocks are quintessential external (they get their power from pacts) and sorcerors are quintessential internal (they get their power from innate magic).




I'll see you nitpick and raise you a quibble...

With sorcerers, their ACCESS mode is internal. They innately can manifest, harness and direct Arcane energies...but those energies are inherently EXTERNAL to to the sorcerer...per my view.

The warlocks, I'll grant was kind of a toss up...is the arcane magic external to the warlock or is the warlock kind of "charged up" via their patron/pact, thus enabling their "at will" magic and their "any ole time" invocations, up to a point. To help with the theoretical distinction between Warlock and Sorcerer, instead of having two guys wtih "external source/internal access" I opted for the lesser [common] interpretation as the "Warlock as magic battery." But you are right, I could just as easily said Warlock is another External power source. Flavor also Arcane Magic, differentiated by the added flavor/fluff of being granted their instruction and power by their patron.

Perhaps, unique to the list, the Warlock becomes the only class with a Source that is, at once, External & Internal...as are their methods of Access?


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 9, 2015)

I agree that Ki could be the closest thing to psionics at the moment as a "source", but unfortunately there is a significant gap between the concept/flavor of a Monk and the concept/flavor of a Psion. The two COULD definitely be the same thing in a _modern_ or _sci-fi_setting, but I don't think this could ever be a general case. The Monk is anyway way too martial by default, while a Psion could be often pretty much the opposite in a lot of settings, i.e. someone who doesn't need to fight or would fight very poorly. Yes, you COULD have a fantastic Monk/Psion character, but to make that the _default _would be a huge mistake. This means for example that you can't make the Psion a subclass of the Monk, otherwise it will always be only a martial Psion, and you won't have all the other non-martial Psion character options in your game.

On the other hand, making the Psion a subclass of the Wizard would be perhaps totally useless. Probably just a cocktail between Enchanter, Diviner and maybe Illusionist, which is something you can already do in a variety of way, just pick the right spells and re-flavor your character as "I don't learn spells from books, they just come from my mind". Actually, the main obstacle to remove would be _spells components_: if your powers come from the *mind*, then you definitely should never need your _voice_, your _hands_ or external _ingredients_ to use them.

That said, I don't think we need more than one Psion class, not even in a psionics-heavy campaign. Rather, it would be much better if the mechanics of psionics (granted by the Psion class for sure, but possibly also to other non-Psion characters by feats, racial abilities or even other classes' subclasses) would smoothly work when multiclassing. So then you could have your Monk/Psion, Fighter/Psion, Wizard/Psion or everything you want, instead of having many psionics classes.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 9, 2015)

JackOfAllTirades said:


> This is exactly why we don't need psionics. At all. We've already got magic; (both arcane and divine) another set of "kewl powerz" would be altogether redundant.




I know! Imagine how much space the MM would of had if they got rid of devils and yugoloths. We've already got demons; another set of "evil fiendz" would be altogether redundant. 

Though, that does explain why they are trying to fit ALL their campaign setting into Forgotten Realms; we've already got Toril another setting would be altogether redundant...


----------



## Morlock (Jun 9, 2015)

> Yup. It's a lot of hair splitting that people are super-passionate about. Just take a look at Kamikazee Midget's thread about the Artificer to get a perfect example of it.




It's not like we're talking about a robust, point-based, effects-based system here. It's pretty natural to look at something like D&D's magic system and want to chuck it, because it doesn't fit with one's setting concept. Few things are as tailored to specific settings as magic/psionics/whatever.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 9, 2015)

I'd rather psionics not be _from_ the Far Realm so much as the universe's response to the invasion of the Far Realm. "The Far Realm is a disease, and we are its cure." I thought that was a cool interpretation 4e had.


----------



## ehren37 (Jun 9, 2015)

Ristamar said:


> I think that's the most important consideration.
> 
> Psionics shouldn't require a separate book packed with layers of new mechanics and subsystems.  If making psionics feel more "fantasy" or "D&D" encourages simplification and synergy with the existing rule set, then I think that's great.  I never cared much for the pseudoscience fluff, regardless.
> 
> Psionics not replicating any current spells is an ultimately senseless goal.  I can admire the effort to be original, but the Monster Manual already has plenty of creatures with historically/thematically appropriate "psionic" abilities that mimic spell effects.  There's no need to to start gutting their stat blocks for the sake of originality.




If you don't want new mechanics, refluff the sorceror and move on. The hypothetical book isn't for you, nor should it be. Otherwise we get a scenario like Savage Species, where people who don't want to use content dictate the design of something they never intend to use.

Psionics should absolutely NOT be spells. We have frankly too many classes using spells as is, to the point where this edition is looking more homogenized than 4th edition. Class design cannot evolve if a few players want to shout down any whiff of creativity or unique mechanics with "use spells".  Crapping out yet another 1-9 level casting class and slapping "psi" in front of spells is an insult to the actual fans of psionics or the settings where they play a major role. 

Mearls is right, make it unique, or don't bother. 2nd edition got it largely right, in terms of power structure and limitations of what an individual psion could do, making powers not 100% reliable as opposed to fire and forget spells, etc. 

Not a fan of making the Far Realm the SOURCE of psionics, as that should be internal. He has the relationship reversed - I see Far Realm creatures USING psionics because they don't have gods or follow our rules of magic.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 9, 2015)

There is a fundamental difference of opinion, even among people that WANT psionics, as to what "good" psionics means in terms of flavor as much as mechanics and powers.

There are some who want/think D&D psionics are this?
View attachment 68757View attachment 68758View attachment 68759View attachment 68760

This? View attachment 68761

Or this or that? View attachment 68762View attachment 68763

Then there's these...is it this?
View attachment 68764View attachment 68765View attachment 68766

So the implementation [crunch/mechanics] and, to the original question, the _flavor_ (and so any changes thereto) need to take into account what is the Psionics they are trying/want to present? Past editions have done, unsuccessfully for many attempts, _all_ of them. 5e, with its interest in simplicity and streamlining, I think, might benefit from a "select one direction to present/work for a full class _first_...add the rest later and/or as separate sub-classes under existing classes and/or feats."


----------



## Jester David (Jun 9, 2015)

> Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa.



I'd disagree with this for symmetry. Because there ARE spells that read minds, move objects, creates fire, etc. It's super hard to have a pyrokinetic character - aka a Firestarter - and not have them do effects simmilar to a _burning hands_, _scorching ray_ or _fireball_.

Psionics should just be a different source for magic, ala divine or arcane. Don't just duplicate spells, give them the same darn spells as needed. Something like _detect thoughts_ or _mage hand_ should just be on a psion's list.



> Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots.



This gets tricky from a balance perspective. Spell slots are weird but they work. And you can freely swap between Vancian casting and spell points using the DMG. 



> One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc.



This is the tricky one. It's totally doable, and going for a more fantastic feel might help sell psionics. But those terms are kinda legacy now, after 35+ years in the game.



> But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.



I'm not sure what they refers to... Old psions and psionicists were not much like binders IIRC.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 9, 2015)

I dislike having the sci-fi element of psionics in my fantasy game, so he can leave the whole thing out of D&D AFAIC. And Mike apparently agrees with me, as he wants to get rid of the thing that makes psionics psionics, the pseudoscience nomenclature.


----------



## Grakarg (Jun 9, 2015)

I'd like to see Psionics use Int as a stat primarily.
I think that classes currently overly rely on wis and cha, and that Int is basically a dump stat for everyone but a wizard,which seems weird to me.

I think Psionics should be set up in a way that would allow any DM that chose to use it exclusively in their worldbuilding and be able to replace std arcane/divine magics.  Like a sci-fantasy setting to go with the rules for laser pistols they already gave us.  It could be some fun stuff!


----------



## Mercule (Jun 9, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The biggest thing they're going to run into is the fact that if indeed they make it a single class with 2 to 3 sub-classes, players will have to accept that the _range_ of combat power in the psionic character won't be nearly as great as they have been previously.  You're going to be looking at the combat potential spread that you find in the various Cleric domains.  All have the same hit points, all have fairly comperable armor and weapon use, all are missing fighting styles, extra attacks etc.
> 
> Which means that those people who were hoping for a much wider range of psionic characters... the Psychic Warrior matching the combat power of the Fighter down through the Psion matching the combat power of the Wizard... that won't come across with only a single class.  Instead... if we did want that kind of range-- you'd really need to create the psionic mechanics that are different and separate and can be layered _on top_ of the existing classes.  So a sub-class of the Fighter than uses psionics (like a psionic EK), a sub-class of the Rogue that uses psionics (like a psionic AT), a sub-class of the Sorcerer that uses full psionics, etc.  If that's the kind of range people want for their psionic characters, that'd probably the direction they'll have to go.
> 
> Unless of course they just create 3 or more _entirely new_ classes for psionics, but to me that kind of wastes the point of having sub-classes in the first place.



Or, they could create the Psion base class with a handful of sub-classes (per 3E, for lack of better guide) and add a new Psychic Warrior and/or Soul Knife (probably steal from both) sub-class to Fighter that works vaguely like the Eldritch Knight, but with psi-flavor/mechanics. You could do the same with Lurks and Rogue. I'm not sure you need Wilder but, if Sorcerer isn't redundant with Wizard, then having two base full-psionic classes wouldn't be bad. You could probably do a conversion of Ardent as a Wilder sub-class in the same way they ported Favored Soul. I'd leave Divine Mind in the ditch, though.

Assuming some sort of "Elminster's Guide to Psionics" book, I see no reason why adding these classes would be problematic in terms of either too many new classes or too few concepts. If psionics were to be release via Unearthed Arcana, well... the first article might be quite large to get enough powers available.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 9, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yup.  It's a lot of hair splitting that people are super-passionate about.  Just take a look at Kamikazee Midget's thread about the Artificer to get a perfect example of it.




Yah.

FWIW, it's this point that makes it cool in my mind:



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots




If you could say the same thing about artificers - no magic item duplicates a spell and vice versa, infusions use a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots - you'd be half the way to a viable artificer class (the other half would be saying what the magic items they made DID do and what that infusoin mechanic looked like, making it robust on three pillars, and so on). 

But this being about flavor: I don't personally mind the pulpy sci-fi vibe of psionics. It's almost adorable, in a "cheap Star Trek Special Effects and XANADU" kind of way. I've got room in my games for warforged and monks and modrons and none of those are exactly _pungent with medievalosity_, and pulpy sci-fi is right within the broad D&D gumbo of "Chwebacca, Merlin, Harry Potter, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer return the One Ring to the Last Starfighter" vibe that I've always appreciated. 

Mechanically, it needs to be distinct, and it sounds like they've got a good handle on that. Fluff-wise...I don't share Mike's antipathy toward the pseudo-science. 

Not that there's not room for something a little more medievalesque within the pseudo-science. Gifted Nobles, the Guild of Dreams, and the Champions of the Kingdom all take it away form "it's _charm person_, but with POINTS!" vibe.

But were I to have iron-fisty control over D&D, I'd probably go hard and embrace the Crystal Spires And Togas atmosphere. Yup, psionics is weird sci-fi magical evolution. It's the Apple Computer of magitech, invisible and ephemeral. It is deliberately dissonant with the gritty medieval world of darkness and fear. That's what's special about it, that's what it offers your game, that's why it's different - use this if you want to have optimistic Apple-like utopias and the like.

And _Dark Sun_ shows the twist of that: an obilterated, blasted world where psionics is a kind of primitive magic. "Bombed back to the psionic age."


----------



## Parmandur (Jun 9, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'd disagree with this for symmetry. Because there ARE spells that read minds, move objects, creates fire, etc. It's super hard to have a pyrokinetic character - aka a Firestarter - and not have them do effects simmilar to a _burning hands_, _scorching ray_ or _fireball_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Context is everything: in the back and forth on Twitter, Mearls is saying that Old One Pact Warlocks are like Binders,not like Psions.


----------



## Ainamacar (Jun 9, 2015)

I tend to think psionics works best embracing "internal" notions of power: granting power to thought and, especially, subjective perception.  Go full "there is no spoon."  A wizard can influence reality, but a psionicist tells you what it really was all along.  A retcon given form, at least from the perspective of the player.

For example, in my view a wizard that charms or dominates a creature is overriding that creature's autonomy, an act that tends to leave traces.  Even when the subject remembers nothing afterward, it is because the wizard has wiped or altered memories, etc.  A telepath, on the other hand, perceives a helpful person, and while the telepath is doing so that person is actually helpful.  So what makes many psionic "far realms" creatures terrifying is that reality derives from their wholly alien perspectives.  In this case psionics meshes well with Cthulu-type elements, but old ones are by no means its fundamental source.

Another example. A buddy of mine played a half-giant in a Dark Sun game who was completely oblivious to being psionic, and whose signature power was growing in size.  This character was always grateful the world gets smaller when he's in danger.  A wizard might scoff at the stupid half-giant (albeit only from a safe distance), but a psionicist realizes the half-giant has grasped something fundamental.

I'm not a fan of the pseudoscience nomenclature in general, and to me it definitely thematically clashes with the perspective on psionics suggested here.

I usually like when fantastical elements arising from drastically different sources have mechanical distinctions, although I wouldn't go so far as to say there should be no overlap with arcane magic, etc.  Heck, psionicists might be able to cast some spells by believing they can, something which would be deeply disturbing to wizards and clerics alike.  (Bards won't mind, though!)  In any case, differences in mechanics should speak to the strongest thematic distinctions.  This post will never be finished if I start thinking too specifically about mechanics, so I'll abstain.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 9, 2015)

*Use 5e Feat Mechanic*



Fralex said:


> I talked about what I'd like to see psionics be a while ago, and I stand by it:
> 
> 
> I don't really care that much if psionic powers have pseudoscientific or new-agey names. I mean, there's a couple spells that sound like that, too. More importantly, I don't really imagine psionic powers to be so expansive that there would even _be_ an in-world nomenclature for each one. You might not even need to break it down any farther than the six psionic disciplines:
> ...




Fifth edition should use the feat mechanic to access minor psionic powers that progress with level like cantrips but are flavored using one of the six psionic disciplines that you mentioned. It should also be a prerequisite to a class with six distinct sub-classes modeled along those disciplines. That would give it both a 1st edition feel where it is a power that can be possessed by anybody, but also allow for characters to specialize in characters that feel like psychic warriors and psions. Intelligence saves will become important. I like the medieval name conversions.


----------



## CM (Jun 9, 2015)

Adapt 2e psionics to 5e. That was the most flavorful version, imo, even if its balance was questionable. Pseudoscience and all.


----------



## doctorhook (Jun 9, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> I liked how psionics was handled in 3rd edition... specifically, the Expanded Psionics Handbook was pretty awesome.
> 
> Of all the things for Mearls to be concerned about and working on right now, I would have guessed psionics to be dead last.  Doing it wrong has the potential to really screw up the game and then you can say goodbye to whole "evergreen" idea for 5E.  Seems like a big risk for little gain when WotC could more easily and safely set future APs in places that do not require psionics like Dragonlance, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc...



I agree with your post, but for the record, Eberron _needs_ psionics, even if not every campaign set there does.


----------



## lynnfredricks (Jun 9, 2015)

I pretty much wrote off psionics with 3rd edition, with all the duplications of abilities from wizards and clerics (psychic food and crystal familiars seemed silly).

Psionics should be as game changing as magic user spells and cleric's whatevers; it doesn't need the same scope as the former but should have its own unique system, with all the classic psychic powers. That said, magic user spells and cleric spells have, for the most part, been based around tapping into external sources (yes, I know how that's been changed a few times). So start with "self powered" as a basis and use that to create a system that supports the classic psychic powers.


----------



## Uchawi (Jun 9, 2015)

Psionic flavor is fine. There will never be a lack of material in D&D. The problem with psionic abilities in any RPG I have played is making it different, just for the sake of being different. It is like comparing encounter abilities versus daily abilities in 5E and asking your self why?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 9, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But were I to have iron-fisty control over D&D, I'd probably go hard and embrace the Crystal Spires And Togas atmosphere. Yup, psionics is weird sci-fi magical evolution. It's the Apple Computer of magitech, invisible and ephemeral. It is deliberately dissonant with the gritty medieval world of darkness and fear. That's what's special about it, that's what it offers your game, that's why it's different - use this if you want to have optimistic Apple-like utopias and the like.




*IN FACT!!!!!*

I know I am probably the icon of vanity here quoting myself, but thinking more on this gave me an idea: 

Psionics is the Greco-Roman stuff hiding out in our D&D.

Lair of the chimera? Ruin of a psionic empire that dominated beasts. The Medusa? Remnant monster of a great psionic nation that worshipped snakes. Illithids? Aboleths? _What destroyed it_. Githyanki/Githzerai are their remnants (they've even got a bit of a Sparta/Athens dynamic!). Centaurs and cyclopes were barbarians in the forests and mountains when it happened (mmmm, centaur psionicists!). Gorgons and cockatrices and basilisks were their inventions. Flumphs watched them fall. 

....now to introduce some psionic amazon tribe into the game I'll be running for no reason....


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Jun 10, 2015)

I think this is a tough nut to crack. As far as I can remember back, most of the fan base has never really taken to psionics and there is no real definitive version of what the flavor is or how to mechanically represent it. Any system they come up with is probably going to be unacceptable to 75% of players because of that so I would probably just go with a very Dark Sun orientation because that is the only place in the game where psionics are actually necessary and there are enough of fans of that approach that might actually use it and get something out of it.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Jun 10, 2015)

> "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting"




This strikes me as a bad way to investigate. Before asking if the flavor needs to be altered I think some common ground needs to be established on what that flavor is. Just taking a quick skim through this thread it is apparent there are a few different takes on that starting point. This makes any discussion on whether it should be altered - and, if so, how - problematic.



> _Dark Sun_ is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak.




I'm not sure what Mike means by this. It reads like he doesn't quite get Dark Sun, but I don't want to jump to that conclusion.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 10, 2015)

> Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting", and then followed up with some more comments today




Kinda. D&D psionics to me is a by too sciencey and too wizardly. 

To me it should be more spiritual.



> "Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.




I don't like the scientific terminology either.

Personally, my setting didn't have psionics until a player wanted to player a character like one out of the Naruto manga/anime series. So I made his little guy with his not-a-jutsus and it melded well. All my psions are like mental monks forming special images and mantras in their minds via practice, faith, and willpower to connect their minds to the world. They use _Anger Release_ to put a target in a rage. _Courage Seal_ makes a target see you as something to fear.  _Eye Locking_ blinds. _View the Hells_ lets you see like a devil does, _Be in Hells_ turns you into one. 

So we had a paladin, a magic rogue, and a guy who sometimes is a devil and sometimes just looked like one to others. I'm more of a fan of the wise master psion to the sciencey psion.


----------



## tangleknot (Jun 10, 2015)

I grew up on 2nd ed psionics, so when I saw the 3.0/3.5 version it was a big disappointment.  Powers shouldn't be "see ____ spell for a description."  Psionics should feel and function like a completely different system.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 10, 2015)

To me, the important parts of psionic flavor include:


Pools of internal energy focused by the mind (and the mind's control over the body).
The possibility of storing pools of energy outside of yourself (such as with a psi-crystal, though other forms are possible).
Telepathy and Telekinesis.
The ability to see into the world of psionic energy (mindscape or spiritual world).
Psionic tattoos that aid in the flow of pisonic energy.
Wild talents (mutant powers)

I think they should take a multi-cultural approach to the specific flavor though. Psionics are rare, so what they are and how they work are explained differently by different cultures. Some take a more spiritual approach, seeing chakras, oracles, and spiritual auras. Others have applied some scientific study, and speak of power pools, clairvoyance, and the mindscape.


----------



## Anthraxus (Jun 10, 2015)

I prefer the pseudoscience names attached to powers- would prefer them to re-fluffing with fantasy-sounding names("Id Insinuation" to something like "Cloud the Mind"? No thanks!).

I would like to see Psionics as rules on their own, but with options/sidebars on how they are intimately tied into settings such as Dark Sun or Eberron- or opposite in certain settings, where they may be extremely rare or outright nonexistent.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 10, 2015)

jrowland said:


> I would caution people with the thought that there is a difference between
> 
> "Tied to Far Realm" as in psionics _derive_ from far realm and are a far realm schtick. i.e. Far Realm begets Psionics.
> 
> ...




I think they got this from, "Some classic psionic-using creatures in AD&D were also tied to the far realms, therefore Psionics are tied to the far realms".  Which I really don't like.  The psionics were not themselves tied to the far realms, just those handful creatures that also had them.  They're as tied to the far realms as swords are tied to orcs - yes, orcs also use swords, but swords are not connected to orcs in particular.

I mean, I won't hate it if they tie them to the far realms, I just think it's a poor choice.  Tying it to "the force" is a much stronger concept.


----------



## Ristamar (Jun 10, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> If you don't want new mechanics, refluff the sorceror and move on. The hypothetical book isn't for you, nor should it be. Otherwise we get a scenario like Savage Species, where people who don't want to use content dictate the design of something they never intend to use.




I don't mind *some* new mechanics, I just don't want a new, large book to cover one niche class.  It's antithetical to the a large part of the design philosophy of 5e.  

I like the idea of psionics.  As a DM, I want to incorporate psionics into my campaigns, but I don't want to deal with a giant rules supplement.  Unless I'm leaning very heavily on psionics as a pervasive theme, it's not worth the investment.


----------



## fjw70 (Jun 10, 2015)

I would like to see psionics mimic the Force.


----------



## werekraken (Jun 10, 2015)

Back in the 1970s, when psionics were first introduced, there was still the idea in science fiction and fantasy it might (speculatively) be possible for talented or discplined individuals to actually develope these powers. Think Vulcan Mind Meld, Beni Geserets, and Carrie. Psionics are innate powers that can be obtained by civilizations that have developed the appropriate sciences to a sufficiently advanced state. These powers, in a raw and uncontrolled form, are sometimes discovered by talented individuals in less advanced civilizations. I like that for psionics. The more scientific power titles go along with this, and I like that too.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 10, 2015)

> I think Psionics should be set up in a way that would allow any DM that chose to use it exclusively in their worldbuilding and be able to replace std arcane/divine magics. Like a sci-fantasy setting to go with the rules for laser pistols they already gave us. It could be some fun stuff!




Apparently, that makes two of us.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 10, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I think they got this from, "Some classic psionic-using creatures in AD&D were also tied to the far realms, therefore Psionics are tied to the far realms".  Which I really don't like.  The psionics were not themselves tied to the far realms, just those handful creatures that also had them.  They're as tied to the far realms as swords are tied to orcs - yes, orcs also use swords, but swords are not connected to orcs in particular.
> 
> I mean, I won't hate it if they tie them to the far realms, I just think it's a poor choice.  Tying it to "the force" is a much stronger concept.




I agree that tying it to the far realms is a poor choice.

Think of the orc.

Orcs can use martial combat.
Orcs can use skills are rogues and rangers
Orcs can get divine magic via Gruumsh or Bane worship.
Orcs can get arcane magic via sorcerers or warlocks.

So the psionics should have a source and flavor that let the base monsters like orcs, goblins, and giants can gain access to. If it is too "alien", its acceptance and blending into general fantasy becomes harder.


----------



## darius0 (Jun 10, 2015)

I don't think there is anything wrong with having some built in flavor/lore behind psionics. The little details they put about various things in 5th edition is something that I really like. Like how demons dissolve into foul ichor when defeated. 

The Far Realm as a concept is D&D is fine to me. It is a Lovecraftian idea and so are mind flayers; and psionics were basically introduced with mind flayers. Connecting psionics with the Far Realms makes sense. It would just be flavor really; nobody has to use it if they don't want to but it saves DMs some time coming up with ideas if they want to use psionics.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 10, 2015)

> "Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.



 That double-hypothetical doesn't inspire a lot of excitement.  So not working on psionics, and, even if it were, wanting to set a high bar would only be 'theoretical.'  

The scientific terminology always grated a little, but it's not like there wasn't a lot of that in early D&D.  Plenty of spells referenced science or were laden with other anachronisms, for instance.  Same with quite a lot of monsters, especially when they got 'ecology' articles, and the occasional item.  Not to mention Temple of the Frog or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jun 10, 2015)

My only problem with psionics is that it generally feels tacked on.  It's nearly always an optional system, so it never really feels well supported or well represented.

Thus, I consider two things a good presentation of psionics:


Dark Sun
Mind Flayers, Githzerai, and Githyanki

In other words, psionics needs to be inseparable from the campaign setting or the creature without destroying it's nature or flavor.  Because that's how magic is.  And that's why psionics sucks.  It's always the red-headed stepchild.  Like Spelljammer.


----------



## Vael (Jun 10, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> I would like to see psionics mimic the Force.




Which, while I agree, is, I think, a part of the problem. When we discuss Psionics, most of the examples and Iconic Psionic users are from Science Fiction. X-Men, Bene Gesserit, Biotic Adepts, Vulcans and Jedi ... 

So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it. But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jun 10, 2015)

arjomanes said:


> I REALLY like this line of thought.
> 
> So what makes psionics different, and how can its presence or absence affect the setting? I personally think it can work well with the idea of cosmic horror and mind-melting terror that the Far Realm invokes. If you look at the traditionally psionic monsters, they are alien things. I also like the idea of giving the powers common names, rather than the scientific descriptors they have always had.
> 
> Personally if I were to add psionics to my game, it would come with aberrations as a key element of the setting. I would include Lovecraftian great old ones, creatures like mindflayers and beholders, and make psionics powered by the presence of these creatures and how they warp reality. Or it would be a very wuxia-influenced game that used both psionics and ki side-by-side. As mentioned by Mike Mearls, Dark Sun also has a different spin on psionics, but no less world-altering.



I love this idea. I hope they go with something like this. Arcane, divine, primal and far realmsian psionic - sweet! 

I do want psionics as another branch of magic however, in terms of it being affected by detect magic, dispel magic, counterspell and so on. I definitely don't want a whole new lot of spells and powers to deal with negating "psionics" as opposed to negating "magic".


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jun 10, 2015)

Kobold Avenger said:


> There's plenty of reasons why psionics won't get used by DMs.  A big factor would be if the mechanics are too different (and automatically assumed to be overpowered), most DMs aren't going to try to learn a vastly different new sub-system just because some player wants to feel special.
> 
> And then there's problems down the road such as future support, and integration with other things that come along.  Psionics should be something that could dropped in a campaign without too much of a readjustment of game balance and rules.




Pisonics was historically OP because (i) most folks wont have any defence against it, (ii) you can do it stealthy no problem and (iii) you could pump up your powers to nova like crazy by abusing the power point system.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jun 10, 2015)

FallenAkriel said:


> For me, I feel psionic is simply the complete version of "Ki". It's a mastery over your mind and body that you can also extend to modify your surrounding.
> Multiple explanations are possible: Mutation from an hostile environment, too much exposure to the far realms or genetic. They are all good.
> 
> It could be a feat tree mechanic to get powers or a Difficulty class mechanic with each 6 psionic group link to an specific attribute each (Psychometabolism = Con, Clairsentience = Wisdom).
> ...




This would be my alternative preference - make psion a monk subclass or something.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 10, 2015)

Vael said:


> Which, while I agree, is, I think, a part of the problem. When we discuss Psionics, most of the examples and Iconic Psionic users are from Science Fiction. X-Men, Bene Gesserit, Biotic Adepts, Vulcans and Jedi ...
> 
> So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it. But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.




I agree. 
And like I mentioned earlier, one of the easiest way to give psionics more fantasy is to expand influences out of the typical locations. I was shocked of how well my player's Sasuke Uchiha psionic-rogue fit in my setting.

---

Here's a _crazy_ idea.

What if barbarian's rage is psionic? 
Or one form of it is? 
What if _"the thing"_ that unlocked psionics made rage physical?
Before warriors just got mad. But now if you get mad enough you can tap into the anger inside and turn into a RAGING MONSTER* OF PURE FURY AND PSIONIC INDIGNATION! HULK SMASH!*

Yes, psionics comes from radiation.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 10, 2015)

Vael said:


> Which, while I agree, is, I think, a part of the problem. When we discuss Psionics, most of the examples and Iconic Psionic users are from Science Fiction. X-Men, Bene Gesserit, Biotic Adepts, Vulcans and Jedi ...
> 
> So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it. But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.




You can make it like the force, and more fantasy oriented.  It's why I keep advocating for Deryni-like psionics.  Deryni and D&D go way back to Dragon Magazine #78.  It's pure fantasy, but it's also psionics.  It integrates well with the rest of the universe, helps deal with muticlass divine-psionics and arcane-psionics as well, etc..


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2015)

In no particular order...

I've enjoyed most forms of D&D Psionics to some extent, but I also always thought there were problems with each incarnation.  At the most obvious, the more like spells it was mechanically, the less different it felt.  

The terminology NEVER bothered me- so many of the terms were Greco/Latin in origin, I just saw it as how an academic might name them.  Besides, as has been pointed out, the same terminology was poached for magic anyway- if telekinesis, teleportation, and the like can be used for casters, it works for psionic manifesters as well.

If I were in charge, I'd differentiate Psi from Arcane & Divine magic by:

1) make it explicitly NOT magic, but rather, an extension of the natural forces within all living things.  Power is achieved by mastering one's own body in ways most cannot imagine.  While there might be anti-Psionic magical effects- and vice versa- they wouldn't be the same.  In a place where magic was non-functional, Psionics could still (potentially) work.  As such, I would probably bring things like Ki into the broader Psionic tent.  

*Edit: barbarian Rage might be a good one, too.*

2) because Psi would (probably) be harder to dispel, neutralize or mitigate, and thus more reliable/available, I would probably make the effects either less powerful, more costly in character resources, or both.

3) because it is (mostly) just a manifestation of one's physical resources, I would make it Con based.  It would also mean that as y deplete your Psionic resources, you become more fatigued.  "Go Nova" or use your last point, and you risk passing out from the strain.  

4) The more powerful abilities would depend on actually expending points- see the fatigue mechanic above- but some would just depend on having Psionic energy available: as long as you have any psychic resources, they function just fine.  

5) I like the "Far Realms is a disease, psi is the cure" idea, and would totally yoink that.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 10, 2015)

Mechanically, I'd like to see psionics differentiate itself by mostly avoiding big, one time effects, and focusing on abilities that you can use at will or turn on using psychic power.

An example mechanic. A psion has a number of power pools equal to his proficiency bonus. He can use telekinesis at will. If he takes an action, he can use a power pool to manifest a telekinesis power that allows him to fly. As long as this power is active, he can't use the pool for any other powers, but dismissing his flight would grant him the pool back. He can also burn the pool, allowing him to teleport, but the pool is now useless. 

He can recover a burned pool during a short rest. Perhaps if he burns all his pools, he can't use psionics until he recovers at least one.

A psi crystal might grant an additional power pool, and a psionic tattoo might allow a specific power to be manifest as a bonus action.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 10, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Pisonics was historically OP because (i) most folks wont have any defence against it, (ii) you can do it stealthy no problem and (iii) you could pump up your powers to nova like crazy by abusing the power point system.



 Well, yes.  And if it doesn't do all 3 of those in 5e, it won't capture the classic feel of psionics.  

Hey, it was a good enough reason to put back Vancian casting and multiple attacks....


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 10, 2015)

Does anyone know what was the original inspiration for the inclusion of psionics in original D&D? Like we know that the spell casting was heavily influenced by Vance, and then we can look to any number of other authors such as Lovecraft, Lieber, Moorcock, and Howard for a lot of the other content. 

But where did Gygax get psionics from? It might help to figure that out in a discussion of what psionics should or should not be. What were his inspirations for their inclusion in the game?

I'm kind of indifferent about psionics, myself. I am a huge fan of the original Dark Sun content, and I liked how and why psionics were used in that setting. I liked the 2nd edition psionics handbook. And that's about it. Nothing since then has really impressed me. 3rd edition content felt largely the same, just modified for the new edition.

I just don't feel the need for it. If it's there and presented in a way that makes sense, okay great, maybe I'll use it a bit. But I certainly don't feel the need for it in my game. If any player of mine felt that strongly about it, in the absence of official rules I'm sure we could cobble something together that would work.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 10, 2015)

For some reason I associate psionics with "weird fantasy" -- Vornheim, Carcosa, LotFP kind of stuff. Dark Sun and Spelljammer lean in that direction, too, without being quite as dark and grim.

So I'd _keep_ the pseudoscientific terminology, and make it even weirder if possible. And I love the idea that exposure to alien spacecraft can awaken your psionic talents. And I like the idea of psionics being much more subtle than magic, and the power of psionics comes from the fact that it "breaks the rules" of the universe in some way.


----------



## shadow (Jun 10, 2015)

No the flavor of psionics should not be altered!  I actually like the quasi-scientific names of the powers.  The traditional names make the powers easily identifiable (most people could see _psychokinesis_ or _precognition_ and know what the powers do).  Also, I can see psionicists in a fantasy setting come up with 'scientific' names to classify their powers.

I find it funny that people complain about psionics not fitting into a 'medieval' fantasy setting, but accept a mishmash of monsters from Greek myth, Chinese style kung-fu monks, and Lovecraftian horrors.


----------



## darius0 (Jun 10, 2015)

An alternate name might be nice though. I liked when they had alternate names for dinosaurs that were a little less odd to say in a medieval setting


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Jun 10, 2015)

hawkeyefan said:


> Does anyone know what was the original inspiration for the inclusion of psionics in original D&D?




More book sales!


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 10, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) because Psi would (probably) be harder to dispel, neutralize or mitigate, and thus more reliable/available, I would probably make the effects either less powerful, more costly in character resources, or both.
> 
> 3) because it is (mostly) just a manifestation of one's physical resources, I would make it Con based.  It would also mean that as y deplete your Psionic resources, you become more fatigued.  "Go Nova" or use your last point, and you risk passing out from the strain.
> 
> 4) The more powerful abilities would depend on actually expending points- see the fatigue mechanic above- but some would just depend on having Psionic energy available: as long as you have any psychic resources, they function just fine.






Jeff Carlsen said:


> Mechanically, I'd like to see psionics differentiate itself by mostly avoiding big, one time effects, and focusing on abilities that you can use at will or turn on using psychic power.
> 
> An example mechanic. A psion has a number of power pools equal to his proficiency bonus. He can use telekinesis at will. If he takes an action, he can use a power pool to manifest a telekinesis power that allows him to fly. As long as this power is active, he can't use the pool for any other powers, but dismissing his flight would grant him the pool back. He can also burn the pool, allowing him to teleport, but the pool is now useless.
> 
> He can recover a burned pool during a short rest. Perhaps if he burns all his pools, he can't use psionics until he recovers at least one.




I like the sound of these suggestions. They made me think, how about starting from the _mechanics_ (not the flavor) of the *Sorcerer* minus the regular spells slots, i.e. only _cantrips_ (at will) for the lesser but easy to use psionic powers, and _spell points_ (or a variation of them) for the greater powers. I don't remember exactly how it works, but then perhaps borrowing from the *Chaos Mage* subclass for a mechanic that allows to push for more powers in exchange for a chance of mishap  and negative consequences?

Then the class needs some unique stuff added, but not necessarily a lot... certainly I think the "no components required" is a must-have to capture the flavor of "powers from the mind", and therefore it would give the Psion a *unique edge* in being able to use all its powers sneakily, compared to classic spellcasters who are normally seen chanting formulas and making gestures.

Psion subclasses could include some that follow the same ideas as Wizard Traditions i.e. focusing on a type of effects, and others that instead build a more "physical" (either martial or sneaky/explorative) kind of Psion. There is actually a lot of room for design here.


----------



## Steampunkette (Jun 10, 2015)

I feel like psionic characters should be a cross between Monks and Warlocks. Invocations to specialize and differentiate, some set abilities to provide basic competence, and limited, but recharging, casting ability that can be spent more or less quickly, like Ki points.

Less diverse power options, but more powerful or flexible in their use, depending on the power.

I think the far realm needs to go. But even straight Psions shouldn't be Wizards 2.0.

The naming I could take or leave.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 10, 2015)

darius0 said:


> An alternate name might be nice though. I liked when they had alternate names for dinosaurs that were a little less odd to say in a medieval setting




Psychic was a term in use well before the pseudo-science of Psionics appeared. And still is used, of course.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2015)

Li Shenron said:


> I like the sound of these suggestions. They made me think, how about starting from the _mechanics_ (not the flavor) of the *Sorcerer* minus the regular spells slots, i.e. only _cantrips_ (at will) for the lesser but easy to use psionic powers, and _spell points_ (or a variation of them) for the greater powers. I don't remember exactly how it works, but then perhaps borrowing from the *Chaos Mage* subclass for a mechanic that allows to push for more powers in exchange for a chance of mishap  and negative consequences?
> 
> Then the class needs some unique stuff added, but not necessarily a lot... certainly I think the "no components required" is a must-have to capture the flavor of "powers from the mind", and therefore it would give the Psion a *unique edge* in being able to use all its powers sneakily, compared to classic spellcasters who are normally seen chanting formulas and making gestures.
> 
> Psion subclasses could include some that follow the same ideas as Wizard Traditions i.e. focusing on a type of effects, and others that instead build a more "physical" (either martial or sneaky/explorative) kind of Psion. There is actually a lot of room for design here.



RE "cantrips": Since Psi is just a hypernatural mastery of the manifester's body, many of the "cantrip" powers could have Side Effects- muscle strains (temporary reduction in Str or Dex), busted blood vessels (HP damage), migraines (temporary Int reduction), etc. if overused.  Overuse could be a simple roll, similar to Star Fleet Battles' rule for high-energy turns: use the power at will X many times, all further uses of that power that day require a D20 roll + Con bonus vs a set number.  Fail and suffer the side effect.  

...and you can still use the power, but with a penalty to the roll.  Say...-2 for each time you've failed before that day.

RE "sneaky": some powers should be, some shouldn't.  Think of the iconic head explosion scene from _Scanners_- though the villain does not move, he is clearly exerting himself.  Or the empathic healing scene from Classic Star Trek episode, "The Empath".  Concentration is clearly also a must for powers like that.  And in the interest of modeling as many archetypes as possible, perhaps there would be a Feat or some such to make manifesting such powers stealthily. 

But those who psionically boost their strength, use ESP-type powers?  Many might be inherently sneaky.

RE class design space: because they're Con based, manifesters would start off tougher than most pure casters.  I'd make most manifester classes akin to the half-casters or multiclassed casters of previous editions- a few powers enhancing skills or martial prowess, with only the Psion depending more on the big, flashy powers (such as they are) than more mundane abilities.

RE power design space: standard D&D design would be distinct powers for each effect.  And this is perfectly acceptable.  OTOH, you could have powers that are siloed: each power has a cantrip effect that is usable at will as described above.  But rather than gaining new powers, manifesters REFINE their powers, learning new things they can do with the powers they have.  

Consider Telekinesis.  Most people just want to use it for grabbing and throwing increasingly large masses.  Some use it to "fly" or levitate by lifting themselves. But as has been done in some fiction, some "Tekes" concentrate on ultra-fine control, like gently applying pressure to the carotid artery to cause someone to pass out.  

This could be modeled by having specific stunts, or just defining the limits of the power (per points expended?) and letting the players figure out what they can do with it...

Sticking with telekinesis, at the cantrip level, perhaps a manifester can manipulate weights up to 1lb at a range of 5' + 5' per Con bonus.  Expending a few points can boost the range or the mass.  Perhaps at top levels, the mass peaks at...1000lbs?  Less powerful in raw strength than arcane or divine telekinetic effects, but again, reliable, reusable, and hard to disrupt or otherwise interfere with.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 10, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I think they got this from, "Some classic psionic-using creatures in AD&D were also tied to the far realms, therefore Psionics are tied to the far realms".  Which I really don't like.  The psionics were not themselves tied to the far realms, just those handful creatures that also had them.  They're as tied to the far realms as swords are tied to orcs - yes, orcs also use swords, but swords are not connected to orcs in particular.
> 
> I mean, I won't hate it if they tie them to the far realms, I just think it's a poor choice.  Tying it to "the force" is a much stronger concept.




To be fair though, how different is, "Psionics come from The Force - an all powerful energy that permeates all life" and "Psionics come from the energy of the Far Realms, a dimension of psychic energy, far beyond the ken of man"?  It's not really a whole lot of difference is it?

Granted, I don't really care either way how they flavour the "source" of psionics.  5e uses "the Weave" as the source of magic.  Certainly doesn't apply to my game.  Whatever source they come up with, will likely have about as much impact on my game as the Weave.


----------



## dwayne (Jun 10, 2015)

I always saw it as the mind and force of will overcoming the physical (ones own bodies limitations) or effecting a object ( external force ) as to controlling or bending others with your mind. I think a balance of a physical stat and a non physical stat should be applied for the effects. Kind of a contest of wills to stop it or a physical one to battle through it maybe on a failed test you roll a physical and vs being worn out of fatigued. A person with a high int and will or char. may be powerful but with a low con may lack to sustaining power in a long fight, maybe not use con another stat or a combination of all physical and of all mental. or just a new psi stat and ki stat psi for attack and ki for defense not sure but hope he does something good looking forward to see what it is.


----------



## Barachiel (Jun 10, 2015)

I do not agree. First of all, what is "traditional fantasy"? There is none. What we call "traditional" in fantasy is actually stereotypical. An overused trope. 

Next, the sci-fi terms work because it is already part of our society that when we hear "psychokinesis" we know what it means and can get a good image in our minds.  If you call it something else entirely, you then have to sit and explain what it really is: "Oh it's just a fancy term for psychokinesis...but they call it that just to be difficult." 

Finally, no power-spell equivalents? That's impossible. There already is plenty of divine-arcane equivlanets (Dispel Magic, Detect Magic, etc.) so it makes sense for there to be an equivalent in other mediums of supernatural abilities.


----------



## dwayne (Jun 10, 2015)

Have psi cause fatigue damage (subdue ) to the person on a failed check or if over extending him self (which might happen if facing something that is more powerful than you and loosing the test of will ) enough damage you pass out. You could us the powers and abilities as long as you give your self enough of a buffer zone in case you do face something a bit powerful or loose too many times in a test of wills. in this case failing a test to push your self beyond what your strength can do could have  ab ad side effect of muscle strain or causing real physical harm.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 10, 2015)

I am a bit concerned about the whole "a cure for the Far Realm disease" and here's why.

I don't want that to be the general origin of Psionics across the board. I can see that as the origin in a specific area but not as a whole. This wouldn't work for Dark Sun for instance because you don't see many Far Realms creatures running about Athas. 

In the Forgotten Realms, I see Psionics as coming from mainly Mind Flayers and Aboleths. Remember Clan Duergar were experimented on by the Illithids which in turn gave us the dwarven subrace that developed Psionics from all the experiments. I may be incorrect, but I seem to remember Mind Flayers coming from the future and not the Far Realms so I could see a relevance to humanoids from the future having developed powers using the mind and these creatures brought it with them to the past and those abilities were passed on. 

I think they need to stick with a general and not a specific origin to Psionics because it doesn't cover everything.


----------



## manuzed78 (Jun 10, 2015)

Give me my 2nd edition psi back please


----------



## Mercule (Jun 10, 2015)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Mechanically, I'd like to see psionics differentiate itself by mostly avoiding big, one time effects, and focusing on abilities that you can use at will or turn on using psychic power.



This. I was ruminating on how I'd implement psionics, last night. One concept I really liked is having most powers have an "ongoing effect" entry in the description, much like a lot of spells have a "cast at higher level" block. Psionics should make heavy, heavy use of the concentration mechanic. I could see something like the following:

*Phantom Flame*
Choose a target creature. The target must make a Wisdom save. If they succeed, they are momentarily distracted by the mental intrusion and have disadvantage on their next check before your next turn. If they fail, they are covered in illusory fire that only they can see and suffer 2d6 psychic damage.
_Ongoing effect:_ While you maintain concentration on this discipline, the target must make a Wisdom save at the start of their turn or suffer 1d6 psychic damage and have disadvantage on the first check or attack made. On a successful save, the effect ends.

Note: effects are for illustrative purposes, only, and not evaluated for balance, level scaling, or other playability factors.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 10, 2015)

Barachiel said:


> Finally, no power-spell equivalents? That's impossible. There already is plenty of divine-arcane equivlanets (Dispel Magic, Detect Magic, etc.) so it makes sense for there to be an equivalent in other mediums of supernatural abilities.




I think Mearls is referring to the phenomenon of "psionic detect thoughts", where it was " see spell in PH" as a description.


----------



## wyrdone (Jun 10, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> RE "cantrips": Since Psi is just a hypernatural mastery of the manifester's body, many of the "cantrip" powers could have Side Effects- muscle strains (temporary reduction in Str or Dex), busted blood vessels (HP damage), migraines (temporary Int reduction), etc. if overused. Overuse could be a simple roll, similar to Star Fleet Battles' rule for high-energy turns: use the power at will X many times, all further uses of that power that day require a D20 roll + Con bonus vs a set number. Fail and suffer the side effect.




I like this... It inspires me to expand on some of your ideas.

What if we had all powers grouped into 2 categories, STR/DEX/CON and INT/WIS/CHA, Body and Mind.  You could choose one or the other to focus on and add your proficiency bonus to checks in that category.  

I can think of two options for manifesting powers:
*Psicraft*
Each day the Psion can manifest any power known they choose, but they must make a Psicraft check.  The check starts out small each morning, maybe 5 to succeed, but goes up by 1 each time.  You would track each categories' check DC separately.  This would allow a lower level Psion to manifest a few powers per day before the check becomes too tough to achieve, while a higher level Psion could manifest a lot of powers before things get tough.

A failure could mean that the power fails and adds an additional +1 to the check DC, so you get to a point where your mind and body are spent and you simply can't manifest any more powers until you rest.  A short rest could lower the DC by some amount while a long rest sets it back to 5.

*Ability Scores*
Each day the Psion can manifest any power known they choose, but they must make an ability check of their choice of the 3 in that category, or maybe each power has an ability score assigned. This check starts out small, maybe a 2 to succeed, but goes up by 1 each time.

A failure could give you temporary ability damage in the ability socre used, making the subsequent checks even harder.  My only concern with this method would be that the damage could pile up quickly, leaving the Psion a slow, weak, stupid mess by the end of the day not fit for anything, even their backup crossbow or dagger.  A short rest could heal maybe 1 or 2 points of ability damage to one or more abilities, while a long rest heals all damage taken in this manner.


This would be an entirely new mechanic when compared to spell slots and more level dependant progressions where you simply get X more manifestations.  It adds a lot of variability into your powers... you're guaranteed to get off a few powers each day, and even if you fail a few, some good rolling can get you some more manifestations.  Each Psion would be slightly different depending on their ability scores and/or Psicraft skill.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 10, 2015)

> So, what Mearls seems to be doing is trying to make Psionics less Science Fiction. Personally, I think that's not the right tack. I'd rather embrace it. DnD is such a weird tent, expand it.




Agreed.



> But then, I also have the same problem with those that insist Monks are not DnD, because it's too Asian.




I don't like Monks in typical D&D settings, but I'm keeping them in my science-fantasy-ish psionics setting because I think they're a good fit, for the most part.



> I feel like psionic characters should be a cross between Monks and Warlocks. Invocations to specialize and differentiate, some set abilities to provide basic competence, and limited, but recharging, casting ability that can be spent more or less quickly, like Ki points.




I'd like that style to be available...alongside the rest. Psionic wizards, psionic sorcerers, etc., too. I see no reason to pigeonhole psionics that way.



> To be fair though, how different is, "Psionics come from The Force - an all powerful energy that permeates all life" and "Psionics come from the energy of the Far Realms, a dimension of psychic energy, far beyond the ken of man"? It's not really a whole lot of difference is it?
> 
> Granted, I don't really care either way how they flavour the "source" of psionics. 5e uses "the Weave" as the source of magic. Certainly doesn't apply to my game. Whatever source they come up with, will likely have about as much impact on my game as the Weave.




Indeed, I prefer they keep that sort of thing mostly as fluff. I've got a very specific write-up for my setting, and assuming I can use what Mearls & co. produce, I wouldn't want to have to go back in and excise a bunch of contradictory stuff.



> I think Mearls is referring to the phenomenon of "psionic detect thoughts", where it was " see spell in PH" as a description.




Another reason I'm resigned to doing it myself. It makes sense to bridle at seeing "see PHB pg xxx for details." It also makes sense to bridle at paying for text that is quite similar to the PHB, in places. The compromise seems to be to make a strong effort not to duplicate arcane or divine spell effects; to make psionics very different. Since I want to replace arcane and divine magic with psionics, I need a lot of overlap, so I'm probably not going to see what I want from a 5e psionics supplement. I'd be happy to be wrong. And I'll almost certainly buy it and crib from it, in any event. Ideally, there'll be enough overlap to extrapolate a design philosophy, to make conversion easier.



> I do not agree. First of all, what is "traditional fantasy"? There is none. What we call "traditional" in fantasy is actually stereotypical. An overused trope.




"Trope" is overused.

Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Birthright, Kingdoms of Kalamar; traditional fantasy D&D settings. Planescape, Dark Sun, Eberron, Spelljammer; not traditional fantasy D&D settings.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 10, 2015)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though, how different is, "Psionics come from The Force - an all powerful energy that permeates all life" and "Psionics come from the energy of the Far Realms, a dimension of psychic energy, far beyond the ken of man"?  It's not really a whole lot of difference is it?




Well if that is the flavor of the far realms then sure, not much different.  But I don't think that's the flavor they're talking about.  I think it's the weird, alien, madness-inducing mythos-type far realms.  Which is different than simply far away beyond our ken.



> Granted, I don't really care either way how they flavour the "source" of psionics.  5e uses "the Weave" as the source of magic.  Certainly doesn't apply to my game.  Whatever source they come up with, will likely have about as much impact on my game as the Weave.




Agreed.  It's why I say I can deal with it - heck I could even work with it without reflavoring it if I have to.  I just have a preference.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 10, 2015)

As for ways to limit psionics, I think power prerequisites work. No dipping into the 5th-level TK/Fear/Fire power if you haven't got the prerequisite 1st- and 3rd-level TK/Fear/Fire power. It's easy to go overboard and make this too rigid, though. Maybe group the powers loosely and say one of a given level and group is as good as another for purposes of prerequisites.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2015)

[I reworked my initial negative reaction, in order to try see the positive and to be more constructive. See my new post below.]


----------



## JStillfeather (Jun 10, 2015)

IMO Psionics should be just as powerful as Magic, Aka Pyro kinetic  should be able to create a psionic Fireball that does equal damage to that of a  wizards fireball spell etc...
as far as Dark Sun goes magic went wrong and turned the world into a desert aka the mage classes of Preserver and Defiler, With Psionics not having the same destructive effects on the environment as magic because its power source was internal not external.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 10, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I dislike aspects of the WotC official setting. When they bake their setting into the classes, it makes the classes unusable for me.
> 
> If they bake the Far Realms flavor into my favorite class, the Psion, it will destroy it and make the entire D&D 5e product useless to me.
> 
> ...




Branding.

That's my guess, anyway. Might not be necessarily important to WotC, but to the Hasbro Overlords, it seems very important. That "D&D's Psionics" can be quantified and used across media recognizable as "D&D's Psionics" ...and no one else's!


----------



## jrowland (Jun 10, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I mean, I won't hate it if they tie them to the far realms, I just think it's a poor choice.  Tying it to "the force" is a much stronger concept.




Communication breakdown. I was trying to make a similar point, but I honestly don't know if you are agreeing, disagreeing, or simply commenting. For its worth, I was pointing out that you can tie the far realms to psionics (swords and orcs) which I think you are for (me too), or you can tie psionics to the far realms (bad) but its not that clear what they mean.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 10, 2015)

The need to change telekinesis to a less sciency name is like when they renamed dinosaurs, imo. Not needed.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2015)

I like how Mearls downplays the scientific (parapsychological) jargon, such as Psychokinesis. Standard D&D terminology is better, at least most of the time.

I like how Mearls wants to steer away from Far Realms pacts. I hope that means, he wants to focus on the definition of ‘Psionics’ as ones own mind over matter.

I want my Psion to fight with his psionic mind with the same confidence and enthusiasm that a Fighter fights with a sword. X-Men mutants and Star Wars force users are a good example of how natural psionics is.

I dislike the ‘unsettling’ theme of everything is darker, edgier, tainted. Such a theme pertains to what the entire setting needs to be. It goes beyond the scope of a class. Please avoid baking a specific setting into a class. It is highly objectionable to players who dislike a particular setting.

On second look at the tweet by Mearls, I am reading it as: There is a cosmic conflict between *magic* and *psionics*. One ultimately undermines the other. Individualistic internal psionics in a cosmic conflict against antihuman external magic, can be an interesting theme for a specific setting.

Psionics is a method that is humanistic, natural, and personal - the power of ones own mind over matter.


----------



## darius0 (Jun 10, 2015)

Zaukrie said:


> The need to change telekinesis to a less sciency name is like when they renamed dinosaurs, imo. Not needed.




Well that just like, your opinion, man. Seriously though, I liked alternate names for dinosaurs because it was good for roleplaying and I then dont have to think up the alternate names.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 10, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I dont understand why WotC keeps forcing *their* campaign setting on *my* gaming table.






steeldragons said:


> Branding.
> 
> That's my guess, anyway. Might not be necessarily important to WotC, but to the Hasbro Overlords, it seems very important. That "D&D's Psionics" can be quantified and used across media recognizable as "D&D's Psionics" ...and no one else's!



And this is why I periodically rail about the FR-centric nature of 5E, so far. The D&D "brand" is a non-specific fantasy table-top game explicitly lacking any hardwired connection to any specific setting and open to rampant reskinning for each group's table. I don't care what anyone at WotC says or wants -- it's impossible to "grow" the D&D brand without destroying its current identity. Settings, like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dragonlance can have brands that span multiple media. I think the apparent confusion between D&D's brand and affiliated brands (the Realms) is potentially the biggest current threat to the long-term viability of both.

Take the Fate RPG. It wasn't created to play the Dresden Files. Dresden Files is a setting that has an RPG using the Fate mechanics. Trying to use Dresden to promote Fate might have some limited success, but it'd be incompetent to mix up your marketing too badly. No one in their right mind would try to place the Fate logo on the novels prominently (if at all). Yeah, I realize it's not quite apples to apples, but it's not incredibly far off. Wizards would be well served to adjust their perspective a bit on their IP.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2015)

@_*steeldragons*_ [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION]

Yeah, it seems corporate branding is responsible for interfering with D&D creativity and openness.

If Hasbro WotC would restrict its branding to specific official settings, there would be less issue with the specific trademarks that are forced in that setting, because players can choose or make a different setting if they desire.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 10, 2015)

Mercule said:


> And this is why I periodically rail about the FR-centric nature of 5E, so far. The D&D "brand" is a non-specific fantasy table-top game explicitly lacking any hardwired connection to any specific setting and open to rampant reskinning for each group's table. I don't care what anyone at WotC says or wants -- it's impossible to "grow" the D&D brand without destroying its current identity. Settings, like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dragonlance can have brands that span multiple media. I think the apparent confusion between D&D's brand and affiliated brands (the Realms) is potentially the biggest current threat to the long-term viability of both.
> 
> Take the Fate RPG. It wasn't created to play the Dresden Files. Dresden Files is a setting that has an RPG using the Fate mechanics. Trying to use Dresden to promote Fate might have some limited success, but it'd be incompetent to mix up your marketing too badly. No one in their right mind would try to place the Fate logo on the novels prominently (if at all). Yeah, I realize it's not quite apples to apples, but it's not incredibly far off. Wizards would be well served to adjust their perspective a bit on their IP.






Yaarel said:


> [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]
> 
> Yeah, it seems corporate branding is responsible for interfering with D&D creativity and openness.
> 
> If Hasbro WotC would restrict its branding to specific official settings, there would be less issue with the specific trademarks that are forced in that setting, because players can choose or make a different setting if they desire.




Agreeds all around, on all counts.


----------



## jrowland (Jun 10, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> @_*steeldragons*_ [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION]
> If Hasbro WotC would restrict its branding to specific official settings, there would be less issue with the specific trademarks that are forced in that setting, because players can choose or make a different setting if they desire.




It seems a free basic version of D&D goes a long way towards restricting branding to official settings. The core rules, while peppered with sidebars pointing to settings, do a pretty good job of steering away from a specific setting as well. I expect no less for psionics. 

However, that said, how "core" is psionics? My guess is not very (considering its not in the PHB), but more core than say Favored Souls which got an Unearthed Arcana workup. Introducing psionics in an adventure storyline (like genasi in the elemental storyline) would probably piss a lot of psionics fans off, and be wasted space for non-fans...so I'd expect something more.

Perhaps Mearls and co. are feeling the market out for a companion psionics player book to go along with a far realms adventure story arc. Like what was planned for elemental evil but scrapped. Psionics would certainly be big enough.

How would many of you feel if the psionics players book was relatively generic, but was "meant" for play in a story arc adventure that featured Far Realms?


----------



## Fralex (Jun 10, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I am a bit concerned about the whole "a cure for the Far Realm disease" and here's why.
> 
> I don't want that to be the general origin of Psionics across the board. I can see that as the origin in a specific area but not as a whole. This wouldn't work for Dark Sun for instance because you don't see many Far Realms creatures running about Athas.
> 
> ...




That's cool, you can also flavor it more generally as a power that comes from a mental "Awakening" of some sort. Some new way of thinking about the nature of the world that gives you power over it. It's not really a _secret_, like the arcane is. It's just some piece of knowledge that is almost impossible to grasp, but once you do, gaining more power is simply a matter of refining the techniques you know. One Weird Trick, if you will. It's not a spiritual enlightenment per se, I guess you could call it an enlightenment of the soul (mysticism fun fact: the _soul_ is the source of will in an individual, allowing them to be self-aware and actively use their mind; the _spirit_ is the vital energy that powers all living things).

It can come from exposure to things that seemingly defy all notions of natural law and sanity, the revelation of some universal truth that is beyond horrifying, and _not letting it break you_. Instead, some hidden part of your mind you never used before gets painfully stirred into action, giving you the power to fight back against madness itself. Thus, an infection from the Far Realm on a large enough scale would lead to a rude Awakening for lots and lots of individuals who are open to it (others would just go hopelessly insane). This should not, of course, mean that things from the Far Realm do not scare you or test the limits of your sanity; it just means you're better at resisting it than others. Ooh, if you're using Sanity as an ability score, psions would be *perfect* for it, as a spellcasting ability. I can think of plenty of stories about mad wizards or mad priests, but the idea of a mad psychic sounds _wrong _somehow. They might seem mad or illogical to people who can't grasp this truth, but their mind is crystal clear. No, I think psionics is inherently based on understanding, _in full_, the forces behind your power. And this truth, whatever it is, should be impossible to learn directly from someone else. No words of any language come close to being able to describe it. It has to come from within.

And not all Awakenings are traumatic. Some come to this knowledge by a wondrous inspiration, or from years of meditation at the foot of a master (who cannot explain the power, but can help guide them to coming to their own realization). You might even work it out completely on your own. But I feel like this concept of being awakened, of gaining understanding of some powerful truth that cannot be explained to anyone else, is where psionics gets its unique flavor.

*TL;DR* The key source of psionic power is an awakening revelation, a single piece of knowledge that when understood, gives you everything you need to use psionics. The Far Realm is so alien to conventional knowledge that it can, if you're lucky, lead to your awakening rather than your madness. But there are other ways to reach this psionic enlightenment, too.


----------



## Ristamar (Jun 10, 2015)

jrowland said:


> How would many of you feel if the psionics players book was relatively generic, but was "meant" for play in a story arc adventure that featured Far Realms?




I'm hoping it's not a separate book at all, unless we're talking about a 16-32 page PDF or print-on-demand softcover.  

It'd also make sense if optional Psionics rules are included as part of an official published adventure path/book.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 10, 2015)

The use of the feat mechanic to gain access to two of the six psionic disciplines and then the use of this as a prerequisite to gain a unique psionicist class that could include sub-classes that included the psion, psychic warrior, soul knife, and wilder. Powers would use a point base system and each power would have discipline prerequisites. Concentration would play an important role in most powers. Options to overpower effects and increase duration would have a fatigue mechanic based on constitution.

Stylistically, the use of pseudo-scientific terms and their medieval counterparts should continue. The system has to be robust enough to include many different types of play. Inner psychic powers develop a multitude of ways. It can be triggered by contact with the far realm or the result of an innate ability to connect to a force that permeates through all living things. It needs to be at home in Lovecraftian horror or stories about mystic space knight. It needs to replicate the powers of Deryni or Dark Suns denizens.


----------



## fjw70 (Jun 10, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Granted, I don't really care either way how they flavour the "source" of psionics.  5e uses "the Weave" as the source of magic.  Certainly doesn't apply to my game.  Whatever source they come up with, will likely have about as much impact on my game as the Weave.




Agreed.  The flavor they give it is the least important aspect.  I want them to provide good mechanics.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 10, 2015)

*Psionic Feats*



GobiWon said:


> The use of the feat mechanic to gain access to two of the six psionic disciplines and then the use of this as a prerequisite to gain a unique psionicist class that could include sub-classes that included the psion, psychic warrior, soul knife, and wilder. Powers would use a point base system and each power would have discipline prerequisites. Concentration would play an important role in most powers. Options to overpower effects and increase duration would have a fatigue mechanic based on constitution.
> 
> Stylistically, the use of pseudo-scientific terms and their medieval counterparts should continue. The system has to be robust enough to include many different types of play. Inner psychic powers develop a multitude of ways. It can be triggered by contact with the far realm or the result of an innate ability to connect to a force that permeates through all living things. It needs to be at home in Lovecraftian horror or stories about mystic space knight. It needs to replicate the powers of Deryni or Dark Suns denizens.




Psionic feats that allow you to gain access to two of the psionic disciplines would be roughly equivalent to cantrips and allow all character classes to potentially have some psionic ability. This gives it the feel of first and second edition while allowing the class specialization found in third.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 10, 2015)

jrowland said:


> However, that said, how "core" is psionics? My guess is not very (considering its not in the PHB), but more core than say Favored Souls which got an Unearthed Arcana workup. Introducing psionics in an adventure storyline (like genasi in the elemental storyline) would probably piss a lot of psionics fans off, and be wasted space for non-fans...so I'd expect something more.



Depends on what's meant by "core". If core means bare bones needed to play, then no. Ditto for the circular core = main three books. If core means "not setting specific", then I'd say psionics are definitely core. I used "bare-bones", earlier, to reference setting-free rules. I'd love a better word, though.

What's core (in the non-setting sense) shifts over time. Gnomes used to be woodsy folks that might set traps. At some point, the DL tinker gnomes had enough impact that gnomes are now mechanically apt. Artificer seems to have bled from Eberron to near-core, but Dragonmarks are setting specific and likely to remain so. BECMI and AD&D elves were magic first, with woodsy elves being an afterthought; 4E was almost the opposite, with magicky elves being renamed.

FWIW, I like the 5E way of handling races via sub-races. The default elf, IMC, is high elf but I have stats for the others. Gnomes and tech don't mix, in my game, and that's not hard to do. The 2E/3E/Planescape tiefling is the right way to do a flavorful, but open race. The 4E tiefling, with the ancient pact baked in, is the wrong way.



> How would many of you feel if the psionics players book was relatively generic, but was "meant" for play in a story arc adventure that featured Far Realms?



In general, I think tying rules expansions to adventures is a bad idea. Psionics is a large enough expansion that it's double edged in that it could support its own book (and has in the past), thus doesn't need to be tied to an adventure to sell; it's also large enough to get fans to buy the book, even if they don't want to run the adventure (say, if it was a Far Realms thing, or Athas-centric). Leaving my general misgivings aside, though....

It depends. If the rules are pretty stand-alone, then I'd be fine. If there is heavy flavor text or rules for "if you meet an aberration" or similar stuff, I won't be happy. Even the 3E overdose of crystals, tattoos, and pseudo-science terms was pushing it, for me. I didn't hate any single piece; it was just too much. But, I used it.

Sometimes a bit of flavor is unavoidable. There's no point in having elves and gnomes if they're just like humans with some stat modifiers. It's a balancing act. The key is to not lock the DM into anything. Greyhawk Druids follow the old gods. Forgotten Realms Druids just follow nature gods. In my home campaign, Druids are animists and even nature gods have Clerics. The mechanics don't have to change for any of those options.

As long as 1) I'm not beat over the head with optional flavor and 2) I can swap out all the flavor without touching the mechanics, I'm fine. I don't want my players to come to me expecting psionics to be tied to the Far Realms, but I do want them to be able to use the book.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2015)

jrowland said:


> It seems a free basic version of D&D goes a long way towards restricting branding to official settings. The core rules, while peppered with sidebars pointing to settings, do a pretty good job of steering away from a specific setting as well. I expect no less for psionics.




Even the core Basic Rules enforces the Hasbro WotC corporate branding.

For example, the Cleric class forces every setting to have gods, who the character must then worship.

Personally, I cannot tolerate the flavor of gods.

This is a case of WotC trademarking and marketing D&D gods.

In the Players Handbook, even the Bard class defers to the ‘words of the gods’.

This is too much enforcement of an unwanted setting into the core of D&D. For me, the inability to escape the undesirable branding of healer classes, killed my ability to enjoy D&D 5e.

My gaming table requires a different setting. And likes healers.

If Hasbro WotC branding again forces some unwanted setting flavor into the core of psionics, it will kill my ability to try return to D&D 5e.


----------



## darius0 (Jun 10, 2015)

D&D has always had some kind of built in flavor. It helps DMs who don't want to come up with everything themselves. You can always change it. If you are not playing D&D 5th edition now because of the flavor, why would not flavoring psionics change that?


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 10, 2015)

I hope that they do not link Psionics to the Far Realm.

Infact if the Sundering can retcon the Far Realm then that would be even better.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 10, 2015)

Aww, but the Far Realm is cool! I'd rather they continue making lore for it since it's relatively easy to take out an element of lore if you dislike it, but a lot of work to create lore if they stop providing it.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2015)

For me, the ‘intended’ setting for psionics is best if it is a Modern or near-future setting.

LOL, that way, I am least likely to deal with setting flavors that I hate.

Besides I love X-Men, Harry Potter, Dresden Files, Mutant-X, Tomorrow People, Alphas, Marvel comics, Charmed Ones, The Flash, Vampire Diaries, and much more. I desperately need a setting neutral Modern D&D game that can present this fun. 

Psionics mechanics, including body alteration, makes all of this possible.

At the same time, the ‘intended’ setting needs to be easily separable from the classes, so I can use them effortlessly in any kind of medievalesque settings.

Dabbling in a Lovecraftian campaign can be a nice place to visit, but I dont want my psionics to live there.

I am likely to visit Eberron. I am less likely to visit Dark Sun. 

I want my psionics to enjoy freedom to travel anywhere.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2015)

RE Far Realms: I like htm, but they're not everyone's cup of meat.  So while I like Psi as the cure for the infection caused by incursions from that plane, I could just as easily see it described as reality's reaction to the overuse of magic.

"All magic has its costs...and Psionics is collecting on the debt."

Or given no "reason" for existing at all- it just is.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2015)

darius0 said:


> D&D has always had some kind of built in flavor. It helps DMs who don't want to come up with everything themselves. You can always change it. If you are not playing D&D 5th edition now because of the flavor, why would not flavoring psionics change that?




If psionics expedites a flavor that I enjoy, then I can use the psionics books only.


----------



## jbear (Jun 10, 2015)

For me, as I imagine psionic powers, it is far closer to a martial skill than magical one. I imagine it as the types of powers that one could gain by learning to use new areas of the brain. In the end the brain is an organ. Something natural. Using more of it is not bound to chanting secret words, using special charms, or drawing energy from the blood. A silent, invisible and terrifying power of mind over matter. It is the type of power that I could atcually imagine human kind eventually developing over a very long time perhaps in combination with certain types of psychotropics asper Frank Herbert's magnificent Dune, or perhaps in combination with highly sensitive technology to amplify mental commands, a realty just around the corner for us in the real world with technology being developed to respond to brainwaves of paraplegics for example. 

The powers one might obtain should reflect what you might actually do with your mind: move things from afar, heighten your ability to use you body in ways beyond its normal limits, read or influence the minds of others, extend your senses beyond the body and gain a 6th sense for example. 

The naming of things ... well, I guess the words related to psychic powers all come from the greek, which makes it sound scientific. Tele: Far Kinesis: Movement - Would "Move from Afar" sound better? Not convinced. Psycho: Mind  Metry: Measuring so Mental Measure? Better ...? Okay, so I'm obviously not a pro at coming up with alternative names, I guess. It might be fun for us to have a go at it!

As for the origins. Being so internal how could it be connected to another plane? ANy other plane? It comes from our own inner plane in my mind. Dark Sun gives specific conditions for such powers to flourish. The conditions are so hostile that as a question of survival the mind has been forced to develop in new ways. A natural evolutionary step. The environment is a catalyst, but there could be many other ways such powers could develop. I imagine that extreme situations generally result in extreme solutions i.e physical and mental torture as per Stephen King's Carrie. Perhaps a contact with unspeakable horrors such as those of the Far Realm, could twist the mind and cause it to expand beyond its default use... but that should only be another possible catalyst amongst many (and one with its own uniquely mad flavour), not the one source. 

That's my view of things. Tinker away, make it unique, but do not tinker too Far perhaps?


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 10, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I seem to remember Mind Flayers coming from the future and not the Far Realms so I could see a relevance to humanoids from the future having developed powers using the mind and these creatures brought it with them to the past and those abilities were passed on.




I had forgotten that! Thanks for the reminder. That secret about the origin of the illithid is much more disturbing than any Far Realms tie-ins.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 10, 2015)

First up. Psioics and Science Fantasy has been a part of D&D since almost Day One with the games original Sword and Sorcery roots. The more "traditional fantasy" flavor was added later to jump in on the LotR craze in the 70s.

Dang! I missed that whole twitter thing and wished to add my own two cents, for what it's worth.

For me, I always wanted psionics to be able to stand alone as a potential replacement for magic for two reasons. A. I had a long standing grudge against "Vancian" magic spell slots as a player. B. Open up D&D for more crazy homebrew worlds. 

Anecdotally, almost every other homebrew I've played in had some form of Science Fantasy or psionics in it.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 10, 2015)

> For example, the Cleric class forces every setting to have gods, who the character must then worship.




No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 10, 2015)

Well, I have psionics in my homebrew world. They are psychic individuals. There is nothing "science fantasy" about them or the world. Their inclusion from science fantasy sources at D&D's roots notwithstanding.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 10, 2015)

Morlock said:


> No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.




Yeeahhh. In theory. But most players can't or won't separate rules from the fluff they are attached. I've spent years mix and matching rules with settings, and when it comes to DnD Magic/Clerics and Superheroes they players won't make the jump.


----------



## arjomanes (Jun 11, 2015)

Morlock said:


> No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.




Well technically, the rules say "Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects." It's pretty clear that the default D&D cleric gets its power from the gods. 

Now, you could certainly recreate the class into another class that has similar mechanics, but you would have to change a great deal about the class. The name, the holy symbol, the spells, and the abilities would all need to be changed. The trope of the holy warrior defines many of the mechanical choices, and changing the trope means some of the mechanical choices may need to be revisited. Why does the class grant medium armor and shield proficiency, for example? Why does it serve a patron and gain iconic domain powers from that being? What is the purpose of the relationship and why is that being represented by universal concepts? 

So yes, you could rebuild the class, with or without different changes to the mechanics, but the story and the non-mechanical rules and descriptions are very integral to the class as well. I'm all for tweaking the rules to fit the setting, and coming up with new and interesting variants. But the default D&D 5e cleric and its relationship with divine magic necessitates gods in the world. Of course the DM is welcome to change that rule as he sees fit, and actually is encouraged to by the rules, which is very cool.

I'm not meaning to argue with you as much as drawing a distinction between the default game and each of our own settings. In my setting, for example, only humans that worship the gods of law are technically clerics. Chaotic non-humans or worshipers of gods of chaos are cultists (or their nonhuman equivalent — each race has its own name for warrior priests, as well as favored deities/domains), not clerics, with slightly different abilities. 

Even if the default game had a story about how psionics work and where that power comes from, that doesn't preclude me from tweaking it to fit my world as well. But a psion would still have a certain role and a story in the default game.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 11, 2015)

Fralex said:


> Aww, but the Far Realm is cool!




Meh, the only difference that I can see between the Abyss and the Far Realm is that one has Cthulhu and Psionics and the other has all the cool Demons.


----------



## gyor (Jun 11, 2015)

No and I hope they have a Ardent (4e Empath), for 5e. And or a Divine Mind.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 11, 2015)

On the subject of differentiating Psionics from magic, I prefer the Fiest model that at its core all magic (Divine and Arcane) and Psionics are actually the same.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 11, 2015)

> On the subject of differentiating Psionics from magic, I prefer the Fiest model that at its core all magic (Divine and Arcane) and Psionics are actually the same.




I'm kind of backing into the same thing in my setting; everything is psionics, but there are psionic clerics and druids, etc., too.



> Well technically, the rules say "Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects." It's pretty clear that the default D&D cleric gets its power from the gods.




Yeah, but that's all fluff. And it always depends on the setting. Clerics have always been quite different from default magic-users (and the like) in this regard; they're usually extensively interwoven with the setting. I haven't read through 5e yet, but I'd be surprised if it didn't say something about "check with your DM about the setting you'll be playing in." Clerics are all over the place in terms of the gods they can worship, and the trappings and mechanical consequences of same.



> Now, you could certainly recreate the class into another class that has similar mechanics, but you would have to change a great deal about the class. The name, the holy symbol, the spells, and the abilities would all need to be changed.




That's what I mean. The holy symbol is pretty much bound to change from setting to setting, and patron to patron. The spell lists, too. Abilities, too, though not necessarily so. And as for the name of the class, it's sort of a catch-all, generic term, IMO. Any setting worth its salt (except maybe a deliberately generic one) is going to have specific names for the members of each cult.



> The trope of the holy warrior defines many of the mechanical choices, and changing the trope means some of the mechanical choices may need to be revisited. Why does the class grant medium armor and shield proficiency, for example? Why does it serve a patron and gain iconic domain powers from that being? What is the purpose of the relationship and why is that being represented by universal concepts?




You're asking the wrong guy on that topic.  Before I decided to go with 5e, I was playing with the idea of stripping the fighting abilities out of the cleric class altogether, and making characters use levels of fighting classes to make up the difference, if that's what their players want. I didn't see anything inherent to the priest archetype that demanded fighting ability superior to that of the wizard. Still don't.



> I'm not meaning to argue with you as much as drawing a distinction between the default game and each of our own settings.




I wouldn't mind if you were. I like arguing.  We aren't too far apart. But I still think I was right to reply the way I did about D&D "forcing" this or that.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

Morlock said:


> No, it doesn't. You can substitute various types of patrons for "gods," or remove them altogether (in favor of, say, "ethos"), and the cleric will still work. They need not worship anyone. This is all fluff, and easily changed to suit your setting. And you can remove the class, if you don't like it.




Speaking for myself, I cannot change the fluff of the rules. For me, playing D&D is about immersing in the illusion of being in an other world. Simply seeing the word ‘gods’ when consulting character sheets and core books, spoils the illusion of the other world. I saw the mistake that stage magician made, and now the illusion is fail.

Moreover, the rules of the Cleric class that players must consult emphatically forces the player to pick a ‘god’. Not a patron, not an ethos, but a ‘god’. As per the rules as written. The Dungeon Masters Guide is infuriating because even the section that talks about alternative settings still tries to talk the DM into having gods in the setting anyway. No thanks.

The rules as written bakes in the flavor of unwanted gods into every aspect of the D&D class, even the spells. It is impossible to play an immersive game without being forced to deal with gods.

I could, of course, completely rewrite the entire Cleric class, and rewrite most of the spells, and rewrite swaths of the Players Handbook, in order to create a flavor that I enjoy.

Or I could play a different game that makes it easy to enjoy the flavors that I enjoy.

The reason why I continue my interest in 5e is I appreciate the mechanics. I value the effort WotC made to playtest this version of D&D. I respect the result. At the same time, I want to play *my* campaign setting. Not the setting brand that WotC is trying to force on me.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 11, 2015)

Interesting thoughts on this topic from another board:



> I've of the opinion 'blend' and 'smoothly' should _not_ be words used when describing classic D&D-style fantasy. It should be more like a spicy salsa that for reasons contains chucks of chocolate-covered nougat and hashish.




Yes! Very well said.



> That perhaps it has an origin in some sort of science, even if it is a science of mental discipline? To me psionic powers always have that feel that they are less hand-wavey than magic. You expect them to be more reliable, but at the same time less powerful, and maybe for anyone to be able to stand up to them in a time of duress, through force of will, where magic wouldn't allow that.




Again, very well said.



> Maybe more "named" powers. Evard's Black Tentacles is one hell of an evocative spell name - more psionic powers with "names" would be cool.




Here, I disagree. I prefer that psionic powers lean more toward being powers, and away from feeling like spells. We call it "gravity," not "Newton's Universal Attraction." And named spells really scream "spell!" to me. Like something a wizard would want to patent. Powers are more there for the taking. They're not arcane rituals that depend on rigid adherence to a formula, they're powers that are explored and discovered through insight, practice, and, well, exploration. Or they're inherent. Either way, I see psionic powers as something tapped, not evoked.

I thought this was kinda funny:



> Honestly, I don't see a lot of fiction where magic exists and there's also a totally separate kind of supernatural power that more closely resembles the sort of psychic powers you see in science fiction. I can think of fantasy where characters have powers that resembles psionics, but in that case those powers tend to be the primary magic system for the setting. A world where most of the wizard-types using one very high fantasy style "learn spells to do whatever" style magic system while another group has sci-fi style psychic powers does sound pretty atypical for fantasy (though probably not nonexistent--everything's been done somewhere)...
> 
> But then, so is a world where some people learn potentially omnipotent magic by memorizing books in some kind of fire and forget system, others are basically born with it like X-Men mutants, others gets a different kind of magic from gods, others get a different nature-themed variation of the god-magic, some people just sing magic songs, etc. If you're not looking at explicit D&D fiction, very, very few fantasy settings adopt the kitchen sink approach that D&D does. And I tend to think D&D works best by giving all the options for the whole kitchen sink, then letting individual settings and campaigns remove whatever elements don't fit the tone.




He basically just described the Marvel and DC comic universes. 



> A point I realized 3 years ago is that, if Psionics are supposed to be distinct from the Arcane, many wizard spells need to be psionic instead. The Psion has to represent everything mental: telepathy, telekinesis, scrying, and all force-generating powers like Shield. The Wizard, if it's not a grab-all for every non-healing special effect, should be limited to archetypical wizardry: summoning, evocation, and transmutation. The wizard controls magic surrounding the physical, elemental world. The Psion controls the mental, ephemeral world.
> 
> But that's not going to happen.




This parallels what I'm doing with my take on psionics, and a psionic setting. I've been really struggling to make the three categories he assigns to "archetypical wizardry" work for psionics. The more I look at them, the less I want to.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Well, I have psionics in my homebrew world. They are psychic individuals. There is nothing "science fantasy" about them or the world. Their inclusion from science fantasy sources at D&D's roots notwithstanding.




Same here. When I have psionics in a medieval setting, the characters are simply ‘psychics’. Some people have the ‘gift’ of ‘second sight’.

In my mythologically accurate Viking setting, the psychics are sometimes described as ‘shape strong’, meaning the aura of their mental self-image is strong enough to influence their body and to project outofbody to influence world around them. Teleportation is sometimes described as ‘traveling at the speed of thought’.

(There are no gods; the regions uninfluenced by the Roman gods, are animists.)


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> Yeeahhh. In theory. But most players can't or won't separate rules from the fluff they are attached. I've spent years mix and matching rules with settings, and when it comes to DnD Magic/Clerics and Superheroes they players won't make the jump.




Exactly. Add me to the list of players (and DMs) that cant make the jump out of baked-in flavor.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 11, 2015)

Something I haven't really seen brought up in this thread so far, is the fact that 5e spells seem to have already stolen the main Psionics scaling mechanic: the fact that you have to spend a higher-level slot to get a higher-level effect.

Since 5e magic already works like pre-5e Psionics, I don't have much of a problem using 5e magic mechanics for Psionic stuff, especially for classes like the Monk, Sorcerer and Warlock which already kinda-sorta fit the flavor.

That said, I'd always like to get new cool things, so if someone comes up with an awesome set of mechanics which support multi-classing and integrate well with whatever settings I feel like using or inventing, that's awesome.


One last thought: what Monte Cook did for Arcana Evolved was make [Psychic] a tag which some spells had, and there were some characters who got special access & special casting when using [Psychic] spells. 5e already has a Psychic damage type, and [Mind-Affecting] spells, so this is probably not a difficult adaptation.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 11, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Something I haven't really seen brought up in this thread so far, is the fact that 5e spells seem to have already stolen the main Psionics scaling mechanic: the fact that you have to spend a higher-level slot to get a higher-level effect.
> 
> Since 5e magic already works like pre-5e Psionics, I don't have much of a problem using 5e magic mechanics for Psionic stuff, especially for classes like the Monk, Sorcerer and Warlock which already kinda-sorta fit the flavor.
> 
> That said, I'd always like to get new cool things, so if someone comes up with an awesome set of mechanics which support multi-classing and integrate well with whatever settings I feel like using or inventing, that's awesome.




I sort of touched on that in the other thread...



Twiggly the Gnome said:


> My first thought on how to handle psionics, is to collapse the 0 - 9 spell system into a small number of discreate powers. Each power has an at will manifestation (cantrip equivalent) and more powerful manifestations (unlocked at specific class level benchmarks) that require the expenditure of a certain number of points. At the DM's discretion, psi points and spell slots can be interchanged by multiclass psion/spellcasters.


----------



## darius0 (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Speaking for myself, I cannot change the fluff of the rules. For me, playing D&D is about immersing in the illusion of being in an other world. Simply seeing the word ‘gods’ when consulting character sheets and core books, spoils the illusion of the other world. I saw the mistake that stage magician made, and now the illusion is fail.
> 
> Moreover, the rules of the Cleric class that players must consult emphatically forces the player to pick a ‘god’. Not a patron, not an ethos, but a ‘god’. As per the rules as written. The Dungeon Masters Guide is infuriating because even the section that talks about alternative settings still tries to talk the DM into having gods in the setting anyway. No thanks.
> 
> ...




So does all "fluff of the rules" have to conform to what you like? Everyone will have things they like or don't like. All of everyone's opinions can't really be included. 

The "immersion" argument is similar. People might not like monks, or drow, or dragonborn, or whatever else and by your reasoning it might break the immersion for them too, just because that is referenced in the description of another monster or be on the same page as something they are referencing. Those things shouldn't be removed or generalized just because a few people don't like the fluff. 

It really is easier to not have gods in a campaign than you are making it out to be. Honestly, I usually have to force players to choose a deity just to justify their min/maxed domain choice. Players I have seen over the years of divine casters rarely really RP the worship of their gods much. 

Here's what you do: when making a Cleric, choose a domain and just ignore the part where it says what gods usually have that domain or whatever it says there.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 11, 2015)

Fralex said:


> Aww, but the Far Realm is cool! I'd rather they continue making lore for it since it's relatively easy to take out an element of lore if you dislike it, but a lot of work to create lore if they stop providing it.




No it's not (on either claim of yours). It's actually much more of a pain when they tie abilities to some lame-ass piece of lore to extract them from it, because they usually write the rules to reference that lore. 5E is following in that lore-linked rules-writing tradition.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 11, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> No it's not (on either claim of yours). It's actually much more of a pain when they tie abilities to some lame-ass piece of lore to extract them from it, because they usually write the rules to reference that lore. 5E is following in that lore-linked rules-writing tradition.




Well, yeah, it shouldn't be so directly tied to something like the Far Realm that you're _required_ to incorperate it. I was just disagreeing with it needing to be removed completely. Because it's cool.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 11, 2015)

I feel like the Warlock patron "Great Old One" is basically the level of Far Realms which I want to see in the core rules.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

darius0 said:


> Here's what you do: when making a Cleric, choose a domain and just ignore the part where it says what gods usually have that domain or whatever it says there.



No, thank you.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.

One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.

If WotC forced these Tolkienesque players to use a setting featuring parapsychological nomenclature, many of them would switch to a different game.

In the same way, when WotC required a setting that included gods, I was unable to play it.

If WotC forced a setting for psionics that I disliked, I would be unable to play it.




aramis erak said:


> No it's not [relatively easy to take out lore if you dislike it]. It's  actually much more of a pain when they tie abilities to some lame-ass  piece of lore to extract them from it, because they usually write the  rules to reference that lore.




This is my experience too.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 11, 2015)

Fralex said:


> Well, yeah, it shouldn't be so directly tied to something like the Far Realm that you're _required_ to incorperate it. I was just disagreeing with it needing to be removed completely. Because it's cool.




I think the far realms are pretty lame. Just like I find the whole Cthulhu mythos as lame as a 1-legged horse.



Nifft said:


> I feel like the Warlock patron "Great Old One" is basically the level of Far Realms which I want to see in the core rules.




I think it goes too far even there.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.
> 
> Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.
> 
> ...



I haven't seen someone this angry about D&D gods since the local B.A.D.D. meeting! 

Here is the problem, in a nutshell: you can't please everyone and SOMEONE is going to have a problem with something. 

People complain about drow, dragonborn and tieflings in the 5e PHB.

People complain about Come and Get It and other "martial mind control" in 4e.

People complain about the "blood of dragons" origin for 3e sorcerers.

People complain about oriental monks being in the 1e PHB. 

Hell, people complain thief shouldn't have been a class in OD&D! 

You can't design a ruleset vague enough to encompass every type of fantasy (nor should you; D&D has never been generic) and any attempt to would be as bland, boring, and useless as warm wet cardboard.


----------



## darius0 (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.
> 
> Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.
> 
> ...




Again, some people might consider including Dragonborn intolerable. Does it mean they should not include them in the books? It is easier to just not use Dragonborn than it is to create the race if it isn't included. just including a race or psionics or whatever can influence the setting. If everything is stripped out that someone doesnt like then you will end up with an entirely generic set of rules.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> On second look at the tweet by Mearls, I am reading it as: There is a cosmic conflict between *magic* and *psionics*. One ultimately undermines the other. Individualistic internal psionics in a cosmic conflict against antihuman external magic, can be an interesting theme for a specific setting.
> 
> Psionics is a method that is humanistic, natural, and personal - the power of ones own mind over matter.




I dunno.  Consider the Borg, and that this seems to be a natural outcome for psions, if they are not careful.

Also, psionics seems to provide the ultimate intrusive tools: Telepathy and mind control. I think Babylon 5 was on to something with the PsiWar concept.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Mercule (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.



Some level of flavor is unavoidable. 

Take elves, for instance. The PHB requires that you have elves that are roughly human-sized. Gone is the option for "little folk" elves. Sure, you could use gnomes, but then you'd be yanked out of your immersion every time you looked up a rule. 4E split elves into high-elf eladrin and wood elf... erm... elves. Eladrin were "my" flavor of elves, so I sucked it up and just called them high elves and wood elves.

The 5E Warlock has the Old One pact. I loathe the Far Realms and Lovecraftian injections into D&D. I don't even like the things around the fringes of the Far Realms. In 30+ years of primarily DMing D&D, I could count the number of times I've used aberrations on my thumbs and have room to spare. They're just dumb monsters (IMO). But, I really liked Vestiges from the 3.5 Tome of Magic. So, Old Ones are just Vestiges, in my game. Whatever.

If 5E psionics have a throw-away line about "psionics are the result of friction between the PC's reality and the Far Realms, which psionic individuals are able to tap into", I'll roll my eyes and internally chastise the developers. Then I'll let my players know I think it's stupid and that psionics are the result of people born with raw batteries of power. And, we'll all move on.

On the other hand, if the psionic mechanics are rife with sanity checks, chances to attract the attention of Cthulhu, and powers that project the character or her foes into the Far Realms, I'll be very unhappy and find the expansion unusable. Ditto if every other power or class ability makes reference to the Far Realms and/or there are strong ties to aberrations.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.
> 
> Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.
> 
> If WotC forced these Tolkienesque players to use a setting featuring parapsychological nomenclature, many of them would switch to a different game.




In my experience, this is untrue. They would certainly make snarky comments about the chocolate in the their proverbial peanut butter. They would, most likely, ban it from their games and play as if it doesn't exist regardless of what a manual/guidebook for the game says...and in their game/their world, it wouldn't exist.

But they are highly unlikely to drop a game they enjoy because of this single piece of fluff they deem undesirable or useless.



Yaarel said:


> One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, *most of these players cant or wont.*



<emphasis mine>

Let's be fair here, Yaarel, and call a spade a spade. We're talking about a game of make-believe fantasy played in no small part with one's imagination. So, there really is no "can't" involved. Especially in terms of flavor/fluff where you don't have to touch the rules at all [such as playing clerics without deities] if you can imagine it, it can be done.

So there really is, only, "won't" here. And that's totally your prerogative, for whatever reason, though I think most will find it lacking or difficult to understand.

There can certainly also be "don't want to"...but that's kind of a subset of/reason for "won't". But there is no "can't." It's a make-believe game and world.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 11, 2015)

Many aberrations have psionic powers. Wherever aberrations come from, it's a place where psionics are far more common. That adds to their mystique. It's cool.

What isn't cool is the idea that my psion is getting his powers from the far realm, or from aberrations, unless I write that into his backstory.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.



In the same way a sushi restaurant is unusable for people who want Italian.  



> One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.



Can't? Won't? I think you're giving D&D audience far too little credit, almost to the point of being insulting.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 11, 2015)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Many aberrations have psionic powers. Wherever aberrations come from, it's a place where psionics are far more common. That adds to their mystique. It's cool.
> 
> What isn't cool is the idea that my psion is getting his powers from the far realm, or from aberrations, unless I write that into his backstory.




I agree...

My campaign's psionics originated in pre-history, hence why (IMO) ancient aberrations have it.

The gods try to persecute it, both to subdue all the ancient evils, and because psionics is a path to challenging their sovereignty.  (Of course they have the welfare of all..and the BEST intentions for doing so...)


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 11, 2015)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> Many aberrations have psionic powers. Wherever aberrations come from, it's a place where psionics are far more common. That adds to their mystique. It's cool.
> 
> What isn't cool is the idea that my psion is getting his powers from the far realm, or from aberrations, unless I write that into his backstory.




Precisely. I think Mike is confusing "What Mike thinks is cool" with "What D&D players want and what works long-term for this set of powers". The Far Realm should not be where powers that resemble those of various mystic/religious groups from Earth come from - that's pretty awful. Similarly, psionics-like magic is common in fantasy, from Robin Hobb's Assassin Trilogy, to the Jedi/Sith of Star Wars - and in no case I can think of is a Far Realm-style deal an appropriate origin.

Moving away from scientific is worthless if it's merely towards Cthulhu-esque nonsense.

Arcane magic fits the Far Realm much better, oddly enough.


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra (Jun 11, 2015)

I think Psionics should have its own flavor, though I understand there could be a little bit of overlap in powers. 
Example: The cantrip Far Hand is essentially some form of psychokinesis. I would not be butthurt if Psionics had an equivalent.

I really liked what Dreamscarred Press has done with Ultimate Psionics. People may scream "its overpowered", but they might want to actually study the system before chastising it. 

Psionics must be different. 4E killed me, because Psionics was just another power set that at 1st level had an attack that did 1d8 + (Stat bonus) and they just called it Psychic damage if I recall. There might have been a little flavor text in there, but it really didnt matter. 

I actually really liked part of the OD&D modes of combat  Id Insinuation vs Ego Whip, Mind Blank vs Tower of Iron Will, that sort of thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 11, 2015)

The one change that separated 4Ed Psi from the other power sources were the way you could use points to change effects.  Those Augmentation mechanics were non-trivial alterations from the AEDU system, IMHO.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 11, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Meh, the only difference that I can see between the Abyss and the Far Realm is that one has Cthulhu and Psionics and the other has all the cool Demons.




I dunno, the only similarity I can see between the Abyss and the Far Realm is that both are places humans find unpleasant. The Abyss is just a plane with evil monsters on it. The Far Realm can't even be considered a real place by our standards, and the things residing in it aren't really "evil monsters" so much as incomprehensible forces far beyond anyone's power, understanding, and sanity. Cthulu isn't an enemy to be fought. It's the primal fear of being utterly insignificant to the universe at large, completely powerless to make any meaningful difference, and doomed to live out the rest of your meaningless existence _knowing_ all this. This is the essence of the cosmic horror genre. Winning outright against the things that lurk in the Far Realm is an impossibility. Managing to cope with crippling nihilism and total madness long enough to delay their cataclysmic arrival is the best you can hope for.



aramis erak said:


> I think the far realms are pretty lame. Just like I find the whole Cthulhu mythos as lame as a 1-legged horse.




Sure, but some people think it's as cool as a multilegged horse. That's why I was saying it could be best-handled as a bit of lore that's interesting and useful to those who like it, and easily ignorable to those who don't.


----------



## nlghty (Jun 11, 2015)

If we look back ad 2e, the stuff like Gate of Firestorm Peak and the theorizing around psi orignins. I get the feeling that psi are like a reaction to the great old ones touching the world, like antibodies for a new disease. So linked to the far realms more then the greater gods.

just my 2 cents


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

Mercule said:


> If the psionic mechanics are rife with sanity checks, chances to attract the attention of Cthulhu, and powers that project the character or her foes into the Far Realms, I'll be very unhappy and find the expansion *unusable*.
> 
> Ditto if every other power or class ability makes reference to the Far Realms and/or there are strong ties to aberrations.




Exactly.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 11, 2015)

Yeah, if psionics are flavored as weird power coming from an elder being, that's just the warlock's Great Old One pact all over again. Everything about psychic powers seems to point to it being a power that comes from within. Certain things bring it out of you, but nothing puts it there.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

[MENTION=22953]SteelDragon[/MENTION].

Remember, the point of playing is to enjoy.

If branding makes the game too difficult to avoid an unwanted flavor, it means ‘cant’ enjoy the game.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 11, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> There can certainly also be "don't want to"...but that's kind of a subset of/reason for "won't". But there is no "can't." It's a make-believe game and world.



 Yeah that's basically what I did last campaign.



SkidAce said:


> My campaign's psionics originated in pre-history, hence why (IMO) ancient aberrations have it.
> 
> The gods try to persecute it, both to subdue all the ancient evils, and because psionics is a path to challenging their sovereignty.  (Of course they have the welfare of all..and the BEST intentions for doing so...)



 My previous campaign had the Gods as formerly human Psionic constructs. (Made from _lots_ of humans, rather than just one, so you got more archetype and less ego.)

The Gods don't hate Psionics. If anything, they hate Arcane magic, which originated in the Abyss.


----------



## nlghty (Jun 11, 2015)

It's not a pact, but a the apearance of psionic was, at first, a reaction of our world to the contact of the great old ones.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 11, 2015)

It's pretty mysterious though. There are a lot of theories surrounding its origin, and it's pretty hard to verify any of them.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2015)

My top priority is that psionics should work well in the Dark Sun setting, and Dark Sun is not big on extraplanar intrusions. Aside from Rajaat (bleh), the villains of Dark Sun are not sitting off in distant planes plotting conquest. They're right here, out in the open, running the show. So I would rather not have psionics be tightly coupled to the Far Realms. It can be associated with aberrations, maybe--Dark Sun has a lot of them--but then aberrations need to not be tightly coupled to the Far Realms, either.

I wouldn't mind toning down the pseudoscience a bit, but I definitely want a clear distinction between psi and magic; they should _feel_ very different. That distinction is critical for Dark Sun.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2015)

Let the setting decide the setting.

The setting is beyond the scope of a class.

A class description is more useful when it avoids a setting requirement.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 11, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> My top priority is that psionics should work well in the Dark Sun setting, and Dark Sun is not big on extraplanar intrusions. Aside from Rajaat (bleh), the villains of Dark Sun are not sitting off in distant planes plotting conquest. They're right here, out in the open, running the show. So I would rather not have psionics be tightly coupled to the Far Realms. It can be associated with aberrations, maybe--Dark Sun has a lot of them--but then aberrations need to not be tightly coupled to the Far Realms, either.



As I said earlier: psionics should be a kind of "unlocked potential." One of the ways to unlock that potential should be discipline, training, meditation, and  that kind of stuff. Another could very well be "encountering Things Man Was Not Meant To Know", and a third could be "natural talent."

Under the 3.5e paradigm, the first option lends itself well to the psion class, while the second and third probably fit the wilder better, or maybe just a "wild talent"-type ability (along the lines of the Magic Initiate feat).


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 11, 2015)

I too would like to see psionic powers that mimic the old modes of psychic combat with Id Insinuation, Ego Whip, Mind Blank and Tower of Iron Will ... but they can't be exclusive to psionic users. Perhaps a type of Psychic AC based on wisdom with psionic users being able to attack and do psychic damage. Psychic users could bump up their psychic AC using Tower of Iron Will.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Let the setting decide the setting.
> 
> The setting is beyond the scope of a class.
> 
> A class description is more useful when it avoids a setting requirement.




But, that's pretty limiting on classes then.  A lot of class have setting requirements.  Any divine class requires either gods or some sort of force to power spells.  Warlocks come with pacts, wizards come with all sorts of setting requirements.  Heck, even barbarians come with setting assumptions.  About the only classes that don't would be fighters and rogues.  And this has always been true.

The classes in D&D strongly shape any setting.


----------



## Davinshe (Jun 12, 2015)

Staffan said:


> As I said earlier: psionics should be a kind of "unlocked potential." One of the ways to unlock that potential should be discipline, training, meditation, and  that kind of stuff. Another could very well be "encountering Things Man Was Not Meant To Know", and a third could be "natural talent."
> 
> Under the 3.5e paradigm, the first option lends itself well to the psion class, while the second and third probably fit the wilder better, or maybe just a "wild talent"-type ability (along the lines of the Magic Initiate feat).




Y'know, I can get behind this idea. It allows us to have a psion class with different subschools devoted to each version. There can be a wilder for natural talent, and an alienist for the far realm themed psion, and neither one has to be the one true psion. I don't think anyone would really object to far realm exposure being a type of psion, so long as it's not the only type of psion. Multiple options allow for psionics to remain mysterious and weird yet compelling.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jun 12, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I too would like to see psionic powers that mimic the old modes of psychic combat with Id Insinuation, Ego Whip, Mind Blank and Tower of Iron Will ... but they can't be exclusive to psionic users. Perhaps a type of Psychic AC based on wisdom with psionic users being able to attack and do psychic damage. Psychic users could bump up their psychic AC using Tower of Iron Will.




No thanks.  The idea of psionic combat is great, but from what I remember it was more like, "Let's play rock-paper-scissors-spock-lizard every round, except with more wasted time and extra die rolling."  It was worse than summoned monsters and companions because at least those get beaten up and draw attacks.  It was just enough of an interruption every round that everybody lost track of what was going on in the physical world.  And it happens _every combat_.

Cool idea.  Amazing flavor.  Mechanics Don't work at a live table.


----------



## Davinshe (Jun 12, 2015)

Bacon Bits said:


> No thanks.  The idea of psionic combat is great, but from what I remember it was more like, "Let's play rock-paper-scissors-spock-lizard every round, except with more wasted time and extra die rolling."  It was worse than summoned monsters and companions because at least those get beaten up and draw attacks.  It was just enough of an interruption every round that everybody lost track of what was going on in the physical world.  And it happens _every combat_.
> 
> Cool idea.  Amazing flavor.  Mechanics Don't work at a live table.




I only played psionic combat in 3.0 (as I didn't play earlier editions and it didn't appear in 3.5), but I am mostly of the same opinion here. What I would be willing to see would be combining the ideas of psionic combat forms with psionic focus. Like, just spitballing here, suppose you spent your action to enter psionic focus, at which point you have to maintain concentration, can only move at half speed, and all attacks have advantage on you. Then each round you can use powerful psionic attack forms that are either at-will or more powerful for the amount of power points they consume than other attacks of their level. Alternatively, perhaps some powers could have a special rider when where they have an increased effect when used within psionic focus. It feels a bit like the Avatar state from The Last Airbender (increased power combined with increased vulnerability).


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 12, 2015)

Fralex said:


> I dunno, the only similarity I can see between the Abyss and the Far Realm is that both are places humans find unpleasant. The Abyss is just a plane with evil monsters on it. The Far Realm can't even be considered a real place by our standards, and the things residing in it aren't really "evil monsters" so much as incomprehensible forces far beyond anyone's power, understanding, and sanity. Cthulu isn't an enemy to be fought. It's the primal fear of being utterly insignificant to the universe at large, completely powerless to make any meaningful difference, and doomed to live out the rest of your meaningless existence _knowing_ all this. This is the essence of the cosmic horror genre. Winning outright against the things that lurk in the Far Realm is an impossibility. Managing to cope with crippling nihilism and total madness long enough to delay their cataclysmic arrival is the best you can hope for.




I guess my problem with Cthulhu in DnD is that really in the DnD multiverse Cthulhu *is* a monster that you can fight and the reason why the Far Realm has not destroyed the rest of the multiverse is probably because Cthulhu is tired from being punched in the face. 

I remember that there was this big move by WotC to make the planes more accessible to Adventurers by removing the planes with negative effects and breaking up the elemental planes into manageable chunks, so adding in the Far Realm just seems counter intuitive.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 12, 2015)

@_*Hussar*_

If a class or a class feature has a setting requirement, then it belongs in a separate textbox as an optional rule.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 12, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I too would like to see psionic powers that mimic the old modes of psychic combat with Id Insinuation, Ego Whip, Mind Blank and Tower of Iron Will ... but they can't be exclusive to psionic users. Perhaps a type of Psychic AC based on wisdom with psionic users being able to attack and do psychic damage. Psychic users could bump up their psychic AC using Tower of Iron Will.




While I wouldn't want phychic combat back per se, I could definitely see psionic abilities based upon the old combat modes. They're kind of like psionic stances. Tower of Iron Will gives advantage on wisdom saves. Ego Whip is a psionic attack that requires a Charisma Save. Anyone can be affected by it, but a psion could take on a mental stance that provides advantage.

I definitely wouldn't want to see a mental AC return, but I bet you could work in enough of a nod to the old system to feel right.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> @_*Hussar*_
> 
> If a class or a class feature has a setting requirement, then it belongs in a separate textbox as an optional rule.




Which classes don't have setting requirements?  Virtually every single one does.  Bards come with colleges and whatnot, barbarians have to come from the "hinterlands", clerics and druids have gods as do paladins, monks come chock a block with setting requirements, warlocks as well as wizards have all sorts of setting requirements.

As I said, the only things that don't are fighters and rogues.  

To give a perfect example, take bards.  We're running a Dragonlance campaign right now.  How do you reconcile healing bards with the idea that all healing comes from the divine?  Do bards have to join the Towers of High Sorcery, they are casters after all.  This wasn't an issue in 1e because bards were full on divine.  In 2e, IIRC, bards didn't get healing.  However, 3e and later have radically changed bards.

If the PHB material was a generic as you claim, I shouldn't be having all these problems trying to fit bards into a setting.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 12, 2015)

Hussar said:


> As I said, the only things that don't are fighters and rogues.




Fighters and Rogues have an option to cast Wizard spells.

Wizard spells have setting elements (Tasha's hideous laughter, Tenser's floating disc).

It's everything.

If someone really is incapable of ignoring implicit setting elements, that person has a significant problem with every edition of D&D, and IMHO it's not 5e's job to cater to that one person's really quite unique flaw.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 12, 2015)

Have fun.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 12, 2015)

I agree that D&D classes are not as generic as many folks think. For me, the problem is not the setting requirement per se--it's that we already _have_ a psionics-heavy setting in D&D, in which a large fraction of the population has psi powers. Linking psionics to the Far Realm would reshape that setting beyond recognition.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 12, 2015)

Far Realms doesn't work in my setting.

The Avatar of Knowledge created it out of jealousy... err ..  ENVY of the Avatar of Magic's domain of magic.

"Well I'm gonna make my own supernatural system. With somatic components and harlots. In fact, forget the somatic components." - Avatar Rodriguez.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Which classes don't have setting requirements?  Virtually every single one does.  Bards come with colleges and whatnot, barbarians have to come from the "hinterlands", clerics and druids have gods as do paladins, monks come chock a block with setting requirements, warlocks as well as wizards have all sorts of setting requirements.



As I've said, multiple times, it's a balancing act. Bardic colleges are easy enough to reskin as loose, informal traditions. The way Clerics are built, it's trivial to swap out gods, even to the point of going monotheistic or philosophic. The Wizard schools are a game conceit, but one that doesn't actually require setting elements beyond "some folks are better at some things".

The concern with psionics and the Far Realm is that some people see them as tied at the hip, while others like one and hate the other (implying little to no relation). It's possible that, even if WotC decides that psionics and the Far Realm are linked, flavor-wise, they'll have it very modular. Awesome. I'll scrape it off and move one. It's also possible that they could tie the two close enough that trying to untangle the Far Realms from psionics either guts the sub-system or requires DMs to write their own mods to hold it together. That would be unfortunate for all the folks who want to use psionics w/o the Far Realms (which appears to be a plurality, if not majority, of folks in this thread).

My desire is to see a psionics book without any reference to the Far Realms. I think the entire Far Realms concept deserves a sidebar in the DMG. Due to 3E tradition, I could see one in the Psionics Handbook, but only in context of a section on how psionics can be added to a setting, how they can be played differently than magic, etc.; and even then, it should be alongside other options like magic mutations, bloodlines, and the like. The mechanics don't need to reference any origin, at all.

Really, if there's any relationship between psionics and the Far Realm, it should be effect, not cause. People don't get psionics because they've been touched by the Far Realms. Nor are psionics a response to the Far Realms (that doesn't even make sense, to me). People who use psionics a lot expand their mind to that line between genius and insanity, often crossing over it; this results in them getting the attention of entities that feed off madness (or might want to give that extra shove over the line). I still prefer psionics as the hidden potential within the self, whether by mutation or a natural spark of self-divinity.

There are so many flavorful ways to use psionics and separate them from both arcane and divine traditions that it would be a shame to hang any fluff on it too tightly. Go ahead and add special FX, but not origin.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 12, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> I agree that D&D classes are not as generic as many folks think. For me, the problem is not the setting requirement per se--it's that we already _have_ a psionics-heavy setting in D&D, in which a large fraction of the population has psi powers. Linking psionics to the Far Realm would reshape that setting beyond recognition.




Except Athas is "disconnected" from the rest of the multiverse, well that's what they said and then eventually there was a Githyanki invasion, but it wouldn't be that hard to justify a different feel for psionics in a Dark Sun setting.

That said, if they are going to the rules/setting/maxi-sized adventure, it makes sense to introduce psionics in the Dark Sun product. Better yet, if there was an excuse to let psionics rival magic in utility and power, that would be the setting to do so.

And since DS and Eberron both got 4e books, I'd feel confident that we'll see that repeated for 5e. Pure speculation, of course.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> And since DS and Eberron both got 4e books, I'd feel confident that we'll see that repeated for 5e. Pure speculation, of course.



I have zero confidence of this. It's entirely possible even the Forgotten Realms won't see a 5E book. The plan is to tell people to use a product from a previous edition (whether a used book or PDF) with 5E goodies scattered hither and yon in adventures and other, non-dedicated publications so that you really have to dig for that one paragraph on p. 124 of a book you never use to remember why the Harpers have no agent in Mirabar (totally made up scenario).


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 12, 2015)

Mercule said:


> I have zero confidence of this. It's entirely possible even the Forgotten Realms won't see a 5E book. The plan is to tell people to use a product from a previous edition (whether a used book or PDF) with 5E goodies scattered hither and yon in adventures and other, non-dedicated publications so that you really have to dig for that one paragraph on p. 124 of a book you never use to remember why the Harpers have no agent in Mirabar (totally made up scenario).




To clarify, that statement was based on the previous one. If they don't do the setting/adventure/rules product, then all bets are off. 

If your comment is right, then all I can say is that your fellow RPGers let you down. 

More than once, I've had GMs try to put a new campaign/RPG up to a vote only to have it be FR again and again as players bring 15-25 year-old books to the table. (Because if a gamer can't get a value out of book for 30 years, he's been cheated.)

That experience even let me win a bet once. 

It seems to me that WotC is trying to find a way to earn a living with the way RPGers pay and play. And if it's all about nostalgia with 2e/3e reprints and PDFs, then I don't blame them.

Though this does dovetail nicely with Hasbro's constant desire to find a way to make DnD a "print it and stock it" product vs a product that has to be "re-energized" every other month with another product that cost labor and manhours to make. I guess they finally gave up on leading the charge with miniature games and board games and hope that PDFs and minis to fill the gap.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 12, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> Except Athas is "disconnected" from the rest of the multiverse, well that's what they said and then eventually there was a Githyanki invasion, but it wouldn't be that hard to justify a different feel for psionics in a Dark Sun setting.



Dark Sun is the natural home of psionics in D&D. It's the one setting that has psionics front and center and always has. As such, psionics should not require a retrofit or a reskin to work in Dark Sun. You should be able to use it out of the box.

Has psionics _ever_ been tightly coupled to the Far Realms in D&D? I don't recall such a connection in previous editions. Why add it now?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 12, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Has psionics _ever_ been tightly coupled to the Far Realms in D&D? I don't recall such a connection in previous editions. Why add it now?



 Yes, it was explicit in 4e.  In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms.  The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example.  So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.

So the question isn't why add that association, now, but 'why remove it?'

And the answer is because 5e is a rule set presented as a starting point for the DM.  It's not just that it doesn't need to be definitive, it's that it should avoid making anything too definitive for a DM to change/adapt/add-to easily.  A given DM might not use anything like the Far Realm.  Linking psionics the Far Realm can be accommodated - there can be plenty of nasty Far-Realm/Abberation monsters with psionics, for instance - but it needn't be hard-coded in.  

It's a very different question from whether psionics should be 'magic' in the sense of leveraging existing mechanics and being subject to the few checks on magical power the game presents.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 12, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> More than once, I've had GMs try to put a new campaign/RPG up to a vote only to have it be FR again and again as players bring 15-25 year-old books to the table. (Because if a gamer can't get a value out of book for 30 years, he's been cheated.)



That doesn't surprise me, at all. If I didn't expressly rule out Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure I would have been "encouraged" to use it for 5E. I'm pretty sure the vote would have been: 1) Yes, please. 2) Always sounded neat. 3) Not ideal, but sounds like less work. 4) Whatever (because I'm going to ignore setting and stick my sword in things). 5) Huh? (Because I've never played before and am still trying to figure out the d20.)

Actually, what blew my mind was that I offered to either convert the modules to Eberron or to create a brand new setting. For Eberron, I said that I'd expect the PCs to draw from the Eberron fluff and the PCs to learn a bit. For home brew, I said I'd take my cues from the PCs and only develop what made sense and seemed important but would leave the rest vanilla/implied. I think it was unanimous for Eberron, in a beer and pretzels game. Pretty sure it doubled the work for everyone, which I don't mind, if rich setting is one of the goals of the campaign.



> Though this does dovetail nicely with Hasbro's constant desire to find a way to make DnD a "print it and stock it" product vs a product that has to be "re-energized" every other month with another product that cost labor and manhours to make. I guess they finally gave up on leading the charge with miniature games and board games and hope that PDFs and minis to fill the gap.



If this is the goal (and I think it is), then it makes much more sense to do a new version of the settings, too. That way the "evergreen" setting matches the core rules and can be stocked on the shelf right next to the core rules. Maybe they do intend to print an evergreen book for some of the settings, eventually. What I've heard doesn't sound like it, though.

This is the sort of thing that makes me really cringe at the 5E "brand management". I'm sure they have some sort of numbers to drive their decisions, but the decisions being telegraphed are mystifyingly out of sync with anything that makes sense with what I can see. I know there are some smart folks at Wizards, who love the industry and are good at what they do. I have to assume that there's an exec, somewhere, who is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle and the RPG staff is desperately trying to keep a great product from being "managed" into the ground. 

I don't remember what the current Brand Manager's name is, but all indicators that it's either him or whomever he reports directly to (with him being the last sane person in the chain). Every single thing he says sounds like someone who doesn't even know what the D&D brand actually is and/or can't figure out that there are other brands associated with D&D that could be built upon more effectively (say, Forgotten Realms).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, it was explicit in 4e.  In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms.  The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example.  So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.




Also the Intellect Devourer and later classics, like the Aboleth.  (Probably didn't need saying, but I like the sound of my fingers typing on a tablet.)


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 12, 2015)

Always with "the Mind Flayers this, the Aboleths that. Wah wah tentacles."

No one every thinks of the poor lil' BRAIN MOLE!

Moleymoleymoley...Gonna eat'cher braaaaaainssss!


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jun 12, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> Except Athas is "disconnected" from the rest of the multiverse, well that's what they said and then eventually there was a Githyanki invasion, but it wouldn't be that hard to justify a different feel for psionics in a Dark Sun setting.




Athas was disconnected because the chargen rules for Athas made characters that were significantly more powerful (because the planet was going to kick your ass eventually anyways, if the Dragon Kings didn't get to it first).  Namely, you could begin play as a Half-Giant with Str 20+ (and that's when percentile strength was a thing) or as a Thri-Kreen (4-10 attacks a round, IIRC) or a Mul, which don't exist outside Athas.  Also, everybody was at least a psionic Wild Talent, and setting-specific classes like Gladiator, Preserver, and Defiler exist.  Making Athas explicitly closed prevented players from claiming their Thri-Kreen Ranger and Half Giant Fighter travelled by spelljamming or fell through a portal into Sigil or Krynn or Toril or Oerth.  The lore made that forbidden.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 12, 2015)

Hussar said:


> We're running a Dragonlance campaign right now.  How do you reconcile healing bards with the idea that all healing comes from the divine?




According to the 3e book, you don't. The magic of bards is based in the (arcane) primal sorcery, and they function as normal, except they lose access to Conjuration (healing) spells.



Mercule said:


> Due to 3E tradition, I could see one in the Psionics Handbook, but only in context of a section on how psionics can be added to a setting...




At what point in 3e did the Far Realms and Psionics become connected? I certainly don't remember any mention of the Far Realms in the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, nor in the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook.



Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, it was explicit in 4e.  In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms.  The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example.  So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.




But when did Mind Flayers become associated with the Far Realm? As someone mentioned earlier on this thread, in 2e they were time travelers from the future.

And on that point, when did the Far Realms first appear in D&D at all?

Before 4e, I don't even recall if (all) aberrations were explicitly connected to the Far Realm. 

I'm not sure how much of this Far Realms-Psionics connection has any real traction in pre-4e history, and how much of it is back-reading it into it after it was made explicit in 4e.

Can anyone provide any references?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 12, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> But when did Mind Flayers become associated with the Far Realm?



 When the Far Realm was introduced as a point of origin for all those Lovecraftian monsters D&D has always had.



> And on that point, when did the Far Realms first appear in D&D at all?



 Not sure.  3.x sometime, I think, maybe Planescape?  It's a mostly semantic question, though, as it's just a convenient signpost for things Lovecraftian. 

_Edit:  Google seems to think it was Gates of Fire Storm Peak in 1996, that introduced the Far Realms_

IIRC, the Far Realms are just one possibility for such critters in 5e.  The obvious thing would be to associate Psionics with aberrations or whatever label or plane of origin a given setting or campaign settles on for Lovecraftian horrors with tentacles and mental powers.

It's also worth noting that in the old 1e MM, Demons & Devils were also psionic, so one could associate psionics with /their/ influence, as well as (or instead of) aberrations.


----------



## Ristamar (Jun 12, 2015)

The Far Realm was at least strongly hinted at in the waning years of 2nd edition.  I can't recall if it gets explicitly labeled as the Far Realm in The Illithiad, but a lot of the descriptive language is similar.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 13, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> According to the 3e book, you don't. The magic of bards is based in the (arcane) primal sorcery, and they function as normal, except they lose access to Conjuration (healing) spells.




Well, now that the distinction between divine magic and arcane magic has no mechanical impact, you could just say that since bards are keepers of stories, some of those stories are about religious heroes and such. The gods appreciate the bards for helping to keep their stories alive and thus spread their word, and reward them with a couple healing spells in addition to the arcane ones.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2015)

Mercule said:


> As I've said, multiple times, it's a balancing act. Bardic colleges are easy enough to reskin as loose, informal traditions. The way Clerics are built, it's trivial to swap out gods, even to the point of going monotheistic or philosophic. The Wizard schools are a game conceit, but one that doesn't actually require setting elements beyond "some folks are better at some things".
> 
> The concern with psionics and the Far Realm is that some people see them as tied at the hip, while others like one and hate the other (implying little to no relation). It's possible that, even if WotC decides that psionics and the Far Realm are linked, flavor-wise, they'll have it very modular. Awesome. I'll scrape it off and move one. It's also possible that they could tie the two close enough that trying to untangle the Far Realms from psionics either guts the sub-system or requires DMs to write their own mods to hold it together. That would be unfortunate for all the folks who want to use psionics w/o the Far Realms (which appears to be a plurality, if not majority, of folks in this thread).
> 
> ...




I agree with all of this.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2015)

Fralex said:


> Well, now that the distinction between divine magic and arcane magic has no mechanical impact, you could just say that since bards are keepers of stories, some of those stories are about religious heroes and such. The gods appreciate the bards for helping to keep their stories alive and thus spread their word, and reward them with a couple healing spells in addition to the arcane ones.




Bit tricky in War of the Lance era DL where the gods have withdrawn from the land, and no one casts anything remotely divine.  And haven't for almost 300 years.  

That and arcane casters are largely hunted as witches and often killed on sight makes being a spell casting bard a bit problematic.


----------



## Fralex (Jun 13, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Bit tricky in War of the Lance era DL where the gods have withdrawn from the land, and no one casts anything remotely divine.  And haven't for almost 300 years.
> 
> That and arcane casters are largely hunted as witches and often killed on sight makes being a spell casting bard a bit problematic.




Oh, OK. Sorry, I don't know much about Dragonlance. How do divine spellcasters work there? Or are there none?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 13, 2015)

Fralex said:


> Oh, OK. Sorry, I don't know much about Dragonlance. How do divine spellcasters work there? Or are there none?




Ah, well, at the beginning of the War of the Lance, there hasn't been a divine caster seen in centuries.  Arcane casters all belong to the Tower of High Sorcery and are highly controlled, to the point where if you try to hide the fact that you're a wizard, other wizards will hunt you down and kill you.

Which means that the 5e classes are VERY problematic if you try to run canon Dragonlance.  Or, to put it another way, the classes are by no means generic.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 13, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ah, well, at the beginning of the War of the Lance, there hasn't been a divine caster seen in centuries.  Arcane casters all belong to the Tower of High Sorcery and are highly controlled, to the point where if you try to hide the fact that you're a wizard, other wizards will hunt you down and kill you.
> 
> Which means that the 5e classes are VERY problematic if you try to run canon Dragonlance.  Or, to put it another way, the classes are by no means generic.




This seems backwards... is it that the classes aren't generic or that Dragonlance is specific enough that many generic classes don't work well for it?


----------



## Staffan (Jun 13, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> Except Athas is "disconnected" from the rest of the multiverse, well that's what they said and then eventually there was a Githyanki invasion, but it wouldn't be that hard to justify a different feel for psionics in a Dark Sun setting.




The disconnection was a later addition that showed up in one of the last products for the setting, Defilers & Preservers. Before that, the Dragon Kings book (which mostly focused on level 20+ characters with some stuff for lower levels) expected high-level clerics to routinely travel to the Elemental planes to fix problems, the adventure Black Spine was focused around a Githyanki invasion and had lots of other planar stuff going on, and one of the dragon-lich-king Dregoth's main assets is a psionic artifact that lets him travel to other planes and/or bring planar creatures and things to Athas. You also had demons and such showing up in some adventures, even if they were a relative rarity.

I also think some Planescape things referred to Dark Sun here and there, though not very much.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 13, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> But when did Mind Flayers become associated with the Far Realm? As someone mentioned earlier on this thread, in 2e they were time travelers from the future.




That was 3.5e's Lords of Madness. The 2e book The Illithiad didn't say anything specific (because it was mostly written from the point of view of in-universe knowledge), but hinted that they came from "Outside" (which sounds a lot like the Far Realm from descriptions) by way of space.

There's an alternate 2e explanation from the Astromundi Cluster boxed set, that has them as survivors of a destroyed planet.



> And on that point, when did the Far Realms first appear in D&D at all?



Gates of Firestorm Peak, 1996. Just like the Illithiad, written by Bruce Cordell.



> Before 4e, I don't even recall if (all) aberrations were explicitly connected to the Far Realm.




3e was the first to explicitly call some creatures out as Aberrations, and not all of those were connected to the Far Realm.



> I'm not sure how much of this Far Realms-Psionics connection has any real traction in pre-4e history, and how much of it is back-reading it into it after it was made explicit in 4e.
> 
> Can anyone provide any references?




2e psionics had little to nothing to do with the Far Realm, since the Complete Psionics Handbook preceded it by a few years, and was way more "new age"-y. It's more of a retro-fitting thing - many creatures who use psionics are, and have always been, _really frickin' weird_ - mind flayers, aboleths, intellect devourers, thought eaters, brain moles, and so on. And "really frickin' weird" is what the Far Realm is mostly about. On the other hand, it's also what the Underdark is sometimes about, so that works as an explanation too. And it's not like D&D has any shortage of really frickin' weird creatures without psionics either.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 13, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> At what point in 3e did the Far Realms and Psionics become connected? I certainly don't remember any mention of the Far Realms in the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, nor in the 3.5



Not sure. I'm going by memory and assumption on when it happened. I know it wasn't there in any tangible form before I switched to WoD in the early/mid 1990s. I know it was at least a strong implication before 4E came out. So, it had to have "evolved" sometime in late 2E or during the 3E run.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 13, 2015)

Imaro said:


> This seems backwards... is it that the classes aren't generic or that Dragonlance is specific enough that many generic classes don't work well for it?



Most things work just fine. IIRC, the 1E setting book removed the Paladin, Cleric, and Druid. In the place of the paladin, they added the Knight of Solamnia classes (three of them) that were sort of proto-prestige classes for Fighter. For Magic Users/Wizards, they added in a chart for the three moons that affected good, neutral, and evil arcane magic. It was a lot like tides, where a caster would have a +1 caster level (5E would probably be spell DC) when their moon was nearly full and a -1 caster level when their moon was mostly new.

Bards wouldn't have been possible, because it wasn't a stand-alone class in 1E. It was an appendix, like psionics. A lot of tables didn't even use it. You started as a Fighter and did 5-8 levels before switching to Thief. After 6-9 levels as a Thief, you could switch to Bard, but you were under Druidic tutelage. Without Druids to teach you spells, you couldn't have become a Bard.

So, 1E DL wasn't so odd because it changed a bunch of classes. The actual mechanic changes would probably fit into an _Unearthed Arcana_ article. The real difference is in how 1E worked.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 14, 2015)

After some indepth reading, I have to say that Mind Flayers and the Far Realm connection was a bit of a shoe horn. It says in the Illithiad that Mind Flayers came from a "far realm" but that they could have used the "Far Realm" as a connecting point. I think they are essentially based around the Cthulhu Mythos and that they came from the stars. 

Let's look at them for a moment. 

They are humanoids, who eat humanoid brains, and require humanoids for reproduction (Ceremorphesis). They are all essentially lawful and they worship a deity. While they are alien and strange, they don't have the "Far Realm" feel. I hold that for monsters like Chaos Beasts, Gibbering Mouthers, and the like. 

I would say they could be from an alternate Prime Material Plane.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2015)

Imaro said:


> This seems backwards... is it that the classes aren't generic or that Dragonlance is specific enough that many generic classes don't work well for it?




If the classes were generic, wouldn't it be fairly easy to slot them into a specific setting?  I mean, Dragonlance isn't _that_ far from baseline D&D.  

But, as Mercule said, the changes are because the classes, like the bard, radically changed from edition to edition.  Bards were emphatically divine in 1e - they were full on druids.  1e didn't have all bunch of half caster classes which would make things like the Towers of High Sorcery problematic.

Now, that being said, it's certainly not impossible to convert Dragonlance to 5e.  Obviously that's not impossible since we're actually playing it right now.  The point I'm making is that the classes in 5e are not generic at all.  Every class except maybe the fighter and rogue, come pre-loaded with significant setting material.  They always have.  I was responding to the earlier point that psionics had to be stripped of all setting material in order to be usable.  I forget the poster's name, and I'm too lazy to go back and look, but, the point was made that he thought that clerics were useless because 5e forced you to have gods.  I made the point that all the classes come with at least as many setting elements baked in as clerics and probably always have (again, barring fighter and rogue).  

Do you disagree with that?  Do you think that the classes don't have setting elements baked in?


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 14, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> After some indepth reading, I have to say that Mind Flayers and the Far Realm connection was a bit of a shoe horn. It says in the Illithiad that Mind Flayers came from a "far realm" but that they could have used the "Far Realm" as a connecting point. I think they are essentially based around the Cthulhu Mythos and that they came from the stars.
> 
> Let's look at them for a moment.
> 
> ...




Illithids definitely have changes between editions.

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, 1E, the sci-fi crashed space ship module, had one trapped between decks because of an interaction with the ships fields during probability travel.  (Or something like that.)  They had a very alien feel, and somewhat sci-fi, but no really a link to to far realms.  But, they set the basic feel for psionics as being alien and sci-fi-ish.  The module also had an intellect devourer.

2E seemed to place Illithids firmly in the material verse, with Penumbra, and a long vanquished plane spanning empire.  The Illithid origin and home planet are not described.

I don't think the "back from the future" story arose until 3E re-interpreted the Illithid back story, I thought in "Lords of Madness".  I didn't care much for the re-interpretation.  Did it get much traction as canon?

3E Eberron did place Illithids in Xoriat, the plane of chaos, which could be taken as an Eberron Far Realm equivelent.

I never found there to be much of a immediate link of Psionics with the Far Realms.  But, there is a useful functional link: Psionics is presented as being "different" or "alien", so it works as a tool for far reams creatures.

To say: D&D did have science fiction elements in the core game.  This goes back Arneson's "Blackmoor" campaign setting, which included a crashed space ship.  However, that branch of the game seems to have largely withered.  See "Blackmoor" and the DA series of modules, especially, "The City of the Gods".

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 14, 2015)

Staffan said:


> I also think some Planescape things referred to Dark Sun here and there, though not very much.




What I remember is that TSR's official stance was that Athas was in a closed crystal sphere. That would affect its Spelljammer connections, but had no affect on its planar connections (as far as I know).



Staffan said:


> That was 3.5e's Lords of Madness. ...




Thanks for the history lesson! Most of that corresponds to the general impressions I've had, but I definitely wasn't aware of all the details. So sounds like it's pretty much as I expected--the Far Realm connection is hinted at as one possibility in late 2e, and then designated as the reality in late 3e, and about the same is true about aberrations in general, it just happened later on.



Corpsetaker said:


> I would say they could be from an alternate Prime Material Plane.




The time travel story I recall (which isn't the same one that I found when I went looking online, so I'm not sure where I got it from) is that *SPOILERS* the illithid were actually evolved humans from the future.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 14, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> 3E Eberron did place Illithids in Xoriat, the plane of chaos, which could be taken as an Eberron Far Realm equivelent.




Keith Baker's take on the matter from Eberron Expanded: Lords of Madness



> Mind Flayers
> 
> The mind flayers are the chief servants of the daelkyr. The elder brains may be daelkyr creations, or they may actually be spiritual and physical extensions of the daelkyr. In either case, the elder brains form the backbone of the telepathic network that links the daelkyr together and allows them to monitor their servants.
> 
> Eberron is not the first world that the daelkyr have attacked. It is possible that the mind flayers were created when the daelkyr destroyed the native world of the gith races. If so, the githzerai and githyanki are descendants of those few survivors who fled to Kythri and the Astral Plane, while the mind flayers are descended from survivors of the progenitor race who were twisted in the same manner as the dolgaunts and dolgrims.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 14, 2015)

I much prefer the older origin stories of the gith--where they are mutated humans.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> I much prefer the older origin stories of the gith--where they are mutated humans.




But, mutated humans hardly rules out a link to the Far Realms.  I'd almost say that the idea of mutated humans rather dovetails nicely with mutated races.  Cthulhu mythos are rife with mutated humans and other critters out doing whatever it is that they want to do.

The more I look at this, the easier I think it is to tie Far Realms to Psionics.  Psionics, mental powers that man wot not of (or something like that) as a manifestation of the secrets of the Far Realms.  Cool idea.  Even 1e had something of this idea, sort of.  When you used psionics in 1e, you had a chance of summoning extra planar stuff (typically demons and whatnot) that would be attracted by your use of psionics and try to eat you.  Not a really far stretch to shift that from demons and devils to various Far Realms stuff that might want to snack on your tasty mutant brain.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 14, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Every class except maybe the fighter and rogue, come pre-loaded with significant setting material.  They always have.  I was responding to the earlier point that psionics had to be stripped of all setting material in order to be usable.  I forget the poster's name, and I'm too lazy to go back and look, but, the point was made that he thought that clerics were useless because 5e forced you to have gods.  I made the point that all the classes come with at least as many setting elements baked in as clerics and probably always have (again, barring fighter and rogue).
> 
> Do you disagree with that?  Do you think that the classes don't have setting elements baked in?



A bit of both. Sure, there are some spells with proper names, but that's not hard to ignore. The classes, for the most part, have little more baked-in flavor than is necessary to make the mechanics work. Pseudo-Vancian magic came about because, well, you needed some system, and the slots worked really, really well for the wargaming roots of the game.

The schools of magic started out as a cute way to give players casting _detect magic_ some vague clue about what they were looking at. There was a desire for specialists, so the schools took on some life. Druids, Monks, and Assassins all had to defeat their betters to rise in level, but that was generally ignored, IME. Most races and monsters were borrowed from some hodge-podge of fiction and myth to create interesting foes, with some created out of whole cloth.

A lot of things took on a life of their own. Who knew that the dark-skinned, subterranean drow would grow so ubiquitous, while the tall, stately valley elves would be almost forgotten even though they were introduced about the same time? D&D has lived long enough to become its own mirror. At its core, though, the mechanics remain fairly generic.



Hussar said:


> But, mutated humans hardly rules out a link to the Far Realms.  I'd almost say that the idea of mutated humans rather dovetails nicely with mutated races.  Cthulhu mythos are rife with mutated humans and other critters out doing whatever it is that they want to do.
> 
> The more I look at this, the easier I think it is to tie Far Realms to Psionics.  Psionics, mental powers that man wot not of (or something like that) as a manifestation of the secrets of the Far Realms.  Cool idea.  Even 1e had something of this idea, sort of.  When you used psionics in 1e, you had a chance of summoning extra planar stuff (typically demons and whatnot) that would be attracted by your use of psionics and try to eat you.  Not a really far stretch to shift that from demons and devils to various Far Realms stuff that might want to snack on your tasty mutant brain.



I can see where one could tie the Far Realms to psionics, especially in a "playing with your brain might go too far into madness" angle. I do not like any variation on the Far Realms causing psionics, though. 

To me, psionics is interesting because it stands in contrast to the other magics that are external. Psionics are inherently personal and internal, even when they manifest outside of the "caster". Doing anything mechanical to minimize that reduces the actual utility of having psionics in my game. Granted, the Sorcerer class kind of takes the "naturally magical" shtick from the Psion, but I think they do it very poorly (partly because I don't like the way the "my grand-pappy was a dragon" intrudes into the mechanics).

Any rules for psionics are going to have to have some level of flavor, even if it's just in making things work. I'd prefer the flavor to be kept as minimal as Wizard, though. Any setting material should be kept at least arms length away, if not packaged in another source entirely. I can't draw you an exact line, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard are on the "good" side; Sorcerer is slightly on the "bad" side; and Warlock walked right up to it and peed on the other side, but gets away with it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 14, 2015)

Mercule said:


> I can see where one could tie the Far Realms to psionics, especially in a "playing with your brain might go too far into madness" angle. I do not like any variation on the Far Realms causing psionics, though.



 The idea isn't so much pionics coming from the Far Realms as a reaction to incursions by the Far Realms.  Psionics thus remains inherently 'internal,' even under that concept.  Though, in principle, I agree that it's the sort of thing that should be allowed to vary from setting to setting or campaign to campaign.



> To me, psionics is interesting because it stands in contrast to the other magics that are external. Psionics are inherently personal and internal, even when they manifest outside of the "caster". Doing anything mechanical to minimize that reduces the actual utility of having psionics in my game. Granted, the Sorcerer class kind of takes the "naturally magical" shtick from the Psion



 Unless a Sorcerer sub-class is used for psionics, a possibility that has been raised before.  I suppose you could have several psionic sub-classes.  For instance, even though the Fighter & Rogue aren't arcane, at all, they each have an arcane-caster sub-class.  So you could have a Psion as a sub-class of Sorcerer, a PsiWarrior/Battlemind as a Fighter sub-class, and maybe even a SoulKnife or something as a Rogue sub-class.  



> Any rules for psionics are going to have to have some level of flavor, even if it's just in making things work. I'd prefer the flavor to be kept as minimal as Wizard, though. Any setting material should be kept at least arms length away, if not packaged in another source entirely. I can't draw you an exact line...



 Nod.  For instance, in FR, Wizards use the power of 'The Weave,' while in Dark Sun they destroy the environment.  By the same token, you might have variations in the explanation or history of psionics in a given setting, without changing any of the actual mechanics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2015)

Re: Classes

I believe I stated it before, but not trusting my memory and being too lazy to look: I personally liked Bruce Cordell's idea of fusing the 3.5Ed PsyWar & Soulknife as a PrCl in the 3rd party supplement, _Hyperconscious_.  Apparently, this fusion was closer to his original concept.  I also liked the expansion of the Soulknife's powers in the feats presented in CompPsi and ESPECIALLY Dragon- forming knives, polearms and even shields is just aces for that concept, IMHO, and considering the Soulbow, not broken.  Fused into a single base class, a PsyWar/Soulknife with a limited number of powers- probably siloed into specialities- and the ability to improve his manifested weapon sounds pretty good to me.

The 3.5Ed Kineticist PrCl as expanded in The Mind's Eye article on WotC's website was also good, conceptually.  I don't know if it should be a base class or available as a flavor variant of another extant class.  Manifesting the weapon made it a natural expansion of the Soulknife, while its energy projection powers 

The Lurk probably should be combined with the Elocator.

Lest you think I didn't like any 4Ed Psi...I'd LOVE to see an updated version of the Dreamwalker.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2015)

3e psionics is my favorite iteration so far. I love the Expanded Psionic Handbook. 

3e created psi versions of core classes. Psi fans often irreverently referred to these as ‘psionic clone classes’ or ‘psionic-x classes’. 5e can represent these psi classes well, by making 5e psionic archetypes (subclasses) for the 5e core classes that already exist.

In 3e, the main motive for creating a psionic version of a class, was to utilize a ‘nonvancian’ spellpoint mechanic. Psionic calibrated the spell/power to use spell/power points in a more balanced way. The 3e Psion was essentially a spell-point Wizard who casts Wizard spells. The 3e Psion came as an answer to widespread frustration with the classic ‘vancian’ spell slot system.

However, now, the 5e spell slot system is so spontaneous, the 5e Wizard already functions as well as the 3e Psion did. Only simpler. For me, there is no longer a need for a spellpoint system.

A 5e core class works as a chassis for 3e psionic style. Players who have a fetish for the spellpoint system can also use the one in the DMG.

Designing archetypes (subclasses) for various core classes, creates the feel of 3e psionics. Archetypes also help utilize core material in a setting that features psionics, and oppositely allows a setting where psionics is rare to dabble in psionics ‘lite’ without new mechanics.


Note, I also want a separate class called a ‘Psion’ that blends the 2e  Psionicist with the Star Wars Jedi. This post assumes there is enough  demand for something like this to guarantee a 5e base class. In 5e,  every class requires its own distinctive mechanics to justify the  existence of a class. This post is how to represent 3e  psionics.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2015)

5e Wizard archetypes = 3e Psion

5e Sorcerer archetype = 3e Wilder

5e Bard archetype = 3e Psychic Warrior

I was looking more closely at the 5e Bard. The class already includes telepathic/enchantment spells, shapeshifting/psychometabolic/polymorph spells, teleport/phasing/psychoportation spells, and prescience/divination spells, plus the ability to bring others luck, plus competence in melee combat. The Bard makes an effective chassis for the feel of a Psychic Warrior.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I was looking more closely at the 5e Bard. The class already includes telepathic/enchantment spells, shapeshifting/psychometabolic/polymorph spells, teleport/psychoportation spells, and prescience/divination spells, plus the ability to bring others luck, plus competence in melee combat. The Bard makes an effective chassis for the feel of a Psychic Warrior.



Mmm...I don't know: I think the PsyWar still comes across as beefier- more like a Ranger or Paladin in playstyle than a Bard.

Which reminds me- I also kind of liked the Divine Mind.  Not so much for its connection to the divine so much as it's auras.  A nifty little variation on what could be done with psi.  It was poorly executed, but it liked the structural/mechanical IDEA.



> I want a separate class called a ‘Psion’ that blends the 2e Psionicist with the Star Wars Jedi.




I am not averse to psionically manifested weapons being a suite of siloed powers that any Psi character could learn.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2015)

A ‘beefier’ Bard is precisely the kind of thing that an archetype is for. Contrast the ‘beefier’ War Cleric versus the ‘squishier’ Light Cleric.

Moreover, the Bard emphasizes the ‘beefiness’ is a result of mental powers that shapeshift the body - not actually a result of mundane skills.

I hope to see the Psychic Warrior be a full caster, for the same reason I want the 4e Swordmage to be a full caster. The melee prowess itself is preternatural.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

Thing is, unless they do something completely different than what they've done before, any psionic subclasses they throw on would have to add to, but not alter, the basic class.

So a psionic subclass for fighter and/or rogue--no problem.

Psionic subclasses for sorcerers, wizards, or bards--problem.

All of those wield arcane powers. They come, one way or another, through an arcane source.

All 1st-level wizards have the same arcane magic with spellbooks going on. A subclass that kicks in at 2nd level isn't going to change that.

All bards are arcane casting performers. You can't just look at the class by how many HD, weapons, and spells it has. The flavor is inseparable. Regardless of how you slice it, they are inspiring, charismatic performers. 3 musical instrument proficiencies even come baked in--whether you want them or not. A subclass at 3rd-level doesn't take away the music or turn their arcane words of power into brain waves.

All sorcerers* wield arcane magic that they have internal access to from some means. The same considerations I mentioned with wizards and bards apply.

Furthermore, sorcerers are different enough from psions anyway, because the point that many of us are making is that psionics should be an internal power source that comes from the wielder. Maybe something awakens it, but it doesn't come from outside and infuse you. It _is_ a manifestation of your mind, soul, etc. For a sorcerer, their magic actually is _external_. While it is infused in them from an ancestor or some other means, the magic itself involves arcane gestures and components that manipulate the external Weave (or the generic interface that does the same thing in non-FR settings) and tap into the magic inherent in all of the multiverse. They have a built in key, or maybe a battery to jump start it, but they still have to wield the same external energy as all the other spellcasters do. Psions don't metaphysically care about the rest of the multiverse. They draw their power purely from within.

Honestly, a Far Realms subclass of Sorcerer makes a lot more sense than a Far Realms connection for psionics.


* A case could be made that the Favored Soul is divine rather than arcane--but I don't think that is at all clear.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2015)

[MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION]

Heh. Many here seem to insist setting requirements are so easy to ‘ignore’?

Anyway, the flavor would be, these psi archetypes have learned how to master the techniques by means of their own mindforces, instead of subservience to a patron or dependence on a ‘weave’.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> [MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION]
> 
> Heh. Many here seem to insist setting requirements are so easy to ‘ignore’?
> 
> Anyway, the flavor would be, these psi archetypes have learned how to master the techniques by means of their own mindforces, instead of subservience to a patron or dependence on a ‘weave’.




Actually, I'm not really addressing the topic about ignoring flavor on a class on the player/DM end. I'm addressing the fact that WotC is not going to ignore a class's flavor when they add in a subclass.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2015)

These psionic archetypes for 5e classes can cohere with the 5e core setting, Forgotten Realms. Their flavor can assume other archetypes of Clerics and Warlocks depend on patrons to mediate the weave while Wizards and Sorcerers depend on the weave directly. Psi archetypes can come with the flavor of a radical breakthru, that accomplishes these effects by ones own mindful will power, accessing a higher level of consciousness, without dependency on the weave.

The Bard is easily psionic; the psi Bard archetype ‘performs’ mentally. Even the core Bard suits a psionic class as-is, imbuing the voice with psychic energy. Historically, the D&D Bard was divine or arcane, but psionic makes more sense than either.

Note, if WotC has to marry its core setting descriptions, all the more reason for core classes to avoid setting requirements. So they function in other settings.

D&D 1e core books (PH DMG MM) avoid setting assumptions, and encourage the DM to experiment. Gygax was shocked when people wanted to become dependent on his setting rather than create their own. What people think are ‘canon’ today, were optional rules and splatbooks. For example, Deities & Demigods was a splatbook. A DM or adventurer who never buys that book never has the headache of gods. Setting requirements are antithetical to the spirit of 1e.

Until 5e, the D&D core made a strong effort to keep the cosmology of ‘arcane’ vague, so it can mean different things in different settings.

In Dark Sun, arcane is an ‘unnatural’ force that literally destroys nature. Oppositely psionics is a ‘natural’ force, accidentally evolving as an ecological immune system against arcane. Perhaps, a critical mass of psionic activity rips the arcane weave? The arcane weave is more like a strangler vine. The arcane weave ultimately kills its host.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 15, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Furthermore, sorcerers are different enough from psions anyway, because the point that many of us are making is that psionics should be an internal power source that comes from the wielder. Maybe something awakens it, but it doesn't come from outside and infuse you. It _is_ a manifestation of your mind, soul, etc. For a sorcerer, their magic actually is _external_. While it is infused in them from an ancestor or some other means, the magic itself involves arcane gestures and components that manipulate the external Weave (or the generic interface that does the same thing in non-FR settings) and tap into the magic inherent in all of the multiverse. They have a built in key, or maybe a battery to jump start it, but they still have to wield the same external energy as all the other spellcasters do. Psions don't metaphysically care about the rest of the multiverse. They draw their power purely from within.



 Monte Cook did a cool thing in Arcana Evolved:
- Some spells have a [Psionic] descriptor.
- If you are an AE Psion, you can cast [Psionic] spells without components or arcane spell failure.

So an arcane caster could cast Detect Thoughts, and for her it's just another spell with hand-gestures and such. A Psion can cast it, and for him it's purely mental power.

5e might be able to do something similar -- allow a (hybrid) Psion class to cast non-Psion spells, but reward her for sticking to type.

That would also allow graded benefits for stuff like Wild Talents, where you learn you're psychic after character generation. A Wild Talent Psychic Wizard might choose to stock up on Psionic spells for some added benefit.



Sword of Spirit said:


> Honestly, a Far Realms subclass of Sorcerer makes a lot more sense than a Far Realms connection for psionics.
> 
> * A case could be made that the Favored Soul is divine rather than arcane--but I don't think that is at all clear.



 IMHO the Favored Soul would be a hybrid Arcane / Divine spellcaster. And that's cool.

I wouldn't mind seeing a hybrid Psionic / Arcane version, but yeah, as a Sorcerer it would be undeniably Arcane as well as whatever else it did.

That said, speaking of the Far Realms, I'd certainly like to see an Alienist Sorcerer.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 15, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I was looking more closely at the 5e Bard. The class already includes telepathic/enchantment spells, shapeshifting/psychometabolic/polymorph spells, teleport/phasing/psychoportation spells, and prescience/divination spells, plus the ability to bring others luck, plus competence in melee combat...



 And healing.  You could have the Ardent as a Bard psionic-sub-class.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 15, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> And healing.  You could have the Ardent as a Bard psionic-sub-class.




Also Heal and Cure spells make more sense as shapeshifting/psychometabolism/polymorph.

The Bard is awesome for several psionic archetypes, including Psychic Warrior and Ardent.

For a Psionic healer, I also want a Cleric archetype, a Mystic whose psi comes from personal enlightenment and higher consciousness. (No gods.) Heh, the words ‘personal’ and ‘enlightenment’ are almost a paradox. What keeps these mystics in physical reality is their desire to help others.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 15, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> For a Psionic healer, I also want a Cleric archetype, a Mystic whose psi comes from personal enlightenment and higher consciousness. (No gods.)



 The Clerics' significant 'archetype' is really their Domain (chosen at 1st, unlike most others).  I suppose you could have a Mind or Psyche or Psionic Domain or something...



> Heh, the words ‘personal’ and ‘enlightenment’ are almost a paradox. What keeps these mystics in physical reality is their desire to help others.



 A Bodhisattva as psionic archetype of the Cleric?


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 15, 2015)

Okay, so let me clarify my position. Anyone can take their base caster classes and flavor them however they want. But WotC is _not_ going to create a subclass that contradicts the base flavor of their caster classes. You aren't going to have psion as a subclass of wizard (or bard, etc), because wizard is explicitly an arcane magic user, and making them psionic means they would have to change from arcane to psionic at level 2. It _changes_, rather than adds on to the core class.

Subclasses in 5e add to, rather than change core classes. Unless you believe WotC is intending to completely backpedal on their class design philosophy, that's just the way it is. Again, I'm only bringing this up in case anyone (posting or lurking) has some misconception that WotC might do some of these things. Personally, I like their philosophy. I don't want to see psionics changing the nature of arcane or divine classes. Make one psionic class, a couple subclasses, and 3 feats. Done. But if people are just thinking of how _they_ would do it in their own house rules, then anything works.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 16, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> But WotC is _not_ going to create a subclass that contradicts the base flavor of their caster classes. You aren't going to have psion as a subclass of wizard (or bard, etc), because wizard is explicitly an arcane magic user, and making them psionic means they would have to change from arcane to psionic at level 2. It _changes_, rather than adds on to the core class.



 There are already archetypes that make that kind of radical change.  The Fighter is as mundane as a class can be, until he takes EK and changes completely, for instance.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> There are already archetypes that make that kind of radical change.  The Fighter is as mundane as a class can be, until he takes EK and changes completely, for instance.




Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster add features to the class--they don't transform previous class identity or features.

The only way they could "psionicize", say, a wizard or bard, would be to say that they learn how to do psionics _in addition to_ their arcane spellcasting. Maybe, from the point they gain the subclass, they can treat certain spells as psionics rather than arcane magic. But it wouldn't replace their arcane magic, any more than you could have a druid take a "circle of the wand" and switch to arcane magic at level 2. And it would be a mess that doesn't represent psionics well in any event. No, the full casters aren't going to be transformed into psionicists. They'll have to make a new class for a psionic full "caster."


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 16, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> But WotC is _not_ going to create a subclass that contradicts the base flavor of their caster classes.




The inflexibility of setting requirements is why I am unable to enjoy 5e so far.

It would pain me to see future 5e products sink deeper and deeper into the setting that I want to get away from in the first place.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 16, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster add features to the class--they don't transform previous class identity or features.



 They do transform class identity, making Fighters and Rogues into casters.

It's true, though, that archetypes and the like don't generally take away class features, just add to them or add options to them.



> The only way they could "psionicize", say, a wizard or bard, would be to say that they learn how to do psionics _in addition to_ their arcane spellcasting. Maybe, from the point they gain the subclass, they can treat certain spells as psionics rather than arcane magic.



 That'd be a problem for the 'psionics must be different' concept that was an option in 3e.  If psionics is just a source of magical power, though, it's no different from being empowered by a draconic heritage vs an affinity or chaos or a Great Old One instead of an Arch-Fey.  They don't change the class features, just the story behind them.  



> No, the full casters aren't going to be transformed into psionicists. They'll have to make a new class for a psionic full "caster."



 Leveraging the existing magic systems - which already have spells for most of what psionics could do, anyway - would be an efficient way of re-introducing them, holding down the amount of development work and the page count required.  

I mean, look at how heavily the spell list is leveraged, already:  every class, and 33 of the 38 sub-classes, use some spell write-ups in some way:  divine magic, nature magic, Lovecraftian magic, barbarian totems, elemental & shadow monk's ki, draconic heritage, Vancian memorization, raw chaos, diabolic pacts and Fey patrons - all modeled by spells.  Adding psionics to that list wouldn't hurt anything.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 16, 2015)

There need to be special psionic cantrips, including Telepathy, Telekinesis, and so on. 

Hopefully, it is possible to use spell slots to spike the effects of these cantrips. Telekinesis would lift more mass, maybe also more targets. Telepathy, might be the go-to place for Psionic Blast.

When a Wizard character chooses a psionic cantrip, the cantrip itself might allow the Wizard to switch over to psionic as the source for all of the other spells, instead of arcane.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> They do transform class identity, making Fighters and Rogues into casters.
> 
> It's true, though, that archetypes and the like don't generally take away class features, just add to them or add options to them.
> 
> ...



There is no subtype that changes the nature of spellcasting, merely adding it to classes that lacked it before. 

A psionic subclass for (example) sorcerer is pointless. It's basically saying "psionics is just magic" and can be modeled by a sorcerer who learns magic missile, fireball, sleep, mage armor, and dispel magic, but got a few tk/telepathy powers. Or that wizards can scribe "psionics" in his "psionics book". 

I get there is an urge to try to fit every former class under the PHB 12 (hell, I'm sure there are some who would want some of them crammed down to subclasses, but too late now.) But doing so robs psionics of its flavor the same way making warlock a wizard archetype would.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The idea isn't so much pionics coming from the Far Realms as a reaction to incursions by the Far Realms.  Psionics thus remains inherently 'internal,' even under that concept.  Though, in principle, I agree that it's the sort of thing that should be allowed to vary from setting to setting or campaign to campaign.



This was the specific example I had in mind when I said "don't like". It's indirect causality, but still causality. Not frowning on anyone who does like the idea. I just don't, and would prefer to not even have that level of relationship fluff in the rules.

I guess what I'm really looking for is a psionics system that wouldn't lose anything if the designers/developers were expressly told they could not mention the Far Realms, even obliquely, anywhere in the book and inherently psychic monsters (mind flayers, aboleths, etc.) could only be discussed in a way that one might include orcs and dwarves in a book on weapons (e.g. dwarves like axes and hammers). That's not to say the book actually has to be that "clean", just that it should be that separable.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 16, 2015)

If at any point I was to try and figure out how to do psionics (and how varied the psionics classes can be), I'd probably take my cue from the class that has the biggest separation to me, the druid.

Combat-wise... the druid really has two playstyles that are perhaps the most disparate from each other out of all the subclasses in the game.  You have the full caster Land druid that does magic magic magic right up until they need to shape into a bird for some reconnaissance or escape or something... and you have the Moon which is completely transformed, no spells, animal form, melee melee melee until they get knocked out of it and might then cast a spell or two for healing/control.

This I think is probably the kind of template that I'd use to create a psionic class were I to do it.  One base Psionicist class, with maybe three sub-classes.  The base class would have things like some weapon combat skill, some psionic talents that are mainly geared towards the exploration and interaction pillars (telepathy, second sight, precognitive, etc.), and a few psychometabolism abilities that give them different types of movement.

Then the sub-classes all lean the psionicist further into each direction-- the 'psychic warrior' type gains additional combat abilities plus ways of using the psionic talents to enhance weapon use.  For a more mind-controllery / telekinetic 'psion', the subclass gains additional talents to their lists just like domain or land spells do for clerics and druids, some of which perhaps are stronger-- turning the class from a paladin/rangerish 'half caster' to perhaps a wider 'full caster' (just using the 'caster' terminology we're familiar with merely as illustration-- not insinuating the psionicist is an actual spellcaster in any way.)  And then perhaps the psychometabolism 'egoist' sub-class goes further in that direction, where the psionicist is more physically transformative and body shaping a la the totemic barbarian / moon druid-- much of it becoming now combat-useful (just like how the druid's wildshape only becomes useful in combat when the Circle of the Moon subclass is taken.)

This I think is probably the easiest way to do it-- one class that has base levels of the different types of psionic features, with the subclasses then focusing the psionicist into the different directions... as opposed to creating a 'psionics' talent format which you then try and overlay on the other classes as psionic sub-classes to those classes.  The 'psionic' fighter, the 'psionic' rogue, the 'psionic' sorcerer etc.  Trying to build in that way seems like a lot more jerryrigged hoops to build and jump through than just making one new class that has all the psionic talent set up in whatever pyramid/power point/feat list you end up making and using, which each subclass can then all build off of.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 16, 2015)

Mercule said:


> I guess what I'm really looking for is a psionics system that wouldn't lose anything if the designers/developers were expressly told they could not mention the Far Realms, even obliquely, anywhere in the book and inherently psychic monsters (mind flayers, aboleths, etc.) could only be discussed in a way that one might include orcs and dwarves in a book on weapons (e.g. dwarves like axes and hammers). That's not to say the book actually has to be that "clean", just that it should be that separable.



 That's easy to achieve, given 5e's presentation as a starting point rather than as RAW graven in stone.  As long as the mechanics, themselves, aren't tightly coupled to the explanation/origin of psionics, there wouldn't be a problem.  You could change 'triggered by Far Realms incursions in the distant past' to 'developed by mystic sages in the distant past,' or 'mysterious inborn powers that just arise in individuals for no discernible reason' anything else you wanted it.  

And, even if rules are tightly coupled to concept, the DM is still free to change them, and couple them to some alternate concept.




Remathilis said:


> There is no subtype that changes the nature of spellcasting, merely adding it to classes that lacked it before.



 That's a very substantial change.  From no casting at all to casting is much more dramatic than from, say, casting because one of your distant ancestors was a dragon, to casting because some of your distant ancestors fought off an incursion from the Far Realms.  And, isn't the 'nature' of Draconic vs Chaos sorcerers' magic already different, anyway?  



> A psionic subclass for (example) sorcerer is pointless. It's basically saying "psionics is just magic"



 I is assuming the 'psionics is magic' approach, at least mechanically.  That's not a bad thing.  It keeps the game simpler and reduces the sheer amount of redundant new material that'd be required to bring psionics to 5e.  

That economy of design and page count from leveraging existing magic systems is why it seems like something WotC might go for, 5e development seems to have been leaning that way, so far.



> But doing so robs psionics of its flavor the same way making warlock a wizard archetype would.



 Mechanical differentiation and flavor are separable.  The Dragon and Chaos sorcerers have different flavors even though they're sub-classes, for instance.  A Psionic sorcerer sub-class would, as well.  

Not that I'm in any way against Psionics getting it's own magic sub-system and full class or set of classes.  If a whole book were devoted to it, that'd be a perfectly reasonable way to go, and very exciting for fans of Psionics, I'm sure.  
But even a sub-class or few would be more than we have now, and new 'splat' books don't seem to be something we can expect right away...


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 16, 2015)




----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 16, 2015)

I just took almost a week off this site, and now I see a new article up and it's not psionics... I thought mike said this month was psionics... did I miss something? or just miss remember?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just took almost a week off this site, and now I see a new article up and it's not psionics... I thought mike said this month was psionics... did I miss something? or just miss remember?




You don't need to remember - just scroll to the first post in this thread for the quote. He didn't give any timescale.


----------



## Morlock (Jun 16, 2015)

> The inflexibility of setting requirements is why I am unable to enjoy 5e so far.
> 
> It would pain me to see future 5e products sink deeper and deeper into the setting that I want to get away from in the first place.




I take it you mean "D&D" when you say "5e"?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's a very substantial change.  From no casting at all to casting is much more dramatic than from, say, casting because one of your distant ancestors was a dragon, to casting because some of your distant ancestors fought off an incursion from the Far Realms.  And, isn't the 'nature' of Draconic vs Chaos sorcerers' magic already different, anyway?
> 
> I is assuming the 'psionics is magic' approach, at least mechanically.  That's not a bad thing.  It keeps the game simpler and reduces the sheer amount of redundant new material that'd be required to bring psionics to 5e.
> 
> That economy of design and page count from leveraging existing magic systems is why it seems like something WotC might go for, 5e development seems to have been leaning that way, so far.




This is conflating two different problems I have.

1.) Reflecting the nature of psionics as just magic. While clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all get their magic from a different source, they are all still getting MAGIC. Each of their effects reflect the eight schools of magic, have verbal/somatic/material components, etc. Psionics powers had generally tried to be different (even if certain effects overlap). 3.5 got lazy with the notion of "Psionic Knock" and other "See PHB" powers, but there is no reason to continue the trend. I don't want the spell MAGIC Missile to be a psionic power; at that point psionics is pointless and why bother. 

2.) While the Sorcerer, warlock and cleric pick their subclass at level 1, the wizard, druid, bard, and other subclasses do not. Which would create a disruptive element of "my magic was arcane until hit level 2, now its psionic". It was one the problems I had with artificer too, btw. Subclasses are additive, not transformational. There is no subclass so far that invalidates the rules of base class, merely adds on to them. Which is why you can ADD spellcasting to the fighter via EK, the Favored Soul doesn't change a sorcerer from an "arcane" to "divine" spellcaster. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Mechanical differentiation and flavor are separable.  The Dragon and Chaos sorcerers have different flavors even though they're sub-classes, for instance.  A Psionic sorcerer sub-class would, as well.




In the end of the day though, dragon and chaos sorcerers still obey the rules of the base sorcerer class. They are still arcane casters. They still have a limited pool of effects (focused tighter on combat than utility). They don't change the rules of spellcasting or sorcery points. Even Favored Soul and Stormsoul (while beefing up spell selection and granting greater versatility) don't invalidate the "power of magic in your veins" approach. Psionics would, unless psionics = magic and therefore your just making a mentalist caster class. 

Which boils down to my problem with using an existing class subclass; if the only way to do so is to decide psionics is a fancy way of saying "spellcaster" then its not needed. We already have bards and enchanters who are masters of messing with your head; mage hand is a cantrip already. Psionics needs to be its own thing or it needs to be forgotten; middle grounding makes it redundant and pointless.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 16, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> There is no subtype that changes the nature of spellcasting, merely adding it to classes that lacked it before.



 So, no problem with the Fighter getting a Psychic Warrior archetype, or the Rogue a Soul Knife or something, since that's just adding, not changing the nature of the base class.




Remathilis said:


> This is conflating two different problems I have.
> 
> 1.) Reflecting the nature of psionics as just magic. While clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all get their magic from a different source, they are all still getting MAGIC.



 Yep.  And psionics has been "MAGIC" in the past.

It's also had a 'not magic' option in 3e, and in 4e was a separate 'Source.'  So, yeah, if you want to go the 4e route and have Psionics definitively or existentially distinct from arcane, divine, etc, it might be an issue to have a sub-class throw that switch.  

5e has not gone that way, though:  Divine, arcane, natural, draconic, chaos, G.O.O., Fey, or Diabolic, magic is all magic.



> 2.) While the Sorcerer, warlock and cleric pick their subclass at level 1, the wizard, druid, bard, and other subclasses do not. Which would create a disruptive element of "my magic was arcane until hit level 2, now its psionic".



 That's an interesting distinction, and probably /why/ Sorcerers, Warlocks and Clerics work that way, because it would be strange for a Sorcerer to 'become' Draconic at 3rd level.  Of course, that's no objection at all to a Psionic Sorcerer, since he'd be Psionic from level 1.  

It does hurt the idea of an Ardent Bard, though.  ;(



> In the end of the day though, dragon and chaos sorcerers still obey the rules of the base sorcerer class.



 As would a hypothetical psionic sorcerer. 


> They are still arcane casters.



 There's no rule that differentiates the Arcane Source in 5e, nor even any formal concept of source.  A Sorcerer is as different from a Wizard as from a Druid or Cleric:  they're all three neo-Vancian prepped casters and the Sorcerer isn't.



> Which boils down to my problem with using an existing class subclass; if the only way to do so is to decide psionics is a fancy way of saying "spellcaster" then its not needed.



 Every class and almost every sub-class in 5e is just another way of saying "spellcaster."  It'd be tough to sell the idea that they're mostly not needed.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 16, 2015)

I'm starting to wonder if we don't need to redefine Psionics as much as we need to redefine the Far Realm.

Which might be oxymoronic, now that I think of it.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 16, 2015)

Savage Wombat said:


> I'm starting to wonder if we don't need to redefine Psionics as much as we need to redefine the Far Realm.



I think you might be right.



Remathilis said:


> 1.) Reflecting the nature of psionics as just magic. While clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all get their magic from a different source, they are all still getting MAGIC. Each of their effects reflect the eight schools of magic, have verbal/somatic/material components, etc. Psionics powers had generally tried to be different (even if certain effects overlap). 3.5 got lazy with the notion of "Psionic Knock" and other "See PHB" powers, but there is no reason to continue the trend. I don't want the spell MAGIC Missile to be a psionic power; at that point psionics is pointless and why bother.



This bothered me, even in 3E. I see a lot more differences between arcane and divine magic than I do either of those and psionics. If psionics is going to play by totally different rules, the other two "sources" should, too.

So, there's a part of me that thinks psionics must have a separate mechanic. Then, there's another part of me that finds it jarring that arcane and divine magic work the same, but psionics don't. Ultimately, the tradition of having variant rules for psionics wins, for me. I'm just pointing out that there's some justification for having the mechanics in the same ball park.



> 2.) While the Sorcerer, warlock and cleric pick their subclass at level 1, the wizard, druid, bard, and other subclasses do not. Which would create a disruptive element of "my magic was arcane until hit level 2, now its psionic". It was one the problems I had with artificer too, btw. Subclasses are additive, not transformational. There is no subclass so far that invalidates the rules of base class, merely adds on to them. Which is why you can ADD spellcasting to the fighter via EK, the Favored Soul doesn't change a sorcerer from an "arcane" to "divine" spellcaster.



Which is an excellent argument for having a separate psion class.

Or, it might be a better argument for ditching the sorcerer class, entirely, and creating the psion as an internally-powered "caster" class that covers anyone who is their own battery, whether that battery is there because they have a mutant brain, are touched by "things man was not meant to know", grand-pappy was a dragon or angel, or their mother was caught in a magical accident (wild sorcerer, maybe).

None of those should really have to cast spells, any more than a god or arch-devil would actually cast a spell. They just make effects happen by force of will. That's the trappings of the mentalist. It's also what I'd expect to see from someone whose blood ran with magic. The effects might look like magic -- and they might radiate magic -- but they wouldn't be because of the rote incantations or petitions necessary for a caster to shape external energy. To truly own the power, it has to flow smoothly. 

A sorcerer/psion might need to use foci of some sort to, well, focus their internal power. Those foci could look a lot like the words or tools a wizard might use (dragon blood), the holy symbol of a priest (favored soul), or just strange crystals (3E psion). Regardless, a substitution mechanic could be worked out allowing for the use of standard PHB spells, but the psion gets to swap out glowing eyes for any "spell" that uses verbal components. It would feel a lot like the 3E psion, if done right.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep.  And psionics has been "MAGIC" in the past.
> 
> It's also had a 'not magic' option in 3e, and in 4e was a separate 'Source.'  So, yeah, if you want to go the 4e route and have Psionics definitively or existentially distinct from arcane, divine, etc, it might be an issue to have a sub-class throw that switch.
> 
> 5e has not gone that way, though:  Divine, arcane, natural, draconic, chaos, G.O.O., Fey, or Diabolic, magic is all magic.




Psionics was never "magic". In AD&D, it ran on a completely different system (lacking levels, components, and schools for power points, ability checks, and disciplines). 3e allowed for psionic/magic transparency (which AD&D did not) and 4e made it implicit. However, psionics and magic were completely separate for most of its history and used some varying mechanic (even 4e, in the tune of power points augments) for nearly all of it.

Further, all the other types you listed have always been represented by "magic" previous. Divine and Arcane (or Cleric and M-U) go back as far as OD&D, "natural" (which I assume you mean druidic) was a subtype of divine, "draconic" (again, you mean sorcerer bloodline) was arcane, chaos (dating back to the wild mage) was arcane, G.O.O.,fey magic and diabolic (typically acquired via 3e prestige classes) were both basically arcane magic too. So all the sources you listed before basically were always spells, typically a subset of either divine/priestly or arcane/wizardly. Psionics never was. It was always unique and NEVER tied to arcane or divine magic. Doing so now cheapens it. 



Tony Vargas said:


> That's an interesting distinction, and probably /why/ Sorcerers, Warlocks and Clerics work that way, because it would be strange for a Sorcerer to 'become' Draconic at 3rd level.  Of course, that's no objection at all to a Psionic Sorcerer, since he'd be Psionic from level 1.
> 
> It does hurt the idea of an Ardent Bard, though.  ;(




Which only works if you decide psionics is "inner magic", which the sorcerer already does. You could make a "magic" bloodline and it would basically be what you're proposing. Psionics isn't just another way to cast magic missile; making it so defeats the point. Psionics is about powers of the mind (telepathy, remote viewing, clairsentience), body (bio-feedback, pain tolerance, psychic healing), spirit (aura reading, charkras, and spirit projection) and manipulation of objects (telekinesis, pyrokinesis, teleportation). Psionics has different beat than magic, and certainly than the magic the sorcerer gets. 



Tony Vargas said:


> As would a hypothetical psionic sorcerer.
> There's no rule that differentiates the Arcane Source in 5e, nor even any formal concept of source.  A Sorcerer is as different from a Wizard as from a Druid or Cleric:  they're all three neo-Vancian prepped casters and the Sorcerer isn't.




First line under Spellcasting: "An event in your past, or in the life of a parent or ancestor, left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with *arcane magic*. This font of magic, whatever its origin, fuels your spells."

Emphasis mine. Right there, a psionic subclass would contradict the main text of the book. Doesn't say "magical", or "psionic" or "supernatural", its says ARCANE MAGIC and SPELLS. 

Case closed. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Every class and almost every sub-class in 5e is just another way of saying "spellcaster."  It'd be tough to sell the idea that they're mostly not needed.




If psionics is just magic (and Arcane Magic at that) then they aren't needed anymore. Wizards can charm, read minds, move objects without touching them, throw fire, move vast distances, and even dominate the weak minded. Without a unique mechanic and powers different than arcane magic, they are akin to a diviner, enchanter, or conjurer and thus redundant. 

At that point, I'd rather NOT clutter up the game with a redundant subclass wearing some classic name. Go big or go home; new system or don't bother.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 16, 2015)

I am surprised that people who play a roleplaying game have such a hard time separating fluff from mechanics. How hard is it to create your own gods, warlock pacts, origins of sorcery, or psionic triggers. This is a game predicated on creativity and imagination. There is nothing in the 5e core rules that is setting specific. None of the classes or sub-classes are specific to the Realms. Nothing in the fluff should keep you from enjoying 5e as a system.  It's as if some of you don't like the system because the book mentions that elves are good with long swords and in the fantasy world that you have envisioned elves use boomerangs ... well change it. Nothing presented so far is beyond normal fantasy tropes. If you have something different in mind, tweek it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 16, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I am surprised that people who play a roleplaying game have such a hard time separating fluff from mechanics. How hard is it to create your own gods, warlock pacts, origins of sorcery, or psionic triggers. This is a game predicated on creativity and imagination. There is nothing in the 5e core rules that is setting specific.



 Nod.  As it was during the playtest and the edition war, discussions like this often go down a rabbithole when someone really wants their way to be the default or official way, as if they need that validation to re-assure them that it's OK to have a different preference from the next guy.  :shrug:

Were it not for that impulse, we wouldn't even have 5e, right now.



Remathilis said:


> Psionics was never "magic". In AD&D, it ran on a completely different system (lacking levels, components, and schools for power points, ability checks, and disciplines).



 Different system, yes.  'Not magic?'  not so clear.  Magic & psionics interacted in 1e, yes.  But so did magic and gamma world mutations and technology, in the 1e DMG.



> 3e allowed for psionic/magic transparency (which AD&D did not) and 4e made it implicit.



 Backwards.  4e gave Psionics it's own 'Source,' making it definitively different from Arcane, just as, say, Martial was.  3e explicitly gave you the magic/not-magic choice, for the first time.  4e went the other way, it was the only edition that took Psionics, Divine, Primal, &c and made them all distinct Sources.  

I don't expect 5e to take the 4e course and make Psionics distinct from magic, since it's abandoned formal Sources, and, because 33 of 38 sub-classes already use spells in one way or another.  



> Which only works if you decide psionics is "inner magic", which the sorcerer already does.[/qoute] Or 'mind magic,' yes. Exactly.  Psionics is a supernatural power, placed in a fantasy setting, what else is going to be but 'magic' in some sense. Two of three Monk sub-classes use spells for their Ki powers, why wouldn't a Psionic sub-class (or full class) also leverage the tremendous amount of space the PH1 devoted to spells?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 16, 2015)

Mechanically psionic powers have to be different than spells. They should not simply reference a spell description. They need to be called powers even if they are formatted in a similar fashion to spells. They are going to duplicate spell functions in some cases (telepathy and mage hand come to mind) ... but they must mechanically have a different feel. A pool of points and an exhaustion mechanic that allows them to empower and extend their duration goes a long way to this end. The use of the feat mechanic as a prerequisite to psionic powers also does this and it throws humans a boon that rarely happens when rule sets expand.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 16, 2015)

Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book _Occult Adventures_, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/

And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game. 

This makes a lot of sense to me, because learning a whole new rule system is often tricky. It's what kept me away from stuff like the 3e _Tome of Magic_ and _Magic of Incarnum_. Having psionics be completely different with no spell overlap sounds exactly like that sort of thing.

Thoughts?


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book _Occult Adventures_, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
> http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/
> 
> And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.
> ...




I agree that Incarnum was too different. There needs to be overlap and points of reference. Psionic powers would still be ranked 1-9 and have level restrictions. The spell point system in the DMG is not necessarily that different than the neo-vancian system that now exists. It just feels different because of how it is presented and that is what is needed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 16, 2015)

Jester: I'd give you xp for those cogent observations, were they not in the form of a Pathfinder plug.  ;P



GobiWon said:


> Mechanically psionic powers have to be different than spells. They should not simply reference a spell description. They need to be called powers even if they are formatted in a similar fashion to spells.



 Ideally, they'd be called Disciplines and Sciences. And some sort of 'points' would certainly be nice, harkening back to the classic game.   But that doesn't mean the underlying mechanics need to be all that different.   

Casters who get their magic from completely different sources still use the same spells, mechanically.  Shadow and Elemental Monks and Totem Barbarians, for instance, reference spells for how certain abilities work, but don't prep spells out of a book like a Vancian wizard.  Psionics could be similar, leveraging the large investment in the PH spell list, while still being distinct from other casters.  




> They are going to duplicate spell functions in some cases (telepathy and mage hand come to mind) ... but they must mechanically have a different feel. A pool of points and an exhaustion mechanic that allows them to empower and extend their duration goes a long way to this end.



 Sounds good.



> The use of the feat mechanic as a prerequisite to psionic powers also does this and it throws humans a boon that rarely happens when rule sets expand.



 Unfortunately that runs up against the feats being optional thing.  Sure, psionics are going to be optional, but if they /require/ feats, that's just another hurdle for the player who wants a psionic to get his DM past.  

A Wild Talent feat would be cool, though, for campaigns where feats are in use.

As long as fans of psionics get /something/ for 5e significantly before 6e hits the shelves...


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 16, 2015)

As a DM, I want feats and psionics to be optional, so that's not a problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2015)

As already stated, I prefer Psi to be its own thing as opposed to reskinned magic.  Go back to AD&D: whatever you think of the _quality_ of the actual mechanics, Psi was different and did not feel at all like magic.

(FWIW, I did buy ToM and MoI.)


Plus, given the modular nature of 5Ed rules, whether it is or isn't distinct makes no real difference in terms of adoption/learning curve.  Like Feats: don't like it, don't use it.  D&D has never been a truly stripped-down, rules light, easy to learn game.  I just don't see additional subsystems being a real major issue.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book _Occult Adventures_, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
> http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/
> 
> And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.
> ...




The fact that they're calling it "psychic magic" really explains it well enough I think, and chooses a side in the "is it magic or not" divide.  

I'm  pretty clearly of the side who wants psionics as Not-Magic. 
Though I'm open to having it both ways depending on your game, I really need distinct mechanics to have it meet what I need for mine.

I agree that you don't want to over complicate the system, especially the Basic system. 
BUT
5th Edition is a much simpler game than pathfinder, so I think there's more room for a different mechanic for psionics (_and hopefully a simple one as well_) that won't break the game. With PF you have a better chance of having the straw that breaks the back of an already overburdened system.

With 5e, psionics would definitely NOT be a part of the basic game, to keep it from completely diluting the default DnD expectations.  It would clearly be a "optional system" 

For organized play I'd probably link it to only specific storylines with psionic themes to prevent things from getting too bloated, especially if they do a less-than-perfect job designing the system and insert some power creep that has everybody complaining about every party having a &()&$% psion in it.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Jester: I'd give you xp for those cogent observations, were they not in the form of a Pathfinder plug.  ;P



I was just trying hard to cite my sources, so people didn't need to listen to the podcast if they didn't want to. Information trackback if you will...



bogmad said:


> I'm  pretty clearly of the side who wants psionics as Not-Magic.
> Though I'm open to having it both ways depending on your game, I really need distinct mechanics to have it meet what I need for mine.



I'm fond of the idea of it being another type of magic, so it fits nicely with existing things like innate spellcasting, _dispel magic_, anti-magic fields, counterspells, etc. If it's too different, the interaction with the existing rules is awkward. 

Even if it's not "magic" overtly, if it follows the same basic rules of the game it would help. Having the neo-Vancian casting with 9 levels of powers helps keep things familiar and accessible.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'm fond of the idea of it being another type of magic, so it fits nicely with existing things like innate spellcasting, _dispel magic_, anti-magic fields, counterspells, etc. If it's too different, the interaction with the existing rules is awkward.
> 
> Even if it's not "magic" overtly, if it follows the same basic rules of the game it would help. Having the neo-Vancian casting with 9 levels of powers helps keep things familiar and accessible.




I'd agree that keeping things accessible is an absolute requirement, but familiar isn't as important to me, especially if the only way to be familiar is to completely mimic similar spells.  

I also agree that there should be a certain amount of interaction with magic, just so you don't break the game with a psion being impervious to spells or vice versa.

But it could be on a spell by spell, power by power basis for all I care.  Psychic fire might be able to be dispelled by cold magic, lacking what "magic fire" has that makes it harder to get rid of by mundane means.  No psychic fireballs (or psionic fireball spells), but just the ability to create mundane fire with your mind. A bucket brigade works better against a pyrokineticist than a guy wielding unquenchable fire from Hell.

Go back to psychic invisibility being limited by the amount of targets you're invisible to.  Dispel magic might not work on it, but a group or army is going to be able to notice the psion who's only invisible to the wizard and a few other guys at most.  BUT even then, See Invisible IS going to uncover that psionically invisible dude even if dispell magic won't*.

If you do it that way though, it would require having a much smaller choice of abilities or list than the number of spells available to spellcasters. Don't provide enough toys to the psion that would make it frustrating that an anti-magic field _never_ catches his schtick,  and provide way to make his talents countered by other means. Make it exciting when dispel magic _doesn't_ catch the psion, instead of frustrating when "_oh great the psion is impervious *again*_."  
A small list could keep it accessible (if not familiar), but a large list would make it unwieldy.  In that way a full level 1-9 level span might make the system LESS accessible by requiring enough options to fill out the entire progression.

 (*"because magic" or because the spell is detecting the mass and converting it to sight instead of pure visual information or however you need to fluff it to sleep at night)


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> /snip
> 
> 2.) While the Sorcerer, warlock and cleric pick their subclass at level 1, the wizard, druid, bard, and other subclasses do not. Which would create a disruptive element of "my magic was arcane until hit level 2, now its psionic". It was one the problems I had with artificer too, btw. Subclasses are additive, not transformational. There is no subclass so far that invalidates the rules of base class, merely adds on to them. Which is why you can ADD spellcasting to the fighter via EK, the Favored Soul doesn't change a sorcerer from an "arcane" to "divine" spellcaster.
> 
> ...




But, since we do have a precedent here with the Sorc, Warlock and Cleric, it's maybe not as hard to make a psionicist pick its subclass at level one.  Why not add level one psionic subclasses to the base archetypes (say Bard, Sorc and Wizard).  Because, in my mind, the warlock certainly paves the way for this.  Granted a warlock's spells are all "magic", but their source is very, very different.  Which Otherworldly Patron you pick for your Warlock should greatly change the look and feel of a given warlock.  You get a pretty different suite of abilities at level one and I would hope that players would create characters that are very different based on their Patron.

Perhaps it's not as much of a challenge as you think Rem.  Why couldn't you have three subclasses, Psion, Wilder and Soulknife, placed under the aegis of Wizard, Sorcerer and Bard, which gives the basic framework for powers - when do you receive spells and whatnot, and then have the subclasses filter out some of the base class' underpinnings - so a Soul Knife loses instrument proficiencies but gains proficiency in something else.  Bardic inspiration gets reflavored as a mental buff thingie.  Keep the spell progression and weapon proficiencies and all you have to do is come up with a new disciplines list (which I think everyone agrees is needed) and we're good to go.  

It seems to fit the bill to me.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Different system, yes.  'Not magic?'  not so clear.  Magic & psionics interacted in 1e, yes.  But so did magic and gamma world mutations and technology, in the 1e DMG.




Small cavaet: never used psionics under 1e (since I never played 1e, just read the books). My play experience is with 2e and on, so I'll keep to them.

Now, starting with the Complete Psionics Handbook, I can tell you with certainty magic interacted with psionics poorly. Detect Magic did NOT detect psionic powers. Dispel Magic didn't dispel psionic powers. You could use psionics in anti-magic, dead magic, and so on (one of the reasons Dark Sun gave used it prominently). Psionic powers required no verbal or somatic components, you could even use them while bound or stunned (as long as you could take "purely mental actions"). Psionics had no level (which was why they were sometimes gamebreaking; disintergrate at level 6?) required ability checks to activate (and could potentially backfire if you rolled poorly enough, I'll have to tell you about Ivan the Sentient Psionic Bridge later). Psionics even had a strange (and obtuse) form of combat using attack and defense mechanisms. They were "magic" in the sense that they were a non-mundane, but they were not MAGIC as D&D defined it. 

 Backwards.  4e gave Psionics it's own 'Source,' making it definitively different from Arcane, just as, say, Martial was.  3e explicitly gave you the magic/not-magic choice, for the first time.  4e went the other way, it was the only edition that took Psionics, Divine, Primal, &c and made them all distinct Sources.  

I don't expect 5e to take the 4e course and make Psionics distinct from magic, since it's abandoned formal Sources, and, because 33 of 38 sub-classes already use spells in one way or another.  [/QUOTE]

:facepalm:

I just explained why 2e psionics was completely different than 2e magic. Shall I do the same for 3e now? How you couldn't make a "magical" item out of psionics (but instead had their own special item creation feats)? That powers didn't scale with level but required power points to augment them? (A precursor to 5e's high slot system). That they used "Psionic Focus" as a mechanic to keep/expend psionic power? That they lacked Cantrips or 0-level powers? 

Even in 3e, psionics was a very different beast than straight magic. 4e didn't invent powersources, you know. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Or 'mind magic,' yes. Exactly.  Psionics is a supernatural power, placed in a fantasy setting, what else is going to be but 'magic' in some sense. Two of three Monk sub-classes use spells for their Ki powers, why wouldn't a Psionic sub-class (or full class) also leverage the tremendous amount of space the PH1 devoted to spells?
> 
> Most of those are things already done by spells.  Sub-classes can add to spell lists, so filling out the few that aren't isn't a problem.  Likewise, adding a feature that eschews certain components wouldn't be out of line.




The Player's Handbook is done and dusted. I never expected psionics to be in it. The monk needed to be. I accept that giving them "spells" was a good shorthand to fit more stuff in the PHB. But we're not talking PHB anymore; the skies the bloody limit. They can do psionics in anything form a UA to a hardbound tome, they can put out as many unique abilities as they want. 



Tony Vargas said:


> By the same token, you could have cut the Sorcerer, Warlock, EK, & AT.  Wizard sub-classes could have covered the gamut, and multi-classing the two 1/3rd casters.
> 
> But that's clearly not the standard 5e is using.




Its hard to know what standard they are using; they've released the PHB and a single 25 page PDF of player stuff. (And a couple UAs, which are barely more than playtest). However, despite having spells in the book, they found the ability to put in Invocations and Superiority Dice as subsystems as well; I doubt 5e is new-system averse (and it clearly doesn't mind optional rules). 



Tony Vargas said:


> While I empathize with that point, genuinely, I just don't think WotC has shown an enthusiasm for that approach.  Rather than give Monks their long list of Ki powers, Barbarians Totems, and so forth, they gave everyone who did anything supernatural spells.  It's an efficient approach, letting them do the most with the least design resources and without the complication of wildly different sub-systems.  But, I agree that it is disappointing in some cases.  Psionics may turn out to be one of them.
> 
> OTOH, I'm afraid "go big or don't bother" is a lot more likely to get us "don't bother."




Then don't use them if you don't like them. But don't half-ass them for use who DO like them. A psionic sorcerer is a lazy, half-ass way of doing psionics, any person on this board could make one and put it in the database and claim "psionics for 5e is done." Let psionics be for those who want to use it; make your own sorcerer subclass if you don't. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Better something than nothing.




I'd rather nothing than crap.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, since we do have a precedent here with the Sorc, Warlock and Cleric, it's maybe not as hard to make a psionicist pick its subclass at level one.  Why not add level one psionic subclasses to the base archetypes (say Bard, Sorc and Wizard).  Because, in my mind, the warlock certainly paves the way for this.  Granted a warlock's spells are all "magic", but their source is very, very different.  Which Otherworldly Patron you pick for your Warlock should greatly change the look and feel of a given warlock.  You get a pretty different suite of abilities at level one and I would hope that players would create characters that are very different based on their Patron.




But there is no MECHANICAL difference between the three warlocks; just a choice of a few powers, a few additional spell choices, and a bit of description. Psionics should be different then just being another source of Eldritch Blast, it should make the PC play different. Otherwise, its barely worth the title psionic.



Hussar said:


> Perhaps it's not as much of a challenge as you think Rem.  Why couldn't you have three subclasses, Psion, Wilder and Soulknife, placed under the aegis of Wizard, Sorcerer and Bard, which gives the basic framework for powers - when do you receive spells and whatnot, and then have the subclasses filter out some of the base class' underpinnings - so a Soul Knife loses instrument proficiencies but gains proficiency in something else.  Bardic inspiration gets reflavored as a mental buff thingie.  Keep the spell progression and weapon proficiencies and all you have to do is come up with a new disciplines list (which I think everyone agrees is needed) and we're good to go.




Imagine that play out in game.

DM: Well, you're all third level now; Bob, pick your subclass. 

Bob: Ok, my Bard, Cwell the Fine, picked the Soulknife psionic subclass.

DM: Oh, sweet. What does that give you? 

Bob: Well first, remember how I impressed the mayor with my lute first game? Well, I can't play it anymore, I just forgot how. And I can't cast cure wounds or sleep anymore, because I became psionic and gained telepathy and meditative focus. Oh, now I can use my inspiration dice to manifest a blade of psionic power like a short sword. And I don't get song of healing anymore, but anyone who meditates with me gets the same benefit. And also, I can't cast rituals anymore, I lost the ability to use spellcasting focuses, and I can't read spell scrolls anymore (so Jim, you want my scroll of charm person now?) but I can use psychokinesis to wreath myself in psionic flame!

DM: So, what part of you is still a bard?

Bob: Oh, my hit die and spell progression didn't change...



Hussar said:


> It seems to fit the bill to me.




Glad your happy. As I've said, I'd rather they forget the whole thing than make these silly half-measures.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> > But, since we do have a precedent here with the Sorc, Warlock and Cleric, it's maybe not as hard to make a psionicist pick its subclass at level one.  Why not add *level one* psionic subclasses to the base archetypes (say Bard, Sorc and Wizard).
> ...



 Not how I'd imagine it.



Remathilis said:


> Small cavaet: never used psionics under 1e (since I never played 1e, just read the books). My play experience is with 2e and on, so I'll keep to them.



 We're going to talk past eachother a lot then, since I used 1e Psionics, and ignored them in 2e.  



> Shall I do the same for 3e now?



 3e specifically had a 'psionics is magic' and 'psionics is different' options.



> 4e didn't invent powersources, you know.



 It didn't invent Roles, either, but did you ever try telling anyone that during the edition war.    4e did formalize the Sources, making each it's own distinct thing, just like it formalized Roles, something 5e has gotten so far away from it's almost comical.



> But we're not talking PHB anymore; the skies the bloody limit. They can do psionics in anything form a UA to a hardbound tome, they can put out as many unique abilities as they want.



 They're not exactly putting out huge amounts of radically new content.   I don't doubt that Psionics deserves coverage as least as lavish as a 2e Complete Psionic Handbook or 4e PH3 & Psionic Power, and that such would leave plenty of room for an extensive, unique system (including a magic/not-magic option) and multiple classes.   But, so far there's no indication we'll ever get 'splats' along the line of a Complete book.  

A UA (or maybe a series of them, each with a sub-class, or some feats), OTOH, would be a lot less of a stretch.



> Its hard to know what standard they are using; they've released the PHB and a single 25 page PDF of player stuff. (And a couple UAs, which are barely more than playtest). However, despite having spells in the book, they found the ability to put in Invocations and Superiority Dice as subsystems as well; I doubt 5e is new-system averse



 Those were pretty compact sub-systems.  Superiority Dice & Maneuvers fell far short of the mark, too.



> A psionic sorcerer is a lazy, half-ass way of doing psionics,



 5e doesn't exactly seem to eschew that sort of thing.  We already alluded to the Battlemaster, for instance.



> I'd rather nothing than crap.



 I understand, but it's a very subjective bar, and WotC won't be able to clear it for everyone.  No matter how many design FTEs they throw at it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 17, 2015)

Remalthalis - did you miss the part where I said that Psions would pick their Subclass at 1st level?  So, your Bard example would never happen.  It's just like a Warlock picking his Patron at 1st level.  I'd say that there is a fair mechanical difference between a Short Rest based Fear/Charm spell and an at will Telepathy that bypasses language requirements.  And, just because there aren't _that_ many differences between patrons doesn't mean you couldn't make stronger differences with our Psionic subclasses.

I mean, heck, I mentioned straight out that our Soul Knife Bard Subclass loses his instrument proficiencies at 1st level so your mayor example would never happen.

I get the feeling that you skimmed my post but didn't actually read it.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> That powers didn't scale with level but required power points to augment them? (*A precursor to 5e's high slot system*).



 (emphasis added)

Agree. This is a point which I made some pages back.

I feel like 5e magic basically took one of the main things which separated magic and psionics: the scaling mechanic. On top of that, Sorcerers get Sorcery Points which translate into spell slot levels, at rates which are very analogous to power points.

So IMHO there's no big loss in using spell slots to power psionic powers: spell casting is quite close to using psionics mechanics already.

- - -

In terms of flavor, by using a spell slot you'd be forcing magical energy through one of your innate Psionic circuits. So you'd get at-will powers (pure Psionics) plus the ability to use stronger effects with limits (via spell slots).


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

I want everyone to have what they want. Perhaps it is possible in this case.


Make ‘psionics’ and ‘psychic magic’ two different things.

*Psionics* (also called psi) is ‘nonmagic’. It has unique mechanics to ‘manifest’ ‘powers’. The Psion is a separate class, and is psionic.

*Psychic magic* is ‘magic’. It uses normal mechanics to ‘cast’ ‘spells’. The various archetypes of the core classes are psychic.


Psychic magic uses the power of the mind as the source of magic (replacing the weave, gods, nature, dragons, etcetera). Psychic magic is distinctive for having no material components, and so on.

A DM can use both psionics and psychic magic (which I would probably do). Or a DM might prefer to use only one of the two.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e has not gone that way, though:  Divine, arcane, natural, draconic, chaos, G.O.O., Fey, or Diabolic, magic is all magic.




Actually arcane and divine are still things--just not mechanical. See "The Weave of Magic" sidebar in the spellcasting section where it talks about the whole multiverse D&D default position regarding there being a magical interface (which is called "the Weave" on Faerun), and regarding which classes use arcane vs. divine magic.

Now, _mechanically_ arcane vs. divine is meaningless in this edition. But lore-wise, their existence is a default, multiverse wide (_not_ just Forgotten Realms) assumption of 5e D&D. Future products are just not going to ignore that.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 17, 2015)

Davinshe said:


> I only played psionic combat in 3.0 (as I didn't play earlier editions and it didn't appear in 3.5), but I am mostly of the same opinion here. What I would be willing to see would be combining the ideas of psionic combat forms with psionic focus. Like, just spitballing here, suppose you spent your action to enter psionic focus, at which point you have to maintain concentration, can only move at half speed, and all attacks have advantage on you. Then each round you can use powerful psionic attack forms that are either at-will or more powerful for the amount of power points they consume than other attacks of their level. Alternatively, perhaps some powers could have a special rider when where they have an increased effect when used within psionic focus. It feels a bit like the Avatar state from The Last Airbender (increased power combined with increased vulnerability).




My experiences with 1E are also RSPLS-ish...
2E, however, Psionicists were really quite potent, and it wasn't as much RSPLS.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book _Occult Adventures_, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
> http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/
> 
> And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.
> ...




For me, if psionics doesn't introduce a unique mechanic, then there is no good reason to add a psionics ruleset. As everyone agrees, you can make a perfectly acceptable psion out of an enchanter wizard or a sorcerer bloodline, plus some fluff.

As a player of a game, I am looking for options that give me a new and different experience in play.  Currently all casters share similar limitations in spellcasting, and have the same type of resource management. So the psion = (arcane+fluff) equivalency doesn't add anything to the game for me--it only suggests a hook for designing a PC.  But my enchanter psion isn't going to provide a different play experience from any other wizard. If they put out an Unearthed Arcana article with a few spells, feats, and subclasses to support psionic play, then I won't turn up my nose at it, but I probably wouldn't bother to put it into a campaign. 

So Erik Mona's viewpoint of psychic magic leaves me indifferent. It sounds like just another supplement along the lines of the elemental player's guide. The Expanded Psionics Handbook left me indifferent too--psions were mechanically a little different from spellcasters but not unique enough for me.

So yes, while I realize it introduces a learning curve, I would vastly prefer if WotC published a new and interesting, playtested psionics subsystem, one with limitations, exploits, and resource management very different from the basic PH magic system.  I want a subsystem that could drastically alter the tone of a campaign, not just another flavor of spellcaster, so that I could run Athas with only wizards, sorcerers and psions, for example, or run Cthulhu with only wild talents and warlocks.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 17, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Remalthalis - did you miss the part where I said that Psions would pick their Subclass at 1st level?  So, your Bard example would never happen.  It's just like a Warlock picking his Patron at 1st level.  I'd say that there is a fair mechanical difference between a Short Rest based Fear/Charm spell and an at will Telepathy that bypasses language requirements.  And, just because there aren't _that_ many differences between patrons doesn't mean you couldn't make stronger differences with our Psionic subclasses.
> 
> I mean, heck, I mentioned straight out that our Soul Knife Bard Subclass loses his instrument proficiencies at 1st level so your mayor example would never happen.
> 
> I get the feeling that you skimmed my post but didn't actually read it.




But that's not how 9 out of 12 subclasses in the PHB work. You never get the features of your sublcass before you are of the level to get those powers. You can plan ahead (in the case of role-playing to a paladin oath or putting a high score in Int for an EK), but nothing changes about your character before you pick that level. Which is why Valor Bards get their martial weapon and armor proficiency at THIRD and not FIRST level, or why Assassin's learn disguise and poisoner's kits automatically at third, rather than first, or why a ranger spontaneously summons his animal buddy at third and doesn't have a dog before that.  

You're asking (effectively) to rewrite the PHB classes to allow your subclass choice to effect you at first level (which raises all sorts of questions about things like multi-classing) and that changes the dynamic of sublcass and class (which currently augments base classes, not changes anything about them), which seems like a HELL OF A LOT more work than adding a simple new base class and being done with it. 

So no, I didn't skim your post, I assumed you knew how the D&D 5th edition rules actually worked, opposed to how you want them too.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Listening to some of the Know Direction coverage from PaizoCon. Right now I'm on the panel about the upcoming Pathfinder book _Occult Adventures_, which features the Paizo version of psionics:
> http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/06/paizocon-2015-occultism-with-brandon-hodge/
> 
> And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.
> ...




I think you can have a psionic class/classes without a new "magic system."

In this respect, the 3e model of psionics shows the worst-case scenario: it's an entirely new system with fiddly academic distinctions that don't often matter in play and entirely new verbiage. That'd be what we *do not want*, to avoid Erik's pitfall there.

But what we could have is a set of unique mechanics.

For instance, if the fluff of psionics is a sort of 1920s-era spiritism with mediums and seances and tarot cards and ESP and the like, we could have a system based around _objects_ - items that are like arcane focuses, but used to hone the power of the mind and the planes themselves (and this is sounding a lot like regular wizard magic at this point, but lets put a pin in that). This might resemble, like, a 4e-era implement-wizard, who relies on their objects of power to channel magical effects. The magical effects themselves could take the form of enhancements to skills - you can use _Diplomacy_ with your pocketwatch as a psion to charm people, or you can use _Investigation_ with a crystal ball as a psion to see the past or future, or you can use _Athletics_ and a mystical gem as a psion to transform your body circus-freak style. PSPs become what you spend to turn your skill to a metaphysical use, and the more points you spend the more extreme your supernatural use. 

That might wind up replicating some of the effects of standard magic (A psionic _diplomacy_ isn't much different in effect from _charm person_), but the experience of playing the character will be meaningfully distinct because of the mechanical distinction, and learning to play a psion in this mode wouldn't be any more work than learning to play a paladin or a ranger. 

As long as these things don't just replicate spells (like, the psionic _diplomacy_ and _charm person_ might both grant advantage on CHA checks, but they do it with different costs and benefits and tradeofffs - maybe the psionic version is more reliable, but takes effort to maintain, for instance), there's enough distinction to make it worth the page count.

The awful thing from my perspective would be if they're just like "you cast Charm Person, but with points and crystals." But it sounds like they've got a good handle on that.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> And the publisher, Erik Mona, talked about how they explicitly wanted psychic magic to use the same magic system. Otherwise it's asking people to learn a whole new, unfamiliar ruleset for psionics, adding this huge chunk of new rules. Which makes it harder to learn and incorporate into your game.
> 
> This makes a lot of sense to me, because learning a whole new rule system is often tricky. It's what kept me away from stuff like the 3e _Tome of Magic_ and _Magic of Incarnum_. Having psionics be completely different with no spell overlap sounds exactly like that sort of thing.
> 
> Thoughts?



I absolutely loathe this idea. It's the same line of thinking that led to the unified AEDU system in 4E, and I'm a bit surprised Paizo would get drawn into it. Among the folks who abandoned 4E for Pathfinder, AEDU was high on the list of things that they hated like poison. (It wasn't a deal-breaker for me, but I sure wasn't happy with it, and I was very glad when Essentials came out and gave me an alternative.)

People on forums talk as if there is a bright dividing line between "crunch" and "fluff," but in fact there is no such line. The two blend into each other. The mechanical rules for a game element shape how that element feels in play. If two classes use the same rules, they will feel "samey" even if they are described as wildly different. If psionics is to feel different from magic, then it needs to use different rules.

The nice thing about D&D is that if you don't want to learn the psionics rules, you don't have to! Just stick with wizards and sorcerers. The DM should have a vague sense of how psionics works, but the only person who needs a really firm grasp of the psi rules is the person who chooses to play a psion.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 17, 2015)

double post


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

Paizo does alot of smart things. By using normal rules for ‘psychic magic’, Paizo is doing it smart again.

Those psychic classes are going to see play at almost every table, become a staple of the game, and sell well.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 17, 2015)

So as this thread drags on and demonstrates how many different opinions there are about the "right" way to do psionics, you have to pity WotC, really. Unless they put out a book with about five alternate systems with a few sub-systems in for good measure*, there's no way they can please the majority of gamers.

I'm just as bad as anyone if not worse:

As a player, I'd like something with some different mechanical flavor.
As a world builder, I'd like something power-level wise that could replace magic
As a GM, you can't run something much simpler/manageable than Neo-Vancian magic.



Dausuul said:


> The DM should have a vague sense of how psionics works, but the only person who needs a really firm grasp of the psi rules is the person who chooses to play a psion.



I know that I would be wishing for a spin on the Neo-Vancian system after about the 5th time a player "forgot" a rule or a math that would have denied them an edge in the heat of battle. I've got enough going on trying to herd the cats called players and their PCs and run the game while I minimize my prep time during the week.

*That sounds like a great idea, I don't think the numbers would justify the cost of labor ... especially since Hasbro is always pushing for a print it, stock it, sell it, and print it again mode. I'm sure a 3rd party PDF would do the trick though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Actually arcane and divine are still things--just not mechanical. See "The Weave of Magic" sidebar in the spellcasting section where it talks about the whole multiverse D&D default position regarding there being a magical interface (which is called "the Weave" on Faerun), and regarding which classes use arcane vs. divine magic.



 Both are still magic, though.  And it's not like the difference between a Cleric & Druid or Warlock and Sorcerer aren't 'things' either, in spite of both the former being divine, both the latter being arcane, and all being magic.  Presumably Ki and totems are both outside the arcane/divine dichotomy, while still being magic, as well.  



> Future products are just not going to ignore that.



 Sounds reasonable.  I think that establishing psionics as a set of supernatural powers that somehow aren't magic would be ignoring the way 5e has handled things so far.  But, I do hope it will be presented as a serious options, and that them mechanics won't entrench one or the other, but be amenable to simple modification to support either.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

The Bard is ambiguous in terms of source. Its class description says nothing about being arcane or divine.  It is straightforward enough to make the Bard class utilize arcane, divine, psychic, or psionic.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 17, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> I absolutely loathe this idea. It's the same line of thinking that led to the unified AEDU system in 4E, and I'm a bit surprised Paizo would get drawn into it. Among the folks who abandoned 4E for Pathfinder, AEDU was high on the list of things that they hated like poison.



 'Hated' is the key word.  The rejection of 4e by h4ters was not an entirely rational reaction.  There were a lot of factors driving it, from the perceived 'early' rev-roll, to the behavior of WotC, to rejection of change, to feeling betrayed by the invalidation of hard-won system mastery, and many more rationalizations, excuses, talking points, even the odd real as well as imagined slight here or there.  It was a perfect storm, of sorts.  

Leveraging an existing system that is already imbalanced and already mastered by optimizers, is thus a non-issue, even if it does, in fact, constitute one of the proxy issues that h4ters rallied against in the edition war.  Pathfinder is imbalanced and lavishly rewards system mastery, already, so it can afford to introduce a form of psychic magic efficiently by leveraging existing systems.  Besides, Pathfinder is extremely complex and bloated, already, so they have to be thinking about keeping it playable.

5e is also imbalanced, but it's rewards for system mastery haven't risen to the level of 3.5/Pathfinder, for want of 15 years of bloated material.  So it's debateable whether it'd better-serve the h4ter sub-culture of D&D fans to bloat 5e out , further imbalancing it and adding the kinds of needless complexities, unintended synergies and broken combos that reward system mastery, or to leave it at it's current level of imbalance and exploitability to hold the line on a professed goal of relative 'rules lite' simplicity, which seems to be appealing to the sub-culture of Classic D&D fans (even though most of classic D&D - all of it but, perhaps, B/X - was actually quite complicated).



> People on forums talk as if there is a bright dividing line between "crunch" and "fluff,"



 There /can/ be, it's all a matter of how the game is designed and presented.  In 4e, there was such a dividing line.  Fluff was in italics in one part of a text block, keywords and other crunch in regular or bold type in other parts.  In classic D&D, the two were mixed so freely and thoroughly it was hard to say either really existed - 'rules' were as often phrased entirely in the manner of vague, evocative 'fluff' with no consistent interpretation possible, 'fluff' could incidentally take on the character of a rule, mechanics could be seen as defining the setting, and so forth.  In 5e, rules are written more like they were in classic D&D, but spells, at least, do have a descriptive section preceding a more rules-focused one - a cosmetic 'compromise' that is functionally no different from the classic approach.



> If two classes use the same rules, they will feel "samey" even if they are described as wildly different. If psionics is to feel different from magic, then it needs to use different rules.



 Not remotely true, but an understandable misconception.  It is easy to differentiate two game elements by giving them radically different mechanics - at the price of increasing complexity.  It takes a little more thought and subtlety to differentiate mechanically similar elements - but doing so limits bloat, broken combos, and the like, and makes future design easier.  So it's a balancing act in how the lead developer uses the available design resources.  



> The nice thing about D&D is that if you don't want to learn the psionics rules, you don't have to! Just stick with wizards and sorcerers. The DM should have a vague sense of how psionics works, but the only person who needs a really firm grasp of the psi rules is the person who chooses to play a psion.



 That trick worked in 4e, when basic mechanics were consistent, and it was easy to evaluate a power or class ability in the moment, with each player really only needing to be really familiar with his own character and the DM able to focus on the encounters.  In all other editions, and particularly in intentionally-DM-empowering 5e, it is critically important for the DM to know everything the PCs can do, at least as well as the players know it.  Heck, in 1e, EGG advised the DM know all the rules /better/ than his players, and if he didn't, that he'd 'lose control' of his campaign.  

That's a challenge, but it's one most long-time DMs are well able to handle.

All that said, I think it's a wash.  Mr. Mearls is relatively free to handle psionics as seems best or most expedient.  That 5e doesn't seem poised for the usual flood of splatbooks, and WotC farms out so much of the little that is published for it, though, argues for limited design resources, which makes a UA sub-class seem more likely than a complicated separate/mulitiple- sub-system splatbook.  FWIW.


tl;dr - Neither Pathfinder nor 5e face an edition war, so either or both could afford to re-cycle existing sub-systems for psionics, even at the risk of mechanical 'sameyness.'


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 17, 2015)

Power source is purely cosmetic in 5e.

I don't care if its prayers to gods or study from a tome or magic infused into a wand or the power of your mind or a neat trick or a wand of unicorn horn or a deal with the devil or gummiberry juice or Synergy your holopgraphic earring or the Power of Greyskull or stones formed from the souls of the dead or words of true power or some sort of magical poo-gas, none of that comes with anything significant except for narrative conceit. It's different in the fiction but it _isn't_ necessarily distinct in terms of gameplay.

So I can make a wizard tomorrow who uses magic with particular kata she practices in the morning and it's fine.

Power source _need not_ be purely cosmetic. For instance, 5e makes a mechanical distinction between "magic from my blood" and "magic from a book" and "magic from worshiping some greater being" (sorcerer vs. wizard vs. cleric). But this is opt-in, and requires more substantial design work, because you can't just loot the spell list and call it good.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> I want everyone to have what they want. Perhaps it is possible in this case.
> 
> 
> Make ‘psionics’ and ‘psychic magic’ two different things.
> ...




*Psionics versus Ki*

I am comfortable using the term ‘ki’ in Nonasian settings, to mean, ‘psychic magic’.

Ki corresponds to bodily lifeforce, aura, and soul, but its mystical cosmic quality can include mental aspects of mindforces, including Telekinesis and so on. Note, the Greek term ‘psyche’, in fact, means bodily lifeforce and corresponds to ki.

Normal classes like Bard, Wizard, and Sorcerer can have archetypes that use ‘ki magic’, using the power of their mind to replace dependence on the arcane weave, divine gods, etcetera, when casting spells.

Interestingly, identifying ‘psychic magic’ with ki, might emphasize the somatic component to cast a spell, using the body as a mental focus. Not sure if necessary but worth considering.

Thus two systems:

‘Psi’, also called ‘psionics’, is nonmagic and uses unique mechanics to manifest powers.

‘Ki’, also called ‘psychic magic’, is magic and uses normal mechanics to cast spells.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 17, 2015)

Yaarel said:
			
		

> Note, the Greek term ‘psyche’, in fact, means bodily lifeforce and corresponds to ki.




....another point in favor of making the Psi-flavor the flavor of Ancient Greece.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

Greek culture rarely emphasized the power of mind.

Greek magic is all about material components, divine, or both.

By Greek, I mean, Hellenistic.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

Heh ...

Psi + Ki = Psyche

:-D


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 17, 2015)

If Psi worked like Ki, you'd want a "caster-like" class that works like monks do - here's the things you can do all the time, and here's the things you can do by expending one or more points from your Psi pool.  

The trick would be making them not feel like warlock clones.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 17, 2015)

With regard to a Wizard archetype that uses ki instead of arcane, the purpose would be to use the same familiar mechanics, and to ‘cast’ ‘spells’, like a Wizard that uses arcane.

But if the desire is to have completely different mechanics, the better option would be to use ‘psi’ instead of ‘ki’, and go with the Psion class.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 17, 2015)

fuindordm said:


> I would vastly prefer if WotC published a new and interesting, *playtested* psionics subsystem,




Based on the sorts of things the designers have said last year, I assume we (the fans) are going to have psionic playtest rules first, and it might even be a big deal (ie, not just a small article that they poll us about after a month or two).



Yaarel said:


> The Bard is ambiguous in terms of source. Its class description says nothing about being arcane or divine.  It is straightforward enough to make the Bard class utilize arcane, divine, psychic, or psionic.




"The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called *arcane magic*...Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called *divine magic.*" Player's Basic Rules p. 81 / PHB p. 205.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> But that's not how 9 out of 12 subclasses in the PHB work. You never get the features of your sublcass before you are of the level to get those powers. You can plan ahead (in the case of role-playing to a paladin oath or putting a high score in Int for an EK), but nothing changes about your character before you pick that level. Which is why Valor Bards get their martial weapon and armor proficiency at THIRD and not FIRST level, or why Assassin's learn disguise and poisoner's kits automatically at third, rather than first, or why a ranger spontaneously summons his animal buddy at third and doesn't have a dog before that.
> 
> You're asking (effectively) to rewrite the PHB classes to allow your subclass choice to effect you at first level (which raises all sorts of questions about things like multi-classing) and that changes the dynamic of sublcass and class (which currently augments base classes, not changes anything about them), which seems like a HELL OF A LOT more work than adding a simple new base class and being done with it.
> 
> So no, I didn't skim your post, I assumed you knew how the D&D 5th edition rules actually worked, opposed to how you want them too.




What?  Three of the nine subclasses DO work that way.  That's what precedence means.  Warlocks choose their patrons at 1st level, which, in a large way, defines a lot of their class.  Clerics choose their domains at 1st level.  

You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff.  This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.

I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff.  This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.
> 
> I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.




_Easier_ sure, but is it a heck of a lot _better?_  Especially for those who want the option of psionics being different? Why not take a crack at making a new system that still fits in with the guidelines of not overly complicating things, and that interacts well with existing mechanics? Is it _impossible_ to make that work?  

If it's not impossible to make a new simple system that interacts well with existing mechanics, then I say go for that.

Even if it's _difficult_ to do, that's why you playtest the hell out of it til you have something that works.
Why go for the less satisfying solution just because it's easy? That's a very disappointing road for the biggest and highest profile ttrpg to go down...


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> What?  Three of the nine subclasses DO work that way.  That's what precedence means.  Warlocks choose their patrons at 1st level, which, in a large way, defines a lot of their class.  Clerics choose their domains at 1st level.
> 
> You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff.  This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.
> 
> I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.




I'm convinced you don't know what a subclass is in 5th edition. 

Look at the 36 examples of them in the Player's Handbook. NONE of them remove anything from the base class. None of them change the nature of the base class. 3/4ths of them don't give you a damn thing at first level (and those three specifically are written to give you your subclass abilities at first level, not wait 2-3 levels to get them.) Even the ones that DO introduce new elements (such as battlemaster or arcane trickster) do not invalidate anything the base fighter or rogue class is. 

You are proposing a new system where you choose your subclass levels before you should, that radically re-writes the class in question, and can cause all manner of conflicts now or later (Can a wizard who doesn't use a spellbook use rituals? How does he learn additional spells for leveling up?) In short, you're re-writing the subclass system to fit your own desire for some steadfast notion of "NO NEW CLASSES EVAR!" and your willing to change the Player's Handbook to do it. 

Besides, when a subclass strips the base class of his proficiencies, spell system, base class features, 90% of his fluff, and even bends how subclasses work, you haven't won me over that its easier. In fact, a single new class (which you can ignore at your leisure) is a helluva lot easier than changing how subclasses work and re-writing PHB classes to make it work.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2015)

The problem I see with the new class thing is that historically it hasn't worked. Every edition has seen major issues when you start trying to bolt on completely new mechanics. 2e psionics is a perfect example here. Very new mechanics and very easy to break. 

The more new class mechanics you add, the more moving parts there are and the easier it is for bad things to happen. 

Granted I could be convinced that a new class might be the way to go. But I remain very, very skeptical that it won't be either over or under powered. History is not on your side.


----------



## Uchawi (Jun 18, 2015)

Subclasses are a perfect example of what should not be done, like combining the champion, battlemaster and eldritch knight under the same roof, where those would have been much better as unique classes. You run a greater risk of a mismatch with psionics. 

Psionics should have been considered when developing all the classes at the beginning, even if it was released later. The same applies to other classes like the shaman from 4E.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> The problem I see with the new class thing is that historically it hasn't worked. Every edition has seen major issues when you start trying to bolt on completely new mechanics. 2e psionics is a perfect example here. Very new mechanics and very easy to break.
> ...
> 
> History is not on your side.




Isn't it?

2E introduced the single-class bard, which stayed through future editions.
3E introduced the raging barbarian and sorcerer, which stayed through future editions.
3.5E introduced the warlock, which was a big hit and stayed through future editions--and this was a major departure from previous class structures.

Some other novel classes such as Artificer and Knight had less traction in their first iteration, but the archetypes they portrayed were compelling enough to merit publication in future editions with different mechanics (e.g. Knight --> Warlord --> Battlemaster). 

And yes, introducing new mechanics can break things, but 2E psionics wasn't THAT broken.  You could achieve a couple of powerful tricks at low-mid levels but using them would consume nearly all your resources and leave you without any tricks or useful class abilities to fall back on. Even 1E psionics wasn't that broken, although the extra power at low levels was mainly balanced by extra vulnerability at high levels.

Psionics has already seen 3 major iterations with unique mechanics, all of them significantly different from magic in the corresponding edition, and personally I don't think that any of them were detrimental to campaigns.  And if they try something new, and it seems over/underpowered in play... then I'm a big boy and I know how to keep it from breaking my game.

But really, it's not that hard to establish offensive/defensive benchmarks from the other classes and design a new class that gives a similar power curve for the combat pillar, while also delivering a different play experience through limitations, resource management, and signature abilities.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2015)

I should have been more specific. Base classes in core are generally fine because they receive sufficient play testing that the kinks get ironed out.

It tends to be supplemental classes that get wonky.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 18, 2015)

3e created psi classes that were redundant with core classes.

 3e created the Psion to serve as a Wizard that worked well as a spontaneous spell casterl. So Wizard spells were rewritten to calibrate the spell point system to work with ‘novas’ or ‘spamming’. This need no longer exists, since the 5e Wizard is now designed as spontaneous caster. There is no need for a separate system.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 18, 2015)

Creating psionic or ki archetypes for core classes accomplishes ten good things.

• I use the normal familiar rules of core D&D.
• I avoid a learning curve of rules that only exist for the sake of being weird and complex.
• I get rules that are balanced, rigorously tested, and publicly reviewed.
• I avoid wonky broken mechanics. (Even 4e psionic broke the game, a char-op nightmare).
• I get elegant gaming design, where every rule is useful, efficient, and fun.
• I avoid proliferation of redundant classes, and the power creeping that comes with them.
• My Wizard archetype enjoys the excellent spells that are clearly psionic (mind, body, force).
• My psionic adventurer avoids the ‘left overs’, after the Wizard and Cleric stole everything.
• I get the psionic flavor that I love: personal mindful power.
• I replace the flavors that I hate: external sources, gods, patrons, weave, material components.


----------



## Vael (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I should have been more specific. Base classes in core are generally fine because they receive sufficient play testing that the kinks get ironed out.
> 
> It tends to be supplemental classes that get wonky.




And yet it's 3.5 with the holy broken trinity of Wizard, Cleric and Druid. 5e magic actually takes a page from 3.5 psionics, by no longer having spells scale by caster level, instead by spell slot (iow, they are augmentable).


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> What?  Three of the nine subclasses DO work that way.  That's what precedence means.  Warlocks choose their patrons at 1st level, which, in a large way, defines a lot of their class.  Clerics choose their domains at 1st level.
> 
> You simply write the new subclass with a couple of filters to strip out some of the unwanted goodies (music playing, spell book) from the base class at 1st level and replace it with other stuff.  This isn't rocket science and is a heck of a lot easier to deal with than writing an entirely new system, complete with "different" mechanics that has to interact with original mechanics without causing anything to break.
> 
> I'd say this is a heck of a lot easier.



I'm not entirely clear on what you're advocating. It sounds like you want add subclasses to some classes (e.g. psion to wizard) that breaks the existing sub-class pattern for those classes, by starting at 1st level instead of 3rd. Either that or revamping all classes so that they pick their sub-class at 1st level. Neither one strikes me as a good idea.

The first idea (some sub-classes start early) isn't really so much adding a new sub-class as a new class. The sub-class patterns of when you gain abilities is there for a reason, if nothing more than consistency. I could certainly see violating it in a home-brew hack, but it's not something I'd want to post too publicly. Even if there are no balance issues, it adds unnecessary convolutions to what should be a simple mechanic -- and, I suspect that there would be at least a couple of minor balance issues. Square peg, round hole.

The second idea (rewrite all classes to pick a sub-class at 1st) is a massive redesign of the PHB. It's an edition change, plain and simple. As a home brew, I say "go for it", but it sounds like a ton of work. It's probably the better choice, though, if you're intent on re-using the existing classes. It's just cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing (YMMV for aesthetics, obviously).

Either way, what may work for a house rules would make Wizards look like they have no idea what they're doing and call into question a bunch of core design decisions. It's commercially unviable. I also think it'd be mechanically sub-par, but that's just speculation.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> The problem I see with the new class thing is that historically it hasn't worked. Every edition has seen major issues when you start trying to bolt on completely new mechanics. 2e psionics is a perfect example here. Very new mechanics and very easy to break.
> 
> The more new class mechanics you add, the more moving parts there are and the easier it is for bad things to happen.
> 
> Granted I could be convinced that a new class might be the way to go. But I remain very, very skeptical that it won't be either over or under powered. History is not on your side.




Because WotC has shown to be adverse to extensive playtesting new mechanics in 5e due to its hectic release schedule, right? 

Again, I don't see an advantage to re-writing a base class via a subclass when siloing it into their own class is so much more elegant. Lets take the wizard and turn him into the psion (psychic mage). 

* You have to handle spellbook, unless psionics is something written down in a book and studied everyday. The spellbook is 90% of the wizard's power; without it he has no mechanic for gaining additional powers (or indeed, learning them at all, unless he just now learns any and every power he wants). He can also no longer use rituals due to how spellbooks work.
* If you use the standard spell progression from the PHB, then that is fine. If you opt to go with some form of spell points, you have to re-write both the spellcasting rules and the arcane recovery mechanic.
* How do we handled spell selection? I mean, if he just gets wizard spell pool, then that's not very psionic-y. Does he get some of those spells? Which? A whole new spell list? What happens when a new book (say EE Player's Guide) adds new spells to the wizard list? Does the Psionic wizard get them too? Can a normal wizard learn psionic "spells"? 
* It could mess up magic item attunement, unless you want your psionic mage to be able to use a staff of the magi or a robe of the archmagi and other "attune by wizard" items. That doesn't even begin to address spell scrolls...
* Also, arcane implements? Casting in a silence spell? 
* Right now, each class is fairly tightly focused. Without explaining everything, I know what a wizard can do just by saying "I play a wizard". Now, we're swapping out spellbooks, spell selection and possibly spell mechanics, two people can be "wizards" and play radically different, which adds confusion and misunderstanding. 
* Finally, a wizard picks his tradition at 2nd level; unless he's a psionic mage where he picks it at first level and gets his powers then. Which makes it ideal for cherry picking via multi-classing. 

By fitting psionics to a single class, psionics doesn't creep into the wizard, bard, or sorcerer, radically changing the dynamic of that class. We suddenly don't end up with "wizards that heal" or "bard's that are better blasters than sorcerers". Moreso, for me, it keep the flavor separate and reminds us a class is a profession or outlook, not a pile of numbers. Psionics deserves a new base class and appropriate subclasses with a proper list of powers.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I should have been more specific. Base classes in core are generally fine because they receive sufficient play testing that the kinks get ironed out.



3.5 had a profusion of new base classes, many of them using new mechanics. Yet out of all the base classes in 3.5, what were the four OMGBROKEN powerhouses?

Archivist
Cleric
Druid
Wizard

Three out of four were in the Player's Handbook. This does not support your thesis. At all. The base classes of late 3.5E were overall better balanced than the early stuff.

Moving on to 4E, we saw another spew of base classes. I don't recall any major balance issues, nor do I recall balance getting worse in the later years. 4E was the Balance Edition and it succeeded in holding the line quite well, even when it diverged from the AEDU standard.

In any case, the "class versus subclass" question is entirely separate from the "new mechanics versus existing mechanics" question. A subclass can introduce radical new mechanics and a base class can use existing mechanics. If your proposed subclass requires hacking out chunks of the base class, _you are introducing  new mechanics,_ because no existing subclass does that. Just build a new base class already and be done with it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2015)

The main downside with new classes isn't imbalance - it's bloat.

The lesson from 3e and 4e (and to a certain degree even 2e): a game will drown in its own bloat. Given 3-5 years with monthly releases and maybe 4-6 new classes each year, the game will drown in unused options and meaningless distinctions.

Nothing happens to the mechanics - and nothing happens to the folks who are using those new classes just fine, or to the people who can sort through the bloat, or to the folks who digest the steady stream. Their games work fine.

But to begin with, each new class is a brick in the wall separating current players from potential players. Every new mechanic, new option, new design scheme, is another thing to learn, another thing to sort through, another option that might not actually grant much meaningful distinction. Every thing you add is another step closer to having too many options to make any of them really relevant.

WotC was fairly open in late 4e with what they found in DDI: most people played the core four classes and the core few races and no matter how many options they released, only a few of them got used by most of the player base. *That's* more the cost of new classes: unused, irrelevant, unsupported, thousands of design dollars spent for ever-diminishing returns on things that never saw the light of day, they hang on as meaningless, useless cruft. 

Psions, artificers, whatever - that's the price we all pay for them being full classes. It can be worth that price, but it's not obvious that it is. It's a choice that is made about each potential new class: if we make this a class, how does it enhance and grow the game as a whole?

There's a lot of versions of psionics that, if we simply lifted it up and dropped it into 5e, wouldn't do that. 3e psionics wouldn't. 4e psionics wouldn't. 2e psionics...generally wouldn't, but there's a few ideas in there. And before that, the idea of a psionic-specialist class isn't on the table, so of course they wouldn't. 

You could make a version of psionics in 5e that did, but it wouldn't look a lot like psionics as it has existed before, mechanically. And since mechanics and fluff should reinforce each other, the new mechanics would suggest a new fluff, or at least a different fluff. 

Which is part of why investigating the fluff is relevant. If it's science-y, it should feel science-y to use it (charges! energy! light!). If it's 1920's style occultism, it should feel that way, too. If it's ancient greeco-roman crystal spires, it should feel that way, too. And D&D isn't always comfortable with pulpy sci-fi in its fantasy. I mean *I* tend to think it's kind of amazing, and part of D&D's DNA, and something that medieval purists kind of need to lighten up about other people doing, but I'm not in iron-fisty control of D&D's desitny.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 18, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The main downside with new classes isn't imbalance - it's bloat.
> 
> The lesson from 3e and 4e (and to a certain degree even 2e): a game will drown in its own bloat. Given 3-5 years with monthly releases and maybe 4-6 new classes each year, the game will drown in unused options and meaningless distinctions.
> 
> ...




It's anecdotal, but I've only found people to be interested in new options when it gave them a concrete mechanical advantage. Heck, I've even offered people certain builds that reflected their fluff and got refused because they'd rather stick with something else that offered them bigger bonuses in the end. 

I've seen the same for psionics in the past and know that some old GMs _psionics_ because of bad min/max memories.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 18, 2015)

In D&D, psionics have always been 'magic under a different name' with no coherent description of what it was if it wasn't magic.   In 1e, psionics were simply, "Magic that is innate to your being rather than acquired through study."  What was really unique about it as a rule set was that it was almost completely not tied to level or class. 

This problem has become even more pronounced over time.  In 2e, lost their in game distinctiveness and became in the main only mechanically different from other types of magic.   (One used points, the other didn't.  In fairness, GURPS division is even more metagamed.  One is balanced through point buy with the ability to swing a sword or other low tech attack.  The other is balanced through more effective powers for a given amount of point buy with the presence of high tech weaponry.  On the other hand in GURPS, you really aren't supposed to use both rule sets at the same time, and instead choose the one that fits the setting you are emulating.  GURPS doesn't guarantee equal point buy characters in two different settings - fantasy, sci-fi, supers, etc. - are balanced.)   

By the time that the sorcerer was introduced in 3e and magic was divorced from needing to be a book worm but could be an internal power source innate to your being and blood, D&D has had no coherent separation between magic and psionics.

This is because Psionics as D&D uses the terms are just psyche powers, which are just magical powers given 20th century pseudo-scientific gloss by a bunch of believers that didn't want to give up believing in magic.   Indeed, even the distinction between wizardry and psionics is no longer completely clear - both uses your mind to cause the universe to behave according to your volition, and both increase that capacity through discipline, meditation and study that increases the force of your will.   Fans of psionics tend to favor the 'they are just different, because they are' explanation.

The Far Realm might be the closest you can come to giving psionics a coherent explanation, even if it is in fact a hand wave:  "Ok, it's magic, but it's Alien Magic that works by completely different Alien Principles.   Because, Aliens."   Just don't ask what that means or how it actually works.  For one thing it implies co-terminality between the prime and far realm which among other things makes the 'far realm' rather completely misnamed.   (Note for example, that in HP Lovecraft, the alienness is co-terminal with perceived reality, it's just that humans are uniquely and from a human perspective mercifully blind to most of reality.     But most people don't ask the 'how' or 'why' sorts of questions, and are happy to just answer, "It's magic.", so they can probably get away with it.   Maybe they'll can say the mind of psionic users are actually in little pockets of broken off Far Realminess that they are carrying with them allowing their minds to function according to Far Realmy physics and that psionics is temporarily projecting your Far Realmy rules into the larger world, and thereby avoid the co-terminality problem.   But I'm not sure that the psionic fans actually want an answer.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The main downside with new classes isn't imbalance - it's bloat.
> 
> The lesson from 3e and 4e (and to a certain degree even 2e): a game will drown in its own bloat. Given 3-5 years with monthly releases and maybe 4-6 new classes each year, the game will drown in unused options and meaningless distinctions.




Bloat is certainly an issue, but WotC seems to be on top of this. Since August, we've had four new races, 20 new spells, and bunch of unplaytested "use at your own discretion" articles. We are NOT seeing monthly releases nor 4-6 new classes this go around. 

That said, the answer is not to avoid it altogether either. The PHB options will eventually wear thin; growth will need to happen. The issue WotC is attempting to avoid is not "too much" but "too much, too soon."



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Nothing happens to the mechanics - and nothing happens to the folks who are using those new classes just fine, or to the people who can sort through the bloat, or to the folks who digest the steady stream. Their games work fine.
> 
> But to begin with, each new class is a brick in the wall separating current players from potential players. Every new mechanic, new option, new design scheme, is another thing to learn, another thing to sort through, another option that might not actually grant much meaningful distinction. Every thing you add is another step closer to having too many options to make any of them really relevant.




But really, that's true of ANY rules expansion. Already, the EEPG gives players races that can fly or live underwater, both things the PHB races cannot do. The Favored Soul is generally considered superior to the Draconic/Chaos sorcerers (even if its not overpowered, its much more versatile). Hell, those who use only the Basic document have hit a wall against those with the full PHB. Every addition, no matter how small, is going to silo the haves from the have-nots. Is the only solution then a iconoclast game that never expands or gains a new option?



Kamikaze Midget said:


> WotC was fairly open in late 4e with what they found in DDI: most people played the core four classes and the core few races and no matter how many options they released, only a few of them got used by most of the player base. *That's* more the cost of new classes: unused, irrelevant, unsupported, thousands of design dollars spent for ever-diminishing returns on things that never saw the light of day, they hang on as meaningless, useless cruft.
> 
> Psions, artificers, whatever - that's the price we all pay for them being full classes. It can be worth that price, but it's not obvious that it is. It's a choice that is made about each potential new class: if we make this a class, how does it enhance and grow the game as a whole?




By that logic, the they should have skipped monks, dragonborn, and those other "options" no one played and stuck with just the Basic classes and races. Why waste space on a class like druid only a handful of player's play?

Well, because it means something to the player who likes monks, dragonborn, druids, psionics, or artificers. They have just as much right to play what they want as the cleric, elf, wizard, and fighter players. That option should be available to them, and it should be done with as much time and respect as those basic classes and races were. 

Chasing what is popular and culling option is why Hollywood churning out nostalgic and comic-book based action schlock or why dozens of small mom-and-pop resteraunts can't compete against chains like Applebee's. Not everyone's tastes will be the same. Shouldn't those people have the option of an artificer or a psion, and those who dislike said options be allowed to just say "no classes beyond the PHB" if they want?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Bloat is certainly an issue, but WotC seems to be on top of this. Since August, we've had four new races, 20 new spells, and bunch of unplaytested "use at your own discretion" articles. We are NOT seeing monthly releases nor 4-6 new classes this go around.
> 
> That said, the answer is not to avoid it altogether either. The PHB options will eventually wear thin; growth will need to happen. The issue WotC is attempting to avoid is not "too much" but "too much, too soon."




I'm not convinced that's actually the issue they're trying to avoid, but regardless, this is them displaying a smart way of going about it - if you set the bar for a new rules option (especially one as significant as a class) high enough, only a few get through, and that is as it should be. 



> But really, that's true of ANY rules expansion. Already, the EEPG gives players races that can fly or live underwater, both things the PHB races cannot do. The Favored Soul is generally considered superior to the Draconic/Chaos sorcerers (even if its not overpowered, its much more versatile). Hell, those who use only the Basic document have hit a wall against those with the full PHB. Every addition, no matter how small, is going to silo the haves from the have-nots. Is the only solution then a iconoclast game that never expands or gains a new option?
> 
> By that logic, the they should have skipped monks, dragonborn, and those other "options" no one played and stuck with just the Basic classes and races. Why waste space on a class like druid only a handful of player's play?




That's a strawman. No one is saying that the game shouldn't add options, but people are saying that the game should be smart about what options it does add and how. There's degrees of additions as well - a subclass doesn't need to fundamentally change your mechanics, so the threshold for one of those is lower. A feat, lower still. A spell? A magic item? Yeah, toss it off. A race? Hmm...if it's warrented. A class? If we _must_. 

It's not a matter of passing some arbitrary threshold of relevance, it's about _doing the work to make it good_, to make it worth the cost of adding it. Monks and dragonborn and whatnot were rather arbitrarily determined to be things they wanted to pour development dollars into and risk that option bloat, presumably in the interests of uniting the fans of older editions as much as possible. The Elemental Evil companion was likewise a choice made, and likely made to support the adventure more than anything else. 



> Well, because it means something to the player who likes monks, dragonborn, druids, psionics, or artificers. They have just as much right to play what they want as the cleric, elf, wizard, and fighter players. That option should be available to them, and it should be done with as much time and respect as those basic classes and races were.




And warlord and assassin players can just go screw?

Nah, there are *multiple* ways to present any given character type. If a class is the chosen vessel, it needs to be significant. If some other mechanic is the chosen vessel, it faces a significantly lower barrier for entry. 



> Chasing what is popular and culling option is why Hollywood churning out nostalgic and comic-book based action schlock or why dozens of small mom-and-pop resteraunts can't compete against chains like Applebee's. Not everyone's tastes will be the same. Shouldn't those people have the option of an artificer or a psion, and those who dislike said options be allowed to just say "no classes beyond the PHB" if they want?




False dichotomy based on a strawman.

The point I'm making is that the devs (who seem to agree) should not simply toss out classes because they were classes before. A class needs to add more to the game than new jargon and a coat of paint (or a different spell list and a few different proficiencies). A psion as a true class in 5e will probably not just be a sorcerer or wizard who calls their spells powers and uses points - as a true class, they will do things differently. What they do is going to depend on the fluff they have. The fluff is key because it will influence the mechanics they use to do things differently.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 18, 2015)

At the end of the day... isn't psionics really just going to live or die based upon the game mechanic they create for it, _regardless_ of whether that mechanic is put in its own class or overlayed on an existing one?  If the game mechanic ROCKS-- is original, is fun, is cool to use... no one's going to really care one whit whether it makes a Sorcerer into a Psionic Sorcerer, or if a Psion gets added to the twelve existing PHB classes.

Why does the Battlemaster work?  Because they figured out how to design a game mechanic which layers onto weapon use that doesn't feel like casting spells (even though maneuvers and spells are virtually one and the same-- extra damage plus an ability that raises your AC or your attack bonus or knocks people down or lets you move around, etc. etc. etc.)  And because that mechanic works... people accept this new version of the Fighter even though it looks quite different than the Fighters of old (pre-4E).

If the psionic mechanic they create can be just as well received... they're 95% of the way there to make it acceptable to the populace and it won't really matter those last 5%-- whether it's presented on its own, or put on top of some of the existing classes in the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 18, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> At the end of the day... isn't psionics really just going to live or die based upon the game mechanic they create for it, _regardless_ of whether that mechanic is put in its own class or overlayed on an existing one?  If the game mechanic ROCKS-- is original, is fun, is cool to use... no one's going to really care one whit whether it makes a Sorcerer into a Psionic Sorcerer, or if a Psion gets added to the twelve existing PHB classes.




I think there's some truth in this, which is, I suspect, why Mearls is asking - the fiction should inform the mechanic. If folks are cool with a pulp sci-fi fiction for psionics, the mechanic will likewise be pulpy and sci-fi (maybe you _evolve_ as you gain levels and you have _mind over body_ and etc.) If folks want a more medieval take on it, the mechanic should be different (like, you discover the lost world of the Ancients beneath the ruins of mighty empires and their lost magic is crystals and togas?).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 18, 2015)

bogmad said:


> _Easier_ sure, but is it a heck of a lot _better?_  Especially for those who want the option of psionics being different?



 Obviously, the two are in conflict.   Really delivering on what fans of psionics want would take a lot more design work, playtesting, and probably a full-sized splatbook almost exclusively about psionics.  And none of that looks like it's going to be happening with the D&D line anytime soon.  



> Why go for the less satisfying solution just because it's easy? That's a very disappointing road for the biggest and highest profile ttrpg to go down...



 That's prettymuch what 5e /is/.  It's taken a very traditional approach to just about everything, which is easy, because it's low-risk, and because the work has mostly been done before and it's just a matter of bringing it all together.  While it went to the trouble of making each class arbitrarily different, mechanically, it didn't take those differences very deep.  All classes lean on that big list of spells in the back for some of what they do, and 30 of 38 sub-classes are actual spell-casters, with a few more using spells to model not-technically-spell abilities.  

Past performance is no guarantee, but the direction of 5e so far, early as it is, points to leveraging existing spells for any sort of supernatural abilities.




Remathilis said:


> I'm convinced you don't know what a subclass is in 5th edition.
> 
> Look at the 36 examples of them in the Player's Handbook.



 Pretty sure it's 38. 


> None of them change the nature of the base class.



 Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster change martial classes into arcane casters.  Totem Barbarians use magic while Berserkers don't. 
Sorcerers are either Chaos-touched or have a Draconic heritage, that sounds like an essential difference in nature.  
Warlocks can be using creepy Lovecraftian magic, capricious fey magic, or nasty diabolic magic.
Regular, Shadow, and Elemental monks seem pretty different in their natures, too.



> You are proposing a new system where you choose your subclass levels before you should



 Sub-classes already exist that are chosen at 1st level, so that's not a new thing.



> In short, you're re-writing the subclass system to fit your own desire for some steadfast notion of "NO NEW CLASSES EVAR!" and your willing to change the Player's Handbook to do it.



 IIRC, WotC has signaled an unwillingness to introduce new classes.



Hussar said:


> The problem I see with the new class thing is that historically it hasn't worked.



 A few of the new classes introduced in 3.5 didn't cause any problems.  The Scout was just fine.  Some of the Bo9S classes were OK.  In 4e, there were no particular problems caused by introducing the PH2 classes.  



> The more new class mechanics you add, the more moving parts there are and the easier it is for bad things to happen.



 New mechanics can be a problem, yes - whether they're tied to a class or not.  A new class, OTOH, may not introduce many new mechanics.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 18, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sub-classes already exist that are chosen at 1st level, so that's not a new thing.



But all sub-classes of *the same class* are chosen at the same time. It's even listed on the class's progression table. At 3rd level, barbarians choose a Primal Path. At 1st level, clerics choose a Domain. At 2nd level, druids choose a Circle.

What you are suggesting is akin to saying that at 1st level, a cleric can choose to be a Life cleric. If she doesn't, she can choose to be a Tempest cleric at 3rd level. That does *not* work with the way classes are set up now - unless, of course, you base the class on the cleric, sorcerer, or warlock, who all choose their sub-class at 1st level.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 18, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> In D&D, psionics have always been 'magic under a different name' with no coherent description of what it was if it wasn't magic.   In 1e, psionics were simply, "Magic that is innate to your being rather than acquired through study."  What was really unique about it as a rule set was that it was almost completely not tied to level or class.




...and completely different operational mechanics & resource management.  And while 2Ed Pdi was VERY mechanically similar, subsequent editions vary.

IOW, your initial statement is only trivially true in that you get "kewl powerz".


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 18, 2015)

A new class with new sub-classes is needed. I think you can build on an existing framework that is familiar but still make it feel different. 1-9 power levels of abilities that scale the same as spells. At the same time you need to make these powers feel different by adding around the edges ... a point system, an exhaustion mechanic tied to constitution, categorizing each power by the classic six disciplines, and unique prerequisites to access these powers can do this with out pigeon-holing the system to one particular genre or another. Powers need to be unique. It would be a mistake to reference spell descriptions and would come across like lazy game design. The system needs to allow for both sci-fi and fantasy, and it can.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Pretty sure it's 38.




Pedantry awards you no points. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster change martial classes into arcane casters.




They ADD spellcasting to the fighter and rogue classes. The fighter doesn't lose any of its base abilities (extra attack, second wind, action surge, or indomitable). Likewise, the rogue retains sneak attack, thieves cant, uncanny dodge, evasion, and all the other base rogue skills. Nor do they lose any weapon, armor, save, skill, or tool proficiencies in the process, and they choose to become arcane casters at THIRD LEVEL, not first. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Totem Barbarians use magic while Berserkers don't.




Totem Barbarians get three rituals they can use. Hardly "using magic" in the colloquial sense and barely counting as a spellcaster. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Sorcerers are either Chaos-touched or have a Draconic heritage, that sounds like an essential difference in nature.




Yet neither of them change the nature of the base class. They don't change spell access or spell lists, change their proficiencies, require refluffing metamagic, or change a single thing about their base spellcasting mechanic (caster stat, spells known, spells per day, rituals or implements). Yes, they are different in flavor and have unique mechanics, but in the end they are very much the same sorcerer class and play similar. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Warlocks can be using creepy Lovecraftian magic, capricious fey magic, or nasty diabolic magic.




Again, nothing changes the base class. Same invocations, same tome/blade/chain mechanic, same base spell list, same proficiencies, same, same, same. All pacts do is give you some expanded spell choices and your subclass powers.  



Tony Vargas said:


> Regular, Shadow, and Elemental monks seem pretty different in their natures, too.




Really? Same martial arts, same proficiencies, same... do I really need to keep going? *NONE OF THESE SUBCLASSES RADICALLY ALTER THE RULES OF THE BASE CLASS!!!!! THEY ARE ADDITIVE, NOT TRANSFORMATIONAL OR SUBTRACTIVE!!!
*



Tony Vargas said:


> Sub-classes already exist that are chosen at 1st level, so that's not a new thing.




Barbarian's choose their Primal Path at 3rd level. Bard's choose their College at 3rd level. Druids pick their Circle at 3rd level. Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues pick their Arcehtype at 3rd level. Monks pick their Tradition at 3rd level. Paladin's pick their Oath and 3rd level. And Wizard's pick their tradition at 2nd level. This doesn't change based on the subclass (EK's are picked at 1st level, but champions are picked at 3rd) and there is NO example of subclass being picked before the level you gain access to its ability. YOU ARE RE-WRITING THE SUBCLASS RULES IN THE PLAYERS HANDBOOK!

But please, tell me how that is easier than a new base class.  



Tony Vargas said:


> IIRC, WotC has signaled an unwillingness to introduce new classes.




WotC has signaled an unwillingness to introduce new anything so far. All we have to go on is the Artificer, and WotC got enough negative feedback on the Wizardficer that they went back to the drawing board on it. Lack of content =/= unwilling to introduce, if that is the case WotC is unwilling to introduce new weapons, armor, backgrounds, and feats. 



Tony Vargas said:


> A few of the new classes introduced in 3.5 didn't cause any problems.  The Scout was just fine.  Some of the Bo9S classes were OK.  In 4e, there were no particular problems caused by introducing the PH2 classes.




A well designed class breaks nothing. 



Tony Vargas said:


> New mechanics can be a problem, yes - whether they're tied to a class or not.  A new class, OTOH, may not introduce many new mechanics.




This the Catch 22: KM demands any new class be radically new in order to justify its existence, and you don't want any new mechanics (be it class, subclass, or what) because they can break the system. Ergo, there is no psionic system WotC can introduce* that will satisfy both of you. 

A curious game, D&D rules expansion is. The only winning move is not to play.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Pedantry awards you no points.



I'm pretty sure it awards 2.8 points.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 18, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Creating psionic or ki archetypes for core classes accomplishes ten good things.
> 
> • I use the normal familiar rules of core D&D.
> • I avoid a learning curve of rules that only exist for the sake of being weird and complex.
> ...




By trying to place psionics on top of existing classes you are more likely to get broken mechanics. By creating a new class and sub-classes you can balance their power at each level to the power of existing classes. By giving psionic powers to the entire gambit of classes you are more likely to create broken and unintended combinations that outpace current characters in power and strength. Then the power creep begins and in order to keep up everyone has to play a character with psionics and that is what we want to prevent.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> This the Catch 22: KM demands any new class be radically new in order to justify its existence, and you don't want any new mechanics (be it class, subclass, or what) because they can break the system. Ergo, there is no psionic system WotC can introduce* that will satisfy both of you.
> 
> A curious game, D&D rules expansion is. The only winning move is not to play.



Indeed. I have the genesis of two viable systems in my head. One of them is, essentially, a replacement for Sorcerer that would pretty much just be "internally powered by [select from list]", with the option for the various archetypes to swap out the VSM components for something else (like 3E did, but expanded as appropriate to the other archetypes). I have no idea what I'd do for psychic warrior, etc., but it might be as simple as "use multiclassing rules" or an Eldritch Knight knock-off archetype.

The other is a new subsystem that works by providing base devotions (a.k.a. spells) that can be augmented with talents, which are gained as the character advances. Most devotions would also have a "Maintain" tag in their description that would give the on-going effect if the psion maintains concentration. This would call for a new base Psion class (to cover a couple 3E Psion sub-classes, Wilder, and Ardent) as well as a Fighter archetype for Psychic Warrior (that would nick the soul knife's stuff) and a Lurk archetype for Rogue.

I like both ideas, and would welcome either in my game. But, either would alienate half(ish) the fans.


----------



## Vael (Jun 18, 2015)

There's a clear middle ground here, which is the approach I'd advocate. A new Psion class, for the psionic specialists. Psion Subclasses fill the core archetypes, like Telepaths, Telekinetics and Shapers. And the rest as subclasses in existing classes. Psychic Warrior as a Fighter Subclass. Lurk as a Rogue Subclass. The poor Soulknife ... maybe a feat? ;-)

One new class will not break the game. Psions, I feel, are different enough to be its own class. I can sympathize with the desire to limit the number of new classes, but I don't agree that that means no new classes EVER.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> They ADD spellcasting to the fighter and rogue classes.



 Which is transformational.  It changes their nature.  They were strictly martial, they become casters.  



> Totem Barbarians get three rituals they can use. Hardly "using magic" in the colloquial sense and barely counting as a spellcaster.



 I'd count them among the 8 sub-classes that don't cast spells, rather than the 30 that do, yes.  But, it's still using magic.



> Yet neither of them change the nature of the base class. They don't change spell access or spell lists, change their proficiencies



"Add to" is a change.  I get that you're fixated on the kind of change, but there is precedent for sub-classes changing the base class in dramatic ways.  Adding spell casting, for instance is radically changing spell access & spell lists.



> Barbarian's choose their Primal Path at 3rd level. Bard's choose their College at 3rd level. Druids pick their Circle at 3rd level. Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues pick their Arcehtype at 3rd level. Monks pick their Tradition at 3rd level. Paladin's pick their Oath and 3rd level. And Wizard's pick their tradition at 2nd level.



 And Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Paladins do so at 1st.  The thing about a precedent is that it doesn't have to happen the majority of the time to be established, it only has to happen once.  Three classes picking sub-classes at first level is more than adequate precedent.



> But please, tell me how that is easier than a new base class.



 There are, in fact, no sub-class rules in the PH.  It's not a class-design ruleset, it's just a set of classes.  What there are, is precedents, in the existing 38 sub-classes.  

I shouldn't have to explain why adding a sub-class is simpler than adding a new base class, you've been pointing it out, yourself:  most of the class is already designed, you just have to design what makes the sub-class unique.

A Psion as Sorcerer sub-class, for instance, is easy.  The Sorcerer even already uses a point mechanic.  Your heritage is Psionic (maybe Far Realms if that's used explicitly), you get some features related to that, like telepathy and psionic combat, say, and you're off.  



> A well designed class breaks nothing.



 Depends on what goal of the design is.  A balanced class shouldn't break anything, unless there's an unintended/undetected synergy with some other game element.  A class designed, as most 5e classes have been, to evoke classic feel, OTOH, may be a tad 'broken' by some measures, if the original - like the 2e psion, for instance - was.



> This the Catch 22: KM demands any new class be radically new in order to justify its existence, and you don't want any new mechanics (be it class, subclass, or what) because they can break the system. Ergo, there is no psionic system WotC can introduce* that will satisfy both of you.



 I'm fine with new mechanics, if they're clear/balanced/playable mechanics (which isn't even relevant, since obtuse/broken/problematic mechanics are hardly anathema to the 5e philosophy).  But, new mechanics present challenges.  It's not a catch-22, it's a trade-off.  There's greater design effort and you're 'betting' more if you go with the more extensive splatbook vs a UA article, for instance.  Both are valid options.





Staffan said:


> unless, of course, you base the class on the cleric, sorcerer, or warlock, who all choose their sub-class at 1st level.



 Sorcerer is the most obvious choice for a psionic sub-class, it's been brought up in multiple threads here and on the WotC boards, and it's pretty intuitive, being the class for in-born magic.  In addition, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue have no magic abilities to 'change' before choosing a sub-class, so tacking on psionics to them the same way arcane is tacked on with the EK and AT or rituals tacked on to the Totem Barbarian would be fine.  Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 18, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> By trying to place psionics on top of existing classes you are more likely to get broken mechanics. By creating a new class and sub-classes you can balance their power at each level to the power of existing classes. By giving psionic powers to the entire gambit of classes you are more likely to create broken and unintended combinations that outpace current characters in power and strength. Then the power creep begins and in order to keep up everyone has to play a character with psionics and that is what we want to prevent.



Well said. Packaging psionics into its own self-contained system offers much less scope for unintended combos to break the game. If you try to shoehorn it into the system as it stands, the risk increases greatly.

To see the issue, look no further than the sorlock. The sorlock combo (multi-classed warlock/sorcerer, using Quicken Spell to double-cast _eldritch blast_ for insane damage) exists because warlocks are piggybacking off the traditional caster system instead of using their own self-contained mechanics. If _eldritch blast_ were a warlock class ability rather than a cantrip, the sorlock wouldn't be possible. Similarly, if psions use the existing magic system, all psionic spells have to be vetted for all classes, since there are feats and class abilities that let you poach spells off another class's list.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Which is transformational.  It changes their nature.  They were strictly martial, they become casters.
> 
> "Add to" is a change.  I get that you're fixated on the kind of change, but there is precedent for sub-classes changing the base class in dramatic ways.  Adding spell casting, for instance is radically changing spell access & spell lists.




You and I are using "change" very differently. For you, any deviation from the "norm" is change, whereas I'm solely focused on contradicting what came before. There is nothing about EK's spellcasting that contradict's what the base fighter does. Both still wear heavy armor, use weapons, can heal self a bit, and can occasionally go nova with extra actions. 

There is no subclass that changes a base class feature. None. A few add extra options (like extra uses for inspiration dice or more action choices in cunning action) but none of them remove spell access, change the spells they have access to (except to add more options), remove proficiencies, or change arcane to divine or vice-versa. You are asking for a rules expansion equal to or greater than adding a new base class; you are asking for subclasses to do more than they currently do. 



Tony Vargas said:


> And Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Paladins CLERICS do so at 1st.  The thing about a precedent is that it doesn't have to happen the majority of the time to be established, it only has to happen once.  Three classes picking sub-classes at first level is more than adequate precedent.




For those three classes only. No other class does. Doing so creates a very odd rules position: if a psionic subclass has to be picked at first level, what about others? Do all bards now have to declare being Lore, Valor, or Ardent at first level? What if you don't pick it a first level, can you now NEVER select it when you get to third? Why does the psionic bard change my proficiencies at first level, but the Valor bard doesn't? What if I want to mix classic base bard abilities (like musical instrument proficiency) with the ardent bard psionic powers? What if I choose psionic bard at first level and change my mind when I get to third level? Can I still take Valor or Lore now? 

Your creating a recipe for headache, and since WotC is very keen on keeping this game AL compatible, I doubt they'd create something that causes THAT much chaos. 

 There are, in fact, no sub-class rules in the PH.  It's not a class-design ruleset, it's just a set of classes.  What there are, is precedents, in the existing 38 sub-classes.  [/QUOTE]

That's ALL we have. There is no rules for character class creation either, but design a class with full-spellcasting, d12 HD, double proficiency bonus to all class skills and Con/Dex/Wis as proficient saves and tell me your setting a new precedent, and you'll be laughed off this board. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I shouldn't have to explain why adding a sub-class is simpler than adding a new base class, you've been pointing it out, yourself:  most of the class is already designed, you just have to design what makes the sub-class unique.




What makes a subclass unique is a.) additional powers given at specific levels, b.) additional proficiencies given when the subclass is first taken, and c.) possible additional spells added to spell list. All 38 subclasses in the PHB adhere to this. Both of them in the DMG adhere to this, and the four in the UA documents adhere to this. 



Tony Vargas said:


> A Psion as Sorcerer sub-class, for instance, is easy.  The Sorcerer even already uses a point mechanic.  Your heritage is Psionic (maybe Far Realms if that's used explicitly), you get some features related to that, like telepathy and psionic combat, say, and you're off.




Which makes you a mage with a few psionic powers. Good job. You're a fireballing, magic missiling, mage armored, meteor swarming spellcaster, who gets a few telepathic or telekinetic powers at 1st, 6th, 14th and 18th level.  Iits the definition of "we don't care about psionics, so here is a sublcass we threw together during lunch break. All your Dark Sun or Eberron psions and the like are just sorcerers now. Have a nice day." 

If WotC is going to slap psionics fans in the face with "just play a sorcerer" I'd really rather they not bother. I can make my own subclass if I want that. I'd almost be happier with "psionics is dumb, no psi in 5e." than this half-baked option. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Depends on what goal of the design is.  A balanced class shouldn't break anything, unless there's an unintended/undetected synergy with some other game element.  A class designed, as most 5e classes have been, to evoke classic feel, OTOH, may be a tad 'broken' by some measures, if the original - like the 2e psion, for instance - was.




There are lots of fixes you could add to 2e psionics to keep the better balanced; minimum levels on powers (no disintergrate at 6th level); max cap on power points spent on a given power (no nova big blasts), some general magical overlap (at least as far as detection and dispelling is concerned). I played with both versions of 2e psionics; they were so close to being good, but some minor things allowed them to break. One hopes 5e's design team could iron out those kinks while keeping the general tone and feel of psionics similar. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm fine with new mechanics, if they're clear/balanced/playable mechanics (which isn't even relevant, since obtuse/broken/problematic mechanics are hardly anathema to the 5e philosophy).  But, new mechanics present challenges.  It's not a catch-22, it's a trade-off.  There's greater design effort and you're 'betting' more if you go with the more extensive splatbook vs a UA article, for instance.  Both are valid options.




I fully expect psionics will appear in a UA first. A decent psionic class shouldn't be more than a dozen pages to start. We'll play with them and break them and then they will fix them and release them in some finished form later. Its WotCs modus operandi these days.



Tony Vargas said:


> Sorcerer is the most obvious choice for a psionic sub-class, it's been brought up in multiple threads here and on the WotC boards, and it's pretty intuitive, being the class for in-born magic.  In addition, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue have no magic abilities to 'change' before choosing a sub-class, so tacking on psionics to them the same way arcane is tacked on with the EK and AT or rituals tacked on to the Totem Barbarian would be fine.  Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.




Psychic Warrior can bolt on to Fighter like EK does, not problems there. Likewise, a Lurk/Soul knife seems keen for rogues. Add on a dedicated psion class and a "Wild Talent" feat that mimics Magical Initiate, and you have a well rounded psionic stable.


----------



## Celebrim (Jun 18, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...and completely different operational mechanics & resource management.




And that's my point, or part of it.

Which is irrelevant to whether or not psionics is just another name for 'magic'.  The problem that psionic fans have largely defined psionic and their preference for psionic in terms of mechanical variation and resource management.   But the mechanical variation and resource management largely exists in the metagame and not in the game world itself.   We don't normally expect levels, hit points, and spell points to exist in the game world themselves unless we are doing something like Order of the Stick and deliberately breaking the 4th wall.

My suspicion is that ultimately the demand for psionics is really only going to be appeased by offering familiar mechanics because for most psionic fans the mechanics are what makes it psionics to them, not the completely unexplained incoherent flavor where no one ever really resolved what psionics are.

I mean, you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source is internal."   And the sorcerer's power isn't?   And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source isn't magic, it's psionic.", but that's just a tautology.  Psionic is psychic which is magic.  The only difference was whether or not you were trying to be pseudo-scientific about your superstition.  And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because they are mental."   And normal magic isn't?   Or you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics feel like Jedi or eastern mystics, not like wizards."   But that's just a different magical tradition.   Heck, Obi Wan is called a 'wizard', and Darth Vadar has 'sorcerous ways'.   Just because everyone else is running around with blasters, doesn't mean the Jedi aren't a bunch of eastern themed wizard knights.   "But, crystals!"  Why do you think Wizards are associated with crystal balls?   The point is that people have only a very vague idea what they mean by 'magic' and 'psionic', and when it gets down to the concrete things it's all about operational mechanics & resource management.

But 1e only needed different operational mechanics & resource management in order to divorce a system of magic from the class/level system.   And 2e largely did away with that so, so it really only needed spell points because of 1e emulation, and because the standard 1e magic system was Vancian.  By 3e, we were already getting pseudo-Vancian systems like the Sorcerer, and by 5e all the classes are using pseudo-Vancian systems.  So it's not at all clear that there is a flavor reason or a mechanical reasons for a whole different subsystem, but for most existing fans of psionic, psionic means the points subsystem.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> And that's my point, or part of it.
> 
> Which is irrelevant to whether or not psionics is just another name for 'magic'.  The problem that psionic fans have largely defined psionic and their preference for psionic in terms of mechanical variation and resource management.   But the mechanical variation and resource management largely exists in the metagame and not in the game world itself.   We don't normally expect levels, hit points, and spell points to exist in the game world themselves unless we are doing something like Order of the Stick and deliberately breaking the 4th wall.




Partially, but the effects a psionic power and a wizard spell should be different too. Psionics shouldn't raise (or animate) the dead. They don't summon creatures, nor bring down meteors from the heavens. What they should be doing is focusing on mind influence (reading thought, implanting false memories, dominating minds), supernatural feats of the body (grafting weapons, withstanding unbearable conditions), and extrasensory abilities (reading auras, causing objects to spontaneously combust, and making objects move by force of will alone). Additionally, a psionic power has no verbal or somatic components, nor does it require material objects to use. Its not just magic with spell points, though magic has done a good job of mimicking psionic ability. 




Celebrim said:


> My suspicion is that ultimately the demand for psionics is really only going to be appeased by offering familiar mechanics because for most psionic fans the mechanics are what makes it psionics to them, not the completely unexplained incoherent flavor where no one ever really resolved what psionics are.




The same can be said of any class really; imagine if ranger had been some fighter subclass or druid players being told "play a nature domain cleric." One need only see how warlord fans felt after the battlemaster.



Celebrim said:


> I mean, you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source is internal."   And the sorcerer's power isn't?   And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source isn't magic, it's psionic.", but that's just a tautology.  Psionic is psychic which is magic.  The only difference was whether or not you were trying to be pseudo-scientific about your superstition.  And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because they are mental."   And normal magic isn't?   Or you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics feel like Jedi or eastern mystics, not like wizards."   But that's just a different magical tradition.   Heck, Obi Wan is called a 'wizard', and Darth Vadar has 'sorcerous ways'.   Just because everyone else is running around with blasters, doesn't mean the Jedi aren't a bunch of eastern themed wizard knights.   "But, crystals!"  Why do you think Wizards are associated with crystal balls?   The point is that people have only a very vague idea what they mean by 'magic' and 'psionic', and when it gets down to the concrete things it's all about operational mechanics & resource management.




Cleric magic is the same as wizard magic; each spell belongs to a school, they use components, there are a lot of crossover effects, and most healers in fantasy are called "wizards", so cleric should just be a subclass of wizard, right?

Of course not. Cleric means something to the game. Psionics means something to the game. You can use reduction-logic to argue ANY class should just be a subclass of Fighter and/or Wizard if you want, but doing so defeats D&D's tradition. Psionics has NEVER been a type of magic, psions never a type of sorcerer or wizard. Trying to fit them in this box now is a disservice.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 18, 2015)

It's a fair point that giving mechanics a mechanical distinction benefits only the players, not the fictional characters in the campaign and how they see the world. 

And yet...

Most importantly, the game is for the players and not for the fictional characters. As a DM if I care most about the creative writing aspects of the game, then one magic system might be enough to model all the different cultures and magical traditions that I need.  But if my players start to complain that all spellcasters feel the same because they share V,S,M components, the same slot system, and strongly overlapping spell lists, with only minor variations (prepare or not, metamagic or not, limited spells known or not), then my game has a problem.

Also...

Fictional academics in the game world probably DO make very serious distinctions between arcane and divine, between wizards and sorcerers, and even between clerics and warlocks, just as we think of physics and chemistry and biology as very different things even though they can all create light (e.g., filament bulb, light sticks, bioluminescence) and even though if you look at the different technologies the right way, it is easy to see the common principle of electrons absorbing energy and releasing it as light. Creating light is a simple trick, but different techologies achieve it in different ways, with very different forms of training and material requirements.

So having many different "sources" of magic, with distinct requirements and limitations, isn't wasted complexity in the game world, at least to characters in the world who care about magic. 

Personally:

As a player, I want different mechanics because I want to experience the game in a different way.

As a GM, I want different mechanics because I want to choose rules that support the style I am trying to achieve with a given campaign, and more variety in magic systems gives me more tools.

As a fictional PC, I want different mechanics because I think it's cool if the world has a source of supernatural powers whose rules *I dont know[\B]. Take that wierd psion in front of me--he's not using gestures and words to cast spells. Is he casting spells at all? If I try to counterspell what he's doing, will it work? My friend is paralyzed because of him, can I assume that he can't paralyze me at the same time? What the heck is this glowing goo dripping on my head???*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> You and I are using "change" very differently. For you, any deviation from the "norm" is change, whereas I'm solely focused on contradicting what came before. There is nothing about EK's spellcasting that contradict's what the base fighter does. Both still wear heavy armor, use weapons, can heal self a bit, and can occasionally go nova with extra actions.



 In the case of the EK, the mechanics are just 'additions,' yes.  But the conceptual change is night & day.  The Paladin and Ranger, in that conceptual sense, are no more different from the Fighter than the EK, yet they are classes.  

To me, that says that a sub-class can radically alter a class concept - to a degree comparable to being a different class.



> There is no subclass that changes a base class feature. None.



 There's also no existing psionic full class.  And, if we get a good one, it'll likely do things no other class has done before.  If that's OK, why would it be wrong for a psionic sub-class to do something no sub-class has done before?

It wouldn't be.



> For those three classes only. No other class does. Doing so creates a very odd rules position: if a psionic subclass has to be picked at first level, what about others?



 They'd be picked as they always were.  Your choice would be psionic at 1st or arcane at 1st with the Bard.  Psionic does whatever it does to make it an Ardent, say, and Arcane makes it like the existing bard, including picking something else later.



> That's ALL we have. There is no rules for character class creation either.



 Exactly.  You want a radically new & different full class.  If all new full classes had to do only what existing ones do, you couldn't have that.  OTOH, you don't want 'just' some sub-classes, so you hold them up to a more exacting standard to demand they be blah.  

Both a sub-class or sub-classes and one or more new classes would be valid design choices for introducing psionics to 5e.




> Which makes you a mage with a few psionic powers. Good job. You're a fireballing, magic missiling, mage armored, meteor swarming spellcaster, who gets a few telepathic or telekinetic powers at 1st, 6th, 14th and 18th level.  Iits the definition of "we don't care about psionics, so here is a sublcass we threw together during lunch break. All your Dark Sun or Eberron psions and the like are just sorcerers now. Have a nice day."



 I wouldn't rule that out.  It's not like every class to show it's face in a past PH1 got the royal treatment in the 5e PH1.




> There are lots of fixes you could add to 2e psionics to keep the better balanced



 I'm sure there are.  I'm not so sure it's an important consideration in 5e design.  I think we'd be justified in expecting power points, attack/defense modes, &c - from a full psion, or even, in some form, from a Psion sub-class of Sorcerer.  



> Psychic Warrior can bolt on to Fighter like EK does, not problems there. Likewise, a Lurk/Soul knife seems keen for rogues. Add on a dedicated psion class and a "Wild Talent" feat that mimics Magical Initiate, and you have a well rounded psionic stable.



 Now you're sounding more nearly reasonable.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Partially, but the effects a psionic power and a wizard spell should be different too. Psionics shouldn't raise (or animate) the dead. They don't summon creatures, nor bring down meteors from the heavens. What they should be doing is focusing on mind influence (reading thought, implanting false memories, dominating minds), supernatural feats of the body (grafting weapons, withstanding unbearable conditions), and extrasensory abilities (reading auras, causing objects to spontaneously combust, and making objects move by force of will alone). Additionally, a psionic power has no verbal or somatic components, nor does it require material objects to use. Its not just magic with spell points, though magic has done a good job of mimicking psionic ability.




His point needs to be stressed. I cannot stress it enough. Psionics will be different, if it is treated different even if it shares some mechanical similarities to the "magic" system. If it is treated as separate from magic, it will become it's own thing. Psionics must have it's own concentrations and focus. Just like divine has healing which arcane is rarely allowed to intrude upon. Psionics must concentrate on mental abilities that rarely overlap with things that arcane and divine casters can do. A previous poster mentioned psionic invisibility which would only affect a single opponent. You wouldn't become invisible. Your opponent would simply "think" you had disappeared. This is how these powers need to work and feel.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 18, 2015)

Mercule said:


> I'm not entirely clear on what you're advocating. It sounds like you want add subclasses to some classes (e.g. psion to wizard) that breaks the existing sub-class pattern for those classes, by starting at 1st level instead of 3rd.




When the Wizard picks a cantrip at level 1, it can be a psi cantrip that additionally allows the Wizard to substitute psi as the source of all other effects, instead of arcane.

At level 2, the requirement to take a psi archetype/tradition can be the ability to cast a psi cantrip.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 18, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> My suspicion is that ultimately the demand for psionics is really only going to be appeased by offering familiar mechanics because for most psionic fans the mechanics are what makes it psionics to them, not the completely unexplained incoherent flavor where no one ever really resolved what psionics are.




Everyone keeps making the anecdotal argument "IME people really only want psionics to game the mechanics" but in my personal experience, what I want has a lot more to do with the fluff. I just want the fluff to match the mechanics well enough, and psionics as a magic class doesn't do that for me.



Celebrim said:


> I mean, you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source is internal."   And the sorcerer's power isn't?   And you'll have people saying, "Well, psionics are different because their source isn't magic, it's psionic.", but that's just a tautology.  Psionic is psychic which is magic.  The only difference was whether or not you were trying to be pseudo-scientific about your superstition. .




I do want to be pseudo scientific with my superstition I guess, but really only in my definition of mystical forces.  The force is "magic" to you, but it's not to me.  You can argue I'm wrong all you want, but in the fantasy realm in my mind I'm right.  It's all fantasy, so how do we have an enforceable argument? We're both _right._ Just in my fantasy setting there's psionics (or "the force" to be reductionist) and then there's magic. They're different things. That work differently.

Still, I don't think that's going to be enough to stop the arguments.
To extend the Eastern/Western metaphor, there's some sounds in Mandarin or other Asian languages that I'm simply never going to hear because my brain just doesn't make the distinction.  At the same time, my 5 year old nephew can hear the difference in those phonemes just fine because his brain still has the plasticity to recognize and categorize them.  

Somewhere in my childhood I must have come up with a different idea of what psionics is when I was flipping around in that 2e psioncists handbook and reading those Joe Dever Magnamund books.  You may have interacted with similar fiction or game mechanics, but to you it was just another form of magic. It will never be something else, and everytime I say Xi, you're going to hear Shi.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 18, 2015)

I want a unique mechanic, and am initially opposed to using the sorcerer as a base.

However, looking at it, I do see some keen ideas, not for USING the sorcerer, but COPYING the sorcerer.

The cantrips could be the old 2E attack or defense modes.

Make a unique spell list (divided by discipline).  Get a "free" feat at 1st level that gives access to a certain discipline (telepathy, metabolism, etc.)  You could then spend your ASIs as additional feats if you wanted to learn other disciplines.

Change spellcasting ability to be based on the power.  Metabolism might use con, mind attacks might use wis.

Keep "sorcery" point ability from 2nd level. (Or use DMG spell points)

Replace the standard bloodlines with something that relates to psionics (discipline focus, create astral constructs, pyrokinetic, ? ? etc.)

Optional ideas, can concentrate/maintain extra powers, sacrifice con/hp for spell points/slots

---

Would be easier than converting the 2E version. (at least based on my first attempt)

Hmmmmm.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 18, 2015)

bogmad said:


> I do want to be pseudo scientific with my superstition I guess, but really only in my definition of mystical forces.  The force is "magic" to you, but it's not to me.  You can argue I'm wrong all you want, but in the fantasy realm in my mind I'm right.  It's all fantasy, so how do we have an enforceable argument? We're both _right._ Just in my fantasy setting there's psionics (or "the force" to be reductionist) and then there's magic. They're different things. That work differently.




Same here.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> In the case of the EK, the mechanics are just 'additions,' yes.  But the conceptual change is night & day.  The Paladin and Ranger, in that conceptual sense, are no more different from the Fighter than the EK, yet they are classes.
> 
> To me, that says that a sub-class can radically alter a class concept - to a degree comparable to being a different class.




Which raises two points: 1.) Some classes get to be classes by virtue of their storied history in D&D. Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight all are variants of the "sword and spell" guy, but two got full class treatment rather than being crammed into subclasses. Why? Because at a certain point, history deemed it so. History deemed psionics a full class circa 1990ish, (perhaps sooner in Dragon). It remained so in 3e, 3.5 and 4e. That's enough prestige to give me the thumbs up. I mean, warlock got in with half as many editions. 

But to your point about radically altering a concept; Yes and no. An EK, for all his extra bonus spellcasting, is really still a fighter. He still straps on plate, get d10 HD, can eventually hit four times per round, and fills all the niche in combat a champion or battlemaster can. Yeah, his spellcasting edges him in versatility, but in the end he never breaks the rules of the basic fighter; he just gets extra toys (different extra toys) than his bros. If someone told me they were playing a fighter, I could still make some assumptions about him without knowing if he is a champion or an EK. 

Put another way, subclasses are like creamer; you can get them very plain (half-and-half) or fancy (french vanilla) but you're still drinking coffee. A psionic sorcerer is more like pouring Mountain Dew in your coffee; you're going to get a radically different taste and experience.
. 


Tony Vargas said:


> They'd be picked as they always were.  Your choice would be psionic at 1st or arcane at 1st with the Bard.  Psionic does whatever it does to make it an Ardent, say, and Arcane makes it like the existing bard, including picking something else later.




So your suggestion is to add a new checkpoint in the character generation schema; Step 4a). Pick a Power Source. Which I guess could open a bunch of new options (divine bards? martial clerics?) but at the same time adds a new layer of complexity to the game (since your adding a new decision point, during char-gen) I still think a new class is simpler than adding a new element of character generation, but whatever. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I wouldn't rule that out.  It's not like every class to show it's face in a past PH1 got the royal treatment in the 5e PH1.




Warlords got screwed, assassins did ok (if compared to the 1e assassin), and everyone else did just fine.



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm sure there are.  I'm not so sure it's an important consideration in 5e design.  I think we'd be justified in expecting power points, attack/defense modes, &c - from a full psion, or even, in some form, from a Psion sub-class of Sorcerer.




The question will be how much of that can fit into four class abilities and still remain balanced against (say) wild surges or draconic wings. Its a lot easier to balance it against its own thing thant to keep it balanced against all the sorcerer options as well.



Tony Vargas said:


> Now you're sounding more nearly reasonable.




Never had a problem with a fighter/rogue psychic class; much like I don't have a problem with EK/AT giving them spells. I have a MAJOR issue with ripping out the guts of the sorcerer and replacing them with the psion. Because either you are gutting the sorcerer to near nothing (basically rebuilding a new class atop the sorcerer's HD and proficiencies) for no reason except to avoid the 13th class, OR you're making psionics just regular arcane magic with some bonus telepathy added on.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 18, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> When the Wizard picks a cantrip at level 1, it can be a psi/ki cantrip that additionally allows the Wizard to substitute psi/ki as the source of all other effects, instead of arcane.
> 
> At level 2, the requirement to take a psi/ki archetype/tradition can be the ability to cast a psi/ki cantrip.




Can I take the psi-ki cantrip, claim all my powers are now psionic, and then take the necromancer tradition at second instead?

Does the pk cantrip change spellbooks, arcane implements, ritual casting, and any of my first level spell selections? 

Since I claimed my powers are now pk, can I now mix arcane spells and psi powers?

What happens when if I take a pk cantrip at 4th level (or any other level where I get a new cantrip). Can I declare my powers are pk then? 

What about if I take Spell Sniper, Magic Initiate, or am a High Elf? What about a Tome Warlock? 

Could I use my pk cantrip to make other (nonwizard) classes psionic? (Such as, being a high elf, taking a pk cantrip, declaring my powers psionic, and then taking levels in cleric? Are my cleric spells now pk?)


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 18, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> However, looking at it, I do see some keen ideas, not for USING the sorcerer, but COPYING the sorcerer.
> 
> Hmmmmm.




You can do this for a lot of things. I don't like the Eldritch Knight, but you can use the Paladin as a template for a Swordmage. You substitute the paladin spell list for a very limited arcane list that concentrates on spells that boost melee attacks and improve defenses. Smite becomes arcane strike. It's not a sub-class of paladin ... it's an arcane sword wielder.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Can I take the psi-ki cantrip, claim all my powers are now psionic, and then take the necromancer tradition at second instead?
> 
> Does the pk cantrip change spellbooks, arcane implements, ritual casting, and any of my first level spell selections?
> 
> ...




But, isn't this why we write mechanics?  You keep bringing up all these questions, but, wouldn't they be answered by, I dunno, actually WRITING a class/subclass?

Can you mix arcane and psi powers?  Well, maybe.  Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to write a paragraph or two at the beginning of the Psionics Rules, that states something like options where Psi is a type of magic (and thus can be mixed) or Psi is Different (and can't be mixed).  Kind of like exactly the same way it was done for other versions of Psionics?

And, let's be honest here, any psionicist should have its own powers list - that's not a big shocker is it?  I was always on the assumption that the lists would be different.  

If you make a completely new Psi class, what's to stop those exact same issues from happening when someone dual classes?  How does making it a totally new class stop Spell Sniper or Tomelock?  

All that stuff has to be addressed no matter if you make a new class or a subclass.  That's not the issue.  I guess my point is, if I'm just copying the template from once class and then bolting on new mechanics, why not just use subclasses.  It's the same difference.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Which raises two points: 1.) Some classes get to be classes by virtue of their storied history in D&D. Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight all are variants of the "sword and spell" guy, but two got full class treatment rather than being crammed into subclasses. Why? Because at a certain point, history deemed it so.



 Nod.  5e is very concerned with that 'classic D&D feel.'  The EK is almost at odds with it - I suppose it's an echo of the elven fighter/magic-user.



> But to your point about radically altering a concept; Yes and no. An EK, for all his extra bonus spellcasting, is really still a fighter.



 The concept of a character who has no magical abilities is radically different from one who casts spells.  The mechanics may not be that dramatic, but the change in concept is.  

Taking a class from casting spells to using 'psionics' is really less of a change, because both spellcasting and vaguely-defined 'mental powers' are clearly supernatural and do many of the same things.  



> Step 4a). Pick a Power Source. Which I guess could open a bunch of new options (divine bards? martial clerics?) but at the same time adds a new layer of complexity to the game (since your adding a new decision point, during char-gen)



 That's an interesting generalization (or slippery slope fallacy) of the idea of introducing a few psionic sub-classes, and might have worked well done earlier, with a smaller number of magic-using classes.  Not really relevant to the original idea, but interesting.



> I still think a new class is simpler than adding a new element of character generation, but whatever.



 Sub-classes are not a new element of character generation.  



> Warlords got screwed, assassins did ok (if compared to the 1e assassin), and everyone else did just fine.



 As with a class choosing it's sub-class at 1st level, it only takes one to set a precedent.  



> Never had a problem with a fighter/rogue psychic class; much like I don't have a problem with EK/AT giving them spells. I have a MAJOR issue with ripping out the guts of the sorcerer and replacing them with the psion.



 No gutting required.  The sorcerer already uses a point system that could evoke pps, and spells can easily handle most psionic effects - where they don't, you expand the list.  That's the point, really, that it would require very little development to insert a psion as a sorcerer sub-class.  



> OR you're making psionics just regular arcane magic with some bonus telepathy added on.



 Psionics are just another kind of magic:  a vague rationale for wielding supernatural powers that's not held up to much scrutiny.  Divine & arcane magic can use the same mechanics and draw from the same spell lists, no reason psionics can't, as well.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod.  5e is very concerned with that 'classic D&D feel.'  The EK is almost at odds with it - I suppose it's an echo of the elven fighter/magic-user.




That is my assumption; the fighter/mage (especially as it relates to the "ELF" class) is ancient, but there has never been a single solid manifestation of it. Prime candidate for reduction to subclass (Assassin, which bounced from class to kit to prestige class to class again, is very close to that as well). 



Tony Vargas said:


> The concept of a character who has no magical abilities is radically different from one who casts spells.  The mechanics may not be that dramatic, but the change in concept is.




Mechanics is what concerns me. I mean, I can create a Pony-based subclass that uses the power of Love and Tollerance to cast spells, but that don't mean doo-doo unless it has some mechanic to back it up. Unlike 4e, fluff and crunch are separated by a wall of flaming tigers anymore. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Taking a class from casting spells to using 'psionics' is really less of a change, because both spellcasting and vaguely-defined 'mental powers' are clearly supernatural and do many of the same things.




Only if psionics = spells. I propose something different. 



Tony Vargas said:


> That's an interesting generalization (or slippery slope fallacy) of the idea of introducing a few psionic sub-classes, and might have worked well done earlier, with a smaller number of magic-using classes.  Not really relevant to the original idea, but interesting.




Not really; You have now choose Psi or No Psi at first level when selecting the Bard, Wizard, or any other spellcaster than modifies your spells but doesn't give you your subclass features at first level. Because choosing Bard at first level will now come with an extra step; do I want psionic or arcane casting. This will change things majorly for the class. Effectively, you are adding a new step. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Sub-classes are not a new element of character generation.




But when you pick them (and gain their benefit) is different per class, and you are suggesting they must now be picked at first level. New rule.



Tony Vargas said:


> As with a class choosing it's sub-class at 1st level, it only takes one to set a precedent.




Yet out of 44 produced, none (save three base classes) have done that. It seems to be a precedent WotC doesn't want to set. 



Tony Vargas said:


> No gutting required.  The sorcerer already uses a point system that could evoke pps, and spells can easily handle most psionic effects - where they don't, you expand the list.  That's the point, really, that it would require very little development to insert a psion as a sorcerer sub-class.
> 
> Psionics are just another kind of magic:  a vague rationale for wielding supernatural powers that's not held up to much scrutiny.  Divine & arcane magic can use the same mechanics and draw from the same spell lists, no reason psionics can't, as well.




So psionics is a sorcerer and is un-needed. No unique mechanics. No unique power effects. Just another "pew, pew, fireball!" sorcerer. 

Dear WotC: if that's your plan, don't bother. 



Hussar said:


> But, isn't this why we write mechanics?  You keep bringing up all these questions, but, wouldn't they be answered by, I dunno, actually WRITING a class/subclass?




Yarael suggested an idea, I was trying to flesh it out for him.



Hussar said:


> Can you mix arcane and psi powers?  Well, maybe.  Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to write a paragraph or two at the beginning of the Psionics Rules, that states something like options where Psi is a type of magic (and thus can be mixed) or Psi is Different (and can't be mixed).  Kind of like exactly the same way it was done for other versions of Psionics?




But pure wizards couldn't learn psionic powers (short of multi-classing or a psionic feat). Allowing them to mix allows them to cherry pick the best options from both classes; effectively making psionics just a giant expansion of the wizard spell list. Unless you are keeping them separate, which means you now have two possible spell lists a wizard could potentially be using. 



Hussar said:


> And, let's be honest here, any psionicist should have its own powers list - that's not a big shocker is it?  I was always on the assumption that the lists would be different.




Meet [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. He thinks psionics should just be wizard spells. 



Hussar said:


> If you make a completely new Psi class, what's to stop those exact same issues from happening when someone dual classes?  How does making it a totally new class stop Spell Sniper or Tomelock?




No more so than multi-classing now, but Yarael's idea was that a single cantrip could change your casting mechanics. I wanted to see how that interacted with the rest of the cantrip rules. 



Hussar said:


> All that stuff has to be addressed no matter if you make a new class or a subclass.  That's not the issue.  I guess my point is, if I'm just copying the template from once class and then bolting on new mechanics, why not just use subclasses.  It's the same difference.




I don't. I want a new mechanic that emulates earlier edition psionics but with a balanced, updated twist (like how current casting emulates Vancian in a way). I want a bunch of powers with the familiar pseudo-science names and a class (with its own unique subclasses) that is an easy way to enter into it (and perhaps a feat or subclasses to give psy power to non-casters). In essence, I want a psi-system so robust it could REPLACE magic if I wanted it to, not BE magic because some people find psionics "icky". 

I get neither of you don't. That's fine. But don't take it away from me.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Mechanics is what concerns me. I mean, I can create a Pony-based subclass that uses the power of Love and Tollerance to cast spells, but that don't mean doo-doo unless it has some mechanic to back it up. Unlike 4e, fluff and crunch are separated by a wall of flaming tigers anymore.



 So, the differences among the 2 Sorcerer and 3 Warlock sub-classes are doo-doo, because they still cast spells the same way?



> Only if psionics = spells. I propose something different.



 Which is fine, I'd like to see psionics get an extensive treatment, too.  I'm just open to a more realistic, lower-development-threshold alternative, like leveraging the existing systems of casting and list of spells - something every class already does.



> Because choosing Bard at first level will now come with an extra step; do I want psionic or arcane casting. This will change things majorly for the class. Effectively, you are adding a new step.



 Meh, you're blowing it out of proportion.  Three classes, including the one best suited to a psoinc sub-class choose their sub-classes at 1st level.  Three others don't start with casting.  That's half the classes that can be afflicted with psionic sub-classes without the imagined consequences you're so upset about.





> But when you pick them (and gain their benefit) is different per class, and you are suggesting they must now be picked at first level. New rule.



 Even if that were valid, one new rule vs how many to create a selection of new classes and not-spell supernatural powers that mostly do things spells already do?  Dozens?  Hundreds?  (hint: none of that's valid)





> none (save three base classes) have done that. It seems to be a precedent WotC doesn't want to set.



 None "save 3" is not none, it's 3.  Three precedents is not a precedent WotC doesn't want to set, it's a precedent they've already set.  Three times.




> He thinks psionics should just be wizard spells.



 A /lot/ of classes have Wizard spells on their lists.  Doesn't mean they're wizards.



> I don't. I want a new mechanic that emulates earlier edition psionics but with a balanced, updated twist (like how current casting emulates Vancian in a way). I want a bunch of powers with the familiar pseudo-science names and a class (with its own unique subclasses) that is an easy way to enter into it (and perhaps a feat or subclasses to give psy power to non-casters). In essence, I want a psi-system so robust it could REPLACE magic if I wanted it to, not BE magic because some people find psionics "icky".



 Sounds lovely:  except for the last bit.  3.5 had the right idea there, let the DM choose whether psionics is 'different' from other supernatural powers in the setting.



> I get neither of you don't. That's fine. But don't take it away from me.



Not trying to.  You're the one drawing the line in the sand, who wants his way or nothing.


----------



## Uchawi (Jun 19, 2015)

If the choice is between a class and a subclass, then always choose class. In the end you have more design space to work with. If the choice is to simplify the game, then don't include psionics as a as a separate system (point system or otherwise) and just implement more spells.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not that I can think of any reason to have a psionic barbarian.




The Maenad, reimagined as a barbarian subclass.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, the differences among the 2 Sorcerer and 3 Warlock sub-classes are doo-doo, because they still cast spells the same way?




Its certainly smaller than radical changes to spells lists (don't use the sorcerer list, use this special psionic list) or caster mechanic (psionic sorcerers use spell points, all others use spell slots). 



Tony Vargas said:


> S Which is fine, I'd like to see psionics get an extensive treatment, too.  I'm just open to a more realistic, lower-development-threshold alternative, like leveraging the existing systems of casting and list of spells - something every class already does.




Which is why we should demand them be held to higher level. They could have cut one full page piece of art from the PHB and fit the psion in the sorcerer section if what they intended to do was just let them be sorcerers with telepathy. It appears they don't want to take that route, so we should demand they stick to that. Lets not let another Wizardficer debacle come down; lets demand they do it the right way.



Tony Vargas said:


> S Meh, you're blowing it out of proportion.  Three classes, including the one best suited to a psoinc sub-class choose their sub-classes at 1st level.  Three others don't start with casting.  That's half the classes that can be afflicted with psionic sub-classes without the imagined consequences you're so upset about.




I'll be blunt, I dislike the idea of selecting a subclass at before the level you're required to (1st for Sorc/Wlk/Clr, 2nd for Wiz, 3rd for all else). I think that goes against the spirit of what they wanted to do with subclasses. If they wanted you to pick EK, College of Valor, or Oath of the Ancients before 3rd level, they'd have done so. They wanted characters to get a feel for their class, then choose (except for the aformentioned three, since bloodline/pact/deity is a hugh part of their identity). I don't want psionics coming in and mucking up that dynamic when there is no real reason to. 



Tony Vargas said:


> S A /lot/ of classes have Wizard spells on their lists.  Doesn't mean they're wizards.




It does mean they are generally arcane casters. Psionics should not be arcane magic. If it is, then it pointless and redundant. Either psionics should be different or it doesn't need to be. We already have a bunch of arcane casters, we don't need another.



Tony Vargas said:


> S Sounds lovely:  except for the last bit.  3.5 had the right idea there, let the DM choose whether psionics is 'different' from other supernatural powers in the setting.




You misread my intent; I want a psionic system that could fill the role of magic in a game if the DM wished. 3.5 did do it right; between the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionics, you could run a game without clerics, wizards, or the like. My dream is that; I'll settle for one good base class and some supplemental stuff. 



Tony Vargas said:


> SNot trying to.  You're the one drawing the line in the sand, who wants his way or nothing.




Feet to the fire. I don't want WotC to get the idea from its audience that "subclasses are a viable replacement for new rules." That a sorcerer is a good enough psion. That artificers throw fireballs and magic missiles. I want them to know people want real psionics like they had in 2e, 3e, and 4e. Half-measures are a no deal. If it means a hardline stance, so be it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Which is why we should demand them be held to higher level.



 Because you'd rather get nothing?  Nothing is a very real option.  It's super-low in needed development resources.



> I'll be blunt, I dislike the idea of selecting a subclass at before the level you're required to (1st for Sorc/Wlk/Clr, 2nd for Wiz, 3rd for all else).



 Yeah, I caught that.

Still, it's not an issue with classes that don't start with casting abilities, and not an issue classes that already pick at 1st level.  Together, that's half the classes in the PH.  Not too shabby.  We could have a psion-Sorcerer, psychic-warrior-Fighter, and soul-knife-Rogue without running up against that particular objection.



> It does mean they are generally arcane casters. Psionics should not be arcane magic. If it is, then it pointless and redundant. Either psionics should be different or it doesn't need to be.



 Again with the clear message that you'd be happier with nothing.



> I don't want WotC to get the idea from its audience that "subclasses are a viable replacement for new rules."



 I think that ship's sailed.  Two years of playtesting, and we did see several PH1 classes reduced to sub-classes in the 5e PH.  Sources are gone, all classes have some access to spells, either as casters, or as underlying mechanics.



> Half-measures are a no deal. If it means a hardline stance, so be it.



 Keep demanding nothing, and you just might get it.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Which is why we should demand them be held to higher level. They could have cut one full page piece of art from the PHB and fit the psion in the sorcerer section if what they intended to do was just let them be sorcerers with telepathy. It appears they don't want to take that route, so we should demand they stick to that. Lets not let another Wizardficer debacle come down; lets demand they do it the right way.




From your keyboard to Mikes eye.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 19, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Indeed. I have the genesis of two viable systems in my head. One of them is, essentially, a replacement for Sorcerer that would pretty much just be "internally powered by [select from list]", with the option for the various archetypes to swap out the VSM components for something else (like 3E did, but expanded as appropriate to the other archetypes). I have no idea what I'd do for psychic warrior, etc., but it might be as simple as "use multiclassing rules" or an Eldritch Knight knock-off archetype.
> 
> The other is a new subsystem that works by providing base devotions (a.k.a. spells) that can be augmented with talents, which are gained as the character advances. Most devotions would also have a "Maintain" tag in their description that would give the on-going effect if the psion maintains concentration. This would call for a new base Psion class (to cover a couple 3E Psion sub-classes, Wilder, and Ardent) as well as a Fighter archetype for Psychic Warrior (that would nick the soul knife's stuff) and a Lurk archetype for Rogue.
> 
> I like both ideas, and would welcome either in my game. But, either would alienate half(ish) the fans.




You're kind of getting at my main point.

If you go big and have a new class, that's great. Lets get a psion with unique mechanics and maybe a pulpy sci-fi feel, and/or a more medieval feel (crystal spires and togas! )

If you go small and don't have a new class, that's also great. Lets get a sorcerer subclass with a few distinct tricks or a "psionic" feat that gives anyone access to a few psi-themed spells or whatever. 

You could have both. A little repetitive, maybe, but super great. 

What you can't do is go small and have a new class. You can't take reskinned spells and a reskinned sorcerer and call it a new class. You can't just say "psionics is very different than magic!" and just swap some jargon around ("oh, see, it's inner power from the mind that I use to cast charm person I mean manifest the charm devotion!"). That's meaningless. That's a waste of pagecount. 

You also can only go so big before you need to have a new class, but with subclasses and feats, it's actually _pretty big_. I can't think of anyone proposing a subclass that has something too big to fit in that subclass - if a subclass can grant superiority dice and spells, then a subclass can grant psionic combat and manifestation or whatever.

The main thing I see in a lot of these discussions is people insisting on a difference that is pretty academic should actually be enough to warrant a whole new class, and that's pretty weak sauce. They see things like spell lists, proficiencies, and hit dice as part of a class's identity rather than just one of many things that you could change with relatively little effort. They refuse to imagine nonacademic wizards or sorcerers born with weird mental powers instead of weird "arcane" powers. 

Mearls seems to have the right of it - "I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots." That implies more an approach in the second vein, a big class, with new things in it. That sounds good to me!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 19, 2015)

At least one alternative mechanical system has been proposed in here- I'm thinking pros probably have a few ideas themselves.








I sure hope so.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> His point needs to be stressed. I cannot stress it enough. Psionics will be different, if it is treated different even if it shares some mechanical similarities to the "magic" system. If it is treated as separate from magic, it will become it's own thing. Psionics must have it's own concentrations and focus. Just like divine has healing which arcane is rarely allowed to intrude upon. Psionics must concentrate on mental abilities that rarely overlap with things that arcane and divine casters can do. A previous poster mentioned psionic invisibility which would only affect a single opponent. You wouldn't become invisible. Your opponent would simply "think" you had disappeared. This is how these powers need to work and feel.




I win. I got Tony Vargas and Remathilis to give me xp for this post.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 19, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At least one alternative mechanical system has been proposed in here- I'm thinking pros probably have a few ideas themselves.




Probably! But which mechanic they go with probably has something to do with the flavor they're pursuing. A more pulpy sci-fi flavor would produce a different mechanic than a more medieval flavor.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, it was explicit in 4e.  In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms.  The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example.  So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.
> 
> So the question isn't why add that association, now, but 'why remove it?'
> 
> ...




because "real D&D" (IE: Anything pre 4E) lacks the existence of the Far Realms. The whole cosmology in 4E was changed. 5E has changed it back towards something closer to the great wheel.

4E making something explicit really carries little weight with the fans they're courting: the D&D OE, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, D&D 2 (moldvay/cook, Mentzer, and Alston/Denning).  The 3E crowd is starting to need to replace books, and that makes them targets of opportunity. But the 4E crowd still can find some on shelves, and is unlikely to need to replace it yet.

And, while 4E was a great tactical game, it was lousy D&D for everyone I gamed with. Too much worked too differently. Including the fluff.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 19, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> because "real D&D" (IE: Anything pre 4E) lacks the existence of the Far Realms. The whole cosmology in 4E was changed. 5E has changed it back towards something closer to the great wheel.



The Far Realm, as previously established, was introduced in 2e with Gates of Firestorm Peak, and a similar concept ("Outside") was alluded to in the Illithiad. 3e books included it as well - Tome & Blood had the Alienist with mastery over pseudonatural creatures, and the Epic-Level Handbook had the Brain Collectors who were said to be from the Far Realm and a pseudonatural template that made regular monsters into epic ones with extra tentacles. The 3e Manual of the Planes included the Far Realm as a variant plane. And of course Eberron had the plane of Xoriat, which was essentially the Far Realm, as a core (albeit distant) concept.

So no, the Far Realm was not introduced as a 4e concept. It gained prominence in 4e, but it was added to the game long before that.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

The question we have to ask ourselves is counterspell going to work against psionics? I think about half this board says yes. The other half says no. I come down on the side of no. In my mind, it has to be something other than magic or what is the point.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> The question we have to ask ourselves is counterspell going to work against psionics? I think about half this board says yes. The other half says no. I come down on the side of no. In my mind, it has to be something other than magic or what is the point.



 I'd have to say, yes (to magic resistance, dispel magic, & anti-magic zones, as well), by default, simply because the primary check on magic in D&D has traditionally been magic, and adding a second mechanically-distinct 'Source' whose only check is itself might be problematic.  

That said, it should be simple enough to present a 3.5-style 'psionics is different' option, as well.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> The question we have to ask ourselves is counterspell going to work against psionics? I think about half this board says yes. The other half says no. I come down on the side of no. In my mind, it has to be something other than magic or what is the point.



This is where having divine magic work like arcane magic becomes a rub. There's a much better argument for arcane magic not being able to dispel/counter divine magic than there is for it being impotent against psionics -- because God said "no".

This just proves your point, but I can find absolutely no way to justify a wall around psionics without also adding one around divine magic. That may be an acceptable house rule, but it's not baked into the core 5E assumptions and would have some trickle-down impacts (Bards can't use Clerical _Cure Wounds_ scrolls).


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'd have to say, yes (to magic resistance, dispel magic, & anti-magic zones, as well), by default, simply because the primary check on magic in D&D has traditionally been magic, and adding a second mechanically-distinct 'Source' whose only check is itself might be problematic.
> 
> That said, it should be simple enough to present a 3.5-style 'psionics is different' option, as well.




How you present something is important. If counterspell works against psionics as the default then it is just another "flavor" of magic like arcane or divine and there is not enough reason for it to exist in my mind. Psionics has always been the thing that filled the void when magic was lost (i.e. Dark Sun or other settings with a futuristic or Lovecraftian bent). If it seamlessly works with "traditional" D&D magic then it loses some of its flavor and it is hard to justify why it remains in a setting like Dark Sun when arcane and divine magic does not.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

Mercule said:


> This is where having divine magic work like arcane magic becomes a rub. There's a much better argument for arcane magic not being able to dispel/counter divine magic than there is for it being impotent against psionics -- because God said "no".
> 
> This just proves your point, but I can find absolutely no way to justify a wall around psionics without also adding one around divine magic. That may be an acceptable house rule, but it's not baked into the core 5E assumptions and would have some trickle-down impacts (Bards can't use Clerical _Cure Wounds_ scrolls).




Gods and mortals tap into the same source. In the Realms the source is the "Weave". Psionics is different.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2015)

I'm on the fence about this.

On the one hand, psionics that can be detected/dispelled/countered by magic creates a natural check on its abuse. A psionic charm effect that cannot be detected nor removed except by psionic means becomes an arms race, and more PCs will have access to magic than psionics in a typical D&D game (even a Dark Sun games has a decent selection of magical creatures and casters). OTOH: it does reduce psionics to another type of "magic"; which is the opposite of what I want. Which is why having a unique psionic mechanic becomes critical in making psionics and magic separate. 

My gut is to grant magic the ability to effect psionics (and vice versa) but with the cavaet that it increases the need of psionics to "feel" different in play and that the spell slot system (or even the spell point variant) isn't going to cut it as the method of delivering psionics. It needs something new.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> How you present something is important. If counterspell works against psionics as the default then it is just another "flavor" of magic like arcane or divine and there is not enough reason for it to exist in my mind.



 Even if there's a clear, easily-implemented option presented for it to be 'different?'

Arcane & Divine are awfully different in concept, yet the game has them work virtually identically, mechanically, because it's expedient - it saved page count, design resources, and has the two working together smoothly and avoids potentially problematic issues with how 'different magics' might interact.  

That doesn't mean a DM couldn't decide that the Gods are ascendant in his setting, declare the two types different, and that a Divine 'Dispel Magic' sweeps away any arcane spell with no roll, while arcane dispels can't touch Divine effects. 

Dropping in psionics as another form of magic, leveraging existing spell lists & mechanics, would in no way prevent one from making it 'different' and instituting a few simple rulings to give that difference teeth.

also, this:


Remathilis said:


> psionics that can be detected/dispelled/countered by magic creates a natural check on its abuse. A psionic charm effect that cannot be detected nor removed except by psionic means becomes an arms race, and more PCs will have access to magic than psionics in a typical D&D game (even a Dark Sun games has a decent selection of magical creatures and casters).


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Gods and mortals tap into the same source. In the Realms the source is the "Weave". Psionics is different.




This quote made me realize what Mearls was asking...

Magic comes from the Weave. There are a lot of path's to the weave: studying spells (wizard), Gods (cleric), natural forces (druid), pacts with powerful entities (warlock), songs of creation (bard), and even inherited talent from special bloodlines (sorcerer). In the end though, they are all different paths to the same source; the weave where magic comes from and all magic (no matter its source) obeys the rules of "spells" because in the end, they are all coming from the same origin (just through different routes). Think of it like the internet; I can access it from a Windows, Linux,Mac, iOS or Android device using Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer, but they all lead to the same internet source. 

Psionics is different. It doesn't use the Weave as a source of magic. It pulls from somewhere else. Which is why its powers shouldn't look like weave powers; they are different, strange, alien. Kinda like the Far Realm. What if psionics doesn't draw from the weave but some other energy like that which is beyond space and time is what Mearls is asking? Psionics isn't hacking the Weave, its bypassing it. Its like TOR, bypassing the normal web and searching the Deep Web. Its powers look superficially similar to magic (supernatural effects happen) but the devil is in the details; psioncis differ in acquisition, usage, and effect. 

Of course, that's not the only option; psionics could pull from the Web of Life, the wisdom of the Ancients, the Realm of Dreams, or a bunch of other places. The point is it doesn't pull from the Weave (and thus isn't just another type of magic) but it gets its juju from somewhere else.

Because otherwise, psionics becomes just another path to the Weave, another on-ramp for spells to come through. And we have plenty of those already.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> This quote made me realize what Mearls was asking...
> 
> Magic comes from the Weave. There are a lot of path's to the weave: studying spells (wizard), Gods (cleric), natural forces (druid), pacts with powerful entities (warlock), songs of creation (bard), and even inherited talent from special bloodlines (sorcerer). In the end though, they are all different paths to the same source; the weave where magic comes from and all magic (no matter its source) obeys the rules of "spells" because in the end, they are all coming from the same origin (just through different routes). Think of it like the internet; I can access it from a Windows, Linux,Mac, iOS or Android device using Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer, but they all lead to the same internet source.
> 
> ...




That's a good point. I was just pondering what it would necessarily mean for psionics to be "magic" (what is and isn't magic in D&D?), and then you pointed out that the game already tells us exactly what magic is in D&D in that sidebar I find myself pointing people to all the time.

So yeah, with that definition of magic, psionics should probably be somewhat different, though I have no problem with psionics-magic transparency interaction rules.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

I see psionics as internal. It is the power of individual sentience. It is a hyperawareness of everything around you and your connection to it. Its manifestation might because of mental rigor and discipline or it might be triggered through contact with the Far Realm, but it is different than typical fantasy magic.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> The question we have to ask ourselves is counterspell going to work against psionics? I think about half this board says yes. The other half says no. I come down on the side of no. In my mind, it has to be something other than magic or what is the point.




If psi is like casting spells then counterspell should work fine against it.

If psi is a different ruleset, counterspell should not work against it, any more than it works against superiority dice or a shield or _wildshape_.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 19, 2015)

The whole point of psionics is, it pulls from nowhere else except oneself.

There are no external sources.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 19, 2015)

Staffan said:


> The Far Realm, as previously established, was introduced in 2e with Gates of Firestorm Peak, and a similar concept ("Outside") was alluded to in the Illithiad. 3e books included it as well - Tome & Blood had the Alienist with mastery over pseudonatural creatures, and the Epic-Level Handbook had the Brain Collectors who were said to be from the Far Realm and a pseudonatural template that made regular monsters into epic ones with extra tentacles. The 3e Manual of the Planes included the Far Realm as a variant plane. And of course Eberron had the plane of Xoriat, which was essentially the Far Realm, as a core (albeit distant) concept.
> 
> So no, the Far Realm was not introduced as a 4e concept. It gained prominence in 4e, but it was added to the game long before that.




It wasn't a core part of the universe in 2E, 3E, nor 3.5E - but it was core in 4E.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> This quote made me realize what Mearls was asking...
> 
> ... In the end though, they are all different paths to the same source; the weave where magic comes from and all magic (no matter its source) obeys the rules of "spells" because in the end, they are all coming from the same origin (just through different routes). Think of it like the internet; I can access it from a Windows, Linux,Mac, iOS or Android device using Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer, but they all lead to the same internet source.
> 
> Psionics is different. It doesn't use the Weave as a source of magic.




Wizards -  are hackers. They know how to hack the "Weave"
Warlocks - are told how to hack the "Weave" by their patrons
Sorcerers - are prodigies who are born knowing how to hack
Clerics - ask their gods to hack the "Weave" for them
Druids - know secret back doors into the "Weave" through their knowledge of nature


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> It wasn't a core part of the universe in 2E, 3E, nor 3.5E - but it was core in 4E.



 4e had that whole "everything is core" thing going, yes.  The label didn't really mean anything, unlike in 3e where there was a perception that 'core only' was less broken.

In 2e, when the Far Realms was introduced, AD&D still had the conceit that everything (including said Far Realm) was in a single 'Multiverse' anyway.  You could choose never to take your campaign to the Far Realm (which has certainly never been the point in any edition - it's a place Lovecraftian horrors come from, not a place you go) or to the Ravenloft pocket-dimensions, or to certain of the myriad alternate-prime-material planes containing various settings, but they were all part of the same core-game universe as the Great Wheel model.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Gods and mortals tap into the same source. In the Realms the source is the "Weave". Psionics is different.



So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.

"The Weave" is one of the things I hate about the Realms. I despise that the word "Weave" is even found in the PHB. It's entirely too setting-specific.

Arcane magic deals with science-like laws of how to manipulate, well, magic. Depending on the setting, this could be an Enochian "language of creation", manipulation of ambient energy (a.k.a. Weave), or even forcing various entities (read: deities, vestiges, etc.) to do your bidding via loopholes in their service agreement.

Gods don't (always) play by the same rules. Depending on the setting, they might use the ambient energy, but they could also simply be near omnipotent, capable of manipulating the mental energy of their faithful, pull their power from a greater source (per BECMI Immortal rules), or just be tremendous batteries of power. Clerics get their power by proxy as the gods grant quantified powers. Using the same rules as the Wizard is a mechanical convenience everywhere outside of the Realms.

Psionics is somehow internally powered; that "somehow" is the rub. This could be people keyed to the "friction" between different realities (Far Realms), tainted by magical "fallout", capable of directly manipulating the ambient "Weave", or even showing the first signs that humanity has the same divine spark as the gods.

The setting determines how psionics fit. If I were to run a Realms game that included psionics, I can't imagine any other flavor than to say the psion is manipulating the Weave without need of formal spells, regardless of mechanics. Maybe "Mystara's Chosen" is just a cute name for psions.

When I run Eberron, it's mostly just seen as another form of magic. What little deeper thought is given would be mostly along the lines of it being a world where demons are literally buried in the ground, people manifest magic tattoos, and unprovable gods grant spells to clerics who act against their doctrine. How can you stress about some folks who learn to do magic by shear willpower, rather than knowledge?

In my home brew, psionics are generally the result of over-exposure to magic -- daddy had an artifact, mommy lived near the tower of a mad mage, etc. They are occasionally seen as secondary reflections of humanity's ability to ascend to godhood (which is rare, but possible). The fact that elves are wholly incapable of ever manifesting psionics and are also known to be a race of (minor) angels that forsook their divine spark to live among the mortal races only adds fuel to the fire.

I still can't see anywhere near as much justification for fluff saying "psionics is different" as for saying "divine channeling is different". You could throw psions on either side of the line, but they have a lot more in common with either arcane or divine magic than the two do with each other.


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Jun 19, 2015)

I have converted the 3rd Ed Binder, Factotum, Incarnate, Knight, and ToB classes, so new mechanics are not that big an issue, I am just still not quite sure on which way to implement Psionics.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> ...or to the Ravenloft pocket-dimensions




Actually, getting _to_ Ravenloft wasn't the problem. Dragging characters from their normal campaign into Ravenloft was a recommended DM tactic.

(Unless you meant something specific by pocket-dimensions that I'm unfamiliar with)


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2015)

Mercule said:


> So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.




That's the question; DO they tap the same source as magic, or do they tap something else entirely. D&D (5e) has made it clear that arcane and divine magic come from the same Raw Source of Magic, and it is the vessel and way they tap into it (via arcane knowledge, divine power, or whatever) that explains why clerics heal, wizard blow things up, warlocks cast different than sorcerers, and bards get magic at all. 

What's being proposes is, what if psionics DOES'NT come from this same Raw Source? What if its something unconnected to raw magic rather than being a third type of magic? What if psionics doesn't have to obey the same rules that arcane or divine don't or produce the same effects as them? What is something hard for a wizard to do (such as teleportation) is easier for a psion to do, but the psion couldn't animate a skeleton or remove a curse? What if it is dangerous, exhausting, or even risks madness to try to use psioncs? What if psionics is rare because while most people "get" concept of magic, the idea of psionics is strange and frightening? And what if psionics leaves you open to the entities of the Far Realm or makes you a brighter target for its minions? Or what if its internal power source is the solution to said entities? 

This is WAY cooler than "psions are sorcerers with telepathy". This is a radical shakeup of the system worthy of a rules expansion (and corresponding AP), not just another splatbook of character options. That is something I want to see, and I hope its what Mearls is aiming for with his probing questions.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 19, 2015)

Mercule said:


> So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.



Not sure where one assumption leads to the other.  
Gods _could_ also provide a way to tap into psionics or other sources or whatnot, but that hasn't ever been a default setting assumption for anything in D&D.  Same way, you don't _have_ to have Divine and Arcane magic interact in your setting; you're free to say a wizards dispell magic won't affect a cleric's spell, but it's _never been the case_ in any setting I've heard of. Yet there is a precedent for psionics to be different.  All I want is a way for that difference to be in my game and for the difference to be meaningful.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Magic comes from the Weave. There are a lot of path's to the weave: studying spells (wizard), Gods (cleric), natural forces (druid), pacts with powerful entities (warlock), songs of creation (bard), and even inherited talent from special bloodlines (sorcerer). In the end though, they are all different paths to the same source; the weave where magic comes from and all magic (no matter its source) obeys the rules of "spells" because in the end, they are all coming from the same origin (just through different routes). Think of it like the internet; I can access it from a Windows, Linux,Mac, iOS or Android device using Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer, but they all lead to the same internet source.
> 
> Psionics is different. It doesn't use the Weave as a source of magic. It pulls from somewhere else.



 Y'know what's funny about this?  The Weave is a network delivering energy to whomever plugs into it using the right adapter/device/algorithm (components).  What you can do with it is consistent, predictable, repeatable - and, with enough training (a wizard level, feat, or even background) anyone can do it.  

Psionics, OTOH, are mysterious powers some claim to have that others can't reproduce or explain - or, under the 'psionics are different' theory, detect, or affect.

So spellcasting, in the Realms, is not magic at all:  it's just one of those  'sufficiently advanced technologies.' 
Psionics, OTOH, actually does have some of the science-defying qualities of magic.




Mercule said:


> So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.
> 
> "The Weave" is one of the things I hate about the Realms. I despise that the word "Weave" is even found in the PHB. It's entirely too setting-specific.



 I'm not crazy about the high-magic Realms with the Weave and Mystra and her favorite, Elmonster, and, just general uber-NPCs under every rock approach.  

But, for whatever reason, they chose it as the default setting, so you have to expect to see it's schticks here and there.  Like everything else, though, we're free to toss 'em.  As long as Weave-ishness doesn't get hard-coded into how magic works in a what that's too difficult to tease out, though, it's really not an issue.



> Arcane magic deals with science-like laws of how to manipulate, well, magic. Depending on the setting, this could be an Enochian "language of creation", manipulation of ambient energy (a.k.a. Weave), or even forcing various entities (read: deities, vestiges, etc.) to do your bidding via loopholes in their service agreement.



 Or the material components of your spell and the air you exhale while speaking it being exchanged for the pure energy of the positive material plane to power you spells (1e DMG, if anyone's wondering).



> Psionics is somehow internally powered; that "somehow" is the rub. This could be people keyed to the "friction" between different realities (Far Realms), tainted by magical "fallout", capable of directly manipulating the ambient "Weave", or even showing the first signs that humanity has the same divine spark as the gods.
> 
> The setting determines how psionics fit. If I were to run a Realms game that included psionics, I can't imagine any other flavor than to say the psion is manipulating the Weave without need of formal spells, regardless of mechanics. Maybe "Mystara's Chosen" is just a cute name for psions.



Sounds reasonable - and flexible.  



> I still can't see anywhere near as much justification for fluff saying "psionics is different" as for saying "divine channeling is different". You could throw psions on either side of the line, but they have a lot more in common with either arcane or divine magic than the two do with each other.



 The biggest factor I see is one that fans of psionics are quick to deny:  that psionics is a science-fiction 'bit,' a throwaway detail used to insert magical elements into a genre that otherwise tries to be modern and scientific.  Because of that association, the idea that it's "not magic" is actually pretty intuitive, and a little shaky.  Psionics in sci-fi is not magic in the sense that it's had traditional trappings of magic removed - the serial numbers filed off - but it is magic in the sense that it does what magic does, both literally, in the sense of the same sorts of effects, and in the literary sense of filling the same function within the story.

So the argument that psionics are 'not magic,' and the argument that they're redundant, and the argument that they have no place in D&D at all, are all really based on the same thing - if one is right, they all are.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 19, 2015)

The ‘source’ of psionics is knowing, ones own consciousness entangles the body but is more than the body.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

Mercule said:


> So... psions aren't mortal? If so, they still tap into the same source.




Touche ... Mortals who use divine and arcane magic tap the same source as gods. Psionic users would tap an internal mental source tied to sentience and individual awareness. Both would be mortal.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> So the argument that psionics are 'not magic,' and the argument that they're redundant, and the argument that they have no place in D&D at all, are all really based on the same thing - if one is right, they all are.




I'm not saying it's not magic of some sort, just not the sort that works in tandem with the arcane and divine magic found in D&D. By drawing on a different source it becomes worthy of doing. If the psionicist draws from the same source as the divine and the arcane, then the psionic user is just a sorcerer. I don't need another type of sorcerer. I need a character who can step in and fill the void in settings where the arcane and the divine has failed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I'm not saying it's not magic of some sort, just not the sort that works in tandem with the arcane and divine magic found in D&D.



 Why?  Arcane and divine are very different, arcane is further sub-divided into some pretty different sources & natures that merit different classes and spell lists.  'Magic' seems to cover a whole lot of ground, including a lot of what psionics traditionally does.  Like telepathy (there's already a telepathic warlock), moving objects at a distance, starting fires, and so forth.



> By drawing on a different source it becomes worthy of doing. If the psionicist draws from the same source as the divine and the arcane, then the psionic user is just a sorcerer. I don't need another type of sorcerer.



 I don't think another half-dozen types of sorcerers would hurt.  Two seems a little low.  I mean, wizards have 8 schools and clerics a comparable number of domains.  I think there's room for more than two sorcerers.



> I need a character who can step in and fill the void in settings where the arcane and the divine has failed.



 Dark Sun, for instance, is a setting where Divine magic is just gone, but Arcane magic, while underground, still exists.  If arcane and divine magic can be 'the same' in this sense you're complaining about, why an one of them be gone and the other still work?  Why would both of them being gone keep an equally-magical Psionics from working?  It's clearly not an issue, a DM is free to use a fine a blade as he likes when excising sub-types of magic.  No Great Old Ones?  No problem, one Warlock type gone, no need for all magic stop working.  So a psionics-is-magic psionics can still be the last magic standing in a world where other types of magic have failed.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I'm not saying it's not magic of some sort, just not the sort that works in tandem with the arcane and divine magic found in D&D. By drawing on a different source it becomes worthy of doing. If the psionicist draws from the same source as the divine and the arcane, then the psionic user is just a sorcerer.



 Disagree strongly. Warlocks, Bards, and Wizards are all drawing on the same source as the Sorcerer, and they're not just Sorcerers.

If you're trying to say that a Psonic Sorcerer subclass alone would not be sufficient to represent Psionics, then you might be saying something decent, but what you've got right now is just factually wrong, and the disproof is most of the PHB.



GobiWon said:


> I don't need another type of sorcerer.



 I do. I need lots of new types of Sorcerer.

If they can figure out how to make a Psionic Sorcerer, that's great.

I still want a base Psion class, but having a Psionic Sorcerer subclass -- to go with the Psionic Fighter subclass, the Psionic Rogue subclass, and the Psionic Monk subclass -- would be 100% spiffy.



GobiWon said:


> I need a character who can step in and fill the void in settings where the arcane and the divine has failed.



 Fighters, Rogues, and Monks have got your back.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Dark Sun, for instance, is a setting where Divine magic is just gone, but Arcane magic, while underground, still exists.  If arcane and divine magic can be 'the same' in this sense you're complaining about, why an one of them be gone and the other still work?  Why would both of them being gone keep an equally-magical Psionics from working?  It's clearly not an issue, a DM is free to use a fine a blade as he likes when excising sub-types of magic.  No Great Old Ones?  No problem, one Warlock type gone, no need for all magic stop working.  So a psionics-is-magic psionics can still be the last magic standing in a world where other types of magic have failed




In Dark Sun the gods are gone and the arcane destroys life force. Arcane is not gone but it is definitely broken. It is in these settings that psionics shine. If psionics is pulling from the same spell list as arcane and divine ... if it has the same source, it doesn't feel like a true alternative to typical "magic". Presentation is important. You could state that it is the last type of magic standing, but it doesn't have the same narrative impact as if psionics was an entity that was completely different and separate from the typical "magic" found in the core rule books.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 19, 2015)

There are lots of RW ways to generate energy- solar, geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, burning hydrocarbons, wind, etc.  All have different pros & cons, and some are better than others at doing certain tasks.

Analogously, those of us asking for a different energy source for Psi, with actual meaningful differences in mechanics, strengths & weaknesses, think this is worthwhile and game enriching in ways that merely repurposing a standard class and hooking into the same plug in the wall as before isn't.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> In Dark Sun the gods are gone and the arcane destroys life force. Arcane is not gone but it is definitely broken.



 Only Defilers did that.  Clearly, being 'the same' in the sense you're worried about didn't keep one sort of magic from disappearing while another remained.



Nifft said:


> I still want a base Psion class, but having a Psionic Sorcerer subclass -- to go with the Psionic Fighter subclass, the Psionic Rogue subclass, and the Psionic Monk subclass -- would be 100% spiffy.



 I don't hate having options.  



> Fighters, Rogues, and Monks have got your back. {In a world w/o arcane or divine}



 Well, and Barbarians.  But that party's going to have a rough go of it, indeed.  

"Single Source" games like that just don't work so well in 5e - which makes sense, since they worked even less well in classic D&D, which 5e tries so hard to emulate in 'feel.'


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 19, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Touche ... Mortals who use divine and arcane magic tap the same source as gods. Psionic users would tap an internal mental source tied to sentience and individual awareness. Both would be mortal.




It might behoove the designers to NOT define what psionics taps into, only to specify its NOT Magic/The Weave/whatever. Maybe its internal energy, or the Realm of Dreams (Eberron's source), or maybe its the Far Realm, or maybe its none of the above, or all of the above. I just want psionics to be... different. I don't want it rehashing the rules of magic again (except on the most basic, needed for balance level).


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 20, 2015)

The UA gave an example of a non-spellcaster Ranger archetype. Does this subtraction change the Ranger class from a divine source to martial source?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> The UA gave an example of a non-spellcaster Ranger archetype. Does this subtraction change the Ranger class from a divine source to martial source?




I was waiting for that to get brought up...

The Spell-less ranger is a variant class; not a subclass. It still gets to pick either hunter or beastmaster (and one of the beastmaster's abilities change to make up for the lack of spells). When read in the context of that article, its an example of how DM's can modify a class to suit their campaign. Its not to be taken as an official sanctioned option; its pure DM's fiat. (As it seems is all UA articles). 

In that context, if you make a psionic sorcerer with an alternate spell list for your home campaign, more power to you. WotC will probably avoid said option for no other reason than AL play (alternate classes can get messy, even now the spell-less rangers require some DM adjuncation involving magic items). I fully suspect (and I can be wrong; I fully suspected a FRCS by now) that WotC will never mention, support, or bother with spell-less rangers or other alternate classes in future products. That is there for DMs to use in home-games. 

So yes, to your answer, but I'd be REALLY leery of reading much into the spell-less ranger as a template for doing psionics, unless you want psionics to be unofficial and AL prohibited.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 20, 2015)

All this talk about "power source" and "arcane magic" and "divine magic" is 100% weapons-grade Older Edition Itis. These concepts have no intrinsic meaning in 5e's class design. Clerics and paladins or wizards and sorcerers don't tap the same "power source" or have the same "kind of magic." They are entirely different and distinct traditions for doing supernatural things.

Seriously, we need to stop talking about "spellcasting" and "magic" as if it's the same thing because in D&D, it isn't. 

Many of the supernatural things these classes can do are united under the "spellcasting" mechanic. Spellcasting, as a mechanic, has a meaning in the fiction of D&D - a sort of ritualistic combination of gestures, words, and occasional catalyst materials combined with a mental concentration unlocks the effects of a specific, known magical power. Spellcasting is a big mechanic, and it has its own rules, but it says nothing of the _source_ of your magical power, only the way in which you tap into it. A sorcerer's _fireball_ and a wizard's _fireball_ aren't both arcane things, they're fundamentally different in the fiction of the world (one is based in knowledge, understanding, and secret lore; another based on instinct, nature, and internal power), even if the use of them would look pretty similar. A monk who uses _burning hands_ actually looks a lot like those as well, but they'd say their power comes from training, dedication, and contemplation of elemental forces, not knowledge or inner power.

These all use the spellcasting mechanic. None of these are the same "power source."

Spellcasting isn't the only way to use magical power in D&D, either. A monk of 15th level does not age. This is clearly not a "natural" effect, but there's no spellcasting involved, no specific magical effect conjured up. A barbarian's rage might be "martial", or it might be "primal," or "divine" or even "psionic" depending on how you view the story of the barbarian. 

Psionics _is magic_, in the broadest, most inclusive sense of the term. It is clearly supernatural. It may or may not be _spellcasting_ - particularly if you don't use discrete magical effects that rely on a moment of mental concentration and maybe a word, gesture, or catalyst, it probably *shouldn't* be spellcasting. Of course, this is what psionics was in 3e and 4e and to a certain degree in the pre-3e days as well, but put a pin in that - maybe we don't want it to be spellcasting now. In fact, all this talk of it being internal and self-powered makes it sound a _lot_ like a sorcerer - "inborn magic" and the like. 

If we say that psionics _is not spellcasting_, this means that it is not a discrete magical effect created by a moment of concentration. It means psionics might resemble barbarian rages or battlemaster dice or skill checks or sneak attack or Action Surge or domain powers. If the flavor of psionics is "it comes from within," how does that look in practice?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2015)

While I don't necessarily agree with all that, to start answering the very practical question of "What does it look like in practice?":

1) For many effects, it doesn't look like anything at all.  I suggested that Barbarian rage or monastic Ki powers could fall under a Psi model.  Thus, such powers look like improbable results and effects gained with no outward manifestation of the supernatural- uncanny strength or dexterity, improbably noticing something, knowing something he shouldn't know.

2) for some effects, it may look very similar, requiring concentration...but not necessarily overlapping with magical effects requiring concentration.  IOW, Psi may generate effects requiring concentration that similar magic does not, and vice versa.

3) Psi effects may not be dispellable in the normal magical sense, and would also work when powers drawing from the Weave would not.  As I suggested earlier, the Psionic versions of powers may affect fewer targets or have a different range than their magical counterparts.

4) if Psi uses an exhaustion mechanic (as I suggested), it may be very dependable and available, but once the manifester reaches a certain point, he may be borderline powerless.  Not just in terms of his powers, but in all the ways exhaustion affects a PC.  This would also mean that other things that cause exhaustion would reduce the manifester's efficacy.  In a sense, the fatigued Psionic manifester becomes less able to use his Psi effectively in situations when worn-out wizards, warlocks, clerics, bards and Druids do not.

5) while most Psi would be free of needing components, some may require foci.  These wouldn't necessarily be "supernatural" in any way, but just a..."physical mnemonic"...that makes it easier/possible for the manifester to use the power.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Spellcasting, as a mechanic, has a meaning in the fiction of D&D - a sort of ritualistic combination of gestures, words, and occasional catalyst materials combined with a mental concentration unlocks the effects of a specific, known magical power. Spellcasting is a big mechanic, and it has its own rules, but it says nothing of the _source_ of your magical power, only the way in which you tap into it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Spellcasting isn't the only way to use magical power in D&D, either.



This is true. In the current "Why does 5e suck?" thread, this issue has come up in a discussion of the relationship between the Eldritch Knight subclass and the idea of a mythic hero or demigod.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> All this talk about "power source" and "arcane magic" and "divine magic" is 100% weapons-grade Older Edition Itis. These concepts have no intrinsic meaning in 5e's class design. Clerics and paladins or wizards and sorcerers don't tap the same "power source" or have the same "kind of magic." They are entirely different and distinct traditions for doing supernatural things.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A sorcerer's _fireball_ and a wizard's _fireball_ aren't both arcane things, they're fundamentally different in the fiction of the world (one is based in knowledge, understanding, and secret lore; another based on instinct, nature, and internal power), even if the use of them would look pretty similar.



But this isn't true, according to the Basic Rules. On page 81, there is a sidebar which says this (emphasis original):

All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called *arcane magic*. These spells rely on an understanding - learned or intuitive - of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called *divine magic*. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power - gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.​
This pretty clearly says that a wizard and a sorcerer's fireball _are_ both arcane things, and that cleris and paladins do tap into the same "power source" (although that phrase itself is not used).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 20, 2015)

pemerton said:


> But this isn't true, according to the Basic Rules. On page 81, there is a sidebar which says this (emphasis original):
> 
> All magic depends on the Weave, though different kinds of magic access it in a variety of ways. The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called *arcane magic*. These spells rely on an understanding - learned or intuitive - of the workings of the Weave. The caster plucks directly at the strands of the Weave to create the desired effect. Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called *divine magic*. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power - gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath.​
> This pretty clearly says that a wizard and a sorcerer's fireball _are_ both arcane things, and that cleris and paladins do tap into the same "power source" (although that phrase itself is not used).




Good point, I tend to utterly ignore the Weave nonsense, but WotC isn't likely to.

It's worth noting that in this description, both kinds of casters "use the weave," but it's not clear that the casting of an elemental monk or a tiefling's casting does the same thing. So we can have Weave-less spellcasting (monks, barbarians, racial abilities) that aren't explicitly arcane or divine in nature that nonetheless use the spellcasting mechanics. So "doesn't use the Weave" doesn't necssarily mean "doesn't cast spells," and "casts spells" doesn't necessarily mean "uses the Weave" or even "is based on knowledge." 

Which still circles back to the main thrust: regardless of the origins of the power, do you cast spells with psionics? As in, do you use the spellcasting mechanics to use psionics as a character? If so, how do you do it differently than other casters? And if not, what do you do instead? And I mean this in the fiction of the world sense - does a psionic character stand for a moment, concentrate, point, maybe clutch a crystal ball? If they do, that implies spellcasting. If they don't, what do they do? What does it look like in the world when a psionic character uses their special abilities?


----------



## Goemoe (Jun 20, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Psionics _is magic_, in the broadest, most inclusive sense of the term.



Wrong. And as this is your base for discussion, I don't need to comment anything else of you.

Psionics are different. And happily so, we don't need another source of magic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2015)

cbwjm said:


> Except it kind of is a source of magic in that it creates a supernatural effect.




Except in the internal logic of the fiction that inspires and informs the games, Psi is most usually NOT magic.

To borrow a formulation from Arthur C. Clark, in the fiction, Psi is a science so advanced it _seems_ like magic.  It isn't supernatural, it is hypernatural.  Like an eidetic memory or synesthesia.  It is a natural ability to those who have it, and it is as hereditary as red hair or the color of their skin.  It is the ultimate expression of mind over matter by the masterful manipulation of rules of physics and chemistry we simply don't understand...yet.

Thus in game terms, because it does not draw from the Weave, it isn't magic.  It won't detect as magic.  It won't be dispelled by the same things as magic.

This means there are also things it won't be able to do, or can only approximate or simulate.  It shouldn't be able to raise the dead, but it may be able to animate a body like a puppet.  It can't truly summon creatures, but it may be able to open portals that creatures may pass through...though they may not be loyal to the manifester, since there is no magic commanding its loyalty.  It may be able to create approximations of living things with creations of pure force.  "Monsters from the Id!"


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Jun 20, 2015)

In 4th Ed is is referred to as "psionic magic", that was a change I like in 4th Ed.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 20, 2015)

But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - aren't your examples problematic?  This isn't really "psionics are different" when all you're doing is cherry picking magical effects, is it?  If Psi can summon demons, do dimensional travel, animate the dead and summon monsters (what difference does it really make if they're "Monsters of the ID" or Fey monsters a la druid summoning?) all you're doing is creating just another spell caster with a different spell list.

If we want psionics to be different, shouldn't they be doing things that the spell lists flat out can't do?

Only problem with that is, the spell lists, as they stand, pretty much cover a lot of ground.  There isn't a whole lot of space left if we don't start copying spell effects.  

I think that all this base class vs subclass debate has hidden the real issue - what's left for a psionicist to do that isn't already covered?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - aren't your examples problematic?  This isn't really "psionics are different" when all you're doing is cherry picking magical effects, is it?  If Psi can summon demons, do dimensional travel, animate the dead and summon monsters (what difference does it really make if they're "Monsters of the ID" or Fey monsters a la druid summoning?) all you're doing is creating just another spell caster with a different spell list.
> 
> If we want psionics to be different, shouldn't they be doing things that the spell lists flat out can't do?
> 
> ...



In the basic game, magic steps on amost everybody's toes, and where it doesn't, it eventually will over the lifetime of the edition.  So asking Psi to do something magic doesn't is kind of pointless.

As for my "cherry picking", I showed things that Psi does differently, and that it shouldn't be able to do.  And IMHO, those details matter.  As I framed it:

1) A manifester animating a corpse is literally acting like a puppeteer- he has to consciously decide its movements.  Therefore, he's not going to be magically calling up a small fighting force to fight for him, he is going to be limited to 1-2 max.  But while he's limited in number, dispel magic effects would be ineffective against his puppets.

2) A manifester calling for otherplanar help is taking a much bigger risk than the spellcaster.  Where the caster summons an ally that is bound to obey his will, the manifester only opens a passageway and asks for aid.  He literally has no control over what steps through, if anything- it is a free agent. He cannot make it do tasks or fight for him, he must bargain with it...which takes time.  He cannot make it go home.  

(For game purposes, there may be details in the power that give the manifester power over what passes through the portal, but I didn't suggest or imply any.)

3) the manifester's monsters from the Id would be just that:  fields of force shaped by the chaos of the unconscious mind.  Think...Mordenkainen's Hound with a randomized collection of combat stats.  Potentially more flexibility, but less precision.

IMHO, how you do a task is just as important as the end result.  In the history of the game, a knock spell swiftly and silently opens a locked door via magic, but is an ablative resource chosen at the expense of other potential effects; the rogue is swift and silent and can do the task all day, but may occasionally fail; the noise of a barbarian bashing it in raises an alarm.

A key is not a crowbar is not a packet of C4.

Just the basic underlying premise that Psi (as I proposed it) does not draw power from the Weave but from the manifester's own personal reserves of energy (see the exhaustion mechanic) has has all kinds of game implications: usable (or unusable) where & when magic is not; depleteable & renewable in ways that magic is not.  As "not magic", it may be unable to affect certain targets or do certain tasks that the game explicitly requires be done by magic.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 20, 2015)

Goemoe said:


> Wrong. And as this is your base for discussion, I don't need to comment anything else of you.
> 
> Psionics are different. And happily so, we don't need another source of magic.




So psionics is not supernatural in any way?

Methinks in your rush to be snarky, you missed the point completely.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Except in the internal logic of the fiction that inspires and informs the games, Psi is most usually NOT magic.
> 
> To borrow a formulation from Arthur C. Clark, in the fiction, Psi is a science so advanced it seems like magic.




So it's magic. It's wonderous supernatural wish-granting. It may or may not be "arcane" (using knowledge) or "divine" (gaining access through a mediator), but it's magic all the same. It may be magic like a tiefling's inherent magic or magic like an elemental monk's magic - it might involve casting a spell. It might be magic like a monk's agelessness or a paladin's lay on hands - it might just be a thing you can do. 

Trying to argue there's some big distinction between "psionics" and "magic" isn't the most useful talking point because psionics is clearly magic, it just might not be the same flavor of magic that sorcerers and clerics use. To figure out how like or unlike them it is, it's useful to start with something like "Do they cast spells, meaning, does using a power for them involve a moment of concentration and a word, gesture, and/or some catalyst?"


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - aren't your examples problematic?  This isn't really "psionics are different" when all you're doing is cherry picking magical effects, is it?  If Psi can summon demons, do dimensional travel, animate the dead and summon monsters (what difference does it really make if they're "Monsters of the ID" or Fey monsters a la druid summoning?) all you're doing is creating just another spell caster with a different spell list.
> 
> If we want psionics to be different, shouldn't they be doing things that the spell lists flat out can't do?
> 
> ...



All computers in the year 2015 can do the same basic things; type a document, read an email, watch a video, surf the web, play a game, etc. On a system level, there is no difference between what a Windows, Linux, Mac, or even a Chromebook can do. So why do we have so many OS and why do people defend them to the death? 

The process is just as important and the result. A telepath using mind puppet and a wizard casting dominate person might in the end have the same effect, but different parameters (the psionic version may require the psion's action each round to work, but allows the psion to send the target into suicidal conditions.)

Likewise, a psion might get access to certain effects sooner than a wizard (esp in the realm of telepathy, teleportation, and telekinesis) but utterly lack other abilities (unable to raise the dead or summon a creature). Just like how certain software doesn't work on some OS (good luck getting SCL to work on a Chromebook). 

Just because an effect exists and psionics can mimic a similar effect doesn't mean it's redundant, if that were the case we would have no need for delayed blast fireball or meteor swarm since we already have fireball...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 20, 2015)

Fair enough.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 20, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So it's magic. It's wonderous supernatural wish-granting. It may or may not be "arcane" (using knowledge) or "divine" (gaining access through a mediator), but it's magic all the same. It may be magic like a tiefling's inherent magic or magic like an elemental monk's magic - it might involve casting a spell. It might be magic like a monk's agelessness or a paladin's lay on hands - it might just be a thing you can do.
> 
> Trying to argue there's some big distinction between "psionics" and "magic" isn't the most useful talking point because psionics is clearly magic, it just might not be the same flavor of magic that sorcerers and clerics use. To figure out how like or unlike them it is, it's useful to start with something like "Do they cast spells, meaning, does using a power for them involve a moment of concentration and a word, gesture, and/or some catalyst?"




Oh, it's total semantics, but the point is that for some of us "indistinguishable from magic" in the game's sense does not mean the same thing as "magic." 
I know it's frustrating for some that I must have a different definition of "magic" that to most people is indistinguishable from it, but it's also frustrating to hear "IT'S CLEARLY MAGIC, DUMMY." 
Not to me. Why? Just cuz. And then it turns into some yelling match where I then end up like Walter in the Big Lebowski, muttering "Calmer than you are" under my breath to the Dude.

Ok, slightly more thought out than "just because":
Magic for me is pretty much either Arcane or Divine, with weird exceptions like monk abilities that I'm fine being ambivalent with. Psionics is not Arcane or Divine, so therefore it's _*something else. 
*_In fact, I even like leaving it in this weird undefined category where the only thing I can say for certain about it is that _i__t's not magic_​. 
It's not useful at all to argue about. You said so yourself:


> Trying to argue there's some big distinction between "psionics" and "magic" isn't the most useful talking point



I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY
but then you go ahead and say in _the same sentence _what keeps setting the argument into useless pontificating I'm doing now:


> because psionics is clearly magic.




In fact, the defining trait of it for me is that it's not magic. Sure, it acts a lot and looks a lot like magic, but that's part of the fun of it. And I can totally see how that makes some peoples heads explode in nerdrage [inside and outside of the fiction], but that can be fun too.

[added] And as you've shown, we can have some substantive discussions on what good mechanics might be for psionics are regardless of what side of the "magic/not magic" divide we fall on.  I just want something that works for both positions instead of "it's magic, so lets make it work like magic does: with spellcasting exactly like these other classes do"


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> That's the question; DO they tap the same source as magic, or do they tap something else entirely.



I'm not really objecting to the idea that a particular setting could have them be totally alien and other-sourced. I'm objecting to the idea that it's baked in and should be included in the rules. I think the psionics rules should be just rules. If one setting has them alien and wholly different than magic -- in some way "out of phase" with arcane/divine magic and with a dispel/detect wall up between them -- I'm okay with that, for that setting. I might even really dig on it, in certain cases.

That's not how I've ever used psionics, or seen it used. It's always been just another form of magic with a bit different fluff and mechanics. We didn't use the "Psionics is different" option in 3.5 because it would've broken 15-20 years of continuity, for us. At this point, it would break 30+ years of continuity for my home brew. Don't force me to do that, if I use 5E psionics. Make it optional, at worst/best.

I guess what I really want out of psionics is two-things: 1) a mechanic to allow almost anyone to have a one-off, innate, spell-like ability and 2) a form of magic driven by will, rather than intense study and the use of words, gestures, and materials. A feat could easily give #1, except that what we currently has grants actual spells, not spell-like abilities. The Sorcerer class has the fluff of delivering #2, but really doesn't satisfy -- I still don't get how having magic flowing through your veins grants knowledge of specific words and gestures (and even materials).


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Touche ... Mortals who use divine and arcane magic tap the same source as gods. Psionic users would tap an internal mental source tied to sentience and individual awareness. Both would be mortal.



FWIW, I wasn't trying to be snarky. Just pointing out the circular arguments around the whole issue.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 20, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> A telepath using mind puppet and a wizard casting dominate person might in the end have the same effect...
> Just because an effect exists and psionics can mimic a similar effect doesn't mean it's redundant, if that were the case we would have no need for delayed blast fireball or meteor swarm since we already have fireball...



 It also doesn't mean that it needs an entirely different mechanic.  There's nothing wrong with going the 1e way, and having a psionic discipline, "Mind Puppet" with the notation "except as noted above and described below, the discipline is identical to the Dominate Person spell..."  Or simply giving the psionic Dominate Person, and a class feature that changes the components of spells he casts.

All three are valid design choices:

- Re-cycling spells saves space, complexity, and design effort, and also (though it's not an important consideration in 5e) limits the impact 'power creep' or 'bloat' can have on game balance.

- Listing a 'new' discipline that references the mechanics of an existing spell gives the discipline a sense of being distinct and a convenient way to give it components or other details different from the spell, while sacrificing only a little more space, simplicity, balance &c.

- Creating a completely new supernatural-power sub-system, including a list of disciplines & sciences nearly as extensive as existing spells creates a strong, arbitrary, mechanical impression of psionics being more distinct from existing types of magic (divine, arcane, ki, etc), than those existing types are from eachother, at the price of substantial design effort (some of which in the current WotC model, might have to be farmed out), much higher page count, increased complexity, and, incidentally (because, again, not an important consideration in 5e) carries a higher risk of being 'broken' or otherwise impacting game balance & playability via bloat.

On top of those three choices, there's also the the possibilty of using 3.5 take of giving an explicit option for Psionics to be 'magic,' interacting with checks on magical power like dispels, magic resistance, anti-magic zones and the like (and also any perks of magic, like working vs spells, curses, diseases, conditions, etc that "can only be removed by magic"), or to be 'different,' and unrestrained by checks on magical power (but unable to take advantage of 'only magic' perks).  Presenting such a choice, and the optional mechanics to back it up, would be very much in keeping with 5e's doctrine of DM empowerment and attempts at modularity.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 20, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]
> 
> I think that all this base class vs subclass debate has hidden the real issue - what's left for a psionicist to do that isn't already covered?




That is why it is important that the psionicist not pull from the current spell list. These powers have to be unique in feel if not always unique in effect. It can be done but it will require a lot of new supernatural powers that feel different than casting a divine or arcane spell.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2015)

bogmad said:


> Oh, it's total semantics, but the point is that for some of us "indistinguishable from magic" in the game's sense does not mean the same thing as "magic."



And, for some, even magic (especially arcane) is simply hidden knowledge (the literal meaning of "arcane") that is "indistinguishable from magic". From that standpoint, trying to say that psionics isn't magic is pretty circular.



> And as you've shown, we can have some substantive discussions on what good mechanics might be for psionics are regardless of what side of the "magic/not magic" divide we fall on.  I just want something that works for both positions instead of "it's magic, so lets make it work like magic does: with spellcasting exactly like these other classes do"



This works fine, for me. In fact, this works ideally, for me. Stop baking more flavor than is necessary into my game rules. The number one purpose of the D&D rules set is to enable me to play fantasy games in a setting I design. Some boundaries have to be included, just to get the rules to function coherently. But, it's okay if I use psionics as a subsystem for (only) humans to manifest spell-like powers due to arcane magical experiments while someone else uses them for a non-magic system of manifestations due to "friction" between our universe and a Far Realm.

I think the key to psionics is that it is magic-like (i.e. has powers and effects) but does not rely on the same VSM components as casters. It has the potential to both "pop-up" in random individuals and to be formally trained. Whether true in fact, it has all appearance of being completely powered by the psion. It is also compatible/balanced with standard magic but may or may not operate "in phase" with it, in the sense of sensing and countering. Finally, it is more "personal" in its nature, which is evident in the traditional link to telepathy but that isn't the sum of its use.

Thoughts?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> That is why it is important that the psionicist not pull from the current spell list. These powers have to be unique in feel if not always unique in effect. It can be done but it will require a lot of new supernatural powers that feel different than casting a divine or arcane spell.



And, this is why psionics pretty much demands a full, stand-alone hardcover. At this point, regardless of whether you see psionics as "magic" or not, it's just history.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 20, 2015)

Mercule said:


> And, this is why psionics pretty much demands a full, stand-alone hardcover. At this point, regardless of whether you see psionics as "magic" or not, it's just history.




Agreed, but the question of whether psionics is the same as divine and arcane is important and having a sense of the narrative of psionics helps you determine whether it should interact with current divine and arcane "magic". Does counterspell work? Do creatures with resistance to spells have resistance to psionics? Do you create a new mechanic that allows non-psionicists to resist psionics or do you rely on something like intelligence saves which have been underutilized in 5e. Having a sense of what psionics does in the narrative story helps determine how these things should work even if you never mention it being from the Far Realm or being a separate inner source, it is important that the designers know that it is separate from arcane and divine magic so that the powers reflect this difference.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It also doesn't mean that it needs an entirely different mechanic.  There's nothing wrong with going the 1e way, and having a psionic discipline, "Mind Puppet" with the notation "except as noted above and described below, the discipline is identical to the Dominate Person spell..."  Or simply giving the psionic Dominate Person, and a class feature that changes the components of spells he casts.




That seems like a logistical nightmare. To use Psionic Dominate Person, I need to either have the PHB and the Psionic Rules open (to reference both and track the changes) or the Psionic rules must reprint the spell, defeating the purpose of referencing the spell in the first place. 

"See PHB XX" is the one thing I DON'T want to see in a psionic power. 



Tony Vargas said:


> - Re-cycling spells saves space, complexity, and design effort, and also (though it's not an important consideration in 5e) limits the impact 'power creep' or 'bloat' can have on game balance.




Basically, make psionics just another spellcaster with its own spell list. The lazy way of doing it. 



Tony Vargas said:


> - Listing a 'new' discipline that references the mechanics of an existing spell gives the discipline a sense of being distinct and a convenient way to give it components or other details different from the spell, while sacrificing only a little more space, simplicity, balance &c.




No. It requires two documents (or one reprinting many of the PHB spells) with the added complexity comparing the two versions for changes. And it doesn't stop the possibility of power creep (since any change to the spell can change its power level; imagine psionic revivify without a material component) 



Tony Vargas said:


> - Creating a completely new supernatural-power sub-system, including a list of disciplines & sciences nearly as extensive as existing spells creates a strong, arbitrary, mechanical impression of psionics being more distinct from existing types of magic (divine, arcane, ki, etc), than those existing types are from eachother, at the price of substantial design effort (some of which in the current WotC model, might have to be farmed out), much higher page count, increased complexity, and, incidentally (because, again, not an important consideration in 5e) carries a higher risk of being 'broken' or otherwise impacting game balance & playability via bloat.




Ding ding, we have a winner!



Tony Vargas said:


> On top of those three choices, there's also the the possibilty of using 3.5 take of giving an explicit option for Psionics to be 'magic,' interacting with checks on magical power like dispels, magic resistance, anti-magic zones and the like (and also any perks of magic, like working vs spells, curses, diseases, conditions, etc that "can only be removed by magic"), or to be 'different,' and unrestrained by checks on magical power (but unable to take advantage of 'only magic' perks).  Presenting such a choice, and the optional mechanics to back it up, would be very much in keeping with 5e's doctrine of DM empowerment and attempts at modularity.




None of the three abilities listed stops detection, dispelling, or other countermeasures from happening, even if they are completely different powers from completely different sources. I am PERFECTLY FINE with having psionics and magic be different origins, mechanics, and powers, but be able to detect, dispel, and counter one another. Psionic/Magic Transparency is not the same a Psionics is Magic.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> "See PHB XX" is the one thing I DON'T want to see in a psionic power.



While I agree with pretty much everything else in your post, this bears repeating ad infinitum. Having one entry for a spell, period, is one of the best things 5E did.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 20, 2015)

Semantics aside, what are the distinguishing features of psionics that set it apart from "spellcasting magic?" As others have pointed out, there is not a lot of room to have it do things that spellcasting magic can't do, because spellcasting magic can do just about anything. But psionics could do certain things better, or in different ways.

I would say the distinguishing traits of psionics should be:


*No external tools, ingredients, or actions.* Using psionics is a purely mental activity. You can do it--at full power--while chained, gagged, and naked. (This means none of the New Age crystals-and-chakra stuff.)
*Psionics does not create free-standing effects.* It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."
*Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.
*Psionics ignores physical barriers.* Where psionics is concerned, there is no difference between "line of sight" and "line of effect." A _wall of force_ blocks spells, but psionics can go right through it. Furthermore, most psionic powers can be used "over the wire" of a scrying effect, either magical or psionic.
*Psionics can be developed by non-specialists.* Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.
*Psionics can't compete with magic in raw power.* Psionics ignores a lot of the restrictions and countermeasures that magic-wielders have to deal with; the flip side is that magic-wielders pack a harder punch. Put a psion and a wizard of the same level in an arena, and the wizard will usually trounce the psion.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 20, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> *Psionics does not create free-standing effects.* It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."
> *Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.



I think I could get behind these, in combination. From a flavor perspective, psionics could be non-dispellable either because it's different or just because the guy is still pumping energy into it.

I might say that psionics is either concentration or instantaneous/permanent. If you use telekinesis to wrap an iron bar around someone, it stays bent.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 20, 2015)

Mercule said:


> I think I could get behind these, in combination. From a flavor perspective, psionics could be non-dispellable either because it's different or just because the guy is still pumping energy into it.



The way I see it, magic is the shaping of an external force. A spell is its own thing, independent of the spellcaster who created it. You can attack the spell, counter it, suppress it. And the creator can in many cases walk away from the spell and leave it doing its thing.

Psionics is the mind acting directly on the world around it. There's no intermediate entity that you can target with a dispelling effect. You can oppose the effect with an effect of your own, or you can attack the psion, but those are your only options. Likewise, the only way to suppress psionics is to suppress the psion's mind (via unconsciousness, _feeblemind_, etc.).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> I would say the distinguishing traits of psionics should be:
> 
> *No external tools, ingredients, or actions.* Using psionics is a purely mental activity. You can do it--at full power--while chained, gagged, and naked. (This means none of the New Age crystals-and-chakra stuff.)



In general, I agree.  But as I mentioned, I could forsee certain abilities- like scrying- still requiring a physical mnemonic, a.k.a. a focus, for at least full efficacy ("I can sense him, but the image is fuzzy- do you have an item of his to help me clarify my vision?").  Psionic healing might require prolonged contact with the injured, and tracery of the wounds (see Classic Star Trek's "The Empath"), a.k.a. somatics.  Etc.



> *Psionics does not create free-standing effects.* It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."



Pretty much, though that may be problematic for things like psionically generated arms & armor.  Things like that- if they exist in the game (and fans of Soulknives and similar classes DO think they need to show up)- should not require concentration.  They should still disappear if the manifester is unconscious, though. 



> *Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.




...or attack the manifester directly, breaking his concentration, etc.



> *Psionics ignores physical barriers.* Where psionics is concerned, there is no difference between "line of sight" and "line of effect." A _wall of force_ blocks spells, but psionics can go right through it. Furthermore, most psionic powers can be used "over the wire" of a scrying effect, either magical or psionic.




I think this depends on the power.  A "monster from the Id" might not be able to merely bypass barriers, depending on how far away from himself the manifester can create them, for instance.



> *Psionics can be developed by non-specialists.* Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.




I see the mechanical origins of "Wild Talents" in feats as well- take the feat, get a single power.  WT could be taken more than once.

But within that power, the Wild Talent may be just as powerful as the dedicated specialist.



> *Psionics can't compete with magic in raw power.* Psionics ignores a lot of the restrictions and countermeasures that magic-wielders have to deal with; the flip side is that magic-wielders pack a harder punch. Put a psion and a wizard of the same level in an arena, and the wizard will usually trounce the psion.




Agreed in general, but again, I think this depends on the power in question.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 20, 2015)

Mercule said:


> While I agree with pretty much everything else in your post, this bears repeating ad infinitum. Having one entry for a spell, period, is one of the best things 5E did.




It's a good thing, but like any other thing it is a design tradeoff. You can't simplify without also making things more uniform. 4E took this to the extreme. I think 5E is a pretty good compromise, but I'd be willing to accept more complexity in exchange for more specificity among the classes.

And why oh why didn't they take the opportunity to cross-reference their nice and simple spell list? :-( :-(  I loved the line at the top of each spell in 3E: Cleric 2 Paladin 2 Wizard 3.  And it would have been so easy to include little icons in the spell lists to flag concentration, ritual, and bonus action casting time. (Yes, I know about the spell sorter Excel sheet)


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 20, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> N*o external tools, ingredients, or actions.* Using psionics is a purely mental activity. You can do it--at full power--while chained, gagged, and naked. (This means none of the New Age crystals-and-chakra stuff.)




Basic psionics should, but cystals-and-chakra stuff might be a good way to handle "psionic consumables" or rituals or the like. A crystal could store power points, a chakra allow ritual-like powers for lower PP cost. Something like that. But a psionic in a dungeon, bound, gagged, and stripped, can still be dangerous, I agree. 



Dausuul said:


> *Psionics does not create free-standing effects.* It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."




Careful on this. I can imagine a pyrokinesis creating a free-standing fire effect, or the ability to hone an item with bit of psychic power to make it +1. However, I agree with the rest. No summons, no necromancy, no polymorphing others into frogs, to visual illusions, no power words, no raising the dead. 



Dausuul said:


> *Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.




Eehh... I worry about the psionic arm's race then, especially with regard to charm/control effects. A very tight leash needs to be held on those effects if they are not to be dispellable.



Dausuul said:


> *Psionics ignores physical barriers.* Where psionics is concerned, there is no difference between "line of sight" and "line of effect." A _wall of force_ blocks spells, but psionics can go right through it. Furthermore, most psionic powers can be used "over the wire" of a scrying effect, either magical or psionic




Kinda like Force choking someone over the video feed, got it. 



Dausuul said:


> *Psionics can be developed by non-specialists.* Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.




No different than magic initiate or spell sniper, really. 



Dausuul said:


> *Psionics can't compete with magic in raw power.* Psionics ignores a lot of the restrictions and countermeasures that magic-wielders have to deal with; the flip side is that magic-wielders pack a harder punch. Put a psion and a wizard of the same level in an arena, and the wizard will usually trounce the psion.




You don't want to make psionics TOO weak though, otherwise it becomes a dip-class for multi-classers. A lvl 20 psion should match a lvl 20 wizard in terms of power, if not in effect or versatility.


----------



## Mirtek (Jun 20, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> *Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.



That's what I definately don't want to see when they do psionics in 5e


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2015)

I'd like it, but it could go either way and it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 21, 2015)

*5e Psychic Steel Dragon style*

So...here's this.

Someone use it and see how it goes. 


Ya know...and then let us know.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 21, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So psionics is not supernatural in any way?
> 
> Methinks in your rush to be snarky, you missed the point completely.
> 
> ...




In the example he gave, and in the mind pf those who like the "science sounding names", it is not magic.  Its an advanced ability unlocked by brain or body power.  Maybe a magic person can fly, and a psionic person can fly...but that doesn't mean they are both magic (or both psionic for that matter).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2015)

A bird and a plane both fly, but use entirely different methods to do so.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 21, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Semantics aside, what are the distinguishing features of psionics that set it apart from "spellcasting magic?" As others have pointed out, there is not a lot of room to have it do things that spellcasting magic can't do, because spellcasting magic can do just about anything. But psionics could do certain things better, or in different ways.




Well, one point: is it actually different from spellcasting mechanically? Does actually using a psionic power entail a moment of concentration and any of the following: a word, an action, or some catalyst material?

There's examples that do. 3e psionics. 4e psioincs. Do we change it so it doesn't and thus doesn't use the spellcasting mechanic? Or do we use the spellcasting mechanic and say that a psionic class does this _differently somehow_?



> I would say the distinguishing traits of psionics should be:
> *No external tools, ingredients, or actions.* Using psionics is a purely mental activity. You can do it--at full power--while chained, gagged, and naked. (This means none of the New Age crystals-and-chakra stuff.)




Okay, so it doesn't use components. Can we use spellcasting mechanics and say that psions get some feature/ability to ignore components? There's certainly precedence for this in 5e already (check out the gith races). Or do we need/want a whole new mechanic? 



> *Psionics does not create free-standing effects.* It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."




....sounds like you're not a fan of 3e psionics.  Fair enough. But this is mostly an aesthetic point, not a mechanical treatment - it doesn't speak to what the character actually _does_ to make the psionics happen.



> [*]*Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.




More points for not using spellcasting, but there are magical effects that don't rely on spellcasting in 5e already (the aforementioned monk's agelessness). Is it always on or does it require some action to do? If it requires some action, can the action be interrupted? Can concentration be broken? Or is psionics "unstoppable," without counter-measures? This could be a pretty rich vein to mine in how it's different from spellcasting, and though we'd need to be careful with the effects we could grant, it could be pretty deep. 



> *Psionics ignores physical barriers.* Where psionics is concerned, there is no difference between "line of sight" and "line of effect." A _wall of force_ blocks spells, but psionics can go right through it. Furthermore, most psionic powers can be used "over the wire" of a scrying effect, either magical or psionic.




Potentially mechanically problematic, but possible with tight control of the effects psionics is capable of. Does that mean that I can't charm someone I know is behind a door? 



> *Psionics can be developed by non-specialists.* Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.




A skill-like system would also satisfy that - anyone can use Insight, but a psion can augment their Insight check to do things like read minds or whatever.



> *Psionics can't compete with magic in raw power.* Psionics ignores a lot of the restrictions and countermeasures that magic-wielders have to deal with; the flip side is that magic-wielders pack a harder punch. Put a psion and a wizard of the same level in an arena, and the wizard will usually trounce the psion.




Another aesthetic point, not really relevant to if it's spellcasting or some other mechanic.

But it seems on the whole like you'd want psionics to NOT be spellcasting. Okay.

What does it look like in the world when a psion uses an ability? Do they activate it with an action or is it always on? Is it something that must be concentrated on? Maybe it varies with the kind of ability used?



			
				SkidAce said:
			
		

> In the example he gave, and in the mind pf those who like the "science sounding names", it is not magic. Its an advanced ability unlocked by brain or body power. Maybe a magic person can fly, and a psionic person can fly...but that doesn't mean they are both magic (or both psionic for that matter).




If a human being flies due purely to their own will, it's pretty clearly magical. It might be planar energies or breaking the laws of physics or a pact with a demon or the granted ability of a god or just thinking happy thoughts - that's still magical, it's still magic, it's clearly not natural. 

It could also be nanobots or anti-grav boots or jetpacks, and it would still be pretty magical, though I'd probably want different mechanics to embody that (like the current magic item mechanics!). 

It sounds like when people say "it's not magic" what they mostly mean is "it's not like what a wizard or a cleric does" but neither is a bear totem barbarian's ability to carry twice their normal load, but that's still magical, it just doesn't involve casting a spell. "Magic" in D&D isn't just what wizards or clerics do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2015)

> If a human being flies due purely to their own will, it's pretty clearly magical. It might be planar energies or breaking the laws of physics or a pact with a demon or the granted ability of a god or just thinking happy thoughts - that's still magical, it's still magic, it's clearly not natural.



..._unless the fiction-verse says otherwise_.  Which is precisely the position several persons are taking.

It is not NORMAL, and is exceedingly rare.  But within the confines of the settings in which it exists, Psi is merely the result of manipulating as-yet unknown laws of physics directly via one's mind, not breaking them.  IOW, though it seems like it, Psi *is not magic.*


----------



## bogmad (Jun 21, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> More points for not using spellcasting, but there are magical effects that don't rely on spellcasting in 5e already (the aforementioned monk's agelessness).




Well, to be fair, the monk agelessness was mentioned as a magical effect previously, but I think that kind of slipped by because no one thought to make the argument.  Nothing in the PHB actually calls that out as magic. All the text says is that "your Ki sustains you." 
Now it is true that the way of the elements has effects that replicate certain arcane spells, but I don't believe there is any hard line where Ki is called out as being magic. 
The most that is said about Ki is that it is "mystic energy." I'll leave whether or not "mystic energy" is magic up to subjective opinion myself, but I think there's an argument for it not being magic as much as psionics could be.  In that way I can understand how the monk was lumped into a psionic class in 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 21, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> That seems like a logistical nightmare. To use Psionic Dominate Person, I need to either have the PHB and the Psionic Rules open (to reference both and track the changes) or the Psionic rules must reprint the spell, defeating the purpose of referencing the spell in the first place.



 Should be familiar from AD&D.  And, as logistical nightmares go, nothing compares to a huge, redundant, new sub-system.



> "See PHB XX" is the one thing I DON'T want to see in a psionic power.



 It's certainly not the only thing you've mentioned.  You seem very committed to denying perfectly workable options to others.



> I am PERFECTLY FINE with having psionics and magic be different origins, mechanics, and powers, but be able to detect, dispel, and counter one another. Psionic/Magic Transparency is not the same a Psionics is Magic.



 If that makes it work for you, I'm fine with a psionics that works like magic, interacts with magic as if it were magic, faces the same checks on its otherwise unrestrained power as magic, but nominally pretends to be 'not magic.'


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Jun 21, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> and also (though it's not an important consideration in 5e) limits the impact 'power creep' or 'bloat' can have on game balance.
> 
> and, incidentally (because, again, not an important consideration in 5e) carries a higher risk of being 'broken' or otherwise impacting game balance & playability via bloat.
> 
> or to be  very much in keeping with 5e's doctrine of DM empowerment and attempts at modularity.





What the  is your problem?  You seem to use this forum as a platform to passively bash 5th Ed, just because it isn't your kiddie 4th Ed game, does not mean it's broken and imbalanced, you are a sour-grapes, fat, gun-toting prick.  And when I next come to LA, I am going to go out of my way to visit that -hole of San Jose and pay your sorry, bloated-ass a visit.


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Jun 21, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Should be familiar from AD&D.  And, as logistical nightmares go, nothing compares to a huge, redundant, new sub-system.
> 
> It's certainly not the only thing you've mentioned.  You seem very committed to denying perfectly workable options to others.
> 
> If that makes it work for you, I'm fine with a psionics that works like magic, interacts with magic as if it were magic, faces the same checks on its otherwise unrestrained power as magic, but nominally pretends to be 'not magic.'




You seem committed to trolling these boards, undermining 5th Ed,  off, you pathetic, pedantic, loser, how you are married is beyond me, but she's probably a fat, gun toting, scum- herself.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 21, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Semantics aside, what are the distinguishing features of psionics that set it apart from "spellcasting magic?" As others have pointed out, there is not a lot of room to have it do things that spellcasting magic can't do, because spellcasting magic can do just about anything. But psionics could do certain things better, or in different ways.
> 
> I would say the distinguishing traits of psionics should be:
> 
> ...



This I agree with


> (This means none of the New Age crystals-and-chakra stuff.)[/list]



This I don't


> *Psionics does not create free-standing effects.* It does not summon creatures or create objects, and any ongoing psionic effect requires concentration. There is no such thing as a "psionic item."



This I don't, either.

I can see psionic items as waveguides for psionic power - no power, no use. They might allow effects at increased potency, or even without competency in them. Or, they might be power stores (batteries) that can be drawn from to reduce specific costs later, by tapping them while triggering a psionic ability. The rarest would be ones that generate psionic energy of their own... made my the most powerful and deranged psions - their insight and their madness are linked, and so their lab notes are unintelligible without becoming as deranged as they are



> *Psionics is not dispellable.* Not only do _dispel magic_, _counterspell_, _antimagic field_, and the like not work, but there are no psionic equivalents of those things. If you want to stop a psion from doing something, you have to target the effect, not the psionics; for example, physically holding still an object that the psion is trying to move with telekinesis.
> *Psionics ignores physical barriers.* Where psionics is concerned, there is no difference between "line of sight" and "line of effect." A _wall of force_ blocks spells, but psionics can go right through it. Furthermore, most psionic powers can be used "over the wire" of a scrying effect, either magical or psionic.
> *Psionics can be developed by non-specialists.* Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.



Thes I do agree with, mostly. Psionics should be blockable with magic, but only with magic specific to blocking psionics.


> *Psionics can't compete with magic in raw power.* Psionics ignores a lot of the restrictions and countermeasures that magic-wielders have to deal with; the flip side is that magic-wielders pack a harder punch. Put a psion and a wizard of the same level in an arena, and the wizard will usually trounce the psion.



Ohly if the psion doesn't survive long enough to turn the wizard against himself. Which, when combined with "Magic cannot stop psionics" means psions are MORE likely to win if of equal level and HP... The wizard can't defend, and the psion can save, and wizards' nova damage is usually survivable by that wizard if he saves versus it... but fatal to a similar level fighter if not saved against.

But you left out one other key of Psionics - Where magic is often save for half, psionics should almost always be boolean - it works or does not.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 21, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If a human being flies due purely to their own will, it's pretty clearly magical. It might be planar energies or breaking the laws of physics or a pact with a demon or the granted ability of a god or just thinking happy thoughts - that's still magical, it's still magic, it's clearly not natural.




Or complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand.


Lots of things today in the real world would have been called magic by those that didn't understand them, doesn't mean they were magic.  Like when you referenced Arthur C. Clarke, they may "seem" like magic, but are not.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 21, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Should be familiar from AD&D.  And, as logistical nightmares go, nothing compares to a huge, redundant, new sub-system.




2e psionics, for all its warts, was playable out of one handbook with only minimum rules reference form the PHB. I see no reason why a 5e version shouldn't be also. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It's certainly not the only thing you've mentioned.  You seem very committed to denying perfectly workable options to others.




Because your "perfectly workable options" always are the path of least resistance. 

Your perfectly workable options is the same as saying "We don't need a druid class; the nature domain for cleric's fills that role and is less redundant. All druid players will be nature clerics." Sounds fine, until you look at the differences between the two classes; no wild shape, no unique spells (save for 10 granted by the domain), no druidic language, proficiencies (refluff your mace as a scimitar!), or whatever. It doesn't fit. Its a lazy way of looking at it. But I guess it'd be better than no nature priest at all, and look how much space it'd save in the PHB. 

That might be fine to you since you don't like druids, you think previous versions of druids were broken, and druids don't play a roll in your campaign so cramming them under cleric and being done with it works. It doesn't work for people who love druids, want a druid like the 2e/3e druid (but better balanced) and don't want to see some two-bit impostor dancing around wearing the druid's name. 



Tony Vargas said:


> If that makes it work for you, I'm fine with a psionics that works like magic, interacts with magic as if it were magic, faces the same checks on its otherwise unrestrained power as magic, but nominally pretends to be 'not magic.'




If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, its a damn spellcaster again.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 21, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Or complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand.
> 
> 
> Lots of things today in the real world would have been called magic by those that didn't understand them, doesn't mean they were magic.  Like when you referenced Arthur C. Clarke, they may "seem" like magic, but are not.






Dannyalcatraz said:


> ..._unless the fiction-verse says otherwise_.  Which is precisely the position several persons are taking.
> 
> It is not NORMAL, and is exceedingly rare.  But within the confines of the settings in which it exists, Psi is merely the result of manipulating as-yet unknown laws of physics directly via one's mind, not breaking them.  IOW, though it seems like it, Psi *is not magic.*




These get at the same thing - something that complies with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand or as-yet unknown without breaking them _is still magic_, because "magic" isn't exclusionary or specific. Anything can be magic. Battlemaster superiority dice can be magic. Anything can not be magic. A wizard's _fireball_ can be nanobots or a flamethrower. XP can be magic. HP can be magic. Level can be magic. Laser pistols can be magic. 

Saying that it's the laws of physics we don't understand is just another gloss on "it's from a pact with the devil" or "it's from my blood" or "its ki" or "it's luck and skill and practice." It's an excuse for supernormal stuff to occur. It's a distinction without a real difference. It's all applied phlebotnium, in the end. It doesn't actually describe any real way that psionics is different in play from any of those other things in the way that they are used by a practitioner. It's ultimately pretty meaningless at the level of play experience. I can run a wizard tomorrow who uses the laws of physics in novel ways and using all my power from within myself to read minds and predict the future and leap between dimensions. How is such a character not a psionic character? What don't they have that a psionic character has? What can't they do that a psionic character does? 

Which is what I'm hoping to drill down into more - ignore the excuse for the power, what differentiates them _in their use_ from other effects? Don't tell, show - how is this different? In what way? What is the change? To get at how psionics might be different in play from wizards or clerics, we should get at how they are different in the moment in the fiction, so how are they different? What does using a psionic power look like and how is it distinct from what it looks like when a wizard casts a spell?   [MENTION=68021]Das[/MENTION]uul 's stuff is a solid (if a bit specific) start.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 21, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Which is what I'm hoping to drill down into more - ignore the excuse for the power, what differentiates them _in their use_ from other effects? Don't tell, show - how is this different? In what way? What is the change? To get at how psionics might be different in play from wizards or clerics, we should get at how they are different in the moment in the fiction, so how are they different? What does using a psionic power look like and how is it distinct from what it looks like when a wizard casts a spell?   @_*Das*_uul 's stuff is a solid (if a bit specific) start.




Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...

0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.

1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check  (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that. 

2.) Powers don't have a "power level"  akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost. 

3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one. 

4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future. 

5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well. 

Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.


----------



## dwayne (Jun 21, 2015)

I think there should be a psion class with specializations under it for the different areas of study and focus. A wild talent should be like a feat or a back ground maybe, but the abilities should have a progression and a requirement to get to the next like a tree with branches. This way you can not pick and choose them and has a definite path to the end goal a line of study were as a wilder or untrained psion talent would be very limited on the number of powers but would be very powerful with the one she has and she could study and train as a psion but due to her wild talent it works ageist her as her mind fights the training. Being a wild your mind is so focused on the one power that its hard for a trained mind to get through the chaos of your unordered  mind even maybe causing the telepath to be stunned of a failed contact or attack. Also in telepathic combat the attacker wyho is so focused on the mind attack would be at a disavantage to defend him self from physical attacks and his friends would have to defend him as he fights or distracts the enemy telepath. Were as a wild talent would be able to use his one power without leaving him self open to attack but the only way to improve this for a wild would be through feats maybe. So a wild low level talent would be able to distract or detect things were as one with a few improvement feats maybe be able to psychic crush or blast a cone in an area to stun.


----------



## dwayne (Jun 21, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...
> 
> 0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.
> 
> ...




I like some of these ideas pacifically 1,3, and 5 never really liked the power point thing my self maybe a dice pool to draw from or something.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 21, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...
> 
> 0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.




Common refrain, and I think something easily agreed on. Though there's spellcasting that ignores components (and that's even called psionics - check out the gith races for that!), so this doesn't necessarily mean "no spellcasting." 



> 1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check  (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that.




That's a pretty meaty distinction! The biggest thing to watch out for here is the old 2e problem of "I spend three rounds doing nothing because I can't roll for crap." Could be something like "I blow some power points to MAKE SURE this works this time."



> 2.) Powers don't have a "power level"  akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost.




This seems kind of...academic and minor to me. Like, if we have a ranking of power (in that there is a cost) and a minimum required character level, then we sort of have "power levels" anyway. Why insist at their omission?



> 3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one.




Sure, that's pretty distinct from spells, too - usually it doesn't cost anything to keep a spell going. 



> 4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future.




"Casting at a higher level," but why limit the quantity? Why not just let it happen on things it makes sense to happen on? 



> 5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well.




This might get messy - proficiency bonus doesn't apply to your ability scores, meaning that someone who is well trained to avoid assaults on Intelligence actually doesn't show it here, which kills part of their fiction - that they are clever enough to resist Intelligence-based attacks better than most. 



> Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.




Totally. And psi seems like it'd be an OK fit.

From this perspective, psi would seem _less reliable_ than spellcasting - a spell just works, doesn't cost anything to maintain, and while your foe might avoid it, they can't really stop you from producing it. Psi would be more difficult, producing a similar effect would be more taxing.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 21, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Common refrain, and I think something easily agreed on. Though there's spellcasting that ignores components (and that's even called psionics - check out the gith races for that!), so this doesn't necessarily mean "no spellcasting."




Kinda why I put it as zero; it seems the bog-standard, easily agreed upon change from magic. Still, it would need some counterbalance since a psionic would basically be getting silent/still spell for free. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's a pretty meaty distinction! The biggest thing to watch out for here is the old 2e problem of "I spend three rounds doing nothing because I can't roll for crap." Could be something like "I blow some power points to MAKE SURE this works this time."




I was really debating on the idea of "works/works better" or "works/half-effect" style; it doesn't necessarily prevent you from doing something, but makes it less effective when you fail. I don't necessarily want a "roll to see if I do something this round", but in the end it could be no different than a fighter rolling to attack and whiffing, especially if failure costs little or no resources. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> This seems kind of...academic and minor to me. Like, if we have a ranking of power (in that there is a cost) and a minimum required character level, then we sort of have "power levels" anyway. Why insist at their omission?




The idea is that power point cost, activation DC, and augmentation cost sets the "relative power level" rather than spell level. For example, telekinesis is a 5th level spell for wizards with set effects, a psion has a telekinetic power that he can get at 1st level and as he gains power, he gains better ability to activate it (proficiency bonus increases), more options to augment it, and more power points to use it. The minimum class level is only for effects that are too powerful for a low level PC to have period. (For an example of what I'm thinking, look at how warlock invocations are done.)



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, that's pretty distinct from spells, too - usually it doesn't cost anything to keep a spell going.




That might allow personal buffs (or even limited party buffs) to circumvent concentration; burning through X power points per member per round might be a good enough countermeasure, but if not than the cost will certainly limit hour long abilities. Again, that would depend on power points gained and costs to activate/maintain (with probably some cap of power points spent per round to avoid novaing). 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Casting at a higher level," but why limit the quantity? Why not just let it happen on things it makes sense to happen on?




The idea was to make power broad and versatile. One telekinesis power can do more than just life objects; it could do what Bigby's hand, Forcecage, mage hand, tenser's disc, and such all do if you spend enough power points (and reach the DC, which as I think about could scale with augmentation). 

To take a spellcasting example; imagine if Cure Wounds was a psionic power. You can add power points to heal more hp, but you could also use power points to have it act as lesser restoration (removing disease, blindness, or the like), or healing word (healing at distance), or even revivify (bring someone back from the dead) all by spending points to augment it. Makes it very broad and versatile, so you would want a natural limit on how many different effects he could actually do. 

Again, a cap on power points spent per round (and possibly augments making the DC to activate scale) would be the check on such flexibility. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> This might get messy - proficiency bonus doesn't apply to your ability scores, meaning that someone who is well trained to avoid assaults on Intelligence actually doesn't show it here, which kills part of their fiction - that they are clever enough to resist Intelligence-based attacks better than most.




Yeah, probably best to go with tradtional saves, but its an alternative to such a system. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Totally. And psi seems like it'd be an OK fit.
> 
> From this perspective, psi would seem _less reliable_ than spellcasting - a spell just works, doesn't cost anything to maintain, and while your foe might avoid it, they can't really stop you from producing it. Psi would be more difficult, producing a similar effect would be more taxing.




My idea was that psionics is harder to use, but gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use it. Spells (even those you cast at higher level) are rigid; they tend to do one (or a small group) of effects where psionics is much more fluid at the cost of reliability.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 21, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> The idea is that power point cost, activation DC, and augmentation cost sets the "relative power level" rather than spell level. For example, telekinesis is a 5th level spell for wizards with set effects, a psion has a telekinetic power that he can get at 1st level and as he gains power, he gains better ability to activate it (proficiency bonus increases), more options to augment it, and more power points to use it. The minimum class level is only for effects that are too powerful for a low level PC to have period. (For an example of what I'm thinking, look at how warlock invocations are done.)
> 
> The idea was to make power broad and versatile. One telekinesis power can do more than just life objects; it could do what Bigby's hand, Forcecage, mage hand, tenser's disc, and such all do if you spend enough power points (and reach the DC, which as I think about could scale with augmentation).
> 
> ...




This has been my thinking as well. Psionics should have a "build on what you know" quality to it. It's perfectly fine for a wizard with no necromancy spells in his spellbook to suddenly gain one that allows him to animate the dead. On the other hand, a Psion without telepathy shouldn't be able to manifest a mindblast ability out of the blue.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 21, 2015)

So, the document in my previous post (which seems to be getting completely bypassed) includes common and unique mechanics, powers structure without "power points", a concentration feature, an exhaustion/con-burning mechanic, and distinct sub-class types.

Basically, for those disinclined to download/view the pdf:

1. All psychics have at-will "talents." These are your traditional "psychic combat" abilities, more or less, but unlike 1e, they are all usable against [or to defend] non-psychic individuals, in addition to mental combat. You get 3 to start and it goes up from there, based on level.

2. All psychics then receive "ranks" they can apply to suites [groups] of powers of different traditional psionic types + a few more (like Empathic or Medium). Each grouping has 5 ranks/levels, each with more powerful abilities than the former, scaled, roughly with existing "power tiers" as used for spell levels. You can select and use any of the powers listed for which you have "spent" ranks...up to level + Int. mod. times per day. 

The powers included herein are, essentially, sorted/pulled from various spell lists. I have little to no tolerance for "Psionic Charm Person" or "Consciousness Shutdown [to describe Sleep]". So the known/common understanding names are used. The possibility for expansion of these groupings or adding distinct "spell-effects" to existing ones is totally in the hands of the DM.

To get the ball rolling, I began with suites for: Telepathic, Telekinetic, Pyro- or Cryo-kinetic (for distinct fire or ice powered individuals), Clairsentient, Metabolic (healing and shapshifitng), Medium (for detecting/talking to spirits), Teleportational, and Empathic (emotion based powers). 

3. Your subclass choice, then, delivers your final "layer" of powers. Your subclass, like all PHB subclasses, gives you unique features that are in keeping with that flavor/discipline. These are independent of your "rank power" uses, either at will or usually with a 5e "rest-reliant" recharge. I went with: Telepath, Telekinetic, Seer, or Metamind ...for starters, anyway.

Maybe it's too complex, having different powers operate on different mechanics...but I don't think so...no moreso than play a warlock or a cleric or really any other class, in 5e.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 21, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> The way I see it, magic is the shaping of an external force. A spell is its own thing, independent of the spellcaster who created it. You can attack the spell, counter it, suppress it. And the creator can in many cases walk away from the spell and leave it doing its thing.
> 
> Psionics is the mind acting directly on the world around it. There's no intermediate entity that you can target with a dispelling effect. You can oppose the effect with an effect of your own, or you can attack the psion, but those are your only options. Likewise, the only way to suppress psionics is to suppress the psion's mind (via unconsciousness, _feeblemind_, etc.).



This is the point of divergence, then. Magic could be a literal force or just some arcane rules for messing with reality. Whatever the underlying explanation, I see psionics as being another way of kicking it into motion. So, if a wizard moves "The Weave" through words and gestures, a psion does it with his will, or just by supplying enough internal energy to grease the skids, so to speak. If the wizard has discovered the language of creation, then the psion rewrites creation with his soul. It just skips the middle step.

I don't really worry to much about the underlying, in-game rationale behind magic, other than to acknowledge that one must exist. If I'd consider it supernatural IRL, then it's magic in D&D. Put another way, I guess I work on the idea that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty likely to be a duck.

The wheels come off the wagon pretty darn quickly, if you try to explain it too much. For example, the idea that clerics and wizards both tap into the same "weave" is a Forgotten Realms conceit that has no bearing on any other setting (Eberron clerics might share a source, but it's for different reasons). The rules explicitly allow for a monotheistic creator deity. The "psionics is different" concept is a complete non-starter if you can't explain why a 5th level wizard can _dispel_ something done by the Chosen of G-d, but an archmage has no possibility to break an effect from Jim Bob, the wild talent.

As I've said before, I'm okay with "psionics is different" for anyone's table and/or having rules balanced against that option. I just don't think it has any case for being the default assumption.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 21, 2015)

> These get at the same thing - something that complies with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand or as-yet unknown without breaking them is still magic, because "magic" isn't exclusionary or specific. Anything can be magic. Battlemaster superiority dice can be magic. Anything can not be magic. A wizard's fireball can be nanobots or a flamethrower. XP can be magic. HP can be magic. Level can be magic. Laser pistols can be magic.




I have to firmly disagree here.

_Seems like_ magic and _are_ magic are two very different things, ESPECIALLY when you're placing them writhing the context of an RPG system in which definitions of such things may have mechanical/gameplay repercussions & in-world implications.

Something that seems like magic may be outlawed and feared in some societies, but because it actually isn't, it may not be affected by the antimagical countermeasures they have enacted.

And a wise sage in such a world might make that key insight.  "Verily, it looks like a drake, yet it neither strides nor bellows like one- mayhaps it is not a drake."


----------



## Nifft (Jun 21, 2015)

So, just trudged through the last few pages. A couple of points of discussion seemed worthy of reply.

First, so far as I can tell, ever edition of Psionics has referenced spellcasting. I didn't even have to read a whole page of my 1e PHB to find this:







... and it's not the only example of such. I don't think there has ever been an edition of D&D which had a completely separate powers list, and that's okay. There's also never been an edition which had no special, unique, interesting powers. So, I'd prefer if we didn't worry about being different just for the sake of being different, and instead decided that Psionics can be cool as long as it's cool on its merits, even if part of the scaffolding is shared with almost every other supernatural powers class in the game.


The second thing is, in all the discussion about what is and isn't "magic" seems to overlook the fact that 5e changed how magic worked. Now a Wizard / Cleric has one set of spell slots, unlike in every previous edition. That's interesting, and it says something: Magic in 5e is not conforming to your 3e or 4e assumptions.

One thing 5e magic says to me is: hey, we're outright stealing the scaling mechanics from 3.5e Psionics.

Thus, putting 5e Psionics into the 5e spellcasting mold isn't removing psionic flavor -- it's just realizing that 5e magic was already kinda psionics flavored.


Finally, I noticed some debate about the word "arcane", and then I looked up words on the internet, and then I did some math. Here's what I found.

Classes with access to some Arcane spells (spells from the Wizard list, or which are traditionally Wizard spells in 1e, 2e, and 3e):
- Barbarian: no
- Bard: yes
- Cleric: yes (Burning Hands, Identify, Polymorph, etc.)
- Druid: yes (Mirror Image, Melf's Acid Arrow, Haste, etc.)
- Fighter: yes (Eldritch Knight)
- Monk: yes (Elemental, and it even calls them spells in the rules text)
- Paladin: maybe (Vengeance)
- Ranger: no
- Rogue: yes (Arcane Trickster)
- Sorcerer: yes
- Warlock: yes
- Wizard: _duh_ (yes)

Thus, the majority of classes have some access to Arcane spells. Hmm. That's interesting, given what "arcane" means:






Pretty solid, right? I mean, maybe you have to be initiated to be in a class at all, right? Let's just make sure by checking what "obscure" means...






Oh. Huh. Since the vast majority of classes are "initiated", it's kinda the opposite of _obscure_.

Unlike Psionics, which isn't mentioned at all, and is therefore very obscure... which means Psionics are _arcane_.



Therefore, Psionics cannot be the same as Arcane magic, because Psionics are _arcane_ magic, and Arcane magic isn't _arcane_.

I hope that clears everything up.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 21, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If a human being flies due purely to their own will, it's pretty clearly magical. It might be planar energies or breaking the laws of physics or a pact with a demon or the granted ability of a god or just thinking happy thoughts - that's still magical, it's still magic, it's clearly not natural.



This example crystallizes things, for me. A human can't fly in D&D without it being magic. Period.

You can say that it's a different kind of magic. You can say the magic is "out of phase" with clerics/wizards so they can't dispel/detect it. Put whatever mechanic trappings you want around it to separate it from the PHB spells. It's still magic, period.

To shift metaphors, this isn't arguing whether potassium and water are the same thing as gunpowder. It's arguing whether they explode. You can present all that reasons you want that you can't use the same suppressants or counters, but they both still explode violently. Same with picnics and PHB spells -- they may be wildly different kinds of magic, but psionics are freaking magic.



Remathilis said:


> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, its a damn spellcaster again.



I honestly didn't see this until after I'd posted almost the exact same words.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 21, 2015)

Nifft said:


> I don't think there has ever been an edition of D&D which had a completely separate powers list, and that's okay.



2nd edition, Complete Psionics Handbook. Completely self-contained power list. Pretty much the only mention of spells were a list near the end which listed how psionics interacted with particular spells (usually not at all).


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 21, 2015)

To riff off a former post (mighta been this thread, but honestly who can keep track anymore?)

Wizards: I learned the formulae from books, tutelage, and study to make this magic energy do what I want. With the right books/tools/research, I can figure out how to do just about anything with reliable repeat-able results.

Sorcerers: I have the ability to make magic energy do what I want inside me. I can only make the magic do certain kindsa stuff, BUT I can take that stuff and  "stretch" it in different ways that books won't tell you.

Warlocks: I have found a way to access magic energy -which may include books or learning or ancestry or innate ability or forgotten knowledge or simple chance/luck- to do what I want...from what my patron has imbued in and shown/taught to me. 

Clerics: I devote myself to my deity and for my faithful service they grant me the formulae and knowledge I need to work their will with their divine energy.

Druids: I devote myself to the natural world and through my in depth enlightenment and understanding of nature have discerned and been taught the knowledge I need to work nature's energy.

Psychics: I have discovered or developed, been taught, imbued by a god, nature, the cosmos, or simply innately know how to access my own mental energy.

Can it be "just another magic" Yes. Is it the same thing as "just another magic"? That is a simple matter of perspective with no actual "right" answer.

For me, that answer is No. Since other magics are not all the same as each other. Describe/define them as different "sources", call them different names, say they have different gods as the common origin for each, believe the energy is the same but the "harnessing/directing/casting" mechanic is different and thus different "kinds" of magic are really only a matter of "appearance" and specific training techniques, believe them to be varying vibrations of the same kind of "radiation" or "wavelength" if you want to get all scientificalish with your magic. None of that matters to anyone but your own table.

Is the class/subclass/feat viable? Does it interact with the game and other classes [e.g. "balanced enough"] fairly and, preferably, well? Can I get the kinds of characters I want when I am feeling like playing a psychic-powers-based character? Is it interesting to play?

Those are really the only concerns the designers need or can or should be answering.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 21, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Or complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand.
> 
> 
> Lots of things today in the real world would have been called magic by those that didn't understand them, doesn't mean they were magic.  Like when you referenced Arthur C. Clarke, they may "seem" like magic, but are not.




Why does that argument not apply to wizard or cleric spells?  Why are they "magic"?  Why can't they be complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Just spit-balling a couple ideas. I have no idea if they are balanced, usable, or what...
> 
> 0.) Powers do not have verbal, somatic, or material components. They are unaffected by grapples, silence, or the like.
> 
> 1.) Powers require a "check". Each power has a power score (basically, a DC to activate) and the psion must make a power check  (1d20 + Prof + Int) to activate it; succeed and your power goes off as normal, fail and the power has half or no effect. This could possibly replace savings against psionics as well, but I'm not sure yet on that.




Truenamers in 3e used a similar mechanic in the Tome of Magic.  Additionally, the DC went up by two every time you used a power.  Given that 5e proficiency bonuses are pretty easy to keep in line (unlike 3e, where it was fairly easy to game the system), I could see this working very well.  Could you do without power points entirely here and just use the rising DC to limit abilities per day?  Maybe the first one is free, and then subsequent castings (errr uses, whatever) get more difficult.



> 2.) Powers don't have a "power level"  akin to spell level. (IE telepathy is a first level power) but some powers have a minimum character level to take (IE: you must be 11th level to take the Mind Blast power). Most powers are differentiated by power point cost.




Riffing off of number 1 above, why not just use the "use" DC?  Scale that DC by class level vs a given "Use DC"?  For powers you have "proficiency" in (which could be limited by class level) your first shot is free and the DC's scale fairly moderately.  Maybe disadvantage and a high DC for non-proficient manifestations.

You could, possibly, add in a second layer in that psionic characters have various fields of specialisation (metabolism, telepathy, etc) which could set the use DC's.  Stuff that's in your field, but, you don't have proficiency in (not actual, literal proficiency, but, I suck at making up names) has a relatively low DC, while the further you go from your baseline, the higher the DC.  



> 3.) Powers don't have durations, but instead have a maintenance cost of power points to keep going for every round past the first one.




Since I'm leaning towards doing away with power points, this becomes a problem.  But, again, scaling DC to the rescue.  Each round of maintaining raises the DC to keep the effect going.  Different powers could call for different periods of time for checks - a damage effect would likely be measured in rounds, while an illusion effect might be measured in minutes.



> 4.) There are actually very few powers (maybe a dozen or so) but they can be augmented by spending more power points. Telekinesis might start out weak (on par with mage hand) but by using more power points, you can use it lift more, hurl heavy objects, push or slam foes, crush their windpipes, hold the steady, or even create whirlwinds of telekinetic force. Clairvoyance might start out as a scrying tool, but eventually expand to seeing the past and or future.




Not sure if scaling DC would work for this and I like this idea, so, I'm not sure how I'd include it.  I suppose scaling DC might work - you jack up the use DC to get a stronger effect.  This might get awfully complicated though.



> 5.) Psionics doesn't grant a save as normal, but instead "attacks" an ability score. (IE: telepathy requires the psion to roll 1d20 + prof + int mod against the victims Int SCORE, which acts as the DC). Non-psionic minds might impose disadvantage, while psionic combat might grant the psion advantage on further psionic powers used on the victim. Could be used with 1 above as well.
> 
> Again, just brainstorming there. There is plenty of room for new, innovative mechanics that don't involve rehashing spellcasting.




I don't think I like number 5, for the simple reason that it makes Psi too powerful.  I mean, if I'm getting d20+5-10 (roughly) vs baseline abilities, that seems pretty strong.  OTOH, since most monsters only use their base stat for a saving throw anyway, this wouldn't actually come into play that often.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Staffan said:


> 2nd edition, Complete Psionics Handbook. Completely self-contained power list. Pretty much the only mention of spells were a list near the end which listed how psionics interacted with particular spells (usually not at all).




Really? Let's just fact-check that.






vs.






... nah. Same crunch, different editor.

Looks like basically the same deal for Psionic Teleport vs. Arcane Teleport.


Is this debunked now? Can we move on to new arguments?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Why does that argument not apply to wizard or cleric spells?  Why are they "magic"?  Why can't they be complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand?




Simply, they have always been explicitly designated as "magic."


----------



## Siphersh (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> A human can't fly in D&D without it being magic. Period.




In the real world it looks like magic and psionics are similar, in that they are both supernatural. But that's just because they don't actually work. If they did work, we would call them natural phenomena or technologies. But in D&D they do work, and so that category is not applicable.

3rd edition and later made psionics very similar to magic, but when reading the earlier rules, it seems to me that the fundamental difference is that psionics is something you do, while magic is something you "wield", regardless of the source of the magic. So, in D&D psionics is more similar to abilities or skills than to magic.

And the rules used to reflect exactly that difference. There's the concept of psionic mastery, which means that the psionic ability is not a self-contained mechanism that you use as-is, but something that you can get better at doing. Like a skill. And that same concept is represented in the 2nd edition rules, when you roll sort of an ability check for doing psionics. And of course the third difference in the mechanics: the point system also represents the same concept: psionics is something that you do, and so you're not using up some abstract arcane containers, but you just get exhausted.

I think that's a clear and fundamental narrative difference between magic and psionics, and those rules clearly represent that difference.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Simply, they have always been explicitly designated as "magic."




That's pretty circular.  It's magic because it's magic?  Doesn't really tell us anything.  Is a hippogriff's flight magic?  Are giant insects "magic"?  Is a medusa or basilisk's gaze magic?  After all, neither can actually exist, and if you start futzing about with physics, then why can't my PC learn to fly?  It's pretty obviously all magic (in the dictionary sense of the word, not in the game mechanics definition).  

I mean, prior editions did actually just make it all magic.  Basic/Expert allowed your wisdom bonus vs magic to apply to much more than just spells.  It was very much a 3e thing to try to quantify all this as either "magic" or "supernatural" or "Extraordinary" but, 5e doesn't do that.  It doesn't distinguish effects that way.  It's left to the DM.  And as such, saying it's magic or not magic is equally valid.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Really? Let's just fact-check that.
> 
> [pictures snipped]
> 
> ...



They have similar effects, but they are not the same.

* Psionic ESP is single-target, whereas magic ESP lets you change target each round.
* Magic ESP has a specified duration, whereas psionic ESP costs PSPs each round to maintain.
* Magic ESP has a maximum range and is blocked by a variety of substances. Psionic ESP doesn't and isn't.

Let's also look at the Teleport power vs the Teleport spell, since you brought it up:

* Magic teleport has no limit at all on range, psionic teleport becomes more expensive the farther you want to go.
* Magic teleport has a specific weight limit (250 lbs + 150 lbs/level above 10th), psionic teleport instead teleports yourself + 1/5 of your body mass (or +3 times your body mass for double cost).
* Psionic teleport has a chance of not working at all, as do all psionic powers (based on the power score), but if it does work you always hit your target. Magic teleport always works, but has a chance of arriving high or low with possibly disastrous consequences.

So no, magic ESP is not the same as psionic ESP, and magic teleport is not the same as psionic teleport. Further, the issue was that in 1e as well as 3e, many psionic powers simply said "see spell X." There's nothing of the sort in the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook - all the powers are described "from scratch."


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Staffan said:


> They have similar effects, but they are not the same.
> 
> * Psionic ESP is single-target, whereas magic ESP lets you change target each round.
> * Magic ESP has a specified duration, whereas psionic ESP costs PSPs each round to maintain.



 Psionic ESP can be restarted each round for free on a different subject, giving you the same effect as switching targets.

Actually, it looks like Psionic ESP just had really terrible game design -- it looks like it can be restarted on _the same target_ every round for free. So 2e had some poor editing, oh well.

But the point remains: the effect is basically the same, with some scaffolding differences (spell slot vs. power points).

The third one I checked was Detect Lies vs. Truthear, and they look identical in effect as well.

But even if you're right about 2e (which you're not), that wouldn't mean much except that 2e would be the aberration which strayed from the mainstream original vision of Psionics.

Here, in the 1e PHB, I found an explicit passage that says psionics and spells should be treated the same:






... so yeah.

I didn't play much 2e, but it really looks similar in the few places that I've looked at it. I did play a lot of 1e, and in that edition, there was no such line between Psionics and Magic.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Truenamers in 3e used a similar mechanic in the Tome of Magic.  Additionally, the DC went up by two every time you used a power.  Given that 5e proficiency bonuses are pretty easy to keep in line (unlike 3e, where it was fairly easy to game the system), I could see this working very well.  Could you do without power points entirely here and just use the rising DC to limit abilities per day?  Maybe the first one is free, and then subsequent castings (errr uses, whatever) get more difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All your ideas on scaling DC could work, I picked power points due to EVERY iteration of psionics having them, but they aren't intrinsic to my design. A few truenamer ideas couldn't hurt, I guess.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> All your ideas on scaling DC could work, I picked power points due to EVERY iteration of psionics having them, but they aren't intrinsic to my design. A few truenamer ideas couldn't hurt, I guess.



 I strongly dislike Trunamer mechanics.

They only work if you assume standard wealth-by-level and optimize aggressively around your Truespeak check -- at which point they are balanced against normal, non-optimized characters.

I really dislike when a class requires system mastery to not be horrible.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Psionic ESP can be restarted each round for free on a different subject, giving you the same effect as switching targets.



No, it can't. In order to use it on a new target, you first have to establish contact (using a different power), which costs 3-18 PSPs (depending on target's level/HD) and takes a round. _Then_ you can use ESP, at a cost of 6 PSPs per round. The bit where it says "Power score: The first round of maintenance is free" refers to the equivalent of a critical success, rolling exactly equal to your power score when initiating the power.



> But the point remains: the effect is basically the same, with some scaffolding differences (spell slot vs. power points).




Yes, there's overlap between what magic can do and what psionics can do. That's to be expected. But they go about it in different ways, and the powers and spells have significant differences.



> The third one I checked was Detect Lies vs. Truthear, and they look identical in effect as well.



Detect Lies is cast on a specific target, who gets a save. Truthear is focused on the user, and gives them the ability to discern lie from truth. There's no save (although you do need to succeed in using it), and you get to use it on everyone you hear.



> But even if you're right about 2e (which you're not),




It's been a long time since I was so tempted to use the ORLY owl.

I started playing with 2nd edition. I played it _a lot_, and much of it was in the very psionics-heavy setting Dark Sun (which even had its own psionics expansion splatbook, The Will & The Way). I know my 2nd edition psionics - both variants of it (the proper version from the Complete Psionics Handbook, and the vastly inferior one from Skills & Powers). I don't have much truck with the 1e version, but don't tell me I don't know 2e.



> that wouldn't mean much except that 2e would be the aberration which strayed from the mainstream original vision of Psionics.




Psionics in 1e was a fairly neglected thing stuck in an appendix. 2e gave psionics its own sourcebook, and had a campaign setting where psionics played a _very_ significant part, Dark Sun. I think it's fair to say that for many, possibly most, psionics fans, the 2e Complete Psionics Handbook presents what psionics should strive to be like, though of course with certain flaws fixed (and if you ask 10 2e psionics fans what those flaws are, they'll give you 11 different answers).



> Here, in the 1e PHB, I found an explicit passage that says psionics and spells should be treated the same:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a specific spell that calls out that it also affects psionic powers. 2e psionics had a section on how magic and psionics interacted - in general, when a spell blocked "magic" in general, it was ineffective against psionics (e.g. globe of invulnerability, anti-magic shell) but when it affected something more specific it worked (e.g. forbiddance, mind blank (although the psionicist did get a save to break through the mind blank)).



> I didn't play much 2e, but it really looks similar in the few places that I've looked at it. I did play a lot of 1e, and in that edition, there was no such line between Psionics and Magic.




2e was fairly similar to 1e in many respects. Psionics was not one of them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> That's pretty circular.  It's magic because it's magic?  Doesn't really tell us anything.  Is a hippogriff's flight magic?  Are giant insects "magic"?  Is a medusa or basilisk's gaze magic?  After all, neither can actually exist, and if you start futzing about with physics, then why can't my PC learn to fly?  It's pretty obviously all magic (in the dictionary sense of the word, not in the game mechanics definition).
> 
> I mean, prior editions did actually just make it all magic.  Basic/Expert allowed your wisdom bonus vs magic to apply to much more than just spells.  It was very much a 3e thing to try to quantify all this as either "magic" or "supernatural" or "Extraordinary" but, 5e doesn't do that.  It doesn't distinguish effects that way.  It's left to the DM.  And as such, saying it's magic or not magic is equally valid.



I DID say "simply." 

Things that look alike are not necessarily similar in significant ways other than appearance.  Ichthyosaurs were not sharks.  Cleaner Wrasse are not the same as a Blenny.  A Scarlet King Snake and a Coral Snake are definitely not the same.

To expand, if:

1) D&D has always defined "Arcane" and "Divine" spells- and certain abilities- as "magic", then

2) refines and redefines the term "magic" with the claim that all magic draws power from "The Weave", and

3) a set of powers & abilities known as "Psi" mimics the effects of magic abilities but does not draw power from "The Weave", then

4) "Psi" is, by definition, not "magic."  

And if these are all true, it should have a tangible mechanical effect.  It should mean something.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Staffan said:


> I started playing with 2nd edition.



 Ah. Well, that's what this is about, then. I guess you're trying to recreate 2e?


I started with 1e, and played a lot of 3.x and 4e and a tiny bit of 5e, amongst a ton of other game systems.

I'm not trying to favor a single edition here -- rather, I'm trying to look at how psionics fit into D&D as a whole, and how it can benefit from the good design features of 5e in particular.

One good design feature of 5e is how caster multiclassing works. It's neat. A full caster-like class ought to multiclass as elegantly.



Staffan said:


> 2e was fairly similar to 1e in many respects. Psionics was not one of them.



 Okay. I'm willing to accept that 2e psionics is not like 1e psionics, even if it's still _mostly_ (but not exactly) duplicating many spell effects.

Why do you think 2e ought to get more votes than 1e, 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder combined?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Okay. I'm willing to accept that 2e psionics is not like 1e psionics, even if it's still _mostly_ (but not exactly) duplicating many spell effects.




So what's your point?

Seriously, are you arguing that psionics should reference spells (so that the ESP power references detect thought) or that psionics should be spells (and a psion nothing more than a sorcerer who casts detect thoughts)? 

If you're arguing the former, then all you're saving is page count (since your inserting "see PHB XXX" instead of reprinting the text). I guess if said power has a spell analogue, it might spare WotC some pages to force the psion (and DM) to open the psionic document AND the PHB at the same time (and heaven help a monster in an AP that references a psionic power like that!). Really though, its an inconvenience for the purpose of space saving and that will only matter depending on how the rules come delivered to us (there is infinite space in a PDF, in the back of a AP, space might be a premium). 

If you're arguing the former, then we're back to the "yawn, another sorcerer wearing the psion's clothes" argument. Refer back over the last 15 pages on my thoughts on that.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> I strongly dislike Trunamer mechanics.
> 
> They only work if you assume standard wealth-by-level and optimize aggressively around your Truespeak check -- at which point they are balanced against normal, non-optimized characters.
> 
> I really dislike when a class requires system mastery to not be horrible.




To be fair, I'm not familiar with it. But prior failure doesn't mean the concept is flawed, merely the execution. And in an age of Bounded Accuracy (TM), it might not be an insurmountable hurdle to fix it.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> So what's your point?



 Here, I said it last page:



Nifft said:


> I'd prefer if we didn't worry about being different just for the sake of being different, and instead decided that Psionics can be cool as long as it's cool on its merits, even if part of the scaffolding is shared with almost every other supernatural powers class in the game.
> 
> 
> The second thing is, in all the discussion about what is and isn't "magic" seems to overlook the fact that 5e changed how magic worked. Now a Wizard / Cleric has one set of spell slots, unlike in every previous edition. That's interesting, and it says something: Magic in 5e is not conforming to your 3e or 4e assumptions.
> ...



 Let me know if any of that was difficult to understand, I'd be delighted to clarify.



Remathilis said:


> If you're arguing the former, then we're back to the "yawn, another sorcerer wearing the psion's clothes" argument. Refer back over the last 15 pages on my thoughts on that.



 Heh. Nah. It's more like, you didn't notice that the 5e Sorcerer is just a Psion wearing dragon accessories.



Remathilis said:


> To be fair, I'm not familiar with it. But prior failure doesn't mean the concept is flawed, merely the execution. And in an age of Bounded Accuracy (TM), it might not be an insurmountable hurdle to fix it.



 What did it have other than the flavor (which is easily moved elsewhere) and the mechanics (which were deeply flawed)?

What do you think exists to save?


----------



## Staffan (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Ah. Well, that's what this is about, then. I guess you're trying to recreate 2e?



Not as such, but it does inform what I want in a psionics system. There's also a bit of this:






When I see someone claim that "ever edition of Psionics has referenced spellcasting",  when the one that brought it to prominence did not, I have to object.

Now, I recognize that 2e psionics had problems. Not mixing with magic is one of them, primarily because the rest of the game system assumes that supernatural powers will be magic-based which leaves them defenseless against psionics (if psionics had been part of the core rules, I'm sure that some monsters and effects would be stronger or weaker defenses against psionics, just like some are stronger versus steel and others versus magic). Another is that the lack of "power levels" means that psionicists gained access to certain effects at very low levels - e.g. teleport (albeit short range on account of lack of PSPs) at 1st level.

But there were many aspects of 2e psionics I found enjoyable. One was that powers generally didn't have a duration - instead, you had to keep pumping PSPs into them to maintain their effect.  Another was the disciplines and the prerequisites of many powers, which lead to something of an organic development of powers - for example, most telepathic powers required Mindlink (two-way mental communication) as a prerequisite.



> Why do you think 2e ought to get more votes than 1e, 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder combined?




I do see 2e psionics as the most influential, because that's what Dark Sun was based around, and if your psionics rules can't do Dark Sun they don't really do what they're supposed to. But then again, there were aspects of the Dark Sun fiction that didn't work very well with the 2e psionics rules either (like psionic beast masters keeping the giant lizards pulling caravan wagons docile, when any power requiring power expenditure by the minute would have them run out of juice in less than an hour), so meh.

Oh, and Pathfinder doesn't have official psionics. There's Dreamscarred Press' Psionics Unleashed, which is a fair adaption of the 3.5 rules to Pathfinder, but not really an independent thing. There's also Paizo's own upcoming Occult Adventures which will introduce "psychic magic", which is explicitly not the same as psionics but a closely related thing, but using the regular casting system.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Why does that argument not apply to wizard or cleric spells?  Why are they "magic"?  Why can't they be complying with the laws of physics in a way we don't understand?




There is no right or wrong in this issue.  It actually depends on the campaign in part, and the d&d books a little (since they CALL it magic).
If you want to call psionics a type of magic, no worries, have fun.

But several posts in this thread say definitely that it is magic and go on to list various reasons that it is. 
It might be, it might not be.  But it doesn't have to be.


And for me it isn't.  I could continue to list fluff reasons, and give mechanical variations to differentiate between it and magic.   
Which seems to be a lot of people's argument.  "If it functions the same it must be the same etc etc"  "If there's no differentiation, then why bother etc etc.?"

Because I like chocolate ice cream, that's why.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Not as such, but it does inform what I want in a psionics system. There's also a bit of this:
> duty_calls.png
> 
> When I see someone claim that "ever edition of Psionics has referenced spellcasting",  (...), I have to object.



 Well that's fair enough. Being technically correct is the _best_ kind of correct, after all.



Staffan said:


> Now, I recognize that 2e psionics had problems. Not mixing with magic is one of them, primarily because the rest of the game system assumes that supernatural powers will be magic-based which leaves them defenseless against psionics (if psionics had been part of the core rules, I'm sure that some monsters and effects would be stronger or weaker defenses against psionics, just like some are stronger versus steel and others versus magic).



 When I look at the 2e Monstrous Manual, I see stuff like Aboleth, Brain Mole, and Couatl -- all with Psionics sections.

In the 1e Monster Manual, most serious fiends had Psionics sections. It's integrated to a degree, but only if your DM cared to use it -- although I do see how the 1e PHB did seem to consider the effects of Psionics when writing spell descriptions, while the 2e PHB did not.

Looking through the 1e MM2, even minor fiends like the Babou get Psionic powers. That's probably a holdover from 1e, when Psionics were better integrated.

IMHO it was the Fiend Folio which brought Psionics to prominence, via the Githyanki, who ended up being so influential that an entire character archetype was named for their tendency to multiclass ("Gish"). Nothing from Dark Sun has been that influential on the wider game.


Regarding the weirdness of 2e Psionic power scaling, that might also be a holdover from 1e. IIRC, the thing about 1e was that you weren't foremost a Psion. You were a Fighter, or a Thief, or whatever, and your Psionic powers were a "free" bonus (which you paid for by having more difficult fights against Psionic monsters).

I haven't run the math, but perhaps the 2e difficulties you found were from failing to change the scaling to compensate for being the only class feature, rather than being a "free" bonus feature on top of a whole 'nother viable class.




Staffan said:


> if your psionics rules can't do Dark Sun they don't really do what they're supposed to.



 Right now, 5e magic can't do Dark Sun, because there are no rules for Defiling.

So that's an unfair standard to hold Psionics, since the way to do make Psionics correct for Dark Sun is incredibly trivial:

1/ Define what Defiling means. Write down the rule.

2/ "Psionics ignores that Defiling rule above."

3/ Yay!


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> There is no right or wrong in this issue.  It actually depends on the campaign in part, and the d&d books a little (since they CALL it magic).
> If you want to call psionics a type of magic, no worries, have fun.
> 
> But several posts in this thread say definitely that it is magic and go on to list various reasons that it is.
> ...




Your comment is constructive and helpful.

Note, the setting - and only the setting - defines what magic itself is or isnt.

In some settings there is a ‘weave’, in other settings there is no ‘weave’.

In the settings of a number of players, all magic is psionic. So, Wizards and Clerics cast spells by means of preternatural influence of conscience.

Every setting has its own ‘theory of magic’. Until 5e, D&D core assiduously avoided a ‘theory of magic’ and was intentionally vague, so each setting could utilize the rules differently.

In the Dark Sun setting, psionics is natural and healing, but in the World Axis setting, psionics is unnatural and tainted.

If 5e psionic rules goes out of its way to define psionics as ‘not magic’, then that is equally problematic, inflexible, and less usable in other settings.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

Probably, the 5e psionic rules can emphasize that psionics is inherent. In a setting that has an external ‘weave’, psionics is independent from it. Psi has no use for material components. Focuses are also unneeded. So, at least in these senses, psionics remains distinct from classes that use material components, without actually defining what magic is or isnt.

Even in a setting whose theory of magic relies on the assumption of a ‘weave’, psionics can telekinetically influence and manipulate the weave directly. Thus there can be Wizards, Clerics, Bards, Sorcerers, etcetera who do the ‘magic’ of these by means of their psionics, instead of by means of their spell components.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2015)

> Nothing from Dark Sun has been that influential on the wider game.



At least part of that has to go down to the way Dark Sun was designed as a radical departure from standard D&D and mainstream fantasy settings.  Look at its inherent "apartness"- existing outside the traditional cosmology, in a sealed crystal sphere if you use the Spelljammer rules.

Without knowing the actual sales numbers, I'd bet that Athas was among the lower selling settings because of it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have to firmly disagree here.
> 
> _Seems like_ magic and _are_ magic are two very different things, ESPECIALLY when you're placing them writhing the context of an RPG system in which definitions of such things may have mechanical/gameplay repercussions & in-world implications.




In D&D, "seems like magic" and "is magic" are pretty much the same thing, at least whenever you want them to be. 



> Something that seems like magic may be outlawed and feared in some societies, but because it actually isn't, it may not be affected by the antimagical countermeasures they have enacted.
> 
> And a wise sage in such a world might make that key insight.  "Verily, it looks like a drake, yet it neither strides nor bellows like one- mayhaps it is not a drake."




Again, I think you're kind of conflating "magic" and "spellcasting." An ageless monk steps into an antimagic field and doesn't suddenly age. A 20-ft long flying lizard flies through one and doesn't suddenly plummet to the ground. These things are obviously magical because it is not possible for people to stop aging or for 20-ft long lizards to have wings and fly, but they aren't affected by 
"antimagic" because they don't quite work like spells or ongoing magical effects or magical items. 

Not all D&D magic is casting spells - some of it is just the fact that dragons fly. Psionics may be closer to dragon flight than to wizard spellcasting, but that doesn't mean it's not magic, it just means we need to define how this supernatural stuff happens, and then we'll see if effects like these might apply to it. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> refines and redefines the term "magic" with the claim that all magic draws power from "The Weave", and




This isn't functionally the case in 5e, as far as I can tell. Despite what that sidebar says about "all magic," monks literally cast spells and aren't included in that sidebar's explanation of how the "weave" is accessed. A tiefling casts spells and is likewise not indicated there. A dragon flies - not something that is physically possible, so it must be magical in some way - and there's nothing there about the weave. There's also no explanation of barbarian abilities there, or how a ranger can sense life-forms, or how a character channels divinity or warlock invocations (the sidebar specifically references "spells"). There seems to be puh-lenty of magical effects that are not "on the grid" in 5e that are obviously magic in many ways, but that aren't "the spellcasting class feature" and so aren't defined as either arcane or divine or weave-related. 



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> My idea was that psionics is harder to use, but gives you a lot more flexibility in how you use it. Spells (even those you cast at higher level) are rigid; they tend to do one (or a small group) of effects where psionics is much more fluid at the cost of reliability.




I think, broadly speaking, I could get on board with your idea of psionics as a separate class.

Now to loop it back into the flavor considerations: this implies a bit more of a "skill system" than a list of effects (a certain ability that grows in power as you pump energy into it) - you have psionicists proficient at different things and at different levels. So you could benefit from a trainer, or you could just discover this within yourself. It's more like learning a tool or a language. Its inner, organic nature implies that it is natural, part of the natural world, part of nature as a vibrant and productive force - part of the wilderness. 

The big challenge there is going to be to differentiate that flavor from the flavor of the sorcerer, who doesn't use the same system, but has fluff that is nearly indistinguishable from that. In terms of how they look and act in the world, what's the major differences between the organic, internal, instinctive, skillful sorcerer and the organic, internal, instinctive, skillful psionicist?


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 22, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> [*]*Psionics can be developed by non-specialists.* Someone with the Wild Talent feat (I assume this will be a feat) has access to the same array of powers as a full psion. The psion can just put a lot more oomph behind those powers, and can master a greater number of them.
> 
> [/LIST]




I agree with everything in the original post except the above statement. The psionic wild talent feat can not be any more powerful than the magic initiate feat, so the power scale has to be equivalent to two cantrips and a first level spell.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> I strongly dislike Trunamer mechanics.
> 
> They only work if you assume standard wealth-by-level and optimize aggressively around your Truespeak check -- at which point they are balanced against normal, non-optimized characters.
> 
> I really dislike when a class requires system mastery to not be horrible.




Oh yeah. There were some serious issues with Truenamers in 3e. Totally. But 5e works skills pretty differently. You really only have proficiency bonus plus base bonus to work with. A much easier system to work with and harder to game.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Heh. Nah. It's more like, you didn't notice that the 5e Sorcerer is just a Psion wearing dragon accessories.




Hmmm... Don't remember any version of the psion that used Charisma, cast magic missile, had spell slots, needed material components, and used metamagic. Sorry, can you post a picture of that?

Ooh, wait. You're nature-domaining the druid, aren't you? Another "I don't use psionics, so make it a sorcerer and be done with it." 

At this point, I'm done banging my head against the wall. I really don't care what they do, give us a far-realm themed sorcerer subclass and be done with it. I'll chalk it up that 5e is the first edition without Real Psionics and be done with it.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Hmmm... Don't remember any version of the psion that used Charisma,



 It's called the Wilder.



Remathilis said:


> cast magic missile,



 It's called the Erudite.



Remathilis said:


> had spell slots, needed material components, and used metamagic.



 Every caster in 5e uses spell slots or a point mechanic to emulate spell slots.

Not sure why you think metamagic is important, are you confusing me with someone who thinks that a Sorcerer can fully replace the Psion? Because that's not me.



Remathilis said:


> Ooh, wait. You're nature-domaining the druid, aren't you? Another "I don't use psionics, so make it a sorcerer and be done with it."



I have no idea what the heck you're trying to say here.

Perhaps you're making a very clever retort, but to someone who isn't me?





Hussar said:


> Oh yeah. There were some serious issues with Truenamers in 3e. Totally. But 5e works skills pretty differently. You really only have proficiency bonus plus base bonus to work with. A much easier system to work with and harder to game.




Yeah, I'd be happy to discuss a Truenamer remake elsewhere.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In D&D, "seems like magic" and "is magic" are pretty much the same thing, at least whenever you want them to be.




Let's agree to disagree on that.





> Again, I think you're kind of conflating "magic" and "spellcasting."




Nope.  I fully realize that certain magical affects are fundamentally permanent and non-dispellable.

That said, I _have_ been a player in games in which monks start to age normally and dragons cannot fly when magic is gone, and it has been treated likewise in some literary works.  Consider Larry Niven's "Magic Goes Away" setting- in one story set in it, one undead being is merely an inert skull when mana is not present.  




> This isn't functionally the case in 5e, as far as I can tell. Despite what that sidebar says about "all magic," monks literally cast spells and aren't included in that sidebar's explanation of how the "weave" is accessed. A tiefling casts spells and is likewise not indicated there. A dragon flies - not something that is physically possible, so it must be magical in some way - and there's nothing there about the weave. There's also no explanation of barbarian abilities there, or how a ranger can sense life-forms, or how a character channels divinity or warlock invocations (the sidebar specifically references "spells"). There seems to be puh-lenty of magical effects that are not "on the grid" in 5e that are obviously magic in many ways, but that aren't "the spellcasting class feature" and so aren't defined as either arcane or divine or weave-related.




Which, to my mind, means that monks could be lumped into the Psionic classes (like they were in 4Ed).

The thing is, I'm absolutely NOT saying that all non-spellcasting "unnatural" abilities (in the non-game sense) are perforce Psionic, not magical.  I am not now and never will make that assertion.  A monk, dragon or Tiefling might access magic (whatever it's source is in your campaign) as naturally as a fish extracts oxygen from water.  I'm 100% cool with that.

What I am saying is that- in keeping with the bulk of the fiction that inspired the game mechanics- Psionics is not magic, it is as-yet myaterious science.  And I think the game's version of that should be true to its roots.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 22, 2015)

The powers of psionicists have to be different than spells even if it is a type of "magic" in your world. Many have mentioned that there should be some sort of exhaustion or point system to extend or empower these abilities. Others have mentioned the need to use the concentration mechanic to maintain these powers. There is also a demand that these powers be interconnected and have prerequisites that directly tie to the six classic disciplines (i.e. mage-hand-like ability leading to telekinesis-like-ability). These requests demand that psionic powers not reference current spells even if they do similar things.

Power descriptions will need to note prerequisites and discipline orientation.
Many powers will use the concentration mechanic where their arcane and divine counterparts do not.
Effects will scale and have point costs that will need to be listed in their power's description.
And since this is an additional system, details of how these powers interact with the traditional "magic" will also be needed in the description.

Psionic powers will need their own descriptions and this is a good thing for it will make it feel like a truly distinct alternative system of "supernatural powers". This is the niche that psionics fill in the D&D game.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Hmmm... Don't remember any version of the psion that used Charisma, cast magic missile, had spell slots, needed material components, and used metamagic.








Here is the Magic Missile spell that the 3e Psion can cast.

"
*Concussion Blast:* A subject you select is pummeled with telekinetic force for 1d6 points of force damage. ... Concussion blast always [hits] a subject ...

"

Additionally, this psionic spell is similar to Magic Missile.

"
*Energy Missile:* Upon manifesting this power, you choose cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. You release a powerful missile of energy of the chosen type ... to the maximum of five targets.

"


Elsewhere there is a 3e psionic Fireball spell, psionic Cone of Cold spell, etcetera.


Here is a Psion that uses Charisma.

"
*Wilder.*

"


Regarding the Psion, the Psion doesnt use spell slots, but the Wizard can use spell points.

The 3e Psion used spell points, to appeal to players who wanted a real alternative to classic vancian slots. The 3e Wizard could also use spell points, but the Wizard was more broken when doing so.

In my opinion, the 5e slot system is better than both classic vancian and psionic spell points.

I glanced at the 5e option to use a spell point system for a Wizard. But these points seem unwieldly - complex and uneven.

I decided the 5e *spell slots* work just as spontaneously but more simply. If for some reason I need to, I can split a high level slot into two lower level slots, or conversely fuse two lower level slots into one high level slot.


Regarding *material components* - the 3e Psion often used crystals, tattoos, and ectoplasm - albeit this flavor appealed less to me. Happily, those who disliked such external flavor could easily ignore such options.


And of course, the Psion has metamagic feats.

"
*Metapsionic feats.*

"


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> 2e psionics, for all its warts, was playable out of one handbook with only minimum rules reference form the PHB. I see no reason why a 5e version shouldn't be also.
> 
> Your perfectly workable options is the same as saying "We don't need a druid class; the nature domain for cleric's fills that role and is less redundant. All druid players will be nature clerics." Sounds fine, until you look at the differences between the two classes; no wild shape, no unique spells (save for 10 granted by the domain), no druidic language, proficiencies (refluff your mace as a scimitar!), or whatever.



 Ironically, the 2e Complete Priests Handbook, /did/ give a system that let the DM customize a 'Priest' (not Cleric or Druid, you could do away with both) of a specific religion, and it could come out very much like a Cleric (though less broken) or Druid (ditto), or quite a few other possibilities, depending on how you did it.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> /snip.
> 
> Psionic powers will need their own descriptions and this is a good thing for it will make it feel like a truly distinct alternative system of "supernatural powers". This is the niche that psionics fill in the D&D game.




Sort of. Jedi are magic. Carrie and Firestarter both have magic psionics. In fiction psionics was generally just the way a writer could add magic to an sf story. 

McCaffery's teleporting, telepathic, time traveling dragons might as well have been magic.  Eddings calls it the Will and the Word. Could go either way. The Bene Geserit Voice of Dune could easily be magic.  

There's hardly a cut and dried line here. It's mostly in presentation rather than substance.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

In many fantasy novels, the ‘magic’ is explicitly explained as psionic mental powers.

Novels by Christopher Stasheff, come to mind.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 22, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> In many fantasy novels, the ‘magic’ is explicitly explained as psionic mental powers.
> 
> Novels by Christopher Stasheff, come to mind.




Oh, totally. In Sf circles, psi is generally considered magic by any other name. There's a reason you rarely see it in any hard sf. Generally, and I'm painting with a broad brush here, you get one freebie for breaking "science" in hard sf. So maybe you have FTL drives in an otherwise hard sf story. Psi tends to feature much more often in soft sf or slipstream stuff. 

Psi as an actual scientific fact tends to be pretty rare in SF. Although I'm sure there are examples.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

In reallife Norse texts, the Norse concept of magic is understood as ‘mindforces’ - and a Volva who enchants someone else as someone using her own mind to ‘play with the mind’ of others. Sending the mind outofbody or just the influence of ones mind outofbody, is a standard part of this worldview.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

The 3e Psion has mental ‘focus’, roughly like the 5e Wizard ‘concentration’.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Sort of. Jedi are magic. Carrie and Firestarter both have magic psionics. In fiction psionics was generally just the way a writer could add magic to an sf story.
> 
> McCaffery's teleporting, telepathic, time traveling dragons might as well have been magic.  Eddings calls it the Will and the Word. Could go either way. The Bene Geserit Voice of Dune could easily be magic.
> 
> There's hardly a cut and dried line here. It's mostly in presentation rather than substance.




Presentation is important. This new system has to feel distinct. They way you present it is important. I'm done with "is it magic or isn't it magic" discussion. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail. It has to be different enough from traditional magic found in the core to be worth doing, though, without any overly complex system completely alien to the current system. It has to be a fine balance between the familiar and the new.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

Although I'm a strong advocate for mechanical and thematic differences between psionics and magic, I don't think it's necessary for them to have no overlap whatsoever.

Consider:

In many literary and real-world magical traditions, having "talent" is a prerequisite to learning ritual magic. People with the potential to become wizards (recognizable spellcasters close to the D&D archetype) are born with at least one natural ability, which more often than not we would recognize as psionic: prophetic dreams, second sight, aura reading, minor telekinesis, etc.  So I think it's perfectly all right to say that wizards learn to use their innate gifts to connect with and manipulate external sources of power (the Weave, pseudo-sentient arcane spirits, or whatever), while psions build upon their innate gifts as much as possible--eventually unlocking and expanding on more categories of psionic talent.  This implies some transparency between powers and spells, which I think is OK.  It also implies that all cantrips are basically innate psionic talents, which I also think is OK.  

However, the wizard and the psion are training in very different directions from a small foundation. I DO want to see a psionics subsystem that has very little overlap with the arcane and divine spell lists. In particular, psionics should:

 Avoid flash-bang effects.  A pyrokinetic can make things catch fire, but I don't want her throwing ectoplasmic fireballs.
 Excel at telepathy/charm effects.  Psionic charm person should still be first level, but objectively better than arcane charm person (or else the psion class should provide abilities that make charm effects objectively better). Some powers in this category should simply work differently from the similar spell, e.g. invisibility.
 Avoid body transformation. I'm OK if Bill the pyschic warrior charges his unarmed strikes with ki to do more damage,  but not if he changes his forearm into a longsword blade.  I don't think psionics should allow any polymorph-type effect either.
 Excel at mind-over-body effects such as feign death, poison resistance, self-healing, and subtle things like weight control (run across water, levitate)
 Include A FEW signature high-level effects (sciences), such as energy absorption, quintessence, mind seed, dream travel...
 Be much better at sustaining concentration than other classes (e.g. can always sustain two with no problem, proficiency in Con saves, feats or class abilities to maintain more than two...)
 Finally, and most importantly, break the rules of arcane/divine spellcasting in some interesting ways, so that playing a psion feels very different from playing a wizard or cleric.  

That's enough to satisfy players, in my book, even if they keep the spell slots/spells known chassis.  

Returning to the subject of magic/psi transparency, it makes perfect sense to me that psions can detect magic and wizards can detect psionics, and that the supernatural signatures of the two effects are similar enough for one spell/power can do the job.  (Detect Magic: detect any supernatural effect. You can measure the strength of the aura. If the effect is from a tradition in which you have class levels, you can also attempt to identify the specific spell or power.)  Similarly, if makes sense to me that a spell/power designed to end supernatural effects can work on either. (Dispel Magic: dispel any supernatural effect. If the effect is from a magical tradition in which you have class levels, the dispel works automatically for levels <= the level of the slot used to cast Dispel Magic. If the effect is from a different tradition, make a caster level check against DC 10+spell level.)  And frankly, I think that's enough--any other kind of transparency is very situational and can be ruled based on the spell/power descriptions. For example, a nomad psion might have a power similar to banishment, that works on summoned demons.  A wizard casting detect thoughts would be foiled by a psion with Thought Shield, and so on.  No special rules needed.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

Let me see if this will work...[I've never tried to attach a pdf as an image before.]

Ah. I see. No dice. the image attacher won't take a pdf. So change it to a jpg then? That should work, right?

I believe the term is "PEACH" ...? Constructive criticisms welcomed.

EDIT/OS: Just noticed the details of the Telepath feature "Investigative Probe" are nearly entirely missing. Need to fix that, but I think the feature name gives you a pretty good idea what it does. Kinda an aggressive "Detect Thoughts" that breaks through some defenses/mind-hiding magics./EDIT

View attachment 68951View attachment 68952View attachment 68953View attachment 68954View attachment 68955View attachment 68956View attachment 68957


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

In the interest of moving on to something passingly constructive (I know, Internet)....

How important is it to anyone that the "psionics is different" concept is baked in/vacated from the mechanics? What I mean by that, is does it need to be a sticking point for the conversation? Also, is there anything that would prevent/interfere with a system that's agnostic on the issue?

For my part, I think the more neutral the mechanic is, the better. I don't every plan to run a "psionics is different" game, but I also think it's great if someone can. Ultimately, D&D should provide tools over flavor, when possible. Published settings provide specific flavor around the mechanics.

As far as why I want psionics, I've realized that I just don't think that the sorcerer fills its stated purpose very well. It makes no sense to me that someone with "magic in his veins" would use the same sort of structured spells that a scholar does. I expect them to throw around semi-structured effects by force of will. That's how I've always used psionics -- very literally innate magic. I do like Dark Sun and Eberron, though, which both have slightly different psionics, and I'd like to see those supported.

Based on the above, the quickest and easiest path to implementation for my goals would be to rebuild the sorcerer with an ability to replace the VSM components to _something_ else; I only wish I knew exactly what because I don't think ectoplasm is particularly appropriate for a dragon-blooded "psion" to manifest. Throw in a feat that's equivalent to Magic Initiate for Wild Talents using the reskinned powers, and I'm good. The weakness, here, is that it leaves the Psychic Warrior, Lurk, and Ardent out in the cold and those were all interesting concepts.

On the other extreme, I could also handle a complete rebuild. I don't know that power points would be my first choice, but I wouldn't complain, either. Some of the trappings of 3.5 psionics (ecto-snot, tinkling bells, crystals, tattoos) fell flat for me, so I'm tempted to say a spiritual port of 2E would be best, but I don't remember it well enough to be confident in that statement. Regardless, both those editions were compatible with "psionics is magic" theme, so I'd be able to use them.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

Steeldragons, your class is definitely heading in the right direction.  Some brief thoughts:
* There doesn't seem to be an equivalent to 6th-9th level powers, although Collective Cognition and some of the specialty capstones come close. Maybe when you reach 5 ranks in one of the disciplines, it could also unlock a couple of higher-level powers that become available when the psychic reaches a certain level. For example, Heal could have the requirement of 5 ranks in the metabolic discipline and 13th level psychic.
* Any kind of healing spell should not be at-will (Cure Wounds, Heal)--does this class use the common spell slots table to activate powers?
* What's the advantage of being able to maintain concentration with an Int check? Are you meant to use either Int or Con, whichever is better, or do you get the Int check first and only have to roll Con if that fails?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Let me see if this will work...[I've never tried to attach a pdf as an image before.]
> 
> Ah. I see. No dice. the image attacher won't take a pdf. So change it to a jpg then? That should work, right?
> 
> ...



This is close to one of the variations I've had in my head during this conversation. I like it because 1) it's markedly different from casters, 2) it provides thematic structure that's easy to expand, and 3) still balanced with the 5E mechanic (or could be, with some play-testing).

I'm not enamored with it because 1) it's still fairly limited in scale (not complete, which may be the difference between beta and RTM) and 2) it feels like psions would either end up very narrow ponies or broad enough to be very samey.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> How important is it to anyone that the "psionics is different" concept is baked in/vacated from the mechanics? What I mean by that, is does it need to be a sticking point for the conversation? Also, is there anything that would prevent/interfere with a system that's agnostic on the issue?




Not very important, the level of transparency can be a campaign option rather than baked into the class. But given the prevalence of magic spells in the game, I think it makes sense if the psion class has access to a couple of powers that interact with magic spells in any setting, like the more general versions of detect and dispel magic that I suggested above. Then the campaign option would be a matter of slightly revising those spells. 



Mercule said:


> As far as why I want psionics, I've realized that I just don't think that the sorcerer fills its stated purpose very well. It makes no sense to me that someone with "magic in his veins" would use the same sort of structured spells that a scholar does. I expect them to throw around semi-structured effects by force of will. That's how I've always used psionics -- very literally innate magic. I do like Dark Sun and Eberron, though, which both have slightly different psionics, and I'd like to see those supported.




I totally agree. In fact, the implied setting of this version of D&D is one where structured spells are baked into the fabric of magic and researching new spells is very difficult.  Every class casts exactly the same version of Fireball--the only difference is how they learn it. Sorcerers are the only class that can change spells on the fly (which is very cool and definitely the saving grace of the class), and even they can only change the spell's parameters in a few limited ways.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

fuindordm said:


> Steeldragons, your class is definitely heading in the right direction.  Some brief thoughts:
> * There doesn't seem to be an equivalent to 6th-9th level powers, although Collective Cognition and some of the specialty capstones come close. Maybe when you reach 5 ranks in one of the disciplines, it could also unlock a couple of higher-level powers that become available when the psychic reaches a certain level. For example, Heal could have the requirement of 5 ranks in the metabolic discipline and 13th level psychic.




This would seem to add an additional layer of complexity to using the psychic powers...and I really wouldn't want to do that. You're already keeping track of 3 different "layers" of powers. A few of the 5rank powers are, actually 6-9th level [spell] abilities (I might not have gone up to 9 in the interest of not becoming "broken/op'd").

What is it you mean/think should be there? What is a 6th-9th level level power? Just effects that duplicate 6th-9th level spell effects? I could add more power choices into the 4 and 5 rank suites? As the ranks are accumulated, you would be getting your 4 rank at 7th level, your 5 rank at 9th. After that then, you're kind just accumulating power uses/day and discipline abilities. Those aren't "enough", you mean?



fuindordm said:


> * Any kind of healing spell should not be at-will (Cure Wounds, Heal)--does this class use the common spell slots table to activate powers?




It's not. At 1 rank (which you would have at 1st level), you could put that rank in Metabolics and gain access to Resistance, Jump and Cure Wounds (I originally had Spare the Dying with CW at 2 ranks, but I was being nice. ). Those 3 powers can be used 1 [the psychic's level] + Int. mod. times per [edit: Sorry. per _"long rest"_ not, necessarily, "day"/edit]. Let's say 3. So 4 times per long rest...Your Talents are all still at will, so you always have those. At 2nd level, you'll get whatever abilities you get from your Discipline, at least one of which is also at will. So you are never without SOME things/choices to do. Just not, necessarily your "metabolic powers."

If you want/need to use a power more often than that you are kinda SOL until 3rd level when 1) you would have 6 uses per long rest (3 levels + [hypothetical] 3 Int. mod) for these powers, and be able to use the Overburn feature to "burn" Constitution points for additional uses.

But you always have your at will "Talents" to fall back on and, by 3rd level, whatever your 2nd level Discipline features are.   



fuindordm said:


> * What's the advantage of being able to maintain concentration with an Int check? Are you meant to use either Int or Con, whichever is better, or do you get the Int check first and only have to roll Con if that fails?




Presumably the Psychic PC would have an Int higher than their Con...so it's an "easier" check to make to maintain your concentration. If you/your DM then decides you can make the normal "Concentration check" after you've tried the Int. on, that's fine, I guess. OR, if you don't have a higher Int than Con, then as DM could conceivably allow that instead. The point of the Mental Focus power is that you can/should be able to sustain multiple attacks and still maintain your concentration...via/through your advanced Int. ...least that was my thinking.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> ... A few of the 5rank powers are, actually 6-9th level [spell] abilities (I might not have gone up to 9 in the interest of not becoming "broken/op'd").
> 
> What is it you mean/think should be there? What is a 6th-9th level level power? Just effects that duplicate 6th-9th level spell effects? I could add more power choices into the 4 and 5 rank suites? As the ranks are accumulated, you would be getting your 4 rank at 7th level, your 5 rank at 9th. Is that then, you're kind just accumulating power uses/day and discipline abilities. Those aren't "enough", you mean?




No, they're enough, I was just suggesting a little more granularity. For example, if we saw a 9th level spell that would be really appropriate as a psionic power, then we could add it to the table under rank 5 but also add an extra level prerequisite to that power. 

Alternatively, give each discipline one "Grand Science" that unlocks with 5 ranks, and is usable 1/day above and beyond the normal mental power budget (similar to the Warlock's major arcana). 

But neither might be necessary, I was just thinking aloud about another design parameter that could be used while balancing the class.



steeldragons said:


> Those 3 powers can be used 1 [the psychic's level] + Int. mod. times per day. Let's say 3. So 4 times per long rest...Your Talents are all still at will, so you always have those. At 2nd level, you'll get whatever abilities you get from your Discipline, at least one of which is also at will. So you are never without SOME things/choices to do. Just not, necessarily your "metabolic powers."




Thanks, I didn't understand that the duration note under "Using Mental Powers" was meant to be a total limit on the use of all powers. I thought it was just the maximum duration that you could sustain any given power, and I was looking for something else in the writeup.

So your mental ranks basically increase your known powers (but you have to specialize to keep up with your companions!), and you have Level + Int bonus rounds of mental powers, TOTAL, per day--barring cannibalizing your body.  I like the fact that you burn Con and not HP, but we should be wary of Psychic overburn followed by Cleric restoration. (Exhaustion is also a good limiting factor, and maybe it is enough actually without taking Con damage). 

Overall, the mental ranks + very limited total duration on mental powers doesn't feel quite up to par with a full caster. Maybe like a 2/3 caster? It needs playtesting of course but I feel we could be a little more generous with both, to benchmark well against a wizard or sorcerer at mid levels.

It could also be interesting to give them a ki point budget similar to the monk, so that the monk and psion feel mechanically like they're using similar power sources. The monk makes a good benchmark too for judging metabolic powers. 



steeldragons said:


> Presumably the Psychic PC would have an Int higher than their Con...so it's an "easier" check to make to maintain your concentration. If you/your DM then decides you can make the normal "Concentration check" after you've tried the Int. on, that's fine, I guess. OR, if you don't have a higher Int than Con, then as DM could conceivably allow that instead. The point of the Mental Focus power is that you can/should be able to sustain multiple attacks and still maintain your concentration...via/through your advanced Int. ...least that was my thinking.




They will, but it might only be a point or two higher. I'd rather they get a more generous benefit, like Advantage on Con checks to maintain concentration (maybe limited to x/short rest, since they already have proficiency). 

Thanks for putting so much effort into your write-up. It's always easier to debate a concrete proposal than to discuss generalities.

Ben


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> This is close to one of the variations I've had in my head during this conversation. I like it because 1) it's markedly different from casters, 2) it provides thematic structure that's easy to expand, and 3) still balanced with the 5E mechanic (or could be, with some play-testing).




Cool. Thanks.



Mercule said:


> I'm not enamored with it because 1) it's still fairly limited in scale (not complete, which may be the difference between beta and RTM) and 2) it feels like psions would either end up very narrow ponies or broad enough to be very samey.




Well...and I thought about that...the fact is, they could be either (narrow or broad) but that is, ultimately, a choice for the player to make for their character. If I'm going to play a "psychic" character, I want to be Prof. X or Jean Grey...a "carnival fortuneteller" or a courtly "Seer" advisor. I like my archetypes "tight", for lack of a better adjective. Others who prefer a "psion" character might scatter their ranks all over the place and have the teleporting, mind reading, shapeshifting, telekinetic blaster and have a ball. In designing a class (and sub-classes) my aim is not to deliver JUST what I want out of it, but what as many people as possible, conceivably but realistically, could want to do with it...even if I would never play "that guy." 

So the fact that you see the Psychic presented could go either way, for me, is a feature not a bug.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Ok guys, you win.

No need to re-invent the wheel, no need to bloat the system. I took the liberty of making the psion myself so that WotC can move on to more important things. It should work for everyone. 

View attachment 68960


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 22, 2015)

Any healing the psionicist has should use the hit die mechanic so that it doesn't step on the toes of the cleric. A psionicist would allow you to spend hit dice during combat to heal. It's a mechanic new to 5e and it is underutilized. It also keeps the psionicist healing from feeling divine in nature.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Ok guys, you win.
> 
> No need to re-invent the wheel, no need to bloat the system. I took the liberty of making the psion myself so that WotC can move on to more important things. It should work for everyone.



*It cannot unless WotC publishes it.* Spamming it at us won't make it official, and official is what's needed for organized play, and what will be standard for many people's home games.

I've not allowed 3rd party add-ons in my D&D gaming since about 1983... not even the dragon published classes. Not since the abuses we monty-hauled with the time traveller class.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Ok guys, you win.
> 
> No need to re-invent the wheel, no need to bloat the system. I took the liberty of making the psion myself so that WotC can move on to more important things. It should work for everyone.
> 
> View attachment 68960




Your post might be hyperbole, but if psionic bloodline sorcerer is all they are going to do. I'd rather WotC not do anything with psionics. I agree. It would feel underwhelming.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Ok guys, you win.
> 
> No need to re-invent the wheel, no need to bloat the system. I took the liberty of making the psion myself so that WotC can move on to more important things. It should work for everyone.




Who/which "guys win" with this option? Was my presentation re-inventing wheels or bloating the system? I was really hoping it didn't....I mean, any moreso
than adding any other new class and subclasses would.

Granted, I've not been paying especially close attention to the back-and-forth of the past several pages of this thread, but I was under the impression you, at least, Remathilis, were interested in them being "different" from magic-users...without, necessarily, being linked to any particular origin story.

I've done two (I think, that I can remember) iterations of "Psion as Sorcerer"...they're in sorcerer or psionics threads in the homebrew forum somwhere. If this is all someone wants out of a "generally psychic in all ways" psion PC, then it's great. It certainly is easy and simply added to any existing game.

I, personally, don't like the "any psion can just do all things psionic" direction, myself...and I suspect I am not alone in that. So I prefer -and think the canvas is certainly wide enough- to sustain separate class & subclasses.

And the flavor question is really only handled in the reality of the situation, that is, "Whatever the DM wants it to be" is their only avenue without pissing a LOT of people off one way or any other. Give us ideas for possibilities. You can not "brand" the total possibility of the human mind.

PS: Apologies Mercule. I don't know why every "reply with quote" I hit in this thread, for some reason pulls in messages of yours I've quoted. Kinda annoying. Carry on.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Any healing the psionicist has should use the hit die mechanic so that it doesn't step on the toes of the cleric. A psionicist would allow you to spend hit dice during combat to heal. It's a mechanic new to 5e and it is underutilized. It also keeps the psionicist healing from feeling divine in nature.




I like this...and it needn't really even move form the existing [my proposed] system. Just swap out Cure Wounds for something "Cognizant Stamina" or something psionicky sounding and describe the mech in the power description. Simple. I like simple.

I know I've expressed a disapproval of the "psionic sounding for psionics' sake" before, and I don't approve of just renaming spells for powers to do the same thing (as is obvious from my write-up/power suites), but this would be something distinctly in the metabolic psychic's wheelhouse. So, in those kinds of instances, I don't mind a little psychic/pseudo-psychology sounding stuff.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Hmmm... Don't remember any version of the psion that used Charisma, cast magic missile, had spell slots, needed material components, and used metamagic. Sorry, can you post a picture of that?




The thing is, these are not the Sorcerer's defining characteristics - none of these things are things that sorcerers necessarily need to have. 

The sorcerer's defining characteristic, it's central story, is "I have an origin that gives me supernatural abilities." 

In the version of the sorcerer we have so far, that uses Charisma, spell slots or points, might cast magic missile, and has some ability to modify its magic on the fly. 

It's central story seems to overlap pretty neatly with what you want psionics to be, which means there's a bit of a juncture here - either psionics are something else/more/different, or psionics is expressed somehow via the sorcerer class.

Mearls seems to be going in the former direction, at lest for this tweet/thought experiment.




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Nope. I fully realize that certain magical affects are fundamentally permanent and non-dispellable.
> 
> That said, I have been a player in games in which monks start to age normally and dragons cannot fly when magic is gone, and it has been treated likewise in some literary works. Consider Larry Niven's "Magic Goes Away" setting- in one story set in it, one undead being is merely an inert skull when mana is not present.



In 5e/FR D&D, if the Weave stopped existing tomorrow, a monk wouldn't age, and a dragon could still fly and a tiefling could still cast _hellish rebuke_. Certain classes couldn't cast spells anymore, but druids could still wild shape, and clerics could still channel divinity. Which means that 5e has precedence for magic that doesn't reference the Weave. 

If the only thing "not magic" about psionics is that it's off-the grid, that's not enough for it to be "not magic" by 5e standards. 



> What I am saying is that- in keeping with the bulk of the fiction that inspired the game mechanics- Psionics is not magic, it is as-yet myaterious science. And I think the game's version of that should be true to its roots.




That's kind of like insisting that wizards don't use magic, they use a little-understood science (which is actually a lot like wizards have been presented in D&D). That sorcerers don't use magic, they are just mutants. That warlocks don't use magic, they just have the power of some otherworldly entity. That clerics don't use magic, they just have their prayers answered. That druids don't use magic, they just have knowledge of the natural world. That dragonflight isn't magical, it's just that they have the ability to shift their mass to another dimension at will. 

You can make that insistence, but it makes the word "magic" pretty meaningless, since it if reading minds and predicing the future and using your thoughts to control the actions of others is only "sometimes magical," the word ceases to apply to things that anyone using common language would describe as magical.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> I like this...and it needn't really even move form the existing [my proposed] system. Just swap out Cure Wounds for something "Cognizant Stamina" or something psionicky sounding and describe the mech in the power description. Simple. I like simple.
> 
> I know I've expressed a disapproval of the "psionic sounding for psionics' sake" before, and I don't approve of just renaming spells for powers to do the same thing (as is obvious from my write-up/power suites), but this would be something distinctly in the metabolic psychic's wheelhouse. So, in those kinds of instances, I don't mind a little psychic/pseudo-psychology sounding stuff.




However, just to follow this train of thought for a moment...why does the psychic have to watch not to step on the cleric's toes when MOST of its abilities are going to be stepping on other spell-casters' effects?

I, personally, could totally see a psychic "healer" character who is all about the metabolic suites. Doesn't fight (unless absolutely necessary), takes all defensive talents, and part of the party, specifically for her healing ability. Maybe she has some secondary empathic abilities (feeling other's pain, discerning their injuries, and all that). But, essentially, capable of replacing a cleric -for healing purposes. I could totally see/would probably play such a psychic character.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> PS: Apologies Mercule. I don't know why every "reply with quote" I hit in this thread, for some reason pulls in messages of yours I've quoted. Kinda annoying. Carry on.



No worries. I had one of Hussar's posts trapped in my buffer for something like three weeks. I assume it has something to do with the multi-quote feature.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> However, just to follow this train of thought for a moment...why does the psychic have to watch not to step on the cleric's toes when MOST of its abilities are going to be stepping on other spell-casters' effects?



Old habits. I'm sure you don't need the history lesson, but... It used to be that only clerics could heal -- wizards were all but explicitly barred from it in BECMI and 1E. The Bard has slowly pushed his way in, but I think there's a fear that if too many folks gain healing, the cleric might actually have to rely on his priestly shtick, rather than buff-and-heal. 

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. One the one hand, it's an arbitrary divide and potentially forces someone into playing a character they really don't want, in the name of "greater good". On the other, most of the divine/arcane(/psionic) divide in D&D is pretty arbitrary, so why not allow people to mark territory and/or have to make trade-offs?


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The thing is, these are not the Sorcerer's defining characteristics - none of these things are things that sorcerers necessarily need to have.
> 
> The sorcerer's defining characteristic, it's central story, is "I have an origin that gives me supernatural abilities."
> 
> ...




The same argument could be made about clerics and warlocks, yet they have very different spell casting features.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

fuindordm said:


> The same argument could be made about clerics and warlocks, yet they have very different spell casting features.




While you could say that clerics and warlocks have the same story, it's important to note that 5e D&D *does not say that*. They present two distinct and different stories. 

The story of the cleric might be said to be "My loyalty to a being greater than myself is rewarded with powers that advance both of our interests."

The story of the warlock might be said to be "Something otherworldly has granted me secret power that I can use to further my own interests." 

Think of how a celestial warlock is distinct in the narrative from a cleric, or how a death-priest or or trickster-cleric is distinct from a warlock. 5e could have made the choice to combine them, but for reasons (that likely have little to do with these narratives) made them distinct. If the psion is to be distinct, it also needs a narrative that is not the same  narrative that the sorcerer already has. The bar for that isn't _particularly_ high, but it's still a thing that needs to be done.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jun 22, 2015)

Dang...all my quotes disappeared and didn't make it to this post. I'll just summarize points I made.

1) In 5e magic officially draws upon an interface. This is a universal (multiversal?) rule, and is not campaign setting dependent. It doesn't matter whether you are in Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Eberron, whatever--you use this interface to channel the magical energy inherent in all things into spells and magical effects, according to the core rules. Spellcasters in the Forgotten Realms refer to it as "the Weave" and conceptualize it as relating to Mystra, but the *same interface* exists across the entire multiverse. Different settings have different ways of conceptualizing this same interface and may not refer to it as "the Weave," but it's the same thing. 

Like it or lump it, that is the official stance of 5e. I need to put this in my sig with references or something.

2) The _antimagic field_ spell explicitly blocks all magical effects, not just spells. This means it should apply to ki, as ki is referred to as magical in the description of the monk class under "The Magic of Ki."

3) There are apparently magical effects that make use of "the Weave" but are accessed by neither arcane nor divine means. The magic of ki is an example, and the specific magical nature of it (the energy that flows through living beings) is described in the monk class description.

The precedent of ki would imply there could be other types of magic, and that they would make use of "the Weave."

Moving on...

I think it could be useful to determine what magic is in order to determine whether psionics is/should be concepualized as magical.

In the real world, it's kind of hard to pin down what the concept of magic actually refers to, and definitions vary. Most people wouldn't consider "anything supernatural" to automatically be magical. For instance, parapsychologists aren't likely to call ESP or precognition magic, and most people aren't going to call the very existence of a ghost magical.

But that varies widely. For instance, many (perhaps even most) practitioners of magic consider things like ESP to be essentially magical. In fact, the impression that I get is that the more "into" magic a person or mindset is, the more broadly they are likely to define it--even going so far as to hit a point where they would consider everything to be magical--much like the way D&D explains magic as permeating everything. In the ancient world, the very concept of magic as an umbrella term may have been absent, since what moderns would term supernatural is a standard part of the world view and not a separate element that one can push certain aspects into. You might perform a ritual to create X effect, but there is no particular reason that is in a different category than performing a mechanical physical act to create Y effect. 

Some religions consider portions of their supernatural practices to be explicitly magical. Other religions consider nothing they do to be magic-related, but would consider the religions of others to be magical. This is perhaps related to one view of magic whereby the distinction is made that magical practices involve procedures that are guaranteed to produce a result without the need for the approval of another entity (such as a god or spirit), while a religious miracle or sacred act only functions according the agency of such another being. From that view, if an entity assists you because you compelled it, that is magic. If you simply requested it to help and it chose to without compulsion that is religion--although some would say that the nature of the entity would also make a difference, regardless of its agency or lack thereof.

Some would make a distinction between magic and science by saying that magic is a violation of natural laws. But relatively few practitioners are going to agree with that. In fact, some practitioners of magic are more likely than others to believe that it simply functions according to natural laws as yet poorly understood, or technologically beyond the current ability of science to observe and measure, but theoretically fully possible of being brought into the umbrella of technology given sufficiently advanced tools. One definition along these lines might be to conceptualize magic as a technology of spiritual (interpreted very broadly) things.

Which brings us to an argument that magic is merely a term of ignorance. If we don't understand how it (would) work, it is magic. Magic equals superstitious mumbo jumbo. If something is understood it is by definition not magic. Again, that definition is very divorced from actual practitioners, as far as I understand it.

The clearest impression that I can get about the concept of magic, as viewed IRL (and it relates at least tangentially to my academic field), is that the more accepting or involved a person is with the concept, the more likely they are to view it in broad or expansive terms, and that the less accepting or involved a person is, the more likely they are to define it either narrowly, or as a term referring to superstitious mumbo jumbo in general.

So, with that background to clarify our own preconceptions, we can examine what the relationship between psionics and magic is in D&D.

As I mentioned early in the post, D&D defines magical energy as permeating everything, but being accessible only through "the Weave." Ki referred to as a type of magic, and there appears to be nothing in the text exempting it from Weave-access requirement.

We can see here that D&D is taking the position that:

A) Raw magic is omnipresent and all-permeating in an inaccessible format
B) All mortal magic is accessed via "the Weave"

From this point on I'm going to use "magic" to refer only to Weave-mediated effects, since position A essentially says "everything is magic" in a general sense,  which isn't very useful for discussion

C) Mortal magic extends beyond spellcasting

However, there are certain things that we call supernatural which lack explicit magical connections and don't appear to have the sort of inherent connection to the Weave that would allow them to be affected by magic-dependent affects (such as _detect magic_ or _antimagic field_). Examples would be supernatural beings themselves, such as celestials, fiends, fey, etc. They do, however, often make use of magical effects dependent on the Weave.

D) There are supernatural things that aren't magical (Weave-dependent)

We can also see that certain types of Innate Spellcasting seen in the Monster Manual are listed as psionic. This might imply that they are inherently magical, except that:

E) While it might be inferred, it is nowhere stated that all spellcasting accesses the Weave

Ironically enough, the rules therefore appear to support the possibility that psionics could involve non-magical spellcasting, or that spellcasting could draw on something _other_ than the Weave, even though most people aren't really arguing for that sort of position at all.

So D&D takes a position that you have a general supernatural nature of the multiverse, which can manifest in certain things we would consider supernatural (such as fey), and that the "magic" that is dealt with by characters and creatures in the world is based on interaction with the Weave in one way or another (spellcasting is one way, ki is another).

This apparently allows for a couple of psionic models

Psionic Model #1) Psionics is a form of supernatural effect (ie, dependent on the raw magic that suffuses everything) that isn't dependent on the Weave, and is therefore considered "non-magical" in the same sense as a celestial isn't considered inherently magical.
Ramifications of this view include that psionics wouldn't be effected by spells like _detect magic_ or _antimagic field_, but could affected by other possible spells like _detect psionics_ or _dispel psionic effect_. Psionics could, however, still use spellcasting (though it doesn't need to, and probably wouldn't). This view, however, makes non-magical psionics contrast with the magic of ki. Since ki draws upon life energy, which is explicitly magical, it seems really odd to have an internal energy (of the mind, etc) that psionics draws upon _not_ be magical. It would seem to have to draw upon something truly alien to justify this position.

Psionic Model #2) Psionics is magic, dependent upon the Weave like all mortal magic. This view drawing up ki as a precedent, allows psionics to be neither arcane nor divine, and to have the source of magic be accessed without spellcasting. Since the Weave is the means of accessing life-energy magic, it can also be a means to access the internal power of the mind/soul/etc, which could serve as the definition of psionics (though it could just as easily access any other type of magical energy from any source WotC chooses). Just as with other types of magic, it need not (and probably shouldn't) use spellcasting.

Because of the precedent of ki and the difficulty of explaining the source of psionics in model #1 without going sci-fi or Far Realm, I favor Psionic Model #2.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If the psion is to be distinct, it also needs a narrative that is not the same  narrative that the sorcerer already has. The bar for that isn't _particularly_ high, but it's still a thing that needs to be done.



Agreed. This is where I've come to the conclusion that I just think WotC botched the sorcerer design by making it explicitly "naturally magic". You could say that the sorcerer is born to arcane magic. Whatever the cause, it leaves the sorcerer with some sort of glossolalia for the language of wizards. The magic is in them and _demands_ to be released in the form of spells. The first wizards may have learned spells by watching sorcerers and taking notes. Maybe it's Mystra's way of offering her gift. Maybe the blood of dragons carries the knowledge genetically. Who knows? Sorcerers aren't just magic, they're natural wizards.

Psions, on the other hand, have true, raw, inborn power. They shape it into forms of their own making. Sure, there might be some laws that need to be followed (to keep the rules from becoming Mage: the Awakening), but there are no "spells". To a psion, the sorcerer is just a pretender -- they appear to be born to magic, but the truth is that they're just playing host to something they don't really control. This works regardless of whether or not you want "psionics are different"; just minor tweaks to the fluff.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You can make that insistence, but it makes the word "magic" pretty meaningless, since it if reading minds and predicing the future and using your thoughts to control the actions of others is only "sometimes magical," the word ceases to apply to things that anyone using common language would describe as magical.




The longer this thread goes on, the more pointless it becomes to me to argue whether psionics is magic or not.
The only meaty distinction to make is whether or not "Psionics is different." The alternate rule in 3e kinda forced that phrase into meaning "psionics is different than magic" but it need not be the case. I'd like the default to be that Psi is different, sure, but as long as it can be a "different kind of magic" that interacts with spellcasting magic in distinct ways (the amount of dispell, anti-magic field, etc interaction is up for debate) then our subjective interpretations of the fluff definition of magic can remain just that, fluff.  

Of course there are many that are arguing any supernatural "magic" effect must be the same as the next supernatural "magic" effect because of a narrow definition of what in-game "magic" is and any discreet magic effect need be expressed as a "spell" and interact with other spells as such.  Those people I still continue to disagree with.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> In the interest of moving on to something passingly constructive (I know, Internet)....
> 
> How important is it to anyone that the "psionics is different" concept is baked in/vacated from the mechanics? What I mean by that, is does it need to be a sticking point for the conversation? Also, is there anything that would prevent/interfere with a system that's agnostic on the issue?



 I think 3.5 had the best take, which was to present the psionics is magic/different choice to the DM and let him decide.  'Baking in' either option would at least annoy some sub-set of fans of D&D psionics, and that's at odds with the 5e philosophy of inclusiveness (not that 5e has been or can be expected to be perfectly inclusive, but it's nice to stick to it as much as possible).

Thus the options presented would need to have some rules alternatives.  That is the 'different' option would have at least one set of optional rules detailing whether magic and psionics can detect/dispel/etc eachother.  Presumably, in the 'different' option, anti-magic zones, magic resistance (not that it's as big a deal as it used to be) and the like wouldn't crimp a psion's style at all.  Similarly, the 'magic' option would include any optional rules needed to spell out such interactions (depending on the mechanics, that might not need much).

Ironically, mechanics could go out of their way to be distinct from normal spellcasting, or leverage existing spell lists and mechanics, and still go either way.  A rule that says psionics can't detect/dispel magic and vice versa works whether the psionics use Detect Magic and Dispel Magic and other Spells outright, or if they have their own PsiSense and ConterPsi and other disciplines and sciences sharing no common format or mechanics with spells.  In the former case, Detect Magic just becomes Detect Psionics when the 'different' switch is thrown.

The sad part is that AL will need to either not use Psionics as part of the standard game, or come down on one side or the other.  All three are unsatisfying alternatives.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Agreed. This is where I've come to the conclusion that I just think WotC botched the sorcerer design by making it explicitly "naturally magic". You could say that the sorcerer is born to arcane magic. Whatever the cause, it leaves the sorcerer with some sort of glossolalia for the language of wizards. The magic is in them and _demands_ to be released in the form of spells. The first wizards may have learned spells by watching sorcerers and taking notes. Maybe it's Mystra's way of offering her gift. Maybe the blood of dragons carries the knowledge genetically. Who knows? Sorcerers aren't just magic, they're natural wizards.
> 
> Psions, on the other hand, have true, raw, inborn power. They shape it into forms of their own making. Sure, there might be some laws that need to be followed (to keep the rules from becoming Mage: the Awakening), but there are no "spells". To a psion, the sorcerer is just a pretender -- they appear to be born to magic, but the truth is that they're just playing host to something they don't really control. This works regardless of whether or not you want "psionics are different"; just minor tweaks to the fluff.




Personally, I think the sorcerer narrative is a bit win for 5e in part because it does away with the obtuse "arcane magic" jargon that doesn't make much sense from an outside perspective (and the fact that the little sidebar on the weave reintroduces that jargon is just another reason to really dislike that little sidebar). "I was born with awesome abilities" vs. "I learned awesome abilities" is totally a thing that even someone brand new to D&D can grok pretty easily.

I think the psion needs that, too. It doesn't need to abandon the idea of internal, self-directed power, but it needs to liberate its view of that from the sorcerer's "My ability comes from _me_" vibe. And that's where this connects to the fiction that Mearls was talking about - the narrative of the Far Realm distinguishes that, even if it might not be the direction we want to go in 5e.



			
				bogmad said:
			
		

> The only meaty distinction to make is whether or not "Psionics is different."




I agree - which is why I dipped into discussing spellcasting mechanics vs. other kinds of magic. I think there's a few good ideas about how psionics can be different, mechanically. Narratively, we might need a bit of something extra to make them different from sorcery.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Dang...all my quotes disappeared and didn't make it to this post. I'll just summarize points I made.
> 
> ...stuff...
> 
> Because of the precedent of ki and the difficulty of explaining the source of psionics in model #1 without going sci-fi or Far Realm, I favor Psionic Model #2.



I agree with most of what you say, here. Any quibbles I have aren't worth exploring. Most of the middle of you post is very much in line with what I said, earlier, about why trying to nail down the in-game "how" of D&D magic is a fool's errand. It's a rules structure, first, and a reflection of the narrative fiction, second.

Specific example from my campaign setting, which started in 1E: Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are all different.

Wizards are actually doing the whole spell thing. Not much more really needs said.

Clerics don't cast spells. They petition their gods for intervention and miracles. Based on explicit passages in 1E AD&D, the god (or his agents) give a general indication of the type of aide they'll provide that day, but they're free to change it up, at time of casting because, well, divine choice. Since most of the favors being offered will be done by intermediaries or raw faith, the contract is generally followed. When the cleric "casts" her spell, it isn't a chunk of Weave that's set off; it's actual intervention of an angel or some lesser agent -- in the case of the highest level spells, it might actually be the god, but there are only a few clerics in the world capable of those.

Druids are animists (this is home brew, but totally within flavor of RAW up to 5E). They don't deal with gods. They deal with the spirits of the world. If you follow a god, you're a cleric, not a druid. Clear, yet? Druids don't use spells in the wizardly fashion, either, though. Instead, they spend their prep time communing with the anima and striking bargains for future favors. These favors get transferred to local spirits wherever the druid decides to call on them. Again, no weave. Just anima performing acts for the druid.

Why does _dispel magic_ work across sources? Shut up! It's a game and done for balance. Maybe the same disruptive energies shock the anima or there's an ancient agreement that intervention must have limits to avoid a direct war among the gods. I don't really care because the above descriptions of wizard, cleric, and druid are more detailed than any player in 30+ years of play has ever wanted. If I ever find one that does care, I'll worry about it, then.

As a bonus, psions are inherently magic. They pretty much work with the same energy as the wizards because, honestly, I didn't see any point in having two different pockets of random energy floating around to be shaped. That's not the important part of psionics. The important part is that these folks are self-powered -- at least enough that they can give a healthy shove to "the force/the weave/Sven". They don't need the rote methodology of the wizard, but they aren't dependent upon the gods or anima, either. They want something to happen and it does. What does that say about their humanity -- or the divinity of the so-called gods? Sure, wild talents may not have the breadth or depth of a celestial or god, but the fact is that someone who really pushes it can practically use his own bootstraps to become a demigod. What if that's only the surface of the secrets out there?

In practice, most people who play psionics do so either because a) they want to focus on some other class, but want a single cool power or b) like magic, like D&D, but don't care for the pain of slots. All the other conversation is somewhat moot to most folks. In fact, I'm not sure that 5E doesn't handle both these cases out of the PHB with a combination of Magic Initiate and either Warlock or the refined preparation rules for other casters. Everything else is a victim of the 80/20 rule.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> *It cannot unless WotC publishes it.* Spamming it at us won't make it official, and official is what's needed for organized play, and what will be standard for many people's home games.
> 
> I've not allowed 3rd party add-ons in my D&D gaming since about 1983... not even the dragon published classes. Not since the abuses we monty-hauled with the time traveller class.




WotC already doesn't allow UA material with OP, and I doubt we'll see a psion (of any type) before it appears in UA, playtests for a while, gets feedback, and then... whatever it does last (we haven't gotten to that step yet). 

Either way, we have a while before we get anything official, and perhaps WotC will just save time and use mine. They have my permission. 



GobiWon said:


> Your post might be hyperbole, but if psionic bloodline sorcerer is all they are going to do. I'd rather WotC not do anything with psionics. I agree. It would feel underwhelming.




Somebody rolled a 20 on their Intelligence Save. Good job! 



steeldragons said:


> Who/which "guys win" with this option? Was my presentation re-inventing wheels or bloating the system? I was really hoping it didn't....I mean, any moreso than adding any other new class and subclasses would.
> 
> Granted, I've not been paying especially close attention to the back-and-forth of the past several pages of this thread, but I was under the impression you, at least, Remathilis, were interested in them being "different" from magic-users...without, necessarily, being linked to any particular origin story.




I was. I'm apparently among the minority. It appears there is a very vocal group that think psionics is magic, powers are spells, psions are sorcerers, strength is weakness, and day is night, that I've stopped arguing. I they want a psion that obeys the rules of magic, subclasses, and the like, this is what that will look like. That is the dead simplest psionics system they can do.

Now, for those of us who want something more complex, feels more like psionics of old, and uses a different system to differentiate from magic, I hope WotC is paying attention and delivers.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> While you could say that clerics and warlocks have the same story, it's important to note that 5e D&D *does not say that*. They present two distinct and different stories.
> 
> The story of the cleric might be said to be "My loyalty to a being greater than myself is rewarded with powers that advance both of our interests."
> 
> ...



 Makes sense to me.

Also, the story of the Monk is different from the story of the Sorcerer, even though both might use innate points to power Fire spells from the Wizard's list.

So, how do these sound:

The *Monk* uses physical and spiritual training to learn magical techniques.

The *Sorcerer* gains innate power through having a powerful ancestor.

The *Psion* has a unique understanding of the nature of (energy, thoughts, flesh, time & space, matter, or information), and this enlightenment allows the psion to shape the world.

The *Ardent* has explored a philosophy and discovered the secret ways in which that philosophy influences the universe.

The *Erudite* has a flexible mind, but not a strong one, which can mimic the thought-patterns of others easily, but has difficulty snapping out of those patterns after using them. Could be a selfless seeker of knowledge or a two-faced charlatan.


Hmm, the *Psychic Warrior* still needs a story which doesn't overlap the Monk. Can't just combine enlightenment with physical training. Hmm.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> It appears there is a very vocal group that think psionics is magic,



 Yep.



Remathilis said:


> powers are spells,



 Nope, but powers using spell-slots is fine.



Remathilis said:


> psions are sorcerers,



 Nope, sorry. You fail at reading comprehension.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think 3.5 had the best take, which was to present the psionics is magic/different choice to the DM and let him decide.  'Baking in' either option would at least annoy some sub-set of fans of D&D psionics, and that's at odds with the 5e philosophy of inclusiveness (not that 5e has been or can be expected to be perfectly inclusive, but it's nice to stick to it as much as possible).



Agreed. This thread makes it pretty clear that you'd alienate half of the people who actually care by making either choice firm. I also agree with your follow-up logic. Even if "psionics are different/same" is moved to a sidebar, whatever AL does is likely to be the de facto "rules as intended".



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Personally, I think the sorcerer narrative is a bit win for 5e in part because it does away with the obtuse "arcane magic" jargon that doesn't make much sense from an outside perspective (and the fact that the little sidebar on the weave reintroduces that jargon is just another reason to really dislike that little sidebar). "I was born with awesome abilities" vs. "I learned awesome abilities" is totally a thing that even someone brand new to D&D can grok pretty easily.
> 
> I think the psion needs that, too. It doesn't need to abandon the idea of internal, self-directed power, but it needs to liberate its view of that from the sorcerer's "My ability comes from _me_" vibe. And that's where this connects to the fiction that Mearls was talking about - the narrative of the Far Realm distinguishes that, even if it might not be the direction we want to go in 5e.



I actually don't mind the sorcerer flavor in 5E (well, except the wild mage, which I don't like in any form). I just think it's odd that they're actually born with spells. It seems odd that someone would have an inherent knowledge of the right words in a foreign language, where to put their hands, and what to be holding. You can make the case that sorcerers are containers for the magic but still need to figure out/learn the trappings to channel it. That opens the door to the idea that they could learn a different way of channeling their born power, which would look a lot like a psion sub-class for sorcerer.

Glomming onto something like the Far Realm just to underscore "I'm not a sorcerer" is a very bad idea, IMO. It's artificial and bakes in flavor where you really don't need it. If you grant that the psion has innate power (seems solid) and that power is not entirely dissimilar to other magic (bone of contention, but play along), there really isn't much separating it from sorcerer, thematically, unless you add more fluff on top of the class. A Far Realms sorcerer could serve the "touched by non-patron madness" just as well, mechanically, as building out a 96 page hard-cover.

That 96 page hard-cover is my benchmark because that's the size of "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" which seems like the smallest delivery that would make the whole exercise worthwhile. I'd take something bigger, sure. If it's a set of _Unearthed Arcana_ posts, though, we aren't going to see anything more involved than a reskinned sorcerer.

If you're correct, and the question Mike's asking is whether or not the psion should be considered self-powered or external, then I fall emphatically on the side of self-powered. I think the rules could be written somewhat neutral on the topic, but I see no external source that could be married to the psion and leave it usable to me (or even recognizable, for that matter). Likewise, I think the rules could be neutral on the question of "psionics is different", but that would require some contortions to keep it balanced (including not underpowered) in both styles. If the decision was inescapable, I'd come down on the side of "psionics are the same", but that's just a vote for what I'd find more useful.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Makes sense to me.
> 
> Also, the story of the Monk is different from the story of the Sorcerer, even though both might use innate points to power Fire spells from the Wizard's list.
> 
> ...




I like them, at least as starting points. A pretty significant point, though: sorcerers aren't dependent on an ancestor in 5e - draconic is perhaps based on ancestry, but wild magic might "just happen" and being a favored soul is like something a god does _to you_. Sorcery in 5e is innate to you, but it just comes from your "magical origin."

A psion, in this comparison, wouldn't have a magical origin - they'd have some sort of awakening or vision that allowed them to access psionics.

I _really_ like that. Even the "divine" classes don't milk that story of "sudden revelation" well and it fits nicely with the semi-Buddhist 3e fluff pretty nicely. The closest is the Favored Soul, but even that is more about a god than about your own realization of the world. I also like it because it's distinctly medieval in flavor, just not _European-medieval_, which means we don't have to traffic in the science-y terms. We can loot the language of Buddhism and yoga and Himalayan spiritualism and that creates a place for psionics in the campaign world. And you can still work in bits of Far Realm or crystals or pulpy science stuff at the edges if you wanted to. 

I'd groove on a psion that was pseudo-Tibetan in flavor with a skill-based roll-to-activate powers system that had points that you could spend to ramp up or sustain a given power.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

[MENTION=22953]SteelDragon[/MENTION]

The essence of psionics is to emphasize mental power. So, the requirement of physical toughness is counterproductive.

Eliminate dependence on the Constitution ability.

Instead, use willpower - Wisdom (balance) or Charisma (force) - to maintain Concentration under stress.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> In practice, most people who play psionics do so either because a) they want to focus on some other class, but want a single cool power or b) like magic, like D&D, but don't care for the pain of slots. All the other conversation is somewhat moot to most folks. In fact, I'm not sure that 5E doesn't handle both these cases out of the PHB with a combination of Magic Initiate and either Warlock or the refined preparation rules for other casters. Everything else is a victim of the 80/20 rule.




It keeps getting said over and over again "I think think people play psionics for this reason and the rest is moot" as if that's a reason to go the easy route and do the minimum work for this perceived anecdotal "majority." What I want may or may not be part of the minority, but I think that if I get what I want where "psionics is different" (whether magic or not), then it also meets the criteria of the "most people" who only play it for the 2 reasons you list above.  You and I presumably have more specific views on psionics than "most people." I'd go on a limb to say most posters in this thread are in the minority of people who have as strong of an opinion on the subject.

Before we start invoking the 80/20 rule to support our argument I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence, such as a real playtest and survey. If everyone hates psionics that interact differently than base spellcasting mechanics I'll concede some, but I'd like to see a system than can leave the "is psionics magic" debate up to the fluff (unlike 3e, which required a choice between base or alternate rules) and just have psionics be different like it was in 2e (which most of the hardline psionics fans tend to prefer).  

If you're going to playtest it you might as well figure out what kind of psionics people prefer.  I'll concede that what I want requires more design work and playtesting to get right, so we might as well start with trying that out and deciding if people like it or not.  

[Though I could see it coming in an UA article next month with a subclass such as we got with the artificer and determining whether that is "good enough," I'm hoping the artificer response was enough for them to try something different.]


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

This is an appealing conceptualization of magic/psionics.



fuindordm said:


> In many literary and real-world magical traditions, having "talent" is a prerequisite to learning ritual magic. People with the potential to become wizards (spellcasters close to the D&D archetype) are born with at least one natural ability, which more often than not we would recognize as psionic: prophetic dreams, second sight, aura reading, minor telekinesis, etc.  So I think it's perfectly all right to say that wizards learn to use their innate gifts to connect with and manipulate external sources of power (the Weave, pseudo-sentient arcane spirits, or whatever), while psions build upon their innate gifts as much as possible--eventually unlocking and expanding on more categories of psionic talent.  This implies *some transparency between powers and spells*, which I think is OK.  It also implies that all *cantrips are basically innate psionic talents*, which I also think is OK.
> 
> ...
> 
> Returning to the subject of magic/psi transparency, it makes perfect sense to me that *psions can detect magic and wizards can detect psionics*, and that the supernatural signatures of the two effects are similar enough for one spell/power can do the job.  (Detect Magic: detect any supernatural effect. You can measure the strength of the aura. If the effect is from a tradition in which you have class levels, you can also attempt to identify the specific spell or power.)  Similarly, if makes sense to me that a spell/power designed to end supernatural effects can work on either. (Dispel Magic: dispel any supernatural effect. If the effect is from a magical tradition in which you have class levels, the dispel works automatically for levels <= the level of the slot used to cast Dispel Magic. If the effect is from a different tradition, make a caster level check against DC 10+spell level.)  And frankly, I think that's enough--any other kind of transparency is very situational and can be ruled based on the spell/power descriptions. For example, a nomad psion might have a power similar to banishment, that works on summoned demons.  A wizard casting detect thoughts would be foiled by a psion with Thought Shield, and so on. *No special rules needed.*




Psionics and Arcane are fundamentally identical but diverge during training and techniques.

On an other topic the post brought up. Bodily transformation and other psychosomatic effects are necessary for a number of psionic concepts. Not all psionic characters should do this, but some should.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

A convenience of dividing the psionic power list into different disciplines is, the DM can easily ban a discipline that makes less sense in a particular setting.

For example, I would normally ban the ‘psionic necromancy’ discipline. However, someone running a Pathfinder-Occult-style setting, might want to use this necromancy discipline for a concept resembling the Spiritualist class.


I want any psionic character to choose two or three disciplines to define their character concept. The number of disciplines depends on how many powers are in that discipline to choose among. Customizability is vital. Maybe the character can use powers from other disciplines as well, but I prefer if they only use the powers from them that are at a lower level than the ones that they are using in their chosen disciplines.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Hmm, the *Psychic Warrior* still needs a story which doesn't overlap the Monk. Can't just combine enlightenment with physical training. Hmm.




This has been suggested and answered many times (in this thread alone) already.

Just as you can have a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock class, and all of their subclasses, using arcane magic_ and_ then have Eldritch Knights & Arcane Tricksters that also use arcane magic but are subclasses of other fields, it should/would be/is trivially easy to justify, "Here's a Psychic Class, with their sub-class archetypes, using psionic powers...*and* here's a Psychic Warrior subclass, that also uses psionic powers, but is a subclass of the Fighter instead of the psion/psychic class."


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> The *Ardent* has explored a philosophy and discovered the secret ways in which that philosophy influences the universe.




What distinguishes this from a philosophy cleric?


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

Admittedly, 3e psionics conceived the Psychic Warrior as a half-caster. But I prefer the concept to be a full-caster, in the same way that the 4e Swordmage is. In other words, the melee weapon attacks are fully psionic effects.

I like the nickname Psywar.

Regarding story, the Psywar has worked well with the flavor of magical Berserkers and Valkyries. The Berserker embraces the savage impulses, while the Valkyrie is more civilized with the flavor of inescapable fate.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> [MENTION=22953]SteelDragon[/MENTION]
> 
> The essence of psionics is to emphasize mental power. So, the requirement of physical toughness is counterproductive.
> 
> ...




The point is they are not physically tough, hence the danger and risk of using the mechanic...and doing potentially serious harm to one's body....which is, I think it safe to say, something of a trope of many psychic characters, pushing themselves beyond their "normal" limits and "exhausting" themselves, not just mentally, but being physically weakened or compromised by doing so.

But I appreciate the suggestion and agree, in all other ways, the psychic is about using the mind.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

Heh, I would call the Valkyrie a ‘Valkyr’ to avoid genderizing the archetype.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> But I appreciate the suggestion and agree, in all other ways, the psychic is about using the mind.




That Constitution mechanic guarantees most players will build their psionic character with extremely high Constitution.

Virtually every psionic player character will defacto be an Olympic level triathalon athlete.

This Constitution mechanic causes anti-psionic flavor.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> This is an appealing conceptualization of magic/psionics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You're right, that is a matter of personal taste. I like psychometabolism in my psionics, but not gross physical transformations like polymorph.


----------



## fuindordm (Jun 22, 2015)

Regarding ability score dependence:

I would like the ability score driving powers to be intelligence, because we need more classes that are dependent on intelligence and because traditionally genius-level intelligence is something D&D associates with psionics (both characters and monsters).

I also like the 2E interpretation where different disciplines are driven by different ability scores, but I don't want too much MAD in the class either.  So I'd suggest making Intelligence the primary and having certain signature abilities in the different disciplines/specializations key off of different secondaries.

This is analgous to Wis-->spellcasting and Cha-->channeling for clerics.

For example:

Psychometabolism, Nomad -- Con (disciplines very difficult on the body)
Telepathy, Clairsentience -- Wis (perception and willpower very important)
Metacreativity, Telekinesis -- Cha (imposing your will on the physical world takes Cha, similar to Sorcerer)

But I agree with Yaarel that not all psions should be healthy as horses--there's an important archetype of the frail monk/psion.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 22, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Old habits. I'm sure you don't need the history lesson, but... It used to be that only clerics could heal -- wizards were all but explicitly barred from it in BECMI and 1E. The Bard has slowly pushed his way in, but I think there's a fear that if too many folks gain healing, the cleric might actually have to rely on his priestly shtick, rather than buff-and-heal.
> 
> Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. One the one hand, it's an arbitrary divide and potentially forces someone into playing a character they really don't want, in the name of "greater good". On the other, most of the divine/arcane(/psionic) divide in D&D is pretty arbitrary, so why not allow people to mark territory and/or have to make trade-offs?



IMO, the divine/arcane divide is useless. Having _class_-based distinctions is of course useful, but not saying "this set of classes won't get effect X, and that set won't get effect Y."

Further, one of my main problems with D&D over the last 15 or so years has been that probably the most necessary cornerstone of a party, the healer, is the one with the strongest fluff restriction, that of divine worship. I mean, in most 3e parties, you can get by fairly well with a paladin, barbarian, or maybe a ranger instead of a fighter, and a sorcerer can fulfill most of the stuff you want a wizard to do. But the druid makes a very poor substitute for a cleric, because they can't swap out spells to heal, and they get delayed access to most healing spells (other than _neutralize poison_), or no access at all to relief for some conditions (blindness, fear, paralysis).

One of the things I actually liked about 4e was that it made a cleric-less party possible, by providing significant self-powered healing as well as one other core class with in-combat healing (the Warlord, with more classes coming later), plus moving condition relief to rituals which were technically available to anyone. 5e also makes cleric-less parties possible by putting bards and druids on mostly equal footing with non-Life clerics - condensing healing spells into _cure wounds_, _lesser restoration_, and _greater restoration_ (there are some others like _healing word_​, but those three are what I'd consider to be the basic "healing kit"), and letting all three classes have access to them (and not requiring bards or possible future limited-selection casters to spend half their selection on _remove fear_, _remove paralysis_, _remove blindness/deafness_, _remove disease_, _neutralize poison_, and so on).

Ehrm, I guess that moved into a tangent. Anyway, suffice to say that I don't mind psions getting access to healing that rivals a cleric's one bit.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 22, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> That Constitution mechanic guarantees most players will build their psionic character with extremely high Constitution.
> 
> Virtually every psionic player character will defacto be an Olympic level triathalon athlete.
> 
> This Constitution mechanic causes anti-psionic flavor.




Well that goes to, I suppose, how one defines their Constitution. Con., to my understanding, is not your "strength" but you "endurance." A person can be "tough" internally, and I have known a few, without necessarily being as "strong" as an athlete.

Min-maxers/optimizers/abusers will always choose to do the things that -to them are "fun"- make the game less challenging. That is their choice and I have firmly believed that, while one should look to close gross loopholes and avoid obvious balance problems, one can not design for every/any possible corner case contingency of what some powergamers might [will probably] do. The fact that some psionic characters will go that route is inevitable. IF we based it on Wis. or Cha., those same players would have characters with pumped up Wis. or Cha.

...and you'd have players who want their psionic characters to be [and/or think psionic PCs should be] "tougher/stand their own" in a fight, using their powers or not, whin-er-um-complaining about what "glass canons" the psion class is.

I don't want them all to be physically muscular/Str., I don't want them all to be automatically agile/reflexive/Dex...but they can all be "tough"/have a high tolerance for enduring physical discomfort/hardship.

EDIT to further add: AND, as a final defense  if the mechanic is to be tied to/effect levels of Exhaustion [that could conceivably lead to death], then Con. makes complete sense.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

@_*SteelDragons*_

Traditionally:

PHYSICAL = Strength, Dexterity, Constitution
MENTAL = Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma

These abilities seem problematic enough.

Heh, the clearer we can distinguish them, the less arguments future D&D players will have.



I can see how the ‘nosebleed’ trope for psionics might appeal to others. Personally, it appeals less to me. Maybe there is an option to use a different mechanic for it?

It occurs to me, the psionic Overchannel feat, also the Wilder class with its ‘Wild Surge’ feature, are perfect candidates for a mechanic to represent the nosebleed trope.



 @_*FuindorDM*_

I agree, ‘psychometabolism’ (transmutation) causes bodily stress, can interact with the Constitution ability, and flavor-wise psychometabolists tend to be healthy as horses. They dont lift weights, nor do endurance training, but they psionically enhance their muscles to get buffed, and habitually endure physical stress.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2015)

Perhaps the simplest solution is make the power dictate the manifesting stat.  Psychometabolic powers depend on Con, telepathic ones rely on Int, Psychoperceptive abilities rely on Wis, or some such.

...but I still think a Fatigue mechanic models very well the way pistons are commonly limited in the fiction.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Perhaps the simplest solution is make the power dictate the manifesting stat.  Psychometabolic powers depend on Con, telepathic ones rely on Int, Psychoperceptive abilities rely on Wis, or some such.
> 
> ...but I still think a Fatigue mechanic models very well the way pistons are commonly limited in the fiction.




3.0 tried that. It made the original psion MAD and lead to some weird moments (like "The frost giant flexes, make a Will save"). 

3.5 returned stat by manifester than discipline.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Yep.
> 
> Nope, but powers using spell-slots is fine.
> 
> Nope, sorry. You fail at reading comprehension.




You aren't the only one who I'm referring to. Go back to page 30 and start reading Tony, Yaarel, and Hussar's posts. We'll wait until you catch up.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 22, 2015)

4e has the design format that a class has one ability. Then each archetype within the class has its own second ability.

Often the second ability adds a benefit to a power in the form of a ‘rider’.

The format of two abilities works well for ensuring both commonality of the overall class, plus distinctiveness of each archetype within the class.

Can this work for the Psion class?


----------



## Mercule (Jun 22, 2015)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> What distinguishes this from a philosophy cleric?



Only one of them is playable in my campaign. If you want to play a cleric, step 1 is "select a deity or pantheon". There are no exceptions to that in any game I run. Animists are druids. People who manifest powers by force of will and/or meditative training are psions.

Yes, it's arbitrary.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I like them, at least as starting points. A pretty significant point, though: sorcerers aren't dependent on an ancestor in 5e - draconic is perhaps based on ancestry, but wild magic might "just happen" and being a favored soul is like something a god does _to you_. Sorcery in 5e is innate to you, but it just comes from your "magical origin."



 Well, if you demand that every new class gets a unique story, then I'm going to counter-demand that every existing class has a coherent story. We can innovate around stable restrictions, but it's pretty much impossible to innovate around "LOL I DUNNO".



Kamikaze Midget said:


> A psion, in this comparison, wouldn't have a magical origin - they'd have some sort of awakening or vision that allowed them to access psionics.
> 
> I _really_ like that. Even the "divine" classes don't milk that story of "sudden revelation" well and it fits nicely with the semi-Buddhist 3e fluff pretty nicely. The closest is the Favored Soul, but even that is more about a god than about your own realization of the world.



 Heh. Honestly I could fluff a bunch of classes from an origin of "divine revelation". Like, an Angel of the Lord comes down and takes you back-stage for whatever reason. Your reaction determines your class.
- "Woah, I didn't realize how great God was." -> Cleric
- "I asked the Angel for a kiss." -> Favored Soul
- "I noticed some interesting things when we transitioned between the spheres. I bet I can figure out the _technique_ for doing that." -> Wizard
- "The Angel showed me, and I _understood_." -> Psion
(etc.)



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I also like it because it's distinctly medieval in flavor, just not _European-medieval_, which means we don't have to traffic in the science-y terms. We can loot the language of Buddhism and yoga and Himalayan spiritualism and that creates a place for psionics in the campaign world. And you can still work in bits of Far Realm or crystals or pulpy science stuff at the edges if you wanted to.



 The crystal stuff can work exactly like a Wizard's staff or whatever -- tools which you use for the same reason every tool-user uses tools, but which aren't inherently magical except that you put magic into them.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd groove on a psion that was pseudo-Tibetan in flavor with a skill-based roll-to-activate powers system that had points that you could spend to ramp up or sustain a given power.



 Yuck. Roll-to-activate means everything has SR, and SR is painful.

IMHO the way to go is 3.5e Augmentation mechanics, except with spell slots instead of power points, and with a bunch of decent cantrip-level effects.



Twiggly the Gnome said:


> What distinguishes this from a philosophy cleric?



*Worship*.

An Ardent saw the power of philosophy and tried to comprehend it.

A Cleric saw the power of philosophy and got down on his knees.



Remathilis said:


> You aren't the only one who I'm referring to. Go back to page 30



 It took you until page 54 to answer people from page 30, none of whom seem to be talking to you right now.

That's ... special. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well, if you demand that every new class gets a unique story, then I'm going to counter-demand that every existing class has a coherent story. We can innovate around stable restrictions, but it's pretty much impossible to innovate around "LOL I DUNNO".




I think the sorcerer story is pretty coherent - magical origin is distinct from "I learn how to do magic" (wizards) or "I steal magic from otherworldly creatures" (warlock) or "Gods give me magic" (cleric) or "My conviction gives me magic" (paladin). 



Nifft said:


> Yuck. Roll-to-activate means everything has SR, and SR is painful.
> 
> IMHO the way to go is 3.5e Augmentation mechanics, except with spell slots instead of power points, and with a bunch of decent cantrip-level effects.




Sounds a bit like a perhaps-niche use of metamagic, and then we're kind of back to sorcerer subclass territory. 

Not that I'd have a problem with that, but a lot of folks would.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> 3.0 tried that. It made the original psion MAD and lead to some weird moments (like "The frost giant flexes, make a Will save").
> 
> 3.5 returned stat by manifester than discipline.




More accurately, 3Ed made your amount of PSP dependent on your Con.  A Fatigue mechanic is different.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think the sorcerer story is pretty coherent



 Okay, can you say what it is then? I thought it was having an ancestor, but you say that's wrong, and all I'm seeing by way of explanation is "not like other classes".



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sounds a bit like a perhaps-niche use of metamagic, and then we're kind of back to sorcerer subclass territory.



 Perhaps I miscommunicated.

All the major 5e spellcasters use spell-slots like a 3.5e Psion used augmentation.

Psions can do the same, because augmentation was originally a Psionic thing.

It's not specifically like Metamagic.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> It took you until page 54 to answer people from page 30, none of whom seem to be talking to you right now.
> 
> That's ... special. Thanks for sharing.




I've been debating the same issues for 20 pages, Jonny-come-lately.

Since you haven't added anything to this discussion that hasn't been said before (except snark), welcome to the block list.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I've been debating the same issues for 20 pages, Jonny-come-lately.
> 
> Since you haven't added anything to this discussion that hasn't been said before (except snark), welcome to the block list.



 You like the conversation from page 30, and you want to keep having that conversation.

You don't like the conversation which is going on now, so you're insulting new people for not being in the older conversation.

Is this... an edition war? About the edition of the thread?



It's mildly unfortunate that you'll never see this post, nor the humor in how very meta your objections have become. Oh well. The humor shall persist, for others to enjoy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 22, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Okay, can you say what it is then? I thought it was having an ancestor, but you say that's wrong, and all I'm seeing by way of explanation is "not like other classes".




Magical origin. "Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces." / "The most important question to consider when creating your sorcerer is the origin of your power." PHB mentions the demon's touch, the blessing of a dryad at birth, or the taste of water from a mysterious spring, a gift from the deity of magic, exposure to the Inner Planes or Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality. Favored soul is "fundamentally changed by the touch of his or her deity, which awakens powerful magical abilities."

Wizards learn to be magical. Warlocks barter to be magical. Cleircs pray to be magical. Paladins are devoted, and thus tap magic. Druids and rangers know magical secrets of the natural world. A sorcerer is different because sorcery isn't knowledge, it's nature. 



> Perhaps I miscommunicated.
> 
> All the major 5e spellcasters use spell-slots like a 3.5e Psion used augmentation.
> 
> ...




I follow you there.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> You aren't the only one who I'm referring to. Go back to page 30 and start reading Tony, Yaarel, and Hussar's posts. We'll wait until you catch up.




Sorry, you're still failing reading comprehension.

I repeatedly stated that there might be more than one way to skin the cat.  Heck, i believe I posted a pretty lengthy addendum to your own list that was, on its face, pretty complex.  OTOH, I think that flat out refusing to even consider a simple psion, such as what you posted, is a big mistake.  Why does everyone who wants to play a Psion have to learn an entire BOOK of mechanics - a la the 2e Psionics Handbook?  No other class comes even close to that level of complexity.  Why can't we have both?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, you're still failing reading comprehension.
> 
> I repeatedly stated that there might be more than one way to skin the cat.  Heck, i believe I posted a pretty lengthy addendum to your own list that was, on its face, pretty complex.  OTOH, I think that flat out refusing to even consider a simple psion, such as what you posted, is a big mistake.  Why does everyone who wants to play a Psion have to learn an entire BOOK of mechanics - a la the 2e Psionics Handbook?  No other class comes even close to that level of complexity.  Why can't we have both?



Where is the alternative spellcasting mechanics that don't use finite spell (slot/points) per day? Where is the ADEU like martial classes? Why should psionics have to cater to multiple methods of activation? 

I'd rather WotC do one system and do it right than try to make psionics work using spell slots, power points, and ability checks or have redundant subclasses and core classes. Psionics didn't need to be a toothpaste, floor cleaner and dessert topping.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 23, 2015)

Nifft said:


> An Ardent saw the power of philosophy and tried to comprehend it.
> 
> A Cleric saw the power of philosophy and got down on his knees.




So, evidentialist vs presuppositionalist. Probably not the way i'd go, but I can see the merit in that approach.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, you're still failing reading comprehension.
> 
> I repeatedly stated that there might be more than one way to skin the cat.  Heck, i believe I posted a pretty lengthy addendum to your own list that was, on its face, pretty complex.  OTOH, I think that flat out refusing to even consider a simple psion, such as what you posted, is a big mistake.  Why does everyone who wants to play a Psion have to learn an entire BOOK of mechanics - a la the 2e Psionics Handbook?  No other class comes even close to that level of complexity.  Why can't we have both?




I'd say sure, we can have both, but your argument seems to be that we go with only the one simple sorcerer subclass like Remalthis detailed and leave it at that.  If you're saying to try it both ways, then my apologies.

No need it need be as complicated as the 2e psionicist handbook since 5e is set up to be a simpler system overall than 2e, but there's a big difference between doing something as simple as an uninspired sorcerer subclass or general spellcasting class, and going so far as to be as complicated and complex as the 2e Psionics Handbook.  Looking through the forums it looks like a lot of people _do actually want_ a psionics sourcebook for 5e.  I'd like one myself, but rather than something as complicated as 2e I'd like to see a relatively simple and new mechanic (sure, _influenced by 2e_) and sure different and possibly more complicated than spellcasting, but not overly so.  If that's something that doesn't make sense to release a sourcebook for, then fine I'm totally ok with a players guide that's around the same wordcount we got for elemental evil.

If anything, Remalthis and everyone elses homebrew subclass just proves how easy it is for you to have your way with psionics. I haven't rejected to consider anything; I _have_ considered a simple psion, and determined it doesn't work for what I want. Why should I be forced into _only _ considering that instead of advocating for the psion I want?  Even if I get what I want, what you want is very easily accomplished.  

What I want ruins what you want in your game? Then it's an optional module that you don't have to use! Easily fixed. Worst case you have to say no to annoying players like myself and perhaps stomach it for a storyline in organized play if that's something you do.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 23, 2015)

the main concern, is don't build it broken, as 2e could be. 
But that's a no brainer


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 23, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Perhaps the simplest solution is make the power dictate the manifesting stat.  Psychometabolic powers depend on Con, telepathic ones rely on Int, Psychoperceptive abilities rely on Wis, or some such.
> 
> ...but I still think a Fatigue mechanic models very well the way pistons are commonly limited in the fiction.




I was starting a writeup doing this. 

But I just cant decide what route to take.  My 2e conversion notes also look good.  (where the powers vary by stat)


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 23, 2015)

I am also looking at making the mechanics of anything I design complement the monk, and the abilities listed in the MM for gith and mind flayers, for consistencies sake.

Lots of INT saves there....hmmmmm.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Where is the alternative spellcasting mechanics that don't use finite spell (slot/points) per day? Where is the ADEU like martial classes? Why should psionics have to cater to multiple methods of activation?



 Well, if you want to reason from what we already have, the obvious inference is that psionics would use something close to the existing magic sub-systems:  spells, slots, perhaps points.  If, indeed, the 5e design philosophy were to go as far afield as a psionics sub-system completely independent of spells, it'd've also had more varied spellcasting sub-systems, AEDU like options, and the like.  It doesn't, it's a little more efficient with it's design resources, that way.

Hopefully, that reasoning is faulty and WotC will see it's way to give Psionics a more lavish treatment, preferably in it's own dedicated splatbook, with lots of options so each DM can introduce the psionics that resonates best with their group.  But, if WotC were to just give us a psion-as-sorcerer-sub-class in an UA, or as a free player supplement to some future Dark Sun adventure product, that wouldn't be a tragedy: it'd be better than nothing, and could still be a starting point for future development.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Hopefully, that reasoning is faulty and WotC will see it's way to give Psionics a more lavish treatment, preferably in it's own dedicated splatbook, with lots of options so each DM can introduce the psionics that resonates best with their group.  But, if WotC were to just give us a psion-as-sorcerer-sub-class in an UA, or as a free player supplement to some future Dark Sun adventure product, that wouldn't be a tragedy: it'd be better than nothing, and could still be a starting point for future development.




I guess, but I'd rather WotC wait and give us the first class treatment and take their time then slap-dash something like I did in a UA and claim psionics is covered. Hopefully, WotC learned its lesson from the Wizardficer they put in the first UA and decide its better than do it right the first time.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 23, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Magical origin. "Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces." / "The most important question to consider when creating your sorcerer is the origin of your power." PHB mentions the demon's touch, the blessing of a dryad at birth, or the taste of water from a mysterious spring, a gift from the deity of magic, exposure to the Inner Planes or Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality. Favored soul is "fundamentally changed by the touch of his or her deity, which awakens powerful magical abilities."
> 
> Wizards learn to be magical. Warlocks barter to be magical. Cleircs pray to be magical. Paladins are devoted, and thus tap magic. Druids and rangers know magical secrets of the natural world. A sorcerer is different because sorcery isn't knowledge, it's nature.



 What I think you're saying is that Sorcerers are somehow *physically* magical, that they have magic in their *flesh*.

Ancestor = bloodline = flesh.
"Exposure" = "radiation infusion" = flesh.
Demon touching you inappropriately = flesh.
Tasting water = industrial pollution = flesh.

So, that would give room for the Psion to be inherently powerful, but not because of flesh.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 23, 2015)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> So, evidentialist vs presuppositionalist. Probably not the way i'd go, but I can see the merit in that approach.



 That's an overstatement.

There's no evidence that the Cleric of one god must shout down, despise, and claim all other gods as illegitimate.

It's more like, two guys see a great idea.

Both of them say, "Wow! What a great idea!"

Then one guy says, "I'm going to venerate that great idea, because it is GREAT."

The other guy says, "I'm going to think about that great idea, because it is an IDEA."

Neither of them denounces or declares as illegitimate the other, but both of them focus on a different aspect of the whole.



Tony Vargas said:


> Hopefully, that reasoning is faulty and WotC will see it's way to give Psionics a more lavish treatment, preferably in it's own dedicated splatbook, with lots of options so each DM can introduce the psionics that resonates best with their group.



 IMHO the main selling point for Psions to use spell-slots is that it would allow nice multi-classing with the core classes.

The other selling point would be that Psions would be easier to introduce to new players, and I like new players being able to use the things that I want to use in my games, which includes Psionics.

If they only give me a Sorcerer subclass, well, I can just do a decent homebrew and make rude faces at WotC on the internet.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 23, 2015)

Intelligence should be the primary stat. Constitution should be the secondary. Constitution would be secondary because it would come into play only you wanted to empower or extend the duration of a power. Intelligence would become the "concentration" statistic. Psions would use their intellect to focus a spell, but any attempt to "metamagic" a power would require physical stamina to avoid exhaustion.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm kind of torn on what stat should be primary for psions. On one hand, Wisdom, because enlightenment and willpower and such, and it was the most important of three stats in 2e. On the other hand, Intelligence, because understanding and because it's what they used in 3.5e.

In a vacuum, I'd probably prefer Wisdom, but on the other hand there are already lots of Wisdom-based classes in the game (Cleric, Druid,  and it's a secondary stat for the Monk and the Ranger). On the other hand there's a shortage of Intelligence-based classes (pretty much only the wizard, and secondary for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters), so I'd be fine with psions being Int-based.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 23, 2015)

Staffan said:


> I'm kind of torn on what stat should be primary for psions. On one hand, Wisdom, because enlightenment and willpower and such, and it was the most important of three stats in 2e. On the other hand, Intelligence, because understanding and because it's what they used in 3.5e.




Psionic effects like charm and illusion tend toward Charisma.

All three mental abilities seem vital: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Where is the alternative spellcasting mechanics that don't use finite spell (slot/points) per day? Where is the ADEU like martial classes? Why should psionics have to cater to multiple methods of activation?
> 
> I'd rather WotC do one system and do it right than try to make psionics work using spell slots, power points, and ability checks or have redundant subclasses and core classes. Psionics didn't need to be a toothpaste, floor cleaner and dessert topping.




I see.  So, as long as you get what you want, the rest of us can go hang?  Really?

For me, I'd rather see a playtest cycle for development.  Start as simple as possible, see if that works and then increase complexity with each iteration and see what makes the most people happy.

I'd say the pattern they seem to be using for the artificer is fantastic.  Sure, the first artificer wasn't great and had issues.  Ok, fine.  Go back and fiddle with it, and try again.  I'm pretty sure the next iteration will be better received.  At some point, you'll make enough people happy that you're done.  

Why start from a highly complicated point, adding entire new classes and mechanics, before determining if you could do it easier first?  Wouldn't that be a lot easier to balance with existing mechanics?  With your way, we get 2e Psionics and hope like heck that it isn't broken.  With my way, we get a finalised version that has been through multiple playtest periods and won't be broken.  Just because you want a Psion that is completely different from existing classes does not mean that's the best way to achieve it.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2015)

It looks like Tony Vargas is stuck in my quote buffer, now. Sorry, man.



Nifft said:


> What I think you're saying is that Sorcerers are somehow *physically* magical, that they have magic in their *flesh*.
> ...
> So, that would give room for the Psion to be inherently powerful, but not because of flesh.



I could see this explanation. It might be splitting too many hairs, for my games, but it certainly would work if anyone asked.

I'd say the psion is *spiritually* magical; it's infused into their soul.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2015)

I'd just say they've figured the world out at an intuitive level.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I see.  So, as long as you get what you want, the rest of us can go hang?  Really?
> 
> For me, I'd rather see a playtest cycle for development.  Start as simple as possible, see if that works and then increase complexity with each iteration and see what makes the most people happy.
> 
> ...




I look at like I saw the class debate of the playtest; some people were advocating for subclasses to handle EVERYTHING, including many of the core classes like paladin, bard, ranger, barbarian, and monk. I mean, we had 10/12 classes in their near final form and people on this board were calling for "scrapping the barbarian and make it a background" or "removing the ranger and making it a subclass" level changes. I imagine if WotC had started at a position of "make it a subclass, then branch out" we might have ended up up with 3-4 classes in the PHB and everything else a subclass of them.

In fact, that idea WAS tried c.f. the Mage playtest, when the wizard, sorcerer and warlock were all going to share a class and the subclasses determined your caster ability and spells. It was abandoned then due to people wanting those classes to have a unique identity and logistical headaches with three caster systems in one class. We never even got the sorcerer or warlock part to playtest it was so hard to splice systems. I can't imagine its easier now. 

All of this leads me back to my position; WotC has tried the subclass route (wizardficer) and its tried the alt-casting wizard route (mage) and neither were well received. Trying again seems like waste of resources (and at this point it seems every resource at WotC is critical). We might just get a power-point class that feels like a direct conversion of the 3.5 psion (psicrystals and all), which while not flavorful (basically, a spell-point wizard) at least tries to capture the feel. We might get something more like 2e's psionicist class (incorporating ideas but balancing the system). We might get something totally new (though with 5e's pennant for nostalgia, I doubt so). I'm hoping that WotC is signalling doing psionics "right" and not leaving it a sorcerer sublcass in a UA, but I could be wrong. I was on warlord.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I look at like I saw the class debate of the playtest; some people were advocating for subclasses to handle EVERYTHING, including many of the core classes like paladin, bard, ranger, barbarian, and monk. I mean, we had 10/12 classes in their near final form and people on this board were calling for "scrapping the barbarian and make it a background" or "removing the ranger and making it a subclass" level changes. I imagine if WotC had started at a position of "make it a subclass, then branch out" we might have ended up up with 3-4 classes in the PHB and everything else a subclass of them.



 The 'core 4' classes, presumably, if they'd gone heavily for sub-classing and multi-classing to deliver on the promised 'every class appearing in a prior PH1.'  

OTOH, if they'd gone with a full class for everything, there'd've be 15 or so, instead of 12.  So it's not like the sub-class idea was completely rejected.  The Assassin and Illusionist became sub-classes.  The EK (never in a PH1, but multi-class Fighter/Magic-Users at 1st level were in 1e & 2e) is conceptually very similar to the Ranger and Paladin (fighter-caster hybrid), but is just another sub-class.  The Battlemaster fighter-sub-class stands in, very unsuccessfully, for two classes.



> We might get something totally new (though with 5e's pennant for nostalgia, I doubt so). I'm hoping that WotC is signalling doing psionics "right" and not leaving it a sorcerer sublcass in a UA, but I could be wrong. I was on warlord.



 As long as "right" is broader and leaves more room for options than your idea of 'right.'  




Yaarel said:


> Psionic effects like charm and illusion tend toward Charisma.
> 
> All three mental abilities seem vital: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.



 Charisma is at least suggestive of projecting will, so seems ideal.  Wisdom represents mental resilience (WIS saves).  Intelligence might analogous to 'mental agility,' but seems the least appropriate of the three.  Of course, the psion could be MAD, using CHA for attack modes, WIS for power points, INT for disciplines & sciences or something along those lines.


----------



## Mephista (Jun 23, 2015)

56 pages later, and the verdict?   No one can agree on anything.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2015)

Welcome to humanity!


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> Intelligence should be the primary stat. Constitution should be the secondary. Constitution would be secondary because it would come into play only you wanted to empower or extend the duration of a power. Intelligence would become the "concentration" statistic. Psions would use their intellect to focus a spell, but any attempt to "metamagic" a power would require physical stamina to avoid exhaustion.



I'd go with Charisma as primary stat because they have that much sense of self. Depending on your view, though, that could be Wisdom. Depending on exact definitions, my order would be: Charisma => Wisdom => Constitution.

I do like the image of a psion who went so mental-fueled, though, that he's totally neglected his body.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Welcome to humanity!



This is the Internet. You won't find any humanity, here.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The 'core 4' classes, presumably, if they'd gone heavily for sub-classing and multi-classing to deliver on the promised 'every class appearing in a prior PH1.'
> 
> OTOH, if they'd gone with a full class for everything, there'd've be 15 or so, instead of 12.  So it's not like the sub-class idea was completely rejected.  The Assassin and Illusionist became sub-classes.  The EK (never in a PH1, but multi-class Fighter/Magic-Users at 1st level were in 1e & 2e) is conceptually very similar to the Ranger and Paladin (fighter-caster hybrid), but is just another sub-class.  The Battlemaster fighter-sub-class stands in, very unsuccessfully, for two classes.




FWIW, I was an advocate for the 15 classes idea, but I can see their justification. Assassin was only a full class in two editions (being a PrC and a kit in 3e and 2e respectively) and really didn't offer much over a the regular rogue class. Same with illusionist; which hadn't been a separate class since 1989. So I guess those two drew the short end on longevity. Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.



Tony Vargas said:


> As long as "right" is broader and leaves more room for options than your idea of 'right.'




Here is my absolute minimums.

1.) Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore). 

2.) It deserves unique capabilities that fit its flavor. (In essence, I don't just want a list of PHB spells with "pretend their psionic" written over them; even if their is overlap (IE: Psionic Charm Person; see PHB XXX) I want them to have unique ones that other caster's don't get.

3.) It deserves one unique mechanic on par with warlock invocations or sorcerer metamagic. Something to give the psion his own niche. 

Now, do I want a unique system for psionics separate from how spells are cast? Yeah, I think that'd be cool. Will I be bummed if the psion looks more like 3.5 than 2e? A bit, but I'll live. The only thing I actively dislike is the idea of some subclass eating all of psionic's history, lore, and powers and tell me "be a regular spellcaster and pretend its psionics." I can do that now, I don't need WotC to give me that. I need WotC to give me a proper psion class and powers, since that is the harder route.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> FWIW, I was an advocate for the 15 classes idea, but I can see their justification. Assassin was only a full class in two editions (being a PrC and a kit in 3e and 2e respectively) and really didn't offer much over a the regular rogue class. Same with illusionist; which hadn't been a separate class since 1989. So I guess those two drew the short end on longevity. Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.



 Sure.  Point is, not everything got the full class treatment, so we can't rule out another sub-class treatment.   But, psionics got no PH1 treatment at all.  Maybe it will prove out that psionics gets something great for waiting.  Hope springing eternal and all.



> Here is my absolute minimums.
> 
> 1.) Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).



 The psion just doesn't resonate with me the same way.  My impression of psionics was really formed in 1e, and the idea that anyone /might/ be psionic still has a certain nostalgic appeal.  That in no way argues /against/ the inclusion of the psion (or other psionic classes), just for some Wild Talent & other options, as well.  Even something as simple as a feat or background, though a sub-class (or sub-classes) analogous the EK or AT with psionics in place of wizardy spells would also be potentially cool.



> 2.) It deserves unique capabilities that fit its flavor. (In essence, I don't just want a list of PHB spells with "pretend their psionic" written over them; even if their is overlap (IE: Psionic Charm Person; see PHB XXX) I want them to have unique ones that other caster's don't get.



 Every full caster has at least some spells it doesn't share with other casters, I think.  Anyway, even if not,  it's a reasonable expectation.



> 3.) It deserves one unique mechanic on par with warlock invocations or sorcerer metamagic. Something to give the psion his own niche.



 Likewise, preferably something to do with psionic power points.  Or psionic-on-psionic combat, for that matter.



> Now, do I want a unique system for psionics separate from how spells are cast? Yeah, I think that'd be cool. Will I be bummed if the psion looks more like 3.5 than 2e? A bit, but I'll live.



 The one thing I really hope to see from the 3.5 take is the psionics is magic/different choice for the DM.  Hope to see that supported by mechanics that make that choice easy to implement either way.



> The only thing I actively dislike is the idea of some subclass eating all of psionic's history, lore, and powers and tell me "be a regular spellcaster and pretend its psionics." I can do that now, I don't need WotC to give me that. I need WotC to give me a proper psion class and powers, since that is the harder route.



 I can see how that could be as disappointing to a fan of psionics as the battlemaster was to fans of the warlord.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.




I think the bard of valor was an attempt to recreate the warlord. I would have liked the bardic healing to use the hit die mechanic instead of just mimicking cleric healing. I think this more actually reflects a bard's or warlord's ability to inspire and strengthen their companions. A Psion is more mystical and would not only allow a person to spend their own hit die, but could actually use his personal hit die to heal another person, but this would require physical contact unlike the bard or warlord.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 23, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I think the bard of valor was an attempt to recreate the warlord. I would have liked the bardic healing to use the hit die mechanic instead of just mimicking cleric healing. I think this more actually reflects a bard's or warlord's ability to inspire and strengthen their companions. A Psion is more mystical and would not only allow a person to spend their own hit die, but could actually transfer hit die to a person, but would require physical contact unlike the bard or warlord.




Hmm. A Psion would have low HP due to being a primary caster, so transferring wounds might be problematic mechanically. In 3.5e that could be worked around with the very efficient Vigor power, but it wasn't exactly intuitive.

I'd prefer if the transfer-wounds thing were given to high-HP characters, like a Paladin or Fighter.

For the Psion, a neat high-level trick was Affinity Field + major healing on the Psion. That's a very flavorful and tactically interesting combo which could be unlocked earlier for 5e -- allow a Psion to share a healing or buff effect with everyone in some range.


Also, historical note: the 1e Bard cast Druid spells, so being able to heal in a Cleric-ish way is in keeping with at least one ye olde editione.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Jun 23, 2015)

Class: Psionicist.

Subclasses: Psion, Soul Knife, Psychic Warrior.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).




Here's a point where I differ. I think a pre-judging like this limits possible design directions and stifles creative use of existing frameworks. "Deserve" I think is a pretty negative choice of words, somehow implying that assassins and arcane tricksters and battlemasters and illusionists are somehow "not deserving." A psionic subclass isn't somehow an _insult_ to psionics, it's not a lessening or other-ing of it. It's simply an easy, effective way to realize the gameplay important to psionics. 

A subclass isn't a lesser version of anything. It's not a second-run, also-ran, backup-copy. It's the full character, floating on top of existing mechanics as much as it needs to. It's a tool for realizing your character, one that is more fine-tuned, easier to apply, and less expensive in many ways than an entirely new class could ever be. A new class is a blunt, expensive instrument - it takes more effort to get right, even when right it occludes other choices, and even when perfectly executed there's a significant downside to it. It's appropriate, sometimes, but it is never something that should just be presumed to be the case. A new official class in 5e always needs to be a conscious and intensely thorough process. When they said a few months ago that the entire lifetime of 5e could see no more classes than what's in the PHB, that should be seen as _good news_, because it shows that they realize that there's no gameplay necessity for any class - that every new class is an opt-in situation. 

Furthermore, a new class turns existing classes into narrower stereotypes. If I can play a wizard or sorcerer as a psion today, then if they make a psion class, I suddenly am not playing a "real" psion. Pre-judging that a psion _absolutely cannot_ be a sorcerer is also saying that there is no way that you can play a character like a psion using the sorcerer - now being born with powerful mental abilities is off the table for them. It draws unnecessary boundaries, and limits the diversity of existing choices. 

To treat a class as a sort of medal we give a character concept that is somehow more worthy of being expressed than, say, "illusoinist"  or "turnip farmer" is to put a hierarchy in place where none currently exists, and fails to recognize the inherent arbitrariness of all classes. 

What is important to me is what happens in play at the table, which is why this insistence seems bizarrely disconnected. It doesn't care what happens in play, it just makes a vehement mandate based on previous presentation. It matters more in this view that the psion _is a class_ than it matters _what that class plays like_, which rings entirely hollow to me. It's not like "you're a full class!" is some gold star that is given to the bestestest and brightestest of imaginary elf jobs that are better than all the rest(est). It doesn't so much matter what is written on your character sheet at first level or what you call what you gain levels it, it matters what actions you take when you play the character across the course of a year (give or take).

All of which is not to say that new classes are verboten, just that we need to get our priorities straight. We can have new classes, but lets admit to ourselves that it's basically arbitrary - there's no objective reason to have a psion class and not have an illusionist class or a brazen strumpet class or a bohemian ear-spoon specialist class. It's not like there's some threshold one crosses that another doesn't. And once we allow ourselves the freedom to design outside of a class, lets see what we come up with. It might still be a class, but that'll be the result of discussion, development, and active choices, not simply a meaningless design criteria made in a void, and it'll be a better class for it.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Warlord to battlemaster was a punt IMHO; they didn't want a martial healer in the PHB. I hope WotC will one day make a proper warlord, btw. Sounds ripe for a UA.



I see battle master as more of a kensai and cavalier replacement, not warlord. Kensai and cavalier really don't (IMO) need separate classes with the 5E structure, but I do like them represented.

I would love to see UA tackle the warlord, though. I think that'd be the right place for it, too. "Keep a stiff upper lip, lads, and have a few hit points," takes a level of buy-in to the HP abstraction that I think isn't automatic. Then again, maybe it's easier for someone who hasn't been playing since 1984.




> Here is my absolute minimums.



We seem to be on different sides of a few issues, so let's compare notes.



> 1.) Psion deserves a base class, period. No core class does it justice without heavy hacking into it and rewriting its mechanics and/or fluff. At the very least, it deserves its own class with its own power list and its own subclasses (representing the disciplines of yore).



Agreed -- mostly. I think it's possible to do a passible psion as a sorcerer subclass, but it wouldn't be my first choice. That would be the "screw it, there are too many disagreements on psionics," punt. Also, my openness to the psionic-sorcerer option is a consequence of thinking that the VSM, just a caster mechanic is a poor fit for the sorcerer fluff, anyway. At least I might be able to get something out of a psionics option.

Odds are, given a stand-alone psion class, I'd kill the sorcerer and convert the sorcerer sub-classes into psion subclasses. But, that'd be home brew territory and depend on the specifics of the psionics mechanics.



> 2.) It deserves unique capabilities that fit its flavor. (In essence, I don't just want a list of PHB spells with "pretend their psionic" written over them; even if their is overlap (IE: Psionic Charm Person; see PHB XXX) I want them to have unique ones that other caster's don't get.



Again, mostly agree. It's a very fine line, for me. I think the psion needs something that makes it feel like its powers are more flexible than a standard caster's. I don't have a ton of concrete thoughts on exactly what that looks like, though. The powers write-ups could end up looking like spells and be labeled as spells, but the psion class itself have some way of adjusting the effects. The 25 word or less version would sound a lot like meta-magic, but I'd want it to be a ton more flavorful and key to playing a psion with little in common besides "spell modifiers with a balance mechanism".

Without compromise, psionics cannot use VSM components, at least not the way standard casters do. I can see where some powers might require a crystal focus or the psion might have to point his finger for a flame that starts at him, but those are oddities. Even if _psionic charm_ uses the entry for standard _charm person_, the psion would need a caveat that says "substitute ectoplasm for verbal components", etc. Or, they'd have to be balanced against an exemption from using components at all, whatever that means.



> 3.) It deserves one unique mechanic on par with warlock invocations or sorcerer metamagic. Something to give the psion his own niche.
> 
> Now, do I want a unique system for psionics separate from how spells are cast? Yeah, I think that'd be cool. Will I be bummed if the psion looks more like 3.5 than 2e? A bit, but I'll live. The only thing I actively dislike is the idea of some subclass eating all of psionic's history, lore, and powers and tell me "be a regular spellcaster and pretend its psionics." I can do that now, I don't need WotC to give me that. I need WotC to give me a proper psion class and powers, since that is the harder route.



Agreed on both points. The ideal implementation of psionics will handle the flavor of wild talents and the slightly unpredictable nature of the gifts. I also thought they went a bit too weird in 3.5. Ectoplasm and wind chimes do not really equate to psionics, for me. The tattoos were cool, but I didn't get the connection to psionics, either. More than any other class, the psion is one with his power. That's the piece I want to come out in the mechanic.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Jun 23, 2015)

What particular flavor has psionics had?  In games I've played in they were mainly asked about, or played by, munchkin power gamers wanting to play paladin/jedi.  I can live with magic and ki, personally.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Deserve" I think is a pretty negative choice of words, somehow implying that assassins and arcane tricksters and battlemasters and illusionists are somehow "not deserving."



 Rather, it implies that they deserve more.  Well, not the arcane trickster, so much.



> A subclass isn't a lesser version of anything. It's not a second-run, also-ran, backup-copy. It's the full character, floating on top of existing mechanics as much as it needs to.



 It is when it's standing in for a full class not much like the parent class.  Assassins and Illusionists are very much like their parent classes.  Sorcerer is at least mechanically close to psionics in some ways, it's powers are in-born, it uses a point system (though not much like psionics used there's), but it's not as close as an Illusionist is to a Wizard. 



> this insistence seems bizarrely disconnected. It doesn't care what happens in play, it just makes a vehement mandate based on previous presentation. It matters more in this view that the psion _is a class_ than it matters _what that class plays like_, which rings entirely hollow to me. It's not like "you're a full class!" is some gold star that is given to the bestestest and brightestest of imaginary elf jobs that are better than all the rest(est).



 In a way, that's a lot of what 5e has been about.  5e has - more or less successfully - catered to a broad swath of D&D fans, by appealing to and validating bits of their favorite editions, particularly classes.  Most classes are strongly reminiscent of their 0e D&D and 1e AD&D roots - Clerics still heal & turn undead, Wizards still cast sleep and look for spells to add to their books, etc.  The Illusionist as sub-class evokes the 2e Illusionist as specialist wizard, the fighter's high DPR is evocative of it's role in 2e parties.  The Rogue get's the 3.0 Rogue's combat boost from SA, the Sorcerer manages a little of the feel of the 3.0 original (in spite of it's spontaneous casting essentially being given to everyone), while the Bard is a generalist '5th wheel' full-caster as in 3.0, not the oddity it was in 1e.  The Warlock is very much like the original 3.5 Warlock, and the EK & AT sub-class were PrCs in the 3.5 DMG, but feat stands in rather poorly for the cool reach tricks you could do with a 3.x fighter.  And, of course, psionics is notably absent...



GobiWon said:


> I think the bard of valor was an attempt to recreate the warlord.



 Hardly.  The Bard is a spellcaster, the Warlord was martial.  That's not even analogous to a psionc-sub-class of the Sorcerer being 'arcane not psionic,' that's like touting the GOO Warlock as all the psionics you'll ever need, because he has telepathy and is associated with the Far Realm.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2015)

Warmaster Horus said:


> What particular flavor has psionics had?  In games I've played in they were mainly asked about, or played by, munchkin power gamers wanting to play paladin/jedi.  I can live with magic and ki, personally.




Which is fine for you. I've had players play (either in my own or played along with) the wisened guru type (exploring the mysteries of the universe through meditation and discovery), a freak who had to hide his powers (dwarf in 2e), a clairvoyant who used her powers to help wayward spirits and people (Ravenloft) and even a completely normal barmaid who one day discovered she could read thoughts and opted to do something special with her gift. None of these were munchkin players or even character; elven fighter mages were the rage for those guys.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 23, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Here's a point where I differ. I think a pre-judging like this limits possible design directions and stifles creative use of existing frameworks. "Deserve" I think is a pretty negative choice of words, somehow implying that assassins and arcane tricksters and battlemasters and illusionists are somehow "not deserving." A psionic subclass isn't somehow an _insult_ to psionics, it's not a lessening or other-ing of it. It's simply an easy, effective way to realize the gameplay important to psionics.




Here's what I think. Subclasses are augments to the base class; they change the taste but not the substance. An assassin isn't all that different than a rogue and they can share 90% of same features. Any subclass that starts changing the base classes regular features is drifting (at the very least) into alternative class or new class territory. Subclasses don't remove or change how class features work, they don't remove or change proficiencies, and they don't change spell lists or remove spell access. Its too radical a change for a subclass to handle. 

Subclasses have finite limits on how much they can change a class. Did you notice WotC didn't give us a "spell-less ranger subclass" that you take instead of beastmaster or hunter? They gave a bloody re-write of the class! It was beyond the scope of a subclass to remove spellcasting from the ranger and replace it with superiority dice. Psionics, if done right, should be just as radical of a change. 

Which is my reason for pushing hard on this; psionics should be a game changer. It should be an opt-in for DMs who want another type of magic and ignored by DMs who don't. Not all DMs will; they've been optional in every edition so far (though 4e put them in A PHB, so perhaps not in 4e?). Anything less is a cop-out, its a punt to the anti-psionics crowd who can live with a sorcerer with telepathy or a GOO warlock as psionics and be done. 

And  yes, a subclass is lesser; that's what the prefix SUB means.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> they've been optional in every edition so far (though 4e put them in A PHB, so perhaps not in 4e?).



 In 4e, psionics appeared in Dark Sun and the PH3.  They were core only because WotC had this 'everything is core' conceit going at the time (a sort of marketing ploy that I don't think really fooled anyone).  Psionics was it's own Source, the Monk was integrated into it because a Ki source was politically incorrect or they couldn't come up with a psi striker or something.  There was no 'psionics is magic' option, per se.  But, even in 4e, psionics was mechanically a little different, and a little broken:  instead of encounter attack powers, the 3 non-Monk psionic classes got power points that they could use to 'Augment' an at-will.  The net result was pretty similar to having encounter powers.  Where it broke was that you were supposed to re-train your at-wills for 'better' higher-level powers, but a few 1st level powers turned out to consistently have the best augments (mainly an issue with the Psion, IIRC).



> Anything less is a cop-out, its a punt to the anti-psionics crowd who can live with a sorcerer with telepathy or a GOO warlock as psionics and be done.



 A sorcerer sub-class as a psionic isn't downright anti-psionic, "no psionics in D&D ever, because they're science fiction and have no place in it," that's anti-psionic.

'Psionics-is-magic should be an option' or 'psionic sub-classes would be better than nothing' is still pro-psionic, I hope.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Charisma is at least suggestive of projecting will, so seems ideal.  Wisdom represents mental resilience (WIS saves).  Intelligence might analogous to 'mental agility,' but seems the least appropriate of the three.  Of course, the psion could be MAD, using CHA for attack modes, WIS for power points, INT for disciplines & sciences or something along those lines.




Yeah, it seems in 5e, Intelligence has switched to the role of ‘mental agility’. The parallel between body and mind, seems something like the following:

Intelligence : Dexterity  ::  Wisdom : Constitution  ::  Charisma : Strength



The problem however is Wisdom conflates both perceptiveness and willpower, which have little to do with each other.

If Intelligence is ‘mental dexterity’, then Intelligence should be responsible for all of the perception checks, to see if it notices new opportunities that it can maneuver with.

It is a problem. Even in its fifth edition, the abilities of D&D remain largely incoherent and meaningless.



I noticed, in the Dragon Age ‘Adventure Game Engine’ system, they disentangled the three mental abilities to create five mental abilities. So there are eight abilities altogether. 

Cunning (≈ Knowledge Skills ≈ Intelligence)
Perception (≈ Mental Dexterity)
Willpower (≈ Mental Constitution ≈ Wisdom)
Communication (≈ Persuasion ≈ Charisma)
Magic (≈ Casting Ability)

plus Strength, Dexterity, Constitution



Note, in D&D, any mental ability can be the casting ability. There are different flavors for actualizing magic.

In D&D, the Wisdom ability is way overpowered compared to the other two mental abilities. If Wisdom split into two abilities, Willpower and Perception, the four would become more balanced with each other. Even if Intelligence absorbed Perception, becoming responsible for both Knowledge and Perception checks, the three classic abilities would become more balanced with each other.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm still thinking about the type of power determining the casting stat, while Con determines whether the manifester can continue using powers at full efficacy or becomes fatigued.  (IOW, NOT a point based system.)

To clarify: power types determine the casting stat and the potency of the ability used.  Like we've bandied about, Telepathy would be Int based, Psychometabolic powers would be Con based, perceptive abilities would be Wis based, etc. 

The manifester would then have to make a Con-Based check to see if they become fatigued.  As they level, they'd get bonuses to making those Con checks.

Powers would be broadly defined, with a list of abilities as opposed to discrete spells for each kind of ability.  Each ability beyond the base use would add a certain amount to the difficulty of manifestation- base level checks would be easy to pass, but the more you push a power, the more effort is required, and the more likely the manifester becomes fatigued.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> The parallel between body and mind, seems something like the following:
> 
> Intelligence : Dexterity  ::  Wisdom : Constitution  ::  Charisma : Strength



 That's how I've always seen it.



> The problem however is Wisdom conflates both perceptiveness and willpower, which have little to do with each other.



 Beyond staying alert vs getting distracted or bored, I guess.



> It is a problem. Even in its fifth edition, the abilities of D&D remain largely incoherent and meaningless.



 That seems harsh.  Even in it's 0th edition, the abilities didn't seem that out of line.

True, they do often combine only marginally related things.  Dexterity is both manual dexterity and agility.  Wisdom is will, strength of character, perceptiveness /and/ common sense.  CHA has been both looks and personality, as well as externally-focused will.  



> In D&D, the Wisdom ability is way overpowered compared to the other two mental abilities.



 Because of perception and WIS saves being so common?  CHA is used heavily in interaction, which is, supposedly, 1/3rd the game.  



> If Wisdom split into two abilities, Willpower and Perception, the four would become more balanced with each other. Even if Intelligence absorbed Perception, becoming responsible for both Knowledge and Perception checks, the three classic abilities would become more balanced with each other.



The former is not something I'd expect WotC to suggest.  The latter other games, like Hero, have done in the past.  Not sure, exactly, when WIS became perception.  Obviously it was in 3e, and in 1e, 'perception' was all a matter of d6 and % rolls to hear noise or avoid surprise or whatever - I drifted off for the second half of 2e, and didn't always notice all the differences between it and 1e, even when I was running it.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> [The D&D abilities remain largely incoherent and meaningless.]
> 
> That seems harsh.  Even in it's 0th edition, the abilities didn't seem that out of line.




The D&D abilities are largely incoherent and meaningless.

Even in the previous post, a person wanted Intelligence to be responsible for the Telepathy discipline - this makes no sense!

Since when does an ability that is responsible for book lore enable a person to supernaturally mindmeld with an other person?

Moreover, the Telepathy discipline is mostly powers that project at, influence, and persuade the other mind. One would normally think these kinds of powers would relate to Charisma.

But you know what? Why not Intelligence? Since none of the abilities ever mean anything consistent anyway!


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 23, 2015)

I hope for psionics to be mental only. Thus no dependence on physical Constitution.
*
Enchantment *(Telepathy)
Charisma (mental engagement, mental persuasion)

*Transmutation *(Psychometabolism) 
Wisdom (mental willpower, also body awareness like 3e Autohypnosis psionic skill)

*Divination *(Clairsentience)
Wisdom (perception) ... (unless Intelligence becomes responsible for perception) 

*Illusion *(Metacreativity, subjective phantasm, objective phenomenon, light, dark, radiant)
Charisma? (persuasion), Wisdom? (perception)

*Teleportation *(Psychoportation)
Wisdom (perception, same as Clairsentience, send mind to a place then bring body to mind)

*Force *(invisible Telekinesis, fly, gravity, force field, force damage, magic energy; not elemental)
Charisma (mental projection)

*Evocation *(elemental Psychokinesis, Air Water Fire and Earth = lightning thunder cold fire acid) 
Intelligence (memory and knowledge of elemental mystical properties)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 23, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Even in the previous post, a person wanted Intelligence to be responsible for the Telepathy discipline - this makes no sense!
> 
> Since when does an ability that is responsible for book lore enable a person to supernaturally mindmeld with an other person?



 Well, if it's responsible for book lore, that'd include literacy, and he is 'reading' your mind.



> Moreover, the Telepathy discipline is mostly powers that project at, influence, and persuade the other mind. One would normally think these kinds of powers would relate to Charisma.



 One would, I agree.  But mere communication might be INT.



> But you know what? Why not Intelligence? Since none of the abilities ever mean anything consistent anyway!



 That's the spirit.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 23, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Assassin was only a full class in two editions (being a PrC and a kit in 3e and 2e respectively) and really didn't offer much over a the regular rogue class.



Technically, it also came in as a full class near the tail end of 2e in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook. The description there might as well have been a thief kit, though.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 23, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> The D&D abilities are largely incoherent and meaningless.
> 
> Even in the previous post, a person wanted Intelligence to be responsible for the Telepathy discipline - this makes no sense!
> 
> ...




I see your point about charisma and wisdom, but intelligence is more than book lore. It is the ability to understand complex things quickly. Wisdom and Charisma is already the prime stat. for multiple classes. Hyper-intelligence has always been associated with psi powers in popular culture. You can argue that these individuals had increased stats in all three mental abilities, but having all three as prime stats is a little much to ask of a class and having a different prime stat for subclasses seems to go against the design principle associated with 5e.

... with all that I concede that wisdom and charisma are more appropriate for some psi abilities.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 23, 2015)

Perhaps the primary psion class requires intelligence with each of the subclasses requiring a different secondary ability score ... wisdom, charisma, or constitution.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 23, 2015)

Honestly, I feel, Charisma has to be the primary casting ability of the Psion base class.

A person who is psionic has a ‘presence’. This is clearly Charisma.

Also, Charisma often represents innate magical abilities.

How the Psion uses this ‘gift’, then depends on their secondary ability.

The primary ability, Charisma, is the casting ability for every power. But the secondary ability has significant riders.

How about something like this ...



Cha-Int = *Force* (Psychokinesis, Fly, Force Damage) + *Evocation* (Elemental Kinesis)

Cha-Wis = *Divination* (Clairsentience) + *Enchantment* (Telepathy) + *Illusion* (Metacreativity)

Cha-Con = *Transmutation* (Psychometabolism) + *Teleport* (Psychoportation)



Downplay any Summoning or Necromancy (necrotic damage, ghost, undead, negative energy), because they are too external, but either might make sense in a certain kind of setting.



At the same time as a separate Psion class, I also want a Wizard archetype that uses Intelligence to figure out spells and then manifests them psionically. With an ‘eidetic spellbook’, photographically memorizing spells, instead of carrying around a spellbook.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 24, 2015)

Intelligence works well enough for me for that cold, calculating alien type... sometimes with pointy ears, melding minds...
But I have scifi bleeding into my fantasy!!  
You could argue someone of the scifi trope I'm referring to also has an overwhelming Charisma, but I don't see it.  A psion shouldn't also default to being the Face and negotiator for the party, though I could certainly see CHA as a secondary stat for certain builds.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Psions can function as a party face. Theyre telepaths and charmers. They know what people want, know how to convince, and can even psychically predict the best way to do it.


Actually ... Spock has extremely high Charisma.

Presence and all.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Technically, it also came in as a full class near the tail end of 2e in the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook. The description there might as well have been a thief kit, though.



Yeah, I liked the SB monk and assassin, and did use them because they were much closer to the original classes and much better than the brown book kits that were there for most of that edition. (I mean, the monk got a bonus to the punching chart and the assassin got... Detect poison. Yeah...)


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 24, 2015)

I can see this.


Int-Cha  = *Force* (Psychokinesis, Fly, Force Damage)

Int-Wis = *Divination* (Clairsentience) +  *Enchantment* (Telepathy) + *Illusion* (Metacreativity)

Int-Con = *Transmutation* (Psychometabolism) + *Teleport* (Psychoportation)


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Enchantment (Telepathy) and Illusion (Metacreativity) necessarily utilize Charisma.

Psions normally lack scientific perspectives.

They are people *BORN* with preternatural capabilities, that they themselves often dont understand.

Intelligence is the least relevant ability.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

It feels ok to associate Intelligence (scientific analysis) with Force and Evocation.

Evocation of elemental energies seems to require Intelligence, in the sense the elements are external sources, that the Psion needs to figure out how to use.



In contrast, Sorcerers dont use Intelligence to manipulate elemental energies, because Sorcerers are infused with elemental energies. Psions arent.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

There seems to be a lot of...declaration of definitions of terms.

Telepaths aren't "enchanters" and "illusionists"....Enchanters and Illusionists are enchatners and illusionists...and they're wizards. They use Int. If they are sorcerers that like to enchant and use illusions (or warlocks, for that matter) then they use Cha.

I could say Telepathy is, literally, "out thinking" the target. You tell the target mind what it is going to perceive/believe/think about or see. You have the [however innate the origin] "know how" of where to go in the mind and which "switches to flip", if you will, to do that. You need a capacity to figure out, deduce, what symbols in a given mind are or mean. How to access the parts of the mind/memory you are looking for. Recall how you got from one place to another in one mind and how to do that again in another/different one to reliably repeat the use of your powers...and, of course, know/figure out/remember your way OUT of their head and back into your own.

Deduction. Recall. Critical thinking and problem solving. "Mental Agility", if you like.

Poof.

Intelligence.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Mental agility = perceptiveness = Wisdom


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Enchantment (Telepathy) and Illusion (Metacreativity) necessarily utilize Charisma.
> 
> Psions normally lack scientific perspectives.
> 
> ...




Are you suggesting one can not be "born" with Intelligence, Yaarel?


----------



## Nifft (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Mental agility = perceptiveness = Wisdom




Agility and Perceptiveness don't really seem related.

Particularly not in a game system where training in perception skill will eventually give you a bigger bonus than focusing on Wisdom.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Mental agility = perceptiveness = Wisdom




Says who?

If Int. is the mental equivalent of Dex...and Dex is the physical attribute that covers agility... then how does "Mental Agility" = Wisdom?


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

The D&D definition of the Intelligence ability is irrelevant to the concept of projecting mental influence.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Says who?
> 
> If Int. is the mental equivalent of Dex...and Dex is the physical attribute that covers agility... then how does "Mental Agility" = Wisdom?




Intelligence *should be* ‘mental dexterity’ and thereby responsible for all Perception checks.

But it isnt.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2015)

The warlord has been brought up as an example of a class that should have gotten its own class.  OTOH, there's some pretty good reasons why it didn't.  Healing was never really the main thrust of a warlord.  It got healing because it was a leader, but, that wasn't why you played a warlord.  A warlord was all about tactical positioning and buff/debuff.  Thing is, in 5e, a warlord's focus loses a lot of purpose.  Tactical positioning in 5e is far less important than in 4e.  There's no flanking rules, so, shifting your allies about doesn't actually do anything.  Because everyone can move - attack - move, gaining that extra movement doesn't change the battlefield as much as it did in 4e.  

So, one aspect of the warlord doesn't really work in 5e.  The other aspect - buff/debuff is a lot more difficult to add into 5e.  With bounded accuracy, once you've granted advantage, how much of a bonus would be acceptable?  +1-4 seems to be the highest numbers you can get (by and large) in 5e.  And even that is often called out as being too powerful.  Granting bonuses and/or making monsters easier to hit would have to be a lot more limited in 5e.  A very large chunk of the warlords powers simply won't translate over into the math of 5e.  

Once you lose tactical positioning and buff/debuff, what's left of a warlord?  The warlord class mechanics are extremely tightly tied to a battle map.  But 5e is a lot less battle map dependent than 4e is.  So, you strip out all that from a warlord and all you really have left is a Battlemaster.  

Hey, I understand the disappointment.  Warlords are, by far, my favourite class in 4e, and in point of fact, probably my favourite class ever.  One of my players once remarked that when you play a warlord, you don't just play you character, you play the entire party.  It's fantastic, as far as I'm concerned.  But, that all being said, I understand why it didn't make the cut to 5e.  5e is far too different of a game for a warlord to get translated over.  You can get something that is kind of close - either a valor bard or a battle master - but, at the end of the day, a 4e style warlord just wouldn't really function in a 5e game.

That being said, that perhaps explains why I'm not adverse to the idea of a psionic subclass.  I'm also not saying that it can't be a full class.  It might wind up that it makes more sense to add another base class.  I just want to see attempts at both before making a decision.  4e did show that you can use an existing template of classes and create psionic classes.  The 4e classes were not radical departures mechanically.  They used a modified AEDU structure, just like every single other class in the game and worked pretty darn well.  I'm not convinced that psionics must have completely different resolution mechanics in order to be different enough to play.

I mean, heck, there isn't that much of a difference between a wizard and a sorcerer (although warlock is pretty far removed) or a druid and a cleric.  Strip any cleric mechanics from a druid and all you have left is wild shape, by and large.  They cast spells in exactly that same manner, use similar weapon proficiencies (although there are differences there), have similar skill packages, that sort of thing.  But, wild shape is more than enough to differentiate druid from cleric.  It's a very big deal.  In 3e, there was, perhaps, an even bigger difference, with a pet, which druids don't get in 5e. 

But, at the end of the day, all that really differentiates them is wild shape and a variant spell list.  It quite easily could have gone the other way with druids being a cleric subclass.  There have been calls to fold paladin into fighter since 3e.  So, it's not like it's impossible to imagine how it could be done.  Now, they went with full classes, and that's fine.  That works too.  But, I think that's my point:

It works too.​
It should not be carved in stone before even trying that psions MUST be either way - subclass or full class.  Both options should be explored.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

And besides, even if it's kinda shoehorn/doesn't work for "All Psionic disciplines everywhere"...we are up to our eyeballs in Wisdom and Charisma reliant classes. 

I also rather like the dichotomy [or is it symmetry?] of having the Barbarian: Strength guy + Con. be the "color wheel" opposite of a Psychic: Int. guy + Con.

Someone who's all about the braun vs. someone who's all about the brain. Can make for some interesting combos/in-party/in-world situations. Works for me.

Nah. I'll stick to my Int. design with a Con. chaser.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> The D&D definition of the Intelligence ability is irrelevant to the concept of projecting mental influence.




To my knowledge, the D&D definition of Intelligence includes: deduction, reasoning, memory & recall, capacity to learn and think.

mmmm...pretty much all of that says "applicable to using and mastering psychic powers" to me.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Barbarian Str-Con

is the parallel of

Psion Cha-Wis



(especially if someone opines Int to parallel Dex)

Cha : Str   ::   Wis : Con   ::    Int : Dex


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Int-Con = calculating robot


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> The warlord has been brought up as an example of a class that should have gotten its own class.  OTOH, there's some pretty good reasons why it didn't.  Healing was never really the main thrust of a warlord.  It got healing because it was a leader, but, that wasn't why you played a warlord.



 There were 54 warlord powers that healed, 17 that granted temps, and another 16 that removed conditions or granted saves.



> A warlord was all about tactical positioning



 There were 32 warlord powers that re-positioned allies.



> and buff/debuff.



 34 warlord powers modified attack rolls or defenses.



> Thing is, in 5e, a warlord's focus loses a lot of purpose.  Tactical positioning in 5e is far less important than in 4e.  There's no flanking rules, so, shifting your allies about doesn't actually do anything.  Because everyone can move - attack - move, gaining that extra movement doesn't change the battlefield as much as it did in 4e.



  Even if you completely discount the value of the 32 powers in question, that still leaves just over 300 warlord powers.  And, there's no reason tactical movement couldn't be modeled in other ways, for TotM. Any power that let an ally shift, for instance, could get him out of an enemy's threatened area, which is equivalent of Disengaging.  Not a useless thing, in 5e, letting an ally disengage without blowing his action on it.



> The other aspect - buff/debuff is a lot more difficult to add into 5e.  With bounded accuracy, once you've granted advantage, how much of a bonus would be acceptable?  +1-4 seems to be the highest numbers you can get (by and large) in 5e.  And even that is often called out as being too powerful.  Granting bonuses and/or making monsters easier to hit would have to be a lot more limited in 5e.  A very large chunk of the warlords powers simply won't translate over into the math of 5e.



 They might translate with slightly smaller numbers (most leader buffs didn't add large bonuses to hit, because the 4e treadmill was as sensitive to excessive bonuses as Bounded Accuracy is - in both cases, even a +1 is meaningful).  Some might give advantage instead of a bonus to hit.  Damage bonuses are still legit under bounded accuracy.

Even if you do want to discount them, the warlord had 20 attack bonus powers, 14 defense bonus powers- that might impact Bounded Accuracy - if we ignore that such powers impacted 4e's tight math at least as much as they would BA, and 18 not-so-relevant-to-bounded-accuracy damage buff powers.




> Once you lose tactical positioning and buff/debuff, what's left of a warlord?



 Healing (54 powers), attack granting (40), temp hps (17), condition mitigating (16), condition imposing (15), etc..    But, I don't believe you lose buff/debuff.  That's still going on in 5e.  A lot of attack and defense bonuses might get tossed onto the Advantage/Disadvantage pile, but that doesn't obviate the buff/debuff function of 'leader' type classes.



> The warlord class mechanics are extremely tightly tied to a battle map.  But 5e is a lot less battle map dependent than 4e is.  So, you strip out all that from a warlord and all you really have left is a Battlemaster.



 You strip out the battle-map-dependent movement powers from the Warlord, he's still a leader with 300 powers.  The Battlemaster is a Striker with 18 maneuvers, 3 of which do things the Warlord did.   Not even close.  

And the DMG options did expand the use of the grid, so even if we buy that losing 32 of 334 powers cripples the concept for PH inclusion, it's still good as tactical-module option.

13th Age weaned itself off the grid even more successfully than 5e, and was able to add the Commander class, which does only /some/ of what the 4e Warlord did.



> That being said, that perhaps explains why I'm not adverse to the idea of a psionic subclass.  I'm also not saying that it can't be a full class.  It might wind up that it makes more sense to add another base class.  .. I'm not convinced that psionics must have completely different resolution mechanics in order to be different enough to play.



 I disagree with a lot of what you said, above, but I'm also OK with the idea of a psionic sub-class (or several).  That could be in addition to a full class psion, of course.  




> It should not be carved in stone before even trying that psions MUST be either way - subclass or full class.  Both options should be explored.



 Reasonable conclusion.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Barbarian Str-Con
> 
> is the parallel of
> 
> ...




Oh no. No no no. I was just following what someone else said about Int = Dex. I think the lot of this line of thinking is rubbish. I've never felt Str-to-Cha., Int-to-Dex. etc... That's a load of fabricated nonsense. There's Str/Dex/Con...they cover, mostly, the body. There's Int/Wis/Cha...they cover the, mostly, the elements of a person that are not physical. That's all they are. There is no correlation, whatsoever, that I have ever seen defined or expected from the game. 

For me, the Brawn=Str. vs. the Brain=Int., the Warrior vs. the Wizard, is a classic fantasy trope from the dawn of the genre. Swords and [where "and" was almost always "vs."] Sorcery. 

So, in the spectrum of archetypes, which interests me far more than trying to categorize and define abstractions of the game, the "Strong guys[Fighters]" are faced off by the "Smart guys[Mages]". Str. opposes Int....again, as far as I am concerned. So the sub-/specific-Fighter archetype that is the Barbarian is Str. & con. focused. So why not let the Mages have a "+ Con." guy too? but since they're mages, it's Int. instead of Str. that's the primary... 

My POINT is, through all of these recent posts, that these declarative "this is what is/defining things as I think make sense to me" statements mean NOTHING in D&D...because the next guy at the next table [or laptop, in this case] can come up with their own "definitions" of things that make [more] sense...to them... and that "making sense" trumps your [general "you"] "making sense" (and certainly trumps "branding") and adds to their enjoyment of their game.

So, as I said, what "works/makes sense/is the  'right way'" for my psychic class/PCs/powers...will remain an Int.=based class. Thanks.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 24, 2015)

I always saw it is *Ouput*-_Processing_-Intake. *Power*-_Speed_-Toughness

*Str*-_Dex_-Con
*Cha*-_Int_-Wis

You taking information in and link yourself to others with Wisdom. You process and analyze information with a speed based on Intelligence. And you project your information with Charisma.

It would be interesting to have Psionics as a 3 stat "magic" which works.

For example, you can use psionic telepathy to frighten a foe.

If you use a Wisdom based DC, it's an AOE as you can enter more minds by spotting the holes in their psyches.
If you use a Intelligence based DC, it stuns as well as you can quickly search the target's mind for their greater fears.
If you use a Charisma based DC,  it causes psychic damage as your pack a punch as you break into their mind.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

D&D 5e Players Handbook (p12):



Wisdom: ‘Awareness, intution’, ... plus willpower.

Wisdom = Psion



Charisma: ‘Eloquence, leadership’ ... plus innate magic.

Charisma = Telepathy, including Psionic Charm, Psionic Dominate, Psionic Suggestion, etcetera.



Intelligence: ‘Information recall, analytical skill’ ... plus bookish education.

Intelligence ≠  Psion



Constitution: ‘Health, stamina’ ... plus physical toughness.

Constitution ≠ Psion


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Minigiant said:


> I always saw it is *Ouput*-_Processing_-Intake. *Power*-_Speed_-Toughness
> 
> *Str*-_Dex_-Con
> *Cha*-_Int_-Wis
> ...




So, by this method, are the PCs taking 3 rounds to get off their attack? Or are they getting to roll 3 dice on their turn before the next guy can go?

These are, granted "meta"-, considerations that need to be taken into account for the class design. Does any other class get to act in such a way?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just "Casting my mind forward", if you'll forgive the pun, and wondering how it would actually play, at a table, with other people.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> There's Str/Dex/Con...they cover, mostly, the body. There's Int/Wis/Cha...they cover the, mostly, the elements of a person that are not physical. That's all they are. There is no correlation, whatsoever, that I have ever seen defined or expected from the game.



 Nod.  There can be.  It came up in an old 1e campaign I was running, when I decided to do a scenario in which PCs were trapped in a 'dream realm.'  The realm felt physically real, but only the PC's minds were present.  Thus, it was their mental stats that determined their seeming 'physical' abilities in that realm (CHA->STR, INT->DEX, WIS->CON).  Used the same rule of thumb for interacting with 'spirits' in later adventures.  It was a lot of Cartesian dualist and theosophic silliness, really, but in a fantasy game, I think that's OK.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> D&D 5e Players Handbook (p12):
> 
> Wisdom: ‘Awareness, intuition’, ... plus willpower.
> *So I think,* Wisdom = Psion  _*...to me*_
> ...




[bold text added by me]

Cleaned up that post for ya. You're welcome.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> So, by this method, are the PCs taking 3 rounds to get off their attack? Or are they getting to roll 3 dice on their turn before the next guy can go?
> 
> These are, granted "meta"-, considerations that need to be taken into account for the class design. Does any other class get to act in such a way?
> 
> I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just "Casting my mind forward", if you'll forgive the pun, and wondering how it would actually play, at a table, with other people.




No. The psionic character picks how they use the power and each method uses a different DC.

PSIONIC HORROR
You project a horrifying image in a creature's mind. The target must make a Charisma saving throw or drop whatever they are holding and be frightened for the duration....

Empathic Mind: The power is a 40 ft cone and affects all creatures in the cone of your choosing. The DC is Wisdom Based.
Swift Mind: The target is stunned for the first round of the duration. The DC is Intelligence Based.
Powerful Mind: The target takes 3d6 psychic damage on a failed save and half damage on a success. The DC is Charisma Based.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod.  There can be.  It came up in an old 1e campaign I was running, when I decided to do a scenario in which PCs were trapped in a 'dream realm.'  The realm felt physically real, but only the PC's minds were present.  Thus, it was their mental stats that determined their seeming 'physical' abilities in that realm (CHA->STR, INT->DEX, WIS->CON).  Used the same rule of thumb for interacting with 'spirits' in later adventures.  It was a lot of Cartesian dualist and theosophic silliness, really, but in a fantasy game, I think that's OK.




Right. And that's great that you did that, at your table, in that scenario/game. Sounds cool and fun.

That does not mean that all of the "this means something because I'm putting colons in between them" talk going on here is some kind of formal defined or even "as intended" rules/definitions that must be recognized or adhered.

It's fun theorizing. Interesting to comparing perspectives. But surprise, surprise...I like mine better.  It "works", is consistent with my ideas/visions of what these characters are like, how they are best represented in the game world.

..and that's as valid as anything needs be in a D&D game/world.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

LOL! Like I said, the six abilities in D&D are largely incoherent and meaningless.

I hope these past two pages disabused you of any sentiments to the contrary.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Minigiant said:


> PSIONIC HORROR
> You project a horrifying image in a creature's mind. The target must make a Charisma saving throw or drop whatever they are holding and be frightened for the duration....
> 
> Empathic Mind: The power is a 40 ft cone and affects all creatures in the cone of your choosing. The DC is Wisdom Based.
> ...



Do not like. No cohesion to the power.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I disagree with a lot of what you said, above, but I'm also OK with the idea of a psionic sub-class (or several).  That could be in addition to a full class psion, of course.




My dream set up...

Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
Lurk: rogue subtype like AT for psionics.
Soul knife: monk subclass that gives mind blade to monk.
Wild Talent: feat that grants minor psionics to anyone, like magical adept.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Wait. Do we all agree that Psion deserves to be a full class? Is this true?

* At the same time*, I want psionic subclasses of normal classes, like Wizard, Cleric, and Bard, with normal mechanics, normal multiclassing, etcetera.



Personally, I want a Psychic Warrior that is fully magical - a full caster.

I want the Psion to fight magically at a distance for one archetype. But I also want the same Psion class to play like a Swordmage (or a Jedi), fighting completely magicially but in melee, for the Psywar archetype of the Psion class.

I tend to associate the Psywar with shapeshifting (transmutation, psychometabolism), so high Constitution for the Psywar archetype works ok.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Minigiant said:


> No. The psionic character picks how they use the power and each method uses a different DC.
> 
> PSIONIC HORROR
> You project a horrifying image in a creature's mind. The target must make a Charisma saving throw or drop whatever they are holding and be frightened for the duration....
> ...




I see. In a way, it would make psionics like a skill system. Interesting. Whatever is applicable to that power is what you use. I could see that. Seems a bit more complicated than I would care for. Makes playing a psionic a little less "new player" friendly...but it could certainly work.

So...what ability would you say would be the class' primary then? Maybe something...something that, say, could be used to keep one's different power categories organized in one's mind....something that would help one recall which "part of your mind" one needed to focus to use a given power...Something, maybe, that might help is gurus or advanced mentalists had written pointers or training techniques about...that one might...say....study to understand which part of their psyche will enact a given power. Some kind of ability like that lets you be good at all of those "brainy" kinds of things sounds like it just might work.


----------



## exile (Jun 24, 2015)

So, this thread is pretty long, and I can't bring myself to read it. In editions past, if memory serves, psionics interacyed with magic as though it were simply another form of magic. I like to think that psionics is not magic, simply the power of the human mind unleashed; and the two don't/shouldn't interact. Sci-fi sprinkled very, very judiciously into magic/fantasy world.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> My dream set up...
> 
> Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
> Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
> ...




More thoughts on this...

Psion. Full "caster" analogue; either akin to warlock or wizard in HD/Wpns/Armor (depending on how psionic rules are set up). 
Kineticist: Specializes in Telekinesis. More "offensive" than other psions.
Telepath: Mind control and dominating. Can act as a face (charms) or can try to turn foes. 
Egoist: Mind over Body powers; healing, shapeshifting, etc. 
Nomad: Teleportation and transporation, but also some battlefield control.
Seer: Clairvoyant, master of divination-like powers and learning things. 

Psychic Warrior. If psionics is truly different enough, a fighter subclass (as well as the rogue and monk versions) would work to make them feel "psionic" However, if psionics ends up being Spells in a different model (IE 3e psionics) then a paladin-like base class with its own subtypes (Soul Knife for Jedi, Battle Mind for a kinda leader-y type) might work.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Wait. Do we all agree that Psion deserves to be a full class? Is this true?




I believe so. GO TEAM PSI!



Yaarel said:


> * At the same time*, I want psionic subclasses of normal classes, like Wizard, Cleric, and Bard, with normal mechanics, normal multiclassing, etcetera.




Other than the Psychic Warrior as a Figther sub, I really don't care about the rest. But I suppose they are inevitable.



Yaarel said:


> Personally, I want a Psychic Warrior that is fully magical - a full caster.




Ah. And here's my stop on the We All Agree Express. Was fun while it lasted. 



Yaarel said:


> I want the Psion to fight magically at a distance for one archetype. But I also want the same Psion class to play like a Swordmage (or a Jedi), fighting completely magicially but in melee, for the Psywar archetype of the Psion class.
> 
> I tend to associate the Psywar with shapeshifting (transmutation, psychometabolism), so high Constitution for the Psywar archetype works ok.




Yeeeah. I don't think I would ever think of a Jedi as "fighting completely magically." They are trained to fight...and use magic while fighting. But they aren't (other than the guys with the blue lightning) fighting, really, "with magic"....as, I feel, would be necessary for a "full caster" type.

Edit to add: 'Course, I don't want to see an actual "Jedi" PC within a 100 light years of my D&D table, at all. But a psionic equivalent of an Eldritch Knight seems like a no-brainer (heh. ironically).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> My dream set up...
> 
> Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
> Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
> ...




You want NINE psionic classes?  Good grief.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Jedis fight blind, jump telekinetically, deflect attacks with force armor, and *never* use physical strength. Lightsabers require no muscle.

Plus they lift with their mind. And shoot lightning bolts.

Also telepathy and suggestion tricks.

Jedi = full caster



Compare 4e Swordmage. But psi.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> You want NINE psionic classes?  Good grief.




[Edit] Right, nine, including metacreativity.



Remathilis likes less 3e psionics, with its more normal spellcasting mechanics.

But 3e has a strong psi fandom. It seems a mistake to alienate them.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 24, 2015)

Just to add to my thought about about nine subclasses.

If WOTC were to publish this, either pdf or book, doesn't matter, it would mean I wouldn't use it.  It's far, far too much material.  That's enough material to completely replace virtually every class in the game.  I wouldn't use 90% of it.  Anyone coming to my table wanting to play a psionicist would also be disappointed.  I have no intention or reading _another_ player's handbook worth of material just to play D&D.  Psionics should add to the game, not overwhelm it.

I honestly think that if this is your benchmark of success, you're going to be disappointed.  I'm thinking two, maybe three subclasses total.  Anything more than that is just a waste.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> That's enough material to completely replace virtually every class in the game.




Heh. To be fair. To replace every class in the game is the D&D psionic tradition.

(Plus psi feats.)


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Personally, I want a Psychic Warrior that is fully magical - a full caster.
> 
> I want the Psion to fight magically at a distance for one archetype. But I also want the same Psion class to play like a Swordmage (or a Jedi), fighting completely magicially but in melee, for the Psywar archetype of the Psion class.



Nope. Uh-uh. I see Psychic Warrior as being the psionic equivalent of either the Eldritch Knight or the Paladin. I don't really want to see anything that's truly Jedi-like in D&D, but the Psychic Warrior is as close as it gets -- but is half-caster, at best. A fully separate Psychic Warrior could obsolete the Monk, as well, but wouldn't be much more overtly "magical" (take the word as intended, let's skip the debate, please).

A full-caster psion should not be able to wade into melee. I get that there's a precedent with the Cleric, but I don't like how martially capable that class is, either. A Bladelock or Valor Bard is as martial as a full caster should get. Maybe that's what you mean. In either case, I do not like the idea of a single class being able to be as "magical" as a Wizard and as martial as a Paladin. That sets off gigantic klaxons in my head that the concept isn't defined well enough.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

@_*Mercule*_

A Bard or Cleric psi archetype makes a great Psywar, competent in melee, and can excel at psychometabolic healing. Add force armor or shapeshift toughness to replace mundane armor.

The difference between a fully magical Wizard and a fully magical Swordmage, is the magic of the Swordmage happens within melee range (within the bodily aura), sometimes touching without weapons. By contrast, the Wizard tends to evade melee range casting from a distance.

Albeit, the Jedi is gishy in the sense of being able to mix melee magic and distance magic.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> That's enough material to completely replace virtually every class in the game.  I wouldn't use 90% of it.



That actually is my idea of "fully developed" psionics. I definitely think that psionics should be able to fully replace "arcane" magic, in the game, which mean Wizard, Sorcerer, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster for sure. Potentially Warlock and Bard, as well. Additionally, as I indicated, upthread, I don't like Clerics without gods at all -- like think it's an oxymoron. The Ardent is a very viable, even compelling, option for the "cleric" of a philosophy.

The end result of the above is that, with the exception of Paladin and Ranger, psionic could be used as a full replacement for PHB casters. The Paladin makes no sense in a world where Ardents have replaced Clerics, and there's already an option for a spell-less Ranger. So, have at it, if you want.

That said, I'm not likely to go that far. I like psionic to be an oddity, in my game. I'd allow any of the above, but I wouldn't really promote them or have them as major themes. In some settings, I might only use pure Psions and forget the others -- or use Ardents instead of Clerics, just to get the Arcane/Divine split. Any rules for psionics needs to be balanced against cherry-picking, but I think at least a 96 page hardcover is appropriate for WotC to say they've really "done" psionic. Anything between that and a sorcerer subclass is going to feel half-baked.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> @_*Mercule*_
> 
> A Bard or Cleric psi archetype makes a great Psywar, competent in melee, and can excel at psychometabolic healing. Add force armor or shapeshift toughness to replace mundane armor.
> 
> ...



I think I'm going to have to go with "It might work, but I just don't see it" on this one. The Bard makes a good case for competent in melee, with full caster progression, but it still "feels" wrong. That's not really a good reason for not doing it, just a good reason for not having me do it.

So, I'll go with: I'd rather not spend much effort on it, but if it comes together, so be it.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

The problem is: ‘magic and psionics are different’.

To replace every magical archetype with its psionic equivalent is an eventuality.



If, however, magic and psionics are the same. Then use a Cleric psionically. And done.

That is why a subclass that can change the flavor of a core class, is better than creating yet an other class.

Psionics only needs one full class.

For anything else, tweak the core classes, for familiar mechanics with a dash of psi flavor.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2015)

For me, the proper bare minimum of Psi classes would be:

Psion: analogous to the full caster, with narrowly focused disciplines, like Telepaths, Telekineticists, Empaths, etc.  There would be no generalist.  There might not be a Psychometabolic Psion who can boost his combat prowess- that would be the specialty of the Psychic Warriors.

Psychic Warriors: analogous to half-casting warriors, their powers are almost all combat related Psychometabolic boosts & buffs, some would be related to movement.  A small smattering would be Telepathy and Telekinetic.  Soul Knives might work best as a subclass of the PsyWar.  Ditto past classes like Ardents, Lurks, Divine Minds, or a Psionic Monk, if they're included.

Wild Talent: not a class, but a feat driven way for anyone to gain a power.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Mercule said:


> The Bard makes a good case for competent in melee, with full caster progression, but it still "feels" wrong. That's not really a good reason for not doing it, just a good reason for not having me do it.




5e still lacks the 4e Swordmage, which is a popular class.

If the 5e psi content offers a melee full caster - a psi version of Swordmage - it brings something new to 5e.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 24, 2015)

A full psion should be more Professor X than Luke Skywalker.
Save Jedi for the subclass equivalent to Eldritch Knight, I agree.


----------



## shadow (Jun 24, 2015)

If Mike Mearls wants to change the 'flavor' of psionics, I would rather see a pseudo-Asian mysticism flavor rather than a Cthulhu-esque flavor with all the mentions of the 'far-realm'.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Psions can function as a party face. Theyre telepaths and charmers. They know what people want, know how to convince, and can even psychically predict the best way to do it.
> 
> 
> Actually ... Spock has extremely high Charisma.
> ...




They _can_ function as the face; I never said they couldn't, but they shouldn't default to that.  I knew that some folks would insist Spock had high CHA, which is why I even mentioned that in my post. 

Force of personality in some instances, sure, but Spock is not a guy that doesn't rub [arguably] most people the wrong way -_Unless_ they're attracted to his intellect.  In that way he has low Charisma.  D&D doesn't really model this very well, as has been pointed out. 

The defining attribute of Spock (and all Vulcans who posess mild psionics) is Intelligence. Others have detailed better than I can why INT may be an applicable stat for psionics.

Also, I like the idea of a psion who is in practice pretty bad at influencing others to agree with him.  That is, _until_ he takes over the other's mind to force them to agree with him.  That's more fun than if if he's good always good at convincing others naturally (through his strong CHA) and need not rely on his mind powers.

But more importantly, WotC and Mearls have already said that INT will probably be the primary stat to save against psionic attacks, which leads me to infer that it will be the main stat used to inflict those saves.  

As much as I've argued for my possibly idiosyncratic point of view of psionics [but who knows until actual survey data comes in?] I think that INT as a primary stat is more or less already going to be the default.  I'm not sure that arguing for CHA or variable attributes for casting is going to get very far.  

Also, mechanically, I think there's enough CHA casters.  Also, that variable primary stats for a class is way too complicated for 5e's pedigree.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> 5e still lacks the 4e Swordmage, which is a popular class.
> 
> If the 5e psi content offers a melee full caster - a psi version of Swordmage - it brings something new to 5e.



The Eldritch Knight is sufficient, for my tastes, though I wouldn't be opposed to something at the level of an arcane Paladin. I've never seen the 4E Swordmage, though, so there may be something there that I'm missing.



shadow said:


> If Mike Mearls wants to change the 'flavor' of psionics, I would rather see a pseudo-Asian mysticism flavor rather than a Cthulhu-esque flavor with all the mentions of the 'far-realm'.



Amen. Bring on the chakras, ki, etc. Even in 3E, the Monk seemed to fit very well into the psionics "source". I'd like to see that continue.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

Mercule said:


> The Eldritch Knight is sufficient, for my tastes, though I wouldn't be opposed to something at the level of an arcane Paladin. I've never seen the 4E Swordmage, though, so there may be something there that I'm missing.




I get what you're saying on the arcane warrior/paladin-style...and I rather agree, with the principle, not necessarily the psionic option...it's been several (well, ALL) editions of the default Fighter/Cleric = Paladin, Fighter/Druid (or Fighter/Thief to some) = Ranger....but they've never really tackled the Fighter/Mage = complete own class (since the "Elf" class of BECM).

And that's the problem with the idea of doing this with a Psychic Warrior type...it would mean, aside from the Psion/Psychic/Psionicist "base" class, the Psychic Warrior would be another totally own "base" class...and I don't really want to see that. Something arcane-based that is a "Swordmage/Spellsword/Bladesinger [for everyone, not just elves]" en par with a Paladin or Ranger [so is that "Half caster" as far as 5e is concerned?] deserves its own class. But I don't think (or think I want) a Psy. option to be that.

One "base" psionic class, + subclasses of its own, + _a few_ [not everybody!] subclasses for the existing classes, + a Wild/Random Talent feat seems like it covers an AWFUL lot of ground. 

Fighter + limited psychic powers, Thief/Rogue + limited psychic powers, Monk + limited psychic powers, I can totally see/get on board with (or the Fighter and Monk, for sure. The Rogue...eh. But I don't really know from a "Lurk" so I guess some people like that.).


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Just to add to my thought about about nine subclasses.
> 
> If WOTC were to publish this, either pdf or book, doesn't matter, it would mean I wouldn't use it.  It's far, far too much material.  That's enough material to completely replace virtually every class in the game.  I wouldn't use 90% of it.  Anyone coming to my table wanting to play a psionicist would also be disappointed.  I have no intention or reading _another_ player's handbook worth of material just to play D&D.  Psionics should add to the game, not overwhelm it.
> 
> I honestly think that if this is your benchmark of success, you're going to be disappointed.  I'm thinking two, maybe three subclasses total.  Anything more than that is just a waste.



Reading comprehension fail.

One full class with 5 subclasses of its own (far less than wizards or clerics) and a psi themed one for fighter, monk, and rogue. And one feat. 

One complete class and three new subclasses are too much for you, you aren't the target audience anyway. Stick with your "PHB only" game.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> I get what you're saying on the arcane warrior/paladin-style...and I rather agree, with the principle, not necessarily the psionic option...it's been several (well, ALL) editions of the default Fighter/Cleric = Paladin, Fighter/Druid (or Fighter/Thief to some) = Ranger....but they've never really tackled the Fighter/Mage = complete own class (since the "Elf" class of BECM).
> 
> And that's the problem with the idea of doing this with a Psychic Warrior type...it would mean, aside from the Psion/Psychic/Psionicist "base" class, the Psychic Warrior would be another totally own "base" class...and I don't really want to see that. Something arcane-based that is a "Swordmage/Spellsword/Bladesinger [for everyone, not just elves]" en par with a Paladin or Ranger [so is that "Half caster" as far as 5e is concerned?] deserves its own class. But I don't think (or think I want) a Psy. option to be that.
> 
> ...



Yeah, lurk isn't all that popular, so skipping it would not be the end of the world.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> I get what you're saying on the arcane warrior/paladin-style...and I rather agree, with the principle, not necessarily the psionic option...it's been several (well, ALL) editions of the default Fighter/Cleric = Paladin, Fighter/Druid (or Fighter/Thief to some) = Ranger....but they've never really tackled the Fighter/Mage = complete own class (since the "Elf" class of BECM).



The biggest problem with a Fighter/Mage is what archetype does it fill. The Paladin and Ranger may both be a hot mess, and arguably redundant with 5E mechanics, but they both fill a standard trope. The Paladin is the "knight in shining armor" whose valor sets him apart from other warriors. The Ranger is the borderlander who isn't really wild so much as solitary. 

The Fighter/Mage is just that: someone who practices two disciplines. Sure, stories are filled with legendary heroes who master both, but game balance demands that to be just another way of saying high-level and such a character to be no more dangerous than a Battle Master or Evoker of the same level. What theme is missing?



> And that's the problem with the idea of doing this with a Psychic Warrior type...it would mean, aside from the Psion/Psychic/Psionicist "base" class, the Psychic Warrior would be another totally own "base" class...and I don't really want to see that. Something arcane-based that is a "Swordmage/Spellsword/Bladesinger [for everyone, not just elves]" en par with a Paladin or Ranger [so is that "Half caster" as far as 5e is concerned?] deserves its own class. But I don't think (or think I want) a Psy. option to be that.



I see the Psychic Warrior best served by being a sub-class of Fighter, like Eldritch Knight. I'm not opposed to a half-caster [term I use because of the multi-classing math, along with third-caster for EK/AT] Psychic Warrior, but I think it would end up stepping on the Monk's toes a bit, if the flavor of psionics was left neutral.

I do not think we need both a Psychic Warrior and a Soulknife class. I've never thought there was enough distinction to warrant both classes. The mind blade could be handled very much like the Warlock blade pact, where augments can be applied to either the mind blade or a specific physical weapon. If the Psychic Warrior was turned into a half-caster, the Soulknife makes sense as one of the sub-classes, though. The other option is to turn the Soulknife into a Monk sub-class and let players choose which way they want to play out their prowess. I think I actually like that last option best.



> One "base" psionic class, + subclasses of its own, + _a few_ [not everybody!] subclasses for the existing classes, + a Wild/Random Talent feat seems like it covers an AWFUL lot of ground.
> 
> Fighter + limited psychic powers, Thief/Rogue + limited psychic powers, Monk + limited psychic powers, I can totally see/get on board with (or the Fighter and Monk, for sure. The Rogue...eh. But I don't really know from a "Lurk" so I guess some people like that.).



That's my feeling, as well. I didn't particularly care about the Lurk, either way, but it's an existing concept that fills a niche, should a group want to completely swap out "arcane" (or all) magic for psionics. It would take up a couple of pages, max.

I do like the Ardent, though I'm not sure whether it makes more sense as a stand-alone class or a sub-class of Psion. In the end, that would probably depend on exactly how the underlying mechanics for psionics work. Which, come to think of it, might determine whether or not Psychic Warrior makes sense as a sub-class or stand-alone half-caster.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2015)

Mercule said:


> The Eldritch Knight is sufficient, for my tastes, though I wouldn't be opposed to something at the level of an arcane Paladin.




Having actually played an "Arcane Paladin" in 3.5Ed- a multiclass of Marshal/Duskblade/BttlSorc- I can say it was a fun PC with some interesting aspects to it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> My dream set up...
> 
> Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
> Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
> ...



 That'd be awesome.

I'd like to seen an Ardent in there somewhere, too.  Maybe a psion sub-class, Paladin-like class, or oddly, possibly even barbarian sub-class (Ardents are supposed to be less trained/disciplined and more emotional).

Of course, I'd also be pleased to see the psion even as a sorcerer-sub-class.  



Remathilis said:


> More thoughts on this...
> 
> Psion. Full "caster" analogue; either akin to warlock or wizard in HD/Wpns/Armor (depending on how psionic rules are set up).
> Kineticist: Specializes in Telekinesis. More "offensive" than other psions.
> ...



That would be a very full, full caster, second only to the Cleric & Wizard in number of sub-classes.  Ideal for a settings like Dark Sun where psionics is the primary form of (or alternative to) magic.



> Psychic Warrior. If psionics is truly different enough, a fighter subclass (as well as the rogue and monk versions) would work to make them feel "psionic" However, if psionics ends up being Spells in a different model (IE 3e psionics) then a paladin-like base class with its own subtypes (Soul Knife for Jedi, Battle Mind for a kinda leader-y type) might work.



 In the 'worst'-case, where psionics is just a selection of spells, an EK could just be given access to them, or a similar class set-up would work fine. 

Regardless, it makes sense to have a fighter sub-class for the Battlemind (not a leader, but a defender, btw) or Psychic Warrior so as to share the Fighter's DPR potential, like the EK, keeping them solid in that combat-contribution side.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> LOL! Like I said, the six abilities in D&D are largely incoherent and meaningless.
> 
> I hope these past two pages disabused you of any sentiments to the contrary.



Not at all, no.  Any set of stats in an RPG is going to draw arbitrary lines through the varied realm of human potential, but while that's arbitrary, it's not incoherent, and is a necessary abstraction.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> My dream set up...
> 
> Psion: full class, with 5 subclasses (kineticist, telepath, egoist, seer, nomad).
> Psychic warrior: fighter subtype like EK for psionics.
> ...



Having thought about it, I think this is the right base list. I'll add one more, though: Ardent. I'm not sure whether that needs a stand-alone class, though. It might work fine as a Psion sub-class. I guess it depends on just how fully we'd want psionics to be able to fully replace the existing casters. For my money, it would be a shame to miss by just one class.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 24, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Do not like. No cohesion to the power.




Whadaya mean?
You telepathically enter a foe's enemy and scare them with a horrible image. A wise psion can sense and enter more minds. A smart psion can build a scarier image. And the charismatic psion wrecks the mind as he or she enters with their force of personality.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 24, 2015)

For those not in the know [and me  ] What is/was the Ardent? Their flavor/story, I mean? Their differentiating feature(s)?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2015)

More or less a Psionic Cleric.  Divine mind was a Psi-ladin.  Lurks were the sneaky ones.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Minigiant said:


> Whadaya mean?
> You telepathically enter a foe's enemy and scare them with a horrible image. A wise psion can sense and enter more minds. A smart psion can build a scarier image. And the charismatic psion wrecks the mind as he or she enters with their force of personality.



It reads like cramming _flaming sphere_, _fireball_, and _wall of fire_ into a single spell. All three burn multiple people. An intimidating (charismatic) wizard rolls over people. A smart (precise) wizard hits just the right point. A willful (wisdom) wizard uses it for defense as well as offense.

I can justify it, but it's a stretch. The end effects are just too varied. They should be separate spells/powers that are only available to different classes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> For those not in the know [and me  ] What is/was the Ardent? Their flavor/story, I mean? Their differentiating feature(s)?



 I'm not sure what their history was prior to 4e, but in 4e they were a 'grid-filling' leader class.  Like any leader, they healed some.  They had a 'mantle,' an aura around them that bolstered their allies mentally.  They were not trained like psions or disciplined like battleminds or monks, rather their psionics were self-discovered, driven by emotion, like zeal for a cause or elation in battle.  They project negative or disruptive emotions at enemies, and focused/positive/constructive (in context) ones to their allies.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> For those not in the know [and me  ] What is/was the Ardent? Their flavor/story, I mean? Their differentiating feature(s)?



As stated, they were psi-clerics, which is why they'd be the last piece for a full replacement of full casters (Bards are still there, but I'm ignoring them). They actually work very well for a "spiritual atheist" or a philosophy priest. Since I consider godless Clerics to be a non-sequiter, they also represent the middle ground on that, to me.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> For those not in the know [and me  ] What is/was the Ardent? Their flavor/story, I mean? Their differentiating feature(s)?




Ardent's were philosophers as clerics were to priests; somoene who drew knowledge around a set of beliefs (called mantles) and had powers only tied to said belief. They were psionic leaders when they appeared in 4e (they were first in Complete Psionics in 3.5). 

Stripped down to brass tacks, I'm not sure they have a lot of room to explore in 5e. If anything, they might be the best example of a "spellcaster psionic subclass" akin to taking a caster (like the cleric) and giving him a bit of a psionic boost atop of his normal (divine) spellcasting. They serve a vital role in a "psionics replaces magic" world, but in a "psionics co-exists with magic" world, they really feel redundant with cleric and psion classes. 

For what its worth, I feel the same way about Wilder (hmmm... people want your psionic sorcerer subclass, this might be fertile ground) and divine mind (which should probably merge with the psychic warrior and be done). I could even argue the lurk (who has little going beyond being the psionic equivalent to the arcane trickster) isn't even all that strong as to warrant inclusion. If I got a good psion class and something that blends psionics with melee, I'd be happy. (And mind blades, those are too cool to lose).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2015)

Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes.  I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit.  But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me.  It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.

Better, IMHO, to have the classes remain purely internal in their Psi, and have them be drawn to serve their faiths' hierarchies just like other, non-divine classes are free to do.

The one exception I could see is that I think it is entirely within the scope of the internal logic of a divinely fervent Psionic manifester to be able to "flavor" their powers with a bit of divine energy through a holy symbol, probably via a feat.

The lurk role I saw as something that could have been handled via the Soulknife- possibly with a modest rewrite.  And both, I felt, could work as modified PsyWars.  Like I (think I) said, _Hyperconscious_ was a well-done take on Psi, and I personally found it indispensable for inclusion in 3.5Ed's handling of psi.  Ditto dragon #341 (as I recall), which did a better job of enhancing the Soulknife than CompPsi did by miles.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not at all, no.  Any set of stats in an RPG is going to draw arbitrary lines through the varied realm of human potential, but while that's arbitrary, it's not incoherent, and is a necessary abstraction.




If players can use almost any ability to represent the same concept, it means the abilities themselves lack conceptual consistency and are meaningless.

There are no lines being drawn between one ability and an other. There are no definitions.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes.  I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit.  But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me.  It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.
> 
> Better, IMHO, to have the classes remain purely internal in their Psi, and have them be drawn to serve their faiths' hierarchies just like other, non-divine classes are free to do.
> 
> The one exception I could see is that I think it is entirely within the scope of the internal logic of a divinely fervent Psionic manifester to be able to "flavor" their powers with a bit of divine energy through a holy symbol, probably via a feat.




When I was working on my (never finished) Psionics Only world, Ardent, DM, Erudite, and Lurk (and along with Psion, Wilder, Soulknife, and Psychic Warrior) were great; they replaced all the caster classes in the PHB with choices to spare (I kept the monk, barbarian, rogue, and fighter, and swapped scout for ranger). In the era of 3.5, they made sense and fit. Now, not so sure. I'd rather a sufficiently strong Psion class than having his (already kinda niche) role spread among the Ardent and like. YMMV, but I don't feel ardent did much but grid-fill (even in 3.5). Give the Egoist Psion good healing ability and his mechanical niche is gone.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

A ‘psychic healer’ is a vibrant concept. Psionics deserves full healing, as much as or more than a Cleric.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> A ‘psychic healer’ is a vibrant concept. Psionics deserves full healing, as much as or more than a Cleric.




Agreed, just not sure the ardent is needed to do that. (Nor am I sure I want psionics raising the dead).


----------



## Nifft (Jun 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes.  I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit.  But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me.  It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.



 Well, yeah. The Divine Mind was bad both in background and in implementation. The Dragon Shaman did his thing better.

If you use the Ardent as being a philosopher rather than a worshiper, then it can work in a world with (or without) Clerics.

Lurk was very limited and very combat-oriented, which was weird because it didn't have any combat staying power. I've seen it said that the Lurk was intended as an Assassin rather than a Rogue, but it never worked out in play for us. Maybe it's a playstyle thing, and we would have had to move to a more Assassin-oriented style of play. (Spellthief never worked out for us either, so maybe it's us, or maybe it's just late-edition Rogue-class design issues.)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> The one exception I could see is that I think it is entirely within the scope of the internal logic of a divinely fervent Psionic manifester to be able to "flavor" their powers with a bit of divine energy through a holy symbol, probably via a feat.



 Yeah, that'd be cool. Augmenting one type of power with another. That could work for Nature and Arcane guys, too.



Yaarel said:


> A ‘psychic healer’ is a vibrant concept. Psionics deserves full healing, as much as or more than a Cleric.



 Absolutely yes.

I don't want to see the same trick which was used to make 3.5e psi healing valid, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2015)

Ardent just seemed too much like "filling a hole" in the game than a good use of design space.  Psionic Healars, OTOH, have all kinds of precedent.  

As I mentioned before, the Empathic healer is an evocative concept- psychically transferring wounds from victim to healer, there healing himself.  Now, there's all kinds of reasons why you wouldn't want to do this transfer at a 1:1 ratio, but I could definitely see a burn a HP for 1d6 of healing kind of thing.

I could also see psi healing "overclocking" the metabolism of a victim's body to accelerate healing.

More esoteric forms of Psionic healing might involve psionically petitioning for assistance from otherplanar beings  cauterizing wounds via directed energy, or using force of mind to literally hold the patient together.

Looking further afield, manifester's might tap into the Orgone (a conceptual precursor to The Force) and- almost Defiler-like- directing life-energy from outside the victim's body into it, causing healing to occur.  Of course, that energy has to come from somewhere...  Which, BTW, would also lend itself to inclusion of Orgone accumulators (or something like them), one of the few kinds Psionic-themed physical foci I'd like to see.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> If players can use almost any ability to represent the same concept,



 I don't see how that's remotely the case



> There are no lines being drawn between one ability and an other. There are no definitions.



 Each ability has been defined in each and every edition.  They may not be great definitions, but they exist.



Remathilis said:


> Agreed, just not sure the ardent is needed to do that.



 Strictly speaking, no specific past psionic class is 'needed.'  I just think the Ardent's take on psionics as emotion is worth retaining in some form, and the leader/healer form isn't an inappropriate one.

I do agree that the 'belief' or divine version of the Ardent is a more specific and less appealing.



> (Nor am I sure I want psionics raising the dead).



 That reminds me of the idea that psionics should be mostly maintained rather than have fire-and-forget durations or being permanent (thus resurrection is inappropriate).

What would be appropriate would be for psionics to make heavy use of the Concentration mechanic, for instance to replace components on any spell that normally had a duration, to convert it to a discipline/science.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Strictly speaking, no specific past psionic class is 'needed.'  I just think the Ardent's take on psionics as emotion is worth retaining in some form, and the leader/healer form isn't an inappropriate one.
> 
> I do agree that the 'belief' or divine version of the Ardent is a more specific and less appealing.



 One thing I did was to give the Ardent the auras from the Divine Mind (but also I re-wrote them to all use the same scaling, and to be more consistent in terms of power).

With the auras, an Ardent was a fine Leader role guy.



Tony Vargas said:


> That reminds me of the idea that psionics should be mostly maintained rather than have fire-and-forget durations or being permanent (thus resurrection is inappropriate).
> 
> What would be appropriate would be for psionics to make heavy use of the Concentration mechanic, for instance to replace components on any spell that normally had a duration, to convert it to a discipline/science.



 An idea for that:
- Psionic characters can maintain Concentration for multiple powers. Starting with 2 powers at level 5, three at level 15, and four at level 20.
- But, losing Concentration on one power means you lose Concentration on all powers.
- Call this "maintaining Psionic Focus".


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> They may not be great definitions ...




The six abilities may not have great definitions.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 24, 2015)

In settings that lack gods, psionic healing requires full normal healing - including Resurrection - without gimmicks, without unnecessary sacrifice, without pressure to be inferior to a Cleric.

When the Bard (who seems psionic to me) can truly resurrect, so can psionics.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Even though I really like Psionics, I never had much use for the Ardent and Lurk as distinct classes.  I liked the Divine Mind because of the mechanic of the Psionic auras- something I always felt had merit.  But thematically, neither the Ardent or DM as Psions sourcing their psi from the divine made much sense to me.  It seemed...it seemed like the combination of divine (outside) sourcing of psi (internal power) were in logical conflict.



I actually specifically disliked the Divine Mind and banned it on sight. The flavor just never worked for me, because it was explicitly tied to the divine. It voided the whole internal power thing that I see as being so important to psions.

The Ardent, on the other hand, wasn't as expressly tied to the divine, if at all. It may not have been wholly internal, but it was tied to "the collective subconscious", which is to say an aggregation of internals, rather than the divine.

That was one of the first books I sold, when I started off-loading my 3E stuff, so I'm going from memory, here.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> In settings that lack gods, psionic healing requires full normal healing - including Resurrection - without gimmicks, without unnecessary sacrifice, without pressure to be inferior to a Cleric.
> 
> When the Bard (who seems psionic to me) can truly resurrect, so can psionics.



It doesn't have to work the same, though. This makes me think of a Fantasy Hero game in which I played. 

One of the other characters was a sort of godless cleric or very creepy necromancer. He couldn't heal people, but he could mend non-living objects, including wood and leather. He could also capture and contain souls/spirits. When one of the PCs was gravely wounded, he captured her soul (which "killed" her), mended her body, and then stuck the soul back in. I have no idea what the character build looked like, but the GM knew the system well enough that I'm sure it was legal. The GM also did a good enough job of describing the experience and implying in-game consequences that no one really wanted to volunteer for casual healing -- and we all kept our distance from the creepy guy.

Anyway, while I don't see psionic resurrection resembling a petition to the heavens to return the soul and heal the body, I could certainly be persuaded that a powerful Ardent or Psion can trace the lingering imprint from the body to wherever the psyche may be and drag it back.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 24, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> In settings that lack gods, psionic healing requires full normal healing - including Resurrection - without gimmicks, without unnecessary sacrifice, without pressure to be inferior to a Cleric.
> 
> When the Bard (who seems psionic to me) can truly resurrect, so can psionics.



 Yeah. I actually don't have a problem with using the same resurrection mechanic, because resurrection ought to be pretty rare in play as compared to healing, and resurrection will tend to happen out of combat so it's not a tactical consideration.



Mercule said:


> It doesn't have to work the same, though. This makes me think of a Fantasy Hero game in which I played.
> 
> One of the other characters was a sort of godless cleric or very creepy necromancer. He couldn't heal people, but he could mend non-living objects, including wood and leather. He could also capture and contain souls/spirits. When one of the PCs was gravely wounded, he captured her soul (which "killed" her), mended her body, and then stuck the soul back in. I have no idea what the character build looked like, but the GM knew the system well enough that I'm sure it was legal. The GM also did a good enough job of describing the experience and implying in-game consequences that no one really wanted to volunteer for casual healing -- and we all kept our distance from the creepy guy.
> 
> Anyway, while I don't see psionic resurrection resembling a petition to the heavens to return the soul and heal the body, I could certainly be persuaded that a powerful Ardent or Psion can trace the lingering imprint from the body to wherever the psyche may be and drag it back.



 One cool thing I recall from 3.5e was the distinction between the Vigor spells (which granted fast healing) and the Cure spells (which provided instant healing).

Psionics could grant fast healing instead of instant healing -- that's kinda in tune with "psychometabolism" flavor rather than "positive energy spike".

It could also do stuff like: "When someone rolls a die to recover hp during a short rest, they get +1 hp per die spent." Nice synergy with the Bard, rather than competition.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Psionics could grant fast healing instead of instant healing -- that's kinda in tune with "psychometabolism" flavor rather than "positive energy spike".




My thinking exactly.



> It could also do stuff like: "When someone rolls a die to recover hp during a short rest, they get +1 hp per die spent." Nice synergy with the Bard, rather than competition.




Enhancing of other methods of healing also seems thematically consistent.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Yeah. I actually don't have a problem with using the same resurrection mechanic, because resurrection ought to be pretty rare in play as compared to healing, and resurrection will tend to happen out of combat so it's not a tactical consideration.



Agreed. I didn't see my description as anything other than in-game fluff. There really isn't much fancy you can do with "stop being dead", from a mechanical standpoint, at least in context with D&D rules.

Definitely agree with resurrection being rare. I think I've seen any form of raise dead effect three times, max, in 30 years of gaming. That sounds about right. If I was running a PHB + Psionics game, I'd probably house rule psionic resurrection out. That's more because I want to decrease availability overall, though. I can always tell a cleric "no" for a variety of reasons.



> One cool thing I recall from 3.5e was the distinction between the Vigor spells (which granted fast healing) and the Cure spells (which provided instant healing).
> 
> Psionics could grant fast healing instead of instant healing -- that's kinda in tune with "psychometabolism" flavor rather than "positive energy spike".
> 
> It could also do stuff like: "When someone rolls a die to recover hp during a short rest, they get +1 hp per die spent." Nice synergy with the Bard, rather than competition.



Yeah. Those would be nice ways of dealing with it. It would make psionics more complex, but I think that's one of the trade-offs between psionics and casters: interesting vs. simple mechanics (insert caveat about simple != easy).


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 25, 2015)

Tried to convert 2e, but it was difficult, and didn't (IMHO) meet the 5e simpler yet elegant design theory.

So I took a stab at using spells with a Sorcerer chassis.

After all, RIFTS has the same format for spells and powers.  So did the old supplement call the Arcanum for "Mystics".  And I do want the monk's "ki" to be comparable, and to use the mind flayer, gith et al as is from the MM.  So I went with DM option spell points and a few changes.

Note, I have not posted the power (spell) list.  I'm only going to work on that once the core theory is solid.

BLUF

•	Sorcerer chassis
•	Use DM Option Spell Points
•	No Power (spell) components required
•	Psion Powers equal PH spells, and a few converted EpXPH powers
•	Main Psion Power List (small) plus Bonus Powers from Discipline (like domains but one power for each level 1-9)
•	Replace Sorcerous Origin with Starting Discipline (potential to learn other Disciplines from optional feat selections at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19)
•	Power Save DC: 10 + prof. + Int modifier (fulfills my homebrew premise that psi is strange and powerful, without messing with "transparency"
•	Metapsionics: As Sorcerous Metamagic gained at level 3.


Still under consideration: Cantrips for disciplines and/or as psionic attack modes.

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

I would rather have a spell point system and meta psionics developed by WotC, but this will do until/if then.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Tried to convert 2e, but it was difficult, and didn't (IMHO) meet the 5e simpler yet elegant design theory.
> 
> So I took a stab at using spells with a Sorcerer chassis..




As a homebrew, its perfectly fine and elegant. I'd want more from WotC, but for what you need/want, looks good.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 25, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> As a homebrew, its perfectly fine and elegant. I'd want more from WotC, but for what you need/want, looks good.




I guess this is my sticking point Rem.  What more do you want?  What isn't being captured of the Psion class?  What's missing?

Obviously [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION]'s creation needs a spell list - of course.  It's just the beginning, not the end after all.  But, what else needs to be there?

I guess my question really is, why does psionics have to be more complex?  Why can't we use a simple psionic system?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I guess this is my sticking point Rem.  What more do you want?  What isn't being captured of the Psion class?  What's missing?
> 
> Obviously [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION]'s creation needs a spell list - of course.  It's just the beginning, not the end after all.  But, what else needs to be there?
> 
> I guess my question really is, why does psionics have to be more complex?  Why can't we use a simple psionic system?




Really, I'd like to see something replace meta(magic)psionics. Something unique to the psion. I don't know what just yet, but not a copy of the sorcerer's main feature. 

Additionally, I'd like to see the ratio of "new" powers (or converted from 2e/3e/4e) to "reuse the PHB spell" be higher.  

Everything else is essentially what I'd like to see in a "simple" psionics system (akin to the 3.5 era psion).


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 25, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Tried to convert 2e, but it was difficult, and didn't (IMHO) meet the 5e simpler yet elegant design theory.
> 
> So I took a stab at using spells with a Sorcerer chassis.
> 
> ...




*Smacks forehead* 

That's darn near perfect for a homebrew. I was just going with "Sorcerer with tweaked spell list for flavor" but adding Spell points is that bit of verisimilitude that missing. If you handed a player a handout with renamed spell, they may not even really notice. This could also tweak the Eldritch Knight that way too. 

If you also banned the regular Sorcerer and EK from play, that would help give a more unfamiliar feel to the tweaked classes in the game.

The irony, though, is not lost on me when I say that you should figure out how psionics fit in your game. Not where it came from as a power source -- as so many words have tried to address in this thread -- but more culturally and plot wise. And also how those powers interact politically and mechanically (or Psionic-Magic Transparency as they called it in 3e.) 

I could see a world where some monks were founders of dojos that evolved into Psionic houses of study. Do they still embrace that past or shun it? How do wizards and clerics compete or cooperate with psions? 

Or like in the Deryni Chronicles, they could be the secret sauce for the noblity.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 25, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Really, I'd like to see something replace meta(magic)psionics. Something unique to the psion. I don't know what just yet, but not a copy of the sorcerer's main feature.




Psion "metamagic" should be slightly more powerful than the sorcerer's but be tied to an exhaustion mechanic.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 25, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> *Smacks forehead*
> 
> That's darn near perfect for a homebrew. I was just going with "Sorcerer with tweaked spell list for flavor" but adding Spell points is that bit of verisimilitude that missing. If you handed a player a handout with renamed spell, they may not even really notice. This could also tweak the Eldritch Knight that way too.
> 
> ...




Annnd now I want to use the 3e rules for either Sanity or Taint for wizards and spells. Then BAM! I have an instant setting with just a few rules tweaks. Whoot!


----------



## Staffan (Jun 25, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I guess this is my sticking point Rem.  What more do you want?  What isn't being captured of the Psion class?  What's missing?
> 
> Obviously @_*SkidAce*_'s creation needs a spell list - of course.  It's just the beginning, not the end after all.  But, what else needs to be there?
> 
> I guess my question really is, why does psionics have to be more complex?  Why can't we use a simple psionic system?



I don't know about Remathilis, but here's how I see it:

If psionics is going to be more than a novelty, it should have as much depth as arcane or divine magic. Psionics is an important part of the Dark Sun setting, and a potentially important one for Eberron (depending on your campaign's focus - psionics in Eberron are not as pervasive as in Dark Sun, but they are kind of important). Those settings should have room for many different types of psionic characters, just like there's room for many different types of warriors, and many different types of wizards. Those psionic characters should also be distinct from arcane/divine characters.

5e has four "full-caster" arcane classes (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard) plus two subclasses of other classes that dabble in arcane magic (eldritch knight and arcane trickster), and two full-caster divine classes (cleric, druid) plus two half-caster divine classes (paladin, ranger). Psionics should have something similar.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 25, 2015)

Staffan said:


> If psionics is going to be more than a novelty, it should have as much depth as arcane or divine magic.



 Ironically, the way to do that is the same way they gave arcane as much depth as divine and divine as much depth as arcane:  by making Psionics neo-Vancian casters who pull from the same big list of spells in the PH, just with different lists, different sub-classes, and different features.

That would really fail to capture the classic /feel/ of psionics, though.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2015)

Staffan said:


> I don't know about Remathilis, but here's how I see it:
> 
> If psionics is going to be more than a novelty, it should have as much depth as arcane or divine magic. Psionics is an important part of the Dark Sun setting, and a potentially important one for Eberron (depending on your campaign's focus - psionics in Eberron are not as pervasive as in Dark Sun, but they are kind of important). Those settings should have room for many different types of psionic characters, just like there's room for many different types of warriors, and many different types of wizards. Those psionic characters should also be distinct from arcane/divine characters.
> 
> 5e has four "full-caster" arcane classes (bard, sorcerer, warlock, wizard) plus two subclasses of other classes that dabble in arcane magic (eldritch knight and arcane trickster), and two full-caster divine classes (cleric, druid) plus two half-caster divine classes (paladin, ranger). Psionics should have something similar.




Not sure it needs to be "as big" as arcane or divine. Psionics, even in Dark Sun or Eberron, are fairly niche. I'd rather a tight focus and fewer, well-built material than trying to account for 2-4 classes and additional subclasses.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 25, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ironically, the way to do that is the same way they gave arcane as much depth as divine and divine as much depth as arcane:  by making Psionics neo-Vancian casters who pull from the same big list of spells in the PH, just with different lists, different sub-classes, and different features.




I personally would prefer a greater separation between the divine and arcane spells than exists currently. But psionic powers are not even spells ... they may be magic ... and they are definitely supernatural ... but they are not spells. I don't have a problem with the neo-vancian framework. It can work for resource management, but psionics are supernatural powers categorized by disciplines. I repeat ... they are not spells. They are powers that need to feel different in tone and character to that of spells.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 25, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I personally would prefer a greater separation between the divine and arcane spells than exists currently. But psionic powers are not even spells ... they may be magic ... and they are definitely supernatural ... but they are not spells. I don't have a problem with the neo-vancian framework. It can work for resource management, but psionics are supernatural powers categorized by disciplines. I repeat ... they are not spells. They are powers that need to feel different in tone and character to that of spells.



 'Spells' in 5e are just mechanics that do stuff when you push a resource-allocation button and provide the necessary components.  Totems and Ki powers aren't spell, either, but spells are referenced to describe them, mechanically.  Some monsters still have 'spell like abilities' that aren't spells, aren't cast using components, but otherwise work exactly like a given spell.

Swap components for concentration, and psionic 'spellcasters' would be pretty appropriately differentiated. 

I still think you'd lose classic flavor though.  Power Points, for instance, are just too big a part of that to abandon.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Swap components for concentration, and psionic 'spellcasters' would be pretty appropriately differentiated.




How would this work?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 26, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> How would this work?



 The psionic would have to follow the concentration rules for any 'spell' he cast.  He wouldn't have to follow the component rules.  For instantaneous spells he'd prettymuch bet getting off scott free, I suppose.  Likewise for those already requiring concentration.  Though you might be able to fit in something to make concentrating while casting an issue.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The psionic would have to follow the concentration rules for any 'spell' he cast.  He wouldn't have to follow the component rules.  For instantaneous spells he'd prettymuch bet getting off scott free, I suppose.  Likewise for those already requiring concentration.  Though you might be able to fit in something to make concentrating while casting an issue.




Yeah, those were the same thoughts I was having. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 28, 2015)

What if WotC only develops psionics for a single setting "expansion"? It would seem logical that this would be for Dark Sun, but the Eberron "expansion" is likely to be produced before Dark Sun given it's popularity. If WotC is going to treat rule set expansion in 5e like board game expansion, do we get two different types of psionics ... each tailored to the setting in which they are found? There seems to be a conscious attempt to keep new rules optional and tied to settings. They want the core to remain relevant while new rules remain optional in tone and execution.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 28, 2015)

Psionics too needs to be setting-neutral. The source is the adventurers own mind.

How a setting spins it, depends on the setting.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Psionics too needs to be setting-neutral. The source is the adventurers own mind.
> 
> How a setting spins it, depends on the setting.




I'm not convinced.  Some settings certainly don't need psionics - Dragonlance springs to mind.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms never really used psionics particularly.  Why make a generic psionics system when many D&D settings have no real need for it?  Why not make psionics specific to specific settings?  Maybe a fairly complex Psi system for Dark Sun, since the setting was so steeped in psionics (many of the iconic opponents and NPC's have psionic talents) and a fairly streamlined Psi system for Eberron.  

With a complex and a simple system, anyone who wants to adapt for their own setting has lots of choices.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I'm not convinced.  Some settings certainly don't need psionics - Dragonlance springs to mind.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms never really used psionics particularly.  Why make a generic psionics system when many D&D settings have no real need for it?  Why not make psionics specific to specific settings?  Maybe a fairly complex Psi system for Dark Sun, since the setting was so steeped in psionics (many of the iconic opponents and NPC's have psionic talents) and a fairly streamlined Psi system for Eberron.
> 
> With a complex and a simple system, anyone who wants to adapt for their own setting has lots of choices.




You raise a very good point.  Some settings really, really, don't need Psi.

I'm not sure I'd sign off on your suggestion of 2 (or more) different systems, though.  However, I could see a full/stripped down dichotomy- leaving mechanics unchanged- working, depending on the details of the system.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2015)

Well, something I was thinking about and bouncing around in my brain was the practicalities of adding psi to a game.  If someone drops a psi character on the table, the DM is kinda obligated to add some psi stuff to the game, presuming he's allowing psi in the first place.  Obviously if there's no psi at all, there's no problem.

But, if I drop a psion on a table, I'm kinda expecting to find psi magic items at some point in the campaign.  If the detailed system has psionic combat, then I'm probably expecting to actually use those rules from time to time.  I was thinking that a two tier psionic system - basic and advanced for lack of better terms - might resolve this.  If the DM doesn't really want to have a psionic focused campaign, but, he's not adverse to someone playing a psionic character, use the basic psi rules which might be some sort of Sorcerer subclass or something like that.  If the DM wants a full Psionic campaign, then he can go for the full rules, complete with a bunch of different classes and subclasses, psionic combat rules and whatnot.


----------



## Uchawi (Jun 28, 2015)

You could have psionics introduced in any setting, but it must be balanced against the PHB classes, versus becoming too specialized within a specific setting and then running havoc when introduced to another.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2015)

Uchawi said:


> You could have psionics introduced in any setting, but it must be balanced against the PHB classes, versus becoming too specialized within a specific setting and then running havoc when introduced to another.




I agree.  There is additional practical issues to consider as well.  Take Psionic Combat, for example.  Traditionally, this has been a Psionics only mini-game.  You resolved psionic combat outside of usual combat rules.  Which, unfortunately, led to the "Decker Problem", to borrow from Shadowrun, where you had one player playing for however long, and the rest of the players being observers.  Psionic combat might work great when everyone can play, but, if you include one psionic character and 4 non-psions, then you can wind up with some serious play issues.

OTOH, psionic combat was one of the primary means to distinguish psionics from the rest of the game.  I would think that you lose a lot of psionic flavour if you don't have a psionic combat module at all.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 28, 2015)

I've often found the whole Psionic Combat [at least, as introduced in 1e] to be rather...confusing. I mean, sure, there are elements/times in comics books and such here you have once psychic in direct mental combat with another...but 999 out of 1000 times, that psychic is not going to be encountering/around other psychics. 

They are entering/attempting to effect other "non-psi" minds, particularly in cases of using powers against, say, animal- or "savage-" level intelligences.

It never made sense to me that the psionic character would have waves of attacking and defending themselves in direct mental conflict, but those same powers couldn't be used to "Edo Whip" or "Id Insinuation" the orc patrol that came around the corner. It was, basically, an entire separate subsystem of what was already a subsystem that was practically never going to see use.

So, maybe something simple that lets us use "ye olde psyonyk" attack/defense modes against any mind and a simple ability score contest: like [just spitballing!], any being with an intelligence above X...[10?]...can use Wis. for defense/avoid damage. Use Cha. to resist an effect. Use Int. to attack/"fight back".

Basically, psionic attacking/entering a non-psi mind "opens" some piece of that mind's psychic potential -it _has to_ "be there" [in the mind] in order to attack/effect it-...not that a non-psy could actually cause damage to a psionically active character, but they could, say, resist damage themselves, avoid effects and/or possibly "eject" the foreign "body" from their mind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, something I was thinking about and bouncing around in my brain was the practicalities of adding psi to a game.  If someone drops a psi character on the table, the DM is kinda obligated to add some psi stuff to the game, presuming he's allowing psi in the first place.  Obviously if there's no psi at all, there's no problem.
> 
> But, if I drop a psion on a table, I'm kinda expecting to find psi magic items at some point in the campaign.  If the detailed system has psionic combat, then I'm probably expecting to actually use those rules from time to time.  I was thinking that a two tier psionic system - basic and advanced for lack of better terms - might resolve this.  If the DM doesn't really want to have a psionic focused campaign, but, he's not adverse to someone playing a psionic character, use the basic psi rules which might be some sort of Sorcerer subclass or something like that.  If the DM wants a full Psionic campaign, then he can go for the full rules, complete with a bunch of different classes and subclasses, psionic combat rules and whatnot.



I don't really see that as a problem: in published settings, you'll know there is psi or not ahead of time; in homebrew, the DM should tell players what classes, etc. are in or out.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 28, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I'm not convinced.  Some settings certainly don't need psionics - Dragonlance springs to mind.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms never really used psionics particularly.  Why make a generic psionics system when many D&D settings have no real need for it?  Why not make psionics specific to specific settings?  Maybe a fairly complex Psi system for Dark Sun, since the setting was so steeped in psionics (many of the iconic opponents and NPC's have psionic talents) and a fairly streamlined Psi system for Eberron.
> 
> With a complex and a simple system, anyone who wants to adapt for their own setting has lots of choices.




Given that there's certainly far more people playing homebrew settings than play any published one, making a set of rules setting-specific doesn't seem all that sensible - unless the goal is to force people to buy something they otherwise wouldn't be interested in. Who knows how many people's homebrew settings need a set of psionics rules? Mine don't, but I do want some others and if they appear in a setting book then I'd probably resent buying that just for that set of rules.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2015)

I was actually thinking that a Psionics book would be tied to a specific setting to be honest, not that it would appear in a specific setting book.  So, just like the PHB is tied (loosely) to FR with examples of how to do things in other settings, the Psi book would be tied (maybe a bit less loosely) to Darksun with examples on how to do it in other settings.  

OTOH, in my mind, a psionics book would be about 15 pages long and a free pdf on the WOTC site.  I'm not really thinking about a full book.  Like I said earlier, I have no interest in a psionics system that you can replace the PHB with.  

 [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], if you only have the complex version of psionics, then only those that are really invested in adding psionics to the game will use it.  People like me will just ban it from the table because I have no interest in adding that much to my game.  That's why I would like to see a two tier system.  It appeals to everyone, rather than just those that really want psionics.  The primary reason I have never used psionics to any great degree in any homebrew is that I have no interest in adding that many mechanics to the game.  It's just not worth it to me.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 29, 2015)

Maybe WotC can introduce 5e psionics in two ways.

As part of a setting, such as Dark Sun, the rules for psi can remain setting-neutral but come with separate textboxes that explain how psionics fits into the narrative of the Dark Sun setting. Thus the textboxes flavor psi in ways that make sense in that setting. Separate textboxes can even add extra mechanical rules, for how healthy psi interacts with defiling magic, for instance. Even then, the psionic system itself can remain setting neutral and detach cleanly from the Dark Sun setting, for use in other settings.

At the same time, WotC can publish the setting neutral rules for psionics online, without any setting-specific embellishments.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], if you only have the complex version of psionics, then only those that are really invested in adding psionics to the game will use it.  People like me will just ban it from the table because I have no interest in adding that much to my game.  That's why I would like to see a two tier system.  It appeals to everyone, rather than just those that really want psionics.  The primary reason I have never used psionics to any great degree in any homebrew is that I have no interest in adding that many mechanics to the game.  It's just not worth it to me.




Not adding it is your prerogative, but "added complexity" seems more of an excuse than a justification.  Historically, D&D is on the more complex side of the spectrum of RPGs; I don't think most players will balk at Psi because of complexity.

And, IME, stuff that gets banned from D&D games runs the gamut of complexity: individual spells, feats, races, classes (typically Paladins & Monks), whole splatbooks.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not adding it is your prerogative, but "added complexity" seems more of an excuse than a justification.  Historically, D&D is on the more complex side of the spectrum of RPGs; I don't think most players will balk at Psi because of complexity.
> 
> And, IME, stuff that gets banned from D&D games runs the gamut of complexity: individual spells, feats, races, classes (typically Paladins & Monks), whole splatbooks.




Oh, fair enough.  I was mostly thinking from my own perspective.    As I said, Psi was never a big thing at any table I played or ran.  It always seemed like an afterthought.  And, typically, Psionics has been presented as a whole deal - "here is how you create a psionic campaign" style books.  I have zero interest in a psionic campaign.  I have no real beef with a psionic character, but, if that means I'm going to have to deal with things like psionic combat, distinct from the rest of the game, completely new resolution mechanics, etc. etc. then I'm just not interested.  

I guess, IOW, I'm much more likely to include a "psionic sorcerer" than a psion in any game I run.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2015)

As much as psi vs psi mind-combat stuff works in fiction, it absolutely sucks in an RPG.  It typically ruins the flow of the game session.  (See also Shadowrun Deckers.)  So that is something I hope they NEVER include.


----------



## Von Ether (Jun 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And, typically, Psionics has been presented as a whole deal - "here is how you create a psionic campaign" style books.  I have zero interest in a psionic campaign.




Then WotC's 3.X psionics book was for you. They specifically designed it to not overshadow magic and divine magics, pretty much neutering the idea of a WotC psionics campaign. 

While I like the way Eberron handled psionics, which was a very flexible "How much you deal with a certain psionic race is about how much psioinics you'll see in your game." I'd love the option of a truly stand-alone system that let me run a whole campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2015)

Von Ether said:


> Then WotC's 3.X psionics book was for you. They specifically designed it to not overshadow magic and divine magics, pretty much neutering the idea of a WotC psionics campaign.
> 
> While I like the way Eberron handled psionics, which was a very flexible "How much you deal with a certain psionic race is about how much psioinics you'll see in your game." I'd love the option of a truly stand-alone system that let me run a whole campaign.




Complete Psionic was 160 pages long.  That's about 130 pages longer than I want for any psionic rules.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2015)

Let's be fair, though: less than half of that was new classes, feats & powers, and I don't think it included any new mechanics.  All that stuff was set up in the XPH.  Even combined with the XPH, though, and excluding ITS non-mechanical content, you're talking about 6 base classes, a dozen or so PrCls, the feats & powers of a complete Psi system for under 120 pages (probably).  I don't think that's excessive at all for that amount of content.  

Add Dragon #341 and Hyperconsicous for giggles...and that's still less than was printed supporting the PHB wizards alone.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Complete Psionic was 160 pages long.  That's about 130 pages longer than I want for any psionic rules.




The PHB has 28 pages of arcane-casting classes (counting only the bits of the fighter and rogue dedicated to their casting sub-class) and 26 pages of divine-casting classes. It also has 83 pages of spells (including the spell lists). If psionics is to be the equal of arcane or divine magic, it should probably have a similar page count - lowballing it with 45 pages of psionic spells/powers (to be honest it would probably need more, because arcane and divine magic share a lot of spells, so a list that only has the arcane spells would run about 60 pages I guess) + 25 pages of class material gives 70 pages of material, plus some rules on how psionics work, some psionic items, psionic monsters, DM advice on how to use psionics in your own setting and what role it plays (if any) in existing ones. That should be a minimum of 128 pages.

IMO, if they don't want to dedicate that amount of effort to a proper set of psionic rules, they shouldn't even bother. A "storm sorcerer" version of psionics won't make anyone happy.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let's be fair, though: less than half of that was new classes, feats & powers, and I don't think it included any new mechanics.  All that stuff was set up in the XPH.  Even combined with the XPH, though, and excluding ITS non-mechanical content, you're talking about 6 base classes, a dozen or so PrCls, the feats & powers of a complete Psi system for under 120 pages (probably).  I don't think that's excessive at all for that amount of content.
> 
> Add Dragon #341 and Hyperconsicous for giggles...and that's still less than was printed supporting the PHB wizards alone.




Ah, but, see, I didn't use splats in 3e.  I really didn't.  My 3e collection contains zero splat books.  So, for me, the only print support wizards got in my campaigns was the PHB.



			
				Staffan said:
			
		

> A "storm sorcerer" version of psionics won't make anyone happy.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6652355#ixzz3eSSgQnaQ




It would make me perfectly content.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ah, but, see, I didn't use splats in 3e.  I really didn't.  My 3e collection contains zero splat books.  So, for me, the only print support wizards got in my campaigns was the PHB.




Then, if I may be so blunt, you're not the target audience. 

5e is proving itself to be spat-adversarial, so if Mearls and co are going to expand the game to include a new type of magic, it behooves them to give it strong initial support. I want a psionic class, psionic subclasses, psionic feats, a full list of new powers, and psionic monsters to boot. Give me some psionic items as well. Because WotC's going to (probably) only take one bite at this apple, there will be no Complete Psionics, or Psionic Power, or The Will & the Way, so those psionic rules have to give me years of use, and one psionic sorcerer subclass isn't going to cut that. 

Sorry to pick my preferences over yours, but I would rather a ruleset robust and complete for the people who actually want psionics than some one-and-done subclass you MIGHT include IF you decide to allow things beyond the PHB.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 29, 2015)

Hey look, I want "serious" and "robust" and "complete" psionics as much as the next guy...moreso, probably, than many since my homebrew world actually has psychics and psychic organizations in it...[thus why I don't just want to see "Psi in Dark Sun"]

But I don't really want, nor see a need for, a whole separate 1/2-PHB book of over 100 pages.

The "spells list" point is well taken, and sure, maybe we need 40-50 pages of psionic powers descriptions...assuming at least some of the powers will not be the same as existing spells...and in those cases, is not the point of the PHB and design philosophy of 5e (in general) to have that core "root" on which to "add to/build on?" I would EXPECT and WANT to see powers listed to say "As the X level Y-class spell. See page xxx in the PHB." rather than space and page count to just reprint the same description.

6 distinct classes? That's not really necessary or 5e's mode.

Let's take a walk through a hypothetical Psionics Manual, shall we? Let's. 

Skip the covers. I'm going ot presume a soft-bound supplemental type manual. But they could go full hard-cover too. So, either way, you have 4 "pages" count there for inside/outside front and inside/outside rear cover. We're not going to be counting those. We're going to look at "content", so just keep those 4 additional plates in the back of your head.

6 pages for "white" pages, printing info, table of contents, etc...

4pp: What are [might be] Psionics? What might they be? Who has them? How can you use them in a game/campaign/setting?

*NOTE: NONE OF THIS SECTION NEEDS/SHOULD BE PRESCRIPTIVE!* Sorry branding managers. [No, I'm really not.] EVERYTHING in this section should be "_*Is it...?*_" "These individuals *might *be...?" "*Could* Psionics be from...?" "Psychic powers *may* be caused by..." NOTHING MORE!

I mean, come on. If I can come up with a half dozen possibilities in an afternoon, you guys ["professional game designers"] should be able to come up with at least that many to present without crucifying psionics with "One Origin to Brand Them All."  

no more than 4 pp: Psionic Player Race options (whether innate or inclined towards). No more than 2 or 3 races or sub-races to existing PHB races. Maybe: Thri-Keen (throw Dark Sun a bone, as it is likely to be mentioned throughout this manual), Dwarf Subrace: Grey Dwarf, what were those variant humans, Ilumati or something? The guys with the glowing heads. Where were they from? But them. Maaaybe a Gold -oo! Or GEM!- Dragonborn variant...psionic in lieu of a breath weapon or whatever. That's it! That's plenty to add to an already nearing-bloated race list.

Don't need Maenads (nothing more than alt. humans), don't need Dromites (already have an insect race), don't need -what was that other ridiculous thing?-...oh yeah, "Half-Giants" (aside from an immersion breaking biological impossibility, where/how would having giant-blood make you psychically aware/powerful? Not a lot of psionic giants running around in D&D that I've ever seen/heard of. Just all "different for the sake of different" and/or "need something else so we can have another Large race"). They are all just corner-case/fringe bloat.

Not to mention, once Psionics are introduced into the system, it is trivially easy for 5e to ADD more races (or classes/subclasses), I'm thinking predominantly setting-specific material, at some later/other supplements or, as we do now, fan-creations.

6 pp: Psion/Psionicist: Telepath, Telekinetic, Seer, Metabolic, Porter.
3 pp: Fighter Subclass: Psychic Warrior. Monk Subclass: Soulknife. ...ok, fine, Cleric [or Bard? or Druid?!] Subclass/Domain: Ardent.
1-3 pages: Wild Talent Feat. Incorporating Wild/Random Psionics in your Campaign. 

A dozen and a half pages, tops, on player class/race choices.

1 pg: Using Psionics in a "standand" game/combat.
1 pg: Psionic/Mental/"It's all in Your Head" Combat: How to play it. If you can't get this on 1 page, it has no business being in the game.

Options:
1 pg: Sorcerer Subclass Variant/Sidebar [1/2 page]: "Simple/Easy-Use Psionic" Sorcerer.
1/2 pg: Psionics & Multi-classing
4 pp: new Psionic Feats.
2-4 pp (total): Variant way of using psionics: PP, if that's not default, or "Slots", if that's not default. Psionics as ability/skill check? Variant way of playing Psi-Combat? Whatever it turns out to be, if you can't cover them in 1/2-1 page each, they don't need to be there.

Should be cover-able in 5pp: Discussion on the Planes. Ethereal, Astral, Far Realms. Psionic Travel. "Psychic Combat" on. Psionic risks of. 
Sidebar/Alt. Planar Variant: Plane of Dreams.

Let's say, for arguments' sake, we have -at this point here- roughly 32 pages. Following what we've seen of the design/layout of 5e books thus far, we can pretty much guarantee an additional 16 pages worth of art and layout/white space. That brings up to a lovely little 48 pp manual. This is, of course, the most malleable area for spacing.

Now, powers, as noted...let's be generous and say 50 pp will be necessary, though I struggle to see how that would be possible unless you ARE reprinting all of the psionic powers-with-spell-equivalents...but be that as it may. We'll just say 50 (we could take this to include art, as well).

Still brings us in, just under/kissing 100 pp. Now, obviously, if they go one direction or another on the amount of art [presuming layout will be in keeping with the rest of the line] and this could be moderately to significantly closer to 75-80...or could expand well above 100 [with primarily "wasted"/padded space, imo].

SO, yeah...a "not more than 1/3 of the PHB/DMG" is more than sufficient, imho, to get a solid "Bringing Psionics into 5e" manual in our hands, with significant and usable options -a smattering of races and enough classes to cover the major archetypes- without going all bloaty/crazy/"everything psi that ever was."

Is there anything seriously "pressing", that I missed/didn't remember, for introducing/including psionics ...into 5e in a usable form? [and this last is crucial to remember/think instead of just, "But I like/want X from Y edition, cuz mememe!" Does this give you _enough_ to get you rolling with psionics in your 5e game?]


----------



## Sadrik (Jun 29, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Then, if I may be so blunt, you're not the target audience.
> 
> Sorry to pick my preferences over yours, but I would rather a ruleset robust and complete for the people who actually want psionics than some one-and-done subclass you MIGHT include IF you decide to allow things beyond the PHB.




There are lots like Hussar and I though. I see no problem with having options for both our crowds. I want a simple add on, something akin to a sub-class. You want a whole caster class and new add on sub-classes, new unique spell (power) system, new psi feats, new psi magic items; a whole slew of new options. That would make you and many others happy I am sure. Though not everyone. I would like a sorcerer origin and maybe a monk subclass. Perhaps some new spells and magic items and feats. that would make me happy.


----------



## Sadrik (Jun 29, 2015)

Sorcerous Origin: Psionic Talent
Level 1: Language: Telepathy, Select telepathic or telekinetic: your damage spells do psychic damage or force damage and not their listed damage type and gain Psychic damage resistance or Force damage resistance. Mental Defense: gain Int and Wis save proficiency. Added spells dependent on psion type.
Level 3: Metamagic change for this origin: Subtle spell metamagic costs 0 sorcery points to use.
Level 6: Mental Attack: Add your Int, Wis, or Cha to your damage rolls, even non-spell attacks.
Level 14: Eschew components
Level 18: Cast higher than 5th level spells with sorcery points

New Metamagic option:
Chromatic Spell: costs 2 sorcery point: deal damage of a different type for the spell.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 29, 2015)

Sadrik said:


> There are lots like Hussar and I though. I see no problem with having options for both our crowds. I want a simple add on, something akin to a sub-class. You want a whole caster class and new add on sub-classes, new unique spell (power) system, new psi feats, new psi magic items; a whole slew of new options. That would make you and many others happy I am sure. Though not everyone. I would like a sorcerer origin and maybe a monk subclass. Perhaps some new spells and magic items and feats. that would make me happy.




The only way I see this working is if the sorcerer subclass was done as a UA or separate download while full psionics got its own separate release. I can't imagine you, Hussar, or anyone else would be a $40, 130 page rule book on psionics and then only use the last 3 pages of it ever for its sorcerer psion subclass. Odds are, you just won't buy the book, which makes it no different than not having it in the first place. I'm still not sure WotC has the manpower to do psionics once, let alone twice.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 29, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Hey look, I want "serious" and "robust" and "complete" psionics as much as the next guy...moreso, probably, than many since my homebrew world actually has psychics and psychic organizations in it...[thus why I don't just want to see "Psi in Dark Sun"]
> 
> But I don't really want, nor see a need for, a whole separate 1/2-PHB book of over 100 pages.
> 
> ...




I like most of this well enough, especially the "simple" subclass solution included for those that prefer it (though Remalthis is right that it should be a UA article or free download as well since nobody wants to pay $50 for just that).

Now I think you could get it even shorter, not by having "see PHB spell X for description" [please no, not that ever] but just by having the base psionic system be simpler/different. Unlike spells, don't  a prescriptive hard definition for every psionic effect generated listed as a discrete power/spell. 

For those that want psionics that can replace arcane spellcasting in their campaigns: Does it require that there be as many psionic powers as spells, or just that a smaller amount of psionic powers have more flexible effects than spells in the PHB do?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 29, 2015)

Sadrik said:


> There are lots like Hussar and I though. I see no problem with having options for both our crowds. I want a simple add on, something akin to a sub-class. You want a whole caster class and new add on sub-classes, new unique spell (power) system, new psi feats, new psi magic items; a whole slew of new options. That would make you and many others happy I am sure. Though not everyone. I would like a sorcerer origin and maybe a monk subclass. Perhaps some new spells and magic items and feats. that would make me happy.




I think the question also asserts itself: what does all that added complexity get you in terms of play experience? What's the value of that in play? It's another barrier to entry, another hoop to jump through for newbs, another hassle to remember as a DM, another thing to watch for broke-ness, another incompatibility, another wonky rule. 

The price to pay for some people getting the weird and distinct psion of their dreams is that the rest of us get a game that is (perhaps ever-so-slightly) more bloated and confusing than what we have now, or we have to say no a lot. 

A subclass is easier to say yes to. It's more likely to see actual play. It's something a newbie can enjoy. It's not going to mandate that I learn the rules of another 160 page splatbook. It's accessible, understandable, easy to pick up and play with. 

Part of what 5e has going for it is its simplicity and directness and dare-I-say "elegance," and one should not lightly throw that all out just because a subclass doesn't have the same pagecount-ego as the 2e/3e rules.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 29, 2015)

bogmad said:


> I like most of this well enough, especially the "simple" subclass solution included for those that prefer it (though Remalthis is right that it should be a UA article or free download as well since nobody wants to pay $50 for just that).




Sure. No reason not to do that.



bogmad said:


> Now I think you could get it even shorter, not by having "see PHB spell X for description" [please no, not that ever] but just by having the base psionic system be simpler/different. Unlike spells, don't  a prescriptive hard definition for every psionic effect generated listed as a discrete power/spell.




Agreed. This would be a good way to go, afaiac.

I just want to call out the "please no, not that ever". I see this attitude over and over...and I just don't get it. Are you [anyone?!] getting the psionics book without having the PHB already? The whole point of this book (or any other supplement), is that you're adding [some/all] of this material to your "base" game. So this "they'd better not redirect me to the PHB [cuz having to open a second book is just too much work/trouble?!]" really confuses/doesn't make sense to me. Who is getting a psionics manual without already having a set of the rules?

For simplicity's sake, I could see/meet half-way and say there are no psionic powers that emulate spells from the PHB that do not appear in the free PDF Basic Rules! OR we could save ALL of the pages and supply the entire Psionics Powers list as a free PDF. While I am all for that as an _additional _medium for access, people, including myself, will yell about not always having access to a computer/allowing/wanting devices at their tables. I do NOT want the PnP TTRPG to become dependent on having a computer/online access!



bogmad said:


> For those that want psionics that can replace arcane spellcasting in their campaigns: Does it require that there be as many psionic powers as spells, or just that a smaller amount of psionic powers have more flexible effects than spells in the PHB do?




I'd be all for that. But I suspect it would further aggravate those who are already up-in-arms about "rulings not rules" [not that I feel they are deserving of any concession, myself. But WotC seems to want to dance that knife's edge.] and could make any/all use of psionics nearly exclusively DM-dependent material/choices. I'm not sure that can really work in the existing game framework. It may be possible, I'm just not sure how without turning all psi-stuff into pure DM fiat/imagination.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 29, 2015)

Not to get too picayune with requests, I think, [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], psionic monsters are already in the Monster Manual and/or belong in other Monster-related supplements (which are sure to come, eventually). 

I could see granting 3-5 pages towards "psionic magic items" (..."Psitems"? I hear it's what the cool kids are doing these days.  ). But, really, beyond the amulet of mind-shielding and or helm/diadem/headband of telepathy...what real need is there for psitems? 

Other than setting up/presuming/imposing, again, a setting-specific thing where you'd have a whole society of psychic individuals/creatures who would be creating magical items that are psi-based...and it is dependent on the Psionics system, entirely. e.g. If they use Power Points, then you can get into psitems that conserve/replace/minimize point costs, maximize effect/damage without expending extra PP, or slots or bonuses to skill checks or whatever the system happens to be. But those, ultimately, are all fairly...boring and system-gaming.


----------



## bogmad (Jun 29, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Sure. No reason not to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe I was a bit hyperbolic, but the main reason is "why bother?"  If a power is just going to recreate a spell, just call it the spell.  I'd be more on board with a "see spell in phb" than *Id Attacker:* See *Phantasmal Killer (phb pg. xxx)*.  Talk about adding complexity and confusion...



steeldragons said:


> I'd be all for that. But I suspect it would further aggravate those who are already up-in-arms about "rulings not rules" [not that I feel they are deserving of any concession, myself. But WotC seems to want to dance that knife's edge.] and could make any/all use of psionics nearly exclusively DM-dependent material/choices. I'm not sure that can really work in the existing game framework. It may be possible, I'm just not sure how without turning all psi-stuff into pure DM fiat/imagination.




Yeah, it is a fine line, and I'm not pretending to be an actual designer, but I think there are ways to limit things without having to have 50 pages of discrete effects.  Something along the lines of "No discipline can inflict more than x hp in damage per slot level/pp consumed"/ "Unable to teleport more than 50 ft/pp" etc.  
And for classic and "sacred cow" type effects you'd definitely need some hard guidelines (like how psionic invisibility differs from the invisibility spell, and such).  

Just spitballing, but maybe you could even portray possible psionic effects in tables to cut down on space?  
E.g. Here's a table for the telekinetic discipline with different effects that can be generated and their corresponding power point cost


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 29, 2015)

bogmad said:


> Maybe I was a bit hyperbolic, but the main reason is "why bother?"  If a power is just going to recreate a spell, just call it the spell.  I'd be more on board with a "see spell in phb" than *Id Attacker:* See *Phantasmal Killer (phb pg. xxx)*.  Talk about adding complexity and confusion...




Oh that! Agreed! Yeah, I hate that. If what the power is doing is the Phantasmal Killer spell effect, then list Phantasmal Killer. Maybe with a single line of description: "You create illusory images in the target's mind of their greatest fears that scare them enough to kill." So you have the flavor you need to work with off the bat. But for all of the details, I don't need or want space used up for "full spell stat block/write up reprint, take 2." 



bogmad said:


> Yeah, it is a fine line, and I'm not pretending to be an actual designer, but I think there are ways to limit things without having to have 50 pages of discrete effects.  Something along the lines of "No discipline can inflict more than x hp in damage per slot level/pp consumed"/ "Unable to teleport more than 50 ft/pp" etc.




I had something like that for a homebrewed psychic powers system, using PP, but basically saying each point gets you 1 mind and/or 20 + 5 per point feet or pounds (depending on the power). It worked pretty well, but that was with a group of folks who all shared a common vision of what psychic powers were/how they worked and a "comic book/X-Men" kind of sensibility.



bogmad said:


> And for classic and "sacred cow" type effects you'd definitely need some hard guidelines (like how psionic invisibility differs from the invisibility spell, and such).




Right. Of course.



bogmad said:


> Just spitballing, but maybe you could even portray possible psionic effects in tables to cut down on space?
> E.g. Here's a table for the telekinetic discipline with different effects that can be generated and their corresponding power point cost




Oh yeah. Did that already (very basically). hahaha.  See my psychic class write up...some pages back now or in the Homebrew forum.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2015)

> A subclass is easier to say yes to. It's more likely to see actual play. It's something a newbie can enjoy. It's not going to mandate that I learn the rules of another 160 page splatbook. It's accessible, understandable, easy to pick up and play with.




Honestly, "easier" isn't necessarily better...or what I'm looking for.  Sometimes, something different has an intrinsic value, and I think this is one area.

When I go to an ice cream parlor, I don't want to see a half-dozen variants of vanilla and chocolate- so easy to include and accept.  I want to see real variation, because that is an invitation to a new experience.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Honestly, "easier" isn't necessarily better...or what I'm looking for.  Sometimes, something different has an intrinsic value, and I think this is one area.
> 
> When I go to an ice cream parlor, I don't want to see a half-dozen variants of vanilla and chocolate- so easy to include and accept.  I want to see real variation, because that is an invitation to a new experience.




I like new experiences, too, but I've got 12 major ice cream dishes (classes) with 2-8 different kinds of flavors each (subclasses) and a dozen or more toppings (races), with each meal taking a YEAR to finish eating. I've got a HUGE amount of variety right here in front of me! 

I am honestly not that hungry right now. I am in fact just starting in on my first helping. Why the heck would I want a brand new dish with 5 flavors of its own right now? 

Variety is _easy_ in D&D. More of it doesn't necessarily add much. 

Plus, the analogy doesn't account for the cost of development compared to the amount of pepole using it, the particular niche that we're in (not as popular as ice cream!), barriers to entry for newbies, etc., etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2015)

> I am honestly not that hungry right now. Why the heck would I want a brand new dish with 5 flavors of its own right now?



Answer: they're not all for you.  There's a reason why Baskin Robbins has hundreds of flavors (and only has 31 offered at any one time).  Ditto Paciugo gelato.



> Plus, the analogy doesn't account for the cost of development compared to the amount of pepole using it, the particular niche that we're in (not as popular as ice cream!), barriers to entry for newbies, etc., etc.




That is what the free market is for.


----------



## Big J Money (Jun 29, 2015)

Sorry Mike, I disagree with the assumptions behind the question.

"Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting"

What he means by traditional fantasy setting (and probably doesn't even realize it) is basically the D&D brand setting that D&D created.  Fantasy as a genre is an open book.  Just because Tolkien did it one way and Howard did it one way doesn't mean those are the only two options.  I think people should stop using the term traditional; it's limiting to the genre.  He should just say what that actually means, which is "Tolkien imitation" fantasy.

I've had 40 years of that kind of fantasy with D&D, and some of the best settings over the years were the ones that strayed from it.  So Mike, the further you can stray from what you call traditional fantasy the more likely I am to become interested.  IMO don't put a set of old rules on your creative contributions.

PS: I'm not old enough to personally have 40 years.  I just meant D&D's years.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 29, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Answer: they're not all for you.  There's a reason why Baskin Robbins has hundreds of flavors (and only has 31 offered at any one time).  Ditto Paciugo gelato.




Whoever they're for, that person is in the same boat I am more often than not: right in the middle of eating something they enjoy already. 



> That is what the free market is for.




...I understand that this is why 5e is being cautious about new stuff that adds bloat. The last 15 years, the free market has said we will buy chocolate and vanilla and maybe some peanut butter and not much really after that, certainly not enough of it to afford making inventive new flavors just for the sake of variety. 

What I think mearls & co are trying to do is make these new products so that the market will eat more of them (maybe giving you a pumpkin ice cream as part of a halloween promotion!) and so they won't go broke inventing new flavors and have to open up a new ice cream shop in 8 years that sells only Vanilla and Chocolate again.


----------



## steeldragons (Jun 29, 2015)

bogmad said:


> Just spitballing, but maybe you could even portray possible psionic effects in tables to cut down on space?
> E.g. Here's a table for the telekinetic discipline with different effects that can be generated and their corresponding power point cost




OO! Brain-burp!

Clairvoyance Powers:

For each PP spent, the Seer can remotely view an area up to 20' away. For every additional 5' distance and/or each sense added to the viewing (hearing, feeling,...tasting?) the seer spends an additional PP.
The Seer can use powers that duplicate any spell with the Divination descriptor found in the Basic Rules/PHB at a cost of 1 PP per spell level per round.


Telepathy Powers:

For each PP spent, the Telepath can send or receive a silent mentally conveyed message to/from a single mind up to 20' away. For every additional mind and/or 5' distance the telepath spends an additional PP.
The Telepath can use powers that duplicate any spell with the Enchantment or Illusion descriptor found in the Basic Rules/PHB at a a cost of 1 PP per spell level per round.


Telekinetic Powers:

For each PP spent, the Teke can mentally manipulate materials up to 10 lbs. up to 20' distant. For every additional 5 lbs. and/or 5' distance/area covered the teke spends an additional PP.
The Teke can use powers that duplicate any spell with the Evocation or Abjuration descriptor found in the Basic Rules/PHB at a a cost of 1 PP per spell level per round. All damage and effects specified in the spell descriptions is, instead, changed to force or bludgeoning damage.
Teke Variant/Alternate: the powers of the telekinetic are bound to a single energy type: fire, ice, lightning, and all effects and damage are extensions of those energy types instead of the type specified in the spell description

I like collaboration.  ...all assuming, of course, they base things on a PP system.

EDIT: In addition to whatever base- and sub-class features are built in, obviously.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2015)

> The last 15 years, the free market has said we will buy chocolate and vanilla and maybe some peanut butter and not much really after that, certainly not enough of it to afford making inventive new flavors just for the sake of variety.




And yet, companies- even mainstream ones- still find it quite profitable to produce flavors other than the big 3.  There's enough money in the niches to make it worth their while.  (They DO have to taste good to someone, though, so the flavors aren't entirely arbitrary.)

Why?  Because the market is mature and saturated with sellers of the main flavors.  Delivering new flavors- even if they aren't inherently profitable- work like advertising: they set you apart in the marketplace.  I can get vanilla anywhere, but Texas sea-salt & caramel (actual flavor) is a rare bird, and people who like it will drive miles to get it...and possibly get your vanilla  or chocolate at the same time.

A generic psi system may indeed be easier to include, but a solid creatively different may attract players you wouldn't normally get...and because of the free market, it may drive some away as well.   Which it will do you can't know until the product is actually out there.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 29, 2015)

Goddamn it, people. You're making me hungry.

Now I need to go out and buy a pint of psiscream.

- - -

Anyway. If there is an official Psionics release, then I want it to be internally coherent. Like, if attack & defense modes are a thing, then I want all Psi sub-classes to interact with them somehow, and I want them to NOT be an overall penalty for the Psionic character. Not being a penalty is a big change from 1e / 2e; being something other than just power names is a change from 3.5e.

I also want the Psionics system to interact nicely with multi-classing. Magic interacts nicely: I want a Psion / Wizard to be around as well integrated as a Cleric / Wizard or a Sorcerer / Warlock can be.

Beyond that, yeah, not super picky about the details.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 29, 2015)

Nifft said:


> I also want the Psionics system to interact nicely with multi-classing. Magic interacts nicely: I want a Psion / Wizard to be around as well integrated as a Cleric / Wizard or a Sorcerer / Warlock can be.




I didn't even think about multiclassing. If Psionics, is a point system or a scaled powers based on disciplines how does it even multiclass with a spell caster in 5e?


----------



## Nifft (Jun 29, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I didn't even think about multiclassing. If Psionics, is a point system or a scaled powers based on disciplines how does it even multiclass with a spell caster in 5e?



 1/ Every caster in 5e uses 3.5e Psionics scaling. So that's easy. Just have Psions use spell slots with the same table as every other full caster.

2/ Monks, Warlocks and Sorcerers have non-standard resources, which they use to cast or modify spell slots. So it's possible to use non-standard slots (Warlock), points instead of slots (Monk), or to spend multiple resources on a single casting (Sorcerers).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> The only way I see this working is if the sorcerer subclass was done as a UA or separate download while full psionics got its own separate release. I can't imagine you, Hussar, or anyone else would be a $40, 130 page rule book on psionics and then only use the last 3 pages of it ever for its sorcerer psion subclass. Odds are, you just won't buy the book, which makes it no different than not having it in the first place. I'm still not sure WotC has the manpower to do psionics once, let alone twice.




If those are my choices, then I'll take the UA version thanks.  At least then I'll actually use it.

The more intensive you make Psionics, the less people will use it.  

Granted, this is a place were having a bloody OGL would shine.  Sigh.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Goddamn it, people. You're making me hungry.
> 
> Now I need to go out and buy a pint of psiscream.




Or psilatto?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 30, 2015)

Hussar said:


> If those are my choices, then I'll take the UA version thanks.  At least then I'll actually use it.




If a Sorcerer subclass came out via UA, I'd probably download and forget about it. Whereas a new class, system, or whatever would inspire me to want to make it work in my game.



Hussar said:


> The more intensive you make Psionics, the less people will use it.




But the less creative you make psionic, the more it becomes "yet another option" rather than something unique and inspiring. 



Hussar said:


> Granted, this is a place were having a bloody OGL would shine.  Sigh.




Tell me about it...


----------



## Vael (Jun 30, 2015)

Nifft said:


> I also want the Psionics system to interact nicely with multi-classing. Magic interacts nicely: I want a Psion / Wizard to be around as well integrated as a Cleric / Wizard or a Sorcerer / Warlock can be.




This is one that I don't think is doable without something like 3.5 dual progression prestige classes or some kind of multiclassing kludge.

But that's okay. Because if Psionics is different, then a Psion/Wizard would be the equivalent of a 4 Elements Monk multi-classed with ... well, any spellcaster. Even though both are using spells, there isn't a way to progress both of them.

Besides, Sorcerers are only dipping 2 levels of Warlock for the enhanced Eldritch Blast, I doubt a balanced build would really be that effective.

I like 5e multiclassing, but I don't expect it to make every combination viable, and it doesn't.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 30, 2015)

Vael said:


> This is one that I don't think is doable without something like 3.5 dual progression prestige classes or some kind of multiclassing kludge.



 Then I hope you're making some kind of a bad assumption about the implementation.

The 3.5e multiclass kludge thing was necessary for 3.5e Wizard / Cleric mixing; it's not necessary for 5e Wizard / Cleric mixing.

That's what I want. Not needing a kludgestige class.



Vael said:


> Besides, Sorcerers are only dipping 2 levels of Warlock for the enhanced Eldritch Blast, I doubt a balanced build would really be that effective.



 You can dump Warlock encounter slots into Sorcery Points. Having higher-level slots is a benefit.

Warlock 3 can grant you Ritual casting, which you don't get otherwise as a Sorcerer.

Dunno about how well it scales up from there, but you're missing out if you _~always~_ stop at Warlock 2.



Vael said:


> I like 5e multiclassing, but I don't expect it to make every combination viable, and it doesn't.



 Okay?

I'm saying that I want Psionic classes to have SOME viable multiclassing options with core classes, and I gave one example.

That's NOT the same as expecting every combination to be viable.


----------



## Vael (Jun 30, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Then I hope you're making some kind of a bad assumption about the implementation.




My assumption is that Psions will not use spell slots. Therefore, they will not be getting any progression multiclassing with spellcasters. Just like the Elemental Monk doesn't.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 30, 2015)

spell slots = spell points

A slot is worth a number of points equal to its spell level plus its tier.

Tier 1 (levels 1 to 4): Apprentice (spell levels 1 and 2)
Tier 2 (levels 5 to 10): Journeyer (spell levels 3, 4, and 5)
Tier 3 (levels 11 to 16): Master (spell levels 6, 7 and 8)
Tier 4 (levels 17 to 20): Noble (spell level 9)

So a Level 17 Wizard (Noble Tier) can convert the spell level 9 slot to 13 spell points ( = 9 spell level + 4 tier).


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 30, 2015)

5e spell mechanics are spontaneous and suitable for psionics.

Whenever desirable, it is easy to merge lower-level slots to form a higher-level slot, and oppositely, to split a higher one into form lower ones.

The D&D spell tradition has come to agree with the psionic tradition. Now everyone is spontaneous and can use points. There is no longer a need for irregular mechanics.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 30, 2015)

Vael said:


> My assumption is that Psions will not use spell slots. Therefore, they will not be getting any progression multiclassing with spellcasters. Just like the Elemental Monk doesn't.



 But the Warlock does.

So I hope you're wrong in assuming that the Monk will be the model, rather than... basically any other casting class in the game.

Hmm, actually, I bet I can make a Warlock-style casting Elemental Monk which multiclasses better.

Thanks for the idea.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 30, 2015)

Vael said:


> My assumption is that Psions will not use spell slots. Therefore, they will not be getting any progression multiclassing with spellcasters. Just like the Elemental Monk doesn't.




What if the Psion used "power" slots like the Warlock spell slots? I'm against any sort of ability to swap spell slots and psionic "power" slots. It doesn't feel right, but it makes multiclassing a psion with a spellcaster a horrible option power wise.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 30, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> 5e spell mechanics are spontaneous and suitable for psionics.
> 
> Whenever desirable, it is easy to merge lower-level slots to form a higher-level slot, and oppositely, to split a higher one into form lower ones.
> 
> The D&D spell tradition has come to agree with the psionic tradition. Now everyone is spontaneous and can use points. There is no longer a need for irregular mechanics.




I strongly disagree. It can't mesh like that or it won't feel like psionics.


----------



## Sadrik (Jun 30, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And yet, companies- even mainstream ones- still find it quite profitable to produce flavors other than the big 3.  There's enough money in the niches to make it worth their while.  (They DO have to taste good to someone, though, so the flavors aren't entirely arbitrary.)
> 
> Why?  Because the market is mature and saturated with sellers of the main flavors.  Delivering new flavors- even if they aren't inherently profitable- work like advertising: they set you apart in the marketplace.  I can get vanilla anywhere, but Texas sea-salt & caramel (actual flavor) is a rare bird, and people who like it will drive miles to get it...and possibly get your vanilla  or chocolate at the same time.
> 
> A generic psi system may indeed be easier to include, but a solid creatively different may attract players you wouldn't normally get...and because of the free market, it may drive some away as well.   Which it will do you can't know until the product is actually out there.



There is another market force here. Why does 31 flavors only have 31 flavors out? Because too many options can confuse the purchaser and cause analysis paralysis. We as consumers of choices have to account for options in the same way, the bigger our pallet of options the bigger our chances of being unhappy with our selection. Too many options can cause us to feel uneasy with our actual choices. You see companies shear back their complexity, to make the consumer able to more accurately select the thing they desire most - or the one that clearly fits their needs. Infinite choices is not a good place to be. Fewer clear choices makes a happy consumer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

> Why does 31 flavors only have 31 flavors out? Because too many options can confuse the purchaser and cause analysis paralysis.




Analysis paralysis is certainly one ingredient in that decision, but not the only one.

At some point, BR more or less standardized their business model.  Deviating from the 31 increases costs.

In addition, there is also a cycle of availability based on the ingredients themselves.  Freshness of product- or at least, PERCEIVED freshness of product- is a selling point.

Rotating the flavors also creates a refreshment of a different kind: newness.  There is a psychological benefit to having something "new" in store every month or so.  It will help drive foot traffic because people will want to see if there's anything among the new flavors that might appeal to them.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 30, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> I strongly disagree. It can't mesh like that or it won't feel like psionics.



Erudites could mesh Psi and Magic.

There's a core Wizard spell which gives you power points and Powers, so the exchange already went one way.

You're ignoring a bunch of D&D history.

But, here's the thing: even if the published Psionics D&D stuff meshes perfectly well in a mechanical sense, you're totally free to prohibit that multi-classing from ever happening at your table. Just like you could prohibit Divine / Arcane multiclasses from happening. The rules don't force you to accommodate every permutation into your own setting -- but they do support those groups who want that mesh to be an option. Like mine.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Rotating the flavors also creates a refreshment of a different kind: newness.  There is a psychological benefit to having something "new" in store every month or so.  It will help drive foot traffic because people will want to see if there's anything among the new flavors that might appeal to them.




Ben & Jerry's seems to thrive on new flavors.


----------



## GobiWon (Jun 30, 2015)

Nifft said:


> Erudites could mesh Psi and Magic.
> 
> There's a core Wizard spell which gives you power points and Powers, so the exchange already went one way.
> 
> You're ignoring a bunch of D&D history




One alternative class and a single spell does not a bunch make in my mind. If the slots mesh then the Psion is just another caster and we should just publish a bunch of psionic spells ... create the sorcerer sub-class and call it a day.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 30, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> One alternative class and a single spell does not a bunch make in my mind.



 You're free to do your own research. All I was doing was contradicting your assertion, and one counter-example is all that's necessary in order to do so.

You're either moving the goalposts from "prove me wrong" (which I did), or you've got a different idea about what we're discussing than I do.

If it's the latter, could you let me know what you're looking for? 



GobiWon said:


> If the slots mesh then the Psion is just another caster and we should just publish a bunch of psionic spells ... create the sorcerer sub-class and call it a day.



 Bards, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics and Druids all use the same spell slot scheme.

Are you trying to assert that Bards, Wizards, Clerics and Druids are superfluous? That they should all just go away?

I think that's a terrible idea.

I want a full class for the Psion, and I want magic and psionics to multi-class as well as nearly everything else does in 5e. That doesn't have to mean that Psions use spell-slots, but doing so is one way which would work.


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 1, 2015)

GobiWon said:


> ... the Psion is just another caster and we should just publish a bunch of psionic spells ...




Perfect.


----------



## GobiWon (Jul 1, 2015)

Yaarel said:


> Perfect.




Head Explodes!  ... a la the movie Scanners


----------



## Fabio Andrea Rossi (Jul 1, 2015)

If this tweet means what we all know it probably means, we'll know soon, i'd bet in September, what Psionics will be like...

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/30/psionic-next/

Sorry if it has been posted already! Basically: why Psionics are not mentioned in yesterday Survey regarding all classes to be updated?


----------



## Yaarel (Jul 1, 2015)

Psionics is normal.

Other forms of magic are off.


----------



## Siphersh (Jul 1, 2015)

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/615985396472647680

I'm so excited!


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 1, 2015)

Well, it looks like its a UA article then. Lets hope for a high page count...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

UA article?  No physical copy?  Utterly useless to me, then.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> UA article?  No physical copy?  Utterly useless to me, then.




It'll be a pdf, right? You'll be able to print it out if you want.

Would that work?...maybe?


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jul 1, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> It'll be a pdf, right? You'll be able to print it out if you want.
> 
> Would that work?...maybe?




It is possible that he plays AL and UA articles are not usable in AL.

Just a guess.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 1, 2015)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> It is possible that he plays AL and UA articles are not usable in AL.
> 
> Just a guess.




Ahhhh. Good point. 

I never remember/think in terms of defaulting to AL concerns...completely foreign to the norm of my gaming experience.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

AL?

Whatever that is, it isn't the reason.

I just don't support purely electronic formats for my leisure activities.  Any of them.  For a variety of reasons.  Suffice it to say, PDFs are (for me and my gaming needs) supplemental goods, not replacements.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> AL?




Adventure League?

Guess that's not the concern then, huh? hahaha.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

Never heard of it.


----------



## steeldragons (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Never heard of it.




It's the formal "officially sanctioned by WotC" public play at gaming stores or wherever. People that play/attend Adventure League groups/games tend to get up in arms with product created that isn't "Official" enough or called out explicitly as "official for AL use". They are stymied and "trapped" by the ever-so tragically limited options of the PHB...and I think the Elemental Evil Player's Companion was deemed permissible in AL games, except for the Aarakocra...or one of the other races.

But the Unerathed Arcana material, since it is explicitly "not playtested/finished" are universally <cue thunderclaps and booming godlike echoing voice> FORBIDDEN from use in AL games because they aren't formally acknowledged by the company as "official."

[You're better off never having heard of it, imho.  ]


----------



## bogmad (Jul 1, 2015)

Of course UA psionics won't be the "official" psionic rules, but they're obviously going to be playtested in in UA (and presumably closed playtests as well) before any official psionic rules get released.  

And whatever official psionics looks like, I'd say it's a 98% chance that they'll be released alongside an upcoming storyline.  

So it'll probably be a while before you can get any psionics into your AL games, but that's probably the way it should be!


----------



## TBeholder (Sep 21, 2016)

I frankly don't understand the question. "Altered" implies that there already is something to speak of that may be used as is or changed. And what would that be?
D&D3 psionics? Not even funny. Let me summarize: it's a mess of basic principles that didn't fit into lore of existing settings (astral whatevers), fluff that looks like it was made on some really bad mushrooms (crystals with legs, etc), and as to its mechanics... even Bruce R. Cordell (whose name they put on the covers), when he wanted an actually usable mechanics, had to overhaul it in a 3rd-party supplement. I didn't miss anything?
PO? Again, not funny. It was ugly, clumsy and part of it obviously didn't work RAW, thanks to an innumerate designer.
AD&D2? It could work… with a few simple patches… back then. It's buried twice over, and by now it would take as much effort to assemble from scratch as convert.



Morrus said:


> > Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak.



 Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when someone is allowed to pointlessly (for the setting, anyway) mess with something that wasn't broken.
Warhammer may have a few examples of this, too.



delericho said:


> Options, not restrictions!



 Yup. Mechanics that fits only D&D miniatures game™ will be used only there. Then again, it looks like Hasbro gave up on both D&D and settings.



delericho said:


> Nope, don't like that. Dark Sun's environmental issues were really about what happens when _magic_ runs amok, with the psionic aspect representing a 'safe' alternative.



 And then (out-of-universe) it seems to become a lazy answer to _anything_ at all. Because, quite obviously, this could be justified with "hurr, flavour" every time even if it didn't make sense (myriads of psionic beetles, etc). In contrast with lots of really creative work put into Dark Sun.
Just like with later MMO-like settings and high magic.



steeldragons said:


> I am a little uncomfortable with the question being "Should the flavor be changed " and the bit about "...drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic level"..it sounds to me like he's asking "is it ok if we make psionics tied to the Far Realms somehow" and to that I say, wholeheartedly, Don't. You. Dare.



 The whole problem with this is that Far Realms concept was an interesting experiment the first time, but the rest is forced. It does not fit… well… _anywhere_. But it still gets shoehorned again and again, as ludicrously and tiresomely as the spiky chains - because tentacles turned out to be someone's Magical Realm, by the look of it. And this someone was not Bruce R. Cordell (even though he did feed this nonsense for a while).


----------



## CapnZapp (Sep 21, 2016)

I guess it's technically a necro, but I'm not sure that concept exists in 5E psionics


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 21, 2016)

CapnZapp said:


> I guess it's technically a necro, but I'm not sure that concept exists in 5E psionics




They tied the flavor explicitly to the Far Realms.

This thread is older, obviously, but there are at least 2 Unearthed Arcana articles on psionics for 5e. They call it "The Mystic" and the subclasses we've been shown thus far, I believe, are the "Awakened Mind" and the "Immortal." 

The names...I don't much care for. But the built in fluff of the Far Realms (which, yes, I know is easily stripped and they're just doing the whole brand-hammer thing for a great big "THIS IS WOTC'S DEFAULT PSIONICS FOR D&D/FR/THE FAR REALMS YOU'D BETTER NOT COPY US!" bs) is a non-starter for me. I'll just use my homebrewed psychics.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> The names...I don't much care for. But the built in fluff of the Far Realms (which, yes, I know is easily stripped and they're just doing the whole brand-hammer thing for a great big "THIS IS WOTC'S DEFAULT PSIONICS FOR D&D/FR/THE FAR REALMS YOU'D BETTER NOT COPY US!" bs) is a non-starter for me. I'll just use my homebrewed psychics.



OK. Personal peeve, right here. While this may have happened previously, I'm only really noticing it since the release of 5E and their new focus on "brand management"....

Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.

With that in mind, I also dislike tying psionics to the Far Realms. It reduces the historic breadth of use for the subject matter. It's inconsistent with most of the early material (mind flayers got psionics because they had super-cool brains, not because they were alien). It's also problematic to resolve for things like Dark Sun.

If you'd like to discuss the relative merits of the Far Realm and how it improves psionics, I'm game for that conversation. If your response is some flavor of "get over it" (i.e. the fluff is minor/easy to ignore) then understand that you're not actually addressing any objections and pretty much admitting that there's no good reason to use the Realms other than "because".


----------



## lkj (Sep 21, 2016)

Mercule said:


> OK. Personal peeve, right here. While this may have happened previously, I'm only really noticing it since the release of 5E and their new focus on "brand management"....
> 
> Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.
> 
> ...




Out of curiosity (and forgive me if you've already answered this elsewhere. I haven't been back to psionics threads for awhile), but would you have an issue with the flavor if psionics were described generally as being powers that one can tap into with an 'awakened' mind. And there being say a sidebar that said one of the incidental properties of touching the Far Realm can be to trigger such an awakening (by, say, violently shocking your mind into a better understanding of the fabric of reality). So it has nothing to do with the Far Realm itself. The Far Realm just becomes one, of many, mechanisms by which a mind becomes awakened.

It's been awhile since I looked at the playtest documents. But my memory is that the fluff could have been interpreted that way (yes, I know there was room for interpretation, but playtest wording isn't worth the debate to me so long as I can give my feedback on it generally)

But let's say they went that 'sidebar' route. Psionic power comes to those who have awakened minds, by whatever mechanism. A side effect of exposure to the Far Realm can be such an awakening. Would that be a problem for you and others that don't like the connection generally?

For my part, I strongly support making psionics more general than a Far Realm specific thing. However, I kind of like the idea that the Far Realm might have 'psionic side effects'. It's  a cool bit of flavor that I might use in my game. A sign of Far Realm incursion might be people going crazy in an area. Some of those people are exhibiting strange powers-- a magic none have seen before. It might be a fun way to introduce psionics into the game without letting people know right away. Perhaps existing psionicists would be aware that bursts of psionic talent in otherwise untrained individuals was a sign of the Far Realm. Perhaps they would consider such undisicplined powers to be extremely dangerous.

I'm rambling, but I guess what I'm saying is that adding the Far Realm side effect immediately spawned story ideas for me. Which is cool. Sure, I don't want my psionics to be restricted to a mashup with the Cthulu mythos. But if it's just a twist, then I like the stories it might engender.

Just a thought.

AD


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 21, 2016)

Mercule said:


> Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.




So the next question to be asked of you then is... "Is there anything else to say?"

I agree 100% that you have the right to say you don't want the Far Realms fluff in psionics.  You have an opinion, you've expressed it here (and maybe in the feedback forms WotC has requested for all the playtest material).  You've made your point by your post that you hope it doesn't come about.  You've accomplished what you've set out to do.

So then what?

If that's it, and that's all that matters... then it doesn't matter if someone comes back to say that you can just ignore fluff.  Because your statement was one of opinion, not something that can be "discussed".  Their saying you can ignore the fluff does not go back and remove your original intent, which is that you wanted WotC to know you didn't want Far Realms fluff in the rules for psionics.  That still happened, your voice was still heard, and nothing has erased that.  So there's no real point to get upset, because what you wanted to occur still did.  You were successful.

But it also means that if someone tells you to just ignore the fluff, and for some reason that _does_ bother you... then there's something more here.  It's no longer just whether you can state your opinion... but rather it's now about the *quality* of your opinion.  If you're getting upset that people aren't agreeing with it... then that's where the discussion is going to occur-- whether or not your opinion is _meaningful_.

And that's a whole different kettle of fish.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 21, 2016)

Mercule said:


> OK. Personal peeve, right here. While this may have happened previously, I'm only really noticing it since the release of 5E and their new focus on "brand management"....
> 
> Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.
> 
> ...




I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to. I'm 100% ya on everything you said. 

I hate tying the Far Realms into psionics. I hate the hamfisted overuse of "branding" as an excuse for injecting [Forgotten Realms specific] flavor into [pretty much] everything 5e. 

You absolutely ARE within your rights to tell them, "I don't like this!" I'll say it with ya! lol.

So I'm not sure what the quoted post of mine (simply responding to CapnZapp's query about what the existing 5e psionics material entailed) is something you're responding to/for.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 21, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> I hate tying the Far Realms into psionics. I hate the hamfisted overuse of "branding" as an excuse for injecting [Forgotten Realms specific] flavor into [pretty much] everything 5e.




To be fair, it's not Forgotten Realms-specific flavor that's being tied in-- the Far Realms / psionics connection was made explicit in 4E so it's more of a Nerath-specific flavor that's becoming theoretically multiversal.  The Forgotten Realms are just having their flavor changed to match.

But your actual point is made.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2016)

lkj said:


> Out of curiosity (and forgive me if you've already answered this elsewhere. I haven't been back to psionics threads for awhile), but would you have an issue with the flavor if psionics were described generally as being powers that one can tap into with an 'awakened' mind. And there being say a sidebar that said one of the incidental properties of touching the Far Realm can be to trigger such an awakening (by, say, violently shocking your mind into a better understanding of the fabric of reality). So it has nothing to do with the Far Realm itself. The Far Realm just becomes one, of many, mechanisms by which a mind becomes awakened.



Nope. All good. IIRC, the play test doc said "it ties to the Far Realm". It gave some setting-specific flavors, in a later paragraph, that seemed a bit out of place with the Far Realms. Really, my objection is that they seem to want to tie it to a particular piece of fluff. I can definitely see where the Far Realms would be one way for a mind to be awakened -- Eberron pretty much does this, and I'm fine with the Eberron implementation.

Over the years, I've seen little "throw away" bits of fluff turn into major themes. For example, when 3E was first released, the Sorcerer had a line to the effect of "no one is sure where their power comes from, but one rumor is that they have a dragon in their ancestry." My table didn't really care for the whole birthright thing (we actually use psionics for that sort of thing), so we just played it as a different way of studying magic -- one with focus on skill rather than knowledge, trading flexibility at preparation time for flexibility at casting time. It worked beautifully throughout 3E, especially for those of us who hated playing Wizards because of the need for a player with a crystal ball. Feats and prestige classes drifted a bit towards canonizing the birthright fluff, but it was "easy to ignore". 

In 5E, the Sorcerer can't have the birthright aspect stripped out. The class would simply fall apart. What's more, the new preparation system makes the original mechanical appeal of the Sorcerer a bit redundant. Based on that and the multiple bloodlines, I'm not exactly weeping about the change to the Sorcerer. Still, it's an example of how even a single line of fluff can end up dominating something. I do not want to see the 6E (or whatever) Mystic end up tied to the Far Realm in the same way the Sorcerer ended up tied to bloodlines.



> I'm rambling, but I guess what I'm saying is that adding the Far Realm side effect immediately spawned story ideas for me. Which is cool. Sure, I don't want my psionics to be restricted to a mashup with the Cthulu mythos. But if it's just a twist, then I like the stories it might engender.



I don't mind the idea generator. In fact, I think that's been one of D&D's historic strengths. When the designers/developers latch on to one idea too strongly, though, the result is that flavor that should be set at the group/table/campaign level is passed down with too heavy of a hand.

If 5E has a singular weakness, it would be (IMO) that the team pushes concepts just a bit too far. They go from idea generator or example to soft-canon. They've done an amazing job with the mechanics, but they're ham-fisted with the IP.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to. I'm 100% ya on everything you said.



I'm more jumping on board your train than rebutting anything you said. Carry on.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2016)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So the next question to be asked of you then is... "Is there anything else to say?"



Sure. Tell me why you think tying it to the Far Realms would be beneficial. Have an actual conversation, instead of just being dismissive.



> But it also means that if someone tells you to just ignore the fluff, and for some reason that _does_ bother you... then there's something more here.  It's no longer just whether you can state your opinion... but rather it's now about the *quality* of your opinion.  If you're getting upset that people aren't agreeing with it... then that's where the discussion is going to occur-- whether or not your opinion is _meaningful_.
> 
> And that's a whole different kettle of fish.



My opinion is equally meaningful as any other poster, here. I'm not upset that people don't agree with me. I think it's odd "ignore the fluff" is seen as anything resembling an intelligent response in a conversation on a playtest document.

There are really two conversations going on. One is "Does the fluff matter"? The other assumes flavor matters and is "Is it appropriate to tie psionics to the Far Realm?" Neither one of those is appropriately responded to by "Just ignore the fluff."

My answer to the first question is "yes". I've given reasons multiple times, so I'll save some space. To the second, I say, "No". I've also given reasons for that.

If one disagrees with either of my answers, I'm more than happy to hear why and to see their reasons. 

The general expectation of a conversation, however, is to actually reply on topic. "Just ignore it," is not on topic. It dismisses the entire conversation as irrelevant and not worth having. 

So, the next question to be asked of you is "why are you even reading this thread?" You clearly don't feel like there's a conversation to be had here based on merit of actual discussion. You've got a pat answer for anyone who disagrees with you, and it doesn't even require you to justify it. So, you've accomplished your intent.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 21, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> They tied the flavor explicitly to the Far Realms.
> 
> This thread is older, obviously, but there are at least 2 Unearthed Arcana articles on psionics for 5e. They call it "The Mystic" and the subclasses we've been shown thus far, I believe, are the "Awakened Mind" and the "Immortal."
> 
> The names...I don't much care for. But the built in fluff of the Far Realms (which, yes, I know is easily stripped and they're just doing the whole brand-hammer thing for a great big "THIS IS WOTC'S DEFAULT PSIONICS FOR D&D/FR/THE FAR REALMS YOU'D BETTER NOT COPY US!" bs) is a non-starter for me. I'll just use my homebrewed psychics.




Then get on Twitter and tell Mike and Jeremy that you don't like the Far Realm connection, and you'd rather it be in a sidebar as one interpretation of how/why psionics exists for some settings—just like the sidebar that mentions the Weave in the PHB.


----------



## steeldragons (Sep 21, 2016)

Nice idea. Hope people do. I don't twitter.


----------



## lkj (Sep 21, 2016)

Mercule said:


> Nope. All good. IIRC, the play test doc said "it ties to the Far Realm". It gave some setting-specific flavors, in a later paragraph, that seemed a bit out of place with the Far Realms. Really, my objection is that they seem to want to tie it to a particular piece of fluff. I can definitely see where the Far Realms would be one way for a mind to be awakened -- Eberron pretty much does this, and I'm fine with the Eberron implementation.
> 
> Over the years, I've seen little "throw away" bits of fluff turn into major themes. For example, when 3E was first released, the Sorcerer had a line to the effect of "no one is sure where their power comes from, but one rumor is that they have a dragon in their ancestry." My table didn't really care for the whole birthright thing (we actually use psionics for that sort of thing), so we just played it as a different way of studying magic -- one with focus on skill rather than knowledge, trading flexibility at preparation time for flexibility at casting time. It worked beautifully throughout 3E, especially for those of us who hated playing Wizards because of the need for a player with a crystal ball. Feats and prestige classes drifted a bit towards canonizing the birthright fluff, but it was "easy to ignore".
> 
> ...




Probably worth putting up the text from the last playtest (I assume this is cool since it's only a small part of freely available playtest material but someone can let me know if not):


_Not every D&D world features psionic power to the same extent. Psionics indirectly originates from the Far Realm, a dimension outside the bounds of the known multiverse. The Far Realm has its own alien laws of physics and magic. When its influence extends to a world, the Far Realm invariably spawns horrific monsters and madness as it bends reality to its own rules. As the laws of reality twist and turn, individual minds can be awakened to the cosmic underpinnings that dictate the form and nature of reality. The tumult caused by the Far Realm creates echoes that can disturb and awaken minds that would otherwise slumber. Such awakened creatures look on the world in the same way that
creatures existing in three dimensions might look on a two-dimensional realm. They see possibilities, options, and connections that are unfathomable to those with a more  limited view of reality. In worlds that are relatively stable and hew close to the archetypal D&D setting presented in the core rulebooks, psionics is rare—or might not exist at all. The cosmic bindings that define the multiverse are strong in such places, making it unlikely that an individual mind can perceive the possibilities offered by psionics. Mystics in such worlds might be so scarce that a mystic never meets another practitioner of the psionic arts. Characters might unlock their psionic potential by random chance, and ancient tomes, journals, and other accounts of mystics might serve as the only guide to mastering this form of power. Psionics is more common in worlds where the bounds of reality have been twisted and warped. The realm of Athas in the Dark Sun campaign setting is the prime example of a world where psionics is common. The gods are absent, magic has been twisted into an ecological scourge, and the common threads that bind many worlds of D&D have been sundered. By contrast, the world of Eberron is a setting where the bounds of reality have been tested but not fully broken. Psionics is not as pervasive in Eberron as in Athas, but the influence of the otherworldly realm of Xoriat makes it a known and studied art._

They definitely lead with a connection to the Far Realm. And I'd prefer they didn't do that. But even there they use the word 'indirect'. On top of that later paragraphs definitely suggest that the Far Realm connection is incidental and that psionic origins would likely vary by world. I don't see a Far REalm connection in any of those other examples.

In other words, I think all the elements are there for fluff that most people can be happy with. In fact, if they just took the Far Realm stuff and just inserted it into the later paragraph as another example of how psionics occurs, I'd be perfectly happy with it. 

I understand what you say about bits of lore getting carried forward. Presumably, if the main fluff keeps it open then future iterations might hit up the Far REalm-- psionic connection. But probably not in a restrictive way. Anyway, a bit of psionics lore makes the Far Realms more interesting to me.

Cheers,

AD


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 21, 2016)

Consciousness is mysterious. Connect psionic flavor to the weirdness of the conscious observer and quantum mechanics. But use Medieval-esque terminology.

Consciousness, soul, light, the fifth element of ether, brain, force, mind, outofbody, scry, push, move, fate, mindforce, lifeforce, soulforce, aura, the spirit of a person, to spirit something, and so on.


In Medieval Jewish mysticism, the human soul has five levels:

• Singularity (Ykhida) - divine self, divine spark, infinity (En Sof), source of the capacity of free will, deeply ‘hidden’
• Vitality (Khaya) - cosmic self, transpersonal, selfless, interconnectedness of all living beings and of all things in existence
• Consciousness (Neshama) - eternal self, altruistic ideal, better version of oneself, hidden but intuited and glimpsed
• Spirit (Ruakh) - spirit of a person, inner life, emotional ideals, intellect, self-identity, human life, language, learning, influence of spirit
• Lifeforce (Nefesh) - animal soul, vitality of body, appetites, sensations, fight-flight, bodily aura (equivalent to Ki/Chi)

The above descriptions are a rough simplification intended for gaming purposes. ‘Hidden’ means it is beyond the limits of the mind to objectify, contain, and define. Yet it is an aspect of being a mind.

The highest three levels are transcendent, beyond the limitations of space-time. Every human has all five levels. Internally, each soul originates from the divine infinity beyond space-time. But externally, in terms of behavior and appearance, most humans live from the lowest perspective of the animalistic lifeforce. It requires study, effort, and community to express the higher aspects of ones soul, in concrete ways, by means of real actions, in the physical world. These actions make a better world, illuminate the world, and elevate the world to function at higher levels of the soul.


Flavorwise, psionics seems more focused on the level of the personal ‘spirit’ of each person, including language, learning, emotional ideals and intellectual ideals. It is the spirit of a person that can assess and harness the animalistic impulses with the bodily aura, and that can self-identify with the eternal and miraculous aspects of the transcendent levels of consciousness.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2016)

lkj said:


> They definitely lead with a connection to the Far Realm. And I'd prefer they didn't do that. But even there they use the word 'indirect'. On top of that later paragraphs definitely suggest that the Far Realm connection is incidental and that psionic origins would likely vary by world. I don't see a Far REalm connection in any of those other examples.
> 
> In other words, I think all the elements are there for fluff that most people can be happy with. In fact, if they just took the Far Realm stuff and just inserted it into the later paragraph as another example of how psionics occurs, I'd be perfectly happy with it.
> 
> I understand what you say about bits of lore getting carried forward. Presumably, if the main fluff keeps it open then future iterations might hit up the Far REalm-- psionic connection. But probably not in a restrictive way. Anyway, a bit of psionics lore makes the Far Realms more interesting to me.



Agreed on all points. I just don't see any advantage to that overarching connection to the Far Realm. There actually is an advantage to just letting it be somewhat vague, though: the history of psionics has made it a moving target and some of the source material doesn't actually allow for the Far Realm. Dark Sun is a perfect example where it's more an X-Men style mutation.

The line about "Psionics is more common in worlds where the bounds of reality have been twisted and warped" is very telling of how they got to the Far Realm being the origin of psionics. It's as if they can't separate a fraying of reality from Cthulhu. The truth is that a Dark Sun psionic healer has no more to do with Lovecraft than Kevin Costner's gills in _Waterworld_.

They could just as easily have started with "In worlds that are relatively stable...." and included the Far Realms as just one more example. I can even see where the Far Realm being an origin for psionics is compelling enough to warrant a special sidebar that contains the ideas at the top of the paragraph, and maybe a few more.


----------



## lkj (Sep 21, 2016)

Mercule said:


> Agreed on all points. I just don't see any advantage to that overarching connection to the Far Realm. There actually is an advantage to just letting it be somewhat vague, though: the history of psionics has made it a moving target and some of the source material doesn't actually allow for the Far Realm. Dark Sun is a perfect example where it's more an X-Men style mutation.
> 
> The line about "Psionics is more common in worlds where the bounds of reality have been twisted and warped" is very telling of how they got to the Far Realm being the origin of psionics. It's as if they can't separate a fraying of reality from Cthulhu. The truth is that a Dark Sun psionic healer has no more to do with Lovecraft than Kevin Costner's gills in _Waterworld_.
> 
> They could just as easily have started with "In worlds that are relatively stable...." and included the Far Realms as just one more example. I can even see where the Far Realm being an origin for psionics is compelling enough to warrant a special sidebar that contains the ideas at the top of the paragraph, and maybe a few more.




I think we completely agree. Probably the difference is that I don't interpret their text as arguing that the Far Realm is the overarching connection. They just mention it first and with more detail than the others. I don't think that they are arguing that Dark Sun psionics are Far Realmsian (new phrase!).  I agree that leading with 'In worlds that are relatively stable . . ." would be better. Then mention Far Realms as one example later. Then add the sidebar with more detail. So, again, in the most important respects I think we are on the same page.

I might put my thoughts this way: The Far Realm does not make psionics cooler. But psionics might make the Far Realm cooler. Hence I like that they mention it. Just a matter of crafting the text to not lead people to think that the Far Realm is always involved.

AD


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 21, 2016)

steeldragons said:


> The names...I don't much care for. But the built in fluff of the Far Realms (which, yes, I know is easily stripped and they're just doing the whole brand-hammer thing for a great big "THIS IS WOTC'S DEFAULT PSIONICS FOR D&D/FR/THE FAR REALMS YOU'D BETTER NOT COPY US!" bs) is a non-starter for me. I'll just use my homebrewed psychics.




Personally I dont pay too much attention to this version of the Far Realms mixed with Psionics so they dont need to worry about me copying them anyway.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Sep 22, 2016)

lkj said:


> Out of curiosity (and forgive me if you've already answered this elsewhere. I haven't been back to psionics threads for awhile), but would you have an issue with the flavor if psionics were described generally as being powers that one can tap into with an 'awakened' mind. And there being say a sidebar that said one of the incidental properties of touching the Far Realm can be to trigger such an awakening (by, say, violently shocking your mind into a better understanding of the fabric of reality). So it has nothing to do with the Far Realm itself. The Far Realm just becomes one, of many, mechanisms by which a mind becomes awakened.




I think pretty much anyone would be okay with it as _an_ option as long as it is clear it isn't _the_ only option.


----------



## lkj (Sep 22, 2016)

Sword of Spirit said:


> I think pretty much anyone would be okay with it as _an_ option as long as it is clear it isn't _the_ only option.




Yes. But I don't think even the current text presents it as the only option. That does seem clear to me. It just happens to be the the option that is highlighted. Which, understandably, irks some people. 

AD


----------



## mellored (Sep 22, 2016)

I think monks would be a good psi baseline.   Short rest points uses to stun, bonus action stances, and possibly cast some spells.

I'm not even opposed to calling it ki.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 22, 2016)

lkj said:


> I think we completely agree. Probably the difference is that I don't interpret their text as arguing that the Far Realm is the overarching connection. They just mention it first and with more detail than the others. I don't think that they are arguing that Dark Sun psionics are Far Realmsian (new phrase!).  I agree that leading with 'In worlds that are relatively stable . . ." would be better. Then mention Far Realms as one example later. Then add the sidebar with more detail. So, again, in the most important respects I think we are on the same page.



I think we're in agreement, except in how strongly we read the primacy of the option. I'll grant that I'm probably a bit over-sensitive to this sort of thing, but I think that's based on experience.

Depending on how strongly Mearls intended to convey the link, my actual response is somewhere between, "Could you maybe make it more clearly an option?" and "Dude, throttle back a bit and make it a co-equal option."



> I might put my thoughts this way: The Far Realm does not make psionics cooler. But psionics might make the Far Realm cooler. Hence I like that they mention it. Just a matter of crafting the text to not lead people to think that the Far Realm is always involved.



I can get 99% behind this. The 1% comes from a conscious avoidance of hypocrisy. Otherwise, I agree that flipping the relationship between the Far Realm and psionics is substantively better. I see that as accomplishing the same general flavor goals without painting an entire power source into a corner. The new Mystic form of psionics seems like it'd be great for a Wuxia game, for which a tie to tentacled horrors might come as a shock to fans.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 22, 2016)

mellored said:


> I think monks would be a good psi baseline.   Short rest points uses to stun, bonus action stances, and possibly cast some spells.
> 
> I'm not even opposed to calling it ki.



I tend to agree, except for ki. I don't want to make psionics too narrow.

I've traditionally used psionics to represent spell-like abilities that manifest in races that don't normally have such abilities. The reasons vary, but that's the unifying theme I've always gone with. Those actually taking a psionic class simply choose to focus their efforts on exploring those abilities. If psionics starts to look too much like the psuedo-Eastern mysticism power source, then it changes some of the flexibility that's always been there.

Now, in 5E, the Magic Initiate feat and Sorcerer class seem to fill the wild talent and focused pursuit niches. They probably do so almost as well as 3E psionics did. I might be best served in creating an alternate bloodline for "wild talents" (I loathe the current Wild Magic bloodline) than continue to hope to use the official psionics mechanic for my purposes.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 22, 2016)

I agree that the psionics system should be just as neutral in origin as the magic system (Weave not withstanding) so that DMs can create/modify their setting as they see fit.  IMHO, the rules are a toolkit for the DM to create settings.

Having said that, I must admit having psionics linked to the Far Realm (aberrations) seems like it has always been the case.

Mind Flayers had it, Aboleths had it.  Githzerai/Githyanki, gods, powerful fiends.

In my campaign from about 1987/89 onward, psionics (and I used the term ki interchangeably*) was the "mind over matter" true source of universal power (i.e. belief, will etc.).  Arcane was magical science, divine (since faith based) was associated with will and the gods.  Etc.

I know the Far Realms itself didn't come about until later, but many folks used the Cthulhu mythos** from Deities and Demigods anyway....so...moot point.

Just my thoughts.


---

* Monk abilities seemed mind/body control anyway so that fit

** My favorite rant.  Today, as we speak, Cthulhu mythos is trite and overplayed according to experienced players.  "Ho hum, the big bad of the universe is Nyarlathtep...boring".  What is somebody like myself who sets all their adventures in a long running homebrew supposed to do?  Reinvent my legends because TSR/WotC/Pop Culture jumped on the bandwagon of my beautiful concepts. /endrant  (I know, I know, the wheel was invented independently and simultaneously in separate locations, sigh.  Oh well.


----------



## lkj (Sep 22, 2016)

Mercule said:


> I think we're in agreement, except in how strongly we read the primacy of the option. I'll grant that I'm probably a bit over-sensitive to this sort of thing, but I think that's based on experience.
> 
> Depending on how strongly Mearls intended to convey the link, my actual response is somewhere between, "Could you maybe make it more clearly an option?" and "Dude, throttle back a bit and make it a co-equal option."
> 
> ...




Yeah. At this point I think we are left waiting to see what they do in the next iteration. I'm presuming we'll see another UA iteration before it goes to print or development. But, maybe not. I guess it depends on how the feedback looked from the last one.

AD


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Sep 23, 2016)

lkj said:


> Yes. But I don't think even the current text presents it as the only option. That does seem clear to me. It just happens to be the the option that is highlighted. Which, understandably, irks some people.
> 
> AD




Here's where I'm seeing it presented as a mandatory component:

"Psionics indirectly originates from the Far Realm"

That is a direct absolute statement. That paragraph goes on to support it fully. Somewhere near the end of the section they start mentioning other worlds (like Dark Sun) where Far Realm doesn't make sense, but at no point do they modify that statement. I mean, you can't. It's an absolute statement. If they meant to say, "psionics _usually_ originates...", "psionics _can_ originate...", etc, they could just say that. I would be happy if they just changed a couple words. As it is now, those couple of words not being changed is a huge deal because it really does mandate the connection in official lore.


----------



## lkj (Sep 23, 2016)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Here's where I'm seeing it presented as a mandatory component:
> 
> "Psionics indirectly originates from the Far Realm"
> 
> That is a direct absolute statement. That paragraph goes on to support it fully. Somewhere near the end of the section they start mentioning other worlds (like Dark Sun) where Far Realm doesn't make sense, but at no point do they modify that statement. I mean, you can't. It's an absolute statement. If they meant to say, "psionics _usually_ originates...", "psionics _can_ originate...", etc, they could just say that. I would be happy if they just changed a couple words. As it is now, those couple of words not being changed is a huge deal because it really does mandate the connection in official lore.




I totally see how you get that. However, I see the word 'indirectly' and then descriptions of other non-Far Realm related origins later, and I interpret it as being intended as one possibility. It is an absolute statement. But it doesn't say 'only originates'. It originates here. It originates there. It originates all kinds of places! Which is how I read it.

However, yes, it's not clear. Your interpretation is valid. You and I could go in circles around the semantics. Text needs to be changed. I chalk that up to it being playtest wording. Presumably Mearls himself could answer what he intended. 

In other words, at this point, probably not worth us arguing. And hopefully people like yourself have provided feedback to them. I'm guessing the designers check Enworld from time to time as well.

AD


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Sep 23, 2016)

cbwjm said:


> I would only worry about the Far Realm origins of psionics depending on how much is directly impacts the class. If it can be easily played without any reference to the Far Realm, then I'm not too worried. If the mechanics draw upon the Far Realm, then I will be less enthused about the mystic class and psionics. Thankfully, from what I have seen, even with the indirect origin reference, the Far Realm seems to have less to do with the mystic than it does with the warlock so I'm fine with them keeping the reference to it, I can easily veto that fluff in my games.




An issue is that if you care about official lore, tying it to the Far Realms inherently will mean that Dark Sun, for instance, takes on a different feel.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 30, 2016)

Sword of Spirit said:


> An issue is that if you care about official lore, tying it to the Far Realms inherently will mean that Dark Sun, for instance, takes on a different feel.





Probably, they will make that explicit when covering Dark Sun; Far Realms related to the magapocalypse in some way.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Sep 30, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Probably, they will make that explicit when covering Dark Sun; Far Realms related to the magapocalypse in some way.




The problem being, that I expect the majority of Dark Sun fans (myself included) don't _want_ the feel of it altered at all, much less infused with Far Realmedness.


----------



## Uchawi (Sep 30, 2016)

My viewpoint.

1. No psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa? There will be duplicates, when it makes sense like mind reading, charm, etc. to totally remove one from the other makes no sense. 
2. Psionics  uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots? I believe it should be a distinct class, and probably use a variation on slots, but not be a mechanic that does not balance well with spells (like super nova) or multiclassing.
3. Scientific terminology, like  psychokinesis, etc.? The terms are embedded in the D&D psyche (pun intended). Don't change them for the sake of change or being "too scientific" - whatever that means
4. Source of psi? Something different from martial, divine, pacts, or arcane, but don't go overboard with far realms (Cthulhu-esque) background


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Sep 30, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Probably, they will make that explicit when covering Dark Sun; Far Realms related to the magapocalypse in some way.




I agree.  One sentence in a Dark Sun setting guide or more likely some Desert Adventure AP will resolve this alleged issue.

Besides which psychics in D&D predate Dark Sun--Mystics don't need to accommodate Dark Sun, Dark Sun needs to accommodate mystics.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 1, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> I agree.  One sentence in a Dark Sun setting guide or more likely some Desert Adventure AP will resolve this alleged issue.
> 
> Besides which psychics in D&D predate Dark Sun--Mystics don't need to accommodate Dark Sun, Dark Sun needs to accommodate mystics.





I don't know Dark Sun much, they may have done that in 4E already, for all I know.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 2, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> I don't know Dark Sun much, they may have done that in 4E already, for all I know.




I don't remember much about 4e Dark Sun.  I do remember that they changed defiling, not necessarily for the better for Dark Sun, but in a way that could be interesting for an "evil" class or evil outsiders the PC's could summon (basically you juice up your attack by defiling someone close to you).  I thought that would be interesting for, say summoned devils--they could do more damage then their CR (basis for summoning), but only if they defiled an ally (to be extra evil, the summoner would only be defiled if no one else was around).  You get a benefit for doing something evil (hurting a party member unless you drag a sacrificial NPC around with you, and what is the barbarian going to do with all those hp's anyway?)--that's how you sell evil in D&D.


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 2, 2016)

I do have to agree that the sorcerer and magic initiate almost full the same role as psionics. Now, the exact nature of their abilities, and their fluff and thematics, are very different.

I do like the monk as psionic and psionics as ki. But I also like the far realm theme too. It depends on how many "power sources" you want in your game. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lkj (Oct 3, 2016)

FYI:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/782244204315496448


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Oct 3, 2016)

lkj said:


> FYI:
> 
> https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/782244204315496448




That should be interesting. Get feedback on the UA ranger (new) in Nov, get feedback on the Mystic in Jan.  A couple of months to write up other stuff and print books--I am starting to believe the Big Book of Crunch November in 2017 theory.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 7, 2016)

MechaTarrasque said:


> That should be interesting. Get feedback on the UA ranger (new) in Nov, get feedback on the Mystic in Jan.  A couple of months to write up other stuff and print books--I am starting to believe the Big Book of Crunch November in 2017 theory.





Definitely getting something next year; might be a box set or something, but a book seems probable.  They have bounced a lot of subclass ideas against the wall in the past year, too.


----------

