As a DM, if I want to treat psychics as different, I can do so without any mechanical support, just like I can treat a cleric of Torm differently from a cleric of Bane despite the fact that they are mechanically identical down the the subclass, and if I don't want to treat them as different, different mechanics won't change my mind.
And yet the player is not allowed to make their character any different? You're saying that the DM can, if they so deign, decide whether or not to ignore the player's fluff/story/roleplaying, but the player has absolutely no right to want an actual, tangible differentiator and reason to be what they wish to be?
That's the answer to 'why isn't the Aberrant Mind good enough?', by the way. The Aberrant Mind has no reason to be a psychic character. It has no justification for being a psychic character. It offers no mechanical support for the concept of "psychic character", and despite all the scornful dismissal of the idea, mechanical support is important. Mechanics and fluff need to work together to sell an idea. If they don't? The game is off, and no amount of Flavor-Is-Free-ing people will fix it.
The GM puts in a lot of work to build and run a game. In return, the players accept that the GM has the final word or they don’t play.
Things would probably be different if GMs weren’t the scarce resource.
You're saying that the DM can, if they so deign, decide whether or not to ignore the player's fluff/story/roleplaying, but the player has absolutely no right to want an actual, tangible differentiator and reason to be what they wish to be?
The DM is the final arbiter of the Rules. While the job routinely involves working with players to create the best possible story at the end of the day what they say (no matter how stupid or arbitrary it might appear) is final.
No no, Wren. Everybody has a final word. You can say "the DM's word is law or nobody gets to play". However, the truth is that a DM who alienates their players, who constantly scorns them and belittles them and ignores their attempts to play? That DM will shortly have no players, and they won't get to play. The DM can refuse to DM, and the players can refuse to play. Meeting in the middle is the only way anybody gets to play.
"Flavor is free" and all this horse manure about calling a spade a pogo stick is the DM saying "I don't respect you, your character, or your contribution to our shared tale." A player who springs a weird concept on the DM without warning and buy-in is just as much saying "I don't respect you, your work, or your contribution to our shared tale." Both of those are bad. Yet one is championed as The Ultimate Solution To All Problems Everywhere.
No no, Wren. Everybody has a final word. You can say "the DM's word is law or nobody gets to play". However, the truth is that a DM who alienates their players, who constantly scorns them and belittles them and ignores their attempts to play? That DM will shortly have no players, and they won't get to play. The DM can refuse to DM, and the players can refuse to play. Meeting in the middle is the only way anybody gets to play.
"Flavor is free" and all this horse manure about calling a spade a pogo stick is the DM saying "I don't respect you, your character, or your contribution to our shared tale." A player who springs a weird concept on the DM without warning and buy-in is just as much saying "I don't respect you, your work, or your contribution to our shared tale." Both of those are bad. Yet one is championed as The Ultimate Solution To All Problems Everywhere.
Why is that?
Why is that? Because your basic premise is flawed. Everyone can’t have the final word. Like I said, GMs are the scarce resource. If that wasn’t the case, players could always go find another GM.
I will tell you this. If a potential player were to approach me as the GM with a sense of entitlement, I’d invite them to GM and, baring that, I’d show them the door. The countless hours I spend in prep work don’t belong to them.
And yet the player is not allowed to make their character any different? You're saying that the DM can, if they so deign, decide whether or not to ignore the player's fluff/story/roleplaying, but the player has absolutely no right to want an actual, tangible differentiator and reason to be what they wish to be?
The actual, tangible differentiator is what powers you take, not how they're described. A psion is someone with abilities that are traditionally called psychic. Which means the aberrant mind is a psion. Also, the DM defines the setting, and what, if any, distinguishes psi from magic is a setting design question (in the default 5th edition setting, psi is magic, it's explicitly stated in multiple places).
As for psi being magic: if my merchants have watchers that alert to magic because I don't want first level wizards robbing them blind with first level spells, I also don't want first level psions robbing them blind with first level effects, so I either have to go through and errata all those watchers to also alert on other power sources, or I have to declare psi to be magic. For a game system that's designed around multiple power sources from the start, the first is exactly what you do -- there's no "detect magic" in the first place, there's "detect powers" -- but 5th edition is a 10 year old system, so you're stuck with the second.
No no, Wren. Everybody has a final word. You can say "the DM's word is law or nobody gets to play". However, the truth is that a DM who alienates their players, who constantly scorns them and belittles them and ignores their attempts to play? That DM will shortly have no players, and they won't get to play. The DM can refuse to DM, and the players can refuse to play. Meeting in the middle is the only way anybody gets to play.
Similarly, a player who is intractable and refuses to co-operate is going to have a hard time finding any table to play at.
Because again: The GM is the final arbiter at the table which is a good thing because the alternative is an insane anarchist free-for-all that might be entertaining for 20 minutes but within which it will be impossible to do anything because no one can agree on just what the hell the rules actually are.
I'm curious why a player wanting their character's story, origin and history to matter is considered intractable and uncooperative.
Yes, if a DM says "no psi in my campaign", that's the end of that. If the DM allows the concept, though? If the player asks "can I do this?" and the DM says yes? Proceeding to then completely ignore the player's story, origin, history and abilities the way y'all are insisting on is really just not okay.
I'm curious why a player wanting their character's story, origin and history to matter is considered intractable and uncooperative.
Yes, if a DM says "no psi in my campaign", that's the end of that. If the DM allows the concept, though? If the player asks "can I do this?" and the DM says yes? Proceeding to then completely ignore the player's story, origin, history and abilities the way y'all are insisting on is really just not okay.
You're background, history and origin all need to conform to the setting and genre that the GM has established, and if you wind up having something in there that either wasn't apparent immediately with your character or winds up contradicting it then it is on you to rework it. This sucks but this is also why when a GM is setting up a campaign they need to work with their players to ensure that misunderstandings like this don't happen.
Personally, I am ok with it being "Magic" as that part is kind of irrelevant to what I want to play when it comes down to Psionics. I just don't want to cast Fire Ball like a Wizard or Cure Wounds like a Cleric. I want abilities unique to the class that use AND expand upon the Psionic mechanics created by WotC.
The foundation is already there with Psionic Energy Dice. They just need to build the house.
Also, this got kind of buried but I'd like to thank you for sharing this; the concern I have with psionics (which has not been helped by some people) is that a bunch of them have wanted magic and psionics to be seperate concepts entirely similar to how it was in earlier editions... where psionics was generally regarded as a blight for how it screwed everything up for other players and GMs alike.
For obvious reasons, implementing something like this in 5e at this juncture would be disasterous because theres about 10 years of materials that simply weren't built with it in mind.
I'm curious why a player wanting their character's story, origin and history to matter is considered intractable and uncooperative.
Yes, if a DM says "no psi in my campaign", that's the end of that. If the DM allows the concept, though? If the player asks "can I do this?" and the DM says yes? Proceeding to then completely ignore the player's story, origin, history and abilities the way y'all are insisting on is really just not okay.
The GM is the final arbiter, so, if he’s okay with Psions, then that’s the final word. I’m not seeing the issue.
The GM may end up having trouble fitting the player’s story, origin, history, and abilities into the game despite every desire to do so. Sometimes the GM plans for the party to go left and they go right. Shit happens.
Personally, I am ok with it being "Magic" as that part is kind of irrelevant to what I want to play when it comes down to Psionics. I just don't want to cast Fire Ball like a Wizard or Cure Wounds like a Cleric. I want abilities unique to the class that use AND expand upon the Psionic mechanics created by WotC.
The foundation is already there with Psionic Energy Dice. They just need to build the house.
Also, this got kind of buried but I'd like to thank you for sharing this; the concern I have with psionics (which has not been helped by some people) is that a bunch of them have wanted magic and psionics to be seperate concepts entirely similar to how it was in earlier editions... where psionics was generally regarded as a blight for how it screwed everything up for other players and GMs alike.
For obvious reasons, implementing something like this in 5e at this juncture would be disasterous because theres about 10 years of materials that simply weren't built with it in mind.
Outside normal character generation and timing, like it was in 1e? Obviously a bad idea, and nobody has suggested it.
Mechanically not magic? Despite the catastrophizing of some, really not a big deal either way. (Can/can't be detected by detect magic, can/can't punch through anti-magic. First one's minor, last one's rare.) For a third party, there's probably a slight bookkeeping advantage to making it magic, but I'll note that MCDM went the other way. For WotC, really wouldn't matter.
Personally, I am ok with it being "Magic" as that part is kind of irrelevant to what I want to play when it comes down to Psionics. I just don't want to cast Fire Ball like a Wizard or Cure Wounds like a Cleric. I want abilities unique to the class that use AND expand upon the Psionic mechanics created by WotC.
The foundation is already there with Psionic Energy Dice. They just need to build the house.
Also, this got kind of buried but I'd like to thank you for sharing this; the concern I have with psionics (which has not been helped by some people) is that a bunch of them have wanted magic and psionics to be seperate concepts entirely similar to how it was in earlier editions... where psionics was generally regarded as a blight for how it screwed everything up for other players and GMs alike.
For obvious reasons, implementing something like this in 5e at this juncture would be disasterous because theres about 10 years of materials that simply weren't built with it in mind.
Magic as a D&D term covers such a broad range of things. I just don't see Psionics being any different than a Dragon's ability fly and breath fire. It is magic, but it isn't manifested through spells. Mind Flayers, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife have psionic abilities that aren't spells for example. As I said, the mechanics already exists, it isn't reinventing the wheel, it is just going from wooden with spokes to alloy rims and tires.
That comparison highlights some of the concerns, because you'll note how rarely one sees wooden wheels on modern machinery.
"Hidden monster rules" is a term you seem to be pulling out of hiding. If you want to discuss such a term, please explain what you mean by it.
I am not the one moving the goalposts here. I am not the one who has suggested that Psionics, simply by being able to bypass the anti magic eye specifically, would not merely somehow trivialize Beholders but that would somehow completely unbalance the game. Note that is not outright stated, but merely implied, which leads to situations like this. If I have misunderstood that, please explain what the issue really is. I did not call all Beholders minions of Mindflayers. I was suggesting a scenario in which one was. And no, they would not be knowingly so, but unknowingly is, by definition, unknowingly.
Every class uses magic that interacts with the normal magic system?
To the extent existing classes interact with the normal magic system, yes, they interact with the normal magic system, but please show me the rule that states that a fighter or rogue must use magic? That every special ability they have, regardless of subclass, is magical?
Define "Interact." Magic shuts down non-magic all the time. It is sort of magic's thing. But, as is constantly pointed out, only according to what the magical whatever says it does. Magical water does not always put out fires, depending on spell. Magical fire does not always actually burn objects or set things on fire, depending on spell. These situations already exist and the game hasn't imploded from them, so why would any different ones cause it to?
5. Again, we are talking about a hypothetical class with just raw ideas sitting beside it. Most of the naysaying is "Well what about <hypothetical specific situation????>" and never in any constructive way, but purely "It cannot possibly work because this might happen."
6. How do you get from "It is non-magical mind based power" to "So which of those classes ignores/is opaque with regards to the existing magic system? Or is this yet another false equivalency from you?" That is not any false equivalency from anyone other than yourself. A Psion would not be magic immune nor magic invisible any more than any random person walking down the street is magic immune or magic invisible. It is as if the argument against Psions is "If someone hits someone else over the head with a blunt object, no magic is involved. That can't be allowed! It bypasses magic! " It would bypass a spell designed to block magical melee attacks, but spells so specific are not normal at all
By "Hidden Monster rules" I meant that any kind of rule you're writing that would explain how magic-using monsters interact (or rather, don't interact) with psionic powers and vice-versa would need to be outside of the magic-using monsters statblocks, thus creating another place players and DMs need to look to understand how those monsters work in your psionics game. (Unless of course you're suggesting we errata every magic-using monster in existence instead.)
You have no compelling reason for why psionics should get to ignore antimagic, dispel magic, detect magic, concentration etc, especially when past iterations of the system didn't. It's the only way to balance such abilities, unless again we make them so weak that being able to ignore these things is irrelevant. And that's also the answer to "but fighter and rogue abilities aren't magic either, derp!" Yeah, they're not magic, because they're balanced around being mundane. Something tells me that people who want psionics wouldn't be satisfied with psionic powers that are on par with Sneak Attack and Fighting Style. If I'm wrong and y'all would actually be fine with that, just say so.
The opacity argument was pointing out that, even if you went the absurdist route and said every class is a sorcerer when you think about it, man (yo that's deep), the key there remains that all of them either use spellcasting or have abilities that are benchmarked against spellcasting - generally unfavorably. Every single one.
I'm curious why a player wanting their character's story, origin and history to matter is considered intractable and uncooperative.
Yes, if a DM says "no psi in my campaign", that's the end of that. If the DM allows the concept, though? If the player asks "can I do this?" and the DM says yes? Proceeding to then completely ignore the player's story, origin, history and abilities the way y'all are insisting on is really just not okay.
For the infiniton time, nobody is against/disallowing psi. We're against psi that relies on it's own separate special snowflake unbalanced system.
If a player came to me and said they wanted to be a psion, I would create one that uses the spellcasting system (except without components) and figure out a way to balance that. Sorcerer already has such a way - it requires you to spend a resource to cast your spells componentless, and when that resource is used up, they have to burn spell slots to get more of it - functionally meaning they get fewer slots/points than other full spellcasters. In exchange, their magic is undetectable and can't be countered. That's a balanced trade.
I read the whole thing, so I guess I will throw my two cents into the discussion too.
I think it would be nice if psionics is developed further with a class dedicated to it. While flavor is free, it is nice to have a mechanic that can more accurately reflect the character concept a player has in mind, or at least differentiate the concept from others a bit more.
I like the idea of both psionics being separate and unaffected by magic, and psionics being part of and affected by magic at the same time. Instead of choosing one or the other, why not have both? We could have some psionic abilities that are just plain psionic and not affected by magic; and we can have some psionic abilities that are psionic and magical at the same time, and those abilities would be affected by magic like Antimagic Field. Basically, kind of like monk's Ki abilities, where some are magical and some are not.
And on the subject of psionics being separate from magic, I think it would be cool if clerics, druids, and other classes can have abilities that are a bit more separate from magic as well. Cleric's Divine Intervention is nice in that it can be magical or it can be non-magical; it would be nice if Channel Divinity is non-magical by default too. For paladins, I think Smites being nonmagical by default is a cool idea (like Hexblade's Eldritch Smite), as Smiting is as natural to paladins as breath attacks are to dragons. Similarly, it would be nice if druid's Wild Shape is naturally innate and not magical.
Besides separation from magic, psionics being its own system would ideally have some depth too. Channel Divinity and Smites feel a bit simple without a lot of depth for example, whereas maneuvers and invocations are quite a bit deeper. While I do not think psionics needs to be as deep as the spell system, being maybe two to three times as deep as maneuvers and/or invocations would be nice. That being said, maneuvers, invocations, and other systems being two to three times more deep than their current states will help make them feel a little more versatile and powerful, like wizards.
I do not think balance is really an issue. D&D generally is not played competitively, so as long as the balance is in the ballpark range where everyone in the party felt like they contributed roughly equally, that is good enough in my opinion. And as a GM, I do not think I have found it difficult to challenge my players, since no matter how strong my players get, I can always throw something even stronger against them.
As for keeping D&D accessible for new comers, I think implementing things as optional rules and putting them in expansion books is a good way to keep the base game in the BR/SRD and PHB relatively approachable.
I also do not think D&D should stick to only traditional settings either. D&D's system is flexible enough to accomate modern setting, sci-fi, science fantasy, and superheroes. D&D already does fantasy, steam/magic-punk, horror, and sailing in space, and they are just as far apart from each other as sci-fi. And if you count Epic Heroism rest, D&D can do superheroes too, they just have not made a setting for that yet.
Personally, I am ok with it being "Magic" as that part is kind of irrelevant to what I want to play when it comes down to Psionics. I just don't want to cast Fire Ball like a Wizard or Cure Wounds like a Cleric. I want abilities unique to the class that use AND expand upon the Psionic mechanics created by WotC.
The foundation is already there with Psionic Energy Dice. They just need to build the house.
Also, this got kind of buried but I'd like to thank you for sharing this; the concern I have with psionics (which has not been helped by some people) is that a bunch of them have wanted magic and psionics to be seperate concepts entirely similar to how it was in earlier editions... where psionics was generally regarded as a blight for how it screwed everything up for other players and GMs alike.
For obvious reasons, implementing something like this in 5e at this juncture would be disasterous because theres about 10 years of materials that simply weren't built with it in mind.
Magic as a D&D term covers such a broad range of things. I just don't see Psionics being any different than a Dragon's ability fly and breath fire. It is magic, but it isn't manifested through spells. Mind Flayers, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife have psionic abilities that aren't spells for example. As I said, the mechanics already exists, it isn't reinventing the wheel, it is just going from wooden with spokes to alloy rims and tires.
But a dragon's fire is, at least officially, not stopped by an anti-magic field. Nor is a non-summoned dragon unable to enter such a field.
If Ki is magical, then how can monks enter such fields at all? According to the text regarding Ki, Ki flows in all life, so the life force of all living creatures shuts down in anti-magic fields, contrary to them saying non-summoned creatures are not so affected?
I read the whole thing, so I guess I will throw my two cents into the discussion too.
I think it would be nice if psionics is developed further with a class dedicated to it. While flavor is free, it is nice to have a mechanic that can more accurately reflect the character concept a player has in mind, or at least differentiate the concept from others a bit more.
I like the idea of both psionics being separate and unaffected by magic, and psionics being part of and affected by magic at the same time. Instead of choosing one or the other, why not have both? We could have some psionic abilities that are just plain psionic and not affected by magic; and we can have some psionic abilities that are psionic and magical at the same time, and those abilities would be affected by magic like Antimagic Field. Basically, kind of like monk's Ki abilities, where some are magical and some are not.
And on the subject of psionics being separate from magic, I think it would be cool if clerics, druids, and other classes can have abilities that are a bit more separate from magic as well. Cleric's Divine Intervention is nice in that it can be magical or it can be non-magical; it would be nice if Channel Divinity is non-magical by default too. For paladins, I think Smites being nonmagical by default is a cool idea (like Hexblade's Eldritch Smite), as Smiting is as natural to paladins as breath attacks are to dragons. Similarly, it would be nice if druid's Wild Shape is naturally innate and not magical.
Besides separation from magic, psionics being its own system would ideally have some depth too. Channel Divinity and Smites feel a bit simple without a lot of depth for example, whereas maneuvers and invocations are quite a bit deeper. While I do not think psionics needs to be as deep as the spell system, being maybe two to three times as deep as maneuvers and/or invocations would be nice. That being said, maneuvers, invocations, and other systems being two to three times more deep than their current states will help make them feel a little more versatile and powerful, like wizards.
I do not think balance is really an issue. D&D generally is not played competitively, so as long as the balance is in the ballpark range where everyone in the party felt like they contributed roughly equally, that is good enough in my opinion. And as a GM, I do not think I have found it difficult to challenge my players, since no matter how strong my players get, I can always throw something even stronger against them.
As for keeping D&D accessible for new comers, I think implementing things as optional rules and putting them in expansion books is a good way to keep the base game in the BR/SRD and PHB relatively approachable.
I also do not think D&D should stick to only traditional settings either. D&D's system is flexible enough to accomate modern setting, sci-fi, science fantasy, and superheroes. D&D already does fantasy, steam/magic-punk, horror, and sailing in space, and they are just as far apart from each other as sci-fi. And if you count Epic Heroism rest, D&D can do superheroes too, they just have not made a setting for that yet.
Having both systems exist exclusively (except where they don't apparently) once again creates a rats nest of caveats and exceptions that serve only to complicated and frustrate the game.
As to other settings and time periods: there are options for doing so presented in the DMG, and if they are inadequate for the level of customization that the GM and/or party want to engage in well, there are other RPGs.
But a dragon's fire is, at least officially, not stopped by an anti-magic field. Nor is a non-summoned dragon unable to enter such a field.
If Ki is magical, then how can monks enter such fields at all? According to the text regarding Ki, Ki flows in all life, so the life force of all living creatures shuts down in anti-magic fields, contrary to them saying non-summoned creatures are not so affected?
All life has ki and is "background magic." Some of the monk's abilities to practically use ki are "foreground magic" and thus subject to AMF. I don't view the "Magic of Ki" passage as being intended to mean that every single monk ability that uses ki would get shut off in an AMF - rather, it's just a broad watch-out that some will, like a 4 Elements or Shadow Monk being able to fuel spells using that energy.
You can do something similar with psionics, just like you can with traditional spellcasters - many of them get access to class powers that aren't subject to AMF either, like a Diviner's Portent ability.
Personally, I am ok with it being "Magic" as that part is kind of irrelevant to what I want to play when it comes down to Psionics. I just don't want to cast Fire Ball like a Wizard or Cure Wounds like a Cleric. I want abilities unique to the class that use AND expand upon the Psionic mechanics created by WotC.
The foundation is already there with Psionic Energy Dice. They just need to build the house.
Also, this got kind of buried but I'd like to thank you for sharing this; the concern I have with psionics (which has not been helped by some people) is that a bunch of them have wanted magic and psionics to be seperate concepts entirely similar to how it was in earlier editions... where psionics was generally regarded as a blight for how it screwed everything up for other players and GMs alike.
For obvious reasons, implementing something like this in 5e at this juncture would be disasterous because theres about 10 years of materials that simply weren't built with it in mind.
Magic as a D&D term covers such a broad range of things. I just don't see Psionics being any different than a Dragon's ability fly and breath fire. It is magic, but it isn't manifested through spells. Mind Flayers, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife have psionic abilities that aren't spells for example. As I said, the mechanics already exists, it isn't reinventing the wheel, it is just going from wooden with spokes to alloy rims and tires.
But a dragon's fire is, at least officially, not stopped by an anti-magic field. Nor is a non-summoned dragon unable to enter such a field.
If Ki is magical, then how can monks enter such fields at all? According to the text regarding Ki, Ki flows in all life, so the life force of all living creatures shuts down in anti-magic fields, contrary to them saying non-summoned creatures are not so affected?
I don't have a lot of time today, but I wanted to address this.
D&D's rules are filled with loopholes and strange interactions such as you describe, yet I haven't seen or heard of a DM that has characters simply fall over dead in an anti magic field. The only time in the past decade of me playing this game, that I have encountered an anti magic anything, was against the one Beholder my group fought a few years ago. Are DM's using anti magic fields so often that this is a real issue?
The answer is that, while Dragons are magical and Ki is described as magical, they are magical in the way that buildings have levels. the 20th floor, being the 20th level of a building (above ground, depending on how the floors are numbered) is not necessarily more 'powerful' than the 19th floor and the building is not necessarily more powerful than a separate three story building adjacent or anywhere else. "Level" is not being used in that same way, there.
In a world where the world, itself, is the magical creation of Gods, that fact in and of itself does not equate the world's existence with conventional cast magic. So is it, too, with the 'magical' nature of Dragons (or other 'magical' creatures), life energy (aka 'Ki') or any other such thing. There are a mythical sentient ponies that will swear up and down that Friendship is Magic and there is even some evidence in that in game by way of the magic invoked by Paladins being powered by their oaths, however that does not mean that that everything those oaths powers, or for that matter, those oaths, themselves, are dispel-able.
But a dragon's fire is, at least officially, not stopped by an anti-magic field. Nor is a non-summoned dragon unable to enter such a field.
If Ki is magical, then how can monks enter such fields at all? According to the text regarding Ki, Ki flows in all life, so the life force of all living creatures shuts down in anti-magic fields, contrary to them saying non-summoned creatures are not so affected?
All life has ki and is "background magic." Some of the monk's abilities to practically use ki are "foreground magic" and thus subject to AMF. I don't view the "Magic of Ki" passage as being intended to mean that every single monk ability that uses ki would get shut off in an AMF - rather, it's just a broad watch-out that some will, like a 4 Elements or Shadow Monk being able to fuel spells using that energy.
You can do something similar with psionics, just like you can with traditional spellcasters - many of them get access to class powers that aren't subject to AMF either, like a Diviner's Portent ability.
This we can agree on. And the 4 Elements monk being a good potential starting point, although frankly it needs a bit of bolstering.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The GM puts in a lot of work to build and run a game. In return, the players accept that the GM has the final word or they don’t play.
Things would probably be different if GMs weren’t the scarce resource.
The DM is the final arbiter of the Rules. While the job routinely involves working with players to create the best possible story at the end of the day what they say (no matter how stupid or arbitrary it might appear) is final.
No no, Wren. Everybody has a final word. You can say "the DM's word is law or nobody gets to play". However, the truth is that a DM who alienates their players, who constantly scorns them and belittles them and ignores their attempts to play? That DM will shortly have no players, and they won't get to play. The DM can refuse to DM, and the players can refuse to play. Meeting in the middle is the only way anybody gets to play.
"Flavor is free" and all this horse manure about calling a spade a pogo stick is the DM saying "I don't respect you, your character, or your contribution to our shared tale." A player who springs a weird concept on the DM without warning and buy-in is just as much saying "I don't respect you, your work, or your contribution to our shared tale." Both of those are bad. Yet one is championed as The Ultimate Solution To All Problems Everywhere.
Why is that?
Please do not contact or message me.
Why is that? Because your basic premise is flawed. Everyone can’t have the final word. Like I said, GMs are the scarce resource. If that wasn’t the case, players could always go find another GM.
I will tell you this. If a potential player were to approach me as the GM with a sense of entitlement, I’d invite them to GM and, baring that, I’d show them the door. The countless hours I spend in prep work don’t belong to them.
The actual, tangible differentiator is what powers you take, not how they're described. A psion is someone with abilities that are traditionally called psychic. Which means the aberrant mind is a psion. Also, the DM defines the setting, and what, if any, distinguishes psi from magic is a setting design question (in the default 5th edition setting, psi is magic, it's explicitly stated in multiple places).
As for psi being magic: if my merchants have watchers that alert to magic because I don't want first level wizards robbing them blind with first level spells, I also don't want first level psions robbing them blind with first level effects, so I either have to go through and errata all those watchers to also alert on other power sources, or I have to declare psi to be magic. For a game system that's designed around multiple power sources from the start, the first is exactly what you do -- there's no "detect magic" in the first place, there's "detect powers" -- but 5th edition is a 10 year old system, so you're stuck with the second.
Similarly, a player who is intractable and refuses to co-operate is going to have a hard time finding any table to play at.
Because again: The GM is the final arbiter at the table which is a good thing because the alternative is an insane anarchist free-for-all that might be entertaining for 20 minutes but within which it will be impossible to do anything because no one can agree on just what the hell the rules actually are.
I'm curious why a player wanting their character's story, origin and history to matter is considered intractable and uncooperative.
Yes, if a DM says "no psi in my campaign", that's the end of that. If the DM allows the concept, though? If the player asks "can I do this?" and the DM says yes? Proceeding to then completely ignore the player's story, origin, history and abilities the way y'all are insisting on is really just not okay.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're background, history and origin all need to conform to the setting and genre that the GM has established, and if you wind up having something in there that either wasn't apparent immediately with your character or winds up contradicting it then it is on you to rework it. This sucks but this is also why when a GM is setting up a campaign they need to work with their players to ensure that misunderstandings like this don't happen.
Also, this got kind of buried but I'd like to thank you for sharing this; the concern I have with psionics (which has not been helped by some people) is that a bunch of them have wanted magic and psionics to be seperate concepts entirely similar to how it was in earlier editions... where psionics was generally regarded as a blight for how it screwed everything up for other players and GMs alike.
For obvious reasons, implementing something like this in 5e at this juncture would be disasterous because theres about 10 years of materials that simply weren't built with it in mind.
The GM is the final arbiter, so, if he’s okay with Psions, then that’s the final word. I’m not seeing the issue.
The GM may end up having trouble fitting the player’s story, origin, history, and abilities into the game despite every desire to do so. Sometimes the GM plans for the party to go left and they go right. Shit happens.
Damn, but I’m still sensing some narcissism.
Outside normal character generation and timing, like it was in 1e? Obviously a bad idea, and nobody has suggested it.
Mechanically not magic? Despite the catastrophizing of some, really not a big deal either way. (Can/can't be detected by detect magic, can/can't punch through anti-magic. First one's minor, last one's rare.) For a third party, there's probably a slight bookkeeping advantage to making it magic, but I'll note that MCDM went the other way. For WotC, really wouldn't matter.
That comparison highlights some of the concerns, because you'll note how rarely one sees wooden wheels on modern machinery.
Great, neither was I, so let's drop the whole Beholder is a Mindflayer minion nonsense then?
By "Hidden Monster rules" I meant that any kind of rule you're writing that would explain how magic-using monsters interact (or rather, don't interact) with psionic powers and vice-versa would need to be outside of the magic-using monsters statblocks, thus creating another place players and DMs need to look to understand how those monsters work in your psionics game. (Unless of course you're suggesting we errata every magic-using monster in existence instead.)
You have no compelling reason for why psionics should get to ignore antimagic, dispel magic, detect magic, concentration etc, especially when past iterations of the system didn't. It's the only way to balance such abilities, unless again we make them so weak that being able to ignore these things is irrelevant. And that's also the answer to "but fighter and rogue abilities aren't magic either, derp!" Yeah, they're not magic, because they're balanced around being mundane. Something tells me that people who want psionics wouldn't be satisfied with psionic powers that are on par with Sneak Attack and Fighting Style. If I'm wrong and y'all would actually be fine with that, just say so.
The opacity argument was pointing out that, even if you went the absurdist route and said every class is a sorcerer when you think about it, man (yo that's deep), the key there remains that all of them either use spellcasting or have abilities that are benchmarked against spellcasting - generally unfavorably. Every single one.
For the infiniton time, nobody is against/disallowing psi. We're against psi that relies on it's own separate special snowflake unbalanced system.
If a player came to me and said they wanted to be a psion, I would create one that uses the spellcasting system (except without components) and figure out a way to balance that. Sorcerer already has such a way - it requires you to spend a resource to cast your spells componentless, and when that resource is used up, they have to burn spell slots to get more of it - functionally meaning they get fewer slots/points than other full spellcasters. In exchange, their magic is undetectable and can't be countered. That's a balanced trade.
I read the whole thing, so I guess I will throw my two cents into the discussion too.
I think it would be nice if psionics is developed further with a class dedicated to it. While flavor is free, it is nice to have a mechanic that can more accurately reflect the character concept a player has in mind, or at least differentiate the concept from others a bit more.
I like the idea of both psionics being separate and unaffected by magic, and psionics being part of and affected by magic at the same time. Instead of choosing one or the other, why not have both? We could have some psionic abilities that are just plain psionic and not affected by magic; and we can have some psionic abilities that are psionic and magical at the same time, and those abilities would be affected by magic like Antimagic Field. Basically, kind of like monk's Ki abilities, where some are magical and some are not.
And on the subject of psionics being separate from magic, I think it would be cool if clerics, druids, and other classes can have abilities that are a bit more separate from magic as well. Cleric's Divine Intervention is nice in that it can be magical or it can be non-magical; it would be nice if Channel Divinity is non-magical by default too. For paladins, I think Smites being nonmagical by default is a cool idea (like Hexblade's Eldritch Smite), as Smiting is as natural to paladins as breath attacks are to dragons. Similarly, it would be nice if druid's Wild Shape is naturally innate and not magical.
Besides separation from magic, psionics being its own system would ideally have some depth too. Channel Divinity and Smites feel a bit simple without a lot of depth for example, whereas maneuvers and invocations are quite a bit deeper. While I do not think psionics needs to be as deep as the spell system, being maybe two to three times as deep as maneuvers and/or invocations would be nice. That being said, maneuvers, invocations, and other systems being two to three times more deep than their current states will help make them feel a little more versatile and powerful, like wizards.
I do not think balance is really an issue. D&D generally is not played competitively, so as long as the balance is in the ballpark range where everyone in the party felt like they contributed roughly equally, that is good enough in my opinion. And as a GM, I do not think I have found it difficult to challenge my players, since no matter how strong my players get, I can always throw something even stronger against them.
As for keeping D&D accessible for new comers, I think implementing things as optional rules and putting them in expansion books is a good way to keep the base game in the BR/SRD and PHB relatively approachable.
I also do not think D&D should stick to only traditional settings either. D&D's system is flexible enough to accomate modern setting, sci-fi, science fantasy, and superheroes. D&D already does fantasy, steam/magic-punk, horror, and sailing in space, and they are just as far apart from each other as sci-fi. And if you count Epic Heroism rest, D&D can do superheroes too, they just have not made a setting for that yet.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
But a dragon's fire is, at least officially, not stopped by an anti-magic field. Nor is a non-summoned dragon unable to enter such a field.
If Ki is magical, then how can monks enter such fields at all? According to the text regarding Ki, Ki flows in all life, so the life force of all living creatures shuts down in anti-magic fields, contrary to them saying non-summoned creatures are not so affected?
Having both systems exist exclusively (except where they don't apparently) once again creates a rats nest of caveats and exceptions that serve only to complicated and frustrate the game.
As to other settings and time periods: there are options for doing so presented in the DMG, and if they are inadequate for the level of customization that the GM and/or party want to engage in well, there are other RPGs.
All life has ki and is "background magic." Some of the monk's abilities to practically use ki are "foreground magic" and thus subject to AMF. I don't view the "Magic of Ki" passage as being intended to mean that every single monk ability that uses ki would get shut off in an AMF - rather, it's just a broad watch-out that some will, like a 4 Elements or Shadow Monk being able to fuel spells using that energy.
You can do something similar with psionics, just like you can with traditional spellcasters - many of them get access to class powers that aren't subject to AMF either, like a Diviner's Portent ability.
The answer is that, while Dragons are magical and Ki is described as magical, they are magical in the way that buildings have levels. the 20th floor, being the 20th level of a building (above ground, depending on how the floors are numbered) is not necessarily more 'powerful' than the 19th floor and the building is not necessarily more powerful than a separate three story building adjacent or anywhere else. "Level" is not being used in that same way, there.
In a world where the world, itself, is the magical creation of Gods, that fact in and of itself does not equate the world's existence with conventional cast magic. So is it, too, with the 'magical' nature of Dragons (or other 'magical' creatures), life energy (aka 'Ki') or any other such thing. There are a mythical sentient ponies that will swear up and down that Friendship is Magic and there is even some evidence in that in game by way of the magic invoked by Paladins being powered by their oaths, however that does not mean that that everything those oaths powers, or for that matter, those oaths, themselves, are dispel-able.
This we can agree on. And the 4 Elements monk being a good potential starting point, although frankly it needs a bit of bolstering.