to answer some of the questions/complaints from the antipsion side:
My take on psionics come from some personal experiences along with some fiction (david eddings especially) as well as a bunch of reading on ESP and various mentalist "abilities" back 50 years ago or so. to me psionics was best described by Eddngs - the will and the word - you form an idea of what you want then apply your will and a word of activation and the change you want in reality occurs. so verbal and somatic components but no material components and so no need for foci either.
When your best description of 'psionics' is the definition of sorcery in the Belgariad, you might want to rethink insisting that psis aren't sorcerers.
no its just the best description that fits my personal experiences of psi , maybe you need to rethink what sorcery, magic and psi are?
I mean, you're literally saying "like magic in D&D, but without material components"; which exist in D&D partly to allow for the "disarming" of spellcasters, so they're not going anywhere unless someone does a ground-up rebuild of the entire game system, which is basically what it would take to make this concept of psionics as something separate from magic possible, except even then most likely it'd just be a case of reclassifying the overall magic system in such a way that you can designate a "psionic" category alongside stuff like "divine", "primal", and "arcane". And you really feel that not having to hold a piece of crystal that you can generally ignore for the purposes of roleplay is an insurmountable obstacle in integrating this concept of "psionics" (which is literally the definition of magic in numerous other pieces of fiction)?
My apologies. For some reason, my tired eyes skipped right over the word "antonym" in the part I quoted. I didn't even see it at first after I read your most recent post. Sorry.
a) The problem is you are cherry picking each and every spell individually rather than understanding that a character is, well, a character. Any given specific part may be stronger or weaker than a similar part of another character. If they all had to be exactly the same in every way, there would be only one character class.
b) You are using "Transparent" and "Opaque" in strange ways. "Transparent" means "invisible to.. passes through... does not block." There will presumably be some mechanism limiting use of (likely most) Psion abilities. Again, this would be on an ability by ability basis and would need balancing.
c) Mind Blank, at the high end. Intellect Fortress, mid-range. There could well be a new Anti-Psi Field and could well be other counter-measure spells. Meanwhile, you seem to think that monsters are some sort of actually existent beings. They are not. They are fictional. If a DM is using this hypothetical new class, which they would have veto power over doing, they would presumably modify creatures in any way they thought fit. DM's are human beings. They are more competent than you seem to give them credit for being.
a) What? Which individual spells am I cherry-picking? I'm comparing Spellcasting as a whole to Psionics as a whole.That's precisely why I think the lead suggestion is ridiculous, because while it makes sense for blocking divinations, it doesn't for nearly anything else e.g. evocations/psychokinesis.
b) I'm using Transparency the exact same way WotC themselves did.And I will continue to do so. Yet again, I can't help but feel that people who are advocating for bringing back psionics as a dedicated subsystem without properly understanding its history in the game are starting from a very disadvantageous position.
c) So are you proposing that psionics should only be capable of enchantment and divination effects? Because that would definitely fit my earlier definition of NOT being able to do similar things to spellcasting, which is totally fine by me, but I didn't think you lot would be satisfied with that. And if you're not proposing that, then pointing to Mind Blank and Intellect Fortress is pointless, because spellcasting can do a heck of a lot more things than those two spells can guard against.
\b) You are using "Transparent" and "Opaque" in strange ways. "Transparent" means "invisible to.. passes through... does not block." There will presumably be some mechanism limiting use of (likely most) Psion abilities. Again, this would be on an ability by ability basis and would need balancing.
Ok, so both you and WotC are using it in a strange way. I mean, I see how they meant it, but it's definitely a poor choice of words. "Equivalence" or "compatibility" would be better.
Yet again, I can't help but feel that people who are advocating for bringing back psionics as a dedicated subsystem without properly understanding its history in the game are starting from a very disadvantageous position.
How it was done in prior editions is barely relevant, because the prior editions are mechanically distinct. I personally have no idea how it was done in 2e or 3/3.5. The 1e version, at least, isn't even useful as a bad example, because it's in such opposition to the design of 5e (and, frankly, 1e) that nobody would think to try it that way.
How it was done in prior editions is barely relevant, because the prior editions are mechanically distinct. I personally have no idea how it was done in 2e or 3/3.5. The 1e version, at least, isn't even useful as a bad example, because it's in such opposition to the design of 5e (and, frankly, 1e) that nobody would think to try it that way.
Those who refuse to learn from history (even freely available OGL history apparently) are doomed to repeat it, then.
The specific mechanics between editions might be different, but the broader issues they had to deal with - like the vast majority of their monsters that were geared towards challenging spellcasters having little to no defense against psions - are the same. And those issues are what led them to realize that opaque "Psionics Are Different" design just isn't worth the balance hassle.
"How detectable is it?" and "is it mechanically magic?" are things you can tinker with after the frameworks are developed, and they're more chrome decisions than balance ones.
That is exactly backwards. Whether an ability is magic has no cosmetic effects -- all it does is determine how it interacts with abilities that specifically interact with magic, and almost all abilities like that are magical countermeasures. Thus, "not magical" means "immune to a broad class of countermeasures". Likewise, "How difficult is it to detect" is a pure balance issue, the chrome issue is "what does it look like".
They're mechanical questions where, the vast majority of the time (I'd estimate 90+%), the answer doesn't matter. It's just flavor. And even when it does mechanically matter, the balance question is minor at best. I suspect the "is it magic" question comes out to a wash -- if magic stuff gets to mess with psi, psi gets to mess with magic.
As for detectability, there's a huge gradient of options, and most of them are effectively chrome:
Everyone looking knows you did it, and who you targeted
Everyone looking knows you did something, and the target knows something happened
Everyone looking knows something was done to the target
Everyone looking knows something happened to the target, who knows you did it
The target knows something happened to them, and knows you did it
The target knows something happened to them, but doesn't know you did it.
The target doesn't know something happened to them, but knows you did something
The target doesn't know something happened to them, and doesn't know you did anything
I will note that #7 is probably the state of affairs when you cast charm person on somebody, until it wears off. (Or #8 if you're a sorcerer.)
There are other options for detectability, but those seem like the most likely ones to me.
Most of the time, which one of those is in effect just doesn't matter, because most powers are used during active hostilities. It doesn't matter if they know what you're doing -- standing there not doing something just means you're a caster of some kind and should be murdered anyway.
There aren't no balance issues there, but they're being way overstated.
My take on psionics come from some personal experiences along with some fiction (david eddings especially) as well as a bunch of reading on ESP and various mentalist "abilities" back 50 years ago or so. to me psionics was best described by Eddngs - the will and the word - you form an idea of what you want then apply your will and a word of activation and the change you want in reality occurs. so verbal and somatic components but no material components and so no need for foci either.
When your best description of 'psionics' is the definition of sorcery in the Belgariad, you might want to rethink insisting that psis aren't sorcerers.
The fact that it's called sorcery there doesn't mean it's anything like the thing called sorcery in D&D. (Given D&D's highly idiosyncratic magic system, it's pretty much a guarantee it's not.)
How it was done in prior editions is barely relevant, because the prior editions are mechanically distinct.
Prior editions are relevant because they allow you to understand why it was done as it was in 5e -- essentially, every time psionics got revised, it got revised to work more like magic, because the previous version was busted.
In AD&D 1e, you could have a first level character able to one-shot high level monsters, because psi ability was almost totally divorced from the level system. It was generally agreed to be busted.
In AD&D 2e, they revised psions into a class. It still had a reputation for being busted, but I didn't play enough 2e to say whether it was true.
In D&D 3.5e, they added the concept of "psionics-magic transparency", which meant "Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability." -- e.g. dispel magic would dispel psi and vice versa.
In D&D 4e, everything was a power and psi was a power source, parallel with arcane, divine, martial, and primal. It's of limited value to discuss because 5e is more a descendant of 3.5e than a descendant of 4e.
I would argue that neither 3.5e nor 4e psi was particularly broken, but they still suffered from a problem that afflicted every edition: psi wound up being an orphan product: they'd put out a bit of stuff about it, then it would get abandoned because the number of people who actually cared about psi was insufficient to support multiple products.
The lessons Wizards have learned are
Not enough people care about psi to support a dedicated product, so best to tie it to something people do care about.
Not enough people care about psi to support having adventures include special rules handling psi, so let's just make it countered by the same things that counter regular magic.
Not enough people care about psi to support a dedicated product, so best to tie it to something people do care about.
Not enough people care about psi to support having adventures include special rules handling psi, so let's just make it countered by the same things that counter regular magic."
I would rewrite this as follows: WotC learned that Psi has a small dedicated following that is not enough to support it as a core part of any edition. However they are sufficiently vocal and willing to spend money on a good optional system they can include in their games. WotC questions whether there is sufficient profit from such a product to warrant the expense of development.
I started this thread 40+ pages ago because I am one of that small group. I will grant you that "magic" as a term in the English langue is the general term for any and all super or extra natural manipulations of reality. in that sense yes it includes psi as well as the religious miracles that the world's major faiths are based off of. most of us in this group (I think) recognize that we are not the majority and that for the majority the little bits of psi in sorcery and a few other places are sufficient. for us it is not, that is why the repeated calls to basically "shut up and take what your given" are so frustrating. we aren't (or at least I'm not) trying to force folks to play with my version of psi (see the spoiler in my earlier post) and would appreciate it if you didn't try to ram yours down our throats. if, to you, psi is "just magic with a different name" maybe this thread isn't for you. Its clear that WotC isn't going to add any sort of full-blown psi system like it had back in 1/2e any time soon. that was covered back on page 1 satisfactorily. what SHOULD be happening is for folks in that small vocal group to be trying to see if we can come up with something we all sort of agree on and try to iron out the details of a workable system. I think most of us recognize that it has to have its own checks and balances built in and yes, it is going to have to fit into that annoying 10 level spell power system in some way because that is core to D&D. It can be gotten around to some extent but at the very least vestiges will have to be present.
In other words if your anti psi its really time to move on to other discussions your not actually helping this one and we have been forced to spend 40+ pages trying to tell you this. I would actually like to see if YUrei and I can agree on anything about psi other than that we like it and wish there was a system we approved of for it.
I would rewrite this as follows: WotC learned that Psi has a small dedicated following that is not enough to support it as a core part of any edition. However they are sufficiently vocal and willing to spend money on a good optional system they can include in their games.
The problem is that an optional system like that must be designed so it can be dropped in without being disruptive in a published campaign or supplement that was not designed for it. Hence the reason it has to count as magic unless it's very limited: campaigns are likely to have pre-existing protections against magic, so either those same protections work against psi, or psi is weak enough that it doesn't matter that they don't work.
I would argue that neither 3.5e nor 4e psi was particularly broken, but they still suffered from a problem that afflicted every edition: psi wound up being an orphan product: they'd put out a bit of stuff about it, then it would get abandoned because the number of people who actually cared about psi was insufficient to support multiple products.
Exactly this, which is why making it a form of spellcasting is even better for guaranteed ongoing support. When you look at recent products there's so much that would fit so well on a psion - Borrowed Knowledge, Silvery Barbs, Mind Sliver, Kinetic Jaunt, Psychic Lance, Mind Whip, Intellect Fortress, Air Bubble etc. Several of these actually originated as psionic powers. But had they done a psionic book before those, there's little to no chance that they'd have ended up getting added in, never mind whatever we'll be getting in the future.
Not enough people care about psi to support a dedicated product, so best to tie it to something people do care about.
Not enough people care about psi to support having adventures include special rules handling psi, so let's just make it countered by the same things that counter regular magic.
I'm actually going to dissent slightly on that first one and say they COULD make a dedicated psionic product. Again, Paizo managed it! But the reason they succeeded was the thing that the pro-psi people here seem determined not to budge on - just making it a form of spellcasting.
The designers can make psychic casters unique in many other ways besides the spells. Again, PF2 is instructive here - they changed up the components for psychic spells, revisited Psychic/Mindscape Duel rules, added rules for Unleashing your Psyche for when your psychic is ready to go all out for that nosebleed, turned your Subconscious into a psychic origin that lets you change your casting stat and many more. Having a tried and tested foundation for the core of the class is what let them experiment on the edges like this. The result is a caster that is guaranteed to be supported for the life of their edition while also feeling unique from the wizards, clerics, sorcerers etc that came before it. 5e could do a lot worse.
I wonder if fandom imagines "mindwalkers" like the "cultivators" from the xianxia literature, or like the esper Anya Fodger (Spy x Family), the telekinetic Tatsumaki (One Punch Man) or the mutant Jean Grey from X-Men comics.
Of course we have to find and fix all possible troubles, for example the enemy spellcaster throws a knife and the other uses telekinesis to stop it. How would work? Or a magic item against mind-reading can work not only against magic but also against psionic powers because it is about to avoid an effect.
WotC needs psionic powers for future no-fantasy settings or franchises, for example Gamma World or d20 Future.
Even if WotC a new psionic handbook this will be compared with the titles by 3PPs. For example I love the idea of a new discipline about spirits and ghosts.
WotC needs psionic powers for future no-fantasy settings or franchises, for example Gamma World or d20 Future.
Which you notice they have never tried to resurrect, because it just wasn't super popular. (Quasi-medieval fantasy) D&D has always been the 800 pound gorilla of RPGs, the only thing I can think of that might have come anywhere close is Vampire the Masquerade in the 1990s, and that's urban fantasy.
Even if WotC a new psionic handbook this will be compared with the titles by 3PPs. For example I love the idea of a new discipline about spirits and ghosts.
Given that this was a sort of product that WotC produced back in the day for 3rd edition and they've very clearly avoided repeating that course with 5th, I have to conclude that they determined that's not a model they want to return to going forward. They're clearly looking to primarily build on the model presented in the Core 3 rather than produce a bunch of secondary models that introduce radical changes to the basic PC dynamic. Notably, the 1 new official class we got after the PHB didn't introduce any truly new paradigms; the most unique thing with Artificers is their Infusions, and that system is a hybrid of class or subclass features like Eldritch Invocations or Battlemaster Maneuvers and Magic Items. If you want to be all spooky scary, there's Necromancer, Grave Domain, Death Domain, Undead Patron, Undying Patron, College of Spirits, Zealot Barbarian, Phantom Rogue, Shadow Sorcerer, Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, etc. And it's very easy to spin the printed spells as calling on such spirits rather than being a more Harry Potter kind of magic. Cold damage? Icy hands grasp at the foe. Fire damage? Howling specters wreathed in flame. Etc.
Again, truly disparate magic/power systems work in wholly curated narratives like books and TV shows because the author(s) manage everything so that every aspect gets its chance to shine- and even then they can struggle with it, thus giving us the "This Looks Like a Job for Aquaman" trope. Attempting to implement this in 5e would be a massive headache for DMs since it'd add yet another layer of tailoring everything in a campaign they design to suit whatever the given party is, and as a secondary point would probably also mean the printed adventures would become even less balanced if you're creating more separate ways to bypass obstacles that would need to be addressed.
I would rewrite this as follows: WotC learned that Psi has a small dedicated following that is not enough to support it as a core part of any edition. However they are sufficiently vocal and willing to spend money on a good optional system they can include in their games.
The problem is that an optional system like that must be designed so it can be dropped in without being disruptive in a published campaign or supplement that was not designed for it. Hence the reason it has to count as magic unless it's very limited: campaigns are likely to have pre-existing protections against magic, so either those same protections work against psi, or psi is weak enough that it doesn't matter that they don't work.
Pardon, but is this really true of, say, Eberron? Or Strxhaven? Artificers just drop into the campaign out of nowhere? Magical colleges suddenly offer pre-studies that give extra spells, potentially even cross training outside of chosen class?
Any significant new class is likely to need a lot of tapdancing on the part of the DM to shoehorn into an existing campaign.
But regardless, the hand-wringing over 'errata' doesn't fit. In a world where no PC has seen a psi based character, how in blazes would they know what is shielded against such characters? Is the party really so important that the high and mighty hand them detailed specs on their full security precautions? Do the high and mighty even necessarily know every precaution their ancestors set up? If the DM sets up some sort of cosmic event that results in the new class suddenly existing, why couldn't said event have other effects that the PC's may or may not know about? That the world, in general, may or may not even know about?
to answer some of the questions/complaints from the antipsion side:
My take on psionics come from some personal experiences along with some fiction (david eddings especially) as well as a bunch of reading on ESP and various mentalist "abilities" back 50 years ago or so. to me psionics was best described by Eddngs - the will and the word - you form an idea of what you want then apply your will and a word of activation and the change you want in reality occurs. so verbal and somatic components but no material components and so no need for foci either.
When your best description of 'psionics' is the definition of sorcery in the Belgariad, you might want to rethink insisting that psis aren't sorcerers.
no its just the best description that fits my personal experiences of psi , maybe you need to rethink what sorcery, magic and psi are?
I mean, you're literally saying "like magic in D&D, but without material components"; which exist in D&D partly to allow for the "disarming" of spellcasters, so they're not going anywhere unless someone does a ground-up rebuild of the entire game system, which is basically what it would take to make this concept of psionics as something separate from magic possible, except even then most likely it'd just be a case of reclassifying the overall magic system in such a way that you can designate a "psionic" category alongside stuff like "divine", "primal", and "arcane". And you really feel that not having to hold a piece of crystal that you can generally ignore for the purposes of roleplay is an insurmountable obstacle in integrating this concept of "psionics" (which is literally the definition of magic in numerous other pieces of fiction)?
You mean like 99% of the spell lists across all classes, given spellcasting foci?
If they did Psychic Magic, that would fit Gamma World / Dark Sun / d20 Modern and Future just fine imo.
Also I agree with the idea that a "psychic focus" could just be a crystal (or a censer etc) for certain spells. For me, all that is needed for psychic magic to feel psychic is for it to not need speech, complicated gestures, or bat poop to work.
Of course we have to find and fix all possible troubles, for example the enemy spellcaster throws a knife and the other uses telekinesis to stop it. How would work?
Part of the problem here is that you're being way too literal with D&D combat when it's meant to be a lot more abstract than that. When someone throws a knife at me and it fails to touch me because of my telekinesis, I can represent that mechanically as being the effect of my Shield or Mage Armor; I don't need the devs to write me up a separate "Telekinetic Catch" power.
My apologies. For some reason, my tired eyes skipped right over the word "antonym" in the part I quoted. I didn't even see it at first after I read your most recent post. Sorry.
a) The problem is you are cherry picking each and every spell individually rather than understanding that a character is, well, a character. Any given specific part may be stronger or weaker than a similar part of another character. If they all had to be exactly the same in every way, there would be only one character class.
b) You are using "Transparent" and "Opaque" in strange ways. "Transparent" means "invisible to.. passes through... does not block." There will presumably be some mechanism limiting use of (likely most) Psion abilities. Again, this would be on an ability by ability basis and would need balancing.
c) Mind Blank, at the high end. Intellect Fortress, mid-range. There could well be a new Anti-Psi Field and could well be other counter-measure spells. Meanwhile, you seem to think that monsters are some sort of actually existent beings. They are not. They are fictional. If a DM is using this hypothetical new class, which they would have veto power over doing, they would presumably modify creatures in any way they thought fit. DM's are human beings. They are more competent than you seem to give them credit for being.
a) What? Which individual spells am I cherry-picking? I'm comparing Spellcasting as a whole to Psionics as a whole.That's precisely why I think the lead suggestion is ridiculous, because while it makes sense for blocking divinations, it doesn't for nearly anything else e.g. evocations/psychokinesis.
b) I'm using Transparency the exact same way WotC themselves did.And I will continue to do so. Yet again, I can't help but feel that people who are advocating for bringing back psionics as a dedicated subsystem without properly understanding its history in the game are starting from a very disadvantageous position.
c) So are you proposing that psionics should only be capable of enchantment and divination effects? Because that would definitely fit my earlier definition of NOT being able to do similar things to spellcasting, which is totally fine by me, but I didn't think you lot would be satisfied with that. And if you're not proposing that, then pointing to Mind Blank and Intellect Fortress is pointless, because spellcasting can do a heck of a lot more things than those two spells can guard against.
a) You were asking how much weaker fireball, specifically would be. Or spells, generally. And insisting that without precise details, nothing is worth discussing. It is impossible to get to the details without at least working out the generalities.
b) So for that document, WotC said "Psionics are really just magic that are called psionics because reasons" That does not mean that kind of cop out treatment is actually necessary for class balance. (And that is still a strange use of 'transparency' no matter who is using it in that manner).
c) And spells against fire will still defend against psi based fire. My position, which has been consistent through this discussion, is that magic designed against a particular energy works against the non-magical energy too. Also, I am not sure that you understand that one of the objections to the Aberrant Mind as a Psion is them being able to have spells not normally associated with Psionics. I do not see Psions as being better at their specific disciplines and other things, not even being able to do at all (at least not via class abilities).
But regardless, the hand-wringing over 'errata' doesn't fit. In a world where no PC has seen a psi based character, how in blazes would they know what is shielded against such characters?
Has nothing to do with what the PCs may or may not know. Has to do with what's written into the module or supplement. A DM doing a custom campaign can do w/e they want.
a) You were asking how much weaker fireball, specifically would be. Or spells, generally. And insisting that without precise details, nothing is worth discussing. It is impossible to get to the details without at least working out the generalities.
b) So for that document, WotC said "Psionics are really just magic that are called psionics because reasons" That does not mean that kind of cop out treatment is actually necessary for class balance. (And that is still a strange use of 'transparency' no matter who is using it in that manner).
c) And spells against fire will still defend against psi based fire. My position, which has been consistent through this discussion, is that magic designed against a particular energy works against the non-magical energy too. Also, I am not sure that you understand that one of the objections to the Aberrant Mind as a Psion is them being able to have spells not normally associated with Psionics. I do not see Psions as being better at their specific disciplines and other things, not even being able to do at all (at least not via class abilities).
a) Okay, so let's be general then. Do you agree that if psionic powers were to lack the drawback of needing VSM components, they would need to compensate for that lack in some way? See, no specifics, just a very general question.
b) You call it a 'cop-out,' yet you have yet to point out an edition that treated them as different and didn't devolve into a balance nightmare that ultimately ended up with the entire system getting dropped / no longer supported. Nor even a non-D&D game system that mixed them well while keeping them separate in this way for that matter. Show me the bread submarine.
c-i) "Spells that defend against fire will still defend against psi-based fire" - Is that so? Dispel Magic can put out a Wall of Fire; would it put out your psi-based Fire? Counterspell can stop a Fireball; would it stop your psi-based Fire? Because the desire I've been repeatedly seeing until now has been that they wouldn't be transparent.
c-ii) "One of the objections to Aberrant Mind as a Psion is them being able to have spells not normally associated with psions" - So we ARE looking at how prior editions did Psions for inspiration then? Which is it? Can y'all make up your minds? 🤨
But regardless, the hand-wringing over 'errata' doesn't fit. In a world where no PC has seen a psi based character, how in blazes would they know what is shielded against such characters?
Has nothing to do with what the PCs may or may not know. Has to do with what's written into the module or supplement. A DM doing a custom campaign can do w/e they want.
This is another "Why won't someone think of the Beholders!" entreaty.
Unless the players are all using stock characters provided with the module or supplement, it is a custom campaign. No pre-written anything has provision for every possible combination that might be tossed against it.
to answer some of the questions/complaints from the antipsion side:
My take on psionics come from some personal experiences along with some fiction (david eddings especially) as well as a bunch of reading on ESP and various mentalist "abilities" back 50 years ago or so. to me psionics was best described by Eddngs - the will and the word - you form an idea of what you want then apply your will and a word of activation and the change you want in reality occurs. so verbal and somatic components but no material components and so no need for foci either.
When your best description of 'psionics' is the definition of sorcery in the Belgariad, you might want to rethink insisting that psis aren't sorcerers.
no its just the best description that fits my personal experiences of psi , maybe you need to rethink what sorcery, magic and psi are?
I mean, you're literally saying "like magic in D&D, but without material components"; which exist in D&D partly to allow for the "disarming" of spellcasters, so they're not going anywhere unless someone does a ground-up rebuild of the entire game system, which is basically what it would take to make this concept of psionics as something separate from magic possible, except even then most likely it'd just be a case of reclassifying the overall magic system in such a way that you can designate a "psionic" category alongside stuff like "divine", "primal", and "arcane". And you really feel that not having to hold a piece of crystal that you can generally ignore for the purposes of roleplay is an insurmountable obstacle in integrating this concept of "psionics" (which is literally the definition of magic in numerous other pieces of fiction)?
You mean like 99% of the spell lists across all classes, given spellcasting foci?
Will giving Psions a similar dependence on Psi foci satisfy you? After all, that's what 3e did iirc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, you're literally saying "like magic in D&D, but without material components"; which exist in D&D partly to allow for the "disarming" of spellcasters, so they're not going anywhere unless someone does a ground-up rebuild of the entire game system, which is basically what it would take to make this concept of psionics as something separate from magic possible, except even then most likely it'd just be a case of reclassifying the overall magic system in such a way that you can designate a "psionic" category alongside stuff like "divine", "primal", and "arcane". And you really feel that not having to hold a piece of crystal that you can generally ignore for the purposes of roleplay is an insurmountable obstacle in integrating this concept of "psionics" (which is literally the definition of magic in numerous other pieces of fiction)?
No problem 🙂
a) What? Which individual spells am I cherry-picking? I'm comparing Spellcasting as a whole to Psionics as a whole.That's precisely why I think the lead suggestion is ridiculous, because while it makes sense for blocking divinations, it doesn't for nearly anything else e.g. evocations/psychokinesis.
b) I'm using Transparency the exact same way WotC themselves did. And I will continue to do so. Yet again, I can't help but feel that people who are advocating for bringing back psionics as a dedicated subsystem without properly understanding its history in the game are starting from a very disadvantageous position.
c) So are you proposing that psionics should only be capable of enchantment and divination effects? Because that would definitely fit my earlier definition of NOT being able to do similar things to spellcasting, which is totally fine by me, but I didn't think you lot would be satisfied with that. And if you're not proposing that, then pointing to Mind Blank and Intellect Fortress is pointless, because spellcasting can do a heck of a lot more things than those two spells can guard against.
Ok, so both you and WotC are using it in a strange way. I mean, I see how they meant it, but it's definitely a poor choice of words. "Equivalence" or "compatibility" would be better.
How it was done in prior editions is barely relevant, because the prior editions are mechanically distinct. I personally have no idea how it was done in 2e or 3/3.5. The 1e version, at least, isn't even useful as a bad example, because it's in such opposition to the design of 5e (and, frankly, 1e) that nobody would think to try it that way.
Those who refuse to learn from history (even freely available OGL history apparently) are doomed to repeat it, then.
The specific mechanics between editions might be different, but the broader issues they had to deal with - like the vast majority of their monsters that were geared towards challenging spellcasters having little to no defense against psions - are the same. And those issues are what led them to realize that opaque "Psionics Are Different" design just isn't worth the balance hassle.
They're mechanical questions where, the vast majority of the time (I'd estimate 90+%), the answer doesn't matter. It's just flavor. And even when it does mechanically matter, the balance question is minor at best. I suspect the "is it magic" question comes out to a wash -- if magic stuff gets to mess with psi, psi gets to mess with magic.
As for detectability, there's a huge gradient of options, and most of them are effectively chrome:
I will note that #7 is probably the state of affairs when you cast charm person on somebody, until it wears off. (Or #8 if you're a sorcerer.)
There are other options for detectability, but those seem like the most likely ones to me.
Most of the time, which one of those is in effect just doesn't matter, because most powers are used during active hostilities. It doesn't matter if they know what you're doing -- standing there not doing something just means you're a caster of some kind and should be murdered anyway.
There aren't no balance issues there, but they're being way overstated.
The fact that it's called sorcery there doesn't mean it's anything like the thing called sorcery in D&D. (Given D&D's highly idiosyncratic magic system, it's pretty much a guarantee it's not.)
Prior editions are relevant because they allow you to understand why it was done as it was in 5e -- essentially, every time psionics got revised, it got revised to work more like magic, because the previous version was busted.
I would argue that neither 3.5e nor 4e psi was particularly broken, but they still suffered from a problem that afflicted every edition: psi wound up being an orphan product: they'd put out a bit of stuff about it, then it would get abandoned because the number of people who actually cared about psi was insufficient to support multiple products.
The lessons Wizards have learned are
"
The lessons Wizards have learned are
I would rewrite this as follows: WotC learned that Psi has a small dedicated following that is not enough to support it as a core part of any edition. However they are sufficiently vocal and willing to spend money on a good optional system they can include in their games. WotC questions whether there is sufficient profit from such a product to warrant the expense of development.
I started this thread 40+ pages ago because I am one of that small group. I will grant you that "magic" as a term in the English langue is the general term for any and all super or extra natural manipulations of reality. in that sense yes it includes psi as well as the religious miracles that the world's major faiths are based off of. most of us in this group (I think) recognize that we are not the majority and that for the majority the little bits of psi in sorcery and a few other places are sufficient. for us it is not, that is why the repeated calls to basically "shut up and take what your given" are so frustrating. we aren't (or at least I'm not) trying to force folks to play with my version of psi (see the spoiler in my earlier post) and would appreciate it if you didn't try to ram yours down our throats. if, to you, psi is "just magic with a different name" maybe this thread isn't for you. Its clear that WotC isn't going to add any sort of full-blown psi system like it had back in 1/2e any time soon. that was covered back on page 1 satisfactorily. what SHOULD be happening is for folks in that small vocal group to be trying to see if we can come up with something we all sort of agree on and try to iron out the details of a workable system. I think most of us recognize that it has to have its own checks and balances built in and yes, it is going to have to fit into that annoying 10 level spell power system in some way because that is core to D&D. It can be gotten around to some extent but at the very least vestiges will have to be present.
In other words if your anti psi its really time to move on to other discussions your not actually helping this one and we have been forced to spend 40+ pages trying to tell you this. I would actually like to see if YUrei and I can agree on anything about psi other than that we like it and wish there was a system we approved of for it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The problem is that an optional system like that must be designed so it can be dropped in without being disruptive in a published campaign or supplement that was not designed for it. Hence the reason it has to count as magic unless it's very limited: campaigns are likely to have pre-existing protections against magic, so either those same protections work against psi, or psi is weak enough that it doesn't matter that they don't work.
Exactly this, which is why making it a form of spellcasting is even better for guaranteed ongoing support. When you look at recent products there's so much that would fit so well on a psion - Borrowed Knowledge, Silvery Barbs, Mind Sliver, Kinetic Jaunt, Psychic Lance, Mind Whip, Intellect Fortress, Air Bubble etc. Several of these actually originated as psionic powers. But had they done a psionic book before those, there's little to no chance that they'd have ended up getting added in, never mind whatever we'll be getting in the future.
I'm actually going to dissent slightly on that first one and say they COULD make a dedicated psionic product. Again, Paizo managed it! But the reason they succeeded was the thing that the pro-psi people here seem determined not to budge on - just making it a form of spellcasting.
The designers can make psychic casters unique in many other ways besides the spells. Again, PF2 is instructive here - they changed up the components for psychic spells, revisited Psychic/Mindscape Duel rules, added rules for Unleashing your Psyche for when your psychic is ready to go all out for that nosebleed, turned your Subconscious into a psychic origin that lets you change your casting stat and many more. Having a tried and tested foundation for the core of the class is what let them experiment on the edges like this. The result is a caster that is guaranteed to be supported for the life of their edition while also feeling unique from the wizards, clerics, sorcerers etc that came before it. 5e could do a lot worse.
I wonder if fandom imagines "mindwalkers" like the "cultivators" from the xianxia literature, or like the esper Anya Fodger (Spy x Family), the telekinetic Tatsumaki (One Punch Man) or the mutant Jean Grey from X-Men comics.
Of course we have to find and fix all possible troubles, for example the enemy spellcaster throws a knife and the other uses telekinesis to stop it. How would work? Or a magic item against mind-reading can work not only against magic but also against psionic powers because it is about to avoid an effect.
WotC needs psionic powers for future no-fantasy settings or franchises, for example Gamma World or d20 Future.
Even if WotC a new psionic handbook this will be compared with the titles by 3PPs. For example I love the idea of a new discipline about spirits and ghosts.
Which you notice they have never tried to resurrect, because it just wasn't super popular. (Quasi-medieval fantasy) D&D has always been the 800 pound gorilla of RPGs, the only thing I can think of that might have come anywhere close is Vampire the Masquerade in the 1990s, and that's urban fantasy.
Given that this was a sort of product that WotC produced back in the day for 3rd edition and they've very clearly avoided repeating that course with 5th, I have to conclude that they determined that's not a model they want to return to going forward. They're clearly looking to primarily build on the model presented in the Core 3 rather than produce a bunch of secondary models that introduce radical changes to the basic PC dynamic. Notably, the 1 new official class we got after the PHB didn't introduce any truly new paradigms; the most unique thing with Artificers is their Infusions, and that system is a hybrid of class or subclass features like Eldritch Invocations or Battlemaster Maneuvers and Magic Items. If you want to be all spooky scary, there's Necromancer, Grave Domain, Death Domain, Undead Patron, Undying Patron, College of Spirits, Zealot Barbarian, Phantom Rogue, Shadow Sorcerer, Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, etc. And it's very easy to spin the printed spells as calling on such spirits rather than being a more Harry Potter kind of magic. Cold damage? Icy hands grasp at the foe. Fire damage? Howling specters wreathed in flame. Etc.
Again, truly disparate magic/power systems work in wholly curated narratives like books and TV shows because the author(s) manage everything so that every aspect gets its chance to shine- and even then they can struggle with it, thus giving us the "This Looks Like a Job for Aquaman" trope. Attempting to implement this in 5e would be a massive headache for DMs since it'd add yet another layer of tailoring everything in a campaign they design to suit whatever the given party is, and as a secondary point would probably also mean the printed adventures would become even less balanced if you're creating more separate ways to bypass obstacles that would need to be addressed.
Pardon, but is this really true of, say, Eberron? Or Strxhaven? Artificers just drop into the campaign out of nowhere? Magical colleges suddenly offer pre-studies that give extra spells, potentially even cross training outside of chosen class?
Any significant new class is likely to need a lot of tapdancing on the part of the DM to shoehorn into an existing campaign.
But regardless, the hand-wringing over 'errata' doesn't fit. In a world where no PC has seen a psi based character, how in blazes would they know what is shielded against such characters? Is the party really so important that the high and mighty hand them detailed specs on their full security precautions? Do the high and mighty even necessarily know every precaution their ancestors set up? If the DM sets up some sort of cosmic event that results in the new class suddenly existing, why couldn't said event have other effects that the PC's may or may not know about? That the world, in general, may or may not even know about?
You mean like 99% of the spell lists across all classes, given spellcasting foci?
Part of the problem here is that you're being way too literal with D&D combat when it's meant to be a lot more abstract than that. When someone throws a knife at me and it fails to touch me because of my telekinesis, I can represent that mechanically as being the effect of my Shield or Mage Armor; I don't need the devs to write me up a separate "Telekinetic Catch" power.
a) You were asking how much weaker fireball, specifically would be. Or spells, generally. And insisting that without precise details, nothing is worth discussing. It is impossible to get to the details without at least working out the generalities.
b) So for that document, WotC said "Psionics are really just magic that are called psionics because reasons" That does not mean that kind of cop out treatment is actually necessary for class balance. (And that is still a strange use of 'transparency' no matter who is using it in that manner).
c) And spells against fire will still defend against psi based fire. My position, which has been consistent through this discussion, is that magic designed against a particular energy works against the non-magical energy too. Also, I am not sure that you understand that one of the objections to the Aberrant Mind as a Psion is them being able to have spells not normally associated with Psionics. I do not see Psions as being better at their specific disciplines and other things, not even being able to do at all (at least not via class abilities).
Has nothing to do with what the PCs may or may not know. Has to do with what's written into the module or supplement. A DM doing a custom campaign can do w/e they want.
a) Okay, so let's be general then. Do you agree that if psionic powers were to lack the drawback of needing VSM components, they would need to compensate for that lack in some way? See, no specifics, just a very general question.
b) You call it a 'cop-out,' yet you have yet to point out an edition that treated them as different and didn't devolve into a balance nightmare that ultimately ended up with the entire system getting dropped / no longer supported. Nor even a non-D&D game system that mixed them well while keeping them separate in this way for that matter. Show me the bread submarine.
c-i) "Spells that defend against fire will still defend against psi-based fire" - Is that so? Dispel Magic can put out a Wall of Fire; would it put out your psi-based Fire? Counterspell can stop a Fireball; would it stop your psi-based Fire? Because the desire I've been repeatedly seeing until now has been that they wouldn't be transparent.
c-ii) "One of the objections to Aberrant Mind as a Psion is them being able to have spells not normally associated with psions" - So we ARE looking at how prior editions did Psions for inspiration then? Which is it? Can y'all make up your minds? 🤨
This is another "Why won't someone think of the Beholders!" entreaty.
Unless the players are all using stock characters provided with the module or supplement, it is a custom campaign. No pre-written anything has provision for every possible combination that might be tossed against it.
Will giving Psions a similar dependence on Psi foci satisfy you? After all, that's what 3e did iirc.