They specifically bring up Psionics as being integrated into the core rules at 21:52 mark of the new video. Of course they don't go into any real detail beyond saying that the Psionic Subclasses have been "enhanced". I guess we will really have to wait and see what they mean, but I expect to be a mix of pleased and disappointed all at the same time since I happen to like Soulknife but dislike Aberrant Mind.
This is another "Why won't someone think of the Beholders!" entreaty.
Except It's way more than just Beholders though. It's Babau demons. It's Unicorns. It's Rakshasa. It's Alhoons. It's Vecna. It's Dragons! In your obsession with novelty, you want to rip up the floorboards without even looking where people are standing first.
b) The fact that they were not well done in the past does not mean there is no point to considering them for the current edition. Based on the logic you are stating, 5e should not exist at all, since 4e was so panned.
c) You are assuming there would be a Psi-based wall of fire. Pyrokinesis, to me, is fire starting and control. I.e. you set flammable things on fire and can control their flames. However, you still need a fuel source and it is still normal fire. Which means any of the cantrips capable of extinguishing fires would be able to put out such an effect.
c-ii) It sounds like you do not even understand the genre outside of prior editions. The literary concept of mind based powers that are not a form magic exists outside of and pre-exists D&D. If you do not understand that, it definitely explains many of our communication difficulties, here.
b) 5e succeeded as hard as it did because it learned from the game's history, something y'all refuse to do. For example, unifying around the Spellcasting/slots framework, and then creating an optional points-based system that everyone can use if they prefer that.
c-i) "Normal fire" is like 2d6 per round at best. Cranking it up to relevant damage levels and then trying to say "but it's still totally mundane, honest!" is a recipe for extreme ludonarrative dissonance. No thanks.
c-ii) I understand the genre fine, but just because something works in a novel or a movie doesn't mean it will work in a tabletop game. Again, learn from what they tried before, not just your pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking from outside the medium.
This is another "Why won't someone think of the Beholders!" entreaty.
Except It's way more than just Beholders though. It's Babau demons. It's Unicorns. It's Rakshasa. It's Alhoons. It's Vecna. It's Dragons! In your obsession with novelty, you want to rip up the floorboards without even looking where people are standing first.
I really want to not engage with this particular argument, but... dragons? Exactly how are dragons defended against magic in a way that they'd not be defended against psi? Is there some dragon with antimagic defenses? Probably. But as a class? No.
b) The fact that they were not well done in the past does not mean there is no point to considering them for the current edition. Based on the logic you are stating, 5e should not exist at all, since 4e was so panned.
c) You are assuming there would be a Psi-based wall of fire. Pyrokinesis, to me, is fire starting and control. I.e. you set flammable things on fire and can control their flames. However, you still need a fuel source and it is still normal fire. Which means any of the cantrips capable of extinguishing fires would be able to put out such an effect.
c-ii) It sounds like you do not even understand the genre outside of prior editions. The literary concept of mind based powers that are not a form magic exists outside of and pre-exists D&D. If you do not understand that, it definitely explains many of our communication difficulties, here.
b) 5e succeeded as hard as it did because it learned from the game's history, something y'all refuse to do. For example, unifying around the Spellcasting/slots framework, and then creating an optional points-based system that everyone can use if they prefer that.
You keep asserting that, but it really didn't. There are lots of non-spellslot power frameworks, two of which are at the core of their class. But we've gone round on that one repeatedly already.
c-ii) I understand the genre fine, but just because something works in a novel or a movie doesn't mean it will work in a tabletop game. Again, learn from what they tried before, not just your pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking from outside the medium.
There are other games to learn from besides D&D. Also, I've seen decidedly mixed reviews of 3e's spellslot-based system in this very thread, which suggests perhaps it's not the best answer. Even if it were adequate, that does not make it the only answer.
Worth noting: in the "Everything You Need To Know" video on the nuPHB, Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins mention that they wanted to do core-game psionics back when the 2014 books were being cooked; they simply didn't have time. They talked about it, they had a will and desire to do it, they just didn't have the resources.
This is not an isolated, "special snowflake" ask. The Head Honchos have wanted to deliver on psy in D&D for the last decade. They just suck at doing it.
I did the same, because I made it only part ways through your post before I realized that you hadn't actually read what I wrote and were more interested in repeating the same talking points that have been tossed around for some 40+ pages.
I know that my post was Verbose, but at the same Time I put considerable effort to address the topic of psionics in a manner that was as calm, cool and non-insulting as possible as well as including possible routes forward for Psionics.
Please take the time to read it so that we can have a real discussion on this topic.
This is not an isolated, "special snowflake" ask. The Head Honchos have wanted to deliver on psy in D&D for the last decade. They just suck at doing it.
They had psi in the 2014 handbook -- the great old one warlock -- and implemented multiple other versions in Tasha's. The 'special snowflake' ask is having psi work outside of standard mechanics.
Worth noting: in the "Everything You Need To Know" video on the nuPHB, Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins mention that they wanted to do core-game psionics back when the 2014 books were being cooked; they simply didn't have time. They talked about it, they had a will and desire to do it, they just didn't have the resources.
Did you listen to the rest of it? Because they explicitly believe the Aberrant Mind, Great Old One Warlock, Soulknife and Psi Warrior to fulfill that ask. The exact timestamp is 22:02 if you'd like to revisit it.
This is not an isolated, "special snowflake" ask. The Head Honchos have wanted to deliver on psy in D&D for the last decade. They just suck at doing it.
They had psi in the 2014 handbook -- the great old one warlock -- and implemented multiple other versions in Tasha's. The 'special snowflake' ask is having psi work outside of standard mechanics.
It's also worth noting that for something that was so "Core" to their intentions to the game Psionics didn't really get any attention until multiple years down the road in an incredibly disorgnized and confusing format as a UA article and then in tasha's 6 years down the road from launch with no additional support after the fact.
This is not an isolated, "special snowflake" ask. The Head Honchos have wanted to deliver on psy in D&D for the last decade. They just suck at doing it.
They had psi in the 2014 handbook -- the great old one warlock -- and implemented multiple other versions in Tasha's.
I have played a GOO warlock. I used its psi powers heavily. (I never spoke. I levitated constantly.)
It was, in no way, a psi character. It was a creepy weirdo who did some of its creepiness with psi stuff.
The 'special snowflake' ask is having psi work outside of standard mechanics.
1e AD&D psi would be outside normal mechanics. It had its own everything; it was outside normal character gen; it was outside normal character development; I don't think the attacks even did HP damage.
"Not using the spell system" does not automatically divorce a concept from the standard mechanics.
The people arguing with you disagree sometimes. This puts no obligation on anyone designing a psi class; they certainly don't need me and Kotath's approval.
Sure but like... if even the people who want it can't agree on even a general implementation (or any implementation) then how do you expect to convince anyone who doesn't?
You also cut all the context out of my response, which puts me in much less disagreement with Kotath than you're trying to make it look.
There is no "less disagreement." Either you see componentless casting as an inherent advantage or you don't. That was the general question: yes, or no.
You keep asserting that, but it really didn't. There are lots of non-spellslot power frameworks, two of which are at the core of their class. But we've gone round on that one repeatedly already.
In first-party, there's either spell slots, pact slots (which are a form of spell slot), or things that aren't spellcasting and balanced down accordingly. That's it.
There are other games to learn from besides D&D. Also, I've seen decidedly mixed reviews of 3e's spellslot-based system in this very thread, which suggests perhaps it's not the best answer. Even if it were adequate, that does not make it the only answer.
Of course there are other answers. Bread submarines are an answer. That doesn't make them viable or a good idea.
I did the same, because I made it only part ways through your post before I realized that you hadn't actually read what I wrote and were more interested in repeating the same talking points that have been tossed around for some 40+ pages.
I know that my post was Verbose, but at the same Time I put considerable effort to address the topic of psionics in a manner that was as calm, cool and non-insulting as possible as well as including possible routes forward for Psionics.
Please take the time to read it so that we can have a real discussion on this topic.
I did, actually. While the History of Psi overview was fascinating, I also generally consider it irrelevant to the goal of proper psychic abilities in D&D. How old editions screwed up is not useful save as a "don't do this" guideline. To answer the bit I imagine you're talking about:
So let’s not do all of that and instead look at what a psion could be while working around the limitations of a proper D&D system:
So from a mechanical standpoint it makes the most sense for magic to be the underlying system of mechanics for how Psionics works. The current system as it exists is pretty damn good and their simply isn’t a need to re-invent the wheel with a whole new set of mechanics and as such things that counter or mess with magic would do the same to psionics; KISS is an acronym in development for a reason.
WRT no components, this is another one that is going to need to be addressed; the character not having any of these is simply too strong and doesn’t make sense in the context of depiction’s of psychic abilities throughout D&D history or popular media, though I would stipulate that this wouldn’t be in the same manner as a more conventional caster; for a kinetic character I would include somatic (IE gesturing) so that the powers could be more easily directed and we can see this in pretty much every instance of Jean Grey (probably the most recognizable telekinetic in fiction) sticking at least one arm out towards her target. For Telepathy, the solution is to include a verbal component for most actions. This isn’t going to be a random Latin phrase or bit of gobbledegook, but rather something to the effect of directing the thoughts of the target in a way that facilitates their goal (IE “Hey their handsome” for a charm effect). Simply having this gives players better chances for RP and depth.
For Free casting and/or empowerment, this is where I can see a bit more opportunities for this to work. At it’s core I would break psionics down to two core disciplines: Telekinesis and Telepathy, with the character getting a small suite of associated powers and then the ability to spend points to empower those abilities to create abilities in excess of cantrip level spells. As players level, they would gain access to new examples of these abilities (IE creating barriers with telekinesis that go from something like a +1 to ac as a reaction all the way up to wall of force as a concentration) as well as requirements for them to activate (IE power points). This would effectively remove spell slots as a component of gameplay for Psionic characters which is a pretty significant boon.
Realistically, this is the best that could happen. I’m sure that there are a bunch of people who will come to complain about how it’s not good enough or how it doesn’t meet with their expectations or how it doesn’t address their mutants and masterminds build or gamma world or buck rogers or whatever but the reality is that Psionics has pretty much always been a mess that only became less so when it stopped trying to be wildly obtuse and more in line with the extent mechanics of the game itself.
So. To summarize as I understand it, the broad shape of your system is as follows:
1.) All psychic abilities are magical in nature and subject to all rules of magic. 2.) Psychic characters must provide spell components for their abilities, though these components need not necessarily be the same components spellcasters use for broadly similar abilities. 3.) Psychic characters work (in very broad terms) like Warlock Invocations in a way, gaining a small number of abilities and a pool of unspecified points they can use to empower those abilities. Gaining levels adds new abilities and/or new ways to empower existing abilities.
Yes?
If so: while frustrating and annoying that psychic characters are once again relegated to being nothing more than brain-damaged spellcasters, with the caveat that this is obvious a broad overview of a possible system and not a system? One could work inside this framework and produce something worth talking about. My worry would be that the system focuses too hard on "Burst", i.e. limiting/restricting the psychic character to only using their abilities three or four times a day the way spellcasters have to, without allowing the character to use their abilities intuitively and naturally.
Spellcasting and spell slots force the character to utilize their abilities in single discrete one-and-done effects that feel very much like pointing a gadget at something, turning it on, and then just passively watching the thing work. This is why the spellcasting framework is functional for artificers, but it's also why the framework is absolutely terrible for characters to whom their psychic abilities are as natural as any other ordinary function of their body. The "cantrip level" abilities have to be actually useful, and not anemic pointless afterthoughts. Mage Hand is not sufficient as "base level psychokinesis" past first level.
I have actually considered in the past what a good framework for a kineticist character might be. As a bare minimum, and with the realization that using a spell as the framework at all galls me to my core...
"Psychokinetic Talent: You know the Mage hand spell and can cast it without providing spell components. When you use this ability to cast this spell, any object you manipulate with the spell is enfolded in a visible, discernible effect such as warping air, ephemeral glow, a scattering of astral dust, or another visible aspect of your power. You can use this version of Mage Hand to do anything you can do with an empty hand, using your action, bonus action, or reaction as appropriate; when the Mage Hand makes an attack roll or ability check, use your own stats to do so. The range of your spell increases by a number of feet equal to 10x your Proficiency bonus, and the amount of weight you can lift becomes 20x your level in this class. You can push or drag double this weight, as normal."
Further class/subclass abilities would add things you can do with your talent, there would be a mechanic for expending Hit Dice to amplify the ability, and if I were writing this for publication I would excise the Mage Hand framework completely as unnecessary and misleading. Off the cuff however, something like this would be broadly in line with what I would be hoping for as a D&D kineticist. Scaling, useful, intuitive and natural psychokinesis - minor at low levels, but getting to be respectable by mid-level and with the capacity to be fairly potent by Tier 4 play given the enhancements the basic ability can receive over a character's lifetime.
How old editions screwed up is not useful save as a "don't do this" guideline.
Then why in the name of Ilsensine are you trying to repeat their mistakes? Psionics not using / being opaque to Spellcasting is exactly such a "don't do this" guideline.
"My worry would be that the system focuses too hard on "Burst", i.e. limiting/restricting the psychic character to only using their abilities three or four times a day the way spellcasters have to, without allowing the character to use their abilities intuitively and naturally. "
If you are comparing them to Warlock incantations, it need not be pointed out that many Warlock Incantations aren't bursty.
How old editions screwed up is not useful save as a "don't do this" guideline.
Then why in the name of Ilsensine are you trying to repeat their mistakes? Psionics not using / being opaque to Spellcasting is exactly such a "don't do this" guideline.
Because throughout all this I have drilled down to the primary, irreconcilable difference between psychic abilities and Spellcasting.
Psychic abilities have to be intuitive and natural. They need to feel like the character is flexing/making use of a natural extension of themselves, like the ability is intrinsically a part of them. Spellcasting is unacceptably, irreparably bad at this. Spellcasting - a spellcaster using a spell slot to cast a spell - gets one single big fancy concretely defined capital-E Effect, and that's it. The ability is so extrinsic to the character it is in fact sometimes painful. You're not flexibile a natural ability as a spellcaster, you're invoking a pattern that exists outside of yourself. You're not really using magic - you're summoning something else's magic to do a specific thing in a specific way in a specific place, and then the magic leaves.
This is utterly anathema to psychic abilities, and the two ideals cannot be reconciled. This is also why the sorcerer fails utterly - the sorcerer's "innate magic" is no more innate to the damned sorcerer than their pointy hat or the horse they rode in on. Their magic is as utterly separate from them as any other spellcaster's, and it's why they fundamentally fail as a class. If a proposed system cannot solve this? Then it fails as a psychic character/ability system.
I mean, you’re basically saying you want to play a soft RPG rather than a hard one, and you really cannot reconcile the far ends of such systems in a single product because they operate on wholly different frameworks. Have you looked at some of the World of Darkness products like their two Mage lines for scratching this itch? Those are much better set up for “my character specializes in X slice of magic and I use my creativity to try and apply that in the spur of the moment” play, whereas that degree of broad player facing license to interpret and attempt to implement powers is not really compatible with much more rigorously and numerically structured system of D&D.
This is another "Why won't someone think of the Beholders!" entreaty.
Except It's way more than just Beholders though. It's Babau demons. It's Unicorns. It's Rakshasa. It's Alhoons. It's Vecna. It's Dragons! In your obsession with novelty, you want to rip up the floorboards without even looking where people are standing first.
b) The fact that they were not well done in the past does not mean there is no point to considering them for the current edition. Based on the logic you are stating, 5e should not exist at all, since 4e was so panned.
c) You are assuming there would be a Psi-based wall of fire. Pyrokinesis, to me, is fire starting and control. I.e. you set flammable things on fire and can control their flames. However, you still need a fuel source and it is still normal fire. Which means any of the cantrips capable of extinguishing fires would be able to put out such an effect.
c-ii) It sounds like you do not even understand the genre outside of prior editions. The literary concept of mind based powers that are not a form magic exists outside of and pre-exists D&D. If you do not understand that, it definitely explains many of our communication difficulties, here.
b) 5e succeeded as hard as it did because it learned from the game's history, something y'all refuse to do. For example, unifying around the Spellcasting/slots framework, and then creating an optional points-based system that everyone can use if they prefer that.
c-i) "Normal fire" is like 2d6 per round at best. Cranking it up to relevant damage levels and then trying to say "but it's still totally mundane, honest!" is a recipe for extreme ludonarrative dissonance. No thanks.
c-ii) I understand the genre fine, but just because something works in a novel or a movie doesn't mean it will work in a tabletop game. Again, learn from what they tried before, not just your pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking from outside the medium.
It is a bunch of relatively obscure creatures, of whom many you seem to be looking at the fact they can cast dispel magic. Vecna is nerfed into oblivion from where he should be, just stock. He can't even counter-spell. "Rip up the floorboards..." ?
As for disagreements on things, again this is just discussion, brainstorming, not finalization.
Pretty sure it isn't the lack of psionics that is the secret behind 5e's success.
Normal fire only does 2d6 max? No matter how hot the forge? Under improvised damage, the DMG rates a fire pit at 2d10, stepping in lava at 10d10, being submerged in lava at 18d10. Pretty sure there is more than enough room in there without cession of disbelief (and presumably damage would not be as high as the lava level, but again, that gets worked out in balancing).
It is very easy for things not to work when you simply assume it will not without even trying to come up with something that will.
This is not an isolated, "special snowflake" ask. The Head Honchos have wanted to deliver on psy in D&D for the last decade. They just suck at doing it.
They had psi in the 2014 handbook -- the great old one warlock -- and implemented multiple other versions in Tasha's. The 'special snowflake' ask is having psi work outside of standard mechanics.
And you know for a fact that is exactly what they had in mind... how?
Because throughout all this I have drilled down to the primary, irreconcilable difference between psychic abilities and Spellcasting.
Psychic abilities have to be intuitive and natural. They need to feel like the character is flexing/making use of a natural extension of themselves, like the ability is intrinsically a part of them. Spellcasting is unacceptably, irreparably bad at this. Spellcasting - a spellcaster using a spell slot to cast a spell - gets one single big fancy concretely defined capital-E Effect, and that's it. The ability is so extrinsic to the character it is in fact sometimes painful. You're not flexibile a natural ability as a spellcaster, you're invoking a pattern that exists outside of yourself. You're not really using magic - you're summoning something else's magic to do a specific thing in a specific way in a specific place, and then the magic leaves.
This is utterly anathema to psychic abilities, and the two ideals cannot be reconciled. This is also why the sorcerer fails utterly - the sorcerer's "innate magic" is no more innate to the damned sorcerer than their pointy hat or the horse they rode in on. Their magic is as utterly separate from them as any other spellcaster's, and it's why they fundamentally fail as a class. If a proposed system cannot solve this? Then it fails as a psychic character/ability system.
I truly do not / cannot understand what you see about spell slots that makes them feel so external / extrinsic to the character using them. All they are is a resource tracking mechanism, that has been proven over decades to work equally well whether you're playing this game in a primarily analog way or primarily digital one. And even if you feel that slots themselves are anathema, you have a whole other balanced and tested system right in core (spell points) that you can use instead.
And for Sorcerers in particular - as the only class that can so freely turn spell slots into class resources and vice-versa, they feel even more innately magical to me than every other one, and that's exactly the kind of feel I would want from a Psion. About the only thing they're missing in my view is the ability to change their casting stat to Int or Wis.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry i meant to say Pyrokinesis.
They specifically bring up Psionics as being integrated into the core rules at 21:52 mark of the new video. Of course they don't go into any real detail beyond saying that the Psionic Subclasses have been "enhanced". I guess we will really have to wait and see what they mean, but I expect to be a mix of pleased and disappointed all at the same time since I happen to like Soulknife but dislike Aberrant Mind.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
So we can agree on
psychokinesis
telepathy
esp
now lets break those down into a more specific abilities. 4 to 6 for each.
Except It's way more than just Beholders though. It's Babau demons. It's Unicorns. It's Rakshasa. It's Alhoons. It's Vecna. It's Dragons! In your obsession with novelty, you want to rip up the floorboards without even looking where people are standing first.
Lmao. I feel sorry for the designers.
b) 5e succeeded as hard as it did because it learned from the game's history, something y'all refuse to do. For example, unifying around the Spellcasting/slots framework, and then creating an optional points-based system that everyone can use if they prefer that.
c-i) "Normal fire" is like 2d6 per round at best. Cranking it up to relevant damage levels and then trying to say "but it's still totally mundane, honest!" is a recipe for extreme ludonarrative dissonance. No thanks.
c-ii) I understand the genre fine, but just because something works in a novel or a movie doesn't mean it will work in a tabletop game. Again, learn from what they tried before, not just your pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking from outside the medium.
I really want to not engage with this particular argument, but... dragons? Exactly how are dragons defended against magic in a way that they'd not be defended against psi? Is there some dragon with antimagic defenses? Probably. But as a class? No.
The people arguing with you disagree sometimes.
This puts no obligation on anyone designing a psi class; they certainly don't need me and Kotath's approval.
You also cut all the context out of my response, which puts me in much less disagreement with Kotath than you're trying to make it look.
You keep asserting that, but it really didn't. There are lots of non-spellslot power frameworks, two of which are at the core of their class. But we've gone round on that one repeatedly already.
There are other games to learn from besides D&D. Also, I've seen decidedly mixed reviews of 3e's spellslot-based system in this very thread, which suggests perhaps it's not the best answer. Even if it were adequate, that does not make it the only answer.
Worth noting: in the "Everything You Need To Know" video on the nuPHB, Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins mention that they wanted to do core-game psionics back when the 2014 books were being cooked; they simply didn't have time. They talked about it, they had a will and desire to do it, they just didn't have the resources.
This is not an isolated, "special snowflake" ask. The Head Honchos have wanted to deliver on psy in D&D for the last decade. They just suck at doing it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I did the same, because I made it only part ways through your post before I realized that you hadn't actually read what I wrote and were more interested in repeating the same talking points that have been tossed around for some 40+ pages.
I know that my post was Verbose, but at the same Time I put considerable effort to address the topic of psionics in a manner that was as calm, cool and non-insulting as possible as well as including possible routes forward for Psionics.
Please take the time to read it so that we can have a real discussion on this topic.
They had psi in the 2014 handbook -- the great old one warlock -- and implemented multiple other versions in Tasha's. The 'special snowflake' ask is having psi work outside of standard mechanics.
Did you listen to the rest of it? Because they explicitly believe the Aberrant Mind, Great Old One Warlock, Soulknife and Psi Warrior to fulfill that ask. The exact timestamp is 22:02 if you'd like to revisit it.
It's also worth noting that for something that was so "Core" to their intentions to the game Psionics didn't really get any attention until multiple years down the road in an incredibly disorgnized and confusing format as a UA article and then in tasha's 6 years down the road from launch with no additional support after the fact.
So yeah: Jeremy's words are sus.
I have played a GOO warlock. I used its psi powers heavily. (I never spoke. I levitated constantly.)
It was, in no way, a psi character. It was a creepy weirdo who did some of its creepiness with psi stuff.
1e AD&D psi would be outside normal mechanics. It had its own everything; it was outside normal character gen; it was outside normal character development; I don't think the attacks even did HP damage.
"Not using the spell system" does not automatically divorce a concept from the standard mechanics.
Sure but like... if even the people who want it can't agree on even a general implementation (or any implementation) then how do you expect to convince anyone who doesn't?
There is no "less disagreement." Either you see componentless casting as an inherent advantage or you don't. That was the general question: yes, or no.
In first-party, there's either spell slots, pact slots (which are a form of spell slot), or things that aren't spellcasting and balanced down accordingly. That's it.
Of course there are other answers. Bread submarines are an answer. That doesn't make them viable or a good idea.
I did, actually. While the History of Psi overview was fascinating, I also generally consider it irrelevant to the goal of proper psychic abilities in D&D. How old editions screwed up is not useful save as a "don't do this" guideline. To answer the bit I imagine you're talking about:
So. To summarize as I understand it, the broad shape of your system is as follows:
1.) All psychic abilities are magical in nature and subject to all rules of magic.
2.) Psychic characters must provide spell components for their abilities, though these components need not necessarily be the same components spellcasters use for broadly similar abilities.
3.) Psychic characters work (in very broad terms) like Warlock Invocations in a way, gaining a small number of abilities and a pool of unspecified points they can use to empower those abilities. Gaining levels adds new abilities and/or new ways to empower existing abilities.
Yes?
If so: while frustrating and annoying that psychic characters are once again relegated to being nothing more than brain-damaged spellcasters, with the caveat that this is obvious a broad overview of a possible system and not a system? One could work inside this framework and produce something worth talking about. My worry would be that the system focuses too hard on "Burst", i.e. limiting/restricting the psychic character to only using their abilities three or four times a day the way spellcasters have to, without allowing the character to use their abilities intuitively and naturally.
Spellcasting and spell slots force the character to utilize their abilities in single discrete one-and-done effects that feel very much like pointing a gadget at something, turning it on, and then just passively watching the thing work. This is why the spellcasting framework is functional for artificers, but it's also why the framework is absolutely terrible for characters to whom their psychic abilities are as natural as any other ordinary function of their body. The "cantrip level" abilities have to be actually useful, and not anemic pointless afterthoughts. Mage Hand is not sufficient as "base level psychokinesis" past first level.
I have actually considered in the past what a good framework for a kineticist character might be. As a bare minimum, and with the realization that using a spell as the framework at all galls me to my core...
"Psychokinetic Talent: You know the Mage hand spell and can cast it without providing spell components. When you use this ability to cast this spell, any object you manipulate with the spell is enfolded in a visible, discernible effect such as warping air, ephemeral glow, a scattering of astral dust, or another visible aspect of your power. You can use this version of Mage Hand to do anything you can do with an empty hand, using your action, bonus action, or reaction as appropriate; when the Mage Hand makes an attack roll or ability check, use your own stats to do so. The range of your spell increases by a number of feet equal to 10x your Proficiency bonus, and the amount of weight you can lift becomes 20x your level in this class. You can push or drag double this weight, as normal."
Further class/subclass abilities would add things you can do with your talent, there would be a mechanic for expending Hit Dice to amplify the ability, and if I were writing this for publication I would excise the Mage Hand framework completely as unnecessary and misleading. Off the cuff however, something like this would be broadly in line with what I would be hoping for as a D&D kineticist. Scaling, useful, intuitive and natural psychokinesis - minor at low levels, but getting to be respectable by mid-level and with the capacity to be fairly potent by Tier 4 play given the enhancements the basic ability can receive over a character's lifetime.
Please do not contact or message me.
Then why in the name of Ilsensine are you trying to repeat their mistakes? Psionics not using / being opaque to Spellcasting is exactly such a "don't do this" guideline.
Finally, we're getting somewhere.
"My worry would be that the system focuses too hard on "Burst", i.e. limiting/restricting the psychic character to only using their abilities three or four times a day the way spellcasters have to, without allowing the character to use their abilities intuitively and naturally. "
If you are comparing them to Warlock incantations, it need not be pointed out that many Warlock Incantations aren't bursty.
Because throughout all this I have drilled down to the primary, irreconcilable difference between psychic abilities and Spellcasting.
Psychic abilities have to be intuitive and natural. They need to feel like the character is flexing/making use of a natural extension of themselves, like the ability is intrinsically a part of them. Spellcasting is unacceptably, irreparably bad at this. Spellcasting - a spellcaster using a spell slot to cast a spell - gets one single big fancy concretely defined capital-E Effect, and that's it. The ability is so extrinsic to the character it is in fact sometimes painful. You're not flexibile a natural ability as a spellcaster, you're invoking a pattern that exists outside of yourself. You're not really using magic - you're summoning something else's magic to do a specific thing in a specific way in a specific place, and then the magic leaves.
This is utterly anathema to psychic abilities, and the two ideals cannot be reconciled. This is also why the sorcerer fails utterly - the sorcerer's "innate magic" is no more innate to the damned sorcerer than their pointy hat or the horse they rode in on. Their magic is as utterly separate from them as any other spellcaster's, and it's why they fundamentally fail as a class. If a proposed system cannot solve this? Then it fails as a psychic character/ability system.
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean, you’re basically saying you want to play a soft RPG rather than a hard one, and you really cannot reconcile the far ends of such systems in a single product because they operate on wholly different frameworks. Have you looked at some of the World of Darkness products like their two Mage lines for scratching this itch? Those are much better set up for “my character specializes in X slice of magic and I use my creativity to try and apply that in the spur of the moment” play, whereas that degree of broad player facing license to interpret and attempt to implement powers is not really compatible with much more rigorously and numerically structured system of D&D.
It is a bunch of relatively obscure creatures, of whom many you seem to be looking at the fact they can cast dispel magic. Vecna is nerfed into oblivion from where he should be, just stock. He can't even counter-spell. "Rip up the floorboards..." ?
As for disagreements on things, again this is just discussion, brainstorming, not finalization.
Pretty sure it isn't the lack of psionics that is the secret behind 5e's success.
Normal fire only does 2d6 max? No matter how hot the forge? Under improvised damage, the DMG rates a fire pit at 2d10, stepping in lava at 10d10, being submerged in lava at 18d10. Pretty sure there is more than enough room in there without cession of disbelief (and presumably damage would not be as high as the lava level, but again, that gets worked out in balancing).
It is very easy for things not to work when you simply assume it will not without even trying to come up with something that will.
And you know for a fact that is exactly what they had in mind... how?
I truly do not / cannot understand what you see about spell slots that makes them feel so external / extrinsic to the character using them. All they are is a resource tracking mechanism, that has been proven over decades to work equally well whether you're playing this game in a primarily analog way or primarily digital one. And even if you feel that slots themselves are anathema, you have a whole other balanced and tested system right in core (spell points) that you can use instead.
And for Sorcerers in particular - as the only class that can so freely turn spell slots into class resources and vice-versa, they feel even more innately magical to me than every other one, and that's exactly the kind of feel I would want from a Psion. About the only thing they're missing in my view is the ability to change their casting stat to Int or Wis.