I'm reading through the old Psionics classes (I'm mid-way through 2e, and gosh is it ugly), and I got to thinking:
Did we ever hear why they decided against the Psionics Class in 5e? Was it too strong, too weak, or too ugly? Is there a tweet or an article that talks about it?
I presently have someone playing as the Unearthed Arcana Mystic class in one of my campaigns. There are a few things about it which can be a bit problematic:
1. It is complicated to build with all of the different branching options at your disposal. This is fine for more experienced players, but would be a nightmare for newer players or players who do not have the “how to build a character” mindset. Likewise, this complexity can be pretty dangerous with multi-classing, since it means there are more opportunities to break the character.
2. It could do a lot of things to manipulate NPCs in pretty dangerous ways, both in combat and out of combat. Can be hard on the DM (particularly if the DM fails some important saves) to navigate both in combat and out of combat due to rewriting memories and such.
3. Resource management on it was complicated, giving players lots of options on how to spend resources while also placing lots of limitations on those options that had to be tracked. Again, something that is not a problem for some players, but not really new player friendly.
4. They have lots of choices that are like spells, but are not spells. That means they bypass things like spell resistances and such, while accomplishing much the same ends.
Mostly I think they abandoned the class because it was not user friendly (unless you were an RPG expert). 5e has really been trying to make classes and subclasses that everyone can play, while allowing multi-classing and other options to allow more advanced players to tickle their optimisation itch. Mystic did not really fit with that model, clearly being geared toward more advanced players. Combined with the work that would need to be done to balance the class (which every UA class or subclass inevitably needs), I am not surprised it did not make it into the game itself.
I can understand abandoning the Mystic as not user friendly, because it wasn’t. But they could have done that at an earlier iteration and gone back to the drawing board to write a better Psionicist class that was more streamlined.
I can understand abandoning the Mystic as not user friendly, because it wasn’t. But they could have done that at an earlier iteration and gone back to the drawing board to write a better Psionicist class that was more streamlined.
Agree completely (though I actually rather like the Mystic all things considered), as well as agree that the psionic subclasses feel a bit lacklustre.
I thought 4e’s Psion was a decent enough class - I played in a group where a player was using it, and she generally enjoyed the class. Its at will actions (cantrips for 5e lingo) were not too annoying for the DM to play around and the pool of psionic points it could use to augment certain abilities were not too complicated to keep track of or understand. Granted, the person piloting it was not the best player (but she was having fun, so that’s all that matters), so it is possible they could have picked things that did less damage, but would have been a bigger nightmare for the DM to handle.
Which speaks to one of the problems a true psionic class has - they are largely dependent on the player’s ability to manipulate the minds and memories of NPCs and the DMs willingness to allow such manipulations. Wizards runs the gauntlet of making a class that would be very roleplay dependent or overly complicated to reduce the roleplay element, and they have not done a great job at finding that balance historically.
I haven’t seen the mystic but I played psions in 1-3e and they were fun but a mess. Major problems as I saw it:
1) speed - in early versions psionics were 10 times faster than spells officially so we all homebrew Ed a slow down so the psions didn’t deal with the battle before it started to give everyone else a chance.
2) psionics vs magic this was left open to the Dm instead of giving a solid answer- still to some extent an open question each DM has to answer for themselves how does anti magic affect psionics?
3) too many options - since you could have psion “spellcasters”, psionic rogues and psionic fighters as well as healers it became its own separate version of DnD. You could run an all psionic game or an all magic game but mixing them was always problematical. I don’t really remember the timeline but I’ve always sort of considered the sorceror as a replacement for the psion - known spells/powers, points to use for metamagic/ altered effects and maybe the ability to be a little better in melee than a straight mage.
I understand (sort of) why they linked them to aberations in 5e but I don’t really like it the psionic sorceror and psi warrior are fairly good but they aren’t full blown psionics either. I don’t expect to see that until maybe version 7 after WOTC sort out for themselves how they want to address the above problems.
Aberrant Mind Sorcerer is a rough analog to Psion. Sorcery points are pretty much Psi Points when casting their psionic spells (1 point per spell level).
Soulknife Rogue and Psi Warrior Fighter are the Soul Knife and Psychic Warrior respectively.
The only thing that doesn't have a great analog is Wilder.
I'm reading through the old Psionics classes (I'm mid-way through 2e, and gosh is it ugly), and I got to thinking:
Did we ever hear why they decided against the Psionics Class in 5e? Was it too strong, too weak, or too ugly? Is there a tweet or an article that talks about it?
I thought the 2e psionicist was a fairly elegant way to use the 2e rules... though I'm willing to grant that most people consider 2e inelegant to begin with...
As far as the Mystic... I still use it occasionally. I got the impression that it was a little too transparently a wizard using spell point rules to spam abilities which were the equivalent of 5th level spells. I enjoy the class and how it makes the character a bit of an underpowered swiss-army character.
They tried it three times and the majority of the feedback was negative so they scrapped it for the abominations we have now as subclasses.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
They tried it three times and the majority of the feedback was negative so they scrapped it for the abominations we have now as subclasses.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Because there should be a unique Psionicist class with its own set of features that don’t ever rely on the crutch of spellcasting to work.
I'm reading through the old Psionics classes (I'm mid-way through 2e, and gosh is it ugly), and I got to thinking:
Did we ever hear why they decided against the Psionics Class in 5e? Was it too strong, too weak, or too ugly? Is there a tweet or an article that talks about it?
Probably because it's an unnecessary complication that just lets you do more or less the same thing as magic in an extra, distractingly complex manner. 5e was designed from the ground up to be streamlined and not unnecessarily complex.
Say it with me again kids, because the first three hundred times don't seem to have gotten the message through: If you want literally hundreds of extra rules that apply specifically to every possible situation and give you a bunch of options (each with their own special rules to learn, remember and explain to players who have not learned and don't remember them) for what do in all of those situations, go play Pathfinder already. Or maybe World of Darkness or other games with a similar system, where they give you some vague rules that basically leave it up to storyteller (GM) fiat as to what you can actually do.
They tried it three times and the majority of the feedback was negative so they scrapped it for the abominations we have now as subclasses.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Because there should be a unique Psionicist class with its own set of features that don’t ever rely on the crutch of spellcasting to work.
So it's less, "These are bad subclasses" and more, "These subclasses more or less confirm that WoTC gave up on Psionics as an individual class"
They tried it three times and the majority of the feedback was negative so they scrapped it for the abominations we have now as subclasses.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Because there should be a unique Psionicist class with its own set of features that don’t ever rely on the crutch of spellcasting to work.
So it's less, "These are bad subclasses" and more, "These subclasses more or less confirm that WoTC gave up on Psionics as an individual class"
And that they gave up on Psionics as an individual mechanic.
They tried it three times and the majority of the feedback was negative so they scrapped it for the abominations we have now as subclasses.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Because there should be a unique Psionicist class with its own set of features that don’t ever rely on the crutch of spellcasting to work.
So it's less, "These are bad subclasses" and more, "These subclasses more or less confirm that WoTC gave up on Psionics as an individual class"
And that they gave up on Psionics as an individual mechanic.
My big problem with them is how they feel very rooted in their base class (which is true of most all subclasses). You get some psionic icing thrown on top of a rogue cake, but you still have a rogue cake as your base.
Psionic classes, both in UA and in other editions, did things that other classes did not do, and were often focused on the social side of the game in a way distinct from Bard or other social classes. That is part of what made them hard to design, of course, but also part of what made them fun. I would rather have seen a more streamlined Mystic, perhaps with fewer customisation options, than any of the subclasses - it really is a neat class, despite its complexity.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Sposta and I both despise the fact that psionics, psychic powers, and the strength of an awakened mind were rebranded as just Mostly Shittier Spellcasting - that any wizard can use Majik to do what a psionic character is supposed to be able to do as well as using Majik to do ordinary magic. "Spells" like Detect Thoughts and Telekinesis shouldn't exist, and psychic characters should be distinct and different from mages instead of simply being Mages with Shittier, More Restrictive Spell Lists and Also No Advantages Whatsoever.
The Soulknife and Psi Warrior are weird, janky half-assed attempts at 'psionic' characters that don't really work right, and also come with the weird rules everybody was so deathly afraid of implementing for psychic characters. The Aberrant Mind is not "psychic", it's an ordinary mage with a brain parasite. You can play it as a 'psychic' character, but doing so is strictly disadvantageous. You're just giving up ninety percent of your spell list to take Brane Majik-flavored stuff and getting nothing for it, anyone who plays their Aberrant Mind that way is playing strictly suboptimally and they know it.
The objection is that psychic characters are not god damned spellcasters and should not be using the spellcasting rules. A proper psychic character would act more like a spell-less warlock of sorts - you gain a much smaller overall number of powers, but you can use those powers freely a'la most (worthwhile) eldritch invocations. My wizard has sixtyish spells in her spellbook, she can prepare twenty of them a day, and that's in addition to her cantrips. She also has twentyish spell slots to use for all that crap. A psychic character of the same level might - might - have five distinct psychic abilities, but she could use them all freely to at least a basic level and would never be "out" of psychic power.
Except...now we have psychic characters that have only one or two powers they can use once or twice a day, and a "psychic" spellcaster that's just a strictly worse wizard in every conceivable way if it tries to actually play with powers of the mind rather than bog-standard spellcasting. And any time we protest this, we get told "5e is about simplicity, don't add systems that don't need to get added, what's wrong with casting spells?!"
Nothing's wrong with casting spells if you're a ******* spellcaster. If you're an awakened mind? Everything is wrong with casting spells.
😳😁 YEAH, Way to go Yurei! A few other points - 1) Wilders - the 5e equivalent of a wild talent is anyone that has taken the Telepathic or Telekinetic feat.
2) the 5e “psionic” subclasses aren’t bad, they just aren’t what they could have/should have been. 3) For 5e WOTC have basically decided that psionics is just another form of sorcery/ magic - if that is the case it’s almost why bother - use the classes as given and kiss any attempts at real psionics goodbye. If it isn’t then you need a solid explanation of how it works and why it isn’t magic ( or your stuck with Heinlein’s “ One man’s technology is another man’s magic” and your back to square one) and that means no weave references which should be interesting to try to do. 4. While 5e is workable I’m not happy with it as I too think it could be a lot more than it is I’m just not sure how to do it right now.
Just want to insert, I think MCDM studios is still open playtesting (you don't have to be a patron anymore) of their Talent class, which is their take on the Psion. Yes, the docs are still available but the v2 survey is closed.
I haven't read through, let alone run, any of it myself, but you have a full class, sublcasses, a psi system independent of magic, as well as psy-flavored bestiary and magic items. It's "different" from 5e, not as a perjorative but I think there's a learning curve to it that's a bit steeper than most 5e systems, but they might have addressed/streamlined that between v1 and v2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Looking at the mystic and some of the complaints about it, I think there are two major problems it faced.
For one, it's complicated. There's a lot to track that's exclusive to this class... lots of choices that have to be made. I know that's a turnoff for some people, but honestly I kind of like the idea of there being a sort of "prestige" class in the game... one that's very overtly not designed to be newbie-friendly. Something where players feel like they've kind of "unlocked" something when they feel confident enough to play that class. I feel like Wizards have that reputation currently, mostly for the sheer number of spells on their spell list, but to be perfectly honest I don't think they're as complicated as everyone says.
The second major problem is that Psionics are not magic. That seems to be entirely the point of them, and all attempts to just rebrand psionics as a form of magic is disappointing to everyone who wants to bring psionics into 5e. I can understand why this is a problem... while not every fantastical power or ability available to classes are identified as outright "magic", for the most part it's assumed that forces within the game are either natural or magical. Psionics seem designed to introduce a number of skills and abilities that are similar to magic, but aren't magic. So now there's this whole separate force that exists that you have to accommodate for... and a force that all existing monsters aren't statted to combat. You get things like Mind Flayers being resistant to Magic... but somehow with no innate resistant to psionics, which it would make more sense for them to resist.
So the question now is... how do you resolve problem 2? Do you make sure that none of the psionic abilities are too gamebreaking, so the fact that no monster, class feature, or feat that existed before them isn't inherently weak against this new power source by sheer virtue of it not existing at the time? Or do you have to release updated versions of every feature in the game so that we know how it interacts with psionics? To me, just treating psionics as a form of magic seems like the obvious solution, but I say that as someone who has never played as a psionic character in a previous edition. I feel like being able to function outside of the traditional limitations of Magic is a large part of the appeal. Either way... I guess I'm just saying I understand why psionics aren't so easy to add to 5e, and at the very least I'm happy that the subclasses WoTC released as kind of a compromise are at least some of the better subclasses in the game... even if they represent Psionics being abandoned as its own independent mechanic.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Sposta and I both despise the fact that psionics, psychic powers, and the strength of an awakened mind were rebranded as just Mostly Shittier Spellcasting - that any wizard can use Majik to do what a psionic character is supposed to be able to do as well as using Majik to do ordinary magic. "Spells" like Detect Thoughts and Telekinesis shouldn't exist, and psychic characters should be distinct and different from mages instead of simply being Mages with Shittier, More Restrictive Spell Lists and Also No Advantages Whatsoever.
The Soulknife and Psi Warrior are weird, janky half-assed attempts at 'psionic' characters that don't really work right, and also come with the weird rules everybody was so deathly afraid of implementing for psychic characters. The Aberrant Mind is not "psychic", it's an ordinary mage with a brain parasite. You can play it as a 'psychic' character, but doing so is strictly disadvantageous. You're just giving up ninety percent of your spell list to take Brane Majik-flavored stuff and getting nothing for it, anyone who plays their Aberrant Mind that way is playing strictly suboptimally and they know it.
The objection is that psychic characters are not god damned spellcasters and should not be using the spellcasting rules. A proper psychic character would act more like a spell-less warlock of sorts - you gain a much smaller overall number of powers, but you can use those powers freely a'la most (worthwhile) eldritch invocations. My wizard has sixtyish spells in her spellbook, she can prepare twenty of them a day, and that's in addition to her cantrips. She also has twentyish spell slots to use for all that crap. A psychic character of the same level might - might - have five distinct psychic abilities, but she could use them all freely to at least a basic level and would never be "out" of psychic power.
Except...now we have psychic characters that have only one or two powers they can use once or twice a day, and a "psychic" spellcaster that's just a strictly worse wizard in every conceivable way if it tries to actually play with powers of the mind rather than bog-standard spellcasting. And any time we protest this, we get told "5e is about simplicity, don't add systems that don't need to get added, what's wrong with casting spells?!"
Nothing's wrong with casting spells if you're a ****ing spellcaster. If you're an awakened mind? Everything is wrong with casting spells.
I at first was going to make a response that I would be okay with how they dealt with psionic abilities in 5e if every class had a subclass version for it... than I saw this post and it got me thinking.
I mean out of all the three options we have the only decentish one is the Soulknife rogue and there are tons of drawbacks to even that class... I originally saw a psion monk homebrew (which used the mystic unearthed arcana for most of its builds) and I gave up running on that just because I couldn't build it to make it work with our setup (and if I used it as is, having fifty zillion papers and what not I officially would have been called out for being OP) but I still like the concept of having more things based off psionic energy.
I do hope (and I admit it's probably far fetched) that at the big reveal which is probable 5.5e that we get one or two new full classes and maybe one of those could either be a psionic class or else something that could be made so that we could tweak it to be a psionic class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm reading through the old Psionics classes (I'm mid-way through 2e, and gosh is it ugly), and I got to thinking:
Did we ever hear why they decided against the Psionics Class in 5e? Was it too strong, too weak, or too ugly? Is there a tweet or an article that talks about it?
They tried it three times and the majority of the feedback was negative so they scrapped it for the abominations we have now as subclasses.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I presently have someone playing as the Unearthed Arcana Mystic class in one of my campaigns. There are a few things about it which can be a bit problematic:
1. It is complicated to build with all of the different branching options at your disposal. This is fine for more experienced players, but would be a nightmare for newer players or players who do not have the “how to build a character” mindset. Likewise, this complexity can be pretty dangerous with multi-classing, since it means there are more opportunities to break the character.
2. It could do a lot of things to manipulate NPCs in pretty dangerous ways, both in combat and out of combat. Can be hard on the DM (particularly if the DM fails some important saves) to navigate both in combat and out of combat due to rewriting memories and such.
3. Resource management on it was complicated, giving players lots of options on how to spend resources while also placing lots of limitations on those options that had to be tracked. Again, something that is not a problem for some players, but not really new player friendly.
4. They have lots of choices that are like spells, but are not spells. That means they bypass things like spell resistances and such, while accomplishing much the same ends.
Mostly I think they abandoned the class because it was not user friendly (unless you were an RPG expert). 5e has really been trying to make classes and subclasses that everyone can play, while allowing multi-classing and other options to allow more advanced players to tickle their optimisation itch. Mystic did not really fit with that model, clearly being geared toward more advanced players. Combined with the work that would need to be done to balance the class (which every UA class or subclass inevitably needs), I am not surprised it did not make it into the game itself.
I can understand abandoning the Mystic as not user friendly, because it wasn’t. But they could have done that at an earlier iteration and gone back to the drawing board to write a better Psionicist class that was more streamlined.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agree completely (though I actually rather like the Mystic all things considered), as well as agree that the psionic subclasses feel a bit lacklustre.
I thought 4e’s Psion was a decent enough class - I played in a group where a player was using it, and she generally enjoyed the class. Its at will actions (cantrips for 5e lingo) were not too annoying for the DM to play around and the pool of psionic points it could use to augment certain abilities were not too complicated to keep track of or understand. Granted, the person piloting it was not the best player (but she was having fun, so that’s all that matters), so it is possible they could have picked things that did less damage, but would have been a bigger nightmare for the DM to handle.
Which speaks to one of the problems a true psionic class has - they are largely dependent on the player’s ability to manipulate the minds and memories of NPCs and the DMs willingness to allow such manipulations. Wizards runs the gauntlet of making a class that would be very roleplay dependent or overly complicated to reduce the roleplay element, and they have not done a great job at finding that balance historically.
I skipped 4e, so am not personally familiar with that iteration. But it woulda been nice to have a solid Psion class for this edition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I haven’t seen the mystic but I played psions in 1-3e and they were fun but a mess. Major problems as I saw it:
1) speed - in early versions psionics were 10 times faster than spells officially so we all homebrew Ed a slow down so the psions didn’t deal with the battle before it started to give everyone else a chance.
2) psionics vs magic this was left open to the Dm instead of giving a solid answer- still to some extent an open question each DM has to answer for themselves how does anti magic affect psionics?
3) too many options - since you could have psion “spellcasters”, psionic rogues and psionic fighters as well as healers it became its own separate version of DnD. You could run an all psionic game or an all magic game but mixing them was always problematical. I don’t really remember the timeline but I’ve always sort of considered the sorceror as a replacement for the psion - known spells/powers, points to use for metamagic/ altered effects and maybe the ability to be a little better in melee than a straight mage.
I understand (sort of) why they linked them to aberations in 5e but I don’t really like it the psionic sorceror and psi warrior are fairly good but they aren’t full blown psionics either. I don’t expect to see that until maybe version 7 after WOTC sort out for themselves how they want to address the above problems.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Aberrant Mind Sorcerer is a rough analog to Psion. Sorcery points are pretty much Psi Points when casting their psionic spells (1 point per spell level).
Soulknife Rogue and Psi Warrior Fighter are the Soul Knife and Psychic Warrior respectively.
The only thing that doesn't have a great analog is Wilder.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I thought the 2e psionicist was a fairly elegant way to use the 2e rules... though I'm willing to grant that most people consider 2e inelegant to begin with...
As far as the Mystic... I still use it occasionally. I got the impression that it was a little too transparently a wizard using spell point rules to spam abilities which were the equivalent of 5th level spells. I enjoy the class and how it makes the character a bit of an underpowered swiss-army character.
I find that an interesting response because I'm not really familiar with psionics in early editions other than hearing people discussing it after the fact. But my thing is, I think the psionics-inspired subclasses we have in 5e are overall quite good. I'm wondering if you're referring to them as abominations because you don't like how they play, or because they do a poor job of replicating what was fun about psionics in earlier editions?
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Because there should be a unique Psionicist class with its own set of features that don’t ever rely on the crutch of spellcasting to work.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Probably because it's an unnecessary complication that just lets you do more or less the same thing as magic in an extra, distractingly complex manner. 5e was designed from the ground up to be streamlined and not unnecessarily complex.
Say it with me again kids, because the first three hundred times don't seem to have gotten the message through: If you want literally hundreds of extra rules that apply specifically to every possible situation and give you a bunch of options (each with their own special rules to learn, remember and explain to players who have not learned and don't remember them) for what do in all of those situations, go play Pathfinder already. Or maybe World of Darkness or other games with a similar system, where they give you some vague rules that basically leave it up to storyteller (GM) fiat as to what you can actually do.
So it's less, "These are bad subclasses" and more, "These subclasses more or less confirm that WoTC gave up on Psionics as an individual class"
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
And that they gave up on Psionics as an individual mechanic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My big problem with them is how they feel very rooted in their base class (which is true of most all subclasses). You get some psionic icing thrown on top of a rogue cake, but you still have a rogue cake as your base.
Psionic classes, both in UA and in other editions, did things that other classes did not do, and were often focused on the social side of the game in a way distinct from Bard or other social classes. That is part of what made them hard to design, of course, but also part of what made them fun. I would rather have seen a more streamlined Mystic, perhaps with fewer customisation options, than any of the subclasses - it really is a neat class, despite its complexity.
Sposta and I both despise the fact that psionics, psychic powers, and the strength of an awakened mind were rebranded as just Mostly Shittier Spellcasting - that any wizard can use Majik to do what a psionic character is supposed to be able to do as well as using Majik to do ordinary magic. "Spells" like Detect Thoughts and Telekinesis shouldn't exist, and psychic characters should be distinct and different from mages instead of simply being Mages with Shittier, More Restrictive Spell Lists and Also No Advantages Whatsoever.
The Soulknife and Psi Warrior are weird, janky half-assed attempts at 'psionic' characters that don't really work right, and also come with the weird rules everybody was so deathly afraid of implementing for psychic characters. The Aberrant Mind is not "psychic", it's an ordinary mage with a brain parasite. You can play it as a 'psychic' character, but doing so is strictly disadvantageous. You're just giving up ninety percent of your spell list to take Brane Majik-flavored stuff and getting nothing for it, anyone who plays their Aberrant Mind that way is playing strictly suboptimally and they know it.
The objection is that psychic characters are not god damned spellcasters and should not be using the spellcasting rules. A proper psychic character would act more like a spell-less warlock of sorts - you gain a much smaller overall number of powers, but you can use those powers freely a'la most (worthwhile) eldritch invocations. My wizard has sixtyish spells in her spellbook, she can prepare twenty of them a day, and that's in addition to her cantrips. She also has twentyish spell slots to use for all that crap. A psychic character of the same level might - might - have five distinct psychic abilities, but she could use them all freely to at least a basic level and would never be "out" of psychic power.
Except...now we have psychic characters that have only one or two powers they can use once or twice a day, and a "psychic" spellcaster that's just a strictly worse wizard in every conceivable way if it tries to actually play with powers of the mind rather than bog-standard spellcasting. And any time we protest this, we get told "5e is about simplicity, don't add systems that don't need to get added, what's wrong with casting spells?!"
Nothing's wrong with casting spells if you're a ******* spellcaster. If you're an awakened mind? Everything is wrong with casting spells.
Please do not contact or message me.
😳😁 YEAH, Way to go Yurei! A few other points -
1) Wilders - the 5e equivalent of a wild talent is anyone that has taken the Telepathic or Telekinetic feat.
2) the 5e “psionic” subclasses aren’t bad, they just aren’t what they could have/should have been.
3) For 5e WOTC have basically decided that psionics is just another form of sorcery/ magic - if that is the case it’s almost why bother - use the classes as given and kiss any attempts at real psionics goodbye. If it isn’t then you need a solid explanation of how it works and why it isn’t magic ( or your stuck with Heinlein’s “ One man’s technology is another man’s magic” and your back to square one) and that means no weave references which should be interesting to try to do.
4. While 5e is workable I’m not happy with it as I too think it could be a lot more than it is I’m just not sure how to do it right now.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Just want to insert, I think MCDM studios is still open playtesting (you don't have to be a patron anymore) of their Talent class, which is their take on the Psion. Yes, the docs are still available but the v2 survey is closed.
https://files.mcdmproductions.com/Classes/The_Talent_and_Psionics_Open_Beta_Round_2.pdf
I haven't read through, let alone run, any of it myself, but you have a full class, sublcasses, a psi system independent of magic, as well as psy-flavored bestiary and magic items. It's "different" from 5e, not as a perjorative but I think there's a learning curve to it that's a bit steeper than most 5e systems, but they might have addressed/streamlined that between v1 and v2.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Looking at the mystic and some of the complaints about it, I think there are two major problems it faced.
For one, it's complicated. There's a lot to track that's exclusive to this class... lots of choices that have to be made. I know that's a turnoff for some people, but honestly I kind of like the idea of there being a sort of "prestige" class in the game... one that's very overtly not designed to be newbie-friendly. Something where players feel like they've kind of "unlocked" something when they feel confident enough to play that class. I feel like Wizards have that reputation currently, mostly for the sheer number of spells on their spell list, but to be perfectly honest I don't think they're as complicated as everyone says.
The second major problem is that Psionics are not magic. That seems to be entirely the point of them, and all attempts to just rebrand psionics as a form of magic is disappointing to everyone who wants to bring psionics into 5e. I can understand why this is a problem... while not every fantastical power or ability available to classes are identified as outright "magic", for the most part it's assumed that forces within the game are either natural or magical. Psionics seem designed to introduce a number of skills and abilities that are similar to magic, but aren't magic. So now there's this whole separate force that exists that you have to accommodate for... and a force that all existing monsters aren't statted to combat. You get things like Mind Flayers being resistant to Magic... but somehow with no innate resistant to psionics, which it would make more sense for them to resist.
So the question now is... how do you resolve problem 2? Do you make sure that none of the psionic abilities are too gamebreaking, so the fact that no monster, class feature, or feat that existed before them isn't inherently weak against this new power source by sheer virtue of it not existing at the time? Or do you have to release updated versions of every feature in the game so that we know how it interacts with psionics? To me, just treating psionics as a form of magic seems like the obvious solution, but I say that as someone who has never played as a psionic character in a previous edition. I feel like being able to function outside of the traditional limitations of Magic is a large part of the appeal. Either way... I guess I'm just saying I understand why psionics aren't so easy to add to 5e, and at the very least I'm happy that the subclasses WoTC released as kind of a compromise are at least some of the better subclasses in the game... even if they represent Psionics being abandoned as its own independent mechanic.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I at first was going to make a response that I would be okay with how they dealt with psionic abilities in 5e if every class had a subclass version for it... than I saw this post and it got me thinking.
I mean out of all the three options we have the only decentish one is the Soulknife rogue and there are tons of drawbacks to even that class... I originally saw a psion monk homebrew (which used the mystic unearthed arcana for most of its builds) and I gave up running on that just because I couldn't build it to make it work with our setup (and if I used it as is, having fifty zillion papers and what not I officially would have been called out for being OP) but I still like the concept of having more things based off psionic energy.
I do hope (and I admit it's probably far fetched) that at the big reveal which is probable 5.5e that we get one or two new full classes and maybe one of those could either be a psionic class or else something that could be made so that we could tweak it to be a psionic class.