1. Psionics would literally be completely based around dice rolls. Psionics was based around a psi die.
2. Just because you say something does not fit into D&D only means that it does not fit into your vision of D&D. Other people have their own ideas of what D&D should be like, and if they get to play that vision how does it hurt you?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Why should psychic characters have absolutely no edge over a character with absolutely no psychic abilities, but who gets to cherry-pick all the "Good' psychic spells (because of course psychic abilities are spells in this godawful messed-up system) whilst ALSO having the benefit of all the rest of their respective parent class' spell list and various subclass features?
See my point about how D&D doesn't do a good job encouraging themed casters. You're in no different a position than the player who decides to create any other themed spellcaster (for example, the sorcerer in my current game has decided to be lightning themed, and thus wound up with godawful spells like witch bolt). There should probably be a mechanic for encouraging themed casters, but it's nothing unique to psi.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Two things:
1. You gave a list of spells/ features that are not dice roll based. I said in my original comment "there are exceptions". And yes, for every one you find that is non roll based, I can list 10 that are.
2. If this new class is not a spell caster, and not a martial class, then it is something entirely different to D&D, and a new mechanic, and my statement of "don't call this D&D anymore" stands. And yeah, I was around for the original Psionics, which was quickly cast aside, even though there were rules for it, because it was so utterly and irretrievably broken. The latest UA had Mystic, the most recent attempt at Psionics. We saw how quickly that died. There is a reason for that. It simply does not fit in the D&D setting, just like the 1st, and every attempt at creating a class/ mechanic for it.
Just let it be.
actually, less than a quarter of spells in the PHB use attack rolls. 30% are utility and the rest are save spells. The Psion has been around for a while, I am pretty sure it was introduced in 3.5 and was fine......so it IS DnD, just not DnD 5e.....yet. :) Also, Ki is a not spellcasting/ non martial resource.....still DnD tho. If DnD wants to introduce a Psion, it will still be DnD.
I doubt they will tho with all of the psychic subclasses...
Why should psychic characters have absolutely no edge over a character with absolutely no psychic abilities, but who gets to cherry-pick all the "Good' psychic spells (because of course psychic abilities are spells in this godawful messed-up system) whilst ALSO having the benefit of all the rest of their respective parent class' spell list and various subclass features?
See my point about how D&D doesn't do a good job encouraging themed casters. You're in no different a position than the player who decides to create any other themed spellcaster (for example, the sorcerer in my current game has decided to be lightning themed, and thus wound up with godawful spells like witch bolt). There should probably be a mechanic for encouraging themed casters, but it's nothing unique to psi.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Two things:
1. You gave a list of spells/ features that are not dice roll based. I said in my original comment "there are exceptions". And yes, for every one you find that is non roll based, I can list 10 that are.
2. If this new class is not a spell caster, and not a martial class, then it is something entirely different to D&D, and a new mechanic, and my statement of "don't call this D&D anymore" stands. And yeah, I was around for the original Psionics, which was quickly cast aside, even though there were rules for it, because it was so utterly and irretrievably broken. The latest UA had Mystic, the most recent attempt at Psionics. We saw how quickly that died. There is a reason for that. It simply does not fit in the D&D setting, just like the 1st, and every attempt at creating a class/ mechanic for it.
Just let it be.
actually, less than a quarter of spells in the PHB use attack rolls. 30% are utility and the rest are save spells. The Psion has been around for a while, I am pretty sure it was introduced in 3.5 and was fine......so it IS DnD, just not DnD 5e.....yet. :) Also, Ki is a not spellcasting/ non martial resource.....still DnD tho. If DnD wants to introduce a Psion, it will still be DnD.
I doubt they will tho with all of the psychic subclasses...
Anything that is uses a save uses a D20. And Psionics has been tried long before 3.5. I had it in my AD&D books, which we used for years. No one could get it to work reasonably within the rules in that book. And have a look at the last UA. Mystic was abandoned. The developers AND the playtesters realized it was unplayable. Given all the other nonsense they are making canon, if this Psi based class was even halfway playable, they would have kept it around. But they did not, because all involved realized how awful it was.
1. Psionics would literally be completely based around dice rolls. Psionics was based around a psi die.
2. Just because you say something does not fit into D&D only means that it does not fit into your vision of D&D. Other people have their own ideas of what D&D should be like, and if they get to play that vision how does it hurt you?
You want to know how it hurts me? Because as a DM I have to deal with this mess of a new system, that has proven unworkable in several attempts. And as a player, I have to sit at a table and am powerless as some player drops this new mechanic on a table, and the DM then has to struggle with it, trying to assess how weak or powerful it is, which affects ALL at the table.
1. Psionics would literally be completely based around dice rolls. Psionics was based around a psi die.
2. Just because you say something does not fit into D&D only means that it does not fit into your vision of D&D. Other people have their own ideas of what D&D should be like, and if they get to play that vision how does it hurt you?
You want to know how it hurts me? Because as a DM I have to deal with this mess of a new system, that has proven unworkable in several attempts. And as a player, I have to sit at a table and am powerless as some player drops this new mechanic on a table, and the DM then has to struggle with it, trying to assess how weak or powerful it is, which affects ALL at the table.
First, you don't know that the mechanic will be broken. How was the psi die broken? And if someone wants to min max, they sure can do it with spells already. Secondly, you didn't address my first point. Psionics is based around dice rolls, stop making that argument that it won't be. You have no evidence for that and it has no grounding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Why should psychic characters have absolutely no edge over a character with absolutely no psychic abilities, but who gets to cherry-pick all the "Good' psychic spells (because of course psychic abilities are spells in this godawful messed-up system) whilst ALSO having the benefit of all the rest of their respective parent class' spell list and various subclass features?
See my point about how D&D doesn't do a good job encouraging themed casters. You're in no different a position than the player who decides to create any other themed spellcaster (for example, the sorcerer in my current game has decided to be lightning themed, and thus wound up with godawful spells like witch bolt). There should probably be a mechanic for encouraging themed casters, but it's nothing unique to psi.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Two things:
1. You gave a list of spells/ features that are not dice roll based. I said in my original comment "there are exceptions". And yes, for every one you find that is non roll based, I can list 10 that are.
2. If this new class is not a spell caster, and not a martial class, then it is something entirely different to D&D, and a new mechanic, and my statement of "don't call this D&D anymore" stands. And yeah, I was around for the original Psionics, which was quickly cast aside, even though there were rules for it, because it was so utterly and irretrievably broken. The latest UA had Mystic, the most recent attempt at Psionics. We saw how quickly that died. There is a reason for that. It simply does not fit in the D&D setting, just like the 1st, and every attempt at creating a class/ mechanic for it.
Just let it be.
Many of the things I listed do rely on die rolls. But that is irrelevant.
Official Psionics has been around since Eldritch Wizardry in 1976, and has been in every edition up through 3/3.5. So if you consider a 30 year run to be “quickly cast aside” then that begs the question: what is “non-quickly” then?!?
I don't get why the psi die was unpopular. I thought it was really interesting and unique too.
I understand the dislike for the UA psion/mystic attempt though. It was a complete mess. It tried to be everything, and so became a bloated amorphous mass.
I'd like a psion which focused on one aspect, and then keep psi knight and soul knife as subclasses to fighter and rogue. That way that base psion doesn't need to try to be a fighter, caster, and expert all in a single class.
Why should psychic characters have absolutely no edge over a character with absolutely no psychic abilities, but who gets to cherry-pick all the "Good' psychic spells (because of course psychic abilities are spells in this godawful messed-up system) whilst ALSO having the benefit of all the rest of their respective parent class' spell list and various subclass features?
See my point about how D&D doesn't do a good job encouraging themed casters. You're in no different a position than the player who decides to create any other themed spellcaster (for example, the sorcerer in my current game has decided to be lightning themed, and thus wound up with godawful spells like witch bolt). There should probably be a mechanic for encouraging themed casters, but it's nothing unique to psi.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Two things:
1. You gave a list of spells/ features that are not dice roll based. I said in my original comment "there are exceptions". And yes, for every one you find that is non roll based, I can list 10 that are.
2. If this new class is not a spell caster, and not a martial class, then it is something entirely different to D&D, and a new mechanic, and my statement of "don't call this D&D anymore" stands. And yeah, I was around for the original Psionics, which was quickly cast aside, even though there were rules for it, because it was so utterly and irretrievably broken. The latest UA had Mystic, the most recent attempt at Psionics. We saw how quickly that died. There is a reason for that. It simply does not fit in the D&D setting, just like the 1st, and every attempt at creating a class/ mechanic for it.
Just let it be.
Many of the things I listed do rely on die rolls. But that is irrelevant.
Official Psionics has been around since Eldritch Wizardry in 1976, and has been in every edition up through 3/3.5. So if you consider a 30 year run to be “quickly cast aside” then that begs the question: what is “non-quickly” then?!?
If you don’t want it in your D&D, that’s fine. But what gives you the right to tell anyone else what should or should not be in their D&D?!?
I am well aware of what the latest UA had in the way of Psi, and what happened with that latest attempt to insert that stuff back into the game. And to your last point, what gives YOU the right to tell others what should be in their D&D, because that is precisely what you are doing. Please don't even begin with that canard of "optional rules".
Why should psychic characters have absolutely no edge over a character with absolutely no psychic abilities, but who gets to cherry-pick all the "Good' psychic spells (because of course psychic abilities are spells in this godawful messed-up system) whilst ALSO having the benefit of all the rest of their respective parent class' spell list and various subclass features?
See my point about how D&D doesn't do a good job encouraging themed casters. You're in no different a position than the player who decides to create any other themed spellcaster (for example, the sorcerer in my current game has decided to be lightning themed, and thus wound up with godawful spells like witch bolt). There should probably be a mechanic for encouraging themed casters, but it's nothing unique to psi.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Two things:
1. You gave a list of spells/ features that are not dice roll based. I said in my original comment "there are exceptions". And yes, for every one you find that is non roll based, I can list 10 that are.
2. If this new class is not a spell caster, and not a martial class, then it is something entirely different to D&D, and a new mechanic, and my statement of "don't call this D&D anymore" stands. And yeah, I was around for the original Psionics, which was quickly cast aside, even though there were rules for it, because it was so utterly and irretrievably broken. The latest UA had Mystic, the most recent attempt at Psionics. We saw how quickly that died. There is a reason for that. It simply does not fit in the D&D setting, just like the 1st, and every attempt at creating a class/ mechanic for it.
Just let it be.
Many of the things I listed do rely on die rolls. But that is irrelevant.
Official Psionics has been around since Eldritch Wizardry in 1976, and has been in every edition up through 3/3.5. So if you consider a 30 year run to be “quickly cast aside” then that begs the question: what is “non-quickly” then?!?
If you don’t want it in your D&D, that’s fine. But what gives you the right to tell anyone else what should or should not be in their D&D?!?
I am well aware of what the latest UA had in the way of Psi, and what happened with that latest attempt to insert that stuff back into the game. And to your last point, what gives YOU the right to tell others what should be in their D&D, because that is precisely what you are doing. Please don't even begin with that canard of "optional rules".
I’m not saying that you have to use Psionics. You’re the one telling me I’m not allowed to.
Hell with this forum's shitty quote system. Doing it manually. AHEM:
"The problem is that there are a lot of players who want anything that sounds cool or powerful to them to be added and expecting that everything they think should be official simply should, ignoring, often willfully, that they take no risks in making such demands whereas filling every such demand does actually cost publishers real money.
And when the demand isn't strong enough, that is money simply tossed out the window." ~Kotath
Come on, Kotath. You've seen the arguments for these things that many of us have put down. Do you honestly think folks like Third, Sposta, Mezzurah, myself and others are powermongering? Every single cotton-pickin' one of us knows exactly where to go with the multiclassing rules as it currently stands to create a character leagues above what anybody else can manage. Hint: the Great 5e Charisma ******** is a much bigger issue for 'balance' than any new prospective single class would be.
Your argument is basically that Wizards should exercise some GOD DAMNED GAME DESIGN, which most of us would joyfully concur with. It would be wonderful if Wizards would do their ******* job, instead of just vomiting a rolling wall-pasta brainstorm of nonsense at The Community with a bunch of poorly-timed surveys saying "IF WE SOLD THIS, WOULD YOU BUY IT?!" Alas, that's not the world we live in. As it stands, folks are going to argue that Wizards should provide at least the basic framework of the options we need until DDB gets around to giving people the option to build a straight-up homebrew base class so we can finally dispense with the baggage of the PHB classes if we need to.
I think that it is much easier to disallow something than it is to create something form scratch. If you don't like a new class or subclass, just say it's not allowed at your table. If you are a player and someone else is using it and having fun with it, then maybe it isn't as bad as you think. But it would be much more difficult for a DM to build and playtest a new class. It is much easier for DM's if new content exists as an option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I think that it is much easier to disallow something than it is to create something form scratch. If you don't like a new class or subclass, just say it's not allowed at your table. If you are a player and someone else is using it and having fun with it, then maybe it isn't as bad as you think. But it would be much more difficult for a DM to build and playtest a new class. It is much easier for DM's if new content exists as an option.
Hear hear. Even if you're an excellent hand with the DDB homebrew editor, or a really slick designer for P&P games (at which point, again - why are you here spending money on digital tools you don't use?), it takes a great deal more effort to create something new than it does to cull down a list of existing options.
It does not take no effort to cull a list - we've all had those arguments with players (if we've DM'd, at least) over why something isn't in the game and had to stick to our worldbuilding guns and force a 'NO' to stick, or had to cave and put in something we didn't really want to. But growing a spine is part of learning to DM, and curating an existing list of options is a much easier start than the BigLizard method of "start with the fact that d20s exist; build an entire new custom game engine from there."
Do you honestly think folks like Third, Sposta, Mezzurah, myself and others are powermongering? Every single cotton-pickin' one of us knows exactly where to go with the multiclassing rules as it currently stands to create a character leagues above what anybody else can manage.
You got that right. That’s why I stay out of those “Throwdowns.” I want to give others a chance. 😉
Do you honestly think folks like Third, Sposta, Mezzurah, myself and others are powermongering? Every single cotton-pickin' one of us knows exactly where to go with the multiclassing rules as it currently stands to create a character leagues above what anybody else can manage.
You got that right. That’s why I stay out of those “Throwdowns.” I want to give others a chance. 😉
You should try to next one, and see if you can break Yurei's streak.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Do you honestly think folks like Third, Sposta, Mezzurah, myself and others are powermongering? Every single cotton-pickin' one of us knows exactly where to go with the multiclassing rules as it currently stands to create a character leagues above what anybody else can manage.
You got that right. That’s why I stay out of those “Throwdowns.” I want to give others a chance. 😉
To be fair, I won the last one with a straight 1-20 artificer. And the one before that with a 'deeply suboptimal' Arcane Trickster/Wizard multiclass despite 'everybody' knowing that a wizard dip for Arcane Tricksters "is, like, totez pointless, br0". Hueh. Turns out that when a player is forced to care about something other than just raw DPR and nova potential, other strategies begin coming to light.
I think that it is much easier to disallow something than it is to create something form scratch. If you don't like a new class or subclass, just say it's not allowed at your table. If you are a player and someone else is using it and having fun with it, then maybe it isn't as bad as you think. But it would be much more difficult for a DM to build and playtest a new class. It is much easier for DM's if new content exists as an option.
Yep this.
If a class exists which you don't want, you say "This class isn't allowed at my table". Job done.
If a class doesn't exist which you want, you have to spend months gradually designing and playtesting the thing to work it to a balanced and acceptable state, and then every single time you ever want to use it you have to look for the tiny percentage of DMs who will allow homebrew classes.
I think that it is much easier to disallow something than it is to create something form scratch. If you don't like a new class or subclass, just say it's not allowed at your table. If you are a player and someone else is using it and having fun with it, then maybe it isn't as bad as you think. But it would be much more difficult for a DM to build and playtest a new class. It is much easier for DM's if new content exists as an option.
Yep this.
If a class exists which you don't want, you say "This class isn't allowed at my table". Job done.
If a class doesn't exist which you want, you have to spend months gradually designing and playtesting the thing to work it to a balanced and acceptable state, and then every single time you ever want to use it you have to look for the tiny percentage of DMs who will allow homebrew classes.
Sure, if you want to publish it. In my opinion homebrew needs to only work at your table. Unless you plan to publish your new class and get other people to play it, you don't really have to playtest it against every possible scenario and balance it against every other class.
You can make a homebrew class that absolutely shits on sorcerers if no one at your table plays one.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Psionics is a magic reskin. Psionics has been a magic reskin since before D&D existed, it's literally just "We want to add an aura of Science to magic". Hence the reason it has no real role in D&D, its purpose is to add magic in settings where magic doesn't exist.
Except for one key thing, Psionicists shouldn’t be “spellcasters” at all.
Psionics is a magic reskin. Psionics has been a magic reskin since before D&D existed, it's literally just "We want to add an aura of Science to magic". Hence the reason it has no real role in D&D, its purpose is to add magic in settings where magic doesn't exist.
Not sure that invoking Clarke's Third Law counts as a re-skin....
Psionics doesn't (directly) have anything to do with Clarke's third law.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. Psionics would literally be completely based around dice rolls. Psionics was based around a psi die.
2. Just because you say something does not fit into D&D only means that it does not fit into your vision of D&D. Other people have their own ideas of what D&D should be like, and if they get to play that vision how does it hurt you?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
actually, less than a quarter of spells in the PHB use attack rolls. 30% are utility and the rest are save spells. The Psion has been around for a while, I am pretty sure it was introduced in 3.5 and was fine......so it IS DnD, just not DnD 5e.....yet. :) Also, Ki is a not spellcasting/ non martial resource.....still DnD tho. If DnD wants to introduce a Psion, it will still be DnD.
I doubt they will tho with all of the psychic subclasses...
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Anything that is uses a save uses a D20. And Psionics has been tried long before 3.5. I had it in my AD&D books, which we used for years. No one could get it to work reasonably within the rules in that book. And have a look at the last UA. Mystic was abandoned. The developers AND the playtesters realized it was unplayable. Given all the other nonsense they are making canon, if this Psi based class was even halfway playable, they would have kept it around. But they did not, because all involved realized how awful it was.
You want to know how it hurts me? Because as a DM I have to deal with this mess of a new system, that has proven unworkable in several attempts. And as a player, I have to sit at a table and am powerless as some player drops this new mechanic on a table, and the DM then has to struggle with it, trying to assess how weak or powerful it is, which affects ALL at the table.
First, you don't know that the mechanic will be broken. How was the psi die broken? And if someone wants to min max, they sure can do it with spells already. Secondly, you didn't address my first point. Psionics is based around dice rolls, stop making that argument that it won't be. You have no evidence for that and it has no grounding.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honestly, the amount of people complaining about options confounds me.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I don't get why the psi die was unpopular. I thought it was really interesting and unique too.
I understand the dislike for the UA psion/mystic attempt though. It was a complete mess. It tried to be everything, and so became a bloated amorphous mass.
I'd like a psion which focused on one aspect, and then keep psi knight and soul knife as subclasses to fighter and rogue. That way that base psion doesn't need to try to be a fighter, caster, and expert all in a single class.
I am well aware of what the latest UA had in the way of Psi, and what happened with that latest attempt to insert that stuff back into the game. And to your last point, what gives YOU the right to tell others what should be in their D&D, because that is precisely what you are doing. Please don't even begin with that canard of "optional rules".
I’m not saying that you have to use Psionics. You’re the one telling me I’m not allowed to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hell with this forum's shitty quote system. Doing it manually. AHEM:
"The problem is that there are a lot of players who want anything that sounds cool or powerful to them to be added and expecting that everything they think should be official simply should, ignoring, often willfully, that they take no risks in making such demands whereas filling every such demand does actually cost publishers real money.
And when the demand isn't strong enough, that is money simply tossed out the window."
~Kotath
Come on, Kotath. You've seen the arguments for these things that many of us have put down. Do you honestly think folks like Third, Sposta, Mezzurah, myself and others are powermongering? Every single cotton-pickin' one of us knows exactly where to go with the multiclassing rules as it currently stands to create a character leagues above what anybody else can manage. Hint: the Great 5e Charisma ******** is a much bigger issue for 'balance' than any new prospective single class would be.
Your argument is basically that Wizards should exercise some GOD DAMNED GAME DESIGN, which most of us would joyfully concur with. It would be wonderful if Wizards would do their ******* job, instead of just vomiting a rolling wall-pasta brainstorm of nonsense at The Community with a bunch of poorly-timed surveys saying "IF WE SOLD THIS, WOULD YOU BUY IT?!" Alas, that's not the world we live in. As it stands, folks are going to argue that Wizards should provide at least the basic framework of the options we need until DDB gets around to giving people the option to build a straight-up homebrew base class so we can finally dispense with the baggage of the PHB classes if we need to.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think that it is much easier to disallow something than it is to create something form scratch. If you don't like a new class or subclass, just say it's not allowed at your table. If you are a player and someone else is using it and having fun with it, then maybe it isn't as bad as you think. But it would be much more difficult for a DM to build and playtest a new class. It is much easier for DM's if new content exists as an option.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Hear hear. Even if you're an excellent hand with the DDB homebrew editor, or a really slick designer for P&P games (at which point, again - why are you here spending money on digital tools you don't use?), it takes a great deal more effort to create something new than it does to cull down a list of existing options.
It does not take no effort to cull a list - we've all had those arguments with players (if we've DM'd, at least) over why something isn't in the game and had to stick to our worldbuilding guns and force a 'NO' to stick, or had to cave and put in something we didn't really want to. But growing a spine is part of learning to DM, and curating an existing list of options is a much easier start than the BigLizard method of "start with the fact that d20s exist; build an entire new custom game engine from there."
Please do not contact or message me.
You got that right. That’s why I stay out of those “Throwdowns.” I want to give others a chance. 😉
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You should try to next one, and see if you can break Yurei's streak.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
To be fair, I won the last one with a straight 1-20 artificer. And the one before that with a 'deeply suboptimal' Arcane Trickster/Wizard multiclass despite 'everybody' knowing that a wizard dip for Arcane Tricksters "is, like, totez pointless, br0". Hueh. Turns out that when a player is forced to care about something other than just raw DPR and nova potential, other strategies begin coming to light.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yep this.
If a class exists which you don't want, you say "This class isn't allowed at my table". Job done.
If a class doesn't exist which you want, you have to spend months gradually designing and playtesting the thing to work it to a balanced and acceptable state, and then every single time you ever want to use it you have to look for the tiny percentage of DMs who will allow homebrew classes.
Sure, if you want to publish it. In my opinion homebrew needs to only work at your table. Unless you plan to publish your new class and get other people to play it, you don't really have to playtest it against every possible scenario and balance it against every other class.
You can make a homebrew class that absolutely shits on sorcerers if no one at your table plays one.
Psionics is a magic reskin. Psionics has been a magic reskin since before D&D existed, it's literally just "We want to add an aura of Science to magic". Hence the reason it has no real role in D&D, its purpose is to add magic in settings where magic doesn't exist.
Psionics doesn't (directly) have anything to do with Clarke's third law.