Psionics have been pretty polarizing, ever since they first appeared. Heck, even Gygax himself went on the record as saying that he shouldn’t have included them in the first place. I remember ignoring them because the rules were completely inscrutable to me (at around ten years old, anyway). But they were tucked away in the DMG for the most part, so that didn’t really have much of an impact.
My beef with them, really, is that D&D has always tried hard to make psionics feel different from magic, using a different system. And invariably, the rules have always been some combination of broken / unintelligible / open to vast abuses.
There are also folks that say psionics are sci-fi, not fantasy. Despite my dislike of psionics, I’ll be the first to admit that there are plenty of examples of psychic powers in fantasy literature.
jaappleton wrote:
Look, I'm not very experienced with dnd myself, but I'll tell my experience with psionics in general.
So far I've only played 4e and 5e, and my first contact with psionics was from 4e's PHB 3. At first I tought the concept didn't fit with medieval fantasy at all and felt the power point system was unnapealing. But then later, I tried using those rules to make a monk and I started warming up to those classes. Yes, psionic classes looked like something out of a pseudo-scifi world rather than d&d, but it was that alien, outerwordly feel that made them interesting and unique. And at least in that edition they seemed pretty well balanced with the rest.
Now in 5e, it seems they are trying to make the new psionic class a little more in line with the low tech, moderate magic style of the game, but still giving it a different feel than the other classes. It's neither an caster nor a martial warrior, it's it's own thing. And the new name, while a little generic, makes sense in the setting. Considering psionic power isn't something very well known or studied, an adventurer that uses psychic powers would probably be confused for a shaman, or some kind of unorthodox, supernatural priest. Hence the name "Mystic".
Haldrik, active on the old wotc psi board
circa pre- '06, was fond of pointing out,
that Norse Runes were a form of psionics.
Ego, Super Ego and Id stuff (via Freud translation)
have been mostly pitched by the wayside,
along with many other failed sciences.
1e used alot of this, and might feel Steampunk-ish.
But most importantly, just go ahead and drone it out:
Psi on ic ss is buh ro ke nnnnn ... (faux breath) ... Psi on ic ss is buh ro ke nnnnnn
Full disclosure: I wrote the FAQ for 3.5 psionics. I was also involved in founding Dreamscarred Press, the company that would later go on (without me) to create psionics for Pathfinder.
jaappleton wrote:
4e psionics was disliked because of the way it scaled.
Since damage came from weapons and stat boosts you where better off using your PP to spam low level powers instead of high level ones.
1PP for 1d8+30 and disavantge.
vs
7PP or 2d8+30 and disavantage.
other then that, i didn't hear any complaints.
So, I was one of the first DMs in my circle to allow psionics. I'm not an expert on psionics, but I enjoy them. I enjoy the idea of the power of the mind being able to bend reality. I have said it before, since the 5e release of the Mystic, that I cannot stand that they used that name for a logos (intelligence) based class. Mysticism is a rite of selflessness, not intelligence and concentration. But that's not what you asked about so I'll get back to the point.
The arguments at my table stemmed from the original concept that psionics were immune to magical protections such as anti-magic field. And that in originality, psionics didn't have a set list of abilities. It was: create what you want, see if it happens... boom! I remember my first character with a psionic kit simply staring at an enemy and concentrating until steam appeared between he and I, then the air lit up with flame and he just burnt up instantly.
3e did a great job of confusing everyone with rules about anything rulesy. 3.5 did an even better job of cleaning it up. When Book of Nine Swords came out, we all thought it was some interplay on psionics and fighters because of how it functioned outside of magic. It was Martial - neither psionic nor magic, and we were all confused. Thus it became the book of "stupid" at many tables because you could, at level 3, flip a Stone Golem over on its head. Psionics, on the other hand, was more numerically random, then evened out in 3.5. (Example being a Fort save Vs. a Strength Psionics Attack was two opposing d20 rolls, which eventually just became a flat Save DC).
4.0 kinda... nerfed Psionics for me. Monks as psionicists? Ehhhh... Not so much. But then again, I didn't like how 4e just glossed over the difference between martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic. It was all just a colorful word to describe a numerical effect. None of it really mattered. Even now in 5th Ed. I still get scared when I look at my paladins and realize that their auras, extra attack, and smite... are not spells or magical effects by definition. They are simply... class abilities. (This can create some amazing fun with Aura of Protection stacking with 5 paladins in a party: make charisma the best score ever, please).
I still think psionics are great and I am playtesting the hell out of the new Mystic class. If they keep the name mystic, I'll change it when it comes to my table because I find it offensive, but overall I like the new game mechanic. It fits my concept of the actual Templar - minus the psionic pool.
[The example being that templar were known on the battlefield for having superior concentration, maintaining quiet spells under their breath while never cowing down. A bit of a mixture between a devotion paladin and the immortal mystic - the ability to command the battlefield without concentration problems. There are legends of templar being initiated into the "assassins" and that part of the heresy of the order were the mystical (*MYSTICAL meaning selfless and non-dogmatic*) rites of initiation that they used to illuminate beyond the confines of the dogmatic control of the "new" church. ]
So, I'm very excited for the material of 5e Psionics so that I can use it for other concepts, and/or use it as is.
Go Brain Power.
Summary:
2e: Psionics ignored magic, magic ignored psionics - psionics weren't a list of powers or spells, you just caused a psionic effect with your mind after adding the psionic kit to your character.
3e: Psionics were overlapping with magic, but could ignore them if the DM wanted. "Save DCs" were based on a d20 roll with one of the 6 abilities that the psionic user was using to cast his psionic power.
3.5: Psionics were convergent with magic, used the same DCs that were static as spellcasters (usually based on Intelligence).
4e: Psionics were just another flavor name for damage types that used augmentation points instead of encounter/daiy/utility powers. Everything was atwill and you had points to augment.
5e: Psionics appears to be based on concentration "Disciplines" where you get to augment the discipline until you get the desired effect, still based upon intelligence.
I don't see anything game breaking about psionics.
... But some people hate Alignment Systems, too. I agree that it is simply a mote of preference that people can't get over.
It was a complicated system being added to a game that already had a complicated system people were used to. It also didn't help that every couple years they decided to change everything (why do these powers not have saving throws anymore? what is mental armor class?) In addition to that there was a silly little thing called Psionic Wild Talents introduced in 2e that gave every character a chance at free powers (my fighter can now grow claws and teleport? that's okay right?)
I think if it used a simpler system and gave people time to get used to it, it would have found a home. But that isn't what happened. It was designed to be a diruptive addition to the game.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
jaappleton wrote:
jaappleton wrote:
jaappleton wrote:
A lot of the people working on the original conception of Psionics for D&D (like Arthur Collins) were fans of Katherine Kurtz's then-popular series of fantasy books which feature a race called the Deryni with psychic powers. These books are purely fantasy, with a real-world medieval historical bent to them. There is nothing sci-fi about it. Dragon Magazine did a couple of articles on the topic (I think it was issue #78, which featured the Psionicist along with two articles on Deryni including author-approval for the conversion of Deryni to D&D), other magazines at the time took off on the concept as well.
So I disagree that psionics were based in sci-fi. For some of the original authors (Gygax was not even a primary author on a lot of that original Psionics work for D&D), Deryni were the primary source material they were drawing from, and it was fantasy in nature in a medieval Knights-in-Armor European-type setting.