Psionics

I've said it before, but I think it's worth re-stating: I think that Psionics needs to have a presence in the Core Rules. It doesn't need to be completely fleshed out, but the base mechanics can be defined in an appendix or something. It is a concept that has been feared by players and DMs in the past because it hasn't been addressed as a core component, even though it has deep roots in the history of D&D.

 

They have already proven that not everything that goes into the core rules is required. Several things are listed as variant rules. The same could be done for psionics as an appendix. 

 

If it's not addressed now, it will end up being shimmed-in later and it will feel like such. It will end up as a step child of magic instead of a first class citizen where it belongs.

Qmark wrote:

 

Garthanos wrote:

 

Timmee wrote:

 

Miladoon wrote:

That would be a great title for a clone.  Psions and Psorcerers.

 

 

Psorcerers! Ha! Love it.

 

 

Scions even better - Birthright for the Win!

 

Well obviously, Psorcerers and Scions must be distinct classes because reasons.

Scions are more martial... and has to be segregated of course

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Garthanos wrote:

Scions are more martial... and has to be segregated of course

Okay, so long as we get about twenty variants with different equipment lockouts and all manner of baked-in flavor baggage.

Qmark wrote:

baked-in flavor

 

bacon-flavored scions, yum!

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

in 4th edition the mons and ki is seen as psionic and part of the psionic power source.

 

How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As many psionics are mind over body related.

edwin_su wrote:

in 4th edition the mons and ki is seen as psionic and part of the psionic power source.

 

How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As many psionics are mind over body related.

Its all Martial ;-p prowess

Qmark wrote:

 

Garthanos wrote:

Scions are more martial... and has to be segregated of course

 

Okay, so long as we get about twenty variants with different equipment lockouts and all manner of baked-in flavor baggage.

I am inclined to dodge flavor baggage when thrown at me.

 

I figure Scion + Martial = Hero and Scion + Magic = Sorceror.

And all other magic besides sorcery is ritualist.. "because"

 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

strider13x wrote:

 

Qmark wrote:

baked-in flavor

 

bacon-flavored scions, yum!

 

Well there is flavor baggage I dont dodge ... but we dont Bake our Bacon nor the evil microwaving it either

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

edwin_su wrote:

in 4th edition the mons and ki is seen as psionic and part of the psionic power source.

 

How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As many psionics are mind over body related.

 

I pay little attention to the fluff so all I see is Channeling like the Cleric and Paladin get. You can call it Ki or Sorcery points, either way the mechanics are the same, the class simply defines what you can do with the Channel Points.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

DemoMonkey wrote:

I AM saying that that tradition is that they be wedged in as an awkward kludged-on afterthought.

 

As a great respecter of tradition,  I hope to see psionics in Next occupying that same honoured position

As a joke, that's not bad. 

 

We have enough "traditionally, this sucked, so it should suck in 5e" already, so lampshading that tendency is even vaguely constructive.  Too bad the medium doesn't convey sarcasm well.

 

 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

edwin_su wrote:

in 4th edition the monks and ki is seen as psionic and part of the psionic power source.

 

How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As many psionics are mind over body related.

I never cared for it.  I think Monks should just have been martial.  They are based on litteral martial artists, afterall.  Only their cultural origin makes them seem somehow 'other.'  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Tony_Vargas wrote:

We have enough "traditionally, this sucked, so it should suck in 5e" already, so lampshading that tendency is even vaguely constructive.  Too bad the medium doesn't convey sarcasm well.

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:

I never cared for it.  I think Monks should just have been martial.  They are based on litteral martial artists, afterall.  Only their cultural origin makes them seem somehow 'other.'

 

so , you bash tradition in one comment then demand it be reinforced in the very next comment?

*snark intended*

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

edwin_su wrote:
How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.
As a martial artist, it leaves me mildly insulted.  Training one's mind and body for years results in a very different skill set than innate power.  Chi is something everybody has, Monks simply train to use theirs better.  Unless everybody in D&D is psychic, conflating the two is diminishing to both.

The first official news we heard was "the psion is currently crying in the corner" and semi-recently it might appear in a later book, and would most likely be its own class.

 

So, yes, redheaded bastard stepchild here we come...

Tony_Vargas wrote:
Psionics /do/ appear in a PH1.

 

 

Yes, but not a Psion/Psionicist class, which was their original intent to include (classes from a PHB I).

lawrencehoy wrote:

 

Qmark wrote:
There's not a whole lot of functional difference between "D&D psionics" and "D&D sorcery" (mostly just the "three-finger-contact" thing ), but I've no doubt someone is going to insist they're "like totally different!" or somesuch.

I'll bite...

 

Sorcery is only the innate ability to harness external energies (arcane"magic"); while psionics is the innate ability to harness internal energies (mind-over-body "magic").

Sounds good.... until we look at a dragonsoul sorcerer and realize that one can describe in in a way so that he's not harnessing external energies, he's kicking ass using just the internal power of his, well, draconic soul.       I mean, isn't one of the reasons that dragons cast magic is that they're basically giant engines of magical energy?    That they're described having raw elemental energy inside their bodies?

 

So, it seems to me that we can describe the dragon blooded sorcerer is using his innate ability to harness his internal energies.  So, yeah.  

 

 

 

edwin_su wrote:

in 4th edition the mons and ki is seen as psionic and part of the psionic power source.

 

How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As many psionics are mind over body related.

Not so much, no.    Monks worked out in 4e as a psion due to the way power points worked along ki points.    Given the way Rages, Ki, and Sorcery points are all around, and not associated with psionics at all?    Not so much.   

 

 

What I think will happen, in the end?      We'll get a number of subclasses that are associated with "psionics," but attached to the regular classes.   The Psion class could end up as a sorcerer subclass, Psychic Warriors / Battleminds as a eldritch knight fighter thing, ardents as a palladin subclass, soul knives work out as the warlock hexblade, potentially as a star pact, etc.   Monks will probably be another psychic fist thing.  PrC in 3e, default in 4e, no idea if there were kits or whatnot earlier.

 

There will possibly be an entire book devoted to psionics and its relation to the campaign settings, and other magic styles.

"We have enough "traditionally, this sucked, so it should suck in 5e" already, so lampshading that tendency is even vaguely constructive.  Too bad the medium doesn't convey sarcasm well."

 

Nor does it convey the lack of same.

edwin_su wrote:

in 4th edition the mons and ki is seen as psionic and part of the psionic power source.

 

How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As many psionics are mind over body related.

 

For me the next ki is a mixture of maneuvers from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords and maybe some ideas from "Magic of Incarnum" (chakras or body slots for magic items and points of fithessence like customizable bonus). The "ki manevuers" never would be a true daily power, and psionic need to recharge psionic power points after long rest everyday. 

 

But a (sub)class could be ki channeler+spellcaster or ki chaneler + psionic manifester, for example a ki maneuver where psi points could be spent to get metapsionic effects. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I would definitely like to see psionics in the PHB.  However, I am hesitant about this.  I believe that if psionics did get shoved in the PHB, the only way to make the page count work is if they just used spells as their powers; there's no way we'd get 20-40 pages of just psionic powers.  And, that would make a pyrokinetic fireball no different from a mage's fireball.  And I don't think that's so great.

 

I also don't want to see psionics just shoved into the system without forethought.  I also don't want to see too much overlap between psionics and magic.  In my opinion, a telepath psion should feel significantly different from an enchantress mage.  In 3e, psionics felt like watered-down magic.  Although I'm a fan of psionics (I have been since picking up the 2e psionics supplement), I am not impressed by the implementation of psionics as just another flavor of magic.

 

What I want to see out of psionics is a kind of new age feel mixed with the sci-fi of  ______-kinetics.  I want the psion to be more of a medium or spiritualist than it was in 3e or 4e, with options to specialize in a kinetic field, in empathy/telepathy, in being a healer (psychic surgery), and so on.

 

Edit: And, I definitely want psionics to be its own thing.  I really don't want their powers to be rip offs of spells, or for spells to rip off their powers.  And I think any resistance to magic shouldn't apply to psionics as a default (but it could if the DM chooses to).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

MechaPilot wrote:

I would definitely like to see psionics in the PHB.  However, I am hesitant about this.  I believe that if psionics did get shoved in the PHB, the only way to make the page count work is if they just used spells as their powers; there's no way we'd get 20-40 pages of just psionic powers.  And, that would make a pyrokinetic fireball no different from a mage's fireball.  And I don't think that's so great.

 

I also don't want to see psionics just shoved into the system without forethought.  I also don't want to see too much overlap between psionics and magic.  In my opinion, a telepath psion should feel significantly different from an enchantress mage.  In 3e, psionics felt like watered-down magic.  Although I'm a fan of psionics (I have been since picking up the 2e psionics supplement), I am not impressed by the implementation of psionics as just another flavor of magic.

 

What I want to see out of psionics is a kind of new age feel mixed with the sci-fi of  ______-kinetics.  I want the psion to be more of a medium or spiritualist than it was in 3e or 4e, with options to specialize in a kinetic field, in empathy/telepathy, in being a healer (psychic surgery), and so on.

 

Edit: And, I definitely want psionics to be its own thing.  I really don't want their powers to be rip offs of spells, or for spells to rip off their powers.  And I think any resistance to magic shouldn't apply to psionics as a default (but it could if the DM chooses to).

 

 

Totally dig all of that; but, to me, parft of the problem is the tacked on DM problem.

Brock_Landers wrote:

 

MechaPilot wrote:

I would definitely like to see psionics in the PHB.  However, I am hesitant about this.  I believe that if psionics did get shoved in the PHB, the only way to make the page count work is if they just used spells as their powers; there's no way we'd get 20-40 pages of just psionic powers.  And, that would make a pyrokinetic fireball no different from a mage's fireball.  And I don't think that's so great.

 

I also don't want to see psionics just shoved into the system without forethought.  I also don't want to see too much overlap between psionics and magic.  In my opinion, a telepath psion should feel significantly different from an enchantress mage.  In 3e, psionics felt like watered-down magic.  Although I'm a fan of psionics (I have been since picking up the 2e psionics supplement), I am not impressed by the implementation of psionics as just another flavor of magic.

 

What I want to see out of psionics is a kind of new age feel mixed with the sci-fi of  ______-kinetics.  I want the psion to be more of a medium or spiritualist than it was in 3e or 4e, with options to specialize in a kinetic field, in empathy/telepathy, in being a healer (psychic surgery), and so on.

 

Edit: And, I definitely want psionics to be its own thing.  I really don't want their powers to be rip offs of spells, or for spells to rip off their powers.  And I think any resistance to magic shouldn't apply to psionics as a default (but it could if the DM chooses to).

 

 

 

Totally dig all of that; but, to me, parft of the problem is the tacked on DM problem.

 

Which problem?  Whether to allow them at all?  Or, whether the DM should treat them as the same with regard to resistances or anti-magic effects?  Or, another one I didn't mention?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

MechaPilot wrote:
Which problem?

 

 

Of the DM is forced to tackle with a new system.

Well, that happens when you go with different systems for different powers.  Not advocating for a unified system for all powers, just saying that you do have more systems to deal with when you make them different.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

strider13x wrote:

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:

We have enough "traditionally, this sucked, so it should suck in 5e" already, so lampshading that tendency is even vaguely constructive.  Too bad the medium doesn't convey sarcasm well.

 

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:

I never cared for it.  I think Monks should just have been martial.  They are based on litteral martial artists, afterall.  Only their cultural origin makes them seem somehow 'other.'

 

 

so , you bash tradition in one comment then demand it be reinforced in the very next comment?

*snark intended*

The tradition of the D&D Monk is to be a glaring stereotype of orientalism.  I was arguing against that tradition.  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

MechaPilot wrote:

Well, that happens when you go with different systems for different powers.  Not advocating for a unified system for all powers, just saying that you do have more systems to deal with when you make them different.

 

Total, and I get a chubber for variant magic systems: Incarnum, Pact Magic, Truenamer, Factotum, etc.

I desire it, but I've been a fan since 2E's system.

The 1st Ed Monk rocks (especially if you take the 1st Ed errata so that it uses the Cleric attack table), and it, and the Ranger have double HD at 1st level.

ankiyavon wrote:
Intelligence wasn't enshrined as the prime stat for psionicists until 3E, to my knowledge (I have no experience before 2E).  In 2E, Wisdom was their prime requisite, but their three big important stats were Wis, Int, and Con.  They weren't really any more MAD than a fighter; they needed a high Wis, and the higher their Int and Con the better, but having weak Int or Con scores wasn't going to kill them.  (As long as you met the actual requirements to pick the class, anyway.)

 

Actually, that was the 3.5 psion that had Int as its casting, er... manifesting.... stat. The earlier 3e psion was MADder than a hatter, er... the 2e psionicist. Each of the 6 disciplines in 3e all used a different stat for manifesting, so if you didn't want to be lackluster at (or unable of) manifesting each discipline, you needed to have great stats across the board. 3.5 fixed that by using a single stat. Though, maybe going back to 2e's method of using the 3 mental abilities would be a good way to go. I just hope they keep some of the elements from 3e, like psicrystals, astral constructs and such.

 

Personally, I like psionics and some of my favorite D&D critters are psionically laden (yuan-ti, derro, illithid). If they're not in the PHB, I hope they're released in the same year.

Azzy1974 wrote:

some of my favorite D&D critters are psionically laden (yuan-ti, derro, illithid). If they're not in the PHB, I hope they're released in the same year.

 

 

All of those are already included in 5th Ed (bestiaries).

Brock_Landers wrote:

 

Azzy1974 wrote:

some of my favorite D&D critters are psionically laden (yuan-ti, derro, illithid). If they're not in the PHB, I hope they're released in the same year.

 

 

 

All of those are already included in 5th Ed (bestiaries).

 

Thus, it only makes sense to have a psionics module ready to rock withing the first year.

 

And su monsters, thought eaters, intellect devourerers, brain moles, oh my!

Azzy1974 wrote:

Actually, that was the 3.5 psion that had Int as its casting, er... manifesting.... stat. The earlier 3e psion was MADder than a hatter, er... the 2e psionicist. Each of the 6 disciplines in 3e all used a different stat for manifesting, so if you didn't want to be lackluster at (or unable of) manifesting each discipline, you needed to have great stats across the board. 3.5 fixed that by using a single stat. Though, maybe going back to 2e's method of using the 3 mental abilities would be a good way to go. I just hope they keep some of the elements from 3e, like psicrystals, astral constructs and such.

 

Good call, I had forgotten about that, because I really did not like the original 3.0 psionics handbook.  (Perhaps ironically, my favorite element from 3.0 psionics was the 'different stat for each discipline'.)

 

Minor quibble for readers though I expect you know this, 2E did not use the 3 mental abilities.  It used Constitution instead of Charisma (so Wis, Int, and Con).  With the 3E and later redefinitions of the meaning of the Charisma stat, there would be no real reason not to use the 3 mental abilities, but that would cut out Con which has some flavor to it as well.

The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

Chakravant wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
How do people here feal about the connection between Ki and psionics.

As a martial artist, it leaves me mildly insulted.  Training one's mind and body for years results in a very different skill set than innate power.  Chi is something everybody has, Monks simply train to use theirs better.  Unless everybody in D&D is psychic, conflating the two is diminishing to both.

Agreed

Mephi1234 wrote:
Sounds good.... until we look at a dragonsoul sorcerer and realize that one can describe in in a way so that he's not harnessing external energies, he's kicking ass using just the internal power of his, well, draconic soul.       I mean, isn't one of the reasons that dragons cast magic is that they're basically giant engines of magical energy?    That they're described having raw elemental energy inside their bodies?
Actually, my interpretation is just that dragons have that same innate connection to the external energies, only on a more substantial, less limited level.

 

As a side note, my world incorporates the idea that all arcane magic is harnessed through the language of creation (the language/script used in arcane spell books and scrolls), which happens to be the native language of dragons (thus, draconic) since they have been around, and relatively unchanged, since the creation. This is also why dragons, in my world, do not require material components for their spells; they know the language instinctively and do not need accessories to make up for language shortcomings.

 

Mephi1234 wrote:
What I think will happen, in the end?      We'll get a number of subclasses that are associated with "psionics," but attached to the regular classes.   The Psion class could end up as a sorcerer subclass, Psychic Warriors / Battleminds as a eldritch knight fighter thing, ardents as a palladin subclass, soul knives work out as the warlock hexblade, potentially as a star pact, etc.   Monks will probably be another psychic fist thing.  PrC in 3e, default in 4e, no idea if there were kits or whatnot earlier.
I wouldn't mind seeing psionic-based sub-classes of all other classes. I would like them to be relegated to the sourcebook you mention below; so that they will be as complete and integrated as possible.

 

Also, in AD&D, there were only wild talent psionic characters (those of normal classes that just happened to have a few psionic powers) or the psionicist class; the original sourcebook did not have any Psionicist Kits.

 

Mephi1234 wrote:
There will possibly be an entire book devoted to psionics and its relation to the campaign settings, and other magic styles.
I fervently hope so!

MechaPilot wrote:
I would definitely like to see psionics in the PHB.  However, I am hesitant about this.  I believe that if psionics did get shoved in the PHB, the only way to make the page count work is if they just used spells as their powers; there's no way we'd get 20-40 pages of just psionic powers.  And, that would make a pyrokinetic fireball no different from a mage's fireball.  And I don't think that's so great.

 

I also don't want to see psionics just shoved into the system without forethought.  I also don't want to see too much overlap between psionics and magic.  In my opinion, a telepath psion should feel significantly different from an enchantress mage.  In 3e, psionics felt like watered-down magic.  Although I'm a fan of psionics (I have been since picking up the 2e psionics supplement), I am not impressed by the implementation of psionics as just another flavor of magic.

 

What I want to see out of psionics is a kind of new age feel mixed with the sci-fi of  ______-kinetics.  I want the psion to be more of a medium or spiritualist than it was in 3e or 4e, with options to specialize in a kinetic field, in empathy/telepathy, in being a healer (psychic surgery), and so on.

 

Edit: And, I definitely want psionics to be its own thing.  I really don't want their powers to be rip offs of spells, or for spells to rip off their powers.  And I think any resistance to magic shouldn't apply to psionics as a default (but it could if the DM chooses to).

My sentiments exactly. I was a big fan of how they did psionics in AD&D. I also had a book from Mayfair Games, in their Role Aids line of publications, called Psionics; which was published during the AD&D 1st Edition era. The AD&D 2nd Edition sourcebook was very similar.

 

EDIT: Oops, the Role Aids: Psionics sourcebook was published in the same year as the PHBR5: The Complete Psionics Handbook (1991).

Azzy1974 wrote:

 

Brock_Landers wrote:

 

Azzy1974 wrote:

some of my favorite D&D critters are psionically laden (yuan-ti, derro, illithid). If they're not in the PHB, I hope they're released in the same year.

 

 

 

All of those are already included in 5th Ed (bestiaries).

 

 

Thus, it only makes sense to have a psionics module ready to rock withing the first year.

If you're going to have psionic monsters in the standard game, you might as well have psionics in the standard game.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Tony_Vargas wrote:
If you're going to have psionic monsters in the standard game, you might as well have psionics in the standard game.

 

But only subclasses, a complete psion class must wait until the second handbook. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Luis_Carlos wrote:

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:
If you're going to have psionic monsters in the standard game, you might as well have psionics in the standard game.

 

But only subclasses, a complete psion class must wait until the second handbook. 

Why /must/?  Psionics were in a PH1, that at least arguably makes them candidates form inclusion in 5e.  Multi-classing to psion could be one way of doing 1e PH-sytle psionics in 5e.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Tony_Vargas wrote:

 

Luis_Carlos wrote:

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:
If you're going to have psionic monsters in the standard game, you might as well have psionics in the standard game.

 

But only subclasses, a complete psion class must wait until the second handbook. 

 

Why /must/?  Psionics were in a PH1, that at least arguably makes them candidates form inclusion in 5e.  Multi-classing to psion could be one way of doing 1e PH-sytle psionics in 5e.

5 subclasses.

Telepath/Psychokinetic ..and whatever the other three were

 

Psychic Warrior can be multiclass perhaps.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Garthanos wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:

 

Luis_Carlos wrote:

 

Tony_Vargas wrote:
If you're going to have psionic monsters in the standard game, you might as well have psionics in the standard game.

 

But only subclasses, a complete psion class must wait until the second handbook. 

 

Why /must/?  Psionics were in a PH1, that at least arguably makes them candidates form inclusion in 5e.  Multi-classing to psion could be one way of doing 1e PH-sytle psionics in 5e.

5 subclasses.

Telepath/Psychokinetic ..and whatever the other three were

 

Psychic Warrior can be multiclass perhaps.

I'd rather just have a sub-class for each class; then, allow the psionic focus to be determined individually (by the player), through character development options.

I would like the psion in the first PH but I am afair there isn´t enough space. If psion is the new class in the PH I will be happy, but I doubt it. 

 

* Psiloi was a soldier from anticent Greek army without armour. I like that name for a psionic warrior without armour. 

 

I don´t like the name battlemind for psychic warrior class.. 

 

Wilder is a interesting concept, but it needs a right class feature was fun to play, because I didn´t like "bet" psionic power power points with the wild surge and psychic enervation. 

 

We need variant classes, like ones from "Uneathed Arcane", a list of optional class levels. 

 

A illithid boss with levels of psion should be different from a illithid boss with levels of wilder,  different tatics to be defeaten.

 

* I miss the brainstealer dragon, it can be a great enemy agant the gem stones. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Garthanos wrote:

5 subclasses.

Telepath/Psychokinetic ..and whatever the other three were

 

Psychic Warrior can be multiclass perhaps.

 

6 disciplines in 2E and 3E, at least; not sure about 1E.

 

Psychometabolism, Psychoportation, Psychokinesis, Metapsionics (2E)/Metacreativity (3E), Clairsentience, Telepathy.

The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

ankiyavon wrote:

6 disciplines in 2E and 3E, at least; not sure about 1E.

1E psionics is organized into major disciplines and minor disciplines, and that's about it (in the PHB at least).  Overall it's pretty sloppy and only slightly less convoluted than 1E Bard.