While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're
basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.

Source:
https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/subclasses-revised-players-handbook-psi-warrior-soulknife

Psi Warrior DnD subclass confirmed for new Player’s Handbook

The Psi Warrior wasn’t part of the One DnD playtest but will be in the
new edition from day one, along with an unexpected Rogue subclass.
DnD subclasses Psi Warrior - a figure suspended in the air, surrounded
by blue energy, superimposed against a blue ship - MTG Card Art for
Timothy Linward

Jeremy Crawford, Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast, has
confirmed that two surprising DnD subclasses will be included in the
Revised Player’s Handbook (PHB) for the next edition of DnD. Speaking in
a fireside chat video, Crawford reveals that the One DnD PHB will
include the Psi Warrior and Rogue Soulknife subclasses.

These two DnD subclasses weren’t included in the PHB for DnD 5e, but
were added in the Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything supplement. Neither
subclass was included in the Unearthed Arcana playtest materials for One
DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
PHB is a pleasant surprise.

The Psi Warrior gives the DnD Fighter 5e psionic powers, effectively
turning it into a Jedi. Crawford explains that the other Fighter
subclasses in the new PHB will be the Champion, the Eldritch Knight, and
the Battle Master. The Brawler subclass which appeared in the One DnD
playtest “didn’t make it” to the PHB.

The Soulknife is another psionic class, which grants the DnD Rogue 5e
the ability to summon psychic blades into its hands. The video doesn’t
reveal which other Rogue subclasses make the leap into the new PHB.

While both these subclasses skipped out on the One DnD playtest, don’t
expect them to appear in the new PHB unchanged. Crawford states:
“subclasses that migrated from Tasha’s Cauldron of everything into the
new Player’s Handbook… went through additional playtesting and
development”. They’ve been “improved in a number of ways, and in some
cases have new features”.

DnD subclasses Soul Knife - an assassin holds a blade of purple energy,
waiting behind a wall for an unwitting victim - MTG card art for
Assassin's Strike by Chase Stone

Crawford also explains why so many psychic subclasses are being included
in the PHB: “We decided that because Aberrant Sorcery had migrated into
the player’s handbook… it would be good to give the psionic Sorcerer
along with the Great Old One Warlock some more psionic friends”.

The revised PHB will be the first of the overhauled core DnD books to
release, and will mark the end of DnD 5e and start of One DnD. Check our
guide to the DnD release schedule to find out when you can expect all
the books for the new edition.

--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

On 4/25/2024 6:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
> While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're
> basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
> Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.

Looks like they're going to be subclasses, not to worry, they aren't
going to be replaced. It's just one more option like eldritch knight.

I'm mixed on this, I always liked psionics in 1e-3e (never played with
them in 4e and don't remember if they actually came out.) But I
understand many people don't care for psionics in a fantasy game,
especially for PCs.

> DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
> PHB is a pleasant surprise.

I'm not sure about that "pleasant" part.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:56:34 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 4/25/2024 6:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>> While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're
>> basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
>> Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.
>
>Looks like they're going to be subclasses, not to worry, they aren't
>going to be replaced. It's just one more option like eldritch knight.
>
>I'm mixed on this, I always liked psionics in 1e-3e (never played with
>them in 4e and don't remember if they actually came out.) But I
>understand many people don't care for psionics in a fantasy game,
>especially for PCs.

I've no real issue with psionics per se. I do think that it doesn't
mix well in a game which ALSO has magic. It makes the setting feel
messy; it lacks cohesiveness. Pick one or the other.

Of course, if you decide to rip out magic from your game-world, you're
probably going to have to provide new explanations for things like
dragons and gods and all the other trappings of a traditional D&D
game. It's not an impossible feat but it requires a lot of extra work.

"Dark Sun" mixed psionics and magic, and was probably the best of the
bunch to do so, but even so it felt an unnecessary complication. The
psionics were essentially just another magic system in a sytem which
had too many different ways of casting spells already.

>> DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
>> PHB is a pleasant surprise.

>I'm not sure about that "pleasant" part.

It's not a surprising inclusion. D&D tries to straddle the line
between a generic, universal role-playing system and a tailored,
whole-cloth world and rules. It's both the system's strength and
weakness; if you pick and choose from what D&D offers, you can create
some truly compelling settings and games. But a lot of players assume
that if it's in the rules, it ought to be in any game, and that leads
to very generic, comic-booky settings where there's no real rhyme or
reason to how any of it works together.

So on the one hand: cool, D&D 6th Ed has psionics. On the other hand,
it's going to lead to the assumption that every campaign ought to have
a psionicist in the party right next to its sorceror, cleric, and
bard.

On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:56:34 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/25/2024 6:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>>> While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're
>>> basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
>>> Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.
>>
>> Looks like they're going to be subclasses, not to worry, they aren't
>> going to be replaced. It's just one more option like eldritch knight.
>>
>> I'm mixed on this, I always liked psionics in 1e-3e (never played with
>> them in 4e and don't remember if they actually came out.) But I
>> understand many people don't care for psionics in a fantasy game,
>> especially for PCs.
>
>
> I've no real issue with psionics per se. I do think that it doesn't
> mix well in a game which ALSO has magic. It makes the setting feel
> messy; it lacks cohesiveness. Pick one or the other.
>
> Of course, if you decide to rip out magic from your game-world, you're
> probably going to have to provide new explanations for things like
> dragons and gods and all the other trappings of a traditional D&D
> game. It's not an impossible feat but it requires a lot of extra work.
>
> "Dark Sun" mixed psionics and magic, and was probably the best of the
> bunch to do so, but even so it felt an unnecessary complication. The
> psionics were essentially just another magic system in a sytem which
> had too many different ways of casting spells already.
>

Dark Sun was pretty good, but I can't help but think that their
adherence to the usual DnD tropes was a detriment for the setting. This
could have been a much better game if they just had done away with some
of the parts, and conversely played into some of the others much
heavier. As it was it was never really as coherent as it should have
been. There always was the lingering shadow of a fantasy world WE NEVER
ACTUALLY GOT TO SEE. And once we learned more about the setting it all
became less mystical and more ADND 2nd edition narm.

>
>>> DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
>>> PHB is a pleasant surprise.
>
>> I'm not sure about that "pleasant" part.
>
> It's not a surprising inclusion. D&D tries to straddle the line
> between a generic, universal role-playing system and a tailored,
> whole-cloth world and rules. It's both the system's strength and
> weakness; if you pick and choose from what D&D offers, you can create
> some truly compelling settings and games. But a lot of players assume
> that if it's in the rules, it ought to be in any game, and that leads
> to very generic, comic-booky settings where there's no real rhyme or
> reason to how any of it works together.
>
> So on the one hand: cool, D&D 6th Ed has psionics. On the other hand,
> it's going to lead to the assumption that every campaign ought to have
> a psionicist in the party right next to its sorceror, cleric, and
> bard.
>

Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions. (I actually
think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)

--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>
> Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
> variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.

Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e I liked the iterations
in that edition much better. They both feel like they should be
sub-classes and in optional books. Do you really need 3 charisma based
arcane full caster base classes in the PHB? Heck there's only 2 full
physical classes.

As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional book
as they're loading too much into the PHB already.

(I actually
> think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
> a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)

It sounds the same as my old car - a Scion. I'll play a Psion xB, he's
a bit boxy, but gets you around town with the kids. :)

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>> On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
>> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
>> variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
>
> Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e  I liked the iterations
> in that edition much better.  They both feel like they should be
> sub-classes and in optional books.  Do you really need 3 charisma based
> arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?  Heck there's only 2 full
> physical classes.

Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got
disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
when I shifted to older editions.

>
> As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional book
> as they're loading too much into the PHB already.

I do like psionics, and I am using the Old School Psionics supplement
for my homebrew rules (after trying to adapt the 3.5 psion to b/x at one
point). I think they might fit into the world at large if you flavor
them right. I think about something like "mystics" (which is a word that
also was used for monks in DnD which makes this awkward), which leans
into traditions of various mystics from all over the world.

--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi

On 4/26/2024 1:52 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
>>> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
>>> variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
>>
>> Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e  I liked the iterations
>> in that edition much better.  They both feel like they should be
>> sub-classes and in optional books.  Do you really need 3 charisma
>> based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?  Heck there's only 2
>> full physical classes.
>
> Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got
> disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
> in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
> when I shifted to older editions.

Complete Arcane player's handbook. I did have someone play it. It felt
very underpowered, but it had a lot more sustain with eldritch blast
than wizards. It's much better balanced in 5e

>> As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional
>> book as they're loading too much into the PHB already.
>
> I do like psionics, and I am using the Old School Psionics supplement
> for my homebrew rules (after trying to adapt the 3.5 psion to b/x at one
> point). I think they might fit into the world at large if you flavor
> them right. I think about something like "mystics" (which is a word that
> also was used for monks in DnD which makes this awkward), which leans
> into traditions of various mystics from all over the world.

3.5 psionics was pretty good, but it felt like it was just magic with
spell points, and resulted in players blowing all their points at once
for not any more effect than a wizard's highest level spell but leaving
them without anything else. I also didn't like all the crystals
reliance. I actually had some people play psions in 2e, I used the
psionics handbook, but it needs careful interpretion, I had some
situations like a Psion that used scrying and teleport at level 7 to
bypass an entire adventure I had planned. I didn't like the contact
mechanics, and I think the Dark Suns version worked best.

I at one point was trying to write my own psionics system too based on
modern perception of mind powers (sensitivity, tk, pk, medium, remote
viewing, prediction etc.) but never got to anything workable. I suppose
crystals fit with that too, I just don't like them for some reason.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:57:08 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
>the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
>variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions. (I actually
>think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
>a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)

Well, it was, sort of.

Not telecommunications, but it was a handheld device; a portable
computer made to fit into the palm of your hand. Essentially, a
monochrome LCD display coupled to a tiny keyboard; a teeny-tiny
notebook for your palm.

They were quite neat, but - being so underpowered - also incredibly
limited. I LUSTED after one in the 90s, but once I finally acquired a
Psion (I think it was a Psion5?) I was disappointed by how little I
could actually do with. By default, its 'killer apps' were an address
book and calendar.

Later versions of the Psion gained connectivity options - cellular,
bluetooth, wireless, the usual - but by then smartphones (and even
dumbphones) were crowding the market, and the larger form factor of
the devices didn't sell well in comparison to those devices.

The name was really cool, though. I think that was 50% of the reason I
wanted one. ;-)

What? Oh, right. This is a D&D newsgroup. I should add something D&D
related.

Umm... I think there was a dice-rolling app for the Psion5. Does that
count?

On 4/26/2024 5:15 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:57:08 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
>> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
>> variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions. (I actually
>> think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
>> a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)
>
> Well, it was, sort of.
>
> Not telecommunications, but it was a handheld device; a portable
> computer made to fit into the palm of your hand. Essentially, a
> monochrome LCD display coupled to a tiny keyboard; a teeny-tiny
> notebook for your palm.
>
> They were quite neat, but - being so underpowered - also incredibly
> limited. I LUSTED after one in the 90s, but once I finally acquired a
> Psion (I think it was a Psion5?) I was disappointed by how little I
> could actually do with. By default, its 'killer apps' were an address
> book and calendar.
>
> Later versions of the Psion gained connectivity options - cellular,
> bluetooth, wireless, the usual - but by then smartphones (and even
> dumbphones) were crowding the market, and the larger form factor of
> the devices didn't sell well in comparison to those devices.
>
> The name was really cool, though. I think that was 50% of the reason I
> wanted one. ;-)
>
> What? Oh, right. This is a D&D newsgroup. I should add something D&D
> related.
>
> Umm... I think there was a dice-rolling app for the Psion5. Does that
> count?
>
>
>

yeah, I was hinting at these. What surprised me was that the company
seems to have been around for decades, and then once they became more
well known went bust. As it goes...

I haven't actually found any really comfortable dice app for my phone so
far. I mean, there are serviceable ones, but it just doesn't feel right.

--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi