Psion class (Mearls, Happy Fun Hour)
My gut says the former - something like a Xanthar's Guide to Everything where the player chapters are the psionics rules and classes with the DM's side as psionic items and monsters and discussion of using psionics in a campaign. And then is followed up by a Dark Sun adventure book. That way it appeals to players and DMs who have no use for Dark Sun but would like to play a psionic character somewhere else (like the Realms or Eberron or Ravenloft), as well as DMs who might just want to drop some differently flavored magic items or monsters into their games.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Not having a telepathic subclass within psion doesn’t work. A telepathic wizard still starts off as just an arcane spellcaster—identical to every other 1st level wizard. I don’t really care one way or the other if they make a telepathic wizard subclass, but they absolutely have to have a psion subclass for it.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Prior to today, I was firmly in the camp of "we don't need no more stinkin' classes!"
But... this is pretty cool.
But... this is pretty cool.
There's got to be a moderately famous Realms character that uses psionics, doesn't there?
I've got nothing - but my Realms knowledge is a half-mile wide but an inch deep - enough to run games in the setting but not enough to care if I get details wrong while running games in the setting.
(Also would they use "psionics" in the title? Even if the book is all about psionics, it seems like it would be a weird thing to put on the cover. But "Elminster's Guide to all things Mental" probably wouldn't be a good choice either...)
Tony Vargas
Legend
I hope that, with the return of the 3.x "Psion" name comes the DM-option of Psionics being magical or different by campaign.
As it stands, though, sub-classes associated with a new class like the above provide faux-MCing for campaigns where MCing is not opted-into, and are only slightly less legitimate in covering a concept associated with the new class than a sub-class of the class itself. Personally, I think Ardent would make more sense as a Psion or Warlord sub-class than a Bard sub-class (because of the Bard is a full caster in 5e, but if he's essentially made the psion a caster, I guess it's fine, too).
The Ardent was introduced in 3.5, and is a fairly strong concept, a psionic who channels emotion (telempathy) to support his allies.
All sub-class and most classes are unnecessary, or would be if 3.x-style MCing were standard and classes were designed to work seamlessly with it.
As it stands, though, sub-classes associated with a new class like the above provide faux-MCing for campaigns where MCing is not opted-into, and are only slightly less legitimate in covering a concept associated with the new class than a sub-class of the class itself. Personally, I think Ardent would make more sense as a Psion or Warlord sub-class than a Bard sub-class (because of the Bard is a full caster in 5e, but if he's essentially made the psion a caster, I guess it's fine, too).
The Ardent was introduced in 3.5, and is a fairly strong concept, a psionic who channels emotion (telempathy) to support his allies.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Well, that's the thing...none of the other books have been by people who represent the topic, they've been by people who have observed the topic. Volo (and Elminster) aren't monsters, Xanathar isn't an adventurer, and Mordenkanien isn't associated with any of the factions profiled in the book. "Psionic character's guide to Psionics" would be to on the nose, compared to the other books.
Granted, I said Drizzt as a joke, but I think they'll look for something more out there for a psionic book (if one ends up existing).
Similar Threads
