D&D 5E Here's why we want a Psion class

[LuisCarlos17f]

If adding a new class helps to sell more sourcebooks, why not?

Psion is a open concept what allows different subclasses.

The psionic powers isn't only for DS fandom, but also for superheroes and manga/wulin-wuxia fiction.

 

[Minigiant]

So it would be better, but with easily ignored drawbacks?

Better but different drawbacks.

But more precisely can you describe what would be the Psion Telekinesis power. What level, what capacity, duration, etc?

Yup

Look at the 5th level telekinesis spell.

Imagine if there was another spell called "quick telekinesis" that had a casting time of 1 reaction but only worked on willing creatures and objects up to 500 lbs. Now the fighter wont fall into that pit.

Imagine if there was another spell called "violent telekinesis" that deals force damage but allowed save and had shorter duration. Now you can restrain and harm the orc leader.

Imagine if there was another spell called "focused telekinesis" that let you move more than one object but dealt psionic damage to you if the total weight went too high. Now you can finally float over a dang 10 foot pit.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

If adding a new class helps to sell more sourcebooks, why not?

Psion is a open concept what allows different subclasses.

The psionic powers isn't only for DS fandom, but also for superheroes and manga/wulin-wuxia fiction.

I think the "why not" is that everytime Wizard's has published a UA for a psion class, it has never mustered enough positive feedback to merit publishing.

I mean, making a psion that 70% of the playerbase is happy with is not exactly an easy thing to do.

 

[Krachek]

Better but different drawbacks.


Yup

Look at the 5th level telekinesis spell.

Imagine if there was another spell called "quick telekinesis" that had a casting time of 1 reaction but only worked on willing creatures and objects up to 500 lbs. Now the fighter wont fall into that pit.

Imagine if there was another spell called "violent telekinesis" that deals force damage but allowed save and had shorter duration. Now you can restrain and harm the orc leader.

Imagine if there was another spell called "focused telekinesis" that let you move more than one object but dealt psionic damage to you if the total weight went too high. Now you can finally float over a dang 10 foot pit.

I see your point now, and I agree that with some imagination and a basic telekinetic and telepathic power you can be a complete Swiss Army knife.
but I can predict that Wotc won’t go so far in versatility. They willingly want to allow a chance for all pc to shine.

 

[Maxperson]

But here's the point that all the replies miss. Saying something should be part of the game because it has always been that way is not a good argument. It's not an argument at all, it is loudly saying "BECAUSE TRADITION" without actually asking why it is tradition.

Now, if someone can make a good point for why the psion has been a class for three editions, then that is a different matter altogether.

Tradition = money is a good enough reason. Sure, in a debate you really should go further in explaining why you like the class and what you want, but really, it doesn't NEED to go further.

So yeah, if someone says "We've always had a psion, we should have one now too," without any other justification (as the OP very clearly did), hell yeah I'm going to point out this means absolutely nothing.

But that's not accurate. It DOES have meaning. If you like the tradition and want it to continue, that means something. It may not be a sufficient reason for you or have enough meaning for you, but it is a reason and it does have meaning.

 

[Parmandur]

You know, it's less of an appeal to tradition-- saying "psionicists existed in 2e, 3e, and 4e, so they should exist in 5e"-- as it is an appeal to continuity: "my psionic character existed in 2e, or 3e, or 4e, and so I should be able to keep playing him in 5e".

And that seems to be a recurring problem with WotC and many of their fans: they don't understand why anyone would ever want to continue their old campaign with their old characters in the new edition, and they don't understand that most players of most games consider this the default assumption of the edition cycle.

Well, definitely not most players: most people finish campaigns in a year and roll new characters.

 

[Minigiant]

I see your point now, and I agree that with some imagination and a basic telekinetic and telepathic power you can be a complete Swiss Army knife.
but I can predict that Wotc won’t go so far in versatility. They willingly want to allow a chance for all pc to shine.

The version of the psion I'd want wouldn't be that versatile.

Like I said, it would have many natural restrictions. The psion would be limited to variations of the same 10-12 mental phenomena. Damage would be limited to psychic, force, bludgeoning, and maybe poison. No raising dead. Limited healing if any. No replication of skills. No actual transformation or tranmutation that isn't purely biological or physically manipulated. No conjuration or necromancy outside of maybe tapping into the Astral Plane.

Just a telekinetic telepath who can perceive extra things. Not a wizard.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Dreamscarred Press created the psionic version of the necromancy, didn't it? And Paizo created the medium and spiritualist classes. If WotC wants it can create a mentalist class for Ravenloft.

I have said some times in the past about the keys to design a new class:

- Right power balance, of course.

- Interesting concept. The incarnate and the soulbonr from "Magic of Incarnum" are two failed examples.

- Fun gameplay. I didn't want to play a psionic wilder because the psychic enervation wasn't interesting to me to be used. This was fixed by Dreamscarred Press for the Pathfinder with the option is the penalty would be dazed and not only spending power points.

---

I would bet somebody wants to play an assasin with psionic powers like the main characters from "Assasin's Creed" saga, or the D&D version of the jedis.

Some players would like to play a PC with psionic powers because to be "superheroes" and not only spellcasters.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Can the psion conjure a fireball? No. Fireballs are not mental.

You have never read the book, Firestarter by Stephen King, or seen the movie based on it, have you?

 

[Kinematics]

At the moment, I'm seeing the Psion class as a lot like Ranger. People want it, but it's really hard to actually describe what they want.

Periodic arguments about the Ranger ask, how is a Ranger different from a Fighter with an archery and/or two-weapon fighting specialty? (Aside from Beastmaster, which everyone agrees is horribly done, and thus not a justification in and of itself.)

The arguments I've seen in favor of the Ranger as a stand-alone class take a lot of work to put together, and are often extremely threadbare. It's not the issue of "Nature-friendly huntsman" that's the problem; it's that there is no mechanical depth to give it a meaning to exist as a separate class, versus just being a background you could pick, or maybe another Fighter subclass.

When people ask for a "Psion", what, mechanically, are they actually asking for? Other than superficial things like VSM mechanics, how is a Psion different from a Wizard or Sorcerer? What collection of features does the Psion bring to the table that raises it above a subclass or background, and how much room does it have to be further expanded with subclasses of its own?

Making the argument for the Ranger is difficult, but doable. I'm not seeing that same level of effort being put into the argument for Psion. Most of the argument for Psion seems to be, "I want to be a Wizard/Sorcerer, but without all the drawbacks."

So why, exactly, do you want a Psion class?