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

[Fenris-77]

It's exactly the same. A class is the class. Other than in 1e were Psionics were a tack on, they have been a pure casting class. What a Psion is has been well established, and it's a pure casting class.

What you describe is NOT a Psion "sho nuff." Rather, it's a class with psionics, "sho nuff." That's it.

You get to pick and choose where to set the grammar goalposts? The only difference here is that you have preconceived notions of what a psion 'should be' and I don't. That class could easily function solely on psychic powers, it would just be focused in a way that doesn't match up with your expectations, but if it functions based on psionic powers it is indeed a psion, whether or not you like it. I don't think you get to gatekeep the definition of psion quite that closely. If they wrote it up as, say, a fantasy Jedi it would still be a psion then too. Your definition isn't the same as the definition.

 

[Maxperson]

The only difference here is that you have preconceived notions of what a psion 'should be'

No I don't. D&D established what a Psion is.

If you are okay with your described class being a Psion, but are not okay with an armor wearing, non-spell using fighting class being a wizard or a divine, heavy armor wearing, partial spell using, divine smiting class being a ranger, then you are taking a hypocritical position. Either it's okay to fundamentally change a class into something it's not, or it isn't. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Fenris-77]

Your counter example is silly, you know it and I know it. A Wizard without casting isn't a wizard, and the equivalent is that a Psion isn't a Psion without Psionics (whatever that ends up looking like). Calling me a hypocrite because I won't fall in line with your shallow argument from history is weaksauce. And, for your information, I can actually have it the way I like, because, not to put to fine a point on it, I'm right and you're not. Take the case of the Eldritch Knight. Is he not a fighter because he has some spellcasting? Of course he is. The class I described can fight, but relies for effect on Psychometabolism and Psychokinesis, with some additional Telepathy and probably Psychoportation. All psionic powers. You're just sore because my example doesn't represent full access to the 7 disciplines.

The class I described is one of the things you could do with a previous edition psion. It is a psion, it's a class that relies on psionic powers to function. That doesn't have to look like a 'full caster' except to meet your narrow definitional standards. Nowhere is it written that a fully psionic class would have to make equal use of the seven disciplines from previous editions. Where I think we might more accurately use the term hypocritical is to describe someone who says a class based fully on psionic powers isn't a psion because he's salty about canon.

 

[Tallifer]

"Appeal to tradition" is a textbook example of a logical fallacy. You can look it up.

What does logic have to do with taste, fun or atmosphere? Tradition can be a part of all three of those important factors in enjoyment of a game.

 

[Hussar]

I guess we don't need fighters, paladins, or illusionists either.

There are tropes that make D&D what it is, and a psion/psionicist class is one of them. Not as crucial as fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards . . . but still important to many long time fans.

Swimming very far upthread because I'm bored.

You can make very solid arguments for those classes though, outside of tradition. The game needs some sort of melee, non-magic combat character to emulate the genre. Fighter's fill that niche. Illusionists aren't a class anymore - they are a subclass. Why? Because you cannot really justify an entire class around the illusionist. It didn't really make sense in 1e and that's why it got folded in under MU then Wizard in subsequent editions. Paladin? Well, that's been an ongoing argument for a long time, but, a holy warrior is a fairly strong genre archetype. A warrior chosen by some diety or other who has supernatural powers from that diety is a pretty strong archetype. Could you do it another way? Sure, but, it's not unreasonable to make it a class either.

A psion though? That's just a wizard with the serial numbers filed off. It doesn't have any genre appeal - you don't have psionics in fantasy settings and SF settings don't have magic. There are virtually no settings with both outside of gaming settings which are in the business of selling books to you.

Arguments in favor of a "fighting man" as a class don't rely on tradition. If tradition is the only argument you have for a psion, well, that's not good enough.

 

[Fenris-77]

What does logic have to do with taste, fun or atmosphere? Tradition can be a part of all three of those important factors in enjoyment of a game.

All very true. But when it's used to rhetorically bolster an argument it's generally considered a fallacy. Essentially, when you say X has to be Y because X has commonly been Y in the past, you aren't making a valid argument because the first premise doesn't actually follow from the second. It's a very common argumentative strategy when things like editions and canon come up about TTRPGs, and it's badwrong.

 

[Mistwell]

A psion though? That's just a wizard with the serial numbers filed off. It doesn't have any genre appeal - you don't have psionics in fantasy settings and SF settings don't have magic. There are virtually no settings with both outside of gaming settings which are in the business of selling books to you.

Sigh.

Again, Deryni. Fantasy setting. Psionics. One of the foundation inspirations for Psionics in D&D. Full article in old Dragon magazine on it. Not a wizard. Not SF at all.

 

[Hussar]

Aha, you got me @Mistwell. You could dredge up a single example from a forty year old series. Good for you. Have a cookie. I'll admit to never having read the novels although Wikipedia calls it using magic, not psionics and, as a point, do they use BOTH? Do they actually have two completely different traditions of supernatural powers - one purely magical and the other purely the power of the mind?

Now, can we actually get back to reality where (almost - as in only a vanishingly small number don't) the overwhelming majority of genre fiction works do not mix magic and psionics and not pick nits?

Is it seriously a contentious thing to say that psionics doesn't really have much of a tradition in fantasy?

 

[Maxperson]

Your counter example is silly, you know it and I know it. A Wizard without casting isn't a wizard, and the equivalent is that a Psion isn't a Psion without Psionics (whatever that ends up looking like).

Either you can change the fundamentals of a class to something else or you can't. All else is just variance.

Calling me a hypocrite because I won't fall in line with your shallow argument from history is weaksauce.

So let's get this straight. I didn't call you a hypocrite any more pointing out that someone has done something foolish makes them a fool. There's a difference.

And, for your information, I can actually have it the way I like, because, not to put to fine a point on it, I'm right and you're not.

Take the case of the Eldritch Knight. Is he not a fighter because he has some spellcasting? Of course he is.

He's not a wizard, but he could be with your argument.

The class I described can fight, but relies for effect on Psychometabolism and Psychokinesis, with some additional Telepathy and probably Psychoportation. All psionic powers. You're just sore because my example doesn't represent full access to the 7 disciplines.

First, I'm not "sore" at all. Some stranger typing at me from some other place in the world has no ability to do that to me. Second, you didn't meet what D&D(not me) established as being the Psion class, so it's not a Psion.

The class I described is one of the things you could do with a previous edition psion.

And it can lift a sword, so it must be a fighter! Being able to do something a Psion can do does not make it a Psion.

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh.

Again, Deryni. Fantasy setting. Psionics. One of the foundation inspirations for Psionics in D&D. Full article in old Dragon magazine on it. Not a wizard. Not SF at all.

Great books, too.