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

[dave2008]

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...

That is not the same thing. A wizard at a minimum cast spells. A psion at a minimum uses psionics/psychic power. The amount they use such is up for debate, but saying a wizard who doesn't use spells at all is equivalent to a half-casting psion is just beyond...

 

[Hussar]

Actually, if you read the books, rather than watch the movies, magic in Middle Earth is not "displayed". It is subtle, you usually cannot see it happening at all, and does not require the reciting of certain words and gestures.

It's very different to D&D (Harry Potter, Doctor Strange) magic.

Magic in Middle Earth is certainly called magic, but it functions in a way that a lot of people are saying psionics should function.

Heh, I actually HAVE read the books.

But, if the most iconic fantasy novel in the genre can simply say, "Oh, well, magic is indistinguishable from psionics" well, why do we need psionics? If you are perfectly willing to reinterpret The Lord of the Rings to incorporate psionics, why by unwilling to reinterpret a wizard as a psion? What's the difference?

If, as people repeatedly are telling me, there is no actual difference between the two, why do we need two in the game?

 

[dave2008]

I'm fine with WotC making that decision. I'm not fine with people trying to kill other people's fun. Campaign for what you like, not against what other people do.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing by saying a non full caster class is not a psion. If Bob wants a half-caster psion fighter / jedi, who are you to crap on his fun?

However, I think I am finally understanding what you are talking about is not psion/psionics, but a Psion. As in the Psion class must be a full class. You are not saying psionics requires a full class, but you are saying a Psion must be a full class. Is that correct?

Last thing, a Psion class, can only do psionic stuff and not be a full "caster" class. Like a ranger is a class (only does ranger stuff), but isn't a full casting class. A Psion class would need to be a caster at all by your own admission, it just needs to only do Psion stuff, IYO. Did I get that correct?

Personally I don't have any issue without, it is just semantics IMO.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd like WotC to go all-in of the weird and other flavour of psion sublcasses instead of just a different sci-fi-ish magic. 4e add a bunch of really evocative and trippy paragon path for psionic class that could be awesome for a psion class.

Firestarter: Fire damage and party buff (soul ignition)
Alienist: Pet class and summon (ala conjurer and shepherd druid) with mutation for your pet and summons.
Time Bender: mess with the action economy
Shaper: Crystal and ectoplasm archetypes, with a specialty in wall spells.
Awakened: Telepathy and mind-control archetype.
Unarnate: Invisibility, etheralness and immortality archetype.
Anathema: Necrotic blaster, be a living sphere of annihilation.
Ardent: Healer and buffer.

That is not what WotC does. They do not and will not go completely "out there" with their design, because they are designing for the gaming populace at large. They do basic and default level design and leave all the crazy stuff that probably only less-than-half-a-percent of the playerbase cares/wants to all the third-party designers out there.

If you want a really wide catch-all net for psionics... you go to the DMs Guild or someone like KibblesTasty (who will generate 25 pages worth of psion material for you.) But if you expressly want WotC's "official" take... everyone needs to accept that psion will end up being just about as different as the warlock is to the wizard. The leveling chart might have a couple interesting tweaks and how it uses/spends its power might have a different mechanic... but other than that the psion and the wizard will look pretty similar.

 

[Hoffmand]

I don’t like Psionics. I don’t need it. For me magic is Psionics. They are the same thing. Magic is just what a more primitive or medieval society would call Psionics. End of story.

However, I know enough good people that think it will make the game more fun for them. So they should probaly make Psionic classes and archetypes for those that want them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Heh, I actually HAVE read the books.

But, if the most iconic fantasy novel in the genre can simply say, "Oh, well, magic is indistinguishable from psionics" well, why do we need psionics?

The book doesn't say that. It's people talking about psionics who describe it as functioning like Tolkien's magic.

If you are perfectly willing to reinterpret The Lord of the Rings to incorporate psionics, why by unwilling to reinterpret a wizard as a psion?

I'm not, although sorcerer is closer, since the wizard is particularly tied to un-Tolkieny complex phrases and gestures.

I've seen Gandalf interpreted as a cleric or sorcerer rather than a D&D wizard. Mystic would have worked as well.

What's the difference?

Spacemagic has the word space in front of it.

if, as people repeatedly are telling me, there is no actual difference between the two, why do we need two in the game?

The same reason as we have clerics, sorcerers and warlocks as well as wizards.

 

[Minigiant]

Our chat make me think that not only Psion can claim a more organic and versatil use of their power.
you state the difference between the Wizard telekinesis and the Pison one. But the Wizard can make the same complaint about alternate use of its spell. We assume that wizard spells are lock in small square box, but in some fantasy the usage of magical telekinesis is also a matter of skill and mastery.

Indeed. But not in D&D. A D&D wizard's skill and mastery is of learning magic, not use. At best they can alter or create a single spell or two. However they cannot do it on the fly. Even since OD&D, wizards were based around study, practice, and preparation.

Sorcerers and Psions buck this by having some sort of spontaneity at the expense of limiting themselves from learning some magic. This would extnd to other types of fantasy casters like shapeshifters and "benders".

5e goes farther and says spells are even more locked in and only sorcerers can alter them.

Your requirements for the Psion open up the debate about why cant all martial do Manoeuvers.
Why wizard don’t have metamagic, why eldritch Knight can’t smite with their spell slots

Not really. The first and last questions don't delve into the deeper meaning of magic in D&D.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Actually, if you read the books, rather than watch the movies, magic in Middle Earth is not "displayed". It is subtle, you usually cannot see it happening at all, and does not require the reciting of certain words and gestures.

So Psionics are just spells you can't see, am I getting that right?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

That's false. WotC made the Psion a pure caster in 3e and 4e(I believe). That makes them pure casters in all editions they have been in. YOU are changing them from what TSR and WotC have chosen to make them.

We are talking about 5E.

 

[Aldarc]

Wouldn't the more worthwhile conversation be about what psionics means in the particularized context of "D&D-brand fantasy" rather than in fiction that may not give two flying flips about how D&D does anything?