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

[Minigiant]

"As much as many playtesters enjoyed the psionic themes in the mystic, feedback was also clear that the class encroached on other classes’ territory and that it was often too complex, too powerful, or both. Following that feedback, we’ve decided to say farewell to the mystic and explore other ways of giving players psi-themed powers, as we did with the features of the Great Old One warlock in the Player’s Handbook. In 2019 and now in 2020, we’re enjoying that exploration, looking into providing options (subclasses, spells, and feats) that allow different types of characters to manifest psionic power. The philosophy of this approach is most akin to the one taken in the 1st edition of D&D, where psionic powers weren’t the domain of any particular class but were available for characters of different types to experience.:

Read the writing on the wall man. They've abandoned a dedicated Psi class (which is what most people seem to mean by "Psion"). I don't think it's coming back. At least, not any time this year.

Sounds more like they are abandoning the idea of the "psion wizard" wizard. The mystic that is a reskinned wizard.

AKA the complex OP psion(icist) of 2e and 3e.

Note "the encoached on other classes." The class with "psionic knock, psionic fly, psionic grease, psioinc indentify,and psionic magic missiles" is dead in 5e.

I can see the return of the more limited 4e psion. One focused on the core 6 psionic schools only.

 

[Maxperson]

Conversely, the could decide they are not full casters like back in 1e, which is what they said they are doing in the recent UA.

That isn't what they said. They said they were looking at psionics, not Psions like 1e. They they screwed that up royally. Psionics in 1e was the same when applied to every class, not specifically tied subclasses where it's all different.

They have also said that while they have given up on the Mystic, they have not given up on the Psion. It's just not a priority right now.

I disagree, I would prefer a Psion was not a caster at all. If I wanted to play a Psion I would want it to work completely differently than a caster class. I prefer it has completely different mechanic and rules. IMO, making it a "caster" is less like a Psion than making it something different.

It's called a Monk.

If it is just a caster, then just refluff a wizard or sorcerer with unique spells and call it done. That is not interesting to me though.

That doesn't work for a Psion, because of other class related abilities and limitations. There is no caster class currently out that that can work as a chassis.

Finally, I don't care what has been done in the past. I would be more interested in getting it correct now.

They got it correct in all prior editions, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, funny, I didn't know about this.

Max, are you reading?

Yep. I have to wonder if he is, though. The 1e Philosophy was not, let's tie psionics to every class in a unique way that is completely dependent on the class. The 1e philosophy was, psionics is available to all classes equally. It works the same for all of them and is not dependent on any particular class for how it appears.

1e psionics worked exactly the same for a fighter, cleric or rogue. The new 5e subclasses are all tied down by class.

In the recent UA article, WotC makes the incorrect claim that what they are doing is like how 1e treated psionics. It isn't.

 

[TwoSix]

I thought in previous editions it did require a psi focus and there often tend to be some gestures or at least tell-tale expressions involved in fiction. Not to mention exhaustion.

Yea, "psionic focus" was primarily a game mechanic that, in-fiction, was a type of specialized concentration.

Note that "not requiring external tools" is also not synonymous with being undetectable. Earlier editions had "displays", like a glowing aura around the psion, or chiming noises, or a mental pressure that noticeably exuded from the psion. The real narrative requirement, to my mind, for psionics is the lack of requirement of any external tool for casting. No magic words, no bat guano, no books.

 

[Aldarc]

Yea, "psionic focus" was primarily a game mechanic that, in-fiction, was a type of specialized concentration.

Note that "not requiring external tools" is also not synonymous with being undetectable. Earlier editions had "displays", like a glowing aura around the psion, or chiming noises, or a mental pressure that noticeably exuded from the psion. The real narrative requirement, to my mind, for psionics is the lack of requirement of any external tool for casting. No magic words, no bat guano, no books.

Or maybe another way to put it is that the psionist's mind IS the material component that they use to manifest their powers, but it's not depleted through the casting, except typically through psi points.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yep. I have to wonder if he is, though. The 1e Philosophy was not, let's tie psionics to every class in a unique way that is completely dependent on the class. The 1e philosophy was, psionics is available to all classes equally. It works the same for all of them and is not dependent on any particular class for how it appears.

1e psionics worked exactly the same for a fighter, cleric or rogue. The new 5e subclasses are all tied down by class.

In the recent UA article, WotC makes the incorrect claim that what they are doing is like how 1e treated psionics. It isn't.

Like I said before, you do you.

EDIT: Wait, who are you referring to as "he"? I'm quoting Mistwell, but he's quoting somebody from WotC.

 

[TwoSix]

Or maybe another way to put it is that the psionist's mind IS the material component that they use to manifest their powers, but it's not depleted through the casting, except typically through psi points.

Sure, that could work. To my mind, extrinsic ritual casting and intrinsic magical power is an obvious dichotomy that doesn't need a ton of explanation, but I guess in D&D we already have the sorcerer making an unfortunate blur of that division.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Psions are definitely pulled from literary and historical sources. They are not as prevalent in the fantasy genre as wizards and warriors, but they weren't invented out of nowhere. The Deryni series by Katherine Kurtz is probably the most classic example of fantasy psionics. The above reference to McCaffery's Pern series is also a great sci-fantasy example. Our view of psionics is certainly flavored by sci-fi tropes . . . . but psionics is far from the only sci-fi trope that made its way into classic D&D. Psionics also has a pretty strong pseudoscience mystical theme pulling from western esotericism of the 19th century, which evolved into the New Age movement of the mid-20th century.

Is psionics Tolkienesque? Despite several stretchy arguments above, no. So what? D&D's core is Tolkienesque epic fantasy, but it stretches past those genre boundaries in lots of ways. Classic D&D psionics isn't for everyone, but it has its place in the D&D canon and deserves its place in 5E just as does the illusionist (subclass), ranger, paladin, and cleric.

 

[Minigiant]

Yea, "psionic focus" was primarily a game mechanic that, in-fiction, was a type of specialized concentration.

Note that "not requiring external tools" is also not synonymous with being undetectable. Earlier editions had "displays", like a glowing aura around the psion, or chiming noises, or a mental pressure that noticeably exuded from the psion. The real narrative requirement, to my mind, for psionics is the lack of requirement of any external tool for casting. No magic words, no bat guano, no books.

In 3e psionics users had displays. You could notice they were doing psionics if you were close enough to hear, see, or smell it. The part was that it was a display, not a component. These were effects of the magic, not the requirement. No need to way hands or say words. By the time his eyes glows, it's too late. You are mind controlled.

 

[Maxperson]

EDIT: Wait, who are you referring to as "he"? I'm quoting Mistwell, but he's quoting somebody from WotC.

Either way it's an Appeal to Authority that is blatantly false on it's face. An independent system that can be tacked onto every class equally is on its face nothing like multiple dependent systems that cannot be plugged into any other class.

You(and WotC) are literally claiming the equivalent of black is white and up is down.