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

[Guest 6801328]

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.

No, you are taking something that is kind of greyish and arguing that it IS black & white.

Picture a spectrum:

On one end of the spectrum is that psionics is a subsystem totally independent of any class. It's something you can sprinkle onto any character, and it's exactly the same for all of them.

On the other end of the spectrum, psionics is a separate class. You MUST take this class in order to have psionics. There is no psionics as part of any other class, unless you subclass into the psionics class.

Now....where on the spectrum is 1e? Where on the spectrum is the Mystic? Where on the spectrum is this latest version?

If, as you claim, the latest version is the diametric opposite of 1e, where does that leave the Mystic? 'Cause you can't get much further away than the diametric opposite. So is the Mystic more like 1e than the latest UA is?

Analogies are such a minefield here, but I'll try:

Me: "I like Grapefruit better than Bananas, because they are more like Oranges."
You: "WHAT!?!?! Grapefruit are yellow and bitter, Oranges are orange and sweet. And smaller. They are literally nothing alike. The exact opposites of each other, in fact."
Me: "....wtf?...."

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Sure, but the flavor text of the sorcerer seems more about magical bloodlines, raw cosmic magical radiation that permeates their being, or living magic. I'm not sure that intrinsic vs. extrinsic is particularly helpful anymore. The question 5e prefers to ask is: what is your source of magic?

Artificer: infused in objects
Bard: the music of creation
Cleric: my god
Druid (and Ranger): nature
Monk: the ki of life
Paladin: being a prick?
Sorcerer: it's in my blood
Warlock: my patron
Wizard: my arcane learning

Psion: my mind is power

 

[Maxperson]

No, you are taking something that is kind of greyish and arguing that it IS black & white.

There's nothing grey about a complete opposite.

On one end of the spectrum is that psionics is a subsystem totally independent of any class. It's something you can sprinkle onto any character, and it's exactly the same for all of them.

This is how 1e did things.

On the other end of the spectrum, psionics is a separate class. You MUST take this class in order to have psionics. There is no psionics as part of any other class, unless you subclass into the psionics class.

That isn't the other end of the spectrum. It's towards the far end, but not there. The other end of the spectrum would be psionics is tied to classes individually..............like the recent UA article. That is literally the opposite of what 1e did, so it's the other end of the spectrum. That's how opposites work.

Now....where on the spectrum is 1e? Where on the spectrum is the Mystic? Where on the spectrum is this latest version?

Far left side. About 2/3 of the way to the right. And far right.

If, as you claim, the latest version is the diametric opposite of 1e, where does that leave the Mystic?

About 2/3 of the way.

'Cause you can't get much further away than the diametric opposite.

This is correct, and the current subclasses are diametrically opposed to 1e.

So is the Mystic more like 1e than the latest UA is?

Yes, but still not close.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure, but the flavor text of the sorcerer seems more about magical bloodlines, raw cosmic magical radiation that permeates their being, or living magic. I'm not sure that intrinsic vs. extrinsic is particularly helpful anymore. The question 5e prefers to ask is: what is your source of magic?

Artificer: infused in objects
Bard: the music of creation
Cleric: my god
Druid (and Ranger): nature
Monk: the ki of life
Paladin: being a prick?
Sorcerer: it's in my blood
Warlock: my patron
Wizard: my arcane learning

Psion: my mind is power

How do you possibly conclude that "The question 5e prefers to ask is: what is your source of magic?" Maybe it's the question you prefer to ask, which is fine.

You're blatantly inventing some of those. The fact is, 5e is not consistent (nor does it try to be) about where magic comes from. Sometimes it sprinkles in some fluff, sometimes it doesn't. Therefore there is zero need to define magic sources, let alone a distinct magic source for each class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There's nothing grey about a complete opposite.



This is how 1e did things.



That isn't the other end of the spectrum. It's towards the far end, but not there. The other end of the spectrum would be psionics is tied to classes individually..............like the recent UA article. That is literally the opposite of what 1e did, so it's the other end of the spectrum. That's how opposites work.



Far left side. About 2/3 of the way to the right. And far right.



About 2/3 of the way.



This is correct, and the current subclasses are diametrically opposed to 1e.


Yes, but still not close.

So let me get this straight....you're putting a model in which only one specific class can be (and has to be) psionic in between models where every class can have psionics that are exactly the same, and every class gets a different flavor of psionics? That somehow in the transition from 1e to the latest UA, you get the Mystic?

Really?

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but the flavor text of the sorcerer seems more about magical bloodlines, raw cosmic magical radiation that permeates their being, or living magic. I'm not sure that intrinsic vs. extrinsic is particularly helpful anymore. The question 5e prefers to ask is: what is your source of magic?

Artificer: infused in objects
Bard: the music of creation
Cleric: my god
Druid (and Ranger): nature
Monk: the ki of life
Paladin: being a prick?
Sorcerer: it's in my blood
Warlock: my patron
Wizard: my arcane learning

Psion: my mind is power

I think because I'm an inveterate reskinner, or maybe just because I played a lot of Mage back in college, but I'm general more interested in the methodology of the magical practice, rather than the origin. But you're right in that 5e chose to not fully go in that direction, so my preference isn't really material.

The general problem I have with 5e's classes (which I've mentioned before) is that they split the difference between building magical classes fully around a cohesive cosmology, and just building around tropes and practices and leaving the cosmology to the individual settings. The wizard eats up a lot of space around "learned practictioner", but not every method of practice makes sense for wizards. The sorcerer takes up most of the "inborn power" space, but not every type of inborn power makes sense for sorcerers. Thus, fitting in new magical ideas causes arguments like we're seeing.

 

[Aldarc]

How do you possibly conclude that "The question 5e prefers to ask is: what is your source of magic?" Maybe it's the question you prefer to ask, which is fine.

Have you considered chilling down for a bit? I don't think that my friendly exchange with TwoSix required you raising the heat. My post was made in the context of the intrinsic vs. extrinsic comment that TwoSix made.

You're blatantly inventing some of those.

Such as? You can't tell me that it's the paladin's, because I'm certain they get theirs from being a prick.

The fact is, 5e is not consistent (nor does it try to be) about where magic comes from. Sometimes it sprinkles in some fluff, sometimes it doesn't. Therefore there is zero need to define magic sources, let alone a distinct magic source for each class.

You are correct that 5e is not entirely consistent, but I'm only summarizing TERSELY what the flavor text tells us about these classes without getting into some of the variant answers that the flavor text provides.

 

[TwoSix]

Such as? You can't tell me that it's the paladin's, because I'm certain they get theirs from being a prick.

Thank goodness. Since Lowkey deleted his posts, there's been a real dearth of paladin bashing around here.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Have you considered chilling down for a bit? I don't think that my friendly exchange with TwoSix required you raising the heat. My post was made in the context of the intrinsic vs. extrinsic comment that TwoSix made.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound aggressive. The italics are easy to read in a different tone than I meant. I actually like the kinds of symmetries and uniqueness in design space you are going for; I just don't think 5e is trying to do that. What I was thinking but didn't write is, "I can understand how, if you view the cosmology this way, the Psion would be a distinct thing. But I don't think it's how WotC sees it."

Such as? You can't tell me that it's the paladin's, because I'm certain they get theirs from being a prick.

No, the Paladin was spot on.

I'll actually retract the accusation of having made some of those up. I went back and read flavor text, and I see where you got it. I still don't think these qualify as separate kinds of, or sources of, magic; more as inspiration. I.e., the Bard's magic is the same as the Wizard's magic; he just gets there by a different route.

You are correct that 5e is not entirely consistent, but I'm only summarizing TERSELY what the flavor text tells us about these classes without getting into some of the variant answers that the flavor text provides.

As above, I do agree the flavor varies for each class (for the most part). I just don't think there's a fully fleshed out "theory of magic" underneath it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thank goodness. Since Lowkey deleted his posts, there's been a real dearth of paladin bashing around here.

Oh? I didn't even notice. Did Lowkey vanish?