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

[TwoSix]

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

There was an unfortunate incident with moderation that got somewhat heated; Lowkey decided to close his account and then had his posts deleted by making a privacy request under GDPR.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There was an unfortunate incident with moderation that got somewhat heated; Lowkey decided to close his account and then had his posts deleted by making a privacy request under GDPR.

Darn. I take time away from Enworld at the worst moments.

Does that mean we can talk smack about him now, and since technically he's not a member it's not breaking forum rules?

 

[Mistwell]

No. WotC determined Psions to be full casters. In all edition

You mean two? In the two editions WOTC did this before? Where one was...one of the last books to come out in the failing line, as a third string supplement book published mostly for a third string setting book they had put out, which ALSO had sub-class type psionics in it which were considered equal in importance to the full caster one?

It's such a thin argument, this "it's tradition" one. And the most important problem with that is it's so not persuasive and you're failing to focus on the good arguments for a dedicated class. Which are speaking to the strengths of the class itself as a dedicated class. But no, all this effort on the "it's tradition" argument, which does not appear to be changing any minds about anything because it's so thin the moment you look into it any deeper than a single sentence headline.

 

[Aldarc]

Where one was...one of the last books to come out in the failing line, as a third string supplement book published mostly for a third string setting book they had put out, which ALSO had sub-class type psionics in it which were considered equal in importance to the full caster one?

How is this 4e-shaming meant to be a counter-argument?

 

[Mistwell]

How is this 4e-shaming meant to be a counter-argument?

I loved 4e. I am not shaming 4e. It WAS a third string book (in the TITLE OF THE BOOK, it was "Player's Handbook 3" which became a bit of a joke at the time I recall) meant to support a third string setting (Dark Sun, which was I think their last setting book?) coming out in the final days of the edition when WOTC was already starting work on 5e! That's reality. It doesn't take anything away from 4e as a game. But let's face it, the Psion was not one of the core concepts of 4e and was obviously not one of the crucial elements they felt needed to be put out there early enough for the bulk of their players to even use it.

 

[dave2008]

It's called a Monk.

Maybe I am mistaken but a monk can use telekinesis and make psychic fireballs can it? I really don't know as I have never played nor had a monk in any edition of D&D I've played (1e, 4e, & 5e)

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.

I agree, I don't think it should be a caster class at all.

They got it correct in all prior editions, though.

Not if they based it off a caster class, IMO. That is such a limiting idea and I think the Psion could be so much more.

FYI, I am just playing devil's advocate here. I don't care about the Psion or Psionics at all. I haven't used them in any edition of D&D and I am unlikely to use them in 5e. I don't care if they make a Psion class or if it is only subclasses, feats, and spells.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

I doesn't matter. Let's switch it then and make the class the polar opposite and the 5e UA subclasses 2/3 of the way to the other end of the spectrum. I'll let you make the call on this. Either way, the UA article subclasses are nothing like 1e psionics.

 

[Maxperson]

You mean two? In the two editions WOTC did this before? Where one was...one of the last books to come out in the failing line, as a third string supplement book published mostly for a third string setting book they had put out, which ALSO had sub-class type psionics in it which were considered equal in importance to the full caster one?

They established it in 3e, 4e and 5e(with the Mystic). It's clear that WotC considers it to be a full caster. In 2e TSR made it a full caster.

It's such a thin argument, this "it's tradition" one. And the most important problem with that is it's so not persuasive and you're failing to focus on the good arguments for a dedicated class. Which are speaking to the strengths of the class itself as a dedicated class. But no, all this effort on the "it's tradition" argument, which does not appear to be changing any minds about anything because it's so thin the moment you look into it any deeper than a single sentence headline.

I'm not making an argument about tradition. They've established that Psions are full casters, much the same way the world has established what a car is. You don't get to change a Psion(car) into a partial caster(motorcycle) and claim we are arguing "tradition" when we object.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe I am mistaken but a monk can use telekinesis and make psychic fireballs can it? I really don't know as I have never played nor had a monk in any edition of D&D I've played (1e, 4e, & 5e)

It's a psionic class with all of it's powers as abilities. Maybe not fireballs and telekinesis, but then they couldn't do fireball in 1e, either. If you were to make a class with all of the psionic abilities from even 1e, it would have too many abilities in comparison to other classes to be balanced. You'd have to get rid of the vast majority of the psionic powers the class should have, which is why this won't work for a Psion. However, if you do want to get rid of that many powers, the Monk fits the bill. Telekinesis and fireball are just to of the many powers that no longer exist.

 

[Mistwell]

They established it in 3e, 4e and 5e(with the Mystic). It's clear that WotC considers it to be a full caster. In 2e TSR made it a full caster.

1) There is no Mystic, and "it" established zero. Indeed, they JUST explained it was abandoned in playtest because people didn't like it. Definitely established the opposite of your claim.
2) I just addressed 4e, and you ignored it.
3) Last I checked, TSR isn't WOTC and I was responding to your quote about WOTC.

Nothing is established here, other than a downward trend. We've had one edition (3e) with a supported "established" Psion as a full caster, one half-assed part of an edition (4e PHB 3) with had a Psion as a caster and a bunch of other psi classes that were not full casters which never really got off the ground because it was so late in the edition cycle and which overall saw poor sales (4e PHB 3 I am talking about here - not 4e as a generalization), and a playtest attempt received so poorly it was entirely abandoned (5e).

I mean let's remember here the 4e PHB 3 went over so badly that they flipped the entire edition to something else as an emergency measure to stop the bleeding. I didn't personally hate PHB 3, but it was not going great. This is not a resounding endorsement for that "establishment".

That is not "establishing" anything. That's instead a trend of "we've tried X, and it's gotten progressively poorer reception over time, so maybe it's time we tried something different."

If you don't turn to arguing why a Psion needs to be a full caster, people might just be persuaded to support that trend more. How about you argue WHY it needs to be a full caster, other than "because it's "established" as that?"