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

[Maxperson]

Other than the AC reaction, most of those are in the UA already, based on the subclasses.

Oh, not the increasing a die via concentration, but I don't see that as being something people would use since taking up a concentration slot is a big deal.

Add in the feats to give everyone Psionics, and it seems other than having a full class without VSM, you have most of what you want.

They were just ideas. Don't read to much into something thrown out as an example.

Per the RAW, if it has no VSM, it can't be counterspelled. So, you are de facto arguing for them to be immune to counterspell because of how counterspelling relies on VSM to activate

And don't assume. Specific beats general. It would be very easy to allow psionics to be a specific exception. You don't get to dictate what I am arguing for.

 

[Guest 6801328]

And don't assume. Specific beats general. It would be very easy to allow psionics to be a specific exception. You don't get to dictate what I am arguing for.

One cannot dictate what another thinks he/she is arguing for, but one can assess what another is actually arguing for.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the combination of the psionic die and concentration has a lot of potential. You can mix and match those two ideas in a lot of different ways. Add in some careful use of the action economy and you have a pretty cool tool chest. I can see that working well.

 

[Maxperson]

One cannot dictate what another thinks he/she is arguing for, but one can assess what another is actually arguing for.

Apparently not, because I never argued for psionics to be unable to be counterspelled. In fact, no less than four times, I stated the exact opposite explicitly. If you can't understand what I mean when I say, "I'm okay with psionics being able to be countered, dispelled and be subject to anti-magic," then I'm not sure what to say to you that will help you understand.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't understand the no VSM. I'm trying to think of a psionic system other than D&D that doesn't have them. I'm sure there is one, but psionics have often been paired with crystals, mantras, foci, and gestures in many fictional sources. Heck, Spock often used verbal and somatic bits for the mind meld.

I think the presence/absence of VSM is in general a point of distinction between magic and psychic powers, though there are always exceptions. Although some psychics do use simple gestures – putting hands to temples, extending an arm – imo these are merely for show and aren’t the same as, frex, Doctor Strange’s ‘devil horns’ gesture. Professor X, Psi Judge Anderson, Carrie, Eleven, jedi knights, Deanna Troi, Spock, and Great Cthulhu can all use their powers without VSM or extended ritual actions.

EDIT: Spock's mind meld seems to require physical contact, but that isn't quite the same thing as a D&D spell's somatic component (though it's a fine distinction).

Compare with Doctor Strange’s gestures and incantations, Zatanna’s backwards incantations, Saruman and Gandalf’s dependence on their staffs, Gandalf speaking a “word of Command” in the Mines of Moria, incantations in Harry Potter, Prospero’s dependence on his books and staff, and the classic magical summoning circle.

The panels below depict Doctor Strange entrapped and unable to use magic, in part because his hands are constrained.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, and all spells are not psionic powers. Not one.

That is not how I interpret WotC intent in the most recent UA articles on psionics.

Your proof actually proved MY position on this. Once the sorcerer uses the resource to make a spell into a psionic power, it requires no VSM. Their thinking has not changed. No VMS for psionics.

That is not how I understand the language in the most recent UA on psionics. The sorcerer use his/her psionic resource psi die. How strong that psi die rolls is (a measure of your psi energy) determines if you need components or not. Either way you can "cast" the spell. In fact your base level of psi power allows you to cast it always without verbal components. The sorcerer is not making the spell into a "psionic power" he/she is using psionic power to eliminate (or not) the component requirement of the spell.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They were just ideas. Don't read to much into something thrown out as an example.

But I'm not asking for ideas that you won't support. We have dozens of Psionic threads, and most of them devolve into shouting matches about nothing. I want to have a conversation that matters. So, you presented ideas for the class. I pointed out that most of those abilities are currently in the UA.

Do you like them? Do they work the way you want them to work for what you are imagining? Would you prefer that the Psion, for example, gets to add their Intelligence mod to any roll of their Psi Die.

Let's stop shouting about how things were done three decades ago and focus on "does what we have look close enough to what we are happy with?" If we make a full psion that as a caster, and you want that damage reduction ability, is the Psy Knights ability what you would want? Something different?

And don't assume. Specific beats general. It would be very easy to allow psionics to be a specific exception. You don't get to dictate what I am arguing for.

Sure, but in the absence specifics, you take the general rule.

We do not have specifics for Psionics interacting with Counterspell. We do know that there are two ways to not be counterspelled. 1) Be out of range 2) do not have VSM components.

You are arguing for 2 to apply to psionic abilities, so do not be surprised if people then say, per the rules we have now that means they can't be counterspelled.

We don't have exceptions for that now, and you would need to explain why it is an exception and why that exception would not apply to a sorcerer's subtle spell which does the exact same thing, but would be unable to be counterspelled.

Apparently not, because I never argued for psionics to be unable to be counterspelled. In fact, no less than four times, I stated the exact opposite explicitly. If you can't understand what I mean when I say, "I'm okay with psionics being able to be countered, dispelled and be subject to anti-magic," then I'm not sure what to say to you that will help you understand.

There are dozens of threads Max, with dozens of posters. You are going to have to repeat yourself, you are going to have to elaborate on your positions. Because there is too much going on for everyone to follow everything.

 

[dave2008]

@dave2008

@Maxperson is arguing from the position that psionics requires a separate magic system from spells. He's very consistent in this position, but I don't think he's specifically laid it out. As I said earlier, a large part of the acrimony and disagreement on this topic is because we're nominally discussing a class but, in reality, are discussing if psionics must be a separate magic system or not.

However, @Maxperson just said he is fine with psionics being dispelled and subject to antimagic?! Also, he repeatedly insists it must be a "full caster." In fact, when I suggested the Psion is better described as non-caster with completely different system, he/she again insisted it must be a "full caster."

 

[Maxperson]

But I'm not asking for ideas that you won't support. We have dozens of Psionic threads, and most of them devolve into shouting matches about nothing. I want to have a conversation that matters. So, you presented ideas for the class. I pointed out that most of those abilities are currently in the UA.

Do you like them? Do they work the way you want them to work for what you are imagining? Would you prefer that the Psion, for example, gets to add their Intelligence mod to any roll of their Psi Die.

Let's stop shouting about how things were done three decades ago and focus on "does what we have look close enough to what we are happy with?" If we make a full psion that as a caster, and you want that damage reduction ability, is the Psy Knights ability what you would want? Something different?

My creative strength is taking an idea and changing it or adding to it to make it better. I'm not so great at coming up with ideas out of the blue. That's why I keep a lot of my old 2e source materials. The lore in those was so expansive and obscure, that it can provide me with inspiration for decades to come. Probably the rest of my life.

Sure, but in the absence specifics, you take the general rule.

We do not have specifics for Psionics interacting with Counterspell. We do know that there are two ways to not be counterspelled. 1) Be out of range 2) do not have VSM components.

You are arguing for 2 to apply to psionic abilities, so do not be surprised if people then say, per the rules we have now that means they can't be counterspelled.

We don't have exceptions for that now, and you would need to explain why it is an exception and why that exception would not apply to a sorcerer's subtle spell which does the exact same thing, but would be unable to be counterspelled.

I've said very specifically multiple times in this thread and others that I am okay with visible effects, sounds and such to let people know when a psionic ability is being used. Almost every other person who has talked about no VSM has also said the same. We are not trying to keep these powers secret with the lack of VSM.

Counterspell works just fine with a lack of VSM if you can detect the casting of a "spell." Therefore, we are not arguing for Counterspell to be ineffective.

 

[Maxperson]

However, @Maxperson just said he is fine with psionics being dispelled and subject to antimagic?! Also, he repeatedly insists it must be a "full caster." In fact, when I suggested the Psion is better described as non-caster with completely different system, he/she again insisted it must be a "full caster."

I use full caster for lack of a better term. Psions are just another form of "spell" user. The powers are just another way to present spells.