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

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer, I think that a possible distinction is that these are primarily cues of visual storytelling for the reader/audience to signify that the person is using what are otherwise invisible/subtle powers. Even if it is just a flavor thing, I do think that this in itself can be a compelling enough reason to maintain this, much in the same way that "primarily a flavor things" flavor our sense for various D&Disms. Why must a wizard have a spellbook? Why have Verbal, Somatic, or Material components at all? While a case could be made for balance, it seems like these are mainly a flavor thing.

I'm not sure I follow you, here. Detectable uses of power, or cues to the eminent usage of power are more than flavor things, they're part of the information flow so that choices can be made. This is true in both fiction and in RPGs -- these displays are the fulcrums on which parts of the fiction pivot. The hero sees the wizard start to cast, and interrupts, or sees the telepath touch their head and knows to take action against incoming psychic assault. Or can't take action and suffers the consequence. Removing these cues isn't just a flavor argument, it's removing an important part of the ability to make choices (granted, when such choices are available). The flavor argument isn't that these exist, it's in what form. Right now, D&D uses VSM to signal these power uses -- to provide the fulcrum on which choices can be made. If you remove that, then you're removing that choice nexus. I don't see value in that choice -- I actually see the game being poorer for it's removal.

Now, if the flavor of the cue is at issue, then okay, but I think that reflavoring the existing cues to align with the flavor of psionics is more useful -- verbals isn't an incantation, but a mantra or ritual saying; somatic isn't complex finger waggles, but directed motions or touching a temple; materials are crystals or totems. Failing this, then explicit displays of power that precede the completion are needed. Just blanket removing VSM isn't something I think should be done purely out of a flavor consideration. Removal at cost, like with the UA sorcerer (or the normal sorcerer metamagic) is fine. Limited removal for minor uses is fine. Blanket removal, as in 'psionics should have any VSM' is not.

Hopefully I've made this argument clear that it isn't a flavor argument for me but a storytelling one. I dislike removal of choice points without good cause, and flavor doesn't meet that bar for me. I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments, but that's my current position.

 

[grimslade]

A power display is very on point for psionics. Advocating different foci for psions might alleviate some of the sting of V,S,M. Not just a crystal, but perhaps sigils inked along the chakras. Verbal components might not be actual words but an auditory cue for counter spelling. A wizard may exclaim 'Fiat Lux' to produce light, but a psion would manifest a thrumming crescendo. We say Verbal, but it could just be an auditory cue. Somatic is just a visual cue.
I like the thought of spending a PTD size to 'metapsionic' a power to be silent or still.

 

[Aldarc]

Hopefully I've made this argument clear that it isn't a flavor argument for me but a storytelling one. I dislike removal of choice points without good cause, and flavor doesn't meet that bar for me. I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments, but that's my current position.

And I'm saying that from a storytelling position, these visual cues for psionics typically have greater meaning outside of the fiction (i.e., signifying power to the audience) than in the fiction itself.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I'm saying that from a storytelling position, these visual cues for psionics typically have greater meaning outside of the fiction (i.e., signifying power to the audience) than in the fiction itself.

Yeah, pretty much this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And I'm saying that from a storytelling position, these visual cues for psionics typically have greater meaning outside of the fiction (i.e., signifying power to the audience) than in the fiction itself.

Sure, let's agree to that. Having greater meaning to a non-participatory audience does mean it doesn't have meaning in the fiction, as we've seen many times when an opponent takes advantage of them to prevent a use to employ a counter-tactic. This is the part in D&D where I have an issue -- if you remove the cues in D&D, then the available choices are less. Flavor is not a good enough reason, for me, to accept this loss of a choice point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let me simplify: removing VSM from psionics while still using the spell mechanics removes an important choice point from the game. This requires a greater reason to do so other than flavor. What is that greater reason?

 

[Maxperson]

I still don't see the distinction. Your examples of psionics vs magic are selective. Prof X often uses somatic gestures when doing anything more than light telepathy (he touches his temple) and definitely needs a complex material component for his most powerful works (Cerebro).

This is wrong. He often does touch his head, but doesn't need to. Just as often he does the exact same levels of telepathy or whatever without touching his head. It's a habit, not a requirement.

As for Cerebro, that's not a component for a powerful ability. Cerebro is an artifact that amplifies his power beyond what he is capable of, which is why he can do more with it.

Jedi Knights often had somatic components to their efforts. Only Masters didn't always use them, and they still often did.

This is also false. Even non-masters did not need those for their efforts. Luke as a normal Jedi didn't wave his hand at Jabba for the mind trick, and levitated C-3PO without his hands or anything else while bound by the Ewoks. Perhaps those motions make it easier, but they are not a requirement for even non-masters.

Eleven uses some, sometimes.

Sometimes = not required.

I don't get why psionics in D&D MUST NOT HAVE VSM. It seems an oddly narrow way to constrain what counts as true psionics in D&D.

Because beyond Spock and Katherine Kurtz, these things are very rarely required for psionics and Spock isn't even a Psion, so his don't count. If you want a Star Trek Psion, look at Talosians from the Menagerie. They don't use any components for their psionics.

 

[Aldarc]

Let me simplify: removing VSM from psionics while still using the spell mechanics removes an important choice point from the game. This requires a greater reason to do so other than flavor. What is that greater reason?

On what basis is this necessarily true?

 

[Fenris-77]

Let me simplify: removing VSM from psionics while still using the spell mechanics removes an important choice point from the game. This requires a greater reason to do so other than flavor. What is that greater reason?

Mechanics perhaps. There's no guarantee they're going to stick with 'spells' as the mechanic as which point VSM is pretty moot. If they keep the spell mechanics the removal of VSM owuld also be mechanical as would index counter spelling and the like (probably). The more spell-y it is the more removing VSM doesn't make any sense.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, let's agree to that. Having greater meaning to a non-participatory audience does mean it doesn't have meaning in the fiction, as we've seen many times when an opponent takes advantage of them to prevent a use to employ a counter-tactic. This is the part in D&D where I have an issue -- if you remove the cues in D&D, then the available choices are less. Flavor is not a good enough reason, for me, to accept this loss of a choice point.

You know what else doesn't have meaning in the fiction? Non-required gestures for psionics, which is applicable to every example you gave except for Spock, and he wasn't a Star Trek Psion. Even the Star Trek Psions don't need components.