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

[Krachek]

I would propose this analogy:

Psionics is to Magic as Cybernetics is to Technology.


You could, for example, have a blade embedded in your cyber-arm. It will always be with you, and can't be taken away. It's good at its job, and doesn't occupy your hands while being used. However it is only ever what it is, barring an expensive and complicated re-fit.

On the other hand, you could have a blade that you hold in your hand. You need some place to store it, and it can be taken away from you. But you have the option for anything from a vegetable peeler to a filet knife to a butcher knife to a knife-on-a-stick (ie: polearm) to Cloud's airplane wing of a sword.

Magic and Technology can be anything you can figure out how to make, and are incredibly versatile. But at the same time, they require that you "do stuff" to use them — hold the sword in your hands, or the binoculars up to your face, or wave a wand around while you perform a chant.

Cybernetics and Psionics, on the other hand, don't need that 'manual' work performed in order to gain the benefits of their functionality. You hit a mental switch, and the thing is done, or available for use. However, for all their compact efficiency, the scope of what they can do is much narrower than their external counterparts. Likewise, there's a limit to how much you can "stuff" inside your body/head.


My assessment, then, of whether psionics is magic, is "Yes". It's a more efficient form of magic, both in storage and execution, but it is, in the end, magic.

An EMP that shuts down the phone in your hand will also shut down the phone in your head. An anti-magic field that shuts down a standard magical effect would also shut down a psionic magical effect. Dispel Magic would work the same either way, because it's affecting the magical effect, not the means of producing that effect. Concentration would also work the same way.

There are really only two sticking points, and both depend on the ability to detect the execution of the spell. The first is Counterspell (ie: if you can't see the spell being cast, you can't counter it), and the second is detecting who cast a spell. I would be willing to give up the option to Counterspell if it was required that use of psionics always leaves a visible sign — glowing eyes, flames licking over the body, whatever. Thus it would never be possible to be truly anonymous with the use of psionics (eg: Charm Person at the royal ball), even if other spellcasters are not able to explicitly stop you (a side benefit of the efficiency gained by giving up flexibility).

be sure that there will be some Psion in the security staff at the royal ball.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't follow that VSM would have to addressed if the mechanics used aren't spells.

Can you counter it or not would be the main question, VSM is the magic bullet there for spells, and there is at least some history of psionics working that way and not working that way. Everything else is, as you say, very dependent on the specific mechanic. Personally, I'm not worries either way about it, but it is a talking point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's around a dozen monsters I think.

Doesn't move the needle.

Wrong. The UA clearly indicates that VSM applies to spells used by sorcerers, unless the risk a psionic resource to make those spells psionic.

There's nothing that says this. The spell doesn't become psionic, it's still a spell.

It is absolutely supported.



Yay for bolding the wrong portion!!! I'll bold the correct portion that shows it become a psionic power.

"When you cast a spell, you can use your mind to form it, rather than relying on words, gestures, and materials. To do so, roll your Psionic Talent die. The spell then requires no verbal component, and if you rolled the level of the spell or higher, the spell doesn’t require somatic or material components either."

It becomes a power of the mind.

Yes, it's a spell you use your mind to form. You can tell, because it's still a spell after you've done so, as the passage says. There's never a point where the passage changes the spell into something else, like the psionic power you claim it to be. Further, you're ignoring the mid-point, where you've used your mind to form the spell, but it still has somatic and material components. You're eliding the middle point, which is a psionic power (according to your argument) with somatic and material components.

There's no spin. The point was that despite seeing several posters supporting my side of things, I didn't see one who wanted a lack of VSM and invisible, undetectable power use. You say there was one and I took your word for it. Now it's several against one. My side as a whole isn't trying to pull a fast one and get extra power for Psions, and as a whole is okay with power use being detectable and counterable. The rare exception doesn't count.

I wasn't aware there were sides, Max. Do you have a roster available?

Except I already did post it here.

Your post occurred after I had started my reply. Surely, this has happened to you before and you should be aware that closely spaced posts might be missed in a reply?

I don't understand your mechanic. Are you saying that a Concentration check is required to use a psionic power, one modifier by all things that happened since the last round? That's a good bit of tracking, and something the rules have already avoided. It also make War Caster almost a feat tax for psionicists. I also don't see how it compares to binding/gagging/blindfolding, unless you suggest beating a psion continuously while in captivity to maybe prevent power use? Doesn't seem like a good swap.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you counter it or not would be the main question, VSM is the magic bullet there for spells, and there is at least some history of psionics working that way and not working that way. Everything else is, as you say, very dependent on the specific mechanic. Personally, I'm not worries either way about it, but it is a talking point.

Unclear pronoun antecedant -- not sure which "it" you mean here. Psionic abilities in general, or psionically cast spells, or something else? Psionically cast spells makes sense to me in context, but then I can squint and see psionic abilities in general. If spells, then, yes, clearly I've been talking about this very thing. If in general, not so sure, as we don't usually worry about countering a Champion Fighter's expanded crit range or a Diviner's Portent ability, so there's a whole class of possible psionic abilities that fall into the bin of nifty things you can do that don't need specific counters. If, however, the abilities are as highly flexible and potent as spellcasting, then yes, some counter needs to be addressed.

 

[dave2008]

If we are going to add these limitations above and beyond what other casters have in combat, the powers have to be correspondingly better. Otherwise you are making Psions weaker and that's not good, either.

However, with no VSM you can't prevent psionic casting by binding their hands, a gag, taking their supplies. So Psions already have a power bump even with a "display" unless the display can be prevented in similar means to VSM.

 

[Maxperson]

However, with no VSM you can't prevent psionic casting by binding their hands, a gag, taking their supplies. So Psions already have a power bump even with a "display" unless the display can be prevented in similar means to VSM.

There have already been multiple suggestions on how to fix here in this thread. It's not really an issue since it's so easily fixed.

 

[dave2008]

Wrong. The UA clearly indicates that VSM applies to spells used by sorcerers, unless the risk a psionic resource to make those spells psionic.

To is your invention not supported by the text. In fact..

"When you cast a spell, you can use your mind to form it, rather than relying on words, gestures, and materials. To do so, roll your Psionic Talent die. The spell then requires no verbal component, and if you rolled the level of the spell or higher, the spell doesn’t require somatic or material components either."

...you have clearly pointed out that no where in the text does it say "psionic" or "psionic power." In fact, the very next sentence still calls it a spell, twice!

Listen Max, you have a lot fine ideas and I agree with you mostly for what psionics and a Psion could/should be. I typically just play devils advocate to try and get clarity. However, at this point you are just making stuff up. You are inferring the text "use your mind to form it,..." = psionic power. It doesn't. That is, to my knowledge an unsupported inference. WotC has not established a definition of a "psionic power." I don't even think the UA uses that term (but I could be wrong). You are making it up. There is no need to do that.

 

[Fenris-77]

Unclear pronoun antecedant -- not sure which "it" you mean here. Psionic abilities in general, or psionically cast spells, or something else? Psionically cast spells makes sense to me in context, but then I can squint and see psionic abilities in general. If spells, then, yes, clearly I've been talking about this very thing. If in general, not so sure, as we don't usually worry about countering a Champion Fighter's expanded crit range or a Diviner's Portent ability, so there's a whole class of possible psionic abilities that fall into the bin of nifty things you can do that don't need specific counters. If, however, the abilities are as highly flexible and potent as spellcasting, then yes, some counter needs to be addressed.

Psionics in general, but also psionic spells in particular if that's how they go. Both? I was speaking generally. I would actually quite prefer the whole thing fall onto the 'can't be counterspelled' side precisely because they make good use of new ideas and mechanics and don't fall back on spells. I agree that the power level and flexibility should very much index counterability in some way.

 

[dave2008]

There have already been multiple suggestions on how to fix here in this thread. It's not really an issue since it's so easily fixed.

I didn't see them, can you point me to a post or just throw one out. I am still going through the most recent pages after finishing up my work day.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's evidence, though, so it is in fact relevant to the discussion. When you combine that evidence, with the far stronger UA evidence, you come up with WotC wanting psionics to not have VSM.

I think you just keep reading way too much into evidence.

Sure, of course WotC is thinking about psionics and VSM. Of course they are playing with non-VSM mechanics. Of course the Mind Flayer is an example of their thinking.

What drives me (and I assume others) crazy, is that you take that evidence and draw black & white conclusions. "It's RAW that psionics have no VSM." "WotC doesn't want psionics to have VSM."

What's the point of making claims like that?

If you would stop trying to read absolute conclusions into the evidence, and just have a normal, engaged conversation about the pros and cons of various solutions/mechanics, we might be able to trim a lot of fat from the conversation.