Well 3PP would make the other 3 psions if WOTC did anyway. That's why they didn't make a stand.
D&D (2024) Githzerai Psion? Thri-kreen Psion? Where's My Psion?
- Thread starter Dragonhelm
- Start date
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That's an excellent rationalization to not make a stand in many areas. I'd live to hear an admission of that philosophy from WotC.
You'll rarely get a company to publicly state "It's not worth the money to provide you with the product"
Paul Farquhar
Legend
The new traffic light rating system might make it easier to pass the approval point now, and by directly connecting it to the Far Realms, WotC might have a clearer vision of what they think a psion should be, rather than relying on the competing visions of the community.
In the meantime, it’s not hard to convert the gith psion to an NPC of a different species.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sure. But if that's the case and they say otherwise, what does that say about them?
The approved disapproved model with a threshold does not work when you have a 40 to 50-year-old games that's been fundamentally changed at least four times.
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
what are the major factions again?
beyond the anti psion faction as they are worthless
Ruin Explorer
Legend
The community doesn't need to agree. If they'd put Bards into playtesting in the same way, they'd never have been agreed. Or really any full caster. Hell, the community mostly did agree on what they wanted from Sorcerer in the DND Next Playtest, and WotC still said "Nah we'll just revert to 3.5E's take!", which they'd already implied was unpopular!
Indeed, if there's ever a future edition with this kind of playtesting, expect several classes to be so divisive they can never reach 70% approval, and also expect WotC to just pick a lane and put them in anyway!
Blaming "the community" is, frankly, just a bad excuse for incompetence on WotC's part. If they wanted a Psion class, we'd have a Psion class. They don't need 70% approval or w/e, they've shown this countless times by just dropping content on us that never got playtesting (or never got much approval/engagement).
That they're putting in things actually called Psion in the MM is nice, maybe they'll actually give it a go in future. God knows 5E could use another INT class.
Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
My impression..
Psi Spell Caster: Spells + Slots
Psi Metamagician: Spells + Points
Psi Quanta Juicer: At-wills + Slots
Psi Mana Juicer: At-wills + Points
Ruin Explorer
Legend
There are essentially three I'm aware of:
1) Psionics should be its own thing with its own mechanics and those mechanics should be more like 3.XE.
2) Psionics should be its own thing with its own mechanics and those mechanics should be more like 2E.
3) Psionics should just be spells but with the V/S/M components removed and maybe different SFX.
And yes "anti-psionics" people are irrelevant. It'd be like consulting people who hate Eberron and don't want to use it about Eberron! I think one of the major issues with the early consultations on Psionics is 5E is that Mearls insisted on considering "NO PSIONICS!!!" as a relevant position that counted against a specific design for Psionics, which is... not correctly understanding the problem imho.
No insult but I've never seen anyone suggest the third one and I don't think that's a real thing. Also the differentiation between the first two is pretty narrow.
Similar Threads
