D&D (2024) Githzerai Psion? Thri-kreen Psion? Where's My Psion?

[EzekielRaiden]

The new Monster Manual has a githzerai psion and a thri-kreen psion, both of whom are Int-based casters. I'm really glad to see the old psion name in use again. But I have to ask...

Where the hell is my psion class or subclass?!?

I get it, the aberrant mind is supposed to be the psion. However, it's thematically like the GOO warlock and was popular in playtesting. Still, I'd like to have an Int-based psion as an option. Now where do I find that?

In order to produce a psionics class, Wizards of the Coast has to do something they refuse to do.

They have to tell the audience what psionics is.

There are somewhere between three and five camps with strong positions about what they want psionics to be, and all of them are about equally sized. None of them agree on anything universally, and it's rare for even any pair of them to agree on much of anything. As a result, anything that pleases one group necessarily pisses off a majority of psionics-wanters, and is thus doomed to fail by WotC's "test things only once and iterate only if a clear majority are in favor while the idea is still only half-baked."

So we get a situation where 2/3 to 4/5 of all psionics-wanters are quite happy to torpedo any psionic proposal that doesn't fit their personal interests. After all, while the rules are still in flux, the choice isn't "have psionics" vs "don't have psionics". It's "put up with psionics rules you dislike" vs "not put up with rules you dislike...and maybe get rules you'll love." So every group always has the incentive to oppose anything that doesn't fit their interests; after all, the worst that can happen is preserving the status quo.

5e will never have psionics rules, unless and until WotC changes their policy of "only do things a measured supermajority of players definitely support". The only other option is for psionics-wanting players to coordinate amongst themselves and try to find a middle-ground they can support, and then somehow communicate that to WotC....which is so exceedingly unlikely I am quite confident in saying it will never happen.

Your only other alternative is 3PP.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I still haven't seen anyone come up with an answer for why D&D needs a psion. What's it for?

For doing psionics.

This is not a flippant answer. This is completely serious. One of the big things about D&D psionics--one of the rare things that most psionics-wanters actually DO agree on!--is that it doesn't just work like spellcasting. It's fundamentally different.

You don't like the sci-fi take on it. That's one of the things that differentiates some psionics-wanters from others. Some want it to be aggressively pseudo-scientific. Some want it to just be a little bit science-y, but still fantastical. Others, seemingly including you, want it to be pure fantasy. This disagreement is one (among many) that paralyze WotC's ability to publish any rules on the topic.

Further? Tradition. Why does D&D need a "Cleric" and a "Druid" when it could just have a "Priest" class? Because that's how D&D did things in the past, and the tradition remains, even though the reasons for distinct versions of those things are long gone.

Why does D&D enforce a dearth of healing magic for Wizards, but provides them in spades to Bards, even though Bards cast (theoretically) the same kind of magic? Tradition. It's just what the Wizard is; Wizards don't heal, they have a utility belt.

Why does D&D need a "psion" who does "psionic" things rather than just having a mind-mage or whatever? Because several past editions did that, and people enjoyed the separate-ness, so they want separate options again. It's that simple.

 

[Corinnguard]

Your only other alternative is 3PP.

If they want their Psionics and their D&D too, their only choices AFAIK are Pathfinder (where it has been rebranded as another form of magic) or Level Up (courtesy of @Steampunkette 's Paranormal Power)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's fundamentally different.

I mean, magic is fundamentally different to anything in the real world, so you are saying, magic that is fundamentally different from magic. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

You don't like the sci-fi take on it.

No, I like it just fine, where there isn't any other kind of magic that does the same thing.

Further? Tradition. Why does D&D need a "Cleric" and a "Druid" when it could just have a "Priest" class?

The D&D tradition is that psionics is completely different in each edition. Or are you saying, it should be like 1st edition? You could do something like that using feats and/or divine gifts. I think only three editions have had psionics as a class.

Why does D&D enforce a dearth of healing magic for Wizards, but provides them in spades to Bards, even though Bards cast (theoretically) the same kind of magic?

1st edition. Wizards don't heal because that is a protected cleric mechanic. Bards heal because they take their spells from the druid spell list, which includes some healing (weaker than clerics though).

 

[TheSword]

Look it’s really clear that WotC are clearly saving the Psion class for next years Dark Sun campaign release. It would be mad to release it before then when that will be the centerpiece for the new setting. That and dragon apotheosis spells.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I still haven't seen anyone come up with an answer for why D&D needs a psion. What's it for? The way I see it, it was only included in AD&D because Gygax was a fan of (awful) Marion Zimmer Bradley. There is a place for Space Magic in Science Fiction RPGs, since it gives an alternative to equipment-based character abilities. But in a fantasy setting? Telepathy, Telekinesis etc - we can do all those things with regular magic, so why do we need space magic as well? The way I see it, psionics if for alien magic, magic that does not belong in this (genericfantasyland) world. And so a good psionic class should double down on alienness.

Special mention for the Pathfinder take, grounded in early 20th century parapsychology and occultism. That might be nice in a Ravenloft setting, but regular D&D has clerics for ghostbusting. And besides, D&D wouldn't want to be seen to be blatantly ripping off Pathfinder (anymore than it already does).

we do not need druid or barbarian or anything beyond 4 classes.
we do not need and but humans.
we do not even technically need any leisure activity.

 

[Mind of tempest]

In order to produce a psionics class, Wizards of the Coast has to do something they refuse to do.

They have to tell the audience what psionics is.

There are somewhere between three and five camps with strong positions about what they want psionics to be, and all of them are about equally sized. None of them agree on anything universally, and it's rare for even any pair of them to agree on much of anything. As a result, anything that pleases one group necessarily pisses off a majority of psionics-wanters, and is thus doomed to fail by WotC's "test things only once and iterate only if a clear majority are in favor while the idea is still only half-baked."

So we get a situation where 2/3 to 4/5 of all psionics-wanters are quite happy to torpedo any psionic proposal that doesn't fit their personal interests. After all, while the rules are still in flux, the choice isn't "have psionics" vs "don't have psionics". It's "put up with psionics rules you dislike" vs "not put up with rules you dislike...and maybe get rules you'll love." So every group always has the incentive to oppose anything that doesn't fit their interests; after all, the worst that can happen is preserving the status quo.

5e will never have psionics rules, unless and until WotC changes their policy of "only do things a measured supermajority of players definitely support". The only other option is for psionics-wanting players to coordinate amongst themselves and try to find a middle-ground they can support, and then somehow communicate that to WotC....which is so exceedingly unlikely I am quite confident in saying it will never happen.

Your only other alternative is 3PP.

are the factions defined by mechanics or thematic?
are they about crunch or fluff?
as what the arguments are about says a lot about how to solve it?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

are the factions defined by mechanics or thematic?

This is really what I'm getting at. I'm not opposed to a psionic class, but I feel it needs to have a really strong theme to justify it's existence. Mechanics, such as spellcasting using points instead of slots, isn't enough in my opinion.

 

[Corinnguard]

Look it’s really clear that WotC are clearly saving the Psion class for next years Dark Sun campaign release. It would be mad to release it before then when that will be the centerpiece for the new setting. That and dragon apotheosis spells.

It would be more than that IMO.

• An elemental cleric subclass
• Everyone starts out with a wild psionic talent at 1st level.
• New species to play as. I am looking at the Pterrans, Muls and the Elan.
• Athasian versions of some of the PHB species.

We need a new thread for this.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This is really what I'm getting at. I'm not opposed to a psionic class, but I feel it needs to have a really strong theme to justify it's existence. Mechanics, such as spellcasting using points instead of slots, isn't enough in my opinion.

okay, so what do you mean by theme?
the overall theme or each subclass theme?
I can tell you each subclass as I see it, mind, body, kinesis, soul, freaky stuff.
with some others