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

[Minigiant]

That doesn’t fit the artificer, which doesn’t have much mechanical difference to other classes. It is the magitec theme that makes it distinctive.

The Artificer has magic items or infusions as it's core gimmick.

That can't fit in another class in a satisfying way.

 

[Corinnguard]

I read this series when I was 13; it had a major impact on how I view fantasy, especially psionics.

How about its' spin-off series, the Saga of the Pliocene Exile?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

are the factions defined by mechanics or thematic?

Both, to varying degrees.

are they about crunch or fluff?

Both, to varying degrees. Not really sure how this differs from the previous question?

as what the arguments are about says a lot about how to solve it?

This has a question mark but is a statement, so I don't know how to respond to it.

I have not done a careful survey (hence why I said "somewhere between three and five" rather than a specific number). But various dichotomies that are things which split these groups apart include:

• Degree of sci-fi-ness. Some want it very very hard in the pseudoscience direction. Some want it purely mystical with minimal science jargon. Some want a blend. Some want, for lack of a better term, "yesteryear pseudoscience" e.g. late-19thC/early-20thC occultism.
• Degree of difference from spellcasting. Some want it to just be another parallel form of spellcasting, like how we already have arcane, primal, and divine. Some want it to be utterly unrelated to spellcasting, such that it doesn't even have overlap with existing spells. Some accept there will be some overlap, but want the two to mostly be pretty distinctive.
• Specific mechanical implementation. Power points, or psi points, etc.? "Wild talents" that can be repeatedly used? Different branches of powers that you have to invest more into in order to get to the stronger stuff? Lots of different approaches here, some folks like many, some folks love only one and hate the rest, some folks hate one and are okay with anything else, etc.

As you can see, each of these is a multi-polar question. And there might be more that I'm not aware of, because I don't keep an ear to the ground on this one!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I haven't seen anyone come up with a convincing explanation as to what is different. I want to read minds? There is a spell for that. I want to move something at a distance? There is a spell for that. And so on.

You are putting the cart before the horse. It's different because of what it is and how it does it, not which specific things necessarily. Yes, there are some spells for telepathy (various, none of which do all the telepathy things at once), there's a high-level telekinesis spell, etc. Psionics would do them differently, package them differently.

By your lights, there never should've been a distinction between Arcane, Divine, and Primal magic, since they all do mostly the same things anyway. But there is a difference. That's just a thing D&D is going to have to live with from here on. Likewise, Psionics as its Own Weird Thing, whether that be "just another spell list" (that's pretty much how PF did its "occult" stuff), or basal powers that get stronger and more complicated the more points you invest, or linked "trees" of powers where you can't pick a new tree very often, or...etc. Some one of these things will need to be picked--by WotC, because the community will never settle on its own--if WotC wants to actually make psionics work in 5e.

2nd edition is Johnny-come-lately to me, and the last edition to have a psionics class ended 11 years ago. That's before 2/3 of my group played D&D. And there was never any psionics in Original or Basic D&D.

So what? You're being entirely unserious when you dismiss nearly 30 years of D&D history as "just three editions". Who gives a wererat's arse whether 2nd edition was your starting point? Why does it matter whether most of your players started with 5e or not? Neither of those is even remotely relevant to the question at hand, and it's not in any way a meaningful rebuttal to the factual claim that, other than 5e, every edition of D&D proper has had at least one distinct psionic class.

Like, are you for real dismissing literally the entire history of D&D since the moment you joined it? Do you not see how ridiculously biased and warped such a standard is? "Well it wasn't done that way when I started, therefore it has no reason to exist" is not an argument anyone on this forum would accept, and they'd be entirely right to do so.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Artificer has magic items or infusions as it's core gimmick.

That can't fit in another class in a satisfying way.

No one sat down and said "you know what we really need? A class than can infuse items!" The said "we want an artificer class (especially because Eberron). What gimmick can we come up with to try and make it not identical to existing classes?" And they went through several different versions, including pet class at one time, before they got to the one that stuck.

 

[TwoSix]

How about its' spin-off series, the Saga of the Pliocene Exile?

That was the one I was thinking of, actually. The one that was back in time, with the Tanu and the Firvulag.

 

[SkidAce]

I haven't seen anyone come up with a convincing explanation as to what is different. I want to read minds? There is a spell for that. I want to move something at a distance? There is a spell for that. And so on.

Well to be honest, I get tired of explaining it over and over again.

Every couple of years someone asks the same question that you do. And you are valid to do so because you want to understand.

(Not directed at you) It just makes me feel I have to justify myself over and over again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

therefore it has no reason to exist

I have never suggested it has no reason to exist. I have suggested it needs to be given one, because as it stands it's just magic with the numbers filed off, and the age of 60s pop culture pseudoscience has long passed. Pathfinder recognised this a decade or so ago.

You cannot use a circular "its psionics" explanation, relying on something that was part of D&D over a decade ago, and expect current players to know WTF you are talking about. You might as well say "well it's Boobtwizzles, obviously, everyone knows what that is!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

The number 7 is completely different from the number -3. That doesn't mean pi is now equal to 7 because it is also completely different from the number -3. Chocolate is completely different from orange, but that doesn't mean chocolate is identical to mint because mint is completely different from orange. Etc. Three things can each be mutually "completely different" from one another.


So in D&D you don't like it being sci-fi. There are other folks who very much want it to only be sci-fi, even when other kinds of magic can do similar things.

Psionics usually does not do absolutely literally all the exact same things with no differences whatsoever.


Only if you are overly precious about the very specific methods. Since at least 2nd edition, there's been at least one class focused around the power of psionics. Just as many things have changed about various classes over time, but a core concept remains the same. Bards have been a lot of things, but they have stabilized pretty well since 2nd edition.


No.


....

Only three editions?

Are you even listening to yourself here? That's 2e, 3e, and 4e. In other words, every prior edition of main-line D&D other than 1e. Your argument is facially ridiculous, and I'm not exactly convinced of your seriousness if you're making statements like "only three editions have had psionics as a class".


Sure. Long-term traditions, where the reason that tradition formed in the first place is long forgotten (Cleric is a bizarrity that directly descended from a weird coincidence of old-school play!), is a commonplace thing in D&D design. Psionics being its own class is a tradition that started with 2e and has been maintained since then. That's a significant part of why people want psionics--because for three editions running, it has been.

Even in 1e there was a full class psionicist published in Dragon magazine issue #78.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I haven't seen anyone come up with a convincing explanation as to what is different. I want to read minds? There is a spell for that. I want to move something at a distance? There is a spell for that. And so on.

2nd edition is Johnny-come-lately to me, and the last edition to have a psionics class ended 11 years ago. That's before 2/3 of my group played D&D. And there was never any psionics in Original or Basic D&D.

There was no sorcerer until 3e. Why should they exist? I mean, they practically use all the same spells!

I like sorcerers, but I hope you see my point.