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

[Steampunkette]

I think people keep walking over to issue that some people want to be Professor X while other people want to be Yoda and It's hard to make both of them in the same class.

Then you got the guy who wants to make a Cthulhu cultist with mind tentacle powers weaseling themselves into the same space.

... I mean... That's all really easy to do inside one class.

1) Different powers (Xavier is more of a Telepath than a Telekineticist like Yoda)
2) Archetypes (Tentacle-Mind Cultist is just a specific flavor of Psionics)

 

[Minigiant]

I could make either as a Voidrunner's Psion off the top of my head. Probable as an Esper too. Different archetypes of course.

WOTC would never devote that much space to the Psion in 5e

 

[Minigiant]

... I mean... That's all really easy to do inside one class.

1) Different powers (Xavier is more of a Telepath than a Telekineticist like Yoda)
2) Archetypes (Tentacle-Mind Cultist is just a specific flavor of Psionics)

Sure but the question asked was

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

(From WOTC)

WOTC would never devote that much space to the class in 5e not named Wizard or Cleric.

Not even druid gets all their stuff

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The problem with this stance is that you are actively advocating for fewer game options for everyone, because you personally don't see a benefit to having more.

Don't see a good reason for a psion class? Ban it.

Most DMs who don't want to learn a new completely new system will ban it. I think that's a primary reason why Psionics gets banned.

I think designers want their new things to be used by many groups, so I feel that Psionics should be "friendly" to casually invested DMs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WOTC would never devote that much space to the Psion in 5e

Their loss, and the loss of everyone who won't look outside the market leader for content.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most DMs who don't want to learn a new completely new system will ban it. I think that's a primary reason why Psionics gets banned.

I think designers want their new things to be used by many groups, so I feel that Psionics should be "friendly" to casually invested DMs.

I disagree. I think casual friendly, while important, is secondary to modeling the thing you're trying to model in a satisfying way.

And I wasn't aware you could ban something that doesn't officially exist in WotC 5e. Or were you talking about previous editions?

 

[Corinnguard]

The assumed setting of the Voidrunner's Codex?

Maybe. I assume that the Voidrunner's Codex has rules or guidelines on how to bring in a class like a druid or a wizard into a more sci-fi/sci-fantasy like setting. If it does, then psionics and magic are more likely to co-exist within that setting.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I disagree. I think casual friendly, while important, is secondary to modeling the thing you're trying to model in a satisfying way.

And I wasn't aware you could ban something that doesn't officially exist in WotC 5e. Or were you talking about previous editions?

Definitely talking about previous editions. Especially 2e psionics. If a DM has to learn about the 5 psionic attack and defense modes because of just one player or MTHAC0, that's already grounds for banning.

 

[Steampunkette]

Most DMs who don't want to learn a new completely new system will ban it. I think that's a primary reason why Psionics gets banned.

I think designers want their new things to be used by many groups, so I feel that Psionics should be "friendly" to casually invested DMs.

On the one hand... yes. Designers want people to use our stuff.

On the other hand, you can make something that isn't "Spellcasting, but call it Psionics" and have it be friendly to casually invested DMs.

And, let's be honest, if WotC wanted the "Psionics are just Spells" character class they'd just release that with a new spell list. Nothing is stopping them from doing that and no matter what they release tons of people are going to buy it and use it in their games.

The issue is: The designers don't want to make that. Which is why Mearls spent months pounding his head against the Mystic while working for WotC, and eventually started in on the Psyker now that he's an independent.

And funnily enough, he's kinda taking the same path I did (upgradeable Cantrips as Powers).

Definitely talking about previous editions. Especially 2e psionics. If a DM has to learn about the 5 psionic attack and defense modes because of just one player or MTHAC0, that's already grounds for banning.

Much as I love the Psionics Handbook and it was my introduction into the idea of Psionics as a game mechanic... Yeah. It was freaking horrendous.

3e did it "Better" but just went all in on it being "Basically just Magic". And then 4e did a great job of the classes but since everything was heavily templated it felt "Samey", overall, to other classes... Just with a different flair.

But yeah. It's all about finding an elegant way to make it different. And such ways do exist. WotC just hasn't found them, yet.

 

[Yaarel]

The problem with this stance is that you are actively advocating for fewer game options for everyone, because you personally don't see a benefit to having more.

Don't see a good reason for a psion class? Ban it.

When it comes to psionics, what matters is the flavor. So far, in every single edition of D&D, since the origins of D&D, fringe mechanics have killed this flavor.

Heh. If players want fringe mechanics − try not to contaminate psionic flavor with it.