D&D (2024) Psion Class: Green/Yellow/Red?

[Mecheon]

Nevertheless, it is an important part of D&D lore.

Unlike sorcerer.

Sorcerer though I reckon will stay around, as sorcerer is a direct result of wizard not being a generic spellcaster and failing at encapsulating common tropes

As long as Wizard is the bookish spellcaster doing spells by book nerd, the sorcerer will continue to have a niche as the thematic power of "Born with untapped magical potential" is a big one.

Big issue with Psionics is that, yes, it was in every Edition...but each time was entirely different from every other time. Even 3.5 was a pretty major overhaul compared to the Core Classses. There simply isn't a "classic" to rally around.

Frankly though, that would apply to most classes. The current Fighter is nothing like a 1E fighter, where's the followers or the bend bars bonuses? The Barbarian is the best its every been, by pointedly ignoring everything about how its been portrayed in previous editions and instead by being a good class this time around

 

[Parmandur]

Frankly though, that would apply to most classes. The current Fighter is nothing like a 1E fighter, where's the followers or the bend bars bonuses? The Barbarian is the best its every been, by pointedly ignoring everything about how its been portrayed in previous editions and instead by being a good class this time around

While fair (among the Core Classes, this is the worst with Ranger and Monk IMO)...the gap with Psion is way, waaaay more extreme. The 1E and 2E approach have basically nothing in common, barely even in concept, and the 3E approach is entirely new, as is the 4E Psionic Power. If people rally around one of those classic approaches, then it would be a split audience because not everyone will agree. The Fighter has a stronger shared narrative space that Pskonics lacks.

 

[Yaarel]

Big issue with Psionics is that, yes, it was in every Edition...but each time was entirely different from every other time. Even 3.5 was a pretty major overhaul compared to the Core Classses. There simply isn't a "classic" to rally around.

I think 3e Expanded Psionic Handbook emerged as the 'classic psionics'. It had notable energy among the fanbase and increasing acceptance beyond. The UA Psion seems to draw mainly from this Psion.

Part of the 3e energy was its successful and balanced nonvancian casting system via spell points ('power points'). During 3e that was a big deal. I actually consider the 5e nonvancian slots for Wizard etcetera to be easier than and preferable to the 3e power points. Even so, I credit the 3e Psion with finally severing D&D from the vancian tradition.

I love psionics and I love 4e, but I never resonated with 4e psionics. As far as I know, I dont see too much enthusiasm for the 4e Psion. Part of the reason was the edition waited too long before publishing the Psion. Then when every class was using the same tight advancement table, with specific kinds of powers at specific levels, it was the perfect opportunity to normalize psionic mechanics. But instead, they made the 4e Psion fringe mechanics that were incompatible with the rest of the 4e game. The psionics seem to have never taken root within 4e generally.

It is probably fair to say the 2e Psion is a 'cult classic'. A tiny number of diehard fans love it. But this was the version that turned many DMs away from psionics.

1e psionics is definitely 'classic' but was never a class. Even before D&D 1e, Original D&D had psionics along these lines in the Eldritch Wizardry. The UA Psion adds the Wild Talents to represent these. For the Psion class, the UA Psion returns to the 1e flavor, even tho leaning toward 3e mechanics for the 5e context.


All in all, I feel it is fair to call out 3e as the 'classic'. The UA Psion seems to mainly go there.

 

[mearls]

@mearls actually got quite a bit into this in the Happy Fun Hour, when he prototyped one attempt at a Concentration-focused Psion. People didn't like the idea of new systems that were not transparent existing spellcasting structures, particularly DMs.

It's really tricky to ask people to learn a new mechanic that does something the game already does. That goes double if the procedure is different but the net result is the same.

 

[Horwath]

All in all, I feel it is fair to call out 3e as the 'classic'. The UA Psion seems to mainly go there.

if this is callback to 3E it would be powerpoints not spell slots.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's really tricky to ask people to learn a new mechanic that does something the game already does. That goes double if the procedure is different but the net result is the same.

Someone once said "a difference that makes no difference is no difference". The thing that makes a psion different to a wizard is the fiction, not the mechanics.

As an illustration, consider the alternative point based system in the 2014 DMG. You can use this with a wizard, and it make absolutely no difference to the class fiction. The wizard is still a wizard. Or the sorcerer, or the bard, or all casters. Slots, points, whatever, this is all "under the hood" stuff, that does not affect the fiction in any way.

 

[Yaarel]

if this is callback to 3E it would be powerpoints not spell slots.

Perhaps 5e will have a spell point system that any spellcaster classes can use instead of slots?

 

[Horwath]

Perhaps 5e will have a spell point system that any spellcaster classes can use instead of slots?

hehe.

but seriously, they should have defaulted psion ot points system with few different augmentation options for every "spell" err, power.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Someone once said "a difference that makes no difference is no difference". The thing that makes a psion different to a wizard is the fiction, not the mechanics.

As an illustration, consider the alternative point based system in the 2014 DMG. You can use this with a wizard, and it make absolutely no difference to the class fiction. The wizard is still a wizard. Or the sorcerer, or the bard, or all casters. Slots, points, whatever, this is all "under the hood" stuff, that does not affect the fiction in any way.

Yup. Exactly. Heck, to support your thesis, the Warlock is no different than the other casters either, even with their "different" spellcasting format. Between each Rest the Warlock will cast a couple powerful spells and a whole bunch of cantrips... which is exactly what all the other casters in the game do.

Now yes, a player may point to the spell slot chart and say that their full caster casts "1st-level", "2nd-level", "3rd-level" spells etc., while the Warlock player will only casts 2-4 spells of their "highest level"... but in terms of what is happening within the game world? None of that numeric organization applies. In the fiction all that matters is that this character is performing supernatural feats that 99% of the populace can't do and are probably in awe of, and so is that character as well. The numbers only matter to us players to make us think our board game pieces are different from each other. Which is fine if that's what a player wants... but at some point a player has to accept that WotC is under no obligation to make their D&D board game more like Root (with every class's mechanics operating differently from each other) rather than Catan (where they all play the same.) And if one wants their D&D game to play like Root... they can find or build themselves one themselves.

 

[Yaarel]

hehe.

but seriously, they should have defaulted psion ot points system with few different augmentation options for every "spell" err, power.

To have 'normal' mechanics that are compatible with the rest of D&D 5e, is an extremely high design priority. I want psionics to be core. If that means, the psionic spellcaster uses the same slot system that every spellcaster of every other power source uses, I can live with that. I want psionics to flourish, mainstream, and find ongoing support along side the other core classes.

Besides, I really do want a great spell point system that all the spellcasting classes can use, including the Wizard and the Psion. But then, this will be the 'normal' D&D mechanics.