D&D 5E Build a Better Psion (Poll)

[CleverNickName]

In my previous thread, I proposed we use the Wizard as a template for our Psion class. Since that first post, several contributors have suggested using other core classes as a template, and have cited different (and compelling) reasons for each. But we can't do all of them at once; at some point we are going to have to pick one. In order to help us focus our creative energy and avoid spinning our wheels, we need to pick one before we move forward. And that's what this poll is for!

Which Core Class should we use for our Psion template? Choose only your favorite, and feel free to change your mind as often as you like. (That's what this is all about, folks! We don't want hard opinions, we want collaboration!) Discussion is encouraged, but let's try to keep the design-related stuff over in the other thread--I'd like to keep all of our ideas in one place.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Warlock seems like a good base to me. Really Mystic was a great start.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Which Core Race should we use as a template for our Psion class?"

Is that a trick question?

In my previous thread, I proposed we use the Wizard as a template for our Psion class. Since that first post, several contributors have suggested using other core classes as a template, and have cited different (and compelling) reasons for each. But we can't do all of them at once; at some point we are going to have to pick one.

Why not let it be unique?

Or, to put it another way, aren't a lot of core classes just templated off eachother?

 

[CleverNickName]

Is that a trick question?

facepalm Sorry about that; I'm super-distracted. I meant to type "Core class."

Why not let it be unique?

This is already a topic in the other thread. I'm trying to find a unified starting point, that's all. And it will be unique; it pretty much has to be. When you think "template," try not to think "just another variation of." Instead, think "good start, now let's change it."

 

[Aldarc]

Why not let it be unique?

Or, to put it another way, aren't a lot of core classes just templated off eachother?

The cleric, bard, and wizard are unique from each other while still using full-casting spell progression. So using, for example, the warlock's pact magic as a "template" for a psion still leaves both unique.

 

[CleverNickName]

@Aldarc - hmmm...that's a compelling idea. I'm changing my vote from Wizard to Warlock. Fewer, stronger powers that recharge more quickly...sounds good to me.

 

[Salthorae]

I feel like the "spontaneity" and "inborn" nature of the sorcerer, between spells known and metamagic and upcasting fits my head canon for what a psion should look like more than the warlock.

At the same time, Invocations are a good model for Psionic Sciences/Disciplines. I'm torn.

 

[Tony Vargas]

facepalm Sorry about that; I'm super-distracted. I meant to type "Core class."

Yeah, just tease'n.

This is already a topic in the other thread. I'm trying to find a unified starting point, that's all. When you think "template," don't think "just another variation of." Think, "good start, now let's change it."

The cleric, bard, and wizard are unique from each other while still using full-casting spell progression. So using, for example, the warlock's pact magic as a "template" for a psion still leaves both unique.

Kinda my point, really. All 5e classes are roughly balanced using spells as a touchstone, even those few sub-classes that get no spells at all.

(Edit: yeah, ultimately, I suppose there could be 4 templates for D&D classes:
The Full Caster
The half Caster
The 1/3rd caster
...and The Warlock.)

On the original topic, I agree the Warlock sounds promising. It's actually different than other casters in basic structure, so it's a less crowded design space. OTOH, the innate-power D&D Sorcerer, in concept, is arguably closest.

 

[Aldarc]

Kinda my point, really. All 5e classes are roughly balanced using spells as a touchstone, even those few sub-classes that get no spells at all.

Yeah, it's me mostly making do with what seems to be the design structure of 5e.

On the original topic, I agree the Warlock sounds promising. It's actually different than other casters in basic structure, so it's a less crowded design space. OTOH, the innate-power D&D Sorcerer, in concept, is arguably closest.

Flavor-wise the "innate-power" of the D&D Sorcerer could work well, but mechanically the Warlock's Pact Magic may model D&D psionics a little easier while working in a road-less-traveled design space. Invocations (and Artificer Infusions) also provide a similar space as Wild Talents. You can still keep the Warlock and Psion feeling unique based on their spellcasting attributes or even shying away from the Warlock's Patron/Pact structure and opting for a more traditional subclass system instead.

As an aside, I'm a fan of how Starfinder essentially combined the Cleric, Druid, and Psion into a Mystic Class via its Subclasses that is meant to represent the mysticism and spiritualism of these concepts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, it's me mostly making do with what seems to be the design structure of 5e.

Flavor-wise the "innate-power" of the D&D Sorcerer could work well, but mechanically

Nod. Part of the problem is that the Sorcerer's mechanical implementation doesn't do it's own 'innate power' concept terribly well, in the first place...

...the Warlock's Pact Magic may model D&D psionics a little easier while working in a road-less-traveled design space. Invocations (and Artificer Infusions) also provide a similar space as Wild Talents. You can still keep the Warlock and Psion feeling unique based on their spellcasting attributes or even shying away from the Warlock's Patron/Pact structure and opting for a more traditional subclass system instead.

Even if a Psion or Psionicist or Mystic were designed to a caster template, it shouldn't just be a caster.

For instance, the Battlemaster is built to the template of a 1/3rd caster, but isn't a caster.