D&D 5E Here's why we want a Psion class

[Mistwell]

Because those aren't my thing. You know what I wouldn't do? Poo poo on them if WotC wanted to make one

Oh, so it's what WOTC wants now? Got it.

Glad we resolved that.

Not so. We all have the traditions we like and go with. I don't have to fight for traditions that don't have meaning to me, when I have traditions that do that take up my time. Let others fight for those other traditions.

What part of "has enough alone to be a meaningful reason" was vague? If you LIKE some traditions and DISLIKE or have no opinion on other traditions, then traditions alone isn't enough for you.

Which is why I am disputing the OP who said, "A dedicated psionic character--represented by a character class--has been part of the game since 2e. We need a class to represent that particular ongoing feature of the D&D meta-setting. I could go on and on, but I think that's a strong enough reason that I'm going to uncharacteristically just leave it there for now."

It isn't a strong enough reason, IN ITSELF. Because if it were, he'd be asking for, for example, a Shaman class.

It's because he likes the concept of the class, not just because of tradition. And liking the class is a different topic. That topic goes back to the other thread - where we consider if the people who like it as a dedicated class are meaningfully representative of the player pool for this game.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think the "why not" is that everytime Wizard's has published a UA for a psion class, it has never mustered enough positive feedback to merit publishing.

I mean, making a psion that 70% of the playerbase is happy with is not exactly an easy thing to do.

The current stand-alone psionic class, the mystic, was not favorably received enough . . . true.

That does not mean that there is not a strong desire among fans for a stand-alone psionic class. A desire strong enough to warrant WotC creating one.

Personally, I would like to see a psion base class that takes its cues from the 2nd and 3rd edition psionicist/psion class. The mystic did not do it for me.

At the moment, I'm seeing the Psion class as a lot like Ranger. People want it, but it's really hard to actually describe what they want.

Periodic arguments about the Ranger ask, how is a Ranger different from a Fighter with an archery and/or two-weapon fighting specialty? (Aside from Beastmaster, which everyone agrees is horribly done, and thus not a justification in and of itself.)

The arguments I've seen in favor of the Ranger as a stand-alone class take a lot of work to put together, and are often extremely threadbare. It's not the issue of "Nature-friendly huntsman" that's the problem; it's that there is no mechanical depth to give it a meaning to exist as a separate class, versus just being a background you could pick, or maybe another Fighter subclass.

When people ask for a "Psion", what, mechanically, are they actually asking for? Other than superficial things like VSM mechanics, how is a Psion different from a Wizard or Sorcerer? What collection of features does the Psion bring to the table that raises it above a subclass or background, and how much room does it have to be further expanded with subclasses of its own?

Making the argument for the Ranger is difficult, but doable. I'm not seeing that same level of effort being put into the argument for Psion. Most of the argument for Psion seems to be, "I want to be a Wizard/Sorcerer, but without all the drawbacks."

So why, exactly, do you want a Psion class?

Yup.

Psionics, and a psionics base class, have been in the game since 1st Edition, but always "on the side" and always a bit controversially. D&D psionics has its fans, and those who really, really dislike it. WotC, in my opinion, has been trying to have their cake and eat it too (terrible metaphor, I know) and come up with a base class that pleases (mostly) everybody. That certainly would be an ideal goal, but I'm not sure it's possible. That's why the mystic didn't work, it irritated folks on both sides of the D&D psionics divide.

Crafting the ideal D&D 5E psionics system isn't going to be easy, and I respect WotC trying things out in Unearthed Arcana and taking their time to get it as right as possible. I'd like to see a system that supports traditional D&D psionics (class independent wild talents along with a psion base class) and also a system that supports concepts embodied in Paizo's "occult" psychic system. A mixture of base classes, archetypes (for fighters, wizards, rogues, etc), and feats . . . but with unifying mechanics like perhaps the focus die in the most recent article. Not an easy ask, for sure.

I would love a system with a psion base class and all that crystal fun from 3E, perhaps "banned" at some tables . . . but also with a "medium" (spirit talker) cleric archetype that DM's who "hate" D&D psionics might allow.

You know what D&D really needs? A shaman base class! The cleric and druid don't cover that ground well . . . .

 

[Urriak Uruk]

You're right. People would totally love a D&D game where there were no full casters, and only partial casters.


This is not entirely true. While they would by one without a Psion, they would sell a lot more WITH a Psion. People enjoy full casters, rather than just partial casters. As the existence of Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer and Clerics shows. I'm not including bard, because Bards as a full caster is a new thing and I don't think they needed to be.


You can repeat that until you are blue in the face and it will still not be true. It just doesn't have meaning to YOU.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now, because I'm talking specifically about the psion? Saying "you don't make a good argument about the psion class" doesn't mean I'm talking about ALL caster classes.

And yes, it is true. If this was entirely about money, and WotC knows that a psion class would sell more books, they would make the class and sell it. The recent printing of the UA shows that they're not making a psion class (for now), and they have the most market research on this than you or I... so the evidence points to WotC not having research that shows a psion would sell.

And again, we are talking about the PSION. Not all casters. If you can't separate an argument for a psion from an argument for casters in general, I'm not even sure you know what you want.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

And again, we are talking about the PSION. Not all casters. If you can't separate an argument for a psion from an argument for casters in general, I'm not even sure you know what you want.

Might've been a bit of a freudian slip.

 

[Dire Bare]

Curious . . . does anybody have any experience with a third-party and/or fan psionics system for D&D 5E. Perhaps on the DM's Guild? This thread got me looking, and I picked up "The Korranberg Chronicle: Psion's Primer" on the DM's Guild, but have barely began digesting it.

 

[Aldarc]

But more importantly, it's not the theme of the OP for this thread, which was only distinct from the two other Psionic threads because it made the argument "It's been in many editions so that's proof it should be in this edition as well."

Except that quote is not actually what the OP said or even a good paraphrasing of it:

A dedicated psionic character--represented by a character class--has been part of the game since 2e. We need a class to represent that particular ongoing feature of the D&D meta-setting.

I removed the bold so it was less of an eyesore, but here Sword of Spirit states what is a noncontroversial fact that a dedicated psionic character class has been in the game since 2e. But they then say that the class should exist for the purpose of representing an "ongoing feature" (i.e., psionics) that is part of D&D's meta-setting. So it's not necessarily only that psionics appeared in every edition, but also the degree that they did and the degree of their imprint on D&D's legacy.

I'm not sure, for example, that a shaman really is part of D&D's meta-setting wherein it hews its own sort of supernatural powers/magic. Probably the closest that the shaman came to that was actually in 4e, where the Shaman represents a leader class for the primal spirits that played a mythic role in the cessation of the Dawn War. Likewise, psionics featured in the meta-setting of the World Axis setting, with psionics being regarded almost like the universe's response to fighting the Far Realm.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd like WotC to go all-in of the weird and other flavour of psion sublcasses instead of just a different sci-fi-ish magic. 4e add a bunch of really evocative and trippy paragon path for psionic class that could be awesome for a psion class.

Firestarter: Fire damage and party buff (soul ignition)
Alienist: Pet class and summon (ala conjurer and shepherd druid) with mutation for your pet and summons.
Time Bender: mess with the action economy
Shaper: Crystal and ectoplasm archetypes, with a specialty in wall spells.
Awakened: Telepathy and mind-control archetype.
Unarnate: Invisibility, etheralness and immortality archetype.
Anathema: Necrotic blaster, be a living sphere of annihilation.
Ardent: Healer and buffer.

 

[Krachek]

Skills, yes. Tools, no if not proficient.
I don't want the "wizard" psion of the past.
No psionic knock!
If you are not proficient with thieves tools, you are just jiggling the lock tumblers with your mind and can be there for hours.



Sure.
The key is I don't want a psionic wizard. I want the psion to be it's own thing with its own natural logic about what it can and cant do.

We seem to agree on psionic power as skill or cantrip power level,
but for more dramatic and powerful usage Psion will need a way to allow psionic burst.
seem that the term slot is incompatible we Psion, maybe points can be use, but aside semantic debate we will have to find a way to control usage of more powerful psionic abilities. We can’t have dominate person at will. And slowly Psion will use daily usage, saving throw, and even maybe concentration. I just hope that you wont ask for exclusive concentration mechanic only for Psion. Do we start the debate about dispelling and counterspell? Or maybe wizard will simply ask for spells dispel psionic and counterpsionic!

 

[Mecheon]

I will say, regarding Shaman, that historically in respect of "New classes to be added to the game" in this post-artificer world we're in, its always been Psion, Warlord and Shaman as the three most popular, so there is demand to add them as well. Just, more demand for Psions.

 

[SkidAce]

That is technically a different game, not AD&D. Also, 4e supported over level 20 play in name only. They really just stretched 20 levels out to 30. For example, in 5e you can get the Wish spell at 17th level. In 4e, it was a 29th level spell. Monsters were similarly stretched out. Take the balor: 4e was lvl 29 and 5e is CR 19, or 2/3's the "level".

So I think you could say over 20th level play was really only supported in 3e. And really, other than Deities and Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook, what support was there? Any adventures? Any setting guides? Epic Level MM?

I actually do not agree. It was all D&D to me, as in not Runequest, Rolemaster, etc.
IMHO, I feel D&D has supported play beyond 20th level, anecdotally because we played it.

But no worries.

/thumbs up