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

[Perun]

How do I prevent visual, auditory, and scent cues? These are not a flavor replacement for VSM, they're just flavor. Unless, of course, I can prevent powers with an olfactory displays with windy conditions or lots of coffee, visual displays with darkness or excess clothing, and auditory displays with silence or a tuning fork (actually, that's a neat idea)? I don't think this is your intent, so the displays are really just cues that a power was used, and not requirement to use the power. A naked, bound, blindfolded, gagged psionist in a silence spell and darkness spell is just as capable (absent targeting requirements) as a non-constrained psionist. This is definitely power creep.[/I]

FWIW, AD&D 2e psionicist actually handled this -- psionicists couldn't manifest if wearing a helmet (they could use special psionically orepared helmets or magical helmets that had mental powers). But if you wanted to prevent a captured psionicist from manifesting, put a plain old helmet on his head.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's why there was a second half to my post, the one that indexes the mechanical relevance of eliminating VSM. The idea that the mechanics might be different is also germane because if the mechanics aren't 'spells' them something would either have to replace VSM or not, which is also a decision based on game balance and mechanics. What we're really talking about is can I see them manifest a power and if I do can I do anything about it.

I don't follow that VSM would have to addressed if the mechanics used aren't spells. If the mechanics used are an alternate magic system similar to spells, maybe so. That's extremely unlikely to happen at this point. If the other mechanics are like the things we see in this UA, or in previous UAs where subclasses got special powers that weren't spell based, then no, not necessarily. There's a huge amount covered inside 'other mechanics' that it's not worth addressing without more specifics.

 

[Ovinomancer]

FWIW, AD&D 2e psionicist actually handled this -- psionicists couldn't manifest if wearing a helmet (they could use special psionically orepared helmets or magical helmets that had mental powers). But if you wanted to prevent a captured psionicist from manifesting, put a plain old helmet on his head.

Then that, added to displays being alternate VSM requirements, would complete the replacement. Replacing tying, gagging, and blindfolding a wizard with strapping a helmet on a psionicist is a reasonable flavor swap.

 

[Maxperson]

So a concentration check based on damage taken in a previous turn or something like that?

I don't think you need to do that. Since the casting will be detectable, in combat Counterspell and any other way to stop casting should work. What I was suggesting was a way to keep them from being able to use their abilities while in jail and the like. Take away the focus from clerics and the components from wizards and they can be contained. Psions without something like I suggested would not be containable.

I like that, that's good. It doesn't even have to stop the ability in it's tracks, could just give you disadvantage on the attack roll/the enemy advantage on the saving throw instead of just "screw you you don't get to be effective at all this turn"

If we are going to add these limitations above and beyond what other casters have in combat, the powers have to be correspondingly better. Otherwise you are making Psions weaker and that's not good, either.

Hell, with that, I don't really care about Counterspell immunity too much.

But as has been pointed out, it's not a lack of VSM that makes you immune to Counterspell. It's a lack of detectability. Currently in the game that lack of VSM = Undetectable, but with Psions that would change.

 

[Maxperson]

The Mind Flayer example is very weak evidence of a specific exception to the general rule for one specific monster for one specific thing they do. Extrapolating from that is arguing from the specific to the general, which is a bad thing to do. It is an informal fallacy, which means that the conclusion isn't automatically incorrect (as with formal fallacies), but it does mean the argument does not support than conclusion.

It's around a dozen monsters I think.

The UA very clearly indicates that VSM applies to spells used by psionicists, unless they risk a resource to remove them.

Wrong. The UA clearly indicates that VSM applies to spells used by sorcerers, unless the risk a psionic resource to make those spells psionic.

Doing so, however, doesn't change the spell into a psionic power -- that's your invention and totally unsupported by the rules as presented.

It is absolutely supported.

Bolding is mine to point out that it's still a spell even after V or VSM are removed, and the action used is casting a spell. This has no indication that psionics is not VSM. Point of fact, I can engage this power to form the spell with my mind and still need SM components for it.

Yay for bolding the wrong portion!!! I'll bold the correct portion that shows it become a psionic power.

"When you cast a spell, you can use your mind to form it, rather than relying on words, gestures, and materials. To do so, roll your Psionic Talent die. The spell then requires no verbal component, and if you rolled the level of the spell or higher, the spell doesn’t require somatic or material components either."

It becomes a power of the mind.

Very techincally precise, Max. I'll agree you didn't see one. What's your point? You seeing things doesn't establish whether it exists or not. Rather, the point of your statement wasn't just commentary on your observations, but rather attempting to suggest that it didn't exist. Your further argument that it must be an outlier you didn't observe follows this in establishing that you're actually arguing that it's unnecessary to even consider undetectable psionics as a thing. That you're here making a technical argument about semantics either suggests you've reverted to arguing to spin, as you say you do when encountering posters that you deem to be engaging in bad faith, or lack a good argument. Please advise, as I don't really want to waste time if you're in spin mode.

There's no spin. The point was that despite seeing several posters supporting my side of things, I didn't see one who wanted a lack of VSM and invisible, undetectable power use. You say there was one and I took your word for it. Now it's several against one. My side as a whole isn't trying to pull a fast one and get extra power for Psions, and as a whole is okay with power use being detectable and counterable. The rare exception doesn't count.

I suppose that since you posted it there you cannot repost it here. That's an odd thing to do -- claim you've solved this problem elsewhere but can't really address it here.

Except I already did post it here.

 

[Maxperson]

Then that, added to displays being alternate VSM requirements, would complete the replacement. Replacing tying, gagging, and blindfolding a wizard with strapping a helmet on a psionicist is a reasonable flavor swap.

Or the concentratin/exhaustion mechanic I suggested and posted here, before you posted that I didn't post it here.

 

[Kinematics]

I would propose this analogy:

Psionics is to Magic as Cybernetics is to Technology.


You could, for example, have a blade embedded in your cyber-arm. It will always be with you, and can't be taken away. It's good at its job, and doesn't occupy your hands while being used. However it is only ever what it is, barring an expensive and complicated re-fit.

On the other hand, you could have a blade that you hold in your hand. You need some place to store it, and it can be taken away from you. But you have the option for anything from a vegetable peeler to a filet knife to a butcher knife to a knife-on-a-stick (ie: polearm) to Cloud's airplane wing of a sword.

Magic and Technology can be anything you can figure out how to make, and are incredibly versatile. But at the same time, they require that you "do stuff" to use them — hold the sword in your hands, or the binoculars up to your face, or wave a wand around while you perform a chant.

Cybernetics and Psionics, on the other hand, don't need that 'manual' work performed in order to gain the benefits of their functionality. You hit a mental switch, and the thing is done, or available for use. However, for all their compact efficiency, the scope of what they can do is much narrower than their external counterparts. Likewise, there's a limit to how much you can "stuff" inside your body/head.


My assessment, then, of whether psionics is magic, is "Yes". It's a more efficient form of magic, both in storage and execution, but it is, in the end, magic.

An EMP that shuts down the phone in your hand will also shut down the phone in your head. An anti-magic field that shuts down a standard magical effect would also shut down a psionic magical effect. Dispel Magic would work the same either way, because it's affecting the magical effect, not the means of producing that effect. Concentration would also work the same way.

There are really only two sticking points, and both depend on the ability to detect the execution of the spell. The first is Counterspell (ie: if you can't see the spell being cast, you can't counter it), and the second is detecting who cast a spell. I would be willing to give up the option to Counterspell if it was required that use of psionics always leaves a visible sign — glowing eyes, flames licking over the body, whatever. Thus it would never be possible to be truly anonymous with the use of psionics (eg: Charm Person at the royal ball), even if other spellcasters are not able to explicitly stop you (a side benefit of the efficiency gained by giving up flexibility).

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "concentration vs. damage taken since your last turn" is an interesting proposal. It does mean that you would always have to keep track of that in case you decide to use psionics on your next turn, which I don't love. Also, do you make a roll for each time you were damaged (in which case you have to keep track of them all individually) or a single roll against the total? Either way, it's awkward.

I would like the no-helmet requirement, except that helmets are fluff in D&D (unless you have a magical one.). So what's the downside to not wearing one? That people might suspect you are a psion? Doesn't that give casters, monks, rogues etc. a huge advantage as psions?

 

[Krachek]

There is plenty of example in fantasy where Psionic need :
visual contact or tactile concat for mind reading,
gesture to control telekinesis,
The Voice in Dune was easily identified
body motion for psyko transformation.
So VSM is not a canon for psionic

 

[Maxperson]

The "concentration vs. damage taken since your last turn" is an interesting proposal. It does mean that you would always have to keep track of that in case you decide to use psionics on your next turn, which I don't love. Also, do you make a roll for each time you were damaged (in which case you have to keep track of them all individually) or a single roll against the total? Either way, it's awkward.

Yeah, tracking each hit would be problematic. I would think that if you took damage, whether 1 or 100, whether 1 hit or 20, it would be single concentration check the next round at a static DC.

However, if you put that mechanic in, it needs to be balanced another way since it makes the Psion unreliable in combat. You would have to either boost the power level of the Psion's powers, or make the Psion's powers truly undetectable with no visuals or the like. Otherwise, the Psion would be quite a bit weaker than other caster types.

I would like the no-helmet requirement, except that helmets are fluff in D&D (unless you have a magical one.). So what's the downside to not wearing one? That people might suspect you are a psion? Doesn't that give casters, monks, rogues etc. a huge advantage as psions?

The helmet idea wasn't a combat limiter. It was to allow Psion's to be locked up and prevented from using powers to escape. Turn one into the man behind the iron mask and he's stuck in jail.