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

[DammitVictor]

You know, it's less of an appeal to tradition-- saying "psionicists existed in 2e, 3e, and 4e, so they should exist in 5e"-- as it is an appeal to continuity: "my psionic character existed in 2e, or 3e, or 4e, and so I should be able to keep playing him in 5e".

And that seems to be a recurring problem with WotC and many of their fans: they don't understand why anyone would ever want to continue their old campaign with their old characters in the new edition, and they don't understand that most players of most games consider this the default assumption of the edition cycle.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wrote something like this in another thread about the topic, but just to reiterate it here...

My prediction is that psi-die mechanic and the Psi Knight, Soul Knife and Psionic Soul subclasses will see high enough marks that they will make an appearance in whatever the player-facing book is in late autumn (to coincide with the planar adventure path in early autumn.) This gives potential gith PCs psionic options for the adventure path.

WotC will then see how those three subclasses play. Then come the spring of 2021, as they begin working on the player-facing stuff for a Dark Sun campaign book in late 2021... they will determine whether a full Psion class is necessary. If it is... I wouldn't be surprised if it was built along the lines of the Warlock chassis (rather than the nine-level wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid chassis.) Using the Warlock chassis would give Psions a couple "spells" per short rest (using all the standard psychic type spells already available in the game), as well as "Psionic Talents" (IE Invocations) that run parallel to the spells and which can be manipulated by the psi-die. And the four specialized feats that were created in this past UA (Telepath, Telekinetic, Metabolic Control, Iron Will?) Those will end up potentially being Talents available for the subclasses of the Psion they would make (rather than using said feats as feats.)

I could be completely off... but it seems to me this would be the way to get the best of both worlds for everyone involved.

 

[wingsandsword]

No offense, but that's a logic fallacy. Saying something should be a class simply "because that's the way it has been for the past 3 editions," doesn't actually say anything about whether that is good or bad. That's like saying I should buy a Ford, because my father bought a Ford, and his father, and his father before him... without actually discussing whether a Ford is the better truck.

It's not a fallacy, it's pointing out that it's a part of D&D.

Psionics have been a part of D&D for a very long time since 1e, and a dedicated psionic character class has been a part of D&D for almost 30 years now, many campaign settings were designed with them as integral components (Dark Sun and Eberron come to mind), and the fact that 5e has been out 5+ years now without an actual psion/psionicist class seems to be a glaring omission.

The idea that you should get rid of major parts of D&D just because you think they are bad was one of the reasons 4e was so divisive and controversial. . .and even THAT kept psionics in the game in some form.

The idea that you can faithfully translate common character concepts and major campaign settings between editions is a pretty reasonable expectation for a D&D edition, and the lack of an actual psionics class and system in 5e, this many years after its release, is one of the major weaknesses of that edition (along with any form of official support for characters over 20th level).

 

[wingsandsword]

Occult classes are far more interesting and appropriate for a fantasy setting than 3rd edition psibollocks.

Except there are already D&D fantasy settings built with psionics as an integral component. Dark Sun being the most famous and prominent one.

Your personal definition of a fantasy setting may not have psionics in it, but other D&D players do.

 

[Maxperson]

No offense, but that's a logic fallacy. Saying something should be a class simply "because that's the way it has been for the past 3 editions," doesn't actually say anything about whether that is good or bad. That's like saying I should buy a Ford, because my father bought a Ford, and his father, and his father before him... without actually discussing whether a Ford is the better truck.

People do that, though. They like Fords, regardless of whether or not there are better trucks out there.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, someone knows their logical fallacies, nice! "Argument from tradition", that's indeed one.

And yet tradition sells lots of books.

 

[Krachek]

Fantasy Psionic power can do the same as a lot of actual spells.
wotc don’t want to rewrite all those spells just to name them : Psionic power and remove component.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not a fallacy, it's pointing out that it's a part of D&D.

"Appeal to tradition" is a textbook example of a logical fallacy. You can look it up.

Psionics have been a part of D&D for a very long time

But almost always with an "optional rule" tag.

since 1e, and a dedicated psionic character class has been a part of D&D for almost 30 years now

It you are going to appeal to tradition, then the oldest tradition must carry the most weight, and the oldest version of psionics in D&D sat outside of the class structure.

the fact that 5e has been out 5+ years now without an actual psion/psionicist class seems to be a glaring omission.

It's not an "omission", it's a direct consequence of the community strongly rejecting WotC's previous attempt to add a dedicated psionics class.

along with any form of official support for characters over 20th level.

That fails your "appeal to tradition" test: characters over 20th level where not supported until 3rd edition.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And yet tradition sells lots of books.

"Humans are illogical."
-Spock

 

[wingsandsword]

That fails your "appeal to tradition" test: characters over 20th level where not supported until 3rd edition.

2nd Edition had TWO books for characters over 20th level.

Dragon Kings, the Dark Sun sourcebook from 1992 for characters from 21st to 30th level.

High Level Campaigns, the sourcebook from 1995 for characters up to 30th level.

1st edition didn't have a separate book for it, it let you continue characters indefinitely (except for monks, druids and assassins) in level, and even published an adventure for characters up to 100th level, Throne of Bloodstone from 1988.

So official support for characters over 20th level has been in the game since 1st edition, with dedicated sourcebooks since 2nd edition and adventures since 1st edition.