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

[Sword of Spirit]

Obviously this is why I want a Psion class, but others are free to share different thoughts.

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.

 

[grimslade]

I agree. I want a psion or psionicist. The question is how do we get there? Psionic Soul sorcerer does not fill that niche. Maybe a build off of the monk chassis with warlock invocations? The psionic talent fie is a fiddly bit that I do not like in its current state but could make a really interesting mechanic of a spend or hold.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

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.

 

[Todd Roybark]

 

[Shiroiken]

If Dark Sun did not exist, the need for psionics would be negligible. However, if anyone wants to run Dark Sun in 5E, they currently have to homebrew their own psionic rules to make it happen. Due to the integral part of psionics in Dark Sun, it really doesn't work to just have some sub-classes representing it, since they are primarily Class and secondly Sub-class (this is true with the Sorcerer too). Not that the sub-class concept is bad, but that they can't fully detail the nature of it.

 

[Horwath]

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.

to me it's not about what was in previous editions, but what I like best as "spellcaster"

and for me psion/wilder is better than wizard/sorcerer.

I'm not a fan of somatic components, do not really like vancian casting and realy HATE verbal component.

I would not mind Verbal components if they are just a whisper that someone could(stealth - perception) hear nearby, but rules imply that you scream from the top of your lungs.

 

[reelo]

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.

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

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I guess we don't need fighters, paladins, or illusionists either.

There are tropes that make D&D what it is, and a psion/psionicist class is one of them. Not as crucial as fighters, rogues, clerics, and wizards . . . but still important to many long time fans.

 

[Tonguez]

Obviously this is why I want a Psion class, but others are free to share different thoughts.

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.

Well in that case I want a Thief-Acrobat just because

 

[NaturalZero]

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.

"Because that's the way it has been" is literally the largest design factor of the whole edition though. This is the fundamental essence of 5e. It makes no sense to include things that could be rolled into existing classes such as the ranger and paladin, but here we are because "that's the way it had been."