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

[Minigiant]

I want a psion because because

Mental abilities are one of the only ones both both broad enough to have multiple applications to adventuring life AND have enough natural restrictions that feel both organic and balanced.

1. Telepathy
2. Telekinesis
3. Enchantments
4. Mental constructs
5. Limited energy creation
6. Emotional enhancement and suppresion
7. Biological enchantment and suppression
8. Projection into the Astral or mental plane

Its more versatile than a pyromancer or an "acid mage"
Its spell restrictions are more natural that a "psuedoChristian monster hunter priest" or "bookworm who can do everything but heal and bless/curse"
And it's not a headache (pardon the joke) like other big theme classes like summoners and shapeshifters.

Can the psion conjure a fireball? No. Fireballs are not mental.
Can the psion make someone think they conjure a fireball? Sure, it would be psychic damage and not work of mindless enemies or enemies that know she's a psion.
Can the psion raise zombies? No. That's necromancy.
Can the psion rattle a pile of bones tomake it loke like a zombie? Sure, it'll be a very very low DC to recognize it's not a zombie. And it requires concentration.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Can the psion conjure a fireball? No. Fireballs are not mental.

 

[Krachek]

I want a psion because because

Mental abilities are one of the only ones both both broad enough to have multiple applications to adventuring life AND have enough natural restrictions that feel both organic and balanced.

1. Telepathy
2. Telekinesis
3. Enchantments
4. Mental constructs
5. Limited energy creation
6. Emotional enhancement and suppresion
7. Biological enchantment and suppression
8. Projection into the Astral or mental plan

There is actual spells that cover all these aspects.
is all the debate occurs because we can’t make a decent spell list for a Psion?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

And a part of D&D. Alignment is tradition at this point. Things are called sacred cows and included in D&D, because tradition. Tradition makes WotC a lot of money.

And since you guys are big into fallacious arguments, calling something a fallacy and then stopping the way @Urriak Uruk did is also a fallacy. You can't counter a fallacious argument by pointing out that it's a fallacy. That's an Argument from Fallacy fallacy.

Haha, clearly my comment there peeved a lot of people considering how many replies it's gotten...

But here's the point that all the replies miss. Saying something should be part of the game because it has always been that way is not a good argument. It's not an argument at all, it is loudly saying "BECAUSE TRADITION" without actually asking why it is tradition.

Now, if someone can make a good point for why the psion has been a class for three editions, then that is a different matter altogether.

Back to the Ford example. If my father explains to me I should get a Ford because he has one and his father has one, that is not providing any real good reason for why I should get one. But if he says, "Well grandpa got one because Ford is a trusted brand, and I got one because they also have good mileage, and you should also get one because they have good value for their price," that's some good reasoning for why my family all has one, and that maybe it would be a good truck for me to have too.

But just saying "We all have Fords, therefore you should have a Ford!" is lazy debating.

So yeah, if someone says "We've always had a psion, we should have one now too," without any other justification (as the OP very clearly did), hell yeah I'm going to point out this means absolutely nothing.

 

[Minigiant]

View attachment 121170

That is pushing someone into wires unless they caught fire

There is actual spells that cover all these aspects.
is all the debate occurs because we can’t make a decent spell list for a Psion?

We would need a bunch more spells and effects for the psion.
The debate occurs because we can’t give those extra effects to a Psion and not other spellcasters.
The debate is really over exclusive spells.
A psion's telekinesis is different from a wizard's telekinesis.

The psion has to be more than just a mental sorcerer and its exclusive spells most be made in a way that restriction from clerics and wizards makes sense.

 

[Umbran]

is all the debate occurs because we can’t make a decent spell list for a Psion?

No. Like for many other classes, there are multiple opinions on what they "should be". The idea of a "spell list" for some folks is part of the problem.

 

[Mistwell]

1) There is a basic, fundamental difference between a Core class and a Non-Core (or what Wikipedia calls "alternative" class). I think we all get this. Core classes have a lot more momentum and compelling reason to include in an edition. A Non-Core class does not have the same level of incentive to include it.

2) Psion/Psionicist is a Non-Core class.

3) There is more motivation to include a Non-Core class which has been in more prior editions, or which was featured as a more prominent Non-Core class in a prior edition, than there is for a one-time Non-Core class from one prior edition.

4) However, just being in many prior editions is still not, in itself, enough reason to include it now without something more. This is the controversial question I will address with this post.

Operating off these basic concepts, which I think are all correct (though the last one is in question), we can compare where the Psion/Psionicist class really falls along with other Non-Core classes.

There are a ton of Non-Core classes that will probably never be heard from again (and some which were subsumed by other classes or sub-classes or prestige classes or kits or whatever).

For example, 1e had Bushi, Kensai, Ninja, Samurai, Shukenja, Sohei, Wu Jen, and Yakuza, Mystic, Witch, Thief-Acrobat, Cavelier, Knight of the Crown, Knight of the Sword and Knight of the Rose, Wizards of High Sorcery, Tinker, etc.. And I am not including Dragon Magazine. I see you Jester!

2e had all of these Non-Core classes: Guilder, Manteis, Chronomancer, Temporal Champion, Temporal Raider, Incantatrix, Defiler, Elemental Cleric, Gladiator, Para-elemental Cleric, Templar, Trader. Dragon, Avangion, Anchorite, Arcanist, Avenger, Gypsy, Handler, Tinker, Commoner, Knight of Solamnia, Mariner, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Crusader, Mystic, Shaman, Ascetic, Pious Knight, Apothecary, Appraiser, Blacksmith, Cartographer, Engineer, Guide, Healer, Historian, Scribe, Seer, Solitary Shaman, Spiritualist, Tribal Shaman, Alchemist, Geometer, Shadow Mage, Song Wizard, Dimensionalist, Force Mage, Mentalist, Ninja (Spy/Killer), etc.. And that list included Psionicist.

And that's NOT INCLUDING THE KIT CLASSES! You can triple that list when you include those! I see you, Jester class (again). I see you, Halfling Whistler. I see you, Treetender, Anatomist, Consort, Mountain Man, and Gaucho!

As you can see, being a member of that list is not, in itself, a compelling reason to be in 5e.

OK so let's look at 3e. We have such lovely Non-Core classes as Archivist, Beguiler, Binder, Crusader, Dragon Shaman, Dragonfire Adept, Dread Necormancer, Duskblade, Factotum, Favored Soul, Healer, Hexblade, Incarnate, Knight, Marshal, Ninja, Samurai, Scout, Shaman, Shadowcaster, Shugenja, Sohei, Soulborn, Spellthief, Spirit Shaman, Swashbuckler, Swordsage, Totemist, Truenamer, Warblade, Warmage, Wu Jen, Mariner, Master, Mystic, Nightstalker, Noble, Magewright, Urban Adept, Samurai, Shaman, etc..

Oh and let's not forget the specific Psionic classes of (drum roll please) Psychic Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Divine Mind, and Wilder, among others. Hrm, where have I heard of those concepts recently?

I've left out a bunch more, but you get the drift. Being on this list isn't, in itself, a compelling reason to exist in 5e.

And we're seeing some patterns of classes which 1) appeared in many editions but which 2) do not exist in 5e, and 3) which have few people clamoring for them to exist now in 5e.

Where are all the people claiming "Oh but Shaman has been in every edition of D&D so we absolutely must have it now in 5e"? Where are all you Wu-Jen and Ninja fans at? Where are the Witch fans? I seem to recall there was a Jester class for 3e too, so where are all you Jester fans?

4e didn't get far, but they still had Ardent, Avenger, Invoker, Runepriest, Seeker, Shaman, Swordmage, Warden, Spellcarred, etc.. And there it is again, Shaman. We've had a Shaman in every edition - I see no "OMG it's long established tradition to have a Shaman we must must must include it!" threads popping up. Have I missed it?

So here's the bottom line: being in many prior editions is still not, in itself, enough of a reason to include that class in 5e. It helps to have been in many editions. It adds something to the argument that something should be in 5e. But it's not sufficient, in itself, to say it must be included. Because if it were, you'd see the same sort of passion concerning a Shaman class. Or a Witch class. Or a Wu-Jen class. Or Ninja class. Or even, God forbid, a Jester class. All classes which have appeared in many editions, which are not in 5e, and which don't seem to have much push to be included in 5e now.

So you're going to have to do better than "It's been in three editions" for a Non-core class.

 

[Vael]

No. Like for many other classes, there are multiple opinions on what they "should be". The idea of a "spell list" for some folks is part of the problem.

I definitely fall into this group. I don't mind Psions having spells, but I liked that the Mystic learned a general ability that gave them spell-like abilities. That feels more Psionic to me. This is also how I differentiate spellcasters from Psionics. A Sorcerer still learns spells, as they are a spellcaster, but a Psion learns a broad ... discipline, to use the terminology.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

Actually, I'm surprised there isn't an Acrobat rogue archetype in the game yet. That would be rad and an awesome callback to 1E. Good idea!

 

[Dire Bare]

Wanting back the psionicist is really just wanting back Dark Sun.
And yes, there's a fanbase group of players who want DS back. Either they played it originally or like myself, discovered it and loved it.
You can talk about classes but you've really got talk about the setting that brought psionics to the forefront of gameplay.

No.

I mean, I'd love a 5E take on Dark Sun, but mostly out of curiosity . . . I never played or ran Dark Sun games and probably won't in the future.

But I would love a psionics system added to 5E with wild talents any character could pick up and a psion class, all based on the continuity developed from 1E to 4E. I'd buy that hardcover book plus again on D&D Beyond in a heartbeat!