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

[Urriak Uruk]

Might've been a bit of a freudian slip.

Sorry, what was the slip?

 

[Minigiant]

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!

I'm fine with slots but it is an issue for some.

I thing the Psionic Sorcerer is a good mold. 3 resources.

1. Psionic Talent Die. For slightly stronger than normal at will psionic actions.
2. Psi Points. For slightly stronger psionic actions.
3. A third Thing. For the strongest things. Either slots or things that work like activated warlock invocations.

Personally, I'd have psionic and magic affect each other. To me, more important part is displaying the powers of mental training and not just creating a new source of supernatural phenomena. I am fine with the comicbook rules of magicians, mystics, mutants, psi-borgs, and aliens all being able to have psychic combat.

 

[dave2008]

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

It is definitely up for debate. Personally when we played back in the 80s we played 1e AD&D and D&D and didn't realize they were two different games! So I get that, I was just playing devil's advocate and point out there are other ways to look at it.

I still contend that even with the BECMI and 3e books, past 20th level or "epic" play was never truly supported. They provided products for it in some cases, but not real support. For example they only ever produced 2 Immortal level adventures that I know of and there was not really enough immortal level foes in the Immortal DM's Guide (or ever) to run an Immortal campaign. I didn't play 3e, but I don't think they provided any additional products beside Deities & Demigods and the Epic level handbook. 3e suffered from the same lack of adventure direction and foes that BECMI did. Finally, 4e (which I don't believe was truly "epic" as I stated) didn't provide many epic-tier adventures and they never released the DMG 3 which was supposed to give epic-tier guidance.

But we all have different ideas of support, and that is OK.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Yes it was. I think you are spinning and taking out of context what he said. I even quoted him word for word while YOU chose to paraphrase it.

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.

There is no such thing as D&D's "meta setting" aside from the core. If it comes in an expansion book, and often times a very late-in-the-edition-cycle expansion book, it's not a core concept to the setting. It's not "imprinted on D&D's legacy" if it was one of the last books published for an edition like it was for 4e, for example. It's not even a unified concept for D&D, as seen in all these debates where almost nobody can even agree on what is or is not Psionics and whether it needs to be a dedicated class or a series of subclasses, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE HEAVY PRECEDENT IN PRIOR EDITIONS.

Shaman in fact has been published in 1) more editions of D&D, and 2) for more time during those editions than a dedicated Psionic class. Which is my point - TIME and NUMBER OF EDITIONS is not a determining factor. No matter how you spin it, the OP is in fact arguing they are determining factors. It's not me taking him out of context if you dispute that, it's you. You seem to have wanted him to be making a different argument than the one he made

 

[Aldarc]

I think you are spinning and taking out of context what he said.

Here's the thing, I actually bothered quoting what he said rather than inventing a quote for the OP and tried to represent his argument in good faith. And maybe I haven't, but this is where I would invite @Sword of Spirit to clarify his argument for me if I misrepresented it. Inventing quotes claiming to represent what other people say doesn't seem kosher.

Which is my point - TIME and NUMBER OF EDITIONS is not a determining factor. No matter how you spin it, the OP is in fact arguing they are determining factors. It's not me taking him out of context if you dispute that, it's you. You seem to have wanted him to be making a different argument than the one he made

Well it is a contributing factor. It seems disingenuous to pretend that somehow longevity, tradition, and nostalgia do not factor into our sense for what should be in a open edition. This is one likely reason why psionics have been worked on as much as they have by WotC. Regardless of whether psionics have differing degrees of mechanical implementation, they have been a fairly persistent part of D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It doesn't have to be. It just has to be meaningful to those who find meaning in a particular tradition.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

They are equivalent, though. If existing psionic classes are enough and a pure Psion isn't needed, then existing arcane partial caster and existing partial divine classes are also enough. We don't need Clerics, Druids and Wizards.

YOUR argument applies to each equally. If you find that problematic with Wizards, Druids and/or Clerics, then it is also problematic with Psions.

 

[Mistwell]

Here's the thing, I actually bothered quoting what he said rather than inventing a quote for the OP and tried to represent his argument in good faith. And maybe I haven't, but this is where I would invite @Sword of Spirit to clarify his argument for me if I misrepresented it. Inventing quotes claiming to represent what other people say doesn't seem kosher.

Well it is a contributing factor. It seems disingenuous to pretend that somehow longevity, tradition, and nostalgia do not factor into our sense for what should be in a open edition. This is one likely reason why psionics have been worked on as much as they have by WotC. Regardless of whether psionics have differing degrees of mechanical implementation, they have been a fairly persistent part of D&D.

I said it's a factor Aldarc. Here is from my post, which I took I think a half hour to compose and which you appear to have skimmed in about 20 seconds, "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."

Now you're not obligated to read ever word of my length post...but you are obligated to do that if you're going to claim I said the opposite of what I said because you decided not to read it and just assumed I said the opposite.

I am not being disingenuous to pretend that somehow longevity, tradition and nostalgia do not factor into our sense for what should be in an open edition. I am however getting tired of you misrepresenting what I say, and what the OP said, for...I don't know? Reasons?

What the heck are you even disagreeing with at this point?

 

[Mistwell]

It doesn't have to be. It just has to be meaningful to those who find meaning in a particular tradition.

If you say, "I like X" then sure.

However, if you say "We need X to represent that particular ongoing feature of the D&D meta-setting." then yeah, you're going to need more than your personal preferences to argue it's some critical component of the larger D&D meta-setting.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

Esper Genesis uses the SRD and has a psionics class. Unfortunately, they are not included in the free basic rules, so I can say if they are good or not.