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

[dave2008]

By 5e RAW there are no Verbal, Somatic or Material components to psionics. Making a class where it has one doesn't work, so sorcerer doesn't work. Sorcerer is also like I said, bloodline related, not of the mind, so it doesn't work as a base class for psionics.

Have you read the UA? I the sorcerer subclasses has 3 paragraphs on the origin of its psionic power and even a d10 table for selecting that origin. It may not "work" for you, but to suggest it doesn't work for WotC and D&D is ignore the facts, unless you claiming some other method than what you want for psionics is badwrongnotfun. If that is the case, that is on you then.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's RAW. It says psionics. It says no VSM. That's RAW. It would be absurdly silly, as well as exceedingly dumb to have NPCs psionics not require VSM, but PC psionics do.

I must have missed that passage. Would you mind posting the reference?

Wrong. It's BRAINpower, not bloodpower. It's not their blood that provides it.

You don't think that "blood" in the sorcerer's description really means heritage (that is, genetics)? You think it literally means something about their blood? So if you transfused blood from a sorcerer to a non-sorcerer, the recipient would suddenly have the power?

 

[dave2008]

It's RAW. It says psionics. It says no VSM. That's RAW. It would be absurdly silly, as well as exceedingly dumb to have NPCs psionics not require VSM, but PC psionics do.

Actually, it doesn't say psionics don't require VSM, it says that particular NPC or monster doesn't require VSM to cast the spell. Those are not the same thing.

Wrong. It's BRAINpower, not bloodpower. It's not their blood that provides it.

The UA sorcerer subclass says it is brainpower too FYI. So it still fits your requirement on that point.

 

[dave2008]

By 5e RAW there are no Verbal, Somatic or Material components to psionics. Making a class where it has one doesn't work, so sorcerer doesn't work. Sorcerer is also like I said, bloodline related, not of the mind, so it doesn't work as a base class for psionics.

FYI, if this UA makes it into an official capacity then by RAW psionics doesn't require verbal components, but it could still require M & S components. I actually like how they did this. If you exert more psionic power, you can overcome the components, but if your low on PSI power, you need an external boost. I can see a lot of interesting ideas with that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Actually, it doesn't say psionics don't require VSM, it says that particular NPC or monster doesn't require VSM to cast the spell. Those are not the same thing.

Unicorns don't require components either. RAW!!!!!

I'm not saying PC psionics should require components, I'm just saying that "RAW" and "in every existing example" are not synonymous. There is no rule that says, "Any psionic ability requires no components." He's just extrapolating, quite reasonably, from existing examples. That doesn't make it a rule.

But Max loves to go on and on about what is RAW and what isn't. Unless it contradicts his point.

 

[dave2008]

Unicorns don't require components either. RAW!!!!!

I'm not saying PC psionics should require components, I'm just saying that "RAW" and "in every existing example" are not synonymous. There is no rule that says, "Any psionic ability requires no components." He's just extrapolating, quite reasonably, from existing examples. That doesn't make it a rule.

I am in complete agreement.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not saying PC psionics should require components, I'm just saying that "RAW" and "in every existing example" are not synonymous. There is no rule that says, "Any psionic ability requires no components." He's just extrapolating, quite reasonably, from existing examples. That doesn't make it a rule.

Virtually nothing in 5e is designed systemically. You can extrapolate from examples (like that psionic creatures in the MM don't have components), but there's no rules force behind it. It's valid right up until the designers think any previous consistency isn't useful.

Personally, I like that approach, but people who had a strong preference for 3e's hyper-systemization often find 5e's approach to be too loose.

 

[Mistwell]

By 5e RAW there are no Verbal, Somatic or Material components to psionics.

What book and page my man? Quote this "RAW" for all psionics in this edition.

 

[Guest 6801328]

/crickets

 

[Minigiant]

Am I the only one here who thinks the psion is more than a wizard with no VSM on their magic?