D&D 5E (2014) Here's why we want a Psion class

[Maxperson]

You are asking for psionics with de facto nondetection.

Man your jokes are hilarious. Or were you being as disingenuous as you accused me of being in the other thread? I went with a joke, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That isn't the choice, though. The choice we are discussing is whether to add VSM to psionics(which has never had them in D&D) or not.

This is the argument from tradition. I don't care what they had before -- it's irrelevent. I care what they have now. Looking back can provide useful direction, but it's not a constraint.

As such, currently psionics will either have unique mechanics or will use the spell system. If the mechanics are unique (like the psi-die), then VSM isn't relevant. If it's the spell system, then VSM already is baked in and we're talking about removing it for psionists, not adding it.

It's current edition, catch up.

Who other than the anti-psionics crowd is asking for psionics without detection? Not anyone on the no VSM side that I've seen.

Then you haven't paid full attention. That was explicitly said by at least one poster, and not as a strawman. There's all sorts, Max, and some really do want undetectable psionics. I'll agree that you've separated yourself from that crowd.

However, saying 'no VSM for psionics' is making the undetectable argument unless you also make clear that 'no VSM' really means 'VSM, but it'll look like this instead.' This is because VSM is how you detect a spell is cast, at least in cases where the spell doesn't have an obvious visual or auditory effect (clearly, fireball would be detected, but not until the spell is in effect). There's the argument you intend to make and then the one that is communicated. "No VSM" is no detection until after the spell is case. "VSM, but it looks different from when arcane or divine casters do it," is a different, more nuanced, and definitely more clear argument.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

However, saying 'no VSM for psionics' is making the undetectable argument unless you also make clear that 'no VSM' really means 'VSM, but it'll look like this instead.' This is because VSM is how you detect a spell is cast, at least in cases where the spell doesn't have an obvious visual or auditory effect (clearly, fireball would be detected, but not until the spell is in effect). There's the argument you intend to make and then the one that is communicated. "No VSM" is no detection until after the spell is case. "VSM, but it looks different from when arcane or divine casters do it," is a different, more nuanced, and definitely more clear argument.

Don't you know you're being disengenious by saying that?

 

[Maxperson]

This is the argument from tradition. I don't care what they had before -- it's irrelevent. I care what they have now. Looking back can provide useful direction, but it's not a constraint.

It's not an argument from tradition. Pointing out that in D&D they don't have VSM and we are discussing adding them back in does not say that they shouldn't have them, because tradtion. It's just pointing out that we are not discussing removing VSM.

You're really fond of hurling incorrect fallacy accusations around, usually tradition.

Then you haven't paid full attention. That was explicitly said by at least one poster, and not as a strawman. There's all sorts, Max, and some really do want undetectable psionics. I'll agree that you've separated yourself from that crowd.

Okay. One out of how many? There were/are several posters on my side of this. One outlier has said he wants them to be undetectable.

However, saying 'no VSM for psionics' is making the undetectable argument unless you also make clear that 'no VSM' really means 'VSM, but it'll look like this instead.' This is because VSM is how you detect a spell is cast, at least in cases where the spell doesn't have an obvious visual or auditory effect (clearly, fireball would be detected, but not until the spell is in effect). There's the argument you intend to make and then the one that is communicated. "No VSM" is no detection until after the spell is case. "VSM, but it looks different from when arcane or divine casters do it," is a different, more nuanced, and definitely more clear argument.

Pretty much everyone on my side of things has said that they are okay with the visual, auditory and scent cues to detect Psion abilities being used. I guess that one guy didn't. And those things are not VSM another way. VSM are explicitly requirements that if prevented from using, prevent the use of the spell. Cues of a power being used are not the same.

 

[Maxperson]

Don't you know you're being disengenious by saying that?

Is that your phrase of the day?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Pretty much everyone on my side of things has said that they are okay with the visual, auditory and scent cues to detect Psion abilities being used. I guess that one guy didn't. And those things are not VSM another way. VSM are explicitly requirements that if prevented from using, prevent the use of the spell. Cues of a power being used are not the same.

For someone who's completely okay with it, you do sure seem to be fighting against it a lot.

 

[Krachek]

Those are none of the reasons that I like Psions. With the visual, auditory and scent displays attached, they aren't mysterious or scary, and they are only as special as you make them. If they are common in the world, they are not any more special than the Paladin over there.

In fact, soon after initial release there will be a Psion fiesta, but after a while, setting will include Psion, and thus major noble and crime lord will add a Psion to their payroll to insure their security.
We will also see appear detect psionic, anti psionic aura, counterpsionic and dispel psionic spells.
yes after a while they won’t be scary nor special.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I would be good with replacing the VSM components with the GBS components for psychics: G is for Grimace, B is for Bleeding out of your eyes, ears, or nose (doesn't affect vision, hearing, or smell or cause damage), and S is for Stink, as you have to smoke or drink some strange, hard to acquire plant or concoction while preparing your psychic spells (cost is equal to the material components you would have used if you used material components), which gives you a distinct smell for 1d4 hours (disadvantage on stealth checks and you need to roll a d20, on a roll of 1, one of your party members gains the poisoned condition while the stink is upon you unless you stay downwind the entire time).

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not an argument from tradition. Pointing out that in D&D they don't have VSM and we are discussing adding them back in does not say that they shouldn't have them, because tradtion. It's just pointing out that we are not discussing removing VSM.

Individual monster stat blocks do not establish general rules. Your argument via Mind Flayer is a non-starter.

You're really fond of hurling incorrect fallacy accusations around, usually tradition.

I had forgotten that instead of an appeal to tradition that you were using the mind flayer example to argue a fallacy of composition. Forgive me, as I had forgotten your Mind Flayer defines all psionics argument, and thus misrepresented you as caring about tradition.

Mea culpa.

Okay. One out of how many? There were/are several posters on my side of this. One outlier has said he wants them to be undetectable.

Don't slide the goalposts, Max. You said no one. I did say that it wasn't you, but it's also not no one. Now that we're agreed it's someone, we can discuss if it's important. I don't think it's a terribly outlier position.

Pretty much everyone on my side of things has said that they are okay with the visual, auditory and scent cues to detect Psion abilities being used. I guess that one guy didn't. And those things are not VSM another way. VSM are explicitly requirements that if prevented from using, prevent the use of the spell. Cues of a power being used are not the same.

You know, thinking more on this, this is still a naked power increase. I can stop V components by gagging or using silence. I can stop M components by removing a component pouch or preventing access to a focus. I can prevent S components by binding. How do I prevent visual, auditory, and scent cues? These are not a flavor replacement for VSM, they're just flavor. Unless, of course, I can prevent powers with an olfactory displays with windy conditions or lots of coffee, visual displays with darkness or excess clothing, and auditory displays with silence or a tuning fork (actually, that's a neat idea)? I don't think this is your intent, so the displays are really just cues that a power was used, and not requirement to use the power. A naked, bound, blindfolded, gagged psionist in a silence spell and darkness spell is just as capable (absent targeting requirements) as a non-constrained psionist. This is definitely power creep.[/I]

 

[Maxperson]

Individual monster stat blocks do not establish general rules. Your argument via Mind Flayer is a non-starter.

It's evidence, though, so it is in fact relevant to the discussion. When you combine that evidence, with the far stronger UA evidence, you come up with WotC wanting psionics to not have VSM.

Don't slide the goalposts, Max. You said no one. I did say that it wasn't you, but it's also not no one. Now that we're agreed it's someone, we can discuss if it's important. I don't think it's a terribly outlier position.

I didn't say no one. I said I hadn't seen one. I was clear that I was talking about what I have seen, since I don't read every post and skip some portions of longer ones sometimes.

You know, thinking more on this, this is still a naked power increase. I can stop V components by gagging or using silence[\i]. I can stop M components by removing a component pouch or preventing access to a focus. I can prevent S components by binding. How do I prevent visual, auditory, and scent cues? These are not a flavor replacement for VSM, they're just flavor. Unless, of course, I can prevent powers with an olfactory displays with windy conditions or lots of coffee, visual displays with darkness or excess clothing, and auditory displays with silence or a tuning fork (actually, that's a neat idea)? I don't think this is your intent, so the displays are really just cues that a power was used, and not requirement to use the power. A naked, bound, blindfolded, gagged psionist in a silence spell and darkness spell is just as capable (absent targeting requirements) as a non-constrained psionist. This is definitely power creep.

And I already came up a way to stop Psions as just one example in a prior post in one of these threads. I have no idea which thread at this point. We(for the most part since there is one out there) aren't asking for more power.