Psion as Wizard archetype − Happy Fun Hour

[Tales and Chronicles]

Next episode of Happy Fun Hour.

Mearls tackles the Psychic Warrior!
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/259184994

(Show starts in about 3:05 after a long title screen.)

I read the transcript on Reddit and I must say that I love the direction he's taking with making ''psionic'' sub-classes for other classes with spells rather than the new casting system the full-psion will receive. That means that some players will get to play old concept such as psychic warrior or soulknife by using the PHB spells (and some add-ons) rather than learning a new ''magic'' system that they would only use 1/3 or 1/2 of the time.

I think this also shows that MM tend toward psionic being affected by counter-spell/anti-magic zone etc.

 

[Yaarel]

I like the spell level 1 spell list that Mearls cobbles together for the psywar.

There are different tropes thrown together adhoc into the list. For the psion who has more spells and more spell levels, I prefer to see more specialization, say two tropes. But for the psywar, cherry-picking an assortment according to a certain warrior archetype makes sense.

 

[Yaarel]

If I understand right, there is no Happy Fun Hour this week because Mearls and his kid are sick?

 

[Ristamar]

Now that Tome of Foes is finalized and soon arriving in stores, I don't understand the design decision to base the racial Githzerai Psionics trait abilities on Wisdom. Sure, I get that they're a monastic culture, but I believe every other official 5e published creature with psionic abilties uses Intelligence. Why did they deviate here? Why not call it something different, something not associated with psionics?

Admittedly, it's not a big problem, but it doesn't feel right from a design standpoint, IMO. It also makes me question whether they have any clear idea where they're going with psionics or just haphazardly throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

EDIT: I should have noted that their design choice is consistent with the Githzerai stat block in the Monster Manual which I also thought was odd. I guess I'm having difficultly reconciling the use of different attributes for the same innate method of casting or manifesting powers. It would be akin to some Wizards using INT and others using WIS. I'm curious if and how that could affect the design of the a pure Psionics based class.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Now that Tome of Foes is finalized and soon arriving in stores, I don't understand the design decision to base the racial Githzerai Psionics trait abilities on Wisdom. Sure, I get that they're a monastic culture, but I believe every other official 5e published creature with psionic abilties uses Intelligence. Why did they deviate here? Why not call it something different, something not associated with psionics?

Admittedly, it's not a big problem, but it doesn't feel right from a design standpoint, IMO. It also makes me question whether they have any clear idea where they're going with psionics or just haphazardly throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

EDIT: I should have noted that the choice is also consistent with the Githzerai stat block in the Monster Manual. I'm still having difficultly reconciling the use of different attributes for the same innate form of casting or manifesting powers.

If the arcane weave can be worked with many attributes, why psionic forces shouldnt to the same.

 

[Ristamar]

If the arcane weave can be worked with many attributes, why psionic forces shouldnt to the same.

A fair point, though arcane casting has delineated its sources. While it's largely flavor text, there are clear differences in execution. Wizards draw upon Arcane power by tapping into the weave using their vast knowledge (INT). Sorcerers draw upon innate Arcane powers from within (CHA). Warlocks draw Arcane power from the boons and secrets gifted by their Patron (CHA). Mechanically, it makes little difference when they all cast the same spell, but in establishing a certain feeling and flavor, it's incredibly important.

Ideally, a similar approach could certainly be applied to Psionics. I'd like to see what background and flavor text they'd use to explain why some are driven by Intelligence and others are based off of Wisdom. At the moment, however, it all seems to fall in the same bucket.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I read the transcript on Reddit and I must say that I love the direction he's taking with making ''psionic'' sub-classes for other classes with spells rather than the new casting system the full-psion will receive. That means that some players will get to play old concept such as psychic warrior or soulknife by using the PHB spells (and some add-ons) rather than learning a new ''magic'' system that they would only use 1/3 or 1/2 of the time.

I think this also shows that MM tend toward psionic being affected by counter-spell/anti-magic zone etc.

I personally don't get the approach. If psionics are different enough to be worth creating a new system for, the subclasses should just use that. Either psionics are a unique thing in the world and gameplay, or they're not and we can fluff it ourselves. Telekinetic Missile. Psychic Fireball. Lightning bolt (but psychic damage). We've already wasted space on the sorcerer, which has no real purpose with the neo-vancian casting Wizard taking its main reason for existing in 3E.

I would prefer to see the psion/psychic more as an at will/short recharge class with enforced thematic groupings of powers. Essentially update the 2E psion with somewhat better balance. It was the only version that wasn't just another wizard class with "mental" slapped on a bunch of spells.

 

[Eltab]

My notion of what a Psion should do, is highly flavored by the Darkover novels. I also am influenced by Gamma World vol1 and (later) Dark Sun. Plus of course Star Wars.

For D&D purposes (to me), the first Psion was a Wizard who specialized in this unusual source of power. I could see a subclass which allows fluff (and some crunch) from certain normal spells to be modified.

My first thought upon reading the 5e PHB / DMG / MM was that psionics could be done via a Wizard using the Spell Points alternative rules.

 

[Gadget]

Now that Tome of Foes is finalized and soon arriving in stores, I don't understand the design decision to base the racial Githzerai Psionics trait abilities on Wisdom. Sure, I get that they're a monastic culture, but I believe every other official 5e published creature with psionic abilties uses Intelligence. Why did they deviate here? Why not call it something different, something not associated with psionics?

Admittedly, it's not a big problem, but it doesn't feel right from a design standpoint, IMO. It also makes me question whether they have any clear idea where they're going with psionics or just haphazardly throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

EDIT: I should have noted that their design choice is consistent with the Githzerai stat block in the Monster Manual which I also thought was odd. I guess I'm having difficultly reconciling the use of different attributes for the same innate method of casting or manifesting powers. It would be akin to some Wizards using INT and others using WIS. I'm curious if and how that could affect the design of the a pure Psionics based class.

Actually, it is somewhat consistent with what monks do, who are strongly wisdom based. 4e had monks that psionic based, and it worked well, conceptually and mechanically. Also, things like jedi and such have always felt very psionic, and wisdom makes more sense there than int, IMHO.

 

[Yaarel]

Happy Fun Hour (2018 May22) is here!

Mearls discusses the monk.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/264336970



(I find the twitch.tv site kinda awkward to navigate thru. It took some hunting to locate this show. But here it is.)