Psion class (Mearls, Happy Fun Hour)

[Yaarel]

I suppose that, arguably, the Enchanter never really needed to be it's own thing in 5e, sure.

Enchanter makes more sense with the Charisma caster class, especially bard.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

But once they switched over to this new idea of making psionics nothing more than spellcasting with a flavored spell list...

I’ll be somewhat surprised if this survives play testing, and wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t even make it to play testing.

 

[Yaarel]

I’ll be somewhat surprised if this survives play testing, and wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t even make it to play testing.

My impression is, Mearls is exploring the psionic subclasses as a nod toward the psionics=spells camp, and the psion class as a nod toward psionics=mechanics camp. For example, Mearls mentioned more than once that the subclasses are a way to implement psionics without needing to learn a new system.

That said, I love the tropes of the psion class, but am in the psionics=spells camp. As long as the high level psion class can get the Wish spell, that is close enough for me. The psion must be a full spellcaster, or at least something like it. I would balk at a half caster.

 

[CapnZapp]

I’ll be somewhat surprised if this survives play testing, and wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t even make it to play testing.

I envy your confidence...

Myself, I would be extremely surprised (and very happy) if psionics left the spells route behind for something mechanically truly new (or at least different, like if they make attacks using ability scores).

I would definitely be prepared to pay the price of the non-Psion subclasses being more traditional to get this. (For instance, if the Psionic Warrior turns out to be a lightly rehashed Eldritch Knight, only with a different spell list, that would be tantamount to throwing this archetype on the garbage heap - but if the Psion got to play with brand new toys in return I would choose to accept it as worth the sacrifice)

 

[CapnZapp]

The psion must be a full spellcaster, or at least something like it. I would balk at a half caster.

Of course.

Or, maybe, I should ask - good heavens, who on earth would think otherwise?

Psionics should definitely cover the full spectrum of power. Then, whether Psions get Wish-level power from spell slots, invocations, or some new framework, is of secondary concern. (Or rather, that should be the foremost concern, because the question of getting it at all should not even need to be asked).

 

[Ratskinner]

Retirement? No need for that.

I have already predicted 6e will be in 30-point font, and now I predict that the biggest supplement of 6e will be the trained dice-rolling monkey for arthritic DM's......

Have to be a larger species. Large-print dice can be heavy.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think for me the differences go back to 4e's power sources. I don't particularly need Psionics to be more different from Arcane magic than Arcane magic is from Divine or Primal magic. The typical mechanical differences help it stand out more, which, depending on where you're standing, is either a great thing or a terrible thing. But the main difference is the source of the power:
Arcane: Spellweave/Leylines/Siberys/Life Esscence/etc.
Divine: Gods/Faith
Primal: Nature itself
Psionics: Mental Energy

Meh... the more 'organized' magic gets, the more dumb it feels to my tastes. Why is the mind of a humanoid not part of nature? Why aren't those leylines or "life essence" outside nature? "Primal" is an even more watered down concept.

 

[Aldarc]

I hope that, with the return of the 3.x "Psion" name comes the DM-option of Psionics being magical or different by campaign.

Much akin to the name "warlord," the name "psion" has accumulated a lot of legacy traction: 3-4E plus its fairly popular re-implementation in Pathfinder by Dreamscarred Press.

As it stands, though, sub-classes associated with a new class like the above provide faux-MCing for campaigns where MCing is not opted-into, and are only slightly less legitimate in covering a concept associated with the new class than a sub-class of the class itself. Personally, I think Ardent would make more sense as a Psion or Warlord sub-class than a Bard sub-class (because of the Bard is a full caster in 5e, but if he's essentially made the psion a caster, I guess it's fine, too).

The Ardent was introduced in 3.5, and is a fairly strong concept, a psionic who channels emotion (telempathy) to support his allies.

The Ardent would indeed work well for a Warlord or a Bard subclass, though I would lean towards Warlord since it decouples the Ardent from any musical or poetic baggage of the Bard.

Personally, I kind of feel like the Sorcerer is a better home for a Psionic-Arcane hybrid; the classic "mutant" feel of "oh my goodness, I can read people's minds!" Wizard and the future Psion look like they'll both be Int-based, so they could multiclass pretty easily.

Same. It would be a bit odd for the psion to consult a spellbook of their innate talent.

 

[mrpopstar]

There is a part of my that's like, "yay! this looks to be shaping up nicely!," and another part of me that's like, "there was such a huge missed opportunity in differentiating magic users by spell list rather than by systems of magical resource expenditure, which would have freed up design space to differentiate psionics." -- I'm torn.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Psychics has to navigate between the Scylla of being insufficiently distinct from "wizard's magic" (or else why bother making it?) and the Charybdis of "that it irritates everyone else" [see Psychic Combat]. The Lore Wizard proves a subclass can be eaten by Charybdis. I find the notion of a "full caster" psychic imaginatively bankrupt, but it does avoid Charybdis.