D&D 5E Psionics in Tasha

[Paul Farquhar]

Cranium rats have enlarged exposed brains, that possibly glow. They are small so you might not spot them at all, but if you do there is no way you are going to dismiss them as just a normal rat. You absolutely are going to pay attention to them.

My players where in a dark sewer and I told them there where rats scuttling about. If anyone had said "I look at the rats" I would have mentioned their exposed brains, but they chose not to give the rats a second glance.

 

[Maxperson]

The ONLY THING that matters is they indicate that a spell is being cast so someone can react to it. How it is fluffed is irrelevant.

It's not fluff. The CRUNCH is that GESTURES are SOMATIC components. Period. Nothing else is. If you change that crunch to be anything else, you have changed the rule.

No, it doesn't. Artificer spells follow exactly the same rules as any other spell. They still have V, S, M components, and the follow the same rules as anyone lese - you can't cast a spell with a V component if you are silenced, you need a free hand or a focus for an S component, you need materials or a focus for M components.

It's only the fluff that is different - you V component is speaking a command word, you S component is pulling a leaver, your M component is making adjustments with a screwdriver.

So the somatic is a variety of GESTURE. That's fine.

The page I referenced is not a rule, it's a sidebox explaining about refluffing.

It's only about refluffing the effects, not the components..

A bard can cast a spell by playing a lute. Core rules. The S components are the bard's fingers moving on the lute.

Those are a type of gesture.

So basically, you've failed to show any class that gets around the crunch that requires somatic to be gestures. If you want somatic to be some sort of light display, house rule it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If they didn't include displays, then the also did not include the lack of displays. The proper response should then be, "Well, how do we balance it then?", rather than just assuming that there would be no balance, which is rather silly as WotC makes a lot of effort to keep the classes balanced.

"This is a potential problem with this design concept"

"Well, you should just assume that that design will be balanced, instead of assuming it would be a problem."

No Max, you do not just assume that the problem someone is proposing will be fixed. And you do not assume that a person responding that that is not a problem, is assuming that the problem will be fixed in a specific way.

As I told him, he is aware that the majority of us are advocating for balance, not for imbalance. Especially me as he has had that conversation with me multiple times. So when he jumped in with, "Let's look at the consequences of "no components" then, shall we?," he was aware that for the most part, those on my side aren't advocating for a lack of components with no balancing factor. For him to say that anyway was to deflect from the real discussion and change what the position of most on my side of things have been saying. Hence, Red Herring and Strawman

Had he been making a response based what he knew about the position of those of us who want psionics to have no components, he would have said something like, "The following story shows why psionics having no components needs to be balanced in some other way like people have suggested."

And this still does not explain Sabathus's response. Which was not to say that it would be balanced by displays, but that it was already balanced because sorcerers can do it.

No matter how much you try and twist this into "well everyone knows", no, we don't. I do not know Sabathus's stance on displays, and you responding as though of course he agrees with you, despite you being the only person talking about displays is dragging the conversation away from where it was to where you think it should be.

I know you advocate for displays. I do not assume to know who else advocates for displays. They have their own issues, but I was responding to the information and points given.

In fact, even Paul was not advocating that Psionics would be overpowered, but that building them in that manner would be too strong. And the response to him was not "we know, and that is why we propose this solution." The response was "You are wrong. That is not overpowered" Which fully indicates that, yet again because I'm going to keep repeating it, Sabathus did not seem to be advocating for displays to balanced out something that is universally seen as too powerful. Their response was "this is not too powerful"

They did not include an assumption of displays in their point. So I did not interject your beliefs into their argument.

The displays are not once the spell is cast. "Displays" that happen after the spell is cast are called spell effects. Displays happen while the spell is being cast which alerts anyone who wishes to Counterspell. And as we(collectively) have said in other threads, you can quite easily balance the inability to stop them from casting through immobilization and silence, in other ways. It's not as if they can't be given slight disadvantages somewhere else to compensate.

This is why discussing with you is so so difficult Max.

My point: Displays do not work like components, so tying and gagging which are common countermeasures would not work

Your response: Displays happen while they are casting, so you can counterspell them. And, we obviously could easily balance them being able to cast while immobilized.


Okay, so you put forth something that had nothing to do with the points, again. And followed with a "and of course the problem is easy to fix" Which... is a smokescreen. You are just waving your hands and saying "that isn't a problem, we have solutions" then tell me the solution, because I was never talking about Counterspell. So half your response was pointless, and the other half is a vague "well, we already have solutions" while not informing anyone of those solutions.

Are they things you said three months ago? I've started working again, had a dog go through surgery, my mother break her arm, and written over 60 thousand words of an online story since then. At that is just the highlight reel. I didn't memorize your proposed solution to displays. So, instead of assuming everyone already agrees with you and remembers everything you've ever said, put forth points dealing with what we are actually saying.

Seriously, though, it's not really about whether it can be countered by the highly situational binding of hands and mouth, like a Wizard. You can accept that Psions can't be stopped in that way and then balance them in other ways by say slightly weaker abilities or a few less spell slots.

Since cutting off even a single limb takes DM fiat, a Sword of Sharpness and two consecutive natural 20's, or an artifact Vorpal Sword and one natural 20, I'm not terribly worried about it. I'd take a Ham and Cheese Baguette as the price for that one.

Much more common would be binding and gagging/silence, and those are still fairly rare. I described above what the cost for that minor advantage is.

The single biggest advantage is the ability to cast spells with no visible source, and displays counter that advantage nicely

Okay, here we get to some actual points, which also shows me that you aren't thinking about this in the same manner that I am.

See, the PCs are rarely bound and gagged. This is true. NPCs on the other hand have that happen to them a lot. In fact, in a recent game we had to get an NPC transported to a monastery, while they were possessed by an evil spirit that randomly took control of them. They were a spellcaster, so we were able to mostly counter that, with only a single incident of a close call stopped by me driving a dagger with a paralysis poison into them when they got free.


However your "minor advantage" means that this would be impossible if the NPC had been a psion. Your solutions of "they are slightly weaker" or "they have fewer spell slots" don't actually do anything for the core problem. You cannot restrain them.

Let us say that they have a cantrip ability, and we make them deal 1d8 damage instead of 1d10... they can still constantly attack us with no means for us to stop them other than knocking them unconcious. Let us say they have an AOE, and instead of 8d6 they do 5d6... Well, they still just wait until we are all asleep and then blast us all with that, and possible one or two other attacks, and starts the combat yet again, until we can knock them out.

This is the biggest problem I see, is that when faced with an NPC like this, or heck if they players get captured and the NPCs are faced with the player, it is far far far easier to just slit their throat and be done with it than be constantly attacked every few hours as they come back to consciousness.


Now, I do have one thought about a solution, but it is one that a lot of people who advocate for Psionics will likely not support. Make Psionics require line of sight. Then, it is less important to gag them, but more important to blindfold them. And that solves the issue quite nicely.

Except, many people like Psionics to be based off of "attacking the mind telepathically" and there is likely to be pushback because they want Psionicists to be able to attack people through walls or while blinded, by targeting the minds around them directly. How well this solution is recieved is based off how important that aspect of the fantasy is to the individual.

Apparently you don't know what components are. Components are V, S and M, which are not part of any display.

Counterpoint, (though I don't know if this is what Paul is saying) the only components that currently exist are VSM, there is nothing in the rules for components that says we can't add more than 3 components to the spell casting. D for displays and potentially something else could still be classified as components, and not break anything.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cranium rats have enlarged exposed brains, that possibly glow. They are small so you might not spot them at all, but if you do there is no way you are going to dismiss them as just a normal rat. You absolutely are going to pay attention to them.

You mean the glow that they can turn off as a Bonus Action? That they clearly would not turn on in that situation?

I'd also like to point you to the Rat in the second row, the one leaping? It is a bit distant, but it is notable because the "exposed brain" is just a pink streak on top of its head. Having seen rodents like Rats and such run, they are small and fast enough to be hard to see in the best of times.

If a Cranium Rat was running past the party, they might see the pink streak and assume it was balding, or had some disease causing its hair to fall out. If they were looking up at the rat on the rafters, they might not even see the top of its head. If they were peeking out of a rat hole, they might only see the snout and eyes, not the top of the head.

So, yes, if you notice that the rat has an exposed brain, that is going to grab your attention. But even that is going to take a perception check, maybe even a passive one since how likely are they to scrutinize a rat?

 

[Chaosmancer]

As would Incapacitated, such as by paralysis. Even though you'd think a Psion could still use powers with no verbal, somatic or material components, you do not get actions or reaction when Incapacitated.

Personally, I'd let it work anyway, just like I'd let a Sorcerer who used metamagic to get around those to still act. The rules don't account for every situation and I just don't see paralysis stopping those things. However, by RAW those things are stopped.

This is actually another pretty rough aspect of this discussion, the more I think about it.

Because RAW is clear, but the fact you are willing to homebrew it shows that there is a disconnect in mechanics and lore. Obviously if I only cast using my mind, and I can think, I can still cast. Which, under your homebrew effectively downgrades a lot of conditions.

Not only paralysis and incapacitated (which is part of paralysis, so would just be completely negated by the houserule) but restrained gives you disadvantage on attack rolls, but if the psion is making "ranged spell attacks" with their mind, they don't need to move their body, so would restrain still give them disadvantage? Prone?

This takes a lot of the more common conditions that players face, and removes a major part of them. And, while RAW is still RAW, players will end up asking their DMs to homebrew it, or just assume that the condition does not apply, potentially causing confusion at the table. Unless WoTC goes through and mentions how each condition affects the Psion separately.

Which just makes the rules even more complex than they need to be

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So basically, you've failed to show any class that gets around the crunch that requires somatic to be gestures.

True. But there is no reason psionics can't involve gestures. Professor X puts his fingers to his temple. Jean Grey reaches out with her hand. Spock touches the face of the person he melds with.

However, none of the psionic spells in Tasha's have S components anyway - only V. Which I would say is the wrong way round, psionics are frequently depicted with gestures, but rarely with speech.

But it doesn't matter what the component is, so long as it exists and can be recognised as such by someone else. It's only "no components" that would be broken.

 

[Maxperson]

"This is a potential problem with this design concept"

"Well, you should just assume that that design will be balanced, instead of assuming it would be a problem."

No Max, you do not just assume that the problem someone is proposing will be fixed. And you do not assume that a person responding that that is not a problem, is assuming that the problem will be fixed in a specific way.

There is no problem at all. None. Psionics does not exist. And yes, when a company puts out balanced classes in subclasses dozens and dozens of times and they are all balanced, I can in fact assume that they will balance the next one. There's zero reason for me to assume otherwise at this point.

And this still does not explain Sabathus's response. Which was not to say that it would be balanced by displays, but that it was already balanced because sorcerers can do it.

If that's what he was saying, I disagree with him. Sorcerers cannot do it with every single spell.

That isn't what I gathered from his responses, though. I gathered that he views the rats as balanced, because of how D&D is played. If the rats' power was a secret, it's a mystery!! Fun times.

My point: Displays do not work like components, so tying and gagging which are common countermeasures would not work

Common for PCs to use on NPCs. Uncommon to rare for NPCs to use it on PCs. PCs don't end up on the short end of the stick anywhere near as often as NPCs, and when they do it's not always with NPCs that know what to do with casters.

Your response: Displays happen while they are casting, so you can counterspell them. And, we obviously could easily balance them being able to cast while immobilized.

Right, I said more than once the minimal times that PC Psions cannot be countered by binding and gagging could be countered with some slightly weaker class abilities and/or a few less spell slots(or the equivalent). I didn't ignore it and proposed some things that could be brought in to balance.

Okay, so you put forth something that had nothing to do with the points, again.

The point was that not having the same weaknesses as Wizards and Sorcerers made Psions too powerful. Proposing ways to balance that has everything to do with the point.

You are just waving your hands and saying "that isn't a problem, we have solutions" then tell me the solution, because I was never talking about Counterspell. So half your response was pointless, and the other half is a vague "well, we already have solutions" while not informing anyone of those solutions.

So you don't care about the greater balance issue of keeping the casting secret and are only focusing on the much lesser issue of binding/gagging failing to work on Psions? I don't understand that. Being able to pinpoint casters and focus on them is the major balance point in combat. If a caster can keep himself secret in a fight, that's a HUGE bonus.

Are they things you said three months ago?

Yes. I've said the same things in every conversation about psionics I've been in since 5e came out.

I've started working again, had a dog go through surgery, my mother break her arm, and written over 60 thousand words of an online story since then. At that is just the highlight reel.

Ugh! Sorry to hear that man. I really hope your dog is going to be okay and your mother arm heals quickly.

See, the PCs are rarely bound and gagged. This is true. NPCs on the other hand have that happen to them a lot. In fact, in a recent game we had to get an NPC transported to a monastery, while they were possessed by an evil spirit that randomly took control of them. They were a spellcaster, so we were able to mostly counter that, with only a single incident of a close call stopped by me driving a dagger with a paralysis poison into them when they got free.

Yep. For sure it happens to NPCs far more often. Outside of Darksun, though, how many of those casters are going to be Psions. From my point of view, the PCs having a much harder time with an NPC is a challenge to be overcome. PCs have watches. How hard is it to make sure the Psion cannot get any rest to recover power and hit points? It's a bit inconvenient, but the one on watch can keep a sword to the captives throat with a warning that death will be swift if they see any displays of power begin(readied action to cut the NPCs throat if he tries to cast a spell).

However your "minor advantage" means that this would be impossible if the NPC had been a psion. Your solutions of "they are slightly weaker" or "they have fewer spell slots" don't actually do anything for the core problem. You cannot restrain them.

Except I just did in my example above. Presumably the Psion was reduced to 0 and being an NPC and not a PC, likely has no class levels, so no hit dice to spend on a short rest. One slice will put him out and he will never recover power or hit points due to not being able to rest.

Let us say that they have a cantrip ability, and we make them deal 1d8 damage instead of 1d10... they can still constantly attack us with no means for us to stop them other than knocking them unconcious. Let us say they have an AOE, and instead of 8d6 they do 5d6... Well, they still just wait until we are all asleep and then blast us all with that, and possible one or two other attacks, and starts the combat yet again, until we can knock them out.

No. No the Psion wouldn't constantly attack the party. It would be moronic for the Psion to do so when A) the party just beat him while he was at full power and now he's very much weaker, and B) if he irritates the party, they might not just make him unconscious if he starts casting. The fear of death is a great motivator for good behavior.

Now, I do have one thought about a solution, but it is one that a lot of people who advocate for Psionics will likely not support. Make Psionics require line of sight. Then, it is less important to gag them, but more important to blindfold them. And that solves the issue quite nicely.

I have no problem with that. I don't think most who advocate for psionics will, either, It makes a lot of sense for the Psion to need to see the target for most of their abilities. The issue is whether Clairvoyance will allow a work-around or not. I can see a lot of people arguing in favor of that working.

Counterpoint, (though I don't know if this is what Paul is saying) the only components that currently exist are VSM, there is nothing in the rules for components that says we can't add more than 3 components to the spell casting. D for displays and potentially something else could still be classified as components, and not break anything.

It won't break anything except for tradition, which is very strong in D&D. Rather than fight that fight unnecessarily, just making it an effect of casting and not a component. It changes nothing and doesn't cause a huge segment of players to break out the torches and pitchforks.

 

[Maxperson]

Because RAW is clear, but the fact you are willing to homebrew it shows that there is a disconnect in mechanics and lore. Obviously if I only cast using my mind, and I can think, I can still cast. Which, under your homebrew effectively downgrades a lot of conditions.

I agree, but balance means a lot less to me than it does to many people. I argue for balance in the official classes/subclasses, but in my own game I'm willing and able to knock that out of whack in the name of what makes sense and/or fun.

Not only paralysis and incapacitated (which is part of paralysis, so would just be completely negated by the houserule) but restrained gives you disadvantage on attack rolls, but if the psion is making "ranged spell attacks" with their mind, they don't need to move their body, so would restrain still give them disadvantage? Prone?

I hadn't thought about those other conditions and probably won't until a Psion class or subclass comes out and I need to.

 

[Maxperson]

True. But there is no reason psionics can't involve gestures. Professor X puts his fingers to his temple. Jean Grey reaches out with her hand. Spock touches the face of the person he melds with.

Of those, only one does it all the time. Spock. Professor X often does not touch his temple and Jean Grey doesn't have to reach out with her hand, either. Those are just artistic touches that people throw in. Spock requires the touch for the mind meld, though. That much is true.

However, none of the psionic spells in Tasha's have S components anyway - only V. Which I would say is the wrong way round, psionics are frequently depicted with gestures, but rarely with speech.

They are frequently depicted with gestures, not because the gestures are necessary, but because it adds to the artistic/dramatic value of the medium. Comics, TV and movies are a different medium than roleplaying games.

It's only "no components" that would be broken.

Significantly more powerful, yes. Broken, no. And all you need are displays and you can in fact have no components with no increase in combat power.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Caveat: 80% of the time I am on ENWorld I'm on my phone. Trying to reply here on a phone SUCKS, so it's difficult for me to multiquote or go back and point to specific posts..

That being said, I'm going to clarify my stance on a few discussion points here.

I want psionics to be different from spells. If psionics are just tags added to spells I don't consider that having been "adding psionics to 5e".

I don't care either way if psions are designed with or without components for their powers. I would prefer they stick to tradition and not use them however I don't feel that's a key component of what makes them different from magic.

I don't believe that the ability of an opponent to be able to counter spell the power is a fundamental need for game balance. Sorcerer's have the ability to cast spells without being countered. Monsters have spell like abilities that can't be countered. Character classes have spell like abilities that can't be countered (turning undead as one example). Even spell slots can be used for other uses without being countered (smites for paladins).

I do believe that it's good gameplay to allow someone to prevent casting of a known source. Ont thing only just recently mentioned is that most spells require line of sight so a simple hood over the head of a caster goes a long way towards preventing them from charming an opponent. I think the rare exceptions to these countermeasures add interesting tweaks to the world and the game. I can easily picture some guard getting dressed down because they put a bag I've the wizards head only to be charmed by their sweet lullaby because the wizard was actually a bard.

In my home games, playing weekly since 5e came out and probably 80% of the time playing 5e we have only had ONE character who counter spelled anything. We similarly have had less that 10 combats where an enemy wizard counter spelled a PC. Counter spells just aren't that common a tactic in out games and as a result, to me, the whole discussion of being able or not to counter spell is a very unimportant issue. You can still cast dispel magic after the fact, grant extra saves, or any one of the other options in the game even if you can't stop the initial casting of a spell.

As for displays, I have no problem with them being used to let opponents know a power is being used. They were added in as a balancer in 3e and I see no reason not to carry over their use.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is no problem at all. None. Psionics does not exist. And yes, when a company puts out balanced classes in subclasses dozens and dozens of times and they are all balanced, I can in fact assume that they will balance the next one. There's zero reason for me to assume otherwise at this point.

WoTC is just as likely to release spells with components and call that Psionics as they are to release your vision of Psionics. But, since there is no official psionic class, then talking about hypothetical builds is all we can do.

And engaging with a hypothetical, by inserting additional facts that directly impact the core premise of the hypothetical, is a poor discussion strategy.

The basis of that tangent was a discussion of Psionics with no components, and no mention of displays. Me inserting displays is not discussion the basis of the point. It is me avoiding the point entirely and changing the subject.

If that's what he was saying, I disagree with him. Sorcerers cannot do it with every single spell.

That isn't what I gathered from his responses, though. I gathered that he views the rats as balanced, because of how D&D is played. If the rats' power was a secret, it's a mystery!! Fun times.

Then Max, maybe you should go back and double check, because this was the part I was referring to

It's just not a game breaking issue for a class to secretly use a magical power. Sorcerer's can already do it and all I hear is how they are underpowered, not breaking everyone's campaign.

This was the last paragraph to his response about how giving this ability to players was far too much power. I responded with actually the basic point you just said "Sorcerers cannot do it with every single spell." along with pointing out how much opportunity cost came from the sorcerer even getting the ability to do this on an occasional basis is.

You then swooped in to tell me that adding Displays to Psionics was completely uncontreversial and I should assume that Sabathius also supports displays for Psionics as does everyone else, and Paul is engaging in Strawmen. Which was not something he ever said, nor the actual topic of discussion.

Common for PCs to use on NPCs. Uncommon to rare for NPCs to use it on PCs. PCs don't end up on the short end of the stick anywhere near as often as NPCs, and when they do it's not always with NPCs that know what to do with casters.

Right, I said more than once the minimal times that PC Psions cannot be countered by binding and gagging could be countered with some slightly weaker class abilities and/or a few less spell slots(or the equivalent). I didn't ignore it and proposed some things that could be brought in to balance.

The point was that not having the same weaknesses as Wizards and Sorcerers made Psions too powerful. Proposing ways to balance that has everything to do with the point.

So you don't care about the greater balance issue of keeping the casting secret and are only focusing on the much lesser issue of binding/gagging failing to work on Psions? I don't understand that. Being able to pinpoint casters and focus on them is the major balance point in combat. If a caster can keep himself secret in a fight, that's a HUGE bonus.

Yes. I've said the same things in every conversation about psionics I've been in since 5e came out.

Ugh! Sorry to hear that man. I really hope your dog is going to be okay and your mother arm heals quickly.

Both of them are ignoring doctors instructions out of stubbornness, but they both seem to be healing okay.

Also, you might notice I grouped all your responses together. You seemed to want to respond to my single overarching argument by breaking it into smaller pieces. This was fairly aggravating since, for example, you responded to me restating the premise by treating it like an argument.

Responding to "you can't counter a psionist by tying and gagging them" by telling me that PCs are very rarely bound and gagged doesn't really address the point. Especially since I had those two lines, not as arguments, but to show where we were standing in the discussion.

Most of this actually is you responding to a critique of your lack of detail, as though you gave me actual answers to discuss. I mean, the entire point of my paragraph was that you did not give me actual ways to balance the classes, yet in this response you say " Proposing ways to balance that has everything to do with the point." Sure Max, it would. But in that post I was responding to, you did not propose any ways to balance it. You instead said "you can quite easily balance the inability to stop them from casting through immobilization and silence, in other ways. It's not as if they can't be given slight disadvantages somewhere else to compensate."

That isn't proposing a way to balance it. That is stating that balancing it won't be a challenge.

As for the actual point you made that I can address, no, I am not solely concerned with the balance in combat. Combat is actually the point I am the least concerned about, for a few reasons.

1) My players do not tend to be highly tactical. I have tried to get various groups to a higher level of tactical thinking, but they aren't interested

2) My players are concerned with "rule of cool" type moments. So, if the Psion wanted to throw an enemy with telekinesis, they are far more likely to describe it as them gritting their teeth and throwing out their hands than they are to be standing in cover and staring really hard. Meaning a lot of Somatic and Verbal indicators (note I did not say components) are likely to be included whether or not they are needed. Therefore identifying them in combat (on top of other things like enemies not exactly standing idly by as a guy who is standing around staring at people who are getting flung around the room is in the combat) Leading us to...

3) The issue of safe containment and transport of dangerous individuals is something we see fairly often in my games. Both when I am a player and when I am a DM. And we have struggled enough with simply securing wizards and other magic users, that this issue with Psionics immediately jumps out at me as being hard to navigate as a player, and challenging world building to a degree. Mundane methods can restrain even an Archmage. Current discussions have no way to fully restrain even the weakest Psion. Which means a dangerous Psion would be killed on the spot, because you have no way to contain them or restrain their power. This is a big deal.

Yep. For sure it happens to NPCs far more often. Outside of Darksun, though, how many of those casters are going to be Psions. From my point of view, the PCs having a much harder time with an NPC is a challenge to be overcome. PCs have watches. How hard is it to make sure the Psion cannot get any rest to recover power and hit points? It's a bit inconvenient, but the one on watch can keep a sword to the captives throat with a warning that death will be swift if they see any displays of power begin(readied action to cut the NPCs throat if he tries to cast a spell).

Except I just did in my example above. Presumably the Psion was reduced to 0 and being an NPC and not a PC, likely has no class levels, so no hit dice to spend on a short rest. One slice will put him out and he will never recover power or hit points due to not being able to rest.

How many NPCs will be Psions?

As many as the plot calls for. Saying they are rare and therefore this is not an issue is again, sidestepping the point. I don't know how rare Psions are yet.

The idea of devoting your watch to keeping a perfect eye on your prisoner runs into a few other problems. For example, how well are you actually keeping watch if you are staring at the prisoner? Can you keep your sword to their throat while marching? If they have charm abilities, can you be sure that you can get your readied action off in time if they have a readied action to whammy you when you are distracted? I would say it is very difficult to hold a readied action of a sword held against someone's throat, while keeping your full attention on that person for two hours. Possible, but incredibly difficult.

Also, if you can just kill them, why didn't you? Supposedly you are transporting them for a reason. If you could kill them with no repurcussions, you would have just done so.

Finally, you are wrong about NPCs having no hit dice. First of all, this NPC is a Psion, so they do have class levels. That's why they have psionic abilities. Secondly, every statblock has Hit Dice.

Instead of just hoping you believe me, I'm going to quote the monster manual:

A monster’s hit points are presented both as a die expression and as an average number. For example, a monster with 2d8 hit points has 9 hit points on average (2 × 4½).

A monster’s size determines the die used to calculate its hit points, as shown in the Hit Dice by Size table.

A monster’s Constitution modifier also affects the number of hit points it has. Its Constitution modifier is multiplied by the number of Hit Dice it possesses, and the result is added to its hit points. For example, if a monster has a Constitution of 12 (+1 modifier) and 2d8 Hit Dice, it has 2d8 + 2 hit points (average 11).

So, if we assume the Psion has a similiar statblock to the mage, they would have 9d8 Hit dice, that they could spend after an hour rest to recover. They can only spend those nine, unless they get a long rest, but if they have enough to survive an exchange with the guard on Watch, they could potentially overwhelm the guard and escape.

No. No the Psion wouldn't constantly attack the party. It would be moronic for the Psion to do so when A) the party just beat him while he was at full power and now he's very much weaker, and B) if he irritates the party, they might not just make him unconscious if he starts casting. The fear of death is a great motivator for good behavior.

Again, fear of death only works if the Psion actively believes the party will kill them. If they know or suspect the party can't kill them for whatever reason, such as a possession story where the Psionic individual is a spirit in the mind of a young child the party does not want to kill (a classic story) then they can attack the party with impunity. Perhaps not every moment, but at key moments, that might lead to the party's demise? Certainly.

I have no problem with that. I don't think most who advocate for psionics will, either, It makes a lot of sense for the Psion to need to see the target for most of their abilities. The issue is whether Clairvoyance will allow a work-around or not. I can see a lot of people arguing in favor of that working.

Shrug

I have seen a lot of people argue that the Psion should not even have to see you, to attack you. I would also argue that Clairvoyance shouldn't work for casting, but then that leads to the Psion not even having clairvoyant or "sight beyond sight" abilities. Which, are fairly iconic abilities for Psionics.

So, it ends up cutting an entire section of psionic power off from the game, but keeps things balanced.

It won't break anything except for tradition, which is very strong in D&D. Rather than fight that fight unnecessarily, just making it an effect of casting and not a component. It changes nothing and doesn't cause a huge segment of players to break out the torches and pitchforks.

Torches and pitchforks over a name. If it wasn't for the fact that that happens every single time in this discussion, I'd find it amusing.

I agree, but balance means a lot less to me than it does to many people. I argue for balance in the official classes/subclasses, but in my own game I'm willing and able to knock that out of whack in the name of what makes sense and/or fun.

I hadn't thought about those other conditions and probably won't until a Psion class or subclass comes out and I need to.

A fair way to approach it as a DM.

But, if we want to talk about designing the system, then these are considerations that must be taken into account. If we want to judge whatever solutions WoTC puts forth, we need to be able to understand the thought process that went into them.