Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JiffyPopTart" data-source="post: 8095103" data-attributes="member: 4881">I think this statement helps me to understand your viewpoint on psion versus the viewpoint of the others in this thread debating with you.  I'll do my best to try to explain.In 5e D&D there is a character class called a FIGHTER.  I use all caps to point out that FIGHTER is a collection of rules and options that mechanically describes how something works in the game.  I could, in my home game, have a pseudo-Roman style setting where the residents of the world refer to legionaries, gladiators, barbarians, and mercenaries all of which can be represented in the game by the rules for FIGHTER.  They also might be represented by the rules for BARBARIAN or even ROGUE depending on how the individual was pictured.  You could even make a case for some of the spry non-armored and light weapon using barbarian tribesfolk to be represented on the character sheet by the MONK.  This is exactly what I repurposed in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign to represent a native tribesman from the jungles of Chult.  I used the rules for MONK but my character would describe themselves as a warrior.The teases for the Tasha's book indicates that its going to include rules for including psionics in 5e.  We speculate this is going to be done by taking several classes that already exist in 5e (assumed to be FIGHTER, ROGUE, and SORCERER) and including a subclass for each of those that incorporates powers/spells/abilities that emulate previous editions psionic content.  One such element is the new spell Mind Sliver which I will show below for those who haven't seen it yet.[ATTACH=full]126652[/ATTACH]Now I would like to point out the fundamental disagreement happening in this thread, as I see it.Some here are saying that its perfectly acceptable that if you want to play a psion that you can use a FIGHTER, ROGUE, or SORCERER to do so, because once you strip away the mechanics you can have a character who can zap others minds, charm them, levitate things, and remote view and that is what a psion is.  With this school of thought an Arcane Trickster is just as much a sneaky backstabbing wizard as much as it is a spellcasting backstabbing sneak.Others here are saying that it's not perfectly acceptable to play a psion that is anything other than a PSION, because otherwise you have the baggage that the original base class carries with it.  To them an Arcane Trickster is explicitly a ROGUE who can do some magic and a Psionic Sorcerer is explicitly a SORCERER.I don't think that either way of looking at it is wrong, because opinions can't be wrong.  I am, however, a fan of psionics being "different" than magic.  I also feel that 5e is stale and too conservative in its game design.  I have been able to play a SORCERER from launch day and call him a psion.  Giving me a new subclass of SORCERER with powers more emulating older versions of psionics will make my reskinning of SORCERER feel closer to a a psion.  It doesn't, however, give me a PSION which is what I would personally prefer.There are no crunch hooks in the Mind Sliver spells to attach it to psionics in any way.  There aren't even any fluff hooks to connect it to psionics.  Its simply another Enchantment spell.  There is no mention of psionic anywhere in the spell description.  There is nothing that ties this spell only to characters is a certain innate power.  There is nothing that sets it apart from every other spell in the books that have been released so far.</blockquote>

Verification