D&D 5E Should Psion be a Class or Subclass?

[Einlanzer0]

I'd prefer a class, but after hearing Crawford's reasoning of making it a subclass in another thread I guess I can understand where WotC is coming from.

The more I listen to him, the more I question him. His reasoning is highly flawed. The reason psions weren't terribly popular in previous editions is because they a.) never had a ton of established lore behind them, and b.) were always presented in niche ways to a market they presumed was niche - usually siloed into their own supplement that came years too late. Exactly what's happening this time. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was a worthy concept for a full class.

More importantly, I'm really at odds with this "let's make everything a subclass" theme that's been going on for years. It is not elegant; it's sloppy and misguided.

The other 3 psionic classes from 3.5 should be subclasses for existing classes, but the psion itself really should be its own class and not a wizard tradition.

 

[Yaarel]

Psionicist or Psion (or meh, Mystic): Full Class.

Psychic Warrior/Battlemind: Fighter archetype
Soulknife: Rogue archetype
Ardent: Warlord archetype

Wild Talent: Feat or Background

I like the above. Wild Talent Background sounds cool. Ardent Warlord sounds cool.
I would add the Psionics Wizard as well for 3e Psion.

 

[gyor]

Psionicist or Psion (or meh, Mystic): Full Class.

Psychic Warrior/Battlemind: Fighter archetype
Soulknife: Rogue archetype
Ardent: Warlord archetype

Wild Talent: Feat or Background

I'd go Bard for Ardent, especially since we are along ways off from Warlord if ever.

 

[gyor]

The more I listen to him, the more I question him. His reasoning is highly flawed. The reason psions weren't terribly popular in previous editions is because they a.) never had a ton of established lore behind them, and b.) were always presented in niche ways to a market they presumed was niche - usually siloed into their own supplement that came years too late. Exactly what's happening this time. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was a worthy concept for a full class.

More importantly, I'm really at odds with this "let's make everything a subclass" theme that's been going on for years. It is not elegant; it's sloppy and misguided.

The other 3 psionic classes from 3.5 should be subclasses for existing classes, but the psion itself really should be its own class and not a wizard tradition.

I hate to say this but if you really want more interest in Psionics, do something really exciting with it in the Forgotten Realms (and of course play it up in Eberron and other Settings), like some major Psion plotline, not just Mindflayer's but something that really plays up Psion characters and stuff. Like a Return of Jhaamdath plotline!

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Yes.

(I go with both, like wizards and arcane tricksters/eldritch knights.)

 

[Shiroiken]

I generally oppose new base classes (the Artificer is fine because its for Ebberon, not everyone), but the Psion is one of the few classes I could actually see. There are then two forms the sub-classes could take: either the sub-classes incorporate the various styles (soul knife and psychic warrior) or they focus on the different talents (per AD&D). If they choose the latter option, then there would be good options for psionic sub-classes within other classes, however there will be some unhappy with certain choices (soul knife as rogue vs. monk, for example).

 

[Sacrosanct]

The more I listen to him, the more I question him. His reasoning is highly flawed. The reason psions weren't terribly popular in previous editions is because they a.) never had a ton of established lore behind them, and b.) were always presented in niche ways to a market they presumed was niche - usually siloed into their own supplement that came years too late. Exactly what's happening this time. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was a worthy concept for a full class.
.

Can’t speak for 3e or 4e, but in 2e, the complete psionics handbook came out in 1991–2 years after 2e’s release. That was pretty early in the 2e lifespan.
Also, seems like your reasoning is a lot of speculation. Do you have any citations for that. I think if they treated it like a niche product, it’s because their market research told them that. Based on Jeremys comment that hardly anyone used those rules in previous editions, I think that’s your real answer right there.

 

[Vael]

Class and Subclass.

I do think we need a Psion/Mystic base class, because none of the current classes fit. Sorcerers are close, but Psions definitely feel like an Intelligence-based caster. And Wizards ... don't really feel like Psionics and spellbooks are a good fit.

But I am pleasantly surprised with the Soulknife Rogue and the Psychic Warrior Fighter, so having Psionic flavoured Subclasses works for me.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I voted class and subclass. I think it is better to start simply (for the subclasses) and build up to a more complicated class

 

[StormbringerAUS]

None of the above