D&D (2024) What Should a Psion Be Able To Do?

[Corinnguard]

Sure. Or not. Depends entirely on your definition of a Wizard and what they're capable of.

For you, it's everything. For me? Not so much.

And definitely not in the same way.

It really depends on the concept for a given class in D&D. A number of posters on this thread brought up Professor X or Jean Grey as examples of what a Psion, in their minds, is capable of doing. So, from this point onward, that is how everyone is going to see the concept behind the Psion class.

It's the same story for the Wizard. When someone, either within or outside the D&D community mentions the class, what concept of the class pops into your head? Which fictional character automatically makes you think 'Wizard'? Dr. Strange? Gandalf? Dumbledore?

Ditto for the other classes in D&D. Everyone is going to have their own idea for the concept of a particular class in D&D. What we eventually get for a class from WoTC is a concept based on consensus. It's not a perfect consensus (a good example is the Ranger, which people are still not completely satisfied with, but it is a consensus of what we think a Ranger ought to be capable of doing).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It really depends on the concept for a given class in D&D. A number of posters on this thread brought up Professor X or Jean Grey as examples of what a Psion, in their minds, is capable of doing. So, from this point onward, that is how everyone is going to see the concept behind the Psion class.

It's the same story for the Wizard. When someone, either within or outside the D&D community mentions the class, what concept of the class pops into your head? Which fictional character automatically makes you think 'Wizard'? Dr. Strange? Gandalf? Dumbledore?

Ditto for the other classes in D&D. Everyone is going to have their own idea for the concept of a particular class in D&D. What we eventually get for a class from WoTC is a concept based on consensus. It's not a perfect consensus (a good example is the Ranger, which people are still not completely satisfied with, but it is a consensus of what we think a Ranger ought to be capable of doing).

But there is a third option, which is neither what Wizards are (essentially, "the best of nearly every magic system from fiction", much to my chagrin), nor something that is hard-coded to be one and only one thing.

And that is to offer many options...that cannot all be taken. AKA the 13th Age Druid solution.

Because the problem with the 3rd edition Druid is that it's (at least) three different classes fused into one, and thus stupidly OP. It's got a full pet that is almost as strong as a Fighter (especially if you get equipment for it), and shapeshifting, AND full spellcasting (which, with the single strongest feat in all of 3e, you can do while shapeshifted). 13A said "okay, we can't take away the things people loved about being a druid...but we have to take away the OP brokenness. How can we do that?" And the answer was to chop Druid up into six categories: Animal Companion, Elemental Caster, Shifter, Terrain Caster, Warrior Druid, and Wild Healer. Each comes in Initiate (=1 Talent) or Adept (=2 Talents), and the Druid only gets 3 Talents total, right at first level. So "Druids" CAN be all of those things...but no single Druid is ever more than 3 at a time, and even then, only dabbling in three rather than mastering three.

That's why I proposed the idea of subclasses centered around specific Disciplines, and Talents within each Discipline that provide improving powers as you become stronger. That way, any singular Psion cannot be everything--but Psions collectively can do all sorts of things, and one individual Psion might be powerfully gifted with a small set of similar Talents, while others might be quite diverse but less potent by spreading themselves around.

 

[mellored]

That's why I proposed the idea of subclasses centered around specific Disciplines, and Talents within each Discipline that provide improving powers as you become stronger. That way, any singular Psion cannot be everything--but Psions collectively can do all sorts of things, and one individual Psion might be powerfully gifted with a small set of similar Talents, while others might be quite diverse but less potent by spreading themselves around.

I mostly agree, here's how I would tweak it for 5e.

Level 1: Half caster
No verb/somatic components
Pick 2 "Kinetic" Talents, which mainly determine your spell list, but can also add a few other features at higher level (i.e. pyromancer resists fire)

Pyrokinetic: produce flame, burning hands, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Wall of fire, conjure elemental (fire only).
Cryokinetic: ray of frost, grease-but-ice, web-but-ice, sleet storm, ice storm, cone of cold)
Telepathy: mind blast, Command, ....
Telekinetic: force bolt, shield, ....
Biokinetic: healing...
Warpkinetic ...
(naming needs some work)

Level 2: psi points, regain on a short rest.
Augments (metamagic)

Damage boost
Range boost
Area boost
Careful
Upcast slot
Create spell slot.

Level 3: "Mancer" subclass, more spells which does not overlap with the Talent list.

Pyromancer (produce flame) different from Pyrokinetic (firebolt).
Biomancer Adept gives bone weapons, different from Biokinetic which heals.

subclass have also allow for higher than 5th level spells.
I.e. Telepathy-mancer let's you cast Power Word Kill once per long rest.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mostly agree, here's how I would tweak it for 5e.

Level 1: Half caster
No verb/somatic components
Pick 2 "Kinetic" Talents, which mainly determine your spell list, but can also add a few other features at higher level (i.e. pyromancer resists fire)

Pyrokinetic: produce flame, burning hands, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Wall of fire, conjure elemental (fire only).
Cryokinetic: ray of frost, grease-but-ice, web-but-ice, sleet storm, ice storm, cone of cold)
Telepathy: mind blast, Command, ....
Telekinetic: force bolt, shield, ....
Biokinetic: healing...
Warpkinetic ...
(naming needs some work)

Level 2: psi points, regain on a short rest.
Augments (metamagic)

Damage boost
Range boost
Area boost
Careful
Upcast slot
Create spell slot.

Level 3: "Mancer" subclass, more spells which does not overlap with the Talent list.

Pyromancer (produce flame) different from Pyrokinetic (firebolt).
Biomancer Adept gives bone weapons, different from Biokinetic which heals.

subclass have also allow for higher than 5th level spells.
I.e. Telepathy-mancer let's you cast Power Word Kill once per long rest.

Sure, the structure here looks fine.

I just don't think it should use spells for this purpose. I really really dislike just defaulting to spells as the form of 95% of supernatural power. I think things that aren't spells should also get to be powerful and stand on even footing with spells.

Had I my druthers, Ranger and Paladin would never touch spells either unless you specifically opted into the singular spell-wielding subclass (analogous to EK/AT), and certain other classes (e.g. Monk and Barbarian) would not use spells as part of their repertoire either unless they also had a very specifically "you are a partial spellcaster" subclass. I consider this to be important for both class identity and niche protection, amongst other benefits like "playing a Psion feels different from playing a Wizard".

 

[mellored]

Sure, the structure here looks fine.

Cool.
I like how it's shaping up.

I just don't think it should use spells for this purpose.

I understand, but disagree.
I don't want another 40 pages duplicating the same effect. If it looks like a fireball, deals damage like a fireball, and has the area of a fireball, might as well say Fireball. Not to mention multiclassing.

But to meet you half way.

Psion Casting:
Psionic spells are not Magic, and are not effected by Counterspell, Antimagic fields or similar effects.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Cool.
I like how it's shaping up.

I understand, but disagree.
I don't want another 40 pages duplicating the same effect. If it looks like a fireball, deals damage like a fireball, and has the area of a fireball, might as well say Fireball. Not to mention multiclassing.

But to meet you half way.

Psion Casting:
Psionic spells are not Magic, and are not effected by Counterspell, Antimagic fields or similar effects.

I appreciate the effort, but this is, as far as I'm concerned, not even remotely the problem.

Like this...you aren't even remotely removing spells. You're just kiudging together a "well they're still spells, they just are super spells that work exactly like other spells except better."

I truly do appreciate the effort to meet halfway, but from where I'm sitting this is meeting me 0.1% of the way. I'm still conceding 99.9% of what I want, and I'm not really sure a halfway point exists. You simply, flatly, do not want powers that aren't ultimately spells. I simply, flatly, do not want powers that use the rules of spellcasting. Making them very literally "spells but you can't counter spell them" isn't changing the part I care about. Frankly, I'd actually prefer it the other way around, that psionics IS affected by AMF and counterspell, but isn't actually a spell. Given I am quite confident that wouldn't be acceptable to you, I just don't think we'll meet at any kind of middle on this.

You think it's wasteful and unnecessary to make powers that aren't spells. I think it's detrimental in the extreme to make powers that ARE literally just spells with tweaks. If compromise exists between our two positions, I've no idea what it looks like.

 

[mellored]

You simply, flatly, do not want powers that aren't ultimately spells.

"Spell" is just a container. You can put whatever you want into it. It's main use is to balance and limit effects.

So I don't see how renaming Fireball into a "Power" would change anything except maybe sounding a bit more universal.


But please explain what you see as the difference.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

"Spell" is just a container. You can put whatever you want into it. It's main use is to balance and limit effects.

So I don't see how renaming Fireball into a "Power" would change anything except maybe sounding a bit more universal.


But please explain what you see as the difference.

I'd like to get rid of the countless containers of different sizes, and have a few large containers with measurement lines.

 

[Remathilis]

iterally the exact same practice could be religious worship, witchcraft, or (natural) philosophy (which is the term that closest corresponds to what we would call "science" today), simply depending on the context in which it occurred. We have recovered curse tablets written by perfectly ordinary Roman citizens hoping the gods would bring about their wishes. Kings and emperors routinely expected things we call "supernatural" to be just...part of the world. E.g. we have correspondence from Grand Duke Cosimo I ordering his advisors to ask their unicorn horn vendor to send a replacement because the one they have isn't working. And that's from the Renaissance!

Which wasn't what I was arguing. What I was arguing is that a lot of cultures separated reality to the worlds of man (by that, I mean the world as we could perceive it) and the worlds of the Gods (a world that cannot be perceived except by those who have unique skills or knowledge). There are hundreds of names for that second world (Heaven, Olympus, Asgard, etc) and its effects could be experienced (Thor riding his chariot = Thunder) but most people could not actually see Thor doing it. Unless you were versed in specific knowledge and rituals (aka magic).

And there was certainly low magic (charms, herb craft, folk magic) and high magic (the magic of gods, demons, and the like). Low magic was far more in-tune with the natural world than high magic was, but the line was always blurry varied culture to culture, tradition to tradition. The ancient mind didn't think magic or ghosts were not part of the natural world, but they did know you couldn't just bugger down a cave and reach Hades unless your Orpheus. There was a still a line between the common folk and the learned priests, scholars, or mystics.

All this goes to say it's hard to say what abilities in magic belong to which traditions because they are all kind pulling from the same pool of effects. Orpheus traveling to Hades isn't that much different than Dante getting the grand tour of Hell. You're still pulling the "mortal takes a trip to the afterlife" magical effect. Similarly, when a First World Shaman takes a spirit journey to his ancestors, his net effect is the same as Dantes (mortal in the afterlife) despite the methods and experience being different.

That said, "magic is part of the natural world" is the best argument I've heard for a spellcasting ranger.

 

[Scribe]

You think it's wasteful and unnecessary to make powers that aren't spells. I think it's detrimental in the extreme to make powers that ARE literally just spells with tweaks. If compromise exists between our two positions, I've no idea what it looks like.

Having done this work to a minor degree, it is a challenge.

A melee attack is just a 'spell' with close range. The hang up of looking at it all as just spells is understandable, but tweaking some of the conditions (Verbal, Component, Counterspell, Dispell, whatever) is actually the part that matters.

Wizards also isnt about to build a whole new system, thats not how 5.5 operates.