D&D 5E WotC will likely be making a dedicated Psion class, as per recent tweets

[Giltonio_Santos]

The term "Big Tent" comes from politics, a sort of Americanization of "Broad Church" in British politics. It means a political party that contains a wide range of opinion, such as the Democrats under Roosevelt for the New Deal or Labour under Tony Blair. Still, a "Big Tent" has limits, because the Party will have platforms and goals not everyone will be able to sign up to pursue.

I don't thin WotC has ever promised a Warlord, and there is definitely noagic economy in the pipeline: as Mearls put it, for 3E and 4E, everything was ad hoc and meaningless from WotC side, and there is literally zero value above what a DM can make up on the spot.

Anything above level 11 or 12 is effectively Epic, since the vast majority of tables don't go above that level. Crawford has gone so far as to call out any Subclass features above 12th level as pure theorycraft that will rarely see any use. I wouldn't expect to ever see anything more.

It's not that I miss this or that promise of support, specifically. I'm not calling WotC on a failed promise to deliver epic-level play or a classed warlord. What I'm saying, and I know that this is a strong statement, is that this tent is not big at all.

As written, I don't feel like 5e supports more than a single playing style, the one made possible by RAW PHB. Besides that, it pays lip service to a promise of diverse gameplay with 15-20 pages of the Dungeon Master's Guide.

I enjoy the playing style that 5e enables, and that's why I've been playing it almost exclusively for the last 5.5 years (more, if you consider the fact that we moved to 5e more or less definitely when the last playtest was released), but can you think about people that believed WotC when they said that tactical gameplay would be a real option? If tactical gameplay was a dealbreaker for them, they probably abandoned the ship by now, but they could well have supported the edition for 1-2 years while waiting for something worth their time to appear.

I believe the same is true for almost everything we could mention as a different playing style. 5e can't do gritty properly. It can't do low-magic properly (and the rules for buying/selling magic items make it appear like it cannot do really high magic properly either). It can't do tactical properly. It can't do different technological levels. And its chief designers are shunning away from even releasing a character class that creates supernatural effects through anything that is not a spell/spell slot.

Heck, the monk in the PHB would probably fail to pass the Arcana Unearthed test in 2019. The warlock would be threatened as well. The published artificer, which is the most innovative thing to come out of WotC in the last 5.5 years, is uninspiring, to say the least. I'm the lucky guy here, some sound rules for psionics is probably the first thing I really wanted from WotC that I believe they'll fail to deliver. But big tent? Really? No, I don't think that's the case.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not that I miss this or that promise of support, specifically. I'm not calling WotC on a failed promise to deliver epic-level play or a classed warlord. What I'm saying, and I know that this is a strong statement, is that this tent is not big at all.

As written, I don't feel like 5e supports more than a single playing style, the one made possible by RAW PHB. Besides that, it pays lip service to a promise of diverse gameplay with 15-20 pages of the Dungeon Master's Guide.

I enjoy the playing style that 5e enables, and that's why I've been playing it almost exclusively for the last 5.5 years (more, if you consider the fact that we moved to 5e more or less definitely when the last playtest was released), but can you think about people that believed WotC when they said that tactical gameplay would be a real option? If tactical gameplay was a dealbreaker for them, they probably abandoned the ship by now, but they could well have supported the edition for 1-2 years while waiting for something worth their time to appear.

I believe the same is true for almost everything we could mention as a different playing style. 5e can't do gritty properly. It can't do low-magic properly (and the rules for buying/selling magic items make it appear like it cannot do really high magic properly either). It can't do tactical properly. It can't do different technological levels. And its chief designers are shunning away from even releasing a character class that creates supernatural effects through anything that is not a spell/spell slot.

Heck, the monk in the PHB would probably fail to pass the Arcana Unearthed test in 2019. The warlock would be threatened as well. The published artificer, which is the most innovative thing to come out of WotC in the last 5.5 years, is uninspiring, to say the least. I'm the lucky guy here, some sound rules for psionics is probably the first thing I really wanted from WotC that I believe they'll fail to deliver. But big tent? Really? No, I don't think that's the case.

If the tent is bigger than D&D has ever been, I can't see how it could Ave failed...? The audience is larger and more diverse than ever. That's what big tent means.

 

[Mistwell]

Can we talk about how the OP described "have not closed the door on" as "likely be making"?

"closing the door" on something means to exclude it from further discussion or consideration. So they have not excluded this concept from further discussion or consideration.

I cannot imagine how someone can get "will likely do that" from such a phrase.

By way of example, if you go for an interview and the interviewers are considering ten candidates and yours is one of them, and the interviewer indicates they have not closed the door on your candidacy for the position after the interview, would anyone say that means you're likely to get the job?

Can anyone else justify that spin?

 

[Fenris-77]

People for whom hopes springs eternal will spin it that way. I noticed the same thing about the OP, but it's something to talk about.

 

[Salthorae]

I just strolled across this tweet as well from Crawford and I think it’s very telling for all the ~8200 Psionics threads we have going right now.

When you say “psionics system,” what are you imagining? We have found that new fans have no desire for such a thing and long-time fans often have mutually exclusive desires for such a thing. So I need to know that you mean before I can give a useful answer.

To me that means there is no real impetus to develop Psionics as separate and unique from the spell casting framework that 5e already has as it would be too difficult and too unpopular or not desired.

 

[Ashrym]

I just strolled across this tweet as well from Crawford and I think it’s very telling for all the ~8200 Psionics threads we have going right now.

I thought it was funny that one of the tweeters asked for psionics like every other editions and Crawford pointed out that the psionics systems have been different in every single edition while asking for a favorite. Then this followed:

[B]Dungeon Master's Workshop[/B]‏ @[B]DMsWorkshop[/B] Nov 30
More

Replying to @[B]JeremyECrawford[/B] @[B]Alphastream[/B]

Jeez, Jeremy, it's so simple. We just want a wizard that isn't a wizard who uses magic that isn't magic and that can't be counterspelled but isn't overpowered, which brings together the flavour of every campaign type from dark to epic and yet has its own identity. Not so hard!!!!

 

[Ashrym]

There. I just tweeted back what I want to see.






Ashrym

@Ashrym1
·
58s

Replying to
@JeremyECrawford
and
@Alphastream
At-will powers enhanced by power point options. Similar to 4e's system. 6 subclasses - kineticist, telepath, etc from 3e. The 3e disciplines define options within the class. Power points recover on a short rest. That's a differentiating element similar to 2e's recovery rate.

 

[Parmandur]

There. I just tweeted back what I want to see.



Ashrym
@Ashrym1
·
58s

Replying to
@JeremyECrawford
and
@Alphastream
At-will powers enhanced by power point options. Similar to 4e's system. 6 subclasses - kineticist, telepath, etc from 3e. The 3e disciplines define options within the class. Power points recover on a short rest. That's a differentiating element similar to 2e's recovery rate.

To be fair, that probably just proves his point ...

 

[Ashrym]

To be fair, that probably just proves his point ...

I think his point is valid. Telling him what I want let's others see what I want and gives them food for thought. Either other people think it's the way to go or they don't. But I answered his question with specifics, which is more than a lot of responses.

 

[Shardstone]

Can we talk about how the OP described "have not closed the door on" as "likely be making"?

"closing the door" on something means to exclude it from further discussion or consideration. So they have not excluded this concept from further discussion or consideration.

I cannot imagine how someone can get "will likely do that" from such a phrase.

By way of example, if you go for an interview and the interviewers are considering ten candidates and yours is one of them, and the interviewer indicates they have not closed the door on your candidacy for the position after the interview, would anyone say that means you're likely to get the job?

Can anyone else justify that spin?

I really respect you a lot since I've lurked a lot longer than I've posted, but I have no idea why you have such a bone to pick with me.

The entirety of the conversation to me seems to indicate that they still have plans, or at least the idea of plans, for a Psion class, and the amount of feedback I've seen across a number of forums + tweets leans to me thinking that they will likely make the class.