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

[Umbran]

Some of us have lives outside of trolling internet message boards, friend.

Mod Note:

Folks, the rude and the snark may seem really cool to you at the time, but it will get you booted out of a thread. After someone gets the boot, we generally escalate to giving you a vacation from the site.

And this person just got the boot from the thread... so... maybe you want to treat folks better in here form now on... Just sayin'.

 

[dave2008]

Indeed. And my point is that all of that is in spite of a lack of official support, not thanks to it. I can homebrew a psionics system that proves to be the best for my own gaming purposes, that won't change the fact that WotC failed to deliver an official one. By now, that's true of almost any gaming-related need that's not a fully-fledged campaign every 6-8 months.

I sometimes house-rule 5e for the specific needs of a given campaign, I give a lot of support for third-party stuff, including financial support by way of Kickstarter backing and purchase at retailers. I can do all of that and still want to see some cutting edge stuff from the people who used to be called the "game wizards". Or maybe I'm outdated and Senior Game Designer in Renton is not the dream job for RPG writers anymore...

Sure you can want more support from WotC, but that is not the same thing as saying 5e doesn't support different styles of play. You might have an argument that WotC isn't supporting different styles of play. I would disagree, but that is at least a reasonable argument. However, to say 5e only allows one style of play is just an indefensible position IMO. And that is what you said in the part of your post I was responding too.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Just because something doesn't include you, doesn't mean it's not a big tent.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

WotC should publish a psion/mystic class because if Dreamscarred Press published created more for Pathfinder, and Paizo published FIVE occult classes, the equivalent to psionic, then some players would complain.

As long as D&D heavily outsells Pathfinder (as it 100% will), what Paizo/Dreamscarred does will have zero impact on what Wizard's publishes.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

You might have an argument that WotC isn't supporting different styles of play. I would disagree, but that is at least a reasonable argument.

Sorry, but to me, the whole point of this discussion was always official support. Matt Colville has just gathered more than U$1.3 million to deliver a book with rules on domain ownership for 5e, it would take a lot of retorical effort to defend that 5e is not getting support for other playing styles from third-party publishers, it clearly is.

That said, I’m honestly interested in different points of view about WotC giving real support for different playing styles. As I see it, they managed to release an adventure called “Dragon Heist” that involves no heist and still revolves around some form of dungeon delving. You said you disagree with my statement about lack of support for different playing styles. How so? (with examples, if possible).

 

[Oofta]

After scanning this thread I have a much more important question. When will Valve release Half-Life 2 Episode 3? It was promised years ago!

On a related note, which will we see first? Episode 3 or psionics?

 

[dave2008]

You said you disagree with my statement about lack of support for different playing styles. How so? (with examples, if possible).

Ugh, I didn't want to get dragged back into this discussion, but that is a fair request. I will get back to you later tonight.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We also have to remember some 3pp are creating their own sci-fi settings with psionic powers. This means their own psionic manifester classes.

WotC shouldn't close any door, only to say they would rather a better work than sooner.

Other matter is the flavor, out of the metagame. How would be psionic manifesters in a fiction work with no game mechanic at all? For example a comic about a blue-skin goblin child what after a tragedy in her tribe is lost in the forest, and then she creates, or summons, an (sentient?) astral construct who becomes her friend, tutor and protector. To avoid more attacks by wererats she goes to a "forbidden zone" where she finds a strange crystal. This later becomes like a tiny constructs, like a familiar version of shardmind (psionic living construct race). Later there are confrontations against shamans of other tribes, goblins, kobolds or gnolls. And her archenemy will be a sorcerer who works as spy for a genie.

And I bet WotC wants a game mechanic could be easy to be adapted to videogame. Who would want a psionic PCs? I guess fans of Star Wars, X-Men or sci-fi franchises with espers.

 

[Ashrym]

For financial reasons, it seems. Once the cash started flowing in the right direction again, they could not be bothered to release an artificer that's not just a variant spellcaster with a sidebar describing "what's happening in the fiction when you 'cast' your spells".

Why do you thing the cash started flowing in the right direction in the first place? The approach WotC is using is working.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure you can want more support from WotC, but that is not the same thing as saying 5e doesn't support different styles of play. You might have an argument that WotC isn't supporting different styles of play.

It'd be fair to say that there are styles of play, sub-genres, and character & campaign concepts that are unsupported or inadequately supported, by the standard game or the published game or even, perhaps, considering all the WotC-authored optional & playtest material, regardless of status...

However, to say 5e only allows one style of play is just an indefensible position IMO. And that is what you said in the part of your post I was responding too.

I suppose you could make a case for "opening up the hood and re-tuning the game to work with your preferred style" to be a style, in itself, and then make the case that is the "one style" supported by 5e. Even though it, in essence works for all actual & hypothetical styles.

Though, in addition to that, you'd have whatever style(s) you're willing to stipulate the AL ruleset supports.