D&D 5E Here's why we want a Psion class

[Maxperson]

No. This is not WotC's fault.

IT IS THE COMMUNITY'S FAULT.

WotC trided to make a psionic class. It wasn't perfect, it needed some work, but it much better than the 2nd edition Psion.

IT WAS REJECTED BY THE COMMUNITY.

The difference back then is TSR did not make decisions based on community feedback - if they thought something would make money they printed it. That meant much more output. A lot of it was garbage, or testosterone fuelled munchkin fodder, but there was a lot more produced.

It's not the community's fault. Psionics was put out in 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e, despite community and differing mechanics. You don't get to blame the "community" now.

 

[wingsandsword]

The psion class itself was completely broken in 2nd edition, so was not usually allowed, even in Dark Sun.

Now I think you're just making things up.

DM"s not allowing psionicists. . .in a Dark Sun game?

Disallowing psionicists/psions in a Dark Sun game and it isn't even Dark Sun anymore. It would be like playing in Dragonlance without any dragons, spelljammer without any ships, or Planescape without Sigil.

Funny, in my experience, in the AD&D 2e era, most DM's allowed psionics into most campaigns, and when Dark Sun came up, it was expected there would be psionicists in the party.

 

[Maxperson]

Now hold on a minute there. You're getting real close to holding people accountable for their actions.

The WRONG people, sure. WotC's employees are the only people responsible for this.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

The WRONG people, sure. WotC's employees are the only people responsible for this.

Because you can never do wrong?

 

[wingsandsword]

It's not the community's fault. Psionics was put out in 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e, despite community and differing mechanics. You don't get to blame the "community" now.

Heck, psionics has always been a little controversial. While, in my experience, most groups and most DM"s allowed it, there always were some that banned it. There always were those who thought it was "munchkin" or "broken" and banned it (but they didn't run psionics heavy settings like Dark Sun).

If WotC wasn't going to make a psionics handbook because some of the players wouldn't like it, they never would have made the 3e, 3.5e or 4e books.

 

[Maxperson]

Because you can never do wrong?

Because nothing I(or you) do can affect this. WotC makes this decision, not us.

 

[Maxperson]

Heck, psionics has always been a little controversial. While, in my experience, most groups and most DM"s allowed it, there always were some that banned it. There always were those who thought it was "munchkin" or "broken" and banned it (but they didn't run psionics heavy settings like Dark Sun).

If WotC wasn't going to make a psionics handbook because some of the players wouldn't like it, they never would have made the 3e, 3.5e or 4e books.

My experience was different. Up until Dark Sun, I only encountered 1 group that would allow it, and even after Dark Sun, I only got to play a very small handful of psionicists outside of that setting. It wasn't until 3e that I saw it get more traction and become more widely accepted.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I always disliked psionics. The power level always felt out of place to me. And most fantasy settings or movies that I think of, outside of a couple D&D, ones relate more to wizards or sorcerers ( sometimes warlocks ) but almost never psionics. So this encourages the idea to me that D&D is fine without them. But my opinion aside if they put out balanced rules for them I wouldn't mind at all.

 

[Umbran]

No offense, but that's a logic fallacy.

No. It is at worst what you feel to be an insufficient reason.

Tonight, for supper, one could want meatloaf, "Just like Mom used to make," because the memory brings comfort, and that's okay. Being aesthetically pleasing by matching the past is an entirely acceptable reason for wanting a luxury entertainment game element a particular way.

Saying something should be a class simply "because that's the way it has been for the past 3 editions," doesn't actually say anything about whether that is good or bad.

"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so." - Hamlet, Act 2, Scene ii. There is no absolute "good or bad" about this. That is a fallacy.

Another fallacy implicit in this thread is that people should not get what they want in a game element unless they justify it to others not involved in its production as being a good thing. The OP is, unfortunately, implicitly buying into that fallacy.

 

[TwoSix]

Then someone was cheating. Even with an 18 in a stat, there is a 20% chance of failure, fumble or minimal success with every use of a power that uses that stat straight. Add in the powers that are stat minus 4 or involve stats that are say 14 to start, and that number skyrockets. Nothing like trying to use a Stat minus 2, starting with a 14 in that key stat. 50% failure, fumble or minimal success on those abilities.

That doesn't mean someone was cheating; it simply means there was a small sample size. Any character can look overpowered in a one-shot if the dice are on their side.

That's precisely why we don't use anecdotal observations to determine imbalance claims.