No. That is unacceptable to me. I would just use my homebrew Psion class instead.
Fair enough. I would play a non-caster if it came, and from the responses of most here, I would wager most would play a version that isn't what they most want in the world.
The first becomes tradition. Also, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings were classes in Basic, not 1e. 1e also used all the dice, not just one. And again, 5e is considered by the majority(that I've seen) to be more like 1e than any other edition WotC has put out.
I would neither allow a psionicist class in my game nor play it if it was a spellcaster. Psionics is magic, but it isn't spellcasting, and shouldn't be based around spellcasting.
Okay. I never actually played any earlier editions of D&D, I'd just been going on with what I'd heard. I had not realized Basic and 1e were different.
Have you not seen me put "spellcasting" in quotes when I talk about it? They are spellcasting only insofar as powers are kinda like spells. 3e had them as "spellcasters", even though the powers did not work just like spells did. 2e had them as "spellcasters", even though the system was like how skills worked.
I was there 3000 years ago! ::cough:: I mean, I've been playing since 1983 and played Basic on up, only skipping 4e. I remember how psionics played in each edition other than 4th.
Spellcasting in 5e is using spells. Sure, previous editions had them be "spellcasters" without actually using Wizard spells, correct me if I'm wrong. In 5e, I wouldn't want a Psionic class to cast Telekinesis instead of having a telekinetic power.
Ah, many people skipped 4e. I know that at least. I'm not old enough to have been playing those editions when they came out. I wasn't even 3 when 3e came out.
They were powers. They did things similar to spells, but were not spells themselves. Whether they were magic or not was open to DM judgment in 3e and I can't remember if that was optional in 2e or not.
