5E In your Years of Gaming, How many Psionic Characters did you See played

When I play/run D&D in any edition, I see psionic characters

  • All the time. At least one per group.

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Pretty frequently. It wasn't rare in our games.

    Votes: 33 18.5%
  • Not much and certainly less common than PHB classes.

    Votes: 45 25.3%
  • Almost never.

    Votes: 68 38.2%
  • Nope. Didn't use psionics at all in my D&D.

    Votes: 27 15.2%
  • Lemony curry goodness.

    Votes: 2 1.1%

  • Total voters
    178

Mecheon

Explorer
Insisting that psionics HAS to mirror earlier editions is a non-starter for me. No other class does, so, why should psionics be any different?
It should be reminiscent of the previous ones however for the fans thereof. Not mirroring exactly, but being reminiscent. Let's not forget the test when they did that dragon sorcerer. A fine enough class as it was, but so completely unrelated to anything the sorcerer had done previously that people were just confused.

The UA one is just a wizard. Psionics aren't just wizards. The sheer amount of people unhappy with the wizard school (And pretty much the big constant between my usual haunts is people not being with that being the psion) shows it failed to get people's idea of what the Psion should be down

Mind, I'm a fan of the "Grab the monk's Ki point stuff, rename to Psi points, hook it onto caster chassis of your choice, go nuts" school of getting them into the game
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It would be but I don't think that's an accurate representation. You're including "not much" with "frequently" to get that interpretation.
"Not much" isn't a voting category. The category is "Not much to just a hair less than every other class." It's a very wide range. Since the range is so wide, I went with the middle ground and picked "decent."

A person can turn around and say 80% of the response range from "not much" to "never".
Sure, but unlike me, they would be cherry picking one of the extremes of that category, which would be disingenuous. If they were trying to be fair, they would have to go with the middle ground like I did.

In order to have seen someone play a class someone one has to have played it so seeing it becomes redundant, and a class played rarely can still stand out as "having been seen" by a group of players.
This doesn't make sense. I don't have to have played a dragonborn to have seen someone playing a dragonborn. I don't become blind to dragonborn, just because I have never played one.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yeah, pretty much.

But, then again, we're not getting a complete book of gnomes are we? We got gnomes. And other than the three pages or so in the PHB, that's all she wrote.

Expecting an entire supplement dedicated to gnomes would be unreasonable, no?
Not quite all she wrote. There are two feats in Xanthar's and deep gnomes in the MM. And I've seen more psionic PCs than I've seen gnome PCs.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The whole "spell points" thing is a non-starter right from the get go.
I can understand that. Not everyone likes spell points.

Plus the whole "psionics are different, for no real reason that just to be different" completely turns me off.
Cool. Psionics has never been "different, for no real reason than just to be different." Psionics is different, because it IS different. Psionics is internal mind power. It doesn't draw from an external power source like every other caster does.

EVERY other caster uses spells the same way - VSM. Why should psionics be any different?
Because psionics doesn't draw from an external power source like every other caster does.
 

Hussar

Legend
I can understand that. Not everyone likes spell points.



Cool. Psionics has never been "different, for no real reason than just to be different." Psionics is different, because it IS different. Psionics is internal mind power. It doesn't draw from an external power source like every other caster does.



Because psionics doesn't draw from an external power source like every other caster does.
Yup, it's different just to be different. "internal mind power"? What does that even mean? How is that expressed in the game? How is that expressed differently than just spells?

You do realize that psionics is just magic in Sci Fi right? It's a way for SF writers to borrow from fantasy without leaving the genre. There is no difference.

And, sure, I get that YOU'VE seen lots of psionic characters. Great. Fantastic. I've seen next to none. So, wow. We're back to dueling anecdotes. Only thing is, we've got Jeremy Crawford saying that my anecdote actually appears to be more common than yours.

Meh. I'm getting sucked down this rabbit hole and I really, really don't care if they make a psionic book or not. I'm just saying if they want to sell to ME, then a separate class is not the way to go.

Now, the question is, am I more common, or are you? Only time will tell.
 

PsyzhranV2

Adventurer
Yup, it's different just to be different. "internal mind power"? What does that even mean? How is that expressed in the game? How is that expressed differently than just spells?

You do realize that psionics is just magic in Sci Fi right? It's a way for SF writers to borrow from fantasy without leaving the genre. There is no difference.

And, sure, I get that YOU'VE seen lots of psionic characters. Great. Fantastic. I've seen next to none. So, wow. We're back to dueling anecdotes. Only thing is, we've got Jeremy Crawford saying that my anecdote actually appears to be more common than yours.

Meh. I'm getting sucked down this rabbit hole and I really, really don't care if they make a psionic book or not. I'm just saying if they want to sell to ME, then a separate class is not the way to go.

Now, the question is, am I more common, or are you? Only time will tell.
NGL, you're being really persistent and vindictive for somebody who professes "not to care". Imagine if somebody raged and railed in the same way against the Artificer's Infusion rules back when the UA dropped. "Why don't they just craft the same way as everybody else?!" Or worse, the dreaded "Why not make it a Wizard subclass?!"
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yup, it's different just to be different. "internal mind power"? What does that even mean? How is that expressed in the game? How is that expressed differently than just spells?
They did it with power points and the lack of verbal, somatic and material components needed to generate their power. The power came from within.

You do realize that psionics is just magic in Sci Fi right? It's a way for SF writers to borrow from fantasy without leaving the genre. There is no difference.
Psionics is not magic in Sci-Fi. It's internal mental power. In Sci-Fi it's all you really see used, since magic generally doesn't exist in Sci-Fi. In a fantasy game, it can be expressed as a form of internal magic, but it's still internal mental power, as opposed to external magic like every other class.

Meh. I'm getting sucked down this rabbit hole and I really, really don't care if they make a psionic book or not. I'm just saying if they want to sell to ME, then a separate class is not the way to go.
And if they want to sell to ME, pre-made adventures are not the way to go. We all have our preferences.

Now, the question is, am I more common, or are you? Only time will tell.
I can tell you right now. The answer is neither. There is one of you and one of me. Same commonality. ;)
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
So stating "I've
Yup, it's different just to be different. "internal mind power"? What does that even mean? How is that expressed in the game? How is that expressed differently than just spells?

You do realize that psionics is just magic in Sci Fi right? It's a way for SF writers to borrow from fantasy without leaving the genre. There is no difference.

And, sure, I get that YOU'VE seen lots of psionic characters. Great. Fantastic. I've seen next to none. So, wow. We're back to dueling anecdotes. Only thing is, we've got Jeremy Crawford saying that my anecdote actually appears to be more common than yours.

Meh. I'm getting sucked down this rabbit hole and I really, really don't care if they make a psionic book or not. I'm just saying if they want to sell to ME, then a separate class is not the way to go.

Now, the question is, am I more common, or are you? Only time will tell.
Funny how "I've never seen psionics in use and don't see a reason for it, but don't really care one way or another" has become "Why do you hate psionics!"

Because I'm in the same boat. Psionics is a supernatural ability to manipulate reality. Which is magic with a different label. That doesn't mean I hate psionics, I'm indifferent. It's never added anything to the game for me or any group I've ever played with over the decades.
 

BMaC

Explorer
14-year old BMaC and all his friends had 1st edition psionic characters if I remember correctly (and a smattering of vorpal swords). Middle-aged BMaC not so much.
 

Aebir-Toril

Is lukewarm on the Forgotten Realms
Yeah, pretty much.

But, then again, we're not getting a complete book of gnomes are we? We got gnomes. And other than the three pages or so in the PHB, that's all she wrote.

Expecting an entire supplement dedicated to gnomes would be unreasonable, no?
When did it become the request of the "pro-Psion posters" to get an entire book on Psionics? Tell me where exactly they said that we need a complete book of Psionics, rather than a class bundled in a XGtE-like supplement.
 

Aebir-Toril

Is lukewarm on the Forgotten Realms
Everybody debating this says either "I am in favor of a separate class" (1) or "I am neutral about psionics, wont use them." (0)

So using averages, that means slightly in favor of.... (.5)
Except, remember, there are some who explicitly oppose it, so, I guess it won't be made, oh well!
 

Aebir-Toril

Is lukewarm on the Forgotten Realms
Honestly? And, I mean this completely without insult, but, if they came out with that, it would never see my table. The whole "spell points" thing is a non-starter right from the get go. Plus the whole "psionics are different, for no real reason that just to be different" completely turns me off. EVERY other caster uses spells the same way - VSM. Why should psionics be any different? If clerics have to carry a holy symbol to cast their spells, there's no reason that a psionicist doesn't have to carry some sort of gew gaw that focuses their powers.

Insisting that psionics HAS to mirror earlier editions is a non-starter for me. No other class does, so, why should psionics be any different?

To me, the UA captures a psionicist perfectly well.

And, as a side note, what new mechanics does the artificer have that doesn't appear in another class?
Which UA? New Psion? Mystic?

Side Note: Oh, I don't know, crafting tons and tons of items as a class feature. Also, isn't the point of a class that its different than the others? Would you prefer it if Rogues weren't able to do anything that Fighters couldn't do?
 
Honestly?
No need to start a revolution or anything, but sure...
Insisting that psionics HAS to mirror earlier editions is a non-starter for me. No other class does, so, why should psionics be any different?
Every class mirrors earlier editions - even if it is distorted or darkly, due to mashing up multiple editions - I'd say it's the most nearly-consistent design principle driving 5e.
 
Last edited:

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Ah, the "fond" memories of the Drizz't clones. I joined a group playing 2e once that had 8 members in the party. It was a good sized group and it was one of those "just make a character and show up groups" but I had only just recently met them.
Drizzt clones? Pfft. Most of the rangers I've seen in campaigns (from 1e on to 5e) have been archers. Seems woodsy-er. The one major exception I can remember was the Cuisinart ranger in the Wrath of the Righteous Pathfinder campaign I ran. Evil outsiders as a favored enemy works really well for that campaign.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Drizzt clones? Pfft. Most of the rangers I've seen in campaigns (from 1e on to 5e) have been archers. Seems woodsy-er. The one major exception I can remember was the Cuisinart ranger in the Wrath of the Righteous Pathfinder campaign I ran. Evil outsiders as a favored enemy works really well for that campaign.
Were they named variations of "Legolas"? I've seen more than a few fans along those lines too. ;)
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
Were they named variations of "Legolas"? I've seen more than a few fans along those lines too. ;)
More often Robin Hoods, I would say. With, of course, a smattering of Aragorn thanks to the tracking and loner-ness. Legolas was an archer, but he never gave off the skilled woodcraft/hunter vibe that fit with the class archetype.
 

Ashrym

Hero
More often Robin Hoods, I would say. With, of course, a smattering of Aragorn thanks to the tracking and loner-ness. Legolas was an archer, but he never gave off the skilled woodcraft/hunter vibe that fit with the class archetype.
IME, that didn't stop the players who thought "ranger" meant "ranged combat" instead of "open range". The ranger as a wanderer and woodsman / hunter was a bit lost along the way.
 

Advertisement

Top