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

[Maxperson]

Meanwhile about 50% barely saw them at all. Not exactly the kind of numbers I’d want to see when proposing a project at WotC.

50% is fantastic for a single class.

 

[Hussar]

I propose a poll on the Artificer for the purpose of comparison.

Except we never got an "Artificer's" handbook. We got a complete setting guide with, what, five pages detailing a class that doesn't actually use any new mechanics. There's no "spell points" or anything like that for artificers. Other than a somewhat different casting progression, an artificer introduces no new mechanics at all.

OTOH, people seem to insisting that we get a completely new class with a psion, and that it MUST NOT use existing mechanics. Because, apparently, a psionic wizard or sorcerer isn't good enough. Nor are the five or six other subclasses we've seen for psionics in the last little while. No, it must be 100% new and it must not be in any way similar to a wizard/sorcerer.

I'm thinking that that's a bit much to ask for for a class that not that many people actually want in the first place.

And, umm, @Maxperson, that's 50% who never (or rarely) saw the class in play. Another 25% saw it less than most other classes. Only about a fifth of respondents have used them with any regularity. And, given the nature of the poll, that's hardly overwhelming.

 

[Maxperson]

Except we never got an "Artificer's" handbook. We got a complete setting guide with, what, five pages detailing a class that doesn't actually use any new mechanics. There's no "spell points" or anything like that for artificers. Other than a somewhat different casting progression, an artificer introduces no new mechanics at all.

OTOH, people seem to insisting that we get a completely new class with a psion, and that it MUST NOT use existing mechanics. Because, apparently, a psionic wizard or sorcerer isn't good enough. Nor are the five or six other subclasses we've seen for psionics in the last little while. No, it must be 100% new and it must not be in any way similar to a wizard/sorcerer.

I'm thinking that that's a bit much to ask for for a class that not that many people actually want in the first place.

And, umm, @Maxperson, that's 50% who never (or rarely) saw the class in play. Another 25% saw it less than most other classes. Only about a fifth of respondents have used them with any regularity. And, given the nature of the poll, that's hardly overwhelming.

50% who never or rarely saw it = 50% who did see it more than rarely. And less than most other classes doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. 1 less is less. And really, I saw more psionic characters than I saw bards. Less than any class other than bard, but about double the number of bards over the same period of time.

 

[Maxperson]

OTOH, people seem to insisting that we get a completely new class with a psion, and that it MUST NOT use existing mechanics. Because, apparently, a psionic wizard or sorcerer isn't good enough.

They aren't good enough. Both classes fail miserably to model a Psion.

Nor are the five or six other subclasses we've seen for psionics in the last little while.

Why would a non-Psion subclass be good enough to be a Psion?

No, it must be 100% new and it must not be in any way similar to a wizard/sorcerer.

Incorrect. It must not BE a Wizard or Sorcerer. There can be similarities.

 

[Ashrym]

50% is fantastic for a single class.

It would be but I don't think that's an accurate representation. You're including "not much" with "frequently" to get that interpretation. A person can turn around and say 80% of the response range from "not much" to "never". Neither lines up with other polls I've pulled from reddit that demonstrated psioncists were lower than artificers or base classes in popularity from sampling sizes that make this one look tiny.

I think the categories are a bit too subjective as well.

I'm thinking "have you ever played a psionicist" or "what percentage of the time did you play a psionicist" would be better polling questions. 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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. Only about a fifth of respondents have used them with any regularity.

Wasn't that around the level to invoke the infamous "gnome effect?"

 

[Hussar]

Wasn't that around the level to invoke the infamous "gnome effect?"

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?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Out of how many characters overall?

If your sample size is 20 what you're saying is much different than if your sample size is 200.

Somewhat shocked that you saw so few Rangers, regardless.

Good point.

I'm going to give a random gut assessment of about 60-85. I started with the Mentzer Red Box, so there's a lot to have to remember. For me though, psionic classes haven't seemed to be much rarer in actual play than some of the other classes.

Except we never got an "Artificer's" handbook. We got a complete setting guide with, what, five pages detailing a class that doesn't actually use any new mechanics. There's no "spell points" or anything like that for artificers. Other than a somewhat different casting progression, an artificer introduces no new mechanics at all.

OTOH, people seem to insisting that we get a completely new class with a psion, and that it MUST NOT use existing mechanics. Because, apparently, a psionic wizard or sorcerer isn't good enough. Nor are the five or six other subclasses we've seen for psionics in the last little while. No, it must be 100% new and it must not be in any way similar to a wizard/sorcerer.

I'm thinking that that's a bit much to ask for for a class that not that many people actually want in the first place.

I'd be completely fine with a write-up in the Dark Sun book of similar complexity to artificer. I want a class, and psionics flavored as "different", and hearkening back to presentation in prior editions. You could do that without adding any systems that are more complex that current classes have. After all, the artificer added new systems. The class doesn't have to hit everyone's ideal (including mine). I'm totally on board with a lowest somewhat common denominator here, as long as it's an actual class.

For example, here's a simple bare bones way they could make a class that would be more satisfying than not making one:

Psion
d6 HD
Saves: Int, Wis
Armor: Light
Weapons: Simple
Skill: 2 from a suitable list

Psionics is described as a mystical power that some consider is another category of magic, different than arcane or divine, while others consider it to be something else entirely. For mechanical purposes it counts as magic (just like the Psionic abilities of monsters do). We'll call their "spells" powers, and the act of "spellcasting" manifesting, though they use all the normal rules except where noted.

Full spellcaster with the standard spell slots. A prominent sidebar encouraging usage of the Spell Points system on Page XX of the DMG.

They don't need any components for their spells, unless those spells normally require costly material components. Encouragement to refluff those components into other objects of the same cost but more psionically appropriate (crystals, etc) is given. They have noticeable indications when they manifest their powers. It'd take a sentence or two to describe that (let's say), verbal components are generally replaced with auditory indications, somatic components with visual indications, and material components with olfactory indications. (They could do better if they spent more than a minute thinking about it). Give about 4 examples of each, and say they can vary by power and individual psion.

Give them the high end of cantrips (or maybe one extra).

Give them a pool of points they can spend to manifest powers in higher level slots. Make the numbers work out such that it could be easily added to spell points (or convert into twice as many spell points). The points refresh on a short rest.

At high levels, give them the ability to manifest unlimited 1st (and maybe even 2nd) level powers. Perhaps levels 18 and 20.

Give them their own powers list, mostly selected from published spells. Take all of those spells in this travesty of a UA that came out and make them exclusively part of their power list--no one else gets them.

Make the 6 traditional psionic types into subclasses. Or save space and combine them into three (1st = telepathy+clairsentience, 2nd = psychokineticism+psychoportation, 3rd = psychometabolism+metacreativity; or switch psychoportation and metacreativity).

Each subclass gets some simple appropriately themed abilities every few levels.

That was just me, off the cuff, never having attempted to make a psion class before. I could come up with a better one if I took a day, or a week, or a month on it. If someone did take that month, I'd bet they could come up with something most fans of psions would like enough to use without much house ruling. Sure, some people didn't like 3.5e psionic classes, but they worked just fine and I'm sure the book sold perfectly fine. Give us something like that in the Dark Sun book and I'll be happy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It would be but I don't think that's an accurate representation. You're including "not much" with "frequently" to get that interpretation. A person can turn around and say 80% of the response range from "not much" to "never". Neither lines up with other polls I've pulled from reddit that demonstrated psioncists were lower than artificers or base classes in popularity from sampling sizes that make this one look tiny.

I think the categories are a bit too subjective as well.

I'm thinking "have you ever played a psionicist" or "what percentage of the time did you play a psionicist" would be better polling questions. 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.

I think the main flaw with the poll is it doesn't distinguish between a psionic class and psionic wild talents. It's pretty significant because psionic wild talents came first, as an optional rule in the 1st edition DMG, psionic classes didn't appear until a 2nd edition, and then not in a core rulebook.

 

[Hussar]

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?