Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Yeah, except there's a pretty strong consensus psion should be its own class because that's the only thing that makes any god damn sense.
Says who?
Yeah, except there's a pretty strong consensus psion should be its own class because that's the only thing that makes any god damn sense.
Since starting D&D back in the early 80's I have seen 0 PC and 1 NPC as a psionicst. That NPC sucked as it was the DM's "stand in" so he could play too.
Remember how Mearls or Crawford talked about how 4e alienated people who played Gnomes even though they were played so rarely because of how it affected the tables where there were people who played Gnomes? Psionics is similar.Just thinking about the Jeremy Crawford quote that basically says the reason they didn't want to go with a new class for psions in 5e is because the previous versions, while they have their fans, just didn't get enough traction. And I can certainly see his point. 1e we saw quite a few psionic characters, but, that's because we cheated.Once psionics became a "class" in 2e and beyond, I almost never saw one played.
In fact, many of the DM's I played with flat out banned psionics for any number of reasons. So, I'm just tossing up a poll here to see how often people played in groups that had psionic characters. It's not meant to be exact, just a gut feeling.
Well, except there was a nominally-playable Gnome in the 4e MM, and a full 'Core' version of the Gnome in the PH2, some 9 months after launch.Remember how Mearls or Crawford talked about how 4e alienated people who played Gnomes even though they were played so rarely because of how it affected the tables where there were people who played Gnomes? Psionics is similar.
Well 4E had the philosophy of holding back material so that people would buy book #2. They did the same thing with dragons in the MM. It always struck me as being pretty cynical.Well, except there was a nominally-playable Gnome in the 4e MM, and a full 'Core' version of the Gnome in the PH2, some 9 months after launch.
This is 5 years in.
So similar, sure. But different in degree.
Many things about WotC have struck me as cynical over the years. I can't say I even noticed that one, above the "everything is core!" noise. Now that you mention it, it is similar to the bizarre way 3e tweaked the 'Complete....' book concept, and managed to wedge spells into books nominally for fighter or rogues - another, less noble, take on 'something for everyone,' I suppose.Well 4E had the philosophy of holding back material so that people would buy book #2. It always struck me as being pretty cynical.