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

[dagger]

Between 1992-2000 I saw probably four characters that wanted psionics, had the stats to make it worth it, and managed to make the required roll.

We played a lot of 1e/2e back then...every weekend at least 12 hours.

We never used 2e style psioncs except during a single darksun campaign.

 

[Retreater]

In 2nd edition, I had two psions from the Complete Psionics Handbook, one in a Ravenloft campaign the other in a homebrew. These were both from the same player, and they were integral characters in each campaign.

In 3rd edition, I played a psion and a soulknife. The soulknife was okay (lasted only a couple sessions in a brutal campaign), but the psion really shined in ways a wizard never could - mostly because he could go nova by spending Power Points for the effects he wanted.

In 4E we had a few psionic-powered characters, mostly during the D&D Encounters season that covered Dark Sun.

Haven't had any in 5E yet, as the original Unearthed Arcana builds left a little to be desired, IMO.

That said, I really like the flavor of psionics and would love to see it more holistically implemented into the current edition.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think there is a big difference with Psionics as a widespread/setting wide Psionics and just psionics as an add on to a more traditional setting.

Especially when the DS psionics is the only "safe" way to do "supernatural"/"magical" things without sucking the life out of the world around you.

Yeah I think the "everyone had psionics" gave some DMs suspicious/scared of them the confidence to try them out. They were wrong to be scared/suspicious, though. We had psionicists in our 2E game before we ran DS and they were fairly weak compared to similar-level casters (esp. specialty priests).

 

[Maxperson]

So the new reason psionics have never been particularly popular is "fear and stigma"? When all else fails blame the Illuminati?

Couldn't just be that the class didn't fill any iconic role? That there's simply not a lot of call for this? That is was simply unpopular even if it did appeal to some people?

I suppose I could have won the odds lottery and encountered a dozen or more consecutive DMs who were either afraid of what psionics could do, or attached a sci-fi stigma to them. But I doubt it.

 

[Maxperson]

I feel like that might be a 3.x edition and later thing. Most of the non-Dark Sun Psionics introduction I saw in 2e was "Wow. That IS just as broken as I've heard. No more thanks."

I didn't encounter that. Having to roll under stat numbers, often with a penalty, and with a 5% chance for a fumble, made it balanced. Failed rolls, wasting time and power, happened a lot.

 

[Hussar]

For myself, I never got into Dark Sun. Then again, it wasn't until 3e that I played any published setting. We just never used published settings. Modules? Sure. But a whole published setting? Just never came up.

So, it wasn't that we didn't use psionics in 2e because we were afraid of Dark Sun. We didn't use psionics in 2e because the rules were ridiculously easy to break and didn't work for us. 3e rolled out and no one seemed to be inclined to use psionics. I played with an awful lot of 3e players over the run and it just never came up. I never banned it, but, like gnomes, no one wanted to use the rules.

From a VTT player POV, making psionics use, say, a mana pool system, would be a major PITA. I'd have to code an entirely new character sheet and ruleset for one character. That's a TON of work. From a purely selfish point of view, I hope they don't make a dedicated psion character. Less of a PITA for me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd have to code an entirely new character sheet and ruleset for one character. That's a TON of work. From a purely selfish point of view, I hope they don't make a dedicated psion character. Less of a PITA for me.

Do I have to say "just don't use it, then?"

 

[the Jester]

That's why I'm suggesting a "digital only" content approach for some of these things.

Please no.

 

[Hussar]

Do I have to say "just don't use it, then?"

Well, if they go the "appended classes" route, then, well, I get to have psionics in the game without having to do a mountain of work. So, for me, and I'm being 100% selfish here, I know, I'd prefer if they went the subclass route rather than adding in a completely new subsystem for one class.

I mean, good grief, while they did add the artificer, nothing in the artificer requires new mechanics. There's no spell points, or dice pools or anything else. They're basically just a modified caster. Adding them into the virtual tabletop has required, well, nothing new. About the only thing that doesn't work well with Fantasy Grounds is the Turret that the artificer (I'm still using the UA one from this year) uses, which keys it's attacks off of the caster's abilities. The tools in Fantasy Grounds don't really allow linking two tokens like that.

 

[Zardnaar]

If this curve of responses does actually mirror the larger hobby, and I'm certainly not saying that it does, it would explain why they aren't just coming out with psionic rules, but, rather a handful of "psionic classes" that might have a broader appeal. When 50% of your fanbase never uses some rule (or almost never uses it) basing an entire supplement on it seems like a bad idea.

Then again, what do I know? I've used a beholder maybe once in all the years I've gamed, and yet they remain hugely popular. Almost never use drow. And so on.

And how many Artificer's have people seen? Probably less than psionics.

I've seen a grand total of 0 and they've been in the game since 1996.