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

[Mecheon]

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

I saw a few during 4E. Mind, during 4E they had this amazing synergy with the Warforged (And the Shardmind but I never saw it on them for some reason) where you could artifice yourself for some neat flavor

 

[Hussar]

There were artificers in 2e?

Then again, I have an artificer in my campaign right now, so, I've seen one.

 

[Aldarc]

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

This is twice now that you appealed to an Illuminati strawman. I don't think "blame the Illuminati" means what you think it means, Oofta.

But yes, I do think that there has been a certain degree of "fear and stigma" about psionics. One of my GMs did not permit psionics in a 3.5 game because of their hearsay reputation in 1-2E. When I pressed him about what was broken or how psionics worked in 3.5, he didn't know because he had never looked.

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?

It seems as if many of the fans of psionics believe that it does fill an iconic role or otherwise there would not be calls for its inclusion as part of the game and its tradition. You can say that it's "just because [they] personally like something," but the truth probably runs deeper than saying people just want it because they like it.

In my own campaign I simply didn't see it fitting thematically.

And what if there were official D&D campaigns where they would fit, such as in Eberron or Dark Sun?

I don't care one way or another whether psionics is ever added to the game.

For someone who supposedly doesn't care, you do spend a lot of time in this thread trying to dismiss the opinions of people who do want them.

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.

Aren't many of these things pre-coded for the ease of VTT use?

 

[Oofta]

This is twice now that you appealed to an Illuminati strawman. I don't think "blame the Illuminati" means what you think it means, Oofta.

I think it means there is no concerted effort by a group of people to nefariously spread FUD about your pet class. Pscionics simply has never been very popular in any edition.

But yes, I do think that there has been a certain degree of "fear and stigma" about psionics. One of my GMs did not permit psionics in a 3.5 game because of their hearsay reputation in 1-2E. When I pressed him about what was broken or how psionics worked in 3.5, he didn't know because he had never looked.

I can't speak for anyone else. All I know is that I've never had a desire to have psionics in my campaign because it doesn't fit thematically. I've never played with a DM who thought it was necessary other than the odd mind flayer or similar monster. Even then it was just magic with a different label.

There has never been anything compelling about psionics.

For someone who supposedly doesn't care, you do spend a lot of time in this thread trying to dismiss the opinions of people who do want them.

I get so tired of this accusation. No one on this thread (or others) has ever clarified what a psion is other than someone who does magic that's not really magic.

But for the umpteenth time, I don't give a fig if they develop a psion as a class or subclass. I might even use it if I did my wild west campaign because it fits a certain Victorian era theme. I've never used it because it didn't fit the vision of my campaign world. I have other limitations as well, that doesn't mean that I "fear" dragonborn as a race. Just that there are plenty of playable races and I don't want to figure out how dragonborn would fit in my world.

But I'm not dismissing your opinion. I just don't see a need or justification for a class or subclass. Apparently the devs have agreed up to this point. As Crawford said in an interview, people new to D&D don't see a need for it. People who played previous versions can't agree on what they should be.

It all goes back to my original question from way back when. What would make a psion stand out from the other magic using classes other than fluff?

 

[Tony Vargas]

And how many Artificer's have people seen?

I played a Minotaur Artificer Ghost of the Past, named Daedalus, who looked like The Nimon from that classic Dr. Who story with Tom Baker, I think it was in 2012. Fun. Aside, from that, no.
I've also used NPC/monster Artificers a couple times. Kallistos the Maker, who had a swarm of clockwork starlings with razor-sharp feathers instead of the usual hulking construct and the self-forged Prince Dakkar of Cyre who lived in the empty chambers of a gargantuan nautiloid's shell, may have been some other, nameless instances, they make an obvious addition to a construct encounter, for instance.

 

[generic]

Why don't we create a poll, "Artificer versus Psion" or somesuch, it might clear up things like this.

That being said, I'm not going to create one. After all, why do something easy which would reduce argumentation when I can argue on principle?

Also, I've never made a poll before, but nevermind that!

 

[Aldarc]

I think it means there is no concerted effort by a group of people to nefariously spread FUD about your pet class. Pscionics simply has never been very popular in any edition.

Calling the Psion my pet class? Boo. I thought you were above such condescension? And none of this changes the fact that you need to stop leaning on the "blame the Illuminati" strawman.

There has never been anything compelling about psionics.

Nice unsubstantiated opinion you got there. It would be a shame if you were to pretend it was a fact.

I get so tired of this accusation. No one on this thread (or others) has ever clarified what a psion is other than someone who does magic that's not really magic.

Most people probably didn't see the need for it since it's like going to a physics conference and expecting that a paper clarify what an atom is. The context of discussion generally assumes given specialized knowledge of the relevant field of discussion without need for backtracking for basics. The thread is inquiring about who has seen psionic play at their table and not "Doubting Oofta demands that you clarify what psionics are."

I've never used it because it didn't fit the vision of my campaign world.

Okay. I have used them and played in games where GMs used them because it fit within the respective visions of the campaign worlds. But I suppose that the value of the class to D&D hinges entirely on whether it fits your vision of your campaign world.

But I'm not dismissing your opinion. I just don't see a need or justification for a class or subclass.

Others see a need or justification for a class or subclass of psionics. What now?

Apparently the devs have agreed up to this point. As Crawford said in an interview, people new to D&D don't see a need for it.

Appeal to authority! Hooray!

People who played previous versions can't agree on what they should be.

Maybe mechanically, but people largely agree about the fluff and the nature of the power source. That said, this "people can't agree on things" argument is a fairly bad faith argument. People have rough ideas. Scarcely no one believes that psionics should be like in earlier editions where they were something for free if you were lucky. Many people agree that a class and subclass system would be feasible for a psion and other varieties of psionics. That's honestly a pretty good start. Some want power points. Some are happy with spells. Some want something more like the mystic. I suspect most just want officially printed psionics in any form that does it justice. Disagreement about the mechanics happens. That's fine. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, Oofta. It doesn't mean that the psion is without merit. It means that people have different visions of the psion, much as you have about what belongs in your campaign world.

It all goes back to my original question from way back when. What would make a psion stand out from the other magic using classes other than fluff?

Sure it always goes back to your original question when you want to beg the question in the first place.

What makes a warlock stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

What makes a bard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

What makes a wizard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

What makes a sorcerer stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

Though since these classes already exist in 5e, you can appeal to concrete mechanics in printed rulebooks, which makes your task in answering these questions far easier here. But let's say that we were designing for a hypothetical 6th edition. How would we justify these classes based on things other than fluff? Because you seem to think that appeal to fluff is a bad thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What makes a sorcerer stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

Metamagic/sorcery points.

What makes a bard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

Inspiration, Expertise, and 5 PH spells on it's list that nobody else gets.

What makes a warlock stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

Invocations, short-rest slots, and 6 spells nobody else gets.

What makes a wizard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

neo-Vanican prepped casting, spellbook, ritual casting, the most sub-classes (8) of any class in the PH, and 33 spells nobody else gets.

Though since these classes already exist in 5e, you can appeal to concrete mechanics in printed rulebooks, which makes your task in answering these questions far easier here. But let's say that we were designing for a hypothetical 6th edition. How would we justify these classes based on things other than fluff? Because you seem to think that appeal to fluff is a bad thing.

I'm sure I've seen quite strident claims that you absolutely cannot use unique mechanics to justify/differentiate a new class in 5e, because 5e is committedly concept-first class design. I suppose it's only fair that we also have strident claims that 'mere fluff' cannot possibly justify/differentiate a new class in 5e.

 

[Aldarc]

Metamagic/sorcery points.

Inspiration, Expertise, and 5 PH spells on it's list that nobody else gets.

Invocations, short-rest slots, and 6 spells nobody else gets.

neo-Vanican prepped casting, spellbook, ritual casting, the most sub-classes (8) of any class in the PH, and 33 spells nobody else gets.

As I said, this is much easier to say in retrospect since the classes are printed in 5e so we can look at concrete mechanics. But would metamagic/sorcery points had been what people thought is what makes the sorcerer the sorcerer prior to its printing in 5e? Yeah, with differences like these, I think that nearly any psion class could be justified.

I'm sure I've seen quite strident claims that you absolutely cannot use unique mechanics to justify/differentiate a new class in 5e, because 5e is committedly concept-first class design. I suppose it's only fair that we also have strident claims that 'mere fluff' cannot possibly justify/differentiate a new class in 5e.

Seems like psionics would qualify for 5e's "concept-first class design" quite well.

 

[Oofta]

Calling the Psion my pet class? Boo. I thought you were above such condescension? And none of this changes the fact that you need to stop leaning on the "blame the Illuminati" strawman.

Nice unsubstantiated opinion you got there. It would be a shame if you were to pretend it was a fact.

Most people probably didn't see the need for it since it's like going to a physics conference and expecting that a paper clarify what an atom is. The context of discussion generally assumes given specialized knowledge of the relevant field of discussion without need for backtracking for basics. The thread is inquiring about who has seen psionic play at their table and not "Doubting Oofta demands that you clarify what psionics are."

Okay. I have used them and played in games where GMs used them because it fit within the respective visions of the campaign worlds. But I suppose that the value of the class to D&D hinges entirely on whether it fits your vision of your campaign world.

Others see a need or justification for a class or subclass of psionics. What now?

Appeal to authority! Hooray!

Maybe mechanically, but people largely agree about the fluff and the nature of the power source. That said, this "people can't agree on things" argument is a fairly bad faith argument. People have rough ideas. Scarcely no one believes that psionics should be like in earlier editions where they were something for free if you were lucky. Many people agree that a class and subclass system would be feasible for a psion and other varieties of psionics. That's honestly a pretty good start. Some want power points. Some are happy with spells. Some want something more like the mystic. I suspect most just want officially printed psionics in any form that does it justice. Disagreement about the mechanics happens. That's fine. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, Oofta. It doesn't mean that the psion is without merit. It means that people have different visions of the psion, much as you have about what belongs in your campaign world.

Sure it always goes back to your original question when you want to beg the question in the first place.

What makes a warlock stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

What makes a bard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

What makes a wizard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

What makes a sorcerer stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff?

Though since these classes already exist in 5e, you can appeal to concrete mechanics in printed rulebooks, which makes your task in answering these questions far easier here. But let's say that we were designing for a hypothetical 6th edition. How would we justify these classes based on things other than fluff? Because you seem to think that appeal to fluff is a bad thing.

So ... attacking the fact that I have an opinion? That I never personally saw a reason to use psionics? Whew. Those are compelling arguments.

As far as warlock vs other spell-casting classes, have you even read the class? Sorcerer vs wizard is a little closer but even then you have a different primary stat, metamagic and limited spell list vs flexibility and so on.

Could you come up with a unique psion? Sure. But nobody seems to agree on what it would look like. It's not like the dev team hasn't taken multiple stabs at it. Maybe someday they'll come up with something they like. If it's in a book I'm going to purchase anyway I'll take a gander. Personally I'd rather they spent time on a different campaign setting, a tactical options book or any number of different projects.

I get tired of this argument and being accused of telling people they can't express their opinion. Don't blame me that it's never been a popular class.