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

[Tony Vargas]

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?

It had been pointed out in the past that Metamagic was synergistic with the 3.5 Sorcerer's known-spell restrictions, and fit with it's innate-magic concept, and that it was unfortunate that the class had been made mechanically inferior to the wizard in gaining and applying metamagic. So, yeah, there was wiff of it. Not in the playtest, but if you went far enough back, it was well-articulated minority opinion, like, way back when, on the WotC Gleemax boards.

Sorcery points, OTOH, no, whole cloth, something slightly original, even - though much less evocative of the Sorcerer's nominal "magic in the blood" concept, than the morphing playtest version. ...hmm... OK, there might have been suggestions the Sorcerer could/should use a mana system, at some point. There were certainly, early on in 3.0, some folks pointing out that there were plenty of spell-point systems back in the day that could have been adapted to the sorcerer instead of or in addition to spontaneous casting.

Yeah, with differences like these, I think that nearly any psion class could be justified.

Hold psionics to the same standards as arcane casters were apparently held, and there should be two or three psionic classes in the PH.

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

Yes. Which is why you're being asked for mechanical differentiation.

Similarly, if there's a very clear implementation for the class, it's "too narrow/classes need to have at least 4/6/10 sub-classes," while, conversely, if there are many potential takes on the class it's "too unfocused/no one can agree on what it should look like."

Also similarly, before you can ask for the class, you must build the class, and once you have built the class, you don't need the official class, so shouldn't ask for it. Also, you can only want what WotC decides to give you, otherwise you're just in a tiny, vocal, minority who selfishly wants something unpopular. Until WotC does put the thing you want in print, then you're in the well-served majority who wanted it all along, because it's always been popular.

Because that's what passes for reasonable discussion around here.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes. Which is why you're being asked for mechanical differentiation.

When people have cited possible mechanical differentiation, these things then get re-cited as evidence of disagreement on the implementation. It would be nice if this request was being done in good faith, but I have not seen that much evidence that it has.

Similarly, if there's a very clear implementation for the class, it's "too narrow/classes need to have at least 4/6/10 sub-classes," while, conversely, if there are many potential takes on the class it's "too unfocused/no one can agree on what it should look like."

Sure, but psionics isn't exactly a class built around a narrow concept like "class that wields a gun and summons a ghost based on an anime" type thing that you might find on DMs Guild. It's had a series of different iterations over its history in D&D. Some like power points. Some like the cantrip-augmentation of 4e. Some would prefer spells as long as its psionics. But it's not exactly so broad that we can't agree on what it should look like. We have a treasure trove of powers from past editions. We have Psionic classes in 3e and 4e. There is a lexicon of D&D's take on psionics. Most would agree that WotC failed with the Mystic because they were trying to make the Mystic into everything psionic all at once, and most agree that portions of psionics would be appropriate as psionic subclasses for other classes (e.g., psychic warrior, soulknife, etc.). IMHO, the design space is there. The question is largely about a preference about which approach that WotC could take or test.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When people have cited possible mechanical differentiation, these things then get re-cited as evidence of disagreement on the implementation. It would be nice if this request was being done in good faith, but I have not seen that much evidence that it has.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that, anymore than I've been holding it waiting for the classes conspicuously absent from 5e.

Sure, but psionics isn't exactly a class built around a narrow concept like "class that wields a gun and summons a ghost based on an anime" type thing that you might find on DMs Guild.

Right, therefore it doesn't need to be concept-first, instead it can't possibly be an acceptable class because "no one can agree on what it should be." It's a catch-22, if you can clear one hurdle to justifying a class, you automatically get caught up by it's exact opposite.

If the standards of obstructionists had been applied to all classes, 5e would be a classless game...

...hmm... hypothetical silver lining....

It's had a series of different iterations over its history in D&D. Some like power points. Some like the cantrip-augmentation of 4e. Some would prefer spells as long as its psionics. But it's not exactly so broad that we can't agree on what it should look like. We have a treasure trove of powers from past editions. We have Psionic classes in 3e and 4e.

And psionics has been explicitly magic, not-magic, or DM's choice, too. It's been an odd supernatural talent that just pops up, a product of focused training, or a connection-to/reaction-against the horrific entities of the Far Realms.

It has also never been spellcasting.

There is a lexicon of D&D's take on psionics. Most would agree that WotC failed with the Mystic because they were trying to make the Mystic into everything psionic all at once, and most agree that portions of psionics would be appropriate as psionic subclasses for other classes (e.g., psychic warrior, soulknife, etc.). IMHO, the design space is there. The question is largely about a preference about which approach that WotC could take or test.

The longer you wait to deliver something, the better it needs to be to meet expectations, or it's "too little, too late" - neither side of any fence has a lock on catch-22s - at this point, the psion has been in development so long it has to be better than perfect to justify the delay.
That, too, becomes a 'good reason' to give up on it.

 

[Lanefan]

6+. That may not sound like much, but I've only seen 4 or 5 paladins, about 3 rangers, and I think 2 druids. If I tried to add up all of the others I think there would be other standard classes that also rated as low or lower.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

Though it won't happen in 5e, the one way I can see psyonics really taking off is if they were used to replace all other means of arcane casting, rather than just as an add-on.

See Kurtz' Deryni series for a good example of how this can work.

 

[Ashrym]

Somewhat shocked that you saw so few Rangers, regardless.

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.

3 Drizz't and 2 Harry Potter fans, and I showed up with a mage. The party was 3 drow rangers, 3 mages where two of them were pretty clear on the role of owls, a paladin, and a fighter.

I find the popularity of books and movies among the players at the time has definitely influenced the party composition.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly I have no horse in this race. If another psionic handbook comes out, I’ll do the same thing I always did - completely ignore it.

If there are more of me than there are of you, then it’s unlikely psionics will gain much traction.

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly I have no horse in this race. If another psionic handbook comes out, I’ll do the same thing I always did - completely ignore it.

If there are more of me than there are of you, then it’s unlikely psionics will gain much traction.

The poll here indicates that nearly half of the players here saw psionics played a decent amount, and a full 20% saw them a lot. That's a significant percentage. Not that the people here are a good sample size. However, we also don't know that it's not a correct assessment of the players at large.

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[generic]

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.

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