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

[Paul Farquhar]

Everybody debating this says either "I am in favor of a separate class" (1) or "I am neutral about psionics, wont use them." (0)

So using averages, that means slightly in favor of.... (.5)

I would rather have psionic wild talents, but no separate class.

 

[generic]

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?

When did it become the request of the "pro-Psion posters" to get an entire book on Psionics? Tell me where exactly they said that we need a complete book of Psionics, rather than a class bundled in a XGtE-like supplement.

 

[generic]

Everybody debating this says either "I am in favor of a separate class" (1) or "I am neutral about psionics, wont use them." (0)

So using averages, that means slightly in favor of.... (.5)

Except, remember, there are some who explicitly oppose it, so, I guess it won't be made, oh well!

 

[generic]

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?

Which UA? New Psion? Mystic?

Side Note: Oh, I don't know, crafting tons and tons of items as a class feature. Also, isn't the point of a class that its different than the others? Would you prefer it if Rogues weren't able to do anything that Fighters couldn't do?

 

[Azzy]

Expecting an entire supplement dedicated to gnomes would be unreasonable, no?

Except that noone is expecting an entire supplement dedicated to psionics. That's just disingenuous.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly?

No need to start a revolution or anything, but sure...

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?

Every class mirrors earlier editions - even if it is distorted or darkly, due to mashing up multiple editions - I'd say it's the most nearly-consistent design principle driving 5e.

 

[billd91]

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.

Drizzt clones? Pfft. Most of the rangers I've seen in campaigns (from 1e on to 5e) have been archers. Seems woodsy-er. The one major exception I can remember was the Cuisinart ranger in the Wrath of the Righteous Pathfinder campaign I ran. Evil outsiders as a favored enemy works really well for that campaign.

 

[Ashrym]

Drizzt clones? Pfft. Most of the rangers I've seen in campaigns (from 1e on to 5e) have been archers. Seems woodsy-er. The one major exception I can remember was the Cuisinart ranger in the Wrath of the Righteous Pathfinder campaign I ran. Evil outsiders as a favored enemy works really well for that campaign.

Were they named variations of "Legolas"? I've seen more than a few fans along those lines too.

 

[billd91]

Were they named variations of "Legolas"? I've seen more than a few fans along those lines too.

More often Robin Hoods, I would say. With, of course, a smattering of Aragorn thanks to the tracking and loner-ness. Legolas was an archer, but he never gave off the skilled woodcraft/hunter vibe that fit with the class archetype.

 

[Ashrym]

More often Robin Hoods, I would say. With, of course, a smattering of Aragorn thanks to the tracking and loner-ness. Legolas was an archer, but he never gave off the skilled woodcraft/hunter vibe that fit with the class archetype.

IME, that didn't stop the players who thought "ranger" meant "ranged combat" instead of "open range". The ranger as a wanderer and woodsman / hunter was a bit lost along the way.