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

[jphl]

I am quite happy if there is no psionics in 5e but if they insist on making it a thing it needs to be its own class for simplicity in banning the abomination

 

[Magister Ludorum]

I have used psionics in every edition of D&D.

OD&D - I used Eldritch Wizardry

1e and 2e - We started with the rules in the DMG, then switched to a Judge's Guild supplement (Masters of the Mind)

3e and 3.5e - We used the Expanded Psionics Handbook

4e - Stopped playing shortly after the Psionics book came out and switched to Pathfinder where we continued to use the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

5e - We reflavored sorcercers. Needless to say, we're very happy with the Psionic Soul Sorcerer.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I can't say the exact number because even my crazy lil brain didn't manage to count them all... but I've seen more psionic characters at my table over the years than I've seen bards and druids combined.

 

[jgsugden]

Psionics is an integral part of the primary campaign world I have run since the 1980s. It is intentionally mysterious and rare - primarily because I've become used to keeping it in the background while waiting for an edition to finally release rules for it.

The primary reason, in my mind, to provide us with a psionic character class is to support all of the DMs that have built it into their campaign worlds and are just fidgeting around the fact that there are not clear rules for it now.

 

[Hussar]

Psionics is an integral part of the primary campaign world I have run since the 1980s. It is intentionally mysterious and rare - primarily because I've become used to keeping it in the background while waiting for an edition to finally release rules for it.

The primary reason, in my mind, to provide us with a psionic character class is to support all of the DMs that have built it into their campaign worlds and are just fidgeting around the fact that there are not clear rules for it now.

Oh, and I get that.

But, if the poll here is in any way indicative of the general gaming population, that means that slightly over half of the tables out there either never use psionics or barely use it. And, really, only a pretty small slice would find it to be an integral part of a campaign world.

Which, frankly, plops it firmly in DM's Guild territory. There ARE very good psionic rules for D&D. And, if we're talking about people's home games, then the whole Adventurers League thing goes out the window.

Anyway, like I said earlier, I have zero horse in this race. I really couldn't care either way - if they come out with a psionic book, I'll ignore it like I ignored every other psionic book. But, I think it's fair to say that the "need" for psionics in the game is perhaps being somewhat overstated by those who want it.

In any case, welcome to Warlord country. Have a drink. Stay for the company.

 

[wingsandsword]

I saw psionic characters pretty regularly.

In our 2e days, rolling for wild talents was a part of every character creation. At least half our parties had someone who actually got a wild talent. Probably roughly half our parties also had a psionic character, usually multiclassed. One gaming group I was within the 2e era even had a homebrew "psionic fighter" that was essentially the 3.x psychic warrior before it was even an official thing.

In 3e, psionics were still used and around. Maybe a little less often, but were still an option and still were played.

DM's tended to love to use psionic treasure as something "exotic", and going to a place where psionics was as prevalent (or moreso) than arcane magic was a common DM trick to convey that this is an alien and strange land that the characters have found themselves in.

I even played a year-long campaign in a homebrew settings where psionics was the main form of supernatural power, with arcane magic being rare and divine magic being obscure (to the degree that psionics is in normal games)

 

[Aldarc]

Anyway, like I said earlier, I have zero horse in this race. I really couldn't care either way - if they come out with a psionic book, I'll ignore it like I ignored every other psionic book. But, I think it's fair to say that the "need" for psionics in the game is perhaps being somewhat overstated by those who want it.

See, I think it's fair to say that you're not exactly the most unbiased person when it comes to "what's fair to say" about psionics.

In any case, welcome to Warlord country. Have a drink. Stay for the company.

Welcome? I'm still in warlord country. Just wish that you would turn a more sympathetic ear to psionics fans given your desire for a warlord in 5e. But adopting the attitude of anti-warlord advocates when talking about psionics is not a good look for you.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. The funny thing is @Aldarc, all the arguments against warlords are virtually IDENTICAL to the arguements against psionics. Yet, we've had, what, three, four kicks at the cat for psionics in 5e? Not a single whisper for warlords.

Maybe the anti-warlord crowd is right. Just like Psionics, no matter what WotC puts out, it won't be good enough and it'll just get panned anyway.

But, again, like I said, if this poll is indicative of anything, it tells me that less than half of the gamers out there actually give a darn if we get psionics at all. It won't matter to them at all. Which, frankly, puts psionics in the warlord camp of being too niche for WotC.

Unfortunate but, we'll see how it pans out.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Just like Psionics, no matter what WotC puts out, it won't be good enough and it'll just get panned anyway.

But, again, like I said, if this poll is indicative of anything, it tells me that less than half of the gamers out there actually give a darn if we get psionics at all. It won't matter to them at all. Which, frankly, puts psionics in the warlord camp of being too niche for WotC.

Unfortunate but, we'll see how it pans out.

Nerdrage is extremely tiresome. Even if the mechanics are great you will still have those who will find any fault. Sometimes the vocal minority will pan it deliberately. Shrilly. Wizards do not seem to listen to these much any more.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Heh. The funny thing is @Aldarc, all the arguments against warlords are virtually IDENTICAL to the arguements against psionics. Yet, we've had, what, three, four kicks at the cat for psionics in 5e? Not a single whisper for warlords.

True that.

Maybe the anti-warlord crowd is right. Just like Psionics, no matter what WotC puts out, it won't be good enough and it'll just get panned anyway.

I don't think so, the problem with psionics is it has been is many different editions and worked very differently. The warlord has only been in one edition, so there is only one "one true warlord". It shouldn't be too difficult to reach agreement over.

Which, frankly, puts psionics in the warlord camp of being too niche for WotC.

There is a key difference: Dark Sun. Psionics is central to what remains one of the most popular old settings. There is no setting - not even Netter Vale - that needs warlord.

It seems likely that the reason psionics is getting preferential treatment over warlord is because WotC want to eventually do Dark Sun.