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

[Hussar]

There's no hill to die on. This not a sticking point for WotC, since they agree with us that Psions/Mystics don't need components. If they make one and release it, it will not require components. There may or may not be visual, aural or scent displays like 3e, but those are not components.

Just to quote myself, since it was apparently missed:

"Classes change. What goes into a class changes. What is the "important part" of the identy of a class one day is on the cutting room floor the next. Insisting that X MUST be part of the class just because that's the way it was before doesn't really hold a lot of water when you look at 5e and the evolution of virtually every class over the course of various editions. Other than maybe, and very maybe, a fighter, none of the classes look much like they did before. "

 

[Lanefan]

I think I can count on one hand the number of times a wizard's spellbook has ever actually mattered in play. Other than as treasure I suppose.

What, you never have them melt down when their owners get hit with Fireballs, or have the ink smear and run when the owner falls into deep water? You never have a Thief steal one?

Missed opportunities, my friend, missed opportunities!

 

[Lanefan]

Just another thought to add.

See, I remember, not that long ago, when druids absolutely needed a golden sickle and mistletoe to cast their spells. This was absolutely required. Yet, 3e ejected that bit and, well, everyone got over it.

I remember when paladins absolutely had to be Lawful Good. This was absolutely required and core to the identity of the class. Yet 5e ejected that and everyone got over it.

I remember when clerics absolutely could not use edged weapons. This was absolutely required and core to the identity of the class. Yet, 2e started ejecting that notion and 3e buried it for good. And everyone got over it.

Notice what's common to those three examples?

All of them show restrictions being removed. People tend to very easily "get over" any removal of restrictions, whether removing said restrictions is in fact a good idea or not.

Making psionics use verbal-somatic-material components, by contrast, in effect adds restrictions to how they do what they do; and adding restrictions never goes over as well with those accustomed to the unrestricted version.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to quote myself, since it was apparently missed:

"Classes change. What goes into a class changes. What is the "important part" of the identy of a class one day is on the cutting room floor the next. Insisting that X MUST be part of the class just because that's the way it was before doesn't really hold a lot of water when you look at 5e and the evolution of virtually every class over the course of various editions. Other than maybe, and very maybe, a fighter, none of the classes look much like they did before. "

You've claimed that we are dying on a hill for wanting no spell components. Quoting yourself is worthless here. Classes change? So what. WotC has demonstrated in 5e that they still hold to the belief that psionics doesn't require components.

They kept up demonstrating that position as of the most recent psionic UA, so if you're going to make that kind of claim, you need to present hard evidence or else you're just spouting hot air.

 

[Hussar]

You've claimed that we are dying on a hill for wanting no spell components. Quoting yourself is worthless here. Classes change? So what. WotC has demonstrated in 5e that they still hold to the belief that psionics doesn't require components.

They kept up demonstrating that position as of the most recent psionic UA, so if you're going to make that kind of claim, you need to present hard evidence or else you're just spouting hot air.

Hey, @Sword of Spirit was the one who brought it up, not me. Go pester him for a change.

Like I said earlier, classes change. Arguing that this or that is a MUST BE THIS WAY doesn't really help you. He stated that he would rather not have psionic rules AT ALL if the psionic rules had components. To me, this is just baffling. It's such a low issue that I cannot believe people actually care. But be that as it may, again, I DO NOT CARE. Components, no components, it doesn't matter to me one whit. And there are a number of hills that people are staking out that is going to make getting any sort of rules set out there more and more problematic.

Instead of focusing on the minutia @Maxperson, try stepping back a second and seeing the forest.

What, you never have them melt down when their owners get hit with Fireballs, or have the ink smear and run when the owner falls into deep water? You never have a Thief steal one?

Missed opportunities, my friend, missed opportunities!

Meh. Haven't played 1e in like 30 years. Can't say I miss it too much. And, honestly, the number of times that I fireballed the MU, if he failed his save, he was dead anyway. The spellbook didn't really matter. If he made his save, then, no burning the spellbook. Like I said, it almost never came up.

But, yeah, I gotta admit, my RBDM card must be in my other jacket. That sort of gotcha stuff went out of style for us a LONG time ago.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey, @Sword of Spirit was the one who brought it up, not me. Go pester him for a change.

Why should he have to argue to back up your incorrect claim?

Like I said earlier, classes change. Arguing that this or that is a MUST BE THIS WAY doesn't really help you. He stated that he would rather not have psionic rules AT ALL if the psionic rules had components.

It will be that way, though. WotC has shown that they are on the same page that he is.

To me, this is just baffling. It's such a low issue that I cannot believe people actually care. But be that as it may, again, I DO NOT CARE. Components, no components, it doesn't matter to me one whit.

You don't get to tell us what is or is now a low issue. Your priorities don't control the world.

And there are a number of hills that people are staking out that is going to make getting any sort of rules set out there more and more problematic.

Once again, because you missed it the first two times, there is no hill here. If WotC makes a Psion, it won't need components.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There's no hill to die on. This not a sticking point for WotC, since they agree with us that Psions/Mystics don't need components. If they make one and release it, it will not require components. There may or may not be visual, aural or scent displays like 3e, but those are not components.

I wish you wouldn't keep extrapolating from evidence like this.

It reminds me of the joke about the economist, the mathematician, and the logician on the train. As they cross into Scotland, they see a brown cow out the window.

The economist says, "Huh. The cows in Scotland are brown."

The mathematician says, smugly, "Actually, all we know is that is one cow in Scotland is brown."

The logician, genuinely puzzled, says, "We do? All I know is that there's one cow in Scotland that appears, to the three of us, to be brown on one side. At least part of the time."

Don't be the economist.

 

[Maxperson]

I wish you wouldn't keep extrapolating from evidence like this.

So far WotC is 100% on this in 5e with multiple attempts. This continues what they did in 3e and 4e. I see no reason to think it will suddenly change after 20 years without any evidence to indicate that they are shifting.

 

[Xaelvaen]

Just thinking about the Jeremy Crawford quote that basically says the reason they didn't want to go with a new class for psions in 5e is because the previous versions, while they have their fans, just didn't get enough traction. And I can certainly see his point. 1e we saw quite a few psionic characters, but, that's because we cheated. Once psionics became a "class" in 2e and beyond, I almost never saw one played.

In fact, many of the DM's I played with flat out banned psionics for any number of reasons. So, I'm just tossing up a poll here to see how often people played in groups that had psionic characters. It's not meant to be exact, just a gut feeling.

Pretty darned frequently. Since I started playing in 89, Vancian was never really our favorite magic system. Any excuse to get away from it, for anyone who wanted to delve into the realm of spell slinging, was a good one. 2e and 3e psionics were both quite fun, at least at our table.

For 5e, we just use a house-doctored Sorcerer for Psionics, with the optional Spell Points table from the DMG.

 

[Fenris-77]

So far WotC is 100% on this in 5e with multiple attempts. This continues what they did in 3e and 4e. I see no reason to think it will suddenly change after 20 years without any evidence to indicate that they are shifting.

Here's a rule from the most recent UA:
Psychic Sorcery. When you cast a spell, you can use your mind to form it, rather than relying on words, gestures, and materials. To do so, roll your Psionic Talent die. The spell then requires no verbal component, and if you rolled the level of the spell or higher, the spell doesn’t require somatic or material components either.

Notice the last line? Material components, at least sometimes. So there's that.