NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 7966820" data-attributes="member: 7019027">I understand the pain of not having a psion fit exactly your idea of one, but that's probably because it's not being given room to be something new in the sense of a different edition. Alot of the classes and subclasses have been adjusted to 5e that has drastically changed their playstyle from even 4e. I'm sure if the cleric wasn't a base class, people would be in a fit that they're decent in the frontline depending. They wouldn't want the cleric to be an almost paladin. How could they roleplay the meek preacher boy they're used to if the god he worships gives him heavy armor proficiency? Likewise, necromancers should be different from a basic wizard, right? Maybe not but I can see an argument for it. It's like a separate archetype where you should roleplay one way and the spells shouldn't necessarily be shared with a wizard. They'd hate being a warlock too since they don't want to be stuck with choosing a patron. But ultimately, it doesn't really matter how they implement psionics. If any of the UA psionics were built in and balanced in the system prior to release, people might've complained a bit but it would've died down by 2017 at most because it scratched the itch. We would then be begging WoTC for a true dragoon class or something because we can never not want. That being said, it's clear the want for psionics is there. I just think that the people who want it should not expect it to perfectly align with you preconception of the class/subclass.</blockquote>

Verification