D&D 5E Would you prefer warlord or psion as a new class?

[Parmandur]

2e, 3.0, 3.5 & 4e had different release schedules and different edition-life-arcs, but each had psionics 2 years in (3.5 technically had it the whole time, since the 3.0 version was officially valid until replaced). And, 1e had the release schedule most analogous to 5e, as well as the fad-driven sales most analogous to 5e, and had Psionics from the very beginning.

The 5E PHB has the Great Old One Warlock and a number of Psionic themed Spells, so by the 1E standard, 5E has also had Psionics since the start.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 5E PHB has the Great Old One Warlock and a number of Psionic themed Spells, so by the 1E standard, 5E has also had Psionics since the start.

1e had a separate, if optional, system for psionics. So no, an arcane class having a bit of telepathy and some arcane spells with effects similar to some of those traditionally pulled off by psionics is in no way the same as having psionics. Doubly-so given 5e's 'concept-first' design intent, which is contrary to the idea, up-front, and, along with 5e's natural-language presentation (which draws no line between 'fluff' & 'crunch'), makes re-skinning supernatural abilities a fraught, largely DM-only exercise.

OTOH, even a 'Wild Talent' feat that merely hinted at a psionics sub-system would've been closer.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think it's fundamentally flawed to make a comparison by time frame. Why? Because the release schedule for 5e is much slower than in previous editions.

so let's look at a dedicated psionics class, and how long it took to find itself as an official class. Looking at products excluding adventures

2e: 15th product released (complete psionics handbook)
3e: 11th product released (psionics handbook)
4e: 49th product (PHB 3)
5e: 13 products so far

so when you look at it like that, it's not like 5e has forsaken the psion just because its 5 years in so far.

The 5E PHB has the Great Old One Warlock and a number of Psionic themed Spells, so by the 1E standard, 5E has also had Psionics since the start.

I think anyone who seriously tries to argue that 1e made a dedicated effort towards psionics in 1e either isn’t familiar with 1e at all, or they are being disingenuous. Not only was it not a class, but it was near impossible to even qualify for them, and it was crammed in the back of the book. I never saw a single legit rolled PC that was played in 1e from 1981 to 2012 (the years AD&D was my preferred edition). It wasn’t until 2e when you saw an actual set of serious rules for psionics that was accessible to players as a legit option. The only time I saw psionics in 1e was with the player who also always had max hp and 18/00 strength.

I found my earlier post I was referring to, and still stick by it. 4e might have had extra products like card collections, but even if you discount those, it wasn’t until the 20th or so book supplement with the PHB 3.

It’s flat out dishonest to say 5e has ignored the psionist not only when you look at other editions that took more released products Before you saw it, but several presentations of psionics so far in 5e including but not limited to a full stand alone class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not only was it (1e psionics) not a class, but it was near impossible to even qualify for them, and it was crammed in the back of the book.

1e presented psionics from the very beginning, it provided more than a few monsters with psionic powers that would only matter if there were a psionic PC in the group (as well as a few with psionic blast, as well), the odd magic item that interacted with psionics.
And, while it was unlikely a given character would be psionics, it was similarly unlikely that a given character would have an 18 stat, let alone, say, % STR (never mind 18/00, specifically), quite a lot of magic items were pretty rare according to the tables, too, but that doesn't mean they weren't in the game. 1e was presented as a game you'd play a lot (including rolling up a lot of new characters at 1st level, after the previous one had died, at 1st level), so an expectation that the rarer stuff'd come up, eventually, is pretty fair.

5e hasn't put psionics in print, yet, but it has at least been in the theoretical development pipe-line, just for a really long time - a bit longer than the now-in-print Artificer was, IIRC. Still, seeing the pipe-line is something.

And, if we're being fair (and, I know, why start now), whether you compare it to glacial-pace-of-release 1e, which had psionics from the very first book, or fast-pace of release 4e which had it 2 years in, 5 years is more than both 0 and 2.

5e has taken the longest to get psionics into print.
It's not even close.

 

[Parmandur]

1e had a separate, if optional, system for psionics. So no, an arcane class having a bit of telepathy and some arcane spells with effects similar to some of those traditionally pulled off by psionics is in no way the same as having psionics. Doubly-so given 5e's 'concept-first' design intent, which is contrary to the idea, up-front, and, along with 5e's natural-language presentation (which draws no line between 'fluff' & 'crunch'), makes re-skinning supernatural abilities a fraught, largely DM-only exercise.

OTOH, even a 'Wild Talent' feat that merely hinted at a psionics sub-system would've been closer.

Arcane/Divine/Psionic are not meaningful distinctions in 5E, that's Class flavor and not system.

One thing that Crawford has specified on Twitter is that they have determined that the player base doesn't want a separate "system" as such: a Class that uses the existing magic system with Psionic flavoring is the most we're looking at happening in the future.

 

[Parmandur]

1e presented psionics from the very beginning, it provided more than a few monsters with psionic powers that would only matter if there were a psionic PC in the group (as well as a few with psionic blast, as well), the odd magic item that interacted with psionics.
And, while it was unlikely a given character would be psionics, it was similarly unlikely that a given character would have an 18 stat, let alone, say, % STR (never mind 18/00, specifically), quite a lot of magic items were pretty rare according to the tables, too, but that doesn't mean they weren't in the game. 1e was presented as a game you'd play a lot (including rolling up a lot of new characters at 1st level, after the previous one had died, at 1st level), so an expectation that the rarer stuff'd come up, eventually, is pretty fair.

5e hasn't put psionics in print, yet, but it has at least been in the theoretical development pipe-line, just for a really long time - a bit longer than the now-in-print Artificer was, IIRC. Still, seeing the pipe-line is something.

And, if we're being fair (and, I know, why start now), whether you compare it to glacial-pace-of-release 1e, which had psionics from the very first book, or fast-pace of release 4e which had it 2 years in, 5 years is more than both 0 and 2.

5e has taken the longest to get psionics into print.
It's not even close.

If the 1E material counts, so does the Warlock and various Psionic Spells, and the Psionic monsters in play since the beginning of the edition.

 

[Azzy]

If the 1E material counts, so does the Warlock and various Psionic Spells, and the Psionic monsters in play since the beginning of the edition.

Imma gonna have to say no.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If the 1E material counts, so does the Warlock and various Psionic Spells, and the Psionic monsters in play since the beginning of the edition.

There are no "psionic spells." There was no reskinning required to make 1e Psionics into psionics. Note that the psionic monsters in the 1e MM had powers that only interacted with other psionics, as part of that sub-system. Actually vaguely elegant, in a way - if you chose not to use the psionics appendix in the PH, the corresponding monster psionics could be ignored.

 

[Azzy]

One thing that Crawford has specified on Twitter is that they have determined that the player base doesn't want a separate "system" as such: a Class that uses the existing magic system with Psionic flavoring is the most we're looking at happening in the future.

So, we're back to 3.x? Groovy. Gimme psicrystals, too.

 

[Slit518]

Warlord. I am not really interested in a Psion.