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

[Azzy]

Not anything that divergent, probably: casting Psionics Spells with Slots.

The DMG has a spell point option, so we're back there if we choose.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Who cares?

I mean, seriously? Who cares?

They are working on it. We know that because we've had multiple UA articles dealing with psionic rules for 5e. It's not like it's being ignored. The 5e PHB has psionic adjacent characters with GOO warlocks (and, YES, that's a psionic character - telepathic and all) and we've had multiple stabs at psionic characters.

So, @Tony Vargas, what are you trying to prove by claiming "5e has taken the longest"? Who cares? By this point IN EVERY EDITION, we're already into next edition territory. 5 years in, we're into Unearthed Arcana - the beginning of the end for 1e. 2e is seeing moves towards a new edition. 3e, 3.5e, and 4e have all failed by this point.

So, who gives a crap how long it takes to get the rules out there, so long as they are still working on the system?

 

[SkidAce]

So, who gives a crap how long it takes to get the rules out there, so long as they are still working on the system?

Campaigns where psionics is a major plot point/world feature and have been waiting to incorporate integrated rules?


I mean, yes, I have house ruled psionics in because I could not wait, but I was hoping it would show up sooner than later this time.

 

[Ratskinner]

I stand as one of the "neither" voters.

I don't really think there is a pressing need for Warlords, given 5e's reduced combat complexity. If they show up with a detailed tactical combat rider...which would be a fine book (and an option I thought we were getting in the early days)...sure. Otherwise, I suspect they would be very hard to work in without a lot of redundancy or mismatch in power levels. I also don't see them as a prominently unique archetype that requires additional mechanics.

I feel kinda the same way about psionics. For my purposes, reflavoring any of the casters works fine. A/the new spell list to round it out would be all that is needed. I don't really see that psionics is any different from magic, just with little East/West flavor rotation. Even for something like Dark Sun, a new spell list (possibly a replacement list) and some new (possibly replacement) subclasses would work for me.

Not that I would freak if either showed up in a book.

 

[Anoth]

I would like to know how well 1E psionics worked for those that used them. Everyone I know looked at them and went “not in my game”. We dabbled in them at one point and rejected them. And they are in the monster manuals. Critters Are statted with them. We just ignored their psionic abilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would like to know how well 1E psionics worked for those that used them. Everyone I know looked at them and went “not in my game”. We dabbled in them at one point and rejected them.

1e psionics was a bizarre, downright aberrant sub-system, generally regarded as broken even by the loose standards of the day. Level ended up having virtually no bearing on it, for instance, which is weird and meant a low-level psionic could conceivably take on enemies otherwise way out of his league. Psionic combat proceeded in segments (so 10 rounds of psionic combat in one round), so when it happened, it effectively put the normal combat on hold, and it used the kind of matrix-lookup guess-what-the-other-guy's-going-to-do resolution that I always found very frustrating.

But, I suppose you couldn't argue that it lacked 'flavor' for all that.

And, y'know, if we discarded everything that had been badly implemented at some point in the game's history, we wouldn't have anything.

And they are in the monster manuals. Critters Are statted with them. We just ignored their psionic abilities.

Which is actually kinda a good early example of implementing an opt-in option. The way psionic combat was designed, only psionics participated, so if you didn't use psionics for your players, the psionics of monsters had no impact. (The Psionic Blast, of course, did, but it used saving throws when used on non-psionics, like most supernatural attacks.)

So, who gives a crap how long it takes to get the rules out there, so long as they are still working on the system?

Everyone waiting to use those rules, obviously, cares that they can't do so yet.

It's really getting past the point that it's valid to complain that it's taking too long for the Psion & Warlord &c, and to the point where it's valid to complain that they - and the fans who wanted them - have simply been excluded, outright.

 

[Hussar]

Campaigns where psionics is a major plot point/world feature and have been waiting to incorporate integrated rules?


I mean, yes, I have house ruled psionics in because I could not wait, but I was hoping it would show up sooner than later this time.

Yeah, I'm not really buying it. I mean, we're talking about a really, REALLY small subset of the gaming population by this point. The only setting that needs psionics is Dark Sun, and, unless you played the 4e version, has been out of print longer than most players have been alive. I get wanting it, but, seriously?

/snip

Everyone waiting to use those rules, obviously, cares that they can't do so yet.

It's really getting past the point that it's valid to complain that it's taking too long for the Psion & Warlord &c, and to the point where it's valid to complain that they - and the fans who wanted them - have simply been excluded, outright.

Hrm, there have been UA articles on psionics every year. EVERY year. So, complaints that they're being "excluded" can be safely ignored. Warlord fans? Yup, they've been excluded since, not only do we not have ANY UA articles, Warlords, other than the most recent poll, weren't even mentioned by WotC for the past 5 years. So, yeah, I get that warlord fans might be feeling excluded, but, @Tony Vargas, all you're trying to do is drum up more edition warring support for your personal crusade by comparing psionic fans, who have multiple classes to choose from, even if they aren't official, and warlord fans who have not had any dev support.

It's really getting rather sad.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, I'm not really buying it. I mean, we're talking about a really, REALLY small subset of the gaming population by this point. The only setting that needs psionics is Dark Sun, and, unless you played the 4e version, has been out of print longer than most players have been alive. I get wanting it, but, seriously?

I enjoy the feeling of you condescending fans of D&D psionics like myself, it really makes me want to play 5e as the edition that embraces all editions.

Hrm, there have been UA articles on psionics every year. EVERY year. So, complaints that they're being "excluded" can be safely ignored. Warlord fans? Yup, they've been excluded since, not only do we not have ANY UA articles, Warlords, other than the most recent poll, weren't even mentioned by WotC for the past 5 years....and warlord fans who have not had any dev support.

You mean apart from Mike Mearls creating a mock-up Warlord subclass for the Fighter in one of his streams last year?

 

[Hussar]

I enjoy the feeling of you condescending fans of D&D psionics like myself, it really makes me want to play 5e as the edition that embraces all editions.

You mean apart from Mike Mearls creating a mock-up Warlord subclass for the Fighter in one of his streams last year?

How much more support do you want? Repeated attempts to bring psionics into 5e. There’s been what, one or two psionic UA’s every year. They are working on it.

Unlike a private example from Mearls that has zero chance of actually making it to print. Or heck, ok, ONE attempt at a warlord in five years vs what ten fully playable psionic classes?

I have no idea why you think I’m being condescending. I’m not the one pretending that there’s been zero development of psionics in 5e so I can keep banging the edition war drum from almost ten years ago.

Would I like to see a warlord in the works? Sure. It’s a class I really enjoyed. Am I going to take its lack as a personal affront after all this time? Nope. I’m not going to get a warlord. You ARE going to get a psionic.

What is there to be condescending about?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I see warlord as a monster trainer class, but the "pet" is a "troop", a special monster subtype where a group, squad or pack works as a swarm. I have said the warlord will be in some sourcebook about mass battles and skimishes warbarnds. Even the class is being created for an easy adaptation to videogame.

If a 3PP has published a warlord class WotC also can.

If WotC doesn't publish psionic base classes then these will be created by some 3PP, maybe Dreamscarred Press. I would suggest or advice WotC to hire this for future sourcebooks about classes with special mechanics (incarnum/akasha, martial adepts or psionic/occult).

Psionic has enough "crunch", but only Dark Sun has enough "fluff" (lore, background) about psionic manifesters. Maybe the mystic class should be showed as somebody who rejects "supertitions" and "archaic tools".