While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.
DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
PHB is a pleasant surprise.
On 4/25/2024 6:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're
basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.
Looks like they're going to be subclasses, not to worry, they aren't
going to be replaced. It's just one more option like eldritch knight.
I'm mixed on this, I always liked psionics in 1e-3e (never played with
them in 4e and don't remember if they actually came out.) But I
understand many people don't care for psionics in a fantasy game,
especially for PCs.
DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
PHB is a pleasant surprise.
I'm not sure about that "pleasant" part.
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:56:34 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're >>> basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.
Looks like they're going to be subclasses, not to worry, they aren't
going to be replaced. It's just one more option like eldritch knight.
I'm mixed on this, I always liked psionics in 1e-3e (never played with
them in 4e and don't remember if they actually came out.) But I
understand many people don't care for psionics in a fantasy game,
especially for PCs.
I've no real issue with psionics per se. I do think that it doesn't
mix well in a game which ALSO has magic. It makes the setting feel
messy; it lacks cohesiveness. Pick one or the other.
Of course, if you decide to rip out magic from your game-world, you're probably going to have to provide new explanations for things like
dragons and gods and all the other trappings of a traditional D&D
game. It's not an impossible feat but it requires a lot of extra work.
"Dark Sun" mixed psionics and magic, and was probably the best of the
bunch to do so, but even so it felt an unnecessary complication. The
psionics were essentially just another magic system in a sytem which
had too many different ways of casting spells already.
DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
PHB is a pleasant surprise.
I'm not sure about that "pleasant" part.
It's not a surprising inclusion. D&D tries to straddle the line
between a generic, universal role-playing system and a tailored,
whole-cloth world and rules. It's both the system's strength and
weakness; if you pick and choose from what D&D offers, you can create
some truly compelling settings and games. But a lot of players assume
that if it's in the rules, it ought to be in any game, and that leads
to very generic, comic-booky settings where there's no real rhyme or
reason to how any of it works together.
So on the one hand: cool, D&D 6th Ed has psionics. On the other hand,
it's going to lead to the assumption that every campaign ought to have
a psionicist in the party right next to its sorceror, cleric, and
bard.
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e-a I liked the iterations
in that edition much better.-a They both feel like they should be sub-classes and in optional books.-a Do you really need 3 charisma based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?-a Heck there's only 2 full physical classes.
As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional book
as they're loading too much into the PHB already.
On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e-a I liked the iterations
in that edition much better.-a They both feel like they should be
sub-classes and in optional books.-a Do you really need 3 charisma
based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?-a Heck there's only 2
full physical classes.
Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
when I shifted to older editions.
As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional
book as they're loading too much into the PHB already.
I do like psionics, and I am using the Old School Psionics supplement
for my homebrew rules (after trying to adapt the 3.5 psion to b/x at one point). I think they might fit into the world at large if you flavor
them right. I think about something like "mystics" (which is a word that also was used for monks in DnD which makes this awkward), which leans
into traditions of various mystics from all over the world.
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions. (I actually >think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:57:08 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions. (I actually
think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)
Well, it was, sort of.
Not telecommunications, but it was a handheld device; a portable
computer made to fit into the palm of your hand. Essentially, a
monochrome LCD display coupled to a tiny keyboard; a teeny-tiny
notebook for your palm.
They were quite neat, but - being so underpowered - also incredibly
limited. I LUSTED after one in the 90s, but once I finally acquired a
Psion (I think it was a Psion5?) I was disappointed by how little I
could actually do with. By default, its 'killer apps' were an address
book and calendar.
Later versions of the Psion gained connectivity options - cellular, bluetooth, wireless, the usual - but by then smartphones (and even dumbphones) were crowding the market, and the larger form factor of
the devices didn't sell well in comparison to those devices.
The name was really cool, though. I think that was 50% of the reason I
wanted one. ;-)
What? Oh, right. This is a D&D newsgroup. I should add something D&D
related.
Umm... I think there was a dice-rolling app for the Psion5. Does that
count?
While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're >basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.
On 4/26/2024 1:52 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On >>>> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e-a I liked the iterations >>> in that edition much better.-a They both feel like they should be
sub-classes and in optional books.-a Do you really need 3 charisma
based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?-a Heck there's only 2 >>> full physical classes.
Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got
disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
when I shifted to older editions.
Complete Arcane player's handbook. I did have someone play it. It felt
very underpowered, but it had a lot more sustain with eldritch blast
than wizards. It's much better balanced in 5e
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e I liked the iterations
in that edition much better. They both feel like they should be
sub-classes and in optional books. Do you really need 3 charisma based >arcane full caster base classes in the PHB? Heck there's only 2 full >physical classes.
In article <v0gdb2$3o4p8$1@dont-email.me>, justisaur@yahoo.com wrote:
On 4/26/2024 1:52 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On >>>>> the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e-a I liked the iterations >>>> in that edition much better.-a They both feel like they should be
sub-classes and in optional books.-a Do you really need 3 charisma
based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?-a Heck there's only 2 >>>> full physical classes.
Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got
disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
when I shifted to older editions.
Complete Arcane player's handbook. I did have someone play it. It felt
very underpowered, but it had a lot more sustain with eldritch blast
than wizards. It's much better balanced in 5e
If memory serves, Warlocks in 3.x could cast Eldritch Blast whenever they wanted, a rule a min-maxer friend of mine used for his PCs.
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e-a I liked the iterations
in that edition much better.-a They both feel like they should be sub-classes and in optional books.-a Do you really need 3 charisma based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?-a Heck there's only 2 full physical classes.
As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer
On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.
Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e-a I liked the iterations
in that edition much better.-a They both feel like they should be
sub-classes and in optional books.-a Do you really need 3 charisma based
arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?-a Heck there's only 2 full
physical classes.
As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer
Nitpick: sorcerers were a core class in 3e. Warlocks came in a
supplement in 3.5.
I never really got sorcerers, I think they were supposed to be what the >warlock became later, just that it wasn't mechanically set apart from >wizards all that much.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 08:16:02 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,942 |