Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E Psionics Alert! The Mystic Is Back In Unearthed Arcana
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7710567" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Psionics are still overtly supernatural, though, even if they aren't technically magic (and, by default, it appears that as of this latest iteration, they are technically magic). Ironically, though, in as much as I'm in a psionics camp, at all, I'm more in the 'psionics are different' camp than I used to be (when I just didn't want psionics in the game, at all, but was willing to 'compromise' by functionally erasing the difference between psionics and magic, which, in retrospect, wasn't terribly fair). As it stands, I'm still not a big fan of psionics, but I feel strongly that the magic/not-magic option should be there so that DMs can conveniently decide the role psionics has in their world.</p><p></p><p> Unless forces and philosophies can be considered 'similar entities.' For instance, the 2e 'Divinity of Mankind' philosophy posited that humanity was, collectively, divine in nature. It also worked well in 2e, in that lower-level spells were explicitly a result of faith and devotion, not directly powered by the deity nor delivered by an intermediary. So a philosophy that wasn't really in touch with any divine entity however much you stretch the term was running on pure faith (delusion) and could only ever get 4th level spells. </p><p></p><p>Re-skinning is easy enough, but 5e doesn't push acceptance of that approach the way it does DM Empowerment. More the opposite: the 5e class design philosophy is to evoke class concepts with distinct mechanics & progressions, even if they may seem to be arbitrarily distinct for the sake of being distinct. That creates an expectation of fluff-crunch coupling, or fluff determining crunch (or vice versa) that's antagonistic to re-skinning. </p><p></p><p> The Cleric isn't quite as cleric-y in some minor ways, I suppose. 5e, with it's slower pace of releases, and it's attempt to get so many classes into the PH while still feeling 'light' just doesn't have quite the depth of material other editions did (it exceeds 0e & 1e, I'd think). </p><p></p><p> Sounds like you're not qualified to judge the significance of that difference, then, especially to those who do care. </p><p></p><p>The Ardent has been it's own class in not one but two past editions. It's bad enough getting demoted to a sub-class, and having your name changed to something that makes no sense ('the Avatar?' Of which deity?), without /also/ being mistaken for some other class! </p><p></p><p> A 5e rogue can make with the SA prettymuch every round. I'd agree in as much as Fighter seems equally legit, but then fighter could get a psychic warrior sub-class.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7710567, member: 996"] Psionics are still overtly supernatural, though, even if they aren't technically magic (and, by default, it appears that as of this latest iteration, they are technically magic). Ironically, though, in as much as I'm in a psionics camp, at all, I'm more in the 'psionics are different' camp than I used to be (when I just didn't want psionics in the game, at all, but was willing to 'compromise' by functionally erasing the difference between psionics and magic, which, in retrospect, wasn't terribly fair). As it stands, I'm still not a big fan of psionics, but I feel strongly that the magic/not-magic option should be there so that DMs can conveniently decide the role psionics has in their world. Unless forces and philosophies can be considered 'similar entities.' For instance, the 2e 'Divinity of Mankind' philosophy posited that humanity was, collectively, divine in nature. It also worked well in 2e, in that lower-level spells were explicitly a result of faith and devotion, not directly powered by the deity nor delivered by an intermediary. So a philosophy that wasn't really in touch with any divine entity however much you stretch the term was running on pure faith (delusion) and could only ever get 4th level spells. Re-skinning is easy enough, but 5e doesn't push acceptance of that approach the way it does DM Empowerment. More the opposite: the 5e class design philosophy is to evoke class concepts with distinct mechanics & progressions, even if they may seem to be arbitrarily distinct for the sake of being distinct. That creates an expectation of fluff-crunch coupling, or fluff determining crunch (or vice versa) that's antagonistic to re-skinning. The Cleric isn't quite as cleric-y in some minor ways, I suppose. 5e, with it's slower pace of releases, and it's attempt to get so many classes into the PH while still feeling 'light' just doesn't have quite the depth of material other editions did (it exceeds 0e & 1e, I'd think). Sounds like you're not qualified to judge the significance of that difference, then, especially to those who do care. The Ardent has been it's own class in not one but two past editions. It's bad enough getting demoted to a sub-class, and having your name changed to something that makes no sense ('the Avatar?' Of which deity?), without /also/ being mistaken for some other class! A 5e rogue can make with the SA prettymuch every round. I'd agree in as much as Fighter seems equally legit, but then fighter could get a psychic warrior sub-class. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E Psionics Alert! The Mystic Is Back In Unearthed Arcana
Top