Which element could D&D stand to lose more?

[Nifft]

we all know that technically correct is the best kind of correct.

i fully conceed that the original implementation of psionics was just a neat little thing that could be thrown in as an option and the chances of it being unbalancing to a game were pretty much nil.

the thing that it's grown into is a perversion of its original inclusion.

the rarity and quirkiness of psionics were what made them interesting, but nowadays you can't walk into a poorly lit tavern without jostling four psychic warriors and a soulknife.

Too many things in old D&D were "balanced by rarity", which is to say, they were not balanced.

Psionics was emphatically among those unbalanced things.

4e could do something with Psionics using the Spellscar mechanics (Psionics is a bunch of multiclass-only powers, plus some Paragon Paths).

Hmm. Maybe I'll write that up.

Cheers, -- N

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd combine them.

Steampunk elves for the WINNING.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really, without psionics, what would the cereberal parasites eat? Without elves, what would the orcs eat? Without psionic elves, what would the cereberal parasite-infested orcs eat?!?! They are both important!

 

[JediSoth]

I voted for Psionics. I don't dislike it, but every time I offer it as an option in a game I'm running, no one even cracks the book. So, if it went away, I don't think I'd miss it.

I also think mechanics for Alignment could be scrubbed without too much trouble. Sure, we'd lose a few spells, but most games I play in play pretty fast and loose with alignment anyway. We'd have to figure out something to do with Paladins, though. Maybe make them Champions (mechanically), ala Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Few people knew this (until now) but Brannich Blacksmoke was a psionic elf.

 

[Desdichado]

I voted for Psionics. I don't dislike it, but every time I offer it as an option in a game I'm running, no one even cracks the book. So, if it went away, I don't think I'd miss it.

I also think mechanics for Alignment could be scrubbed without too much trouble. Sure, we'd lose a few spells, but most games I play in play pretty fast and loose with alignment anyway. We'd have to figure out something to do with Paladins, though. Maybe make them Champions (mechanically), ala Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.

Yeah, this wasn't really meant to be a serious discussion on what should be axed from D&D. It was a silly poll based on the fact that I was seeing two separate discussions about elves and psionics.

I dislike alignment more than I dislike elves. And it's not so much that I like psionics as it is that I dislike every version of magic in D&D that I've ever seen, and at least psionics is a credible alternative. But it's not the best solution either, it's just a solution.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Ditch psionics. They just don't work, mechanically or thematically. Thematically, they are either mind magic (redundant) or sci-fi (out of place). Mechanically, they've always been either a unique, different system (hard to remember and a pain to play) or have used the same system as magic (and therefore redundant).

After I eliminate psionics, I'm coming after monks, races that aren't human/elf/dwarf/halfling/half-elf/half-orc, and classes that aren't fighter/ranger/paladin/cleric/druid/wizard/rogue/bard/barbarian.

 

[N0Man]

Tough question...

In the past, I had always had a dislike of elves, on principal... however, they simply belong in D&D despite my personal feelings.

In the past, I strongly disliked Psionics, because it always felt like they were unbalanced and mostly played by powergamers and also I didn't feel like they fit in D&D.

However, I'm older now and I've mellowed out a bit. Plus, I actually liked the treatment that 4E gave to both, so I'm not really against either anymore so much. Also, even though I'm not crazy about the theme psionics, I recognize that different people have different styles, and that I shouldn't be so judgmental about the purity of a game or a genre.

In a nutshell, I'm more open-minded to both elves and psionics, and though I don't love either, I'm ok with others choosing either (or both!)

 

[N0Man]

I dislike alignment more than I dislike elves.

You know, I just saw this comment as well, and I'd like to put in my 2 coppers worth.

I don't dislike alignment, conceptually. As an idea or guideline, it's fine. However, it's implementation that I always dislike in alignment.

I always felt like certain alignments were greatly misunderstood and badly played. Also, DM's too often used alignment as a tool for gotchas, where the player is punished mechanically for alignment changes for actions where a player believes he is acting within his alignment, and the DM springs either a completely different opposing opinion on the alignment of the act, or that there is information that the player was not privy too that caused the action to have repercussions that the player was not privy too.

Players would have to be forced to use divination spells and abilities in order to detect for alignment entaglements for social encounters in the same way that one had to check for instakill traps in a dungeon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with tricking the PCs and plot twists, but I'm not in favor of punishing them mechanically in areas where good and evil are entrenched in such subjectivity.

For example, I've seen DM's that think that slaying a surrendered foe is an evil act, and I've seen other DM's that think that *NOT* slaying an evil foe (even one that surrendered) is an evil act.

Based on my memories of alignment messes in previous games, I wasn't bothered at all by mechanical enforcement of alignment being removed from 4E. It was kind of a relief.

I am still on the fence about "removing" certain alignments, but at the same time I don't really see them as "removed", per se. I think they stopped specifying certain alignments that were often misunderstood and poorly played, but in my mind they are just kind of folded in to the new alignments anyway. When I make a character, I may write down "Good", but in my mind, I still think of "Neutral Good" or "Chaotic Good" for my concept. It works out fine.

 

[Orius]

I always felt like certain alignments were greatly misunderstood and badly played. Also, DM's too often used alignment as a tool for gotchas, where the player is punished mechanically for alignment changes for actions where a player believes he is acting within his alignment, and the DM springs either a completely different opposing opinion on the alignment of the act, or that there is information that the player was not privy too that caused the action to have repercussions that the player was not privy too.

I've argued this in the past. I think hatred of alignment goes back to the old days where powerful classes had alignment restrictions. Back then, the game was generally balanced by rarity, but when someone got lucky enough to roll up a paladin or ranger or something, the character would generally be the most powerfulin the group. Some DMs who either couldn't handle the PC or were just plain jerkasses would set up situations where the character would violate the required alignment and thus lose the class. This would particularly be the case for paladins, where the DM essentially forced the PC to perform an evil act, with evil being an arbitray call by the DM in the first place.