Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Fenris-77]

Quite possibly. But I suspect we all still think, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we are arguing about the future of D&D.

(Because isn't that one of our core competencies on this forum? Ignoring overwhelming evidence?)

It's a quaint fiction that makes us all feel better about the amount of time and energy we devote to some of these threads. And, you know, who knows who's reading right? wink-wink nudge-nudge

 

[Hussar]

Ultimately though, isn't Sci-Fi just another form of fantasy?

HEATHEN!!! Burn the HERETIC!!!

 

[Hussar]

It's funny, really. So much of what we think is important is based on what and how we played.

In thirty some years of gaming, I can count the number of times I've used an aboleth and/or a mind flayer on one hand. Almost never used them. Not that they aren't interesting critters, I just never got around to using them. So, to me, they are only kinda iconic because of Baldur's Gate.

Same goes for Beholders.

To me, Rhemoraz and Behir are far more iconic of D&D. As well as giants, demons, devils, and various undead. Gibbering Mouther has certainly seen the light of day many times. But, mind flayers? Githyanki? Aboleth? Naw, to me these are just place holders.

 

[Jd Smith1]

You really should tbh, they're pretty awesome.

They're a really lame concept.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Ultimately though, isn't Sci-Fi just another form of fantasy?

No.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's funny, really. So much of what we think is important is based on what and how we played.

In thirty some years of gaming, I can count the number of times I've used an aboleth and/or a mind flayer on one hand. Almost never used them. Not that they aren't interesting critters, I just never got around to using them. So, to me, they are only kinda iconic because of Baldur's Gate.

Same goes for Beholders.

To me, Rhemoraz and Behir are far more iconic of D&D. As well as giants, demons, devils, and various undead. Gibbering Mouther has certainly seen the light of day many times. But, mind flayers? Githyanki? Aboleth? Naw, to me these are just place holders.

It's not just how often they are used in actual games that make a monster iconic to D&D, it's uniqueness. Mind Flayers and beholders are unique to D&D. Demons, devils and undead are everywhere.

And Lovecraft has been a major influence on D&D right from the start (that's why D&D has mind flayers and aboleth), and Lovecraft is Science Fiction.

Like it or not, D&D has always been a kitchen sink game. Compare it to other early RPGs such as Runequest and Traveller, where the setting was integral to the game.

 

[Hussar]

It's not just how often they are used in actual games that make a monster iconic to D&D, it's uniqueness. Mind Flayers and beholders are unique to D&D. Demons, devils and undead are everywhere.

And Lovecraft has been a major influence on D&D right from the start (that's why D&D has mind flayers and aboleth), and Lovecraft is Science Fiction.

Like it or not, D&D has always been a kitchen sink game. Compare it to other early RPGs such as Runequest and Traveller, where the setting was integral to the game.

Yeah, I've always kinda wondered about that. People talk about this monster or that monster being iconic to the game. Fair enough. But, if something is iconic, shouldn't it get used? To me, Mind Flayers and Aboleth have never been iconic to the game because, well, frankly, they've almost never been used. It's not like we have iconic modules for them.

I mean, if you think of iconic D&D adventure, obviously Giants come to mind. Demons have featured in all sorts of modules, going all the way back to some of the earliest ones. Dragons got an entire (extremely popular) setting devoted to them.

I'm not saying these don't belong. They certainly do. But, I put them in the same category as catablepas and slaad. Cool ideas. Interesting. But, for me, and I'm only talking about me, if they never actually appeared in another Monster Manual, I likely wouldn't miss them at all. I honestly wouldn't even notice until someone pointed it out.

Again, I'm just musing on how our personal experiences really shape what we think is "needed" in the game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, I've always kinda wondered about that. People talk about this monster or that monster being iconic to the game. Fair enough. But, if something is iconic, shouldn't it get used? To me, Mind Flayers and Aboleth have never been iconic to the game because, well, frankly, they've almost never been used. It's not like we have iconic modules for them.

I've used them, and they appear in lots of D&D CRPGs, such as the Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Knights series, Sword Coast Leg Ends, the Gold Box games, Eye of the Beholder etc, not to mention many classic PnP modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

I mean, if you think of iconic D&D adventure, obviously Giants come to mind.

Well, not really, no. You could easily translate Against the Giants into Runequest or any other Fantasy RPG, and they are common in folk tales (just ask Jack). There is nothing specifically "D&D" about giants. The same goes for demons and even dragons.

 

[Aldarc]

It's funny, really. So much of what we think is important is based on what and how we played.

In thirty some years of gaming, I can count the number of times I've used an aboleth and/or a mind flayer on one hand. Almost never used them. Not that they aren't interesting critters, I just never got around to using them. So, to me, they are only kinda iconic because of Baldur's Gate.

Same goes for Beholders.

To me, Rhemoraz and Behir are far more iconic of D&D. As well as giants, demons, devils, and various undead. Gibbering Mouther has certainly seen the light of day many times. But, mind flayers? Githyanki? Aboleth? Naw, to me these are just place holders.

Psionics showed up a LOT in games I played and ran since 3E. We had a number of psionic monsters and PCs in 3E and 4E, as well as d20 Modern (if that counts), using both psionics and magic rules, and even in several games of Pathfinder.

Even if psionics is just another form of magic, it's the sort of magic and characters that I would like to see more of in 5e because of how much psionics were part of my past games.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, please don't think I'm trying to argue anything here. Just observing. It's always interesting to me how people get to where they are coming from. I find that I can best communicate when I an put myself in the same shoes, so to speak.

I mean, I was arguing about VSM requirements in another thread, and I realized why I was having such a tough time of it. I tend to look at the results, I really don't care about how you get there. So, if a wizard wiggles his fingers and casts a Charm Person, or a Psion thinks real hard and a chime sounds and manifests a Charm Person, to me, those are pretty much the same thing - they're both "casting" Charm Person. How you got there I couldn't really care less.

Heh, I forgot about Expedition to Barrier Peaks. Or, rather, I forgot that there was a mind flayer in it. Been a REALLY long time since I played that. I remember the robots and the laser guns though.

Seriously though, if you think Against the Giants isn't THE iconic D&D module, well, I'm not sure what to say. It's ranked as the #1 (well GDQ is) module by Dragon, so, I'm going to say that Against the Giants is probably one of the most iconic D&D adventures. Right up there with Keep on the Borderland. But, @Paul Farquhar, again, this gets back to what experiences people had. Other than the Baldur's Gate games, I never played any D&D computer game. So, again, it falls outside of my experience.