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

[Aldarc]

AD&D was the designers vision. 3e was WotC enacting changes. Was it D&D? Yes. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It was, however, beyond the vision of the person who designed what psionics was supposed to be and was out of place because of that.

So you are saying that one is somehow "purer D&D" than the other? Flimsy arguments here, Max.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And your usual Argument from Fallacy in response!!

If you find this my usual, then perhaps you should consider what part in that you may play. I rarely go for pointing out fallacies in my responses at ENW, so if you're seeing a lot of it, it must be a corollation, yeah?

Not everything made is tradition by the way. You can argue that how the designers made it in the beginning is tradition. What 3e did for one single edition isn't even tradition, so if tradition is going to control, it's going to be AD&D.

Of course not everything made is tradition, what an odd thing to say! However, when you're explicitly saying that the reason to not have a feature or power is because it wasn't part of the original ruleset, that's arguing from tradition. You could fix that by making an argument for excluding based on other criteria, but, so far, you've stuck to 'that's not how it was in 1e.' This fix is up to you, Max. Make better arguments and that way you can stop getting upset when people accurately note you've gone back to "that's not how it was."

 

[Maxperson]

If you find this my usual, then perhaps you should consider what part in that you may play. I rarely go for pointing out fallacies in my responses at ENW, so if you're seeing a lot of it, it must be a corollation, yeah?

I play no part in it whatsoever. It's entirely your fault if you are engaging in that fallacy. Nobody makes you do it. You have the option to respond with a valid response, not respond, or engage in a fallacy. All YOUR choices.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So, are you arguing that it should be like 1e? If so, why go back to the system that worked the worst? If you want to go back to when psionics wasn't summoning, and creation, and is much more limited, sure, you're okay having taht opinion.
Also, yes, not everything ever made becomes tradition, but you were arguing that 3e isn't tradition, when one could argue just the same thing about 1e. 5e shares much more with 3e than it does 1e, or pretty much any other edition of D&D ever.
The survey for the psionic subclasses, spells, and feats came out today. I suggest you take it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I already suggested that as one way to do psionics. Make it abilities that can be plugged in equally to every class. Like 1e.

I'd rather have it be a subclass for nearly every class that can focus on psionics. That would make things much more balanced, and gives a good variation in abilities.
I do want a class based around non-spellcasting psionics, though.

 

[Maxperson]

So, are you arguing that it should be like 1e? If so, why go back to the system that worked the worst? If you want to go back to when psionics wasn't summoning, and creation, and is much more limited, sure, you're okay having taht opinion.

Some people don't want it to be a class. If not a class, then something similar to 1e is the way to go. Personally, I would prefer it to be a class.

Also, yes, not everything ever made becomes tradition, but you were arguing that 3e isn't tradition, when one could argue just the same thing about 1e.

Not really. 1e/Basic started things. 2e was basically an extension of 1e. They would be the determiners of tradition. 3e began the really drastic alterations.

5e shares much more with 3e than it does 1e, or pretty much any other edition of D&D ever.

There are threads upon threads upon threads on how 5e brought things back to how it was during 1e and pulled many 1e players into 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd rather have it be a subclass for nearly every class that can focus on psionics. That would make things much more balanced, and gives a good variation in abilities.
I do want a class based around non-spellcasting psionics, though.

You and I are mostly in agreement. I want a subclass for every class, not nearly. And I would like a "spellcasting"(power using) Psion. We both want a class and subclasses for other classes, though.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't want it to be spellcasting, it just feels very limiting to me to have it just be spells.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't want it to be spellcasting, it just feels very limiting to me to have it just be spells.

I can understand that. A question, though. If they made a spellcasting version, would you play it or allow it to be played?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Some people don't want it to be a class. If not a class, then something similar to 1e is the way to go. Personally, I would prefer it to be a class.

I don't understand the people who don't want it to be a class. If you don't like the class, just don't allow it in your games. It's really simple. The DM has complete control over what is in their games.

Not really. 1e/Basic started things. 2e was basically an extension of 1e. They would be the determiners of tradition. 3e began the really drastic alterations.

Sure, 1e started it, but that doesn't make it the traditional edition, or even the edition all the others are based on. In 1e, elves, dwarves, and other races were classes. It started out with only one dice used throughout the whole system. There are many more differences between 1e and 5e than between 3e/3.5e and 5e.