Search results

Well, 4e ruined a ton of decades-old lore, so citing it doesn't exactly sway me on the matter.

The mechanics were different in 3e. 3e psionics did not use spell slots. And even if the mechanics weren't totally different, words matter narratively. And narratively, there has always been a clear demarcation between psionics and magic. So, no, that ship never left port in the first place...

Martial Versatility is perfectly fine. And Spell Versatility would be OK if only the Ranger got it (though making the Ranger a prepared caster would've been better still).

Wrong.

Actually, this is the one thing that is seriously making me question whether I want to get TCOE.

Nope. It's D&D, where psionics has always been defined as distinct from magic. Explicitly so. To say otherwise is dishonest.

Psionics is not magic. Never has been in D&D. That is fact.

This is irrelevant, and that you think this is any kind of rebuttal is shameful intellectual dishonesty. It does not change the fact that psionics was never intended to be magic of any kind. Period.

How is making psionics just more spells the least hated? Everyone I've ever heard of considers it the worst thing they could do with it.

And you still don't get them from the actual Spellcasting feature. The language is quite clear.

The Ranger should've been changed to a prepared caster, and with that done, Spell Versatility should never have made it into print. My two coppers.

No, it's not. It's something else that managed to take those skills and can do some of the same things as a ranger might, but it is not a ranger. No, it's not a rational position to favor arbitrarily discarding a long-standing character class because its existence offends your subjective...

Maybe. Although it wouldn't be very satisfactory. A class that used to have a very narrow concept like the Paladin, for example, has been successfully expanded to encompass a decent swath of design space. I really would not want to see that narrowed back down to a Fighter or Cleric subclass like...

There aren't, though. There's only one way to make a ranger, and that is the actual ranger class. Other classes or combinations of classes might work for something functionally similar (but not the exact same), and in 5e will likely work better mechanically since the ranger class itself is a...

Let's not.

1) I reject the statement that it would be good for the game in any capacity. 2) It would be bad for the survival of the brand, regardless.

Which is important when making a business decision. Desiring to remove options that have been part of D&D for decades, to hell with the majority who still wants those options available, strikes me as irrational. Not to mention bad for business. Except there's only one way to model an actual...

No, game designers shouldn't pander to an irrational minority at the expense of everybody else. Because it's bad for business. And make no mistake, the irrational minority in this case is people in your camp who want to cut classes down to a bare-bones number.

People who want to play barbarians and rangers want to play barbarians and rangers. Not fighters.

An edition of D&D with only four or five classes like some want would absolutely destroy the franchise. People who want fewer classes do not realize that they are a very small minority, and the majority would simply not buy it.