Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Goemoe" data-source="post: 6362687" data-attributes="member: 72224">Why should they do this? It would have been easy to create a sorcerer as a subclass of the wizard and though they share some mechanics, they are no subclass of each other which is good. As psionics are not even magic, this would not even make sense. And if you think like Kobold who has an idealized vision of D&D psioncs, it would not fit the 5E design of making each class somewhat special. Now, that you mention it, you are right. It is a common misconception about psioncs to make it something magical. It isn't. There might be some game designers who are to lazy to create a sound system of its own for psionics, but in theory psionics have absolutely nothing to do with magic. It might work out in a given system and I fear we will get it again for D&D, but the misconception is naming psionics as something magical which it isn't. Antimagic should not work for psionics and psionical nullfields do not hinder magic. And no this is no problem at all. It is just a matter of perception.And I really don't care for sales, for power crunch or what other people think of it. When I say psionics are different, I talk about the fluff, the background of the stories and the interaction in possible games. This. A wizard, a martial fighter and a psion are just different trades, thats all. A wizard might find a way for his magic to interact with psionic affairs and vice versa, a fighter or monk might lern tricks to fight of mental manipulation be it magical or psionical, but they are all different trades.If your campaign does not need psionics, don't use it. But those campaigns in which psionics make a difference don't need a third or fourth kind of magic (you could create rune magic, summoning circles, shadow magic or something other magical) they need psionics. It is no subsystem of something, psionics are a force of its own.</blockquote>

Verification