Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9582812" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The number 7 is completely different from the number -3. That doesn't mean pi is now equal to 7 because it is also completely different from the number -3. Chocolate is completely different from orange, but that doesn't mean chocolate is identical to mint because mint is completely different from orange. Etc. Three things can each be mutually "completely different" from one another.So in D&D you don't like it being sci-fi. There are other folks who very much want it to only be sci-fi, even when other kinds of magic can do similar things.Psionics usually does not do absolutely literally all the exact same things with no differences whatsoever.Only if you are overly precious about the very specific methods. Since at least 2nd edition, there's been at least one class focused around the power of psionics. Just as many things have changed about various classes over time, but a core concept remains the same. Bards have been a lot of things, but they have stabilized pretty well since 2nd edition.No.....Only three editions?Are you even listening to yourself here? That's 2e, 3e, and 4e. In other words, every prior edition of main-line D&D other than 1e. Your argument is facially ridiculous, and I'm not exactly convinced of your seriousness if you're making statements like "only three editions have had psionics as a class".Sure. Long-term traditions, where the reason that tradition formed in the first place is long forgotten (Cleric is a bizarrity that directly descended from a weird coincidence of old-school play!), is a commonplace thing in D&D design. Psionics being its own class is a tradition that started with 2e and has been maintained since then. That's a significant part of why people want psionics--because for three editions running, it has been.</blockquote>

Verification