Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7866776" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I think it means there is no concerted effort by a group of people to nefariously spread FUD about your pet class.&nbsp; Pscionics simply has never been very popular in any edition.I can't speak for anyone else.&nbsp; All I know is that I've never had a desire to have psionics in my campaign because it doesn't fit thematically.&nbsp; I've never played with a DM who thought it was necessary other than the odd mind flayer or similar monster.&nbsp; Even then it was just magic with a different label.There has never been anything compelling about psionics.I get so tired of this accusation.&nbsp; No one on this thread (or others) has ever clarified what a psion is other than someone who does magic that's not really magic.&nbsp; But for the umpteenth time, I don't give a fig if they develop a psion as a class or subclass. I might even use it if I did my wild west campaign because it fits a certain Victorian era theme.&nbsp; I've never used it because it didn't fit the vision of my campaign world.&nbsp; I have other limitations as well, that doesn't mean that I &quot;fear&quot; dragonborn as a race.&nbsp; Just that there are plenty of playable races and I don't want to figure out how dragonborn would fit in my world.But I'm not dismissing your opinion.&nbsp; I just don't see a need or justification for a class or subclass.&nbsp; Apparently the devs have agreed up to this point.&nbsp; As Crawford said in an interview, people new to D&amp;D don't see a need for it.&nbsp; People who played previous versions can't agree on what they should be.&nbsp; It all goes back to my original question from way back when.&nbsp; What would make a psion stand out from the other magic using classes&nbsp; other than fluff?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7866776, member: 6801845"] I think it means there is no concerted effort by a group of people to nefariously spread FUD about your pet class. Pscionics simply has never been very popular in any edition. I can't speak for anyone else. All I know is that I've never had a desire to have psionics in my campaign because it doesn't fit thematically. I've never played with a DM who thought it was necessary other than the odd mind flayer or similar monster. Even then it was just magic with a different label. There has never been anything compelling about psionics. I get so tired of this accusation. No one on this thread (or others) has ever clarified what a psion is other than someone who does magic that's not [I]really[/I] magic. But for the umpteenth time, I don't give a fig if they develop a psion as a class or subclass. I might even use it if I did my wild west campaign because it fits a certain Victorian era theme. I've never used it because it didn't fit the vision of my campaign world. I have other limitations as well, that doesn't mean that I "fear" dragonborn as a race. Just that there are plenty of playable races and I don't want to figure out how dragonborn would fit in my world. But I'm not dismissing your opinion. I just don't see a need or justification for a class or subclass. Apparently the devs have agreed up to this point. As Crawford said in an interview, people new to D&D don't see a need for it. People who played previous versions can't agree on what they should be. It all goes back to my original question from way back when. What would make a psion stand out from the other magic using classes other than fluff? [/QUOTE]

Verification