Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In your Years of Gaming, How many Psionic Characters did you See played
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7866809" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>Calling the Psion my pet class? Boo. I thought you were above such condescension? And none of this changes the fact that you need to stop leaning on the "blame the Illuminati" strawman. </p><p></p><p>Nice unsubstantiated opinion you got there. It would be a shame if you were to pretend it was a fact. </p><p></p><p>Most people probably didn't see the need for it since it's like going to a physics conference and expecting that a paper clarify what an atom is. The context of discussion generally assumes given specialized knowledge of the relevant field of discussion without need for backtracking for basics. The thread is inquiring about who has seen psionic play at their table and not "Doubting Oofta demands that you clarify what psionics are." </p><p></p><p>Okay. I have used them and played in games where GMs used them because it fit within the respective visions of the campaign worlds. But I suppose that the value of the class to D&D hinges entirely on whether it fits your vision of your campaign world. </p><p></p><p>Others see a need or justification for a class or subclass of psionics. What now? </p><p></p><p>Appeal to authority! Hooray! </p><p></p><p>Maybe mechanically, but people largely agree about the fluff and the nature of the power source. That said, this "people can't agree on things" argument is a fairly bad faith argument. People have rough ideas. Scarcely no one believes that psionics should be like in earlier editions where they were something for free if you were lucky. Many people agree that a class and subclass system would be feasible for a psion and other varieties of psionics. That's honestly a pretty good start. Some want power points. Some are happy with spells. Some want something more like the mystic. I suspect most just want officially printed psionics in any form that does it justice. Disagreement about the mechanics happens. That's fine. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, Oofta. It doesn't mean that the psion is without merit. It means that people have different visions of the psion, much as you have about what belongs in your campaign world. </p><p></p><p>Sure it always goes back to your original question when you want to beg the question in the first place. </p><p></p><p>What makes a warlock stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? </p><p></p><p>What makes a bard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? </p><p></p><p>What makes a wizard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? </p><p></p><p>What makes a sorcerer stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? </p><p></p><p>Though since these classes already exist in 5e, you can appeal to concrete mechanics in printed rulebooks, which makes your task in answering these questions far easier here. But let's say that we were designing for a hypothetical 6th edition. How would we justify these classes based on things other than fluff? Because you seem to think that appeal to fluff is a bad thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7866809, member: 5142"] Calling the Psion my pet class? Boo. I thought you were above such condescension? And none of this changes the fact that you need to stop leaning on the "blame the Illuminati" strawman. Nice unsubstantiated opinion you got there. It would be a shame if you were to pretend it was a fact. Most people probably didn't see the need for it since it's like going to a physics conference and expecting that a paper clarify what an atom is. The context of discussion generally assumes given specialized knowledge of the relevant field of discussion without need for backtracking for basics. The thread is inquiring about who has seen psionic play at their table and not "Doubting Oofta demands that you clarify what psionics are." Okay. I have used them and played in games where GMs used them because it fit within the respective visions of the campaign worlds. But I suppose that the value of the class to D&D hinges entirely on whether it fits your vision of your campaign world. Others see a need or justification for a class or subclass of psionics. What now? Appeal to authority! Hooray! Maybe mechanically, but people largely agree about the fluff and the nature of the power source. That said, this "people can't agree on things" argument is a fairly bad faith argument. People have rough ideas. Scarcely no one believes that psionics should be like in earlier editions where they were something for free if you were lucky. Many people agree that a class and subclass system would be feasible for a psion and other varieties of psionics. That's honestly a pretty good start. Some want power points. Some are happy with spells. Some want something more like the mystic. I suspect most just want officially printed psionics in any form that does it justice. Disagreement about the mechanics happens. That's fine. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater, Oofta. It doesn't mean that the psion is without merit. It means that people have different visions of the psion, much as you have about what belongs in your campaign world. Sure it always goes back to your original question when you want to beg the question in the first place. What makes a warlock stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? What makes a bard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? What makes a wizard stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? What makes a sorcerer stand out from other magic using classes other than fluff? Though since these classes already exist in 5e, you can appeal to concrete mechanics in printed rulebooks, which makes your task in answering these questions far easier here. But let's say that we were designing for a hypothetical 6th edition. How would we justify these classes based on things other than fluff? Because you seem to think that appeal to fluff is a bad thing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In your Years of Gaming, How many Psionic Characters did you See played
Top