Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7866868" data-attributes="member: 5142">When people have cited possible mechanical differentiation, these things then get re-cited as evidence of disagreement on the implementation. It would be nice if this request was being done in good faith, but I have not seen that much evidence that it has. Sure, but psionics isn't exactly a class built around a narrow concept like &quot;class that wields a gun and summons a ghost based on an anime&quot; type thing that you might find on DMs Guild. It's had a series of different iterations over its history in D&amp;D. Some like power points. Some like the cantrip-augmentation of 4e. Some would prefer spells as long as its psionics. But it's not exactly so broad that we can't agree on what it should look like. We have a treasure trove of powers from past editions. We have Psionic classes in 3e and 4e. There is a lexicon of D&amp;D's take on psionics. Most would agree that WotC failed with the Mystic because they were trying to make the Mystic into everything psionic all at once, and most agree that portions of psionics would be appropriate as psionic subclasses for other classes (e.g., psychic warrior, soulknife, etc.). IMHO, the design space is there. The question is largely about a preference about which approach that WotC could take or test.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7866868, member: 5142"] When people have cited possible mechanical differentiation, these things then get re-cited as evidence of disagreement on the implementation. It would be nice if this request was being done in good faith, but I have not seen that much evidence that it has. Sure, but psionics isn't exactly a class built around a narrow concept like "class that wields a gun and summons a ghost based on an anime" type thing that you might find on DMs Guild. It's had a series of different iterations over its history in D&D. Some like power points. Some like the cantrip-augmentation of 4e. Some would prefer spells as long as its psionics. But it's not exactly so broad that we can't agree on what it should look like. We have a treasure trove of powers from past editions. We have Psionic classes in 3e and 4e. There is a lexicon of D&D's take on psionics. Most would agree that WotC failed with the Mystic because they were trying to make the Mystic into everything psionic all at once, and most agree that portions of psionics would be appropriate as psionic subclasses for other classes (e.g., psychic warrior, soulknife, etc.). IMHO, the design space is there. The question is largely about a preference about which approach that WotC could take or test. [/QUOTE]

Verification