Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7990874" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I guess I can see how there is a similarity to the warlord thing now. The reason I'm not interested in a warlord is because I don't think it has enough tradition as a class in D&amp;D and it doesn't feel like it &quot;fits&quot; in some difficult to articulate way. The latter is probably even a bigger deal than the former, since I'm okay with sorcerers, warlocks, and even artificers (at least for Eberron). But yeah, that is sort of what the arguments against a psion come down to aren't they (even though they don't apply to Psion for me)?That being said, if they created a warlord that got past that &quot;doesn't feel like it fits&quot; thing I wouldn't be opposed to using it. I'm sure that's part of what they're trying to do with psionics. Find a way to put it into the edition while getting past that negativity some people have.The funny thing is, I actually think they are taking the right overall approach in trying to figure out how to do it:-Find out what people want out of psionics-Find out what people don't want out of psionics. -Make sure it's balanced and works well with the rest of the game (a clearly identified source of some people's formative negativity towards it).-Make sure it is distinct enough from other parts of the game to be interesting.-But avoid requiring a massive cognitive investment (whole book or giant new system) for people to add it to their games.They just haven't figured it out yet. (But I hope they've caught on that a Psion class is essential to it.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 7990874, member: 6677017"] I guess I can see how there is a similarity to the warlord thing now. The reason I'm not interested in a warlord is because I don't think it has enough tradition as a class in D&D and it doesn't feel like it "fits" in some difficult to articulate way. The latter is probably even a bigger deal than the former, since I'm okay with sorcerers, warlocks, and even artificers (at least for Eberron). But yeah, that is sort of what the arguments against a psion come down to aren't they (even though they don't apply to Psion for me)? That being said, if they created a warlord that got past that "doesn't feel like it fits" thing I wouldn't be opposed to using it. I'm sure that's part of what they're trying to do with psionics. Find a way to put it into the edition while getting past that negativity some people have. The funny thing is, I actually think they are taking the right overall approach in trying to figure out how to do it: -Find out what people want out of psionics -Find out what people don't want out of psionics. -Make sure it's balanced and works well with the rest of the game (a clearly identified source of some people's formative negativity towards it). -Make sure it is distinct enough from other parts of the game to be interesting. -But avoid requiring a massive cognitive investment (whole book or giant new system) for people to add it to their games. They just haven't figured it out yet. (But I hope they've caught on that a Psion class is essential to it.) [/QUOTE]

Verification