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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6665001" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not a "hater", but I don't care about changing the name to mystic. As I explained on the first or second page of this thread, that name doesn't involve any great departure from D&D lore.As for psionics being different from magic, part of the issue is that not all the fans love it. For instance, I don't like psionics that ignores magical protections: it breaks the game for no good reason, either mechanical or in the fiction. I certainly don't care what was published in some FR novel that I never have, and never will, read.4e did not "remove all the lore". Look at any of the following entries in the 4e MM: devils, demons, sphinxes, hydras, spiders, goblins. You'll find more lore than in the AD&D MMs or the 3E one. And as far as integrating all its lore into a single conception of the D&D world, 4e set a high watermark.What has been established is not consistent, and not everyone uses it. So there's always some treading on things. Telling Hussar that salamanders once were slaves of efreets, for instance, is treading on the previous silence in respect of salamander-efreet relations.The solution, if you don't like the story and it makes no difference to the fiction, is to ignore it!  Given that the only way D&D's mechanics link the Far Realm and psionics is via mind flayers, aboleths, intellect devourers and the like I don't think anyone who ignore that particular fiction is going to be stuck with unacceptable mechanical byproducts.</blockquote>

Verification