Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7861693" data-attributes="member: 7006">So far in these two pages of 35 posts we've seen 35 different opinions and ideas of what the Psion needs to be.And we wonder why what WotC presented didn't work for anyone.&nbsp; Because no one can agree on what Psionics should be, what they should do, and how they should do it.&nbsp; Not so surpringly... the exact same rigamarole we saw four years ago when people kept trying to create a Warlord for 5E.&nbsp; Every single idea got crushed into paste.I think this is why WotC went with the &quot;conservative&quot; route... because anything they do will be decimated on the boards by 95% of the players anyway who don't actually know what they want.&nbsp; So why bother?&nbsp; Just like with spell components, they give us a very bland, hand-wavy, easily-understood default, under the expectation that everyone who is that fanatical about it is going to jerry-rig their own version of it regardless (like you all are trying to do now.)Just remember as you do though... we've had several dozen attempts at creating Warlords in 5E over the years and I don't know of a single one that has actually gained any traction with even the EN World community, let alone the general gaming populace.&nbsp; And you're probably going to find the same thing happening here.&nbsp; Because no one is going to agree on how it should be done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7861693, member: 7006"] So far in these two pages of 35 posts we've seen 35 different opinions and ideas of what the Psion needs to be. And we wonder why what WotC presented didn't work for anyone. Because no one can agree on what Psionics should be, what they should do, and how they should do it. Not so surpringly... the exact same rigamarole we saw four years ago when people kept trying to create a Warlord for 5E. Every single idea got crushed into paste. I think this is why WotC went with the "conservative" route... because anything they do will be decimated on the boards by 95% of the players anyway who don't actually know what they want. So why bother? Just like with spell components, they give us a very bland, hand-wavy, easily-understood default, under the expectation that everyone who is that fanatical about it is going to jerry-rig their own version of it regardless (like you all are trying to do now.) Just remember as you do though... we've had several dozen attempts at creating Warlords in 5E over the years and I don't know of a single one that has actually gained any traction with even the EN World community, let alone the general gaming populace. And you're probably going to find the same thing happening here. Because no one is going to agree on how it should be done. [/QUOTE]

Verification