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
Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?
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="Mercule" data-source="post: 7700852" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>Nope. All good. IIRC, the play test doc said "it ties to the Far Realm". It gave some setting-specific flavors, in a later paragraph, that seemed a bit out of place with the Far Realms. Really, my objection is that they seem to want to tie it to a particular piece of fluff. I can definitely see where the Far Realms would be one way for a mind to be awakened -- Eberron pretty much does this, and I'm fine with the Eberron implementation.</p><p></p><p>Over the years, I've seen little "throw away" bits of fluff turn into major themes. For example, when 3E was first released, the Sorcerer had a line to the effect of "no one is sure where their power comes from, but one rumor is that they have a dragon in their ancestry." My table didn't really care for the whole birthright thing (we actually use psionics for that sort of thing), so we just played it as a different way of studying magic -- one with focus on skill rather than knowledge, trading flexibility at preparation time for flexibility at casting time. It worked beautifully throughout 3E, especially for those of us who hated playing Wizards because of the need for a player with a crystal ball. Feats and prestige classes drifted a bit towards canonizing the birthright fluff, but it was "easy to ignore". </p><p></p><p>In 5E, the Sorcerer <u>can't</u> have the birthright aspect stripped out. The class would simply fall apart. What's more, the new preparation system makes the original mechanical appeal of the Sorcerer a bit redundant. Based on that and the multiple bloodlines, I'm not exactly weeping about the change to the Sorcerer. Still, it's an example of how even a single line of fluff can end up dominating something. I do <u>not</u> want to see the 6E (or whatever) Mystic end up tied to the Far Realm in the same way the Sorcerer ended up tied to bloodlines.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't mind the idea generator. In fact, I think that's been one of D&D's historic strengths. When the designers/developers latch on to one idea too strongly, though, the result is that flavor that should be set at the group/table/campaign level is passed down with too heavy of a hand.</p><p></p><p>If 5E has a singular weakness, it would be (IMO) that the team pushes concepts just a bit too far. They go from idea generator or example to soft-canon. They've done an amazing job with the mechanics, but they're ham-fisted with the IP.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7700852, member: 5100"] Nope. All good. IIRC, the play test doc said "it ties to the Far Realm". It gave some setting-specific flavors, in a later paragraph, that seemed a bit out of place with the Far Realms. Really, my objection is that they seem to want to tie it to a particular piece of fluff. I can definitely see where the Far Realms would be one way for a mind to be awakened -- Eberron pretty much does this, and I'm fine with the Eberron implementation. Over the years, I've seen little "throw away" bits of fluff turn into major themes. For example, when 3E was first released, the Sorcerer had a line to the effect of "no one is sure where their power comes from, but one rumor is that they have a dragon in their ancestry." My table didn't really care for the whole birthright thing (we actually use psionics for that sort of thing), so we just played it as a different way of studying magic -- one with focus on skill rather than knowledge, trading flexibility at preparation time for flexibility at casting time. It worked beautifully throughout 3E, especially for those of us who hated playing Wizards because of the need for a player with a crystal ball. Feats and prestige classes drifted a bit towards canonizing the birthright fluff, but it was "easy to ignore". In 5E, the Sorcerer [U]can't[/U] have the birthright aspect stripped out. The class would simply fall apart. What's more, the new preparation system makes the original mechanical appeal of the Sorcerer a bit redundant. Based on that and the multiple bloodlines, I'm not exactly weeping about the change to the Sorcerer. Still, it's an example of how even a single line of fluff can end up dominating something. I do [U]not[/U] want to see the 6E (or whatever) Mystic end up tied to the Far Realm in the same way the Sorcerer ended up tied to bloodlines. I don't mind the idea generator. In fact, I think that's been one of D&D's historic strengths. When the designers/developers latch on to one idea too strongly, though, the result is that flavor that should be set at the group/table/campaign level is passed down with too heavy of a hand. If 5E has a singular weakness, it would be (IMO) that the team pushes concepts just a bit too far. They go from idea generator or example to soft-canon. They've done an amazing job with the mechanics, but they're ham-fisted with the IP. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?
Top