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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GQuail" data-source="post: 3011643" data-attributes="member: 30709">I do prefer that.  It's got less implication that I'm somehow not arguing properly.  ;-)I've only ever skimmed Lords of Madness, but I do recall the presence of psionic sidebars: but thsoe sidebars were uselss without the XPH, and the monsters were clearly packaged to be useable generically as well.  Rather than a "stop gap" for those without the XPH, I remember the book in the reverse: with an extra add-on for Psionics users.  But then, since i wasn'tlooking for psionic stuff at the same, perhaps I wasn't reading the text the way other people might.  ;-)The MM4 certainly is quite different to tomes prior, and with all the room a monster takes up therein I', sure some people would have tolerated chucking the ecology information so you could slap in a quick & dirty psychic warrior Githyanki.  But I dunno how you'd assemble such a "plug and play" class when it apparently takes a whole hardback to explain the rule system, or alternatively how you'd justify to your editor taking up X pages on material that a large chunk of your customers simply can't use because it requires another non-core book to make it work.This is perhaps the big issue: the history of Psionics and its on again, off again core relationship.  Because there are so many monsters still in the MM which are essentially Psionic monsters, designers of adventures, NPC books etc will always have to contend with doing it the Core Way or the Psionic Way.  As long as we have this "part in, part out" situation, we're always going to end up displeasing people with how they're treated.I dunno if that means yanking out the Illithids and keeping them in the Psionics book, or slapping Psionics into core rules: but either way, we'd know where we stood.  ;-)</blockquote>

Verification