NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7862686" data-attributes="member: 996">It was never a realistic goal.  And it was never limited to just 'some of the things,' it was ideas like, you'd be able to make a character like that of your favorite edition, and play it along side others' who liked different editions.  Really, very out there.Holding them too it may seem a bit unfair, but, it was also the very justification for having 5e at all.  That more recent editions had failed to include or support playstyles of fans of earlier editions, and WotC needed to do just that, with 5e, to 'heal the rift' in the fanbase.  Different fans liked different things about past editions.  Psionics has fans who specifically like what it did for the game in one or more past editions (it was in all past editions, afterall!).Besides, D&D has fans who had been fans of every past edition, and will be fans of every edition to come, because we're just that loyal.   Cutting psionics doesn't lose me.  For most of the last 39 years, I've rather loathed psionics, considering them a sci-fi bit with no business in D&D.  It was only c2010 that I relented.  But just because I'm getting some stuff I wanted out of 5e (like a Druid that ticks all the boxes to feel like a Druid for the first time since 1e), doesn't mean I give it a free pass on coming through for other fans, as well.It's a finite list of elements.  The structure of 5e, if not quite as fully modular as suggested in the playtest, is open to optional rules.  It absolutely can do exactly that.  And, people who don't like a given optional element, need never opt into it.</blockquote>

Verification