I'm aware of the D20 version, although I didn't engage with it. Looking over some things on the web, though, it had worse problems with Force as skill than SAGA did, and SAGA had some glaring problems. These both essentially boil down to the issue that the skill system doesn't progress like the attack or save systems -- it's faster and easier to pump. Also, a number of the d20 skills essentially didn't allow saves or didn't allow other abilities to affect them because they were skill checks, not attack rolls or saving throws. It was a mess, and I'd rather not see it back. My last pass with SAGA was essentially rewriting the force skills section, which was abandoned as too much work for too little improvement and we just played different games. Which is sad, as I own all of the SAGA books save 2, and they're still on my shelf. And, as I understand it, SAGA was the improved and adjusted version of the d20 Force skill systems!Look at the d20 version, earlier than the SAGA rules, not to be confused with the d6 West End Games version.
I seem to be saying this a lot recently, but de gustibus non est disputandum. When it comes to tastes, an objective argument is neither required nor possible.Considering that neither of them are actually arguments that address the inclusion of a skill and feat system in any objective measure, I'm not sure why you would find them "good enough". But that's all you.
And we already have the same problem with grab and shove and we had it worse in 4e: skill vs defense.I'm aware of the D20 version, although I didn't engage with it. Looking over some things on the web, though, it had worse problems with Force as skill than SAGA did, and SAGA had some glaring problems. These both essentially boil down to the issue that the skill system doesn't progress like the attack or save systems -- it's faster and easier to pump. Also, a number of the d20 skills essentially didn't allow saves or didn't allow other abilities to affect them because they were skill checks, not attack rolls or saving throws.
The Mystic was absolutely the Psion. All you have to do is look at it an the Psion class to see that it was 5e's version with a new name.
And the Mystic is in fact, real evidence. How strong that evidence is, is the only question.
If someone is a tired, their reactions are slowed(disadvantage on ability checks). One level of exhaustion isn't even enough to slow someone down.
Not really. I'm just going by what it does. It doesn't take much tiredness to cause slowed reactions and thought, which equates to disadvantage on everything. Going by nothing but the rules, all it is is a bit of lost sleep. And heck, lack of sleep doesn't even give any exhaustion unless you invoke the optional rule from Xanathar's, and even then it probably takes 2-3 days before you suffer exhaustion.
Here you are saying that the game doesn't equate to the real world, and you have to invoke the optional rule that makes it more like the real world in order for lack of sleep to even have the chance to exhaust you. After 2-3 days without sleep, you'd have disadvantage, too.
Fine. Let's go with the facts.No, you aren't going by what it does. Because what it does includes all of those things I mentioned that you didn't even address. You are going by real world logic.
And, like I said, if you were going to continue to ignore that, then there was no point in continuing this line of discussion. Because you won't engage in the facts.
Right, and you're right—it's entirely subjective. Keep in mind how this particular thread of the conversation started, though:I seem to be saying this a lot recently, but de gustibus non est disputandum. When it comes to tastes, an objective argument is neither required nor possible.
Ah, no worries. To be fair, I could have been clearer in my response to Samloyal23—maybe Sabathius42 misread my intentions in my response to Samloyal23 and things just spiraled from there. We're all (allegedly) human.You're right I did miss that context. Apologies.
Right, and you're right—it's entirely subjective. Keep in mind how this particular thread of the conversation started, though:
Samloyal23 stated, "I have yet to see a good argument against having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." To which I blithely retorted, "On the other hand, I have yet to see a good argument for having a skill and feat based psionics system instead of a spell-based system." Matching a dismissive statement with an equally dismissive statement with a bit of wry irony for a nod and a wink.
With that throwaway statement out of the way, though, I then went on to address their actual contention with what I believe to be a credible (YMMV) argument for why a skill and feat system isn't well suited to 5e mechanics. I was expecting this to begin a line of conversation wherein Samloyal23 and I (and anyone else) could actually discuss the subject in a worthwhile manor because I thought that they might be wishing to have a productive exchange on the matter.
Unfortunately, Sabathius42 jumped on my opening statement rather than the actual meat of my post with two non-arguments and ending with, "[If these]...are both not good arguments then I'm not sure what else is going to sway you." Since their words suggested that their non-arguments should be enough to sway me, I responded as such. And since those weren't actual arguments for Samloyal23's stance on a skill and feat system and, they wouldn't sway a fence-sitter let alone someone, such as myself, who has given reasons why such a system wound be ill-fitting for the current edition. If Sabathius42 had just said that those were their personal reasons for supporting a skill and feat system, that would be one thing entirely. But they presented them as something that should "sway" someone else, and in that case, no—those are not actual arguments for a skill and feat system and they are not reasons that would sway the opinion of anyone that wasn't already in favor of such a system.
So, to wit, if Sabathius42 is stating that these are good enough reasons for them to be in favor of such a system—more power to them. If, as their initial response to me implies, that they believe that these are valid reasons to convince me or others of their standpoint, then, no, they're wrong. So, no, I don't think that Sabathius42 needs better arguments to justify their opinion to themselves. However, if they want to be part of a discussion that actually weighs the merits and flaws of held opinions and to convince others that their opinions have merit, then yes, they need to put forth a viable argument that actually addresses the subject rather than something tantamount to "just because I think it should be this way".