Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8093320" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Then the new material should be good for you--it just isn't for me and others. Which is why psionics has long been a heated issue when it comes to design space.But, again, it doesn't have to be magic in the same sense that arcane and divine are. Sure, people thought &quot;science&quot; was &quot;magic&quot; when they didn't understand it, etc.No, the should not directly interact with each other IMO--this isn't WotC's choice obviously, but would have been mine.How many similar effects they have should be limited. But &quot;similar effects&quot; is pretty broad. I mean, I could climb a cliff or levitate up it, both have the same effect of reaching the top. Would you have magical Telepathy and non-magical Telepathy for example? Sure. We already do.First, there would not be &quot;psionic magic&quot;-- it is just psionics. They use mental training and techniques to alter themselves and reality. Are its effects similar to some magical spells? Sure. But they could be distinct. Not allowing them to interact is what would make them different. To me that should be the feature, not a bug. And yes, ki would be better represented by psionics than &quot;magic&quot; IMO.Look, it isn't going to happen for 5E, we already know that. The point is it didn't have to be this way, and regardless of which approach WotC went with, we already know 1/3 of the people won't like it, 1/3 of them will, and 1/3 of them simply won't care either way (because they don't want it or are happy with either approach).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8093320, member: 6987520"] Then the new material should be good for you--it just isn't for me and others. Which is why psionics has long been a heated issue when it comes to design space. But, again, it doesn't have to be magic in the same sense that arcane and divine are. Sure, people thought "science" was "magic" when they didn't understand it, etc. No, the should not directly interact with each other IMO--this isn't WotC's choice obviously, but would have been mine. How many similar effects they have should be limited. But "similar effects" is pretty broad. I mean, I could climb a cliff or levitate up it, both have the same effect of reaching the top. Would you have magical Telepathy and non-magical Telepathy for example? Sure. We already do. First, there would not be "psionic magic"-- it is just psionics. They use mental training and techniques to alter themselves and reality. Are its effects similar to some magical spells? Sure. But they could be distinct. Not allowing them to interact is what would [I]make[/I] them different. To me that should be the feature, not a bug. And yes, ki would be better represented by psionics than "magic" IMO. Look, it isn't going to happen for 5E, we already know that. The point is it didn't have to be this way, and regardless of which approach WotC went with, we already know 1/3 of the people won't like it, 1/3 of them will, and 1/3 of them simply won't care either way (because they don't want it or are happy with either approach). [/QUOTE]

Verification