Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6910118" data-attributes="member: 996">It would be sensible, as it would keep all the supernatural stuff under one broad mechanic, and anti-magic and dispel magic and detect magic could all work consistently.&nbsp; Good for simplicity, consistency, playability and balance.Bad for people who don't like psionics being magic, though.Very convenient for design since it means psionic classes can leverage existing spell lists.&nbsp; Limits how much new stuff groups interested in including psionics would have to absorb.&nbsp; Consistent with the above and good for the same reasons.And a real problem for anyone who feels psionics should be different or distinct from magic.Components aren't a very meaningful limitation anymore, so probably not a big problem, but they do make it viable to capture casters.&nbsp; You'd need some kind of psionic-damper trick or psionics will have to be routinely put in comas or killed out of hand when captured.I've never felt psionics fits in a fantasy setting particularly well, so I've no skin in the game in the sense of what I'd be delighted or dissapointed with for my own use.&nbsp; I do feel that 5e needs to keep up on it's promise (metaphorical promise as in positivity, inclusiveness and potential, lest someone scream at me that no contractual obligations have been incurred by WotC to actually make D&amp;D) of inclusiveness and (1) include psionics (which it seems to be doing) and (2) leave the varied/disputed details, like psionics-as-magic and psionics-from-the-far-realm, open to individual DM, if not player, choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6910118, member: 996"] It would be sensible, as it would keep all the supernatural stuff under one broad mechanic, and anti-magic and dispel magic and detect magic could all work consistently. Good for simplicity, consistency, playability and balance. Bad for people who don't like psionics being magic, though. Very convenient for design since it means psionic classes can leverage existing spell lists. Limits how much new stuff groups interested in including psionics would have to absorb. Consistent with the above and good for the same reasons. And a real problem for anyone who feels psionics should be different or distinct from magic. Components aren't a very meaningful limitation anymore, so probably not a big problem, but they do make it viable to capture casters. You'd need some kind of psionic-damper trick or psionics will have to be routinely put in comas or killed out of hand when captured. I've never felt psionics fits in a fantasy setting particularly well, so I've no skin in the game in the sense of what I'd be delighted or dissapointed with for my own use. I do feel that 5e needs to keep up on it's promise (metaphorical promise as in positivity, inclusiveness and potential, lest someone scream at me that no contractual obligations have been incurred by WotC to actually make D&D) of inclusiveness and (1) include psionics (which it seems to be doing) and (2) leave the varied/disputed details, like psionics-as-magic and psionics-from-the-far-realm, open to individual DM, if not player, choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification