Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn" data-source="post: 5796400" data-attributes="member: 54900">No.&nbsp; If the DM doesn't want psionics, he or she bans 'em, period.&nbsp; And there was already an option for giving psionic abilities to non-psionic classes.&nbsp; Wild talents.&nbsp; Keep that option.&nbsp;But not creating a psionic class/classes doesn't make sense if you're to use wild talents.&nbsp; I mean, when the first wizard learned how to manipulate arcane energies, it probably wasn't very complex, right?&nbsp; It took untold spans of time to give us the complex tapestry of wizardry, with all its specialized methods of shaping arcane energies (spells).&nbsp;So how is that any different from psionics?&nbsp; Replace 'wizard' with 'psion' and 'arcane energies' with 'psionics' and it's the same progression.&nbsp; Little things at first, millennia of experimentation, then specialization into what we call--purely a mechanical, meta-term--a 'class'.&nbsp;'Psionics' is just another 'energy'.&nbsp; I just don't get the uncomfortability--and sometimes hatred--associated with it.&nbsp; If folks don't like it, don't use it.&nbsp; It's the First Axiom of DMing, written by Gygax himself.&nbsp; It's YOUR game, DMs.&nbsp; The books are, ultimately, options.&nbsp; &nbsp;I mean, not everyone uses all the races in the PHB, right?&nbsp; Even the first PHB which, allegedly, is supposed to be the core of core manuals.&nbsp; I know DMs who refuse to use dwarves or eladrin or dragonkin.&nbsp; I don't give the same place in my campaign to gnomes and halflings that others do (despise them, frankly).&nbsp; I think the notion of a Lawful Good Paladin makes sense...but so does a champion of other alignments.&nbsp; The only reason why we've got a strictly LG Paladin is in part because the early editions of D&amp;D deliberately went out of their way to draw players away from evil alignments.&nbsp; You weren't supposed to play them.&nbsp; But the idea that only LG gods have champions with Really Cool Benefits is illogical.&nbsp;We all have house rules.&nbsp; I guess it comes down to how much we want in the core rules.&nbsp; Psionics may have only been wild talents in 1E but every edition since had them as classes with the add-on that a non-psionic class could express a weaker, less developed 'natural' psionic talent or two.&nbsp; I think we should keep it that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn, post: 5796400, member: 54900"] No. If the DM doesn't want psionics, he or she bans 'em, period. And there was already an option for giving psionic abilities to non-psionic classes. Wild talents. Keep that option. But not creating a psionic class/classes doesn't make sense if you're to use wild talents. I mean, when the first wizard learned how to manipulate arcane energies, it probably wasn't very complex, right? It took untold spans of time to give us the complex tapestry of wizardry, with all its specialized methods of shaping arcane energies (spells). So how is that any different from psionics? Replace 'wizard' with 'psion' and 'arcane energies' with 'psionics' and it's the same progression. Little things at first, millennia of experimentation, then specialization into what we call--purely a mechanical, meta-term--a 'class'. 'Psionics' is just another 'energy'. I just don't get the uncomfortability--and sometimes hatred--associated with it. If folks don't like it, don't use it. It's the First Axiom of DMing, written by Gygax himself. It's YOUR game, DMs. The books are, ultimately, options. I mean, not everyone uses all the races in the PHB, right? Even the first PHB which, allegedly, is supposed to be the core of core manuals. I know DMs who refuse to use dwarves or eladrin or dragonkin. I don't give the same place in my campaign to gnomes and halflings that others do (despise them, frankly). I think the notion of a Lawful Good Paladin makes sense...but so does a champion of other alignments. The only reason why we've got a strictly LG Paladin is in part because the early editions of D&D deliberately went out of their way to draw players away from evil alignments. You weren't supposed to play them. But the idea that only LG gods have champions with Really Cool Benefits is illogical. We all have house rules. I guess it comes down to how much we want in the core rules. Psionics may have only been wild talents in 1E but every edition since had them as classes with the add-on that a non-psionic class could express a weaker, less developed 'natural' psionic talent or two. I think we should keep it that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification