Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6936363" data-attributes="member: 996">It would&nbsp; be nice to see some sort of MC or feat or background for a 'wild talent,' so you could have the concept of the random, untrained psionic, as well as mystics, but, no, there's no absolute need to ape&nbsp; questionable mechanics to evoke an option available in a past edition (not that 5e hasn't resorted to doing so, a lot, just that I don't see why it'd need to in every case, to deliver the option).No, they have arcane telepathy granted by a patron.&nbsp; Nothing like psionics, at all.&nbsp; It'd be like cutting the wizard out of the game and saying it's OK because archers can have 'magic missiles.'You could play a psionic character in 1e.&nbsp; Just like you could play a Paladin or Bard, you just had to have a DM who was OK with it, and get lucky.&nbsp; You couldn't play a psionic character using the 5e PH.&nbsp; A 1e fighter could be literally as strong as an ogre, thanks to % STR.&nbsp; A 5e fighter can be as stronger than an ogre. The former was lucky at 1st level, the latter inevitable, if you want it.&nbsp; But a really strong fighter is available in both editions.Maybe you could hold the fact that /any/ 5e character not just fighters (and paladins and rangers and barbarians) can be that strong without magic, while in 1e, they'd've needed an item, itself class-restricted from use by magic-users, against the 1e fighter, but that is, indeed, getting to the point of a minor mechanical quibble.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6936363, member: 996"] It would be nice to see some sort of MC or feat or background for a 'wild talent,' so you could have the concept of the random, untrained psionic, as well as mystics, but, no, there's no absolute need to ape questionable mechanics to evoke an option available in a past edition (not that 5e hasn't resorted to doing so, a lot, just that I don't see why it'd need to in every case, to deliver the option). No, they have arcane telepathy granted by a patron. Nothing like psionics, at all. It'd be like cutting the wizard out of the game and saying it's OK because archers can have 'magic missiles.' You could play a psionic character in 1e. Just like you could play a Paladin or Bard, you just had to have a DM who was OK with it, and get lucky. You couldn't play a psionic character using the 5e PH. A 1e fighter could be literally as strong as an ogre, thanks to % STR. A 5e fighter can be as stronger than an ogre. The former was lucky at 1st level, the latter inevitable, if you want it. But a really strong fighter is available in both editions. Maybe you could hold the fact that /any/ 5e character not just fighters (and paladins and rangers and barbarians) can be that strong without magic, while in 1e, they'd've needed an item, itself class-restricted from use by magic-users, against the 1e fighter, but that is, indeed, getting to the point of a minor mechanical quibble. [/QUOTE]

Verification