NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 8567947" data-attributes="member: 2629">You mean a psionic system (or just revising prior versions) that is not just a paint of coat on a wizard/sorcerer body?  Well, yes, their psychic warrior replacements are instead paint jobs on an eldritch knight.There are a lot of people on these boards that have long standing campaigns.  40 years?  Not so many.  Those that ran for 20 years since 3E's psionic system was popular?  A lot more.I believe that you do not know the history of psionics in D&D based upon your statement.  Almost all of what I describe, with the partial exception of the jedi references (TSR/WotC drew inspiration there, too), is from the rules throughout the editions.  I built my systems on the then current rules and evolved them between editions to add consistency to an erratically changing rule set.Psionics were originally quite different from magic.  This was downgraded to a sidebar option in 3E, but it was a fundamental component of it when psionics first existed.  The 2E Psionics Handook specifies this with no hesitation or hedging, for example.  They go so far as to call people that think of psionics as magic to be misinformed in a rather snarky paragraph.Regarding the weave - the relationship between the Weave and Psionics is something discussed within older Forgotten Realms materials.  For example, see "Psionics and the weave" in the 3E Player's Guide to Faerun.  This 3E version treats psionics as magic, unlike prior editions.   Of course, the 2E FR books say that psionics do not exist officially (to begin with at least - they actually have them exist in later products), so there is some back and forth there - more evidence of the inconsistency of the handling of psionics over the editions.  Finally, if I were going to give you examples of all the PCs that have been psionic characters over the past 40 years to show you the breadth of styles and differences, ... well, it would give you an idea on the breadth, but I doubt you'd read the 20 pages of examples.  Needless to say, The vast majority of them could not be recreated with with a 5E Psi Warrior, Soulknife, or Aberrant Mind sorcerer.  This isn't really something you can debate - it is history from my campaign.  However, if you want one example that you might be able to relate to that you probably know something about: Imagine building Professor X as one of these three choices.  Aberrant Mind would be the best fit - but it is a horrible fit, on a scale with telling someone that orders a cake that an apple is a good substitute (they're both solid and sweet, right?).   There is nothing about Xavier that is tied to aberrations, otherworldy creatures, or any of the lore. How would Revelation in Flesh relate to Xavier's powers or story for example?  The psionics rules of prior editions gave you the capability to generate much better version of Xavier.  There is clear design space to be filled, and it is a gap supported in prior editions that has been overlooked for 6 years.With all due respect, you can lack an appreciation for a psionic system that is en evolution from prior editions, but you can't say there isn't a good argument for them when so many people have experience and appreciation for psionics over the editions.  You may not understand it, but the frequency of how often this is raised and the length of the threads with fervent support for psionics indicate there is a good reason to have it: People want it.</blockquote>

Verification