Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mecheon" data-source="post: 9362629" data-attributes="member: 6801776">No.We have the older spellcaster, the psion, who's been in this game since before I was born, and bring it to the modern edition. Like, at least the Warlord I get people don't like it because its a 4E thing. Psionics have been &quot;This is distinct from wizardly magic&quot; in this game since 1978. They're not Arcane spells. They're psionic spells, and this has been defined this way for over 40 years.And, yeah, y'know what? Wizards should lose a lot of spells. They should get an identity that isn't just &quot;Grab bag of spells in the game&quot;You're defining psionic magic, something that has for over 40 years in this very game been a distinct thing, as being the same thing as wizard magic. If psionic spells are just arcane spells, wizard spells, then you're saying all magic is the same.&nbsp; Extrapolating this, all magic being the same, implies that divine magic is just the same again.I'm grabbing your argument and applying it to an identical case but another class that, let's be honest, has less differences in the game's history than the differences between psionic spells and wizard spells. Its a perfectly applicable argument, especially because cleric spells and wizard spells are structured the same, and at least psionic ones have been structured differently in the past. I absolutely don't want to look at any of those old structurings (3.5E and 4E psionics should be the go-to), but its a well established thing.See, this is the thing. &quot;Its magic therefore its wizard stuff&quot;. Guess what else is magic? Cleric spells. You want to merge those in as well?&quot;Its magic therefore its just a wizard&quot; hits the cleric exactly as much as it hits the psion.And psionics is another source. If clerics are safe from the 'merge into wizard' bat due to the different source, then so are psions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mecheon, post: 9362629, member: 6801776"] No. We have the older spellcaster, the psion, who's been in this game since before I was born, and bring it to the modern edition. Like, at least the Warlord I get people don't like it because its a 4E thing. Psionics have been "This is distinct from wizardly magic" in this game since 1978. They're not Arcane spells. They're psionic spells, and this has been defined this way for over 40 years. And, yeah, y'know what? Wizards should lose a lot of spells. They should get an identity that isn't just "Grab bag of spells in the game" You're defining psionic magic, something that has for over 40 years in this very game been a distinct thing, as being the same thing as wizard magic. If psionic spells are just arcane spells, wizard spells, then you're saying all magic is the same. Extrapolating this, all magic being the same, implies that divine magic is just the same again. I'm grabbing your argument and applying it to an identical case but another class that, let's be honest, has less differences in the game's history than the differences between psionic spells and wizard spells. Its a perfectly applicable argument, especially because cleric spells and wizard spells are structured the same, and at least psionic ones have been structured differently in the past. I absolutely don't want to look at any of those old structurings (3.5E and 4E psionics should be the go-to), but its a well established thing. See, this is the thing. "Its magic therefore its wizard stuff". Guess what else is magic? Cleric spells. You want to merge those in as well? "Its magic therefore its just a wizard" hits the cleric exactly as much as it hits the psion. And psionics is another source. If clerics are safe from the 'merge into wizard' bat due to the different source, then so are psions. [/QUOTE]

Verification