Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What's wrong with this psion?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EscherEnigma" data-source="post: 8099622" data-attributes="member: 6750014"><p>Because Gary Gygax thought it was funny. Further, you don't have lists of different options because the writers didn't think it was worth it. You can come up with different in-world explanations if you want, but they are, universally, after-the-fact justifications, and not the "reason". The reasons for material spell components are meta, every single time.</p><p></p><p>So sure, you can fluff it in your campaign as "magic is science". Or you can fluff it as "those are just the traditional options, doesn't mean other stuff wouldn't work." Seriously, can you imagine any GM balking at a Jewish player saying "hey, I don't want my wizard handling a pork rind to cast <em>grease. </em>Can they use a stick of butter instead?" Ok, I can, but I can't do it without the GM being an naughty word. Similar thing with sorcerers, I imagine most GMs would say "just write down what your born-in-the-wilds sorcerer uses instead of bat guano, and we'll stick with that." For that matter, do you think the writers intended <em>hold person </em>to be an inaccessible spell in Theros (it's a bronze-age setting, remember? Worked iron is rare, iron wire? Super-rare).</p><p></p><p>Getting hung up on material components and what they "mean" for a setting is, and always will be, an exercise in futility. They're referential fluff. Nothing more. They are something to <em>assign </em>meaning to in your campaign, but they are not something you can <em>derive </em>meaning from in your campaign.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So spells-in-all-but-name? With a "manifestations" line instead of a "components" line? A whole mess of what's essentially reprints?</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I gotta say no to that. If they ever do a dedicated psion class (which I think would be really cool, by-the-by) I hope they either stick with the spells we already have, with a note on components/manifestations or whatever, or they abandon the psion as a spell-caster all-together and do something like warlock invocations, or the mystic, or something. There is no need to re-invent the wheel and cut-off the psion from future content.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorcerer with subtle spell can cast every single one of their spells without V&S components. If you use the UA psionic-soul sorcerer, they can do that even easier.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EscherEnigma, post: 8099622, member: 6750014"] Because Gary Gygax thought it was funny. Further, you don't have lists of different options because the writers didn't think it was worth it. You can come up with different in-world explanations if you want, but they are, universally, after-the-fact justifications, and not the "reason". The reasons for material spell components are meta, every single time. So sure, you can fluff it in your campaign as "magic is science". Or you can fluff it as "those are just the traditional options, doesn't mean other stuff wouldn't work." Seriously, can you imagine any GM balking at a Jewish player saying "hey, I don't want my wizard handling a pork rind to cast [I]grease. [/I]Can they use a stick of butter instead?" Ok, I can, but I can't do it without the GM being an naughty word. Similar thing with sorcerers, I imagine most GMs would say "just write down what your born-in-the-wilds sorcerer uses instead of bat guano, and we'll stick with that." For that matter, do you think the writers intended [I]hold person [/I]to be an inaccessible spell in Theros (it's a bronze-age setting, remember? Worked iron is rare, iron wire? Super-rare). Getting hung up on material components and what they "mean" for a setting is, and always will be, an exercise in futility. They're referential fluff. Nothing more. They are something to [I]assign [/I]meaning to in your campaign, but they are not something you can [I]derive [/I]meaning from in your campaign. So spells-in-all-but-name? With a "manifestations" line instead of a "components" line? A whole mess of what's essentially reprints? Yeah, I gotta say no to that. If they ever do a dedicated psion class (which I think would be really cool, by-the-by) I hope they either stick with the spells we already have, with a note on components/manifestations or whatever, or they abandon the psion as a spell-caster all-together and do something like warlock invocations, or the mystic, or something. There is no need to re-invent the wheel and cut-off the psion from future content. Sorcerer with subtle spell can cast every single one of their spells without V&S components. If you use the UA psionic-soul sorcerer, they can do that even easier. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What's wrong with this psion?
Top