Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5251539" data-attributes="member: 80487">It seems to me that &quot;cut psionics&quot; could actually not mean much.(1) If there's already a rules system called &quot;psionics&quot; in the current edition, then ... it's there.(2) If you're preparing a new edition, it's not as if you were going to use the old rules anyhow, eh? There were notable changes from OD&amp;D to AD&amp;D, even, and those look like twins next to the changes to psionics in later editions.So, if &quot;cutting psionics&quot; just means there won't be yet another new sub-game with that heading, then it seems to me like rather a vague sort of &quot;cut&quot;. I have not closely examined the &quot;psionic power source&quot; in 4e, but I don't think it's a radical departure from the 4e powers framework.On the other hand, it could be a pretty sharp cut if it means that there won't be any effects that might be characterized as, for instance, &quot;ESP&quot; (an actual spell name from the original set).Depending on how much one lumps under the heading -- Aura reading? Clairvoyance? Empathic healing? Levitation? Mesmerism? Telekinesis? Teleportation? -- a &quot;no psionics&quot; rule could change the game very notably!The elf, on the other hand, seems to have retained more of a common identity. Calling it an eladrin might piss off some people who know and care what &quot;eladrin&quot; meant in 2e Planescape (or wherever it was they figured before), but I reckon it is still recognized -- for good and ill -- as an &quot;elf&quot;.If it ducks like a quack ...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5251539, member: 80487"] It seems to me that "cut psionics" could actually not mean much. (1) If there's already a rules system called "psionics" in the current edition, then ... it's there. (2) If you're preparing a new edition, it's not as if you were going to use the old rules anyhow, eh? There were notable changes from OD&D to AD&D, even, and those look like twins next to the changes to psionics in later editions. So, if "cutting psionics" just means there won't be yet another new sub-game with that heading, then it seems to me like rather a vague sort of "cut". I have not closely examined the "psionic power source" in 4e, but I don't think it's a radical departure from the 4e powers framework. On the other hand, it could be a pretty sharp cut if it means that there won't be any [i]effects[/i] that might be characterized as, for instance, "ESP" (an actual spell name from the original set). Depending on how much one lumps under the heading -- Aura reading? Clairvoyance? Empathic healing? Levitation? Mesmerism? Telekinesis? Teleportation? -- a "no psionics" rule could change the game very notably! The elf, on the other hand, seems to have retained more of a common identity. Calling it an eladrin might piss off some people who know and care what "eladrin" meant in 2e Planescape (or wherever it was they figured before), but I reckon it is still recognized -- for good and ill -- as an "elf". If it ducks like a quack ... [/QUOTE]

Verification