Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Maxperson]

Then answer the question as is specifically pertains to wizards only.

Why? What do you hope to prove by limiting it to Wizards?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I know economics can be confusing, but it's not freakin' quantum physics.

Yes. Magic is at least as hard to learn as quantum physics. The fact that we've developed Quantum Physics doesn't mean that everyone's going to become a Quantum Physicist.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I get you are a lawyer Max, but this isn't a court of law. We aren't that precise with our language every second of the day.

Is he? He said he's "worked in the law field" for 13 years or something. That's not "I have been a lawyer".

 

[Maxperson]

Is he? He said he's "worked in the law field" for 13 years or something. That's not "I have been a lawyer".

No, I'm not. I'm a Paralegal.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I give up.

Either you are being deliberately obtuse on why i'm referring to Wizards specifically or this thread has become so chaotic that we have at least two posters who are following entirely different lines of logic and both are talking past each other.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Magic is at least as hard to learn as quantum physics. The fact that we've developed Quantum Physics doesn't mean that everyone's going to become a Quantum Physicist.

I suppose you can prove that. I don't recall seeing anything to suggest that it is that hard.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I suppose you can prove that. I don't recall seeing anything to suggest that it is that hard.

Learning how to do magic is literally learning how to manipulate the Universe! To bend it to your will! Of course it's harder to learn to do than Quantum Physics! You don't just say the magic words and cause magic to happen, like in Eragon or Harry Potter, you have to understand how the world works in order to bend it. This guarantees that it is harder to learn magic than quantum physics.

 

[Aldarc]

Honestly, this just seems like "because it can happen, that means it will happen" while ignoring any potential things that might happen to mess things up, like say for example, one half of the game's name.

It's about like how steam power was invented in antiquity by the Greeks, but as a toy. It took several thousand years before it became essential for industrialization. Or how many times have humans invented calculus? Newton and Leibniz did theirs, but archaeologists then uncovered that rudimentary calculus was already invented in ancient Mesopotamia.

Actually... that's an interesting wrinkle to Eberron... What if it's basically taking place in the "ancient magical empire" that a lot of other worlds have and is close to the cataclysm that would result in the current state of most D&D worlds...

Neat, but doubt it. Cataclysms of advanced magical empires have already happened in the world of Eberron, namely with Giant Empire of Xen'drik. It was probably more advanced (at least in magic) than Khorvaire now.

That's my feeling about Eberron. It's worth noting that the setting is fixed in time. I would suggest that this is because the setup is unsustainable. The white heat of magical technology is rushing Eberron towards catastrophe.

I think that the fixed time frame has far less to do with sustainability of magitech, but with the heightened dramatic tension of the meta-narrative. It's about like playing a game set between WW1 and WW2. It's not about whether it's sustainable, but playing in an era in which you know carp went down and carp is on the verge of erupting again. You are playing for that dramatic backdrop. Eberron is about pulp action and intrigue, and this is the era where that's present and a political powder keg.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then why do you always try to catch me with my language?

I try to talk about your arguments, which sometimes involve things like your claims of all wizards going to go adventuring for monster parts for spells (which I proved they don't, since spells don't require monster parts)

But unless you are willing to point out the differences between the specifics you said and the general summaries other are making, then you can't go around claiming we are all wrong about what you said.

I mean, you literally responded to a picture of your own post with "I never said all", because in your mind "all" would be too broad and you only meant enough to change the face of the world.

And at that point, does it matter if it is "all" or not? I mean, it is enough to alter the social fabric of the entire world, who cares about the specific number of merchants and nobles.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or how many times have humans invented calculus? Newton and Leibniz did theirs, but archaeologists then uncovered that rudimentary calculus was already invented in ancient Mesopotamia.

I did not know this, glad something fun came from this discussion