Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZeshinX" data-source="post: 7966139" data-attributes="member: 6793656">I certainly fall into the camp that wants psionics to be "it's own thing", but I'm fine with WotC offering something that doesn't fit that desire if the vast majority of their responding audience approves of them.  I just won't use them if I dislike them enough, just like I never touch the Ranger class in 5e (even the variations WotC has presented taste sour to me).I do like the idea of psionic-infused subclasses in addition to a dedicated class for psionics, but I find (after having played 1e, 2e, 3.Xe and their takes on psionics) to get it "right", meaning balanced from the start as "it's own thing", it would need to be included as an option from the start, meaning it's present in the Player's Handbook at the beginning of the edition, so it had all the playtesting and balancing needed to allow it to fit naturally with the other classes from Day 1 (1e pretty much did this, but they were exceedingly rare and ultimately ended up being little more than a 1/day spell-like ability).Doesn't mean it CAN'T be done now (or later), but I doubt it will be anything that anybody particularly thinks of as psionics.  It'll likely just be a rose by another name (i.e. Magic).  I mean traditionally psionic monsters have been there since Day 1 and they work just fine with a fluffy name for their psionic abilities that are really just magic.  The psychic damage type exists for magic, so might as well just continue as is at this point.Just my 2 cents anyway.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification