• Re: OneDnD seems to mainstream psionics

    From Justisaur@21:1/5 to Kyonshi on Thu Apr 25 07:56:34 2024
    On 4/25/2024 6:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
    Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.

    Looks like they're going to be subclasses, not to worry, they aren't
    going to be replaced. It's just one more option like eldritch knight.

    I'm mixed on this, I always liked psionics in 1e-3e (never played with
    them in 4e and don't remember if they actually came out.) But I
    understand many people don't care for psionics in a fantasy game,
    especially for PCs.

    DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
    PHB is a pleasant surprise.

    I'm not sure about that "pleasant" part.

    --
    -Justisaur

    ø-ø
    (\_/)\
    `-'\ `--.___,
    ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
    \\
    ^'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Justisaur@21:1/5 to Kyonshi on Thu Apr 25 14:43:14 2024
    On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:


    Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
    the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
    variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.

    Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e I liked the iterations
    in that edition much better. They both feel like they should be
    sub-classes and in optional books. Do you really need 3 charisma based
    arcane full caster base classes in the PHB? Heck there's only 2 full
    physical classes.

    As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional book
    as they're loading too much into the PHB already.

    (I actually
    think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
    a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)

    It sounds the same as my old car - a Scion. I'll play a Psion xB, he's
    a bit boxy, but gets you around town with the kids. :)

    --
    -Justisaur

    ø-ø
    (\_/)\
    `-'\ `--.___,
    ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
    \\
    ^'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Justisaur@21:1/5 to Kyonshi on Fri Apr 26 07:22:24 2024
    On 4/26/2024 1:52 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:


    Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
    the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
    variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.

    Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e  I liked the iterations
    in that edition much better.  They both feel like they should be
    sub-classes and in optional books.  Do you really need 3 charisma
    based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?  Heck there's only 2
    full physical classes.

    Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
    in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
    when I shifted to older editions.

    Complete Arcane player's handbook. I did have someone play it. It felt
    very underpowered, but it had a lot more sustain with eldritch blast
    than wizards. It's much better balanced in 5e

    As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer it also in another optional
    book as they're loading too much into the PHB already.

    I do like psionics, and I am using the Old School Psionics supplement
    for my homebrew rules (after trying to adapt the 3.5 psion to b/x at one point). I think they might fit into the world at large if you flavor
    them right. I think about something like "mystics" (which is a word that
    also was used for monks in DnD which makes this awkward), which leans
    into traditions of various mystics from all over the world.

    3.5 psionics was pretty good, but it felt like it was just magic with
    spell points, and resulted in players blowing all their points at once
    for not any more effect than a wizard's highest level spell but leaving
    them without anything else. I also didn't like all the crystals
    reliance. I actually had some people play psions in 2e, I used the
    psionics handbook, but it needs careful interpretion, I had some
    situations like a Psion that used scrying and teleport at level 7 to
    bypass an entire adventure I had planned. I didn't like the contact
    mechanics, and I think the Dark Suns version worked best.

    I at one point was trying to write my own psionics system too based on
    modern perception of mind powers (sensitivity, tk, pk, medium, remote
    viewing, prediction etc.) but never got to anything workable. I suppose crystals fit with that too, I just don't like them for some reason.

    --
    -Justisaur

    ø-ø
    (\_/)\
    `-'\ `--.___,
    ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
    \\
    ^'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to justisaur@yahoo.com on Thu May 23 03:54:47 2024
    In article <v0eipj$37jkh$2@dont-email.me>, justisaur@yahoo.com wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

    Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
    the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
    variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.

    Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e I liked the iterations
    in that edition much better. They both feel like they should be
    sub-classes and in optional books. Do you really need 3 charisma based >arcane full caster base classes in the PHB? Heck there's only 2 full >physical classes.

    I like Warlocks as witches and would play up the being a servant to a
    higher power (not necceassrily a deity) better than previous attempts,
    though I liked the one in Dragon Magazine a lot.

    --
    Let's go Brandon!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to justisaur@yahoo.com on Thu May 23 03:57:07 2024
    In article <v0gdb2$3o4p8$1@dont-email.me>, justisaur@yahoo.com wrote:
    On 4/26/2024 1:52 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

    Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
    the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
    variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.

    Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e  I liked the iterations
    in that edition much better.  They both feel like they should be
    sub-classes and in optional books.  Do you really need 3 charisma
    based arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?  Heck there's only 2
    full physical classes.

    Warlocks were introduced in 3.5? Must have missed that, but I got
    disinterested about that edition pretty quick. I burned out on 3e back
    in the day and got completely turned off when 4e came around. That's
    when I shifted to older editions.

    Complete Arcane player's handbook. I did have someone play it. It felt
    very underpowered, but it had a lot more sustain with eldritch blast
    than wizards. It's much better balanced in 5e

    If memory serves, Warlocks in 3.x could cast Eldritch Blast whenever they wanted, a rule a min-maxer friend of mine used for his PCs.

    --
    Let's go Brandon!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to gmkeros@gmail.com on Thu May 23 03:50:22 2024
    gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:

    While I do like the idea of psionics, this all sounds to me like they're >basically replacing the fighter and the rogue with powered classes.
    Going further onto the path of fantasy superheroes it seems.

    I prefer them leaving psionics as a sorcerer subclass.

    --
    Let's go Brandon!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to gmkeros@gmail.com on Wed Jun 12 10:01:06 2024
    gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 11:43 PM, Justisaur wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 10:57 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
    On 4/25/2024 6:16 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

    Don't forget warlocks, which didn't use to be a thing but now are. On
    the other hand it sounds as if those they want to have are just
    variations on fighters and thieves instead of proper psions.

    Warlocks and Sorcerers were both added in 3.5e  I liked the iterations
    in that edition much better.  They both feel like they should be
    sub-classes and in optional books.  Do you really need 3 charisma based
    arcane full caster base classes in the PHB?  Heck there's only 2 full
    physical classes.

    As much as I love psionics, I'd prefer

    Nitpick: sorcerers were a core class in 3e. Warlocks came in a
    supplement in 3.5.

    I never really got sorcerers, I think they were supposed to be what the >warlock became later, just that it wasn't mechanically set apart from
    wizards all that much.

    Sorcerers were created for people who didn't want to play a Wizard and deal with its limitations. I liked it!

    --
    Let's go Brandon!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)