Derail rant (split from Psionics 5e)

Troll posts and threads that deserve to die will be moved here, instead of being deleted. This way, they will be preserved for administrative review later.

Derail rant (split from Psionics 5e)

Postby TBeholder » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:55 pm

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Here you have ignored a moderator warning and attempts by Dragonhelm to return to a constructive discussion about Seethyr's original post and posted a large amount of ranting.

Dragonhelm wrote:So as a mental exercise (pun intended! :mrgreen: ), let's talk about how we would shape psionics for 5e.
Some basic assumptions:
1. A Psionics Handbook for 5e would look at all editions of psionics as inspiration.
I admit that owlbears have their uses, but trying to crossbreed a turkey with a crocodile is unlikely to end up in something viable. I don't see any good reason to do this.
Unfortunately, it's the most probable course, because "No Developer Left Behind (except really good ones)" policy seems to be The Thing To Do currently, so we're in for another round of "oooh! Let's drag all the ludicrous junk along - as a favor to our newest star who spend great effort failing to mix copypasted material with finger-painted loonie stuff into something palatable, because throwing it out would offend our poor child" theatre. If all the tiptoeing around FR4e is any indication.

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): This rant is just full of snarkyness towards Wizards of the Coast designers and comparing them to disadvantaged children is really rude. And considering that the book that Seethyr was talking about is not even published yet, your continual arguments that the book will be bad purely because it is published by Wizards of the Coast, hold no logical basis.

Dragonhelm wrote: 2. The most popular psionics system, the Expanded Psionics Handbook, would be the prime inspiration.
It is? Who competed - that one and and the book nicknamed "Complete Crud"?..

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): You are demanding answers from other forum members and being rude. And your question seems to be a loaded question. You comments read more like an interrogation than a conversation. Please stop talking to people like this. It is just not nice.

Dragonhelm wrote: 6. The handbook would attempt to evoke more of a fantasy flavor.
...even more so than in Complete Handbook of Skittering Glowy Crystals? Oh, yes. This at least is likely to be funny.
See, the problem is that the very fact there's an "attempt to evoke flavor" means that something is already made from inedible materials and now it's saccharine "fluff" time.
Conversely, this cannot happen to elements developed with intent to model a setting. Like e.g. "The Will and the Way". They come with flavors already.

Dragonhelm wrote: 7. The handbook would present psionics as either magic or its own power source.
Well... yes. It have to be either one or another. :)
Dragonhelm wrote: Classes: Psion (so much cooler sounding and easier to say/spell than psionicist)
This definitely was a factor. Unfortunately, ease of pronunciation for the lolcat-speaking target audience doesn't necessarily give taste to sound, like e.g. "Nob" or "Dakka". "Psion" sounds much like "aggro", "crit" and other word-mongrels born of chewing gum (I have other theories, but am being charitable tot WoW-speakers here). IMHO.

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): No you are not being "charitable to WoW-speakers" - you are being snarky about them.

Dragonhelm wrote:Psion Subclasses: Based on disciplines. Similar to wizard schools or cleric domains.
Well, yes. With easy multiclassing, there's no point not to make custom variant classes for specialization. 3e didn't go as far as it could with this.
Dragonhelm wrote: Subclasses for other classes: Psychic Warrior (not Battlemind) for the fighter, soulknife for the rogue. Maybe a mentalism domain for the cleric (to represent the ardent?).
Wilder - Probably folded into the psion somehow.
The question remains: what for?
Which is tied to the main question: what is the purpose of the whole thing - to make a MMORPG style set of meaningless gimmicks or to actually model settings?

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Again, you are demanding that other forum users answer loaded questions. As for "the ain question" - the main question in this topic is: "[In 5e psionics]...what would you like to see (if anything)?" Your demands have nothing to do with helping Seethyr get feedback on his question.

Dragonhelm wrote: As an alternative, the psion could be made into a subclass of the sorcerer. It actually would fit quite well.
In the sense "stick one horrible idea to another, so they are easier to drown", yes. Redundant loonie magic to "cuteness-is-magic!" and fanwank on sexual misadventures of dragons. Sounds about right. :mrgreen:

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Bizarre rant, followed by a snarky use of a forum smiley.

Dragonhelm wrote: Psicrystals: These are a must.
What for? In 3e form it's just ridiculous.

MODERATOR NOTE (by Big Mac): Again you are demanding answers and dismissing the opinion of another forum user.

Dragonhelm wrote:Feats: Wild Talent, allowing any class to have a few power points and a small number of powers.
If "number of" means a progression glued on a side - again, it's pointless due to multiclassing. If WT in the classic sense - well, yes, it have to be done via feats, if only because this horrid part of mechanics apparently wasn't given a better alternative yet.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." - Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Hill Giant
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Chthonic Safety

Return to The Black Pudding

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest