|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:04PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2010
|
Completely worthless book. Psionics shouldn't have been brought back into the game.
I'm gonna have to ask you to retract your statement, all things are made better with psionics.
I bought the book for the psion class, I'm happy with it. I'm only disappointed in the missing elan race.
Never. Psionics are the worst thing ever to add to any D&D game unless the setting is specifically Dark Sun. It's the only D&D source that I will accept psionics in. They should have printed all the psionic classes, feats, and monsters in a Dark Sun hardcover campaign setting book and left it there, rather than tainting the rest of the game. Now I'm going to have to constantly tell whiny crybabies that no, they cannot play a psionic whatever and listen to their pathetic, peurile mewling as they try to convince me to let them.
Well, Fairyberry, You'll just have to settle for me not ever playing in your games, now go post in a forum specifically for DArksun and never taint this one again.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:06PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
Now I'm going to have to constantly tell whiny crybabies that no, they cannot play a psionic whatever and listen to their pathetic, peurile mewling as they try to convince me to let them.
Is your player turnover rate that high? That you have to "Constantly" tell people they cant play stuff?
I typically run two campaigns at the same time. Different days of the week with different players in each group. Each campaign lasts roughly six months. After which, I start a new campaign. Sometimes with same players, but there's usually someone new. I also get people who want to join an existing campaign or take an empty seat and they almost unfailingly want to play something banned for that campaign.
This increases whenever a new product is release, like the PHB3 and all the psionics bullshit involved.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:07PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2009
|
Fey: look at the title of the thread. It is not "Whine about how much I hate psionics", it's "What went wrong". If you're going to try and claim that Psionics is bad for the game, you'll have to provide more evidence other than "I don't like it". Enough people like psionics that not introducing it to 4e would have been a stupid move.
Personally, I like Psionics. They have a pedigree that dates back to Gygax and a strong otherwordly flavor. It doesn't conform to the way the universe is supposed to work, and it's not magic as we know it; it's alien, foreign, and utterly other. It adds a deeper level of flavor to the game, gives the players more options, and genuinely contributes to the worlds where it is introduced (assuming it's introduced intelligently other than "oh, there are Psionics too, I guess").
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:09PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
Fey: look at the title of the thread. It is not "Whine about how much I hate psionics", it's "What went wrong". If you're going to try and claim that Psionics is bad for the game, you'll have to provide more evidence other than "I don't like it". Enough people like psionics that not introducing it to 4e would have been a stupid move.
Personally, I like Psionics. They have a pedigree that dates back to Gygax and a strong otherwordly flavor. It doesn't conform to the way the universe is supposed to work, and it's not magic as we know it; it's alien, foreign, and utterly other. It adds a deeper level of flavor to the game, gives the players more options, and genuinely contributes to the worlds where it is introduced (assuming it's introduced intelligently other than "oh, there are Psionics too, I guess").
"What went wrong?"
They added psionics to 4th edition with this book. That's what went wrong. So yeah, I'll bitch about it all I want to.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:10PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2009
|
So basically: "Unless it has a mountain of references in literature or previous history of gaming it shouldn't exist." right?
Who cares if the necromancer might be a wizard or cleric copy, its got history right?
Frankly....yes.
The D&D game is all about stereotype and cliche. It's just the way that it is applied that makes it exciting and interesting. Players have obviously never raided a subterranean vault full of monsters in reality, so they draw on their fictional references. That's why so many players over the years have wanted to play the characters that were barbarians, ninjas, knights and pirates. If you make up classes just to fill the gaps in the party balance you end up retrospectively contriving a background to justify the class existence - which makes a nonsense of the game "logic".
Example: Rogues exist because there are thieves and vagabonds in fantasy society. Fighters exist as there are warriors in fantasy society. Sorcerers exist as we allow that there are individuals that can channel magical power in a certain way. These are traditional class archetypes.
However, lets say that we do it the "new" way. We want an entirely new class that is a defender/controller mix that can heal a bit too. Let's call it the WarCaster. A tough guy with loads of armour that can use AoE attacks that inspires his comrades on the battlefield when he blows up hordes of the enemy. A totally made up class - and yet now a justification for its existence has to invented and pitted up against all the classes that exist because they have a reason to do so.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:11PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
This increases whenever a new product is release, like the PHB3 and all the psionics bullshit involved.
I feel sorry for you, I mean playing a game that is around a year old and continuing to expand. perhaps you should play a game that has ended its life, like 3.5 or earlier if you are looking for D&D, or many of the other countless RPGs that are older.
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:11PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2010
|
I just realized a reason they may have left out the Elan, the 4e psionics seems like its trying to make aberrations a MAJOR baddy group, and elans are aberrations. But maybe they'll be the first race to enter through a "power" book.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:16PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2010
|
So basically: "Unless it has a mountain of references in literature or previous history of gaming it shouldn't exist." right?
Who cares if the necromancer might be a wizard or cleric copy, its got history right?
Frankly....yes.
The D&D game is all about stereotype and cliche. It's just the way that it is applied that makes it exciting and interesting. Players have obviously never raided a subterranean vault full of monsters in reality, so they draw on their fictional references. That's why so many players over the years have wanted to play the characters that were barbarians, ninjas, knights and pirates. If you make up classes just to fill the gaps in the party balance you end up retrospectively contriving a background to justify the class existence - which makes a nonsense of the game "logic".
Example: Rogues exist because there are thieves and vagabonds in fantasy society. Fighters exist as there are warriors in fantasy society. Sorcerers exist as we allow that there are individuals that can channel magical power in a certain way. These are traditional class archetypes.
However, lets say that we do it the "new" way. We want an entirely new class that is a defender/controller mix that can heal a bit too. Let's call it the WarCaster. A tough guy with loads of armour that can use AoE attacks that inspires his comrades on the battlefield when he blows up hordes of the enemy. A totally made up class - and yet now a justification for its existence has to invented and pitted up against all the classes that exist because they have a reason to do so.
I think theres a place for these mixed variants simply because sometimes kids want to be pirates, sometimes kids want to be ninjas, and sometimes kids want to be ninja pirates.
Your "Warcaster" example has a place because AoE has a place, our fantasy worlds are only based in Tolkien anymore, they've taken it and ran as fast as they could.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:17PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2009
|
Again, Feyberry, "I don't like it" is not an appropriate responsse to "What's wrong with it". Can you elaborate on why you don't like it? Or why you think it's bad for the game?
You know, discuss the issue like a calm, rational human being?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 20, 2010 - 7:18PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
Again, Feyberry, "I don't like it" is not an appropriate responsse to "What's wrong with it". Can you elaborate on why you don't like it? Or why you think it's bad for the game?
You know, discuss the issue like a calm, rational human being?
I've explained plenty of times why.
|
|
|
