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.
DnD, so their inclusion as a core part of their DnD classes in the new
PHB is a pleasant surprise.
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.
think the word psion is kind of cool, and it's a pity it now sounds like
a piece of antiquated telecommunications technology)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 339 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 00:59:35 |
Calls: | 7,467 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,691 |
Messages: | 5,627,865 |