G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Seems pretty spot on aside from a few minor niggles mainly, I hate both the warlord and the mystic but other than that I'll fund the kickstarter.
I've explained, many times, my vehement opposition to the Warlord. My dislike of the Mystic (the UA version, anyway, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about) is different. It's this weird, polymorphic "be anything you like" class, but swapping parts around. The only real theme is the fluff, and otherwise its steps on the toes of not just one class but sort of all of them. I also don't like the name "Mystic" (although not nearly with the passion with which I hate "Warlord".)
Some ways to approach Psion/Mystic that would interest me:
1) A more tightly defined class that doesn't try to make the subclasses so divergent.
2) A new subclass for each (or some/many) of the existing base classes.
3) A prestige-class kind of thing that would be a mix-in with other classes. (An approach that also would have been a solution to Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, not to mention Lycanthrope, Vampire, etc.)
The Lore stuff I find a little weird. I totally agree with tying game systems to lore, but D&D Lore is a redundant mish-mash hodge-podge (see what I did there?) of lots of different lores. Which lore are we talking about? Or is it all of them, and therefore the system should support all of them, and therefore...GURPS?
What *I* would like to see (and maybe I should have participated in those other threads rather than present it here) is that D&D is more explicitly fragmented into various settings. Want to play FR? Here are your races, classes, subclasses, spells, etc. Want to play a Warlord? Then play in this setting, because warlords don't exist in those other ones. Etc.
What I do like:
- Monsters should be tougher, more interesting, and have tactics sections.
- Spell-less Ranger base class.
Oh, and what about rewriting pretty much the entire spell list so that there isn't such a wide gulf between spells that rock and spells that suck?