Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6562606" data-attributes="member: 996">The Sorcerer & Warlock?  Not by half.  They're arbitrarily-different mechanics for the same basic arcane-caster concept.  Archetypes could have as easily separated the Wizard into book-learner arcanist, innate sorcerer, and pact-learned warlock.  Psionics, in stark contrast, have an entirely different source to justify different mechanics, and a list of wild talents, disciplines and sciences instead of re-cycling the same spells. The main reason is that the game has already gone there.  It's already used arbitrary mechanical distinctions to differentiate existing classes.  It's not an effects-based system where what you accomplish determines the mechanics, and how you do it is just fluff.    Another reason is that they're often far too little.  There are mind-affecting spells, for instance, but there's nothing like 1e/2e psionic combat, which goes far beyond trading Charm or Dominate person spells, in both scope and detail.  The things the battlemaster does with it's maneuvers /are/ like a few of the things the Warlord does - maybe 3 out of the hundreds of things the Warlord did in 4e.  Say that means you don't need a Walord is like trying to say that having a Rogue with Expertise in Arcana and a Feat that gives him some cantrips means you don't really need the Wizard, Warlock, or Sorcerer (and, really, if you have one of the three, you don't /need/ the other two, but we've got 'em anyway).   Obviously, a system of attack & defense modes, disciplines and sciences all powered from a pool of psionic strength points would more than adequately meet that challenge.  And has been doing so since 1978.  Psionics has been different enough to rate mechanical distinctions in every other edition, as well -  even 4e, which, until psionics came out, kept everyone on AEDU.   The Sorcerer and Warlock would fail that challenge hands-down.  Get over the idea the Wizard must be bookish, and a 'wizard' with inborn power or a pact is no problem.The Monk would seem to have already met that challenge, since we have elemental and shadow monks tossing spells, or at least spell-equivalents around.But, no matter how thoroughly you try to open up the /concept/ of the fighter, the design is too inflexible for it to be anything but a high-damage multi-attacker.  That vision of 'best at fighting,' just leaves too little juice left over to do anything else well.    Either that or you'd have to re-examine the whole paradigm of what the combat pillar is worth, and admit the fighter is egregiously under-powered (under-versatile or under-competent, perhaps) in the grander scheme of things, no matter how much DPR he theoretically has over the course of a day. Sorry for taking you out of context, here, but the exclusion of the Warlord could certainly be attributable to anti-4e and anti-martial prejudices, yes.</blockquote>

Verification