Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 8712841" data-attributes="member: 58172">There is a camp that wants &quot;psionics&quot; to become a silo for experimental mechanics.That is why I feel there needs to be two separate Psion classes, one is the fullcaster with normal spellcasting mechanics, and the other is experimental mechanics.For the experimental mechanics, it could be anything. Maybe the experimental class uses Fighter superiority dice to manifest psionic effects.But the fullcaster is important. I like psionic flavor − the personal innate magic of the mind. I want it to be a normal part of D&amp;D. It seems that D&amp;D players today also like psionic flavor, and like normal core mechanics. Where psionics is normal, it is most likely to continue to enjoy support from future designers.Regarding the Sorcerer class, I am less enthusiastic about it, both because of its subpar and fiddly mechanics and because of its redundancy with Warlock flavor. The Warlock is the better class mechanically, and its narrative makes more sense if the &quot;pact&quot; with the magical entity actually transform the Warlock in some way. Indeed a &quot;pact&quot; made by the character, or a bloodline from an ancestor who made a &quot;pact&quot;, is the same thing. The Sorcerer design space seems mostly obsolete. In 3e it was important because it was a spontaneous alternative to vancian spell casting mechanics. In 4e, every class used to the same power mechanics, so they tried to reinvent the Sorcerer as a damage-dealer. In 5e, every spellcaster is spontaneous, the damage dealing gets traded out for other kind of effects for magic, and the Sorcerer has an identity crisis. In any case, referring to the Sorcerer is less likely to get interest or buy-in from me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 8712841, member: 58172"] There is a camp that wants "psionics" to become a silo for experimental mechanics. That is why I feel there needs to be two separate Psion classes, one is the fullcaster with normal spellcasting mechanics, and the other is experimental mechanics. For the experimental mechanics, it could be anything. Maybe the experimental class uses Fighter superiority dice to manifest psionic effects. But the fullcaster is important. I like psionic flavor − the personal innate magic of the mind. I want it to be a normal part of D&D. It seems that D&D players today also like psionic flavor, and like normal core mechanics. Where psionics is normal, it is most likely to continue to enjoy support from future designers. Regarding the Sorcerer class, I am less enthusiastic about it, both because of its subpar and fiddly mechanics and because of its redundancy with Warlock flavor. The Warlock is the better class mechanically, and its narrative makes more sense if the "pact" with the magical entity actually transform the Warlock in some way. Indeed a "pact" made by the character, or a bloodline from an ancestor who made a "pact", is the same thing. The Sorcerer design space seems mostly obsolete. In 3e it was important because it was a spontaneous alternative to vancian spell casting mechanics. In 4e, every class used to the same power mechanics, so they tried to reinvent the Sorcerer as a damage-dealer. In 5e, every spellcaster is spontaneous, the damage dealing gets traded out for other kind of effects for magic, and the Sorcerer has an identity crisis. In any case, referring to the Sorcerer is less likely to get interest or buy-in from me. [/QUOTE]

Verification