Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6279188" data-attributes="member: 4937">What I'm talking about is something very clear and specific - my assertion that if you have a good enough selection of feats that you can emmulate just about any character concept.   If your contention is that neither 3.5 nor Pathfinder have a very good selection of feats, then we are in full agreement.  In truth the feats in both are lousy and poorly thought out IMO.  But the fact that the two published rule sets have lousy feats is not a contridiction to my claim that a good enough set of feats can in fact emmulate just about any character concept.   This excercise was intended to prove that.So yes, my answer is in some sense, "just make stuff up", although in this case some of this stuff has been in use for 10 years now.   So for me, it's more 'real' and definative than Pathfinder is.What do you mean, "Huh?" First of all, the use of the word psionic in D&D is flawed.  The word psionic is the sibling of the word 'bionic'.  It means, "Possessing a machine which enhances the ability of the mind."   The idea in the word psionic might be that people have radios implanted in their brains which allows them to think to other people similarly equipped.   That is not magic, but neither is it D&D 'psionics'.So what is D&D 'psionics'?  The answer is that D&D psionics are psychics.  But psychic powers are magic powers and they come from exactly the same magical traditions of the late 19th and early 20th century that are the most direct real world basis of the D&D Wizards.  It's a common parentage and common belief system.   The only distinguishing factor between the psion and the D&D wizard is mechanics.  Both are clearly magic users.Spider-Man is a mutant resulting from the bite of a magical spider which granted him magical abilities.  While I'm aware that the classical silver age Spider-Man was also a gadgeteer, even so his gadgets were sufficiently advanced that they can be considered magical (power of plot).  So the question is, in the D&D universe what is the analogue of Spider-Man, and the answer is that any human that derives magical abilities from his inherent power as a result of his connection to something inhuman is a sorcerer.   Stock D&D 3.0 only provided for a connection to Draconic power, and that weakly.   My game alllows you to create a Verminous Bloodline Body Sorcerer, pick up Web Splat, Web Line, Danger Sense, Web, etc. as spells and in essence play Spider Man.   Sure, if I was going for full genera emulation, I'd play Mutants and Masterminds instead, but if someone comes to me and says, "I basically want to play Spider-Man", I can say, "Yeah, I'm good with that.  Here's how you do it..."Spider man clearly has somatic gestures in the comics.  As a sorcerer, he automatically has Eschew Material Components as a bonus feat, so we don't have to worry about that.   The fact that he has to say something to cast is a small matter I consider fairly trivial.   In game, feel free to role play this as quippy one liners.You keep using 'entirely made up' as if that in some how invalidated my assertion that with a sufficiently well designed class/feat system, you can play just about any concept you want.   And many other sources, not limited to 1e, GURPS, 4e, Ravenloft, and my own head.Celebrim's Complete House Rules, Player's Handbook Edition.No, the fact that you claimed to be both a psionist and not a spellcaster is a severe comprimise to the character concept.  I can't help it if you have an unworkable contridiction in your concept.  In some form, your character is magical.  I've chosen to avoid mechanical variation for its own sake and consolidate 'I use magic' into a comparitively small set of concepts that can be flavored or repurposed as necessary.Again, I can't fix nonsense.  Psionic powers are magic.  Excuse me, but I'm not bending my rules.   Bending my rules would be rewritting Improved Unarmed Strike and Superior Unarmed Strike to allow for unarmed combatants that compete on equal footing with peer armed foes.  But other than that, the choices I presented are my rules as written.Again, how does this counter my assertion that with a good enough set of feats you can have any concept you want?Sorry, but my sorcerer and the bloodline concept I'm using predates pathfinder by almost 4 years, and is based loosely on my own thoughts and a Dragon magazine article.  The implementation is entirely my own though.Actually, all of them are.  I'm not equating them.  They are equated simply by natural language.Actually, I honestly think I've implemented the concept better than the system in your link (actually a lot better), which mechanically didn't actually hit on the key points at all.   For example, in your link your implement your spirit enemy as a familiar companion.  But by the rules, such a familiar companion would never actually be thwarting you and would lack the power to really do so.  It wouldn't be a powerful foe, and technically is supposed to be a fully obedient extension of your characters's will.  The key character concept, the internal conflict between the PC and this tempter spirit capable of hurting your loved ones doesn't exist in your implementation, and it exists in spades in mine.  Likewise, the sense of you finding yourself to be something more than human, both superhuman and monstrous, really isn't brought out by your tame safe implementation.  You present a concept for a character that doesnt' fully understand himself and isn't in full control of his life, and you tried to implement it by a nice tame player centric list of desired powers, some of which like 'Witchcraft III' (whatever that is) didn't seem to fit the concept either.What do you mean that they don't work?  In what way do they not implement the character who is tormented by a familiar spirit, is discovering growing powers over negative energy, and is capable of superhuman feats of unarmed combat prowess?   Your problem is that you don't merely want to implement a concept.  You seem to want to control as a player the mechanics used to implement the concept.   So for example, your assertion that 'psionics aren't magic' is rooted not in any normal language or logic, but primarily in your sense that psionics mean spell points and not spell slots.  So your going, essentially, "Hey, you game doesn't have spell points, so it can't implement my concept!"And yet, not existing outside of my game isnt' the same as not existing.  It's not handwaving.   I've got a 540 page player's handbook currently in use by a table of 6 players who would get a big laugh out of your assertion that my rules 'don't work'.</blockquote>

Verification