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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6279251" data-attributes="member: 8461">Your assertion is based on two flaws: the first is the use of "good enough," which is undefined. The second is your presumption that it's not possible for a feat not to exist. If something isn't available, you just say "yes it is," write it, and have that be the end of it. If you categorically reject the restrictions of a restricted system, then you're not having the same conversation anymore.I'm not going to get into the issue of what's "good" about their feats, either in execution or selection, because it ultimately doesn't matter. There simply aren't enough to make every possible character concept imaginable (especially if you want to try and keep mechanical balance consistent - though given that you have a feat to turn all spellcasting into spell-like abilities, that's clearly not a concern for you either).And it failed. You had to invent entirely new material - the nature of which was both largely undefined and dubious in its value - and still had to bastardize the character concept in order to make it work.How long you've been using your house rules aren't really relevant to the discussion of the limits of the underlying game system. Your home game is not a test case for the flexibility of an inflexible system when you essentially hand-wave all limits away.I don't think I can make that any clearer.Talking about the etymology of a particular term isn't particularly relevant, at least not here. Moving on...You're demonstrably wrong here. While certain spell effects are definitely lifted from real world mythologies, stories, and other materials, the act of how spells are prepared and cast has nothing to do with any magical traditions; it's based near-totally on the works of Jack Vance.The mechanics have in-game analogues that make them notably different. Spellcasting isn't psionics in any regard - the only point of commonality between them is that recent editions have kept their effects "transparent" for game purposes.Spider-Man is not a mutant, per se, as defined in the Marvel-verse, nor are his abilities magical (though I'm not very up-to-date on the comics, so if you can give a title and issue number where that's said to be otherwise, I'll cede the point).No, it's not. You've hand-waved his gadgetry and his powers to be "magic!" and then said "magic equals spellcaster," both of which are fallacious. Spider-Man doesn't use magic, and having inherent magical abilities doesn't mean that you're necessarily a sorcerer (as any class with inherent supernatural abilities, such as the monk, shows).You can create a weak analogue, sure, but that's all it is.Remind me again, what's the somatic component for his spider sense? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Because it does. The entire method by which the class/level system operates is exception-based. If you simply presume that all exceptions exist (and that you don't even need to take a feat for many, if not most of them) then you've invalidated the premise that you're working off of. It's fine if you're playing a game where anyone can take whatever powers they want whenever they want to - but that's not utilizing the class/level system anymore (or at least not the "class" part of it).  Which is fine for you, and absolutely useless for everyone else.On the contrary, it shows the weakness of your position, since you've necessarily had to work with  a concept that your homebrew isn't able to handle. Hene why you then try and make a weak work-around to come up with something that bears a superficial resemblance.It's not unworkable, though I do agree that you can't help it; that's part of the nature of the system you've constructed.That's fine, but it falls flat when it runs up against any sort of paranormal or supernatural ability that isn't "spellcasting," let alone "magic."Again, that assertion is nonsense, which is why you can't fix it.Personal fiat is not a rule; it's whim that happens to have been written down. If you reject existing terms and definitions in favor of whatever you make up, then you're just babbling to yourself.See above. You don't have a good enough set of feats - your answer to this is to make stuff up, and then when their limits are shown to make more stuff up, and then when their limits are shown to make even more stuff up, ad infinitum.Sorry, but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand. Talking about a given system requires a shared basis for understanding. Randomly redefining aspects of it and then acting as though they're a given just sounds like nonsense to everyone else.All the moreso then.That's self-evidently not true. If they were, we wouldn't have two different terms for the same thing. Psionics isn't magic; it's psionics.You haven't, not even close. Let's walk through it.Wrong. See the line: "specialized for half-cost – the companion does not need to obey Dirk and actively works to corrupt him to evil."Actually, it exists in spades in mine, and only barely exists in yours. That's what happens when you 1) don't read the source material, and 2) just make up your own instead.Er, I never said that he wasn't human. That's your attempt to (again) add something that isn't thereLeaving aside that I never said anything about "doesn't fully understand himself," the implementation is spot-on perfect, unlike the weak analogue you've cobbled together by making up questionable new material.If you want to learn more about the system I used (e.g. where witchcraft III comes from), I urge you to check out the <a href="http://www.rpgnow.com/product/51255/Eclipse-The-Codex-Persona-Shareware" target="_blank">book I used</a> to do so. It's a point-buy character creation system that's still totally viable with the d20 System - it's also a far more open and flexible resource that what you've appeared to cobble together.No, your problem is that you don't want to implement a concept. I've already come up with a concept for a character - the whole point of this exercise is to try and implement that concept with as little compromise as possible. Your way is all about compromise. You hold that any supernatural power must be magic, and can be satisfactorily implemented by Vancian-style spellcasting. I'm saying that's not so, and that your system can't handle that.Picking what mechanics they take for their character does tend to be part of the player's prerogative.Now, I'll grant that there's a limit to this, but saying "all mystic powers of any stripe are Vancian-style spellcasting," is not a reasonable limit.It's rooted in both normal language and logic, as I've inarguably pointed out above. It's also based on the fact that psionics isn't implemented by spoken words, physical gestures, and material components, which your system necessitates, and thus robs the player of the very agency you claim to be encouraging.It's entirely handwaving. Saying, "it exists because I've imagined it" is setting the bar so low that it's hard not to trip over it.That's fine, I've got a book roughly half that size and a group of 8 who would get a big laugh out of your assertion that your "rules" work.</blockquote>

Verification