NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 7673312" data-attributes="member: 5435">For me, if psionics doesn't introduce a unique mechanic, then there is no good reason to add a psionics ruleset. As everyone agrees, you can make a perfectly acceptable psion out of an enchanter wizard or a sorcerer bloodline, plus some fluff.As a player of a game, I am looking for options that give me a new and different experience in play.  Currently all casters share similar limitations in spellcasting, and have the same type of resource management. So the psion = (arcane+fluff) equivalency doesn't add anything to the game for me--it only suggests a hook for designing a PC.  But my enchanter psion isn't going to provide a different play experience from any other wizard. If they put out an Unearthed Arcana article with a few spells, feats, and subclasses to support psionic play, then I won't turn up my nose at it, but I probably wouldn't bother to put it into a campaign. So Erik Mona's viewpoint of psychic magic leaves me indifferent. It sounds like just another supplement along the lines of the elemental player's guide. The Expanded Psionics Handbook left me indifferent too--psions were mechanically a little different from spellcasters but not unique enough for me.So yes, while I realize it introduces a learning curve, I would vastly prefer if WotC published a new and interesting, playtested psionics subsystem, one with limitations, exploits, and resource management very different from the basic PH magic system.  I want a subsystem that could drastically alter the tone of a campaign, not just another flavor of spellcaster, so that I could run Athas with only wizards, sorcerers and psions, for example, or run Cthulhu with only wild talents and warlocks.</blockquote>

Verification