Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 7673392" data-attributes="member: 5435">Isn't it?2E introduced the single-class bard, which stayed through future editions.3E introduced the raging barbarian and sorcerer, which stayed through future editions.3.5E introduced the warlock, which was a big hit and stayed through future editions--and this was a major departure from previous class structures.Some other novel classes such as Artificer and Knight had less traction in their first iteration, but the archetypes they portrayed were compelling enough to merit publication in future editions with different mechanics (e.g. Knight --&gt; Warlord --&gt; Battlemaster). And yes, introducing new mechanics can break things, but 2E psionics wasn't THAT broken.&nbsp; You could achieve a couple of powerful tricks at low-mid levels but using them would consume nearly all your resources and leave you without any tricks or useful class abilities to fall back on. Even 1E psionics wasn't that broken, although the extra power at low levels was mainly balanced by extra vulnerability at high levels.Psionics has already seen 3 major iterations with unique mechanics, all of them significantly different from magic in the corresponding edition, and personally I don't think that any of them were detrimental to campaigns.&nbsp; And if they try something new, and it seems over/underpowered in play... then I'm a big boy and I know how to keep it from breaking my game.But really, it's not that hard to establish offensive/defensive benchmarks from the other classes and design a new class that gives a similar power curve for the combat pillar, while also delivering a different play experience through limitations, resource management, and signature abilities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuindordm, post: 7673392, member: 5435"] Isn't it? 2E introduced the single-class bard, which stayed through future editions. 3E introduced the raging barbarian and sorcerer, which stayed through future editions. 3.5E introduced the warlock, which was a big hit and stayed through future editions--and this was a major departure from previous class structures. Some other novel classes such as Artificer and Knight had less traction in their first iteration, but the archetypes they portrayed were compelling enough to merit publication in future editions with different mechanics (e.g. Knight --> Warlord --> Battlemaster). And yes, introducing new mechanics can break things, but 2E psionics wasn't THAT broken. You could achieve a couple of powerful tricks at low-mid levels but using them would consume nearly all your resources and leave you without any tricks or useful class abilities to fall back on. Even 1E psionics wasn't that broken, although the extra power at low levels was mainly balanced by extra vulnerability at high levels. Psionics has already seen 3 major iterations with unique mechanics, all of them significantly different from magic in the corresponding edition, and personally I don't think that any of them were detrimental to campaigns. And if they try something new, and it seems over/underpowered in play... then I'm a big boy and I know how to keep it from breaking my game. But really, it's not that hard to establish offensive/defensive benchmarks from the other classes and design a new class that gives a similar power curve for the combat pillar, while also delivering a different play experience through limitations, resource management, and signature abilities. [/QUOTE]

Verification