Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7673660" data-attributes="member: 996">It also doesn't mean that it needs an entirely different mechanic.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with going the 1e way, and having a psionic discipline, &quot;Mind Puppet&quot; with the notation &quot;except as noted above and described below, the discipline is identical to the Dominate Person spell...&quot;&nbsp; Or simply giving the psionic Dominate Person, and a class feature that changes the components of spells he casts.All three are valid design choices:- Re-cycling spells saves space, complexity, and design effort, and also (though it's not an important consideration in 5e) limits the impact 'power creep' or 'bloat' can have on game balance.- Listing a 'new' discipline that references the mechanics of an existing spell gives the discipline a sense of being distinct and a convenient way to give it components or other details different from the spell, while sacrificing only a little more space, simplicity, balance &amp;c.- Creating a completely new supernatural-power sub-system, including a list of disciplines &amp; sciences nearly as extensive as existing spells creates a strong, arbitrary, mechanical impression of psionics being more distinct from existing types of magic (divine, arcane, ki, etc), than those existing types are from eachother, at the price of substantial design effort (some of which in the current WotC model, might have to be farmed out), much higher page count, increased complexity, and, incidentally (because, again, not an important consideration in 5e) carries a higher risk of being 'broken' or otherwise impacting game balance &amp; playability via bloat.On top of those three choices, there's also the the possibilty of using 3.5 take of giving an explicit option for Psionics to be 'magic,' interacting with checks on magical power like dispels, magic resistance, anti-magic zones and the like (and also any perks of magic, like working vs spells, curses, diseases, conditions, etc that &quot;can only be removed by magic&quot;), or to be 'different,' and unrestrained by checks on magical power (but unable to take advantage of 'only magic' perks).&nbsp; Presenting such a choice, and the optional mechanics to back it up, would be very much in keeping with 5e's doctrine of DM empowerment and attempts at modularity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7673660, member: 996"] It also doesn't mean that it needs an entirely different mechanic. There's nothing wrong with going the 1e way, and having a psionic discipline, "Mind Puppet" with the notation "except as noted above and described below, the discipline is identical to the Dominate Person spell..." Or simply giving the psionic Dominate Person, and a class feature that changes the components of spells he casts. All three are valid design choices: - Re-cycling spells saves space, complexity, and design effort, and also (though it's not an important consideration in 5e) limits the impact 'power creep' or 'bloat' can have on game balance. - Listing a 'new' discipline that references the mechanics of an existing spell gives the discipline a sense of being distinct and a convenient way to give it components or other details different from the spell, while sacrificing only a little more space, simplicity, balance &c. - Creating a completely new supernatural-power sub-system, including a list of disciplines & sciences nearly as extensive as existing spells creates a strong, arbitrary, mechanical impression of psionics being more distinct from existing types of magic (divine, arcane, ki, etc), than those existing types are from eachother, at the price of substantial design effort (some of which in the current WotC model, might have to be farmed out), much higher page count, increased complexity, and, incidentally (because, again, not an important consideration in 5e) carries a higher risk of being 'broken' or otherwise impacting game balance & playability via bloat. On top of those three choices, there's also the the possibilty of using 3.5 take of giving an explicit option for Psionics to be 'magic,' interacting with checks on magical power like dispels, magic resistance, anti-magic zones and the like (and also any perks of magic, like working vs spells, curses, diseases, conditions, etc that "can only be removed by magic"), or to be 'different,' and unrestrained by checks on magical power (but unable to take advantage of 'only magic' perks). Presenting such a choice, and the optional mechanics to back it up, would be very much in keeping with 5e's doctrine of DM empowerment and attempts at modularity. [/QUOTE]

Verification