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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7673706" data-attributes="member: 2067">Common refrain, and I think something easily agreed on. Though there's spellcasting that ignores components (and that's even called psionics - check out the gith races for that!), so this doesn't necessarily mean "no spellcasting." That's a pretty meaty distinction! The biggest thing to watch out for here is the old 2e problem of "I spend three rounds doing nothing because I can't roll for crap." Could be something like "I blow some power points to MAKE SURE this works this time."This seems kind of...academic and minor to me. Like, if we have a ranking of power (in that there is a cost) and a minimum required character level, then we sort of have "power levels" anyway. Why insist at their omission?Sure, that's pretty distinct from spells, too - usually it doesn't cost anything to keep a spell going. "Casting at a higher level," but why limit the quantity? Why not just let it happen on things it makes sense to happen on? This might get messy - proficiency bonus doesn't apply to your ability scores, meaning that someone who is well trained to avoid assaults on Intelligence actually doesn't show it here, which kills part of their fiction - that they are clever enough to resist Intelligence-based attacks better than most. Totally. And psi seems like it'd be an OK fit.From this perspective, psi would seem less reliable than spellcasting - a spell just works, doesn't cost anything to maintain, and while your foe might avoid it, they can't really stop you from producing it. Psi would be more difficult, producing a similar effect would be more taxing.</blockquote>

Verification