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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bogmad" data-source="post: 7673819" data-attributes="member: 6695559">It keeps getting said over and over again "I think think people play psionics for this reason and the rest is moot" as if that's a reason to go the easy route and do the minimum work for this perceived anecdotal "majority." What I want may or may not be part of the minority, but I think that if I get what I want where "psionics is different" (whether magic or not), then it also meets the criteria of the "most people" who only play it for the 2 reasons you list above.  You and I presumably have more specific views on psionics than "most people." I'd go on a limb to say most posters in this thread are in the minority of people who have as strong of an opinion on the subject.Before we start invoking the 80/20 rule to support our argument I'd like to see more than anecdotal evidence, such as a real playtest and survey. If everyone hates psionics that interact differently than base spellcasting mechanics I'll concede some, but I'd like to see a system than can leave the "is psionics magic" debate up to the fluff (unlike 3e, which required a choice between base or alternate rules) and just have psionics be different like it was in 2e (which most of the hardline psionics fans tend to prefer).  If you're going to playtest it you might as well figure out what kind of psionics people prefer.  I'll concede that what I want requires more design work and playtesting to get right, so we might as well start with trying that out and deciding if people like it or not.  [Though I could see it coming in an UA article next month with a subclass such as we got with the artificer and determining whether that is "good enough," I'm hoping the artificer response was enough for them to try something different.]</blockquote>

Verification