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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3055790" data-attributes="member: 3192">My thoughts are that this is potentially unbalancing in a similar way to how all spell point systems are unbalancing.  The XPH was balanced upon combats per day; something I don't believe a DM should dictate.  By letting the players choose the number of combats each day, psi-users become more powerful than their counterparts by choosing to rest more often.In comparison, a Warlock, able to cast a damaging spell without limit, is going to be better off attacking smaller targets more often.  Granted few players want to play easy contests over and over again, but it still grants that benefit.  This doesn't seem so bad compared to Fighters who can just do the same thing, right?  The real drawback comes in interest.  Warlocks have been called dull.Which would you prefer?  A wizard capable of casting an infinite variety of magic, but only a few times per day?  Or one that can only cast a small handful of spells an infinite number of times?  I think the wizard is more interesting and more enjoyable to play by far.  This could be my own thinking, however.  I believe magic should be more than just another sword.The article seems to want to combine the two archetypes.  I have no problem with breaking new ground.  If something works, go for it.  I would just be wary of what spells a DM would consider allowable to be cast infinitely.  As noticed above, Cure spells would be easily abusable.  But in truth I think the current system would allow it.  They already allow Cure wands and those completely changed the style of play.</blockquote>

Verification