Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="A'koss" data-source="post: 5505" data-attributes="member: 840">It still sounds as though &quot;If Thoughts Could Kill&quot; still doesn't address the major concerns with 3e psionics. For example:1. Why is there reliance on any other stat that Wisdom? Psionics are entirely in the realm of the mind, physical stats shouldn't even be a part of the equation. I also find it just adds an unneccessary level of complication and breaks the 3e standard of a single stat &quot;prime requisite&quot; for your powers. Wizards - Int, Sorcerers - Cha, Clerics - Wis. ITCK doesn't get at the heart of the matter here.2. Psionic Combat: Having to cross-reference psionic powers vs defenses on a chart. There are many ways you could have addressed psionic combat without the need for a chart. I remember offering at least a couple of different alternatives during the playtest... 3. Many 3e psionic powers already have little or nothing to do with psionics, now ITCK wants to add more spell-like abilities to the mix? Why call it psionics at all, call it witchcraft or something else...In a broader sense I find that psions are just too homogenous in nature. They are like the jack-of-all trades of psionics - telepathic, telekinetic, precognitive, etc... I would have liked to have seen more focus and direction here. The reason why adding psionics to campaign right now results in a kind of &quot;Mulligan's Stew&quot; feel is that there really isn't a roll for them that existing classes can't already handle. You need a cleric for healing, you need a wizard/sorcerer for utility and heavy offense/defense, what is the 3e psion offering?A'koss!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="A'koss, post: 5505, member: 840"] It still sounds as though "If Thoughts Could Kill" still doesn't address the major concerns with 3e psionics. For example: 1. Why is there reliance on any other stat that Wisdom? Psionics are entirely in the realm of the mind, physical stats shouldn't even be a part of the equation. I also find it just adds an unneccessary level of complication and breaks the 3e standard of a single stat "prime requisite" for your powers. Wizards - Int, Sorcerers - Cha, Clerics - Wis. ITCK doesn't get at the heart of the matter here. 2. Psionic Combat: Having to cross-reference psionic powers vs defenses on a chart. There are many ways you could have addressed psionic combat without the need for a chart. I remember offering at least a couple of different alternatives during the playtest... 3. Many 3e psionic powers already have little or nothing to do with psionics, now ITCK wants to add more spell-like abilities to the mix? Why call it psionics at all, call it witchcraft or something else... In a broader sense I find that psions are just too homogenous in nature. They are like the jack-of-all trades of psionics - telepathic, telekinetic, precognitive, etc... I would have liked to have seen more focus and direction here. The reason why adding psionics to campaign right now results in a kind of "Mulligan's Stew" feel is that there really isn't a roll for them that existing classes can't already handle. You need a cleric for healing, you need a wizard/sorcerer for utility and heavy offense/defense, what is the 3e psion offering? A'koss! [/QUOTE]

Verification