glass
(he, him)
Since Maxperson is arguing in favour of adding something new, the fact that the term for the non-existant thing is also non-existant is hardly news."Display" is not a term in 5e. Component is a term in 5e.
_
glass.
Since Maxperson is arguing in favour of adding something new, the fact that the term for the non-existant thing is also non-existant is hardly news."Display" is not a term in 5e. Component is a term in 5e.
You do understand that I'm arguing for 3e style displays to be added to 5e psionics if/when they are created, right?"Display" is not a term in 5e. Component is a term in 5e.
This is the whole problem: you want psionics, but only so long as it is the same psionics that you had in 3e.You do understand that I'm arguing for 3e style displays to be added to 5e psionics in place of components, right?
Identify uses a pearl of at least 100g.
PF is just using one component for another, though. The point is to be rid of components.
None of the specifically psionic-like spells use material components at all.And they did for all the cheap ones (and V&S ones). I'm guessing the keeping of the others were for game balance.
It seems really odd to me that the folks specializing in magic need a 100gp pearl to identify things, but the psionic types wouldn't need anything. If psionics were going to be "not magic", would you be against the psionic folks being able to use identify at all?
Are there any "psionic-like" spells in 5e that have expensive components?
Honestly, WotC could have earned a lot of goodwill by simply copying 3.5 psionics and updating the classes and powers to be 5e compliant. 3.5 psionics was really good!This is the whole problem: you want psionics, but only so long as it is the same psionics that you had in 3e.
Well that's not true, either. But thanks for playing the Strawman game.This is the whole problem: you want psionics, but only so long as it is the same psionics that you had in 3e.
I wouldn't care if psionics didn't have identity, even though object reading is a very psi ability. I'm also at work, so I can't check on the last question.And they did for all the cheap ones (and V&S ones). I'm guessing the keeping of the others were for game balance.
It seems really odd to me that the folks specializing in magic need a 100gp pearl to identify things, but the psionic types wouldn't need anything. If psionics were going to be "not magic", would you be against the psionic folks being able to use identify at all?
Are there any "psionic-like" spells in 5e that have expensive components?
I sometimes think that WotC tries too hard while missing obvious solutions.Honestly, WotC could have earned a lot of goodwill by simply copying 3.5 psionics and updating the classes and powers to be 5e compliant. 3.5 psionics was really good!