Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8098667" data-attributes="member: 16814">You do know that the 2e rules are considered by many to be a hot mess, right?That's because, for me, this isn't something I consider.  I can have every single one of your explanations occur within the same system of magic.  What you're describing is a difference in flavor text, not in operation, so from a game rule perspective the different flavors don't require different mechanics -- they can all be represented by the same mechanic with a different description.  The need for separate mechanics isn't to enable different descriptions.There's nothing wrong, inherently, with different mechanics.  For me, though, it brings up the specter of 2e psionics, which were, as I say above, a hot mess. There were easily abusable and in some places broken.  Separate mechanics for what is largely the same thing results in larger chances at unbalanced or abuseable systems.  Honestly, I think that this is part of the attraction for some, that brokenness. If it's a flavor thing, though, it can be easily accomplished within the same system with minor tweaks.  I'd rather psionics not just be another caster class -- they need something unique.  But, I don't say that because I think psionics needs a specific thing, but because we don't really need another caster class that doesn't have something to add to the game.</blockquote>