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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8101608" data-attributes="member: 6801228">"This is a potential problem with this design concept""Well, you should just assume that that design will be balanced, instead of assuming it would be a problem."No Max, you do not just assume that the problem someone is proposing will be fixed. And you do not assume that a person responding that that is not a problem, is assuming that the problem will be fixed in a specific way.And this still does not explain Sabathus's response. Which was not to say that it would be balanced by displays, but that it was already balanced because sorcerers can do it. No matter how much you try and twist this into "well everyone knows", no, we don't. I do not know Sabathus's stance on displays, and you responding as though of course he agrees with you, despite you being the only person talking about displays is dragging the conversation away from where it was to where you think it should be. I know you advocate for displays. I do not assume to know who else advocates for displays. They have their own issues, but I was responding to the information and points given. In fact, even Paul was not advocating that Psionics would be overpowered, but that building them in that manner would be too strong. And the response to him was not "we know, and that is why we propose this solution." The response was "You are wrong. That is not overpowered" Which fully indicates that, yet again because I'm going to keep repeating it, Sabathus did not seem to be advocating for displays to balanced out something that is universally seen as too powerful. Their response was "this is not too powerful" They did not include an assumption of displays in their point. So I did not interject your beliefs into their argument.This is why discussing with you is so so difficult Max. My point: Displays do not work like components, so tying and gagging which are common countermeasures would not workYour response: Displays happen while they are casting, so you can counterspell them. And, we obviously could easily balance them being able to cast while immobilized. Okay, so you put forth something that had nothing to do with the points, again. And followed with a "and of course the problem is easy to fix" Which... is a smokescreen. You are just waving your hands and saying "that isn't a problem, we have solutions" then tell me the solution, because I was never talking about Counterspell. So half your response was pointless, and the other half is a vague "well, we already have solutions" while not informing anyone of those solutions. Are they things you said three months ago? I've started working again, had a dog go through surgery, my mother break her arm, and written over 60 thousand words of an online story since then. At that is just the highlight reel. I didn't memorize your proposed solution to displays. So, instead of assuming everyone already agrees with you and remembers everything you've ever said, put forth points dealing with what we are actually saying.Okay, here we get to some actual points, which also shows me that you aren't thinking about this in the same manner that I am. See, the PCs are rarely bound and gagged. This is true. NPCs on the other hand have that happen to them a lot. In fact, in a recent game we had to get an NPC transported to a monastery, while they were possessed by an evil spirit that randomly took control of them. They were a spellcaster, so we were able to mostly counter that, with only a single incident of a close call stopped by me driving a dagger with a paralysis poison into them when they got free. However your "minor advantage" means that this would be impossible if the NPC had been a psion. Your solutions of "they are slightly weaker" or "they have fewer spell slots" don't actually do anything for the core problem. You cannot restrain them. Let us say that they have a cantrip ability, and we make them deal 1d8 damage instead of 1d10... they can still constantly attack us with no means for us to stop them other than knocking them unconcious. Let us say they have an AOE, and instead of 8d6 they do 5d6... Well, they still just wait until we are all asleep and then blast us all with that, and possible one or two other attacks, and starts the combat yet again, until we can knock them out. This is the biggest problem I see, is that when faced with an NPC like this, or heck if they players get captured and the NPCs are faced with the player, it is far far far easier to just slit their throat and be done with it than be constantly attacked every few hours as they come back to consciousness. Now, I do have one thought about a solution, but it is one that a lot of people who advocate for Psionics will likely not support. Make Psionics require line of sight. Then, it is less important to gag them, but more important to blindfold them. And that solves the issue quite nicely. Except, many people like Psionics to be based off of "attacking the mind telepathically" and there is likely to be pushback because they want Psionicists to be able to attack people through walls or while blinded, by targeting the minds around them directly. How well this solution is recieved is based off how important that aspect of the fantasy is to the individual.Counterpoint, (though I don't know if this is what Paul is saying) the only components that currently exist are VSM, there is nothing in the rules for components that says we can't add more than 3 components to the spell casting. D for displays and potentially something else could still be classified as components, and not break anything.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You mean the glow that they can turn off as a Bonus Action? That they clearly would not turn on in that situation? I'd also like to point you to the Rat in the second row, the one leaping? It is a bit distant, but it is notable because the "exposed brain" is just a pink streak on top of its head. Having seen rodents like Rats and such run, they are small and fast enough to be hard to see in the best of times.If a Cranium Rat was running past the party, they might see the pink streak and assume it was balding, or had some disease causing its hair to fall out. If they were looking up at the rat on the rafters, they might not even see the top of its head. If they were peeking out of a rat hole, they might only see the snout and eyes, not the top of the head. So, yes, if you notice that the rat has an exposed brain, that is going to grab your attention. But even that is going to take a perception check, maybe even a passive one since how likely are they to scrutinize a rat?</blockquote>

Verification