Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7865132" data-attributes="member: 2525">1. The odds of a problem increase with each new level. They increased with the artificer and will increase further with a psion class. And while they made it &quot;easier&quot; to balance, that doesn't make it &quot;easy&quot;. The problem gets worse as you have more classes to balance, as each added one needs to balance with not just the PHB but the other new classes they release AND any future new classes they release. It's an issue of progressive risk increasing with each one. 2. It's an argument. You're saying artificer diluted something so that makes other dilutions OK? I, and many others, do not like theme dilution. Saying &quot;something else already made it worse&quot; isn't a good argument for making it even more worse. 3. Campaigns were establish with divine magic as a base assumption. Psionics were not. And while it does not insist on psionics as cultural prominent it does force a DM to account for how it functions within their pre-establish campaign setting which didn't previously have one. 5. If some meaningful number of tables can have this issue, then it's a meaningful issue6. It seems to be implied from their decision to move off the class and turn to the sub-class.7. Yes, what I want matters no more than what you want however you asked for a reason which was not &quot;it's not necessary&quot; and &quot;I don't want it because it means they're not spending those limited resources on what I do want&quot; is a reason which is not related to &quot;it's not necessary&quot;. Furthermore, if what I want is more popular than what you want in this respect, it leaves the realm of the Narcissus Fallacy and moves firmly into the utilitarian realm hinted at in #6 above. If for example a Warlord, or Mass Combat rules, or high level domain rules, are more popular things they could be working on than this Psion class, then it's not at all the Narcissus Fallacy to say you'd rather their limited resources were spent on things more people want. Bottom line though, you did ask for reasons which were not &quot;it's not necessary&quot; and I gave you many.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7865132, member: 2525"] 1. The odds of a problem increase with each new level. They increased with the artificer and will increase further with a psion class. And while they made it "easier" to balance, that doesn't make it "easy". The problem gets worse as you have more classes to balance, as each added one needs to balance with not just the PHB but the other new classes they release AND any future new classes they release. It's an issue of progressive risk increasing with each one. 2. It's an argument. You're saying artificer diluted something so that makes other dilutions OK? I, and many others, do not like theme dilution. Saying "something else already made it worse" isn't a good argument for making it even more worse. 3. Campaigns were establish with divine magic as a base assumption. Psionics were not. And while it does not insist on psionics as cultural prominent it does force a DM to account for how it functions within their pre-establish campaign setting which didn't previously have one. 5. If some meaningful number of tables can have this issue, then it's a meaningful issue 6. It seems to be implied from their decision to move off the class and turn to the sub-class. 7. Yes, what I want matters no more than what you want however you asked for a reason which was not "it's not necessary" and "I don't want it because it means they're not spending those limited resources on what I do want" is a reason which is not related to "it's not necessary". Furthermore, if what I want is more popular than what you want in this respect, it leaves the realm of the Narcissus Fallacy and moves firmly into the utilitarian realm hinted at in #6 above. If for example a Warlord, or Mass Combat rules, or high level domain rules, are more popular things they could be working on than this Psion class, then it's not at all the Narcissus Fallacy to say you'd rather their limited resources were spent on things more people want. Bottom line though, you did ask for reasons which were not "it's not necessary" and I gave you many. [/QUOTE]

Verification