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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8566223" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Is this what we're down to now?  Google searches to "prove" how many people want Psionics to exist or be unique?  LOL.Look, I get the argument.  Why add something strange and new to the game unless it serves a good purpose.  But I remember a lot of the arguments about 4e where people claimed all classes felt the same, they all got "spells', some were similar to those given by other classes, and many mechanics were shared as well.And there was a vocal group of people who didn't like it, imagine that, and wanted WotC to make each new class feel unique and special!  That didn't make them special snowflakes, that made them want uniqueness.  If all spellcasters work like the Wizard, for example, with no unique mechanical systems, would people really be happy with that?But hey, each subclass of Wizard adds new systems.  Maybe they can make a Philosopher's stone with multiple uses.  Maybe they create a temporary hit point shield when casting spells.  Maybe they can make a second attack and have a limited use mechanic to add their Intelligence to their AC!  Upthread I even mentioned the time a completely new kind of spellcaster was added to 3e, and was both easy to use, and didn't even cause a fuss (other than some first glance knee jerk reactions) with the Warlock of that edition.And as far as alternate magic systems go, what about the Rune Knight?  Obviously magical, doesn't use spells.  If WotC expanded on that idea and gave us a Runecaster class, would that really be so bad?Oh and wanting better versions of things that already exist?  Who hasn't wanted a Beastmaster that really works since the PHB came out?  Would devoting time to that be a waste of time and resources?TLDR: yes, reinventing the wheel for the sake of doing so is bad.  Reinventing the wheel to keep the game feeling fresh and renewing it's sense of wonder?  Completely the opposite.</blockquote>

Verification