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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 8570316" data-attributes="member: 2629">No.  I did cover that when I discussed how the baseline was that we assumed there were no defenses in place.  Generally speaking, your comments seem to miss the point of the system.  For it to have significant value, it can't rely heavily upon the magic system.  Cantrips, slots, spell levels, etc... are not just terminology to avoid, but mechanics to avoid. Your suggestions move this system towards a paint job on a wizard, and away from being a distinct system that plays distinctly differently that existing classes while being relatable to fantasy settings. One important thing to consider when looking athow the puzzle pieces fit together would be the feel we wanted to evoke: Super Heroic figures.  The trappings of the super hero are ripe in the way this plays out.  Digging in deep to pull off something amazing at great cost?  Check.  Each hero having their own fairly tightly identified schtick (meaning fewer powers, more depth within each power)?  Check.  You can see how we looked at comic books, 80s cartoons, and movies to inspire us, from the Wave Motion Gun from Star Blazers inspring how a destructive power might be used to make a single amazing blow that blew out your entire PP reserve and left you helpless to the telepathic battles of Professor X and theShadow King showing back and forth chess matches - you can see how we worked it together into the system.To understand how it was built: The roots of the system began in AD&D.  When 2E came out, we saw how they evolved it and made a few tweaks, but the 2E build formed the new starting foundation.  However, when 3E, 3.5, and 4E were released, we used those rules to advise on the evolution of the psionic system, but the core of the 2E design is evident in the rules we used often through the end of 3.5, and sporadically since then.  We had levels for psionic powers for a bit, but then we dropped them back out in favor of having each power be scalable within itself.  We alternated between simplifying PP use to make it easier to understand to adding complexity to PP use to make it more powerful.  We merged powers, added new powers and generally played around with everything.  We built intricate designs for some powers that we realized we could simplify, and struggled to make other powers work as we wanted them without pages of text to spell out the corner cases.However, in the end, and throughout the evolution, people liked the system.  They played the PCs.  They enjoyed them.  They worked.  It wasn't perfect, but it was good.  Would it hold up to 5E design standards without modification?  No.  We did not fully work it into 4E because that was such a right turn, and I've been waiting for an official 5E psionics to try to settle upon a best course, but there are a lot of balance design decisions in 5E that would require a modern full implementation of my system to adjust, especially in terms of breadth of abilities available.  They narrowed that space for spellcasters in 5E. and keeping this system distinct means we can't end up with similar breath of abilities, but at the same time we can't narrow them too much without depriving them of versatility.</blockquote>

Verification