Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8425186" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Psionics, as fans have made pretty clear, needs to be a non-spellcasting class, that still has resources and mechanics to its supernatural behavior. I actually quite liked the Mystic they playtested, for example, and was very sad they abandoned it rather than trying to iterate more.Then again, I was also sad that they utterly abandoned the playtest Sorcerer (which was an awesome, transforming mixed spellcaster,&nbsp; with a struggling-with-the-power-in-your-soul theme) and Warlock (which, while admittedly less well-developed, had the super interesting mechanic of having to actually sacrifice something for each &quot;boon&quot;--Invocation, as we'd call it now--granted). But the arbitrary popularity threshold said those things couldn't be allowed to stand, so they were axed, along with all the cool ACTUAL differentiation they brought with them.If you want to complain about the Sorcerer being boring and too similar to other classes, you have only the fanbase to blame. Wizards tried to do something new. Too many people shouted it down, so they dropped it like a hot rock.Yeah...gonna stop you right there. This is, quite literally, just &quot;because the others are more traditional.&quot; Tradition as an argument isn't particularly persuasive. &quot;We do this because it's what we've always done&quot; would mean there should never have been a Cleric or Thief class, because the only truly traditional classes are Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Further, what &quot;seems natural&quot; to you may be WILDLY different from what &quot;seems natural&quot; to others. Why should your--and only your--perception of what &quot;seems natural&quot; be promoted to &quot;what goes for everyone?&quot;And yes, I know this is a thread about personal preferences. I'm not going to argue if someone's honest opinion is &quot;because I just don't want it, and I was asked what things I wouldn't want.&quot; De gustibus non disputandum est. But I don't really cotton to the notion that (for example) &quot;person who makes difficult, magically-binding bargains with eldritch beings&quot; is anywhere near as generic as you're painting it, let alone some of the particularly niche things like Druids, Bards, or Paladins. If we're gonna talk about opinions, we should present them as opinions.But...they get approved for inclusion, despite being more disruptive than these other things, because...?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8425186, member: 6790260"] Psionics, as fans have made pretty clear, needs to be a non-spellcasting class, that still has resources and mechanics to its supernatural behavior. I actually quite liked the Mystic they playtested, for example, and was very sad they abandoned it rather than trying to iterate more. Then again, I was also sad that they utterly abandoned the playtest Sorcerer (which was an awesome, transforming mixed spellcaster, with a struggling-with-the-power-in-your-soul theme) and Warlock (which, while admittedly less well-developed, had the super interesting mechanic of having to actually sacrifice something for each "boon"--Invocation, as we'd call it now--granted). But the arbitrary popularity threshold said those things couldn't be allowed to stand, so they were axed, along with all the cool ACTUAL differentiation they brought with them. If you want to complain about the Sorcerer being boring and too similar to other classes, you have only the fanbase to blame. Wizards [I]tried[/I] to do something new. Too many people shouted it down, so they dropped it like a hot rock. Yeah...gonna stop you right there. This is, quite literally, just "because the others are more traditional." Tradition as an argument isn't particularly persuasive. "We do this because it's what we've always done" would mean there should never have been a Cleric or Thief class, because the only [I]truly[/I] traditional classes are Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Further, what "seems natural" to you may be WILDLY different from what "seems natural" to others. Why should your--and [I]only[/I] your--perception of what "seems natural" be promoted to "what goes for everyone?" And yes, I know this is a thread about personal preferences. I'm not going to argue if someone's honest opinion is "because I just don't want it, and I was asked what things I wouldn't want." [I]De gustibus non disputandum est[/I]. But I don't really cotton to the notion that (for example) "person who makes difficult, magically-binding bargains with eldritch beings" is anywhere near as generic as you're painting it, let alone some of the particularly niche things like Druids, Bards, or Paladins. If we're gonna talk about opinions, we should present them as opinions. But...they get approved for inclusion, despite being [I]more[/I] disruptive than these other things, because...? [/QUOTE]

Verification