Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8096653" data-attributes="member: 18">You might want to re-check the spell-point rules for 5E.They're not what you seem to think they are. It's just a hat for the spell-slot system to use - you take spell points, you convert them into a slot, then you use the slot to cast a spell normally. It gives you a bit more flexibility, but not a huge amount. Furthermore, with Sorcerers, it makes a mess, because Sorcerers already have a pool of point they can use to cast metamagic and spells, and you've inexplicably got these two incompatible pools to mess around with, which is far more hassle than even the 2E Psionicist, let alone others.And you still haven't solved any of the major problems, like the VSM components, all the psionic stuff that isn't a spell (or isn't a spell Sorcerers can have), that the balance is even worse than usual because WotC assume you're going to take fairly sensible spells rather than restrict yourself to a theme (let alone blow Sorcerer points just to support that theme), nor can you boost a lot of the stuff, nor is there any psychic combat or like - I could go on.And there's the other problem, most of the people suggesting this idea are being massively hypocritical, because by the same token we could eliminate a lot of classes, most them, and crudely and inaccurately emulate them, but most people who push this idea are extremely angry if it's suggested that we, say, delete wizards and subsume them into Sorcerers.Plus, there's the Artificer problem. Conceptually, the Artificer is less distinct from the Wizard than Psion/Psionicist is, considerably less. Almost everything an Artificer does could be subsumed into a Wizard subclass and a few spells (yes, they're a weird half-caster sort of thing in 5E, but that was an eccentric choice, particularly in the context of the Bard becoming a full caster, and I think partly an attempt to justify their own existence). Yet they exist.</blockquote>

Verification