|
Countblanc posted:Not to be a jerk but I've been playing DnD in some form for almost 20 years at this point and I have no clue what the "OP brown splatbook from 2e" refers to, I highly doubt it's what the majority of players consider when deciding how they'll feel about Psionics in 5e The brown softcover Psionics book from AD&D 2E was my white whale when I was a small child (having vaguely discerned that it existed from references to psionic powers in the Monster Manual), and it was already out of print and kind of an anachronistic thing to be really excited about even then.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
I got a copy somewhere, I found a whole bunch of old dnd books when I moved in to my current place. Didn't read most of them though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:I got a copy somewhere, I found a whole bunch of old dnd books when I moved in to my current place. Didn't read most of them though. It's a weird book. Most of the powers aren't really oriented towards combat and some of them aren't even particularly oriented towards dungeon crawling, and it's harder to naively make a good psionic character than it is to make a good spellcaster. I'll take other posters at their word that there's also some incredibly busted options sprinkled among them; I never really got much of a chance to use it in actual play. It makes somewhat more sense in the context of Dark Sun (or OD&D) where psionic powers were random little flavorful perks that any character might have, rather than just a focused set of class options, but it doesn't actually explain that context in itself. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
Everything about the 2e rules seemed like it was just getting in the way of what they wanted to do with the new campaign settings. Granted, there were plenty of overcomplicated indie games in the 90s. But with the many companies inspired by White Wolf's success, there was a move toward rules that, if not balanced in practice, were at least simpler and didn't require e.g. lots of table lookups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
Most of the early brown splats were terrible. A bunch of meandering pointless musing about the nature of a class, followed by the class kits, which always included a rich one, a poor one, a female one, a jungle one, and a holy one, plus maybe a a few extras if the author had some idea. As the books kept going and hit the classes that had lots of species restrictions, they got a little better, with like Complete Bard for example including a lot of new options for Gnome illusion based bards and Halfling whistlers and stuff. The real good poo poo was when they weren't tied to existing classes and species from the PHB, like Psionics, which was this hilarious 70s style new wave of the mind poo poo (like half the art was just blue gradients coming out of the outline of a human head, just buying up the unused pieces commissioned for Dianetics sorta deal) that was half busted because it was physics-based instead of D&D mechanics, and half completely worthless. Personally I always had a soft spot for Complete Humanoids. It added like 23 new playable species, but did everything it could to try and convince you not to play them. Onerous level caps, constant reminders that everyone will hate you, and in some cases (Goblin and Kobold) no stat bonuses, just multiple stat penalties. Despite all that it was the craziest poo poo D&D had published player facing at the time, and it was fun to read about Saurials, Fremlins, Swanmays, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's a weird book. Most of the powers aren't really oriented towards combat and some of them aren't even particularly oriented towards dungeon crawling, and it's much harder to naively make a good psionic character than it is to make a good spellcaster. I'll take other posters at their word that there's also some incredibly busted options sprinkled among them; I never really got much of a chance to use it in actual play. Essentially... All the combat options and TN's suffer from a lack of level scaling, so stuff that's good or even great against goblins at level 1 are completely useless a few levels later. One or two powers remain useful. The stealth options largely suffer from being hard to apply to allies. The telepathic options suffer a lot from needing you to pass the TN's, often needing you to do so multiple times to first establish "Contact" and then still giving the enemy saves against the effects. Some of them are pretty good if you DO get through, but the pure slowness is bad. The "divination" options suffer from having a lot of objectively useless filler(Hear Light? Really?). The one realm where psionics have a lot of novel and perpetually useful abilities are in Psychoportation, since a combination of unparalleled mobility and being able to hurl enemies around or lock them out of fights can actually be pretty handy. On top of that, rogues were worse at everything non-psionics than every other class. They sucked at both fighting and gear options, and got no rogue skills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Used to be if you were an old whitebeard this hobby was where you could get some drat respect. And I was just responding to someone else that sounded even older, saying that people hate modern D&D psionics because it's not 70s enough and poo poo. My first psionic character was made using the rules in Eldritch Wizardry...
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Honestly if I were to ever include Psionics in a D&D game that wasn't using 4e as the base system, I'd just reskin the existing Arcane/Divine/Primal classes and spells to now be Psionics, but then I'm a firm believer that including both Psionics and more traditional Magic in the same setting just ends up diluting both so it's better to just pick one and only one of the two to have around* *except maybe if it's a Superhero game or a goofy Gamma World or Adventure Time genre mashup kind of game/setting
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:As someone who hasn't read that subsetting, mind sharing the core details of it? Chainmail’s Sundered Empire was a sub setting in the classic “we made this independently, but uhh it’s to the west of Greyhawk” manner, where the god of war had been killed and his panoply of weapons scattered across the land; the different factions were fighting in a classic “whoever unites them all becomes the new god” reasoning for everyone to fight each other. The factions themselves were fun, though - while there were standard Necromancy Faction and Human Faction (they maybe had guns?), we also had Abyssal Gnoll Faction that introduced some weird demons which were later backported to 3e, and a United Goblinoid Army led by a hobgoblin general (which got the most attention in D&D proper iirc). The more fun ones came from embracing 3e, though: the Elf Empire embraced the “sorcery comes from dragons” aspect of the new books, and was heavily themed with dragon mounts and half-dragon commanders. The Dwarves, though. They’d recently deposed the tyrannical dwarf queen, invented and embraced Communism, united the clans, and were planning an invasion of the Elemental Plane of Fire to free the Azers. That rules, more like that. Also drow didn’t exist in setting, until the expansion that introduced them as a super secret new faction. Ominous Jazz posted:Does 5e even have psionics or what? *with the exception of one monster-summoning power that was wildly OP for when I got it but would be quickly outclassed if we kept playing, which is about business as usual for summoning
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:The Dwarves, though. They’d recently deposed the tyrannical dwarf queen, invented and embraced Communism, united the clans, and were planning an invasion of the Elemental Plane of Fire to free the Azers. That rules, more like that. Yeah I am extremely on board with this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:I don’t think anyone answered this, so - going off memory, for a broad pitch on a sub setting I enjoyed: Actually the Drow were in the setting from the beginning(they're in the core book lore chapter I linked to earlier), indeed apparently House Kilsek are the aspect of the Sundered Empire that ties most directly to Greyhawk proper* as they're originally from the old Drow Trilogy set of adventures, they're probably the most generic of the factions since they're pretty much just standard "Drow and their slaves and allies" though that does mean they are still kind of weird since you know the Underdark in general is weird *aside from the titular war god Stratis being the son of Stern Alia and thus being the brother of more well known D&D gods of war Heironeous and Hextor, and thus completing an alignment set with them(Stratis being Lawful Neutral while his brothers are Lawful Good and Lawful Evil respectively), incidentally since the human nation of Thalos not only worships Stern Alia as their primary goddess and also had their origins in slaves escaping from the Elven empire of Ravilla and it was an Elf hero who had the bright idea to kill Stratis(and was the one who dealt the mortal blow), well you can imagine Thalos is pretty ticked off at the elves even more than normal drrockso20 posted:I ripped the lore chapter out ages ago, let me go dig it up Quoting this since it got lost in the shuffle earlier
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
 owns (communally)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:
I could do without the mandatory violence against orcs, but this is really good otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
I want orcs to be my friends!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
same
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
These may be some of the raddest dwarves ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Orcs are cops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:I don’t think anyone answered this, so - going off memory, for a broad pitch on a sub setting I enjoyed: A few humans had guns, but the coolest thing they had was robots (or golems maybe, but probably robots). The Kilsek faction was such a bummer because that box was one of the very last things they put out. It was drow, troglodytes, and kuo-toa, I think? Maybe with a displacer beast? But the designers behind the game had been sharing that there was an Ettercap and a Drider model both ready to go that just never saw the light of day. theironjef fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Thalos had two major gimmicks going for it as a faction, their devotion as a nation to Stern Alia meant they not only had a lot more Clerics and Paladins than the norm they also had quite a few Aasimar and other beings of celestial origin hanging around, and they also had a sizable population of Gnomes so they had ready access to Golems and other magi-tech constructs
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Do we have a solo journalling RPG thread anywhere? If not, what are the coolest sci-fi/fantasy solo journalling games out there? They're a school of design I've got zero exposure to and I'd like to fix that gap in my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Do we have a solo journalling RPG thread anywhere? Wretched posted:The Wretched is a solo journaling RPG played with a deck of cards, a tumbling block tower, and a microphone. So if you want to draw cards and find out what horrible things you have to deal with and then write them down maybe that's something to look into?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Do we have a solo journalling RPG thread anywhere? The Solo thread has a few journalling games described in it. Check the OP. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3959142 One of the journalling games I've heard of consistently is Thousand Year Old Vampire. https://thousandyearoldvampire.com/ I lurk in the solo roleplaying/wargaming subreddits so I've heard of another journalling game where you are either an herbalist or alchemist and have to detail fantastic plants that you find in the wild. Can't remember the name though. Let me do some digging. Edit: I think I was thinking of Apothecaria. https://blackwellwriter.itch.io/apothecaria For the record I've never played Apothecaria or Thousand Year Old Vampire. If you are looking for something to roll dice with, The Broken Cask a solo rpg about fantasy tavern management caught my eye. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/365717/The-Broken-Cask As so many things, I own it but have yet to play it. Helical Nightmares fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Do we have a solo journalling RPG thread anywhere? A solo journal game I've had a good time with is the goon made See Issue X which is about dealing with a single superhero across the multiple arcs of existing long term in a comic book, and is like all comic books simultaneously fantasy and sci-fi unless you actively decide to work around them. It really captures the feel of how sometimes Spider-Man is in space, sometimes he's hanging out with Doctor Strange, sometimes he's fighting the mob.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Speaking as an OGL psionics fan, let me try to explain how it's different from magic in practice: Divine or bardic magic largely cares about people (how they're doing, how good of a mood they're in, how protected they are, how strong they are, how on fire they are); Arcane magic largely cares about things and their impressions (how you're breaking through a dungeon door, how you're creating an illusionary dungeon door to convince wandering monsters you didn't break down the door, how you're creating a magical tunnel through the dungeon wall); Psionics cares about what is happening, or exists, in front of you, or in someone else's mind, right now. There is very little long-term psionic power in the way that you see spells like bestow curse, geas, glyph of warding, or programmed image; usually, if something last indefinitely in psionics (rather than happening for just a moment, instantaneously; or having a set or scaling duration), it's drastic, like crystallize, which is akin to petrification. It also tries to maintain a very broad vision about what a power can be, rather than letting there be highly specific spells for anything. In core 3.5, where you might have dominate person (a 5th-grade spell for sorcerers and wizards, a 4th-grade spell for bards) and a higher-level dominate monster (a 9th-grade spell for sorcerers and wizards that can target more than just humanoids), in the Expanded Psionics Handbook you find psionic dominate, a 4th-grade power for telepaths only, and it's flexible enough to be augmented to work on certain classes of non-humanoid creature in addition to working normally on humanoid targets, for a deeper dip into your power point reserves. Powers are very rarely so specific as, for instance, Leomund's tiny hut (a spell for sorcerers, wizards, and bards, which projects a force sphere around you, the lower half intersecting with the ground beneath you, for firm shelter from the elements). Further, there is a lot of potential for the sharing of powers between psionicists: psionic characters in physical contact with each other can try to manifest each others' powers on the spot, and the Expanded Knowledge feat allows any mid-level psychic to pick up a psionic power from another list entirely and treat it as their own.You can only imagine cure wounds as an arcane spell because the bard exists, right? Meanwhile, anyone capable of using 3rd-grade powers (wilders, psychic warriors, ardents, and psions of any stripe) can take the Expanded Knowledge (read thoughts) feat to get the 2nd-grade power to parse the surface thoughts of those nearby, normally reserved for the kind of psion specializing in telepathy. (It comes with the high opportunity cost of being a feat, meaning the decision to do it is generally character-defining.) And beyond that, some things, psionics has to itself. While fireball is close to what a kineticist psion does, and detect thoughts is close to what a telepath psion does, the evoker doesn't break up on death and enter a nearby flame to live to see another day with fiery discorporation, and the diviner doesn't give people mulligans on their character options with psychic reformation. There is no arcane skate spell, just the psionic power, that suspends a creature or object off the ground just so, in a way that it slides easier, and can go faster downhill. (And we could play 5e and homebrew that, but at that point we're already just playing 3.5 again. Seeing it actually done up for 5e by Wizards would be huge.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 12:34
|
|
|
Honestly, that all just reads as "it has a slightly different spell list"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
Alderman posted:Honestly, that all just reads as "it has a slightly different spell list" More specifically it's a different resource system, basically it's mana points, and a well thought out "spell" list that utilizes well. 3.5 Psionic powers are basically spells that can be enhanced in various ways by spending additional points. Which means you have a lot less "this level 4 spell it just a more powerful version of that level 1 spell". It makes Psionics very versatile. Most of the powers have directly comparable spells, but they have more freedom in their manifestation, for instance instead of spells to summon monsters or animals of specific levels, theres a power that lets you manifest an ectoplasmic creature that can take whatever form you want and you can spend your points to increase it's power or give it specific traits. You can chose what it looks like, but it's abilities are defined by the points you spend. For a system for 3.5 it's really well put together, and was really appropriate to the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
Alderman posted:Honestly, that all just reads as "it has a slightly different spell list" While you're ignoring a large part of my post to say this, I agree that it is part of it, and I'm saying that with 5e they didn't even half try to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 13:47
|
|
|
Actually I kind of like the Pathfinder 2e Psychic, because even if they just go with the different spell list, they did some work in how they cast them very differently. Instead of normal spell components it's about emotions and concentration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
Psychic powers remain distinct in a lot of works and genres even when they have magic and/or sufficiently advanced tech as well, because of those thematic elements. Like how much it comes up in X-Men, with themes of communication, will and self control, and connection to or isolation from others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Honestly I think the bigger, thematic problem with psionics in D&D is that they made the magic system so broad and all-encompassing to begin with that it becomes very hard to implement an alternative system of magic or mystical powers that doesn't feel extraneous. Even in the earliest editions they already had spells that did the same thing mechanically that psionic powers typically do (ESP, Clairvoyance, Charm Person, Telekinesis) that it becomes kind of hard to build a specialist class around that concept. It's the same problem the game has with implementing specialist caster classes like pyromancers or illusionists - The wizard can already do all the same stuff plus a bunch of other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
Yeah, you would need to remove "generalist" wizards and sorcerers entirely. Have Evokers, Pyromancers, Necromancers, Illusionists, Diviners, etc. and cut the entire segment of overlap with Psionicists out and leave it entirely to the Psionicists. Maybe in a game where stealth was more important, characters more fundamentally fragile, a Psionicist being able to do Wizard Things, but without Wizard Gestures, Wizard Chants and Wizard Components would matter a lot more as a big mark of difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Yeah, I think removing the generalist cleric and wizard would do a lot for D&D, but the howling of the grognards would probably kill any chance of it happening stone dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:In addition to what has already been mentioned, there was a “Mystic” class that tried to bring Psionics into 5e as the “this runs on a totally different system than magic” it had been in 2e/3e. I only used it at low levels, where it seemed busted in a “I have far more options and actions per round than any other PC” way, which while not inherently more powerful* did scene-steal a lot. I was disappointed but not surprised when it got dropped for the more-in-line with 5e in general subclasses. The 5E UA Mystic was neat and pretty close conceptually to what I'd want a 5E psionicist to be like. It had a decent list of cantrip-like "sciences" and then the "disciplines" were neat suites of powers activated by spending different amounts of power points (note I may have these terms backwards). So it had the classic division of powers and the neat alternate resource management from the (to me) classic Complete Psionicist that we wore out while playing Dark Sun. Its issue was that it was incredibly overpowered, at least as far as I saw it played from levels 3-6 in a 5E Dark Sun campaign. And I suspect that the 5E devs decided it was too much work to bring it into balance, so they just dropped it in favor of the meh subclasses we got in Xanathar's and Tasha's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
Hey everyone. I'm happy to announce that thread regular Framboise has agreed to volunteer as an IK for the Magic thread. They're in the queue to get their buttons shortly. Thank you, Framboise!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, I think removing the generalist cleric and wizard would do a lot for D&D, but the howling of the grognards would probably kill any chance of it happening stone dead Class struggles are class struggles. They have to maintain the hierarchy. The rules exist to constrain one group and empower the other. In D&D, half the book is spells that let one set of classes ignore all the rules in the other half of the book. Bar Crow fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Karl Marx posted:Class struggles are class struggles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
There is no need to remove "generalist" wizards and the proof is that generalist wizards worked perfectly fine, to the point of being somewhat underpowered, as compared to monomaniacal "I'm putting all my chips not just on a school but on a single damage type" specialists. If you've got an at-will, a per-encounter, and a daily, it's not a big deal if they represent completely different schools of magic. Even if we're going to go off as generous-to-casters a framework as 3.5e, the look of things would change very dramatically if max-level martial characters also got thirty six different daily powers spread across nine levels of intensity each day (before accounting for extra power slots generated by a high primary ability score). Getting rid of generalists is really a form of special pleading to keep the baseline structural advantages D&D casters enjoy. No, no, it's fine, I'll only cast mind control spells... with my daily power slots, which half the characters in the game receive no form of ever. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Bucnasti posted:More specifically it's a different resource system, basically it's mana points, and a well thought out "spell" list that utilizes well. In short they are spellcasters with the ability to both upcast their spells and use metamagic, and can use points to cast spells? And have psychic theming on their magic? This is literally how a 5e Aberrant Mind does things right down to the Aberrant Mind's unique exchange rate from spells to metamagic making it pure power points. The only thing the Aberrant Mind is missing is 70 pages of spells that can only be used by it (some of which are genuinely good while many of which just tell you to look up the arcane version of the spell), a knock-off version of it (the Wilder), and the half-caster version of it (the Psychic Warrior). And some prestige classes. And when you talk about the augments there are very few psionic powers that have more than one augment. Combine this with the obvious conversion of spell levels to power points and, with very few exceptions, they are for practical purposes casting spells at higher levels ... the way all 5e casters can. Sorcerers, with their metamagic, can go beyond that. quote:Most of the powers have directly comparable spells, but they have more freedom in their manifestation, for instance instead of spells to summon monsters or animals of specific levels, theres a power that lets you manifest an ectoplasmic creature that can take whatever form you want and you can spend your points to increase it's power or give it specific traits. You can chose what it looks like, but it's abilities are defined by the points you spend. In other words the way the Tasha's summoning spells work - with the summoner picking the form, picking an option, and then being able to both upcast and add metamagic? quote:For a system for 3.5 it's really well put together, and was really appropriate to the time. When you don't break it, yes (but breaking was mostly 3.5). And when it's not a Soulknife, about which none of what you write is true (there is so far as I can tell no excuse for the 3.5 Soulknife). But essentially all you have is a slightly tweaked wizard-type. One which works very like the 5e sorcerer by default, and closely enough that a subclass can fill the gap for everything except signature spells. So yes, for a system for 3.5 it's pretty well put together and an improvement on the 3.5 arcane magic system. But if you're looking at why it's mechanically good then the 5e magic system is closer to the 3.5 psionic system than it is to any historic D&D spell system. So it's not the mechanics that are missing. And it's not the fluff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There is no need to remove "generalist" wizards and the proof is that generalist wizards worked perfectly fine, to the point of being somewhat underpowered, as compared to monomaniacal "I'm putting all my chips not just on a school but on a single damage type" specialists. If you've got an at-will, a per-encounter, and a daily, it's not a big deal if they represent completely different schools of magic. Even if we're going to go off as generous-to-casters a framework as 3.5e, the look of things would change very dramatically if max-level martial characters also got thirty six different daily powers spread across nine levels of intensity each day (before accounting for extra power slots generated by a high primary ability score). I feel like I might have lost the thread of the argument you're making? What I'm trying to get at with the problem of generalist classes as it relates to D&D isn't one of power discrepancy (Though I think the sheer breadth of things wizards and other primary casters can do with their spells is a problem) it's of the problems that causes in the design space when trying to introduce new, specialized classes. It ultimately comes back to the fact that D&D doesn't really seem to make a clear distinction as to what a "Class" is really meant to be? Like the earliest classes like Wizard, Cleric or even Fighter are incredibly broad in their overall scope and can be used to represent a wide variety of character archetypes from a narrative perspective, whereas more recent classes tend to be more specific in the narrative archetypes they represent. The problem this poses to something like Psionics (And indeed many other concepts for caster classes) is that you can already build a wizard that has all the same powers as them from a narrative perspective, thus to make the Psionic a separate class (Or classes) requires something to mechanically distinguish it from a wizard who's taken all the psionic-like spells. And this is where you get into trickier territory because if you don't make psionic powers distinct from spells then players are going to feel like they're just playing a wizard with psychic-themed spells, but building an entirely new system for magic powers that is distinct from and works alongside the existing magic system is an immensely large undertaking. And this problem also affects the existence of specialized caster classes: Why make a separate class for pyromancers/necromancers/illusionists when you can already create the same character archetypes by playing a wizard and just selecting thematically appropriate spells?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There is no need to remove "generalist" wizards and the proof is that generalist wizards worked perfectly fine, to the point of being somewhat underpowered, as compared to monomaniacal "I'm putting all my chips not just on a school but on a single damage type" specialists. If you've got an at-will, a per-encounter, and a daily, it's not a big deal if they represent completely different schools of magic. Even if we're going to go off as generous-to-casters a framework as 3.5e, the look of things would change very dramatically if max-level martial characters also got thirty six different daily powers spread across nine levels of intensity each day (before accounting for extra power slots generated by a high primary ability score). Well, it obviously depends on how specialized you force specialists to be. If we go by the tack of 2e, it's one school they get an advantage to using, and one or two schools they're barred from using. I think it could stand to be even tighter-focused than that, but even so I feel like it hardly has to be a "you only get one button to push"-situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 20:16
|
|