|
Psionics just use wizard spells. Seriously.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
ritorix posted:Psionics just use wizard spells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Psionics just use wizard spells. That's a little depressing 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Psionics just use wizard spells. So why even bother?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Monks using wizard spells too is the lamest thing. "I cast Flames of the Phoenix!" "What does that do?" "It's a Fireball" "Oh, ok."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Haha, you yourself wrote "cast", though. You can't escape it. No one can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Psionics just use wizard spells. Jesus loving christ how lazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Jesus loving christ how lazy. Is there any word that there was a massive time crunch or something? This seems entirely backwards to me. Plus while I wasn't big on 4e in general I really did like some of the improvements they added to the game. For one I really liked con, reflex and will saves just being a new type of AC, really thought that was an odd thing to jump back from. I figured they would have kept a few more things from 4e then almost nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Psionics just use wizard spells. Sorry, that ruins my loving immersion. Psionicists using TKE POWERS and supposedly we treat them like they're spells some wizard has to learn from a book and Vancian-cast? Dissociated mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Remember, their original idea was to make psions, warlocks, sorcerers, and wizards all exponents of an archetypical "mage" super-class; they'd all access the same effects, but warlocks in small bites per-encounter, wizards in big bites per-day, psions by spending per-day power points, and so on. That's clearly still the plan. And it's not a bad plan! Like, gently caress, what effect is there that psionics can produce and spellcasting can't, or vice versa? You'd just have a huge list of "Fireball, Psionic" and "Disintegrate, Psionic". Might as well cut to the chase. It doesn't even stop you from creating unique-to-method effects; here's a spell that only psions can cast, here's a spell that only wizards can cast. There's a single master spell list, and different classes can touch different slices of it. That's how it works!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Played a session of Hoard of the Dragon Queen today. So nice to be killing kobolds on the goddamn Sword Coast for the fiftieth time. Our DM told us beforehand that 5e is more about roleplay, less about combat. In practice the fights were quicker, but also much more numerous than 4e, so the combat/RP balance was just the same only none of it was interesting. Combat was just as slow and bogged down in analysis paralysis as my group's worst 4e sessions, except instead of deciding what to actually do, the problem was how exactly to end the sentence "I attack with my X." Almost all of our 4e combats feel challenging and tense, at least at some point, but in this session they never did. I suppose they would have gotten hairy if we had kept going, since there's no decent healing anymore, but our host player said he had to call it because he's getting up early tomorrow. I think he might have just felt sorry for me. The highlight was when we decided a fight actually looked risky, so we dropped everybody with Sleep instead. "I cast" was much more immersive and verisimilitudinal than "I attack." Is there an expanding .gif for  ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Some of the Psionic abilities from 3.5 were just spells with ,Psionic appended to the end, so I'm not very surprised considering how similar 5E is to 3.5. If all the Psionic abilities are just re-named spells then yeah, that's gonna kill a lot of my enthusiasm for this game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There's a single master spell list, and different classes can touch different slices of it. That's how it works! Ok that sounds a lot better. I thought it was just same abilities different names and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
You know, I can totally understand why people around here are so upset at 5e. I mean, you guys (that is, fans of 4e who like a tightly balanced game where fighters can do just as much cool stuff as wizards) have basically been totally ignored, while abusive poo poo heads like Pundowski and Zak instead get consultant credits. It's kind of the same problem with video games, where the loudest and most abusive voices end up being the ones responded to and listened to, while polite yet dedicated fans feel like they get ignored. I'm not sure what the solution is... other than going to cons and punching the poo poo heads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
ascendance posted:You know, I can totally understand why people around here are so upset at 5e. I mean, you guys (that is, fans of 4e who like a tightly balanced game where fighters can do just as much cool stuff as wizards) have basically been totally ignored, while abusive poo poo heads like Pundowski and Zak instead get consultant credits. This assumes the leads in the 5e project are just being forced to do what the fanbase wants; I've seen little evidence to suggest this isn't exactly the version of D&D they wanted to create.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:This assumes the leads in the 5e project are just being forced to do what the fanbase wants; I've seen little evidence to suggest this isn't exactly the version of D&D they wanted to create.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I don't think they are forced to do what the fanbase wants. They WANT to create what the fanbase wants, since the whole goal of 5e was to cut down on the splintering of the fanbase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Good job with that eh? 5E focus on optional content means even its foundation is splintered
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I didn't think about organized play since I don't play except with friends, but how does that work in a system reliant on GM adjudication? Like doesn't that mean your character could play/function differently week-to-week depending on who your GM is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
I think in practice, most places have the same people GM each week - at least that what it's like around here. So while different locations may have different rules interpretations, it shouldn't really change too much week to week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Good job with that eh? 5E focus on optional content means even its foundation is splintered And this is exactly the kind of game which has the best chance of snagging PF players - simpler, less broken (though broken in similar ways), similar feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:And this is exactly the kind of game which has the best chance of snagging PF players - simpler, less broken (though broken in similar ways), similar feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I didn't think about organized play since I don't play except with friends, but how does that work in a system reliant on GM adjudication? Like doesn't that mean your character could play/function differently week-to-week depending on who your GM is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Okay, I'm just going to say this because I might as well be open about this kind of thing. For a fair portion of this thread, their first encounter with you making a few posts defending Zak S [... and this is the point where we stop reading because it's not productive.] Like I said, if anyone actually wanted to discuss that, which they don't, there are a ton of appropriate places for that. Is it really that ridiculous to suggest that maybe it would not be in the best interests of what could in theory be a discussion thread to keep poking at a highly contentious thing on which many people have made it absolutely clear that no sequence of words in the English language could change their minds, not even with an ironclad guarantee of the factual accuracy of those words? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
moths posted:"Isn't D&D at all" is a pure tummy-feel emotional judgment driven largely by nerdrage backlash, in-group dynamics, and willful misconceptions about D&D (both as a whole and especially the edition in question). Of course nobody's going to admit that their collected rambling anti-4e blog's screeds boil down to "I'm asserting my team allegiance, please validate it in the comments below." Well, yeah. But "this doesn't have the feel I associate with D&D" is a more defensible claim, and while I personally thought 4e was a better game than 3e and friends, that doesn't mean it will scratch the particular itch people were playing D&D for. quote:This thread is filled with examples plainly showing Next to be a slapped-together, mediocre RPG cashing in on its family name. Nobody's saying that doesn't make it "D&D" enough, hell that probably makes it the most "D&D." That's actually a fascinating observation, and it might well explain why a lot of people are liking it. This reminds me a little of a Usenet post from a decade or two back. Guy was talking about how his wife hated the Grateful Dead, and always said they couldn't sing. One day, he came home, she was listening to the Dead, and he said "but I thought you said they can't sing?" She replied "Yeah, but they can't sing so *well*."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey, I get this part, definitely. One time I had people thinking I was friends with James Desborough because I had written a post ambiguously and people read the wrong thing into it. (To be clear, I have never even talked to the guy and I have a big problem with what he has written. I am anti-Desborough.) But with you, I don't think there has been any such mistake. You defended Zak S. Then once you read more, you didn't just apologize and drop it. You apologized but then went right on defending him, so what the gently caress, man. I tend to defend (or attack) specific traits or claims, with no real interest in overall evaluations of the people or things under discussion. If I think a specific claim is baseless or dishonest, I'll attack it, no matter what I might think of the person about whom the claim is made. If I think a claim is valid, likewise, I'll support it. So, for instance, I really enjoy 4th edition, but I will support claims that it "doesn't feel like D&D" to a lot of people, because people have argued that coherently enough that I think they are making a meaningful claim. A lot of people infer that I am attacking 4e or saying it's bad, but I'm not; I'm just agreeing with a factual claim about how some people experience it. That said, for the record, I really don't currently have any huge objections to Zak. He's sort of an rear end in a top hat, but a lot of my friends are sort of assholes, and I don't care about that. I don't really want to argue that point, but I also don't want to make people think I'm saying otherwise and then freaking out because they think I was lying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Haha, you yourself wrote "cast", though. You can't escape it. No one can. Remember in 4th when not every special or fantastic ability was referred to as a spell or spell-like? Every powers source had a unique name for its powers. So you had Arcane spells, but you also had Divine prayers, Primal evocations, Martial exploits, and Psionic disciplines. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Psionics just use wizard spells. Note that this was the same in 3e/Pathfinder, so don't pin it right on 5e. It's the same for pretty much any D&D edition that doesn't explicitly have psionics going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
It's kind of telling that the only time D&D has ever done psionics in an interesting and fun manner was the 4e monk, and that didn't even use power points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:It's kind of telling that the only time D&D has ever done psionics in an interesting and fun manner was the 4e monk, and that didn't even use power points. 1e psionics were interesting as laid out in the core rulebooks. They were just very unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Arivia posted:1e psionics were interesting as laid out in the core rulebooks. They were just very unbalanced. As someone who knows nothing of 1e, would it be rude to ask you to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Covok posted:As someone who knows nothing of 1e, would it be rude to ask you to elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
The game wasn't balanced around having or not having them really (excepting psionic monsters, which you would be hosed against if someone didn't have them.) It was cool since they were very specifically very rare, very hidden, and I think the text even recommends players not tell each other if they got some to keep the mystique alive. Also there was a chance of driving your character insane, dumb, or similar if you rolled and failed to get powers. It's very 1e, and very inappropriate for anything beyond the OSR today, but it fits 1e very well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
seebs posted:He's sort of an rear end in a top hat, but a lot of my friends are sort of assholes, and I don't care about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Arivia posted:The game wasn't balanced around having or not having them really (excepting psionic monsters, which you would be hosed against if someone didn't have them.) It was cool since they were very specifically very rare, very hidden, and I think the text even recommends players not tell each other if they got some to keep the mystique alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
ascendance posted:The way i remember it, if you didnt have psionics, you were pretty much immune to at least psionic combat, and the attack and defense modes. That way, you could keep psionics as a mostly optional module. But then, some monsters, like the mind flayer, had some powerful special abilities that were basically described as psionic, and hence overcame spell resistance and dispelling. Yeah. One of the things that makes Gygaxian writing so Gygaxian - and in turn makes the 1e books so magical - was Gygax putting value judgments directly into the text. The fearsome MIND BLAST was one of those, and the illithid was basically the followthrough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
The fact that anyone straight-faced describes Zak S as only "kind of" an rear end in a top hat speaks volumes about this loving hobby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
He gets other people to do his harassment for him, that's different right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
moths posted:The fact that anyone straight-faced describes Zak S as only "kind of" an rear end in a top hat speaks volumes about this loving hobby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Arivia posted:He gets other people to do his harassment for him, that's different right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 04:09
|
|