|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If you can ignore the name "psionics" and some of the names of abilities, the 3e psionic system makes more sense to me for characters with supernatural or magical abilities: not an arbitrary uses-per-day mechanism, but a pool of energy points, and the user can choose which of their known abilities the energy will power.
With regards to flavor, I agree. However, there may be mechanical balance problems (e.g. Spell Resistance vs. Power Resistance, Anti-Magic Shell vs. Null Psionics Field) to consider. If one source of power is more common than the other, you might find one power source running rampant over the other. Also, the classic 3e "psionics is different" had no psionic abilities affecting magic in any way, no magic affecting psionics, so it was more extreme than your quote.
Also, pretending it's a real issue, and an important one to boot, that people NOT SAY CERTAIN WORDS... because... uhhh... reasons... is pretty weird. I can understand that various companies comply under threat of lawsuits... but not one bit of that makes it a real, sensible issue.
Why is it not a real, sensible issue? If people started swearing left and right on the message boards, I would feel uncomfortable, and not come back. I suspect I'm not the only one. Why is driving away potential customers and/or community members not a real, sensible issue?
That's what happens when one only looks under "Disarm" and not "Combat Maneuvers".
This is not quite true; they also reprinted the spell and magic item compendia, which were generally not open content. [And, as PDFs, they've released a lot of 3.5 non-open books.]
And now for something completely predictable.
ALICORN (amalgam unicorn/pegasus)
CG Large magical beast
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., detect evil, detect good, low-light vision, scent; Perception +11
Aura magic circle against evil
This looks like a unicorn with wings, and not a pegasus with a horn. There are subtle cosmetic differences.
The alicorn should technically have a bite, I think, but it'd be relatively weak (1d3 base damage), and I have trouble picturing it using a gore and a bite in the same full attack, so I left it out.
Cleric, Magic User, Fighting-man, Thief.
<old man>Bah, you young people and your "Thief"! It's blatant power creep. Also, we used to be able to search for traps, but now they had to add rules for it, and only these "Thieves" can do it. I blame MMOs. Now get off my lawn...
(Spell slots are per adventure! And all weapons do 1d6 damage!)</old man>
More seriously, I've always wanted to try the Expert/Spellcaster/Warrior generic classes from Unearthed Arcana.
One of the many campaign ideas I have has a spiritual system inspired by athroposophy.
There are two superior beings. One is Lucifer, who embodies light, insight, and spirituality; and the other is Ahriman, who embodies darkness, intellectualism, and physicality.
They're both evil. The good path is the path between them.
 Actual anthroposophy is more complicated than this.
Rob Rose wrote:
I don't know your age, but the premise of magic in a high-tech society reminds me of the RPG "Shadowrun" (I think) which was in the 90's. It was set in a futuristic, somewhat cyber-tech society where magic and magical creatures, which had been non-existent for millenia, return to the world. It was a pretty cool setting.
Marc Radle wrote:
I certainly respect your opinion, but I would point out that Deep Magic is a HUGE book and close to 300 pages of it ARE open content, compared to less than 76 pages which are not. That's a pretty big percentage of Deep Magic that is open content.
Not compared to pretty much every other third-party publisher I can think of.
I've been hearing a lot of praise about Deep Magic. And, there's a lot to like about it; after all, it contains the spell burning monkey swarm. Burning monkey swarm! I now realize what I've wanted to do all my life is make a sorcerer specializing in burning monkey swarm.
But, I do want to register my disappointment with how much of this book is closed content. I must admit, I half-expected something like this, but I was hoping for the best. Here are the relevant entries on the credits page:
Deep Magic credit page wrote:
The first paragraph I have very little problem with; some of the sidebars contain "crunch" game material, but otherwise it's all good.The second paragraph leads to disappointment and concern.
Here are some examples:
I'm hoping that most of this is an oversight, and can be rectified at the same time you're fixing (other?) typographical errors. Or maybe all other publishers have to do to use such content is request it, and permission will be freely granted. I guess I'll find out.
Yes. It would make them feel less irrelevant. If you don't see why, take a look at this video.
(Okay, this was mostly an excuse to post a link to the video. I'm kind of surprised no one's brought it up earlier.)