| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the question that comes to mind as I'm looking through the classes of this playtest. Personally, I thought Dreamscarred Press did a great job redesigning the original psionic classes from 3.5 and taking it a step further by expanding upon it, adding even more classes and options.
I just don't see the range and diversity I would've liked if Paizo ever did their own take on the topic. Still, there is a couple classes that do pique my interest for the purpose of playtesting, namely the Occultist and Psychic. Reminds me alot of Psychic Warrior and Psion respectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally like the Kineticist. It has a lot of fluffy potential and looks very fun.
|
My initial impressions are that I like the Kineticist (even though I do not think that all of the elements are really balanced), the Mesmerist, and the Spiritualist.
The others are alright but not really my cup of tea. It is also a little interesting that they are adding what are essentially a few metamagic abilities to the classes but not as feats. i.e. the psychic having a pool that he can use to get rid of the components of his spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They couldn't, in good conscience or logistically, do a direct port of the Psionics Handbook from 3.5 - Dreamscarred Press has already cornered the market with an extensive run using Psionics (to the point of it effectively being an entirely different game with the same core mechanics).
Dreamscarred's update of the Psionic Handbook is about as close to perfect as you can get, and it allowed there to be a Psionics line that Paizo didn't need to worry about investing time and energy in.
I'm fine with Occult Adventures being Psychic, rather than Psionic, and it thematically works well; the classes evoke a dark-fantasy/occultist feel of fantasy that was ever-present from around the middle of Victorian Era to the end of WWII. It has that sensibility of grim wonder that you'd want.
My only real beef is the "Psychic Spells." I'd rather they just stick with the "Arcane vs Divine vs Alchemical" setup they've got; frankly, it just FITS better anyway - either these spells are Arcane, or Divine, untyped like Alchemical Extracts, or they're both Arcane AND Divine at the same time (which would fit, as the whole book seems like a massive love-letter to Penny Dreadfuls, Poe, Burrows, and Lovecraft, and Lovecraft's sensibilities are that, when you go back far enough, there IS no difference between Arcane and Divine). Adding a 4th type to the mix seems like it's just adding a new level of gnarliness that you don't need.
Along with that, I really don't like the Undercast, though I suppose it's not dissimilar to how [Insert Spell Name] I-[n] already work; I just wish they'd put the "this may be cast as..." in the description rather than adding a whole new set of rules that redundantly describe what spells have been doing since god-knows-when.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After looking at the playtest i feel like psychic magic and psionics are drastically different beyond the mechanical differences. I feel like psionics are mental energy and psychic magic is soul energy. When I'm done with my current campaign I'm doing an 'everything goes' campaign using all the third party things I got so magic will come in;
Arcane
Divine
-nature
-deity
-animism
Psionic
Psychic
Alchemic
Mechanical
Akashic
Power Sphere (if that product ever comes out.
But all in all I'd probably like to see the inevitable Player Companion to see some explanations as to the non mechanical difference this is from arcane magic. Better yet, a lot of this is hard to sort without some explanation of what Arcane magic is in the first place. We sort of have some but sorcerers exist so there's some wibbly room in there for confusion.
There are some interesting powers and spells in the playtest material, but none of the classes really interest me that much. I'll give it another read in a few days and see how I feel about it then.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am an old school Dark Sun fan boy, have always loved psionics, and been mostly disappointed by the recently released ACG.
That said, I think this interpretation of psi-powers has a little more gritty flavor than more classical representations. I ask you, what is a 'psionicist' anyhow? The classes presented here have a more specific thematic concept, which I actually like.
I can't comment on the mechanics yet, though I got my eye on the Medium, but what I can say is that this at first glance is a refreshing take on an old concept.
I never really liked the 3.5 psionic classes or feel... felt to Sci-fi for my taste.
The playtest classes are exactly what I was hoping they would be flavor wise...I couldn't be happier :P
So, no prepared psychic casters, uh? They're all spontaneous.
I'm really, really diggin' the Medium as a class. It finally lets me realize a character concept in the way I always intended that just didn't lend itself to any of the existing classes. I like the underlying mechanics, as well, and I feel like the class surges in an interesting fashion.
The others are kind of take-it-or-leave-it to me for various reasons. The one thing I like most is that there are mechanics to surge on the Kineticist and Medium. It's not only powerful, but mechanically interesting to have the "push beyond your limits" functionality in the classes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really really digging how many people are saying they've been able to finally realize or gel their concepts with the new classes. It makes me feel like we've really got something right!
I do enjoy the flavor of the Medium, makes me want to break out the Harrow (or an actual Tarot) deck and build around that. Using a Witch or Wizard just didn't feel right to me.
I just got to playtest the Occultist. Initial impressions of that class were favorable and I want to progress it further. (Check the feedback forum for that.) She ended up being the tank of the group, taking some pretty tough shots.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm reading through this and all I am seeing in terms of flavor is a noncomformist psionics system. The Kineticist is fantastic and very cool, but as long as this system is called psychic magic, everyone will draw parallels to Dreamscarred Press' Psionics books. I would definitely change the flavor of psychic magic (soul magic makes more sense and would be more unique flavorfully) and revise some of those spells (I read the words Mind Thrust III and all I think of is 3.0 psionics, which is better off left alone).
This reads far more like 1E/2E Psionics than the 3E version. The old psychic attack and defense modes are now spells, they use a lot of the older terminology like Wild Talents and Disciplines. I know I'm getting all the old school feels from this!
--Brain Vrock
Then you must be blind as a bat, quite frankly. If you look at the hardback releases it's pretty obvious they draw heavily from "Old School" products rather than 3.X. For example, the kingdom building mechanics found in Ultimate Campaign... Birthright, quite obvious. What they call Archetypes we used to call Character Kits. They do exactly the same thing, replace class features with different features. It is one of the reasons Pathfinder appeals to me, I notice the mixing of old school with new mechanics and somehow it all seems to work well.
That having been said, I'm not complaining about this new take on psionics. It is a departure from what Dreamscarred Press released, yet it has an old school enough feel that I am comfortable with what has been done. I look forward to seeing the hardback when its done, the playtest material is superb.
I'm really not sure why we would discuss psychics in comparison to psionics. Flavor-wise or mechanically I don't see similarities. Even in the psychic magic subsection its a completely different source from psionics. Its like comparing Professor X to Dr Orpheous.
Think of it this way. Psionics is personal mental power. By exerting your will upon reality you can weaken or deny its tether to you or create your own. Psychic magic is soul magic yes, but not fully personal. Life creates it makes it grow. Psychic energy surrounds us and binds us.
While psionics is functionally no different from magic it is not the stuff of mysticicm but the relationship between mind and matter. You cannot have psychics or psionics and say that they are the other, just as the the soul and mind cannot be called the other.
But as far as third party goes I do feel like the medium is stepping on Radiance House's Occultist's toes.
They couldn't, in good conscience or logistically, do a direct port of the Psionics Handbook from 3.5 - Dreamscarred Press has already cornered the market with an extensive run using Psionics (to the point of it effectively being an entirely different game with the same core mechanics).
Dreamscarred's update of the Psionic Handbook is about as close to perfect as you can get, and it allowed there to be a Psionics line that Paizo didn't need to worry about investing time and energy in.
I'm fine with Occult Adventures being Psychic, rather than Psionic, and it thematically works well; the classes evoke a dark-fantasy/occultist feel of fantasy that was ever-present from around the middle of Victorian Era to the end of WWII. It has that sensibility of grim wonder that you'd want.
My only real beef is the "Psychic Spells." I'd rather they just stick with the "Arcane vs Divine vs Alchemical" setup they've got; frankly, it just FITS better anyway - either these spells are Arcane, or Divine, untyped like Alchemical Extracts, or they're both Arcane AND Divine at the same time (which would fit, as the whole book seems like a massive love-letter to Penny Dreadfuls, Poe, Burrows, and Lovecraft, and Lovecraft's sensibilities are that, when you go back far enough, there IS no difference between Arcane and Divine). Adding a 4th type to the mix seems like it's just adding a new level of gnarliness that you don't need.
Along with that, I really don't like the Undercast, though I suppose it's not dissimilar to how [Insert Spell Name] I-[n] already work; I just wish they'd put the "this may be cast as..." in the description rather than adding a whole new set of rules that redundantly describe what spells have been doing since god-knows-when.
Yeah, a beter name than spell could be found. Not easy, but I'm not a desinger.
Meditation? Manifestation? Invocation?
The classes that don't cast/use reduced casting/use unusual casting measures I like. Kinetecist and Medium mostly.
The straight-up "new Vancian casters" I don't as much care for, on first glance, and prefer Dreamscarred's versions. But that may change as I get to look them over more thoroughly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having a hard time divorcing psionics from psychic as, ever since 2nd ed, they've meant the same thing.
I have an easier time of dealing with the classes/spells by replacing the word "psychic" with "Occult". . .
I agree a bit.
So I'm a little disappointed Paizo didn't take the opportunity to try something truly different mechanically. . . .
The designers have said things like they don't want to add new systems because they don't want to force the customer base to learn new systems to play certain classes.
This is the straddling the line that I've kind of come to expect.
This reads far more like 1E/2E Psionics than the 3E version. The old psychic attack and defense modes are now spells, they use a lot of the older terminology like Wild Talents and Disciplines. I know I'm getting all the old school feels from this!
Then I'm confused. Psychic attack/defense modes did become spells in 3.0/3.5. Wild talent/Hidden Talent became feats and limited PCs to first level powers in the case of Hidden Talent, which was a good thing. Disciplines appear in 3.0/3.5 and are basically Psionic Schools of Magic.
But then again, I'm going to try to divorce my like for 3.5/DSP psionics and try to look at the classes and abilities as if those did not exist.
I never really liked the 3.5 psionic classes or feel... felt to Sci-fi for my taste. . . .
Infinitely refluffable. It's only as sci-fi as you want it to be, which in my groups' cases, were not at all.
Star Wars didn't start out as sci-fi. Lucas took a lot of Eastern influences while studying Tai Chi Quan and then reflavored it as sci-fi. The Force is Chi/Qi/Ki.
I could also use all pathfinder classes to emulate a sci-fi game if I want to and vice versa. Barbarians become Warriors with Drugs or an Adrenaline Rush. Wizards become Engineers with superscience gadgets. Clerics become Combat Medics with advanced drugs and pain suppression devices.
Look at the mechanics. Judge those. Flavor is mutable.
So far I like what I am seeing. I am trying to use the Occultist to substitute for the Psychic Warrior. So far so good.
I am disappointed, however. Not one class is based on Deliberate, Conscious Attraction. I gave the reasons why in my first thoughts thread. The classes in the book would be complete if they added an Occult Adventures version of the Shaper Psion.
I am really, really disappointed.
What do you mean by "attraction"? Your other post wasn't at all clear, and this one's no better.
What do you mean by "attraction"? Your other post wasn't at all clear, and this one's no better.
Attraction is a better word than say, "Law of Cause and Effect." Basically, a class which allows the player to mimic Power Creation, or Godly Creation.
Basically, to be Ultimately CLEAR -- what this class set up is missing is a version of the Shaper Psion. To me, it's the only Psionic Class I truly loved, especially after my 30th trip around our Sun. The soulknife was just an ego-need. :)
anyhow, an Occultic Class based on creating things (i.e. pulling them all out of the luminiferous aether) would sum it all up nicely. Looking at this, though, a 3rd party class filling in the void by reflavoring the Shaper Psion to ~ ahem, a Creationist ~ would not be all that hard to do. Doing so may have unintended consequences, but I see a void that needs to be filled.
Although, if I could pull things out of the Aether instantly in real life; I'd certainly buy a leotard and speedos, put on the leotard and speedos, put on a cape and mask, and go out to battle evil (or not); as a way to show everyone what they are capable of. Then I need another Superhero to dress up as bicycle repairman.
Okay, First off, I like this so far. However i have to say that the classes of this book wear their influences of the 3.5 on its sleeve. from the psionic classes to warlocks and even binders get their fair shot. Don't get me wrong those classes were my absolute favorites in 3.5 and I'm glad that in stead of awkwardly saying "boom, suddenly psionics in the world" they made apropriate alterations to make them natural fits for the setting. I look forward to seeing what this goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Occult Adventures first glance impressions (no chance at playtest yet):
Kineticist: This seems to be the answer to WotC's D&D 3.5 Warlock. Not a bad idea with respect to theme or balance, but confusingly written. Also would rather see a power pool rather than Burn, or allow Burn to be healed (perhaps with extra difficulty).
Medium: Thematically cool, but like some types of Alchemist, seems very dangerous for the practitioner. Could also use some work on the clarity of writing.
Mesmerist: Seems overpowered -- at least allow a save for victims of the Mesmerist's Stare to remember that they have been manipulated. At least this one is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.
Occultist: This one seems almost like it could be a Magus Archetype or Alternate Class. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.
Psychic: This one seems almost redundant with Arcanist/Sorcerer/Wizard, and could be rebuilt as an Archetype or Alternate Class of one of these. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.
Spiritualist: This one almost seems redundant with Summoner, and could be rebuilt as a Summoner Archetype or Alternate Class. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written. (Edit: And some of the text even still mentions "Eidolon". Also note the error in the Spells Per Day for Level 1, where the columns got shifted over to make it look like a 1st Level Spiritualist gets Level 2 spell access.)
I do like the "Undercasting" mechanic, but I wish that they would just make this generally available for all Ranked Spells (the ones that go in Lesser-Greater or Roman Numeral series), for all spellcasting classes, and as an automatic side effect of Heighten Spell/Intensify Spell (sort of hankering after what D&D 5th Edition does with casting spells at higher levels, which is one of a small but noticeable number of things I liked in the 5th Edition free PDF).
And yes, since they went to the trouble to call this "Occult Adventures", why didn't they take the opportunity to call the new spells "Occult Spells" (to avoid confusion with the Psionic Powers in the Dreamscarred Press products) rather than "Psychic Spells"?
|
Then you must be blind as a bat, quite frankly. If you look at the hardback releases it's pretty obvious they draw heavily from "Old School" products rather than 3.X.This reads far more like 1E/2E Psionics than the 3E version. The old psychic attack and defense modes are now spells, they use a lot of the older terminology like Wild Talents and Disciplines. I know I'm getting all the old school feels from this!
--Brain Vrock
I think you need to re-read what I said, because it's exactly what you're saying.
Occult psychic magic feels more like 1E and 2E psionics. Sure 3E changed stuff into powers, but they didn't quite feel the same. It's probably because they were shoehorned into the powers list with everything else. I like how the Attack and Defense modes are presented here in their own section so as to show that's exactly what they are.
I've played far more psionicists than psions in my gaming careeer. Hell I still have the deck of psionic powers on my shelf!
--School of Vrock
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an easier time of dealing with the classes/spells by replacing the word "psychic" with "Occult".
I agree.
I stated in another thread that the whole "Psychic Spells" thing just irked me. Not only don't they feel "psychic," they work and play better as Arcane spells, Divine spells, or, in some cases - like the Psychic and Occultist - BOTH.
I would actually prefer to see the Psychic be written as a dual Arcane-Divine class - a full 20th-level-class version of the Mystic Theurge the same way the Bloodrager is a 20th-level version of the Dragon Disciple, the Hunter is the Nature Warden, the Slayer the Assassin, and the Swashbuckler the Duelist.
I've also said that the Occultist would be FANTASTIC as a "neutral" caster class that is neither Arcane nor Divine, and instead casts EITHER Arcane OR Divine magic based on whatever the Focus it's using.
The Mesmerist is an Arcane class - it is a Bard-Wizard hybrid specializing in the Enchantment School, and that is perfect. Making it "Psychic" instead of Arcane is just unnecessary, and, frankly, a waste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Occult Adventures first glance impressions (no chance at playtest yet):
Kineticist: This seems to be the answer to WotC's D&D 3.5 Warlock. Not a bad idea with respect to theme or balance, but confusingly written. Also would rather see a power pool rather than Burn, or allow Burn to be healed (perhaps with extra difficulty).
Medium: Thematically cool, but like some types of Alchemist, seems very dangerous for the practitioner. Could also use some work on the clarity of writing.
Mesmerist: Seems overpowered -- at least allow a save for victims of the Mesmerist's Stare to remember that they have been manipulated. At least this one is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.
Occultist: This one seems almost like it could be a Magus Archetype or Alternate Class. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.
Psychic: This one seems almost redundant with Arcanist/Sorcerer/Wizard, and could be rebuilt as an Archetype or Alternate Class of one of these. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written.
Spiritualist: This one almost seems redundant with Summoner, and could be rebuilt as a Summoner Archetype or Alternate Class. At least it is easy to understand with the way it is currently written. (Edit: And some of the text even still mentions "Eidolon". Also note the error in the Spells Per Day for Level 1, where the columns got shifted over to make it look like a 1st Level Spiritualist gets Level 2 spell access.)
I do like the "Undercasting" mechanic, but I wish that they would just make this generally available for all Ranked Spells (the ones that go in Lesser-Greater or Roman Numeral series), for all spellcasting classes, and as an automatic side effect of Heighten Spell/Intensify Spell (sort of hankering after what D&D 5th Edition does with casting spells at higher levels, which is one of a small but noticeable number of things I liked in the 5th Edition free PDF).
And yes, since they went to the trouble to call...
I was going to post my two cents, but you beat me to it! Bravo! This is exactly how I feel as well!
Making the Psychic classes alternate classes sounds interesting to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost feel like I have been slapped in the face.
I quit playing Society because what I want to play Psionics. Dreamscared Press has made that possible, but, because Paizo did not release it, it is not usable in society play. Now I get this dropped in my lap. Ok the Advanced class guide really pissed me of as just a glut of new classes that did not really need to be there, just make them archetypes book. I do Understand that Paizo needs to keep releasing content, but Options Clutter is beginning to be a problem.
I will look at it again but...
Hi, Eric. I didn't think you'd be so affected by this book in this manner, cousin. I know exactly how you felt when it was announced. I too, felt like I was slapped in the face. That was, two years ago, I believe. I'm testing this book against the Dreamscarred Press releases, just to see if they can work together.
Occult psychic magic feels more like 1E and 2E psionics. Sure 3E changed stuff into powers, but they didn't quite feel the same. It's probably because they were shoehorned into the powers list with everything else. I like how the Attack and Defense modes are presented here in their own section so as to show that's exactly what they are.
I feel that the Attack and Defense Modes aren't really needed for what they are going for. Each of the Attack and Defense Modes gives a Silver Age like comic book feel. The book felt like it was written based from the pulps instead. They really felt like a sore thumb in the back of the book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I almost feel like I have been slapped in the face.
I quit playing Society because what I want to play Psionics. Dreamscared Press has made that possible, but, because Paizo did not release it, it is not usable in society play. Now I get this dropped in my lap. Ok the Advanced class guide really pissed me of as just a glut of new classes that did not really need to be there, just make them archetypes book. I do Understand that Paizo needs to keep releasing content, but Options Clutter is beginning to be a problem.
I will look at it again but...
I do not understand this reaction.
I have to say I am very happy with the level of flavor in this book.
One can tell alot of thought went into the "whys" behind the mechanics.
I do not understand this reaction.I almost feel like I have been slapped in the face.
I quit playing Society because what I want to play Psionics. Dreamscared Press has made that possible, but, because Paizo did not release it, it is not usable in society play. Now I get this dropped in my lap. Ok the Advanced class guide really pissed me of as just a glut of new classes that did not really need to be there, just make them archetypes book. I do Understand that Paizo needs to keep releasing content, but Options Clutter is beginning to be a problem.
I will look at it again but...
It's simple. My cousin likes 2nd Edition and 3.x Psionics (I don't know how he felt about the Psionics Handbook, but . . .). When Dreamscarred Press updated the XPH to Pathfinder, it was like the holy grail he was looking for. He really wanted to play the classes in Society play, but because Psionics Unleashed was banned because Paizo didn't publish it -- he dropped out of PFS. I don't do PFS because, I just don't do it.
What he is complaining about is class bloat. The ACG made class bloat possible, so he banned it from his game. I banned it from my games too, since you can actually make the classes all possible with Archetypes or other options. Although the reason why he felt slapped in the face is precisely because this book feels like an insult to him. He's really passionate about 3.x psionics. I'm passionate myself, since I am wondering where the God-like class options are.
We are both fans of Dreamscarred Press. We both had to contend with the Psi-Haters through our careers in the '00s and the first part of the '10s. People would come out and say they hate psionics. Then this book comes out, and people are embracing it. It feels like we've been pushed to the side.
The difference between he and I, is that Soulcleave feels that this book is a personal insult. I'm willing to give it a College tryout.
I like the feel of these so far.
I had to disallow the psionic classes from Dreamscarred. I have several different players that ran a number of the classes (~10 total), and every single one would outshine the other players with ease. Most of these were done without optimization, and still beat other classes.
Before you rip into me on this, this is my experience from actual gameplay.
These not only look like they will work better, but I like the feel. There are some concerns over how bits work, but thus the playtest.
I like the feel of these so far.
I had to disallow the psionic classes from Dreamscarred. I have several different players that ran a number of the classes (~10 total), and every single one would outshine the other players with ease. Most of these were done without optimization, and still beat other classes.
Before you rip into me on this, this is my experience from actual gameplay.These not only look like they will work better, but I like the feel. There are some concerns over how bits work, but thus the playtest.
/\
||
|
Kryzbyn, this post is what engenders Soulcleave's reaction. THIS, THIS, THIS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not understand this reaction.I almost feel like I have been slapped in the face.
I quit playing Society because what I want to play Psionics. Dreamscared Press has made that possible, but, because Paizo did not release it, it is not usable in society play. Now I get this dropped in my lap. Ok the Advanced class guide really pissed me of as just a glut of new classes that did not really need to be there, just make them archetypes book. I do Understand that Paizo needs to keep releasing content, but Options Clutter is beginning to be a problem.
I will look at it again but...
It's simple. My cousin likes 2nd Edition and 3.x Psionics (I don't know how he felt about the Psionics Handbook, but . . .). When Dreamscarred Press updated the XPH to Pathfinder, it was like the holy grail he was looking for. He really wanted to play the classes in Society play, but because Psionics Unleashed was banned because Paizo didn't publish it -- he dropped out of PFS. I don't do PFS because, I just don't do it.
What he is complaining about is class bloat. The ACG made class bloat possible, so he banned it from his game. I banned it from my games too, since you can actually make the classes all possible with Archetypes or other options. Although the reason why he felt slapped in the face is precisely because this book feels like an insult to him. He's really passionate about 3.x psionics. I'm passionate myself, since I am wondering where the God-like class options are.
We are both fans of Dreamscarred Press. We both had to contend with the Psi-Haters through our careers in the '00s and the first part of the '10s. People would come out and say they hate psionics. This this book comes out, and people are embracing it. It feels like we've been pushed to the side.
The difference between he and I, is that Soulcleave feels that this book is a personal insult. I'm willing to give it a College tryout.
So the feeling of being slapped in the face has been for a while now, since before Psionics Unleashed, Paizo had said they would not be doing a point-based psionics book. They have said from the beginning their idea of a psionics book would not be like XPH, and would fit the mold of the current casting mechanics. They have never said nor alluded to ever making DSPs rules "canon". Like I said in another post, folks have been asking Paizo for psionics rules since at least 2009, and this has always been their answer.
Hence, I do not understand this reaction.
So...
Kryzbyn, I already pointed out what made Soulcleave feel so insulted. JJwolven's post stated why specifically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kryzbyn, I already pointed out what made Soulcleave feel so insulted. JJwolven's post stated why specifically.
Not really, but it's not necessary for me to understand.
I am a fan and supporter of DSP, and have contributed to every kickstarter they've had except for the figs.
I own alot of their stuff. I use all of their stuff that I own.
I too have heard the cry of "psionics are OP!!" and dismiss them. There are plenty of threads on these boards on the subject almost always come down to system knowledge and mastery. I do not agree that DSP classes are OP, as that has never been my experience.
I certainly don't let what other people think about that ruleset get me down. This seems irrational to me.
I also like the new book, and will most likely use it along side the others. I do not perscribe to the idea of "Bloat bad!" as more options are a good thing.
So...
Kryzbyn, I already pointed out what made Soulcleave feel so insulted. JJwolven's post stated why specifically.
What? That someone else had trouble with the mechanics of Dreamscarred's work? That they prefer a different feel?
How is that possibly insulting? Tastes differ as do experiences with mechanics. It's possible that JJwolven's group wasn't correctly handling one of the limiting factors in Psionics, since that seems to be a common problem, but regardless, I don't see how this is any kind of slap in the face.
There are plenty of games and supplements and mechanics that I loathe that other people like and vice versa. So what?
Yeah, so what? I was trying to explain how he felt. I know him best than most people who post on these forums so I not off the mark (i think his little brother and his group posts here too).
Personally, I am giving the book a try. But still, that does not mean that I do not feel the same. A friend of mine said essentially the same thing that jjwolven did to me, but in a different way.
Fox Reinhard: Which I will, however incorrectly, interpret as proof of Paizo's superiority over third party materials.
I felt bad, but I didn't take my feelings out on her. I happen to like the book, but for different reasons than the people I game with. :) But it does not mean that you can't expect people to be gushy about the book. This book was bound to cause some controversy. Accept that the book and the controversy both exist and move on.
(Edit: clarified some things as to what I was trying to eludicate. )
Yeah, so what? I was trying to explain how he felt.
So...
Kryzbyn, I already pointed out what made Soulcleave feel so insulted. JJwolven's post stated why specifically.
What? That someone else had trouble with the mechanics of Dreamscarred's work? That they prefer a different feel?
How is that possibly insulting? Tastes differ as do experiences with mechanics. It's possible that JJwolven's group wasn't correctly handling one of the limiting factors in Psionics, since that seems to be a common problem, but regardless, I don't see how this is any kind of slap in the face.
There are plenty of games and supplements and mechanics that I loathe that other people like and vice versa. So what?
That doesn't make it any less illogical.
That doesn't make it any less illogical.Yeah, so what? I was trying to explain how he felt.
So...
Kryzbyn, I already pointed out what made Soulcleave feel so insulted. JJwolven's post stated why specifically.
What? That someone else had trouble with the mechanics of Dreamscarred's work? That they prefer a different feel?
How is that possibly insulting? Tastes differ as do experiences with mechanics. It's possible that JJwolven's group wasn't correctly handling one of the limiting factors in Psionics, since that seems to be a common problem, but regardless, I don't see how this is any kind of slap in the face.
There are plenty of games and supplements and mechanics that I loathe that other people like and vice versa. So what?
That's because it's his opinion backed by his feelings. But he's my family, and I will support him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, well, when you go onto a public forum and post your opinion, you should expect to have it analyzed and questioned by people trying to make sense of it. And pointing out when it doesn't and requesting an explanation that at least follows some sense of logic.
That's how forums work.
Seriously, what reaction did you expect?