Take shapechanging -- I don't think anybody currently arguing for psi this thread has ever said "shapeshifting should be a part of psi". And yet, somehow, you're demanding we defend our system against a very specific scenario with at least three fixed assumptions, none of which have to be the case for a psi system. And one of them is simply a matter of rules interpretation with strong precedent against it being so -- if you polymorph a mind flayer into a vole, the expectation at most tables is that it can't keep mind blasting you.
Shapeshifting came into this by way of someone's ChatGPT answer including something to the effect that Psions should not be allowed to shapechange because that's a druid thing.
And that admonishment is not just being taken as important, but as unquestionable.
The ChatGPT thing said that the Psion’s utility shouldn’t intrude on the Druid’s shapeshifting. It did not suggest that the Psions should have shape shifting.
There’s a big difference between biofeedback(the kind of psychometabolism the Psion should have) and shapeshifting.
Nevertheless, it was argued by the pro-psionics are different side that psions should have polymorph
It's less "lead deters psychic abilities in fiction" and more "lead can be made to block psychic abilities in D&D because it's a useful game design check/brake".
The issue is that admitting it's a useful design brake then gets into the inevitable chain of "Okay so you admit psi can have the same brakes as magic" > "Okay so you admit psi can share some things with magic" > "Okay so you admit psi and magic are exactly the same thing" > "okay so you admit there's no reasona spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots can't be "psi"." None of which follows from the former. Saying 'lead can be used to block psychic abilities' does not mean "spellcasters who cast spells using spell slots are suddenly psychic characters".
Characters who cast spells using spell slots are spellcasters. Spellcasters, by fundamental definition, are not psychic characters. Those are, and always will be, two entirely separatre things, even if one character might have levels in both the way a character can have Fighter levels and Wizard levels without Fighters and Wizards both being the same thing.
Spellcasters, by fundamental definition, are not psychic characters.
A psychic character is a character who does the things psychics do -- chiefly telepathy (and related effects), telekinesis (and related effects), and ESP (clairvoyance and similar effects). All of those exist as spells. We also have canonical examples of psychic monsters, and guess what -- they cast those spells.
Who said the Psion doesn't appear to be behaving like a rat familiar?
1) Knowledge?
a) Please explain to me how rat familiars behave in general.
b) Now please explain to me how this specific rat familiar behaves.
Please explain to me how you’ve reconciled this very same argument with the claim that an enemy knows the rat isn’t acting as a rat familiar would?
By the suggestion that the enemy in question would be ok with a rat running around because it might be the familiar of their boss or one of their bosses.
They thus have direct access to both knowledge of how this particular rat familiar behaves (b), which is far more useful knowledge than (a).
No response at all on the other points regarding rats in general? Like why they would be ok with rats running around their base, period?
The ChatGPT thing said that the Psion’s utility shouldn’t intrude on the Druid’s shapeshifting. It did not suggest that the Psions should have shape shifting.
There’s a big difference between biofeedback(the kind of psychometabolism the Psion should have) and shapeshifting.
Nevertheless, it was argued by the pro-psionics are different side that psions should have polymorph
The analysis was comparing directly to Wildshape. Since when do Druids have biofeedback spells or abilities? Note that Druids have limited shapeshifting too, so we aren't comparing with unrestricted shapechange, regardless. So why not say "Wildshape equivalent?"
The ChatGPT analysis was something you did, then since it was convenient to your arguments, have been treating it as some sort of unquestionable expert. You still have not explained why no Psion should be able to complete with wildshape, specifically, regardless of how all else about the Psion class is balanced. otherwise.
Spellcasters, by fundamental definition, are not psychic characters.
A psychic character is a character who does the things psychics do -- chiefly telepathy (and related effects), telekinesis (and related effects), and ESP (clairvoyance and similar effects). All of those exist as spells. We also have canonical examples of psychic monsters, and guess what -- they cast those spells.
And yet, in forty pages, no one has yet explained what reason, rhyme, justification or meaning there is behind calling a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots a "psychic" character rather than just a brain-damaged spellcaster. The closest has been Pantagruel saying "all specialized spellcasters suck so you have no reason to be any different", which is an explanation of why specialized spellcasters are bad and should feel bad. Not an explanation of why a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots is somehow not a spellcaster and is instead a psychic character.
This sounds like a dish in the menu of a restaurante, somebody will ask and others will not.
We can agree about how to avoid possible abuses by munchkins, or by DMs.
Psionic powers in the previous editions lacked verbal and somatic components, why should that change now? Certain changes aren't wellcome easily.
Can spells be used to counterspell psionic powers? For example mage hand against telekinesis or viceversa. Maybe psionic powers can work withi anti-magic fields, but some zones could block certain effects, for example teleportation, and the origin doesn't matter.
* Other point if after the psionic powers they will choose to update other classes with special class mechanics: incarnum soulmelders, vestige binders, martial adepts, mystery shadowcasters..
And yet, in forty pages, no one has yet explained what reason, rhyme, justification or meaning there is behind calling a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots a "psychic" character rather than just a brain-damaged spellcaster.
Easy. The logic behind calling that character a psychic is "I want to call my character a psychic". When you create a character, create for what you want the character to do, not how its abilities are labeled.
And yet, in forty pages, no one has yet explained what reason, rhyme, justification or meaning there is behind calling a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots a "psychic" character rather than just a brain-damaged spellcaster.
Easy. The logic behind calling that character a psychic is "I want to call my character a psychic". When you create a character, create for what you want the character to do, not how its abilities are labeled.
And again, you can call them a petunia. But kind of semantic dismissal is non-constructive.
And again, you can call them a petunia. But kind of semantic dismissal is non-constructive.
It's not a semantic dismissal. It's a fundamental concept people are missing: names and mechanics are separable. Find the game mechanic you want, and call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
And again, you can call them a petunia. But kind of semantic dismissal is non-constructive.
It's not a semantic dismissal. It's a fundamental concept people are missing: names and mechanics are separable. Find the game mechanic you want, and call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
It is a semantic dismissal when you insist that changing the name should be sufficient to satisfy those who are repeatedly saying they want something much more substantial than a mere name change.
And coming back to suggesting a mere name change, again, after this many pages of discussion, is, well...
It's not a semantic dismissal. It's a fundamental concept people are missing: names and mechanics are separable. Find the game mechanic you want, and call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
This point is not incorrect. However, I think people are saying quite clearly that "the mechanic they want" doesn't quite exist in current D&D. Though it is perhaps hinted at, or some subclasses get adjacent to it.
(and sure, whatever mechanic that is, it should not automatically skip past all known resistances and be a "in a land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" sort of situation. I don't think that's happening, though it was an issue in the past.)
It is a semantic dismissal when you insist that changing the name should be sufficient to satisfy those who are repeatedly saying they want something much more substantial than a mere name change.
First of all, "I don't want to use spell slots" is really just change for change's sake.
Second, "I don't like the current mechanics for psi and want new ones" doesn't mean the game doesn't have psi. The game has psionic abilities, and in fact even has functional psionic characters. The answer to "Psionics in 5e" is "yes, they exist". You might not like how they work -- there are plenty of things about plenty of classes I don't much care for -- but I can make a much more functional psion in 5e than I can make, say, something like a 4e Warlord.
Thid, "I want new mechanics" is fine... but then you should actually define what those new mechanics are, in sufficient detail to evaluate their balance and feasibility. As I said a ways up... if you can't fit the entire class description, including three subclasses, in five to six pages, it's probably too complex. The only person to come close to a usable level of detail about "what I actually want" is Lia Black, and it was ... okay?
It is a semantic dismissal when you insist that changing the name should be sufficient to satisfy those who are repeatedly saying they want something much more substantial than a mere name change.
And then decline to provide mechanics for what they want. "I want something different but I can't explain what it is" is not productive.
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent," "Vecna will become impotent," "They have to have weaknesses!" (as if that was in question), "They cannot be allowed to do anything at all as well as any existing class" (the they cannot be allowed to shapeshift as well as druids line from ChatGPT) and likely a few others I am not remembering here.
Or the mantra "Here are options we think you would be happy with if you just change the name"
Meanwhile, the new line that is creeping in is "Well since you do not have a completely thought out, finished proposal, you have no valid points"
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent,"
People aren't actually discussing what they want. They're discussing interactions they don't want. Describe what you want the character to do. Whether those effects need to be, for example, magical or easily detectable, is mostly dependent on what those effects are.
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent,"
People aren't actually discussing what they want. They're discussing interactions they don't want. Describe what you want the character to do. Whether those effects need to be, for example, magical or easily detectable, is mostly dependent on what those effects are.
I don't buy that. "People" have absolutely been discussing what they want, in varying degrees of abstractness and specifics. Maybe some big (hyperbolic) posts by Yurie didn't...
You are also assuming that the Sorcerer has absolutely nothing else better to do with their sorcerer points, particularly since, if they cast something like a fireball, sure the enemy would not be warned by the gestures but as with most direct attack spells, they still see something fly from the caster to the target.
That's... that's literally the point Kotath 🤨 If you want the mechanical advantage of casting all your powers without needing VSM components, there has to be a cost associated with that in order to balance it against spellcasting. How are you still not grasping this concept?
Of course, the mechanical balance is a lot easier to manage if you're not stuck using the exact same power framework.
And in actual D&D settings, characters with class levels are incredibly difficult to imprison for any length of time without turning the regular old lockup into a magical supermax. It's simply a fact of the system, and really undermines that particular argument against psi.
It's truly not that hard, especially for lower-level characters. The vast majority of spells that would enable casters to escape or circumvent incarceration need material components/foci (which can be confiscated), movement/speech (which can be restricted) and/or sight (which can be blocked.)
There's plenty of non-spell powers that don't necessarily. By 5th level, sorcerers are probably unholdable. (I found one spell that's a guaranteed escape, and I didn't finish the list by any means.)
And the designers designed those spells that way for a reason - because they put actual thought into the system they created that you seem determined to overlook for some reason.
Given the general sloppiness of the 5e rules, I think you're giving them way too much credit. For instance: Misty step is mechanically different from Dimension Door, and so Misty step can bypass barriers that DD can't. Was this careful design?
"My proposed psionics system?" The closest thing I have to a "proposed system" is a quarter-assed thing I wrote off the top of my head to illustrate how such a class might be structured. It addressed none of these questions, because they were irrelevant.
You all constantly take every single thing somebody talking about psi said might be a property of it, and turn it into something that everyone arguing for psi in the general case is in favor of, and must satisfy you about before psionics is viable.
Given that my own psionics don't appear to be effective over the internet, I can only evaluate the things that you say about your proposal, yes. And if you're not actually proposing anything, then tell me, where do we go from here?
I mean, I'm mostly here because I find the game-design arguments against psi generally quite weak.
Which is a statement about the common lore. Not even the D&D lore. What people in general think. How it works in fiction.
What fiction is that? The most common inspirations for psionics that I'm aware of are things like HP Lovecraft, X-Men, Dune, maybe Wheel of Time if we want to get fancy.
There's a whole bunch of F&SF, particularly from like the 50s-70s, in which the modern fictional concept of psi was built up. Of your examples, really only the X-Men are a big influence, and HPL and WoT don't touch on it at all AFAIR. Dune sort of does, but I consider The Tomorrow People a more important text (well, TV show).
Of course, the whole thing draws on parapsychology, and spiritualism, and traditional practices that are far older, but the idea of a science of mind powers as an achievable thing centers there.
And of course chakras from various spiritual mythologies/religions that I don't think we can elaborate on here. Lead doesn't feature as a specific deterrent in any of them; all of the times I've seen lead come up in fiction, it's effective at blocking all magic, not just psionics. So where are you getting lead > psionics from?
If I were to actually do the historical study, I suspect I'd find it's most prominent in traditional practices, where the difference between "magic" and "powers of the mind" is not a real division. The whole "lead blocks divination" thing is likely of the same derivation, since far-seeing is often considered psychic powers.
I expect I'd find it in some of the fiction, but it's entirely possible it all springs from Superman's X-Ray vision, and has no historical antecedent.
In any event, it's still a perfectly reasonable option if you must have something to block psi at a mundane level.
They don't seem to have the same concerns about components or need to be able to imprison psychics that you do:
Therefore, psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed.
One way of putting the difference in expectations that has occurred to me:
Spells let casters spend resources to do psychic things
Psychic characters have an inherent ability to do those things
If a telepath wants to talk to somebody nearby with their mind, they can just do it. If a telekinetic wants to grab a beer from the cooler without getting up, they just do it.
If a caster wants to do those things, they have to take an action in order to take the actual action.
Now, obviously this isn't a big deal to you, but it's a base-level failure of the mechanics to support the fiction. The fact that Paizo's players are at least somewhat satisfied with their approach does not make it the only approach, or the best approach, or equally satisfactory to everybody.
And D&D 5 doesn't even get as mechanically close to the fiction as whichever Pathfinder that is.
A psychic character is a character who does the things psychics do -- chiefly telepathy (and related effects), telekinesis (and related effects), and ESP (clairvoyance and similar effects). All of those exist as spells. We also have canonical examples of psychic monsters, and guess what -- they cast those spells.
The Aboleth (first psi monster I checked) casts no spells. It just is telepathic. Telepathy as a stand-alone ability isn't even in its stat block. Same for mind flayers. Some of the abilities are spells, some are powers that are not spells. Even the spells get an exception to the regular spell rules.
And they're spells not because there's any inherent advantage, but because it's a convenient shorthand. If a psi system existed, they'd be psi powers.
I really can't follow all of this debate, but the focus on countering and dispelling for psionics is bizarre. It's as though you have this interesting idea for a concept (psionics) that has many possible interesting interpretations, but you choose to make the whole franchise hinge on knocking out one of the key pillars of balancing the game (cancellability). Why is this so central to that particular power fantasy?
If I was to be a more bitter and cynical sort I'd think it was because the proponents of psionics want a treehouse magic system that is able to do end runs around the limitations that exist for wizards so that they can just be betterer.
More Likely, I think they don't understand that having (not)magic as a system just makes the game a more confusing and imbalanced mess.
It’s not to both statements here - at least for me. But at least some of us have ideas for what psionics should look like and would like to see something close to our ideas in the 5e (+) game. I played with psionics way back in 1&2e and into 3e in both campaigns where magic could and couldn’t counter psi and it works in both if you keep in mind that if magic can’t counter psi then, for balance, psi can’t counter magic either. I don’t really expect WOTC to ever create a form of psi beyond their toe step subclasses so I created my own several years ago. It’s point based like the 1/2e versions but adapted to fit the modern 10 power levels (cantrips & L1-9) of that is a part of the core structure of D&D as any sort of psi is going to have to fit into that in some way. I’ve run it as both being and not being affected by magic . Psi, because it resembles magic ends up on the magic side of the magic - melee divide but I can see ways of toning down both to shrink that divide without overly disrupting the game especially at the lower levels where most folks play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The ChatGPT thing said that the Psion’s utility shouldn’t intrude on the Druid’s shapeshifting. It did not suggest that the Psions should have shape shifting.
There’s a big difference between biofeedback(the kind of psychometabolism the Psion should have) and shapeshifting.
Nevertheless, it was argued by the pro-psionics are different side that psions should have polymorph
Please explain to me how you’ve reconciled this very same argument with the claim that an enemy knows the rat isn’t acting as a rat familiar would?
It's less "lead deters psychic abilities in fiction" and more "lead can be made to block psychic abilities in D&D because it's a useful game design check/brake".
The issue is that admitting it's a useful design brake then gets into the inevitable chain of "Okay so you admit psi can have the same brakes as magic" > "Okay so you admit psi can share some things with magic" > "Okay so you admit psi and magic are exactly the same thing" > "okay so you admit there's no reasona spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots can't be "psi"." None of which follows from the former. Saying 'lead can be used to block psychic abilities' does not mean "spellcasters who cast spells using spell slots are suddenly psychic characters".
Characters who cast spells using spell slots are spellcasters. Spellcasters, by fundamental definition, are not psychic characters. Those are, and always will be, two entirely separatre things, even if one character might have levels in both the way a character can have Fighter levels and Wizard levels without Fighters and Wizards both being the same thing.
Please do not contact or message me.
There's nothing fundamental about this at all. Paizo had no problem making their psychic characters be spellcasters, and it worked.
A psychic character is a character who does the things psychics do -- chiefly telepathy (and related effects), telekinesis (and related effects), and ESP (clairvoyance and similar effects). All of those exist as spells. We also have canonical examples of psychic monsters, and guess what -- they cast those spells.
By the suggestion that the enemy in question would be ok with a rat running around because it might be the familiar of their boss or one of their bosses.
They thus have direct access to both knowledge of how this particular rat familiar behaves (b), which is far more useful knowledge than (a).
No response at all on the other points regarding rats in general? Like why they would be ok with rats running around their base, period?
The analysis was comparing directly to Wildshape. Since when do Druids have biofeedback spells or abilities? Note that Druids have limited shapeshifting too, so we aren't comparing with unrestricted shapechange, regardless. So why not say "Wildshape equivalent?"
The ChatGPT analysis was something you did, then since it was convenient to your arguments, have been treating it as some sort of unquestionable expert. You still have not explained why no Psion should be able to complete with wildshape, specifically, regardless of how all else about the Psion class is balanced. otherwise.
And yet, in forty pages, no one has yet explained what reason, rhyme, justification or meaning there is behind calling a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots a "psychic" character rather than just a brain-damaged spellcaster. The closest has been Pantagruel saying "all specialized spellcasters suck so you have no reason to be any different", which is an explanation of why specialized spellcasters are bad and should feel bad. Not an explanation of why a spellcaster who casts spells using spell slots is somehow not a spellcaster and is instead a psychic character.
Please do not contact or message me.
This sounds like a dish in the menu of a restaurante, somebody will ask and others will not.
We can agree about how to avoid possible abuses by munchkins, or by DMs.
Psionic powers in the previous editions lacked verbal and somatic components, why should that change now? Certain changes aren't wellcome easily.
Can spells be used to counterspell psionic powers? For example mage hand against telekinesis or viceversa. Maybe psionic powers can work withi anti-magic fields, but some zones could block certain effects, for example teleportation, and the origin doesn't matter.
* Other point if after the psionic powers they will choose to update other classes with special class mechanics: incarnum soulmelders, vestige binders, martial adepts, mystery shadowcasters..
Easy. The logic behind calling that character a psychic is "I want to call my character a psychic". When you create a character, create for what you want the character to do, not how its abilities are labeled.
And again, you can call them a petunia. But kind of semantic dismissal is non-constructive.
It's not a semantic dismissal. It's a fundamental concept people are missing: names and mechanics are separable. Find the game mechanic you want, and call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter.
It is a semantic dismissal when you insist that changing the name should be sufficient to satisfy those who are repeatedly saying they want something much more substantial than a mere name change.
And coming back to suggesting a mere name change, again, after this many pages of discussion, is, well...
This point is not incorrect. However, I think people are saying quite clearly that "the mechanic they want" doesn't quite exist in current D&D. Though it is perhaps hinted at, or some subclasses get adjacent to it.
(and sure, whatever mechanic that is, it should not automatically skip past all known resistances and be a "in a land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" sort of situation. I don't think that's happening, though it was an issue in the past.)
First of all, "I don't want to use spell slots" is really just change for change's sake.
Second, "I don't like the current mechanics for psi and want new ones" doesn't mean the game doesn't have psi. The game has psionic abilities, and in fact even has functional psionic characters. The answer to "Psionics in 5e" is "yes, they exist". You might not like how they work -- there are plenty of things about plenty of classes I don't much care for -- but I can make a much more functional psion in 5e than I can make, say, something like a 4e Warlord.
Thid, "I want new mechanics" is fine... but then you should actually define what those new mechanics are, in sufficient detail to evaluate their balance and feasibility. As I said a ways up... if you can't fit the entire class description, including three subclasses, in five to six pages, it's probably too complex. The only person to come close to a usable level of detail about "what I actually want" is Lia Black, and it was ... okay?
Every time anyone in this thread tries discussing even so much as generalities, they get shut down at that level by lines such as "The Beholders will become impotent," "Vecna will become impotent," "They have to have weaknesses!" (as if that was in question), "They cannot be allowed to do anything at all as well as any existing class" (the they cannot be allowed to shapeshift as well as druids line from ChatGPT) and likely a few others I am not remembering here.
Or the mantra "Here are options we think you would be happy with if you just change the name"
Meanwhile, the new line that is creeping in is "Well since you do not have a completely thought out, finished proposal, you have no valid points"
People aren't actually discussing what they want. They're discussing interactions they don't want. Describe what you want the character to do. Whether those effects need to be, for example, magical or easily detectable, is mostly dependent on what those effects are.
I don't buy that. "People" have absolutely been discussing what they want, in varying degrees of abstractness and specifics. Maybe some big (hyperbolic) posts by Yurie didn't...
Of course, the mechanical balance is a lot easier to manage if you're not stuck using the exact same power framework.
There's plenty of non-spell powers that don't necessarily. By 5th level, sorcerers are probably unholdable. (I found one spell that's a guaranteed escape, and I didn't finish the list by any means.)
Given the general sloppiness of the 5e rules, I think you're giving them way too much credit. For instance: Misty step is mechanically different from Dimension Door, and so Misty step can bypass barriers that DD can't. Was this careful design?
I mean, I'm mostly here because I find the game-design arguments against psi generally quite weak.
There's a whole bunch of F&SF, particularly from like the 50s-70s, in which the modern fictional concept of psi was built up. Of your examples, really only the X-Men are a big influence, and HPL and WoT don't touch on it at all AFAIR. Dune sort of does, but I consider The Tomorrow People a more important text (well, TV show).
Of course, the whole thing draws on parapsychology, and spiritualism, and traditional practices that are far older, but the idea of a science of mind powers as an achievable thing centers there.
If I were to actually do the historical study, I suspect I'd find it's most prominent in traditional practices, where the difference between "magic" and "powers of the mind" is not a real division. The whole "lead blocks divination" thing is likely of the same derivation, since far-seeing is often considered psychic powers.
I expect I'd find it in some of the fiction, but it's entirely possible it all springs from Superman's X-Ray vision, and has no historical antecedent.
In any event, it's still a perfectly reasonable option if you must have something to block psi at a mundane level.
They don't seem to have the same concerns about components or need to be able to imprison psychics that you do:
One way of putting the difference in expectations that has occurred to me:
If a telepath wants to talk to somebody nearby with their mind, they can just do it. If a telekinetic wants to grab a beer from the cooler without getting up, they just do it.
If a caster wants to do those things, they have to take an action in order to take the actual action.
Now, obviously this isn't a big deal to you, but it's a base-level failure of the mechanics to support the fiction. The fact that Paizo's players are at least somewhat satisfied with their approach does not make it the only approach, or the best approach, or equally satisfactory to everybody.
And D&D 5 doesn't even get as mechanically close to the fiction as whichever Pathfinder that is.
The Aboleth (first psi monster I checked) casts no spells. It just is telepathic. Telepathy as a stand-alone ability isn't even in its stat block. Same for mind flayers. Some of the abilities are spells, some are powers that are not spells. Even the spells get an exception to the regular spell rules.
And they're spells not because there's any inherent advantage, but because it's a convenient shorthand. If a psi system existed, they'd be psi powers.
It’s not to both statements here - at least for me. But at least some of us have ideas for what psionics should look like and would like to see something close to our ideas in the 5e (+) game. I played with psionics way back in 1&2e and into 3e in both campaigns where magic could and couldn’t counter psi and it works in both if you keep in mind that if magic can’t counter psi then, for balance, psi can’t counter magic either. I don’t really expect WOTC to ever create a form of psi beyond their toe step subclasses so I created my own several years ago. It’s point based like the 1/2e versions but adapted to fit the modern 10 power levels (cantrips & L1-9) of that is a part of the core structure of D&D as any sort of psi is going to have to fit into that in some way. I’ve run it as both being and not being affected by magic . Psi, because it resembles magic ends up on the magic side of the magic - melee divide but I can see ways of toning down both to shrink that divide without overly disrupting the game especially at the lower levels where most folks play.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.