If you anyone is going to go on about how over powered psionics are could you at least please keep up on the rules, seriously. Spouting out things as if they are facts when you are in reality wrong is how most of the "OMG Psionics are overpowered" got spread in the first place. If you don't take the time to actually read up on a subject you just start to sound like you have a chip on your shoulder and are completely unwilling/unable to see that you could possibly be wrong. It was errata'd so you CANNOT summon multiple astral constructs unless you are a specific PrC (that is not open content - so it was basically a nerf to the SRD astral construct power), even then you can only have 2 at most and I think you lose manifester levels and don't get that ability until the end (I don't have the book with me to tell you for sure). Wizards or ANY OTHER CASTER have no restrictions on the summon XYZ spells so that means... YES an arcane spell caster will be able to do this particular trick MUCH better than a psion would -Archangel-.
I'm sorry to interupt you berated someone for spouting out things as if they are facts when that person is in reality wrong, but I think that you are wrong here.
After checking the hypertext SRD and the errata on the WotC 3.5 errata page I can seem to find the errata for this power on either of those.
However, I do remember that modified version of astral construct from Complete Psionic. However, it does not seem that that change ever progressed to errata, so the only way that someone would know about and use it about it is if they were told about it first, or had Complete Psionic.
I do remember that modified version of astral construct from Complete Psionic. However, it does not seem that that change ever progressed to errata...If two versions of the same rule exist in different WotC products, the latest version becomes the official one. "That modified astral construct" from the Complete Psionic became the official version of astral construct the minute it appeared in print.
Yeah, but expecting someone to own Complete Psionic, just in case they updated one of the powers without errata, is a bit odd.
Also, what does that mean for the psionic SRD? Is it official only as far as WotC books? Can other companies use the Complete Psionic astral construct?
I do remember that modified version of astral construct from Complete Psionic. However, it does not seem that that change ever progressed to errata...If two versions of the same rule exist in different WotC products, the latest version becomes the official one. "That modified astral construct" from the Complete Psionic became the official version of astral construct the minute it appeared in print.
Actually that is not true. In 3.5e Core books always trump supplements.
The only question is if XPH is considered a Core book (for psionics) or just another supplement.Anyway I never got Complete Psionics as no DM around here would let me play a Psionic character in their campaign and none ever wanted to play one in mine.
For this discussion I was using Hypertext d20 SRD page and their info about Psionics.
I'm sorry to interupt you berated someone for spouting out things as if they are facts when that person is in reality wrong, but I think that you are wrong here.
After checking the hypertext SRD and the errata on the WotC 3.5 errata page I can seem to find the errata for this power on either of those.
However, I do remember that modified version of astral construct from Complete Psionic. However, it does not seem that that change ever progressed to errata, so the only way that someone would know about and use it about it is if they were told about it first, or had Complete Psionic.
If you consider 3 sentences berating,I guess, you're entitled to your opinion obviously. I suppose I could have just said "You're wrong" and not offered an explanation as to why too, but it isn't as helpful when trying to correct an error and personally I would view that as an insult (implying I'm not worth the effort to explain why). Lack of the proper books doesn't change the rules, just like you will still get arrested for doing something illegal even if you are ignorant of the laws. Arguing something you have no clue about doesn't make you look good and generally doesn't help your cause either. You can however sound really good until someone calls you on it at which point the possibility exists that you look like a complete fool for not knowing.
If there was a chance in hell I was wrong I wouldn't have posted. I know how internet arguments go, so I'm only going to open my mouth if there is no doubt I am correct. Regardless, getting back to the original point, the scenario -Archangel- posted was wrong just like 90% of the posts arguing that psionics are overpowered for one reason or another. The fact that -Archangel- doesn't even own the official books or keep up with the rules changes and is still touting the party line "Psi is overpowered" just makes him/her sound foolish to me. Now take -Archangel-'s compelling but horribly incorrect example, people will read that and go "Huh, sounds overpowered to me" and spread it about because it "sounds" good and they are too damn lazy or stupid to look into it themselves, this is the internet after all you know? It is probably what happened to -Archangel-, who might even be repeating something that was seen on another message board. Also please see how vehemently -Archangel- opposed Matthew Morris's post defending the position as if it were true even though it wasn't. -Archangel- had no intention of hearing anything other than what he/she wanted to say, there was no attempt at trying to see it any other way, just "I am right because of this and this and this". It is like this on practically every post where Psi vs Core casters is brought up, and eventually the people who are correct realize they are fighting a losing battle and eventually just give up because it isn't worth it (see Matthew Morris's posts) and there is no convincing the vast majority of those who are, in reality wrong, otherwise (see -Archangel-'s last post).
As for hearing about the change, if you spent any time on the boards when Complete Psionics came out, one of the things that had people up in arms was the change to astral construct (the actual publishers forums, free to everyone, no book required). It was one of the biggest things in the book and consequently something you would have run into if you did even a modicum of research about the proposed scenario. Basically, if I'm going to take a stand on something, I'm going to put at least some effort into learning about it and make sure I'm correct before posting for all the world to see so I don't sound like an idiot. And no that wasn't a subtle insult, that is just how I view things. If I'm not sure I'll say I'm not sure and be willing to accept I might be wrong. If I'm proven wrong I'll be able to say "Damn that sucks I've been doing/had it wrong all this time? Sorry about that."
One more thing, could you please explain to me how Psionic Meditation is "overpowered" or "too good" as this was one of the other main complaints? I mean you do realize that a psion has to WASTE a feat on Psionic Meditation to get the exact same effect out of metapsionic feats that a sorcerer gets FREE when using metamagic feats right? Without that feat it costs a psion a full round action to focus and a standard action to use a power with metapsionics. When a sorcerer uses a metamagic (besides quicken obviously) it is a full round action leaving them a 5' step and a swift action. After a psion burns a feat to get Psionic Meditation and uses a metapsionic feat it costs them a move action to focus, a skill check as well (which the other casters don't have to contend with, yet another NEGATIVE to psions) and then the standard action to use the power, leaving a swift action and 5' step. Wow, it is magically the same but yet it COST the psion to do so. How in any way is that overpowered? Yes, just about every psion will take this feat if they are planning on using metapsionics BUT THEY HAVE TO TO EVEN KEEP UP WITH THE OTHER CASTERS. It is like a feat tax and that psion with metapsionic feats but without psionic meditation will just plain suck in combat, they don't actually have a choice in the matter.
I feel strongly about psionics and would rather a balanced system that needed tweaks doesn't get tossed out the window due to the crud that people insist on posting every time psionics are brought up. I know that the Paizo people are reading these boards and will be making decisions based on them. If there is ever a time to put the BS "psi is overpowered" vocalists down it is now and here where Paizo can hopefully see the reality. Not to say the wonderful people there don't know the rules but they have ALOT on their plates and could be under the same misconceptions tons of others are under. If I can help correct that I am doing this game a service and that is the least I can do in repayment of the entertainment this hobby has brought me over the past years and will hopefully bring me in the years to come. Now I'm not so sure about my spelling and grammar but I'm fairly sure my points have been made.
Actually that is not true. In 3.5e Core books always trump supplements.
Correct.
The only question is if XPH is considered a Core book (for psionics) or just another supplement.
The only official core books are the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide and Monster Manual.
The Expanded Psionic Handbook is nothing but a supplement, even if it is the reference for psionics.
So whatever update was made in a more recent psionic supplement takes over.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually that is not true. In 3.5e Core books always trump supplements.Correct.
The only question is if XPH is considered a Core book (for psionics) or just another supplement.The only official core books are the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master Guide and Monster Manual.
The Expanded Psionic Handbook is nothing but a supplement, even if it is the reference for psionics.
So whatever update was made in a more recent psionic supplement takes over.
Except that the Complete psionic calls the XPH core, so the (in)complete psionic is trumped by the XPH.
"The original 3.0 psionic handbook was an example of rolling a 1 on craft(writing)
The (in)complete psionic was an example of rolling a 1 on Profession (editor)" - source unknown
If you consider 3 sentences berating,I guess, you're entitled to your opinion obviously. I suppose I could have just said "You're wrong" and not offered an explanation as to why too, but it isn't as helpful when trying to correct an error and personally I would view that as an insult (implying I'm not worth the effort to explain why). Lack of the proper books doesn't change the rules, just like you will still get arrested for doing something illegal even if you are ignorant of the laws. Arguing something you have no clue about doesn't make you look good and generally doesn't help your cause either. You can however sound really good until someone calls you on it at which point the possibility exists that you look like a complete fool for not knowing.
That is why you usually need to put up an errata, not change core rules in splatbooks. And your comparing this with the actual law is very flawed on many levels.
Especially since you cannot Rule 0 laws, EVER!If there was a chance in hell I was wrong I wouldn't have posted. I know how internet arguments go, so I'm only going to open my mouth if there is no doubt I am correct. Regardless, getting back to the original point, the scenario -Archangel- posted was wrong just like 90% of the posts arguing that psionics are overpowered for one reason or another. The fact that -Archangel- doesn't even own the official books or keep up with the rules changes and is still touting the party line "Psi is overpowered" just makes him/her sound foolish to me. Now take -Archangel-'s compelling but horribly incorrect example, people will read that and go "Huh, sounds overpowered to me" and spread it about because it "sounds" good and they are too damn lazy or stupid to look into it themselves, this is the internet after all you know? It is probably what happened to -Archangel-, who might even be repeating something that was seen on another message board. Also please see how vehemently -Archangel- opposed Matthew Morris's post defending the position as if it were true even though it wasn't. -Archangel- had no intention of hearing anything other than what he/she wanted to say, there was no attempt at trying to see it any other way, just "I am right because of this and this and this". It is like this on practically every post where Psi vs Core casters is brought up, and eventually the people who are correct realize they are fighting a losing battle and eventually just give up because it isn't worth it (see Matthew Morris's posts) and there is no convincing the vast majority of those who are, in reality wrong, otherwise (see -Archangel-'s last post).
You sir, are rude. I wonder how that high horse you are sitting on is still alive from the all the weight of your ego and rudeness. I really do not want to have any kind of discussion with people that act like you. Next time try not to attack people (and mention their names without any purpose in a post so many times).
As for hearing about the change, if you spent any time on the boards when Complete Psionics came out, one of the things that had people up in arms was the change to astral construct (the actual publishers forums, free to everyone, no book required). It was one of the biggest things in the book and consequently something you would have run into if you did even a modicum of research about the proposed scenario. Basically, if I'm going to take a stand on something, I'm going to put at least some effort into learning about it and make sure I'm correct before posting for all the world to see so I don't sound like an idiot. And no that wasn't a subtle insult, that is just how I view things. If I'm not sure I'll say I'm not sure and be willing to accept I might be wrong. If I'm proven wrong I'll be able to say "Damn that sucks I've been doing/had it wrong all this time? Sorry about that."
Some people have a life, and do not spend all their times on forums about PnP games. I only came to this one after the 4e debacle. Otherwise I only occasionally visit SWSE forums because I play a SWSE game. I only visited the Psionics forums for the first few months after the XPH came out.
As I already said, I used Hypertext d20 SRD for my posts. There was no mention of these changes to Astral Construct there. I am sorry for you if not spending as much time on the forums as you makes some people idiots in your eyes. Try the great outdoor, the sun, the bird, the forest. You might not do this kind of posting then in the future.One more thing, could you please explain to me how Psionic Meditation is "overpowered" or "too good" as this was one of the other main complaints? I mean you do realize that a psion has to WASTE a feat on Psionic Meditation to get the exact same effect out of metapsionic feats that a sorcerer gets FREE when using metamagic feats right? Without that feat it costs a psion a full round action to focus and a standard action to use a power with metapsionics. When a sorcerer uses a metamagic (besides quicken obviously) it is a full round action leaving them a 5' step and a swift action. After a psion burns a feat to get Psionic Meditation and uses a metapsionic feat it costs them a move action to focus, a skill check as well (which the other casters don't have to contend with, yet another NEGATIVE to psions) and then the standard action to use the power, leaving a swift action and 5' step. Wow, it is magically the same but yet it COST the psion to do so. How in any way is that overpowered? Yes, just about every psion will take this feat if they are planning on using metapsionics BUT THEY HAVE TO TO EVEN KEEP UP WITH THE OTHER CASTERS. It is like a feat tax and that psion with metapsionic feats but without psionic meditation will just plain suck in combat, they don't actually have a choice in the matter.
Was this for me? If it was I never said Psionic Meditation is overpowered. It is OK, not weaker or stronger. Balances OK with the lower cost of metapsionic feats then the metamagic feats. It is actually a bit better in a way then the Sorcerer way of using metamagic. Sorcerer need to spend a full round action each round of using metamagic. The Psion only after round 1 since he will be coming into the fight with one focus already. Of course, Psion can only put one Metamagic feat on one power while the Sorcerer has not such limitation (however that is useful, mostly to Still and Silent at the same time).
I feel strongly about psionics and would rather a balanced system that needed tweaks doesn't get tossed out the window due to the crud that people insist on posting every time psionics are brought up. I know that the Paizo people are reading these boards and will be making decisions based on them. If there is ever a time to put the BS "psi is overpowered" vocalists down it is now and here where Paizo can hopefully see the reality. Not to say the wonderful people there don't know the rules but they have ALOT on their plates and could be under the same misconceptions tons of others are under. If I can help correct that I am doing this game a service and that is the least I can do in repayment of the entertainment this hobby has brought me over the past years and will hopefully bring me in the years to come. Now I'm not so sure about my spelling and grammar but I'm fairly sure my points have been made.
I do not think all of the Psionics are overpowered but I already said in my opinion what powers need to be nerfed or completely removed. After that the Psion is OK as it is in the XPH. Well it can be improved in other ways of course, like some of the other posters mentioned (giving it more discipline focus and not having powers that just copy arcane or divine spells).
Also I am sorry that my posts have brought out the forum monster: insulting.
I have said all that I have on this thread. Any reader can go through what was said and make their own decision.
Guys, can we please take the rules arguments into another thread and leave this one for people to give their opinions about what they would like to see in a psionics books to the Paizo guys? I realize that there is some connection however these arguments are totally drowning out the rest of the conversation and making it frustrating to follow this thread.
Powerfully frustrating, in alot of ways, there just isn't any point in internet arguements, your so unlikely to change the other person's opinion, the paizo crew really won't look at inflamatory posting, if something is a bit broken, I'm sure they'll try to fix those bits, even if their system is alternate you can still use XPH perfectly, and this is just an alternative.
All increasingly bitter and sometimes downright nasty arguement does is drown out any merit in your posts (for me, someone who gets that touchy and aggressive just spiols their debate) and makes someone elses day a little bit worse.
I like SRD psionics, although there are certainly rough spots in some of the powers, and in effective action economy for psions.
Fixing psicrystal abuse is a good start, but also necessary is limiting the psions to normal caster action economy. Quickened manifest power, schism manifest power, normal manifest power is too much if the psion can blow through effective spell slots faster than an equal level caster. Even an optimized sorceror cannot throw 2 effectively quickened spells a round, and that is rule spot that might need to be smoothed over. Schism might require a swift action every round, or result in the manifester being dazed for the duration. Overchannel might also be too much, since it allows the psion to boost effective caster level, which should generally be a hard limit.
In terms of powers, I want and expect psionic powers to overlap the divine and arcane power lists somewhat. Some effects belong on multiple lists, like charm, telekinesis, scry and similar effects. Ultimately, I see psionic powers as being local in effect, without counting such things as remote viewing, which absolutely should be part of psionics. Invisibility for a psion should involve erasing their presence from the minds of their enemies. Including prohibited disciplines might work for psions, as there is no generalist psion.
One more thing, could you please explain to me how Psionic Meditation is "overpowered" or "too good" as this was one of the other main complaints? I mean you do realize that a psion has to WASTE a feat on Psionic Meditation to get the exact same effect out of metapsionic feats that a sorcerer gets FREE when using metamagic feats right?
Are you asking me? Why?
What do psionics mean to me. Apparently endless bickering off topic of this thread. Please carry this bickering to the appropriate thread and PLEASE let this thread go back to the discussion at hand.
@ Seldriss and Matthew Morris and -Archangel-:
I do believe you are incorrect on Core trumping supplements, I am at work (fyi the only place I have time to search/post from) and don't have access to all my resources (books, bookmarks, gaming friends, etc.). The only things I can put forth to you at this time is if you were correct there would be no swift or immediate actions, you would have to use a standard action to cast swift spells from wants, feather fall would still be a free action, and sorcerers would be unable to ever use quicken metamagic as it would require them to cast the spell as a full round action as per the PHB. These rules are from supplements and are not in the book/errata sheets for the PHB or DMG (I don't think - I didn't check there to be honest as the only one would be there is activation of wands). I do know that in the beginning of the Magic Item Compendium they state that they have modified some of the items abilities/slots/costs and if you have bought them/made them talk to your DM about getting a refund/adjusting resources or (in essence go Rule 0 and) just continue to use the old items in the DMG or other source if that is easier (or however they put it, it was a few sentences). It came up in one of our games because of a weapon ability that got more expensive so the DM just said erase it and give the gold back to the character as they couldn't afford it at that point.
The reasoning I came up for why some things are used is 1) The original item was SRD so when the new printing came out it is modifying the original with a new ruling so that is still considered SRD? IE Feather Fall being rewritten as a swift action. 2) Because of the slippery conditions of what is OGL and not (like Blazej's question with astral construct and Complete Psionics) many of the sites may have not updated or risked putting out things that they possibly could have been called out on. Less of a hassle, better safe then sorry type thing because lawyers are involved. Basically Astral Constructs new ruling is SRD but the PrC wouldn't be (which is probably why many psionic campaigns ignore the nerf). I have no real answer for you about anything other than the rules in official books.
***Off subject for a moment***
Now for -Archangel-, you took my opinion that I think you sound foolish posting about a subject you obviously know little about and now decided to insult me personally. I may have been a bit harsh but I never insulted you to any extent that would warrant that. If I had, the people at Paizo would have said something/posted about it already. After all is said and done, it isn't my ego that seems to be inflamed and it isn't a horse that is between my legs (even though it may seem like it - what can I say, I'm a lucky guy), all I can say about it is I'm sorry that you can't take criticism and the internet is probably not the best environment for you. Gaming is a hobby that has treated my friends and I well over the past years and we all make a concerted effort to make sure we are playing the game by the correct rules, between us all we probably have 95% of all the official books and a good bit of unofficial stuff. This has lead to us being a very "experienced" gaming group when it comes to the rules, which has nothing to do with not having a life like you imply. It just means we put forth the effort to know what is going on and share it with everyone else.
***"Game on"***
For me this about making sure an often misunderstood rules set is given a real chance to shine with a few tweaks and I'm trying to make my side of the story as sound and complete as possible. I'd rather put forth the effort now and voice my opinions and counter arguments so that can be a likely reality if Paizo people read it and choose to pursue this. I care about the end results and would rather not be stuck complaining after it is published and too late. Or worse yet buckle and saying nothing because of a few of the other posters don't agree just to have it take a turn for the worst. I'm not that guy, don't make the mistake of thinking I am. Posts like yours –Archangel- are the beginnings of a thread lock so I really don’t have a clue what this all means to you. It is also in the threads best interest that it stop, please note the utter lack of inflammatory remarks. I suggest you follow suit as I am not going to get drawn into a flame war regardless of what you write. I care about this subject, I don't care about you, it makes staying focused remarkably easy.
And the Psionic Meditation was meant to who ever posted about it earlier in the thread, if I remember correctly that was the first thing they said was needing to be fixed. I'm going to admit to being lazy at this point and say I don't have the time to go back and read the last 6 pages to find out who. I am at work and contrary to popular belief I do have other things to do. If it had been meant expressly for either of you, I pretty consistently name people when I comment on their posts do you not agree?
I see my plea fell of deaf ears. I hope you guys realize you are NOT helping your case with Paizo publishers that don't really care for psionics to even want to do a Psi Book. At the least, they will not want any of the SRD stuff since it causes this kind of thread jacking. This thread is for what the idea of psionics feels to you in a D&D game. Not who can nova or rules issues. It is your personal take on what you want in a system. If the running argument over rules were eliminated from this thread, I bet it would be only half the number of posts long.
Do you guys want psioncs in the PFRPG? If so, then you better start showing some maturity & tell the Man what your opinion on the style of psioncs you want to see rules for. Otherwise you guys may talk Paizo out of even considering psioncs at all.
Let me start out by stating that I am a big fan of the present XPH. I love the point-based system and the versatility that gives, a versatiity that frankly the other casting classes do not have. I am personally of the opinion that it doesn't really need a major revision. The system works. It's fun. There are tons of players and DMs that have played it with no adverse effect to their gameplay.
Most of the people that object to Psionics as-is seem to disagree with a couple of points about the system, not the system as a whole, mostly I think from not wanting to bother with a new set of rules. Most of the negative reactions to psionics from DMs I personally know came about because the DM didn't know as much as the player(s) did about the system. Players will mostly ignore it since it is so easy to ignore, unless it catches their imagination. This was not the fault of the system. Should the points of contention be looked at? Sure. Does that mean that things should be changed? Not necessarily, but world-concept should be a deciding factor.
The people that object to Psionics at-all-costs seem to be the ones that say that psionics should not be included anyways, usually for flavor reasons, ala 'my psi is sci-fi'. This argument to me has always seemed weak, since to my view, psychic phenomenon predates magical, with magical trying to replicate and replace the psychic side of things. At the very least they grew up together. It is magic that has no place in Sci-Fi, not the other way around. Besides, with a plotted solar system, and more beyond, how can there not be sci-fi elements?
Can the system be abused and exploited? Yes, unfortunately it can. Inasmuch as any of the other classes can be, one of the ones pro-psions regularly grumble about is the sorcerer, probably because the two are the most similar of the classes. I think part of the problem that nay-sayers have with psionics is how, in their view, it is so much more easily abused and exploited. While I personally think that this is true, I also think that is also, and to a greater extent, dependant on the player/DM dynamic. With good players and good DMs communicating one with another, it shouldn't be a problem. However I do understand from a design point of view that you want to eliminate as much need of that as possible.
Tweaking may be necessary, as the base classes were tweaked from 3.5, and could probably be done with a campaign-central idea guiding the tweak. Polymorph is a great example of the types of tweaks Paizo is capable of; one that redid the system, but didn't eliminate what people liked about the system. I personally feel that the Barbarian from the Beta with their 'Rage Points' is a lot like Psionic powers, or, dare I say it, Psionic in nature. Am I the only one who sees it that way? The barbarian releasing the power of the super-ego into their id for significant power boost?
I think paying close attention to the magic-psi transparency will be a must. That particular rule was just too nebulous to be any good other than to make the ruling either all or nothing: ie. magic=psionics (which begged the question 'why have both') or magic differs from psionics (which made it a rule-breaker scenerio). Although to be fair, has anyone played a arcanist in a predominantly psionic society? Woulda gone both ways...
Is a new system needed or warrented? Maybe. Would I support a 'new' psionic system? Maybe. Again it falls under the whole 'does it fit into Golarion?' question. As it has already been stated that Psionics exists, that question is moot. Now, the next question is if the present system fits into your game design concepts. Both systems could be supported by Paizo. Maybe psions from the Isle of Jalmeray have a different set-up for the mechanics (different path of enlightenment?), while XPH-style only exists back in Vudra, or even on Castrovel or Akiton, or even Eox (I can't really see those dead guys being able to easily access the spell components needed for arcane casting very easily, can you?)
However it is done, there must be a solid, real game-world (is that an oxymoron?)reason behind first, introducing the psionics into gameplay and second, changing it from it's present form. Remember XPH has been play-tested already and given the thumbs-up of many players on these boards.
I would love to see what you would come up with for psionics and plan to get whatever you publish on the subject. However I am hoping that it will stay true to the XPH version of psionics, with a great deal of support towards it. If Paizo can have Psionics not necessarily central, but certainly regular in it's appearance, in whatever form they finally choose, then it's got a winner. I mean throughout the adventure paths, creatures are cross-referenced to corresponding books, like Advanced Beastiary, which I bought specifically because of that. Psionic creatures can be done the same and be described the same way. If Paizo gets wishy-washy in it's approach to Psionics, then Psis again take on the appearance of bastardized-half-sibling that no one wants to talk about. This would be a shame and be the deal breaker for me.
I think I've sufficiently explained what Psionics means to me.
I see my plea fell of deaf ears. I hope you guys realize you are NOT helping your case with Paizo publishers that don't really care for psionics to even want to do a Psi Book. At the least, they will not want any of the SRD stuff since it causes this kind of thread jacking. This thread is for what the idea of psionics feels to you in a D&D game. Not who can nova or rules issues. It is your personal take on what you want in a system. If the running argument over rules were eliminated from this thread, I bet it would be only half the number of posts long.
Do you guys want psioncs in the PFRPG? If so, then you better start showing some maturity & tell the Man what your opinion on the style of psioncs you want to see rules for. Otherwise you guys may talk Paizo out of even considering psioncs at all.
So my opinion that psionic rules are a fairly balanced system as they are and could use minor tweaks not overhauls as many of the other posters are asking for is off topic?
Here is what the Man has said so far in this thread(I omitted the one about the non transparency of magic and psionics):
I mentioned this on the original thread Erik started... but I'm curious to find out if fans of the XPH think it NEEDS an update, and if so, what that means to them.For those of you who prefer the current XPH point-based system... does it feel like it needs an update or a fix to you? I'm not a fan of that system, and to me the "fix" would be to rebuild it in another way entirely. I don't want to do that if that means enraging all the current psionics fan, but as Erik hinted... if rebuilding psionics so that they work better with the core and don't use their own easily-abused (in my opinion) unique point-based system brings in MORE customers to the psionics fold... would it be worth doing anyway?
In the end, the current XPH will remain compatible with the Pathfinder RPG, anyway. What is it that fans of the current XPH think needs "updating" if anything?
****
I'm fine with something that a GM won't allow into his game because of flavor issues. But not allowing something into his game because the thing in question is broken (or at least, regarded as broken) is poor design.
****
And it's probably a good time to remind psionics fans:
I DO like psionics. I like them a lot. I've been responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of any psionic-related material being included in Golarion material, either by asking folk to write a section about it for a book or by writing psionic stuff myself.
I want psionics to play nice with the rest of the world; I want to be able to have psionic monsters in Pathifnder adventures, I want to have a psionic iconic (and not just because that rhymes cool) on a cover. But as long as psionics don't play nice with non-psionic, core material, that won't happen.
And if "fixing" the psionic stuff so that it DOES play nice with non-psionic stuff makes all the current psionic fans abandon us and throw up their arms in anger and frustration, that's no good either.
Whew! Makes me dizzy!
****
In any event, part of the problem lies, I believe, that the way the VERY spell-similar powers wielded by psions follow such a different system that confusion and user-error is commonplace. By switching psionics over to follow the same type of system used by current concepts in place in the core rules, one could hopefully preserve the flavor of the in game psionics stuff but make the rules easier to understand.
But if abandoning the PSP system causes a mob of torch wielding psions to march on Paizo, that ain't no good either!
Anyway... it's a good thing we've got a long time to figure this all out (since we don't even have a psionics book on the schedule yet). I'm relatively certain that if and when we DO do a psionics book (or an epic book) we'll have an open playtest for it, though... so whatever we DO decide to go with shouldn't be a nasty surprise...
First I will state that by saying I will probably buy it regardless because it is psionics does not help my argument in the first place. I know this and I'm sure it would be a much more effective to say I'm not likely to buy it if it isn't compatible with the XPH. Paizo is a business and they are after our money in the end. I am probably in the minority on this however, I know things are bad financially now and the forecast isn't much better in the near future. Many posts here have mentioned that they usually have to balance their disposable income when it comes to Paizo's products. Threats to the pocket book need to be seriously considered by businesses at this point. Saying I won't buy it as it isn't XPH based sounds way too much like throwing a tantrum and would be lying as I probably will buy it regardless. I will be happier and more likely to use it if it is a minorly updated XPH. I will also be much more likely to buy possible supplements to it as well in that case, I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination and cannot afford everything they publish.
Now I have also said that I don't agree with James Jacob on a few points, that the XPH needs to be redone to work and that the 20th level psion is very overpowered in comparison to the core class casters. Both hogarth and Matthew Morris have posted various things in an attempt to show that James may be working under the same misconception that many other posters who regard psionics as broken. If we can give valid arguments that cause one of the game editors to reconsider our side I think we should do so. Part of that is a comparison to core rules that reveals that psionics does play nicely with core and that exisiting flaws with "throttling" a class' abilities isn't just a psionic issue (as shown with a sorcerer) as James had mentioned. I believe the posts have done a good job of showing if there is an effective difference in power it is not nearly as bad as many perceive or that it may not even exist (my point about James' theory that a psion can use its power points in a shorter amount of time but in a real game setting such an event would never happen, things don't stand still on opposite sides of a room and take turns tossing spells at a target that doesn't move or do something about it for 15+ rounds let alone 4 or 5). I guess another point of contention I have with James Jacob's view of things is that the theoretical potential power balance issue between a core caster and a psion is not even remotely close to the gap that exists between a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger and a core caster. If such a large gap is "okay" for that, why is such a small gap so much more of a concern?
When someone posted a potential nova that the rules don't allow, it should be countered in such an effort. Matthew Morris posted the first counter point and I cited further rules which would not allow the "nova" to back that discussion. I contend we are "on topic" and it is not like I'm just here trying to prove -Archangel- wrong, I'm posting to make sure if there is a chance James doesn't know or is unaware that this stuff exists he does now, he actually has some say in the final decision.
I'm fairly sure it has been decided that Psionics will not be in the PFRPG book in any incarnation. I have been stating what kind of psionics I want to see the rules for. I also have been stating why I want them that way. This is an open public forum and you can feel free to insult my maturity (though I would like to say I don't believe I'm being immature, I admit again my original post may have been harsh but that is a far cry from what you are accusing me of) just like -Archangel- can insult me personally. I'm okay with it really, I try to not take online debates or discussions personally, I don't expect much from most people on the internet. When it gets to that point on a forum it usually means one side of the discussion cannot come up with any more valid arguments/points. I also realize I can be stubborn but I try to be a productive stubborn when it comes down to it, otherwise it is just wasting every ones time. My posts may be long winded but I try to be as thorough as I can and not leave any ambiguity either.
Well I tried to post earlier but it failed so this one probably won't be very long for that reason. Since I've had a chance to rethink I would like Psionics to stay similiar but with slight changes. Personally, I think the psion races do have a place in any setting, but if a DM doesn't want them in their setting they are easily removed. I do agree with the poster about how I think they should be better detailed to fit a setting better or tweaked for each setting, but for the most part I think they fit. Eberron, as already said, is a good example how psionics does belong and will function well in game.
The Expanded Psionics Handbook did a very good job at balancing out the powers. I still believe that there should be a cap DC though for the powers to effective manifester level. For example, a 7th level psion couldn't up a DC of a power past 4th level standard power DC. I think that rule already exists, but if it doesn't it should.
Now for the changes I would like to see and those would be:
1) Return of 0 level powers that become at will powers that all psions get to know for free. Examples of this would be missive, catfall, detect psionics, etc. I don't think those are overly powerful and it would make sense to me that they all be able to use those powers.
2) A return of mental combat and returning those powers to offensive/defensive powers back to those respective roles. This isn't a must have, but I felt removing the mental combat was a wasted oppertunity for the psion to have a unique role only he/she could fulfill in the party. This is only a suggestion that it be looked into but if it is too much of a headache to apply I can live without it.
3) I don't think psions should have telling signs they are manifesting powers. Once they manifest I think it would be quiet clear what they are if they morph their arm into a razor sharp blade. No more visual signs like flashing eyes, no gestures, etc. Basically, their powers shouldn't need to do what arcane casters have to do. Arcane spells usually do more damage overall especially area affect spells and that is the reason why arcane spell failure for armor exists. Bards are the except to this rule and that is why they wear light armor and don't suffer arcane spell failure from it. Their spells are generally less powerful then the wizards/sorcerers. Psions/psionic manifesters shouldn't be punished to be restricted in those ways. That is part of their niche. There are powers and power items that do restrict a pyschic user from manifesting, but just as if you had a wizard that was captured had Spell Mastery, Still spell and Silent spell metamagic feats could escape his bonds and the prison as a given example earlier. The chief difference is all psions get this as an advantage. Why you may ask? Well do you need to be unbound to have a thought? That is the best way I can explain why they shouldn't have to suffer a psionic check penalty for wearing armor. Now as a side note I think psions if they want to impress/intimidate their opponents they could make gestures/visual displays, but it isn't necessary for them to have to do it. But as for components, I think an xp requirement for the truly powerful powers (that is reads a bit redundant doesn't it?) should have such a cost. Again I think this shows how they differ than their arcane/divine cousins.
4) To be honest I was really disappointed except for a few things in the Complete Psionics book. I don't think psionics should have a religious variant to divine casters. I did like; however, the psion that is like a wizard except that he dealt with psionic powers instead of spells. I thought it was a plausable variant and not too far fetched in how it was approached. Some of the prestige classes were fine, but I felt a little too general and not very necessary. The XPH's prestige classes had better appeal and still were balanced. I wouldn't mind a more skillful psion variant being made, but please leave out the cleric wannabes. Now if you wanted to add in a psionic domain for clerics to tap into psionics I would be okay with that.
5) Probably my last point. I would like all psions to once again get psi-crystals for free just like a wizard/sorcerer gets a familiar for free. In addition to that I would like to see more filler for those levels inbetween. I dislike blank spaces on leveling charts and I liked how Paizo filled in the "dead levels" with some interesting stuff, in my opinion. Without even playing your system yet I can tell that each class is something I would want to play. If you would do that for psionic classes in a similiar way that would be very, well for the lack of a better word, awesome! If it was release in free PDF beta form like you did with Pathfinder I would still buy a hard copy if you put as much detail as you did with the original classes and races.
Huh, I guess I went way over then just a short post as I stated in the beginning. But I just felt like making an amendment to my previous post for what I was looking for in psionics. The question about their being a deal breaker for me is if you didn't release an update for the XPH would be my serious answer. I for one would buy and use such a system for have always been a fan of psionics.
Off-topic note: I think xorial just wanted to bring an end to the rash comments starting to derail from the original topic. Rules discussion should probably be moved to a different thread for this one is just what you would personally want to see if they did release a Psionics Handbook for an update to the rules of 3.5. So I just urge we stop commenting on it and agree to move on. Trying to be the peace maker not the agitator so just take my comments as such.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Admiral,
Let me hit your points one by one,
1) Definately. Talents should come back. Some that became level 1 powers are not worth it. Who takes burst, when skate is better?
2) Ugh. For mental combat, Mindscapes has some merit, but 2e combat was too lengthy and powerful, and 3,0 combat, simply, sucked. If you took one level of a psionic class you were suddenly vulnerable to an entire new set of attacks, so multitasking was worse. I understand the love of combat on a mental plane. But some kind of new mechanic would be needed.
3) Manifestations are alright, from Justice's telekinetic field, to Psylocke's butterfly effect, to the nosebleeds of Charlie's dad, it works. They're also a balance mechanic, and can be supressed with a free DC 15 concentration check. 50% chance at first level, before con mod, and progressively easier from there.
4) (In)Complete Psionic is an example of rolling a 1 on editing. I think it also suffered from "Let's throw these houserules in from our 4e discussions and see how they stick" WotC apparently didn't realize that they had more than enough high quality material for a much better book. New powers, new classes, tie in with other books... Instead of publishing the Mind's Eye, they sold us... that. The only good thing that came out of the (in)complete psionic was Dreamscarred Press.
5) I like the 'pet-rock for a feat' bitm it gives more flexibility. Sorceres and wizards are no longer bound to familiars, so why restict the psion? What needs to be clarified is that a) all manifesting class levels add to the pet rock abilities b) they arne't just stone familiars they get feats like animal companions, based on hit dice and c) how to replace them.
I would like to see a new base class for psionic that is ore closely tied to the psionic feats. This would allow GMs that have a problem with the power point casters (for whatever reasons) to still be able to offer a psionic option to their players. Additionally, a more robust psionic feat system would allow for better modeling a wild talent psionic than multiclassing.
Admiral,
Let me hit your points one by one,
1) Definately. Talents should come back. Some that became level 1 powers are not worth it. Who takes burst, when skate is better?
2) Ugh. For mental combat, Mindscapes has some merit, but 2e combat was too lengthy and powerful, and 3,0 combat, simply, sucked. If you took one level of a psionic class you were suddenly vulnerable to an entire new set of attacks, so multitasking was worse. I understand the love of combat on a mental plane. But some kind of new mechanic would be needed.
3) Manifestations are alright, from Justice's telekinetic field, to Psylocke's butterfly effect, to the nosebleeds of Charlie's dad, it works. They're also a balance mechanic, and can be supressed with a free DC 15 concentration check. 50% chance at first level, before con mod, and progressively easier from there.
4) (In)Complete Psionic is an example of rolling a 1 on editing. I think it also suffered from "Let's throw these houserules in from our 4e discussions and see how they stick" WotC apparently didn't realize that they had more than enough high quality material for a much better book. New powers, new classes, tie in with other books... Instead of publishing the Mind's Eye, they sold us... that. The only good thing that came out of the (in)complete psionic was Dreamscarred Press.
5) I like the 'pet-rock for a feat' bitm it gives more flexibility. Sorceres and wizards are no longer bound to familiars, so why restict the psion? What needs to be clarified is that a) all manifesting class levels add to the pet rock abilities b) they arne't just stone familiars they get feats like animal companions, based on hit dice and c) how to replace them.
Matthew Morris,
First off, thanks for the review point by point. I'm always interested to hear if people agree or disagree with my ideas. But I'm posting to thank you for the information on point #3. I also would like to better explain myself about my psi-crystal arguement on point #5.
I am completely fine with psi-crystals not being mandatory I just thought they should be a free option, like the wizard's familiar being a free option, to have or not at 1st level. Your points are very valid and are spot on. Let me address them as you addressed mine:
5) a) I agree here with this point. I never saw why the psi-crystal didn't continue to gain power if the character had multiple manifesting classes. b) I believe there are some feats that make the psi-crystal even more useful than it is, but I see where you are going on point. As a personified aspect of the manifester's personality it should have it's own ability to grow in strength, that I agree with. I would welcome more feats for it in the future. c) As for replacing them, I think you just find another gem worth 200gp and remanifest it into the gem. But I have no argument against their being more definition to this for it is possible for them to be destroyed. Perhaps a DC 15 fort save similar to the wizard's familiar dying or being dismissed. With maybe a time period that must be achieved before another psi-crystal is created.
On a different note: I like wild talents and thought the feat in XPH kind of was just a waste. Perhaps there should be a chart (and some feats not a whole lot) that shows a number of power points you pick up as you level and powers you can learn/pick from. Should probably be general in nature, but a wild talent manifester shouldn't out-class a pure manifester like a psychic warrior or psion. But to point out, as soon as you take wild talent feat you are able to pick up all the psionic feats with it without having to multi-class into one of the manifesting classes. So it kind of exists, but wild talent could definately be expanded on in greater detail.
EDIT: I started to post earlier and stopped to do some work things and you have posted again. It sure as heck didn't seem like over an hour...
Admiral,
You are right the system does have the built in limiter on the DC. The two common (there might be some others but off hand I'm not 100% sure) exceptions to this rule are the feat Overchannel and the Wilder class. The wilder is commonly viewed as less powerful class because of the more limited powers known and lack of power points so not really a point of contention. Overchannel generally gets more attention and some people up in arms which I never really understood. The psion is taking damage to spend at most 3 more points (effectively getting a 3 level manifester bump, 1 every 5 levels I think) and most augments are 2-4 points. An arcane or divine caster can just buy magic items that do the same thing without drawbacks in the DMG... Some are effectively "permanent", worst case they last more than 1 casting of a spell. In the splat books there are feats and such that break that rule as well as stack for core casters. Regardless I never saw the problem there.
1) I would also like to see the return of 0 level powers and they could work just like they do in Pathfinder without any issues I'm sure.
2) I'm with Matthew on this as well, not to mention that it has been stated repeatedly that Paizo is trying to simplify things so they go faster. Mental combat took time, more rolls and more rules, so I seriously doubt it would be put back in. I think the old psi offense/defense powers could be redone though, some are good Mind Thrust and Ego Whip come to mind, while many others are just useless.
3) Again Matthew hit the nail on the head, they don't have to be there if you don't want them (and can make the roll). For me the manifestations were never really all that flashy to begin with and you had a choice in what they were which I liked. The smell of flowers, or rain I think was one of them? And they typically didn't target the psion out either with but a few exceptions (eyes glowing was one of them yes lol). I wasn't a big fan of the XP to gp switch for components but I would not like to see Psionics having XP requirements when everyone else could just spend gold on them.
4) Agreed, Agreed, Agreed. Nifty ideas and poor execution on all but a few. And again Dreamscarred Press pops up (it has to mean something I swear).
5) I personally could do without the psicrystal for every psion, to some it doesn't fit and having a free feat when they were more scarce was nice (less a concern now in Pathfinder). I tend to play more martial or hybrid type characters so many times the psicrystal is not that much of a benefit or more like a wonderous magic item that boosts something and is left in a pocket. With the arcane bond in Pathfinder I would seriously urge the Man to look at Dreamscarred Press' little add-on about the psicrystals. There was one that morphed the psicrystal into a crysmal(?), one for making it a weapon and one that allowed you to embed the psicrystal into the characters body (the one I'm using on my current psi/monk character - I saw it and had to ask my DM). Flavorful cool stuff all of it and probably perfect for a Psionic bond. And I swear I don't work for or know them, the stuff is just good.
I have always used the alternate for wild talent (I think it was called hidden power) in our campaigns. It was the in the XPH as a little "sidebar" about if you are running a game in a more psionic prevalent world then they get a first level power and it might have been 2 power points instead of 1. The Soulknife got it as well at first level.
Skylancer,
As I read your post you gave me some ideas I would like to run with in a campaign sometime. So thank you for that and for the information you provided to clear up some misconceptions I was having over the power system. As I noted before I have only been able to GM or play along side the XPH never a true character from it's pages so my knowledge is fragmented at best.
But what really caught my attention from your post is the idea of the psi-crystal becoming something entirely more then just say a gem you have in your pocket. I like the idea of morphing into a psi-weapon or it being imbedded in a manifester's body as the examples you gave. Similar to say alternate rules for a paladin in the Mongoose publishing line where instead of a mount, they received a bonded weapon. See I agree the bonus feat was nice to have as well, but I also felt that the psi-crystal should be awarded to a psion. If they wish to put a new spin like you suggested I think that would be something unique all manifesters could benefit from. Like having an intelligent item, but more balanced in the sense it progresses with you instead of incredibly powerful from the start.
Usually when I DMed I gave the psion an option to take a psi-crystal anyways as well as the free bonus feat at 1st level. Some took the psi-crystals some choose not to, but either way I still felt each psion shouldn't have to choose between having one or another feat. Granted, as you said, in the Pathfinder system you have a little more room to pick up feats without feeling you have to pick up certain feats right off the bat. Which I think was long overdue.
To close I think you have good idea about making it just a Psi-bonded item that a manifester of psionics may have. It would definately allow for greater customization to individual psionic characters and I for one think it is a step in the right direction.
Truthfully, I think no matter how well Paizo handle their version of psionics, it will still not be as succssful as anticipated. The reason for this I think is because that there are no Psionic elements in "Core", and I feel this is what can throw people off the most.
What did most folk here do when they first heard of psionics? Well I for one, after hearing about it, asked on forums, and needless to say I was givin replay after replay of "OMG so brokEn!". It was only after reading the XPH myself did I actually stop to think that not everything said on a forum is true, even if the question is power and the forum itself just happens to be full of powergamers.
So why is it some classes which are considered overpowering (such as typical spellcasters at high level) remain more common in D'n'D than others? Well, it's because they're core. As I've stated many times, I really dislike divine magic, I consider the fullcasters too good for what they do, and I think few characters actaully live up to the fluff aspect of them( Not to mention all the other little tid-bits I don't like, like making it just about impossible to play an aetheist who is actually sane) and yet despite that I've never, even once, brought myself to ban them from the game. If I turned to my players and said "Clerics Druids and Paladins aren't allowed, and only non-spellcasting rangers" I'd get some dirty looks. Yet I say "No Psionics" and in all honesty, I can only think of one player in my group who might be unhappy with that, even then, only mildly unhappy.
If Paizo are hoping to make their version of psioncis succesful, I strongly surgest adding somthing psionic to their core book, such as the Psion class, which saddly I do not see happening.
Why do I like Psionics personally though? Well for one, more options. One thing I've always wanted, right from when I first started playing years ago, was somthing that could make any character inhertily magical. I'm a big fan of the childlike fairy tales, where the main character, having only just discovered his powers, only knows a single spell or power. This is a bit pointless in normal D'n'D, since no wizard would be caught dead still casting "magic missle" at 20th level unless he/she just happens to have no spells left. Yet it's different for psionics. If a Psion or Wilder spends enough points, they can keep their low-level abilities useful at high levels, epscially since a fair number of abilities have more options that simply "Spend points, damage goes up". In fact, I was speaking to the Dm of our upcomming campaign about playing a Wilder who only uses a single power (Concussion Blast for those intersetd) and the idea would actually work! At high level's the ability might suffer the same problem as most direct damage spells/powers (not being able to keep up with the damage output of martial characters) but the option of affecting multiple foes (even if tied in combat) can make it more viable. Not to mention theres also my previous character, a human fighter (thats right, straight fighter) who was by far the most interesting character I ever made, simply because thanks to a few psionic feats he could do things not every fighter could do, such as run up walls (See the Feat Up the Wall).
I could do none of this with normal spellcasters, and beleive me, I've looked. I have yet to find a single feat that can give a normal fighter magical powers without resorting to Tob (Which in all honesty, I dislike) or provide a way for a spellcaster to keep using a "signiture" spell.
If Paizo are hoping to make their version of psioncis successful, I strongly suggest adding something psionic to their core book, such as the Psion class, which sadly I do not see happening.
There'd be no point in adding the psion if you were going to add the rules for psionics in general, and there certainly isn't enough room to add power write-ups to the core book.
|
If Paizo are hoping to make their version of psioncis successful, I strongly suggest adding something psionic to their core book, such as the Psion class, which sadly I do not see happening.There'd be no point in adding the psion if you were going to add the rules for psionics in general, and there certainly isn't enough room to add power write-ups to the core book.
I think what's more important is giving them a strong role in Golarion rather than the sideshow (which is all firearms got). Unfortunately I don't see that happening either.
Skylancer,
But what really caught my attention from your post is the idea of the psi-crystal becoming something entirely more then just say a gem you have in your pocket. I like the idea of morphing into a psi-weapon or it being imbedded in a manifester's body as the examples you gave. Similar to say alternate rules for a paladin in the Mongoose publishing line where instead of a mount, they received a bonded weapon.
If you like those concepts Psycrystals Expanded will run you $2.50 USD. Assuming you are okay with reserve feats for arcane/divine casters there is another pdf they sell that is essentially the psionic version of them that goes for the same price, Sequestral Feats. The only reason I link it is you cannot beat the price and you sound genuinely interested. I'm sure that second would spark more than a few ideas as well and can open up some doors for psychic warriors who are usually limited in power. Seeing as it will be some time until Paizo decides on doing anything psionic I'd say they are well worth the money to tide you over with some goodies until then. Our DM tends to try things out as an NPC before allowing us to use them when they are really different. One it lets him see how they work and two it lets the PC's see something different. If the npc does something truly unique and interesting invariably one of us will question him about it and playing one at some point, the same might work for you if you'd like to introduce psionics and if you use the rules from the Dreamscarred and don't tell the PC's while you are playing it might entice them even more with these "weird new powers". Assuming Paizo goes a way I don't care for/doesn't do anything with psionics this company's stuff is what I'll be using. Not to say everything is gold, there are some oddities/some things I don't care for, but all in all good stuff.
As you are "new" to the psionic scene so to speak, as I understand it this company was some of the really well known posters from the WotC forums who took it on themselves to correct some of the glaring issues with the psionic system (some of the powers, the soul knife, lack of support/supplemental material, etc.). Basically fans who knew the system inside out and were very passionate about it, and it shows in the work.@Nero24200
I think Jason had already kinda covered the fact that psionics wouldn't get as much acceptance just because of them being "core" in an earlier post, that and the page count they are working with wouldn't allow them to do it anyways. It would be nice if they were, I agree, but at this time we know it isn't going to happen so no use crying over spilled milk (not to say you were crying, I have to be careful about these things lol). As for your group not throwing up their arms when saying "no psionics", the only suggestion I have for you is to run a psionic only game for a bit, show them what the system is like and when they can't explode the world at 12th level maybe they will realize "OMGZ ITS BROKEN!!11!!!" isn't the case. They might hem and haw about having to play with it for a bit, but if they are anything like our group it won't last long. You might get the strange looks then (unless you had a intentionally disruptive player, but then again that is a DM - Player issue, not a rules issue and chances are you knew it was coming).
I do agree about the flexibility though, it is why I would never play a sorcerer over a wizard (and to be honest the Warlock always seemed more sorcerer to me once I thought about the design choices/goals more). I also agree with the fact you couldn't do it with a normal caster OR at least not consistently and quickly enough to make it matter (spider climb vs up the walls for example). Off topic I'm curious as to why you don't like Tome of Battle, my guess is that it isn't a power balance issue as an end game Tome character will still get whomped by an end game caster. In our game play we've seen the martial character seems a little more powerful at the first levels (which is kinda the case with the fighter as well good gear > limited spells), then mid levels it evens out (the martial character seems to keep up with the casters longer than your typical fighter due to not having to rely on gear constantly to make up for lack of abilities) and then late levels caster wins out again as usual.
@Coridan
I agree wholeheartedly, again I can only point to Eberron and say "like this". Now what I think some don't seem to understand is while the Pathfinder RPG book is what is coming out it is a rule book with little real campaign information so I'm kinda okay with not having psionics squished into it. Having it as an integral part of the campaign is still possible even after that particular book is out and published. Choose the region psionics is prevalent and do a nice decent sized book (hardcover would be pushing it I think, but I can hope ;), this would allow them to do a real background and mesh the fluff/rules with the setting. The XPH was just over 220 pages if I recall, probably around 70 of that was powers, 10+ on races, under 20 on skills and feats, the same on PrC's, maybe 40ish pages on monsters. That would pretty much be the SRD, assuming they just did tweaks they could cut the spells down who knows how many pages by just rewriting the tweaked ones, feats could be lost as well or a list type thing of "craft djore = craft wand" sidebar to cover them and point to the PFRPG book. I'd expect the classes and PrC's to be updated so doubtful on page cuts there.
Now please realize this is just armchair talk, I have no idea how much it costs to publish a book and even less of a clue on what the limitations are to the types of covers/bindings they use. Most everything I have from Paizo is under 100 page count I believe (the AP's being the largest) and softcover. The only hardcover I've seen is the campaign setting which a friend bought which was a decent size,, 200ish pages maybe? I'm guessing a regional/psionic update book would be over the 100 mark easy with just the tweaks. If they reprinted it all it we are looking at over 200 pages just that and probably 260 with campaign information. Making it cheaper is in their best interests if for no other reason then to make it more available and have more of the "kinda interested" types buy it as well as the hard core psionic users.
As for the firearms, I know they weren't covered in any in depth/detail yet but if I recall wasn't there a particular region that was going to have them as a predominant weapon?? I can't remember if it was in the campaign setting or the forums where I read about them, but I wouldn't discount expanded rules about them quite yet. To be completely honest I bought all of Iron Kingdoms stuff as well and love that campaign setting, firearms are given a fair once over and are more of a "common" weapon. The Witchfire trilogy might be my favorite adventure, it is definitely in the top 5, unfortunately saying why might ruin it for those who might want to play it (I was running). I liked the artwork too!
On a side note, the more I thought about it, I'd like to know what James Jacob's thoughts are on the Psychic Class from the Advanced Players Guide from Green Ronin in terms of power balance and "playing nice" with core. It is a system based on skill points and feats so it might appeal to some.
On a side note, the more I thought about it, I'd like to know what James Jacob's thoughts are on the Psychic Class from the Advanced Players Guide from Green Ronin in terms of power balance and "playing nice" with core. It is a system based on skill points and feats so it might appeal to some.
I agree. I recall that system being pretty interesting when I read it a few years back, however I never got a chance to playtest it so I can't say how it was in action.
For what it's worth ...
I love psionics. Always have, since 1st edition. I agree with most everyone that dislikes the mercurial and confusing mechanics, the inconsistencies, the pale imitation of standard classes, etc. The XPH finally hit a comfortable balance for me, and I've used it enthusiastically since it came out -- to include PCs, NPCs and concepts in Pathfinder adventures.
This has made for a lot of stress. I recently dropped out of a group after two years worth of play over the whole "nova psion" argument. All that passionate investment of time and intellect we've seen in this thread is WAY too familiar ... I finally quit a game when I was told my Bard 2/Psion 8 was "too powerful" to play alongside traditional paladins and clerics. That DM couldn't make an argument based on math (BAB, PP, damage dice, etc.) or on game disruption (I averaged les than one useful action per encounter -- the rest of the time, I failed SR/PR challenges, missed the target, etc.). In fact, my character's inclusion was a running joke: he was SO combat ineffective that I would have been better off playing an Expert 10 (Patent Attorney). Despite all that, I loved the character and the ideas that drove him. Why? Because of what the psionic aspect of his nature did for his essential character, story hooks and motivations.
That's what psionics is for me: the idea that some folks have the peculiar and terrifying ability to manifest effects through focused willpower ... effects that are outside of the conventional arcane and divine magic systems. They suffer for it, are persecuted for it, and occasionally get to make the other players admit "that was pretty cool" ...
If the core concept behind psionics is that the manifester is making something happen via thought, then that's the angle I recommend the designers take up: make the manifestation of powers something that any PC can elect to pursue (with the right training, exposure to strange radiation, etc.) providing he/she is willing to pay a terrible cost that may be involved. More on that in a second.
Further, I'm very taken by the idea of psionics being unpredictable. Unlike nearly everyone else's posts that I've read thusfar, I actually *like* wilders (in concept, if not in execution). The unpredictability of their manifestations makes them exciting. A 3rd level fireball is always exactly the same 3rd level fireball, and there's effectively no "cost" to the caster for using it (assuming he/she knows how to aim). For the wizard, it's like typing a memo; for the wilder, every blast is like Russian Roulette.
Consider this mental model: if arcane casters learn (academically) how to employ fantastic energies that exist independent of their body, and divine casters beseech their patron dieties/forces for a loan of fantastic energies that exist independent of their body, then psionic manifesters employ fantastic, unstable, wondrous energies that spring from their own body, from the immediate environment or even from unknown power sources ... perhaps intruding upon arcane matricies or "stealing" divine blessings, or "robbing" fonts of power in the world, or tapping an extraplanar creature without its permissin. Manifesting, then would become "casting outside the box." Such daring acts would demand a great deal of risk and the threat of backlash, but could be spectacular (when they work well) and have awful consequences (when the original source of the power figure out what happened to it).
Implementation suggestions to fit in Pathfinder:
1. All manifesters (regardless of source; class, feat, psi-like ability) share the psychic enervation risk (XPH pp 30-31) or something similar to it (e.g., fatigued, shaken, scorched, etc.). The act of manifesting a power carries a risk that is always proportional to the strength of the power being manifested. Low-level powers are easy; high-level ones are dangerous. This imposes pragmatic self-limitation.
2. All manifesters can execute a power or ability (regardless of enervation, above), but never know just how it'll manifest. The listed cost per PP or slot defines the minimum level of effect; the power may surge on its own (say, xx% change) and may change energy types, special effects, etc. So, a psion manifesting a 3 pp energy ray may actually unleash a more powerful blast than she intended, and the actual energy type will be random. This opens all manifestations up to a chance of being a wonderful (but very, very rarely harmful) surprise.
3. All manifestation requires a proportional investment of essential "self" in order to function. In simple terms, it costs the PC some XP to manifest each and every power: say, 1 X the pp cost for a low-cost game, the pp squared for a normal game, and the pp cubed for a high-cost game. This represents the manfester wrenching out his own life-essence and converting it into a power. Not only is it dramatic (like the fictional Dragonlance references), but it introduces another automatic governing system: the player has to ask herself before every round "is this encounter/story/combat worth the price I'd have to pay?"
4. All manifesters have the ability to convert life energy (XP, HP, HD, spell slots, etc) into power -- regardless of whether the life energy comes from within themselves (like over-channeling) or from nearby others (like blighting). Depending on the manifester's level, ability, skill, or training, they might not even be able to control which source actually provides the power (e.g., accidentally draining a fallen enemy of its last HP, or an ally of an ongoing magical buff, etc.).
5. Some (class-specific?) manifesters have the ability to emulate arcane and/or divine spells -- not actually using the arcane or divine power sources, but imperfectly copying the effects. This would open up all the regular spells lists as potential "psionic powers," just drawn from a totally different power source.
All I ask, respectfully, is that y'all chew on these ideas for a few minutes. Set aside all the "points-versus-slots" and "who's more powerful" arguments for a spell and concentrate on the flavor of the idea: I believe that psionics might appeal to a lot more people if its essential nature had less to do with the individual powers, feats, classes or races, and had much more to do with the wild, barely-controlled, always-at-a-cost aspect of power that's wrenched out of the world or out of one's self by an act of focused will.
The Paizo writers are doing a fantastic job, and I greatly respect the body of work. I know y'all will do a great job, no matter how this argument gets resolved. Best of luck.
Cheers,
KHu
Allot of people wouldn't like it, but I have considered using a Psionic Bloodline for my Eberron campaign. I usually prefer just using standard magic system.
So I'm asking you:What does Psionics mean to you?
Many people have complained that Psionics is different from magic and that is somehow bad. Of course it's different, it's supposed to be!
Psionics is not an Enchanter with Magic Missles. Magic has always come from an outside source, while Psionics has always come from an internal source. There are exceptions to both rules, but that doesn't justify making Magic and Psionics the same mechanically.
Psionics means using your mind to manipulate the world and the people in it. Conversely Magic to me means using Rituals, Components, and Outside Sources to manipulate the world and the people in it.
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
Wow, really guy, just make one and I'll buy it, but I'll tell you what would really make me happy.
A return to the second edition system with ONE change. Level restrictions on many of the powers. In my games if a wizard or cleric couldn't do it then neither could you. Disintegrate was not available by 3rd level, you had to wait until 11th. This worked for my groups and no one complained. I liked Sciences and Devotions. The best Psionic system out of 3rd Edition is the Jedi Powers System. Sadly it only works with Wound Points and Vitality, but the principles are still there. Psions could get "psionic skill points" for use on Devotions and Psionic feats for Sciences. This is how I thought WoTC was going to do it originally. Imagine my surprise.
What is an absolute deal-breaker?
Not using a power point system, because then it is an Enchanter with Magic Missles. I realize people have complained about Psionics from being different and that it's somehow bad, but don't be scared of those bullies. They won't buy the book anyways, I will.
Thanks again for the give-and-take.--Erik
You're Welcome.
|
(1)Sorcerer cannot match the damage output of a Nova Psion. Overchannel+metapsionic feats + Schism, + crystal casting powers + a high level power that is called something like Accelerate Time (Works similar to Time Stop but is a lower level power) can outdamage any legal preepic build you can makeRight. And now we're getting to legitimate criticisms of specific powers and feats (Schism, Temporal Acceleration, overchanneling) that are unrelated to whether psionics uses a point-based system or not.
That's what I meant by complaints about the mechanics of psionics being 90% hype ("NOVA! NOVA!") and 10% genuine concerns.
Not sure if anyone has said it this way hogarth, (I'm still on page 6) but one of the things that makes a psion diff it that he uses point. While a Socr can cut lose with all of his spell in one battle, he is still limited to only a few of his high level spells. Take a 6th lvl sorc with no bonus (just for the exercise). He can fire off 1 3 lvl spell. Then he has to use his lower spells. This give the enemy time to plan. It may be the same overall damage but there are more round for him to heal, cast defensenses, etc. Now thing of what would happen, if the same sorc could convert thoes 1st lvls to a 3rd, and the 2nd to a 3rd. Then laungh 3 fireballs in three rounds. There is much less change for anyone to survive it. A Psion can do that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A Psion can do that.
Except where it's been shown he can't. Frequently. unless he devotes his entire build to Novaing, which hampers his effectivenes at low levels and he has to survive to get to high levels.
That Sorcerer 6 throws 3 magic missiles for 1 spell level. The same psion needs to spend 5 power points for similar scaling.
A Psion can do that.Except where it's been shown he can't. Frequently. unless he devotes his entire build to Novaing, which hampers his effectivenes at low levels and he has to survive to get to high levels.
That Sorcerer 6 throws 3 magic missiles for 1 spell level. The same psion needs to spend 5 power points for similar scaling.
I'm sorry, but from what I've seen it hasn't been shown that the psion can't nova effectively, nor that he needs to devote the entire build to nova.
Not sure if anyone has said it this way hogarth, (I'm still on page 6) but one of the things that makes a psion diff it that he uses point. While a Socr can cut lose with all of his spell in one battle, he is still limited to only a few of his high level spells. Take a 6th lvl sorc with no bonus (just for the exercise). He can fire off 1 3 lvl spell. Then he has to use his lower spells.
Huh? What kind of 6th level sorcerer has exactly one level 3 slot?
A level 6 sorcerer (with no bonus) has 3 level 3 slots, 5 level 2 slots and 6 level 1 slots.
A level 6 psion (with no bonus) has 35 power points. So that's 5 level 3 powers (@ 6 pp each) and one level 3 power (@ 5 pp).
Sounds great to be the psion, right? But here's the dirty little secret -- a 2nd level sorcerer spell isn't really that much worse than a 3rd level sorcerer spell, or a 3rd level psion power. On the other hand, a 3 pp power is generally much worse than a 6 pp power (with a few notable exceptions).
I'm sorry, but from what I've seen it hasn't been shown that the psion can't nova effectively, nor that he needs to devote the entire build to nova.A Psion can do that.Except where it's been shown he can't. Frequently. unless he devotes his entire build to Novaing, which hampers his effectivenes at low levels and he has to survive to get to high levels.
That Sorcerer 6 throws 3 magic missiles for 1 spell level. The same psion needs to spend 5 power points for similar scaling.
I guess that depends on what your definition of a "nova" is. Is it just casting the most powerful spell possible repeatedly? If after seeing the build/feats (5 feats minimum, 3 for the psicrystal to hold a focus, 1 for psionic meditation and 1 for some sort of meta psionic feat) a psion needs to have multiple foci to use for what others have called a nova, it is as loose a definition as it would have to be for you to state that, a sorcerer can nova easily as well. So again, how is it a psion is overpowered but yet the sorcerer isn't? This is without getting into the celerity series of spells, Arcane Fusion spell, or the Arcane Spellsurge spell. Mix in a little metamagic foolery (Arcane Thesis, Incantrix, etc.) with the spell Wings of Flurry and you have an arcane nova that shames a psion. The pure amount of material published for the core casters will outstrip any builds a psionic character will be able to put together.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You don't have to go that far, skydancer, just the SRD.
Metamagic rods. Quicken Timestop, Quicken Wail of the Banshee, Quicken Gate, empowered delayed blast fireballs, maximised horrid wilting... all without additional slots.
The psion gets a torc of power preservation to save a point. and crystal capicators, which need charged, unlike rings of wizardry and pearls of power.
I'll try to add my two coppers to the discussion, for what it's worth.
Way back when, I was opposed to Psionics. I never saw the rules in 2e, but one of my friends went on about how the mechanics were confusing and a headache, and I avoided it because I really wasn't even 100% on the core rules of 2e and couldn't be bothered to learn more.
I got into D&D via Warhammer and 40K, so one of my major contentions to psionics was that "psionics is just a way to justify magic in science fiction. Why bother with the sci-fi magic in a world that has magic?" as I would tell one of my friends who liked the concept.
After a while, it got to the point that, well, I just didn't love what magic in D&D did, necessarily, and I had matured to the point that I was willing to consider additional options. 3.x, to me, is all about options. I let my players have so many options when I run games that a lot of the time they get quite confused, but I'm very much in favor of letting them have the tools to build the character they want. And so, especially thanks to Eberron, I decided to visit WotC's Psionics board and see about getting acquainted with the world of psionics.
And I love them now. The Psionics community on those boards is amazing, the mechanics are elegant, intuitive, and efficient, and it allows me to build characters I want to build much more easily than doing the same with a different system. I took a look at the Psionic community's Truenaming Psionics thread and found a way to fit psionics into my homebrew setting that didn't conflict with the mechanics but felt at home more so than the standard.
What does psionics mean to me?
Psionics is the power of Dream magic. It is different but the same, and it's an elegant, efficient, easy to learn system that more closely models how magic works in video games, fiction, movies, and everything else. Only Jack Vance and D&D have the fire and forget magics of spell slots - I can't think of anyone who hasn't played D&D claiming that spell slots is the way magic should work in fantasy worlds - Gandalf didn't pour over spell books preparing spells to use that day (though maybe that'd explain why he only ever had Light ready...), and I can't recall any other casters outside of D&D novels who ever really deal with that stuff either. Psionics and power points are the system magic really ought to be. To those who say that, "if psions get power points so should sorcerers," I say, sure, why not? I'm not really married to the idea that sorcerers have spell slots, but I am of the opinion that if you went that route, you'd have to create augmentation mechanics for every sorcerer/wizard spell just for them, so it'd be best to not bother.
What would I like in a Pathfinder Psionics book?
The XPH is a great book, and easily one of my favorite WotC books from all of 3.5. I am a huge fan. I want Pathfinder to update it the way they've updated the core books - fill in dead levels, tweak the weaker classes (wilder, soul knife), bring up the other classes a bit for parity, maybe clarify some of the powers that aren't quite right (metaconcert). I would not weep a single tear if they brought the Dreamscarred Press guys in on it, because I love Untapped Potential so very much, and I'm all for letting people who are really passionate about the rules as they stand get in there. James may say he's a big fan of psionics, but his arguments belie a lack of love of psionics as they stand, and it does make me worry. It's like the odd Concentration removal in the Alpha and Beta, which only benefits wizards and penalizes other casters, but which seems to be the sort of thing that the writers refuse to accept as a legitimate issue.
What would be a deal breaker?
Making psionics only mental powers, only needing will saves - sure, let's completely screw over psionic players when they encounter undead, constructs, vermin, or creatures immune to mind affecting effects. There's a reason psionics does energy damage, creates astral constructs (see the tulpa for why astral constructs make perfect sense for psionicists), and all the other effects that it does. It fits thematically and it's balanced.
I don't like psionic combat that much, though. It continues to strike me as a hassle that complicates things needlessly and leaves out the PCs who can't participate.
What would I love to see in a PXPH?
Illusion generating powers, with augmentations rather than being chains. There's a lot of flavor for psionics to really be good at illusion, and it's not even able to do it half-way at the moment - I'd love to see that fixed.
0th level powers that are at will, just like the new Cantrip/Orison system. Perhaps, and this is an idea that came to me this morning, we get, say, two powers of each discipline that are 0th level talents. A psion knows all of them, and can use them at will, all day long, but he has to expend his psionic focus to use them. Unless they belong to his discipline, in which case it doesn't cost the focus at all, becuase they're so much more natural to him. I like the mechanic - it makes your discipline that much more tied to your mechanics, and it still gives you all the things you might want to do.
-----
Psionics is a great book, that gives casters a more active role in their spellcasting. It's elegant, interactive, and a lot of fun, and it works really well. Can a psion nova? Sure. Can a wizard or sorcerer? Yeah. Is it a responsibility of the DM/adventure writers to run games where novas aren't the solution? Yes. Blowing all your points and then retreating and resting shouldn't be an option any more than blowing all your highest level spells and retreating and resting is, but we all know that wizard players do that all the time. It lies in those writing adventures to make sure the party has a clear reason why they should press and pace themselves, rather than just running away like cowards after every fight.
Lastly, I will say that there's only been one anti-XPH argument made in this whole thread that actually has merit to me, and that's Quandry's issue that, were an AP to include psionics, it would require the DM to actually know separate mechanics from a different book, necessitating additional purchases. I agree that that's an issue, but it seems to me that DMs often have to rewrite adventures, even prepublished ones, when they can't or don't want to make use of things in them. Perhaps DMs who don't want to use the PXPH to run an adventure path that is tied to it will have to put a bit more effort into stating up similarly thematic wizards or sorcerers. Perhaps. But that's not a reason to throw out the best magic system I've had the pleasure of using. It is a valid point, though.
|
I do not mind Psionics. In general. I say that with a few stipulations. Psionics and Magic are the same thing, or that Arcane, Divine, and Psionic magic all have the same "differences". Rules for Psionic monsters are ignored, or only used as a rare breed.
Besides that, the only problem I have with Psionics as is, is that because they use power points rather than levels, Psions can burn through a lot more "highest level spells" than any other caster. This is very ampliphied if Dm's allow frequent rests. Secondly, Psionics does not mesh well with the core mechanics. it leaves little holes here and there, which get a lot worse when "varient" rules are employed. I don't care one way or the other about Psionics in a game, if it is actually fair to everyone, or pretty fair. But if you want Psionics, put it into the core rule book and have it apply to all the rules magic does.
That being said, the most difficult and hated thing about Psionics in my experience is the players. Psionics, in my experience (from my groups and from open games all over the place), shows that Psionics characters want to play "the thing no one else can identify, know anything about, or ever learn of" as part of their character. They also tend to ignor the rules in favor of reading way to much into the flavor of a power or feat, and attempt to abuse other players. Thinking they can do things they can't or that they alone should be able to ruin other players fun for their own. That is my near universal experience with Psionics, in I'd say 10 games since 3.0 came out. If you do go with Psionics, it should be made clear in the beginning of the book that Psionics is not this uber secret magic of the Force that no one else can understand or defend against.
That being said, the most difficult and hated thing about Psionics in my experience is the players. Psionics, in my experience (from my groups and from open games all over the place), shows that Psionics characters want to play "the thing no one else can identify, know anything about, or ever learn of" as part of their character. They also tend to ignor the rules in favor of reading way to much into the flavor of a power or feat, and attempt to abuse other players. Thinking they can do things they can't or that they alone should be able to ruin other players fun for their own. That is my near universal experience with Psionics, in I'd say 10 games since 3.0 came out. If you do go with Psionics, it should be made clear in the beginning of the book that Psionics is not this uber secret magic of the Force that no one else can understand or defend against.
I've seen this same personality from people playing wizards or priests or sorcerers. It's just players being jerks. If your players are being jerks, call them on it. It's only when you allow psionics but don't bother to include it in the campaign at all that a PC can even come close to getting away with the "no one knows anything about this!" crap.
The only reason I know anything about psionics is because my husband got into them, built a shaper for a game we were playing in, and then obsessed over which feats and powers he should take. I learned something about it out of self-defense. :)
I've now played 2 psionic characters in games, both telepaths, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I love being able to scale my powers at will. ("That creature has already taken a lot of hits, so I'll just use a 1 pp swarm of crystals and save the rest for later.") It's a nice, versatile mechanic that allows you to vary your tactics with the situation.
I guess the fact that I've played only telepaths should tell you something about my view of psionics. I do see them as very mental. Now, having said that, I don't have a problem with them manifesting things beyond reading minds and such things. I like seers, and I find shapers interesting as well. I haven't had much interaction with the others, but I don't have a problem with psions doing direct damage. And I love the "choose energy as you cast" mechanic, and see no problem with arcanists getting to do the same.
In my eyes part of the fun of D&D is figuring out how to use your limited resources in the best way possible. The 15-minute adventuring day is rarely a problem for our group. This is generally because our DM has set some sort of time limit on our dungeon crawls. Rather than just killing things and taking their stuff, we usually have something along the lines of "if you don't rescue the princess quickly, she'll die." Nova-ing becomes less of a problem because you don't have time to stop and rest. If you nova anyway, then you're bored for the rest of the adventure. (And if you rest, the DM should totally have you have to deal with the dead princess, and possibly with the horrible monster the bad guys sacrificed her to raise.)
As far as transparency goes, I agree with it. It seems silly to me that arcane and divine magic, which come from very different power sources, have the same resistances while psionics does not. It seems like there should be either one kind of resistance or three. Since three is obviously difficult with backwards compatibility (and would require lots of extra work determining what has "divine" resistance and what has "arcane" resistance), go with one. And as far as Spellcraft goes....well, I was an advocate of the (apparently ignored) effort to have Spellcraft mechanics run off of knowledge skills rather than their own skill, so that arcane would come from Knowl(arcana), divine from Knowl(religion), etc.
Will I buy it? Well, my husband probably will if it's based on the XPH and we won't need two copies. But in such a case, I will advocate it, or possibly buy it for him for his birthday or Christmas or whatever. I am intrigued to see what nifty benefits you guys can come up with to put psionicists on par with the rest of your rewrites. (Which should include an "at-will" 0th level power sort of thing...)
Dealbreakers? Leaving psionic dominate as is. A mental based class should clearly have the capability to suppress someone's will and control them. Makes lots of sense. But as written, it is inferior to the arcane spell of the same name. (Concentration vs. days per level? Yes, it's a level lower, and the d20 SRD says you can augment it to make it days per level (I don't remember that from the book--is it an errata?), but at that point it's a 6th level power rather than a 5th level spell.) Sorry, that's a pet peeve:)
Sorry to ramble. Hope that this helps!
Yes, it's a level lower, and the d20 SRD says you can augment it to make it days per level (I don't remember that from the book--is it an errata?), but at that point it's a 6th level power rather than a 5th level spell.).
Yes, it was part of the errata.
|
The XPH was just over 220 pages if I recall, probably around 70 of that was powers, 10+ on races, under 20 on skills and feats, the same on PrC's, maybe 40ish pages on monsters. That would pretty much be the SRD, assuming they just did tweaks they could cut the spells down who knows how many pages by just rewriting the tweaked ones, feats could be lost as well or a list type thing of "craft djore = craft wand" sidebar to cover them and point to the PFRPG book. I'd expect the classes and PrC's to be updated so doubtful on page cuts there.
Make this, price it between 25-30$, and my group would buy at least 2.
Maybe more if it was wicked cool, or as gifts.
<<nudge, nudge, wink, wink...>>
-t
Yes, it's a level lower, and the d20 SRD says you can augment it to make it days per level (I don't remember that from the book--is it an errata?), but at that point it's a 6th level power rather than a 5th level spell.).Yes, it was part of the errata.
It is also just one of many psionic powers that are worse than the arcane/divine version. for example, psionic Moment of Prescience lasts rounds per level instead of hours per level.
A number of powers, such as the psionic version of fly, are personal only. This is not always bad, but I would prefer less "as this spell, but..." type of powers.
There are also some powers that are better than the arcane/divine version. In general, I would like to see the powers balanced against each other a bit better.
It is also just one of many psionic powers that are worse than the arcane/divine version. for example, psionic Moment of Prescience lasts rounds per level instead of hours per level.Yes, it's a level lower, and the d20 SRD says you can augment it to make it days per level (I don't remember that from the book--is it an errata?), but at that point it's a 6th level power rather than a 5th level spell.).Yes, it was part of the errata.
I don't think so.
Psionic dominate has a much larger range than the magical counterparts. Also its augments allow it to mimic the various magic dominate spells. It is not worse. I may not better in every possible way compared to dominate person, but I have hard time believing that it is worse.
I’ll start off by saying that Psionics is a must in my game and I will buy any Psionic Product that you put out. The flavour ( and most of the rules) that are used in the EPH works very well for my gaming group, with that said I would very much enjoy looking at alternative rules ( like I will be doing with Pathfinder) and pick what I like and discard what I don’t like from each making a hybrid game, per say.
We play the Psionics is Different Rule (Diminished Effect), for that to me enhances the flavour, without using two totally different types of rules for each system. Not to mention this was what our group decided via the Democratic process.
I personally love the feel of not depending on a God or say the Weave (Forgotten Realms) to be able to do these wondrous powers, and that to me is the same feel that you get playing a Monk.
For these reasons, along with many others (Aboleth, Mind Flayer, Yuan’ti etc.), Psionics is Core in my game and will continue to be for as far as I can see.
I very much liked the XPH's system compared to say, 3.0 psionics.
I would prefer a Pathfinder update/expansion to that system, but if you can do psionics better, I'm all for it.
The biggest concern I have with any alternate rule system is the willingness to use it in other products. The Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, Weapons of Legacy, Incarnum, etc....almost none of these concepts ever saw light past their sourcebook. Dungeon put in a few binders, I remember, but I don't recall any swordsages or...whatever those incarnum people were called.
Cool rules have to be integrated in other products or they fail.