OK, well the last thread I started has kind of imploded now, as was inevitable I suppose, but it gave a LOT of good information all the same. So again, another 'market research' thread here, only this time I want to know what people LIKE about the 3.5 psionics system that they would like to see maintained in a Pathfinder version.
I know that there are some things it may not be possible to incorporate, but all the same there are sacred cows to some of us that we want to see if we can. Hence I'd like for people to NOT come onto this thread saying "You cannot have that in Pathfinder psionics!" - this thread is asking people for their wish-lists, not their demands or expectations.
For example, I have three items on my list:
1 - Backward compatibility: I have existing psionic characters, some in Pathfinder games, that I want to update if any rules come out, and any new rules would have to fulfil the backward compatibility goal of Pathfinder to 3.5 for that to happen.
2 - Power Points: I know these are a contentious issue, but I absolutely love the way the power point system works and synergises with what I perceive as the basic concepts of the system.
3 - Flexible Powers: In line with the power points, the fact that powers are more flexible, but you get less of them, is a concept that I really like.
OK, well the last thread I started has kind of imploded now, as was inevitable I suppose, but it gave a LOT of good information all the same. So again, another 'market research' thread here, only this time I want to know what people LIKE about the 3.5 psionics system that they would like to see maintained in a Pathfinder version.
I know that there are some things it may not be possible to incorporate, but all the same there are sacred cows to some of us that we want to see if we can. Hence I'd like for people to NOT come onto this thread saying "You cannot have that in Pathfinder psionics!" - this thread is asking people for their wish-lists, not their demands or expectations.
For example, I have three items on my list:
1 - Backward compatibility: I have existing psionic characters, some in Pathfinder games, that I want to update if any rules come out, and any new rules would have to fulfil the backward compatibility goal of Pathfinder to 3.5 for that to happen.
2 - Power Points: I know these are a contentious issue, but I absolutely love the way the power point system works and synergises with what I perceive as the basic concepts of the system.
3 - Flexible Powers: In line with the power points, the fact that powers are more flexible, but you get less of them, is a concept that I really like.
I will try to get a list for this one too. It is easier to copy and paste recent ideas than reinvent the wheel. This might slow the other list down though.
there is mainly one thing I like about psionics, the power point syste.
It seems more "realistic" to me than "spells per day", the "once cast & forgot" never really got to me, but it is easier to handle.
That said, I still won't let psionics into my campaigns, for reasons listed in the other thread. (no offense anyone)
I, for one, love the power point system. But I'm not utterly married to it. I'm quite curious to see how the words of power system will work out. If a caster/mystic/whatever can have maybe 15 words of power and use them at different power levels then I'm good. Examples: featherfall>levitate>fly>overland flight or charm person>suggestion>dominate person.
You should be able to alter these very similar spells on the fly. Heighten spell only changes the DC, not the wording of the spell, but the "seed" so to speak should stay the same. That's the root of what I loved about the psionics system.
I think one of the arguments we hear is that psionics gets to do this cool thing that magic can't, and that's not fair. I would love magic to be able to do the same thing! At least arcane magic.
I would like the flavor preserved. Or what I consider to be the core flavor, of dream and astral magic, mental powers (telepathy, read thoughts, telekinesis), as well as divination/object reading/remote viewing. I can live without psionic items, and have eschewed them in my games, and if people object to the crystals I say good riddance (I myself am neutral on their inclusion).
It'd be very nice if they maintained backwards compatability, since personally I find the XPH to be the best incarnation of psionics by far and compatability is supposed to be a big goal of the PFRPG.
For balance's sake, and I know I'm going a bit against dabbler again, but I'll post what I find, even as a Psi-lover, to be the largest problems with XPH system.
Flavor-take away the new age flavor but leave the dreamwalking mysticism. If you want a more eastern/indian/vudra feeling I'm down!
Nova-I think it's important to be able to scale the powers, but take away rules that let you overchannel because they are abusable and problematic. Have a limit on power points per ROUND you can spend, so you can either cast a quickened 3rd level power OR an augmented power to max level but not both.
Energy power-Too many and too good. Reduce it to a few powers and make you choose what element they are at the beginning of the day. I believe this is what DSP has done.
Psionic Focus-clunky and problematic. I like it, but it seems to be confusing to some people. Let it go.
I guess I like the feel of psionics. I like the mental power aspect. I like the current implementation of the system (3.5 not 4e obviously) but I am not tied to the system. If they can create the feel in either a way that works like the spell system or like the monk I would be ok with it.
|
Psionics = surgical precision over power.
YOu don't wast extra energy overkilling
example:
I had a psion in a campaign, and there were some baby dragons (that we didnt want to kill). so i blow my focus, over channel, ect.
The group: Don't kill the dragon
Me: Dont trip, i got this
The group: Don't kill the dragon
Me: Overchannel Mind blast
Dragon: (at -8, its 3.5 so its down and almost dead))
Me: Told you I wouldn't kill it
1 - Definately, I think backwards compatability is important, it's the whole point of pathfinder. Updating a ruleset that cant go backwards is counter to one of the main goals of the product, and will alienate a solid portion of the already limited psionics audience
2 - Power points are definately an interesting mechanic. I like new mechanics. I am less concerned with balance then I am that the mechanics FEEL like what they are trying to portray. Obviously balancing the 'nova' effect is important, but I think that shouldn't be at the cost of the unique mechanic of psionics. If you move them to a vancian system you are pretty much only reflavoring existin magic which is all but pointless. Keeping the unique mechanic that 'feels' like a psionics user is key for me.
3 - Flexible powers - this is a bit less important to me but still requires attention. One of the issues with psi points and spell points is the fact that spells/powers dont just scale with level you have to pay points to scale them, decreasing the value of damage spells and other spells that scale this way. This was done out of concern of the use of lower level spells over and over (if they scaled just with level) because of the point flexibility vs the vancian system. Completely removing the scaling ability would make certain kinds of powers (direct damage in particular) significantly weaker then their vancian counterparts, but at the same time I'd like to see some measures taken to prevent the NOVA effect that 3.5 rules allowed.
4 - System transparancy with magic - ******** crazy crucial. This was the default setting for 3.5 psionics where magic and psionics interact as if they were the same. Dispell magic works on powers, psionic resistance works on magic ect. This is absolutely crucial to maintain balance and not create loads of new work for dms. It should be the only system presented in a new psionic set of rules. Without question the option to have magic and psionics not interact has lead to loads of confusion and hard feelings, the default from 3.5 needs to be taken forward and made the only option.
5 - General feel, for me psionics always felt different, other. Alot of the flavor for psionics involved other planes or far off lands. I like that, and I like how the different mechanics of all the psi classes lent themselves to that. I like that the system is all together different in how it functions (but not in magic - psi transparency)
Hooo boy. A lot :B
I love the flavor and feel of psionics as an inner power. That opens up the fluff to so many different styles of character. The wizard is, fluff wise, a very narrow class, involving book learning and magical tomes. The sorcerer is a bit better but is still based on the "power from specific spell" problems that wizards have. Psions have all their strength from inside - which, incidentally, is how most "wizards" in fantasy stories and media work.
I love the power point system. It's so incredibly elegant and simple to understand and easy to use. There's no extensive bookkeeping needed like you do with you play a wizard, and the versatility and elegance leaves sorcerers in the dust. It's also a lot easier to help new players understand; Vancian is weird and very distinct to just D&D, and new players have no idea what this spell slot nonsense is; a simple pool of points is significantly easier to understand. Beyond that, just as with the first, it more accurately displays how wizards or spellcasters or mystics or etc work in most fantasy settings - as people with an inner pool of "strength" they spend, able to heighten their own power or send out weak jolts when needed.
I love the classes. The psionic warrior is a great show on what monks could've and should've been. The dedicated psion is much more fun then the specialist wizard, with their unique spells that only they can learn. The soulknife has always depressed me, because as mechanically pathetic as it's been, I just love the style and flavor. And the wilder is something that's existed in myth and fantasy since forever yet has never had a place or role in D&D until the class came about.
I fully think that the 3.5 psionics system is not only the best that was made, but flat out better then any of the other forms of magic, be they Tome of Magic style or Vancian casting or spontanious Vancian.
My problems with 3.5 psionics:
CPsi. Just...just, CPsi.
Soulknife was utter rubbish mechanically speaking. It was one of the weakest classes released throughout all of 3.5.
Arcane spells. Yes, my problem with psionics was wizards. Or rather, with wizards getting spells in every g@~!+@n book. Anything that anyone could do, a wizard could do better with a spell. There were no niches in 3.5 because LOL WIZARD!
Psicrystals were kinda silly. They sorta felt like "Well, wizards have a familiar..."
One thing I like but don't think it's utilized to it's full potential, is the concept that any one can pick it up, so to speak. I like the idea of a psychic fighter or monk who isn't a multiclass character, they just have a wild talent. An extra set of abilities that can be picked up and nurtured with some feats, similar to what Eberron did with Dragonmarks maybe.
As for SP, I think I'd like to see a Vancian and a SP version, with rules for converting other spellcasters to SP. Package it so the DM just has to choose a ruleset rather then tack a different one on.
I don't love Psionics but I definitely like them in limited use especially within some settings. I feel that the default setting assumptions are that everyone is used to arcane and divine magic. Psionics provides a secret form of "magic" that the practitioners want to remain hidden. Further it allows you to experiment with bigotry against mages and psions which is a relatively common thing in some literature, ie burn the witch but isn't a major part of D&D because it would explode to many of the foundations that make the game work.
I think psionics can definitely be useful if you add in a mysterious other culture. In Golarion that might be Vudran mystics and psionic warriors. Basically it gives you a non-hermetic non-clerical power source. While strictly speaking that's not needed given the variety of optional bloodlines for sorcerors in Pathfinder it can be useful in throwing curveballs to the PCs. I also think psionics is an intrinsic part of some of the magic meets science settings such as Blackmoor and the post-apocalyptic settings like Dark Sun.
I do like keeping psionics as a NPC only thing on occasion. First it allows me to fudge the psion rules quite a bit and second it allows me to customize some of the psionic creatures, mind flayers, intellect devourers, su monsters, and thought eaters to bring in a bit of fear and uncertainty to the PCs. Ethereal bony platypus that can fry your brain? Yes please.
The power point system is the biggest thing for me. Add me to the "spell slots are wonky" camp. Power points just make so much more sense, and are so much easier to use and make for more fun play.
Anything that gets rid of Vancian casting is a plus.
|
In the other thread, some folks mentioned their preference for skill points for psionic powers. That coupled with "words of power" brings to mind the Ars Magica system, using skill ratings for different verbs and nouns to create spells on the fly. That would get me a long way towards liking the idea of psionics.
i like the power point system and flexible powers too.
i beleive the soulknife should just be a feat tree for the psionic warrior.
i dislike that new age crystal stuff. please drop it.
i beleive a bhuddist flavor would be more appopriate for them.
maybe something from tibet, nepal, or india could work. heck, you could borrow from all 3.
some kind of mechanical reinforcement to the psionics/magic transperency. such as replacing XP costs with costly material components (oils, inscence and candles can work) and qualifying for existing item creation feats (instead of making special psionic ones) maybe remove psicraft and use psionic device. merge them into spellcraft and use magic device. i would reccomend the same for martial lore and knowlege (history)
there is mainly one thing I like about psionics, the power point system.
It seems more "realistic" to me than "spells per day", the "once cast & forgot" never really got to me, but it is easier to handle.
Pretty much this applies to me, too.
Pretty much this applies to me, too.there is mainly one thing I like about psionics, the power point system.
It seems more "realistic" to me than "spells per day", the "once cast & forgot" never really got to me, but it is easier to handle.
applies to me three
What I like about psionics is the power point system. It's flexibility and the level of control I have over the powers I manifest. It functions exactly like the magic system in all other respects and makes an excellent drop in non-Vancian (spell point based) magic system.It integrates with the core material seamlessly (especially with full magic/psionic transparency).
This seem to be the most common thing that people like about psionics from what I've seen.
I've already voiced the things I don't like in your other thread.
This seems to be the most common draw to psionics but it doesn't seem to really be about psionics but having a spell point system. Several people have stated that the SP system seems more like real magic then the vancian one that arcane casters get.
To me psionics should be clearly seperate from arcane magic whether its done with a vancian system or sp. It kind seems like a lot of people would be satisfied if they were able to use SP as Sorcerers and Wizards in the games they play.
This seems to be the most common draw to psionics but it doesn't seem to really be about psionics but having a spell point system. Several people have stated that the SP system seems more like real magic then the vancian one that arcane casters get.
To me psionics should be clearly seperate from arcane magic whether its done with a vancian system or sp. It kind seems like a lot of people would be satisfied if they were able to use SP as Sorcerers and Wizards in the games they play.
I am not so sure, Skaorn. For me it's that the concept of psionics, the flexibility of the powers and the power point system all synergise to make the concept work very smoothly. It's difficult to put my finger on exactly what 'it' is, but it's there in that combination of factors. Instead of having a series of 'set piece' effects as a vancian caster would have, instead you have some sliding scales of how much power you expend on what, where and how. It's not just a spell-point system, it's the way the powers interact with that system to make the 'you know the fundamental principals and can apply them on the fly for the specific effect' concept work.
A spell-point based wizard or sorcerer would not be a psionic character for me, because their spells would still not be powers (yes, I know a lot of powers are re-skinned spells, bear with me). A fireball is still a fireball - it always does 1d6 damage per level (you don't get any benefit from it doing less even if you can do so), it is still only fire damage. An energy ball has a minimum damage, but you can do that minumum damage and conserve resources, and you can vary the type of energy to what you need at the time.
These may be small details, but they are the details that supply the feel and concept, and these are important, at least to me.
These may be small details, but they are the details that supply the feel and concept, and these are important, at least to me.
I agree there. It isn't just about the Power Point flexibility, but the context it is in as well.
However I actually have a big problem with the default flavor being solely personal/mortal mind power. Like confusion over magic transparency, it creates problems by saying "hey mortal minds can do what gods and arcane forces can do." That's trouble and I think part of what people feel is Sci-Fi about psionics. There really needs to be something greater and grander then purely mortal psionic manipulators, and I count the various aberrations in the mortal category.
As primarily DM I was ho-hum on psionics in 3.5, was super thrilled with in 3.0, and had down right hideous experiences with it in 2nd Edition. Until D&D Eberron, hot damn Sarlona and the Inspired were amazing fantasy flavor and rational for psionic powers. The kalashtar and the Quori outsiders made it even more solidly fantasy.
The big difference I see in Psionics now over Arcane or even Divine is the direction of power flow. Arcane and Divine are big externals that are either tugged or given. Psionics is targeted subtly, or at least it should be. It is personal power, but not necessarily mortal. It could be Outsider level personal being channeled through a mortal (see kalashtar). Think Fool Wolf from Hounds of Ash, with his "goddess" trapped inside him he can draw on. Very different from both arcane and divine flavoring.
Personal Power is fine, but not Mortal Personal Power. No humanoid mind should default to "I can be better then god granted power, or years of arcane study and manipulation at level 1." It just doesn't fit well. You have to have something grander involved for it to be fantastical and fantasy.
I'm gonna surpise you and start with the tangent, then move into what you actually asked…
I love Psionics, but I think (since it was a late-comer to the scene), the wizard had already stolen all his toys. I think Psions should be the wielders of telepathy, telekenesis, dream-magic, astral travel/projection, etc. One of the arguments that we consistently hear is, "wizards already to this, why do we need a new class to do the same thing?" Well, this stuff should belong to the psion, so remove those spells from the spell-casters. Problem solved. ( I realize this is probably gonna be a wildly unpopular idea, but when my homebrew settign goes live, it's happening.)
Now for what Dabbler asked:
1) The 'Mind over body' mystic thing. Being able to affect changes in your body simply through a specific training of the power trapped within one's mind. I feel like it has an exotic mysticism to it. Dream walking, dream-sharing, astral projection, telepathy, telekenesis. Awesome stuff.
2) The second flavor thing I love is how the mechanics of the system flow from the concept of the system. What I mean is this: when I think of spell-casters, it seems to me to be people capable of tapping into the unmeasurable power in the world around them to affect changes (both mundane and awesome) in the world around them. It's an external force manipulated through training (wizard), prayer (divine casters), or through raw capability (sorcerer). Psionics, on the other hand, is tapping a purely internal power source to affect changes in themselves and the world. It might seem like a small difference, but it's pretty profoundly different, and I'd expect a character using this power source to play drastically different than those of arcane persuasion.
2) I love the power point system. I realize it's very easy to "nova" with them, but that's not really what i love about it. I love the flexibility to push as little or much power into any given ability as I want to, which you can't do with the (in my opinion overly rigid) Vancian system.
_______
HEre's what i wish it was (and this is my personal opinion… I realize they're not necessarily shared by my psionic-loving friends):
1) Get rid of the ridiculously robust set of "blow crap up" powers. in my opinion, these aren't really needed. Manipulating your environment in subtler ways seems up the Mystic/Psionic alley, but Energy Burst, Blast, Wave, Ray, Punch, etc… too much.
2) Get rid of the necessity for all the crystal crap. This is actually one of the things that feels a bit sci-fi to me. I don't know why. Maybe I'm flawed, but it just seems needless. Plus, I want everything to do with psionic - and I mean everything - to be internal. A floating crystal thing with it's own personality and voice just brings to mind something from Star Trek.
3) Get rid of the whole Psionics is different than magic thing. Make the Psionics/Magic Transparency relationship how it works. Period. Detect Magic should register psionic activity. Dispel Magic should suppress psionic fields. This gets rid of a ton of DM headaches. Plus, in my mind, power is power is power - regardless of source.
4) Use the existing Pathfinder skills and concentration rules. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The whole auto-hypnosis thing (as used in 3.5) was overpowered. You got way more out of one skill than i think you should have. I don't understand why half the stuff incorporated into that skill simply weren't powers unto themselves.
5) Wilders and Psions being two different classes. I always felt that the wilder should be a second set of class abilities the psion can pick up, not a whole other class. Much like the sorcerer bloodlines - i think these should be two sides of the same coin. (and if your argument is that the wilder is the psionic 'sorcerer', i want to punch you. Not only is it not, but the sorcerer should be more than a wizard with delayed spell use)
Well point three is the default in 3.5, but I agree even the option of not having transparency should not be there.
I will jump up and defend wilders, though.
The psion studies intensely to gain his powers, and masters them by intellectually understanding them. All well and good. The Wilder represents the savant, the wild talent, the odd person here or there that may lack the capacity to intellectualise what they are doing but grasps intuitively the concept of a narrow focus of abilities.
The psion is the studious psychic (like the magicians in a great many fantasy novels). The Wilder is Carrie - don't know much about what she's doing, but blows stuff up when she gets mad. It's a concept I personally love to bits. That, by the way, is where blowing stuff up comes into psionics ... and why not? It's part of the staple of psychic powers in popular culture after all, and it leaves plenty of things in magic that psionics cannot do at all - abjurations, necromancy and illusions to name three categories that psionics is very weak or non-existent in.
Well point three is the default in 3.5, but I agree even the option of not having transparency should not be there.
I will jump up and defend wilders, though.
The psion studies intensely to gain his powers, and masters them by intellectually understanding them. All well and good. The Wilder represents the savant, the wild talent, the odd person here or there that may lack the capacity to intellectualise what they are doing but grasps intuitively the concept of a narrow focus of abilities.
The psion is the studious psychic (like the magicians in a great many fantasy novels). The Wilder is Carrie - don't know much about what she's doing, but blows stuff up when she gets mad. It's a concept I personally love to bits. That, by the way, is where blowing stuff up comes into psionics ... and why not? It's part of the staple of psychic powers in popular culture after all, and it leaves plenty of things in magic that psionics cannot do at all - abjurations, necromancy and illusions to name three categories that psionics is very weak or non-existent in.
Oh, i don't have an issue with the concept of wilders. I've just thought their use of a different hit die, BAB, save progressions, etc. seemed unnecessary.
You asked; I answered.
I am not so sure, Skaorn. For me it's that the concept of psionics, the flexibility of the powers and the power point system all synergise to make the concept work very smoothly. It's difficult to put my finger on exactly what 'it' is, but it's there in that combination of factors. Instead of having a series of 'set piece' effects as a vancian caster would have, instead you have some sliding scales of how much power you expend on what, where and how. It's not just a spell-point system, it's the way the powers interact with that system to make the 'you know the fundamental principals and can apply them on the fly for the specific effect' concept work.
What you're saying doesn't say psionics to me. I could easily see arcane and divine casters using the same scaling of power if you put your mind to converting it.
A spell-point based wizard or sorcerer would not be a psionic character for me, because their spells would still not be powers (yes, I know a lot of powers are re-skinned spells, bear with me). A fireball is still a fireball - it always does 1d6 damage per level (you don't get any benefit from it doing less even if you can do so), it is still only fire damage. An energy ball has a minimum damage, but you can do that minumum damage and conserve resources, and you can vary the type of energy to what you need at the time.
These may be small details, but they are the details that supply the feel and concept, and these are important, at least to me.
This is my point, you can switch a wizard or cleric over to this system and you'd still be able to see what it is. Psions should vbe able to be seen for what it is no matter what system it uses.
applies to me threePretty much this applies to me, too.there is mainly one thing I like about psionics, the power point system.
It seems more "realistic" to me than "spells per day", the "once cast & forgot" never really got to me, but it is easier to handle.
I liked it too but I think it should be just that.... an alternate magic system, not Psionics. IMHO, 3.5 never had a Psionics system.
If paizo preserved the basic 3.5 "Psionics" system but applied it to current classes as an alternate way to do magic, I'd like it. If they actually call something like this "psionics", I'll be disappointed.
This is my point, you can switch a wizard or cleric over to this system and you'd still be able to see what it is. Psions should vbe able to be seen for what it is no matter what system it uses.
I the case of the wizard ported to a psionic-type system, he would be differentiated only by the fluff of how he achieves things (chants and makes gestures) and by the fact that he has a lot more scope to what he can do (psionics is more restricted). Every class is differentiated not just by descriptive text but by mechanics - class abilities and the like. The powers & power point system is what makes the psion mechanically and not just contextually different from the wizard. This is the big advantage of the character class system, that you can give each class different mechanics to make them unique.
As said, you could make all martial classes the fighter - no more separate paladins, rangers or barbarians. Get rid of smite and favoured enemies, because weapon training does extra damage and gives you bonuses to hit, and get rid of rage powers because you have bonus feats ... but would the game gain anything by doing so? You've taken away from the game and added nothing. This kind of minimal character class game may float somebody's boat, but the fact that new variations of classes keep coming up tells me that people like having different character classes with different abilities.
Some people may like the idea of every class being effectively the same except for flavour text and a few abilities, but that's been done before and called D&D4e, and I for one didn't like it.
Meh....Psionics in 3.5 just weren't psionics anymore to me. They were more like "wizards with spell points". Too much flashbang and not enough subtlety. I prefer Psionics as they were handled back in 2nd Ed, where they were "true psionics"; where telepaths and clairvoyants were the REAL psions and knieticists were all about movement.
If I wanted to play a damage dealer that didn't rely on melee prowess, I would have played a wizard, which I did. When I wanted to play something cool and different, that relied on a lot of powers that required you to think about how to use them in combat, I played a Psion.
If they bring back Psionics, I PRAY they look towards 2nd Ed AD&D to see how it was done. That was the right way to do it. 1st was a mess, and 3rd was just as bad, if not worse. I don't play 4th, so I can't give an opinion on how they're handled in 4th.
Agreed.
This is my point, you can switch a wizard or cleric over to this system and you'd still be able to see what it is. Psions should vbe able to be seen for what it is no matter what system it uses.I the case of the wizard ported to a psionic-type system, he would be differentiated only by the fluff of how he achieves things (chants and makes gestures) and by the fact that he has a lot more scope to what he can do (psionics is more restricted). Every class is differentiated not just by descriptive text but by mechanics - class abilities and the like. The powers & power point system is what makes the psion mechanically and not just contextually different from the wizard. This is the big advantage of the character class system, that you can give each class different mechanics to make them unique.
As said, you could make all martial classes the fighter - no more separate paladins, rangers or barbarians. Get rid of smite and favoured enemies, because weapon training does extra damage and gives you bonuses to hit, and get rid of rage powers because you have bonus feats ... but would the game gain anything by doing so? You've taken away from the game and added nothing. This kind of minimal character class game may float somebody's boat, but the fact that new variations of classes keep coming up tells me that people like having different character classes with different abilities.
Some people may like the idea of every class being effectively the same except for flavour text and a few abilities, but that's been done before and called D&D4e, and I for one didn't like it.
This is my point exactly: the only thing that seperated wizards and psions in 3.X is that they ran on different spell rules. To me, this is no where near good enough. A Fighter and Barbarian can be easily recognized by the abilities, which occupy the pages of their class description. They aren't all fighters but with different changes to how the Combat chapter works for each class. A Psion should be recognizeable from a wizard by more then just changing the Magic chapter for them.
I want a different class, not a different magic system.
Hang on a minute, so you are saying that because the fighter uses more feats than the barbarian to hit things with a big weapon while the barbarian uses rage powers (effectively he shouts "Arrrrgghh!" and hits things with a big weapon) that's a huge distinctive difference, but while the wizard uses spell slots to mutter a few words and blow things up with a ritual a psion who uses a system of powers and power points to blow things up by concentrating hard isn't different enough?
There is no more difference between the fighter and the barbarian than there is between the psion and the wizard - and by the same token, no less.
That is incorrect. The barbarian and the Fighter both use the same rules. The classes however have different abilities but both in fact use the very same rules.
The psion and the wizard look similar as a class but do not use the same rules.
It would be like saying The fighter uses Mutants and master minds combat rules, while the barbarian uses Pathfinder combat rules. That is the same level of difference between the Psionic rules and the other rules every other caster uses.
They are using two very different rule sets.
Oh I know that, seeker. If the fighter and barbarian look similar, use the same rules but are different because they have different class abilities, how can a psion and wizard be less different when they have different class abilities and use different mechanics? I feel like Skaorn is measuring classes with a very subjective yardstick. OK, we're all subjective, but all the same ...
It is not about class ability. It is about the rule system each class uses. The psion uses a different rule set then the other casters.
If the psion uses the same rules as the other caster but had a "ki pool" or something that allowed it to empower so many times per day,then yes it would count. However this is not how it works. It does not use the same system
The psion is a wizard ability wise, It does not have a single unique class ability. It is just using a different rule set.
It is not about class ability. It is about the rule system each class uses. The psion uses a different rule set then the other casters.
In case you hadn't noticed, this is very common in Pathfinder/D&D. barbarians have a rules system for rage, rangers for favoured enemies, paladins for mercies and smite ... all these are different rules systems to the fighter's feats.
If the psion uses the same rules as the other caster but had a "ki pool" or something that allowed it to empower so many times per day,then yes it would count. However this is not how it works. It does not use the same system
Neither do many classes. This does not stop them being different, it helps them, to be different.
The psion is a wizard ability wise, It does not have a single unique class ability. It is just using a different rule set.
The Barbarian is not different ability-wise to the fighter, he just has different feat-equivalents. Ditto for the ranger and the paladin.
We're just arguing in circles here, I doubt I will convince you, and you have no chance of ever convincing me.
No we will not as your comparing class ability as if they were the rule system. The system for fighter vs barbarian is the combat system they use which is the very same one. They do not have the same class abilities but do in fact use the same rule system.
Your calling class abilities the system which they are not, use the base system but are not the base system. The fact is the 3.5 psion does not use the same rule set as any other caster. The psion really has no class ability other then forced school. They are just like the wizard except they use a different rule set for magic.
Your comparing apple to oranges here. Class abilities vs a different rule set.
It is not about class ability. It is about the rule system each class uses. The psion uses a different rule set then the other casters.In case you hadn't noticed, this is very common in Pathfinder/D&D. barbarians have a rules system for rage, rangers for favoured enemies, paladins for mercies and smite ... all these are different rules systems to the fighter's feats.
If the psion uses the same rules as the other caster but had a "ki pool" or something that allowed it to empower so many times per day,then yes it would count. However this is not how it works. It does not use the same systemNeither do many classes. This does not stop them being different, it helps them, to be different.
The psion is a wizard ability wise, It does not have a single unique class ability. It is just using a different rule set.The Barbarian is not different ability-wise to the fighter, he just has different feat-equivalents. Ditto for the ranger and the paladin.
We're just arguing in circles here, I doubt I will convince you, and you have no chance of ever convincing me.
Well, I was enjoying debating with you Dabbler. Thanks for reminding me that it always ends up going to the same place.
A Barbarian's abilities might supposed to be the equivelent of a Fighter's bonus feat but both have abilities that follow the theme of the class. The various fighting classes abilities do not change the combat rules, they augment them. Now if a Barbarian in Rage stopped using Hit Point and used a different system, say Mutants & Mastermind's Toughness save, then that is changing the way combat works. Also all the things you are calling different rules systems all fit within the class description. The Psion's spell points need their own chapter for rules.
If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine. You can have your 3PP Spell Points and I'll be perfectly happy to wait for Paizo to produce their vancian version or continue work on a feat based version in the meantime.
Your calling class abilities the system which they are not, use the base system but are not the base system. The fact is the 3.5 psion does not use the same rule set as any other caster. The psion really has no class ability other then forced school. They are just like the wizard except they use a different rule set for magic.
Your comparing apple to oranges here. Class abilities vs a different rule set.
Different class abilities ARE part of the rule set. That's the way the character class system works, and that is it's great strength. You want to do away with that, great - but the fact is, that the vast majority of people that WANT a Pathfinder psionics system want a backward-compatible power point system, and there is no sense producing a system that does not do what the majority of potential buyers want. As for the argument that this will make it unpalatable to the rest of the potential buyers, I will point out that only a small minority of those asked cited the PP system as a reason.
On all other fronts, it seems we will have to wait and see how Paizo develop Ultimate Magic to see where things might lead.
Different class abilities ARE part of the rule set. That's the way the character class system works, and that is it's great strength. You want to do away with that, great - but the fact is, that the vast majority of people that WANT a Pathfinder psionics system want a backward-compatible power point system, and there is no sense producing a system that does not do what the majority of potential buyers want. As for the argument that this will make it unpalatable to the rest of the potential buyers, I will point out that only a small minority of those asked cited the PP system as a reason.
On all other fronts, it seems we will have to wait and see how Paizo develop Ultimate Magic to see where things might lead.
Yes they are a part of the rules and not a completely different set of rules. Now I, for one, don't think a power point system is a problem as an alternate way of doing magic as a whole. I do list it as a problem when it is these few get system A and thes get system B but both equal X.
Now when you say that "...the vast majority of people that WANT a Pathfinder psionics system want a backward-compatible power point system, and there is no sense producing a system that does not do what the majority of potential buyers want", how big is that percent really? How do you know that a Psionic supplement using a vancian system and focuses more on flavor, as implied by Paizo, then an alternate casting system isn't going to draw more people who can look over it in five minutes and go "hey, thats kind of cool and it works like regular magic" over the "let's play it safe and play to the limited crowd that already exists. Sure it's more of a risk for Paizo, but I think they have the potential to draw more people in with psionics just updating the 3.5 version. They can also mitigate the risk by releasing an alternate spell point caster system (which might be the "Words of Power" in Ultimate Magic) for everybody which, if you really wanted to, would probably be easy to say Arcane and Divine get this system and psionics get this one.
Taking a quick look up and counting the posters, 15/22 posters want the power point system, 3/22 want a different system, the rest are ambivalent, and that's exactly why I started this thread, to get an idea of what those that want psionics want to see.
Taking a quick look up and counting the posters, 15/22 posters want the power point system, 3/22 want a different system, the rest are ambivalent, and that's exactly why I started this thread, to get an idea of what those that want psionics want to see.
Versus how many people out there in the community that are ambivalent enough not to get involved in the discussion? A good suppliment has the potential to reach a lot more of the community and using the existing PFRPG rules rather then converting 3.5, which wasn't widly popular, has a better chance of doing this.
Taking a quick look up and counting the posters, 15/22 posters want the power point system, 3/22 want a different system, the rest are ambivalent, and that's exactly why I started this thread, to get an idea of what those that want psionics want to see.Versus how many people out there in the community that are ambivalent enough not to get involved in the discussion? A good suppliment has the potential to reach a lot more of the community and using the existing PFRPG rules rather then converting 3.5, which wasn't widly popular, has a better chance of doing this.
How do you know it wasn't popular? Any supplement will always be less popular than what is in the core book. Less popular does not mean not popular.
Taking a quick look up and counting the posters, 15/22 posters want the power point system, 3/22 want a different system, the rest are ambivalent, and that's exactly why I started this thread, to get an idea of what those that want psionics want to see.
Just to point out something, you asked people that like the current system to post. "Why DO you like Psionics?"
So your numbers are far from accurate except to say "Out of the current people who have posted and like psionics, 15/22 like it as is".
IF it stays as is I would never buy it. If it went vacian and there was an option for making it, and all other casters, spellpoint based then I would. You should make sure you don't put blinders on when considering things. The most vocal people do not necessarily make the majority.
I don't know what the majority is but you seemed very quick to jump to conclusions without the hard data. But maybe you have that hard data but I certainly don't consider this thread to be it.
I posted in more detail about what I would like to see in the other thread (the one about not liking it).
I just started reading some of the PFRPG threads on psionics and such. It looks like the issue is already settled.
This was found in the "Power point and Vancian magic systems" thread.
The greatest disadvantage the power point system has is that it's not the system that everyone learns when they start playing Pathfinder. We already have a system for handling spells (and make no mistake, if/when we do psionics, they'll be handled as spells, not powers), and rewriting that system into a "same but different" system that basically forces players of psionic characters and GMs to re-learn an entire new system that, in the end, is supposed to accomplish the same effect as the system they already know, is in my opinion a waste of energy and resources.
That said, I know that a lot of fans of psionics DO like the point-based system. One of the most important things we need to do if and when we decide to tackle psionics is to figure out how we handle that fact. At this point, I would say that we'd just be up front about the fact that we're NOT going with a point based system and lay all our cards on the table, as it were. That way, for folks who want only a spell-point system, they'll know from the start that they're not getting that.
I am a pretty big fan of the FLAVOR of psionics, but not a fan of the point based system by which they've always functioned, in other words.
If you're a fan of psionics as a flavor of power, then I feel absolutely confident that Paizo can deliver to you a psionics solution you'll enjoy. If you're a fan of the point system, I'm confident you'll be disappointed. ...
Taking a quick look up and counting the posters, 15/22 posters want the power point system, 3/22 want a different system, the rest are ambivalent, and that's exactly why I started this thread, to get an idea of what those that want psionics want to see.Just to point out something, you asked people that like the current system to post. "Why DO you like Psionics?"
So your numbers are far from accurate except to say "Out of the current people who have posted and like psionics, 15/22 like it as is".
The people who like the current system are the ones most likely to buy a psionics supplement for Pathfinder. If there is a point to bringing out a psionics system for Pathfinder - at least commercially - it is to be aimed at those people. If it attracts others, it's a bonus.
What I'm trying to do here is get some usable data on what the people most likely to buy a psionics supplement like about existing psionics and what they would like to see in the future, just as I did in the "So what don't you like about psionics?" thread. It's a kind of market research, I suppose.
Apologies if I did not make that clear enough, and for getting bogged down in a debate with those wanting a Vancian system for psionics. My own first requirement is for backward-compatibility; I don't see how that can be done if the system is made vancian, but if Paizo can pull that off all credit to them.
Now it's early days yet, but what I can see so far is that only a minority had a problem with the power point system that did not like the 3.5 psionics system and posted, and a majority that did like the system want to see power points kept. I'm not saying this because it's what I want, I'm saying this because it what the posters have posted.
Yeah it is still a long ways off but it is settled. Pathfinder psionics will not be using the point system. So all ya guys that want that your out of luck it seems.
Couple of points from that thread
* Most likely not to be called psionics
* Will be allowed in PFS
* Most likely will have a open play test
* Will most likely not use the names Psion or soulblade
* Will use the current spell system
* Powers will be spells
Now it's early days yet, but what I can see so far is that only a minority had a problem with the power point system that did not like the 3.5 psionics system and posted
This I believe is wrong. Half that thread had issues with the system, 3 guys derailed it by harassing anyone who posted any dislike about the system.
People just do not post negative stuff normally as more then one poster in that thread told you why. The pro guys have to prove them wrong.
The system was not and is not as popular as you think it is. A vast number of GM simply would not allow it at the table, if it was a huge hit then there would be even more psionic books, which there was not.
Either way the debate is done, paizo while still a ways off has chosen which way it will go.
This I believe is wrong. Half that thread had issues with the system, 3 guys derailed it by harassing anyone who posted any dislike about the system.
Now it's early days yet, but what I can see so far is that only a minority had a problem with the power point system that did not like the 3.5 psionics system and posted
Problems with the system, yes - but most of those were about 'going nova' rather than about power points per se - you can amend a power point system to avoid that, if you wish, partly by re-writing the powers that make it easier and partly by capping the power point expenditure per round.
Thank you for trying to help keep that thread on subject, BTW, it is appreciated whatever else our differences of opinion.
People just do not post negative stuff normally as more then one poster in that thread told you why. The pro guys have to prove them wrong.
I can't disagree with that, I think it's a shame that we can't do polls on these boards which would be a much better way of getting a sweep of opinion, and it's a shame that when things seem to be running against us we can't always resist sticking our oar in - that's human nature I guess.
The system was not and is not as popular as you think it is. A vast number of GM simply would not allow it at the table, if it was a huge hit then there would be even more psionic books, which there was not.
I think this is anecdotal. I've actually only met one DM that disallowed it completely, myself, so experiences can and will vary. What I can say is, it's the only 'optional' system to end up in the SRD, and every book seemed to have some psionics content. Some settings had it hard-written into them (such as Eberron, which was hugely popular) and it always seemed to get a mention. It certainly stirs up some contention on the boards, anyway!
Either way the debate is done, paizo while still a ways off has chosen which way it will go.
Yes, and it's a good way:
The new system will NOT be called psionics, and the classes will not be parallels of the existing 3.5 psionic classes in name or in function, and this is being done specifically so that those using or wanting to use an updated 3.5 psionics system in Paizo games can continue to do so.So in a way, we're both getting pretty much what we want, which is a win-win situation.
I agree, I think that is the best way to do it. DSP is putting out the point system for those who really want it, paizo is gonna put out an alt magic system{which I want to see} and paizo plans to not use the old names when it does its "psychic" system
I agree man win=win all around there.