I'd say:
If you would like to argue them unproductively we can, by all means. In game experience I have never had a player want to play a Psionic character who wasn't trying to break the system one way or another. Its not used so much as a character concept as a license to try to get one over on the DM.means he isn't listening to arguments. You're a better man than me for trying though.
It also does not help that he is one of those "If I dont like it = it must be broken" people.
Martial characters are already built/balancedHAHA! no.
Would you let your spell casters take a set of feats that let them regen one of their third level spells so that it comes back at the start of every encounter? And they can spend an action to get the spell slot back additionally?Yes.
You got it. Fighters suck. There is no balance whatsoever in the game, therefore there is no way that Psionics can unbalance a game. I hate this attitude. I've seen Martial characters break games far more often that spell casters.
Also, the way you play the game is clearly better than the way I play the game, and anyone who has reservations about allowing Psionics into their game should bow to your way of playing the game since its better.
I already said its my OPINION that Overchannel and martials with Psionic feats are problematic. Would you like to argue about why I shouldn't like the music on my iPod as well? Perhaps you can explain to me why the sports teams I follow are wrong?
Also-- I pointed out the exact page and section where it clearly says that your manifester level is all classes that can manifest powers added together. I knew it was in there, it just took me a while to find. So again, page 66 in the description of overchannel it very clearly says exactly what my original assertion was.
Its the exact same verbage that existed in 3.5, and when the material was reprinted it wasn't fixed. That's leaving loopholes for abuse to be driven through.
And just because the guy who uses a ton of charge feats can do as much damage as the guy who uses a bunch of psionic feats doesn't mean that either of those things are actually balanced-- both of those and a lot of other abusive archetypes/builds exist, but more than one of them existing doesn't exclude others from being overpowered, and won't cause me to allow them into games if I don't want them there as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say:
If you would like to argue them unproductively we can, by all means. In game experience I have never had a player want to play a Psionic character who wasn't trying to break the system one way or another. Its not used so much as a character concept as a license to try to get one over on the DM.means he isn't listening to arguments. You're a better man than me for trying though.It also does not help that he is one of those "If I dont like it = it must be broken" people.
I find that even if they won't listen it's to ensure that others who may be thinking the same thing will see the math and understand why it's a far from superior option and how it's not even a corner case for consideration in terms of determining the balance of psionics versus the rest of the system. There are things in core much more dangerous to balancing than this.
I understand where the confusion about that is coming from but you can't treat "normal: XYZ" in a feat as rules text. They simply give you the most common case, ie. the normal case. Which in that event is a single classed manifester. Paizo has the same problem with some of their feats. Its maddening and sloppy, but not binding.
Its a very specific wording to accidently put in there if its not intended. Its a contradiction from other less specific wordings that exist elsewhere in the book. And to copy the same confusing/contradictory text word for word from another product when you revise it is the height of sloppiness.
As to the whole "just because something uses a lot of feats doesn't make it over powered", well yes and no. Feats are a mechanical investment. Maybe you don't think they cost enough feats, which I'll leave you to debate with others if you all so wish, but I just want to point out that at a certain point even the strongest of things have enough of an investment as to not be over powered.
The problems lie in the fact that all of the things stack. I get that feats make it an investment, but when you can take the three psionic feats you need with a human bonus feat and two of your three ordinary progression feats, then take four more feats with his fighter bonus feats plus, hey he still has one more feat at third level. . .
And now at 6th level he can do 2d6+6 + 9 for Power attack+ 4d6 for psionic +bonus damage for charging and there is no limit to the times per day he can do it?
That may be the thing I don't like most about the Psionic feats-- they don't consume any resources, all it takes is one Full Round action (which in 3.5 you could take a feat to make a move action) and you can do them infinitely.
One final note though, at a certain point where you have a ton of things that are over powered and broken perhaps you (generic, not just you specifically, I hate the english language) need to realize that the power level of the game is higher than what you (ditto) think it is and that what was once over powered is actually par for the course.
But I don't have to play in a game where it is that higher power. If I disallow options that aren't in the core book, require DM approval, ect. . .
And its pretty obvious that several of the things discussed in this thread (charging fighter, power attack fighter, psionic feats) are considerably more powerful at 6th level than any of the CR 6 enemies that a DM has pre-scripted in bestiaries, ect.
So then the DM is left making choices-- either about disallowing or house rule nerfing abilities, or to use more challenging encounters (which tend to give more exp and loot and inflate power more), or about using proper CR monsters and having them be super easy encounters for the PCs, or spending a greater amount of time to swap the more broken feats onto the creatures to make them more challenging. . .
All the while, a things are becoming more challenging they are also becoming more deadly. . . nothing leads to more TPKs than PCs who get Overpowered for their CR and the DM accidently goes a little too far in trying to challenge them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You got it. Fighters suck. There is no balance whatsoever in the game, therefore there is no way that Psionics can unbalance a game. I hate this attitude. I've seen Martial characters break games far more often that spell casters.Also, the way you play the game is clearly better than the way I play the game, and anyone who has reservations about allowing Psionics into their game should bow to your way of playing the game since its better.
I already said its my OPINION that Overchannel and martials with Psionic feats are problematic. Would you like to argue about why I shouldn't like the music on my iPod as well? Perhaps you can explain to me why the sports teams I follow are wrong?
Also-- I pointed out the exact page and section where it clearly says that your manifester level is all classes that can manifest powers added together. I knew it was in there, it just took me a while to find. So again, page 66 in the description of overchannel it very clearly says exactly what my original assertion was.
Its the exact same verbiage that existed in 3.5, and when the material was reprinted it wasn't fixed. That's leaving loopholes for abuse to be driven through.
And just because the guy who uses a ton of charge feats can do as much damage as the guy who uses a bunch of psionic feats doesn't mean that either of those things are actually balanced-- both of those and a lot of other abusive archetypes/builds exist, but more than one of them existing doesn't exclude others from being overpowered, and won't cause me to allow them into games if I don't want them there as a GM.
Actually my issue is with the spread of misinformation. There are plenty of reasons not to allow psionics into a game. Even balance if you run games a certain way. But pointing out a three feat tree outdone by a single feat in core shows a lack of system mastery on your part rather than any bad design.
I'm pointing out why you're wrong, showing the math that makes you wrong, and drawing from an experience not limited by my table but drawn from a constant study of the game.
And yes, all of this is your opinion. But it's one drawn from prejudice's and misconceptions that I would not see spread. You think martials break the game more than spellcasters? Feel free to start another 400 page thread in general discussion. You can share the hate. But don't expect me to let a bad opinion influence others if you can't be bothered to make a decent argument. An opinion does not make you immune to the criticism of your facts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And its pretty obvious that several of the things discussed in this thread (charging fighter, power attack fighter, psionic feats) are considerably more powerful at 6th level than any of the CR 6 enemies that a DM has pre-scripted in bestiaries, ect.
And I just spit my coffee. Thanks for that.
I have just come to the conclusion you straight up just don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know where to start here.
And its pretty obvious that several of the things discussed in this thread (charging fighter, power attack fighter, psionic feats) are considerably more powerful at 6th level than any of the CR 6 enemies that a DM has pre-scripted in bestiaries, ect.And I just spit my coffee. Thanks for that.
I have just come to the conclusion you straight up just don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know where to start here.
Thanks for just going to personal attacks. I've obviously not played some variation of this game for 20 years. I clearly have never DMed hundreds of sessions. I obviously don't have any feel for what things make the DMs job more difficult and make having enjoyable games less likely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And its pretty obvious that several of the things discussed in this thread (charging fighter, power attack fighter, psionic feats) are considerably more powerful at 6th level than any of the CR 6 enemies that a DM has pre-scripted in bestiaries, ect.And I just spit my coffee. Thanks for that.
I have just come to the conclusion you straight up just don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know where to start here.
Thanks for just going to personal attacks. I've obviously not played some variation of this game for 20 years. I clearly have never DMed hundreds of sessions. I obviously don't have any feel for what things make the DMs job more difficult and make having enjoyable games less likely.
You just straight up said that a power attacking fighter at 6th is stronger than a CR6 monster. You are just plain wrong. You have not only built misconceptions about balance but also about monster design, class design, and basic simple, stupid tactics. I get the feeling that whatever variation of the game you play it looks quite drastically different from that which I've not only played, read about, studied, and worked on. There's no need for a personal attack here I literally spat coffee on my screen because I did not believe anyone could be so misinformed. That you claim to have been doing this game as long as you have only worsens things for you.
And you can spew on about all the experience all you like. All i know is what you've said. And all I've heard has led me to believe you have a very skewed view on the game that should be viewed with extreme caution by anyone trying to build an informed opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And its pretty obvious that several of the things discussed in this thread (charging fighter, power attack fighter, psionic feats) are considerably more powerful at 6th level than any of the CR 6 enemies that a DM has pre-scripted in bestiaries, ect.And I just spit my coffee. Thanks for that.
I have just come to the conclusion you straight up just don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know where to start here.
Thanks for just going to personal attacks. I've obviously not played some variation of this game for 20 years. I clearly have never DMed hundreds of sessions. I obviously don't have any feel for what things make the DMs job more difficult and make having enjoyable games less likely.
You just straight up said that a power attacking fighter at 6th is stronger than a CR6 monster. You are just plain wrong. You have not only built misconceptions about balance but also about monster design, class design, and basic simple, stupid tactics. I get the feeling that whatever variation of the game you play it looks quite drastically different from that which I've not only played, read about, studied, and worked on. There's no need for a personal attack here I literally spat coffee on my screen because I did not believe anyone could be so misinformed. That you claim to have been doing this game as long as you have only worsens things for you.
And you can spew on about all the experience all you like. All i know is what you've said. And all I've heard has led me to believe you have a very skewed view on the game that should be viewed with extreme caution by anyone trying to build an informed opinion.
If there's no need for personal attacks then stop making them.
If there's no need for personal attacks then stop making them.
Where did I make one exactly?
In any case this has taken far too long for a too small corner of the book. I've said my piece and laid out the math for all to view.
Nathanael said his and explained the circumstances that makes him think that way.
Obviously we disagree.
Nothing more is required. Subject dropped.
On to better things.
Its a very specific wording to accidently put in there if its not intended. Its a contradiction from other less specific wordings that exist elsewhere in the book. And to copy the same confusing/contradictory text word for word from another product when you revise it is the height of sloppiness.You know Jeremy Smith, one of DSP's publishers, is reading this thread, right? So this is the right time to ask for a clarification on that rule, if you insist on your rather unique interpretation.
Normal: Your manifester level is equal to your
total levels in classes that manifest powers.That's a direct copy/paste from the book. I don't see any other possible way to "interpret" it beyond the exact words it says.
Regardless, even interpreting it differently-- I was being attacked for my assertion that the text was there. Being called ignorant and accused of spreading misinformation. The words are written basically word for word how I said originally in my post.
As to level appropriate CR monsters-- I think a fighter doing 6d6+13 which on average will do 25 damage which is nearly half of a CR 6 monster's hit points is somewhat of a problem-- you may not see one hit reducing say, and Ettin to half hit points as a problem, but to have combat interesting enough to last more than 2 rounds it is.
As to level appropriate CR monsters-- I think a fighter doing 6d6+13 which on average will do 25 damage which is nearly half of a CR 6 monster's hit points is somewhat of a problem-- you may not see one hit reducing say, and Ettin to half hit points as a problem, but to have combat interesting enough to last more than 2 rounds it is.
It's a good thing that's not how the CR system works isn't it?
That fight is expected to be short and relatively painless as a critter with CR equivalent to the group's APL is expected to not take more than 25% of the groups resources.
Before you say "but the fighter spent none" keep in mind that this did not kill the ettin and unless the rest of the group drops it (possibly expending resources to do so) than the ettin will likely have a harsh reprisal in store for the fighter which will cause damage, which will cost the group resources. The individual expending the resource is irrelevant the group is what the game is built around.
If you want to actually challenge the group and have longer fights you need to rethink how encounters are built. In fact:
And now at 6th level he can do 2d6+6 + 9 for Power attack+ 4d6 for psionic +bonus damage for charging and there is no limit to the times per day he can do it?
So, he regains Psionic Focus as a full-round action, losing his two attacks the next round AND provoking attacks of opportunity all around, in order to do it again.
2d6 averages to 7, 4d6 averages to 14.
So, to deal an average of 36 (or 14 extra damage) in one hit every other round, he's giving up 2 hits that deal 22 damage each on average every other round PLUS taking AoO every other round. If he's Hasted, which at 6th level he has a good chance at being, that's a third 22 damage on average lost to regaining focus every other round. Add in a Belt of Giant Strength, chance for criticals, etc., and the opportunity cost for that 14 extra damage on average every other round gets higher and higher.
But there is never an opportunity cost in the first round of combat. Your first attack of every fight gets to be at +4d6. That's my problem with it. You can disagree that its a problem, but that's the reason I don't allow non-psionic characters to take the feats any more. I don't like the way it works.
No amount of math will make it feel right. No amount of showing that ridiculous twinked out barbarians can do just as much per hit will change that.
4D6 is actually pretty pitiful depending on your level.
+4d6 damage to a single attack... that must make Rogues one of the most damaging classes in the game because they potentially get to do that and more on every attack they make in a round!
No amount of math will make it feel right.
Yet, you ask others to think hard before including things such as this in their game.
I have thought about it. It's a set of trap feats for a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be limiting the scope of your argument specifically to discount all the arguments in opposition to yours. This tells me that you are losing the argument, but refuse to admit defeat.
To be fair I don't allow things I'm not familiar with based on feelings all the time.
However I do listen to and often change my opinions based on facts I haven't considered. I rarely ban things because of balance issues anymore. More often I ban things because they waste my gaming time.
More often I ban things because they waste my gaming time.
I don't really understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate, perhaps with an example?
No amount of math will make it feel right.Yet, you ask others to think hard before including things such as this in their game.
I have thought about it. It's a set of trap feats for a fighter.
I said Overchannel, psionic feats, and the rules about multi-classing might be problematic.
I didn't say think real hard before letting them in. I said you might want to look at them and make a choice. I said "they might be a problem."I never said "Psionics are ridiculously overpowered and you should never use them." I only clarified the reasons I don't like those options when people asked why I thought of them in that light.
Misrepresentation of what I said is really frustrating me in this, and the personal attacks have made me combative and prickly.
And yes, the Rogue who has the possibility to do 66d6 per round every round IS one of the most damaging classes in the game. If you've never played with a high level rogue and allowing every attack to be a sneak attack then you might be underestimating its damage output.
And yes, the Rogue who has the possibility to do 66d6 per round every round IS one of the most damaging classes in the game. If you've never played with a high level rogue and allowing every attack to be a sneak attack then you might be underestimating its damage output.
I have, they suffer from a low to hit and suffer for it. Most damage I've had is a barbarian or archer fighter. It has a high potential for damage, but most creatures happen to have AC.
More often I ban things because they waste my gaming time.I don't really understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate, perhaps with an example?
Leadership, master summoners, and such.
Basically if your turn is going to take twenty minutes from moving all the miniatures while the rest of my players have gone to the X-Box you can cut it out.
And yes, the Rogue who has the possibility to do 66d6 per round every round IS one of the most damaging classes in the game. If you've never played with a high level rogue and allowing every attack to be a sneak attack then you might be underestimating its damage output.I have, they suffer from a low to hit and suffer for it. Most damage I've had is a barbarian or archer fighter. It has a high potential for damage, but most creatures happen to have AC.
Very few have ACs that approach 30. High dex required for all the extra attacks+ weapon finesse. At that level they are still at a +14 attack bonus which is pretty respectable.
Ah, fair enough. Add Sound Striker to that list too... all my rage for an ability that requires 10 attack rolls, 10 saves, and 10 damage rolls that have to be tracked independently because some could be halved. A shame, because it's such a cool concept, but I digress.
Very few have ACs that approach 30. High dex required for all the extra attacks+ weapon finesse. At that level they are still at a +14 attack bonus which is pretty respectable.
What level exactly are we talking about where +14 to hit is respectable?
Misrepresentation of what I said is really frustrating me in this, and the personal attacks have made me combative and prickly.No one has attacked you. They've attacked your arguments but not you. A personal attack is "You're stupid." "You're wrong" is not. "You're wrong and here is why" is not only not a personal attack, it isn't even impolite.
And yes, the Rogue who has the possibility to do 66d6 per round every round IS one of the most damaging classes in the game. If you've never played with a high level rogue and allowing every attack to be a sneak attack then you might be underestimating its damage output.. . . Someone else feel free, but I'm not going to.
"I've just spit my coffee because of how wrong you are" is a personal attack.
Also-- accusing me of spreading misinformation for stating opinions, and directly quoting rules text from a product is an attack.
I didn't say think real hard before letting them in. I said you might want to look at them and make a choice. I said "they might be a problem."
I fail to see how this is really any different. Please clarify.
"I've just spit my coffee because of how wrong you are" is a personal attack.
I'm sorry if a statement about my emotional shock offends.
Regardless, that's not the point of this endeavor.
"I've just spit my coffee because of how wrong you are" is a personal attack.Misrepresentation of what I said is really frustrating me in this, and the personal attacks have made me combative and prickly.No one has attacked you. They've attacked your arguments but not you. A personal attack is "You're stupid." "You're wrong" is not. "You're wrong and here is why" is not only not a personal attack, it isn't even impolite.
And yes, the Rogue who has the possibility to do 66d6 per round every round IS one of the most damaging classes in the game. If you've never played with a high level rogue and allowing every attack to be a sneak attack then you might be underestimating its damage output.. . . Someone else feel free, but I'm not going to.Nope, it is a statement of fact ("I've just spit my coffee") followed by a statement which I already pointed out was not an attack.
Also-- accusing me of spreading misinformation for stating opinions, and directly quoting rules text from a product is an attack.No it isn't because that is exactly what you're doing. The question in this thread is "Is psionics (sic) overpowered?" He has given math to show what you're saying is so over powered isn't and you are, basically, covering your ears and shouting about how no amount of math will convince you. You're raging against the darkness instead of lighting a candle.
Which is fine, that's your right. But that doesn't make him using a lantern an attack.
I've said very clearly that this is MY OPINION. I said I don't like the way it interacts, and I feel that it is overpowered. All his math has done is prove other things which I also consider overpowered.
I pointed out that I try to run fairly lower powered games, especially in reference to things with no limit on times/day. And I've stated that I feel that a martial character doing on average 50% of the hit points of a CR equivalent creature is more powerful than I PREFER in my games.
Which part of these opinions of mine are misinformation?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which part of these opinions of mine are misinformation?
The accusations for misinformation come from claiming such opinions without your unique context to go with it. You claimed your opinion and then showed the facts that formed the base of it.
Most of us are arguing within the greater context of the game. You are arguing through the limited scope found in yours. Had you pointed out that you ran fairly low powered games (which makes one wonder what you do to casters) early on you might have avoided a lot of hassle.
You must have missed his comment, it isn't casters who break the game, its martial characters.
I didn't. I just fail to see how disallowing nearly everything mentioned would suddenly even things out for him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will review the text of over channel and issue an errata if necessary.
I didn't. I just fail to see how disallowing nearly everything mentioned would suddenly even things out for him.
You must have missed his comment, it isn't casters who break the game, its martial characters.
I don't disallow everything. I disallow size large characters. I disallow multiple effects that add up to increase damage to continue to stack. I disallow purchasing magical items and I think long and hard before I include a magic item with an energy/+1d6 on it.
the fact remains-- if spell casters are causing problems in your game you can solve it by using multiple encounters/day and sapping away their limited resources.
if martial characters are doing too much damage for your game then you can only solve this by changing the way the abilities work or disallowing them because they can do everything they can do infinite times.
the fact remains-- if spell casters are causing problems in your game you can solve it by using multiple encounters/day and sapping away their limited resources.if martial characters are doing too much damage for your game then you can only solve this by changing the way the abilities work or disallowing them because they can do everything they can do infinite times.
That's an argument for a different thread. One with many pages and lots of headaches.
Beyond that. I'm not touching it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
I think a lot of the recent arguing is that you are stating that Psionics are overpowered, but you run a low power level game. In fact from opinions expressed, I would guess? you are running a severly house-ruled Pathfinder which doesn't run with base assumptions.
Generally when someone asks if "X is over/underpowered" they asking in the context of the core, un-modified rules. If your Pathfinder games diverge far from baseline assumptions, than telling someone "X is overpowered" is misleading. Your reference is not the Pathfinder game, but something else.