Is psionics overpowered?


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

So. . . Wizards are Wizards therefore Fighters suck. Would you like the Fighter to be able to do those things? Wouldn't he not be a fighter anymore?

I don't know about you, but I find it pretty easy to tell PCs no. . . if my PC Wizard is making 50 simulacrums, I probably will tell him no. Try to dominate person the king?

You really think that the Vizier standing beside him is going to let that happen?

Bringing things like that into the balance equation is pointless. But this entire board seems to think that I need to have the ability to pay a wizard stripped away so that they can feel good about fighters. I think that everyone making these arguments should go play Cyberpunk or some other game that doesn't have Wizards in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really? Because that's not the feeling I was getting from them posts at all. I see people explaining why Wizards break the game far, far, far more often than Fighters.

That Vizier, by the way? Who says he even knows the Wizard is casting the spell? You don't just walk up to someone and go "I put a spell on you!", no. You kill, discredit, or replace the Vizier, then start casting Still Silent Dominate Person so no one even knows you are casting spells on the sleeping King.

Or you just kill him too and take his place.

Publisher, Dreamscarred Press

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the reason you are getting push back is that high level casters can literally alter reality, create their own plane of existence, and a wide variety of similar abilities. and you are discounting all that as GM fiat.

Liberty's Edge

Nathanael Love wrote:
I don't know about you, but I find it pretty easy to tell PCs no. . . if my PC Wizard is making 50 simulacrums, I probably will tell him no.

So because of DM Fiat stopping a wizard "from being a wizard" fighters are better?

Quote:

Try to dominate person the king?

You really think that the Vizier standing beside him is going to let that happen?

Unless the vizier is a wizard, cleric, or some other spell casting class I don't think he can stop me. What's he going to do if he's a fighter, whisper "say no" in the king's ear? Ya. . . that's not going to work.

And if he is a wizard, or a cleric, or whatever, then you've just proved my point for me.

Quote:
Bringing things like that into the balance equation is pointless. But this entire board seems to think that I need to have the ability to pay a wizard stripped away so that they can feel good about fighters. I think that everyone making these arguments should go play Cyberpunk or some other game that doesn't have Wizards in it.

Do what? You realize many of us prefer spell casting classes? Hell, I can't remember the last time I played something that didn't have at least 6 levels of casting in 20 levels. I honestly don't know if I ever have. (Assuming manifesting counts as casting.)

Let me point out that you're the one who said that fighters were the ones who broke the game. You're the one who said they were so powerful they shouldn't get any extra help. Not us.


Jeremy Smith wrote:
I think the reason you are getting push back is that high level casters can literally alter reality, create their own plane of existence, and a wide variety of similar abilities. and you are discounting all that as GM fiat.

That's what they are supposed to do. Fighters can't do that and never could and never should-- if they could the people who want to play fighters won't play them because they would be Wizards and that's not what those players want.

My assertion that fighters break the game is based on COMBAT. and its based on HP damage-- you guys have clearly stated that you consider this to be arbitrary and worthless, so you would have no problem (apparently) with any amount of damage that fighters could do because the Wizard can cast Wish-- you can't compare apples to bananas. The only things we can compare with like quantities-- and the only things with like quantities in this game are HP damage and skill checks.

I've seen situations where fighters cannot miss, and virtually cannot fail to kill every target they face in a single round. I've seen complicated encounters ended far too quickly because of the amounts of HP damage that the martial characters put out.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Of course the Vizier is a Wizard or Cleric or Genie Summoner (so glad that even with a changed name Sha'ir made it into Pathfinder)-- I guess I was working under the assumption that the word Vizier implied that.

The King's throne is of course, set on a Magic Circle Against Evil (or some other alignment). Of course the King has a powerful spell caster on his pay role to protect him and advise him. Of course he has expert crossbowmen hidden in murder holes that you may not notice without high (lets say Rogue-level) amounts of perception with instructions to execute anyone who starts casting a spell in the throne room. . .

Also, I don't know about you, but I don't like to play games where my PCs are CE murder machines-- if they want to just murder the vizier and king and replace them in cold blood, then chances are some Paladins with Solars are going to come to hunt them down.

I think you are working in situations where high level wizards have no morals, no limits on what they do, and where their actions have no consequences-- that's not the case. DO the rules specifically say that deities will notice if you have created an army of simulacrums duplicating their servitors? No, but its a reasonable assumption that they MIGHT-- and no matter how many Balor Simulacrums you've made, the Prince of Hell can deal with them if he decides he should.

At its heart this is a game about story and you cannot balance things like that in the abstract.

Publisher, Dreamscarred Press

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The amount of invalid assumptions you're making is why I'm not going to be participating in this discussion any longer.

I wish you good gaming, but this isn't productive anymore.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This football field has way too many goalposts on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


That's what they are supposed to do. Fighters can't do that and never could and never should-- if they could the people who want to play fighters won't play them because they would be Wizards and that's not what those players want.

My assertion that fighters break the game is based on COMBAT. and its based on HP damage-- you guys have clearly stated that you consider this to be arbitrary and worthless, so you would have no problem (apparently) with any amount of damage that fighters could do because the Wizard can cast Wish-- you can't compare apples to bananas. The only things we can compare with like quantities-- and the only things with like quantities in this game are HP damage and skill checks.

I've seen situations where fighters cannot miss, and virtually cannot fail to kill every target they face in a single round. I've seen complicated encounters ended far too quickly because of the amounts of HP damage that the martial characters put out.

So, it's okay that a full caster can shatter reality, tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, create entirely new dimensions and make entire encounters disappear.

But it's not okay for a fighter to deal 1/2 an equivalent CR's monster hp in damage to them?

And you don't see the problem with this logic?


Kryzbyn wrote:
This football field has way too many goalposts on it.

You're right. . . I keep showing the problems I have with some of the damage outputs of martials and suddenly "damage doesn't matter". I don't know how you balance things beyond that. I can balance damage and cost and effects of spells of various levels but if you look at the wizard and say the fact that he can fly and fighter can't is fundamentally unfair then you can never balance those together.


I get the distinct impression I'm being ignored or have been put on such a list. Which is a shame since I'm the only one attempting any form of solid rehabilitation.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Jeremy Smith wrote:
I think the reason you are getting push back is that high level casters can literally alter reality, create their own plane of existence, and a wide variety of similar abilities. and you are discounting all that as GM fiat.

That's what they are supposed to do. Fighters can't do that and never could and never should-- if they could the people who want to play fighters won't play them because they would be Wizards and that's not what those players want.

My assertion that fighters break the game is based on COMBAT. and its based on HP damage-- you guys have clearly stated that you consider this to be arbitrary and worthless, so you would have no problem (apparently) with any amount of damage that fighters could do because the Wizard can cast Wish-- you can't compare apples to bananas. The only things we can compare with like quantities-- and the only things with like quantities in this game are HP damage and skill checks.

I've seen situations where fighters cannot miss, and virtually cannot fail to kill every target they face in a single round. I've seen complicated encounters ended far too quickly because of the amounts of HP damage that the martial characters put out.

Then they haven't fought a wizard like I put forth in my example, now have they? That example was all about combat, it was just about combat on the wizard's terms, not the fighter's. That is why damage didn't matter, because a week's worth the work and all the damage in the world didn't matter because it was more than 1,000 vs. 1.

Quote:
The King's throne is of course, set on a Magic Circle Against Evil (or some other alignment). Of course the King has a powerful spell caster on his pay role to protect him and advise him. Of course he has expert crossbowmen hidden in murder holes that you may not notice without high (lets say Rogue-level) amounts of perception with instructions to execute anyone who starts casting a spell in the throne room. . .

First, the caster's not evil so protection from evil isn't doing you much good. In fact he's true neutral so no protection spell will help you. As to the crossbow men, unless he's had them trained in spellcraft they don't know what a spell is, and they can't just shoot anyone who happens to wave their arms around because, you know, murder. And casters don't need to wave their arms, because you know metamagic.

Quote:
Also, I don't know about you, but I don't like to play games where my PCs are CE murder machines-- if they want to just murder the vizier and king and replace them in cold blood, then chances are some Paladins with Solars are going to come to hunt them down.

The paladins will never know it happened, and the Solars, well have you read the Gate spell? They work for the wizard, not the paladin.

Quote:

I think you are working in situations where high level wizards have no morals, no limits on what they do, and where their actions have no consequences-- that's not the case. DO the rules specifically say that deities will notice if you have created an army of simulacrums duplicating their servitors? No, but its a reasonable assumption that they MIGHT-- and no matter how many Balor Simulacrums you've made, the Prince of Hell can deal with them if he decides he should.

At its heart this is a game about story and you cannot balance things like that in the abstract.

And again, you're having to use DM Fiat to stop a CORE RULE BOOK wizard. Core rule book. But fighters are the ones that are too strong? Ya. . . Right.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
This football field has way too many goalposts on it.
You're right. . . I keep showing the problems I have with some of the damage outputs of martials and suddenly "damage doesn't matter".

Damage has never mattered when comparing Casters to Martials in 3rd edition and Pathfinder. Ever.

The fact that you're just now learning this speaks to how little experience you seem to have had with the way a well-produced, well-operated caster - operating within the rules, doing nothing improper with their abilities - can manipulate the game to the point you're having to use DM Fiat as the only way to stop him.

Anyway, I'm out.

Jeremy Smith wrote:

The amount of invalid assumptions you're making is why I'm not going to be participating in this discussion any longer.

I wish you good gaming, but this isn't productive anymore.

Same. Time for this thread to disappear off into the ether.

Those of you who are going to keep fighting the fight with this guy, good luck to you. I have better things to do with my time personally.

Publisher, Dreamscarred Press

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fyi - proposed errata for over channel


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Also, I don't know about you, but I don't like to play games where my PCs are CE murder machines-- if they want to just murder the vizier and king and replace them in cold blood, then chances are some Paladins with Solars are going to come to hunt them down.

I find it amusing and terrifying that when a mortal kills another mortal, solars descend from heaven to spank them. Solars. Godlike beings of near supreme power, which would in fact be worshipped as gods in reality. Because the PCs killed someone.

I suppose this world doesn't even have law enforcement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not just one. But several and apparently some paladins to hold their stuff for them.

Frankly the villain inside me would be proud of the accomplishment.

I killed a king and summoned a celestial host. Who knew he really had a divine right to rule? Must be a 20th level aristocrat capstone.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Then they haven't fought a wizard like I put forth in my example, now have they? That example was all about combat, it was just about combat on the wizard's terms, not the fighter's. That is why damage didn't matter, because a week's worth the work and all the damage in the world didn't matter because it was more than 1,000 vs. 1.

But if this Wizard is a PC then that's not going to work because the NPCs aren't going to foolishly rush in. If he's the main NPC villain wizard then if I as the DM design an impossible encounter its not fun for anyone.

ShadowcatX wrote:


First, the caster's not evil so protection from evil isn't doing you much good. In fact he's true neutral so no protection spell will help you. As to the crossbow men, unless he's had them trained in spellcraft they don't know what a spell is, and they can't just shoot anyone who happens to wave their arms around because, you know, murder. And casters don't need to wave their arms, because you know metamagic.

Protection from Evil protects against mind affecting spells regardless of alignment.

The crossbowmen could be trained in spellcraft, or they could be looking for a signal from the Vizier, or there could be other wards that cause an alarm when a spell is cast. The King could be sitting in an Anti-magic field even. . .

Also, guards shooting someone committing hostile acts against a king is never murder.

ShadowcatX wrote:


The paladins will never know it happened, and the Solars, well have you read the Gate spell? They work for the wizard, not the paladin.

The paladins know because their god told them. And the Solars work for the deity. the copies of Solars may work for the Wizard, but the real deal work for the deity.

ShadowcatX wrote:


And again, you're having to use DM Fiat to stop a CORE RULE BOOK wizard. Core rule book. But fighters are the ones that are too strong? Ya. . . Right.

Having the world react to things the player characters do isn't a DM fiat. Having Wizards have to face off against other powerful spell casters isn't a DM fiat. Its encounter and campaign design. If two wall spells and a Glitterdust end every encounter its because they are poorly designed encounters.

Orthos wrote:


Damage has never mattered when comparing Casters to Martials in 3rd edition and Pathfinder. Ever.

That's your opinion. One I don't share. You're completely right-- since we have a different opinion of what balance is we can not have a useful discussion on how to obtain it. Again, if the fact that the Wizard can do things outside the realm of what is possible by a flesh and blood/real world human inherently makes him unbalanced in your view then there is no possible way to put him in the same game with a flesh and blood/real world human and have them be balanced.

Orthos wrote:


The fact that you're just now learning this speaks to how little experience you seem to have had with the way a well-produced, well-operated caster - operating within the rules, doing nothing improper with their abilities - can manipulate the game to the point you're having to use DM Fiat as the only way to stop him.

The fact that you are so dismissive of martial characters capabilities suggests to me that you have never had to deal with a group full of truly well-produced, well-prepared fighters.

Our game tables may play out vastly different, but the fact that you are suggesting that the way games play out at my table is wrong is pretty offensive. You're right-- we've established that we have different definitions of balance. For you the Wizard is better and no ability a fighter could ever have can be an issue.

For me, to make fun encounters for a group full of mostly martial characters that challenge them but are beatable I find some of the damage amounts to be problematic.


TarkXT wrote:

Not just one. But several and apparently some paladins to hold their stuff for them.

Frankly the villain inside me would be proud of the accomplishment.

I killed a king and summoned a celestial host. Who knew he really had a divine right to rule? Must be a 20th level aristocrat capstone.

Because when you are breaking the rules of reality casually, the guardians of those rulers notice. Because when the LG deity sees that you have made 50 Simulacrums of his Solars he gets offended. Because 20th level villainous PCs need to have higher than 20th level good aligned antagonists to counteract them.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Because when you are breaking the rules of reality casually, the guardians of those rulers notice. Because when the LG deity sees that you have made 50 Simulacrums of his Solars he gets offended. Because 20th level villainous PCs need to have higher than 20th level good aligned antagonists to counteract them.

Because that's written in the rule books?

I should add, fighters not ever having to break reality kinda sucks. The fighter is meant to stand next to the wizard. Fighter doesn't look too hot.

Jeremy Smith wrote:
Fyi - proposed errata for over channel

Works for me, if it means anything.


MrSin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Because when you are breaking the rules of reality casually, the guardians of those rulers notice. Because when the LG deity sees that you have made 50 Simulacrums of his Solars he gets offended. Because 20th level villainous PCs need to have higher than 20th level good aligned antagonists to counteract them.

Because that's written in the rule books?

I should add, fighters not ever having to break reality kinda sucks. The fighter is meant to stand next to the wizard. Fighter doesn't look too hot.

I don't know. I know I have a player who if Fighter had a way to break reality he wouldn't want to play it because that makes Fighter a wizard. For him and my player who likes to play Wizard o exist in the same game it has to be the way PF currently is.

No, the rules don't require that 20th level characters have antagonists of equal level I suppose. You COULD run a game where the villainous 20th level Wizard PCs make an unstoppable army of simulacrum's kill ever king and conquer the world-- but I don't find that story very compelling if they don't have equivalent level enemies to fight.

My 20th level Good aligned PCs fight powerful demon lords and liches, I don't see why my (theoretical) 20th level evil aligned PCs shouldn't fight powerful forces of good?


You missed the point. By a mile. You shouldn't put a drooling unskilled moron next to a guy who can bend reality. That's ridiculous. I don't want fighters to be able to bend reality with a snap of their fingers, but my gosh they could at least have some skill or ability that makes them look like they could stand next to these guys and actually matter. At the moment all they can do is hit things well. They don't jump well, they don't have the ability to overcome challenges, they just hit things. That's a problem!


MrSin wrote:
You missed the point. By a mile. You shouldn't put a drooling unskilled moron next to a guy who can bend reality. That's ridiculous. I don't want fighters to be able to bend reality with a snap of their fingers, but my gosh they could at least have some skill or ability that makes them look like they could stand next to these guys and actually matter. At the moment all they can do is hit things well. They don't jump well, they don't have the ability to overcome challenges, they just hit things. That's a problem!

I don't know why you think Fighter is a drooling unskilled moron. He can jump well if he has ranks in acrobatics. He can overcome any obstacles that his ingenuity allow him to think of a way around. He doesn't have abilities that solve these challenges by snapping their fingers, and there may not be hard and fast rules on the way to solve those challenges in every situation the way that spells specifically state what they do, but they can attempt to do anything you can imagine them attempting to do.

And they hit stuff well. That's what makes them fighter, and that's a lot of what people who want to play fighter want-- it tends to be why they choose fighter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a combination of things here, false assumptions,

So let me continue under this assumption and speak to any new players who are considering any Dreamscarred press products, anything I've written or, heck, 3pp in general.

This man is not playing Pathfinder.

He's presumably using the pathfinder books, certainly he may be using parts of the ruleset.

But it is very, very different from what is played in PFS, written for, and presumably played at most tables.

Part of this is due to keeping 3.5 in their game. PAthfinder is designed around backwards compatibility, yes, but products that have come after the corebook are written to be compatible with that corebook, not 3.5. My advice to anyone getting into this is to ditch 3.5 entirely and start from scratch, it will give you a much better view on the actual changes between the two and give some idea on how the game works now.

Part of it is faulty assumptions based on what they believe constitutes an interesting encounter. Fights don't "end too quickly" if you feel they do then rethink how you design your encounters, don't develop silly assumptions about how damage should work. You can always improve your encounter design, but you can't always deflect the annoyance of the players when you ban something straight out of the corebook because you can't be bothered to put the work in. The game is skewed towards offense, it's made to work in the players favor (though their are a few that disagree). Declaring things overpowered merely shifts the blame until you've put the work in and found it harder than it's worth.

For the record a spellcaster can eliminate an encounter instantly with a few bad rolls on the gm's part. This has always been true. They can deal damage, but that's not why they're so good. It's the instances they finish encounters without rolling a single damage die that give gm's pause. This has been true since Monte Cook first wrote the damn thing.

Part of it is his feelings towards his players. Apparently they're always trying to one up him. If it's true than a fundamental shift in attitude at his table is deeply required that could be helped by simply scrapping the past and starting fresh. Such a problem has never been fixed through harsh crackdowns on what you allow or disallow, if anything they exasperate the problem.

In the end, I tried. But I can't force anyone to read the literal volumes of material out there and step away from their groove at the table and if they won't do it than that's that.

Happy gaming Nathanael Love. I'm sure you'll either ignore this or find some other stubborn and honestly deluded way to argue why you are right, you know, above the people who write for this game and actually get paid to do it, and are (generally) respected for it trying to make not one table but hundreds happy even knowing their's not jsut you but many Nathanael Love's in the world making life hard for them and their own players (who can frankly not be much better at times). All I can do is encourage you to take my advice and at least form an opinion from a better informed stand point. But, if not. I'm done here. I've got better uses for my keyboard right now.


Nathanael Love wrote:
I don't know why you think Fighter is a drooling unskilled moron.

Because he's got 2+ skill points and no unique class features and feats don't allow for better problem solving.

Nathanael Love wrote:
And they hit stuff well. That's what makes them fighter, and that's a lot of what people who want to play fighter want-- it tends to be why they choose fighter.

Okay, but that's why I play a barbarian, or ranger, or paladin, or cavalier. All of them hit stuff. Magus, cleric, and oracle also happen to hit stuff with some magic involved. Why would I want to play the fighter when everyone else can do what he does, and more.

There is a whole lot more to this game than just hitting stuff. That's why fighter's are weak. Even if you make up rules on the fly fighters are going to be supbar because all they have is hitting things.

We're way offtopic now though.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're talking to the OP, if he's talking about the thing then it is now the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
You're talking to the OP, if he's talking about the thing then it is now the topic.

So... Huh. Does that mean if he states this thread is now about pancakes we have a psionic thread about pancakes? Never knew that.

Still feels off topic though. Psionics sort of disappeared...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

mmmmmm psionic pancakes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
mmmmmm psionic pancakes.

Psionic Syrup is made of ectoplasm, but my gosh you'd be shocked it is delicious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But only if you failed your will save.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer the psionic archetype Belgium waffle, but I digress.
Will save 1d20 - 3 ⇒ (3) - 3 = 0 D'oh!


TarkXT wrote:

I think a combination of things here, false assumptions,

So let me continue under this assumption and speak to any new players who are considering any Dreamscarred press products, anything I've written or, heck, 3pp in general.

This man is not playing Pathfinder.

He's presumably using the pathfinder books, certainly he may be using parts of the ruleset.

But it is very, very different from what is played in PFS, written for, and presumably played at most tables.

Part of this is due to keeping 3.5 in their game. PAthfinder is designed around backwards compatibility, yes, but products that have come after the corebook are written to be compatible with that corebook, not 3.5. My advice to anyone getting into this is to ditch 3.5 entirely and start from scratch, it will give you a much better view on the actual changes between the two and give some idea on how the game works now.

Part of it is faulty assumptions based on what they believe constitutes an interesting encounter. Fights don't "end too quickly" if you feel they do then rethink how you design your encounters, don't develop silly assumptions about how damage should work. You can always improve your encounter design, but you can't always deflect the annoyance of the players when you ban something straight out of the corebook because you can't be bothered to put the work in. The game is skewed towards offense, it's made to work in the players favor (though their are a few that disagree). Declaring things overpowered merely shifts the blame until you've put the work in and found it harder than it's worth.

For the record a spellcaster can eliminate an encounter instantly with a few bad rolls on the gm's part. This has always been true. They can deal damage, but that's not why they're so good. It's the instances they finish encounters without rolling a single damage die that give gm's pause. This has been true since Monte Cook first wrote the damn thing.

Part of it is his feelings towards his players. Apparently they're...

I find your assertion that I am playing a vastly different game insulting. I find your assertion that I need to change the way my home group plays insulting. You don't need to come play with my table and I don't need to step into yours.

You've made your point that any amount of HP damage doesn't matter in your idea of balance because Wizard with 9th level spell can cast Wish (ect).

I find all the assertions that allowing any 3.5 material into the game is giving a skewed look of "how the game operates now" to be laughable as well. Its been pointed out that Spellcasting has been "toned down" in several ways as well as pointed out how in all "core" pathfinder books to build martials who do levels of damage which I feel makes the game less balanced-- but again, I am arguing against a set of people whose maxim is "any and every amount of HP damage is irrelevant."

And no, you cannot force me to read literal volumes of material (assuming I even have the time available to do so) and then drastically alter the game to be closer to what YOU consider the ideal game experience.

I can't speak to how PFS runs their encounters, but I have a feeling that there are controls in place to keep them from being all trivial encounters where two swings from the fighter kills every single creature. And that there are strict limits on what is/is not allowed to be taken.


Prove a fighter can "kill every single creature in two swings."

Like that level 6 you mentioned. 6th level, appropriate wealth using the wealth by level table presented in the Core Rulebook, two traits, heck, even Max hit points. Then we'll test it out against CR 4~7 creatures, appropriate enemies for level 6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:

Prove a finger can "kill every single creature in two swings."

Like that level 6 you mentioned, and the will-o-wisp I linked to.

That's an impressive finger.


Nathanael Love,

Out of curiosity, what sort of stats do you characters normally run? rolly die? 15 pt buy?

Also, what is the usual CR threat they face? Is it always equal CR or less? Or do you regularly throw +1, +2, +3, +4 or even high CR against them? Equal CR and less should be cake walks, unless the creature has weird abilities that the characters are not prepared for (swarms, oozes, etc).

Just trying to get a feel for your games.

For instance, I could easily see how Fighter for instance might be overpowered if you run a lot of equal CR encounters with little rest. IN which case the spell casters will loose their resources quickly or be more liable to hold spells in reserve, and then fall behind combat classes in capabilities


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Azten wrote:

Prove a finger can "kill every single creature in two swings."

Like that level 6 you mentioned, and the will-o-wisp I linked to.

That's an impressive finger.

Typos make such a big difference sometimes. XD

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Azten wrote:

Prove a finger can "kill every single creature in two swings."

Like that level 6 you mentioned, and the will-o-wisp I linked to.

That's an impressive finger.

Its a finger of death!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Azten wrote:

Prove a finger can "kill every single creature in two swings."

Like that level 6 you mentioned, and the will-o-wisp I linked to.

That's an impressive finger.
Its a finger of death!

Now now, that's a spell! Fighters don't need those!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azten wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Its a finger of death!
Now now, that's a spell! Fighters don't need those!

Instead we could use a maneuver. How often do you get to say 'five shadow creeping ice enervation strike'.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Azten wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Its a finger of death!
Now now, that's a spell! Fighters don't need those!
Instead we could use a maneuver. How often do you get to say 'five shadow creeping ice enervation strike'.

Just so long as it isn't usable more than once per day and doesn't do anything cool. We can't have fighters doing anything cool, remember? They're over powered as it is.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Azten wrote:

Prove a finger can "kill every single creature in two swings."

Like that level 6 you mentioned, and the will-o-wisp I linked to.

That's an impressive finger.

Finger Poke of Doom


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeremy Smith wrote:
Fyi - proposed errata for over channel

I'd probably word it as:

Normal: Your manifester level is usually equal to your level in the class that you are using to manifest the power (so a 5th level psion usually has a ML of 5).

I think that's a bit clearer than:

Normal: Your manifester level is usually equal to your level in the class that granted the ability to manifest.


Since the discussion stopped being about psionics a while ago, maybe the mods would kindly lock this runaway mess of a thread before it gets anymore unkind to the OP?


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Since the discussion stopped being about psionics a while ago, maybe the mods would kindly lock this runaway mess of a thread before it gets anymore unkind to the OP?

I tried to throw it back on those tracks by discussing pancakes. Worked for a few post.


MMCJawa wrote:

Nathanael Love,

Out of curiosity, what sort of stats do you characters normally run? rolly die? 15 pt buy?

Also, what is the usual CR threat they face? Is it always equal CR or less? Or do you regularly throw +1, +2, +3, +4 or even high CR against them? Equal CR and less should be cake walks, unless the creature has weird abilities that the characters are not prepared for (swarms, oozes, etc).

Just trying to get a feel for your games.

For instance, I could easily see how Fighter for instance might be overpowered if you run a lot of equal CR encounters with little rest. IN which case the spell casters will loose their resources quickly or be more liable to hold spells in reserve, and then fall behind combat classes in capabilities

I've used point buy before and my players hate it. End up back at die rolling more often than not. If I make them use point buy, they will still cap out to start with the 18 so the overall game suffers from characters with super low Int and Cha left out there.

I almost NEVER use a single monster of an equivalent CR. I tend to use mixed groups, and often NPCs. If its a single monster its going to have to be at least 3-5 CR higher.

The most typical encounter is going to be against another balanced or fairly balanced NCP party-- with equal number of characters of 1-2 levels higher, and a leader who may be 3-4 levels higher.

I've recently had more success putting in much lower CR minions and spreading them out to force more movement allowing fights to last longer, or using strange tactics (four sets of Giants throwing rocks from four separate locations up on the cliffs where although they had access to flight they had to still take them on one at a time barring ranged attacks).

The biggest problem is that eventually, over the course of a game it gets to a point where I over-tune an encounter. Dealing with characters capable of putting out a ton of damage very quickly leading to slowly increasing the CR until I go a step too far and end up with a TPK-- which isn't fun for anyone at the table.
9/10 the characters cannot ABSORB the same amount of damage that they put out-- and its very difficult to have fun, engaging combats with glass cannons.

As far as the math on the issue-- start with 18 str, +4 racial, +6 belt of giant strength (or +4 earlier on), +2 Enlarge Person (if someone did play a wizard) and that is +10 Str, +15 for two hand weapons. Add in +9 for power attack at 8th level (+6 at 6th level) and you are dealing 3d6+24 per swing having spent only three of the fighter's feats-- and I guarantee that the other four are looking for someway to increase that (whether charge combat, or the afore mentioned +4d6 from three psionic feats). . . and then you are there looking at 48 damage on average per swing with one 16K magic item and an 8th level fighter. Behir which is CR 8 has 105HP. Two hits from fighter + a magic missile and that guy is toast.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember when this thread was about psionics instead of some strange, Twilight Zone where fighters are the most powerful class in the game?

I miss when the topic was psionics, especially since, you know, it's the title of the thread :/

Liberty's Edge

+4 racial bonus to strength? +6 belt of giant strength at level 8? Ignoring wealth by level and allowing crazy stats are going to eschew your game significantly. There are good reasons why +2 / +2 / -2 is the standard format for playable races attribute bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I personally love playing with a Monty Hall GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that point-buying an 18 stat is 17 points, you're more than within your rights to forbid spending 85% of your point-buy allocation on one stat (and that's with a 20-point buy).

201 to 250 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Is psionics overpowered? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.