As long as the stuff in this book is a good fit for Carrion Hill, Versex, and Ustalav in general, I will be happy. Would be great to see the Starsoul bloodline for Bloodragers end up in this book.
Any idea when the Playtest will begin??
Any idea when the Playtest will begin??
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A playtest? Just like Paizo's Advanced Class Guide Playtest.
How did that work out? Dedicated players of Pathfinder made a huge effort to assist Paizo in producing a quality product.
Did they get a quality product? No. They got a badly produced book, a complete editing disaster, with unbalanced, unfinished classes with broken feats and overpowered spells.
Even the art was below their usual high standard.
Purchasing the Advanced Class Guide was like buying a brand new car that came with a engine with missing parts (you couldn't drive the car, but the car ad on t.v was pretty cool), with the car company saying it might send you the missing parts one day.
Paizo should refund the money (Advanced Class Guide) to it's loyal customers. At the very least make a public apology.
What caused the Advanced Class Guide disaster? They outsourced the editing and design work.
Erik Mona, Lisa Stevens are great editors with significant experience. They edited the superbly designed and produced Advanced Player's Guide. They need to be hands on again with their products.
I can't wait for the playtest:)
As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)
D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
That's one of the requirements to be an iconic. :)
Wayne Reynold's (and the designers original concept) original iconics, were iconic.
The Indian monk, The female African paladin, the female Middle Eastern Cleric, his dynamic artistic style and variety of different types of characters was refreshing.
The new iconics are mass produced, non-progressive and uninteresting unlike their forebears. Far from being iconic.
Like a trip to a newly discovered exotic island, a fresh new approach to the iconics would be a welcome sea change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree the new iconics have more detailed and better back stories and they are designed just as well as before. In fact I know more about them then I do most the old ones, especially Seoni, who's back story was very short and disappointing. I am also glad to finally see the missing demi-humans. Now if Paizo could use non-standard races for there iconics like catfolk, lashunta, tengu, goblin, etc. I would be very happy.
The playtest is tomorrow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
It's kind of mind boggling how Paizo has repeatedly stated, for years, even before psychic magic was being worked on that, Paizo's answer to psionics would in no-way-shape-or-form have power points or the augmentation system; that it would be exactly like arcane/divine magic with the vancian roots. It's been abundantly stated that psychic magic won't be psionics, over and over and over again.
Despite all this, there are still people thinking it's going to be power points with augmentation and exactly like psionics.
Seriously, stop judging something by what someone else did when it's been stated numerous times that it won't be like what someone else did.
Mythic is not Epic; Psychic Magic is not Psionics.
I said Psionics were coming to Pathfinder, not that it was going to be a Power Point based system resmbling those before it.
And I've yet to see anyone say that they were expecting a new Power Point system. I've seen loads of people claim that people were saying that, but that's not the same thing.
As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
It's kind of mind boggling how Paizo has repeatedly stated, for years, even before psychic magic was being worked on that, Paizo's answer to psionics would in no-way-shape-or-form have power points or the augmentation system; that it would be exactly like arcane/divine magic with the vancian roots. It's been abundantly stated that psychic magic won't be psionics, over and over and over again.
Despite all this, there are still people thinking it's going to be power points with augmentation and exactly like psionics.
Seriously, stop judging something by what someone else did when it's been stated numerous times that it won't be like what someone else did.
Mythic is not Epic; Psychic Magic is not Psionics.
If it is going to be exactly like arcane/divine magic why create it in the first place?
If Paizo creates psychic magic to operate the same as arcane magic there will be backlash, major backlash. No one wants the same thing (arcane magic) with fluff added.
Now if the playtesters respond by requesting 3.5 psionics what will the developers do. They will listen to them. So a warning is a fair and reasonable response.
And no one knows what psychic magic will end up being, so of course we can judge and speculate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...how about like...wait for tomorrow? When you can actually judge and speculate in a manner that actually is evidence based?
The developers have stated that Occult Magic will be exploring design space Paizo hasn't touched yet, so I am expecting that Psychic magic users are not simply going to be wizards with the numbers filed off.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now if the playtesters respond by requesting 3.5 psionics what will the developers do. They will listen to them.
Incorrect. Paizo has been saying for YEARS that if they do psychic powers at all, they will NOT be 3.5's point-based system.
People have been requesting, begging, and/or demanding 3.5 psionics/making Dreamscarred Press's psionics official Pathfinder material for years now as well. If Paizo hasn't bent to all that already, what makes you suddenly think they will now?
|
If it is going to be exactly like arcane/divine magic why create it in the first place?
If Paizo creates psychic magic to operate the same as arcane magic there will be backlash, major backlash. No one wants the same thing (arcane magic) with fluff added.
Now if the playtesters respond by requesting 3.5 psionics what will the developers do. They will listen to them. So a warning is a fair and reasonable response.
And no one knows what psychic magic will end up being, so of course we can judge and speculate.
There will be no major backlash. People will be fine if it works like arcane and divine because they are familiar with it. Until I see some sort of survey where people would rather have something unfamiliar game system to mesh with their familiar game system I have serious doubts that anything close to major will happen, will there be disgruntled voice here on the boards, yes. I have doubts that even equates to %1 of players.
And we have already been told that chances are that it won't exactly be just like arcane/divine magic. In the videos that have come out from GenCon we have been told that some of the characters will be able to do their abilities all day long.
And if the playtesters respond by requesting "3.5 psionics" they will be told that there is a 3pp publication that they can buy right here at the Paizo store. Paizo isn't going to do psionics. No really, they aren't.
And just in case this discussion brings up corner cases like, the end of the world will happen if they don't do it, or everyone will hate them if they don't do it, or even the "They would be turning down a bajillion dollars if the DIDN'T do it." They aren't going to do it.
Its not happening. It doesn't fit in with the stories they want to tell and what they have on tap does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have been requesting, begging, and/or demanding 3.5 psionics/making Dreamscarred Press's psionics official Pathfinder material for years now as well. If Paizo hasn't bent to all that already, what makes you suddenly think they will now?
A few people. Most either dont care or are happy just to buy and use Dreamscarred Press's products as is.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
2. The problem was not that class, but that he can somehow force a Sarrukh to grant him one of its abilities. Sarrukh are high-level creatures from a FR splatbook, which makes him a corner case.
3. The whole thing is an experiment in extra odorous cheese and and not meant to be played.
4. You have no idea about 3.5 psionics if you use Pun-Pun as an example for its alleged brokeness.
If you want a discussion about this, PM me or use one of the psionics threads on the board, please.
What Paizo really ought to do, IMO, is devise a comprehensive structure for the origin of all these powers. Perhaps something like this:
There is power in the multi-verse. Sentients can, with varying degrees of success, and varying ability to control it, tap into this power. Some sentients can channel power from other sentients whose power handling ability is far greater than their own, allowing them to produce effects far beyond their innate personal abilities. Some are limited to those personal abilities, but with training and practice, can produce some pretty spectacular effects. Some, with little or no training, are limited to what their innate abilities can produce. Some, with training different to that mentioned above, can produce stronger effects, but perhaps not quite as strong as those who have the training and practice.
This would put things on a progressive scale, power wise: untrained usage (usually triggered by great danger) < psychic ability use < arcane magic < divine magic. Note here that I'm talking about maximum possible power - even divine users wouldn't be doing that level of miracle very often. One might also consider that an emergency untrained usage might actual involve more power than even arcane magic users can normally handle (but not more than a god could handle - by their nature, their ability to handle this power is nearly infinite).
That's just a quick-and-dirty. It could certainly be refined.
I think they're deliberately avoiding having it codified THAT strongly.
I also really can't see what good it would do or what advantage it would provide.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
Debunked on the WotC boards in the Myth: The XPH is overpowered thread. You are categorically wrong.
As Fabius Maximus pointed out, Pun pun uses a unique Forgotten Realms creature that uses a supernatural ability. When the person responsible (Khan the Destroyer) originally conceived of the character, it was using a wizard with a snake familiar and 'accidentally' entered into the shenanigans at... I think it was thirteenth level... using arcane magic. Pun pun uses the interaction between wildshaping (a FR +1 template) and the wildshaping PrC master of many forms (three levels to get Monstrous Humanoid forms). It was eventually rebuilt as a first level character using Pazuzu (A Paizo inclusion, I might add) and a skill check. No PSIONICS INVOLVED.
Second edition was broken good and broken bad. I can't speak for first edition, as I have no experience.
Just because you don't like something, that doesn't make it a bad thing. I would thank you to understand a system before you start attempting to undermine it to others, please.
The fact that psionics as a system with 9th level casters that IS NOT as disruptive as the rest of the 9th level casters is a point in its favor.
I would also like to point out that where DSP has transitioned most of the material to Pathfinder, they have also make a few tweaks, fixing a few of the somewhat exploitative bit... which, again, where nowhere on par with what other full casters do.
Also...
If it is going to be exactly like arcane/divine magic why create it in the first place?
If Paizo creates psychic magic to operate the same as arcane magic there will be backlash, major backlash. No one wants the same thing (arcane magic) with fluff added.
Now if the playtesters respond by requesting 3.5 psionics what will the developers do. They will listen to them. So a warning is a fair and reasonable response.
And no one knows what psychic magic will end up being, so of course we can judge and speculate.
I think of myself as pessimistic, but I am also going to try to wait and see what the product is like before I adopt such a negative tone.
Indeed. I'm not finding myself very optimistic about the book, but even if it doesn't turn out to be something I'm interested in I'm sure there will still be a handful of options I like.
Okay, why does psychic magic have to be different? Divine magic isn't different from Arcane. Hell, Alchemy is the most different and is still fundamentally in the same ball park.
Okay, why does psychic magic have to be different?
Well, because-wait:
Divine magic isn't different from Arcane. Hell, Alchemy is the most different and is still fundamentally in the same ball park.
Just answered your own question there I think.
We already have (supposedly) 3 systems of magic that function identically to each other (except Alchemy, which functions identically with the added drawback that he's not technically a caster so can't qualify for most of the Feats he should be able to qualify for...grand difference there).
** spoiler omitted **As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
Sorry but you are incorrect. The Original Pun Pun was created using the Psion Egoist class. You are talking about the later versions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but you are incorrect. The Original Pun Pun was created using the Psion Egoist class. You are talking about the later versions.** spoiler omitted **As someone who didn't actually like the "psionics" feel in 3.5....I'm looking foreword to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)As someone who loved 3.5-style psionics and also loves the idea of cool Victorian and/or (Stephen) Kingsian mind magic, I too, am looking forward to seeing what this turns out like flavor wise, as well as mechanically ;)D&D 3.5 Psionics was beyond broken. It created a new definition for what could be considered broken.
The infamous Pun-Pun build (kobold egoist) was conceived from the D&D 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. With infinity looping power giving a player deity like powers.
I find it hard to understand Paizo's rationale in treading backwards into WOTC's worst blunders.
Erik Mona has a love for pulp fiction, and I can see why he would want to use the 'occult' as theme and subject matter. But D&D 3.5 psionics, please no.
Pathfinder doesn't need a Pun Pun.
It's irrelevant though. What made PunPun the broken thing he was wasn't his class. It was snagging a super-powerful ability from a monster from a world-specific sourcebook that under any normal circumstances he wouldn't have - even as an Egoist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, why does psychic magic have to be different?Well, because-wait:
Divine magic isn't different from Arcane. Hell, Alchemy is the most different and is still fundamentally in the same ball park.Just answered your own question there I think.
We already have (supposedly) 3 systems of magic that function identically to each other (except Alchemy, which functions identically with the added drawback that he's not technically a caster so can't qualify for most of the Feats he should be able to qualify for...grand difference there).
I'm not seeing it, dude. We have an established way that magic works in universe. People know how to use the system. It's compatible with all of the spells they released. All of the rules. Whatever.
Adding a new system would be something new to learn. And it would require extra work in the future to add anything to it, so in reality we'd probably see less support of this system. And I'm not really seeing much of a gain.
** spoiler omitted **...
I actually like Psionics, I was GM for lengthy Darksun and Eberron campaigns, where psionics is an essential part of the campaign milieu.
You proved my point, if people don't think 3.5 psionics is broken, how can it be rigorously playtested.
Few examples:
Touchsight: pretty much radar, automatically detects everything.
Vigor: A 9th level Psionicist can spend 9 power points and receives 45 hit points
And there is the Psicrystal (psion familiar) coupled with the Share Pain ability making a psion one of the best tank builds (combined with a few other builds) you have ever seen.
I don't want to win an argument. You may not had these issues when you used psionics in earlier 3.5 games. But I did and I'm just sharing my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, why does psychic magic have to be different?Well, because-wait:
Divine magic isn't different from Arcane. Hell, Alchemy is the most different and is still fundamentally in the same ball park.Just answered your own question there I think.
We already have (supposedly) 3 systems of magic that function identically to each other (except Alchemy, which functions identically with the added drawback that he's not technically a caster so can't qualify for most of the Feats he should be able to qualify for...grand difference there).
I'm not seeing it, dude. We have an established way that magic works in universe. People know how to use the system. It's compatible with all of the spells they released. All of the rules. Whatever.
Adding a new system would be something new to learn. And it would require extra work in the future to add anything to it, so in reality we'd probably see less support of this system. And I'm not really seeing much of a gain.
Huh? Why is it bad to add new dimensions and interesting properties to a game you love?
I love Vancian magic but I am hoping for something fundamentally different from Occult adventures. What makes the most sense to me is to have a series of reusable powers like Bloodline sorcerer abilities, but more of them and and a somewhat higher power, and for those powers to then scale. How much/often the powers can be used daily will scale with the character.
Offer abilities to mess with others mentally without a will save (limit duration and effectiveness to compensate). For more brutal debuffs, offer a will save with a DC that scales with the character level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, why does psychic magic have to be different?Well, because-wait:
Divine magic isn't different from Arcane. Hell, Alchemy is the most different and is still fundamentally in the same ball park.Just answered your own question there I think.
We already have (supposedly) 3 systems of magic that function identically to each other (except Alchemy, which functions identically with the added drawback that he's not technically a caster so can't qualify for most of the Feats he should be able to qualify for...grand difference there).
I'm not seeing it, dude. We have an established way that magic works in universe. People know how to use the system. It's compatible with all of the spells they released. All of the rules. Whatever.
Adding a new system would be something new to learn. And it would require extra work in the future to add anything to it, so in reality we'd probably see less support of this system. And I'm not really seeing much of a gain.
The difference here is they're trying to pretend there's a difference when it's really (from what they've teased) "More of the same! New flavor!" with the addition of an all day blasting class.
Arcane magic, Divine magic, Alchemy, Psychic magic...it's all the same s@!~, new package. All the people excted for something new are getting excited over nothing. Psychic magic is not shaping up so far to be anything truly new.
Some neat stuff may come of it, I'm looking forward to seeing what the new classes offer, but I don't have high expectations in the innovation department.
Which is fine, I guess. Quite honestly I don't think Paizo "does" innovation. Does't seem to be their strong suit.
Whenever they try to do something different and new it either turns out poorly (EX: Summoner, due to the writer not quite understanding how all the pieces are supposed to work together) or is abandoned upon birth (like Words of Power. What a sad waste of an idea with so much potential).
Unchained may change my opinion of that if they take some risks, but as-is, nah.
I think what alot of people are missing is the fact that Pathfinder did their own system in order to streamline the amount of material from D&D's 3.5 system bloat. This means that they aren't trying to introduce new systems by force, giving you a new source books and classes that only work in that system, But are instead giving new classes and source books that don't require you to use any of the new things they introduce.
one of the things about the summoner was it wasn't trying to introduce a new system, and ended up a broken mess which Paizo admits and will try to fix in Pathfinder Unchained.
In addition to that, Word Magic was a new system to allow casters to wield their magic in a new way that would allow for new combinations and effects. (word+word+word=Magic effect). the system itself is meant to only replace/effect the spellcasting mechanic, not create/replace the entire system as an optional supplement, allowing players to do so themselves without needed further supplements. So Word Magic was never intended to become a mainstream thing, But allows 3rd party publishers to make more for it if they want to.
In the case of the last book, ACG, I agree that the editing and the classes seem slightly rushed and unfinished. But they had alot on their plate to explain,
2.Time constrained: They were planning for a Gen-Con release, and had Con work to deal with.
3. 10 New Classes! Paizo has never done this many new classes before. the Base classes already existed and were given a long playtest. the APG had 6 classes and a moderate sized playtest. UM and UC had 1 and 3 classes respectedly so the pressure on them wasn't much. BUT, ACG had 10 classes to go through, each introducing a new class mechanic along with creating material to support them. This plus a short playtest, creates a senerio where the classes aren't fully tested out first.
4.Editing wasn't helped by the stress over Con preparations.
However in the case of Occult Adventures we have only 6 classes, with a familiar mechanic, a hopefully longer playtest(since it's starting earlier), and more importantly a full rules team to work on it.
So I have hopes for these new classes.
According to CEO Lisa Stevens points 1, 2, and 4 were not issues and did not affect the product in any way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's rare the CEO of a company basically admits they f%~&ed up and have no excuse.
Part one however is confirmed if you look at the Know Direction video of the Rules Team panel/Introduction to the Advanced Classes Guide. (they said only two people worked on this book out of the whole team) this of course doesn't discuss if people outside the team worked on it.
Parts 2 & 3 were more or less assumptions based on calendar times and the process of how long they take to make a book. So I could be wrong on those.
I wish I still had a link to the thread, but here is a screenshot from it.
Huh? Why is it bad to add new dimensions and interesting properties to a game you love?I love Vancian magic but I am hoping for something fundamentally different from Occult adventures. What makes the most sense to me is to have a series of reusable powers like Bloodline sorcerer abilities, but more of them and and a somewhat higher power, and for those powers to then scale. How much/often the powers can be used daily will scale with the character.
THIS...is more or less what I'm hoping for as well, although I used the example of revelations as an example while talking to some of my group.
A pool of different powers to choose from, preferably (Su), of higher utility and power than current revelations/bloodline/domain/school powers, that scale as your character levels in both function, uses per day, and raw power/DMG....AND NO SPELL SLOT'S....THAT SAID....I'm more than thrilled to hear that they are not trying to emulate either the mechanics...or more importantly the "feel" of psionics (which I don't like in my fantasy settings)....and given the track record they have established...I am more than willing to wait one more bloody day and take a look at what they have come up with BEFORE I start b+#&&ing and moaning about what it might...or might not be....BUMMV
|
I wish I still had a link to the thread, but here is a screenshot from it.
Make sure you keep those screenshots, it's a pure class action lawsuit material there!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would I sue Paizo for making a bad book? I just screenshotted it because everything she said in those posts was important. It's important to understand the perception a CEO has for their company so that it can be compared to reality.
Reminder: Being a smart consumer is reason for ridicule from bags full of straw men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that it's probably because a lot of people are disappointed with the ACG but, I do have to sit back and kinda watch with a little hesitance when people are worried about these classes feeling to similar to arcane or divine classes when you know we have 2 divine 4th level casting classes and 3 arcane 6th level casting classes which are all incredibly different and heck 3 9th level casting classes each, which are the most similar and still have plenty of mechanical differences, and that not even counting the ACG's additions.
|
|
Why would I sue Paizo for making a bad book? I just screenshotted it because everything she said in those posts was important. It's important to understand the perception a CEO has for their company so that it can be compared to reality.
Reminder: Being a smart consumer is reason for ridicule from bags full of straw men.
And once again, this is what I get for providing free, sound legal advice.
Huh? Why is it bad to add new dimensions and interesting properties to a game you love?I love Vancian magic but I am hoping for something fundamentally different from Occult adventures. What makes the most sense to me is to have a series of reusable powers like Bloodline sorcerer abilities, but more of them and and a somewhat higher power, and for those powers to then scale. How much/often the powers can be used daily will scale with the character.
THIS...is more or less what I'm hoping for as well, although I used the example of revelations as an example while talking to some of my group.
A pool of different powers to choose from, preferably (Su), of higher utility and power than current revelations/bloodline/domain/school powers, that scale as your character levels in both function, uses per day, and raw power/DMG....AND NO SPELL SLOT'S....THAT SAID....I'm more than thrilled to hear that they are not trying to emulate either the mechanics...or more importantly the "feel" of psionics (which I don't like in my fantasy settings)....and given the track record they have established...I am more than willing to wait one more bloody day and take a look at what they have come up with BEFORE I start b*#@%ing and moaning about what it might...or might not be....BUMMV
The "feel" of psionics is a nebulous thing that changes over time and medium. Look at how different Jedi are from Scanners, for example.
Personally I think speculation should focus less on rules mechanics and the arc of RPG history and more on source material. Pathfinder, more than D&D, wants to make sure that a learned geek has a feel for a class and can call to mind an example. They're pretty blatant about wearing their influences on their sleeve and have openly said that they strive to put things in their books if they have a pop culture precedent.
That said, we should look to the sun source of modern "psionic" powers (as far as mainstream pop culture is concerned): Steve King.
With this book you'll probably be able to build:
1.Carrie (Kineticist?)
2.Firestarter (Kineticist archetype?)
3.Danny "Shining" Torrance (talks to dead people, can summon ghosts. Has a ghost familiar/companion that scales)
4.Johnny "Dead Zone" Smith (Precog, possibly with some kind of drawback, i.e. Johnny's limp)
5.Andy "Firestarter's Dad" McGee (Pusher/ Some kind of scaling Charm/Command focused-class)
I also think it would be interesting to replace restrictions like spell components and the need for defensive casting with different kind of drawbacks.
Like, Carrie only has a certain number of tk rounds (or encounters) per day, but she can go over that. Except now she has to roll to see if she flips out, black-prom style, and starts attacking friend and foe alike.
Or, if Danny has those ghosts summoned for too long, they start sucking out his HP.
Or, if Andy McGee pushes too many people, then his brain tumor starts swelling and he has to make fort saves or he'll pass out.
Sound rough? No need to worry about antimagic fields, or spell resistance, or prep time...
Another thing I'd REALLY like to see is some variant of the Mule from Foundation. Asimov described this as mentally readjusting the emotional needle inside someone's brain, to make the victim afraid or despair or totally loyal to the Mule. In game terms, this would mean a failed will save means PC gets to readjust the friendly/unfriendly diplo meter in the npc's head, or make the victim shaken or frightened. How far and how long and DC all scale with PC, and as a capstone the PC can push someone automatically with no will save once per day.
Touchsight: pretty much radar, automatically detects everything.
Radar does not "automatically detect everything". Granted, it's pretty good, but it's by no means perfect in that regard.
I actually like Psionics, I was GM for lengthy Darksun and Eberron campaigns, where psionics is an essential part of the campaign milieu.
You proved my point, if people don't think 3.5 psionics is broken, how can it be rigorously playtested.
Few examples:
Touchsight: pretty much radar, automatically detects everything.
Is the same thing with a shorter range, but longer duration. Psionics often has similar but lesser effects to spells, with more convoluted language. In this case "Grants Blindsight 60 feet".
Vigor: A 9th level Psionicist can spend 9 power points and receives 45 hit points
Which is basically just Greater False Life with a higher cost.
And there is the Psicrystal (psion familiar) coupled with the Share Pain ability making a psion one of the best tank builds (combined with a few other builds) you have ever seen.
[url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shield-other]Which is identical to Shield Other.[url]
Do they drop these things at midnight or what?
Do they drop these things at midnight or what?
At a random point during the day. earliest I saw was 10AMish.
At a random point during the day. earliest I saw was 10AMish.Do they drop these things at midnight or what?
braaaahhhtthhhpb
braaaahhhtthhhpbAt a random point during the day. earliest I saw was 10AMish.Do they drop these things at midnight or what?
Hahaha... well, I'll be keeping my eye out for it, though we'll be lucky if we can get it quickly.
Sorry but you are incorrect. The Original Pun Pun was created using the Psion Egoist class. You are talking about the later versions.
*Shrugs*
It took more digging than I wanted, but I can see you're point if you were looking at the Incentive To Play A Kobold thread.
Then there is the compilation thread.
. . . The initial example build was a human with the snake-blooded feat. His story was that he abandoned the Yuan-ti when he found out that they planned on awakening their god and having him devour the world. After leaving them, he worked against them, using the secrets he learned from his involvement against them. Later on, he learns of the Sarruhk through research, and uses their power to become an insanely powerful character. He then feigns atonement, and joins the yuan-ti once again (they cannot deny his strength). He then aids them into awakening Mershaullk. Once the god appears, the human slays him. In this way, he was a twice-betrayer of Mershaullk.
But I went with the kobold instead, no need to have two twice-betrayers running around being crazy powerful ;). . . .
At some point I got the idea the original snake-blooded human build was a wizard with a snake familiar. I also got the snake blooded human and the Extaminaars mixed up in my brain somewhere along the line. Since the twice betrayer is a cleric build, and...
1. Polymorph/Metamorphosis: Basically, any caster/manifester with access to this spell or power can transform into a Sarruhk (casters at 14 HD, manifesters at 14th manifester level). The feats Assume Supernatural Ability is needed for casters to use Manipulate Form while transformed, and Metamorphic Transfer is needed by manifesters. Level 14 for wizards and sorcerers. Level 12 for psions (Overchannel). Level 11 for changeling egoists (substitution level in Races of Eberron, Overchannel).
It doesn't really matter what it is.
So... my bad. I am wrong about one thing. However, I'm not wrong on the rest.
As Orthos also mentioned up thread, introducing broken abilities to a system by virtue of a broken race doesn't make the subsystem bad. It's the race. That's almost the same argument against the 3.5 druid. When pathfinder ported it over, it gave it a list of things that it could snag. Now, additional bestiaries doesn't make the druid anymore powerful, completely unlike 3.5.
As Rynjin shows up thread, other casters get those same powers as spells, in some cases, earlier (also free scaling). If you're spending your pp on hit points (nothing wrong with it), that is power you've spent emulating somebody with double the size of your hit die (or better in 3.5) and who typically starts out with a higher constitution score than you. It's pretty cool, but spending resources mimic the job you aren't made to do is not a great use of resources.
But, as has already been said (and I'm bad about tangents myself), if you want to discuss what you feel to be genuine problems with the previous 3.5 subsystem, try
one of the threads where people spend time looking at the numbers.
The "feel" of psionics is a nebulous thing that changes over time and medium. Look at how different Jedi are from Scanners, for example.
Personally I think speculation should focus less on rules mechanics and the arc of RPG history and more on source material. Pathfinder, more than D&D, wants to make sure that a learned geek has a feel for a class and can call to mind an example. They're pretty blatant about wearing their influences on their sleeve and have openly said that they strive to put things in their books if they have a pop culture precedent. . . .
That's an interesting point for me. The 3.5/DSP psionic are infinitely refluffable. I think since Pathfinder is going with a vancian chassis with all day potential (kind of like their version of the warlock, maybe?) then lots of concepts should be able to be manageable with a single class just by shifting focus (like picking different talents/revelations/bloodlines and feats to accompany the character idea). We will see if this attempt does that well.