| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping for some jedi-like psi users. The idea of a sentient universal force that can be tapped on by powerful minds, leaving psychic residue, with less shiny and a more mysterious approach seems rather appealing.
I hate psychic residue. It's murder to get out of the carpets.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doors that allow you to travel into people's heads!
If there's information about running adventures that occur entirely in the mind of NPCs that'd be rad.
LOL! This just brought to mind the sheer silly fun of having a "Being John Malkovich" sort of module!
I hate the idea of sorcerers not being cha based, so glad they didn't go that rout. I hope for psychic magic that they use all three mental stats, depending on what class wich one is used of course. I do kind of wish they gave you a choice of what mental stat you use to cast with at character creation.
Admittedly, I appreciate them for doing so primarily in the case of the Paladin. Consolidating Paladin casting into CHA instead of WIS was an immensely good idea.I don't disagree with that. WIS based paladins would be a little weird (but maybe that's just because I'm used to the CHA based ones).
Similarly, I'm not sure what I'd think about Psychic Paladins (although I think the Oracle could be reflavored as psychic magic and I wouldn't bat an eye).
They were WIS-based casters in 3.5, despite their everything else being CHA-based, which made it excessively difficult on point-buy. Either you went in with subpar stats all across and did what you could to eke your WIS up to 14, or you just dealt with not getting spells. Years of NWN playing pretty much solidified that for me.
Much less of an issue now =)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldnt mind a mad caster, for a change
Well, there's scarred switch doctor....
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.
Nah bro. Wisdom.
We don't even know what all six classes are yet, let alone what there casting stats are going to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.
Nah bro. Wisdom.
Either or both, really. Especially given Changelings, which are supposed to be natural witches, get nothing that actually, you know, helps them be a good witch. I would have preferred an archetype, a feat, or a racial something - either changing out WIS for INT, or keying off either WIS or CHA - to let Changelings do what they're supposed to do.
In the end, I think they went with INT, because "wisdom isn't arcane" or something similar and they'd developed a prepared caster; both prepared and non-CHA being necessary to get out of 3.5s old Witch* - potentially violating the OGL -, and INT is a decent-ish sort of 'middle' between CHA and WIS, I suppose.
(To be clear, the above is a guess, not something I've heard anyone say.)
* WotC's witch class is a variant sorcerer found in the DMG, for the curious. It was never exactly published as a class, and was quickly written up as strictly an example for how a GM can customize classes. As I recall, it was strictly inferior to the basic sorcerer, but it's been a while.
There are at least four threads that have been talking about this over the last week.
{nibbling live taspar larvae from eggshell} Shall we begin again? How many threads are there? What are Paizo's publishing plans for Gen Con '15? [/Gul Madred]
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a The Shadow as a psychic gunslinger archetype.
I'd like to see something similar to a class that uses Asherah linguistic viruses and Enki innoculations/nam-shubs.
I'd like to see something similar to a not-necessarily-evil class/player race that can only interact with the Prime Material with a malevolence/possession ability: as a ghost, Gyhard from Fifth Quarter, or the Yithians from The Shadow Out of Time.
Heck, get SKR do revisit/Pathfinderize stuff from Ghostwalk.
I'd like Todd Stewart to contribute a protean that remakes/realigns reality—including altering creatures and "casting" psychic "spells"—with psychic "singing."
I'd also like to see creatures inspired by the monsters in Fiend Without a Face, Forbidden Planet, and Jonny Quest's "The Invisible Monster." Only three creatures frightened me as a child, and JQ's invisible monster was one of them.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.Nah bro. Wisdom.
Yes to all.
Witches could have a tripartite option to follow the way of the Bell (Cha), Book (Int) or Candle (Wis), using the selected stat to govern their bonus spells, and spell and Hex DCs. (With the 'book' being as metaphorical as the bell and candle, a 'book' Witch would still store spells in her familiar, just like most other Witches).
Wisdom definitely feels like the most thematic to me, but I don't see any reason why someone who wants to have a Charisma based Witch shouldn't also be viable. Of the three, Intelligence feels the least on-theme, but I'm not like, opposed to it, or anything.
More options, always good.
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.Nah bro. Wisdom.Yes to all.
Witches could have a tripartite option to follow the way of the Bell (Cha), Book (Int) or Candle (Wis), using the selected stat to govern their bonus spells, and spell and Hex DCs. (With the 'book' being as metaphorical as the bell and candle, a 'book' Witch would still store spells in her familiar, just like most other Witches).
I like it! Sold!
I like it! Sold!Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.Nah bro. Wisdom.Yes to all.
Witches could have a tripartite option to follow the way of the Bell (Cha), Book (Int) or Candle (Wis), using the selected stat to govern their bonus spells, and spell and Hex DCs. (With the 'book' being as metaphorical as the bell and candle, a 'book' Witch would still store spells in her familiar, just like most other Witches).
Agreed. Bell, book, and candle is good stuff. Count me in.
Int-witches still bug me a little, though I see what they're going for and why they didn't want yet another Charisma-based arcane caster. But screw it, at least there should have been options for a Charisma-based witch.Nah bro. Wisdom.Yes to all.
Witches could have a tripartite option to follow the way of the Bell (Cha), Book (Int) or Candle (Wis), using the selected stat to govern their bonus spells, and spell and Hex DCs. (With the 'book' being as metaphorical as the bell and candle, a 'book' Witch would still store spells in her familiar, just like most other Witches).
!!!!
I would rather make Witch psychic stats unimportant. Only familiar's mind should count. That would make Witch more scary, she can be ugly and idiot, and still curse people thanks to this bloody toad.
Great option for all those who dice 3k6 for abilities.
Well there are always those who want to play extreme non-munchkin game leading 2 commoners and 3 warriors to epic levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see psychic magic archetypes for all classes except sorcerer and oracle. As for them I would like a psychic sorcerer bloodline and psychic oracle mystery.
I would like to see those powers as something integrated with the characters, being part of their basic interaction with the world. Moving objects (within a range and weight limit), sensing emotions and auras, as always active or at will powers.
Also I think the Kineticist should be able to add his Int mod to damage with any object(s) that he uses to attack with his telekinetic powers.
I just want to see something other than a twisted mirror of what Dreamscarred has already done.
You make it sound as though this is something Paizo has done before...
I just want to see something other than a twisted mirror of what Dreamscarred has already done.You make it sound as though this is something Paizo has done before...
No sarcasm, irony or the like, but sincere curiosity... have they? apart from, you know, the base 11 classes and stuff.
Well since they said they aren't doing a point system for psionics/psychic magic, I doubt we will get a "twisted mirror of what Dreamscarred has already done".
|
|
The only mention of Gambit, to my knowledge, is when someone asked me whether the kineticist class would be more like Gambit or Sebastian Shaw. As you can see now that the clip is up, it's definitely more like Gambit than Shaw. But it's not exactly Gambit either (though a player could certainly build a Gambit character with a little reflavoring or reimagining). So Gambit was an outside comparator rather than one I brought up on my own.Actually, they have specifically mentioned characters from X-men as examples, like Jean Grey and Gambit.It's ironic you chose those particular examples, as the developers have been quoted as saying that the new book would allow options akin to the mutants from X-Men.Except that they said the opposite. They said it was "Less Professor X, more Penny Dreadful".
Gambit already exists. You can combine the Staff Master and Deadly Dealer magus Archetypes. I know someone who created this very character for a table I ran at GenCon.
I'm very anti-3.5 style psionics, but I'm willing to give physic magic a fair shake.
I am also very anti-3.5(and 3.0, 2nd ed, etc.) style psionics and I am more excited about this product then I have been for awhile.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't image how anyone could be opposed to literally the best version of psionics that is also the most balanced casting system present in PF (as well as 3.5). It's literally the casting system that is most similar to the vast majority of "caster" depictions across all forms of media.
Anti-conformism?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that it's cut ally ridiculously common. It's baffling.
Looks like they will not reveal the names of all the classes until the playtest, whenever that will be. I think I will retire to my cave with my treasure hoard and wait until I see this OA playtest with my mind's eye;)
The problem is that it's cut ally ridiculously common. It's baffling.
Sigh. Auto-correct. :/
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, if it's just more vancian casting, I'm going to have a hard time getting excited for it.Well, what do you mean by "Vancian"? Spontaneous spellcasters arent Vancian. Nor are the Hex of Witches, nor cantrips, nor Wordcasters, nor Ki powers. Plenty of non-Vancian now.
The Warlock was non-Vancian also, as was BoNS, and to a large extent 4th edition (well, except for Daily abilities).
I doubt if all six new classes will use the true Vancian system (mostly) by Wizards .
If what you want is a points system, that's different than saying "non-Vancian".
I really hate spell points or any power point system. Every one I have seen is subject to abuse, especially Nova-ing. Nova-ing spellcasters and "one encounter day" are a major part of what some find as a "caster/martial disparity".
I dont get why everyone thinks that Psionics Must be Power points, rather than some other system.
if it's power points you want, then why do say you want Psionics? Psionics are a particular form of supernatural ability coming from mental force. You can have Psionics without PP, and PP without Psionics. 4th Ed had Psionics without PP (altho there was a sorta pt system involved).
If you talk about Psionics in relation to DnD, at least if you talk about it post 3rd edition, people will automatically assume you mean a power point system. Even Paizo recognizes that, hence psychic magic and not Psionics
As for powerpoints, I don't actually think it is overpowered in comparison to more traditional spellcasting, at least as implemented by DSP. Numerous threads on that subject on this site There are restrictions on how you use your power points, and Nova-ing si something easy to address in play.
Personally looking forward to seeing Occult Adventures, and glad it's going in a different design direction than 3.5 Psionics. We already have the latter in Dreamscarred Press, and I want to see something new.
I think it's funny that the dev team in the video talks about psionics and nova'ing.
I've been GMing d20 since 2000. Nova-ing is something that has existed pre-3E and pre-psionics. It's basically when someone decides "Okay, all gloves are off, I don't care what comes later, it's all or nothing". Mages do it just fine, if not better, especially because of free-scaling, metamagic rods, and ease of applying metamagic to multiple spells.
A wizard in Pathfinder can nova like a beast. Especially if you have an arcane bonded object (shoulder familiar w/UMD works too but differently). With the way free-scaling works, most spells are competent up to two weight-classes above them, and lesser wizard resources get more powerful.
A 7th level wizard that spends 5 rounds of combat throwing out black tentacles, solid fog, fear, and then popping arcane bond for another 4th level or lower spell of their choice, and then throwing a 3rd level spell that is free-scaling to 7d6 AoE, or a stinking cloud or something, is just as much nova as anything psionics can push out, and this wizard isn't even trying. >_>
Or how the dev team doesn't like a system of magic that requires you to learn a new ruleset.
...new ruleset.
To be fair, it isn't like they've been pushing wordcasting much since its publication. Rather than contradicting their distaste for new magic rule sets, it might have contributed to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If so, it's just an example of confirmation bias.
(Personally, I think the idea is really cool. I've yet to dive too deeply into it, mostly because of time and familiarity, and the fact that it's never used in APs. Alas. :/)
If so, it's just an example of confirmation bias.
(Personally, I think the idea is really cool. I've yet to dive too deeply into it, mostly because of time and familiarity, and the fact that it's never used in APs. Alas. :/)
The idea is indeed cool, but the mechanics of it are pretty clunky, and it's complicated enough and so slow that you need to pre-build a bunch of spell effects (which mimic current spells) or else you need to have a spell-builer program to run it.
Playing with it in more detail is one of those things I've wanted to do for quite some time now.
The wordcasting system definitely needs work -- there are some rather vital things that you can do with spells that you cannot do with wordcasting as presently written up. Even with that limitation, wordcasting might be usable if we had feats for letting wordcasters dabble in standard spellcasting. (At present, we only have feats for the reverse -- the only full spells that wordcasters get are very specific bonus spells from class features.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been GMing d20 since 2000. Nova-ing is something that has existed pre-3E and pre-psionics. It's basically when someone decides "Okay, all gloves are off, I don't care what comes later, it's all or nothing". Mages do it just fine, if not better, especially because of free-scaling, metamagic rods, and ease of applying metamagic to multiple spells.I've been GMing since the 80's Psionics have been THE Nova masters thanks to feats like OverChannel.
If you claim to have been GMing the d20 system since the 80s, you're a liar, so what's your point? :P
Overchannel deals 1d8 damage to you for a +1 caster level, at 8th level it deals 3d8 for a +2 caster level, and at 15th level it deals 5d8 damage for a +3 caster level. So you get to eat between 5-40 damage (average 22.5) if you want +3 to your caster level and the option to spend more PP to try to augment. It also does not stack with a wilder's wild surge class feature. It's a valid tactic, but what are the major advantages of doing so?
Well if you're trying to deal damage, you could get up to +3d6 damage, +1 to your saving throw DC, and +3 to your spell resistance. For some powers you might get +1 to the number of targets you could affect, or you might get another +1 bonus to your AC or something, etc. If you're doing psionic summoning, you can get a single monster that's in the next weight class.
Even at 15th+ level, around 22.5 damage inflicted to yourself is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when a psion's base-HP at 15th level is only 55 Hp (max 6 at 1st level, +3.5 * 14). Even with a +8 Constitution, you're blowing roughly 1/8th of your HP whenever you decide to overchannel.
Especially since pound for pound, psionic powers are weaker than core spells and you have to augment them to catch up to what spells do normally (and even then you probably won't).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, sliders, or ESPers here... come join me. That is all! "
well, we've got androids (the race), time-travelers (the party, later reign of winter), and now espers are joining the fray.
She'd be quite happy!
Hypothetical New Feat: Versatile Magic
You can combine lower level spell slots to achieve more powerful effects. In order to cast a spell you must expend a total number of spell levels equal to the new level of spell you cast plus 2 for spells 3rd level or lower, plus 4 for spells of 4th through 6th levels, and plus 6 for spells of seventh level or higher.
Therefore, for example you could cast a 6th level spell by using one third level slot, two second level slots, and three first level slots (8 total spell levels).
For example you can cast a 9th level spell by using 5 first level slots, four second level slots, and two third level slots (15 total spell levels).
Is the above feat balanced and fair?