Pathfinder finally gets around to Psionics!
...
And it's just Sorcerer by another name. =(
Is that really the best they could do?
Pathfinder finally gets around to Psionics!
Nope. Psychic magic =! psionics. Completely different in theme.
And it's just Sorcerer by another name. =(
I disagree. Just because they are spontaneous casters and possess a selection of theme at first level doesn't make it like a sorcerer. Sorcerers do not get pools of energy to augment their spells, they don't get telepathic powers, they only use charisma, they have completely different flavours and accomplish completely different things, their spell lists are so different that they serve completely different roles, etc.
Reading the description of "Psychic Magic" from the Occult Adventures book (pg 144), I would have to totally disagree that "Psychic Magic and Psionics are completely different in theme." They're identical in theme. Completely.
And when I say, "It's just Sorcerer by another name," it's because there are more similarities than differences in how the class is played (even if there are various differences in what each class does).
•Identical "delayed" spell progression.
•Identical "spells known" feature.
•Identical style of casting (ie: still Vancian-adjacent)
•Both have to choose a "Bloodline/Discipline" and gain various extra spells and abilities that are unique to that choice.
Where they differ in play-style is minimal:
•Bloodlines are more "packed" than Disciplines, which allows more non-Discipline abilities to be gained while leveling.
•Sorcerers are more MAD and can concentrate entirely on Charisma where the Psychic has to focus on Int and Wis or Cha, depending on Discipline.
I was mostly just hoping that Paizo would step away from "more of the same mechanics" when expanding into Psionics, the way WotC did when they introduced it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case and I'm bummed about it. =/
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that making psychic magic different only in the way that dive magic is different than arcane, that it is better integrated. Psionics has had a tendency to feel tacked on. That it is just there. Bedside, how could they do better than Ultimate Psionics?
Reading the description of "Psychic Magic" from the Occult Adventures book (pg 144), I would have to totally disagree that "Psychic Magic and Psionics are completely different in theme." They're identical in theme. Completely.
False, psionics has ridiculously minimal flavour, with just sciency names and a few crystal things but no common flavour really at all. Every instance of psychic magic in Occult Adventures connects to the themes of occultism and mysticism.
And when I say, "It's just Sorcerer by another name," it's because there are more similarities than differences in how the class is played (even if there are various differences in what each class does).
•Identical "delayed" spell progression.
•Identical "spells known" feature.
•Identical style of casting (ie: still Vancian-adjacent)
•Both have to choose a "Bloodline/Discipline" and gain various extra spells and abilities that are unique to that choice.
So.... what I said. The only similarities are " Just because they are spontaneous casters and possess a selection of theme at first level". Which, isn't enough to say it's just a sorcerer by another name without being grossly inaccurate and misleading.
I was mostly just hoping that Paizo would step away from "more of the same mechanics" when expanding into Psionics, the way WotC did when they introduced it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case and I'm bummed about it. =/
If you want psionics just use the psionics rules, psychic magic was never meant to be psionics.
Actually, the psychic gets fewer spells known per level than the sorcerer. It's the class's major balancing factor, as it has abilities that makes almost all of the most powerful spells in the game more powerful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want psionics just use the psionics rules, psychic magic was never meant to be psionics.
If only every GM was cool with 3PP. ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone with a level 11 PFS psychic, I can safely say that the psychic bloodline sorceror is flat-out better simply due to spell list. It also effectively has more spells due to the undercasting bloodline power at 9.
Mechanically, there is no difference. Sure, there's flavor, but I can exhibit flavor without mechanics. The psychic is just a sorceror with the serial number filed off. Good flavor, extremely lazy design.
Speaking of Undercasting, I don't understand the point. Why would you ever want to downgrade your spell to a lesser effect but still use the same level spell slot?
*Edit* - Scratch this question. I read the example thinking Ego Whip 1 was lower level than 3. Whoops!
...Bluffing enemies into thinking you're weaker than you really are?
Aside from that, if I recall the design notes correctly, Psychic magic was intended as more of an early, fantastic sort of mental power, as compared to the more scientific, futuristic route that psionics can take. As a GM, I do see the two systems as fulfilling different story niches.
Hmm, in my opinion you could fairly reasonably treat the Occult Magic rules and options as dealing less with the "pure mind" and more with the "soul" in terms of theme and flavor, while Psionics would represent the mind divorced from the more spiritual tones associated with Occult magic. If you think of it like that, then there's actually a fairly strong thematic difference, with Occult Magic blurring the lines between Psionics and more conventional magic. Occult Magic, in this sense, becomes closer to WotC's Incarnum (which is something I'd like to see in Pathfinder one day).
Psionics should be something separate from Occult Magic, but related. I agree that it should probably have a more scientific feel to it, as it lies more in the realm of science fiction than fantasy and should have a feel and flavor to reflect it.
Psionics should be something separate from Occult Magic, but related. I agree that it should probably have a more scientific feel to it, as it lies more in the realm of science fiction than fantasy and should have a feel and flavor to reflect it.
I'm always confused to see this. You do know Psionics is vastly (by many landslides) better at representing the overwhelming majority of depictions of magic in fantasy stories right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does this confuse you? The main differences between Magic and Psionics aren't in the mechanics. Those are essentially interchangeable. You could easily convert Spell Slots and the like to PP, or Powers to Spells, and it wouldn't really matter beyond affecting game balance. Just combine all forms of Magic, Psionics, or whatever into one system and balance won't be an issue at all. It'd let you cull off a number of classes as well, since all of their abilities now use a single mechanic and are on a single list.
The main differences between these things are in their flavor, themes, and what sort of expectations the audience and participants have for them. Magic is ultimately the romanticism of past eras and those who yearn for them, built up through history, myth, legend, religion, and superstition, tied to their fear of the unknown and a reverence for the forces of nature and the things they perceived to inhabit it. As such, it's strongly associated with traditional fantasies and has themes and flavor tied to them. Psionics are an altogether newer romance, born of "rational minds" trying to apply scientific principles, theories, and methodology to their own fancies, the supernatural viewed through the lens of modernity and the confidence in man's knowledge. Both are equally fantastic, removed from any conventional interpretation of realism, barring Quantum Weirdness.
Therefore, I'd actually have to say that no, Psionics aren't better at interpreting fantasy stories. The key element there isn't in what those systems can do mechanically. That can be changed easily. The real value comes from what they represent to people, people whose perceptions view Psychic Powers as inherently more realistic and scientific, even though they really aren't. Unfortunately, that means that Psionics will always be viewed as something fundamentally more appropriate for Science Fiction, even if it is mechanically better suited to represent your expectations of Magic.
I'd argue in your case that you might want to just call it magic and give the Powers appropriately fantastic names. It's a rose by any other name either way.
Why does this confuse you? The main differences between Magic and Psionics aren't in the mechanics. Those are essentially interchangeable. You could easily convert Spell Slots and the like to PP, or Powers to Spells, and it wouldn't really matter beyond affecting game balance. Just combine all forms of Magic, Psionics, or whatever into one system and balance won't be an issue at all. It'd let you cull off a number of classes as well, since all of their abilities now use a single mechanic and are on a single list.
The main differences between these things are in their flavor, themes, and what sort of expectations the audience and participants have for them. Magic is ultimately the romanticism of past eras and those who yearn for them, built up through history, myth, legend, religion, and superstition, tied to their fear of the unknown and a reverence for the forces of nature and the things they perceived to inhabit it. As such, it's strongly associated with traditional fantasies and has themes and flavor tied to them. Psionics are an altogether newer romance, born of "rational minds" trying to apply scientific principles, theories, and methodology to their own fancies, the supernatural viewed through the lens of modernity and the confidence in man's knowledge. Both are equally fantastic, removed from any conventional interpretation of realism, barring Quantum Weirdness.
Therefore, I'd actually have to say that no, Psionics aren't better at interpreting fantasy stories. The key element there isn't in what those systems can do mechanically. That can be changed easily. The real value comes from what they represent to people, people whose perceptions view Psychic Powers as inherently more realistic and scientific, even though they really aren't. Unfortunately, that means that Psionics will always be viewed as something fundamentally more appropriate for Science Fiction, even if it is mechanically better suited to represent your expectations of Magic.
I'd argue in your case that you might want to just call...
Name the most recent non-WotC/Paizo published story where the magic user "ran out of Fireballs". Psionics does not have this issue and can more accurately model the kind of magic use prevalent in most fantasy stories. I also fail to see how mechanics can be changed easily. Flavor can be changed much more easily, since you don't actually have to write any new rules *AND* Psionics already has the flavor of most fantasy stories spell casting.
Want a stronger effect at the cost of some life? Psionics does that. Want to use all your power to just use one power? Psionics does that. Want to just have spells you know and don't have to "prepare" like again how most fantasy stories work? Psionics does that. Vancian is the odd man out here as the number of fantasy stories it can model in comparison to psionics is remarkably small.
I'm sorry but from an objective standpoint psionics is (again) vastly superior at modeling fantasy magic. I'd be open to actual arguments as to why that is not the case though, but "the name is psionics" is not a good argument.
Pathfinder finally gets around to Psionics!Nope. Psychic magic =! psionics. Completely different in theme.
Eh, that's what I hoped before reading the classes, but it really just boils down to 90% of psychic stuff being just psionics, as many people wanted and as other people (like me) feared.
There's really very little that could be called occult, and it's ridiculous that they put so much emphasys on the "occult feel" your adventures get with occult rules, when you could already have that (and probably better) without occult rules. Exactly like mythic and the "epic feel" it wants to convey with totally unnecessary rules.This is even more evident in the Occult Bestiary, which is a mockery on each and every level.
Eh, that's what I hoped before reading the classes, but it really just boils down to 90% of psychic stuff being just psionics, as many people wanted and as other people (like me) feared.
Except that's bull... There is only 1 thing in the book that is psionically flavoured rather than occult, mindblade magus. Everything else involves mysticism themed stuff. And I say this as an individual who was raised by cultists and have actual knowledge on the subject.
As for the "is psionics more fantasy than vancian"? Yes, yes it is. Though I don't think that intended, it's just that vancian casting in 3.P really doesn't fit any other examples of fantasy in media, but spell points does easily let you do what spellcasting does in a decent amount of media simple as that. Though the flavour does exist in the psionics rules is more sci-fi than fantasy.
Eh, that's what I hoped before reading the classes, but it really just boils down to 90% of psychic stuff being just psionics, as many people wanted and as other people (like me) feared.Except that's bull... There is only 1 thing in the book that is psionically flavoured rather than occult, mindblade magus. Everything else involves mysticism themed stuff. And I say this as an individual who was raised by cultists and have actual knowledge on the subject.
Except there was also the(lazy) copy/pasting of psionic powers and what they did. Except instead of paying more to use a stronger version, you can pay less to use a weaker one. That was... clever, maybe?
"Hey, everyone, this book isn't Psionic at all, but here's Ego Whip, Mind Thrust, etc... Totally not Psionic though. Ignore the exact same thing Dreamscarred Press did, because ours is Vancian!"
It's silly.
Except instead of paying more to use a stronger version, you can pay less to use a weaker one. That was... clever, maybe?
Undercasting is actually pretty decent considering how careful you have to be with picking your spells as a spontaneous caster.
"Hey, everyone, this book isn't Psionic at all, but here's Ego Whip, Mind Thrust, etc... Totally not Psionic though.
I don't see how acknowledging a tiny number powers and turning them into spells is a bad thing in this situation. I mean, spells that do those things would need to be made anyway, why not acknowledge the history of the game at the same time? What benefit would be gained from having spells that do the same thing and waste time coming up with a unique name for the same thing.
Ignore the exact same thing Dreamscarred Press did, because ours is Vancian!"
1. If that's your definition of exact you need to check a dictionary.
2. Paizo has recomended DSP's psionics. Paizo don't suggest that you ignore DSP psionics, they simply have said how they cover different flavour and meet different design objectives.
Vancian magic may not be the most realistic system but it is a fundamental part of what makes the game what it is. Stripping it out stops Pathfinder/D&D being Pathfinder/D&D. As evidenced by the fact that stripping it out of 4th ed was undone in 5th ed. D&D; and the fact that spell points/power points while being available are not commonly used as an alternative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian magic may not be the most realistic system but it is a fundamental part of what makes the game what it is. Stripping it out stops Pathfinder/D&D being Pathfinder/D&D.
If your brand identity is so weak that making a change to one of the more fundamentally broken bits of the mechanics makes it "not Pathfinder" then your brand probably doesn't deserve to exist in the first place.
Thankfully, it isn't that weak. Pathfinder is much more than Vancian casting. That's why it's called Pathfinder and not Vancian Casting: The Game.
As evidenced by the fact that stripping it out of 4th ed was undone in 5th ed. D&D;
This is not evidence for or against anything except that D&D made a change, and then reverted the change in a later edition. It certainly isn't evidence that "D&D isn't D&D without Vancian casting".
and the fact that spell points/power points while being available are not commonly used as an alternative.
...Because they're always presented as optional rules, which get little to no support, and/or they're not done well.
For example, Words of Power didn't take off because Paizo made it, dropped it, and never looked at it again. Not because it was "Not Pathfinder".
Ditto any previous experiments into point based casting.
It work quite well for DSP's Psionics material, which in itself is quite popular. Because that's really all Psionics is, when you strip it down to brass tacks: Spell point based casting. And it's far more balanced than Vancian casting.
If the RPG community wasn't so hell bent against change of any kind, maybe we'd actually get to see if it worked for Pathfinder as the default casting system.
TTRPGing is all about lots of very easy math. Point-based casting is no different.
If you have trouble keeping up with all the numbers... I don't even know what to tell you. It's hard to make it any easier than it already is, honestly.
Except that's bull... There is only 1 thing in the book that is psionically flavoured rather than occult, mindblade magus. Everything else involves mysticism themed stuff. And I say this as an individual who was raised by cultists and have actual knowledge on the subject.
Nearly everything in that book is far more psionic than occult.
And even assuming that "I was raised by cultists" has any relevance, here, if one needs to have had such specific experiences to see it the other way around, then it means the book failed even more than what it looks like at first.
Nearly everything in that book is far more psionic than occult.
Please give actual examples.
Nearly everything in that book is far more psionic than occult.Please give actual examples.
•Most things are re-purposed Psionic terms from the 3.X D&D version of Psionics. Examples have already been given above, such as old Psionic Powers being (basically) directly copied over as "Psychic Spells" (Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, and so on and so fourth).
•A majority of Psychic spells seem to involve mental manipulation in some way or another, and there are much fewer "spiritual" spells. For every single one spell like Object Reading or Possession, there are a handful that are more like Mental Block, Telekinetic spells, Thought Echo, Thought Shield, Divide Mind, Microcosm, etc.•Anything involving Ectoplasm is a concept from 3.5 Psionics directly ported into PF Psychic rules and options.
•The entire theme of Kineticism is Psionic in nature, rather than Occult-related.
In addition, consider:
Psychic magic originates from the distinctive qualities of the caster’s composite being, rather than through arcane formulae or rote supplication to divine entities. Therefore, psychic spells never have verbal or somatic components, and have only expensive material components. Psychic spells are purely mental actions, and they can be cast even while the caster is pinned or paralyzed.
Most telling to me personally, however, is that themes of "the occult" are already covered via traditional Arcane (typically) and/or Divine (less typically) magics. There was no "occult" gap to fill. There was, however, a "mind mage" gap to fill, and that's what Psychic Adventures seems to be attempting.
Rynjin i disagree that Vancian magic is fundamentally broken. It has lasted 40 odd years through dozens of incarnations of the game. as part of the dnd brand that has spanned 5 editions I would say it is extremely strong, not weak at all.
You say that switching back to Vancian casting isn't evidence of anything other than a switch was made. I disagree. It is strong evidence that Vancian Casting wasn't fundamentally broken - otherwise they wouldn't have made a conscious decision to return to that system.
Incidentally I said it is 'A fundamental part' not THE fundamental part of what makes pathfinder/dnd unique. There is no need to slather your points with sarcasm. As for comments that the the community hates change, Pathfinder was founded on the express principal that dnd 3.5 was a fundamentally solid system that only needed tweaking rather than wholesale change.
I'm all for alternative rules and systems I play with vigor/wounds and critical hit cards without much trouble, I use legendary actions and short rests in Pathfinder and i think these make my game better. I don't expect Pathfinder to replace the core rules with them. Just to make the point that I am not some ancient Grognard: I have tried other magic systems and I just didn't like them as much, the game lost the puzzle element of choosing which spell to memorise and when to use it. I personally think that Sword Coast legends isn't 5th ed D&D as far as I'm concerned because it uses cool downs instead of spells per day in the same way the Pathfinder MMORG isn't really pathfinder. Just my opinion.
Luckily for you there are alternative rules for both pathfinder and dnd that can let you try spell points or words of power to your hearts content. Or just play a different game. That would be my advice to anyone who expects the game to change wholesale to fit their personal preference rather than being satisfied that they are free to change it at their table.
You say that switching back to Vancian casting isn't evidence of anything other than a switch was made. I disagree. It is strong evidence that Vancian Casting wasn't fundamentally broken - otherwise they wouldn't have made a conscious decision to return to that system.
What's fun about this particular discussion point is that DDN doesn't use Vancian Casting. :)
They use something kinda close, where some classes need to prepare their spells ahead of time, but "fire and forget" is a thing of the past and doesn't exist among any of the 5E caster classes.But even more than that, 5E also offers a class that casts with an entirely different model than anything even resembling Vancian Casting (ie: the Warlock class casts spells with an entirely different system, which means Core 5E already offers more spellcasting styles than PF supports.)
Regarding the post I loved the book. A great opportunity to do some alternative setting stuff. It is going to be core of a 1920's mummy's mask campaign I plan on running as an alternative to traditional caster classes. It was great to see some old favourite powers back too without the unbalancing effect that overcharging had in the 3.5 psionics.
I agree Neo, but with the oracle, sorcerer, Arcanist, bard et al, Pathfinder and too an extent 3.5 had already left this behind too.
I personally love the 5th ed magic system particularly cantrips that are the core of the class rather than a sugar dusting. Perhaps I should be clearer and say having a selection of spells of specific levels that have a limited number of uses per day is part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder what it is. I say this as a long term DM and player who plays a lot of casters.
I agree Neo, but with the oracle, sorcerer, Arcanist, bard et al, Pathfinder and too an extent 3.5 had already left this behind too.
I personally love the 5th ed magic system particularly cantrips that are the core of the class rather than a sugar dusting. Perhaps I should be clearer and say having a selection of spells of specific levels that have a limited number of uses per day is part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder what it is. I say this as a long term DM and player who plays a lot of casters.
Cantrips are one of the better parts of the 5E system and sadly I didn't realize this until after I stopped playing a caster in that system.
Cantrips in that system tend to scale like 3+ (Modifier) uses/day abilities on Sorcerers and Wizards do. That is, they are meant to be your default thing to go for when you want to conserve spells.
That said, 5e has a lot more problems when it comes to spellcasters, they are nigh unplayable at lower levels because of the neutering they received. I made an elf wizard who was better off just using a bow because of how few spells I had, especially because I made an abjurer whose mainstay abilities involve self-buffing when casting abjurations, which I could do like twice in a day. It felt pretty awful playing the class. 5e rewards blaster builds, since utility spells can be used as rituals without even spending spell slots making playing a utility caster very close to pointless. There are also a lot of prePathfinderisms that I detest that remained in D&D like Identify being expensive, and Lay on Hands being a flat number, rather than a a pool of abilities.
For the discussion at hand, Vanican casting itself has been dealt with in a number of ways. The Arcanist essentially uses the 5e system without the automatic scaling (i.e. inherent Heighten Spell on all casters). I personally love the Spell Points system which can be used almost universally across Pathfinder, even with the Occult classes, and gives you the freedom of casting that people have looked for, and balances spell casting in significant ways by essentially turning it into psionics without the flavor of psionics.
And it's just Sorcerer by another name. =(
Is that really the best they could do?
Initially, I wasn't thrilled with Psychic, but the class has grown on me. Psychic casting means Concealed Casting makes stuff like Charm Person viable. Good access to my favorite spells, points for free metamagic, and the disciplines are more front-loaded for better low-level play. Reincarnation discipline is great- a new spell known every day and Bardic Knowledge.
If it's too Sorcerer-ish for you, try the Amnesiac archetype for a different casting mechanic.
I believe that the Psychic is one of the worst parts of the book. Now then, worst is very relative here. If Occult Adventures averages in the eight to nine range then the Psychic is about a five. I love this book, and thus am incredibly biased, but yes the Psychic is a bit of a disappointment.
•Most things are re-purposed Psionic terms from the 3.X D&D version of Psionics. Examples have already been given above, such as old Psionic Powers being (basically) directly copied over as "Psychic Spells" (Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, and so on and so fourth).
Again, they would have to be made anyway, there is no reason for them to waste time making unique names when they can give a nod to the games history.
•A majority of Psychic spells seem to involve mental manipulation in some way or another, and there are much fewer "spiritual" spells. For every single one spell like Object Reading or Possession, there are a handful that are more like Mental Block, Telekinetic spells, Thought Echo, Thought Shield, Divide Mind, Microcosm, etc.
.... You do realize that mental abilities are present in most psychic/mysticism/occult media right?
•Anything involving Ectoplasm is a concept from 3.5 Psionics directly ported into PF Psychic rules and options.
Ectoplasm is a concept FROM occultism.
•The entire theme of Kineticism is Psionic in nature, rather than Occult-related.
No, those are occult themed. Ever seen firestarter or carrie, or heard of mysticism that leads to telekinesis or the ability to generate heat?
Most telling to me personally, however, is that themes of "the occult" are already covered via traditional Arcane (typically) and/or Divine (less typically) magics. There was no "occult" gap to fill.
You say this while bolding the sections that make it distinct from arcane and divine magic.... Um.... What?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has arrived at an odd situation. A lot of fans of Paizo decry the supposed homogenization of 4e classes, complaining that "everything's the same in 4e".
And yet, incredibly, Paizo has managed to make all of their classes even more homogenized than 4e, while making game balance even worse than 3.5.
In 4e, all the classes use the at-will/encounter/daily power framework. There are occasional tweaks, with some classes lacking some or all of one type of power, but for the most part they follow a similar format.
In Pathfinder, all classes use the full attack/point-pool/Vancian spell slots framework. There are occasional tweaks, such as some classes having different numbers of spell slots (even 0), but even those 'tweaked' classes still follow the same framework.
So is Pathfinder more homogenized than 4e? No, it's even more homogenized. In 4e, the designers worked very carefully to give each class unique powers. In pathfinder, the designers lazily copy powers from one class' spell list to another, even duplicating the entire list in some cases like the wizard and sorcerer. And some classes have no class features separating them from the other classes (e.g., fighter). The Paizo classes have all the "sameness" that edition warriors whined about back in 2009, and then some.I was sort of holding out hope that Occult Adventures would be the point where they started writing their own content. During the development of OA, Paizo employees kept saying it was "NOT psionics, it's something new!" I was wrong to hope that it would actually be something new.
Maybe Paizo's writers are incapable of writing their own rules, and so are forced to rely on copy/pasting an old class to make ends meet. More likely, they just decided that "everything works the same" should be a design goal of Pathfinder. Either way, the chance of Paizo putting out a new class that isn't a clone of all their old classes seems slim at this point. Check out...
I think I have to disagree here. Pathfinder is not as homogenized as 4th Edition. Not even close (and yes I am aware of the Player's Handbooks past the first one, the preceding statement is still true). While the Psychic Class maybe isn't terribly different from a Sorcerer (though it is different make no mistake) and the Spiritualist is similar to a Summoner, the other classes have pretty unique mechanics. Sure the Mesmerists is pretty focused, the Medium is kind of all over the place, while Kineticists are a brand new thing but all their mechanics are nonetheless rather unique.
I will agree though that I would have liked to see the Occult classes try more diverse rules.
More likely, they just decided that "everything works the same" should be a design goal of Pathfinder.
I think this is more or less actually what has been said by the designers at Paizo, with an effort towards being more accessible than 3.X with its large supply of variant systems and different mechanics that convolute gameplay, and confuse and intimidate new players.
Advanced class guide was more or less paizo's response to a lot of players' desires to see more and more classes that work like X, but have the chassis of Y, which lead to a lot of seemingly unoriginal material. There was also a lot of feedback on player's opinions of the rogue, fighter, and paladin which lead to the creation of classes and archetypes present in that release.
Occult adventures offers more than just new classes however, and the spellcasting chassis is not the main attraction to the different kind of casting. They changed the components around to thought and emotion components, and ignoring or hand-waiving that shows a lack of interest in reading the whole book in favor of just trying to see if the new classes are worth reading.
The different spellcasting is only one aspect of a very large book with lots more to offer, including mechanics for mental dueling, and even Inception style dream based dungeons and adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin i disagree that Vancian magic is fundamentally broken. It has lasted 40 odd years through dozens of incarnations of the game. as part of the dnd brand that has spanned 5 editions I would say it is extremely strong, not weak at all.
"Extremely strong" is exactly the issue.
Psionics and its spell point mechanicsm both allows casters to still be powerful, but much less game breaking than Vancian casting, sinc ethey can't cast every one of their pels at max power for free until they run out.
It also gets rid of the silly "Boy am I tired...I can't cast THAT spell any more but my other 24 slots are okay".
You say that switching back to Vancian casting isn't evidence of anything other than a switch was made. I disagree. It is strong evidence that Vancian Casting wasn't fundamentally broken - otherwise they wouldn't have made a conscious decision to return to that system.
It's more evidence that it was a familiar system, if anything. Though according to the poster above, it was heavily changed anyway.
As for comments that the the community hates change, Pathfinder was founded on the express principal that dnd 3.5 was a fundamentally solid system that only needed tweaking rather than wholesale change.
How does this contradict me?
Luckily for you there are alternative rules for both pathfinder and dnd that can let you try spell points or words of power to your hearts content. Or just play a different game. That would be my advice to anyone who expects the game to change wholesale to fit their personal preference rather than being satisfied that they are free to change it at their table.
As I said before, none of those things are supported. They're haphazardly slapped together, shoved out the door, and never looked at again.
Nobody is asking the game be changed to fit their personal preference. I'm asking that the game be changed (in a hypothetical new edition) to make it a BETTER GAME with more balanced spellcasting.
But there are too many people adamantly against even the slightest change between editions for that to ever happen without Pathfinder suffering some sort of massive failure that makes it "necessary".