I believe that only really applies to the damaging powers. Almost everything else scales automatically just as much as the magical counterparts.
In a way yes, in a way no. They scale in that most non-damage powers are still useful if applied right. However, their immediate power doesn't scale unless points are spent.
For example, Psionic charm doesn't get any better with levels bar it's duration. Should the Psion wish to raise the DC (which may be needed to affect higher level creatures) the Psion ahs to spend additional points. It does vary case by case though.
I believe that only really applies to the damaging powers. Almost everything else scales automatically just as much as the magical counterparts.In a way yes, in a way no. They scale in that most non-damage powers are still useful if applied right. However, their immediate power doesn't scale unless points are spent.
For example, Psionic charm doesn't get any better with levels bar it's duration. Should the Psion wish to raise the DC (which may be needed to affect higher level creatures) the Psion ahs to spend additional points. It does vary case by case though.
But that is why I said, "... just as much as the magical counterparts."
The only things that that scale automatically for psionic charm are the range, duration, and bonus to penetrate power resistance.
The only things that that scale automatically for charm person are the range, duration, and bonus to penetrate spell resistance.
Psionic charm has a few augment abilities, but those above and beyond what charm person can do.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
counterpoint, Blazej
1) There's no psionic charm monster. The wizard can add charm monster to his book, and the sorcerer can trade out charm person for charm monster.
2) The psion (without using -another- power) can't trade out psionic charm.
3) Charm monster can bypass minor globe of invulnerability, no matter how many points the psion puts into it, psionic charm can't.
I'm not arguing it, just pointing out the differences that are not beneficial to the psion. This is XPH psionics strength that it's compatible but not exactly the same. That difference is what I think needs to be retained. Tangentally, the binder (ToM/SoPM) hasthe same strength/weakness/flavour
counterpoint, Blazej
1) There's no psionic charm monster. The wizard can add charm monster to his book, and the sorcerer can trade out charm person for charm monster.
2) The psion (without using -another- power) can't trade out psionic charm.
3) Charm monster can bypass minor globe of invulnerability, no matter how many points the psion puts into it, psionic charm can't.
I'm not arguing it, just pointing out the differences that are not beneficial to the psion. This is XPH psionics strength that it's compatible but not exactly the same. That difference is what I think needs to be retained. Tangentally, the binder (ToM/SoPM) hasthe same strength/weakness/flavour
Counter-counter point:
1) That is largely because psionic charm covers all of the capabilities of charm monster (charm monster can still target all oozes, plants, and vermin, however but the spellcaster still needs to find a way to get past natural immunities to mind-affecting effects for that to of any use).
2) The sorcerer/wizard have to know/prepare both charm person and charm monster to gain only a small portion of the versatility the telepath has by knowing just the one power.
3) Point, but I'm pretty sure this is relatively minor con for the psionic, especially for the charm abilities which seem most able to function when the target is not being threatened and that the globe of invulnerability spells limited durations seem to indicate that they would only be up if the target felt threatened. This is still a weakness compared to the charm spells, but it would seem to me to not overshadow the benefits that psionic charm has.
But I'm not trying to argue that psionic charm is better than the magical charm spells or that psionics is better than magic. All I was saying was that it scaled just as much as the magical charm spells and the fact that it had augment abilities doesn't change that.
|
Wow, there's a lot of posts here; I haven't read them all. Here's my feelings on psionics. I have a love/hate relationship with psionics. I love the powers, the different style and mechanics, the "otherness" of psionics. I also feel its not appropriate for most fantasy settings, especially with arcane and divine magic around. I would still buy a Pathfinder psionics book if it made psionics more "fantasy", more like a strange magic. Green Ronin's "Psychic's Handbook" gave an interesting variation; in it, psychic powers were basically individual skills and/or skill boosts, the use of which caused "drain", represented by non-lethal damage. Unfortunately, going this route or something similar would entail a total rewrite of the psionics system, which is not really in keeping with the Pathfinder RPG spirit of "backwards compatability". There is a market for psionics, and I believe Paizo should produce such a book. It should tweak the current psionics rules, but I'm not sure in what manner. I guess I'd want to see is psionics move closer to a fantasy standard, and not a tacked-on bit of weirdness, in order to use it in my games.
I think the cartoon Avatar has some pretty cool fantasy psionics.
I'm just going to assume that what I have to say has already been said, purely based on the size of this thread. Reading through a bit of what has already been posted there are a lot of ideas I really like. The main thought of, "Psionics shouldn't be another mage with different flavour text.", is something I really agree with. So while it may be a lot of working completely reworking psionics from the 3.5e material already available it could be in Pathfinder's best interest to introduce Psionics as a form of, but complete seperate from, monk. Where monks are the physical perfection of form, psions could be the metal perfection of form. Less focus on an oriental perspective, but with the same feel and mythos to the class.
What does Psionics mean to you?
the use of the mind to directly influence the minds and matter around you.
i think fine control should be allowed at high levels for example if i lift a globe of water then use my mind to make all the atoms vibrate faster then it will start to boil.
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
It has to have classes that are full of flavour and this flavour is reflected in the mechanics you give me. Id on't want you to faithfully replicate 3.5 i as a customer want something that works and can be used maybe not nesecarily easily but usefully in a game. I think people get too hung up on easy rules but when i first came to D&D the vancian magic annoyed me i was used to reading books by Robert Jordan, Melanie Rawn and other greats and the majority use a system where magic is used flowingly in a freeform manner but with limits either through strength in the magic ability or the stress of use. I want something similar the psipoints do work towards this but i think improvements can be made.
What is an absolute deal-breaker?
No book. Even if i hate the flavour ill buy the mechanics and if i hate the mechanics ill buy the flavour. And if i hate both ill write my own book and sell it to myself.
Loads of people made the point of how going nova is a problem, i have never had this problem and if a player wants to do it they stop pretty soon as the party isnt too happy. My solution would be(im still ironing out the details)taking the d20 WoD exhaustion system from Monte and toning it down a bit so it has slightly less impact i feel they approached it a bit too heavily and applying it to psionic powers. To those not familiar with it the system essentially increases the DC to initiate maintain and affect others with a power in proportion to the number and level of previous powers used. Im hoping this will prove an intresting twist. And if it doesnt work, meh!
Another idea is removing the concept of psipoints from vancian magic currently points are treated as liquidated spell slots. Maybe if we say you have a certain mumber of points per encounter or hour or something to make it more flowing.
Really when it comes down to it i have faith you guys will do the best you can.
|
|
I've been reading through a few more posts, and I've noticed people talking about psionic "novas" and at least one person even stated a problem of psions being able to augment without limit. This is not so; the rules on page 63 of the XPH clearly state that a power can only be augmented with as many power points as the character has manifester levels - "However, you can spend only a total number of points on a power equal to your manifester level." (XPH). Personally, I like the augmenting mechanic; it gives a different feel to psionics that magic lacks.
I've been reading through a few more posts, and I've noticed people talking about psionic "novas" and at least one person even stated a problem of psions being able to augment without limit. This is not so; the rules on page 63 of the XPH clearly state that a power can only be augmented with as many power points as the character has manifester levels - "However, you can spend only a total number of points on a power equal to your manifester level." (XPH). Personally, I like the augmenting mechanic; it gives a different feel to psionics that magic lacks.
Yes, this is true. The "Nova" issue is that a psion can basically burn all his power points to get "high level" powers, blowing their points rapidly in one big display, and render themselves useless for the rest of the day. 3.5 assumes about 4 encounters in an adventure, so this shouldn't really be a problem, because the psion will tap himself out with his nova and be powerless later, which is a problem. However, many times DMs and prepublished adventures flagrantly disregard the recommended amount of encounters in a day's adventure, and therefore the Nova tactic becomes something of a problem.
Myself, I tend to run meatgrinder adventures with several encounters per day and no recourse for the party to retreat and rest without failing to meet the adventure objective (in other words, no 15-minute adventuring day), so I've never had a problem with Nova psions breaking the game. I think guidelines for how to alter the number of power points per day a psion gets based on deviations from standard balance assumptions would be a good idea.
Of course, casters are also balanced around 4 encounters per day, and can burn through their most potent magics in one encounter and render themselves useless for later encounters, but I don't see Paizo saying that the Vancian magic system is borked and should be rewritten, so it seems that there's a bit of a bias, IMHO...
Of course, casters are also balanced around 4 encounters per day, and can burn through their most potent magics in one encounter and render themselves useless for later encounters, but I don't see Paizo saying that the Vancian magic system is borked and should be rewritten, so it seems that there's a bit of a bias, IMHO...
Yeah, that is because they haven't had the same problems with Vancian spellcasters as they had with power point manifesters. It could be that they are biased against psionics and that is why it doesn't work for them, but the same could be same on the other side. That people who are biased for psionics make it work for their games in ways that don't work for every game.
I think one should keep this in mind when designing psionic powers. The same effect is more powerful when a psion knows it, than if a sorcerer would know it.
Though this is kind of a nerf, I think psionic powers should be slightly less powerful than magic spells of the same level.
Or psionic characters need to have slighly less spell points. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the psion uses the wizards spells per days converted to power points 1:1.
Yeah, that is because they haven't had the same problems with Vancian spellcasters as they had with power point manifesters. It could be that they are biased against psionics and that is why it doesn't work for them, but the same could be same on the other side. That people who are biased for psionics make it work for their games in ways that don't work for every game.
If by "biased" you mean we run with the 4 +/- CR equivalent encounters that the game is based on I guess you are right. Several of the posters who have said they had the nova issue have also said they were in non standard games (4 encounters isn't realistic or is too constraining). If someone is running a game and is either not aware of the rules/balance or are too lazy to make adjustments to correct the balance of the classes to make them work in the game they want to run in the way they want to run it, well they only have themselves to blame at that point... If they are running a game with 1 encounter per day or 6, that game isn't working within the balance of the rules set (not to say that playstyle is "wrong" just it doesn't follow the rules the game is based on). In reality, that isn't a problem with the class that is a problem with their game. I won't accept ignorance or laziness as a reason to change a balanced class. I wouldn't accept that in real life why should it be any different here?
If by "biased" you mean we run with the 4 +/- CR equivalent encounters that the game is based on I guess you are right. Several of the posters who have said they had the nova issue have also said they were in non standard games (4 encounters isn't realistic or is too constraining). If someone is running a game and is either not aware of the rules/balance or are too lazy to make adjustments to correct the balance of the classes to make them work in the game they want to run in the way they want to run it, well they only have themselves to blame at that point... If they are running a game with 1 encounter per day or 6, that game isn't working within the balance of the rules set (not to say that playstyle is "wrong" just it doesn't follow the rules the game is based on). In reality, that isn't a problem with the class that is a problem with their game. I won't accept ignorance or laziness as a reason to change a balanced class. I wouldn't accept that in real life why should it be any different here?
However, the problem seems to be that when psionics is added as one of the chararacters, the playstyle seems to change. It goes from the standard 4 +/- equivalent encounters that the game is based on, to 1 encounter per day. So the goal would be to make it a viable system for other people's games. So when it does break their games, it is probably that it is a problem with the class.
However, the problem seems to be that when psionics is added as one of the chararacters, the playstyle seems to change. It goes from the standard 4 +/- equivalent encounters that the game is based on, to 1 encounter per day. So the goal would be to make it a viable system for other people's games. So when it does break their games, it is probably that it is a problem with the class.
Except that psionic characters don't intrinsically force a game into a 1/day encounter game any more than the wizard or cleric does. They can just as easily (moreso in the case of a wizard with Rope Trick) render a game 1 encounter/day. The 15 minute adventuring day is just as big of a problem with wizards and other characters with limited resources as it is with psionics.
The solution to the 15 minute adventuring day isn't to screw around with psionics (which is very well balanced overall). It's to design adventures that penalize characters for killing everything in a room and calling it quits. It's to create a world that doesn't reward them for performing in such a way. Psionics isn't the problem - it's DMs letting players only have one fight in a day (and knowing that there'll only be one fight in a day) that are the problem.
I've allowed psionic characters in my last two campaigns, and never had the playstyle change. When I had a wizard with Rope Trick, though, he was always trying to pull it out and rest to regain his best spells ASAP. I made sure it didn't let them get away with it, or that there were repercussions, but, as I said, I also like to run meatgrinder adventures that are endurance tests. Psionics hasn't made my games become 1 encounter/day games, because as the DM I've got the guts to make sure I don't let them.
I will concede that a Paizo published XPH would benefit from a sidebar or other section that discusses how to modify the class if you're going to run with less encounters per day, but scrapping such a wonderful system wholecloth just is not the solution to this issue.
My problem with psionics in D&D is, that it always seems to be arcane magic, but you tell the players it is not.
Good chance there are more differences between magic and psionics than only the name, but as much as I searched through psionic materials, I couldn't find any.
And I do allready have sorcerers with spell points in my game.
Except that psionic characters don't intrinsically force a game into a 1/day encounter game any more than the wizard or cleric does. They can just as easily (moreso in the case of a wizard with Rope Trick) render a game 1 encounter/day. The 15 minute adventuring day is just as big of a problem with wizards and other characters with limited resources as it is with psionics.
The solution to the 15 minute adventuring day isn't to screw around with psionics (which is very well balanced overall). It's to design adventures that penalize characters for killing everything in a room and calling it quits. It's to create a world that doesn't reward them for performing in such a way. Psionics isn't the problem - it's DMs letting players only have one fight in a day (and knowing that there'll only be one fight in a day) that are the problem.I've allowed psionic characters in my last two campaigns, and never had the playstyle change. When I had a wizard with Rope Trick, though, he was always trying to pull it out and rest to regain his best spells ASAP. I made sure it didn't let them get away with it, or that there were repercussions, but, as I said, I also like to run meatgrinder adventures that are endurance tests. Psionics hasn't made my games become 1 encounter/day games, because as the DM I've got the guts to make sure I don't let them.
I will concede that a Paizo published XPH would benefit from a sidebar or other section that discusses how to modify the class if you're going to run with less encounters per day, but scrapping such a wonderful system wholecloth just is not the solution to this issue.
Unfortunately, in some people's experience, they have and they do [force a game into a 1/day encounter game]. The fact that it doesn't happen in your games doesn't mean it is a not a problem in other people's games. Also saying it is just the fault of the DMs seems, to me, to be a bit of a cop out.
Psionics can't be broken, you are just playing the wrong way.
Psionics isn't broken, you just had a lousy/lazy/gutless person as a DM.
I'm not suggesting the entire system be scrapped, I'm just suggesting that people consider that it is not other people's fault that psionics doesn't not work for them and it may be a problem in the psionic system and for it to be introduced into many games, it would need modifications because it is not ; or that the system is not as bad as one person thought it was and is perfectly fine.
|
I don't agree that it is the people that have a problem with psionics that do not have a good reason. It seems more the opposite. There are legit. troubles with psionics. Saying that someone else is not playing their game correct is not the way to go to fix the problem.
What is psionics had a built in rendom generater to how many points they can burn on a power. So if you want to do an area burst power, you roll say a d6, (still max your Man. Level). What ever you roll is how much you can actually spend on that power, beyond the basic cost. The die roll would change based on your psionics level, so like 1d2 at 1st-3rd, than d4 to 5th, than d6 till 8th, etc. . .
The buff powers and utility powers (ones that are not "novad") just have the normal max.
All I'm saying is that 3.5 is built under certain assumptions, the 4 encounter day among them. If you are not going to be playing with 4 encounters, you have to be prepared for the system to not function as well. It breaks down for casters, too, and Barbarians, and anyone else with limited resources. If you aren't going to strive towards multiple encounters in a day, you shouldn't expect to be able to use the system without changes/modifications.
It seems to me that part of James Jacobs complaint about the current system (and his impetus for changing the rules entirely to match a Vancian system) is due to his issues with games that don't follow the standard function. I'd hazard a guess that the folks at Paizo are less concerned with the 4 encounter day, judging from my experiences with their Second Darkness adventure path.
But if you ignore the encounter assumptions, you're going to favor classes with limited resources (because those are commonly better than infinite resources, such as fighters or rogues), and this does cause a disparity in the balance of the classes. Paizo would do well to analyze how less encounters in a day skews the balance, and theoretically should look at how to modify the system for each limited resource, not just for Psionics, which does work well when used with the basic assumptions of the system.
Throwing out the XPH system (which is James's apparent preference) just because it is balanced based upon standard assumptions isn't particularly fair. Tossing the XPH rules set out would be a deal breaker for me, unless it literally blew my mind.
This is not to say that the XPH doesn't have a few issues, but it does work very well, so long as you understand how it's supposed to work in the first place and go along with it. I think guidelines for adjusting to lower encounters/day is a good idea, but it should probably be directed to the game as a whole, not just one subsystem.
All I'm saying is that I would like a psionics system balanced under the general assumption of how the adventure paths work (Or how I think they work).
Sometimes there will be less combats than the four, sometimes there will be slightly more. Sometimes goals will need to be accomplished in a certain time and other times the party will be able to complete it at whatever pace they wish. Sometimes enemies will be able to mount a response forcing more encounters on a retreating party and other enemies will be unable to even prepare for the party's next attack.
|
|
Hi all -
I just ordered XPH from Amazon earlier today. Wish I'd seen this thread.
I've never allowed psinoncs in my game nor considered playing one until just recently. Thus I hope to play one as my next character (whenever that will be).
But to me, the biggest issue I have with psionics is that its not supported in normal modules. Every adventure has monsters, a trap, divine and arcane enemies and this is what makes the core classes work. Having psionics in the game means making products utilize them in every product. I don't count a "Psionics Adventure" where that class is the star of that module, but an enemy for your parties psionicist in every module. Adventures specifically designed for a party with a psionicist don't count. They need to be just as important as a party's cleric, rogue, or at least as valuable as a bard or monk.
Modules, Adventure Paths and supplements need to believe that there will be a psionicist in every party - or as likely that there will be a bard, monk or psionicist.
Write adventures with this idea and not a Archivist like in heroes of horror, where its a great class, but its not really expected in any other sourcebook or module that was produced. Psionicists need to be NPC's in normal adventures as well. Being that it'll be an add-on supplement, not everybody is expected to have the books which would reinforce the rules for them - and this could be a problem. Thus with every adventure or module with a psionicist you'd either have to have a "wizard/cleric" type to replace the character or provide a quick and dirty psionics rules with each module, but that hurts over all page count of the module for those with the psionics books.
Well that's what I'd like to see - I don't know the current rules for psionics so I don't know what I like and don't yet. But for me to be excited about it and to make my group excited we'd have to see them as a valuable part of our party.
Be Well. Be Well Thought Of.
Theocrat Issak
What does Psionics mean to you?
Science-fiction or science-fantasy, but not 'pure' fantasy. Eberron is the only D&D setting I've seen where I likedthe inclusion of psionics - in that it all came from one specific campaign region and was an enclosed entity within itself. Mindshadows was dead good at incorporating it too; Darksun also achieved a good incorporation of it.
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
Tie it into the Pulp/Science-fantasy background elements of Akiton & Castrovel; possibly make it the main form of supernatural power in Vudra. Separate it from the Western-European/Arabic/Egyptian/Oriental portions of the gameworld.
What is an absolute deal-breaker?
It being just another form of supernatural whatchimacallit - it must be utterly distinct from magic.
All I'm saying is that I would like a psionics system balanced under the general assumption of how the adventure paths work (Or how I think they work).
Sometimes there will be less combats than the four, sometimes there will be slightly more. Sometimes goals will need to be accomplished in a certain time and other times the party will be able to complete it at whatever pace they wish. Sometimes enemies will be able to mount a response forcing more encounters on a retreating party and other enemies will be unable to even prepare for the party's next attack.
If a game is based for balance on 4 encounters of an equal CR/ECL of the characters and you decide to run it differently, the core rules cannot be held responsible for your decision to run your game differently and still maintain "balance". Adventure path or no, deviation from the guidelines is not a rules issue. It is a game/DM issue. If you want to run less encounters you need to adjust for it, if you want to run more you need to adjust for it as well. If you want to run 8 encounters in a 24 hour period for a 4th level group, feel free, by the rules it would go something like CR 4 [x2], CR 3 [x2] (equal to 1 CR4) and CR2 [x4] (2 CR2's = CR3 and 2 CR3's = CR4)... You now have the equivalent of the guidelines assumptions in twice as many encounters per day, stagger them however you want in whichever order you wish (and I'd chance a guess that when adventures are written something along these lines is the skeleton). If you have a flawed understanding the rules of course a balanced class will seem out of whack. If you don't want to put forth the effort or don't understand how to make changes when things don't follow the guidelines that isn't a rules problem.
If you are a DM and the players are determining the speed of the game (1 encounter and then rest) and you are not adjusting for it, there is a problem with your game, period.
If you are buying a published adventure the assumption is the publisher understands the rules. To this point (I have bought all the AP's since the 4E announcement) I have yet to see an adventure path that gives a rigid time schedule for the entire adventure, but I have seen sidebars that give advice for what to do when things might not go as planned (things like - this npc will prepare in this way if the pc's fail doing such and such and retry later, there will be X+3 guards the next time they show up, or this is a really tough encounter for the level so this is why we did such and such) so I fail to see how an AP is made in such a way that it will have more or less encounters than you want it to have in any "game day" before the PC's can rest. The closest thing to this that I have seen was the RHoD adventure (which I kind of liked) but that at this point it is the exception not the rule and even then there were suggestions for when things happened before or after the given timeline.
All I'm saying is if you don't understand or ignore the rules you will have problems. I'm not going to say a play style is wrong (because that isn't the case), if you want things to work a certain way you need to put in the effort to make them work that way. Buying a book based on the core rules and then ignoring one of the most basic premises of the game is not going to end well, but again that isn't a "rules" problem. You have made a choice at that point and you cannot argue that a rules set is not working within your modified rules because you have chosen not to use the rules they were designed with. When a recipe calls for milk and you think it should use water, you cannot blame the person from whom you got the recipe when the results are less than desirable...
I don't agree that it is the people that have a problem with psionics that do not have a good reason. It seems more the opposite. There are legit. troubles with psionics. Saying that someone else is not playing their game correct is not the way to go to fix the problem.
What is psionics had a built in rendom generater to how many points they can burn on a power. So if you want to do an area burst power, you roll say a d6, (still max your Man. Level). What ever you roll is how much you can actually spend on that power, beyond the basic cost. The die roll would change based on your psionics level, so like 1d2 at 1st-3rd, than d4 to 5th, than d6 till 8th, etc. . .
The buff powers and utility powers (ones that are not "novad") just have the normal max.
I'm not saying they aren't legitimate problems, but the problems aren't rules based, don't point the finger that way - try the mirror. If you don't want to use vanilla core rules and the associated guidelines for the game, the game will have issues, without any doubt things will come up. YOU are making adjustments or deviating from the the rules YOU need to make adjustments for YOUR game. Not the other way around. Core rules don't change for your specific issues, especially when you aren't using the core rules as the basis for the for the "supposed" problem, that is what "houserules" are for. I don't want a book of your houserules, I can figure them out on my own as they are needed. Psionics with core don't require anything more to be balanced, if anything they need to be buffed slightly (just like every other class was given something) in PFRPG.
I've always loved psionics, even the unusable 1e version! IMO, they add a great non-magic power element to the game, but as has been said, they, for-better-or-worse, appear as a tag-on optional rules set. I liked 2e psionics (and I ran a long Dark Sun campaign, so we used them a lot) but I think the 3.5 XPH are about as good as you can get. They're tied closesly to the core mechanics of d20, and have some great unique rules that keep psions from being copies of sorcerers.
The main gripes I've had with 3e psionics has more to do with play style than any rules flubs. I've had the last 3 psionic types lean towards kineticist, burning away with energy ray/bolt/blast/etc. <YAWN>, but whatever they like. It wasn't that the ruleset was broken, or poorly integrated.
Regarding the energy powers, the one thing I don't like is the psion's ability to call out the energy type on the fly. Well, actually its really cool, but a wiz/sor has no such equivalent power (the energy conversion feat just doesn't cut it). IMO, changing the wiz/sor spells to include the same flexibility would help balance it out.
What would I like? Support - there's a ton of Bruce Cordell content out there, with the XPH, complete Psi, malhavoc's Hyperconcious, etc. Some integrated adventure content would be welcome, but since its a niche crowd, I can understand why publishers avoid it.
Psionics in D&D had its day with the Dark Sun campaign world. The system needs that kind of integration to really make it successful.
Deal breaker? Trying to start a new system up, unless its eyewatering. The XPH rules are solid and tested. There's a few things that are patch worthy, but not enough to dump the existing system.
Regarding the energy powers, the one thing I don't like is the psion's ability to call out the energy type on the fly. Well, actually its really cool, but a wiz/sor has no such equivalent power (the energy conversion feat just doesn't cut it). IMO, changing the wiz/sor spells to include the same flexibility would help balance it out.
I support this - the idea that a caster can't change energy powers does feel rather wrong, especially in this day and age. There could be ways for casters to specialize in energy types, so that you could still have the trope of "Fire mages" and whatnot, but I don't think that a wizard should have to have a fireball, scintillating sphere, freeze burst, acid eruption, or whatever else all scribed in their spellbook. I'd be perfectly okay with all casters being able to adjust the elemental damage, along the lines of how the XPH handles it.
Perhaps energy specialists could have a prohibited element (the diametrical opposition element) and do increased damage/have an increased DC for their favored element, as per the Elemental Savant PrC...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the energy powers, the one thing I don't like is the psion's ability to call out the energy type on the fly. Well, actually its really cool, but a wiz/sor has no such equivalent power (the energy conversion feat just doesn't cut it). IMO, changing the wiz/sor spells to include the same flexibility would help balance it out.
To play the contrarian, I like this distinction between the two power sources.
A spell is a very specific formula that has been researched and quite often generates energy extracted from some elemental (quasi-elemental / para-elemental / negative energy / etc) plane. The exact same formula to create an expanding ball of fire isn't going to be able to contact a completely different place to evoke an expanding ball of thunder or lightning or acid or frost, any more than the same spell could be modified on the fly to form a cone or a line or an emanation that lasts multiple rounds. (Barring some special feat or PrC ability that allows options like this, such as the Archmage's Mastery of Shaping ability.)
A psion, on the other hand, isn't reaching into another dimension, and isn't using a researched rote formula that some scholarly sort spent 1000s of gold and possibly several years developing, and has been tweaked and refined over the centuries since. He's drawing upon *personal* power, and exerting his will to make it appear as fire. It's not fire. He's making it into fire. He could just as readily make it into lightning, because it's no less potentially lightning than it is potentially fire. Until he manifests it, it's none of those things, it's just personal power within him, neither burn-y nor shock-y, nor coming from some meta-elemental plane of undifferentiated psionic potential inhabited by 'psionic elementals.'
It's inside of him, and he decides what it becomes when he pulls it out. A spellcaster is calling upon pre-existing forces, from elsewhere, and only with very special training (either feats or PrCs) can the spellcaster transform fire into ice. The Psion does none of that. He manifests his personal power as fire, or as ice. He doesn't have to 'translate' anything from one energy type to another.
IMO, anyway.
If you are a DM and the players are determining the speed of the game (1 encounter and then rest) and you are not adjusting for it, there is a problem with your game, period.
Then it becomes a very easy answer to adjust my game so psionics does not cause a problem starting right now.
That is, if my game is no longer working, I will just ban psionics.In that case, if any players ask why I will merely explain that I'm running the game under a different standard, and that it doesn't work with psionics.
Regarding the energy powers, the one thing I don't like is the psion's ability to call out the energy type on the fly. Well, actually its really cool, but a wiz/sor has no such equivalent power (the energy conversion feat just doesn't cut it). IMO, changing the wiz/sor spells to include the same flexibility would help balance it out.I support this - the idea that a caster can't change energy powers does feel rather wrong, especially in this day and age. There could be ways for casters to specialize in energy types...
It's not just the energy damage type for me as that can be replicated using the Energy Substitution (see Divine SRD) so sorcerers at least can swap elemental damage on the fly as full round action. My biggest problem is the cold damage for the energy power, changes the save from Ref to Fort. I have seen that used more often then not to target weak saves.
In that case, if any players ask why I will merely explain that I'm running the game under a different standard, and that it doesn't work with psionics.
And I am perfectly fine with that. Just do the player the favor of telling them exactly why. You either don't have the time or cannot be bothered to adjust the requested rules for your game, only the ones you deem worthwhile or easy to change. At least that way they can decide if the game you are running is right for them or if they should find someone else to game with who has the time or will be running a game that will be more enjoyable for them. Both you and the player will be happier if you communicate your limitations up front.
And you are right, if the players are (or one specific player is) controlling the flow of the game the "easy" answer is to ban whatever it is that is causing the problem... The issue with that is you will end up with a lot of banned items. The better, if not more difficult, solution is learning to control the game you are running or working with the player to stop it. But I understand if there might be reasons that doesn't happen, you make that call its your time being invested (or not as the case may be). I can't believe anyone who enjoys the game and wants to make it enjoyable for others can't be bothered to put a little effort into it though. Banning things wouldn't be my gut reaction nor has it been in any of the groups I've played with, YMMV.
Regardless it still comes down to "not a rules problem." If you read the rules and understand the spirit of them, psionics in the game won't cause a problem. Not to mention you can stray further from the "guidelines" and still keep the game balanced on the fly regardless of what is being used in it.
My biggest problem is the cold damage for the energy power, changes the save from Ref to Fort. I have seen that used more often then not to target weak saves.
In the case of the wizard when your spell book contains 30+ spells vs. the 10ish powers known (at a random choice of mid level lets say - when you can actually afford to buy scrolls - the first few levels this is less true, well, at least it was until PFRPG put in the trait for wealthy parents or whatever it is called where you get 900g at first level), chances are you can target weak saves for significant encounters too. For a sorcerer (at least more useful for them, still works for wizards) it was already mentioned they can use energy substitution. Core casters have a vastily superior selection of options in comparisson to psionics from the amount of support they get in the extra books. I'm pretty sure that had been covered that in a previous post.
What does Psionics mean to you?
Psionics are a modern concept mostly created to dismiss the idea of magic, as people have come to the point of wanting to explain everything (and believe they have the ability to do so) no matter how far out it may be…likewise its used by some writers and scientific foke to thumb their noses at cultures and ethnic groups that place belief in the Arcane (Mystery) in their own sense of self-superiority.
…But to me psionics are summed up with unique powers of the mind that are limited to: Telepathy, Telekinesis, and Astral Projection…or simply: Mind Reading/Speaking, Moving Objects without Touching, and Out-of-Mind Experiences.
I’ve got a bit of disdain for majority of the Psionics because they (like several other sources of entertainment) have broadened it to such an extent that it mocks the concept of magic in the game/book universe (EX: “It’s not a fireball its pyrokinesis! -_-), to such an extent in fact that incorporating both at the same time seems pointless (arcane and divine magic are still magic, but psionics that are like magic just don’t have a place).
In short the base ‘Three’ have a place in a fantasy universe since they are unique enough to warrant a place (in particular I love Telekinesis; especially True Telekinesis), but the others are things for Science Fiction universes were magic doesn’t exist…or the Warhammer 40k universe where the only difference between Psionics and Sorcery is the Imperial Legal System.
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
I might buy it simply for the acedmic attribute but in order to get used in games for me it would need to be changed a fair bit…but I don’t think that will happen, so I’ll stay neutral.
What is an absolute deal-breaker?
None that I can fathom (besides making it 4E[$]) I don’t see much reason to complain.
.... My biggest problem is the cold damage for the energy power, changes the save from Ref to Fort. I have seen that used more often then not to target weak saves.
Exactly - but its fairly easy for a well-prepared wizard PC to do the same. In fact, its somewhat expected, and not just by meta-gaming either. A smart wizard will generally avoid sending Fort save spells against the brutes, instead using Will save spells, same goes for Ref saves against rogues, etc.
The ability to adjust energy/damage/save types on the fly is a huge benefit, and can keep the caster useful in the fight. My first attempt with a fireball didn't work b/c the targets had evasion? Okay, let me try sonic or cold damage instead - less damage, perhaps, but at least I have a chance. That's a great example of good tactical decisions on the fly.
... It's inside of him, and he decides what it becomes when he pulls it out. A spellcaster is calling upon pre-existing forces, from elsewhere, and only with very special training (either feats or PrCs) can the...
Excellent point! I agree with you on the fluffy points, but mechanically the two systems have a disparity (IMO). Replacing fireball, lightning bolt, scorching ray, cone of cold, and a host of other spells with energy blast/bolt/ray/etc brings the two systems more on par. There are already a ton of psionic powers that are identical to PHB spells - why not some positive reverse transfer? Plus, you will eliminate the need for a bunch of copy-cat spells that replicate the same.
I'm not fussed if Paizo uses the idea or not, b/c its easy enough to houserule.
And what about sorcerers? ;)
The overwhelming majority of players I've gamed with over the past 25 years tend to not use Psionics much and the trend is definatly continuing in these recent years, so it doesn't really matter to me as I'll just pick over it lightly at best.
As long as the meat and Potatos stuff like Swords and Sorcery is well done.
What does Psionics mean to you?
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
One title: The Psychic's Handbook by Green Ronin.
I was a big fan of 2E psionics following the Psionics Handbook and the updates that resulted from Dark Sun. The psi rules in Skills & Powers were a big upgrade that inspired a campaign world (which I still run) with psionics as a primary component; arcane and divine magic (excepting Druids) was kept rare and difficult to find (indeed, in some places, outlawed).
I used a patchwork system based on the S&P rules until the 3E psionics book was released; after which I scrubbed my home rules to "officialize" them in my home game, ignoring the 3E rules for a while until I actually found a place for them in my game world (a culture decended from a fallen empire who's mental abilities had "degenerated" into using their minds to manipulate arcane energies, which very much fits the "flavor" that 3E psionics created).
When The Psychic's Handbook came out, it was almost exactly what I was looking for, and with only a few minor modifications, we replaced the S&P-based rules with those and never looked back.
I would be interested in a product that worked in that direction or, even better, took the Green Ronin material and built on it even further.
I like the Psionic rules for 3.5 (and honestly don't feel that they would need that much of an over haul to work with Pathfinder), but I LOVE the Psychic rules from Green Ronin. So I can throw my vote behind this whole heartedly. I'd love to see Paizo take those rules and run with them.
What does Psionics mean to you?
That my game is no longer a fantasy game but some modernized hybrid game. While I believe that Psionics can be used in some fantasy games or settings I don't feel that they belong in my games.
Let me explain this better. I don't like modern explanations for mystical abilities. I hate hearing people try to explain magic in a rpg by using terms like mana and science. By trying to explain the origin of the power it makes it much more mundane. I prefer to think of wizards as individuals who may have ideas about the origins of their power but have no way of proving these ideas true.
The idea of Psionics is to explain strange abilities that people have. The ability to know what you are thinking, to move objects by thought, or to cause flame to appear from nothing. Psionics defines how such powers work and thus takes the mystery away.
How can I get you to buy a psionics book and use it in your campaign?
Change how Psionics work and how they are presented. I do not like the idea of mind powers as they are presented. If you change the psionic powers to be more like mystical techniques learned through meditation and spiritual awareness and name them in a distinct poetic manner I might buy the book.
For instance instead of Telepathy as a power you can have a power called The Union of Two Souls. Instead of a Telepath as a character class you can have an Enlightened Master of the Jade Garden. Instead of power points you have power slots like other casters.
What is an absolute deal-breaker?
Including Psionics in adventures you publish. I don't want to have to edit out Psionic monsters and npc encounters from adventures that I buy. I don't mind if you write adventures just for Psionic Characters. But I don't want Psionics in main books or adventures. If they did start showing up I would not buy further Paizo products.
Also if Psionics are not substantially changed in both tone and rules I will not buy the book.
Thanks again for the give-and-take.
Thank you for the chance to voice my opinion!
I really like psionics. I have noticed that many people that don't use it don't want to buy another book if they already have magic. Some DM's just don't want to learn a new mechanic, and if they don't know how it works they won't allow a player to have it. Many DM's are under the false impression that it is broken because the powers scale as the psion levels up. This broken mentality is often caused by the same reason the ToB is considered to be broken. They are not following the rules, and doing things incorrectly.
As far as the magic-psionics transparency it should be up to the DM.* I have transparency just to make things easier, and it stops the players and NPC's from being at a severe disadvantage in combat. The melee psionic classes do need to be made worthwhile, and Astral Construct should allow for 2 constructs. The point system should stay like it is. If the player can't be responsible and runs out of PP because they decide to go nova that is their problem.
I will also be trying to get the Untapped Potential book since it keeps being mentioned
PS: I almost forget since psionics is a natural ability it should be keyed off of charisma, instead of intelligence. I don't know what WoTC was smoking when they tied it to Int.
*I know that it is already up to the DM, but what I mean is it should be stated that neither method is the default.
Psionics are minor magical-type powers purchased as feats relating to the mind, a Sorcerer bloodline with "mental power" trappings, and an explanation for the powers of really weird things like aboleths. They have no unique mechanical systems, and certainly no dedicated non-prestige classes.
Ok, after reading through 497 posts, most everything I could have said was already said. So I'll just give the Cliff Notes version:
Psionics is about flavor that other classes can't impart; the tapping of innate powers w/in us as opposed to powers derived from powerful outsiders/forces (divine) or outside "mana" controlled by you (arcane). It really makes a perfect triangle for these supernatural (for lack of a better word) abilities.
I've been around long enough to play w/ every iteration of psionics, and like most of the fans in this thread, agree that 3.5 is the best by far. It's very balanced overall. The XPH is one of my all-time favorite D&D books, regardless of edition. Abandoning it, and its point-system, would be a deal breaker for me. Tweaks and polish, yes, but this can come out in a beta playtest.
I understand the potential appeal to Paizo of making it more "amenable" to those who wouldn't normally use the rules; thus, the hints at making it closer to the PFRPG core rules, which can only mean dropping the point system. Paizo would be well-served by selling a product to a large number of its growing fan base, after all. But to do so is inviting danger, as Paizo has already admitted.
We all know, like epic rules, this is a niche system w/in D&D. But as there's already been a split in the fan base over 3rd ed & 4th ed, I fear that a drastic overhaul of 3.5 psionics would result in another schism (psionic pun intended). I think you can't ignore those who currently use the 3.5 version by radically overhauling it, or you'll face blowback, as they say in the CIA. But from a marketing viewpoint, it seems you're left w/ a product w/ a built-in cap on sales.
Tough choices. My preference is throw a bone to the psionics fans by a polished but respectful revision of the XPH, and hope you can persuade some haters to give it a chance. And as others have said, don't then drop it from future products w/ no further support. We've been down that road before :(
I think tying it to regions, like Vudra on Golarion, and the red & green planets, could be key to winning over the doubters. Well, some of them anyway. Maybe do a 1-2 punch. The generic psionic book comes out; pleases the core psionics fans. Then quickly follow up w/ the setting-specific areas w/ the other product lines, and suddenly you've got a stronger case for using these "new" rules.
That's a very good point. I didn't really give psionics the time of day until it was integrated into Eberron. That got my attention a little bit more, because it was presented very well, and gave me a better idea of how psionics worked and why it needed its own identity.
That's a very good point. I didn't really give psionics the time of day until it was integrated into Eberron. That got my attention a little bit more, because it was presented very well, and gave me a better idea of how psionics worked and why it needed its own identity.
This is (IMHO) a must-have for a successful New Psionic Handbook; players and GMs need not only a working system to appreciate Psionics, they need (especially) an existing link to the campaign they play to allow Psionics to meld into the system - not to be simply 'patched on'.
I never played a Dark Sun campaign (the only other one that used Psionics as an integrated reality, AFAIK), but Psionics in Eberron are really an 'Inspired' integration (psionics campaign-based joke). Those two campaign made a good work incorporating from the beginning Psionics into the world, giving them a background, lands where they live, and so on - well, I can speak of DS only from what my friends playing AD&D told me, but I'm an 'Eberron-addict' (3.x, not 4ed...) and I love that world.
Golarion is another world which has Psionics included; the Campaign book has already mentioned the Green World of Castrovel as highly psionic, and the lands of Vudra as well - and also the Darklands. Plus, half-elves are said to manifest psionic powers commonly. GMs that do not like psionics and do not allow them in their world can obviously avoid those descriptions, but for those who LIKE Psionics, the campaign already helps them making Psionics an integrated (although mistrusted) reality.
Now, the only think we need is a 'slightly polished' Psionic system. I personally think that the XPH is very good - Soulknife and Wilder excluded, they are rather weak - and the only think to 'polish' is the Nova effect (perhaps restricting more Powers on being augmented rather than forging a new whole system).
I would really like a 'Pathfinder Psionics' for my Quori on Riedra and my Kalashtar enclaves in Sharn (still playing on Eberron) !!!