Sorry ... psionics is just not like that, although I can understand why they are doing it I can't see any psionics fans liking it. As a result, I can see this causing a lot of problems if a psionics fan wants to take a psionic character in a Pathfinder game, with heated debate on which rules to use.
Speaking for myself...
This why I believe you won't see Paizo actually tackling psionics any time soon.
Literally. I do not forsee Paizo attempting psionics any earlier than 2012. And actually... I'm wagering that we'll see Epic Rules before we see Psionic Rules (which might set such a book back till 2013).
The reason being the moderate rate at which they introduce new material, and that Oriental material will come out before either Epic or Psionic material. Plus (and perhaps more importantly) with all the contention, fans will have had Dreamscarred Press' interpretation for a good few years. At that point Paizo can introduce an alternative system (because fans of the traditional psionics will have had their needs met for a good few years by then), or they will know definitively what the overall community prefers.
Does that make sense? When you have two major concepts like Oriential material and Epic rules, why be in any hurry to undertake psionics- the one system most predisposed towards contention, disharmony, and rejection?
The more that hard lines are drawn, the longer I fear it will take to see "offical" psionics. That not being done out of spite, but out of pragmatism in assigning priorities.
These are all my predictions and guesses, and not representative of anything I know first hand.
Does that make sense? When you have two major concepts like Oriential material and Epic rules, why be in any hurry to undertake psionics- the one system most predisposed towards contention, disharmony, and rejection?
The more that hard lines are drawn, the longer I fear it will take to see "offical" psionics. That not being done out of spite, but out of pragmatism in assigning priorities.
I agree that we may not see Paizo's Psionic material for some time, but I don't see any evidence that "contention over rules approaches" is what is determining this, just AP schedules. Their stated reasons for their approach are pretty clear, and usability in APs by ALL their fans, not just XPH rules fans, is their over-riding concern. They will do this when they do a Campaign Setting/AP set in a Psion-influenced region, likely Vudra or Castrovel, not before or after.
Does that make sense? When you have two major concepts like Oriential material and Epic rules, why be in any hurry to undertake psionics- the one system most predisposed towards contention, disharmony, and rejection?
Yes, it does, although I confess I have never understood a great deal of the contention about psionics.
I agree that we may not see Paizo's Psionic material for some time, but I don't see any evidence that "contention over rules approaches" is what is determining this, just AP schedules.
Well, first off- I'm speculating. :D
I may be completely wrong, and I'm comfortable with that possibility. ;-)
Their stated reasons for their approach are pretty clear, and usability in APs by ALL their fans, not just XPH rules fans, is their over-riding concern.
Please understand, I'm not talking in absolutes, or trying to provide a binary 'Yes/No' argument for why anything happens the way it does.
I agree with your essential statement. That *is* their over-riding concern.
Where I *may* disagree with you is whether a secondary concerns could exist, as well as what those secondary concerns could be. Which is somewhat of a moot point, because it wouldn't be wise for them to confirm what I'm saying (in fact I'd personally bet on them contradicting me, if anything).
That being said, I don't think I'm saying anything particularly crazy.
If half the fan base is split three ways between:
A.) Wanting a Traditional Power Point System
B.) Not wanting any system at all, thinking that it's genre breaking
C.) Or, be willing to accept a new vancian approach model on the existing systems...
Why would any one make that a priority?
And this statement does not contradict you in the slightest. What I said and what you have said are not mutually exclusive.
Granted, it might be uncomfortable to think that how one reacts to a proposed new implementation of the concept could play any role in how it is prioritized..
In any case, I don't want to be a jerk or argue about this. If you think what I'm suggesting has no bearing at all, that's cool. It's much ado about nothing anyway.
Yes, it does, although I confess I have never understood a great deal of the contention about psionics.
I feel it's safe to say that Paizo doesn't care for the traditional approach to psionics.
However, may I quote you?
Sorry ... psionics is just not like that; although I can understand why they are doing it I can't see any psionics fans liking it. As a result, I can see this causing a lot of problems if a psionics fan wants to take a psionic character in a Pathfinder game, with heated debate on which rules to use.
That's what I mean. The way you're describing your reaction to them revamping the psionic system towards a more vancian model sounds like it would be a problem, not only for you, but for other people as well. And that's okay! Your opinion is as valid as anybody's!
However that is what I mean.
As far as I am aware, the psionics fan-base isn't split at all on the subject of power points. In the Dreamscarred forums no-one even mentioned the possibility of going to a vancian system, just hanging onto the existing one and updating it to Pathfinder. If you do that, you just have arcane magic, really. The reason I didn't like 4e was that it shoe-horned every class into the same mechanic of X many free powers, Y many powers per scene, Z many powers per day etc. I like the different mechanics in the 3.x system.
Anyhow, Ardenup, the 'quick fix' we've used for 3.5 psionics in PF for the interim is to update the hit dice on the Psion (to d6) and Wilder (to d8) and give the Soulknife full BAB.
As far as I am aware, the psionics fan-base isn't split at all on the subject of power points.
Actually, I don't can't say if that is true. There's been a great many really long threads here on the Paizo boards on this subject. With many diverse opinions.
There were some people who said that they didn't like the point system. There were those who said that they would accept any version that Paizo made offical, trusting them to put out a balanced system.
In the Dreamscarred forums no-one even mentioned the possibility of going to a vancian system, just hanging onto the existing one and updating it to Pathfinder.
Which makes perfect sense. At this point, no one at the Dreamscarred forums would actually share that opinion. If they did, it wouldn't mean very much. The designers have politely, firmly, and quite reasonably outlined their plan to implement psionic points in a Pathfinder paradigm. It's really not the place to present an opposing point of view, not because the Designers would be unpleasant, but they're far too invested (as are all their fans) to consider another methodology.
However, that doesn't mean that all psionic fans are of the same mind on this. Otherwise we wouldn't have had 50 page long threads (here on the Paizo Boards) on this topic previously.
If you do that, you just have arcane magic, really.
Yeah. No disagreement. The differences would be primarily flavor; but I'd be curious how Paizo would actually do it before I dismissed it out of hand.
Just to be clear.. I'm not against Power Points. I might come across that way because I'm offering a devil's advocate perspective; however I've pre-ordered the Dreamscarred rules and I look forward to getting them! I actively support Dreamscarred's efforts.
There would be no reason not to support them... We can have two different systems, and someday pick the one that we like the best.
Watcher:
I appreciate your perspective, I just can't see how they will manage taking the power points out of psionics without it ... well, not being psionics, really. But like you, I will see what they produce. I suspect that what they may do is just produce a sorcerer tweak with a few changes (maybe some different kinds of spells) to make it 'psionic-like', and add a footnote to say 'use this if you don't have or prefer not to use point-based psionics'.
Ardenup:
Soulknife is more of a fighter than a rogue, to me, which is how DSP are developing it. There is no psionic rogue in the XPH, although there is a psychic rogue class on the old WotC site; there's also the Lurk from complete psionic, which could do with Trapfinding to round it out.
Dabbler, we're cool! :)
Regarding CPsi:
I didn't mind the fluff of Ardent too much. The issue is, Ardent and Divine Mind were both originally meshed together into one class. They were separated later into two, and the Divine Mind is pathetically weak.
Lurk is even more pathetic. Go on, look at Lurk. Look at the DCs for all of their abilities. Notice how none of them ever go up. Lurk is Truenamer levels of hilarious, because it actually gets weaker as it levels up. Beyond that, it's a skill monkey with only 4 skills per level, and no natural trapfinding.
CPsi had some really questionable fluff at times, but a lot of the errata was garbage. Like making powers susceptible to DR.
As for Vancian psionics, most people who want it are not psionics fans. They want Vancian psionics because they don't want psionics - most of them claimed "Just be a sorcerer and pretend your a psion." A good majority of those 50 page threads are the inevitable arguments on if psionics were overpowered, and how people who alter the world with their mind are unsuitable for a fantasy game, but alchemists who use the scientific method to cast Telekenises, ripped straight from a sci-fi series of books, aren't sci-fi in the slightest.
I think the xph works fine as long as it is the only magic system you use in that game. I do not think it works fine for paizo's needs nor do I think the current rules will work for anything but keeping it a small relatively unused and un supported system.
People as a whole have issue with the system, not the fluff. I mean no one minds using mental spells and you can make a "psion" without the XPH
One of my issues where many powers were just reworked or worded spell and others where spells but worked diff just because they stuck "psionic" on the end. In fact sticking Psionic on the front was a big issue [for me] for alot of stuff
At the very lest I think it needs to work more like core casting, even if you use points it needs to use the standard spells and have powers wrote up like spells.
I could easily see the psion being based off the sorcerer with some kind of Ki pool or the like
Anyhow I am not someone who hates they system, but I do think it needs to fit better with core, something XPH psions do not do.
As for Vancian psionics, most people who want it are not psionics fans.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't true. I doubt that the majority of psionics fans really care incredibly whether or not a psionic class uses a point system or a spell-slot system. In fact I believe that, when pressed on the point, that the point-system advocates in those long threads ended up acknowledging that having some spell-slot psionics using the spells in the Core Rulebook so that psionics could have a stronger ability to show up in adventures.
I don't think its psionics alot of those folks want as much as it's the point based magic system as Blazej points out. You can indeed have mental powers without the point system.
I think the xph works fine as long as it is the only magic system you use in that game. I do not think it works fine for paizo's needs nor do I think the current rules will work for anything but keeping it a small relatively unused and un supported system.
People as a whole have issue with the system, not the fluff. I mean no one minds using mental spells and you can make a "psion" without the XPH
One of my issues where many powers were just reworked or worded spell and others where spells but worked diff just because they stuck "psionic" on the end. In fact sticking Psionic on the front was a big issue [for me] for alot of stuff
At the very lest I think it needs to work more like core casting, even if you use points it needs to use the standard spells and have powers wrote up like spells.
I could easily see the psion being based off the sorcerer with some kind of Ki pool or the like
Anyhow I am not someone who hates they system, but I do think it needs to fit better with core, something XPH psions do not do.
I have to disagree with some of this. I've had DMs refuse to let me play psionic classes PURELY because the feel of psionics doesn't fit witht their world. That's the primary argument I've heard against 3.5 psionics because once they look at the actual rules and get used to it they realize it's rather well balanced.
It takes maybe half an hour of reading the XPH to get the gyst of the system, what the limits of the powers are, etc. However people have prejudices and they don't even want to take the time to learn, which absolutely baffles me.
That said I do happen to like the spell point system and I feel it is strictly superior to the Vancian system which should have been chucked when 3.0 rolled out. It's an artifact that makes little sense to me, like THAC0, but that was ditched.
I have played Psions and Psy Warriors in standard fantasy games and had no balance problems with the core classes; psionics worked fine even when it wasn't the only magic system.
I do agree though that one of my probelems with the naming system (which was a big part of my problem with Complete Psionic) the predeliction for putting psionic in front of a spell and calling it a day...but that's because I feel psionics should be a completely different system that is alien and mysterious. I don't need a psionic rogue, or druid, or paladin. PsyWar and Psion were good enough for me.
One of the things I liked the most was the ability to distill an entire spell tree down to one power like Dominate. Instead of Dominate Person, Monster etc one spell should do the trick that gets more powerful as you grow in power. I'd like to see an arcane augmentation system, but that's difficult to do in the Vancian paradigm.
As for Vancian psionics, most people who want it are not psionics fans.I'm pretty sure that this isn't true. I doubt that the majority of psionics fans really care incredibly whether or not a psionic class uses a point system or a spell-slot system. In fact I believe that, when pressed on the point, that the point-system advocates in those long threads ended up acknowledging that having some spell-slot psionics using the spells in the Core Rulebook so that psionics could have a stronger ability to show up in adventures.
I can't speak for other people, but I for one wouldn't use a psionics system that wasn't point based. It would just be spells, and we have that already.
Yes, some will say no based off fluff alone. And I find the system fairly balanced if that is the only system you use. The imbalances from my experience come about when you mix it with he core casting system.
From what I have seen they simply do not work on the same level and a GM that does not understand this will learn this the hard way IMO.
To be blunt it is an un-needed sub system. An alt magic system and would work best as just that. A new sub system that you must have the book for or the publisher must use up 20 pages to explain every time it's used is not the best way to go for a supported line unless that is the whole of the line.
I would write it up as Vancian or close to it myself.A new class built around the concept of mental powers, You could always add a chapter with a variant spell point system, but the main issues with the current system are simply it's to hard to support outside of a small group for the most part. A company the size of DS can do it, and be fine with it. A company the size of Paizo could not. You simply can not put out a book you think only a handful of your base will buy.
Not sure how they will handle it however.
I'd like to see an arcane augmentation system, but that's difficult to do in the Vancian paradigm.
Actually I think that it is about as easy as the point augmentations.
For example, one could change dominate person by adding the following line to the end.
"Arcane Augmentation: If the caster uses up a spell slot two levels higher than then the spell's actual level, then the spell can now target one creature regardless of creature type."
I can't speak for other people, but I for one wouldn't use a psionics system that wasn't point based. It would just be spells, and we have that already.As for Vancian psionics, most people who want it are not psionics fans.I'm pretty sure that this isn't true. I doubt that the majority of psionics fans really care incredibly whether or not a psionic class uses a point system or a spell-slot system. In fact I believe that, when pressed on the point, that the point-system advocates in those long threads ended up acknowledging that having some spell-slot psionics using the spells in the Core Rulebook so that psionics could have a stronger ability to show up in adventures.
What do you think about Star Wars?
Force Powers pretty much seem like Psionic powers, yet they exist without points in multiple completely different rule-sets developed for Star Wars RPG.Honestly, I think Paizo's customer base WILL be quite receptive to an AP and setting in Vudra or Castrovel including appropriate "Psionic", "Mind Master", what have you classes/abilities. And that most of this customer base isn't inclined to weigh in on internet forums about abstract rules issues relevant to one specific non-core class, that the story and setting is the main interest and the rules are supposed to fade to the background to support that. I guess some people sincerely don't like the flavor itself, and they obviously aren't going to like an AP with Psionic Monasteries and Villains, yet it's pretty clear that Paizo is in fact planning to do an AP and flesh out settings including Psionic material. Which I would think Psionic fans would enjoy, even if they decide to swap out sub-systems and alter some NPCs to fit because of it, since that is ultimately a much smaller detail that changing the real context of an adventure setting to include somehow-different-than-magic psionics that previously didn't exist.
Not sure how they will handle it however.
I can just go by the posts of James on the matter, which pretty clearly indicate a spell-slot compatable approach is the only one they would consider.
Heh, I was talking more about handling the total fan base and the point based only crowd and building hype for it really. It does seem they are gonna use slots which is fine by me.
Okay, now bear in mind that I do like psionics as they stand in 3.5, and as a legacy, I like psionics being a fully fleshed out alternate system using power points, since its been power point based since 1st edition and has had at least one class devoted to it entirely since 2nd edition.
With that firmly in place, if I were starting over, I think sometimes that the heart of this is that magic kind of "pushes" psionics to be over the top and competitive with magic.
What do I mean by this? Would psionics feel as science fiction-like if instead of being an alternate power source that does similar things, you instead had, say, a chain of feats that represented someone that gets premonitions, could read someone's mind once in a while, or could use some form of telekinesis on a limited basis?
In fact, I think psionics has been pushed not only by magic, but by things like comic books to have to be a alternate path to super heroics versus magic.
Having a chain of feats that allowed for someone to have precognitive powers, telekinesis, or telepathy, and allowing those feats to have other feats that build on them, I think, might actually pair down "psionics" to being more about a character that is psychic, which is what I think might feel more traditionally fantasy to some people.
So, under the "feats" system of this, you wouldn't have psions or psychic warriors . . . you would have a fighter that might have premonitions, and a rogue that can move things with their mind, and a cleric that can hear thoughts if they concentrate.
But, like I said, I'm not sure I would want to officially say no to traditional D&D psionics, or if this would work just fine as an alternative to full blown alternate systems that directly compete with magic. I am more likely to enjoy a solution like this when it doesn't preclude the existence of the previous version of "psychic ability" as it has existed for at least two editions, with a strong nod to another.
Does that make any sense?
Yes, some will say no based off fluff alone. And I find the system fairly balanced if that is the only system you use. The imbalances from my experience come about when you mix it with he core casting system.
Agreed - once Psionics are brought into game with all the rules, it's made abundantly clear how stupidly powerful most Vancian classes are.
:3c
What do I mean by this? Would psionics feel as science fiction-like if
I'm cutting off your post because the answer is yes, regardless of what you typed. :P
Most people who think psionics are too sci-fi will always feel that way.
The fact is, between vancian and psionics, psionics is the least science-fiction like.
Psionics: You use your inner power to force the world to change as you desire.
Vancian: Created from a set of science fiction novels, you use complicated formula and experimentation to alter the laws of physics, letting them cast spells that grant them telekinesis and the ability to dominate the minds of others.
What do you think about Star Wars?
Force Powers pretty much seem like Psionic powers, yet they exist without points in multiple completely different rule-sets developed for Star Wars RPG....
Well the force is not Psionics. Star Wars D20 has a skill based system, which I'd be fine with but that ALSO is completely different than magic so I'm not sure what you're arguing for.
I'm currently playing in a d6 star wars game and force just DOESN'T WORK. Love the system otherwise though.
I like Psionics because of flavor AND because it has a different (and I feel superior) magic system. I don't like Vancian magic very much. Getting rid of the system would make me not want to play it, and the few diehard psionics fans I know feel the same way.
Other people have been making arguments and statements that lead me to think they don't really get or care about the flavor of Psionics. The people that want to change the system don't like it. As it is it's an optional system, so I don't know why it can't retain both its flavor and its distinctive (superior) point system.
@Seeker. I'd like to know what experiences you had that made you feel that psionics wasn't balanced when mixed with core magic. I've had extensive experience in such campaigns and if anything Psionics lagged behind in power and versatility.
For what it's worth, SWSE's force powers were fairly Vancian, except they operated per encounter rather then per day.
I can't speak for other people, but I for one wouldn't use a psionics system that wasn't point based. It would just be spells, and we have that already.
Of course, I wasn't saying that no one could feel that way. I might have my own preference, but I know that there are several people, such as you, that have a different preference for psionics than myself.
I can just go by the posts of James on the matter, which pretty clearly indicate a spell-slot compatable approach is the only one they would consider.
I am pretty sure they will consider other options when the decision comes up. However, from the posts, it would seem that using point system is much less likely than using the spell slot system.
Well the force is not Psionics. Star Wars D20 has a skill based system, which I'd be fine with but that ALSO is completely different than magic so I'm not sure what you're arguing for... I like Psionics because of flavor AND because it has a different (and I feel superior) magic system. I don't like Vancian magic very much. Getting rid of the system would make me not want to play it, and the few diehard psionics fans I know feel the same way.
Cool, it just seemed like you were saying that point systems were inherently the obvious/necessary way to portray psionics. But it sounds more like that you prefer point based vs Vancian in and of itself, i.e. you would really like wizards/sorceror/clerics/bards to also use a point-based system. Incidentally, I can sympathize with this perspective, I just happen to have made my peace with Vancian, so to speak. Since there are plenty of non-Vancian approach RPG systems out there, I'm happy to play a different system if I want something outside Vancian.
Bring on the Kelish-Vudrani AP!!! (with Yak-Men!!!)
Well the force is not Psionics. Star Wars D20 has a skill based system, which I'd be fine with but that ALSO is completely different than magic so I'm not sure what you're arguing for... I like Psionics because of flavor AND because it has a different (and I feel superior) magic system. I don't like Vancian magic very much. Getting rid of the system would make me not want to play it, and the few diehard psionics fans I know feel the same way.Cool, it just seemed like you were saying that point systems were inherently the obvious/necessary way to portray psionics. But it sounds more like that you prefer point based vs Vancian in and of itself, i.e. you would really like wizards/sorceror/clerics/bards to also use a point-based system. Incidentally, I can sympathize with this perspective, I just happen to have made my peace with Vancian, so to speak. Since there are plenty of non-Vancian approach RPG systems out there, I'm happy to play a different system if I want something outside Vancian.
Bring on the Kelish-Vudrani AP!!! (with Yak-Men!!!)
Not inherently necessary, no, but I happen to think the power point system is pretty fantastic and balanced and it would be a shame to chuck it.
Regarding CPsi:
I didn't mind the fluff of Ardent too much. The issue is, Ardent and Divine Mind were both originally meshed together into one class. They were separated later into two, and the Divine Mind is pathetically weak.
Lurk is even more pathetic. Go on, look at Lurk. Look at the DCs for all of their abilities. Notice how none of them ever go up. Lurk is Truenamer levels of hilarious, because it actually gets weaker as it levels up. Beyond that, it's a skill monkey with only 4 skills per level, and no natural trapfinding.
CPsi had some really questionable fluff at times, but a lot of the errata was garbage. Like making powers susceptible to DR.
Divine mind is definitely underpowered, and at the very least needs full BAB to function properly. On the other hand the aura powers make it an excellent buffer for a party, although sadly it needs a largish party to get the most out of it. If I was upgrading it to Pathfinder, I'd give it full BAB and 4 + Int bonus skill points per level.
Lurk isn't so bad once you get the hang of the augments. It's main problem is that so much depends on psionic focus, and it really needed Trapfinding to do it's job. Again, in Pathfinder I'd amend it to: d8 hit dice, Trapfinding at first level, normal sneak attack rather than psionic sneak attack, and 6 + Int bonus skill points per level.
As for Vancian psionics, most people who want it are not psionics fans. They want Vancian psionics because they don't want psionics - most of them claimed "Just be a sorcerer and pretend your a psion." A good majority of those 50 page threads are the inevitable arguments on if psionics were overpowered, and how people who alter the world with their mind are unsuitable for a fantasy game, but alchemists who use the scientific method to cast Telekenises, ripped straight from a sci-fi series of books, aren't sci-fi in the slightest.
I have to agree here. I've done psionics in mixed magic/psionic games, and frankly psionics really only just holds it's own next to magic. It certainly isn't overpowered, and the only 'sci-fi' element of psionics is in the names of some powers. I don't have an issue with mixing psionics and magic, they are reasonably balanced with each other as far as I am concerned.
I can't speak for other people, but I for one wouldn't use a psionics system that wasn't point based. It would just be spells, and we have that already.
I concur. You can already do most 'psionic' things with magic anyway. What could a spell-slot system possibly offer? Psionics was interesting not because it was psionics, but because it was different with known powers, flexible powers and a point-based system for using them.
Suggestion
With regard to the 'psionics' planned by Paizo, if they don't want to use the 3.x psionic system, why not instead create a system of 'Mysticism' that applies to the magic users of the far east of Golarian, one that has a psychic theme but doesn't take the name 'psionic' and tack it onto a totally different system? Then there's no conflict - those who like the point-based psionics can use them alongside the other systems, and those that don't can ignore them.
why not instead create a system of 'Mysticism' that applies to the magic users of the far east of Golarian, one that has a psychic theme but doesn't take the name 'psionic' and tack it onto a totally different system?
How about because psionic does not mean a point based system? True it has been made like that in D&D but many game systems do not use point based psioncs and call them just that. psionics.
The point based system is one way to do psionics not the only way to do so.
why not instead create a system of 'Mysticism' that applies to the magic users of the far east of Golarian, one that has a psychic theme but doesn't take the name 'psionic' and tack it onto a totally different system?How about because psionic does not mean a point based system? True it has been made like that in D&D but many game systems do not use point based psioncs and call them just that. psionics.
The point based system is one way to do psionics not the only way to do so.
And Vancian magic isn't the only way to do magic systems. Lots of other games don't use Vancian magic, there are lots of arguably better ways of doing magic systems out there so why didn't Pathfinder get rid of it?
That didn't happen because it wouldn't be backward-compatible D&D if they did, and a lot of people who came to Pathfinder to play D&D would say it isn't D&D any more, and won't play it. This is, after all, what 4e did, and most of us are here on these boards because 4e is not our cup of tea.
Does that answer your question?
In D&D, magic has always been Vancian and psionics has always been point-based. They aren't the only ways of doing things but they are what people like and expect in the game. Not everybody likes psionics, and that's cool - it's an optional system after all - but if the point of doing psionics for pathfinder is to keep the psionics lovers playing Pathfinder, it has to incorporate the aspects of psionics that those players like. If the point is to expand a slightly different culture in the Pathfinder/Golarian setting in a way mainstream players will all accept, then there is no need to call it psionics if it is radically different from 3.x psionics, especially if doing so would turn off a large subset of potential players.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The point based system is one way to do psionics not the only way to do so.
But it's the best way to do so :-)
If you're using 3.x psionics in Golarion here are my suggestions...
Races:
Dromites: Alien enough for Castrovel, I could see them having mounds/nests in Cheliax, maybe working to fight slavers with halflings. Again, as is with a bonus 1pp/level.
Duergar: Already covered in into the Darklands. I'd give them a bonus PP per level, instead of the flat pool. The Kaleshtar from Eberron had this.
Elan: *my* Elan are from Castrovel, the eldest survivors of the impact that wiped out Azlant and they discovered the metamorphisis into Elan to insure their immortality. They can't procreate, and exist in secret enclaves on Golarion to find those 'worthy' of immortality as well as other missions. "We're trying to retrieve the ancient Azlanti Zero Point Module, how is it the bad guys seem to know where all the traps are?"
You may want to remove the CHA penalty to bring them into 'Pathfinder code' or maybe add a +2 to int. I'd not do both, their abilites are pretty good, even for non-psions. Again though, one bonus PP per level.
Half Giants: The easy answer is that they were a 'failed experiment' of the Runelords (Welcome to Runlords' RuneMart! Home of all your giant needs!) that fled/were driven southwest, towards Vudran lands. Optionally they're descendants of humans and some kind of psionic giant from Castrovel, I prefer the former though. They'd lose the 'giant' type being replaced by Humanoid (Giant) I think they can safely lose their +1 LA too. Again, one bonus PP/level.
Maenad: I'd put them based south of Sargava. The legends of the Maenad killing their own god may be tied into the starstone. To them the stone is the last fragment of their dead god's body, fallen to Golarion. Again, I'd keep them at their 3.x stats and add bonus 1 PP/level.
Xeph: The boring race ;-) I'd say that they are from a Golarion equivelent of Africa's Great Rift. Might look more Mwangi than the WotC art shows, and the only change i'd make would be to add one bonus PP/Level. Maybe add +2 to Wis. Hmm... Looking them over, I could see a Nightcrawler type character...
Classes:
Psion: Pretty much unchanged, the psionic feats cover a lot of sins. Without rewriting the entire system, adding a bonus psionic feat at first level should help balance the arcane caster's first level talent, also look at the alternate class features on the Mind's Eye Archive as standard class features.
Psychic Warrior: I'd keep it the same, maybe bump the SP up to 4/level or allow them access to fighter feats as fighter level - 3, YMMV on if you want to give them more power points.
Wilder and soulknife: Use Dreamscarred's 'upgrades'
Oh I know why they kept it. I am just saying ya can indeed have psionics without the current point based system. But ya see the optional system is one of the main issues paizo will have out of it. You simply have to make a call, use a new subsystem only a small group will buy and never support it in your mine lines...or rework it into something more of your customer base will buy and something you can support in your main product lines.
And mental powers are psionics, ya do not have to have a point based system to call it that. As it stands now 3.5 psionics is mental magic. It calls it magic, explains it as magic just using a different system is all. So in 3.5 psionics is magic. So having it use the same rules as every other spell caster in the game is not a stretch at all.
Some folks won't like it. I understand that but most folks who wont like it care about the point based casting system not psionics and as many folks have said DS is putting out just what your asking for.
I do see your point, I just wanted to suggest an option that would cater to all needs without alienating some players. Having two psionics systems is just going to add another reason among those that aren't keen on the original system not to bother learning about it or using it, and that's not a good thing.
I'll add, I was originally a non-psionics lover in the early days of 3.5. Only when a DM introduced them to me did I actually sit down and read the rules, and found that they were good, and I liked them.
The issue with the current system and being used is simply it's a sub system. If it was used for a main setting heavily and supported for that setting then yes it would spread. However it never has spread based mostly on your asking folk to learn yet another even more complex magic system.
That and it's just to hard to support without demanding folks own the XPH or the like. Meaning you can't place psionic effects or NPC's and such just anyplace without devoting a large amount of space to it or changing how it works to something like standard magic {how wotc did it} or making the folks own the book to buy this new product...meaning less sells
I don't hate the system, I don't love the system I can take or leave it myself. I do see the major issues of paizo using the system however and can see the benefits of their own system more inline with the core casting is all,
However it goes, it will involve buying a new supplement. That much is obvious; the only question is should it contain new mechanics. Is there anything to be gained or lost by doing so?
The gain for using a Vancian system is that existing psionic-dislikers will like it more. Loss is that it won't appeal to many current psionics lovers.
The gain for using the point-based system is that it is backwards-compatible, the psionics lovers will like it, but the loss is that the psionics-haters won't.
In short, you are not going to please everybody, same as with Vancian casting. I would say that backward-compatibility would be the clincher, myself.
At this point I think that Paizo is taking the wisest approach and just ignoring the issue of psionics. I hope that once they get a chance to look at final releases from DSP, they'll give those PF friendly rules their endorsement. There's no point in Paizo working to come up with a semi-vancian system that's just going to piss off every psionics fan I've ever met. (I haven't met them all, I'm just saying. Then again, I've never met anyone who made the claim that psionics is complicated; maybe I'm the weird one.)
I would say that pleasing the fans would be more important than placating the nay-sayers that won't want to use psionics regardless of the rules.
However it goes, it will involve buying a new supplement. That much is obvious; the only question is should it contain new mechanics. Is there anything to be gained or lost by doing so?
The gain for using a Vancian system is that existing psionic-dislikers will like it more. Loss is that it won't appeal to many current psionics lovers.
The gain for using the point-based system is that it is backwards-compatible, the psionics lovers will like it, but the loss is that the psionics-haters won't.
In short, you are not going to please everybody, same as with Vancian casting. I would say that backward-compatibility would be the clincher, myself.
Once again, not being in love with the point-based system is not the same as not being in love with psionics.
I would suggest that you are missing an element on the each side, specifically the ability to use the system in regular adventure. That is a gain for the spell slot system and a loss for the point-based system.
I would word the gains and losses more like:
The gains for using the spell slot system (along with a spell list from the core rulebook) would have a decent chance of pleasing those who like psionics, but aren't happy with the system in 3.5. Also, while psionics might not show up in every adventure, this really increases the odds that a Paizo adventure would have a psionic NPC. There is also the fact that this new system doesn't stop backwards compatibility. If a group wishes to they can still use 3.5 psionics (or whatever else they wish).
The losses are that of the legacy the psionic system has had in the game thus far and a number of people who enjoy the 3.5 system would not be satisfied with Vancian system psionics. In addition, this new system wouldn't be able to use the most of the psionic feats, powers, and prestige classes, meaning that there would be no backwards compatibility between the two systems.
The gains from using a slightly modified version of the 3.5 system is that it maintains backwards compatibility for this system so that one could use almost all psionic powers, feats, and prestige classes from 3.5 with the Pathfinder classes. It also should please the group that does enjoy the 3.5 system as it is.
The losses include that the people who don't like the system before are not going to like it now. While some of them wouldn't like any psionic system, a number are psionic fans who probably aren't going to get support for a psionic system that they like. Also, this makes it very unlikely that you will see a psionic NPC in any given Paizo adventure due to the typical adventure requiring only the core rulebooks in order to run it.
For me, the biggest and most important thing is my desire to see psionic NPCs in regular adventures. I just don't see that happening with a psionic system strongly based on 3.5 psionics.
And Vancian magic isn't the only way to do magic systems. Lots of other games don't use Vancian magic, there are lots of arguably better ways of doing magic systems out there so why didn't Pathfinder get rid of it?
One of the greatest additions to the game in 3.X is the sorcerer, which presents a type of spell caster which is not Vancian. Paizo has suggested that when they do psionics it will probably be more like a sorcerer. However, they haven't put psionics on their schedule yet, spent any time developing it yet, or made any concrete plans. So a few idle speculations from a developer is a long way from a final product. They might try that out and decide to go a different way.
The funny thing is, if you really like the old system, you can still add it to pathfinder. I had a wilder in my game for quite a while (until he was torn apart by slaad, but that's another story). The system works just fine as it is. The main balance issue I've found tends to be the ability to use all your powers at the highest level, but that may or may not really be an issue depending on how you play and with what group.
I will buy and use whatever system Paizo comes up with. For me psionics are mental powers. Power points is just one method of representing them, but I've used power points for wizards in Palladium Fantasy so I don't really see what the big deal about the distinction is. I also find the claim that "psionics is not magic" is somewhat laughable. Most times in fiction, psionics is just a way to put magic into science fiction settings. How much or how little it can do depends entirely in the author. Now, "Psionics is not Wizardry" is a statement I can get behind.
And Vancian magic isn't the only way to do magic systems. Lots of other games don't use Vancian magic, there are lots of arguably better ways of doing magic systems out there so why didn't Pathfinder get rid of it?One of the greatest additions to the game in 3.X is the sorcerer, which presents a type of spell caster which is not Vancian. Paizo has suggested that when they do psionics it will probably be more like a sorcerer. However, they haven't put psionics on their schedule yet, spent any time developing it yet, or made any concrete plans. So a few idle speculations from a developer is a long way from a final product. They might try that out and decide to go a different way.
...Uh, Sorcerer is still Vancian. He's just a spontanious caster. It's seriously like 90% Vancian there.
Alternate casters would include stuff like Warlocks, Everything in Tome of Magic, Psionics, Incarnum, etc. Alternate mechanics.
And Vancian magic isn't the only way to do magic systems. Lots of other games don't use Vancian magic, there are lots of arguably better ways of doing magic systems out there so why didn't Pathfinder get rid of it?One of the greatest additions to the game in 3.X is the sorcerer, which presents a type of spell caster which is not Vancian. Paizo has suggested that when they do psionics it will probably be more like a sorcerer. However, they haven't put psionics on their schedule yet, spent any time developing it yet, or made any concrete plans. So a few idle speculations from a developer is a long way from a final product. They might try that out and decide to go a different way....Uh, Sorcerer is still Vancian. He's just a spontanious caster. It's seriously like 90% Vancian there.
Alternate casters would include stuff like Warlocks, Everything in Tome of Magic, Psionics, Incarnum, etc. Alternate mechanics.
The funny thing to me is that when 3.0 psionics (and it carried through to XPH) came out it seemed very much like a compromise, psionics were now semi-vancian rather than the old School/Discipline system. I thought this capitulation would calm many of psionics detractors when it was no longer a completely new system to learn...but nope they still complain. Until it's 100% vancian it seems a lot of them won't be happy.
The funny thing to me is that when 3.0 psionics (and it carried through to XPH) came out it seemed very much like a compromise, psionics were now semi-vancian rather than the old School/Discipline system. I thought this capitulation would calm many of psionics detractors when it was no longer a completely new system to learn...but nope they still complain. Until it's 100% vancian it seems a lot of them won't be happy.
Perhaps not even then. I have noticed that psionics detractors generally complain at anything psionics can do in any way better than anything else, and ignore the limitations. Psionics will not only have to be vancian to please them, it must be unable to do anything better than magic can do, and some things worse - and that's not going to please any psionics lover.
Problem was not the semi-Vancian nature of 3.0 psionics, but the fact that it actually was fairly broken - or maybe that was the old problem of people not reading the rules properly, I don't know, but it got a bad reputation. I never used them, myself, but I have yet to hear much good about them. The 3.5 psionics was fixed and expanded, but the damage to the reputation of psionics seemed to have been done at that point.
I used 1E AD&D psionics, and that system was a supplementary one rather than having dedicated classes, but I rather liked it. When I looked at the 3.5 psionics I was actually reasonably impressed. The powers needed to be schooled into levels to make them workable alongside other features of the D&D system; attacks and defences were in line with other powers; the power point system was in line with the emount of spell-power a caster had. The powers were similar enough to scale reasonably with spells, different enough to be attractive.
One thing I have learned is, you will never please everybody.
...Uh, Sorcerer is still Vancian. He's just a spontanious caster. It's seriously like 90% Vancian there.
Alternate casters would include stuff like Warlocks, Everything in Tome of Magic, Psionics, Incarnum, etc. Alternate mechanics.
Ok, maybe I'm dense. What is Vancian about the sorcerer? My understanding was that Vancian magic was defined by the memorization aspect. My head can only hold so many spells at a particular time, so I have to pick which spells I have for the day. Once they are expended they vanish from my mind. None of that is present for the Sorcerer. The sorcerer has innate powers that are always present. He just sometimes runs out of power. It's pretty much the point system without fiddly tracking of points.
I will agree that it uses most of the same mechanics as a wizard, but 3.x psionics use about the same amount of mechanics. That's just standardization in the system. All the parts that make it uniquely Vancian seem missing to me, but I will admit I'm not an expert on Dying Earth, so I could be wrong.
They still have spell-slots per day and known spells of given levels, which is 90% of the wizard spell-casting system. Hence it gets called 'Vancian' even though it's not the same as described in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series. In fact, the wizard doesn't strictly do so either, save in so much as they use spell books to 'learn' spells and then 'expend' spells.
Now we have established that, can we get back on subject? We know what we mean by 'Vancian' - the core D&D magic system, be it prepared or spontaneous, divine or arcane - even if the term is not strictly accurate.
It seems odd to me that it is suggested that the way the sorcerer and wizard cast spells makes them pretty much the same system. To me, the 3.5 psionics is about as far away from the sorcerer, as the sorcerer is from the wizard
Well, psions have known spells (called powers) that have levels of power that get more powerful as they level. They start with access to the 1st level of spells/powers. At 3rd level, and every two levels after that, they get access to the next level of powers, maximum 9th at 17th level.
Most spells/powers have a casting/manifesting times of a standard action. Many a duration, range, and sometimes strength that scales with level. The majority are impeded by spell/power resistance, but there are a few that are not affected by it. Save DCs, spell/power descriptors, etc.
I would say that there are more similarities between the systems than there are differences.
However, I believe the biggest difference between the psionic system and the spell-slot systems is the fact that it uses points, but instead the unique spell/power list. That is the biggest reason I think that the psionics have about no chance of showing up in a random Paizo adventure in a NPC. I am pretty sure for that to be "fixed," then a new psionics system would have to have most of it's spells/powers come from the spells in the Core Rulebook.
Now we have established that, can we get back on subject? We know what we mean by 'Vancian' - the core D&D magic system, be it prepared or spontaneous, divine or arcane - even if the term is not strictly accurate.
In order to have a reasonable discussion we have to understand the terms being used. I disagree that sorcerers are Vancian, but this really isn't the place to debate it because it doesn't matter for the psionics discussion.
Using that definition, whatever system Paizo releases will be Vancian in that they will want to make a system that integrates will with the core rules fairly seamlessly. It won't be a completely new break out system. I'm ok with that, because for me, the essence of Psionics is what it can do, not the mechanics behind it.
I'm all for experimental and different magic systems, but I don't think the core rules is the place for them. If some publisher wrote an alternate system for wizards that used power points, I'd be all for it. I happen to really like the Talislanta magic system, which is very flexible compared to the Vancian casting of D&D. I also really like Secrets of Pact Magic, which expands on the binder class and is unique to play with. I will certainly check out the final PDF from Dreamscar when it comes out, and if I really like it I'll buy the print version too.
For those of you who really want an alternate point buy system, is it because you like point buy, or because you like psionics?
I take your point about sorcerers; I see them differently, but then it is a matter of perspective sometimes.
For those of you who really want an alternate point buy system, is it because you like point buy, or because you like psionics?
In my case, both combined.
Allow me to explain - I like the idea of psionics as a system of 'magic' that depends on either understanding, insight or raw force of will to accomplish things without messing about with incantations, rituals, esoteric gestures or alchemical components. The system of known powers manifested through expending power points strikes me as the best way of expressing this in the game mechanics; using spell slots seems both clumsy and cumbersome, and doesn't match the theme of the idea, quite apart from the point that the point system adds a level of flexibility to the system that is otherwise lacking but that is also in theme with the concept.
The original 3.5 system is a very good one, and I'd like to 'pathfinderize' it as Dreamscarred are doing rather than come up with a new or different system. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' is my motto, and despite dislike from some quarters, psionics isn't broken.