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
That's funny, because in my experience a psion is a sorcerer whose casting progression is:
Level 1: 1st level powers, 2/day
Level 2: 1st level powers, 6/day
Level 3: 2nd level powers, 3/day
Level 4: 2nd level powers, 5/day
Level 5: 3nd level powers, 5/day
Level 6: 3nd level powers, 7/day
Level 7: 4th level powers, 6/day
Level 8: 4th level powers, 8/day
Level 9: 5th level powers, 8/day
Level 10: 5th level powers, 9/day
Level 11: 6th level powers, 9/day
Level 12: 6th level powers, 11/day
Level 13: 7th level powers, 11/day
Level 14: 7th level powers, 13/day
Level 15: 8th level powers, 13/day
Level 16: 8th level powers, 14/day
Level 17: 9th level powers, 14/day
Level 18: 9th level powers, 16/day
Level 19: 9th level powers, 18/day
Level 20: 9th level powers, 20/day
This of course depends on the gaming style you play with, but there tends to be little incentive not to use your best power (or upgrade a low level power to the best level via metamagic or built in upgrades).
Even in a group that does a lot of encounters per day, once you get past the first few levels it seems worthwhile to do one or two massive powers per encounter instead of 3-4 small ones to "conserve" energy. Particularly once you remember that DC is based on power level.
So the main reason some people find psionics in 3.5 overpowered is that psions have the flexibility of spontaneous casting like a sorcerer, plus spell progression on par with a wizard, plus the ability to upgrade everything via metamagic or built in upgrades. So how can you put that next to a wizard and claim they are balanced?
I like both the fluff and the mechanics myself. I do not enjoy the magic system employed by D&D, and never have. It makes it a chore to run NPCs and distasteful to play caster PCs. I pretty much agree with Dabbler on the specifics of my liking the old psionics system. Having the system officially updated and available with a Pathfinder seal of approval would be awesome; but I'm finding it very disappointing that they might attempt to alter the best aspects of the system.
So the main reason some people find psionics in 3.5 overpowered is that psions have the flexibility of spontaneous casting like a sorcerer, plus spell progression on par with a wizard, plus the ability to upgrade everything via metamagic or built in upgrades. So how can you put that next to a wizard and claim they are balanced?
Because if you compare a psion to a Pathfinder sorcerer at level 20, they have 52 spells vs the psions 36 powers. They have more casting power; assuming a score of 20 in their casting/manifesting attribute, a sorcerer has the equivelent of 512 power points to the psions 393. Yes, the psion can manifest his highest level powers more often than the sorcerer can, but then the sorcerer's spells scale automatically, to have full effect the psion has to spend yet more points, which means less manifestations, and many of those 'full power' manifestations will not in fact be their highest level powers but fully augmented lower level powers (bear in mind, augmented lower level powers are still lower level powers - they are easier to counter than higher level ones. To put it another way, take every spell the wizard or sorcerer has that scales and have it occupy the highest spell slot they possess instead of the slot at it's level to compare them to augmented powers). This also leaves them with no power points to manifest other powers; the sorcerer still has a multitude of lower level spells for utility, offence and defence.
Comparing with the wizard, a specialist wizard has 55 spells to the psions 36 powers, and the equivelent of 431 power points to 393. However, he has the HUGE advantage of being able to swap out his spells on a daily basis, so he can tailor his selection to what is needed, while the sorcerer and psion have to make do with what they know.
While the psion can 'nova' a little better than either wizard or sorcerer, and certainly wipe the floor with one or two encounters, the assumed average per day is four. If he does this, he is useless in two encounters. If he rations his abilities, he is on average no more effective than the spell-casters.
To sum up, the wizard and sorcerer have both got more options to choose from and more casting power than the psion. His only advantage is his ability to burn through his power points faster when he has to, with the associated risk that he'll be out of power and dead meat for the next encounter. He has a better resource management system, but less resources than the casters.
Yes, I can claim that as balanced, no problem.
(For a more in-depth comparison, there is one here and a section on common psionic myths here.)
Edit: I will add that from my perspective of playing a psionic character alongside 'core' casters, the psionic doesn't lack punch but does lack staying power. They have to constantly hold back and only unload where needed, or risk being out of power points at a later encounter. It's at the point where they sometimes will not manifest a power throughout an encounter just to be sure they have power later when they'll need it, or else ration their powers to small emounts each time.
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.
I'm going to have to say, for the purpose of writing a standard adventure, psionics are broken. They may not be broken for a GM that creates a psionic NPC in his game nor for the group that has psionic PCs, but unfortunately when creating adventures that only assume that the GM owns the Core Rulebooks. In that case it becomes necessary to describe how a psionic character's individual powers work and that quickly eats into the word count making that stat block huge and taking away words that could otherwise be used for the adventure.
...but then the sorcerer's spells scale automatically...
So do many of the psion's powers. From what I've seen, aside from the damaging powers, most of the psionic powers automatically scale just as much as a sorcerer's spells. In fact, several powers have augmentations that allow for scaling beyond what their spell counterparts are capable of.
Some good analysis.
I knew I shouldn't have started this discussion.
My main point is that a psion has the flexibility to do more high level powers than either the wizard or the sorcerer. They don't have to though, they can hang back and do lower level effects if they want to spread themselves out more.
From my own personal experience our wilder would use one power per encounter: Astral Construct. This power augmented to the maximum allowed at whatever level was strong enough to rival our centaur barbarian (this is about the 5th-8th level range we were playing) and so never ran out of power points. After level 4 you can easily manage to do one of your best powers per encounter, and astral construct lasts long enough for an entire encounter. Our sorcerer was usually fairly drained after 2 encounters, but the wilder was always set to keep going. He could also customize the construct depending on the foes for that particular encounter.
As far as versatility, because the psionic powers can be adjusted to be nearly any power level, they can easily grab some other powers. A wizard or a sorcerer ends up using several spells known to have basically the same spell but at different power levels. A psion, while not quite as versatile as a wizard, is easily more diverse than a sorcerer.
In the end, I'm fairly certain that Dreamscarred Press will satisfy most people's desires for an update to the XPH material. I think the old system was a little overpowered and careful adjustment of some of the problem powers will keep it more in line. The problems I have aren't inherent to the point system, and can be polished with the right care.
I still look forward to whatever Paizo puts out and would allow my players to use either system if they desired. That's one of the things I love about the d20 system and why I stick with Pathfinder for my RPG, it's so easy to integrate variants.
Just did a quick check. I may have missed one but I get 165 out 287 powers in XPH SRD have Agumentation lines. Just eyeballing some of the ones that don't augment scale either. That's over half the powers that don't auto scale aside from duration.
Just did a quick check. I may have missed one but I get 165 out 287 powers in XPH SRD have Agumentation lines. Just eyeballing some of the ones that don't augment scale either. That's over half the powers that don't auto scale aside from duration.
Sounds about right.
Just did a quick check. I may have missed one but I get 165 out 287 powers in XPH SRD have Agumentation lines. Just eyeballing some of the ones that don't augment scale either. That's over half the powers that don't auto scale aside from duration.
I may be misinterpreting what you are saying by, I think that your number is off by a bit because several that do have augmentation lines do scale.
Like the power danger sense. While it does give static bonuses that don't scale. If it were a spell, I wouldn't be surprised to see that it did the same thing, giving a +4 bonus that doesn't increase with levels. However, the magic spell would be less likely to say, "if you are a 8th level caster, this spell also grants you the uncanny dodge ability." This is one of the cases that I would say that it not only does the power auto-scale as much as a spell would, it allow for more opportunities for scaling than the spell would.
While body adjustment doesn't have it's granted hit points auto-scale like the cure spells nor like aid or false life. But another healing power, body purification, doesn't have it's healing scale automatically either, but the similar spell lesser restoration doesn't have it's healing scale automatically either. While it isn't incredible, the ability to scale up the ability damage healed is not present in lesser restoration.
Mass missive has it's range automatically scale just like a spell would, but it's augmentation allows for extending the range of the power slightly and increase the DC. Neither of those would be granted automatically by the typical spell.
Mental disruption doesn't have it's area automatically scale, it has to be paid for. However, a typical spell that had an area it targeted wouldn't have a scaling area either. Again, the power not only has the same automatic scaling as the spell, it has additional scaling that the spell doesn't have.
These are not rare cases. This happens many times in the power lists. If I had to estimate, I think that less than third of the powers in the 3.5 SRD don't automatically scale compared to respective spells. I wouldn't be surprised if less than a quarter of the powers don't auto-scale in that way.
I'm going to have to say, for the purpose of writing a standard adventure, psionics are broken. They may not be broken for a GM that creates a psionic NPC in his game nor for the group that has psionic PCs, but unfortunately when creating adventures that only assume that the GM owns the Core Rulebooks. In that case it becomes necessary to describe how a psionic character's individual powers work and that quickly eats into the word count making that stat block huge and taking away words that could otherwise be used for the adventure.
That's a very different definition of 'broken' to most people's, you know. That's what we call, 'missing a supplement'. To my mind the answer is very simple: Psionics are optional rules, so release optional adventures to work with them, or provide optional stat-blocks. Wizards did this for the Eberron setting (where psionics were treated as part of core) where necessary, and it worked just fine.
So do many of the psion's powers. From what I've seen, aside from the damaging powers, most of the psionic powers automatically scale just as much as a sorcerer's spells. In fact, several powers have augmentations that allow for scaling beyond what their spell counterparts are capable of.
Range and duraction scale, but primary effects like damage, protection, special effects etc. don't scale. Those are the meat and drink of the power or spell. Even so, we again come to the point that the psion and wilder get far less powers than the wizard and sorcerer get spells. The greater flexibility of powers makes up for their limited number. While a sorcerer for example can take three spells at different levels in order to get three sets of the same effect, how likely are they to? And if they do, are they not likely to swap out some of the lower level spells?
I knew I shouldn't have started this discussion.
Sorry. You hit my favourite nerve on the head.
My main point is that a psion has the flexibility to do more high level powers than either the wizard or the sorcerer. They don't have to though, they can hang back and do lower level effects if they want to spread themselves out more.
I understand your point. Unfortunately, there's a flip side which is that the psion is likely to blow those points on augmented lower-level powers instead at least some of the time. For example, a 9th level wizard or sorcerer throws a fireball, to do 9d6 damage, and it takes a 3rd level spell slot. A 9th level kineticist throws an energy ball (no other psion can use the power without blowing a feat, and it's a 4th level power, not a 3rd), he has to expend 9 power points to max it, equivelent of a 5th level spell slot.
From my own personal experience our wilder would use one power per encounter: Astral Construct. This power augmented to the maximum allowed at whatever level was strong enough to rival our centaur barbarian (this is about the 5th-8th level range we were playing) and so never ran out of power points. After level 4 you can easily manage to do one of your best powers per encounter, and astral construct lasts long enough for an entire encounter. Our sorcerer was usually fairly drained after 2 encounters, but the wilder was always set to keep going. He could also customize the construct depending on the foes for that particular encounter.
OK, well first off, how did a wilder get the the power before level 6? It's a specialist shaper power, so it's not on his list, he has to be able to manifest 2nd level powers and have the feat Expanded Knowledge to gain it, which means he has to be 6th level. That said, the wilder is very good at doing one power to the max. As a 1st level power, it should have been easy to dispel in any event.
Now look at what the sorcerer could do: he can use Summoning spells from level one. He can spend the feat the wilder used to get Augment Summoning, and he can cast his highest level summoning spell three times a day. That's three out of of four encounters dealt with, and he can summon a creature appropriate to each encopunter as well. For the remaining encounter he has five shots remaining of his next strongest summoning spell, easily enough to deal with a threat.
It looks to me as if it's not the wilder's powers that were made of win but his tactics of choosing and using the most efficient powers. Lastly, I must point out that monster-PCs are notoriously underpowered, a barbarian at equivelent level should outshine the centaur-barbarian at raw combat.
As far as versatility, because the psionic powers can be adjusted to be nearly any power level, they can easily grab some other powers. A wizard or a sorcerer ends up using several spells known to have basically the same spell but at different power levels. A psion, while not quite as versatile as a wizard, is easily more diverse than a sorcerer.
A wizard or sorcerer does not have to do this, however, or they can learn the most powerful and then discard lower level ones if they choose. The wizard especially has the ability to utilize only the spells most useful to him. They then have the lower level spell slots to save for a host of other useful spells.
In the end, I'm fairly certain that Dreamscarred Press will satisfy most people's desires for an update to the XPH material. I think the old system was a little overpowered and careful adjustment of some of the problem powers will keep it more in line. The problems I have aren't inherent to the point system, and can be polished with the right care.
I don't think they are actually problems; the fact that a caster or manifester with the right tactics can be awesome isn't new.
I still look forward to whatever Paizo puts out and would allow my players to use either system if they desired. That's one of the things I love about the d20 system and why I stick with Pathfinder for my RPG, it's so easy to integrate variants.
That is the best of all worlds, no disagreement there. I am concerned that if Paizo do their own version and call it psionics, it will become the default rather than suppolemental and force the old system out for the majority of games that might otherwise have used it.
Like the power danger sense. While it does give static bonuses that don't scale. If it were a spell, I wouldn't be surprised to see that it did the same thing, giving a +4 bonus that doesn't increase with levels. However, the magic spell would be less likely to say, "if you are a 8th level caster, this spell also grants you the uncanny dodge ability." This is one of the cases that I would say that it not only does the power auto-scale as much as a spell would, it allow for more opportunities for scaling than the spell would.
Yes, but then at 8th level, to get the effect you are using it as a 4th+ level spell.
While body adjustment doesn't have it's granted hit points auto-scale like the cure spells nor like aid or false life. But another healing power, body purification, doesn't have it's healing scale automatically either, but the similar spell lesser restoration doesn't have it's healing scale automatically either. While it isn't incredible, the ability to scale up the ability damage healed is not present in lesser restoration.
Lesser restoration is also a 2nd level spell you can cast on others, while body purification is a 3rd level power that is self only. It's 2nd level for a psychic warrior, but then their power progression is slower, so it is still unavailable until 4th level. In fact, all of the healing powers are self only except for empathic transfer.
You'll find similar parralels in other powers, for example damaging powers in psionics may well appear 'better' because they can inflict a lot of damage for a low-level power at high level. But on the flip side, they cost more, and they are generally more restrictive in area of effect than the equivalent spells of the same level (energy ball, for example, is a 4th level power to compare to fireball, a 3rd level spell). Further, a 1st level energy ray maxed out at 20d6+20 fire damage is still stopped dead by a lesser globe of invulnerability.
These are not rare cases. This happens many times in the power lists. If I had to estimate, I think that less than third of the powers in the 3.5 SRD don't automatically scale compared to respective spells. I wouldn't be surprised if less than a quarter of the powers don't auto-scale in that way.
So, if each augmented power is treated as being an 'extra power' at higher level, then assuming your psion takes about half of his powers as augmentable in this way, his 36 powers become 54, which is on a par with the sorcerers 52 and the specialist wizards 55. In other words, the balance between the greater number of spells available to the sorcerer or wizard balances well to the greater flexibility and augmentation of the powers available to the psion.
That's a very different definition of 'broken' to most people's, you know. That's what we call, 'missing a supplement'. To my mind the answer is very simple: Psionics are optional rules, so release optional adventures to work with them, or provide optional stat-blocks. Wizards did this for the Eberron setting (where psionics were treated as part of core) where necessary, and it worked just fine.
It may be a different definition of 'broken' than most use, but the fact remains that it does add an enormous amount of difficultly with working with psionic NPCs in adventures.
Optional stat-blocks could work, but they still would double the size of a creatures stat-block and eat away at the remaining word count for the adventure.
That leaves optional adventures to work with them. To be honest, all adventures are optional. In this case, it just means that they are selling an adventure that only a portion of their customers own. Which pretty much is fine. However, I am pretty sure that requiring this would mean that there would be no psionic NPCs outside of the very rare "psionic adventures," that there wouldn't be a psionic Adventure Path, or even an Adventure Path that included any psionic NPC.
The fact that it is harder and often impossible to use psionic NPCs in the typical adventure makes them broken. Maybe not in all ways or in a way that directly hits most people, but it is still something that when trying to use psionics in a published adventure, it falters and begins to present problems. The fact that it can only show up in a very rare adventure is an issue for me.
Range and duraction scale, but primary effects like damage, protection, special effects etc. don't scale. Those are the meat and drink of the power or spell.
If that is the case, I believe I can argue that spells don't automatically scale either. Because most spells don't have their effects improve besides range, duration, and penetrating spell resistance.
Yes, but then at 8th level, to get the effect you are using it as a 4th+ level spell.
I'm sorry, I can't see what your point is. That doesn't change the argument at all. The power still scales automatically, and has a scaling option that a magical spell likely wouldn't have gotten. The fact that it has an augment option doesn't mean the power doesn't automatically scale compared to the magical spell.
Lesser restoration is also a 2nd level spell you can cast on others, while body purification is a 3rd level power that is self only. It's 2nd level for a psychic warrior, but then their power progression is slower, so it is still unavailable until 4th level. In fact, all of the healing powers are self only except for empathic transfer.
I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing how your argument affects mine. The fact that healing might be a harder thing for psionics to do doesn't change that if this was a magical spell it probably would say, "heal 1d4 points of ability damage to an ability score," not "heal 1 point of ability damage to an ability score per caster level."
You'll find similar parralels in other powers, for example damaging powers in psionics may well appear 'better' because they can inflict a lot of damage for a low-level power at high level. But on the flip side, they cost more, and they are generally more restrictive in area of effect than the equivalent spells of the same level (energy ball, for example, is a 4th level power to compare to fireball, a 3rd level spell). Further, a 1st level energy ray maxed out at 20d6+20 fire damage is still stopped dead by a lesser globe of invulnerability.
Yes, those are the majority of powers that don't scale for psionics, but would for magic. However, they do not make up a majority of the power list. Your argument doesn't conflict with mine that, "psionic powers don't automatically scale," is a overstatement at best.
So, if each augmented power is treated as being an 'extra power' at higher level, then assuming your psion takes about half of his powers as augmentable in this way, his 36 powers become 54, which is on a par with the sorcerers 52 and the specialist wizards 55. In other words, the balance between the greater number of spells available to the sorcerer or wizard balances well to the greater flexibility and augmentation of the powers available to the psion.
Yes. It is a benefit that deals with a penalty that they have. I wasn't saying it was unbalanced. I was saying that less than a third of the powers don't automatically scale when a spell would have. I haven't seen any argument conflict with that.
The fact that it is harder and often impossible to use psionic NPCs in the typical adventure makes them broken... The fact that it can only show up in a very rare adventure is an issue for me.Then I suppose you consider alchemists, cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, and summoners to be broken, too. You can't have NPCs with more than 5 or so levels in any of those classes without reprinting a page or more of non-core rules, making it unlikely that we'll ever see them in adventures.
As far as I can tell, a 3.5 psion with power-point mechanics and an alternate power list (i.e. one with mostly spells from the core rules) requires less word count than the APG alchemist class.
Actually, I would say that they are reasonably solid overall as far as word count goes.
This 7th level oracle preview for example had 355 allocated to the stat block, and it is completely usable to someone who just has the core rulebooks.
If I had to estimate the word count for a 7th level 3.5 psion that attempted the same thing, I would say that it would be more than 900 words. Much more if wordy powers are chosen.
So almost all the classes that you mentioned are not broken in the same way despite your claim and they could show up in adventures just like the Thaumaturge has. However, the way the power using psionic classes are in 3.5 makes them much harder to use than the classes you list. It is only after you change the class and don't give it any new class abilities that you get a psion with a smaller word count.
I do agree that a 3.5 psion with power-point mechanics and a spell/power list that pulls almost all of his spells/powers from the core rules. Then the word count would become much more reasonable. However, that is not the case for 3.5 psions. Changing it to be so would be a fix to the problem, a change that might cause a number of fans of the 3.5 system to throw up their hands and choose to ignore the changed system in preference for the 3.5 version.
The question would be how would 3.5 psionics fans react to psions with mage armor, magic missile, fire shield, and many other spells on the power list.
Any non-core class, feat, skill, ability ends up needing to be reprinted under the current style. Pure spell casters with new spells will be the worst regardless of subsystem.
For Psionics like the Psion or PsiWarrior this actually doesn't hurt as bad as it may seem. For a stand alone statblock powers can be write pre-paid and fully definded like a spell. This makes the quick to use and may even avoid the need for a full rewrite. If a GM wants the full depth (just like the various templates Paizo uses from 3rd party) then he or she will need that supplement.
If you build them like normal spells you get the same result, only it gets predefined for power usage (player and npc).
An argument in my mind for PPs and pre-define in stat blocks is a writer could (assuming an npc has a sure escape) redefine those powers later. Energy Missile geared to harrass during a long fight vs geared to go nuke with most damage per hit.
It may be a different definition of 'broken' than most use, but the fact remains that it does add an enormous amount of difficultly with working with psionic NPCs in adventures ...
... The fact that it can only show up in a very rare adventure is an issue for me.
So let's summarise that, shall we? Everything not core is broken, because everything not core requires those same resources and difficulties when you don't have the supplement. I'm not disputing that using a non-core resource in a module or adventure is a pain, but it's equally true of any rule supplement, psionics is not unique in this regard.
If that is the case, I believe I can argue that spells don't automatically scale either. Because most spells don't have their effects improve besides range, duration, and penetrating spell resistance.
I'm sorry, I can't see what your point is. That doesn't change the argument at all. The power still scales automatically, and has a scaling option that a magical spell likely wouldn't have gotten. The fact that it has an augment option doesn't mean the power doesn't automatically scale compared to the magical spell.
Yes, but then that powers are more flexible than spells is not disputed. Spells often get increasing range and duration as standard. Where spells have additional effects, such as energy resistance increasing with level or damaging spells inflicting more damage, they do so without costing the caster additional resources.
I'm sorry, but I'm still not seeing how your argument affects mine. The fact that healing might be a harder thing for psionics to do doesn't change that if this was a magical spell it probably would say, "heal 1d4 points of ability damage to an ability score," not "heal 1 point of ability damage to an ability score per caster level."
My point was that you are comparing different abilities with similar effects (your wording seemed to imply that they were the same effect with different names - apologies if that was me). The power is a higher level with a smaller initial effect and is personal only, with these restrictions being able to augment it is perfectly reasonable; augmenting consumes more resources after all. If lesser restoration was a 3rd, 4th or 5th level spell, you would expect more of it.
Yes, those are the majority of powers that don't scale for psionics, but would for magic. However, they do not make up a majority of the power list. Your argument doesn't conflict with mine that, "psionic powers don't automatically scale," is a overstatement at best.
I see your point here, it's a statement often used to point out that augments, while they are sometimes better than scaling spells, are not automatic and without augments, power equivalents of spells that scale are not very good.
Yes. It is a benefit that deals with a penalty that they have. I wasn't saying it was unbalanced. I was saying that less than a third of the powers don't automatically scale when a spell would have. I haven't seen any argument conflict with that.
My point was that powers work a little differently to spells. They have that additional flexibility, yes, but that's why you get less of them. Also, there is a trade-off: Most psionic buffs effect only the manifester; psionic damaging powers with area effect are often higher level than their arcane equivelents; augmentation has some benefits, but has it's own costs as well.
Further, if the wizard or sorcerer takes a spell for which there may be a psionic equivalent, and the psion takes the euqivelent power, the power may deliver an enhanced effect at higher level, but the psion has no choice as to take it or not - he's got it, period. The sorcerer or wizard may be able to take the equivalent spell of the greater effect at higher level as well, but they also have the choice of not doing so. Individually, powers may be more flexible. As a group, the larger number of spells available to the casters actually can be argues to provide, ultimately, greater overall flexibility.
Any non-core class, feat, skill, ability ends up needing to be reprinted under the current style. Pure spell casters with new spells will be the worst regardless of subsystem.
For Psionics like the Psion or PsiWarrior this actually doesn't hurt as bad as it may seem. For a stand alone statblock powers can be write pre-paid and fully definded like a spell. This makes the quick to use and may even avoid the need for a full rewrite. If a GM wants the full depth (just like the various templates Paizo uses from 3rd party) then he or she will need that supplement.
If you build them like normal spells you get the same result, only it gets predefined for power usage (player and npc).
An argument in my mind for PPs and pre-define in stat blocks is a writer could (assuming an npc has a sure escape) redefine those powers later. Energy Missile geared to harrass during a long fight vs geared to go nuke with most damage per hit.
I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you are suggesting. I am not sure how one would fully define a power without making a statblock huge. If it were a normal non-core spell, it would be listed in the same book as the NPC that was using it (so you wouldn't need another book to use the NPC).
Could you give an example of a "a stand alone statblock power can be write pre-paid and fully definded like a spell?"
Edited:
So let's summarise that, shall we? Everything not core is broken, because everything not core requires those same resources and difficulties when you don't have the supplement. I'm not disputing that using a non-core resource in a module or adventure is a pain, but it's equally true of any rule supplement, psionics is not unique in this regard.It may be a different definition of 'broken' than most use, but the fact remains that it does add an enormous amount of difficultly with working with psionic NPCs in adventures ...
... The fact that it can only show up in a very rare adventure is an issue for me.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I have shown significant evidence that 3.5 psionics is unique in this regard. Most other options do not need as much rules reprinted as 3.5 power wielding psionic characters.
Yes, but then that powers are more flexible than spells is not disputed. Spells often get increasing range and duration as standard. Where spells have additional effects, such as energy resistance increasing with level or damaging spells inflicting more damage, they do so without costing the caster additional resources.
I think that energy resistance was a bad choice of a spell to mention. I would have to point out that energy adaptation (and also specified energy adaptation) gives resistance to energy damage that automatically scales with manifester level.
The augment that power has isn't to scale the resistance, it is to let you manifest it as an immediate action instead. Which is something the typical spell wouldn't do.
This is not an uncommon thing for a power. The powers that you are calling upon that don't actually scale are the minority of the powers.
your wording seemed to imply that they were the same effect with different names - apologies if that was me
I was not attempting to do so. I was just pointing out that if it were a spell, the amount of cured ability damage wouldn't automatically scale.
For staters you don't need to define every power the NPC could know, just the ones they'll use for that adventure, which could be as few as two.
Energy Missile (Psi): This Creature can use Energy Missile (xph ???) up to 3 times per day (costing x pp each). It deals xd6+x fire damage, DC xx reflex save for half (this save is intelligence based)*
Force Screen (Psi): Can be used 1/day and gives a +x shield bonus for x rounds. This is a force effect.
(Psi) like Su or Sp gets a quick deffinition at the start. Standard action, concentration check, etc. With an line or two explaining that a GM with the Psi book can replace or modify powers using those rules.
That's just a rough outline. The only thing a reprint needs to is cover just those parts of the mechanics that the NPC will use againts the PCs. Effects like force screen can be included direclty into the stat block with needing to reprint the whole power line for line. I know there are bigger and nastier powers that will eat up more space but then again any new high level spell will have the same issue.
A GM wthout the full Psionics book doesn't need (or in some case want) that level of detail
I agree. You just add the note: "If you do not have the psionics rules, treat this NPC as a sorcerer with access to XYZ spells." Or else: "If you have access to the psionics rules, this character is a Psion (telepath) with ABC powers."
Effects like force screen can be included direclty into the stat block with needing to reprint the whole power line for line.
I should note that you can't really avoid spelling out the rules for many just because of spells like dispel magic which would require that you know exactly what to remove from the stat block if you dispel force screen.
This simplifications of powers are taking about 30 words each. With psions having about two powers per character level that quickly is going to add up. Also, I would suggest that a large number of powers are more difficult to simplify as you have, especially with higher level powers.
I agree. You just add the note: "If you do not have the psionics rules, treat this NPC as a sorcerer with access to XYZ spells." Or else: "If you have access to the psionics rules, this character is a Psion (telepath) with ABC powers."
The issue would be complicated because of the additional word count incurred by listing XYZ or ABC, listing the alternative stat block that could occur from different "buff" powers/spells, and the different tactics necessary because of the different stat block.
Then one has to redescribe the character's background to alter his background such that he makes sense in his different class. Because otherwise, one way you are going to have a psion that casts like a sorcerer and another way you are going to have a sorcerer that casts like a psion. I would suggest that if everyone was fine with a psionic character casting like a sorcerer, then the thought of changes to the 3.5 psionic system wouldn't be receiving the reaction it is right now.
One could just do what you suggest and just place the alternative spell/power list for the character, but I would say that is would leave that alternative character incomplete and probably the first thing to be edited out when space is needed just because each group is only going to use one of the stat blocks.
The issue would be complicated because of the additional word count incurred by listing XYZ or ABC, listing the alternative stat block that could occur from different "buff" powers/spells, and the different tactics necessary because of the different stat block.
I think you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill here. A few extra statblocks are not going to overfill an adventure module on their own. You would certainly need to do this if you had, for example, a Summoner as an NPC in an adventure.
Then one has to redescribe the character's background to alter his background such that he makes sense in his different class.
Why? The PCs aren't going to be that concerned with an NPC's history, and you certainly don't need to change the history all that much. The class is a mechanical representation of abilities; it does not tie the characters background down to something different. "Studied with an old mystic in the mountains" works for a background for a wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, or whatever, for example.
Because otherwise, one way you are going to have a psion that casts like a sorcerer and another way you are going to have a sorcerer that casts like a psion. I would suggest that if everyone was fine with a psionic character casting like a sorcerer, then the thought of changes to the 3.5 psionic system wouldn't be receiving the reaction it is right now.
You are confusing like and dislike for a certain system with coming up with a suitable encounter in a scenario. They are radically different things. From the point of view of the players, substituting a sorcerer for a psion NPC in a game that has no psionics is not going to make any difference for that group. Sure, I don't want to play a sorcerer instead of a psion for a PC, but for writing a scenario that can be adapted for a non-psionic using group it's an acceptable work-around, and that group won't know the difference. Likewise including the psionics statblock means that those groups using the psionics rules can experience their full flavour, so to speak. In terms of a challenge, the psion is the same level of challenge as a sorcerer or wizard, the same hit dice, the same BAB - only the feats and powers/spells need be different. Everything else, including background, personality etc. can be kept the same.
One could just do what you suggest and just place the alternative spell/power list for the character, but I would say that is would leave that alternative character incomplete and probably the first thing to be edited out when space is needed just because each group is only going to use one of the stat blocks.
How complete does it need to be? Often the players only ecer experience a small part of a completed NPC, even in combat. How much space are we talking? maybe twenty or thirty words extra on average, I would guess, for a few NPCs in an entire adventure - so maybe an extra hundred or a hundred and fifty words total out of several thousand.
Ya know I love when these things always end up with a comment like "Well you can just replace all the powers with spells and use the sorcerer spell progression " or " just use spells and a times per day"
Because once you write an NPC up like that he is not using the XPH psion rules so why even support them? Really guys using terms like "Oh well just replace powers with spells" is not helping your augment but making it weaker.
Ya know I love when these things always end up with a comment like "Well you can just replace all the powers with spells and use the sorcerer spell progression " or " just use spells and a times per day"
Because once you write an NPC up like that he is not using the XPH psion rules so why even support them? Really guys using terms like "Oh well just replace powers with spells" is not helping your augment but making it weaker.
Like I said above, there is a huge difference between presenting alternatives in an adventure so that groups that don't like a rule supplement don't have to use it and wanting the supplement for your own games.
I am not saying that the sorcerer/wizard will play the same way or be the same as the psion by any stretch of the imagination. What I am saying is they represent a sufficiently similar magnitude of challenge to the party facing them so that you can substitute one for the other if you don't have or like the supplementary rules. If the gaming group do not have or want psionics rules then to them it is a reasonable solution.
From the point of view of the kind of character I want to play, there is no question that I want point-based flexible-powered psionics. I do want to have and play the kind of different characters that allows me to play so to me it does make a difference. My ability to consider another persons point of view in no way invalidiates my own.
I think you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill here. A few extra statblocks are not going to overfill an adventure module on their own. You would certainly need to do this if you had, for example, a Summoner as an NPC in an adventure.
I would say that you are trying to downplay the issue to much. Especially when both the summoner and his creature are going to be in the same encounter and only one of the two variant NPCs will be showing up.
Why? The PCs aren't going to be that concerned with an NPC's history, and you certainly don't need to change the history all that much. The class is a mechanical representation of abilities; it does not tie the characters background down to something different. "Studied with an old mystic in the mountains" works for a background for a wizard, sorcerer, psion, wilder, or whatever, for example.
The PCs may not, but the GM does get to be concerned about the NPC's history. And often where the character studied and what he is doing there is going to contribute to what class his is. "Studied with an old mystic in the mountains" is not likely to be the entire background for a character.
You are confusing like and dislike for a certain system with coming up with a suitable encounter in a scenario. They are radically different things. From the point of view of the players, substituting a sorcerer for a psion NPC in a game that has no psionics is not going to make any difference for that group. Sure, I don't want to play a sorcerer instead of a psion for a PC, but for writing a scenario that can be adapted for a non-psionic using group it's an acceptable work-around, and that group won't know the difference. Likewise including the psionics statblock means that those groups using the psionics rules can experience their full flavour, so to speak. In terms of a challenge, the psion is the same level of challenge as a sorcerer or wizard, the same hit dice, the same BAB - only the feats and powers/spells need be different. Everything else, including background, personality etc. can be kept the same.
If an adventure included a section that provided two stat blocks available to use, a witch and a wizard. I'm pretty sure the party would have a decent chance of telling that the wizard was a wizard or that the witch had abilities that they weren't terribly familiar with. Sam for substituting a sorcerer for a psion NPC. They may not know if you are using points or spell slots, but they are likely to discover class abilities and the different feel of their spell/power lists.
I certainly believe that one could replace one NPC with another of similar level. I disagree that it is necessary for "full flavor" and I don't think that it is the best use of word count. I believe that it would be preferable to have a psionic character that could be presented like the Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner, and many other classes. That way an adventure could have a psionic character and psionic themes without having a set up that ends up having two version of NPCs, monsters, equipment, and such, which, I feel weaken the item rather than strengthen it.
How complete does it need to be? Often the players only ecer experience a small part of a completed NPC, even in combat. How much space are we talking? maybe twenty or thirty words extra on average, I would guess, for a few NPCs in an entire adventure - so maybe an extra hundred or a hundred and fifty words total out of several thousand.
But even if it is only your low estimate of 150 words, I believe that they would be likely the first to be cut when they are looking for 500 words to cut. They are set aside, unnecessary to the rest of the adventure, and will only benefit a smaller portion of the customers.
Here's my thinking on official Pathfinder Psionics rules. When (or if) they come out, the book should consist of two parts. Part one describes new psionic classes and other mechanics using the same system as arcane and divine magic. Part two explains an alternate system for converting all magic to a power-point based system.
My reasoning for part one is that I like things to make as much sense as possible. A cleric channeling the divine power of his god and a wizard toying with the basic forces of the universe use the same mechanics, why should a psion get different ones? I don't want to see the explosion of variant magic systems that plagued 3.5.
My reasoning for part two is that power points are, in my opinion, a much simpler and more enjoyable alternate way of dealing with magic.
Note: The key difference there is variant vs. alternate. In the way I am using them, variant means "here's a guy who can do what a wizard does, but he does it in a completely different way" while alternate means "here's a different set of mechanics to represent what a wizard does".
Also:
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."
Mind if I take that idea and run with it?
EDIT: And by "run with it" I mean go through the book and apply that idea to all the spells, then put up the result in the forums somewhere.
|
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."
Sound very much like what Monte did in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, with his Heightened and Diminished spell effects. Very cool.
Mind if I take that idea and run with it?
EDIT: And by "run with it" I mean go through the book and apply that idea to all the spells, then put up the result in the forums somewhere.
I have not problem with you doing so, I wish you good luck.
I would say that you are trying to downplay the issue to much. Especially when both the summoner and his creature are going to be in the same encounter and only one of the two variant NPCs will be showing up.
You miss the point: If you don't have the APG, the scenario has to either include all the details of the summoner and eidolon mechanics, or else include alternatives just as you do with psionics. The problem is not unique to psionics by any stretch, and there is no more work involved in providing alternative stats for a Summoner as a Conjurer than there are in providing alternative stats for a Kineticist as an Evoker. In other words, anything non-core needs to have a core alternative, or else you need to take the WotC line of 'everything we release is core (which means you have to buy it)'.
The PCs may not, but the GM does get to be concerned about the NPC's history. And often where the character studied and what he is doing there is going to contribute to what class his is. "Studied with an old mystic in the mountains" is not likely to be the entire background for a character.
You are quite right, it isn't. But my point is that what class an NPC is does not decide what his personality is, or his reactions ot the party. It may indicate whether a character is educated or worldly (for example), but there are sufficiently varied arcane and psionic options to represent the same personality options within both. The way he reacts may vary, and the tactics he uses if it comes to combat, but these will be detirmined largely by the DM in any event.
If an adventure included a section that provided two stat blocks available to use, a witch and a wizard. I'm pretty sure the party would have a decent chance of telling that the wizard was a wizard or that the witch had abilities that they weren't terribly familiar with. Same for substituting a sorcerer for a psion NPC. They may not know if you are using points or spell slots, but they are likely to discover class abilities and the different feel of their spell/power lists.
Is this in any way a problem?
I certainly believe that one could replace one NPC with another of similar level. I disagree that it is necessary for "full flavor" and I don't think that it is the best use of word count. I believe that it would be preferable to have a psionic character that could be presented like the Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner, and many other classes. That way an adventure could have a psionic character and psionic themes without having a set up that ends up having two version of NPCs, monsters, equipment, and such, which, I feel weaken the item rather than strengthen it.
But it makes no difference if the mechanics are similar to the Alchemist or the Summoner because these are also none-core, and you have to include the core alternatives for these or else include the rules for them, which STILL involve a higher word count.
The only advantages to using mechanics similar to existing casters are that they will be quicker for those completely unfamiliar with the old psionic system to master, and they may pursuade the psionic doubters to try them. It represents no advantage in scenario writing whatsoever, because it is still non-core. Unfortunately, the first advantage is outweighted by the fact that most Pathfinder players have gravitated from 3.x anyway and most are already familiar with the concepts of the psionics system even if they do not use/like them, and the fact that doubters might try them is offset by the likelyhood that old psionics lovers will boycott them.
But even if it is only your low estimate of 150 words, I believe that they would be likely the first to be cut when they are looking for 500 words to cut. They are set aside, unnecessary to the rest of the adventure, and will only benefit a smaller portion of the customers.
If that is so then there are only two real options available: Make all adventures core-only, or else mark them as 'you need X supplement for this adventure' and don't include a core option at all - in which case which mechanics you use become irrelevent, because whatever they are, you still have to buy a supplement.
Of course if you are basing a large subset of the campaign world on a single set of alternative mechanics, then you can justify saying that supplement X is needed for this chunk of the world, making the extra ruls a kind of 'core+' which is the position the old psionics rules held in 3.5. As I said above, though, this is not going to effect what the mechanics of the supplement actually are.
I would say that you are trying to downplay the issue to much. Especially when both the summoner and his creature are going to be in the same encounter and only one of the two variant NPCs will be showing up.You miss the point: If you don't have the APG, the scenario has to either include all the details of the summoner and eidolon mechanics, or else include alternatives just as you do with psionics. The problem is not unique to psionics by any stretch, and there is no more work involved in providing alternative stats for a Summoner as a Conjurer than there are in providing alternative stats for a Kineticist as an Evoker. In other words, anything non-core needs to have a core alternative, or else you need to take the WotC line of 'everything we release is core (which means you have to buy it)'.
I believe that you are missing the point. Paizo adventures have included characters that have used non-core options (classes, prestige classes, variant abilities) before. They have been able to include the details of classes like the thaumaturge in previous adventures at the cost of, if I recall correctly, a couple hundred words for a mid-level character compared to similar core classes and I imagine the same could be done for classes like the summoner. I don't believe that could be done for 3.5 power wielding psionic characters. I imagine that if one include all the details for the powers of a 10th level psionic character were included (along with how feats work and such), that the stat block would be filling more than two pages, probably more. If I am correct, that would suggest that the class is pretty unique compared to most classes in this area.
I take your point, Blazej, but you've also undermined it: if they were able to include a few hundred words for non-core classes without problems in the past, they can include extra statblocks for the same (or smaller) cost in words.
Using the same mechanics for all classes has some attractive points, but many of Paizo's fans like the 'different mechanics' approach of 3.x rather than the 'same mechanics' approach of 4e.
As Mr Jacobs himself said:
Actually, I would argue that perfect balance would actually DIMINISH fun. Because with perfect balance, there's essentially only one choice for character to play. You can have different flavor for that single class, but if all choices are perfectly balanced then there's no element of choice at all.
That imbalance is caused by the different mechanics, between vancian casting and other class features, and between those and the power-point system of psionics. Indirectly, this is, then, an argument for different mechanics.
I wonder if some of this could be resolved, as was suggested upthread, by turning some of the powers, like psionic charm and psionic dominate or #^%^&$ construct, into base powers with fixed effects that use slots, and augments which use power points or higher level slots for the cost of focus. I still wouldn't want to figure out a way to put the flexibility of construct into a higher level NPC statblock, unless the polymorph spells were used to model it, as it is realistically impossible to do so without a wall of text. Refer back to Core Spells to define powers where ever possible. Instead of defining astral construct as a nebulous thing, define a fixed effect, i.e. summon nature's ally I, with augments allowing various shape spells to also apply, or what have you. By comparison, the Eidolon is cake, as it will not be reconfiguring itself between encounters, or even within the same encounter.
I wonder if some of this could be resolved, as was suggested upthread, by turning some of the powers, like psionic charm and psionic dominate or #^%^&$ construct, into base powers with fixed effects that use slots, and augments which use power points or higher level slots for the cost of focus. I still wouldn't want to figure out a way to put the flexibility of construct into a higher level NPC statblock, unless the polymorph spells were used to model it, as it is realistically impossible to do so without a wall of text. Refer back to Core Spells to define powers where ever possible. Instead of defining astral construct as a nebulous thing, define a fixed effect, i.e. summon nature's ally I, with augments allowing various shape spells to also apply, or what have you. By comparison, the Eidolon is cake, as it will not be reconfiguring itself between encounters, or even within the same encounter.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
There's nothing actually broken about the power point system, it's just different. Sure, some people don't like it; this is cool, some people don't like Vancian casting, after all. The answer is simple: if you don't like the system, don't use it.
The power point system is pretty fundamental to psionics in the same way that 'vancian' casting is fundamental to wizards; without it you just get another slightly different wizard or sorcerer, and we already have those. It's the mechanics that help make make the thematic idea of psionics work, and make it different and to some people interesting. Further, one of the foundation stones of Pathfinder was backward-compatibility - the idea that you can switch system from 3.5 mid-campaign and still have all the fundamentals of your character relatively unchanged. This was used as a reason to hang on to all sorts of legacy things, and justifiably so, it was a good thing. So why abandon it now all of a sudden?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."There's nothing actually broken about the power point system, it's just different. Sure, some people don't like it; this is cool, some people don't like Vancian casting, after all. The answer is simple: if you don't like the system, don't use it.
The power point system is pretty fundamental to psionics in the same way that 'vancian' casting is fundamental to wizards; without it you just get another slightly different wizard or sorcerer, and we already have those. It's the mechanics that help make make the thematic idea of psionics work, and make it different and to some people interesting. Further, one of the foundation stones of Pathfinder was backward-compatibility - the idea that you can switch system from 3.5 mid-campaign and still have all the fundamentals of your character relatively unchanged. This was used as a reason to hang on to all sorts of legacy things, and justifiably so, it was a good thing. So why abandon it now all of a sudden?
Oh, I'm a fair fan of 3.5 psionics. And I'm hardly suggesting that the entire power point system be chucked out. However, and this is important, if we want to have anything other than psions as PCs, and want support for psionic characters within printed material, some of the center of the 3.5 power system has to give ground. Powers like psionic charm shouldn't have to be defined every time they show up in print. It should be able to be described by referencing established core spell effects, and if it can't be, then the powers may need to be redefined to be linked into core spell effects. Power points can be expressed in a short blurb, along with augments and focus, which should be no more difficult than describing extracts for Alchemists. If this isn't the solution, then I don't know that support for psionics can exist outside of SRD documents and PCs built from those sources.
It's a prickly question, but I can't see any answer that will please everybody. The best solutions, given that psionics has always been an optional system and some people just plain don't like it, are two-fold, either:
- Include optional stat-blocks in scenarios referencing psionics so those without the supplement can adapt it to their own preferences, or
- Designate certain parts of the campaign as 'psionics included', making clear that these parts will require the use of the supplement and if you don't have it or don't like it, don't go there, or
- Don't go there. Leave the psionics for Pathfinder to third parties, and let them worry about adventures, setting etc.
Actually changing the psionics system is a worst of all worlds situation - change it too much, and lose backward-compatibility and the psionics lovers; don't change it enough and those that don't like psionics will still not like psionics.
I take your point, Blazej, but you've also undermined it: if they were able to include a few hundred words for non-core classes without problems in the past, they can include extra statblocks for the same (or smaller) cost in words.
I believe I have already commented that I do not believe that extra statblocks that don't have any direct impact on the adventure and can be removed easily are will remain when it comes time for editing to happen.
Also, I would say that there are psionic rules in the core rulebooks right now. That they are not "optional stat-blocks," don't "require a supplement," and at least touch upon psionics rather than avoiding it.
The first that comes to mind is the neothelid. The fact that it has teleport as an at-will spell-like ability instead of psionic teleport as an at-will psi-like ability doesn't make me think that this is somehow the "non-psionic" version. I would say that it's abilities are just as psionic as the version in the 3.5 SRD. I would say that even though it was changed, it is still a psionic monster and I think that the psionic system could be changed with the same effect.
There is no difference really between psi-like abilities and spell-like abilities if you are using transparency, which is the default. Well, we shall see what they do - I hope that they take note of the 'for' and 'against' arguments both, from what I have seen the Paizo guys pay a lot of attention to things like this thread.
|
Honestly, I like Psionics, but I am interested in what Paizo might come up with as an alternative. What can I say, they might have something really cool up thier sleeve.
Perhaps though there should be some sort of compromise.
1) Keep the point based system
2) Make Psionics a form of Magic. The third leg of magic, out side of divine and arcane.
3) Standardize the spells/powers. No more Psionic Fly, it's just Fly (I have a huge beef with that. Some powers are almost like spells that exist in Pathfinder, they need to be updated accordingly. Powers need to be reballance against Pathfinder spells and there need to be 0 level powers.
4) Standardize the psionic items. In a standalone setting the psionic items are cool, but in a combined setting a real pain. If it works like a wand, it's a wand. If it works like a familiar, it's a familiar. If it works like a wonderous item, its a wonderous item.
5) Psions should be made to be like Wizards/Sorcerers and clerics and be able to do 0 level powers at will.
I think that most people could live with this.
Everything else can be up for change, but as a DM reading stat blocks, this would make things work easir for me.
1) Keep the point based system
Agreed!
2) Make Psionics a form of Magic. The third leg of magic, out side of divine and arcane.
Actually, it already is to all intents and purposes in 3.5. The default is for pionic/magic transparency, 'psionics is different' was an optional rule. Dreamscarred are taking that one step further with their Pathfinder Psionics, replacing Psicraft with Spellcraft for example.
3) Standardize the spells/powers. No more Psionic Fly, it's just Fly (I have a huge beef with that. Some powers are almost like spells that exist in Pathfinder, they need to be updated accordingly. Powers need to be reballance against Pathfinder spells and there need to be 0 level powers.
Not sure about 0-level powers, myself, they were taken out for a reason. However, see below ...
4) Standardize the psionic items. In a standalone setting the psionic items are cool, but in a combined setting a real pain. If it works like a wand, it's a wand. If it works like a familiar, it's a familiar. If it works like a wonderous item, its a wonderous item.
Agreed! There was confusion over psicrystals before, and some items were begging to be integrated into the whole. The Item Compendium did a lot, but three classes of items do remain that are 'different' in fluff if not crunch: cognizence crystals, power stones (equivalent to scrolls) and psionic tattoos (equivalent to potions).
5) Psions should be made to be like Wizards/Sorcerers and clerics and be able to do 0 level powers at will.
Dreamscared had an interesting fix for this: for some 1st level powers they created a low-level effect that could be manifested for free as long as you maintained psionic focus, such as a 1d3 damage energy ray.
|
|
Dreamscared had an interesting fix for this: for some 1st level powers they created a low-level effect that could be manifested for free as long as you maintained psionic focus, such as a 1d3 damage energy ray.
I'd feel much better if full casters worked more alike rather than differant. But i will judge after i see it.
The first that comes to mind is the neothelid.The PRPG neothelid is 100% compatible with the 3.5 psionics system. It is an established feature of the 3.5 psionics system that psionic monsters appearing outside of psionic rulebooks substitute spell-like and supernatural abilities for actual psionic powers and feats.
I am aware of that. I am just noting that the Pathfinder RPG neothelid is no less a psionic monster just because it doesn't use psionic feats or the fact that it uses spells rather than powers. The major difference between the two neothelids is that one can be presented easily with only the core rules, and the other can't.
By contrast, it was never a feature of the 3.5 psionics system that psionic classes get the same treatment as psionic monsters. Changing psionic classes to work that way would violate backwards compatibility in ways presenting spell-like and supernatural monster abilities do not.
(On the other hand, the 3.5 psionics system does already have rules for manifesting existing PHB spells as psionic powers. See "Psionic Spells" on page 184 of the EPH. So adding a bunch of core spells to the psion power list for use in future psion stat blocks would be completely backwards compatible.)
Actually that seems to be for psi-like abilities, not the psion power list. And you just said "By contrast, it was never a feature of the 3.5 psionics system that psionic classes get the same treatment as psionic monsters." Which does imply that the rule that invisibility works as a psi-like ability doesn't automatically mean that the rules support being able to put it on a power list.
I would suggest that there is about as much reasons in 3.5 psionics for there to be a a new Vancian psionic class as there is adding core spells to the current power lists. They are both supported by the rules monsters use.
If Paizo decided to tackle the issue of psionics, would they do so in the same vein they created PRPG in the first place, or would they create a psionics supplement for their own product? A backwards compatible system, or a new one for their product?
Also, I just wanted to comment that I am a psionics fan, and really like the ideas that are going back and forth in this discussion.
If Paizo decided to tackle the issue of psionics, would they do so in the same vein they created PRPG in the first place, or would they create a psionics supplement for their own product? A backwards compatible system, or a new one for their product?
I would hope for the former, which is what Dreamscared Press are working on, and what I am arguing for. There seem to be strong hints that tbhey are considering the latter, which I really don't understand after all the effort they went to to keep PRPG backward-compatible.
If Paizo decided to tackle the issue of psionics, would they do so in the same vein they created PRPG in the first place, or would they create a psionics supplement for their own product? A backwards compatible system, or a new one for their product?I would hope for the former, which is what Dreamscared Press are working on, and what I am arguing for. There seem to be strong hints that tbhey are considering the latter, which I really don't understand after all the effort they went to to keep PRPG backward-compatible.
I guess arguing one way or the other at this stage is moot then. Until Paizo says which direction they're taking it, there's only speculation and theories. But having some things hashed out beforehand isn't a bad thing, couldn't hurt to keep throwing ideas around.
I agree. The way I look at it is like this ...
In favour of keeping the power-point system:
- It's backward-compatible.
- It's in tune with the theme of psionics as innate powers.
- It adds difference and variety to the game, which is always a good thing.
- Most psionics-lovers seem to love it.
In favour of changing it:
- It will use more familiar mechanics.
- The players that don't like psionics might prefer it.
There are arguments for and against the idea that it may be easier to write adventures with psionics in if it uses more familiar mechanics. I don't see how it would be a big problem, myself, and I think that there are more arguments for keeping it as is than against.
Of course, what they may do is release a 'quickie' psionics, a 'quick fix' for players that don't like the existing system or Dreamscared's Pathfinder version, that they can write into scenarios with a footnote to use X from the Dreamscared system if you prefer it. I'm not sure, though, if that's a particularly viable idea.
One good thing about this thread and others like it, is they do show Paizo the estent of the interest in the subject, which is a good thing.
And the way I look at it is that several arguments on the "changing it" side are left out. I believe that arguments for keeping it vs. changing it are much closer than those lists would imply.
And the way I look at it is that several arguments on the "changing it" side are left out. I believe that arguments for keeping it vs. changing it are much closer than those lists would imply.
But you would be wrong.
My list is more like this:
Don't change it-
I like it
It's backwards compatable
Change it-
Someone else doesn't like it, who doesn't like Psionics to begin with.
And the way I look at it is that several arguments on the "changing it" side are left out. I believe that arguments for keeping it vs. changing it are much closer than those lists would imply.But you would be wrong.
Well I guess it is perfectly fine for you to believe that. Not much point in me trying to change that opinion because I doubt that Paizo will be using the pro/con lists on this thread in their decision. If they ever make it.
Well I guess it is perfectly fine for you to believe that. Not much point in me trying to change that opinion.And the way I look at it is that several arguments on the "changing it" side are left out. I believe that arguments for keeping it vs. changing it are much closer than those lists would imply.But you would be wrong.
Seriously guy, if you don't like psionics don't use it. Don't rain on my parade.