I can see that. The alternative is to put a little sticker on the front, "uses Psi" or something like, and give people fair warning that they should have XPH to use it, perhaps also with a pointer to the SRD for those who missed the caveat when they bought the book.
Yes, and I believe that some Paizo staff member did mention something along those lines. But, that would be the very rare instance as requiring buyers to own another book would likely be a significant obstacle to the product selling as much as Paizo's products that don't have such a requirement.
Anyway, there's a whole slew of official material based on subsystems that can be awkward to handle in an adventure if the DM isn't already familiar with the subsystem. The two most popular are almost certainly ToB, and Psi.
ToB has the additional issue of not being open for Paizo to go in and change. While there are a few of WotC books that were released as Open Game Content that could be used, changed, or republished, Tome of Battle was not one of them.
This... well, are they forced to do 320 pages per book? Somehow I doubt PF is going to massively power-up Psi by giving them a whole bunch of awesome powers that will let them destroy the game. I mean, they're not perfect, but the worry seems more "omg Psi is overpowardz". If they really want to fill up pages, they can bring in powers or even classes from Complete Psionics (a book already responsible for some fairly excessive Psi nerfs, but whatever). If they borrow from that source, there's more than enough to fill up their book without tossing over a bunch of unbalancing spells.
Well they are not forced to I guess, but 320 seems to be the standard size they are trying to set following the Core Rulebook (GameMastery Guide and Advanced Player’s Guide being listed as that number and the Bestiary with about that number). My suggestion though is not that Paizo is going to come out with awesome power to let them destroy the game, just that with a larger book, noting that psionics is at a disadvantage by pointing at the spell lists isn't accurate as they are almost certain to receive significant additions. And if (stressing the "if" real hard) psionics do become "over-powered" once they have a spell list similar to a core Wizard or Cleric, that would be an issue.
Then, back to Open Game Content, not Complete Psionic. Even if Paizo wanted to use the material from Complete Psionic, they can't really. The book isn't available for other companies to draw from. I don't even believe the changes Complete Psionic made to XPH are Open Game Content.
Yes, and I believe that some Paizo staff member did mention something along those lines. But, that would be the very rare instance as requiring buyers to own another book would likely be a significant obstacle to the product selling as much as Paizo's products that don't have such a requirement.
Well... what books do you already need to play? I remember hearing that PF assumes you still have a PHB/DMG kicking around, which would bring the required number to four (including the AP itself). Raising that to five doesn't sound like such a bad thing, especially since, as you said earlier, you can reproduce the entirety of XPH in a single PF book with plenty of room to spare. If that's not the case, well, it's still only one extra book. Which, coincidently, is an extra book Paizo can make money off of.
Yes, and I believe that some Paizo staff member did mention something along those lines. But, that would be the very rare instance as requiring buyers to own another book would likely be a significant obstacle to the product selling as much as Paizo's products that don't have such a requirement.Well... what books do you already need to play? I remember hearing that PF assumes you still have a PHB/DMG kicking around, which would bring the required number to four (including the AP itself). Raising that to five doesn't sound like such a bad thing, especially since, as you said earlier, you can reproduce the entirety of XPH in a single PF book with plenty of room to spare. If that's not the case, well, it's still only one extra book. Which, coincidently, is an extra book Paizo can make money off of.
Essentially. Pathfinder currently assumes the Core Rulebook and Bestiary.
I sort of doubt that requiring just one more book would have a minimal effect on sales. I don't actually have any of the numbers to back this up in any way though. My expectation is that interest in Pathfinder Psionics would be much less so than the Core Rulebook and Bestiary, and therefore any adventure that requires the Psionics book would draw even less interest than a Psionics book. That Paizo would be better serving much more fans by not tossing on another $40 book as required reading.
To me, that template is seems to be very much like a class in all ways but name.Well, the earlier compromise I suggested was much simpler than cramming class abilities into templates. Just make a new Vancian psionic class in addition to updated point-based XPH classes, and then use only the new class in AP stat blocks.
But I seem to recall that you objected to that idea because I wanted the updated XPH psion to be called "psion" instead of calling the new Vancian class "psion." So I thought I'd propose a workaround that doesn't involve new classes, thus avoiding the which-class-gets-to-be-called-"psion" sticking point.
I believe my problem with it was that you introduced the NPC only class into the situation as if developing the phantom class would somehow be a lot less work than developing an actual class for publishing. I instead felt that developing the class would take a good deal of work and I think it would be the least work to actually make this new class they are developing be part of a book that they are publishing, rather than adding it on top of their other work.
I actually don't care what they call it that much, I should be fine with their names no matter what Paizo decides on (assuming book is not blocked). I believe I brought it up because you raised your problems about with both classes having the same name and responded to that. I felt I don't think one should block a sensible name for a class just because one wants another company to have exclusive rights to it.
To be honest, I don't see this much like a compromise. It seems like you get everything you want, while determining what other things other people get to guarantee no possible injury to you.
Essentially. Pathfinder currently assumes the Core Rulebook and Bestiary.
I sort of doubt that requiring just one more book would have a minimal effect on sales. I don't actually have any of the numbers to back this up in any way though. My expectation is that interest in Pathfinder Psionics would be much less so than the Core Rulebook and Bestiary, and therefore any adventure that requires the Psionics book would draw even less interest than a Psionics book. That Paizo would be better serving much more fans by not tossing on another $40 book as required reading.
I think they'd get enough to justify usage.
Plus, there's the issue of drawing people to PF as a whole. When 4e came out, many people switched... but a vast number didn't, and still haven't. There's a number of reasons for this, but one argument against switching that often came up was the relative lack of depth compared to 3.5. With well over a hundred books out, and dozens of classes, and easy multiclassing, you could reflect just about any concept in 3.5. The relative paucity of options in 4e at the time made many people, including myself, highly apathetic about switching. We've got a game that works and does what we want it to, for all its faults, and there's little motivation to switch.
Same for PF. If you're playing a Core-only game in your local group, then hey PF makes sense. If not, well, the compatibility helps, but the nature of the changes means it's often awkward to mix. Expanding PF to include more official and fully-integrated options will be a significant draw for those of us whose groups are still plodding along with 3.5. The more grounds it covers, the more appealing it is for us, and the more it feels like a valid alternative.
Thus, I think it makes good business sense for Paizo to have some sort of official PF psi system, whether they make it themself of in collaboration with another publisher. As long as it's official, and well-integrated, it'll expand the PF world and make it more appealing. I also think changing the system to yet another pseudo-vancian sort is liable to remove half the point of playing psi in the first place and is going to alienate a whole bunch of peole.
I, personally, am in the group of people who could swing over this. Right now, I wouldn't mind giving PF a try and if someone in my group gets the books then I'll definitely have some fun with them. If Paizo introduces pp-based psi, I'd be very interested and might actually start making waves in my group about it. If Paizo introduces pseudo-vancian psionics, well, I don't think it'd reduce my chances of trying PF, but it'd remove the main reason I enjoy psi in the first place and kill any desire to play those specific classes, and that certainly wouldn't boost my chances of making the switch.
|
Somehow I doubt PF is going to massively power-up Psi by giving them a whole bunch of awesome powers that will let them destroy the game. I mean, they're not perfect, but the worry seems more "omg Psi is overpowardz".Apparantly at least one editor among the Paizo staff, Mr. Jacobs feels that the present system of Psionics in XPH already falls into that category.
*Throws chum into the water.*
Thus, I think it makes good business sense for Paizo to have some sort of official PF psi system, whether they make it themself of in collaboration with another publisher. As long as it's official, and well-integrated, it'll expand the PF world and make it more appealing. I also think changing the system to yet another pseudo-vancian sort is liable to remove half the point of playing psi in the first place and is going to alienate a whole bunch of peole.
Errrk. There is an issue with that link. The issue being that I decided to read a large chunk of it rather than just read three or four posts.
My first thoughts reading the thread was that there were a large portion of posters were pro-point system rather than psionics (it also explained why there was a small surge of posters on this thread). Then that transition into me seeing that there were a large portion of posters were anti-Paizo (Ranging from an apathy for the company to seething hatred). At this point, I don't particularly care if a wide chuck of those posters don't like what Paizo makes, because they seemingly are not interested in buying Paizo products at all. I think it would make bad business sense for Paizo to try to sell to people who don't want it.
Possible solution (?):
- A character can be made psionic in one of two ways. They can be built with levels in point-based psionic classes, or they can be built with a psionic template that adds spell-like abilities scaled to match their Hit Dice.
This template exists.
Errrk. There is an issue with that link. The issue being that I decided to read a large chunk of it rather than just read three or four posts.
My first thoughts reading the thread was that there were a large portion of posters were pro-point system rather than psionics (it also explained why there was a small surge of posters on this thread). Then that transition into me seeing that there were a large portion of posters were anti-Paizo (Ranging from an apathy for the company to seething hatred). At this point, I don't particularly care if a wide chuck of those posters don't like what Paizo makes, because they seemingly are not interested in buying Paizo products at all. I think it would make bad business sense for Paizo to try to sell to people who don't want it.
Yeah, there's a fair depth of anti-Paizo sentiment over there. Part of it springs from a couple of alleged incidents where a few veteran CharOpers were banned over here when they tried to offer legitimate feedback on what was wrong with the original rules and how that interacted with the (beta version) changes. I don't know if this is true or not as I wasn't there, but that's the story many people on that board know.
There's also a lingering sense from the beta days that Paizo has no clue about game balance; Power Attack got nerfed and Trip became useless, generalist Wizards got free metamagic, etc. I realize that those have mostly been fixed for the final release, but the general feeling of nerfing the weakest classes and buffing the strongest ones still exists in a lot of people's minds.
Really, that's the crux of this latest thing too. Psi is not overpowered, and is just a little weaker than Arcane or Divine in general. Hearing James Jacobs talk about how it's not balanced with Core, that reinforces that impression. There's already a lot of people who have little faith in Paizo's sense of game balance, even after they fixed a number of the issues people had problems with, and this plays into their hands.
The only way to win these people over is to legitimately demonstrate a good mastery of the rules and dynamics of the game, show that the earlier lapses were flukes or at least that they've learned from them. If Paizo came out with something that's balanced, nuanced, addresses the known problems, and doesn't add any new problems - that would go a long way towards restoring the faith of those people.
The other thing they could do, which might help with those, is to invite a few of the big name veteran CharOppers on as "technical consultants" or somesuch, ask for rules-lawyer-y feedback in designing the rules. I'm sure there's half a dozen who'd be willing to put large amounts of effort into that on a volunteer basis.
A few things here
1. They guys banned were mostly given a 3 day cool off period after they told folks to "go die" "your to moronic to game" "You fail you moron" and other much worse things. Every single post had to be suppressed as they broke every rule of the form. They just could not play nice, if folks disagreed they would say that's because they were dumb asses
Also telling staff that they could not design a game fit for a 4 year old...not a good call
2. Things were changed , but they guys doing the work did not see if from your table. They have been in the nuts and bolts of doing this for a living for years. When your paycheck depends on knowing how changes effect the whole game and not just one group..I'll take that over some random CHAOP power gamers who is really trying to super optimize and not balance
3.You think it's not overpowered and it's balanced. A few gamer designers disagree, I would say more people think it is then think it is not. When you are paying to have the book made and being paid to make the book you get to make that call, but you need to look at the whole picture not just one side
4. LOL that amused me win them over by showing you know the rule, I think paizo knows the rules better then folks that look to push em to the limit every game. You need to look at folks who do not do this. You
do not make a game for one play style and only one.
5. Invite folks that hate what you do to work for you? Hell no
Edit: The fact is man psionics never sold well and was never intrgarted into the ruleset, many people will not allow it and most people who champion it want the points and less restriction they do not give a damn about "psionic" themselves. It does not play will with core, not from my experience yours may differ but the number of folks who think it is not balanced with core outnumber those who do.
As a game company they need to look at the whole of the line, not just the 10% of the die hard fans who will only buy it if it's pure point system. They need to look and say, how many can we sell? how easy can we support this system ? how easy will it be for people to use a psion class without the book?
There have been 4 point based psion systems that at large failed to play well with core. The XHP is the best of the lot I'll say that but still it fails at being able to seamlessly integrate into the game. IMHO
It is highly unlikely you will be seeing a point based psionic system from paizo for them reasons
- Soul Knife (2.35/10) is one of the weakest classes in the game, just above the universally ridiculed CW Samurai, and well below even the much-disparaged Monk (3.51/10).
- Psychic Warrior (6.02/10) is nowhere near the top, but is right between the Duskblade and Warlock, and not far below the three Tome of Battle classes (6.55-6.88/10).
- Psions (8.35/10) are definitely near the top of the list, as are most full-spellcasters, but are nowhere close to the Wizard (9.67/10), and only slightly ahead of the Sorcerer (8.20/10). Even the Druid (9.38/10) and Cleric (9.16/10) have a solid lead over it.
- Wilders (6.46/10), by contrast, are well down the list, a little ahead of Psychic Warriors but still below Tome of Battle. The only two full-spellcasters below it are the shugenja (6.44/10), and the much-maligned Warmage (5.41/10). The other...
Well from my experience, that survey is probably not a very good representation of actual power. I had a player play a warmage and the only advantage I would give wizards and sorcerers would be spell selection. Also, after having personally played a Wilder in a game, sure I can make any NPC my level or lower explode, but then that's pretty much all I can do for a long time. Having a smaller amount of powers I can have balances it out I believe.
Soul knives may be considered one of the weakest class in the game, but I think most players are overlooking the fact that you can get not one but two free magic weapons. And all you have to be is a psionic Character with a power point reserve. I'm certain that in some games that give out magic items like candy the soul knife falls behind but in games where magic items are rare soul knives can be game breaking. As a DM the idea that a base class gives a player a magic weapon at low levels seems overpowered to me, but maybe I'm just odd like that.
Psychic Warriors as printed seem to be more like rangers or rogues than to fighters or paladins. They are meant to be a damage class that has a lot of tricks up its sleeve.
I think the thing that always makes me laugh at things like that survey is how they never take into effect feat choices or gear options.
A few things here
1. They guys banned were mostly given a 3 day cool off period after they told folks to "go die" "your to moronic to game" "You fail you moron" and other much worse things. Every single post had to be suppressed as they broke every rule of the form. They just could not play nice, if folks disagreed they would say that's because they were dumb asses
Also telling staff that they could not design a game fit for a 4 year old...not a good call
Eh, as I said, I wasn't involved and I won't comment. I didn't see the posts, and I didn't see the reaction. They say they were trying to provide rules-based feedback and were told to shove, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was trolling and flaming as part of that either. Still, that's the story that gets told around those parts.
2. Things were changed , but they guys doing the work did not see if from your table. They have been in the nuts and bolts of doing this for a living for years. When your paycheck depends on knowing how changes effect the whole game and not just one group..I'll take that over some random CHAOP power gamers who is really trying to super optimize and not balance
You'd think so, wouldn't you. But the fact that they retracted a number of their changes amid massive outcry (generalist free metamagic for one) suggests otherwise. I think they try, but they're a different sort of people than the CharOp / TO crowd who can push the game to the limit to see what it does. That's what you need when testing a system, because if it explodes under pressure then some times it's going to explode during normal play too. I've taken classes on testing theory (for computer programs, but the same concepts apply) - you need to rigorously test your special cases and boundary conditions if you want to release a stable product. And CharOp is the way to do that here.
Also note that most of the really famous exploits were theoretical exercises to show what the system was capable of, rather than at-the-table powergaming. CharOp is generally not really interested in overshadowing everyone else, just in exploring and experimenting and seeing what they can do.
(That said, there's some who take their theoretical work and try to use it at the table, and these people generally don't deserve to be playing the game.)
3.You think it's not overpowered and it's balanced. A few gamer designers disagree, I would say more people think it is then think it is not. When you are paying to have the book made and being paid to make the book you get to make that call, but you need to look at the whole picture not just one side
Again, the most comprehensive survey on the subject disagrees with you.
4. LOL that amused me win them over by showing you know the rule, I think paizo knows the rules better then folks that look to push em to the limit every game. You need to look at folks who do not do this. You do not make a game for one play style and only one.
Addressed earlier.
5. Invite folks that hate what you do to work for you? Hell no
Oh, so alienating a wide swath of those most committed to pre-4e D&D is a good idea?
Edit: The fact is man psionics never sold well and was never intrgarted into the ruleset, many people will not allow it and most people who champion it want the points and less restriction they do not give a damn about "psionic" themselves. It does not play will with core, not from my experience yours may differ but the number of folks who think it is not balanced with core outnumber those who do.
As a game company they need to look at the whole of the line, not just the 10% of the die hard fans who will only buy it if it's pure point system. They need to...
It works fine with Core if you use Transparency. I've already advocated for that elsewhere in this thread, and is one of the trivially easy things Paizo could fix to make it work wonderfully. As to most people thinking it's overpowered, again the most comprehensive survey on the subject disagrees with you.
Anyway, a lot of the resistance to Psi is from the unbalanced 2e implementation and the shoddy 3.0 version. If Paizo released a "fix" of the 3.5 version, even if it didn't change much, I strongly suspect that a lot of the naysayers would give it a fair chance. Make it clean and crisp and compelling, and it could be a very good thing indeed.
|
Would people please stop bringuing that survey up. It was made on the WOTC char op forums. So if most people here disagree with the game view of people there, then therefore IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Different game experiences give you different takes on any given mechanic, please stop presenting that relative survey as if it was an irrefutable fact of reality.
The only way to win these people over is to legitimately demonstrate a good mastery of the rules and dynamics of the game, show that the earlier lapses were flukes or at least that they've learned from them. If Paizo came out with something that's balanced, nuanced, addresses the known problems, and doesn't add any new problems - that would go a long way towards restoring the faith of those people.
I'm going to suggest that there is no real action that could be taken to "win" these people. And while I don't think that every single thing that Paizo does is perfect, I trust them so more than people that got "banned" for "legitimate feedback." That Paizo would be better off just not paying them any significant attention. Their remaining attention on their actual customers rather than shift their focus to other groups and alienate their existing base.
Well from my experience, that survey is probably not a very good representation of actual power. I had a player play a warmage and the only advantage I would give wizards and sorcerers would be spell selection. Also, after having personally played a Wilder in a game, sure I can make any NPC my level or lower explode, but then that's pretty much all I can do for a long time. Having a smaller amount of powers I can have balances it out I believe.
Soul knives may be considered one of the weakest class in the game, but I think most players are overlooking the fact that you can get not one but two free magic weapons. And all you have to be is a psionic Character with a power point reserve. I'm certain that in some games that give out magic items like candy the soul knife falls behind but in games where magic items are rare soul knives can be game breaking. As a DM the idea that a base class gives a player a magic weapon at low levels seems overpowered to me, but maybe I'm just odd like that.
Psychic Warriors as printed seem to be more like rangers or rogues than to fighters or paladins. They are meant to be a damage class that has a lot of tricks up its sleeve.
I think the thing that always makes me laugh at things like that survey is how they never take into effect feat choices or gear options.
Warmage - spell selection is 90% of what makes Wizards great. I mean, where would they be without spells? Or, if they cast off the Cleric list instead, how would they compare to actual Clerics? "Worse in every imaginable way" comes to mind. The whole strength of Sor/Wiz is that the spell list is enormous and filled with awesome. Saying the Warmage only loses out in that one department is like saying I only lose out to Jet Li in a fight because of massive physical and technical training. Technically true in a way, but hardly a fair summation of the gap. In general, expert consensus is that Sor/Wiz have dozens of ways to completely incapacitate enemies without nicking away at hp, that they're nigh-untouchable if they use their defensive spells right, that they can double or more the effectiveness of allies, and that they're almost as good (some say better) at doing hp damage than warmages. Warmages have only one real advantage, in one of the more suboptimal areas of expertise, and completely lose out everwhere else. And it's not even a particularly big advantage even in that area. That said, they're still a decent class on the middle of the list.
Wilders - I pretty much agree with you here. They can do some impressive things but burn out fast. They also get extremely few powers, and they're all off the inferior generalist Psion list. About the only thing they can do is make things blow up, and they can't do it nearly as often as a Leap-Attack Shock Trooper, though perhaps with a bit less effort. Also, Enervation sucks, and that's the key to most of their actually effective tricks. Still, they do have a degree of flexibility over Warmages, even if it's limited by the pathetic amount of powers known.
Soulknives - ...eh, I don't see it. They get a "magic weapon", but what does that really mean? The enhancement bonus almost compensates for their mediocre BAB, depending on the level, and pretty much flat-out prevents them from investing in a better one or using some shiny artifact sword that they looted from a Dragon. Really, all the magic weapon does is help beat DR/magic (something anyone should be able to do at those levels), and give a small boost to damage. Pretty much every single one of their class features goes into keeping their Mindblade roughly on par with what the Fighter's spending money on, but at least the Fighter gets feats and whatnot. Or compare to a Rogue with no Sneak Attack, half as many skill points, no trapfinding, and a bit more gold. Oh, then there's the fact that you have to wait until level 17 until you can do something most characters can do at level 1. In a game where magic weapons are downright impossible to find even at the level 10-12 range, and there's enemies with DR/magic, Soulknives become powerful. Otherwise, I'd rather have actual class features.
Psychic Warriors - Well, they can go either way. The feats lead me to believe they're Fighter-analogues. They have some hefty disadvantages there (d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, less feats), but get powers that help make up for it. By powers they can get a lot of the things that Fighters really wish they could have, including concealment, levitation, summoning weaponry, and some nice offensive powers that work with what they're already doing. They don't really seem like a DPS class to me though, not like Rogues who can get five attacks at +10d6 (or more) damage each. They seem like front-line fighters with some adaptability in dealing with situations that leave normal Fighters stranded, like extra-large enemies (Expansion), or enemies out of reach (Levitation), or blindness (Synesthete). They're not as good at being Fighters, but better at overcoming disadvantages, and I think that's a good thing.
.
But yes, the survey doesn't include stuff like that. Given the context, I think the survey presumed a fair degree of skill on the part of the player in each case. Wizards are worse than Fighters if your spell list stinks, for example, but they're rated highly because they can be unbelievably good. In general though, everyone agrees that player skill can raise or lower any class on that list. Gear and Feat choices can salvage just about anyone (eg: I recently made a theoretical level 4 halfling commoner that could probably take on whole armies, although I never intend him to be used in actual play). Knowledge of the rules and lack thereof can also change things substantially. Someone who's new to Psi might apply things wrongly and become either pitifully weak or unbelievably strong. Same goes for arcane, when people confuse Spell Level and Caster Level, or forget that by default you can't cast under Alter Form / Polymorph. There's all sorts of reasons why your personal experience might be massively different than the survey. That doesn't invalidate it though, as a general indication.
To be honest, I don't see this much like a compromise. It seems like you get everything you want, while determining what other things other people get to guarantee no possible injury to you.I want my preferred magic system (point-based psionics) to be supported in future Paizo products. I am willing to concede all support for my favored magic system in all future Paizo products and accept the creation of a Vancian psionics system that meets your needs, and all I'm asking in return is that Paizo not recycle the names of four existing classes.
Are you really saying that the complete forfeiture of all support for my preferred system is less of an imposition on me than the forfeiture of four existing class names is on you? It isn't enough that I lose out on any official support for my preferred magic system, but I also have to accept the rebranding of the old system's class names, making it harder for me to introduce the old system to players who learned the new system first, on account of the overlapping terminology?
If that is a correct restatement of your position, then I can only conclude that you won't accept any solution that doesn't explicitly exclude fans of XPH psionics from enjoying Paizo psionics.
For one, I doubt that even if all the names were used again that it wouldn't be a complete forfeiture of all support for your preferred system. I would say that your are about as likely to get support for it no matter what Paizo does.
As for names, if one is just talking about the base classes in Expanded Psionics Handbook, I imagine Psychic Warrior would be least likely to be used as Paizo has been pushing relatively hard for one word names. I also have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the name anyway, and would be just as unhappy with a class named Divine Warrior or Arcane Warrior.
While I have somewhat happy feelings for the Soulknife, the name is not one of those happy feelings. If the knife was made of soul-stuff, I would expect it to be a more divine class or Necromancer-type. Then I'm not sure why the psionic character is stabbing souls anyway. (The only abilities that I know of that has anything to do with souls, Knife to the Soul and Soulbreaker). A different name can be used for a similar concept and I would be content.
Wilder is probably my favorite base class from this book. I have no dislike for the name, but if I used to someone who didn't know, they probably would connect it to psionics quickly, if ever. While I think it might just be the only named psionic class in any of the Pathfinder books, I might expect Paizo could make a name that I like better.
Of course there might be deeper reasons for these names that give them a incredible reason that will make me like them more.
Then we come to Psion. I care as much about this name as Wizard or Sorcerer. For me, all there are relatively good names for classes that do what they do. I'm still not attached to the idea of Paizo needing to use this name, but this is probably the one name that I care about. This is the name that I don't think has an incredibly strong case for being denied to some psionic class.
Beyond some more arguing about whether using the class names again would really exclude fans of XPH psionics that much more than making a series of new classes while ignoring XPH, which we will likely bounce back and forth a few times before coming to terms with the fact we aren't likely to come to agreement here. That is pretty much where I stand on the names.
Would people please stop bringuing that survey up. It was made on the WOTC char op forums. So if most people here disagree with the game view of people there, then therefore IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Different game experiences give you different takes on any given mechanic, please stop presenting that relative survey as if it was an irrefutable fact of reality.
Are you saying you'd rather disregard the opinions of those who know the rules of the game better than you, precisely because they know the rules of the game better than you?
Are you also saying that people who enjoy playing with the rules are doing something wrong, and that they shouldn't be playing PF at all?
Are you saying that Paizo mandates how the game must be played, and any attention to character power is TEH EBILZ?
Are you saying that normal players don't sometimes accidentally discover the tricks that CharOpers investigate intentionally?
Are you saying you'd rather play a game that is only balanced for people below a certain level of familiarity/expertise with the system?
Are you saying that you have a better measure for class power and balance?
Alot of stuff based on a random survey
Anything and everything based out of the CHAROP forms I tend to ignore. It never matches up with what I have saw in play over the last 8 years. I do not play with power munchkins, who only play things that can juice up like a pro athlete on super roids
I am not calling all optimizers that, but..I would ban have the crap folks try on that board. Loophole hunting and abusing odd wording and just well munchkin crap to be honest. Most groups I have played with were not super optimizers, Most time with no casting and playing nothing but the "weak" classes. Sorry I do not buy it.
Most gamers on avage do not hang on charop forms looking for ways to get 300 points of damage out of a class with feats and items from 32 books.In my experience folks that play like that are NOT looking for a balanced multi-use system, they are looking to play gods or supermen who run over and though any and everything thrown in the way. And if a class can not achieve this godlike power its "weak" and "full of fail" or the "designers did not crunch the math"
To be blunt if them guys want to sit and whine on boards known as "muchkin" wonderlands and b!$+! and whine about "weak" classes and "designers not knowing how to make a game" or whining over the loose of points..well they can stay there I really do not think anyone cares
Now I am not calling all optimizers munchkins, but people are what they are. They can play nice or go elsewhere and b%!#$. Paizo will not cave and loose costumers who already buy the product and like the product to win over a few who will b#@@* anyhow.
Are you saying you'd rather disregard the opinions of those who know the rules of the game better than you, precisely because they know the rules of the game better than you?
So let me get this right. If a player does not power game and does not abuse loopholes, weak wording and a slew of unbalanced feats he is not playing right?
Folks can know the rules just as well and not see the same thing. People In this thread know psioincs from playing in games with them. Some know them very well. Some think they are fine some think they are not. Your saying only people who agree with you know the rules it seems.
|
|
Wow, I re read my post 4 times just to make sure. But I still have no idea how or why (besides knee jerk reactions or conflict predispocition) anyone could have gotten those conclusions from my post.
Im not gonna get in a game of "i know the rules better than you" because that is infantile. However I will reiterate the point i was trying to make in my post.
The game experience for most players who participated in the char op WOTC forums differs greatly from the one most poepl here have had. Therefore that surey does not apply to A LOT people here.
And everyone knows that any given survey always depends on the people who are asked.
Now I will check in a little while to see if you have deduced from this post that " all native americans are not allowed to eat pie"
Call me crazy, but I'm not quite catching the logic.
"These people are a bit OCD and spend lots and lots of time examining the rules with a fine toothed comb. They pride themselves on knowing everything about the ruleset inside and out. Here's a survey regarding their understanding of the rules."
"Well, I disagree philisophically with them. Therefore, everything they've ever said, EVER, is wrong, forever. Soulknives are incredibly powerful because my players are never given magic items, nor are they given the ability to buy them. Psions are more powerful then wizards because I willfully ignore the in game rules."
Seriously?
That's your argument?
|
|
That kind of comments show just an inability to conceive any given game from a point of view different than yours, which is your right to do so, so I will not hold it against you.
However, as has been stated many times around here. The game is not absolute, it does not have a D&D Encyclopedia with a guide of how to play the game and how to have the best experience with it. Therefore NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY TO CONVINCE YOU OF IT, CHAR OPERS DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE RULES AND THE GAME AS IT RELATES TO ANY GIVEN GAMING EXPERIENCE.
Hence, a survey made with a different gaming mentality that the one most people in any given specific community share will not be as valid as some might want it to be in said community.
I am not downing the mad math skillz of that bunch. How ever numbers are not everything
Let me give ya something I learned may years ago at battletech. In that game you can build your own units or mechs so I have seen many that on paper really such. You crunch the math, look over the design and they are really just awful designs.
All that is out the window at play. Some of the awful designs that mathematically are just bad, rule the game if played right. The down right outperform what the math says they can do. I have seen the so called "crap" units crush the other side. Then I have seen them de crushed in turn at some tables.
What it comes down to is not everything on paper matches how it really plays. If paper and numbercrushing always worked then there would be no need to test anything, no prototype cars or plans or anything. But often the math just gets things wrong when it's game time
It's a game and the math leaves three very important things out, the dice gods and the player and what the GM will allow. And them three are more often then not gonna make your math just plain wrong
I like the name psion and think there is a good chance they will use it as the name carries a lineage and folks know it's about" metal powers" even if ya have never seen or heard of the point casting system
I would also be cool with psychic
This thread has really wandered far off track. Soooo, I'll put my 2 coppers in , lol.
I have said before what I don't like about psionics, which boils down to personal tastes. To tell the truth, I think we can all agree that thge truth of it is, the whole subject is about personal tastes.
Me and some others (I feel that some of the Paizo staff here): Psioncs are more of a SiFi thing to me. I also don't want a whole set of rules that I have to use to run psionics. From MY standpoint, I would prefer, so that I could include them for certain palyers, is to just reskin the sorcerer. My feel for psionics is fluff based, with some minor rules to justify it.
Others: Love the XPH, and would love to see it ported to Pathfinder. They get their 'feel' for the style from the system. Their feel for psionics is from the mechanics. To them the mechanics helps them to visualize psionics.
A third annoying group: They are looking for the "BEST" option for power gaming. They see psionics as different, and feel they can exploit the rules to their advantage to 'win' the game. This group isn't in just psionics, just some of them come to psionics to get their 'fix'.
That, by no means, covers all of the people, but represents a big portion of them. Knowing the rules inside and out, which I could argue that allot of people that refuse to listen to charop people know them better, doesn't make you right all the time when discussing ROLEplaying. Charop is about ROLLplaying. You 'crunch the numbers'. That very phrase shows that. I don't care for MOST of those numbers. Is playing an orc (not half-orc) bard a good idea, from a charop point of view? No way, but, if your GM lets you, it is probably because you have this story in mind.
The whole argument is about how you feel about the game. Unfortunately for the second group, I believe, from what Jason & others have said, that you will a little miffed at the results. But, if it comes down to Paizo Pathfiderizing the XPH instead, I won't be too miffed. I will accept that Paizo felt that was the best decision to support what they felt was the larger section of their customer base.
What's all this talk about some random, non-scientific survey? It's distracting me from arguing semantics with Blazej. :P
Darn surveys always are getting in the way.
Then we come to Psion. I care as much about this name as Wizard or Sorcerer.So do I.
I cared enough about "sorcerer" that I'd have been upset if they'd change the way sorcerers cast spells. I cared enough about "wizard" that I'd have been upset if they changed the way wizards cast spells. And I care enough about "psion" that I'll be upset if they change the way psions 'cast spells.'
This is the name that I don't think has an incredibly strong case for being denied to some psionic class.I agree 100%. Some psionic class should be called "psion." Thankfully, that class already exists in 3.5, which I'm told thrives in Pathfinder.
Arguing that any psionic class has the right to be called "psion" is like arguing that any warrior class has the right to be called "fighter." Using "psion" as the name of a new Vancian caster is the same as using "fighter" as the name of a new rage-based class. That supposed psion is no more a psion than that supposed fighter is a fighter.
I would say that is similar to saying that Paizo shouldn't have made a witch class. That class also already exists in 3rd edition and Paizo shouldn't create a Pathfinder Witch because that would inevitably upset people who really liked that Witch when they see the Pathfinder Witch has significantly different abilities. The Pathfinder Witch would similarly be no more Witch, than a Pathfinder Psion would be a Psion.
Of course, I'm still not insisting it must be used. In fact, I could just as easily see Pathfinder Psionics not having to touch it. If the Roleplaying Game line continues to be 320-pages, and the Pathfinder Psionics book use the magic rules and primarily draws from the spells in the Core Rulebook, I can imagine this book containing more material than was placed in the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic combined. That could lend to creating more focused classes than the generalist Psion.
Back when in the Psionics Handbook, there were Psions and Psychic Warriors, these are capable of covering a large range of concepts with only two classes because they are both pretty general archetypes in both ability and name. But if a book has six or eight classes all focused on psionics, I'm not sure if it is the best idea to start with a pair of classes that are general rather than have all the classes be more focused in what they represent.
But then again, I could be off in my assumptions (like that it would be a good idea to have more specific classes than fewer general classes) and that this is all just crazy rambling.
A third annoying group: They are looking for the "BEST" option for power gaming. They see psionics as different, and feel they can exploit the rules to their advantage to 'win' the game. This group isn't in just psionics, just some of them come to psionics to get their 'fix'.
That, by no means, covers all of the people, but represents a big portion of them. Knowing the rules inside and out, which I could argue that allot of people that refuse to listen to charop people know them better, doesn't make you right all the time when discussing ROLEplaying. Charop is about ROLLplaying. You 'crunch the numbers'. That very phrase shows that. I don't care for MOST of those numbers. Is playing an orc (not half-orc) bard a good idea, from a charop point of view? No way, but, if your GM lets you, it is probably because you have this story in mind.
Then they're looking in the wrong place for their "fix". Better to look to the PHB classes (cleric, bard, druid, sorcerer, or even an archery-based fighter) for that. I've pointed out, many times, that psionics isn't even as powerful and about as versatile as core magic - but in a different way.
Also, I do believe that knowing the rules in and out helps you have a better grasp on game balance. I've played in games with DMs who ignored this "rollplaying" thing you speak of, and it was horrible (if an enemy missed you while had a shield equipped, they auto-hit your shield and rolled free sunder-damage, and he stated several times that the casters needed help to be as effective as fighter types).
Also, I'm not sure how much it matters, but YES! Playing an orc bard would be awesome in a character optimization sense. Bards only gain up to 6th level spells, so having a low charisma isn't a deal breaker, and it allows you to make use of bardic magic through spell completion and spell-trigger items (allowing you to heal your party in their downtime), and many of their low level spells (the ones they can swing with their charisma penalty) are self-buffs like mirror image. Toss the orcs +4 strength bonus, and you can pull a 19 assuming standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8). This means you're excellent in melee and with a composite longbow you're a living bolt-thrower. Toss in bardic music to buff you and your party, and you're quite the force.
You could also throw in some drums on your waist, and suggest you strike them with your hand or pommels between attacks, while shouting out battlecries of Gruumsh! Perhaps your orcish bard's studded leather armor is laced with skins and furs of slain animals, or the skulls of powerful enemies vanquished! You're not a sissy "bard", you're a "war-caller"!
An no, CharOp isn't only about ROLLplaying. You shouldn't make generalized statements like that, unless you want to upset someone who knows better (read: more about character optimization than you).
/rant
PS - When discussing rules, such as the benefits of a 3.5 psionics system compared to 3.5 standard spell system, then you need this sort of knowledge. Discussing "ROLEplaying" as you describe would be better suited for topics about your Chelaxian sorceress falling in love with her ex-slave halfling.
Not exactly. The witch is a third-party class, whereas the psion is one of the fourteen base classes included in the 3.5 SRD. If the psion didn't appear in the Reference Document defining the system Paizo is trying to keep in print, I wouldn't have any problem rebranding it. As it is, I consider the psion as close to core as you can get without coming from a 3.5 core rulebook. The witch, not so much.
How important the Witch class is would depend on the person similar to how important the Psion is to others. You may draw the line where Paizo should not use previously used class names (and such), but I don't think there is a strong reason to draw that line right after the entire SRD, as opposed to the Core Rulebooks or OGL material from acknowledged publishers.
As long as no one declares the 3.5 SRD psionic classes officially incompatible with Pathfinder by assigning their names to new and different PRPG classes, I'd be able to tolerate (if not embrace) whatever original psionics system Paizo creates.
Once again, I don't think that would make the psionic SRD officially incompatible any more than any change Dreamscarred Press making rendering the SRD classes officially incompatible.
An no, CharOp isn't only about ROLLplaying. You shouldn't make generalized statements like that, unless you want to upset someone who knows better (read: more about character optimization than you).
/rant
Actually, you are ASSUMING you know more about charop than me. I have spent YEARS on the WotC boards around bunches of the annoying charop people. ALL they discussed was the best race/class/whatever combo and would always drone about number crunching. I have DMed for 25 years, and I have looked at the numbers in many different editions of this game, and others. I have done plenty of it myself, just not to the extent that others do it. I found the whole exercise a waist. Sure, your character does X, Y, and Z; but does that mean that your DM will let that happen? You make the same mistakes as you claim I make, if you THINK you know more than me. SO, you need to ask yourself if I do, or don't. The answer, you don't know if you do. I made my statement based on my experiences with allot of charop people. Now, THEY probably didn't know as much as you, but I not sure. I made the statement about using psionics this way, not because I believed they are good for charop, but because those individuals thought that. They were munchkins, because they wanted to assume that they could run rough shod over DMs with optimized psi characters. They hate it when you point out the rules to them. You see, I do know the psi rules, I just don't like them. I also know Rule One. The DM is the FINAL word at the table. I always hate those that misquote Nova situations, when most of them don't follow the rules. Most Novas I saw on the boards violated the rules. They pumped more power points into a 'spell' than is allowed for their level. AND, you have to have certain feats from the Complete Psionics to use it, which I NEVER allowed at my table. Found the majority of that book broken.
That said, I will discuss the problems/strengths/tastes of psionics in Pathfinder, but don't assume you know more than me, simply because you don't like what I say.
Warmage - spell selection is 90% of what makes Wizards great. I mean, where would they be without spells? Or, if they cast off the Cleric list instead, how would they compare to actual Clerics? "Worse in every imaginable way" comes to mind. The whole strength of Sor/Wiz is that the spell list is enormous and filled with awesome. Saying the Warmage only loses out in that one department is like saying I only lose out to Jet Li in a fight because of massive physical and technical training. Technically true in a way, but hardly a fair summation of the gap. In general, expert consensus is that Sor/Wiz have dozens of ways to completely incapacitate enemies without nicking away at hp,...
I'm not necessarily arguing with you, I'm just saying that in my experience Warmages are walking nuclear bombs. Wilders too for that matter. Sure Warmages don't have a lot of Party enhancements or ways of incapacitating enemies that don't involve doing damage but damage is damage. And when your DM throws several hundred enemies at you, I'd rather have a Warmage (or a Sorcerer) on my side than a Wizard (who might have only prepped spells to save his own ass).
Having played a Wilder, I can honestly say that with the current rules (and this might be a good argument against using psionics...) I could take a level one power and do approximately 220 points of damage to a single creature if it failed a will save and it would only cost me 20 pp. Sure its an all or nothing kind of thing...but 220 points of damage will kill most things even at 20th level under 3.5 rules. The fact that the power, Mind Thrust, is a level one power makes it even more crazy because the rules say the that DC scales. So basically you could potentially have one character in your party who could do 220 points of damage (Mind Thrust, plus maximize, plus wild surge +6) with no roll to hit, costing only 20 pp (meaning they can do it approx 18 times before running out of pp), and it only requires a DC 25 will save with just a 30% chance of enervation. It wasn't until I ran the numbers that I realized how powerful I was...and I decided afterwards to play my character a bit more low key. However, even knowing all of that doesn't make me think that psionics are broken...because I've had a wizard/sorcerer approximately 400+ damage with only a reflex save allowed.
As far as the soul knife goes, I guess I'm only looking at it from a DM's perspective. As a DM when you look at each class you look to see how you can challenge the player playing that class in unique ways. If all I ever did to fighter's was to force them to take will saves all the time it would get boring. In the case of the soul knife a lot of what a DM might do to challenge a player doesn't work on the class. You can't disarm a soul knife...at least for more than 1 round. You can't use an Anti-magic field to make him lose the properties of this mind blades. Soul knives gain Whirlwind Attack for free (9th level Bladewind ability) And every round they can do extra damage as long as they use a move action. Again, from a DM's perspective its just a little crazy. Sure there are many ways I could do something about it, but then it will feel like I'm just out to get that one player for playing this class and that is not fun. Also, I guess I'm a little biased because my first encounter with someone playing a Soul knife was during a Gestalt Campaign. (Player was a Soul knife/Ranger)
I guess when I say I see Psychic Warriors as a damage class instead of a fighter like class I'm thinking about all of the feats they could take from the XPH. I think Psychic Warriors are kind of like Melee Wilders, able to do a decent amount of Burst damage in one hit and then are pretty much out in the open. The one thing that kind of confused me about them was paladins have a good BAB, why don't psychic warriors?
To me that survey is too constricting and like many things in statistics is prone to error. In the end there is just no measurement for human ingenuity for this game. Any class that is "bad" can be made awesome in the right hands.
Actually, you are ASSUMING you know more about charop than me. I have spent YEARS on the WotC boards around bunches of the annoying charop people. ALL they discussed was the best race/class/whatever combo and would always drone about number crunching. I have DMed for 25 years, and I have looked at the numbers in many different editions of this game, and others. I have done plenty of it myself, just not to the extent that others do it. I found the whole exercise a waist. Sure, your character does X, Y, and Z; but does that mean that your DM will let that happen? You make the same mistakes as you claim I make, if you THINK you know more than me. SO, you need to ask yourself if I do, or don't. The answer, you don't know if you do. I made my statement based on my experiences with allot of charop people. Now, THEY probably didn't know as much as you, but I not sure. I made the statement about using psionics this way, not because I believed they are good for charop, but because those individuals thought that. They were munchkins, because they wanted to assume that they could run rough shod over DMs with optimized psi characters. They hate it when you point out the rules to them. You see, I do know the psi rules, I just don't like them. I also know Rule One. The DM is the FINAL word at the table.
You just proved my point. The people you say were running around with "optimized" psi characters aren't following the rules (which are easy rules). It's not the 3.5 psi system that's the problem, but bad players, plain and simple. Also, no, those aren't optimizers. Optimizers follow the rules. When you get into optimization theory-craft (like a monk who could run 300mph), one looks at how to push the limits within the rules - but theorycraft is a for-fun bit and widely unplayed, but standard optimization is a different story (see pun-pun vs a well built wizard - one is theory-craft, the other is just good).
I had one of those players you speak of. Couldn't have optimized the pointy end of a sword into a goblin, but insisted that this level 2 druid spell would let him put wood into something's veins and give them a stroke. This to me sounds like the type of people you're talking about; along with the "it doesn't say I CAN'T" crowd who bug me as well.
I always hate those that misquote Nova situations, when most of them don't follow the rules. Most Novas I saw on the boards violated the rules. They pumped more power points into a 'spell' than is allowed for their level. AND, you have to have certain feats from the Complete Psionics to use it, which I NEVER allowed at my table. Found the majority of that book broken.
I agree with you completely here. Also, CompPsi is a horrible book and hated by most fans of psionics. If you go to the Psionics board at WotC and ask if you should buy the CompPsi, a good 9/10 board members will tell you no, it's a waste of money for far to little playable material, and you should go pick up the Dreamscarred Press books instead if you want more Psionics goodness.
Also, it's worth nothing that the CompPsi isn't open game content so Paizo can't do anything with it to begin with. If Paizo was to do something with Psionics, we (the fans of the existing balanced working awesome SRD system) would want them to use the existing (working balanced integrated) SRD version.
That said, I will discuss the problems/strengths/tastes of psionics in Pathfinder, but don't assume you know more than me, simply because you don't like what I say.
I'm working with what I'm given. If someone says it's raining outside and I'm standing on the front porche sunbathing, it's natural to assume they must not know what the weather's like outside.
To put it another way, you mentioned and orcish bard as a terrible CharOp concept 'cause it's so inferior and bad mechanically. It actually has some strong possibilities in the CharOp department which can assure it will be just as effective (optimized) as another character in the group.
When someone says things that I know are false, as if they are true, then I MUST assume they don't know. If I don't, then I MUST assume they are LYING to me and everyone else around them. Since I tend to be trusting, and try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I assume the first.
Finally, I'd like to apologize if I came off as harsh before, but I am so sick of hearing people saying psionics is broken when it's more balanced than core magic! The same core magic Pathfinder has! When they were less powerful than wizards and sorcerers, and Paizo releases STRONGER versions of both of those classes, and people who SHOW ME that they don't know what they're talking about by saying they are too powerful, it grinds my gears.
When people judge psionics by different standards than they judge magic, it grinds my gears.
When people judge psionics by people who admittedly are breaking/not following the rules, it grinds my gears.
When people talk about psionics as being broken because they're including poorly written splat books that aren't part of the psionic's system (which is listed in the SRD), it grinds my gears.
It's a wonder I have gears left to grind. T_T
Having played a Wilder, I can honestly say that with the current rules (and this might be a good argument against using psionics...) I could take a level one power and do approximately 220 points of damage to a single creature if it failed a will save and it would only cost me 20 pp. Sure its an all or nothing kind of thing...but 220 points of damage will kill most things even at 20th level under 3.5 rules. The fact that the power, Mind Thrust, is a level one power makes it even more crazy because the rules say the that DC scales. So basically you could potentially have one character in your party who could do 220 points of damage (Mind Thrust, plus maximize, plus wild surge +6) with no roll to hit, costing only 20 pp (meaning they can do it approx 18 times before running out of pp), and it only requires a DC 25 will save with just a 30% chance of enervation. It wasn't until I ran the numbers that I realized how powerful I was...and I decided afterwards to play my character a bit more low key. However, even knowing all of that doesn't make me think that psionics are broken...because I've had a wizard/sorcerer approximately 400+ damage with only a reflex save allowed.
It should be noted that the average damage for a fully powered, +6 wild surged Mind Thrust is 143 damage, with roughly a DC 32 (assuming a +10 charisma modifier from magic items and tomes) to negate it completely. If you instead took the metapsionic feat to maximize it, and then wild surged it, you'd be able to pull off 220 damage once every other round, with a DC of about 28 (assuming a +10 charisma modifier) to negate it completely. Also it's a Mind-Influencing power which means it doesn't work on a lot of things and can be outright negated by effects such as Mind Blank or since it's a 1st level power, Lesser Globe of Invulnerability cancels it completely.
Also, if you're wild surging it, then you're also suffering a 30% chance to loose another 20pp every time you do that. If you're using the metapsionic feat, then you're also only going to pull it off only once every other round or you're going to need to take a number of feats to allow you to do it once per round, but you still have to spend your move action to regain your focus (meaning you're less mobile). Finally, it's a direct-damage single-target power. If your opponent does fail their saving throw and takes that damage, a Mass Heal spell just healed more damage than you inflicted, and to a lot more people.
It's also noted that if you're spending 20pp on your level 1 power, for all intents and purposes of how much it just cost you, it's not a level 1 power anymore! You just spent about 3 more points than it takes to manifest a 9th level power.
Also, did I mention that the will save is to NEGATE the damage, not halve it? It's an all or nothing power. Even if your wilder bursts the hell out of it with a +6 wild surge (risking a 30% chance of paying another 20pp - effectively loosing another 9th level power), the save DC is likely around DC 32. A 20th level fighter likely has a +5 resistance bonus to saves, +6 from class, and we'll give him a modest +3 from wisdom (assuming he has enough magic items to get him to at least a 16), for a total of +14. This means that he is very likely to fail his save and take about 143 damage. Alternatively, he has a 50% chance to completely avoid the 220 damage version I mentioned earlier.
An NPC warrior with a +3 constitution score has an average of 170hp. A PC fighter will likely have MUCH more. This means that you're manifesting a 9th level psionic power that deals comparable damage to a Pathfinder save-or-die spell, which is not reduced but negated by a successful saving throw, and is also mind affecting and thus useless against a variety of enemies (including many undead, plants, constructs, and so forth) and blocked by several spells and protections.
I just wanted to point these things out for those who are reading this thread besides us.
heh, it may not cost what a level 1 power does..but show me a core level 1 spell that can pull that off.
Edit: What I mean is show me a level 1 core spell, that using core feats and such can do 220 points of damage. You can meta magic it to 9th level slot if ya need to but I want to see this pulled off with core.
...stuff...
Never said it is the system that is the problem. Reread my posts. I SAID that I don't like the system for many reasons. Mainly, from charop, is the people that assume just because it is different, that it HAS to be better, therefor they charop, without following the rules. I guess they hope the DM doesn't know the rules, or they just assume...well whatever they assume, they are wrong. I actually like the system, as a system. Don't care for the inclusion of something that is that different from the Core rules. I would actually like it IF the magic system worked like the psionics system. THAT is my entire point. Since Paizo is using standard Vancian magic, I prefer that the psionics work that way too. To me, the feel can be from fluff. You can add a FEW new rules to help that along, but the system does not have to be point buy for everyone to be able to use 'suspension of belief' to get that psionic feel. Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved does it just fine with their modified Vancian system.
Look, you want to charop, to build the character you like, fine. Maybe that is were you are missing my point. I never said it is wrong for a player to want to pick the fastest way to get into the PrC they want, with the most benefits for that character. I do that, too. I am talking about the RABID charop players that want to 'beat' the system. If you can understand that, and come down off you soapbox, maybe you will understand my point. I understand that YOU may never like a Vancian psionic character. We can agree to disagree there. I am not trying to convert you. But, from a financial reality, I don't believe the XPH will get a direct port to Pathfinder. Either Jason or James has explained that in the past. The system that allows for the smallest reprinting of rules in an AP to allow GMs that don't own the whole psionic book is the system that will most likely see print. That will most likely be Vancian. IF, actually, SINCE this won't please you, as well as others, I hope they actually give the same treatment to their Psi system as to the past as the Core Rules. Meaning, I want those who like the XPH, to be able to tweak it easily enough to make it more like what they want. Hopefully able to just add power points & go.
By the way, the above argument over the use of that psionic power proves a couple of things. The Psionics rules are NOT that simple. It also proves how different the system is from Core. My point is made for me. It is different enough to put off allot of GMs. Since GMs are the ones buying a majority of the rulebooks, you have to pay attention to that detail. Once you learn the system, yes, it becomes second nature. BUT, you can't force anybody to learn a new system. I will point you to 4e, then say look at Pathfinder. Most don't like the new system, so are sticking to 3.5e. I can't force you to like whatever Paizo puts out, just as you can't force the ones who don't like XPH to suddenly like it.
I may never buy the book, because I may not have a need for it. Psi bloodlines for me do just fine. I do hope for the Psi lovers here, that whatever they put out gets more support than it really did from WotC. Aside from web articles at their site, it really suffered from little support.
heh, it may not cost what a level 1 power does..but show me a core level 1 spell that can pull that off.
Edit: What I mean is show me a level 1 core spell, that using core feats and such can do 220 points of damage. You can meta magic it to 9th level slot if ya need to but I want to see this pulled off with core.
Disintegrate + Maximize Spell feat = 240 dmg on a failed save, with 30 damage on a successful saving throw. It has a range of long (200ft at 20th level), touch attack, affects almost anything (including undead, constructs, and so forth). You should be able to manage a DC 26-28 saving throw on it by level 20 without trying (I can explain this too if you want). Also, grab yourself a metamagic rod and bust out a quickened version in the same round (as a swift action, y'know, quicken), to double your damage output or take out two enemies with 240 non-elemental-everything-is-subject-to damage each. You're a 20th level caster, you can afford it or make it yourself.
Compared to Mind Thrust augmented to 14pp (equivilant to 7th level), then using the Maximize Power feat AND being a 20th level Wilder using a full +6 manifester level wild surge, with a 30% chance to suffer from psychic enervation (essentially, it means you'll be using up 2 9th level spells worth of magic in 1). It also has a range of short (90ft counting the wild surge), mind influencing (can't affect undead, constructs, plants, non-intelligent creatures, Mind Blanked characters, etc), and it has a Will Save to completely negate it (instead of taking 30 damage regardless). It'll also have a similar saving throw DC. It is also blocked by any effect that prevents 1st level powers, because while you're spending enough on it to make it a 7th level + maximized effect, it's still 1st level. Also note, that while manifesting it at the cost of a 7th level power, the 6th level disintegrate is better.
It was a 1st level power when you were manifesting it with 1pp. At this point, you're spending enough power to be bustin' out a 9th level spell slot AND using your most powerful class feature you can, and you STILL didn't just out-damage the arcanist.
This means that manifesting it as a 1st level power, you're not going to do that much. Even if you're a 20th level wilder and bust out a +6 wild surge (remember, 30% chance to blow enough power to cost you a 9th level spell), you have an average damage of 38.5, and a save DC of about 24 (remember, +10 prime ability score). Otherwise it has an average damage of 5.5 and a DC 21 (11 + ability score) to negate it. Even on a wild surge (that is, your most powerful class feature of a wilder which is intended to make up for its severely crippled number of powers known), there's always that 30% chance you're going to loose a 9th level power for buffing this level 1 power this way (and no, that's not worth it).
You demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the rules in question, and as such you prove that you have no business discussing ANYTHING regarding the balance of such rules. If you actually compare a 1st level power to a 1st level spell, then we shall do so...
1st Level Power (SRD);
Mind Thrust
Telepathy [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Psion/wilder 1
Display: Auditory
Manifesting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates
Power Resistance: Yes
Power Points: 1You instantly deliver a massive assault on the thought pathways of any one creature, dealing 1d10 points of damage to it.
Augment
For every additional power point you spend, this power’s damage increases by 1d10 points. For each extra 2d10 points of damage, this power’s save DC increases by 1.1st Level Spell (SRD);
Magic Missile
Evocation [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: Up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: YesA missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can’t be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell.
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
As you can see. At 1st level, these abilities are about equal. Mind Thrust has an average damage of 5.5, is mind affecting, and has a will save to negate. Magic Missile has an average damage of 3.5, and cannot be evaded, and is a force effect so it can affect incorporeal creatures (thus its 2pt average damage difference is justified).
Now, traditional spellcasters benefit from something known as Free Scaling, which means almost all of their spells become better as they gain levels, but they don't have to spend more slots on them and they get more slots as they go.
At 1st level, these are about equal. They both have their perks and drawbacks. At 2nd level, the same. At 3rd level, the Spell increases its average damage to 7. The psion can pump more PP into his to bring it up to match, but doing so means he is spending as much as a 2nd level power. The wizard gains this power increase for free. By 9th level, the wizard's spell has improved to an average damage of 17.5, and is still costing the wizard the same 1st level spell slot.
The psionicist cannot match this without pouring more power into it. Conversely, the psion would likely rather pay the 9pp it would take to manifest a higher level power, since it might have better range, or strike more targets, but he has to fall back to his 1st level powers as his PP wane. However, unlike a wizard, when his PP wane to the point he only has what amounts to enough for 1st level powers, they're not as strong as a traditional caster's.
The reason we psionics fans don't complain about this, is because to make up for these drawbacks we have a few perks. We have a little more leeway when it comes to getting around energy resistances, we can wear armor if we have the appropriate proficiencies (since like divine casters armor doesn't screw us up), we don't have to deal with "I have sleep, magic missle, and colorspray prepared - I used sleep, no more of that today" (kinda like sorcerers), and we can make up for our limited power options by up-bumping our powers to try and make them work like higher levels if we need to, but it costs us just as much to do so if we do, and they're not as good as an equivalent power or spell of that level.
We do however complain when people that don't know the rules try to make smartass remarks about the system that we know, when they don't.
So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
I read the wall of text later as it's late, but can magic missile do 220hp?
You start off with a 6th level spell, which was not what I asked. Can or can not a core first level arcane spell be made to do 220 points of damage?
Edit: I started to read you response but I got the lack of rules info and utter "I am god of psion knowledge bow before my know how " from ya. So screw it. You just proved they do are not balanced with core if it outright kills with a fist level power that is under normal casting rules not gonna do it. Then no they systems do not play well together which was the point a few folks have made
also magic missile with free silent and still spell built in would not be a level 1 spell
Look, you want to charop, to build the character you like, fine. Maybe that is were you are missing my point. I never said it is wrong for a player to want to pick the fastest way to get into the PrC they want, with the most benefits for that character. I do that, too. I am talking about the RABID charop players that want to 'beat' the system. If you can understand that, and come down off you soapbox, maybe you will understand my point.
Hey, Xorial, I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. Let me try to better explain myself.
I understood what you meant. I know there are those that try to "beat the system", and I don't condone it either. However, connecting that to the 3.5 psionics system seems wrong to me, because they do it with core as well. I mean, there's a reason nicknames and terms like CoDzilla exist. You don't hear about PsiZilla. While some might try to break the system by trying to figure out exploits in the Psi rules, many many more people have done so with core. When 3.5 came out, they had nerfed a lot of fighter feats and the way they work with each other (as opposed to 3.0) because of exploitations like you're describing. Ever heard of the "bag o' rats" trick? Basically, it involved whirlwind attack + cleave with a lot of rats. Alternatively, you had your wizard pop out 1d4+1 level 1 summon monsters around the party's fighter, and he uses Whirlwind Attack to attack the big bad evil guy with a full BAB attack, and cut down all the summon monsters, only to get another full BAB attack against the BBEG for each summon he killed.
Even by trying to prevent it by making it so you can't use feats like Cleave and Whirlwind attack together (further diminishing the option for what would have otherwise been a fine strategy in regular non-cheesed play) the abuses still exist. Now, instead, you still summon or get a lot of low-AC nothing monsters who the fighter can kill with all his iterative attacks, and then attack the BBEG with what amounts to +20/+20/+20/+20.
Now, I really wouldn't ask anyone to allow this in game. By the rules it works fine, but I think it's an example of the kind of nonsense you're describing. The thing is, there are TONS of this stuff in the PHB. Also, while the original pun pun used a psion as the base class and a small library of WotC sourcebooks, it was later refined to the point a 1st level commoner can pull off pun-pun cheese, without even a nod to the XPH.
So all I'm asking is, please stop drawing some sort of connection to what most would call "munchkin-y" power gaming and optimization, because neither are deserving of such slander.
I did, screw it. I got half way and his attitude killed any interest I had in looking at it.
If the systems work together and are balanced with each other a level 1 power= a level 1 spell. This is not the case at all. They have 2 built in free meta magic feats and can be boosted well beyond what a spell of the same level can be. That is not balanced agist each other. Stand alone, sure fine, but not playing together
Now I am out of practice with the rules and think they work fine as long as your not using any core casters. It brakes down when ya mix as they really do not mesh well.
It really does not matter because "I lack system knowledge" So my play experience does not count it seems nor does anyone else who thinks it's not balanced with core. Which by the way seem to outnumber the folks that think it is.
I did, screw it. I got half way and his attitude killed any interest I had in looking at it.
If the systems work together and are balanced with each other a level 1 power= a level 1 spell. This is not the case at all
Now I am out of practice with the rules and think they work fine as long as your not using any core casters. It brakes down when ya mix as they really do not mesh well.
It really does not matter because "I lack system knowledge" So my play experience does not count it seems nor does anyone else who thinks it's not balanced with core. Which by the way seem to outnumber the folks that think it is.
Then you should be able to give examples of this. I'm waiting. I play with both in the same games, as do my friends, as does my little brother who is 11 years old, and he grasps it just fine. So by this statement, I've already offered an equal amount of weight to the argument compared to you, and then I kicked it up by actually providing examples and explanations instead of just issuing unbacked statements.
It's like I've taught my little brother. "Don't go around just stating things as facts. You better offer some good evidence, and be willing to be met with counter evidence in many cases."
Edit: For this reason I'm glad that Blazej is a civil debater, and even when we were arguing back and forth, he provided examples of what he thought. He also did so in a much less sarcastic way. So if you're reading this Blazej, thank you.
Many folks have said why. It is not the easy pie system to most people. Some will grasp it some will not. I used it in a game for a year, and yeah it caused issues. Now thats been 8 or 9 months back so I can't really tell ya what as anything I recall is foggy and telling y'all stuff without full details is useless as " you show your lack of rule x" when at the time I did indeed use the rules by the book, double and triple checking everything as needed
Would I run the XPH again? sure. Would I run it in a setting with core magic? no
You guys seem to think if someone else's play did not match yours well the other group did it wrong. And yes the fact it is used wrong alot, and if it is used wrong so often don't you think this easy as pie thing ya got going might be wrong? Lest not every one grasps it easy?
Let me put it like this using only core, as that is how we game and matching it up with the xph , gave us issues. If it did not to you, well great but do not sit and tell someone they must have did it wrong or do not play right when it simply does not work for them.
After all can you tell me word for word, rule for rule something ya have not looked at in 8 months or a game that happened a year back? I do not know many folks on this board that can unless they use a book alot that can do that
Anyhow man, nothing personal, I know maybe my posting style come over as a bit harsh, I was not trying to debate rules really as I am to rusty on em.
I guess it comes down to what you and I see as working well together are not the same thing.
Anyhow if It comes off harsh I do apologize for that, I have been doing that alot of late it seems.
Regarding CharOps and the immidiate dismissal:
Here's the problem.
The statement: Psionics are overpowered.
Ok, you believe psionics are overpowered. There are several groups of people I can talk to about this.
However, the issue at hand is this: The belief that the class is overpowered.
If a class is to be "overpowered," that requires them to be better then anyone else at the game. Therefore, if we want an UNBIASED, LOGIC BASED answer, we should, logically, talk to the people who spend the most time considering what is and is not more powerful then anything else. CharOps is made of those people.
This isn't a question about feeling. Or opinion, quite frankly. You are stating, as a fact, "Psionics are more powerful then anything else." One group of people has crunched numbers, run scenarios, and looked at pretty much any possible angle to see what is and isn't overpowered. You have not.
The issue here isn't that you think psionics are overpowered, it's that you then immidiately clamp your hands over your ears and, whenever someone tries to explain to you, calmly and logically, how you're wrong, you just shut your ears and brag about not reading their posts. I'm going to reiterate that: in an argument and disagreement that's 100% dependent on understand both points of view, you are taking pride in your ability to be purposefully ignorant.
This is why I and many others have trouble taking some people here seriously. You AREN'T looking for intellectual discourse. You don't want to talk about psionics possibly or not possibly being more powerful then other classes. You've already made up your mind, and you're just here to try and force everyone else to agree with you, logic and understanding be damned.
And that's why I sincerely hope and pray that Paizo completely ignores you when they do (finally) (eventually) (maybe) look at psionics - because you've already stated that you're not only ignorant regarding the system, but that you want to continue being ignorant, and that instead, everyone else has to bow down to your pride. You are a spoiled child demanding the rest of the world agree with you that the Earth is flat.