I, for one, would be willing to look at a system that Paizo comes out with. As I've said before, I've run with the 3.5 psionics, have had too many issues with trying to integrate them into the game and with balance against other classes, and have since banned them in my games. I'll test anything Paizo comes out with, because aside from one or two personal issues, I love everything they've come out with. And I would be even happier if they scrap the point system.
I removed a post in this thread. Keep in mind that name-calling is still name-calling even if you're speaking for someone else.
I will take a look at Paizo's product too, however as a die hard Psionic character user, I expect to see certain things or optional things.
To me, 2nd edition was the best Psionic rules thus far. 3.5 was ok but some of the feats and powers were too watered down into uselessness with cool words in the description.
Perhaps two systems should be created - points and the Vancian systems?
Even though 2nd edition Psionics were the most powerful, the DM still could test me without killing off the party.
It's mainly aimed for Paizo's convenience. They want to present Psionic NPCs in modules with no more work or page space needed than to present any other spellcaster. So exit 3.5 psi, hello Vancian psionic.
And for that matter, I'm not sure who the non-point system is aimed at. The people who love psionics love the point system, and thus won't buy it. The people who hate psionics will just go on hating it, and thus won't buy it. It's a product aimed at a non-existant market.
Another thing. Yes, allot of the people that like psionics like the point system. Unfortunately, they are not the largest market for the people that would buy it if the system was more easily integrated. Paizo's convenience is also a GM's convenience. Allot of GMs, including me, don't use psionics now, because it does not mesh well with core rules. the XPH is balanced. I don't buy this overpowered/underpowered argument. To me, if both arguments exist, then THAT is the best argument for overall balance. MY problem is the system does't play nice with core spellcasting. Not a power prblem, but a rules integration problem. Both systems need to be the same, for ease of use. Since the GM customers are a larger percentage of people that buy the MOST products, then they will target any product they make to the GMs more. It would suck to make this nifty product, but to realize that none of the GMs would use it.
why do we have to replace Psi crystals at all? Why not just use them? if for some reason they are not OGL then Tattoos seem the next logical step. A "treasure that can't be stolen."
Mostly as I hate them. And I gave them a bonded item that in place of an extra spell allowed to cast without components
Creative Director
|
Of course, Paizo seems to have no intention of using "mystic" as the name of any one class, since they are referring to alchemists as "arcane mystics" and oracles as "divine mystics." But none of that stops me from thinking "mystic" would make a good class name.
Sometimes a word is just a descriptive word and not a rules element. The game robs us of enough descriptive words already (you can't just call ANYONE in the game a wizard, for example). In the case of the word "mystic," that's a word that basically means "spellcaster" but is a more poetic word choice than "spellcaster" is.
Another thing. Yes, allot of the people that like psionics like the point system. Unfortunately, they are not the largest market for the people that would buy it if the system was more easily integrated. Paizo's convenience is also a GM's convenience. Allot of GMs, including me, don't use psionics now, because it does not mesh well with core rules. the XPH is balanced. I don't buy this overpowered/underpowered argument. To me, if both arguments exist, then THAT is the best argument for overall balance. MY problem is the system does't play nice with core spellcasting. Not a power prblem, but a rules integration problem. Both systems need to be the same, for ease of use. Since the GM customers are a larger percentage of people that buy the MOST products, then they will target any product they make to the GMs more. It would suck to make this nifty product, but to realize that none of the GMs would use it.
These psionic threads are quite polarizing. I see the positions of both sides (i.e., stick as close to 3.5 as possible vs. a Vancian (?) system better integrated w/ the overall system). I'm hoping Paizo sticks w/ 3.5 (i.e. point system), personally, but if they don't, and I prefer 3.5 to whatever they do come out w/, I'll just do the extra legwork to update 3.5 myself. Or if Dreamscarred does a great job, use their version.
I want to thank the tireless defenders for busting down the "overpowered" myths as fast as they spring up (too frequently). As for the "how integrated they are or are not" in the overall system, I can only speak from personal experience, and won't extrapolate from that more than necessary. I've been playing w/ a group of 5 characters--monk; cleric; psion; psychic warrior; soulknife--since 1st level. They just hit 17th level. I've had no problems interacting w/ arcane and divine magic types. None of my characters has consistently outshone any other (well, the 3.5 monk took a while to shine at all :-)). Rather, they each shine in the appropriate circumstances. That to me is balance, and on a personal note, an argument for how they are by and large balanced not only w/ each other, but the overall system. YMMV.
My suggestion for Paizo would be to forget about trying to integrate psionics into "the overall system" (e.g., NPCs in modules and adventure paths) if that means dispensing w/ the point-based system. We know there are areas (Vudra, Jalmeray IIRC, and the red & green planets) where psionics could be a mainstay attraction. Do a hardcover psionics book update and work it into coming attractions in Golarion like those cited above that will allow for the PF flavor enhancements to what would otherwise be a world-neutral book.
I just don't see the 2 sides in this debate coming together in the middle. And yet I read on in grim fascination. Keep in mind, folks, a lot of forum energy is being expended and Paizo might not even get to this for a couple of years. Not telling you what to post or not, just keeping this in perspective. I'll go back to lurking now...
I'd have to agree.. this thread has degenerated from content to repeated noise and it's best ended until Paizo puts out whatever it's going to put out.
I agree, but I think the decision has been made to do nothing. If DSP's idea takes off it may be too late for Paizo to make their version of psioncs, because most of us are not going to pay for the same thing twice even if the mechanics are different, and Paizo will probably have to wander what would have happened had they made their own version.
If DSP does not sale as projected then Paizo can breathe a sigh of relief because they got an answer without taking any risk, but they might still have an opportunity to create adventures and try to integrate psionics into the system at a later point if things do go well.I guess in the end I dont think Paizo really stands to lose much by not doing anything.
...the word "mystic," that's a word that basically means "spellcaster" but is a more poetic word choice...As a real-life believer in mysticism, I have to say this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of casting spells.
The most frequent definition of mysticism that I have encountered, and the one that I ascribe to, describes a mystical tradition as one whose adherents attempt to intuitively experience the ultimate truth of reality. Mysticism emphasizes metaphor, personal revelation, and positive emotional experience as the primary means of spiritual growth.
This is in contrast to dogmatic traditions, whose adherents instead attempt to rationally understand the ultimate truth of reality. Dogmatism emphasizes authoritative doctrine, codified prayer, and the intellectual understanding of important religious principles as the primary means of spiritual growth.
(Few, if any, organized religions are categorized as either entirely dogmatic or entirely mystical, since organized religons tend to include both mystical and dogmatic traditions in their fold.)
None of that has anything to do with magic or spellcasting.
Please for the love of all that is good in the world, correct me and tell me that you aren't taking offense to someone using the word "mystic" to cover spellcaster.
|
Please for the love of all that is good in the world, correct me and tell me that you aren't taking offense to someone using the word "mystic" to cover spellcaster.I'm not taking offense to someone's use of the word "mystic." I'm taking exception to someone using an erroneous definition of a word as the crux of their argument against my position. If James had instead claimed that "potato" is a synonym for "spellcaster," I would have scoffed in my last post that this was the time first I'd ever heard anyone accuse a potato of casting spells, and gone on to describe what I understand a potato to be.
But even there is your definition of mystic and the many, many other discriptions of mystics.
I don't think that I am going out on a limb in saying that James was coming from fantasy/pulp fiction "Glorion" viewpoint rather than a real world stand point.
My wife and I are the sort who check off on the other box as far as religion stand point, and personally if you are going to bring your own religous hang ups to a discussion about game rules, then your being offensive and need to step away from this line of discussion.
|
Creative Director
|
I was not trying to insult anyone by using the word mystic. Any more than we're trying to insult anyone by having witches in the game now, or by openly admitting that there are devils or demons. I certainly don't define the word "mystic" in the same way you do... I simply see the word as defined to be "a contemplative person who seeks enlightenment into the workings of something unknown." Which works quite well when applied to an oracle OR an alchemist. Especially when you're trying to write ad copy for a website or a book solicitation and trying NOT to be dull and dry and boring and repetitive with your word choices but pressed for time on a hard deadline anyway.
In any event... don't attach too much significance to the word choice, is what I'm saying. And if you do because you're pre-frustrated by Paizo's and my current stance on psionics... it might be a good time to take a deep breath and refocus.
I think you overreacted EM.
Mystic is an ancient word and it pre-dates Christianity. It comes from the Mystery cults, those held at Eleusis are probably the best example. A mystic is somebody who has been initiated and knows the sacred rites and "spells" (Prayers, incantations what ever you want to call them) of that particular faith. The Mystic does not share those rites with the un-initiated.
Word Origin & History
"mystic (adj.)
1382, "spiritually allegorical, pertaining to mysteries of faith," from O.Fr. mistique, from L. mysticus, from Gk. mystikos "secret, mystic," from mystes "one who has been initiated" (see mystery (1)). Meaning "pertaining to occult practices or ancient religions" first recorded 1615. The noun meaning "exponent of mystical theology" is from 1679, from the adjective. Mysticism coined 1736.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper"
The definition has changed for some people but the older defintion is still accepted.
Forgive me if I am wrong EM but your definition would be something closer to
"a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy."
Which is essentially the same as the other definition but in a more modern context.
The people of the past were neither primitive or stupid their religious practices were as sacred to them as yours are to you. Modern people have a tendency to label things that are "pagan" as spells rather than prayers so to differentiate between "Primitive superstition" and modern faith (Essentially the same thing as both a calling upon a higher power).
...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...
For the love of god, its not a first level power @ this point its a power that due to the freedom of the class has allowed this power to become much more than a first level power.Yet with that said you need to be able to manifest 9th level powers to actually be able to make this happen. Why do people find the need to manipulate everything from this simple concept that is @ the end of the day the best layed out rules in the game.
|
I just wanted to throw out that, for myself and a number of other people I've talked to, we like psionics because it doesn't use spell slots. I'm somewhat indifferent to the flavor, but I really, really dislike playing a Vancian-style caster. The psionics rules give me an outlet for playing a caster without having to use the Vancian system.
In short, switching psionics from points to a Vancian system is pretty much the one thing that will guarantee that I will not buy it.
What, what, what??? I missed something...last I read the only psionics was going to be 3rd party, is Paizo actually going to be putting out a book/rules for psionics?????
What, what, what??? I missed something...last I read the only psionics was going to be 3rd party, is Paizo actually going to be putting out a book/rules for psionics?????
At some point but not this year and not next, maybe not the year after that. But at some point. And from whats been said here it is unlikely to be point based. Which has upset some folks
To be honest I think it upsets them more as they want an alt caster system then the fact it's psionics
Well, I can understand that, I love the point system, IMO it is what made 3rd ed psionics great, but it's easy to convert things to a point system using Unearthed Arcana.
To be honest I think it upsets them more as they want an alt caster system then the fact it's psionics.
To some people it is one and the same. There are people who prefer "magic" because it's vancian, and some who prefer "psionics" because it's point based. The fact it's a beautiful system just drives the nail home.
Because flavor is what you make it, I prefer the psionics aspect. With the psionics handbook, I can create hundreds of concepts without having to deal with wierd parts of a clunky-ass magic system. For example, using the psionics rules I could make a character who was generically psionic (such as Psion, PsyWarrior, Wilder, etc). However, it's much more elegant for creating completely different concepts. Here's a few examples:
Rune Knight - A fighter or multiclass fighter/psion or fighter/psywarrior with the appropriate feats and powers. Makes use of feat such as Psionic Weapon, Greater Psionic Weapon, and powers like Prevenom Weapon and Vampire Blade.
Totomist Shaman - A barbarian / psychic warrior with appropriate feats and powers. Makes use of feats such as Speed of Thought (spirit of the cheetah), Up the Walls (dance of the spider), Psionic Charge (boundless hunt) and powers such as Claws of the Beast, Expansion (girth of the bear), Animal Affinity (uhh, that can stay), Elfsight (eyes of the wild), Lion's Charge (that one too). For extra credit, take Expanded Knowledge (Astral Construct) to summon forth the ghostly apparitions of wolves and bears.
Shadow Conjurer - An illusionist / shaper / cerebremancer. With a lot of illlusion spells and astral constructs, take boost construct, practiced spellcaster, practiced manifester, expanded knowledge (ectoplasmic form) (shadowform), and select powers such as ectoplasmic wall (wall of shadow), and so forth. You focus on spells and powers that don't rely on a high caster level (illusions, your "shadow" constructs, and so forth) to do your work. You don't destroy, you confuse and confound. Bonus points for being a gnome. :)
I intentionally kept core classes in each of these concepts, and even combined magic and psionics with the last one (which would be veeeery fun to play, by the way). Psionics tends to also be a fine multiclassing option for gish-characters (as displayed in the rune knight and totemist), and also for cleanly elves who don't like handling bat-poop.
^_^
You just kinda provided an example of what I was talking about there.
You just kinda provided an example of what I was talking about there.
My point is that fluff is mutable. There's a reason people don't want to see the 3.5 psionics go the way of the dinosaur. Because mechanics are as much a part of the psionics we love.
In the same way, it also shows that it's a good system for people who feel the fluff aspect of psionics is too "sci-fi" (which while silly, this sort of thing is fairly common). Essentially, it demonstrates itself as a system that is both robust and dynamic, capable of filling its intended role and fluff as well as working for other fluff ideas.
The idea of Vancian psionics, as some others have pointed out, likely won't be very well received, because it's been pointed out that a sorcerer can just be fluffed as being a "psychic". Maybe you can even convince your DM to let your sorcerer ignore stuff like chanting silly magic words, and having to wave your hands around to cast your "psychic powers", and Eschew Materials keeps your hands free of bat-crap. So you design up a new bloodline that throws in various spells like Telekinesis, and call it a psion. Ok, that's fine. But this means those who dislike the fluff of psionics won't be interested, 'cause you're strapping sci-fi onto their sorcerer.
In the same respect, a player who enjoys 3.5 psionics might find the fluff relatively irrelevant for the character concept they're working on. Sure, it gives Psionics its own feel which works perfectly for describing not-magic-casting, but also can be used to describe completely different things effectively with mechanics.
Further, some people (myself included), really get a baste taste envisioning a vancian-psion. You'd need to dump spell components, magic words, armor spell failure, and give options for concealing your manifestations, or generally doing things in ways that don't jump up and say "Oh look, it's Elminster!", and balance this new free-scaling vancian system against standard magic, and so forth.
As it is now, it works, and it's balanced. It also is versatile enough to represent exactly what it's supposed to represent, as well as a multitude of other things. If you wanted to make a mage-knight (like in my previous example), you have to deal with stuff like arcane spell failure combined with reduced caster levels, as well as being unable to cast spells while holding your sword and shield (you need a free hand to wiggle your fingers to cast Magic Weapon on yourself).
A fighter/psychic warrior or just a psychic warrior (if you want a bit more supernatural than traditional fighting) can pull this off. He has powers like Vampire Blade which give him qausi-magical powers with his weapons, and he can do this while he's actually being a fighter-type character. His system is simple - grab a few powers that work, spend points 'till you run out.
It's not "better" than being a strait-classed barbarian or something similar. Less base stats and less combat-specific class abilities, but you get cool powers to make up for that. You get mechanics that let you build a character with less fluff issues than when you deal with vancian magic.
This works awesome for races like Dwarves and Half-Orcs, who would probably charge into combat in their heavy armor, tower shields, and dwarven waraxes that suddenly burn with their inner power, screaming "For the Clan!", as their psi/ki/magic/prana/spirit/runes empowers them and their weapons.
Maybe you can do this with the other classes, but only if you limit it to either divine casting, or you instead slap all of them in mithril chain shirts instead of breastplates, take their shields or axes away (or spend some of your feats on off the wall fixes), stunt their hit points, and more or less laugh at them because they're already going to be less powerful than if they had just decided to be a wizard or sorcerer, and making it difficult to design a character like this.
At the end of the day,
Paizo could create a Vancian system fluffed to be "psionic". People who dislike psionics likely won't be interested (mostly those who are anti-psi fluff). People who like psionic fluff and vancian casting, can already pick spells like Telekinesis and pretend if they can get past the silliness of your mind not working when you're wearing armor. The psionic fans that exist already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor, and many (whether fans of the fluff or not) realize its other benefits beyond fluff based effects.
I wouldn't buy it. In fact, I know no one in our group of 6 regular players who would either. On a side note, several of them (and myself) were actually put off when Jason mentioned psionics overpowered compared to core characters, because it invited worry that there was a certain level of ignorance as to how the game works very high up on the totem pole (and that's no insult, for those wondering). The ones who thought it the silliest were players who play wizards and sorcerers more than other classes, 'cause they know better.
Several of my friends suggested I give up on Pathfinder, citing their stance on Psionics as "another example of Pathfinder failing to do what it's supposed to", noting it amongst making the classes more balanced by upping the options on things like fighters and monks, then gutting the feats that made them viable, giving more powers to the wizards, and so forth. Since Psionics are actually part of the SRD, and they're dropping it and even spoke about non-existant balance issues makes them worry even more about actually investing in this game.
I myself, tend to try to be optimistic.
Vancian psionics?
a definitely "no-no", thanks.
Paizo guys should make a really great psionic system, if they want to surpass the existing one, which is imho one of the 3.5 mechanical peeks of precision and balancement.
But please kill Vance and let the wizard keep hi stuff (until Pathfinder 2.0 at least).
Vancian spell casting is not going away, and Dreamscarred press is releasing an update of 3.5's psionics, if paizo do one, it almost has to be totally different, why would they try and do the same thing their getting dreamscarred to do themselves?
|
|
Excellent! No hard feelings all around then! :)
I now return you to this thread's regularly scheduled discussion of psionics, already in progress.
...
...
...
...
...and THAT'S when we'll do a psionics book. Everyone will love it, I think you'll agree.
Your going to do it with dots. I had no idea you would be doing a White Wolf crossover.
You heard it here folks!
As it is now, it works, and it's balanced.
Inserting this into posts is just as convincing as another person saying, "It doesn't work well and it isn't balanced."
The psionic fans that exist already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor, and many (whether fans of the fluff or not) realize its other benefits beyond fluff based effects.
You can keep on saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true.
That sort of statement puts me off. Along with that is the continued replacement of "James" with "Jason" that seems to be permeating these arguments. Makes me think that the arguments against the system are poisoned by ignorance throughout (and that's no insult, for those wondering).
I have to wonder if this is just an example of just someone who is purposefully ignoring contrary facts because they don't support their view. That I should just not bother investing my time to read and consider posts like this.
I myself, tend to try to be optimistic.
As it is now, it works, and it's balanced.Inserting this into posts is just as convincing as another person saying, "It doesn't work well and it isn't balanced."
The psionic fans that exist already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor, and many (whether fans of the fluff or not) realize its other benefits beyond fluff based effects.You can keep on saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true.
That sort of statement puts me off. Along with that is the continued replacement of "James" with "Jason" that seems to be permeating these arguments. Makes me think that the arguments against the system are poisoned by ignorance throughout (and that's no insult, for those wondering).
I have to wonder if this is just an example of just someone who is purposefully ignoring contrary facts because they don't support their view. That I should just not bother investing my time to read and consider posts like this.
I myself, tend to try to be optimistic.
Hmm, you have a point. If I mistakenly said James Jacobs or Jason Bulman (spelling?) when referring to the other, I apologize. That is indeed pretty ignorant of me, and I should definitely do better.
As for saying "As it is now, it works, and it's balanced.", I've seen nothing to the contrary that anyone posted in previous arguments to prove otherwise. In fact, all that was said to the contrary in the previous debates were in effect the perfect examples of "You can keep on saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true." I'm making a statement based on evidence I've already provided, and that has yet to be disproved. Thus, when I make this statement, it is not evidence of fact but a statement derived from said evidence.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by - "I have to wonder if this is just an example of just someone who is purposefully ignoring contrary facts because they don't support their view. That I should just not bother investing my time to read and consider posts like this." - as I haven't, to my knowledge, ignored any facts. A "fact" that I do know of is that I've provided more examples, evidence, and mathematical displays of such than anyone else here (that I've seen anyway). I've not ignored anything. For the statements that have been made that were valid (and by valid I mean a point being raised, such as when you commented on the idea of an NPC nova-ing, rather just a statement of "it doesn't work in my game".) I have made counter-arguments grounded in the rules of the game.
And yes, I do tend to be optimistic. It strains faith in a system when it doesn't fix the things that were intended to be fixed. I try to remain optimistic that the Pathfinder RPG will fully come into its own (particularly since I have no intention of ever switching to 4E), but as I said previously, it's difficult when you see the designers making dubious statements like the one made in regards to psionics (I refer to the one where psionic core classes are underpowered next to psionic classes, somewhere much earlier in this thread). Because of things like this, many people I know have indeed suggested I give up on Pathfinder and invest in another product (such as Fantasycraft).
I however, believe Paizo is a good company, and I regard the people working together under the Paizo name in high standing. I believe they are trying to make a good game and great products. Hence, why I said I'm optimistic, and not looking only to the shortcomings of the game.
I hope this clear some of this confusion up.
Further, some people (myself included), really get a baste taste envisioning a vancian-psion. You'd need to dump spell components, magic words, armor spell failure, and give options for concealing your manifestations, or generally doing things in ways that don't jump up and say "Oh look, it's Elminster!", and balance this new free-scaling vancian system against standard magic, and so forth.
The bolded words are a big part of it for me. What does any of that have to do with a purely mental ability?
As it is now, it works, and it's balanced.Inserting this into posts is just as convincing as another person saying, "It doesn't work well and it isn't balanced."
The psionic fans that exist already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor, and many (whether fans of the fluff or not) realize its other benefits beyond fluff based effects.You can keep on saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true.
That sort of statement puts me off. Along with that is the continued replacement of "James" with "Jason" that seems to be permeating these arguments. Makes me think that the arguments against the system are poisoned by ignorance throughout (and that's no insult, for those wondering).
I have to wonder if this is just an example of just someone who is purposefully ignoring contrary facts because they don't support their view. That I should just not bother investing my time to read and consider posts like this.
I myself, tend to try to be optimistic.
Are you saying its not balanced? If its not balanced how so, and how is it any more powerful/better/harder to contain than the full casters in core?
What facts have you proposed? I have yet to see anyone at the end of one of these discussion have any other excuse other than they dont like the feel of it, or they dont want to learn new rules or strategies to deal with psions, but psions have enough problems(disadvantages) that shut them down from the rules alone that it works out.
Now, I'm not sure if that group is large enough for the book to be a success (or even if that the market for a point based system is large enough either).
DreamScarred Press has basically an entire company built on it.
As for saying "As it is now, it works, and it's balanced.", I've seen nothing to the contrary that anyone posted in previous arguments to prove otherwise. In fact, all that was said to the contrary in the previous debates were in effect the perfect examples of "You can keep on saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true." I'm making a statement based on evidence I've already provided, and that has yet to be disproved. Thus, when I make this statement, it is not evidence of fact but a statement derived from said evidence.
I find your evidence greatly lacking. Much of what both sides have been throwing at each other has been refuted and ignored, with people choosing to rely on their own experiences with the system and often just dismissing that other people can come to other conclusions. I feel that I have given sufficient evidence to the consideration that the balance of the system was questionable, and I feel that did pretty much nothing to change the current solidified opinions.
Since "evidence" doesn't seem to be working out I'm left with that statements have about as much worth as those made by Paizo staff, and in the end, I'm going to go with their experience more than yours, no matter what they do. And pushing into the "We obviously know more than them territory" doesn't actually make me believe that is true.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by - "I have to wonder if this is just an example of just someone who is purposefully ignoring contrary facts because they don't support their view. That I should just not bother investing my time to read and consider posts like this." - as I haven't, to my knowledge, ignored any facts. A "fact" that I do know of is that I've provided more examples, evidence, and mathematical displays of such than anyone else here (that I've seen anyway). I've not ignored anything. For the statements that have been made that were valid (and by valid I mean a point being raised, such as when you commented on the idea of an NPC nova-ing, rather just a statement of "it doesn't work in my game".) I have made counter-arguments grounded in the rules of the game.The biggest fact that you ignored was that current fans of psionics don't all agree with you. You spoke for all of them by saying that they all "already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor." And since a number have posted opposite feelings in the thread, I think it is fair to say that they were ignored so that you could make that broad statement.
Now, I'm not sure if that group is large enough for the book to be a success (or even if that the market for a point based system is large enough either).DreamScarred Press has basically an entire company built on it.
dreamscarred and paizo sales are not the same. How many people work full time at dreamscarred?
It's like compareing wotc's sale numbers with paizo's. Just because dreamscarred can make the sells number they need from it , does not mean paizo can
What facts have you proposed? I have yet to see anyone at the end of one of these discussion have any other excuse other than they dont like the feel of it, or they dont want to learn new rules or strategies to deal with psions, but psions have enough problems(disadvantages) that shut them down from the rules alone that it works out.
Given how these discussions seem to be turning out, I'm not really in the mood to repeat myself especially when doing so will actually have no impact on anything since it is going to be years until significant work is started on this.
Now, I'm not sure if that group is large enough for the book to be a success (or even if that the market for a point based system is large enough either).DreamScarred Press has basically an entire company built on it.
I am aware of that. I'm also aware that they are different companies don't have the same goals for how successful a product has to be.
Further, some people (myself included), really get a baste taste envisioning a vancian-psion. You'd need to dump spell components, magic words, armor spell failure, and give options for concealing your manifestations, or generally doing things in ways that don't jump up and say "Oh look, it's Elminster!", and balance this new free-scaling vancian system against standard magic, and so forth.The bolded words are a big part of it for me. What does any of that have to do with a purely mental ability?
I am not seeing an issue here. If I can come up with an easy way round this(I have) I am sure some one else can come up with one as well. Mostly better then mine really.
The biggest fact that you ignored was that current fans of psionics don't all agree with you. You spoke for all of them by saying that they all "already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor." And since a number have posted opposite feelings in the thread, I think it is fair to say that they were ignored so that you could make that broad statement.
Actually, what I said was:
At the end of the day,
Paizo could create a Vancian system fluffed to be "psionic". People who dislike psionics likely won't be interested (mostly those who are anti-psi fluff). People who like psionic fluff and vancian casting, can already pick spells like Telekinesis and pretend if they can get past the silliness of your mind not working when you're wearing armor. The psionic fans that exist already enjoy the mechanics as much as the flavor, and many (whether fans of the fluff or not) realize its other benefits beyond fluff based effects.
Perhaps I didn't say it in precise enough terms, but what it meant was, those who dislike "psionics" as far as the fluff aspect is concerned are going to hate it regardless of system. Those who like "psionics" as far as the fluff aspect is concerned can already fluff existing x/day casters with spells that do psi-stuff. Those who like "psionics" as it is now (in 3.5 and the SRD) like the system as much as the fluff, and many (not all) of them realize the benefits of thinking outside that fluff with the system itself.
So, I've already addressed the issues of "psionics" fluff and "psionics" system, as well as the fact those who dislike "fluff" will not buy vancian casting stuff for psionics because they dislike the fluff. Fans of "psionics" as fluff only are already accounted for. Fans of "psionics" as it is presented currently are accounted for.
I can't address the issues of people who dislike the "psionics" system, because so far I've been presented with little more than "it doesn't work in my game" without any sort of actual explanation beyond that. As such, it's no more valid than saying "x core class doesn't work in my game" or the people who complain about x/day casting. As such, I've said little about the subject. I don't know how they're running their games, only the system itself.
Does this answer your questions?
Perhaps I didn't say it in precise enough terms, but what it meant was, those who dislike "psionics" as far as the fluff aspect is concerned are going to hate it regardless of system. Those who like "psionics" as far as the fluff aspect is concerned can already fluff existing x/day casters with spells that do psi-stuff. Those who like "psionics" as it is now (in 3.5 and the SRD) like the system as much as the fluff, and many (not all) of them realize the benefits of thinking outside that fluff with the system itself.
So, I've already addressed the issues of "psionics" fluff and "psionics" system, as well as the fact those who dislike "fluff" will not buy vancian casting stuff for psionics because they dislike the fluff. Fans of "psionics" as fluff only are already accounted for. Fans of "psionics" as it is presented currently are accounted for.I can't address the issues of people who dislike the "psionics" system, because so far I've been presented with little more than "it doesn't work in my game" without any sort of actual explanation beyond that. As such, it's no more valid than saying "x core class doesn't work in my game" or the people who complain about x/day casting. As such, I've said little about the subject. I don't know how they're running their games, only the system itself.
Does this answer your questions?
I didn't really have any questions about your statements and my impressions have not really changed from you reiterating your position. The points are essentially what I saw before. It still looks like you are trying to speak for what three different groups are fine with. Then your arguments don't seem to have any backing by any good explanation beyond it being your experience, much like the problems that you recall.
It still looks like you are trying to speak for what three different groups are fine with. Then your arguments don't seem to have any backing by any good explanation beyond it being your experience, much like the problems that you recall.
I'm not making arguments in this case. I made a statement. The statement I made, as I explained, was a re-iteration of what was already said by the various parties represented. Parroting things already said by others is not speaking for those groups, but is instead re-iterating what was already said. I'll try again...
Anti-psi fluff people dislike psi-fluff regardless of system.Anti-vancian system people dislike vancian casting regardless of fluff.
Pro-psi fluff people like psi-fluff regardless of system.
Pro-psi system people like the psi-system, regardless of fluff.
See what I just did there? I repeated what others have said in this thread, in the most basic ways I can think of. There are those who will be happy 'cause there's psi-fluff, there are those who don't care about the system but hate psi-fluff, there are those who love the psi-system, and those who hate the psi-system. Of course, there are of course those who don't adhere entirely to one of the major groups; however let's call these individuals neutral with tendencies towards different ideas, and then there's no gist of anything to repeat (so I don't try to).
To Re-iterate
It still looks like you are trying to speak for what three different groups are fine with. Then your arguments don't seem to have any backing by any good explanation beyond it being your experience, much like the problems that you recall.
The other positions are irrelevant to my arguments. I've spoken for myself, and repeated what others have said. I've never said my position is a universal one, or even close to it.
And yes, unlike many others here, the arguments I have made have much more backing than others presented here. Instead of just showing my experiences, I explain the position in the rules and through examples of the system we all share. As such, saying I'm repeating the same thing over and over again without backing is silly. The problems I recall, as you eloquently put it, are those that do make statements without providing evidence to back up that claim.
"Oh I have used the rules and will disagree it's easier. I will agree it's easier to abuse and hard to stop then the core classes. It's been 8 months since the book was last used and I am rusty but it was used for a year and I do not care for it's issues." - No evidence provided.
"Well it is balanced as long as you do not mix and match. The XPH is balanced with it's self but not with core, and there is where ya get ...issues." - No evidence provided.
So far I've discussed the balance issues (or lack thereof). That is my position, those are my words, and that is what *I* am representing (and I hope I'm doing a darn good job of it). Here's some links to posts where I was providing evidence and examples against various statements:
About Nova-ing
More about Nova-ing
Even more about Nova-ing
Continuing the nova thing
About Blasting
Addressing Wilder Augmenting and rigged examples (which still don't produce unbalanced results)
Dubunking claims that a baseline 1st level power can deal 220 damage
More Debunking
Well you and many others have an opinon and I have another, I guess it comes down to different play experiences (which is what I´ve been saying for a while now)
So Globe vs Dispell is a one round trade for each, fair considering it is unlikely a wizard have more than one globe prepared, while you still have a lot more dispells ready to go.
Actualy, no, you've been suggesting that Psionics was somehow better than arcane casting, and then suggesting you've just been saying it's a difference in experiences when your arguments fall under fire.
Also, yes, Globe of Invulnerability is an iconic defensive spell, and the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability is a 4th level spell, and can quite easily be made into a spell trigger item or a x/day spell trigger item which the wizard can and should probably carry around (since it's been noted that it blocks augmenting and metamagic) as well as 10d6 lightening bolts (which only require a 3rd level spell slot, by the way).
I've actually kept with the PHB casters only, despite the fact arcane equivalents of many of the psionics feats came out, and that better metamagic feats were released for arcane casters as well (twin spell and split ray are very strong), but since we're ignoring PF's backwards compatibility, I'll continue as I have.
An orange ioun stone increases caster level by +1 (and is untyped, but we're not trying to get cheesy here). That boosts your caster level up, and humorously means you get more for less (notice that when a psionicist does up their manifester level, they have to spend more PP to get a larger effect, and thus are spending beyond their usual means). The wizard just gets to enjoy the gravy-train of free scaling.
I return to the fact that a wizard has the option of meta-magic with his spells, while in psionics it is required. A 10th level wizard will have gained vastly more power and quite a number of spell slots since 5th level, and now his lightening bolt deals 10d6 damage (twice as much as it did at 5th level), and goes farther. He also is using less of a resource than he was at 5th level, but he's getting a greater effect.
(Tactics tip: Ready action + Lightening bolt = best counterspell, ever. ^_^)
For the psion, the 1st level equivalent is Energy Ray, unless he decides to drop one of his powers known on what could be seen as a redundant Energy Bolt, which is the psionic equivalent to Lightening Bolt. However, it will remain at 5d6 damage if he only spends its base cost (like wizards or sorcerers) to manifest it. He has to pump even more resources into it to make it deal 10d6 damage. In essence, to remain competitive, he is forced to use metamagic, as he has no other options. Since he is forced, he gets the perk of knowing at least his energy bolt has a +3 to its save DC.
Also, the wizard gets more bang out of his metamagic buck because he benefits from free scaling and may then apply metamagic feats as he desires based on what he feels is needed. An empowered fireball (10d6 + 50% damage, as a level 5 spell) can be used by a 10th level wizard. He will still have his 10d6 from free scaling, and now gets an additional 50% damage markup from his feat.
The psion CAN use his meta-psionic feat on the energy bolt, and even ignoring the fact he has to expend his psionic focus (which requires a full-round action and skill check to regain, unless you've spent a feat to shorten it to a move action, which at this point you've spent more than the wizard), he is limited to 8d6+50%, and is spending as much power as he can. This means the wizard comes out ahead with an average of 52.5 vs 42 damage, which he could do every round 'till he burns himself out of 5th level spell slots (but will still be doing comparative damage with his old 3rd level spell slots, and his 4th levels if he decided to prepare a few hightened or widened fireballs); while the Psion has to stop a round in between if he wants to keep empowering his.
One cannot pretend that the two are parallel each other. Augmenting is not the same as applying a metamagic feat, and a 1st level power does not match the power of a 1st level spell. In fact, virtually none of the powers match equal level spells. However, you have more versatility with said powers.
Also, the benefits of a wizard's expanded spell selection is not to be overlooked. You must have the spell available to craft magic items with it, so a wizard can craft spell trigger items of a variety of spells and then use them later alongside their usual spell selection, and have a very wide range of options (a wizard can easily carry a wand of fireballs, have several lightening bolts prepared, a summon monster I-III). He can craft a spell trigger item with 1/day charges of those spells for 1125gp and upgrade it to 10th CL for an additional 1125gp when he reaches level 10.
The psion can make magic items as well, and could make some dorjes (psionic wands or spell-trigger items), but he's also limited in the scope of what he can and cannot create. He cannot easily craft an item with a power he doesn't know so that he can be more versatile later; he generally has to work with what he has, and what he has is augmented powers that can attempt to "fill in" for higher level spells in a pinch (but always come a bit short).
Also, to answer your question again, magic missle will never deal 220 damage through metamagic. However, it it will deal 25 unavoidable force damage as a range of 100ft + 10ft / level, and cannot rendered useless with with a Will save, or blocked by Mind Affecting immunities. I've found it to be a very popular 1st level spell to ready-blast enemy casters with to stop spells (average damage 17.5 makes for a DC 27 + spell level concentration check), and sometimes quickened with a heavy dose of Lightening Bolt/Fireball along with it.
Humorous fact, this is also a wonderful means of using your low-level free scaling spells to destroy higher level spells or powers as they're coming. The psion cannot do this as effectively either, since as I pointed out earlier, he will give up a lot of power if he wants to enhance it with a metapsionic feat.
Also, a wizard can comfortably ready an action to throw up a quickened Lesser Globe of Invulnerability with a 7th level slot, or their 4th level slot + metamagic rod, then ready an action to blast the other caster with a readied spell - which a 1st level magic missle is strikingly effective when you're talking about controlling casters, and you're barely touching your resources. Though if you want a bit more hurt, a spectral hand + maximized shocking grasp (DC 40 + spell level concentration check) will all but shut down a caster's attempt and hurt badly at the same time. If you're up against another caster who likes similar tricks, pop out a cone of cold or heightened spell to bypass the lesser globe, or pop a hightened quickened bolt (via that rod) and another hightened bolt in the same round (shelling out an average of 70 damage, 35 on successful saves). This is also a great 10th level nova for anyone who cares.
Finally, you invited disdainful comments when you ignored everything I said and repeated a loaded question, in a sarcastic manner (or at least, that's how I see "so how does magic missile deal 220 damage?" after it's been explained to you already). Maybe you should consider your own advice about listening.
Ok, this is the last one, I promise
I didn't really have any questions about your statements and my impressions have not really changed from you reiterating your position. The points are essentially what I saw before. It still looks like you are trying to speak for what three different groups are fine with. Then your arguments don't seem to have any backing by any good explanation beyond it being your experience, much like the problems that you recall.Perhaps I didn't say it in precise enough terms, but what it meant was, those who dislike "psionics" as far as the fluff aspect is concerned are going to hate it regardless of system. Those who like "psionics" as far as the fluff aspect is concerned can already fluff existing x/day casters with spells that do psi-stuff. Those who like "psionics" as it is now (in 3.5 and the SRD) like the system as much as the fluff, and many (not all) of them realize the benefits of thinking outside that fluff with the system itself.
So, I've already addressed the issues of "psionics" fluff and "psionics" system, as well as the fact those who dislike "fluff" will not buy vancian casting stuff for psionics because they dislike the fluff. Fans of "psionics" as fluff only are already accounted for. Fans of "psionics" as it is presented currently are accounted for.I can't address the issues of people who dislike the "psionics" system, because so far I've been presented with little more than "it doesn't work in my game" without any sort of actual explanation beyond that. As such, it's no more valid than saying "x core class doesn't work in my game" or the people who complain about x/day casting. As such, I've said little about the subject. I don't know how they're running their games, only the system itself.
Does this answer your questions?
They are not without backing. These sentiments have been expressed on the boards. Once you take care of the rules and the fluff what else is left?
...They are not without backing. These sentiments have been expressed on the boards. Once you take care of the rules and the fluff what else is left?
Thank you Wraithstrike. I appreciate it. :)