So showing arbitrary situations in a scenario set up by yourself proves something???? lol. (keeping in mind that my example didn´t have an scenarion, it was just the lone psion and only had one feat that almost every psion has. And that it can be done regardless of what´s going on)
The Sorcerer example used NO feat.
The Sorcerer example could be done regardless of what's going on.
Did you even read it?
In the end psions have a better resource management (as admited by many pro psionics around here), and they have THE BEST action economy abilities in the core game (temporal acceleration available early, schism, dimmension door as a move, anticipatory strike, time regresion). So combining great resource management with multiple actions in any given round is going nova. And even at 20 lvl a psion will have more actions and better resource management than any sorcerer.
Back it up.
Seeing as how you just completely ignored a very long post proving you 100% incorrect, forgive me if I doubt that you will, however.
|
Read it, read the previous posts. Just disagreed with them for the reazons I posted.
And regardless of that, the nova issue is not about how powerfull and efective they can be, that is not something I was trying to argue when I posted again here (since it is a matter of game experiencethat can and will differ). However I clearly showed that for an 11th (most if not all games get to that lvl) lvl psion is easy to burn through half it´s resources in a single round of combat to achieve a considerable result, which is novaing. And that no other casting class could do that at those very very common levels.
Just show me a sorcerer (or wizard for that matter) that can cast half his spells in a single round by lvl 11 and I will concede that novaing (having the drowzy mage sindrome) is not a psion issue.
EDIT. A good call would be to get rid of those pesky multiple action powers, then it really becomes a non issue.
Thank you ProfessorCirno. I really appreciate your support. ^_^
So showing arbitrary situations in a scenario set up by yourself proves something???? lol. (keeping in mind that my example didn´t have an scenarion, it was just the lone psion and only had one feat that almost every psion has. And that it can be done regardless of what´s going on)
So for an 11th lvl character to burn half it´s resources and get 5 powers out in a single turn is not novaing?? (2 rounds like that and gets sooo drowzy)
Quoting an 11 year old is a strong solid proof of something?? lol
Actually, there was nothing arbitrary about my examples. In fact, I attempted to power-game the psion greatly, going so far as to use various "cheese" strategies such as potions of magic weapon + defending weapon, Overchannel + Talented + (Entire Line of) Psicrystal Feats + Vigor + Share Power + Share Pain, making heavy use of temporal acceleration and several of the best meta-psionic feats, which all of this used 16 feats which had full synergy together and required 5 of them to be bonus feats gained from the Psion's class.
In doing so, with this cheesy psion, I also gave the Psion the benefit of knowing that the enemy (in this case, the party) was coming. This granted it the time to pre-combat buff with all those full-powered augmented defenses you (or one of the other nay-sayers) complained about before hand, got some minions ready, and let them get the drop on the party. I think showed how the psion could attempt to flex his psi-muscle over the party, but it really wasn't very impressive. A more effective method of fighting, as I noted previously, would to have tried going with less augmenting stuff and trying to play "chess" with the party, and conserving resources better. My example also put the "action economy" argument into question, as the psion made use of every single action when it was ever possible.
The sorcerer, however, I didn't even need a grand feat chain with. I ignored his bloodline powers ('cause like I said, I was lazy and didn't need them for the demonstration). His feat list was pretty much improved intiative + spell penetration + lots of different spell focus feats, which considering his spell selection really didn't offer that much synergy. In this example, I didn't even let him have pre-combat buff time, and showed how he makes the psion look like a joke. All spells used were from PF-CORE (y'know, since some of the spells even got toned down) and didn't use any splat-books. Hell, I didn't even stick a meta-magic feat on 'im, let alone quicken power (which in hindsight would have been much more optimal considering Pathfinder's fix for sorcerers in regards to that feat). Also, he, technically, proceeded to run through all his almost all his 9th level spells, all of his 8th, most of his 7th, several 4th, 3rd, 2nd, and a single 1st level spell, in what amounted to 3 rounds - and they were all standard action or 1-round cast time.
Also, specifically in regards to my brother, he's not there to make the point. I made the point. I'm still making the point. He however is an example of how you don't have to be exceptionally advanced to tell the difference between a rock and an apple.
====
Also, heya Set. ^_^
Seeing as how you just completely ignored a very long post proving you 100% incorrect, forgive me if I doubt that you will, however.
People on both sides have taken to ignoring posts that the other side feels prove something.
Just because you believe the point made indisputably "won" the argument, doesn't mean the poster on the opposite side sees what you see. Similar to my own posts not necessarily being anywhere near the proof necessary for others.
Frerezar are you saying the timestop issue is not nova'ing? I dont think most DM's would allow it, but since we are speaking of theoretical situations I guess its fair game to ask.
If a player insist on nova'ing the psion let him do it, and when his character is useless let him deal with the consequences. I dont see DM's giving casters that waste spells any mercy or putting in limits, which is what people seem to want here, so why the concern for the psion? When they get tired of making characters they will start to be more careful. Now if the player is metagaming because he knows the DM never does more than one combat a day then throw in some extra combats once or twice to catch him off guard. It's easier to throw a player a curveball than to get rules changed.
As to the ignoring thing, I beleive that when you responding to more than one person you don't see all the points being made. I have been on both sides of that. If you make a point, just bring it up again. Most of the time the opposing debater will take time to answer it.
The psion and the wizard may have comparable uses of their powers each day, but the BIG difference is that a psion can use higher-level powers by "spending" his lower level powers. A wizard can't use three 3rd level spells to cast a 9th level spell, for example, but a psion can. To me, going "nova" is when a psion uses all his resources to never use powers at low level, but only high level powers.
A psion who does this for 3 encounters might exhaust all of his resources for the day, and the wizard still likely has lots of spells left, but since the psion was effectively casting all his highest level stuff every round, he completely overshadows the rest of the party.
And then, once the psion's used his powers up, he's more or less useless, so you have a lose-lose situation where either the psionic character gets to spend the rest of the session fragile and bored, or the party camps for the night and there's no downside to the psion using his powers to nova.
In a party of ALL psionic characters, this isn't a problem at all. It's when you mix psionics with the core game that it rears its ugly head, and THAT'S the issue I'd like to solve.
It should also be noted that this is also a game style-specific problem - it is problematic only in some game styles, mainly those where there is a static dungeon crawl that the player characters engage in. That doesn't mean it should be ignored, of course, as this play style is fairly common, but it does put the issue into perspective and suggests that for a number of groups this may not be at all problematic.
Nevertheless, as I said, it is still important and deserves to be addressed. Not that I am personally particularly attached to the power point system, but I certainly think that this issue can be dealt with within its bounds. There are even several options for doing so and these can be mixed and matched for the desired effect.
1) Balance the powers in such a way that you expect them to be used in the manner you describe. This would mean making psionic powers weaker than spells of equivalent level (especially at higher levels), which could be done during the conversion of Psionics, just like spells were depowered, but to a greater extent.
2) Require some sort of check for manifesting powers. This could be a manifester level check or Psicraft skill check, but judging from the direction that Pathfinder is taking, probably the former. The DCs could be arranged in such a way as to make higher level powers risk failure (or reduced effect if you designed that in too).
3) Decrease the relative desirability of higher level powers vis-a-vis lower level ones. There are many options on how to do this (apart from making the powers themselves weaker), ranging from fatigue penalties through requiring sacrifice of health to cast.
A particularly suitable option that comes to mind would be manifesting/casting time, as it would address the above-mentioned problems with action economy. Perhaps a Psionic character needs longer to manifest the higher level powers until he masters them sufficiently (advances in level) to optimize their manifesting. You could make the highest level powers take a full-round action (or even longer if you thought it necessary) to manifest. One hypothetical way to do it would be to have virtually all powers have a full round action as a manifesting time (just as virtually all have a standard action nowadays), but the psionic character would be able to reduce the full round manifesting time to a standard action manifesting time for powers the level of which did not exceed 1/3 of manifester level (rounded up). This is just an example, of course, there are many ways to do it and the optimal rule would have to be tested for balance anyway.
If you didn't want to mess with casting time itself, you could just say that highest level powers (relative to manifester level) are draining and their manifestation requires the Psionic character to rest the next round. Perhaps the character would only be able to take a move action for the following round for the top level(s) powers (you could exclude level 1 to level X powers), for the slightly lower level(s), the rest requirement would enable him to take a standard action on the post-manifesting round and the lowest-level powers would require no rest at all.
Well, I am sure there are plenty of other ways to address the problems stated - I am trying to be constructive instead of endlessly engaging in debate whether Psionics are overpowered or not.
I don't think psions need to be nerfed or anything... they just need to work better with the core game play experience. Swithcing them over to use the same mechanics as a sorcerer would solve this problem very elegantly, but it's not something that a lot of psionics fans are eager to see (either because they enjoy the nova aspect or the disparity between what their class can do and the core classes can do or simply because they like keeping track of power points or whatever).
I certainly would not like to see Psionics switched to Vancian casting and in my case the reason falls into the 'whatever' category. For me, mechanics inherently contribute to metaflavor, plus I like a degree of mechanical diversity, especially when it comes to resource management. In fact, I would have preferred if divine magic and arcane magic were more different from one another too, but in their case I accept the likeness, because alas tradition dictates their similarity.
In the case of psionics, I am by no means wedded to the power point system, but it seems the options have been narrowed to either Vancian casting or power points. In case of only these two options, I would by far and away prefer power points: greater mechanical diversity, favored by tradition and a more psionic feel than slot-based casting all add to this sentiment.
Anyway, as this thread proves, whatever we do with psionics is going to be a tricky beast to tackle. We'll certainly be doing an open playtest of the rules if and when we do them, and we'll certainly be disappointing some folks because we can't please everyone. Since psionics are one of the more polarizing add-on elements of the game, it's not a battle I'm really looking forward to
Well, maybe Paizo should tackle some less polarizing "add-on elements of the game" first. Trans-20th level gaming (whether it will be called epic levels or something else) would be a good candidate. It is something many would like to see and unlike for Psionics, the 3E rules for epic levels are so bad that you won't get much flak for trying to do things differently, though I suppose some approaches would still be controversial: I recall somebody once mentioned the idea of having epic levels essentially start from level 1 again - that would sure help balance, but would be pretty unacceptable to me... unless there was a very precise way to 'convert' (skill ranks, spells and all) the character to standard levels if I wanted him to interact with non-epic things, even though the epic interactions would happen using the newfangled epic system for simplicity and balance reasons - if that full convertibility was achieved, sure, I would buy it.
Well, I'm trying. :)
Oh, yes. I admit you are. It was just getting late and I felt like making a few short notes on my initial thoughts about it.
Of those three options I like the concept of "The Power-Point Limit" the best, it grants the fastest "fix" while allowing all the versatility I've seen people ask for. My only concern would have to be how it were received by current fans, I just remember suggesting something similar (shifting power scaling to be even more like spells and dropping the maximum power points one could spend in one round by one every time the psion manifested a power costing as much or more than the cost of their highest level known power until they rested) and I didn't recall it being well received at all. My worry would be that this would be wide-spread and that this small change would gain few fans and lose more people who don't want a similar system with a change they don't like. Of course, my hope would be that this (if there were no other issues) could be close enough that most of the fans on each side would be satisfied.
The "The Metamind Option" could work as well. I would say that I have similar feelings as "The Power-Point Limit," it is just that the "Power-Point Limit" was easier to consider than "The Metamind Option" for one reason or another.
"The Bard Option" however seems, to me, to carry the same problem of a faster burnout, just with a smaller flame. It doesn't fix the the issue for me.
I'd sidestep the entire issue of revising powers by just changing the psion spell list. Take every power that's similar to a core spell and replace it with that core spell. Then everyone's spells are guaranteed to scale in the same way, because they're all using the core spells instead of psions using slightly-different core spells.
The point-based system retains its character whether you're spending your points on energy balls or fireballs. A change to the psion spell list is a bit rough on backwards compatibility (you'll need a power-to-spell conversion table for old stat blocks), but James has already noted that psionics would have to use as many existing spells as possible for it to be usable in an Adventure Path. I'd be willing to concede that he's right about that.
To make up for the augmentable powers that get cut, you could add a few augmentation-like metamagic class abilities to the psion. If the psion gets to spend power points on effects that can augment any of several spells, then it doesn't matter if powers with augmentations hard-coded into their effect get cut in favor of non-augmentable spells. So essentially, nothing gets lost if all redundant powers are just replaced with spells.
I guess what I'm saying is that the granularity of a psion's daily resources (power points as opposed to more rigid spell slots) is what I've always thought has defined psionics. As long as psionic characters have a large, fluid pool of resources to expend in lots of interesting ways (i.e., as long as they aren't Vancian), I'm okay with the psionic classes referencing more core spells and feats than not.
I pretty much agree with the position on using spells rather than powers (although I'm not sure about other hardened XPH fans), but I would say that providing a power-to-spell conversion table would just be too much for very little impact. At that point, I think it would be just reasonable to let previous versions to just keep their XPH power lists rather than make a vast conversion table.
My own concept for what a Vancian and/or spontaneous casting Psion would look like. It isn't especially thought of to make everyone happy (so probably won't), but it was just what I thought of after some consideration and this is a good a place as any to mention it.
The Psion would be like the Wizard in the way spells were prepared and cast. Then they would have Augment Points (similar to those in a Monk's ki pool). Like the Monk's points, the Psion would be able to spend them for small boosts, in this case it would be to increase the power of one of his spells.
Normally this Psion would require somatic and verbal components like any other caster. If an arcane caster's components appear to be just arcane gestures/phrases required for formula of the casting and a divine caster's components would be prayers, then I would think of the components for this psionic caster would be focuses such that the Psion can maintain a very precise state of mind to make a particular spell work. This could be a rhyme, hand motions resembling counting, or just chanting "Burn" repeatedly. Then, also like a Monk, as the Psion gained levels, as long as he had a point in the Augment pool, his mind would be stable enough such that he gain the ability to ignore the need for those components.
As the Psion gained levels he would gain other abilities to use his points, like maybe being able to use points to cast a lower level spell that they have or had prepared for the day and cast it without an additional cost (somewhat from the idea of a Psion being able to either cast a few really powerful powers, or cast more weaker powers). The choice of the Psion's disciple would allow them to choose a new augment ability from that discipline's list every few levels. Psychometabolism might have one options that let you spend a point during the casting of a personal or other spell targeting himself, and then he could use an action to stop or resume that power and spread it's duration across the day. Telepathy might have another option that let you spend a point to make an illusion mind-affecting, render some people unable to see it (or only let a single person able to perceive it), and let it be more resistant to illusion piercing spells. A sample Metacreativity ability might be to let you spend a point and let you apply the Young or Giant template to the creatures you summon/pull from your mind.
Psychic Warrior would be similar, but his point abilities would be more built around the melee caster. A option might be to spend a point to make a melee attack right after casting a spell.
Then if the Psion's augments were trained abilities to expand the power and usefulness of sets of their powers, the Wilder's augments would be the displays that go along with his spells that don't necessarily have anything to do with the spell they just cast. A Wilder might be able to spend a point and be engulfed in a protective flame or start hearing the thoughts of those around them. They would be sort of like small spells themselves. This system isn't really intended to be the one that brings everyone together, but it is what I sort of thought of given the core casting systems combined with my previous experiences with psionics.
It should be pointed out that the example given by Frerezar to attempt to display a problem involving the "action economy" is questionable. His example is incredibly specific, such as the only two powers in the entire system you can use as a move action (which actually allow you to move), as well as manifesting a power (schism) that's function is to actually get an action-advantage (at cost of poor cost vs effect).
For example, in the case of the 11th level psion:
This would bring it up to a grand total of 40 power points this round, requires very specific selection of powers, two to three feats, and possibly taking up to 3d8 damage (which also causes you to need a Concentration check to avoid loosing the power you're manifesting). You achieved for this expenditure 13d6, +3 to the save DC for half, and and you moved 50ft in a direction of your choosing (as long as it's not into a space you cannot occupy).
This is a very bad nova. This "may" be a good move if you need to set up for the next round (schism), and attempt to clear some distance while dealing some damage. However, you are sacrificing a lot for this option. Also, it's unlikely that you can repeat this consecutively, and dropping what amounts to the cost of a 5th level power every time you want to move for 50ft (not 50ft more, just 50ft) movement is a very bad idea.
===========
Comepare to the Sorcerer, whom I believe is better at this. In the sorcerer's case, he novas bigger, and for longer. Notice that going nova requires you to be volatile. There are two ways to do this. Explode in such a manner as to completely devastate the opposition, or to put out continuously above-average destruction for a few rounds to completely devastate the opposition.
With our sorcerer example, we will look at what an 11th level sorcerer is capable of. Here's a simple power list that looks pretty basic:
Sorcerer Powers
1st (5) - Grease, Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement, Disguise Self, and Protection from Evil.
2nd (5) - Glitterdust, Spectral Hand, Blindness/Deafness, Mirror Image, Resist Energy.
3rd (4) - Dispel Magic, Stinking Cloud, Fireball, Lightening Bolt.
4th (3) - Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog.
5th (2) - Waves of Fatigue, Summon Monster V.
This sorcerer, assuming minimum charisma for the spells he's casting, only 15, can do the following round to round:
He could also mimic what the psion did by casting fireball and taking a standard action, and moving 30ft as move action, and not use but one 3rd level spell and his feet (let alone feats).
Now, this isn't an example of the sorcerer flushing his spells down the toilet as fast as he can. Instead, it's intended to show that he can run through his highest levels spells continuously without wearing down. Due to free-scaling, his 3rd level spells are dealing damage comparable to the psion's full powered bolts. He could cast highs highest level spells every round of combat without slowing down or coming down to his low level spells.
He can cast, with far more options than the example you gave with the psion, a grand total of 10 rounds of continues spells, without bonus spells, before he even reaches his 3rd levels. Then he's got another 6 rounds of those. If the psion does this, at this pace, matching the sorcerer die-for-die with the sorcerer, the psion is likely to come out short. Also, since you can use your higher level slots to cast lower level spells, the sorcerer could technically deal 10d6 energy damage every round for 20 rounds without letting up once, and moving 30ft every round he wants to. That's also excluding magic missile which has an average of 17.5 damage at that level, to fall back on.
Frerezar's example is stacked to make it look as if his example is normal. It uses VERY specific powers, which are very unique in their way, and very balanced as written, to somehow suggest that there is a problem elsewhere. I believe Frerezar (or anyone else) will be hard pressed to show me something you can do that involves burning 40+ PP a round that actually does something extraordinary.
I CHALLENGE YOU!: Show me how you can pump more than 30 (much less than 50) power points into going nova in a way that matters in a single round, as you claim that any ol' psion can do, that actually does something. In your previous example (which had a few rule issues), you dealt 11d6 damage (reflex for half), spent a 6th level spell to buy 1 round of buffing with Schism), and moved 50ft. You sacrificed what amounted to either 40 1st level powers, 13 2nd level powers, 8 3rd level powers, 5 4th level powers, 4 5th level powers, or 3 6th level powers for that little bit.
Show me something that matters. I wanna see you shell out some damage, or nerf some monsters, or heal some party members, or get down and nasty with some insane buffs that will make you the walking nova-god you are supposed to be. Show that sorcerer that you can contribute waaaay more waaay faster. C'mon, with 30pp per round and multiple manifestations, you should be pumping out some 30d6+30 damage for me to gawk at, right?
Please, 'cause I'd love to know how so I can finally see what these psions got that makes 'em so tuff. Tell us, oh Frerezar, how you do it. I beg you.
Just to clarify things, no matter what cheese someone here finds that a psion can do, a wizard/sorcerer can do it just the same or even better. When you see the amount of spell combinations my players come up with for their characters, you begin to realize that a psion is perfectly balanced compared to what a wizard/sorcerer can pull off. Let's not bring up my player's eldritch knight, because that character has turned out to be a way too powerful of a character that I don't think any psion can pull off at the same level he is.
Just to clarify things, no matter what cheese someone here finds that a psion can do, a wizard/sorcerer can do it just the same or even better. When you see the amount of spell combinations my players come up with for their characters, you begin to realize that a psion is perfectly balanced compared to what a wizard/sorcerer can pull off. Let's not bring up my player's eldritch knight, because that character has turned out to be a way too powerful of a character that I don't think any psion can pull off at the same level he is.
It's nice to hear that, considering the side of the fence I'm on in this argument. I agree whole heartedly as well. My highest point, above all else is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
People are making up problems with it. If they can't actually provide a real problem with the system beyond half-truths and falsified examples, then they need to bow out of the argument. There's no reason to change something that works already, especially with all the 3.5 psionics fans already like it (versus fracturing the market further).
The Psionics system as is takes into account the differences between the free-scaling classes, and the psionics differences. The way you do things differs but the overall result is the same. Psions are better at blasting than default sorcerers/wizards, but they don't get free scaling (so it evens out). Psions have a number of swift action powers, an immediate action power (catfall - much like feather fall, which is immediate), and a few powers that have minor specific benefits that you may sacrifice more to manifest as swift, move, or immediate actions.
(Psychic warriors have the most of these, because many of them are self-buffs or tricks that would otherwise never be feasible to use in combat.)
The problem is if you take them and tack on free scaling and start messing with the system and keeping it point based, you will break the heck out of it. If you cram it into the standard magic system, you're going to kill what's good about it. If you just leave it alone and actually find legitimate problems with it, then fix those pieces like with core spells.
Energy Missile is nothing. Energy Stun (in the SRD) doesn't follow the usual rules for psionics, which makes it overpowered (in this case the power's save DC increases on a 1:1 ratio instead of a 2:1 ration like other powers, leading to abnormal save DCs with that power). An easy fix.
Metaconcert is another power that just needs to be re-written. Not really a balance issue, but instead it's just a poorly described effect.
The Soul-Knife needs to be more like the ranger (HD, BAB, Saves, Skill Points), and given a bit more in his class features. His main class feature and extra features are his mind-blade which isn't as good as a normal weapon based on your WBL (yeah, his class feature is having a worse-than-average sword).
A few of the prestige classes could be reworked. The Metamind is horrible and should be shot. It needs a ton of help as it fails to do everything it is intended to do from fluff to mechanics.
But trying to "fix" 3.5 Psionics is the wrong way to do this.
As to the ignoring thing, I beleive that when you responding to more than one person you don't see all the points being made. I have been on both sides of that. If you make a point, just bring it up again. Most of the time the opposing debater will take time to answer it.
At this point, I'm not going to bother pushing it any further. There wasn't a second person to respond to at the time and I'm comfortable that I was heard. Now I'm just going to ride this particular wave. I might just throw in the random statement now and then on the status of the system through.
Speaking of which, XPH is an inherently troubled system that needs to be hacked apart to work adequately.
The target audience are those who liked the stuff in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (and, it seems, pretty much loathed the stuff in the Complete Psionic, which, oh frabjous day, isn't OGL anyway), and any attempt at making a psionics system palatable to people who actually liked it in the first place should be designed around refining and cleaning up the system that they were already using.
Designing a psionics system to please those of us who didn't like it in the first place is like making dog food out of lettuce.
Don't waste a second designing a different system that *might* attract some people who didn't like it in the first place, while alienating those who already *did* want the product.
I could not agree more. Making a psionic system for people who don't like psionics would be a complete waste of time.
Advocating a vancian system for the psion ignores the fact that psionics is a form of magic that appeals to many people who don't like vancian magic, and this is a group which shouldn't be ignored lightly.
Furthermore, there are several obvious potential solutions which can and should be attempted before scrapping the entire system in favor of a psion bloodline sorcerer kit.
The most obvious would be to either discard or redefine the powers which allow multiple actions per round. After all, if wish, the single most broken spell in D&D history, could be defined so that it is actually workable, then psionics is fixable too.
Somehow I missed that statement, by Set but +1 to both of you.
As to the ignoring thing, I beleive that when you responding to more than one person you don't see all the points being made. I have been on both sides of that. If you make a point, just bring it up again. Most of the time the opposing debater will take time to answer it.At this point, I'm not going to bother pushing it any further. There wasn't a second person to respond to at the time and I'm comfortable that I was heard. Now I'm just going to ride this particular wave. I might just throw in the random statement now and then on the status of the system through.
Speaking of which, XPH is an inherently troubled system that needs to be hacked apart to work adequately.
If its inherently troubled then how can it be used without breaking most people's games? I have not been here for the entire conversation, but I dont have much to do today so I will try to go back through the post and answer any concerns that may have been over looked.
As to the ignoring thing, I beleive that when you responding to more than one person you don't see all the points being made. I have been on both sides of that. If you make a point, just bring it up again. Most of the time the opposing debater will take time to answer it.At this point, I'm not going to bother pushing it any further. There wasn't a second person to respond to at the time and I'm comfortable that I was heard. Now I'm just going to ride this particular wave. I might just throw in the random statement now and then on the status of the system through.
Speaking of which, XPH is an inherently troubled system that needs to be hacked apart to work adequately.
If its inherently troubled then how can it be used without breaking most people's games? I have not been here for the entire conversation, but I dont have much to do today so I will try to go back through the post and answer any concerns that may have been over looked.
Yes, I am responding to my own post in order to respond to Blaze. The only things you(Blaze) said that were not responded to were not of a debating nature. They were just statements. If you wanted feedback you should have posed the statements as a challenge. Every time you made a challenge it was responded too.
I have no solution to our first "meeting" on this thread because we have such a difference of opinion on it. It is summarized below the dotted line.
Yeah I really did spend over an hour reading over this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------
If I misinterpret feel free to correct me.
Blaze's first concern was that he is interested in psionics but its non core. page 3
My response sometime later: A vanican based psion is pretty much a sorcerer.
Blaze says that was not what he wants.
My opinion is that there is not much difference other than the point system, once you make a vanican psion is there really enough difference for it to matter?
This is an issue we will have to agree to disagree on because to me it would be too close to a sorcerer even if it has a different name. I won't say its impossible to make a vanican based psion that feels psionic, but I have not seen those changes suggested, and I have not been able to do it, and it was not for lack of trying.
-----------------------------------------------------
Edit: I will be back later if you respond.
Not really, the people that find it works fine are the minority. No ones knocking if ya like it , but you are a rather small group out of the whole. Look in this thread alone your what 7 guys maybe? 3 diehard trying to disprove what can't be disproved?
As others have said, "back it up". You'd best prove we're the minority before making comments like that. I have looked at the thread already, and many of the anti-psionic side are obviously biased from pre-3.5 distastes, or have stated they hate psionics in general on a "fluff" principle.
I'm not even saying it's perfect. I pointed out in my last post that it does have a few holes in it, but most of those are easy fixes, with the worst of the ones mentioned being energy stun which doesn't follow the 3.5 psionic system properly anyway.
Also, it can be disproved. It can be disproved through legitimate examples and mathematics. Also, just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it right; and so far no one has bothered to back it up and actually put up legitimate examples of why psionics is unbalanced. So if there are 30 people saying "psionics is bad" and 3 people saying "psionics isn't bad, and here is why *math*", then the 3 people are on higher ground.
You've repeatedly said you don't know the rules, and that you just want us to accept that you once knew the rules perfectly down to the smallest detail and that it didn't work. Sorry, but no. If you would like to go and read through the publicly available SRD and refresh your memory, then come back and talk about it, then feel free. Until then, I will read your posts and promptly continue to view it as unvalidated.
Also, I suspect Blazej should come and give you a good talking to about blanket statements, as he did with me. (Gooses and ganders right?)
Yes, I am responding to my own post in order to respond to Blaze. The only things you(Blaze) said that were not responded to were not of a debating nature. They were just statements. If you wanted feedback you should have posed the statements as a challenge. Every time you made a challenge it was responded too.
My challenge would be to prove me incorrect that the parts of the XPH system that make it unique and special, are the pieces that also make it unfeasible for Paizo include them in adventures. That fixing psionics for usability for adventures would drag it away from what is in XPH.
The only response I recall disputing this was from you saying that Paizo could write that adventure assuming that the person had the new psionic book. Although that is true it still is a thing that Paizo hasn't done, and one that I would suggest would cause very large loses for the subscription line. Assuming the psionic book is even pretty successful, I would imagine a large drop in purchases for a book that assumes you have a non-core book, and it is likely that some subscribers who stopped subscriptions wouldn't restart until their was something they really wanted causing lost sales in the following months. Am I wrong in any of these assumptions?
Also, I suspect Blazej should come and give you a good talking to about blanket statements, as he did with me. (Gooses and ganders right?)
Yep. That was sort of the point of the statement after seeing the same opposing statement again and again and again. Funny that it got called crap by someone who didn't seem to mind it when you making your statements.
I know in AD&D Psionics was somewhat crudely implemented and could be very imbalancing, depending on your GM, and it has, to me, never felt as fully integrated into the game as everything else. But I haven't seen the 3.5 rules and I have nothing against the idea in and of itself - the PCCs in Rifts are some of the coolest in the game.
Yes, I am responding to my own post in order to respond to Blaze. The only things you(Blaze) said that were not responded to were not of a debating nature. They were just statements. If you wanted feedback you should have posed the statements as a challenge. Every time you made a challenge it was responded too.My challenge would be to prove me incorrect that the parts of the XPH system that make it unique and special, are the pieces that also make it unfeasible for Paizo include them in adventures. That fixing psionics for usability for adventures would drag it away from what is in XPH.
The only response I recall disputing this was from you saying that Paizo could write that adventure assuming that the person had the new psionic book. Although that is true it still is a thing that Paizo hasn't done, and one that I would suggest would cause very large loses for the subscription line. Assuming the psionic book is even pretty successful, I would imagine a large drop in purchases for a book that assumes you have a non-core book, and it is likely that some subscribers who stopped subscriptions wouldn't restart until their was something they really wanted causing lost sales in the following months. Am I wrong in any of these assumptions?
1.What do you mean by fixing it for usability?
2. This is the beginning of your interaction which is somewhere around page 7ish
If someone wants to do that, they can play a sorcerer and pretend its a psion.
No, I don't want to. I want a class as different from Wizard as the Sorcerer or Cleric. Thankfully you aren't the person I'm asking for the class to come from, so your opinion doesn't really have a strong impact.
3. I do beleive a psionic based adventure path would make less money because many hate the idea of psionics in a magic world regardless of the flavor of mechanics you put behind it, and some wont want to learn the rules. To test the idea all they would have to do is put out a single adventure first to see how it did, and they can have it set up with a sidenote saying if you dont use psionics use X arcane spelll instead. I am not saying it would be a huge amount, but with a subsystem it will always be less.
As others have said, "back it up". You'd best prove we're the minority before making comments like that. I have looked at the thread already, and many of the anti-psionic side are obviously biased from pre-3.5 distastes, or have stated they hate psionics in general on a "fluff" principle.
I don't have to do much to back it up. How many people can you think of outside your group that allow it? Psionics have always been a minority , that's just the truth. Sure some folks love the system, nothing wrong with that. But more wont allow it, or find it over powered, or wonky.
Dreamscarred is a small company that can make a living off this subgroup.Good for them, people that like that system should support them but in the big picture it is not a well liked system and most people who have used it in play it seems did not have a good experience with it
In the end it does not matter why people dislike the system it does not change the fact a good part of the community won't allow it
I don't have to do much to back it up. How many people can you think of outside your group that allow it? Psionics have always been a minority , that's just the truth. Sure some folks love the system, nothing wrong with that. But more wont allow it, or find it over powered, or wonky.
Dreamscarred is a small company that can make a living off this subgroup. Good for them, people that like that system should support them but in the big picture it is not a well liked system and most people who have used it in play it seems did not have a good experience with it
In the end it does not matter why people dislike the system it does not change the fact a good part of the community won't allow it.
1st Question) Every group I've played with offline, every group I've played with online (via PbP, and OpenRPG), as well as every game I DM on any medium. In my personal experiences, I've met more that allow 3.5 psionics than those who didn't.
The exception being one DM who thought it was unbalanced because they're better at being strait-blasters. However, he let me explain the psionics system to him a bit more, and he realized they weren't unbalanced at all, and allowed them in every game since.
In short, I've found in my actual experiences more that allow it than those who don't. I do tend to get drawn into threads like this one however, with people who don't (but then again, I've not played with you so my previous statement stands).
3rd Statement) It matters plenty why people dislike the system; because if the dislikes aren't founded in reality then they aren't valid and are just examples of people choosing not to allow something on bad principles alone. This also would apply to anything Paizo released using a different system than the 3.5 system.
You still haven't provided anything actually suggesting that there is a problem beyond saying there is, over and over, and then suggesting that we give up because there are supposedly more 3.5 players who hate psionics and ban it without question (again without providing anything useful). Also, before anyone suggests otherwise, Pathfinder is 3.5. Even when I picked up one of their Adventure Paths in a bookstore two days ago, it announced it in their add ("3.5 THRIVES").
There's at least enough that the PF Campaign Setting included a few pages about Psionics in it (thank you Paizo). You still haven't shown any real indicator that the 3.5 psionics system is unbalanced. Please do so, or stop commenting on a system you can't actually discuss the rules on, because such actions are foolish and serve no purpose.
Funny that it got called crap by someone who didn't seem to mind it when you making your statements.
Ok, perhaps my attempt at a bit of sarcastic humor was a failed one. I'm not entirely certain what you mean here, so I'm going to assume you meant this:
Funny that it was called crap against your statements, but not when it applies to you.If that is the case, then perhaps I should make myself more clear. My statement previously was parroting what others had said to better explain the different views that had been presented, and I wasn't (or wasn't intending to) making a blanket statement towards the argument. However, in this case he said we were undoubtedly the minority (I'm guessing in an attempt to make it seem super-niche), which makes a very large claim (especially since I can go to GiantInThePlayground's forums and find lots of people who play with psionics), and not in a hypothetical way, as if it was certainly fact. I have no doubt that people who regularly play with psionics is a minority, but I heavily question that to the extent that he was suggesting.
So yeah, I do actually expect you to at least treat him as you did with me for merely parroting different people. I have specifically tried to tread carefully with posts since then to keep from offending you Blazej; but it would be nice to feel as if I was judged by the same standards as the opposition.
Just sayin'.
BROKEN RECORD: I'm still waiting for someone to show me some awesome psionic ownage. 'Cause I'm always up for some learnin'.
Edit: No point in saying anything as folks have told you why they find it unbalanced with core. You chose not to count what they have said or blow them off
So not much else to say but preaching to the other side is kinda pointless. Don't ya think?
Funny other then me and folks online I am the only one I knew that would allow it. Every other gamer or group I knew who tired it would not.And again it does not matter why people do not like, it does not matter one damned bit if they played it wrong, hated the fluff, found it was to overpowered for the play style they used or that published adventures were not made with them in mind. It changes nothingLook ya can make a car, and it does not matter if it's the saftist car ever made if folks won't buy it. I am not attacking the system but it was not a vastly loved system. By vastly I mean allowed in 8 out of 10 games
None of this changes that die hard psionic fans are the minority. Ya don't like to hear it, but that does not change it
Also for the record no one cares on the other side if you don't see the issues. You are not gonna change anyone's minds..I also find it funny ya have went after a few people on here who have used the system but did not find it perfect.
Just saying
Like I said before, I don't post these to try and sway the opinions of those who are dead-set against them. I post because others can read these, and I intend to represent the facts for those who are neutral to the subject, or curious.
Also, that was a terrible example. You pretty much described people who aren't playing with psionics as stupid; since if psionics is the safest, most fuel efficient, best car in the world, they'd choose to buy something different just 'cause; and that's pretty stupid IMO.
It's one thing to be the minority (which I'm fine with), but it better be for a d*** good reason. Previously, that's because psionics didn't work well within the scope of the game, and pre-3.5 stuff like 2E wild talents were good reasons why. Their balance in the system is in fact the most crucial factor. Also, I have changed peoples minds (the DM I mentioned in my previous posts) through facts and evidence (which I'm still waiting for on the other side). This in itself shows flaws in your "argument".
I also find it funny ya have went after a few people on here who have used the system but did not find it perfect.
I didn't "go after" anyone. This isn't a witch hunt. I addressed what was said. While I'm still waiting for Frerezar to come back and show me some awesome psionic ownage that proves psionicists better than core classes, at least he tried to make a case for it (which I addressed). You haven't actually addressed the issues here, or commented on the mechanics, or contributed beyond being a general antagonist who, upon being pressed on the issue of your actual knowledge of the subject, fell back into saying "there's more of us than you" in an attempt to invalidate whether you're right or wrong at all.
So like I said, put up, or you know the rest.
I edited man. mostly as ya know..heh it was not a well thought out post. Sorry I tend to post without thinking things out sometimes, character flaw of mine I am afraid
Edit: Also I did not say more of us then you. I was responding to a post saying to someone "Looks like you're completely wrong, and just spouting crap in an attempt to piss people off" when all they said was the system needed work. You seem to like to ignore that I have used the system more then once as have most folks in this thread. I was saying yes psionic fans are a minority. I was also saying it's pointless for 3 or 4 guys to endless post the same things over and over and over as no one is moving at this point
As blazej pointed out both sides ignore stuff they want to.
Ooh. Seven posts before me blowing up this morning. Before I read any of them and change can my mind, I'm going to apologize. I realize that I've been letting my aggravation build up in this thread without letting it go for a while now. Letting some posts or statements get under my skin and cause me to produce an inappropriate response. I still stand by most of what I said, but I, in all honesty have been more and more a jerk the last few days and that is unacceptable. I am sorry.
1.What do you mean by fixing it for usability?
Essentially modify the existing psionic classes or create new classes/options that don't require as much rule reprinting. For example, although the Oracle is a different class, with new abilities, it still doesn't require as much space as a similar Psion, even before they get other class abilities.
2. This is the beginning of your interaction which is somewhere around page 7ish
Hmm... Yes I was aware of that. It also reminds me why I was apologizing.
That is just a suggestion that I haven't been comfortable with, and since I've seen it several times and it made me sad. Overall, I dislike that idea as saying someone who wants to play a Druid could just be a Animal/Plant/Elemental Domain Cleric and pretend, or someone who wants to play an Oracle can just play a Celestial Bloodline Sorcerer. I just don't like the idea that just because they cast spells the same way, that there isn't a reason for the second class.
3. I do beleive a psionic based adventure path would make less money because many hate the idea of psionics in a magic world regardless of the flavor of mechanics you put behind it, and some wont want to learn the rules....
Yes, that might be the case. Just like many people might not like six adventures of Oriental themed campaign, others might not enjoy having psionics be the primary focus of an entire campaign. But I think the impact would be much less drastic if it were just a few NPCs in an adventure, which becomes more viable if the class doesn't require too much rules to be reprinted. I think that with small doses of the class, they can exist within the world without a large drop in sales.
Ok, perhaps my attempt at a bit of sarcastic humor was a failed one. I'm not entirely certain what you mean here, so I'm going to assume you meant this:
Funny that it was called crap against your statements, but not when it applies to you.
If that is the case, then perhaps I should make myself more clear. My statement previously was parroting what others had said to better explain the different views that had been presented, and I wasn't (or wasn't intending to) making a blanket statement towards the argument. However, in this case he said we were undoubtedly the minority (I'm guessing in an attempt to make it seem super-niche), which makes a very large claim (especially since I can go to GiantInThePlayground's forums and find lots of people who play with psionics), and not in a hypothetical way, as if it was certainly fact. I have no doubt that people who regularly play with psionics is a minority, but I heavily question that to the extent that he was suggesting.So yeah, I do actually expect you to at least treat him as you did with me for merely parroting different people. I have specifically tried to tread carefully with posts since then to keep from offending you Blazej; but it would be nice to feel as if I was judged by the same standards as the opposition.
Just sayin'.
BROKEN RECORD: I'm still waiting for someone to show me some awesome psionic ownage. 'Cause I'm always up for some learnin'.
I probably could clarify what I was trying to say, but at this point, I would rather just apologize once again. It was just a build up reaction to seeing the statement saying that XPH is pretty much perfect being regarded as fine, and (what I intended to mean) XPH has issues with word count in most adventure and fixing that would mean larger revisions.
I did also have similar issues with the statements definitly placing pro-XPH players in the minority, but since I was still riding a wave of "bleh" from statements saying that pro-XPH players were the majority and was just throwing up my arms through as it went deeper in.
However, from my previous experiences, calling upon GiantInThePlayground's forums doesn't really give me a great sense of scale as there are other popular views held there that I would also attach to a minority of total players.
Now, I would be much more comfortable, if at the time, I didn't think that I was being treated in the same way as I treated you. I would say that if I previously choose to call out your declaration using similar words to how ProfessorCirno described my statement, I would have been called out hard by several posters, and I think, including ProfessorCirno. So I really did feel as if my statement that I felt was backed up by the problems I presented was treated as different than other similar statements made by others. What I did, I shouldn't have done, but I don't really feel as if I was treated the same as I treated you. And if somewhere I did lose my mind and degrade your opinion like that, again, I'm sorry.
I reaffirm my lack of interest in battling it out to show that their is some psionic combination that will decisively prove forever that XPH is broken. I mean, it has gotten this far without people finding it, I'm not sure why I would be the one to give it. This doesn't mean that I don't think that issues just aren't their, just that we've gone as far as we can bouncing back and forth and that the result produced isn't really a decisive change for either of us.
I'm much more content right now trying to show that moving away from XPH is pretty much necessary for psionics to receive attention here and there in Paizo adventures. For me it is easier to see the impact a class has on space requirements rather than comparing power to one class to another.
1.What do you mean by fixing it for usability?Essentially modify the existing psionic classes or create new classes/options that don't require as much rule reprinting. For example, although the Oracle is a different class, with new abilities, it still doesn't require as much space as a similar Psion, even before they get other class abilities.
Many people that know the Vanican system have no problem picking up the Psionics system, but I dont expect them to learn a new system just to run an adventure path. Throwing out a free low level adventure or a cheap one gives them the chance to learn the rules before an Adventure Path comes out.
On the other hand most people I know that play D&D/Pathfinder know the Psionics rules already. I dont know how widespread that is though. I might just be in an area with a lot of potential psionics users. If the Psionics crowd* was only 20% I would suggest a changing it to whatever is easier for everyone, but its hard for me to be motivated to think of something that I dont see most people having a problem with. I have only had one real life compaint, and that was psionics is to sci-fi. No rules will ever fix that.
*those that like it as is
2. This is the beginning of your interaction which is somewhere around page 7ishHmm... Yes I was aware of that. It also reminds me why I was apologizing.
That is just a suggestion that I haven't been comfortable with, and since I've seen it several times and it made me sad. Overall, I dislike that idea as saying someone who wants to play a Druid could just be a Animal/Plant/Elemental Domain Cleric and pretend, or someone who wants to play an Oracle can just play a Celestial Bloodline Sorcerer. I just don't like the idea that just because they cast spells the same way, that there isn't a reason for the second class.
I think I made that statement because every vanican based psion I have seen look almost like a sorcerer's twin. I dont consider it a valid option however.
3. I do beleive a psionic based adventure path would make less money because many hate the idea of psionics in a magic world regardless of the flavor of mechanics you put behind it, and some wont want to learn the rules....Yes, that might be the case. Just like many people might not like six adventures of Oriental themed campaign, others might not enjoy having psionics be the primary focus of an entire campaign. But I think the impact would be much less drastic if it were just a few NPCs in an adventure, which becomes more viable if the class doesn't require too much rules to be reprinted. I think that with small doses of the class, they can exist within the world without a large drop in sales.
I think this goes back to my first statement on how much of an issue it may or may not be. I do tend to pick up rules pretty quickly so maybe I dont have an issue with the differences.
A question for those of you that would prefer different rules for whatever your reason may be, is do you visit your local gaming store and see an issue with it also or is it just your group?
As an example I have never seen anyone with a Magic of Incarnum book, but I do occasionally see a psionics class being played, not as much as magic of course, but enough for me to beleive it was more popular than just my groups.
PS: All of us get grumpy sometimes, and this debate has remained more civil than other debates I have been in.
To SeekerOfShadowlight & Blazej: Thanks guys. We're cool. I appreciate your sentiments. It takes people with strong mental character to be so say those things, and if I upset you guys, I'm sorry for that too (I'm really trying not to, honest :P).
Main Topic: If the problem with whether or not psionics are easy to implement in Adventure Paths, there's a lot of ways to come to an effective compromise. Here's how I see it (also, when I say "psionics" assume I mean the system first, other parts after):
Now the way I see it, there are a few key concerns here. I also believe there are several ways to adress each of these issues, and they already touched on in the current system.
This was already the case with the Mind Flayer, Couatle, Aboleth, and other creatures that had spell-like abilities that were dubbed "psionic" powers. The psionic creatures in the XPH/SRD also tend to make use of SLAs in the same way (no tallying power points from your NPCS). There's even an existing template that you can apply to any random creature to make it psionics (found in the SRD).
As long as the NPC in the story is compelling, and manifests some powers without a lot of hand-waving and chanting and what-not, then it serves its purpose. The players won't care. The players in my Curse of the Crimson throne game didn't care if the bad guys in the beginning of the game were experts, rogues, fighters, or whatever, since they didn't need to deal with that - just enjoy the game.
It may also increase the acceptance of 3.5 psionics since many people have difficulties tracking down a 3.5 XPH these days (they're going for about $20 over the SRP on amazon.com for new ones, and around $16 for a used one). I also recall when they were retailing on amazon for $60+ used before 4E came out.
=========
I seem to remember it was suggested that if Paizo was to rework the system, it would involve making the psionic powers identical to existing spells. This seems like a bad idea IMO, since as previously shown, the same effect can be achieved with far less investment and less "system shock" to the current rules. Since even the NPC classes tend to have different spell lists than PC classes (adepts get arcane spells like sleep on their divine spell list), it definitely shouldn't raise any eyebrows if the NPCs are a little different.
What do you think? :)
Many people that know the Vanican system have no problem picking up the Psionics system, but I dont expect them to learn a new system just to run an adventure path. Throwing out a free low level adventure or a cheap one gives them the chance to learn the rules before an Adventure Path comes out.
On the other hand most people I know that play D&D/Pathfinder know the Psionics rules already. I dont know how widespread that is though. I might just be in an area with a lot of potential psionics users. If the Psionics crowd* was only 20% I would suggest a changing it to whatever is easier for everyone, but its hard for me to be motivated to think of something that I dont see most people having a problem with. I have only had one real life compaint, and that was psionics is to sci-fi. No rules will ever fix that.
*those that like it as is
I'm not really referring to the complexity of the rule system themselves. The issue is that if if an adventure is being written with the assumption of Core only, a Psion NPC would have a series of known powers, one of which could be energy ray.
They might know that the system lets you spend points, you have a maximum limit, and how augmenting works, but it isn't likely that someone without the psionic book will know what energy ray does off hand. Which means they have to reprint the rules, or provide some alternative. Both of which eat into the word count. This goes for all powers, feats, and such from XPH.
Even without giving a Psion new class abilities, I can easily see just a 6th level Psion with 16 rule elements printed below it. Right this moment that seems like a massive stat block that eats into the adventure text.
Pointing back to my previous post, HERE, discussing viable alternatives for adventure paths and the like. I am moved to consider something else...
The points being made against a Psionics Handbook for Pathfinder are equally valid towards anything Paizo will ever release outside of the Pathfinder core rulebook. If they ever release a sourcebook, period, that adds new spells, feats, or general character options, they will run into this problem. This is far from a "psionics" problem in itself.
It may be smart to continue designing APs with only the core rules to reach the largest target audience. It will have to come down between a decision to avoid expanding, or expanding. If they expand, and release new options such as feats or spells in a sourcebook (for fun and profit), people will still need that sourcebook unless the adventure path explains in detail what the abilities of the NPC with the prestige class or feat or spell does.
Since the "fix" I recall being suggested was to gut the powers that made psionics different and replace with carbon copies of existing spells so no one would actually want to buy the sourcebook to begin with (silly, right?), instead just use existing core stuff as they have always done. Make a few reflavored NPC classes (like an adept that has a psionic feel, or a warrior with a few psychic-ish abilities) and offer it as a free download-able pdf file (sort of like the AP player's guides).
What'cha think?
EDIT: On the other hand, the Red Hand of Doom adventure path that WotC published (which the PF APs reminded me of, and that's a good thing) used NPCs and creatures from different sourcebooks. They didn't reprint everything, just what was needed. If an NPC had a particular magic item, there was a tiny box explaining the item. If there was a particular ability one of their classes had, it explained the ability like you would see in a standard creature entry under their combat notes.
If Paizo wanted to go this route, it shouldn't be a problem. I still suggest making use of an NPC-only dumb-down of psionics using little x/day spell like abilities. This is especially true since the creating NPCs rules in the PF-SRD even suggest ignoring spells in your NPC write-ups that they won't use.
When it comes to spells, determine how many spell selections you need to make for each level. Choose a variety of spells for the highest two levels of spells possessed by the NPC. For all other levels, stick to a few basic spells, prepared multiple times (if possible). If this NPC is slated to appear in only one encounter (such as a combat), leaving off lower-level spells entirely is an acceptable way to speed up generation, especially if the NPC is unlikely to cast those spells. You can always choose a few during play if they are needed.
Cool, eh? ^_^
NPCs don't have to use the same mechanics as the players have option to. This is the same as NPCs having an adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, and warrior, but the players play PC classes. Giving them appropriately themed powers/spells as spell-like abilities would be fine, and very easy on a GM.
That would be a reasonable idea, but it still would require the development of a new class. Overall, including a "NPC" class that is roughly balanced to the other classes, would be practically the same as them creating an actual PC class. If the book were to actually do it, it would mean Paizo would be creating the system that you don't want.
I seem to remember it was suggested that if Paizo was to rework the system, it would involve making the psionic powers identical to existing spells. This seems like a bad idea IMO, since as previously shown, the same effect can be achieved with far less investment and less "system shock" to the current rules. Since even the NPC classes tend to have different spell lists than PC classes (adepts get arcane spells like sleep on their divine spell list), it definitely shouldn't raise any eyebrows if the NPCs are a little different.
This isn't about NPCs having a slightly different spell list. It would likely be (practically) a completely different spell list in order to be used by adventures. These classes would have to have spells from the Core Rulebook instead of the unique list of powers the Psionic classes have been presented with.
Releasing a PF-XPH based on the 3.5 book will provide an option for those who are interested in it. As long as it's balanced, then the players can play their favorite psionic classes with the system they like while the DM doesn't need to make any major adjustments, and also has the option to use the psionics mechanics for their NPCs as they desire (if they want to make a specific NPC that actually uses a class like Psion or Psychic warrior, instead of a fluffed standard class).
It may also increase the acceptance of 3.5 psionics since many people have difficulties tracking down a 3.5 XPH these days (they're going for about $20 over the SRP on amazon.com for new ones, and around $16 for a used one). I also recall when they were retailing on amazon for $60+ used before 4E came out.
If reprinting a XPH-like system is the goal, that already being done by other companies. It isn't like if Paizo decides to go in another direction by making a completely new set of psionic classes that GMs or players will lose any of the options that they have from other books.
The points being made against a Psionics Handbook for Pathfinder are equally valid towards anything Paizo will ever release outside of the Pathfinder core rulebook. If they ever release a sourcebook, period, that adds new spells, feats, or general character options, they will run into this problem. This is far from a "psionics" problem in itself.
It may be smart to continue designing APs with only the core rules to reach the largest target audience. It will have to come down between a decision to avoid expanding, or expanding. If they expand, and release new options such as feats or spells in a sourcebook (for fun and profit), people will still need that sourcebook unless the adventure path explains in detail what the abilities of the NPC with the prestige class or feat or spell does.
True, but the Oracle in the blog preview was able to do what the XPH Psion isn't despite not being in the Core Rulebook, even if she couldn't use the other spells, feats, or other options in the APG, she could still use the Core spells (even if her spells known doesn't match any spell list), the Core feats (including metamagic), or such. It is different without being special to the point of losing viability for adventure use. It may not be a problem with psionics itself, but I think that "psionics" is the one of the best examples of classes that have these issues in the books WotC printed for 3.5.
If Paizo wanted to go this route, it shouldn't be a problem. I still suggest making use of an NPC-only dumb-down of psionics using little x/day spell like abilities. This is especially true since the creating NPCs rules in the PF-SRD even suggest ignoring spells in your NPC write-ups that the won't use.
But that is a suggestion for individual GMs to do in their own games, I don't think it is a suggestion of what Paizo thinks they should be able to do in their published adventures. I think that they would receive a significant number of complaints from posters if they only half-fill a casters spells for them publishing some of the stats they need for the adventure.
Then, even if Paizo were able to cut half of the options a Psion class would have, it would still leave a large number of rules that would need to be reprinted. If a 6th level Psion needed just 8 rules elements reprinted, that would still be a large cost for presenting the class.
I think we all need to take a collective breath here. Most of the posters are each arguing point where nobody on the other side is willing to switch. As the lawyers would say, "Let's agree to disagree."
Right now, both sides could very well switch to:
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
Lets face it. No matter what, some of you are NOT going to be happy. I say go Vancian & take some mechanics from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved on spell weaving & be done with the whole mess. This is making me just hope they NEVER do a Psionics Handbook.
I'm not really referring to the complexity of the rule system themselves. The issue is that if if an adventure is being written with the assumption of Core only, a Psion NPC would have a series of known powers, one of which could be energy ray.
They might know that the system lets you spend points, you have a maximum limit, and how augmenting works, but it isn't likely that someone without the psionic book will know what energy ray does off hand. Which means they have to reprint the rules, or provide some alternative. Both of which eat into the word count. This goes for all powers, feats, and such from XPH.
Even without giving a Psion new class abilities, I can easily see just a 6th level Psion with 16 rule elements printed below it. Right this moment that seems like a massive stat block that eats into the adventure text.
Sometimes the books tell you to refer to X monster in the bestiary. I dont how this would be any different. I dont have every spell memorized, especially since Pathfinder changed a lot of them, so whether I were using a psion or a caster I would still have to go back to the book until I know Pathfinder as well as I knew 3.5.
I think we all need to take a collective breath here. Most of the posters are each arguing point where nobody on the other side is willing to switch. As the lawyers would say, "Let's agree to disagree."
Right now, both sides could very well switch to:
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
TASTES GREAT!!
LESS FILLING!!
Lets face it. No matter what, some of you are NOT going to be happy. I say go Vancian & take some mechanics from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved on spell weaving & be done with the whole mess. This is making me just hope they NEVER do a Psionics Handbook.
They(Paizo) might do a book, but I think DSP will beat them to it, and unless Paizo does something substantial I doubt many psionics users will pay for it twice. I am honestly not even going to buy a DSP book unless it has enough changes to make it worth it, simply because I have the 3.5 book.
Sometimes the books tell you to refer to X monster in the bestiary. I dont how this would be any different. I dont have every spell memorized, especially since Pathfinder changed a lot of them, so whether I were using a psion or a caster I would still have to go back to the book until I know Pathfinder as well as I knew 3.5.
That is the argument that you have missed. Paizo does NOT want to make owning the rule book mandatory to be able to run the adventure/adventure path. The object of the rules set would be the need to have minimal rules repeat. The easiest solution is to make the basics of the psionics system something GMs already know. That way all they would need to print would be any new 'spells' and class abilities not already covered. If it will require a GM, who may be waffling on whether he even wants the rules, to buy the book, then Paizo will most likely not even tackle the rules.
Not being snarky, but that was the main point put out from the beginning by either James or Jason.
Sometimes the books tell you to refer to X monster in the bestiary. I dont how this would be any different. I dont have every spell memorized, especially since Pathfinder changed a lot of them, so whether I were using a psion or a caster I would still have to go back to the book until I know Pathfinder as well as I knew 3.5.
True, but that is because the Bestiary is a core book that people are assumed to have for all the adventures. Supplementary books (other RPG books, Chronicles, Companions, even issues in an Adventure Paths) just do not get that same assumptions that Core rulebooks. If a class wants to show up in adventures, it can't decide to do things that make it hard to impossible to actually include it in the adventure.
The main problem I'd have with that is that your psion is just a renamed universalist wizard. The universalist wizard prepares his spells and gains points (uses of free metamagic) that he can spend on small boosts to his spells.
I don't agree, although my description is not fleshed out, I think that there are enough differences to separate the two classes. It would be like saying that a Druid is just a renamed Cleric, or a Cleric is a renamed Wizard. Despite casting spells the same way, they are not the same class.
My own concept for what a Vancian and/or spontaneous casting Psion would look like... The Psion would be like the Wizard in the way spells were prepared and cast. Then they would have Augment Points (similar to those in a Monk's ki pool). Like the Monk's points, the Psion would be able to spend them for small boosts, in this case it would be to increase the power of one of his spells.
Actually, with the predilection for equating what the monk does with some sort of latent psionics, this would be a good idea. You could even make them stack. This would add a whole Eastern Mysticism feel to the system.
Sometimes the books tell you to refer to X monster in the bestiary. I dont how this would be any different. I dont have every spell memorized, especially since Pathfinder changed a lot of them, so whether I were using a psion or a caster I would still have to go back to the book until I know Pathfinder as well as I knew 3.5.That is the argument that you have missed. Paizo does NOT want to make owning the rule book mandatory to be able to run the adventure/adventure path. The object of the rules set would be the need to have minimal rules repeat. The easiest solution is to make the basics of the psionics system something GMs already know. That way all they would need to print would be any new 'spells' and class abilities not already covered. If it will require a GM, who may be waffling on whether he even wants the rules, to buy the book, then Paizo will most likely not even tackle the rules.
Not being snarky, but that was the main point put out from the beginning by either James or Jason.
So make the powers the same as the spells so you can just go to the corebook?
So make the powers the same as the spells so you can just go to the corebook?
pretty much yeah. Most are spells with diff names wording or fiddly bits added. Make a spell list for psion add a few powers as spells that are not covered would work
That would be a reasonable idea, but it still would require the development of a new class. Overall, including a "NPC" class that is roughly balanced to the other classes, would be practically the same as them creating an actual PC class. If the book were to actually do it, it would mean Paizo would be creating the system that you don't want.
This isn't about NPCs having a slightly different spell list. It would likely be (practically) a completely different spell list in order to be used by adventures. These classes would have to have spells from the Core Rulebook instead of the unique list of powers the Psionic classes have been presented with.
I think we're loosing something in communication. Let me try to explain it in more detail, so that we don't get mixed up.
Instead of re-writing the well-balanced 3.5 psionics system, all the issues that have been proposed are easily remedied by making a simple template to add a few Spell-like abilities to NPC classes like the warrior and adept. NPC classes are already treated as one level lower on the CR / XP scale. The addition of the spell-like abilities can bump them up a notch to make 'em akin to a standard class NPC.
This would take far less work than re-writing the whole system from the ground up and could probably be done in 20 pages or less, and made available for free as a pdf download, or placed in adventure paths as appropriate. A warrior that could 3/day use Shield, and 1/day magic weapon as spell-like abilities wouldn't break anything. An expert with charm person 3/day, and comprehend languages 1/day.
Even if you DID go the route of writing a new NPC class for it, that's definitely not even close to as much work as you describe. That's about one night's worth of work at best. It'd be as simple as cooking up a psi-feeling spell list of core spells, throwing them on the adept as spell-like abilities to make a "NPC-psion" and do the same with the aristocrat or warrior to make a "NPC-psywarrior".
This is not unlike mind-flayers in the 3.5 MM with their "psionic" spell-like abilities of existing spells (charm monster, detect thoughts, plane shift, etc). This works well for NPCs.
This method would also be much less likely to upset the existing psionics community, and also allow the actual psionics mechanics as a valid and good option for players, but allow for "psionic" NPCs in adventure paths using nothing more than the core PF material (since even if you don't have the free-download template, you already know what a spell-like ability is, and that's all that matters).
pretty much yeah. Most are spells with diff names wording or fiddly bits added. Make a spell list for psion add a few powers as spells that are not covered would work
So make the powers the same as the spells so you can just go to the corebook?
That would give the powers free scaling. The power points could be used for metapsionic feats if it went that route. I dont think that a bad idea. It would require the power list to rewritten, but that is not to much of a bad thing. I think that might work, but for some reason I feel like I am missing something.
Most likely we both are...still it is workable
Blazej wrote:
My own concept for what a Vancian and/or spontaneous casting Psion would look like... The Psion would be like the Wizard in the way spells were prepared and cast. Then they would have Augment Points (similar to those in a Monk's ki pool). Like the Monk's points, the Psion would be able to spend them for small boosts, in this case it would be to increase the power of one of his spells.
Xorial wrote:
Actually, with the predilection for equating what the monk does with some sort of latent psionics, this would be a good idea. You could even make them stack. This would add a whole Eastern Mysticism feel to the system.
We just discussed something like this, seeker. Keep the regular metapsionics in line with metamagic. Use the Augment Points to do the things that are not quite the same. Maybe spend a point to combine lower level slots into higher level slots. Power some of the feats that used to use the Psionic Focus. All sorts of psi stuff.
heh ideal of this type have been floating about for any pages now. everyone just kinda playing with em is all.