Another thought. Let's assume for a bit that the Psi System will be Vancian. Given that, will there be a need for everything in the SRD? Will we have a Wilder? A Psychic Warrior? The Psychic Warrior could very well be a psionic Eldritch Knight PrC. The Soul Blade will most likely stay, since it really doesn't need psionics to be ported over. I'm not sure about the Wilder. Some of the PrCs from the XPH could be opened for all spellcasters, while some would stay just for the Psions.
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,...
I would have to see the template to give a more definite opinion, but as I mentioned last time it was brought up, it doesn't look anywhere near simple. It also appears to be a class trying to disguise itself as a template and I don't think that is a good basis of a template. Even the template you mention doesn't do nearly this. All it does is like what the Half-Celestial or Half-Fiend do and give a set list of spell-like abilities during advancement.
To me, adding a huge list of options would just make into a useless template. Given the options of the template or nothing, I would think that nothing would be preferable. That it would just be better to ignore it, let a designer throw on spell-like abilities where needed and not deal with the fact that giving a creature detect thoughts 3/day wouldn't really change the CR of the creature despite what the template would likely say. And they don't really have the capability to start adding a good deal of work to their plate by adding yet more free online suppliments. It has been asked for other things, and they haven't had the ability to just make free online articles that people have asked for, I don't think psionics is special to expect it to receive attention that other things don't get.
I also would say that the amount of work that you describe for creating a Psionic NPC class is nowhere near class for it, that's definitely not even close to as much work as you describe. A nights work would produce something of similar worth, a shoddy class with minimal effort put into it. It would just be a class with a spell-list with nothing for class abilities. I think the effect would be like a Cleric without domains or turning/channeling, a Bard with no performance, or a Druid without a companion or wild shape. It would work just like the Adept, but if Paizo actually did it this way, I would be like them saying that they don't really care about the psionic characters they use in adventures.
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).
In all honesty, if the existing psionics community is upset by Paizo presenting another option for psionics, I would just think that they are bing a bit too sensitive. To me, I find it odd that one would be more upset to see a new and different presentation of the same idea, but not upset if it is decided there would never be a presentation of that idea. That is how I feel about many of the pro-psionic statements here, I don't really care what the system is as long as the system works for Paizo, I just like psionics and want to see it.
To me, those statements seem to be such that the system is the only thing that matters, that if no other system will ever receive anything but hostility, they don't really care about the idea of psionics, they just care about the system. And I don't really mind that, but as that system is apparently almost perfect and needs little modification, I think it is fair to say that one can continue to use that system and Paizo can not nor will not take that away.
I would be just happy if there is a large enough group that supports the psionic product that it would be a success. At this point though, I'm nervous about the strength of the psionic fans feelings will stop any large enough consensus. That psionic fans will be the ones to stop psionic content.
I removed some posts (and replies to them.)
Please don't flame one another or resort to ad hominiem attacks.
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.Aside from the name, the abortion that even Gary Gygax admitted was the greatest mistake in AD+D, has nothing in common with the versions of psionics developed in 3.x. Yes 1st edition AD+D psionics was a horribly unbalanced system, but it's disingenuous to use that to judge the 3.x implementations.
And I wasn't. I said that I hadn't seen them. I have no opinion on the 3.5 rules at all. I'm just saying that the version I have any experience wasn't good but that the idea has potential. I'd be interested in seeing it brought up to PFRPG standards.
I would have to see the template to give a more definite opinion, but as I mentioned last time it was brought up, it doesn't look anywhere near simple. It also appears to be a class trying to disguise itself as a template and I don't think that is a good basis of a template. Even the template you mention doesn't do nearly this. All it does is like what the Half-Celestial or Half-Fiend do and give a set list of spell-like abilities during advancement.
I wrote up a little document earlier this morning, to give an example of what I'm talking about, but my mediafire account is being rather strange and I'm having a bit of trouble getting it available for download to show you...
Ah, here we go: Psionic NPC Template.
I threw this together in a very short time, but it should be pretty effective at making psionically flavored NPCs using the basics. This is a sample, more or less, of what I mentioned with just making some NPC versions for use by the GM. They are simplified to the extreme, and I believe they will work just fine for GMs who want to throw a psionic-flavored NPC into the mix without using the SRD psionics.
As a GM and player however, I would prefer using the SRD version for player characters for all the reasons I've mentioned thus far. It's a simple, clean system, that is easy to learn, and functions very effectively with the core system, and of course offers more options, which is always important for PCs.
That it would just be better to ignore it, let a designer throw on spell-like abilities where needed and not deal with the fact that giving a creature detect thoughts 3/day wouldn't really change the CR of the creature despite what the template would likely say. And they don't really have the capability to start adding a good deal of work to their plate by adding yet more free online suppliments. It has been asked for other things, and they haven't had the ability to just make free online articles that people have asked for, I don't think psionics is special to expect it to receive attention that other things don't get.
On yet another side note (I make those a lot, no?), detect thoughts is a dangerous spell in the hands of NPCs. The 3.5 MM explains that Mind Flayers typically use it scout the presence of others, since the 1st and 2nd rounds on concentrating reveals the presence of other minds and their relative intelligence scores without a save, and it has a fairly long duration. It can be surprisingly useful for NPCs, and make them more dangerous. On a side note, that complaint is also equally valid against existing classes since you can build a wizard or sorcerer who are vastly sub-par for their CR because all their spells have been filled up with stuff like unseen servant and knock.
But as for whether or not Paizo has the capabilities of putting up a free-downloadable pdf of a template, the idea that they couldn't is almost laughable to me. The paizo homepage is a store and there are several free to download books on my account right now. Even if they were unable to find the manpower and resources to put a tiny pdf up on their site for download, it wouldn't kill anyone to just use it themselves for their NPCs if it works mechanically.
In all honesty, if the existing psionics community is upset by Paizo presenting another option for psionics, I would just think that they are bing a bit too sensitive. To me, I find it odd that one would be more upset to see a new and different presentation of the same idea, but not upset if it is decided there would never be a presentation of that idea. That is how I feel about many of the pro-psionic statements here, I don't really care what the system is as long as the system works for Paizo, I just like psionics and want to see it.
To me, those statements seem to be such that the system is the only thing that matters, that if no other system will ever receive anything but hostility, they don't really care about the idea of psionics, they just care about the system. And I don't really mind that, but as that system is apparently almost perfect and needs little modification, I think it is fair to say that one can continue to use that system and Paizo can not nor will not take that away.
I would be just happy if there is a large enough group that supports the psionic product that it would be a success. At this point though, I'm nervous about the strength of the psionic fans feelings will stop any large enough consensus. That psionic fans will be the ones to stop psionic content.
There are many reasons the existing psionic community might not want a new psionic system, and the reasons aren't as selfish as you describe. Here's a few major concerns:
To many, the idea that people are talking about taking the current psionics rules and making them more vancian feels like a cruel joke. It's incredibly selfish in its own right to remove a part of the game that can appeal to those who dislike vancian casting in the name of adding more "psionic content". Especially when it's been pointed out by many (especially Set who made a beautifully detailed post) that you can already do a psychic-themed character using standard vancian methods in the PHB. To take psionics and turn it into yet another vancian system seems foolish and unwarranted.
In short, it means those who like psionics as they are would be left in the cold. Everyone else already has the tools to fluff stuff in the existing system, so you're doing nobody (not even yourself) and favors by publishing such a system.
Closing Thoughts: Since the topic has apparently slid its way from the mechanics (since the opposition haven't brought forth any sort of new evidence against them), the attackers have been going another direction in trying to somehow suggest that releasing a psionics book using the 3.5 rules would somehow throw a horrible monkey wrench into the PF adventure paths, since you would need the book if Paizo made NPCs using the rules within.
I'm still apt to remark that this would be no more true than with any book they ever produce outside of the PF Core Rulebook or SRD (but y'know, ya could put the psionics bit in the SRD like 3,5 did, eh eh? :P), and thus seems to be a non-issue.
Off Subject: If anyone downloads my little psi-template for NPCs, give me your thoughts on it. I wrote it up yesterday morning between breakfast and lunch. It would be cool to get some feedback on it. Thanks. Peace. ^_^
I wrote up a little document earlier this morning, to give an example of what I'm talking about, but my mediafire account is being rather strange and I'm having a bit of trouble getting it available for download to show you...
Ah, here we go: Psionic NPC Template.
I threw this together in a very short time, but it should be pretty effective at making psionically flavored NPCs using the basics. This is a sample, more or less, of what I mentioned with just making some NPC versions for use by the GM. They are simplified to the extreme, and I believe they will work just fine for GMs who want to throw a psionic-flavored NPC into the mix without using the SRD psionics.
Examined it, looks reasonably good. Although the thing that keeps scratching at the back of my mind is that this isn't really a template, it is just round-a-bout way of creating a psionic adept, psionic aristocrat, psionic expert, and psionic warrior. It would seem to be the more direct and reasonable route to actually just make these classes.
But as for whether or not Paizo has the capabilities of putting up a free-downloadable pdf of a template, the idea that they couldn't is almost laughable to me. The paizo homepage is a store and there are several free to download books on my account right now. Even if they were unable to find the manpower and resources to put a tiny pdf up on their site for download, it wouldn't kill anyone to just use it themselves for their NPCs if it works mechanically.
Well then, if it is so easy for them, it should be reasonable enough for you to do it yourself then, all you need is good art, some people to do layout and editing, along with the development you already started on. Then you would have done pretty much what they would need to do, because doing a small PDF is not much easier for them to do than actual work on for pages in an actual book. The difference is that they don't get paid for the small PDF, and that they currently have actual paid projects that they need to finish now.
They already have a system that works, with fewer holes in it than the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM. It's balanced and they feel it properly fits their concept of psionics better than x/day mechanics.
And they still have that system, but the demand would seem to be to not change this, but to take psionic system from others.
They don't want not only the market but the gaming communities further fragmented by a different system. This can create confusion, and compatibility problems between the two that are supposed to be for the same thing. Look at how many posts in this thread have influences from pre-3.5 psionics, of which 3.5 Psionics are nothing like.
The good news is that Paizo isn't likely to produce a system to fragment the market given their desire for the product to be successful. How they will do it, I'm not really sure, but it would be less likely to fragment the community and more likely to bring most of the current fragments together.
If Paizo completely drops the 3.5 SRD psionics to make another psionics system, then to many people, that will effectively brand 3.5 psionics as incompatible with Pathfinder. Many people here have noted that they're running PF-Only games (one of the major reasons during my examples I never used anything outside of Pathfinder as evidence of balance) and players would like to have a PF-XPH.
If they are really running PF-Only, then 3.5 SRD psionics is currently not an option for them, the introduction of a new system doesn't change that. But I do admit that if Paizo was actually successful with there system (no matter what they did), it would be pushing people who play Pathfinder with the XPH as their only psionic system into a smaller group and probably take over as the default psionic system during discussions. To me, this is the most reasonable concern, but, if Paizo is successful, then it would be a minority of people who would sadly lose their position as using the default OGL psionic system, while the majority of people would be playing a new system that they like about as much, if not more than the 3.5 SRD system.
It would make it incredible difficult (if not outright impossible) for playing a psionic character you enjoy in an organized game, such as the Pathfinder Societies.
Doesn't really work as you can't play a XPH character at all now. And the fact that new system doesn't actually change than, all the demand is doing is taking away the chance for others to play psionic characters in organized play.
Many existing 3.5 psionics fans prefer the system as is because it's not a vancian based system. Many of them hate vancian casting for all of its problems, and 3.5 psionics because it was a good mechanical alternative and they could flavor it however they wanted.
And many hate the point casting for all its problems, but again, the existence of a new system doesn't bar them from setting up games with point casters.
In short, it means those who like psionics as they are would be left in the cold. Everyone else already has the tools to fluff stuff in the existing system, so you're doing nobody (not even yourself) and favors by publishing such a system.
I disagree. I feel the current options might work in a pinch, but are no substitute for all out psionic classes. I also find it hilarious and insulting that you imagine to know what I would like better in the end.
Closing Thoughts: Since the topic has apparently slid its way from the mechanics (since the opposition haven't brought forth any sort of new evidence against them), the attackers have been going another direction in trying to somehow suggest that releasing a psionics book using the 3.5 rules would somehow throw a horrible monkey wrench into the PF adventure paths, since you would need the book if Paizo made NPCs using the rules within.
I'm still apt to remark that this would be no more true than with any book they ever produce outside of the PF Core Rulebook or SRD (but y'know, ya could put the psionics bit in the SRD like 3,5 did, eh eh? :P), and thus seems to be a non-issue.
It would be also far to note that when presented with this new "attack" that would "suggest that releasing a psionics book using the 3.5 rules would somehow throw a horrible monkey wrench into the PF adventure paths ," defenders quickly fell back towards using a Vancian-like system. I feel somewhat satisfied with this small admission that XPH doesn't work for Core only adventures and that it would be necessary to create a different system to actually work well for such.
I'm also still apt to remark that while it is no more true for any book they ever produce outside of the PF Core Rulebook, that it is still the case that it appears that the APG classes are more capable for use in adventures than the material from XPH. In addition, it would seem that nearly all rulebook stuff will make itself into the PRD, but it is still very likely that if an oracle appeared in an adventure, the new rules would most likely be reprinted, and that psionics isn't special enough to do what every other class does.
The issue I am seeing is the nova* which myself and Roman were looking at. His idea was to child-proof(for lack of a better word) it, which is not a terrible bad idea, but I think it should be an optional rule for those that keep running out of power-points so the rest of us are not handicapped by it. It seems there are more people able to run the system as is, than those that can't.
Paizo is not currently supporting psionics and its not stopping it from being used so it does not matter to me if they support it or not. I don't really need an all psionics campaign. I can't say one was never produced during the 3.5 era, but if it was I dont remember it, and psionics still remained viable.
*The nova issue we discussed was the one when players insisted on augmenting all powers to the highest level, even when it was not necessary. The DM's don't want the players to suffer, but they don't know how to handle the issue.
Edit: I need to get back to him on that.
Edit2: The word "two" was removed.
I side with Wraithstrike. Since it began, I added psionics to the setting regardless of any eventual support. Sure, I'd vote for a psionics splat from Paizo first before an epic one, but I've already started having my fun. I look forward to anything Paizo might have to offer someday in the way of psionics crunch.
Well then, if it is so easy for them, it should be reasonable enough for you to do it yourself then, all you need is good art, some people to do layout and editing, along with the development you already started on. Then you would have done pretty much what they would need to do, because doing a small PDF is not much easier for them to do than actual work on for pages in an actual book. The difference is that they don't get paid for the small PDF, and that they currently have actual paid projects that they need to finish now.
If they wanted to expand on what I wrote previously (or something similar), and make a pdf using the artwork they've already got and the borders and such they use currently, which should (in theory) be as easy as a copy/paste job in Open Office or MS Office or whatever programs they use to do it. I wouldn't mind doing it myself, actually.
On a similar note, instead of a download-able pdf that on their store, they could post such small additions to the PF-SRD as open game content, and let people check it out for themselves.
I disagree. I feel the current options might work in a pinch, but are no substitute for all out psionic classes. I also find it hilarious and insulting that you imagine to know what I would like better in the end.Ashiel wrote:
In short, it means those who like psionics as they are would be left in the cold. Everyone else already has the tools to fluff stuff in the existing system, so you're doing nobody (not even yourself) and favors by publishing such a system.
I think my terminology was bad here. When I said "you're doing nobody and favors (not even yourself)", I meant it from the perspective of anyone cranking out a new system, not you specifically. I don't know what you would like better in the end, and won't pretend to.
It seems obvious you don't really like the 3.5 rules, so I'm not going to tell you that you do. To do so would be silly, and pointless. Instead, I was pointing out that more people "win" if they kept it the way it is, since it's an existing system that works well and already has a fan base. Particularly since you could make psionically flavored vancian casters with the core rules as they are now. Also, if they planned to use existing spells with a vancian casting psionics then making a class using those wouldn't require much work.
The alternative seems risky and, as we've already seen, can divide people very quickly.
If they are really running PF-Only, then 3.5 SRD psionics is currently not an option for them, the introduction of a new system doesn't change that. But I do admit that if Paizo was actually successful with there system (no matter what they did), it would be pushing people who play Pathfinder with the XPH as their only psionic system into a smaller group and probably take over as the default psionic system during discussions. To me, this is the most reasonable concern, but, if Paizo is successful, then it would be a minority of people who would sadly lose their position as using the default OGL psionic system, while the majority of people would be playing a new system that they like about as much, if not more than the 3.5 SRD system.
...
Doesn't really work as you can't play a XPH character at all now. And the fact that new system doesn't actually change than, all the demand is doing is taking away the chance for others to play psionic characters in organized play.
Which is exactly my point. You can't. If someone says they're running a pathfinder game without pre-PF content, then you're out of luck. If you want to play a psychic warrior in a pathfinder societies game, you're out of luck. For many of us, this is a big thing, and it would help greatly if Paizo would give 3.5 Psionics the OK.
It would be also far to note that when presented with this new "attack" that would "suggest that releasing a psionics book using the 3.5 rules would somehow throw a horrible monkey wrench into the PF adventure paths ," defenders quickly fell back towards using a Vancian-like system. I feel somewhat satisfied with this small admission that XPH doesn't work for Core only adventures and that it would be necessary to create a different system to actually work well for such.
Whoa, I think I'm having trouble following you here. I don't believe they throw a monkey wrench into the adventure paths, and I do believe they're totally compatible with core. I was saying that has been what our antagonists have fallen back on.
I think it works fine for core-only adventures. I must have mis-represented what I was trying to say for it to be taken otherwise. The point I was making was, including classes, feats, spells, and anything else from expanded material would add difficulties in avoiding repeat printings and issues with the adventure paths using core-only material.
Myself, I generally use core-only material when making adventures, 'cause I tend to use generic NPCs. I can kick open my SRD and start building stuff without referencing my various manuals. Occasionally I have a classed NPC, but 8/10 times I typically just use adepts, warriors, experts, or classes like fighter and sorcerer 'cause they're often quick and easy. The other 20% of the time I will use whatever class is appropriate for what I'm looking for, be it ranger, rogue, or psion.
The point is, I run a lot of games with strait core-only junk. I use junk out of the standard monster manual, as well as human warriors, adepts, experts, and so forth, and 3.5 Psionics has never thrown a monkey wrench into it. This is doubly true from a balance perspective.
I also was recently running the Curse of the Crimson Throne, and without any modifications to anything at all worked out fine with the party consisting of a PF-Fighter, Psion, Duskblade, and Bard.
The point I was trying to make was: Once the argument that it was somehow broken within the mechanics fell apart, the next thing to be pushed was that it was somehow incompatible with the Adventure Paths Paizo produces, which meant there needed to be a new system. At least, that's what I thought was being said; and I was trying to point out how that seems silly to me.
Outside of the Debate: Thanks for your feedback with the NPC template. It may not be a template in the traditional sense, but it works well for GMing. It's a good guideline for taking the NPC classes who specifically have no class features and are treated a Level -1 for their challenge rating, throwing some psionic themed SLAs on them, and kicking them back up to being treated as their actual level.
It was meant to be quick and efficient without getting bogged down with a lot of random class features (which as a DM I feel is a good thing). Paizo was right with their guidelines for generating NPCs. To the players, there's not much of a difference between a rogue and an expert 'till one sneak attacks, for example. Actually, it could be beneficial to make some revised NPC classes which get "generic class ability here" at certain levels (so say at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level you could tack on sneak attack, or favored enemy, or weapon training, or turn undead or something).
That could be useful...maybe I'll make some.
What do you think, Blazej? :)
For many of us, this is a big thing, and it would help greatly if Paizo would give 3.5 Psionics the OK.
Just wanted to say this is never gonna happen. Not for PFS at lest.
Creative Director
|
Which is exactly my point. You can't. If someone says they're running a pathfinder game without pre-PF content, then you're out of luck. If you want to play a psychic warrior in a pathfinder societies game, you're out of luck. For many of us, this is a big thing, and it would help greatly if Paizo would give 3.5 Psionics the OK.
For home games... you absolutely CAN use the XPH. That's the whole point of maintaining cross-edition compatibility, after all. For the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign, no luck. And if you're waiting for us to actually put psionic creatures and treasure into an adventure... that's also going to be a long wait since we can't assume all readers have the XPH or access to it and thus would have to reprint a LOT of rules content.
But if psionics worked fine for you in your 3.5 games, they should work just as fine in your Pathfinder games.
The only two issues I am seeing is the nova* which myself and Roman were looking at. His idea was to child-proof(for lack of a better word) it, which is not a terrible bad idea, but I think it should be an optional rule for those that keep running out of power-points so the rest of us are not handicapped by it. It seems there are more people able to run the system as is, than those that can't.
...
*The nova issue we discussed was the one when players insisted on augmenting all powers to the highest level, even when it was not necessary. The DM's don't want the players to suffer, but they don't know how to handle the issue.
This is a valid concern, I think. I would however like to add, for the record, that there are some inept players who do stuff like use their higher level spells in wasteful ways as well, leaving them out of any meaningful juice later on. I recall having a player in an OpenRPG game I ran once, whom always went with his highest level spells the moment an encounter broke out. Didn't matter if it was a goblin or a giant, it was "going down!". I wouldn't blame the vancian casting system for this players actions, and it would be nice if the same courtesy was given in turn.
Child proofing might be a good idea for those who don't know better though, and that could be a really good thing to explore, but the option for choice would be very important.
Just wanted to say this is never gonna happen. Not for PFS at lest.
...your new nickname is now "Killjoy". o_O
Which is exactly my point. You can't. If someone says they're running a pathfinder game without pre-PF content, then you're out of luck. If you want to play a psychic warrior in a pathfinder societies game, you're out of luck. For many of us, this is a big thing, and it would help greatly if Paizo would give 3.5 Psionics the OK.For home games... you absolutely CAN use the XPH. That's the whole point of maintaining cross-edition compatibility, after all. For the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign, no luck. And if you're waiting for us to actually put psionic creatures and treasure into an adventure... that's also going to be a long wait since we can't assume all readers have the XPH or access to it and thus would have to reprint a LOT of rules content.
But if psionics worked fine for you in your 3.5 games, they should work just as fine in your Pathfinder games.
Oh, thanks for the input Mr. Jacobs. :)
I actually hope you continue to keep the adventure paths core only to appeal to the widest audiences possible. As I mentioned in my other post (two posts back), they work fine as they are with psionic characters just fine, so don't feel pressured to include any sort of expanded content material (Paizo published or not) in your adventures.
Truthfully psionic NPCs using the XPH can function just fine using standard treasures, and I know that you can't use XPH stuff in PF-Societies games currently (for the same reason you can't use duskblades are scouts); but wouldn't it be possible if Paizo ever published a PF-Edition of those rules? Hypothetically speaking, I mean.
|
Creative Director
|
Truthfully psionic NPCs using the XPH can function just fine using standard treasures, and I know that you can't use XPH stuff in PF-Societies games currently (for the same reason you can't use duskblades are scouts); but wouldn't it be possible if Paizo ever published a PF-Edition of those rules? Hypothetically speaking, I mean.
If we produce a psionics book for Pathfinder, and if we decide to make psionics a big part of Golarion (they ARE already in the world, after all, so this is quite likely), we'd be fools not to make it legal for psionics to exist in PFS. Likewise, if we do an Asian themed book with samurais and ninja, we'd be fools to not allow those classes in PFS. UNLESS we decide we want to keep the PFS "serious and on theme" with the world.
My main problem with psionics is that it uses and entirely different set of mechanics than the magic system that already exists. Different mechanical systems are harder to balance than like mechanical systems. This was a big part of the balanced/over-powered arguments inherent to psionics in 3.xe. IMO, if the pathfinder magic system (both arcane and divine) are going to use a Vancian system, then Pathfinder psionics should use a Vancian system as well. This will maximize the ease of integrating psionics into with the core system and minimize the "psionics are over-powered!" arguments that will ensue within 3.2 seconds of the rules' release.
Vancian psionics should satisfy the need for a thematically different system (the flavor is different) while remaining mechanically similar to the current magic system.
-Skeld
This is an excellent idea, something they should have done before. Make all three magical systems use the same rules. Brilliant.
And there are people out there that feel psionics are a form of magic. You may disagree but it is out there.
I believe Elements of Magic by ENPub converted the magic system to something akin to psionics in XPH (or like ars magica). Anyway, that is a nice system too. Perhaps there can be a variety of options to suit the campaign's needs.
My main problem with psionics is that it uses and entirely different set of mechanics than the magic system that already exists. Different mechanical systems are harder to balance than like mechanical systems. This was a big part of the balanced/over-powered arguments inherent to psionics in 3.xe. IMO, if the pathfinder magic system (both arcane and divine) are going to use a Vancian system, then Pathfinder psionics should use a Vancian system as well. This will maximize the ease of integrating psionics into with the core system and minimize the "psionics are over-powered!" arguments that will ensue within 3.2 seconds of the rules' release.
Vancian psionics should satisfy the need for a thematically different system (the flavor is different) while remaining mechanically similar to the current magic system.
-Skeld
This is an excellent idea, something they should have done before. Make all three magical systems use the same rules. Brilliant.
And there are people out there that feel psionics are a form of magic. You may disagree but it is out there.
I believe Elements of Magic by ENPub converted the magic system to something akin to psionics in XPH (or like ars magica). Anyway, that is a nice system too. Perhaps there can be a variety of options to suit the campaign's needs.
That idea came up a long time ago, but how do you do it since the feel and the mechanics are intertwined. I think its easier to educate people on the system than to make a brand new one, and try to convert the point system users to vanican. Since spells are seen as overpowered I doubt switching to vanican will solve that issue, among the others that have come up in this thread.
It seems obvious you don't really like the 3.5 rules, so I'm not going to tell you that you do. To do so would be silly, and pointless.
I'm actually fine with the 3.5 rules. They work relatively fine in my games so far, and if someone happens to start nova-ing, I just bar them from that character and other psionic classes. I just think that Paizo can do something as good if not better if given the chance.
The alternative seems risky and, as we've already seen, can divide people very quickly.
And keeping psionics the same seems to divide people pretty quickly as well, all I feel is that Paizo knows reasonably what they are doing, that they aren't being ignorant, random, or capricious with the decisions they are going to make.
Which is exactly my point. You can't. If someone says they're running a pathfinder game without pre-PF content, then you're out of luck. If you want to play a psychic warrior in a pathfinder societies game, you're out of luck. For many of us, this is a big thing, and it would help greatly if Paizo would give 3.5 Psionics the OK.
I don't think that it is Paizo's responsibility to be telling people what is ok for their games and I really don't think they look at their lines as stuff that they really are promoting as the only thing you should use in your game. In fact, if you ask for an updated XPH they are probably going to point you at Dreamscarred Press rather than just tell you to wait to see the system they make in a number of years.
As for PFS, I'm not sure what to say. That is their game to run. I'm also out of luck wanting to use any number of OGL options in the society. An largely unmodified XPH seems especially unlikely to make it to that point, so I would suggest that, at the very least, a somewhat different system would be the only great chance for Paizo even having a set psionic options even available for PFS.
Whoa, I think I'm having trouble following you here. I don't believe they throw a monkey wrench into the adventure paths, and I do believe they're totally compatible with core. I was saying that has been what our antagonists have fallen back on.
I think it works fine for core-only adventures. I must have mis-represented what I was trying to say for it to be taken otherwise. The point I was making was, including classes, feats, spells, and anything else from expanded material would add difficulties in avoiding repeat printings and issues with the adventure paths using core-only material.
First off, I don't think I've fallen back, as I think that we have gone as far as we can go with other topics without just coming to the same mutual disagreement. I just wanted to move on to some other line of discussion that didn't involve talking about novaing or such. I think that I have made the points I could on the other topics I felt like arguing and didn't I do not believe that my arguments "fell apart" any more than you think that your arguments have "fallen apart." That you think that I'm changing my position based on the strength of your arguments rather than the strength you hold onto those arguments is silly to me.
But the thing was trying to step up was that a Pathfinder adventure has the assumption that the player owns only the Core and doesn't have a random book having information for any non-Core monster/spell/item/class/feat they choose to include. They solve this issue by reprinting necessary rules. My point was that XPH, ignoring all other arguments about the system, absolutely sucks for printed adventures because of how much unique things it requires to reprint.
Your posts don't really contest this issue, in fact, they sort of support it by going on that NPCs could use a non-XPH system.
I'm not saying that this means that XPH doesn't work in your adventures, just that I feel that I have reasonably made my point that XPH is not a perfect system that doesn't need to be changed or replaced, at least from the position of putting psionic NPCs in adventures.
While it is perfectly fine for people to use XPH in their own games, I would suggest that it would be odd for a company that has been producing a significant amount of adventures, to make a book with rules that they can't really use in their adventures.
It was meant to be quick and efficient without getting bogged down with a lot of random class features (which as a DM I feel is a good thing). Paizo was right with their guidelines for generating NPCs. To the players, there's not much of a difference between a rogue and an expert 'till one sneak attacks, for example. Actually, it could be beneficial to make some revised NPC classes which get "generic class ability here" at certain levels (so say at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level you could tack on sneak attack, or favored enemy, or weapon training, or turn undead or something).
That could be useful...maybe I'll make some.
What do you think, Blazej? :)
I think that it would help the appearance of the classes to add some psionic abilities. Right now I don't think they have a real identifiable psionic quality to them for the people fighting them. They don't have anything that really strongly distinguish them from being just an adept with a lot of Stilled, Silent spells.
It would be reasonable to me, to set up NPC classes with the option to gain simple class features.
That you think that I'm changing my position based on the strength of your arguments rather than the strength you hold onto those arguments is silly to me.
Ouch. I believe I'm not unjustified in believing that I have provided the lion's share of information in the form of actual mechanical aspects of the system, of which suggest heavily that the 3.5 Psionics are well balanced. My previous challenge from several posts back still stands as well.
Anyway, continuing on to something we can discuss more civilly...
But the thing was trying to step up was that a Pathfinder adventure has the assumption that the player owns only the Core and doesn't have a random book having information for any non-Core monster/spell/item/class/feat they choose to include. They solve this issue by reprinting necessary rules. My point was that XPH, ignoring all other arguments about the system, absolutely sucks for printed adventures because of how much unique things it requires to reprint.
I concede to your point on this matter. It is true that if Paizo ever released anything outside of the core rulebook that was anything besides standard casting would require more if they included a NPC that drew heavily upon the expanded rules. This is in fact the reason why I suggested merely making an NPC version that would require little to no additional write-up for the same feel.
This to me seems like a better option for dealing with NPC write-ups than dumbing down the 3.5 SRD material that already exists as OGLC to do what standard magic already does. That's the whole point of NPC classes, so that you can make NPCs quickly that don't really need any special attention to details beyond what you want to give them; as well as counter productive for what I think the 3.5 Psionics is good foor.
However, I have no say in the matter, and I shall only hope that they will continue what is a very good system that is very good at doing what it is supposed to do; and with that, hope that one day we can use our beloved psionicists in PF-Societies games.
With that said, I shall presently withdraw from the argument as to whether 3.5 Psionics should be the method used. It's not what I entered the discussion for and I was admittedly on guard prior to your other posts, so I mistook your posts for something that they weren't. For that, I apologize. I've no quarrel with you. :)
My investment in this thread was to clear up misconception and misinformation about the existing 3.5 rules, and I believe I did so. I will quickly jump back into arguments about the rules and balance should they arise. I think however, for now, I am finished.
Otherwise: I think I might write up some ideas for some NPC classes that I could make available to the existing PF community (akin the the template I provided previously, but perhaps different). Perhaps also a guidelines for applying generic class features to the NPCs, for other classes while I'm at it.
In your opinion, what do you think would define an psionic NPC to players to make them stand out and scream "Hey, I'm totally a psionic character"? What do you think it needs? I really don't want to reduce them to some sort of over emphasized diviner or enchanter.
That you think that I'm changing my position based on the strength of your arguments rather than the strength you hold onto those arguments is silly to me.Ouch. I believe I'm not unjustified in believing that I have provided the lion's share of information in the form of actual mechanical aspects of the system, of which suggest heavily that the 3.5 Psionics are well balanced. My previous challenge from several posts back still stands as well.
Anyway, continuing on to something we can discuss more civilly...
To make completely clear, I'm not saying that I think that your arguments were horrible. It just at the end of those arguments, I still felt that I was correct and that I thought your evidence didn't hold a strong enough value in the face of the arguments I presented. I didn't really fight that hard back at you, because I felt like I made the points that I needed to make, and that further arguments would just end with the same facts presented and the same conclusion.
Part of me, looking back, feels as if we were arguing two different things. You were arguing that XPH was well balanced, while I was arguing that the system it was built upon was not necessarily so. The difference being that I put much less value on things like the psionic power list being smaller and lacking, because I was looking as if the psionic classes had the abilities similar to Core casters rather than a limited subset.
That is probably why your examples provide little worth to me, as they are showing that the system doesn't break with these few options, but doesn't show anything about the system if it has a larger number of options. Also a reason why I didn't really produce any mechanical evidence, my proof* is based on a system that could be rather than one that actually exists. Looking back, the most I could do was throw out a Psion that was using the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, but I don't really have the burning desire to put together anything too grand. I already spend too much time writing/rewriting/editing these posts without jumping into creating an example of some theoretical problem that could possibly happen if system were modified.
* Aside from what I experienced, which is more an issue I have with the "personality" of the system, which isn't really mathematically provable either.
In your opinion, what do you think would define an psionic NPC to players to make them stand out and scream "Hey, I'm totally a psionic character"? What do you think it needs? I really don't want to reduce them to some sort of over emphasized diviner or enchanter.
I'm not exactly sure. I feel it would be different for every different class though. At least one example I can come up with for the barely controlled psionic character are manifestations of the character's power that occur (causing an effect on the area around them) whenever they use one of their abilities (similar to the idea of the displays in XPH). When the character uses a more powerful ability, the manifestation and the effects that go with it becomes more powerful as well.
Examples could include flames erupting in the area around the psionic character, loose objects being flung around at people, ground shaking like a earthquake, and screaming voices.
* Aside from what I experienced, which is more an issue I have with the "personality" of the system, which isn't really mathematically provable either.
"Personality"? Does that mean the feel of the system?
* Aside from what I experienced, which is more an issue I have with the "personality" of the system, which isn't really mathematically provable either."Personality"? Does that mean the feel of the system?
I guess that it does.
I mean as far as the system seemed to "want" me to intensify my spending rather than dampen it. For me, having the number of casting visible in both spontaneous casting or Vancian often felt like it were saying, "don't have much for powerful spells, you should be using those more plentiful lower level spells," while psionics (again, to me) feels less concerned about holding back, often feeling as if it were saying, "you have plenty of power points, do what you want, you won't be running out of your good powers for a while."
Which are just my own impressions of the system and not especially viable to show why the system is broken, but more useful for starting to explain my issues with it.
* Aside from what I experienced, which is more an issue I have with the "personality" of the system, which isn't really mathematically provable either."Personality"? Does that mean the feel of the system?I guess that it does.
I mean as far as the system seemed to "want" me to intensify my spending rather than dampen it. For me, having the number of casting visible in both spontaneous casting or Vancian often felt like it were saying, "don't have much for powerful spells, you should be using those more plentiful lower level spells," while psionics (again, to me) feels less concerned about holding back, often feeling as if it were saying, "you have plenty of power points, do what you want, you won't be running out of your good powers for a while."
Which are just my own impressions of the system and not especially viable to show why the system is broken, but more useful for starting to explain my issues with it.
I think this is part of our disagreement. You don't like the feel of the system while those of us attached to the point system, want to keep it for that reason.
One difference however is that all those power points, which I am assuming sound more plentiful than what they are, don't make me think I have too many and then surprise me when I find they have run off. I do realize that just because I dont feel that way that it does not mean others wont, and I am not going to hypothesize as to how and why they keep running out of power points, forcing the party to rest, because I don't think it will stop the issue.The only thing I can really suggest is to put a limit it, as an optional rule of course.
I think this is part of our disagreement. You don't like the feel of the system while those of us attached to the point system, want to keep it for that reason.
One difference however is that all those power points, which I am assuming sound more plentiful than what they are, don't make me think I have too many and then surprise me when I find they have run off. I do realize that just because I dont feel that way that it does not mean others wont, and I am not going to hypothesize as to how and why they keep running out of power points, forcing the party to rest, because I don't think it will stop the issue.The only thing I can really suggest is to put a limit it, as an optional rule of course.
If you say so, I'm pretty comfortable with points as long as they aren't abused.
At this point if the only thing that you can suggest is an optional rule, then would be not likely to come to terms.
I think this is part of our disagreement. You don't like the feel of the system while those of us attached to the point system, want to keep it for that reason.
One difference however is that all those power points, which I am assuming sound more plentiful than what they are, don't make me think I have too many and then surprise me when I find they have run off. I do realize that just because I dont feel that way that it does not mean others wont, and I am not going to hypothesize as to how and why they keep running out of power points, forcing the party to rest, because I don't think it will stop the issue.The only thing I can really suggest is to put a limit it, as an optional rule of course.
If you say so, I'm pretty comfortable with points as long as they aren't abused.
At this point if the only thing that you can suggest is an optional rule, then would be not likely to come to terms.
Abused in what way?
Part of me, looking back, feels as if we were arguing two different things. You were arguing that XPH was well balanced, while I was arguing that the system it was built upon was not necessarily so. The difference being that I put much less value on things like the psionic power list being smaller and lacking, because I was looking as if the psionic classes had the abilities similar to Core casters rather than a limited subset.
That is probably why your examples provide little worth to me, as they are showing that the system doesn't break with these few options, but doesn't show anything about the system if it has a larger number of options. Also a reason why I didn't really produce any mechanical evidence, my proof* is based on a system that could be rather than one that actually exists. Looking back, the most I could do was throw out a Psion that was using the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, but I don't really have the burning desire to put together anything too grand.
Truthfully, the only thing I ever felt like I was arguing with you specifically about was that psions are no more dangerous as NPCs than traditional spellcasters. My sorcerer example, using the PF-OK spell list was, I think, a pretty good show of what a caster can do regardless of magic items. It was a better argument than my example with the wizard ( which I took to the extreme in showing that if desired he could crank out upwards to 45+ 9th level spells assuming he had the correct feats and WBL appropriate).
I do believe the psionics system is balanced as it is in the 3.5 SRD. You can break it by adding stupidly powerful effects (Complete Psionic with Affinity Field comes to mind), but that doesn't make the system itself a problem. Pathfinder is a good example of this, since they didn't remove core casters but adjusted their spell lists.
Also, what powers/spells they have access to is in fact a very major part of the game balance. In many cases it's one of the most crucial parts of determining a caster's abilities. If you allowed wizards and clerics access to each others' spells freely, then you will come down to some serious problems very quickly.
I would urge you to consider how well core casters would function with powers akin to the 3.5 Psionics. If we completely strip away all spells and powers and look at the system at its barest level, then I think maybe we can look at why we psionics fans enjoy it so much.
Vancian Casting
Pros:
Cons:
Psionic Casting
Pros:
Cons:
===
Now, I think I've been fair in this pro/con example. I really tried to think about the benefits of core casting IF all things were considered equal, and core casters and core manifesters had the same spells/powers (adjusted with free-scaling or augmentation when appropriate).
I have purposefully left out spell-components, holy symbols, and other "flavorful" bits involved with core casting, as I find them to be situational weaknesses and didn't want to brand the core spellcasting with them as a "con". I realize some people like trying to deny players their class features (trying to make paladins fall, or have rogues constantly grabbing for spell pouches, or loosing holy symbols) - but I don't think that is enough to justify holding it against core casting as that sort of thing just bothers me and feels like "fake difficulty". As such, I left that bit off of the vancian cons, as did I leave off the difficulty of having your class features "stolen" from the psionic pros (since again I feel its highly situational).
Looking them over, I must say I prefer the psionic system. I play a lot of wizards, but if the two had the same level of power (x/day casters had the psion's power list), I would probably play the psion in every event. I would probably encourage my party to play the psion in every event (to cut down on bookeeping - as I have had groups that have got up and fixed a sandwhich while the party's druid decided which spell to cast). I would probably build my adventures normally and let the player learn how to pace themselves through experience (or advice).
If you ignore the innate differences with their spell/power selection, the vancian casting seems beaten in almost every way as far as the system's strengths go.
If you felt that suggesting the psion's less abusive powers were somehow a balancing factor within the system itself, I would like to ask you "why not allow all the casting classes to select any spell they like"? Why not give wizards spells like Mass Heal, and let your clerics and druids run around with Black Tentacles and Prismatic Wall?
Food for thought.
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.The lack of a practised spellcaster feat in Pathfinder might change that a bit for campaigns that keep strictly to "core".
But we do, as I am sure many people probably do.
Half of Pathfinder is really being able to work with the WotC 3.5 books with little changes. They were adamant about backwards compatibility. So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books. So I do hope they keep in mind this fact, otherwise what was the point of strongly upholding the whole "3.5e compatible" if they're just going to do reprints of WotC's material? (unless the "reprint" is a Pathfinder version, like a Pathfinder version of the Ninja class, for example)
My sorcerer example, using the PF-OK spell list was, I think, a pretty good show of what a caster can do regardless of magic items.
I just don't feel the same way. It seemed too heavily reliant on comments about the lack of Psionic Heighten Spell, a lack of powerful options on the psionic spell list, and such for me to find it defeating my arguments.
Now, I think I've been fair in this pro/con example. I really tried to think about the benefits of core casting IF all things were considered equal, and core casters and core manifesters had the same spells/powers (adjusted with free-scaling or augmentation when appropriate).
Well, I would say that you tried, but that I definitely feel as if bias for one system over another skewed your representation. Your list and the thread in general seems to run with the idea that Vancian and spontaneous are essentially close enough to be the same system. I would say that your list combines both of the Cons of both those systems into one list without noting that having multiple methods of casting be a "Pro" for Vancian, nor was having one system for manifesting be a "Con" for 3.5 Psionics.
"Controlled scaling," "Continued usability" would be apt pros, however, it would have to be better than what happened in 3.5 psionics. I mean a good number of those powers scaled just as much as their core counterparts would and didn't augment, and many of those that did augments didn't scale such that they were gaining that much usability throughout all levels. But still, these are two pro's for essentially the same thing (similar to the two bookkeeping cons within the Vancian section).
"Less bookkeeping" seems more suspect as I don't really think that marking of a few tick marks per level of known spells is that much extra booking keeping compared to a system that sometimes encourages changing costs for powers/spells. I can understand that some people find one easier or more intuitive, but don't think it is true for all people or even enough to make this a strong feature on the list.
If you ignore the innate differences with their spell/power selection, the vancian casting seems beaten in almost every way as far as the system's strengths go.
I think that I've said enough to render this statement suspect at the very least. I would again suggest that you avoid making these types of statements because I perfectly fine with just not bothering with discussing this subject with you.
If you felt that suggesting the psion's less abusive powers were somehow a balancing factor within the system itself, I would like to ask you "why not allow all the casting classes to select any spell they like"? Why not give wizards spells like Mass Heal, and let your clerics and druids run around with Black Tentacles and Prismatic Wall?
Suggesting the psionic power list having a similar number of options as either the sorcerer/wizard or the cleric is exactly the same as removing limitations of spell lists? Huh?
I'm perfectly fine with the idea that psion's having less abusive powers were somehow a balancing factor within the system itself.
But.
It was not presented that way in my opinion. Practically every time the differences in the spell lists/power lists was presented, the intention seemed to be trying to bemoan the fact that the core casters had all those awesome spells that had no psionic counterpart. I didn't ever feel that it was being noted that the lack of those powers was a design decision.
I just don't feel the same way. It seemed too heavily reliant on comments about the lack of Psionic Heighten Spell, a lack of powerful options on the psionic spell list, and such for me to find it defeating my arguments.
My sorcerer didn't rely on lack of anything. He didn't need anything to show how devastatingly powerful a standard NPC sorcerer with generic gear can be. The original argument between the two of us (that is, you and I) involved a statement by you suggesting that the system was flawed because psionic NPCs were more dangerous for their CR compared to their core counterparts. The sorcerer proves otherwise without even dipping into using various magic items. If your statement is true, then by law of reason the core system is already broken in this regard.
The discussion wasn't about a hypothetical "what if" situation. It was a discussion as to what they can actually do as presented with their system. In the psion example, I attempted to abuse everything Frerezar and the others brought up, and I showed why it didn't work. Addressing your comment about a possible Psionic Highten Spell, due to the way the psionic system works you would still give up power for the ability to bypass invulnerability globes (since at the very least you must expend your focus). It's another reason why it's difficult to break psionic meta-magic and that is a perk of the system (I guess another Pro for the list).
Well, I would say that you tried, but that I definitely feel as if bias for one system over another skewed your representation. Your list and the thread in general seems to run with the idea that Vancian and spontaneous are essentially close enough to be the same system. I would say that your list combines both of the Cons of both those systems into one list without noting that having multiple methods of casting be a "Pro" for Vancian, nor was having one system for manifesting be a "Con" for 3.5 Psionics.
I did try. In fact, I tried to think very hard about the pros of core casting versus its cons. I kept coming back to its overall power as a pro, and as I said, I was assuming all things were being equal between their spell/power list, so it didn't apply. However, that's also a con since core casters are nuts anyway. It's a pro that psionics isn't so game-breakingly awesome, and a con that it's not as powerful, so it's a non-issue.
And yes, Vancian casting and spontaneous vancian casting are effectively the same core casting system. Both use the x/day "fire&forget" system, which is the main identifier of a vancian system. Sorcerers are the best of this system, while prepared casters are the worst. That's why I listed prepared spellcasting under a different con. I do believe someone would have a hard time making an argument that suggested prepared casting somehow wasn't core spellcasting.
I'm unsure what you mean by multiple methods of casting, unless you specifically mean the differences between prepared and spontaneous, which considering they are tied to the classes using them (since there's no spontaneous cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, or wizard, and no prepared bard or sorcerer) makes it a weak case for it being a pro (since you can't play a spontaneous wizard, for example).
In the same light, everyone uses the same mechanic with psionics. You can go from playing a psion to a wilder to a psychic warrior to a prestige class for those and not have to deal with any quips about small differences (such as suddenly requiring a full-round action to use metamagic feats, or suddenly not being able to wear a shield - in the case of going from divine to arcane casting). The flavor changes because of the nature of the powers. A cleric and wizard cast about the same way, but they cast different spells, so cleric magic seems different than arcane magic. The same is true comparing the differences between Psions and Psychic Warriors.
"Controlled scaling," "Continued usability" would be apt pros, however, it would have to be better than what happened in 3.5 psionics. I mean a good number of those powers scaled just as much as their core counterparts would and didn't augment, and many of those that did augments didn't scale such that they were gaining that much usability throughout all levels. But still, these are two pro's for essentially the same thing (similar to the two bookkeeping cons within the Vancian section).
Core-casting has spells that don't auto-scale beyond basic effects from caster level (range & duration) which don't benefit from the auto-scaling function. In the same turn, there are psionic powers that don't allow augmenting but still benefit from increase manifester level (range & duration). Everything else falls to the free-scaling vs augmenting.
In the case of core casting, I mentioned extra book-keeping as a drawback to the system, and I mentioned the extreme book-keeping as prepared caster (another part of the core system). It's related but a separate point. If core didn't have prepared casters, it wouldn't have been up there, but it is part of the standard vancian casting (in fact, it's the heart of vancian casting).
"Less bookkeeping" seems more suspect as I don't really think that marking of a few tick marks per level of known spells is that much extra booking keeping compared to a system that sometimes encourages changing costs for powers/spells. I can understand that some people find one easier or more intuitive, but don't think it is true...
It's literally impossible to suggest it compares to psionics in book-keeping terms. A single number for all your resources vs multiple tiers of resources. In the case of prepared casting, then you get into multiple subsets of tiers of resources.
If you prepare spells, then you need to decide how many of each level you have and then divide them by the spells you think you will use, write those down, and mark off each one individually as you go. This also comes with problems of deciding between spells ("Haste" or "Dispel Magic"?).
In the case of psionics, even with the option to change the cost of your powers for more effect (augmentation), you're still just choosing to spend 7 out of your pool than 5, so you still just mark the expenditure and go. You could use a power of every level (1st-9th), a few augmented ones, a few quickened ones, a few empowered ones, and still you're just going to adjust the same resource.
It's litterally this easy:
PP Total: 30
PP Used: 0
Player manifests a power for 1pp.
PP Used: 1
Player manifests a power, augmenting it to 2pp.
PP Used: 3
Player manifests a power for 3pp.
PP Used: 6
When he reaches 30, he's out.
Book-keeping is not a suspect flaw of core casting, it's an inherent one. I've never seen anyone ever be unable to comprehend how to deal with psionic book-keeping, yet even in the D&D for Dummies book it suggest you avoid having anyone new to the game play a wizard, and instead use a sorcerer because the wizard will just confuse the heck out of them.
For another example, I've never seen a psion player anguish over what spells to prepare "today", or stop to decide if he should throw that last "fireball" or whether to prepare "grease or mage armor" today.
In my last post, when I mentioned the druid whom led us to go fix a sandwich while she mulled over what spells to cast in this situation, I wasn't exaggerating or making jokes. It really happened. We had to instate a house rule and put a time limit on actions.
The majority of core casters are based on this prepared spellcasting system (Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard) compared to those with the less-problematic (but still not as good as psionics) spontaneous casting (Bard and Sorcerer). This is why I mentioned the book-keeping twice, because even though bard/sorcerer book-keeping requires more than psionics (at the very minimum it requires you to mark off different tiers of spells), the most common is much worse.
Finally
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying I'm biased because I'm showing where core casting and psionics stand. I've been GMing/playing 3.x since it came out so I'm not unfamiliar with the way core spellcasting works and why it is awesome. However, I'm also aware of the benefits of the psionics system. When I was listing my pros and cons, I was being very careful, going so far as to sit there thinking for approximately five minutes trying to think of more obvious pros of core-casting. I even showed that some people's pros are other people's cons.
I jumped into this conversation to represent the 3.5 system against those who were making BS statements. I did so. I will do so again if needed. However, this doesn't mean I'm biased against core spellcasting. I'm not so enchanted with it that I refuse to see its flaws, but I'm not against it either. I find fewer flaws in the psionics system, and I believe it is a good system. It isn't even a matter of favoring it because I wasn't familiar with the core casting system first, or that I was enchanting by the "shiny new" factor.
It may sound biased because the psionic system really does have a lot going for it compared to core spellcasting, but that doesn't mean it is.
I think I'm done with this. Nothing I say is going to change anything and I don't think the discussion is going anywhere enlightening.
Good luck with your NPC classes/templates if you keep working on them.
Has someone used the deja vu psionic power?
It, uh, sounds like a funny power with lots of good humor applications.
Oh yeah, it definitely is. While it can be good in combat for forcing enemies to do "weird things", I've seen it used for a number of colorful applications. The trick is to be aware and notice when someone does something that would be useful for you to have him/her do again. Here's a few that stood out to me.
- Once I saw it used to get a corrupted lawyer to repeat the same evidence over and over again, until the judge threw the case out and held the evil lawyer in contempt for making a mockery of the situation (if you've ever seen Bruce Almighty, it's sort of like what Bruce did to Ebon).
- Once I saw it used to get an ogre to to try and jump out of a tree after he already did, so he sort of stood there in a daze. The following round, it was used again to make him stand there in a daze. :P
- This is the most colorful one I've seen yet. The party was facing a mind flayer. The party's fighter-type had already opened fire on the mind flayer in the previous round to great effect. The mind-flayer charms/dominates the party's fighter and turns him against the party. The psion quickly got a cool idea, and instead of trying to deal with the illithid's spell resistance, she used Deja Vu on the warrior, causing him to shoot the mind flayer again - which won them the fight.
I think I'm done with this. Nothing I say is going to change anything and I don't think the discussion is going anywhere enlightening.
Good luck with your NPC classes/templates if you keep working on them.
Well, if you say so. I personally think the discussion has been very enlightening, but maybe it's just me. It was good talking with you, either way. I don't think a lot of points would have ever came up otherwise.
Also, thanks about the NPCs. I might continue that idea, if I can find some time or inspiration. I might do it for my next OpenRPG game, actually. I have one in prep. ^_^
Has someone used the deja vu psionic power?
It, uh, sounds like a funny power with lots of good humor applications.
Wait...suddenly it hit me...you're making a sarcastic joke, aren't you? lol
I plead the 5th.
I plead the 5th.
Haha, I'm throwing the book at you!
*hurls the XPH at Krillnar!*That'll learn ya!
A QUESTION FOR THE EDITOR:
Who is the target audience for psionic material?
The people that like psi (a market that often purchased 3rd party products and was dissatisfied with what they percieved as the unfair standards that WotC applied to psi), and that felt it was an exceptionally good system as is?
Or are you marketing to all the people that didn't like psi, and who likely will be biased against anything with the label "psionics" to begin with (considering the posts on your own boards, I feel this is not an unfounded assumption)?
Because common sense would state that the former is far more valuable to market to than the later... Why pull the rug out from under the people you are expecting to buy your product, in order to appease a market share that is hostile to anything conceptually related to your product?
To expand on the above question, I would like to provide a bit of my personal experience with Pathfinder conversion...
My entire group (10 individuals) enjoys pathfinder, and everyone has purchased a hardcopy book, or at the very least a pdf (actually purchased a pdf mind you, which is a rarity for some, but I digress); several in my group have purchased secondary products (bestiary, etc.) and would be highly interested in a psi product. We are in the process of influencing other rp groups we play with to adopt pathfinder. Several of these other groups have shown great enthusiasm towards PF, representing another 25+ fans (can't speak for their full purchases or play patterns, but I know that several purchases have been made and material adopted) that are at least highly interested and aware of your products.
We are in the process of making Pathfinder our primary ruleset, and converting over 3.5 material. However, radically altered psionics products would seriously alienate a large chunk of the group, and no one that I know of would buy such a product. Rather, it would actually drive those that liked psi as it was in 3.5 to view pathfinder as a less legitimate and valid product in general.
Interestingly, when discussing the matter with those that dislike psi (in both my group and peripheral groups), radical alteration of psi, and/or folding it into the vancian system would not influence their perceptions of pathfinder, or psionics (the interest just isn't there for them). Were pathfinder to have an existing psi book, whether a new vancian system, or one based off of the existing SRD, the only feedback I've heard (in my group, and on the 'net) is a resounding "Meh, I'm not really interested". For this non-interested group, either way, psi is just an optional expansion book that they want little to do with.
So, my point... why change a product that many like and look forward to, in an effort to attract an uninterested portion of the market? Especially at the cost of potentially alienating and de-legitimizing yourself. Pathfinder may modify SRD, but it still follows it enough to make it compatible with other 3.5 products, and is still very much the same 3.5... just better in pretty much every way. Changes like those that have been proposed for psi however would alter that, removing rather than adding, and making the system less compatible; it would be the "Paizo system" instead of "the continuation of 3.5", and imo having oneself percieved as the continuation of 3.5 is more valuable, especially right now while people are still getting used to thinking of Paizo as the new makers of 3.5 products.
MY PROPOSAL:
My opinion is that the true problem with Psionics is not novas, or the power point system, or anything commonly listed. Rather, it is an issue of changing perceptions. The SRD rules are balanced, especially when considering the vast power increase that most PF classes recieved.
Instead of altering the system, change the way that psionics is packaged, streamline the rules to be more comprehensible to those that are less technically minded (the pp system is only a balanced system as long as you are applying it correctly, something that most people don't do, at least in my experience), and lay out WHY things function the way they do (and precisely how they balance... a single page worth to explain differences and cost/benefit). The system is fine, but what people THINK THEY KNOW about psi is the real problem. The vast number of people against the Psi system on grounds related to poorly understood rules and balance issues seems to support this; it is not the RAW that is disliked, but the perception of the rules. This represents not a flaw in the rules, but a flaw in the method of delivery and execution.
A simple "this is how it works, this is how it balances, this is how it's different" explanation would clear up the problem for a great many people I think. Such an explanation, accompanied by minor rules streamlining, would be a far better "fix" than vastly changing the SRD material (and would free up page count to apply to pathfinder-izing classes, making new powers/items/etc., and generally expanding on the cool new content that makes pathfinder appealing in the first place).
|
Ok I have not read this whole forum, way to many pages and I came in way to late. But with that said i have been thinking about this a lot.
I have never been a fan of it, I just never thought it was done well. i remember paizo asking in another thread what would it take for you to want it. As in asking us and I am sure especially those of us like me that don't care for.
Anyways since then I have been thinking about it a lot since then and I have come around that if done well it could add to the game. But it would need to fill a new niche. To that end I can think of two area's one of them is already fairly covered but fits the concept.
1) Psychic attacks, telepathy, mind control etc.
2) Enhancing ones body and abilities to go beyond what is allowed.
The monk touches on the second one and I could really see that expanded ala Wire Fu Chinese movies are a good example of this. Their powers let them boost their normal natural abilities to do things that would normally take magic. Like run on top of tree's leap really far etc.
So I really think while Psionics can and should have the option of one, they also need to cover two to fill a new niche. Basically the expanded way to do a monk or other characters like that. Right now the monk is really the only one that comes close and it is far from how much their is in that niche.
Anyways hopefully my ramblings make sense.
...I have come around that if done well it could add to the game. But it would need to fill a new niche. To that end I can think of two area's one of them is already fairly covered but fits the concept.
1) Psychic attacks, telepathy, mind control etc.
2) Enhancing ones body and abilities to go beyond what is allowed.The monk touches on the second one and I could really see that expanded ala Wire Fu Chinese movies are a good example of this. Their powers let them boost their normal natural abilities to do things that would normally take magic. Like run on top of tree's leap really far etc.
So I really think while Psionics can and should have the option of one, they also need to cover two to fill a new niche. Basically the expanded way to do a monk or other characters like that. Right now the monk is really the only one that comes close and it is far from how much their is in that niche.
I think that is a perfect niche for psi to fill. It also imo could do some really cool "blaster" concepts as people channel their will to warp reality, as that is a common psi trope, and one not entirely covered by the other magic systems.
The funny thing is though, SRD psionics already do all three of those things (if you actually are interested in specifics, I'll happily post all the powers/feats, but otherwise I'll refrain from the hour of work it would take). This is why I think that psionics need re-packaging, not re-formatting. They have a ton of stuff that opens up entirely new areas of play, but no one really knows about all the cool stuff it can do between the psi feats and powers. The rules need to be comprehensible on cursory review, and the powers/feats need to evoke their function at a glance (rather than having weird sci-fi naming that fantasy buffs may not be familiar with). The rules themselves work, but no one can get past the packaging to notice. And that's not a criticism of people that don't like psi btw; too many people have the same problem for it to be just "their problem".
I compare the situation to the operation of a very nice DVD player. While it has all the functions one could want, and is actually fairly simple to use, the manual is a poor translation of Japanese and the labeling on the functions is confusing as hell. The DVD player isn't bad, it just needs a better manual.
The target is "fans of the Pathfinder RPG."A QUESTION FOR THE EDITOR:
Who is the target audience for psionic material?
Ok, well what if the "fans of the Pathfinder RPG" are in two categories on the subject of psionic material, those for just updating the current material and those who could care less if you do anything with it at all? Because essentially that is what you have. People are not all of the sudden going to stop playing Pathfinder RPG just because you add psionic material to the game as an optional ruleset. Is it going to be more of a "how many people actually want an update vs how many people don't?" or what?
Having played a Wilder, I can honestly say that with the current rules (and this might be a good argument against using psionics...) I could take a level one power and do approximately 220 points of damage to a single creature if it failed a will save and it would only cost me 20 pp. Sure its an all or nothing kind of thing...but 220 points of damage will kill most things even at 20th level under 3.5 rules. The fact that the power, Mind Thrust, is a level one power makes it even more crazy because the rules say the that DC scales. So basically you could potentially have one character in your party who could do 220 points of damage (Mind Thrust, plus maximize, plus wild surge +6) with no roll to hit, costing only 20 pp (meaning they can do it approx 18 times before running out of pp), and it only requires a DC 25 will save with just a 30% chance of enervation. It wasn't until I ran the numbers that I realized how powerful I was...and I decided afterwards to play my character a bit more low key. However, even knowing all of that doesn't make me think that psionics are broken...because I've had a wizard/sorcerer approximately 400+ damage with only a reflex save allowed.It should be noted that the average damage for a fully powered, +6 wild surged Mind Thrust is 143 damage, with roughly a DC 32 (assuming a +10 charisma modifier from magic items and tomes) to negate it completely. ...
I should check these forums on a regular basis. You make very good points and I'm not against psionics but a lot of people will not see things as you or I do. One of the issues was talking about going nova, and having chance however small of outright killing a character (NPC or otherwise) with a single damaging non-death attack ability is pretty intense. As you pointed out, sure it can be fully resisted, sure that person would be stupid to use that over a power that was 9th level, etc. But what most people will see is "OMG A PSION CAN DO 220 DAMAGE WITH A LVL 1 POWER!!! NERF!!!" No magic user can do anything of that caliber even with metamagic so it kind of leads people towards being against it. However, as you pointed out, its stupid to do it in the way I presented it. The probability of it actually working on an even semi-regular basis is preposterous. BUT, most DM's will see it happen once due to chance and immediately regret allowing psionics into their game. Why? Because not every DM is experienced. Not every DM is prepared. Not every DM will fudge die rolls. And on top of all this it makes the other players cry foul (due to not understanding the rules...). So I guess my point is in the argument to have psionics included in Pathfinder, we on the Pro Psionic side of the house need to educate those who have no idea how the system works....much like you have done here. Keep up the good work.
So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
G.I. Jooooooooooe!!!!
Ok, well what if the "fans of the Pathfinder RPG" are in two categories on the subject of psionic material, those for just updating the current material and those who could care less if you do anything with it at all? Because essentially that is what you have. People are not all of the sudden going to stop playing Pathfinder RPG just because you add psionic material to the game as an optional ruleset. Is it going to be more of a "how many people actually want an update vs how many people don't?" or what?The target is "fans of the Pathfinder RPG."A QUESTION FOR THE EDITOR:
Who is the target audience for psionic material?
That was more the thrust of my question as well. Marketing psi based on the wishes of the "I don't care" group seems counterproductive. If it is going to be an optional ruleset it should target the people actually interested in said ruleset.
Though, as I attempted to point out, there are fans amongst the "I care a lot" group that would feel disenfranchised by major alterations to psionics and at the very least go looking for content with other carriers, while the "I don't care group" would just go about their merry way and ban if from their games, much as they did in 3.5.
I should check these forums on a regular basis. You make very good points and I'm not against psionics but a lot of people will not see things as you or I do. One of the issues was talking about going nova, and having chance however small of outright killing a character (NPC or otherwise) with a single damaging non-death attack ability is pretty intense. As you pointed out, sure it can be fully resisted, sure that person would be stupid to use that over a power that was 9th level, etc. But what most people will see is "OMG A PSION CAN DO 220 DAMAGE WITH A LVL 1 POWER!!! NERF!!!" ...
This is also my point... I think. The psi system as it stands actually is more balanced than magic, but because of rules confusion, poorly explained balance issues, and the fact that people see a "level 1 power doing mega-damage" (ignoring or not understanding that it's a level 9 power in slot cost, and the fact that psions have to pay for ALL scaling, unlike wizards who get better spell effects and dice increases as they level), Psi gets a bad reputation.
If it were merely laid out and explained better, I feel that the majority of problems would be solved.
And as far as the "going nova" thing, the only stuff I've seen that is compelling is the numbers on the wilder... but that isn't a problem with the system as a whole, it is a single class ability gone wrong. And imo, with swingy abilities like paladin smite in the new pathfinder, I really don't even see that as overly problematic.
Amazingly enough, not everyone who is interested in psionics and would like to see a supplement for it loves 3.5 SRD psionics. So there are more than the people who like 3.5 SRD psionics and those who just don't care what system is used.
Additionally, not everyone who dislikes 3.5 SRD psionics will change their mind about the system after having the rules clarified or reexplained.
What's wrong with the XPH? It's frickin' awesome!
Amazingly enough, not everyone who is interested in psionics and would like to see a supplement for it loves 3.5 SRD psionics. So there are more than the people who like 3.5 SRD psionics and those who just don't care what system is used.
Additionally, not everyone who dislikes 3.5 SRD psionics will change their mind about the system after having the rules clarified or reexplained.
Sounds like we should make a poll!
This is also my point... I think. The psi system as it stands actually is more balanced than magic, but because of rules confusion, poorly explained balance issues, and the fact that people see a "level 1 power doing mega-damage" (ignoring or not understanding that it's a level 9 power in slot cost, and the fact that psions have to pay for ALL scaling, unlike wizards who get better spell effects and dice increases as they level), Psi gets a bad reputation.
If it were merely laid out and explained better, I feel that the majority of problems would be solved.
Well since I agree with you I'll go with yes it is your point. I kind of played "Devil's Advocate" with the whole "ZOMG THE WILDER CAN DO X AMOUNT OF DAMAGE WITH A LEVEL ONE POWER!!", but I felt it was necessary to be addressed because I feel that is one of the major reasons people have against psionic material.
If Pathfinder produces psionic material, I will at the very least give a good looking over. But if it's a Vancian system, I most likely will not buy it because I already have rules for a sorcerer.
Edit: And a good argument against a Vancian system for psionics is probably the 3.0 Psionics Handbook (Which used the Vancian system to my recollection).
No point in a poll paizo does not design by comity. The current rules will in all likely hood not be upgraded by paizo, Dreamscarred is doing just that. Also as stands the current rules can not be used in the very products that re the company's bread and butter. Add that to the statements that rules they bring out will get support and your looking at a total overhaul of the ruleset.
It's not in the works or prob even in planning stages to be in the works for at lest a year maybe 3. In all likely hood those die hard XPH fans will be disappointed if they think it's gonna be the same system
If you love the system and really want to keep it you should throw in with dreamscarred , they are a smaller company that is doing just what you want. I think folks that love the XPh system should support them as you are the target of the very things they make
No point in a poll paizo does not design by comity. The current rules will in all likely hood not be upgraded by paizo, Dreamscarred is doing just that. Also as stands the current rules can not be used in the very products that re the company's bread and butter. Add that to the statements that rules they bring out will get support and your looking at a total overhaul of the ruleset.
It's not in the works or prob even in planning stages to be in the works for at lest a year maybe 3. In all likely hood those die hard XPH fans will be disappointed if they think it's gonna be the same system
If you love the system and really want to keep it you should throw in with dreamscarred , they are a smaller company that is doing just what you want. I think folks that love the XPh system should support them as you are the target of the very things they make
A poll would not be for design, the poll would be useful in helping Paizo determine if they should even bother. The question wouldn't be what you want in a Psionics book, but would you buy a book if it was done this way versus this other way. Think of it as market research.
Fortunately for you there is no poll option when making threads.
If you love the system and really want to keep it you should throw in with dreamscarred , they are a smaller company that is doing just what you want. I think folks that love the XPh system should support them as you are the target of the very things they make
This was part of my point as well. If you alienate a large chunk of the people actually interested in the system, and they go buy from someone else that is, in their mind, "doing it right", what is the point of printing something entirely new at all?
Further, Paizo is making an attempt at becoming "the new producer of D&D", or at least is taking on that role in the minds of many (i.e. the torch bearers for the legacy of 3.5), and splitting the market like that would only serve to hurt this perception. Suddenly, everyone that was making PF their new standard is told "if you want the system you like, go over to dreamscarred and get it, we're making up a bunch of new stuff that ignores 3.5 rules and everything you liked" then in their minds, PF has just lost a great deal of legitimacy. This argument, "go to Dreamscarred for classic 3.5 psi," is perhaps the worst answer to the PF psionics problem possible, for the community and for Paizo. It splits the market, reduces the feeling of legitimacy given to PF by its fans, and ultimately reduces income for Paizo (and all of that results in fewer PF products, lower adoption rates of PF as the new standard, and less interest in the continuation 3.5 as a whole).
Well since I agree with you I'll go with yes it is your point. I kind of played "Devil's Advocate" with the whole "ZOMG THE WILDER CAN DO X AMOUNT OF DAMAGE WITH A LEVEL ONE POWER!!", but I felt it was necessary to be addressed because I feel that is one of the major reasons people have against psionic material.
Edit: And a good argument against a Vancian system for psionics is probably the 3.0 Psionics Handbook (Which used the Vancian system to my recollection).
I agree that it is a huge issue, but mainly due to perception and not balance. All I can say is that I hope they keep the mechanics and just improve on them, like they did with the rest of 3.5. I'd rather they ignore it than mangle a good system; further nerfs on top of what psi already gets, or attempts at making it the "same" as vancian would be worse than putting nothing out at all. It would also seem against the spirit of the PF stuff in general, since they seem to have philosophy of adding, rather than taking away, content.
3.0 wasn't vancian, but they did have several prestige classes that worked off similar principles or just supernatural abilities (and sucked).
Amazingly enough, not everyone who is interested in psionics and would like to see a supplement for it loves 3.5 SRD psionics. So there are more than the people who like 3.5 SRD psionics and those who just don't care what system is used.
Additionally, not everyone who dislikes 3.5 SRD psionics will change their mind about the system after having the rules clarified or reexplained.
Quite true, and I never claimed otherwise. I simply think that, from collected time on these boards, the wizards char op and psi forums, and from actual RL conversations with the community, that my suggestion is likely to produce the best results. MOST of the psi fans liked the system, and MOST of those vehemently against psi consistently state their dislike of the concept AND show poor rules/balance comprehension in regards to the psionics system.
While many who are opposed to the concept of psi would not be swayed, if the balance could be better explained, their vehement opposition could be turned into a more placid "whatever, I don't really care," with a few actually seeing the utility of it. Which is basically equivalent to what would happen if you turned it into a vancian system, or nerfed psi to oblivion. Basically, same thing ends up happening in the market on that side...
But over on the side of the psi fans, it seems that most (not all) like the current system, and would be alienated by vast changes. For them, there is a definite advantage to NOT reworking the system as something entirely different. Since the number of those that are fond of psi but don't like the rules seems to be vastly outnumbered by those fond of psi that do like the rules, one would not break even in this part of the market. The advantage goes toward pleasing the bulk of the buyers. Unfortunately, every system is likely to alienate someone; the trick is to alienate as few as possible and to provide triage to those that can be saved.
Oh, and two other things: I would find a poll interesting (though it won't happen) and for me, the pp system makes far more sense thematically for psi and spontaneous casters in general. Spell slots work for wizards/clerics, but the thematics don't seem to fit well for psion (and to fit poorly for oracle/sorcerer). The presence of a PP system provides a nice contrast, for me at least, and an alternative for the people that don't like spell slots but do like "magic" classes.