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).
I disagree, Pathfinderis an open system. Meaning it does not Need to fill that role. They kept it open so people could make new stuff for it. Paizo as a company was built off open gaming and I don't see how anyone can say allowing other folks to use there system and make products for makes them lose one bit of legitimacy.
The psionic market is small it has never been huge, but some people love that system. So there is a company that plans on making PF comparable books for the system they like. Paizo is years away from even starting on a psionic book, but as I said a good chance it will not be the same system
I am failing to see how this is an issue? Folks that love the current system will have it supported, folks who do not will have a chance to see another system that may work for them where as the current rules do not
That's what I call a win/win...Gods I love open gaming
I disagree, Pathfinderis an open system. Meaning it does not Need to fill that role. They kept it open so people could make new stuff for it. Paizo as a company was built off open gaming and I don't see how anyone can say allowing other folks to use there system and make products for makes them lose one bit of legitimacy.
I am failing to see how this is an issue? Folks that love the current system will have it supported, folks who do not will have a chance to see another system that may work for them where as the current rules do not
That's what I call a win/win...Gods I love open gaming
I too like open gaming, but there is a certain way of approaching it that will allow companies to maintain primacy and legitimacy. For example, why did WotC maintain market share, despite the many other quality book makers in the 3.5 market? It wasn't just production values and better distribution; they were seen as the "legitimate" producer of product for 3.5, while everything else was optional.
It would greatly behoove Paizo to make themselves the new standard, the "Legitimate continuation of 3.5", and their own OGL will reinforce this. Other companies will be aided, because 3.5 will continue, and they will be able to sell product, but Paizo will benefit by being the system/rules/company that people view as central to the edition.
Splitting the market on something as large as psionics seems counterproductive to this, and as I've previously stated, many fans of psi will feel that a drastic alteration to the psi system will undermine PF's legitimacy (or at the least put other companies on equal footing for legitimacy). I posit that it is best for the market to have a single central producer to standardize, and then have other companies build on their efforts, and that sending people away to another company to find SRD psionics undermines the view of Paizo as this central source of 3.5 expansion.
Well if they make a system you don't want then there are others. Many people do not like the current system, many do but from there standpoint the system is near unsupportable in the current product line. If you put the current rule in an AP your asking for trouble on every level. It just does not mesh well with the core game
This has been covered alot , so no point in going back into it. But you do have options, I find it odd gamers would not support a company making 100% what they are asking for. Just like 3.5 pathfinder will have 3rd party products that cover things the core system or company will not
Still not seeing an issue here
Edit: On a side note I guess they are gonna be less legitimate for not using the same epic rules as 3.0 did too, as they plan to do a total rebuild on that.
Also the market for psionic is heavily split anyhow and I am still failing to see the issue with using an in house system in place of one not everyone uses anyhow
Splitting the market on something as large as psionics seems counterproductive...
I think an issue is that the size of the market is not well known. For the sake of argument, if it was 50% Paizo would probably try to make sure they got something done before DSP, and if it's only 2.5% then they will just let DSP deal with it. Right now its hard to handle the issue because nobody knows how much of a profit if any Paizo would get from doing their own system. Many of us will not accept the point system, others wont accept the vanican psionics, others wont accept either due to the fact that it is psionics, some won't bother to learn the rules no matter which system is used, and I am sure there are other issues that don't make psionics a priority right now.
There is nothing Paizo can do to please everyone on the psionics issue, so they are just putting out items that many of us are more than happy to accept. I also don't think they want to create something they can't use in one of their AP's. In order to sell the AP that might have psionics in it, it would have to be done correctly*.
*It's anyone's guess as to what that may be.
Well if they make a system you don't want then there are others. Many people do not like the current system, many do but from there standpoint the system is near unsupportable in the current product line. If you put the current rule in an AP your asking for trouble on every level. It just does not mesh well with the core game
This... isn't true. I've had no problem meshing 3.5 psi with PF whatsoever, and as an optional product the psi stuff doesn't have to be explained in every campaign splat that comes out... however, there really wouldn't be much to explain anyway. The psi/magic transparency makes the quite similar, and 3.5 psi provides a similar toolset to magic, at least in the way it approaches problems. This isn't 2nd ed. psi, where you could bypass the whole dungeon just b/c psi does entirely different things from magic; psi and magic are just different takes on similar concepts, mechanically speaking.
This has been covered alot , so no point in going back into it. But you do have options, I find it odd gamers would not support a company making 100% what they are asking for. Just like 3.5 pathfinder will have 3rd party products that cover things the core system or company will not
I don't understand the statement here... but I'll try and respond.
I do support PF, and my claims are actually made to enhance PF's market share; I want to keep it going, and I want to eat into WotC and W.Wolf's strangle hold on the gaming market. This will not be done by weakening PF's legitimacy.Also, the issue, as you and others have stated, is that they can't do 100% of what their fans are asking for, they have to choose who to upset. And my ENTIRE POINT is that, from what I've seen, the fewest people will be pissed off by retaining the psi system, streamlining it, and describing/explaining it better, rather than throwing it out and starting over.
Still not seeing an issue here
Also the market for psionic is heavily split anyhow and I am still failing to see the issue with using an in house system in place of one not everyone uses anyhow
Really? You honestly can't see how it serves Paizo to market itself as the legacy of 3.5, and the standard for future 3.5 play?
Or that letting someone else take the ball from them on a major subsystem of the game is bad?Or that attempting to please an uninterested section of the market over an interested section is a bad choice?
I'll stop discussing this with you then, because the concepts were laid out pretty plainly imo, and are fairly straightforward marketing/psychology issues. You are welcome to your opinion of course, we will just have to disagree.
Edit: On a side note I guess they are gonna be less legitimate for not using the same epic rules as 3.0 did too, as they plan to do a total rebuild on that.
A tad different here.
1)There is no vocal community saying "Epic was a well balanced and viable system" or "I love the epic rules soooo much, please reprint them all". They in fact are widely ridiculed for being filled with suck and lose, and there really isn't another side to the argument, unlike psi, on which the fan base is split.2)It is really a 3.0 product, not 3.5, and therefore the rules were already poorly meshed with the 3.5 system and needed re-working.
I think an issue is that the size of the market is not well known. For the sake of argument, if it was 50% Paizo would probably try to make sure they got something done before DSP, and if it's only 2.5% then they will just let DSP deal with it. Right now its hard to handle the issue because nobody knows how much of a profit if any Paizo would get from doing their own system. Many of us will not accept the point system, others wont accept the vanican psionics, others wont accept either due to the fact that it is psionics, some won't bother to learn the rules no matter which system is used, and I am sure there are other issues that don't make psionics a priority right now.
There is nothing Paizo can do to please everyone on the psionics issue, so they are just putting out items that many of us are more than happy to accept. I also don't think they want to create something they can't use in one of their AP's. In order to sell the AP that might have psionics in it, it would have to be done correctly*.
I do see what you are saying. However, a look at the books people are requesting most shows that Psionics has quite a bit of interest, at least among the respondents. It may be that the boards have an entirely different demographic of course, but this seems unlikely to me, especially given the number of people that I've personally spoken to in RL that are interested.
And, if they are going to actually publish a psi book, why make an entirely new system when the people you are marketing to seem to be more interested in the old system? That would be like taking 3.5 and blending it with 2nd ed... you would just alienate people.
Now, you are certainly right, you can't please everyone. What I am suggesting however is to please as many as possible, and to focus on the people most likely to buy the given product, while simultaneously maintaining a zero sum for the uninterested parties. Most of the people that dislike psi won't come around either way, and won't become so irritated that they would leave the system (they didn't leave 3.5 over psi either), but the psi-lovers will be irritated by the change, and might abandon PF for other companies. PF would lose its place as the "real" D&D, and become just another 3rd party publisher. Which would suck, for both the community, and for Paizo.
Well if they make a system you don't want then there are others. Many people do not like the current system, many do but from there standpoint the system is near unsupportable in the current product line. If you put the current rule in an AP your asking for trouble on every level. It just does not mesh well with the core gameThis... isn't true. I've had no problem meshing 3.5 psi with PF whatsoever, and as an optional product the psi stuff doesn't have to be explained in every campaign splat that comes out... however, there really wouldn't be much to explain anyway. The psi/magic transparency makes the quite similar, and 3.5 psi provides a similar toolset to magic, at least in the way it approaches problems. This isn't 2nd ed. psi, where you could bypass the whole dungeon just b/c psi does entirely different things from magic; psi and magic are just different takes on similar concepts, mechanically speaking.
I am very much a fan of psionics, but I will play devil's advocate since Blaze brought up some points earlier. One issue was word count. If you use a psionic power that does not have a magic version, such as energy ray you have to print the power in the book, since its not reasonable to ask people to go buy a splat book to use any powers the NPC may have been given. If you print the power in the book that increases word count, which in turn increases the price of book.
Before you suggest using a sorcerer in place of the psion, that just means using more words to print the sorcerer option, or forcing the DM to make his own NPC which defeats the purpose of an buying a pre-made module.
I don't understand the statement here... but I'll try and respond.
I do support PF, and my claims are actually made to enhance PF's market share; I want to keep it going, and I want to eat into WotC and W.Wolf's strangle hold on the gaming market. This will not be done by weakening PF's legitimacy.Also, the issue, as you and others have stated, is that they can't do 100% of what their fans are asking for, they have to choose who to upset. And my ENTIRE POINT is that, from what I've seen, the fewest people will be pissed off by retaining the psi system, streamlining it, and describing/explaining it better, rather than throwing it out and starting over.
There are many people that play, but don't come to this website, and even some that do never come to the forums. Many people are not going to read the counter-arguments. They will just go with what they know, even if what they know is wrong, because its easier to do it that way.
The issue is to get rid of all the fallacies out there.I can say I have seen many groups have the EPH at the table if not using it, but I may be in a demographic anomaly. Paizo also wants to think of a way to stop people from running out of power points to quickly. I say let them suffer but I guess as a company that is trying to make a profit they can't come out and tell them they deserve to have their characters die for continually being inefficient. They also can't tell the DM who has only one encounter per day to change things, every once in a while, so his players know its not always safe to nova, or any other number of solutions that don't require rules changes. Since jumping in this thread a few pages back it seems some groups like the point system but need a safety lock built in. Paizo needs to figure out how to do that without making the rest of us upset, since we don't need the safety lock. I personally don't think the PP burnout is a big deal, since most groups dont have an issue with it, but that does change the fact the Paizo does.
This... isn't true. I've had no problem meshing 3.5 psi with PF whatsoever, and as an optional product the psi stuff doesn't have to be explained in every campaign splat that comes out... however, there really wouldn't be much to explain anyway. The psi/magic transparency makes the quite similar, and 3.5 psi provides a similar toolset to magic, at least in the way it approaches problems. This isn't 2nd ed. psi, where you could bypass the whole dungeon just b/c psi does entirely different things from magic; psi and magic are just different takes on similar concepts, mechanically speaking.
Your missing the point. For them to support it, that means it will show up In AP's, in books in the setting as hard write up and NPC states. You an not do that with the current rule set at all. It has nothing to do with how"balance" the system my or may not be and has everything to do with "can we use this" Simple answer is no you can not unless you pitch it only to a small subgroup of people.
I don't understand the statement here... but I'll try and respond.
I do support PF, and my claims are actually made to enhance PF's market share; I want to keep it going, and I want to eat into WotC and W.Wolf's strangle hold on the gaming market. This will not be done by weakening PF's legitimacy.
Ya missed my point. Dreamscarred is giving you 100% what you want. A patherfinder version of the system you want to use. I don't know why you would not support a company with a passion for the system you want to use
Really? You honestly can't see how it serves Paizo to market itself as the legacy of 3.5, and the standard for future 3.5 play?
Or that letting someone else take the ball from them on a major subsystem of the game is bad?
Or that attempting to please an uninterested section of the market over an interested section is a bad choice
I am still failing to see the issue , yes. Paizo has a core system add on stuff has zero to do with it at all. If they decide to dump the XPH system and start over it has nothing to do with being a legacy for 3.5. They have that now, the XPH was never a system the whole community embraced or even liked. Comparing the number of people buying the XPH to the 3.5 PHB is laughable to be honest
And as has been pointed out the market is still unknown. Paizo is best off growing there own market and converting a few of the psionic fan then pandering to an unknown group at the expanse of everyone else to be honest
To Wraithstrike:
My solution on the AP's is to simply treat Psi as the optional system it is... i.e. don't print it in the books, but provide perhaps a page or 1/2 page detailing how it could be slid into the existing modules. I think this should be the case whether or not they keep the existing psi system, as those that don't want to deal with psi would be bothered by suddenly having to run it in their AP's.
The safety lock option is ok, and might just represent the streamlining of the existing powerset... but, the key to any such rule is to:
a)make sure it doesn't nerf psionics.
b)make it simple and intuitive so it doesn't further confuse people
If they can do this, then great. I'm all for it.
To seekerofshadowlight:
I don't see why you can't write up a psi based adventure with the current rules, it would be fairly straightforward. Now, if your argument is that it would upset people to have psi in their adventure paths, well, that is a different argument. If that is what you are saying, I agree (see my above statement to Wrathstrike), but I will also say this is an issue no matter what rules set you utilize.
Dreamscarred may be giving me what I want, but I don't want Dreamscarred, I want Paizo... This should be a good thing, and should be a sentiment that the company wants to instill in its customers. Which leads us to the part that we just apparently have to disagree on, because I don't have more words to explain what I'm trying to tell you regarding marketing strategy.
To Wraithstrike:
My solution on the AP's is to simply treat Psi as the optional system it is... i.e. don't print it in the books, but provide perhaps a page or 1/2 page detailing how it could be slid into the existing modules. I think this should be the case whether or not they keep the existing psi system, as those that don't want to deal with psi would be bothered by suddenly having to run it in their AP's.
Not having a psionics based character in an AP is not an option if they create the system. If they go through the trouble/converting of making the system they want to be able to use it. The statement was made somewhere in this thread, but I could not begin to tell you what page it was on.
I like your idea, since it was similar to my idea, but Paizo does not.
Not having a psionics based character in an AP is not an option if they create the system. If they go through the trouble/converting of making the system they want to be able to use it. The statement was made somewhere in this thread, but I could not begin to tell you what page it was on.
I like your idea, since it was similar to my idea, but Paizo does not.
That is... unfortunate. That means they are guaranteed to alienate the people that don't like psi, even though it was an avoidable circumstance.
That statement however doesn't make it any different a situation, at least in the sense that they will have to deal with new material that doesn't exist in the core PF rules either way, unless they just copy spells exactly as written and give them to psions... at which point, why bother making psionics its own system at all? Even divine has its own spells that arcane doesn't get, and if the entire point is to make stuff that doesn't require a separate book from core, that precludes psi having its own spells/powers... unless their goal is to just reduce explanation of how the powers work, and then they just plan to give blurbs on what specific new spells/powers do. Which is still inefficient imo, as just making it optional rather than integrated solves the problem entirely.
Whatever I guess, their company. Time will tell.
And as has been pointed out the market is still unknown. Paizo is best off growing there own market and converting a few of the psionic fan then pandering to an unknown group at the expanse of everyone else to be honest
I do have to comment on this part even though I don't really want to argue this with you overall, because it is simply an illogical statement.
lets assume these are the variables/concepts we are dealing with:
x is the anti psi fans
y is the pro psi fans
p is the concept of psionics
q is a subset of psionics (the old system)
r is a subset of psionics (a totally revamped subsystem)
This is your argument, as much as I can figure out of it anyway:
Argument 1
we must choose q or r
x doesn't like q
y likes q
y is unknown
therefore r is better than q
This is at best an incomplete argument, and at worst entirely fallacious
lets try it again,with more complete syllogisms that more accurately reflect the situation, and I'll poke holes in what you just said...
We must choose q or r
If x dislikes p
and x is an unknown quantity
and y likes p if p is also q
and y is an unknown quantity
then clearly we choose q
x won't like q or r, because they are both simply subsets of p
but y has a clear preference for q; therefore, with q, we at least insure y is happy, and x will be unhappy either way.
You can also state it differently, assuming more unknowns, which seems to be a more complete version of the argument you were going for:
we must choose q or r
x dislikes p or q
x may dislike r
x is unknown
y likes p and q
y may dislike r
y is unknown
so, we know what y likes, but not what x likes. We know that both x and y may dislike r, and that x and y are opposed in preferences for p&q. Your argument does not suggest r; rather, it suggests either going with q, since we know that at least y is sure to like it, and we don't know what x will like.
imo, the best argument you could come up with to support your opinion, based upon your claims, is that both x and y are unknown, therefore any decision made is of equal worth... so paizo should do whatever they feel like doing, because its all the same. Except what evidence we do have points otherwise.
q or r must be chosen
x's responses and quantity are unknown
y's responses and quantity are unknown
therefore, either choice is equally as likely to be correct.
The message boards, both here and at the old wizards boards, suggest patterns. They are functionally survey data. When you look at survey data, especially volunteer survey data, you can assume selection biases, and a skew towards stronger responses. However, the skew is generally regular, i.e. the skew will be statistically equal for both positive and negative responses, and will be representative of general trends in the populace. Though we can't trust the specific responses, we can at least trust the trends, as long as the selection bias isn't encouraging one group to respond more frequently than the other... For this particular argument, that seems unlikely, given the format (a neutral website where gamers respond based upon the reward garnered from stating their claims).
And based of the data, just the data you see in these threads, we do have enough info to make some decisions regarding which choices to make... the data creates scenarios very similar to arguments 2 or 3.
You can agree you can disagree does not change a few facts
1. The system can not be used as is in the company main line of products
2. The system is not used community wide. Some use it, some don't it is not wholly embraced
3. Some folks at paizo do not like the current system and want to start over from scatch
You add that together and ya get a new system.
Now as for the market, you 1 pander to a small group who like your product or 2 you try and get as much of your baseline buyers as you can interested in your new system
Your looking at the XPH as a core widely used system. It is not. It is an add on subsystem many people dislike. Now in any market you try to keep your core buyers there, however if you can bring in more by totally revamping the system and providing support then you get by pandering to the small group you go for the larger group
Again there is no new splitting the market here, dreamsccared has that small subgroup and paizo would have to do the same thing a 3pp is doing to get that group back , while alienating anyone who would have bought a new system.
You keep seeing soem massive split coming and it's always been there. Dreamscarred will cover XPH fans but paizo needs something diffent
1.they a system they think works
2. they need a system they can fully integrate and support in the company main product line
3. They need something that most player of GM can use without having to own yet another book to even understand it
4. they are looking to integrate it into PFS play at some point and the XPH just will not do without massive rewrites
You can agree , you can disagree does not really change it
You ignored my rebuttals repeatedly, and have not adequately addressed my claims, while I HAVE countered your claims and showed the holes in them. I will not continue this discussion with you further unless you actually address some claims, and do so in a logical manner. This is my last post on this topic (with you) until topics move away from repetition of the same stuff, or you actually start addressing some of my arguments rather than... whatever it is you are addressing.
Thank you for the discussion, will agree to disagree.
You can agree you can disagree does not change a few facts
1. The system can not be used as is in the company main line of products
2. The system is not used community wide. Some use it, some don't it is not wholly embraced
3. Some folks at paizo do not like the current system and want to start over from scatchYou add that together and ya get a new system.
1. by these standards, a brand new system wouldn't either, unless it added nothing new (the stated problem), as the key problem as you and others seem to explain it is lack of room for new material and a desire to avoid confusing people with non-core rules
2. which implies that another system, that will also not see full comunity use (those that don't like the SRD system have expressed lack of interest in ANY psi system), should be used in place of it? This is not a cogent argument. You are replacing a certain, albeit smaller, market (psi fans) with another partitioning of the market that is far less certain (betting on psi fans to prefer your new system, and those that dislike psi to suddenly change their minds).3. Ok. Good for them. I'm not talking about publisher preferences, I'm talking about the wisdom of making a product a certain way. Preferences of authorities, or emotional desires of the makers, have no actual impact on the marketing stuff I've been talking about. Yes, its their mistake to make, but I still see it as a mistake.
Now as for the market, you 1 pander to a small group who like your product or 2 you try and get as much of your baseline buyers as you can interested in your new system
So you ignore the primary group expressing interest to pander to a group that doesn't care. That's... interesting. And irrational. Or at least a large and mostly pointless gamble. But whatever.
Your looking at the XPH as a core widely used system. It is not. It is an add on subsystem many people dislike. Now in any market you try to keep your core buyers there, however if you can bring in more by totally revamping the system and providing support then you get by pandering to the small group you go for the larger group
Yes, it is widely used. From all indications it is the most widely used add-on of the subsystem books introduced (Bo9S, ToM, etc.) and the only one that is ACTUALLY A PART OF SRD. So, yes, some people may dislike it, but that doesn't turn it into an insignificant thing or its supporters a "small group" especially considering that every add-on book (whether new subsystem or merely a story book) is necessarily being marketed to a "smaller group" than those that own the Core material; nothing will actually be as popular or as large a seller as Core content, you can look at amazon sales ratings to watch that play out.
Again there is no new splitting the market here, dreamsccared has that small subgroup and paizo would have to do the same thing a 3pp is doing to get that group back , while alienating anyone who would have bought a new system.
What are you actually saying here?
You keep seeing soem massive split coming and it's always been there. Dreamscarred will cover XPH fans but paizo needs something diffent
You are missing the point. I can't make you see it, though it has been cogently argued, and said argument is based upon sound marketing principles.
1.they a system they think works
2. they need a system they can fully integrate and support in the company main product line
3. They need something that most player of GM can use without having to own yet another book to even understand it
4. they are looking to integrate it into PFS play at some point and the XPH just will not do without massive rewritesYou can agree , you can disagree does not really change it
1. no, they need a system that ACTUALLY works, not that they THINK works
2. They can do that with the SRD version or a totally revamped version, but there is no actual pressing reason to switch to a brand new version3&4. then they can't use psi at all unless it introduces nothing new... and at that point there would be no point in producing a book at all. Psi, to be worth doing, will by necessity form another book, and thus be "yet another book to integrate", a book that they will have to "own... to even understand".
Dreamscarred is doing just what you want and I really can not see what the issue is you seem to see.
I'll will counter the 4 points you made to my points
1> Agreed it needs to work with core. The current rules do not
2> Nope here your wrong, how many pages you willing to give up each and every AP to state out psionic NPC's? As in the first one you will need no less then 6-8 pages to cover the basic info on the class, how it works + space for feats and powers. Everything not core must be reprinted in the book
3&4>This can be done easy, look at the oracle, It's a whole new class yet I could run it with core and only a few pages
You cannot integrate something unless 1, it can be reprinted easy or 2. everyone has the book. Having the book is nice but I should be able to use an adventure with a psionic npc without having that book. If it is to be placed into PFS play then I should be able to take that class and a GM who does not own that book should be able to ok my pc
You can do none of this with the current rules. They are not integrated they are an add-on
Man we are just going to have to agree to disagree, as I have no clue what point's your talking about other then some claim it's splitting what is clearly an already split group
I was going to most likely going to invest some of my money into dreamscarred and give them a chance but nothing looks like it is pathfinder just d20 3.5, am I wrong? I love some psi, and dont mind giving someone that is willing to cover it a chance.
Ya missed my point. Dreamscarred is giving you 100% what you want. A patherfinder version of the system you want to use. I don't know why you would not support a company with a passion for the system you want to use
Well, maybe not the same point rydi was making but Dreamscarred is absolutely not giving me 100% of what I want. So far from what I've seen, I think they are trying to overcompensate for the imagined lack of power psions have and in the end making something that will only appeal to an even smaller fanbase.
Well, maybe not the same point rydi was making but Dreamscarred is absolutely not giving me 100% of what I want. So far from what I've seen, I think they are trying to overcompensate for the imagined lack of power psions have and in the end making something that will only appeal to an even smaller fanbase.
You may have a point, I have not kept an eye one it, as it's really not what I want. I know they were wanting feedback and playtesting, I looked at it and was not my thing. You maybe right on overcompensating and I my have spoke out of line
The thing is it's really not paizo's place to replace every 3.5 subsystem that wotc made. They need to do something they think fits the game they made best. There is nothing stopping folks from using the 3.5 rules with pathfinder. I have a player in a game doing just that with a soulknife.
To be honest I am tired of psionics being a cast off stepchild, tired of it never gaining in house support with world flavor or adventures. If paizo needs to rebuild it from the group up to make it work with the system as something other then an add on, so be it
I was going to most likely going to invest some of my money into dreamscarred and give them a chance but nothing looks like it is pathfinder just d20 3.5, am I wrong? I love some psi, and dont mind giving someone that is willing to cover it a chance.
Their current books are d20 3.5, but their are now doing alpha testing for psionics that will integrate into Pathfinder. As an example, the same way wizard specialist get perks, each of the psions specialist will get perks. They also plan to do something to improve the soul knife. I should probably start going to their forum more.
I was going to most likely going to invest some of my money into dreamscarred and give them a chance but nothing looks like it is pathfinder just d20 3.5, am I wrong? I love some psi, and dont mind giving someone that is willing to cover it a chance.
For what it is worth I think you are right.
You may have a point, I have not kept an eye one it, as it's really not what I want. I know they were wanting feedback and playtesting, I looked at it and was not my thing. You maybe right on overcompensating and I my have spoke out of line
The thing is it's really not paizo's place to replace every 3.5 subsystem that wotc made. They need to do something they think fits the game they made best. There is nothing stopping folks from using the 3.5 rules with pathfinder. I have a player in a game doing just that with a soulknife.
To be honest I am tired of psionics being a cast off stepchild, tired of it never gaining in house support with world flavor or adventures. If paizo needs to rebuild it from the group up to make it work with the system as something other then an add on, so be it
Exactly my point. Part of the reason most people won't even give the Dreamscarred stuff a look over is because its a 3PP. The other reason is because some people will look at it and see that it is adding to the problem not fixing it. In the end the only people who will probably buy their product are those who can't wait for Paizo to do Psionics or Munchkins.
I agree that Paizo does not have to replace every 3.5 subsystem WoTC made. But, if you have 30,000 fans of your product and 1,000 of them wanted a particular subsystem, well at least you know you can sell 1,000 books. I think what a lot of people want, myself included, is an "official" Paizo rules system for psionics because then in our minds we know it should work with the system.
I do not think you are alone in that thought. The really funny thing about this entire thread is that while we all mostly agree that the current rules doesn't play well with others, we all have our own ideas on what changes should be made to "fix" it. And many of us are 100% against a Vancian system.
well the issue is 1000 copy wont pay for it to get past development stages really. I know it was a random number but that's all we have. The only solid data anyone has it wotc sales number and fat chance anyone getting them
But my point was there is little point fighting over something that is 3 or so years away. And paizo will do what it thinks is best and yes it prob will be a Vancian system system as that works best for the needs they have of it.
But all we all have is guesses and no one has anything solid, . All we know is currently one member of paizo has zero interest seemingly in using the current system. other then that it's all guesses
Other arguments aside, Dreamscarred is usually overpowered in their products, at least the ones I've seen. Even for Pathfinder standards, which is saying something.
As far as alternatives to PP system that I would accept (I am 100% against vancian) are a blended system of some sort, or perhaps the safety locks idea if it could prevent some problems without nerfage or flavor loss.
But for me and my group, the pp system is refreshingly different from spells, provides really balanced and fun to play mechanics, and provides a cool feel to psi. Getting rid of the pp system would really ruin psi for us.
I agree points are one of the issues. It has nothing to do with flavor as you can pull off the feel just as well with vancian casing as you can anything else. Its the system folks want and most seem not to care if it's psionics or not really
You can indeed pull off the class just as well with vancian casting. But the impasses is in the alt casting system XPB seem to want seem to want
I agree points are one of the issues. It has nothing to do with flavor as you can pull off the feel just as well with vancian casing as you can anything else. Its the system folks want and most seem not to care if it's psionics or not really
You can indeed pull off the class just as well with vancian casting. But the impasses is in the alt casting system XPB seem to want seem to want
point based systems allow a freedom that vancian lacks. And vancian is... weird. It makes sense for memorized spells, but why should innately magical beings be able to cast their various level spells in these aribtrary spell slots? A point system makes more sense, representing a pool of power or endurance that can be spent freely to do whatever people choose, until their energy/endurance runs out.
So, yeah, it does change the feel having the two different systems. I suppose you could say that people get a "spell level pool" that sums up all the spell levels and they can dole them out on various things, but that's still a point system in all but name at that point.
I don't know the sorcerer spell system works well for them. Many powers were just reworked spells anyhow. I can see the class based off a sorcerer, with other things in place of bloodlines. Psionics already had a set number of known powers. It really is not a hard change, but I would want them to be more then just a "psionic" bloodline myself
Also there are some psoinc powers you could re write up as spells but many just need to go, as the spell they copy works better anyhow. I would also give them verbal and sasmonic components, but simple ones, had gestures simple words or phases. and like a cleric would not give them arcane spell failure.
Seems to me it could work very easy. A simple core friendly system while keeping the flavor and feel intact
I disagree, there are many systems that have psions without the point based 3.5 system or point based anything. You do not have to have a point based system to keep the feel and call it psionic.
Seems to me it could work very easy. A simple core friendly system while keeping the flavor and feel intactI don't believe in rules and flavor that exist as separate things.
No matter how many times people insist that Vancian psionics can keep the same flavor as point-based psionics, all I'm hearing is, "If we rip the engine out of a Porcshe and replace it with an engine from a BMW, the car we have left still captures the feel of a Porsche."
I'm not buying it. The engine is part of the car. Just slapping a Porsche chassis on BMW engineering, no matter how good that engineering, does not capture the feel of a Porsche. A Porsche is as much an engine as it is the curves and lines and paint that make it look distinctive. You can't talk about a Porsche chassis or a Porsche engine as things that can be assigned to non-Porsche cars without completely losing their Porsche character.
I completely agree. Flavor and mechanics are inherently intertwined for me and a Vancian system, much as I love it for arcane spellcasting, would be something that I absolutely wouldn't buy into for psionics. The only reason why I even accept it for divine magic is D&D tradition otherwise I would argue for that being different too.
I disagree, there are many systems that have psions without the point based 3.5 system or point based anything. You do not have to have a point based system to keep the feel and call it psionic.
Do those systems work like 3.5 psionics? A psionic mechanic from another game system may have a different feel that allows the other mechanic to work for it. When people are talking about the feel of psionics they are talking about 3.5 psionics, not just psionics for any game system.
Edit: changed system to systems for the first sentence.
If I were to make guesses as to the actual numbers of people, and I'm just spitballing here, I would have to say out of the entire population that utilize the Pathfinder rules approximately 30% of them want some kind of official psionics material. Out of that 30%, 90% of them are 100% against a Vancian system. Now sure I'm just using estimations but that's all we have, and even if I'm wrong on exactly how many people want psionics, I'm very certain I'm not wrong on how many of them are against a Vancian system for psionics. If Paizo produces such a product 3-5 years down the line, they might as well not even waste their money as it will not sell. I'm all for them updating the rules, I'm all for them making psionics work better with core rules, but I absolutely draw the line at Vancian Psionics. You might as well just use current spellcasting classes and call them "Psions" or whatever.
The major point is that sure Paizo will do whatever it wants when it comes to psionics, but they would be absolutely insane to not listen to what a majority of the subculture wants when producing such a product. Now I know that before the book even sees the light of day, Paizo will probably do some kind of Open Beta testing, but if that Open Beta has Vancian Psionics, you can safely bet that they will be going back to the drawing board shortly thereafter.
I disagree, there are many systems that have psions without the point based 3.5 system or point based anything. You do not have to have a point based system to keep the feel and call it psionic.Do those system work like 3.5 psionics? A psionic mechanic from another game system may have a different feel that allows the other mechanic to work for it. When people are talking about the feel of psionics they are talking about 3.5 psionics, not just psionics for any game system.
They tend to work just like the standard casting system magic runs off of more or less. No people are not talking about psoinic's at all really, they are talking about an alt casting sub system grafted onto the game
People are not talking about feel, they are talking about a system that has nothing to do with psionics themselves. I could throw the Saga force system in to 3,5 and it would work as good as the psionic systems. and may mesh better, it may mesh worse but it's the same thing a system outside the standard core system
3.5 psionics is outside the standard game, it might as well be d20 modern or Saga as to how much it integrates with core. It's an add -on system
Anyhow this is not my call, and not your call. S o kinda pointless to keep going round and round
If I were to make guesses as to the actual numbers of people, and I'm just spitballing here, I would have to say out of the entire population that utilize the Pathfinder rules approximately 30% of them want some kind of official psionics material. Out of that 30%, 90% of them are 100% against a Vancian system.
90% isn't even right in this thread. 50/50 is closer and even that can be off, really it seems the folks that are outright against it are fewer then those who are not or who don't care
But much like internet polls this thread is a poor gauge of anything sept some of us like to argue :)
I think we can all agree however, Paizo is not in a spot we would envy
JMD031 and Epic Meepo: +1
seekerofshadowlight:
this refers back to the logic syllogism I gave you earlier. I agree with JMD031 on his estimates, though I would go with 35-40% interest.
The 90% he/she/it was talking about was a subset of the fans of psi. Most actual psi fans want to keep power points. Out of the whole community, your 50/50 might be closer to accurate, but the book (as you yourself have pointed out) won't be for everybody; the psi people are the primary interest group.
If I were to make guesses as to the actual numbers of people, and I'm just spitballing here, I would have to say out of the entire population that utilize the Pathfinder rules approximately 30% of them want some kind of official psionics material. Out of that 30%, 90% of them are 100% against a Vancian system.90% isn't even right in this thread. 50/50 is closer and even that can be off, really it seems the folks that are outright against it are fewer then those who are not or who don't care
But much like internet polls this thread is a poor gauge of anything sept some of us like to argue :)
I think we can all agree however, Paizo is not in a spot we would envy
No offense, but have we been reading the same thread? There have been a variety of people who have just popped in to say, "I like psionics but if Paizo did a Vancian system for psionics I would not buy it." Then there are the people like who are making various arguments against a Vancian system for Psionics. Out of all of the people who are for psionics in this thread only two that I recall actually are not against a Vancian system for psionics. But that's mainly because I'm waaaaaay to lazy to go back and actually check. Also, keep in mind most of the people who want Psionics in Pathfinder say they want it to be different than the current magic system and a Vancian Psionics system would be the opposite of that.
JMD031 and Epic Meepo: +1
seekerofshadowlight:
this refers back to the logic syllogism I gave you earlier. I agree with JMD031 on his estimates, though I would go with 35-40% interest.The 90% he/she/it was talking about was a subset of the fans of psi. Most actual psi fans want to keep power points. Out of the whole community, your 50/50 might be closer to accurate, but the book (as you yourself have pointed out) won't be for everybody; the psi people are the primary interest group.
^^^^Is a dude. Internet fact #1: There are no females on the internet.
Also, I initially was going to go with 20% but then I remembered seeing many posts on these forums begging for psionics and bumped it up 10%.
JMD031 and Epic Meepo: +1
seekerofshadowlight:
this refers back to the logic syllogism I gave you earlier. I agree with JMD031 on his estimates, though I would go with 35-40% interest.The 90% he/she/it was talking about was a subset of the fans of psi. Most actual psi fans want to keep power points. Out of the whole community, your 50/50 might be closer to accurate, but the book (as you yourself have pointed out) won't be for everybody; the psi people are the primary interest group.
They are now, but I think they need to build a bit of interest in any system they plan on doing before they roll it out. Gonna be a fine act of balance to both try and keep as many old fans as they can and bring in as many new buys as they can
I am really unsure just how to do this. Keeping the old system as is will not work, your still gonna have a small group and a pretty unsupported system. Moving to vanacan may bring in more folks, but your lose some.
I can so see why this is not on the "do it now" list. I think we may see some feelers over the next few years as to how they plan to build intrest
On a note that might make both happy or at lest a mid ground. You switch it to vacan casting, moving the powers to spell( which auto scale) take a few iconic powers that there are no spells for and give them spell right ups. Make a spell list or what ever you need to do
Ok then somewhere in the book have a chapter about non vancing psionics and go into detail about your spell point system (unearthed arcada style) or some such. which would give psoinc fans the flexibility they crave while still having self scaling spells
This would allow AP and org play to use slots, but easy to use slotless as nothing else changes save your chart on page whatever saying Level x has this many points + int mod but everything else stays the same
Now I am sure someone else can make it work much better, but it is workable. Besides a 320 page book has to have something in it
I disagree, there are many systems that have psions without the point based 3.5 system or point based anything. You do not have to have a point based system to keep the feel and call it psionic.Do those system work like 3.5 psionics? A psionic mechanic from another game system may have a different feel that allows the other mechanic to work for it. When people are talking about the feel of psionics they are talking about 3.5 psionics, not just psionics for any game system.They tend to work just like the standard casting system magic runs off of more or less. No people are not talking about psoinic's at all really, they are talking about an alt casting sub system grafted onto the game
People are not talking about feel, they are talking about a system that has nothing to do with psionics themselves. I could throw the Saga force system in to 3,5 and it would work as good as the psionic systems. and may mesh better, it may mesh worse but it's the same thing a system outside the standard core system
3.5 psionics is outside the standard game, it might as well be d20 modern or Saga as to how much it integrates with core. It's an add -on system
Anyhow this is not my call, and not your call. S o kinda pointless to keep going round and round
Actually it does have something to do with psionics, just as the vanican system has something to do with magic. I am not saying its not outside the standard game. It's a subsystem so that much is given.
As for the Sage force system working, that would depend on what you are hoping to achieve. You can't just throw any system in without considering the your goals along with the strengths/weaknesses of said system.
I hate to throw another monkey wrench into this debate, but another thing wizards/sorcerers/druids/clerics have over psions is more choices for higher level spells/powers. Which almost forces a psion to augment powers to be competitive. I mean if I don't take any offensive 8th or 9th level powers, I almost have to bump up my 7th level powers to make up for the difference in power.
Man, I can't believe I almost bought into that whole mess that psionics are overpowered.
I hate to throw another monkey wrench into this debate, but another thing wizards/sorcerers/druids/clerics have over psions is more choices for higher level spells/powers. Which almost forces a psion to augment powers to be competitive. I mean if I don't take any offensive 8th or 9th level powers, I almost have to bump up my 7th level powers to make up for the difference in power.
Man, I can't believe I almost bought into that whole mess that psionics are overpowered.
No your right, the powers are light at high end. Another thing that needs fixed somehow. Even if they keep a point system , they will go over to spells and spell-lists more likely, which does fix some of the issues, both with the system and with using the system in products.
The major point is that sure Paizo will do whatever it wants when it comes to psionics, but they would be absolutely insane to not listen to what a majority of the subculture wants when producing such a product. Now I know that before the book even sees the light of day, Paizo will probably do some kind of Open Beta testing, but if that Open Beta has Vancian Psionics, you can safely bet that they will be going back to the drawing board shortly thereafter.
So far, from what I could tell from the various Pathfinder Psionics threads I would be more likely to say that the group of people who are 100% dead set against the Vancian (or spontanous) psionics, often are people who know exactly what they want and that desire is pretty much equivalent to what was produced in the 3.5 SRD.
If Paizo actually did choose to go with a point based system and keep it somewhat close to what was in the 3.5 SRD, there would be still people who decide that they don't like any changes Paizo produced so they will just ignore the Pathfinder Psionics book and stick with what they are most comfortable with. It doesn't matter what Paizo does because they know that the rules that they have been using work great, and that Paizo's changes are only confusing, unbalanced, and otherwise inferior to just 3.5 SRD psionics.
So I would suggest that there would be a quick drop off of people who would purchase the material from this group, leaving only 70%, 50%, or maybe even 30% (more made up numbers for the thread!) based on the somewhat unpredictable feelings of a group that has a system that they have become very attached to and the actual scale of the modifications Paizo even makes.
If that is the case, one can easily see the people who are dead set against Vancian, spontaneous, or anything not point based, losing any chance of having a majority of the people that would be there to purchase a Pathfinder Psionics product.
I would imagine that the level of success Dreamscarred Press's product would, at some point, be a factor in the decision, since it could be more significant poll than just people raising hands on what they want to happen. If interest in their product is lower than some benchmark (because the people who want the point based system found the changes confusing, unbalanced, and otherwise inferior to just 3.5 SRD psionics), then I would suspect that would lessen the chances they would be choose to go with a similar system.
But honestly, I don't worry about what Paizo does, because from my experience if they make a product they like it will be something that I will be at least interested in. And I know that if they go in and create a spell-slot wielding caster, it is because they looked at the information they had and made the most reasonable (and probably best) choice, and that the chances of it going back to the drawing board would be exceedingly low.
I hate to throw another monkey wrench into this debate, but another thing wizards/sorcerers/druids/clerics have over psions is more choices for higher level spells/powers. Which almost forces a psion to augment powers to be competitive. I mean if I don't take any offensive 8th or 9th level powers, I almost have to bump up my 7th level powers to make up for the difference in power.
Man, I can't believe I almost bought into that whole mess that psionics are overpowered.
If people yell something loud enough, long enough, it is human nature to eventually accept it as truth... politicians rely on this all the time.
Oh, and in a totally unrelated tangent: be careful if you live in the US, old people are going to be rounded up into death camps and executed to reduce health care costs. The media told me so.
Of note, that was humor, and an example of extremism based on perceptions rather than facts. It is also not necessarily a partisan statement, as not all those on the right bought into that, and the left has thier own stupid hype. And I hate that I had to make a disclaimer on this.
stuff
I think that argument you made was a bit of a slippery slope, and at least as far as the vocal psi fanbase goes, there has been no indication that they will abandon the entire system if it varies from their expectations. They have in fact been fairly reasonable, and shown interest in a variety of options; they just don't want vancian, and they don't want yet another nerf to their abilities base upon misunderstanding of the rules.
And I'm glad you have faith in Paizo. I like them, I want them to take primacy in 3.5 publishing, and I am a huge fan of PF. But anyone can drop the ball, especially if they move forward on false assumptions or poor marketing strategies (larger, more established companies have failed in this area). I just want to make it known that moving to a vancian system would be likely to alienate more than it would draw...
I just want to make it known that moving to a vancian system would be likely to alienate more than it would draw...
ANd from this thread we know if will alienate what 6 or 8 people? thats the ones who keep saying it, I love how you throw that up as a fact, when you have zero sales data and can't talk for everyone. yet when anyone brings up anything you shoot them down saying most psionic fans wont use it. Even after it has been shown why the current system wont work.
Guys in this thread(myself included) do not cover the whole of psionic fans, nore can any one of use lay claim to any proof or sales to say see your loose x numbers here or y number of folks here
Paizo will do what they want and, like it or not many gamers , really dislike the current system, including some folks that will be making the call about a new system.
No one is stopping you from using your 3.5 system, but it's not core so there is zero reason why it 100% must be remade as it is.
I just want to make it known that moving to a vancian system would be likely to alienate more than it would draw...ANd from this thread we know if will alienate what 6 or 8 people? thats the ones who keep saying it, I love how you throw that up as a fact, when you have zero sales data and can't talk for everyone. yet when anyone brings up anything you shoot them down saying most psionic fans wont use it. Even after it has been shown why the current system wont work.
Guys in this thread(myself included) do not cover the whole of psionic fans, nore can any one of use lay claim to any proof or sales to say see your loose x numbers here or y number of folks here
Paizo will do what they want and, like it or not many gamers , really dislike the current system, including some folks that will be making the call about a new system.
No one is stopping you from using your 3.5 system, but it's not core so there is zero reason why it 100% must be remade as it is.
Little angry there with that one seeker'?
---If you bothered to read the note I made on survey data, you would understand why I feel comfortable making claims regarding fans.
Further, you seem to wobble on what can and can't be proven, claiming that a great many want this or that, then in the next post say that we can know nothing. If we can't know anything, determine anything, or even make educated guesses at things, why do you bother continuing to make claims at all?
---
No one has proven anything regarding the UN-usability of the current system; quite the opposite in fact. A few well reasoned psi fans have tried, painstakingly, to explain their side of the argument, and been pretty much ignored, with no valid rebuttal or fact checking, in favor of "it sucks" "it doesn't fit" and "it isn't balanced"(with no evidence backing them). Further they have largely stated they don't like psi as a concept period, so they aren't even the market that should be targeted for a psi product.
---
Yes, paizo will do what they like, and the gamers will do as they like with their money. This is a non-issue for the argument however, and you seem to be using it as a reason to stop caring about the issue at all, and to hand-wave away valid concerns of fans/customers.
---
And, in addition to marketing issues, I'm adding psionics to the things I will stop discussing with you from this point out. Feel free to post (I can't stop you, and wouldn't try if I could), but I will be talking around you so as not to descend into some sort of unfriendly flame war, or wasting my time trying to explain my position further to you. Happy holidays, it was interesting discussing things with you, and educational.
stuffI think that argument you made was a bit of a slippery slope, and at least as far as the vocal psi fanbase goes, there has been no indication that they will abandon the entire system if it varies from their expectations. They have in fact been fairly reasonable, and shown interest in a variety of options; they just don't want vancian, and they don't want yet another nerf to their abilities base upon misunderstanding of the rules.
And I'm glad you have faith in Paizo. I like them, I want them to take primacy in 3.5 publishing, and I am a huge fan of PF. But anyone can drop the ball, especially if they move forward on false assumptions or poor marketing strategies (larger, more established companies have failed in this area). I just want to make it known that moving to a vancian system would be likely to alienate more than it would draw...
I think there have been significant indications by a number of posters that the using the current system is a major factor in their decision. That using anything but a system matching what they had in the previous edition. I find that saying there is no indication is a significant understatement.
I'm going to have to say that I'm going to have to go with Paizo's judgment here, and that if I had to guess which one of you was more likely to drop the ball, it would be you, given their experience, man power, and desire for this product to actually be successful. They could be off, but when it comes down to it, they are the professionals putting their time and energy into it in order to actually make a well received product.
This whole thing reminds me of the introduction of 4E and the strategic thinking related to that. There was a fanbase for the old system. Updating the system with some changes but without 're-imagining' it in its entirety would have kept most of that fanbase plus there would have been organic growth. The other option was to dump the old ruleset and accept that a substantial portion of the old fanbase will, therefore, not convert to 4E, but calculate that the changes will attract a new audience that will be bigger than the fans lost through the change. Whether this has worked out for WotC is tough to tell - 4E is supposedly selling fine, though supposedly less than 3E was, but those types of statements do not give us actual numbers nor do they account for different situations.
My point is that Paizo seems to be facing a similar decision with regard to Psionics. Even the types of changes involved - homogeneization of classes to achieve greater simplicity and balance (as in 4th edition) versus greater mechanical diversity to allow for better flavor-mechanics interaction and enhanced options (as in 3.X edition) are somewhat similar at the system-level at least. The situations are not the same, of course, but the strategic thinking involved will likely be analogous.
I think there have been significant indications by a number of posters that the using the current system is a major factor in their decision. That using anything but a system matching what they had in the previous edition. I find that saying there is no indication is a significant understatement.
I'm going to have to say that I'm going to have to go with Paizo's judgment here, and that if I had to guess which one of you was more likely to drop the ball, it would be you, given their experience, man power, and desire for this product to actually be successful. They could be off, but when it comes down to it, they are the professionals putting their time and energy into it in order to actually make a well received product.
Interesting choice of words there. It is a false dichotomy to say that the choice is between "Paizo and me" for psi systems. Further, as Paizo hasn't said anything regarding the contents of their system, nor have I made statements regarding exactly what I would do with such a system, I find it... Odd that you would choose to make that sort of a statement in the first place.
Further, while their experience and desire to make something work will aid in their creation of a good system, it does not prevent them from making mistakes, nor does it make them superior to a great many gaming enthusiasts out there... It just means they are getting paid for their work.
And, since I want them to continue to make money for their work, I am making suggestions, in good faith and to the best of my ability, regarding the system. One of the best traits of Paizo is that they actually listen to and care about the opinions of fans, going so far as to actually interact with them via their boards. Silence on a given issue, and leaving an issue to one's "faith in Paizo" doesn't imo aid Paizo, it actually deprives creators of well reasoned alternative perspectives.
This whole thing reminds me of the introduction of 4E and the strategic thinking related to that...
Yes, I quite agree.