|
Time stop is a 9th level spell. Temporal acceleration is a 6th level power, and schism is only 4th level. The three aren't really comparable.True, but there are quite a few spells that break the action econemy already. Summoning spells are a good example - Now you can cast and deal direct damage to your foes. Theres contingency as well.
Also, Temporal exceleration allows you to cast an additional power per round...however, that power is already costing 11 power points. Assuming, when you get it, that you cast two powers at full level, your've wasted 33 power points to get off two useful powers. Wasteful, yes. Nova-esc, yes. Overpowering? Not really. Also, you cannot attack anyone or attended objects - Essientially you get a free round to either buff or heal. Not only that, you're shaken afterwards.
I'm not really saying that they're broken - just that they are a lot earlier in the progression, so psi-nova is a lot more common than spell-nova is as a result. I don't honestly think psionics is broken - but it's balanced with a very odd slant...
Creative Director
|
The thing about psionics is that I don't really think that they ARE broken... not taken as themselves. The 3.5 system is actually really well-balanced against itself. It's just not as well balanced against the game play that the core game provided.
THAT'S the crux of my concern, honestly. And why I'm not sure that keeping the point based mechanic is viable if I want it to mesh nicely with the rest of the game.
But if you aint playing 1st ed, you aint playing real D&D. At least for me it was the first and only true D&D game. It did have Psionics, they are wierd and extremely powerful sometimes. They were broken of course, but so far most Psionics introduced into D&D have been.
To be fair, 1st edition Psionic rules were broken BUT a given character had very little chance to actually get them. On the occasion a character actually gained Psionics, it was a really special thing that usually altered the feel of the campaign.
I think, for people like me who "grew up" with original Psionics in the appendix of our Players Handbooks, similar to the appendix with the original Bards no one ever played, it's cool to see these original concepts redone in a way that's playable in the 3.x systems. Is it necessary? No. Will everyone like it? No. But for those who want it, I think it's still perfectly valid and adds something unique.
To be fair, 1st edition Psionic rules were broken BUT a given character had very little chance to actually get them. On the occasion a character actually gained Psionics, it was a really special thing that usually altered the feel of the campaign.
Yeah, I remember you had to roll in the 90s or something like that on the percentage dice. That is how rare it was. I no longer have my 1st ed PHB so I am just guessing.
|
Creative Director
|
Up to that point, I'm following your logic. Where I seem to be missing something is in the jump from "psionics are unbalanced" to "point-based mechanics can't exist alongside Vancian mechanics."
Honestly, if psionics followed the same rules as Sorcerers or even wizards, the advantage there is that players of the game would already be familiar with how those rules work; they wouldn't have to re-learn the rules for a new method of spellcasting. That might be the key of it, now that I think about it. If a group knows how to play the game, it's disruptive to build something new that works completely differently when it doesn't have to. The in-game effects of psionic powers are the same as spells—making the rules work totally differently is too disruptive, especially when a psionic character who uses the Sorcerer rules would, in theory, be able to do everything a psionicist needs to do anyway.
Honestly, if psionics followed the same rules as Sorcerers or even wizards, the advantage there is that players of the game would already be familiar with how those rules work; they wouldn't have to re-learn the rules for a new method of spellcasting. That might be the key of it, now that I think about it. If a group knows how to play the game, it's disruptive to build something new that works completely differently when it doesn't have to. The in-game effects of psionic powers are the same as spells—making the rules work totally differently is too disruptive, especially when a psionic character who uses the Sorcerer rules would, in theory, be able to do everything a psionicist needs to do anyway.
I could get use to a spell caster system for psionics even though I have no problem with power points or the current system. The problem I would have is - does it feel different and does it add flavor? It feels different when you ask for a divine (Cleric) spell, or arcane spell, or manifest a power. If it does not feel different, it will become ignored by all.
Could we have basic rules and advance or better yet alternate rules?
Then again that maybe the only way to get Psionics in the mainstream - some of us "vocal" ones will just have to suck it up ... :)
I more than obviously trust your ability to design games, I just want to make sure the old is not lost and I understand your path.
Yeah, I remember you had to roll in the 90s or something like that on the percentage dice. That is how rare it was. I no longer have my 1st ed PHB so I am just guessing.To be fair, 1st edition Psionic rules were broken BUT a given character had very little chance to actually get them. On the occasion a character actually gained Psionics, it was a really special thing that usually altered the feel of the campaign.
FWIW, you had to roll 00 (100), with a bonus of 2.5 per point of Int over 16, 1.5 per point of Wis over 16, and .5 per point of Cha over 16. I think it also required at least one of those to be at least 16. So 91+ if you had all 18's in those.
FWIW, you had to roll 00 (100), with a bonus of 2.5 per point of Int over 16, 1.5 per point of Wis over 16, and .5 per point of Cha over 16. I think it also required at least one of those to be at least 16. So 91+ if you had all 18's in those.
Yeah, I knew it was crazy and that was before there were attribute increases every 4 levels. And then the roll itself.
Good points Epic Meepo!
Ze Stuff
I think your've summed up how I feel perfectly. A new approach to magic seems a little pointless when it functions just like existing magic.
When I see alot of "Flavour" arugments regarding psionics, I usally see one or two "Just use a themed sor/wiz". It seems, to me at least, that players interested in a psionic using vancian magic would already consider such a means. It's not even a difficult task considering some psionic powers are also spells (Fly and Disintegrate come to mind) so just taking a sorcerer with psionic powers is something already acheivable via the main rules anyway.
On the other hand, tying new mechanics to a class (such as powre points, truespeak checks, ritual bindings etc) really make a class stand out. It allows you to look and instantly see differences from existing class. And that's always a plus - Who would play a non-core varient martial class that was just a fighter but with one or two minor differences?
Yes, it might not suit everyone, yes it might leave the way for "Novaing" open (though I still insist that's a myth), but I think alot of people would prefer having a unique class with one or two minor flaws than a class which is essientally just a sorcerer/wizard with one or two different spells.
more sage stuff
OK, I've been doing some thinking and roughed out an idea. Standard encounters assume 4 encounters a day at the same CR level as the party (give or take). So tweak the 3.x/PF psionic manifesters with an additional rule:
---8<--------------------------------------------
Psionic Drain: Burn through more than 1/4 - 1/3 of your total PPs in an encounter and you have to make a check (DC?) against "drain." Fail the check and you are fatigued (or some other condition). Fail it by more than a set number and you are exhausted. Critical fail it and take ability damage or something. Continue to make further checks every X% of PPs spent during that same encounter.
Include a Manifester Class Level table (different for Psions and Psionic Warriors) breaking down the exact PP "redline" where the first check occurs and how many PPs the PC can spend after that before the next check. While the manifester class progression may (or may not) decrease the chance of the most severe penalties, they should always face some minimal penalty for failure. The DC against drain should remain fairly constant and moderately difficult no matter the manifester's class level. These penalties, while mimicing the effects of fatigue/exhaustion/whatever, should not be relieved by any feat or class feature that removes the penalties for regular fatigue/exhaustion/whatever.
This drain is the price of psionics: by channeling their own mental/life energies to manifest powers, manifesters get maximum flexibility but also run the risk of overtaxing their personal reserves. This keeps traditional arcane and divine casters a little better; the way they manipulate magic directly from the world's surrounding mana acts like a firewall against drain. It also gives the manifester PC the chance to heroically risk nonlethal (or lethal) injury in order to 1) end an equal CR encounter quickly or 2) still fire off powers against higher CR encounters.
---8<--------------------------------------------
Anyone have any feedback or better ideas?
*Cough* Swahbuckler *cough*
Actually, that is a good example considering you planned on making one...until you then looked at the PF fighter and said "Well..you could make a better swashbuckler with those rules."
If Paizo does decide to do redo Psionics, I hope for a system that is at a minimum as different from normal spellcasting as it was in 3.5E. I would prefer it were even more different, both in terms of mechanics and in terms of types of things it can do (it shouldn't, IMO, be creating any 'energy effects' (or at least they should be limited to lightning and maybe fire), I didn't like the 'crystal' flavor and so on).
I am certainly not dead-set on the point system - I actually prefer a system, where psionics acts similar to feats in that there are no limits on use (apart from some checks to determine success and the standard action-economy limits) and powers don't have a duration, but last as long as concentration does (apart from instantaneous ones) - of course, the power of the abilities would have to be adjusted accordingly for balance purposes.
The point is that in order for it to be attractive for me, the system has to be at least as different from PFRPG magic as the Psionic system was different from magic in 3.5E. It can be point-based or something else entirely, but Vancian does not cut it for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Vancian magic. It's just that I like mechanical diversity and Psionics is a good place to insert such diversity. I also wish Arcane and Divine (and I would split off 'Natural' if it were up to me) magic were more different from one another, but accept the homogeneity for reasons of game-tradition. When I want to introduce Psionics into my game, I am not really interested in playing a Psionicist (or allowing my players to play - I am generally the DM) who is mechanically a sorcerer, because when I am interested in playing an 'Enchantment'-like sorcerer - I just play a sorcerer and pick the appropriate spells (I have certainly done that before).
If Paizo does decide to do redo Psionics, I hope for a system that is at a minimum as different from normal spellcasting as it was in 3.5E. I would prefer it were even more different, both in terms of mechanics and in terms of types of things it can do (it shouldn't, IMO, be creating any 'energy effects' (or at least they should be limited to lightning and maybe fire), I didn't like the 'crystal' flavor and so on).
I am certainly not dead-set on the point system - I actually prefer a system, where psionics acts similar to feats in that there are no limits on use (apart from some checks to determine success and the standard action-economy limits) and powers don't have a duration, but last as long as concentration does (apart from instantaneous ones) - of course, the power of the abilities would have to be adjusted accordingly for balance purposes.
The point is that in order for it to be attractive for me, the system has to be at least as different from PFRPG magic as the Psionic system was different from magic in 3.5E. It can be point-based or something else entirely, but Vancian does not cut it for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Vancian magic. It's just that I like mechanical diversity and Psionics is a good place to insert such diversity. I also wish Arcane and Divine (and I would split off 'Natural' if it were up to me) magic were more different from one another, but accept the homogeneity for reasons of game-tradition. When I want to introduce Psionics into my game, I am not really interested in playing a Psionicist (or allowing my players to play - I am generally the DM) who is mechanically a sorcerer, because when I am interested in playing an 'Enchantment'-like sorcerer - I just play a sorcerer and pick the appropriate spells (I have certainly done that before).
The whole point of what Jason was saying is that they DON"T want to make it different. I can think of a few systems that have psoinics/mentalism in them & they use IDENTICAL mechanics for all magic styles. Rolemaster comes to mind.
The whole point of what Jason was saying is that they DON"T want to make it different. I can think of a few systems that have psoinics/mentalism in them & they use IDENTICAL mechanics for all magic styles....If Paizo does decide to do redo Psionics, I hope for a system that is at a minimum as different from normal spellcasting as it was in 3.5E. I would prefer it were even more different, both in terms of mechanics and in terms of types of things it can do (it shouldn't, IMO, be creating any 'energy effects' (or at least they should be limited to lightning and maybe fire), I didn't like the 'crystal' flavor and so on).
I am certainly not dead-set on the point system - I actually prefer a system, where psionics acts similar to feats in that there are no limits on use (apart from some checks to determine success and the standard action-economy limits) and powers don't have a duration, but last as long as concentration does (apart from instantaneous ones) - of course, the power of the abilities would have to be adjusted accordingly for balance purposes.
The point is that in order for it to be attractive for me, the system has to be at least as different from PFRPG magic as the Psionic system was different from magic in 3.5E. It can be point-based or something else entirely, but Vancian does not cut it for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Vancian magic. It's just that I like mechanical diversity and Psionics is a good place to insert such diversity. I also wish Arcane and Divine (and I would split off 'Natural' if it were up to me) magic were more different from one another, but accept the homogeneity for reasons of game-tradition. When I want to introduce Psionics into my game, I am not really interested in playing a Psionicist (or allowing my players to play - I am generally the DM) who is mechanically a sorcerer, because when I am interested in playing an 'Enchantment'-like sorcerer - I just play a sorcerer and pick the appropriate spells (I have certainly done that before).
Well, I have now read the entire thread, and what can I say, apart from the words: Well that is very unfortunate. :(
I am well aware that it is possible to use the same mechanics for all forms of magic, psionics and supernatural powers. In fact, I know a system that uses the same mechanics for all powers - magical and supernatural, as well as those based on physique and natural skill. It is not my preference to play such systems, however, I like diversity of flavor being underpinned by mechanical diversity.
Oh well, I guess I can still use 3.5E Psionics, which is just different enough from magic to be acceptable, chuck out some of the implied flavor (Crystals and such) and ignore the Pathfinder version of Psionics. I still don't have the main PFRPG book (hopefully the reprint is coming soon), but I imagine it will still be compatible enough.
Since Pathfinder Psionics will be of little interest, I guess the book I am now most interested in coming out (well, after I finally manage to get my hands on the PFRPG Core Rulebook) will be the one dealing with the extension of Pathfinder RPG rules beyond level 20 (be it Epic Level Handbook or whatever other name they chose for it). Psionics in 3.5E was acceptable, so it is not absolutely essential that Paizo come up with a new ruleset, but with the Epic rules, I really hope Paizo will present a good alternative, because although I like the idea of play at levels above 20, the rules therein were outright horrible.
Well, I have now read the entire thread, and what can I say, apart from the words: Well that is very unfortunate. :(
I am well aware that it is possible to use the same mechanics for all forms of magic, psionics and supernatural powers. In fact, I know a system that uses the same mechanics for all powers - magical and supernatural, as well as those based on physique and natural skill. It is not my preference to play such systems, however, I like diversity of flavor being underpinned by mechanical diversity.
Oh well, I guess I can still use 3.5E Psionics, which is just different enough from magic to be acceptable, chuck out some of the implied flavor (Crystals and such) and ignore the Pathfinder version of Psionics. I still don't have the main PFRPG book (hopefully the reprint is coming soon), but I imagine it will still be compatible enough.
Since Pathfinder Psionics will be of little interest, I guess the book I am now most interested in coming out (well, after I finally manage to get my hands on the PFRPG Core Rulebook) will be the one dealing with the extension of Pathfinder RPG rules beyond level 20 (be it Epic Level Handbook or whatever other name they chose for it). Psionics in 3.5E was acceptable, so it is not absolutely essential that Paizo come up with a new ruleset, but with the Epic rules, I really hope Paizo will present a good alternative, because although I like the idea of play at levels above 20, the rules therein were outright horrible.
Now, to add to what I said before, I personally never had a problem with the 3.5e Psionics, except that I didn't feel they belonged in a fantasy game. BUT....If I were to include psionics, in something other than a sorcerer bloodline, then I would model the way it interacts with other magic after the system for shadow magic in the Tome of Magic. It would be semi-transparent to magic, but with penalties for interaction, except for spells specifically targeted to affect it. Personally, I believe there should be a little penalty when it is divine vs arcane magic. After all, why worry about the power sources, unless there were a more tangible difference in the magic interaction. Mages have a harder time vs clerics, clerics the same vs mages, both against psionics. Maybe -4 penalties vs different types, but -2 when the 'spell' has a version in both types.
|
Creative Director
|
The whole point of what Jason was saying is that they DON"T want to make it different. I can think of a few systems that have psoinics/mentalism in them & they use IDENTICAL mechanics for all magic styles....
I assume by "Jason" you actually mean "James," yeah? Although I suspect Jason shares my ideas and believes on how to handle psionics if and when that day comes around.
But yeah... the idea of not rebuilding an entire new system for psionics and just using the sorcerer or bard as a model for how they use their magic is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. And I fully realize that that opinion might not be popular with current psionics fans, which makes me not that eager to get started on Pathfinder Psionics to be honest.
That sounds good to me as well, but you are right alot of the psionic crowd will not like it
|
But yeah... the idea of not rebuilding an entire new system for psionics and just using the sorcerer or bard as a model for how they use their magic is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. And I fully realize that that opinion might not be popular with current psionics fans, which makes me not that eager to get started on Pathfinder Psionics to be honest.
Since Psionics are OGL, I'd be tempted to go in two directions with Psionics.
1) An update document that basically says, 'Use the OGL with these pathfinder-y changes; Psions get d6 HD, skills consolidate thusly, every Psion gets 1 1st level power of of their type usable 3+StatMod / day free, etc. Same basic changes that were made to the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric and Druid. Perhaps some 6th-8th level mid-level power based on your psionic type, to simulate the mid-range Bloodline, Domain and School abilities.' You could literally go down the list of Wizard changes and apply them to the Psion. Psicrystal is replaced with 'Psychic Bond,' which can be a psicrystal or a special psychic focus item that allows you to call upon a psychic ability appropriate to your level (and of your specialty?) that you haven't learned once / day or something.
2) A 'Psionic' or 'Mentalist' Bloodline, alternate School (combining some elements of enchantment and divination?) and / or Cleric Domain, to make at least two or three different ways that one can insert a psionics feel to a Wizard, Cleric or Sorcerer, without introducing new classes. (A set of alternate class features that allows one to turn a Monk into a Soulknife would kick butt, as well!)
That way, the people who liked 3.5 Psionics can use them, with all the Pathfinder goodness that went into the PF Wizard and Sorcerer upgrades intact, and the people who didn't like 3.5 Psionics can ignore them as they already have, and yet have some psionic-flavored spellcasters for those players who like the flavor, but didn't want to use a different system. Monsters and NPCs could generally stick to the 2nd option, for ease of use, since even fans of 3.5 style Psionics already know how to play a Sorcerer or Wizard, while non-fans wouldn't necessarily be adept at running an encounter with a Psion BBEG at the end of the adventure. (An adaptation could exist as a web enhancement or even be fan-made, for those who want the BBEG to not be a 'Mind Sorcerer' but to instead be a Telepath Psion.)
|
|
But yeah... the idea of not rebuilding an entire new system for psionics and just using the sorcerer or bard as a model for how they use their magic is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. And I fully realize that that opinion might not be popular with current psionics fans, which makes me not that eager to get started on Pathfinder Psionics to be honest.
I like this idea. Of course, what I'd also love to see is a "This is how you to the psion/sorcerer/bard using a point based mechanic" further down the line. All neatly wrapped up in a huge great big DON'T USE THE POINT BASED AND TRADITIONAL SPONTANEOUS CASTING TOGETHER disclaimer :)
I also like set's idea of the psion being a sorcerer bloodline with a different spell list.
But yeah... the idea of not rebuilding an entire new system for psionics and just using the sorcerer or bard as a model for how they use their magic is INCREDIBLY appealing to me. And I fully realize that that opinion might not be popular with current psionics fans, which makes me not that eager to get started on Pathfinder Psionics to be honest.
Well..this is what I don't really understand. During the PF Beta phase, alot of players called for several "Sacred Cows" to be killed (such as the monks BAB or the sorcerer lagging in spell levels).
Despite alot of good arugments to do so, they weren't changed in order for them to have the same feel and to preserve backwards compatability.
So why go the other direction for psionics even though few-to-none psionic fans are asking for it? It kinda ruins the point of psionics (which is to be a form of magic that's different) and it, in a way, kinda ruins one of the biggest selling points of PFRPG (that it's backwards compatable).
Alot of the better elements in XPH (such as augmentation) only work with a power point system. Other changes (such as Psionic Focus) also allow for certain elements such as Metapsionic feats to be used differently. Alot of the more intersting and meaning aspects will be lost if they simply become "A sorcerer with a different set of spells", especially considering that you could just use a bloodline or set of spells to already to do that.
In fact, one of my complaints regarding bloodlines was that I felt one didn't fit arcane magic but psionics instead. Plenty of psionic powers are also spells, so without even looking out-with core the "Psion that's just a themed sorcerer" option already exists. Is there really much need to add a seperate splat-book for one?
Eh I see little issues with using slots. You gain 'slots" now in the form of spell points but it just makes yet another subsystem to learn. The psionics could be balanced with the rest of the system and still stay a 3rd magic type just work as the other classes do
Yeah, I am all for integrated psionics.
And seriously,
DREAMSCARRED PRESS ARE UPDATING THE 3.5 PSIONICS RULES TO PATHFINDER!
Everyone seems to think that those rules are dying in favour of the integrated system.
So you'll have both.
|
Yeah, I am all for integrated psionics.
And seriously,
DREAMSCARRED PRESS ARE UPDATING THE 3.5 PSIONICS RULES TO PATHFINDER!
Everyone seems to think that those rules are dying in favour of the integrated system.
So you'll have both.
Precisely. DreamScarred Press are going to publish Pathfinder Compatible Psionics long before Paizo's schedule will allow, so anyone worried about what Paizo will do with Psionics will already have their preferred Psionic rules in hand. It makes little sense for Paizo to then publish their own Psionic rules, unless a) they recognise DreamScarred Press' version as "core"* and only release sourcebooks compatible with the DSP version; or b) release their own Psionic "core" book which would need to be substantially different than the DSP version, or why bother?
*Not entirely out of the question - Paizo have a strong reputation for using OGL rules from other publishers, mostly monsters and an occasional class (Thaumaturge), but why not a psionic system if done well and gained wide-spread acceptance among the gamer public?
I can see a few benefits of developing mechanically magic, psionic flavoured rules: a) to appeal to players who feel comfortable with the current magic mechanics; b) easier to balance vis-a-vis spellcasters in Pathfinder Society events, also easier for Pathfinder Society GMs who don't own the Psionic rulebook to adjudicate, because it works like the magic system they're already familiar with.
|
|
Some good stuff
I'm trying to type this so that it doesn't appear like a personal attack, it's not, but it could quite easily look that way!
All through this James has said that they want to unify the magic and psionics systems to 1) Simplify things and 2) get rid of the game breaking abilities, whilst still keeping the flavour
Every time James has mentioned game breaking abilities, he's mentioned two abilities.
Your argument may work a little better if you don't base it around those two abilities, whilst not mentioning flavour at all...... :)
|
|
Well..this is what I don't really understand. During the PF Beta phase, alot of players called for several "Sacred Cows" to be killed (such as the monks BAB or the sorcerer lagging in spell levels).
Despite alot of good arugments to do so, they weren't changed in order for them to have the same feel and to preserve backwards compatability.
So why go the other direction for psionics even though few-to-none psionic fans are asking for it?
The Pathfinder RPPG Core Rulebook needed to aim for backwards compatibility for two main reasons: 1) to keep the sheer number of 3.x books in player's collections viable to the game; and 2) to keep the game familiar for players who wished to continue playing 3.5
Psionics is already a subsystem of the game, and as such can be swapped out without affecting other rules.
Psionics was a relatively small and contained niche. As such, there isn't a huge library of sourcebooks a system change would invalidate. In fact, the book it would invalidate the most is the book it's already replacing, the XPH. There just isn't a vast library of sourcebooks and adventures in current use containing psionics to require backwards compatibility as there was with the core rules.
If backwards compatibility is a concern for you, continue using your current XPH with Pathfinder, or support DreamScarred Press' efforts.
And if you're a Psionics-fan, it shouldn't require much effort to substitute Psions appearing in any Pathfinder products with an equivalent level Psion from your preferred system, much like we've been substituting creatures from the 3.5 MM until the Pathfinder Bestiary releases. In that regard, a basic level of compatibility remains.
Every time James has mentioned game breaking abilities, he's mentioned two abilities.Your argument may work a little better if you don't base it around those two abilities, whilst not mentioning flavour at all...... :)
Well...the powers I'm reffering to, like Schism, I reference because those are the onces given as examples.
My entire points are not based about two abilities, and the ideas discuessed here aren't off-putting simply because "they might change one or two powers", it's due to the potential removal of power points and other significant aspects.
As for flavour? The reason I don't argue that is because flavour is miles more easy to change than mechanics. In fact, partly the reason why I defend psionics so much is because I think the mechanical aspects make the class more interesting (and balanced) than standard wizards. In fact, I know alot of players already who use the Psion class as a replacment Sorcerer, with little change to the fluff.
Changing fluff to remove any issues you may have is easy, changing problematic abilities and keeping the class balanced is harder.
There is also the free still spell and silent spell feats built into the class. That needs fixed but really I don't know how
|
Dear James,
First let me say I appreciate all of the hard work you folks have done with the Pathfinder game. I could go into a long list of the little improvements that I like, but ill just toss out one simple and elegant one. I like what you have done with the experience point schedules. Now as a DM I have 3 options, a slow, a medium, and a “fast” track for character advancement. It allows me to pace my game, as I like it. In short it provides me with more variety and choices.
As a long time gamer I love variety. There is always something new. Whenever it comes time to make a new character, I can often find something new to try. I am playing in two weekly games. In one we are playing the 3.5 rules and we are running the Age of Worms campaign arc. We have just finished fighting the big worm in the coliseum and are working on our next step. I have been bringing my Pathfinder rulebook to the game and perusing it at quite moments, and passing it around when others ask. I am hoping to nudge that group to pathfinder. I have a 7th level 2 rogue / 5 bard. I have modeled him after Indiana Jones. For feats I dug out of an obscure rule book “university educated” and that gave me 8 bonus skill ranks to start with and 2 bonus skill ranks per level. I also took the able learner feat from the races of destiny. This combination has allowed me to keep my “thieving” skills up to par while I advance as bard. I have also gone for the combat expertise- improved trip- and soon improved disarm feat tree. Yes my character has a whip, a hand crossbow, and a fedora hat. Eventually Ill go for the obtain familiar feat and get my spider monkey.
In my other weekly game, we are doing The Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path. We are taking the Pathfinder Game out for a test drive. My character is a 2nd level cleric of Sarenrae. I chose to play a cleric, because I often do, and I wanted to see what some of the differences were between playing a 3.5 cleric of Pelor, and a Pathfinder cleric of Sarenrae. I have taken the Healing and Sun domains. This is something new and I’m hooked. I can’t tell you how happy I am with the Channel energy class feature. I actually get to bless people.
I also like the “flavor” of Sarenrae. I have made my character Keshite, and he hails from Katheer. I enjoyed using the Quadira pathfinder companion to add flavor to this character. I haven’t quite trotted Morgan Freeman’s line in Robin hood Prince of Thieves movie: “ Where is the sun in this Dam country Christian?” but ill find a way to. I am keeping a campaign journal on the message boards. Its “ Toy City New Hampshire, Curse of the Crimson Throne”. I am finding it fun to do.
I apologize for this long rambling monologue I suppose I should get to the point. Now where did I put it? Oh yes, in short I like variety. I enjoy having both a variety of flavor and mechanics in my game. I like having the warlock with his infernal powers, the sorcerers with their bloodlines, the wizard with his learned knowledge and books, and the psion with his mystic wisdom. I like having the variety of mechanics in the same game from the spell like abilities, to the spontaneous casting, to the spell slots, and yes the Psionic points system as well. This variety keeps the game interesting for me, and keeps me coming back for more.
I understand that from your experience from having played in games with other game designers you have a good understanding of how the psionics rules are balanced against themselves but not against the core of the game. I also understand that in order for psionics to appeal to a wider group of gamers a sorcerer route might be necessary. However I would like to point out, with the breadth and depth of supplementary books available, it is very easy to upset the game balance if one wants to. In short DM’s often need to curb their players especially when players try to get away with as much as they possibly can.
From reading these threads it seems to me that the best rout might be to encourage Dream-scarred press to publish something for us psionic fans, and for Paizo to do something concerning psionics at a later date. After all, you have to consider the entire Pathfinder product line in addition to the desires of some vocal customers. To me it seems the majority of people who want psionics are, on the whole, those that like the system as is. I think the larger community either doesn’t care about psionics or doesn’t want it anywhere near their game.
I suppose what I can tell you is, this: While I would be very excited about the fluff you and the people at Paizo would write concerning psionics and I would devour it avidly, mechanically the closer you draw psionics to the model of a spontaneously casting sorcerer, and the further away from the psionic point system and the psionice focus feat system, the less interested I would be and the less variety I think there would be in the game. If you do put something like that out, I would only be buying the book for its fluff, not for its mechanics and with Paizo’s track record I’m sure the fluff will be ingeniously well written.
Thank you for taking the time to read this overly verbose long and rambling post.
Sincerely,
Myles Crocker
Well said, that said, I think I'm one of the ones who wants the alternate vancian psionics and likes psionincs.
So there is a market, given the arguments against psionics in the first psionics thread, there are plenty of people who would like psionics, just not quite its current incarnation, it'll never be mandatory reading at all tables, but the people who wan't something different than 3.5 will have and option and so will the people who just wan't and update.
|
Creative Director
|
Well..this is what I don't really understand. During the PF Beta phase, alot of players called for several "Sacred Cows" to be killed (such as the monks BAB or the sorcerer lagging in spell levels).
Despite alot of good arugments to do so, they weren't changed in order for them to have the same feel and to preserve backwards compatability.
This is oversimplifying things. When we didn't kill sacred cows that a lot of playtest feedback, it wasn't only to preserve compatibility... there were a LOT of other reasons we didn't change things. Mostly because when you REALLY get into the rules, they were the way they are in 3.5 for a reason. Playtesters are playtesters, not co-designers, after all.
It might turn out that the point based system can be made to work. We're still at least a few years away from seeing a Paizo psionics book, so there's a LOT of time for me and the rest of us here to figure that out. I'm just saying that as it stands right now, my gut feeling is that they'd work more elegantly if they were changed, and that I know that would annoy a lot of folks.
As this post proves, it's a comlex topic and one that will need a LOT of soul searching and work on our parts to make happen if/when we move on making a Psionics book. We've got time. We're not going to rush things. Which is why something that Dreamscarred might do will probably come out first and might even satisfy a lot of folks. We'll see how things go.
Anyway... got a meeting to run to!
It makes little sense for Paizo to then publish their own Psionic rules, unless a) they recognise DreamScarred Press' version as "core"* and only release sourcebooks compatible with the DSP version; ...
*Not entirely out of the question - Paizo have a strong reputation for using OGL rules from other publishers, mostly monsters and an occasional class (Thaumaturge), but why not a psionic system if done well and gained wide-spread acceptance among the gamer public?
I think that Paizo using the Expanded Psionics Handbook in the same way they used the Thaumaturge is quite unlikely. Unlike the Thaumaturge, the Psion draws his "spells" from a non-core book and unless they reprinted those spells the person running the adventure would need access to that book. I would say that it would be really that it would be bad for a Paizo to have adventures that required that you have other books because that cuts down on the number of people who can use the adventure easily.
The Neothelid is an example of Paizo presenting a psionic monster, but even then they replaced most of the psi-like abilities with spells and briefly describing a few of the others. Doing the same thing with a high-level psion would be more of an issue as it would have a much larger list of powers to reprint/replace.
While it is somewhat possible, any psionic NPC based on the Expanded Psionics Handbook would need to be altered to be made usable with just the core rulebooks. In that case, I would suggest that Paizo would have then started making their own Pathfinder version of psionics by altering another companies version of it.
James said some cool stuff.
This is awesome James!
When it comes down to it (for me), the greatest part of psionics is the flavor. I enjoy 3.5E psionics, but if you can bring us new psionics material and even make so it becomes more acceptable to a wider audience, I am totally on board. (Besides, the 3.5E rules will always be there and others are workings to mod them.)
Some of us want psionics no matter which path the mechanics go.
|
|
I think that Paizo using the Expanded Psionics Handbook in the same way they used the Thaumaturge is quite unlikely. Unlike the Thaumaturge, the Psion draws his "spells" from a non-core book and unless they reprinted those spells the person running the adventure would need access to that book. I would say that it would be really that it would be bad for a Paizo to have adventures that required that you have other books because that cuts down on the number of people who can use the adventure easily.
The Neothelid is an example of Paizo presenting a psionic monster, but even then they replaced most of the psi-like abilities with spells and briefly describing a few of the others. Doing the same thing with a high-level psion would be more of an issue as it would have a much larger list of powers to reprint/replace.
I'm not sure I understand your concern here? How is the situation you describe any different whether Paizo are using DreamScarred Press' version of the Psion or their own? Either they assume you own the core Psionic book in question or they reprint the required material.
The central idea of "Unspeakable Futures" is that a great apocalypse hit the earth, and in the wake of that event, the Lovecraftian monsters and Great Old Ones took over the world. The apocalyptic landscape's now a deadly place of robots, monsters, magic, psionics, cultists, and several Great Old Ones who have established domains on Earth—and whose very presence causes reality to change. For example; in Ithaqua's domain, there's a never-ending winter. In Hastur's domain, the city of Carcosa has infested the world like a parasite. In Tsathoggua's realm, the dead come back to life in true zombie apocalypse style. And so on.
It's a hoot!
I was mildly interested in hearing about your project before. After reading this, I would definitely buy it!
Where do I sign up for the "Unspeakable Futures" subscription?
;)
I'd buy this LOL. Would it be compatible with the PFRPG or have a version of the rules in the main product ?
I'm not sure I understand your concern here? How is the situation you describe any different whether Paizo are using DreamScarred Press' version of the Psion or their own? Either they assume you own the core Psionic book in question or they reprint the required material.
I was just noting that something based on the Expanded Psionics Handbook requires a lot more reprinting than the Thaumaturge for a number of reasons. Psionic focus, psionic feats, and powers are all absent from the core rulebook and most would need to be reprinted if there was an assumption of people who are buying it only being the core rulebook.
My concern would be that if Paizo decides to choose Expanded Psionics Handbook or Dreamscarred Press's update as their "official" version, that because of the general problems with including them in adventures, it would be similar to them saying that they will do practically nothing to support psionics.
I'm not necessarily saying that would be the case with any psionic system that Paizo might use or come up with. For example, they might create a Psion that uses Vancian casting of a limited set of psionic-themed spells from the core rulebook.
In addition, I'm not sure if there is a good enough reason for an adventure to have to assume that you have the psionic book. To me, in order to reasonably require a book one would need to base the adventure around the feature of that book. I don't think psionic magic is good enough to base adventures around in the same way that I don't think basing an adventure around arcane magic or divine magic would be reasonable either.
|
|
I was just noting that something based on the Expanded Psionics Handbook requires a lot more reprinting than the Thaumaturge for a number of reasons. Psionic focus, psionic feats, and powers are all absent from the core rulebook and most would need to be reprinted if there was an assumption of people who are buying it only being the core rulebook.
Probably another good argument for Paizo to publish their version of Psionics work like Magic. That way they could print a Psion statblock, and while they may need to reprint a specific power or feat, a number of powers may already have arcane or divine counterparts, and they don't have to explain how power points work.
Take the sample Oracle preview as an example. Although the Advanced Players Guide is still 9 months away from being published, we could use the sample Oracle statblock in an adventure right now.
So I'm guessing Paizo will be developing their other Advanced Players Guide class powers to work like Magic too.
My concern would be that if Paizo decides to choose Expanded Psionics Handbook or Dreamscarred Press's update as their "official" version, that because of the general problems with including them in adventures, it would be similar to them saying that they will do practically nothing to support psionics.
Yeah. I'm hoping "works like magic" means Paizo will be able to feature Psions more in their products, rather than the red-headed stepchild Psions have been in previous editions of the game.
In addition, I'm not sure if there is a good enough reason for an adventure to have to assume that you have the psionic book. To me, in order to reasonably require a book one would need to base the adventure around the feature of that book.
I agree, it would depend on the product, in much the same way an epic adventure would require the epic rulebook, but most products would assume only the Core Rulebook.
I believe that would be a loss for people who like me who want to see psionics supported in the campaign setting. To me, it would mean there would be no psionic characters in any adventure, just some arcane casters with some psionic abililities as well.
I would compare it to if divine characters was similarly not touched, and instead replaced with a Mystic Theurge base class. In adventures and such, there would be no priests, druids, or such, just an arcane caster with divine abilities as well.
My primary desire is to see psionic support in Golarion. I believe avoiding touching psionic classes would result in avoiding psionic classes in Golarion.
--
I would suggest that a spell-point system is not required for psionics, if it is, then I would have to conclude there are practically no real psionic monsters as almost all use the Vancian-like system for their powers.
Because casting a spell and praying to a god and using the innate power of your mind are all equally awesome ways of killing people?Sorcerers are in effect using personal power to access arcane spells. There is no reason you couldn't call it mental powers instead of arcane for a certain type of casters, you could even make that a bloodline effect. But why does it need a new spell list or new rules? Can you not accomplish making a psionic character with existing lists?
For all that it matters in Pathfinder you really have only one type of magic, Clerics and Druids call their uses for it divnine and Wizards and their ilk call it Arcane, but in effect it all follows the same rules. There is no reason I could not create a world of no gods but still have "Clerics" and call them White Mages, and use the existing cleric spell lists as their spell lists. Same magic, different use in that situation.
So if all you want to do is call existing spells "Psionic" go for it. But I am asking do you think there is a need for a completely different spell list and structure for this new magic type?
That is cheap and I would get hit over the head with my DM Guide by a player of mine if I gave them that line of reasoning for not being able to play a REAL psionic character. It's like telling my player a Ninja is just a Rogue/Monk so make a Rogue/Monk and deal with it. When it's purely obvious the abilities of a Ninja should be much more unique and different feel than just the feeling and mechanics of playing a Rogue/Monk.
Sometimes the only way to make something feel different is to make it different by giving it its own set of rulings and mechanics, it's own sub-system. All the while making sure it meshes with existing material and mechanics so it doesn't feel like you're using two very different rule-sets for the same game.
The Sorcerer thing fails on so many levels. Psionicists use no gestures, components, or arcane phrases, for one. The Bloodline abilities do not work for Psionicists at all. Neither do the skill set. And so on.
The Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic have done wonders to show you a 3rd system can be done in a way to make it work perfectly. The Mind's Eye articles on the D&D Website. Let's not also forget Malhavoc's Hyperconscious and Dreamscarred Press have developed even more material to make psionics very unique, different, and truly worth the 3rd subsystem of supernatural powers.
Psionics is another form of power. It is not *just* 'a third form of magic' to me. Yes, it has been broken and improperly built and used before, but that's not the nature of my response here. I could share how I feel it could be improved, but that's not my focus either. My focus is on "Why is it here?"To me, psionics represent a departure from the traditional 'swords and sorcery' model. It is an extension of fantasy, as people play PNP games to indulge in fantasy. Therefore, people want multiple ways to engage their imaginations.
It's the same reason that a lot of things that weren't essential to PNP games have been added. Why new worlds are built. New supplements. Etc, ad infinitum.
Psionics scratch an itch that some people have, while remaining optional.
Simply put, it's a matter of demand. Someone, a long time ago, asked for psionics. The designers provided. And we've had them ever since.
Can psionics be done with magic? Essentially, yes. Is it extra fluff? Yes.
Does that address the concern while remaining on topic?
And that line of reasoning is why fantasy TTRPGs have been rather stagnant lately. I don't think the Science Fiction department came over and put a stamp on "psychic abilities" and said "We own this now." It just so happens the psychic stuff ended showing up more often in sci-fi than it does fantasy. Does it make it sci-fi? No. It doesn't.
And to further validate that, there's a double standard. Magic is thrown in sci-fi settings all the time. Final Fantasy, for example, is just one of the many. Is anyone complaining about their sci-fi being tainted by magic or asking "Why is magic here?" Not really.
It's that line of reasoning why I have yet to see a solid, Oriental Adventures setting. We have tons of material on Euro-medieval fantasy but for once I'd like to see a company start producing solid, fun, and excellent works of Oriental-medieval fantasy (I hope Pathfinder can do this, or a 3rd Party, cause WotC never will and it'd be for $e anyway).
Which leads to another point---Monks. Clearly an exotic, Eastern, mystical influence that has no place being side-by-side with knights, wizards, and barbarians. Complaints from anyone? A little. But every fantasy-themed setting has a ki channeling martial arts master springing into action. Even a hardcore Euro-fantasy setting like Final Fantasy Tactics throws in the Monk, Samurai and Ninja classes. (And yet we hear people say "Why the need for a Samurai and Ninja class?" which mirrors exactly what's happening here...though that can be for another discussion.)
To me it could fit very easier with in the current caster system. You use spell slots, you already have "schools" you just need to balance them with the current spells and you still get a new type of magic but one that works with the system. And it's time we had one that worked with the system for a change
I still think something needs done with the "you can't stop me from casting!" stuff Really in almost every show or book psionics have hand gestures or some time for the mental stuff voice commands , not always but it is there often.