|
just read this thread. what many find "wrong" with it is here. The biggest issue is as long as it is a sub system like it is now you will never see it used much, other then home games.Ideally it really shouldn't be used that much. Psionics should be far less common than any of the other kinds of magic. Unless you're building a campaign tailored specifically on that theme.
That's no the point that the poster was making. It's not the amount of psionics that is in the champaign. It's the amount of groups that use the rules.
I'll give you that if you want to play a 3.5 game you can use the rules as writen, but that is not the point of this thread.
The point of the thread is to streamline the rules to bring them inline with Pathfinder and fix the apparent "Nova" issue that many groups have experianced.
The Nova issue is due to players not managing resources well. I had a player who felt like they always had to cast a spell. It never got through to him that just because he is a caster that its ok to not cast a spell sometimes, and even when you cast a spell, dont cast your most powerful spell, especially when the party has things in hand.
The other nova issue occurs when the player figures out they will only have one encounter a day, and they start to dominate encounters. That is when the DM should use a few easier encounters to wear them down and then come with a hard one. If they(the player) does not know what is next he will be more conservative with his pp's.
I don't see it as a psionics issue since it normally occurs among certain player types*, such as new players, or those that I mentioned above that can't stand to not do something, even if that something is wasteful.
*from my observations on different forums
I'm not sure that you need to limit the levels in casting. I imagine the Psion to be something between the Cleric and Wizard/Sorcerer rather than something between the Wizard and the Sorcerer.
The way I envision a Psion is someone who is awakens with powers. The Sorcerer gets thier ability due to thier birthright as it were. Wizards get thier ability by talent and learning. Clerics get their power from faith or by being chosen.
Well you said Bard progression which is limited to 5th. As they are not full caster. Maybe ya could take them to 6th but off a bard progression they would never hit 9th
|
|
Well you said Bard progression which is limited to 5th. As they are not full caster. Maybe ya could take them to 6th but off a bard progression they would never hit 9th
I'm not sure that you need to limit the levels in casting. I imagine the Psion to be something between the Cleric and Wizard/Sorcerer rather than something between the Wizard and the Sorcerer.
The way I envision a Psion is someone who is awakens with powers. The Sorcerer gets thier ability due to thier birthright as it were. Wizards get thier ability by talent and learning. Clerics get their power from faith or by being chosen.
Bard's BAB, not spell progression.
Well you said Bard progression which is limited to 5th. As they are not full caster. Maybe ya could take them to 6th but off a bard progression they would never hit 9th
I'm not sure that you need to limit the levels in casting. I imagine the Psion to be something between the Cleric and Wizard/Sorcerer rather than something between the Wizard and the Sorcerer.
The way I envision a Psion is someone who is awakens with powers. The Sorcerer gets thier ability due to thier birthright as it were. Wizards get thier ability by talent and learning. Clerics get their power from faith or by being chosen.
Bards do already have 6 levels of spells plus cantrips.
Creative Director
|
In short, yes.Are the Jedi's abilities magic?
I would agree 100%. At the very least, a jedi's abilities can be modeled perfectly on magic rules. You can build a jedi by building a sorcerer with all the right spells, and then find/replacing the word "magic" with "the Force" basically. The characters in the game won't notice.
I would agree 100%. At the very least, a jedi's abilities can be modeled perfectly on magic rules. You can build a jedi by building a sorcerer with all the right spells, and then find/replacing the word "magic" with "the Force" basically. The characters in the game won't notice.In short, yes.Are the Jedi's abilities magic?
I so agree with this
What about BBEG's? I can nova a kill the whole party buy raw even No other caster class can go nova as bad. Anyhow the calls is not in our hands , we do have they wonderful option of many options with the OGL and with dreamscare keeping the point system alive I am dying to see paizo take on a pointless system
|
|
The point of the thread is to streamline the rules to bring them inline with Pathfinder and fix the apparent "Nova" issue that many groups have experianced.Nova issues (and psionics isn't the only example where this takes place although it may be the worst) only occur in campaigns (and that's the DM's I'm pointing to) that allow freaks like the "15 minute adventuring day" something in all my gaming since 1980 I'd never run into or even heard about before I began reading these message boards. Any DM worth his or her salt keeps the pressure up on the players to keep them from pulling crap like that. Because in my games not only does action have it's consequences, inaction does as well. In my games while players can get extended rests while they're traveling to an adventure, they're not going to get that luxury when they're on a mission. The missions I send them will generally have time sensitivity or will be infiltrating a base where where they can' just do the "hide in a rope tricked closet" bit for 8 hours between each encounter.
15 minute days never occur in any network campaigning I've ever played in. Perhaps DM's who suffer from this problem should look at thier campaigns from such a module standpoint. Your adventures should be designed that the players will complete them in 4-6 hours or fail period.
Players who come to my table to "Nova" themselves only make that mistake once.
And since this board is interested in games beyond your table, there is a broader scope to deal with.
There have already been discussions that folk from Piazo have stated that thier not interested in doing a system with points. Personally, I'm only interested in going forward in the conversation. Please feel free to use the system on Psionics that you wish. I'm not interesting is discussing the merits of points.
5n systems that still do not play well with others. Look if ya want to use the 3.5 system you can but it really does not mesh well the the other casters. It keeps getting changed as it's just not right, it does not work with the given system
The fact is there have been 5 systems based on the point mechanic that never work as it should. The 3.5 one was not bad , but still did not play well with the other casters.
You can agree or disagree but after 5 try's maybe it's time to bring it in line with the system instead of tacking it up like a patch
From my experience DMing psionics in my 3E/3.5E games, I have come to see that my players truly feel like they are playing a psionic character. Something vastly different from the Sorcerer, Cleric, Wizard, and yet still it's own niche. There is the massive flexibility in manifesting your power, the Astral Plane, ectoplasm, and crystal theme, the way psionic focus works and how it's tied to the psionic feats which lets you do some cool sci-fi/Matrix-style/Shounen-anime/badass stunts and maneuvers, and then there is the flexibility of taking this stuff and expanding it further (like what WotC did with Incarnum and Tome of Magic). I think the biggest problem with psionics is the fact no one wants to deal with a new ruleset and that it needs more abilities that are PSIONIC ONLY. Too many psionic powers convert to spells and vice versa, there has to either be a line drawn somewhere (like psionicists can do Enchantment type stuff way better than anyone else, for example) But isn't some of the fun of playing a TTRPG is to, once in awhile, invite something brand new and exciting to the table when things get kinda stale after making the 5th Fighter, the 12th Wizard, and the 30th Rogue character?
And I thought the XPH did that perfectly. Honestly, what is there so much of to remember!? I can spell out the entire sub-system right here in one paragraph:
Psionics can be transparent or separate from magic, your choice. Psionic powers work like spells. They don't have somatic, component, or verbal components. You use power points, each power costing a specific amount of power points. You can increase or change the strength of a power by adding more power points into it. Can only use as many points as manifester level. Psionic characters can acquire psionic focus, which powers special psionic abilities through prestige class abilities and feats. Some require you to keep the focus on, others to expend it.
That's really all there is to it. After reading some of the reasons for the dislike or hatred of it, I still don't understand.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Yeah I'm kind of bewildered by the argument that XPH psionics were overpowered in comparison to magic. They're just different. As a sort of experiment, I ran a game in which (like in medieval Europe) magic was considered a capital sin by the dominant religion. Players couldn't be arcane or divine casters (paladins were rare and rangers got bonus feats instead of spells). But there were psionics in the world and players could play psionic classes. I tried to integrate psionics into the setting as much as magic and spellcasters are integrated into a typical D&D setting.
What I found out was interesting. Veteran players who were used to magic were apprehensive at first, but then became enthusiastic about learning a new system because it put a little bit of mystery back into the supernatural. Just because a guy was a psionicist, you didn't know what he was capable of doing. There was no more "oh, that bad guy's wearing robes. We're 5th level so he's probably 5th level at least, get ready for a fireball" or "well, he just cast cone of cold so he's at least 9th level."
We also discovered that some things psionics did better than magic, some things worse than magic, and some things about the same. Psionics is probably better than arcane magic at attacks, because you can pick the energy type of all the "energy xxxx" powers on the fly. If an enemy's resistant, no problem, just change energy and roll with it. Astral construct is pretty significantly better than any of the summon monster line since your critters get all the construct traits. Psionics are about as good at movement as arcane magic, but only achieve true parity if you're a nomad. You can be a psionic healer, but even if you're very tightly focused that way you'll never even come close to a cleric in terms of healing ability. Raising the dead, dealing with conditions, poison, disease, etc., are all difficult with psionics. You have some good self buffs (vigor is OP IMO, but even so, it never broke my game) but in general you can't buff your group as well as any spellcaster, arcane or divine. Psionic information gathering just has very different capabilities than divination spells, despite a few things that are the same. And at the upper levels, 9th level spells blow the doors off anything a psion can manage.
Nova wasn't really a problem, but that was probably more campaign-specific; fights tended to be fairly isolated, large, set-piece affairs with ample opportunity to recover in between. My players probably would have been wiped out if they didn't go nova. But when they did step into a dungeon, they knew that they had better be watching their resources closely. Villain nova wasn't a problem either any more than it would have been fighting a sorc. You only have 1 standard action a round no matter how many power points or spells or whatever you have that day. It's like having a monster with delayed blast fireball 3/day or at will... doesn't much matter because 90% of the time it would never get a chance to use it that 4th time, either because the 1st 3 DBFs wiped out the PCs or they killed it before that. The point system wasn't really broken, just offered a different degree of versatility/flexibility vice a wiz or sorc (and to anybody who says a wiz can't be as flexible as a sorc I have 2 words: Scribe Scroll).
Transparency worked out pretty well. On occasion the party would fight enemy spellcasters and the exchange of dispel magic vs. dispel psionics was equal. The biggest problem we had with transparency was actually with detect psionics/detect magic. So... transparency means detect psionics can detect magic? Does Psicraft let you identify the school or do you need Spellcraft? Would Psicraft tell you what psionic discipline the effect would be if it was psionic instead of magic? And so forth.
Just wanted to share with you all the perspective of somebody who had 14 levels/2 years of DMing experience in a campaign in which psionics, rather than spellcasting, were the norm.
But about psionics in PF? You could drag/drop XPH psionics into PF whole cloth without breaking anything, except possibly published modules since psionics offers different capabilities than spellcasting. But you run into the same problem any time you include anything non-core... it changes the options available to your players, which can allow them to circumvent the adventure in a published module. In a homebrew campaign DMs should know their party's capabilities and adjust accordingly. I liked the point system, but since it is apparently not going to happen, at least I'd hope a Paizo take on psionics would avoid anything like Vancian spellcasting. XPH had it right to split powers into 10 levels like spells, but having to "memorize" your powers daily would seem kind of silly. I don't have an alternative in mind.
ya would not memorize in a vancan system. Use the same number known, gain the casting per day as a sorcerer and go from there
If Paizo isn't interested in keeping with the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook rules, like they did with the rest of the SRD they've used, I'd rather them not even bother. As far as I would say, 3.5 Psionics is the best "magic system" there is. From a flavor perspective, it can be great. However, the system can be re-flavored to encompass traditional magic beautifully.
I'd much rather just keep using the XPH/SRD psionics, and modify things that are "wrong" with it (which is very, very little). I can actually think of only a single power that's too good (Energy Stun; which doesn't function like the other powers in the system). Most other modifications would probably be improving the existing psionic classes to be more in line with Pathfinder.
3.5 Psionics were actually a bit weaker than 3.x magic, but the SYSTEM is so much fun. Playing a Psion is very enjoyable from a mechanical standpoint as well; and while their mechanics are different their effects are the same in game (magic affects psionics and vice-versa, unless a VERY BAD VARIANT is used).
On the subject of superior mechanics: I could build you an "evoker themed sorcerer" out of a kineticist psion, who just oozes magic flavor. At the same time, I could use those same psionics rules to build a character with psionic flavor. I don't really care if the I could make a psionic themed character with a wizard or sorcerer, because it's the mechanics I find so elegant and wonderful; and I'd rather see Paizo keep the first good Psi mechanics around.
If not, I'd rather not see them around at all, and just suggest you use the existing D20 SRD rules for psionics in your campaign. Quite frankly, I definitely don't want to see psionics pulled into a x/day system, or god forbid a recharge system, or have them turned into warlocks or something like that.
A wise old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If not, I'd rather not see them around at all, and just suggest you use the existing D20 SRD rules for psionics in your campaign. Quite frankly, I definitely don't want to see psionics pulled into a x/day system, or god forbid a recharge system, or have them turned into warlocks or something like that.
Besides noting that XPH/SRD psionics does use Vancian-like casting more than once and that suggestion that the d20 SRD rules doesn't use them is quite incorrect... this sort of comment does feel sort of selfish to suggest that because you have a system you like, you don't would rather not see a system others would prefer.
Isn't better to have two groups with systems they like, rather than just one?
In your previous post, you strongly imply that fans of point-based psionics are being selfish for not supporting Vancian psionics.
Before anything else, that is not what I'm trying to say. I was saying that declaring, because Paizo wasn't creating the psionic system one wants, that you didn't want Paizo to do any psionic system is selfish.
It was not directed at all "fans of point-based psionics." To me, that is very different from just preferring one system to another. I would be similarly irritated by posts saying that "if Dreamscarred Press is going to continue to use the point based system, I would rather them not do psionics books at all."
Now responding the to other parts of the post edit: Darn it. Was getting ready to be all uppity for calling Paizo's psionic system "pointless," when I realized that was just a way of saying it didn't use points rather than a description of it's worth.
I think Psions as being variant Sorcerers works just as well as Sorcerers being variant Wizards. You could do it, but I would prefer something different.
Why is it necessary to fracture the already small market for psionics by creating a dedicated product that does nothing but reiterate something that's already in the rules?
If I felt that were the case, then I would think that the classes in Advanced Player's Guide are as necessary given they primarily just reiterate things that are already in the rules.
I just think that if the psionic classes could reiterate as much as the Oracle (compared to the Cleric or Sorcerer), then I think they could fit reasonably well among other classes while being significantly different from others.
In addition, I have to assume that there never being a product that has psionic NPCs would be worse for the small market for psionics, rather than what may happen with a system Paizo presents. The presence of a Paizo psionic system will not massively affect how much support the point based system would receive if it were not for it.
|
...this sort of comment does feel sort of selfish to suggest that because you have a system you like, you don't would rather not see a system others would prefer.
Isn't better to have two groups with systems they like, rather than just one?
There already are two systems. Vancian casting already exists. The sorcerer can already choose bloodlines and spells that duplicate psionic powers. No additional rules are needed to create a Vancian caster who calls himself a psion and has the flavor to back it up.
Why is it necessary to fracture the already small market for psionics by creating a dedicated product that does nothing but reiterate something that's already in the rules?
Because if they want to use proper psionics in there products they need to mesh better with Vanican magic?
I was saying that declaring, because Paizo wasn't creating the psionic system one wants, that you didn't want Paizo to do any psionic system is selfish.Fair enough.
And just to be clear, I don't think Paizo should refrain from devoting an entire sourcebook to their psionic system because I don't like their system. I think they should refrain from devoting an entire sourcebook to their psionic system because that system is just a restatement of character options that already exist in the Core Rules.
Paizo could add a Vancian "psion" NPC to an AP right now without having to invest their limited resources in a psionics sourcebook that would only serve to fracture the psionics market. There's no need for a competing version of the psion class when a Core Rules sorcerer with different fluff works just fine as a de facto Vancian psion.
Alright, I understand.
But, I would note that I do think that the Advanced Player's Guide classes similarly are just restatements of character options that already exist in the Core Rules and that I think that they still deserve their places in the book. That the Oracle is more than a variant Sorcerer or Cleric.
As for having a Vancian Psion NPC without making a psionics source book, the development of that NPC class would still take work to develop the class to be fit for publication (which would beyond what should be done for a single NPC) and, to be perfectly honest, Pathfinder fans are crazy. They would still gather the bits of that class and post it somewhere online as a competing version of the psion class.
I'm not sure what you mean by Paizo needing to be able to "use proper psionics in their products..." Paizo is using psionics in their products right now. Several monsters in the Bestiary have psionic abilities that are defined using only the core rules, none of which invalidates a single word of text in the XPH. I don't see how using the same approach with NPCs in APs would be any more or less "proper."Why is it necessary to fracture the already small market for psionics by creating a dedicated product that does nothing but reiterate something that's already in the rules?Because if they want to use proper psionics in there products they need to mesh better with Vanican magic?
Might I suggest that Paizo could also make a book with psionic options that have psionic abilities that are defined using only the core rule, while not invalidating a single word of text in the XPH?
If they can successfully convert a monster from the XPH, couldn't they do the same for a class?
Might I suggest that Paizo could also make a book with psionic options that have psionic abilities that are defined using only the core rule, while not invalidating a single word of text in the XPH?If they can do that, then I have no problem. However, I see the complete redefinition of the psion class mechanics as invalidating important parts of the XPH. There's a big difference between Dreamscarred Press saying, "Here's how to convert the XPH psion to PRPG," and Paizo saying, "We're using this Vancian psion instead of the XPH psion, but you can still use the XPH psion if you want, because both are Pathfinder-compatible."
In the case of the Dreamscarred press approach, if I tell a player I've never met before, "I run a Pathfinder campaign that uses core classes plus psions," that new player knows exactly what game mechanics are allowed in my game.
In the case of the proposed Paizo approach, if I tell a player I've never met before, "I run a Pathfinder campaign that uses core classes plus psions," that new player then has to ask, "The official Pathfinder psion, or the Pathfinder-compatible XPH psion?"
Worse, consider messageboard threads discussing psionics. There have already been several unnecessary arguments on these boards alone due to the fact that different posters are thinking about different systems when discussing psionics. And that's with those different psionics systems belonging to different editions of the game. Imagine how much worse it will get when you can't even make yourself clear by specifying "the Pathfinder-compatible psionics system," because there are two of them, each using radically different mechanics.
Wouldn't, in the Dreamscarred Press case, have to similarly ask "The XPH Psion, the Dreamscarred Press Psion, or whatever fan conversion Google pulled up first?" In fact, I would suggest that if one is telling what non-core material is available for the game, that it is best solution to just tell the player what the source of that material is.
I wouldn't tell my players that I allowed the Artificer class without telling them which version I was allowing for instance, because I believe there to be just so many versions of it and it's conversions around. I wouldn't expect a player to gather from me just saying, "I'm allowing Psions," that I really mean, "I'm allowing the Psion that Dreamscarred Press put in this book."
I would expect the same for forum posts. You can't just create a post with a question about the Artificer, and expect people to know whether you are talking about one from the Eberron campaign setting or another 3rd party publisher. Same goes for Psion with a XPH version, Dreamscarred Press version, and so on. Pointing to what version of a class you are using seems to be just seems to be natural to me.
|
|
I think the Advanced Player Guide would be a perfect place for a Vancian "psion." Just add a page...
I would NEVER. EVER. Allow a Vancian Psion in any of my games, nor would I buy any material that includes one. That is an insult to what psionics was intended to be.
The entire point of the psionic rules as presented in 3.5 is that the classes use a NON-Vancian system.
Psionics is meant to be an alternative system. Having the same abilities in a vancian system defeats the purpose of having them at all.
And "Just add a page" is not nearly enough to cover the scope of what psionics are meant to be.
Psionics needs its own book. Plain and simple. Anything else is a cop-out and frankly, degrading to those of us that enjoy psionics.
Its own book, its own system, its own content. Or bust. End of discussion.
|
|
I think the Advanced Player Guide would be a perfect place for a Vancian "psion." Just add a page...I would NEVER. EVER. Allow a Vancian Psion in any of my games, nor would I buy any material that includes one. That is an insult to what psionics was intended to be.
The entire point of the psionic rules as presented in 3.5 is that the classes use a NON-Vancian system.
Psionics is meant to be an alternative system. Having the same abilities in a vancian system defeats the purpose of having them at all.
And "Just add a page" is not nearly enough to cover the scope of what psionics are meant to be.
Psionics needs its own book. Plain and simple. Anything else is a cop-out and frankly, degrading to those of us that enjoy psionics.
Its own book, its own system, its own content. Or bust. End of discussion.
Ok since you don't want to discuss this a vancian psionic system, Goodbye. We're going to keep discussing it here.
|
|
Ok since you don't want to discuss this a vancian psionic system, Goodbye. We're going to keep discussing it here.I think the Advanced Player Guide would be a perfect place for a Vancian "psion." Just add a page...I would NEVER. EVER. Allow a Vancian Psion in any of my games, nor would I buy any material that includes one. That is an insult to what psionics was intended to be.
The entire point of the psionic rules as presented in 3.5 is that the classes use a NON-Vancian system.
Psionics is meant to be an alternative system. Having the same abilities in a vancian system defeats the purpose of having them at all.
And "Just add a page" is not nearly enough to cover the scope of what psionics are meant to be.
Psionics needs its own book. Plain and simple. Anything else is a cop-out and frankly, degrading to those of us that enjoy psionics.
Its own book, its own system, its own content. Or bust. End of discussion.
You mean you're going to discuss "Wizard with another name" cause that's ALL it is. Same rules, same mechanics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.
You mean you're going to discuss "Wizard with another name" cause that's ALL it is. Same rules, same mechanics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.
Other core classes that are just "Wizards with another name." Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger.
So the Core Rulebook is a duck.
|
|
You mean you're going to discuss "Wizard with another name" cause that's ALL it is. Same rules, same mechanics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.Other core classes that are just "Wizards with another name." Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger.
So the Core Rulebook is a duck.
So you're saying clerics, druids, bards, pallies, and Rangers don't get anything but proficiency in simple weapons, no armor, a D6 hit die and crap skill points and class skills?
A vancian psion is very close to a standard wizard, in every way that counts. Spell slots. Skills, Skill points, Hit dice, proficiency and place in the party.
Sorry. I'm not going to fall for that slippery slope fallacy. Try again later.
Even Sorc is far enough away that it would be held apart, given the changes in how spontaneous casting works and the bloodlines...
You mean you're going to discuss "Wizard with another name" cause that's ALL it is. Same rules, same mechanics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.Other core classes that are just "Wizards with another name." Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger.
So the Core Rulebook is a duck.
..but they are all magic classes that use the same system. Psionics was intended to be something that is about as effective as magic without being the same thing. Making psionics that use the magic rules is just another form of magic. Most people that are for the PP system dont want another form of magic. If someone wants to do that, they can play a sorcerer and pretend its a psion.
Wouldn't, in the Dreamscarred Press case, have to similarly ask "The XPH Psion, the Dreamscarred Press Psion, or whatever fan conversion Google pulled up first?"If I say I'm only using official Pathfinder (TM of Paizo) and Pathfinder-Compatible (TM of Paizo) material*, and that I'm allowing psions, that should be specific enough.
When I say I'm playing Pathfinder and I mention the fighter, it isn't necessary to clarify which fighter I'm talking about. Ditto with the bard, the barbarian, the cleric, etc. Why should psionic classes from the same SRD as the fighter be any different?
While I like Dreamscarred Press, I would not expect Players to find their way to a random third party site. I know them for their psionic content, but I can't expect my players to. Pointing to the product with the Psion you are using seems the appropriate then to do, especially when other companies are also capable of producing Psion classes.
My response would be the assumption of Pathfinder Compatible books referring to the Core Rulebook would mean that book would be the primary source for things people talk about. For other classes like Spellthief and Oracle, which would appear in books other than the Core Rulebook, I know that everyone will not automatically know where that class is, so it would be in my best interest to tell them the source.
As for being in the SRD. I would suggest that with what you have said, that doesn't matter because the SRD doesn't have the Pathfinder Compatible logo on it. If it did matter than the confusion that I spoke of would come back into play where you have to tell the player that the SRD Psion is not the class you were talking about.
And it isn't that hard to get the Pathfinder-Compatible logo. While most random conversions aren't going to be under the Pathfinder license, it would be incorrect to assume that only Dreamscarred Press could have a Pathfinder-Compatible logo with a Psion.
So you're saying clerics, druids, bards, pallies, and Rangers don't get anything but proficiency in simple weapons, no armor, a D6 hit die and crap skill points and class skills?
A vancian psion is very close to a standard wizard, in every way that counts. Spell slots. Skills, Skill points, Hit dice, proficiency and place in the party.
Sorry. I'm not going to fall for that slippery slope fallacy. Try again later.
Even Sorc is far enough away that it would be held apart, given the changes in how spontaneous casting works and the bloodlines...
I'm impressed that you know exactly what a Vancian Psion would look like despite the class not not yet existing.
Because since you dismissed it completely based upon the Vancian system, I say that you can't seperate any of those classes, because until one puts the class together, Sorcerer is very close to a standard Wizard, like you say, "Spell slots. Skills, Skill points, Hit dice, proficiency and place in the party."
You either can base your entire decision to dismiss a class based on the Vancian (or spontaneous) system. Or you also take into account it's other class abilities. You can't have it both ways. Try again later.
|
|
Wouldn't, in the Dreamscarred Press case, have to similarly ask "The XPH Psion, the Dreamscarred Press Psion, or whatever fan conversion Google pulled up first?"If I say I'm only using official Pathfinder (TM of Paizo) and Pathfinder-Compatible (TM of Paizo) material*, and that I'm allowing psions, that should be specific enough.
When I say I'm playing Pathfinder and I mention the fighter, it isn't necessary to clarify which fighter I'm talking about. Ditto with the bard, the barbarian, the cleric, etc. Why should psionic classes from the same SRD as the fighter be any different?
While I like Dreamscarred Press, I would not expect Players to find their way to a random third party site. I know them for their psionic content, but I can't expect my players to. Pointing to the product with the Psion you are using seems the appropriate then to do, especially when other companies are also capable of producing Psion classes.
My response would be the assumption of Pathfinder Compatible books referring to the Core Rulebook would mean that book would be the primary source for things people talk about. For other classes like Spellthief and Oracle, which would appear in books other than the Core Rulebook, I know that everyone will not automatically know where that class is, so it would be in my best interest to tell them the source.
As for being in the SRD. I would suggest that with what you have said, that doesn't matter because the SRD doesn't have the Pathfinder Compatible logo on it. If it did matter than the confusion that I spoke of would come back into play where you have to tell the player that the SRD Psion is not the...
Odds are the first to the finish line on that one will be about the only one that gets any sales and becomes the standard based upon spread alone.
In the end one can only hope Paizo or DPS is the one that finishes first, since they seem to be the only ones giving any thought to it while trying to stay abstract and separate. Its really easy to project your desires to these things and stray from what psionics was in 3.5.
Staying separate from the content and just doing an update is the hardest part. Especially since a good deal of content from the XPH never made it to the SRD (Thri-keen, our poor lost illithids) and as such must be made up for somewhat.
It will be very interesting to see how it ends up.
..but they are all magic classes that use the same system. Psionics was intended to be something that is about as effective as magic without being the same thing. Making psionics that use the magic rules is just another form of magic. Most people that are for the PP system dont want another form of magic. If someone wants to do that, they can play a sorcerer and pretend its a psion.You mean you're going to discuss "Wizard with another name" cause that's ALL it is. Same rules, same mechanics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.Other core classes that are just "Wizards with another name." Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger.
So the Core Rulebook is a duck.
But they are all different classes that few would choose to label "Wizard." Just using the same system doesn't make it the same class.
I would suggest that Psionics are not intended to by a different system from magic. The Expanded Psionics Handbook went that route but that isn't necessarily the case for Psionics in general.
Then again, I'm perfectly fine with psionics being another form of magic, and the current differences between the SRD Sorcerer and SRD Psion are not that major to me to give me a different idea. They both cast spells from a known list, they learn to cast more powerful spells in groups called (levels) of which go up to 9 before 21st level, they both can cast less higher level spells than they can cast lower level spells, spells of a single level for both classes are roughly equivalent in power, and their spells generally do the same things. The fact that one uses points and the other uses spell slots hasn't really made them different for me. If I really wanted a different system, then I would be saying that Expanded Psionics Handbook was too close.
If someone wants to do that, they can play a sorcerer and pretend its a psion.
No, I don't want to. I want a class as different from Wizard as the Sorcerer or Cleric. Thankfully you aren't the person I'm asking for the class to come from, so your opinion doesn't really have a strong impact.
Well I don't want a completely new subsystem that I have to learn the ins & outs of just to please one player that is 'dying' to play a psion. There are plenty of game systems out there that have the EXACT same rules for their magic & psionics. What is so wrong with wanting continuity. If 3.5e had spellpoints for their magic, I would have LOVED the XPH. As it was, psionics were 'different', but they were the same? That was always backwards to me. There are a couple of psi bloodlines over at the Pathfinder Database website that are just fine for most anybody out there. YES, I know certain individuals are aghast at the thought, but I believe that is how official material will be.
And for your information, MY opinion on the subject, and everybody else's, carries the SAME impact with Paizo as yours, Blazej. That means we will all be heard on this subject.
Odds are the first to the finish line on that one will be about the only one that gets any sales and becomes the standard based upon spread alone.
In the end one can only hope Paizo or DPS is the one that finishes first, since they seem to be the only ones giving any thought to it while trying to stay abstract and separate. Its really easy to project your desires to these things and stray from what psionics was in 3.5.Staying separate from the content and just doing an update is the hardest part. Especially since a good deal of content from the XPH never made it to the SRD (Thri-keen, our poor lost illithids) and as such must be made up for somewhat.
It will be very interesting to see how it ends up.
I doubt that Dreamscarred Press being first would be a vast impact on whatever release Paizo does later on and that neither company would produce repercussions making either the standard used by other companies.
I would say that projected ones desires onto the project would also be what makes some stick close to what psionics was in 3.5 no matter what.
I'm not as sad about the loss of the illithids, especially when the Bestiary includes Neothelid and Intellect Devourer to satisfy my desire for psionic monsters.
Anyway, I'm also interest how it turns up.
|
|
Odds are the first to the finish line on that one will be about the only one that gets any sales and becomes the standard based upon spread alone.
In the end one can only hope Paizo or DPS is the one that finishes first, since they seem to be the only ones giving any thought to it while trying to stay abstract and separate. Its really easy to project your desires to these things and stray from what psionics was in 3.5.Staying separate from the content and just doing an update is the hardest part. Especially since a good deal of content from the XPH never made it to the SRD (Thri-keen, our poor lost illithids) and as such must be made up for somewhat.
It will be very interesting to see how it ends up.
I doubt that Dreamscarred Press being first would be a vast impact on whatever release Paizo does later on and that neither company would produce repercussions making either the standard used by other companies.
I would say that projected ones desires onto the project would also be what makes some stick close to what psionics was in 3.5 no matter what.
I'm not as sad about the loss of the illithids, especially when the Bestiary includes Neothelid and Intellect Devourer to satisfy my desire for psionic monsters.
Anyway, I'm also interest how it turns up.
I find it odd that we don't get good ole squiddy but we get his retarded redneck cousin the Neothelid -_-
Mind Flayers were one of the iconic dnd monsters. And their loss in Paizo is going to be something that effects the way I play.
The dark recesses of the world are NOT NEARLY as scary now.
I find it odd that we don't get good ole squiddy but we get his retarded redneck cousin the Neothelid -_-
Mind Flayers were one of the iconic dnd monsters. And their loss in Paizo is going to be something that effects the way I play.The dark recesses of the world are NOT NEARLY as scary now.
1. How dare you insult the Neothelid!
2. Bow before the Neothelid!
3. The Neothelid shall teach you true fear.
That is all.
As I was saying, referring to a "Pathfinder psion" should be as meaningful as referring to a "Pathfinder fighter." If Paizo's official line becomes - as it seems to be now - "We're going to make a Vancian psion, but you can use some other compatible version of the psion if you don't like it," then we have two valid classes named "psion."
My feeling is that it should be most meaningful for the classes in the Core Rulebook, and that other classes shouldn't receive that same consideration (even for Paizo's later classes).
|
|
I find it odd that we don't get good ole squiddy but we get his retarded redneck cousin the Neothelid -_-
Mind Flayers were one of the iconic dnd monsters. And their loss in Paizo is going to be something that effects the way I play.The dark recesses of the world are NOT NEARLY as scary now.
1. How dare you insult the Neothelid!
2. Bow before the Neothelid!
3. The Neothelid shall teach you true fear.
That is all.
I killed one yesterday... with a bow... from 100 feet away... No lie.
Book 6 of the Second Darkness AP is turning out fun.
If you look at the Lords of Madness book... Neothelids are literally the retarded cousins of Illithids... seriously.
I killed one yesterday... with a bow... from 100 feet away... No lie.
Only because you feared to approach it. That was a good decision.
If you look at the Lords of Madness book... Neothelids are literally the retarded cousins of Illithids... seriously.
Illithid propaganda. They fear their betters.
If not, I'd rather not see them around at all, and just suggest you use the existing D20 SRD rules for psionics in your campaign. Quite frankly, I definitely don't want to see psionics pulled into a x/day system, or god forbid a recharge system, or have them turned into warlocks or something like that.Besides noting that XPH/SRD psionics does use Vancian-like casting more than once and that suggestion that the d20 SRD rules doesn't use them is quite incorrect... this sort of comment does feel sort of selfish to suggest that because you have a system you like, you don't would rather not see a system others would prefer.
Isn't better to have two groups with systems they like, rather than just one?
Like I said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm sorry if I came off as selfish. That wasn't my intent. My point was, those who like psionics enjoy the system as much as they do the fluff - more-so in every fan of psionics I've seen. There are things that psions can do better, and things spell-casters can do better (more actually).
Those who enjoy psionics for what it is will, I believe, be less attracted to a Vancian caster with the name "Psion" or "Psychic Warrior". I also believe that those who like Vancian casting would be less attracted with there exist Sorcerer and Duskblade (insert any Gishy fighter/mage class here).
I play with Psionics in my games all the time. I consider the XPH to be the best expansion to the core 3.5 line there is. It is perhaps the most balanced expansion I've found; balanced more than the 3.5 core books I believe. That said, I don't recall much of the Vancian casting you mentioned in XPH/SRD; unless you are speaking of Psi-like abilities, which are like spell like abilities (usable at-will or x/day). In which case, I think you may be a little confused as to what I was meaning originally with my statement. If a creature with Psi-like abilities takes on a psionic using class, their psi-like abilities and psionic powers are in about the same relation as spell-like abilities and spells. They are similar in effect, but a different in very major ways.
Otherwise, I would guess that you mean the actual Vancian Spells presented in the psionics handbook, which are for traditional casters (clerics, wizards, bards, etc); most of which have a flare or effect that specifically deals with the psionic system (such as the cleric spell that bestows a number of power points on the target). If this is the case, I would mention that these are again spells and not actually part of the psionic system. Instead, they are spells which affect those who use it.
I stand by my original statement. If Paizo decides to drop the 3.5 psionics rules, and publish a non-point system, I will likely not buy it. I also believe it would make getting into a game more difficult, for reasons other people have mentioned. If Paizo releases a book that incompatible with 3.5, it will be more difficult for me to find a Pathfinder game that accepts 3.5 psionics.
So yes, as I said before, if it's true that they plan to release a psionics book, with no intention of keeping a point based system like with the XPH/SRD, it would suit me fine if they just didn't. I apologize if it sounds selfish, but I hope I've made my reasons clear at least. It won't be doing anyone who is a fan of psionics any favors.