Yes, but those are mistakes in interpreting the system. The post that you linked to added that certain game play styles are not appropriate for the system. To me these are two different things.
When you mentioned properly using the system I thought you meant the rules. What did you mean by "properly" using the system?
ya know then again, this is Pathfinder now, not D&D so it's time to try something that works will with core for once maybe
It does work well with core. I have yet to see a psion cause an issue that I can't cause with a caster. I can however do things with a caster that I can't do with a caster. The rules are not hard to learn, and the only time I have seen them "break" the game is when the rules were misinterpreted.
Now if someone does not want to learn new rules that is another issue altogether and that would apply to any new system, not just psionics.
We'll have to agree to disagree it works fine with core.
You still unlikely to see it in a published adventure AP or stated up in a major book do to the issues with reprinting it, leaving it a little used system only a few real die hard fans use, with everyone else watching it like a leper. Not something I want
I would like to see a system that gets used, and used in AP, books and other published works from time to time and not left alone in it's room crying because no one will let it play in the group
That was another dislike, over half the book are powers that are really just reworked spells. Why not use the spell and be done with it?
And don't get me started on my hate of blaster psions.
When you mentioned properly using the system I thought you meant the rules. What did you mean by "properly" using the system?
Yes, but those are mistakes in interpreting the system. The post that you linked to added that certain game play styles are not appropriate for the system. To me these are two different things.
I meant it in that psionics is supposed to be balanced with the so many number of encounters per day. That to me was the proper use of the system as represented my the post you linked to.
|
Well to elaborate my previous post. d6 damage to a number of targets that only have t be 10ft apart from ech other. It can be any kind of energy depending on whatever fits your whim. One of the types allows fort instead of ref. a wilder can deal 40 damage to 5 targets with no chance for evasion. And that is without feat investment not items.
My policy was that if it can outblast a warmage then something´s wrong.
We'll have to agree to disagree it works fine with core.
You still unlikely to see it in a published adventure AP or stated up in a major book do to the issues with reprinting it, leaving it a little used system only a few real die hard fans use, with everyone else watching it like a leper. Not something I want
I would like to see a system that gets used, and used in AP, books and other published works from time to time and not left alone in it's room crying because no one will let it play in the group
Most people I know dont have an issue with it. The ones that do were victims of the earlier editions, and I still see the stigma to this day online.
I think that having it printed in a core book instead of it being a tag-along in a second book will bring more fans, regardless of whether its a different mechanic or not. I understand the size of the core rulebook for pathfinder may have made that a bad idea,even if a system was in place. The price of the book would increase for trying to support a system they may not have solid numbers(sale numbers) on.
The only other option that I can thing of would be to have an all or at least mostly psionic campaig. Now I understand this would be an experiment that Paizo wont undertake, but if DreamScarred puts out an adventure it could help change things around. The sales of the adventure may also give Paizo some numbers to decide if they want to support it in the future.
|
Well to elaborate my previous post. d6 damage to a number of targets that only have t be 10ft apart from ech other. It can be any kind of energy depending on whatever fits your whim. One of the types allows fort instead of ref. a wilder can deal 40 damage to 5 targets with no chance for evasion. And that is without feat investment not items.
My policy was that if it can outblast a warmage then something´s wrong.
That's getting fixed... DSP says that you can only have one energy type unless you're a kine... and they have every right to do that kind of thing.
I would say that each system has different advantages, I would say that another book with an array of variant casting methods would be preferable to staking out psionics as the system that must not be touched.
I completely disagree. Traditional D&D has this - it's called the "Spell Points" system and it's in the SRD - but nobody ever uses it because spells were not designed to be used that way. The whole Arcane/Divine system assumes spell slots, and a whole lot of stuff stops working or works poorly if you do a half-assed conversion.
The other side of the coin is, if Psi is yet another Vancian system... who would play it? How would Psions be distinct? You'd be fundamentally reducing the variety of the game, and part of the whole strength of D&D as a product line is its variety.
We'll have to agree to disagree it works fine with core.
You still unlikely to see it in a published adventure AP or stated up in a major book do to the issues with reprinting it, leaving it a little used system only a few real die hard fans use, with everyone else watching it like a leper. Not something I want
I would like to see a system that gets used, and used in AP, books and other published works from time to time and not left alone in it's room crying because no one will let it play in the group
Psi works fine for PCs. On working with Core, it's entirely an internal mechanic and it doesn't matter to Bob if Sally is using spell slots and Jacob is using power points. The only time it causes problems is if you botch the rules and fail to use Transparency, or forget about Displays, or spend too many pp on a single power. High level Psions have some nice things they can do, but the same is true of Wizards, and the most comprehensive survey of many of the most experienced players rates Psions solidly below Wizard/Clerics/Druids. They're not too powerful, and anything that does happen to go wrong isn't the fault of their pp system, it's just D&D in general being rather poorly balanced.
As to seeing a system that actually gets used, PF had a prime opportunity for this by including it in their base books, but sadly that's gone now. Still, you could probably clean up Psi rules so it fits on a page, and toss that page into the preface or appendix of AP and whatnot that use Psi. You can also do what a lot of later D&D books did, which is give basic stats for both a Psi and non-Psi version of the same creature. You can also go the Eberron style and include Psi as an assumed part of particular lines or parts of particular lines (I'm thinking of the Quori here).
Anyway, the only major problem statting them out in a small amount of space is that their "spell list" is more exotic. Wu Jens suffer the same problem and they're arcane! There's a wealth of lovely exotic spells/abilities out there, but WotC constantly recycled the base Core set to try and keep things simple. That's fine, but occasionally it's nice to branch out a little bit, try something new, integrate more elements into the game. If you make Psi different, then people can choose to use it or not; you're not forced to play Psions, or to use Quori if you're in Eberron, and if you really want to then it's not hard to learn the system off the SRD or EPH. But if you make Psi the same, then there's no longer that place for those like me who enjoy it and/or don't want to wrestle with all the paperwork that comes with Vancian.
I completely disagree. Traditional D&D has this - it's called the "Spell Points" system and it's in the SRD - but nobody ever uses it because spells were not designed to be used that way. The whole Arcane/Divine system assumes spell slots, and a whole lot of stuff stops working or works poorly if you do a half-assed conversion.
The other side of the coin is, if Psi is yet another Vancian system... who would play it? How would Psions be distinct? You'd be fundamentally reducing the variety of the game, and part of the whole strength of D&D as a product line is its variety.
I'm still don't believe a spell point system is necessary to make psionics different from Vancian. Divine spells work reasonably well without running off and making a new subsystem and I think the same for psionics.
Wu Jens suffer the same problem and they're arcane!
A quick glance through the Wu Jen spell list in Complete Arcane makes me want to disagree with you here. Although they have a good number of spells unique in that book, I believe that I could build several different Wu Jen just using the spells from the Core Rulebook on their spell list. They are far off from what Psionic characters did.
Well to elaborate my previous post. d6 damage to a number of targets that only have t be 10ft apart from ech other. It can be any kind of energy depending on whatever fits your whim. One of the types allows fort instead of ref. a wilder can deal 40 damage to 5 targets with no chance for evasion. And that is without feat investment not items.
My policy was that if it can outblast a warmage then something´s wrong.
1. Warmages are actually really really bad at blasting.
2. Energy missile is Reflex half (or Fortitude if you use the cold version). You can get similar damage with No Save with energy ray. Also try scorching ray for similar damage with No Save--scorching ray also allows for the ability to multitarget the same creature, whereas energy missile loses that ability.
3. It's a Kineticist 2 power, meaning if you're not a specialist Kineticist psion, you can't get it without spending a feat slot, and even then not until 5th level at the earliest. At this point in time, a similarly leveled sorcerer or wizard is throwing out fireball without using a feat slot for equal or better damage (dependent on energy missile's incarnation and the number of available targets).
4. If your issue is with energy missile, wouldn't that (again) indicate a problem with that particular power, rather than with the psionics system as a whole? It is much much easier to fix a single spell or power than it is to fix an entire system.
|
|
So what you´re saying is that a lvl 5 psion dealing 20 fire damage on average is not better than a lvl 5 wizard who deal 15 (again these are extremly basic examples, no feats nor anything else). That the DC for a fireball would be minimum 14, and the one for the energy missile would be 18.
That and the psion being able to do it while gagged and tied up.
Do you honestly think that that looks balanced?
Well it is balanced as long as you do not mix and match. The XPH is balanced with it's self but not with core, and there is where ya get ...issues.
So what you´re saying is that a lvl 5 psion dealing 20 fire damage on average
Specialist Kineticist (or a different specialist who spent a feat) at 5th level can spend 5 pp on energy missile, 3 to manifest it, 2 to augment it (essentially spending 2 additional first-level spell slots), for 5d6+5 damage per missile (assuming fire). That is (3.5*5)+5=22.5 average damage to up to five targets who all must be within a 10' radius, and all targets must also be within 100'+10'/level, or 150'. Minimum DC for the energy missiles is 12, augmented to 14. Reflex save for half damage.
lvl 5 wizard who deal 15 (again these are extremly basic examples, no feats nor anything else).
Wizard 5 at 5th level spends one slot casting fireball, dealing 5d6 damage (average 17.5) to all creatures within a 20' radius and must be within 400'+40'/level, or in this instance 600'. Though it is unlikely to ever happen, a 20' radius can contain as many as 40 creatures. Minimum DC for the fireball is 14. Reflex save for half damage.
Do you honestly think that that looks balanced?
I do, now that the math is right.
sooo 22.5 vs 17.5 is fine?
Just checking because if we both see the same number and have different opinions then it´s just a matter of agreeing to disagree.
Again: 22.5 to one to five targets within a 10' radius and within 150' versus 17.5 to one to forty targets within a 20' radius and within 600'. Situationally better or worse, dependent on how many targets you can catch and how far you are sniping from. When it comes to facing an army, I'd rather have the fireball.
|
|
I guess depends on the army encounter frecuency then hehe. Personally haven´t have that many of those.
Would liketo see other people´s experience on it now.
Also, emergy missile has a range slightly different from what you have stated. As it says ¨Up to five creatures or objects; no two targets can be more than 15 ft. apart¨
Which would change things greatly from your previous 10 foot radious statement.
But if you still think it´s ok then there is nothing i can say about it.
Oh and you know also considering that it can be many types of energy depending on your needs, but I guess that´s also insignificant.
I guess depends on the army encounter frecuency then hehe. Personally haven´t have that many of those.
Would liketo see other people´s experience on it now.Also, emergy missile has a range slightly different from what you have stated. As it says ¨Up to five creatures or objects; no two targets can be more than 15 ft. apart¨
Which would change things greatly from your previous 10 foot radious statement.
But if you still think it´s ok then there is nothing i can say about it.
Alright, sorry, it's a 15' radius effect. That does tip things a little in the favor of energy missile, but the potential for widespread catastrophe is possible with the fireball but not with the energy missile.
Slightly of note is that the fireball also lights things on fire, whereas the energy missile doesn't do that at all, which gives the fireball some utility in situations where you need to commit major arson (like an enemy encampment).
I guess depends on the army encounter frecuency then hehe. Personally haven´t have that many of those.
Would liketo see other people´s experience on it now.Also, emergy missile has a range slightly different from what you have stated. As it says ¨Up to five creatures or objects; no two targets can be more than 15 ft. apart¨
Which would change things greatly from your previous 10 foot radious statement.
But if you still think it´s ok then there is nothing i can say about it.Alright, sorry, it's a 15' radius effect. That does tip things a little in the favor of energy missile, but the potential for widespread catastrophe is possible with the fireball but not with the energy missile.
Slightly of note is that the fireball also lights things on fire, whereas the energy missile doesn't do that at all, which gives the fireball some utility in situations where you need to commit major arson (like an enemy encampment).
Although I'm don't think that this proves anything really, I would also say that you are leaving out one of the advantages of what energy missile hits. Before you seemed to be noting that hitting all the creatures in the area is a good thing when, a good deal of the time, it is not. Fireball hits everything including allies while the energy missile only hits what it needs to.
Also, it is more like a 15' ft diameter, which is roughly around the area a 10' ft radius blast would cover.
I guess depends on the army encounter frecuency then hehe. Personally haven´t have that many of those.
Would liketo see other people´s experience on it now.Also, emergy missile has a range slightly different from what you have stated. As it says ¨Up to five creatures or objects; no two targets can be more than 15 ft. apart¨
Which would change things greatly from your previous 10 foot radious statement.
But if you still think it´s ok then there is nothing i can say about it.
Oh and you know also considering that it can be many types of energy depending on your needs, but I guess that´s also insignificant.
Actually, yes, it is. Blasting has been noted to be a bad idea for most arcane spellcasters in general. Examples include stuff like Magic Missle or Shocking Grasp vs Colorspray / Grease / Ray of Enfeeblement. Cone of Cold vs Black Tentacles, and so forth.
You're coming out to a handfew of points more damage, using the energy type that deals the most damage. Fire / Ice deal +1 per die, Lightening is Baseline, and Sonic is -1 per die. You chose the same energy type but not effect (since the effect of choosing energy in fire is extra damage). Thus you are SUPPOSED to deal 5 points more damage than a baseline fireball. Had you chosen electricity, then it would have been the same damage as the fireball.
The fireball still comes out in my mind, as was pointed out, you COULD get multiple enemies in the radius assuming they were all within the proper range of each of them, but the fireball has a 20ft radius (which is actually quite huge), and it has a LONG (400 + 40/level, so 600ft at level 5) range. With that a wizard could torch a bandit camp instantly as soon as it you can see it.
Fireball also comes with a cool feature that Energy Missle doesn't have.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Even if Psions can blast better than typical wizards, that's not a bad thing. There's a lot of things wizards get that they don't. For example, in the standard psionics rules (SRD Psionics or XPH), they lack many of the options of traditional spellcasters. There's nothing wrong with 5 extra damage on a 3rd level power / spell.
Also, I do not now, nor ever have I found a problem with the ability to change energy types on the fly. Traditional spellcasters find ways around those. I know I do when I play wizards, as do our other friends. Even if your DM doesn't allow ANYTHING from 3.5 (which really defeats the key concept of Pathfinder being backwards compatible), Psions aren't gaining anything that noteworthy against arcane spellcasters.
I even played in a game with a Kineticist who revolved around blasting the hell out of everything. I did have energy missle (it was on my power list, so I didn't need to wait 'till 5th level and spend a feat for it), and I took feats (my feats + bonus human feat + bonus psion feats) to pick up extra PP gaining feats as fast as I can. I wanted to make certain she had torrents of energy-smack she could lay down on stuff.
Still didn't stop the fighter types from out damaging her. 3d6+3 damage with a save for half is nice, but 2d6+6 damage from a greatsword is nice too. Another thread on this very board shows how an 11th level pathfinder archery based fighter can shell out 80 points of damage per round without even getting technical about it, as well as ignoring things like cover, concealment, and damage reductions. At 11th level, you'd need to spend 11pp to get an average damage of 49.5 damage with a reflex save for half, blasting.
Fighter doesn't even have to spend power points on it, and there are all kinds of sweet magic items to help you carry a crapload of arrows or ammunitions. There's even a 3.5 +2 weapon enchantment that grants you magically created ammo when you go to fire it. That's just the tip of the iceburg for what the fighter could do, and at long LOOONG ranges.
So yeah, if the Psion can't outdamage the warriors pumping every last bit of power into that they can, it doesn't raise any red flags to anyone I know IRL.
Although I'm don't think that this proves anything really, I would also say that you are leaving out one of the advantages of what energy missile hits. Before you seemed to be noting that hitting all the creatures in the area is a good thing when, a good deal of the time, it is not. Fireball hits everything including allies while the energy missile only hits what it needs to.
The ability to choose not to catch your allies is a major boon. It's on the main reasons I like that power. However, you're still limited in how many people you can affect with it. It also is not an area of effect power, so it's useless against things like Swarms. But we'll say stuff swarms are entirely situational, and while I think it should be noteworthy, I'll just leave it as a side-note. I would also like to leave as a side note, that unless a very wide range of possibilities are taken into consideration, it will never be a fair judgment. Energy Resistance and immunity is situational as well. One could have a campaign which involves encounters with lots of smaller foes (think the Fellowship vs Orcs and Goblins in the LotR films), or ones where you just fight humanoids without fancy resistances, or ones where you find lots of mythical creatures of legend that are immune to everything 'cept the kitchen sink. I'd think the average campaign can be all those and more.
Again, I'd note that the range of fireball can be a major help. 600ft at base level 5 (fireball) is a long way. Every level after you get an additional +40ft range, +1d6 damage just 'cause you leveled, then that's even further away that you could conceivably blast something before it could get to you, or before they knew OF you.
If you have a height advantage, you could rain death down onto your foes. If you have a height disadvantage (enemies are in the air), you can launch death up at them.
The Energy Missle however lets you hit up to 5 nearby enemies without blasting your ground-zero fighter. It's also been mentioned that Energy Missle is effectively an optional class feature or feat (since either you have to be a Kineticist and spend one of your powers on it, or you must be at least 5th level and spend a feat to learn it).
How is this unbalanced?
How is this unbalanced?
If you pointing the question at me, I would have to say the your are directing it to the wrong person. I'm not arguing that. I just think that this seems to be a lot about emphasizing of the strengths of the opposing power/spell and deemphasizing the weaknesses of your own spell/power. I find this all just going around in circles and kind of pointless. Edit: Like the "the extra 300+ feet for the range is awesome, but being able to bypass resistances and immunities isn't a big thing."
How is this unbalanced?If you pointing the question at me, I would have to say the your are directing it to the wrong person. I'm not arguing that. I just think that this seems to be a lot about emphasizing of the strengths of the opposing power/spell and deemphasizing the weaknesses of your own spell/power. I find this all just going around in circles and kind of pointless. Edit: Like the "the extra 300+ feet for the range is awesome, but being able to bypass resistances and immunities isn't a big thing."
To be fair, either class can bypass resistances or immunities. Psions just have an easier time of it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The arguments here seem to fall into a couple of categories, and these are explicitly meant to be BROAD GENERALIZATIONS so if I don't specify your particular kink please don't get your shorts in a wad:
1. Psionics should be its own mechanical subsystem or else it isn't distinctive enough. If it isn't distinctive enough, I'll never use it. These folks tend to like XPH psionics.
2. Psionics should work like spellcasting or else it won't integrate. If it doesn't integrate, I'll never use it. These folks tend NOT to like XPH psionics.
3. Psionics is OP and I hate it and I'll never use it because it's OP and I hate it. Also it's OP and I hate it. These folks seem to be concerned that psionics will somehow be foisted upon them unwillingly in an AP or something and that they will be "forced" to buy a psionics book or adopt psionic rules in order to play the game.
So aside from #3, who will NEVER be satisfied with psionics except as "psi-themed sorcerers", the key concerns appear to be 1. distinctiveness and 2. interoperability. Curiously, XPH was designed to address both concerns, but clearly, it didn't satisfy #2 for many people. Vancian psionics seem to satisfy #2, but at the expense of #1.
My own experience with XPH psionics is that once you get past the initial learning curve inherent in ANY rules subsystem, it was comparable in complexity to arcane spellcasting, nor, due to action economy, was it unbalanced in comparison to spellcasting. Sure psionics were better at some things, but they were worse at some things too, so they were balanced overall. I mean, is a cleric going to complain that they don't blast as well as a sorcerer? Maybe energy missile is better than fireball in your book (not in mine, I'd rather nuke 'em all in a 20 foot radius, personally), but is cloud mind better than invisibility? Not even close. If there weren't pros to counterbalance the cons, nobody would bother with psionics at all. Those who have had differing experiences are unlikely to change their minds based on anything in this forum until they have played in a game in which psionics work.
Personally, I'd love to see a PFRPG-ized version of SRD/XPH psionics, but Paizo has already basically said that's a no-go. I've made my recommendations to DSP here for those who are patient enough to wade through 24 points of how I'd convert SRD psionics to PFRPG.
I agree to an extent with the argument that psionics should incorporate as much of Core as possible for ease of adoption. It becomes a continuum of how close to Core a subsystem design can be without losing its distinctiveness. The Oracle, at first glance, appears to be an example of how Paizo envisions this kind of thing working. It's spontaneous divine caster (nothing new here), but for flavor/distinctiveness, they get a boatload of wacky class abilities.
However, if I feel like my psionicist is using anything like Vancian spells per day, I am going be asking myself why I didn't just play a sorc or wizard. I like wizards, but sometimes I want to do something else (I personally don't like sorcs, but I think they have a niche and I see why people do like them; it's what you play when you want to be an arcanist but lack the finesse to rock a wiz).
Psionics has always been a subsystem in D&D. ANY subsystem is going to work differently than Core... or else IT ISN'T A SUBSYSTEM. You cannot have psionics without them being an optional alternate ruleset. It isn't in Core, and it can't use only Core material without ceasing to exist since Core is Core and not Core plus other stuff.
As for published material incorporating psionics "forcing" someone to adopt psionics rules or buy some book, see Rule 0. Optional subsystems are OPTIONAL. If you hate psionics, don't use it in your game, but don't tell me it's badwrongfun for me to include it in mine or for a publishing company to cater to its customers. And frankly, Paizo's unlikely to come out with an AP based on psionics until they have come out with a psionic rulebook, which is a ways off; and if you don't like psionics then don't buy the AP! It's like Alkenstar. If guns aren't D&D to you, just don't go there, nobody is (ahem) holding a gun to your head. Maybe a psionicist can mind control somebody but psionic rules don't mind control DMs to allow them.
An acceptable compromise on NPC stat blocks would be to replace the Psionics paragraph with a Spells paragraph that gives more or less the same major capabilies, except using the spellcasting of a sorc of the same level (could your psionicist fly? sorc fly spell. could he blow s&*! up with his mind? magic missile or shatter). That's a simple conversion that doesn't require pages and pages of transplanted rules from sourcebooks.
To conclude this postrosity, I like XPH psionics and I really wish Paizo would continue the tradition of upconverting 3.5 by upconverting SRD psionics instead of switching to a Vancian system (oh boy, another spellcaster base class with the serial #s filed off). However, since that seems unlikely, I think a warlock-like psionicist is probably the best compromise between distinctiveness and interoperability. By warlock-like, I mean class ability based progression in which spell-like abilities are gained progressively, chosen from tiered lists, and usable more or less at will. That seems to retain mechanical distinctiveness and could be constructed with nothing more than a base class entry; the spell-like abilities could be drawn from Core, with or without additions. If you hate warlocks, you'd probably hate this idea. I have more specific ideas for such a class but that's another post.
If you pointing the question at me, I would have to say the your are directing it to the wrong person. I'm not arguing that. I just think that this seems to be a lot about emphasizing of the strengths of the opposing power/spell and deemphasizing the weaknesses of your own spell/power. I find this all just going around in circles and kind of pointless. Edit: Like the "the extra 300+ feet for the range is awesome, but being able to bypass resistances and immunities isn't a big thing."
Sorry, I meant to be a bit clearer than that. I mean it as a general question to anyone reading, or perhaps directed to that other poster (who's name escapes me at the moment - my head sometimes -_-) if at anyone in particular (the one who was upset about the extra 5 damage).
I also would like to be clear that I wasn't intending to stack any decks anywhere. I also want to say, yes, energy resistance is something everyone has to deal with (some more than others). Psions have to deal with it too. Psions are a bit better at dealing energy damage to creatures, and have to deal with energy resistance as well. They are, however, less troubled by it than a spellcaster who hasn't prepared for it. This means that they can deal energy damage better than spellcasters if they choose those types of powers.
In the same light, wizards are better at things than psions are. Druids are typically seen as better summoners than wizards, while Clerics are better healers than druids, and wizards are better at other things than both of them (like illusions, enchantments, non-summoning conjurations like cloudkill or black tentacles, and necromancy debuffs spring to mind). Psions can be better at some things because they are weaker in other areas as well.
Ultimately, playing a psion is different, and feels different. You have certain things you're better at doing, and certain things you aren't. The important thing is that it's not to such an extend that you're overpowered, which Psions are plainly not (overpowered that is).
In the previous example of the Wizard, I suggested the wizard had item creation feats (which are bonus wizard feats), and adjusted his treasures accordingly. IIRC, I think this is what it says to do in the 3.5 DMG, and perhaps I made a clerical error (not the healing kind) while perusing the PF-SRD.
I still maintain that as someone who has played wizards to high levels, runs high level wizards (and psions) as the big-bads in his games, and has players who enjoy playing those classes on a regular basis (alongside fighter, barbarian, rogue, cleric, shugenja, sorcerer, bard, and duskblade), that the threat of a high level NPC psion going Nova on a party or having any more of a "don't go all out" danger than an equal level wizard is false.
Also, though I know you BlazeJ aren't the one to make this claim, I hate the fact people talk about binding and gagging like it's some great anti-caster thing. If a caster is to that point, then he's dead anyway. If he's kept alive for interrogation, then you ready an action to beat him senseless the moment he begins manifesting something. I've heard equally stupid suggestions that the Eschew Materials feat is broken because you don't need your spell components with it. The fact is, it's a non-issue.
Thanks, I just needed to get that off my chest...
PS - It's not even that I'm trying to convince you either you or anyone else here who is dead-set against psionics. Instead, the reason I keep presenting evidence (and I am trying to keep it relevant and fair, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise, I really don't) is because we're not the the only ones who will read this thread, or our posts.
There are so many instances of people who obviously (not you, by the way) know far to little to speak ill of the 3.5 psionic system, and it's not unknown that it suffers from the stigmas of previous editions. I feel compelled to explain and clear up the muck, in the same way I feel compelled to explain to people why Warlocks aren't "OMG Borkenzors!", or why you don't need critical fumble rules to maim your fighters, and have called shot rules that a true-strike spell becomes a no-save and die spell (actually the DM suggested that must be a GOOD thing about his variant 'cause spellcasters "need a helping hand compared to fighters").
I've had to defend this ruleset, this system that is GREAT and so well put together that it works with Vancian casting properly without being crazy weak or crazy powerful. I once joined a game with a DM who said he allowed Psionics, then revealed to me when I arrived that in his game all psionic powers came with an additional saving throw to be "disbelieved" away with no effect "because psionics are too powerful"; and also the saving system he had was pointless at low levels and made sure everything at high levels would always disbelieve.
The thing is, he listened. I showed him through demonstration, and through comparison and examples. He realized I wasn't just making it up to try and get something bye him; it really is a balanced and fair system that works with Vancian magic.
There are other people who will read this who have yet to make up their minds, and I hope that I can help them make a more informed opinion (whether they decide they like or dislike it). Every time I see someone starting up a game with "no psionics, because it's overpowered" but I see them allowing anything out of the complete books, I die a little inside. T_T
PS - It's not even that I'm trying to convince you either you or anyone else here who is dead-set against psionics. Instead, the reason I keep presenting evidence (and I am trying to keep it relevant and fair, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise, I really don't) is because we're not the the only ones who will read this thread, or our posts.
Alright, I understand. Thanks for that. I just was seeing an unending bouncing back and forth on this one power and I wanted to come to some conclusion (although it apparently hasn't given now it is back to downplaying the Psion's energy advantage over the Wizard). To be honest, I see damaging powers to be a sinkhole for power points. You often spend more energy than a Wizard or such does (aside from ones that also increase the DC with the augment) to deal a similar amount of damage causing the Psion to run out of energy faster and want to rest sooner.
That is actually what my primary experience with the Wilder was. With my primary damaging powers as energy ray and energy missile with things attacking, restraint didn't seem to be an excellent option given I wanted to kill them with the smallest number of rounds, rather than divide up my damage into smaller chunks. The fact that doing this I rarely spent half my power points, and that the party often rested after one battle did help this along as well.
If I could actually set up anything as my own complaint about my actual experiences*, it would be this. That there is a drive with the psionic characters to make each turn go with full power, and that it was greater than with my other spellcasters as I didn't have to worry about supercharging my magic missile to make it effective and that I was concerned that I only can cast one fireball in the day.
*(I guess I could have tried just manifesting my highest level powers to test "Nova-ing" and actually experience it, but I didn't really feel that testing stuff like that was the best use for my game time. In addition, while my power selections often seemed to be quite useful given the party had no other Wizard or Psion-like caster, manifesting touchsight and psionic dimension door a lot does not have an incredible impact beyond the first or second manifestation)
Despite the stance I've taken so far, I'm actually not that dead-set against power-point psionics. The only I'm really set for is seeing Paizo make a system for psionics, so that the possibility that I might see Paizo expand on Vudra and Castrovel (including their psionic bits). And seeing comments that I interpret as, "if it is much different from XPH, I don't want to even make it," makes me quite defensive as that request is, to me, very much like telling Paizo to just not make a psionics system at all. For me, that is among the worst case scenarios possible. The idea that several psionics fans loyalty to the system can kill the support of the concept by Paizo is something that part of me just wants to fix (but can't). It is very frustrating.
Also, though I know you BlazeJ aren't the one to make this claim, I hate the fact people talk about binding and gagging like it's some great anti-caster thing.
I am likely not quoting this for the reason you think I am.
It is just that it gets abused so often. Almost all the time, people see it as superfluous and treat it as if it doesn't belong. Sometimes it is just left off and other times, it gets capitalized.
That poor 'j' at the end of my name. When will the world accept you for what you are?
Alright, I understand. Thanks for that.
Despite the stance I've taken so far, I'm actually not that dead-set against power-point psionics. The only I'm really set for is seeing Paizo make a system for psionics, so that the possibility that I might see Paizo expand on Vudra and Castrovel (including their psionic bits). And seeing comments that I interpret as, "if it is much different from XPH, I don't want to even make it," makes me quite defensive as that request is, to me, very much like telling Paizo to just not make a psionics system at all. For me, that is among the worst case scenarios possible. The idea that several psionics fans loyalty to the system can kill the support of the concept by Paizo is something that part of me just wants to fix (but can't). It is very frustrating.
Oh, I'm rather with you there. As much as I think it'd be a horrible mistake to neuter psi, and as much as I'm dead set against those who want to nerf it because it's "overpowered" compared to Vancian (it isn't, just different), I'd always say that SOMETHING is better than NOTHING.
That said... if Psions play like Sorcs, I personally will never play one, or will use the old 3.5 mechanic anyway. I'm the type who agonizes over choices, and play too conservatively with limited resources. As a Wizard, I know for a fact that I'd be a downer at the table, dragging down gameplay as I debate my options and then not contributing much because I'm always worried about a bigger event later. As a Psion, it's much easier for me to play; all I have to do is make sure I have a decent number of PP left, and that's a much easier and "safer" measure for me. I feel comfortable blowing 10 pp on a power when I have 90 more, but I wouldn't feel comfortable casting a Wall of Force if it meant I wouldn't be able to later. Even the Sorcerer mechanic never appealed to me, partially because (in 3.5 at least) they generally felt like inferior Wizard knock-offs. I do realize PF has taken tremendous strides in this direction, and I sincerely applaud them for it. I'd still much rather work with the fluidity and elegance of pp, rather than muck around with discrete spell slots.
I think Paizo has a great opportunity here, to fix a few of the little details that kept it from being properly accepted. Making psi-magic transparency much more clearly the default, clearing up the displays, maybe tweaking the Focus mechanic. If they do a really good job of it, I might be finally tempted to push my group into making the big jump. Thus far we've been reluctant since few of us want to relearn rules and none of us have much free money for books, especially not when 3.5 has this massive toolbox of all the toys we already know and love. But if we start seeing our favourite toys showing up in PF, shinier and more awesome than before, that could be the extra push we need.
Until then, I'll stick with blowing my psi focus on Deep Impact as I augment Claws of the Beast using pp drawn from my Cognizance Crystals.
I am likely not quoting this for the reason you think I am.
It is just that it gets abused so often. Almost all the time, people see it as superfluous and treat it as if it doesn't belong. Sometimes it is just left off and other times, it gets capitalized.
That poor 'j' at the end of my name. When will the world accept you for what you are?
Sorry Blazej, I made a mistake with your name. My apologies.
Also, you're correct that the wilder could probably use some work. It's a very nice concept, really. It's even pretty fun in play, and is is a fair gish-type character. They're actually best for summoners and blasters than anything. I could see them pumping out a bit more hurt than a typical 20th level psion if they were built right (mostly power selection, really). It has its design flaws, however.
While I still wouldn't think it would be that bad, I don't think I've ever used a high level wilder NPC more than a few times. Usually I use 'em at low levels for a bit of a kick here and there ('specially since their enervation isn't as bad when NPCs use it; which is your point :P).
On an unrelated note, this reminds me of how I tend not to pussy-foot around with my party. True story (though a bit off topic), I once ended up with a party of 4 players (who were level 3) who ended up in a fight with an entire bandit camp, with upwards to 30+ optimized human warriors, experts, adepts, and a low level rogue, fighter, and cleric...and they managed to win (even with the occasional failed save vs Sleep). I love those guys. ^_^
Well, I'm going to rest for tonight, so I'll get back to you soon. Take care everyone. It's 3 minutes to 4am here, which probably explains my floaty-story-teller mood. Have fun all. I'm out.
D&D psionics is dead with respect to the Pathfinder RPG, and the decision has already been made clear by that post suggesting a spell-based class. I had to get over it, too. Complaining about it will not reverse an established editorial decision, which is why I started by proposing a different mechanic for such a class...
Is that true? Has such a decision officially been made? If so, could you please link to the source?
In this thread it was stated there was no interest in the current system.
|
UGHHHH full of misdirection and totally off the OP.
Well I say Psi-classes added whole new dimension of play that sometimes were broken. Properly tweaked and twizzled any classes/race, or combo there of, can break a game. However 3.x wilders were insanely easy to tweak and I like most DM's that had their plans or super-bosses foiled with a nigh impossible saving through really didn't like the rule system as it stood.
The Soul Knife was a fun monk variant I thought
The Psycic Warrior was underpowered to the point of being silly
The Psion was a solid class that felt a little "wizard with a different feel"-ish
The Wilder was easy to abuse and break the game and should have been a ten step prestige class or a set of feats.
I have a compadre that hates the psi and that is based on his 2nd ed experiences when the system was little understood and way over powered.
UGHHHH full of misdirection and totally off the OP.
Well I say Psi-classes added whole new dimension of play that sometimes were broken. Properly tweaked and twizzled any classes/race, or combo there of, can break a game. However 3.x wilders were insanely easy to tweak and I like most DM's that had their plans or super-bosses foiled with a nigh impossible saving through really didn't like the rule system as it stood.
The Soul Knife was a fun monk variant I thought
The Psycic Warrior was underpowered to the point of being silly
The Psion was a solid class that felt a little "wizard with a different feel"-ish
The Wilder was easy to abuse and break the game and should have been a ten step prestige class or a set of feats.I have a compadre that hates the psi and that is based on his 2nd ed experiences when the system was little understood and way over powered.
That's.... really odd.
Going by [u]the most comprehensive survey of many of the most veteran players[/u], you get a rather different story, at least as far as class power goes.
- Soul Knife (2.35/10) is one of the weakest classes in the game, just above the universally ridiculed CW Samurai, and well below even the much-disparaged Monk (3.51/10).
- Psychic Warrior (6.02/10) is nowhere near the top, but is right between the Duskblade and Warlock, and not far below the three Tome of Battle classes (6.55-6.88/10).
- Psions (8.35/10) are definitely near the top of the list, as are most full-spellcasters, but are nowhere close to the Wizard (9.67/10), and only slightly ahead of the Sorcerer (8.20/10). Even the Druid (9.38/10) and Cleric (9.16/10) have a solid lead over it.
- Wilders (6.46/10), by contrast, are well down the list, a little ahead of Psychic Warriors but still below Tome of Battle. The only two full-spellcasters below it are the shugenja (6.44/10), and the much-maligned Warmage (5.41/10). The other thirteen all beat it by a healthy margin.
Now, this survey is not scientific in the least. It's merely based on the opinions of an array of the Character Optimization regulars at the time, back before the Great Migration. I think there's a good case that Wizards got up-voted merely on reputation (many of the best believe Archivist and Artificer beat it for top spot), and I don't think the classes at the bottom are quite as bad as people think. Still, as flawed as it is, it's the closest thing to an objective measure of class balance that we're likely to see.
Each of the Psi classes has things it does better than any other base class. Wilders can have truly stunning single-target damage a couple times a day (but at significant personal risk via Enervation). Psions also have good blasting skills, as well as easier telepathy / mind control than Enchanter Wizards. Psychic Warriors have one of the few ways to grow more than one size category. Soul Knives are one of the only 100% legal ways to have a magic weapon inside an Antimagic Field.
But at the same time, each of the non-Psi classes has things it can do, too. Wizards get the best access to the best spell/power list in the game. Fighters are the best at getting Tactical Feats and have more endurance than PsiWars. CW Samurai are great at stacking fear effects. Everyone has advantages, and disadvantages, and only looking at one or the other is going to give you a warped picture.
tl;dr - by the best evidence available, Psi classes are balanced. Including the Wilder.
Sorry Blazej, I made a mistake with your name. My apologies.
It is ok, that happens all the time. :)
D&D psionics is dead with respect to the Pathfinder RPG, and the decision has already been made clear by that post suggesting a spell-based class. I had to get over it, too. Complaining about it will not reverse an established editorial decision, which is why I started by proposing a different mechanic for such a class...Is that true? Has such a decision officially been made? If so, could you please link to the source?
There are a number of post, but I think this one serves a good representative of James Jacobs thoughts on psionics.
While it does give some significant indications of what is greatly preferred, he doesn't really ever set it as the official decision. Given there be years before Paizo can get to a psionics book, I don't really think that debating what psionics should be is likely to take precedence over their current projects. (And one would assume that arguing with them right this moment about this would be ineffective as they try to pull together their schedule and that the project is still a long way off.)
I meant it in that psionics is supposed to be balanced with the so many number of encounters per day. That to me was the proper use of the system as represented my the post you linked to.When you mentioned properly using the system I thought you meant the rules. What did you mean by "properly" using the system?
Yes, but those are mistakes in interpreting the system. The post that you linked to added that certain game play styles are not appropriate for the system. To me these are two different things.
Even core casters break things down when the player figures out he only gets two encounters per day. A metamagic focused sorcerer can do enough damage to take out an encounter alone if he knows he only has one more fight before he has to rest. If the psion is only getting one or two encountes per day on a consistent basis the problem is not the psion or caster that knows it, even though it may be metagaming depending on the situation, but that is another subject.
PS: My monitor is still out for repair, that is why I am only posting so far apart.
My policy was that if it can outblast a warmage then something´s wrong.
The sorcerer can outblast a psion blaster, and it(sorcerer) can't even out do a warmage, assuming both builders are of equal skill.
That means the psion should be in 3rd place.
Even core casters break things down when the player figures out he only gets two encounters per day. A metamagic focused sorcerer can do enough damage to take out an encounter alone if he knows he only has one more fight before he has to rest. If the psion is only getting one or two encountes per day on a consistent basis the problem is not the psion or caster that knows it, even though it may be metagaming depending on the situation, but that is another subject.
PS: My monitor is still out for repair, that is why I am only posting so far apart.
That is true, but I would say that the psionic characters have an advantage (or at the very least lack one of the disadvantages of core casters) in this area such that, both the Sorcerer and Psion can go full blast, but the Sorcerer loses the options as she can no longer cast her highest level spell, second highest, and so on, while the Psion maintains access to all of his abilities until the end of his power source's limit.
That is true, but I would say that the psionic characters have an advantage (or at the very least lack one of the disadvantages of core casters) in this area such that, both the Sorcerer and Psion can go full blast, but the Sorcerer loses the options as she can no longer cast her highest level spell, second highest, and so on, while the Psion maintains access to all of his abilities until the end of his power source's limit.
Nobody's denying Psions have that advantage. They're still in the top 10 classes in the game, and anybody on that power level is going to have some pretty sweet advantages to justify it over all the other options out there. That said...
- When you talk about Psions "going full blast", that usually means augmenting lower powers.
- When augmenting lower powers, note that Arcane spellcasters get a lot of the same benefits (ie damage scaling) for free in lower spell slots.
- You also have to consider what "going full blast" means. Is a 6th level psion power as good as a 6th level sor/wiz spell? CharOp generally says "no". There's some discipline powers that provide exceptions, but the generalist psion list is honestly rather mediocre compared to the sheer amount of awesome and win that Sor/Wiz have collected over the years.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powerList.htm#sixthLevelPsionWilderPowers
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm#sixthLevelSor cererWizardSpells
Even just in Core, which is more impressive?
So yes, a Psion can go full-blast longer, but only if you're talking about how fast he's blowing through resources. In terms of damage dealt, a Sor/Wiz can keep up the max damage level for longer since he can get it much more efficiently. In terms of just about every other type of contest - BC, buff, debuff, etc - the Sor/Wiz list is generaly superior to the Psion list. Psions are still good enough to get up there in the top ten, but they need the advantages they have in order to compete.
And again, better minds than we have spoken and rated Psions at #6 in the grand scheme of things, below Wizards (#1), Clerics (#5), and Druids (#4). Don't begrudge them the advantages they have, unless you're also nerfing everything above them too.
That said...
- When you talk about Psions "going full blast", that usually means augmenting lower powers.
- When augmenting lower powers, note that Arcane spellcasters get a lot of the same benefits (ie damage scaling) for free in lower spell slots.
- You also have to consider what "going full blast" means. Is a 6th level psion power as good as a 6th level sor/wiz spell? CharOp generally says "no". There's some discipline powers that provide exceptions, but the generalist psion list is honestly rather mediocre compared to the sheer amount of awesome and win that Sor/Wiz have collected over the years.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powerList.htm#sixthLevelPsionWilderPowers
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm#sixthLevelSor cererWizardSpells
Even just in Core, which is more impressive?
Even with a current weaker power list, I would have to describe those as moot points. When/if Paizo does the book, it will likely have to use the spells in the Core Rulebook to be usable for adventures and such at which point augmenting, damage scaling, and even the spell list go away and are removed or replaced.
Then, even if Paizo did decide to use something like the XPH, since their hardcover line seems to be 320-pages per book, Paizo's book would be about 100 pages larger than XPH, some of which one would assume would be more spells bringing it toward the number in the Core Rulebook.
This gives me an idea.
To me, that template is seems to be very much like a class in all ways but name. There are templates similar to the one you are describing, like the Half-Celestial which gives the spell-like abilities based on their Hit Dice.
But your suggestion seems to be that, but such they can choose spells off a list that they can cast a number of times per day or even at will. I feel that set of major choices makes it as an innappropriate for a template.If Paizo wanted to do something like this, I would imagine they would just put the new spell-like ability on a monster and adjust the CR as appropriate. Making the template, would be similar in difficulty to creating a single Monster class that lets you play any monster. The template is trying to do too much and I believe that in the end would still need to be ignored to make most creature with the template really work.
Even with a current weaker power list, I would have to describe those as moot points. When/if Paizo does the book, it will likely have to use the spells in the Core Rulebook to be usable for adventures and such at which point augmenting, damage scaling, and even the spell list go away and are removed or replaced.
Then, even if Paizo did decide to use something like the XPH, since their hardcover line seems to be 320-pages per book, Paizo's book would be about 100 pages larger than XPH, some of which one would assume would be more spells bringing it toward the number in the Core Rulebook.
Could you elaborate more? I'm not sure I follow your speculation on what PF will do, or why it's a problem.
Could you elaborate more? I'm not sure I follow your speculation on what PF will do, or why it's a problem.Even with a current weaker power list, I would have to describe those as moot points. When/if Paizo does the book, it will likely have to use the spells in the Core Rulebook to be usable for adventures and such at which point augmenting, damage scaling, and even the spell list go away and are removed or replaced.
Then, even if Paizo did decide to use something like the XPH, since their hardcover line seems to be 320-pages per book, Paizo's book would be about 100 pages larger than XPH, some of which one would assume would be more spells bringing it toward the number in the Core Rulebook.
For the first point, Paizo seems to be into creating adventures and such so it would be very useful to be able to use them in adventures. While the almost entirely rely on classes in the Core Rulebooks, Paizo has on a few occasions used classes from their other book or 3rd party books, in those cases they presented the information you needed to run that NPC by describing their new class abilities. If you look back a while in the Paizo blog you might see a stat block for a NPC using an early version of the Oracle that could have just as easily be used in an adventure because it describes the NPCs new abilities.
Psionics are hard to practically impossible to do that with as every power they can manifest has information you need from the XPH. So when I imagine Paizo doing a psionics book, what I imagine is a Psion spell list that pulls the majority of it's spells from the Core Rulebook with no modifications. So, that would mean (if a point system was even used) a Psion might have a fireball (or some other damaging spell) on it's spell list that scales and doesn't have a special augmenting abilities.
While I'm more sure you were asking about the first part, the second part was just noting that Paizo's Hardcover RPG Book Line seems to be setting itself to be 320 pages per book. If that remains true for the psionics book it would have about 100 pages more than XPH (which had 224 pages). The powers chapter of XPH took up 72 pages so it is somewhat reasonable to imagine that, even if they had to reprint all the powers, Paizo's Psionics Handbook could have double the number of powers of XPH (depending on where that 100 pages is spent).
Now, neither of these are problems for me, but both would produce a large revision of the Psionic spell/power lists that would make comparing XPH to Player's Handbook spells a bad idea for determining balance. The first would just mean scaling for damaging psionic spells/powers would likely be there and augmenting would be, at least, different.
For the first point, Paizo seems to be into creating adventures and such so it would be very useful to be able to use them in adventures. While the almost entirely rely on classes in the Core Rulebooks, Paizo has on a few occasions used classes from their other book or 3rd party books, in those cases they presented the information you needed to run that NPC by describing their new class abilities. If you look back a while in the Paizo blog you might see a stat block for a NPC using an early version of the Oracle that could have just as easily be used in an adventure because it describes the NPCs new abilities.
I can see that. The alternative is to put a little sticker on the front, "uses Psi" or something like, and give people fair warning that they should have XPH to use it, perhaps also with a pointer to the SRD for those who missed the caveat when they bought the book.
Anyway, there's a whole slew of official material based on subsystems that can be awkward to handle in an adventure if the DM isn't already familiar with the subsystem. The two most popular are almost certainly ToB, and Psi.
ToB needs no PF update; it's already got much of the flavour and detail that PF has added to the other clases, and its power level is closer to where PF has moved things too. ToB is something that works great for players in 3.5, giving the meatshields interesting and impressive things to do within their own niche, but isn't needed for monsters who can rely on special abilities for the same thing. There's nothing that particularly demands inclusion in an Adventure Path, but you could have the occasional baddie with Martial Study and just write up that particular maneuver in the stat block on a case by case basis.
Psi, on the other hand, is just begging for a PF rewrite. Its fluff is fairly minimal (same for many of the 3.5 Core classes), so PF's touch would definitely be appreciated there. It's also rather out of place now, besides d6 HD Wizards and Sorcs who have actual class features. More than almost any other subsystem, it's going to be very awkward to play a Psi class in a PF game right now, until there's an official PF Psi update. I also think Psi is well-known enough in the D&D community that there will be a reasonable market for Psi-friendly Adventure Paths if PF handles it well. Psi-themed monsters are pretty common even in Core (Mindflayers, Aboleths, and Githyanki/Githzerai all spring readily to mind), and there's plenty of potential to do more. It's a concept that works nicely for enemies as well as heroes, and is something I'd enjoy fighting against every now and then.
While I'm more sure you were asking about the first part, the second part was just noting that Paizo's Hardcover RPG Book Line seems to be setting itself to be 320 pages per book. If that remains true for the psionics book it would have about 100 pages more than XPH (which had 224 pages). The powers chapter of XPH took up 72 pages so it is somewhat reasonable to imagine that, even if they had to reprint all the powers, Paizo's Psionics Handbook could have double the number of powers of XPH (depending on where that 100 pages is spent).
This... well, are they forced to do 320 pages per book? Somehow I doubt PF is going to massively power-up Psi by giving them a whole bunch of awesome powers that will let them destroy the game. I mean, they're not perfect, but the worry seems more "omg Psi is overpowardz". If they really want to fill up pages, they can bring in powers or even classes from Complete Psionics (a book already responsible for some fairly excessive Psi nerfs, but whatever). If they borrow from that source, there's more than enough to fill up their book without tossing over a bunch of unbalancing spells.