I seem to recall a lot of Buffs and Defense spells working that way, too. Anyway, I'm not really argueing, as much as just saying that is the way I see it.
That's perfectly cool. Psionics is more versatile in terms of powers and resources which is what I like about it - it feels more realistic and organic to me. But I don't think that makes it any more powerful than arcane magic. The wizard, cleric and druid can all select their daily spells as the ones they know they will need for the day, a versatility no psionic character can realistically match.
Heh, you can tell psionics is more than just any old optional system by the amount of debate on it every time it gets mentioned. Some love it, some hate it.
Continuing with the brainstorm, i would like seeing:
1) a good chapter on campaign-based detailed rules for Craft and Profession. Either the kind of thing PCs do in downtime (running an inn or smithy, conducting an opera career) and which can be linked to a campaign (as in Second Darkness)
2) Dominion rules (I guess Kingmaker is going to be big on that), abandoned by D&D quite early in its existence.
3) technology in a fantasy environment. Besides the obvious connection with Golarion (Numeria), that's the kind of gaming which might appeal to "old school" campaigns (a la Blackmoor or Wilderlands) and also to GMs designing variant settings (such as Steam Age or post-Apocalypse in a Hawkmoon way).
Those lines have been abandoned or set to wait in the wings by D&D in its most recent incarnations. It feels like the sort of "new directions" which some PFRPG books or chapters could explore
|
More seriously, it's one book, part of the SRD. The power point system is balanced, well playtested, and works. Why not take it and improve it?
That's my thought, for using psionics in game.
The majority of people who don't like psionics aren't going to like it any better if it's all Vancian and stuff. The majority of people who *do* like psionics are gonna be discouraged if it's significantly changed from what they do like.
There are exceptions (like me, growing up on Witch World and Master of Hawks novels, and Dr. Strange comic books, where magic and psionics went hand in hand), who like the idea of psionics but don't care for the rules being used (and end up more likely to use Green Ronin's Psychic rules), but for the most part, this feels like a Spellplague situation, changing something to appeal to people who don't even like it, at the risk of alienating the target audience.
|
|
Actually it's more like Paizo's changing psionics to fit with the way THEY do things. Paizo enforces more strict controls on it's costs and one of those balancing details is keeping thier modules to a consistent page count.
Which makes the SRD psionics system, available online, and taking up no page count at all, seem a shoe-in for consideration. The only stuff they'd need to mention in the adventure is stuff that they've chosen to update. (Say, the Psion has the ability to activate 0 level powers at will, or something.) Putting a psionic villain in becomes no different than putting a Wizard in and listing what spells he casts by name, knowing that the reader is going to go have to look those spells up in another source anyway (in this case, the Pathfinder RPG Core Rules, or at the PRD online).
It seems like a whole lot of change to overcome a problem that doesn't exist, so long as the SRD remains available online.
Looking through Into the Darklands, I see critters mentioned that come from the Tome of Horrors, which is *not* available in the SRD or PRD, and I suspect is just as out of print as the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Second Darkness has encounter charts as well with stuff like Goblin Snakes and Reefclaws, which are not statted out in the Second Darkness books.
If the big fear is not having to reprint a bunch of mechanics with an encounter, then that road's already been taken, and in force, making it seem like a hollow excuse for why not to march the same way we're already marching, because it's psionics this time.
But I'm just being contrarian now, since I don't actually like the existing psionics rules (being more fond of the Green Ronin Psychic, as I mentioned earlier), and might well find a different Pathfinder Psychic to be just my cup of tea. I'm just not a fan of stuff being yanked away from the players who *are* enjoying it to please those of us who don't (see, Spellplague), 'cause that seems like a bad tactical choice.
<slips off Ring of Contrariness and wanders off>
Looking through Into the Darklands, I see critters mentioned that come from the Tome of Horrors, which is *not* available in the SRD or PRD, and I suspect is just as out of print as the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Second Darkness has encounter charts as well with stuff like Goblin Snakes and Reefclaws, which are not stated out in the Second Darkness books.
The difference is if you grab a template from the Advanced Bestiary, or a monster from ToH it is just additions to the stat block (or the stat block in the ToH case). If however you include a psionic character you would need to detail what each of his powers do, otherwise you require the GM to have access to the XPH (or the SRD in some way). Since Paizo tries to put everything in the AP you need to run it they would need to take up a lot more pages for a psionic character.
The difference is if you grab a template from the Advanced Bestiary, or a monster from ToH it is just additions to the stat block (or the stat block in the ToH case). If however you include a psionic character you would need to detail what each of his powers do, otherwise you require the GM to have access to the XPH (or the SRD in some way). Since Paizo tries to put everything in the AP you need to run it they would need to take up a lot more pages for a psionic character.
I think once the Advanced Players Guide comes out the classes in this book will be used freely in their products without their discriptions, and I think the same can be said when Paizo does a Psionic Handbook
Actually it's more like Paizo's changing psionics to fit with the way THEY do things. Paizo enforces more strict controls on it's costs and one of those balancing details is keeping thier modules to a consistent page count. So the decision was made to bring Psionics (assuming that they decide to execute it) into line with all the other magic present in the game system for reasons of cost and utility.
That may be the reason, but I think Set is right about the effect - the people who don't like psionics largely won't like them still, the ones that like the current 3.5 system will likewise not like it. If no one likes it, what's the point in doing it?
And again unlike changing the rest of magic, you really can't argue that Psionics are a major part of Golarian's history or culture. There really isn't an equivalent of Adar, Riedra, or the Inspired, and Golarian is definitely not Onara. So a change in Psionics does not have nearly the impact that a change in arcane or divine magic would.
Actually, there is a large mention of psionics in the Pathfinder Chronicles, but even if there wasn't you have only justified leaving out psionics completely. Granted the psionics system may not gel with the way Paizo work currently, but there are work-arounds with smaller word-counts to the problem that don't involve completely overhauling a system everyone who uses agrees doesn't need overhauling.
If Paizo want a system that represents a different magic paradigm within the Vancian framework, then go ahead and do it - all it will have in common with psionics is the name though, so why do that? Call it something else and leave the psionics lovers with DSP's work.
If the big fear is not having to reprint a bunch of mechanics with an encounter, then that road's already been taken, and in force, making it seem like a hollow excuse for why not to march the same way we're already marching, because it's psionics this time.
Actually the examples you have given don't really support that conclusion.
The examples given are just lists of creatures common in the area or random encounters that are a necessary part of the adventure. If the GM has that resource, fine, they can use it. If they don't, it can be ignored.
If one want to say that a 6th level psion is one of the random encounters, it would be just as viable as if it had say sorcerer, wizard, or oracle instead.
In non-random encounters, I would suggest that the road you mention has been avoided. If a creature/template/class/prestige class/magic item has been in an encounter, and wasn't in Core Rulebooks, it's abilities were described.
If Paizo want a system that represents a different magic paradigm within the Vancian framework, then go ahead and do it - all it will have in common with psionics is the name though, so why do that? Call it something else and leave the psionics lovers with DSP's work.
I would say that is a great overstatement because a Pathfinder Psionic system, regardless whether it uses points, spell slots or whatever else, is probably going to do a lot with exercising mental abilities to produce mystical or paranormal results. If it were true, then 3.5 psionics wouldn't have anything to do with mental abilities.
Psionic is not a word meaning "system that uses power points." Paizo using the word "psionic" doesn't diminish Dreamscarred Press's work just like the fact magical classes like the Warlock doesn't undo all other arcanists just because it didn't use the same mechanics.
Why can't those who want to just enjoy DSP's work without trying to stop the psionic book that I am looking forward to?
That was very well said blazej. Dreamscarred Press is doing what the point system fans want. The issue I am seeing with the point system fans is they equate point system with psionics, which simply is not true.
They have a company who is willing to support the system they wish, So I really don't understand why they are bugged by the thought of paizo doing a system that works better for paizo.
The simple truth is you do not have to have a point system to have psionics, and most of you that argue against a non- point system do not really care two figs if it's psionic or not. You want the point system, not mental powers.
As has been said many times, it's a win/win folks.
Why can't those who want to just enjoy DSP's work without trying to stop the psionic book that I am looking forward to?
1) Because having two systems called 'psionics' will be confusing and could lead to the non-official system we like being sidelined, which leaves us out in the cold for finding the games we like to play in.
2) What happens for a DM with no preference if he has one person wanting to play a 'psionic' character from the DSP system and one from the Paizo system in the same game?
We've done 32 page books about most of the races so far
Forgive me, I'm new to the Paizo, but where are these books? I think a book about Half-Orcs would be great. But the only books I see on the website are Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and pre-orders for Advanced Players Guide, Bestiary 2, and GM guide. 32 pages is kind of small, have you thought about binding them together into one large volume?
Thank you
1) Because having two systems called 'psionics' will be confusing and could lead to the non-official system we like being sidelined, which leaves us out in the cold for finding the games we like to play in.
How is this any different then any other 3pp putting out a new magic system? You can use what ever rules you want at home. Paizo is not gonna force ya to not use the DSP book ya own.
2) What happens for a DM with no preference if he has one person wanting to play a 'psionic' character from the DSP system and one from the Paizo system in the same game?
Again how is this different then allowing wizards and xph psions in the same game? Or a warlock in a game with a wizard?
|
|
We've done 32 page books about most of the races so farForgive me, I'm new to the Paizo, but where are these books? I think a book about Half-Orcs would be great. But the only books I see on the website are Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and pre-orders for Advanced Players Guide, Bestiary 2, and GM guide.
Paizo divides it's various products into different 'lines' and the 'Elves of Golarion' type products are in the Companion line.
Dwarves and Elves are out, Gnomes is coming out May 27th-ish.
Orcs comes out August-ish and Halflings December-ish.
We've done 32 page books about most of the races so farForgive me, I'm new to the Paizo, but where are these books? I think a book about Half-Orcs would be great. But the only books I see on the website are Core Rulebook, Bestiary, and pre-orders for Advanced Players Guide, Bestiary 2, and GM guide. 32 pages is kind of small, have you thought about binding them together into one large volume?
Thank you
They are called Pathfinder Companions
I think once the Advanced Players Guide comes out the classes in this book will be used freely in their products without their discriptions, and I think the same can be said when Paizo does a Psionic Handbook
Ah but you can make a statblock of say a Cavalier in the same way that you make a statblock of a fighter or rogue and be able to use it with out really referencing another book. I am not sure you could do that with a psionic character. Well I could, but most people won't be able to. Having played with every version of psionics that have been released so far, even the random table in the back of the AD&D Player's Handbook, I am curious to see what Paizo can do with the system. Can't be an more unbalanced that using Will & the Way in a non-Dark Sun campaign setting (56 attacks per round on a simple Proficiency check was ridiculous)
How is this any different then any other 3pp putting out a new magic system? You can use what ever rules you want at home. Paizo is not gonna force ya to not use the DSP book ya own.
Exactly. A lot of people prefer 'line' to '3rd party' no matter how good the 3rd party.
Again how is this different then allowing wizards and xph psions in the same game? Or a warlock in a game with a wizard?
None at all, except that a psion in the same game as a psion can be very confusing if the classes are mechanically very, very different.
Another point is Backward Compatibility ... I rate it by being able to update a character from one system to the other, have the fundamental mechanics stay the same and not lose anything. Clearly that cannot happen if you go from a point-based system to a Vancian one, which is why I don't think that whatever system Paizo have in mind should pretend it.
Let me just say YES YES YES to a campaign/world-builder's guide (or one of each: one focusing on adventure design, with advice for things like high level games, low level games, low-magic games, etc. etc; and then another on world design with mapping advice, terrain details, monster ecologies, etc. etc.)
YAY! to the fact that there is not going to be a glut of splats.
The Complete series is decent and has its purposes. It already exists! If you own the books, use them. I've found conversion for Pathfinder is not that difficult. Nothing is stopping you from making use of them, and IMHO it would be a waste of time, paper, and money to rewrite something that was already well-written once.
1) Because having two systems called 'psionics' will be confusing and could lead to the non-official system we like being sidelined, which leaves us out in the cold for finding the games we like to play in.
2) What happens for a DM with no preference if he has one person wanting to play a 'psionic' character from the DSP system and one from the Paizo system in the same game?
1) I believe the system not published by Paizo will only be sidelined only if significant portion the group that prefers Dreamscarred Press's psionics decides that they prefer what Paizo makes. Players will continue to want to play the classes they prefer. GMs will still allow and use the system that they prefer. I don't expect a massive change of GMs not allowing a system that they would have allowed before.
2) Probably the same thing that would happen if one person wanted to play a warlock from Complete Arcane and the other wanted to play a witch from Paizo in the same game. They are both arcane classes that traffic with mysterious/dangerous/alien creatures for their powers, but I would suggest that the presence of one in a game does not negate the possibility of the other being used as well nor do I believe that having both in the same game would be too confusing.
I don't see why a GM, who would normally allow Paizo products as well as Dreamscarred Press products, would have any issues if one person wished to play a psionic psion from Dreamscarred Press and another wanted to play a psionic mystic from Paizo. The fact that they use different systems shouldn't be an issue to me, at least no more an issue than psionic characters and psionic monsters currently using different systems.
Another point is Backward Compatibility ... I rate it by being able to update a character from one system to the other, have the fundamental mechanics stay the same and not lose anything. Clearly that cannot happen if you go from a point-based system to a Vancian one, which is why I don't think that whatever system Paizo have in mind should pretend it.
The beta version of the witch class is not capable of that sort of backwards compatibility with the sorcerer class despite both being arcane casters. I don't really think that is a problem.
I have similar feelings for, if it does happen this way, a psionic mystic class not being backwards compatible with the psion class despite both being psionic casters/manifesters.
The beta version of the witch class is not capable of that sort of backwards compatibility with the sorcerer class despite both being arcane casters. I don't really think that is a problem.
You've lost me, in what way is the witch class from the APG in any way required to be backwards compatible with a sorcerer? That's kind of like saying that the wizard from the Core book is not backward compatible with the 3.5 Warmage. He doesn't have to be, he's not a Warmage. The Witch does not have to be backward compatible to the sorcerer, either, she isn't a sorcerer, the Pathfinder Sorcerer has to be backward compatible with a 3.5 sorcerer, and is.
I have similar feelings for, if it does happen this way, a psionic mystic class not being backwards compatible with the psion class despite both being psionic casters/manifesters.
Well if you change the mechanics, you don't have backwards compatibility, period. Look at a class that changes a lot between 3.5 and Pathfinder, like the sorcerer as a good example. The Pathfinder sorcerer is thematically the same, but has a lot of extra abilities. However nothing was taken away: he still casts spells in the same way, most of the spells are still roughly similar.
Now one of the big complaints about psionics' point based system is that is does things that Vancian casting cannot do. Logically, you aren't going to keep those facets if you make it a Vancian system, so it will not be backward compatible no matter what you call it. You just have another type of Vancian caster at the end of the day. So what's wrong with not pretending it's the same as the original by calling it one?
The beta version of the witch class is not capable of that sort of backwards compatibility with the sorcerer class despite both being arcane casters. I don't really think that is a problem.You've lost me, in what way is the witch class from the APG in any way required to be backwards compatible with a sorcerer? That's kind of like saying that the wizard from the Core book is not backward compatible with the 3.5 Warmage. He doesn't have to be, he's not a Warmage. The Witch does not have to be backward compatible to the sorcerer, either, she isn't a sorcerer, the Pathfinder Sorcerer has to be backward compatible with a 3.5 sorcerer, and is.
That is my point. Why should a psionic mystic class be expected to be backwards compatible with the psion class?
You seem to follow by arguing that although they are two different classes (by trying comparing it conversion of the sorcerer), that the suggested mystic should be backwards compatible with the psion (just like the witch/sorcerer example I gave above).
They are two different classes, therefore it is odd to expect backwards compatibility between them. To me, your sorcerer example works just as well as an argument that the witch has to be backwards compatible with the sorcerer.
So what's wrong with not pretending it's the same as the original by calling it one?
I would say that if it had a different set of classes, then it would be in no way pretending it was the same as the original. Just calling both sets of classes psionic in no way comes close to the conclusion that it would be "pretending it's the same as the original."
That is my point. Why should a psionic mystic class be expected to be backwards compatible with the psion class?
I am cool with it being two different classes. A Witch isn't a sorcerer, and there is no expectation that it should be because it isn't called a sorcerer.
I would say that if it had a different set of classes, then it would be in no way pretending it was the same as the original. Just calling both sets of classes psionic in no way comes close to the conclusion that it would be "pretending it's the same as the original."
That's perfectly cool by me as well. It can be whatever it wants to be, as long as it isn't calling itself something it isn't. That's why I wouldn't like to see the Paizo psionics called psionics if they aren't backward-compatible 3.5esque psionics. If they call them that then the expectation is there that they should be backward compatible because of the name and the association with Pathfinder, which is strongly touted as backward compatible.
Ya know the name psion is used in many systems, I can only think of one that it was point based. And the core rules are Backward compatible. . All BC means is it works with 3.5 with little effort. IT does not mean "MUST WORK THE SAME" So even if paizo does something totally different as long as your 3.5 XPH works with the core rules then it is BC. Nothing changes that.
Yeah, but seeker, that definition means 4e is backwards compatible.
Backwards compatible does not mean works just the same. If it did there would be no need to stat it. Also anything past the core book is not limited to BC at all.
By your definition none of the spells, PRC or anything that is one bit different from 3.5 is Backwards compatible. As to you it seems to mean "Nothing can be changed."
I get ya want the point system, but Backwards compatible has nothing to do with a non point based system. As long as you can use your XPH with the core rules then it is Backwards compatible. Nothing paizo does to update the rules can change that.
What your talking about is not Backwards compatibly. As you can still use old books with a little work. Changing psions to work better with the core rules does not effect Backwards compatible in the lest. As you can indeed still use the rules your using now.
What your saying is in the line of" Well I can't convert my true 20 character just as he was the rules are different!"
The truth is your acting like not using a subsystem that 1: Not alot of folks liked, 2: paizo staff has issues with and 3> Does not fit the needs of the publisher totally brakes backward compatibility when that simply is not the case.
Seeker, I have asked you before not to put words into my mouth. I have given you MY definition of backward compatible, with examples above: If a class functions in the same basic way with no substantial features removed from them, then they are backward compatible. Vancian casting has some limitations that power-point based psionics don't have - instead, the psionics system has other limitations. This is why changing away to a Vancian system would necessitate a non-backward compatible step for the psionics sub-system, because I don't see how you can imitate the psionic abilities as they currently function within a Vancian system.
This remains the case until you either:
A) provide a different definition for backward compatibility.
B) explain how a Vancian psion would function in the same way with the same flexibility and versatility as a point-based one, which is my yardstick for backward compatibility.
No your definition is not backward compatibility. You may not like it but it does not mean what you think it does. It's really that simple.
What your talking about is forward compatibility. I am not being snide but what your asking for in unrealistic to say the lest.
As long as older stuff works with a little work then backward compatibility is achieved. If they make new rules that do not work the same as the old {non core } rules then it still has zero effect on backward compatibility
Backward compatibility means old stuff still works with the new system. It does not mean new stuff will always work with the old system.
Playstation 2 was backward compatible..but ya still could not use PS2 games inn a PS1.
To use that analogy your 3.5 psion or a DS one will still "play" in pathfinder. However you can not expect a new class built purely for pathfinder to work just the way the old one did
So yes a slot based psion does nothing to effect Backward compatibly. You can update to the new system or use the old system with no effect. No one forces you to make your warlock a sorcerer after all. Unless your GM just disallows warlocks.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Thanks for the continued lively debate on the psionics issue, as well as all the additional suggestions for other types of products we could be making.
We have not yet made a decision about the psionics system that we may or may not publish to work with the Pathfinder RPG. There are a couple of issues that will inform our "final" decision that are probably worthy of consideration.
1) No one currently working at Paizo is an expert in the XPH psionics system. While I think it's fair to say that many of us have issues we perceive as problems with that system based on our understanding of it, our understanding of it is probably lower than for just about any sub-system in the 3.5 rules family. I wonder sometimes if the feeling about psionics in the department might be different if we had ardent RAW psionics fans in the department. But we don't.
2) I'm currently finalizing the 2011 publication plan, and I've got a general idea what we plan to do in 2012. Right now there just isn't room for a psionics book in that timeframe, so when we eventually get around to this topic (and we've been kicking around some loose ideas for years), it's going to be a loooong time before we can get to it in an official capacity.
3) The Pathfinder Compatibility License allows other companies to publish sub-systems and books on a variety of topics, and we don't really have much control about who is doing what when out there. I know that tons of fans of the XPH system LOVE the work that Dreamscarred Press is doing (to pick one name out of a hat), and the simple fact is that at least one of these companies (and possibly many more than one) will be able to beat Paizo to market with a Pathfinder-focused psionics system. We presume that this system will be based on the XPH rules, which ought to appeal to the most active group of existing psionics fans, who seem to want a tune-up of that system.
4) Because none of us are experts on the XPH system and because other companies that employ experts in that system are likely to produce Pathfinder-compatible point-based XPH-based systems, a lot of our thinking at present involves options that go a different direction.
It seems to me that the players who want an XPH-based system can either continue to kludge together rules with the _actual_ XPH system, or can turn to a third-party effort like Dreamscarred Press when it comes to a "Pathfinderized" version of those rules. Since such third-party efforts are likely to be completed very likely _years_ before we get to our version, it's extremely likely that the XPH fans will get what they want in relatively short order.
None of this (other than psionics not being in 2011) is written in stone. We're still figuring out our own position on this issue, so it's great to receive so much feedback on the matter.
As usual, you guys are the best players in the world, and we appreciate your candid feedback!
Thanks Erik This is why this company is one of the best in the world
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you for being candid.
I'd say, if you want a psionics fan/expert, besides myself or the people at Dreamscarred, This guy should get a serious talking to. I'll even take his word over Bruce Cordell on all things psionic. And not just because he's a great guy ;-)
One of my fondest memories dates back to the old DMG (the one with the efreet in the city of Brass on the cover - wow, that's old; i guess i must be as well then); it was the artefacts in the back of the book.
I understand that this might be Golarion-specific (and therefore not core) but I would really like to see some artefacts, both powerful and mundane, done with full backstories and bonuses, penalties, curses and so on.
I know there are a few in the core rulebook but apart from the mechanics there's no historical context to them - which is what I would hope for for any artefact.
I would also like to add my voice to 'mass combat rules' both light and heavy. Sometimes you don't want to go through the real mechanics involved with dozens, sometimes hundreds of combatants; but sometimes the adventure calls for it - so squad-based and larger-based rules would be a god-send.
As an addendum I'd like to see the religions done in more detail. Holy days, religion-specific abilities and so on. Something akin to the 'priests of specific mythoi' of old.
That's my two-penneth.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One of my fondest memories dates back to the old DMG (the one with the efreet in the city of Brass on the cover - wow, that's old; i guess i must be as well then); it was the artefacts in the back of the book.
Not Golarion specific, but have you ever read Necromancer's 'Tome of Artifacts'? Wonderful book with the 1e feel of artifacts.
One of my fondest memories dates back to the old DMG (the one with the efreet in the city of Brass on the cover - wow, that's old; i guess i must be as well then); it was the artefacts in the back of the book.
Not Golarion specific, but have you ever read Necromancer's 'Tome of Artifacts'? Wonderful book with the 1e feel of artifacts.
No, I haven't. I'll make a point to check it out. Thanks.
One of my fondest memories dates back to the old DMG (the one with the efreet in the city of Brass on the cover - wow, that's old; i guess i must be as well then); it was the artefacts in the back of the book.Not Golarion specific, but have you ever read Necromancer's 'Tome of Artifacts'? Wonderful book with the 1e feel of artifacts.No, I haven't. I'll make a point to check it out. Thanks.
Gods & Magic has some artifacts in it described in the way you suggest.
None of this (other than psionics not being in 2011) is written in stone. We're still figuring out our own position on this issue, so it's great to receive so much feedback on the matter.
As usual, you guys are the best players in the world, and we appreciate your candid feedback!
Thanks Erik, for clarifying Paizo's stance on the subject. I know a lot of us psi-lovers get passionate about it :)
What your talking about is forward compatibility. I am not being snide but what your asking for in unrealistic to say the lest.
I know you aren't being snide, seeker, and nor am I. I appreciate that we have opposing views on things, but we're both grown-ups.
My reasons for assuming my idea of backward compatibility (which I hold to) are several fold, and I'll list them: Barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, monk, ranger, rogue, sorcerer and wizard all fit my ideas of backward compatibility. DSP are doing versions of the psionic classes that match these two. Looking around you can find 20-30 classes from the various WotC supplements being Pathfinderized to my concept of what it means. I don't think it is unrealistic in the least to think that the same should apply to any product Paizo produced based on the 3.5 material. Clearly, it's doable to have this kind of psionics system if that is what Paizo want to do.
Now, let me present another argument that has little to do with games mechanics but a lot to do with psychology:
If you make a new system and call it 'Psionics' that isn't based on the 3.5 mechanics then it will always be held up in comparison both favourably and unfavourably with the previous psionics system by all sides of the debate. It will be the target for comments like: "It sucks compared to the old power-point system" (the moment they find something it cannot do that the old system could) "Science fiction has no place in fantasy" (should it use any term deemed 'sci-fi' in flavour) "It's not backward compatible" (because not everyone shares you view of BC means, right or wrong) "It's just Vancian magic with re-skinned casters". You can ask people to judge it on it's own merits, but that won't happen in all cases because some people aren't like that, and a lot won't divorce the new product from it's old namesake. Further, it may cause confusion because having two totally different systems with the same name in circulation (presumably DSP will have their own system with it's own adherents out there by then) just is.
If, on the other hand, you call it 'Ki Magic' or something, it will be judged on it's own merits without comparing it to the previous material even if that is what inspired it. Players who prefer the DSP system can still say 'psionics' to their DM and he will know exactly what they mean and can give a yea or nay without misunderstanding.
Just look how contentious this debate is between us two <grin> or between D&D editions and you'll see what I mean about the kind of controversy that will rage, and that kind of thing isn't good for anyone.
Of course it is a moot point for at least a few years now, perhaps ever ...
If, on the other hand, you call it 'Ki Magic' or something, it will be judged on it's own merits without comparing it to the previous material even if that is what inspired it.
You can't be sure of that. If the system is based around a "mental magic" that does a lot of telekinesis, mind-blasting, and mind reading. It is going to look a lot like an actual psionic system. Then, it is just as likely that the comparisons you mention would still happen. People would still likely compare it to the previous 'mind over matter' system.
My opinion could also be influenced by the fact that 'Ki Magic' doesn't evoke any good emotions for me.
Players who prefer the DSP system can still say 'psionics' to their DM and he will know exactly what they mean and can give a yea or nay without misunderstanding.
Except for the fact that if the player just said 'psionics' and the GM thought he meant just a simple conversion of XPH, then there would still be misunderstanding when the player walks into the game using a third party's revision of the system. I mean, the GM might have some objection to one of the changes, maybe even saying that it really isn't backwards compatible.
For there to be no misunderstandings, one of the parties really needs to specify where the psionics is coming from. I would say that this is true before Paizo can ever release any psionic book and it doesn't change when they would release it.
Just look how contentious this debate is between us two <grin> or between D&D editions and you'll see what I mean about the kind of controversy that will rage, and that kind of thing isn't good for anyone.
Which I believe is not stopped by your suggestion either. I believe that no matter what it is named as, people will still choose to compare the two, complain that the existence of the new system nullifies the chance that Paizo would ever publish the 3.5 psionic system, and strike the same flames as before.
At this point my suggestion to mitigate the 'rage' for the Paizo Psionics book, aside from never making it, would be to call it Psionic, create four to six new psionic classes, and have a little blurb in the front of the book describing something like, "This system is to compliment other psionic systems and not replace them. Other Pathfinder compatible systems have been published by Dreamscarred Press and other companies. Most can be purchased on PDF at paizo.com. Check them out and see if you wish to add them to your game as well."
While I am sure there would still be complaints, I would hope that being upfront that it isn't the only psionic system in existance and even mentioning other companies who have produced such products would cause the battles over this to be minimal.
Probably, Blazej, because you can never please everyone and some people complain at anything. I offer my opinion above because it's what I feel would minimize this if Paizo aren't going to go for a 3.5-based system.
As Erik made clear, it's a moot point for at least a few years, and they may opt for Vancian, or point based, or just leave it to 3rd parties like DSP. What is clear is that psionics is likely going to stir debate no matter what they do!
I think at some point they will be forced to do something. Once they get over into Vudra and Casmaron they pretty much have no choice but to do something. They really can't say "Well just pick up the now out of print XPH" So at some point they will have to do something.
I do agree not everyone will be happy but in the end sometimes ya got to go with what works best for you and not just do something because it's always been done like that
Heh, not a position I think any of us envy right?
I think at some point they will be forced to do something. Once they get over into Vudra and Casmaron they pretty much have no choice but to do something. They really can't say "Well just pick up the now out of print XPH" So at some point they will have to do something.
I do agree not everyone will be happy but in the end sometimes ya got to go with what works best for you and not just do something because it's always been done like that
Heh, not a position I think any of us envy right?
Definitely! Whether they go for tried-and-tested or choose to break new ground, or try and compromise or dodge the issue, there is going to be debate, contention and really intense posting! But hey, that's how some of the best game ideas come about. Who knows what will happen between now and then?
So true, it seems to me at lest they need to use spells even if they do keep the spell points. Powers where one of the big issues for wotc and page count it seems to me. I can see some powers being reworked as spells, but many powers were just reworked spells anyhow...or did almost the same as some spells
Eh so your option is to tell dreamscarred not to make a useless book eh? Seems a bit harsh don't ya think?No, as per a precious discussion my advice to Paizo is not to make a superfluous supplement when another company is already doing a good job of it. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth.
That's incredibly shortsighted. Among other things, Dreamscarred Press material is not valid for Pathfinder Society play. For another thing, even the absolute best 3rd party content is allowed by a smaller percentage of DMs than first-party content. For a third thing, allowing other companies to dictate which products you sell is a very poor thing for the bottom line.
Guys, the thread has kind of moved on from this. We all have different opinions on the matter - I think different (powers & power-points) is good, others disagree and feel that standardising to spells and slots is the way to go. One side isn't going to convince the other, and it's a completely academic point at the moment as Erik has made clear that any psionic supplement before 2013 isn't going to happen, and even then it's not a sure thing, and they have no specific plans as to what they will do.
So let's drop it for now as it's just detracting from what this thread should be about, which is a brainstorm for products we'd like to see (psionics being off the table for the moment). I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to debate this in detail at another point in time when it might actually mean something to the guys at Paizo, and we can debate the pros and cons of one system over another then once they have some proposals on the table.
To get it more or less back on track, I'd like to re-iterate my thoughts on books I'd like Paizo to put out for PFRPG (Not Golarian, Lisa did seem to be asking what RPG supplements we'd like, not Golarian expansions).
- Monstrous Characters (Playing non-core races)
- Expanded Equipment (Magical, Mundane, expanded Crafting Rules, and for levels 1 to 100)
- Environment Book (Mountains, Ocean, Plains, Forests, Swamps, Jungles, Deserts, etc) all in one big book (about as thick as the Core perhaps).
- World/Campaign/City/Keep building book (Basically a Builder Book, designed to help you create a world, or a campaign, or a City, or just a Keep, probably also as thick as the Core).
- Spells Unbound (A bunch of spells, and not just combat or high level spells, little small utility spells for all classes, something as simple as 'Find Closest bar in a city' or a cantrip to 'Start a camp fire with wet wood', as well as some rules about creating balanced spells)
- Epic Level Play
I'd pay $59 for any of the above books if they were about the same size as the core book (even a little more for the environment or builder book).
A book I'd love to get my hands on is an Epic level play ruleset that isn't just "levels 21 and up". Include actual rules for transcending mortality and becoming a divine being. I don't even care if it's an extension of the base Pathfinder rules or an entirely new ruleset that you just translate your PF characters into. In fact, new ruleset is probably better because then you don't have to even consider the interaction of the Epic stuff with non-Epic stuff.
I like your ideas, mdt, but you missed out feats. If you have extra spells for the casters, you have to have feats for the fighters! Maybe a combined spells & feats book?
Zurai, I think there's precedent there for going for god-hood, what with the Starstone in Golarian and such. On the other hand, it's risky ground and comes under the heading of 'world changing' if it happens.
I like your ideas, mdt, but you missed out feats. If you have extra spells for the casters, you have to have feats for the fighters! Maybe a combined spells & feats book?
Zurai, I think there's precedent there for going for god-hood, what with the Starstone in Golarian and such. On the other hand, it's risky ground and comes under the heading of 'world changing' if it happens.
True enough. How about a 'Toolkit' book that offers alternate class abilities, feats, spells, and rules for building feats, spells, and alternate class abilities (even if it's just a page or two of the developers rambling on how they created some for the book).
On the other hand, it's risky ground and comes under the heading of 'world changing' if it happens.
Not any more than anything else Paizo's done. Failing to prevent the Very Bad Thing from happening at the end of The Spires of Xin-Shalast is world-changing in the extreme, for example. And I don't think that Irori's ascension (which wasn't even through the Starstone) really altered the world that much, as a counter-example.
And that's all aside from the point, because I'm not asking for a Golarion book. I'm asking for a rulebook. I expect that Paizo's Epic rules, if they ever get made, will be just as setting-light as the Core Rulebook is (which only includes the list of deities in the Cleric's Domains sections from all the possible Golarion content they could have included).
I see two totally separate "epic" paths that people want to see.
Some of us (I'll readily admit I'm one of them) want to see an ELH-style extension of play to levels 21 and beyond.
Others want something entirely different - divine ascension, battles of the gods, etc. Not what I want, but I can certainly see its appeal.
I think the distinction needs to be made, however - they're not the same thing - and when I say "epic" I mean just an extension of the current rules, but to much higher levels.
Perhaps without stupid rules for epic magic. That'd be keen :)