Creative Director
|
As I said, I value the man and his friends and all the positive things they've done and the insight they give into the inner working of their company. I really do.
I just dislike the fact that a company would try to sell me something while at the same time saying "If you don't like it, too bad, we will never do anything differently, partly because it's no fun to us."
In the real world, if a sales rep. tells me that they only make polka-dotted cars because it's funnier, I'd flee the shop and try to find another. But there is no other shop now, since WotC won't do 3.5 anymore.
See what I mean?
It sounds like the core of the problem is that you're not a fan of the Vancian magic system the game was built on and has remained with up through several editions, culminating in this case with Pathfinder's RPG. While I understand that the Vancian system isn't everyone's favorite... it IS a favorite system for the vast majority of those who play this game, regardless of its edition. It's not something we wanted to throw out and redesign with Pathfinder, and it's not something we're going to abandon anytime soon—even if and ESPECIALLY if we do a psionics type book.
So far, one of Paizo's core underlying philosophies has been to create books that people WANT to buy. We've been in the business for a long time, and I think we have a pretty good idea of what types of books our customers want, and judging from how well Paizo's doing these days, we're pretty good at creating books folks want to buy.
The PRIMARY problem with psionics, and the main reason we're so hesitant to do anything with it any time soon, is that there's not a real clear frontrunner on how to do the rules. It does seem relatively evenly split. And given that case, the only responsible way to proceed, in my opinion, is to choose the "side" that most closely aligns with the type of game we at Paizo want Pathfinder to be. That just happens, in this case, to be abandoning the power-point system.
That's going to cause a lot of ripples and waves. It already IS, which is why I'm posting in this thread. And frankly, seeing how much passion and fervor the topic is generating here only supports the fact that there needs to be some more time devoted at Paizo how we wish to proceed with a psionics book...
...and at the same time, there needs to be more time for our customers to come to terms with the fact that what we DO decide to do with psionics, if we ever do anything at all, will probably be SIGNIFICANTLY different than the 3.5 incarnation of the rules. Which is also why us calling this stuff "psychic magic" or "mentalisim" or something OTHER than "psionics" is important as well.
We're still years away from releasing a Psionics book... we're years away from even starting to think about WRITING a Psionics book, but it's a contentious enough topic that it's important to me to find out where everyone's at among our customer base. And that's why I'm making clear at the outset our current intentions for how to proceed with the topic... but again, since we're years away from starting work for real on the book (if we ever do!), there's still plenty of time to change.
If, for example, we see a huge upswell of support for the power point system over the year or two or three to come, that'll tell us that we should strongly consider revising our current notions and preferences. But up until this point, there has NOT been a clear and obvious choice.
And so, at that point, our own personal preferences for what would be best become the tie breaker, essentially.
It's not just a commercial reason though... it's that we at Paizo actually prefer the current Vancian system (be it prepare spells or spontaneously cast spells) for spellcasting. It's just "more fun" for us, and developing a system of rules that isn't something we're passionate about is something I'd like to see Paizo avoid. And it sounds like there's a lot of folks who agree with that opinion.there are an equal number wanting there to be a power point system; and many apparently willing for it to be ki-pool supernaturals (bleh).
now to be sure, put me in the "power points or don't bother" camp. This excuse of "I don't want half the book be something people won't use" doesn't fly; I am already seeing GM's proudly declaring "NO ADV Player Guide Content" on bulletin boards does this mean you can't put any new content that builds off of APG?.
Now I understand not wanting to work on something you personally don't like; but we, the consumers, aren't Paizo, nor it's staff. We have similar, but often very diverse needs from the games we buy: and I personally feel ignoring those is Paizo doing a disservice to its, what we'd call in the advertising trade, "heavy users". block it out of organized play if you must; heck half of what you've said you wish psi to be sounds closer to Incarnum (beware, Glorian will be BLUE!); but be very hesitant to just say "no, never, not even then."
A lot of companies talk around issues. At least Paizo is honest, and DSP is doing the power point thing anyway. No reason to have two versions of the exact seem thing. With Paizo doing it one way, and DSP having their version we have more options.
|
...there needs to be more time for our customers to come to terms with the fact that what we DO decide to do with psionics...
An open playtest would help. Especially if it had a long lead-time. The whole process would still be "flamey," but I think you'd get buy-in from lots of skeptics if they're drawn into the process.
-Skeld
|
Creative Director
|
...there needs to be more time for our customers to come to terms with the fact that what we DO decide to do with psionics...An open playtest would help. Especially if it had a long lead-time. The whole process would still be "flamey," but I think you'd get buy-in from lots of skeptics if they're drawn into the process.
-Skeld
If and when we do psionics, I can say that there's a 100% chance that it'll have a HUGE open playtest. We aren't abandoning the open playtest format anytime soon—it's been an enormously helpful process and resource. Psionics (and epic rules, for that matter) are a significant expansion to the rules, and playtesting them in public forums is absolutely going to happen.
That said... we will NOT be creating two different versions of the rules to playtest. We'll pick one or the other (power points OR Vancian) and run with it from the start. Opening that decision up to the public for what would essentially be interpreted as a vote is not a good idea.
The monk class, as is written, doesn't fit into a western setting. If I am running an oriental adventures game, I am perfectly fine letting monks in, just as I wouldn't let bards as is in. Now, if you are a player and you WANT to play McKracken, you are free to come talk to me, see if we can work out a modification of the monk or fighter class to westernise it and create something that does fit in.Sure I'll take the bait.....
Farley McKracken. Pseudo-scottish warrior who uses his hands to pound people into jelly. He is fast and doesn't like armor due to his great ability to avoid blows. I seen him stun people with a knee to their face. As he grows in power he becomes a legend, falling from great heights with nary a scratch, dodging around fully armed and armored bloaks to get into the second or third rank of the enemy. He is a man of legend!Monks DO fit into a pseudo-medieval European setting. You just refuse to open your mind to a change in flavor and decided to be Mr. Upturned Nose instead.
A class is just a bag of mechanics. You can fluff it however you like. The bard could be the commander who knows a lot weird stuff(bardic knowledge), and knows how to inspire people to do better even if he can't fight that well himself.
|
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . . why should a mage?
This argument is the one I see thrown around quite a bit, and quite frankly it just doesn't fly with me. Magic is NOT math, musical ability, science, what ever. Its magic. It doesn't exist, and as such it can be define infinite many ways, all of which are valid. I can absolutely see magic being something you have to study every morning to imprint the magic into your brain. Why does it not make sense that casting such powerful manipulations of the natural order wouldn't be used up when used? It makes perfect sense to me, you spend time commuting the the magical energies and rituals to your brain, where it is stored until its used. So while a lot of you think this concept doesnt make sense, thats fine. Its all a matter of preference. Never really used psionics or the point bases systems, but I have nothing against them. I just dont want two different systems in my game, as I feel the point based systems gives to many advantageous over someone using the slotted system. Im sure someone will come in and take offense to that comment and start telling me how im wrong: dont bother. Ive heard the arguments and doesnt change my mind.
On the topic of Psionics in Pathfinder, I'm happy with James's proposed plans. Dreamscarred will update the existing 3.5 system for those that prefer it, Paizo will make a more sorcerer styled system for those that don't. Win for everyone!
Back to the original topic of what spell system do people prefer, I have to say I love Talislanta's magic system. It is skill based. Basically, each spell has a difficulty. Roll d20 + spellcraft - spell penalty. 10+ = successfully cast the spell. After each spell, you get a cumulative -1 to your spellcraft skill for the day. If you get a 20+ on your casting roll you don't get the penalty. That way a highly skilled caster can cast a ton of low level spells without difficulty. Check it out for free at the official Talislanta website.
Someday I'll make a Talislanta/Pathfinder hybrid system.
Yes, and some of the mechanics in the monk bag don't fit with mediaeval europe. Those that don't fit need to be removed, and replaced with something that does fit. As I said, as is the monk doesn't fit, loose some really eastern mechanics, add in or strengthen a few general mechanics, and I could see allowing that in. But at that point it's not a monk anymore, is it?
A class is just a bag of mechanics. You can fluff it however you like. The bard could be the commander who knows a lot weird stuff(bardic knowledge), and knows how to inspire people to do better even if he can't fight that well himself.
What is an eastern mechanic? <---Out of curiosity?
It depends on what your idea of a monk is. Some monks are just a type of priest with no martial arts training at all.PS:I am not telling you what to put in your game. I was just curious since the name of a class never mattered to me.
Natural Spell ;pIn both 3.0 and 3.5, the most unbalanced book was the PHB ;p.Moreso than Mongoose's splatbooks?
I loved Ultimate Feats, but there was some gamebreaking stuff in there... especially when combined with the Complete Warrior (which I know was WotC).
That reminds me of the time I sat quietly while the druid was disjuncted.
At the time I really didn't care that it didn't work on creatures, the guy was a complete jackass.
If I recall, the archmage kept his spell progression and if the druid attempted to shift out of his human form he had a 75% chance of instantly killing himself from system shock.
That is why you never try crap like using animal growth on yourself while in wild shape A: When the DM is already quite techy with you, and B: When I'm right next to you and I know the rules better than you do.
I love how everyone is getting all uppity about what James Jacobs has said. If you like their current products I'm certain you'll at least give their take on Psionics a glance. Who knows you might even like it. I personally hate the Vancian system myself but I will most likely peruse the Paizo product and I might even purchase it. It just really seems to me that a lot of people are getting mad at something that may not even get started and which currently does not exist. This is the equivalent of getting mad at a story that hasn't been written yet or a movie that is just in the rumor stage. Something to think about before you post.
What would you call such a system though?
better
Despite what some people are saying here, I can't think of any literary source that describes a points-based magic system.
Zelazny's Amber series
|
|
And again... Paizo won't be doing much at all with Psionics in 2010, 2011, or likely even 2012. We're still YEARS away from devoting actual design time to the topic. It's not something we're champing at the bit to get started on, primarily because of all the hurdles and stumbling blocks I've outlined on this thread.
A++ for using "chAmping at the bit" properly. It's a pet peeve of mine to see it misspelled/mispronounced.
|
|
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . . why should a mage?
I used to agree with you completely until I had it explained thusly:
Casting magic takes a serious amount of time and effort for those to whom it does not come naturally (ie - sorcerers, etc). Magic is by nature ritualistic and far too time consuming to be of use in combat for wizards and other preparation based casters. As such, they are actually casting their spells when they prepare them, and holding the energy until such time as they need to release it, hence why the spell disappears from the mind when it is cast.
Now, if you want to argue that Sorcerers should have a point system and not be bound by a Vancian style magic, I will politely bow out as the above explanation no longer applies.
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . . why should a mage?
I used to agree with you completely until I had it explained thusly:
Casting magic takes a serious amount of time and effort for those to whom it does not come naturally (ie - sorcerers, etc). Magic is by nature ritualistic and far too time consuming to be of use in combat for wizards and other preparation based casters. As such, they are actually casting their spells when they prepare them, and holding the energy until such time as they need to release it, hence why the spell disappears from the mind when it is cast.
Now, if you want to argue that Sorcerers should have a point system and not be bound by a Vancian style magic, I will politely bow out as the above explanation no longer applies.
Hey, sorcerers have to meditate for 15 minutes to keep their thoughts organized, since they operate more like a traditional magician with knowing a few spells and being able to cast them as they go.
I wouldn't do a point system just because it's too abusable. Spellcasters already win any encounter just by casting from their highest level slots twice, why let them do it for every other encounter?
|
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . . why should a mage?
I used to agree with you completely until I had it explained thusly:
Casting magic takes a serious amount of time and effort for those to whom it does not come naturally (ie - sorcerers, etc). Magic is by nature ritualistic and far too time consuming to be of use in combat for wizards and other preparation based casters. As such, they are actually casting their spells when they prepare them, and holding the energy until such time as they need to release it, hence why the spell disappears from the mind when it is cast.
Now, if you want to argue that Sorcerers should have a point system and not be bound by a Vancian style magic, I will politely bow out as the above explanation no longer applies.
I've seen plenty of perfectly applicable explanation of vancian magic. The problem is that they always require me to stretch my thinking a little to make it work. While that's okay from an "it's magic" perspective, it's not okay when I try to introduce a new player to magic and they go "what's a spell slot?" The explanation takes a bit to sink in. If I introduced that same person to a spell point system of some form I can just say "it's like mana" and be done with it. So much simpler.
I do have a spell point variant worked up, but I'm still waiting for an opportunity to playtest it. I'll probably give my players the option to either try it now (retcon their characters) or wait until the next campaign (given that my players are getting brave, that might not be too long from now).I can see how some may enjoy Vancian magic, but it's just not for me. It's never felt right in any way. I'd much rather spend a few sessions (and a few days of personal time) grinding out the details on a spell point system that I can keep for years to come than stick with that feeling of awkwardness I get from it.
I find the calls that the game need to be based in medieval Europe odd in the game with ren-era plate mail, stoneman clubs and greatclubs, pre-christiandom druids, and greek style pantheons.
BUT MONKS.
THAT'S TOO FAR.
|
|
Your interp. of a wizard's actions makes sense, I'll admit, but it's a lot less elegant (to me) than alternative systems.
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . . why should a mage?
Casting magic takes a serious amount of time and effort for those to whom it does not come naturally (ie - sorcerers, etc). Magic is by nature ritualistic and far too time consuming to be of use in combat for wizards and other preparation based casters. As such, they are actually casting their spells when they prepare them, and holding the energy until such time as they need to release it, hence why the spell disappears from the mind when it is cast.
I'll admit, I mostly stick with the Vancian system because of A) game balance, and B) that's what's in the core book and I don't like [read: too darn lazy] to make any house ruling that eats up more than three sentences.
As far as the psionics argument, I'd rather Paizo leave it be and just let people use the EPH. It wasn't the best system, but I don't see how re-iventing it as Vancian would do anybody any good, as it becomes just another spellcaster and loses its flavor as being something different.
Then again, Paizo has been good for surprising me with turning bad ideas into good ones, so I'm going to remain largely mute on the subject.
Why did I comment again? Oh, right, obsessive compulsive need to spit out an opinion no matter how mild and wishy-washy it may be...
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . .
Four of my players wooted when the read this just now, so:
+1+1
+1
+1
and my personal +1
That said, writing adventurers where you can't be certain just hoe the players will react can be intimidating, and the only valid reason I can see for sticking to the Vancian style.
I run a spell point system cobbed from the HypertextD20 site. One of my players has provided Mana tokens from some card game so players can keep track of said points. The only real downside is when my poker minded players start with 'all in' and other terms I don't know. comments like "I don't think I have enough (glass) beads to fight this fight." and a Dirty Harry "Feel lucky, punk?" wise crack.
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . . why should a mage?
I used to agree with you completely until I had it explained thusly:
Casting magic takes a serious amount of time and effort for those to whom it does not come naturally (ie - sorcerers, etc). Magic is by nature ritualistic and far too time consuming to be of use in combat for wizards and other preparation based casters. As such, they are actually casting their spells when they prepare them, and holding the energy until such time as they need to release it, hence why the spell disappears from the mind when it is cast.
Now, if you want to argue that Sorcerers should have a point system and not be bound by a Vancian style magic, I will politely bow out as the above explanation no longer applies.
Hey, sorcerers have to meditate for 15 minutes to keep their thoughts organized, since they operate more like a traditional magician with knowing a few spells and being able to cast them as they go.
I wouldn't do a point system just because it's too abusable. Spellcasters already win any encounter just by casting from their highest level slots twice, why let them do it for every other encounter?
They run out of spells to quickly like that. Some DM's are nice and let players rest whenever/where ever they want without consequences, but resting in the middle of dungeons(inhabited ones) is generally a bad idea.
4) Vancian casting strikes me as completely, totally illogical. A great musician doesn't forget their best performance piece after playing it more than once a day. . .Four of my players wooted when the read this just now, so:
+1
+1
+1
+1
and my personal +1
Depends what you're comparing the wizard to. When I let the kids destroy my sandcastle or when I drop the first out of a series of 300 falling dominos, I also don't forget how to do it, but it will take me a while before I can do it again.
What you describe is like a sorcerer, his repertoire is smaller but he can play the songs he wants, in the order he wants, until he gets too exhausted to continue and need to rest.
A Vancian wizard is like a walking magic crossbow: it takes a while to load him, but all he needs to do is to pull the trigger and you've got the best weapon of the arsenal. Once the bolt is released, your "crossbow" is useless until it gets reloaded.
There are many more allegories which make a lot of sense "logically", but you have to pick the right ones within the context of Vancian magic.
[edit] ninja'd by Senevri
If and when we do psionics, I can say that there's a 100% chance that it'll have a HUGE open playtest. We aren't abandoning the open playtest format anytime soon—it's been an enormously helpful process and resource. Psionics (and epic rules, for that matter) are a significant expansion to the rules, and playtesting them in public forums is absolutely going to happen.
That said... we will NOT be creating two different versions of the rules to playtest. We'll pick one or the other (power points OR Vancian) and run with it from the start. Opening that decision up to the public for what would essentially be interpreted as a vote is not a good idea.
And this is why I'll support your company as long as you guys are willing to keep doing the open playtests. Kudos for having the... dice to actually open up your work to the public.
I do hope you guys do eventually do a psionic book. Even the stuff I don't really care for I'm still at least ok with. I Summoners do nothing for me still but I am surprised you guys got me liking Alchemists, so I'd really like to see what you guys can do with Psionics.
Yes, and some of the mechanics in the monk bag don't fit with mediaeval europe. Those that don't fit need to be removed, and replaced with something that does fit. As I said, as is the monk doesn't fit, loose some really eastern mechanics, add in or strengthen a few general mechanics, and I could see allowing that in. But at that point it's not a monk anymore, is it?
A class is just a bag of mechanics. You can fluff it however you like. The bard could be the commander who knows a lot weird stuff(bardic knowledge), and knows how to inspire people to do better even if he can't fight that well himself.
Honestly most of the classes wouldn't fit with medleival europe. In western style fantasy you can do what ever you want. My group played an Arthurian style game which had monks that fit right in. It was a peasant fighting style meant to deal with knights, like the PCs, since the peasants didn't have real weapons and armor. It was one of my favorite games.
Depends what you're comparing the wizard to. When I let the kids destroy my sandcastle or when I drop the first out of a series of 300 falling dominos, I also don't forget how to do it, but it will take me a while before I can do it again.
What you describe is like a sorcerer, his repertoire is smaller but he can play the songs he wants, in the order he wants, until he gets too exhausted to continue and need to rest.
A Vancian wizard is like a walking magic crossbow: it takes a while to load him, but all he needs to do is to pull the trigger and you've got the best weapon of the arsenal. Once the bolt is released, your "crossbow" is useless until it gets reloaded.
There are many more allegories which make a lot of sense "logically", but you have to pick the right ones within the context of Vancian magic.
[edit] ninja'd by Senevri
You can kinda explain prepared casting that way (it makes some sense, albeit being easily the least intuitive way of handling magic ever conceived by humanity), but how does that work for spontaneous casters? They no longer have the mental energy to cast another fireball today, but somehow do have enough to cast three magic missiles, a silent image, an enlarge person, a color spray, two levitates, a see invisibility, and two scorching rays? That's like...completely nonsensical.
Yes, and some of the mechanics in the monk bag don't fit with mediaeval europe. Those that don't fit need to be removed, and replaced with something that does fit. As I said, as is the monk doesn't fit, loose some really eastern mechanics, add in or strengthen a few general mechanics, and I could see allowing that in. But at that point it's not a monk anymore, is it?
A class is just a bag of mechanics. You can fluff it however you like. The bard could be the commander who knows a lot weird stuff(bardic knowledge), and knows how to inspire people to do better even if he can't fight that well himself.What is an eastern mechanic? <---Out of curiosity?
It depends on what your idea of a monk is. Some monks are just a type of priest with no martial arts training at all.PS:I am not telling you what to put in your game. I was just curious since the name of a class never mattered to me.
There's a perfectly good topic for this exact discussion over here. ;-)
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/doMonksFitTheGenre
Yes, and some of the mechanics in the monk bag don't fit with mediaeval europe. Those that don't fit need to be removed, and replaced with something that does fit. As I said, as is the monk doesn't fit, loose some really eastern mechanics, add in or strengthen a few general mechanics, and I could see allowing that in. But at that point it's not a monk anymore, is it?
A class is just a bag of mechanics. You can fluff it however you like. The bard could be the commander who knows a lot weird stuff(bardic knowledge), and knows how to inspire people to do better even if he can't fight that well himself.What is an eastern mechanic? <---Out of curiosity?
It depends on what your idea of a monk is. Some monks are just a type of priest with no martial arts training at all.PS:I am not telling you what to put in your game. I was just curious since the name of a class never mattered to me.
There's a perfectly good topic for this exact discussion over here. ;-)
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/doMonksFitTheGenre
I remember there being a thread here somewhere, but I could not remember the title.
*Really wants to know who originally decided to call it "Vancian"*
|
Wow. Won't be purchasing this book.
So, essentially, by basing Psion spells on Vancian magic, you've created a...wait for it...a sorceror! Woohoo! And then renamed it a Psion and gave it at will powers or something.
People liked the Psion not just because it was psychic, they liked it for the powerpoint mechanic. In one fell swoop, you've probably just assured this book will never see the light of day.
Take the top twenty biggest selling fantasy books of all time. How often does the word "Magic" appear in the books in that list? How often does the word "Psion" appear?
How often does it work in the Vancian style?
Harry Dresden has an inner focus of energy he depletes when he uses magic. Every so often he can overchannel himself to create bigger and more powerful spells, though at cost to his actual physical health.
Hmmm. What does that sound like?
Here's the lynchpin you're missing - psionics is magic.
Ok, "mediaeval Europe" is still fairly vague and nebulous since depending on which scholars you ask you get a time frame of ~400-1650 AD. But the reason I keep saying mediaeval Europe is because what I am used to for fantasy (or fantasy-like) is Lord of the Rings, King Arthur mythology, Germanic mythology, Tamora Pierce's work, Song of Fire and Ice and so on. Very classical (some may say stereotypical) fantasy settings. Yes, Tolkien, Pierce, and Martin do have none-European-culture themed cultures and areas in their books. All of these cultures aren't encountered in the main areas of the books except under extremely special circumstances. The Haradrim in LotR are described as pseudo-Persians, but they're encountered only in Gondor as enemy soldiers, never anywhere else. In Peirce's Tortall universe there is a psuedo-Japanese country, Yamani, but there the only people from there that are ever met are ambassadors and princess who is betrothed to the prince of the European-style nation in the books. Other then that there are non-European-style kingdoms but they're only briefly mentioned as existing and that is it. In Song of Fire and Ice, Martin has some none-European-style nations but they are far away, and for the time being only minor parts of side stories (yes, I know Daenerys will have a HUGE part to play, but she hasn't yet).I find the calls that the game need to be based in medieval Europe odd in the game with ren-era plate mail, stoneman clubs and greatclubs, pre-christiandom druids, and greek style pantheons.
BUT MONKS.
THAT'S TOO FAR.
Here's the thing - that's not medieval Europe.
What you are describe is a high fantasy setting based on a pastiche of other high fantasy settings. Tell me about the druids who change into animal forms found in the forests in those books. Well, you can't; they aren't there. Tell me about the wizards who throw bat guano around to cast fireball. Or are they also conspicuously missing? The clerics who channel divine energy to turn undead? Or are we still running on empty? How many of them wield clubs? How often do they fight dragons, or liches, or any D&D monster that's classified as an aberration?
Hell, how many of them have dungeons? That's half the game name right there!
None of these very D&D elements appear in any of your ideal settings.
The other problem is that none of these books make for good D&D. There's a whole webcomic dedicated towards mocking the idea of LotR played as a tabletop game. Martin? ASoFaI has it's own game - and even without it, it's far more GURPS then it is D&D. I'm admittingly unfamiliar with Tortall, but I'd put money down it would have the same problems.
*Really wants to know who originally decided to call it "Vancian"*
Gary Gygax. He specifically related the magic system in D&D to that of Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" books. Hence, "Vancian".
Wow. Won't be purchasing this book.
So, essentially, by basing Psion spells on Vancian magic, you've created a...wait for it...a sorceror! Woohoo! And then renamed it a Psion and gave it at will powers or something.
People liked the Psion not just because it was psychic, they liked it for the powerpoint mechanic. In one fell swoop, you've probably just assured this book will never see the light of day.
Judging by how many people posting above liked the idea of a "Vancian" style psionics / mind magic system, I'd say you're mistaken. While I could personally go with either Vancian or point based magic systems (and have used both) I think the massive investment in the current system (in terms of the classes, game balance issues, spells, magic items, etc.) makes it a better choice for the PF system. That being said a complete rework into a point based system (probably by a 3pp) would certainly be an entertaing read even if I didn't use it...
So far, one of Paizo's core underlying philosophies has been to create books that people WANT to buy. We've been in the business for a long time, and I think we have a pretty good idea of what types of books our customers want, and judging from how well Paizo's doing these days, we're pretty good at creating books folks want to buy.
The PRIMARY problem with psionics, and the main reason we're so hesitant to do anything with it any time soon, is that there's not a real clear frontrunner on how to do the rules. It does seem relatively evenly split. And given that case, the only responsible way to proceed, in my opinion, is to choose the "side" that most closely aligns with the type of game we at Paizo want Pathfinder to be. That just happens, in this case, to be abandoning the power-point system.
From what I have gathered, the power point system isn't the biggest issue people have with the 3.5 psionics model, and it's the thing that the majority of the psionics fans want to keep. That said, I think you are making the correct decision for yourselves, because I can see in the products that you guys are passionate about what you do and thus you do it well. I'd rather you did something you were passionate about rather than something you felt lukewarm about.
I think the decision you have made is the right one: Those who love the old system can continue to use it or DSP's upgrade to it, and it won't clash with your system even if they use both in the same game. It's the best compromise to keep everyone happy do far as I can see.
As for the whole Vancian magic thing, there are spell-point systems out there for those that want to use them instead of standard Vancian casting. Maybe Paizo can include one in an appendix of Ultimate Magic? Who knows!
|
|
While I understand that the Vancian system isn't everyone's favorite... it IS a favorite system for the vast majority of those who play this game, regardless of its edition.
Yeah, possibly, for spellcasters. It is rather distinctively psionic, though.
Put it this way: changing psionics from pp to vancian is like going from 3.5 to 4e.