Paizo has not plans to make psionic rules for some time. When they do make such rules it will be using the Vancian system just like every other caster. They will not be making the 3.5 system.
Deamscarred press is doing an update with the 3.5 psionic system however. You might want to check there.
..that's neither here nor there.
The epic saga-length topics on the matter suggest otherwise! :)
Feel free to search for the threads and read em, but don't resurrect them. Some times necromancy is a bad thing.
Oh and welcome to the boards Hands DJNMahalaleel some Rum
Yes - before the shouting starts:
Dreamscarred are doing a re-work of the 3.5 psionics system for Pathfinder using the Pathfinder ethos.
Paizo's "psionics" system will not be called psionics (although it will have that mystic/mind-magic flavour) and will not clash with afore-mentioned system, so both can be run concurrently should the DM/players wish to do so.
Paizo's reasoning is:
A Vancian system will be easier to describe and include in adventures for those that do not own it.
They aren't enthusiasts/experts in the 3.5 psionics system anyway, and will leave it to the enthusiasts/experts.
Everybody wins, nobody loses out.
*runs screaming from the thread*
Paizo has not made any commitments to what, if anything, will be done with psionics.
They have not announced an alternate mind-magic based system. They have not announced that it will not be called psionics. They have not announced that it will use the Vancian system.
Mr. James Jacobs has repeatedly said that if (and/or when) Paizo gets around to it that he would like to replace the power point system with the Vancian system. But he has not decided yet, and won't be deciding for a while. He personaly is of the opinion that the power point system is broken and should be replaced. However the Paizo staff also doesn't want to alienate the hard core psionics fans, who want to keep the base system. (And why tick them off if they are the ones calling for it? Everybody else has said they want no part of it in their games.)
The decision has not yet been made and will not be made for at least a year, if not two or three more.
Yes, I've seen most of those comments - except the one about the power point system being broken, I haven't seen that anywhere. I have heard him say that no-one on the current Paizo staff is an expert on it, and that he doesn't want to include alternative mechanics in the official Pathfinder series because it makes designing adventures harder, and at the end of the day that's their main business.
Yes, I've seen most of those comments - except the one about the power point system being broken, I haven't seen that anywhere. I have heard him say that no-one on the current Paizo staff is an expert on it, and that he doesn't want to include alternative mechanics in the official Pathfinder series because it makes designing adventures harder, and at the end of the day that's their main business.
You know what? You're absolutely right. There has been much discussion over whether or not the pp system is broken, but Mr. Jacobs never said that himself.
I apologize. Both to the messageboards and James.
Funny. I was trying to make a point about not putting words in the Paizo staff's mouth and then go and do it myself! (Insert me smacking my own head here.) That's what I get.
S'OK, we all insert the size nines with ketchup now and again - I know I have. But you are correct, nothing is written in stone, but by the same token I can see why the direction indicated by those comments is the logical one - it annoys the least number of players, it gives both sides of the debate what they feel they want.
...When they do make such rules it will be using the Vancian system just like every other caster. They will not be making the 3.5 system.
Can you point me to a quote stating such? I have been away from the boards for a while. The last time I was around on a regular basis, some Paizo staff were indicating that they would prefer a slot-based system to prevent "nova" issues and to make inclusion of Psionic statblocks for APs easier, but they certainly hadn't made their decision at the time.
Paizo's "psionics" system will not be called psionics (although it will have that mystic/mind-magic flavour) and will not clash with afore-mentioned system, so both can be run concurrently should the DM/players wish to do so.
Paizo's reasoning is:
A Vancian system will be easier to describe and include in adventures for those that do not own it.
They aren't enthusiasts/experts in the 3.5 psionics system anyway, and will leave it to the enthusiasts/experts.
Same as above - is it possible to point me to a relevant quote where Paizo actually made a decision that it will use a slot-based system? I was aware of their preferences, but not that a decision has been made on this.
I have been away from regular prowling of the boards for a while save the occassional check-up and although I have read some of the interventing (long) psionics threads, I am out of the loop on this, so if anybody could find the relevant decision-making quotes, I would appreciate it. Thank you!
As a matter of interest, I was actually thinking myself of creating a hybrid system. I have been doing a lot of game design for my home game over the past year or so - for some reason, I find that I enjoy game design at least as much as actually playing the game.
Can you point me to a quote stating such? I have been away from the boards for a while. The last time I was around on a regular basis, some Paizo staff were indicating that they would prefer a slot-based system to prevent "nova" issues and to make inclusion of Psionic statblocks for APs easier, but they certainly hadn't made their decision at the time.
It was in one of the last monster Psion threads. He came right out and said when they did a psion book it would not be using the 3.5 point system but vancian casting. And it would not use the name.
I'll see if I can find a quote, but gods that is alot to dig though
|
Is this the quote you were thinking of?
The greatest disadvantage the power point system has is that it's not the system that everyone learns when they start playing Pathfinder. We already have a system for handling spells (and make no mistake, if/when we do psionics, they'll be handled as spells, not powers), and rewriting that system into a "same but different" system that basically forces players of psionic characters and GMs to re-learn an entire new system that, in the end, is supposed to accomplish the same effect as the system they already know, is in my opinion a waste of energy and resources.
That said, I know that a lot of fans of psionics DO like the point-based system. One of the most important things we need to do if and when we decide to tackle psionics is to figure out how we handle that fact. At this point, I would say that we'd just be up front about the fact that we're NOT going with a point based system and lay all our cards on the table, as it were. That way, for folks who want only a spell-point system, they'll know from the start that they're not getting that.
I am a pretty big fan of the FLAVOR of psionics, but not a fan of the point based system by which they've always functioned, in other words.
If you're a fan of psionics as a flavor of power, then I feel absolutely confident that Paizo can deliver to you a psionics solution you'll enjoy. If you're a fan of the point system, I'm confident you'll be disappointed.
Whether or not the disappointed fans outnumber the ones who won't mind or would welcome a move to the Vancian system (likely spontaneous casting like a sorcerer or oracle or bard) for psionics is one of the more complex elements of the problem we need to wrap our heads around. Because if the disappointed customers outnumber the ones who want it... that might convince us to leave psionics alone entirely and leave the development of them as a point-based system to a third party publisher. Or perhaps to put them off EVEN FURTHER and include them not in a psionics book but as part of some nebulous "Unearthed...
Here ya go
The greatest disadvantage the power point system has is that it's not the system that everyone learns when they start playing Pathfinder. We already have a system for handling spells (and make no mistake, if/when we do psionics, they'll be handled as spells, not powers), and rewriting that system into a "same but different" system that basically forces players of psionic characters and GMs to re-learn an entire new system that, in the end, is supposed to accomplish the same effect as the system they already know, is in my opinion a waste of energy and resources.
That said, I know that a lot of fans of psionics DO like the point-based system. One of the most important things we need to do if and when we decide to tackle psionics is to figure out how we handle that fact. At this point, I would say that we'd just be up front about the fact that we're NOT going with a point based system and lay all our cards on the table, as it were. That way, for folks who want only a spell-point system, they'll know from the start that they're not getting that.
I am a pretty big fan of the FLAVOR of psionics, but not a fan of the point based system by which they've always functioned, in other words.
If you're a fan of psionics as a flavor of power, then I feel absolutely confident that Paizo can deliver to you a psionics solution you'll enjoy. If you're a fan of the point system, I'm confident you'll be disappointed.
Whether or not the disappointed fans outnumber the ones who won't mind or would welcome a move to the Vancian system (likely spontaneous casting like a sorcerer or oracle or bard) for psionics is one of the more complex elements of the problem we need to wrap our heads around. Because if the disappointed customers outnumber the ones who want it... that might convince us to leave psionics alone entirely and leave the development of them as a point-based system to a third party publisher. Or perhaps to put them off EVEN FURTHER and include them not in a psionics book but as part of some nebulous "Unearthed...
Edit:lol ya ninjaed me by 30 or 40 secs Kevin
That's the one. He later went on to add (after much discussion on that thread) that the system wouldn't be called psionics and wouldn't have the class names or concepts from the 3.5 system either - in effect, it will be a 'different kind of magic', and that it wouldn't 'clash' with the 3.5 system that he acknowledges some are using in Pathfinder games already.
Thanks guys! So it does appear that the decision is made. I really appreciate it that you found the time to show me the confirming quote. :)
I think it is clever of them to ditch the name, Psionics, if they want to create a similarly-flavored system of magic using slot-based casting - it will ease the feelings of many of those who favor the power point system. I must say, however, that although not attached to the power point system, mechanical diversity of classes is something I enjoy (indeed one of my main dislikes of 4E is that all classes use the same mechanics), so for me this is a disappointing decision. I recognize that the mechanics for classes cannot be totally different for the sake of some similicity, but nonetheless I would have preferred them to take a different direction.
Oh well, at least their decision is clear and I guess I can concentrate on creating my own hybrid power point/slot-based system instead of waiting for a system from them.
Well there is always the Dreamscarred Press' update for the 3.5 system to Pathfinder if that's what you would prefer!
I did link their boards in the 2nd post of this thread. I agree with dabbler it's a win/win
Its the best part of role-playing games, no one can tell you what to do, just make suggestions.
I like the cut of your jib, son. Here, have a gold star!