No I would not think less of either. No my opinion would not be greater.
I am looking forward to official Paizo Epic Level and Psionics rules, like most everyone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would depend entirely on how well either of those things were done. If done well then it would only add to the ever increasing level of awesome that paizo has managed to achieve.
The only way I think they could damage my oppinion is if it is a carbon copy of what already exists but there is no chance of that ever happening.
|
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
The two aren't really comparable. There needs to be something at the Epic gaming level, just to keep things interesting. Psionics, though, is rather different. I would be disappointed if Paizo changed the Pathfinder rules such that any officially-sanctioned Pathfinder game had to allow Psionics. I feel that should always be a decision left in the hands of the GM.
I doubt that I would use either so no. I wouldn't really think less of Paizo or Pathfinder just because I don't want them, though. I know a lot of other people do.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be fine if neither made in appearance. Psionics for me says Sci-Fi not Fantasy, note that the UC firearms rules could have stayed locked away in a Paizoian brain rather than in print and I wouldn't have minded one bit. If I want wild-west I'll break out Boot Hill (TSR).
As for Epic rules, again no. Due to the open-ended nature of leveling Epic rules are just plain silly. By 20th level characters can already do basically everything. I just can't see the point? Would be interesting to know what Epic level play accomplishes.
In fact I'm happy with the rule sets as is. Problem with more books is more 'combos' and cracks in the rules appear until the system implodes under its own weight of rules. This has already happened with UM, but was errata'd quickly, more books equals more problems.
What I would be keen on would be hardbound versions, with updated materials if pre-PF, of the adventure paths. Sign me up for those.
My very own opinions,
S.
|
|
Psionics, though, is rather different. I would be disappointed if Paizo changed the Pathfinder rules such that any officially-sanctioned Pathfinder game had to allow Psionics. I feel that should always be a decision left in the hands of the GM.
Whether or not Paizo decides to put out any official psionics rules, there ARE psionics on Golarion. Especially in Vudra, the Darklands, and Castrovel, for example.
|
I would be very let down if psionics never got any support, considering that would mean no support for Vudra, Castrovel, etc.
There's plenty of room in a fantasy setting for mind powers. Their presence would not detract from my enjoyment of magic, dragons, or knights at all. There's room enough for it on Golarion.
|
|
Psionics, though, is rather different. I would be disappointed if Paizo changed the Pathfinder rules such that any officially-sanctioned Pathfinder game had to allow Psionics. I feel that should always be a decision left in the hands of the GM.Whether or not Paizo decides to put out any official psionics rules, there ARE psionics on Golarion. Especially in Vudra, the Darklands, and Castrovel, for example.
Sorry for my ignorance in Golarion matters, but, are these the general populous? I don't believe their is any problem having abilities/classes the PC can't have/be. I have no issue for example with Mind Flayers being a psionic race.
S.
|
|
Psionics, though, is rather different. I would be disappointed if Paizo changed the Pathfinder rules such that any officially-sanctioned Pathfinder game had to allow Psionics. I feel that should always be a decision left in the hands of the GM.Whether or not Paizo decides to put out any official psionics rules, there ARE psionics on Golarion. Especially in Vudra, the Darklands, and Castrovel, for example.Sorry for my ignorance in Golarion matters, but, are these the general populous? I don't believe their is any problem having abilities/classes the PC can't have/be. I have no issue for example with Mind Flayers being a psionic race.
S.
Yep. Those Vudrani mental mystics are mostly Vudrani humans. Rich history of psionics in their culture. Castrovel's main race is all psionic IIRC.
|
|
Psionics is such a divisive issue. Some people feel that Psionics is "too Sci Fi " for them. Now, although i don't share this point of view, i can see with terms like "ego whip" and " id insinuation" among other things, can lead people to associate Psionics with "Sci Fi".
There is also the rules issue. I am sure there are plenty of people that feel, because of bad experiences in the past with players abusing the psionic rules, "No way not in my game". And there are others who feel: "who needs a third kind of magic anyways.' this leads to some people feeling if it were done as something closer to a slot based system they would take a look at it. This leads to an impasse. I am sure there are plenty of psionic fans like myself, who like the system the way it is, and in short don't want our sacred cows done away with. After all one of Paizo's main selling points with Pathfinder, is its backwards compatability. I think Psionics Unleashed by Dream Scarred Press is an excellent product and it has scratched that psionic itch for me. So in short, in my opinion Paizo has no need to put out a psionics product.
If they are going to put out something "psionic" which is close to the vancian slot based system to support Vudra, i think that they should not even call it psionics, maybe mind magic or something like that. This way they neatly avoid a difficult situation where they might make a book that nobody least of all the psionic fans want.
So no I wouldn't mind if Paizo never printed a psionic book, and left the development of psionic materiel in the hands of Dreamscarred press.
On the subject of guns...well i feel the same way about guns that many people feel about psionics... Just as people feel psionics is too sci fi and they don't want them anywhere near their sword and sorcery fantasy game, I feel guns are too "western" (I'm looking at you revolver) and have no place in my sword and sorcery fantasy game. However, i realize Paizo publishes materiel for a much wider audience then a grognard like myself, and there are plenty of people who would like guns....so i guess it is better that they print rules for it then not. I do however think the rules are pretty well written.
Now if i was running a three musketeers game or "pirates of the Caribbean" game or a game based on Steven King's Dark tower series, then of course you need guns.
On the subject of Epic rules. I have been gaming since the early 80s, and only once, from 2000-2003 did I ever get a gaming group up to 20 level. most campaigns I have either played or ran ended between 10 to 12 level. So I have no experience with playing a 20+epic level game. I have the book, and I thought it was interesting. If paizo publishes an epic book, Ill buy it...but if they never do, I wont miss it.
Well those are my opinions, and hopefully I didn't ramble too long.
I am pretty much over my need for epic content. I have personally come to accept that 16th to 20th level is "epic". However, I still have a place in my stony little heart for epic rules, and I demand serious support for high level (really 13th to 20th).
On the other hand, I would actually be much happier if they didn't waste any time on psionics. I have never understood the (seemingly) widespread devotion to that bastard child of D&D. If it is to be included, I think it may be more useful to treat it as an alternate magic source, perhaps packaged in an alternate magic source-book.
Epic rules are something to look through; interesting, thought-provoking...and incredibly underutilized. Most of the fun of a game (imo) is in the journey. Trying to start Raistlin's Godslaying Service (No God Too Large!) might have been interesting to me when I was younger, but that would have been a loooooong time ago. =)
Psionics, on the other hand. Since the rise of Dark Sun in 2E psionics have been a mainstay in my games. Sure, they were pretty darn powerful back in the day. They became much less so in 3.x, and were relatively balanced. I agree that the naming conventions could use some work (Assault on Will instead of Ego Whip, maybe?) but as a system, they provide good choices for characters who like the feel of magic, but don't want to play yet -another- mage or it's variants. Psionic usage blends pretty well with a lot of classes, and with Psionic-Magic Transparency, doesn't cause many of the old conflicts with magic that were its' hallmark.
In a way, Psionics -are- like firearms. It took me forever to be willing to accept a firearm in a game...forever defined as 'until I bought Ultimate Combat'. But I like the tasteful way 'starting' firearms were handled (no, I don't like the advanced ones, different strokes and what have you) and as such, I just rolled up my first-ever gunslinger for today's game.
TL;DR - Epic, who cares, Psionics, yes please!
|
|
Problem I really have psionics is they are basically just spell-casters with a different mechanism. We have LOTS of spells that do lots of things, and if they produced a psion book at didn't just clone 'spells' already available I would be more interested. So as long as the psion powers aren't just mages who don't have somatic/material components to their 'spells' I would be interested. The reason I say psionics feels 'Sci-Fi' is that in Sci-Fi they are the 'spell casters'.
S.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psionics: I'd be okay with no PF psi books, on one condition: They call Psionics Unleashed the official psi rules of their choice and support them. If they don't want to do that, then we need a PF psi book.
Epic: We definitely need that.
Not only because both could be fun, but also because some people are almost making their refusal religious, and I want them to melt from their nerdrage. :D
|
|
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
1. I look forward to Paizo doing an epic level book, and I hope they take the idea of combining "epic" and "high level advice/alternate rules" into one big book. I think this is the plan and I applaud it.
2. Psionics are part of the setting, and so the rules need to happen. That being said they need to not make the same mistake WoTC did by creating an magic type that didn't overlap well with the existing system, effectively making two types of "resistances" and counter feat chains.
If they implement the concepts of Psionics (which are well liked by most everyone) into a better integrated system, I look forward to it.
If they try and roll out the mediocre WoTC version with an update...not so much...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
It wouldn't change my opinion of paizo (it's not that important).
I suspect it would make me think "less" of pathfinder, in the sense that there'd be more official rules I wasn't using. I guess that's a reasonable metric for "thinking less of". They've surprised me before, of course.
Regarding psionics:
My biggest issue with psionics is that it's 'psionics' and not mind-magic or something similar. In my mind, psionics and magic are one in the same: supernatural abilities. The existing magic system is my least favorite aspect of Pathfinder (to put it bluntly, I'd say I absolutely hate how magic is handled) and psionics is not much better. Magic is handled like some charge-and-release 'magick' clone, while psionics is left with a mana-point system (power points, fatigue points, chakra points, spell points, oatmeal points, or whatever) with very limited powers.
The best solution would be to merge how psionics function with the magic system, ditch the spell components, and work out some manner of spell/power recharge-over-time approach. The reason this solution will never see the light of day can be blamed on 3.5 compatibility, the need to flavor every spell with unnecessary ceremony, and a melee specialist whining about why he can't create demiplanes, heal the sick, or make monsters.
Regarding post-20 rules:
I'd like to see this eventually, if only to gut it and scavenge the tasty bits. I made the Epic Level Handbook work with only a few issues, so this addition shouldn't be a problem at all.
A quick summary:
Psionics? Why not. I don't see this anymore 'Sci-Fi' than a giant one-eyed floating head with eyestalks popping out all over the place. I've got less of a problem with mind 'magic' than I do with "wise" people getting their powers from deities.
Post-20 gameplay? Let's have it. No rush, of course, but I'd like to see it sometime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that could make me respect Paizo more than coming up with a quality epic rules system is if they failed to do so, pubicly admitted it, and then did not publish it. Admitting your failures and limitations is far more worthy of respect than celebrating your successes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much as dissapointed so much that if it nevers comes out I can always go back to 3.5 which has both. So in the end either way whatever happens its a win-win situation for me at least.
Just don't mix them. Pathfinder makes certain assumptions, and using the 3.5e ELH rules with Pathfinder assumptions makes certain things very favorable for the PCs.
For example, Pathfinder did away with XP cost for wish. No problem, it's not like there's 25,000gp of diamond dust hanging around every street corner. Unless, of course, you've taken the epic Ignore Material Components feat.
At that point, wishes are entirely free. This dawned on the wizard in my campaign last week, and she's going to spend the next 43 game days giving everyone a +5 inherent bonus to all their stats [she gave herself a +3 the first day, and from that day forward can cast 5 wishes per day).
Not a fatal problem; my interpretation is that if she uses the Pathfinder version of wish, it's far less powerful than the 3.5e version - she can still use the 3.5e version for more encompassing effects, and she'll be paying the XP cost. I'll also be re-reading the wish magic stuff from LoF again and putting that into play (with fair warning, of course).
It's stuff like that that's necessary to make high-level play work - just like I warned them that indiscriminate use of gate and plane shift has a tendency to attract attention (which is why finding little back door portals here and there is a very valuable thing).
In any event, the assumptions made at low levels have a great impact on what happens at high levels. Note that I'm counting all of levels 1-20 as "low" in this circumstance.
|
Both should be included in PF rules.
But that's not the real question. The real question is will we like the Paizo content. Although there's a lot I like, I still feel Paizo has done a poor job in balance for the newer classes and newer content. Although I expected this, it seems like that Paizo does not wish to address those issues as clearly as many would prefer, including me.
And the other question is support for those products. Like 2 APs for psionics, 2 APs for epic levels are minimum for supporting these rules, or else they will ultimately be ignored.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If Paizo never released supps detailing Epic gaming or psionic rules, would you think less of either Pathfinder, Paizo, or both? Or would your opinion be greater?
IMO, the game is not really a complete successor to D&D until it has both.
Then again, I'm a big fan of Dark Sun and you really need psionics and you mostly need epic to do that properly. It's tough to have proper sorcerer kings without both.
I may be in a minority, as I want the flavor of psi, but have yet to see mechanics I really like.
|
|
PSIONICS: I'd rather not, since I think Dreamscarred has already filled that niche. But as long as it's different enough from Dreamscarred Press's version that it doesn't step on their toes, I won't complain. They'd have to do one hell of an awesome job to win my favor over DSP, though.
EPIC: While I've never played EPIC (or MYTHIC) rules, I can definitely think up a ton of stories that could only be played at those high levels. How else are you going to stop an elder god from rising from the dead? You can't even take on a wyrm by yourself! Unless the GM wants to wuss out the stats for story's sake, he'll never be able to run it. I definitely want to see this.
If they do or don't, I won't lose respect for them. If they manage to do it in such a way that the fan base doesn't split down the middle with frothing nerd-vengence, they'll probably gain more. But I doubt that'll happen.
Given both items have a place in their established setting, I would be very disappointed if paizo didnt take a crack at both of these. There are fans of both psionics and epic level play that deserve support from paizo. If likes being the company flagshipping the most popular rpg in the industry, they shouldn't ignore significant sections of their fanbase.
Epic: I really do not care for post 20th rules. I find them far to clunky at 20th to want to go higher. I can do "epic" games without needing to even hit 20th level, much less past it.
Psionics: I really want to see psionics without the points. I do not care if they are Ki powers using existing spells or a new caster using the existing system. I want something that works with core and can be supported just as easy as the witch or the summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Availability (or lack) of epic and/or psionics rules wouldn't change my opinion of Paizo. It's like asking, "will you stop liking your favorite breadmaking company if they start making bubble gum and pond scum flavored bread?" If I don't want it in my sandwiches, I won't use them.
Both should be included in PF rules.
But that's not the real question. The real question is will we like the Paizo content. Although there's a lot I like, I still feel Paizo has done a poor job in balance for the newer classes and newer content. Although I expected this, it seems like that Paizo does not wish to address those issues as clearly as many would prefer, including me.
And the other question is support for those products. Like 2 APs for psionics, 2 APs for epic levels are minimum for supporting these rules, or else they will ultimately be ignored.
I'd put good money that you won't see even one epic level AP. There may be a 3 module campaign arc (or similar - maybe a larger page count 'super module') but I doubt they're going to take such an experimental step with the AP line.
I daresay a Vudran AP (showcasing the concurrently released mental magic rules) would be a better chance, though even that seems like a significant leap of faith in their customer loyalty from my perspective.
My groups never make it to epic level. So I wouldn't miss that, though I wouldn't think any more highly of Paizo for not putting it out.
Psionics... I dunno. It would have to blow me away, I think. Frankly, it would have to be different from how WoTC did it. I always found that a bit cumbersome.
I think simply having a psionic rule set that can be used as easily as the current classes in Ap's will go a long way to support. You do not need 2 pure Psionic Ap's when you can keep using the psion stuff in non psion AP's.
I think you will see the new "psychic" as often as you do witches, summoner, oracles and inquisitors. If it works as well with the core as they do.
And there lays the issue, Some "psion" fans only want an alt casting system that does not use the core spells. And as long as you have an add on, secondary casting system as the base for your psion's then you will never get the full integrated support the idea calls for.
You either get something you can't use in the page count or you end up having 2 versions One from the book and one reworked to make it fit with core rules. And that never works as you are still not supporting it.
I for one want "psychics " fully supported and used as often as any other of the new classes. And for that to happen it need a mass over haul and the points must go.
Even if I dont like what they come up with I wont think lesser of them. I am not the only gamer they have to satisfy. That is why I have never made a "don't make _____" thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather no rules over bad or strained rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather no rules over bad or strained rules.Considering that the rules for 15-20 become increasingly more strained and tending towards bad, I question how rules for 21+ will somehow magically fix this.
Totally agree. I can think of ways to fix psionics, but its hard to think of any way to fix post 20 that does not involve fixing per 20 game play as well.
I have to agree also. I am skeptical unless the game they effectively just make a new game with new rules, and disguise it as Pathfinder, but that won't go over well.
I would be interested to see what they do with both. It can't be any worse then some of the earlier incarnations.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Totally agree. I can think of ways to fix psionics, but its hard to think of any way to fix post 20 that does not involve fixing per 20 game play as well.I'd rather no rules over bad or strained rules.Considering that the rules for 15-20 become increasingly more strained and tending towards bad, I question how rules for 21+ will somehow magically fix this.
I think they should do GameMastery Guide: High Level Campaigns and address these issues BEFORE they attempt to do anything with Mythic levels. There's a lot of material that can be covered there and it would nicely wrap up everything covered in the core book. At that point they could develop the Mythic material with a solid foundation under them. More importantly, the people who have no interest in Mythic level play would have all the tools they need to play through all 20 core levels.
SM
I think they should do GameMastery Guide: High Level Campaigns and address these issues BEFORE they attempt to do anything with Mythic levels. There's a lot of material that can be covered there and it would nicely wrap up everything covered in the core book. At that point they could develop the Mythic material with a solid foundation under them. More importantly, the people who have no interest in Mythic level play would have all the tools they need to play through all 20 core levels.
SM
I am not sure it can be address without rebuilding. The system works fine on the lower end, but the higher you climb the less it works. A "How to" guide isn't gonna cut it.
Totally agree. I can think of ways to fix psionics, but its hard to think of any way to fix post 20 that does not involve fixing per 20 game play as well.I'd rather no rules over bad or strained rules.Considering that the rules for 15-20 become increasingly more strained and tending towards bad, I question how rules for 21+ will somehow magically fix this.
Between those who would nerdrage at the idea that "sci-fi" as they see it has entered their system, and the others that see anything not using PP as an abomination it is hard to do. We have been done this road enough times to know Vanican won't satisfy the masses.
I was hoping Words of Power would be a compromise, and I thought it was an early playtest, but I don't like the way they work, and they don't seem to be popular.
I am not sure it can be address without rebuilding. The system works fine on the lower end, but the higher you climb the less it works. A "How to" guide isn't gonna cut it.
I think they should do GameMastery Guide: High Level Campaigns and address these issues BEFORE they attempt to do anything with Mythic levels. There's a lot of material that can be covered there and it would nicely wrap up everything covered in the core book. At that point they could develop the Mythic material with a solid foundation under them. More importantly, the people who have no interest in Mythic level play would have all the tools they need to play through all 20 core levels.
SM
+1
Between those who would nerdrage at the idea that "sci-fi" as they see it has entered their system, and the others that see anything not using PP as an abomination it is hard to do. We have been done this road enough times to know Vanican won't satisfy the masses.I was hoping Words of Power would be a compromise, and I thought it was an early playtest, but I don't like the way they work, and they don't seem to be popular.
Yeah we have, but the fact remains that it will have to use core spells and it can't be the 3.5 system, if they want it supported.
I kinda do like WoP, but it needs some work. It still feels over complex to me, but I have not gotten to use it much to give it a good test run.
I do like the idea of having "Ki points" and "sets "of spell SLA's at set levels. That might be a fun way to go that is both different and works easily with the current system.