Won't happen. This has been brought up alot, but dreamscarred press makes psionics and the paizo staff seems to think thats the way it should continue.
I guess they don't want psionics to be an official part of the system.
James Jacobs has mentioned a myriad of times how the continent of Casmaron is steeped in "psychic magic," and that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting won't really be going there until Paizo is ready to tackle that particular mechanic, however they choose to.
So I believe it's something that is desired, but not still to be scheduled or announced.
They really don't have a need to. Dreamscarred Press' work on PF compatible psionics is superb.
Their has been passing mention of Paizo doing psychic magic, but from James Jacobs and others it sounds like it will probably be a novel system, and not a rehashing/mod/update of the old Psionic rules
I imagine it will be kind of how Paizo hasn't updated epic rules, but has instead created the mythic system to accomplish a lot of the same things.
I have no interest in third party products and would love to see Paizo's version of psionic/psychic magic.
I have no interest in third party products...Too bad... you're missing out on some great stuff!
Indeed. I don't actually have the books but what I've seen from them is very nifty.
Though I think a big problem people will run into is a GM that says "Official Paizo only", which I know a lot of GMs seem to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's sad about only Official Paizo stuff; Dreamscarred Press did such a good job with Psionics it's not even funny.
I really can not blame people for not allowing 3PP. A LOT of it is pretty hit and miss. Some is great yes but is it really reasonable to expect someone to trudge through to find what is good?
I really can not blame people for not allowing 3PP. A LOT of it is pretty hit and miss. Some is great yes but is it really reasonable to expect someone to trudge through to find what is good?
Alternatively, they heard silly stories like this without actually testing the stuff themselves, which is usually the case. And really, the limitations of cool and creative choices is what makes for a poor DM in my eyes rather than that who can incorporate new and cool stuff into the game. This is especially true when so many canonical settings are already very varied in their repertoire of races, classes and themes. Hell, Golarion is on that same scale up there with Forgotten Realms and Eberron yet I still see morons who claim they are competent DMs while saying stuff like "human only" or other **** like that. And yeah, my game didn't break when I made a DMPC of my homebrew race in it. She actually helped as much as needed, and the players were happy!!
Firstly comparing something like a "human only" game to not using 3PP is a bit out there. Those two things are not even close to the same.
I personally don't like say "core only" games. But am still able to understand leaving 3PP off the table. Yes there is some good stuff out there and I like the PU. I would even call it the best of the 3PP.
Still I am not going to throw a hissy fit is someone does not want to dig through it all. Most table top gamers I know are people with jobs and family that don't have the time to go through it all. Don't even try and tell me the bad 3PP stuff is just "stories" Even just skimming over the 3PP on PFSRD its not hard to find questionable stuff.
yet I still see morons who claim they are competent DMs while saying stuff like "human only" or other **** like that.
It could be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes fun, rather than intellect or competence.
I really can not blame people for not allowing 3PP. A LOT of it is pretty hit and miss. Some is great yes but is it really reasonable to expect someone to trudge through to find what is good?Alternatively, they heard silly stories like this without actually testing the stuff themselves, which is usually the case. And really, the limitations of cool and creative choices is what makes for a poor DM in my eyes rather than that who can incorporate new and cool stuff into the game. This is especially true when so many canonical settings are already very varied in their repertoire of races, classes and themes. Hell, Golarion is on that same scale up there with Forgotten Realms and Eberron yet I still see morons who claim they are competent DMs while saying stuff like "human only" or other **** like that. And yeah, my game didn't break when I made a DMPC of my homebrew race in it. She actually helped as much as needed, and the players were happy!!
Eh. I don't allow things from books I don't own (which precludes 99.99% of all 3PP stuff right now), even if my players do. It's not that I don't trust 'em, it's just that for me to use it I'd be reliant on somebody else' stuff and I still wouldn't know it nearly as well as they probably do.
Once we're done with Carrion Crown though I think I may buy the Psionics Unleashed (that's what it's called isn't it?) stuff and maybe morph an AP into a sort of futuristic setting.
Skull and Shackles or Kingmaker might be interesting with sci-fi bents to them.
@Heine Stick
My worst experiences of playing D&D /PF over the years came with a restrictive DM, and my best ones are from campaigns that were very free with things like race and class. The former group disbanded soon after I got fed up with the DM's antics, and the latter is still going on with the players eagerly awaiting the next session. I don't really see a problem with my choices (such as my preference of playing homebrew races) if the other players are okay with them (and so far they've always been), and I'm not destroying the lore of the setting. Hell, I've even made them their own story-lines in Pathfinder (and other settings) just to intergrate them into Golarion (and other worlds) instead of shoehorning them in. I also fail to see how that's "not good enough" for a DM, especially when I did the hard work there for him. Anyway, I think the stereotype of "all homebrew is bad" came about from poorly made homebrews in the past, which is kinda sad.
I just realized my hatred is directed at a stereotype and not a singular person. I wish it would just go die in a fire somewhere.
I don't really see a problem with my choices (such as my preference of playing homebrew races) if the other players are okay with it (and so far they've always been)...
Nor do I. I think it's awesome that you've found a gaming style that works for you and those you play with. I really do. Your posts gave me the impression that you think restrictive GMs are having wrongbadfun because they differ from your own and I responded to that.
If my posts have come across as me saying there's a problem with the way you play your games, then my posts've served to do the exact opposite of what they were intended to do and for that I apologize.
If a restrictive DM is forcefully imposing his view on four (more or less) people who'd otherwise be having fun playing the game with him, then I'd say he's killing the fun instead of doing badwrongfun. The latter is much worse a problem, though. There are people who like a given play-style, but if the people at your table don't like it, don't try to shove it down their throats. And by "you" I mean any potential DM who does so and not a singular person on this thread.
As for what you said Heine, I'm just responding with a general statement, not a refutation of what you said.
@ Icyshadow
My worst experiences with D&D/PF came with the least restrictive DMs. Players spending days and weeks going over every race and feat to try to tweak the most from their character without caring if any of it made sense. Players that scrap their characters within a few sessions because they "no longer like" the character. An entire campaign that just died, because of all the extra crap.
Me, and most of the GMs I play with have arbitrarily banned several classes including Monks, and Gunslingers. I add others, and most races outside of the Core Rulebook. Why, because I don't like them, I think they are overpowered, silly or just don't fit what I want in a FRPG.
It's bad for a GM to force his views on the game he is running down the throat of his players, but it is OK for the players to force their views down his throat? Why is that?
It should be awesome for both the players and the DM there, actually.Certainly but I suspect that is indeed the case for many of those groups.
This is certainly true with our group. For us, each campaign is defined to a significant extent by what is disallowed. Maybe we're all dwarfs, maybe we must each have spell casting abilities, etcetera. My absolute favourite DM always rolls up characters for us. Session one is us learning the new rules and seeing what character class/race he thinks we'll enjoy.
I don't go quite that far when I run games, but the "core only" approach (which is a pretty common restriction, no matter what system we're playing) is almost universally appreciated by players and DMs alike.
@ Icyshadow
My worst experiences with D&D/PF came with the least restrictive DMs. Players spending days and weeks going over every race and feat to try to tweak the most from their character without caring if any of it made sense. Players that scrap their characters within a few sessions because they "no longer like" the character. An entire campaign that just died, because of all the extra crap.
Me, and most of the GMs I play with have arbitrarily banned several classes including Monks, and Gunslingers. I add others, and most races outside of the Core Rulebook. Why, because I don't like them, I think they are overpowered, silly or just don't fit what I want in a FRPG.
It's bad for a GM to force his views on the game he is running down the throat of his players, but it is OK for the players to force their views down his throat? Why is that?
First off, not all homebrew (or outside Core) options are overpowered. The DM and the player should keep tabs on what is balanced for a given campaign. As for the "too many options" thing, the players at your table lacked focus. They didn't apparently know well enough what they wanted, so the players are at fault there and not the rules. Monks being banned is weird, but I can understand considering how horrid the class is in the current form, and I also get that Gunslingers don't fit all the settings on a thematic level.
So, were you trying to defy what I said earlier, or did you just give your view on this topic?
As for your final statement / question, a compromise should be reached so both sides of the table are happy.
It should be awesome for both the players and the DM there, actually.Certainly but I suspect that is indeed the case for many of those groups.This is certainly true with our group. For us, each campaign is defined to a significant extent by what is disallowed. Maybe we're all dwarfs, maybe we must each have spell casting abilities, etcetera. My absolute favourite DM always rolls up characters for us. Session one is us learning the new rules and seeing what character class/race he thinks we'll enjoy.
I don't go quite that far when I run games, but the "core only" approach (which is a pretty common restriction, no matter what system we're playing) is almost universally appreciated by players and DMs alike.
That kind of playstyle was brought up with my former DM once, and was met with utter disgust by everyone except the DM.
I think this discussion has reached a point where it's become pointless (and a tad derailing). We're talking play styles here and what works for some gamers doesn't work for others. This back-and-forth between the participants in this discussion clearly demonstrates that.
True, but the topic that sprang from it was interesting.
As for Psionics, the Paizo crew has said that they're working on it.
As for Psionics, the Paizo crew has said that they're working on it.
They have?
Last I saw it was said that IF they were to do something with psychic magic, they would probably approach it differently than what we saw in D&D 3.5. Settingwise, I've seen them say that they are unwilling to expand the regions in which psychic magic plays a part until they have anything mechanically to go with (such as a psychic magic system). It seems unlikely that they'd commit to anything before a book was announced. I might have misinterpreted, though.
My absolute favourite DM always rolls up characters for us.That kind of playstyle was brought up with my former DM once, and was met with utter disgust by everyone except the DM.
Although we obviously like quite different things, I certainly agree with you that a DM should try not to impose a playstyle on the players which they don't enjoy.
It works for us - his games are always awesome.
As for Psionics, the Paizo crew has said that they're working on it.They have?
Last I saw it was said that IF they were to do something with psychic magic, they would probably approach it differently than what we saw in D&D 3.5. Settingwise, I've seen them say that they are unwilling to expand the regions in which psychic magic plays a part until they have anything mechanically to go with (such as a psychic magic system). It seems unlikely that they'd commit to anything before a book was announced. I might have misinterpreted, though.
Well, I should have defined what I meant by "working on it", then. Because yeah, they're thinking of how to go about it.
Well, I should have defined what I meant by "working on it", then. Because yeah, they're thinking of how to go about it.
Hehe fair enough. I was worried you'd read some announcement I hadn't. :D
I know they said they have been thinking about how they want to handle psionics since the begining but how far they have gotten is anyone's gues. We could get it next year or 5 years from now but at least they will do it someday otherwise we will have unused places of interest in there world and that would suck.
I do not use third party stuff for multiple reasons..
experience with such products in the past.
balance isssues, I remember many games being ruined because of players with third party cheese.
never being a satisfied customer in the past.
I have bought several third party products for pathfinder didn't like any of them.
Minor issues such as low production values and bad art can be factors as well.
To me the best DMs are the ones who are nether extreme in what they allow and do not allow. In other words they are open minded but still think well on what they want in there game world.