It's also worth keeping in mind that until the last couple of decades sorcery and wizardry were considered one and the same thing in literary traditions.And they still are, in pretty much anything that isn't based on Dungeons & Dragons.
Not in Lawrence Watt-Evans books. In fact he has more than a half-dozen types of casters.
http://ethshar.wikia.com/wiki/MagicAnd in Sir pTerrys books, Sourcery is very different than Wizardry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that sorcerer power is 'internal' doesn't stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny.In that way Psionic Power points represent the sorcerer's flavor of being a natural magic user a lot better.
Ki might as well be psionic power points too.
Done that more than once. Play a Psychic Warrior with the Meditant archetype, use Expanded Knowledge to get an energy blast, and you've got a DBZ character. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will sometimes enjoy some character acting but I consider it icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I do not mind saying that Iam a mechanics first player. I might not be right to say D&D/PF is such a mechanic heavy system that you should really go look elsewhere for a story driven game where you really can do anything you want because they have no rules against it, unlike d20 system that does have rules, which would prevent many story driven actions because the character has nothing rule wise to accomplish such. Or another way of saying that is I am not a character acting obsessed role player and feel I am entitled to enjoy the use of mechanics as much as a role playeris entitled to flavored useage of fluff. As such, I enjoy Psionics for the use of the system itself. The favor is a minor enjoyment, the mechanics are my real enjoyment. I Iike several alternate resource systems like Psionics, Incarnum and Book of 9 Swords martial maneuvers, and I am not afraid to admit I like playing with different styles of toys or subsystems. I do not feel anyone is entitled to tell me I am wrong for being mechanicly driven first before character story driven.
*'Good' as in, thematically, where it completely fails to represent almost any sort of magic depicted in fiction or film *other* than the works of Jack Vance, ...
Other than the works of Glen Cook, Terry Pratchett, John Bellairs, Roger Zelazny , Joel Rosenberg, Lawrence Watt-Evans, Diane Duane, Mercedes Lackey, Margaret Weis... and more... you mean.
They all use Vancian magic, at least in some books for some types of users.
Weis is pretty explicitly a D&D author. Keeping her in the list is like noting Greenwood or Salvatore - sure they make things other than D&D, but, guys've got deep D&D-based roots.
Pratchett's a humorist and satirist who jokes about all the different fantasy styles, making him an odd duck to include as well.
I didn't really see Vanican in Lackey, or Cook, though it may just have been the books I've read by them.
I think there's a whole variant style created recently to model Zelazny which is different from the standard Vancian.
Diane Duane didn't really strike me as Vancian, but I think I only skimmed her books before forgetting about it. Not because it was bad, but because I was busy.
It's funny, if it were just to me, I would have sworn up and down I've read Watt-Evans, but I don't recognize anything in his bibliography.
I admit I don't know enough Bellairs or Rosenburg (who I've long desired to read) to really comment on them.
In the end, the majority of people that definitively use what I'd consider Vancian (to my recollection and knowledge which, I submit is limited) of the list would be either D&D authors or satirists... not really a solid recommendation for a style of casting beyond D&D. That said, it could just be that we're looking at "Vancian" differently.
Man, I wish my memory for names was better.
Adding to the list of "not Vancian" is Alexander C. Irvine, C. J. Cherryh, Rachel Caine, Jim C. Hines (and he's kind of semi-comedically built out of D&D-style RPG tropes!), John Moore (like Hines, only more of a satirist!), Dave Barry/Ridley Pearson, J. K. Rowling, Orson Scott Card, C. S. Friedman, and, of course, the "big one", Tolkien (which only makes sense, as he predated Vance by a little bit). None of these really contain any Vancian (to my reading), and thus aren't modeled well by that system
Don't get me wrong: I've fairly recently (last summer) run a PF-Harry Potter-themed one-shot adventure, and you can easily adjust Moore, Hines, Cherryh, Friedman, and Cain - you could probably alter some elements of Tolkien and Card to generate similar-ish characters as well. The d20 system, even with Vancian, is incredibly robust (though Words of Power might make for a better Potter-verse), though you might have to start going into increasing levels of "rules-light" the more "true" you cleave to different works original representation.
None of that is to negate your point (that some Vancian exists in written works) but to modify it: while Vancian does exist, it mostly exists in contexts that are either directly related to D&D (or Jack Vance) or humorous parodies of fantasy (including D&D) - most other works of fantasy (even by D&D-inspired or related authors) do something at least somewhat differently.
That said, I'm not actually opposed to Vancian magic showing up in games or books. It's not as elegant as many cases, and the "Fire and Forget" system is... weak... to me, outside of mages with learning disabilities, but I can (and generally do) accept it in the games I've run or the books I've read with it. It just isn't the same system most games are using.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to re-flavoring, not a fan. Concepts become clearer when flavor text and mechanics support each other. The big advantage a class system has over a skill system is that immediate association one gets when a single word (say fighter) can be used to not only produce a mental image, but also give a clear idea of what powers and skills you would have. Re-flavor and that advantage is lost, might as well be playing a skill based system.
That's called meta-gaming. And no, you really can't. See, beyond the very basic aspects of a class (such as "it casts spells" or "it has rage"), the classes in Pathfinder tend to be extremely varied. Even the ones that aren't well balanced.
You can take 10 fighters built by 10 different people and none of them play the same. At all. Clerics? Wildly different domains and their associated powers, some focused on offensive spellcasting and summoning, others resembling divine warriors akin to Paladins, some have animal companions, some spontaneously heal people while others spontaenously har them. How about Rangers? Same deal here. Druids? The sky is the limit (your character could revolve around summoning, shapeshifting, offensive blasting, healing, etc). Oracles? Don't even get me started on oracles.
Toss in archetypes and expanded material, new talents, the works and the water is muddied further and further and further and further. That's before we get into multiclassing.
In 3.x/Pathfinder, your class does not define you. It defines what you do. What you describe is akin to looking at this picture: "Scooby!" and declaring that it is not a Scooby Doo, it is a brown block.
It's like looking at a house made out of bricks and saying it's the same as a kiln made out of bricks which is the same as a tower made out of bricks which is the same as a wall made out of bricks. For the rest of us, we see a house, a kiln, a tower, and a wall.
Not to point any kind of accusing finger at anybody, by if I was GMing for Ashiel, I wouldn't stop her from saying her egoist/shaper combo was a witch, but she would at best be considered a bit eccentric, actual most people would consider her loony, and a true witch would find her claim to be insulting. Of course at her game table that may be just fine.
I'm glad that you aren't GMing for me. I would not play in a world where:
1. Everyone knows what you are because of a metagame statistic on your character sheet.
2. Where you have to conform to the basic fluff of a class. That would ruin my most fun characters, such as my Paladin of Wee Jass, who didn't call herself a Paladin but was a wandering warrior with a heart.
3. Where you are limited to whatever classes you have available to do a concept. If my sorcerer cannot be known as "Xalina the Summoner" because there is a summoner class, and if I want to be a summoner then I must have an eidolon instead of merely being an abyassal bloodline sorcerer. Or where if I wanted to play a "Ninja", I had to play the Ninja class instead of a Ranger/Monk.
4. Where a concept is ruined by game balance or mechanics. Not all classes are created equal. Fighters, Monks, and Rogues in core suffer from some serious problems. Cavaliers and Samurai aren't particularly noteworthy either. In some cases, the mechanics of a class (such as the vancian vs spontaneous vs psionic/mana pool) are just unfun to play to some people by comparison.
So if for some reason I don't really want to play a Paladin the class, I can't make a Cleric the class with the Strength and Good domains. Why? Because meta-gaming.
|
First...
I don't want the inclusion of any type of Mana point system in PF, that would include Psionics. I would hope that if Paizo did make a Psionic class (or book) that it would use a mechanic that would dump the point system or have a pool similar to the other classes in the PF universe.
Keep in mind, that isn't was Psi points are. They are the replacement of the castings per day (either by Vance or Spontain) instead of a pool of points to take advantage of certain auxiliary powers or augment the ones you already have.
Second...
Terry Pratchett firmly makes fun of the Vancian casting (and the awful depictions of magic use by certain authors of the past) by making a pitiful character (We all still love Rincewind, but he is pitiful) unable to do anything but keep an epic spell in his head. Oh, and he makes a horrible tour guide to boot.
Third...
Vancian casting needs to either change or be done away with in the next iteration of this game, be it PF ver2 or another. Having all Spontaneous Casting base their casting stat on Cha is getting tiresome. I go into it a bit more in another thread, but there is more than one or the other that can be done. The Arcanist is a good start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not play in a world where:
1. Everyone knows what you are because of a metagame statistic on your character sheet.
2. Where you have to conform to the basic fluff of a class. That would ruin my most fun characters, such as my Paladin of Wee Jass, who didn't call herself a Paladin but was a wandering warrior with a heart.
3. Where you are limited to whatever classes you have available to do a concept. If my sorcerer cannot be known as "Xalina the Summoner" because there is a summoner class, and if I want to be a summoner then I must have an eidolon instead of merely being an abyassal bloodline sorcerer. Or where if I wanted to play a "Ninja", I had to play the Ninja class instead of a Ranger/Monk.
4. Where a concept is ruined by game balance or mechanics. Not all classes are created equal. Fighters, Monks, and Rogues in core suffer from some serious problems. Cavaliers and Samurai aren't particularly noteworthy either. In some cases, the mechanics of a class (such as the vancian vs spontaneous vs psionic/mana pool) are just unfun to play to some people by comparison.
So if for some reason I don't really want to play a Paladin the class, I can't make a Cleric the class with the Strength and Good domains. Why? Because meta-gaming.
I'm with Ashiel in this one. I'd be very annoyed if my GM told me my choice of possible character concepts was limited to the class descriptions in the books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Ashiel in this one. I'd be very annoyed if my GM told me my possible character concepts were limited to the class descriptions in the books.I would not play in a world where:
1. Everyone knows what you are because of a metagame statistic on your character sheet.
2. Where you have to conform to the basic fluff of a class. That would ruin my most fun characters, such as my Paladin of Wee Jass, who didn't call herself a Paladin but was a wandering warrior with a heart.
3. Where you are limited to whatever classes you have available to do a concept. If my sorcerer cannot be known as "Xalina the Summoner" because there is a summoner class, and if I want to be a summoner then I must have an eidolon instead of merely being an abyassal bloodline sorcerer. Or where if I wanted to play a "Ninja", I had to play the Ninja class instead of a Ranger/Monk.
4. Where a concept is ruined by game balance or mechanics. Not all classes are created equal. Fighters, Monks, and Rogues in core suffer from some serious problems. Cavaliers and Samurai aren't particularly noteworthy either. In some cases, the mechanics of a class (such as the vancian vs spontaneous vs psionic/mana pool) are just unfun to play to some people by comparison.
So if for some reason I don't really want to play a Paladin the class, I can't make a Cleric the class with the Strength and Good domains. Why? Because meta-gaming.
Thirded. Aside from avoiding party conflict, I never restrict my players when it comes to how they want to flesh out their characters.
Thirded. Aside from avoiding party conflict, I never restrict my players when it comes to how they want to flesh out their characters.I'm with Ashiel in this one. I'd be very annoyed if my GM told me my possible character concepts were limited to the class descriptions in the books.I would not play in a world where:
1. Everyone knows what you are because of a metagame statistic on your character sheet.
2. Where you have to conform to the basic fluff of a class. That would ruin my most fun characters, such as my Paladin of Wee Jass, who didn't call herself a Paladin but was a wandering warrior with a heart.
3. Where you are limited to whatever classes you have available to do a concept. If my sorcerer cannot be known as "Xalina the Summoner" because there is a summoner class, and if I want to be a summoner then I must have an eidolon instead of merely being an abyassal bloodline sorcerer. Or where if I wanted to play a "Ninja", I had to play the Ninja class instead of a Ranger/Monk.
4. Where a concept is ruined by game balance or mechanics. Not all classes are created equal. Fighters, Monks, and Rogues in core suffer from some serious problems. Cavaliers and Samurai aren't particularly noteworthy either. In some cases, the mechanics of a class (such as the vancian vs spontaneous vs psionic/mana pool) are just unfun to play to some people by comparison.
So if for some reason I don't really want to play a Paladin the class, I can't make a Cleric the class with the Strength and Good domains. Why? Because meta-gaming.
Fourthed. In fact, I would encourage players to go outside the box on what they actually are. "Wizard" is just a general term for how they interact with magic.
First...
I don't want the inclusion of any type of Mana point system in PF, that would include Psionics. I would hope that if Paizo did make a Psionic class (or book) that it would use a mechanic that would dump the point system or have a pool similar to the other classes in the PF universe.
Keep in mind, that isn't was Psi points are. They are the replacement of the castings per day (either by Vance or Spontain) instead of a pool of points to take advantage of certain auxiliary powers or augment the ones you already have.
I'm curious what you mean by this. What mechanic would you suggest? How would it work? What kinds of point-pools do you mean? Like the Monk and Gunslinger? If so, how do you feel about the Quinggong archetype?
Second...
Terry Pratchett firmly makes fun of the Vancian casting (and the awful depictions of magic use by certain authors of the past) by making a pitiful character (We all still love Rincewind, but he is pitiful) unable to do anything but keep an epic spell in his head. Oh, and he makes a horrible tour guide to boot.
More or less what I meant. Also, Journey Quest.
Third...
Vancian casting needs to either change or be done away with in the next iteration of this game, be it PF ver2 or another. Having all Spontaneous Casting base their casting stat on Cha is getting tiresome. I go into it a bit more in another thread, but there is more than one or the other that can be done. The Arcanist is a good start.
Eh... I don't know. I understand what you're saying, and to some extent I agree, but I'm not sure it's going to go the way of the Dodo anytime soon, if only because it's too deeply ingrained in Gamer Culture to successfully eliminate entirely and still maintain a healthy game. Look at 4E v. PF, for example. While Vancian is only one aspect (and not one that I'm the most fond of), it's one of the major reasons that people rebelled against switching to the new edition. Some came to PF, some simply went to older editions they preferred. Thus, PF abandoning it may well fracture the base further.
THAT SAID, I mostly just want them to make a good game, regardless of how they do it.
... and I've really got to playtest the Arcanist at some point.
Further, even the way classes play can vary to extreme amounts on their own, even with things as simple as a different ability score array. For example, Clerics can be built in a variety of ways, and while many people enjoy playing their clerics pushing Wisdom as hard as possible like most arcane casters, I on the other hand lean towards clerics built more like warpriests who often have wisdom as a tertiary or even fourth stat emphasis.
For example, in a 15 PB game (the standard), I would consider a warpriest with the following statistics. 16, 12, 14, 10, 12, 7. Alternatively, I might tip it a bit and go 16, 13, 13, 10, 13, 7, which is also a good route to take, depending on your racial modifiers.
Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Dwarf are all good core options here. If we go the non-dwarf route, we have an 18 Strength starting out, and if we go the Dwarf route, we begin with a 16 Con and 14 Wisdom or a 15 Con and 15 Wisdom (depending on your goals).
For domains we take something like Strength, probably coupled with something like Liberation, War, or Nobility domains (Liberation is good for an unstoppable cleric, while war is good for one who wants to play a pseudo-tome of battle style character who changes his combat options round to round, while Nobility can grant you a squire or creature as a companion).
Realizing that the save DCs are effectively meaningless for buffs, healing, and summoning, we don't need a Wisdom score higher than what it takes to simply cast our spells. Anything else that we have is pure gravy and can be obtained through magic items or inherent bonuses as we go.
So our cleric ends up doing things like casting enlarge person and pounding enemies with her mace or longspear while wearing heavy armor (we spend a feat on it at 3rd level when heavy armor becomes more affordable), while enjoying the fact we have magic to bring to the party at low levels (before most of the martial goodies kick in proper). By 5th level, we can do things like cast animate dead to support the squishier casters (because things like bloody skeletons ordered to protect people can provide meatshields / soft cover to people, or draw opportunity attacks from enemies).
Depending on the options available, we can take things like Birthmark to not need to hold a holy symbol, and take item creation feats to enhance our gear, adding weapon effects such as merciful or spell storing (which is really awesome for delivering spells like inflict serious wounds or bestow curse).
At the end of the day, this cleric is going to look absolutely nothing like a cleric that rocks a super high Wisdom, lighter armor, and spams healing, summon monster, and hold spells, who tends to avoid combat and abhors undead.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So no power points but not a simple copy paste of sorcerer... maybe something like a toned down power point? Casting stat X 1/2 character level in psionic pool points and powers cost level X 2? Just thinking about a magus arcane pool or warpriest blessing system. Those are close to power points but a bit simpler to track. A happy middle ground maybe?
How can anyone complain about PP being complicated to track? Can you not track your own hit points? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just looking for a compromise option since I saw some PP hate earlier in the thread. Personally I loved expanded psionics. The 3rd party psionics books for pathfinder are about the only 3rd party products that have ever tempted me.So no power points but not a simple copy paste of sorcerer... maybe something like a toned down power point? Casting stat X 1/2 character level in psionic pool points and powers cost level X 2? Just thinking about a magus arcane pool or warpriest blessing system. Those are close to power points but a bit simpler to track. A happy middle ground maybe?How can anyone complain about PP being complicated to track? Can you not track your own hit points? O.o
I was just really confused by the post. Like, mind = blown confused. I've never been able to understand how "PP are confusing" is a valid criticism, nor actually believed that they were serious as opposed to just being dead-set against it and looking for excuses.
The reason of course being that PP are to spellcasters what HP is to...everyone (including spellcasters). If you can't track PP, you can't play a fighter, or a commoner, because you are incapable of tracking hit points. Given that I play with D&D/PF with pre-teenage children from time to time to give them something fun to do while their parents are doing other things, it seems odd to fathom that many of the RPG players on this forum find power points too complex.
It's a lot easier to track. When I spend PP, I have my total PP and PP spent. When the number in my PP spent reaches or would exceed my total, I can't cast anymore. Same as when my "damage taken" reaches or exceeds my total HP, I'm going to need a healer. :P
Contrast to core casting, where I need to list the number of different spells per day that I have of different spell levels. If we're dealing with prepared spellcasting such as with wizards or sorcerers, I need to note how many of each spell of each level I have, track which ones I've used, which ones I still have, which spells are available after I've exhausted spells of another spell level, etc. It's a lot more book keeping and micro-management, as opposed to.
PP Total = X, PP Spent = Y
Power Cost 1st (1), 2nd (3), 3rd (5), 4th (7), 5th (9), 6th (11), 7th (13), 8th (15), 9th (17)
List of Powers Known
List powers here.
Furthermore
There's also the fact that the core psionics is easier to learn for people because your old powers don't wear out and become useless due to augmenting (which is just spending more on them like higher level spells). This means that you don't have to learn a strong metagame for each of the different "tiers" of play.
As an example, my 8th level psion is still doing things like putting people to sleep and casting her equivalent of grease. Many of these powers are ones I've gotten used to using in the earlier levels and I'm slowly adding new powers to learn each level before. These powers will still be part of my arsenal at 20th level and I'll use them for similar purposes as I did at 1st level.
Contrast to a sorcerer who obtains a terribly limited selection of spells known (barring certain goofy options outside of the sorcerer class itself) who will eventually have to give up spells like magic missile or grease, often with no equivalent versions at higher levels. In essence, they have to keep learning to play the game over again.
Fourthed. In fact, I would encourage players to go outside the box on what they actually are. "Wizard" is just a general term for how they interact with magic.Thirded. Aside from avoiding party conflict, I never restrict my players when it comes to how they want to flesh out their characters.I'm with Ashiel in this one. I'd be very annoyed if my GM told me my possible character concepts were limited to the class descriptions in the books.I would not play in a world where:
1. Everyone knows what you are because of a metagame statistic on your character sheet.
2. Where you have to conform to the basic fluff of a class. That would ruin my most fun characters, such as my Paladin of Wee Jass, who didn't call herself a Paladin but was a wandering warrior with a heart.
3. Where you are limited to whatever classes you have available to do a concept. If my sorcerer cannot be known as "Xalina the Summoner" because there is a summoner class, and if I want to be a summoner then I must have an eidolon instead of merely being an abyassal bloodline sorcerer. Or where if I wanted to play a "Ninja", I had to play the Ninja class instead of a Ranger/Monk.
4. Where a concept is ruined by game balance or mechanics. Not all classes are created equal. Fighters, Monks, and Rogues in core suffer from some serious problems. Cavaliers and Samurai aren't particularly noteworthy either. In some cases, the mechanics of a class (such as the vancian vs spontaneous vs psionic/mana pool) are just unfun to play to some people by comparison.
So if for some reason I don't really want to play a Paladin the class, I can't make a Cleric the class with the Strength and Good domains. Why? Because meta-gaming.
Fifthed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason of course being that PP are to spellcasters what HP is to...everyone (including spellcasters). If you can't track PP, you can't play a fighter, or a commoner, because you are incapable of tracking hit points. Given that I play with D&D/PF with pre-teenage children from time to time to give them something fun to do while their parents are doing other things, it seems odd to fathom that many of the RPG players on this forum find power points too complex.
Actually, this is another thing I'd like to touch on. Since I do play D&D/PF with young children on a regular basis, I've found psionics way more newbie-friendly to introducing people to the game even if they want to play someone with "magical powers" like throwing fire and lightning around.
It's far easier to write up a pregen for them, pick their powers with them, and then let them go. They can get it really quick and enjoy what they're doing. Trying to explain how to pick and prepare spells to little kid is a pain for everyone involved. However, most kids have a basic understanding of math and if they play any games with magic systems it is usually going to involve a mana-based system (such as in Skyrim). Since it's not uncommon for children to play their parents or siblings' games, it's not uncommon for them to "get it" instantly.
As someone who teaches people how to play and finds the game a useful and fun pastime for playing with younger generations, it's very easy for me to appreciate this aspect of the system (and it has a side benefit of indirectly helping their math skills in a fun way).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to jump on the bandwagon, I'm going to sixth (is my count right?) Ashiel. My oracle calls himself a sorcerer, and my witch calls herself a priestess.
They both are right, because neither of them are metagamers.
Just to jump on the bandwagon, I'm going to sixth (is my count right?) Ashiel. My oracle calls himself a sorcerer, and my witch calls herself a priestess.
They both are right, because neither of them are metagamers.
I think so. ^_^
Oh, and my fighter calls himself a warrior.
Although that's cheating, because fighter is hardly even a word in the same sense that warrior is. "Warrior" makes me think of caste and of pride and of the inevitability of death, and "fighter" makes me think of boxing and of high school parking lots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Half-Elf Oracle calls himself the God of Half-Elves. Thus far no one has argued (dead people don't count). Seventh'd
Oh, and my fighter calls himself a warrior.
Although that's cheating, because fighter is hardly even a word in the same sense that warrior is. "Warrior" makes me think of caste and of pride and of the inevitability of death, and "fighter" makes me think of boxing and of high school parking lots.
Yeah... "Fighter" is as bad a name as "Magic-User".
I'd like to call them Champion or something like that...
So no power points but not a simple copy paste of sorcerer... maybe something like a toned down power point? Casting stat X 1/2 character level in psionic pool points and powers cost level X 2? Just thinking about a magus arcane pool or warpriest blessing system. Those are close to power points but a bit simpler to track. A happy middle ground maybe?How can anyone complain about PP being complicated to track? Can you not track your own hit points? O.o
For me, the issue isn't an inability to track points. It's the fact that I'm already tracking hit points and I don't really want another pool of points to track when I'm gaming. Especially when I'm GMing psionics.
So no power points but not a simple copy paste of sorcerer... maybe something like a toned down power point? Casting stat X 1/2 character level in psionic pool points and powers cost level X 2? Just thinking about a magus arcane pool or warpriest blessing system. Those are close to power points but a bit simpler to track. A happy middle ground maybe?How can anyone complain about PP being complicated to track? Can you not track your own hit points? O.oFor me, the issue isn't an inability to track points. It's the fact that I'm already tracking hit points and I don't really want another pool of points to track when I'm gaming. Especially when I'm GMing psionics.
How do you track vancian casting for spells on your NPCs? I'm legitimately curious because I find it somewhat clunky, especially when dealing with multiple spellcasting NPCs with similar loadouts.
If I'm dealing with 3 sorcerer NPCs with similar spell loadouts (or identical because I'm lazy), I find it rather irritating to track a different resource for every spell level that there is, per NPC. It's only worse when dealing with prepared casters.
Meanwhile, if I'm dealing with psionic casters, my notes look like this.
Psion 1: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
Psion 2: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
Psion 3: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
So what are you doing that makes tracking every spell level (or worse, every spell) its own resource easier, more efficient, or less work, than scribbling down how many PP you've spent for a given NPC?
For Vancian, I just use tally marks. Generally, I don't use a full spell loadout in a single combat and it's rare for me to pit more than, say, 3 caster NPCs in a single encounter?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...why do you really feel you need more than that to represent psionics?
Dreamscarred Psionics model what I want out of psionic characters more than the Vancian spells that poach the flavor of brain powers.
What I want out of psionics can be "faked" only to a certain degree with wizards/sorcerers. Psionics does it all and makes it feel right.
For Vancian, I just use tally marks. Generally, I don't use a full spell loadout in a single combat and it's rare for me to pit more than, say, 3 caster NPCs in a single encounter?
I see. That's generally very inconvenient for me, in all honesty. By even 5th level, a standard wizard has 3 expendable levels of spells (1st, 2nd, and 3rd), with (most likely) 1 bonus spell per level for Int, and 1 spell per level for whatever the wizard's school is. That means I'll need to track around 5 1st, 4 2nd, and 3 3rd level spells. Given that some of these spells will be repeats and some will not, I need to track individual spells (so if I have fireball x2, and fly x1 for example).
Even for single enemies at high levels this is a pretty big thing. An 12th level wizard can easily fight a party of 8th level PCs (CR = APL+3) for a long, long time, running through a ton of spells. This isn't even touching on multiple-NPC encounters, such as a party dealing with a mage and his/her apprentices (such as with a coven of witches, a group of red wizards, or a cult of orcish fanatics).
It sounds as though you're basically saying that it's not an issue of tracking because you don't. But that's not feasible for myself. I don't think it's very feasible even in a fairly routine game, since you run across tons and tons of spellcasting NPCs as your levels get higher (almost all outsiders are also spellcasters with some x/day abilities to track).
But with psionics? I can have solid, robust encounters, and tracking everything as a GM is easy, because again, it's just like...
NPC 1: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 2: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 3: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 4: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 5: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 6: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 7: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 8: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 9: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
NPC 10: Damage Taken X, PP Spent Y
It also means I don't need a separate sheet for NPCs to function. You mentioned "checking off". Well what do you check off on, the inside of your AP? Do you print all your spellcasting NPCs so you can check off their spells as you cast them?
I was really hoping that you were going to share some method of making tracking vancian casting NPCs easier, in a way that would make it rival tracking psionic characters. I was really excited. Now I'm just disappointed because "simpler" sounds to me like "not at all".
Index cards. Cheap, fast, and effective. I use index cards with all my encounters, caster or not.
Index cards. Cheap, fast, and effective. I use index cards with all my encounters, caster or not.
But like...how does that make it easier than with psionics? And is there a way that you can do it that doesn't require you to spend money on index cards? Don't get me wrong, I like index cards for gaming. It's super useful for when you're dealing with summons and stuff; but I do a lot of online gaming or tabletop gaming with notepaper or laptop support.
Also, how does writing all the NPCs out onto index cards compete with Hp-X/Pp-Y? Because I'm not really seeing it. All I'm seeing is someone telling me I need a ton of index cards (because I use a lot of NPCs).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brain sleep. Post tomorrow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with Power points is:
Ok, i manifest this, and augment this way, but wait I have discount that makes this, so i put this metamagic feat that lowers my effective CL but hightens the damage and overchannel bla bla bla. At the end, figuring out how many damage you'll be rolling is a little complicated to me both as a gm and a player. I lose more time figuring out how much damage I'm going to deal with psionics that with some sword slashes and magic blasts, because damage does not scale with psionics and there are a bigger number of variables.
That's not exactly the same thing with HPs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've found that the 3.x/Dreamscarred power point system and mechanics gets much easier and quicker the more you/the GM/the players use it... certainly no more difficult than tracking Vancian casting, ki/arcane pool points, rage/performance rounds, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to play at Ashiels table (and a few of the other posters here). Excellent read, guys, and well-put answers to the OP and all the other wonderful tangents this discussion has taken. :)
wow. I had the exact opposite experience with the Wheel of Time Channeling system... which I walked away from thinking "that would work a lot smoother as a power point system".
But again, to each his own, I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point being made is that for dealing with numerous characters/NPCs "preallocation" is more work than just marking off points as the character uses their abilities. For one or two characters it isn't bad, but if you are in charge of a handful of wizard characters who aren't just seeing action once off, it is more work than just marking off a few points for a little boom or a bunch of points for a big boom.
That index card might last one encounter for a mid level prepared caster versus weeks of the campaign for a psionic character just tracking points spent (assume ink). Is it hard to track spells? Not really, especially because most of use do it regularly. But I agree tracking PPs is easier than planning out spells, basic napkin math essentially. You'll spend more time pouring over your spell book choosing spells in the long run. The downside is less utility in comparison to the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... are you suggesting that Point-based systems are somehow more "point and click" than Vancian-based "fire and forget" systems? Or did I really misread your post?
EDIT: because Vancian is pretty much the epitome of "point and click". You point, you click, and it occurs. Just like a revolver.
Did you really cite the Vancian style magic (as presented in D&D) as being similar to the majority of fiction? Because of all the fantasy I've read - and that's a lot - it really doesn't fit. You can make it fit, more or less, sort of, but it does not automatically or intuitively do so. The spells within are not generally represented, their specific effects are rarely, if ever, represented in the manner that they play out in-game.
The Vancian style within D&D is pretty much solidly a "bullet" style effect where you utilize the effect that you prepare and expend. Many people liken it to "fire and forget" because of the (very few) examples I've read in fantasy literature - almost all of which containing this trope was D&D-based - in which the words faded from your mind as you released them.
The magic eye book is rather... weak as an example goes. The magic eye requires a level of concentration that literally makes it impossible for you to perceive anything else properly. Now, if you wanted to houserule that your wizard is so obsessed with remembering his "prepared" spells that he can't see straight (or, in this case, think straight), I'd be willing to talk with you about the similarity of those things.
The power point system is more elegant in its way because it allows you to create several tiers of the same effect more or less spontaneously.
Let's compare this to, say, physicists. People who know their stuff.
They know their own formula, they've studied to comprehend what happens to X when you Y out of many tomes (some of which are musty, let me tell you from experience) and they can generally tell you exactly what...
Point and click implies that the interface can be controlled solely through the mouse, with little or no input from the keyboard.
You know. Like Vancian magic spells.
In this analogy casting is clicking. Choosing spells is keyboard action.
That's a terrible example. I've played Neverwinter Nights. That's entirely Vancian and it uses only the mouse if I want it to. Point in fact, choosing spells is only by way of the mouse in that game. I can partially cast spells from the keyboard, though, depending on the spell, I'll still have to use the mouse.
Vancian is not inherently keyboard-like.
Wizards choose/ponder/change spells. Sorcerers click and click again!
Yes... but that's not really the point at all, because even Sorcerers ponder and choose their spells, the same way wizards do. The difference is that all the sorcerer's thinking and planning is before hand.
Also, Sorcerers are Vancian.
If, on the other hand, you're not talking about power points v. Vancian systems... well, more power to you, I suppose. I'll drop out of the conversation because we're clearly talking about two different things.
The more you want magic to work like (simple) physics the less magical it becomes and the more likely you're wrong. Magic is an opposing area of study (in theory). It has more to do with magic eye books type tricks of reality and ancient concordances that make utterly no sense in the current age of man.
"You're wrong because I say so because my view is superior."
That's a really weak argument, man. It only has more to do with magic eye books because you want it to have to do with magic eye books.
And again, if you want your wizard to walk around cross-eyed, unable to see, think, or do otherwise normal things because they're so focused on memorizing their spells for the day, more power to you.
That's not what the rules or fluff say about it, though. So you've got a really unique interpretation there.
Magic eye makes it impossible for YOU (and me : ) to perceive other things but then again we are hardly super geniuses that can perceive other realities and know secret teachings. Besides its not an example but a indication of the type of reality warping real unreality we are dealing with.
That doesn't really make sense, and it has nothing to do with warping reality = not making sense.
You used it as an example - an analogy, if you prefer - for contorting the wizards' mind and re-focusing and losing it later. This is a bad analogy for the reasons I cited.
Note: this has nothing to do with super-intelligence and everything to do with normal human limits. It doesn't matter how good your eyesight is, if you unfocus your eyes they're going to be unfocused. Similarly, the mind. Genius Intelligence doesn't allow you additional points of concentration.
If real world standard courses at any uni are your model for learning magic I question that logic. Its not at all that wizard casting involves a learning difficulty, in fact I would suggest any that assume that have difficulty understanding the inherent unreality in the concept of magic.
Uh-huh. The fact that wizards prep their spells from books (and learn their information from them), that they learn by following formula, that they learn and memorize patterns by recitation and under the tutelage of more advanced mages, and they actually have colleges for this sort of thing, that are, you know, actually called wizard colleges - none of that strikes you as "college like"?
The splitting of magic into various "schools" doesn't sound like various scientific "disciplines" which use the same basic underpinnings, but ultimately have very different application, even when they overlap in some regards?
No? None of that sound familiar?
Magic is, of course, not real. That's a given.
Bet let's take the following and see which we choose as being "more likely":
1) A guy who in the normal course of his day, murders a puppy, a woman he doesn't know, and one of his next door neighbors. Everyone sees him do it, and all continue about their merry lives. This (or something like it) has never happened before and it may or may not happen again. Everyone is happy.
2) A guy who, in the normal course of his day, does not murder a puppy, a woman he doesn't know, and one of his next door neighbors. Everyone sees him do it, and all continue about their merry lives. This (or something like it) has happened before. Everyone is happy.
Number one can, through contrived circumstances, actually exist in a fantasy world. But if it's just supposed to be an otherwise "normal" fantasy world, you'll either get a huge creep-out factor from your players (at which point they'll work on fixing whatever is wrong to cause that to happen) or, if there's nothing to fix, you'll tend to break their immersion, because people just don't work that way.
The problem with Vancian is similar. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with how people function.
It has nothing to do with the unreality of magic, and everything to do with the unreality of people involved.
Let's also look at how magic functions:
[Caster Level + a Given Spell (formula)] -> Consistent Results (with a few given variables, aka dice rolls).
If you modify one of the parameters of the formula (the caster level or the given spell) you will alter your results.
This is... exactly like a mathematical or physics formula. Exactly. If you disagree, then you really, really need to look at any given math or physics book. At all.
Or chemistry book (now there is a brain-warping science!), if you prefer.
The point is, with consistent values you get consistent results within known variables. This is not "unkowable" or "unlearnable". The specifics of how you get there might be strange, but at that point you're forcing a particular view that doesn't really work - and it doesn't work because Sorcerers.
They never forget, always have, and are always ready. There is no reason for the "forget" part.
Now, if your beef is with Sorcery and its response to Vancian... okay. Odd, but entirely your choice.
Again, I'd liken sorcerers to those who actually know their stuff well, and can use it often whereas wizards seem much more like learning-disability dabblers.
Psions, on the other hand, are more "real" than either, not due to fluff, but due to mechanics and how it interacts with people and what people are like.
We are creatures of reality and bound by its rules. Its not at all unreasonable that we cannot handle long term concepts/energies that by their very nature undermine reality. That brains would re-boot or we would revert to our ~ 'normal' ~ 'sane' homeostasis isn't a stretch (Or we cop insanity or taint as some fantasy suggests).
Undermining the laws that keep reality consistent and predictable is likely to have some consequences on our brain boxes berk!
That's a great house rule, but it doesn't stack up with the mechanics OR FLUFF as presented in either D&D or Pathfinder.
You keep insisting that I "don't get it". You're wrong. I do. It's just dumb and immersion-breaking to me. I entirely see how things from beyond reality wouldn't be smoothly accepted. The problem is that people react in predictable ways, even if magic does not.
If you keep exposing to them to mind-breaking effects, it's going to break your mind.
Either something is able to be learned, or it is not. Otherwise, you're left with people like me with learning disabilities, or something that will force a creature to become unstable by their association with things that naturally cause them to become unstable.
OR you have a very patently immersion-breaking-for-most-people "save your mind" side-affect of magic (outside of very specific effects).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I've only encountered heavily houseruled psionics, then. Thanks for showing me.
Your DMs were probably using the psi rule from 2e and earlier, when psi powers did ignore magic resistance and so forth. And it was pretty asinine, which is why magic-psi transparency became default starting with 3e. (Although IIRC, the 3e psi rulebooks present the old rule as an official alternative, at the DM's option.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter how different the FLAVOR is. The flavor can be changed to fit. That's the WHOLE POINT of flavor, meatrace. That's also the point I'm trying to make.
If a play group can get past their own inability to imagine differently, then the sorcerer (or similar class) can make for a perfectly adequate psion.
For someone who puts so much emphasis on imagining things differently, you seem to have a surprising inability to imagine yourself in others' shoes.
Mechanics are a bit trickier, as has been observed with spell components.
Indeed. Most of the time, a player could imagine that the sorcerer he's playing is 'manifesting powers' by pretending that he doesn't need his spells' verbal, somatic, and/or material components. But there are plenty of corner cases where the mechanics do get in the way. And I've yet to meet the DM who would allow a sorcerer to cast stilled silenced material-eschewed spells while grappled or within a silence spell or whatever, just because the player refluffed his character as a psion.
And no, the fact that a sorcerer can eventually cast most of his spells in stilled silenced material-eschewed form by taking the right feats isn't at all satisfying to a psi fan.
So there's your answer! I'm not even a psi fan myself, but I can imagine why I'd want actual psi classes if I were. You should try it sometime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nitpick: Sorcerers already get Eschew Materials for free. And one could easily construct a bloodline (and in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually do) that gives Still Spell and Silent Spell as bonus feats.
Plus nobody says the "verbal component" can't be you screaming as your head almost explodes, or the "somatic component" standing there with your arms at your sides.
Additional Nitpick:
Not to point any kind of accusing finger at anybody, by if I was GMing for Ashiel, I wouldn't stop her from saying her egoist/shaper combo was a witch, but she would at best be considered a bit eccentric, actual most people would consider her loony, and a true witch would find her claim to be insulting. Of course at her game table that may be just fine.
Then how do you explain "Escape to Witch Mountain"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I think to any non-scholar, non-adventurer "Woman with supernatural powers" = witch, by default.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like part of this thread turned into a Vancian Casting vs Point Pool casting when that is hardly an issue. In Pathfinder we have a number of point pool based abilities so I don't think the game explodes or turns into an MMO if they exist in the game and the only downside of Vancian casting really is that when first coming across it the whole thing does feel counter intuitive and takes a bit of imagination to accept what's going on with it. After that vancian casting does pretty much fit well in the system and it is hard to see Pathfinder without it.
That said I've bought products from Super Genius games that introduces options to use a point pool rather than vancian casting and honestly there are plusses and minuses for each end making it a matter of opinion as to which one functions better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a personal preference, I just find a point pool is more efficient to manage and puts more decision making in my hands.
As a personal preference, I just find a point pool is more efficient to manage and puts more decision making in my hands.
Sentiment like this is why I spent money on a product that gives my players that option. Which is what a third partpy product does.
Nitpick: Sorcerers already get Eschew Materials for free.
My bad; I haven't played a sorcerer since 3.5.
And one could easily construct a bloodline (and in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually do) that gives Still Spell and Silent Spell as bonus feats.
This almost works, except that a sorcerer can't still and silence his two highest spell levels.
Plus nobody says the "verbal component" can't be you screaming as your head almost explodes, or the "somatic component" standing there with your arms at your sides.
Again, this almost works until one of those corner cases come up. The two cases I mentioned in the post directly above yours, for example.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bottom line seems to be that neither psionics nor Vancian casting is particularly complex to work out, or particularly superior or inferior as a game mechanic, it's just a question of what people are used to and what they prefer.
The only wrongbadfun is stopping other people having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a personal preference, I just find a point pool is more efficient to manage and puts more decision making in my hands.
I knew there was a reason I liked you ;)