|
In second edition, the Bard was the "Jack of all Trades." While it made for a cool concept, it was the worst class to play compared to everything else. Only the poor Wizard at the earliest levels had a harder time.
In third edition, he became the "Jester... sort of." It still sucked, mostly.
PF did the most changes to the Bard than any other class and it is a nitch class that has a lot of skill monkey things that work well in Society, cept he ain' no rogue.
I still have found memories of Strawdor, my little half elven bard, but he is but a distant memory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In second edition, the Bard was the "Jack of all Trades." While it made for a cool concept, it was the worst class to play compared to everything else. Only the poor Wizard at the earliest levels had a harder time.
You're talking about those bards that used the theif XP progression and cast wizard spells, often at a higher caster level than actual wizards because they leveled up faster, right? The class that's easiest to solo Baldur's Gate I with? The one that also gets some thief abilities? That 2nd edition bard?
In third edition, he became the "Jester... sort of." It still sucked, mostly.
???
Bards sucked? Since when? :O
PF did the most changes to the Bard than any other class and it is a nitch class that has a lot of skill monkey things that work well in Society, cept he ain' no rogue.
Ohhhhhh. Nevermind, I see what's happening now. That's really cute. You'll learn though. ^_^
See, I would still have the spell slots as they are, but not have them forgotten with a single casting. That is what I mean by Vancian casting. "fire and forget"
If spamming is an issue, (It can be with the Sorcerer) then a cool down is preferable to forgetting the spell intireally. Able to recast in a die roll of rounds, higher level spells have bigger or more die.
For the record this exists. It's also the most most overpowered casting system ever. Recharge magic. While I like cooldown mechanics (x round cooldown on abilities is a good mechanic for strong but no-limit abilities), it just encourages more ferocious casting.
Feats can reduce or eliminate cool downs. My fervent wish is to have a unified, standard magic system that is used for all classes that cast. Concentrate on class abilities, perhaps have some that use powers much like the Bloodline powers for the elemental sorcerers, augmented with class choices, instead of going off the same spell list as another class. Have the cleric switch-out spells from her god between encounters. Have the druid focused on an aspect of their class....
Of course you realize this is actively pouring gasoline and tossing a match on one of the biggest strengths of this game, and that is being able to appeal to different preferences while remaining playable between all of them.
This is one of the problems with 4E. If at-will / encounter / daily doesn't really do it for you, you're pretty much up the creek. Whereas literally every class in core plays very differently (and most work well). There's no mechanical issues with having a psion next to a cleric, but the players get to enjoy two different ways of playing their character that otherwise has similar supernatural powers.
And the "I have to learn an entirely new system" is kind of bogus, because 3.5/Pathfinder psionics were written explicitly to fit with the magic system and designed with all the same considerations that were made for the core castings. Virtually all of it transparent, save for a handful of unique things (psionic focus, the more workday friendly PP recovery methods, and sharing psionic powers).
If Psionics was to be introduced in this current mold, I would like to have them be like spontaneous casters with a Psi pool to augment their abilities and or add to their powers. They would use a seperate list of.. Psionic powers. I would be very careful as to what to include and what not to. It would be more focused than the "alternate Wizard" listing that is in 3.5 and Dreamscarred version.
The "psion" does not play like a wizard. At all. I love both of them, but they do not play the same. IMHO, the psion feels like "sorcerer done right", but personal opinion aside their similarities mostly end at "Intelligence is your key ability score" in terms of how they play at the table (unless you just equate to using magical powers to being a wizard, in which case we can classify clerics and druids as "alternate wizard" as well.
Likewise, there is a lot more to psionics than the psion. There is the psychic warrior, wilder, soul knife, and if you include the extra material added to the psionics SRD, the Aegis, Vitalist, Lurk, etc. Each of these classes play differently.
Because that's a strength. I can run a game with entirely core material (and I often do use almost entirely core material when GMing, plus the odd feat from the APG or something, because it's simple) and someone can bring a psion, psychic warrior, aegis, and vitalist and I don't have to change anything. They're still going to deal with the same issues, they'll just do it with a different mechanic that is - as far as GMing difficulty is concerned - pretty much like magic. Except more fun for them.
I didn't say anything about psions emulating Inspire Courage. [...]Fergus or the True Lips from the Fenian Cycle is described as acting as poet, musician, lore keeper and a diplomat for Fionn mac Cumhaill. He also speaks/sings to various Fianna and their allies to make them fight better than before as well as calming two armies before they can bash each others heads in. Sounds like the D&D bard to me.
He's also not a druid.
Which is exactly my point. You can play them like that. I would dare say that they have mechanics that can decently represent that.
Not really. The Psion can't emulate Inspire Courage, for example (the Tactician and maybe the Vitalist can). The Druid will have a hard time here, as well. It also lacks mind-affecting spells. Both don't have the skill points and class skills to be artist, wise man and diplomat at the same time.
You can refluff almost anything, but only up to the point where the class doesn't support your concept anymore.
You argued that the Celtic bard could be emulated by different character classes by altering fluff. I give you a prominent example of what a legendary Celtic bard was able to do, how it aligns very well with the actual Bard class and then showed you how other classes could not be bards.
You can play a Bard as something different, sure. It's a pretty flexible class. Others are not.
You argued that the Celtic bard could be emulated by different character classes by altering fluff. I give you a prominent example of what a legendary Celtic bard was able to do, how it aligns very well with the actual Bard class and then showed you how other classes could not be bards.
You can play a Bard as something different, sure. It's a pretty flexible class. Others are not.
Did... you read the part of the conversation that he was responding to where people told him the Bard Class didn't cover the Celtic Bard?
He was responding to their interpretation of the Celtic Bard.
|
|
I was more looking into the powers that are basically the same as like spells in the Wizard's spellbook. Having something more like the Force Powers in Saga would be nice for a particular class.
I believe the Soul Knife could be a Rogue Archtype in a Psionic book, the (Hopefully renamed) Psy Warrior likewise a Fighter Archtype. These type of minimal PP classes would use class abilities without the "Mana" just sitting there with nothing to do but be there to power little things.
Other classes could mix Psi and Magic at some level, others be focused on an aspect of psionic powers. The possibilities are endless.
I didn't say anything about psions emulating Inspire Courage. My contributions to the subject have been the following.
2. Why the psionic system is better than core magic from a standpoint of learning it, tracking it, and adapting to a character's needs (IE - fluff).
3. Advocated for deeper understanding of RP and challenged the idea of imprisoning yourself in a self-imposed fluff-trap.
2. Is false. Having played with AD&D and 3rd ED Psionics, the systems there were more complicated by a order of magnitude than magic.
3. Fluff is part of RP. Calling your Psion a "witch' is no better than calling it a psion or a mentalist or whatever label you want to use. However, like i said- in a world where magic really works, each type of magic user will have a readily known professional label. Today you could call your veterinarian a Physician - but you'd be either wrong or a scamster. Just like in medieval times you couldn't call yourself a Knight without being one- or actually in many areas later you couldn;t call yourself a Physician without a sheepskin.
Did... you read the part of the conversation that he was responding to where people told him the Bard Class didn't cover the Celtic Bard?
He was responding to their interpretation of the Celtic Bard.
Huh? No. The argument started when someone posted one could go get healing from a priest or a musician. I pointed out that a Bard is not a Minstrel, that the D&D bard has it's historical roots in the Irish File type bard. Of course, you don't have to play your bard like that, but it's good to know where Gygax got his ideas... not that that should lock you in. But with entertainers, etc outnumbering actual bards by many orders of magnitude, you'd be pretty silly to look to a minstrel for a arrow in your knee. A bard is not a just a musician- and in fact might not be a musician at all. (In fact my bard has no musical talents.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That the term witch may come with cultural baggage and cause misunderstanding is a bonus to RP not a hindrance.
When does this ever happen:
Peasant 1: Oy Mary, di you 'ear the wench in the tavern? She was sayin' some witch was braggin' about healing livestock!
Peasant 2: Don't be silly Greg! She obviously wasn't a witch then! More likely a swine or bovine lord druid, or maybe a cleric wif da animal domain! Stupid git...
Or even...
Peasant 1: Oy Mary, di you 'ear the wench in the tavern? She was sayin' some witch was braggin' about healing livestock!
Peasant 2: What kind of wench? Serving maid, bartender or was she cleanin up?
Peasant 1: What bloody difference does it make? She's a wench!
peasant 2: Classifications are important!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further precedent for witch-as-psionicist: "The Bene Gesserit witch must leave."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jack Vance is one of my favourite authors. A real wordsmith, with a wicked sense of humour.
He only died last year, BTW.
AFAIK, the Vancian magic system appears in the Lyonesse trilogy (of which books I and III are the best), and the Dying Earth books (a short story collection of the same name + Eyes of the Overworld, Cugel's Saga and Rhialto the Marvellous).
I've read all of these books at least twice. The Lyonesses ones are quite epic - if you want a short introduction then either the Dying Earth short stories or The Eyes of the Overworld novel are the place to go.
I love them.
Richard
Huh? No. The argument started when someone posted one could go get healing from a priest or a musician. I pointed out that a Bard is not a Minstrel, that the D&D bard has it's historical roots in the Irish File type bard. Of course, you don't have to play your bard like that, but it's good to know where Gygax got his ideas... not that that should lock you in. But with entertainers, etc outnumbering actual bards by many orders of magnitude, you'd be pretty silly to look to a minstrel for a arrow in your knee. A bard is not a just a musician- and in fact might not be a musician at all. (In fact my bard has no musical talents.)
Did... you read the part of the conversation that he was responding to where people told him the Bard Class didn't cover the Celtic Bard?
He was responding to their interpretation of the Celtic Bard.
...
......
... okay. Here's the conversation.
REFERENCE HOW FLUFF-ABLE THINGS ARE IN GENERAL
Knowing there are different spellcasting techniques and knowing that each one has its own title and name on a sheet or in a book are two completely different things, especially when you can refluff things easily.
(For example, I will never play a bard (class) that is a bard (concept) ... no singing, no dancing, none of that. Obviously, he's not going to call himself a bard, and nobody in-character is going to call him a bard either.)
It also doesn't help that every spellcasting list in the game overlaps significantly. You're injured, so you can go to ... the holy man, the nature shaman ... or the musician.
<point: it can be fluffed in any way you want>
The D&D bard is the Celtic bard, not just a entertainer, which is a minstrel. In the Celtic world, being a Bard is like being a Druid, a very important profession.
<apparent point (but probably not): the bard is probably better represented by druid; it is not an entertainer>
<probably point (upon reflection): like the druid, the Celtic Bard is an important profession, though not the same as Druid>Um...that sounded a bit fishy to me, and it does to wikipedia too.
Bard. Do you have anything to support your claim? Because according to this, they were poets and such, and though in Ireland there were two groups, one which was more religious.If anything that kind of demonstrates how bad connecting class and mechanics are in this way. Even celtic bards did different things, had different roles, and were more or less inclined to spiritual pursuits.
Almost like they had different character classes. >_>
<point: D&D bards are entertainers by virtue of fluff, though specifics of how are variable>
What Gygax & co based the D&D bard on was the "File" or "Fili" which is the legendary Irish bard: According to the Textbook of Irish Literature, by Eleanor Hull:
"The file is to be regarded as in the earliest times as combining in his person the functions of magician, lawgiver, judge, counsellor to the chief, and poet. "
<point: probably just educational, at the time it seemed to be attempting to be contradictory>
Which means...nothing.
<point: the specifics of their class could be anything with that description>
Which means not a minstrel. D&D is based upon myth & legend, magic, not real life.
<point: obscured by the debate? To me it seems you're saying "D&D bards are never supposed to be minstrels", a position which neither fluff nor mechanics support>
Except they based it on real life myths & legends. And that is also not the bard that you see today. If you must have class + mechanics to = whatever, then you're doing it wrong with the bard, because apparently you need to invent some entirely new class called Fili.
Or you could just fluff your own damned character the way you want. Your Fili could be a bard, druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, or psion. Or you could go a step further and make them more real and just not give them magic at all and let them just be religious scholars and record keeping poets.
It steal means...nothing.
<in other words, the Fili doesn't automatically, 100% (by fluff) mesh with the D&D and Pathfinder Bard - especially since, in 3rd Edition they had to be non-lawful, this seemed a salient point to me>
The D&D bard is the Celtic bardNot according to how everyone plays them.
<point: no one (to his experience) plays them as a "combining ... the functions of magician, lawgiver, judge, counsellor to the chief, and poet.">
To be more accurate, Gygax and company drew from a wide variety of sources, both fictional, and traditional. Grab a copy of the original First Edition books and look at the Bibliography sometime. (unfortunately an artform lost by both WOTC and Paizo, as Gygax's Bibliography was educational in and of itself.)
<point: not just the Celtic Bard Fili>
To be more accurate, the Bard in the first editions was a Fighter/Rogue/Druid. A DIVINE caster.
Then it became arcane (it had a spellbook), and then in 3.0/3.5 it became a spontaneous caster.
The most accurate example of actual bards we have in 3.5 is the Fochluchan Lyrist.
<point: the fact that the Fochluchan Lyrist is closest of all the 3.5 elements to the original Bard from first editions means it's closest to Gygax's original interpretation from his inspirations; the current bard is very different from the original bard>
Fergus or the True Lips from the Fenian Cycle is described as acting as poet, musician, lore keeper and a diplomat for Fionn mac Cumhaill. He also speaks/sings to various Fianna and their allies to make them fight better than before as well as calming two armies before they can bash each others heads in. Sounds like the D&D bard to me.
He's also not a druid.
<point: he functions more like a current bard than a druid>
Which is exactly my point. You can play them like that. I would dare say that they have mechanics that can decently represent that.
<point: I... agree with you, and thus... what?>
PF DescriptionNone of the "celtic religious overtones" are present. Heck, they aren't even required to be poets or musicians. They can be orators and dancers. They can even be comedians.
At the end of the day, you could use a bard class to represent all kinds of things. I once used the bard class to represent a character of mine whose parents (one a mundane adventurer and the other a magician) and their both teaching him, leading to his beginning his grand adventure with a bit o' sword and sorcery. His performance? He was pretty good at wise-cracking jokes like Spiderman.
Every time someone jumps in and tries to be like "FLUFFFFFFFF" they just shoot themselves in the foot, because it still doesn't fit. Ever. Because there is more than just basic fluff. Otherwise there would only be about a dozen possible characters existing in the whole freaking world. :P
<point: the fluff does not match the mechanics and it can be used to emulate multiple ideas>
Not really. The Psion can't emulate Inspire Courage, for example (the Tactician and maybe the Vitalist can). The Druid will have a hard time here, as well. It also lacks mind-affecting spells. Both don't have the skill points and class skills to be artist, wise man and diplomat at the same time.
You can refluff almost anything, but only up to the point where the class doesn't support your concept anymore.
<point: things are not infinitely fluffable>
He's talking about bards, dude.
<point: he's not talking about psions, but bards in specific>
I didn't say anything about psions emulating Inspire Courage. My contributions to the subject have been the following.
1. Why core magic fails at some of the fluffier aspects of other forms of magic (be they psionics or magic by another name).
2. Why the psionic system is better than core magic from a standpoint of learning it, tracking it, and adapting to a character's needs (IE - fluff).
3. Advocated for deeper understanding of RP and challenged the idea of imprisoning yourself in a self-imposed fluff-trap.
4. Have advocated that there is place in the game, noting that the psionics system, preparation, and spontaneous casting systems appeal to different people for different reasons, and some are fun and work for those people more than others.
Right now, in the game I'm playing in on Friday (tomorrow in fact, looking forward to it), I'm playing a human psion flavored as a witch; another player is playing an android soulknife; another is playing a modified alchemist (a homebrew healing archetype of the player's design that the GM liked); a catfolk bard; an undead antipaladin; and my brother may be joining the game in the future with a human paladin or psychic monk.
We've got a pseudo-preparation caster (the alchemist thingy), a spontaneous caster, a psionic caster, and a few classes with their own mechanics separate from spellcasting as a primary focus.
Everyone gets to be happy.
<point: you seem to be misunderstanding what I was saying; here are my points in this thread>
In second edition, the Bard was the "Jack of all Trades." While it made for a cool concept, it was the worst class to play compared to everything else. Only the poor Wizard at the earliest levels had a harder time.
In third edition, he became the "Jester... sort of." It still sucked, mostly.
PF did the most changes to the Bard than any other class and it is a nitch class that has a lot of skill monkey things that work well in Society, cept he ain' no rogue.
I still have found memories of Strawdor, my little half elven bard, but he is but a distant memory.
<point: bards kinda suck>
You're talking about those bards that used the theif XP progression and cast wizard spells, often at a higher caster level than actual wizards because they leveled up faster, right? The class that's easiest to solo Baldur's Gate I with? The one that also gets some thief abilities? That 2nd edition bard?
<>
Bards sucked? Since when? :O
<>
Ohhhhhh. Nevermind, I see what's happening now. That's really cute. You'll learn though. ^_^
<>
... snip
You argued that the Celtic bard could be emulated by different character classes by altering fluff. I give you a prominent example of what a legendary Celtic bard was able to do, how it aligns very well with the actual Bard class and then showed you how other classes could not be bards.
You can play a Bard as something different, sure. It's a pretty flexible class. Others are not.
<point: Celtic Bard cannot be emulated by different classes>
Did... you read the part of the conversation that he was responding to where people told him the Bard Class didn't cover the Celtic Bard?
He was responding to their interpretation of the Celtic Bard.
<point: his point wasn't that any class is infinitely flexible, but rather that there are different roles that different bards play, and different classes, when fluffed appropriately, respond well to those changes>
Huh? No. The argument started when someone posted one could go get healing from a priest or a musician. I pointed out that a Bard is not a Minstrel, that the D&D bard has it's historical roots in the Irish File type bard. Of course, you don't have to play your bard like that, but it's good to know where Gygax got his ideas... not that that should lock you in. But with entertainers, etc outnumbering actual bards by many orders of magnitude, you'd be pretty silly to look to a minstrel for a arrow in your knee. A bard is not a just a musician- and in fact might not be a musician at all. (In fact my bard has no musical talents.)
<point: bards aren't (inherently) entertaining musicians>
So, the ultimate conclusion to the bard off-topic discussion:
1) We're all talking about something different, though we thought were were talking to each other
2) If you like re-fluffling classes to go with historical precedent, do it; otherwise, don't; either way the current fluff doesn't match all understandings of old precedent, though it does match some of them
3) We should really drop the Bard off-topic because we haven't been addressing each other's actual points for a number of quotes now
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
... okay. Here's the conversation.
** spoiler omitted **...
Now my brain hurts.
Can someone sing a song to make it feel better?
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
... okay. Here's the conversation.
** spoiler omitted **...Now my brain hurts.
Can someone sing a song to make it feel better?
;-)
It might be that we all talked about different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
... okay. Here's the conversation.
** spoiler omitted **...Now my brain hurts.
Can someone sing a song to make it feel better?
;-)
Imagine this being sung by a semi-masculine voice that is badly off-key.
2. Is false. Having played with AD&D and 3rd ED Psionics, the systems there were more complicated by a order of magnitude than magic.
It's a good thing none of us are talking about AD&D or 3.0 psionics then, isn't it?
3. Fluff is part of RP.
I agree, fluff is part of RP. Class is not.
Calling your Psion a "witch' is no better than calling it a psion or a mentalist or whatever label you want to use.
That's 100% correct. Such titles are meaningless other than conveying a sense of flavor to the character.
However, like i said- in a world where magic really works, each type of magic user will have a readily known professional label.
Maybe, though I doubt it. There are clearly a ton of different ways to engage in metaphysical things in D&D, so it's likely there are many traditions. Wizards for example all vary slightly in the way they use their magics, which is why spellbooks need to be interpreted rather than copied directly.
Today you could call your veterinarian a Physician - but you'd be either wrong or a scamster. Just like in medieval times you couldn't call yourself a Knight without being one- or actually in many areas later you couldn;t call yourself a Physician without a sheepskin.
So is it a furniture maker or an undertaker?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, you can be a knight (concept) without being a Knight (class). You can be a barbarian (concept) without being a Barbarian (class). And, yes, you can be a witch (concept) rather than a Witch (class).
Frankly, I'd be more apt to call a Wizard (class) a Witch (concept). Every witch I've ever seen in fiction gets their spells and concoctions out of a grimoire ... which is a fancy name for 'spellbook'.
The point is, you can be a knight (concept) without being a Knight (class). You can be a barbarian (concept) without being a Barbarian (class). And, yes, you can be a witch (concept) rather than a Witch (class).
Frankly, I'd be more apt to call a Wizard (class) a Witch (concept). Every witch I've ever seen in fiction gets their spells and concoctions out of a grimoire ... which is a fancy name for 'spellbook'.
I'm suddenly reminded of Hocus Pocus. Thanks for that. :)
2. Is false. Having played with AD&D and 3rd ED Psionics, the systems there were more complicated by a order of magnitude than magic.It's a good thing none of us are talking about AD&D or 3.0 psionics then, isn't it?
Ah, so then since Piazo has no Psionics, we're not talking about anything, noway, nohow. So, what you saying is that a system of psionics which doesn't exist is simpler than magic. Which I guess is true, since nothing is simpler than something. Or something from nothing leaves....
Which means we've spent 200+ posts arguing about nothing. Pretty standard, however. Let's see if we can get it to 10 pages. ;-)
Imagine this being sung by a semi-masculine voice that is badly off-key.
...
... okay. Here's the conversation.
** spoiler omitted **...Now my brain hurts.
Can someone sing a song to make it feel better?
;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so then since Piazo has no PsionicsPaizo is not the end of Pathfinder. Pathfinder has psionics. Thank you Dreamscarred Press!
This.
AD&D and 3.0 psionics share only slight similarities. 3.5/Pathfinder psionics are very simple and much easier to explain to newbies. I've also found it easier to adjudicate as a GM, because in core I have to make sure I know all the components of an effects.
For example, there's quite a few spells with foci. Some with material components. Most have somatic components, but then lots of them don't (which means even in arcane magic, there's some spells that ignore spell failure % and some that don't).
While psionics has something similar (displays) they are pretty much entirely for fluff and don't actually lead to me having to keep track of every one of them to make sure I know which ones do or do not work in in weird subsituations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I find psionics to be far easier and intuitive than magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh... PP is what makes it simpler. Seriously, more people know how Magic Point, or Mana Points, or Power Points work then Vancian Magic, by a large, large margin.
(Also I don't see how PP meshes any different then... well Rounds of Rage, or Bombs per day.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it wasn't for PP, I would agree it is simplier. I find, though, that Power Points are a mechanic that doesn't mesh well with the rest of the other classes. This is something that is the underlining reason some GM's disallow Psionics, and why Paizo didn't do anything with it.
Which, again, is why they totally haven't made any classes with an expendable, fungible pool of power to draw from. Like ki points, or an arcane pool...
And seriously, spell slots are just power points with different rules on spending them.
That's true. Any sufficiently balanced PP system is going to be indistinguishable from spell slots. If you were a 10th level caster who could trade-up five 1st-level spell slots for a 5th-level slot, you would always do it, right?
And seriously, spell slots are just power points with different rules on spending them.That's true. Any sufficiently balanced PP system is going to be indistinguishable from spell slots. If you were a 10th level caster who could trade-up five 1st-level spell slots for a 5th-level slot, you would always do it, right?
More like 9 1st level slots, if you use the PP equivalences (1st level=1PP, 5th level=9 PP). There used to be a feat in 3.5 WotC resources that let you do this sort of thing.
More like 9 1st level slots, if you use the PP equivalences (1st level=1PP, 5th level=9 PP). There used to be a feat in 3.5 WotC resources that let you do this sort of thing.And seriously, spell slots are just power points with different rules on spending them.That's true. Any sufficiently balanced PP system is going to be indistinguishable from spell slots. If you were a 10th level caster who could trade-up five 1st-level spell slots for a 5th-level slot, you would always do it, right?
Fair enough, still who wouldn't make that trade? If I remember correctly in 3.5 there was a feat to let you trade down (like split a 5th level slot into a 3rd and a 2nd) but not one to let you trade up.
EDIT: My point is the game assumes a certain amount of resource allocation and allowing a caster to "go nova" by blowing it all at once breaks the assumed (already pretty flimsy, according to many people) encounter balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And seriously, spell slots are just power points with different rules on spending them.That's true. Any sufficiently balanced PP system is going to be indistinguishable from spell slots. If you were a 10th level caster who could trade-up five 1st-level spell slots for a 5th-level slot, you would always do it, right?
You know... PPs could be introduced as an alternate casting system... Wizard spend it when they prepare their spells, and Sorcerers spend it as they cast...
That would be a fun variant, wouldn't force anyone to learn a new system if they are not interested and would make it far easier to introduce new players to the game, since most people are at least somewhat familiar with one mana system or another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know... PPs could be introduced as an alternate casting system... Wizard spend it when they prepare their spells, and Sorcerers spend it as they cast...That would be a fun variant, wouldn't force anyone to learn a new system if they are not interested and would make it far easier to introduce new players to the game, since most people are at least somewhat familiar with one mana system or another.
I like Vancian casting because it's pretty ingrained, and also I just like Vance, but I agree a power point system would be fun to play around with, even if just for a change of pace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: My point is the game assumes a certain amount of resource allocation and allowing a caster to "go nova" by blowing it all at once breaks the assumed (already pretty flimsy, according to many people) encounter balance.
Well, it's also not a good comparison, since a 1st level power unaugmented is only 1PP, whereas casters get free augmentation blahdiblah.
There's plenty of ways for casters to go nova already, like time stop and quicken rods. But surely you've heard all this before...
I dunno, I've played a LOT (lot lot lot) with XPH psionics over the years and it has never been an issue.
Time Stop comes into play at 17th level, at which point I wouldn't be too worried about the game breaking anymore, since it's about to wrap up anyway. Quicken Rods I can see being a problem.
I dunno, I've played a LOT (lot lot lot) with XPH psionics over the years and it has never been an issue.
That's what's important, if it works in actual play. I never messed around with it because, as previously mentioned, there's no psionic necromancy ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And lets not forget that powers are more balanced then spells and many of the somewhat powerful tricks in 3.5 Psionics got caught and removed by Dreamscarred Press. At least I still have Vigor + Share Pain though...
And lets not forget that powers are more balanced then spells and many of the somewhat powerful tricks in 3.5 Psionics got caught and removed by Dreamscarred Press. At least I still have Vigor + Share Pain though...
Hey, Anzyr. If I decided to use PP instead of spell slots, casters would have to spend more PPs to increase the caster level of spells, but should these spells original CL be 1 or the CL where they become available?
e.g.: Should Fireball initially deal 5d6 or 1d6 and players have to use more PP to increase it to 5d6?
I'm leaning towards the former, but I'm not sure.
Also, how would one decide how many PPs each class should get? Sum up the PPs they would get for each spell slots (but not the ones from bonus spell slots for high attributes)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was going to convert Magic to a Power Point System... well I'd probably let Fireball stay at a base of 5d6 (since you'd be paying 5 PP for it and 1 PP per 1d6 dice of damage seems correct), but after that you'd have to pay the standard going rate of 1 PP per 1d6 and +1 to save for every two extra dice of damage.
Deciding how much PP a class should get would be trickier. Rather then try and convert a Wizard Spells per Day into PP, I would probably just use the Psion/Wilder PP progression for full casters and the Psychic Warrior's progression for say the Bard and so forth. (Obviously prepared casters would need reworked some maybe with Unique Powers per Day or some other limiter?)
At least that'd how I'd tackle it. (On a side note I really like the idea of the Bard being Psionic, since Psionics is supposed to be the character exerting their will on the world and that seems to be precisely what the bard does albeit with music + will)
If I was going to convert Magic to a Power Point System... well I'd probably let Fireball stay at a base of 5d6 (since you'd be paying 5 PP for it and 1 PP per 1d6 dice of damage seems correct), but after that you'd have to pay the standard going rate of 1 PP per 1d6 and +1 to save for every two extra dice of damage.
Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards too...
Deciding how much PP a class should get would be trickier. Rather then try and convert a Wizard Spells per Day into PP, I would probably just use the Psion/Wilder PP progression for full casters and the Psychic Warrior's progression for say the Bard and so forth. (Obviously prepared casters would need reworked some maybe with Unique Powers per Day or some other limiter?)
That'd be simpler, but wouldn't that mean Sorcerers and Wizards have the exact same amount of PP?
I don't remember comparing either... But don't Summoners have less spells per day than most half-casters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And seriously, spell slots are just power points with different rules on spending them.That's true. Any sufficiently balanced PP system is going to be indistinguishable from spell slots. If you were a 10th level caster who could trade-up five 1st-level spell slots for a 5th-level slot, you would always do it, right?You know... PPs could be introduced as an alternate casting system... Wizard spend it when they prepare their spells, and Sorcerers spend it as they cast...
That would be a fun variant, wouldn't force anyone to learn a new system if they are not interested and would make it far easier to introduce new players to the game, since most people are at least somewhat familiar with one mana system or another.
Such a system was printed in 3e's Unearthed Arcana.
If I was going to convert Magic to a Power Point System... well I'd probably let Fireball stay at a base of 5d6 (since you'd be paying 5 PP for it and 1 PP per 1d6 dice of damage seems correct), but after that you'd have to pay the standard going rate of 1 PP per 1d6 and +1 to save for every two extra dice of damage.Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards too...
Deciding how much PP a class should get would be trickier. Rather then try and convert a Wizard Spells per Day into PP, I would probably just use the Psion/Wilder PP progression for full casters and the Psychic Warrior's progression for say the Bard and so forth. (Obviously prepared casters would need reworked some maybe with Unique Powers per Day or some other limiter?)That'd be simpler, but wouldn't that mean Sorcerers and Wizards have the exact same amount of PP?
I don't remember comparing either... But don't Summoners have less spells per day than most half-casters?
Well if you assume that Psion is the Psionics version of the Wizard and the Wilder is the Sorcerer, the difference isn't in amount of power points, but rather in powers known. Something similar would need to be added to make a distinction between the two.
As for Summoners... ya they're weird. I'd probably start with Psychic Warrior Powerpoint progression and scale it down, though not sure how exactly...
Well if you assume that Psion is the Psionics version of the Wizard and the Wilder is the Sorcerer, the difference isn't in amount of power points, but rather in powers known. Something similar would need to be added to make a distinction between the two.
Yeah, but giving them the same amount of PP would make Sorcerers even more inferior to Wizards. More spells per day is one of the few advantages spontaneous caster have over prepared ones.
Well if you assume that Psion is the Psionics version of the Wizard and the Wilder is the Sorcerer, the difference isn't in amount of power points, but rather in powers known. Something similar would need to be added to make a distinction between the two.Yeah, but giving them the same amount of PP would make Sorcerers even more inferior to Wizards. More spells per day is one of the few advantages spontaneous caster have over prepared ones.
Ya, you'd probably need to give them something similar to Wild Surge (if not just that) to effectively give them more "augmented" powers per day, which would sort of parse out to more spells of greater strength. But ya a straight spell to PP conversion wouldn't really work in a vacuum some changes to class features would need to be done.
Well if you assume that Psion is the Psionics version of the Wizard and the Wilder is the Sorcerer, the difference isn't in amount of power points, but rather in powers known. Something similar would need to be added to make a distinction between the two.
There's an additional difference...
Wilders can wild surge. Psions cannot.
Sorcerers have bloodlines and more spells known, whereas wizards have schools, discoveries, bonus feats, and the capacity to learn every spell ever at the cost of less spells castable per day.
So, it would be easier to just convert spells-castable-per-day into points.
The issue with the point system is it was designed to create a more flexible magic system. So, no matter what, you're either going to have to adapt to a more flexible system or limit the amount of powers per spell level per character level. That's actually why, in 3.5, a psion could be more powerful than a wizard... they could cast their ninth-level powers more often.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you assume that Psion is the Psionics version of the Wizard and the Wilder is the Sorcerer, the difference isn't in amount of power points, but rather in powers known. Something similar would need to be added to make a distinction between the two.There's an additional difference...
Wilders can wild surge. Psions cannot.
Sorcerers have bloodlines and more spells known, whereas wizards have schools, discoveries, bonus feats, and the capacity to learn every spell ever at the cost of less spells castable per day.
So, it would be easier to just convert spells-castable-per-day into points.
The issue with the point system is it was designed to create a more flexible magic system. So, no matter what, you're either going to have to adapt to a more flexible system or limit the amount of powers per spell level per character level. That's actually why, in 3.5, a psion could be more powerful than a wizard... they could cast their ninth-level powers more often.
Yup read one post up. Though a straight conversion is an inelegant solution, since thus far all psionic fullcasters have the same PP to work with it. (Even the Vitalist that Dreamscarred Press added has the same PP to work with it.)
Also, even with the ability to use their 9th level powers more then a Wizard could use theirs, Psionics never came even close to being as powerful as spells. Psionics was more flexible yes... more powerful though gods no... with the notable exception of the Spell to Power Erudite (the problem is *suprise!* spells).
Well if you assume that Psion is the Psionics version of the Wizard and the Wilder is the Sorcerer, the difference isn't in amount of power points, but rather in powers known. Something similar would need to be added to make a distinction between the two.There's an additional difference...
Wilders can wild surge. Psions cannot.
Sorcerers have bloodlines and more spells known, whereas wizards have schools, discoveries, bonus feats, and the capacity to learn every spell ever at the cost of less spells castable per day.
So, it would be easier to just convert spells-castable-per-day into points.
The issue with the point system is it was designed to create a more flexible magic system. So, no matter what, you're either going to have to adapt to a more flexible system or limit the amount of powers per spell level per character level. That's actually why, in 3.5, a psion could be more powerful than a wizard... they could cast their ninth-level powers more often.
Yup read one post up. Though a straight conversion is an inelegant solution, since thus far all psionic fullcasters have the same PP to work with it. (Even the Vitalist that Dreamscarred Press added has the same PP to work with it.)
Also, even with the ability to use their 9th level powers more then a Wizard could use theirs, Psionics never came even close to being as powerful as spells. Psionics was more flexible yes... more powerful though gods no... with the notable exception of the Spell to Power Erudite (the problem is *suprise!* spells).
I'm going to be honest and say that such a practice was not best.
Part of why is that, for creating the Psion and Wilder, all WotC did was take the wizard and sorcerer and then convert the spells they could cast straight into power points. Then they tacked on the extra features.
With Pathfinder, that result would have worked well, since the entire system is designed around that. What Dreamscarred did was actually a pretty massive nerf of psionics.
*Gets Expanded Psionics Handbook off shelf, flips to page 20, then flips to page 30*
Umm... You do realize that WotC also gave Psions and Wilder the same PP total right? Which happens to be the same one that Dreamscarred Press is using... right? Dreamscarred Press did nerf some Psionic tricks (I want my Solicit Psicrystal + Control Body back... yes it's op but its awesome!), but outside of correcting some things like nothing Dreamscarred Press did could be called a nerf.
Blast it. I'm confusing one houserule system with official sources.
This is why it is I shouldn't rely on memory for things like this. I'm thinking of things from years ago. Need to dig my 3.5 stuff out of storage.
Sorry about that. You're right; the approach is correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I think to any non-scholar, non-adventurer "Woman with supernatural powers" = witch, by default.
See, I disagree.
Here, in the real world, we differ between professions. A dentist, a veterinarian and a MD are all "medical professionals" but we have different terms for them, and you need to know when your cat is sick to take her to the vet, not the dentist.
Lawrence Watt-Evans does it right. Magical professionals are known by their subtypes- wizards, witches, warlocks, etc. Sure, some naifs from the hicks may not know one from the other, but in general both the laity and the magical professionals know the difference between a Witch and a Wizard, and both are clear as to "which" they are when hanging out their shingle. Of course, some are con artists and fakers, but...
Yes, here IRL, magic doesn't really work, thus our definitions of "witch" vs 'wizard" are hazy and imprecise.
So, in a world where magic is commonplace, pretty much everyone with any smarts at all would know the difference. Sure, in some very small country villages- the vet, dentist & doctor may be all the same person, but that's another issue.
Thus, it's not "metagaming" for your sorcerer to call herself that.
...
Yes, but they're all called doctors.
No, the Doctor is a Timelord these are medical professionals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, still who wouldn't make that trade? If I remember correctly in 3.5 there was a feat to let you trade down (like split a 5th level slot into a 3rd and a 2nd) but not one to let you trade up.More like 9 1st level slots, if you use the PP equivalences (1st level=1PP, 5th level=9 PP). There used to be a feat in 3.5 WotC resources that let you do this sort of thing.And seriously, spell slots are just power points with different rules on spending them.That's true. Any sufficiently balanced PP system is going to be indistinguishable from spell slots. If you were a 10th level caster who could trade-up five 1st-level spell slots for a 5th-level slot, you would always do it, right?
I wouldn't. Core casters benefit from a thing known as "free scaling" where your spells just get better with your caster level. At 9th level (when you have 5th level powers that would cost 9 PP) you spells like magic missile deal around 17.5 force damage that is essentially unavoidable for most enemies in the game.
Likewise, 1st-3rd level spells generally get relegated to buffing and problem solving after they are simply no longer useful (and 3rd level spells actually never fall out of use, especially due to lesser metamagic rods).
It's quite rare that my psion pushes all her PP into powers when she can. It's foolishness. It's a good way to get stuck without any juice, because the psionics system was created with the versatility in mind, which is why a strait conversion of spell slots to PP favors core casters.
For example, if we take sorcerer (the class most similar to the psion in functionality) they have what would equate to...
Base Power
9th = +102 PP
8th = +90 PP
7th = +78 PP
6th = +66 PP
5th = +54 PP
4th = +42 PP
3rd = +30 PP
2nd = +18 PP
1st = +6 PP
Total = 486 PP base
Bonus Spells-to-Power (30 Cha)
9th = +17 PP
8th = +15 PP
7th = +13 PP
6th = +22 PP
5th = +18 PP
4th = +14 PP
3rd = +10 PP
2nd = +9 PP
1st = +3 PP
Total Bonus = +121 PP
Total of Base + Bonus = 607 PP
Psion Base Power + Bonus Power (30 Int)
Base: +343 PP
Bonus: +100 PP
Total 432 PP
This is one of the biggest reasons the "omg trading up" thing is a load of crap. In a strait conversion, the sorcerer has more juice than the psion ever will (and the psion and wilder have the largest PP pools in the game), but the psion (and to a lesser extent the wilder) have improved flexibility in the way they use those powers, so the original designers took that into account. The system expects that you will trade up some of your juice and is set accordingly.
That's not even accounting for the benefits of "free scaling" that core casters get. If a 10th level sorcerer casts scorching ray he gets 3 rays that each deal 4d6 damage, and if he uses fireball he gets 10d6 damage (the same damage as his cone of cold. If he casts haste or slow it affects +1 creature / level, etc. The sorcerer's lower level powers get significantly stronger with each passing level, until they finally hit some sort of cap (usually but not always).
Psionicists don't get that very often. About the best scaling powers I can think of that don't necessarily require you to up the cost of them are telekinetic maneuver, energy wall, and wall of ectoplasm. TK maneuver uses your caster level + key stat to preform combat maneuvers; energy wall deals 2d6 + your caster level to anyone who walks through the wall (so while it's really slow scaling it does scale a bit); and wall of ectoplasm gives you more wall to use as your level increases, but it is also naturally weaker than the core wall spells like Wall of Stone and Wall of Iron (it's comparable to "wall of wood").
EDIT: My point is the game assumes a certain amount of resource allocation and allowing a caster to "go nova" by blowing it all at once breaks the assumed (already pretty flimsy, according to many people) encounter balance.
Core casters go nova better, and have been able to go nova forever. They even have cool things to help them such as x/day rods (the lesser ones are cheap), and spellcasting books (book of harms). The nova-thing is the reason for the so called 15 minute workday often bemoaned when talking about D&D. Their free scaling also makes their novas brighter (because chucking a pair of slow spells in the same round is going to suck for most enemies, and chucking around blasting spells with maximize and empower attached to them via rods is going to hurt).
Meanwhile, if you go through a marathon-style adventure, you end up turning it on its head. At low through mid levels, now you run into the issue of your spellcasters deciding if it's even worthwhile for them to do anything in the fight since the enemies are probably not worth the resources to bother with, so the casters sit back and watch the rest of the party fight the lower CR enemies.
While the idea that the casters sitting around twiddling their thumbs might sound like a great idea to the "martials against casters"-enthusiasts, it's pretty boring for the people around the table not doing anything (just like casters doing everything is unsatisfying to martials).
Fast forward to psionics. You got one big encounter today with like a bajillion enemies and their big bad boss? You can do that. It won't be as strong as a core caster (because psionic characters do not get to enjoy free scaling, have more limited metamagic options, do not get access to things like metamagic rods, and their pearls of power suck tarrasque sausage) but you can adapt to it. Your party encountering a marathon of APL-3 encounters? You don't have to sit around and twiddle your thumbs, just throw around more low-cost powers to compensate.
Most PF characters already do this. The good martials do. Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers all bring a lot of resources to the party that get really scary when they decide to go nova and start burning through all their tricks (ranger + instant enemy + quarry class feature = something is going to die; paladin + smite + buffs + lay on hands = indomitable; barbarian + rage + rage powers + no need to conserve rage = unstoppable oiled up god of war).
In our friday games, the martial characters in my group love my psion. When we're encountering weak-ish enemies, I hang back and use powers like ectoplasmic sheen (which is essentially grease) to grease enemy weapons, the floor under enemies, or our martials when they get grappled. I also toss out low level astral constructs to provide soft cover or speedbumps to hinder enemy advancement or provide flanking buddies that the enemy needs to waste time on to kill if they want them to go away.
When fighting like this, she can go all day. If needed, I can toss out a dispel psionics, or telekinetic force and hurl our party's dual-wielder into position for a full-attack (allowing him to get a full-attack before our enemy). I'm also highly fond of just joining in with them by manifesting metamorphosis and sharing it with my psicrystal and then we go around spitting aid at enemies for 3d6 acid damage. If we're having a really bad fight, I'll share pain with one or more martials in our party and then burn my PP on vigor (often with readied actions after the fact) to keep my HP up while giving them a damage cushion.
Since the Pathfinder core martials (save for the fighter) are much better at running at different speeds (as opposed to the 3.x versions that had little more than basic weapon attacks as a resource), I find that the two compliment each other very well. No matter what pacing of encounters I'm using as a GM, the party can bend and adapt to it and nobody sits around twiddling their thumbs waiting for an enemy that's worth casting, and everyone can bring their A-game when I have a giant encounter.
One massive problem with not doing a straight conversion: Arcane casters actually end up able to cast less spells per day than they can under the current system.
The entire arcane setup is designed in such a way that arcane casters are incredibly, incredibly powerful. Not performing a straight conversion would severely hurt arcane casters at lower levels, where they tend to be weakest anyway, and potentially leave them not capable of dishing out power their unconverted counterparts can when you hit higher levels.
It would probably be best to redo the entire arcane casting system from the ground up with new classes rather than attempt to convert existing ones.
One massive problem with not doing a straight conversion: Arcane casters actually end up able to cast less spells per day than they can under the current system.
The entire arcane setup is designed in such a way that arcane casters are incredibly, incredibly powerful. Not performing a straight conversion would severely hurt arcane casters at lower levels, where they tend to be weakest anyway, and potentially leave them not capable of dishing out power their unconverted counterparts can when you hit higher levels.
It would probably be best to redo the entire arcane casting system from the ground up with new classes rather than attempt to convert existing ones.
It depends on a few things. The first is if you want to let them keep their free scaling or bother to rewrite all the magic spells.
If I was going to convert the wizard to be another psionic caster, I'd determine their effective PP total (doing a spell to power cost conversion), then penalize it by about 25% (to offset the fact they are now going to enjoy heightened flexibility), then allow them to "prepare" powers using their spells per day. So a 5th level "wizard" would be able to prepare 3 1st, 2 2nd, 1 3rd powers, plus one of each level if a specialist; then you'd be able to cast any of these prepared powers at will by spending points on them.
At least, that's how I've been thinking of doing it for a bit. A friend of mine has recently become enamored with psionics since I introduced it to her and now she wants me to convert some core classes to psionics and possibly convert some core magic to psionics. She wants me to do the bard, while another friend of mine wants to see Paladin that uses PP for their stuff. So I might soon be working on making psionic versions of the core classes soon enough. >_>