Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.
Explosive Runes is clearly written to be a defensive spell to stop someone from reading your stuff, not an offensive option.
It may be a house rule, but its what the spell is supposed to do and disallowing it from working like that is the only reasonable option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the free +8 AC? Really, its not that difficult a concept. . . still get power points, gain heavy armor proficiency for free instead of three feats. . .Wait, WHAT? He thinks psions dip psychic warrior? WHY!?
I am seriously wracking my brain trying to figure out what kind of..... ahem.... player would sacrifice a manifesting level for a level of psychic warrior... the stupidity of that decision boggles my mind.
Your first mistake is assuming that 8 AC that won't apply against touch attacks matters.
Your second is in assuming that 8 AC is worth a manifester level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.Explosive Runes is clearly written to be a defensive spell to stop someone from reading your stuff, not an offensive option.
It may be a house rule, but its what the spell is supposed to do and disallowing it from working like that is the only reasonable option.
Being able to master magic in any form, Arcane, Divine, Psionic, Elemental Bending, the Force, etc is all about being creative and using your imagination.
You see a spell that is designed to be a booby trap, I see a potential offense if used correctly.
To answer the OP:
As a GM, I do not allow my PCs to use psionics (though they will likely see some face time on the monster side).
Nor do I think I will for the next 5-10 years at least (unless a vancian variant comes out).
Its mostly for thematic reasons, especially as most of the games I run are 2E era FR.
As a player, I don't find they fit in well with most of the game narratives, but might try it in a game that excluded all vancian casting classes/ magic and only had psionics.
-TimD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the free +8 AC? Really, its not that difficult a concept. . . still get power points, gain heavy armor proficiency for free instead of three feats. . .
Why do you need heavy armor proficiency?
You don't need proficiency to wear armor, you simply take the armor check penalty to attack rolls. All of ZERO you'll be making as a psion.Of course even +8 armor isn't worth giving up a full level of spellcasting/manifesting. How many NON-COMBAT clerics, combat meaning clerics (or oracles or inquisitors for that matter) who focus on melee or ranged combat as opposed to casting spells in combat, how many NON-COMBAT clerics take a level in fighter?
Zero?
Yup.
For the free +8 AC? Really, its not that difficult a concept. . . still get power points, gain heavy armor proficiency for free instead of three feats. . .Why do you need heavy armor proficiency?
You don't need proficiency to wear armor, you simply take the armor check penalty to attack rolls. All of ZERO you'll be making as a psion.Of course even +8 armor isn't worth giving up a full level of spellcasting/manifesting. How many NON-COMBAT clerics, combat meaning clerics (or oracles or inquisitors for that matter) who focus on melee or ranged combat as opposed to casting spells in combat, how many NON-COMBAT clerics take a level in fighter?
Zero?
Yup.
You don't really give up a full manifester level though-- there's a trait that lets you count up to 2 "lost levels" to your manifestor level and since you are also getting power points you are not losing very much at all.
Its mostly for thematic reasons, especially as most of the games I run are 2E era FR.As a player, I don't find they fit in well with most of the game narratives, but might try it in a game that excluded all vancian casting classes/ magic and only had psionics.
I played a psionic character in FR once, and what WAS so fun about it was that I was the only one. Or very nearly.
There are the Stray Thoughts which are a psionic organization run by Jacanelle Traen.
And there's all the Underdark stuff, like Duergar and Mind Flayers and Jarlaxl...
To reiterate, I like psionics in FR because it feels rare and unique and mysterious, while magic is ubiquitous and pedestrian.
Just food for thought.
You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.
It's funny, but I've never run into a GM that ran it that way, not even in PFS. Similarly, I've never seen a GM let bonuses to ability checks work on initiative.
You're right technically, of course, but that's a corner of the rules most people are unaware of.
You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.It's funny, but I've never run into a GM that ran it that way, not even in PFS. Similarly, I've never seen a GM let bonuses to ability checks work on initiative.
You're right technically, of course, but that's a corner of the rules most people are unaware of.
So you're argument that you can just take the penalties for being non proficient hinges on DMs ignoring part of said penalties?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, still. Armor isn't worth the dip. You can spend less resources getting the same bonus just by sticking to Psion, and that's if you don't do the smart thing and emphasize non-AC defenses instead.
Yeah, not everyone notices that particularity, but it can be a reason for choosing something like a mithral chain shirt over mithral full plate.You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.It's funny, but I've never run into a GM that ran it that way, not even in PFS. Similarly, I've never seen a GM let bonuses to ability checks work on initiative.
You're right technically, of course, but that's a corner of the rules most people are unaware of.
I'm just remembering this rule, and plan to abuse bonuses to ability checks to max out initiative on a foresight wizard. Hehe!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just remembering this rule, and plan to abuse bonuses to ability checks to max out initiative on a foresight wizard. Hehe!Yeah, not everyone notices that particularity, but it can be a reason for choosing something like a mithral chain shirt over mithral full plate.You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.It's funny, but I've never run into a GM that ran it that way, not even in PFS. Similarly, I've never seen a GM let bonuses to ability checks work on initiative.
You're right technically, of course, but that's a corner of the rules most people are unaware of.
Let me get you started!
Ioun Stone, Pale Green Prism (Flawed):
+1 morale bonus to attack rolls, saves, skill checks and ability checks. Combine with a Courageous weapon to get +3 morale to your initiative!
Stone of Good Luck:
+1 Luck to Saving Throws/Ability Checks/Skill Checks. Combine with Fate's Favored for +2 Luck to initiative.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For 19 power points it 4d4 maximized, which means 8 Charisma damage on a successful save. Save and still die. . .
Only if you dumped charisma and then never bothered with boosters despite the number of monsters that target charisma...then you're just asking for it. If you need two rounds to get the kill, it's not insta-kill.
Oh I don't assume they are obsolete, they ARE. Oh and thank you for actually bothering to argue your point and not sit there and toss insults like Tels.
I'd reciprocate the compliment save that you didn't actually substantiate your statement with any reasons. You just made an emphatic statement, and I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.
Erase I have never seen used ever at low or high levels and it isn't going to win any fights.
...and here is your first fallacy: that success is determined only by fights. It's not. Utility is half the advantage of a wizard or sorcerer. Oh, and it's fun to use for the explosive runes trick (or to get around them).
Unless you are in a very specific sort of situation it isn't even useful.
But when it is, it is VERY useful. Surely you have seen a wizard leave a few low-level spell-slots free just in case he needs a spell out of his book? No? Well that explains a lot...it's one of the most powerful abilities a wizard has, to leave a spell-slot empty and then spend 15 minutes preparing just the right spell for the right situation.
Unseen Servant falls into this category... how exactly is this an overpowered spell?
Second fallacy: useful != overpowered.
Grease I will give you; but hopefully you will find better grapple defense by 20th level.
Many, but not everyone has one. If the party rogue is in a bear-hug and the party fighter is arm-wrestling another hugger, how can you help him? Grease and he pops right out.
Enlarge Person, Feather Fall, Disguise Self, Comprehend Languages, Mage Armor, Shield, Protection from X, Endure Elements, and Alarm are all extremely cheep to make into a magic item.
...so the spells are still useful, then. Oh, but it takes a move action to retrieve the item, so not much use in a surprise round...Oh, and the three D's...
And so really that does nothing to explain why they should balance out improved access to high level spells. Consider also that if you think these spells are SO awesome then your Psion can also use them as an item and not worry about point costs. By 20th level you could do so with pocket change.
Your argument was they should be excluded because they are obsolete. They are clearly useful, so they are not obsolete and can be counted. Even the accumulated 1st level spells of a 20th level wizard do not add up to the power-points required for a single 6th level power, but the point is the wizard is still able to do things with effect with them.
There are advantages to spells when they cast them, because pocket change items are cast at lower levels with appalling saves. They take up weight and space, and they take time to ready.
The problem that the psion has with his 1st level powers is that either they are non-augmentable (ie the same as first level spells), or that augmentation costs power points. He could blow as many PP on giving one or two 1st level powers the same clout as first level spells at that level as the wizard has first level spells in total. Can he enhance them further? Sure - but he has less powers than the wizard has spells, so it's not exactly unfair that he gets more mileage out of some powers than the wizard gets out of some spells.
Magic Missile is useful (because it autohits) all the way up till you get past mid level... BUT at a max damage of 5d4+5 you are not impressing anyone in combat by using it against an opponent who can take that all day long at 20th level.
One word: Attrition. It's a team game, remember?
Charm Person is an alignment violation waiting to happen and useless in combat long before 20th level. I mean really? If your high level BBEG is vulnerable to this then he wasn't going to survive high level combat anyway.
Again, the combat fallacy.
Also charm person is not an alignment violation - as long as you do not use it to compel an action against the best interests of the person you are charming (and without their realising it). It's pretty much the same as taking 20 on Diplomacy is you are good at Diplomacy. You just made them your friend, which enables you to get past them without having to kill them.
True Strike seems useful till you realize you are burning two rounds to shoot one ray or arrow.
Disintegrate is a ray worth hitting with.
Summon Monster I? Trap finding really? Overpowered? I remember when the 10' pole was used for this purpose and a 10' pole doesn't have charges.
So do I, but the 10' pole only has a range of...10'. I used a baboon to open a door another room away that we knew was a trap we could not disarm. Good times, good times...
And lastly Obscuring Mist... yeah it messes up both the enemies vision AND yours.
You do not need to see the enemy to get away from them. They need to see you to attack you.
So you assume that:
That you are undeniably right is you say you are in BLOCK CAPITALS. (not true)
If it isn't usable in a fight it's useless. (Also not true - the big advantage of wizards is utility)
That if it isn't overpowered it's obsolete. (Not true, minimalism works)
That a spell in an item is as useful as when cast by the caster. (The three D's: duration & range, damage, and DC)
No wonder you think wizards are not so overpowered.
You are the first player I have seen argue that Mages are overpowered compared to Psionics.
Nope, lots of people said it and backed it up in lots of threads. Because they are. Psionics is a better system because it is more balanced, not because it is overpowered. Vancian magic, THAT'S overpowered.
And I am telling you I am not a system master you would have to ask someone who was a system master, I am sure you would get an answer.
We have, many of them (and many are here in this thread) - and the answer we get is that psionics are not as overpowered as magic. You claim to refute this...then claim you are not a system master. So how can you be so sure psionics is so unbalanced and overpowered compared to vancian magic if you are not a system master at either?
What you actually mean is that psionics looks more powerful. it would be surprising if it didn't, as it is an intuitively easier system to use, so it's easier to get the best out of it. However the experts agree, you can go much further with magic.
Common sense says that you can't generate 120d6 damage from a 3rd level spell. So you can't.
Without the RAW, this is DM fiat. You are house-ruling to restrict a wizard from being overpowered, which proves the wizard is overpowered. Besides, it's beatable by treating it as 20 lots of 6d6 and running it against resist energy.
For the free +8 AC? Really, its not that difficult a concept. . . still get power points, gain heavy armor proficiency for free instead of three feats. . .
Seriously, inertial armour and force screen give him +8 AC at miniscule cost (2PP) and less loss than wasting a level on something else, while gaining other powers and manifesting levels enhances his offensive power as well. As he's not going to be at the forefront of the fighting anyway, he doesn't need more AC.
The only reason for doing this is flavour, period.
I have players that have trouble with playing casters because the reality of spells in pathfinder is that the are never good at in a fight. They are good to prepare for a fight, get out of a fight, make yourself impossible to fight, but not actually directly killing something.
the examples I've seen on psionics and from what I've been reading on the OGC psionics is the opposite. it can deal massive amounts of damage but can't control reality to the extent arcane spells can.
This is true. If your sorcerer or wizard is only blasting, then they aren't making the most of their spells, period. A wilder, on the other hand, makes blasting a viable concept. Not overpowered, just viable. I would go so far as to say it is the ONE thing that psionics is genuinely better at than magic - but that doesn't make it overpowered, that just makes it functional.
I both allow and encourage the use of the psionic classes, and I request to use them in games that I play in. I haven't had to houserule any mechanics (nor has anyone else needed to as a result of me playing one). However, my main group has taken a liking to the 'Rune Magic' re-fluffing that is proposed in the latest book, just to make it less 'psychic' and more 'fantasy'.
I don't find it hard to integrate them into my campaign. It's a form of magic that causes sights, sounds, and feelings when being cast instead of hand-waving, random objects, and magic words. I use psionic classes for many of my NPCs, as they are much more versatile to work with, but I don't think that my players even necessarily recognize which NPCs are psionics classes vs. non-psionic classes (well, until they Spellcraft).
I definitely use the transparency. Psionics is magic with different casting mechanics... and that's about as different as it gets. Psionics is just like another branch of the divine/arcane differentiation. I think that trying to separate them would cause some major mechanical problems.
Honestly, as I said up thread, I basically treat Psionics as reverse Divine Magic. Basically divine magic changing the world without the need to go begging a deity to do it, but coming from the individuals own power. Feel free to apply gnostic overtones to taste.
However, my main group has taken a liking to the 'Rune Magic' re-fluffing that is proposed in the latest book, just to make it less 'psychic' and more 'fantasy'.
What book is this from, I am interested.
|
However, my main group has taken a liking to the 'Rune Magic' re-fluffing that is proposed in the latest book, just to make it less 'psychic' and more 'fantasy'.What book is this from, I am interested.
It's from Ultimate Psionic.
There's not much written about it, just a page laying out the idea and some examples. Basically, you just reflavour everything and use different names for powers. It's a bit of work, but you don't need to reflavour everything, just the powers your PCs use.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm happy to see at least the majority is on my side for psionics. Most of the last 10 years (since the XPH release) it has been the opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm happy to see at least the majority is on my side for psionics. Most of the last 10 years (since the XPH release) it has been the opposite.
As more people play with an optimized wizard verus an optimized psion, the difference in power favoring the wizard becomes pretty clear. Wizards remain the top tier 1 class by quite a bit.
We have been playing with psionics since the XPH with very minimal issues. Almost all of my complaints were addressed in the Dreamscarred version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I balance things on the assumption that people using both classes know at least generally how to play their characters. No sense in comparing a Superstitious, Spell Sundering Barbarian to a Fighter who has taken Prone Shooter and Elephant Stomp, that doesn't really demonstrate anything.
I suppose if you took people with absolutely no idea what they're doing, Psionics would be easier to pick up and therefore appear more powerful. Psionics has a very high optimization "floor", since there are very few "trap" powers and even a low level power that isn't very good can be versatile thanks to augmentation. Furthermore, Psionics is more similar to the magic systems that people are used to in games since MP is the predominant style of magic system in most games and thus easier for a new player to figure out. The new psionics player doesn't need to worry about how many Enlarge Persons or Fireballs he thinks he might need, he just needs to keep an eye on his Power Points.
I've never been in a group where this was an issue, most players in my experience pick up D&D mechanics in 2-3 game sessions (except that guy... you know that guy) and I think everyone who plays RPGs more generally has at least some sense of optimization.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group is like what you are saying. The times we tested psionics (a couple separate campaigns including two one shots and a longer campaign that went from levels 2 to 12) against the other classes, the other classes were overshadowed quite a lot with one exception, that being the warlord also by Dreamscarred. Hence my earlier ruling if I'm running psionics, it will be only using psionics/path of war classes. It wasn't just me ruling that, the players in the group were unanimous in agreement with it too including the players of the psionic classes.
Take it for what you will, it is just one group's experience.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I balance things on the assumption that people using both classes know at least generally how to play their characters. No sense in comparing a Superstitious, Spell Sundering Barbarian to a Fighter who has taken Prone Shooter and Elephant Stomp, that doesn't really demonstrate anything.
I suppose if you took people with absolutely no idea what they're doing, Psionics would be easier to pick up and therefore appear more powerful. Psionics has a very high optimization "floor", since there are very few "trap" powers and even a low level power that isn't very good can be versatile thanks to augmentation. Furthermore, Psionics is more similar to the magic systems that people are used to in games since MP is the predominant style of magic system in most games and thus easier for a new player to figure out. The new psionics player doesn't need to worry about how many Enlarge Persons or Fireballs he thinks he might need, he just needs to keep an eye on his Power Points.
I've never been in a group where this was an issue, most players in my experience pick up D&D mechanics in 2-3 game sessions (except that guy... you know that guy) and I think everyone who plays RPGs more generally has at least some sense of optimization.
I am going to agree that the optimization floor is easier with Psionics and more closely resembles games outside of DnD. Knowing how to optimize a Wizard or even a Cleric requires some knowledge of monsters and various spell interactions. So in essence, psionics are easier to optimize but provide a lot less power than a optimized spell caster.
Psionics also allows a player to go Nova where the DM likes to throw the one big encounter a day then rest. I have a good friend (who is a very entertaining DM btw) who tends to favor this style of big event fights. The ability to craft a fights that challenge a party can change under these circumstances. Stll, he has never really had an issue mostly because of his level of system mastery and hard enforcement of the power point cap.
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.
Actually, no. " The explosive runes detonate when read,..." Not "The explosive runes detonate when seen" or "The explosive runes detonate when viewed" Or "The explosive runes detonate when perceived.. "
You have to, actually, you know... "READ" them. Which is a deliberate action.
In order for the spell to work like Anzyr sez, it would have to be "Hmm, that skeleton has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." Boom! "Hmm, that next skeleton also has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." BOOM! "Gosh, yet another note on a skeleton, better read that one too..." Boom! and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, anything that can be broken with psionics (yes, there are a few things) can be broken harder without psionics.
No one's denying this part, it's just that...with psionics the powerful options don't bushwhack you outta nowhere, y'know?
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.Actually, no. " The explosive runes detonate when read,..." Not "The explosive runes detonate when seen" or "The explosive runes detonate when viewed" Or "The explosive runes detonate when perceived.. "
You have to, actually, you know... "READ" them. Which is a deliberate action.
In order for the spell to work like Anzyr sez, it would have to be "Hmm, that skeleton has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." Boom! "Hmm, that next skeleton also has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." BOOM! "Gosh, yet another note on a skeleton, better read that one too..." Boom! and so forth.
Did you completely miss the whole discussion? Explosive Runes also detonates if you fail to dispel them.
The idea is cast Explosive Runes on a single piece of paper as many times as you can, then use a level 1 wand of Erase to attempt to dispel the Runes. Erase dictates that you have to make a DC 15 caster level check to dispel the Explosive Runes using Erase (meaning you need to roll a 14 or higher).
So if you roll a 13 or lower on your check, you fail to dispel the Explosive Runes (all of them) and they all detonate.
So if you had say, cast 20 Explosive Runes on a piece of paper, they would all detonate at once, and each one deals 6d6 points of force damage. All total you have to roll 20 saves or take 120d6 points of damage.
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.Actually, no. " The explosive runes detonate when read,..." Not "The explosive runes detonate when seen" or "The explosive runes detonate when viewed" Or "The explosive runes detonate when perceived.. "
You have to, actually, you know... "READ" them. Which is a deliberate action.
In order for the spell to work like Anzyr sez, it would have to be "Hmm, that skeleton has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." Boom! "Hmm, that next skeleton also has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." BOOM! "Gosh, yet another note on a skeleton, better read that one too..." Boom! and so forth.
False, it detonates when dispelled as well. Says so in the description.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.Actually, no. " The explosive runes detonate when read,..." Not "The explosive runes detonate when seen" or "The explosive runes detonate when viewed" Or "The explosive runes detonate when perceived.. "
You have to, actually, you know... "READ" them. Which is a deliberate action.
In order for the spell to work like Anzyr sez, it would have to be "Hmm, that skeleton has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." Boom! "Hmm, that next skeleton also has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." BOOM! "Gosh, yet another note on a skeleton, better read that one too..." Boom! and so forth.
Did you completely miss the whole discussion? Explosive Runes also detonates if you fail to dispel them.
The idea is cast Explosive Runes on a single piece of paper as many times as you can, then use a level 1 wand of Erase to attempt to dispel the Runes. Erase dictates that you have to make a DC 15 caster level check to dispel the Explosive Runes using Erase (meaning you need to roll a 14 or higher).
So if you roll a 13 or lower on your check, you fail to dispel the Explosive Runes (all of them) and they all detonate.
So if you had say, cast 20 Explosive Runes on a piece of paper, they would all detonate at once, and each one deals 6d6 points of force damage. All total you have to roll 20 saves or take 120d6 points of damage.
Where does it say you can cast ER multiple times on one target? Where does it say they go off simultaneously rather than sequentially, which destroys the paper, thus no more runes after the first? Anyway Anzyr has repeated posted the idea of sending in waves of skeletons, each with ER on a piece of paper attached to it, to do waves of damage.
In any case, if you attempt to remove your own Runes, it's automatic. "Likewise, you can remove the runes whenever desired."
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.Actually, no. " The explosive runes detonate when read,..." Not "The explosive runes detonate when seen" or "The explosive runes detonate when viewed" Or "The explosive runes detonate when perceived.. "
You have to, actually, you know... "READ" them. Which is a deliberate action.
In order for the spell to work like Anzyr sez, it would have to be "Hmm, that skeleton has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." Boom! "Hmm, that next skeleton also has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." BOOM! "Gosh, yet another note on a skeleton, better read that one too..." Boom! and so forth.
Did you completely miss the whole discussion? Explosive Runes also detonates if you fail to dispel them.
The idea is cast Explosive Runes on a single piece of paper as many times as you can, then use a level 1 wand of Erase to attempt to dispel the Runes. Erase dictates that you have to make a DC 15 caster level check to dispel the Explosive Runes using Erase (meaning you need to roll a 14 or higher).
So if you roll a 13 or lower on your check, you fail to dispel the Explosive Runes (all of them) and they all detonate.
So if you had say, cast 20 Explosive Runes on a piece of paper, they would all detonate at once, and each one deals 6d6 points of force damage. All total you have to roll 20 saves or take 120d6 points of damage.
Where does it say you can cast ER multiple times on one target? Where does it say they go off simultaneously rather than sequentially, which destroys the paper, thus no more runes after the first? Anyway Anzyr has repeated posted the idea of sending in waves of skeletons, each with ER on a piece of paper attached to it, to do waves of damage.
In any case, if you attempt to remove your own Runes, it's automatic. "Likewise, you can remove the runes whenever desired."
Nothing says you can't cast multiple runes on one object, and I will grant you that limiting the number of runes is one way a GM can prevent such a tactic without just saying, "No."
As for dispelling, where does it say that an instantaneous spell isn't instantaneous? Erase and Dispel both have a duration of instantaneous, meaning they would affect everything at the exact same instant.
A caster can dispel his own spells automatically, this is true, but at the same time, that's a function of dispel magic, not erase. There is nothing preventing a Caster from attempting to dispel his runes using erase just like anyone else. If anything, the fact that he can automatically succeed using dispel magic might logically imply that he could automatically fail as well.
If worst comes to worst, you can have an ally attempt to dispel it instead. Or your familiar, your cohort, or summoned monster etc.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Oi. Tels, I don't think Erase can target multiple instances of spells at once. Neither does Dispel Magic.
First of all I agree with everything, just dropping 2cp.
I have players that have trouble with playing casters because the reality of spells in pathfinder is that the are never good at in a fight. They are good to prepare for a fight, get out of a fight, make yourself impossible to fight, but not actually directly killing something.
Now...being able to throw fireballs from 400ft + 40ft/level distance and do so repeatedly can kill lots of things. Long before they get to you, especially at high levels. (Which is what a BBEG Wizard who isn't very original could do and pretty much win, especially with metamagics, and Greater Invisibility)
the examples I've seen on psionics and from what I've been reading on the OGC psionics is the opposite. it can deal massive amounts of damage but can't control reality to the extent arcane spells can.
Yep...and there are limits to what they can do, based on ML. Did everyone read the article about the Myths about Psionics?
In Magic the Gathering its like Red vs Blue, Red is so strong and fast, capable of many outright broken things, capable of using less resources for better effects, but blue is generally the most broken color because its ability to change the rules enables munchkinry. in situations where both are of equal resources, red can kill you while blue will do something infinite and return all your land remove your deck from the game and so on.
Man, I miss doing that stupid stuff.
I'm not a system master. But I'm a pretty darn good analyst, professionally and as a hobby. It's not OP...it's just different.
And any Psychologist or Psychiatrist worth the name will tell you that different means scary. And scary means overreact and go with Fight or Flight, or both.
Psionics are being run from cause they are scary and people haven't taken the time to understand or try them out. Psionics are being fought because it is a NEW kind of caster, joing the already godlike Arcane and Divine characters. But aren't as good really as either of them.
Rule #1...do the 4 encounters a day standard situation. It may mean the Psionics wins the day overwhelming in 1st encounter...maybe even a bit in 2nd encounter...but the Psionics PC stands and picks his nose for the last two really.
And I figured all this out just by reading this thread. Relax. Try it. See if it is overpowered. If it is post the problem on here and I betcha someone will let you know why someone is doing a 'Nono' and breaking the rules.
Oi. Tels, I don't think Erase can target multiple instances of spells at once. Neither does Dispel Magic.
Debatable, because the target of the spell is the scroll or page as you are trying to erase the writing (mundane or magical) from the page. Logic would dictate that if you are erasing a page, any and all magical writing on that page could be erased with a single casting.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The typical player who wants psionics is is drooling looking at overchannel and how they can burn all the power points at once.
This is not true.
The typical player who wants psionics likes the flavor and feel of brain powers.
This is no different from a set of players liking the flavor and feel of wizardin'.
Explosive Runes does work like that Nathanael. If you play it any other way, you are house ruling it.Actually, no. " The explosive runes detonate when read,..." Not "The explosive runes detonate when seen" or "The explosive runes detonate when viewed" Or "The explosive runes detonate when perceived.. "
You have to, actually, you know... "READ" them. Which is a deliberate action.
In order for the spell to work like Anzyr sez, it would have to be "Hmm, that skeleton has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." Boom! "Hmm, that next skeleton also has a note on him, I wonder what it says..." BOOM! "Gosh, yet another note on a skeleton, better read that one too..." Boom! and so forth.
Did you completely miss the whole discussion? Explosive Runes also detonates if you fail to dispel them.
The idea is cast Explosive Runes on a single piece of paper as many times as you can, then use a level 1 wand of Erase to attempt to dispel the Runes. Erase dictates that you have to make a DC 15 caster level check to dispel the Explosive Runes using Erase (meaning you need to roll a 14 or higher).
So if you roll a 13 or lower on your check, you fail to dispel the Explosive Runes (all of them) and they all detonate.
So if you had say, cast 20 Explosive Runes on a piece of paper, they would all detonate at once, and each one deals 6d6 points of force damage. All total you have to roll 20 saves or take 120d6 points of damage.
Where does it say you can cast ER multiple times on one target? Where does it say they go off simultaneously rather than sequentially, which destroys the paper, thus no more runes after the first? Anyway Anzyr has repeated posted the idea of sending in waves of skeletons, each with ER on a piece of paper attached to it, to do waves of damage.
In any case, if you attempt to remove your own Runes, it's automatic. "Likewise, you can remove the runes whenever desired."
Let's take a look at Greater Dispel Magic shall we? Here is the relevant line:
"Area Dispel: When greater dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot-radius burst. Roll one dispel check and apply that check to each creature in the area, as if targeted by dispel magic. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more spells, apply the dispel check as with creatures. Magic items are not affected by an area dispel."
You are only rolling one dispel check and then applying the check simultaneously to all creatures and objects since Dispel Magic and by extension Greater Dispel Magic is instantaneous. Object is the key word here. You are not placing multiple runes on one object, but rather one per object and using multiple objects. Ie. The skeletons are not being dispelled, but rather the objects they are carrying. A single Greater Dispel Magic will hit a 20 ft. radius of objects which can be many many Explosive Runes.
Now I know what you are thinking "But Anzyr, if you dispel them you automatically succeed." Well that's true, which gives me a very good incentive to have someone who is both not me and guaranteed to fail the dispel check do it. Maybe someone like say a Nalfeshnee Demon which happens to have Greater Dispel Magic at-will and at CL 12, which makes it impossible for it to succeed at dispelling my Explosive Runes at any CL past 21 (22 + 11 = 33) since the most the Nalfeshnee Demon can manage is a 32 if it rolls a 20 (20 + 12 = 32).
So to clarify, Explosive Runes is once per object. They all go off simultaneously because Dispel Magic is Instantaneous, and you let someone guaranteed to fail the Dispel who is not you, use the Greater Dispel Magic.
I know you don't like it, but it very RAW legal. Feel free to point out any errors though as I love making everything very RAW-tight.
Am I to assume this is now the norm? I may be very fortunate to have a group of players in my current campaign who enjoy being powerful, but aren't relying on technicalities, obtuse rules judgments and strange Frankenstein's monster-type character builds for the sole purpose of one-shotting most encounters that aren't 8 or more CRs above the APL (and two-shotting the ones that are).
So let me rephrase my question and see if we can generate some more responses.
What have your experiences been like with psionics in Pathfinder when you didn't have a party who had mathematically squeezed every single last point of optimization out of their characters?
I believe that the extent of "extreme optimization" is more prevalent here in the boards than it is in the majority of the pathfinder player population. This mainly based on the idea that the total amount of people who play pathfinder is very disproportional to the amount of active forum users.
My group had a few bad eggs in the past but for the most part we really haven't run into it for a long time. We mainly see it as a faux pa now.
As for running Psionics without the optimization (in 3.5), there was a lot of "The New Hotness" vibe floating around. Some people felt like their characters weren't as good because they weren't as flashy as a Psionic character. It also didn't help that 3.5 already had balance issues (i.e Fighter being lackluster)
I can see this happening with Pathfinder but to a much lesser degree, because the base classes are more interesting to their 3.5 counterparts and archetypes add even more variety.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well its the same problem that Tome of Battle had, but less so. It was extremely difficult to make an ineffective character using Tome of Battle even if you were largely just picking maneuvers that sound cool. In fact, I'd argue the optimization floor of Tome of Battle is even higher then the optimization floor of Psionics and a big part of the reason many people thought it was overpowered.
Pathfinder does still have trap options like Prone Shooter and Elephant Stomp and breaking up a lot of the feats into chains does not help, especially for people making a Rogue or Fighter. Other classes can get by on their features even if their selections are flawed, but this is not the case with those classes in particular.