| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth responded to the Vancian concerns pretty well up there^^^.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, if it's just more vancian casting, I'm going to have a hard time getting excited for it.Well, what do you mean by "Vancian"? Spontaneous spellcasters arent Vancian. Nor are the Hex of Witches, nor cantrips, nor Wordcasters, nor Ki powers. Plenty of non-Vancian now.
The Warlock was non-Vancian also, as was BoNS, and to a large extent 4th edition (well, except for Daily abilities).
I doubt if all six new classes will use the true Vancian system (mostly) by Wizards .
If what you want is a points system, that's different than saying "non-Vancian".
I really hate spell points or any power point system. Every one I have seen is subject to abuse, especially Nova-ing. Nova-ing spellcasters and "one encounter day" are a major part of what some find as a "caster/martial disparity".
I dont get why everyone thinks that Psionics Must be Power points, rather than some other system.
if it's power points you want, then why do say you want Psionics? Psionics are a particular form of supernatural ability coming from mental force. You can have Psionics without PP, and PP without Psionics. 4th Ed had Psionics without PP (altho there was a sorta pt system involved).
If you talk about Psionics in relation to DnD, at least if you talk about it post 3rd edition, people will automatically assume you mean a power point system. Even Paizo recognizes that, hence psychic magic and not Psionics
As for powerpoints, I don't actually think it is overpowered in comparison to more traditional spellcasting, at least as implemented by DSP. Numerous threads on that subject on this site There are restrictions on how you use your power points, and Nova-ing si something easy to address in play.
Personally looking forward to seeing Occult Adventures, and glad it's going in a different design direction than 3.5 Psionics. We already have the latter in Dreamscarred Press, and I want to see something new.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I agree entirely with what Dr Deth said back in post #48.
I've played in DnD-derivative systems with spell-points instead of slot-based magic/casting systems (for those who go wwwwaaaaaayyyyy back into the mists of gaming history, 'Complete Warlock' anyone? -Balboa Game Company, late 1970s, for one of the first such systems I encountered in gaming)-- it is true that I haven't really seen Psionics done *in D&D* without using some form of power points (other than some house-rules variants, including a 'Mind-mage' variant done around here), but it's definitely not inconceivable, it's been done in other games without "power points", and since I've seen more than a few spell-point variations on magic, I don't think power point systems = psionics.
I am looking forward to seeing what Paizo does with this occult adventures supplement. Generally speaking, I've often objected to psionics and arcane/divine magic being in the same game when they're presented as two entirely separate sources of power and seem to produce a sharp clash in the way the world/universe feels. I don't object to having both when they're presented in such a way that it feels like both types of "magic" (arcane and psionic, or all 3 if you want arcane, psionic, and divine) do belong in the same universe-- but I still object to games mixing power-point systems and slot-based casting systems-- in practice, I don't think they play well together and one or the other is almost always out of balance.
(For the record, when I've included psionic and arcane powers in the same game and been happy about it-- all of these powers were "magic", just different forms and aspects of it)
So who wants to make a bet that there'll be a psionic option for the wizard (becuase they obviously need them)?
This has been weirdly understated. I've seen a few references to it, but this is the first link to / direct statement I've seen. Thanks for finding it RD!There are at least four threads that have been talking about this over the last week.
Are you on this project Mr Hodge?
If so I will be purchasing it, you write stuff I like.
I love the Dream Scared press version and hope both will work together.
Were getting "psychic magic", not "psionics", so there will not be a psionic wizard though there might be a psychic magic related wizard and/or sorcerer type class. I don't know why people are so surprised that Pathfinder's version would be different. They have been saying for years that it would be called psychic magic not psionics and that it wouldn't use the magic point system. I am so glad that there going in a different direction with this.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with.
This is something that Erik Mona and a few others at Paizo have been ruminating on for a while and it'll be interesting to see what they're able to come up with, especially since they've noted that some of the classes will specifically not be Vancian in nature. Sounds like the Kineticist might even be the "new warlock" with a suite of not spell slot supernatural abilities. Could be very cool.
Frankly, I don't think Paizo could do DSP/3.5 -style psionics better than DSP already has, and even Paizo has acknowledged that, so while there may be some overlap in naming conventions, I'm confident that this is going to be a spread of new material that can click in with Paizo's existing catalogue and DSP's Ultimate Psionics without any mechanical overlap.
I think ACG was hampered a bit by its mission statement of combining two existing classes. I think that hindered its potential a bit. With this expansion coming out completely divorced from any existing mechanics, there's a lot of potential for us to get the kind of cool originality from Paizo we've seen in classes like the Inquisitor, Magus, and Oracle. This is definitely a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo is not going to do point based psionics because DSP already did that.
And DSP classes work just fine(all 10 of them) with the other classes in the game.
|
|
I've generally found that when you have a set of powers using points, and another set of powers using slots-- IME, one of them is almost always imbalanced in relation to the other, possibly in multiple ways, and I'd prefer to see all types of "magic" in a game work on more-or-less the same or similar systems.
Not-- jam a points-based system in where all other magic is slots-based.
Haven't played with DSP Psionics in Pathfinder. In 3.5, depending on who was playing the Psionic-- it came off as either not powerful enough to keep up, or (more commonly) brokenly over-powered to the point of "why would anyone bother playing anything but a psionic?" (if you're going to play a caster, that is)-- the one thing that NEVER happened was the psionic and the mage being more-or-less balanced and not constantly having one outshining the other into irrelevance. Again, IME, the two mechanically very different systems did not play well together.
Regarding the 'Vancian' discussion-- I prefer saving the term 'Vancian' for what it originally meant-- which is what D&D started with, but didn't stick to... which is why I brought up "slots-based" as a more accurate term. Truth to tell... I don't like truly 'Vancian' magic at all-- not in flavor or mechanics, but I find the current slots-based systems tolerable partly because they are not Vancian in flavor anymore for most classes (Wizards and Magi still being exceptions, Alchemists/Investigators and Arcanists being somewhat separated but still carrying part of the flavor), and have at least somewhat stepped away from the original Vancian mechanics for the spontaneous casters. Then again, I also personally prefer spontaneous casting classes to prepared casters-- again, as a matter of flavor as much as in-game effects. Although I find a good point in stories and games to the idea of studying your spell-books to stay sharp and maintain your knowledge, I prefer the thought that your character knows his spells to the idea that your character has to study his spell-book every morning, jam certain spells into his brain, and then forgets each spell (to the point that he can't cast it anymore without studying again) as soon as he's cast it-- and that is the part that is Vancian magic.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't played with DSP Psionics in Pathfinder. In 3.5, depending on who was playing the Psionic-- it came off as either not powerful enough to keep up, or (more commonly) brokenly over-powered to the point of "why would anyone bother playing anything but a psionic?"
I can say with every confidence based off the bolded part that whoever was doing that was playing them wrong and/or ignoring rules. Psionics in 3.5 is not overpowered. (Psionics in 3.0 on the otherhand was a brilliant, but very deeply, deeply flawed system.)
EDIT: for clarity
|
|
Idk, DSP Psionics are much better balanced than our current casters...Oh! And Warlocks from 3.5 were well balanced AND actually pretty flavorful and actually made sense and meshed with suspension of disbelief (spamming eldritch blast made more sense than "Cast Fireball! Ok... well how do I cast that spell again?"
It may well be... and I don't object to the points-based systems in and of themselves-- just, IMO, if you're going to go with points-based systems, then they should ALL be points-based, not have some slots-based and some points-based systems for magic coexisting in the same game. Who knows? You might be able to find a game designer who can actually mesh the two and make it balanced, but I'm sure it's gonna be pretty tough. Honestly-- I think making them all points-based and getting rid of daily slots entirely would be a great idea, at least in principle.
Regarding the Warlock-- it worked and was generally balanced, because if anything the Warlock was a bit underpowered-- except for the fact that you never ran out of shots; it used the already existing 'spell-like ability' mechanics; and underpowered, equal, or whatever-- I admit, Warlocks could be lots of fun (one of my fave 3.5 characters was part Warlock/part Cleric, prestige class Eldritch Disciple as soon as I qualified for it).
Regarding the 'suspension of disbelief' etc-- I totally agree-- rocking the Eldritch blast always made more sense than forgetting your favorite spell as soon as you cast it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't played with DSP Psionics in Pathfinder. In 3.5, depending on who was playing the Psionic-- it came off as either not powerful enough to keep up, or (more commonly) brokenly over-powered to the point of "why would anyone bother playing anything but a psionic?"I can say with every confidence based off the bolded part that whoever was doing that was playing them wrong and/or ignoring rules. Psionics in 3.5 is not overpowered. (Psionics in 3.0 on the otherhand was a brilliant, but very deeply, deeply flawed system.)
EDIT: for clarity
+1
Honestly I found that many people seemed to forget things like, the cap on how many points you can spend on an ability at once. This makes a HUGE difference (otherwise the Meta-Mind would crush everything in a single combat... since it can give itself unlimited Points for a short period of time).
Also people tend to forget that, unlike arcane spells, Psionic powers don't auto scale with level like. In order to get them to scale you have to spend more points...
|
|
Haven't played with DSP Psionics in Pathfinder. In 3.5, depending on who was playing the Psionic-- it came off as either not powerful enough to keep up, or (more commonly) brokenly over-powered to the point of "why would anyone bother playing anything but a psionic?"I can say with every confidence based off the bolded part that whoever was doing that was playing them wrong and/or ignoring rules. Psionics in 3.5 is not overpowered. (Psionics in 3.0 on the otherhand was a brilliant, but very deeply, deeply flawed system.)
EDIT: for clarity
Your experience was clearly different from mine. I wasn't the group expert on psionics, but I know the player who was doing it (the brokenly overpowered side, not the underpowered side of effects)-- he was, and now in PF, generally still is, probably the best one I know for finding the killer combinations and superior builds, but he is scrupulously intellectually honest and doesn't go around ignoring or breaking the existing rules-- so I still believe that while he may have taken maximum advantage of what was there, he didn't make anything up or cheat; he just used what was in fact in those rules to maximum effect, and it worked far better than the things I saw this same player do with wizards and sorcerers in 3.5.
Fortunately when he's the GM, he does not turn these talents to maximum lethal effect on the players, but rather sticks to presenting us with challenging but not insurmountable encounters.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't played with DSP Psionics in Pathfinder. In 3.5, depending on who was playing the Psionic-- it came off as either not powerful enough to keep up, or (more commonly) brokenly over-powered to the point of "why would anyone bother playing anything but a psionic?"I can say with every confidence based off the bolded part that whoever was doing that was playing them wrong and/or ignoring rules. Psionics in 3.5 is not overpowered. (Psionics in 3.0 on the otherhand was a brilliant, but very deeply, deeply flawed system.)
EDIT: for clarity
Your experience was clearly different from mine. I wasn't the group expert on psionics, but I know the player who was doing it (the brokenly overpowered side, not the underpowered side of effects)-- he was, and now in PF, generally still is, probably the best one I know for finding the killer combinations and superior builds, but he is scrupulously intellectually honest and doesn't go around ignoring or breaking the existing rules-- so I still believe that while he may have taken maximum advantage of what was there, he didn't make anything up or cheat; he just used what was in fact in those rules to maximum effect, and it worked far better than the things I saw this same player do with wizards and sorcerers in 3.5.
Fortunately when he's the GM, he does not turn these talents to maximum lethal effect on the players, but rather sticks to presenting us with challenging but not insurmountable encounters.
Yes, but what you're describing is not possible.
If someone has perfect and equal system mastery, then a prepared 3.5 caster is going to outpace any 3.5 psionicist 100% of the time.
It isn't possible in 3.5 to perform the disparity of power, presuming equal optimization, that you describe in the direction that you describe.
Hence, either house rules were at work, he's just better (personally) at psionics and everyone else in the group is significantly lesser in system understanding than he is, or he's doing it wrong. The most likely version is the latter or some combination of the three.
The only real ways that a manifester can outclass a caster is within blasting... the weakest thing a caster can do.
Now, if you were playing with house rules or optional rules, that balance will change, but your experience is not with the core presumptions of the game.
Listen. I've run psionics in 3.5 - a lot. I've broken psionics in 3.5. I'm that guy, and that GM. I've used the optional rules, I've used the base rules. 3.5 Psionics is the most balance suite of classes and mechanics in the game, hands down.
It is a higher power than the martials, but a lower power than the casters. It sits evenly in the middle, works well with itself, and reasonably with everything else.
You are telling me it was broken, and more powerful than magic in all ways. I'm telling you that what you experienced isn't borne out by the rules.
I'd be exceedingly interested if you could hand me, say, any three arcane and any three psionic builds that this guy created. Maybe give some of your stories on how and when he broke things. I'd strongly like to review them. Heck, we could create another thread about this in gamer talk. We'd look at what he could actually pull off together, and maybe I'd learn something. That'd be pretty great, actually!
I know when I ran psionics, my own players thought it was overpowered. Why? "Because the gnome took out that one guy that one time." was about the best explanation I ever got. It was one - one - guy. The rest of the time the gnome sat on the back of the half giant and gave mental communication to everyone. Meanwhile, the wizard, swashbuckler, barbarian, Druid, sorcerer, and rogue were conquering cities, nations, and gods. Sometimes soloing them. The psion? Eventually took on a castle. Predominantly by sneaking around until he could free the prisoners, and then calling his friends for help. And he was at his limit to accomplish that, and almost all of his ability to accomplish this was due to his illusion spells that he'd acquired after he'd gotten frustrated with his lack of effectiveness - while claiming he was overpowered - and went into cerebromancer.
Despite that, they never stopped insisting to me that psionics was "over-powered" in every game I ran thereafter.
I don't know how this idea gets so deeply lodged into people. It's weird.
3.0? I will admit right now that 3rd Edition was broken, wonky, and painful.
3.5? Balanced wonderfully, and especially compared to magic.
But if you wish, I will gladly go over this stuff in a new thread. Just start one and link it, and I'll look into this with you. Because I really want to know,
|
Someone admitted they were not the expert on Psionics. I strongly think you were unaware of something the Psion was doing wrong. If a so called expert can make an mistake, it should be easy for you to realize that you could easily make the same mistake. Even experts can be wrong 10% of the time.
My guesses for why you saw a 3.0/5 Psionics user doing way better than full caster :
-Lopsided rolling always in favor of manifester over caster. Weather during ability score generation or consistent spell/power damage/saves.
-They ignored Psionics transparency
-Blasting is the one thing Psionics can do better _if_ you know energy resistance/immunity and make the best tactical use of the freedom to choose the best energy, shape of he blast, and intensity(points spent vs slot level) on the fly instead of being nailed down to precise combinations of shape, energy, levels like spells are. Otherwise the free scaling of casting just adds up to way more damage over time then manifesting.
-One player obviously had better system mastery, example, like realizing an obscure creature had fire resistance so they meta gamed without making a knowledge roll to just hit it with another energy before learning the hard way.
-Cheating, even if unintentional though misunderstanding or lack of knowledge.
-Did the caster limit themselves to core rulebook only with no swift spells?
I am not sure I see how going nova within the rules is a problem as nothing stops a caster from casting there most powerful spells one after another. When dealing with high level characters, how much of a difference is there between casting 2 or 3 6th level spells then using 3 or 4 5th level spells? Maybe this is an issue at the level 5/6 range when the iconic fireball/lightning bolt come on line but that is for what, 1 or 2 levels?
I can't wait for my non-magic point slot casting psychic classes:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Design Manager
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I think it's worth noting that the title of this thread is actually a little misleading. Psionics is not coming to Pathfinder, it's been here for a while thanks to Dreamscarred Press who did an absolutely amazing job with it.
What we are getting is psychics, occultists, mediums, and other new age / mentalist type classes from Paizo. I remember doing an interview with Erik Mona almost a year ago at PAX Prime '13 and talking about this very subject. Other than maybe some surface similarities between a few concepts like the Pyrokineticist, this should be entirely new material.
I find it heartening that while the classes which really do casting will be some kind of Vancian variant, there are also specifically classes that will be power users who aren't casters at all. That's fairly exciting, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, if that means we get classes with similar mechanics to the Warlock or Dragonfire Adept from 3.5, all the better.
I know a recent release has soured some dispositions, but I think that many of the issues with that product are related to things that should have no bearing on this product, i.e. being shackled to existing mechanics, shoehorning into crowded conceptual space, etc. Much like the upcoming Unchained release is divorcing itself from the legacy of 3.5, I think that this Paizo product, years in the making and unchained from previous material, has a ton of great potential. I'm also pretty hopeful that this one will escape the "GenCon oopsies", since it has been percolating in the minds of the Paizo staff for so long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Investigator alone makes the ACG worth its print.
If just one of the occult classes can fill a needed niche like that (and do it well) then I will be happy.
*note: That includes not trying to fill the niche's DSP classes do.
I'd prefer they not use either point based or slot based casting, but instead make them at will casters. So, for example, a telepath at first level would get detect thoughts and mind shield at will, then pick up read thoughts and some mind damaging ability, then maybe mind control and deep probe and so forth. It would be something different, and better fits the feel of stories with psychic magic.
Maybe for more powerful abilities, the psychic might get a condition when using the powers (fatigued, shaken, nauseated etc.)
Personally I though the Swashbuckler, Brawler, Investigator, and Hunter made the ACG worth it to me.
I would love some abilities that are 1/minute, 1/ 10 minutes, 1/hour as well as more at will powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I LIKE this new. Im a big fan of psionic in 3.5 and dreamscarred press.
Just another note for another subject ; when the paizo book for 2014-2015 coming out
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are synonyms. Psychic = Psionic. Ergo, psionics is indeed coming to Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
adjective
pertaining to the telepathic, psychic, or paranormal
They are synonyms. Psychic = Psionic. Ergo, psionics is indeed coming to Pathfinder.
Seems to me like Psionic includes psychic, but psychic does not include all psionic.
So it's misleading to say psionics are coming to PF. It's like saying shapes are coming when only ovals can make it.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
adjective
pertaining to the telepathic, psychic, or paranormal
They are synonyms. Psychic = Psionic. Ergo, psionics is indeed coming to Pathfinder.
Seems to me like Psionic includes psychic, but psychic does not include all psionic.
So it's misleading to say psionics are coming to PF. It's like saying shapes are coming when only ovals can make it.
There's also the fact that "psionics" has a certain historic weight to it, and for most gamers who've been playing a while it implies some things that aren't true. There's a reason the Paizo team specifically didn't use the word "psionics".
Psionics, aside from its point-based and crystal-themed historical connotations through the other editions of D&D and Dreamscarred Press' offering, tends to carry a certain sci-fi connotation to it. You see it used in sci-fi stories, DC comics, even TV and movies. The Occult/Psychic magic offering that Paizo is bringing in is supposdely going to vary from that tradition substantially, exchanging the punk rock tattooed vibe for something a little less metal and a little more Wicca.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
adjective
pertaining to the telepathic, psychic, or paranormal
They are synonyms. Psychic = Psionic. Ergo, psionics is indeed coming to Pathfinder.
No intended combativeness here, RD, but it is a good chance for me to illustrate the design approach of this book via the syntax differences you illustrate.
Occult Adventures aims to capture a different mood and zeitgeist of a previous age of occult disciplines than did 3.5-era psionics. To confirm 8th Dwarf's inquiry above, I'm serving on this book both as a freelancer and in a high-level design capacity; we haven't yet settled on whether I'll be credited as "creative consultant" or "spirit guide," but you get the idea. =-)
One easy way for me to represent the difference in "psychic" and "psionic" is through one of my professional historical avenues. I'm a board member of a society called IAPSOP: the International Association for the Preservation of Spiritualist and Occult Periodicals. This is a massive online database--an archive of several million pages of digital pdfs of important and historical esoteric works, from weekly Spiritualist newspapers to rare Theosophical books, from the 18th-century right up to the copyright threshold of about the 1950s. Here's a keyword search of that database for the term "psionic." For those of you who don't feel like clicking, there are no hits in a database of millions of hardcore esoteric pages from for the term "psionic".
And that's because that term wasn't coined until 1952, and gained little to no footage among actual practitioners, but instead gained traction with science fiction writers. And that period of esoteric thought and science fiction influences is something that 1E-3.5 era psionics drew from readily, and by default, DSP.
But that's not our wellspring of inspiration with this book. We're plumbing darker depths of historic mysticisms and doctrines. And, as much as that matters, "psychic" and "occult" are the appropriate and correct descriptive buzzwords, and not terms that we view as synonymous with "psionics", the difference of which in fact serve as fantastic separators between the design intentions of this book, and what's already been explored by legacy products and DSP.
For what's it's worth, and for those reasons, there are significant differences, and they're important and distinct to the nature of this tome.
So they are giving it a fantasy vibe rather than a sci-fi vibe? A car made to look like a banana is still a car.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So they are giving it a fantasy vibe rather than a sci-fi vibe? A car made to look like a banana is still a car.
If historic heroics of the Second World War are directly synonymous with Superman saving Metropolis from superpowered alien threats, then sure.