| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nathaniel: I've seen a similar feat back in 3.5, but it was "spend two slots from one spell level to cast a spell of a single level higher". It did allow for extrapolating downward (so for example to cast a 9th-level spell instead of spending two 8th-level slots you could spend one 8th and two 7th). I'd say your version is a little more complex, but not sure whether or not it's balanced.
@Lazar: Can't speak for Amby, but for myself, because PF is the system I know and the system I and my friends play. We're not looking to learn another system, so new options for the system we do use that expand the kind of games that can be played with it are right up our alley. I know we're not the only people who are interested in something beyond basic fantasy with Pathfinder, a mindset it appears Paizo shares.
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical New Feat: Versatile Magic
You can combine lower level spell slots to achieve more powerful effects. In order to cast a spell you must expend a total number of spell levels equal to the new level of spell you cast plus 2 for spells 3rd level or lower, plus 4 for spells of 4th through 6th levels, and plus 6 for spells of seventh level or higher.
Therefore, for example you could cast a 6th level spell by using one third level slot, two second level slots, and three first level slots (8 total spell levels).
For example you can cast a 9th level spell by using 5 first level slots, four second level slots, and two third level slots (15 total spell levels).
Is the above feat balanced and fair?
I'm not sure if that was an argument for or against power point based psionics, but I do want to point out:
There is very little comparison between a psionic power and an arcane spell, and most of the differences are in arcane magics favor by a wide margin, so trying to draw an equivalence between the two in the manner above isn't really going to prove anything one way or another. Some things to remember:
Spells scale automatically, while psionic powers do not. A magic missile at 5th level is automatically better than a 1st level one, but a psionic power does exactly the same thing regardless of manifester level unless the psion puts more points in it.
Pool mechanics operate off different assumptions than slot mechanics. You aren't trading 1st level powers for higher level powers; your first level powers are worthless in the later game and you're not expected to be using them in combat. It is assumed that you're either going to be using higher level powers or scaling your lower level powers up and the total strength of powers and the size of your power point pool is balanced to that assumption.
Many of the broken or extremely powerful arcane spells either have no psionic equivalent, or the psionic equivalent isn't as powerful. Go crack up open your copy of Ultimate Psionics or the old Expanded Psionics book and see what the psionic equivalent of invisibility is.
Power point casting is a much more intuitive system, and reflects the kind of csting most fans of contemporary fantasy expect. It's also better balanced than the current PF version of Vancian casting, and works much like the well-balanced casting system in 5E.
That being said, I'm just as happy Paizo isn't trying to emulate the materials already well covered by Dreamscarred and is instead doing something new. It seems like Occult Adventures will be much more familiar to GMs, which is a plus for PFS and other organized play venues. By using the same rules they've used for other casters, they're making it easy for GMs who maybe don't have time to learn the nuances of a new system to swiftly and easily adjudicate at the table, and probably have an easier time recognizing when something is amiss.
For those of us not reliant on organized play, we've got the awesome material from DSP to satisfy our needs. And lets be honest: there's really no way Paizo is going to top the awesome that is UP by competing in the same arena, so better that they're expanding elsewhere.
Many of the broken or extremely powerful arcane spells either have no psionic equivalent, or the psionic equivalent isn't as powerful. Go crack up open your copy of Ultimate Psionics or the old Expanded Psionics book and see what the psionic equivalent of invisibility is.
Which never made sense given the Cryptic has a straight invisibility equivalent, Vanishing Strike grants invisibility, the the Sequester equivalent does, too. You could have Cloud Mind in addition to a regular psionic invisibility, but there's no reason for it not to exist.
Its a simple question-- is a system like this in which an Arcane caster can trade in all his low level spells for high level spells balanced?
Everything else you went into there is an excuse for what is at its hear a broken system.
Nathaneal's mostly been frustrated in real play - from our PM conversations - about the ability to attack touch AC on a few martials more than the direct manifesters, though he also aligns it with the manifesters themselves, as he also has had some trouble with heavy armor on a full manifester.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nate, if you want this, there you go. Make your arguments there, rather than here. Otherwise, this is an epic derailing and let's focus on the things that are coming to PF rather than 3.5's relative balance or lack thereof.
Bear in mind all that are participating, Mr. Love's experience is 3.5, so we'd need to restrict all builds to 3.5 materials only.
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all this that you want, why are you playing Pathfinder and not Mutants and Masterminds? Just an honest question, because you seem to be looking to play a superhero/sci-fi/cybperpunk game instead of fantasy.I'd like to see a The Shadow as a psychic gunslinger archetype.
I'd like to see something similar to a class that uses Asherah linguistic viruses and Enki innoculations/nam-shubs.
I'd like to see something similar to a not-necessarily-evil class/player race that can only interact with the Prime Material with a malevolence/possession ability: as a ghost, Gyhard from Fifth Quarter, or the Yithians from The Shadow Out of Time.
Heck, get SKR do revisit/Pathfinderize stuff from Ghostwalk.
I'd like Todd Stewart to contribute a protean that remakes/realigns reality—including altering creatures and "casting" psychic "spells"—with psychic "singing."
I'd also like to see creatures inspired by the monsters in Fiend Without a Face, Forbidden Planet, and Jonny Quest's "The Invisible Monster." Only three creatures frightened me as a child, and JQ's invisible monster was one of them.
That wasn't intended as a "must have" list, just an off-the-top-of-my-head list of ideas intended to spark ideas in the Paizo contributors/freelancers reading the thread. And I disagree that those ideas are less suitable somehow for a Pathfinder setting-neutral core book.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a simple question-- is a system like this in which an Arcane caster can trade in all his low level spells for high level spells balanced?
Everything else you went into there is an excuse for what is at its hear a broken system.
Except the system isn't broken, and your overly simplified attempt to draw a corollary isn't at all accurate. Psionics is far and away the most balanced power system in the 3.5/Pathfinder ruleset.
|
As long as it goes the way of Mythic powers, I.E., Never sees PFS Play and is made a Novelty boon in some random scenario for a 1 to 3 time use only, Then cross off. I don't care.
People are going to assume its broken. which is why some people will be drawn to it, that and flavor. Paizo will likely handle it well but id rather they not risk exposure to the hate. from both lovers of the old Psionics and from people who misunderstood how powerful it really was.
Hypothetical New Feat: Versatile Magic
You can combine lower level spell slots to achieve more powerful effects. In order to cast a spell you must expend a total number of spell levels equal to the new level of spell you cast plus 2 for spells 3rd level or lower, plus 4 for spells of 4th through 6th levels, and plus 6 for spells of seventh level or higher.
Therefore, for example you could cast a 6th level spell by using one third level slot, two second level slots, and three first level slots (8 total spell levels).
For example you can cast a 9th level spell by using 5 first level slots, four second level slots, and two third level slots (15 total spell levels).
Is the above feat balanced and fair?
admixture wizards would be salivating id think.
|
Design Manager
|
As long as it goes the way of Mythic powers, I.E., Never sees PFS Play and is made a Novelty boon in some random scenario for a 1 to 3 time use only, Then cross off. I don't care.
People are going to assume its broken. which is why some people will be drawn to it, that and flavor. Paizo will likely handle it well but id rather they not risk exposure to the hate. from both lovers of the old Psionics and from people who misunderstood how powerful it really was.
There's a lot of really specific reasons that Paizo isn't actually using the word "psionic" in the new product, and past associations with the term are certainly amongst them.
I doubt this will be a non-standard supplement unavailable in PFS; from a business standpoint that just doesn't make sense. They'll be fully fledged new classes just as available as Fighters and Wizards, and all that remains to be seen is how the Occult mechanics actually flesh out.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it goes the way of Mythic powers, I.E., Never sees PFS Play and is made a Novelty boon in some random scenario for a 1 to 3 time use only, Then cross off. I don't care.
People are going to assume its broken. which is why some people will be drawn to it, that and flavor. Paizo will likely handle it well but id rather they not risk exposure to the hate. from both lovers of the old Psionics and from people who misunderstood how powerful it really was.
Yeah... that's not going to happen. Also, 3.5 and Pathfinder Psionics were/are well balanced. The issue comes from people not following the rules. But that's an issue regardless of whether or not you're using Psionics.
One of the big issues was the manifester level cap on PP. It's akin to someone saying, "Oh, I'm 5th level but I can cast a 10th level Fireball".
Seriously, compare all of the similar powers/spells between the two systems and you'll find Spells are more powerful probably 9/10 times. In addition, when you compare what Psionics can do that Spells can't vs what Spells can do but Psionics can't... again, Spells are more powerful.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Psionics are cool because they're modular, you have a bit more control over how much oomph you put into each individual power, and lower level powers stay fairly competitive for longer.
However, for the most part, un-Augmented powers are either exactly the same or weaker than spells. The main difference is low level powers like Inertial Armor being able to be boosted to a higher bonus later on, in exchange for, frex, not getting access to spells as powerful as Miracle, Simulacrum, etc., and having to pay more resources to get the bang from any of their powers at higher levels.
There's a big resource difference between "I cast a 5d4 Burning Hands for the same 1st level spell slot I did at 1st level" and "I cast a 7d4 Crystal Shards, but it costs a hell of a lot more PP and if I didn't it would only do 3d4 max".
Higher minimums, lower maximums is often the name of the game with Psionics.
As long as it goes the way of Mythic powers, I.E., Never sees PFS Play and is made a Novelty boon in some random scenario for a 1 to 3 time use only, Then cross off. I don't care.
People are going to assume its broken. which is why some people will be drawn to it, that and flavor. Paizo will likely handle it well but id rather they not risk exposure to the hate. from both lovers of the old Psionics and from people who misunderstood how powerful it really was.Yeah... that's not going to happen. Also, 3.5 and Pathfinder Psionics were/are well balanced. The issue comes from people not following the rules. But that's an issue regardless of whether or not you're using Psionics.
One of the big issues was the manifester level cap on PP. It's akin to someone saying, "Oh, I'm 5th level but I can cast a 10th level Fireball".
Seriously, compare all of the similar powers/spells between the two systems and you'll find Spells are more powerful probably 9/10 times. In addition, when you compare what Psionics can do that Spells can't vs what Spells can do but Psionics can't... again, Spells are more powerful.
Except when they're not. Like...reddopsi(hello, I'm like spell turning, but no spell levels limit, and just because you can't take it without Expanded Knolwedge or being a kineticist that doesn't mean it's less powerful) and bunch of other powers that were straight better than their magic counterpart.
EDIT: Well, looking closely to some powers, you could pretty much tell that whoever wrote them didn't pay much attention to what the hell he was doing. Translating a phrase from my language: "This book was written with the feet".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except when they're not. Like...reddopsi(hello, I'm like spell turning, but no spell levels limit, and just because you can't take it without Expanded Knolwedge or being a kineticist that doesn't mean it's less powerful) and bunch of other powers that were straight better than their magic counterpart.
Case in point of people not reading the power and then claiming it's OP.
"Up to 15 power points (or eight spell levels in psionic-magic transparency games) worth of powers are reversed in this fashion."
The only difference between Reddopsi and Spell Turning is that Reddopsi is a flat 8 spell levels and Spell Turning is 7 to 10. So higher minimum, lower maximum.
When you manifest reddopsi, powers targeted against you rebound to affect the original manifester. This effect reverses powers that have only you as a target (except dispel psionics and similar powers or effects). Powers that affect an area and those that produce effects can’t be reversed. Reddopsi also can’t reverse any power with a range of touch.
Should you rebound a power back against a manifester who also is protected by reddopsi, the power rebounds once more upon you.
Actually, there is no such limit for reddopsi. You are straight immune to single target spells for 10 min./level
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/reddopsi.htm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the 3.5 version. As I recall we were discussing Psionics in Pathfinder, which would be DSP's Psionics. Which does have the 8 spell level limit.
Considering the fact that Magic is even *more* powerful in 3.5, you really don't want to be going down the road of saying psionics is broken.
Sorry, I was referring to 3.5 being written badly, because people seem to think psionics were ok back then.
As for Pathfinder, I liked some of the DPS stuff, though not how the psychic reformation was fixed (i.e. at all). A temporary energy drain called somehow otherwise doesn't weight all that much when you have a day off.
Plus, DPS material has the same flaw as Paizo:
As long as it's cool-looking, it doesn't matter if it's broken or overpowered. That's why I'm not playing Pathfinder all that often anymore. Still, I'm a sucker for new things, so I keep an eye on their stuff even if I'm not going to use it.
I remember trying to convince the PoW developer to avoid absolutes like "I can parry a planet explosion with my shield or withstand the hits of the God Mighty of Weapons" with a maneuver while I'm a puny 18th level character, to no avail. And that way I lost any hope Path of War could help my D&D games with new ToB material.
EDIT:
Considering the fact that Magic is even *more* powerful in 3.5, you really don't want to be going down the road of saying psionics is broken.
You got me wrong. Just because something is broken that doesn't mean the other should be broken as well. Just because magic was on average more powerful, that doesn't "give" psionics "the right" to be broken.
It's not "eye for eye", it's "turn the other cheek".
It kind of does, because a game should generally have all similar options be in the same ballpark of power.
So if your X mechanic is Y powerful, and your alternative version (essentially) of X mechanic is Y-1 powerful...people will be disincline to use it.
It needs to be different, but roughly equal.
3.x/Pathfinder is generally TERRIBLE at doing this across the board, but fairly consistent when it comes to spells and spell-like systems.
It kind of does, because a game should generally have all similar options be in the same ballpark of power.
So if your X mechanic is Y powerful, and your alternative version (essentially) of X mechanic is Y-1 powerful...people will be disincline to use it.
It needs to be different, but roughly equal.
3.x/Pathfinder is generally TERRIBLE at doing this across the board, but fairly consistent when it comes to spells and spell-like systems.
No, it doesn't. Unless your main goal is to increase power creep so much that you don't notice it. But at that point you'd better create a whole new edition of the game with greater power baseline built in it.
The point is that "oh no look at that one, he's overpowered, let's be overpowered" leads to even more powercreep.
Offering horizontal growth of options is good, offering vertical growth is generally not.
Anyway, this is probably OT.
I look forward to these classes, maybe to use them in my 3.5 games if they are balanced enough. But my worry is they'll be just as bad as the jump from APG to ACG. Or worse, from the Corebook to the APG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a simple question-- is a system like this in which an Arcane caster can trade in all his low level spells for high level spells balanced?
Everything else you went into there is an excuse for what is at its hear a broken system.
This would probably be true if it were a direct conversion, insofar as 9 1st level spells = 1 9th level spell, but that's not how it works. In truth, every effective +1 level costs 2 additional PP, and psionics doesn't benefit from the "free scaling" of core casting.
In core, at 1st level your wizard's magic missile deals 1d4+1 damage and accounts for a 1st level spell slot. At 9th level it deals 5d4+5 with the same 1st level spell slot, which is now a far lower overall resource expenditure. Just because you leveled up, it has grown to 500% its normal power.
Psionics? Not so much. A 1st level power costs 1 PP. But it never gets any better unless you spend more on it. Every power level above it costs 2 points more, which means to equate a 1st level power to a 9th level power, you would need to expend 17 1st level powers worth of power points. That's a pretty cruddy conversion rate.
Likewise, without free scaling, you are forced to use powers at a higher "level" to keep things relevant. That wizard can toss around 5d6-10d6 fireballs with the same 3rd level spells slots. The psion has to spend 5 PP (3rd level) for 5d6, 7 PP (4th level) for 7d6, 9 PP (5th level) for 9d6, and so on.
Then there's also the fact that pound for pound, psionic powers are weaker or require more than spells of similar power. A lot of iconic spell-like effects such as charms, summoning, and so forth require you to either be of a particular psionic specialization or you have to expend feats to learn them. This would be comparable to a wizard having to pick a particular school of magic and then having to spend a feat any time he wanted to pick up a really nice spell from a different school of magic (IE - if you want animate dead but you're not a Necromancer wizard, you gotta burn a feat and you can't learn it until you could cast a spell 1 level higher than it to boot).
When there is a spell-to-power analog, such as with the charm line of spells vs the empathic connection power, the spells tend to get freebies. For example, charm monster is a 3rd level spell that lasts 1 day/level and affects any living creature. Meanwhile a psionic character has to spend 5 PP to charm any living creature for 1 hour / level, or spend 5 PP to charm a humanoid for 1 day/level. If they want to charm any living creature for 1 day / level, they have to spend 9 PP which is the equivalent of a 5th level power to emulate what the Wizard does with a 3rd level spell for free.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psst, Ashiel, this might be a better place for that.
(EDIT: If for no other reason than to have all the arguments in a central location that can easily and quickly linked to when all future arguments of such a nature arise.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psst, Ashiel, this might be a better place for that.
(EDIT: If for no other reason than to have all the arguments in a central location that can easily and quickly linked to when all future arguments of such a nature arise.)
Responded in other thread. :)
Then there's also the fact that pound for pound, psionic powers are weaker or require more than spells of similar power. A lot of iconic spell-like effects such as charms, summoning, and so forth require you to either be of a particular psionic specialization or you have to expend feats to learn them. This would be comparable to a wizard having to pick a particular school of magic and then having to spend a feat any time he wanted to pick up a really nice spell from a different school of magic (IE - if you want animate dead but you're not a Necromancer wizard, you gotta burn a feat and you can't learn it until you could cast a spell 1 level higher than it to boot).That's considerably balanced by the fact that psions are the ultimate stealth armored caster. They have no components to their spells, can cast in armor if willing to make the feat investment, and aren't stopped by silence.
This would be more of an advantage if it was worth the bother to use armor which, for psions and wilders, it's not (1 level or 1 or more feats is not worth the return), and for the others they're not full casters. So...yeah. Almost like armor is not relevant.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see official psionic or psychic magic in Pathfinder. I do so love that gut reaction of someone when you say you are bringing a psychic to the party and they immediately start complaining how broken psionics are. And there sits the Wizard not two seats from him who has the potential to summon a celestial quasi-god level being to destroy anything he desires 4 times a day should he choose.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see official psionic or psychic magic in Pathfinder. I do so love that gut reaction of someone when you say you are bringing a psychic to the party and they immediately start complaining how broken psionics are. And there sits the Wizard not two seats from him who has the potential to summon a celestial quasi-god level being to destroy anything he desires 4 times a day should he choose.
6 times a day if he opts to fill all of his slots, because, you know, he can just add shit to his prepared spells between encounters if he needs to.
Or that Druid who is all "lol, psions..." *incense of whoopass* *dazing maximized flame strike* *wildshape* "RaWr!"
I always wondered if someone has done an optimized theory crafting of a Wizard given 1 day prep and 1 day to fight a pantheon, to see how many of the gods he could take before he got taken out. And the very fact that I wondered this kinda proves Magic is stronger and more OP then Psionics. Psionics are more subtle and utility wise are better. Which is why I love them.
If they still exist, you can find all of those builds and more in the old WotC CharOp boards.
As it turns out, though, gods are pretty hardcore. (Mostly because, as a standard action, they have every spell in the game and can have every non-instantaneous temporary effect be permanent.)
I always wondered if someone has done an optimized theory crafting of a Wizard given 1 day prep and 1 day to fight a pantheon, to see how many of the gods he could take before he got taken out. And the very fact that I wondered this kinda proves Magic is stronger and more OP then Psionics. Psionics are more subtle and utility wise are better. Which is why I love them.
Depends on the gods in question, really. Some of them in the deities and demigods books were kind of jokes and could be taken out by a non-gods pretty easily pre-20th, then you had other gods like death gods who just killed you because they said so...
Deities and demigods was a good read but horrible mechanically. Another book that is also a really good read from the 3.0 line is the Manual of the Planes, which I really loved reading (it's better than deities and demigods from a mechanical perspective as well IIRC, barring the timeless trait + genesis cheese).