You've been met with specific examples describing differences in available powers and spells. You've been given breakdowns of power point to spell slot availability and efficiency. People have provided personal accounts in support of evidence that has already been presented. And hand waved all of it away without consideration- in this very post, among others- without addressing it in any way.
What I intend to gain is a better understanding of the truth. If someone suggests psionics is overpowered, and wants to prove it, I want to see their evidence- and if it's greater than the evidence that I've seen suggesting it isn't, I'll accept it.
What it seems like you're intending to do is further your own belief, and propagate it to other people's belief systems, and belittle them for liking a thing you consider too powerful. I could be wrong though- what are you intending to accomplish? You didn't answer me.
To provide a counterpoint to the consensus opinion.
To look into the reasons why and the actual benefits and drawbacks of the system.
However my posts from the beginning were held to an unattainable standard of perfection for virtue of being against the consensus opinion.
Within the first page of posts I was told a certain posters opinion was a fact and that I was a moron for not instantly accepting it.
When I went into the math showing how many more 9th level effects per day the Psion can generate than a Wizard and that I felt this was problematic I was met with "Novas don't matter" without any further explanation.
When I explained that round per round for a large number of rounds in the middle of a series of combats the Psion would have more powerful options available than the Wizard I was told "Wizard novas before combat because he has an army of thousands of Simulacrums of Solars" and that it didn't matter because Wizard could do more total effects.
When the math to break down a Wizards spell slots per day into powers points where calculated and shown to be 10 more than the Psions, I asked if the Psion would be more powerful with 10 additional power points that could only be used on powers 3rd level and lower if this would vastly increase his power-- which was simply ignored rather than answered.
When I started doing the math to show the higher average damage value of the Psions options compared to the "free scaling" Wizard options it very quickly brought on the "hit points damage doesn't matter and you're "bizarre" for focusing on it because lolz it doesn't matter iz weakest part of game"
I never even got to the point where I could look at the relative power of Astral Construct versus Summoned monsters, or do the math on the exact AC that the Psion in my game got to which caused such a problem in the group at the time achieved it.
Then finally when I pointed out that Dorjes go up to 9th level while wands are only up to 4th level I was told I didn't know anything about the game.
Then I snapped and just started calling people out for insulting me because it was pretty obvious that there's not possible way to bring this back to a productive discussion, and that a lot more ground rules need to be laid out before a productive discussion that would meet the intent of the originator of this post could be had.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a PM I got recently, and the response.
The fact that you don't find cognizance crystals useful at all and would never expend money on them doesn't change the fact that they are capable of doing very much the same thing as a Pearl of Power.
Except they aren't and never will be. My groups routinely purchase pearls for common group staples, but they won't touch cognizance crystals because the cost vs reward is just too high. For example, a pearl of power III costs 9,000 gp. You can cast greater magic weapon with it, which scales to a +5 enhancement bonus and lasts all day long. You can't do that with psionics.
A 17 PP crystal to extend your longevity is in all ways a worse option than just getting multiple low-level ones. It's just basic math. Because if you use the congnizance crystals in place of your spending low level powers then you can use your own points to manifest the higher level ones. There is no reason to downcast with a cognizance crystal.
It's a false option at best. You could do it, but it would require you to be actively worse than your other options, which means you're not going to get an edge on anyone, you're going to lose it.
Further...
Pearls of Power are one of the items I recommend more than anything else on these boards, frequently. I consider them a staple for wizards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers. They are that good. The fact that bards and sorcerers and oracles can't use them is a strike against their entire class for it.
Pearls of power turn prepared casters into pseudo-spontaneous casters, because you can prepare a wider range of spells while still having the certainty that you can get extra casts off if you need them.
Example, a wizard with 4 3rd level slots decides to prepare 2 castings of haste, 2 castings of fireball. With 1 pearl of power, he could prepare 1 haste, 1 fireball, 1 fly, and 1 dispel magic, with a floating 1. He can rest assured knowing that it effectively has 2 of one of these spells prepared. The more pearls he has, the more open he can be with his preparation while also getting extra daily castings out of things. He can open his versatility up while also increasing his castings / day.
Dorjes are normally created at the minimum manifester level required to manifest the power, and powers that can be augmented are not augmented when stored in a dorje. A dorje’s wielder cannot augment the power contained within the dorje. However, dorjes can be created at a higher manifester level than required to manifest the power. In this case, the dorje that holds an augmentable power is augmented, to the limit of the manifester level and the power’s augmentation maximums, if any. The manifester level of a dorje cannot be more than five higher than the minimum manifester level to use the power it contains.
Emphasis mine.
Dorjes are awesome. Much better than wands in my opinion, since if they are created at higher level they do get the increased save DCs and effects instead of just more dice damage or rounds per use.
I understand why some of the Psionic items get a bad rap, but Dorjes are really good and Psicrowns are really good. They have a lot of power points in there, and while I haven't looked at the exact comparison to Staffs, I know Staffs are not highly valued and tend towards the "always sell" pile of gear, whereas Psicrowns are very versatile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re-read that. The sentence just after. They cannot be made more than five higher than the minimum manifester level for the power it contains. That's patently worse than wands.
I can happily make a CL 20 wand of a 1st level spell. I cannot make more than a CL 6 dorje of energy ray. Ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The manifester level of a dorje cannot be more than five higher than the minimum manifester level to use the power it contains.
Re-read that. The sentence just after. They cannot be made more than five higher than the minimum manifester level for the power it contains. That's patently worse than wands.
I can happily make a CL 20 wand of a 1st level spell. I cannot make more than a CL 6 dorje of energy ray. Ever.
Missed that part. But you can make a CL 5 energy ray, and most 1st level spells have caps to how high they scale-- 20th level Magic Missile would be a steep waste.
And you can make a Dorje of Energy Blast or Teleport Psionic, Greater whereas you cannot make a wand of Prismatic Spray or Teleport.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but you can make a staff. Staves cost the same as wands (assuming it's just one spell for 1 charge/cast), and they function for any level spell. Wands only go up to 4th level spells, but staves can be any level and must be minimum CL 8- effectively, this means wands end up being replaced by staves at spell levels of 5th or higher, though the cost the same and scale up with your caster level.
As a reminder for people used to Pathfinder staves, 3.x staves are basically just big wands that scale with your ability scores and caster level. They even cost the same to create as a wand does.
Re-read that. The sentence just after. They cannot be made more than five higher than the minimum manifester level for the power it contains. That's patently worse than wands.
I can happily make a CL 20 wand of a 1st level spell. I cannot make more than a CL 6 dorje of energy ray. Ever.
Missed that part. But you can make a CL 5 energy ray, and most 1st level spells have caps to how high they scale-- 20th level Magic Missile would be a steep waste.
And you can make a Dorje of Energy Blast or Teleport Psionic, Greater whereas you cannot make a wand of Prismatic Spray or Teleport.
Yep. You could get that energy ray do 5d6. Just like a wand of shocking grasp. And you can make high CL wands/staffs incase you want to penetrate SR.
No, but you can make a staff. Staves cost the same as wands (assuming it's just one spell for 1 charge/cast), and they function for any level spell. Wands only go up to 4th level spells, but staves can be any level and must be minimum CL 8- effectively, this means wands end up being replaced by staves at spell levels of 5th or higher.
I concur. Besides, wands of offensive spells kind of suck at high levels due to the bad save DCs (like dorjes). Which is why you swapped over to staffs which have the exact same cost (750gp * spell level * caster level), which got to use your stats and caster level if better. :D
Re-read that. The sentence just after. They cannot be made more than five higher than the minimum manifester level for the power it contains. That's patently worse than wands.
I can happily make a CL 20 wand of a 1st level spell. I cannot make more than a CL 6 dorje of energy ray. Ever.
Missed that part. But you can make a CL 5 energy ray, and most 1st level spells have caps to how high they scale-- 20th level Magic Missile would be a steep waste.
And you can make a Dorje of Energy Blast or Teleport Psionic, Greater whereas you cannot make a wand of Prismatic Spray or Teleport.
Wand and staves are priced the same way so just make a staff. Staffs typically have more than one spell, but it is not a requirement. So for the same pricing as wand a caster can now use his own attributes. That is not a negative for the caster. Actually there is no reason to get a wand now. Just use staves instead.
Creating Wands
To create a magic wand, a character needs a small supply of materials, the most obvious being a baton or the pieces of the wand to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the wand—375 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.
Creating Staffs
To create a magic staff, a character needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being a staff or the pieces of the staff to be assembled.The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the staff—375 gp × the level of the highest-level spell × the level of the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability (281.25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster), plus one-half of the value of any other abilities (187.5 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster). Staffs are always fully charged (50 charges) when created.
No, but you can make a staff. Staves cost the same as wands (assuming it's just one spell for 1 charge/cast), and they function for any level spell. Wands only go up to 4th level spells, but staves can be any level and must be minimum CL 8- effectively, this means wands end up being replaced by staves at spell levels of 5th or higher.I concur. Besides, wands of offensive spells kind of suck at high levels due to the bad save DCs (like dorjes). Which is why you swapped over to staffs which have the exact same cost (750gp * spell level * caster level), which got to use your stats and caster level if better. :D
You people type to fast. Stop that.
@Wraithstrike-- I don't feel its particularly useful to go into some of the attacks and blunt responses I received earlier. Most of the posters who were responding to my posts with blanket one sentence statements aren't responding right now. However the blanket statement "Novas are unsustainable" which one poster used isn't really a response of any value added.
Once specific example was you trying to use timestop to cast low level spells and I pointed out how a caster could bring in a CR 31 epic level creature(s), that could win the fight for them all for the low cost of 1000xp per casting of gate.
Another one was you saying that haste did not benefit 20th level casters, and I pointed out that by helping the martials be more effective you could save other spells.
Ok, lets go back to these--
@ Haste-- my point on this is that I don't consider it to be of the same relative value as casting many higher level options when you are forced to use a round in combat on it.
Look-- pre-combat buffs are all well and good and they have value, but my point in reference to this is the actual value generated from each option in a given combat-- in many situations across a wide variety of levels from experience, spending an action to cast haste has often been or felt like a mistake.
This can be because the threat isn't likely to last more than a very small number of rounds which makes using a "selfless" action like this contributes far less than using a direct option that might end the combat immediately, or reduce the hit points of the enemy/enemies more effectively than the value of the one extra swing of each martial character in your party.
It might be an effective option, but that's dependent on a lot of variables-- its a great choice in a pitched battle where no matter how many rounds you fight and foes you drop there are more foes to fight in the next round.
But against small numbers of enemies, say that can be killed in 2-3 rounds (which many encounters are) then there need to be a high number of allies who are planning to full attack for it to reach the same damage potential as a Fireball, or Cone of Cold, or Polar Ray.
Other buff spells outside of haste hold up even less well if you are forced to spend an action to cast them at the start of combat. Heroism is one example which if you are casting this with your standard action in a round at higher levels its simply not worth the time (+2 to attack to one target). The value of other options is likely to be much higher.
Saving those more powerful options is only really of high value if you have a reason to believe that you will be in more rounds of combat, whereas the value of saving hit points for the party by simply ending this encounter faster might be of decent value as well.
As to gate-- I'm not confident you can cast it under the effects of a time stop spell since it affects a creature that isn't you (can it step through the gate you have created if its frozen in time?)
I personally don't like expending XP on spells. As to what you can actually call through the gate (assuming you can cast it under Time Stop or that you simply cast the Gate instead of the Time Stop)-- its a problem, it will depend on the situation if that's the right combination of valuable and efficient.
Gate is clearly on the short list of spells that are simply too good if interpreted in the player positive reading.
No, but you can make a staff. Staves cost the same as wands (assuming it's just one spell for 1 charge/cast), and they function for any level spell. Wands only go up to 4th level spells, but staves can be any level and must be minimum CL 8- effectively, this means wands end up being replaced by staves at spell levels of 5th or higher.I concur. Besides, wands of offensive spells kind of suck at high levels due to the bad save DCs (like dorjes). Which is why you swapped over to staffs which have the exact same cost (750gp * spell level * caster level), which got to use your stats and caster level if better. :D
Right-- but at the point where you have swapped to Staves you need to include comparisons to Psicrowns as well.
I need to do some comparison on this, but I expect that Psicrowns will come out favorably versus the staves listed in the book since the higher spells usually cost more than a single charge.
Ok, lets go back to these--
@ Haste-- my point on this is that I don't consider it to be of the same relative value as casting many higher level options when you are forced to use a round in combat on it.
It depends on what your goals are. I mean you can try to drop an SoD or an SoS, but those normally require saves. As an example, even if you drop empower and metamagic on an evocation spell you would get as much damage as putting haste on your melee warriors if they are built well. If you are fighting one monster the hasted barbarian can normally kill it in two round. If you are fighting multiple monsters you still drop a summon and then a quickened haste. Basically you are more efficient by empowering the hit point depleters. Of course you can always go for an SoD or SoS, but those require height spell and/or high stats, and they burn your higher level spell slots, which I try to save for when I need them.
Look-- pre-combat buffs are all well and good and they have value, but my point in reference to this is the actual value generated from each option in a given combat-- in many situations across a wide variety of levels from experience, spending an action to cast haste has often been or felt like a mistake.
That is nice, but if you have ever faced a buff enemy vs one that is not buffed then you know out of combat buffs can have a high impact on winning or losing a fight.
Real life example: I used a dragon to ambush a party. They had no time to buff and they were run off. They came back with buffs up, and without the dragon being able to get a surprise, and they won the fight quiet easily.
As for the lack of faith you have in haste, that could be due to the build and play of the martials you were with. However I said before that you can have barbarians putting out more a lot of damage in 3.5.
This can be because the threat isn't likely to last more than a very small number of rounds which makes using a "selfless" action like this contributes far less than using a direct option that might end the combat immediately, or reduce the hit points of the enemy/enemies more effectively than the value of the one extra swing of each martial character in your party.
Most parties I see also have a secondary combatant such as the party cleric or druid who can fight as well as a fighter or better if built for it. That is another attack. Now of course tactics will be dictated by how well your party members optimize and how they play the game. This could be the disconnect. If I played a character made to do damage, and I got a haste, and I had another player of equal skill at the table we could skill one or two creatures equal to our CR in 1 or 2 rounds.
But against small numbers of enemies, say that can be killed in 2-3 rounds (which many encounters are) then there need to be a high number of allies who are planning to full attack for it to reach the same damage potential as a Fireball, or Cone of Cold, or Polar Ray.
Other buff spells outside of haste hold up even less well if you are forced to spend an action to cast them at the start of combat. Heroism is one example which if you are casting this with your standard action in a round at higher levels its simply not worth the time (+2 to attack to one target). The value of other options is likely to be much higher.
If you are fighting a number of foes, then you use battlefield control and SoS to cut them off and deny their actions. That allows for your dpr guys to kill them off in sections, and you can also take some out or deplete their hit points without burning higher level spells.
Saving those more powerful options is only really of high value if you have a reason to believe that you will be in more rounds of combat, whereas the value of saving hit points for the party by simply ending this encounter faster might be of decent value as well.
Well if you are 100% sure you won't need those spells then burn them, but that is the same idealogy that leads to a magic user or psionics user nova. By keeping them(players) on their toes neither can nova all the time. Yes, I have seen both nova if they think it wont matter, so as a GM I know to mix things up occasionally.
As to gate-- I'm not confident you can cast it under the effects of a time stop spell since it affects a creature that isn't you (can it step through the gate you have created if its frozen in time?)
So you cast it 3 times, and they all step through once time stop is complete. Nothing is stopping you from casting the spell. At best it is just means they can't step through because time stop does not really stop time. It allows you to move so fast that it appears as though time is stopped. Either way you have monsters than can win the fight for you.
Psicrowns aren't quite the same. You can pull a staff out as a move action and activate it that round when you need it. You can't do that with a psicrown; it takes up your head slot (reducing the number of magic items you can wear), and if you want to pull a psicrown out just when you need it you'll need to leave that slot open and spend two move actions, one to get the crown out and one to equip it.
No, but you can make a staff. Staves cost the same as wands (assuming it's just one spell for 1 charge/cast), and they function for any level spell. Wands only go up to 4th level spells, but staves can be any level and must be minimum CL 8- effectively, this means wands end up being replaced by staves at spell levels of 5th or higher.I concur. Besides, wands of offensive spells kind of suck at high levels due to the bad save DCs (like dorjes). Which is why you swapped over to staffs which have the exact same cost (750gp * spell level * caster level), which got to use your stats and caster level if better. :DRight-- but at the point where you have swapped to Staves you need to include comparisons to Psicrowns as well.
I need to do some comparison on this, but I expect that Psicrowns will come out favorably versus the staves listed in the book since the higher spells usually cost more than a single charge.
A caster with a staff uses it and the saves go off of the caster's stats, and he uses his caster level if it is higher than the spell in the staff.
The psicrown has to use extra PP to augment any powers and up the DC. In addition it takes up a head slot.
Since these PP used mean less powers to be used for later, that is just like staff burning extra charges to scale a spell, but since spell scale automatically they don't need to burn extra charges.
If you have certain powers you like to use and you can craft them yourself then a psicrown [i]might[/b] not be that bad, but really they are not worth it most of the time. Then again I feel the same way about staves unless you are using one in place of wand since they cost the same to make.
edit:actually with the headslot problem I doubt I would ever use a psicrown.
No, but you can make a staff. Staves cost the same as wands (assuming it's just one spell for 1 charge/cast), and they function for any level spell. Wands only go up to 4th level spells, but staves can be any level and must be minimum CL 8- effectively, this means wands end up being replaced by staves at spell levels of 5th or higher.I concur. Besides, wands of offensive spells kind of suck at high levels due to the bad save DCs (like dorjes). Which is why you swapped over to staffs which have the exact same cost (750gp * spell level * caster level), which got to use your stats and caster level if better. :DRight-- but at the point where you have swapped to Staves you need to include comparisons to Psicrowns as well.
I need to do some comparison on this, but I expect that Psicrowns will come out favorably versus the staves listed in the book since the higher spells usually cost more than a single charge.
I think the point being made was that it is just better to skip wands and go to staves since they are the same price and making are having a staff made with the same spell is better than a wand. If you put extra powers in staff it will go over a wand in price. Psicrowns also have more than one power so price wise if they use the same level power vs spells they should cost the same.
Psicrowns aren't quite the same. You can pull a staff out as a move action and activate it that round when you need it. You can't do that with a psicrown; it takes up your head slot (reducing the number of magic items you can wear), and if you want to pull a psicrown out just when you need it you'll need to leave that slot open and spend two move actions, one to get the crown out and one to equip it.
Yes-- that's a disadvantage of them. You can't effectively swap them one for one like you could a staff.
Yes, you have to spend additional power points to augment the powers you cast from them just as though you were casting the power from your own power point amounts.
However, they have tremendous amounts of power points stored in them, and if you choose a single one which fits with something you want to do fairly often it can be a fairly valuable effect, and compare favorably 1 for 1 to staffs with the same effects.
Compare Dominator to Staff of Charm for instance--
(listed Dominator Psicrown first then --- Staff of Charm)
Gold Piece Cost-- 20,250 --- 16,500
Points/Charges-- 450 --- 50
Comparable power-- Psionic Charm --- Charm Monster
Cost-- 11 --- 2
# uses per-- 40.9 --- 25
Save DC-- 16+ Int --- 14+ Int
Duration-- Day/level--- Day/level
Points/Charges-- 450 --- 50
Comparable power-- Psionic Charm --- Charm Person
Cost-- 5 --- 1
# uses per-- 90 --- 50
Save DC-- 13+ Int --- 11+ Int
Duration-- Day/level--- Day/level
Plus the Dominator can do Suggestion and Domination which the Staff of Charming cannot.
You are getting a lot more uses for a cost increase of less than 4,000 gold and the head slot requirement. I'd say this is a very cost effective option for a mid level character.
Edit: And the Psicrown has its own PP reserve-- you have to augment the power from that PP reserve and can't mix your own daily PP with its reserve for choosing the effects.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually recently posted about the relative value of Power Attack at different levels, which included putting some rough numbers together for martials. The 12th and 16th level calculations already include haste, but adding it to the 8th level version takes you from:
8th Level, No Haste
Our Fighter: 22 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +2 Str item), +8 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon, Weapon Training +1
Longsword Routine: +18/+13 (1d8+10/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +18/+13 (2d6+13/19-20)
CR 8 Average AC: 21
Longsword DPR: 24.22
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 27.23
Greatsword DPR: 33.40
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 38.52
to
8th Level Plus Haste
Our Fighter: 22 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +2 Str item), +8 BAB, Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon, Weapon Training +1, Haste
Longsword Routine: +19/+19/+14 (1d8+10/19-20)
Greatsword Routine: +19/+19/+14 (2d6+13/19-20)
CR 8 Average AC: 21
Longsword DPR: 40.97
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 47.24
Greatsword DPR: 56.51
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 66.82
Or, summarized:
Percent Increases Due to Haste
Longsword DPR: 69%
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 73%
Greatsword DPR: 69%
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 73%
The damage boost goes down slightly at higher levels, as the one extra attack is less of a damage output boost, but not by a whole lot since there are more attacks overall receiving the boost to-hit. In addition to the amazing offensive buff provided by haste, it also gives an extra 30 ft boost to movement, and a +1 dodge bonus (stacks with everything) to AC and Reflex.
For comparison, at 8th level you could spend that 3rd level slot on a fireball that deals 8d6 damage (28- against the average Reflex of 8, with a DC of 21, that means 22.4 damage on average) now, or 5 pp (If they could; Psions sadly do not have a haste equivalent) to deal 5d6+5 damage (22.5- same DC translates to 18 damage average). For a single martial swinging a longsword, Haste grants an increase of 20 damage per round. The effectiveness increase is significantly better if you have more people in your group that make physical attacks, and lends itself to focus firing important targets far better than damage dealing magic generally does (Often, single target damage is not much better than area damage, unfortunately).
I'd recommend comparing staves as made using the staff creation rules to psicrowns created using the psicrown creation rules as opposed to the premade examples. Preferably of spells/powers with similar uses, to get a better comparison. Staves are really at their best when they contain only a single spell, something that's harder to do with Psicrowns due to the difficulty of switching between them or equipping a new one for the power you need, compared to a staff which can simply be drawn.
Psicrowns aren't quite the same. You can pull a staff out as a move action and activate it that round when you need it. You can't do that with a psicrown; it takes up your head slot (reducing the number of magic items you can wear), and if you want to pull a psicrown out just when you need it you'll need to leave that slot open and spend two move actions, one to get the crown out and one to equip it.Yes-- that's a disadvantage of them. You can't effectively swap them one for one like you could a staff.
Yes, you have to spend additional power points to augment the powers you cast from them just as though you were casting the power from your own power point amounts.
However, they have tremendous amounts of power points stored in them, and if you choose a single one which fits with something you want to do fairly often it can be a fairly valuable effect, and compare favorably 1 for 1 to staffs with the same effects.
Compare Dominator to Staff of Charm for instance--
(listed Dominator Psicrown first then --- Staff of Charm)
Gold Piece Cost-- 20,250 --- 16,500
Points/Charges-- 450 --- 50
Comparable power-- Psionic Charm --- Charm Monster
Cost-- 11 --- 2
# uses per-- 40.9 --- 25
Save DC-- 16+ Int --- 14+ Int
Duration-- Day/level--- Day/levelPoints/Charges-- 450 --- 50
Comparable power-- Psionic Charm --- Charm Person
Cost-- 5 --- 1
# uses per-- 90 --- 50
Save DC-- 13+ Int --- 11+ Int
Duration-- Day/level--- Day/levelPlus the Dominator can do Suggestion and Domination which the Staff of Charming cannot.
You are getting a lot more uses for a cost increase of less than 4,000 gold and the head slot requirement. I'd say this is a very cost effective option for a mid level character.
Edit: And the Psicrown has its own PP reserve-- you have to augment the power from that PP...
So you pay more money, and lose the head slot. <---Not a positive.
As for the staff of charm you can get 50 uses of charm person or 25 uses of charm monster or mixed combination that with an autoscaling DC.
For the psicrown you get 450 points.
Charm augments up to the equivalent of charm monster.
First you need a knowledge check to even know how many points to use.
Then you can use 3 point or 7 points or 10 points to be sure the monster can be affected. And then you can augment it to charm for 1 day per level. These also increase the DC.
Dominate gets you 7 to start with and then goes up to 9, 11 or 13 points to use, but the duration is only concentration. However you can augment that by more power points.
That 450 seems like a lot, but not really. You only need to average about 10PP per use to get less than 50 charges, and with your headband slot being replaced by the psicrown you will need to put in more pp to make up for your decreased intelligence since the headband of headband of intellect is now gone.
More than likely you will get about 35 charges out of each item. <--That is an estimate.
A higher level manifester will get less uses because he cant force the psicrown to expend more pp per use
The dominator which is worth about 20000gp is about right for an 11th level character. I say that because when I played 3.5 I normally had a +3 weapon at about this time and they cost about 18000.
That is nice, but if you have ever faced a buff enemy vs one that is not buffed then you know out of combat buffs can have a high impact on winning or losing a fight.
Real life example: I used a dragon to ambush a party. They had no time to buff and they were run off. They came back with buffs up, and without the dragon being able to get a surprise, and they won the fight quiet easily.
As for the lack of faith you have in haste, that could be due to the build and play of the martials you were with. However I said before that you can have barbarians putting out more a lot of damage in 3.5.
There are just too many factors to tell how much the comparable damage is-- party size, party composition, ect, not to mention the encounter.
Its very easy to figure the average damage value of a spell, but figuring the average value of a haste can vary widely.
If the party is 1 Wizard + Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger-- sure, that's likely to have a high value since Fighter, Paladin+ Horse, Barbarian, and Ranger + Animal are all going to be attacking.
What if your party is Wizard + Cleric + Psion + Druid + Other Wizard?
Unless or until you have summoned a horde of creatures then Haste has a very low value since both Wizards, the Cleric, the Psion, and the Druid should be casting spells most rounds-- in effects only the Druid's companion will actually be adding to the damage output.
If there is a Bard in your party, the value of Wizard casting haste becomes even lower-- Bard should be casting it instead every single time.
If you are fighting a number of foes, then you use battlefield control and SoS to cut them off and deny their actions. That allows for your dpr guys to kill them off in sections, and you can also take some out or deplete their hit points without burning higher level spells.
I was thinking more to the "Party versus Army" type of encounter where the players are acting as part of an army versus army encounter where there are extra friendly targets to buff (which also get in the way of the battlefield control) and where the actual number of foes is simply so high that the DM can say things like "Your 20 ft radius fireball has slain 100 enemy soldiers. Next player?. . . Youe flamestrike has slain 70 enemy soldiers. . . How many are left? (doing math) 2830, plus the dragons."
Well if you are 100% sure you won't need those spells then burn them, but that is the same idealogy that leads to a magic user or psionics user nova. By keeping them(players) on their toes neither can nova all the time. Yes, I have seen both nova if they think it wont matter, so as a GM I know to mix things up occasionally.
I try to mix things up and punish players for expending too many resources as well, however sometimes its simply not possible-- you can only force so many encounters on them per day, and can only make those encounters last so long.
My last game I had four encounters with Giants leading into a underground cavern, then an encounter that featured a Balor+ attendant devils that I chained directly into a throne room fight with 10 giants with class levels up to CR 20 and a CR 32 Demon lord (this was PF not 3.5)-- grand total rounds of combat--
16.
It can be very hard to get past 20 rounds of combat in a session. Neither of the spell-casters in the party were even beginning to run low of options. (A Psion in that party could have manifest a 20 PP power every round of combat and had at least 160 PP left for buffs and quickened powers)
I can also say for a fact as a player I have never regretted spending the high level option as a spellcaster, and have quite often wished I had cast the spell as it ended the session sitting unspent on my character sheet.
So you cast it 3 times, and they all step through once time stop is complete. Nothing is stopping you from casting the spell. At best it is just means they can't step through because time stop does not really stop time. It allows you to move so fast that it appears as though time is stopped. Either way you have monsters than can win the fight for you.
Except for the wording of Time Stop and Gate I don't believe interat favorably for that to work.
This spell seems to make time cease to flow for everyone but you. In fact, you speed up so greatly that all other creatures seem frozen, though they are actually still moving at their normal speeds. You are free to act for 1d4+1 rounds of apparent time. Normal and magical fire, cold, gas, and the like can still harm you. While the time stop is in effect, other creatures are invulnerable to your attacks and spells; you cannot target such creatures with any attack or spell. A spell that affects an area and has a duration longer than the remaining duration of the time stop have their normal effects on other creatures once the time stop ends. Most spellcasters use the additional time to improve their defenses, summon allies, or flee from combat.
You can't target creatures or have any effect on them-- if you look at the Gate spell, the "calling creatures" function has a duration of "Instantaneous" which would mean that the creatures cannot step through/be affected by the spell.
Compare that to Summon Monster spells which have duration listed as rounds/level which will appear, be unable to act while their duration ticks down a round each time stopped round, then resume acting as normal for the remainder of the duration once the Time Stop expires.
You might be right that the gates could stay open longer-- but that's back to table variation. My reading of the wording of the spell and the instantaneous duration suggests that it cannot.
So you pay more money, and lose the head slot. <---Not a positive.
No, the head slot isn't a positive-- but you are paying on 20% more for an item that has two additional power effects. The cost increase to add Dominate and Suggestion to the staff will definitely be more than 3750 g.
As for the staff of charm you can get 50 uses of charm person or 25 uses of charm monster or mixed combination that with an autoscaling DC.
If by "autoscaling DC" you mean it is either 11+Int for 1 charge and Charm Person or 14+Int for 2 charges and Charm Monster, then yes. Double the cost in charges for a +3 Save DC
(Whereas the Psionic version you go in increments of +1 for 2 PP each within limits that can go to higher totals for a double +20% cost increase)
That 450 seems like a lot, but not really. You only need to average about 10PP per use to get less than 50 charges, and with your headband slot being replaced by the psicrown you will need to put in more pp to make up for your decreased intelligence since the headband of headband of intellect is now gone.
If you use 11 PP per you get 40.9; if you use 5 PP per you get 90-- those would be to use either all Charms as Day/level Charm monster or all as Day/level Charm Person equivalents.
You don't need to know which type of creature it is-- at least per my understanding you can simply always choose to select both the 2 pp for animal, fey, giant, ect AND the 4 PP for aberration, dragon, ect even if you are casting it on something you know for a fact is a humanoid.
Since that also increases the DC, it is profitable to do so.
Dominate you can scale from 7 PP to 19 or 21 (or 23+ but you would have to be over 20th level)-- but even if you cast it as the absolute max level Dominate each time (using Overchannel to get up to 21) you still get a full 21.4 uses out of the crown.
That's less than 4 fewer than the staff used for 25 Charm Monsters-- for a Dominate effect instead of Charm, with a DC that has scaled up appropriately to 19+Int/20+Int
The dominator which is worth about 20000gp is about right for an 11th level character. I say that because when I played 3.5 I normally had a +3 weapon at about this time and they cost about 18000.
10th level 3.5 WBL is 49,000 so it would be just under half your WBL, which if it was your "main" item seems about right-- you can still afford plenty of other effects with it. 10th-11th level feels about like the Sweet spot when charm and domination effects are the most useful as well.
The other Psicrowns are much more difficult to compare directly to staffs for the most part-- the other ones that look interesting are Astral Legion which has 900 PP just for Astral Constructs, but we would have to establish the value of an Astral Construct compared to Summon Monster before comparing it to Staff of Conjuration, and Fiery Ruin which would require average damage value comparison to Staff of Fire/Frost/Evocation.
It's definitely possible to figure out the average value of haste; produce an average martial's attack routine. In my above case haste produces about 20 damage per round with only a single (somewhat subpar- it was a Fighter) martial. 28 with a greatsword. The same expenditure from a psion deals an average of 18 damage (likely through energy missile at that level), once.
As damage per hit goes up, and more attacks receive to-hit bonuses from haste, its contribution will likewise increase. It also adds defensive (+1 AC and Reflex) bonuses to the whole party, and increases mobility (+30 ft to speed, capped by base speed).
Edit: The psionic version can't do all 2 point increments, not quite. You have +2, +4, +6, +8, and +10 as options. You can't augment it with more than that; it does cap out. It's also worth considering what that costs you in GP ([pp cost/pp max]*GP Cost), which is a more usable statistic. I'd calculate it myself, but I'm somewhat mathed out at the moment. :P
Gate does not target any creatures any more than summon monster does, which is also instantaneous. So the targeting idea does not work.
To which gate says
Most spellcasters use the additional time to improve their defenses, [b]summon allies, or flee from combat.[/b]
Calling Creatures
The second effect of the gate spell is to [b]call an extraplanar creature to your aid (a calling effect). By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling.
That means the monster does not have to step though. It is pulled though, and the difference between summoning and calling a creature is that a called creature actually dies.
If you were right about how it worked then summoning would have to specifically be called out as a rules exception for gate, but it isn't. It is listed as an example.
One argument I have about the balance of psionics is related to augmenting damage spells to full power. Take a tenth level manifester and he spends 10 power points on an energy ball. If he has a single target, that energy ray is getting 10 power points to bring up to full power.
I'm not saying this is overpowered. Dealing a d6 per caster level whether by touch, ray, or ball at the levels psionics get them isn't incredible compared to the spell casters that get the same. Even multiplying that by half again isn't that impressive when arcane casters can also do that.
There are certainly better options than damage powers, but the system seems to emphasize this by making powers that deal damage cost an arm and a leg. There are points in many combats where the best option is to just deal damage. With sorcerer's, wizards, and clerics, they have low level attack options that can still reasonably contribute to the combat without expending their highest level spells.
When a psionic character wants to deal damage, they end up spending all the energy they can to deal that damage. At 10th level you are not likely to be firing 5d6 energy balls or 1d10 mind thrusts.
Psionic characters get some advantages built into the powers like scaling DCs and a lot more versatile energy type changing, but the way that psionic damage powers are designed pushes the party to rest a lot sooner than if the psion had a single target damage spell that didn't chew through power points like Pez.
I almost think the system would be better without the bulk of the augmentable damage powers.
But let's say it does not work, you can still quicken time stop, summon a lot of things, then use gate on your regular standard action. You only really need one CR 31 monster to win the fight not 3. :)
I will get to your other points in my next post.
It's definitely possible to figure out the average value of haste; produce an average martial's attack routine. In my above case haste produces about 20 damage per round with only a single (somewhat subpar- it was a Fighter) martial. 28 with a greatsword. The same expenditure from a psion deals an average of 18 damage (likely through energy missile at that level), once.
As damage per hit goes up, and more attacks receive to-hit bonuses from haste, its contribution will likewise increase. It also adds defensive (+1 AC and Reflex) bonuses to the whole party, and increases mobility (+30 ft to speed, capped by base speed).
At 20 damage/round value for haste the combat has to last through two rounds after casting for the Haste to be more valuable than a Fireball (assuming one target hit)
It has to last a third full round to be worth more than cone of cold hitting one target.
It has to last into a 4th full round to exceed the average value of Polar Ray. . .
So, depending what level you are, and what you are facing even simply accepting 20/round as the average damage value of Haste, you would need a reasonable certainty that the combat will last 2-4 rounds longer to be worth choosing over another Wizard option.
(If you are fighting 2, or 4, or 6 creatures that can be positioned to hit multiples with a Ball, Cone or Line then the number of rounds required doubles for each additional possible target.)
But to really establish that kind of baseline and find out if 20 is the correct number we would have to determine what we can expect the make up of the party to be--
in the examples I listed above the value/round of haste could range from 80+ in the martial heavy party to 10.5 in the party where only the Druid's dire lion on average should be attacking.
This means that to get to the actual average value of haste we would need to determine the make up of the rest of the party outside of the Wizard/psion. . . which we could do, but that requires choosing a lot of baselines and assumptions.
20 damage/round if you buff one very average person at 8th level. 28 if they're swinging a two handed weapon. Using a 3rd level spell slot, not the slot you'd use for cone of cold or polar ray. You didn't read my whole post. :|
The GP cost of 1 PP on the Dominator Psicrown is 45 GP (1/450*20,250)-- so each 2 points to bump save DC by 1 costs 90 gold.
So to bump the save DC by 3 (from 11+Int to 14+Int) the "cost" is 6*45=270 gold
The GP cost per charge on the Staff version is 330 gold per charge. So the same bump from 11+Int to 14+Int cost is 330 gold (2 charges instead of one).
The Psicrown also has the much lower initial cost-- to get to day/level but be Charm Person it requires 5 PP or 225 gold which is 105 gold less than a single charge on the Staff.
Gold piece per use for those functions is scaling in favor of the Psicrown; going into the more excessive uses (21 PP Dominates for 945 gold apiece) it becomes less economical, however that's well into functionality the staff doesn't possess.
Side note-- I have no familiarity with the rules for creating custom Psionic items so I'm not super prepared to design a staff and a psicrown to compare against each other.
20 damage/round if you buff one very average person at 8th level. 28 if they're swinging a two handed weapon. Using a 3rd level spell slot, not the slot you'd use for cone of cold or polar ray. You didn't read my whole post. :|
To clarify though-- I understand that the value of the slots aren't equal for haste versus CoC or PR.
I was meaning in reference to the value of the standard action in a given round (which was the original context for which I stated that Haste wasn't worth the action to cast during combat for a 20th level Wizard-- if you are in the situation where the choices include casting Haste or casting any spell up to 9th level, how often does Haste come out as the best option?)
Honestly, 1 fighter could easily be the "correct" average party contribution for haste-- if you assume Wizard, Fighter, cleric, Rogue then you'd need to add the contribution for the Rogue, but the Wizard and the Cleric should still be casting spells more often than not so Haste equates to a +1 AC for half of the "standard party".
(And rogue is the most likely party member from the standard party to be left behind-- an argument could be made that we should assume for theory-craft that the party in question consists of a Wizard, a Psion, a Cleric, and Fighter.)
No, the head slot isn't a positive-- but you are paying on 20% more for an item that has two additional power effects. The cost increase to add Dominate and Suggestion to the staff will definitely be more than 3750 g.
That also means that every other power you are using has a lower DC because you are using a psicrown. Having all of my powers at full potential is better than having extra power points, barring specific exceptions.
If by "autoscaling DC" you mean it is either 11+Int for 1 charge and Charm Person or 14+Int for 2 charges and Charm Monster, then yes. Double the cost in charges for a +3 Save DC
(Whereas the Psionic version you go in increments of +1 for 2 PP each within limits that can go to higher totals for a double +20% cost increase)
I forgot that the psicrown went off of the players modifier for a moment. My mistake, but it still drops action economy, and you still have to spend more power points to make up for the headband.
For the dominate power you are sitting there concentrating until you spend more pp for that. I think the caster who can keep his headband of intellect and just be able to wave his staff is better off than someone with a psicrown. Both have their advantages, but I really don't like how the psicrown works.If you use 11 PP per you get 40.9; if you use 5 PP per you get 90-- those would be to use either all Charms as Day/level Charm monster or all as Day/level Charm Person equivalents.
You don't need to know which type of creature it is-- at least per my understanding you can simply always choose to select both the 2 pp for animal, fey, giant, ect AND the 4 PP for aberration, dragon, ect even if you are casting it on something you know for a fact is a humanoid.
Since that also increases the DC, it is profitable to do so.
I said if you dont know the creature type you have to spend the extra pp meaning it burns out sooner. You have to make up for the loss headband so that is more pp spent. So you burn 11, and then if you are level 11 which I said was decent level to have this your DC is down my 2.
Charm likely has a DC of 20 without your headband. A CR 11 monster probably has a will save of about +11 or +12.
The monster has a better than 50% chance to make the save, but if you actually knew the power and had the headband it would likely be be below 50%. And you gave up a headband slot for this. I will pass and not use the psicrown. In addition having someone charmed means they are you buddy. It does not mean you get to own them like dominate does so doing it for days is unlikely to matter unless you are in an espionage campaign.
Dominate will have a higher DC, but it also burns more PP. You can only burn 11 at level 11, and you need to burn 11 on both powers.
40.9 uses. About 6 more than what I guestimated for the staff, but you keep your headband slot so the saves are more likely to work.
10th level 3.5 WBL is 49,000 so it would be just under half your WBL, which if it was your "main" item seems about right-- you can still afford plenty of other effects with it. 10th-11th level feels about like the Sweet spot when charm and domination effects are the most useful as well.
The other Psicrowns are much more difficult to compare directly to staffs for the most part-- the other ones that look interesting are Astral Legion which has 900 PP just for Astral Constructs, but we would have to establish the value of an Astral Construct compared to Summon Monster before comparing it to Staff of Conjuration, and Fiery Ruin which would require average damage value comparison to Staff of Fire/Frost/Evocation.
Spending 20000 on one item when you only have 49000 is not something I have seen as the norm. We will have to agree to disagree on that, which is why I used an 18000 gp weapon at 11th level.
So far this seems to go back to what I said in an earlier post in this thread about playstyle differences. Despite me having players who are well optimized I have never had problem with psionics.
I don't punish them for burning through spells. I just mix things up enough, that it is known to not be a good idea in most of my groups.
Do your players nova on dungeon crawls too? I ask because those seem to be test of endurance based at times.
Balzej - I might have missed a number of responses that cover this. If so, I apologize. I'm just going to ignore the wish/binding side conversation because, frankly, I've run out of time to handle it or properly respond to the volume there.
Also, I apologize for the lack of links - it's for the same reason (and when quoting large things, the forums likes to cut stuff off).
I wouldn't ever call the display of a power like this ever a con. It would be like says a con for fireball is that creates a big obvious ball of flame.
You would be incorrect to fail to do so. It is not nearly as significant as the other cons, and I never intended it to seem such.
Both variations is a 10 minute/level spells making it more likely that you will see them cast outside of combat (or any event) rather than during it. Because of that the range and spell resistance (for the purpose of comparing these two, is somewhat irrelevant.
This is an interesting idea... but it seems just as likely to be manifest in situations where stealth and hidden communication is needed - not always something that can be done easily before hand.
That said, as previously noted, the fact that the spell requires verbal components is a drawback, not only for the fact that verbal components can be prevented, but because they make noise.
There have been several situations in which, after carefully planning something, a situation has come up and the manifester (or caster) would have liked to have a hidden communication to re-guess their situation and do so quietly. (It wasn't always possible for numerous reasons.)
Just because it's not as severe - and please note that it is not as severe - does not prevent it from being a drawback.
That said, I do agree that it's readily lending itself to an out-of-combat spell, and is often likely used in that situation.
Mind Link vs. Telepathic Bond. Telepathic bond has the advantage of not including yourself as well as permanency. I don't think that is worth being four levels higher.
They ability to dismiss it is nice along with ability to exclude yourself, but I wouldn't even say that is worth +1 spell level.
I tend to agree, but the ability to make it permanent is significant, because it blends strongly with other caster tricks to gain free permanency. I shan't go into those, however, as others are debating that topic (or were).
All said, I must admit: I find telepathic bond thoroughly underwhelming as a fifth level spell.
That said, I wasn't specifically making a point other than "huh, it looks like there are more - and more subtle - differences than it first seems" which was interesting enough to me to do so.
If you dropped the actual gate spell, as printed, directly into psionics, without taking any considerations to design space and methodology to 3.5 psionics, than yes, it will be more powerful...Not ignoring the rest of that section which is pretty solid, but I don't think this is necessarily true for a few reasons.
As a 9th level spell/power, even if it has augment options it would read like: "You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed 17. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed 34.
Augment: For every additional power point you spend, this power can call and control one additional HD (for multiple creatures) and control a single creature with two additional HD."
There isn't a lot of room to augment that higher, but it is a matter of a few power points rather that may or may not be necessarily based on what you are calling. It would change the power difference a little, but not by much. Besides, as I mentioned before, it isn't the case that psionic methodologies would demand this require an augment for higher HD.
That's not really what I meant, though. I just meant the fact that you can use gate more times in a day - that is definitively more powerful, due to the ridiculous abilities of gate.
(The nova effect.)
...they have no magic circle effect that mages do (and if they did, considering the design style, it would be too weak to function against the higher level creatures... unless they augment it, which would put it as weaker than the base magic circle)While that is reasonable to suggest for the HD limit for gate, there is nothing within protection from evil or magic circle against evil that scales beyond the duration and spell resistance, both traits are things that automatically scale in practically every psionic power already (with the few that don't scale tending to be very special circumstances).
Even accounting for the design process for including augmenting when necessary, there is nothing in magic circle against evil that would negatively change in becoming psionic circle against evil. If an augmentation option was added, it would be one to increase the bonuses to AC and saving throws, an option that magic circle against evil does not get.
I base my presumption around the other effects that I've seen psionics imitate and how it functions within that regard.
I could be reading my own bias into it... but I think we both are, in that regard. It may well work like you say - increasing the AC -, or it may work like charm (see below) - increasing the creature options -, or it may work like daze - increasing the HD that it can effect.
All of these are valid interpretations of how the psionic paradigm may be expressed. All of them may be correct at the same time - perhaps augmenting increases the HD, increases the creature types, and/or increases the AC and save bonuses.
One thing to note about magic circle is that, unlike most defensive effects, it does have an offensive effect: the ability to trap a creature. I read the trap as the offensive element that it is, and thus suggested the idea of the scaling HD for augmentation.
Summon Monster
Nice power-spell! I like it.
However, by actually looking at the dreaded (and unfortunate) expansion Complete Psionic, we can see that the design system of psionics doesn't follow that pattern in the least.
I pulled up three powers as my evidence:
- Ectoplasmic Swarm: 4th level power, 1 round manifesting time, close range, concentration+2 rnds duration, no save, no SR, 7 PP; summon ectoplasmic swarm in an empty space; Augment: spend 2 PP to share a space with creatures already present.
- Larval Flayers: 2nd level power, 1 round manifesting time, close range, 1 rnd/lvl duration, 3 PP; summon 1d3 larval flayers (all in the same square); Augment: (choose, not automatic) pay 2 PP to summon an additional larval flayer, or for every 2 PP beyond the base one creature you call appears already attached to a foe in range (you specify) and can use its brain sap ability (reflex negates the attachment)
- Shadow Eft: 4th level power, 1 round manifesting time, close range, 1 rnd/lvl, no save, no SR, 7 PP; summon shadow eft in an empty space; Augment: (choose, not automatic) pay 4 PP for each additional eft, or for every 2 PP one eft is automatically in a target's shadow (the target gets a spot check to notice automatically).
Thus the design elements of the augment and power point system, when bent towards summoning, only summon a specific creature, summon creatures that are (by CR) inferior to or just equal to the creatures that you can summon with fewer options and less variability.
EDIT: Okay, I have to mention, I would like to say that the above is not entirely correct. There are lower CR creatures on the summon monster IV list - however those are the ones that specifically retain spell like abilities and special variances that the higher CR creatures don't. This is tremendously variable. Also, lantern archons have two touch attacks per round. :)
EDIT 2: ALSO, I didn't say: augmenting it effectively only nets you the minimum increase in creature numbers compared to what a typical summon spell would net.
Microcosm vs. Power Word Kill It is just a better version with the augment option.
Faulty comparison. As I noted here, microcosm is more comparable to imprisonment, and is demonstrably less awesome.
Expansion vs. Enlarge Person: This isn't completely in the favor of expansion because this is personal and it only lasts a round per level. However it can be manifested as a standard action and there are augmentations that vastly increase the duration, increase your size even more, or manifest this as a swift action. Presuming you want to enlarge yourself, expansion is the better power/spell.
True, but then you're paying more. The power itself is a 1st level power/spell, but, when you pay the equivalent of a 1st level power/spell it's substantially less potent. You have to expend resources as if you're using a more potent effect to gain... a more potent effect.
Psionic Charm vs. Charm Person Another case where augments just make it better than the magical version.
This - combined with the summon mosnter aside - seems to not understand the basic paradigm of how powers balance themselves. psionic charm isn't compared to charm person - it's compared to the charm spells, because that's what augmenting does.
Psionic charm
- 1st level equivalent payment = charm person (1st level spell)
- 2nd level equivalent payment = no particular equivalent charm (but includes the value of a different 1st level charm spell, as well as others)
- 3rd level equivalent payment = nearly as potent as a fourth level spell, but lacking the breadth of optional effected and may have a shorter duration with closer - but still not equal - breadth
- 5th level equivalent payment = 4th level spell (except not quite the full breadth of options)
This is the nature of psionic powers and what the augment does. More powerful effects can be achieved than spells, but only by expending more resources. The equivalent resource expenditure generally nets less per use.
The Augment trait sometimes - but not always - allows a power to imitate the effects of a higher level spell.
Despite that imitation, the fact is that charm and always will be a 1st level power.
This means, among other things, that lesser globes of invulnerability shut it down, no matter how many power points you put into it. It's just less, even when it seems more.
I haven't gone through all the powers, but I'm relatively certain there are other examples out there. It is also reasonable to note that many of these are restricted to specific specialists. While there are cases of the magical variation being better, there are many examples of the magical version being equal or worse.
This is also worth noting. Many of the "better" effects are walled behind specialization - i.e., not available to most. This creates a very interesting limit to how well specialist function in their specialized field.
Anyway, I'm out for the night.
Enjoy!
(And, despite myself, I've successfully at least half-read most of the posts. All very interesting, regardless of what side of the debate they're on. God bless you guys.)
EDIT: to fix coding tags. I'm not sleepy at all. (That's a lie.) ;P
That's fine. I wasn't familiar with them before today either. They're both simple formulae- I'm not checking this, but I'm pretty sure they use the same system (SL*ML or CL*750 gp, slightly more complex for additional powers/spells).
Moving the haste comparison up to 12th level:
12th Level
Our Fighter: 26 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +5 Str item), +12 BAB, Power Attack, [Gtr] Weapon Focus, [Gtr] Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, +2 Weapon, Weapon Training +2
Longsword Routine: +26/+21/+16 (1d8+16/17-20)
Greatsword Routine: +26/+21/+16 (2d6+20/17-20)
CR 12 Average AC: 27
Longsword DPR: 51.71
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 52.2
Greatsword DPR: 68.11
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 71.43
12th Level Plus Haste
Our Fighter: 26 Str (+1 level bump, advanced to a +5 Str item), +12 BAB, Power Attack, [Gtr] Weapon Focus, [Gtr] Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, +2 Weapon, Weapon Training +2, Haste
Longsword Routine: +27/+27/+22/+17 (1d8+16/17-20)
Greatsword Routine: +27/+27/+22/+17 (2d6+20/17-20)
CR 12 Average AC: 27
Longsword DPR: 77.46
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 85.53
Greatsword DPR: 102.01
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: 117.04
Damage Per Round Increase
Longsword DPR w/ Power Attack: +33.33
Greatsword DPR w/ Power Attack: +45.61
So, at 12th level, that 3rd level spell slot (5 pp) deals an additional 33.33 damage per round with a one handed weapon, or 45.61 per round with a two handed weapon. Applied to a single target of average output, and not counting the mobility and defensive benefits, once again. This continues to outdamage relevant spells significantly (12d6 -> 42, not counting any reduction from average saves, because I am tired and don't want to math that out right now).