|
People really shouldn't refer to it as Vancian casting, since that's inaccurate. It's called prepared casting:
I.E you prepare and ready 95% of a spell, like loading a crossbow in your mind. Then at the point of casting you fire that spell like a bolt. You have burned those pathways for the day, and require rest to re prepare those particular rituals. For Clerics and Druids, you speak prayers and rituals so that your deity or nature can grant you particular miracles.
Then you have spontaneous casting, where you can swap, alter and recast spells from your spell slots on the fly. 100% not Vancian.
Then you have the Arcanist who is a hybrid caster who can prepare a small number of spells and hot swap between what she's prepared. Not Vancian.
I also wish the Psychic had a bit more to it, but 9th level casting is such a massive boon, that it's tough to balance extra goodies against it.
Psionics and its spell point mechanicsm both allows casters to still be powerful, but much less game breaking than Vancian casting, sinc ethey can't cast every one of their pels at max power for free until they run out.
It also gets rid of the silly "Boy am I tired...I can't cast THAT spell any more but my other 24 slots are okay".
You think it is silly, I think it an interesting puzzle element to the game, that requires you to think rather than just spam the same spells ad nauseam. Spell casting is only game breaking if you don't control spell components, allow one encounter a day, free reign on magic items and don't tactically challenge the caster or play monster's intelligently.
How does this contradict me?
Because you are claiming that significant change is needed and I'm saying that Pathfinder was expressly founded on the principal that it wasn't. We have a game we love playing and want to continue playing it supported, not invent something completely new.
As I said before, none of those things are supported. They're haphazardly slapped together, shoved out the door, and never looked at again.
What, do you want someone to write your character sheet out for you? If you want to play with spell points, make your characters and monsters use spell points. The mathmatics is fairly straight forward. These are optional rules. I convert the monsters I run to Vigor/Wounds I don't expect Paizo to provide alternate stat blocks because I want to use an optional rule that they have described quite clearly.
Nobody is asking the game be changed to fit their personal preference. I'm asking that the game be changed (in a hypothetical new edition) to make it a BETTER GAME with more balanced spellcasting.
OK you are directly contradicting yourself there. You clearly asking for it to be changed to your preferred better system. Better in your opinion. I still haven't heard a good reason why it would be better, other than it means you can keep casting the same spell over and over again. Not sure how that is more balanced.
But there are too many people adamantly against even the slightest change between editions for that to ever happen without Pathfinder suffering some sort of massive failure that makes it "necessary".
I am happy with many changes and optional rules. Pathfinder has books and books dedicated to giving you more options. The great thing is they are optional. Your are talking about changing an integral rule system that has been in place since the games inception and replacing it with something has no greater capactiy for balance - it just adds more flexibility for casters. People pushing for a new edition are missing the whole raison d'etre of Pathfinder - that there is a great game there already that needs support and lots more adventures. Sorry to single out your responses but I think the direction you are advocating is unnecessary.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't confuse suffering in silence with acceptance either. When I play D&d and some of my gaming group have accepted vancian casting we play with the system we don't like it. But it's the only way to play D&D without house rules and 3pp. I'm sure our group is not the only one that feels that way either. It's the same way for years Gurps an the Hero System were very popular. Up until more rules light generic systems hit the market. We put up with more complexity because we had to not because we wanted to. Then Savage Worlds and Fate came along and no need to keep putting up with the complexity.
I enjoy D&D yet still find as Rinjinn as it is kind of silly. We play D&D because it's easier to find players and popular. If their was another fantasy rpg without the same limitations and as popular we would switch to that instead. I also keep playing it because it was the first rpg that brought me into the hobby. Flaws and all.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have to disagree here. Pathfinder is not as homogenized as 4th Edition. Not even close (and yes I am aware of the Player's Handbooks past the first one, the preceding statement is still true). While the Psychic Class maybe isn't terribly different from a Sorcerer (though it is different make no mistake) and the Spiritualist is similar to a Summoner, the other classes have pretty unique mechanics. Sure the Mesmerists is pretty focused, the Medium is kind of all over the place, while Kineticists are a brand new thing but all their mechanics are nonetheless rather unique.
I will agree though that I would have liked to see the Occult classes try more diverse rules.
You can't really call the Kineticist "a brand new thing" or their mechanics "unique" considering that a lot of the mechanics are copy/pasted right out of the 3.5 Warlock, but I pretty much agree with the general sentiment.
The thing people need to realize is that Paizo is only going to innovate certain aspects of design, and only up to a certain point. They use PFS as their engine and they intentionally try to keep the number of rules variations within a certain area so that it's easy for GMs and new players to understand. The farther the mechanics stray from the baselines set in the CRB, the harder the material is to grasp for casual or non rules savvy players. For example, in 3.5, psionics is generally much better balanced than the slot-based arcane/divine options, but the fact that so few people actually understood all the rules gave them a terrible reputation for being overpowered (to this day I still run into veteran players talking about psions who spent 50 PP on X ability breaking the game, and I just have to shake my head and go "You know they can't do that, right?"). Every new system Paizo introduces is a chance for hundreds of people to skim past something important and tank a product with complaints before it even gets off the ground, which is why they've decided that they're just not going to do things like that.
Paizo has intentionally cultivated a strong 3pp community. They've openly endorsed Dreamscarred Press' Ultimate Psionics as the go-to product for people who want 3.5 style psionic manifesting, and they splash other quality 3pp materials across the main banner of their home page every day. They are actively telling people "look at what these guys are doing, and if you like it, support it". Paizo isn't going to give you new casting systems, unless they're page filler optional rules like the words of power system in Ultimate Magic, or something that rides on a really simple chassis like the Kineticist. For them, it's just more trouble than it's worth, and they never pretended differently. They've said for years that their psychic magic was going to be "Vancian" and wouldn't use points, so no one really should have been expecting otherwise. They're the predictable base. 3pp companies are the ones who'll give you the cool experimental options, and the alternate casting types, and that's how Paizo intends it to be.
They're the predictable base. 3pp companies are the ones who'll give you the cool experimental options, and the alternate casting types, and that's how Paizo intends it to be.
I agree, and whats more, I pretty cool with that. Paizo should concentrate on expanding Golarion and its Adventure Paths while simultaneously releasing rule books and bestiaries that support that agenda.
IMHO Psionics was about as broken as everything else in 3.5. Which is to say, as broken as the DM that allowed.
Yeah I kind of don't get the "but it's not 3.5 Psionics!" argument, with the fabulous work Dreamscarred Press did with Ultimate Psionics. Even if the Paizo developers were in love with the 3.5 Psionics system, it's hard to see how they could do a faithful adaptation to the rules without just redoing work that has already been done. Which ultimately would hurt Dreamscarred press and the 3pp product market.I think Paizo adapting 3.5 psionics would have been a bad decision all around for the company.
They did flat out say they could not do better than DSP did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
•Most things are re-purposed Psionic terms from the 3.X D&D version of Psionics. Examples have already been given above, such as old Psionic Powers being (basically) directly copied over as "Psychic Spells" (Id Insinuation, Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, and so on and so fourth).Again, they would have to be made anyway, there is no reason for them to waste time making unique names when they can give a nod to the games history.
•A majority of Psychic spells seem to involve mental manipulation in some way or another, and there are much fewer "spiritual" spells. For every single one spell like Object Reading or Possession, there are a handful that are more like Mental Block, Telekinetic spells, Thought Echo, Thought Shield, Divide Mind, Microcosm, etc..... You do realize that mental abilities are present in most psychic/mysticism/occult media right?
•Anything involving Ectoplasm is a concept from 3.5 Psionics directly ported into PF Psychic rules and options.Ectoplasm is a concept FROM occultism.
•The entire theme of Kineticism is Psionic in nature, rather than Occult-related.No, those are occult themed. Ever seen firestarter or carrie, or heard of mysticism that leads to telekinesis or the ability to generate heat?
Most telling to me personally, however, is that themes of "the occult" are already covered via traditional Arcane (typically) and/or Divine (less typically) magics. There was no "occult" gap to fill.You say this while bolding the sections that make it distinct from arcane and divine magic.... Um.... What?
I see the issue here. Your definition of "occult" includes the 70's new age/human potential ideas. The boom of interest in ESP and psychic phenomena was the inspiration for the psionics system, so others associate them with psionics rather than the occult. For others, "occult" covers the medium and spiritualism ideas from the 20's & 30's, as well as divination, or dowsing, and concepts of mysticism.
Basically, if it involves a seance, a gypsy, or communicating with the secret and unknown, it's what the others call "occult". If it involves the hidden powers of the mind, like telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, or any other form of ESP, it's what the others call "psionics".
There is no reason to associate 3.5e psionics with new age ideas since... well the only actually link between psionics and new age ideas is friggin psi-crystals. But an immense amount of new age stuff is based on old occultism, and a great deal of modern mysticism has then taken that knowledge Back from the new age stuff creating a sort of loop.
Your definition of "occult" includes the 70's new age/human potential ideas.
My definition of occult includes all of occultism and mysticism, yes. It'd be strange to exclude a major aspect of occultism.
If it involves the hidden powers of the mind, like telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, or any other form of ESP, it's what the others call "psionics".
Ugh. But all of that IS from occultism....
Psionics does have that stuff, but it got them From mysticism. I cannot believe you are suggesting that the term psychic is not occult related simply because psionics took elements from psychics and gave them a coat of paint.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're still on the Psychic=Psionic dealie? Mechanics aside I have a hard time seeing the similarities, although its strange; before psychic classes I had a hard time with people saying that psionics was 'too scifi' for Pathfinder/D&D with fans of Dreamscarred Press' psionics pointing out that there are refluffing rules in the book. Now there's no need to refluff with psychic classes around and now Psionics is the exact same theme?
Within Psionics we have a;
Aegis, a meantal armor generator/Synthesist Summoner: the class.
Cryptic, a truthseer that makes mental tatoos
Dread, a fear projector
Marksman, a telekinetic that manipulates ranged weapons.
Psion, The 'full caster' psionic
Psychic Warrior, The Gish Psionic.
Soulknife, a mental weapon generator.
Tactician, an empath with a martial leaning
Vitalist, the psionic healer
Wilder, The exploding full caster psionic.
With psychics we have a;
Kineticist, an elemental bender/conjurer
Medium, someone that gets possessed by spirits
Mesmerist; Mentok the Mindtaker
Occultist, Who might as well be an artificer.
Psychic, the Psychic 'full caster'
Spiritualist, the one with a pet ghost.
With psionics we have two mental construct creators, three bands of empaths, a body manipulator, two martial clairvoyants, and two full casters. With Psychics we have two to three classes dealing with ghosts in some way, a full caster, an elementalist and one class that has more mechanical similarities to Akashic classes than psychics or psions. The only overlap I really see is Psion and Psychic depending on how similar you think psychic spells are to psionic powers. Other than that a good percentage of psychics deal with the dead and ghosts with all the psychic classes leaning towards penny dreadful, oogity boogity magic. Meanwhile Psionics falls into new age spoonbender, comic book mutant powers as it doesn't dip too far outside of empathy, telepathy and telekinetics.
I'm not an expert on being genre savvy but I know the thematic difference between Professor X and John Constantine.
Spell casting is only game breaking if you don't control spell components, allow one encounter a day, free reign on magic items and don't tactically challenge the caster or play monster's intelligently.
To be fair on Rynjin, it is REALLY hard not to get annoyed by this paragraph. It's almost like a handy post-it-note list of arguments comprehensively dismantled 15 years ago, and makes it difficult to consider any reasonable points that might follow..
Phrases like "has been well known" is a fairly unconvincing way of putting a point across. Pathfinder sources spells from dozens and dozens of sourcebooks it is ever likely that some of those are more powerful. i am unsure what you mean by "story breaking". I expect magic to be used as part of the story.
A Psionicist pays for their powers by using up power points the number of which scale per level. A traditional caster pays in spell slots. How is one free?
The suggestion has been made earlier that psionics are a better system - you are saying it is more balanced and the reason for this is because it is "generally speaking inferior in scope and versatility"? If even if this was true - why on earth would that make it better?
That said, I can't see how being able to cast 10 3rd level spells or 50 1st level spells makes a person less versatile, or having scalable powers up to your cap makes you less powerful. Power points are really just a homogenised extrapolation of spells slots without the level boundaries.
I'm sorry you feel that way Blackmane. I've been playing Pathfinder since it was released; 3.5 since that was released; and 3.0 since I switched from AD&D as both a player and DM. I have my copy of the Expanded Psionics Handboox well thumbed on the shelf and while I was born at night, it wasn't last night.
In a reasonable group of players capable of showi self restraint I do not believe that spell casting is game breaking. Ultimately the DM sets the tone and challenge of an adventure and while dealing with spell casting certainly requires more thought it certainly is not a Herculean task.
I'm sorry if that has not been your experience.
Phrases like "has been well known" is a fairly unconvincing way of putting a point across. Pathfinder sources spells from dozens and dozens of sourcebooks it is ever likely that some of those are more powerful. i am unsure what you mean by "story breaking". I expect magic to be used as part of the story.
A Psionicist pays for their powers by using up power points the number of which scale per level. A traditional caster pays in spell slots. How is one free?
The suggestion has been made earlier that psionics are a better system - you are saying it is more balanced and the reason for this is because it is "generally speaking inferior in scope and versatility"? If even if this was true - why on earth would that make it better?
That said, I can't see how being able to cast 10 3rd level spells or 50 1st level spells makes a person less versatile, or having scalable powers up to your cap makes you less powerful. Power points are really just a homogenised extrapolation of spells slots without the level boundaries.
Thank you my good sir(?). This seems to have summoned up everything nicely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason to associate 3.5e psionics with new age ideas since... well the only actually link between psionics and new age ideas is friggin psi-crystals. But an immense amount of new age stuff is based on old occultism, and a great deal of modern mysticism has then taken that knowledge Back from the new age stuff creating a sort of loop.
Your definition of "occult" includes the 70's new age/human potential ideas.My definition of occult includes all of occultism and mysticism, yes. It'd be strange to exclude a major aspect of occultism.
If it involves the hidden powers of the mind, like telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, or any other form of ESP, it's what the others call "psionics".Ugh. But all of that IS from occultism....
Psionics does have that stuff, but it got them From mysticism. I cannot believe you are suggesting that the term psychic is not occult related simply because psionics took elements from psychics and gave them a coat of paint.
I didn't say you were wrong, simply that were working from a different definition. That you see them as part of the occult but others do not is more indicative of where and how each learned of them. To say that they are the same is true in the same sense that chemistry and alchemy are the same, in that one developed from the other, and they share some similar ideas. To say they are distinct is like saying that different denominations of a faith are separate religions, technically true but not giving the full story. Neither can truly be said to be wrong.
The original psionics system clearly drew heavily from the new age movement ideas of ESP, just as the original game drew heavily from Tolkien. Astral Projection, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Remote Viewing, Psychometry, Precognition, these were all aspects of the "untapped potential" of the human mind that the new age movement sought to unlock. While many are based on ideas that existed beforehand, these were treated as observable, explainable, understandable things, rather than the actions of spirits or revelations from beyond. People set out to research them, and an entire discipline of (admittedly pseudo)science was formed to investigate them. This marks a clear departure from the occult and mystic tradition of secrecy, inscrutablily, and hidden masters.
Let's take a famous icon of the new age movement, Uri Gellar. Is he pretending to be a mystic, or an occultist? No, he's pretending to be a psychic. Does he claim to have gifts bestowed upon him by spirits? No, he claims to have psychic abilities that he has in the past agreed to (very non-rigorous) "scientific" testing to examine.
Compare this to a famous medium, like Sylvia Browne. She claims to receive messages from spirits of the departed, without any explanation as to how or why.
They're both the same in the sense that they're hucksters, but they aren't pretending to the same traditions. To call one a part of a psionic tradition (because that's the word that we have for it from a systems perspective), and the other part of an occult tradition is a valid way to see things. Not the only way, buy a valid one nonetheless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Phrases like "has been well known" is a fairly unconvincing way of putting a point across. Pathfinder sources spells from dozens and dozens of sourcebooks it is ever likely that some of those are more powerful. i am unsure what you mean by "story breaking". I expect magic to be used as part of the story.
A Psionicist pays for their powers by using up power points the number of which scale per level. A traditional caster pays in spell slots. How is one free?
The suggestion has been made earlier that psionics are a better system - you are saying it is more balanced and the reason for this is because it is "generally speaking inferior in scope and versatility"? If even if this was true - why on earth would that make it better?
That said, I can't see how being able to cast 10 3rd level spells or 50 1st level spells makes a person less versatile, or having scalable powers up to your cap makes you less powerful. Power points are really just a homogenised extrapolation of spells slots without the level boundaries.
Story Breaker Powers are a trope, that covers powers that when used intelligent tend to invalid large swaths of story material. And traditional caster scale their abilities for free, unlike Psions. A 10th level Wizards Fireball will deal 10d6 damage compared to a 7th level Wizards 7d6 Fireball, even when cast out of the same 3rd level spell slot. Psionics does not have this advantage as Manifesters must pay additional power points for such effects, effectively costing them a higher level power. An Energy Ball Manifest by a 10th level Psion for 7 PP and an Energy Ball Manifest by a 7th Level Psion for 7 PP will both deal only 7d6 damage.
Psionics inferior in scope and versatility are great thing in terms of being balanced since the Wizards scope and versatility is literally off the charts. Being inferior in these regards is simply evidence of Psionics better balance.
Furthermore, power point are extremely distinct from spell slots, thanks to the additional options that augments provide. They are far more flexible in this regard then spell slots, since they give access to new effects or increased power (at a cost) on the fly something that spell slots cannot accomplish.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone says their nothing wrong with magic in Pathfinder as long as the players go out of their way to not break the system. Kind of highlights the flaws IMO. It's like when someone says their nothing wrong with fighters. As long as the right build, feats, equipment is taken. Does nothing to hide the flaws if anything it highlights them. Not to mention using the whole "reasonable players" routine is kind of insulting IMO. It's not being unreasonable if some existing options are poorly designed or too strong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
***
A Psionicist pays for their powers by using up power points the number of which scale per level. A traditional caster pays in spell slots. How is one free?
Spells scale automatically. In most instances, the last time a Wizard ever truly casts a level 1 spell, is level 1. Most spells have scaling effects that automatically get better as the Wizard levels. Magic missiles, fireballs, etc. all deal xd4 or xd6 where x is the wizard's level. A psion's energy ray will only ever deal 1d6 damage, unless the psion spends more PP to make it deal more damage. That's what people mean when they talk about the "traditional" casters getting free scaling.
The suggestion has been made earlier that psionics are a better system - you are saying it is more balanced and the reason for this is because it is "generally speaking inferior in scope and versatility"? If even if this was true - why on earth would that make it better?
The first point here would be "see my response above". Beyond that though, psionics, particularly psionics as it currently exists in PF thanks to Dreamscarred Press, is better, and that is because it's narrower and more refined in scope. Take the invisibility spell. This one comes up all the time in martial/caster disparity threads, because not only does it grant you concealment and allow you to walk about unseen, it gives you 17 rogue levels worth of bonus points towards your Stealth checks, double that in rounds where you don't move. That's crazy! Getting that effect psionically would require you to leverage 2 or 3 different powers, each of which would be opposed by different sklls or defenses on your adversaries end. You'd have to use psionic camouflage to get a smaller bonus to Stealth, cloud the enemy's mind to hide your presence, and you'd have to bleed PP to maintain these effects. What this means, is that a psion in the party is going to be much better served to cloud the rogue's presence, or camouflage the ranger, than to just use the powers on himself. So the psionic powers are actually doing a better job of promoting inter-party cooperation and creating natural flows that direct away from one party member stealing the show.
That said, I can't see how being able to cast 10 3rd level spells or 50 1st level spells makes a person less versatile, or having scalable powers up to your cap makes you less powerful. Power points are really just a homogenised extrapolation of spells slots without the level boundaries.
If I haven't already made it clear, the bolded above just isn't true.
To start with, psionic characters have a much smaller number of powers known, and generally, these powers are fixed upon acquisition, whereas wizards both have more spells known natively, and are only limited in their ability to acquire more spells by their wealth and what the GM allows into the campaign. Clerics have even fewer limitations, since any given cleric at any given time has access to essentially every cleric spell in existence, limited only by his level and his alignment.
As I've already previously mentioned, a 1st level psion power is generally not as powerful as a 1st level wizard spell, except at 1st level. The psion has to pay for what the wizard gets for free. So, yes, a psion can scale up that energy ray so that it does 5d6 damage, but doing so costs him the same PP as a 3rd level power. It would be like a wizard having to sacrifice a fireball so that he could deal 5d6 damage with his shocking grasp spell, when in truth, the wizard can automatically do both. The psion's only real advantage only comes in if he's in the peculiar situation of having a rough estimate of his enemy's hit points or saves, probably garnered through failed power uses or extended combats against multiple enemies of the same type, where he can start tapering his expenditure of powers down to what's needed. This isn't so much an advantage though, since it's still hampered by that issue of not getting free scaling. A wizard doesn't have to worry about choosing between dealing 1d6 and 5d6 with shocking grasp, he just automatically deals 5d6 for the cost of 1d6.
the trope of story breaker spell has existed since AD&D and is largely resolved by an honest conversation with the caster player combined combined with planning. Divinations and teleportation are not story breaking when they are part of the story. On a side note Psions have their fair share of Divinations and transport powers.
You should say Wizards scale for free up to a point. Burning hands caps at 5d4, Fireball caps at 10d6 etc. Wizards do pay if they want to use metamagic beyond this. It 'costs' feats and an ever dwindling suply of higher level slots. It sounds from your example you think it the dice per level that makes wizards unbalanced. In my opinion I don't believe wizards are good because of the damage dice they toss out. Not in well designed adventures with an intelligent DM. I suspect you don't either.
You still haven't explained how Psions are inferior in scope and versatility by the way. Instead you have pointed out that power points give additional flexibility and allow augments effectively comnining what would be multiple spells into a single powe - Astral Construct for example. Of course Psions get to select their construct abilities rather than select from a specific list.
On a side note I think some of you are get too drawn into the mechanics and ignore the story. The suggest that psionics is better because an invisibility spell would take leveraging 2 or three powers makes no sense to me. The rogue can sneak as often as he likes for as long as he likes, with a host of other abilities. The wizard can cast the spell a few times a day and depending on level that might be all he can do. A party that works well casts invisibility on the rogue and team work wins the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry you feel that way Blackmane. I've been playing Pathfinder since it was released; 3.5 since that was released; and 3.0 since I switched from AD&D as both a player and DM. I have my copy of the Expanded Psionics Handboox well thumbed on the shelf and while I was born at night, it wasn't last night.
In a reasonable group of players capable of showi self restraint I do not believe that spell casting is game breaking. Ultimately the DM sets the tone and challenge of an adventure and while dealing with spell casting certainly requires more thought it certainly is not a Herculean task.
I'm sorry if that has not been your experience.
The implication was not that you were born last night, and more that if you haven't realised by now that arguments like 'just enforce spell components' are now considered warning bells for an outdated and poor argumentative progression, there's probably no convincing to be had here on either side.
Considering that the follow-up was the rather infamous 'If you have good players' with the implict 'you must not have good players', a tired argument that tacitly concedes there is an problem as memorax points out, I feel my expression of sympathy to Rynjin was well placed.
I didn't say you were wrong, simply that were working from a different definition.
I understand that, I am simply frustrated from the fact that they are saying so much occult stuff is psionics when it's the other way around. I apologize for my tone.
That you see them as part of the occult but others do not is more indicative of where and how each learned of them.
I do admit, my experience with the occult and the experience with the occult that Brandon Hodge possesses is likely very different to that of the general public. So where other people just see "psionics that isn't psionics", we see all the ties to mysticism and occultism that psionics blatantly lacks.
the trope of story breaker spell has existed since AD&D and is largely resolved by an honest conversation with the caster player combined combined with planning. Divinations and teleportation are not story breaking when they are part of the story. On a side note Psions have their fair share of Divinations and transport powers.
You should say Wizards scale for free up to a point. Burning hands caps at 5d4, Fireball caps at 10d6 etc. Wizards do pay if they want to use metamagic beyond this. It 'costs' feats and an ever dwindling suply of higher level slots. It sounds from your example you think it the dice per level that makes wizards unbalanced. In my opinion I don't believe wizards are good because of the damage dice they toss out. Not in well designed adventures with an intelligent DM. I suspect you don't either.
You still haven't explained how Psions are inferior in scope and versatility by the way. Instead you have pointed out that power points give additional flexibility and allow augments effectively comnining what would be multiple spells into a single powe - Astral Construct for example. Of course Psions get to select their construct abilities rather than select from a specific list.
You actually picked the perfect spell to torpedo your argument. Astral Construct is less versatile then the Summon Monster Line, because the Summon Monster line grants access to a dizzying array of SLA, Monster special abilities, and options like summoning multiples of a lower tier. Meanwhile Psions are stuck to a single list that never changes and requires additional payments for versatility. So... that. Right there.
Aside from that, lack of utility spells like Mirror Image, Invisibility, the illusion school in general more or less, conjuration effects like the above mentioned Summon Monster, Planar Binding and Gate. General lack of necromancy abilities, so no Animated Dead. Not to mention Psions are severely lacking in group buffs which is a whole smorgasbord of spells Arcane and Divine Casters have over them. And that's before we get into the really game breaking stuff like Blood Money, Simulacrum, and Aroden's Spellbane. Or even just Explosive Runes.
Im sorry Ssalarn but your arguments don't stack up. I have never heard it argued that wizards are powerful because at 5th level they can deliver a shocking grasp at 5d6 (17 points of damage for one of five or six spells slots) nor because at 10th level their fireballs do 10d6 damage (35 damage or 17 if they save, less with resistances). You can't say wizards are unbalanced then say psionics are intrinsically better because they are worse at the things that don't make that much difference. If you want to deal energy damage outright don't play a standard psion.
To be clear I have no problem with psionics as an option. I have psionics unleashed and the handbooks. I don't play them as my group has psychic scars as mentioned above. However I did run a WFRP conversion that used psionics for magic to better replicate the darker grittier way magic worked in that system. It was an nice alternative, but just that - not intrinsically better in a standard adventure.
EDIT - Anzyr - I simply disagree that astral construct is less flexible and powerful than summon monster. it is choose your topping rather than the old favourites. Anyway I'm getting tired of having a discussion with people who think psion is better because it is worse. When comparing spells v powers we are comparing apples with crazy psychedelic oranges.
EDIT - I'm sorry if you took from my comments that I thought your players were 'bad' I think you inferred that from a single line as I certainly didn't say it directly. I frequently see DMs hand waving stone skin etc because they don't want the book keeping. If a wizard fireballs an enemy I would expect to see that wizard become no1 on the sh\t list. These are all breaks on the almighty power of wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your problem is that you were expecting a repetition of what Dreamscarered and Paradigm Press have already done.... reissue 3.5 psionics when it was cler from the getgo, that was not what we were going to get.Pathfinder finally gets around to Psionics!
...
And it's just Sorcerer by another name. =(Is that really the best they could do?
True that there was mismatched expectations for psionics vs psychic here, but the psychic is the laziest design in the entire book, which is evidenced by the fact that there's a sorceror bloodline that steals 90% of the psychic's schtick, but with the superior sorc/wiz spell list.
|
|
***
You should say Wizards scale for free up to a point. Burning hands caps at 5d4, Fireball caps at 10d6 etc. Wizards do pay if they want to use metamagic beyond this. It 'costs' feats and an ever dwindling suply of higher level slots. It sounds from your example you think it the dice per level that makes wizards unbalanced. In my opinion I don't believe wizards are good because of the damage dice they toss out. Not in well designed adventures with an intelligent DM. I suspect you don't either.
But each level of spells raises that point. At any level other than the one where a given spell or power first becomes available, the wizard is getting more for less.
Wizards aren't good because of the number of dice they can throw out, but dice aren't the only effect wizards get that scales for free, and that free scaling is combined with a much richer depth of options since they plug a different spell into every slot, and even change up or add to their line-up of effects with as little as 15 minutes time. A psion generally has the same powers known at midday he had when he set out in the morning.
You still haven't explained how Psions are inferior in scope and versatility by the way.
Yes, I have. Have you actually been reading, or just skimming?
Instead you have pointed out that power points give additional flexibility and allow augments effectively combining what would be multiple spells into a single power - Astral Construct for example. Of course Psions get to select their construct abilities rather than select from a specific list.
Astral construct doesn't touch the versatility of the summon monster spells. Aside from being unique to the shaper discipline, the scaling on it means you will always be paying more for less to get capabilities summoned monsters get for free, and it caps out in general effectiveness (i.e. the new abilities and functions you can tag onto it stop growing and it only becomes mildly better at the things you've already tagged in) long before the summon monster line does, where you can do things like "dial a cleric" for a trumpet archon. On an individual level, the ability to augment a power can make it slightly better than a same level spell, but only at a huge cost in your daily resources, and still nowhere near the versatility or effectiveness of the wizard's actual real spells known. A psion caps out at 36 powers known. these are the powers he has day, night, summer, winter, whatever. The wizard has 45 spells he can prepare on a given day, with every spell selected focused towards a particular purpose, and he has no limit on the number of spells he can have to prepare in those slots from day to day, or even within the same day at a very small opportunity cost in time. You have to have some pretty serious blinders on to think the psion wins the versatility battle.
On a side note I think some of you are get too drawn into the mechanics and ignore the story. The suggest that psionics is better because an invisibility spell would take leveraging 2 or three powers makes no sense to me. The rogue can sneak as often as he likes for as long as he likes, with a host of other abilities. The wizard can cast the spell a few times a day and depending on level that might be all he can do.
I'm only going to touch on the "story vs. mechanics" comment, which isn't even an argument. I'm not sure what you were trying to convey with that phrase, but I'm reasonably certain it isn't relevant to anything. You can't argue situational story circumstances, because they'll be different every time. What I will say, is that psionic stealth options generally make much more sense in a story framework, since they do a much better job of supporting ideas like the "caster" using his magic to make the rogue or ranger better at doing their thing. This enhanced reliance on teamwork is more consistent with the vast bulk of stories and good gameplay in general.
Invisibility makes you vastly better at sneaking, and can allow you to sneak all kinds of places a rogue can't. It makes you so much better at sneaking that classes who are intended to be scouts can't keep up with classes for whom effective sneaking takes less than 1/20th of their resources.
The "go all day" argument is, to be quite frank, asinine. First, if the rogue has to sneak for more than a couple minutes, he's statistically likely to fail one of those Stealth checks sooner or later against level appropriate opponents. A wizard's single casting of invisibility will make him a better stealth expert with 0 investment than most 10th level rogues who choose to specialize in being stealthy, and he gets Scribe Scroll for free, so it's pretty unlikely that he's going to run out of relevant utility spells after 1st level. I know I've never seen it happen. This is another reason why that dynamic of casters supporting non-casters tends to be better balanced, and it's a dynamic that psionics supports much better than traditional casting. Lastly, there is no such thing as a "go all day" class. Every class runs out of hit points sooner or later, generally sooner when you don't have magic backing you.
A party that works well casts invisibility on the rogue and team work wins the day.
I agree that teamwork wins the day, but there's no reason for the wizard to cast on the rogue. The wizard gains such a huge bonus that he makes the rogue largely irrelevant. I prefer mechanics that intuitively encourage teamwork over self-sufficiency.
Im sorry Ssalarn but your arguments don't stack up. I have never heard it argued that wizards are powerful because at 5th level they can deliver a shocking grasp at 5d6 (17 points of damage for one of five or six spells slots) nor because at 10th level their fireballs do 10d6 damage (35 damage or 17 if they save, less with resistances).
.... I can see why others have gotten frustrated or just given up on talking to you. I', addressing your own points with easy to grasp references. Energy ray vs. shocking grasp and fireball is an easy comparison, and honestly one of the few areas where psionics even gets any arguable benefits.
You can't say wizards are unbalanced then say psionics are intrinsically better because they are worse at the things that don't make that much difference. If you want to deal energy damage outright don't play a standard psion.
Foolishness. Invisibility vs. psionic equivalents is very relevant, as it's one of the most valuable tools available in the first 6 levels of the game. The inherent differences in scaling are also very relevant, especially with your claims that psionics are more versatile.
Regardless, it's becoming clear that you have an agenda and will just keep dancing around in circles without really actually addressing any input other than mis-summations of information that's been given and arguments that have been presented, so I'm going to follow some excellent examples and say good night and goodbye.
True that there was mismatched expectations for psionics vs psychic here, but the psychic is the laziest design in the entire book, which is evidenced by the fact that there's a sorceror bloodline that steals 90% of the psychic's schtick, but with the superior sorc/wiz spell list.
Except it doesn't... It doesn't get undercasting (which makes it's Undercasting prodigy ability rather weird), it doesn't get the ability to augment it's spells through amplifications, it doesn't get a discipline, doesn't get a detect thoughts SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into a scaling detect thoughts, doesn't get a telepathic bond SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into telepathic bond, doesn't get constant telepathy, doesn't get the same captsone..... Nope, only link is the fact they are both d6 psychic casters.
The psychic bloodline doesn't let you casting mind-affecting spells on undead, it doesn't let you use level 1 spell slots to cast level 3 spells, it doesn't let you spend points to increase the DC of your spells, it doesn't let you shift into an alternate personality immune to fear, it doesn't let you manipulate the dreams of people, it doesn't let you heal people, it doesn't let you travel into your own mind palace, it doesn't let you draw energy from the people you inflict pain upon, it doesn't let you create drugs that open your mind, it doesn't give you resistance against drugs, it doesn't let you feel the emotions of your friends, it doesn't let you share memories at will, it doesn't let you add your wisdom modifier on physical skill checks.
|
|
True that there was mismatched expectations for psionics vs psychic here, but the psychic is the laziest design in the entire book, which is evidenced by the fact that there's a sorceror bloodline that steals 90% of the psychic's schtick, but with the superior sorc/wiz spell list.Except it doesn't... It doesn't get undercasting (which makes it's Undercasting prodigy ability rather weird), it doesn't get the ability to augment it's spells through amplifications, it doesn't get a discipline, doesn't get a detect thoughts SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into a scaling detect thoughts, doesn't get a telepathic bond SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into telepathic bond, doesn't get constant telepathy, doesn't get the same captsone..... Nope, only link is the fact they are both d6 psychic casters.
I think the psychic is better than it gets credit for, but I do have to agree with the general assessment that it's probably the most uninspired work in the book. It's a solid 9 level caster with some neat thematic abilities and a cool source of pseudo-metamagic that enforces a little MAD. It, like much of the book, answered questions for me about the kind of games the design team plays- honestly, the OA classes, psychic included, feel like the materials Golarion was always written to use. I can snag almost any Paizo module or AP off my shelf and an OA class seems like a better fit than most arcane or divine casters. Realistically, going forward if I run an adventure in Golarion, I'll probably point people towards OA over most other core class books (though my 3pp collection will probably still always contain my first suggestions for those who ask).
Ssalarn. I'm sorry but you haven't demonstrated reduced scope (range of powers and abilities) or versatility (the range of options when implementing them). All you have demonstrated is that the psion is less able in some areas, perhaps.
Congratulations you have pointed out some examples where the psion is less effective than a wixard. Well done. Now to the point... Why on earth would that mean we should replace the magic system of pathfinder with the 3.5 / DSP psionics which is what the original discussion with Rynjin was about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ssalarn. I'm sorry but you haven't demonstrated reduced scope (range of powers and abilities) or versatility (the range of options when implementing them).
.... but he said specific examples of those things. @_@
I think the psychic is better than it gets credit for, but I do have to agree with the general assessment that it's probably the most uninspired work in the book.
And yet it's still one of the most inspired fullcaster I've ever seen :P
Full casters have a habit of being.... rather bland (see wizard or cleric) or ridiculous grab-bags (see druid).Psychic, Witch, Oracles, and Shaman are the only fullcasters I can think of that aren't bland and aren't all over the place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the psychic is better than it gets credit for, but I do have to agree with the general assessment that it's probably the most uninspired work in the book.And yet it's still one of the most inspired fullcaster I've ever seen :P
Full casters have a habit of being.... rather bland (see wizard or cleric) or ridiculous grab-bags (see druid).Psychic, Witch, Oracles, and Shaman are the only fullcasters I can think of that aren't bland and aren't all over the place.
Well that is every non-CRB full caster except the Arcanist you listed there.
|
|
I think the psychic is better than it gets credit for, but I do have to agree with the general assessment that it's probably the most uninspired work in the book.And yet it's still one of the most inspired fullcaster I've ever seen :P
Full casters have a habit of being.... rather bland (see wizard or cleric) or ridiculous grab-bags (see druid).Psychic, Witch, Oracles, and Shaman are the only fullcasters I can think of that aren't bland and aren't all over the place.
I certainly don't disagree. Full casters generally are pretty bland, because their spells are their real distinction. I just think the Psychic is a little closer to the Wizard and Cleric (not my favorite classes to begin with) than it is to the more interesting full casters like the Shaman or Druid. I think the fact that a bunch of its class features feed right back into its casting is probably part of what I personally don't like; they feel almost more like selectable modifications to your core spellcasting ability than distinct options in their own right, which is probably why they get overlooked/undervalued so much.
I definitely like the Psychic more than the Wizard or Cleric, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the most boring class in the book. That really is probably more attributable to a general complaint with the prevailing 9 level caster dynamics and designs than the Psychic specifically. It'd be interesting to see more 9 level casters where the spells are support tools for the class chassis instead of the class chassis existing to give a framework for the spells though.
Psychic, Witch, Oracles, and Shaman are the only fullcasters I can think of that aren't bland and aren't all over the place.
This is certainly true for me. As much as I dislike 9/9 casters, those 4 at least seem like they will be fun to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undercasting is associated with the spell, not the class. The sorceror can undercast.True that there was mismatched expectations for psionics vs psychic here, but the psychic is the laziest design in the entire book, which is evidenced by the fact that there's a sorceror bloodline that steals 90% of the psychic's schtick, but with the superior sorc/wiz spell list.Except it doesn't... It doesn't get undercasting (which makes it's Undercasting prodigy ability rather weird),
it doesn't get the ability to augment it's spells through amplifications,Different, but you get bonus feats instead.
it doesn't get a discipline,Bloodline.
doesn't get a detect thoughts SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into a scaling detect thoughts, doesn't get a telepathic bond SLA, doesn't get the ability to convert spells into telepathic bond,Different, but meh.
doesn't get constant telepathy,That's cool, sorc gets constant Thoughtsense instead
doesn't get the same captsone.....Whatever. It's a capstone. The real capstone is gained at level 18 anyway, when you get 9th level spells.
Nope, only link is the fact they are both d6 psychic casters.
Allow me to tell you what the sorceror gets that the psychic doesn't: 6 years of older content in the form of Player Companions, Campaign Setting, and APs, as well as the hardcover line. Additionally, while I use Phrenic Amplifications on my psychic (as mentioned earlier, I have a level 11 psychic in PFS), it's usually to make up for some gap I had vs a sorc - "I need something to do against undead other than Magic Missile. I guess I'll Will of the Dead this Oneiric Horror." The other thing with the Phrenic Pool is that it's consistently tiny. Again, at level 11, I have a pool of 7. The amplification I want to use costs 2-4 points. Ponder that for a second. Also, if you want to boost that pool, be prepared to only select Half-Elf as a race and constantly wonder if you were better off using 3 levels of FCB for 1 point vs 3 more spells known. In short, the pool looks like more of a differentiator than it actually is. I spend more time wondering if it's worth the points on a given spell than actually using the points, though that might change now that I have the dispel rider major amp. At least the feats are always-on.
When I built my psychic, I had intended to use all the "super-interesting new psychic spells," which worked great for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells known. Now, I say things like "man, I wish I had Fireball right now" or "Wow, everything worth taking right now is out of the CRB and I could have gotten that on a sorceror." It turns out that the biggest differentiator is the spell list and I can tell you right now that the only positive I've experienced so far is that my psychic has Freedom of Movement, which isn't on the Sorc/Wiz list. My go-to spell for disabling could easily be replaced (Oneiric Horror -> Hold Person). The rest of the time, literally everything else could be just as easily handled by the Sorc/Wiz list without worrying about things to do when the targets are plants/undead/constructs/etc. Beyond Haste, the psychic doesn't really get an answer to golems until level 12. Think about that. Even with that being the case, the vast majority of the psychic list is shared with the Sorc/Wiz list. It's just that the Sorc/Wiz list is WAY bigger.
Beyond that, the fact that I get mechanical things for saying my character does a crapload of drugs is no more powerful than several bloodlines and just encourages me to make hippie jokes all night.
In short:
- Phrenic Pool is meh and compensated with bonus feats.
- Disciplines = Bloodlines.
- Sorc/Wiz list >>>>>>>>>> Psychic list
- At least you get some telepathy stuff?
Sure, not the same. The sorc is just better, though, and this is coming from someone who is literally playing the psychic class right now in PFS.