| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've ever been so disappointed in Paizo. When the first edition psychic came out, the psychic was that way because Paizo didn't want to step on Dreamscarred press toes who had done an amazing job with psionics, I understand and respect that however that reason does not exist anymore.
The new psychic is just a rebadged sorcerer, there is nothing about it that says psionic. it does nothing to even try to mimic how in general psionics/psychics are portrayed, instead it is literally just another spontaneous spellcaster whose lore makes no sense. they cast spells with their minds, is that in any way different how from literally every other spellcaster in pathfinder 2 works? d
Come on guys do better. if you are going to do psionics/psychics, do it right.
there should be the basic powers - telekinesis, telepathy, pyrokinesis, etc.
the ability to sustain etc. typically psychic stuff.
why are we getting just another version of the sorcerer? sigh
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're points are kinda vague. Care to elaborate?
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are they just like the Sorcerer?
Their verbal components are replaced depending on your Key Ability Score, they get to augment their cantrips to be more powerful in the cost of spells per day. And they can enter a Psyche in order to use their Amp'd cantrips more or cash in a spell slot to do tons of additional damage.
NONE of that speaks Sorcerer to me. Not thematically nor mechanically. However psionics were done in other editions of D&D, that doesn't HAVE to be the way they are represented in PF2E.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are they just like the Sorcerer?
Their verbal components are replaced depending on your Key Ability Score, they get to augment their cantrips to be more powerful in the cost of spells per day. And they can enter a Psyche in order to use their Amp'd cantrips more or cash in a spell slot to do tons of additional damage.
NONE of that speaks Sorcerer to me. Not thematically nor mechanically. However psionics were done in other editions of D&D, that doesn't HAVE to be the way they are represented in PF2E.
it didn't have to the same way. for instance. they could have made focus spells works like powers. give them the concentration trait, and then add class feats that modify then.
there is a ton of design space. they didn't need to literally repeat and remake the sorcerer.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you mean oracle? I guess I could see you having a corner of a point if you meant to compare this to the oracle.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they are nothing like a sorcerer.
|
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
there is nothing about it that says psionic. it does nothing to even try to mimic how in general psionics/psychics are portrayed,There never was going to be.
Come on guys do better. if you are going to do psionics/psychics, do it right.They weren't, and aren't.
why are we getting just another version of the sorcerer? sigh
you mean spontaneous spellcaster, like they were in P1? Or a spellcaster similar to all the other casters in P2, which is what they're going to be. A spellcaster.
Psionics were never promised and you're never going to get them, especially power points. The Amps is the closest we'll get.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of understand Ikarinokami. But I think it's one of the main differences of P2 compared to P1. The overall balance of the game tends to reduce the options as it's harder to keep the balance when you have far too different options.
Still, I agree that an alternative form of casting would have been great. Power points, or whatever, would make the class really different. But maybe will it be a rare archetype so people could be able to use it even if the balance of it would be uncertain.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making it different just for the sake of being different isn't automatically a good thing.
You always have the possibility to say that your Sorcerer (mechanically) is a psionic. So, things have to be different enough to be useful. There's no point to release a new option if it's so close to another option that it doesn't add much.
Now, I don't have an answer to how different Sorcerer and Psionic have to be for the game to be the best. And I'm pretty sure the answer will depend on who you ask to.|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that's gonna be hard since we don't have a Psionic.
We have a Psychic.
You can flavor them how you want in-game however you want, Psychic has abilities that separate it from Sorcerer, just because it's a Spontaneous Spellcaster doesn't mean it's an exact copy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psychics don't speak to cast their spells. That seems mechanically distinct to me. Maintaining somatic components (a flick of the wrist or a stern pointing towards your temple like Doctor Orpheus) and your casting being visual is the concession made for the sake of balance a keeping psychic magic as distinctly magic. Looks like the best middle road you can hope for.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ability, from level one, to regain multiple focus points between encounters make the psychic feel very different from a sorcerer. This is the first class that is likely to be using focus spells/spells modified by focus points almost every round or at least every other round of every combat. They are not just different from the sorcerer, they are going to have a play style different than every other caster. What could be really cool in the dark archive book is if there are stance/form spells that can be sustained for multiple rounds that do things like fiery form
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the 2E Psychic, even in playtest form, WAY more divergent from Sorcerer than they were in 1E. I've actually wanted something to really dig into the Cantrip system of 2E and make it a go-to, and this is the first real foray into that space.
Sure, it needs them to lean more into the whole amp system. (The word count of full publishing will accommodate the bulk of that.) I'd like the amping to be available to more of their cantrips, personally (be able to use feat earned amps on your other Psychic cantrips
and treat them as your psi cantrips for Focus point regaining purposes). But this is doing a much better job of separating itself than 1E ever did.
All in all, as a starting point, I am not unhappy with what I'm seeing here. If nothing else, I'm way more likely to use the class-unique choices on the Psychic, as it is in playtest form, than say the class-unique options of the Wizard. (I think only one or two of the school focus powers would ever hit my own personal table, ever... I can already see me taking any of the three subclass options here and running with them.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure what you even mean. If anything other than being a spon caster they are the literal opposite.
Sorcerers spell augmenting blood magic doesn't work on Cantrips and psychics are built around augmenting Cantrips.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I definitely do not see them as being the same any more than the ranger is the same as the fighter. They play in a similar field but do quite different things.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why are we getting just another version of the sorcerer? sigh
If this was another sorcerer with minor changes, I'd almost be happy with that. Instead, we get a spell caster who gets punished for being a spellcaster.
The unconscious mind would be a neat idea if it did something besides simply punish you for doing what you were designed/trained to do.
They're not very Sorcerer, the Cantrip + Amp mechanics make that pretty clear. Honestly, if they were made strong enough they could carry the class by themselves (and the spells on this iteration do come across as vestigial, at best they really function like 'specialized' psychic powers for grander effects, in terms of utility, which is how I choose to think of them-- like using it to cast magic like Dream Council and such, while focusing on the cantrips and amps for combat.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.
The Thaumaturge suffers from a similar problem: I don't see much difference between that class and the Investigator with the exception of the odd choice of Charisma for the key ability. It certainly bears no resemblance to a 1e Occultist, which is what I thought it would be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is intriguing that this was post 3 weeks ago and the OP has not acknowledged this thread since that day.
Seems like just trying to start an argument really
Anyway Rysky is right - psionics were never promised. That is one of two big false assumptions made in the original post
The other is that spontaneous caster = sorcerer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only experience of power point psionics (but it might not have been played right) was that they were just better at many things than normal casters
I recall they could use a point to make mage armour be +6AC and the wizard had nothing similar
Granted this was 3.5 and not dreamscarred
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.
I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
What are Psionics? The class being playtested is a Psychic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of ironic to see this because the PF2 Psychic is significantly more different than the PF1 psychic was, imo. In fact I'd say it stands out more than most other fullcasters period, albeit with some mechanical issues in its current implementation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
Which is again a bizarre oddity since neither P1's nor this P2 attempt were trying to be Psionics.
Occult/Psychic are not Psionics, they are not trying to be "traditionally" Psionic.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are Psionics? The class being playtested is a Psychic.Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
An alternate spellcasting system in DnD 3.5 of not-spellcasters that broke lots of things. Anytime Occult or Psychics get brought up people want Paizo to copy the alternate system from 3.5, despite being told repeatedly they were not and had not interest in doing so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
An alternate spellcasting system in DnD 3.5 of not-spellcasters that broke lots of things. Anytime Occult or Psychics get brought up people want Paizo to copy the alternate system from 3.5, despite being told repeatedly they were not and had not interest in doing so.What are Psionics? The class being playtested is a Psychic.Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
I should have made it clearer that my question was not serious but it is hard to do over typed message. I know full well what psionics are and am aware they broke things in 3.5
Which I don’t doubt it the reason some people want them back so much.
I tend to get frustrated when questions or attempted debates are just very thinly veiled ways of asking “why can’t we have that powerful broken thing from the previous edition?”. Even when the answer is obvious
There are some perfectly reasonable questions to ask about whether the psychic’s power level is sufficient. And they have been in other threads. Conflating them with psionics and then asking for that is not really one of those reasonable questions in my opinion
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An alternate spellcasting system in DnD 3.5 of not-spellcasters that broke lots of things. Anytime Occult or Psychics get brought up people want Paizo to copy the alternate system from 3.5, despite being told repeatedly they were not and had not interest in doing so.What are Psionics? The class being playtested is a Psychic.Bards were never hyped up as being "different", like Psionics have traditionally been. They were always spellcasters. Psionics have had a very different system in the past, which is what people seem to want, based on the hate that Occult spellcasting received in 1e.I think a major part of the problem is Psychics just use the Occult spell list, which doesn't make them much different than certain Sorcerer bloodlines. There's no list of "psionic powers" or anything like that.I mean...yeah..
Why wouldn't they use the mechanics they built the system upon? In that same way, is a bard just a sorcerer as well?
Personally i want Psionics from AD&D2e as that was one of the very first characters I ever played and he was rad, until he disintegrated himself :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was mostly in the playtest but it did show up occasionally after.
I don't know if psionics in a 3.x based game will ever get out from under the intentionally game breaking shadow of 2E. Jesus christ. It's been 30 years and I STILL remember some of the arguments that would come up whenever someone demanded a psionics outside of Dark Sun, which is the only game setting to address the funky power aspects of it correctly IMO.
Designer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to pop in and say that while it's good to hear the feedback that people want more distinction from the existing occult casters like sorcerer and bard, I really do want to discourage edition warring broadly and especially in a playtest forum--the easier it is for me to find feedback, the higher the chance of that feedback getting heard above the back-and-forth of "psionic" vs "psychic".
I've been avoiding explaining toooooo much of the design process at this time because I want to close my mouth and listen to what people think without getting in the way, but maybe some context here might help. One of the things we're trying to be more intentional about in P2 is cross-linking the mechanics of PF2 with the setting of Golarion, which I at least think has yielded a ton of really cool ideas, especially in the new Lost Omens line. So, in designing the PF2 version of the psychic, I looked at how psy-users/psionics/psychics/psychickers/espers/etc have been presented in the setting, which is as a strange type of spellcaster, but a spellcaster nonetheless (though one that in P1 also had a secondary point-based resource in their phrenic pool and phrenic amplifications). So, while the classes can change a great deal from playtest to final, it's likely that whatever direction the class proceeds would still try to match the setting in this way.
I'm going to leave this thread open as a place for people to discuss ways that psychic might carve out more niche for itself against bard, occultsorcerer, occultwitch, and occultsummoner, but I'd like to ask people to hold off on the back and forth of "psionic" vs "psychic" and discussion of past versions of RPGs to keep the focus on the playtest, vs straying into edition warring. I look forward to seeing what people think!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Off-topic* The Thaumaturge isn't remotely close to an Investigator. It has closer similarities to the Inventor (skill-based damage bonus offset by non-attack-attribute class attribute on a martial chassis with no "replacement" mechanic, versatile subclasses, high utility and downtime focus in feats, recharge-every-ten-minute-abilities that are focus spells by any other name, a few free skill increases to keep signature skills up but not nearly as many as Rogue or Investigator, Implements Assault/Devastating Weaponry are identical etc.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the psychic is a sorcerer and oracle is a sorcerer. Then as I said earlier, a bard must be a sorcerer and I just realized that a witch, druid, and cleric are just wizards. A barbarian, ranger and champion are just fighters. Investigator is just a rogue. Did I miss one?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the psychic is a sorcerer and oracle is a sorcerer. Then as I said earlier, a bard must be a sorcerer and I just realized that a witch, druid, and cleric are just wizards. A barbarian, ranger and champion are just fighters. Investigator is just a rogue. Did I miss one?
Foxes are just cats cosplaying as dogs!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the psychic is a sorcerer and oracle is a sorcerer. Then as I said earlier, a bard must be a sorcerer and I just realized that a witch, druid, and cleric are just wizards. A barbarian, ranger and champion are just fighters. Investigator is just a rogue. Did I miss one?
Swashbucklers are also rogues. Gunslingers are also fighters. Goblins are just halflings who forgot how to bathe. Standard humans and elves are both just half-elves with self-imposed limitations. Tieflings are just Aasimar who like wearing black leather and acting edgy. Gnomes are only pretending to be a thing, and don't actually exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I am going to do something slightly different.
For now I will accept the argument that "psychic is just a sorcerer" but this new "sorcere" still needs to be playtested. Because the mechanic of " I spend focus powers to greatly or even fundamentally change how a cantrip works and functions," should maybe be playtested alongside a reduced slot system. Because the thing is, there is a lot of room for error there. This "sorcerer" is still bringing a new mechanic that can interact in a lot of ways with the rest of the system. So yes a playtest is still needed.
I don't agree with the psychic = sorcerer statement. But even if we were to say fine it's true, it brings enough to the table that it needs to be tested to make sure it works. The playtest is still needed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... let's take a look back at our new and improved mission statement:
I'm going to leave this thread open as a place for people to discuss ways that psychic might carve out more niche for itself against bard, occultsorcerer, occultwitch, and occultsummoner
Let's roll with that for a while.
So what is the psychic's niche? Well, they have the spend focus to buff cantrips" thing, and they have a significantly better focus point economy for that purpose than any of their peers. That pretty much is their niche.
So ad medium levels, let's look at how they're acting in a fight.
- The average sorceror (4 spells) is throwing around slotted spells while the fight is hot, and dropping back to cantrips in order to ave resources during the cool-down phase. Focus spells are something where you try to take advantage of the ones you might happen to have, but they're in a supporting role.
- The average witch (3 spells) is trying to do more or less the same thing. They don't get as many slots to play with, but they can at least try to leverage their hex cantrips, somewhat better access to focus spells, and other weird little advantages in order to keep up.
- The average Bard is doing fine. They've got Inspire Courage. Inspire Courage plus cantrip is pretty solid by itself, and then they also have 3 spells per level, plus a bunch of other random stuff. Still, they get a lot of free and nearly free buffing and then they have their slots. In a smaller group, with fewer allies to buff, they don't look quite as good, but even then they're competitive with the witch as far as general access to focus spells plus focus cantrips.
- The average psychic is currently hurting a bit. Conceptually, they drop down to 2 spells per level, and get about as much again as the witch/bard did compared to the Sorceror. This is supposed to be in the form of more/better focus cantrips and more/better focus spells. The schtic of the psychic is that their focus spells are their focus cantrips, plus you spend focus points on them to make them more awesome. Their basic plan in any given fight is to spend most of the fight casting spells with focus points, and maybe cast one or two slotted spells,generally in the first few rounds, if it looks like things are otherwise going to get rough. Their biggest current issue is that their focus-equivalents aren't really competitive with the focus spells of the other classes, and since that's all they really have to distinguish themselves, they're pretty much weak all over.
...but that's not a niche... not exactly.
- The sorceror niche i the big booms. In the case of occult magics, that's the big debuffs, but the concept remains the same. Sorceror brings the concentrations of raw power when you really need it, and then dials things back a bit when you don't. They're your clutch player.
- The bard niche is ally-buffing, and they do it well. The bard thrives in large groups. He's the friend that everyone gets by with a little help from.
- The witch niche... I'm honestly not entirely sure. It seems to be getting a pile of nifty weird bits and trying to assemble it into a whole. That's not the question here, though.
- The psychic niche ought to be all-day, dependable support, with high flexibility. As long as the psychic gets their refocus (and takes the right feats), they basically don't run out. They get a bunch of cantrips, and every one of their cantrips is *also* an option for a focus spell. They can take further feats in order to adjust the ways that they can turn cantrips into focus spells. That kind of mix-and-match putatively gives you a lot of useful flexibility in how you apply your available power... but it depends on the stuff actually beign useful.
Ideally, it should be easy to build a psychic that has 3-5 cantrips that are all worth casting in combat under different circumstances, with at least 2-3 cantrips that are worth casting amped in combat under different circumstances, and you should be able to spot at least a few alternate amp feats that would each be useful on 2-3 different cantrips. Ideally, any of these possible amps would be comparable in rough power level to the focus spells that other classes get. Yes, they get a fair bit of flexibility here... but they're losing it in their slotted spells. They get power here... but they're losing it in their slotted spells. Also, between buying a useful unleash, extending unleash duration out to 5, and buying a few alternate amps, they're paying a fair number of feats for the privilege as well.
Basically, then, the sorceror is your clutch player. The bard is your supporter. The psychic is your technician - they've got flexibility that lasts all day long, and they have the flexibility to use that flexibility without wondering if they'll need it later... because they'll have it later too. When they need to surge, they have a lot fewer options and a lot less stamina, but their floor in flexibility and power is a lot higher.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem may be the strange middle ground that a psychic finds itself in, in regards to spell slots. Right now it feels like there's tiers of damage, depending on resources spent.
Top damage is generally full casters, like sorcerer and wizard. The most spell slots for nova damage, then rely on low spell slots for utility/support and cantrips for chip damage. But even this top damage is only 4 or 8 rounds in a day, and then supplemented by focus spells (for most blaster style builds)
Right under them are the casters with extra features - your bards with focus cantrips, oracles with mysteries and strong cantrips, druids with wild shapes and strong focus spells.
Then the half casters, magus and summoner, who have just a couple big moments a day but are mostly martial, as the day goes on hey can rely on their bread and butter spell strike cantrips and tandem techniques to not miss a beat. They also have feats or features to get lower level spells for utility.
Martial with focus spells are next - things like monk with ki blast or dragon barb with dragon breath. They're basically just martials, in most cases just attacking does as much or more damage, but I'm some situations (like fighting low level weenies) they can be fun bursts.
Lastly pure martials like fighter, rogue, ranger, etc. Some builds will deal more damage to a single target in a round than even the highest level spell, but for the most part high level spells deal more. Which they should, as martials can hit stuff until your dice rolling hand can't roll anymore (or your PC dies). In my experience pure martials deal more damage than half casters not expending high level spells, round over round.
So where does the psychic fall? Ideally, with the cool concept laid out in the playtest, it should be more in line with half casters. A psychic only has 2 spells a level and I would say spells 3 levels behind are typically not very strong, damage wise. Which is where magus and summoner are. I would love for cantrips to be more in line with spell strike and cantrips/eidolon strike, instead of just being another cantrips (even one weaker than normal cantrips, unamped).
I should also say that support wise I think psychic is in a good place. Amped message and mental scan are really cool (though mental scan needs some clarification), it's just the damaging cantrips than need boosts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of understand where someone might get "another sorcerer" from. It really does feel like casters are fairly defined by their spell list rather than the class in many ways, and in a lot of ways this class will play pretty similarly.
Super squishy (check)
Has to play ranged (check)
Relegated to support/control (check).
Unfortunately it really does feel like ALL casters end up as squishy ranged supports, with the few outliers often considered too strong. That said, this might just be Paizo's stance on spellcasting, and while I would love to get a tankier caster, a more "in the fray" caster, it's pretty clear from the spell list and general spell casting mechanics we aren't going to get that.
So, from the standpoint that this is a new caster, so they must be a squishy ranged support, I think they are doing a good job distinguishing this one. While the balance is pretty clearly off, I like the concept of cantrips as the primary tool.
The one thing I am most concerned about is not having enough variety in ampable cantrips. If I'm just going to telekinetic projectile each round I'm going to feel like a strangely flavored (and weak) ranger. Though I do understand that this is still a caster, it's not meant to deal single target damage. Maybe TP isn't a great amp cantrip then? Or maybe the amp should let it hit more targets?