PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder - Vancian Psionics



oxinabox
2009-10-26, 08:19 PM
Dreamscarred Press is currently working on updating psionics to pathfinder (since Paizo has already said they're just going to convert it to a vancian system). They already have an alpha version of the wilder up for commenting, and you could easily go look at it for some ideas.

So this came up in another thread,
It's really worth discussing.

Mongoose87
2009-10-26, 08:27 PM
I don't like the Vancian system for regular spellcasting. This idea sucks a rust monster.

KillianHawkeye
2009-10-26, 08:28 PM
I thought the strength of the 3.5 psionics system was that is was LESS Vancian than the magic system? If I were to design my own version of D&D 3E, I'd change the magic system to be more like psionics, not the other way around. :smallconfused:

Mauril Everleaf
2009-10-26, 08:44 PM
What I expect will happen is that they will introduce Psionics as a Vancian system and then introduce their own UA Spell Points system (hopefully better reflecting the exponential increase in power rather than a linear one) which will apply to both systems.

This would increase the Magic/Psionic transparency and streamline the two systems. Since Paizo seems to be interested in streamlining things, it would make a lot of sense.

AstralFire
2009-10-26, 09:00 PM
Currently this rumor is apparently unverified and I am hoping it remains that way. I don't like Pathfinder, but some ideas are just beyond idiotic.

Kylarra
2009-10-26, 09:14 PM
Yeah I'll agree that the whole point of psionics was to be not vancian...

Akal Saris
2009-10-26, 09:18 PM
But even in 3.5 psionics, you got spell points/day - isn't that Vancian in of itself?

AstralFire
2009-10-26, 09:21 PM
But even in 3.5 psionics, you got spell points/day - isn't that Vancian in of itself?

...No, that's a daily reserve of abilities. While something of a related concept, it is only tangentially so. The important part about Vancian casting is that it is in discrete (rather than gradated) levels and centers around 'word magic', the memorization of a complex string of arcane words which have inherent power in the universe and have a coherent will and existence of their own.

Kylarra
2009-10-26, 09:24 PM
But even in 3.5 psionics, you got spell points/day - isn't that Vancian in of itself?Not really? Pretty much every game with mana or mp has a certain amount that you have that can be recovered by resting.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-10-26, 09:32 PM
Vancian, after all is the classic "fire-and-forget." So, technically, spontaneous casters aren't completely Vancian. Same goes for psionic classes.

Shhalahr Windrider
2009-10-26, 10:56 PM
My searches are not coming up with anything that corroborates the quote in the OP. Of course, then I only made a few quick searches. I might be missing something.

Mauril Everleaf
2009-10-26, 11:12 PM
The quote is from over in the Paizo boards. I saw it myself the other day. Although, for the life of me, I can't find it myself right now.

taltamir
2009-10-26, 11:14 PM
ugh... the vanacian system is the worst magic system ever conceived...
And psionics is only good because its not vanacian...

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-26, 11:24 PM
I dunno. Psionics is pretty darned awesome.

It could be better...

...somehow...

...but IT'S OVER 9000!!! times better than Vancian casting ever was...

Fax Celestis
2009-10-26, 11:28 PM
But even in 3.5 psionics, you got spell points/day - isn't that Vancian in of itself?

"Vancian" spellcasting is "uses per spell level per day based on character level", not "uses per day based on character level".

Gralamin
2009-10-26, 11:44 PM
If this rumor is true, I think it moves Pathfinder from "Intense Dislike" to "Try to destroy it". Vancian Psionics is basically saying "Lets get rid of everything good about psionics and make it mediocre." :smallsigh:

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-27, 12:15 AM
If this rumor is true, I think it moves Pathfinder from "Intense Dislike" to "Try to destroy it". Vancian Psionics is basically saying "Lets get rid of everything good about psionics and make it mediocre absolute crap." :smallsigh:
Fixéd that for you.

Gralamin
2009-10-27, 12:18 AM
Fixéd that for you.

I was trying to maybe give it half a chance. Obviously I was mistaken.

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-27, 12:23 AM
I was trying to maybe give it half a chance. Obviously I was mistaken.
"Obviously mistaken." Thou art quite the master of understatement, my dear Gralamin.

Ecalsneerg
2009-10-27, 02:52 AM
Look on the bright side, if they make it exactly like Wizard or Sorcerer casting, we won't have to deal with the "OMGOVARPOWERRRRRED!!!!" crew in this edition at least.

Vic_Sage
2009-10-27, 02:58 AM
Wow....wow..... the PF crew is more inept than I originally thought they were.

sonofzeal
2009-10-27, 02:59 AM
Oh good lord.

I think PF tries, I really do. I think they're occasionally misguided, and I'd rather just houserule on my own, but I do think they're trying. This, though, this is just... words do not exist to explain how stupid this idea is. Gah.

BooNL
2009-10-27, 03:14 AM
No... just no...

The psionics system is so much better than the vancian system. The only thing they have against them is a bad rep from 3.0 and a terrible Complete X book.

As mentioned, if I were to make my own version of 3.x, psionics would be the way to go.

Nostri
2009-10-27, 03:53 AM
I've been reading the threads on the Paizo boards for a few days now paying special attention to their stuff about psionics and I can't find anywhere where someone from the company said straight up that they were doing this. I know a couple of them said it was a thought that they'd had but I also know that the head editor (whatever his name is, I can't remember it right now) has also said they weren't even going to touch psionics for at least two years.

I'd like to see the thread where someone who actually works for the company says that psionics in PF are going to be Vancian if you've still got the link.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-27, 04:32 AM
Yeah I'll agree that the whole point of psionics was to be not vancian...

Indeed. Psionics has basically always been "magic, only with spell points". But these things get a life of their own.

(for instance, I find it funny that the 3E sorcerer is essentially "the wizard, only spontaneous" - and then we get 4E, where all classes are equally spontaneous, and yet it still has both a wizard and a sorcerer)

Flayerman
2009-10-27, 04:57 AM
Seconding Nostri. Can we get a link to this doomsaying? Pathfinder's so far been pretty smart about what they change in my current play experience (my DM swears they didn't pay anyone to playtest monks, though), and it'd be nice to see a quote saying "Pathfinder Psionics Will Be Vancian".

Besides, I expect if they present a Vancian psionics method, they'll also present a psionic point system in the same book, and probably some third spontaneous psionic system none of us thought of.

And hey, maybe they'll even fix Soulknife.

Optimystik
2009-10-27, 07:59 AM
"Vancian" spellcasting is "uses per spell level per day based on character level", not "uses per day based on character level".

This. The difference between Psionics and Vancian casting is that I can spend all day long manifesting 1st-level powers if I want to, but still have the option of manifesting my higher stuff in a pinch. Vancian casting lets me fill all my slots with 1st-level spells, but doing so bars me from casting anything higher.

If psionic powers had a little bit of automatic scaling (instead of relying completely on augmentation) I'd easily rank it above magic. It's just a cooler system, and the powers feel so much more... streamlined than tossing bat poop around and chanting gobbledygook.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 08:53 AM
Wow, I guess Im one of the rare few who prefers Vancian casting to psionic power points.

Not that I think its a bad system, I just don't think they pulled it off right. Also I don't feel that spell/power points give off a DnD wibe.

Evil the Cat
2009-10-27, 09:54 AM
I have no problems at all with Vancian casting. However, one of the things I liked most about psionics is that is uses a somewhat different mechanic. One of the things I really like about D&D is the sheer number of options you have to work with. Changing psionics to be more like other casters would be a big mistake in my opinion. Fortunately, it seems to be nothing more than a rumor at the moment, so I'll just hope it is an inaccurate one. I've adopted many of the PF changes into my games, though magic isn't one of them, so I'd be pretty able to ignore a new psionics system.

Zeuy
2009-10-27, 10:56 AM
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/products/paizo/psionicsAndHandToTheGriefersAndHatersOfPsionicsGoP lay4thEdition&page=2 About half-way down the second page.

Psionics are certainly one of the topics we want to some day deal with; its a pretty popular subset of the game, and its fans are certainly vocal. But we have to time it right for what's good for the overall line, not just for what's right for Paizo. Epic content is PROBABLY more popular than psionics (although it's a close race), and we certainly won't be doing a psionics book and an epic book in the same year. Also complicating things is the fact that we're really eager and excited to do something NEW with Pathfinder rather than just ape the release schedule of every previous edition of the game.

As for when they finally do happen, I can pretty much guarantee that psionics will NOT be substantially different than the game's current spellcasters... they're very likely to, mechanically, be even closer to arcane and divine spells than they are even in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and that's something that a lot of psionics fans are going to have difficulty with accepting. But since no one at Paizo's interested in building a set of psionics rules that breaks the game or makes the core classes of the game feel underpowered (which is the way it works now in 3.5), that's not really something that's up for debate.

Another option would be to do something like what TSR did with Dark Sun. Introduce a new setting in Golarion where psionics are the way of things and arcane/divine magic is not. That lets us develop psionics in a "bubble" that doesn't have to worry about clashing with existing rules... but no matter how thick that "bubble" is there'll be leakage. Folks will want to play psionic characters in Golarion no matter what, and saying you can't is bad design. Saying you can't is basically saying we messed up somewhere. To be done right, psionics HAS to exist peacefully and equally with divine/arcane/martial classes. And it might be the only way that can happen is to boot the point-based system entirely.

My personal preference would be, of course, to build psionic characters VERY similar to how the sorcerer or the bard works for the power users, or the barbarian for how the soulblade non-power users work. Spell slots and "psionic powers" (instead of rage powers). Then the actual mechanics work fine, and we don't have the concerns about psionic characters being able to nova and make the core classes feel lame.

I almost think that the best bet is to simply let Dreamscarred's psionics stuff come out and let THAT satisfy the fans of psionics, to be honest. I'm pretty sure that if they keep their momentum up and running, they'll get something in print long before we could anyway.

So basically, if they update psionics, it's going to be closer mechanically to spellcasters. (Core casters are vancian casters, therefore psionics will be converted to a vancian-like system). However, Paizo may just let Dreamscarred Press update psionics and leave it at that.

I'd strongly suggest reading the whole thread in case I missed something else that James said. If I did miss something, please point it out. :smallsmile:

Edit: Maybe the OP can put this in the first post for people?

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-27, 11:00 AM
How do psions make core classes feel underpowered? :smallconfused:

Morty
2009-10-27, 11:02 AM
I'm not interested in psionics even if I do switch to Pathfiner one day, but this announcement had me in stiches when I imagined an inevitable "OMG Vancian casting suxxx" uproar. I don't see anything about Vancian casting here, though. It's supposed to be closer to arcane and divine casters, not the same. Now, Vancian casting is better than psionic power points, but there'd be no reason to make psionics work that way.

infinitypanda
2009-10-27, 11:04 AM
But since no one at Paizo's interested in building a set of psionics rules that breaks the game or makes the core classes of the game feel underpowered (which is the way it works now in 3.5)


psionics rules that breaks the game or makes the core classes of the game feel underpowered

So, is Paizo saying that psionics are broken to the point of making wizards, clerics, and druids weak? Because that seems to be what they're saying.

Morty
2009-10-27, 11:05 AM
So, is Paizo saying that psionics are broken to the point of making wizards, clerics, and druids weak? Because that seems to be what they're saying.

Or they might be saying that they don't want to come up with a new system because it might turn out overpowered if they do.

infinitypanda
2009-10-27, 11:07 AM
I thought that at first too, but the whole
(which is the way it works now in 3.5) gave me pause.

Zeuy
2009-10-27, 11:08 AM
Or they might be saying that they don't want to come up with a new system because it might turn out overpowered if they do.


But since no one at Paizo's interested in building a set of psionics rules that breaks the game or makes the core classes of the game feel underpowered (which is the way it works now in 3.5) (Emphasis mine)

No, I think he's talking about 3.5...

Edit: ninjas...

Morty
2009-10-27, 11:08 AM
I see. I suppose it's another example of Pathfinder folks not knowing a whole lot about game balance.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-27, 11:09 AM
It seems the Paizo folks are making the "psionics are broken!" mistake yet again; you'd think that with the XPH being out for several years people would have gotten over that, but I guess not. :smallsigh: If that's the way they view psionics now, I'd hate to see what brilliant plan they come up with their own version.

Edea
2009-10-27, 11:11 AM
Yet another sign that Pathfinder is garbage.

Tanaric
2009-10-27, 11:18 AM
Oh Paizo, I had thought that you were at least above the level of "OMG PSIONIX R BROKENZ!!1one!1"

:smallsigh:

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 11:18 AM
How do psions make core classes feel underpowered? :smallconfused:Well Psions/other psionic "fullcasters" do make the non-casters feel underpowered.... :smalltongue: [/symptomatic of the whole system, not just psionics]

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-27, 11:19 AM
I think that is quite sad that, generally speaking, the game designers show, at least in my opinion, that they prefer to flat out the game and make it more "samey" just because in this way is more easy avoid unbalances.

I guess to make the customers feel more "safe", balance wise.

So.. this is what happened to the game. Balance >>>>>>>>>> flavour, diversity, and so on.

This is what we became? We went for it I guess...

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-27, 11:29 AM
So, what they're saying is that Epic stuff > Psionic stuff in popularity (And therefor order of being updated/published) and Psionic Stuff is both overly different and too powerful in 3.5?

Given that I've frequently heard that Epic level play is pretty much the rarest level of play, I'd say it sounds very much like the Paizo designers (assuming this Jason dude is as official as he sounds) just don't like Psionics.

Note the way he refers to 'the fans of psionics'. It very much sounds like he is talking about a group that has no cross-over with the development team.

Good job Pathfinder is backwards compatable, eh? :)

Tanaric
2009-10-27, 11:36 AM
Good job Pathfinder is backwards compatable, eh? :)

Oh, yes. You just pretend your Psions are Wizards without all that silly spell component stuff.

"I prepared Psionic Mind Blank, guys! Anything else you want?"

Shhalahr Windrider
2009-10-27, 11:38 AM
Or they might be saying that they don't want to come up with a new system because it might turn out overpowered if they do.
Ignoring, of course, for the moment that Pathfinder isn't so much a new system as an update of an older one. :smallsigh:


Oh Paizo, I had thought that you were at least above the level of "OMG PSIONIX R BROKENZ!!1one!1"
Me too.

I mean really—even bringing up Going Nova as a problem. I guess they're buying into the 15-minute adventuring day.


Note the way he refers to 'the fans of psionics'. It very much sounds like he is talking about a group that has no cross-over with the development team.
Yeah. Getting pretty close to the same "talk down the fans" mistake that made 4e so divisive, I think.


Good job Pathfinder is backwards compatable, eh? :)
Amen to that!

Morty
2009-10-27, 11:43 AM
Ignoring, of course, for the moment that Pathfinder isn't so much a new system as an update of an older one. :smallsigh:

Yeah, that was kind of the weak point of the argument even before it turned out they really do thing 3.5 psionics is overpowered.

Djibriel
2009-10-27, 11:49 AM
It is my experience that Psionics do overtake campaigns quite easily. Any DM who has heard one of his players demand a Telepath will know what I'm talking about. I've run a campaign which was designed to circle around Psionics, but to be honest, I had to write the entire campaign around the simple fact that a single character could make any NPC do the monkey, could deal more damage than the others and had more combat control (Telekinetc Maneuver), all while using little or no components to "block", melee-range HP due to Psionic Body and more AC than you could shake a stick at.

So I feel the Pathfinder sentiment; as a DM I had to make a lot of effort to keep the game going for the other players, who were Swift Hunter, Ranger and Mounted Knight, all fairly well put-together.

Then again, we've never played past level 8, and never use full casters. Still, our long-time and well-willing exposure to Psionics has left a bad taste in our mouth, and that's not how it's supposed to be.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 11:50 AM
Oh good god.

That's pathetic.

So, uh, I cranked out something in an hour this morning about that half-baked idea I had, I ended up dropping the Wilder part of the hybrid:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129691

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 11:56 AM
It is my experience that Psionics do overtake campaigns quite easily. Any DM who has heard one of his players demand a Telepath will know what I'm talking about. I've run a campaign which was designed to circle around Psionics, but to be honest, I had to write the entire campaign around the simple fact that a single character could make any NPC do the monkey, could deal more damage than the others and had more combat control (Telekinetc Maneuver), all while using little or no components to "block", melee-range HP due to Psionic Body and more AC than you could shake a stick at.

So I feel the Pathfinder sentiment; as a DM I had to make a lot of effort to keep the game going for the other players, who were Swift Hunter, Ranger and Mounted Knight, all fairly well put-together.

Then again, we've never played past level 8, and never use full casters. Still, our long-time and well-willing exposure to Psionics has left a bad taste in our mouth, and that's not how it's supposed to be.Well duh. You insert a "fullcaster" in a game where no one else is a fullcaster and are surprised at options beyond the normal "I hit it with a stick" or "I use skillpoints" to solve problems? As I said, it's just fullcasters making noncasters feel "underpowered". Compared to core fullcasters which make up 3 of the big 5(6), psionics are only at best tier 2 (not counting StP erudite because that's introducing magic into your psionics and thus not a representative of psionics).

Optimystik
2009-10-27, 11:58 AM
It is my experience that Psionics do overtake campaigns quite easily. Any DM who has heard one of his players demand a Telepath will know what I'm talking about. I've run a campaign which was designed to circle around Psionics, but to be honest, I had to write the entire campaign around the simple fact that a single character could make any NPC do the monkey, could deal more damage than the others and had more combat control (Telekinetc Maneuver), all while using little or no components to "block", melee-range HP due to Psionic Body and more AC than you could shake a stick at.

But how is that different than say, a Beguiler, or even an Enchanter? They are more powerful than any Telepath for the simple reason that Psions lack the entire Illusion school. In addition, all their spells scale automatically, and they don't have to burn move actions on fuelling their feats (Standard actions without PM.) It sounds like you have a problem with controllers in general, rather than Psions in particular.

Hell, a single BARD can "make any NPC do the monkey" (literally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/irresistibleDance.htm) in some cases); that doesn't make them overpowered either.

Starsinger
2009-10-27, 12:00 PM
It is my experience that Psionics do overtake campaigns quite easily. Any DM who has heard one of his players demand a Telepath will know what I'm talking about. I've run a campaign which was designed to circle around Psionics, but to be honest, I had to write the entire campaign around the simple fact that a single character could make any NPC do the monkey, could deal more damage than the others and had more combat control (Telekinetc Maneuver), all while using little or no components to "block", melee-range HP due to Psionic Body and more AC than you could shake a stick at.

I guess that's why everyone here's constantly advocating Psions as the best thing ever, and not spooty Wizards or Clerics or Druids, right?

Fax Celestis
2009-10-27, 12:06 PM
My response. (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/products/paizo/psionicsAndHandToTheGriefersAndHatersOfPsionicsGoP lay4thEdition&page=8#354)

Djibriel
2009-10-27, 12:11 PM
Yes, a single "full caster" in a team full of those too unfortunate to pick one themselves. As a DM, I will then look for several means to "block" his omnipotence. Not to take away the toys the Telepath wanted to play with all the time, but sometimes you want the others to have a meaningful contribution, or don't want the BBEG Dominated or simply want the King's Chamber protected from this sort of thing because that's a logical thing.

A level 8 Enchanter, I could take away his material components, I could have NPCs react negatively to obvious spellcasting (Powers are more easily concealed), I could fill the room with magical Silence, I could have the Enchanter Grappled and Pinned and thus deny somatic components, I could take his Familiair "hostage". Again, I'm not looking to spoil his fun; but sometimes, your story is more fun and compelling if the PCs can't tell the King what to do because there's a Telepath.

Ofcourse, multiple spells, feats, alternate class features and all that could protect most if not all of the above situations. As a full caster introduced into a party without any other instant-win buttons, the Wizard is more easily "taken care of" than a Psion. This is my experience.

I guess that's why everyone here's constantly advocating Psions as the best thing ever, and not spooty Wizards or Clerics or Druids, right?

Again, I've only dealt with PCs below level 10. Usual CO of the Zilla's doesn't start that early, right?

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 12:15 PM
So you're willing to pull every DM trick in the book - silence (Silent Spell negates that quick), grappling (freedom of movement and still spell), spell pouch casteration (Eschew Material Components, among a billion others - and hey, I'm sticking to core here!), familiar as hostage (but not psicrystal?) - but not a null psionics field, or mind blank, or protection from evil which is a first level spell?

Djibriel
2009-10-27, 12:21 PM
Like I said, a devoted spellcaster may circumvent these things. Your example level 8 spellcaster has devoted all of his Feats to be able to do what a Psion is able to do immediately.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-27, 12:22 PM
A level 8 Enchanter, I could take away his material components, I could have NPCs react negatively to obvious spellcasting (Powers are more easily concealed), I could fill the room with magical Silence, I could have the Enchanter Grappled and Pinned and thus deny somatic components, I could take his Familiair "hostage". Again, I'm not looking to spoil his fun; but sometimes, your story is more fun and compelling if the PCs can't tell the King what to do because there's a Telepath.

Or, y'know, you could give the king a protection from X spell effect, which prevents "any attempts...to exercise mental control over the [target]" so you could protect him from domination and such with a simple item of a 1st-level spell while not arbitrarily screwing with the caster? If your first thought is not "What would the NPCs do to protect themselves if casters exist in the world?" but rather "How can I take care of the PCs' abilities so they don't wreck my plot?" perhaps you should rethink your plots and your priorities.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AstralFire.


Again, I've only dealt with PCs below level 10. Usual CO of the Zilla's doesn't start that early, right?

Divine power is 4th level, and you can easily get DMM: Persist up and running by then (often by 1st level, depending on the build).

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 12:24 PM
In return, however, he can do them much longer and often more effectively, and neither of them can do a thing about protection from evil/good/law/chaos. Or their magic circles.

A 3rd level Psion has a grand total of 4 full power spells to the wizard's 5 plus cantrips.

Tavar
2009-10-27, 12:25 PM
And Druids start out strong at level 1, and only get better. Seriously, the animal companion alone is often a good substitute for a fighter, and that's not even considering the actual Druid.

Optimystik
2009-10-27, 12:26 PM
Yes, a single "full caster" in a team full of those too unfortunate to pick one themselves. As a DM, I will then look for several means to "block" his omnipotence. Not to take away the toys the Telepath wanted to play with all the time, but sometimes you want the other have a meaningful contribution, or don't want the BBEG Dominated or simply want the King's Chamber protected from this sort of thing because that's a logical thing.

Is it that unreasonable for either the King or the BBEG to have an item with Protection from X? It's a 1st level spell and blocks every single charm or compulsion effect (regardless of alignment) your PC could want to try. I know that if I were a king in D&D that keeping myself from becoming some caster's puppet would be a high priority.

EDIT: Ninja'd several times over.


A level 8 Enchanter, I could take away his material components, I could have NPCs react negatively to obvious spellcasting (Powers are more easily concealed), I could fill the room with magical Silence, I could have the Enchanter Grappled and Pinned and thus deny somatic components, I could take his Familiair "hostage". Again, I'm not looking to spoil his fun; but sometimes, your story is more fun and compelling if the PCs can't tell the King what to do because he's a Telepath.

First, arcane casters have easy ways around all of those fixes. Second, Psionics may be easier to hide, but they all have displays - they are not totally unnoticeable. Finally, the solution to balance problems like this is always buffing the bad guy, not penalizing the player. Let him do his mind mojo on the mooks, and simply make your important characters immune.

Ravens_cry
2009-10-27, 12:36 PM
Vancian Magic is not the worst magic ever. For some, it may break verisimilitude, but it is simple implement in the game.
Be that as it may, one of the things that made psionics delightful was it was a good alternative to Vancian spell casting, clever and customizable.
I hope this is not done.

Djibriel
2009-10-27, 12:41 PM
you should rethink your plots and your priorities.

We all had a very good time, but thanks for the input.

It was an Eberron game. While Eberron characters can be assumed to know how spells work, Psionics hail from another continent. Only Kalashtar really know what Powers are and how they function. I try to see what opponent can know, then use that. The setting (mining town in Q'Barra, filled with refugees) did not invite Charms of Protection from X all around the place.

For the record, I just designed the campaign thusly that every NPC could have been Dominated without being able to spill the means of the grand mystery. Because that's how the Inspired roll. The Telepath ran out of PP once, but was otherwise fine to do whatever he wished whenever he wished. Point is, I still had to design the entire campaign around his powers. Something's wrong if a single character can wield that much power.

The main point as I distill it now, is that casters are on par/better than Psionics (touchy subject, apparantly), but both are very much more powerful than other options, even at low level where the gap should be smaller. So to get back on track, Pathfinder is seeing a problem which is there (Psionics = overpowered) but this is still bad since they didn't see another problem (Casting = overpowered). Or, y'know, Melee, Skillmonkeys and in-battle Healers are underpowered. Big gap anyway.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 12:46 PM
That's pretty much it. The level of difference between "I has a beatstick" or "I can hurt things that don't wear athletic cups" against "when I snap my fingers, you will spin on your head and go 'I GOT SERVED!'" is ridiculous and already present in core, but they've only decided to address it with a very popular variant by stripping away precisely what made it popular - its difference, not its power.

Optimystik
2009-10-27, 12:46 PM
So to get back on track, Pathfinder is seeing a problem which is there (Psionics = overpowered) but this is still bad since they didn't see another problem (Casting = overpowered). Or, y'know, Melee, Skillmonkeys and in-battle Healers are underpowered. Big gap anyway.

Your logical progression is correct:
1) Pure casting is overpowered compared to other forms of play.
2) Psionics are a form of pure casting.
3) Therefore, Psionics are overpowered compared to other forms of play.

Paizo's problem is that making Psionics Vancian does nothing to address this (if that is indeed what they're planning.)

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 12:47 PM
I think the brokeness (or lack of) of psionics depends on what kind of game you play. In a game where incantantrix'es, DMM, and similar are available, then no, psionic's will be balanced.

In a game where such things are not allowed/used, then from my experience, psionics become broken.

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 12:49 PM
I think the brokeness (or lack of) of psionics depends on what kind of game you play. In a game where incantantrix'es, DMM, and similar are available, then no, psionic's will be balanced.

In a game where such things are not allowed/used, then from my experience, psionics become broken.Psionics are more balanced than core casting, ime.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 12:51 PM
I've never allowed any spell cheese, and I frequently neuter spells and I still had more issues with my well intentioned druid player accidentally outshining people by virtue of her class features.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 12:52 PM
In my experience, when you take out metamagic reducers of any sort, psionics become less balanced. Though it depends on the type of games you run.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-27, 12:53 PM
That thread's most disturbing aspect is the number of people posting, in effect, 'if you don't like Paizo's choice of Vancian psionics or disagree with it, stop posting. Yay Paizo!'

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 01:00 PM
In my experience, when you take out metamagic reducers of any sort, psionics become less balanced. Though it depends on the type of games you run.I think what you want to say is that casting becomes more balanced or that comparatively the balance is shifted. Otherwise causality is being violated here.

I will concede that Psionics are better blasters than arcanists, particularly when meta-cheese is disallowed, but considering that blasting is nearly the weakest way to play a caster, it's not saying much.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 01:16 PM
In my experience, when you take out metamagic reducers of any sort, psionics become less balanced. Though it depends on the type of games you run.

I've never once allowed a metamagic reducer.

Ever.

The only times I've ever seen psionics have issues by doing things magic couldn't do are when the game was overloaded with nova encounters at higher levels - only one or two fights a day when you have access to Schism, Overchannel/Wild Surge and Quicken Power. You're supposed to have three to five, though.

I mean, sure, in that one Gestalt campaign I played in, my Psion//Wilder/Anarchic Initiate was crazy tough... but to put things in perspective, even though I had been informed by the DM that I was playing in a 'power' campaign and that he wished all of us to do our worst, the next most potent person there was a Druid//Monk.

(A really bad one. I rerolled a Fighter//Monk to be more on the group's level and I was still better than him.)

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 01:20 PM
Yes, with the lack of any sort of metamagic reducers vancian casting becomes more balanced, and as a result psionics become the least balanced part of the entire system.


As for metamagic reducers I mean things like metamagic rods as well.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 01:21 PM
Yes, with the lack of any sort of metamagic reducers vancian casting becomes more balanced, and as a result psionics become the least balanced part of the entire system.

That is not possible. Sorry.

9mm
2009-10-27, 01:21 PM
couple points;

1) Jason mearly stated his personal preference of the direction of psionics. NOT the official direction.
2) his reason for it is less "psionics is overpowered" and more "Adventure paths are our money maker, the less we have to print =more money."


His point of just throwing up a stat block and assuming the most cash strapped DM would have access to the spells listed is a legitimate one. Anything "new" in a path has to be printed in the path, this costs money. I can fully understand them deciding that if the PP system just doesn't work from a "we can't use this in the paths" standpoint they'll drop it. I'd hate them for it; but I can understand it.

Tavar
2009-10-27, 01:22 PM
Yes, with the lack of any sort of metamagic reducers vancian casting becomes more balanced, and as a result psionics become the least balanced part of the entire system.

Really? I've had the exact opposite experience: even in core+XPH only Vancian casting is much more versatile, and therefore powerful. Adding splatbooks just makes the disparity worse.

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 01:24 PM
Yes, with the lack of any sort of metamagic reducers vancian casting becomes more balanced, and as a result psionics become the least balanced part of the entire system.......
Not really no.

Even without metamagic reducers, straight casting is still more powerful than psionics. Granted this is the 100 nukes vs 10 nukes argument, but still.

sonofzeal
2009-10-27, 01:28 PM
Vancian Magic is not the worst magic ever. For some, it may break verisimilitude, but it is simple implement in the game.
Disagreed. It's a bookkeeping nightmare on all fronts; how many high level vancian casters have you played with around the table who aren't constantly fumbling around with books, pausing the game to look up their spells, or bringing everything to a grinding halt as the mash out a new spell list?

arguskos
2009-10-27, 01:31 PM
Disagreed. It's a bookkeeping nightmare on all fronts; how many high level vancian casters have you played with around the table who aren't constantly fumbling around with books, pausing the game to look up their spells, or bringing everything to a grinding halt as the mash out a new spell list?
Um... so... players who LIKE that are bad people now? Thanks, I feel REALLY great about myself. Remind me to never play with you, since me fiddling with my spells between adventures is apparently amazingly immersion breaking for you.

Also, yes, that was sarcastic and rather biting. However, the argument that Vancian=Evil! is stupid and unfair. Some players like it, and you don't hear me slam Tome of Battle ALL THE TIME like everyone else slams Vancian casting, even though I hate the former like you all seem to hate the latter. :smallannoyed:

Let's stop burning Vancian casting at the stake, if you please. You might not like it, but don't imply that everyone who does is a bad human being.

Zeuy
2009-10-27, 01:38 PM
Sonofzeal was merely disagreeing with the statement that vancian casting was simple to implement. Nowhere did he state that vancian casting fans were "bad people".

9mm: James Jacobs is one of the "heads" over at Paizo. He uses strong language ("I can pretty much guarantee that psionics will NOT be substantially different than the game's current spellcasters...") to suggest the future of psionics, and it sounds like more than an opinion.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 01:39 PM
That is not possible. Sorry.

Would you care to explain?


Really? I've had the exact opposite experience: even in core+XPH only Vancian casting is much more versatile, and therefore powerful. Adding splatbooks just makes the disparity worse.

My experience stems from the fact I run encounters that incorporate heavy antimagic elements. Rarely there is a encounter where the monsters don't have a antimagic ability such as dispel, or silence or something to that effect. For me this is a natural course of action for monsters to take in a magic rich world (as assumed by the default setting). If you don't have a way to counter your opposition, then you lost the fight before it even starts.

sonofzeal
2009-10-27, 01:40 PM
Yes, with the lack of any sort of metamagic reducers vancian casting becomes more balanced, and as a result psionics become the least balanced part of the entire system.


As for metamagic reducers I mean things like metamagic rods as well.
Disagreed. Psions have some advantages, but Wizards also have advantages, namely...

- The ability to expand their spellbook
- Spells "augment" for free where the Psionicist has to pay precious PP
- Metamagic is way easier than Metapsionic, and can be stacked
- Access to full-casting PrCs
- Many more overpowered spells, just in Core
- Many more options for Caster Level boosters
- Powerful alternate class feature options
- Hundreds if not thousands more choices for spells

Tavar
2009-10-27, 01:45 PM
My experience stems from the fact I run encounters that incorporate heavy antimagic elements. Rarely there is a encounter where the monsters don't have a antimagic ability such as dispel, or silence or something to that effect. For me this is a natural course of action for monsters to take in a magic rich world (as assumed by the default setting). If you don't have a way to counter your opposition, then you lost the fight before it even starts.

So....why not just use the standard rules and go with full transparency. Then, most of the effective ways to counter casters work.

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 01:47 PM
My experience stems from the fact I run encounters that incorporate heavy antimagic elements. Rarely there is a encounter where the monsters don't have a antimagic ability such as dispel, or silence or something to that effect. For me this is a natural course of action for monsters to take in a magic rich world (as assumed by the default setting). If you don't have a way to counter your opposition, then you lost the fight before it even starts.Full transparency seems to solve your issue then...

It's also worth pointing out that heavily biasing your world against magic and then saying psionics are broken in your experience, without running full transparency, is the equivalent of stacking the deck in advance.

edit: lol ninja'd

Random832
2009-10-27, 01:54 PM
My experience stems from the fact I run encounters that incorporate heavy antimagic elements. Rarely there is a encounter where the monsters don't have a antimagic ability such as dispel, or silence or something to that effect. For me this is a natural course of action for monsters to take in a magic rich world (as assumed by the default setting). If you don't have a way to counter your opposition, then you lost the fight before it even starts.

Are you perhaps not aware of the psionics-magic transparency rule?

double-ninja'd.

This only supports the claim that people who say psionics is broken don't actually read the psionic rules.

sonofzeal
2009-10-27, 01:54 PM
Um... so... players who LIKE that are bad people now? Thanks, I feel REALLY great about myself. Remind me to never play with you, since me fiddling with my spells between adventures is apparently amazingly immersion breaking for you.

Also, yes, that was sarcastic and rather biting. However, the argument that Vancian=Evil! is stupid and unfair. Some players like it, and you don't hear me slam Tome of Battle ALL THE TIME like everyone else slams Vancian casting, even though I hate the former like you all seem to hate the latter. :smallannoyed:

Let's stop burning Vancian casting at the stake, if you please. You might not like it, but don't imply that everyone who does is a bad human being.
Zeuy was right, what I was disagreeing with was the "simple to implement". And seriously, there's going to be anti- (as well as pro-) Vancian sentiment in this thread. Also, I post here quite a bit, and very rarely address my issues with Vancian casting, so I'm hardly making a massive crusade of it or doing it "ALL THE TIME". I'm not really sure what your issue is.

Anyway, if you handle all your bookkeeping before and after the game, great! I have absolutely no objection to someone taking a bit more time and effort on their own, and it's absolutely not a problem at all. The issue is that most high level mages I've played with have dragged that into game, as well. We'll show up at the castle, the king will give us a quest like rescuing the princess from the swamp people, and the mage will go "oh hey a swamp lemme change my spell list then". The next 10-20 minutes involves the rest of us sitting around twiddling our thumbs as the mage agonizes over whether we're likely to need a Lightning Bolt or a second Rope Trick. I realize this is as much a problem with the player as with the system, but it's one I've seen happen time and time again in every single game past 10th level with Vancian casters I've been in.

If you don't do it, great! If your group has overcome this somehow, please feel free to share! If Vancian-bashing troubles you, maybe you should avoid this thread. Or, you could actually try defending the system and explaining its benefits, rather than trying to shout down those who disagree. That works too.

Flayerman
2009-10-27, 01:56 PM
The great thing about Pathfinder is it sounds like they're brewing this vancian psionics for their own world, meaning it'll likely get packaged in a five-hundred-page tome full of adventure information, NPCs, towns, maps, and new races and classes to supplement their normal world as well as whatever "new" one they come up with if any.

Why this is great is that it's still more content than 4e puts in its new setting books, and if you don't like it, XPH can easily be updated with a glance at your HD and a few skill tweaks.

Random832
2009-10-27, 01:59 PM
I did have a thought - if you don't like Vancian casting (whether or not for psionics), how hard is it to just convert UA spell points to PF?

(and why does everyone keep saying "Vancian"? He's saying like sorcerers and bards. Those aren't Vancian. Do you even know what Vancian means?

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 02:01 PM
I did have a thought - if you don't like vancian casting (whether or not for psionics), how hard is it to just convert UA spell points to PF?Probably about as hard as it is to convert UA spellpoints to a baseline of power level in a normal game. Just keep tweaking the numbers until you reach the optimum power level you want.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 02:03 PM
When I did run psionic's, I did use full transparency. The problem I had were metapsionic feats. Using them was breaking the action economy, and psions were operating on a level above other classes. The fact that psions could use their top powers in every encounter combined with the ability to go nova when they needed to was upsetting my encounter balance to the point where I had a a hard time making interesting encounters for the entire party.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-27, 02:07 PM
When I did run psionic's, I did use full transparency. The problem I had were metapsionic feats. Using them was breaking the action economy, and psions were operating on a level above other classes. The fact that psions could use their top powers in every encounter combined with the ability to go nova when they needed to was upsetting my encounter balance to the point where I had a a hard time making interesting encounters for the entire party.

Wait, how did they use top power and metapsionics?
Metapsionics lowers amount they can use.

Base Cost + Metapsioncs points + augment cost= total cost.

You can't use metapsionics if it exceeds manifestor cap (can't in general but you know what I mean).

They can have to use lower than top power s to use Metapsionics.

Like at 7th level, I can use 4th level powers or 3rd level ones with Empower or a 3rd one augmented or etc.

And to compound this: the psion must regain his Psionic Focus to use anymore Metapsionics. Meaning they can use them at most 1/other round.

Now there are work arounds like Psionic containment to put on in your psicrystal, but they still leaves you with 2.

You still can't exceed 7 power points.

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 02:08 PM
When I did run psionic's, I did use full transparency. The problem I had were metapsionic feats. Using them was breaking the action economy, and psions were operating on a level above other classes. The fact that psions could use their top powers in every encounter combined with the ability to go nova when they needed to was upsetting my encounter balance to the point where I had a a hard time making interesting encounters for the entire party.I... am having a hard time visualizing this one, I suspect that there were some rules inconsistencies, probably involving not realizing that ML = max PP spent or not requiring focus for metapsi feats, but I'll take your word for it that psionics was causing trouble in your game.

Fax Celestis
2009-10-27, 02:09 PM
That's pretty much it. The level of difference between "I has a beatstick" or "I can hurt things that don't wear athletic cups" against "when I snap my fingers, you will spin on your head and go 'I GOT SERVED!'" is ridiculous and already present in core, but they've only decided to address it with a very popular variant by stripping away precisely what made it popular - its difference, not its power.

I GOT SERVED

Tavar
2009-10-27, 02:10 PM
How in the world do Metapsionics break action economy? They don't give extra actions, and in fact you can only use them once every other round(the second round spent doing nothing but recovering your focus) without a decent feat expenditure. And by levels 5 and up, a wizard can spend one of his top spells on an encounter, plus unlike the psion he has some lower level ones to fall back on. If the psion really is using those top level powers, he should be running out of points pretty soon. Also, are you sure that he was only using as many points on a power equal to his manifester level? This includes Metapsionics.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-27, 02:21 PM
I see a couple hypothetical causes:
They didn't use Manifester cap.
They did use Overchannel granted overchannel for top powers has damage issue (there is a feat for lower powers not dealing it)
Temporal Acceleration, but then that only acts like a buffer like Time stop.

I could see abusing Time hop if enemy kept failing saves, but that isn't exactly a big abuse. Kinda tame.

Oh, I got it Midnight Augmentation from Magic of Incarnum! It lets you use essentia instead of metapsionics costing power points. But it can only reduce metapsionic cost to +1 so that only helps a tiny bit (as opposed to +2 from empower).

arguskos
2009-10-27, 02:27 PM
I seem to have misread your statement sir, in which case, I am pleased to apologize. :smallredface: However, the massive amount of "augh vancian is teh evils" really does aggravate me greatly, as it would if this was a "augh tob is teh evils" or "augh shadowcasting is teh evils" thread. (By the way, never seen that last one. Someone needs to start the epic parody thread).

It's just something that, to use a colloquialism, steams my cheese. I kinda flew off the handle, and I'll apologize for it. My temper sometimes gets the best of me, hope you can forgive me. :smallsigh:

Kylarra
2009-10-27, 02:28 PM
Oh, I got it Midnight Augmentation from Magic of Incarnum! It lets you use essentia instead of metapsionics costing power points. But it can only reduce metapsionic cost to +1 so that only helps a tiny bit (as opposed to +2 from empower).I think he'd have mentioned if the unholy lovechild of psionics and incarnum was breaking his campaign.:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Akal Saris
2009-10-27, 02:33 PM
couple points;

1) Jason mearly stated his personal preference of the direction of psionics. NOT the official direction.
2) his reason for it is less "psionics is overpowered" and more "Adventure paths are our money maker, the less we have to print =more money."


His point of just throwing up a stat block and assuming the most cash strapped DM would have access to the spells listed is a legitimate one. Anything "new" in a path has to be printed in the path, this costs money. I can fully understand them deciding that if the PP system just doesn't work from a "we can't use this in the paths" standpoint they'll drop it. I'd hate them for it; but I can understand it.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head here regarding $$ and adventure paths - though even if they do create a new system psionics, the stat blocks will probably read like the 3.5 MM: "Has Ego Whip as a PLA 1/day, or if not using Psionics, has Touch of Idiocy as a SLA 1/day" or whatever.


That thread's most disturbing aspect is the number of people posting, in effect, 'if you don't like Paizo's choice of Vancian psionics or disagree with it, stop posting. Yay Paizo!'

Actually, I saw very few of those posts compared with the posts that were upset with the change.

I think the most disturbing aspect is the number of people who don't play Pathfinder and had no intention of doing so, who still feel incensed about this decision =P

Personally, I don't have an issue with the decision - psionics probably won't ever be part of PF's core Adventure Paths or organized play, so when their version comes out, I'll just pick whichever version of psionics (Paizo's or 3.5) seems more fun and balanced. Most likely it will be the 3.5 version. But I'd rather see them make a new system than simply re-print the psionics from the 3.5 SRD, which I already have.

Tavar
2009-10-27, 02:34 PM
Plus, this would require either and incarnum race+the feat Bonus essentia or for you to take incarnum class levels, thereby lowering your manifester level.

Flayerman
2009-10-27, 02:50 PM
Personally, I don't have an issue with the decision - psionics probably won't ever be part of PF's core Adventure Paths or organized play, so when their version comes out, I'll just pick whichever version of psionics (Paizo's or 3.5) seems more fun and balanced. Most likely it will be the 3.5 version. But I'd rather see them make a new system than simply re-print the psionics from the 3.5 SRD, which I already have.


This.

Also, the director did say "not THAT dissimilar", right? so it's not likely to be "Jack Vance 2: Psionic Boogaloo" so much as "Jack Vance: Psion Fever".

Er, for those who don't speak crazy, I doubt it'll be a carbon copy of spells so much as heavily similar to spells.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 03:32 PM
It was top psionic power + quicken a lower level power + move action to restore focus. With the lower level powers that are effective even with fewer power points invested in them like dispel, summon larval flayers, or any number of low level buff spells that are effective such as concealing amorpha. Talented + Overchannel was just the icing on the cake, followed by the Archaic Initiate strawberry.

Then you have powers that by themselves allow to be manifested as a swift action or immediate action without any feat or focus expenditure.

And of course there is Damp Power, which is a real pain in the butt to get around. Followed by the detect hostile intent and touchsight gems.


So me and psionics don't work well together in this form. If they work well for you, thats great. I for one am a fan of Vancian casting, and if Paizo is looking to make a psionic system based on that, I am looking forward to it.

Tavar
2009-10-27, 03:51 PM
Can you provide a level range for this?

Plus, it seems to me that a Wizard using quicken spell would have much the same result, except he would only need one feat to pull it off, not 4 feats. Oh, and he could still use his move action to do something.

As for touchsight/detect hostile intent, well, there are several problems. For Detect hostile intent, every hostile person comes up, so that couple fighting over there? Pings. The ball full of political enemies? They all ping. Also, it's within 30 feet only, and it simply gives a general direction. And if they're using a stone, it's only 30 minutes, so you'd need alot of them to really be useful.

As for touchsight, well, it only lasts 5 minutes if manifested from a stone. Not really seeing the huge problem with it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-10-27, 03:57 PM
It was top psionic power + quicken a lower level power + move action to restore focus. With the lower level powers that are effective even with fewer power points invested in them like dispel, summon larval flayers, or any number of low level buff spells that are effective such as concealing amorpha. That's no worse than a Wizard, who gets top-level spell+quickened low-level spell+move action to flip the bird.

Then you have powers that by themselves allow to be manifested as a swift action or immediate action without any feat or focus expenditure.Swift Haste etc.
So me and psionics don't work well together in this form. If they work well for you, thats great. I for one am a fan of Vancian casting, and if Paizo is looking to make a psionic system based on that, I am looking forward to it.The issue is, you aren't a fan of psionics, so it doesn't matter to you if they never introduce it or if they massively change it. For those fans of psionics, the major changes are a massive turn-off to Pathfinder as a whole.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 04:36 PM
That's no worse than a Wizard, who gets top-level spell+quickened low-level spell+move action to flip the bird.

Actually its much better then what a wizard can do. The only downside is the psion has to spend two feats instead of one. The benefits include versatility (you can manifest a quickened power only if you need to, while a wizard must memorize a quickened spell in that slot) and lower cost (to manifest a quickened 3rd level power a psion uses 11 pps, while to cast a quickened 3rd level spell a wizard uses a level 7 slot). Not only that but the psion gets roughly 50% more power points then a wizard does spells (if you convert spells to their power point equivalent, 2nd lvl spell = 3 pps, etc), those power points don't have to go to waste on lower level powers if you don't want to manifest them.

@Tavar
The level range I am thinking of is 7-15. The power of Detect Hostile intent is not that it detects hostile creatures, but the fact that you can't be surprised or flatfooted for the duration. The pinging of hostiles and free action sense motives are just minor bonuses on top of that.

NEO|Phyte
2009-10-27, 04:42 PM
@Tavar
The level range I am thinking of is 7-15. The power of Detect Hostile intent is not that it detects hostile creatures, but the fact that you can't be surprised or flatfooted for the duration.
As long as whatever is surprising/flatfooting you can be tagged by [mind-affecting] effects. Horde of undead? Whoops, surprised.

Tavar
2009-10-27, 04:45 PM
Also mindblank. Plus, once again, limited duration+expendable resource does not a valid long term strategy make.

Random832
2009-10-27, 04:45 PM
Actually its much better then what a wizard can do. The only downside is the psion has to spend two feats instead of one. The benefits include versatility (you can manifest a quickened power only if you need to, while a wizard must memorize a quickened spell in that slot) and lower cost (to manifest a quickened 3rd level power a psion uses 11 pps, while to cast a quickened 3rd level spell a wizard uses a level 7 slot). Not only that but the psion gets roughly 50% more power points then a wizard does spells (if you convert spells to their power point equivalent, 2nd lvl spell = 3 pps, etc), those power points don't have to go to waste on lower level powers if you don't want to manifest them.

A sorcerer gets 50% more spells than a wizard too, and the spells known [you've, of course, completely IGNORED powers known, where a wizard has no limit] are comparable. And as far as I know most people think of the restriction on sorcerers using quicken as "arbitrary and unfair" rather than being somehow balancing (especially since even the 'logic' behind it fails when bards can use rods of quicken and sorcerers explicitly can't)

The rest of your argument seems like it boils down to the nova thing, aka "the fifteen-minute adventuring day" aka "I don't want to run as many encounters as the game says I should"

Nero24200
2009-10-27, 04:47 PM
Not only that but the psion gets roughly 50% more power points then a wizard does spells (if you convert spells to their power point equivalent, 2nd lvl spell = 3 pps, etc) Erm..no he doesn't. If you convert spells into spell points wizards get quite a bit more than the psion. In fact, by the time a 20th level psion runs out of PP, the wizard will only be down to 6th level spells.

Changing Psions to a vancian system is just plain stupid. Existing psionic fans aren't going to be happy, since they'll be removing the biggest significant difference between psionics and their core counterparts,. Non-Psionic fans aren't likely to be interested in them anyway.

Their main reason for doing this is (guess what) because they think psionics are unbalanced. Nevermind that, level for level, psionic powers are weaker than spells, or that they don't gain cantrips (which are very useful for 1-2nd level due to lack of spell slots) or that the psions don't gain any benifit from specialising (since they automatically specialise), or that they have a severaly limited power list. In fact, sorcerers (you know, the arcane class who's main theme was "Less spells, more uses per day) gain more spells known.

Nervemind all that, their predecessors were broken, and all the anti-psionic ignoreainmouses can't be bothered actually reading the XPH before they complain. It's not perfect, yes, but saying it's broken while you use core is just not true. [/endrant]

Asbestos
2009-10-27, 04:52 PM
I think that is quite sad that, generally speaking, the game designers show, at least in my opinion, that they prefer to flat out the game and make it more "samey" just because in this way is more easy avoid unbalances.

I guess to make the customers feel more "safe", balance wise.

So.. this is what happened to the game. Balance >>>>>>>>>> flavour, diversity, and so on.

This is what we became? We went for it I guess...

TL/DR. I think that I'll point out that I don't think that Pathfinder is very interested in 'balance'. The fact that the Wizard is still amazing (perhaps more so) when compared to most classes and that full casters out compete all other classes makes it seem to be that it isn't really a 'balance' thing. Frankly I'm baffled as to why they would make Psionics into a Vancian thing. Maybe they felt that it was stronger than Wizards (having fallen down the 'Psionics is overpowered!' pit trap) and are going by the old commandment of "Thine Wizard be superior to all thine other classes and shall not be outshined by ye lesser classes"

Vic_Sage
2009-10-27, 04:53 PM
The great thing about Pathfinder is it sounds like they're brewing this vancian psionics for their own world, meaning it'll likely get packaged in a five-hundred-page tome full of adventure information, NPCs, towns, maps, and new races and classes to supplement their normal world as well as whatever "new" one they come up with if any.

Why this is great is that it's still more content than 4e puts in its new setting books, and if you don't like it, XPH can easily be updated with a glance at your HD and a few skill tweaks.
And all that will be a total waste of cash seeing how I could give two dog craps about there settings.

Flayerman
2009-10-27, 05:16 PM
And all that will be a total waste of cash seeing how I could give two dog craps about there settings.

So don't buy it, continue to use 3.5 XPH?

I'll be looking into it to see how it differs, but, really, all the people complaining about how awful Pathfinder is and how it streamlines it in favor of "balance"...

...well, you really ought to take a nice hard look at 4e and tell me where the flavor is in that, for starters...

Thiyr
2009-10-27, 05:24 PM
Erm..no he doesn't. If you convert spells into spell points wizards get quite a bit more than the psion. In fact, by the time a 20th level psion runs out of PP, the wizard will only be down to 6th level spells.

Because I was bored earlier and thinking about this, I decided to convert the number of PP a sorcerer and wizard would have, and compare them to the psion, as well as comparing the total spells/powers known for a psion and sorcerer (due to them being closer mechanically than psion and wizard.)

Total equivalent PP at 20th level:
Psion: 343
Sorcerer: 486 (6 spells of each level, meaning 6+18+30+42+54+66+78+90+102, not including cantrips)
Wizard: 324 (4 spells of each level, 4+12+20+28+36+44+52+60+68, once again without cantrips).

meaning if powers are never used augmented, the psion has about as much energy to toss around as a wizard (a difference of 19, about 1 9th level spell/power unaugmented).

Comparing the sorcerer and psion's power/spells known at 20th level, however

psion: 36 powers known
sorcerer: 34 spells known (once again, not including cantrips)

this means the psion only has slightly more distinct options than the sorcerer, but the same casting durability as the wizard. Power augmentation is what fills in that divide, letting lower level powers be useful when more juice is pumped into them, which (in theory) lets them act as a higher level spell.

Dunno how useful this is, but numbers never hurt.

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-27, 05:27 PM
Because I was bored earlier and thinking about this, I decided to convert the number of PP a sorcerer and wizard would have, and compare them to the psion, as well as comparing the total spells/powers known for a psion and sorcerer (due to them being closer mechanically than psion and wizard.)

Total equivalent PP at 20th level:
Psion: 343
Sorcerer: 486 (6 spells of each level, meaning 6+18+30+42+54+66+78+90+102, not including cantrips)
Wizard: 324 (4 spells of each level, 4+12+20+28+36+44+52+60+68, once again without cantrips).

meaning if powers are never used augmented, the psion has about as much energy to toss around as a wizard (a difference of 19, about 1 9th level spell/power unaugmented).

Comparing the sorcerer and psion's power/spells known at 20th level, however

psion: 36 powers known
sorcerer: 34 spells known (once again, not including cantrips)

this means the psion only has slightly more distinct options than the sorcerer, but the same casting durability as the wizard. Power augmentation is what fills in that divide, letting lower level powers be useful when more juice is pumped into them, which (in theory) lets them act as a higher level spell.

Dunno how useful this is, but numbers never hurt.

Is that counting autoscaling? Because a 10d6 fireball should be equivalent to 10 pp.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-27, 05:27 PM
It was top psionic power + quicken a lower level power + move action to restore focus. With the lower level powers that are effective even with fewer power points invested in them like dispel, summon larval flayers, or any number of low level buff spells that are effective such as concealing amorpha. Talented + Overchannel was just the icing on the cake, followed by the Archaic Initiate strawberry.

Then you have powers that by themselves allow to be manifested as a swift action or immediate action without any feat or focus expenditure.

And of course there is Damp Power, which is a real pain in the butt to get around. Followed by the detect hostile intent and touchsight gems.


So me and psionics don't work well together in this form. If they work well for you, thats great. I for one am a fan of Vancian casting, and if Paizo is looking to make a psionic system based on that, I am looking forward to it.

So he was using Complete Psionics?
Took the Wilder Prc (that is easier to enter by a Psion, great idea WotC).
Summon Larval flayers... sigh Complete Psi again.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-10-27, 05:29 PM
conversion snip

Admittedly, that does exclude specializing on the wizard's part, which should put them above the psion. 324 base +1+3+5+7+9+11+13+15+17=405. The removal of two (or one) schools is roughly equivalent to being restricted by psionic specialty. Sure the psion can blow a feat for a single power several times over in their "core" environment whereas a wizard cannot, but the option does exist outside of core for a wizard.

Going to splats, said wizard also jumps up to sorcerer level for converted power points due to the wonder that is Focused Specialist.

Nero24200
2009-10-27, 05:35 PM
Total equivalent PP at 20th level:
Psion: 343
Sorcerer: 486 (6 spells of each level, meaning 6+18+30+42+54+66+78+90+102, not including cantrips)
Wizard: 324 (4 spells of each level, 4+12+20+28+36+44+52+60+68, once again without cantrips).


This doesn't factor in augmentation, or metapsionics which is something that should be accounted for since, to my knowledge, there is no psionic equivilent to metapsionic rods.

My numbers were made on the assumption that the 20th level psion would spend, on average, 15 power points per power.

Tehnar
2009-10-27, 05:58 PM
Erm..no he doesn't. If you convert spells into spell points wizards get quite a bit more than the psion. In fact, by the time a 20th level psion runs out of PP, the wizard will only be down to 6th level spells.

A comparison of lower levels:

level 5:
3x1=3
2x3=6
1x5=5
======
14
with 18 INt +5+3+1 = 23 vs psion 35

level 10
4x1=4
4x3=12
3x5=15
3x7=21
2x9=18
======
70
with 24 INT +2+6+5+7+9=99 vs psion 88+35= 123

level 15
4x1=4
4x3=12
4x5=20
4x7=28
4x9=36
3x11=33
2x13=26
1x15=15
=======
174
with 28 int +15+13+11+9+7+10+6+2=247 vs psion 67+195= 262


The gap between wizard and psion narrows as we go to higher levels, but the psion still has the advantage.

Augmentation does make lower level powers function as higher level ones if you ignore the blasting ones (but blasting sucks right?!?).

As for metamagic rods, I stated before that psions become less balanced only if you remove all metamagic reducers (such as metamagic rods) from the game.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-27, 06:14 PM
Why do people hate Vancian so much? It's worse than PP systems, sure, but it isn't that bad.

Shisumo
2009-10-27, 06:23 PM
You know, Jacobs said several things over on that thread, and some of them are worth factoring in here amongst all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.


The thing about psionics is that I don't really think that they ARE broken... not taken as themselves. The 3.5 system is actually really well-balanced against itself. It's just not as well balanced against the game play that the core game provided.

THAT'S the crux of my concern, honestly. And why I'm not sure that keeping the point based mechanic is viable if I want it to mesh nicely with the rest of the game.


It might turn out that the point based system can be made to work. We're still at least a few years away from seeing a Paizo psionics book, so there's a LOT of time for me and the rest of us here to figure that out. I'm just saying that as it stands right now, my gut feeling is that they'd work more elegantly if they were changed, and that I know that would annoy a lot of folks.

As this post proves, it's a comlex topic and one that will need a LOT of soul searching and work on our parts to make happen if/when we move on making a Psionics book. We've got time. We're not going to rush things. Which is why something that Dreamscarred might do will probably come out first and might even satisfy a lot of folks. We'll see how things go.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-27, 06:33 PM
You know, Jacobs said several things over on that thread, and some of them are worth factoring in here amongst all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Wait, he thinks 3.5 is balanced?

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-27, 06:38 PM
Wait, he thinks 3.5 is balanced?

Apparently.

Epic fail.

Shisumo
2009-10-27, 06:45 PM
Wait, he thinks 3.5 is balanced?

He thinks the 3.5 psionics system is balanced.

Much as has been repeatedly said elsewhere in this thread.

EDIT: Actually, I'm trying to figure out how you'd get that interpretation without actively misreading.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-27, 06:54 PM
He thinks the 3.5 psionics system is balanced.

Much as has been repeatedly said elsewhere in this thread.

EDIT: Actually, I'm trying to figure out how you'd get that interpretation without actively misreading.

The thing about psionics is that I don't really think that they ARE broken... not taken as themselves. The 3.5 system is actually really well-balanced against itself. It's just not as well balanced against the game play that the core game provided.

THAT'S the crux of my concern, honestly. And why I'm not sure that keeping the point based mechanic is viable if I want it to mesh nicely with the rest of the game.

He said this.
He didn't say the 3.5 Psionics system is well-balanced against itself. He said the 3.5 system is well-balanced against itself.
I read that as the 3.5 system (core, etc).

Now he could have meant that Psionic was balanced, but that is up to interpretation.

Shisumo
2009-10-27, 07:11 PM
The thing about psionics is that I don't really think that they ARE broken... not taken as themselves. The 3.5 system is actually really well-balanced against itself. It's just not as well balanced against the game play that the core game provided.

THAT'S the crux of my concern, honestly. And why I'm not sure that keeping the point based mechanic is viable if I want it to mesh nicely with the rest of the game.

He said this.
He didn't say the 3.5 Psionics system is well-balanced against itself. He said the 3.5 system is well-balanced against itself.
I read that as the 3.5 system (core, etc).

Now he could have meant that Psionic was balanced, but that is up to interpretation.

"[The 3.5 system as a whole is] not as well balanced against the game play that the core game provided."

I am curious how the sentence would make any sense whatsoever. "As well" is a comparison. The interpretation you're suggesting would mean he is comparing the game against itself, which, um, is a little weird.

Moreover, why would he go from discussing psionics to the system as a whole and then right back to psionics without the slightest indication of a change in topic?

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-27, 07:24 PM
The thing about psionics is that I don't really think that they ARE broken... not taken as themselves. The 3.5 system is actually really well-balanced against itself. It's just not as well balanced against the game play that the core game provided.

Err...what does that even mean?

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 07:28 PM
Honestly, that statement isn't terribly clear either way you read it. I'm not sure what he's trying to say with either interpretation. It's either saying, "3.5 as a whole is balanced, except for its mechanics," or "3.5 psionics is balanced within the microcosm of the XPH," which is just flatout not true when you're comparing the Soulknife to the Psion.

Shisumo
2009-10-27, 07:57 PM
Honestly, that statement isn't terribly clear either way you read it. I'm not sure what he's trying to say with either interpretation. It's either saying, "3.5 as a whole is balanced, except for its mechanics," or "3.5 psionics is balanced within the microcosm of the XPH," which is just flatout not true when you're comparing the Soulknife to the Psion.

He means the latter; you can tell because it's the proposition that is actually intelligible.

And I don't think he's referring so much to the soulknife - or, for that matter, the psychic warrior - as he is to the basic power point mechanics and, as an extension of that, the wilder and psion classes as the primary expressions of those mechanics. That is interpretation, however, and is based more on Jacobs' general attitude in his psionics posting than those quotes directly.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 08:05 PM
But while it's a statement that doesn't hurt language, it's not one that makes much sense. That's about as valuable a statement as calling core balanced amongst itself by only looking at the basic nine-level spell mechanics and measuring them amongst themselves. And while the Wizard is the popular one on this board, it is generally accepted that among Cleric, Wizard and Druid, there is a lot of room to jockey for pole position.

I think it is more likely that the "XPH microcosm" was what he meant, but it's either a pretty meaningless statement (your reading) or a flat-out wrong statement (mine).

Flayerman
2009-10-27, 08:08 PM
...unless you assume it's the mechanic he means, and not the classes.

Then, you know, it makes perfect sense.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-27, 08:14 PM
Then why didn't he say that.
It was almost like he was being obtuse on purpose. You know lawyer speak.

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 08:15 PM
...unless you assume it's the mechanic he means, and not the classes.

Then, you know, it makes perfect sense.

...Would you like to reread my post in context and notice how I said that that reading, while intelligible, is meaningless?

Shisumo
2009-10-27, 08:17 PM
But while it's a statement that doesn't hurt language, it's not one that makes much sense. That's about as valuable a statement as calling core balanced amongst itself by only looking at the basic nine-level spell mechanics and measuring them amongst themselves. And while the Wizard is the popular one on this board, it is generally accepted that among Cleric, Wizard and Druid, there is a lot of room to jockey for pole position.

I think it is more likely that the "XPH microcosm" was what he meant, but it's either a pretty meaningless statement (your reading) or a flat-out wrong statement (mine).

I don't think it's meaningless at all - I think it's the core of his argument. Taking your analogy and running with it, I think it would be a fair statement to say that a game that consisted solely of wizards, druids and clerics would see a reasonable amount of parity among the characters - you might well see some power disparities, but they are more likely to do with an individual's optimization skills than with imbalances between the classes themselves. It's only once you bring non-casters into the mix that the real problems begin to develop - and not just because someone happens to be good at working the system, but because the imbalances are worked into the fundamentals of the system itself.

Similarly, I think Jacobs is saying that psionics work fine in a microcosm but run into trouble if you go out into the larger game, only the trouble isn't sheer power and options, it's specifically the ease with which psionic classes can break action economy, even relative to core casters. Psionic characters can go nova even easier than arcanists or divine casters can, and their ability to do so is inherent in the concept of power points, greatly exacerbated by the various mid-level powers that give you extra manifesting actions. (He also has some issues with the inelegance of a point-based system in a slot-based mechanic in general, but that's not about balance - and his quote above makes it clear that it's not a dealbreaker for him.) In another quote from the thread, he mentioned having payed games that featured psionics prominently, and having the psionic characters' turns taking 5 times as long as the rest of the party's, due to all the extra actions they were taking. In a party with nothing but manifesters, it's not an issue - but in the larger scheme of things, it might well be.

Flayerman
2009-10-27, 08:19 PM
I did reread your post in context; you've basically put forth that "it's meaningless" and then go on and on ninth-level spells. It's not meaningless at all.

"The power point and augment system are balanced within the microcosm that is the XPH."

It's a sentiment I agree with.

I'm also not sure why he didn't say it outright. It's possible he didn't want to give people false hope if something else is planned. who knows? I don't have Detect Thoughts prepared. :D

AstralFire
2009-10-27, 08:20 PM
I'm not disagreeing with any of your premises (or even that psionics can go nova easier once you hit your teens, though I really don't find that psionics can do much overboard nova-wise before then, and the central problem is that D&D is designed for 4 encounters a day - psionics was built for such days) - it's just such a 'duh' statement that I don't see the point in saying it. Mirror matches in fighting games are also balanced - well, they have to be!

Akal Saris
2009-10-27, 09:46 PM
Then why didn't he say that.
It was almost like he was being obtuse on purpose. You know lawyer speak.

Actually, I honestly think that he was just speaking his mind, and hit 'enter' before going over his post to see if it made any sense. Jacobs posts a TON in the PF forums, almost as much as you post in the OOTS forums. As a result, a lot of his posts are pretty rushed or disjointed. They really shouldn't be taken as official company policy or anything, especially because I suspect he forgets 99% of what he posts immediately. He almost always gives a straight answer though, even if it's just "Ask your DM, I think it's a good idea." Lawyer speak really isn't his style.

In this case, it seems to me that he was trying to say that he thinks the psionics system was well-balanced if you only play with psionic classes and psionic monsters, but not well balanced with 3.5's core gameplay - possibly because he's thinking of games that don't use magic-psionic transparency or something. Who knows...I think he's flat-out wrong in that assumption on two points: first, psionics isn't well-balanced within itself, and second, it fits into D&D core gameplay pretty decently.

I really like that a lot of PF's designers and heads are very active on their forums, actually, unlike D&D's, who avoid the forums like the plagued cesspools that they are. The downside is that I don't really agree with what the PF devs say a lot of the time =P

Fax Celestis
2009-10-28, 09:53 AM
Psionic characters can go nova even easier than arcanists or divine casters can, and their ability to do so is inherent in the concept of power points, greatly exacerbated by the various mid-level powers that give you extra manifesting actions. (He also has some issues with the inelegance of a point-based system in a slot-based mechanic in general, but that's not about balance - and his quote above makes it clear that it's not a dealbreaker for him.) In another quote from the thread, he mentioned having payed games that featured psionics prominently, and having the psionic characters' turns taking 5 times as long as the rest of the party's, due to all the extra actions they were taking. In a party with nothing but manifesters, it's not an issue - but in the larger scheme of things, it might well be.

Wouldn't that then indicate a problem with those specific powers and not something endemic to the system as a whole?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-28, 12:38 PM
Wouldn't that then indicate a problem with those specific powers and not something endemic to the system as a whole?

Yeah, having spells like gate and shapechange doesn't mean Vancian casting as a system is broken, just that those spells are broken; you can have a perfectly good system if you tone down all the overpowered spells, just like psionics is perfectly fine if you fix the handful of, ahem, over-powers.

sonofzeal
2009-10-28, 12:57 PM
Yeah, having spells like gate and shapechange doesn't mean Vancian casting as a system is broken, just that those spells are broken; you can have a perfectly good system if you tone down all the overpowered spells, just like psionics is perfectly fine if you fix the handful of, ahem, over-powers.
But you still have a massive amount of unnecessary bookkeeping and awkward limitations. You have to track (at high levels) a fairly extensive and convoluted tiered list of what spell slots you have, what you're preparing in those slots, and what you've already cast today. A Psion has to track.... his pp. That's it.

And the net advantage of all that bookkeeping? You end up with more complexity and less flexibility. Yay.

It's not wrong to like Vancian, but it's a generally sub-par system and I hate replacing an elegant one with an awkward one.

Optimystik
2009-10-28, 01:11 PM
The saddest part for me is that Psionic power points are the easiest system to convert to a CRPG form, yet none of the digital D&D games include psionics. Now that Wizards is all but done with 3.5, Pathfinder could have been our last chance to have a cool cRPG adoption of Psionics (I know Paizo doesn't really do the electronic game thing, but it could have.) Their decision to make them Vancian is just another nail in the coffin of 3.5 Psionics.

Shisumo
2009-10-28, 01:55 PM
Wouldn't that then indicate a problem with those specific powers and not something endemic to the system as a whole?

That case has been made over on the Paizo board, and I don't think there's been a direct response to it either way. It was after that, however, that Jacobs said that point-based psionics were still a possibility, if they could work them out to the designers' satisfaction.

Even without things like schism, though, you still run into the fact that a psion can burn at full power - i.e., using only her highest level powers - for longer than any of the Vancian caster classes can. They will promptly implode, of course, but that's basically the definition of a nova, and power points are a key part of that system.

Morty
2009-10-28, 02:09 PM
It's not wrong to like Vancian, but it's a generally sub-par system and I hate replacing an elegant one with an awkward one.

Why, thank you. I couldn't sleep at night because I liked Vancian casting, but now I know I have nothing to worry about because it's not wrong to like it. :smallsigh:
Have you ever considered that for some people, psionics being simpler to keep track of than spell slots doesn't matter much compared to it being boring and bland rather than original and unique as well as good at making magic feel serious?

sonofzeal
2009-10-28, 02:17 PM
Why, thank you. I couldn't sleep at night because I liked Vancian casting, but now I know I have nothing to worry about because it's not wrong to like it. :smallsigh:
Have you ever considered that for some people, psionics being simpler to keep track of than spell slots doesn't matter much compared to it being boring and bland rather than original and unique as well as good at making magic feel serious?
Hey, if you like it, and can pull it off without slowing down gameplay for everyone else, great! More power to you! Just as long as you're not forcing it on everyone else, y'know?

Morty
2009-10-28, 02:21 PM
Hey, if you like it, and can pull it off without slowing down gameplay for everyone else, great! More power to you! Just as long as you're not forcing it on everyone else, y'know?

Yeah, well, if you like power points because they're simple and can pull them off without them being boring and bland, more power to you! Just as long as you're not forcing it on everyone else, y'know?

ErrantX
2009-10-28, 02:50 PM
First, is there any 100% confirmation that Paizo's making psionics go Vancian? No. So let's withhold judgment for a few minutes. Unless someone has something concrete that says it's been Vanced, considering psionics has always been a power point system since its inception, I think we're safe from Pathfinder ruining it. As I'm a big fan of what Paizo has done (it's far from perfect, but that's what house rules are for), I'm more than happy to see what happens. I wish that Paizo themselves were doing as all I've seen is things about Dreamscarred Press doing it and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Secondly, for the hating on Vancian casting, I imagine that almost everyone one of the people who finds it awkward or just terribad hates the Spell Point system more, because that turns wizards into quasi-psions and makes them be able to nova (and promptly implode) just as easily. Also, because of the above variant, no one is exactly forcing the tiered and memorization of Vance's casting on anyone. I think Vancian casting is perfectly well suited to the game, and sometimes I'm tempted to let Sorcerers do spell points and wizards do traditional Vancian casting; gives more difference to their mechanics and I think represents a sorcerer's power better.

-X

Rixx
2009-10-28, 03:18 PM
Sean K. Reynolds actually said on the Paizo forums that he has no idea where people are getting their preconceptions of Pathfinder psionics, since they haven't had any amount of internal discussion on the matter as of yet.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-28, 03:28 PM
But you still have a massive amount of unnecessary bookkeeping and awkward limitations. You have to track (at high levels) a fairly extensive and convoluted tiered list of what spell slots you have, what you're preparing in those slots, and what you've already cast today. A Psion has to track.... his pp. That's it.

And the net advantage of all that bookkeeping? You end up with more complexity and less flexibility. Yay.

Here's the Vancian way to do things:

1--mage armor, mage armor, magic missile
2--web, glitterdust, web, web
3--fireball, lightning bolt

"I cast, let's see...web!"

*scratch scratch scratch*

1--mage armor, mage armor, magic missile
2--web, glitterdust, web, web
3--fireball, lightning bolt

Here's the psionics way to do things:

Powers Known--energy ray, energy wave, astral construct, schism
Power Points--35

"I manifest, let's see...a 4-PP astral construct!"

*erase erase write write*

Powers Known--energy ray, energy wave, astral construct, schism
Power Points--31

How is either one vastly more complicated than the other? If anything, Vancian casting is easier during the game, since you've made all your choices when preparing spells and don't have to determine whether and how much to augment. Should I then complain that psions take soooo long on their turn to determine what to manifest, while my super-awesome wizard is already prepared? No; both systems have their strong points, and blasting one while praising the other is kind of pointless, no pun intended.

Yes, I like psionics in and of itself; yes, the augmentation mechanic works wonderfully. However, I don't see how Vancian casting is so overly awkward, convoluted, etc. when people have managed to somehow struggle through it since 1e.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-28, 03:28 PM
Sean K. Reynolds actually said on the Paizo forums that he has no idea where people are getting their preconceptions of Pathfinder psionics, since they haven't had any amount of internal discussion on the matter as of yet.

We gamers love to make mountains out of mole hills. Some designers have said things though so it would easy to misinterpret their beliefs.

And they did have a official thread about it some months ago.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-28, 03:42 PM
Sean K. Reynolds actually said on the Paizo forums that he has no idea where people are getting their preconceptions of Pathfinder psionics, since they haven't had any amount of internal discussion on the matter as of yet.

I think I have issues. I see the name Sean K. Reynolds, and my mind automatically files the data under "Irrelevant."

I do the same thing with Skip Williams.

Random832
2009-10-28, 03:44 PM
How is either one vastly more complicated than the other? If anything, Vancian casting is easier during the game, since you've made all your choices when preparing spells and don't have to determine whether and how much to augment.

How does the wizard not take just as long or even longer when they've got the added concern of "what if I need that spell more later?"

Also, "you've made all your choices when preparing spells" is kind of a lame thing to say. You do have to prepare spells, right? That's a hidden cost.

Vancian caster:
Hmm, I think I'll prepare...

*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*e rase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*write*wri te*write*write*write*write*write*write*write*write *write*write*write*write*write*write*write*write*

1--mage armor, mage armor, magic missile
2--web, glitterdust, web, web
3--fireball, lightning bolt

Psion: *erase PP spent from yesterday*
I think I'll have coffee and a bagel for breakfast.

Sorcerer: *finishes erasing tick marks for spell slots used*
You buying? Hey, wizard, you sure you want to be preparing those webs? I know it and I've got six second-level spell slots

Wizard: Crap. *erase*erase*erase* hmm, what the heck do I do now?

Psion: I can bring you back something if you want.

----
tl;dr: Both classes have to make the same amount of choices, the Psion has the advantage of making them at a point when the tactical situation is already known (so it doesn't take him as long to decide "4-PP astral construct" as it would if he were weighing preparing it against all the other things he could prepare not knowing what he will be facing)

(Now, fortunately, if anyone actually read what the Paizo people were saying, it'll probably be Sorcerer-like, rather than Vancian.)

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-28, 03:58 PM
How does the wizard not take just as long or even longer when they've got the added concern of "what if I need that spell more later?"

What if you need those PP more later? What if augmenting that one extra point means you can't use the power you need? Decisions, decisions...


Also, "you've made all your choices when preparing spells" is kind of a lame thing to say. You do have to prepare spells, right? That's a hidden cost.

It's not hidden at all; I specifically said during the game. Once you've prepared spells, you don't need to make any choices about how much power to pump into them; on a round-by-round basis, it's simply "Do I cast X or Y?" and not "Do I cast X or Y? X? Okay, for 1, 2, ..., N points?" Each system has complexity, it's just a question of when it comes up.


Vancian caster:
Hmm, I think I'll prepare...

*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*e rase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*erase*write*wri te*write*write*write*write*write*write*write*write *write*write*write*write*write*write*write*write*

1--mage armor, mage armor, magic missile
2--web, glitterdust, web, web
3--fireball, lightning bolt

Psion:
*erase PP spent from yesterday*
I think I'll have coffee and a bagel for breakfast.

Sorcerer:
*finishes erasing tick marks for spell slots used*
You buying?

(Now, fortunately, if anyone actually read what the Paizo people were saying, it'll probably be Sorcerer-like, rather than Vancian.)

Yes, the psion has the advantage when it comes to preparation time. However, there are 2 caveats:

1) If the wizard is preparing the same set of spells, or has a few preset lists he always uses ("adventuring spells" vs. "downtime spells" vs. "travel spells" etc.) repreparing is as simple as it is for the psion and sorcerer.

2) If the wizard needs a new capability, he can prepare different spells. The psion and sorcerer...can't.

Is the increased versatility of the wizard to prepare whatever he needs worth more or less than the increased versatility of the psion to apportion his powers as desired? It all depends.

Random832
2009-10-28, 04:05 PM
Right, but the Psion still has plenty of power points, whereas the wizard might have needed THAT spell. It's more kinds of resources that have to be managed separately. Once you've prepared your spells, you no longer have "four 2nd-level spells", you have "three webs and one glitterdust".

The wizard has just as many or more theoretical options to choose from for his first move in his first battle, and will probably take longer to decide whether or not to use a spell he only prepared one of, whereas a Psion literally _can't_ eliminate one of his options for the rest of the day as his first move, since he can never manifest a power using more than half of his PP*. So the wizard has to be more cautious and has to take longer to decide.

Now, the advantage of the wizard comes in as your choices become easier (and faster) to make as you run out of options.

So in other words, the psion's turns take a more or less constant amount of time to decide on an action, whereas the wizards get shorter even if they started out longer

And, yeah, the wizard has more options, and it was a game balance choice to require preparation in exchange for that. But more options also means analysis paralysis at a time when he may well have absolutely zero clue what he will be facing that day.

*Since it's limited to manifester level, and PP is never less than twice manifester level

Philistine
2009-10-28, 07:11 PM
Why, thank you. I couldn't sleep at night because I liked Vancian casting, but now I know I have nothing to worry about because it's not wrong to like it. :smallsigh:
Have you ever considered that for some people, psionics being simpler to keep track of than spell slots doesn't matter much compared to it being boring and bland rather than original and unique as well as good at making magic feel serious?
I'm trying to imagine how using a Vancian model for spellcasting does anything to address the criticisms you're directing toward points-based systems here, but I'm coming up empty. I just can't see how the choice of Vancian or points-based casting affects any of those things in any way at all. Sounds more like PEBCAK than a system problem to me.

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-28, 07:35 PM
Being a core-only caster pretty much locks in your choice of flavor, and the mechanics rarely (if ever) match up to the fantasy fiction on TV or in books.

Wizards are always tied to a book, and to making rude gestures, running off at the mouth like they have Tourette's Syndrome, and flinging bat poo like the casting-monkey they are. I've never encountered fantasy outside of D&D books (and Terry Pratchett, who is explicitly making fun of the way D&D does things, but he doesn't count) that forces casters who rewrite reality with the power of mind and body to forget how to use an ability just because they've used it once that day.

Clerics are tied to their ethoses (ethi? ethiei?), and always have to have a strange connection to undead creatures. In most fantasy, holy men have much stronger connections with spirits and demonic/angelic presences than undead, leaving me to wonder where the whole turn undead thing actually came from.

Druids are always tree-huggers that have to play nice with animals, and use wooden tools instead of "unnatural" metal. (Iron and gold aren't natural? Seriously?) Druids...actually don't have much of a place in fantasy, far as I can tell (aside from Terry Brooks, who is an outlier, and doesn't really describe the D&D-type hippies anyway).

Psions, on the other hand, match up (mechanically) to wizard-types in the vast majority of the fantasy fiction I've read. They use the magical power inherent in themselves to alter the world around them, and can do the same thing over and over again until they're exhausted. Furthermore, their powers grow in strength according to how powerful they are, and more power put into an ability drains them of stamina faster. What little flavor they actually have (crystals and...crystals) can be refluffed or ignored altogether. If you want your "wizard" to waggle his fingers and speak gibberish, that's all fine and good; there's nothing stopping your psion acting like a retard if you want him to.

I prefer to make up my own flavor as I go along; psionics is considerably less constrained and much more open to my attempts to reflavor, which is exactly how I like it. Some of y'all might be surprised to learn what using your imagination in a game based on imagination can do.

Tavar
2009-10-28, 07:40 PM
Just to point out: some DnD literature doesn't even match up with the vancian flavor. I remember one book where the wizard seems to be casting spells more like a psion, and he even kills himself by casting too much.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-28, 07:44 PM
Just to point out: some DnD literature doesn't even match up with the vancian flavor. I remember one book where the wizard seems to be casting spells more like a psion, and he even kills himself by casting too much.

Overchannel?

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-28, 07:45 PM
Overchannel?
That's what SHE said.

...Actually, that's what I thought, too.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-28, 08:17 PM
Wizards are always tied to a book, and to making rude gestures, running off at the mouth like they have Tourette's Syndrome, and flinging bat poo like the casting-monkey they are. I've never encountered fantasy outside of D&D books (and Terry Pratchett, who is explicitly making fun of the way D&D does things, but he doesn't count) that forces casters who rewrite reality with the power of mind and body to forget how to use an ability just because they've used it once that day.

Jack Vance, obviously. I'd also point to Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame, though that's somewhat based in early 80s RPGs to be directly inspired by it. There's also the aforementioned Zelazny book where spells aren't forgotten, but they do need a degree of pre-casting (which Guardians of the Flame also borrows in Road to Ehvenor) in order to be instantly effective. The pre-casting method is, ostensibly, what is done in 3e. I would not be surprised if there were others, as well.

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-28, 08:48 PM
<Jack Vance and Zelanzy>
As expected, since that's what Vancian casting was based on. Ironically, Jack Vance was a sci-fi writer (ironic because people accuse psionics as being sci-fi...especially since psionics is more fantasy than the "I'm building a television to go scrying" wizard casting is).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-28, 10:27 PM
Clerics are tied to their ethoses (ethi? ethiei?), and always have to have a strange connection to undead creatures. In most fantasy, holy men have much stronger connections with spirits and demonic/angelic presences than undead, leaving me to wonder where the whole turn undead thing actually came from.

Supposedly, Turn Undead came about when they did some playtesting and found that the cleric sucked against undead, and so they threw it in to compensate, though I'm not sure how accurate that story is.

sonofzeal
2009-10-28, 10:37 PM
It's not hidden at all; I specifically said during the game.
"During the game"... like, say, when the King sends you to rescue the princess from the necromancer, and the Wizard has to take a half hour break because half his spells do diddly to undead? Every wizard I've ever played with in double digits has had that issue, especially since it's such a big deal. It's a big issue in play too, where you have to agonize about whether or not using a Solid Fog now will leave you critically vulnerable later. Every high level game I've played, the Wizard has to agonize over half his turns in combat, because once he uses something he no longer has it. Even the Sorcerer has to watch his spell slots of each level. The Psion is the only one who doesn't have to worry about anything beyond how many pp it's worth to solve the problem, and that's usually a pretty straightforward problem to solve.

The less arbitrary restrictions someone's under, the easier it is for them to just do something rather than running some complex cost/benefit analysis in their head before every turn. It's frequent for Wizards to hold up games that way, and sometimes happens for Sorcerers too if they're low on spell slots of a particular level. Psions don't have to worry about that, and that simplifies the decision-making process.

AstralFire
2009-10-28, 10:48 PM
I'm trying to imagine how using a Vancian model for spellcasting does anything to address the criticisms you're directing toward points-based systems here, but I'm coming up empty. I just can't see how the choice of Vancian or points-based casting affects any of those things in any way at all. Sounds more like PEBCAK than a system problem to me.

Perhaps not those specific points, but as someone who doesn't like Vancian spellcasting, I feel inclined to defend it a bit for the sake of honesty here:

The idea of spells as discrete entities which are memorized and cannot simply be retained and used as easily as common language has interesting implications, and is much rarer than 'inner power source' concepts.
Vancian casting leads to less in-combat bookkeeping - you don't have to subtract double-digit PP numbers, and if you wish something to be less than full strength, that affects nothing. There are no multiple augment options to pick over.


(My counters, of course, are that:

Vancian casting being standard in a system considered generic often simply leads to the flavor aspect being glossed over entirely, and the mechanics feeling awkward for the stories they're supposedly supporting.
Individual spell slots and preparation requires more book-keeping pre-combat, though spontaneous slots are the fastest of the three.


But Vancian is not without its merits.)

Random832
2009-10-28, 10:53 PM
Vancian casting leads to less in-combat bookkeeping - you don't have to subtract double-digit PP numbers

If you can't subtract quickly, add - track your "amount used today" just like people who track damage instead of current HP.

If you can't subtract OR add double digit numbers, have fun not keeping track of your HP.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-28, 11:41 PM
If you can't subtract quickly, add - track your "amount used today" just like people who track damage instead of current HP.

If you can't subtract OR add double digit numbers, have fun not keeping track of your HP.

Funny, the whole "subtraction is hard" argument is what people usually say when talkinga bout how horrible ThAC0 is.

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-28, 11:58 PM
Funny, the whole "subtraction is hard" argument is what people usually say when talkinga bout how horrible ThAC0 is.

It's not that subtraction is hard; it's that I can never remember how to work the damned thing.

Random832
2009-10-29, 07:57 AM
Funny, the whole "subtraction is hard" argument is what people usually say when talkinga bout how horrible ThAC0 is.

Really? I've always heard it as "less is better makes no sense". You don't have to subtract to work with THAC0 anyway.

Morty
2009-10-29, 08:47 AM
I'm trying to imagine how using a Vancian model for spellcasting does anything to address the criticisms you're directing toward points-based systems here, but I'm coming up empty. I just can't see how the choice of Vancian or points-based casting affects any of those things in any way at all. Sounds more like PEBCAK than a system problem to me.

Vancian casting is orginal, allows a wizard to have a lot of spells and gives magic a sense of seriousness - casting a spell takes a lot of time, so you have to do it in advance rather than on the fly. Whereas a psion-like wizard... has a set of spells and tosses them around until he runs out of juice.
And really, I see no problem at all with Vancian casting not being "compatibile" with most fantasy books. Why should I? If anything, it makes Vancian casting better because it's unique rather than generic.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-29, 08:51 AM
Really? I've always heard it as "less is better makes no sense". You don't have to subtract to work with THAC0 anyway.

Actually, yeah in 2.0 there were spells that added a penalty to your AC and a bonus to it.
A penalty means the number is lower so higher right? Or is it higher so lower?
A bonus means number is higher so lower or is it lower so higher?

CorvidMP
2009-10-29, 11:26 AM
Druids are always tree-huggers that have to play nice with animals, and use wooden tools instead of "unnatural" metal. (Iron and gold aren't natural? Seriously?) Druids...actually don't have much of a place in fantasy, far as I can tell (aside from Terry Brooks, who is an outlier, and doesn't really describe the D&D-type hippies anyway).


Seriously?.....

Tom Bombadil anyone? Christ that just hurt my brain so much I'm having trouble straining for more.

Or we could just go with the overwhelming majority of mystics in actual folklore, even the non celtic kind. They may not have all been druids in the celtic sense but most mystics in indo-european folklore feature crazy hermits using nature based magic and shape shifting ,a heck of a lot more than cranky scholars reading musty tomes and flinging fire around.

but I digress....

LibraryOgre
2009-10-29, 11:43 AM
Druids are always tree-huggers that have to play nice with animals, and use wooden tools instead of "unnatural" metal. (Iron and gold aren't natural? Seriously?) Druids...actually don't have much of a place in fantasy, far as I can tell (aside from Terry Brooks, who is an outlier, and doesn't really describe the D&D-type hippies anyway).


No.

Druids I have played:

Eco-terrorist. A country village witch-type who sold love potions (some herbal libido increasers, potions for those who want to spend some money). An agrarian economist with ambitions of taking over the county via some simple influences (she was selling Plant Growth in exchange for 5% of the completed crop. A threat to withhold it was pretty major, and made her a power in the county). Someone raised by wolves. A dwarf who tended mushrooms and divined good veins for mining.

While most druids are pointed towards the "tree hugger" type, realize that not all are going to be. Humans are, after all, natural parts of the world, and a number of druids are going to worship something other than the wild nature type (like Chauntea, of the Forgotten Realms, who is a deity of agriculture). A druid is more likely to be about sustainable agriculture, but that doesn't mean they're going to be tree-hugging hippies, especially not in an economy where it is assumed that most people farm for a living.

As for metal not being natural... well, a couple answers to that. The first is that druids can use scimitars, spears (metal points), daggers, sickles... all of which are metal. There's no restriction against them using gold or anything like that... just wearing large amounts of iron armor. Secondly, while metal itself is natural, the process of removing it, especially in large quantities, from the rock is pretty nasty. It requires a lot of combustable materials, and can have some pretty poisonous runoff.

AstralFire
2009-10-29, 04:34 PM
Vancian casting is orginal, allows a wizard to have a lot of spells and gives magic a sense of seriousness - casting a spell takes a lot of time, so you have to do it in advance rather than on the fly. Whereas a psion-like wizard... has a set of spells and tosses them around until he runs out of juice.
And really, I see no problem at all with Vancian casting not being "compatibile" with most fantasy books. Why should I? If anything, it makes Vancian casting better because it's unique rather than generic.

As I said, that depends on whether or not the world you're playing in really makes sense as described by Vancian casting. If I was in a setting that actually took advantage of the uniqueness of logothaumaturgy, I'd have no issue with it; I've even toyed with making a more Wizardly Wizard to focus heavier on that and distance it from the standard Wizard.

Morty
2009-10-29, 05:00 PM
As I said, that depends on whether or not the world you're playing in really makes sense as described by Vancian casting. If I was in a setting that actually took advantage of the uniqueness of logothaumaturgy, I'd have no issue with it; I've even toyed with making a more Wizardly Wizard to focus heavier on that and distance it from the standard Wizard.

I see no problem with that myself. I mean, D&D settings are supposed to be used to play D&D. Pretty much every system of magic excludes some forms of flavor. Vancian casting happens to exclude more of them, but that's the price I'm willing to pay for uniqueness.

Lycar
2009-10-29, 05:01 PM
It's not that subtraction is hard; it's that I can never remember how to work the damned thing.

That is because most people look at it in an awkward way when it is really quite simple:

THAC0 is your 'target number' or 'difficulty class' you want to roll (or higher) to score a hit.

Opponents AC is a modifier to your to-hit roll: Positve AC is added, so it is easier to roll that number, negative AC is subtracted, and so makes it harder.

###

Okay, back to the topic at hand:

The idea that each prepared spell is basically a lenghty magical ritual in its own right, just a few gestures and syllabies short of completion (not unlike, say a preloaded crossbow) is a pretty neat concept really.

But then you have to ask: 'If the difficulty for the mage lies in keeping all those almost-finished rituals memorized, what stops him to cast utility spells (such as knock) right from his spellbook?'

Certainly you don't want to tell your meatshields friends to 'hold off those orks/goblins/were-drireweasels for the 1/3/5/66 minutes it takes to recite the Fireball from my spellbook'. But you should be able to spare 5 or so minutes to cast a 'knock' spell (which is the way they handle that in 4e if I am informed correctly).

Also, if one was seeking a way to curtail the seemingly limitless power of mages... how about if some spells make lousy neighbours? What if trying to keep spells of opposing elementary (or alignement or what have you) descriptors is somehow extra arduous? What if the more powerful spells are that close to being sentient entities in their own right that they start to exert some influence on the mind that is trying to keep them in chains?

The system actually has a lot of potential. It is just that it is not the kind of petential the Average Joe Gamer is looking for.

Personally I like a system where individual 'spells' (or ways to tell the laws of physics.. well, you know..) are skills that are learned individually. Like in GURPS for example. This also requires people who want to toss around fireballs to start with learning how to 'ignite' stuff and work their way up from there.

This also puts a cap on what wizards are able to pull off (everything in theory but you have to make tough choices...) and makes them a lot more balancable.

AstralFire
2009-10-29, 05:05 PM
I see no problem with that myself. I mean, D&D settings are supposed to be used to play D&D. Pretty much every system of magic excludes some forms of flavor. Vancian casting happens to exclude more of them, but that's the price I'm willing to pay for uniqueness.

Thing is that in effect, that's not the way very many people want to play - the PHB largely glosses over this flavor beyond the briefest of explanations for the mechanic. Reserve Feats, Arcane Strike, and a number of other feats essentially ignore this flavor as well - as a result, many players are pretty unaware that you're 'casting the majority of the spell in the morning' or anything. Few of the major settings would look very different at all (Eberron the least, Greyhawk the most) if things were changed.

lesser_minion
2009-10-29, 07:25 PM
Even without things like schism, though, you still run into the fact that a psion can burn at full power - i.e., using only her highest level powers - for longer than any of the Vancian caster classes can. They will promptly implode, of course, but that's basically the definition of a nova, and power points are a key part of that system.

I actually just ran the maths on this, and while it isn't at full power, I ended up with the following figures, neglecting adjustments for ability scores (in something that Microsoft apparently call "*.prn format" :smallbiggrin:):


Psion Wizard
Level PP Juice Level Juice
1 2 2 1 2
2 6 3 2 3
3 11 3 3 4
4 17 4 4 5
5 25 5 5 7
6 35 6 6 7
7 46 7 7 7
8 58 8 8 9
9 72 9 9 11
10 88 10 10 11
11 106 11 11 14
12 126 12 12 14
13 147 13 13 14
14 170 14 14 14
15 195 15 15 16
16 221 16 16 17
17 250 17 17 19
18 280 18 18 21
19 311 19 19 23
20 343 20 20 25


'Juice' is the important column - it tells you how many spells or powers of roughly appropriate level someone with that class can cast or manifest per day at each level, neglecting ability scores. I had to fudge a little on both sides to get it to fix the concept, but you'll notice that a specialist wizard always has more juice according to these figures. The psion pulls ahead of the generalist wizard, however.

Note how the psion's progression in terms of 'juice' is a lot smoother and requires less work to fudge than that of the wizard.

I'm not sure where I stand on PPD psionics - if Paizo do a really good job, it might not be too horrible. It does, however, make very little sense from anything but a streamlining perspective.

I guess one workable solution might be to have the psion just use the 'juice per day' I calculated for them.

I'm not exactly holding my breath.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-29, 10:49 PM
As I said, that depends on whether or not the world you're playing in really makes sense as described by Vancian casting. If I was in a setting that actually took advantage of the uniqueness of logothaumaturgy, I'd have no issue with it; I've even toyed with making a more Wizardly Wizard to focus heavier on that and distance it from the standard Wizard.

An interesting side effect of magic in Guardians of the Flame... spells, once memorized, became quasi-living things in the mind of the wizard or cleric. Someone with spells in their head (a wizard or cleric) has to constantly reign in their spells. The spells always want to escape into the world, and so awakening a wizard is best done with your hand over his mouth, to keep one of his spells from escaping.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 10:51 PM
Thing is that in effect, that's not the way very many people want to play - the PHB largely glosses over this flavor beyond the briefest of explanations for the mechanic. Reserve Feats, Arcane Strike, and a number of other feats essentially ignore this flavor as well - as a result, many players are pretty unaware that you're 'casting the majority of the spell in the morning' or anything. Few of the major settings would look very different at all (Eberron the least, Greyhawk the most) if things were changed.

the whole "casting it in the morning" thing was added later.
Back in the day it was "you memorize it and then forget it when you cast it". But nobody liked that very much so they changed it. Still has problems (ex: sorcerers, wizard casting 200 or 20 spells in the morning takes 1 hour exactly, etc)

Optimystik
2009-10-29, 11:20 PM
As for metal not being natural... well, a couple answers to that. The first is that druids can use scimitars, spears (metal points), daggers, sickles... all of which are metal. There's no restriction against them using gold or anything like that... just wearing large amounts of iron armor. Secondly, while metal itself is natural, the process of removing it, especially in large quantities, from the rock is pretty nasty. It requires a lot of combustable materials, and can have some pretty poisonous runoff.

Correct. It is not the use of metal itself, but the implicit condoning of its refinement, that violates the druidic ethos.

But I'm venturing afield...


I guess one workable solution might be to have the psion just use the 'juice per day' I calculated for them.

That, or give Vancian casters MP. But that would have purists up in arms.

Your "juice" looks interesting, but I have a feeling I've seen an easier way of calculating and comparing powers per day to spells per day. I forget where it was, but the upshot corroborated your findings - psions have less firepower to sling around than specialist wizards do. Generalists have less than both, but since psions have to specialize, comparing them to generalists is unfair.

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-29, 11:25 PM
Correct. It is not the use of metal itself, but the implicit condoning of its refinement, that violates the druidic ethos.

Problem with the 'smelting ore harms nature' thing is that magic can very easily completely negate the entire argument. I mean, all you need is to cast some divinations, go find the raw ore, cast etherealness to get to it, then cast teleport and proceed to fabricate it into whatever you want. Doesn't harm the ecology of the area at all. And if you need to temper it with fire, well, there's always fire spells, fire elementals, and the Elemental Plane of Fire.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 11:26 PM
Correct. It is not the use of metal itself, but the implicit condoning of its refinement, that violates the druidic ethos.

Which for some reason doesn't care at all if you use unnatural worked leather (do you know what chemical treatment that goes?) or stone...

Actually they went and reexplained it as "metal disrupts the flows of druidic magic" and made an exception that if a druid worships ... whatshername, drizzet's goddess, then they CAN wear metal.

Asbestos
2009-10-29, 11:35 PM
How about how Druids can use scimitars which, if I'm not mistaken, are made of metal.

Isn't this thread about Pathfinder and Psionics?

LibraryOgre
2009-10-30, 01:16 AM
Problem with the 'smelting ore harms nature' thing is that magic can very easily completely negate the entire argument. I mean, all you need is to cast some divinations, go find the raw ore, cast etherealness to get to it, then cast teleport and proceed to fabricate it into whatever you want. Doesn't harm the ecology of the area at all. And if you need to temper it with fire, well, there's always fire spells, fire elementals, and the Elemental Plane of Fire.

Point of diminishing returns. While, yes, you can do all of those things, you need to have at least a 17th level wizard to do it, and you're looking at casting one 9th, two 5th, and unknown numbers of divination spells to do it. Assuming you can get away with Locate Object (not a good bet, given its requirement for a specific and accurate image, you're going to have a hard time), you're looking at 3570 worth of spells, and you'll only be able to carry what 6 people (wizard plus 5 more) can carry out at a time... which, unless you have an extremely pure vein of iron, is going to include a lot of rock.

By comparison, you can pay miners a few silver a week to haul it out of the ground, smelters a bit to take the stuff out of the slag, and smiths to turn it into weapons and armor. Slower... but unless you're talking checks totalling 7140 over the course of the creation of all the objects made by your wizard (including Profession: Miner, Profession: Smelter and Craft: Smithing of your choice), it's cheaper to have someone else do it, and does not require a 17th level caster, who likely has better things to do than make codpieces and nails. Quite frankly, if someone is going through the trouble of making sure that his suit of full plate is that environmentally sound, I'm gonna let him have it... since he's paying 3570 for the privilege of non-magical full plate.

Optimystik
2009-10-30, 10:09 AM
Which for some reason doesn't care at all if you use unnatural worked leather (do you know what chemical treatment that goes?) or stone...

I wasn't aware that boiling animal skin in water and leaving it in the sun was environmentally egregious in some way. Or were you comparing pre-industrial leather production to what we do today?


Actually they went and reexplained it as "metal disrupts the flows of druidic magic" and made an exception that if a druid worships ... whatshername, drizzet's goddess, then they CAN wear metal.

Mielikki's dogma is a specific and justified exception; she teaches that man and wild can live in harmony without either sacrificing its way of life. Her druids are allowed the same metal that rangers are.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-30, 10:16 AM
I wasn't aware that boiling animal skin in water and leaving it in the sun was environmentally egregious in some way. Or were you comparing pre-industrial leather production to what we do today?

Depends on the armor you're talking about. Cuir bouilli (the leather armor usually talked about, though 3.5 has tended to show a more soft leather approach) is usually boiled or baked in wax, making it harder and more brittle. Still, compared to "I'm going to heat rock until either it or the metal melts", it's a low-impact process.

Jayabalard
2009-10-30, 12:04 PM
But then you have to ask: 'If the difficulty for the mage lies in keeping all those almost-finished rituals memorized, what stops him to cast utility spells (such as knock) right from his spellbook?'I seem to recall that in 1e that was allowed, but it worked the same as casting from a scroll, erasing the spell permanently from your spellbook; that may have been from set of alternate rules though.


I wasn't aware that boiling animal skin in water and leaving it in the sun was environmentally egregious in some way. Or were you comparing pre-industrial leather production to what we do today?Medieval Tanning created plenty of pollution, especially water pollution (animal wastes, various chemicals in the tanning process)



The economic success of the leather-workers' gilds was loosely tied to that of the butchers. The difficulty facing the medieval commune in regard to tanners was that the tanning process itself created serious pollution within the town's walls. The tanning process was complex and required the use of toxic chemicals including such exotic solutions as slaked lime, a chicken, pigeon, and dog dung concoction, tannic acid, and a mildly acidic concoction derived from fermenting bran. Once cleaned, leather was prepared for production through one of several chemical based processes designed to preserve the leather from decay.

The actual tanning process was generally conducted in open pits (and later in vats). The process was slow, but thorough, requiring some fifteen months before completion. The process obviously produced a large amount of chemical wastes which found their way into the commune's waterways and sewer systems. One of the primary concerns of the statute-makers was to prevent this sort of abuse.

The only real concern reflected in the legislation was the proper disposal of the waste products generated by that trade. The Ferrarese statute-makers, almost as an afterthought, appended a statute to the end of the Fourth Book of the Code of 1287. The statute simply states "that no leather worker or any other person can nor should in any way or at any time remove the flesh or hair (from any hide) or intestines next to the cesspool of the City of Ferrara nor next to the Po on the side of the city."


http://history.eserver.org/medieval-pollution.txt

Lycanthromancer
2009-10-30, 12:38 PM
Point of diminishing returns. While, yes, you can do all of those things, you need to have at least a 17th level wizard to do it, and you're looking at casting one 9th, two 5th, and unknown numbers of divination spells to do it. Assuming you can get away with Locate Object (not a good bet, given its requirement for a specific and accurate image, you're going to have a hard time), you're looking at 3570 worth of spells, and you'll only be able to carry what 6 people (wizard plus 5 more) can carry out at a time... which, unless you have an extremely pure vein of iron, is going to include a lot of rock.

By comparison, you can pay miners a few silver a week to haul it out of the ground, smelters a bit to take the stuff out of the slag, and smiths to turn it into weapons and armor. Slower... but unless you're talking checks totalling 7140 over the course of the creation of all the objects made by your wizard (including Profession: Miner, Profession: Smelter and Craft: Smithing of your choice), it's cheaper to have someone else do it, and does not require a 17th level caster, who likely has better things to do than make codpieces and nails. Quite frankly, if someone is going through the trouble of making sure that his suit of full plate is that environmentally sound, I'm gonna let him have it... since he's paying 3570 for the privilege of non-magical full plate.

Alternately, lesser planar binding for a nightmare and a lantern archon. One can cast etherealness at will; the other, teleport.

lesser_minion
2009-10-30, 01:16 PM
Which for some reason doesn't care at all if you use unnatural worked leather (do you know what chemical treatment that goes?) or stone...


Somehow, I get the impression that that one just might have been a mistake on the part of the designers, and they assumed that hardened leather armour could be made without any real harm to the environment.

I'm pretty sure that soft leather isn't particularly harmful, however, and nor is it particularly damaging to just kill and skin something big.

Noting that high-level casters are likely to be extremely rare, I think metal armour would certainly be made by environmentally damaging methods - in contrast, almost all leather equipment could easily be replaced by some exotic equivalent.

Armour made from wood or tree bark would count as leather, and doesn't require fictional unobtanium, whereas druid-friendly metal armour probably does.

Nero24200
2009-10-30, 01:29 PM
Jack Vance, obviously.
The dying earth series also features hover cars, cloning facilities and alien planets. Truthfully, this is always something that's bugged me about people who complain about psionics.

Nine times out of ten I hear "Vancian casting fits fantasy D'n'D more, Psionics feels too Sci-Fi" whenever the fluff is brought up (in fact, I'm pretty surprised it's not been mentioned on this thread yet, though it's possible it has and I just missed it). Psionics is anything but perfect, and there are viable reasons to dislike it, I just hate the assumption that vancian magic seems to have more a fantasy feel.


Psions, on the other hand, match up (mechanically) to wizard-types in the vast majority of the fantasy fiction I've read. They use the magical power inherent in themselves to alter the world around them, and can do the same thing over and over again until they're exhausted.
I think it should be noted as well that the Playstation versions of Baldur's Gate 1&2 use a "Mana Point" system for spells and magical abilities. It's saying something when Wotc won't even use it in their own games.

Morty
2009-10-30, 01:42 PM
Thing is that in effect, that's not the way very many people want to play - the PHB largely glosses over this flavor beyond the briefest of explanations for the mechanic. Reserve Feats, Arcane Strike, and a number of other feats essentially ignore this flavor as well - as a result, many players are pretty unaware that you're 'casting the majority of the spell in the morning' or anything. Few of the major settings would look very different at all (Eberron the least, Greyhawk the most) if things were changed.

I can't quite see how Reserve Feats or Arcane Strike ignore the flavor, really. They seem to work with it quite neatly. I agree that the flavor of Vancian casting could be a bit better explained in the sourcebooks, though. Not that it would stop people from harping on Vancian casting because it isn't generic enough, but at least it would stop the "it makes no sense" arguments.



I think it should be noted as well that the Playstation versions of Baldur's Gate 1&2 use a "Mana Point" system for spells and magical abilities. It's saying something when Wotc won't even use it in their own games.

Given that, as far as I know, those games are both fast-action hack'n'slashes resembling D&D, I can hardly see any flaw in Vancian casting here, other than it doesn't suit this type of play, which isn't very similiar to a tabletop RPG. And all real D&D-based games use spell preparation.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-30, 01:43 PM
The dying earth series also features hover cars, cloning facilities and alien planets. Truthfully, this is always something that's bugged me about people who complain about psionics.

Don't look at me; I want to recreate Brust and Rosenberg, and psionics works just fine in those.


I think it should be noted as well that the Playstation versions of Baldur's Gate 1&2 use a "Mana Point" system for spells and magical abilities. It's saying something when Wotc won't even use it in their own games.

On the other hand, those games weren't made by WotC. They were developed by someone else, under license with WotC, allowing them to put brand identity monsters and the name Baldur's Gate on them; in the end, they played more like Diablo than D&D, but the D&D name made them more marketable.

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, the PC games, were designed to play as "D&D on a computer" (as were Strahd's Possession, Stone Prophet, Menzoberranzan, the Gold Box games, Shattered Lands, etc.), and they all included spell memorization. D&D Online contains a form of spell memorization (though it's not strict Vancian, and is closer to 4e's "What do you know today"). NWN 1&2 contain spell memorization.

Personally, I like something like Spells and Magic's Channelling (where the spells you had prepared were cast at the standard cost, you could cast any spell you knew at double the cost), but that's just me. I like to reward preparation, but allow spontaneity.

lesser_minion
2009-10-30, 02:13 PM
I think it should be noted as well that the Playstation versions of Baldur's Gate 1&2 use a "Mana Point" system for spells and magical abilities. It's saying something when Wotc won't even use it in their own games.

The PC versions of both games used Vancian.

If I remember correctly, the Playstation Baldur's Gate games merely resembled D&D, and implemented a magic point system mostly because the dev team felt that actual sorcerer casting would have been a playability nightmare. Only spontaneous classes were actually used, IIRC, so it isn't exactly like the D&D magic rules were eschewed entirely.

I'm not a fan of points-based fixed cost automatic success casting - chance-based, recharge and Vancian are all a lot more interesting. D&D spontaneous casting is about the only conceivable system that is worse than points-based, and it is a testament to how badly Vancian magic was implemented that I prefer the sorcerer to any prepared caster (admittedly, the fact that sorcerers are closer to the ideal balance point helps).

Psionics got far more out of good design than they got out of being based on points instead of spell preparation.

Optimystik
2009-10-30, 02:13 PM
Medieval Tanning created plenty of pollution, especially water pollution (animal wastes, various chemicals in the tanning process)

What was actually done in our planet's history of tanning and leatherworking is besides the point;whatever runoff results from the process is not only organic, it can be easily settled with magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/purifyfoodanddrink.htm) as well.

Mining and Smelting, however, damage the environment in D&D in a much less reversible way. For example, even if you do use magic to close up that gaping hole in the ground, you still have all the dead trees and displaced wildlife to take care of, plus the smithing fumes to blow away. Furthermore, with an unlimited supply of those materials available in the Plane of Earth, druids have a justification for being miffed about it. Comparing the two activities is ludicrous.

Back on topic.


I think it should be noted as well that the Playstation versions of Baldur's Gate 1&2 use a "Mana Point" system for spells and magical abilities. It's saying something when Wotc won't even use it in their own games.

That was done for an accessibility perspective (they were, after all, trying to attract the video gamers that weren't interested in tabletop games, not entice their existing customers.) I wouldn't mind a Pathfinder-based video game though; whatever mistakes they're making, at least they're trying to work with 3.x.

taltamir
2009-10-30, 03:02 PM
But then you have to ask: 'If the difficulty for the mage lies in keeping all those almost-finished rituals memorized, what stops him to cast utility spells (such as knock) right from his spellbook?'
Which 3e addresses in RAW by allowing a wizard to leave a "unprepraed slot" in the morning (but he still has to prepare to regain slots) which can be filled and used in 15 minutes at any point later in the day.

Zeful
2009-10-30, 03:14 PM
I can't quite see how Reserve Feats or Arcane Strike ignore the flavor, really. They seem to work with it quite neatly. I agree that the flavor of Vancian casting could be a bit better explained in the sourcebooks, though. Not that it would stop people from harping on Vancian casting because it isn't generic enough, but at least it would stop the "it makes no sense" arguments.No it wouldn't. People, by and large are idiots that wish to have everything catered to them, even if you made it a requirement of the game to read the fluff before they could use the mechanic, there would still be people that say it makes no sense.


I think it should be noted as well that the Playstation versions of Baldur's Gate 1&2 use a "Mana Point" system for spells and magical abilities. It's saying something when Wotc won't even use it in their own games.
Except WoTC does use Vancian casting in their games (Icewind Dale 2 and Neverwinter Nights both use the in-the-book vancian casting ruleset), it's more a cliche of console gaming than WotC disliking their own system (as the original Final Fantasy game used a spell slot and magic system practically lifted from D&D).

Philistine
2009-11-01, 02:22 AM
I see no problem with that myself. I mean, D&D settings are supposed to be used to play D&D. Pretty much every system of magic excludes some forms of flavor. Vancian casting happens to exclude more of them, but that's the price I'm willing to pay for uniqueness.

Say what? You favor the clunky, awkward, tedious system, the one that has a nasty habit of stopping gaming sessions cold any time the group runs into a situation the casters' players didn't anticipate, just because "it's different"? I hate to break it to you, but "different" does not convey any value, whether positive or negative. Despite the frothy-mouthed ravings of wanna-be elitists and nominal nonconformists, "different" is only "better" if it is, in fact, better; in the real world, "just to be different" isn't even reason enough to get out of bed.

sofawall
2009-11-01, 02:31 AM
(as the original Final Fantasy game used a spell slot and magic system practically lifted from D&D).

Eh? Limited slots of each level, sure. Different levels of spells, sure. But you don't prepare 4 Fire IV and 2 Blizzard III, you use your mana spontaneously. Not even like sorcerer, as your mana can be used just as easily for every level of spell.

AstralFire
2009-11-01, 03:01 AM
I can't quite see how Reserve Feats or Arcane Strike ignore the flavor, really. They seem to work with it quite neatly. I agree that the flavor of Vancian casting could be a bit better explained in the sourcebooks, though. Not that it would stop people from harping on Vancian casting because it isn't generic enough, but at least it would stop the "it makes no sense" arguments.

the idea that a spell's inherent 'energy' can be spontaneously converted is significantly leaning away from 'fire and forget word magic', where each word is a discrete entity of power.

Geddoe
2009-11-01, 03:39 AM
Eh? Limited slots of each level, sure. Different levels of spells, sure. But you don't prepare 4 Fire IV and 2 Blizzard III, you use your mana spontaneously. Not even like sorcerer, as your mana can be used just as easily for every level of spell.

I'm unsure what you are trying to say, but the casting in Final Fantasy one is very much Sorceror vancian casting. You get up to 3 spells known of each spell level(1-8, iirc) and as you level up you get additional uses for each spell level(so say 5 1st level spells, 3 2nd level spells and 1 3rd level spell at level 7 or something). You use cur1(only 4 letters allowed in the original) and that uses a white mage's first level spell slot. The level 7 example above, can now only cast 4 more 1st level spells until he rests at an inn/cabin. There is no mana in the original. Later on in the game, you conserve the resources by getting items that cast for you(like gloves that cast lit2 on all enemies or a helm that gives a minor heal to the entire party)

Myrmex
2009-11-01, 03:51 AM
Nine times out of ten I hear "Vancian casting fits fantasy D'n'D more, Psionics feels too Sci-Fi" whenever the fluff is brought up (in fact, I'm pretty surprised it's not been mentioned on this thread yet, though it's possible it has and I just missed it). Psionics is anything but perfect, and there are viable reasons to dislike it, I just hate the assumption that vancian magic seems to have more a fantasy feel.

The fluff for spells IS very fantasy. Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Remote Viewing, and crystals, not so much. It's like one of those New Age stores that uses pseudo-scientific jargon to sell their products.

Zeful
2009-11-01, 03:54 AM
Eh? Limited slots of each level, sure. Different levels of spells, sure. But you don't prepare 4 Fire IV and 2 Blizzard III, you use your mana spontaneously. Not even like sorcerer, as your mana can be used just as easily for every level of spell.

Which is why I said "practically" to denote a "lack of completeness". The two systems weren't identical, but they were very, very close.

taltamir
2009-11-01, 05:19 AM
The fluff for spells IS very fantasy. Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Remote Viewing, and crystals, not so much. It's like one of those New Age stores that uses pseudo-scientific jargon to sell their products.

I don't know what fantasy you were reading...
A typical fantasy wizard has a staff with a crystal at the tip, and often use gems in their spells. Familiars are more of a witch thing. And yes, they do learn spells from books, but not vanacian style casting, ever.

It seems a fantastic wizard is a mix of a sorc, wizard, and psion.

Nero24200
2009-11-01, 08:00 AM
The fluff for spells IS very fantasy. Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Remote Viewing, and crystals, not so much. It's like one of those New Age stores that uses pseudo-scientific jargon to sell their products.

Eh? Explain how Vancian magic is more fantasy than psionics exactly? I only know a handful of systsems which utilise a vancian form of magic (Dying earth, which is where the idea came from, the early discworld books, but then again, discworld took the idea from Dying Earth and is primarily a comedy, and the first final fantasy game, but that was loosly based on D'n'D and even then they nipped that in the bud quickly, as even the 2nd game in the series doesn't use it).

Meanwhile there are plenty of books, games, shows etc where magical characters can a reserve of power, using this spells and abilities at will until the pool of power runs out, far more similer to psionics than any Jack Vance book.

And it's also pretty silly to argue about their names. If you want to change any aspect of the game, names are by far the easiest, since they in no way affect balance or the feel of the class. Changing Remote Viewing to Scry does absoluetly nothing mechanicly.

Morty
2009-11-01, 08:05 AM
Say what? You favor the clunky, awkward, tedious system, the one that has a nasty habit of stopping gaming sessions cold any time the group runs into a situation the casters' players didn't anticipate, just because "it's different"? I hate to break it to you, but "different" does not convey any value, whether positive or negative. Despite the frothy-mouthed ravings of wanna-be elitists and nominal nonconformists, "different" is only "better" if it is, in fact, better; in the real world, "just to be different" isn't even reason enough to get out of bed.

No, I prefer a system that's fun, original, unique and gives magic the feel I like and that also happens to be different. I'm sure you'd like to paint me as a "frothy-mouthed wanna-be elitist" as you so subtly called me, who likes things just because they're different but no such luck, I'm afraid.



the idea that a spell's inherent 'energy' can be spontaneously converted is significantly leaning away from 'fire and forget word magic', where each word is a discrete entity of power.

But it can't be spontaneously converted. You need a feat for that, which means that not every spellcaster can do it. Those who don't take the feat can only fire the spell off normally.

NoldorForce
2009-11-01, 08:27 AM
The fluff for spells IS very fantasy. Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Remote Viewing, and crystals, not so much. It's like one of those New Age stores that uses pseudo-scientific jargon to sell their products.Actually, as it happens, the fluff for spells in D&D is on about the same level as that for psionics. It just happens that spells tend (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amanuensis) to (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictum) use (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate) Latin (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctuary) loanwords (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fabricate) rather (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bi-%5B2%5D) than (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kinesis) Greek (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecto-) ones (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tele-).

In addition, some of the fluff in psionics refers to things from various Asian mystic traditions; the Astral Construct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa) and the Dorje (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje) both have counterparts in Tibetan lore. (Tempest Stormwind wrote a much more comprehensive speech on this, if anyone knows where it is.)

LibraryOgre
2009-11-01, 10:40 PM
Eh? Explain how Vancian magic is more fantasy than psionics exactly? I only know a handful of systsems which utilise a vancian form of magic (Dying earth, which is where the idea came from, the early discworld books, but then again, discworld took the idea from Dying Earth and is primarily a comedy, and the first final fantasy game, but that was loosly based on D'n'D and even then they nipped that in the bud quickly, as even the 2nd game in the series doesn't use it).

Actually, the first Final Fantasy worked more like a sorcerer... while you bought your spells, you bought them for one person at a time, and then could cast X number of spells of Y level, in any combination of the 3 spells you had.

Tavar
2009-11-01, 10:41 PM
Actually, the first Final Fantasy worked more like a sorcerer... while you bought your spells, you bought them for one person at a time, and then could cast X number of spells of Y level, in any combination of the 3 spells you had.

Really? I guess they changed it for the GBA remake, as in that version you buy the spell, but after that it's a spell point system.

Geddoe
2009-11-01, 11:18 PM
Really? I guess they changed it for the GBA remake, as in that version you buy the spell, but after that it's a spell point system.

It was changed in the GBA version, which many felt ruined most of the early game challenge of the game.

Tavar
2009-11-01, 11:43 PM
It was changed in the GBA version, which many felt ruined most of the early game challenge of the game.

I think they're right: normally I'm not too good at those sort of games, but I breezed through FF.

LibraryOgre
2009-11-02, 12:59 AM
It was changed in the GBA version, which many felt ruined most of the early game challenge of the game.

How? Did you have a ridiculous number of spell points or something?

Zeful
2009-11-02, 01:25 AM
How? Did you have a ridiculous number of spell points or something?

Yes and no. It follows the later Final Fantasy scaling systems with costs and such (Actually based on my experience it seems to give less spell points than you would have in something like 3 or 5) but the enemies aren't made tougher to compensate for the new ease of use. Fir1 still does the same damage, it's just that you can cast it 2-3 more times without needing to resort to your melee weapon as instead of getting level 2 spellslots, you got the equivalent MP to cast the same number of level 2 spells. In the NES those slots would be unusable until you went and got 2nd level spells, but now you can keep using your 1st level spells. Mage classes can now pretty much constantly cast spells in all encounters past level 5-8 where before you would have 5 or 7 spells you could safely cast before resorting to melee (thoough with judicious item use, you could bring that to the maximum number of Spell slots the mage possessed).

Xenogears
2009-11-02, 01:46 AM
How? Did you have a ridiculous number of spell points or something?

When I played the remake (the playstation remake actually although it also abandoned vancian casting in favor of an mp system) not only did i never ever run out of MP but by the time I fought Chaos I had enough MP to spam low level buffs until all my characters were nigh indestructible. Although the PS remake was much easier in general so that might be different in the GBA remake...

Myrmex
2009-11-02, 03:11 AM
Eh? Explain how Vancian magic is more fantasy than psionics exactly? I only know a handful of systsems which utilise a vancian form of magic (Dying earth, which is where the idea came from, the early discworld books, but then again, discworld took the idea from Dying Earth and is primarily a comedy, and the first final fantasy game, but that was loosly based on D'n'D and even then they nipped that in the bud quickly, as even the 2nd game in the series doesn't use it).

Meanwhile there are plenty of books, games, shows etc where magical characters can a reserve of power, using this spells and abilities at will until the pool of power runs out, far more similer to psionics than any Jack Vance book.

And it's also pretty silly to argue about their names. If you want to change any aspect of the game, names are by far the easiest, since they in no way affect balance or the feel of the class. Changing Remote Viewing to Scry does absoluetly nothing mechanicly.

I am going to repost what I wrote in hopes of you reading what I wrote instead of assuming I posted what ever you think I posted. I'll add some visual emphasis:


The fluff for spells IS very fantasy. Ego Whip, Id Insinuation, Remote Viewing, and crystals, not so much. It's like one of those New Age stores that uses pseudo-scientific jargon to sell their products.

Asbestos
2009-11-02, 08:29 AM
I am going to repost what I wrote in hopes of you reading what I wrote instead of assuming I posted what ever you think I posted. I'll add some visual emphasis:
I think that people got what you were saying... and are saying that you might be incorrect.

So long as we're picking and choosing power names, let's take 'Astral Projection', 'Teleport', the 'Dimensional X' spells, 'Temporal Stasis', 'Clone', 'Telekinetic Sphere'... very fantasy indeed.

Temporal Stasis uses gems as material components and Telekinetic Sphere involves a crystal. I'm sure some of the others do too.