[D&D 3.5] Psionics as a vancian replacement

[Ernir]

There are quite a few people on this forum who like psionics, preferring to play manifesters over the PHB spellcasters. That is cool. But I am looking for something different. :smalltongue:

Those of you who don't think psionic characters make suitable arcane/divine spellcaster replacements, why is that? As in, if I were to rip out the Wizard entry in the PHB, put in the XPH Psion entry instead, and rename the Psion "Wizard", what is it that would bother you the most? What is it that you would find missing? Particular spells that don't have psionic equivalents, the fact that psions can manifest in armor, or all the crystals psions like lobbing around?

(I ask, because in one of my campaign settings, the organized study of arcane magic is rare, and so is direct attention by the gods. In a situation like that, Psions and Ardents make rather natural fills for the societal roles of Wizards and Clerics, in my opinion. I am looking for the flaws it entails.)

[Optimystik]

As a lover of psionics, I'm not the person you wanted to hear from... but I just wanted to point out that Mystics (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) can fill the "divine caster" niche in your setting without requiring deities' attention.

Not trying to dissuade you from psionics, just pointing out that there are indeed divine alternatives to Ardents. Carry on :smallsmile:

[Saph]

Well, the main issue would be that psionics isn't Vancian. It's a version of spontaneous casting, ie Sorcerer or Favoured Soul. A psion can substitute for a Sorcerer, but they play totally differently from a Wizard.

[Ernir]

As a lover of psionics, I'm not the person you wanted to hear from...
How dare you speak! :smalltongue:

Nah, it's mostly that I know there's a bunch of people out there that doesn't like psionics for one reason or another, knowing the potential sources of dislike might make it easier for me to serve it at my table. :smalltongue:

but I just wanted to point out that Mystics (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) can fill the "divine caster" niche in your setting without requiring deities' attention.

Not trying to dissuade you from psionics, just pointing out that there are indeed divine alternatives to Ardents. Carry on :smallsmile:

Huh. Interesting.

I really got to get my hands on the DCS. :smallfrown:

[balistafreak]

Biggest difference between Wizards and Psions is that Wizards can more easily acquire one-off odd spells and keep them.

Psions have a lot of powers known, but if they want Curse of the Werechicken for some plot reason, tough luck. The Wizard can scribe it into his spellbook and prepare it the one time he needs to, and then have it ready the next time he wants it, whether a day or year later.

Although single-use items/wands work for both, so yeah.

[NEO|Phyte]

Biggest difference between Wizards and Psions is that Wizards can more easily acquire one-off odd spells and keep them.


Erudite? Technically still a psion.

[balistafreak]

Quiet you, Erudite is ridiculous. :smalltongue:

[Snake-Aes]

How dare you speak! :smalltongue:

Nah, it's mostly that I know there's a bunch of people out there that doesn't like psionics for one reason or another, knowing the potential sources of dislike might make it easier for me to serve it at my table. :smalltongue:


Huh. Interesting.

I really got to get my hands on the DCS. :smallfrown:

The most common alternative to vancian that i know and isn't mana is spellcraft.
Casting the spelll is a spellcraft check, provided you know the spell.
The dc varies per spell level.
The point of a caster class, in this system, is fatigue. Casting spells deals nonlethal damage to your character, and casters have a pool of "casting hp" that refreshes every round for the spells to consume. Here, akin to psionics, metamagic implies an increase in cost.

This method's pros are: Metamagic is not restricted by level, but by how much you are willing to harm yourself.
Noncasters can also cast spells, albeit at a cost.
Different casters are flavored by their knowledge of metamagic, spell learning and soaking pools.

[NEO|Phyte]

Quiet you, Erudite is ridiculous. :smalltongue:

It's still the closest to a proper wizard you can get out of psionics (outside of StP, at which point it basically IS a wizard.)

[fryplink]

Well, the main issue would be that psionics isn't Vancian. It's a version of spontaneous casting, ie Sorcerer or Favoured Soul. A psion can substitute for a Sorcerer, but they play totally differently from a Wizard.

I could be totally mistaken, but don't erudites help some in this degree?

they can add more powers to their repertoire (Complete psionic)

[Saph]

I could be totally mistaken, but don't erudites help some in this degree?

they can add more powers to their repertoire (Complete psionic)

Could be. I've never looked at them, as I only ever hear them discussed in the context of how-can-I-break-the-game theoretical optimisation. :smallwink:

[Fouredged Sword]

When a psion needs that plot spell, he can pull it out of a stone without burning the stone out. He can use his own power points. This makes a great dramatic moment as the rest of the party must defend the psion for the three rounds it takes to pull this off.

[lsfreak]

I could be totally mistaken, but don't erudites help some in this degree?

they can add more powers to their repertoire (Complete psionic)

I haven't looked very hard into erudites, but my understanding is that there are three different interpretations, thanks to strange wording: one is broken in the underpowered sense, one is among the best of T1, and one is utterly broken. No matter what, you need a bit of houseruling to get eridutes to actually work well.

[erikun]

If you are talking about the "unique number of powers from any level each day" interpretation, then it is quite restrictive, although perhaps not necessarily in need of a houserule. Yes, you are stuck with an incredibly small number of different powers each day (only five at 9th level) but that just means being very selective over which powers you use and hanging onto useful djores and power stones. I'd say that is almost exactly the point of the class, seeing as they are supposed to be the equal of a psionic wizard, judiciously conserving which spells to use.

It certainly wouldn't be for everyone, but then again, the Psion is still available.

[Zaq]

The only thing I'd really miss are Illusion spells. But then, I like psionics anyway.

[Optimystik]

Could be. I've never looked at them, as I only ever hear them discussed in the context of how-can-I-break-the-game theoretical optimisation. :smallwink:

The variants are indeed powerful, but the base Erudite is no stronger than a Psion.

Even using the most restrictive UPD... it is equal to a Wilder, and has access to discipline powers, plus one more bonus feat than a psion. In fact, it pairs immensely well with other psionic classes - they can pull whatever utility powers they need out of his head, and he can concentrate on battle powers.

[Analytica]

When a psion needs that plot spell, he can pull it out of a stone without burning the stone out. He can use his own power points. This makes a great dramatic moment as the rest of the party must defend the psion for the three rounds it takes to pull this off.

According to Complete Psionics, you actually can't. :smallfrown:

[Eldan]

What's lacking for me is the scholarly archetype.

Wizards by the rules (not talking about fluff here, that's too mutable by the DM), gain their spells by copying them from ancient texts. Instant scholar.

Psions just... get them. Somehow.

[Snake-Aes]

that'd be the erudite psion.

[Nero24200]

Making a "Psion wizard" might take a fair bit of homebrewing. You could add a mechanic similer to the Truenamer Research - such a mechanic would reward the class for researching and delving into hidden lore, thus making a "Scholary Type". Or something similer to Bardic Knowledge.

[Kobold-Bard]

Use the sensible reading of Erudite and it replaces the Wizard just fine. You get bonus Feats, take Extra Unique Power if you want more.

Homebrew a Feat that lets them release a locked power 1/day or something and they're perfect.

It's lack of Healing that bugs me about replacing Vancians with Psionics. They just can't do it well enough.

(6)

[Prime32]

It's lack of Healing that bugs me about replacing Vancians with Psionics. They just can't do it well enough.You could easily adapt a cure wounds, psionic from repair damage, psionic (since the cure and repair spells are identical apart from their targets).

[AustontheGreat1]

The most common alternative to vancian that i know and isn't mana is spellcraft.
Casting the spelll is a spellcraft check, provided you know the spell.
The dc varies per spell level.
The point of a caster class, in this system, is fatigue. Casting spells deals nonlethal damage to your character, and casters have a pool of "casting hp" that refreshes every round for the spells to consume. Here, akin to psionics, metamagic implies an increase in cost.

This method's pros are: Metamagic is not restricted by level, but by how much you are willing to harm yourself.
Noncasters can also cast spells, albeit at a cost.
Different casters are flavored by their knowledge of metamagic, spell learning and soaking pools.

I don't suppose you could tell me where to find an elaboration on this? It sounds interesting and I'd like to see how it works in detail.

[Snake-Aes]

I don't suppose you could tell me where to find an elaboration on this? It sounds interesting and I'd like to see how it works in detail.

You'll have to give me the day here. I don't remember exactly where I saw it and am heading to work now so it's a tight schedule.

[lesser_minion]

Psionics has two main problems, IMO:

Psionics clash horribly with traditional spellcasting -- particularly with sorcerers, which are the same thing with different rules.
"Magic point" systems are trite, boring, and overused.


Problem 1 is obviously irrelevant here, since we're replacing traditional spellcasting with psionics.

Problem 2 is more relevant, but nothing can really be done about it. Magic point systems are common because they can work, and because they are extremely easy to understand and implement. Functional > Original.

The thing that really gets in the way of this variant is the same thing Saph pointed out -- a large amount of material may have to change as a result.

[Saph]

But anyway, back to the OP:


Those of you who don't think psionic characters make suitable arcane/divine spellcaster replacements, why is that? As in, if I were to rip out the Wizard entry in the PHB, put in the XPH Psion entry instead, and rename the Psion "Wizard", what is it that would bother you the most? What is it that you would find missing? Particular spells that don't have psionic equivalents, the fact that psions can manifest in armor, or all the crystals psions like lobbing around?

My basic issue with Psionics is that it's a fifth wheel. Pretty much everything that psionic characters can do, magic-using characters can do anyway. Psionics does add an interesting set of new mechanics, but too many of the psionic powers are just PHB spells with the serial numbers filed off and some vague fluff about ectoplasm.

The next problem if you're replacing magic with psionics is that loads and loads of the basic material of D&D assumes magic. For instance, about half the creatures in the various Monster Manuals have spell-like-abilities or powers that directly duplicate magic of some kind, and every single magic item in the DMG and most of the items in the Magic Item Compendium use spells for their effects, creation, or mechanics.

Sure, you can rewrite half of D&D to be psionics-based rather than magic-based, but it simply isn't worth the effort, IMO. The basic assumption of pretty much all the published D&D books is that magic is the base system and psionics is an unusual alternative. There are a few campaign settings and adventures out there where the opposite is true, but they're specifically designed to be different.

So it's not that you can't replace magic with psionics, it's just that I don't really think it's worth it.

[Optimystik]

It's lack of Healing that bugs me about replacing Vancians with Psionics. They just can't do it well enough.

They do just as well at it as non-psionic characters - with items.




"Magic point" systems are trite, boring, and overused.


Problem 2 is more relevant, but nothing can really be done about it. Magic point systems are common because they can work, and because they are extremely easy to understand and implement. Functional > Original.

Despite being point-based, Psionics in D&D still seems pretty unique to me. Lets look at some other point-based "mana" systems:

Final Fantasy
Warcraft
Dragon Age

The cost for the powers in all three systems is fixed; there's no augmentation, and no tying the amount you can spend to your level. In all three of the above, you start with a lower-level spell (say, Fire1) with a fixed cost and trade it out for more damaging and costly spells as you progress (Fire2, Fire3). Which themselves are fixed. Once you get way up there, there's no reason to use your lower-leveled powers except to save some mana (and Warcraft, through MP cost scaling, removes even that justification.) They can thus advertise on the box "Over 100 spells!" and be perfectly true, despite the fact that you probably won't be using more than 12 of them.

But Psionics is the opposite; low-level powers are always useful, because you get to control how much you augment them or not. That Energy Ray? stays relevant all the way through your career; you never have to worry about "Energy Ray1, Energy Ray2" etc. Better yet, you also never have to worry about "FireEnergyRay, IceEnergyRay, ElectricEnergyRay" again thanks to the brilliant way psionic blasting was designed. Again, this is a shortcoming of the three mana-based systems above that psionics does not share.

So I disagree - psionics is plenty unique, even among point-based systems - which means it is unique in general.

[Oslecamo]

So I disagree - psionics is plenty unique, even among point-based systems - which means it is unique in general.

Masters of Magic would like to have a word with you, since it already included the mana+augmentation system and lighting bolt stayed usefull all game long as you could pump up to 50 mana into it to one shot pretty much anything in 1994, while 3e psionics came out only in 2000. Unless augmentation already existed in 2e D&D.

But why it didn't get popular in later "mana" games? Simple. Because augmentation breeds nova mentality. Why bother with channeling as few mana as possible? Just charge your lazers to the max and kill the enemy as fast as possible. Then if you happen to run out of "mana" just take a rest.

Sure, you can cap the number of points you can spend, but then there's no advantage compared to "fire1/2/3" system, in particular when the characters automatically upgrade the spells, while the psionics have to manually upgrade them. You'll want to pump them to the max anyway. What you see as a shortcoming most people see as an advantage, since I don't need to always be calculating how much points I can pump in a spell. Most people always want to fire the lazers at maximum power.

[Runestar]

I feel the psion is fairly balanced as is, since the powers were specifically designed with the power point system in mind.

The spell point variant in UA would be problematic though, since it heavily favours SoDs/debuffs over direct damage.

[Snake-Aes]

I feel the psion is fairly balanced as is, since the powers were specifically designed with the power point system in mind.

The spell point variant in UA would be problematic though, since it heavily favours SoDs/debuffs over direct damage.

:p vancian spells already do that too.

[Optimystik]

But why it didn't get popular in later "mana" games? Simple. Because augmentation breeds nova mentality. Why bother with channeling as few mana as possible? Just charge your lazers to the max and kill the enemy as fast as possible. Then if you happen to run out of "mana" just take a rest.

Actually, I would say it is the DM who breeds nova mentality (or doesn't) as he chooses. It's quite easy to discourage the party Psion from going nova, just as you can encourage a Wizard or Sorcerer to hold back a heavy-hitter spell or two in case of emergency.


Sure, you can cap the number of points you can spend, but then there's no advantage compared to "fire1/2/3" system, in particular when the characters automatically upgrade the spells, while the psionics have to manually upgrade them. You'll want to pump them to the max anyway.

Again, whether you "pump your powers to the max" each time or not is dependent on the type of game you're playing in. But the point is that you can - that your lower-level powers never become irrelevant due to augmentation, and you control how efficient they are to boot. And it dovetails perfectly with the granular nature of power points vs. vancian slots as well; do you want to blow your PP on your heavy powers, focus on smaller efficient manifestations of weaker ones, augment/metapsionic your weaker powers, or some mix of the three?

More choices in the hands of the players = better system.

[zakkain]

I figure this is as good a place to ask as any - we all know the "thou shalt not use more power points than your manifester level on any one power" rule, right? Does that include the points needed to manifest the power in the first place? Example: I, a level 2 Psion, manifest Energy Ray. Can I use 2pp to augment it, since I have a manifester level of 2? Or can I only augment it with 1pp since I use 1 to manifest the power in the first place?

[Snake-Aes]

I figure this is as good a place to ask as any - we all know the "thou shalt not use more power points than your manifester level on any one power" rule, right? Does that include the points needed to manifest the power in the first place? Example: I, a level 2 Psion, manifest Energy Ray. Can I use 2pp to augment it, since I have a manifester level of 2? Or can I only augment it with 1pp since I use 1 to manifest the power in the first place?

Yes, they count. A lvl 1 manifester can't augment any power. Same goes for metamagic.

[Kobold-Bard]

I feel the psion is fairly balanced as is, since the powers were specifically designed with the power point system in mind.

The spell point variant in UA would be problematic though, since it heavily favours SoDs/debuffs over direct damage.

Just ignore the extra SP for blasting spells rule.

(6)

[Runestar]

If as a wizard, you are often frustrated at ending the day with the majority of your lower lv slots unused and running out of higher lv spells too quickly, power points would be a nice alternative. So you trade quantity for quality. :smallsmile:

I know as a sorc, I wouldn't hesitate sacrificing my lower slots to be able to fling around more arcane fusions and disjunctions. :smalltongue:

[Oslecamo]

Actually, I would say it is the DM who breeds nova mentality (or doesn't) as he chooses. It's quite easy to discourage the party Psion from going nova, just as you can encourage a Wizard or Sorcerer to hold back a heavy-hitter spell or two in case of emergency.

It's harder for the psion because they can get psionic focus and overchannel and whatnot and burn all their points much faster than anything else. And I've yet to see a psion not take overchannel.

The wizard however has few high level spells and a lot of mid-low level spells, so he has a very strong incentive to find an use for said mid-low level spells. Stuff like glitterdust, magic missile, mage armor, see invisibility, alter self and plenty of other low level spells will remain a part of the wizard's arsenal for all levels whitout need of any incrementation system.



Again, whether you "pump your powers to the max" each time or not is dependent on the type of game you're playing in. But the point is that you can - that your lower-level powers never become irrelevant due to augmentation, and you control how efficient they are to boot.

And why in the 9 hells would you want your powers to be less effecient than possible?

Does a wizard wears fullplate so his spells have 50% chance of failing?
Does the fighter attacks with a normal club because it deals less damage than his +5 greatsword?

Everybody has the option to gimp themselves, but that's precisely the kind of choices that give a bad name to D&D.

Sure, you can create situations where less optimal actually works like a monster who instantly kills anyone not wearing armor, or corrosive skin that automatically destroys the weapon, but that's more work for the DM and bordering rule 0.



And it dovetails perfectly with the granular nature of power points vs. vancian slots as well; do you want to blow your PP on your heavy powers, focus on smaller efficient manifestations of weaker ones, augment/metapsionic your weaker powers, or some mix of the three?

That's an illusion and you know it. The best psion tactic is overchanneling like there's no tomorrow, and using metapsionics when the math supports you. If you do want to use smaller effecient manifestations you get the psionic equivalent of wands. Anything else is gentlemen's agreement.



More choices in the hands of the players = better system.
Acording to a lot of people not really. Actualy, one of the most important jobs of the DM is limiting the options of the players otherwise you end up with wish chains.

[Yrcrazypa]

And why in the 9 hells would you want your powers to be less effecient than possible?


Let us say you are in a situation where rest is absolutely not an option for quite some time. Now, are you going to go Nova on that dragon, or are you going to help just enough to kill it so you can move on and still be of use in case something bigger comes up? If the DM lets you rest after every battle and doesn't put any pressure on you, that doesn't sound like too much fun to me.

[Optimystik]

It's harder for the psion because they can get psionic focus and overchannel and whatnot and burn all their points much faster than anything else. And I've yet to see a psion not take overchannel.

Just because they can, does not mean they will. It's the player's choice.

As for Overchannel, of course they take it - it's a great feat. If Wizards had a similar feat (untyped bonus to CL by taking damage) I'm pretty confident they would go for it too, even though they have less means of mitigating damage than a psion.


The wizard however has few high level spells and a lot of mid-low level spells, so he has a very strong incentive to find an use for said mid-low level spells. Stuff like glitterdust, magic missile, mage armor, see invisibility, alter self and plenty of other low level spells will remain a part of the wizard's arsenal for all levels whitout need of any incrementation system.

You keep using the "incentive" argument, as though it shouldn't be the player's choice whether he wants to use Magic Missile, See Invisibility etc. or burn them all to crank out another Teleport or Decerebrate at a critical moment.


And why in the 9 hells would you want your powers to be less effecient than possible?

I'm not sure I understand you. The Psion has more efficiency, not less. He can effectively convert his lower-level "spells" into high-leveled ones. He is the one much more likely to end the day with no wasted potential, not the Wizard. That is inefficiency.

If what you actually meant "why would you want your powers to be less effective" - the answer to that is simple - there's no need for a sledgehammer when a screwdriver will do.


That's an illusion and you know it. The best psion tactic is overchanneling like there's no tomorrow, and using metapsionics when the math supports you. If you do want to use smaller effecient manifestations you get the psionic equivalent of wands. Anything else is gentlemen's agreement.

You are assuming magic mart is open for business, and any utility spells needed can be found in wand/scroll/dorje/power stone form on a moment's notice. This is not always the case.


Acording to a lot of people not really.

Who are these "lot of people?"


Actualy, one of the most important jobs of the DM is limiting the options of the players otherwise you end up with wish chains.

How on earth did you get "wish chains" out of anything I said? :smallconfused:

[lesser_minion]

So I disagree - psionics is plenty unique, even among point-based systems - which means it is unique in general.

Augmentation is present to an extent in basically every points-based magic system I've seen in a tabletop game.

It's nice, but even if it had been more unique, it wouldn't make the system fresh again.


More choices in the hands of the players = better system.

More choices in the hands of the players might be better (in some cases).

'might be' != 'is'

[Optimystik]

More choices in the hands of the players might be better (in some cases).

'might be' != 'is'

I say, most cases.

It's simple math. If only one style of play is possible (i.e. modular: high-level spells, mid-level, low-level, and never the 'twain shall meet) then you only appeal to those players who prefer that style.

But if you have multiple styles of play (i.e. granular), then you have:
1) The above style (whereby a psion can choose to partition his PP as though vancian, spending a given amount only on higher level powers, a given amount on mid-level and a given amount on lower-level ones.
2) The ability to concentrate PP towards one of the three tiers (a LOT of low-level manifestations, slightly more max-level manifestations (aka "going nova") or more mid-level manifestations;
3) Some combination of the above.

This allows you to appeal to players who like (1), players who like (2), and players who want a mix of both (3). Because the players who like modular are a subset of the above, they must be <= to the total players satisfied by granular.

If a > b, and b > c, then a > c. QED.

[lesser_minion]

I say, most cases.
<snip>
But if you have multiple styles of play (i.e. granular), then you have:
1) The above style (whereby a psion can choose to partition his PP as though vancian, spending a given amount only on higher level powers, a given amount on mid-level and a given amount on lower-level ones.
2) The ability to concentrate PP towards one of the three tiers (a LOT of low-level manifestations, slightly more max-level manifestations (aka "going nova") or more mid-level manifestations;
3) Some combination of the above.

This is only beneficial if the options are balanced with each other such that any of them can be used consistently.

If they aren't, then your options on that front boil down to "whatever's best here".

Even if there are several potential alternatives, the valid ones will all be very similar, and you'll have paid for them in superficial options that serve only to create traps for the player.

Not an improvement.


If a > b and b > c then a > c.

Has no bearing on the argument at hand.

And '>' means more, not better.

[Optimystik]

If they aren't, then your options on that front boil down to "whatever's best here".

"What is best here" is always the option that a rational player will choose. It's simple economics - rational consumers, when dealing with a scarce resource (PP in this case) - will always choose the course of action that will maximize their utility; i.e. their benefit for a given expenditure.

My point is that the Vancian spellcaster cannot do this. He only has one option - to use the spells he has chosen. Want one more Haste to help your party escape that death knight because his Huecuva buddy dispelled the first one? Tough luck for him.

Sorcerers have a bit more freedom, but only in one direction - they can use higher-level slots to cast lower-level spells, but not vice-versa. So if all they have is 8 uses of Glitterdust when they really need a Limited Wish... they are also out of luck.

A psionic character, on the other hand, has total freedom to maximize his utility given the scarce resource of power points at his disposal. And the best part? The player can still choose to ignore this if he wants to, and limit himself to X Hastes per day even if he has the capability to cast more, if he wants that increased bit of challenge. In other words, it's all in the player's hands.

That is objective superiority. If you are comparing two systems, and A has the capabilities of B plus more on top of that, then A is superior.

[Theodoxus]

And '>' means more, not better.

Actually, it means Greater Than, which can reference superiority (ie "better").

I'm in total agreement with Opti... not that it has any bearing on the matter.

[lesser_minion]

"What is best here" is always the option that a rational player will choose. It's simple economics - rational consumers, when dealing with a scarce resource (PP in this case) - will always choose the course of action that will maximize their utility; i.e. their benefit for a given expenditure.

So why bother letting them do otherwise?


My point is that the Vancian spellcaster cannot do this. He only has one option - to use the spells he has chosen. Want one more Haste to help your party escape that death knight because his Huecuva buddy dispelled the first one? Tough luck for him.

He's a wizard, he can come up with another way out.

Either this is actually a case where the game gains depth because the player's preferred choice is unavailable, or it's a case where the wizard should be getting his backside handed to him.

Either way, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Sorcerers have a bit more freedom, but only in one direction - they can use higher-level slots to cast lower-level spells, but not vice-versa. So if all they have is 8 uses of Glitterdust when they really need a Limited Wish... they are also out of luck.

The equivalent psion is completely out of juice and can't do anything at all in this situation.


A psionic character, on the other hand, has total freedom to maximize his utility given the scarce resource of power points at his disposal. And the best part? The player can still choose to ignore this if he wants to, and limit himself to X Hastes per day even if he has the capability to cast more, if he wants that increased bit of challenge. In other words, it's all in the player's hands.

He also has additional freedom to make a mistake and fail.


That is objective superiority. If you are comparing two systems, and A has the capabilities of B plus more on top of that, then A is superior.

Not so. A deformable square peg might go in a round hole, but that doesn't make it better than a rigid square peg.

Extra features are only good if they are actually used, and if you can accept the cost of them -- free lunches would be very nice, if only they existed.

You're also conflating different kinds of capability -- it might be better for some players, but that doesn't make it better for the game as a whole.


Actually, it means Greater Than, which can reference superiority (ie "better").

I'm in total agreement with Opti... not that it has any bearing on the matter.

Except that it's used for comparing numbers, where 'greater than' doesn't mean 'an improvement'.

[Optimystik]

So why bother letting them do otherwise?

Because what is optimal changes based on circumstances. There are some battles where you will want your big guns out and it won't matter if you run out of juice, because you're only moments away from resting anyway. Meanwhile there are some where rest is not a luxury for you and you'll want to provide just enough support to enable other party members' success, while conserving as much of your energy as possible for future battles.


He's a wizard, he can come up with another way out.

Either this is actually a case where the game gains depth because the player's preferred choice is unavailable, or it's a case where the wizard should be getting his backside handed to him.

Either way, destroying it does not benefit the game.

That is your playstyle preference. Me, I don't think a systemic limitation adds depth, any more than forcing yourself to write with your left hand means you produce a better quality novel.

But if you really do prefer Vancian for the challenge that may result from having your preferred option unavailable... PP can model that just fine. Simply pick a number of times you would be able to manifest a certain power (just as you would when preparing spells) and stick to that number. You can impose that limitation on yourself if you really believe it enhances the game.


The equivalent psion is completely out of juice and can't do anything at all in this situation...

Not at all - the equivalent psion can take those 8 glitterdusts (i.e. the 24 PP he has remaining) and use them to manifest that Bend Reality his party needs.

Or, he can manifest those 8 2nd-level powers if that's what he wants to do instead.


He also has additional freedom to make a mistake and fail.

That is a factor of player skill, which is subjective. A player can make mistakes and fail no matter what class he plays - that is independent of the system used.


No. It depends on how much it cost A to get there.

You're right - the answer to which, is no cost at all.


And even if it didn't, you're also conflating different kinds of capability -- it might be better for some players, but that doesn't make it better for the game as a whole.

As I pointed out above, nothing is stopping players who prefer the added challenge of Vancian to model that limitation with power points if they wish.

For example, I can have my Psion "prepare" 4 teleports in a given day (by simply not manifesting more than that) just as though he were a wizard.

But while a Psion can emulate a Wizard in this way, nothing allows a Vancian wizard to emulate a Psion, i.e. freely convert his lower-level spells into higher-level ones and vice versa. That is why PP is the superior system.

Please note that I don't mean "superior" to say "you should feel bad for liking Vancian" - that's not what I'm getting at by any means. People like what they like. But given a choice between a pocket calculator and an iPod touch with a calculator function built into it, I'm probably going to take the iPod.

[lesser_minion]

Because what is optimal changes based on circumstances. There are some battles where you will want your big guns out and it won't matter if you run out of juice, because you're only moments away from resting anyway. Meanwhile there are some where rest is not a luxury for you and you'll want to provide just enough support to enable other party members' success, while conserving as much of your energy as possible for future battles.

This is not something exclusive to psionics.


That is your playstyle preference. Me, I don't think a systemic limitation adds depth, any more than forcing yourself to write with your left hand means you produce a better quality novel.

There is a very wide gulf between self-imposed challenges and mechanical elements that allow events like that to come to pass.


But if you really do prefer Vancian for the challenge that may result from having your preferred option unavailable... PP can model that just fine. Simply pick a number of times you would be able to manifest a certain power (just as you would when preparing spells) and stick to that number. You can impose that limitation on yourself if you really believe it enhances the game.

If the same four things are always going to work, the game becomes boring. If a mechanic causes that to come to pass, then it's costing something.

This isn't the same as going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back -- you do get things in return for accepting spell preparation.


Incorrect - the equivalent psion can take those 8 glitterdusts (i.e. the 24 PP he has remaining) and use it to manifest that Bend Reality his party needs.

No. A 14th level sorcerer down to 2nd level spells is comparable to a 14th level psion who is completely empty. Wizards get roughly the same amount of 'useful' juice as psions do. Sorcerers get even more.

The psion wouldn't even be able to come up with some plan to get out of this situation using low-level spells.


That is a factor of player skill, which is subjective. A player can make mistakes and fail no matter what class he plays - that is independent of the system used.

It's possible to make a system where it's easier to screw up, and it's possible to make a system where it's harder to screw up. Not spending enough power points means that you've traded them for nothing.

A spell that's not high enough level doesn't really cost you, because nobody expected you to benefit from it at all.


You're right - the answer to which, is no cost at all.

As pointed out, not only do you suffer a cost, but you don't even gain an appreciable benefit.


As I pointed out above, nothing is stopping players who prefer the added challenge of Vancian to model that limitation with power points if they wish.

For example, I can have my Psion "prepare" 4 teleports in a given day (by simply not manifesting more than that) just as though he were a wizard.

But while a Psion can emulate a Wizard in this way, nothing allows a Vancian wizard to emulate a Psion. That is why PP is the superior system.

No... that's bull. And you know it. The point behind the removed limiting factor is to balance out various disadvantages psions get -- among them, weakened metamagic.

Playing Vancian isn't like fighting a boxing match with one hand behind your back. It's like letting your opponent use plated gloves while you're allowed to use your feet.

Player options don't make for a better system.

[Evil the Cat]

One thing of note on the Psion as a wizard, Psions can research new powers. EXPH Pg 64

This is separate from their powers per level, so this helps them fill the wizard role, and the scholar fluff.

[Optimystik]

This is not something exclusive to psionics.

Yes, but only a points-based system will allow you to adapt to those changing circumstances on the fly, rather than having to rest and reallocate resources. Even spontaneous casting has limits to how well it can adapt (i.e. one-way conversion only.)


There is a very wide gulf between self-imposed challenges and mechanical elements that allow events like that to come to pass.

If the end result is the same, how are they different?


If the same four things are always going to work, the game becomes boring.

Again, "boring" is subjective. What is boring to you may not be to me, or anyone else.

I'm speaking purely from a position of utility (an objective term); not whether something is "boring" or "interesting" which are subjective terms.


If a mechanic causes that to come to pass, then it's costing something.

I don't see an appreciable difference between a system forcing you to play a certain way, and you forcing yourself. Either way, you are playing around a limitation.


This isn't the same as going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back -- you do get things in return for accepting spell preparation.

Let's compare apples to apples. What objective benefit does a Vancian Wizard get for preparing spells/day in slots that a Spell Point Wizard does not?


No. A 14th level sorcerer down to 2nd level spells is comparable to a 14th level psion who is completely empty.

In what way is a character with spells remaining comparable to a character with none? :smallconfused: That makes no sense to me.


Wizards get roughly the same amount of 'useful' juice as psions do. Sorcerers get even more.

You can't make that judgement, because it depends on a number of factors, even with equivalent ability scores and gear among the classes in question; race chosen (psionic races get bonus "slots" and even PLAs), feats chosen, and the nature of the previous encounters of the day.


The psion wouldn't even be able to come up with some plan to get out of this situation using low-level spells.

Would he? That depends on the situation, and the low level powers in question. I assume you mean that he would have to augment his low level powers to make them useful, but that is only true of blasting powers. Plenty of others are useful with no augmentation at all, or minimal augmentation.


It's possible to make a system where it's easier to screw up, and it's possible to make a system where it's harder to screw up. Not spending enough power points means that you've traded them for nothing.

A spell that's not high enough level doesn't really cost you, because nobody expected you to benefit from it at all.

A low-level spell that remains unused represents wasted potential. It means you might as well have left those slots blank.
Meanwhile, a Psion can take the sum of the PP from those unused slots and manifest something else, per my example. Or use them to fuel metapsionics, or manifest a more useful power from his party member's head, etc.


As pointed out, not only do you suffer a cost, but you don't even gain an appreciable benefit.

Going to bed with uncast spells is the real cost here. This is far more likely to happen to a vancian caster than a points-based one like a psion.


No... that's bull. And you know it. The point behind the removed limiting factor is to balance out various disadvantages psions get -- among them, weakened metamagic.

But Psions are still weaker than wizards. How is that balance?


Playing Vancian isn't like fighting a boxing match with one hand behind your back. It's like letting your opponent use plated gloves while you're allowed to use your feet.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that metaphor at all. Could you clarify it?


Player options don't make for a better system.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

[erikun]

But why it didn't get popular in later "mana" games? Simple. Because augmentation breeds nova mentality. Why bother with channeling as few mana as possible? Just charge your lazers to the max and kill the enemy as fast as possible. Then if you happen to run out of "mana" just take a rest.
I think that Wizardry 6 had a similar system, where you learn up to seven "ranks" of an individual spell, and can choose which rank you want to cast each time. A seventh rank fire bolt would deal seven times the damage and cost seven times the mana.

However, I had the exact opposite experience with the system. Throwing all my mana into the highest level spells meant that everyone ran out after a few fights, forcing me to retreat and ultimately never get anywhere. It was far, far more practical to just use low-mid level spells that hit multiple targets, while relying on the fighters in the party to cut apart the weakened enemies.

Remember that D&D doesn't have mana potions or the equilivant found in most games, and grinding for XP (by killing the same three groups of monsters over and over) is not something that takes place in a RPG.

[lesser_minion]

Yes, but only a points-based system will allow you to adapt to those changing circumstances on the fly, rather than having to rest and reallocate resources. Even spontaneous casting has limits to how well it can adapt (i.e. one-way conversion only.)

Psionics also accept less juice and poorer access to metamagic.


I don't see an appreciable difference between a system forcing you to play a certain way, and you forcing yourself. Either way, you are playing around a limitation.

The difference is still that the wizard is accepting a disadvantage -- spell preparation -- in exchange for a number of benefits.


Let's compare apples to apples. What objective benefit does a Vancian Wizard get for preparing spells/day in slots that a Spell Point Wizard does not?

Extra juice and theoretically cheaper access to certain effects.


In what way is a character with spells remaining comparable to a character with none? :smallconfused: That makes no sense to me.

In the amount of juice they've used.

443 power points buys roughly the top half of a sorcerer's spell slots.


But Psions are still weaker than wizards. How is that balance?

Because evidently it's not as fair a trade as was intended. Spell preparation is evidently not that great a disadvantage, especially when it means you otherwise have unlimited access to your spell list.

And metamagic can be pretty damned hardcore when you're not limited to two metamagic feats every two rounds (and you blew three feats just to use that many).


I'm not sure what you're getting at with that metaphor at all. Could you clarify it?

I'm comparing an arbitrary self-imposed limitation with a trade.


We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Well, it's true. There is an ideal level for it. If you go over, then you're in trouble.

In a Core + XPH and Serpent Kingdoms game, would you want to play a level kobold egotist 14/sorcerer 1?

[Optimystik]

Spoilered for readability.


Psionics also accept less juice and poorer access to metamagic.

Again, "less juice" is debatable. It relies on a number of factors that you haven't elaborated on.
If what your party needs is another teleport and the wizard is out of 5th-level slots, he is the one "out of juice," not the Psion, who can use both his higher and lower "slots" to fuel the required power thanks to the increased granularity of his system. Your Wizard might have a full complement of Prestidigitations left or even a Dominate Person, but none of that will help the party get where they're going.

As for metamagic, all the psion is unable to do is stack it; in most cases, a Wizard cannot either, barring metamagic reduction cheese from PrCs - which says more about those PrCs than the Wizard himself. And the Wizard still cannot employ metamagic on the fly.


The difference is still that the wizard is accepting a disadvantage -- spell preparation -- in exchange for a number of benefits.

The benefits of being a wizard (better spell lists and auto-scaling spells) are independent of spell preparation. You could give those same benefits to a Psion without changing their core mechanic. In fact, the Spell Point Wizard does just that. The only spells a SP Wizard has that don't auto-scale are blasting spells, and that is a subpar tactic anyway.


Extra juice and theoretically cheaper access to certain effects.

As above, "extra juice" is debatable.The SP Wizard can prepare a single copy of each spell he knows and never need multiples, which means he is much more likely to have a needed spell handy when the Vancian Wizard does not.

They also don't need to gain/spend a focus in order to use metamagic, so they can stack metamagic to their heart's content just as Vancian Wizards can.

Finally, he doesn't have to pick his metamagic in advance, limiting its usefulness. (For instance: the Vancian Wizard could empower that fireball, but that's one less teleport when you might need one.)


In the amount of juice they've used.

443 power points buys roughly the top half of a sorcerer's spell slots.

That's an exaggeration. A Sorcerer's base spells/day at 20 converted into PP work out to 486. That is not 343*2. (A Wizard's works out to 324.)


And metamagic can be pretty damned hardcore when you're not limited to two metamagic feats every two rounds (and you blew three feats just to use that many).

As above, you don't need to stack metamagic to be effective, a Wizard typically cannot stack much more than a psion anyway without cheese, and he has to do so in advance anyway, running the risk of bringing a nuke to a knife-fight at best, and at worse filling a high-level slot that could have held a more useful spell.


I'm comparing an arbitrary self-imposed limitation with a trade.

Stacking metamagic is not a good enough reason for me to give up the granularity of a points-based system for a modular one; especially when spell point Wizards get all the benefit of that stacking

Now, giving it up simply because you like Vancian better is perfectly agreeable in my book; to each his own.


Well, it's true. There is an ideal level for it. If you go over, then you're in trouble.

I don't see how. Psions stay useful and powerful throughout their progression, as do wizards.


In a Core + XPH and Serpent Kingdoms game, would you want to play a level kobold egotist 14/sorcerer 1?

Why the dip rather than egoist 15?
I don't really like Kobolds in any case, but I could play an egoist anything, that doesn't have LA or an Int penalty.

[Draz74]

Why the dip rather than egoist 15?
I don't really like Kobolds in any case, but I could play an egoist anything, that doesn't have LA or an Int penalty.

It's a Pun-Pun reference. The "Serpent Kingdoms" inclusion was supposed to give it away. The Sorcerer dip is so you get a familiar. This was the original Pun-Pun build.

[Optimystik]

Hence why I don't like Kobolds :smallsigh:

I suspected, but by the time I learned of Pun-Pun they had already refined him to the Paladin of Tyranny build, so I wasn't sure that was what l_m was going for.

[lesser_minion]

Spoilered for length.


Again, "less juice" is debatable. It relies on a number of factors that you haven't elaborated on.
If what your party needs is another teleport and the wizard is out of 5th-level slots, he is the one "out of juice," not the Psion, who can use both his higher and lower "slots" to fuel the required power thanks to the increased granularity of his system. Your Wizard might have a full complement of Prestidigitations left or even a Dominate Person, but none of that will help the party get where they're going.

Out of a specific spell is not equal to "out of spells altogether", is it?


As for metamagic, all the psion is unable to do is stack it; in most cases, a Wizard cannot either, barring metamagic reduction cheese from PrCs - which says more about those PrCs than the Wizard himself. And the Wizard still cannot employ metamagic on the fly.

In exchange, he doesn't have to blow a move action every time he wants to use metamagic.


The benefits of being a wizard (better spell lists and auto-scaling spells) are independent of spell preparation. You could give those same benefits to a Psion without changing their core mechanic. In fact, the Spell Point Wizard does just that. The only spells a SP Wizard has that don't auto-scale are blasting spells, and that is a subpar tactic anyway.

That doesn't mean it's not a theoretical benefit. Blasting spells aren't part of the substrate, are they?


As above, "extra juice" is debatable.The SP Wizard can prepare a single copy of each spell he knows and never need multiples, which means he is much more likely to have a needed spell handy when the Vancian Wizard does not.


Yet the Vancian wizard gets more raw spell output.

It's worth bearing in mind that if the spell point wizard didn't have some disadvantages, then it would be beyond broken. Pure upgrades are bad enough. Pure upgrades of a tier 1 class are nothing short of asking for trouble.


That's an exaggeration. A Sorcerer's base spells/day at 20 converted into PP work out to 486. That is not 343*2. (A Wizard's works out to 324.)

I said "top half". As in, about half of the sorcerer's spell slots, counting down from higher levels.


As above, you don't need to stack metamagic to be effective, a Wizard typically cannot stack much more than a psion anyway without cheese, and he has to do so in advance anyway, running the risk of bringing a nuke to a knife-fight at best, and at worse filling a high-level slot that could have held a more useful spell.


You give something, you take something. Hopefully whatever you took carries as much weight as whatever you gave.


Stacking metamagic is not a good enough reason for me to give up the granularity of a points-based system for a modular one; especially when spell point Wizards get all the benefit of that stacking

Spell point wizards are not psions.


Now, giving it up simply because you like Vancian better is perfectly agreeable in my book; to each his own.

That ignores the entire concept of a trade.

The DM shouldn't expect you to give something up and give you nothing for it.

Likewise, if you get something, you should give something up.


I don't see how. Psions stay useful and powerful throughout their progression, as do wizards.

There is an ideal amount of versatility available to a character at a given level. If you exceed it, you run into problems. If you go too low, you constrict your players. I wasn't discussing character levels.


Why the dip rather than egoist 15?
I don't really like Kobolds in any case, but I could play an egoist anything, that doesn't have LA or an Int penalty.

It's about the most extreme example of unwanted options that I could think of.



I'm not saying that the psion is bad.

But arguing that the Vancian wizard's sole balancing factor is some kind of crippling strait-jacket seems a little off the mark to me.

[Optimystik]

Out of a specific spell is not equal to "out of spells altogether", is it?

Of course not, but when what you need is that specific spell, it might as well be. Fireball doesn't help you fly, and Empowered Lightning Bolt doesn't help you get home.


In exchange, he doesn't have to blow a move action every time he wants to use metamagic.

Point, but that's hardly damning for the Psion. They can still, to quote Vaarsuvius, "tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down." They are still tier 2, which is more than high enough for most campaigns/parties.


That doesn't mean it's not a theoretical benefit. Blasting spells aren't part of the substrate, are they?

I agree that auto-scaling blasting is a benefit, but not having it is not a deal-breaker when a wizard can be highly effective doing other things (e.g. summoning/control.)


Yet the Vancian wizard gets more raw spell output.

Provided he makes the right choices each and every morning (both which spell, and how much), then yes.


You seem to be missing the fact that you don't hand out pure upgrades for no reason.
***
That ignores the entire concept of a trade.

The DM shouldn't expect you to give something up and give you nothing for it.

Likewise, if you get something, you should give something up.
***
You give something, you take something. Hopefully whatever you took carries as much weight as whatever you gave.

I combined these, because they are basically the same point. Yes, points grant spontaneity to Vancian casters that they didn't have before.

The Psion's tradeoff, you've elaborated on - lack of autoscaling on numerous spells (not just blasting ones) and the necessity of spending move actions on metamagic.

The SP Wizard's tradeoff is a lower base than even the Psion. This is offset by not needing to augment non-blasting powers, but it is still there - 232 base (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm), to be exact.


Did I not say "top half". As in, about half of the sorcerer's spell slots, counting down from higher levels?

That's still misleading wording. Your "top half" represents 70% of a sorcerer's spell load on a points basis.


Spell point wizards are not psions.

I know; that's why I said "let's compare apples to apples" in a previous post before introducing them.
They still share the concept of granular vs. modular magic.


There is an ideal amount of versatility available to a character at a given level. If you exceed it, you run into problems. If you go too low, you constrict your players. I wasn't discussing character levels.

Ah, then I misunderstood.
However, the upper limit on versatility is still there - the psion or SP wizard's spells/powers known. They do not know their entire list. So I don't see where the running into problems would come into play.


It's about the most extreme example of unwanted options that I could think of.

I don't see how Pun-Pun has anything to do with vancian vs. point-based magic.



But arguing that the Vancian wizard's sole balancing factor is some kind of crippling strait-jacket seems a little off the mark to me.

I'm not arguing that at all, and if I came across that way I apologize. I just think the merits of Vancian and Point-based should be up to the player. But the fact that a player can choose to model vancian with spell points (simply by increasing his points and restricting himself to a certain number of uses/day of given spells), but cannot model spell points with vancian, proves spell points to be the more nimble system.

[lesser_minion]

I'm not arguing that at all, and if I came across that way I apologize. I just think the merits of Vancian and Point-based should be up to the player. But the fact that a player can choose to model vancian with spell points (simply by increasing his points and restricting himself to a certain number of uses/day of given spells), but cannot model spell points with vancian, proves spell points to be the more nimble system.

A flat-head screwdriver can be used to screw in cross-head screws. That doesn't make the Phillips screwdriver redundant.

Being able to turn a system into something completely different isn't that great -- adaptability is one advantage to spell points, in that they can easily model a variety of different things. But that doesn't make them into the absolute best tool for any job, and, by extension, it doesn't make them superior to a system that might be a better fit.

[Vaynor]

Yes, they count. A lvl 1 manifester can't augment any power. Same goes for metamagic.

Not true. Level 1 psion can get Overchannel and Talented and augment their powers by 1 power point.

[Optimystik]

A flat-head screwdriver can be used to screw in cross-head screws. That doesn't make the Phillips screwdriver redundant.

Being able to turn a system into something completely different isn't that great -- adaptability is one advantage to spell points, in that they can easily model a variety of different things. But that doesn't make them into the absolute best tool for any job, and, by extension, it doesn't make them superior to a system that might be a better fit.

But it does make them superior in an objective sense. If you could only choose between a Phillips-head and a Flat-head screwdriver, the smart choice would be the flat-head, as then you could then screw and unscrew any screw you came across, whereas a Philips head would only work on Philips screws. That's all I was getting at.

[Snake-Aes]

Not true. Level 1 psion can get Overchannel and Talented and augment their powers by 1 power point.

i do believe adding exceptions to the explanation of the basic rule isn't a good idea.

[Tetsubo 57]

I've often thought of doing a similar campaign. A world without true arcane magic. I would use psionics, Warlocks and possible some form of divine caster. Possibly just the Druid? But the amount of rethinking required to pull it off has always daunting to me.

Are there any pure psionic campaign settings out there already for 3.5/PF?

Have there ever been rules for psions to create their own powers?

[Optimystik]

I've often thought of doing a similar campaign. A world without true arcane magic. I would use psionics, Warlocks and possible some form of divine caster. Possibly just the Druid? But the amount of rethinking required to pull it off has always daunting to me.

Are there any pure psionic campaign settings out there already for 3.5/PF?

There's an all-psionic setting in Hyperconscious + Untapped Potential (The Dark Plea), complete with a dream world and new forms of psionic combat (the Mindscape battle.) It uses 3.5 rules.

Untapped Potential has an SRD (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/), including awesome racial substitution levels for the base psionic classes, brand new classes, PrCs and powers.

Parts of Eberron are primarily psionic (mostly Sarlona)

Dark Sun is very much a psionic world, but unfortunately went from 2e to 4e.


Have there ever been rules for psions to create their own powers?

Yes, Psions can research new powers just as Wizards/sorcerers can research new spells.

[Flob]

I know that this thread is about why psionics are supposed to be horrible, and I have heard one arguement that I think makes sense. Back in 3e, psionics were underpowered (correct me please, I'm sure I'm wrong), and they get a bad wrap from older players than I.

Now, if you do allow psionics your your campaign (I'm talking to all here now), please, for the LOVE OF WHATEVER DIETY YOU MAY WORSHIP, allow for psionic equivilants of magic items. I have a DM who isn't letting me get a Metapsionic Rod of Maximize, simply because he doesn't like the "work involved". Sorry, completely unrelated there, but it annoys me beyond belief.

[Beelzebub1111]

Binding is a good alternative to vancian magic if you ask me...more like ritual magic.

Warlocks are a decent alternative, completely non-vancian. If you can find it, SlayersD20 has a system based on how well a player can remember an incantation.

[Optimystik]

Now, if you do allow psionics your your campaign (I'm talking to all here now), please, for the LOVE OF WHATEVER DIETY YOU MAY WORSHIP, allow for psionic equivilants of magic items. I have a DM who isn't letting me get a Metapsionic Rod of Maximize, simply because he doesn't like the "work involved". Sorry, completely unrelated there, but it annoys me beyond belief.

Well, there is just one more layer of complexity - would such a rod require you to expend your focus, or not? Presumably it pays the extra PP for you, but does that mean you can augment the power more, or would those free PP still be counted in the total you can spend on the power?

I'm not saying it couldn't be created, but your DM does have to think about and balance those things.