PDA

View Full Version : Why I prefer 3.0 psionics.



Darklord Xavez
2010-09-14, 07:48 PM
Than 3.5 psionics, in my opinion. The rules for 3.0 are straightforwards and simple, even getting into psionic combat modes (which I love the idea of, which is another reason why I like 3.0 psionics more). In fact, it's even simpler than the warlock, it just has a little more bookkeeping involved. I also like how most of the abilities granted by feats cost power points, as opposed to the "psionic focus" which would seem complicated to a less experienced player. Yes, I know, the 3.5 version is "better" in your opinions, but I still like the 3.0 stuff better.

What do you think?
-Xavez

Eldariel
2010-09-14, 07:53 PM
What do you think?
-Xavez


Yes, I know, the 3.5 version is "better" in your opinions, but I still like the 3.0 stuff better.

Pretty much sums it up. You can find 3.5 Psionic Combat rules from Hyperconscious and Untapped Potential if you missed those. They're pretty flavorful so I use them. 3.0 Psionics tho are a mess both balance- and usability-wise. 3.5 is the most elegant casting system printed yet and notably better on balance than Vancian casting (though of course, has its own set of issues, mostly powers which replicate broken spells...and few action/PP loops). The use of Psionic Focus is one of the huge breakthroughs that makes the whole work and avoids tons of brokenness while also providing extra tools for the player.

Besides, how complex could the concept of "I've got X, then I expend X and need to regain it to use it again" possibly be?

Mystic Muse
2010-09-14, 08:08 PM
I suggest you change the thread title. Right now it's just asking for an argument.

KillianHawkeye
2010-09-14, 08:22 PM
Psionic combat modes in 3.0 required a table lookup to use them at all. You also needed to have a different ability score to use powers from each discipline. Overall, the 3.5 system is way simpler and easier to use.

Mystic Muse
2010-09-14, 08:37 PM
Psionic combat modes in 3.0 required a table lookup to use them at all. You also needed to have a different ability score to use powers from each discipline. Overall, the 3.5 system is way simpler and easier to use.

While I'm not saying anything either way, because I don't have enough experience with either, simpler doesn't Necessarily mean better.

Starbuck_II
2010-09-14, 09:06 PM
Than 3.5 psionics, in my opinion. The rules for 3.0 are straightforwards and simple, even getting into psionic combat modes (which I love the idea of, which is another reason why I like 3.0 psionics more). In fact, it's even simpler than the warlock, it just has a little more bookkeeping involved. I also like how most of the abilities granted by feats cost power points, as opposed to the "psionic focus" which would seem complicated to a less experienced player. Yes, I know, the 3.5 version is "better" in your opinions, but I still like the 3.0 stuff better.

What do you think?
-Xavez

Think about fact that enemies get psionic combat powers for free. Remember you have to put up a defense (costing you PP) or suffer a penalty to your saves.
Remember PP isn't a large amount for most classes.

Yeah, it wasn't fun.

KillianHawkeye
2010-09-14, 09:16 PM
While I'm not saying anything either way, because I don't have enough experience with either, simpler doesn't Necessarily mean better.

It does in this case.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-14, 09:25 PM
This is how 3.0 Psi worked:


I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: Head down, silently weeping into his hands.

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

Ozymandias9
2010-09-14, 09:40 PM
3.0 psionics is something I found very useful when its the only power system involved. You essentially treat each of the Psion specializations as a separate class and voila. Attack/defense modes were interesting, but could probably have been streamlined a bit. When it comes down to it, a party composed of differently specialized 3.0 psions (toss in a PW if you like) would be a fairly well balanced and diverse party. The power list is even neatly organized by discipline.

Then you toss in a wizard. The big issue is that the system resulted in characters that were wholesale weaker than vancian casters. The way they made sure to pepper certain things through the psionic disciplines (various damage spell options, for example) indicates to me that they made some effort to balance the specialties against each other. The very presumption of limiting disciplines by multiple prime requisites indicates to me that they made little effort to make it stand up against core casters.

TL:DR? I like 3.0 psionics as D20 Psionics, but it doesn't stand up well as D&D psionics without huge adjustment (and 3.5 does).

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-15, 03:43 AM
I have to agree with Antidjinn's sentiments. 3.0 psionics were a messy and non-intuitive morass and generally poorly designed. That they were, by comparison, much better than those in AD&D should tell you how truly bizarre and ridiculous those rules were1. While I had the psionics rules for AD&D, I never did use them in anger (for which I think I should be grateful). We didn't bother with psionics much until the XPH which made the 3.5 system actually workable. In fact, I think my 3.0 psionics book got used for a couple of psionic monsters and that was it.

Not only is 3.5's system better than 3.0's system, 3.5 psionics are arguably a better casting mechanic than 3.x's actually magic system, period! (Though not quite so much I want to use the former for the latter exclusively as some people do. )



1The sheer inanity of "roll as high as possible, but not above your score, your exact score is a critical success and a 20 is a random event" just baffled me. Why they choose this crazy method is a matter between them and whatever they were on at the time, and I suspect a combination of hard drugs and high-level debilitating enchantments. I mean, seriously, it's not even like ability checks in AD&D weren't "roll under" anyway. Why the hell they didn't use "roll under your score, 1 is critical success, 20 is a fumble" is a complete mystery. We're not even talking THAC0-level non-intuitive here. AD&D's psi system was just...perverse.

Kobold-Bard
2010-09-15, 08:41 AM
This is how 3.0 Psi worked:

I can't even begin to describe how happy I am I never played 3.0 if his was the level of insanity that was abounding back then. I nearly had a seizure Reading that.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 08:42 AM
Oh wow. Those AD&D rules. That's just... ridiculously arbitrary.

The 3.0 ones sound terrible, too.

Tengu_temp
2010-09-15, 08:55 AM
I can't even begin to describe how happy I am I never played 3.0 if his was the level of insanity that was abounding back then. I nearly had a seizure Reading that.

Only psionics worked like that. Everything else was like 3.5, only less balanced and with more useless stuff - for example, you had to get 2 feats to use TWF without massive penalties, one of which required 15 dexterity.

Esser-Z
2010-09-15, 08:57 AM
Only psionics worked like that. Everything else was like 3.5, only less balanced and with more useless stuff - for example, you had to get 2 feats to use TWF without massive penalties, one of which required 15 dexterity.

As opposed to one that requires 15 dex. :smalltongue:

Prime32
2010-09-15, 09:48 AM
Only psionics worked like that. Everything else was like 3.5, only less balanced and with more useless stuff - for example, you had to get 2 feats to use TWF without massive penalties, one of which required 15 dexterity.Also, damage reduction was based on the enhancement bonus of your weapon rather than special materials - you might need a +3 weapon to harm demons. Special properties equivalent to +3 don't count.

Rather than having light, one-handed and two-handed weapons, weapons used the same size categories as creatures. Except that a Medium weapon was not actually Medium in size.

And everything in 3.5 that gives boosts to caster level gave boosts to the save DCs of spells, which could make them almost impossible to resist.

Draz74
2010-09-15, 10:03 AM
1The sheer inanity of "roll as high as possible, but not above your score, your exact score is a critical success and a 20 is a random event" just baffled me. Why they choose this crazy method is a matter between them and whatever they were on at the time, and I suspect a combination of hard drugs and high-level debilitating enchantments. I mean, seriously, it's not even like ability checks in AD&D weren't "roll under" anyway. Why the hell they didn't use "roll under your score, 1 is critical success, 20 is a fumble" is a complete mystery. We're not even talking THAC0-level non-intuitive here. AD&D's psi system was just...perverse.

From what I remember, 2e Skill checks used the same mechanic, although "critical successes" were usually less important.

It's definitely less intuitive than "roll high" or "roll low," but I wouldn't say "perverse." The fact that different d20 results are good at different times actually has a sort of charm to it. For one thing (as the books mentioned in one place), it makes using a loaded die bad. (Not that such cheating is a big problem at many RPG tables.)

Eldariel
2010-09-15, 10:04 AM
Only psionics worked like that. Everything else was like 3.5, only less balanced and with more useless stuff - for example, you had to get 2 feats to use TWF without massive penalties, one of which required 15 dexterity.

Dips were better tho; Ranger 1 gave both, Ambidexterity and TWF and Pally 1 had all the Pally-stuff you could ever want. And Monk...well, Monk sucked even more than it did (which is to say, a lot) especially if you ever multiclassed but its first level granted Evasion in addition to Stunning Fist (which wasn't a feat back then) and Unarmed Strikes (which was even more nebulous back then than now; there was a separate BAB table for Monk Unarmed Strikes and some such nonsense).

Oh, and Animal Stat buffs were hour/level and you could Empower them so you quickly reached a point where peoples' stat buffs all came from the Animal Stat spells since they capped out at +7 and were free. And Druids were "able to have animal companions up to twice their Druid-level in HD, but only up to their Druid-level follows them around", whatever that means. Apparently you could befriend a local Bear and have it rip some place up on level 3, but it wouldn't follow you around. And yeah, of course, animal companions didn't advance in any ways but you had to get new ones if you wanted for them to be capable of combat.

lsfreak
2010-09-15, 10:14 AM
I know very little about 3.0 psionics, except that it was massively MAD. That enough was enough for me to never really look at it; the other things people have said here make it clear to me that 3.0 psionics was a horrible mess of complexity and balance.

Slightly on-topic question: Worth buying the entire Hyperconscious ebook, or better to get the barebones version without the updates from other books? I've never looked at any of the three books, so I've no idea.

Boren
2010-09-15, 10:42 AM
The one thing I liked about 3.0 vs 3.5 was that all the powers were tied to different ability scores. To me this was an appropriate trade off to the huge flexibility of working off a power point system vs a spell levels per day system. A sorcerer can't burn all 6 of his first level spells for the day to cast a 6th level spell where as a psionic caster essentially can. To me it felt like a good balance but that's my opinion.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-15, 11:02 AM
Slightly on-topic question: Worth buying the entire Hyperconscious ebook, or better to get the barebones version without the updates from other books? I've never looked at any of the three books, so I've no idea.

Yes, it is.

LibraryOgre
2010-09-15, 11:09 AM
From what I remember, 2e Skill checks used the same mechanic, although "critical successes" were usually less important.

It's definitely less intuitive than "roll high" or "roll low," but I wouldn't say "perverse." The fact that different d20 results are good at different times actually has a sort of charm to it. For one thing (as the books mentioned in one place), it makes using a loaded die bad. (Not that such cheating is a big problem at many RPG tables.)

Not just loaded dice, but simply biased dice. While most dice are fairly random, most everyone knows someone who has a "lucky die" that seldom fails. It doesn't mean they cheated... just that the die is miscast or in some other way has a bias. The numbers involved aren't that much different than a 3.x "d20, high is always good", but they are less favorable to biased dice.

A similar system was used in Holistic Design's "Fading Suns" game, and it's got some connections to percentile systems (in fact, in redesigning percentile systems, I tend to use it as an inspiration).

Tengu_temp
2010-09-15, 11:31 AM
The one thing I liked about 3.0 vs 3.5 was that all the powers were tied to different ability scores. To me this was an appropriate trade off to the huge flexibility of working off a power point system vs a spell levels per day system. A sorcerer can't burn all 6 of his first level spells for the day to cast a 6th level spell where as a psionic caster essentially can. To me it felt like a good balance but that's my opinion.

You do realize that 3.5 psionics have very little powers per day in practice, right? You either burn off all your PPs on a few strong powers, or use weak, inconsequential ones all day. Casters, on the other hand, can burn all their strongest spells and they still have the lower-level ones available just fine.

Ozymandias9
2010-09-15, 11:36 AM
I know very little about 3.0 psionics, except that it was massively MAD. That enough was enough for me to never really look at it; the other things people have said here make it clear to me that 3.0 psionics was a horrible mess of complexity and balance.

The only part that was really needlessly complex was psionic combat. Some people loved it, lots of people ignored it.

If you have access to a copy of the book, I would actually recommend giving it a whirl the next time you consider a psionics only game. It's really not so much MAD as you might think (at least in my opinion)- it's more like playing a Duskblade and having a few spells thrown in from the beguiler list because you have somewhat high Cha. They call the disciplines "sub-classes" in the book for a reason.

I would recommend ignoring the psionic combat rules unless you're big on tables. I've found a few times where I liked them, but the system isn't intuitive in the least.

Greenish
2010-09-15, 11:54 AM
A sorcerer can't burn all 6 of his first level spells for the day to cast a 6th level spell where as a psionic caster essentially can.Of course, a 6th level power costs 11 pp in 3.5, while six 1st level powers would be 6 pp.

And sorcerer can still cast the 1st level spells after casting her 6th level spell, all at full power because they autoscale.

Starbuck_II
2010-09-15, 12:16 PM
The one thing I liked about 3.0 vs 3.5 was that all the powers were tied to different ability scores. To me this was an appropriate trade off to the huge flexibility of working off a power point system vs a spell levels per day system. A sorcerer can't burn all 6 of his first level spells for the day to cast a 6th level spell where as a psionic caster essentially can. To me it felt like a good balance but that's my opinion.

Morbo says: Psionics doesn't work that.

5 1st levels = a 3rd not a 6th. Your math is terrible horrible bad.
Here is cost break down (assuming no augmentation):
Also you are limited by Manifester in number of pp that can be used in one manifesting. So till you have 3 manifester no 2nd level powers possible (because you need 3 manifester for 3 pp)
1 pp= 1st
3 = 2nd
5= 3rd
7= 4th
9= 5th
11= 6th.

And yes Sorcerors can combine spell slots Races of Dragon grants them Versatile Spellcaster as a feat.
Since Sorcerors have more effective pp than Psions (assuming same number of level slots) they win out by taking the feat.

Remember, Sorcerors have 0th levels unlike Psions (2 0th = a 1st with the feat).

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-15, 12:54 PM
From what I remember, 2e Skill checks used the same mechanic, although "critical successes" were usually less important.

Ability checks in AD&D (I just checked in my '89 AD&D PHB, which is the same edition as the AD&D Psionics Handbook) were "Roll equal or under your ability score". There weren't any critical successes or failures (or even automatic sucesses or failures, actually). They certainly didn't have a special result for rolling exactly your score, or some preset oddity (usually A Bad Thing) that happened when you rolled a natural 20 like AD&D Psionics did for it's power checks.


It's definitely less intuitive than "roll high" or "roll low," but I wouldn't say "perverse."

I certainly would, though. Not only is it counter-intuitive, but the intutive alternative is even so much more obvious. AD&D was already schisophernic with roll up or roll down anyway, so why they writers didn't just opt for the most obvious solution, I really cannot fathom.


The fact that different d20 results are good at different times actually has a sort of charm to it. For one thing (as the books mentioned in one place), it makes using a loaded die bad. (Not that such cheating is a big problem at many RPG tables.)

Designing your entire gaming system mechanic around unavoidable possible physical variations in your random number generators - or worse, cheating fracktards in your game - is a really stupid way to go about writing rules, I'm afraid.

AD&D's Psionic system was just terrible, it really was; it was easily the worst part of the whole rules set (and that's saying something when you consider AD&D's minuate as a whole!) Like I said, by comparison, 3.0 was a work of genius, in the same way that the M Night Shamalaladingdong's Last Airbender was a work of genius in comparison to shaving off your face with a cheese grater. (Okay, maybe a bad example...)

AD&D had many flaws; some of which are at least reasonably defensible. The AD&D Psionics Handbook is not among them. It was to AD&D what the Complete Psionics (or the Truenamer) are to 3.5.



I second the recommendation for Hyperconcious (I bought it in hardcopy myself), and add that if you don't already have Untapped Potential, go buy it now, it's fracking stupidly awesome.

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-15, 12:54 PM
In 3.0 psionics, Psions did have 0-level powers. They got a certain number of them free per day, and after that they cost the same as 1st-level powers.

Starbuck_II
2010-09-15, 01:00 PM
In 3.0 psionics, Psions did have 0-level powers. They got a certain number of them free per day, and after that they cost the same as 1st-level powers.

One of the few good rules that 3.5 lost.

Boren
2010-09-15, 01:32 PM
Morbo says: Psionics doesn't work that.

5 1st levels = a 3rd not a 6th. Your math is terrible horrible bad.
Here is cost break down (assuming no augmentation):
Also you are limited by Manifester in number of pp that can be used in one manifesting. So till you have 3 manifester no 2nd level powers possible (because you need 3 manifester for 3 pp)
1 pp= 1st
3 = 2nd
5= 3rd
7= 4th
9= 5th
11= 6th.

And yes Sorcerors can combine spell slots Races of Dragon grants them Versatile Spellcaster as a feat.
Since Sorcerors have more effective pp than Psions (assuming same number of level slots) they win out by taking the feat.

Remember, Sorcerors have 0th levels unlike Psions (2 0th = a 1st with the feat).

Ummmm....
1. Why is having the same caster restrictions a bad thing?
2. If you want to talk cheese there are plenty of ways around that.
3.Psions do it without a feat
4. Why dose it matter? My point still stands that without funky feats Psions have a greater net flexibility with there powers I mean if you want to start talking feats and items bring in the rings of psionics and the power point feats and lets go nuts.
I always felt that needed a balance.

Da Beast
2010-09-15, 01:32 PM
I know very little about 3.0 psionics, except that it was massively MAD. That enough was enough for me to never really look at it; the other things people have said here make it clear to me that 3.0 psionics was a horrible mess of complexity and balance.

3.0 psionics wasn't MAD, it was AAD. Psionic characters were All-Ability-Dependent. If you want high level powers from multiple disciplines then you'd better hope you rolled extremely well. This was not only harsh to the point of cruelty towards the players, it was also nonsensical. Why do I need above average dexterity, a stat tied to agility and reflexes, to teleport? How do strength based egotism powers work? Am I generating psychic power through the strength of my rippling pecs? Add in all the previously mentioned sillyness and the fact that psionic characters came in two flavors of balance, underpowered and broken, and I'd say 3.0 psionics was the worst casting system 3.X had until true naming came along. Actually, I'm not even sure I can really say that since it's so easy to fix true naming by house ruling the skill DCs. Psionics needed to be massively overhauled to get a decent system out of it.

Da Beast
2010-09-15, 01:38 PM
Ummmm....
1. Why is having the same caster restrictions a bad thing?
2. If you want to talk cheese there are plenty of ways around that.
3.Psions do it without a feat
4. Why dose it matter? My point still stands that without funky feats Psions have a greater net flexibility with there powers I mean if you want to start talking feats and items bring in the rings of psionics and the power point feats and lets go nuts.
I always felt that needed a balance.

The problem is with the design of the sorcerer, not the psion. The psion is what spontaneous casting should be. Their ability to spend their casting resources however they'd like is fun and doesn't unbalance them so why should it be taken away? This is kind of like people complaining that warblades can do things fighters can't. While that's certainly true, it's the PHB class that could have used some more work, not the perfectly fine and much more fun class from the splat book.

Edit: Woops, I was trying to add on to my last post, not make a new one. Let's all just pretend that these are both the same post :smallredface:

Greenish
2010-09-15, 01:50 PM
Ummmm....
1. Why is having the same caster restrictions a bad thing?What? Who said it's a bad thing?


2. If you want to talk cheese there are plenty of ways around that.Who's talking about cheese? Oh, right, you. Well, there was a term for the argument that claims that "X is okay because it can be houseruled".

3.Psions do it without a featSo?


4. Why dose it matter? My point still stands that without funky feats Psions have a greater net flexibility with there powers I mean if you want to start talking feats and items bring in the rings of psionics and the power point feats and lets go nuts.
I always felt that needed a balance.That balance would be that psionic powers do not automatically scale, like spells do. Psion can manifest 11 1st level powers (though if you want any mileage out of them, you've gotta pay more, which is equivalent to using higher level spells) or a 6th level power. Sorcerers can cast all their 1st level spells and 6th level spells.

Mystic Muse
2010-09-15, 02:07 PM
Who's talking about cheese? Oh, right, you. Well, there was a term for the argument that claims that "X is okay because it can be houseruled".

That would be the Stormwind Fallacy. I follow something similar but different.

"I don't care about the brokenness of the game because I trust my cousins to not be jerks"

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 02:11 PM
That would be the Stormwind Fallacy. I follow something similar but different.

"I don't care about the brokenness of the game because I trust my cousins to not be jerks"

No, no, stormwind fallacy is something else entirely.

There is a rule for that, though. And yeah, houseruling can, with effort, fix anything. Not really ideal to use that when evaluating systems.

Personally, 3.5 psionics trump 3.0 psionics. I found the PP system vastly more intuitive.

Mystic Muse
2010-09-15, 02:12 PM
No, no, stormwind fallacy is something else entirely.


Really? My bad.

Drascin
2010-09-15, 02:12 PM
That would be the Stormwind Fallacy. I follow something similar but different.


I think it was Oberoni, not Stormwind, actually.

Boci
2010-09-15, 02:13 PM
That would be the Stormwind Fallacy. I follow something similar but different.

"I don't care about the brokenness of the game because I trust my cousins to not be jerks"

Oberoni Fallacy actually. Stormwind is the mistaken belief that a suboptimal character automatically leads to better roleplaying and vice versa.

Edit: Swordsaged.

Mystic Muse
2010-09-15, 02:14 PM
Oberoni Fallacy actually.

Oh yeah, Stormwind is that Optimizing a character detracts from their roleplay value right?

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-15, 02:14 PM
Stormwind is "there is an inverse relationship between roleplaying ability and optimisation". That is, if you optimise well, you suck at roleplaying.

Mystic Muse
2010-09-15, 02:15 PM
I'm just going to shut up before there's any more Swordsaging.

Boci
2010-09-15, 02:16 PM
Oh yeah, Stormwind is that Optimizing a character detracts from their roleplay value right?

Automatically, IIRC. A lot of people mis-quote it as being optimization cannot harm roleplay, which was the belief of the poster Stormwind_Tempest, but was not included in his fallacy.

Oslecamo
2010-09-15, 02:29 PM
A lot of people mis-quote it as being optimization cannot harm roleplay, which was the belief of the poster Stormwind_Tempest, but was not included in his fallacy.

It's the other way around. That's precisely what his personal fake fallacy he posted said, and then people managed to scrap the other point out of it. I still remember the Wotc boards endless discussions on the matter. Doesn't change the original and final words of the author.

Of course feel free to start the Boci Fallacy, just make sure you word it properly this time.:smalltongue:

Boci
2010-09-15, 02:43 PM
It's the other way around. That's precisely what his personal fake fallacy he posted said, and then people managed to scrap the other point out of it. I still remember the Wotc boards endless discussions on the matter. Doesn't change the original and final words of the author.

He seems pretty reasonable here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19572982/The_OberoniQube_and_StormwindQube_Fallacy


Of course feel free to start the Boci Fallacy, just make sure you word it properly this time.:smalltongue:

I like the fallacy that states: "Just because someone uses a fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong and poiting one out does not automatically exempt you from the need to address their points."

Oslecamo
2010-09-15, 02:50 PM
I like the fallacy that states: "Just because someone uses a fallacy doesn't mean they are wrong and poiting one out does not automatically exempt you from the need to address their points."

I fully endorse that one. If there's a D&D fallacy that's really needed it's that one.

Boci
2010-09-15, 03:09 PM
I fully endorse that one. If there's a D&D fallacy that's really needed it's that one.

If I'm the first to come up with it I'd happily coin it as the boci fallacy, but I'm pretty sure numberous others have beaten me to it.

Keld Denar
2010-09-15, 03:34 PM
I was in a Half Price Books the other week, and I saw an old 2e book on Illithids. I almost bought it just for the level of detail they went into (even more than Lords of Madness. WAY more). It used the 2e psionics rules though. I was looking through it wondering "WTF is MTHAC0 and MAC?". Then I realized that it stood for Mental THAC0 and Mental AC, and I went WTF? again. Then I tried reading through some of the powers and their interactions with each other and went WTF? again.

I've taken Calculus, Differential Equations, and a load of 400 level engineering courses concerning transforming 3-dimensional stress/strain fields from one orientation to another with complex matrix transformations and theorums, but I have NEVER been so befuddled in my life. I think the book used Ego Whip on me, and I didn't get my Intellect Fortress defense up in time.

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-15, 03:48 PM
...Doesn't Ego Whip damage Charisma?

Or was that Id Insinuation?

Greenish
2010-09-15, 04:04 PM
...Doesn't Ego Whip damage Charisma?
3.5 Ego Whip damages Charisma, but it seems 2e Ego Whip damages sanity.

Darklord Xavez
2010-09-15, 04:27 PM
Pretty much sums it up. You can find 3.5 Psionic Combat rules from Hyperconscious and Untapped Potential if you missed those.

And if I do not have (and cannot find) either of those books, then what?
-Xavez
P.S. Ego Whip damages dexterity.
P.S. (again!) The main flaw of the 3.0 system that I have found is that the psionic warrior is too weak. Introduce a psionic version of bull's strength/bear's endurance/cat's grace rolled into one (and add body adjustment/lesser body adjustment to its power list) and then it's pretty good.

Boci
2010-09-15, 04:30 PM
And if I do not have (and cannot find) either of those books, then what?
-Xavez
P.S. Ego Whip damages dexterity.

See if someone already did it in homebrew?

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 04:41 PM
Ebay has Hyperconcious up now, and it was the first place I checked...so, presumably looking harder is a solution. Some books you may have to check for every so often before you find them, but the internet is a wonderful resource for out of print books.

Darklord Xavez
2010-09-15, 04:48 PM
See if someone already did it in homebrew?

My DM doesn't use internet homebrew; he has enough already.


Ebay has Hyperconcious up now, and it was the first place I checked...so, presumably looking harder is a solution. Some books you may have to check for every so often before you find them, but the internet is a wonderful resource for out of print books.

I don't use ebay, amazon is much more reliable and scam-free. Also, is the basic book for 3.5 psionics the expanded psionics handbook?
-Xavez

Boci
2010-09-15, 04:51 PM
Also, is the basic book for 3.5 psionics the expanded psionics handbook?
-Xavez

Yes, yes it is.

Darklord Xavez
2010-09-15, 04:53 PM
Yes, yes it is.

That had me confused for quite a while, and is how I ended up with the 3.0 version in the first place.
-Xavez

ericgrau
2010-09-15, 04:54 PM
Ego whip damages charisma. Which reminds me of the one minor issue I have with psionics. It's stackable damage that can bring someone's charisma below 1, and charisma is a common dump stat. Unlike ray of enfeeblement which is still a nice spell but doesn't have any of that hoo-ha thanks to carefully thought out limitations within the spell. 3.5 psionics seems nice but it needs some of the limitations cleanup that 3.5 spellcasting has.

I also agree that there needs to be some kind of fallacy fallacy out there, as most fallacies are not all encompassing. In the case of stormwind optimizing can coexist with good roleplaying, but this is not always the case. There's also a lot of optimizing, especially the crazier stuff, that limits your roleplaying options. When you talk about the kind of optimizing that says 3.5 is so flexible that it can let you build just about any character concept effectively, that's awesome. When you talk about the kind of optimizing that says "if you're playing an X then you MUST do Y", that's not cool brotha.

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-15, 05:11 PM
The Stormwind Fallacy is that optimising automatically reduces roleplaying, as though it were a single axis.

Yes, some optimisers suck at roleplaying and some roleplayers suck at optimising. Yes, some roleplaying decisions can reduce your optimisation options, and vice versa. So?

ericgrau
2010-09-15, 05:17 PM
Yeah, that's great and all, but often that's not how the Stormwind Fallacy is quoted. Hence the need for the fallacy fallacy where you can't just toss out a fallacy and leave it at that.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-15, 05:18 PM
The main flaw of the 3.0 system that I have found is that the psionic warrior is too weak. Introduce a psionic version of bull's strength/bear's endurance/cat's grace rolled into one (and add body adjustment/lesser body adjustment to its power list) and then it's pretty good.
What about the myriad flaws enumerated in this thread? You have not once even recognized the issues others have pointed out.

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-15, 05:18 PM
Yeah, that's great and all, but often that's not how the Stormwind Fallacy is quoted. Hence the need for the fallacy fallacy where you can't just toss out a fallacy and leave it at that.

There is a fallacy fallacy. It's "making a fallacious argument makes you wrong".

It doesn't. It makes your argument invalid. That's all.

People misusing fallacies isn't fallacious.

Kantolin
2010-09-15, 05:32 PM
Unlike ray of enfeeblement which is still a nice spell but doesn't have any of that hoo-ha thanks to carefully thought out limitations within the spell. 3.5 psionics seems nice but it needs some of the limitations cleanup that 3.5 spellcasting has.

Shivering Touch is the common counter to that. Most people utilize it to do their dirty work. An impressive 3d6 no-save touch-attack spell.

Ego whip is only 1d4, save for half.

3d6 averages at 10.5, and having a 10 in dexterity is pretty easy (and there are a plethora of ways of maximizing it, and it maximizes to a nasty 18, which will take out anyone who's not pumping dex). Two uses will paralyze almost anyone, one use will paralyze most people. One if you can maximize it.

Ray of Enfeeblement, despite being incapable of paralyzing people, does a scaling 1d6+(1-5) no save penalty to strength, for an average of 4.5-8.5 (Or I suppose, 6.5). One casting, thus, can make the 18-strength fighter unable to power attack things at all (Or at least heavily, heavily nerf his physcial capabilities), for a lower level spell slot than ego whip. If you can maximize it for 11, you can pretty much take any physical character and backhand them. It also empowers well (Being a first level spell and all).

Ego whip does, on average, 2.5. It will take on average 4 ego whips to paralyze someone (assuming 10 charisma), assuming they fail all five saves. If they dump charisma and are not a half-orc (Thus, 8 charisma), it will still take 4 - if they dump charisma harder than that then they probably deserve to have that gaping hole in their defenses poked at once in awhile. It also does nothing combat-wise to people who aren't using charisma. That's pretty lame.

Ego whip then augments slowly. If you augment it once, it becomes the equivalent of a 4th level power that does 2d4 charisma damage(Will half), which is rather strictly worse than enervation (Which screws /everything/ you do, no save), bestow curse (3rd level spell, -6 is better than 2d4 on average, or you can give them a flat -4 to various things, or you can give them a 50% suck rate), Ray of Exhaustion (3rd level spell, exhausted is a -6, if they succeed they still get a -2 penalty), or I dunno solid fog and confusion and greater invisibility. Or hold Person or ghoul touch or other better ways of actually paralyzing people.

And even without all that... 2d4 is an average of 4.5. You have to do it twice to catch someone who absolutely dumped charisma to 8, or three times to catch someone who has a normal charisma of 10, and they have to fail their save each time. It will then have no combat effect on these people until you do that unless they actually use charisma, in which touch of idiocy is probably the better option (1d6 > 1d4, and there's no save on the 1d6).

I mean, eh?

Not to mention, you'd think giving people incentive to /not/ dump charisma would be a good thing...

Tyndmyr
2010-09-15, 05:33 PM
Yeah, that's great and all, but often that's not how the Stormwind Fallacy is quoted. Hence the need for the fallacy fallacy where you can't just toss out a fallacy and leave it at that.

In many situations, yes, you can.

Someone comes along with some bold new argument that is entirely fallacious.

You point out that it is so. His argument is now entirely unsupported. As he is the one bringing forth the new argument, it rests on him to show that there is evidence or proof for it.

Tetsubo 57
2010-09-15, 06:04 PM
The 3.5 psionics rules are my favorite. Best spell point system for D&D ever devised. The whole attack & defense mode model bugged me from the first time I ever read them back in the 1E era. Special rules that no one else uses? Thanks I'll pass. It's like netrunning in a cyberpunk game. The rest of the players just sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the netrunner does his thing. I was so glad when I read the Expanded Psionics Handbook, made of awesome.

ericgrau
2010-09-15, 06:08 PM
Shivering Touch is the common counter to that. Most people utilize it to do their dirty work. An impressive 3d6 no-save touch-attack spell.

Which is why shivering touch is even more poorly thought out than ego whip. There's a reason spells like this get mentioned as often as they do, the other 1,000 spells that don't get so much attention cannot even compare. And spells/feats/etc. like this slipped by the editors before they realized their mistakes.

Half the time when people use stormwind fallacy their post is brief, perhaps those 2 words only, and entirely wrong. You could say something like "No, in this case that level of powergaming really is getting in the way of roleplaying b/c he's doing it in ways that don't make any sense from a story perspective", or it'd be kinda nice to call out a fallacy fallacy, where simply saying the name of a fallacy (or other concept) is not an argument. Or instead of fallacy fallacy, it could be something like "does not apply here" (DNAH), reserved for attempts to make blanket statements like naming a fallacy when it is not so clear cut. Saying that the fallacy is properly used the other half of the time doesn't make the bad half any better.

In an attempt to end this derail, what I mean is it'd be nice to make psionics fit better with the existing rules. Some bonus types need to be changed to match to prevent stacking, other rules/powers could be changed to be more similar to their PHB/DMG counterparts, etc. You know make everything more congruent to keep people from exploiting the differences or to fix loopholes that were already fixed in the PHB/DMG. I love the concept of psionics/magic transparency btw, which is already there.

lsfreak
2010-09-15, 06:43 PM
On the discussion of Expanded Psionics and Hyperconscious:
Pretty much the whole of XPH is online at d20srd.org. Unless you simply MUST have the hardback version, just go there. Hyperconscious can be bought as an ebook straight from the publisher here (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_Hyper).

I'll also point out that Lycanthromancer has an incredible rewrite of the 3.5 powers here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3080.0), which nerfs the broken stuff and buffs the useless stuff, and brings back the 0th-level powers. I don't know if he's still working on it or not, though.

Terazul
2010-09-15, 06:48 PM
I'll also point out that Lycanthromancer has an incredible rewrite of the 3.5 powers here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3080.0), which nerfs the broken stuff and buffs the useless stuff, and brings back the 0th-level powers. I don't know if he's still working on it or not, though.

I think he finished it awhile ago, but yes, It's quite amazing. It's good enough to convince every DM I've shown it to, to use it in place of the regular power lists. Nerfs the crazy stuff, but keeps it fun. Adds discipline specific augments so you can get more oomph out of certain specializations, and negative augments for when you want to tone something down. Also DC Scaling on the number of PP Spent (since not all powers had that written in). And then some new powers, and 0th-level powers are back. It's awesome.

And Yeah, UP and Hyperconscious (and a bunch of other Dreamscarred Press stuff too) can be gotten in lovely portable PDF form.

Darklord Xavez
2010-09-15, 06:55 PM
I also agree that there needs to be some kind of fallacy fallacy out there, as most fallacies are not all encompassing. In the case of stormwind optimizing can coexist with good roleplaying, but this is not always the case. There's also a lot of optimizing, especially the crazier stuff, that limits your roleplaying options. When you talk about the kind of optimizing that says 3.5 is so flexible that it can let you build just about any character concept effectively, that's awesome. When you talk about the kind of optimizing that says "if you're playing an X then you MUST do Y", that's not cool brotha.


The Stormwind Fallacy is that optimising automatically reduces roleplaying, as though it were a single axis.

Yes, some optimisers suck at roleplaying and some roleplayers suck at optimising. Yes, some roleplaying decisions can reduce your optimisation options, and vice versa. So?


What about the myriad flaws enumerated in this thread? You have not once even recognized the issues others have pointed out.


There is a fallacy fallacy. It's "making a fallacious argument makes you wrong".

It doesn't. It makes your argument invalid. That's all.

People misusing fallacies isn't fallacious.


In many situations, yes, you can.

Someone comes along with some bold new argument that is entirely fallacious.

You point out that it is so. His argument is now entirely unsupported. As he is the one bringing forth the new argument, it rests on him to show that there is evidence or proof for it.

Let's keep it to psionics, okay?
-Xavez

Yuki Akuma
2010-09-15, 06:56 PM
Let's keep it to psionics, okay?
-Xavez

You first.

Kantolin
2010-09-15, 07:07 PM
Which is why shivering touch is even more poorly thought out than ego whip.

What about the remainder of everything I stated? I compared it to more than just shivering touch. If Ego whip was a second level wizard spell, most wizards wouldn't take it over the superior options they have, even in core.


other rules/powers could be changed to be more similar to their PHB/DMG counterparts, etc.

Such as what? A sizeable chunk of psionic powers are 'as the spell, except it uses power points'. The only new rule they invented in the book insofar as how powers interact with other things is ability burn.

I mean, ego whip is a ranged touch attack that requires a will save and does ability damage, which is a listed core effect.

Now, if you mean all psionic powers should be arcane spells (and vice versa), that would make psionics far less interesting, and simultaneously far more powerful than it presently is (There isn't a psionic solid fog). Should arcane and divine casting be the same as well?

There are shenanigans that can break psionics, but far fewer of those than arcane ones (and they tend to be of the 'I do a metric ton of damage' variety [which arcane magic can do], and not 'I summon an arbitrarily large amount of solars' game-breaking variety [which psionics can do, but it takes more work]). Psionics is generally considered the less powerful and more fair system.

Edit: In addition, the similarity between the two systems is so noticable that I (who is playing a psychic warrior; most of my group avoids psionics) describe most of my powers as 'like X spell, but'. My trademark spell, expansion, is 'like enlarge person, but personal and can be augmented to go up two sizes'. The framework for 'I increase in size' is pre-existing (And I've noticed that Righteous Might is generally better than two-sizes-up-Expansion). It certainly doesn't require a new level of system mastery.

Now, binding and especially incarnum are hard to wrap your head around - I'm still making basic screwups with incarnum, as much as I love it, and explaining it to my friends is rough (except for one of my friends who just immediately figured it out better than I know it. The guy is psycho). But psionics? Make a will save or you are dominated?