Am I reading Energy Burst Correctly?

[Sheogoroth]

In Pathfinder Psionics unleashed there is an ability called Energy burst that deals 5d6 plus one d6 for every additional power point and 1 additional save dc for every 2 power points. There is apparently now cap for this.

A wilder gets 126 power points at level 11.

Can you seriously do 126d6 in a 40 ft radius with a 60 reflex for half?

[Aethir]

Psionics are hard capped on power points usable based on your Manifester Level.

[grarrrg]

In Pathfinder Psionics unleashed there is an ability called Energy burst that deals 5d6 plus one d6 for every additional power point and 1 additional save dc for every 2 power points. There is apparently now cap for this.

A wilder gets 126 power points at level 11.

Can you seriously do 126d6 in a 40 ft radius with a 60 reflex for half?

You are reading the ability correctly, but you are missing a key rule (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/psionic-powers):

you can’t spend more power points on a power than your manifester level

So an 11 level Wilder can only spend 11 points on any one use of a power. Certain things can get around this, but more on the scale of "up to 15" per power.

[Sheogoroth]

Thanks!

My friends and I took a break from our campaign to do a FFA battle royale with the DM, rolling for d100 classes/races and we've never used psionics before.

[Ernir]

Huh. It's been a while since we have had this question come up in earnest. Usually we just see people pre-emptively chorus-singing it to those who come in asking whether they should allow Psionics in their games. :smalltongue:

But yes. The above rule is rule number 1, 2, and 3 of Psionics. Everything depends on it.

[TuggyNE]

In Pathfinder Psionics unleashed there is an ability called Energy burst that deals 5d6 plus one d6 for every additional power point and 1 additional save dc for every 2 power points. There is apparently now cap for this.

Yeah, this follows the general 3.5/PF psionics rule of thumb: 1d6 energy damage/pp, capped by manifester level. (A wilder, of course, can Surge to crank their ML up a bit, but then they have a chance of being dazed and losing pp.) Now, compared to spells, there's a notable advantage, and a notable disadvantage: powers are just about never capped, except by ML, but you have to pay for each and every d6. So instead of auto-scaling by level up to a certain point, you can fine-tune just how much damage/DC increase/whatever you want against how much it will cost you.

[Mithril Leaf]

Also, if you're using full 3.5 psionics, do try to use the SRD over Complete Psi. It brought on many ill needed nerfs and generally poor stuff. A few gems, but not good overall.

[Godskook]

Also, if you're using full 3.5 psionics, do try to use the SRD over Complete Psi. It brought on many ill needed nerfs and generally poor stuff. A few gems, but not good overall.

Complete Psi is fine, as long as you hard-follow the primary source rules and see EPH as over-riding CompPsi instead of vice-versa.

[KillianHawkeye]

Complete Psi is fine, as long as you hard-follow the primary source rules and see EPH as over-riding CompPsi instead of vice-versa.

The primary source rule only concerns 3 books: the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual. It has nothing to do with psionics.

[classy one]

Umm i think a wilder can do more damage than his ML thanks to wild surge. So that's not the best example.

[grarrrg]

Umm i think a wilder can do more damage than his ML thanks to wild surge. So that's not the best example.

More levels worth of damage? Yes.
100 more levels worth of damage? Not so much.

[Ziegander]

Umm i think a wilder can do more damage than his ML thanks to wild surge. So that's not the best example.

This has already been addressed. Correctly, even.

[Mithril Leaf]

Complete Psi is fine, as long as you hard-follow the primary source rules and see EPH as over-riding CompPsi instead of vice-versa.

Precisely what I intended. Just use the rules from the SRD instead of those of Complete Psionic where applicable.

[eggs]

Seriously?

The errata-as-content-for-page-filler make a ****ty product, but they're not bad changes. The Crystal Shard/Energy X nerfs are pretty clearly typo fixes and alterations to what the designers intended (otherwise, why give Crystal Shard a damage type at all?) and even post-nerf, the powers are pretty typical blasting-wise.

And the Astral Construct nerf still leaves it as an awesome power that puts poorly-built fighters to shame while leaving the manifester free to keep psionicking - if anything, the AC nerf would probably be better expanded to Summon Monster and SNA spells as well - the things they do to the action economy are just ridiculous.

It's ridiculous that WotC would try to pad one product with errata for another, but the errata are mostly reasonable typo/oversight fixes, and one change that probably does more to improve balance than it does to hurt (unless the Conjurer or Druid is the balance goal).

[Mithril Leaf]

Seriously?

The errata-as-content-for-page-filler make a ****ty product, but they're not bad changes. The Crystal Shard/Energy X nerfs are pretty clearly typo fixes and alterations to what the designers intended (otherwise, why give Crystal Shard a damage type at all?) and even post-nerf, the powers are pretty typical blasting-wise.

And the Astral Construct nerf still leaves it as an awesome power that puts poorly-built fighters to shame while leaving the manifester free to keep psionicking - if anything, the AC nerf would probably be better expanded to Summon Monster and SNA spells as well - the things they do to the action economy are just ridiculous.

It's ridiculous that WotC would try to pad one product with errata for another, but the errata are mostly reasonable typo/oversight fixes, and one change that probably does more to improve balance than it does to hurt (unless the Conjurer or Druid is the balance goal).

I'm not claiming it isn't fair when comparing psionics vs not magic. But the point is that psionics is much close to magic than to not magic and it gives psionics many arbitrary nerfs that spells didn't have. If you play with any spellcasters, use the SRD powers. If you are playing without, use Complete Psionic's.

[Zaq]

Seriously?

The errata-as-content-for-page-filler make a ****ty product, but they're not bad changes. The Crystal Shard/Energy X nerfs are pretty clearly typo fixes and alterations to what the designers intended (otherwise, why give Crystal Shard a damage type at all?) and even post-nerf, the powers are pretty typical blasting-wise.

And the Astral Construct nerf still leaves it as an awesome power that puts poorly-built fighters to shame while leaving the manifester free to keep psionicking - if anything, the AC nerf would probably be better expanded to Summon Monster and SNA spells as well - the things they do to the action economy are just ridiculous.

It's ridiculous that WotC would try to pad one product with errata for another, but the errata are mostly reasonable typo/oversight fixes, and one change that probably does more to improve balance than it does to hurt (unless the Conjurer or Druid is the balance goal).

Sir or madam, I am afraid that you are being far too reasonable when it comes to discussing CPsi. Until you learn to demonize the very paper it is printed on, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

Yeah, seriously, CPsi has problems, but really, no more so than any other Complete. Get over it, people.

[Godskook]

The primary source rule only concerns 3 books: the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual. It has nothing to do with psionics.

I was trying to avoid that overly pendantic argument because:

1.Its never beneficial to the game as a whole to view a new source as contradicting an old one. Granted, there are a few cases where allowing both versions to exist is beneficial(such as multiple versions of the same item with slightly different stats somehow), but afaik, never one where outright ignoring original sources gives a better result.

2.It runs counter-intuitively to how D&D was meant to be played. Core gives you everything you need to run a game. All splatbooks are, in theory, supposed to do is grant diversity in how the game is played. Sticking what is essentially errata in a splatbook is detrimental to the game cause now you need every splatbook in order to make a fair ruling on any given subject, while preventing disallowing splat-errata means you can ignore splat books that aren't directly referenced in the current issue at hand.

And that's ignoring any argument over who's technically right on this one, cause frankly, I find it to be one of those things we just shouldn't argue about and just embrace as a community.