Your opinion on psionics [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Cosi

2017-02-05, 09:42 PM

There are things which need house-ruling to work in a balanced way, but it's fewer things than the regular magic system demands.

Crunch-wise, psionics is, as many have said in the past, what magic ought to have been in the first place. The problems and abuses it's possible to pull off with psionics are scattered and easy enough to disallow, unlike core magic, which pretty much requires a total revamp to knead out all the problems.

Having less broken things is not really an advantage. You're not replacing magic with psionics (this is an obviously bad plan because more people want to play Wizards or Druids or Necromancers than want to play Psions), so the broken stuff just goes on the pile. It's more broken stuff than Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum, which is what the comparison point should actually be.

I also would like Mailmar to explain the logic on Psionics needing spot fixes while Magic needs a total revamp. As far as I can tell, they both just have individual broken spells. Magic has more maybe, but it also has stuff the game needs like raise dead (psionic revivify is very obviously not good enough).

How is the resource management worse? All that's involved is subtraction and occasionally expending/recovering psionic focus which is 1 bit of data.

Psionics replaces level-tiered spell slots with a communal pool of spell points. This is obviously a bad plan, because as my original post alluded, it puts magic missile and cloudkill in the same pool, and that's just obviously not a good plan. You would trade any amount of magic missiles for a cloudkill, and allowing you to do that just means you will be less likely to cast magic missile at all. This strikes me as obviously bad because it makes characters do a smaller variety of things.

Psionics is pretty exactly regular magic with worse mechanics are stupider fluff. I really do not understand the praise it gets from people.

JKTrickster

2017-02-05, 10:07 PM

Psionics replaces level-tiered spell slots with a communal pool of spell points. This is obviously a bad plan, because as my original post alluded, it puts magic missile and cloudkill in the same pool, and that's just obviously not a good plan. You would trade any amount of magic missiles for a cloudkill, and allowing you to do that just means you will be less likely to cast magic missile at all. This strikes me as obviously bad because it makes characters do a smaller variety of things.

Psionics is pretty exactly regular magic with worse mechanics are stupider fluff. I really do not understand the praise it gets from people.

Hmm...I feel like this complaint doesn't take into account PP scaling.

Most of the best powers scale really well with more PP invested.

It's like being able to cast a level 5 Magic Missile instead of a level 5 Cloudkill.

Or save some "spell slots" and cast some Magic Missiles when the threat isn't serious enough to warrant a Cloudkill (or level 5 Magic Missile).

IF there was no augmentation, I would agree with your complaint. But with augmentation, this isn't really an issue.

You can argue that this means people will only choose the Psionic Powers with the best scaling PP improvements. Yes, but people generally choose the best Spells/Powers anyway, so I don't see how that is different.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-05, 10:08 PM

Having less broken things is not really an advantage. You're not replacing magic with psionics (this is an obviously bad plan because more people want to play Wizards or Druids or Necromancers than want to play Psions), so the broken stuff just goes on the pile.

You can easily play a psion who is fluffed as a wizard. Also, I'm not sure what is bad about having more on the pile since in any given game, there's a limited number of issues. As long as one cannot break the game accidentally, things are ok (and basically other than CoDzilla and wizards that's very hard.

I also would like Mailmar to explain the logic on Psionics needing spot fixes while Magic needs a total revamp. As far as I can tell, they both just have individual broken spells. Magic has more maybe, but it also has stuff the game needs like raise dead (psionic revivify is very obviously not good enough).

The number of broken spells in standard arcane and divine magic is much higher than in psionics and that's true even if one is restricted to core. Moreover, one fundamental problem with magic is what contributes to T1 casters- the ability to decide every day what spells one has. Psionics doesn't have that (except for erudites which are a minor aspect in a secondary splatbook). And psionic revivify is not the only way to bring back the dead. Reality revision is the other obvious example, and some see this as a good thing; having death not be so incredibly trivial is a positive. It is true that psionics doesn't do healing in general as well, and that's a problem if one wants a world where it is all psionics (although Hyperconscious did some interesting stuff to deal with that) but this a minor problem.

Psionics replaces level-tiered spell slots with a communal pool of spell points. This is obviously a bad plan, because as my original post alluded, it puts magic missile and cloudkill in the same pool, and that's just obviously not a good plan. You would trade any amount of magic missiles for a cloudkill, and allowing you to do that just means you will be less likely to cast magic missile at all. This strikes me as obviously bad because it makes characters do a smaller variety of things.

Part of why psionics has augmentation is to deal with this- you can spend more power points on low level abilities to make them stronger. And there are natural contexts where something like that makes sense (to use your example: I don't want to cloudkill when three of my buddies are right near the only enemy). Moreover, psions need to conserve power points, so they will use their weaker abilities early on, and only use their full power point abilities when the going is tough.

Psionics is pretty exactly regular magic with worse mechanics are stupider fluff. I really do not understand the praise it gets from people.

One may or may not like the fluff, but the mechanics are straightforward and are substantially closer to how your generic fantasy mage behaves. Outside D&D, preparing spells is close to non-existent, and the weirdness of the system is reflected in how little attention it gets even in D&D setting novels. Almost any generic mage from a sword and sorcery type novel does things much closer to spell points.

Lord_Gareth

2017-02-05, 10:09 PM

Psionics replaces level-tiered spell slots with a communal pool of spell points. This is obviously a bad plan, because as my original post alluded, it puts magic missile and cloudkill in the same pool, and that's just obviously not a good plan. You would trade any amount of magic missiles for a cloudkill, and allowing you to do that just means you will be less likely to cast magic missile at all. This strikes me as obviously bad because it makes characters do a smaller variety of things.

Psionics is pretty exactly regular magic with worse mechanics are stupider fluff. I really do not understand the praise it gets from people.

This would be more true if it wasn't pay-to-play at literally every level. A 1st level psionic power is not magic missile, and the higher-level ones aren't really cloudkill either. With the exception of range and sometimes duration, nothing about a psionic power scales on its own. If you want higher damage, better save DCs, or options, you pay, up front, every time.

The equivalence you're drawing is false.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-05, 10:17 PM

This would be more true if it wasn't pay-to-play at literally every level. A 1st level psionic power is not magic missile, and the higher-level ones aren't really cloudkill either. With the exception of range and sometimes duration, nothing about a psionic power scales on its own. If you want higher damage, better save DCs, or options, you pay, up front, every time.

The equivalence you're drawing is false.

Also penetrating spell resistance/power resistance goes up by manifester level but your essential point is correct and this is a very minor nitpick.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-05, 10:24 PM

On the subject of raising the dead with psionics outside of just psionic revivify; there's the healing cradle in secrets of sarlona and some extradimensional storage full of quintessence. The latter stops the timer and the former gives you a wider window for revival. Finish the fight, recover the body, return to town and revive with the cradle ASAP.

It's a bit more complicated than just getting the party cleric to cast raise dead but it works.

Nifft

2017-02-05, 10:25 PM

Having less broken things is not really an advantage. Yes, it quite obviously is an advantage.

Also, in addition to less broken things, there are fewer broken things.

So that's two very clear and obvious advantages.

You're not replacing magic with psionics (this is an obviously bad plan because more people want to play Wizards or Druids or Necromancers than want to play Psions), so the broken stuff just goes on the pile. It's more broken stuff than Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum, which is what the comparison point should actually be. That's another thing you're wrong about.

The things in the SRD should be compared against each other -- which is exactly what all of us are doing.

You're really barking up a strange tree.

Psionics replaces level-tiered spell slots with a communal pool of spell points. This is obviously a bad plan, because as my original post alluded, it puts magic missile and cloudkill in the same pool, and that's just obviously not a good plan. You would trade any amount of magic missiles for a cloudkill, and allowing you to do that just means you will be less likely to cast magic missile at all. This strikes me as obviously bad because it makes characters do a smaller variety of things.

Now you're literally trying to argue that being able to use one pool to pay for two things means you do a smaller variety of things.

That's nonsense. The latter does not follow from the former.

Tactical resource management from a single pool has a great track record in many different genres of games -- board games, table-top RPGs, arcade games, and cRPGs.

It's easier to explain to new players than Vancian slots, and easier to fit into role-playing narrative as well.

You clearly have no experience in this area, but somehow very loud opinions. Ignorance and vehemence are a bad mix, bro.

Psionics is pretty exactly regular magic with worse mechanics are stupider fluff. I really do not understand the praise it gets from people.

Luckily for all of us, your failure to comprehend is not actually a counter-argument.

The answer to your objections is: "Okay. We get that you don't get it."

Cosi

2017-02-05, 10:35 PM

You can easily play a psion who is fluffed as a wizard.

Not if you want to do, for example, Necromancy (at least, as far as I can tell).

As long as one cannot break the game accidentally, things are ok (and basically other than CoDzilla and wizards that's very hard.

None of the exploits that break the game are particularly easy to do accidentally.

The number of broken spells in standard arcane and divine magic is much higher than in psionics and that's true even if one is restricted to core.

Sure. I'm not at all contesting that. But the post I responded to is suggesting that there is a fundamentally different paradigm for the power of Wizards, Sorcerers, and the like which makes them broken in a way that requires a ground up rebuild that Psionics does not. As long as both systems just have a list of broken stuff (even if one is longer than the other), that's simply not true.

Moreover, one fundamental problem with magic is what contributes to T1 casters- the ability to decide every day what spells one has. Psionics doesn't have that (except for erudites which are a minor aspect in a secondary splatbook).

The fact that Wizards can prepare new spells every day is pretty minor. It makes downtime spells better, and it makes divinations better. Those are good spells, but if you can't build an effective Wizard without fabricate et al or legend lore et al, you're not trying.

And psionic revivify is not the only way to bring back the dead. Reality revision is the other obvious example, and some see this as a good thing; having death not be so incredibly trivial is a positive. It is true that psionics doesn't do healing in general as well, and that's a problem if one wants a world where it is all psionics (although Hyperconscious did some interesting stuff to deal with that) but this a minor problem.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, you are actually required to have a raise dead equivalent by mid levels, because at that point people start throwing around save or dies. Your choices are to get everybody in the party immunity to all of them, accept a steady stream of replacement characters, or have some raise dead effects. It seems obvious which of those is least disruptive (pro tip: it is the one Psionics doesn't do).

Moreover, psions need to conserve power points, so they will use their weaker abilities early on, and only use their full power point abilities when the going is tough.

But Wizards can also do this! The Wizard is totally able to burn lower level spell slots instead of higher level ones. The difference is that he can't light those slots on fire for more high level ones. This is a good thing.

One may or may not like the fluff, but the mechanics are straightforward and are substantially closer to how your generic fantasy mage behaves. Outside D&D, preparing spells is close to non-existent, and the weirdness of the system is reflected in how little attention it gets even in D&D setting novels. Almost any generic mage from a sword and sorcery type novel does things much closer to spell points.

I don't read a lot of sword and sorcery, but the fantasy I do read mostly doesn't use spell points. Bending seems to be at-will unless you've been hit with an attack that gives you the "can't bend" debuff. Most fantasy I've seen works on something closer to a Drain set up. What fantasy mages do you think behave like they have a bunch of power points?

This would be more true if it wasn't pay-to-play at literally every level. A 1st level psionic power is not magic missile, and the higher-level ones aren't really cloudkill either. With the exception of range and sometimes duration, nothing about a psionic power scales on its own. If you want higher damage, better save DCs, or options, you pay, up front, every time.

This makes it even worse. Lower level spells don't just have smaller numbers than higher level ones, they are also qualitatively inferior. control winds isn't just "bigger" or "stronger" than gust of wind, it lasts longer, has a wider range, and can do different things. If using a low level spell to a numerically appropriate effect costs the same as using a level appropriate spell to a numerically appropriate effect, no one will ever do it.

Lord_Gareth

2017-02-05, 10:43 PM

This makes it even worse. Lower level spells don't just have smaller numbers than higher level ones, they are also qualitatively inferior. control winds isn't just "bigger" or "stronger" than gust of wind, it lasts longer, has a wider range, and can do different things. If using a low level spell to a numerically appropriate effect costs the same as using a level appropriate spell to a numerically appropriate effect, no one will ever do it.

Except people do do it, and not out of a perverse desire to specifically do suboptimal things, but because your understanding of the situation is objectively wrong. There's not a whole lot of repeating when it comes to psionic powers; only rarely is a higher-level power a "sequel" to a lower-level one and depending on if you're in 3.X or in PF that may have been eliminated entirely. The scaling of the lower-level powers lets you pay to bring their utility into something relevant to your higher-level world.

I would suggest maybe giving the system another stern read-through before you just pass it off based on comparisons to Vancian spellcasting that aren't existent.

Coidzor

2017-02-05, 10:48 PM

One of the more balanced magic systems, the more limited pool of effects meant I never really experimented with it as much as I might have otherwise.

Certainly has its share of broken things that can be done with it, though, like infinite power point loops and infinite action combos.

Cosi

2017-02-05, 11:01 PM

The things in the SRD should be compared against each other -- which is exactly what all of us are doing.

Things should be compared with the things they trade off with (because rational people think on the margin). Which seems like a more reasonable trade off for a new magic system: the original magic system, or another new magic system?

Psionics probably has less broken things than magic. But it has more broken things than Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum or Tome of Magic, and those are the comparison points that it makes sense to use.

Or if you want to compare to things in the SRD, both magic and psionics are fine on account of they aren't Epic Spellcasting.

Now you're literally trying to argue that being able to use one pool to pay for two things means you do a smaller variety of things.

If you have spell slots, you are mandated to cast at least as many 2nd level spells as you have 2nd level slots. If you have spell points, you are not mandated to cast any 2nd level spells. Which of those seems like it results in you casting more 2nd level spells?

It's a bit more complicated than just getting the party cleric to cast raise dead but it works.

You're dipping into setting specific material (and pretty obscure setting specific material at that) to get something which the Cleric gets for waking up in the morning. This seems very iffy, and it doesn't get you anywhere on the rest of the Cleric suite. Take, for example lesser restoration. It comes online at 3rd level. The regular version shows up at 7th. Psionics doesn't get anything equivilent until 11th level (per SRD, maybe there's something in Complete Psionic or wherever).

Except people do do it, and not out of a perverse desire to specifically do suboptimal things, but because your understanding of the situation is objectively wrong. There's not a whole lot of repeating when it comes to psionic powers; only rarely is a higher-level power a "sequel" to a lower-level one and depending on if you're in 3.X or in PF that may have been eliminated entirely. The scaling of the lower-level powers lets you pay to bring their utility into something relevant to your higher-level world.

Maybe if you had, like, examples of low level powers people pump augments into? Because looking at the list, most stuff seems to get outclassed. energy bolt seems largely inferior to the higher level AoE powers. recall death seems much better than pumping up recall agony.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-05, 11:05 PM

Not if you want to do, for example, Necromancy (at least, as far as I can tell).

Yes, necromancy is one thing that psionics doesn't do well at all with the standard material. There are third party and homebrew things, but I agree that it doesn't do that naturally.

None of the exploits that break the game are particularly easy to do accidentally.

The first 3.5 character I ever played was a battlefield control wizard. I wasn't tactically smart nor had I any familiarity with any forums or the like. The character ended up making CR equivalent encounters much easier than they should have been. Different tables have different optimizations levels and for many of the low op levels of play, breaking things with wizards is pretty easy.

Sure. I'm not at all contesting that. But the post I responded to is suggesting that there is a fundamentally different paradigm for the power of Wizards, Sorcerers, and the like which makes them broken in a way that requires a ground up rebuild that Psionics does not. As long as both systems just have a list of broken stuff (even if one is longer than the other), that's simply not true.

A large enough difference in degree eventually becomes a difference in kind. To use an obvious example: if psionics only had a single power that was really problematic, would you still make the argument that it is just a single list?

The fact that Wizards can prepare new spells every day is pretty minor. It makes downtime spells better, and it makes divinations better. Those are good spells, but if you can't build an effective Wizard without fabricate et al or legend lore et al, you're not trying.

These differences matter, and they aren't the only things. Are you going to be meeting the king tomorrow? Oh, let's go prep the happy fun diplomacy spells. Are you expecting to be fighting undead? Yay, spells for that. Etc.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, you are actually required to have a raise dead equivalent by mid levels, because at that point people start throwing around save or dies. Your choices are to get everybody in the party immunity to all of them, accept a steady stream of replacement characters, or have some raise dead effects. It seems obvious which of those is least disruptive (pro tip: it is the one Psionics doesn't do).

Not really at multiple levels. First, one can always have NPCs who are higher level. Second, there's pretty strong argument that resurrection magic should have always been outside player agency in general or at least weakened. Heroes of Horror has some nice suggestions on how to do this. And if your concern is things like Save or Die by itself then psionic revivify works fine.

But Wizards can also do this! The Wizard is totally able to burn lower level spell slots instead of higher level ones. The difference is that he can't light those slots on fire for more high level ones. This is a good thing.

It is *different.* Both have advantages and disadvantages. Spells work fundamentally differently from powers since they have damage which scales with caster level (rather than paying more resources) but generally capped maximum effects.

I don't read a lot of sword and sorcery, but the fantasy I do read mostly doesn't use spell points. Bending seems to be at-will unless you've been hit with an attack that gives you the "can't bend" debuff. Most fantasy I've seen works on something closer to a Drain set up. What fantasy mages do you think behave like they have a bunch of power points?

I don't know what you mean by a "Drain set up" - but obvious examples would be the Belgariad, Night Watch, the Stormlight Archives, Schooled in Magic. Heck, even Dragonlance, which is nominally a D&D setup treated wizards sometimes this way. And a large amount of shlocky 1970s and 1980s fantasy functioned this way. It also worth noting that many other tabletops use a system closer to spell points and work just find. Exalted is the most obvious example.

This makes it even worse. Lower level spells don't just have smaller numbers than higher level ones, they are also qualitatively inferior. control winds isn't just "bigger" or "stronger" than gust of wind, it lasts longer, has a wider range, and can do different things. If using a low level spell to a numerically appropriate effect costs the same as using a level appropriate spell to a numerically appropriate effect, no one will ever do it.

And yes, people do use augmented powers all the time. Let's look at examples why. Let's say I have two energy offensive powers, Energy Ball and Energy Missile (I really like being able to fry things different ways), and I'm a level 7 psion. In one situation, I might have three enemies left, but I estimate that an unaugmented Energy Missile isn't going to probably be enough (or maybe I want to capture them alive if possible), and the enemies might be near bystanders so I don't want to use a full on Energy Ball, or they might be spread away from each other. So I augment the Energy Missile by 2 points, using 5 pp total rather than the full on Energy Ball. Later, we're fighting a single serious danger and I won initiative so no one is near it yet, I unleash a full 7 point Energy Ball. One can easily construct other similar situations.

digiman619

2017-02-05, 11:05 PM

Not if you want to do, for example, Necromancy (at least, as far as I can tell).
That's a fair point. The Psthfinder version introduced an entire new discipline to cover that (in The Seventh Path), but that's a legit gap in 3.5's psionics.

None of the exploits that break the game are particularly easy to do accidentally.
Summon Monster and Polymorph immediately leap to mind.

The fact that Wizards can prepare new spells every day is pretty minor. It makes downtime spells better, and it makes divinations better. Those are good spells, but if you can't build an effective Wizard without fabricate et al or legend lore et al, you're not trying.
The fact that they can swap out their spells into entirely new load-outs if one if failing is literally the difference between Tier 1 & Tier 2.

But Wizards can also do this! The Wizard is totally able to burn lower level spell slots instead of higher level ones. The difference is that he can't light those slots on fire for more high level ones. This is a good thing.
Except, and this is the important thing; the spell scale when they do. When a wizard first learns fireball, it'll do 5d6 damage in exchange for its 3rd level spell slot. Similarly, a 5th level psion manifesting energy burst will also do 5d6 damage for 5 PP. By the time that wizard gets to be 10th level, the fireball will still only cost one 3rd level spell slot, but will now do 10d6 damage, but the psion will still only get a 5d6 energy burst if he pays 5PP. He can still get a 10d6 energy burst, but it'll cost him 10 PP. See the difference?

I don't read a lot of sword and sorcery, but the fantasy I do read mostly doesn't use spell points. Bending seems to be at-will unless you've been hit with an attack that gives you the "can't bend" debuff. Most fantasy I've seen works on something closer to a Drain set up. What fantasy mages do you think behave like they have a bunch of power points?
The look at Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/). It's for Pathfinder, so it'll take a little bit of back-porting/updating, but it does pretty much what you claim to want.

This makes it even worse. Lower level spells don't just have smaller numbers than higher level ones, they are also qualitatively inferior. control winds isn't just "bigger" or "stronger" than gust of wind, it lasts longer, has a wider range, and can do different things. If using a low level spell to a numerically appropriate effect costs the same as using a level appropriate spell to a numerically appropriate effect, no one will ever do it.

Except by the time you can throw 6-9th level spells around, you weren't going to bother with your 1st-3rds anyway. When was the last time you played a adventure with 15th level characters that cared one iota about a 2nd level spell?

Nifft

2017-02-05, 11:10 PM

If you have spell slots, you are mandated to cast at least as many 2nd level spells as you have 2nd level slots. If you have spell points, you are not mandated to cast any 2nd level spells. Which of those seems like it results in you casting more 2nd level spells?

Your arguments are completely wrong about basically everything.

Memorizing six copies of Knock does not mandate that any Knock spells are cast that day.

In plain language: if you memorize six 2nd level spells, nothing whatsoever mandates that any of those spells ever get cast.

I'm not sure if you're trying for humor here. If not, you may want to re-think your position.

PsyBomb

2017-02-05, 11:18 PM

Maybe if you had, like, examples of low level powers people pump augments into? Because looking at the list, most stuff seems to get outclassed. energy bolt seems largely inferior to the higher level AoE powers. recall death seems much better than pumping up recall agony.

I like easy questions on the Internet. Nice change of pace.

Look at any of the SRD power lists, and look for almost literally anything that has the A next to it for Augmentable. Pop open my Dread guide for multiple examples as well. Even as individually weak powers as _mind thrust_ stay relevant through an entire career just by virtue of being able to slam exactly as hard as needed. _Battlesense_ is an example from the Vialist list, literally allowing you to tailor custom buffs on the fly as appropriate, scaling quantity and magnitude as needed by level via augments.

I can go on, but what you are trying to argue has been the entire point of the system since 3.0.

Cosi

2017-02-05, 11:54 PM

The first 3.5 character I ever played was a battlefield control wizard. I wasn't tactically smart nor had I any familiarity with any forums or the like. The character ended up making CR equivalent encounters much easier than they should have been. Different tables have different optimizations levels and for many of the low op levels of play, breaking things with wizards is pretty easy.

If a BFC Wizard is going to break stuff, I feel like a Psion is probably going to break stuff too.

A large enough difference in degree eventually becomes a difference in kind. To use an obvious example: if psionics only had a single power that was really problematic, would you still make the argument that it is just a single list?

Sure, but my concern with Malimar's statement (that magic needs "a total revamp to knead out all the problems") is at least as much about overstating the problems with magic as it is with understanding the problems with psionics. I think you can fix 90% of magic by banning spells that change your shape, spells that give permanent minions, and spells that give extra actions. That hardly strikes me as a "total revamp".

These differences matter, and they aren't the only things. Are you going to be meeting the king tomorrow? Oh, let's go prep the happy fun diplomacy spells. Are you expecting to be fighting undead? Yay, spells for that. Etc.

Yes, non-magic foreknowledge helps too. But there's equally a risk that you think the tomb is full of zombies, prepare a bunch of command undeads to pwn some zombies and then lose to a tomb that is actually full of traps and demons. If you commit too much on the basis of whatever intelligence you've gathered, you risk losing when it turns out to have been bad.

I don't know what you mean by a "Drain set up" - but obvious examples would be the Belgariad, Night Watch, the Stormlight Archives, Schooled in Magic. Heck, even Dragonlance, which is nominally a D&D setup treated wizards sometimes this way. And a large amount of shlocky 1970s and 1980s fantasy functioned this way. It also worth noting that many other tabletops use a system closer to spell points and work just find. Exalted is the most obvious example.

Drain is where casters using magic makes them weaker. Looking at your list, the Belgariad actually seems to be Drain rather than Spell Points. Apparently characters are physically exhausted after using powerful magic, which they wouldn't be if they ran out of spell points

I haven't read any of the books you've mentioned, so I can't really speak to them, but magic in fiction tends to be Drain (Belgariad, House of Blades), At-Will (Avatar, Harry Potter), or setting specific (Mistborn). Very little uses either Spell Points or Spell Preparation straight up.

And yes, people do use augmented powers all the time. Let's look at examples why. Let's say I have two energy offensive powers, Energy Ball and Energy Missile (I really like being able to fry things different ways), and I'm a level 7 psion. In one situation, I might have three enemies left, but I estimate that an unaugmented Energy Missile isn't going to probably be enough (or maybe I want to capture them alive if possible), and the enemies might be near bystanders so I don't want to use a full on Energy Ball, or they might be spread away from each other. So I augment the Energy Missile by 2 points, using 5 pp total rather than the full on Energy Ball. Later, we're fighting a single serious danger and I won initiative so no one is near it yet, I unleash a full 7 point Energy Ball. One can easily construct other similar situations.

That seems kind of contrived to me. Most of the time if you're in the position of wanting to do very little damage, the correct solution is to have a martial or Gish solve it without burning any daily resources.

Summon Monster and Polymorph immediately leap to mind.

summon monster doesn't really break the game. You get a minion that is several levels lower than you for a few rounds. The best use-case is that you get niche SLAs, but you are not going to figure that out by dumb luck. polymorph is not really that bad if you aren't dumpster diving for forms. If you're just turning into a bear, that's not really broken compared to, say, dropping black tentacles on the enemy. polymorph breaks when you dumpster dive and break inheritance.

Except, and this is the important thing; the spell scale when they do. When a wizard first learns fireball, it'll do 5d6 damage in exchange for its 3rd level spell slot. Similarly, a 5th level psion manifesting energy burst will also do 5d6 damage for 5 PP. By the time that wizard gets to be 10th level, the fireball will still only cost one 3rd level spell slot, but will now do 10d6 damage, but the psion will still only get a 5d6 energy burst if he pays 5PP. He can still get a 10d6 energy burst, but it'll cost him 10 PP. See the difference?

Yes, psionics is punishing you for using your low level spells. How does this make you want to use low level spells?

The look at Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/). It's for Pathfinder, so it'll take a little bit of back-porting/updating, but it does pretty much what you claim to want.

Uh, what? I have no idea how you think this was a response to what I posted. I was asking for mages in fantasy that use systems that behave like spell points. I am totally happy with magic as it stands in D&D (maybe split combat and downtime powers then switch to Recharge Magic).

Except by the time you can throw 6-9th level spells around, you weren't going to bother with your 1st-3rds anyway. When was the last time you played a adventure with 15th level characters that cared one iota about a 2nd level spell?

knock. restoration. identify. silent image. alter self. rope trick. protection from evil. desecrate.

Those are first or second level spells I could see using at 15th level, and that's just in core. Pop that up to 3rd or 4th level and that list goes up. Similarly if you pull from outside core.

Memorizing six copies of Knock does not mandate that any Knock spells are cast that day.

Alright, fair cop that "cast" is wrong. You are mandated to use resources on however many 2nd level spells. You cannot cash those knocks in for cloudkill, so they either do knock or nothing.

Even as individually weak powers as _mind thrust_ stay relevant through an entire career just by virtue of being able to slam exactly as hard as needed. _Battlesense_ is an example from the Vialist list, literally allowing you to tailor custom buffs on the fly as appropriate, scaling quantity and magnitude as needed by level via augments.

mind thrust is a will negates blast. Wouldn't I rather have dominate, which is a will negates recruitment?

I can't find battlesense. It doesn't seem to be a SRD power. Where should I look for that?

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-05, 11:54 PM

You're dipping into setting specific material (and pretty obscure setting specific material at that) to get something which the Cleric gets for waking up in the morning. This seems very iffy, and it doesn't get you anywhere on the rest of the Cleric suite. Take, for example lesser restoration. It comes online at 3rd level. The regular version shows up at 7th. Psionics doesn't get anything equivilent until 11th level (per SRD, maybe there's something in Complete Psionic or wherever).

Body purification is the same level as lesser restoration and can be made into psionic tattoos. This is -exactly- the equivalent of potions of lesser restoration. As for psionic restoration being a higher level, so what? It's still an equivalent available through psionics.

I won't pretend that wholesale replacing vancian with psionics doesn't make caster-types more item dependent to get the full range of effects but that's more a feature than a bug, given that caster's lack of item dependence is part of what makes the gap between them and non-casters so wide.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-05, 11:56 PM

I'm quite fond of Psionics, as a system. It is no more powerful than the Vancian Magic of Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids et al. and is in many cases less so, but on a practical level, they're about even*. There are some things Psionics does better than Arcane and Divine magic, primarily action economy loops and the like, but on the whole there's no mechanical reason to disallow Psions if you're allowing the other T1/T2 classes.

As far as being a complete subsystem, Psionics has some issues. It doesn't do healing particularly well (especially healing targets other than the caster), it doesn't do summoning particularly well (especially if you're using the frankly ludicrous Complete Psionic nerfs), it doesn't really do necromancy at all, and I find Specialization preferable to having to pick a Discipline (it's like banning all the other schools, rather than focusing on one in particular), but there's ways around that. But still, on the whole, a Psion can almost always contribute, regardless of the challenge they are faced with.

I enjoy the fluff well enough, and I find the mechanics are simple and flexible enough for my tastes. Personally I find that the flexibility of casting based on a point system preferable to a system which requires me to decide how many of a given effect I will need on a given day beforehand. Frankly, I find the notion that I should no longer be able to make something slippery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm) if I still have the magical wherewithal to change myself into a Adult Gold Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) because I already cast the two iterations of Grease I prepared is absurd. But such is the nature of Vancian casting. That a Psion can choose to allocate their supernatural resources to manifest Energy Ray or Hail of Crystals, as appropriate, doesn't mean that the Psion will do fewer things, it means that they won't be forced to use Hail of Crystals when an Energy Ray will do. And that is, in fact, a good thing.

In the end, the greatest problem I have is lack of support for Psionics in 3.5, compared to what is available for their caster counterparts. Otherwise, Psionics are awesome.

* Okay, theoretically, with Psychic Chirurgery, Spell-to-Power Erudites, and Alternative Source Spell in play, your Psion can pick up every spell and power in the game and be able to cast all of them at any time, all day long, but at that level of optimization one must likewise recognize that the Vancian casters can do that too, so the advantage is moot.

Nifft

2017-02-05, 11:59 PM

Alright, fair cop that "cast" is wrong. You are mandated to use resources on however many 2nd level spells. You cannot cash those knocks in for cloudkill, so they either do knock or nothing.

That's also wrong.

Can you guess why?

... tick

... tock

... ding

Because many competent casters can convert useless prepared slots into useful spells on the fly. A Druid could have converted those worthless prepared spells into Summon Nature's Ally. A Wizard 5+ could have converted those bad spell choices into any Divination he knows.

The ability to convert one resource into another increases utility.

Psions have this ability inherently.

Wizards have to pay a feat for it -- and they gladly do, because it's a great increase in utility.

This fact is the opposite of what you're trying to argue.

You're trying to argue something very stupid.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 12:08 AM

Body purification is the same level as lesser restoration and can be made into psionic tattoos. This is -exactly- the equivalent of potions of lesser restoration. As for psionic restoration being a higher level, so what? It's still an equivalent available through psionics.

Burning permanent resources for the ability to keep adventuring seems like a big problem, as does waiting half the game to deal with negative levels. This isn't the part of casters that overshadows anyone, this is the part of casters that keeps the party functional after fighting a Wight.

I won't pretend that wholesale replacing vancian with psionics doesn't make caster-types more item dependent to get the full range of effects but that's more a feature than a bug, given that caster's lack of item dependence is part of what makes the gap between them and non-casters so wide.

Casters not being item dependent is good. Item dependency is bad for the game. We should try to make Fighters more like Wizards in this respect, not the reverse.

Because many competent casters can convert useless prepared slots into useful spells on the fly. A Druid could have converted those worthless prepared spells into Summon Nature's Ally. A Wizard 5+ could have converted those bad spell choices into any Divination he knows.

But they can't turn them into cloudkill or wall of thorns. Having a bunch of stuff you have to spend on niche options - even a variety of niche options - is different than having a single pool that powers your good options and your niche options. Being able to trade A for B is not the same as being able to trade A for C.

EDITED: Clarified I meant permanent resources.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-06, 12:12 AM

Being able to trade A for B is not the same as being able to trade A for C.

Versatile Spellcaster would like a word with you...

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 12:31 AM

Burning resources for the ability to keep adventuring seems like a big problem, as does waiting half the game to deal with negative levels. This isn't the part of casters that overshadows anyone, this is the part of casters that keeps the party functional after fighting a Wight.

Given that psi-tatts are potion equivalents, some of the weight of keeping everyone on their feet is taken off of the manifester and the game's presented rules produce more gold than you're expected to spend on permanent gear precisely -because- expendables are supposed to be in common use. Power stones can get you psionic restoration as early as you need it.

Casters not being item dependent is good. Item dependency is bad for the game. We should try to make Fighters more like Wizards in this respect, not the reverse.

Gonna go ahead and -completely- disagree with you. Whether items should or shouldn't be such a major factor is a matter of taste. The problem is not the dependency itself but that it's very inequally applied to the game's classes. See virtually -any- CRPG.

Nifft

2017-02-06, 12:42 AM

I'm quite fond of Psionics, as a system. It is no more powerful than the Vancian Magic of Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids et al. and is in many cases less so, but on a practical level, they're about even*. There are some things Psionics does better than Arcane and Divine magic, primarily action economy loops and the like, but on the whole there's no mechanical reason to disallow Psions if you're allowing the other T1/T2 classes.

As far as being a complete subsystem, Psionics has some issues. It doesn't do healing particularly well (especially healing targets other than the caster), it doesn't do summoning particularly well (especially if you're using the frankly ludicrous Complete Psionic nerfs), it doesn't really do necromancy at all, and I find Specialization preferable to having to pick a Discipline (it's like banning all the other schools, rather than focusing on one in particular), but there's ways around that. But still, on the whole, a Psion can almost always contribute, regardless of the challenge they are faced with.

I enjoy the fluff well enough, and I find the mechanics are simple and flexible enough for my tastes. Personally I find that the flexibility of casting based on a point system preferable to a system which requires me to decide how many of a given effect I will need on a given day beforehand. Frankly, I find the notion that I should no longer be able to make something slippery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm) if I still have the magical wherewithal to change myself into a Adult Gold Dragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm) because I already cast the two iterations of Grease I prepared is absurd. But such is the nature of Vancian casting. That a Psion can choose to allocate their supernatural resources to manifest Energy Ray or Hail of Crystals, as appropriate, doesn't mean that the Psion will do fewer things, it means that they won't be forced to use Hail of Crystals when an Energy Ray will do. And that is, in fact, a good thing.

It's interesting to note that 5e basically stole the Psionics chassis -- including points to cast spells, with the spell-point variant, or in core with a Sorcerer who can freely convert slots into points & points into slots -- and they implemented some neat conventions to reward learning & using higher-level spells, instead of merely buffing up low-level spells.

For example:
- Burning Hands (1st level) deals 3d6 fire damage, and increases +1d6 per spell slot level above 1st.
- Fireball (3rd level) deals 8d6 fire damage, and increases +1d6 per spell slot level above 3rd.
- Cone of Cold (5th level) deals 8d8 cold damage, and increases +1d8 per spell slot level above 5th.

I think Psionics could use a similar convention, which gives you a non-linear benefit for learning a higher-level power.

At the other end, Psionics could use something like the CMage [Reserve] feats to avoid that icky feeling of picking up a crossbow.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 12:45 AM

Versatile Spellcaster would like a word with you...

I am totally willing to say that Versatile Spellcaster is bad for all the reasons psionics is bad. It is, however, a different thing from Spontaneous Divination or Druid spell conversion.

Given that psi-tatts are potion equivalents, some of the weight of keeping everyone on their feet is taken off of the manifester and the game's presented rules produce more gold than you're expected to spend on permanent gear precisely -because- expendables are supposed to be in common use. Power stones can get you psionic restoration as early as you need it.

Expendables are supposed to be in common use in a party with a Cleric covering for status conditions. Also, Fighters already don't get the gold they need from WBL, so taking more away from them in an effort to nerf casters seems bad.

Gonna go ahead and -completely- disagree with you. Whether items should or shouldn't be such a major factor is a matter of taste. The problem is not the dependency itself but that it's very inequally applied to the game's classes. See virtually -any- CRPG.

I don't think we should draw lessons from CRPGs. That's a fundamentally different paradigm from TTRPGs.

Item dependency in D&D is pretty unambiguously bad. The items people are dependent on are generic bonuses, which feel bad when you don't have them (because you aren't level appropriate) but don't feel good when you have them (because they don't do anything interesting). Maybe the game should assume some level of items, maybe it shouldn't, but as it currently exists magic item dependence is unambiguously bad.

Hurnn

2017-02-06, 12:45 AM

The positive is that of the 2 spell systems it is better, and has less broken abilities (though this is more of an issue of the spells being broken not the system.) The negative is this already overly complex game doesn't need a second complex system for casting spells. In a perfect world arcane and divine magic would use the psionic rules and there would be no psionic classes because they are really unnecessary.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-06, 01:24 AM

I am totally willing to say that Versatile Spellcaster is bad for all the reasons psionics is bad. It is, however, a different thing from Spontaneous Divination or Druid spell conversion.

Versatile Spellcaster on a Spontaneous Divination Wizard, however, pretty much is.

Item dependency in D&D is pretty unambiguously bad. The items people are dependent on are generic bonuses, which feel bad when you don't have them (because you aren't level appropriate) but don't feel good when you have them (because they don't do anything interesting). Maybe the game should assume some level of items, maybe it shouldn't, but as it currently exists magic item dependence is unambiguously bad.

While I'm inclined to agree with you, item dependency being bad or good is mostly a matter of taste. What is unambiguous is that it is absolutely present in 3.5's basic design assumptions.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 01:33 AM

Expendables are supposed to be in common use in a party with a Cleric covering for status conditions.

Perhaps but in practice a cleric who's leveraging the healing angle is the -only- member of the party that needs them and only if he's down and someone else is administering. The simple fact is that the "healer" role can be adequately filled by gear alone, sans cleric, with fairly minimal effort and access to MiC.

Also, Fighters already don't get the gold they need from WBL, so taking more away from them in an effort to nerf casters seems bad.

With a tat crafter in the party, they only cost half as much and xp is a river so I'm not real concerned about the potential level drag.

I don't think we should draw lessons from CRPGs. That's a fundamentally different paradigm from TTRPGs.

There's no doubt they're very different in many ways but this ain't one of them.

The idea of level appropriate gear ties into the idea of leveling itself for the most part. If there's an expectation of wealth being gained (unavoidable in the classic adventurer paradigm), it's gotta be spent on something and better gear is a natural place for it. While this -could- be used for horizontal growth, it can also be used for vertical growth and there's nothing -inherently- wrong with the latter. It doesn't make much qualitative difference against level appropriate foes but the diifference becomes quite stark when crushing mooks (and that can be very satisfying once in a while). It also makes the odd scenario where you are temporarily relieved of some or all of your gear more meaningful because it represents a larger power deflation.

Item dependency in D&D is pretty unambiguously bad. The items people are dependent on are generic bonuses, which feel bad when you don't have them (because you aren't level appropriate) but don't feel good when you have them (because they don't do anything interesting). Maybe the game should assume some level of items, maybe it shouldn't, but as it currently exists magic item dependence is unambiguously bad.

I'm sorry but that's a matter of taste and execution. It is not -unambiguously- bad. If there were only -one- way to get the numbers where you need them that could be true but except for spell-resistance (man were they loathe to give that out) most bonuses can be boosted to acceptable* levels in several different ways and -some- people do, in fact, like fiddling with how to get them there. Occasionally steam-rolling a formerly challenging foe (griffon at level 1 vs a couple at level 7, for example) really gives you a sense of growth and power.

You're welcome to dislike the implementation as much as you care to but it's not objectively bad.

*acceptable being defined by the individual players' risk tolerance.

Efrate

2017-02-06, 02:45 AM

Eh its fine. If you are worried about higher tier abilities though, it s easier to go infinte/NI with psionics than spells. Less hoops to jump through. If you know the common loops its easy to just say no, but learning a whole new list of powers/spells and a subsystem isn't something a lot of (especially newer) dms do not like.

Psywar is awesome though, hustle and expansion for a melee is a huge boon. Wish it had full BAB.

Knitifine

2017-02-06, 05:12 AM

Zombimode

2017-02-06, 06:51 AM

Psionic casters have no incentive not constantly manifest their best power all the time and once they run out of power points they're done for the day.

Don't know about you, but "not being able to contribute after two fights" sounds like a pretty good incentive to not to go all-in all the time, don't you think?

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 09:29 AM

If a BFC Wizard is going to break stuff, I feel like a Psion is probably going to break stuff too.

There are fewer battle-field control options for a psion and they are less broken. This is exactly why the number of broken things matter, not just the presence of broken things.

Sure, but my concern with Malimar's statement (that magic needs "a total revamp to knead out all the problems") is at least as much about overstating the problems with magic as it is with understanding the problems with psionics. I think you can fix 90% of magic by banning spells that change your shape, spells that give permanent minions, and spells that give extra actions. That hardly strikes me as a "total revamp".

And summoning spells, and even without permanent minions gates are broken, and buffing is often too strong, knock makes a large fraction of another class completely redundant, etc.

Yes, non-magic foreknowledge helps too. But there's equally a risk that you think the tomb is full of zombies, prepare a bunch of command undeads to pwn some zombies and then lose to a tomb that is actually full of traps and demons. If you commit too much on the basis of whatever intelligence you've gathered, you risk losing when it turns out to have been bad.

Yes, you do have that risk, which is part of why when wizards prep they generally prep a few spells that are generic use and aren't as a specialized. But this entire ability to prep differently is what makes wizards Tier 1. The primary example I used was the social day or combat day prep, and there it matters a lot.

Drain is where casters using magic makes them weaker. Looking at your list, the Belgariad actually seems to be Drain rather than Spell Points. Apparently characters are physically exhausted after using powerful magic, which they wouldn't be if they ran out of spell points

I haven't read any of the books you've mentioned, so I can't really speak to them, but magic in fiction tends to be Drain (Belgariad, House of Blades), At-Will (Avatar, Harry Potter), or setting specific (Mistborn). Very little uses either Spell Points or Spell Preparation straight up.

I see the distinction you are making between rain and spell points. However, this distinction seems to be in this context not to matter a lot for two reasons. First, spell points can be easily fluffed as drain (simply feel exhausted after using it). Second, and this is really important: Drain is a lot closer to Spell Points than it is to Vancian casting, to the point where it often isn't even a distinction that people bother making. The basic similarity is that you can cast the same spell repeatedly is a shared important aspect. And it is worth noting that many novels that use Spell Points or Drain (which are so close as to be not even always easy to distinguish) allow the caster to push more energy or into their spells to get stronger effects, just like augmenting psionic powers.

I'm incidentally not sure why you think House of Blades uses Drain- the magic there is mostly more similar to cool-down effect. I don't think any of the Travelers explicitly use either Spell Points or Drain. For the Valinhall travelers who are at the center some powers have fixed time uses whereas others can be spent in little increments or all at once in a burst.

That seems kind of contrived to me. Most of the time if you're in the position of wanting to do very little damage, the correct solution is to have a martial or Gish solve it without burning any daily resources.

In the situation where the enemies are far away from each other, the person with a sword might not be able to do much. Or you might be next in the initiative order and there are civilians around. It isn't hard to come up with situations like this, and they do show up in actual games.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 10:02 AM

The idea of level appropriate gear ties into the idea of leveling itself for the most part. If there's an expectation of wealth being gained (unavoidable in the classic adventurer paradigm), it's gotta be spent on something and better gear is a natural place for it.

No the natural place for it is that you buy a castle and run a kingdom. As long as your money is dedicated to "bigger numbers", that doesn't happen, which is bad. Seriously, how many fantasy stories have a scene where people go "now that we've slain the dragon, let's go buy better gear"?

I'm sorry but that's a matter of taste and execution. It is not -unambiguously- bad. If there were only -one- way to get the numbers where you need them that could be true but except for spell-resistance (man were they loathe to give that out) most bonuses can be boosted to acceptable* levels in several different ways and -some- people do, in fact, like fiddling with how to get them there.

I think the majority of people's taste for fiddling in 3e comes from the fact that non-casters don't get the money they need to buy level appropriate gear straight out. People don't buy weird niche items because they think weird niche items are cool, they buy weird niche items because they can't get where they need to with regular items.

Don't know about you, but "not being able to contribute after two fights" sounds like a pretty good incentive to not to go all-in all the time, don't you think?

This is different from the 15 minute workday how? We already know that given the opportunity to expend disproportionate resources to win encounters, people will just do that and rest more often.

There are fewer battle-field control options for a psion and they are less broken. This is exactly why the number of broken things matter, not just the presence of broken things.

If you're defining "broken things" in such a way that BFC options are included, I'm not convinced Psions are any less likely to be "broken".

And summoning spells, and even without permanent minions gates are broken, and buffing is often too strong, knock makes a large fraction of another class completely redundant, etc.

summon monster is fine. Seriously, what do people have against summon monster? It makes things that are like half your level!

gate is broken if used for calling, transport gate is fine and probably over-leveled (it could be 7th or 8th without much problem).

Buffing might be broken in a technical sense (makes people beat encounters at a non-level appropriate rate), but the way that it breaks down doesn't really feel broken, so I'm less concerned.

knock is fine, and is a good example of how spells and skills should interact when you get it. knock is clearly better than Open Lock on a per-use basis, but it has much more limited uses and it comes at the cost of glitterdust or web. This is a good paradigm. The problem is that it doesn't scale well. There's no "less effective, but cheaper and at-will" solution to raise dead that pops out of the Heal skill, and the cost of knock drops as you level up.

None of those seem problematic to me.

Yes, you do have that risk, which is part of why when wizards prep they generally prep a few spells that are generic use and aren't as a specialized. But this entire ability to prep differently is what makes wizards Tier 1. The primary example I used was the social day or combat day prep, and there it matters a lot.

This is basically circular. Tier One is defined as having strategic versatility, and you are saying that strategic versatility is good because it makes people Tier One. I'm not saying strategic versatility is bad, it's just not nearly as game breaking as people believe. The ability to be six different characters that don't break the game doesn't add up to breaking the game.

I see the distinction you are making between rain and spell points. However, this distinction seems to be in this context not to matter a lot for two reasons. First, spell points can be easily fluffed as drain (simply feel exhausted after using it). Second, and this is really important: Drain is a lot closer to Spell Points than it is to Vancian casting, to the point where it often isn't even a distinction that people bother making.

Yes, you could change psionics to be more like drain. You could also change magic to be more like drain.

I don't think Drain is particularly closer to Spell Points. For example, small effects generally don't add up using Drain, whereas they do using Spell Points.

I'm incidentally not sure why you think House of Blades uses Drain- the magic there is mostly more similar to cool-down effect. I don't think any of the Travelers explicitly use either Spell Points or Drain. For the Valinhall travelers who are at the center some powers have fixed time uses whereas others can be spent in little increments or all at once in a burst.

Simon's mask is drain (he collapses for days after using it), and Ragnarus's "power for a price" thing is pretty exactly drain. But House of Blades does have a bunch of resource management systems.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-06, 10:06 AM

Cosi

2017-02-06, 10:20 AM

The distinction being made between drain and spell points seems a little weak. With Vancian magic, you literally forget how to cast the spell and have to remember it again the next day. That's the limit of your power, the fact that it's about memorization.

With spell points and drain you're using up a resource. You're exhausting yourself, in one form or another. You can make the case that exhausting your capacity for memorization is similar, but it's a weak argument to make the case that drain isn't closer to spell points than it is to vancian magic.

The major point being that except in Vance stories, wizards don't typically forget the spells they know. Once you know it, you can cast it so long as you have the resources to do so.

You can argue that drain and spell points aren't identical, but I think people make the claim that points better simulate how we think of fantasy magic, not that it's a perfect port into game design.

But Spell Points (or even Drain) is not really a particularly common deal for casters to get in fantasy. The most common fantasy magic resource management systems are:

1. At-Will (Harry Potter, Avatar, Star Wars)
2. Arbitrary restrictions the author made up that don't map well to any other system

Frankly, 2 is probably a good deal more common than anything else. Take, for example, Mistborn. On the surface, it kind of looks like Spell Points. You eat a bunch of Iron, you get a pool of Iron magic. But that pool doesn't cross-convert at all with your Bronze magic or your Tin magic or your Atium magic. So it's really like 16 Spell Point systems running in parallel for 16 different abilities, which honestly looks kind of a lot like spell preparation (you have X uses of Bronze, when it runs out you have no more Bronze).

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-06, 10:33 AM

I haven't read those books.

The assumption about wizards, let's say Merlin for example, is that they know their spells and can call upon them at-will when they need to throughout the day.

For the sake of game balance, we will always have resource management, so at-will here means until some resource is expended.

Spell points let you do that. Vancian magic has you running into "sorry, I didn't prepare that spell today, so I don't remember how to cast it and, for all intents and purposes, I don't actually know it".

Having a suite of powers that you can call upon as you desire until you're expended is different than having to determine at the start of the day what particular spells out of your entire repertoire you will give yourself access to for the rest of the day.

One better represents how people probably think magic works intuitively than the other.

Zombimode

2017-02-06, 10:41 AM

This is different from the 15 minute workday how? We already know that given the opportunity to expend disproportionate resources to win encounters, people will just do that and rest more often.

It's not. That's my point.

Also, 15 Minute adventuring day tangent:
It is a fake Problem.
That is, if the behaviour of resting after every fight (or very few fights) is preceived as a Problem, it tells more about the People raising the issue then about the system.

Case 1: DM thinks of it as a Problem, aka "my Players rest after every fight! This is ridiculous!"
This shows shortcommings on the DM's side that range between "being a doormat" over "unable to construct a scenario that plays out as intended" to "unable to realize the strategic implication of the presented scenario".
A competent DM on the other hand can construct scenarios where this Strategem is not a good choice but also doesn't mind if the Player employ it, whether it is a good idea or not.

Case 2: a Player thinks of it as a problem, aka "the best option is to rest after every fight! This is ridiculous!"
This shows what is likely on cognitive dissonance on the player's side: on the one hand they have ideas about the asthetic of the story progression (where the party does not rest between every fight) or about the personality of the character (who has other priorities then always choosing the most optimal and save strategy), and on the other hand ideas about what is the optimal strategy in a given situation. The dissonance comes into Play in form of the believe that those two sides can never be in conflict. This believe is what is actually ridiculous here.
In other word: you can't have "I want this story to adhere to *this* asthetic" or "I want to play my character according to the personality I envision" and "I want always do what is optimal" without the possibility of a conflict.
A competent player knows this.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 10:43 AM

For the sake of game balance, we will always have resource management, so at-will here means until some resource is expended.

Or actually at-will. Like Warlocks or Fighters, classes which are not exactly notorious for breaking game balance. At-Will resource management systems break when they hit abilities you can repeat for credit like planar binding or fabricate or permanency. There's nothing overpowered about at-will stinking cloud, it's just boring.

Spell points let you do that. Vancian magic has you running into "sorry, I didn't prepare that spell today, so I don't remember how to cast it and, for all intents and purposes, I don't actually know it".

But once we say "for the sake of game balance", we can't call on "this doesn't fit the fantasy" (or at least, not to the exclusion of other arguments). And having spell points instead of spell slots turns casting into a rather trivial optimization problem. Count your power points, predict the encounters you need to win, and divide. Then do whatever matches that number. Spell slots require characters to use a variety of abilities because they can't keep popping out the ideal solution.

One better represents how people probably think magic works intuitively than the other.

People have all sorts of intuitive beliefs about magic. They think it comes at great price, or corrupts your essence, or requires you to bargain with capricious demons, or any number of other things.

Alcore

2017-02-06, 10:51 AM

I have never banned them unless I feel they literally have no place in my setting. That said I never mention it so they assume it's banned. I like 3.5 psionics but often feel it's something a monk should have in limited capacity (who else trains to focus the mind and body as one?). While it has a place in fantasy it will nearly always be more prominent in sci fi.

Flickerdart

2017-02-06, 11:05 AM

I like 3.5 psionics but often feel it's something a monk should have in limited capacity (who else trains to focus the mind and body as one?).
There's a feat for that - Tashalatora.

Zombimode

2017-02-06, 11:10 AM

While it has a place in fantasy it will nearly always be more prominent in sci fi.

... this will never cease to puzzle me.

What kind of SciFi are you exposed to that you feel that way?

Where are Psionics in Asimov? In Lem? Hell, in Mass Effect?

Yes, Telepathy Pops up occasionally in SciFi, but first, the relation between Psionics and Telepathy is the Psionics can do Telepathy, not that you need Psionics to do Telepathy. And seconde, more often then not, those aspects feel like *Fantasy* to me, not the other way arround.

EisenKreutzer

2017-02-06, 11:17 AM

... this will never cease to puzzle me.

What kind of SciFi are you exposed to that you feel that way?

Where are Psionics in Asimov? In Lem? Hell, in Mass Effect?

Yes, Telepathy Pops up occasionally in SciFi, but first, the relation between Psionics and Telepathy is the Psionics can do Telepathy, not that you need Psionics to do Telepathy. And seconde, more often then not, those aspects feel like *Fantasy* to me, not the other way arround.

Dune, for one. Babylon 5.

Peoples opinion on this falls more or less in two camps.
Those who think psionics are a sci-fi thing, and those who think it's just mental magic and that Gandalf might as well have been a psion.
I've had this discussion a number of times, and to those who think psionics is a sci-fi theme the other position is completely ridiculous. The same is true in reverse.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 11:19 AM

Where are Psionics in Asimov? In Lem? Hell, in Mass Effect?

Biotics is pretty exactly psychic powers. There's no mind reading (well, maybe the funky asari sex stuff), but it's telekinesis to hell and back. Also I think the Thorian. Indoctrination maybe counts.

There's literally an entire book in the Foundation series about defeating a psychic warlord named Mule.

XCOM, Star Wars, and Dune all have psychics of some kind.

Heinlein, Niven, Bester, and Card all have stories with psychics in them.

Flickerdart

2017-02-06, 11:22 AM

Morphic tide

2017-02-06, 11:25 AM

As with Incarnum, I love it, but it has problems with the apparent design goal. The Soulknife could have been a Psionic Kensai that cannot be disarmed and get PP for the sole purpose of manifesting Metaphysical Weapon and other weapon enhancing powers as class features. But they made it crappy as hell. They could have done much more with it, especially if they kept more of the little things from the 3.0 version, but that would involve researching and playtesting to see what's not broken. They could have done Psionic versions of a bunch of regular feats, burning PP for slightly better effects than mundanes get, but they seem to think that having PsyWar invalidate Fighter was a bad idea(even though PsyWar still does invalidate Fighter and Monk by having powers that replace some of the needed GP sinks). They could have just done more with PP sinks for more versatile, slightly weaker versions of existing feats, but instead we got a disjointed mess.

Like, it looks like they wanted to copy the casters with Psionics, but still wanted the flavor of "psychics who make their imagination real." Most Powers have extremely close counterparts to spells, replacing the spell chains with Augmentation. They could have done so much more, done more with the idea of making thoughts real, but instead they just made magical character copies. Not even particularly good ones, as Argent shows. Like, they could have had PsyWar be more focused on self-alteration, making their idealized form of combat real, but they just made it a self-buff obsessed Fighter replacement. They could have had Soulknife be stealth oriented or focused on creating temporary items of all sorts, being a Psionic skillmonkey/Fighter by having the ability to make almost any item needed including the simple magic/Psionic ones. But they made it a particularly ****ty Kensai wannabe.

They also could have done more with the items. They could have made it possible to make items that have a small base effect, but let you actively spend PP for effects stronger than their magic item equivalents, or spend PP to activate effects more versatile than the magic equivalent. We could have gotten an enhancement to spend a power point or three to make the weapon get 1d6 damage of the type of your choice, rather than the fixed, always on type of the magical form. We could have gotten a Psionic version of Defending that scales with PP invested, but we got a weapon enhancement that gives extra Enhancement bonus based on your unspent PP.

Karl Aegis

2017-02-06, 11:31 AM

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 11:35 AM

If you're defining "broken things" in such a way that BFC options are included, I'm not convinced Psions are any less likely to be "broken".

Psions have fewer BFC options, and those that they have are weaker.

summon monster is fine. Seriously, what do people have against summon monster? It makes things that are like half your level!

First, summons allow one to functionally break the action economy if done right. Second, summons allow one access to spell-like abilities one wouldn't have otherwise- this isn't just with splatdiving. For example, look at Summon Monster IV- it gives one the ability to summon mephits which can use as SLAs multiple spells which aren't even on the sor/wiz list, or summon a lantern archon which can cast Continual Flame without a material component. And Summon Monster V is even worse

gate is broken if used for calling, transport gate is fine and probably over-leveled (it could be 7th or 8th without much problem).

Calling is 90% of the text of the spell. And it seems strange to say it could be 7th level for transportation when it is strictly better than Plane Shift which is 7th level.

Buffing might be broken in a technical sense (makes people beat encounters at a non-level appropriate rate), but the way that it breaks down doesn't really feel broken, so I'm less concerned.

Beating encounters at a non-level appropriate rate is broken. If you don't think so for some vague reason involving subjective feelings I'm not sure we're going to have a productive discussion.

knock is fine, and is a good example of how spells and skills should interact when you get it. knock is clearly better than Open Lock on a per-use basis, but it has much more limited uses and it comes at the cost of glitterdust or web. This is a good paradigm. The problem is that it doesn't scale well. There's no "less effective, but cheaper and at-will" solution to raise dead that pops out of the Heal skill, and the cost of knock drops as you level up.

None of those seem problematic to me.

You don't see a problem with the fact that Knock applies to any non-magical lock whatsoever?

This is basically circular. Tier One is defined as having strategic versatility, and you are saying that strategic versatility is good because it makes people Tier One. I'm not saying strategic versatility is bad, it's just not nearly as game breaking as people believe. The ability to be six different characters that don't break the game doesn't add up to breaking the game.

With all due respect, I suspect that you haven't played that much with T1 casters or haven't DMed them. The general consensus is that a T1 caster does break the game way too easily precisely because of this. It isn't the primary issue with T1s (which is more that they just outshine most other classes) but it is a real thing. If you disagree on this point, then to be blunt, you are going against an extremely broad consensus.

Yes, you could change psionics to be more like drain. You could also change magic to be more like drain.

Less natural and harder to do so.

I don't think Drain is particularly closer to Spell Points. For example, small effects generally don't add up using Drain, whereas they do using Spell Points.

Do you have evidence for this? I'm strongly not convinced of this. You don't see people casting the same low level spell but that's not the same thing. What you may be confused about is that in both Drain and Spell Points (which again I think distinguishing as separate systems is not very helpful to start with), there's a low but steady recovery of magic/strength. This is hard to model in practice in D&D because one doesn't want to have to keep track of things like how many exact rounds have happened between combats. The closest system I know to actually trying to do this is the ethermancy system in Strange Magic (which is in Pathfinder and is excellent), and their solution is essentially to have the recovery rate be fast enough that if more than about a minute has gone by one will definitely have recover full power.

Simon's mask is drain (he collapses for days after using it), and Ragnarus's "power for a price" thing is pretty exactly drain. But House of Blades does have a bunch of resource management systems.

Simon's make is a unique item. And the Ragnarus system isn't drain in general- the prices vary widely and are often symbolic. For example, one of the Ragnarus powers Leah uses lets her give nearly impossible to resist orders at the price of losing her ability to speak for days. Actually, for that matter on the subject of Leah- Lirial is almost exactly psionics and with the Spell Points explicitly without drain and slow recovery. Moreover, the focus of the domain, on knowledge, mental powers and crystals is very psionics with less modern fluff.

But Spell Points (or even Drain) is not really a particularly common deal for casters to get in fantasy. The most common fantasy magic resource management systems are:

1. At-Will (Harry Potter, Avatar, Star Wars)
2. Arbitrary restrictions the author made up that don't map well to any other system

Frankly, 2 is probably a good deal more common than anything else. Take, for example, Mistborn. On the surface, it kind of looks like Spell Points. You eat a bunch of Iron, you get a pool of Iron magic. But that pool doesn't cross-convert at all with your Bronze magic or your Tin magic or your Atium magic. So it's really like 16 Spell Point systems running in parallel for 16 different abilities, which honestly looks kind of a lot like spell preparation (you have X uses of Bronze, when it runs out you have no more Bronze).

Yes, 2 is very common and so is 1. But Spell Points/Drain is massively more common than Vancian magic, which doesn't exist outside Vance's original books (where a normal mind can maybe have 3 or 4 spells in at once and that's a lot) or where things are being written in explicitly D&D settings, and even then writers often avoid or ignore that aspect.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 11:38 AM

Morphic tide

2017-02-06, 11:41 AM

Spell Points were a thing invented in Unearthed Arcana and don't exist outside of that one sourcebook. Is it at all surprising that nothing else uses it? It's just two words that, when put together, mean absolutely nothing outside of that one page. There's no reason why spell points should be common in fantasy when 100.00% of the population doesn't know the phrase exists, let alone what it means.

You are thinking about the rather closed subset of D&D. Almost all magic systems outside of D&D and related games are based on points or a central energy pool or strain for power. Naruto, Exalted, Dragonball, Warhammer, Pokémon, My Little Pony and far, far more. Vancian magic, the stuff of D&D casters, is extremely rare in fiction because it's so hard to write good stories that require it, and takes up so much detail to make it matter.

Hell, it's a pain in the ass to play, on top of that. Wizards can take upwards of half an hour preparing spells IRL, just going over the stuff in their spellbook, because they have to pick a spell for every slot, unless they go Shadow Illusion, in which case every slot is Shadow Illusion. Part of the reason Archanist from PF scores so high in playtests is because they ready spells for the day as spells they cast that day, with the slots having nothing to do with it.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 11:44 AM

There's a lot less "pew pew lightning bolts" type psionics in sci-fi - but pew-pew lightning bolts magic is actually a fairly new trend in fantasy. Even Gandalf waded into combat with sword drawn. In the myths fantasy ultimately draws its roots from, overt magic was the domain of the gods, and more subtle magic was the norm.

There's a lot of variation there in. In the Arthurian legends magic is often very explicit. And even in Greek myths magic is powerful and blunt at times- Medea is the obvious example. The only issue there is that the a lot of myths don't make any serious distinction about the source of the magic in question. But I agree that even in those contexts, direct offensive magic is still rare.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-06, 11:47 AM

Or actually at-will. Like Warlocks or Fighters, classes which are not exactly notorious for breaking game balance. At-Will resource management systems break when they hit abilities you can repeat for credit like planar binding or fabricate or permanency. There's nothing overpowered about at-will stinking cloud, it's just boring.
I'm assuming we're having this discussion in good faith here. I thought it'd be clear that when I say we can't go with an at-will system for the sake of game balance, in a discussion about wizards, that I'm not referring to something like a fighter's at-will melee attacks.

But once we say "for the sake of game balance", we can't call on "this doesn't fit the fantasy" (or at least, not to the exclusion of other arguments).
Yes we can. It's not going to be perfect, but obviously the mechanics of the game are used to simulate elements of fantasy. There's a reason that the class is called wizard and not some gibberish word that we've never encountered before. Merlin doesn't forget his spells. Gandalf forgets riddles, but he doesn't forget the power he has.

And having spell points instead of spell slots turns casting into a rather trivial optimization problem.
Irrelevant to whether one is more like fantasy magic than the other.

Count your power points, predict the encounters you need to win, and divide.
This doesn't change the fact that you have access to all of your powers and can use them when you want. As opposed to vancian magic, where you choose which of your spells you remember for the day and which you forget. And the ones you don't remember you can't access.

People have all sorts of intuitive beliefs about magic. They think it comes at great price, or corrupts your essence, or requires you to bargain with capricious demons, or any number of other things.
Yeah, the more we discuss this, the weaker your argument gets. All of these beliefs are fine, and are even represented in game to some degree or another. The one belief I daresay most people don't have about magic is that you forget your spells everyday and have to rememorize them. Only a person exposed to vancian magic would have that thought cross their mind.

Flickerdart

2017-02-06, 11:52 AM

There's a lot of variation there in. In the Arthurian legends magic is often very explicit. And even in Greek myths magic is powerful and blunt at times- Medea is the obvious example. The only issue there is that the a lot of myths don't make any serious distinction about the source of the magic in question. But I agree that even in those contexts, direct offensive magic is still rare.

Skimming the Wikipedia page, Medea seems to be more of a doctor or alchemist than a "sorceress" as we'd call her. She uses poisons, drugs, potions, and herbs liberally. In some versions, she uses divination or hypnosis. And even then, she has divine blood as a descendant of Helios!

Segev

2017-02-06, 11:53 AM

The one belief I daresay most people don't have about magic is that you forget your spells everyday and have to rememorize them. Only a person exposed to vancian magic would have that thought cross their mind.

Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles had a version of spellcasting that informed how I tend to run D&D "vancian" magic these days. In it, the spells weren't memorized and forgotten, but spells were lengthy procedures that took a great deal of effort...but you could "hang" them about yourself, near-complete, and trigger them with a few simple completing words or gestures. The more skilled the mage, the more they could hang without them interfering with each other.

My own version of it treats magic as contractual. Supernatural forces honor ancient (or newly made, for some spell research) contracts wherein the caster does a number of ritual services during the preparation step. He then is owed certain favors, which he can formally invoke with the "spell casting" portion. Once cast, he's no longer owed that favor. Ability to enact a number of these things in a reasonable amount of time and without screwing up one as you do another is reflected in your level.

(Spontaneous casters have a more personal relationship with the supernatural forces, and are owed services or favors for inherited debts or through one-time bargains.)

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 11:57 AM

Skimming the Wikipedia page, Medea seems to be more of a doctor or alchemist than a "sorceress" as we'd call her. She uses poisons, drugs, potions, and herbs liberally. In some versions, she uses divination or hypnosis. And even then, she has divine blood as a descendant of Helios!

Yeah, that may not have been the best example. The primary examples I was thinking of were where she chops up and resurrects the old goat as a young goat, but given how that part occurs it might not even be magic, just stage magic. I guess the next example would be Simon Magus flying but I guess these are really obscure and not common examples, which to some extent reinforces the idea that blatant magic is really rare in classical literature and mythology when it is from divine or semi-divine beings.

Malimar

2017-02-06, 12:01 PM

The whole "memorizing" and "forgetting" spells thing is the most common complaint about Vancian magic, which is ironic, because using the words "memorizing" and "forgetting" is a pretty sure sign that whoever's using those words doesn't actually understand Vancian magic. The two interpretations mentioned by Segev -- especially the Amber one -- are closer to how Vancian magic actually works in D&D.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 12:05 PM

Flickerdart

2017-02-06, 12:13 PM

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-06, 12:19 PM

Feel free not to get stuck on the words "memorizing" and "forgetting". Go ahead and insert "preparing" and "wiping" instead. From the SRD:

"Prepared Spell Retention

Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character’s mind."

You choose which spells are in your mind, and then when you use them they are wiped from your mind. Again, the simple point here is that this is less like "magic" than spell points.

Segev, would you recommend those books? I've been in a reading slump and could use some suggestions.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 12:19 PM

You sound as though lawyers write up every new contract from scratch, rather than write down a boilerplate contract to reuse every time the situation calls for it.

Ok. That's a valid point. Actually going back to the original 3.5 Player's Guide, I don't see any mention of memorizing or forgetting, just preparing so I guess one really is free to fluff it this way.

Segev

2017-02-06, 12:20 PM

That's really an issue of fluff, and the fact that a wizard needs a spellbook is more consistent with the memorizing and forgetting fluff than the contractual fluff.

You sound as though lawyers write up every new contract from scratch, rather than write down a boilerplate contract to reuse every time the situation calls for it.

Yeah. The spellbooks wizards use when I run this version of it essentially have a) formula-lists of what the procedures are to trigger appropriate contracts, as well as reminders as to what the specific formal invocations are. This is particularly true of grimoires with specified, self-contained spells. Research spellbooks - the ones that are particularly tricky to decipher - actually are hordes of notes about various contracts and their snippet procedures, and interconnections between them.

Spell research is a combination of finding existing spells, working out new contracts negotiated with various supernatural forces, and (most commonly) finding ways to invoke parts of several different contracts together so that their interactions, when formally arrayed, yield new and exciting effects. Much like a D&D 3.PF optimizing master can pour through the rules to find feats, spells, and class features to mix and match to get wholly new build effects.

This is also why research materials might include books of history, books of contractual analysis rather than specific contracted spells, and other such things.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 12:29 PM

Psions have fewer BFC options, and those that they have are weaker.

I'm not saying that a Psion would break the game with BFC. I'm saying that if the standard for "breaking the game" is low enough that stinking cloud hits it, the Psion probably does too.

First, summons allow one to functionally break the action economy if done right. Second, summons allow one access to spell-like abilities one wouldn't have otherwise- this isn't just with splatdiving. For example, look at Summon Monster IV- it gives one the ability to summon mephits which can use as SLAs multiple spells which aren't even on the sor/wiz list, or summon a lantern archon which can cast Continual Flame without a material component. And Summon Monster V is even worse

I find it hard to be impressed by the action economy of a CR 3 creature at 7th level. Also, the mephits are nice but not particularly devastating (with the exception of Mirror, but that's absurdly obscure). The versatility is okay, but mostly I would rather just cast black tentacles.

Calling is 90% of the text of the spell. And it seems strange to say it could be 7th level for transportation when it is strictly better than Plane Shift which is 7th level.

plane shift is a 5th level spell for Clerics.

Beating encounters at a non-level appropriate rate is broken. If you don't think so for some vague reason involving subjective feelings I'm not sure we're going to have a productive discussion.

I think there's a problem with language here. Broken can mean either "overpowered" or "stops the game from functioning". As an example of the former, the Incantatrix. The latter, Chain Binding. If we're not using the second meaning (and we clearly are not, given that we are debating if knock is broken), the actual problem we encounter with broken things is that they cause characters who don't have them to feel overshadowed. Buffing doesn't do that, so it's hard for me to see it as "broken" in the same way that Shadow Illusion or Supernatural Spell cheese might be.

You don't see a problem with the fact that Knock applies to any non-magical lock whatsoever?

No. knock costs you a cast of glitterdust or web. Ranks in Open Lock cost you ranks in Craft or Sleight of Hand. One of those costs is much higher than the other, and the benefit it gets you can and should be larger.

With all due respect, I suspect that you haven't played that much with T1 casters or haven't DMed them. The general consensus is that a T1 caster does break the game way too easily precisely because of this. It isn't the primary issue with T1s (which is more that they just outshine most other classes) but it is a real thing. If you disagree on this point, then to be blunt, you are going against an extremely broad consensus.

That consensus is obviously wrong. If A, B, and C don't break the game, there is no reason to think picking between A, B, and C breaks the game. Also, argument ad populum.

Less natural and harder to do so.

Not really: "When you cast a spell, make a save against fatigue. If fatigued, save against exhaustion. If exhausted, save against sleep." Done.

Do you have evidence for this? I'm strongly not convinced of this.

Shadowrun's Drain system works exactly this way. Admittedly, that's a game not a fantasy novel, but the principle is there. I would like to see an example where this phenomena (someone uses up their juice with little spells) actually does happen.

Simon's make is a unique item. And the Ragnarus system isn't drain in general- the prices vary widely and are often symbolic. For example, one of the Ragnarus powers Leah uses lets her give nearly impossible to resist orders at the price of losing her ability to speak for days.

How is that not exactly a Drain set up? You get a cool power, it hits you with a big cost. The entire deal of Ragnarus is that you pay a price for your power. Other territories have other deals (and as you point out, one of them is basically spell points). We see Drain (Ragnarus), Recharge (Valinhall), Spell Points (Lirial), maybe some kind of deal where you have several ability suites and can focus one at a time? (Elysia), some kind of Tempo mechanic (Endross), and some kind of thing where you pick up a set of powers + minions (the Bird Territory). Maybe I'm forgetting some others. There's a bunch of stuff there, and only one thing is Spell Points. There's no Spell Slots territory, but there wouldn't be any real dissonance with the rest of the setting if Helheim's powers keyed off bindings you had to accumulate or something (a spell slots-ish mechanic).

Yes, 2 is very common and so is 1. But Spell Points/Drain is massively more common than Vancian magic, which doesn't exist outside Vance's original books (where a normal mind can
maybe have 3 or 4 spells in at once and that's a lot) or where things are being written in explicitly D&D settings, and even then writers often avoid or ignore that aspect.

Mistborn uses something that is kind of Vancian if you squint. It's certainly closer to it than spell points. Also Chronicles of Amber as has been mentioned.

I'm assuming we're having this discussion in good faith here. I thought it'd be clear that when I say we can't go with an at-will system for the sake of game balance, in a discussion about wizards, that I'm not referring to something like a fighter's at-will melee attacks.

You're missing the point. What actually breaks if the Wizard is allowed to cast stinking cloud whenever he feels the need? There are some abilities that break under an At-Will scheme, but many of them (e.g. planar binding) are broken under any scheme.

Irrelevant to whether one is more like fantasy magic than the other.

But relevant to which you should use in a game.

The whole "memorizing" and "forgetting" spells thing is the most common complaint about Vancian magic, which is ironic, because using the words "memorizing" and "forgetting" is a pretty sure sign that whoever's using those words doesn't actually understand Vancian magic. The two interpretations mentioned by Segev -- especially the Amber one -- are closer to how Vancian magic actually works in D&D.

This is true. I think it gets laid out in a sidebar in Complete Mage.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 12:53 PM

Psionics is a good system. Superior to vancian casting as far as magical systems go. It does away with the rather awkward memorization in favor of a spell system similar to what you would find in most fantasy games these days. Unfortunately it's even more susceptible to abuse regarding the "5 minute adventuring workday" problem. Psionic casters have no incentive not constantly manifest their best power all the time and once they run out of power points they're done for the day. It's a good system, but not the best.

Additional Bonus Point: Really cool aesthetic and gave birth to some of the most interesting parts of Dark Sun and Eberron.

Others have mentioned this but dealing with the 15 minute adventuring day is a fairly trivial DM problem and, unlike the vancian casters, there's no extradimensional pocket power for preventing typical rest interuptions.

If you nova all your PP and find yourself getting hammered by encounters before you can rest, you've got no one to blame but yourself for poor resource management.

No the natural place for it is that you buy a castle and run a kingdom. As long as your money is dedicated to "bigger numbers", that doesn't happen, which is bad. Seriously, how many fantasy stories have a scene where people go "now that we've slain the dragon, let's go buy better gear"?

How is it natural for an adventurer to spend all his money on something that has nothing to do with adventuring? Being a guy that's good at stabbing or frying things just does not flow naturally into being a leader much less a ruler; things which are, and I know I'm being redundant here, not adventuring.

And in any case, leadership and landlord are feats. The first gets you people, the second; the cash and land for that castle. There's no need to burn regular loot on that.

As for fantasy stories; the ones I've read virtually never have the regular collection of material wealth as a feature at all. Even the ones that start off with that being the motivation for one or more of the characters quickly turn into something bigger where that original motivation gets quickly burried. In the ones I've -played- however (hi again CRPG's), it's as common as the main protagonist being armed with a sword that the regular income goes to better gear and expendable items.

Now, castles being -given- to the protagonists is something you see from time to time and conquering them's about as frequent but I've -never- seen a story where the protagonist -bought- a castle outside of older editions of D&D.

I think the majority of people's taste for fiddling in 3e comes from the fact that non-casters don't get the money they need to buy level appropriate gear straight out. People don't buy weird niche items because they think weird niche items are cool, they buy weird niche items because they can't get where they need to with regular items.

I assure you that people who fiddle do so as much for enjoyment as for necessity. Besides, the idea that a non-caster can't afford level appropriate gear is another one of those forum presumptions that come from heavily skewed priorities and the idea being harped on so hard and so long that it's been blown all out of proportion to any truth there might be in the matter.

This is different from the 15 minute workday how? We already know that given the opportunity to expend disproportionate resources to win encounters, people will just do that and rest more often.

Only if the DM and the rest of the party let them.

On the matter of summons for psions; astral construct is quite useful all by itself but there's also shadow eft, larval flayers, elemental steward, and ectoplasmic swarm. They're not as many or as varied as summon monster but there are some options.

Sian

2017-02-06, 01:02 PM

Psionics is, outside of naming/fluff schematics, exactly the same principle as Mana-bars in the vast majority of computer games (and basically all that doesn't wear a 'D&D-inspired' tag), only really differing on the regeneration timers.

Sure the 3.5 Psionics rules does Nercomancy very poorly (I recall reading through all the books trying to make a Psionic necromancer, and found 3 powers that charitably could be considered 'classic' necromancy) and Healing fairly inefficient (... which can change the pace and feeling of the game, but who's to say that that is such a bad thing), but otherwise there aren't really anything that Vancian magic can do that Psionics can't, and frankly there is quite a few things where I believe that Psionics does it better (intrigue, making a nuker, making a competent gish).

Also I'm not quite sure that I would be willing to call Harry Potter 'at-will' since that verse have mentions of magical exhaustion (although its less clear exactly how their magic actually work if trying to fit it into a recognized square box, and it seems to 'work' when rule of drama says so)

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-06, 01:30 PM

You're missing the point. What actually breaks if the Wizard is allowed to cast stinking cloud whenever he feels the need?
I think you're missing the point, or rather, shifting it.

On a spectrum of at-will --> spell points --> vancian magic, the points are closer to representing fantasy magic than the spell slot preparation.

When people watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy, they don't assume that Gandalf spends his mornings preparing what spells he'll cast for the rest of the day. Maybe today I should prepare Secret Fire of Anor, and Smite Bridge. Maybe today I'll need to shatter an ax and heat the grip of a sword. He just knows spells and he casts them.

Harry Dresden doesn't prepare spells either. He knows how to manipulate magic and he just casts spells. And he can pour more power into his spells, like augmenting them.

Sian's mana reference is also a good example.

Particle_Man

2017-02-06, 02:05 PM

If the 15 minute workday is a feature of campaign X, doesn't that make the wizard much more powerful than the psion anyhow? If the party can retreat and rest after expanding magics (the 15 minute work day) surely they could also retreat and rest after the wizard sees that the wrong spells were prepared that day (oh, we are fighting outsiders not undead? Guess we will retreat, rest, and come back tomorrow!). I guess that would be the 1 minute workday. That would make the wizard more powerful than the psion/sorcerer/wilder, who are not able to switch out their powers known on a daily basis. That is what makes the psion tier 2 and the wizard tier 1. Thus in campaign X, Varsuvius the Wizard is way, way, way more dangerous and potentially game-breaking than PSteve the Psion.

If the 15 minute workday is not a feature of campaign Y, then the worries about the psion going nova are not gong to be realized in campaign Y (if PSteve does nova too much in campaign Y, then PSteve will die fairly rapidly in campaign Y).

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 02:07 PM

I'm not saying that a Psion would break the game with BFC. I'm saying that if the standard for "breaking the game" is low enough that stinking cloud hits it, the Psion probably does too.

Which is where you ignored my comment that the psion has fewer battlefield control options, and the note that those they do have are weaker. This makes a difference; it isn't that you can't make a BFC psion that's going to create problems. It is that it is *harder to do that* and it is hard enough that it is almost impossible to do accidentally.

I find it hard to be impressed by the action economy of a CR 3 creature at 7th level. Also, the mephits are nice but not particularly devastating (with the exception of Mirror, but that's absurdly obscure). The versatility is okay, but mostly I would rather just cast black tentacles.

Most of the summons versatility is for out of combat situations. For example, the Continual Flame already mentioned which means that a 7th level wizard can spend down-time for free making permanent objects which they can sell. And this isn't like Wall of Iron where it just changes how much of a common material this is. This is literally setting breaking since cheap never-off lighting fundamentally alters how a society behaves. Moreover even in combat, the CR may be low but the set of choices is so large that it makes up for it often.

plane shift is a 5th level spell for Clerics.

But not for wizards. Putting Gate down to 7th level would make it the same level as Plane Shift is for wizards right now. Great, lets give the wizards more fun stuff, why not?

I think there's a problem with language here. Broken can mean either "overpowered" or "stops the game from functioning". As an example of the former, the Incantatrix. The latter, Chain Binding. If we're not using the second meaning (and we clearly are not, given that we are debating if knock is broken), the actual problem we encounter with broken things is that they cause characters who don't have them to feel overshadowed. Buffing doesn't do that, so it's hard for me to see it as "broken" in the same way that Shadow Illusion or Supernatural Spell cheese might be.

I agree that buffing doesn't feel that way (unless one is self-buffing with a CoDZilla) but it still can make serious headaches for DMs.

No. knock costs you a cast of glitterdust or web. Ranks in Open Lock cost you ranks in Craft or Sleight of Hand. One of those costs is much higher than the other, and the benefit it gets you can and should be larger.

I'm actually not sure which one you are arguing is a higher cost here. It seems that you are arguing that not casting a spell once, on one day is paying more than having to permanently invest ranks in something. That seems odd. Am I misreading here?

That consensus is obviously wrong. If A, B, and C don't break the game, there is no reason to think picking between A, B, and C breaks the game. Also, argument ad populum.

This isn't an argument ad populum. Argumentum ad populum would be if the argument was "Consensus is X, so you are wrong." Let's break down why the consensus is relevant here. First, if you are going to be having an extended set of conversations with people, and there's a consensus on a specific issue that's really relevant to a discussion, and you don't agree with that consensus, it makes it substantially more likely that a conversation isn't going to be productive, because others will be operating with that implied premise you disagree with. Second, in general, when there's a consensus for something by people who have spent a lot of time thinking about a topic, it should be a red flag if one disagrees with the consensus, and in that context it should be worrying when one thinks that the consensus is "obviously wrong" in italics. To use a different example from my own life: the consensus in my own professional field is that the Generalized Riemann hypothesis is almost certainly true. I'm highly skeptical of this for a variety of reasons, but I'm willing to recognize that very smart people (generally smarter than I am) have spent a lot of time thinking about it. If I were having a conversation where someone mentioned something implied by GRH and I said that GRH was obviously false, they'd have every right to look at me funny or wonder how productive a conversation it would be.

Not really: "When you cast a spell, make a save against fatigue. If fatigued, save against exhaustion. If exhausted, save against sleep." Done. [quote]

Can people use magic to remove the fatigue or exhaustion?

How does this work with beings that don't sleep?

Also, note that if this is how the system works then a wizard no matter how high level will have a high probability of never being able to cast more than 45 spells with a high probability. And this isn't a good representation of Drain anyhow because there's more of a luck factor. In general, if a system doesn't have a drain mechanic built in, adding patches so it has one is going to have issues. Note by the way that there is a 3.5 system that already has multiple forms of Drain, including probabilistic drain, as an option. That system is psionics.

[quote]
I would like to see an example where this phenomena (someone uses up their juice with little spells) actually does happen.

Sure. Schooled in Magic book 3, Study in Slaughter- that someone can do so is actually relevant as a plot point.

How is that not exactly a Drain set up? You get a cool power, it hits you with a big cost. The entire deal of Ragnarus is that you pay a price for your power.

So now Drain is any sort of cost being paid even if it is a symbolic cost that isn't part of the same resource? A specific one time effect that makes you lose your voice is thematically similar to Drain but if one is calling that Drain then one might as well call any resource expenditure Drain.

Other territories have other deals (and as you point out, one of them is basically spell points). We see Drain (Ragnarus), Recharge (Valinhall), Spell Points (Lirial), maybe some kind of deal where you have several ability suites and can focus one at a time? (Elysia), some kind of Tempo mechanic (Endross), and some kind of thing where you pick up a set of powers + minions (the Bird Territory). Maybe I'm forgetting some others. There's a bunch of stuff there, and only one thing is Spell Points. There's no Spell Slots territory, but there wouldn't be any real dissonance with the rest of the setting if Helheim's powers keyed off bindings you had to accumulate or something (a spell slots-ish mechanic).

Essential agreement here.

Mistborn uses something that is kind of Vancian if you squint. It's certainly closer to it than spell points.

What? The primary system in Mistborn involves continuous use of metal reserves which is exactly like Spell Points but having a whole host of different separate resources. How is that at all Vancian or closer to Vancian than spell points?

Also Chronicles of Amber as has been mentioned.

This is essentially the one exception and even there there are multiple other ways magic works (including the shadow control magic that one character has, and the tarot related powers). Also, I'm under the impression that Zelazny was influenced by Dying Earth, where Vancian magic first shows up.

You're missing the point. What actually breaks if the Wizard is allowed to cast stinking cloud whenever he feels the need? There are some abilities that break under an At-Will scheme, but many of them (e.g. planar binding) are broken under any scheme.

How much power a character has is relevant. If all wizard abilities became at will, it would be a) extremely tough to balance encounters and b) would be extremely hard to explain from an in-world stand point why everything wasn't ruled by mages (which is hard enough to explain as is). It would also make spellcasters outshine martials even more- the entire point is there's a tradeoff that martials can swing their swords repeatedly and the spellcasters can do some really impressive stuff but not as frequently.

Troacctid

2017-02-06, 02:13 PM

Most of the summons versatility is for out of combat situations. For example, the Continual Flame already mentioned which means that a 7th level wizard can spend down-time for free making permanent objects which they can sell. And this isn't like Wall of Iron where it just changes how much of a common material this is. This is literally setting breaking since cheap never-off lighting fundamentally alters how a society behaves. Moreover even in combat, the CR may be low but the set of choices is so large that it makes up for it often.
You only earn 5 gp for each casting of continual flame. You could probably earn more than that making mundane Perform checks.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 02:19 PM

You only earn 5 gp for each casting of continual flame. You could probably earn more than that making mundane Perform checks.

The continual flame effect ends when the summon does so you don't actually earn any money from it.

relevant rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 02:19 PM

You only earn 5 gp for each casting of continual flame. You could probably earn more than that making mundane Perform checks.

Yes, but the thought process is essentially as follows: if you are a wizard, prep at least one copy of Summon Monster IV daily. If you don't end up using it, then 5 free gp.

Similarly, if you are a sorcerer, you do the same and just burn all your level 4 or higher spell slots not used right before you refresh. In neither case are you going to get a lot of money, and yes, performing might work better, but it would be much more time consuming. This is literally a 1-2 rounds a day. If a wizard in their tower is not adventuring and does this on average once a day for a whole year then they've effectively increased their wealth by about 10% compared to where it should be. And this has a real and substantial impact in what a city looks like: it makes it almost impossible to have what feels like a low magic setting that is at all consistent with the mechanics. And this is one of many different things one can do with the summon spells. It isn't the most broken thing but it is headachy (it does also have one easy fix-summoned versions of beings cannot use their spell-like abilities for effects which are duration permanent.)

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 02:20 PM

The continual flame effect ends when the summon does so you don't actually earn any money from it.

relevant rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning)

From the SRD bit you are quoting:

"When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire."

It says spells, not spell-like abilities.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 02:33 PM

As for fantasy stories; the ones I've read virtually never have the regular collection of material wealth as a feature at all. Even the ones that start off with that being the motivation for one or more of the characters quickly turn into something bigger where that original motivation gets quickly burried. In the ones I've -played- however (hi again CRPG's), it's as common as the main protagonist being armed with a sword that the regular income goes to better gear and expendable items.

Maybe the iconic fantasy story is a knight killing a dragon to win a princess's hand and a kingdom. That's an adventure where the goal is explicitly "get land".

Again, CRPGs are a terrible place to look for TTRPG inspiration. They don't have a DM, and all interactions have to be pre-defined. This sharply limits the ability to do stuff like kingdom building in most cases.

Only if the DM and the rest of the party let them.

Why would I not optimize the amount of magical power available to my party even if I am personally a Warblade? Also, the DM solutions presented are mostly situational (time limits) or bad (ambush while resting).

On a spectrum of at-will --> spell points --> vancian magic, the points are closer to representing fantasy magic than the spell slot preparation.

But if spell slots are mechanically better (they are) and at-will is closer to the source material (it is), why not use whichever of those corresponds to what you're optimizing for?

Harry Dresden doesn't prepare spells either. He knows how to manipulate magic and he just casts spells. And he can pour more power into his spells, like augmenting them.

Or metamagic. Or just casting higher level versions of spells. Having a way to make your magic bigger is not by any stretch of the imagination unique to psionics.

Which is where you ignored my comment that the psion has fewer battlefield control options, and the note that those they do have are weaker. This makes a difference; it isn't that you can't make a BFC psion that's going to create problems. It is that it is *harder to do that* and it is hard enough that it is almost impossible to do accidentally.

Again, the point is not Wizard BFC v Psion BFC. It's that if Wizard BFC breaks the game, it's probably trivial to break that game as a Psion.

Most of the summons versatility is for out of combat situations. For example, the Continual Flame already mentioned which means that a 7th level wizard can spend down-time for free making permanent objects which they can sell. And this isn't like Wall of Iron where it just changes how much of a common material this is. This is literally setting breaking since cheap never-off lighting fundamentally alters how a society behaves. Moreover even in combat, the CR may be low but the set of choices is so large that it makes up for it often.

plant growth bumping yields by a third is probably a bigger deal than continual flame.

But not for wizards. Putting Gate down to 7th level would make it the same level as Plane Shift is for wizards right now. Great, lets give the wizards more fun stuff, why not?

You could make it 8th level for Wizards, or just not give it to them if you care that much.

I'm actually not sure which one you are arguing is a higher cost here. It seems that you are arguing that not casting a spell once, on one day is paying more than having to permanently invest ranks in something. That seems odd. Am I misreading here?

If you aren't preparing knock, the guy with Open Lock ranks is obviously winning. If you are preparing knock, you have given up glitterdust and he has given up Sleight of Hand. You're eating a big cost it terms of combat effectiveness, while he just used a utility slot.

Can people use magic to remove the fatigue or exhaustion?

Could go either way.

How does this work with beings that don't sleep?

Use unconscious instead of sleep? It's a proof of concept.

Also, note that if this is how the system works then a wizard no matter how high level will have a high probability of never being able to cast more than 45 spells with a high probability.

You could use scaling drain. Max level of spell is two stages of drain (so normal -> exhausted, fatigued -> unconscious). Max minus one is one stage. Max minus two is nothing, or maybe best of two saves.

So now Drain is any sort of cost being paid even if it is a symbolic cost that isn't part of the same resource? A specific one time effect that makes you lose your voice is thematically similar to Drain but if one is calling that Drain then one might as well call any resource expenditure Drain.

Drain is just "your powers cause penalties". "Can't talk" is totally a penalty, and it's (IIRC) even a plot point in one book.

What? The primary system in Mistborn involves continuous use of metal reserves which is exactly like Spell Points but having a whole host of different separate resources. How is that at all Vancian or closer to Vancian than spell points?

It's the "host of different separate resources thing". In a Spell Point system, your castings of web are fungible with your castings of cloudkill at some rate. In Mistborn, your ability to burn Iron is exclusively dependent on how much Iron you've eaten. There is no rate at which you can turn Iron into Bronze or Atium into Copper. This ends up replicating the phenomena that someone was complaining about Vancian magic having (you can run out of Steel and still have a pile of Tin or Aluminum).

How much power a character has is relevant. If all wizard abilities became at will, it would be a) extremely tough to balance encounters and b) would be extremely hard to explain from an in-world stand point why everything wasn't ruled by mages (which is hard enough to explain as is). It would also make spellcasters outshine martials even more- the entire point is there's a tradeoff that martials can swing their swords repeatedly and the spellcasters can do some really impressive stuff but not as frequently.

a is not true. Casters are action constrained in most fights, not spell slot constrained. If people were spell slot constrained, no one would be excited about celerity letting you turn spell slots into actions.

The ship has already sailed on the other two. Casters should rule the world, and casters are better than non-casters. The caster/non-caster thing is only even an issue if you directly convert current casters without moving abilities around. Maybe a-will cloudkill is too good at 9th, but there's definitely some level it's okay.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 02:36 PM

From the SRD bit you are quoting:

"When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire."

It says spells, not spell-like abilities.

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:

Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated.

There is no qualitative difference between continual flame cast as a spell vs cast as a SLA.

relevant link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities)

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 02:55 PM

But if spell slots are mechanically better (they are) and at-will is closer to the source material (it is), why not use whichever of those corresponds to what you're optimizing for?

Your assertion that spell slots are mechanically better has been repeatedly criticized in this thread. Repeating it and using it as an assumption doesn't make it more true.

Or metamagic. Or just casting higher level versions of spells. Having a way to make your magic bigger is not by any stretch of the imagination unique to psionics.

Psionics does it naturally, without extra feats or the like, and it doesn't require the character to decide in advance that they are going to do so. The Dresden example works again here.

Again, the point is not Wizard BFC v Psion BFC. It's that if Wizard BFC breaks the game, it's probably trivial to break that game as a Psion.

The reason that the wizard battlefield control was brought up in the first place was an example of how one can break things *accidentally.* In that context, the fact that a psion doing BFC is *less likely* to accidentally break things is what matters.

plant growth bumping yields by a third is probably a bigger deal than continual flame.

Sure.

You could make it 8th level for Wizards, or just not give it to them if you care that much.

8th level without the calling aspect seems not unreasonable given the overall power level of things.

If you aren't preparing knock, the guy with Open Lock ranks is obviously winning. If you are preparing knock, you have given up glitterdust and he has given up Sleight of Hand. You're eating a big cost it terms of combat effectiveness, while he just used a utility slot.

What you appear to be missing, and this is connected to how T1 breaks things that you aren't appreciating is that tomorrow you can still have Glitterdust, but the rogue is stuck with their skill points. To some extent this is like the apocryphal story about the drunk Winston Churchill.

Could go either way.

If you can do this, then it is absolutely pointless.

Use unconscious instead of sleep? It's a proof of concept.

And some beings have immunity to that.

You could use scaling drain. Max level of spell is two stages of drain (so normal -> exhausted, fatigued -> unconscious). Max minus one is one stage. Max minus two is nothing, or maybe best of two saves.

Possibly, but that's pretty complicated.

Drain is just "your powers cause penalties". "Can't talk" is totally a penalty, and it's (IIRC) even a plot point in one book.

That's an incredibly broad notion of Drain. I was interpreting you to mean Drain as just draining life force. If every single possible penalty is part of your Drain description, then it is an incredibly broad category of magic. Moreover, it doesn't deal at all with the fact that the system which has the most penalties for pushing yourself is psionics.

It's the "host of different separate resources thing". In a Spell Point system, your castings of web are fungible with your castings of cloudkill at some rate. In Mistborn, your ability to burn Iron is exclusively dependent on how much Iron you've eaten. There is no rate at which you can turn Iron into Bronze or Atium into Copper. This ends up replicating the phenomena that someone was complaining about Vancian magic having (you can run out of Steel and still have a pile of Tin or Aluminum).

What you are doing here is taking an extremely specific and unique system and trying to force it in as being "close" to one or another. Yes, it has the non-fungeability aspect, but the continuous nature and lack of preparation are both closer to Spell Points.

a is not true. Casters are action constrained in most fights, not spell slot constrained. If people were spell slot constrained, no one would be excited about celerity letting you turn spell slots into actions.

Casters are constrained by both. Action constraint is a serious issue also, but if you are out of your highest level spells, then that's not the case.

The ship has already sailed on the other two. Casters should rule the world, and casters are better than non-casters. The caster/non-caster thing is only even an issue if you directly convert current casters without moving abilities around. Maybe a-will cloudkill is too good at 9th, but there's definitely some level it's okay.

So you are saying that we have a serious versimilitude issue and you want to make that issue even worse?

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 02:57 PM

There is no qualitative difference between continual flame cast as a spell vs cast as a SLA.

relevant link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities)

Good point. So that trick doesn't work. Thanks for clarifying that.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 03:05 PM

Maybe the iconic fantasy story is a knight killing a dragon to win a princess's hand and a kingdom. That's an adventure where the goal is explicitly "get land".

That's not how it's spun in most tellings and the point (that you cut) about not -buying- the land/castle remains. It's also an absurdly simplistic story, usually with a sole protagonist who's -already- a landed noble (prince charming).

You're grasping at straws here.

Again, CRPGs are a terrible place to look for TTRPG inspiration. They don't have a DM, and all interactions have to be pre-defined. This sharply limits the ability to do stuff like kingdom building in most cases.

For inspiration for story telling and scenario building, you're absolutely right, but we're talking mechanical paradigms. There's no substantial difference between the two in that area. Again, leadership and landlord create the design space for that particular narrative field if you really want it. Maintaining a duchy, barrony, etc is effectively retiring from adventuring and we're discussing an adventure game. It's -not- a natural progression.

Why would I not optimize the amount of magical power available to my party even if I am personally a Warblade?

Many, many players complain about downtime (start a discussion about whether magical HP healing is necessary if you don't believe it) in spite of the fact it takes virtually no time at the table. I'll happily acknowledge that it's not a terribly rational behavior but it's entirely too common to simply discount.

Also, the DM solutions presented are mostly situational (time limits) or bad (ambush while resting).

Time pressure comes and goes but it's entirely irrational to think you can just setup camp in hostile territory and -never- be accosted while resting. It's not something a GM should do too frequently but to imply it shouldn't be done at all by saying it's "bad" is absurd.

Since you -cannot- guarantee that you can rest safely in hostile territory, you want to spend minimal time there, thus, you want to use your firepower efficiently and -not- blow your whole load as quickly as possible and necessitate spending whole extra days there.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-06, 03:24 PM

But if spell slots are mechanically better (they are) and at-will is closer to the source material (it is), why not use whichever of those corresponds to what you're optimizing for?
You keep trying to have a different conversation than the one I came here to have. I'm not interested in optimization, I'm not interested in arguing with you whether slots are better (they aren't). You are making a claim that points are not closer to fantasy magic than spell slots, and that's just not true.

Or metamagic. Or just casting higher level versions of spells. Having a way to make your magic bigger is not by any stretch of the imagination unique to psionics.
You keep ignoring the *major* point between points and slots, and that is the preparation. A wizard with *spell points* can cast fireball whenever he wants, or augmented fireball whenever he wants, or knock, or sleep, or augmented sleep, or summon astral construct, or an augmented version, or synesthete, or energy bolt or its augmented version, etc. etc. etc.

He doesn't have to prepare any of those. He can do them as he chooses until he exhausts himself.

The wizard with slots cannot do that. He has to decide at the beginning of the day if he needs to apply metamagic feats, if he needs to prepare a higher level version of another spell.

That's the point. Spell slots not intuitive. People don't think about preparing a small portion of the spells you know that you can actually cast for the day when they think about magic. You keep avoiding that point, but that's the point that I'm making.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 03:29 PM

Your assertion that spell slots are mechanically better has been repeatedly criticized in this thread. Repeating it and using it as an assumption doesn't make it more true.

Slots encourage tactical diversity and make people use a wider variety of abilities. That's obviously good, people's responses have basically been "letting people trade low level abilities for high level abilities will not cause them to do that", which seems kind of obviously wrong.

Psionics does it naturally, without extra feats or the like, and it doesn't require the character to decide in advance that they are going to do so. The Dresden example works again here.

So does magic. What exactly is supposed to be the difference between charm person v charm monster and charm v augmented charm?

The reason that the wizard battlefield control was brought up in the first place was an example of how one can break things *accidentally.* In that context, the fact that a psion doing BFC is *less likely* to accidentally break things is what matters.

Well, no, because there are Psion abilities comparably likely to accidentally break things.

What you appear to be missing, and this is connected to how T1 breaks things that you aren't appreciating is that tomorrow you can still have Glitterdust, but the rogue is stuck with their skill points. To some extent this is like the apocryphal story about the drunk Winston Churchill.

And the Wizard still has knock written in his spellbook.

And some beings have immunity to that.

Any backlash type system is going to have some people who can free ride. That's inevitable.

Moreover, it doesn't deal at all with the fact that the system which has the most penalties for pushing yourself is psionics.

Layering Drain on top of something else isn't Drain. It's a hybrid set up.

What you are doing here is taking an extremely specific and unique system and trying to force it in as being "close" to one or another. Yes, it has the non-fungeability aspect, but the continuous nature and lack of preparation are both closer to Spell Points.

You totally prepare. You eat a bunch of metal. How is that not preparation?

So you are saying that we have a serious versimilitude issue and you want to make that issue even worse?

Well, I would fix it by giving martials actual abilities. But yes, if your objection is "this will cause a thing that is already happening", that is a bad objection.

That's not how it's spun in most tellings and the point (that you cut) about not -buying- the land/castle remains. It's also an absurdly simplistic story, usually with a sole protagonist who's -already- a landed noble (prince charming).

Getting a castle instead of gold is exactly like getting gold and trading it for a castle except you skip the step where you find a castle for sale.

For inspiration for story telling and scenario building, you're absolutely right, but we're talking mechanical paradigms. There's no substantial difference between the two in that area.

There absolutely is. On a very basic level, CRPGs are hooked up to a computer, so they can do arbitrarily complicated bookkeeping (try tracking something with the health of a WoW raid boss on paper) and any RNG you care to name (if you really want to, you can take a random number to the power of a random number and plug it into a trigonometric function and that will be basically instant).

Time pressure comes and goes but it's entirely irrational to think you can just setup camp in hostile territory and -never- be accosted while resting. It's not something a GM should do too frequently but to imply it shouldn't be done at all by saying it's "bad" is absurd.

Sleep ambushes aren't bad because they're unrealistic. They're bad because they make the problem worse. If I think I'll be ambushed when I try to rest, I'll rest sooner so I have more resources to deal with that inevitable ambush.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 03:43 PM

Cosi

2017-02-06, 03:56 PM

You keep trying to have a different conversation than the one I came here to have. I'm not interested in optimization, I'm not interested in arguing with you whether slots are better (they aren't). You are making a claim that points are not closer to fantasy magic than spell slots, and that's just not true.

My claim is this:

If you want to look like fantasy, use At-Will or some arbitrary set up you made up.

If you want it to be mechanically compelling, use Spell Slots.

Why do I care about the intermediate solution that is mechanically worse than Spell Slots but further from fantasy than At-Wills?

Encouraging tactical diversity is good. But I and other people in this thread gave you examples where one would naturally use the "weaker" ability. It also has been pointed out to you that many psionic powers don't scale the way you think they do- so a lower level power may be tactically better in some circumstances.

You mean like the person who suggested mind thrust, a will-save-or-damage power that is outclassed by will-save-or-convert dominate? Because yeah, you would totally scale up the low level spell there.

So, your reply is ignoring the primary issue. The wizard *decides in advance which one they are using*. Dresden and the psion and most characters do not.

Neither do Sorcerers. Or Sudden Empower.

Um, the point is that there are *fewer* and most of those are *weaker* than the corresponding magic ability.

I do not think there are fewer (by percentage) if you are counting black tentacles as broken.

Which isn't a big deal at all compared to having specific character options that you always have on.

knock is always in your spellbook, not being invisibility (or whatever else you might have preferred).

By that logic, Ragnarus isn't drain either since one can steal blood and life from others to power its abilities. In this case, the Overchannel and relevant Wilder class features are examples built into the system at a basic level. Even if one buys into your hybdrid claim, a hybdrid system of Drain and Spell Points is still closer to Drain than a Vancian system is.

If metamagic doesn't count, neither does Overchannel.

You swallow a quick gulp. And people swallow more in combat all the time. Heck, people specifically wait until they absolutely need it to swallow atium. Again, the Mistborn allomancy system is very unique; trying to classify it as a pre-existing system is not going to be likely to go well in general, but to say it is Vancian is very much square peg and round hole.

Spell Points is definitely a worse match though. The defining aspect of Allomancy is that there are several types of magic you can't convert between, which is clearly closer to several types of spell slots you can't convert between than it is to one type of spell point you can use on anything.

No, the objection is that it will a cause a bad thing that is already happening to be *worse*. That a bad thing is happening doesn't make having more of the bad thing ok.

It might technically make the gap larger, but the gap is already large enough that the optimal solution includes only casters. If you don't change the output, I am skeptical that your change matters very much.

Also, you missed the thing where you could just move spell levels around if you were really concerned.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 04:16 PM

Getting a castle instead of gold is exactly like getting gold and trading it for a castle except you skip the step where you find a castle for sale.

Do I -really- need to go into the idea of asset liquidity? A castle is -not- the same as its value in GP unless you actually -want- a castle. If you want to keep adventuring accross the country-side, a castle is worthless. It can even be an active detriment if taxes and/or leadership are expected from the castle's owner and that's not the game he wants to play. Players don't want to be saddled with a white elephant and making it mandatory is far worse game design than item dependency ever will be.

There absolutely is. On a very basic level, CRPGs are hooked up to a computer, so they can do arbitrarily complicated bookkeeping (try tracking something with the health of a WoW raid boss on paper) and any RNG you care to name (if you really want to, you can take a random number to the power of a random number and plug it into a trigonometric function and that will be basically instant).

That's all at the execution end and has no bearing on the concept of growth through leveling and/or equipment. Character building mechanics work the same in both at the most basic level. CRPG's just get more complex formulae to do it with.

Sleep ambushes aren't bad because they're unrealistic. They're bad because they make the problem worse. If I think I'll be ambushed when I try to rest, I'll rest sooner so I have more resources to deal with that inevitable ambush.

I already outlined the fault in that logic below where you quoted. Resting sooner and more often makes the potential for ambush (and the consequent loss of resting benefits) higher. Resting before you're completely spent was already a good idea precisely -because- such ambushes -should- be expected unless the DM is soft-balling.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 04:17 PM

My claim is this:

If you want to look like fantasy, use At-Will or some arbitrary set up you made up.

And many people have given you many examples that don't function this way and are much closer to psionics.

And you've also had a lot of push back on this both in terms of pointing out that it doesn't cause the problems you think it does and that many other game systems manage Spell Points.

[quote]
Why do I care about the intermediate solution that is mechanically worse than Spell Slots but further from fantasy than At-Wills?

So, even if everyone here were to agree with your premise that Spell Point systems are somehow mechanically worse, and if everyone here agreed that Fantasy is generally At-Will (which would be strange since you yourself have discussed multiple examples where that's not the case), and we completely ignored the many fantasy settings similar to Spell Points, you appear to be missing the fact that sometimes one wants something that balances out multiple competing interests. Everything in any gaming system is a balance of concerns.

You mean like the person who suggested mind thrust, a will-save-or-damage power that is outclassed by will-save-or-convert dominate? Because yeah, you would totally scale up the low level spell there.

They didn't give a great example, but I did give you the Energy Missile v. Energy Ball example, and their example would have worked really well if they had said Ego Whip instead of Mind Thrust.

Neither do Sorcerers. Or Sudden Empower.

Sudden Empower takes a feat and note that it is outside core. But I agree with Sorcerers. In fact, Sorcerers feel a lot more like your bog standard mage than wizards do precisely because of this!

I do not think there are fewer (by percentage) if you are counting black tentacles as broken.

For wizards, the real combos aren't individual BFCs as much as the right ones at the right times coordinating with others. I disagree incidentally with your assessment but I suspect that actually going through we would end up finding a lot of subjective decisions.

knock is always in your spellbook, not being invisibility (or whatever else you might have preferred).

In your spellbook is substantially less of a commitment than having many skill points invested. The point is that the wizard has a much smaller commitment on the offdays. This shouldn't be complicated.

If metamagic doesn't count, neither does Overchannel.

The reason metamagic didn't "count" was because the vast majority of uses of it with a wizard, they can't use it spontaneously. The psion and the wizard can both pick up one of these as a bonus feat. But only one of them can generally use it whenever they want using a bit more of their basic resource. Again, this was who is more like your prototypical fantasy mage.

Spell Points is definitely a worse match though. The defining aspect of Allomancy is that there are several types of magic you can't convert between, which is clearly closer to several types of spell slots you can't convert between than it is to one type of spell point you can use on anything.

Neither is a great match for this system; something which has already been explained to you. But one could argue that of the bad matches, spellpoints is a better match, since it allows one to use a small amount of a resource. One just has multiple spell pools. A mistborn can use some of their pewter, stop burning, and then burn some more later. Or they can flare it, using it quickly for a brief moment. That's a lot more like Spell Points. Neither is a great match for Allomancy but there are aspects which are much closer.

It might technically make the gap larger, but the gap is already large enough that the optimal solution includes only casters. If you don't change the output, I am skeptical that your change matters very much.

Not just technically; at will abilities make drastic differences. This is part of why when Pathfinder was made, even as they made at-will cantrips they had to alter what some cantrips did. I'm not sure what your second sentence means.

Also, you missed the thing where you could just move spell levels around if you were really concerned.

Which requires massive fiddling and doesn't do everything right.

It might help to also remember that the central issue that started this discussion wasn't whether psionics or arcane magic is a better system in a head-to-head matchup. One can just as well think that each system has its advantages and disadvantages (which I do) and still be ok with both.

Dagroth

2017-02-06, 04:18 PM

To pull in some other thoughts...

If you want a system that more accurately portrays "Merlin", or "Harry Dresden", or just about anyone who can cast the small stuff all day long but has to do complicated rituals and/or just gets tired when doing the big stuff... You want GURPS.

In GURPS, the more skilled with spells you are, the easier (and faster) they are to cast. You need to learn the weak spells (because they're prerequisites) before you learn the strong spells (just like an apprentice would). If you want to be incredibly good at one aspect of magic, you can focus more of your character points on it... which leaves you with fewer (or none) to put in to other aspects of magic.

If you want a Book Series that uses Psionics overtly in place of Magic, the Deryni series by Katherine Kurtz is good. Very much in keeping with the "you start with specific abilities that grow stronger as you grow stronger" idea. Some things presented don't make sense as Psionics, but overall it's very clearly "Mind over Matter".

-------

Now, for my thoughts on Psionics in 3.5 (I don't play Pathfinder... I like a lot of the ideas, but certain others bug me)...

It's generally good. It takes a bit to get used to, if you've been playing a long time like I have (I played blue-book D&D & even the min-books like Blackmoore). Certain things bother me (Djores? what?) and I, like others, find the names for many powers "science-y" (because of the way we're raised and taught language).

It still suffers some of the problems of AD&D (some wonk thinks full BAB is equal to casting power... really?!?), but I do like the augmentable powers idea precisely because it cuts down on the number of books I have to hunt through while comparing this spell to that one to determine which one I'll learn/memorize.

Lastly... the whole Tier-1 thing.

A party of 5 Level 20 Wizards can do anything. Period. They're slightly soft on the healing... but they can use summons to do any tanking they don't want to... and who needs to heal summons?
Heck, they can even switch up and have one Wizard doing the classic "Rogue" stuff... one doing the classic "Fighter" stuff and one doing the classic "Buffer (and even healer, once you start breaking shapechange and spells like "repair construct")" while the last two handle blasting and battlefield control.

A party of 5 Level 20 Clerics can do anything. Period. They're slightly soft on sheer damage output... but they'll overcome. It's even worse when you mix in the right combination of Domains.

A party of 5 Level 20 Fighters/Paladins/Rangers/Rogues/Monks are hosed without ridiculous levels of optimization, equipment and hacks.

There are spells to overcome any weakness a Cleric or Wizard might have.

Every one of the "Complete" & "Races of" books has more power for Clerics & Wizards... even Complete Warrior.

That is why Vancian casting is broken, even beyond "a few specific spells and/or Feats" (Craft Contingent Spell anyone?).

Segev

2017-02-06, 04:20 PM

That is why Vancian casting is broken, even beyond "a few specific spells and/or Feats" (Craft Contingent Spell anyone?).

That has extremely little to do with vancian casting and far more to do with extensive spell access. Psions with wizard-like access are actually even more powerful: see the Spell-to-Power Erudite.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 04:22 PM

That has extremely little to do with vancian casting and far more to do with extensive spell access. Psions with wizard-like access are actually even more powerful: see the Spell-to-Power Erudite.

StPE is strong because there are so many spells out there. Note that a sorcerer doesn't have their power level increase that much with more spells on the sorcerer list.

Segev

2017-02-06, 04:27 PM

StPE is strong because there are so many spells out there. Note that a sorcerer doesn't have their power level increase that much with more spells on the sorcerer list.

True, but irrelevant. I was not saying Tier 1 isn't a thing. I was saying that it's not a problem of vancian casting. It's a problem of spell access.

Dagroth

2017-02-06, 04:40 PM

That has extremely little to do with vancian casting and far more to do with extensive spell access. Psions with wizard-like access are actually even more powerful: see the Spell-to-Power Erudite.

Even if you don't go splat-books and just stick with Player's Handbook spells & DMG equipment... the Wizard party and the Cleric party are so much more competent and better-off than the "every melee" party could ever think to be. Especially since you're taking away almost all of the tricks and things that help melee.

Cosi

2017-02-06, 04:46 PM

And many people have given you many examples that don't function this way and are much closer to psionics.

Of the examples people gave, the only one I found details on (the Belgariad) is Drain not Spell Points. House of Blades has like six resource management systems (that get detailed), and one of them is Spell Points.

They didn't give a great example, but I did give you the Energy Missile v. Energy Ball example, and their example would have worked really well if they had said Ego Whip instead of Mind Thrust.

Yeah, if you have to take out several weak enemies, if they are clustered, if there is something you can't hit in the AoE, if you are the only person acting before them, you might use a 2nd level power over a 4th level one.

ego whip does not seem like a good substitute for dominate. It's worse on a failed save (maybe kill v definitely control) and on a successful save neither is very good except against whatever the set of creatures that get hosed by a small amount of CHA damage is.

In your spellbook is substantially less of a commitment than having many skill points invested. The point is that the wizard has a much smaller commitment on the offdays. This shouldn't be complicated.

But there are substantially more spells than skills. Unless you have some trick to learn every spell, you probably have a smaller percentage of 2nd level spells in your spellbook than the Rogue has of skills trained.

Neither is a great match for this system; something which has already been explained to you. But one could argue that of the bad matches, spellpoints is a better match, since it allows one to use a small amount of a resource. One just has multiple spell pools. A mistborn can use some of their pewter, stop burning, and then burn some more later. Or they can flare it, using it quickly for a brief moment. That's a lot more like Spell Points. Neither is a great match for Allomancy but there are aspects which are much closer.

The defining feature of Spell Points is the ability to cast a spell of your choice from a common pool. Allomancy very clearly doesn't work that way. You have a bunch of pools that are separate. No amount of Pewter buys you an Iron. No amount of Gold buys you any Atium. As far as continuousness, there are spells that grant charges (there's a Bard spell that gives you a pool of luck).

Not just technically; at will abilities make drastic differences. This is part of why when Pathfinder was made, even as they made at-will cantrips they had to alter what some cantrips did. I'm not sure what your second sentence means.

You do have to change stuff, but the stuff you need to change is mostly either arguable (I don't think at-will healing breaks anything wands don't) or problematic in a daily paradigm (planar binding).

The second sentence refers to the fact that the optimal party in 3.5 as it stands is four casters. If you make casters better, the optimal party is still four casters. Nothing has changed in terms of result, so I don't think that the change is problematic for reasons like "it makes Fighters suck" or "it would warp the setting." Fighters already are so terrible the optimal quantity of them is zero. The setting is already terminally warped.

A party of 5 Level 20 Wizards can do anything. Period. They're slightly soft on the healing... but they can use summons to do any tanking they don't want to... and who needs to heal summons?
Heck, they can even switch up and have one Wizard doing the classic "Rogue" stuff... one doing the classic "Fighter" stuff and one doing the classic "Buffer (and even healer, once you start breaking shapechange and spells like "repair construct")" while the last two handle blasting and battlefield control.

A party of 5 Level 20 Clerics can do anything. Period. They're slightly soft on sheer damage output... but they'll overcome. It's even worse when you mix in the right combination of Domains.

A party of 5 Level 20 Fighters/Paladins/Rangers/Rogues/Monks are hosed without ridiculous levels of optimization, equipment and hacks.

Why do people see this and think "the problem is the Wizard" rather than "the problem is the Monk"? The Wizards have gained abilities over their careers. They can fly and teleport and summon demons, which they could not do at low levels. We should strive to make Fighters more like them, not to make them more like Fighters.

EisenKreutzer

2017-02-06, 05:01 PM

Segev

2017-02-06, 05:19 PM

Even if you don't go splat-books and just stick with Player's Handbook spells & DMG equipment... the Wizard party and the Cleric party are so much more competent and better-off than the "every melee" party could ever think to be. Especially since you're taking away almost all of the tricks and things that help melee.

As I said to JoshuaZ, this has nothing to do with the fact that those are "Vancian casters." It has everything to do with their broad spell access. I brought up the StP Erudite to illustrate this: the StP Erudite has broad spell access like a wizard (better, even), but is most definitely non-Vancian. Thus, the problem is not the Vancian casting. It is the broad spell access. Because the StP Erudite has all the same problems as the wizard in terms of being Tier 1 overpowered. Worse, really.

Dagroth

2017-02-06, 05:31 PM

Why do people see this and think "the problem is the Wizard" rather than "the problem is the Monk"? The Wizards have gained abilities over their careers. They can fly and teleport and summon demons, which they could not do at low levels. We should strive to make Fighters more like them, not to make them more like Fighters.

Because the problem is the "do everything" power.

If all[b] Wizards were Focused Specialists (2 banned schools, can't ban Divination), it wouldn't be [b]quite so bad. Especially if you ban any feat or trick used to get around the restriction.

Maybe I should've made my example more clear.

5 Clones of the exact same level 20 Wizard with a reasonably full spell-book are better than any party out there. Period. It can be argued that a Wizard should spend most of his wealth on getting new spells.

It isn't that the Fighter can't fly and teleport and summon demons... It's that the Wizard can do all of those things... and find and bypass traps... and sneak into places... and fight in melee... and be the well-loved diplomat... and have an army at his beck and call... and more, and more, and more.

If you remove Clerics (you've got Favored Soul... give them 1 domain or turn undead, their choice) and Wizards (you've got Sorcerer... give them the bonus feats that Wizards get) completely (and remove Wild Shape from Druids), you've done more to balance 3.5 than anything ToB ever hoped to.
--------

Sorry, getting off-topic.

Psy-Warrior & Psy-Rogue do a good job of providing reasonable upgrade replacements for Fighters & Rogues... though Pys-War really should have full BAB.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 05:44 PM

Of the examples people gave, the only one I found details on (the Belgariad) is Drain not Spell Points. House of Blades has like six resource management systems (that get detailed), and one of them is Spell Points.

We've already discussed that what you are calling Drain is very close to Spell Points and that the essential issue at hand which you apparently dislike, interchangeability, is present in both.

Yeah, if you have to take out several weak enemies, if they are clustered, if there is something you can't hit in the AoE, if you are the only person acting before them, you might use a 2nd level power over a 4th level one.

Yes! This is the point- different powers work best in different contexts.

ego whip does not seem like a good substitute for dominate. It's worse on a failed save (maybe kill v definitely control) and on a successful save neither is very good except against whatever the set of creatures that get hosed by a small amount of CHA damage is.

It has a major advantage which is still doing something useful on a successful save. Against a creature with a very high will save but no immunity to mind-affecting, ego whip is great.

But there are substantially more spells than skills. Unless you have some trick to learn every spell, you probably have a smaller percentage of 2nd level spells in your spellbook than the Rogue has of skills trained.

Yes. I'm not sure how the percentage of things you can have is at all relevant here. Why does that matter?

The defining feature of Spell Points is the ability to cast a spell of your choice from a common pool. Allomancy very clearly doesn't work that way. You have a bunch of pools that are separate. No amount of Pewter buys you an Iron. No amount of Gold buys you any Atium. As far as continuousness, there are spells that grant charges (there's a Bard spell that gives you a pool of luck).

People like Spell Points not just because of the common pool- the continuous aspect is a massive bit. To go back to Harry Dresden- he doesn't need to feel like he's using discrete units. The same applies to Spell Points. And the same applies to Pewter or Iron. I don't know why I need to repeat this so many times- the Mistborn magic system is very unique and trying to argue whether it is more similar to Vancian or Spell Points isn't productive, but it very much has aspects similar to Spell Points.

You do have to change stuff, but the stuff you need to change is mostly either arguable (I don't think at-will healing breaks anything wands don't) or problematic in a daily paradigm (planar binding).

At-will healing breaks settings. Once there is at-will healing, one expects the clerics of any good deity to be offering functionally free healing to everyone. Heck, in my last campaign, the witch PC who had the healing hex opened up a healing clinic at the end and tried to persuade others to join her, and that's not even at-will healing. It is just an obvious thing.

The second sentence refers to the fact that the optimal party in 3.5 as it stands is four casters. If you make casters better, the optimal party is still four casters. Nothing has changed in terms of result, so I don't think that the change is problematic for reasons like "it makes Fighters suck" or "it would warp the setting." Fighters already are so terrible the optimal quantity of them is zero. The setting is already terminally warped.

It appears then that you are considering this in an overly narrow fasting. "Is the optimal party four casters?" Is a yes or no question, but that's not what is relevant: what is relevant are questons like: "How consistent does the setting feel?" and "How much do some character classes get overshadowed by others" which are quantitative questions without a yes no answer. And in that context, giving spellcasters more goodies does change the answers, and not for the better.

Why do people see this and think "the problem is the Wizard" rather than "the problem is the Monk"? The Wizards have gained abilities over their careers. They can fly and teleport and summon demons, which they could not do at low levels. We should strive to make Fighters more like them, not to make them more like Fighters.

Frankly, I agree with this to some extent; I'd rather bring up the lower tier classes than the upper tier ones. At the same time, for many purposes, it is potentially better to be somewhere in the middle- the upper end of T3 is a nice balance point.

Rerednaw

2017-02-06, 05:56 PM

You know the drill.

Excellent system and alternative to Vancian casting. And though 3.5 does have a spell point system for psionics as well, it did take psionics establishing the basis first.

Like any system potential for exploits, abuse, and deliberate 'miss-interpretation' of the rules. However overall scales nicely compared to spells. Some abilities superior to magical counterparts, some equal, and many less.

I use it whole-heartedly.

And Complete Psionics is a Highlander sequel. It never happened. :smallbiggrin:

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 06:07 PM

As I said to JoshuaZ, this has nothing to do with the fact that those are "Vancian casters." It has everything to do with their broad spell access. I brought up the StP Erudite to illustrate this: the StP Erudite has broad spell access like a wizard (better, even), but is most definitely non-Vancian. Thus, the problem is not the Vancian casting. It is the broad spell access. Because the StP Erudite has all the same problems as the wizard in terms of being Tier 1 overpowered. Worse, really.

This is a valid point; the problem with the Vancian system in this context is that it allows massive spell access; in that context, StP Erudite has the same problem; both are essentially flowing from the same central problem.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 06:16 PM

This, right here, is the golden standard.

No. It's not. Both need to be pushed closer to a middle ground if any change is to be made at all.

That a change -does- need to be made is questionable in itself but if you take it as given then T1 and T5/6 are both at too extreme an end of the versatility and power spectrums.

Coretron03

2017-02-06, 06:49 PM

No. It's not. Both need to be pushed closer to a middle ground if any change is to be made at all.

That a change -does- need to be made is questionable in itself but if you take it as given then T1 and T5/6 are both at too extreme an end of the versatility and power spectrums.

I second this, Because I don't know about you but I don't want fighters running around with the equivalent of planar binding from their class features in core.

obstructor

2017-02-06, 07:41 PM

Psionics is basically exactly magic, except the resource management is worse. Also, there's a bunch of new broken stuff you have to keep track of and/or fix. Maybe it's less than core, but it's still there.

Spell point systems don't work. The answer to "how many magic missile per day is one cloudkill per day worth" is somewhere between "infinity" and "bite me".

Basically this, psionics is ridiculously complicated. A wizard wants to cast fireball it does a 20 foot radius and 1d6 per caster level, a psion wants to cast the equivalent its "what energy type does he use?", "How many points does he augment it with?" , "What does that augment do for each energy type?" , "what does that do to the radius and range?"

Terrible from a player and dm perspective as the player has to keep a ton of notes, and the dm has to just trust the player.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-06, 07:57 PM

Slots encourage tactical diversity and make people use a wider variety of abilities. That's obviously good, people's responses have basically been "letting people trade low level abilities for high level abilities will not cause them to do that", which seems kind of obviously wrong.

Obvious to you perhaps, but not so to other posters. Letting people do something is not equivalent to forcing people to do something. If I only need to spend a few power points to achieve the desired effect, why would I choose to spend a bunch more to use a higher level effect? The only difference between the "tactical diversity" of a Sorcerer and a Psion with similar Spells and Powers is that the Psion is never going to find themselves using a Fireball when what they really wanted was Magic Missile.

So does magic. What exactly is supposed to be the difference between charm person v charm monster and charm v augmented charm?

Who they target and what magnitude of resource they cost?

Well, no, because there are Psion abilities comparably likely to accidentally break things.

There is a small but tangible difference between "I get to pick six abilities from the set {A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J} of which A, B, E, G, I, and J are potentially game breaking," and "I get to pick four abilities from the set {A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J} of which A, E, and I are potentially game breaking." Either set of abilities has the potential to break the game, but the higher quantity in the first set makes them significantly more likely, when taken at random.

And the Wizard still has knock written in his spellbook.

But tomorrow the Rogue will still be ugly, and the Wizard will have a spell prepared to eliminate their hangover. Wait, no, that's not quite it, is it? Oh, right, it's that the opportunity cost for the Rogue to be good at bypassing locks is significantly higher than that of the Wizard.

Any backlash type system is going to have some people who can free ride. That's inevitable.

And that's good for a game how, precisely?

Layering Drain on top of something else isn't Drain. It's a hybrid set up.

(Drain + X) is closer to Drain than Y, where Y =/= Drain though, isn't it? If you want a Drain based system, would you prefer a system which includes Drain as part of the cost of magic, or some other system which does not?

You totally prepare. You eat a bunch of metal. How is that not preparation?

"You totally prepare. You [rest and regain your mental focus, allowing you to power your mystical abilities]. How is that not preparation?

Well, I would fix it by giving martials actual abilities. But yes, if your objection is "this will cause a thing that is already happening", that is a bad objection.

That's one way to go about it. But the objection is not "this will cause a thing that is already happening" it's "This will make a thing that's already happening much, much worse."

Getting a castle instead of gold is exactly like getting gold and trading it for a castle except you skip the step where you find a castle for sale.

Castles are not liquid, &c. &c.

There absolutely is. On a very basic level, CRPGs are hooked up to a computer, so they can do arbitrarily complicated bookkeeping (try tracking something with the health of a WoW raid boss on paper) and any RNG you care to name (if you really want to, you can take a random number to the power of a random number and plug it into a trigonometric function and that will be basically instant).

All that a computer enables is resolving more complicated mechanics more quickly. That doesn't mean that the broader mechanics are entirely dissimilar - you could totally simulate an MMO Raid Boss Fight with pen and paper, using the same mechanics, it would just take more time.

Pen and Paper RPGs tend to be more flexible in what they can do, compared to computer RPGs, but only because Humans are (for the moment) better at general intelligence than computers, and thus are more able to react to novel situations (like a player deciding their character would prefer to retire to their castle and manage the issues of their domain rather than continue venturing into dark, dank, smelly holes in the ground, stabbing things, and taking their stuff).

Sleep ambushes aren't bad because they're unrealistic. They're bad because they make the problem worse. If I think I'll be ambushed when I try to rest, I'll rest sooner so I have more resources to deal with that inevitable ambush.

That's one option, or you could take steps before you rest to ensure your safety. Like Rope Trick, a piece of string tied to a bell strung at ankle height in the doorway, or eliminating the local opposition with the careful use of available resources to reduce the possibility that something will wander along and attack you in your sleep.

Basically this, psionics is ridiculously complicated. A wizard wants to cast fireball it does a 20 foot radius and 1d6 per caster level, a psion wants to cast the equivalent its "what energy type does he use?", "How many points does he augment it with?" , "What does that augment do for each energy type?" , "what does that do to the radius and range?"

Terrible from a player and dm perspective as the player has to keep a ton of notes, and the dm has to just trust the player.

Nonsense. A given spell might be less complex than an equivalent power, but only because it takes three or four or five spells for the Wizard to cover the same capabilities. The player need not keep any more notes than they would for a spellcaster, and the DM need not trust the player any more than they would if they were playing a Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid. It's just a matter of keeping track of the rules for Psionics, rather than Arcane or Divine Magic.

Particle_Man

2017-02-06, 08:12 PM

Speaking of GURPS (the point based magic system), Sir Terry Pratchett, author of the Discworld series, wrote magic in the Vancian way in his first few novels (because that was all he knew of from gaming) and he then moved away from that in his later novels because the point based system in gurps seemed more realistic to him for his fantasy world. This led to a gurps Discworld supplement for gurps 3rd edition.

So at least one fantasy author literally changed how he wrote his magic in his novels to get away from the Vancian system and to a spell points system.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 08:13 PM

Basically this, psionics is ridiculously complicated. A wizard wants to cast fireball it does a 20 foot radius and 1d6 per caster level, a psion wants to cast the equivalent its "what energy type does he use?", "How many points does he augment it with?" , "What does that augment do for each energy type?" , "what does that do to the radius and range?"

Terrible from a player and dm perspective as the player has to keep a ton of notes, and the dm has to just trust the player.

I would've just left it alone if not for that last bit.

That, and its reverse, are prerequisite to playing the game in the first place. If you feel like you can't trust the people you play with then why are you playing with them at all?

That said, even as you've described it, that's not terribly complex and certainly shouldn't require notes to handle.

Basically all the energy <X> powers follow the same pattern.

1d6 extra damage per PP spent to augment, +1 to the DC for every 2 extra dice, range and duration are set by ML just like spells, area of effect is defined by the power and doesn't change at all. Even the rider effect is uniform accross the elements; fire does an extra +1 per damage die, cold gets +1 per die and switches the save to fort, electric raises the save DC by 2 and gives +2 to the check for penetrating spell/power resistance, and sonic takes -1 to damage and ignores hardness. That's it. You memorize this paragraph and you've got the energy powers down.

Also, why is more granular control over your powers a bad thing?

JoshuaZ

2017-02-06, 08:19 PM

That, and its reverse, are prerequisite to playing the game in the first place. If you feel like you can't trust the people you play with then why are you playing with them at all?

What they may be referring to is not trust in the sense of not cheating but trust in the sense of trusting that you understand your own character's mechanics. If someone is using a set of mechanics that you don't know well, you need to either learn it well, or trust that they know what they are doing. In the last campaign I DMed, one player played a ranger with some very optimized ranged combat; I've never really understood ranged combat well, so I was functionally trusting him on this. He was someone who had very high system mastery in general, so this wasn't unreasonable, but there was still that sort of trust aspect going on.

Coretron03

2017-02-06, 08:27 PM

Basically this, psionics is ridiculously complicated. A wizard wants to cast fireball it does a 20 foot radius and 1d6 per caster level, a psion wants to cast the equivalent its "what energy type does he use?", "How many points does he augment it with?" , "What does that augment do for each energy type?" , "what does that do to the radius and range?"

Terrible from a player and dm perspective as the player has to keep a ton of notes, and the dm has to just trust the player.

Ok, this is false. Assuming pathfinder because i'm more famliar with it, you only pick the type when you learn it unless you pick a certain psionic school and even then wizards have a simliar option availble from the admixture evocation subschool. How many power points is basicly saying 3.5 power attack complicates martials because you have to deicide how much damage you want to do. Third, the benifits are flat and don't change with power points augmented with the types of energy and there usually something like "+1 damage per dice" or "fort instead of reflex save" or "-1 damage per die and ignore hardness" and like above usually can't be changed on the fly as you cast, only when you gain psionic focus. Lastly, I dont really know any fireball equivalent powers that do that. It might be different in 3.5 but eh, I can't help you there.

Edit: Ninja'd by Kelb who being him said it better then me :smallsigh:.

digiman619

2017-02-06, 09:31 PM

Yeah, if you have to take out several weak enemies, if they are clustered, if there is something you can't hit in the AoE, if you are the only person acting before them, you might use a 2nd level power over a 4th level one.
Yeah. It's almost like they aren't identical, even though they have the exact PP-to-damage ratio. Weird.

But there are substantially more spells than skills. Unless you have some trick to learn every spell, you probably have a smaller percentage of 2nd level spells in your spellbook than the Rogue has of skills trained.
There's this new thing called divine magic. Perhaps you've heard of it.

The second sentence refers to the fact that the optimal party in 3.5 as it stands is four casters. If you make casters better, the optimal party is still four casters. Nothing has changed in terms of result, so I don't think that the change is problematic for reasons like "it makes Fighters suck" or "it would warp the setting." Fighters already are so terrible the optimal quantity of them is zero. The setting is already terminally warped.
This is a valid point. That's why I don't use Vancian magic in my games.

Why do people see this and think "the problem is the Wizard" rather than "the problem is the Monk"? The Wizards have gained abilities over their careers. They can fly and teleport and summon demons, which they could not do at low levels. We should strive to make Fighters more like them, not to make them more like Fighters.

You know why people say that? It's because other unlimited reality warpers like Q, a Wizard 20 has more power than any other character in the history of fiction. Fun fact: characters with that much power are invariably the antagonists. Remember when Return of the King came out and all those wiseasses that asked "Why didn't they just fly to Mount Doom?" According to Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-Earth, the distance between the Shire and Mount Doom is roughly 1100 miles "by the crow flies" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=336997); a trivial distance for a 20th level Wizard to teleport. Moreover, they'd still have all of their 6th-9th spells. That's why people say the problem is the Wizard.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 09:46 PM

What they may be referring to is not trust in the sense of not cheating but trust in the sense of trusting that you understand your own character's mechanics. If someone is using a set of mechanics that you don't know well, you need to either learn it well, or trust that they know what they are doing. In the last campaign I DMed, one player played a ranger with some very optimized ranged combat; I've never really understood ranged combat well, so I was functionally trusting him on this. He was someone who had very high system mastery in general, so this wasn't unreasonable, but there was still that sort of trust aspect going on.

Errors made in a good-faith effort aren't usually terribly difficult to spot. If something doesn't seem right, roll with it 'till the end of the session then ask him to run it down for you. When you go through the relevant rules together, read the language carefully and the misunderstanding should jump right out at you. As long as it's a good-faith effort, he should be just fine with the correction.

This isn't hard and doesn't take that much time, especially with psionics which is so close to the standard magic mechanics that to call psionics more complex is technically true but colloquially absurd.

Efrate

2017-02-06, 09:57 PM

About summons and spells expiring, I assumed that meant limited duration effects not instantaneous permanent effects. The Aid spell the lantern archon cast goes away when the spell ends, the everburning torch it just made with continual flame stays lit because it creates a permanent effect. There isn't a spell to end with the torch, once created its just there. Am I horribly wrong in this or what?

On the topic of using lower slots to generate higher effects, I understand the problem there. At will spell levels is a problem that is an issue. 8 level 1 spell slots does not equal the power of a single level 8 spell in most circumstances. The level 8 spell is drastically more powerful. That I do not think is an issue with spell levels as it with the ridiculously powerful higher level spells. Psionics has less of these, but I can see the point, which I think is the argument?

Being able to use charm vs. humans, humanoids, monsterous humanoids, then anything I think is a good natural progression of the spell, and should take more slots/points/be a higher level. 5th edition does this and I think it makes a lot of sense. It does hurt prepared casters a bit (oh no), because you don't know if you need need to charm the town guard, the half orc soldier, the thri-keen commando, or the dragon who is masquerading as King.

However, since access to spells for wizard is pretty inexpensive, compared to sorcerer (or psion), taking charm is a much more potent choice with a lot more meaning for the more spontaneous version. Your wizard will have more fist or second level spells alone than a psion or a sorcerer gets in their entire adventuring career with minimal investment. Which makes the amount of utility the wizard haves drastically superior to that of the other classes. Giving those other classes more utility in how they use their much harshly limited resources I think is perfectly fine. If your psion wants to blow all his power points on greater metamorphasis and not have any energy missile, that is fine IMO, since that is one of the core strengths of the spontaneous casters.

It is also a LOT easier to play for someone newer to the game, and if someone wants to play a caster but get intimidated or overwhelmed by the staggering amount of foresight and options a prepared caster has. You can easily liken the psion's pool of power points to MP/mana from any number of video games and they get it, and their less powers known helps cut down on the entirety of everything being just too much.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-06, 10:02 PM

Segev

2017-02-07, 11:06 AM

This is a valid point; the problem with the Vancian system in this context is that it allows massive spell access; in that context, StP Erudite has the same problem; both are essentially flowing from the same central problem.

Indeed. A late-3.5 approach to tackling the problem came in the form of the Warmage, the Beguiler, and the Dread Necromancer. All of these are spont-casters with 100% access to their spell lists. They even have some limited "add foreign spells to their list" class features. But they're generally considered tier 2 or even 3 rather than tier 1, because the limits on their lists are sharp enough to prevent them from being able to cherry-pick the best spells for every possible occasion.

A vancian (in the D&D style) wizard could be similarly limited by keeping him restricted in his possible spell selection. It would not be easy to do from the state the game is in now, but a new class with a carefully crafted list could do it.

The interesting thing is that one of the original conceptions for the sorcerer, as I understand it, was as a focused, themed caster. The "fire mage" or "the enchantress" or "the illusionist" (even though the latter two are technically schools in which wizards can specialize, they're also themes; the enchantress, for instance, might dip necromancy for command undead and control undead so she can charm and dominate even them). Sadly, nothing in their design encourages this, overall. So they tend towards the more powerful versatility-seeking.

Also, to Efrate, wizard spell access is FAR cheaper than psion power access. Wizards get as many new spells per level for free, and need only spend gp to get more. Psions have to spend feats or even more precious commodities to eke a few extra powers into their known list.

If they could use power stones with their own PP without exhausting the stone, that'd be another matter (and downright broken), but they can't.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-07, 11:15 AM

Also, to Efrate, wizard spell access is FAR cheaper than psion power access. Wizards get as many new spells per level for free, and need only spend gp to get more. Psions have to spend feats or even more precious commodities to eke a few extra powers into their known list.

Actually worse than that. Wizards get to start with all cantrips. Psions have no equivalent in 3.5 (and even if PF where they do, they get a limited set), Wizards get bonus spells in their spellbook at level 1 based on their Int score, and psions only get a single new power known at levels 10,13, and 17 (why they decided to do that I don't know).

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 11:26 AM

Psions have a fairly easy time learning new powers in the late game, with psychic chirurgery (which they teach to other psions, and get back new powers in exchange). XP is a river and all that, so it costs them bupkis to round out their powers list.

Psions can also manifest out of another's powers known (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#manifestAnUnknownPowerFr omAnothersPowersKnown), as a full-round action preceding the turn on which he wants to manifest. Power stones are still flushed when used this way, but the psion is considered to be the manifester for all purposes (unlike a wizard casting from a scroll). An evil psion can also carry a bunch of severed enemy heads kept on life support, and pull powers out of them. In a high-op environment you can break the action economy to make the full-round action inconsequential. In a low-op environment, you can still use this for utility powers outside of combat, or just eat the 1-round delay if the power you're pulling is encounter-solving in nature.

Segev

2017-02-07, 11:45 AM

Psions have a fairly easy time learning new powers in the late game, with psychic chirurgery (which they teach to other psions, and get back new powers in exchange). XP is a river and all that, so it costs them bupkis to round out their powers list."XP is a river" is a popular meme, and true to an extent, but it is one of those things which is a legitimate cost when taken in real play. It takes time - sessions - to recover it. While you recover faster, it isn't free. It slows your level advancement. And taken to an extreme - as any psion trying to use psychic chirurgery to match a wizard's gp-purchased spell selection would have to - it will leave you way, way behind on the curve.

Psions can also manifest out of another's powers known (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#manifestAnUnknownPowerFr omAnothersPowersKnown), as a full-round action preceding the turn on which he wants to manifest. Power stones are still flushed when used this way, but the psion is considered to be the manifester for all purposes (unlike a wizard casting from a scroll).Useful for incidental powers where the ML is actually important, but still generally not worth doing over just activating the stone normally. I suppose it can make one-off stones of normally-unimpressive effect more useful, but still, you're paying your own PP when the advantage of a scroll to a wizard is usually not having to expend his own slots that day.

I guess this just changes the utility of power stones to psions vs. scrolls to wizards. Changes what is useful to put in them.

An evil psion can also carry a bunch of severed enemy heads kept on life support, and pull powers out of them. In a high-op environment you can break the action economy to make the full-round action inconsequential. In a low-op environment, you can still use this for utility powers outside of combat, or just eat the 1-round delay if the power you're pulling is encounter-solving in nature.That...is an interesting idea. How do you keep them on "life support" to manage this? And keep them cooperative enough that they're not acting against or resisting you?

Edit: I can answer my own question. You need them unconscious.

In another thread (on magic jar and getting a stone golem body) it was discussed that flesh to stone renders the victim unconscious. Use flesh to stone on target psions, and then use shrink item on their petrified bodies to make them into figurines or into nice patches to sew into your favorite !wizard cap. They are now unconscious (and thus "willing") and in easy access.

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 12:01 PM

That...is an interesting idea. How do you keep them on "life support" to manage this? And keep them cooperative enough that they're not acting against or resisting you?

Unconscious = willing, so just punch the brains into submission. Sustenance is taken care of through magic items or powers. Really, once you've incapacitated an opponent, you have a lot of ways to pacify them. Decerebrate works if your DM rules that a sustenance type effect keeps them alive. If you have a wizard's help, sequester and/or polymorph any object should work. If you're willing to be a babysitter, dominating a bunch of dorks to follow you around is an option (though then you could just make them manifest in the first place, which is boring).

If you have the ability to groom your brain-thralls, you can make sure they punch above their weight. Any creature with at least one manifesting class level and 15 HD can be a 7th level manifester with Practiced Manifester and Overchannel, and you can get someone to implant 4th level powers into them with psychic chirurgery since they can manifest them with their ML.

The body leech (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040925a) can also brain-drain his cocooned victims.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 12:38 PM

Because the problem is the "do everything" power.

If all Wizards were Focused Specialists (2 banned schools, can't ban Divination), it wouldn't be [b]quite so bad. Especially if you ban any feat or trick used to get around the restriction.

Maybe I should've made my example more clear.

5 Clones of the exact same level 20 Wizard with a reasonably full spell-book are better than any party out there. Period. It can be argued that a Wizard should spend most of his wealth on getting new spells.

It isn't that the Fighter can't fly and teleport and summon demons... It's that the Wizard can do all of those things... and find and bypass traps... and sneak into places... and fight in melee... and be the well-loved diplomat... and have an army at his beck and call... and more, and more, and more.

If you remove Clerics (you've got Favored Soul... give them 1 domain or turn undead, their choice) and Wizards (you've got Sorcerer... give them the bonus feats that Wizards get) completely (and remove Wild Shape from Druids), you've done more to balance 3.5 than anything ToB ever hoped to.
--------

Sorry, getting off-topic.

Psy-Warrior & Psy-Rogue do a good job of providing reasonable upgrade replacements for Fighters & Rogues... though Pys-War really should have full BAB.

Will reply to this later. Have to run now.

Yes! This is the point- different powers work best in different contexts.

The point, which I thought was fairly obvious, is that the given context is laughably contrived.

It has a major advantage which is still doing something useful on a successful save. Against a creature with a very high will save but no immunity to mind-affecting, ego whip is great.

On a save, ego whip deals roughly 1 CHA damage per four levels. The effect of that is basically zero against most monsters (oh no, the Atatch's Diplomacy check is 2 points lower! Whatever will it do!).

Yes. I'm not sure how the percentage of things you can have is at all relevant here. Why does that matter?

Stupid forums not multi-quoting (also lazy me not going back to check). I'm not sure if this is percentage of Wizard spells known with reference to knock or percentage of broken Psion powers with respect to chance of accidentally breaking the game.

For the first, it matters because in either case you have some resource (spells know/skills trained), and you are spending a percentage of it for a situational advantage. If you spend 5% of your spells known and the Rogue spends 2.5% of his skills, he's ahead.

For the second, if people are breaking the game "accidentally", random choice is a reasonably proxy for their power selection process with respect to broken powers. If the percentages are comparable, the chance of an accidental break is comparable. This may not be true if broken (or non broken) powers have some property that makes them more interesting to the average player.

At-will healing breaks settings. Once there is at-will healing, one expects the clerics of any good deity to be offering functionally free healing to everyone. Heck, in my last campaign, the witch PC who had the healing hex opened up a healing clinic at the end and tried to persuade others to join her, and that's not even at-will healing. It is just an obvious thing.

Not really. At-will healing changes the recover rate from injuries that were not instantly lethal. Not really a big deal from the high level perspective.

It appears then that you are considering this in an overly narrow fasting. "Is the optimal party four casters?" Is a yes or no question, but that's not what is relevant: what is relevant are questons like: "How consistent does the setting feel?" and "How much do some character classes get overshadowed by others" which are quantitative questions without a yes no answer. And in that context, giving spellcasters more goodies does change the answers, and not for the better.

Those problems are already terminal. Either you are fixing them (in which case, just update the fix to account for new abilities) or you don't care (in which case, why do you care if they're worse).

Frankly, I agree with this to some extent; I'd rather bring up the lower tier classes than the upper tier ones. At the same time, for many purposes, it is potentially better to be somewhere in the middle- the upper end of T3 is a nice balance point.

If you were actually designing new classes, you would not use the Tiers to mark anything. You want classes that have diverse resource management systems (like T3), setting changing abilities (like T1 and T2), and are effective (like ... a random group of classes that are not consistently within any given tier).

I second this, Because I don't know about you but I don't want fighters running around with the equivalent of planar binding from their class features in core.

Why? Unless you don't think Wizards should get it, why shouldn't Fighters? If you don't think Wizards should get it, why call out Fighters specifically?

Obvious to you perhaps, but not so to other posters. Letting people do something is not equivalent to forcing people to do something. If I only need to spend a few power points to achieve the desired effect, why would I choose to spend a bunch more to use a higher level effect? The only difference between the "tactical diversity" of a Sorcerer and a Psion with similar Spells and Powers is that the Psion is never going to find themselves using a Fireball when what they really wanted was Magic Missile.

If you let people do something that makes them less interesting, it is at best neutral.

But tomorrow the Rogue will still be ugly, and the Wizard will have a spell prepared to eliminate their hangover. Wait, no, that's not quite it, is it? Oh, right, it's that the opportunity cost for the Rogue to be good at bypassing locks is significantly higher than that of the Wizard.

This is probably not true. The ratio of 2nd level spells in spellbook/2nd level spells is probably higher than skills trained/skills, barring cheese to add all spells.

That's one way to go about it. But the objection is not "this will cause a thing that is already happening" it's "This will make a thing that's already happening much, much worse."

If you already have terminal cancer, it seems kind of strange to object to smoking because it causes cancer.

Also, why is more granular control over your powers a bad thing?

Paradox of Choice. Less options sometimes (honestly, it's probably "often") leads to better outcomes.

There's this new thing called divine magic. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Yes, because knock is a divine spell.

You know why people say that? It's because other unlimited reality warpers like Q, a Wizard 20 has more power than any other character in the history of fiction. Fun fact: characters with that much power are invariably the antagonists. Remember when Return of the King came out and all those wiseasses that asked "Why didn't they just fly to Mount Doom?" According to Karen Wynn Fonstad's Atlas of Middle-Earth, the distance between the Shire and Mount Doom is roughly 1100 miles "by the crow flies" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=336997); a trivial distance for a 20th level Wizard to teleport. Moreover, they'd still have all of their 6th-9th spells. [B]That's why people say the problem is the Wizard.

D&D power scales different from most other things. Wizards in D&D have a lot of power to do things that are effective in a small combat, but much less on a strategic scale. It's very difficult (barring extreme cheese) to emulate things like Dominions rituals.

Also, nothing stops you from just playing at a lower level if you don't like the power of 20th level Wizards. I don't like the weakness of 1st level characters. Does that mean we should cut out everything below 6th level?

JoshuaZ

2017-02-07, 01:15 PM

The point, which I thought was fairly obvious, is that the given context is laughably contrived.

This is again a substantial disagreement here. That you prefer a specific example that's contrived doesn't change that we've given multiple examples, including some which are very common, involving civilian bystanders or simply allies one doesn't want to injure.

On a save, ego whip deals roughly 1 CHA damage per four levels. The effect of that is basically zero against most monsters (oh no, the Atatch's Diplomacy check is 2 points lower! Whatever will it do!).

The comparison was an augmented ego whip to psionic dominate, which takes 7 points to use. Augmenting an ego whip with 4 points leads to a total charisma damage of 2d4 on a failed save half that on average is 2.5 charisma damage, and has a decent chance of dealing a lot more. Many monsters have abilities whose saves themselves function off of charisma, so one is making the saves one needs to make better. More to the point: the dominate does absolutely nothing on a successful save. A few ego whips over a few turns will have more of an impact, and it doesn't have the pesky requirement of having to keep concentrating either.

Stupid forums not multi-quoting (also lazy me not going back to check). I'm not sure if this is percentage of Wizard spells known with reference to knock or percentage of broken Psion powers with respect to chance of accidentally breaking the game.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

For the first, it matters because in either case you have some resource (spells know/skills trained), and you are spending a percentage of it for a situational advantage. If you spend 5% of your spells known and the Rogue spends 2.5% of his skills, he's ahead.

This is a terrible metric. By this logic, a class that has a massive number of incredibly weak abilities gets to be ahead from a class with a few very strong abilities because the percentage is smaller.

For the second, if people are breaking the game "accidentally", random choice is a reasonably proxy for their power selection process with respect to broken powers. If the percentages are comparable, the chance of an accidental break is comparable. This may not be true if broken (or non broken) powers have some property that makes them more interesting to the average player.

This is wrong. The key difference is that they aren't making random choices- they are picking powers or spells that look useful and they don't realize that simple spell combos can be game breaking.

At-will healing breaks settings. Once there is at-will healing, one expects the clerics of any good deity to be offering functionally free healing to everyone. Heck, in my last campaign, the witch PC who had the healing hex opened up a healing clinic at the end and tried to persuade others to join her, and that's not even at-will healing. It is just an obvious thing.
Not really. At-will healing changes the recover rate from injuries that were not instantly lethal. Not really a big deal from the high level perspective.

So, first of all you are ignoring that this was explicitly about *settings* not individual party balance. It is also a problem for parties (because of resource management issues) but is less of one.

Those problems are already terminal. Either you are fixing them (in which case, just update the fix to account for new abilities) or you don't care (in which case, why do you care if they're worse).

So, it appears that this is another area where many people disagree, and the proof that they disagree is pretty simple: people play D&D without playing all caster parties. So apparently these aren't terminal issues. But that doesn't mean that advancing wizard power even more as you advocate wouldn't make it even worse, or possibly terminal.

If you were actually designing new classes, you would not use the Tiers to mark anything. You want classes that have diverse resource management systems (like T3), setting changing abilities (like T1 and T2), and are effective (like ... a random group of classes that are not consistently within any given tier).

Have you looked in the Homebrew forum here at all? This is empirically wrong. People try to aim for specific tiers all the time, and that doesn't always have much if anything to do with resource management.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-07, 01:22 PM

Why? Unless you don't think Wizards should get it, why shouldn't Fighters? If you don't think Wizards should get it, why call out Fighters specifically?

Because if you can do all of the things with every class then there's no point in having classes at all. There's a generic classe variant in UA, have fun with that if this is what you want.

Paradox of Choice. Less options sometimes (honestly, it's probably "often") leads to better outcomes.

You've answered the wrong question. I asked why having more granular control over each power is bad, not why having more powers available at any one time is bad. Incidentally, this is a strong argument in psionics favor since the powers available to a psion are -much- more limited than the spells available to any dedicated caster, save perhaps the list casters.

To clarify, you've already chosen, say, energy bolt as the appropriate power for the situation. Why is the option to then select which energy and how much damage a bad thing?

Yes, because knock is a divine spell.

Greed 3.

martixy

2017-02-07, 02:01 PM

Cosi

2017-02-07, 02:11 PM

It isn't that the Fighter can't fly and teleport and summon demons... It's that the Wizard can do all of those things... and find and bypass traps... and sneak into places... and fight in melee... and be the well-loved diplomat... and have an army at his beck and call... and more, and more, and more.

If you remove Clerics (you've got Favored Soul... give them 1 domain or turn undead, their choice) and Wizards (you've got Sorcerer... give them the bonus feats that Wizards get) completely (and remove Wild Shape from Druids), you've done more to balance 3.5 than anything ToB ever hoped to.

I promised a reply to this.

The problem with casters from a power perspective is 99% "they have broken spells" and 1% "they have a variety of spells". A Sorcerer who takes planar binding is more powerful than a Wizard who takes all the non-broken utility spells.

The comparison was an augmented ego whip to psionic dominate, which takes 7 points to use. Augmenting an ego whip with 4 points leads to a total charisma damage of 2d4 on a failed save half that on average is 2.5 charisma damage, and has a decent chance of dealing a lot more. Many monsters have abilities whose saves themselves function off of charisma, so one is making the saves one needs to make better. More to the point: the dominate does absolutely nothing on a successful save. A few ego whips over a few turns will have more of an impact, and it doesn't have the pesky requirement of having to keep concentrating either.

"Twice as much" is not "a lot more". Also, you are getting a 1 point (successful save) or 2 point (failed save) reduction in DC. That isn't a terribly big deal in most cases. You can do it several rounds in a row, but by the time it adds up to anything substantial, spending those points on dominate probably would have succeeded.

This is a terrible metric. By this logic, a class that has a massive number of incredibly weak abilities gets to be ahead from a class with a few very strong abilities because the percentage is smaller.

Well, this logic only comes up because knock and Open Lock are comparable when you actually want to open some locks, so it's not really relevant.

This is wrong. The key difference is that they aren't making random choices- they are picking powers or spells that look useful and they don't realize that simple spell combos can be game breaking.

Okay, so why will they pick "game breaking" (bear in my, this is a definition of "game breaking" that includes Wizard BFC) spells more often as a Wizard for comparable base rates of game breaking spells? Do the OP Wizard spells look better than OP Psion powers?

So, first of all you are ignoring that this was explicitly about *settings* not individual party balance. It is also a problem for parties (because of resource management issues) but is less of one.

The setting is terminally incoherent too. Everything I said also applies there. The books say "medieval", the rules say "Star Trek". That is already true.

So, it appears that this is another area where many people disagree, and the proof that they disagree is pretty simple: people play D&D without playing all caster parties. So apparently these aren't terminal issues. But that doesn't mean that advancing wizard power even more as you advocate wouldn't make it even worse, or possibly terminal.

People play games that are not maximimally optimized. But there's no reason to think raising the ceiling will make those people play more powerful games. They already don't use infinite loops that are way better than at-will cloudkill to break the game, so why would they behave in a way that breaks the game with at-will cloudkill.

Have you looked in the Homebrew forum here at all? This is empirically wrong. People try to aim for specific tiers all the time, and that doesn't always have much if anything to do with resource management.

You can aim for the tiers. But the tiers are not what you should aim for, because they conflate the thing where the Wizard has spells like teleport that effect the setting with the thing where the Wizard has spells like planar binding that break the game. Everyone should have spells like teleport, no one should have spells like planar binding. Using the tiers as your target excludes that part of the solution space entirely.

Because if you can do all of the things with every class then there's no point in having classes at all. There's a generic classe variant in UA, have fun with that if this is what you want.

It sounded like a power complaint rather than a concept complaint to me, so this seems irrelevant.

To clarify, you've already chosen, say, energy bolt as the appropriate power for the situation. Why is the option to then select which energy and how much damage a bad thing?

Having twenty options on a single power encounters the exact same problems with the paradox of choice and option paralysis that having twenty powers does.

Greed 3.

I think one of your domains is probably more of a cost than one of your skills.

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 02:23 PM

Well... XP costs can be shared, and you can pay the other side the standard 1-5 rate. And many of the individual powers possess more versatility than their component spells. So it's not that bad. Barring thought bottles.
The manifester of psychic chirurgery pays. So it's a one-time 4.5k XP cost to teach someone the power (split evenly, pay them for the XP loss) and then they can foot the entire XP bill thereafter, and you pay them in gold. It's not cheap but it's an option.

Me, I love psionics, both the flavour and the mechanics, especially the subtle, but important differences from vancian casting.
This includes its very own, well defined niche in the optimization landscape - make the action economy your bi***. Including anything up to TO, such as the save-game trick.

Consequently I think the StP Erudite should not exist. Or at least not in its present form.
StP Erudite is fine, bar two things:

The nonsense around Magic Mantle supposedly giving you 9th level spells
The poorly worded (and poorly thought out) concept of UPD

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 02:35 PM

Ok, I have to step in here and address this.

Having twenty options on a single power encounters the exact same problems with the paradox of choice and option paralysis that having twenty powers does.

That notion is ridiculous at best. That is the equivalent of complaining that the gas pedal on a car can be incrementally pressed.

You give the car/power more gas. Don't think you've got enough? Keep pushing. It's not 'twenty options on a single power', it's 'each power comes with a gauge'.

As a Wizard, you have to decide if you're going to need maximized fireball, or that regular old fireball will be enough, right after you haul your behind up out of bed. As a Psion, you size up your target, and use what you feel is exactly the right amount.

Who in their right mind complains that precise control is a bad thing?

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-07, 02:35 PM

My claim is this:

If you want to look like fantasy, use At-Will or some arbitrary set up you made up.

If you want it to be mechanically compelling, use Spell Slots.
No problem. So you're admitting that spell slots don't look like fantasy, and spell points would in fact be closer to fantasy.

I know you're not outright saying it, but I understand that's what you're getting at here. Thank you, that's the only point I was making.

Why do I care about the intermediate solution that is mechanically worse than Spell Slots but further from fantasy than At-Wills?
Cosi... I don't know if you actually care or not. But you were arguing the point, so I'm contesting the point you were making.

You seem to care enough to argue that points don't mimic fantasy any better than slots. If you want to abandon that notion now, let me know.

GungHo

2017-02-07, 02:44 PM

Who in their right mind complains that precise control is a bad thing?
People who don't remember the rules and have sneaky ass players who will tell you how something works and always append with "yeah, that's the ticket".

Cosi

2017-02-07, 02:48 PM

Who in their right mind complains that precise control is a bad thing?

This is not some weird thing I'm making up. This is an actual phenomena that psychologists have observed and researched:

Analysis Paralysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis)
The Paradox of Choice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice) (there's also a TED talk by this guy)

People have weird preferences all the time. I don't understand why this is confusing people

No problem. So you're admitting that spell slots don't look like fantasy, and spell points would in fact be closer to fantasy.

I know you're not outright saying it, but I understand that's what you're getting at here. Thank you, that's the only point I was making.

No, At-Will looks like fantasy. Spell Points looks like some fantasy, but so do Spell Slots, and I am not at all willing to do a census of all fantasy to figure out which is better. I don't care. At-Wills > Spell Points, some unknown relationship between Spell Slots and Spell Points in that respect (I am not at all trusting of people's assessment here, because the literal first example someone gave of Spell Points was actually Drain).

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 02:50 PM

If you have players who are actively cheating, your biggest problem probably isn't words written down in a book.

Cosi, the existence of that phenomena is interesting, but it has little bearing on a game frequently played by people DMs semi-affectionately refer to as 'murder-hobos'.

I have yet to see (or even hear about) a player freezing up, because he didn't know what spell to use in combat. The dial starts at 'MURDER! BURN! MURDER! BURN! LOOOOT!!', for cryin' out loud.

Psionics merely gives the option to freeze, shock, or rock&roll, instead of burning, at more efficient, less-wasteful rates.

Your personal experiences may be different, but it really is sounding like your experiences are rather uncommon, compared to the average table.

For example, I had problems stopping my players from killing everyone so fast. Paralysis of choice was never an issue for my little band of thugs I'm sorry, heroes.

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 02:51 PM

JoshuaZ

2017-02-07, 02:51 PM

I promised a reply to this.

"Twice as much" is not "a lot more". Also, you are getting a 1 point (successful save) or 2 point (failed save) reduction in DC. That isn't a terribly big deal in most cases. You can do it several rounds in a row, but by the time it adds up to anything substantial, spending those points on dominate probably would have succeeded.

Your last sentence does not follow if the being in question has a high will save.

Well, this logic only comes up because knock and Open Lock are comparable when you actually want to open some locks, so it's not really relevant.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Are you arguing that it is bad logic but because you are only using it in a limited context it is ok?

Okay, so why will they pick "game breaking" (bear in my, this is a definition of "game breaking" that includes Wizard BFC) spells more often as a Wizard for comparable base rates of game breaking spells? Do the OP Wizard spells look better than OP Psion powers?

Because there are more such wizard spells and they are more common. Also, the problem just gets worse if one goes outside core. This is combined with the fact that the wizard can pick and choose what spells they have and so don't have them always on.

The setting is terminally incoherent too. Everything I said also applies there. The books say "medieval", the rules say "Star Trek". That is already true.

Not everyone agrees with that assessment; low magic settings can be done as long as high level characters are rare. Moreover, and this bears repeating, part of what matters is realism and ability to suspend disbelief. You appear to think that because a perfect logical analysis of the settings shows some problems that therefore one might as well give up all attempts at making things slightly more believable.

People play games that are not maximimally optimized. But there's no reason to think raising the ceiling will make those people play more powerful games. They already don't use infinite loops that are way better than at-will cloudkill to break the game, so why would they behave in a way that breaks the game with at-will cloudkill.

First, please note that most tables simply won't allow infinite loop shenanigans. Second, because people will play what they are given (in fact part of the entire tier problem is that by having certain classes have stronger abilities given to them with no work, there's no expectation that players are doing anything wrong by using those abilities). If every wizard gets at-will low level spells then many will then go and use it. And the game will become more broken.

should[/I] aim for, because they conflate the thing where the Wizard has spells like teleport that effect the setting with the thing where the Wizard has spells like planar binding that break the game. Everyone should have spells like teleport, no one should have spells like planar binding. Using the tiers as your target excludes that part of the solution space entirely.

This seems like an argument that you should be aiming not just at tier but at other issue also. This seems distinct from claiming that one shouldn't aim for a specific tier.

Particle_Man

2017-02-07, 03:01 PM

I think Cosi is also missing an important point:

People actually are using psionic characters and having fun with them. People are having fun playing in psionics campaigns. Sometimes they are having more fun after psionc characters and campaigns were introduced (I certainly had more fun with my psion (shaper) than I did with my previous wizard). The point of games like D&D is to have fun. This makes the XPH (or the relevant parts of the d20 SRD) worthwhile for those people.

Whatever negative things Cosi thinks happen in psionic campaigns either are simply not happening or are outweighed by the increased fun that people playing those characters are having in those games.

Now Cosi might reply that all those people that are having more fun playing in campaigns with psionics in them are suffering under some sort of false consciousness, but the easiest reply to that is either "Oh yeah?" (which Cosi is trying to reply to in this thread) or "So what?".

So I say to Cosi, "So what?". Let us assume that you are right on every point you have made so far. Nevertheless, it is still true that people (including many people in this very thread) are having more fun playing and running psionic games than they were playing games without psionics in them. They have drunk the psionic kool-aid and have not gone back. :smallbiggrin:

Cosi can think that these people have some sort of false consciousness, that perhaps if they really thought through game theory long enough they would see that the rules for psionics are actually badly designed somehow, but Cosi can't deny that they are still having more fun with psionics than they had before psionics were introduced to 3.5 (as shown by people like me right now, saying things like "I really am enjoying this psionic character!" and "This psionic campaign is awesome!" and most importantly "This campaign got better since we brought in the psionics rules!").

I don't think Cosi has a reply to the "So what?". (I also think he is fighting a fairly lonely and ultimately doomed battle on the "Oh yeah?" front, but I will leave that alone in this post).

Segev

2017-02-07, 03:09 PM

This is not some weird thing I'm making up. This is an actual phenomena that psychologists have observed and researched:

Analysis Paralysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis)
The Paradox of Choice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice) (there's also a TED talk by this guy)

People have weird preferences all the time. I don't understand why this is confusing peopleMainly because you're using it wrong. As Flickerdart points out:
The paradox of choice only applies when you choose between many pros and cons. It doesn't really apply to a spectrum, and augmentation isn't even really a spectrum. As a psion, your go-to move is going to be "augment for full" and you deviate only when circumstances call for it. Kind of how the store might have a million brands of cereal, but you just find your favourite brand and move on, effortlessly.
It isn't 9 different powers, Crystal Shard I through Crystal Shard IX. It's one power, and you're just determining if you want to do max damage or think you can get by with less.

In the case of psionic charm, you evaluate your target and pay enough PP to hit that kind of creature.

Analysis paralysis kicks in when you have a bunch of different things you could do, each with different pros and cons, and you have to pick just one. That isn't the same as choosing a throttle at which to do one thing.

No, At-Will looks like fantasy.Some fantasy. Not all. Most where the caster is a PoV character, you'll not see "at will." Harry Potter is actually an exception, there. Most, the caster has some quality in which he gets tired. Drained. GURPS calls it "fatigue points" and ties them to stamina because of this; most other systems use "mana" or the like. Wheel of Time, Dresden, the novels about Pub/Milamber, the Midkemia novels (where magic aged the caster)... Even Tolkien showed Gandalf straining himself as his energy ran out the few times he actually did something more impressive than a light spell.

Spell Points looks like some fantasy, but so do Spell Slots, and I am not at all willing to do a census of all fantasy to figure out which is better. I don't care.Then why are you arguing?

At-Wills > Spell Points, some unknown relationship between Spell Slots and Spell Points in that respect (I am not at all trusting of people's assessment here, because the literal first example someone gave of Spell Points was actually Drain).Well, objectively, yeah. A spellcaster who can do magic at will is going to be happier than if he could only do the same magic with some limit.

From a storytelling perspective, that's entirely subjective whether it's better or not.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-07, 03:10 PM

No, At-Will looks like fantasy. Spell Points looks like some fantasy, but so do Spell Slots, and I am not at all willing to do a census of all fantasy to figure out which is better. I don't care. At-Wills > Spell Points, some unknown relationship between Spell Slots and Spell Points in that respect (I am not at all trusting of people's assessment here, because the literal first example someone gave of Spell Points was actually Drain).
Sure. So you're not willing to figure it out yourself, and you're also not willing to listen to people here. But you are willing to argue the point anyways.

Seems a bit disingenuous...

But really, once again I point out, you're hung up on the wrong thing. Most fiction (I know, I know, you don't care what I have to say) doesn't portray a wizard needing to choose a subset of his spells to cast in a day. Points or slots aside, most fiction doesn't have this in it. In most fiction, a wizard can potentially cast any spell he knows in a given day. You can pretend to need empirical evidence to support that claim, but I know it's true, you know it's true, we all know it's true.

Segev

2017-02-07, 03:13 PM

Most fiction (I know, I know, you don't care what I have to say) doesn't portray a wizard needing to choose a subset of his spells to cast in a day. Points or slots aside, most fiction doesn't have this in it. In most fiction, a wizard can potentially cast any spell he knows in a given day. You can pretend to need empirical evidence to support that claim, but I know it's true, you know it's true, we all know it's true.

It is common, but it does depend on the fiction. Dresden, for example, has some magical spells he knows inside and out and does easily and often. But a lot of the time, he is working from base principles to build something up and design a new "spell" (often a ritual) that he'll need time to prep. Others of his spells are almost magic items, or half-way between items and spells-as-D&D-knows-them, because he had to prep them for specific magics, but still only a wizard can use them and then only if he knows how. (So maybe "class-locked" items?)

In other fiction, most magic is ritual. It's not done in combat-time at all, but with big impressive displays in secure locations to do far-reaching effects. Look at the kingslayer spell the red witch casts in A Game of Thrones, and how that spell worked, for example.

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 03:16 PM

Most fiction (I know, I know, you don't care what I have to say) doesn't portray a wizard needing to choose a subset of his spells to cast in a day.

You know, it just struck me that I know of something that selecting spell slots reminds me of: Modern-day/Sci-Fi.

Choosing a loadout in advance, trying best to bring the right gear choices to the fight you think you're doing to be fighting. Weird how Psionics feels more like magic, and Magic (spell slots, rather) feels more like Sci-Fi.

Huh.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 03:19 PM

The paradox of choice only applies when you choose between many pros and cons. It doesn't really apply to a spectrum, and augmentation isn't even really a spectrum. As a psion, your go-to move is going to be "augment for full" and you deviate only when circumstances call for it. Kind of how the store might have a million brands of cereal, but you just find your favourite brand and move on, effortlessly.

It isn't 9 different powers, Crystal Shard I through Crystal Shard IX. It's one power, and you're just determining if you want to do max damage or think you can get by with less.

"Uses more power points" is a con. "Does more damage" is a pro. It seems like choosing between different amounts of damage and power points would involve weighing pros and cons. Also, some powers totally change on more than one axis when augmented (for example, the psionic summoning power).

Your last sentence does not follow if the being in question has a high will save.

Alright, lets use math to solve this problem.

Suppose your target has a 20% chance to fail his will saves against your powers. You have two options: a 2d4 point ego whip and a dominate.

ego whip deals an average of .2 * 2d4 + .8 * .5 * 2d5 or .6 * 2d4 CHA damage each round. This is 3 points of damage.

dominate has a (1 - .2) ^ n chance to convert the target by the nth round. On the first round that's .8, then it's .64, then .51, then .41.

On average, you have a greater than 50% chance to convert the target by the time you've dealt 12 points of CHA damage. Against a target with 12 or less CHA, you're won the encounter. Against a target with 12 or more CHA and no relevant SLAs you've done something that rounds down to nothing. Against a target with 12 or more CHA and relevant SLAs (or other abilities) you've imposed a -6 penalty on its save DCs.

That spread doesn't look great, especially when you consider that round 3 (when ego whip has done 9 CHA damage) has a just slightly under 50% chance to see a conversion. Also, people with low CHA generally have low will saves as well.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Are you arguing that it is bad logic but because you are only using it in a limited context it is ok?

A is as good as B when it is useful.
A and B are useful in comparable situations.
The opportunity cost of A is lower than B.
Which is better: A or B?

Because there are more such wizard spells and they are more common. Also, the problem just gets worse if one goes outside core. This is combined with the fact that the wizard can pick and choose what spells they have and so don't have them always on.

If you go outside core, the problem gets better because most non-core spells are kind of lame (honestly, most spells are kind of lame -- obscure object is not breaking the game). Is seeking ray (the 4d6 ray from PHB 2 that gives +4 to hit with later rays) anywhere close to as good as web? I don't think so.

Not everyone agrees with that assessment; low magic settings can be done as long as high level characters are rare. Moreover, and this bears repeating, part of what matters is realism and ability to suspend disbelief. You appear to think that because a perfect logical analysis of the settings shows some problems that therefore one might as well give up all attempts at making things slightly more believable.

If people with magic don't show up, why does it matter what abilities they have? If no one can cast gate, gate could say "defeat any enemy every, also all the other people playing give you $10" and nothing would change, because no one can cast gate.

My point is that if there is any specific amount of disbelief you can't suspend to get a medieval setting, D&D is past that point. There are like four different ways to get every ability ever on a single creature in the SRD (wish for items, Epic Spellcasting Life Seed, fusion + astral seed, shapechange cheese). If there is a line where you say "no more, the game does not make sense", D&D is past that line as it stands.

First, please note that most tables simply won't allow infinite loop shenanigans. Second, because people will play what they are given (in fact part of the entire tier problem is that by having certain classes have stronger abilities given to them with no work, there's no expectation that players are doing anything wrong by using those abilities). If every wizard gets at-will low level spells then many will then go and use it. And the game will become more broken.

If people are already not abusing their abilities, why will they abuse new ones?

This seems like an argument that you should be aiming not just at tier but at other issue also. This seems distinct from claiming that one shouldn't aim for a specific tier.

I mean yes, I'm sure you can find some tier that overlaps with a subset of whatever target you could possibly have. I'm not sure why saying you are "aiming for" that tier helps anything.

Sure. So you're not willing to figure it out yourself, and you're also not willing to listen to people here. But you are willing to argue the point anyways.

I am willing to listen to people. But the person who actually gave a list of "things that are like spell points" had "not spell points" as his literal first thing. If I gave you a list of things that weren't bears and it started with Pandas, would you continue listening to my opinion on which things are bears?

Most fiction (I know, I know, you don't care what I have to say) doesn't portray a wizard needing to choose a subset of his spells to cast in a day. Points or slots aside, most fiction doesn't have this in it. In most fiction, a wizard can potentially cast any spell he knows in a given day.

Not in Mistborn (you need to eat the right metal). Not, as I understand it, in the Magicians (the use of spells depends on a bunch of variables which can change from day to day). The assertion "most fiction does X" is essentially worthless. You need examples, and those examples need to actually support your point.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-07, 03:21 PM

It is common, but it does depend on the fiction. Dresden, for example, has some magical spells he knows inside and out and does easily and often. But a lot of the time, he is working from base principles to build something up and design a new "spell" (often a ritual) that he'll need time to prep. Others of his spells are almost magic items, or half-way between items and spells-as-D&D-knows-them, because he had to prep them for specific magics, but still only a wizard can use them and then only if he knows how. (So maybe "class-locked" items?)
Dresden did stick out to me as well when thinking on this.

Some of his stuff does take preparation, but those are akin more to rituals I think, as you mention. Others, like the potions or the sunlight napkin, are items. The reason I think Dresden still fits is because in none of these cases do I get the impression that he is sacrificing his ability to cast something else.

So... Dresden doesn't choose to cast his fire spell today, and forgo "prepping" his ice spell. He just knows these spells and can call on them. If he learns new things and uses those as well, he doesn't have to choose between the new spell and the old spell. What limits him is his will to channel magical energy. He can pour a lot into a spell (like using his fire spell to freeze the river, or using his ice spell to create a glacier), or cast a lot of different spells, but this will drain him.

But I don't think Dresden is choosing a handful of spells to cast for the day, and also choosing how many times he will cast them.

In other fiction, most magic is ritual. It's not done in combat-time at all, but with big impressive displays in secure locations to do far-reaching effects. Look at the kingslayer spell the red witch casts in A Game of Thrones, and how that spell worked, for example.
I couldn't get beyond book 1 :smallredface:.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-07, 03:21 PM

"XP is a river" is a popular meme, and true to an extent, but it is one of those things which is a legitimate cost when taken in real play. It takes time - sessions - to recover it. While you recover faster, it isn't free. It slows your level advancement. And taken to an extreme - as any psion trying to use psychic chirurgery to match a wizard's gp-purchased spell selection would have to - it will leave you way, way behind on the curve.

Psionics does offer several means to mitigate XP costs, so if we're taking things to extremes, you'll likely be less behind the curve than you might first think.

If you let people do something that makes them less interesting, it is at best neutral.

"Less interesting" by whose measure? If you're going to argue that something is less interesting, you must first be willing to provide corroborating evidence (as it's a subjective measure, not an objective one) and second be willing to acknowledge that personal tastes vary and thus it will be difficult to come to a consensus, let alone prove the contention (as it's a subjective measure, not an objective one).

This is probably not true. The ratio of 2nd level spells in spellbook/2nd level spells is probably higher than skills trained/skills, barring cheese to add all spells.

Adding spells to a Wizard's repertoire costs relatively little - money and time, and not a lot of either - whereas adding skillpoints to the Rogue is considerably more resource intensive; outside a couple of feats and Item Familiars and the like, you're basically limited to permanent intelligence boosts and leveling up. Hence, the opportunity cost for a Rogue to choose their skills is much higher than the cost for a Wizard to add spells to their spellbook. The ratio of 2nd level spells in a given spellbook to 2nd level spells published is irrelevant.

If you already have terminal cancer, it seems kind of strange to object to smoking because it causes cancer.

Look, a lot of people decry the lack of balance in 3.5, the presence of easily accessible and utterly game breaking options (looking at you, core casters), and the poorly considered terminal impacts of the underlying design. And all of those issues are true and valid, to one extent or another. But here's the thing - the game is playable. More than that, the game supports varying levels of power from the very low ("Crap, Zombies, and none of us has a slashing weapon (or took a level in Cleric)!") to the very, very high (Emperor Tippy, please take a bow), to one degree or another (I happen to feel that this flexibility of 3.5, while frequently challenging when looking at the game through a critical eye, is actually a strength rather than a weakness). That there are other systems that better fit the fluff doesn't mean that the game is fatally flawed. That the logical endpoint of the game may not look anything like the way it's fluffed, or usually played, does not mean the game is fatally flawed. Yes, playing the game may require some sort of collective agreement on what is or is not appropriate for the game the table in question wishes to run, but that is an entirely achievable condition. So this isn't like smoking when you've already got a terminal cancer, this is like not taking your medications for a potentially fatal but manageable chronic condition. If that's the analogy you wish to draw.

No, At-Will looks like fantasy. Spell Points looks like some fantasy, but so do Spell Slots, and I am not at all willing to do a census of all fantasy to figure out which is better. I don't care. At-Wills > Spell Points, some unknown relationship between Spell Slots and Spell Points in that respect (I am not at all trusting of people's assessment here, because the literal first example someone gave of Spell Points was actually Drain).

If Spell Points look like some fantasy, and so do Spell Slots, then your first contention ("No, At-Will looks like fantasy.") must be false, or at least not completely true. But regardless of what better resembles some eidetic form of casting in the Fantasy genre, one must recognize that certain breaks from the precepts of fantasy story writing will be necessary in order to play a game with other people set in that genre. At-Will abilities may work in some contexts, but not in others; would a 17th level Cleric spamming Miracle really improve the game? You may prefer Drain based systems. Heck, I may prefer Drain based systems (I generally prefer to be closer to Gandalf than the Terminator when I'm playing Gandalf and the Terminator's Super Happy Fun Time Gritty Corporate Future Shootout And Variety Hour (No, wait, that's not what it's called...what's that game again? Darkness Sprint? Obscurity Canter? Gloom Gallop?*)). But Drain based systems have their own foibles, and I don't think they're necessarily superior to slot or point based systems. They all have their relative merits and issues, and while these differences have been herein discussed, and one sometimes declared superior to the other, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider the point proven.

*The game in question is of course Shadowrun, but when considering synonyms for both "Shadow" and "Run" I decided that I owed it to myself to post the words "Gloom Gallop" at least once in my life, so I hope you'll allow me the digression into self-satisfying "comedy".

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 03:25 PM

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 03:27 PM

*The game in question is of course Shadowrun, but when considering synonyms for both "Shadow" and "Run" I decided that I owed it to myself to post the words "Gloom Gallop" at least once in my life, so I hope you'll allow me the digression into self-satisfying "comedy".

Sadly, the first thing I thought was 'is that a Dark Horse Comics reference?' but I'm weird like that.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 03:28 PM

"Less interesting" by whose measure?

Spamming the same ability is less interesting than using different abilities.

The ratio of 2nd level spells in a given spellbook to 2nd level spells published is irrelevant.

If we are saying that Open Lock is expensive because it means the Rogue doesn't have other skills trained, the only reasonable comparison for the Wizard is the spells the Wizard doesn't have.

That the logical endpoint of the game may not look anything like the way it's fluffed, or usually played, does not mean the game is fatally flawed. Yes, playing the game may require some sort of collective agreement on what is or is not appropriate for the game the table in question wishes to run, but that is an entirely achievable condition. So this isn't like smoking when you've already got a terminal cancer, this is like not taking your medications for a potentially fatal but manageable chronic condition. If that's the analogy you wish to draw.

Again, if you are already not using all the power the rules provide, having the rules provide you more power doesn't do anything! You can just not use your extra power, just like you were not using your ability to cast planar binding.

Of course, it is also true that stinking cloud at-will is not particularly massively better than stinking cloud 4/day. The marginal value of an extra stinking cloud in a single encounter is pretty low, and you already had enough to use it in every encounter.

CowardlyPaladin

2017-02-07, 03:31 PM

Great system, and it can easily feel much more like what "magic" should feel like. Unfortunately, 3.5 never got a generic functioning spell-point system. But most fantasy magic systems feel much closer.

The only issue it has a system is the fluff which some people don't like. My wife for example really doesn't like it since it doesn't feel "medieval" and feels scifi given a lot of the terminology and the like. But in my last campaign I had an NPC who was in game a druid from an order that developed their minds to talk to plants and animals and that sort of alternative fluffing worked ok.

There are people who think that psionics is broken but it is much less broken than standard arcane and divine magic, and some of this attitude is either people who remember 3.0 (where it really was broken) or don't realize that you can't pay more pp than your manifester level. Unfortunately, Complete Psionic was full of bad stuff, poor editing, incoherent and inconsistent fluff, and utterly unnecessary nerfs (like the astral construct nerf) even as XPH is one of the best 3.5 books out there. The Pathfinder version of psionics done by Dreamscarred is also excellent.

I disagree with the assertion that D&D magic should feel like point buy, I think that a variety of magic systems is to the games benefit, some magic uses point buy, some use Vancian, some are warlocks and some are binders, its a diversity of options that helps the game thrive. I like that Psionics isn't just more Vancian, but the fact that it is the only point buy system makes it feel more unique as well.

Segev

2017-02-07, 03:34 PM

"Uses more power points" is a con. "Does more damage" is a pro. It seems like choosing between different amounts of damage and power points would involve weighing pros and cons. Also, some powers totally change on more than one axis when augmented (for example, the psionic summoning power).Spurious stretching of terms when the contextual meaning is clear doesn't help your point. But, to play along anyway, "choice of degree" is not the same as "choice of effect." And analysis paralysis does not cover choice-of-degree. It is much rarer for people to feel paralyzed by choice of degree. They usually only come close when they feel they're "running low" on the resource fueling it. Otherwise, they go with the minimum they think they need "to be sure."

Not in Mistborn (you need to eat the right metal).Actually, Mistborn could be easily modeled as spell points. The mechanism for recharge is "eat the metal." And it would be a multi spellpoint system, with different kinds of spell points for different kinds of spells. But it is almost EXACTLY the kind of thing spell points model.

I once considered trying to make an FF-inspired setting where red mages were ether-addicts. Their mana wasn't "natural" and didn't recharge on its own; they had to drink ether to get it back at all. That would still be a mana/spell-point system.

Dresden did stick out to me as well when thinking on this.

Some of his stuff does take preparation, but those are akin more to rituals I think, as you mention. Others, like the potions or the sunlight napkin, are items. The reason I think Dresden still fits is because in none of these cases do I get the impression that he is sacrificing his ability to cast something else.

So... Dresden doesn't choose to cast his fire spell today, and forgo "prepping" his ice spell. He just knows these spells and can call on them. If he learns new things and uses those as well, he doesn't have to choose between the new spell and the old spell. What limits him is his will to channel magical energy. He can pour a lot into a spell (like using his fire spell to freeze the river, or using his ice spell to create a glacier), or cast a lot of different spells, but this will drain him. But I don't think Dresden is choosing a handful of spells to cast for the day, and also choosing how many times he will cast them.Sure. He's not a vancian caster. His preparations are far more long-term; one could even model him more readily as a sorcerer, with his "items" as special foci that represent what spells he's learned. In a narrative-based system where meta-game considerations can govern plot occurances of him losing one item and making another, he could even be a sorcerer who trades out one spell for another. Noting again that he does wear out if he uses too much magic in a day. (The fact that he can pour extra power into some effects IS more Psi-like, though.)

I wouldn't really try to say he's a D&D-style wizard at all, though. (Nor would he. In D&D, he plays a barbarian.)

I couldn't get beyond book 1 :smallredface:.
That's fair; to each their own. Essentially, it was a Dresden-style ritual that created or summoned a shadow-assassin.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-07, 03:34 PM

I am willing to listen to people. But the person who actually gave a list of "things that are like spell points" had "not spell points" as his literal first thing. If I gave you a list of things that weren't bears and it started with Pandas, would you continue listening to my opinion on which things are bears?
Similes man, similes. Spells points are more *like* fantasy. They better represent fantasy.

We're saying that llamas are more like camels than raccoons are like camels.

And you're saying that llamas are not actually camels.

Not in Mistborn (you need to eat the right metal). Not, as I understand it, in the Magicians (the use of spells depends on a bunch of variables which can change from day to day). The assertion "most fiction does X" is essentially worthless. You need examples, and those examples need to actually support your point.
Yeah but... spell points still better represent mistborn magic than spell slots.

In Mistborn, you need to eat a metal to get a resource pool that lets you cast whichever spells you know as often as you want until you exhaust that resource.

In Psionics, you need to rest for 8 hours to get your power point pool that lets you manifest whichever powers you know as often as you want until you exhaust your power point pool.

In Vancian magic, you need to rest for 8 hours to get spell slots. Then you must choose which spells, of all the spells you know, you will cast that day. Then of those spells you must predetermine how many times you will cast each spell before you use up all your slots.

Do you see how one is more like the other here, without being identical?

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 03:38 PM

Cosi, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince at this point, a half-dozen people who have said their personal experiences with Psionics has been fun, and not abuse-fraught, or yourself.

Because you seem to have chosen a very odd hill to die on.

You've made your last stand next to your 'enemy'... Most of whom are standing around, essentially saying 'x is pretty fun, you should try it'.

That being said, for low, to low-mid level games, I had a lot of fun playing Scout/Psion.

In one high-level campaign, I mixed that with a level of Monk for unarmed strike. Using Twin Strike (or was it Dual Strike?), Monk's unarmed strike, Skirmish, Deep Impact, Power Attack, Leap Attack, and holding a touch power in each hand (because you can do that, you know) made for a heck of an opening strike.

...I also only got to do it once, before the campaign ended, and I was constantly out-DPS'd by virtually the entire rest of the party. Still made a hell of an impression. On a giant's face.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-07, 03:42 PM

Sadly, the first thing I thought was 'is that a Dark Horse Comics reference?' but I'm weird like that.

Hence the footnote.

Spamming the same ability is less interesting than using different abilities.

Why will I spam the same ability instead of using different abilities, if I'm a Psion (or Spell Point Variant Wizard)? If all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails, sure, but if all you problems are nails then why would you use something other than a hammer? This sounds more like an issue of not having varied encounters and enemies, rather than a deficiency of Psionics.

If we are saying that Open Lock is expensive because it means the Rogue doesn't have other skills trained, the only reasonable comparison for the Wizard is the spells the Wizard doesn't have.

Nonsense. That would only be a valid comparison if the opportunity cost for adding skill points and spells were the same. They are not. Skill points are a sharply limited resource with very few routes to increase their number. Spells in a spellbook cost nothing more than money and time, both of which are easily accessible to the Wizard. If your quest is stymied by a locked door, which must be opened (not otherwise bypassed), who will need to spend fewer resources to open it? The Rogue without enough ranks in Open Lock? Or the Wizard who needs to learn Knock?

Of course, it is also true that stinking cloud at-will is not particularly massively better than stinking cloud 4/day. The marginal value of an extra stinking cloud in a single encounter is pretty low, and you already had enough to use it in every encounter.

This makes a number of assumptions regarding the number and type of encounters one will experience in a given day, which are not universally accurate. And if this is an argument in favor of At-Will casting, I must admit I do not understand it. Unless you're saying that the added utility of an At-Will ability (compared to one with limited uses) is so little as to not be an issue, in which case I'd call on you to use a more powerful, versatile spell than Stinking Cloud, to see if the argument still holds.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 03:43 PM

It does not "seem like" that at all. All the times playing a psion (and seeing others play psions) I have never seen anyone choose "different amounts of damage and power points." It was always either manifesting at full ML, manifesting unaugmented (for powers that don't require augmentation) or manifesting at minimum when running low at the end of the day.

Are Cleric spells sufficiently varied to face option paralysis?

If not, what is?

If so, do Clerics always evaluate what the optimal selection of spells is every day?

If not, it looks like defaulting does not disprove the paradox of choice.

Yes, people default. They do this because they cannot effectively assess the best possible choice, not because they do not actually face option paralysis.

Similes man, similes. Spells points are more *like* fantasy. They better represent fantasy.

Except for all the fantasy that uses Spell Slots. Or Drain. Or At-Wills. Or any fantasy story where someone has enough power left for a desperate last stand using their flashiest powers.

In Mistborn, you need to eat a metal to get a resource pool that lets you cast whichever spells you know as often as you want until you exhaust that resource.

Mistborn has 16 parallel resource pools which run out separately and each power a single type of effect. There is one thing you can use Iron for. You cannot use it for the same thing you use Bronze for. You cannot use it for anything other than "push metal along a line that connects you and the metal". If you run out of Iron you cannot use Iron even if you have a bunch of Bronze. That is exactly the situation you are claiming Vancian magic causes and Spell Points doesn't. Literally exactly.

Cosi, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince at this point, a half-dozen people who have said their personal experiences with Psionics has been fun, and not abuse-fraught, or yourself.

Saying "X is fun" does not have any real bearing on X being good design. People have fun with basically all roleplaying games, because hanging out with your friends is fun. I'm sure people have had fun playing FATAL. It takes a whole lot of bad design for a game to screw up hanging out with people you like. But that doesn't excuse bad design.

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 03:44 PM

Are Cleric spells sufficiently varied to face option paralysis?

Cleric spells are not a spectrum. They are discrete choices. Your argument is invalid.

digiman619

2017-02-07, 03:46 PM

For the first, it matters because in either case you have some resource (spells know/skills trained), and you are spending a percentage of it for a situational advantage. If you spend 5% of your spells known and the Rogue spends 2.5% of his skills, he's ahead.
Except we're not talking about sorcerers. we're talking about wizards. Sorcerers have hard limits on spells known without massive gp investment, wizards not so much. Other than finding the spell and copying it into their spellbook (and paying a tiny stipend, even when getting 8th & 9ths), there's nothing stopping a Wizard from having any given spell. If fact, given all the RAW WBL shenanigans you can do as a Wizard 20, there's nothing stopping them from having every spell in their spellbook. Well I suppose they might have trouble finding which spell is in which spellbook, but that's a Tier 1 Problem.

Rouges, on the other hand, must invest a limited pool of skill points (with no way to get past the finite number & max ranks caps, regardless gp investment) to invest into these skills. Furthermore, in order to stay relevant, the percentage of skills invested into "roguish" skills must remain constant. See the difference?

Yes, because knock is a divine spell.
Fair point.

D&D power scales different from most other things. Wizards in D&D have a lot of power to do things that are effective in a small combat, but much less on a strategic scale. It's very difficult (barring extreme cheese) to emulate things like Dominions rituals.

Also, nothing stops you from just playing at a lower level if you don't like the power of 20th level Wizards. I don't like the weakness of 1st level characters. Does that mean we should cut out everything below 6th level?

a) E6 is an actual thing, so don't be flippant about it. b) Late-game abilities like a monk's quivering palm, a bard's mass suggestion, and, indeed, 8th and 9th level spells are supposed to be the carrot on the stick; the eventual cool thing your character can earn by sticking to the game. by just throwing them out without some recompense is frustrating to players.

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 03:49 PM

Saying "X is fun" does not have any real bearing on X being good design. People have fun with basically all roleplaying games, because hanging out with your friends is fun. I'm sure people have had fun playing FATAL. It takes a whole lot of bad design for a game to screw up hanging out with people you like. But that doesn't excuse bad design.

That's cool, still doesn't change the fact that Psionics is fun.

Your opinion (and somewhat obsessive hangup on spell slots apparently being the only true representative in this binary choice we've turned the topic into) doesn't make the system for psionics any less sound.

Oh sure, you can say it doesn't work all you want, but being able to partition out your power reflects the general feel of fantasy stories far more than spell slots ever will.

Because examples of vancian magic in fictional writing outside of D&D (and even then, that's slim pickings, too) are few and far between. And you can say you need examples, but you've been given several already.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 04:02 PM

Why will I spam the same ability instead of using different abilities, if I'm a Psion (or Spell Point Variant Wizard)? If all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails, sure, but if all you problems are nails then why would you use something other than a hammer? This sounds more like an issue of not having varied encounters and enemies, rather than a deficiency of Psionics.

The issue is that you can turn your 1st level spells into 9th level spells. With Spell Slots, you will sometimes have to use 1st level spells. This does not happen with psionics, and it makes characters less interesting.

Spells in a spellbook cost nothing more than money and time, both of which are easily accessible to the Wizard.

There are approximately 400 2nd level spells (closer to 430, but you get some free spells for leveling).

There are about 30 skills on the Rogue's class list. Assuming an INT of 14, the Rogue will get 1/3 of them if he buys only class skills.

So, what does it cost a Wizard to learn 1/3 of his 2nd level spells?

400 * 1/3 = 133. At a cost of 350 GP (150 for the scroll, 200 for the pages), that's 46550 GP, or slightly less than the wealth by level of a 10th level character.

So, if you spend all your money until 10th level you can learn the same percentage of 2nd level spells the Rogue gets of his skills.

You use an infinite wealth loop to get enough money to afford all that and your gear. But the Rogue could also use an infinite wealth loop to get big bonuses to UMD and a boatload of scrolls.

This makes a number of assumptions regarding the number and type of encounters one will experience in a given day, which are not universally accurate. And if this is an argument in favor of At-Will casting, I must admit I do not understand it. Unless you're saying that the added utility of an At-Will ability (compared to one with limited uses) is so little as to not be an issue, in which case I'd call on you to use a more powerful, versatile spell than Stinking Cloud, to see if the argument still holds.

What spell do you think breaks the game at-will, but not under daily limits (so no planar binding)?

Cleric spells are not a spectrum. They are discrete choices. Your argument is invalid.

Is 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 not discrete now? Have my teachers lied to be about what discrete means my whole life?

a) E6 is an actual thing, so don't be flippant about it. b) Late-game abilities like a monk's quivering palm, a bard's mass suggestion, and, indeed, 8th and 9th level spells are supposed to be the carrot on the stick; the eventual cool thing your character can earn by sticking to the game. by just throwing them out without some recompense is frustrating to players.

a) That was my point.
b) Not sure what you mean.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-07, 04:10 PM

It sounded like a power complaint rather than a concept complaint to me, so this seems irrelevant.

It was a complaint about a specific effect that is both noticably powerful (even if you discount abuses) and -absurdly- versatile. That latter quality is the more daunting of the two by far.

Also, occam's razor would suggest that he meant planar binding quite literally. There's nothing remotely martial about that effect so it's peculiar, at least, to see it associated with a martial class. It creates notable cognitive dissonance.

Having twenty options on a single power encounters the exact same problems with the paradox of choice and option paralysis that having twenty powers does.

4. You have -4- options for the power I named and a throttle for how hard you hit. Which of the 4 is best for the situation will usually be so obvious as to moot the choice between those 4. The vast majority of other powers only have the throttle with -no- additional choices to be made.

There is no implication of the paradox of choice here. You're throwing theories at a thing of which you have only superficial knowledge and it's showing.

I think one of your domains is probably more of a cost than one of your skills.

There are -myriad- ways to get additional domain access, either permanently or temporarily, and domain choice isn't a huge deal unless you're aiming for persistomancy shennanigans.

JoshuaZ

2017-02-07, 04:11 PM

Is 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 not discrete now? Have my teachers lied to be about what discrete means my whole life?

There's a lot to reply to, but I'm going to just interject for now. Yes power points are technically discrete. But because one has a large number of them in total, it doesn't end up feeling discrete. In general, discrete approximations of continuous things work, both in real life (e.g. estimating the size of an integral using a Riemann sum) and in giving the feel of a continuous thing. This shouldn't be at all surprising.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 04:22 PM

It was a complaint about a specific effect that is both noticably powerful (even if you discount abuses) and -absurdly- versatile. That latter quality is the more daunting of the two by far.

Uh, no. The problem with planar binding is that you can bind an Efreet that can bind an Efreet that can bind an Efreet. If the spell was exactly the same but said "you can only bind Efreet" it would be almost exactly as bad for the game.

This board has a versatility fetish that does not reflect the reality of how character power behaves.

Also, occam's razor would suggest that he meant planar binding quite literally. There's nothing remotely martial about that effect so it's peculiar, at least, to see it associated with a martial class. It creates notable cognitive dissonance.

There's nothing particularly martial about any utility effect. Is planar binding particularly less martial than teleport or fabricate?

There is no implication of the paradox of choice here. You're throwing theories at a thing of which you have only superficial knowledge and it's showing.

I mean, yes, if you believe that 4 = 1 and "how much" is not a choice you have no choices using energy ray. This looks more like you no knowing what a choice is than me not knowing what the paradox of choice is.

There's a lot to reply to, but I'm going to just interject for now. Yes power points are technically discrete. But because one has a large number of them in total, it doesn't end up feeling discrete. In general, discrete approximations of continuous things work, both in real life (e.g. estimating the size of an integral using a Riemann sum) and in giving the feel of a continuous thing. This shouldn't be at all surprising.

I think in terms of analysis "do I augment by 1 more point" is far more discrete than it is continuous.

digiman619

2017-02-07, 04:27 PM

a) That was my point.
b) Not sure what you mean.

My point is that E6 is a variant game type. Psionics is an additional rules system. You have to explicitly ban psionics to make rolling a psion against the rules. You have to explicitly state that you are playing a E6 game, or people will plan past 6th level. See the difference?

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 04:31 PM

I think in terms of analysis "do I augment by 1 more point" is far more discrete than it is continuous.

You would be wrong. 1 power point more is usually just +1d6 damage, and half a point to the DC. For a cleric, you're looking at completely different spells when you go to another spell level - even with blasting spells, beyond the numbers going up you get extra add-on effects and conditions.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 04:34 PM

You have to explicitly ban psionics to make rolling a psion against the rules. You have to explicitly state that you are playing a E6 game, or people will plan past 6th level. See the difference?

Maybe you can say psionics is different because it was added to the SRD, but I don't think it's at all clear that games behave on an allowed by default rather than restricted by default basis. Would you expect to get to play a Factotum or take Fae Mysteries Initiate without checking if the game allowed Dungeonscape or Dragon Magazine?

Tohsaka Rin

2017-02-07, 04:37 PM

Ok, this is getting silly.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyBall.htm) is bog-standard energy ball. It's fireball, but you can choose what element you want to use. If this choice provokes crippling uncertainty, please see a doctor, as you may be suffering from problems that seeing a therapist, or taking medication can help with.

Augment

For every additional power point you spend, this power’s damage increases by one die (d6). For each extra two dice of damage, this power’s save DC increases by 1.

This is the throttle. Want to kill something more than the default power would do? Add more points, and calculate the new damage and save DC accordingly.

If this troubles you, please, avoid salad bars, hotdog stands, and seek professional help. A friend of mine sees a therapist twice a week, says it does wonders.

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 04:39 PM

But how can I choose a doctor or therapist with my crippling indecisiveness?

RolkFlameraven

2017-02-07, 05:13 PM

Maybe you can say psionics is different because it was added to the SRD, but I don't think it's at all clear that games behave on an allowed by default rather than restricted by default basis. Would you expect to get to play a Factotum or take Fae Mysteries Initiate without checking if the game allowed Dungeonscape or Dragon Magazine?

Factotum yes, I would ask about anything from Dragon though. Unless I'm told that something isn't allowed I assume if WotC printed it it is in, although I would most likely ask if FR or Eberron books are allowed unless we are playing in those settings, and even then told no I would normally ask if I can refluff something if I really want to play something from those setting books.

After all, if it's a WotC book, its first party so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it, unless the DM has a reason and not allow it, and if so, why didn't they tell me that before I joined?

Coretron03

2017-02-07, 05:15 PM

Why? Unless you don't think Wizards should get it, why shouldn't Fighters? If you don't think Wizards should get it, why call out Fighters specifically?

Wizards shouldn't get it either, my point was if you were to only buff the fighter and make him wizard level in power then he would have to match something like planar binding and teleport which I don't think should happen because if a decent wizard can destroy encounters that means a decent fighter can destroy encounters but if you were to reduce the wizards power and increase the fighters power so the wizard would fun and versatile but not overpowering and the fighter simliar then game balance would be better overall.

Edit:
"Except for all the fantasy that uses Spell Slots. Or Drain. Or At-Wills. Or any fantasy story where someone has enough power left for a desperate last stand using their flashiest powers."
That sounds like a Wilder with their capstone mind you.

Particle_Man

2017-02-07, 05:39 PM

Saying "X is fun" does not have any real bearing on X being good design. People have fun with basically all roleplaying games, because hanging out with your friends is fun. I'm sure people have had fun playing FATAL. It takes a whole lot of bad design for a game to screw up hanging out with people you like. But that doesn't excuse bad design.

Actually, yes a game being fun really does have bearing on game design theory, because the point of a game is to be fun. And if psionics makes a game *more* fun than it was without psionics, that makes the game better, because, once again, the point of a game is to be fun.

If a game is more fun after adding psionics, but this interferes with your theory of game design, then this is a case of your theory of game design being directly disproven by people having more fun (not just fun, but *more* fun than before) after adding psionics to their games.

Thus it is time for you to get a new theory of game design. This is how the science of game design advances, I suppose.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-07, 05:46 PM

Uh, no. The problem with planar binding is that you can bind an Efreet that can bind an Efreet that can bind an Efreet. If the spell was exactly the same but said "you can only bind Efreet" it would be almost exactly as bad for the game.

This board has a versatility fetish that does not reflect the reality of how character power behaves.

... I almost don't know what to say to this. Almost.

You're really gonna bring in theoretical wish-looping as part of your argument? Really? The thing that virually no one allows? Just... no.

Even if that -were- a valid concern (it isn't) your statement would -still- be false because the power of wish lies in it's immense, stay with me here, VERSATILITY. Do you really think anyone would give two figs about free wishes if all it did was 40d6 damage with no save? No, it's because it can do -all- of the things.

That out of the way, the power in calling spells lies with the ability to both take a bite out of the action economy and to access special abilities that would otherwise be unavailable or more expensive to access than the calling spell.

"Versatility fetsih" indeed. :smallsigh:

There's nothing particularly martial about any utility effect. Is planar binding particularly less martial than teleport or fabricate?

Fabricate; not particularly. Teleport; yes. Teleport has very direct tactical and strategic application for the wielder in a way that fabricate and planar binding just don't.

That's the point. There are potentially martial powers that have applications beyond their obivious combat applications but there's precious few primarily utility powers that are directly applicable to combat.

I mean, yes, if you believe that 4 = 1 and "how much" is not a choice you have no choices using energy ray. This looks more like you no knowing what a choice is than me not knowing what the paradox of choice is.

4 almost wholly equal choices will not engage the paradox of choice in any meaningful way and neither will "how much," especially when the answer to both superficial choices is almost entirely mooted by circumstances in most cases.

I think in terms of analysis "do I augment by 1 more point" is far more discrete than it is continuous.

You're basically alone in that.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 06:10 PM

After all, if it's a WotC book, its first party so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it, unless the DM has a reason and not allow it, and if so, why didn't they tell me that before I joined?

I guess maybe we're talking about different windows. When someone describes a game, would you expect them to generally have a list of "splats allowed" or "splats banned"? In my experience, even when people allow everything it's phrased as "you can use anything but Dragon" not "you can't use Dragon."

Wizards shouldn't get it either, my point was if you were to only buff the fighter and make him wizard level in power then he would have to match something like planar binding and teleport which I don't think should happen because if a decent wizard can destroy encounters that means a decent fighter can destroy encounters but if you were to reduce the wizards power and increase the fighters power so the wizard would fun and versatile but not overpowering and the fighter simliar then game balance would be better overall.

planar binding only destroys encounters because it gets infinite armies. teleport doesn't destroy them at all.

That sounds like a Wilder with their capstone mind you.

Wow, one class can emulate it at twentieth level! Clearly, that blows the ability of every class that uses spell slots to do it at every level out of the water.

Actually, yes a game being fun really does have bearing on game design theory, because the point of a game is to be fun. And if psionics makes a game *more* fun than it was without psionics, that makes the game better, because, once again, the point of a game is to be fun.

TTRPGs involve hanging out with people you like talking about a mutual interest. That's inherently fun. The fact that something doesn't make that not fun does not make it good design. And of course, you are doing a bad experiment when you say "psionics made this more fun". If you wanted good data, you'd have games where psionics used different sets of rules to try and isolate the various components of what adding psionics does.

You're really gonna bring in theoretical wish-looping as part of your argument? Really? The thing that virually no one allows? Just... no.

The question is "why is planar binding bad" the answer is "because it allows infinite loops". The version of planar binding where you bind a thing and ask it to do something for you is only broken because HD doesn't correlate to CR terribly consistently.

Seriously, just think it through. You can play in one of two games. In game A, planar binding can only summon Efreet but there are no restrictions on infinite loops. In game B, planar binding can summon anything but infinite loops are banned. Which game seems more balanced to you?

Even if that -were- a valid concern (it isn't) your statement would -still- be false because the power of wish lies in it's immense, stay with me here, VERSATILITY. Do you really think anyone would give two figs about free wishes if all it did was 40d6 damage with no save? No, it's because it can do -all- of the things.

Yeah, wish has versatility. But the ability to cast arbitrary 8th level spells is way less broken than the ability to get a Belt of Magnificence +The Biggest Number.

That's the point. There are potentially martial powers that have applications beyond their obivious combat applications but there's precious few primarily utility powers that are directly applicable to combat.

So what utility abilities do you think they should get?

Particle_Man

2017-02-07, 06:16 PM

TTRPGs involve hanging out with people you like talking about a mutual interest. That's inherently fun. The fact that something doesn't make that not fun does not make it good design. And of course, you are doing a bad experiment when you say "psionics made this more fun". If you wanted good data, you'd have games where psionics used different sets of rules to try and isolate the various components of what adding psionics does.

If I want good data, I just have to compare the core books games with core + XPH games. Guess what? I have played in both types of games, and core + XPH games have been more fun. Same people, so it is not just that I am having fun with this group of people because I like the people.

Can you explain this apparent refutation of your design theory? I didn't just have fun with XPH. I had *more* fun with XPH than before.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 06:20 PM

If I want good data, I just have to compare the core books games with core + XPH games.

Confounding Factors:

People want more classes (have you tried Core + ToB?)
People want psionics because they think the flavor is cool (have you tried re-writing psionics to use a different resource management system?)

Like, right off the top of my head. Seriously, that experiment is terrible. Also N = 1 is definitely a sufficient sample size.

Flickerdart

2017-02-07, 06:25 PM

Seriously, that experiment is terrible.
Better than your experiment. Oh wait, you're slinging around wild assertions without the support of anything but incorrectly applied keywords from academia.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 06:30 PM

Better than your experiment. Oh wait, you're slinging around wild assertions without the support of anything but incorrectly applied keywords from academia.

Do you have an actual objection to the notion that letting people trade low level powers for high level ones will cause them to do that?

Seriously, the position that Spell Points do not behave in the way I suggest requires you to believe that altering the incentives people face will not alter their behavior, which is laughable.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-07, 06:48 PM

The issue is that you can turn your 1st level spells into 9th level spells. With Spell Slots, you will sometimes have to use 1st level spells. This does not happen with psionics, and it makes characters less interesting.

With Spell Slots, the equivalent lower level spells will generally scale, while the Powers will not. With Power Points, you may sometimes have to use lower level, less augmented, or even unaugmented Powers. And, frankly, just because the effects of the Powers are consolidated into one Power, instead of being spread across multiple Spells, you're still achieving similar diversity of effects. So what if you used Energy Bolt four times today, where the Wizard needed one Orb of Fire, one Orb of Ice, and two Orbs of Acid to get the same job done? You provided the same diversity of effects, and it's not like you're shouting "Energy Bolt!" every time you manifest it (unless that's what you're doing, in which case I could see how you might get bored saying the same thing over and over, but if that's the root of the issue, then why not shout "Energy Bolt: [Appropriate Energy Type]!" instead?).

Yeah, a Psion may find that they have enough points for one big flashy effect, or multiple less powerful effects, and yeah, sometimes they may choose the big flashy effect. But if they're being careful about their resources, and the less powerful effect will get the job done, why would they go for the more expensive 7th level power when the unaugmented 2nd level power will do? All that this means is my Psion will never find himself wishing for another Grease because all they have left is Shapechange. They can also choose to manifest fewer powers total, spending them on higher level (or augmented) effects, yes, but in my experience of actual play they don't end up being any less diverse than traditional casters, in terms of what effects they can create, except in terms of having fewer total effects to choose from (given that fewer Powers than Spells were printed in 3.5's run). And they certainly weren't "less interesting".

There are approximately 400 2nd level spells (closer to 430, but you get some free spells for leveling).

There are about 30 skills on the Rogue's class list. Assuming an INT of 14, the Rogue will get 1/3 of them if he buys only class skills.

So, what does it cost a Wizard to learn 1/3 of his 2nd level spells?

400 * 1/3 = 133. At a cost of 350 GP (150 for the scroll, 200 for the pages), that's 46550 GP, or slightly less than the wealth by level of a 10th level character.

So, if you spend all your money until 10th level you can learn the same percentage of 2nd level spells the Rogue gets of his skills.

You use an infinite wealth loop to get enough money to afford all that and your gear. But the Rogue could also use an infinite wealth loop to get big bonuses to UMD and a boatload of scrolls.

Okay, so I initially wrote a rather more detailed argument to explain why the cost of a 2nd level spell is less than the cost of keeping a single Skill at a level appropriate rank, which I've spoilered below. But what it comes down to is this - Spells can be bought with in character resources, namely gold. There are numerous ways to make spells cheaper, so to purchase the spells you need (and you don't need all of them, so comparing spells known to spells which could theoretically be known is an irrelevant measure) is well within the buying power of a Wizard of whatever level. Skill Points, on the other hand, are almost impossible to buy with in character resources, and when you can (by permanently increasing your INT, typically) they tend to be relatively expensive, and there's a hard limit on how many you can pick up by such means (beyond your GP total, that is). No, in virtually all cases, Skill Points will require build resources to acquire. And build resources are in much shorter supply than in character resources. So if you have to spend build resources to achieve an effect, and I can spend plentiful in character resources to achieve the same, the opportunity cost for you to have that ability is much greater than it is for me.

How many skill points can a 10th level Rogue have, total? Assuming your case, with an INT of 14, the Rogue will have 130 to spread across their 30 or so class skills. However, to maintain level appropriate skill checks they must keep their ranks at nearly the maximum allowed, that means they can only have approximately one third of their class skills at level-appropriate ranks. This is only going to change if they permanently increase their intelligence, or spend feats on Item Familiar or the handful of other effects which give an additional skill point. Items to permanently increase INT can be bought with gold, but tend to be relatively expensive. Acquiring feats is even more expensive, as usually they cannot be bought with gold (particularly non-Fighter feats, which you can pick up with items of Heroics). So, the Rogue will have about 130 Skill Points, total, to do with what they wish; no matter how they allocate their time or gold, that number is essentially fixed. That is to say, every Skill Point they spend is an expenditure of build resources.

A Wizard, on the other hand, needs only spend time and gold to acquire more spells. A Wizard receives spells known just for leveling up, like the Rogue with their Skill Points, but then they have options to drastically increase that number. They can spend feats, sure - I for one am quite fond of Collegiate Wizard - but really, all they need to spend are time and gold. Which is to say, they can expend character resources to improve, rather than just build resources. So if you're going to argue that build resources like Skill Points are more available than character resources like gold pieces, you're free to do so, but I think you're proceeding from a fundamentally flawed premise.

And sure, the Rogue can spend gold to buy magic items that improve their skills, but that's a much larger outlay than a Wizard picking up spells. And yes, there are a shocking number of spells to be picked up, but with Boccob's Blessed Book and other such tools, their cost is minimal (with the proper tools, a 20th level Wizard should be able to pick up the vast majority, if not all of them, without exceeding WBL). But the Wizard doesn't have to pick up all of the spells, frankly. Most of them aren't particularly useful. So comparing the total number of spells they could potentially know to how many they actually have is a doubly spurious measure. The real measure, again, is how much it costs a Wizard or a Rogue to achieve a certain effect. If that effect is "opening locked doors", then the spell in question is Knock, and the Skill in question is Open Lock. And learning a single 2nd level spell costs a lot less than 1/13th of your total Skill Points.

What spell do you think breaks the game at-will, but not under daily limits (so no planar binding)?

Well, Miracle, for one. If I only have a few castings of it at a given time, I can't just use it to duplicate whatever spell I need but forgot to prepare that morning. If I can cast Miracle at-will, then I no longer need to prepare spells below 8th level. That would invalidate a lot of the fundamental mechanical assumptions of the game.

I'll grant you that it's a powerful spell, with high potential for looping effects (it can duplicate Planar Binding, after all), but I don't think that, on its own, it breaks the game. Being able to cast any 7th level Spell (or equivalent effect) in the game, all day, every day? That absolutely would.

Edit:

Do you have an actual objection to the notion that letting people trade low level powers for high level ones will cause them to do that?

Seriously, the position that Spell Points do not behave in the way I suggest requires you to believe that altering the incentives people face will not alter their behavior, which is laughable.

To reiterate: because higher level Powers are not in all cases preferable to lower level Powers, players will not in all cases "trade low level powers for high level ones", even though they have the option to do so.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-07, 07:04 PM

The question is "why is planar binding bad" the answer is "because it allows infinite loops". The version of planar binding where you bind a thing and ask it to do something for you is only broken because HD doesn't correlate to CR terribly consistently.

-Any- infinite loop options are so obviously bad for the game that the vast majority of games outright forbid either the entire option or the infiniite loop use of it. It's not a practical concern.

Seriously, just think it through. You can play in one of two games. In game A, planar binding can only summon Efreet but there are no restrictions on infinite loops. In game B, planar binding can summon anything but infinite loops are banned. Which game seems more balanced to you?

I wouldn't play in the former at all but that has nothing to do with planar binding.

To answer your question, the latter is -slightly- less difficult to deal with.

Yeah, wish has versatility. But the ability to cast arbitrary 8th level spells is way less broken than the ability to get a Belt of Magnificence +The Biggest Number.

+3 to virtually every roll of a d20 vs basically any of the better 8th level spell effects, hmm...

The most power you eke out of wish boils down to the fact that it gives you access to a broad array of powerful effects whether it comes from the emulation feature or the item boosting feature. A belt of magnificence is just a static +X to stats with a minor discount.

So what utility abilities do you think they should get?

Depends on whether you want them to be non-magical or not. Magical martials; teleportation, flight, extreme fast movement, supernatural senses, that sort of thing.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-07, 08:10 PM

Except for all the fantasy that uses Spell Slots. Or Drain. Or At-Wills.
Does Harry Dresden have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Harry Potter have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Pug have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Merlin have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Gandalf have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Dr. Strange have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
How about Shazam, Zatana, and Enchantress? Dr. Doom? Morgan le Fey? Dr. Fate?

You brought up Avatar earlier. Do benders have to choose their bending powers at the start of the day?

Do jedi have to select a handful of force powers from their suite of powers at the start of the day?

Seriously, get off it. It's plain to see that even if it's drain or at-will, points better reflect the ubiquitous notion that once you know a spell, you can cast it any time, limited only by your resource pool (if not at-will).

Or any fantasy story where someone has enough power left for a desperate last stand using their flashiest powers.
Anyone can mimic this. If a wizard has only his highest level slots left, he uses those. There, desperate last stand. If a psion has X number of points left, he uses them on an augmented power. There, desperate last stand.

Mistborn has 16 parallel resource pools which run out separately and each power a single type of effect. There is one thing you can use Iron for. You cannot use it for the same thing you use Bronze for. You cannot use it for anything other than "push metal along a line that connects you and the metal". If you run out of Iron you cannot use Iron even if you have a bunch of Bronze. That is exactly the situation you are claiming Vancian magic causes and Spell Points doesn't. Literally exactly.
Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. It works differently than I thought. Still, if it works the way you describe, I don't know where you get off saying it is exactly like vancian casting. I think you're conflating the resources with the preparation. It sounds like depending on what their resource is, mistborn have different powers. But a wizard doesn't work like that, and specifically has to choose what he'll be able to do each day.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 08:41 PM

Okay, so I initially wrote a rather more detailed argument to explain why the cost of a 2nd level spell is less than the cost of keeping a single Skill at a level appropriate rank, which I've spoilered below. But what it comes down to is this - Spells can be bought with in character resources, namely gold.

Gold is finite, just like skill points. To get comparable coverage the Wizard needs to invest a huge chunk of resources.

Well, Miracle, for one. If I only have a few castings of it at a given time, I can't just use it to duplicate whatever spell I need but forgot to prepare that morning. If I can cast Miracle at-will, then I no longer need to prepare spells below 8th level. That would invalidate a lot of the fundamental mechanical assumptions of the game.

miracle is maybe broken with the change. That's one, and it happens at 9th level. I'm not convinced it touches a structural problem.

I wouldn't play in the former at all but that has nothing to do with planar binding.

To answer your question, the latter is -slightly- less difficult to deal with.

So to be clear, infinite loops are so powerful no one sane would allow them, but "recruit a minion" is almost that good?

+3 to virtually every roll of a d20 vs basically any of the better 8th level spell effects, hmm...

As we all know, there are no numbers larger than 6.

Depends on whether you want them to be non-magical or not. Magical martials; teleportation, flight, extreme fast movement, supernatural senses, that sort of thing.

That seems pretty clearly insufficient in a world where casters get Necromancy and Summoning, and getting rid of those hurts the game more than giving Fighters something comparable.

Does Harry Dresden have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Pug have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?

Never read those.

Does Harry Potter have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?

Does Harry Potter run out of magic?

Does Merlin have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
Does Gandalf have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?

Merlin and Gandalf do very little magic. I'm not convinced there are enough data points to sketch their restrictions. Could we tell if Gandalf was a Wizard who just prepared the same spells every day, or running of Spell Points?

Does Dr. Strange have to choose which spells he's going to cast for the day?
How about Shazam, Zatana, and Enchantress? Dr. Doom? Morgan le Fey? Dr. Fate?

Comic book mages regularly don't use spells they've used before when they would be useful. Seems like Spell Preparation maps that pretty well.

You brought up Avatar earlier. Do benders have to choose their bending powers at the start of the day?

Do jedi have to select a handful of force powers from their suite of powers at the start of the day?

Again, do they run out of spells?

Anyone can mimic this. If a wizard has only his highest level slots left, he uses those. There, desperate last stand. If a psion has X number of points left, he uses them on an augmented power. There, desperate last stand.

No, the Psion's power goes down "continuously". If he has just a little bit of power left, it's actually just a little. On the other hand, the Wizard can have just one killer spell left.

But a wizard doesn't work like that, and specifically has to choose what he'll be able to do each day.

Is there a difference between this and Mistborn other than timescale? A mistborn chooses how much of each metal to down, he can just top up more than once per day.

Coretron03

2017-02-07, 08:59 PM

As we all know, there are no numbers larger than 6.

Not without using epic rules in 3.5 and require custom magic items rules in pathfinder.

To your earlier response to me, teleport might not destroy encounters but I dont want fighters to have the equivalent of it mainly because good luck finding reasonable fluff. Never said because it was a broken.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-07, 09:02 PM

Again, do they run out of spells?
Cosi... this is completely irrelevant. I'm not claiming that limited resources is the same thing as unlimited resources. Please stop bringing this up.

Do they have to choose which spells to cast at the beginning of the day? No? Neither do psions. Psions match better than wizards. It's simple.

Merlin and Gandalf do very little magic. I'm not convinced there are enough data points to sketch their restrictions. Could we tell if Gandalf was a Wizard who just prepared the same spells every day, or running of Spell Points?
I don't need either one of them to "run off spell points". They are never mentioned having to pick and choose their suite of spells for the day, so we won't assume they have to.

Comic book mages regularly don't use spells they've used before when they would be useful. Seems like Spell Preparation maps that pretty well.
The longer we argue, the more and more you stretch.

No, the Psion's power goes down "continuously". If he has just a little bit of power left, it's actually just a little. On the other hand, the Wizard can have just one killer spell left.
I don't know what distinction you're making here. Everyone's power goes down continuously, unless you're at-will. A level 9 psion can dump 9 power points into any power, that's his highest level ability. If he has nine 9 power points left, that's a little bit of power. That's 9 out of 72 total power points (closer to 100 when you factor in ability score modifier). So at 1/10th his potential, he has enough to throw out one more max level power. What's the issue?

Can someone else chime in here and tell me if I'm not explaining myself clearly? At-will or resource limited aside, am I wrong in thinking that most wizards as we know them don't have to limit their spell access each day?

Cosi

2017-02-07, 09:12 PM

Not without using epic rules in 3.5 and require custom magic items rules in pathfinder.

If you get SLA wish (like Efreet do), you can get an arbitrarily big Belt of Magnificence just by asking.

To your earlier response to me, teleport might not destroy encounters but I dont want fighters to have the equivalent of it mainly because good luck finding reasonable fluff. Never said because it was a broken.

Okay, what should Fighters do to contribute outside combat when Wizards have teleport.

Do they have to choose which spells to cast at the beginning of the day? No? Neither do psions. Psions match better than wizards. It's simple.

You can't reduce the problem to one axis then act like I'm supposed to care. Wizards match Harry Potter better than Psions because they can learn new spells without leveling up. You have to consider the whole issue, or you get stupid results like that.

I don't need either one of them to "run off spell points". They are never mentioned having to pick and choose their suite of spells for the day, so we won't assume they have to.

So you're saying that spell preparation is not the default, because when it's not specified we assume people don't do it, because... (if the answer is "because spell preparation isn't the default", I'm going to laugh at you).

The longer we argue, the more and more you stretch.

Comic book spellcasters exactly match the pattern of having different abilities on different days that you think is a verisimilitude problem with spell preparation.

Can someone else chime in here and tell me if I'm not explaining myself clearly? At-will or resource limited aside, am I wrong in thinking that most wizards as we know them don't have to limit their spell access each day?

You're explaining yourself fine (mostly, some of your examples are silly), but your point isn't meaningful. Yes, if you compare on this one axis you find that psionics is closer. But if you pick a different axis, magic is closer.

EisenKreutzer

2017-02-07, 09:17 PM

To your earlier response to me, teleport might not destroy encounters but I dont want fighters to have the equivalent of it mainly because good luck finding reasonable fluff. Never said because it was a broken.

So, fighters should only be able to do what a Guy At The Gym could do. Gotcha.

Coretron03

2017-02-07, 09:25 PM

So, fighters should only be able to do what a Guy At The Gym could do. Gotcha.

So how would you fluff a teleport for a fighter then? How about greater teleport? What about the one that lets you teleport across planets?

danielxcutter

2017-02-07, 09:44 PM

^ I'd say ToB already did some of that, but this isn't that kind of thread. The only reason I haven't said that to the "psionics broken/not broken" argument guys is because, well, it's about psionics.

Also, I have no idea what your argument is, Codi? Is it that psionic powers are too powerful or too difficult to use? Because you seem to be saying both, and I'd think one would cancel out the other.

EisenKreutzer

2017-02-07, 09:47 PM

So how would you fluff a teleport for a fighter then? How about greater teleport? What about the one that lets you teleport across planets?

How do you fluff a travelling minstrel being able to cast magical spells?

The bard is a good example here, because the bard is just a wandering musician who somehow has magical abilities. The most common fluff is that the bard has travelled far and wide and has picked up a magical trick or two along the way. Either that, or the bard somehow has a magical voice.

So why can't the fighter have picked up a magical trick or two, or somehow have a magical ability?

Coretron03

2017-02-07, 09:59 PM

How do you fluff a travelling minstrel being able to cast magical spells?

The bard is a good example here, because the bard is just a wandering musician who somehow has magical abilities. The most common fluff is that the bard has travelled far and wide and has picked up a magical trick or two along the way. Either that, or the bard somehow has a magical voice.

So why can't the fighter have picked up a magical trick or two, or somehow have a magical ability?
This is the bards class description
"
Untold wonders and secrets exist for those skillful enough to discover them. Through cleverness, talent, and magic, these cunning few unravel the wiles of the world, becoming adept in the arts of persuasion, manipulation, and inspiration. Typically masters of one or many forms of artistry, bards possess an uncanny ability to know more than they should and use what they learn to keep themselves and their allies ever one step ahead of danger. Bards are quick-witted and captivating, and their skills might lead them down many paths, be they gamblers or jacks-of-all-trades, scholars or performers, leaders or scoundrels, or even all of the above. For bards, every day brings its own opportunities, adventures, and challenges, and only by bucking the odds, knowing the most, and being the best might they claim the treasures of each."
According to their fluff they aren't just traveling singers there like swashbucklers with magical abilities
Fighter class:

"Some take up arms for glory, wealth, or revenge. Others do battle to prove themselves, to protect others, or because they know nothing else. Still others learn the ways of weaponcraft to hone their bodies in battle and prove their mettle in the forge of war. Lords of the battlefield, fighters are a disparate lot, training with many weapons or just one, perfecting the uses of armor, learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat, all to shape themselves into living weapons. Far more than mere thugs, these skilled warriors reveal the true deadliness of their weapons, turning hunks of metal into arms capable of taming kingdoms, slaughtering monsters, and rousing the hearts of armies. Soldiers, knights, hunters, and artists of war, fighters are unparalleled champions, and woe to those who dare stand against them."
Theres nothing to do with casting magic. If you cast spells your not a single classed fighter (barring a certain archetype) your likely a magnus, bard, rogue or bloodrager

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-07, 10:05 PM

Gold is finite, just like skill points. To get comparable coverage the Wizard needs to invest a huge chunk of resources.

To get comparable coverage to a Rogue? A Wizard needs to invest a "huge" chunk of resources? Unless you mean by percentage of all available abilities, I think you're using a dramatically different definition of "comparable coverage" from any one I would recognize. And if you are using such a definition, I'll remind you that such a measure is essentially meaningless. Regardless, gold being finite is irrelevant, you get orders of magnitude more of it than you do Skill Points. So, again, the Rogue must spend a higher percentage of a rarer resource to achieve the same effect as learning a single 2nd level spell. Do you contest that statement?

miracle is maybe broken with the change. That's one, and it happens at 9th level. I'm not convinced it touches a structural problem.

If granting access to all 7th level Spells and Powers printed, and a good chunk of 8th level powers printed, at any time, thereby obviating the need to prepare spells of that level or lower doesn't touch on a structural problem, what would? That fundamentally alters the underlying assumptions of what a character could be able to do. Miracle a couple times per day is one thing, but it doesn't mean I can ignore anything which can be solved with a spell 7th level or lower, because I have to ration it for when I truly need it. If I'm using it to duplicate Prestidigitation after my morning run, because "why not, it's at-will?", then any notion of what resources will be available to meet a given encounter go out the window.

Also, this:

That's one, and it happens at 9th level.

Is a textbook example of moving the goalposts. You asked me "What spell do you think breaks the game at-will, but not under daily limits (so no planar binding)?" not "What spell under X level breaks the game at-will, but not under daily limits (so no planar binding)?" I answered. The level of spell is irrelevant to what you asked; if you now feel that it is relevant, you're free to justify yourself.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 10:29 PM

So how would you fluff a teleport for a fighter then? How about greater teleport? What about the one that lets you teleport across planets?

I wouldn't. I think the Fighter people are mostly right that you can't do non-combat mundane abilities that work at higher levels. So I think you should just stop being mundane at 10th level and start being a Starcaller or a Mountain Scion or whatever and get powers from that.

Also, I have no idea what your argument is, Codi? Is it that psionic powers are too powerful or too difficult to use? Because you seem to be saying both, and I'd think one would cancel out the other.

Several:

1. Trading low level powers for high level ones discourages using low level powers and is therefore boring.
2. The granularity offered by psionic powers can lead to option paralysis (the fact that people object to this is super weird, because the topic literally started with someone saying they thought the granularity was excessive).
3. Spell Points are not a particularly compelling match to fantasy spellcasters.

To get comparable coverage to a Rogue? A Wizard needs to invest a "huge" chunk of resources? Unless you mean by percentage of all available abilities, I think you're using a dramatically different definition of "comparable coverage" from any one I would recognize.

That is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. To get the same percentage of 2nd level spells the Rogue gets of skills, the Wizard needs all of his wealth by level up to 10th. Of course, this is just a weird tangent from the fact that knock is not in fact clearly better than Open Lock at 3rd level.

If granting access to all 7th level Spells and Powers printed, and a good chunk of 8th level powers printed, at any time, thereby obviating the need to prepare spells of that level or lower doesn't touch on a structural problem, what would?

A structural problem would have been something that destablizes the system as a whole. Some problem that you could generalize, like how many of the specific problems of planar binding are emblematic of deeper problems with minionmancy as a whole.

Is a textbook example of moving the goalposts.

No, that's an example of mitigating circumstances. You totally answered the question. All points for that. But your answer is not really persuasive to the broader context of "does the game break with at-will powers".

Coretron03

2017-02-07, 10:43 PM

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-07, 10:44 PM

That is exactly what I've been saying this whole time. To get the same percentage of 2nd level spells the Rogue gets of skills, the Wizard needs all of his wealth by level up to 10th. Of course, this is just a weird tangent from the fact that knock is not in fact clearly better than Open Lock at 3rd level.

And why is that a meaningful measure? What counterarguments do you have to my contention that it doesn't meaningfully measure anything? Why do you ignore the fact that a Wizard is capable of easily mitigating the costs of scribing spells into their spellbook? What can Open Lock do that Knock can't?

And, at the risk of repeating myself, do you contest the following statement:

So, again, the Rogue must spend a higher percentage of a rarer resource to achieve the same effect as learning a single 2nd level spell.

Or do you accede the contention?

A structural problem would have been something that destablizes the system as a whole. Some problem that you could generalize, like how many of the specific problems of planar binding are emblematic of deeper problems with minionmancy as a whole.

A large number of mechanical challenges within 3.5 may be solved by spells of 7th level or lower. I contend the ability to have immediate, constant access to all of these spells, powers, and effects, along with several other more powerful effects, destabilizes the system as a whole. Was that not clear?

No, that's an example of mitigating circumstances. You totally answered the question. All points for that. But your answer is not really persuasive to the broader context of "does the game break with at-will powers".

Moving the goalposts...mitigating circumstances...see the above. (https://youtu.be/LOILZ_D3aRg) The question was asked and answered. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy)

Particle_Man

2017-02-07, 10:54 PM

Several:

1. Trading low level powers for high level ones discourages using low level powers and is therefore boring.
2. The granularity offered by psionic powers can lead to option paralysis (the fact that people object to this is super weird, because the topic literally started with someone saying they thought the granularity was excessive).
3. Spell Points are not a particularly compelling match to fantasy spellcasters.

1. Astral Construct is a 1st level augmentable power that I would happily use from 1st to 20th level as a psion. The other 9th level powers are nice, but I could also just augment my Astral Construct. And if I only need a 1 point Astral Construct (to fetch my mcguffin, say) well that is a huge saving in points so I don't mind using that at level 20 occasionally either.
2. I did not experience this option paralysis of which you speak when playing my psion. Am I just that awesome, or is this not as much of a problem as you seem to believe?
3. Spell Points matches pretty well, considering that the fantasy writer Terry Pratchett changed his fantasy wizards to more closely match the GURPS system, which uses a point based magic system. Spell points match far better than "fire and forget" Vancian spellcasting, and is something that most people find quite intuitive. You know certain magic effects, and you have a certain amount of juice to power them. When you run out of juice, you can't use the effects you know until you refuel. You don't "forget" how to use a spell.

And anyhow, D&D already has a point based system that everyone playing the game is used to. It is called hit points. It works fine. Other game systems use spell points. They work fine. XPH uses psionic points. They work fine. I have seen this with my own eyes. So have many other posters to this thread.

I am beginning to wonder if Cosi has ever played a Psion.

Cosi

2017-02-07, 11:04 PM

Why do you ignore the fact that a Wizard is capable of easily mitigating the costs of scribing spells into their spellbook?

I don't care? Like yeah, you can get it down, but that's either wealth looping (in which case, the Rogue can too), or happening after mid levels (in which case, I said in my original analysis that happens). What is the Wizard doing at 3rd level to get the cost down?

What can Open Lock do that Knock cant?

This is decidedly not the point. There are two questions:

1. On days when you need one, how do Open Lock and knock compare?
2. How much coverage are you getting overall?

The answer to 1 is that knock and Open Lock are basically balanced. knock is better when used, but use limited and possessed of a higher tradeoff (glitterdust rather than Craft).

The answer to 2 is that the Rogue gets 1/3 of possible skills, and the Wizard has to spend thousands of GP to get close to there in terms of spells, which is not viable til after the point things exogenously swing towards the Wizard.

A large number of mechanical challenges within 3.5 may be solved by spells of 7th level or lower. I contend the ability to have immediate, constant access to all of these spells, powers, and effects, along with several other more powerful effects, destabilizes the system as a whole. Was that not clear?

How does "this 9th level spell is totally nuts" destablize the parts of the system that happen before 17th level?

Moving the goalposts...mitigating circumstances...see the above. (https://youtu.be/LOILZ_D3aRg) The question was asked and answered. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy)

If we're just quoting fallacies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)

But yes, you would be right that if my argument was "there are no spells that break the game at-will that don't break it generally", you would have disproven my point. But that's not the argument. The argument is that in general, at-will mostly doesn't break anything that wasn't already broken. The fact that your go to example was a 9th level spell does little to convince me this is not the case. What breaks at 3rd level or 13th level? What kinds of spells break?

RolkFlameraven

2017-02-07, 11:29 PM

I am beginning to wonder if Cosi has ever played a Psion.

I've been wondering this for a while now but I couldn't say it without sounding very rude every time I tried. I don't think he has ever seen one in play either.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-07, 11:35 PM

So to be clear, infinite loops are so powerful no one sane would allow them, but "recruit a minion" is almost that good?

It's not "recruit a minion." It's "access many, many resources to which you would otherwise have no access and/or recruit a minion per day."

Nice strawman though. Should keep the crows away.

As we all know, there are no numbers larger than 6.

The belt of magnificence is not printed with any variants and is at the value limit for non-epic items. So to get one better requires both custom item creation and the creation of an inherently epic item. Even without infinite loop shennanigans that's not something that should be available from a 7th level spell, period.

Of note: the granularity of choosing whether to augment a power and by how much is a problem because paradox of choice even though the choices made there are simple and superficial but the myriad creatures and powers brought to the table by planar binding are somehow perfectly fine. Consistency when?

That seems pretty clearly insufficient in a world where casters get Necromancy and Summoning, and getting rid of those hurts the game more than giving Fighters something comparable.

A) Not intended as an exhaustive list. I'm quite happy with the game largely as-is and I'm not interested in homebrewing a T1 warrior for you.

B) Minionmancy in general is probably -not- appropriate for any class to get without having to jump through rather substantially more hoops than casters currently do. Taking it out of the game entirely is probably too far in the other direction but it's not handled ideally as it currently stands. Summoning is mostly alright (could stand some minor tweaks) but calling and necromancy are both -way- too easily accessible and should probably be overhauled altogether if you're doing substantial homebrewing anyway.

I wouldn't. I think the Fighter people are mostly right that you can't do non-combat mundane abilities that work at higher levels. So I think you should just stop being mundane at 10th level and start being a Starcaller or a Mountain Scion or whatever and get powers from that.

That's a matter of taste intersecting with game balance. Frankly, I'd much rather have wholly non-magical classes (all characters access magic whether it comes from class or not) and let them have a bit tougher time with high-level challenges than have everything perfectly balanced but force every character to become innately magical after a certain point.

Game balance is -not- the ultimate goal and never was.

1. Trading low level powers for high level ones discourages using low level powers and is therefore boring.

Low level spells are largely abandoned when higher level spells come online unless they do something unique. Nobody casts invisibility once they've learned improved invisibility. No one casts burning hands once they have fireball. Not unless they've got no alternative because they've already exhausted all their higher level spells; something that will come up quite rarely unless the DM is quite fond of putting the party through horrific gauntlets that depart significantly from the suggested encounter structure in the DMG. A prepared caster won't even bother to prep such spells.

The point being, unused resources don't encourage anything. How exactly is that -less- boring than being able to use equivalent resources for something productive?

2. The granularity offered by psionic powers can lead to option paralysis (the fact that people object to this is super weird, because the topic literally started with someone saying they thought the granularity was excessive).

If you actually knew the "options" you were talking about here, you'd see for yourself how absurd you're being. As for the person you're talking about, I just double checked the first page, the only person making that complaint was you.

3. Spell Points are not a particularly compelling match to fantasy spellcasters.

That depends entirely on your (oddly narrow) view of fantasy. MP type systems seem perfectly ordinary for a fantasy setting to quite a few of us.

Coretron03

2017-02-07, 11:47 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-07, 11:57 PM

There was this guy Kelb who started thethe "too complicated" line of arguement.

I'd hardly call that the start of the thread and cosi is certainly supporting the argument even if he didn't start that line of discussion. I'd also hazard that obstructor isn't familiar with the actual psionics mechanics either.

Also, Greater invisbility has a round a level duration while normal invisbility has minute a level duration making the normal one better for scouting and greater only good for combat.

Eh, it was one example but the larger point stands even if it wasn't the best example. You could just as easily substitute any of a dozen other examples to the same effect.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-08, 12:28 AM

To get this out of the way first:

And, at the risk of repeating myself, do you contest the following statement:

So, again, the Rogue must spend a higher percentage of a rarer resource to achieve the same effect as learning a single 2nd level spell.

Or do you accede the contention?

I don't care? Like yeah, you can get it down, but that's either wealth looping (in which case, the Rogue can too), or happening after mid levels (in which case, I said in my original analysis that happens). What is the Wizard doing at 3rd level to get the cost down?

The Rogue can do wealth looping too, though they derive fewer benefits and must rely on other characters to get started (unless there is a Rogue-native wealth loop which requires no magical items of which I am unaware, in which case I shall retract the assertion). But a Wizard need not wealth loop in order to learn spells at reduced cost. For example, at 3rd level, the easiest way to reduce costs is theft. Well, perhaps not theft precisely, but pillage. Find another Wizard of 3rd level and suitable alignment/allegiance/whatever-your-ethical-system-defines-as-fair-game. Relieve them of their spellbook. Then, all you need is a DC: 27 Spellcraft check (25 + the highest level spell contained therein, which for a 3rd level Wizard is 2nd) and you may now permanently prepare spells from the pilfered spellbook as if it were your own (Complete Arcane, page 140). Now, can our Wizard reliably achieve a 27 on their Spellcraft check? Well, let us assume an 18 INT, maximum ranks in Spellcraft, at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) for the synergy bonus, a set of Masterwork Spellcrafter's Tools (or what have you), a +1 Spellcraft item, and a Raven Familiar Aiding Another (with max Spellcraft, at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) for the synergy bonus, Masterwork Tools, and access to your +1 Spellcraft item, the Raven will make the check every time). This gives a total bonus of 17, and since our Wizard can take ten, that means they absolutely can reliably hit a DC: 27 Spellcraft check. And all it cost them was 150 GP and a little bit of time. So that's what a 3rd level Wizard can do to reduce the costs of learning spells.

This is decidedly not the point.

Is that so?

knock is not in fact clearly better than Open Lock at 3rd level.

I contend that Knock is in fact clearly superior to Open Lock at 3rd level. To wit, let's take your 14 INT Rogue from before, but bring them down to 3rd level. They have maxed Open Lock, which means they have 6 Ranks, and a DEX of 18, Masterwork Thieves' Tools, and a 100 GP +1 Competence Bonus Open Lock item, for a total bonus of 13. On an average roll, they cannot open an Average Lock (DC: 25). They can open a Good Lock on a roll of 17 or above (DC: 30), and cannot possibly open an Amazing Lock (DC: 40). To do so, they have spent a small amount of their gold and more critically, one tenth of their total Skill points. The Wizard with Knock, however can open any of these (and more) with a single spell, which cost them only a little bit of gold (if any at all). Sure, the Wizard may not always have Knock prepared, but if you're up against an Amazing Lock, they'll definitely have it tomorrow. The Rogue, on the other hand, will need to wait a few levels, and then come back and try again. Thus, Knock is superior to Open Lock at 3rd level.

There are two questions:

1. On days when you need one, how do Open Lock and knock compare?
2. How much coverage are you getting overall?

The answer to 1 is that knock and Open Lock are basically balanced. knock is better when used, but use limited and possessed of a higher tradeoff (glitterdust rather than Craft).

The answer to 2 is that the Rogue gets 1/3 of possible skills, and the Wizard has to spend thousands of GP to get close to there in terms of spells, which is not viable til after the point things exogenously swing towards the Wizard.

The answer to 1. is that Knock is clearly superior, as demonstrated above. It suffers for being occasionally unavailable, but if Open Lock won't do the job, you can generally wait 8 hours. Only in situations in which you can't wait 8 hours, and Open Lock isn't getting it done, are Open Lock and Knock equals.

2., as previously stated, is an irrelevant measure, especially since the Wizard need not spend more than 150 GP to get all 2nd level spells into their repertoire.

There is, however, a third question. What are the costs to achieve that effect? For the Rogue, it is one tenth of their total skill points, which have a hard limit on how many they may attain. For the Wizard, it is a small amount of gold or effort and time, if it costs them anything at all. There is no limit on how many spells a Wizard may learn, after all.

How does "this 9th level spell is totally nuts" destablize the parts of the system that happen before 17th level?

It doesn't, barring means of acquiring 9th level spells early, but it is hardly the only example. Wall of Salt, a 4th level spell, at-will, destroys the Wealth by Level guidelines. Any spell which offers a save can be spammed until the target fails their save. All that from first level on up.

If we're just quoting fallacies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)

But yes, you would be right that if my argument was "there are no spells that break the game at-will that don't break it generally", you would have disproven my point. But that's not the argument. The argument is that in general, at-will mostly doesn't break anything that wasn't already broken. The fact that your go to example was a 9th level spell does little to convince me this is not the case. What breaks at 3rd level or 13th level? What kinds of spells break?

I have provided evidence to the contrary above.

Dagroth

2017-02-08, 02:24 AM

A vancian (in the D&D style) wizard could be similarly limited by keeping him restricted in his possible spell selection. It would not be easy to do from the state the game is in now, but a new class with a carefully crafted list could do it.

You mean... like a Wu Jen? Or a Shujenja? :smallamused:

There are approximately 400 2nd level spells (closer to 430, but you get some free spells for leveling).

There are about 30 skills on the Rogue's class list. Assuming an INT of 14, the Rogue will get 1/3 of them if he buys only class skills.

So, what does it cost a Wizard to learn 1/3 of his 2nd level spells?

400 * 1/3 = 133. At a cost of 350 GP (150 for the scroll, 200 for the pages), that's 46550 GP, or slightly less than the wealth by level of a 10th level character.

So, if you spend all your money until 10th level you can learn the same percentage of 2nd level spells the Rogue gets of his skills.

You use an infinite wealth loop to get enough money to afford all that and your gear. But the Rogue could also use an infinite wealth loop to get big bonuses to UMD and a boatload of scrolls.

While a large amount to a 10th level character, it's a relatively trivial amount to a 17th+ level character.

And it's a situation where the Wizards can just keep throwing money at it. The Rogue can't.

What spell do you think breaks the game at-will, but not under daily limits (so no planar binding)?

Force Orb. Greater Dispel Magic. Force Cage.

Especially when you throw things like Quicken SLA into the mix.

I guess maybe we're talking about different windows. When someone describes a game, would you expect them to generally have a list of "splats allowed" or "splats banned"? In my experience, even when people allow everything it's phrased as "you can use anything but Dragon" not "you can't use Dragon."

Not the group I game with. The GM either says "whatever", or has a list that is anywhere from "yeah, you can play a Changeling, but not the other Ebberon races" to "I'm allowing Dragon Compendium, but not the other Dragon Magazine stuff... and we're using the Greek Pantheon, so if you want Cleric stuff here's the list. If you want to re-fluff a Prestige Class, run it past me before you even create your character..." etc. etc.

One of our DMs (we each run games when the other starts to burn out) even has a detailed list of what advantages & disadvantages (and how much of the stackable ones) he allows in his GURPS games.

We've had characters from bog-standard Half-Elf Rangers to Half-Flesh-Bound-Vampire Air Goblin Swiftblades. I once played a Intimidate focused character, who's every feat was based around getting more and more intimidating until he just had to draw his blade to get most enemies to give up (or faint).

Does Harry Potter run out of magic?

The phrase "exhausted his magical core" is used in the HP books. More than once, I believe.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-08, 03:17 AM

The phrase "exhausted his magical core" is used in the HP books. More than once, I believe.

I don't believe that is the case. I certainly don't recall it, nor have I been able to locate it, with a quick perusal of the books. I believe that phrase has its origins in Harry Potter fanfic.

Dr.Samurai

2017-02-08, 09:57 AM

You can't reduce the problem to one axis then act like I'm supposed to care.
Cosi, your argumentation on this is very weak. You should care, because you're positing that power points don't match fantasy spellcasting very well, and I'm explaining how they match better than slots. And you're just dismissing the arguments.

Wizards match Harry Potter better than Psions because they can learn new spells without leveling up. You have to consider the whole issue, or you get stupid results like that.
What makes you say no one is leveling up in Harry Potter?

Psions can research new powers in between level ups, so the point is moot either way. Keep trying. Harry Potter wizards can spam the same spell repeatedly. D&D wizards can't. But psions can. Harry Potter wizards don't have to limit their spells for the day out of the total spells they know. D&D wizards do. Psions don't.

So you're saying that spell preparation is not the default, because when it's not specified we assume people don't do it, because... (if the answer is "because spell preparation isn't the default", I'm going to laugh at you).
Why would we assume an additional intermediary step that isn't at all intuitive and there is no evidence for? This burden is on you, not me.

Comic book spellcasters exactly match the pattern of having different abilities on different days that you think is a verisimilitude problem with spell preparation.
It doesn't mean they have to choose and prepare their spells each day. It may just be a large repertoire. You're really grasping here. Especially given that no one would describe the D&D wizard as a spellcaster that never casts the same spell twice. By all means, share an anecdote with us. In your games, do the wizards never cast the same spell twice?

Show me a comic where a spellcaster says "Crap, I didn't choose that spell for the day!" and this will be a point in your favor.

Regarding my "problem", look, if you like slots, great. I don't have a "problem" regarding their verisimilitude. I'm commenting on the very obvious fact that compared to most every other wizard, D&D wizards use their magic differently.

You're explaining yourself fine (mostly, some of your examples are silly), but your point isn't meaningful. Yes, if you compare on this one axis you find that psionics is closer. But if you pick a different axis, magic is closer.
That one axis is pretty big Cosi. But by all means, let's keep comparing more. I'm still not convinced on Mistborn (though admittedly I don't know it well).

If a psion eats iron, he can only do the Iron thing. As you said, he can only do a single thing. Ok. Fine. He does it. He can only manifest one single power, and so he'll use his power points to do just that. No problem.

If a wizard eats iron, he can only do the Iron thing. Ok. Fine. He prepares that single spell for the day. Maybe he has more than one slot at that level, so he prepares it twice. Great. Now he has a bunch of slots he can't use, because he can only do the one spell when he eats iron. And, no matter how much iron he eats, he can only do the thing twice, and the rest of his slots are wasted.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-02-08, 10:15 AM

That one axis is pretty big Cosi. But by all means, let's keep comparing more. I'm still not convinced on Mistborn (though admittedly I don't know it well).
I know Mistborn well, and spell points model it better than any kind of slot-based casting, especially prepared casting. There is no 9th-level bronze power or the equivalent; all bronze is the same, even as skill levels vary. If you were modelling allomancy in a slot-based system, you would model it with sixteen different kinds of first-level specialization spell slots, of which you have hundreds (depending on stomach capacity & metal availability, I suppose), and you'd spontaneously expend slot(s) to fuel your powers for one round. That is, you'd essentially reduce your slot-based system to a spell point system.

In an actual 3.5 game, I would probably create a coinage system that doubles as allomantic metal system, allowing you to just eat various types of coins. Then, an allomancer's magical powers are at-will, but require gp expenditure (base cost per round + augment for certain things).

Segev

2017-02-08, 10:16 AM

Yeah, wish has versatility. But the ability to cast arbitrary 8th level spells is way less broken than the ability to get a Belt of Magnificence +The Biggest Number.

This...is almost exactly backwards from the truth. It is possible you accidentally typed the opposite of what you meant, but if you typed exactly what you meant, you're completely wrong.

Having "the biggest number" is amazingly powerful, but it won't get you past Tier 2, and even then, it's low-end Tier 2. All you can do is that one thing.

One Punch Man is really, really powerful. But even half of what makes him truly unstoppable lies in the versatility of an under-mentioned part of his power-set: super-speed. Super-speed lets you be everywhere you need to be and, as executed in his comic, break action economy.

Even then, he's a destroyer. He can't create. He can't alter an economic foundation by simply using his powers.

A super-high-numbers character can be unstoppable in a field. But all you have to do to get around him is make the contest one that doesn't have anything to do with his high numbers. Saitama - One Punch Man - is okay at, but not "all the numbers" good at video games. A video game contest can see him lose.

The reason versatility wins when you get to Tier 1 style versatility is that they can have the "I win" button in all the things. Maybe they don't have the "biggest number" for everything. But they don't need to. They have the "I win without numbers" tool.

If the biggest number was better than any 8th level spell you wanted at will, then uberchargers would be the most powerful builds. While they're powerful, they still aren't as mighty as wizards. Even though they flat-out deal more damage per unit time.

Cosi

2017-02-08, 01:23 PM

It's not "recruit a minion." It's "access many, many resources to which you would otherwise have no access and/or recruit a minion per day."

That's close to infinite power now? To be clear, "burn a spell slot to get a single minion or some free spellcasting" is something you consider close to "infinite power"?

The belt of magnificence is not printed with any variants and is at the value limit for non-epic items.

So what? wish says "create a magic item" not "create a non-epic magic item" or "create a magic item that exists". You can wish for a scroll of a non-core spell, despite the fact that the list of scrolls contains only core spells.

B) Minionmancy in general is probably -not- appropriate for any class to get without having to jump through rather substantially more hoops than casters currently do.

You don't need more hoops on minionmacy, you need to not be able to stack it. If you just gave everyone Leadership, let them have undead minions or summoned minions or recruited minions or whatever, and banned getting any more minions than it gave you, that would be fine (and less hoops than currently exists). But if you have planar binding + spirit binding + animate dead + simulacrum + charm monster, either the game has to be balanced for having all those things (which is dumb because the characters people want to play don't have all those things) or the game breaks if you have more than one.

That's a matter of taste intersecting with game balance. Frankly, I'd much rather have wholly non-magical classes (all characters access magic whether it comes from class or not) and let them have a bit tougher time with high-level challenges than have everything perfectly balanced but force every character to become innately magical after a certain point.

A character is not an island. Your character not contributing makes other people's experience worse. If you want to not have magic, play in the part of the game without magic. Turn it around. If you are allowed to bring a character who is inappropriate for the game I want to play (mundane Fighter in a Domions/Chronicles of Amber mashup), why am I not allowed to bring a character who is inappropriate for the game you want to play (Archmage in a LotR/Game of Thrones mashup)? If "mundane Fighter" is acceptable at 20th, why is "world conquering Archmage" not acceptable at 1st?

If you actually knew the "options" you were talking about here, you'd see for yourself how absurd you're being. As for the person you're talking about, I just double checked the first page, the only person making that complaint was you.

You know how I said "topic" and not "thread"? The conversation goes like this:

Not Me: Psionics is too complicated.
You: How can you say that, choices are good!
Me: Actually, that's not always true. Here's some people who have researched exactly that.
You: How can you say that, choices are good!/You don't understand, choice of degree isn't really a choice!

My contribution to this conversation was to explain why someone had a concern they voiced. The fact that you think I'm wrong, despite this topic literally starting with someone who said they faced the problem I've described is deeply bizarre.

unless there is a Rogue-native wealth loop which requires no magical items of which I am unaware, in which case I shall retract the assertion.

There are wealth loops just buying and selling mundane items from the PHB.

For example, at 3rd level, the easiest way to reduce costs is theft. Well, perhaps not theft precisely, but pillage. Find another Wizard of 3rd level and suitable alignment/allegiance/whatever-your-ethical-system-defines-as-fair-game. Relieve them of their spellbook.

Yes, only Wizards are able to go on adventures and receive loot. This totally unique capability of the Wizard class has rendered them able to dominate all other classes in the game.

I contend that Knock is in fact clearly superior to Open Lock at 3rd level. To wit, let's take your 14 INT Rogue from before, but bring them down to 3rd level. They have maxed Open Lock, which means they have 6 Ranks, and a DEX of 18, Masterwork Thieves' Tools, and a 100 GP +1 Competence Bonus Open Lock item, for a total bonus of 13. On an average roll, they cannot open an Average Lock (DC: 25). They can open a Good Lock on a roll of 17 or above (DC: 30), and cannot possibly open an Amazing Lock (DC: 40). To do so, they have spent a small amount of their gold and more critically, one tenth of their total Skill points. The Wizard with Knock, however can open any of these (and more) with a single spell, which cost them only a little bit of gold (if any at all). Sure, the Wizard may not always have Knock prepared, but if you're up against an Amazing Lock, they'll definitely have it tomorrow. The Rogue, on the other hand, will need to wait a few levels, and then come back and try again. Thus, Knock is superior to Open Lock at 3rd level.

Yes, using knock is better against any given lock. But it costs you a cast of glitterdust and has one use per day. This is exactly the analysis that concludes that knock and Open Lock are balanced, except you skipped the idea that a dungeon might have more than one locked door or that you might need to use glitterdust or web.

It doesn't, barring means of acquiring 9th level spells early, but it is hardly the only example. Wall of Salt, a 4th level spell, at-will, destroys the Wealth by Level guidelines. Any spell which offers a save can be spammed until the target fails their save. All that from first level on up.

Yeah, you can break WBL. But you can do that by just filling all your spell slots with wall of salt and casting it a bunch of times between adventures. Spamming save-or-dies is still action constrained already.

While a large amount to a 10th level character, it's a relatively trivial amount to a 17th+ level character.

Yes, at high levels the equivalence breaks down. Which is exactly what I said when this argument started.

Force Orb. Greater Dispel Magic. Force Cage.

These seem like combat spells, where there use is limited by actions not spell slots even in the game as it stands.

Cosi, your argumentation on this is very weak. You should care, because you're positing that power points don't match fantasy spellcasting very well, and I'm explaining how they match better than slots. And you're just dismissing the arguments.

Wizards match fantasy better than Psions because they learn spells continuously and from dusty tomes rather than discretely ex nihilo.

What makes you say no one is leveling up in Harry Potter?

Characters in Harry Potter learn things individually (consistent with something like point based character creation or Wizards adding spells to their spellbooks), rather than in big chunks. Hermione figures out how to brew Polyjuice in 2nd year, but doesn't also learn how to cast the Summoning Charm or Apparate. In level based systems, you get better at a wide variety of things all at once in large steps. That's no how Harry Potter characters behave.

Why would we assume an additional intermediary step that isn't at all intuitive and there is no evidence for? This burden is on you, not me.

You're black boxing your justifications as "intuition". Why is your intuition telling you Gandalf doesn't prepare spells? Maybe my intuition is that he totally does prepare spells. Maybe my intuition is that he has a fixed reserve of discrete spells usable over his life. Maybe my intuition is that he can cast spells whenever he wants but likes screwing with people.

I know Mistborn well, and spell points model it better than any kind of slot-based casting, especially prepared casting.

Not really. The key aspect of the Spell Points set up is that all your powers are fungible with each other. That's explicitly not true in Mistborn. It doesn't match perfectly, but it does have exactly the property Samurai is complaining about where you can run out of one kind of magic but not others or not prepare a certain spell. Characters in Mistborn can say "I want a bunch of Iron but no Bronze" or "I'm all out of Steel so I'll have to use Pewter".

This...is almost exactly backwards from the truth. It is possible you accidentally typed the opposite of what you meant, but if you typed exactly what you meant, you're completely wrong.

No, really. Having +infinity to your stats is more powerful than all the 8th level spells in the game, unless you parlay them into +infinity to all your stats. The one exception is saves, but that can be avoided pretty trivially by wishing for an infinite number of rerolls as well.

If the biggest number was better than any 8th level spell you wanted at will, then uberchargers would be the most powerful builds. While they're powerful, they still aren't as mighty as wizards. Even though they flat-out deal more damage per unit time.

Uberchargers have one big number: damage. The guy who wished for the infinity belt has damage, initiative, saves, Diplomacy, AC, and anything else any attribute adds to. He can just use his infinite initiative to act first, use his infinite languages (from infinite ranks in Speak Language) to make a Diplomacy check with an infinite bonus to make you fanatical, and win forever. All while hiding using his infinite ranks in Hide and Move Silently.

Particle_Man

2017-02-08, 02:26 PM

The thing about Mistborn in Mistborn is that they are more rare than Mistings.

Mistings are interesting because they can only burn one type of metal. Ever. And thus they use it to fuel one type of power. If they run out of their fuel they stop using that power until they can "fuel up".

That sounds a lot like a spell point system where you can measure how much you have by how much of that metal is in your gut. You can even "nova" it to use more of it up.

Dagroth

2017-02-08, 03:13 PM

Force Orb. Greater Dispel Magic. Force Cage.

These seem like combat spells, where there use is limited by actions not spell slots even in the game as it stands.

Let's see how these spells could "break the game".

Force Orb comes on-line at 7th level (8th for Sorcerers).

In a dungeon crawl, a Wizard or Sorcerer can only reasonably cast a few of these. As an SLA, they can cast this at every monster, every round. That produces the kind of damage that no class can keep up with.

There's a Reserve Feat for Force Spells in Complete Mage that, for argument's sake, we'll have the Wizard or Sorcerer get at level 6. Invisible Needle (or Force Needle, can't recall the name) does (x)d4, where x= the highest uncast force descriptor spell you have available. Also, it targets Standard AC, not Touch AC... and is very much shorter range (not quite so important in a dungeon, but still important).

So the SLA Feat that exists in the game already produces 4d4 per round against Standard AC at close range. It also has to overcome SR.
The SLA for Force Orb does 7-8d4 against Touch AC at ridiculously great range and ignores both saves and SR.

Does Force Orb break the game yet for you?

BTW, the Warlock at 8th level is doing 4d6 at close to moderate range against touch AC and has to overcome SR. He doesn't get to ignore SR until level 11 at a minimum. Just to compare with a class with a built-in SLA.

Greater Dispel Magic at-will. Comes on-line for a Warlock at level 11 and would be considered a good choice if it weren't for the very limited number of Invocations a Warlock gets.

Comes on-line for the Wizard at level 11 as well... but again, when you compare having to husband one's resources to "heck, I'll just dispel again!" Especially, again, with Quicken SLA allowing you to Dispel and then blast.'

So maybe Greater Dispel Magic as an SLA isn't terri-bad for the game... but it can still be pretty damaging.

Forcecage comes on-line at level 15.

"Look out a monster is coming!" "Force Cage." "We need to get past this pit!" Yawn... "Force Cage." "There's a Dragon flying overhead!" "Force Cage... in it's flight path." *Clang!*

Monsters that don't cast or have breath weapons? Stick them in a Force Cage and blast at your convenience. Monsters that do cast? Stick them in a Force Cage Windowless Cell version.

Sure, it's not good against creatures larger than Huge (or casters larger than Large)... but it's "Stop" button for most encounters... and at-will means that most encounters are bypassed and/or trivialized. And it lasts for hours/level.

At-Will Forcecage breaking the game for you yet?

Flickerdart

2017-02-08, 03:21 PM

8d4 average is 20 damage. Orb of Force is actually d6, not d4, but that's just 28 damage. That's awful damage output for this level.

Dagroth

2017-02-08, 03:31 PM

8d4 average is 20 damage. Orb of Force is actually d6, not d4, but that's just 28 damage. That's awful damage output for this level.

Against touch AC... every round... at extreme range?

Against high-AC targets it's pretty amazing damage, I think.

Flickerdart

2017-02-08, 03:41 PM

Monster AC is typically low enough that you can hit them just fine with regular attacks, dealing way more damage. Monsters around CR8 tend to have over 100 HP. So wow, you can ping something for 1/4 or 1/5 of its HP every round. Great job. If you can't even do 1 creature per round, it's not broken.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-08, 03:49 PM

Again, Cosi, I would appreciate it if you would address this question:

And, at the risk of repeating myself, do you contest the following statement:

So, again, the Rogue must spend a higher percentage of a rarer resource to achieve the same effect as learning a single 2nd level spell.

Or do you accede the contention?

Now, moving swiftly onward.

There are wealth loops just buying and selling mundane items from the PHB.

On this point you're absolutely right. A Rogue could of course traffic in 10 foot poles. I retract the assertion.

Yes, only Wizards are able to go on adventures and receive loot. This totally unique capability of the Wizard class has rendered them able to dominate all other classes in the game.

You asked how a 3rd level Wizard mitigates the cost of adding spells to their spellbook. I gave you a detailed breakdown of exactly how to do so. What more do you want? Is there any evidence or argument which would change your mind?

And in addition to that, except by leveling up (or items which permanently increase INT), what loot is going to give the Rogue more skill points?

Yes, using knock is better against any given lock. But it costs you a cast of glitterdust and has one use per day. This is exactly the analysis that concludes that knock and Open Lock are balanced, except you skipped the idea that a dungeon might have more than one locked door or that you might need to use glitterdust or web.

Open Lock is usable more often, I'll grant you, but in the example above, the Rogue with Open Lock will struggle to open even an Average Lock, whereas Knock will open any lock of any rating, every time. Open Lock also requires a near permanent expenditure of resources, whereas the Wizard can choose to prepare any other 2nd level spell they know the next time they prepare spells. So yes, on a given day, preparing Knock means you can't use that slot to prepare Glitterdust or Web, but tomorrow you can. What Rogue class ability (without resorting to cross-class ranks of Use Psionic Device and partially-charged dorjes of Psychic Reformation) allows the Rogue to reallocate their skills when they need to, for example, bind something tightly with a rope rather than open a lock? The opportunity cost for the Wizard is still lower, and their option is still more powerful. Is being able to use Open Lock more often enough to overcome the fact that it is more resource intensive and statistically worse than Knock? I hold that it is not.

Yeah, you can break WBL. But you can do that by just filling all your spell slots with wall of salt and casting it a bunch of times between adventures. Spamming save-or-dies is still action constrained already.

Breaking WBL by filling all spell slots 4th level and above for days or weeks on end is one thing; generating arbitrarily large amounts of value with a single spell you may cast at-will is something else.

Save-or-dies are still action constrained, sure, but having them at-will invalidates Saves as a defense. It's still "...something that destablizes the system as a whole," which is the standard you set.

Yes, at high levels the equivalence breaks down. Which is exactly what I said when this argument started.

I have provided evidence which demonstrates that the "equivalence" breaks down as early as level three. The 3rd level Wizard can reliably add any number of spells up to their maximum level with nothing more than their class features, a +1 skill item, and a set of masterwork tools.

Wizards match fantasy better than Psions because they learn spells continuously and from dusty tomes rather than discretely ex nihilo.

So the Wizard's fluff matches your view of fantasy better, sure, but do the mechanics? Perhaps not with the Psion (though I'll point out that such an objection is equally applicable to the Sorcerer), but the Erudite could certainly be refluffed to model a character who learns new abilities continuously through rigorous study (one could even add dusty tomes into the mix, if they so desire). And Erudites don't have the Wizard's issues relating to having to pick their abilities at the beginning of the day, and running out of an ability because they only prepared it once and they've already cast it.

Characters in Harry Potter learn things individually (consistent with something like point based character creation or Wizards adding spells to their spellbooks), rather than in big chunks. Hermione figures out how to brew Polyjuice in 2nd year, but doesn't also learn how to cast the Summoning Charm or Apparate. In level based systems, you get better at a wide variety of things all at once in large steps. That's no how Harry Potter characters behave.

That's an issue of having a class-and-level system, rather than a freeform point buy. The objection is equally applicable to 3.5 Wizards and 3.5 Psions.

You're black boxing your justifications as "intuition". Why is your intuition telling you Gandalf doesn't prepare spells? Maybe my intuition is that he totally does prepare spells. Maybe my intuition is that he has a fixed reserve of discrete spells usable over his life. Maybe my intuition is that he can cast spells whenever he wants but likes screwing with people.

I suspect that Dr. Samurai's intuition tells him Gandalf doesn't prepare spells because there is no indication that Gandalf ever does so.

Not really. The key aspect of the Spell Points set up is that all your powers are fungible with each other. That's explicitly not true in Mistborn. It doesn't match perfectly, but it does have exactly the property Samurai is complaining about where you can run out of one kind of magic but not others or not prepare a certain spell. Characters in Mistborn can say "I want a bunch of Iron but no Bronze" or "I'm all out of Steel so I'll have to use Pewter".

I'm unfamiliar with Mistborn, but from your description it sounds like casters in that setting have different pools of spell points which they may expend to enact different effects. These spell points are not fungible from one pool to another, but within that pool they seem to work almost exactly as Power Points do in 3.5 Psionics. Would a 3.5 Wizard still better render the Mistborn system than a Psion, if the Psion had a separate pool of powers for each discipline, and could only manifest powers from that discipline with the correct power points (and perhaps they recharge those discrete power point pools by ingesting different varieties of crystal, rather than simply by resting)? Or am I mistaken? If I'm not mistaken, then does the Wizard's having discrete spell slots which may only be used to prepare spells of the appropriate level (or lower) still better model a system which requires fueling effects of different potencies (but of the same general type) from a single pool of resources (i.e. a single pool per general type of effect) which may be used to achieve a small effect or a large effect, depending on how much of the resource is expended? Or is that closer to a system which only has one resource pool but which allows fueling effects of different potencies depending on how much of the resource is expended? Because from your descriptions, it sounds to me more like the latter than the former.

No, really. Having +infinity to your stats is more powerful than all the 8th level spells in the game, unless you parlay them into +infinity to all your stats. The one exception is saves, but that can be avoided pretty trivially by wishing for an infinite number of rerolls as well.

Unless you can model such an item using the normal rules for crafting magical items, I suspect that using Wish in this manner would trip the "producing greater effects than these is dangerous" clause in the spell description. This is why you can Wish up scrolls of non-core spells - the rules have a mechanism for producing them. Wishing up something which does not exist and cannot be modeled by the normal rules is like using a Sarrukh's Manipulate Form to grant abilities that don't exist under the rules, except using Wish in such a way is explicitly called out as being dangerous. And do Epic Magic Items count as Magic Items for the purpose of Wish, or are they a separate category (and therefore not valid products of the spell)? I'm away from books at the moment, so I can't check, but that may be another impediment to using Wish in this manner (and, again, if there is evidence (or sufficiently strong argument) to the contrary, I'll retract the contention).

Segev

2017-02-08, 03:50 PM

No, really. Having +infinity to your stats is more powerful than all the 8th level spells in the game, unless you parlay them into +infinity to all your stats. The one exception is saves, but that can be avoided pretty trivially by wishing for an infinite number of rerolls as well.

Uberchargers have one big number: damage. The guy who wished for the infinity belt has damage, initiative, saves, Diplomacy, AC, and anything else any attribute adds to. He can just use his infinite initiative to act first, use his infinite languages (from infinite ranks in Speak Language) to make a Diplomacy check with an infinite bonus to make you fanatical, and win forever. All while hiding using his infinite ranks in Hide and Move Silently.

Even auto-succeeding on every skill doesn't let you teleport, hover (you need a cloud to balance on), or create things from nothing. It doesn't let you be in more than one place at a time, or discover information that people in your area don't know. It doesn't let you monitor your home on another plane (though infinite Listen would potentially let you hear and pinpoint all activity everywhere at least on your home planet, to the extent of sound's reach). It guarantees you win initiative against anybody who can't just auto-win it (directly or by acting outside of initiative order). It doesn't let you act more often than once per round. It doesn't let you stop time, nor have pre-emptive immediate actions to avoid all harm. It might help you eventually find portals to other planes, but it won't let you simply go to another plane.

It won't let you remove curses, place curses, restore petrified individuals to flesh, or move any faster than your base race's movement rate. It won't let you burrow or pass through obstacles (unless they're quite thin, via Escape Artist) without bashing your way through. It might let you repair what you passed through, if the DM determines that's "merely" a penalty for doing it without tools and more materials than the rubble you left behind AND that you can take enough of a penalty to do it in just a couple minutes. Maybe.

It won't let you bring your allies with you when you sneak somewhere, or use your infinite breath-holding to go underwater. It won't let you touch a well-prepared wizard or even cleric if they don't want you to. It won't let you hide from the various methods of scrying which target you indirectly enough to deny a save.

95% of the game-breaking stunts, infinite stats won't help you achieve.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-08, 03:52 PM

That's close to infinite power now? To be clear, "burn a spell slot to get a single minion or some free spellcasting" is something you consider close to "infinite power"?

In terms of game balance, unlimited versatility with bounded power high enough to get the job done is -immensely- more difficult to properly balance than unlimited power with limited application. That said, your proposed scenario; only efreets with loops vs everything with no loops; isn't even comparing those things. It's comparing limitless power -and- vesatility with limited (though still quite substantial) power and near unlimited vesatility.

More succinctly; it doesn't matter if your win button wins by a millimeter or a light-year. What matters is whether you actually have a win button for the scenario. Vesatility gives you more win buttons.

So what? wish says "create a magic item" not "create a non-epic magic item" or "create a magic item that exists". You can wish for a scroll of a non-core spell, despite the fact that the list of scrolls contains only core spells.

So you don't see any issue with an effect meant for mid-level granting trivial access to items and effects meant for epic levels as deep as you please. You realize this utterly shatters any pretense you might put forward on caring about game balance, right? If there's only a trivially measurable difference between a 13th level wizard and a 1300th level wizard, what's the point in continuing to level again?

You don't need more hoops on minionmacy, you need to not be able to stack it. If you just gave everyone Leadership, let them have undead minions or summoned minions or recruited minions or whatever, and banned getting any more minions than it gave you, that would be fine (and less hoops than currently exists). But if you have planar binding + spirit binding + animate dead + simulacrum + charm monster, either the game has to be balanced for having all those things (which is dumb because the characters people want to play don't have all those things) or the game breaks if you have more than one.

Says extra hoops aren't necessary then goes on to describe hoops he'd add. Again, consistency when?

A character is not an island. Your character not contributing makes other people's experience worse. If you want to not have magic, play in the part of the game without magic. Turn it around. If you are allowed to bring a character who is inappropriate for the game I want to play (mundane Fighter in a Domions/Chronicles of Amber mashup), why am I not allowed to bring a character who is inappropriate for the game you want to play (Archmage in a LotR/Game of Thrones mashup)? If "mundane Fighter" is acceptable at 20th, why is "world conquering Archmage" not acceptable at 1st?

A couple issues here.

First and foremost, what pathology makes your character less fun by having a less powerful ally alongside him? You presume he'll be complete dead-weight but that's spurious, at best. Taken to its logical extreme, this means -any- degree of imbalance is wholly unnacceptable. Is that really your contention? If some degree of imbalance is acceptable, why is only your subjective determination of how much more correct than mine or anyone else's?

There's a difference between having no innate magic and having no access to magic at all. This is, in part, why WBL is what it is. Fighters -do- get magic, it just comes from outside sources. Same goes for -every- class that doesn't have class-granted spellcasting, SLA's, or supernatural abilities.

Fighter with no -innate- magical ability is an archetype. You're comparing an archetype to a power level; apples and oranges. That said, a less powerful character in a high-power game can be safely ignored in encounter design and only his fun is -potentially- hurt by his contributions being minimal. It's only a problem if the DM scales encounters just to him and his allies must either pull their punches or ROFL-stomp them. That's the DM's fault. In the reverse case, the high powered character is defacto stealing the spotlight in -every- encounter whether the DM plays to his level or his weaker allies'. In short; one excessively weak player only hurts himself and even that's not guaranteed, one excessively strong player hurts the whole group. Both, however, are only -potential- problems. As you said, no character is an island and non-casters generally offer a better platform for buffs than the casters do. A little teamwork can completely eliminate the problem in either case.

You know how I said "topic" and not "thread"? The conversation goes like this:

Not Me: Psionics is too complicated.
You: How can you say that, choices are good!
Me: Actually, that's not always true. Here's some people who have researched exactly that.
You: How can you say that, choices are good!/You don't understand, choice of degree isn't really a choice!

My contribution to this conversation was to explain why someone had a concern they voiced. The fact that you think I'm wrong, despite this topic literally starting with someone who said they faced the problem I've described is deeply bizarre.

Except he didn't. His response makes it abundantly clear he never actually played with psionics or he'd know what I've been explaining to you as you tried to defend the position. The choices are trivial and superficial ones on the same level as "do I use metamagic or no" for a sorcerer. If a sorcerer isn't too complicated then a psion -cannot- be.

No, really. Having +infinity to your stats is more powerful than all the 8th level spells in the game, unless you parlay them into +infinity to all your stats. The one exception is saves, but that can be avoided pretty trivially by wishing for an infinite number of rerolls as well.

NI stats, you're locked in a resiliient sphere that's been encased in a meter of obdurium on the astral; go.

Flickerdart

2017-02-08, 04:44 PM

NI stats, you're locked in a resiliient sphere that's been encased in a meter of obdurium on the astral; go.
Start singing, your Perform check result of NI attracts powerful outsiders, who hopefully take pity on you and don't just place the magical singing sphere on their mantlepiece.

Felyndiira

2017-02-08, 04:56 PM

You know how I said "topic" and not "thread"? The conversation goes like this:

Not Me: Psionics is too complicated.
You: How can you say that, choices are good!
Me: Actually, that's not always true. Here's some people who have researched exactly that.
You: How can you say that, choices are good!/You don't understand, choice of degree isn't really a choice!

My contribution to this conversation was to explain why someone had a concern they voiced. The fact that you think I'm wrong, despite this topic literally starting with someone who said they faced the problem I've described is deeply bizarre.

Just want to point something out, since this conversation has gone way off-topic after 7 pages. This is the post that started the entire argument:

Psionics is basically exactly magic, except the resource management is worse. Also, there's a bunch of new broken stuff you have to keep track of and/or fix. Maybe it's less than core, but it's still there.

Spell point systems don't work. The answer to "how many magic missile per day is one cloudkill per day worth" is somewhere between "infinity" and "bite me".

It's not about defending someone not liking psionics or how complicated it is. It's the assertion that "spell point systems don't work." I'm not even sure what is being argued about anymore with so many replies to hugely divergent things that don't even relate to this statement anymore.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-08, 05:09 PM

Start singing, your Perform check result of NI attracts powerful outsiders, who hopefully take pity on you and don't just place the magical singing sphere on their mantlepiece.

No audience to hear the performance and spread word and probaby wouldn't be able to hear through the obdurium if there were anyone to hear.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-08, 05:15 PM

No audience to hear the performance and spread word and probaby wouldn't be able to hear through the obdurium if there were anyone to hear.

To hear through a stone wall is +15, so if obdurium is a better acoustic insulator than stone it'll be more, and +1 for every 10 feet the listener is distant. Though if you take "Nothing can pass through the sphere, inside or out, though the subject can breathe normally. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm)" to include sound, then the acoustic qualities of obdurium are irrelevant.

Segev

2017-02-08, 05:16 PM

To hear through a stone wall is +15, so if obdurium is a better acoustic insulator than stone it'll be more, and +1 for every 10 feet the listener is distant. Though if you take "Nothing can pass through the sphere, inside or out, though the subject can breathe normally. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm)" to include sound, then the acoustic qualities of obdurium are irrelevant.

Notably, the infinite-stat person is the one inside the sphere, so if sound can go through it, he can hear everything on the plane, but that doesn't help him get the sound of his singing to anybody else's ears.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-02-08, 05:20 PM

I'm not even sure what is being argued about anymore with so many replies to hugely divergent things that don't even relate to this statement anymore.
The thread gets much easier to read if you don't read anything by Cosi: that way, you don't have to see how he's running an argument Ponzi scheme.

Segev

2017-02-08, 05:21 PM

argument Ponzi scheme.

I know how a Ponzi scheme works, but I confess that I'm at a loss as to how one runs an "argument Ponzi scheme."

Malimar

2017-02-08, 05:25 PM

NI stats, you're locked in a resiliient sphere that's been encased in a meter of obdurium on the astral; go.

Use your NI knowledge(religion) bonus to know about Pazuzu. "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu." Persuade Pazuzu (with your NI Diplomacy check) to help you out for free. Done.

Could also work even if Pazuzu doesn't exist but 20th-level Truenamers do.

Segev

2017-02-08, 05:33 PM

Use your NI knowledge(religion) bonus to know about Pazuzu. "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu." Persuade Pazuzu (with your NI Diplomacy check) to help you out for free. Done.

Could also work even if Pazuzu doesn't exist but 20th-level Truenamers do.

Tut, tut, we're now using NI stats to achieve NI versatility. Which the challenged individual claimed was not needed.

Particle_Man

2017-02-08, 05:42 PM

I know how a Ponzi scheme works, but I confess that I'm at a loss as to how one runs an "argument Ponzi scheme."

I assume it has something to do with moving the goal posts a lot, so that one is refusing to answer a direct refutation of point X by making point Y instead, and refusing to answer a direct refutation of point Y by making point Z instead, etc. But I could be wrong in my meta-analysis.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-08, 05:44 PM

Use your NI knowledge(religion) bonus to know about Pazuzu. "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu." Persuade Pazuzu (with your NI Diplomacy check) to help you out for free. Done.

Pazuzu knows who is calling and why. It's unlikely that he'd answer this call, given that the character in question is a -dire- threat to him.

Could also work even if Pazuzu doesn't exist but 20th-level Truenamers do.

Why would any truenamer that's survived to 20 be dumb enough to answer a call from some rando on the astral of whom he's never heard.

You've got a "maybe" at best in both cases if the relevant sources are even available.

Note that the fanatic attitude is listed as a mind-affecting enchantment effect and, consequently, is blocked by the usual suspects for blocking such things.

Oh, and this:

Tut, tut, we're now using NI stats to achieve NI versatility. Which the challenged individual claimed was not needed.

Almost missed that. :smallredface:

JoshuaZ

2017-02-08, 05:53 PM

It's not about defending someone not liking psionics or how complicated it is. It's the assertion that "spell point systems don't work." I'm not even sure what is being argued about anymore with so many replies to hugely divergent things that don't even relate to this statement anymore.

Well, most of the argument has been on secondary issues. But it seems like a major part of Cosi's argument comes down to the assertions that:

1) Spell points don't work.
2) Magic in fiction rarely resembles spell points.

Most of the disagreements have been flowing from one or the other. One major tangent on the first point has been how well psionics works compared to magic, which has lead to side arguments about the effectiveness of magic. Note that in this context, the fact that other gaming systems use spell points and work fine (e.g. Exalted) has been essentially left unaddressed.

2 Has lead to a whole bunch of different disagreements. This has included the argument about whether that the Mistborn allomancy system was closer to Spell Points (because of the continuous nature) or more like Vancian magic (because there are non-exchangeable resources involved). One other major argument has been over whether systems that use "Drain" should be thought of as closely related to Spell Points or not; frankly, given Cosi's primary thought that interchangeability is one of the key aspects of Spell Points, I don't completely understand why Cosi doesn't think that Drain is more closely connected to Spell Points. Note also that another aspect of this conversation that was pointed out was the interesting observation that Terry Pratchett actually started using a Vancian system in his Discworld books because he was familiar with that sort of thing from gaming, and only switched to something more resembling Spell Points later because that was closer to how he wanted magic to work in his books. That's a pretty striking example that Cosi hasn't addressed.

Cosi

2017-02-08, 06:03 PM

In a dungeon crawl, a Wizard or Sorcerer can only reasonably cast a few of these. As an SLA, they can cast this at every monster, every round. That produces the kind of damage that no class can keep up with.

Or, a Rogue that hits with two attacks for sneak attack damage.

Greater Dispel Magic at-will. Comes on-line for a Warlock at level 11 and would be considered a good choice if it weren't for the very limited number of Invocations a Warlock gets.

greater dispel magic does not ever win an encounter. All it does is maybe make the encounter slightly easier (if you succeed). That doesn't win the game.

Sure, it's not good against creatures larger than Huge (or casters larger than Large)... but it's "Stop" button for most encounters... and at-will means that most encounters are bypassed and/or trivialized. And it lasts for hours/level.

Those conditions are bigger than you'd think. Of the CR 13 monsters in the SRD, the Dragons have breath weapons that can hit you through the bars of the cage (you'll be close enough to hit because forecage is short range), the outsiders have at-will teleport, and the things that are vulnerable are the Celestial Charger and Golden Protector (low level Clerics with racial hit dice you probably aren't worried about anyway) and the Hydra and Iron Golem (which lose to fly).

You asked how a 3rd level Wizard mitigates the cost of adding spells to their spellbook. I gave you a detailed breakdown of exactly how to do so. What more do you want? Is there any evidence or argument which would change your mind?

Yes, your break down is that they could go on an adventure and get loot. A spellbook you steal still counts against WBL, so you don't save anything.

Open Lock is usable more often, I'll grant you, but in the example above, the Rogue with Open Lock will struggle to open even an Average Lock, whereas Knock will open any lock of any rating, every time. Open Lock also requires a near permanent expenditure of resources, whereas the Wizard can choose to prepare any other 2nd level spell they know the next time they prepare spells.

No, knock will open any lock once per day. And again, spells known are a resource.

What Rogue class ability (without resorting to cross-class ranks of Use Psionic Device and partially-charged dorjes of Psychic Reformation) allows the Rogue to reallocate their skills when they need to, for example, bind something tightly with a rope rather than open a lock?

What ability allows the Wizard to gain spells known without spending resources. I remind you gold is a resource and "adventuring" is not an answer.

Breaking WBL by filling all spell slots 4th level and above for days or weeks on end is one thing; generating arbitrarily large amounts of value with a single spell you may cast at-will is something else.

WBL breaking is WBL breaking is WBL breaking.

Save-or-dies are still action constrained, sure, but having them at-will invalidates Saves as a defense. It's still "...something that destablizes the system as a whole," which is the standard you set.

No it doesn't. Is AC not a defense because people can make all the attacks they want.

the Erudite could certainly be refluffed to model a character who learns new abilities continuously through rigorous study (one could even add dusty tomes into the mix, if they so desire). And Erudites don't have the Wizard's issues relating to having to pick their abilities at the beginning of the day, and running out of an ability because they only prepared it once and they've already cast it.

Claiming that the Erudite doesn't have the same issues with running out of spells as the Wizard strikes me as unfair. There's no difference between a Wizard whose locked in his spells for the day and a Erudite whose locked in his unique powers for the day in terms of spell access. Both can't cast a spell they cast yesterday even if it would be useful.

Would a 3.5 Wizard still better render the Mistborn system than a Psion, if the Psion had a separate pool of powers for each discipline, and could only manifest powers from that discipline with the correct power points (and perhaps they recharge those discrete power point pools by ingesting different varieties of crystal, rather than simply by resting)?

Yes, if the Psion was a different class it would represent different things. If you're changing the Psion to have different pools for each power, surely you could change the spells the Wizard prepared to grant ongoing abilities (like the Complete Mage spell that gives you at-will 30ft teleport).

Even auto-succeeding on every skill doesn't let you teleport, hover (you need a cloud to balance on), or create things from nothing.

It doesn't have to do everything that 8th level spells do, it has to do things that are worse for the game. You automatically hit everything, act first in every combat, and makes you functionally immune to almost everything by virtue of infinite AC, saves, and HP. That seems much more dangerous than the (non-infinite) uses of most spells.

In terms of game balance, unlimited versatility with bounded power high enough to get the job done is -immensely- more difficult to properly balance than unlimited power with limited application.

This is exactly backwards. If you have high versatility but finite power, you can just crank up the level. If you have unlimited power, every encounter is either "you lose automatically" or "you win automatically" regardless of any variable you could shift.

Says extra hoops aren't necessary then goes on to describe hoops he'd add. Again, consistency when?

"You can only have one" isn't a hoop. In the proposed set up, you automatically get minions, and cannot do anything to get more. There are no hoops. Reading comprehension when?

If some degree of imbalance is acceptable, why is only your subjective determination of how much more correct than mine or anyone else's?

The amount of imbalance that is acceptable is imbalance within whatever range is described by the rules of the game. In this case, that's "bats 50% on CR = Level opposition".

Fighter with no -innate- magical ability is an archetype. You're comparing an archetype to a power level; apples and oranges.

"No innate magical ability" is not an archetype, it's a level range of the archetype "sword guy".

That said, a less powerful character in a high-power game can be safely ignored in encounter design and only his fun is -potentially- hurt by his contributions being minimal.

If the game expects each character to have some amount of power and you show up with less, you are either hurting people's enjoyment (because they have to pony up more power) or warping the game around you.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-02-08, 06:25 PM

I know how a Ponzi scheme works, but I confess that I'm at a loss as to how one runs an "argument Ponzi scheme."
Filling one faulty argument with another :smalltongue:.

Edit: in a more accurate resemblance of a Ponzi scheme, it must be a new faulty argument, innocent, led to the debate like a lamb to the slaughter, promised great worth in a new order of debating...

Coretron03

2017-02-08, 06:34 PM

What about Fly at-will at level 5? I haven't checked extensively but 26 monsters from the 4 bestiary's can fly at CR 5 and while people with ranged attacks could attack flyers casting fly on the a whole party with at least a archer could outrange the ranged monsters quite easily and kill them with ease.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-08, 06:49 PM

No, knock will open any lock once per day. And again, spells known are a resource.

I've been trying to ignore this for several pages now. No, knock cannot open -any- lock. It can't open any lock at all if the container that lock is attached to is larger than the limit of the spell allows nor does it affect any lock that is on a mechanism rather than a door or container.

It doesn't have to do everything that 8th level spells do, it has to do things that are worse for the game. You automatically hit everything, act first in every combat, and makes you functionally immune to almost everything by virtue of infinite AC, saves, and HP. That seems much more dangerous than the (non-infinite) uses of most spells.

Brute forcing problems only works when brute force is applicable. No amount of stat-bloat can allow you to leave the material plane if the adventure calls for you to seek something on the astral. No ammount of strength can let you slay a ghost without a magic weapon or even reach one that's staying submerged in solid objects. Without evasion or mettle you can be squashed under a deluge of area attacks or SoD effects, nevermind "no save, just take harm" type effects like simply being lost in the elemental planes of fire or water. Hells bells man, you can't even kill a basic swarm of spiders/rats without an area attack.

This is exactly backwards. If you have high versatility but finite power, you can just crank up the level. If you have unlimited power, every encounter is either "you lose automatically" or "you win automatically" regardless of any variable you could shift.

You're not terribly creative, huh? Do you really not see how infinite abilities cannot solve -any- of the things I listed above when even minimal versatility can? Also, I can't help but note that you chose not to address my simple hypothetical.

"You can only have one" isn't a hoop. In the proposed set up, you automatically get minions, and cannot do anything to get more. There are no hoops. Reading comprehension when?

You can only have one isn't. Everybody has to learn leadership, whether they want it or not, is.

The amount of imbalance that is acceptable is imbalance within whatever range is described by the rules of the game. In this case, that's "bats 50% on CR = Level opposition".

This metric is listed nowhere within the actual texts. It's an extrapolation from the CR system that has notable inconsistencies and whose interaction with classed humanoids is intended to be ad-hoc adjusted by eye after starting with a loose outline. However, a well built fighter with full WBL -can- get into that ballpark just fine.

"No innate magical ability" is not an archetype, it's a level range of the archetype "sword guy".

Do we really need to run down a selection of non-magical warriors in magic rich worlds from literature? I'm beginning to believe you're no longer arguing in good faith.

If the game expects each character to have some amount of power and you show up with less, you are either hurting people's enjoyment (because they have to pony up more power) or warping the game around you.

The power expected by the -game- is dramatically less than any well played caster can bring to bear. The power expected by the DM can be ad-hoc reduced trivially if somebody shows up with something that's bunting instead of swinging for the fences. Seriously, cut a level off of the BBEG, toss out one or two mooks, remove a couple traps, and bob's your uncle. Powering down is -dramatically- easier than powering up and the minor adjustments I've suggested are hardly warping the game, certainly not in the same sense as in the reverse situation.

Flickerdart

2017-02-08, 07:23 PM

No audience to hear the performance and spread word and probaby wouldn't be able to hear through the obdurium if there were anyone to hear.

The skill doesn't say anything about people being able to hear it. Also, gods and other beings with non-conventional remote senses would still be able to detect you.

PairO'Dice Lost

2017-02-08, 08:42 PM

Because hearing "But Vancian isn't like historical/fantasy magic!" is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, a few points:

1) Regarding Vancian not being as fantasy-ish as points: Vancian actually maps very nicely to ritual magic, or rather a form of ritual magic that you can package up to use in combat-time:

Regarding how well Vancian represents magic, spell preparation involves performing a little ritual for every spell you want to cast and then storing it away for later, which has quite a bit more historical influence than most systems. In Goetic magic, you pull out your musty old tome, inscribe a mystical diagram on the floor, wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for an hour and ten minutes, call out "Demon, come forth!" and poof, a minor demon from the Lesser Key of Solomon appears in your magic circle.

In D&D magic, you pull out your spellbook, inscribe a mystical diagram on the floor, wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for an hour--then magically lock the current state of the ritual away in your mind instead of finishing it immediately. When you want to complete it, most likely after buffing yourself, double-checking the dimensional anchor, etc., you wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for ten minutes, call out "Demon, come forth!" and poof, a CR 6 or lower demon from the Monster Manual appears in your magic circle.

2) Regarding Dresden Files magic being points-based or Vancian:

Dresden, for example, has some magical spells he knows inside and out and does easily and often. But a lot of the time, he is working from base principles to build something up and design a new "spell" (often a ritual) that he'll need time to prep. Others of his spells are almost magic items, or half-way between items and spells-as-D&D-knows-them, because he had to prep them for specific magics, but still only a wizard can use them and then only if he knows how. (So maybe "class-locked" items?)

Some of his stuff does take preparation, but those are akin more to rituals I think, as you mention. Others, like the potions or the sunlight napkin, are items. The reason I think Dresden still fits is because in none of these cases do I get the impression that he is sacrificing his ability to cast something else.

So... Dresden doesn't choose to cast his fire spell today, and forgo "prepping" his ice spell. He just knows these spells and can call on them. If he learns new things and uses those as well, he doesn't have to choose between the new spell and the old spell. What limits him is his will to channel magical energy. He can pour a lot into a spell (like using his fire spell to freeze the river, or using his ice spell to create a glacier), or cast a lot of different spells, but this will drain him.

Sure. He's not a vancian caster. His preparations are far more long-term; one could even model him more readily as a sorcerer, with his "items" as special foci that represent what spells he's learned. [...] (The fact that he can pour extra power into some effects IS more Psi-like, though.)

I wouldn't really try to say he's a D&D-style wizard at all, though.

In the books, Dresden describes how some magic works with pure willpower and magical oomph while other magic requires special materials or other preparations, and in the Dresden Files RPG they specifically split magic into Evocation (combat-time magic, involving on-the-fly manipulation of the five elements through willpower) and Thaumaturgy (downtime magic, involving carrying out complex effects through ritual and sympathetic magic). So saying "Dresden Files magic" is either points-based or Vancian is kind of a false dichotomy, because there are explicitly two different types of magic, it's not just an issue of it not fitting neatly into either system.

Incidentally, in DFRPG you can buy Evocation and Thaumaturgy separately to be a Focused Practitioner instead of a full Wizard, you can buy more focused versions of either one as well (Channeling for the former to specialize in a particular element, or Ritual for the latter to specialize in summoning or wards or similar), and you can take Sponsored Magic (magic from a demonic, angelic, or fey patron) to use thaumaturgy-type effects at evocation-like speed; in D&D, characters with Evocation, Thaumaturgy, Channeling, Ritual, and Sponsored Magic thus map roughly to psions, wizards, wilders, sorcerers, and artificers (mechanically)/sorcerers (flavor-wise), respectively. Dresden himself would obviously be a kineticist/wizard/cerebremancer with Improved Familiar (Foo Dog) and a skull-shaped Improved Psicrystal (personalities Sage and Pervert). :smallwink:

3) Regarding Discworld switching systems:

Speaking of GURPS (the point based magic system), Sir Terry Pratchett, author of the Discworld series, wrote magic in the Vancian way in his first few novels (because that was all he knew of from gaming) and he then moved away from that in his later novels because the point based system in gurps seemed more realistic to him for his fantasy world. This led to a gurps Discworld supplement for gurps 3rd edition.

So at least one fantasy author literally changed how he wrote his magic in his novels to get away from the Vancian system and to a spell points system.

I'd like to see a link to an interview or something for this, as I don't think this reasoning is really accurate. The first Discworld books were centered around Rincewind the Wizzard (yes, with two Z's) and his misadventures, who was an obvious parody of a low-level D&D-style wizard (squishy, runs from combat, has very little magic at one time, etc., with the imaginary "octarine" as the color of magic being a reference both to D&D's eight schools of magic and detect magic making magic glow to the caster), and his magic was explicitly true Vancian magic--not Vancian as in inspired-by-Vance D&D, but Vancian as in written-by-Vance Dying Earth, where the one spell Rincewind had "memorized" was a sapient bundle of magic living in his head that wanted to be cast.

Later Discworld books, meanwhile, focused on different kinds of magic-users. Other wizards in Unseen University were more stereotypical professors than stereotypical wizards, eschewing D&D parodies for jokes about Necromancy Postmortem Studies and using magic as a stand-in for technology (complete with HAL-like magical supercomputers), and the witches had plot-device magic (used for moral lessons more than anything else) that doesn't map well to any system.

The change in magical mechanics, I think, has much less to do with Pratchett deciding to run Discworld magic differently due to realism and everything to do with the fact that once he was no longer telling stories about D&D wizards he didn't need to stick to D&D rules. Lord Vetinari of Ankh-Morpork is another example: in The Color of Magic he's a generic "fat and corrupt city leader" figure, just another one-dimensional NPC in Rincewind's adventure, but once he becomes a "real" character and is involved in more stories he evolves into the thin, ruthless, Machiavellian character we all know and love to hate.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled interminable magic vs. psionics debate.

Elderand

2017-02-08, 08:59 PM

Because hearing "But Vancian isn't like historical/fantasy magic!" is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, a few points:

There's just one problem, the definitive aspect of Vancian magic isn't the ritual fluff. It's the spell slot with discreet effects.

So yeah...it sort of map to ritual magic shown in fiction provided the following: You only have one spell slot and you (most often in fiction) can't hang up a ritual for later.

So it's not really a good match at all.

what match to ritual seen in fiction isn't vancian casting, it's incantations

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-08, 09:41 PM

The skill doesn't say anything about people being able to hear it. Also, gods and other beings with non-conventional remote senses would still be able to detect you.

Note that the table is setting the DC's to "impress an audience with your talent and skill." If there's no audience to impress, the table is meaningless.

The odds of some random scryer picking up your existence are basically nill and the odds of a god caring at all, much less enough to focus its remote viewing on you, is absolutely zero. In either case, it comes down to the GM bailing you out, not any power of your own to leave your eternal prison.

AnachroNinja

2017-02-08, 09:50 PM

Just cause it's been mentioned by a few people I'll throw in my anecdotal evidence. I've never played at a table where psionics was banned. I personally love the system.

Particle_Man

2017-02-08, 10:18 PM

3) Regarding Discworld switching systems:

I'd like to see a link to an interview or something for this, as I don't think this reasoning is really accurate. The first Discworld books were centered around Rincewind the Wizzard (yes, with two Z's) and his misadventures, who was an obvious parody of a low-level D&D-style wizard (squishy, runs from combat, has very little magic at one time, etc., with the imaginary "octarine" as the color of magic being a reference both to D&D's eight schools of magic and detect magic making magic glow to the caster), and his magic was explicitly true Vancian magic--not Vancian as in inspired-by-Vance D&D, but Vancian as in written-by-Vance Dying Earth, where the one spell Rincewind had "memorized" was a sapient bundle of magic living in his head that wanted to be cast.

Later Discworld books, meanwhile, focused on different kinds of magic-users. Other wizards in Unseen University were more stereotypical professors than stereotypical wizards, eschewing D&D parodies for jokes about Necromancy Postmortem Studies and using magic as a stand-in for technology (complete with HAL-like magical supercomputers), and the witches had plot-device magic (used for moral lessons more than anything else) that doesn't map well to any system.

The change in magical mechanics, I think, has much less to do with Pratchett deciding to run Discworld magic differently due to realism and everything to do with the fact that once he was no longer telling stories about D&D wizards he didn't need to stick to D&D rules. Lord Vetinari of Ankh-Morpork is another example: in The Color of Magic he's a generic "fat and corrupt city leader" figure, just another one-dimensional NPC in Rincewind's adventure, but once he becomes a "real" character and is involved in more stories he evolves into the thin, ruthless, Machiavellian character we all know and love to hate.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled interminable magic vs. psionics debate.

Well you could read 3rd edition GURPS Discworld, a GURPS supplement the Discworld author Terry Pratchett helped to write. That's where I remember reading his reasoning on why the magic is different in his earlier novels from his later novels, anyhow.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-08, 10:27 PM

Cosi, I'm going to keep asking you this. Please answer the question:

And, at the risk of repeating myself, do you contest the following statement:

So, again, the Rogue must spend a higher percentage of a rarer resource to achieve the same effect as learning a single 2nd level spell.

Or do you accede the contention?

Moving onward:

Yes, your break down is that they could go on an adventure and get loot. A spellbook you steal still counts against WBL, so you don't save anything.

It's a steep discount compared to writing them in your spellbook (value is fixed at 50 gp/page with a spell on it). And the point I've made, time and again, is that all it costs a Wizard to learn new spells is money and time (and in a pinch, money can slide). And that there is no hard limit on how many spells a Wizard may learn. Show me how a Rogue (or any other mundane class) is going to get more BAB, Skill Points, or what have you (barring permanent stat boosting items) expending no resource but time, without leveling up.

No, knock will open any lock once per day. And again, spells known are a resource.

Spells known are an effectively limitless resource. That measure is irrelevant.

What ability allows the Wizard to gain spells known without spending resources. I remind you gold is a resource and "adventuring" is not an answer.

So, to recap, the first question was "Can a high level Wizard acquire all the spells they need within WbL?" to which the answer was yes. But then you objected, asking instead "What can a 3rd level Wizard do to mitigate the cost of scribing spells into their spellbook?" to which I answered with the Spellcraft check necessary to permanently use any 4th level (or lower) Wizard's spellbook, with only 150 gp and the time it takes to find the spellbook expended. Now you object to the easiest method 3rd level Wizards have to mitigate costs, and want a means to do it without spending resources. I've never said a Wizard can add arbitrary numbers of spells to their repertoire without some resource expenditure - just that the resources they must expend (money and/or time) are both well within their means and in considerably greater supply than Skill Points.

WBL breaking is WBL breaking is WBL breaking.

Would you argue that the Ten Foot Pole/Ten Foot Ladder loop is functionally equivalent to repeated castings of Wall of Salt, Astral Projection shenanigans, or Efreet gating loops in terms of how it impacts the game? Over realistic, in-game timescales? If not, then some forms of WbL breaking are of greater magnitude than others. Being able to generate large scale value, at-will, whenever you have six seconds free is not the equivalent of taking months and all your applicable spell slots to generate value.

No it doesn't. Is AC not a defense because people can make all the attacks they want.

AC is built around a mechanic which can be used at-will; a mechanic which generally has a drastically more limited effect than spells targeting saves. Saying that using a Save-or-Die at will is equivalent to making an attack role is almost certainly being willfully obtuse. It still destabilizes the system as a whole.

Claiming that the Erudite doesn't have the same issues with running out of spells as the Wizard strikes me as unfair. There's no difference between a Wizard whose locked in his spells for the day and a Erudite whose locked in his unique powers for the day in terms of spell access. Both can't cast a spell they cast yesterday even if it would be useful.

Sidestepping the Erudite's Unique Powers (Per Level) Per Day is trivial - your Psycrystal takes Wild/Hidden Talent, you manifest Metaconcert, the Metaconcert can manifest any Power you know and doesn't have to worry about Unique Powers Per Day. And that's only one of several options, all of which are native to the class. And there is a big difference between an Erudite and a Wizard: a Wizard needs to either lock their spells in at the start of the day, or wait fifteen minutes to prepare empty slots as needed. An Erudite, on the other hand, locks them in as they go along, without waiting. One of those is of considerably greater utility than the other. So I say the claim is completely fair.

Yes, if the Psion was a different class it would represent different things. If you're changing the Psion to have different pools for each power, surely you could change the spells the Wizard prepared to grant ongoing abilities (like the Complete Mage spell that gives you at-will 30ft teleport).

The Psion would require two changes (how many pools they have, and what manifests out of what pool). The Wizard requires rewriting every single Wizard spell printed. See the difference? Or to put it (slightly) more formally:

I say the fewer or smaller changes you have to make to the mechanics of one thing in order to model some other thing, the more similar those two things are, mechanically. Furthermore, if x requires a changes to model z, and y requires b changes to model z, and a is less than b, x is more similar to z than y.
_____________________________

I've been trying to ignore this for several pages now. No, knock cannot open -any- lock. It can't open any lock at all if the container that lock is attached to is larger than the limit of the spell allows nor does it affect any lock that is on a mechanism rather than a door or container.

Where are those limitations detailed? I don't see them in the SRD version of the spell:

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut). If used to open a arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each spell can undo as many as two means of preventing egress.

I'll grant you that it does only work on doors, boxes, or chests. But how many things have locks on them which are not securing some kind of door or box? That is a limit of the spell, but I still contend that maintaining a level-appropriate Open Lock check has a higher opportunity cost than learning Knock.
_____________________________

Actually, Cosi, in addition to my as yet unanswered question at the start of the post, I'd like to reiterate a second question. Namely:

Is there any evidence or argument which would change your mind?

Because if there isn't, I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-08, 10:58 PM

Where are those limitations detailed? I don't see them in the SRD version of the spell:

I'll grant you that it does only work on doors, boxes, or chests. But how many things have locks on them which are not securing some kind of door or box? That is a limit of the spell, but I still contend that maintaining a level-appropriate Open Lock check has a higher opportunity cost than learning Knock.

They're right there in the spell you (partially) copy-pasted.

Knock
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One door, box, or chest with an area of up to 10 sq. ft./level
Duration: Instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut). If used to open a arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each spell can undo as many as two means of preventing egress.

The spell's target isn't the locks, it's the object to which they're attached. If the object isn't of the right type or is too large then the spell cannot affect the locks attached to it.

It specifically says that it cannot affect portculis, gate bars, etc. Consequently, it cannot open the lock on the winch that operates a portcullis as a very clear-cut example of a lock it's utterly useless against.

I'm not denying that it has a lower opportunity cost than the skill-points on open lock but it's -not- a perfect replacment either.

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-08, 11:12 PM

They're right there in the spell you (partially) copy-pasted.

The spell's target isn't the locks, it's the object to which they're attached. If the object isn't of the right type or is too large then the spell cannot affect the locks attached to it.

It specifically says that it cannot affect portculis, gate bars, etc. Consequently, it cannot open the lock on the winch that operates a portcullis as a very clear-cut example of a lock it's utterly useless against.

I'm not denying that it has a lower opportunity cost than the skill-points on open lock but it's -not- a perfect replacment either.

Ah, of course, right where I was looking. Well, I'll concede your last point, then - it's not a perfect replacement, but it still costs the Wizard less than Open Lock costs the Rogue.

Cosi

2017-02-09, 12:57 AM

No amount of stat-bloat can allow you to leave the material plane if the adventure calls for you to seek something on the astral.

Perform + Diplomacy.

No ammount of strength can let you slay a ghost without a magic weapon or even reach one that's staying submerged in solid objects.

Diplomacy.

Without evasion or mettle you can be squashed under a deluge of area attacks or SoD effects, nevermind "no save, just take harm" type effects like simply being lost in the elemental planes of fire or water.

You only die to save or die spam because of the natural 1 rule, and you could trivially wish for infinite save rerolls as well. Any effect that deals damage will need to chew through your infinite hit points.

Hells bells man, you can't even kill a basic swarm of spiders/rats without an area attack.

Infinite craft to instantly make Alchemist's Fire. Or just ignore it because you have infinite HP and why do you care?

You're not terribly creative, huh? Do you really not see how infinite abilities cannot solve -any- of the things I listed above when even minimal versatility can? Also, I can't help but note that you chose not to address my simple hypothetical.

If you have an infinite number of abilities at power level X, you are still challenged by encounters at power level X + 1.

If you have one ability at power level infinity, you either instantly win or automatically lose all encounters.

One of these is much harder to balance than the other.

You can only have one isn't. Everybody has to learn leadership, whether they want it or not, is.

The implication of the phrase "If you just gave everyone Leadership" would seem to be that Leadership was free in this hypothetical. Reading comprehension when?

Do we really need to run down a selection of non-magical warriors in magic rich worlds from literature? I'm beginning to believe you're no longer arguing in good faith.

If "there are a bunch of non-magic warriors fantasy" makes "non-magic warrior" an archetype in its own right, how does "there are a bunch of archmages in fantasy" not make "archmage" an archetype in its own right?

It's a steep discount compared to writing them in your spellbook (value is fixed at 50 gp/page with a spell on it).

No, it isn't. You get WBL. The value of a spell scribed into a spellbook counts against your WBL whether you scribe it yourself or steal it from someone else. I suppose you save the cost of the scroll, which drops the cost of comparable coverage from "most of your WBL at 10th level" to "most of your WBL at 8th level".

So, to recap, the first question was "Can a high level Wizard acquire all the spells they need within WbL?" to which the answer was yes.

No, the first question was "is knock broken". The answer to that is no. When you get knock it is comparable to Open Lock. It costs more to use (glitterdust versus Craft), and while it has advantages (automatic success) it also has disadvantages (limited uses per day). In the post where I outlined this, I already said the trade off pulls away from the Rogue at high levels when knock is less of a relative cost and the Rogue doesn't get anything to keep up with then-current utility spells.

Then you said "but you could totally learn other spells", which is true, but requires you to either wait until the range where I already said Open Lock falls off or spend more than all your WBL to cover the same percentage of your options as the Rogue gets for free. Yes, the Rogue can't buy new skills, but he can buy other stuff. If you pump all your WBL into learning new spells, the Rogue can just buy Eternal Wands or something.

Would you argue that the Ten Foot Pole/Ten Foot Ladder loop is functionally equivalent to repeated castings of Wall of Salt, Astral Projection shenanigans, or Efreet gating loops in terms of how it impacts the game?

Yes, you accumulate enough wealth to buy items that break the game. If we're concerned about practicality, it all ends up bootstrapping you into whatever the best one is anyway.

AC is built around a mechanic which can be used at-will; a mechanic which generally has a drastically more limited effect than spells targeting saves. Saying that using a Save-or-Die at will is equivalent to making an attack role is almost certainly being willfully obtuse. It still destabilizes the system as a whole.

Medusas get an at-will save or die. Is the game destabilized because it includes Medusas?

The Psion would require two changes (how many pools they have, and what manifests out of what pool). The Wizard requires rewriting every single Wizard spell printed. See the difference? Or to put it (slightly) more formally:

You have to write new powers for the Psion that behave the way Allomancy does too. If you do that for the Wizard, you require zero additional changes.

Because if there isn't, I'm willing to agree to disagree.

What evidence would convince you? Because so far, you seem to have responded to "knock is balanced against Open Lock at low levels" with "at high levels Open Lock is much worse than knock".

PairO'Dice Lost

2017-02-09, 01:51 AM

There's just one problem, the definitive aspect of Vancian magic isn't the ritual fluff. It's the spell slot with discreet effects.

So yeah...it sort of map to ritual magic shown in fiction provided the following: You only have one spell slot and you (most often in fiction) can't hang up a ritual for later.

So it's not really a good match at all.

what match to ritual seen in fiction isn't vancian casting, it's incantations

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm

That's why I said it maps to a form of ritual magic adapted for combat-time use, not historical ritual magic. If you were to start with "Here's how ancient people viewed 'real' magic" (namely, specific words, actions, frames of mind, etc. that when performed correctly and in the right sequence lead to a specific outcome) and tried to adapt that to a game where you need to use magic in a short timeframe, you'd get something a lot closer to Vancian magic than to anything points-based, the flavor of which--wherein your amount of willpower and force of belief affect the amount of oomph your magic has--is more of a modern invention.

The point isn't that Vancian is particularly historical or realistic (and Gygax and Arneson certainly didn't choose to use it for those reasons), just that I very much disagree with people who say it's less historical and realistic than the alternate systems that have popped up in D&D over the years.

Well you could read 3rd edition GURPS Discworld, a GURPS supplement the Discworld author Terry Pratchett helped to write. That's where I remember reading his reasoning on why the magic is different in his earlier novels from his later novels, anyhow.

The only mention of early Discworld Vancian magic I could find was this:

Spell Memorisation: An Optional Rule

In some of the chronicles, it is said that Discworld spells must be memorised through raw mental effort, and that they depart the caster's brain on use. This is clearly reminiscent of a Certain Other Game, and can serve certain comic effects.

However, other accounts seem to call these claims into question, and it must be said that the chief source of this information was Rincewind, who never passed an exam in Applied Thaumatology in his life. Thus, it is probably best to discard this approach, except perhaps in relation to especially weird and powerful magics.

But you raise an interesting point, so I'll keep looking for any other comments he might have made on the subject and see if I find anything.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-09, 01:54 AM

Perform + Diplomacy.

Diplomacy.

You only die to save or die spam because of the natural 1 rule, and you could trivially wish for infinite save rerolls as well. Any effect that deals damage will need to chew through your infinite hit points.

Infinite craft to instantly make Alchemist's Fire. Or just ignore it because you have infinite HP and why do you care?

Okay, do you see how you keep saying "limitless power" but all you're doing with it is gathering more individual abilities?

Diplomance somebody that can do the thing for you. Attempt (and fail) to diplomance the ghost. Fake-conjure an energy attack whose power is far less powerful than any of your innate abilities. Then you go directly back to wish's inherent versatility by using something other than a direct power boost.

The power itself does nothing in these scenarios but give you a way to access abilities you didn't have before.

If you have an infinite number of abilities at power level X, you are still challenged by encounters at power level X + 1.

If the power(s) in question were linearly measurable in that way, you might have something. They're not. Ostensibly, planeshift and delayed blast fireball are at the same level of power (both 6th level spells) but while the latter does midling damage that's frequently resisted, the former simply ends encounters by removing the foe from the field or allowing the PC's to escape.

It is -very- often the case that application of a small amount of power in one way will trivialize an encounter while even a limitless amount of another application will accomplish nothing at all; force attacks vs physical attacks against something incorporeal.

If you have one ability at power level infinity, you either instantly win or automatically lose all encounters.

Only if you have literally no other applicable abilities. That's the point. Unlimited wishes is both unlimited power -and- unlimited abilities. Picking the right ability for a given scenario will almost never require that the ability be of arbitrarily large power.

Prime example: shivering touch vs basically any true dragon (not kobolds) without the cold subtype; a third level spell capable of felling greatwyrms.

One of these is much harder to balance than the other.

Yes it is, just not the one you think.

If "there are a bunch of non-magic warriors fantasy" makes "non-magic warrior" an archetype in its own right, how does "there are a bunch of archmages in fantasy" not make "archmage" an archetype in its own right?

Because archmage is a higher-level subset of mage. The archetype is magic-user with the whole scale of power from apprentice to god-usurper. Likewise, non-magic warrior runs the gamut from reluctant, green militia-man to Beowulf.

Do you know what an archetype is?

Troacctid

2017-02-09, 02:09 AM

Note that the table is setting the DC's to "impress an audience with your talent and skill." If there's no audience to impress, the table is meaningless.

The odds of some random scryer picking up your existence are basically nill and the odds of a god caring at all, much less enough to focus its remote viewing on you, is absolutely zero. In either case, it comes down to the GM bailing you out, not any power of your own to leave your eternal prison.
Actually, the odds that a deity would know where you are and/or what you're doing are between 49% and 88% (depending on the level of the deity), according to the table in the contact other plane spell. Even an entity from an elemental plane has a 34% chance. Word gets around!

Cosi

2017-02-09, 02:11 AM

Okay, do you see how you keep saying "limitless power" but all you're doing with it is gathering more individual abilities?

If "really big bonuses to all the abilities you already have" is "more versatility" rather than "more power", you are not usefully defining "versatility" and "power".

Prime example: shivering touch vs basically any true dragon (not kobolds) without the cold subtype; a third level spell capable of felling greatwyrms.

Or, you, know a passive buff to be immune to ability damage (I believe the SpC spell that makes you kinda undead ish does that), which seems to be exactly the sort of enounter advancement that I said would challenge "infinite abilities guy".

Yes it is, just not the one you think.

Okay, so how exactly are you creating an encounter that challenges someone who is either 100% or 0% to win any encounter? If you have a large list of abilities at finite power, you are challenged by anything your most useful ability is not an instant win against. How is this complicated for you?

Because archmage is a higher-level subset of mage. The archetype is magic-user with the whole scale of power from apprentice to god-usurper. Likewise, non-magic warrior runs the gamut from reluctant, green militia-man to Beowulf.

So to be clear "archmage" is a subset of "mage" but "sword guy without magic" is not a subset of "sword guy"? Why isn't "archmage" part of the "casters with godlike power" archetype?

Kalaska'Agathas

2017-02-09, 02:32 AM

Cosi, again, please answer the question:

And, at the risk of repeating myself, do you contest the following statement:

So, again, the Rogue must spend a higher percentage of a rarer resource to achieve the same effect as learning a single 2nd level spell.

Or do you accede the contention?

Moving onward:

No, it isn't. You get WBL. The value of a spell scribed into a spellbook counts against your WBL whether you scribe it yourself or steal it from someone else. I suppose you save the cost of the scroll, which drops the cost of comparable coverage from "most of your WBL at 10th level" to "most of your WBL at 8th level".

The value of a spellbook with spells in it is 50 GP/completed page. That is at least a 50% discount compared to scribing the spells (which, I'll point out, you're not doing, so using the cost of scribing them into your own spellbook to determine where you are relative to the WbL guidelines is spurious). And if you exceed your WbL while adventuring, you do not suddenly jump up a level, nor does an Inevitable leap out from behind a bush and take away items until you're back at your WbL. You asked me how a 3rd level Wizard mitigates the cost of adding spells to their repertoire. I gave you an answer that any 3rd level Wizard in play could avail themselves of. It may break WbL, but it's there.

No, the first question was "is knock broken". The answer to that is no. When you get knock it is comparable to Open Lock. It costs more to use (glitterdust versus Craft), and while it has advantages (automatic success) it also has disadvantages (limited uses per day). In the post where I outlined this, I already said the trade off pulls away from the Rogue at high levels when knock is less of a relative cost and the Rogue doesn't get anything to keep up with then-current utility spells.

Who has stated that Knock is broken? I've only argued that it is generally superior to Open Lock (particularly at low levels). I will grant you (and have done so) that there are advantages and disadvantages when comparing Knock to Open Lock, but I still contend that, at 3rd level (as per the example you specified), the advantage Open Lock has (unlimited uses) is entirely outweighed by the advantages of Knock (opens more locks more of the time, requires expending temporary resources (spell slots) rather than permanent ones (Skill Points)). The cost of preparing Knock versus Glitterdust on a given day is less than putting max ranks into Open Lock rather than Craft (or Use Rope, or Disable Device, or any number of other skills), which are essentially permanent. This speaks to the question I've asked you, repeatedly, which you have chosen not to answer. Expending a temporary, renewable resource has a lower opportunity cost than expending a permanent, non-renewable resource. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

And, once again, you've completely ignored the content of my argument. To echo Kelb_Penthera, are you arguing in good faith?

Then you said "but you could totally learn other spells", which is true, but requires you to either wait until the range where I already said Open Lock falls off or spend more than all your WBL to cover the same percentage of your options as the Rogue gets for free. Yes, the Rogue can't buy new skills, but he can buy other stuff. If you pump all your WBL into learning new spells, the Rogue can just buy Eternal Wands or something.

The Wealth by Level guidelines are not a limit on what characters may achieve (like the Skill Point cap), it is a recommendation for what the game expects. It is likewise not like the Artificer's Craft Reserve; characters are not issued their WbL when they level up, it does not disappear if they fail to spend it, and it is not the maximum wealth that a character of a given level may attain. It absolutely does not require you to wait for higher level. The 3rd level Wizard has the means to learn spells without spending more than 150 gold pieces, by the method I have outlined. The Rogue can't buy more skillpoints (though with the same outlay, they can get a +3 to one skill, or a +2 to one and a +1 to another, or even a +2 to three skills of their choice).

The "percentage of your options" argument is, again, irrelevant. Spells known are unlimited, except with regard to laying your hands on them. Skill points have a hard cap. The Wizard isn't "spending more than their WbL" (which is an absurd notion, for the reasons given above), they are using their native class features increase the spells in their repertoire. That's something Wizards get "for free".

Yes, you accumulate enough wealth to buy items that break the game. If we're concerned about practicality, it all ends up bootstrapping you into whatever the best one is anyway.

You excised a critical part of that quote.

Would you argue that the Ten Foot Pole/Ten Foot Ladder loop is functionally equivalent to repeated castings of Wall of Salt, Astral Projection shenanigans, or Efreet gating loops in terms of how it impacts the game? Over realistic, in-game timescales?

You're accumulating wealth at a rate of 35 copper pieces per transaction (assuming the 10 foot pole/10 foot ladder loop). If you're really arguing that such a method will accumulate gamebreaking wealth in realistic timescales, your games must cover extraordinary periods of in game time. Or your argument is absurd. So I'll say again, some forms of WbL breaking are of greater magnitude than others.

Medusas get an at-will save or die. Is the game destabilized because it includes Medusas?

That's a fair point. However, if I may refine my argument, I would say that ubiquitous access to many, varied, and potent Save targeting effects, at-will, would destabilize the system as a whole, even if limited access to single, nevertheless potent Save targeting effects doesn't.

You have to write new powers for the Psion that behave the way Allomancy does too. If you do that for the Wizard, you require zero additional changes.

Not having read the books, I can only go by the description given here. If I have come to a spurious conclusion, it is a result of having incomplete information from which to draw said conclusion, and I will concede the point.

What evidence would convince you? Because so far, you seem to have responded to "knock is balanced against Open Lock at low levels" with "at high levels Open Lock is much worse than knock".

An unambiguous refutation of my assertion that the advantages of learning Knock exceed those of maxing out Open Lock would do it. Likewise, an unambiguous refutation of my assertion that spending 10% of a characters limited Skill Points represents a higher opportunity cost than a Wizard learning any given spell (which costs them nothing more than money and/or time, and which has no hard cap on how many spells they may learn) would convince me that my position isn't correct.

Additionally, I must protest your characterization of my argument. What you have presented in the above quote is factually incorrect; I have repeatedly specified that I consider Knock superior to Open Lock at levels as low as 3rd, and provided arguments and evidence in support of this contention. Likewise, I must protest the implication that I am fixed in my opinions and will not be swayed by others' arguments or evidence. I have repeatedly been willing to concede when presented with evidence or arguments that unambiguously contradict my positions. I have likewise recognized the need to refine my arguments when I have presented them in a way which is then refuted.

I note that you're asking a different question than I put to you. I did not ask you "What evidence would convince you to change your mind?" I asked you "Is there any evidence or argument which would change your mind?" That is a subtle difference, certainly, but also a crucial one, I think.

I can't help but notice that you've failed to answer the question yourself. So I'll ask it again:

Is there any evidence or argument which would change your mind?

Because if there is not, I say you are not arguing in good faith, and because there is nothing which could cause you to change your mind, I am willing to agree to disagree.

Elderand

2017-02-09, 02:33 AM

That's why I said it maps to a form of ritual magic adapted for combat-time use, not historical ritual magic. If you were to start with "Here's how ancient people viewed 'real' magic" (namely, specific words, actions, frames of mind, etc. that when performed correctly and in the right sequence lead to a specific outcome) and tried to adapt that to a game where you need to use magic in a short timeframe, you'd get something a lot closer to Vancian magic than to anything points-based, the flavor of which--wherein your amount of willpower and force of belief affect the amount of oomph your magic has--is more of a modern invention.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
If you did change the way magic work, speeding it up for combat, you wouldn't necessarily end up with Vancian casting at all. Instead you might end up with something like true sorcery.

The progression of magic requires ritual + combat speed doesn't end up with Vancian, it much more naturally end up with quick on the fly rituals rather than pre-prepared ones. It's possible to get Vancian from it, but unlikely. Especially considering that essentialy only DnD and it's derivative have actually used Vancian casting. And it only did so because one of the designer was a fan of Vance. It took incredibly specific circumstances to end up with Vancian casting, meanwhile everyone else not in those circumstances came up with spell points. Or Incantations, or something far more similar to spell points and incantations than Vancian casting.

Meanwhile, if you actually want to represent magic as presented in almost every single work of fictions, myths or legend (aside from a few exception that were designed from the start to be vancian (ie: vance stories, dnd derivative books or similar)), what you actually end up with is spell points or incantations.

Medusas get an at-will save or die. Is the game destabilized because it includes Medusas?
Medusas aren't players characters. Enemies don't have to play by the same rules as the players because they aren't players and do not impact the campaign in any way beyond the small amount of screen time they get before a PC reduces them to gibly bits.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-09, 03:37 AM

If "really big bonuses to all the abilities you already have" is "more versatility" rather than "more power", you are not usefully defining "versatility" and "power".

Diplomacy didn't solve the "mcguffin's on another plane" problem. Planeshift or gate did. The GM letting you encounter someone with that ability solved the problem. You could've gotten the same result from just having max ranks for your level or simply buying a scroll.

Diplomacy didn't solve the ghost. In fact, you didn't solve that problem at all. It can't be made fanatic and even being helpful won't make it abandon whatever binds it to unlife. At least stabbing it to death with a magic sword has a chance to keep it down.

Craft didn't deal with the swarm, fire did. You could've spent a trivial amount of gold to the same result. Nevermind you can't just instantly change gold into items in the middle of a dungeon.

Relatively miniscule amounts of power are being used here but an array of different abilities is necessary.

Or, you, know a passive buff to be immune to ability damage (I believe the SpC spell that makes you kinda undead ish does that), which seems to be exactly the sort of enounter advancement that I said would challenge "infinite abilities guy".

So emulate a spell at its perfectly normal level of power. It's almost like a wide variety of abilities is more important than a few being arbitrarily powerful... :smallsigh:

Okay, so how exactly are you creating an encounter that challenges someone who is either 100% or 0% to win any encounter?

Puzzle encounters. By placing a mini-mcguffin for the encounter near the encounter location and bounding the encounter to that location, you challenge the player to figure out what to do. Since the numeric game has become a binary, you must create a way to flip offs into ons selectively.

Note the mini-mcguffin idea is one example. The second sentence is the point.

If you have a large list of abilities at finite power, you are challenged by anything your most useful ability is not an instant win against. How is this complicated for you?

False premies; there is no "most useful" ability for all situations. Nearly all challenges become trivial if you have the right ability for that challenge but are difficult without it and -can- become impossible without it. If you have a broad array of abilities, you have a lower chance of not having the right one; the broader the array, the lower the chance. If you can do -all- of the things then there is no challenge that you can't trivialize without getting absurdly contrived or cutting access to the necessary part of the array.

So to be clear "archmage" is a subset of "mage" but "sword guy without magic" is not a subset of "sword guy"? Why isn't "archmage" part of the "casters with godlike power" archetype?

No.

Non-magical sword guy is, indeed, a subset of just sword guy. Magical sword guy is also a subset of sword guy but he's -also- a subset of magic-user, this makes him a separate, hybrid archetype. Note: all of the above; magic guy, sword guy, and magic sword guy; are their own archetype with an entire range of power.

Note how all three have several classes.

Non-magic swordguy; barbarian, fighter, samurai, swashbuckler, warblade

Magic swordguy; paladin, ranger, hexblade, swordsage

Magic guy; sorc, wizard, wu-jen, dread necro, warmage, beguiler

There are a couple other archetypes as well.

Non-magic skill guy; rogue, scout

Magic skill guy; spellthief, ninja, monk

Priest; cleric, druid, shugenja, shaman, healer

Do you see how there's a clear pattern?

While archmage is certainly a subset of magic guy, he is simply a degree of magic guy. Guy with godly powers is -also- a degree of magic guy or priest.

Here, maybe this can help. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/archetype?s=t)

In literature, the guy with god-like power archetype doesn't fit in a story about growth and progression, which is what the leveling system inherently makes a D&D game, at least not as a protagonist. Maybe a side-character.

Cosi

2017-02-09, 03:38 AM

The value of a spellbook with spells in it is 50 GP/completed page. That is at least a 50% discount compared to scribing the spells (which, I'll point out, you're not doing, so using the cost of scribing them into your own spellbook to determine where you are relative to the WbL guidelines is spurious). And if you exceed your WbL while adventuring, you do not suddenly jump up a level, nor does an Inevitable leap out from behind a bush and take away items until you're back at your WbL.

That's sale price, not value. The value of a +1 sword is 2,000 GP despite the fact that it sells for 1,000 GP.

No, you aren't going to gain a level magically, you're just going to get less loot that isn't spellbooks if you seek out adventures where you get spellbooks as loot. How else do you think things work?

The cost of preparing Knock versus Glitterdust on a given day is less than putting max ranks into Open Lock rather than Craft (or Use Rope, or Disable Device, or any number of other skills), which are essentially permanent. This speaks to the question I've asked you, repeatedly, which you have chosen not to answer.

So let's break it down, shall we?

In terms of utility, I think the notion that knock is clearly better than Open Lock is ludicrous. Which do you think is more common, dungeons having a lock that you can't pick, or dungeons having more than one lock? Yes, knock has advantages, but they are by no means overwhelming.

On the given day, you are giving up glitterdust and the Rogue is giving up whatever marginal skill he'd take if not for Open Lock existing. Is Use Rope really better than glitterdust? Because if it is, that's news to me.

In the long term, you are giving up some other spell scribed to your spellbook (which will, despite your odd assertions to the contrary, generally not contain all spells) and the Rogue is giving up the same marginal skill. This breaks down to two questions:

1. How does the marginal skill compare to the marginal spell?
2. How much coverage can you get?

I think the marginal spell is probably better than the marginal skill (especially because the Rogue already gets 9 more skills to get the best ones). Despite your apparent intuition, this is an advantage for the Rogue, because it means he pays a lower cost to have Open Lock rather than knock. If you are confused by this, look up opportunity cost and comparative advantage.

The coverage question is very clearly in the Rogue's favor.

If you're really arguing that such a method will accumulate gamebreaking wealth in realistic timescales, your games must cover extraordinary periods of in game time.

Just play an Elf or Warforged or whatever and write "spend a hundred years selling ladders as paired ten foot poles" as your backstory.

That's a fair point. However, if I may refine my argument, I would say that ubiquitous access to many, varied, and potent Save targeting effects, at-will, would destabilize the system as a whole, even if limited access to single, nevertheless potent Save targeting effects doesn't.

That seems pretty loose. It seems to me that once you have an at-will Will, Fort, and Ref save or die, it doesn't matter if you have extra ones (or matters much less), and I assume you can track down a creature with at least one ability in each category. The Beholder has at least Fort and Will (with several options for each).

"Is there any evidence or argument which would change your mind?"

Sure. You'd need to prove:

1. Most dungeons contain only a single locked door.
2. Use Rope is better than glitterdust.
3. Wizards have wealth substantially above their level.