DSP: Maneuvers or Psionics?

[AvatarVecna]

You're DMing a game, and you're worried about game balance, in particular how homebrew and 3rd party material can maybe not be as thoroughly playtested and balanced as 1st party material, and y our players are interested in DSP material. You'd rather not have Psionics or Maneuvers, but there's so much interest in them that you'll probably end up allowing one of them. Which do you choose to allow, and why? Which do you choose to disallow, and why?

[Jormengand]

What balance level am I hypothetically interested in? If I'm interested in balancing to full-casters, psionics. If I'm interested in balancing with a party of inquisitors and magi, maneuvers. If I'm just interested in a nebulous concept of balance, I don't play 3.5 or its derivatives.

[AvatarVecna]

What balance level am I hypothetically interested in? If I'm interested in balancing to full-casters, psionics. If I'm interested in balancing with a party of inquisitors and magi, maneuvers. If I'm just interested in a nebulous concept of balance, I don't play 3.5 or its derivatives.

Hmm...let's say it's starting in the early levels (like, 2-5) and won't get beyond mid-levels 'cause it's Eberron and the game is intended to not exactly be hack-and-slash extravaganza (so maximum expected is like 10-13 at most, and probably more like 7-10?). Ultimately, optimization is fine, and kind of expected, but breaking the game isn't.

[EisenKreutzer]

First of all, I reject the premise.
DSPs material is every bit as rigorously tested and balanced as Paizos material, perhaps even more so. Their big lines (psionics, path of war and akashic) are all direct ports of D&D 3.5 material, with balance changes to make them fit better with the Pathfinder ruleset.

Assuming I accepted the premise, though, I would include psionics over path of war.
Not because one is better or more balanced than the other, but because psionics balance point is closer to the core classes, while path of war has a higher degree of power compared to the worst core classes (fighter, paladin, ranger etc.)

[Jormengand]

Hmm...let's say it's starting in the early levels (like, 2-5) and won't get beyond mid-levels 'cause it's Eberron and the game is intended to not exactly be hack-and-slash extravaganza (so maximum expected is like 10-13 at most, and probably more like 7-10?). Ultimately, optimization is fine, and kind of expected, but breaking the game isn't.

That doesn't answer my question. Are the rest of the party going to be wizards, sorcerers, magi, rangers, fighters?

[AvatarVecna]

First of all, I reject the premise.
DSPs material is every bit as rigorously tested and balanced as Paizos material, perhaps even more so. Their big lines (psionics, path of war and akashic) are all direct ports of D&D 3.5 material, with balance changes to make them fit better with the Pathfinder ruleset.

Fair enough.


Assuming I accepted the premise, though, I would include psionics over path of war.
Not because one is better or more balanced than the other, but because psionics balance point is closer to the core classes, while path of war has a higher degree of power compared to the worst core classes (fighter, paladin, ranger etc.)

So, psionics over maneuvers if you have to pick, but if you don't have to pick one or the other you'd allow both because you're of the opinion that they're balanced/playtested enough that it shouldn't be a problem allowing them.


That doesn't answer my question. Are the rest of the party going to be wizards, sorcerers, magi, rangers, fighters?

Decisions on what material you're willing to allow during chargen are typically not made after chargen has happened, so "what the rest of the party is" isn't exactly clear yet. Given it's a PF game, probably enough variety that the list of players has a good variety of tiers. In a sense, I guess you could allow the one at the balance point you're most comfortable with, and then pick characters that are at that balance point?

[ATHATH]

May I ask what your reason for posting this question is?

[TheIronGolem]

If for some reason I had to pick only one? Path of War, on the basis that I feel it has a larger sphere of "character concepts this effectively supports that core content doesn't" than Ultimate Psionics does.

[phlidwsn]

I would go with psionics for the sole reason that Eberron already assumes psionics exists (Sarlona, Kalashtar).

Powerwise, the 'mage' classes from each will not outshine the sorc, wizard, cleric, druid, etc.

Likewise the 'martial' classes from each will outshine the standard fighter, rogue, etc. (PSI: Aegis, Soulknife, PoW: all)

[EisenKreutzer]

So, psionics over maneuvers if you have to pick, but if you don't have to pick one or the other you'd allow both because you're of the opinion that they're balanced/playtested enough that it shouldn't be a problem allowing them.

Exactly.
Now, I'm not saying DSP are perfect in any way. Personally I hate their Bloodforged book and the Monster Classes line, and would be extremely hesitant to allow any of that in my games.

Psionics, Path of War and Akashic Mysteries however are all stellar, with very few obvious flaws or bad options. I know this because I was a fan of the 3.5 material they are based on, I have read the books cover to cover many times and I trust my judgement, and because the authors are regulars on these boards and active in the community, and I know they have a high degree of system mastery.
They playtest their major releases thoroughly, and post their playtest documents for the community here to test. Any flaws found by the community are adressed, and the guys on thus forum are experts at stress-testing and bending the rules to find out where they break.

[Waker]

I'd go with PoW over Psionics. While I prefer the mechanics of Psionics far more than Arcane/Divine magic, they are at least somewhat comparable in terms of power/versatility. A PoW martial vs a standard martial simply has a far greater range of options to play with.

[Jormengand]

I would probably pick psionics if I didn't know what the party was going to be; it adds an interesting gish, a couple of casters, and a martial which I'm told no longer sucks in PF. It's better for a party which does lots of different things than however many gishes are in PoW: it allows more variety.

(No manoeuvre-users are not "Martial" just because the things they use aren't called magic that's silly).

[n00b17]

I also disagree with the premise. DSP psionics are better balanced than the casters by a long shot.

Path of War is clearly better than the more underpowered martials, which is good if your players optimize at all. Plus, imo, martial initiators really fit the pulpy tone of Eberron. Psionics let you do the same things as casters, but an initiator will let you play that swashbuckler you've always wanted to but that you know would be mechanically awful any other way.

[NomGarret]

If I'm the tentative DM who is generally happy with where Pathfinder falls, balancewise, the I would take Psionics as it does less to rock that boat. There are still some common misunderstandings to watch out for. You - generally - can't spend more PP on a power than your level is something a lot of people miss. There are a couple powers here and there that can be problematic, but no more than you'll find on wizard or cleric spell lists.

[AvatarVecna]

If for some reason I had to pick only one? Path of War, on the basis that I feel it has a larger sphere of "character concepts this effectively supports that core content doesn't" than Ultimate Psionics does.

Certainly an interesting reason. Keep in mind we're not just talking Core though, we're talking 1st party, which means a lot of archetypes come into play and make a lot of these classes much more versatile, letting them support more character concepts. Granted, I still feel including PoW expands on the character concepts that can be effectively supported, but I'm not nearly as sure that it does so more than psionics would. Taking into account that we're not just talking Core material, does your opinion still hold?


I would go with psionics for the sole reason that Eberron already assumes psionics exists (Sarlona, Kalashtar).

Powerwise, the 'mage' classes from each will not outshine the sorc, wizard, cleric, druid, etc.

Likewise the 'martial' classes from each will outshine the standard fighter, rogue, etc. (PSI: Aegis, Soulknife, PoW: all)

While I might argue the point about the setting's assumptions about what exists (psionics existed before Eberron did, whereas I'm pretty sure maneuvers didn't), but since psionics aren't just present in the setting but instead are rather important to it, I can see where you're coming from on that. As for outshining other classes, that makes sense to me, since that's where the comparison is going to be after all.


Exactly.
Now, I'm not saying DSP are perfect in any way. Personally I hate their Bloodforged book and the Monster Classes line, and would be extremely hesitant to allow any of that in my games.

Psionics, Path of War and Akashic Mysteries however are all stellar, with very few obvious flaws or bad options. I know this because I was a fan of the 3.5 material they are based on, I have read the books cover to cover many times and I trust my judgement, and because the authors are regulars on these boards and active in the community, and I know they have a high degree of system mastery.
They playtest their major releases thoroughly, and post their playtest documents for the community here to test. Any flaws found by the community are adressed, and the guys on thus forum are experts at stress-testing and bending the rules to find out where they break.

Certainly a good argument for these materials being thoroughly playtested with an eye for game balance.


I'd go with PoW over Psionics. While I prefer the mechanics of Psionics far more than Arcane/Divine magic, they are at least somewhat comparable in terms of power/versatility. A PoW martial vs a standard martial simply has a far greater range of options to play with.

So, while another poster has indicated they would choose Psionics over Maneuvers because Psionics doesn't overshadow its 1st party competition, you would choose Maneuvers over Psionics explicitly because it overshadows its 1st party competition? Just making sure I'm understanding.


I would probably pick psionics if I didn't know what the party was going to be; it adds an interesting gish, a couple of casters, and a martial which I'm told no longer sucks in PF. It's better for a party which does lots of different things than however many gishes are in PoW: it allows more variety.

(No manoeuvre-users are not "Martial" just because the things they use aren't called magic that's silly).

Interesting, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter.


I also disagree with the premise. DSP psionics are better balanced than the casters by a long shot.

Path of War is clearly better than the more underpowered martials, which is good if your players optimize at all. Plus, imo, martial initiators really fit the pulpy tone of Eberron. Psionics let you do the same things as casters, but an initiator will let you play that swashbuckler you've always wanted to but that you know would be mechanically awful any other way.

So you would probably allow both if able, but if you had to choose you would allow PoW because it makes a number of concepts more viable than they are in 1PP?


May I ask what your reason for posting this question is?

In a sense, I was encouraged to do so. Realistically speaking, my stake in answer is regards to the non-hypothetical game is minimal because I'm not particularly interested in using either sub-system, but discussion in the game thread prompted me to come collect opinions on the comparative balance/power/versatility these 3PP sources bring to the game, and it was requested that the in-thread discussion end, so...here we are. :smallsmile:

[AvatarVecna]

If I'm the tentative DM who is generally happy with where Pathfinder falls, balancewise, the I would take Psionics as it does less to rock that boat. There are still some common misunderstandings to watch out for. You - generally - can't spend more PP on a power than your level is something a lot of people miss. There are a couple powers here and there that can be problematic, but no more than you'll find on wizard or cleric spell lists.

Certainly a fair way to look at the situation.

[Waker]

So, while another poster has indicated they would choose Psionics over Maneuvers because Psionics doesn't overshadow its 1st party competition, you would choose Maneuvers over Psionics explicitly because it overshadows its 1st party competition? Just making sure I'm understanding.

Yes I would. Generally speaking I'm happiest when playing between T2-4, with T3 being the happy place. On top of that, even if you discount the strength of maneuvers, I simply like having the option to do more than "I hit it" or "I use whichever combat trick I know". I'm not as familiar with PoW compared to ToB, but I imagine they are similar enough. Most standard martials simply don't have enough range.

[Starbuck_II]

I like psionics over regular magic.
But 7/10 times I don't go full caster so dipping into PoW is better so PoW is my usual choice.

Really depends on what character(s) I'm making.

If I am DM, then depends on power level of campaign I'm running.

Now, forcing all arcane into Psychic archetypes or Psionic casters, as well as allowing all Psionics classes would be a very interesting game. Psychic would be strongest, followed by that Psychic Sorcerer archetype, but the Psionics wouldn't be far behind.

But I could make a game where all warriors know actual martial(meaning warrior/fighting) arts (like real life). Luckily, they made a few archetype already for the Core classes. So wouldn't be too hard to adapt to rest.

[n00b17]

So you would probably allow both if able, but if you had to choose you would allow PoW because it makes a number of concepts more viable than they are in 1PP?

Yeah. For instance, some classic archetypes that are weak or hard to pull off in regular PF, but easy in PoW are:
Fencer/Dualist
2WF other than rogue
Unarmed
Swashbuckler with rapier and pistol (not sure if you allow firearms in your Eberron, but I know I do)
Aggro-drawing Tank
Fast, mobile striker (other than pouncing 2Her)
Horseman (other than lance-pouncer)
Poisoner
Samurai

Moreover, it does each of these things in a way that's more flavorful and versatile than the original material. I would also not allow PoW:Expanded (archetypes and class templates are fine, but the base classes and new disciplines are both more versatile and rule-heavy than the main book)


That said, if you allow it, you should use it for the enemies you throw at the party. Traditional humanoid enemies will have a hard time against the party. If that's more trouble than you want, you would probably be better off with psionics

[Psyren]

I was, and still am, a huge fan of DSP's work. I wrote detailed handbooks for their stuff back when it was just Psionics Unleashed and I was just getting into Pathfinder to begin with. Over time however, Paizo has added so much first-party content (including things like Psychic Magic, AWT and Combat Stamina) that I feel like I need to split myself in three to get through it all. Thus I find myself gravitating less and less to third party since 1PP does so much of what I personally want it to do.

Of the two works you listed, I would probably add Path of War more readily since I can just use Psychic Magic to fill the "mind casting" niche that Psionics would have, and in a way that doesn't require a whole new magic system (e.g. with points and with its own mechanics for components, displays, metapowers etc.) Psychic Magic also presents fewer problems for a world than Psionics does - detecting, countering, and restraining/incarcerating psionicists is far more difficult than it is for spellcasters. Path of War also needs less specialized loot - psionicists can't use wands, scrolls, metamagic rods, and other such loot that I would have doled out for the other casters.

What 3PP does that I haven't seen adequately replicated in 1st-party yet are things like Incarnum, Truenaming and Binding, so I would be much more inclined to allow Akasha, Zocatl and Pactmaking rather than either of the two you listed.

[ChrisAsmadi]

I was, and still am, a huge fan of DSP's work. I wrote detailed handbooks for their stuff back when it was just Psionics Unleashed and I was just getting into Pathfinder to begin with. Over time however, Paizo has added so much first-party content (including things like Psychic Magic, AWT and Combat Stamina) that I feel like I need to split myself in three to get through it all. Thus I find myself gravitating less and less to third party since 1PP does so much of what I personally want it to do.

Of the two works you listed, I would probably add Path of War more readily since I can just use Psychic Magic to fill the "mind casting" niche that Psionics would have, and in a way that doesn't require a whole new magic system (e.g. with points and with its own mechanics for components, displays, metapowers etc.) Psychic Magic also presents fewer problems for a world than Psionics does - detecting, countering, and restraining/incarcerating psionicists is far more difficult than it is for spellcasters. Path of War also needs less specialized loot - psionicists can't use wands, scrolls, metamagic rods, and other such loot that I would have doled out for the other casters.

What 3PP does that I haven't seen adequately replicated in 1st-party yet are things like Incarnum, Truenaming and Binding, so I would be much more inclined to allow Akasha, Zocatl and Pactmaking rather than either of the two you listed.

There's a Pathfinder Truenaming port?

Does it actually like, work?

[digiman619]

What 3PP does that I haven't seen adequately replicated in 1st-party yet are things like Incarnum, Truenaming and Binding, so I would be much more inclined to allow Akasha, Zocatl and Pactmaking rather than either of the two you listed.
Paizo doesn't like using non-Vancian mechanics because then they'd have to support them in later works; you don't see any support/reference for the Words of Power variant seen in Ultimate Magic, so you?

[TheIronGolem]

Certainly an interesting reason. Keep in mind we're not just talking Core though, we're talking 1st party, which means a lot of archetypes come into play and make a lot of these classes much more versatile, letting them support more character concepts. Granted, I still feel including PoW expands on the character concepts that can be effectively supported, but I'm not nearly as sure that it does so more than psionics would. Taking into account that we're not just talking Core material, does your opinion still hold?
Not quite as much, but yes.

Magic, by its nature, is easy to refluff (or perhaps more accurately, easier to get a DM to accept a refluffing). Paizo's casters also tend to have access to a wide array of abilities through their magic, which - for all the balance problems it creates - makes them able to support a huge number of magic-based concepts. So from a pure concept-support standpoint, psionics doesn't get you a whole lot that 1PP didn't already give you.

Paizo's martials, on the other hand, don't tend to have nearly that degree of flexibility, even when you bring in archetypes. And for the concepts they do support, the success rate tends to be...mixed. noob17's list above makes for a good example.

To sum up: Ultimate Psionics supports some magic concepts that 1PP magic doesn't, and vice versa. Path of War supports virtually every martial concept that 1pp does, usually more effectively, and there's very little that it leaves out in comparison. The Vigilante is the only case I can think of with its dual-identity schtick.

[digiman619]

There's a Pathfinder Truenaming port?

Does it actually like, work?

You can read it up here. (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/strange-magic)

[Necroticplague]

What's the gun level of the setting? Some of the PoW material provide massive advantages to gun users. A mere 1-level dip into Gunsmoke Mystic can get rid of a lot of the balancing factors around gun usage, hilariously abusable (a level 1 character doing 6d6 in a 30-foot radius DC 20 REF for half at first level at-will). Similarly, a Privateer Warlord dip can be a ridiculously massive boon to anyone who wants to go in two guns blazing, doing in one level what 1st-party content would need half your build devoted to doing.

[Jormengand]

You can read it up here. (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/strange-magic)

So they took the Law of Sequence...

And made it worse?

Also, apologising to the universe? Well that's an awkward bit of fluff.

They also seem to have removed all of the good utterances.

Pass. :smallyuk:

[Morty]

I can see two sides here. On the one hand, psionics don't really change the paradigm of the game much. They're just another form of supernatural power, at the end of the day. Provided the GM is willing to keep track of another subsystem, there's not much a psionic character will do that a magic-using one won't.

Path of War changes the paradigm more, because it supplants the baseline fighting classes. Which in my personal view would make me more likely to use PoW, because I think the baseline fighting classes need to be supplanted. But not every GM will feel this way. And another player might want to play a baseline fighting class, which can lead to problems. So as much as I like PoW and related things, I feel like psionics have fewer ramifications on balance and intra-party dynamics.

[Psyren]

You can read it up here. (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/strange-magic)

That's not the one I was referring to actually. I was talking about the Tzocatl project DSP was working on, which unfortunately hasn't been finalized yet.


Paizo doesn't like using non-Vancian mechanics because then they'd have to support them in later works; you don't see any support/reference for the Words of Power variant seen in Ultimate Magic, so you?

I don't really care that much about Words of Power so this doesn't bother me.


So they took the Law of Sequence...

And made it worse?

Also, apologising to the universe? Well that's an awkward bit of fluff.

They also seem to have removed all of the good utterances.

Pass. :smallyuk:

Yeah, exactly. Not a fan of this version.

[AvatarVecna]

Yes I would. Generally speaking I'm happiest when playing between T2-4, with T3 being the happy place. On top of that, even if you discount the strength of maneuvers, I simply like having the option to do more than "I hit it" or "I use whichever combat trick I know". I'm not as familiar with PoW compared to ToB, but I imagine they are similar enough. Most standard martials simply don't have enough range.

A preference to play around T3 is an understandable reason to lean towards allowing Maneuvers instead of Psionics.


I like psionics over regular magic.
But 7/10 times I don't go full caster so dipping into PoW is better so PoW is my usual choice.

Really depends on what character(s) I'm making.

If I am DM, then depends on power level of campaign I'm running.

Now, forcing all arcane into Psychic archetypes or Psionic casters, as well as allowing all Psionics classes would be a very interesting game. Psychic would be strongest, followed by that Psychic Sorcerer archetype, but the Psionics wouldn't be far behind.

But I could make a game where all warriors know actual martial(meaning warrior/fighting) arts (like real life). Luckily, they made a few archetype already for the Core classes. So wouldn't be too hard to adapt to rest.

Not really forcing people to take them, although that would certainly be an interesting game (all casters are part psionic, all non-casters are part maneuver-er).


Yeah. For instance, some classic archetypes that are weak or hard to pull off in regular PF, but easy in PoW are:
Fencer/Dualist
2WF other than rogue
Unarmed
Swashbuckler with rapier and pistol (not sure if you allow firearms in your Eberron, but I know I do)
Aggro-drawing Tank
Fast, mobile striker (other than pouncing 2Her)
Horseman (other than lance-pouncer)
Poisoner
Samurai

Moreover, it does each of these things in a way that's more flavorful and versatile than the original material. I would also not allow PoW:Expanded (archetypes and class templates are fine, but the base classes and new disciplines are both more versatile and rule-heavy than the main book)


That said, if you allow it, you should use it for the enemies you throw at the party. Traditional humanoid enemies will have a hard time against the party. If that's more trouble than you want, you would probably be better off with psionics

Ooh, that's an interesting new point: how the inclusion of such things changes how monsters and humanoid enemies should be built.


I was, and still am, a huge fan of DSP's work. I wrote detailed handbooks for their stuff back when it was just Psionics Unleashed and I was just getting into Pathfinder to begin with. Over time however, Paizo has added so much first-party content (including things like Psychic Magic, AWT and Combat Stamina) that I feel like I need to split myself in three to get through it all. Thus I find myself gravitating less and less to third party since 1PP does so much of what I personally want it to do.

Of the two works you listed, I would probably add Path of War more readily since I can just use Psychic Magic to fill the "mind casting" niche that Psionics would have, and in a way that doesn't require a whole new magic system (e.g. with points and with its own mechanics for components, displays, metapowers etc.) Psychic Magic also presents fewer problems for a world than Psionics does - detecting, countering, and restraining/incarcerating psionicists is far more difficult than it is for spellcasters. Path of War also needs less specialized loot - psionicists can't use wands, scrolls, metamagic rods, and other such loot that I would have doled out for the other casters.

What 3PP does that I haven't seen adequately replicated in 1st-party yet are things like Incarnum, Truenaming and Binding, so I would be much more inclined to allow Akasha, Zocatl and Pactmaking rather than either of the two you listed.

Interesting, thank you for your contribution.


Not quite as much, but yes.

Magic, by its nature, is easy to refluff (or perhaps more accurately, easier to get a DM to accept a refluffing). Paizo's casters also tend to have access to a wide array of abilities through their magic, which - for all the balance problems it creates - makes them able to support a huge number of magic-based concepts. So from a pure concept-support standpoint, psionics doesn't get you a whole lot that 1PP didn't already give you.

Paizo's martials, on the other hand, don't tend to have nearly that degree of flexibility, even when you bring in archetypes. And for the concepts they do support, the success rate tends to be...mixed. noob17's list above makes for a good example.

To sum up: Ultimate Psionics supports some magic concepts that 1PP magic doesn't, and vice versa. Path of War supports virtually every martial concept that 1pp does, usually more effectively, and there's very little that it leaves out in comparison. The Vigilante is the only case I can think of with its dual-identity schtick.

Magic fluff being mutable does make that psionic less useful for having more varied magic, true. I see your point.


What's the gun level of the setting? Some of the PoW material provide massive advantages to gun users. A mere 1-level dip into Gunsmoke Mystic can get rid of a lot of the balancing factors around gun usage, hilariously abusable (a level 1 character doing 6d6 in a 30-foot radius DC 20 REF for half at first level at-will). Similarly, a Privateer Warlord dip can be a ridiculously massive boon to anyone who wants to go in two guns blazing, doing in one level what 1st-party content would need half your build devoted to doing.

Currently, early firearms are on the table, although the abuse of them would likely be a good reason for disallowing those particular mechanics, if not PoW in general.


I can see two sides here. On the one hand, psionics don't really change the paradigm of the game much. They're just another form of supernatural power, at the end of the day. Provided the GM is willing to keep track of another subsystem, there's not much a psionic character will do that a magic-using one won't.

Path of War changes the paradigm more, because it supplants the baseline fighting classes. Which in my personal view would make me more likely to use PoW, because I think the baseline fighting classes need to be supplanted. But not every GM will feel this way. And another player might want to play a baseline fighting class, which can lead to problems. So as much as I like PoW and related things, I feel like psionics have fewer ramifications on balance and intra-party dynamics.

Yeah, I can definitely see both sides of it as well. Always interesting getting other opinions, and seeing people's thought processes.

[n00b17]

a level 1 character doing 6d6 in a 30-foot radius DC 20 REF for half at first level at-will

I haven't heard of this, how does it work?

[Necroticplague]

I haven't heard of this, how does it work?

Two parts:
1. Gunsmoke Mystic. Animus Ammunition let's you reload as a free action by spending an Animus, to get around reload time, reload crew, and actual ammo requirements (since you literally magic ammo into existence in the weapon).
2. Ansem Mortar. Has a useful property where aiming it is part of the same standard action as firing it, unlike most siege weapons. It also only requires one person to fire. Would normally require another person to reload, but we're skipping that.

[Kitsuneymg]

Path of War.

If you want an alternate magic system, use Drop Dead Studio's Spheres of Power. It has the advantage of being far more t3/4 balanced with a few optional and easy to spot-nerf t2 options (advanced summoning talents, for one.) Plus, it lets you make casters that are far more personalized and unique if you want.

[EisenKreutzer]

Actually, if you want a really interesting, flavourful and fun system from DSP to add, I suggest Akashic Mysteries.

Lots of options for players, all contained in a small-ish book that is so far pretty unaffected by any kind of content bloat.

[Air0r]

personally, I use both as a DM. my "bosses" usually have at least one counter from PoW, and several enemies have something from DSP thrown into the mix (I once gave a blue dragon aegis levels*, for example).

If I had to choose one over the other, I would lean towards PoW, if for no other reason than increasing the viability of a final boss that isn't some form of spellcaster.

Though, lets be honest, PoW is basically just weapon magic (Fighten' Magik). Yes, I know it isn't all supernatural, but it is broken into 9 levels of maneuvers (like magic) that scales in effectiveness (like magic). and yes, you could say that power attack scales, but it isn't really the same.

*The party almost died because they thought it wise to rush into a known dragon lair without preparing at all... at level 6. I even planned for diplomacy to be an option... right up until they attacked a hatchling on sight. They survived only because one player rolled almost exclusively high numbers. I was too caught up in the moment at the time to realize they were likely cheating the rolls.

[Starbuck_II]

Two parts:
1. Gunsmoke Mystic. Animus Ammunition let's you reload as a free action by spending an Animus, to get around reload time, reload crew, and actual ammo requirements (since you literally magic ammo into existence in the weapon).
2. Ansem Mortar. Has a useful property where aiming it is part of the same standard action as firing it, unlike most siege weapons. It also only requires one person to fire. Would normally require another person to reload, but we're skipping that.

How many DMs allow modern firearms?

[n00b17]

Two parts:
1. Gunsmoke Mystic. Animus Ammunition let's you reload as a free action by spending an Animus, to get around reload time, reload crew, and actual ammo requirements (since you literally magic ammo into existence in the weapon).
2. Ansem Mortar. Has a useful property where aiming it is part of the same standard action as firing it, unlike most siege weapons. It also only requires one person to fire. Would normally require another person to reload, but we're skipping that.

Yeah, I mean, if you allow modern firearms, and then use the Guns Everywhere setting to bring price down by 90%. But at that point, anybody with 2WF can chuck 2 grenades a round for 8d6 (DC 15 Ref for half). Pathfinder Modern (by design) is rocket tag from level 1, it's not the mystic's fault.

Even if it really was that big a problem, it still works fine in default gun settings, which is this thread's topic.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't really get why so many DMs are afraid of dps?
Hit Point damage is the worst way to solve an encounter and some DMs have problems when PCs optimize for it.
But what about "Save or Suck"-Spells that entirely negate one or more creatures in a single action/round? Or those that would let you bypass the encounter to begin with? Or cheat enough info via spells to make the entire adventure a pice of cake to begin with.

So, what is so scary about DPS? That a mundane char could drop 1 creature either per round or a few more if lucky and at higher lvls of optimization. Normal D&D 3.5 games tend to become Rocket Tag somewhere between lvl 1 ~ 10. Latest around lvl 10, most builds have a solid ground where the build starts to "work" (DPS builds).

So again the question? What is so scary about DPS optimization? It's the worst kind of all optimization types and if you have a problem with that: It's like asking your more experienced enemy in a game of chess to be more gentle and go easy on you. It will be lesser fun/experience for him and lesser experience/education for you.

Imho you need to get better in DM combat strategies:
- single target encounters are most of time week against a coordinated group due to more actions/round from the PCs side
- don't expose caster/ranged to be easy reachable target (safe spots/positions)
- try to use good a good mix of enemy types (melee, ranged, casters...)
- have some dirty tricks/plans up your sleeve (maybe some backup fighters/casters to join).
- abuse your knowledge about your PCs (weak) stats/points (Saves!) and design encounter around that.
- "good setup ambushes" to attack the players when they aren't prepared (including bad positioning of the squishier PCs).

And to give you an answer to your initial question:
I would go for maneuvers. Sure they can (imho) better optimize for DPS, but are easier to handle, compared to psionics that can win encounters single-handedly as other spellcasters can do. There aren't many maneuvers capable of this kind of problem solution.

edit:
Don't intend to sound rude, sry my apologize if I did/do, but to make it clear:
If you can't handle DPS optimization, you can't handle any optimization at all. If your group is fine with that (don't playing the UBER chars), that's totally fine and most tables tend to play at low optimization lvl. But sometimes the group has other intentions and like to optimize (sometimes because they get bored to play "normal" builds after years of play, like in my last grp, where we played about 5+ years of low lvl games until start to play more optimized builds) and that is the point where the DM either needs the skills to handle it or willing to learn how to handle it ( and take into account, that he will make mistakes while learing :smallwink: ).

[exelsisxax]

I'm also starting an eberron pathfinder campaign, but my strategy was completely different than yours. To solve the balance issues between 1st party and 3pp, I banned slot-based casting completely and required spheres of power alternatives because full casters were the problem, not the balance point. Path of war is allowed because cavaliers, fighters, and monks are problems, not balance points, so it's fine if they are overshadowed.

And psionics, because it's better than vancian, in the setting, and for my group it is the balance point.

So i've got a pretty T3 looking party of soulknife, barbarian, eliciter, investigator, and bard(maybe).

[Elricaltovilla]

Similarly, a Privateer Warlord dip can be a ridiculously massive boon to anyone who wants to go in two guns blazing, doing in one level what 1st-party content would need half your build devoted to doing.

I won't comment on anything balance related, but this is something that as a story teller and designer of (I think) interesting characters I feel needs to be addressed. Specifically the fallacy that a character for whom their equipment is a defining factor of their playstyle should have to spend a significant portion of their campaign not being able to do the thing that is a major defining trait of the character.

Unusual, interesting, or even in some cases totally reasonable fighting styles suffer a great deal under the design paradigms of Pathfinder and 3.5 because of the way that abilities are locked behind level and feat requirements. If your campaign is only going from levels 1-7, then a character who is supposed to be a dual wielding pistoleer won't be able to actually perform this character concept until the very end of the campaign. Similarly, a sword & board fighter won't ever reach their competency (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat-final/) in the span of those levels. But somehow they're expected to be OK with "growing" into their character concept. Sometimes it makes sense for things to be level locked, but the basics of a fighting style (especially a cool and thematic one, assuming it fits) should never be level locked like that.

[Sacrieur]

Two parts:
1. Gunsmoke Mystic. Animus Ammunition let's you reload as a free action by spending an Animus, to get around reload time, reload crew, and actual ammo requirements (since you literally magic ammo into existence in the weapon).
2. Ansem Mortar. Has a useful property where aiming it is part of the same standard action as firing it, unlike most siege weapons. It also only requires one person to fire. Would normally require another person to reload, but we're skipping that.

The mortar would have to be "on your person" to qualify, which discounts most mortars and cannons as being prohibitively too heavy to carry. And all that it does is create a ball of steel. It implicitly doesn't work with modern weapons (namely modern mortar weapons) because the ammunition is more complex than simply being a chunk of metal. Further, this isn't a good argument about why DSP stuff is game breaking because who would allow modern weapons?

That's quite a stretch you've made there.

I may as well allow a tactical nuke and be like, "Well that's broken, regardless of it costing 1.5 billion gp, because you can get it at first level." You can also get other expensive items at first level, or buy an army. And since modern weapons aren't RAW for PoW, it's even less relevant.

[Manyasone]

Ban 'psychic magic' and use both. Or even add akashic into the world. DSP's material concerning these big three systems is more than solid. Unlike paizo's latest rot. I'm sorry, Psyren, i respectfully disagree in that paizo's psychic magic is a worthy successor to psionics

[Psyren]

I don't really get why so many DMs are afraid of dps?
Hit Point damage is the worst way to solve an encounter and some DMs have problems when PCs optimize for it.
But what about "Save or Suck"-Spells that entirely negate one or more creatures in a single action/round? Or those that would let you bypass the encounter to begin with? Or cheat enough info via spells to make the entire adventure a pice of cake to begin with.

"Save or Suck" and "battlefield control" spells are less of an issue because they're actually enable team play and counterplay. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g) Thus, even if they're more effective, they're less likely to involve one person hogging the spotlight and taking all the action. When an Ubercharger splatters a monster, all the GM gets to do is remove a piece from the board, and the other players get to do nothing at all. That's no fun for anyone but the charger (no counterplay or teamplay.) In addition, high damage takes care of nearly any monster in the game; DR and resists do next to nothing and even regen just means the monster is still taken out, just temporarily.

Compare to something like Glitterdust - even if the monster has no defenses or ways around it (and there are a great deal), often the wizard that casts it can't kill the target on their own, they still need the martials to help. And if they take too long in PF, the monster can recover and the spell is wasted. So now the GM gets to roll a save that becomes a ticking timebomb for the party, who needs to get a martial up in their face pronto.

Or take Solid Fog. This great spell has all kinds of counterplay - the GM can burn it away, dispel it, counterspell it, burrow under it, fly over it, FoM through it... depending on the monster or villain NPC, there may be a dozen solutions. Even if there are none, it's still a timer as the monster pushes through it, and the caster often needs a martial ready to intercept them when they emerge (teamwork.) And the fog can be an inconvenience too - anyone inside is safe from archers and most targeted spells, so there is counterplay too.

TL;DR even though control and SoS are more effective than damage, they get less complaints because they are create more fun for the party and even the GM than high damage numbers do. They create interesting problems to solve; one-shotting monsters is not interesting.

[ChrisAsmadi]

Ban 'psychic magic' and use both. Or even add akashic into the world. DSP's material concerning these big three systems is more than solid. Unlike paizo's latest rot. I'm sorry, Psyren, i respectfully disagree in that paizo's psychic magic is a worthy successor to psionics

It's not really a worthy successor to Psionics, but Occultist, at least, is a really interesting and unique class idea. Psychic and Mesmerist are both OK, too.

The only real dud there is Kineticist, which is an abomination and clunky as all hell.

[Necroticplague]

People asking @ me 'who uses modern firearms?': That's why I lead my post by asking what the gun level of the campaign was.

[Sacrieur]

Now that I have time I can give my actual opinion.

It should come to no surprise that any experienced player knows about the synergies and broken mechanics that exist for wizards/druids and casters in general. Having played and watched other players play fighter so often it's immediately apparent to anyone who is paying attention that martial classes, even barbarians and rogues, are so hard to design well mechanically to do what they advertise to be able to do. Initiator mechanics are, quite naturally, a way to give martial classes a way to do really cool stuff that works. It should be a no brainer to include DSP's PoW into your system, especially when it's better than ToB in terms of extent and applicability of content.

It definitely is stronger than ToB, on average, especially if you look at disciplines such as Riven Hourglass, which are slightly out of touch with being balanced. But, looking at what is available for wizards, it's hard to use as a reason to exclude it from your game, especially when the only ones who benefit from it are people who choose not to play wizards.

Psionics are more or less the same as 3.5 with some differences here and there, to the point where some of my players have even confused the pfsrd with the 3.5 srd websites. DSP's implementation is slightly better as they attempt to shore up a handful of exploit-like behavior in some of the language, but it may as well be treated as the same thing for the purposes of deciding whether or not to allow it because it's 3rd party.

I think the largest determination is whether or not the DM is familiar with these things. In my opinion they should be, and if you're a DM who is looking to maybe include it I'd recommend just building a character to level 20 just to get a feel for some of what it has to offer. And make sure you read how they're supposed to work fundamentally.

[Psyren]

Ban 'psychic magic' and use both. Or even add akashic into the world. DSP's material concerning these big three systems is more than solid. Unlike paizo's latest rot. I'm sorry, Psyren, i respectfully disagree in that paizo's psychic magic is a worthy successor to psionics

Psionics will always hold a dear place in my heart, but it does have multiple issues that psychic magic doesn't. Acknowledging that doesn't mean that psionics is bad.

[Gnaeus]

Actually, if you want a really interesting, flavourful and fun system from DSP to add, I suggest Akashic Mysteries.

Lots of options for players, all contained in a small-ish book that is so far pretty unaffected by any kind of content bloat.

I agree. Akasha would be my choice also. But if it has to be PoW or psionics I'd say PoW. Even without using the actual classes, maneuvers are often the best things to spend feats on.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

If for some reason I had to choose, it would come down to whether I wanted to accommodate Eberron's existing psionics or not. PoW actually has archetypes for Rogue, Fighter, et all that bring them up to that power level, so it's not like having those classes around will be a real problem.

Although tbh I'd rather outright replace Pathfinder's magic system with Spheres of Power, DSP Psionics, and DSP Akasha.

[upho]

I'd prefer both, but if time constraints or other factors would have me think I wouldn't be able to get enough knowledge of both systems to properly include them in the game, I'd probably prioritize PoW in most games/groups.

First, as other posters have touched upon, PoW greatly expands the number of mechanically viable primarily martial character concepts possible in PF, more so than all Paizo material beyond the CRB put together. And while I think the manifester/power mechanics are generally better designed than the 1PP caster/spells, manifesters do pretty much the same things as spell casters do (magic), and many (most?) psionic character concepts can now be decently approximated through 1PP options.

Second, in at least somewhat experienced mid- or high-op groups I believe adding PoW will decrease the risks of annoying party imbalances significantly more than adding psionics will. However, if I were to GM for a less experienced and/or more low-op group of players, I'd be more hesitant about adding the PoW classes/options than the psionic ones. More so if I expected the game in said low-op group not to go beyond level 7 or so, as the high op floor of the PoW classes tends to be most significant during the earlier levels. It's however worth noting that the psionic material is still very much in line with most other DSP stuff, meaning traps are very rare while strong options are common, a fact which by itself gives also psionics a higher floor than most 1PP classes.

Third, and most importantly, I'd investigate what my players are more interested in. If they find full attacking for damage on repeat is getting boring and yearn for more versatile and tactically interesting martial abilities, PoW is perfect. If they're more interested in exploring and expanding more explicitly supernatural character concepts, psionics are of course a much better option.

Lastly, I generally don't believe in blanket bannings of publication(s) or subsystems, but really recommend a case-by-case approach as far as possible.


Ooh, that's an interesting new point: how the inclusion of such things changes how monsters and humanoid enemies should be built.This is indeed an interesting and quite important point, especially for GMs. In this context, I think the most important mechanical difference between PoW classes and Paizo classes in general is the more flexible/efficient action economy of PoW classes. I think this is particularly noticeable when it comes to defenses; outside of having perhaps very highly optimized AoOs or tons of contingency/contingent action, there are extremely few 1PP options which provide strong active defenses, while PoW classes will typically have them in abundance through various counters. I think you can typically expect most published combat oriented opponents, which are generally limited to taking actions during their own turns and to their passive defenses during the PCs' turns, to lose quite a bit of their effectiveness when facing most PoW based PCs.

But at least if the GM is prepared to put in a bit of work, the many added defensive options are actually great IME, since it also allows for enemies to be considerably less vulnerable to boring one-shot tactics, without necessarily also increasing the risks of causing unintentional PC kills. Likewise, the party's PoW characters also tend make the more rocket-taggy published enemies a bit less unpredictably swingy and easier to use. This is on top of allowing for enemies with far more varied, distinct and interesting combat tactis, of course.


Currently, early firearms are on the table, although the abuse of them would likely be a good reason for disallowing those particular mechanics, if not PoW in general.I have to say that while I think there are a few options/combos in PoW that one should be wary of due to their potentially game-breaking effects, this siege firearm trick is certainly not one of them. And while the Privateer class template is certainly strong (especially on a warlord), its arguably greatest mechanical strength lies in the large number of potentially very useful freebies it grants at 1st level, making it an awesome 1-level dip primarily for melee focused characters (like Improved and Greater Dirty Trick with no prereqs, along with maneuvers and a good party-wide buffing and area debuffing recovery mechanic).

[dude123nice]

I don't really get why so many DMs are afraid of dps?

Because many people who DM don't think it's important to understand the game mechanically or balance-wise, and so when they see all the numbers and class features in DSP classes they get intimidated and just assume the classes and Maneuvers are broken. It's like you said, they can't handle optimization.