OD&D Style Psionic

[HouseRules]

Mundane Gestalt with Psionic Class will lose a level equivalent Special when they gain Psionic Powers.
For example, Fighters lose all their Bonus feat if they Gestalt with Psion.

Casters Gestalt with Psionic Class will lose a Spell Slot of the Spell Level equal to Psionic Power Level of the Psionic Power they learn. Though, casters are a lot stronger if they limit the amount of Psionic Powers they learn, so we may need to have a formula to limit the Psionic Points.

Maintain the OD&D pyramid spell slots rule:
#1st level spell slots <= #0th level spell slots
#2nd level spell slots <= #1st level spell slots
#3rd level spell slots <= #2nd level spell slots
#4th level spell slots <= #3rd level spell slots
#5th level spell slots <= #4th level spell slots
#6th level spell slots <= #5th level spell slots
#7th level spell slots <= #6th level spell slots
#8th level spell slots <= #7th level spell slots
#9th level spell slots <= #8th level spell slots

What's the optimization ceiling comparison between the classes?

[Mike Miller]

Is this just a Homebrew idea? Try posting it in the Homebrew subforum, if that is the case.

[HouseRules]

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).

should become

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published only).

[Glimbur]

Level equivalent special needs a tighter definition. I would gleefully trade unarmed strike progression for manifesting in a Monk, for example. Trading away fighter feats on the other hand means you have no class features left. Somewhere between the two is maybe desirable?

[Nifft]

I know about 1e Psionics, but not oD&D Psionics.

What's the source book? If I can get access to it I'll look it up and give you feedbac.

[HouseRules]

Equivalent level ability refers to the level in which a character gains the special ability. Fighters gain feats on first level and even levels, so they are equivalent to abilities of those levels. A first or second level fighter feat is equivalent to a first level power. A fighters fourth level feat is equivalent to a second level power. A six level fighter feat is equivalent to a third level power. An eight level fighter feat is equivalent to a fourth level power. A tenth level fighter feat is equivalent to a fifth level power. An so on. The twentieth level fighter feat is equivalent to a ninth level power since there are no epic powers before epic levels.

For other non-caster classes, Equivalent level abilities depends on when the receive them in their special columns. It just happens to be bonus feats for fighters.

For caster classes, equivalent level abilities refer to a spell slot of the same level. A level one spell slot is equivalent to a first level power. However, the pyramid spell slot rule means that if a spellcaster wants to learn psionic powers, they would usually give up a spell slot at all 9 levels to learn one psionic power at each power level.

This is not totally fair, since dead level classes does not have anything to trade for psionic abilities. However, it is old school in that we are taking pre-ad&d style psionic where psionic are not a separate class. Characters have to suffer some of their class features to trade for psionic abilities.

We're using the standard 3E/3.5E psionic, just remove the psionic classes as options, and the only way to get them is to trade your class feature for psionic powers. Psionic points are gained at a reduced rate based on how much psionic powers a character selects to gain. Characters will have psionic points proportional to a "Psion" based on the ratio of powers they have to a psion of equivalent character level.

[DrMotives]

What you wrote in your 3rd post should have been your first; you came in here and we felt like people who stepped into the middle of a conversation. So, this whole thing is to nerf psionics back to what 2e called wild talents? (I never played with earlier psionics). I'm not sure why we need such a complicated nerf system when psionics isn't even nearly as cheesy as plenty of other elements in 3.5.

[HouseRules]

Fighters have 11 feats to trade for 2 level 1 powers, 1 of each from level 2-8, and two level 9 powers for 11 unique powers. 11 power / 34 power means they get about one-third the power points a Psion would get. Of course, the game change so that the minimum performance is now Strong Tier 4, or Weak Tier 3.

Tier 1 would lose power if they select psionic powers that does not scale well with augmentation. Otherwise, they gain partial flexibility with selecting powers.

[Calthropstu]

What you wrote in your 3rd post should have been your first; you came in here and we felt like people who stepped into the middle of a conversation. So, this whole thing is to nerf psionics back to what 2e called wild talents? (I never played with earlier psionics). I'm not sure why we need such a complicated nerf system when psionics isn't even nearly as cheesy as plenty of other elements in 3.5.

One of the groups I am playing in say my wilder is too powerful bexause of the extra dice due to surge on energy missle. I deliberately took powers that weren't overpowered.

[Elricaltovilla]

One of the groups I am playing in say my wilder is too powerful bexause of the extra dice due to surge on energy missle. I deliberately took powers that weren't overpowered.

What is OP at one table can be underpowered at another or vice versa. It's a sad side effect of having so many rules and such variety in play. If all anyone ever does is HP damage, then doing lots of HP damage looks over powered even if it really isn't. That and rolling lots of dice looks powerful, whereas rolling one die to see if the target fails their Will Save to become your eternal slave just doesn't look as bad.

[HouseRules]

Rolling 16-20 on a d20 could be considered overpowered at some tables, while rolling 1-5 is considered underpowered at other tables. This is the side effect of having too large of a range of values that have equal chances.

[frogglesmash]

Rolling 16-20 on a d20 could be considered overpowered at some tables, while rolling 1-5 is considered underpowered at other tables. This is the side effect of having too large of a range of values that have equal chances.

I've never heard of anyone considering specific d20 rolls over or underpowered.

[lylsyly]

I've never heard of anyone considering specific d20 rolls over or underpowered.

I agree. You have an equal chance of any one number appearing on ANY 1d roll. I think we are veering into homebrew territory.

[Elricaltovilla]

I agree. You have an equal chance of any one number appearing on ANY 1d roll. I think we are veering into homebrew territory.

Or it could just be hyperbole.

Alternatively, 16-20 is the typical critical threat range of a decent crit Fisher. I have definitely been called out for having a "broken" crit fishing build before.

[lylsyly]

A really broken crit-fisher should be hitting 11 or 13 to 20. This is a high number game, anything you are trying to even half way optimize you are doing by increasing the range of successful numbers. Nothing new, nothing that needs to be changed. My feeling is that f you change this mechanic, you aren't playing 3.? anymore.

[Elricaltovilla]

A really broken crit-fisher should be hitting 11 or 13 to 20. This is a high number game, anything you are trying to even half way optimize you are doing by increasing the range of successful numbers. Nothing new, nothing that needs to be changed. My feeling is that f you change this mechanic, you aren't playing 3.? anymore.

But we aren't talking about what is actually broken, but rather what is perceived as broken.

Critting on an 11 might creep into actually broken territory (I've heard of builds that could crit as low as 3, no idea how it's done though), but at some tables critting on a 15-20 is considered broken because of the consistency.

The character in question I played was a Magus (Pathfinder), so when I hit with my touch spells and my falchion I was tossing a fistful of d6s.

I really do believe that a lot of people start to get twitchy when you're throwing down 10d6 damage every round, even if that only averages out to 35 damage or caps at 60-ish.

[lylsyly]

But we aren't talking about what is actually broken, but rather what is perceived as broken.

Critting on an 11 might creep into actually broken territory (I've heard of builds that could crit as low as 3, no idea how it's done though), but at some tables critting on a 15-20 is considered broken because of the consistency.

The character in question I played was a Magus (Pathfinder), so when I hit with my touch spells and my falchion I was tossing a fistful of d6s.

I really do believe that a lot of people start to get twitchy when you're throwing down 10d6 damage every round, even if that only averages out to 35 damage or caps at 60-ish.

Your not wrong. Also, it can depend on the power level of the game, DMs playstyle, and other factors. For example, when I DM using the more restrictive of the two rules setups I use, being able to hit multiple opponents in a round can be far more important. I just love throwing enough mooks at you to push the action economy to the edge.