Pathfinder Psionic Classes that seem...not particularly psionic

[Segev]

Dreamscarred Press did some cool work with adapting, updating, and creating psionics for Pathfinder. They fleshed it out a lot and put a lot more thought into it, I think, than 3.5's designers did. And part of that was adding new classes, a number of which are very flavorful and cool. The Aegis could be argued to be a psi version of a Synthesist Summoner, but is much more tailor-focused on customizability and generally manages (in my subjective opinion) to capture the "feel" of being a psionic class, despite lacking any direct power usage. It does genuinely feel like it couldn't be done without being psionic (though it probably could be...the customization points aren't really REQUIRED to be tied to psi; its flavor just builds all around it).

The Vitalist, too, is the first time I've seen a "healing psi" class that actually felt like it was genuinely psionic. Playing off the union of minds and the psychic connection to share buffs and healing and manipulate vital energies, it COULD have been done without psi, but it absolutely feels like it should have been done as it was.

And they did amazing things to turn the soul knife, which was both "why is this psionic?" and "why would I play this?" in 3.5, into a really interesting class. Still could make argument for "why is this psionic?" but they put a lot more into the use of psi focus, and at least some archetypes really play towards the psi points.

The Crypitic - which is, as best I can tell, their "psionic rogue" - is a little weird, veering off into tattoos as their primary focus, and feels less "psionic" than other classes, but it also works, and certainly wouldn't be getting a thread from me starting up this "things are off" topic.

But then we get to things like the Dread. Okay, I can see at least on the surface why this is a psionic class - it's mental projection of fear in various forms - but to build an entire base class around fear? I'm not really sure what play style this was meant to complement; wouldn't this have worked better as a psion or cryptic archetype? What's the inspiration, here?

And finally, we get to the Tactician and the Marksman. The Tactician at least shares the Vitalist's Collective, giving it some sense of it being psionic, but it feels a bit forced and less well-thought-out. Like somebody said, "Hey, this Collective thing could be a more universal-ish mechanic; why not come up with another class that uses it?" and then didn't do a very good job coming up with a "job" for the Collective to do that wasn't focused on healing. With the Vitalist, the shared nature of resources shines. With the Tactician, it's really just a range-extention on buffs, as far as I can tell. That, and a little bit of Bardic bolstering with a better-defined set of "allies."

The Tactician might have fared better as a hybrid class between DSP's Psionics and their Path of War, enabling the Collective to share Maneuvers and such in some fashion.

And the Marksman. This is the one that, every time I look at it, I can't help but ask, "Why is it here?" Not, "Why do they have a ranged weapons focused class?" That's perfectly fine. But, "why is this psionic?" The psionics in the class feel extremely tacked-on, worse than the arcane archer in 3.5's magic was. The fluff tries very hard to justify it, but the mechanics just don't really feel like you need psionics at all for it. You could replace "psi" with "extreme skill" and a touch of supernatural ability at higher levels, and it would probably carry a stronger, more consistent flavor. Sure, you could argue that you could do this for a lot of psionic classes, but this one stands out as having to have as little as possible removed - both mechanically and flavor-wise - to achieve the removal of psionics.


So, my question is: am I missing something? Is there more to the Dread, the Tactician, and the Marksman than I'm giving them credit for? I confess that I've read them, but not in tremendous depth (precisely because their "this doesn't feel right" flavor makes me get tired of them and lose interest), so maybe I'm being unfair. Why are they psionic, or extant at all? Am I right, and one or more of them would be better served as a class in a different subsystem, or with their own subsystem (e.g. the way Vigilante invents its own subsystem for its class features)?

The Marksman especially stands out to me as being a weird choice for psionics. The Dread mostly stands out as an odd choice for a specific focus of a class. (Why not the Beloved? or the Excitable?) But I'm kind-of hoping that I am missing something and my fellow playgrounders will have insights that will make me as excited to explore the psionic mechanics of these classes as I was when I started digging into the Vitalist. (When I first learned of the Vitalist, I was expecting it to be a weird and disappointing class. I mean, psi healing's been done before, and it wasn't very good. Man, was I pleasantly surprised!)

[exelsisxax]

You appear to be missing the fact that no core classes in PF have the kind of thematic consistency you are looking for. No, the marksman is not a necessarily psionic class. Do you think a ranger is necessarily a divine caster? Because 3.PF says they are. Do you think that sorcerers are definitely arcane magic through-and-through? Classes not being thematically razor sharp is not a failing of DSP Psionics. It is an intentional design choice for a supplement to a game that never had that feature.

[Segev]

You appear to be missing the fact that no core classes in PF have the kind of thematic consistency you are looking for. No, the marksman is not a necessarily psionic class. Do you think a ranger is necessarily a divine caster? Because 3.PF says they are. Do you think that sorcerers are definitely arcane magic through-and-through? Classes not being thematically razor sharp is not a failing of DSP Psionics. It is an intentional design choice for a supplement to a game that never had that feature.

It stands out more because the Ranger isn't saying, "I am a divine caster because I'm introduced in the book about divine classes." The Ranger is saying, "I am an outdoors-focused fighter-ish thing with some druidism to me." The Ranger's divine magic feels tacked on because it is, but the class isn't presented as being something introduced for the sake of showcasing the divine magic subsystem.

If Marksman was just supposed to be "psionic ranger," giving it as an archetype as part of the "psionic options for other classes" would have sufficed. So this still stands out as a strange choice. It'd be like introducing Dancer in Magic of Incarnum, building it to be sort-of-bard, sort-of-rogue, and stapling on a couple of meldshaping things, but having very little to do with actually meldshaping as a focus of the class.

[Elricaltovilla]

I'm not sure why you think DSP would release the Tactician as a Psionic/POW class when the Tactician's release predates POW by a significant amount of time.

Beyond that, the Tactician is quite the strong Psionic class. It has 9th level manifesting, with a list of powers that are well focused towards its goal of being a leader-type class. I think it makes good use of the collective feature as an avenue for buffing allies, which is the whole point of being a leader class anyway. I would consider giving it another look over, some of it's utility is not obvious the first time through.

[Segev]

I'm not sure why you think DSP would release the Tactician as a Psionic/POW class when the Tactician's release predates POW by a significant amount of time.

Beyond that, the Tactician is quite the strong Psionic class. It has 9th level manifesting, with a list of powers that are well focused towards its goal of being a leader-type class. I think it makes good use of the collective feature as an avenue for buffing allies, which is the whole point of being a leader class anyway. I would consider giving it another look over, some of it's utility is not obvious the first time through.

I have given it a couple looks over. I am not saying that to dispute your point, but to explain why I'm asking this favor: could you give a couple of examples of "cool tricks" you can pull off with a Tactician that would not be doable with a Vitalist, or with another "leader" class? Part of my issue is that I look at the collective feature and I don't see anything the Tactician can do with it that the Vitailist can't, beyond a "er, sure, have a +1 to hit and damage" bard-like effect that bards do without needing the Collective.

I reitterate that I am not trying to say "Tactician sucks;" I am trying to explain what I have seen and why it falls short in hopes that what I've missed that makes it shine can be pointed out to me.

[Psyren]

The difference between them - Vitalist is focused on life force and protections, sharing and reallocating to keep the group safe and healthy. So it's a more defense-focused class. Tactician meanwhile is focused on coordinating attacks and sharing buffs, and thus is more offense-oriented. I personally think making it a 9th-level manifester was overkill (I think it should've been an archetype for the psychic warrior myself) but that's the direction they went with it.

Dread is sort of an offensive bard, close in concept to the Mesmerist, but focused on fear rather than mind control. I agree it's a bit more narrow in concept than most of the other psionic classes; had it been created after the Mesmerist, I think they might have made it an archetype of that or just made it mechanically or thematically closer.

Marksman to me makes perfect sense though. Take a ranger, make it psionic, remove the nature fluff. They could have just made it a ranger archetype of course.

[Segev]

The difference between them - Vitalist is focused on life force and protections, sharing and reallocating to keep the group safe and healthy. So it's a more defense-focused class. Tactician meanwhile is focused on coordinating attacks and sharing buffs, and thus is more offense-oriented. I personally think making it a 9th-level manifester was overkill (I think it should've been an archetype for the psychic warrior myself) but that's the direction they went with it.Alright; I'll try rereading it with that in mind and see if it stands out as doing anything cool with its collective. Thanks.


Dread is sort of an offensive bard, close in concept to the Mesmerist, but focused on fear rather than mind control. I agree it's a bit more narrow in concept than most of the other psionic classes; had it been created after the Mesmerist, I think they might have made it an archetype of that or just made it mechanically or thematically closer.I suppose that makes sense. I think focusing on mind control might've been a more natural fit for psi, myself. It would be interesting in general to see DSP's take on psionic archetypes for the psychic classes.


Marksman to me makes perfect sense though. Take a ranger, make it psionic, remove the nature fluff. They could have just made it a ranger archetype of course.
See, this doesn't really make sense to me at all. What is it about "ranged warrior" that says "psionic?" Why "take the Ranger" and do this rather than "take the Paladin, make it psionic, remove the holy fluff?" This really strikes me as something that is just better done as a variant on psychic warrior, which does a decent job of being the "take a fighter, make it psionic" task.

The Marksman just seems such an arbitrary and random choice, without thematic tie to psionics.

It'd be like making the Whirling Dervish base class that is a two-weapon fighter and is psionic. Er, because.

[Psyren]

I suppose that makes sense. I think focusing on mind control might've been a more natural fit for psi, myself. It would be interesting in general to see DSP's take on psionic archetypes for the psychic classes.

It's possible they knew Mesmerist was coming and didn't want to step on Paizo's toes. Alternatively, they figured the Telepath was already the mind-control focused spec (at the time) while nobody really had fear effects on their docket.



See, this doesn't really make sense to me at all. What is it about "ranged warrior" that says "psionic?" Why "take the Ranger" and do this rather than "take the Paladin, make it psionic, remove the holy fluff?" This really strikes me as something that is just better done as a variant on psychic warrior, which does a decent job of being the "take a fighter, make it psionic" task.

The Marksman just seems such an arbitrary and random choice, without thematic tie to psionics.

It'd be like making the Whirling Dervish base class that is a two-weapon fighter and is psionic. Er, because.

I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) Archery, as a combat style, is one that works particularly well with psionics thematically and mechanically. Your hands are occupied (because bow) so traditional spellcasting doesn't fit with the image quite as well, and snipers tend to be loners thematically which dovetails with all the self-sufficiency that psionics provides. Archery is also a fighting style that is pretty mental - I mean, they all are in a sense, but archers in particular carry the expectation of having to track multiple variables in their head (e.g. movement and wind) and stare intently at their target, and other psiony things. And lastly, moving things with your mind and guiding arrows around obstacles aren't that far off thematically either.

2) Marksman was invented for Psionics Expanded, which was still pretty early on in Pathfinder's lifespan. There were still very few options for a dedicated archer with no pet or nature theme - we were still quite a ways out from things like Slayer and Eldritch Archer at the time. DSP was thus filling a gap/niche that a lot of people were asking for, which again justified a whole base class rather than an archetype.

TL;DR it's a combination of "archery feels psiony", "psionic powers can set up or explain some neat trick shots" and "nobody else is really doing a dedicated archer that isn't a hippie." (And no, that one lame-o fighter archetype doesn't count.)

[Segev]

I suppose that makes sense. Thanks for the insight!

[Prime32]

The Tactician at least shares the Vitalist's Collective, giving it some sense of it being psionic, but it feels a bit forced and less well-thought-out. Like somebody said, "Hey, this Collective thing could be a more universal-ish mechanic; why not come up with another class that uses it?" and then didn't do a very good job coming up with a "job" for the Collective to do that wasn't focused on healing. With the Vitalist, the shared nature of resources shines. With the Tactician, it's really just a range-extention on buffs, as far as I can tell. That, and a little bit of Bardic bolstering with a better-defined set of "allies." Tactician came first... sort of. It's a PF rework of their 3.5 class Society Mind, which later received a variant called Worldthought Medic (the basis of Vitalist).

[Rynjin]

Tactician's Psionic-ness comes, fittingly, from its Power List.

The "as One" Powers in particular show the theme and use of the Collective, Networking all of the party together into a single cohesive unit. They share skill ranks, Powers known (as a basic function of the Collective), saving throws, senses, and even Base Attack Bonus between each other. You're basically a hive mind but eveyrbody still has theirown will.

It's rad, I love the Tactician.

Dread's lame and Marksman is wonky though, to be sure. Marksman honestly could've been rolled into a Soulknife archetype.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Your take on the Tactician ideally being a Psi/PoW hybrid is covered by the Zealot.

[Kris Moonhand]

If anything is "the psionic Mesmerist", I'd say it's the Highlord. Now, don't take that as a knock on the Highlord, it's one of my favorite psionic classes, probably right after Vitalist. But that whole "being scary" shtick that Dread has? That's something everyone wants to do (based on the number of Intimidate builds I've seen) but no class has as their "thing". Except maybe Vigilante, but few people seem to like that class in general play. Or Antipaladin, I guess. But what DM allows Antipaladins if they're not running an evil campaign?

If you've got to ask why Vitalist and Tactician are different classes, you might well ask why Wizard and Witch are different classes. Or Oracle and Shaman. Or, most egregiously, Sorcerer and Psychic. All of the collective-based classes have unique gimmicks that set them apart from their siblings.

I think the Marksman does a much better job at being a "psionic Ranger" than just slapping a psionic archetype on the Ranger would do. Or does do, rather, since they made that archetype and it's... kinda lackluster since that's all it does. It also ties the psionic fluff into the class better than magic is tied into Ranger, since you gain manifesting at 1st level, so the themes manifest (heh) themselves immediately, instead of 3 levels (and probably half a dozen sessions) later. Seriously, look at its power list, it's all kinds of Matrix **** like running on water, walking up walls (or on ceilings), shooting around corners, it's hella.

Meanwhile, Ranger doesn't get casting until 4th level, the same level it gets its animal companion (cuz let's be real, no one takes the "share favored enemy with your allies" option), and the whole thing feels very... tacked on. "Oh, suddenly I have a wolf. Yeah, that's nature-y, makes sense. Also, I'm magic, I guess? I didn't know I was studying magic, but I'll take it, I guess."

I had these same exact questions, at least about Tactician and Marksman, but once I played them a bit, it all made sense. I recommend going through and making a character or two, really get into the guts of the classes. Fun Build! By using the Atstreidi race with the Adaptive Gunner and Shroud ATs for Marksman, I made a pretty good Dark Samus from the Metroid Prime series.

[Gnaeus]

They also give support to the idea that, since DSP is
1 slightly better balanced and
2 balanced around a slightly higher balance point than is core
You can play PF with Psi and PoW but without regular PF classes. They hardly print anything that isn’t T2-3. So you get the psionic rogue and psionic bard in case your game isn’t using rogue or bard.