Broken Psionics?

[Rowanomicon]

I have a friend who sometimes DMs and refuses to allow Psionics because he states that they are horribly broke.

Now, I have no problem with ruling out Psionics, but I don't really think they're broken.

Are they really that broken? What are your thoughts?

[Jasdoif]

First off, what does he think is broken in it? Also, I understand psionics underwent a lot of changes between 3.0 and 3.5, that might account for something.

[Green Bean]

They aren't really that broken. Ultimately, most of the things a psion can do can be duplicated by a wizard, more times per day too. Of course, there's still some cheese, but you'll find that with most casting systems (*cough* Batman Wizard *cough* CoDzilla *cough* Divine Metacheese). Of course, many people miss the bit about not being able to spend more power points on a power than you have manifester levels, leading them to a mistaken impression.

[Rowanomicon]

The whole system as far as I can tell. He's never mentioned anything specific, even when asked. I'm pretty sure it's the whole package that displeases him.
I personally think it is due to his lack of familiarity with it. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with Psionics myself so I don't really feel qualified to educate him.

[Gralamin]

The number one most overpowered thing, is that most people look over the most important rule. You cannot Manifest a Power with more Power Points then your Manifester Level.

Psionics overall is less broken then Arcane Magic. Though, DM's should watch out for Novas.

This thread is your friend.

[Jasdoif]

You might be interested in this thread on WotC's boards, which is referenced in a thread on these boards.

[ocato]

Of course, many people miss the bit about not being able to spend more power points on a power than you have manifester levels, leading them to a mistaken impression.

Being new to psionics, I missed this. It is definately an equalizing factor. Psychic Warriors are definately pretty serious compared to fighters. Psions? Eh, give me a wizard anyday.

[Dullyanna]

B It is definately an equalizing factor. Psychic Warriors are definitely pretty serious compared to fighters.

True, but Psychic warriors aren't very serious compared to upper tier classes.

[Kyeudo]

This is, of course, according to the psionics boards, but the Psychic Warrior is considered the median of class balance. Equal amounts of stuff both up and down in power from the Psy-Warrior, kinda like the Rogue.

[Bosh]

Well its understandable to be leery about psionics in D&D since in every edition besides 3.5 they were horrifically overpowered. In 3.5 the psionic classes are, overall, better balanced than the PHB classes.

[Draz74]

Well its understandable to be leery about psionics in D&D since in every edition besides 3.5 they were horrifically overpowered. In 3.5 the psionic classes are, overall, better balanced than the PHB classes.

Yeah, actually the Psionic classes are a great example of class balance, as long as you:
1) ban a handful of specific Powers that are broken
2) ignore that the Psion is just as overpowered as other full casters like the Sorcerer, Favored Soul, etc. (but not as bad as Wizard/Cleric/Druid)
3) ignore the Soulknife ... completely.

That still leaves you with 5 psionic base classes that are pretty well-balanced. (I guess the Ardent is still a bit on the strong side.)

[Ecalsneerg]

If he doesn't have the 3-4 encounters a day D&D is balanced around, psionics will seem overpowered.

[Kurald Galain]

He may have gotten the idea from earlier editions (2nd/1st) where psionics was very much overpowered, moreso than wizards.

[OneWinged4ngel]

I have a friend who sometimes DMs and refuses to allow Psionics because he states that they are horribly broke.

Now, I have no problem with ruling out Psionics, but I don't really think they're broken.

Are they really that broken? What are your thoughts?

No, they're not really that broken. Indeed, Magic is *much* more powerful, abusable, and full of loopholes. That's why the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Artificer are considered the most powerful classes in D&D. NOT the Psion or any of the other psionic classes.

A quick search will reveal dozens of threads on the topic, and there's a lot of quite thorough and rather conclusive arguments showing that psionics is actually considerably *better* balanced than the core PHB.

Basically... your DM is paranoid of things he's unfamiliar with and can't judge game balance to save his life

If he doesn't have the 3-4 encounters a day D&D is balanced around, psionics will seem overpowered.

It's worth noting that Wizards and Sorcerors actually can nova *much* harder than psionicists (trust me, comparisons have been done on the CharOp boards, and the psion got iced). I think people just figure out that they can nova with psions more often because psionics is actually an easier system to understand =P

[Tormsskull]

Psionics is more balanced towards optimized class choices. If you have a CoDzilla, a Batman, and somekind of Power-attack monster, the Psionic classes aren't going to seem all that powerful.

But if you have a fighter, a healbot cleric, a blaster wizard, and a skillmonkey rogue, then psionics will seem very powerful.

In addition, psionics are heavily based around 4 encounter a day. If your DM likes to have "boss battles", then psionics will also seem really powerful.

[OneWinged4ngel]

*Links to Read*:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=331253 Myth: The XPH is Overpowered thread.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=638776 The Psionics FAQ by one of the Dreamscarred Press writers, Tempest Stormwind. This is your source for everything psionics, if you're unfamiliar with the system. It covers all the major topics very well, including the balance debates and all that.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=486266 New players and DM's guide to psionics.

http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archi...x.php/t-471148 The Nova Myth

Educate thyself, and thou shalt know some bloody sense

Seriously, there's *no* reason to be afraid of psionics.

But if you have a fighter, a healbot cleric, a blaster wizard, and a skillmonkey rogue, then psionics will seem very powerful.

Last I checked, you could build a blaster wizard that could outblast a psion without too much trouble with properly metamagiced rays and the like (though a Wizard is harder to learn how to play, because he's one of the most complex classes in all of bloody D&D, and psionics is ultimately a far more intuitive system, IMO). A skillmonkey rogue is totally awesome, so I don't know why yer dissin' 'im. And you make it sound like a cleric has to actually TRY to be amazing (seriously, a cleric that picks the world's crappiest feats and skills and so forth still knows *all* divine spells on the cleric list and thus is built as a more powerful character than just about everyone else.) Fighters do suck, however (barring LOTS of supplements from the entirety of the 3.5e line and a lot of knowledge of how to use them, so that you can do something like Aerlynith's asskicking lockdown build). Psychic Warriors are much better balanced than the Fighter. They're often said to be at about the same power level as the Rogue. And the Rogue is often said to be just about the very middle ground of class balance.

Oh, and here's a link for Evokers (that's blaster wizards to you!) beating the snot out of Psions, the most powerful base psionic class. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread...0#post10768110

[OneWinged4ngel]

Yeah, actually the Psionic classes are a great example of class balance, as long as you:
1) ban a handful of specific Powers that are broken

There's only a few that might be just a bit problematic, but before anyone goes off thinking something silly like that that makes Psionics as a whole overpowered... the list of problematic powers is a great deal shorter than the one for spells (see the Problematic Spells forum thread on the Wizards boards vs the Problematic Powers thread. Spells are more broken, and the most problematic powers are often actually the ones that do the same thing as spell X.)

Lessee, off the top of my head... Affinity Field, Bestow Power (because of one specific abuse), Fabricate (It's a broken spell, so it's also a broken power), and Metamorphosis (It's Polymorph, except Psionic. And Polymorph is a broken spell, so this is a broken power.)

That's seriously about it. Now take two seconds and think how many broken *spells* there are. Heck, two of the four problematic powers I mentioned are problematic because they copied the spells, so you've already got a head start. Got more than 20 yet?

2) ignore that the Psion is just as overpowered as other full casters like the Sorcerer, Favored Soul, etc. (but not as bad as Wizard/Cleric/Druid)

The psion is pretty much *definitively* not as powerful as a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, though he actually comes decently close if the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are avoiding cheese cheese at all costs. Odds are, anything a Psion can do those guys can do better (a few exceptions... Seer Divinations get some pretty unique stuff, like Sensitivity to Psychic Impressions and Object Reading, and I can't think of a better magic analogue. Though I can for pretty much every other bloody power. Annnd... kineticists blast better than the average Wizard, which isn't actually a problem because even the lowly Fighter can outdamage that thing =P)

3) ignore the Soulknife ... completely.

The soulknife is horrifically underpowered, but that doesn't mean you have to get rid of it. There are some good variant out there, including BlaineTog's Soulknife and that Psionics Boards fix that actually turns the Soulknife into a little psionic feat collection (because that's actually what its class features are worth).

[Alex12]

There's one big thing about Psionics that I like. It's intuitive. It's much easier for a beginner to play a psionic class than a wizard. After all, most video game RPGs use a system very similar to PP. Sure they may regenerate X per Y units of time rather than all overnight, but it's a concept most video gamers can easily figure out. Wizards? Not so much.

[Tormsskull]

A skillmonkey rogue is totally awesome, so I don't know why yer dissin' 'im.

I was not dissing any class. I'm saying that the archetype core party is no where near as optimizied as they could be. As such, they will compare as weak compared to a typical psion.

As a little bit of personal experience, playing Core only (except I allowed a Wilder when a player asked to be one), due to our playstyle of not having 3-4 encounter every day, the Wilder was overpowered. He was dishing out 7d10 damage rays of energy (I don't remember the name of the Power) at level 5 (I think he was using some kind of Oversurge and some feat that allowed him to increase his manifester level).

Oh, and here's a link for Evokers (that's blaster wizards to you!) beating the snot out of Psions, the most powerful base psionic class. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread...0#post10768110

I have no intention of allowing psionics again anytime soon (flavor reasons and that it doesn't mesh with my playstyle mostly), and as such I have little interest reading the other threads. But just as a point of curiosity, does the thread compare the usefulness of a blaster wizard against a group of CR-appropriate enemies to that of a blaster psion against a group of CR-appropriate enemies? If so, cool, if not, I'm not sure how helpful that would be since I never measure the power of a class by its ability to kill its allies.

I'm guessing the thread would show that over a span of 3-4 encounters, the blaster wizard is actually better, where as for 1 Big Bad monster type encounter, the nova-ing psion is better, which is pretty much how I already understood the two.

[OneWinged4ngel]

I was not dissing any class. I'm saying that the archetype core party is no where near as optimizied as they could be. As such, they will compare as weak compared to a typical psion.

And I already said I thought that notion was just plain silly.

As a little bit of personal experience, playing Core only (except I allowed a Wilder when a player asked to be one), due to our playstyle of not having 3-4 encounter every day, the Wilder was overpowered. He was dishing out 7d10 damage rays of energy (I don't remember the name of the Power) at level 5 (I think he was using some kind of Oversurge and some feat that allowed him to increase his manifester level).

Actually, he's probably using Talented and Overchannel (which makes him HURT HIMSELF and SPEND MORE PP for a mere 1d6 more damage!), but... I have *no clue* where you're getting 7d10 rays. The psionic powers up to that level don't have 1d10 damage rays. The only damage power I know of in the XPH that's going to have damage scaling by d10s is going to be Mind Thrust, and it's not a ray. It's a single target will negates power, and definitely not powerful at all. Are you sure you were playing by the *rules*? The best pure damage offensive power about that time is going to be Energy Missile, and it's Kineticist only, and if you spend a large chunk of your daily resources (think 3rd level spell, and look at how many of them a Wizard gets) you're going to do a less-than-intimidating 6d6+6 damage if you spend two feats on it. And a Wizard can do 5d6 in a 40 foot area for less cost (he spends no feats on it). Or better, he can use one of his badass area control spells.

I have no intention of allowing psionics again anytime soon (flavor reasons and that it doesn't mesh with my playstyle mostly)

What flavor reason could you POSSIBLY have? Flavor is utterly mutable. Heck, the entire cast of Naruto has been statted out as psions, because it can mimic all their abilities (which have nothing flavorfully in common with the "generic flavor" given to psionics). You could also make the flavor of psionics *exactly like magic* with extreme ease.

[Scrubbed]

and as such I have little interest reading the other threads. But just as a point of curiosity, does the thread compare the usefulness of a blaster wizard against a group of CR-appropriate enemies to that of a blaster psion against a group of CR-appropriate enemies? If so, cool, if not, I'm not sure how helpful that would be since I never measure the power of a class by its ability to kill its allies.

Actually, it demonstrates that wizards just deal way more damage, and further that if a wizard was actually play to his strengths, he just leaves the psion in the dust crying.

I'm guessing the thread would show that over a span of 3-4 encounters, the blaster wizard is actually better, where as for 1 Big Bad monster type encounter, the nova-ing psion is better, which is pretty much how I already understood the two.

Actually, the threads show that a Wizard is a great deal better at one encounter a day than the Psion. The idea that psions are better at novas than wizards is a MYTH, as I already mentioned (and you chose to ignore, apparently)

[Tormsskull]

Actually, he's probably using Talented and Overchannel, but... I have *no clue* where you're getting 7d10 rays. The psionic powers up to that level don't have 1d10 damage rays. The only damage power I know of in the XPH that's going to have damage scaling by d10s is going to be Mind Thrust, and it's not a ray. It's a single target will negates power, and definitely not powerful at all. Are you sure you were playing by the *rules*?

I'm sure we were playing by the rules, yes. But being as it has been like 2 years since that session, the details are a little shaddy to me. Mind Thrust is probably what it was, and once again recall that I'm not speaking of optomized characters. So when the Psion is dishing out a 7d10 damage attack compared to the Fighters 2d6+10 or so, the 7d10 feels way overpowered. Interestingly enough, when I told the player he had to retire his Wilder he said he understood why.

What flavor reason could you POSSIBLY have? Flavor is utterly mutable. Heck, the entire cast of Naruto has been statted out as psions, because it can mimic all their abilities. You could also make the flavor of psionics *exactly like magic* with extreme ease. What's the holdup? Narrow mindedness?

Its mostly a campaign setting thing. The campaign world was created in part back during the early days of 2nd edition. The world worked well without Psionics, so I saw no reason to add it in. It just didn't have a place for it.

Also, you seem to be overly hostile. Any reason why?

Actually, the threads show that a Wizard is a great deal better at one encounter a day than the Psion. In a pretty severe way (in fact, the core psion pretty much *could not defeat* a core wizard at higher levels, no matter what he did! The wizard was pretty much invulnerable to all manner of harm.)

Yeah, but how often in a group game like D&D does a single Wizard go up against a single Psion? In my experience its usually a group of people versus another group of people. That's why I was saying the Wizard versus Psion situations don't interest me.

[Dullyanna]

@:OneWinged4ngel-You said that kineticists blast better than the average wizard, but before and after that you've stated (And basically shown) that wizards, especially evokers, are consistently superior to psions when it comes to blasting, unless they "Aren't playing to their strengths." So in other words, is a kineticist better than a wizard as long as the latter doesn't know what the hell they're doing ?

[OneWinged4ngel]

I'm sure we were playing by the rules, yes. But being as it has been like 2 years since that session, the details are a little shaddy to me. Mind Thrust is probably what it was, and once again recall that I'm not speaking of optomized characters. So when the Psion is dishing out a 7d10 damage attack compared to the Fighters 2d6+10 or so, the 7d10 feels way overpowered. Interestingly enough, when I told the player he had to retire his Wilder he said he understood why.

Except that at level 5 with Talented and Overchannel, you still only do 6d10 damage, and it's Will Negates, and it's Mind Affecting. How are you doing 7d10? Probably Wild Surge. And what happens when you use Wild Surge? You have a chance to daze yourself, losing your turns, and to enervate yourself, losing PP equal to your level. Ouch. That makes you lose a fight hard, so she's seriously at risk using that all the time.

Also, if you're doing 7d10 mind-affecting, will-save negates, close-range only damage... that means you can't fight constructs, vermin, undead, oozes, or any such things... people become immune to your attacks by way of a simple Protection from Alignment spell or similar ability... and a save means you actually *do no damage at all* unlike every other blasting spell. This is why everyone uses the d6 energy rays instead, because they're actually way more reliable.

Seriously. You're worried about your Wilder using two feats and a chance to daze herself to possibly do 7d10 damage to a limited enemy type, spending a bit more resources than a wizard casting a third level spell (you need to pay 6PP instead of 5 to overchannel it). Now, consider that a wizard casting a third level spell can use Fireball to do 5d6 damage to *several* targets, or, better yet, actually use spells that will wipe the enemy out of play. Seriously, use Stinking Cloud or something. Now, of course, 7d10 damage averages out to 35. A Fighter doing 2d6+10 damage as you said averages out to 22 damage, and is going to be more reliable than the Wilder. And... it's a FIGHTER. Fighters are underpowered, ESPECIALLY if they're core only. Oh, and of course psionics has a bunch of anti-psionics tools that magic just doesn't have, making it even easier to take down the character.

Seriously, Mind Thrust is generally considered *weaker* than powers that would have done 7d6 damage (and note that 7d6 averages *lower* damage than the Fighter dealing 2d6+10! And you're still getting a chance to daze yourself!), because of all the restrictions. And this is even more true for the poor Wilder, since she only learns 11 powers over the course of *twenty levels.* That means that unless she actually bought another direct damage power, she's actually UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING DAMAGING to a great number of enemies!

To recap:

1) You're only doing about 10 more damage than the Fighter's average, unlimited attack.

2) You can't affect many enemies *at all* due to the mind thrust being mind affecting, and this takes up a very precious spell known slot for the Wilder (who gets only *11* over the course of *20* levels. And *3* by the time she's level 5)

3) If the enemy makes a save, they don't take just half, it gets negated entirely. It's also a will save, which makes it *significantly* more likely that enemies will succeed it than the standard reflex save (or touch attacks) that damage spells usually get.

4) You pay more resources than a 3rd level spell costs a 5th level wizard.

5) You risk enervating yourself, and that'll actually take you out of a fight and make you lose 1 out of every 20 times you use the power. Ouch. That's a gamble.

6) You paid two feats for this little trick with limited effectiveness.

7) The power's range is Close.

8) For all those power points you just spent, you're affecting only one enemy.

This is "overpowered" to you?

Yeah, but how often in a group game like D&D does a single Wizard go up against a single Psion? In my experience its usually a group of people versus another group of people. That's why I was saying the Wizard versus Psion situations don't interest me.

What does a single wizard going against a single psion have to do with anything? The wizard can go up against *ANYTHING* and get better results than the Psion. If you say "The Psion is overpowered because he can do 7d10 damage" and then someone says "but look, this Wizard can do 100d10 damage at the same level" then you say "Well I don't care because it's a comparison to the psion"? Uhm, how is that supposed to make sense? Of course it's a comparison to the psion. All balance is relative. Something can't be overpowered, underpowered, or balanced without being compared to the rest of the system. That's what balance *is*!

[Scrubbed]

[Tormsskull]

Except that at level 5 with Talented and Overchannel, you still only do 6d10 damage, and it's Will Negates, and it's Mind Affecting. How are you doing 7d10? Probably Wild Surge. And what happens when you use Wild Surge? You daze yourself. Ouch. That makes you lose a fight.

? Maybe it was wild Surge? I don't know. Again, 2 years ago, hazy memory, etc.

Also, if you're doing 7d10 mind-affecting, will-save negates, close-range only damage... that means you can't fight constructs, vermin, undead, oozes, or any such things... people become immune to your attacks by way of a simple Protection from Alignment spell or similar ability... and a save means you actually *do no damage at all* unlike every other blasting spell. This is why everyone uses the d6 energy rays instead, because they're actually way more reliable.

Yeah, that particular campaign dealt a lot with humans and humanoids. When there was a different type of enemy he had another Power (again, don't know the name) that allowed him to pick an element to apply to his attack. I seem to remember him using that to great effect also.

Seriously. You're worried about your Wilder using two feats and a chance to daze herself to possibly do 7d10 damage to a limited enemy type, spending as much resources as a wizard casting a third level spell. Now, consider that a wizard casting a third level spell can use Fireball to do 5d6 damage to *several* targets, or, better yet, actually use spells that will wipe the enemy out of play.

Yeah, but in that situation there weren't several enemies. And the group I play with is really non-optomized. We had a sorceror that would fling magic missles with every 1st level slot, and sometimes even use his 2nd level slots to use magic missle because he wanted to be guaranteed to hit.

Seriously, use Stinking Cloud or something. Now, of course, 7d10 damage averages out to 35. A Fighter doing 2d6+10 damage as you said averages out to 22 damage, and is going to be more reliable than the Wilder. And... it's a FIGHTER. Fighters are underpowered, ESPECIALLY if they're core only. Oh, and of course psionics has a bunch of anti-psionics tools that magic just doesn't have, making it even easier to take down the character.

Actually, 2d6+10 averages out to 17 damage, not 22. Also, I know fighters are underpowered compared to other optomized classes, but once again, this is not an optomized group.

What does a single wizard going against a single psion have to do with anything?

Well, your quotes of:

Oh, and here's a link for Evokers (that's blaster wizards to you!) beating the snot out of Psions, the most powerful base psionic class.

and

Actually, the threads show that a Wizard is a great deal better at one encounter a day than the Psion. In a pretty severe way (in fact, the core psion pretty much *could not defeat* a core wizard at higher levels, no matter what he did! The wizard was pretty much invulnerable to all manner of harm.)

Seemed to imply that you were looking at them from a versus angel.

That's something called *willful ignorance,* and it's probably why you feel I'm being hostile. I have a thing about willful ignorance.

I'm just disagreeing with you, is all.

Edit: Wow, you are pretty fast and furious with those edits.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Yeah, but in that situation there weren't several enemies. And the group I play with is really non-optomized. We had a sorceror that would fling magic missles with every 1st level slot, and sometimes even use his 2nd level slots to use magic missle because he wanted to be guaranteed to hit.

That's not just sub-optimal now, that's just plain ridiculous. I mean, that's like you're *trying your hardest* to pick the worst way to use your resources. Like anti-optimization or something.

So, basically, you're shouting OVERPOWERED!! on forums because someone found out something more effective to do at level 5 than use one of the least powerful 1st level spells? Again, how is that supposed to make sense?

We're not talking about a need for parties to be optimized. We're talking about a need for parties to not be *stupid.* Using your 2nd and 3rd level spell slots to cast MAGIC MISSILE extra times is actually *really stupid.* I mean, I really, really can't emphasize how bad an idea that is. That's beyond suboptimal. Seriously. The *average 1st-timer player* is smart enough to get the concept that level 2 spells are better than level 1 spells, and so on and so forth.

Actually, 2d6+10 averages out to 17 damage, not 22.

My mistake. For some reason my brain read +15 >_>

This is a bad thing, because I have my calculus midterms today.

[Douglas]

Seemed to imply that you were looking at them from a versus angel.

Yes, but not in the sense of the wizard and psion fighting each other. As I understand it it's just a comparison of maximum damage output rate, the thing psions are supposedly best at. Take a psion going nova and calculate how much damage he can do in one round when he's not holding anything back. Now design a wizard to do the same. The wizard's damage output is apparently higher (I haven't actually read that thread yet).

[OneWinged4ngel]

Yes, but not in the sense of the wizard and psion fighting each other. As I understand it it's just a comparison of maximum damage output rate, the thing psions are supposedly best at. Take a psion going nova and calculate how much damage he can do in one round when he's not holding anything back. Now design a wizard to do the same. The wizard's damage output is apparently higher (I haven't actually read that thread yet).

In fact, the wizard's damage output is in the hundreds of thousands in the example. Because wizards actually can nova really, really, REALLY hard. All the spellcasters can. Psionics is no exception to that. Except that psions can't nova to the same proportions wizards can, especially when you consider novas in a definition a bit wider than "pure damage." (Seriously, a psion is SUPPOSED to be a better blaster than a wizard by default. Because blasting isn't actually one of the wizard's strengths, it's one of his weakest points)

The difference with psionics seems to be that it's more intuitive. People can actually figure out how psionics works more easily than they can figure out magic. And that's totally a good thing, not a bad thing.

As for a Wizard and a Psion fighting each other... Even if that were the case, the Wizard doesn't have any special "IKillPsions" weapons in core. Anything he's doing to kill the psion can be applied to any other sort of encounter. So, if the Wizard time stops, creates an impenetrable defense for himself, then gates in two CR 27 celestial dragon buddies, and kills the psion... he can do that very same thing to your BBEG.

Seriously, I don't even know where Tormskull is getting the idea that anything said can only be applicable to a psion fighting a wizard. How that logic happens is beyond me.

I mean, heck, now he's arguing that "it's overpowered because I created specific situations playing to the class's strengths and it did well!" One encounter a day, single humanoids with crappy will saves, no desire to take any counteractive action against the wilder or take advantage of her poor defenses... he admits all these things and still defends his position that the psion is too powerful unless you're in an optimized party where everyone's overpowered.

I mean, you could argue that the Fighter was overpowered because he did better than the Wizard in 20 encounters a day in an antimagic field with this kind of twisted logic.

[Yakk]

We're not talking about a need for parties to be optimized. We're talking about a need for parties to not be *stupid.* Using your 2nd and 3rd level spell slots to cast MAGIC MISSILE extra times is actually *really stupid.* I mean, I really, really can't emphasize how bad an idea that is. That's beyond suboptimal. Seriously. The *average 1st-timer player* is smart enough to get the concept that level 2 spells are better than level 1 spells, and so on and so forth.

Ooo! Heighten spell: Magic Missile.

;)

[OneWinged4ngel]

Ooo! Heighten spell: Magic Missile.

;)

See, you can actually use higher level spell slots to cast lower level spells for *free.* People just don't do it often because it's kinda stupid in most cases. Heighten Spell: Magic Missile doesn't actually do anything since Magic Missile doesn't have anything reliant on spell level. At all. Except that maybe you could heighten it to 5th to cast into a globe of invulnerability for some reason.

@:OneWinged4ngel-You said that kineticists blast better than the average wizard, but before and after that you've stated (And basically shown) that wizards, especially evokers, are consistently superior to psions when it comes to blasting, unless they "Aren't playing to their strengths." So in other words, is a kineticist better than a wizard as long as the latter doesn't know what the hell they're doing ?

Err, actually, I was saying that a wizard, by being an evoker, *isn't played to their strengths.* I was saying that a wizard who decides to blast isn't playing to their strengths (barring something like, I don't know, very high sneak attack damage from an unseen seer build or whatever). Wizards are actually totally better off being like Batman. Wizards are way better at doing all sorts of things that aren't blasting. And a kineticist is going to be better than a Wizard at blasting until the Wizard pulls cheese out of his hat, which is perfectly fine. They're actually *supposed* to be good at blasting, and the average wizard totally isn't (seriously, fireballs do awful damage. That's why Frank put them on the UTILITY spell list, not the combat spell list, in his caster guide to spells for different situations).

Anyways, the main point of the demonstration is to dispel the nova myth (Wizards can expend all their resources to extreme effect in an even scarier way than the Psion can.) Though a wizard can be better, I'd totally want to play a Kineticist over an Evoker any day if I wanted to blast things.

[Tormsskull]

That's not just sub-optimal now, that's just plain ridiculous. I mean, that's like you're *trying your hardest* to pick the worst way to use your resources. Like anti-optimization or something.

I agree it is a very poor choice, but the player in mind was an uncle of one of the players, and never played D&D before.

So, basically, you're shouting OVERPOWERED!! on forums because someone found out something more effective to do at level 5 than use one of the least powerful 1st level spells? Again, how is that supposed to make sense?

Nope, I'm not shouting anything. If you'll go back and read my first post, you notice I said "But if you have a fighter, a healbot cleric, a blaster wizard, and a skillmonkey rogue, then psionics will seem very powerful." and "In addition, psionics are heavily based around 4 encounter a day. If your DM likes to have "boss battles", then psionics will also seem really powerful."

We're not talking about a need for parties to be optimized. We're talking about a need for parties to not be *stupid.* Using your 2nd and 3rd level spell slots to cast MAGIC MISSILE extra times is actually *really stupid.* I mean, I really, really can't emphasize how bad an idea that is. That's beyond suboptimal. Seriously. The *average 1st-timer player* is smart enough to get the concept that level 2 spells are better than level 1 spells, and so on and so forth.

Let's not exaggerate, I said he used his 2nd level slots, not 3rd level slots. Yeah, he knew that his 2nd level spells were actually better than magic missle, but he was rolling bad with his Melf's Acid Arrow, and thus he decided to go with the guaranteed hit of magic missle.


So let me reiterate, if you took a group of forum-goers, core only, then added psionics, not going to be a problem. But to a group of players that aren't familiar with all of these powerful options, psionics will SEEM powerful.