| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 04:00 PM | Let me preface this thread by saying that I haven't used Psionics in D&D at all yet. I would like to try it, but no one in my gaming group wants to take the plunge. I've read a lot of the "3.5 Psionics isn't broken" posts and threads, but I wanted to make this point: Both Magic and Psionics are broken, when compared to non-casters. Psionics may be slightly less broken than Magic, but it is pretty close, especially when compared to non-casters. Feel free to inform me otherwise, Psionics board! |
| AntiDjinn02-12-08, 04:07 PM | Non-casters have higher survivability at low levels (primarily due to increased hit points) but at the upper end there is no contest. Ask anyone who has played a fighter to level 20 (know any?) and they will tell you that weapon damage, even boosted by feats, does not keep up with magic damage. Can a Swashbuckler 20 go toe to toe with a Cleric 20? In his dreams. It is an issue with the entire 3.5 system. |
| jbsaff02-12-08, 04:17 PM | ...but I wanted to make this point: Both Magic and Psionics are broken, when compared to non-casters. Psionics may be slightly less broken than Magic, but it is pretty close, especially when compared to non-casters. I would stipulate that more powerful does not mean broken. Is the Fighter or Rogue broken compared to a Bard? Sure, manifesting is more powerful than non-casters. But it isn't really broken the way just core spells are. Lycanthromancer has some great examples in his sig. |
| deadkoo02-12-08, 04:23 PM | awesome. |
| archangel_arcanis_0702-12-08, 04:23 PM | You are correct that any spells or powers make a character much more powerful than any non-caster ever could be. This is a flaw in the entire system. Feats don't scale with level and even if they did the only way to keep the spell caster from taking it is to say that only people of a certain class can (weapon specialization, and keeps other non/light casters from taking it) or that you can't be a caster (mage slayer, though this still lets powers users take it). To make it more accurate i'll put things on a scale of 1-10, keep in mind this is based off of my experience and will not be all inclusive. *fighter: -1 (gets nothing but bonus feats, search for discussion about the druid's animal companion being about equal to a fighter of the druid's level) *partial casters: 2-4 (ranger and paladin, get spells that help but aren't the focus) *rouge like: 3-5 (don't have spells but tons of abilities and normally even better than spells they have UMD with the ranks to put in it.) *half and half: 5-6 (bard & psi. war., not primary casters but rely on it to supplement their abilities) *Tome of Battle: 6-7 (not the greatest but give melee people lots of good options and if optimized can destoy almost anything in melee only though) *psion/wilder: 7-8 (good but most powers are weaker than spells of the same level, not many save or suck powers, no auto-scaling, lacks endurance) *arcane casters: 10+ (depends on the build but can do almost anything they want) *divine caster: 15+ (same as arcane but they get even better divination and buffs plus no armor issues, and normally many more class features and better combat abilities for when they feel like "slumming it") |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 04:38 PM | I would stipulate that more powerful does not mean broken. True, though many will agree that magic is broken as well as powerful. Psionics also seems broken to me, though I have no firsthand experience with it, only theoretical experience. Is the Fighter or Rogue broken compared to a Bard? Surely you mean "Is the Bard broken when compared to a Fighter or Rogue?" :) Sure, manifesting is more powerful than non-casters. But it isn't really broken the way just core spells are. Lycanthromancer has some great examples in his sig. Okay, so you think that Psionics is really not broken? |
| archangel_arcanis_0702-12-08, 04:45 PM | Ok Jaxgaret what are your reasons for thinking psionics is broken? I would like to help by showing how it isn't in some ways and confirm some of your thoughts that i agree with. (those powers are typically ones based off of spells). |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 04:49 PM | Ok Jaxgaret what are your reasons for thinking psionics is broken? I would like to help by showing how it isn't in some ways and confirm some of your thoughts that i agree with. (those powers are typically ones based off of spells). I don't really have any specific ones. I assume that the posters on the Psionics board know much more about it than I, and would know better the broken aspects of it. |
| Bacris02-12-08, 04:52 PM | Here's the problem: If you consider all "pure" casters to be broken (this is wizards, sorcerors, specialist wizards, clerics, and druids), then it would be hard to say psionics is not broken. Why? Because psionics was balanced to the core rules. Core rules include magic and spell casters, in particular the above classes. Ergo, psionics is balanced compared to spell casters. If you consider magic in and of itself "broken", then you should probably play a different game, because the entire game structure was built with those abilities in mind. :) |
| Eldritch_Lord02-12-08, 04:53 PM | True, though many will agree that magic is broken as well as powerful. Psionics also seems broken to me, though I have no firsthand experience with it, only theoretical experience. Magic is broken and powerful used to its utmost, most will agree there. However, psionics is powerful without being broken; the psychic warrior and the rogue are quite often held up together as the paragons of balance, and the psion and wilder are only slightly above them on the "brokenness" scale, which is to say, not very much at all. The soulknife is broken, but broken-bad, not broken-good. Surely you mean "Is the Bard broken when compared to a Fighter or Rogue?" :) No, he meant what he said. An optimized bard, do to its focus on buffing others instead of itself, its spreading of itself between casting and melee and mastering neither, and its slightly random powerset, is widely considered to be weaker than optimized fighters and rogues of comparable power. Now, (A) if you have an optimized bard vs. unoptimized fighters or rogues, or all unoptimized, the bard will usually work out better than the fighter and be around the rogue's level, and (B) a bard can be very useful to a party, but on its own it is weaker. Okay, so you think that Psionics is really not broken? Not broken in the least. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 05:00 PM | Here's the problem: If you consider all "pure" casters to be broken (this is wizards, sorcerors, specialist wizards, clerics, and druids), then it would be hard to say psionics is not broken. Why? Because psionics was balanced to the core rules. Core rules include magic and spell casters, in particular the above classes. Ergo, psionics is balanced compared to spell casters. So you believe that Psionics is equally as broken as magic, whether both or neither is broken. If you consider magic in and of itself "broken", then you should probably play a different game, because the entire game structure was built with those abilities in mind. :) I play D&D because other people I know play D&D, so that argument is out. Do you really consider casters not broken compared to non-casters? |
| Bacris02-12-08, 05:04 PM | I never said that. :) I said it was balanced compared to spell casters. I've found psionics to be incredibly well-balanced, but if you feel all spell casters are broken, then I'm not sure we're going to see the same thing. And you're phrasing a loaded question, because a game is not "player a vs player b" - it's "party vs enemies". I've seen some amazingly well-designed, powerful, and absolutely worth-having fighter 20 builds, and I've seen some worthless wizards who I wouldn't invite along to a tavern brawl. I think all aspects of D&D can be broken, if a DM doesn't use some adjudication, and trying to set up some absolute "this is broken compared to this" is an invalid, flawed statement. |
| archangel_arcanis_0702-12-08, 05:09 PM | ok well things people consider are broken about psionics: Q1. can't you blast for 7d6 damage at lvl 3? A1. no. this is addressed in the myths thread in detail, but the short answer is they either missed or ignored a rule in the book. Q2. psions can go 'nova' and use all of their powerpoints to blow up my BBEG. A2. yes they can nova, at high levels taking feats that aren't very useful outside of novaing, and they just became a commoner for every other fight that day. An nothing sucks more than going nova on an illusion. Q3. but x power does this that magic can't do. A3. yes psionics has something magic doesn't, just give it another splat book or two and magic will have it and better. most of these are those dealing with time and are useful but not that powerful. there is one in the races of destiny book that i can't remember the name to, it is stupidly broken but none of our group besides me knows about it and wouldn't take it any way. Q4. psions deal soooo much damage even when they don't nova. A4. yes a well mad psion can be a better blaster than a wizard, but a well made wizard won't be blasting he will be using save or your in trouble spells. this is because blasting is very inefficient in getting rid of your enemies since hp scales up faster than damage does. plus you get less fights out of the psion because he has to pay more points to get more damage out of a power while every magic spell keeps scaling up to its cap for free. Q5. but thrall herd is so broken. you get 3 cohorts and infinite followers. A5. yes you get to spend a 10 level class giveing up manifester levels to get a strong copy of a feat that anyone can take. Did i mention that if you happened to take the feat it becomes inert and you can't take it once you have levels in the class. another thing that magic and psionics have in common that makes them a problem is that they only need one good stat to be good or great, while everyone else normally needs 3. that is just a few things i've hear people complain about before but there are more and most of it is due to a misinterpretation of the power/ability or just not reading or avoiding a rule. I have to go but i'll try to get back to this to add more to it after i get home from practice tonight. But i figure that someone else will contribute or point you to some of the threads concerning it. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 05:14 PM | IAnd you're phrasing a loaded question, because a game is not "player a vs player b" - it's "party vs enemies". I've seen some amazingly well-designed, powerful, and absolutely worth-having fighter 20 builds, and I've seen some worthless wizards who I wouldn't invite along to a tavern brawl. I think all aspects of D&D can be broken, if a DM doesn't use some adjudication, and trying to set up some absolute "this is broken compared to this" is an invalid, flawed statement. Except that it's not an invalid statement. A party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is just not going to be as strong as Druid, Beguiler, Cleric, Wizard, assuming same optimization level. The party suffers for having the Fighter + Rogue over the Druid + Beguiler. And isn't the point of a party to mutually benefit each other, as you stated? |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 05:16 PM | that is just a few things i've hear people complain about before but there are more and most of it is due to a misinterpretation of the power/ability or just not reading or avoiding a rule. I have to go but i'll try to get back to this to add more to it after i get home from practice tonight. But i figure that someone else will contribute or point you to some of the threads concerning it. I know all of that. I mentioned in the OP that I've read multiple "Psionics is not broken" threads/posts. The question I was really asking was: Isn't Psionics honestly broken, just not as broken as Magic? So far I've gotten mixed responses. |
| jbsaff02-12-08, 05:21 PM | @Jaxgaret: I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. When you say broken, it sounds to me like you are saying that certain types of characters are too powerful. When I say broken, I mean that using the rules in question makes wth game unplayable, whether due to too much power, too little power, undefined mechanics, or loose rules interpretation. Under my working definition, psions and wizards aren't inherently broken, but the metamind PrC is (10 minutes of awesome isn't worth sucking the rest of the day). On the Bard/Fighter thing, which is more likely to disrupt a game: a spiked chain fighter or a bard? There is a reason that the bard isn't an iconic archtype. As others have said before, good 5th man, but not the best 5th man. You could compare a Fighter to a Psychic Warrior on power level and determine that the PsyWar is more powerful. But it's also one of the best balanced classes, by popular consensus, in the game. Being more powerful doesn't break the game, it just means that the PsyWar is still fun and useful later in the game, long after the Fighter has been pidgeon-holed into either sucking generally or resorting to combat tricks. Psionics is less breakable than magic. Following the Manifester Level cap solves 75-90% of the issues people think they have with psionics. The rest of it is houseruling a few powers. Think of all the things that psionics doesn't get: No free scaling. You have to pay for a more powerful effect. On the other hand, you get what you pay for and don't have to use overkill if the situation doesn't warrant it. Fewer resources. Both the psion and the wilder get fewer power points and powers compared to the resources available to their arcane counterparts. On the other hand, many psionic powers augment to include multiple power levels in one handy-dandy power. Powers don't scale up in level with augmentation. A full augmented Crystal Shard manifested by a level 20 Psion (so 20d6 of damage) is still a first level power. But again, on the other hand, the concentration check is still for a 1st level power. Many DCs don't scale with augmentation. And no, there isn't a good side to this one. Psionic PrCs never, never give full manifesting progression. This makes PrCs a nice option instead of required for maximum power. Psionics is simpler. Cleaner. More in line with how we think about magic in a fantasy world outside of the D&D game. It's versatile and powerful enough to handle just about any game. And it avoids so many of the areas that have proven problematic for arcane and divine magic. And so we use the system. We consider trading broken and convoluted abilities for solid, stable mechanics a fair bargain. Sure, we wish that there was more support. And yes, we realize that no system is perfect. But Psionics requires far less correction than magic. And you'll find that the most ardent supporters of the psionics ruleset are some of the most vocal opponents of using broken combinations. Tempest Stormwind, Bacris, Angellis, and many others have made a full time hobby of improving support while avoiding the broken. To paraphrase a sig, psionics isn't broken. It took us 3 and a half editions to get it into workable condition, but it isn't broken. |
| jbsaff02-12-08, 05:36 PM | Except that it's not an invalid statement. A party of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is just not going to be as strong as Druid, Beguiler, Cleric, Wizard, assuming same optimization level. The party suffers for having the Fighter + Rogue over the Druid + Beguiler. And isn't the point of a party to mutually benefit each other, as you stated? The point of the party shouldn't be to beat each other or to meet some arbitrary power level. It should be to effectively deal with the challenges encountered while adventuring. As long as the Fighter and Rogue do their jobs, it really doesn't matter if something else could do it better. At this point, you're veering off into a discussion of party balance in the game and no longer really discussing the issue of whether or not psionics, as a system, is broken. Swapping a PsyWar for the Fighter and a Psychic Rogue for the Rogue may make the party more powerful. But challenges of appropriate CR will still be just that: Challenges. Both a Rogue and a PsyRogue can effectively execute their jobs. Neither is likely to break the game so as to make everything either un-fun or incredibly too easy. As an example of what I consider broken that doesn't focus on power level, look no further than the Frezied Berzerker. Unless carefully handled by the party, this character will kill an ally. And he can't stop it. And it's rule-mandated. This will quite often make the game no fun for the group, and because of this it should not be used generally. |
| Caterpillar02-12-08, 05:43 PM | @OP Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you are just trying to stir up trouble. It appears this way because you are saying it is broken, defending it is broken, and not saying why it is broken. On top of that you say that casters/manifesters are broken vs pure melee types. Well, it is my current belief that this train of thought is correct atleast. Give us some reasons why psionics is more broken than magic or versus other classes. Until you do that you are going to wear out your welcome here really fast. P.S. I am honestly not trying to sound like a jerk. :) |
| jbsaff02-12-08, 06:09 PM | @deadkoo While I am honored and thrilled to be sigged, you may want to fix that closing quote tag. ;) |
| Tempest Stormwind02-12-08, 06:15 PM | Just for reference, I don't work at Dreamscarred full-time. In fact, apart from Untapped Potential, works pulled from there, and the fluff of the Talon of the Thrush and a few godminds, I've done next to nothing there. I'd also like to add that in my experience, replacing magic with psionics, using pact magic, and adding the Tome of Battle results in a game where nearly everyone is *roughly* in the same power bracket. The psionic manifesters still start weak and climb high compared to the noncasters, but psionics is harder to break, and the game assumes you've got access to things only high-level mages can provide. The climb is less noticable due to brilliant design on the binder and martial adepts, plus the less-steep climb of psionics in the first place. |
| Liquid_Technique02-12-08, 06:16 PM | OP is totally wrong and here is why: Dear all, I have come to conclusion that Psionics are new and better form of "Magic". I realise that this view is bit controversial so please let me explain and provide reasons why. To understand this view we have to first take a look at the case of ioulaum. He is the best and most powerful Arcanist ever (this can be debated) and for sure one of the most powerful magic users "alive". For this reason following is very important: Ioulaum isn't interested in magic any more! He's doing the psionics thing now, and in grand style I might add. The reason for this is not fully explained in the books but using simple logic it is very clear why. It seems that Ioulaum became dissillucioned with magic after the Fall of Netheril. He realized that in relying on Mystryl's Weave he was no different than the clerics who relied on divine power for their spells. Despite being a friend to the clergy of Mystra previous to Karsus' Folly, he may also have become disillusioned with her and her power. For this reason, he sought, and eventually discovered, a power source independent of the divine and the Weave both--psionics. Which is why he arranged to become an Elder Brain and so forth. This is why he hasn't gained wizard levels since the Fall--wizardry isn't his thing any more. He instead gained 20 levels of psion (included in his Elder Brain "template"). Once he's mastered his new form, he'll probably continue gaining more. Wait a few more centuries and he'll doubtless make a grand reentrance on the Faerunian scene with the first psionic mythallar (and perhaps an enclave of illithids to boot). So: 1. Divine (Clerics and so forth.) rely on power given and granted them by Divine Powers or whatever you want to call them. Divine "casters" rely on powersource of outside origin. If this powersource is taken away or not granted to them anymore they lose all power they had at that very second. They can no longer do anything. Divine COMPLETELY RELY ON 3rd PARTY TO GIVE OR NOT GIVE THEM POWER. 2. Arcanists/Mages/Wizards or whatever you want to call them, rely on power given to them or rather acess outside power source (the weave). Some of them are granted more acess than others like Larloch is. If this powersource goes boom or if their access to this powersource is denied all their power they have is gone. They can no longer do anything. WIZARDS/ARCANE COMPELTELY RELY ON 3rd PARTY TO GIVE/GRANT OR DENY THEM POWER. 3. Unlike magic, call it divine or arcane, psionics stems from the mind and body, rather than external sources. Please read that again. Psionics is the ability to harness, shape, and control natural forces through the power of the mind. The power source for psionics is Psion himself. Power is not taken or granted or anything remotely like that. 4. As we all know there is no better weapon than the mind (human brain in real life but in D&D lets just use term mind as in D&D there are other "races" on par with humans.) Psionics are all about the mind. Ioulaum realised that what he has is borrowed power that can be taken away just like that from him any second wether he likes it or not. He also something better and new... Psionics! Psionics is VERY flavorful concept and frankly said is great for the realms. A new type of powersource compeltely independent from any of the so called gods or other major powers. It is a power source these "gods" and other uber beings can not just grant or take away just like that. Ioulaum realised that and is now after NEW power that can not be taken away from him. A new power that has potential to surpass the existing divine and arcane or at least to be on par. When you have one of the best Arcanists ever give up arcane magic in order to study and rely on this new power you know there is something special to it. Thanks for taking time to read this, Liquid_Technique |
| jbsaff02-12-08, 06:19 PM | Tempest: I included you both for your work on Untapped Potential as well as your general posting on the forums. And of course, there are many others, some of whom I only know as historical figures at this point, but whos work still helped to drive my understanding of the system. |
| deadkoo02-12-08, 06:33 PM | @deadkoo While I am honored and thrilled to be sigged, you may want to fix that closing quote tag. ;) lol yea... BAD TAGS BAD TAGS! anyways, I love psions. I think that they can be incredibly fun to play. I have found a lot of things that at first glance seem incredibly broken. But, once you actually READ the rule then it makes sense(well most of the time). Be it a Telepath destroying the very essence of a creature or a shaper changing the planes to suit his mood, psions can be fun. But, I have yet to see a NORMAL psion last pound for pound against a sor/wiz. Pure damage in one round? maybe. In one encounter? probably. But, I have yet to have only one freaking encounter per day. As for a lot of people saying that well, psions can wear(EDIT cause I can't spell... hence why I don't play wizards:P) armour! ... They don't have any proficiencies to start with, and str is a psions dump stat(like wiz/sor.. most of them at least). so, what psion is gonna wear full plate and be able to move? As for psywarriors.. I am on the fence about them. I have never thought of them as being over powerful. the lack of BaB means that they can't get any of the really powerful psionic attack feats until later. And psionic focus hampers them from being killing machines. case in point, psions is as balanced as anything can be in this game. And for the record, I really don't see the point of this thread. The originator, as he said himself, has NEVER played psionics and has NO experience with it. Number one, how can he call it broken? and number 2, why does he want ppl to "prove him wrong" when he obviously isn't going to use it... bah. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 07:00 PM | @Jaxgaret: I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. When you say broken, it sounds to me like you are saying that certain types of characters are too powerful. When I say broken, I mean that using the rules in question makes wth game unplayable, whether due to too much power, too little power, undefined mechanics, or loose rules interpretation. Under my working definition, psions and wizards aren't inherently broken, but the metamind PrC is (10 minutes of awesome isn't worth sucking the rest of the day). Yes, I believe that Wizards are broken, because they introduce an imbalance in the game which I don't feel is necessary in the core rules. In a supplement, sure... but not in core. On the Bard/Fighter thing, which is more likely to disrupt a game: a spiked chain fighter or a bard? There is a reason that the bard isn't an iconic archtype. As others have said before, good 5th man, but not the best 5th man. You could compare a Fighter to a Psychic Warrior on power level and determine that the PsyWar is more powerful. But it's also one of the best balanced classes, by popular consensus, in the game. Being more powerful doesn't break the game, it just means that the PsyWar is still fun and useful later in the game, long after the Fighter has been pidgeon-holed into either sucking generally or resorting to combat tricks. It is a bit easier for a Bard to break a game via diplomancy than it is for a Fighter or PsyWar to break it via combat prowess, but I agree that they are all in the middle categories. Psionics is less breakable than magic. Following the Manifester Level cap solves 75-90% of the issues people think they have with psionics. The rest of it is houseruling a few powers. Think of all the things that psionics doesn't get: No free scaling. You have to pay for a more powerful effect. On the other hand, you get what you pay for and don't have to use overkill if the situation doesn't warrant it. Fewer resources. Both the psion and the wilder get fewer power points and powers compared to the resources available to their arcane counterparts. On the other hand, many psionic powers augment to include multiple power levels in one handy-dandy power. Powers don't scale up in level with augmentation. A full augmented Crystal Shard manifested by a level 20 Psion (so 20d6 of damage) is still a first level power. But again, on the other hand, the concentration check is still for a 1st level power. Many DCs don't scale with augmentation. And no, there isn't a good side to this one. Psionic PrCs never, never give full manifesting progression. This makes PrCs a nice option instead of required for maximum power. Psionics is simpler. Cleaner. More in line with how we think about magic in a fantasy world outside of the D&D game. It's versatile and powerful enough to handle just about any game. And it avoids so many of the areas that have proven problematic for arcane and divine magic. And so we use the system. We consider trading broken and convoluted abilities for solid, stable mechanics a fair bargain. Sure, we wish that there was more support. And yes, we realize that no system is perfect. But Psionics requires far less correction than magic. And you'll find that the most ardent supporters of the psionics ruleset are some of the most vocal opponents of using broken combinations. Tempest Stormwind, Bacris, Angellis, and many others have made a full time hobby of improving support while avoiding the broken. To paraphrase a sig, psionics isn't broken. It took us 3 and a half editions to get it into workable condition, but it isn't broken. Good summation of your opinion on the subject. I wish I had more time to play around with 3.5, I was thinking about introducing Psionics in it finally. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 07:03 PM | @OP Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you are just trying to stir up trouble. It appears this way because you are saying it is broken, defending it is broken, and not saying why it is broken. On top of that you say that casters/manifesters are broken vs pure melee types. Well, it is my current belief that this train of thought is correct atleast. Give us some reasons why psionics is more broken than magic or versus other classes. Until you do that you are going to wear out your welcome here really fast. P.S. I am honestly not trying to sound like a jerk. :) No, not at all. I honestly don't have enough real-world experience (i.e. any) to make a judgment either way, which is why I brought the question to the good (but some prickly and needlessly defensive apparently) people of this board. It just seemed to me that Psionics was almost as much stronger than non-manifesters than Magic was stronger than non-casters. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 07:04 PM | JI'd also like to add that in my experience, replacing magic with psionics, using pact magic, and adding the Tome of Battle results in a game where nearly everyone is *roughly* in the same power bracket. The psionic manifesters still start weak and climb high compared to the noncasters, but psionics is harder to break, and the game assumes you've got access to things only high-level mages can provide. The climb is less noticable due to brilliant design on the binder and martial adepts, plus the less-steep climb of psionics in the first place. Sounds good to me. |
| deadkoo02-12-08, 07:06 PM | You believe that magic adds an inbalance that doesn't need to be there? ok... well... that leaves, lets see, fights and rogues... everything else utilizes magic in its specials... And those classes need magic at later levels. wait, they wont GET to later levels, because everything they fight is based around magic. your argument is flawed. Magic IS DnD. Its what makes it work. If you don't like magic, then why don't you play D20 modern? not trying to be aggressive here, but I am failing to see the point of this discussion, sense you disagree with the basics and core of the game. If you don't agree with that, then there really isn't any point in this sense there is NO way of convincing you one way or the other. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 07:06 PM | And for the record, I really don't see the point of this thread. The originator, as he said himself, has NEVER played psionics and has NO experience with it. Number one, how can he call it broken? and number 2, why does he want ppl to "prove him wrong" when he obviously isn't going to use it... bah. Well, if you don't see the point of a thread, don't post in it. Simple, huh? And how is it obvious that I'm not going to use it? Do you know me IRL? No. Don't just jump to conclusions. My OP was really quite friendly compared to the tone your posts are taking. |
| deadkoo02-12-08, 07:09 PM | BTW, you say that you have NO experience in this, and then say that in YOUR opinion psionics is over powered.. I'm sry, but if a farmer came up to me, and said that in HIS opinion the firewall code I was writing was incorrect I would tell him to go to hell. Because, quite frankly, he has no idea what he is talking about. it has been said numerous times, read the FAQ at the top of the psionics page, it goes threw just about every arguement I have ever seen as to why psions are overpowered and explains them. So, and no offense meant here, but either do some research, or stop trying to sound like you know what your talking about. |
| deadkoo02-12-08, 07:11 PM | you said they add an imbalance that doesn't need to be there. you said they are broken. you ALSO say you have never used or have any knowledge of psionics. tell me plz, how can you say that something is broken when you have no experience with it? EDIT: Plz, I enjoy discussions, and if I come accross as aggresive I apologize, that is just my typing style. But, plz, if you wish to discuss something, then at least answer the obvious questions and points before moving on. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 07:17 PM | it has been said numerous times, read the FAQ at the top of the psionics page, it goes threw just about every arguement I have ever seen as to why psions are overpowered and explains them. They go over arguments as to why psionics is not more powerful than magic, but AFAICT it does not really address the inherent caster/non-caster power divide in 3.5. So, and no offense meant here, but either do some research, or stop trying to sound like you know what your talking about. When did I seem like I was trying to sound like I knew what I was talking about? I was asking a question of people more knowledgeable than I am on the subject, for pete's sake! |
| deadkoo02-12-08, 07:31 PM | Ok, then my apologizes. but when you counter someones arguement(or question it), I inherently believe that you have thoughts contrary to that ie that you know something they don't. And, for the record, no one has argued that(late game) non-casters are more powerful than casters. BUT w/o non-casters casters would die a very quick and very painful death. Its fairly easy to take out a caster on his own. a caster backed up with a tank, a striker, a healer/blaster, and a secondary is a LOT harder to kill. this is a game based on teams. If the group functions well, then imo it doesn't matter who gets the kill. as long as the group works together, they win in the end, a minimal amount of deaths occur(on the PCs I guess...) and that everyone has fun. I really enjoy playing support roles(bars, healers, and whatnot) but some people need to do 500 damage per round to make themselves happy. Thats ok with me, and its ok with them. My arguement, was that there is no way to make every class equal to each other. Because it is all dependant on the situation. Casters are all powerful? ok. a Demilich will put the majority of them in their place. or just throw encounter after encounter of cloakers at them. Every class has its strengths and its weakness'. Casters can be all powerful late game. So what? Pun-Pun can be all powerful before lvl 10. But that doesn't mean that everyone should play him. If you think that magic is too powerful, then simply run a low lvl magic campaign. Have it so that casters need .3-.5 times more XP to lvl up(which actually makes sense, as it would be harder to learn how to cast a fireball than how to swing a sword really fast) and lessent he amount of magical items PCs can have. My point is this, psionics are NO more "broken" than wizards, sorcerors, or clerics(much less druids). In fact, they are LESS broken than many of them, as 99.9% of psions don't have the staying power of the other casters. |
| AntiDjinn02-12-08, 08:07 PM | The simple fact is this: You can't make all classes perfectly equivalent unless you eliminate classes and make the game a flavorless homogenized tragedy. Even in games with a complete point-based character build (such as Champions or other HERO games) some builds are going to be better than others. So plain and simple: When you have a bell curve of power distribution, someone by definition has to be at the lower end of that curve. In this incarnation of the game it is the pure fighters who land in that zone. To say it is "broken" is simply to note that a normal distribution exists. The question then becomes: Is the curve so flat that it is pointless to use the classes at the low end, or is the SD low enough that some measure of central tendency (median, mode, or mean) can serve as an example against which others can be compared? In the case of arcane casters, the number of new spells, feats, and PrC (most of which feature full caster level progression) which have been added with each new book has seriously flattened the power curve. Those at the low end need not even apply. Psionics, obviously, has had nothing to do with this power creep since the only recent material we have seen has seriously nerfed it. If you are using all the "corrections" in Comp. Psi. without applying their equivalent nerfs to spell casters, then manifesters are down around the right inflection point of the curve. |
| Jaxgaret02-12-08, 08:12 PM | The simple fact is this: You can't make all classes perfectly equivalent unless you eliminate classes and make the game a flavorless homogenized tragedy. Even in games with a complete point-based character build (such as Champions or other HERO games) some builds are going to be better than others. So plain and simple: When you have a bell curve of power distribution, someone by definition has to be at the lower end of that curve. In this incarnation of the game it is the pure fighters who land in that zone. To say it is "broken" is simply to note that a normal distribution exists. The question then becomes: Is the curve so flat that it is pointless to use the classes at the low end, or is the SD low enough that some measure of central tendency (median, mode, or mean) can serve as an example against which others can be compared? In the case of arcane casters, the number of new spells, feats, and PrC (most of which feature full caster level progression) which have been added with each new book has seriously flattened the power curve. Those at the low end need not even apply. Psionics, obviously, has had nothing to do with this power creep since the only recent material we have seen has seriously nerfed it. If you are using all the "corrections" in Comp. Psi. without applying their equivalent nerfs to spell casters, then manifesters are down around the right inflection point of the curve. A very well reasoned and reasonable post. I basically agree with everything you say here. It is my belief that the distribution of the power curve in 3.5 D&D is too flat, and that was exactly the point I was trying to bring up; are casters and manifesters both significantly ahead enough of the curve to cause problems with core properties of the game? IMO full casters are, and I wanted to know the experts' opinion on whether full manifesters were as well. Perhaps I didn't word the OP as well as I could have, I should have spent more time articulating my point. Thanks AnitDjinn! |
| jbsaff02-12-08, 10:46 PM | It is my belief that the distribution of the power curve in 3.5 D&D is too flat, and that was exactly the point I was trying to bring up; are casters and manifesters both significantly ahead enough of the curve to cause problems with core properties of the game? IMO full casters are, and I wanted to know the experts' opinion on whether full manifesters were as well. Ah! Then we can answer that, while powerful, psionics does not sit as far out on the power curve. This is due to the design of the system and the lack of new (and potentially overpowering) powers and abilities in a multitude of splatbooks. With some care, new material can be created that works within the system design, providing new options while maintaining the power level. |
| Lycanthromancer02-12-08, 11:14 PM | Casters have an exponential power curve. Not only do they get more abilities with each level, their current abilities get more powerful as they level up, and their new abilities are more powerful than the abilities they gained last level that just increased in power this level. Non-casters are linear in progression. They tend toward gaining flat abilities (such as feats) that don't scale. At all. No matter how weak the casters start out at, and no matter how powerful non-casters start out at, if you go high enough, exponential progression will ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION beat out linear progression. PERIOD. Mathematical fact, I'm afraid. It just so happens that manifesters are somewhat exponential as well, though their rate of progression is much slower than even core Vancian casting. As others have stated, it's an inherent flaw in the system, and until 4.whatever comes along, we'll just have to live with it. Psionics are less powerful than the best casters, on par with the weaker casters, and better than non-casters. Being better than non-casters isn't necessarily a bad thing, however, as non-casters are, frankly, boring. I can do a summersault or pick a lock in real life. I can't alter reality itself in order to throw a fireball, or turn into a wolf, or fly above the battlefield with the power of my mind. This is about fantasy. It's about escaping the boundaries of the real world and flying on the wings of imagination. Playing a psion allows me the best of both worlds: it's powerful, yes, but not nearly as overpowered as central mechanics that are a standard part of the core game, around which the game was balanced. For my part, the major portion of the imbalance I see in the core magic ruleset is that the abilities were very BADLY thought-out. Nobody took a day or two to figure out which abilities could be combined to deal, say, 1,008,000d6 points of damage at 15th level. Or which abilities could grant utter invulnerability against anything before level 20, even against CR 250 critters. Or which abilities would grant a wizard the spellcasting abilities of a high level cleric AND druid with a single spell-slot (summon monster). Psionics, on the other hand, has very few loopholes to exploit. Not to say that there aren't any, but the number is surprisingly few. Ergo, it performs its job of replacing Vancian casting remarkably well, especially since the core classes are supposedly the benchmark against which other supplements are judged. And on that level, psionics is abso-figgin-lutely amazing. |
| The_Mess02-12-08, 11:44 PM | Just for reference, the Completely Scientific Rate the Classes Thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062) and the not-quite-final results thereof (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14758242&postcount=135). A few more votes and I'll do another update! |
| EvilCouch02-13-08, 01:03 AM | Casters have an exponential power curve. Not only do they get more abilities with each level, their current abilities get more powerful as they level up, and their new abilities are more powerful than the abilities they gained last level that just increased in power this level. Non-casters are linear in progression. They tend toward gaining flat abilities (such as feats) that don't scale. At all.Your basic premise is correct, but casters do not have an exponential power curve. Just about nothing in D&D has an exponential progression. The word you're looking for is "geometric". Arithmetic progression = 2d6+1, 2d6+2, 2d6+3 Geometric progression = 2d6, 3d6, 4d6 Exponential progression = 2d6, 4d6, 8d6 |
| Nephlite02-13-08, 07:07 AM | Your basic premise is correct, but casters do not have an exponential power curve. Just about nothing in D&D has an exponential progression. The word you're looking for is "geometric". Arithmetic progression = 2d6+1, 2d6+2, 2d6+3 Geometric progression = 2d6, 3d6, 4d6 Exponential progression = 2d6, 4d6, 8d6 True, but that term in under-used. |
| Bacris02-13-08, 07:46 AM | Maybe it's just my part of the country, but that's not how you'd define a geometric increase in power. "geometric progression: A sequence, such as the numbers 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, in which each term is multiplied by the same factor in order to obtain the following term. Also called geometric sequence." 1d6 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 is linear - each part increases by an average of 3.5. It is neither geometric nor exponential. |
| McPoyo02-13-08, 08:41 AM | It was much more obvious in 3.0 than 3.5. *Has fond memories of other players' 3.0 Harm spells killing planetoid sized oozes and the like, causing much distress to the DM* I played fighter to 20 once...it wasn't quite as weak as a lot of people make out (theoretical comparisons vs actual gameplay) but it was still pretty weak in comparison to the wizard and psion both. Neither one complained when I stood in front of them to take the hits after having their mobility spells disjoined, though. |
| archangel_arcanis_0702-13-08, 10:22 AM | It was much more obvious in 3.0 than 3.5. *Has fond memories of other players' 3.0 Harm spells killing planetoid sized oozes and the like, causing much distress to the DM* I played fighter to 20 once...it wasn't quite as weak as a lot of people make out (theoretical comparisons vs actual gameplay) but it was still pretty weak in comparison to the wizard and psion both. Neither one complained when I stood in front of them to take the hits after having their mobility spells disjoined, though. an that right there is the point. (almost) any full caster/manifester is going to get trashed if there isn't some kind of meat shield in between them and the nasty thing trying to kill them. Also as ironic as it sounds casters/manifesters have the harshest restrictions on them when role playing is involved. A good story and player playing their character as a person will make some decisions that are less than optimal because it fits. Do you still get powerful characters? Yes. Do they get to run amok through out the game world? Not really amok but the get to travel a lot. Non-casters have less issue with this. If i'm a druid i should be playing up that I gain my power from nature and my relationship with it. A fighter or rouge has no such restrictions on their source of power they just learn how to stab people better. In the end it doesn't matter what class any character is if the DM at the table isn't making the game fun for all. I could play a cleric and be weaker than the halfling fighter that doesn't use dexterity. Why? because if the DM severs my tie to my god for some reason i get nothing. How about walking into a dead magic area, yup boned there too. Perhaps a wizard that had his spell book taken, sorry you can only memorize read magic. And for the psion it could be as simple as the DM not letting them sleep to get back their power points. The point is it is up to the DM to make the game fun for all playing it and give each character a chance to shine and be the savior of the group. |
| CrimsonDeath02-13-08, 12:03 PM | In the end it doesn't matter what class any character is if the DM at the table isn't making the game fun for all. I could play a cleric and be weaker than the halfling fighter that doesn't use dexterity. Why? because if the DM severs my tie to my god for some reason i get nothing. How about walking into a dead magic area, yup boned there too. Perhaps a wizard that had his spell book taken, sorry you can only memorize read magic. And for the psion it could be as simple as the DM not letting them sleep to get back their power points. The point is it is up to the DM to make the game fun for all playing it and give each character a chance to shine and be the savior of the group. Well, of course any class can be useless if you take away its class features or render those abilities useless. How useful is the average Fighter after all his weapons have been sundered or stolen? And how is that fun for the person being hosed so that someone else gets a chance to shine? |
| archangel_arcanis_0702-13-08, 01:38 PM | i'm not advocating this tactic. I was just using extreme examples to get the point across to make sure that there are times when magic and psionics won't solve the problem and give the rest of the party a chance to do their thing. If a DM would constantly make the spell caster's and manifester's lives miserable like that i would walk out even if i wasn't playing one. Ultimately balance is up to the DM to help weak players make better characters while making power players have to share the spotlight. |
| Jaxgaret02-13-08, 05:11 PM | Just for reference, the Completely Scientific Rate the Classes Thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062) and the not-quite-final results thereof (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14758242&postcount=135). A few more votes and I'll do another update! That's awesome! Especially since I was the one that gave archerpwr the inspiration to create the thread :) |
| Jaxgaret02-13-08, 05:17 PM | Playing a psion allows me the best of both worlds: it's powerful, yes, but not nearly as overpowered as central mechanics that are a standard part of the core game, around which the game was balanced. For my part, the major portion of the imbalance I see in the core magic ruleset is that the abilities were very BADLY thought-out. Nobody took a day or two to figure out which abilities could be combined to deal, say, 1,008,000d6 points of damage at 15th level. Or which abilities could grant utter invulnerability against anything before level 20, even against CR 250 critters. Or which abilities would grant a wizard the spellcasting abilities of a high level cleric AND druid with a single spell-slot (summon monster). Psionics, on the other hand, has very few loopholes to exploit. Not to say that there aren't any, but the number is surprisingly few. Ergo, it performs its job of replacing Vancian casting remarkably well, especially since the core classes are supposedly the benchmark against which other supplements are judged. And on that level, psionics is abso-figgin-lutely amazing. Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. Hopefully I can get a little Psionics action in before 4e takes over. There's no real news about Psionics in 4e, beyond the fact that they will be included at some later point, right? |
| CrimsonDeath02-13-08, 05:36 PM | Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. Hopefully I can get a little Psionics action in before 4e takes over. There's no real news about Psionics in 4e, beyond the fact that they will be included at some later point, right? It's also been made public that there are certain things Psionics will be inherently better at than Arcane or Divine magic, and that Arcane and Divine magic have been weakened accordingly in those areas. |
| deadkoo02-13-08, 07:04 PM | Yea, wasn't mind influencing one of those? to actually make a telepath more powerful than a wizard at those things... for teh record, I <3 telepaths |
| Jaxgaret02-13-08, 08:00 PM | It's also been made public that there are certain things Psionics will be inherently better at than Arcane or Divine magic, and that Arcane and Divine magic have been weakened accordingly in those areas. Very cool. I like a lot of the stuff I see about 4e. I sure hope they did a good job on it. |
| archerpwr02-13-08, 08:33 PM | Or which abilities would grant a wizard the spellcasting abilities of a high level cleric AND druid with a single spell-slot (summon monster). I get the rest. Could you explain this one to me? |
| RadicalTaoist02-13-08, 10:10 PM | Summon some of the critters with spellcasting abilities of their own. I'd like to chime in and add that if you're measuring "broken" as "difficult to draw back into line" then Psionics certainly is not. You can bring the whole ruleset into serious nerfed line (as in, no teleportation for scry-and-dies, no problematic shapeshifting, no weirdly worded powers like Metaconcert) by cleanly deleting what, a dozen powers? |
| archerpwr02-13-08, 10:51 PM | Summon some of the critters with spellcasting abilities of their own. I recall seeing somewhere a rundown of summoned creatures' SLAs and spells. None ever have better casting than you do at minimum to summon the creature. |
| Tempest Stormwind02-13-08, 11:13 PM | I recall seeing somewhere a rundown of summoned creatures' SLAs and spells. None ever have better casting than you do at minimum to summon the creature. Except they have *different* ones, and it costs you one spell to get all of theirs (For the duration of the effect). Gate is the worst offender -- summon an 18th level cleric with SLAs on top of that *and* powerful weaponry... at 17th level. The Dragon Ally spells are other bad offenders (due to the duration), but the price is high... unless you Shadow Conjure them. Another one (less popular due to obvious cheeseballing) is the simple Planar Binding spells with the appropriate creature. I could cast Lesser Planar Binding to call one of these puppies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm#pseudonaturalT roll) at level 6, for instance. (Though you wouldn't summon it for its spellcasting, it *does* pack a CL 20 Unhallow.) |
| JimProfit02-14-08, 01:21 AM | I have a simple way to make the fighter viable with casters and make everyone even bassicaly. Magical weapons be class oriented, here's an example. Sword of Sick Sense of Humor: Damage: 1d8 Critical: 19-20 Multiplyer: x2 Requirement: Bard level 13 Effect: Those struck with the sword must make a will save DC 20 or become under the effect of Hideous Laughter spell. Caster level of this sword is 18. Axe Of The Legendary: Damage: 1d12 Critical: 18-20 Multiplyer: x4 Requirement: Fighter level 6. I know it kindof turns D&D into World of Warcraft, but it deffinitely helps balance **** out... |
| JimProfit02-14-08, 01:43 AM | Another one (less popular due to obvious cheeseballing) is the simple Planar Binding spells with the appropriate creature. I could cast Lesser Planar Binding to call one of these puppies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm#pseudonaturalT roll) at level 6, for instance. (Though you wouldn't summon it for its spellcasting, it *does* pack a CL 20 Unhallow.) That never occured to me. Next game im in im gonna be a sorcerer then do that and run like hell. XD |
| CrimsonDeath02-14-08, 03:49 AM | I recall seeing somewhere a rundown of summoned creatures' SLAs and spells. None ever have better casting than you do at minimum to summon the creature. The one I remember best is that Summon Nature's Ally IV can nab a Unicorn, which can heal 2d8+5 more HP using its SLAs than the Druid could using Cure Serious Wounds as a level 4 spell, plus cast Neutralize Poison if you happen to need that done too. Not sure what other relatively low-level ones there are. |
| Jaxgaret02-14-08, 09:52 AM | I'd like to chime in and add that if you're measuring "broken" as "difficult to draw back into line" then Psionics certainly is not. You can bring the whole ruleset into serious nerfed line (as in, no teleportation for scry-and-dies, no problematic shapeshifting, no weirdly worded powers like Metaconcert) by cleanly deleting what, a dozen powers? So there's less than a dozen poorly designed powers? Not bad. I don't care about limiting teleportation or shapeshifting. What would you consider the most problematic powers, RT? |
| RadicalTaoist02-14-08, 11:21 AM | Well, you have to differentiate between problematic stuff that's standard for casting in D&D (like Freedom of Movement and shapechanging) and then problematic stuff unique to psionics. Majority of the powers fall into the first category. If you wanted to err on the side of nerfing, remove from the XPH: Metamorphosis Affinity Field Freedom of Movement, Psionic The Teleport powers Metaconcert Empathic Transfer, Hostile Temporal Acceleration Schism Bestow Power Half of those deletions are unnecessary if you're playing at a power level consistent with most CRs, and most of those can be replaced by close rewrites. If you don't believe XP costs balance anything, remove Greater Metamorphosis, True Mind Switch, Psychic Reformation, and Psychic Chirugery. If you're REALLY paranoid, also delete Remote Viewing, Psionic Scrying, Psionic Contingency, and Psionic Dimension Door to utterly eliminate scry-and-die even at short ranges. This is going over the top on nerfs, though. Based on your standards, Jax, just ditch Metaconcert and Bestow Power, and come to a clear decision on what the hell ET:H. That will do you fine. |
| Eldritch_Lord02-14-08, 07:06 PM | Well, you have to differentiate between problematic stuff that's standard for casting in D&D (like Freedom of Movement and shapechanging) and then problematic stuff unique to psionics. Majority of the powers fall into the first category. If you wanted to err on the side of nerfing, remove from the XPH: Metamorphosis It's really not that bad if you don't let in Metamorphic Transfer, but if you're pulling out the nerf-bat I suppose it should go. |
| archerpwr02-14-08, 07:27 PM | Except they have *different* ones, and it costs you one spell to get all of theirs (For the duration of the effect). Gate is the worst offender -- summon an 18th level cleric with SLAs on top of that *and* powerful weaponry... at 17th level. The Dragon Ally spells are other bad offenders (due to the duration), but the price is high... unless you Shadow Conjure them. Another one (less popular due to obvious cheeseballing) is the simple Planar Binding spells with the appropriate creature. I could cast Lesser Planar Binding to call one of these puppies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/pseudonaturalCreature.htm#pseudonaturalT roll) at level 6, for instance. (Though you wouldn't summon it for its spellcasting, it *does* pack a CL 20 Unhallow.) The one I remember best is that Summon Nature's Ally IV can nab a Unicorn, which can heal 2d8+5 more HP using its SLAs than the Druid could using Cure Serious Wounds as a level 4 spell, plus cast Neutralize Poison if you happen to need that done too. Not sure what other relatively low-level ones there are. OK, summons are about as bad as I thought.you were talking about summoning creatures that can actually cast in your class better than you, which only gate does. Thanks. |
| Jaxgaret02-14-08, 11:29 PM | Well, you have to differentiate between problematic stuff that's standard for casting in D&D (like Freedom of Movement and shapechanging) and then problematic stuff unique to psionics. Majority of the powers fall into the first category. If you wanted to err on the side of nerfing, remove from the XPH: Metamorphosis Affinity Field Freedom of Movement, Psionic The Teleport powers Metaconcert Empathic Transfer, Hostile Temporal Acceleration Schism Bestow Power Half of those deletions are unnecessary if you're playing at a power level consistent with most CRs, and most of those can be replaced by close rewrites. If you don't believe XP costs balance anything, remove Greater Metamorphosis, True Mind Switch, Psychic Reformation, and Psychic Chirugery. If you're REALLY paranoid, also delete Remote Viewing, Psionic Scrying, Psionic Contingency, and Psionic Dimension Door to utterly eliminate scry-and-die even at short ranges. This is going over the top on nerfs, though. Based on your standards, Jax, just ditch Metaconcert and Bestow Power, and come to a clear decision on what the hell ET:H. That will do you fine. Thanks for taking the time to put together that list, RT. I had never seen a comparable "problem power" list before. |
| Oregwath02-15-08, 08:48 AM | I have a simple way to make the fighter viable with casters and make everyone even bassicaly. Magical weapons be class oriented, here's an example. Sword of Sick Sense of Humor: Damage: 1d8 Critical: 19-20 Multiplyer: x2 Requirement: Bard level 13 Effect: Those struck with the sword must make a will save DC 20 or become under the effect of Hideous Laughter spell. Caster level of this sword is 18. Axe Of The Legendary: Damage: 1d12 Critical: 18-20 Multiplyer: x4 Requirement: Fighter level 6. I know it kindof turns D&D into World of Warcraft, but it deffinitely helps balance **** out... They have rules for this in the DMG, page 282 in the sidebar. It discusses putting limits on the magical items. They list requirments on skill, class and alignment, but I have seen dm's add race, gender, religion, level and other sundries based off of this sidebar. |
| RadicalTaoist02-15-08, 11:42 AM | My list is going way overboard, but if you want to be perfectly safe, that does it. Now try that with the PHB core spell list. ;) |
| Lycanthromancer02-15-08, 11:45 AM | You'd only have to worry about a dozen or so spells. ... ... ... ... ...The rest would have to hit the scrapper. |
| Jaxgaret02-15-08, 05:35 PM | You'd only have to worry about a dozen or so spells. ... ... ... ... ...The rest would have to hit the scrapper. I think if you stuck only to Evocation and Enchantment, you'd be okay. |