[4e] Psion Preview

[hogarth]

Because of the whole 'trade magic missile for fireball' thing going on, they can nova for longer than primary spellcasters, but then they become totally useless.

Seriously, do a side-by-side comparison of a sorcerer (not a wizard -- a sorcerer is a much closer match in terms of power) and a psion. The difference is minimal, except that there are tons of good spells to choose from and a handful of good psionic powers.

No, really -- I know you'll be tempted to respond right away, but I honestly suggest you do the side-by-side comparison. I have.

[Lago PARANOIA]

hogarth, I don't need to do a side-by-side comparison.

The fact that psions only have a handful of good powers doesn't matter. For one, they can't pick everything, but for two they can just spam their good powers repeatedly.

So after a sorcerer uses up all of their 5th level spell slots they go down to their 4th level spell slots. And so on. A Psion can use their 5th level powers more times than the sorcerer does due to their bullshit psionic points mechanics, but when they do they go completely empty.

Psionics do not do that. Since their effects do not auto-scale they're forced to augment their lower-level powers to make them appropriate. But then it makes us wonder why they don't just use their higher-level powers. The only time Psions break out of this pattern is when they find the Magic Equation for using a buff and sometimes forgoe blasting to use that.

[NineInchNall]

hogarth, I don't need to do a side-by-side comparison.

Actually, you do need to do a side-by-side comparison. Even if it's just spamming the best available damage powers without any modification, for simplicity's sake.

The wizard starts off doing more damage per round, equals the psion when he drops down to 8th and 7th, falls behind at 6th (maybe), then the psion runs the fuck out of pp. The wizard continues spamming 5th and below.

[Psychic Robot]

PR, I have no idea how you can say that Psionics was 'good' or 'the best' in any context.

3.5 psionics work fairly well. They're more balanced than Core D&D.

I have no idea how you can say I said that psionics are "good" or "the best" in any context.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Dude! C'mon!!

I have no idea how you can say I said that psionics are "good" or "the best" in any context.

3.5 psionics work fairly well. They're more balanced than Core D&D.

There's no way you could say 3.5E psionics were more balanced than core D&D. The entire system was unbalanced. They had many of the same idiotic loops, they had the same 'better than sword-based classes' problem, and they managed to introduce some new problems of their own.

The most you can do for defending psionics is to compare it to other shit. '3.5E psionics was only slightly less bad than the experience penalty for multiclassing!' or 'I'd let a psion into my game before I let a Spell Compendium'd, Monster Manual'd druid into my game!!!'. Or like what you just did; compare it to all of the brokenness in the system and claim that since psionics wasn't in aggregate as stupid as core D&D it wasn't that bad.

Psionics were pure shit. There were some mechanics--pound for pound-- worse than psionics, like the Monkey in a Barrel or Weapon Sizing but Psionics easily has to be the most effort put into a shitty subsystem in the entire edition. You can't do the same thing for psionics that you could do for even fantastically shitty systems like Alignment or Prestige Classing because psionics is built upon a broken system that has little benefit and the material that makes psionics suck is completely wedded to the system. Polymorphing sucked all that is ass in 3E, but polymorphing at least didn't make the Monster Manuals worthless.

[Psychic Robot]

There's no way you could say 3.5E psionics were more balanced than core D&D. The entire system was unbalanced. They had many of the same idiotic loops, they had the same 'better than sword-based classes' problem, and they managed to introduce some new problems of their own.

The most you can do for defending psionics is to compare it to other shit. '3.5E psionics was only slightly less bad than the experience penalty for multiclassing!' or 'I'd let a psion into my game before I let a Spell Compendium'd, Monster Manual'd druid into my game!!!'. Or like what you just did; compare it to all of the brokenness in the system and claim that since psionics wasn't in aggregate as stupid as core D&D it wasn't that bad.

Psionics were pure shit. There were some mechanics--pound for pound-- worse than psionics, like the Monkey in a Barrel or Weapon Sizing but Psionics easily has to be the most effort put into a shitty subsystem in the entire edition. You can't do the same thing for psionics that you could do for even fantastically shitty systems like Alignment or Prestige Classing because psionics is built upon a broken system that has little benefit and the material that makes psionics suck is completely wedded to the system. Polymorphing sucked all that is ass in 3E, but polymorphing at least didn't make the Monster Manuals worthless.

I have no idea what Monkey in a Barrel is, but psionics is less broken than Core 3e. Compare the psion to the wizard or cleric. Compare the possible cheese. Not liking the system != the system is broken.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The balance of the specific classes isn't really relevant to the value of the spell casting method.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I have no idea what Monkey in a Barrel is, but psionics is less broken than Core 3e. Compare the psion to the wizard or cleric. Compare the possible cheese. Not liking the system != the system is broken.

The spells they actually put into the system were often problematic. But the spellcasting system itself was fine.

The entire system of psionics was broken. Every power that was put into that polluted vehicle was suspect, even if they did shit like 'do an additional 1d6 point of damage per augment point'.

[Username17]

The Monkey Barrel Problem is the fact that under 3.5 rules, characters with low initiative scores who ambush enemies with high initiative scores get more surprise actions (in the case of archers, a lot more surprise actions) if anyone on "their side" is unaware that combat is beginning than if all of them are.

This means that characters get actual mechanical advantages if they put the wizard's familiar into a bag, box, or barrel, a fact which is as much fun as a barrel full of monkeys. And so, there you go: one of the early rules gorks memes.

The solution, by the way, is to get the fuck rid of surprise rounds. Then the monkey barrel problem vanishes and we stop punishing fighters and rogues for sneaking up on enemies successfully.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

PR: Monkey in a Barrel was a trick discovered a long time ago (I think it was by Josh, I'm not sure) that abused the surprise round rules.

It's predicated on the fact that since surprise rounds only allow one standard action, if you're a class that gets more mileage out of having only a standard action to play with (rather than standard + move), it is to your benefit to create as many surprise rounds as possible.

Problem: players could not always force surprise rounds on enemies. But surprise rounds start when any of the combatants are unaware of the other side. So the 'trick' would be to intentionally enter combat with one person unaware; that way during the surprise round monsters would be operating at half-efficiency while spellcasters operated at full-power. So rather than just have a self-appointed dumbass walk around all of the time with their eyes and ears covered, you grab a capuchin monkey (they're tiny) and put it in an environment where it can't see or hear anything.

That way, there would always be a surprise round and if you regularly fought melee mooks it put you at a significant advantage.

[Psychic Robot]

I see. Vancian vs. psionics--I was talking about the entire implementation, not the system itself, so we are discussing two different things.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And that's the ultimate problem with psionics. Racial Level Limits and Gate Cheese, as bad as they are, are actually easy fixes once you get down to them. Some broken things, like prestige classing, are actually pretty fun once you get past the problems and actually reward you for all of the work you put into it. Some broken things, like the alignment system, were completely unsalvagable but didn't actually hurt the game if people wouldn't let it.

3.5E Psionics are not in the same class of broken-ness. Fixing psionics would require completely rewriting at least two published hardback books from the ground up. And unlike, say, summoning you aren't actually rewarded with an interesting system once you're done. You could've salvaged everything you wanted out of the system just by borrowing the Warlock or Wizard spellcasting system and changing some words around.

Hell, psionics doesn't even have the benefit of being original. Savage Species made us cry actual tears of despair, but at least there was a reason for it existing. The only possible reasons psionics exists as its own subsystem is to A) give us a power source different from 'magic', a self-defeating goal in itself and B) use points because Final Fantasy did it. Well, guess what, fuckers? Mana was fine for Wizardry and Might and Magic and Dragon Quest because of the programming limitations of the game and because frankly those combats were not very tactical. Mana points in games like those are a concession to the demands of the medium. There's no excuse for use to use psionic points rather than ANYTHING.

[Psychic Robot]

Once upon a time, someone suggested allowing power points to refresh on a per-encounter basis. That wouldn't be so awful.

But what are the main problems with the psionic system as it stands, aside from unnecessary math? There were two things that struck me as really right:

1. 1 PP = 1d6+1 damage. (The only problem is that some of the powers don't scale quite so nicely.)
2. Augmenting powers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I see. Vancian vs. psionics--I was talking about the entire implementation, not the system itself, so we are discussing two different things.

Vancian spellcasting came first and while it had its problems also had some good things to it.

The good things that psionics do are already duplicated by the Vancian spellcasting system and psionics has problems with it that Vancian spellcasting does not. So how is psionics not objectively worse than spellcasting?

Oh, you mean on the whole? Well, Psychic Robot, Psionics only 'looks' more balanced than Vancian spellcasting because it doesn't get nearly as much attention or have nearly as much shit printed for it. If Psionics had anywhere near the same volume of material printed for it that spellcasting did, it would have all of the same old power loops and Quadratic Wizard and other such bullshit.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But what are the main problems with the psionic system as it stands, aside from unnecessary math? There were two things that struck me as really right:

Do you mean the 4E system?

I can't even be assed to care. What's the benefit? Why are we using that system instead of the core system?

[Psychic Robot]

Well, Psychic Robot, Psionics only 'looks' more balanced than Vancian spellcasting

Power Word: Condescension derp derp.

Psions are already better than fighters; they're just less better than clerics. The whole system is less broken than Core 3e, full stop and all that shit. That means no splatbooks for wizards and clerics to abuse. And even though Core D&D has more (broken) spells, it doesn't change the fact that the XPH does not--which, in turn, means that psionics, as a whole, are better balanced than Core D&D. Full stop again. The only really shitty class is the soulknife; even the wilder can be useful, despite its heavy emphasis on blastan.

[Psychic Robot]

But what are the main problems with the psionic system as it stands, aside from unnecessary math? There were two things that struck me as really right:

Do you mean the 4E system?

No, the 3e system.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Psions are already better than fighters; they're just less better than clerics. The whole system is less broken than Core 3e, full stop and all that shit. That means no splatbooks for wizards and clerics to abuse. And even though Core D&D has more (broken) spells, it doesn't change the fact that the XPH does not--which, in turn, means that psionics, as a whole, are better balanced than Core D&D. Full stop again.

First of all, stop saying Core D&D. It's misleading and you need to stop doing that.

Second of all, the broken spells do not break the system. You can just ignore or change the broken ones. Fixing all of the problematic spells would still leave the system intact. You can't do the same thing for psionics because the entire thing rests on a fundamentally broken system.

But what are the main problems with the psionic system as it stands, aside from unnecessary math? There were two things that struck me as really right:

1. 1 PP = 1d6+1 damage. (The only problem is that some of the powers don't scale quite so nicely.)
2. Augmenting powers

These strike you as right? These are the reasons why the psionics system is unsalvagable. The 1 PP = 1d6+1 damage is the reason why the system sucks so badly. A 35 damage fireball costs a 3rd level spell-slot. A thirty-six damage 'psionic fire blast' costs 8 power points, which makes it a 4.5 level spell.

[hogarth]

hogarth, I don't need to do a side-by-side comparison.

The fact that psions only have a handful of good powers doesn't matter. For one, they can't pick everything, but for two they can just spam their good powers repeatedly.

So after a sorcerer uses up all of their 5th level spell slots they go down to their 4th level spell slots. And so on. A Psion can use their 5th level powers more times than the sorcerer does due to their bullshit psionic points mechanics, but when they do they go completely empty.

Psionics do not do that. Since their effects do not auto-scale they're forced to augment their lower-level powers to make them appropriate. But then it makes us wonder why they don't just use their higher-level powers. The only time Psions break out of this pattern is when they find the Magic Equation for using a buff and sometimes forgoe blasting to use that.

Oh for Christ's sake.

Are you really saying that a 10th level psion who uses a 10 pp power 13 times is OMG BROKEN compared to a 10th level sorcerer who uses 4 5th level spell slots, 6 4th level spell slots, and a metric shitload of other spell slots?

Hint: Saying the words "nova" and "broken" over and over again isn't an argument.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Are you really saying that a 10th level psion who uses a 10 pp power 13 times is OMG BROKEN compared to a 10th level sorcerer who uses 4 5th level spell slots, 6 4th level spell slots, and a metric shitload of other spell slots?

Hint: Saying the words "nova" and "broken" over and over again isn't an argument.

Yes. It's fucking boring. There is no incentive for the psion to even take a sideways glance at other spells; sometimes they undermanifest a power if they're absolutely sure of a monster's power level to save PP.

In the Final Fantasy games, people stop casting Fire2 after they get Fire3 unless they can accurately judge the hit points of enemies they are facing and can cherry-tap them. It leads to the kind of repetitiveness that we hate in 4th Edition and I have no idea why you're defending it.

[mean_liar]

By-the-by, Magic of Incarnum was the biggest shitpile waste of effort in 3e, not psionics.

I am curious where this conversation goes, since I never used a lot of psionics and simply haven't examined them.

I understand why augmenting is bad, since it means that instead of using a sliver of your tiered amount of power (high, medium, and low), you can generally just spam high powered stuff and then Rope Trick yourself to a rest, but is that a correct understanding? Is that how it goes?

[hogarth]

Yes. It's fucking boring. There is no incentive for the psion to even take a sideways glance at other spells; sometimes they undermanifest a power if they're absolutely sure of a monster's power level to save PP.

In the Final Fantasy games, people stop casting Fire2 after they get Fire3 unless they can accurately judge the hit points of enemies they are facing and can cherry-tap them. It leads to the kind of repetitiveness that we hate in 4th Edition and I have no idea why you're defending it.

So it's not broken, it's boring? Good job moving the goalposts.

Every time I hear the argument "psionics is broken" and ask for details, it boils down to one of two things:

• "Overchanneling is broken"
• "Power X/Y/Z is broken"

Complaining about a couple of feats and a handful of powers doesn't mean that psionics is FAIL any more than a couple of broken feats and/or spells means that Vancian spellcasting is FAIL.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Yes. It's fucking boring. There is no incentive for the psion to even take a sideways glance at other spells; sometimes they undermanifest a power if they're absolutely sure of a monster's power level to save PP.

In the Final Fantasy games, people stop casting Fire2 after they get Fire3 unless they can accurately judge the hit points of enemies they are facing and can cherry-tap them. It leads to the kind of repetitiveness that we hate in 4th Edition and I have no idea why you're defending it.

So it's not broken, it's boring? Good job moving the goalposts.

Every time I hear the argument "psionics is broken" and ask for details, it boils down to one of two things:

• "Overchanneling is broken"
• "Power X/Y/Z is broken"

Complaining about a couple of feats and a handful of powers doesn't mean that psionics is FAIL any more than a couple of broken feats and/or spells means that Vancian spellcasting is FAIL.

Nice straw man there.

I understand why augmenting is bad, since it means that instead of using a sliver of your tiered amount of power (high, medium, and low), you can generally just spam high powered stuff and then Rope Trick yourself to a rest, but is that a correct understanding? Is that how it goes?

Pretty much.

[Meikle641]

In the last two years or so I've played 3.5 Psionics classes, I've never really found them to be all that bad. I hate playing vancian casters, so the fluidity of it and the ease of use made me love it.

I rarely have ever run out of PP, even with several encounters. Only rarely have I ever felt underpowered by not fully-augmenting powers, but typically that was due to terrain or planar effects stopping me from doing something else.

Aside from any power issues, the thing I've enjoyed most from psionics is that the manifestation types are usually whatever the fuck you want. Auditory? Choose a sound. Visual? Choose something. Material? Chocolate rain, grass growing for a second, whatever.

Very handy for reflavouring, or making a character feel unique.

[Psychic Robot]

First of all, stop saying Core D&D. It's misleading and you need to stop doing that.

Second of all, the broken spells do not break the system. You can just ignore or change the broken ones. Fixing all of the problematic spells would still leave the system intact. You can't do the same thing for psionics because the entire thing rests on a fundamentally broken system.

First of all, saying "Core D&D" is not at all broken, and second of all, I don't even know what the fuck you're arguing about anymore.

These strike you as right? These are the reasons why the psionics system is unsalvagable. The 1 PP = 1d6+1 damage is the reason why the system sucks so badly. A 35 damage fireball costs a 3rd level spell-slot. A thirty-six damage 'psionic fire blast' costs 8 power points, which makes it a 4.5 level spell.

How is a linear increase in power for a linear increase in cost a bad thing?