[D&D 3.5] The Unconventional Wisdom of the Den

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:48 pm

Maxus wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:
Dominicius wrote:Really with psionics they should have got rid of power levels entirely and made it completely augmentation based.
It still suffers the same problem, though.
Increase the points or the augmentation mechanics, one.

Just the whole paying lots of points to keep your powers level-appropriate, when casters get that for free. You'd probably be better off having some powers be at will and some be use-activated, which each just cost one point. One point gets you the full, level-appropriate augment.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:45 pm

I'm always a bit puzzled by the hate for psionics on here. It works about as well as spellcasting, and while that's a not a ringing endorsement, it's enough to be usable in most games.

Sure, there are a bunch of powers that don't augment well or aren't worth the price. Just like with spells. You pick the good ones from among the chaff, and you get on with things. While certainly having less "I win" conditions than the big 3, you can summon some big stuff, buff yourself up pretty decently, toss out plenty of SoDs, and even blast semi-decently (better than most spells, anyway).

Not to mention, power points are a bit nicer than spell slots from a WSoD perspective. They just work how you expect them to, with no mental gymnastics required to justify them. I know the new hotness is abstract resource management, justified because cinematic, but meh, I'd rather have something simple and concrete. That isn't to say that psionics couldn't be improved - but again, not worse than spellcasting.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:54 pm

Well, I am not even a little bit shy of my fucking hatred for abstract resource management, but like I said, Psionics is not really much worse than spells.

There are some powers that are good unaugmented, that justify inclusion, if very few, and the rest of the time, yeah, you augment everything, so you pick level 1-3 powers that are good fully augmented, and you have 8 fully level appropriate abilities, instead of being a sorcerer, and having 2, and then 2 not as much, and then 4 mostly not level appropriate, and therefore, stackable buffs instead. I fail to see the problem.

I've played one a few times, and it's not any worse than playing a Rogue or a Sorcerer really. Yeah, most of the time, I'd prefer a Cleric/Wizard/Druid, but so what.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:26 pm

Complete Pshit - get this motherfucking divine magic out of my motherfucking psionics.

To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:29 pm

Oh, no argument on CPsi being crap. Or 3E psionics. The XPH is probably the only one to qualify as workable.

K · Post by K » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:38 am

The recent incarnation of Psionics is explicitly broken with things like boosting DCs and/or damage and/or effect with power points where base DnD magic is broken in a less systematic way. There are also several powers that obviously look like they were made by a fan and not a DM because they are so crazy.

I mean, I don't even know what they were thinking with True Mind Switch, but I do know that if I was a character in DnD Land I would have an immortal monster body by psionic means ASAP.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:16 pm

My biggest problem with Psionics would be its supporters. Anyone remember the old WotC boards? Christ, what a bunch of assholes.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:01 pm

Koumei wrote:My biggest problem with Psionics would be its supporters. Anyone remember the old WotC boards? Christ, what a bunch of assholes.

What do you mean? The whole "why psionics aren't ovepowered in a detailed list" guys?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:44 pm

Yes. Particularly those who worshipped Stormwind and put that huge thing in their sig, that ended with "Psionics changes everything. For the better."

And if you say "I'm not using psionics in my game because I don't like the flavour/I don't like the rules involved/It kind of requires you to change the game by including psionic monsters and psionic items/because I can't be fucked reading an entire book just on the off-chance someone wants to play it" they will scream and gibber at you - whereas banning anything else (be it a splatbook or a core class) is totally fine.

And they paved the way for the "It was published in a WotC book, and I bought/pirated it, therefore I am allowed to play this stuff and you have to incorporate stuff from the book to cater to my choice" crowd - it started with psionics. This is why I now, as a point of "Fuck you, Stormwind", go out of my way to say "No Psionics" for all games.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:27 pm

I usually allow psi characters, then go right back to not using psi monsters (save illithids and aboleths) or dropping psi items. I mean, all they really need are hats of smartness and cloaks of resistance right?

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:35 pm

Koumei wrote:The real problem is just that power point systems can't really work.

How many castings of Magic Missile (each taking its own action) would you have to be given for you to sacrifice a casting of Acid Fog?

If your answer was a number, rather than "Fuck you", your answer was wrong.

I take it you don't like the Versatile Spellcaster feat, then? Or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:48 pm

Damn straight on both accounts there.

duo31 · Post by **duo31** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:55 pm

I take it you don't like the Versatile Spellcaster feat, then? Or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed?

the difference with [versatile spellcaster] is that you are not trading stinking cloud for 4-5 magic missiles, you are trading 2 magic missiles for web or glitterdust.

A Beguiler w/ [Versatile Spellcaster] is awesome, you trade longevity for the ability to cast more level appropriate spells.

-duo

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:38 am

And if you say "I'm not using psionics in my game because I don't like the flavour/I don't like the rules involved/It kind of requires you to change the game by including psionic monsters and psionic items/because I can't be fucked reading an entire book just on the off-chance someone wants to play it" they will scream and gibber at you - whereas banning anything else (be it a splatbook or a core class) is totally fine.

And they paved the way for the "It was published in a WotC book, and I bought/pirated it, therefore I am allowed to play this stuff and you have to incorporate stuff from the book to cater to my choice" crowd - it started with psionics. This is why I now, as a point of "Fuck you, Stormwind", go out of my way to say "No Psionics" for all games.

hey you should have seen them when I voiced my opinions on troll of battle

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:05 am

I ask the rules gurus here: If an invisible guy has nondetection, does he require a CL check to be seen by true seeing, or does the true seeing ignore the nondetection?

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:25 am

Probably, but one could argue otherwise:

Nondetection:

"Abjuration...
The warded creature or object becomes difficult to detect by divination spells such as clairaudience/clairvoyance, locate object, and detect spells...... If a divination is attempted against the warded creature or item, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 11 + the caster level of the spellcaster who cast nondetection. If you cast nondetection on yourself or on an item currently in your possession, the DC is 15 + your caster level. "

I interpret the "such as" clause to be a list of examples of spells which are divinations, and Nondetect to apply against all spells which are divinations. You could try to argue that the "such as" clause is referencing a subset of divination spells, but I don't see how to support that.

You could also argue that the "attempted against" clause means that the divination needs to be targeted against the character warded by nondetection, but the targeting line of Locate Object (which is explicitly referenced in nondetection) is "Area: Circle, centered on you, with a radius of 400 ft. + 40 ft./level", so for nondetection to work against a spell that is used as an example of a spell it works against, it can't use other spells' targeting text as a trigger/

True Seeing:

"True Seeing
Divination
.....
The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things."

It's a divination. It sees invisible and it sees through illusions. It does not ignore abjurations - or this would be outright contradictory.

So when an abjuration which makes divinations require caster levels hits a divination that sees through illusions, that divination requires a caster level check.

K · Post by K » Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:33 am

Yeh, CL check is the one.

duo31 · Post by **duo31** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:08 am

In BG (I know, not a definitive source) if you have invis and nondetect up and someone casts true sight, they usually don't detect you. If you have a Harper pin or the cloak of Nondetect, then they won't see you.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:54 am

Psychic Robot wrote: hey you should have seen them when I voiced my opinions on troll of battle

Oh I must know, what happened?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:18 am

I actually like the concept of psionics. It, at least in 3E D&D, feels like a distinct power source with its own imagery and mythology. It has a mixture of New Agery with H.R. Gigerish Cosmic Horror which I like. That said, its implementation has been a complete and total shitbomb. It's like the d20 MOdernl sourcebooks. I like reading it and looking at the pictures but I'll be damned if I actually play it.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:00 am

Ok seriously, what part of the XPH is worse (as in, badly implemented) than core spellcasting? That "chaff" powers exist is not worse. That high-level powers can do crazy shit is not worse. I mean really, True Mind Switch is worse than the Solar Cascade? Or even than Simulacrum?

"I can't be arsed to read another book" is a legit reason not to have psionics in a game. "It's broken" / "It's science fiction" / "It changes the whole game" are dumbass ones.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:53 am

Ice9 wrote: "I can't be arsed to read another book" is a legit reason not to have psionics in a game. "It's broken" / "It's science fiction" / "It changes the whole
game" are dumbass ones.

See, I'm scratching my head as to why "It radically alters the balance of the game" and "It does not thematically line up with the world we've been playing in" are worse reasons than "I don't want to read another book". I mean, whether 3.5 Psionics do that or not is up to you and your group to hash out together, but that doesn't mean that anyone at the table is beholden to those rules and have to accept your psionic character just because WoTC published them in an official book.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:12 am

They're only dumbass reasons because they're wrong. Given that the psionic classes fall between "slightly less powerful than a caster" and "monk-esque", they're not changing the power curve. They don't require special psionic opposition because transparency is the default rule - i.e. dispel magic = dispel psionics, SR = PR, etc. And they don't have to change the feel or theme of the game, because their flavor is fairly mutable.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:15 am

Sure, the flavour is mutable. Shame nobody ever mutates it. The characters are always played as though they just stepped off the starship Enterprise - about the only way to prevent this would be to edit the book before they see it, using white-out and a pen to change all of the names for things.

And sure, the default is transparency, but they will want psychic stuff to crop up to remind everyone how special they are, and they will want special psychic items and crap (I am assuming here that most games magically tailor a lot of the items to things that the PCs will make use of). And they will still want to use the feats and stuff that are "for high-psi games only".

They always turn out to be annoying people anyway.

Not that it matters. After having to deal with those fuckers, I changed my policy to "No Psionics, because fuck Stormwind". Banning something for the purpose of annoying people I won't like (and thus dissuading them from joining the game, saving everyone a lot of trouble) is a totally acceptable way to roll, and so far the players have liked that method.

Desdan_Mervolam · Post by **Desdan_Mervolam** » Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:42 am

Nono, see, I don't care about that. I wasn't defending Psionics, I don't care if you think this specific set of rules works well or not.

You said that "I don't want to read another book" is a good reason to ban a book, while "This book's content will radically alter the balance of the game in ways I don't want to compensate for" and "The rules proposed in this book do not thematically line up with the setting we've been playing in" aren't. That is a bullshit position, and I want you to defend it.

So, let's change the example to something a bit more cut-and-dry: Tome of Magic. That book was a crock of bullshit that no one liked and no one used, but is an offical book in every way the Psionics Handbook is. So, let's say for some reason someone in your group comes up to you, who for the sake of argument is the GM, and says "I want to play a Binder". Allowing this will mean bringing in a PC who is flat-out worse than the rest of the party, and I will go out on a limb and say you never really had anything in place in your game that said there are quasi-deific things in your world that exist only to be bound shamanistically to people to give them power. This is something that will noticeably change the balance of the party in the game, and does not thematically line up with the rest of your setting (At least without a semi-major retcon to the cosmology of your setting). Can you honestly tell me you'd allow that character if you had read Tome of Magic and knew what a bag of ass your player was signing up for?