Your opinion on psionics

[JoshuaZ]

Not if you want to do, for example, Necromancy (at least, as far as I can tell).

Yes, necromancy is one thing that psionics doesn't do well at all with the standard material. There are third party and homebrew things, but I agree that it doesn't do that naturally.

None of the exploits that break the game are particularly easy to do accidentally.

The first 3.5 character I ever played was a battlefield control wizard. I wasn't tactically smart nor had I any familiarity with any forums or the like. The character ended up making CR equivalent encounters much easier than they should have been. Different tables have different optimizations levels and for many of the low op levels of play, breaking things with wizards is pretty easy.

Sure. I'm not at all contesting that. But the post I responded to is suggesting that there is a fundamentally different paradigm for the power of Wizards, Sorcerers, and the like which makes them broken in a way that requires a ground up rebuild that Psionics does not. As long as both systems just have a list of broken stuff (even if one is longer than the other), that's simply not true.

A large enough difference in degree eventually becomes a difference in kind. To use an obvious example: if psionics only had a single power that was really problematic, would you still make the argument that it is just a single list?

The fact that Wizards can prepare new spells every day is pretty minor. It makes downtime spells better, and it makes divinations better. Those are good spells, but if you can't build an effective Wizard without fabricate et al or legend lore et al, you're not trying.

These differences matter, and they aren't the only things. Are you going to be meeting the king tomorrow? Oh, let's go prep the happy fun diplomacy spells. Are you expecting to be fighting undead? Yay, spells for that. Etc.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, you are actually required to have a raise dead equivalent by mid levels, because at that point people start throwing around save or dies. Your choices are to get everybody in the party immunity to all of them, accept a steady stream of replacement characters, or have some raise dead effects. It seems obvious which of those is least disruptive (pro tip: it is the one Psionics doesn't do).

Not really at multiple levels. First, one can always have NPCs who are higher level. Second, there's pretty strong argument that resurrection magic should have always been outside player agency in general or at least weakened. Heroes of Horror has some nice suggestions on how to do this. And if your concern is things like Save or Die by itself then psionic revivify works fine.

But Wizards can also do this! The Wizard is totally able to burn lower level spell slots instead of higher level ones. The difference is that he can't light those slots on fire for more high level ones. This is a good thing.

It is *different.* Both have advantages and disadvantages. Spells work fundamentally differently from powers since they have damage which scales with caster level (rather than paying more resources) but generally capped maximum effects.

I don't read a lot of sword and sorcery, but the fantasy I do read mostly doesn't use spell points. Bending seems to be at-will unless you've been hit with an attack that gives you the "can't bend" debuff. Most fantasy I've seen works on something closer to a Drain set up. What fantasy mages do you think behave like they have a bunch of power points?

I don't know what you mean by a "Drain set up" - but obvious examples would be the Belgariad, Night Watch, the Stormlight Archives, Schooled in Magic. Heck, even Dragonlance, which is nominally a D&D setup treated wizards sometimes this way. And a large amount of shlocky 1970s and 1980s fantasy functioned this way. It also worth noting that many other tabletops use a system closer to spell points and work just find. Exalted is the most obvious example.

This makes it even worse. Lower level spells don't just have smaller numbers than higher level ones, they are also qualitatively inferior. control winds isn't just "bigger" or "stronger" than gust of wind, it lasts longer, has a wider range, and can do different things. If using a low level spell to a numerically appropriate effect costs the same as using a level appropriate spell to a numerically appropriate effect, no one will ever do it.

And yes, people do use augmented powers all the time. Let's look at examples why. Let's say I have two energy offensive powers, Energy Ball and Energy Missile (I really like being able to fry things different ways), and I'm a level 7 psion. In one situation, I might have three enemies left, but I estimate that an unaugmented Energy Missile isn't going to probably be enough (or maybe I want to capture them alive if possible), and the enemies might be near bystanders so I don't want to use a full on Energy Ball, or they might be spread away from each other. So I augment the Energy Missile by 2 points, using 5 pp total rather than the full on Energy Ball. Later, we're fighting a single serious danger and I won initiative so no one is near it yet, I unleash a full 7 point Energy Ball. One can easily construct other similar situations.

[digiman619]

Not if you want to do, for example, Necromancy (at least, as far as I can tell).

That's a fair point. The Psthfinder version introduced an entire new discipline to cover that (in The Seventh Path), but that's a legit gap in 3.5's psionics.

None of the exploits that break the game are particularly easy to do accidentally.

Summon Monster and Polymorph immediately leap to mind.

The fact that Wizards can prepare new spells every day is pretty minor. It makes downtime spells better, and it makes divinations better. Those are good spells, but if you can't build an effective Wizard without fabricate et al or legend lore et al, you're not trying.

The fact that they can swap out their spells into entirely new load-outs if one if failing is literally the difference between Tier 1 & Tier 2.

But Wizards can also do this! The Wizard is totally able to burn lower level spell slots instead of higher level ones. The difference is that he can't light those slots on fire for more high level ones. This is a good thing.

Except, and this is the important thing; the spell scale when they do. When a wizard first learns fireball, it'll do 5d6 damage in exchange for its 3rd level spell slot. Similarly, a 5th level psion manifesting energy burst will also do 5d6 damage for 5 PP. By the time that wizard gets to be 10th level, the fireball will still only cost one 3rd level spell slot, but will now do 10d6 damage, but the psion will still only get a 5d6 energy burst if he pays 5PP. He can still get a 10d6 energy burst, but it'll cost him 10 PP. See the difference?

I don't read a lot of sword and sorcery, but the fantasy I do read mostly doesn't use spell points. Bending seems to be at-will unless you've been hit with an attack that gives you the "can't bend" debuff. Most fantasy I've seen works on something closer to a Drain set up. What fantasy mages do you think behave like they have a bunch of power points?

The look at Spheres of Power. It's for Pathfinder, so it'll take a little bit of back-porting/updating, but it does pretty much what you claim to want.

This makes it even worse. Lower level spells don't just have smaller numbers than higher level ones, they are also qualitatively inferior. control winds isn't just "bigger" or "stronger" than gust of wind, it lasts longer, has a wider range, and can do different things. If using a low level spell to a numerically appropriate effect costs the same as using a level appropriate spell to a numerically appropriate effect, no one will ever do it.

Except by the time you can throw 6-9th level spells around, you weren't going to bother with your 1st-3rds anyway. When was the last time you played a adventure with 15th level characters that cared one iota about a 2nd level spell?

[Nifft]

If you have spell slots, you are mandated to cast at least as many 2nd level spells as you have 2nd level slots. If you have spell points, you are not mandated to cast any 2nd level spells. Which of those seems like it results in you casting more 2nd level spells?

Your arguments are completely wrong about basically everything.

Memorizing six copies of Knock does not mandate that any Knock spells are cast that day.

In plain language: if you memorize six 2nd level spells, nothing whatsoever mandates that any of those spells ever get cast.

I'm not sure if you're trying for humor here. If not, you may want to re-think your position.

[PsyBomb]

Maybe if you had, like, examples of low level powers people pump augments into? Because looking at the list, most stuff seems to get outclassed. energy bolt seems largely inferior to the higher level AoE powers. recall death seems much better than pumping up recall agony.

I like easy questions on the Internet. Nice change of pace.

Look at any of the SRD power lists, and look for almost literally anything that has the A next to it for Augmentable. Pop open my Dread guide for multiple examples as well. Even as individually weak powers as _mind thrust_ stay relevant through an entire career just by virtue of being able to slam exactly as hard as needed. _Battlesense_ is an example from the Vialist list, literally allowing you to tailor custom buffs on the fly as appropriate, scaling quantity and magnitude as needed by level via augments.

I can go on, but what you are trying to argue has been the entire point of the system since 3.0.

[Cosi]

The first 3.5 character I ever played was a battlefield control wizard. I wasn't tactically smart nor had I any familiarity with any forums or the like. The character ended up making CR equivalent encounters much easier than they should have been. Different tables have different optimizations levels and for many of the low op levels of play, breaking things with wizards is pretty easy.

If a BFC Wizard is going to break stuff, I feel like a Psion is probably going to break stuff too.

A large enough difference in degree eventually becomes a difference in kind. To use an obvious example: if psionics only had a single power that was really problematic, would you still make the argument that it is just a single list?

Sure, but my concern with Malimar's statement (that magic needs "a total revamp to knead out all the problems") is at least as much about overstating the problems with magic as it is with understanding the problems with psionics. I think you can fix 90% of magic by banning spells that change your shape, spells that give permanent minions, and spells that give extra actions. That hardly strikes me as a "total revamp".

These differences matter, and they aren't the only things. Are you going to be meeting the king tomorrow? Oh, let's go prep the happy fun diplomacy spells. Are you expecting to be fighting undead? Yay, spells for that. Etc.

Yes, non-magic foreknowledge helps too. But there's equally a risk that you think the tomb is full of zombies, prepare a bunch of command undeads to pwn some zombies and then lose to a tomb that is actually full of traps and demons. If you commit too much on the basis of whatever intelligence you've gathered, you risk losing when it turns out to have been bad.

I don't know what you mean by a "Drain set up" - but obvious examples would be the Belgariad, Night Watch, the Stormlight Archives, Schooled in Magic. Heck, even Dragonlance, which is nominally a D&D setup treated wizards sometimes this way. And a large amount of shlocky 1970s and 1980s fantasy functioned this way. It also worth noting that many other tabletops use a system closer to spell points and work just find. Exalted is the most obvious example.

Drain is where casters using magic makes them weaker. Looking at your list, the Belgariad actually seems to be Drain rather than Spell Points. Apparently characters are physically exhausted after using powerful magic, which they wouldn't be if they ran out of spell points

I haven't read any of the books you've mentioned, so I can't really speak to them, but magic in fiction tends to be Drain (Belgariad, House of Blades), At-Will (Avatar, Harry Potter), or setting specific (Mistborn). Very little uses either Spell Points or Spell Preparation straight up.

And yes, people do use augmented powers all the time. Let's look at examples why. Let's say I have two energy offensive powers, Energy Ball and Energy Missile (I really like being able to fry things different ways), and I'm a level 7 psion. In one situation, I might have three enemies left, but I estimate that an unaugmented Energy Missile isn't going to probably be enough (or maybe I want to capture them alive if possible), and the enemies might be near bystanders so I don't want to use a full on Energy Ball, or they might be spread away from each other. So I augment the Energy Missile by 2 points, using 5 pp total rather than the full on Energy Ball. Later, we're fighting a single serious danger and I won initiative so no one is near it yet, I unleash a full 7 point Energy Ball. One can easily construct other similar situations.

That seems kind of contrived to me. Most of the time if you're in the position of wanting to do very little damage, the correct solution is to have a martial or Gish solve it without burning any daily resources.

Summon Monster and Polymorph immediately leap to mind.

summon monster doesn't really break the game. You get a minion that is several levels lower than you for a few rounds. The best use-case is that you get niche SLAs, but you are not going to figure that out by dumb luck. polymorph is not really that bad if you aren't dumpster diving for forms. If you're just turning into a bear, that's not really broken compared to, say, dropping black tentacles on the enemy. polymorph breaks when you dumpster dive and break inheritance.

Except, and this is the important thing; the spell scale when they do. When a wizard first learns fireball, it'll do 5d6 damage in exchange for its 3rd level spell slot. Similarly, a 5th level psion manifesting energy burst will also do 5d6 damage for 5 PP. By the time that wizard gets to be 10th level, the fireball will still only cost one 3rd level spell slot, but will now do 10d6 damage, but the psion will still only get a 5d6 energy burst if he pays 5PP. He can still get a 10d6 energy burst, but it'll cost him 10 PP. See the difference?

Yes, psionics is punishing you for using your low level spells. How does this make you want to use low level spells?

The look at Spheres of Power. It's for Pathfinder, so it'll take a little bit of back-porting/updating, but it does pretty much what you claim to want.

Uh, what? I have no idea how you think this was a response to what I posted. I was asking for mages in fantasy that use systems that behave like spell points. I am totally happy with magic as it stands in D&D (maybe split combat and downtime powers then switch to Recharge Magic).

Except by the time you can throw 6-9th level spells around, you weren't going to bother with your 1st-3rds anyway. When was the last time you played a adventure with 15th level characters that cared one iota about a 2nd level spell?

knock. restoration. identify. silent image. alter self. rope trick. protection from evil. desecrate.

Those are first or second level spells I could see using at 15th level, and that's just in core. Pop that up to 3rd or 4th level and that list goes up. Similarly if you pull from outside core.

Memorizing six copies of Knock does not mandate that any Knock spells are cast that day.

Alright, fair cop that "cast" is wrong. You are mandated to use resources on however many 2nd level spells. You cannot cash those knocks in for cloudkill, so they either do knock or nothing.

Even as individually weak powers as _mind thrust_ stay relevant through an entire career just by virtue of being able to slam exactly as hard as needed. _Battlesense_ is an example from the Vialist list, literally allowing you to tailor custom buffs on the fly as appropriate, scaling quantity and magnitude as needed by level via augments.

mind thrust is a will negates blast. Wouldn't I rather have dominate, which is a will negates recruitment?

I can't find battlesense. It doesn't seem to be a SRD power. Where should I look for that?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You're dipping into setting specific material (and pretty obscure setting specific material at that) to get something which the Cleric gets for waking up in the morning. This seems very iffy, and it doesn't get you anywhere on the rest of the Cleric suite. Take, for example lesser restoration. It comes online at 3rd level. The regular version shows up at 7th. Psionics doesn't get anything equivilent until 11th level (per SRD, maybe there's something in Complete Psionic or wherever).

Body purification is the same level as lesser restoration and can be made into psionic tattoos. This is -exactly- the equivalent of potions of lesser restoration. As for psionic restoration being a higher level, so what? It's still an equivalent available through psionics.

I won't pretend that wholesale replacing vancian with psionics doesn't make caster-types more item dependent to get the full range of effects but that's more a feature than a bug, given that caster's lack of item dependence is part of what makes the gap between them and non-casters so wide.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I'm quite fond of Psionics, as a system. It is no more powerful than the Vancian Magic of Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids et al. and is in many cases less so, but on a practical level, they're about even*. There are some things Psionics does better than Arcane and Divine magic, primarily action economy loops and the like, but on the whole there's no mechanical reason to disallow Psions if you're allowing the other T1/T2 classes.

As far as being a complete subsystem, Psionics has some issues. It doesn't do healing particularly well (especially healing targets other than the caster), it doesn't do summoning particularly well (especially if you're using the frankly ludicrous Complete Psionic nerfs), it doesn't really do necromancy at all, and I find Specialization preferable to having to pick a Discipline (it's like banning all the other schools, rather than focusing on one in particular), but there's ways around that. But still, on the whole, a Psion can almost always contribute, regardless of the challenge they are faced with.

I enjoy the fluff well enough, and I find the mechanics are simple and flexible enough for my tastes. Personally I find that the flexibility of casting based on a point system preferable to a system which requires me to decide how many of a given effect I will need on a given day beforehand. Frankly, I find the notion that I should no longer be able to make something slippery if I still have the magical wherewithal to change myself into a Adult Gold Dragon because I already cast the two iterations of Grease I prepared is absurd. But such is the nature of Vancian casting. That a Psion can choose to allocate their supernatural resources to manifest Energy Ray or Hail of Crystals, as appropriate, doesn't mean that the Psion will do fewer things, it means that they won't be forced to use Hail of Crystals when an Energy Ray will do. And that is, in fact, a good thing.

In the end, the greatest problem I have is lack of support for Psionics in 3.5, compared to what is available for their caster counterparts. Otherwise, Psionics are awesome.


* Okay, theoretically, with Psychic Chirurgery, Spell-to-Power Erudites, and Alternative Source Spell in play, your Psion can pick up every spell and power in the game and be able to cast all of them at any time, all day long, but at that level of optimization one must likewise recognize that the Vancian casters can do that too, so the advantage is moot.

[Nifft]

Alright, fair cop that "cast" is wrong. You are mandated to use resources on however many 2nd level spells. You cannot cash those knocks in for cloudkill, so they either do knock or nothing.

That's also wrong.

Can you guess why?

... tick

... tock

... ding

Because many competent casters can convert useless prepared slots into useful spells on the fly. A Druid could have converted those worthless prepared spells into Summon Nature's Ally. A Wizard 5+ could have converted those bad spell choices into any Divination he knows.

The ability to convert one resource into another increases utility.

Psions have this ability inherently.

Wizards have to pay a feat for it -- and they gladly do, because it's a great increase in utility.

This fact is the opposite of what you're trying to argue.

You're trying to argue something very stupid.

[Cosi]

Body purification is the same level as lesser restoration and can be made into psionic tattoos. This is -exactly- the equivalent of potions of lesser restoration. As for psionic restoration being a higher level, so what? It's still an equivalent available through psionics.

Burning permanent resources for the ability to keep adventuring seems like a big problem, as does waiting half the game to deal with negative levels. This isn't the part of casters that overshadows anyone, this is the part of casters that keeps the party functional after fighting a Wight.

I won't pretend that wholesale replacing vancian with psionics doesn't make caster-types more item dependent to get the full range of effects but that's more a feature than a bug, given that caster's lack of item dependence is part of what makes the gap between them and non-casters so wide.

Casters not being item dependent is good. Item dependency is bad for the game. We should try to make Fighters more like Wizards in this respect, not the reverse.

Because many competent casters can convert useless prepared slots into useful spells on the fly. A Druid could have converted those worthless prepared spells into Summon Nature's Ally. A Wizard 5+ could have converted those bad spell choices into any Divination he knows.

But they can't turn them into cloudkill or wall of thorns. Having a bunch of stuff you have to spend on niche options - even a variety of niche options - is different than having a single pool that powers your good options and your niche options. Being able to trade A for B is not the same as being able to trade A for C.

EDITED: Clarified I meant permanent resources.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Being able to trade A for B is not the same as being able to trade A for C.

Versatile Spellcaster would like a word with you...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Burning resources for the ability to keep adventuring seems like a big problem, as does waiting half the game to deal with negative levels. This isn't the part of casters that overshadows anyone, this is the part of casters that keeps the party functional after fighting a Wight.

Given that psi-tatts are potion equivalents, some of the weight of keeping everyone on their feet is taken off of the manifester and the game's presented rules produce more gold than you're expected to spend on permanent gear precisely -because- expendables are supposed to be in common use. Power stones can get you psionic restoration as early as you need it.

Casters not being item dependent is good. Item dependency is bad for the game. We should try to make Fighters more like Wizards in this respect, not the reverse.

Gonna go ahead and -completely- disagree with you. Whether items should or shouldn't be such a major factor is a matter of taste. The problem is not the dependency itself but that it's very inequally applied to the game's classes. See virtually -any- CRPG.

[Nifft]

I'm quite fond of Psionics, as a system. It is no more powerful than the Vancian Magic of Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids et al. and is in many cases less so, but on a practical level, they're about even*. There are some things Psionics does better than Arcane and Divine magic, primarily action economy loops and the like, but on the whole there's no mechanical reason to disallow Psions if you're allowing the other T1/T2 classes.

As far as being a complete subsystem, Psionics has some issues. It doesn't do healing particularly well (especially healing targets other than the caster), it doesn't do summoning particularly well (especially if you're using the frankly ludicrous Complete Psionic nerfs), it doesn't really do necromancy at all, and I find Specialization preferable to having to pick a Discipline (it's like banning all the other schools, rather than focusing on one in particular), but there's ways around that. But still, on the whole, a Psion can almost always contribute, regardless of the challenge they are faced with.

I enjoy the fluff well enough, and I find the mechanics are simple and flexible enough for my tastes. Personally I find that the flexibility of casting based on a point system preferable to a system which requires me to decide how many of a given effect I will need on a given day beforehand. Frankly, I find the notion that I should no longer be able to make something slippery if I still have the magical wherewithal to change myself into a Adult Gold Dragon because I already cast the two iterations of Grease I prepared is absurd. But such is the nature of Vancian casting. That a Psion can choose to allocate their supernatural resources to manifest Energy Ray or Hail of Crystals, as appropriate, doesn't mean that the Psion will do fewer things, it means that they won't be forced to use Hail of Crystals when an Energy Ray will do. And that is, in fact, a good thing.

It's interesting to note that 5e basically stole the Psionics chassis -- including points to cast spells, with the spell-point variant, or in core with a Sorcerer who can freely convert slots into points & points into slots -- and they implemented some neat conventions to reward learning & using higher-level spells, instead of merely buffing up low-level spells.

For example:
- Burning Hands (1st level) deals 3d6 fire damage, and increases +1d6 per spell slot level above 1st.
- Fireball (3rd level) deals 8d6 fire damage, and increases +1d6 per spell slot level above 3rd.
- Cone of Cold (5th level) deals 8d8 cold damage, and increases +1d8 per spell slot level above 5th.

I think Psionics could use a similar convention, which gives you a non-linear benefit for learning a higher-level power.

At the other end, Psionics could use something like the CMage [Reserve] feats to avoid that icky feeling of picking up a crossbow.

[Cosi]

Versatile Spellcaster would like a word with you...

I am totally willing to say that Versatile Spellcaster is bad for all the reasons psionics is bad. It is, however, a different thing from Spontaneous Divination or Druid spell conversion.

Given that psi-tatts are potion equivalents, some of the weight of keeping everyone on their feet is taken off of the manifester and the game's presented rules produce more gold than you're expected to spend on permanent gear precisely -because- expendables are supposed to be in common use. Power stones can get you psionic restoration as early as you need it.

Expendables are supposed to be in common use in a party with a Cleric covering for status conditions. Also, Fighters already don't get the gold they need from WBL, so taking more away from them in an effort to nerf casters seems bad.

Gonna go ahead and -completely- disagree with you. Whether items should or shouldn't be such a major factor is a matter of taste. The problem is not the dependency itself but that it's very inequally applied to the game's classes. See virtually -any- CRPG.

I don't think we should draw lessons from CRPGs. That's a fundamentally different paradigm from TTRPGs.

Item dependency in D&D is pretty unambiguously bad. The items people are dependent on are generic bonuses, which feel bad when you don't have them (because you aren't level appropriate) but don't feel good when you have them (because they don't do anything interesting). Maybe the game should assume some level of items, maybe it shouldn't, but as it currently exists magic item dependence is unambiguously bad.

[Hurnn]

The positive is that of the 2 spell systems it is better, and has less broken abilities (though this is more of an issue of the spells being broken not the system.) The negative is this already overly complex game doesn't need a second complex system for casting spells. In a perfect world arcane and divine magic would use the psionic rules and there would be no psionic classes because they are really unnecessary.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I am totally willing to say that Versatile Spellcaster is bad for all the reasons psionics is bad. It is, however, a different thing from Spontaneous Divination or Druid spell conversion.

Versatile Spellcaster on a Spontaneous Divination Wizard, however, pretty much is.

Item dependency in D&D is pretty unambiguously bad. The items people are dependent on are generic bonuses, which feel bad when you don't have them (because you aren't level appropriate) but don't feel good when you have them (because they don't do anything interesting). Maybe the game should assume some level of items, maybe it shouldn't, but as it currently exists magic item dependence is unambiguously bad.

While I'm inclined to agree with you, item dependency being bad or good is mostly a matter of taste. What is unambiguous is that it is absolutely present in 3.5's basic design assumptions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Expendables are supposed to be in common use in a party with a Cleric covering for status conditions.

Perhaps but in practice a cleric who's leveraging the healing angle is the -only- member of the party that needs them and only if he's down and someone else is administering. The simple fact is that the "healer" role can be adequately filled by gear alone, sans cleric, with fairly minimal effort and access to MiC.

Also, Fighters already don't get the gold they need from WBL, so taking more away from them in an effort to nerf casters seems bad.

With a tat crafter in the party, they only cost half as much and xp is a river so I'm not real concerned about the potential level drag.

I don't think we should draw lessons from CRPGs. That's a fundamentally different paradigm from TTRPGs.

There's no doubt they're very different in many ways but this ain't one of them.

The idea of level appropriate gear ties into the idea of leveling itself for the most part. If there's an expectation of wealth being gained (unavoidable in the classic adventurer paradigm), it's gotta be spent on something and better gear is a natural place for it. While this -could- be used for horizontal growth, it can also be used for vertical growth and there's nothing -inherently- wrong with the latter. It doesn't make much qualitative difference against level appropriate foes but the diifference becomes quite stark when crushing mooks (and that can be very satisfying once in a while). It also makes the odd scenario where you are temporarily relieved of some or all of your gear more meaningful because it represents a larger power deflation.

Item dependency in D&D is pretty unambiguously bad. The items people are dependent on are generic bonuses, which feel bad when you don't have them (because you aren't level appropriate) but don't feel good when you have them (because they don't do anything interesting). Maybe the game should assume some level of items, maybe it shouldn't, but as it currently exists magic item dependence is unambiguously bad.

I'm sorry but that's a matter of taste and execution. It is not -unambiguously- bad. If there were only -one- way to get the numbers where you need them that could be true but except for spell-resistance (man were they loathe to give that out) most bonuses can be boosted to acceptable* levels in several different ways and -some- people do, in fact, like fiddling with how to get them there. Occasionally steam-rolling a formerly challenging foe (griffon at level 1 vs a couple at level 7, for example) really gives you a sense of growth and power.

You're welcome to dislike the implementation as much as you care to but it's not objectively bad.

*acceptable being defined by the individual players' risk tolerance.

[Efrate]

Eh its fine. If you are worried about higher tier abilities though, it s easier to go infinte/NI with psionics than spells. Less hoops to jump through. If you know the common loops its easy to just say no, but learning a whole new list of powers/spells and a subsystem isn't something a lot of (especially newer) dms do not like.

Psywar is awesome though, hustle and expansion for a melee is a huge boon. Wish it had full BAB.

[Knitifine]

Psionics is a good system. Superior to vancian casting as far as magical systems go. It does away with the rather awkward memorization in favor of a spell system similar to what you would find in most fantasy games these days. Unfortunately it's even more susceptible to abuse regarding the "5 minute adventuring workday" problem. Psionic casters have no incentive not constantly manifest their best power all the time and once they run out of power points they're done for the day. It's a good system, but not the best.

Additional Bonus Point: Really cool aesthetic and gave birth to some of the most interesting parts of Dark Sun and Eberron.

[Zombimode]

Psionic casters have no incentive not constantly manifest their best power all the time and once they run out of power points they're done for the day.

Don't know about you, but "not being able to contribute after two fights" sounds like a pretty good incentive to not to go all-in all the time, don't you think?

[JoshuaZ]

If a BFC Wizard is going to break stuff, I feel like a Psion is probably going to break stuff too.

There are fewer battle-field control options for a psion and they are less broken. This is exactly why the number of broken things matter, not just the presence of broken things.

Sure, but my concern with Malimar's statement (that magic needs "a total revamp to knead out all the problems") is at least as much about overstating the problems with magic as it is with understanding the problems with psionics. I think you can fix 90% of magic by banning spells that change your shape, spells that give permanent minions, and spells that give extra actions. That hardly strikes me as a "total revamp".

And summoning spells, and even without permanent minions gates are broken, and buffing is often too strong, knock makes a large fraction of another class completely redundant, etc.

Yes, non-magic foreknowledge helps too. But there's equally a risk that you think the tomb is full of zombies, prepare a bunch of command undeads to pwn some zombies and then lose to a tomb that is actually full of traps and demons. If you commit too much on the basis of whatever intelligence you've gathered, you risk losing when it turns out to have been bad.

Yes, you do have that risk, which is part of why when wizards prep they generally prep a few spells that are generic use and aren't as a specialized. But this entire ability to prep differently is what makes wizards Tier 1. The primary example I used was the social day or combat day prep, and there it matters a lot.

Drain is where casters using magic makes them weaker. Looking at your list, the Belgariad actually seems to be Drain rather than Spell Points. Apparently characters are physically exhausted after using powerful magic, which they wouldn't be if they ran out of spell points

I haven't read any of the books you've mentioned, so I can't really speak to them, but magic in fiction tends to be Drain (Belgariad, House of Blades), At-Will (Avatar, Harry Potter), or setting specific (Mistborn). Very little uses either Spell Points or Spell Preparation straight up.

I see the distinction you are making between rain and spell points. However, this distinction seems to be in this context not to matter a lot for two reasons. First, spell points can be easily fluffed as drain (simply feel exhausted after using it). Second, and this is really important: Drain is a lot closer to Spell Points than it is to Vancian casting, to the point where it often isn't even a distinction that people bother making. The basic similarity is that you can cast the same spell repeatedly is a shared important aspect. And it is worth noting that many novels that use Spell Points or Drain (which are so close as to be not even always easy to distinguish) allow the caster to push more energy or into their spells to get stronger effects, just like augmenting psionic powers.

I'm incidentally not sure why you think House of Blades uses Drain- the magic there is mostly more similar to cool-down effect. I don't think any of the Travelers explicitly use either Spell Points or Drain. For the Valinhall travelers who are at the center some powers have fixed time uses whereas others can be spent in little increments or all at once in a burst.

That seems kind of contrived to me. Most of the time if you're in the position of wanting to do very little damage, the correct solution is to have a martial or Gish solve it without burning any daily resources.

In the situation where the enemies are far away from each other, the person with a sword might not be able to do much. Or you might be next in the initiative order and there are civilians around. It isn't hard to come up with situations like this, and they do show up in actual games.

[Cosi]

The idea of level appropriate gear ties into the idea of leveling itself for the most part. If there's an expectation of wealth being gained (unavoidable in the classic adventurer paradigm), it's gotta be spent on something and better gear is a natural place for it.

No the natural place for it is that you buy a castle and run a kingdom. As long as your money is dedicated to "bigger numbers", that doesn't happen, which is bad. Seriously, how many fantasy stories have a scene where people go "now that we've slain the dragon, let's go buy better gear"?

I'm sorry but that's a matter of taste and execution. It is not -unambiguously- bad. If there were only -one- way to get the numbers where you need them that could be true but except for spell-resistance (man were they loathe to give that out) most bonuses can be boosted to acceptable* levels in several different ways and -some- people do, in fact, like fiddling with how to get them there.

I think the majority of people's taste for fiddling in 3e comes from the fact that non-casters don't get the money they need to buy level appropriate gear straight out. People don't buy weird niche items because they think weird niche items are cool, they buy weird niche items because they can't get where they need to with regular items.

Don't know about you, but "not being able to contribute after two fights" sounds like a pretty good incentive to not to go all-in all the time, don't you think?

This is different from the 15 minute workday how? We already know that given the opportunity to expend disproportionate resources to win encounters, people will just do that and rest more often.

There are fewer battle-field control options for a psion and they are less broken. This is exactly why the number of broken things matter, not just the presence of broken things.

If you're defining "broken things" in such a way that BFC options are included, I'm not convinced Psions are any less likely to be "broken".

And summoning spells, and even without permanent minions gates are broken, and buffing is often too strong, knock makes a large fraction of another class completely redundant, etc.

summon monster is fine. Seriously, what do people have against summon monster? It makes things that are like half your level!

gate is broken if used for calling, transport gate is fine and probably over-leveled (it could be 7th or 8th without much problem).

Buffing might be broken in a technical sense (makes people beat encounters at a non-level appropriate rate), but the way that it breaks down doesn't really feel broken, so I'm less concerned.

knock is fine, and is a good example of how spells and skills should interact when you get it. knock is clearly better than Open Lock on a per-use basis, but it has much more limited uses and it comes at the cost of glitterdust or web. This is a good paradigm. The problem is that it doesn't scale well. There's no "less effective, but cheaper and at-will" solution to raise dead that pops out of the Heal skill, and the cost of knock drops as you level up.

None of those seem problematic to me.

Yes, you do have that risk, which is part of why when wizards prep they generally prep a few spells that are generic use and aren't as a specialized. But this entire ability to prep differently is what makes wizards Tier 1. The primary example I used was the social day or combat day prep, and there it matters a lot.

This is basically circular. Tier One is defined as having strategic versatility, and you are saying that strategic versatility is good because it makes people Tier One. I'm not saying strategic versatility is bad, it's just not nearly as game breaking as people believe. The ability to be six different characters that don't break the game doesn't add up to breaking the game.

I see the distinction you are making between rain and spell points. However, this distinction seems to be in this context not to matter a lot for two reasons. First, spell points can be easily fluffed as drain (simply feel exhausted after using it). Second, and this is really important: Drain is a lot closer to Spell Points than it is to Vancian casting, to the point where it often isn't even a distinction that people bother making.

Yes, you could change psionics to be more like drain. You could also change magic to be more like drain.

I don't think Drain is particularly closer to Spell Points. For example, small effects generally don't add up using Drain, whereas they do using Spell Points.

I'm incidentally not sure why you think House of Blades uses Drain- the magic there is mostly more similar to cool-down effect. I don't think any of the Travelers explicitly use either Spell Points or Drain. For the Valinhall travelers who are at the center some powers have fixed time uses whereas others can be spent in little increments or all at once in a burst.

Simon's mask is drain (he collapses for days after using it), and Ragnarus's "power for a price" thing is pretty exactly drain. But House of Blades does have a bunch of resource management systems.

[Dr.Samurai]

The distinction being made between drain and spell points seems a little weak. With Vancian magic, you literally forget how to cast the spell and have to remember it again the next day. That's the limit of your power, the fact that it's about memorization.

With spell points and drain you're using up a resource. You're exhausting yourself, in one form or another. You can make the case that exhausting your capacity for memorization is similar, but it's a weak argument to make the case that drain isn't closer to spell points than it is to vancian magic.

The major point being that except in Vance stories, wizards don't typically forget the spells they know. Once you know it, you can cast it so long as you have the resources to do so.

You can argue that drain and spell points aren't identical, but I think people make the claim that points better simulate how we think of fantasy magic, not that it's a perfect port into game design.

[Cosi]

The distinction being made between drain and spell points seems a little weak. With Vancian magic, you literally forget how to cast the spell and have to remember it again the next day. That's the limit of your power, the fact that it's about memorization.

With spell points and drain you're using up a resource. You're exhausting yourself, in one form or another. You can make the case that exhausting your capacity for memorization is similar, but it's a weak argument to make the case that drain isn't closer to spell points than it is to vancian magic.

The major point being that except in Vance stories, wizards don't typically forget the spells they know. Once you know it, you can cast it so long as you have the resources to do so.

You can argue that drain and spell points aren't identical, but I think people make the claim that points better simulate how we think of fantasy magic, not that it's a perfect port into game design.

But Spell Points (or even Drain) is not really a particularly common deal for casters to get in fantasy. The most common fantasy magic resource management systems are:

1. At-Will (Harry Potter, Avatar, Star Wars)
2. Arbitrary restrictions the author made up that don't map well to any other system

Frankly, 2 is probably a good deal more common than anything else. Take, for example, Mistborn. On the surface, it kind of looks like Spell Points. You eat a bunch of Iron, you get a pool of Iron magic. But that pool doesn't cross-convert at all with your Bronze magic or your Tin magic or your Atium magic. So it's really like 16 Spell Point systems running in parallel for 16 different abilities, which honestly looks kind of a lot like spell preparation (you have X uses of Bronze, when it runs out you have no more Bronze).

[Dr.Samurai]

I haven't read those books.

The assumption about wizards, let's say Merlin for example, is that they know their spells and can call upon them at-will when they need to throughout the day.

For the sake of game balance, we will always have resource management, so at-will here means until some resource is expended.

Spell points let you do that. Vancian magic has you running into "sorry, I didn't prepare that spell today, so I don't remember how to cast it and, for all intents and purposes, I don't actually know it".

Having a suite of powers that you can call upon as you desire until you're expended is different than having to determine at the start of the day what particular spells out of your entire repertoire you will give yourself access to for the rest of the day.

One better represents how people probably think magic works intuitively than the other.

[Zombimode]

This is different from the 15 minute workday how? We already know that given the opportunity to expend disproportionate resources to win encounters, people will just do that and rest more often.

It's not. That's my point.


Also, 15 Minute adventuring day tangent:

Spoiler

Show

It is a fake Problem.
That is, if the behaviour of resting after every fight (or very few fights) is preceived as a Problem, it tells more about the People raising the issue then about the system.

Case 1: DM thinks of it as a Problem, aka "my Players rest after every fight! This is ridiculous!"
This shows shortcommings on the DM's side that range between "being a doormat" over "unable to construct a scenario that plays out as intended" to "unable to realize the strategic implication of the presented scenario".
A competent DM on the other hand can construct scenarios where this Strategem is not a good choice but also doesn't mind if the Player employ it, whether it is a good idea or not.

Case 2: a Player thinks of it as a problem, aka "the best option is to rest after every fight! This is ridiculous!"
This shows what is likely on cognitive dissonance on the player's side: on the one hand they have ideas about the asthetic of the story progression (where the party does not rest between every fight) or about the personality of the character (who has other priorities then always choosing the most optimal and save strategy), and on the other hand ideas about what is the optimal strategy in a given situation. The dissonance comes into Play in form of the believe that those two sides can never be in conflict. This believe is what is actually ridiculous here.
In other word: you can't have "I want this story to adhere to *this* asthetic" or "I want to play my character according to the personality I envision" and "I want always do what is optimal" without the possibility of a conflict.
A competent player knows this.

[Cosi]

For the sake of game balance, we will always have resource management, so at-will here means until some resource is expended.

Or actually at-will. Like Warlocks or Fighters, classes which are not exactly notorious for breaking game balance. At-Will resource management systems break when they hit abilities you can repeat for credit like planar binding or fabricate or permanency. There's nothing overpowered about at-will stinking cloud, it's just boring.

Spell points let you do that. Vancian magic has you running into "sorry, I didn't prepare that spell today, so I don't remember how to cast it and, for all intents and purposes, I don't actually know it".

But once we say "for the sake of game balance", we can't call on "this doesn't fit the fantasy" (or at least, not to the exclusion of other arguments). And having spell points instead of spell slots turns casting into a rather trivial optimization problem. Count your power points, predict the encounters you need to win, and divide. Then do whatever matches that number. Spell slots require characters to use a variety of abilities because they can't keep popping out the ideal solution.

One better represents how people probably think magic works intuitively than the other.

People have all sorts of intuitive beliefs about magic. They think it comes at great price, or corrupts your essence, or requires you to bargain with capricious demons, or any number of other things.

[Alcore]

I have never banned them unless I feel they literally have no place in my setting. That said I never mention it so they assume it's banned. I like 3.5 psionics but often feel it's something a monk should have in limited capacity (who else trains to focus the mind and body as one?). While it has a place in fantasy it will nearly always be more prominent in sci fi.

[Flickerdart]

I like 3.5 psionics but often feel it's something a monk should have in limited capacity (who else trains to focus the mind and body as one?).

There's a feat for that - Tashalatora.

[Zombimode]

While it has a place in fantasy it will nearly always be more prominent in sci fi.

... this will never cease to puzzle me.

What kind of SciFi are you exposed to that you feel that way?

Where are Psionics in Asimov? In Lem? Hell, in Mass Effect?

Yes, Telepathy Pops up occasionally in SciFi, but first, the relation between Psionics and Telepathy is the Psionics can do Telepathy, not that you need Psionics to do Telepathy. And seconde, more often then not, those aspects feel like *Fantasy* to me, not the other way arround.

[EisenKreutzer]

... this will never cease to puzzle me.

What kind of SciFi are you exposed to that you feel that way?

Where are Psionics in Asimov? In Lem? Hell, in Mass Effect?

Yes, Telepathy Pops up occasionally in SciFi, but first, the relation between Psionics and Telepathy is the Psionics can do Telepathy, not that you need Psionics to do Telepathy. And seconde, more often then not, those aspects feel like *Fantasy* to me, not the other way arround.

Dune, for one. Babylon 5.

Peoples opinion on this falls more or less in two camps.
Those who think psionics are a sci-fi thing, and those who think it's just mental magic and that Gandalf might as well have been a psion.
I've had this discussion a number of times, and to those who think psionics is a sci-fi theme the other position is completely ridiculous. The same is true in reverse.